Agenda 09/13/2011 Item # 8D9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 8.1).
Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in.
Recommendation to Consider and Adopt a Resolution Establishing New County Commission
District Boundaries, Pursuant to Chapter 124, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Constitution.
Meeting Date: 9/13/2011
Prepared By
Name: KendallMarcia
Title: Planner, Senior,Comprehensive Planning
8/18/2011 8:50:10 AM
Submitted by
Title: Manager - Planning,Comprehensive Planning
Name WeeksDavid
8/18/20118:50:11 AM
Approved By
Name: BosiMichael
Title: Manager - Planning,Comprehensive Planning
Date: 8/19/2011 1 :32:35 PM
Name: LorenzWilliam
Title: Director CDES Engineering Services,Comprehensive
Date: 8/23/20118:28:52 AM
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, CDES
Date: 8/23/20114:30:31 PM
Name: FederNorman
Tide: Administrator - Growth Management Div,Transportati
Packet Page -246-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Date: 8/24/2011 10:33 :30 AM
Name: FederNorman
Title: Administrator - Growth Management Div,Transportad
Dater 8/24/2011 1:25:08 PM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning
Date: 8/25/20118:26:13 AM
Name: TeachScott
Title: Deputy County Attorney,County Attorney
Date: 9/7/20119:24:16 AM
Name: "KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date 9/7/2011 1:3 7 :10 P1VI
Name: GreenwaldRandy
Title: Management/Budget Analyst,Office of Management & B
Date: 9 /7/2011 1:56:56 PM "
Name: OchsLeo
Title: County Manager
Date: 9/7/20112-30:59 PM
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
N / EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to consider and adopt a Resolution establishing new County Commission District
boundaries, pursuant to Chapter 124, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Constitution.
OBJECTIVE:
For the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to adopt a Resolution establishing new county
commission district boundaries for the purpose of distributing population among the five
commission districts as nearly equal as practicable.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The Constitution of the State of Florida [Article . VIII, Sectionl.(e)] requires that, after each
decennial census, the Board of Commissioners is to divide the county into districts of contiguous
territories as nearly equal in population as practicable, with one Commissioner residing in each
district elected as provided by law. Chapter 124, Florida Statutes, also provides for more frequent
redistricting to maintain population balance, but provides that redistricting shall only occur in odd
numbered years.
In March 2011, the U.S. Census Bureau released various Census 2010 Redistricting Data for Florida
and its counties, pursuant to Public Law 94 -171. This data shows the total population for Collier
County at 321,520 as of April 1, 2010; therefore, to achieve population equity, each district would
have a population of approximately 64,304 persons.
All Commission districts have experienced population growth since the last redistricting occurred in
2001 when the countywide population as of April 1, 2000 was 251,377; however, the amount of
growth varies significantly among districts. Most notably, District IV, which includes the City of
Naples and its environs to the east, has experienced the least population increase, followed by
Districts I and II; Districts III and V have experienced the most. The net result is the need to modify
District boundaries so as to reduce the -population of Districts III and V and to increase the
population of Districts 1, II, and IV. (see Table 1, below)
Table l' 2611 C;pncnc Pnn,,tntinn by urr nz*v +*Ai +
BCC District
Ideal/Equity Population
Per District
District Population as
of April 1, 2010
- _ - -- Adjustment Needed to
Achieve Ideal Population
I
64,304
57,613
+6,691
11
64,304
60,032
+4,272
III
64,304
80,207
- 15,903
IV
64,304
47,511
+16,793
V
64,304
76,157
- 11,853
Total
3215520
321,520
�� �+.�. uu.a.�aup wiisua a.viv i�cuiaulVUUb' Li(LQ. (rLLQllG L3W 74 -1 / 1).
1
Packet Page -248
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
On March 15, 2011, the District School Board of Collier County unanimously agreed to
coterminous district boundaries with the BCC and agreed to provide staff support. School District
staff assisted in drawing the five map alternatives, attended the five redistricting public meetings to
answer questions that might arise, and provided both Creole and Spanish language interpreters at the
redistricting public meetings. Supervisor of Elections Jennifer Edwards has made available her staff
to provide technical support, and to greatly assist in the five redistricting public meetings. However,
Elections staff played no role in the actual map drawing task. Additionally, Growth Management
Division staff - the lead in the redistricting task — has been assisted by the Office of the County
Attorney, which also assisted in drawing the five map alternatives.
State law limits redistricting to odd- numbered years only, so this task must be completed in 2011.
Collier County is a "covered jurisdiction" under the Voting Rights Act so pit must provide the
adopted redistricting map (and associated district descriptions, data and analysis) to the U.S. Justice
Department for preclearance prior to enforcement of the new map. Because 2012 is an election
Year, and one that includes a Presidential preference primary, time is of the essence. The Supervisor
of Elections has requested the new district map be adopted no later than September 2011, and staff
has created a schedule that accommodates that request.
The schedule included five public meetings, one in each District, which were duly noticed in three
languages in two newspapers, and staff made a presentation to both the Black Affairs and Hispanic
Affairs Advisory Boards. Additional public outreach included maintaining a BCC Redistricting
website; the Supervisor of Elections also maintained a redistricting website; presentation to groups
t upon request, including the East Naples Civic Association, and a joint meeting of the Golden Gate
Area Civic Association and the Collier Unit of NAACP (National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People); issuing two press releases with the schedule of public meetings; the Supervisor
of Elections sending .the public meeting schedule to an extensive distribution list that included
several media outlets, including Spanish language media. The first public meeting, held August 16,
2011 in the BCC meeting room, was broadcast live on Collier TV and subsequently replayed
multiple times. Additionally, a front page article in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, August 14,
2011, included the public meeting schedule, and a subsequent article on or about August 17, 2011
also included the meeting schedule.
Staff has prepared five maps; a general description of boundaries for each of the five maps; racial
and Hispanic ethnicity population tables; and, a retrogression analysis for District 5, which contains,
by far, the largest minority population (41..8% Hispanic voting age population). Staff created five
maps so as to provide multiple options for consideration; staff deliberately did not create five
alternatives that only varied slightly, though some contain similarities. As shown in the
retrogression analysis, the Hispanic (and Black) voting age population increases in all five map
options for District 5. All five map options comply with redistricting criteria, including the four
specifically approved by the BCC on April 26, 2011, listed below.
1, The population of each district should be as similar as possible.
2. All districts should be as compact and regularly shaped as feasible.
I The incumbent Commissioner's residence (and same for School Board members) ' must
remain in his or her current district.
2
Packet Page -249-
9/13/2011 item 8.13.
4. Consider racial and ethnic populations in accordance with the law.
The law firm of Bond Schoeneck & King has been hired to provide an independent review and
analysis of the BCC redistricting process including public notices, legal ad, public outreach
efforts, and map options concluding with a written report indicating the County's redistricting
process and map options are, or are not, in compliance with redistricting criteria
[Due to the timing in preparing the Executive Summary to meet the "SIRE/Agenda Central"
deadline requirements, additional information (written public communications received after
September 6, 2011, 5:00 pm) shall be provided as handouts at the September 13, .2011 Board
meeting.]
FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of publishing the adopted Resolution" once a week for two
consecutive weeks in the Naples Daily News, as required by Section 124.02, Florida Statutes; this
cost is included in the current fiscal year budget.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This item has no Growth Management impact.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
Background and the Law:
The county commission redistricting process is mandated by Florida Statutes, Chapter 124.01(3),
which provides that "[t]he board of county commission shall from time to time, fix the boundaries
so as to keep them as nearly equal in proportion to population as possible... [ J" The law further
provides that adjustments to the district boundaries are to only be made in odd- numbered years. The
Florida Constitution, Article VIII, requires Commission Districts to be adjusted following each
decennial census so as to achieve population balance, if Census data reveals a population imbalance
exists. Based upon current Census 2010 population data, the Collier County Commission District
populations are currently disproportionate.
As a result of the uneven growth in Collier County, the Board directed staff on April 26, 2011, to
redraw the commission districts in order to comply with all lawful requirements. The Board of
County Commissioners specifically approved the following redistricting criteria: (1) the population
of each district should be as similar as possible; (2) all districts should be as compact and regularly
shaped as feasible; (3) the incumbent Commissioner's residence (and same for School Board
members) must remain in his or her current districts; and (4) consider racial and ethnic populations
in accordance with the law.2
The District School Board of Collier County, at its March 15, 2011, Regular Board Meeting, unanimously
approved having the same voting district boundaries as the Collier County Board of Commissioners.
2 The Board approved criteria is almost identical to that approved and used in the 2001 redistricting process;
which was ultimately approved by the U.S. Department of Justice.
I
3
Packet Page -250-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Of course, notwithstanding the Board approved criteria, staff's five proposed _maps must (and do),
comply with all legally required redistricting requirements (i.e., the Equal Protection Clause, Voting
Rights Act of 1965, and United States Supreme Court caselaw). Additionally, the following
redistricting criteria were taken into account by staff: (1) any plan that has a retrogressive effect on
minority voting strength would be eliminated from further consideration; (2) well- defined, easily
recognizable and major boundaries, such as rivers, arterials and major roads, should be utilized
when not in conflict with other criteria; (3) former district boundaries should generally be
maintained when not in conflict with other criteria; and (4) communities of interest, such as Golden
Gate Estates, and neighborhood integrity should be preserved when not in conflict with other
criteria
As a preliminary matter, an explanation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ( "VRA" ), 42 U.S.C.
§ 1973 to 1973aa -6 (as amended) as it pertains to the redistricting process is appropriate. Congress
enacted the VRA to combat discrimination that denied opportunities to minorities and to establish
oversight of elections in states with a history of discriminatory voting practices. The two VRA
sections critical to a review of the lawfulness of the redistricting proposals are Sections 2 and 5.
Section 2 of the VRA prohibits denial or abridgement of the right to vote based on race, color or
minority language status including the opportunity to participate in the political process and elect
representative of their choice. Section 2 further forbids creating election districts that improperly
dilute minorities' voting power. Tactics commonly used to dilute minority voting strength include:
I. Cracking — Dividing groups of people with the same or similar characteristics into more
than one district to diminish their ability to elect a desired candidate.
2. Packing Cramming large groups of people with the same characteristics into the same
or as few districts as possible to dilute their voting strength elsewhere.
In the leading case on this issue, Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), the United States
Supreme Court established a three -part test that a minority group must satisfy to show that a
redistricting plan causes vote dilution. First, the minority group must establish that it is sufficiently
large and geographically compact to constitute a major Win a single member distriet.3 Second, the
3 Although the redistricting proposals offered are appropriately based on the Voting Age Population garnered
by the 2010 Census, courts have held that the more appropriate measure is the eligible minority voter population; that is,
the Citizen Voting -age population: See e.g., Reyes v. City of Farmers Branch Texas, 586 F.3d 1019 (5" Cir. 2009);
Barnett v. City of Chicago, 141 F.3d 699, 704 (7`h Cir. 1998)( "We think that citizen voting -age population is the basis
for determining equality of voting power that best comports with the policy of the statute "); Negron v. City of Miami
Beach, 113 F.3d 1563, 1569 (11' Cir. 1997)( "[T]he proper statistic for deciding whether a minority group is sufficiently
large and geographically compact is voting age population as defined by citizenship. "); Romero v. City of Pomona, 883
F.2d 1418, 1426 (9" Cir. 1989)C"The district court was correct in holding that eligible minority voter population, rather
than total minority population, is the appropriate measure of geographical compactness. "), overruled in part on other
grounds (citation omitted); U.S. v. Village of Port Chester, 704 F.Supp. 2d 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)(The most reliable
measure of whether Hispanics constitute an effective majority in proposed district is citizen voting -age population data);
see also, League of Onited"Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 428 (2006)C"Latinos in District 23 could
have constituted a majority of the citizen voting -age population in the district."); Bartlett v. Strickland, 129 S.Ct. 1231,
4
Packet Page -251-
9/13/2011 item 8.D.
minority group must show that it is politically cohesive. Lastly, the group must prove that bloc
voting by the white majority usually defeats the minority's preferred candidate.
In addition to those three prerequisites, a minority group, contesting a redistricting plan must also
show, under a "totality of the circumstances test," that as a result of the challenged practice or
procedure the group does not have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to
elect candidates of its choice.
Collier County is a "covered jurisdiction" under . Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42
U.S.C. ,§ 1973c, because the following three conditions existed in 1972: (1) over 5 % of the voting
age citizens were, on November 1, 1972, members of a single language minority group, (2)
registration and election materials were provided only in English on November 1, 1972, and (3)
fewer than 50% of the voting -.age citizens were registered to vote or voted in the 1972 presidential
election. A covered jurisdiction such as Collier County must be "precleared" by either the Attorney
General of the United States or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia prior to
implementing a new voting "standard, practice or procedure" to ensure that the change "does not
have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of
race or color." Id. As in the past, the County will submit the Board's approved redistricting plan to
the U.S. Attorney General. for expedited review. The adopted change may only be put into effect
upon approval by the Attorney General or a failure to object within 60 days after submission. ,
In determining whether a voting procedure change should be precleared under Section 5, the
determination is whether the proposed change "would lead to retrogression in the position of racial
minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise." See e.g., Georgia v.
Ashcroft, et a1., 539 U.S. 461, 462 (2003). In simple terms, retrogression involves a determination
as to whether a minority group has been made worse off by a proposed change in voting standards,
practices or procedures, such as a redistricting plan. In Georgia v. Ashcroft, the Supreme Court
noted that "a plan that merely preserves `current minority voting strength' is entitled to §5
preclearance." It is our opinion, as a matter of law. retrogression is not an issue in any of the five
proposed maps.
The Process:
As in the 2001 redistricting process, five different map proposal options were created for the public
and the Board to consider. Each map was constructed applying the Board's criteria with one
important point of clarification. All five maps were drawn without consideration of race or party
affiliation.4 It was only after each map was drawn using the Board's criteria that a Section 5
1249 (2009 "Only when a geographically compact group of minority voters could form a majority in a single - member
district has the first Gingles requirement been met.").
°The Supreme Court has repeatedly opined that Irlace cannot be the predominant factor in redistricting
Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461, 491 (Kennedy, 7., concurring). see also, Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995)(Finding a
violation of the equal protection: clause of the Fourteenth Amendment where race was the predominant facture in
creating redistricting plan). That is, race may be a motivation in redistricting as long as the legislature does not
1 "subordinate traditional race- neutral districting principles, including but not limited to compactness, contiguity, and
respect for political subdivisions or communities defined my actual shared interests, to racial considerations." Id at 916.
5
Packet Page -252 -
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
......... retrogression analysis was done for each proposal. Section 5 insures that no voting changes will be
made that would decrease the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of
the -right to vote. If a proposed map had proven to be retrogressive, then it would not have been
presented to the public or the Board for consideration. Alone of the five proposals proved to be
retrogressive.
The first step in the creation of all five proposed maps was to plot the residency of each county
commissioner and school board member on the 2010 Census Block Map for Collier County.
The next step was to build each district by incorporating adjacent census blocks, while generally
respecting the former configuration of the district. This task involved expanding each district
beyond its core census tracts in order to achieve relative population equity, while at the same time
creating compact and contiguous districts with well- defined boundaries that did not split voting
blocks or neighborhoods. That process was repeated for all five districts, on all five proposed
maps.
The next, and probably the most critical, step involved checking each map proposal for possible
retrogression of minority voting strength. This was especially important for District 5, which has
the greatest minority population in Collier County.
None of the map proposals were found to be retrogressive under Section 5 of the VRA because all
resulted in increases in the Hispanic voting age population. Therefore, any of the five redistricting
map proposals, which include a majority- minority district proposal in Map 5, should warrant
Section 5 approval by the Justice Department.
Although the Supreme Court has held that Section 2 of the VRA does not require the drawing of a
majority- minority district when a minority group constitutes less than 50% of the district's voting
age population (see Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1(2009), map proposal five (5) actually results in
a majority- minority district based upon the total Hispanic population; and all the map proposals
result in an increase of the Hispanic Voting Age Population.
Going well beyond anything legally required, staff conducted an extensive series of public meetings
and presentations to obtain public inputs, as follows:
Schedule of Public Presentations/Meetings
Entity /body
Date
Notice
3oint meeting of the
08/08/11
• County staff participated as guests only.
Golden Gate Area Civic
Association and Collier
5As a point of comparison, Leon County held only one public meeting, with one redistricting map proposal, prior to adoption by its
County Commission. (See Public Notice Announcement at bt—tp://www.leoncountvfl.2ov/admLn-/press/view.gW2press id= 1533).
Leon County's process was lawful too.
6
Packet Page -253
h
t
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
*
7'
Packet Page -254-
County NAACP
Collier County Govt. 08/16/11 Publication in the Naples Daily News (E, S and HC)
Centel" (District i) • Publication in the Immokalee Bulletin (E, S and
HC) * **
• Public Notices Posted in County Buildings and
shown on local overnment access television.
East Naples Civic 08/18/11 • County staff participated as guests only.
Association
Veteran's Community 08/18/11 Publication in the Naples Daily News (E, S and HC)*
Park (District 2) . Publication in the Immokalee Bulletin (E, S and
HC) * **
• Public Notices Posted in County Buildings and'
shown on local government access television.
Black Affairs Advisory 08/22/11 County staff participated as guests only at this
Board regularly scheduled meeting.
Golden Gate Community 08/23/11 . Publication in the Naples Daily News (E, S and HC)*
Center (District 3) Publication in the Immokalee Bulletin (E, s and
HC) * **
• Public Notices Posted in County Buildings and
shown on local government access television.
Hispanic Affairs Advisory 08/25/11 • County staff participated as guests only at this
Board re ularl scheduled meeting.
Immokalee Community 08/29/11 • Publication in the Naples Daily News (E, S and HC)*
Park (District s) . Meeting Schedule sent to Immokalee
InterAgency Council list - 228 recipients **
• Publication in the Immokalee Bulletin (E, S and
HC) * **
• Personal invitations were extended to the
Seminole and Miccosukee Tribes.
• Public Notices Posted in County Buildings and
shown on local government access television.
Collier County Growth 08/30/11 * Publication in the Naples Daily News (E, S and HC)*
Management Division Meeting Schedule sent to Immokalee
Conference Rooms InterAgency Council list — 228 recipients * *(E, S
(District 4) and HC)
• Publication. in the Immokalee Bulletin (E, S and
HC) * **
• Public Notices Posted in County Buildings and-
shown on local government access television.
North Naples Rotary 09/01/11 • County staff participated as guests only.
Club
City of Naples City 09/07/11 • County staff participated as guests only.
Council
Collier County Presidents 09/09/11 • County staff participated as guests only.
Council....
Television and Video The August
'A.
16 2011, Redistricting `Public
7'
Packet Page -254-
County NAACP
Collier County Govt. 08/16/11 Publication in the Naples Daily News (E, S and HC)
Centel" (District i) • Publication in the Immokalee Bulletin (E, S and
HC) * **
• Public Notices Posted in County Buildings and
shown on local overnment access television.
East Naples Civic 08/18/11 • County staff participated as guests only.
Association
Veteran's Community 08/18/11 Publication in the Naples Daily News (E, S and HC)*
Park (District 2) . Publication in the Immokalee Bulletin (E, S and
HC) * **
• Public Notices Posted in County Buildings and'
shown on local government access television.
Black Affairs Advisory 08/22/11 County staff participated as guests only at this
Board regularly scheduled meeting.
Golden Gate Community 08/23/11 . Publication in the Naples Daily News (E, S and HC)*
Center (District 3) Publication in the Immokalee Bulletin (E, s and
HC) * **
• Public Notices Posted in County Buildings and
shown on local government access television.
Hispanic Affairs Advisory 08/25/11 • County staff participated as guests only at this
Board re ularl scheduled meeting.
Immokalee Community 08/29/11 • Publication in the Naples Daily News (E, S and HC)*
Park (District s) . Meeting Schedule sent to Immokalee
InterAgency Council list - 228 recipients **
• Publication in the Immokalee Bulletin (E, S and
HC) * **
• Personal invitations were extended to the
Seminole and Miccosukee Tribes.
• Public Notices Posted in County Buildings and
shown on local government access television.
Collier County Growth 08/30/11 * Publication in the Naples Daily News (E, S and HC)*
Management Division Meeting Schedule sent to Immokalee
Conference Rooms InterAgency Council list — 228 recipients * *(E, S
(District 4) and HC)
• Publication. in the Immokalee Bulletin (E, S and
HC) * **
• Public Notices Posted in County Buildings and-
shown on local government access television.
North Naples Rotary 09/01/11 • County staff participated as guests only.
Club
City of Naples City 09/07/11 • County staff participated as guests only.
Council
Collier County Presidents 09/09/11 • County staff participated as guests only.
Council....
Television and Video The August
'A.
r
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Replays of Initial Public
Meeting presented by staff was available on
Meeting
demand at
http://collier.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view
id =4 &clip id =970 and on the local government
television access channel (Comcast Channel 97)
on August 22nd 26th 27th and the 28th.
Press Releases Issued
07/27/11
• Press Release Issued Concerning Public Meetings.
Press Releases Issued
08/11/11
• Press Release Issued Concerning Public Meetings.
Redistricting Meeting,
• Public Notice of Redistricting Meetings distributed
Schedule Distribution
to numerous associations /entities.
List
• Public Meeting Dates distributed to approximately
3,400 contacts via the Greater Naples Chamber
of Commerce website, "Chamber Connect."
• Notice of Public Meetings posted on the City of
Marco Island, Florida website at
htto://www.cilyofmarcoisland.com/index.aspx?Ra
ge =22 &returnURL = %2findex aspx
• Notice of Public Meetings posted on the Collier
County Redistricting website at
www.colliergov.net/Egdistricting; received 1,184
"visits" and 1,498 page views for the period of
August 1st through August 23, 20il.
• Public Meeting schedule displayed on the Collier
Supervisor of Elections' website at
httn: / /www.colliervotes.com .
• The Notice of Public Meetings schedule was also
distributed to the City Clerk for the City of
Nap !es Florida.
Board of County
09/13/11
. Publication in the Naples Daily News (E and S)
Commissioners
• Public Notices Posted in County Buildings and
shown on local government access television.
Key: E English S — S_panisht and HC — Haitian Creole
At each meeting/presentation staff provided information on the following topics: (1) the need for
redistricting; (2) the general criteria and methodology considered in drawing the five proposed
maps; and (3) the preclearance requirement. Written materials were available for or provided to all
attendees, and the public was given a full opportunity to view all five map proposals and ask
questions. Additionally all of the relevant materials were posted on the County's website and could
be printed or viewed by the public at their convenience.
Conclusions
Because it is difficult for any redistricting plan to accomplish with exactitude every objective, the
favored plan should be judged by its overall balance. The five proposed map options are all lawful
and in compliance with redistricting criteria approved, by the Board and with state and federal
8
Packet Page -255
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
redistricting criteria. All the maps: (1) equalize the population of each district (within a reasonable
deviation), (2) result in compact and regularly shaped districts, (3) incorporate the residence of
incumbent Commissioners and School Board members in their districts; and (4) consider racial and
ethnic populations in accordance with the law. Furthermore, the maps are lawful under the Voting
Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Although during the course of the public meetings some attendees voiced concerns that the map
proposals are unlawful, it is our opinion that those claims are meritless. The U.S. Attorney General
and any private citizen with standing can file enforcement actions under both Sections 2 and 5 of the
Voting Rights. Act.
Finally, we must point out that the county's Section 5 preclearance submission to the U.S. Justice
Department during redistricting in 2001 resulted in requests for additional information from the
Attorney General. The county promptly provided the additional information sought and there did
not appear to be any significant delay in obtaining approval. Upon the Board's approval of a
redistricting plan, correspondence will be sent to the U.B. Attorney General seeking an expedited
Section 5 preclearance approval. This item requires majority vote. — SRT /JAK
RECOMMENIDATION: That the BCC adopt a Resolution with one of the five attached map
options establishing new county commission district boundaries, and authorize the County
Attorney's Office to pre-clear the new district boundaries through the U.S. Department of Justice.
Prepared by: David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager/BCC Redistricting Project Manager,
Comprehensive Planning Section, Land Development Services Department, Growth Management
Division/Planning and Regulation
Attachments: 1) Existing BCC District Map; 2) Retrogression Analysis for District 5
3) Resolution with 5 proposed maps and 5 general descriptions of District boundaries;
4) Public Meeting Comments; 5) Power Point presentation used at Public Meetings; 6) Written
communications from the public; 7) Independent Report by Bond Schoeneck &King
Ex Sum map adopUun 2011 GAMES Planning ServiceslComprehertsivelDavidlRe&Mng 201 1113C map approval 9- 13-11
9
Packet Page -256-
dw -M-18- 1189 -M -11
/,-�\ I
V
Q
CD
y
Packet Page -257-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
MWW
Ono
Ono
A W N
VII��NO
G V Ov N
0I mON�
w w (M OD
W '
j N D 1 W
N
m�
€2
R
t
Q
CD
y
Packet Page -257-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
MWW
Ono
Ono
A W N
VII��NO
G V Ov N
0I mON�
w w (M OD
W '
j N D 1 W
N
m�
€2
R
Q
CD
y
Packet Page -257-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
MWW
Ono
Ono
A W N
VII��NO
G V Ov N
0I mON�
w w (M OD
W '
j N D 1 W
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Retrogression Analysis: District 5
Proposed Maps #1 & #3
Table 1
2010 Voting Age Population Comparison - District 5
Present Configuration vs. Proposed District (Maps #1 & #3)
Plan
Total
Black
Hispanic (All)
Present District 5
55,065
5,012 (9.1 %)
23,013 (41.8 %)
Proposed District 5
47,272
4,612 (9.8 %)
21,749 (46.0 %)
Change
+0.7%
+4.2%
Proposed Mau #2
Table 1
2010 Voting Age Population Comparison - District 5
Present Confiquration vs. Proposed District (MaD #2)
Plan .
Total
Black
Hispanic (All)
Present District 5
55,065
5,012 (9.1 %)
23,013 (41.8 %)
Proposed District 5
46,370
4,580 (9.9 %)
21,167 (45.6 %)
Change
+0.8%
+3.8%
Proposed Map #4
Table 1
2010 Voting Age Population Comparison - District 5
Present Configuration vs. Proposed District (Mar) #4)
Plan
Total
Black
Hispanic (All)
Present District 5
55,065
5,012 (9.1 %)
23,013 (41.8 %)
Proposed District 5
45,887
4,581 (10.0 %)
21,450 (46.7 %)
Change
+0.9%
+4.9%
Proposed Map #5
Table 1
2010 Voting Age Population Comparison - District 5
Present Confiquration vs. Proposed District (MaD #5)
Plan
Total
Black
Hispanic (All)
Present District 5
55,065
5,012 (9.1 %)
23,013 (41.8 %)
Proposed District 5
45,364
4,568 (10.1 %)
21,509 (47.4 %)
Change
+1.0%
+ 5.6%
Source: All population figures extracted from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Redistricting Data (Public Law 94 -171).
NOTE: "Hispanic" is an ethnicity, not a race; accordingly, a person may be of any race and be of Hispanic ethnicity.
Retrogression Analysis District 5 — on 1 page G: \CDES Planning Services\ Comprehensive \David\Redistdcting 2011 dw18 -15 -11
Packet Page -258-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-
A RESOLUTION REPEALING ALL PRIOR COUNTY COMMISSION
DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND ESTABLSHING NEW COUNTY
COMMISSION DISTRICT BOUNDARIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CHAPTER 124, FLORIDA STATUTES AND THE FLORIDA
CONSTITUTION.
WHEREAS, Article VIII, Section 1(e), Florida Constitution, provides that after
each decennial census the Board of Commissioners shall divide the county into districts
of contiguous territory as nearly equal in population as practicable; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 124, Florida Statutes, requires that commission district
boundaries be as nearly equal in population as practicable; and
WHEREAS, the County Staff was directed by the Board of County
Commissioners on April 26, 2011, to reapportion the Commission District boundaries so
that the population of each commission districts be as similar as possible, that
commission districts be as compact and . regularly shaped as feasible, that each
commissioner will remain in his or her current district, and that racial and ethnic
populations be considered in accordance with the law; and
WHEREAS, the County Staff presented the proposed redistricting at the Black
Affairs Advisory Board meeting on August 22, 2011, and the Hispanic Affairs Advisory
Board on August 25, 2011, both of which were regularly scheduled and publicly noticed
public meetings, for the purpose of receiving comments from the public and to encourage
public participation in the redistricting process; and
WHEREAS, the County Staff has held advertised public meetings on August 16,
2011, at the Collier County Commission Chambers, August 18, 2011, at Veteran's
n Community Park, August 23, 2011, at Golden Gate Community Center, August 29, 2011,
Redistricting Resolution 2011 FA 2011_Redistricting 1
Packet Page -259-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
at Immokalee Community Park, and August 30, 2011, at the Growth Management
Division/Planning and Regulation building, to receive comments from the public and
encourage public participation in the redistricting process; and
WHEREAS, advertised public notice has been provided regarding the
redistricting of the County Commission district boundaries.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that:
1) Pursuant to the authority of Chapter 124, Florida Statutes, and Article VIII,
Section 1(e) , Florida Constitution, all prior County Commission District
boundaries in Collier County as adopted by Resolution No. 2001 -443 are
hereby repealed and the new boundaries are hereby established to encompass
the areas as described below:
See attached Exhibit A, incorporated by reference herein.
2) Pursuant to Section 124.02, Florida Statutes, the Clerk is hereby directed to
enter this Resolution upon the minutes and a certified copy of this Resolution
shall be published at least once each week for two (2) consecutive weeks in
the Naples Daily News.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote this 13'k` day of
September, 2011.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
Approved as to form and legal sufficiency:
'each,
Redistricting
County Attorney
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN
2011 FA 2011_Redistricting
Packet Page -260-
2
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
n Public Meetings Comments
Below are the main comments, concerns and questions expressed at the five public meetings held
in August 2011 (16th, 18th, 23rd, 29th and 30th), one in each Commission District. They are in no
particular order.
• Map 1 has clean, compact District boundaries.
• Why were five maps drawn — could there have less or more?
• Why is Marco Island added to District 4 on Map 1 ?/What additional criteria were
considered? /Don't like the two cities (Naples and Marco) in same District — dilutes each
city's influence.
• Can BCC reject all 5 maps and not adopt a map on 9/13/11 ?/What if U.S. Justice Department
does not pre -clear the adopted map?
• Can the School District adopt a different map?
• How will new School Districts affect school attendance zones?
• How does BCC redistricting correlate with state and congressional reapportionment?
• How are School Board members elected vs. BCC members?
• Can the public submit a map for consideration?
• Is staff going to do an objective evaluation of each map District, such as circumscribe test for
compactness?
• What population is considered: permanent - voting age - citizen ?/What is the definition of
permanent resident population?
• Will new District boundaries affect home values?
• How much of the Everglades is added to District 1 in maps showing it extending to SR29?
• Why aren't all five meetings being taped? /They should be taped.
• Why are the public meetings being held when so many people are out of town?
• Can maps be drawn that place greater population in Districts that have less growth and lesser
population in Districts that have more growth?
• Four of the five maps show greater population in District 5, a District expected to continue to
experience disproportionate growth. If the BCC adopts one of those maps, then the BCC
should commit to revisiting redistricting in 2015.
• Was there any analysis to try to equalize voting age population and total population ratios?
• Why isn't a map proposed that produces a majority- minority (Hispanic) in District 5? /Doing
so is required. /All five maps are in violation of the Voting Rights Act. /Such a majority -
minority District 5 map can easily be drawn — such a map was introduced and subsequently
submitted to staff.
• Which map has the lowest, and highest, percentage of Hispanic population?
• Map 4 violates redistricting criteria.
• Map 2 violates redistricting criteria. /It splits Golden Gate Estates east of Collier Blvd. — a
community of interest - between Districts 3 and 5.; this will impact infrastructure funding for
that area. /It combines more interior communities (east of I -75) that have little in common
with communities on the coast. /Why is Pelican Bay added to District 4 ?/Why is
Commissioner Hiller being punished by adding Pelican Bay to District 4 ?/Districts 2 and 3
n are not compact. /The rationale for adding Pelican Bay to District 4 could apply to
communities on the coast all the way up to the Lee County line./Past
annexation/incorporation history of Pelican Bay as rationale does not make sense as only a
1
Packet Page -261-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
minority supported that. /Map 2 is contrary to criterion to respect the core of the existing n
Districts. /As result of District changes on Map 2, if it is adopted, some persons that would be
voting in 2012 Commissioner race(s) would no longer be within a District that has such a
race.
• Like the boldness in Maps 2 and 3; the coastal area is a community of interest, has a
commonality. /Like Map 2 — boldness is needed.
• Not adding Golden Gate City to District 5 is classic "cracking. "/The Census Tracts in Golden
Gate City could be added to District 5 to create a majority- minority District.
• What are the four redistricting criteria approved by the BCC ?/The criteria on the power point
slide are different than the four approved by BCC. /The order of the criteria on the power
point slide is different than the order of criteria approved by the BCC.
• What guidelines or requirements did staff use in drawing the five maps ?/How did staff apply
each criterion as the maps were being drawn?
• Did considering incumbency have any impact on drawing the five maps?
• Isn't the power point slide depicting arrows showing the three coastal Districts moving to the
east misleading since some maps show boundaries moving north?
• Do any maps impact the communities of Grey Oaks or Port Royal?
• What is non - Citizen population?
• Does the Hispanic population figure include that total population or just voting age?
• Where can we see maps of the proposed Districts that also depict neighborhoods?
• If white race was to become a minority population in a District, would they be protected the
same as a minority race or ethnicity? /The law is not fair regarding the protection of whites if
whites become a minority — there is a double standard. n
• What portion of the population is non - citizen ? /Of non - citizen population, what is the age
breakdown (above and below voting age) ?/Why is resident non - citizen population - which
cannot register to vote — considered when redistricting?
• Is there any requirement to have an independent review of the County's redistricting
process ?/Why is that independents review being done. /Does the contracted law firm have
election law experience ?/Was that firm hired through an RFP process? /How much is the
contract for?
• What is the BCC voting requirement to adopt a new map — simple or super majority?
• How do these maps affect Fire District boundaries?
• There should be public comment cards for the public to write down their preference or non
preference.
• The public meeting notice does not indicate the public can attend any of the meetings — some
people think they can only attend the meeting in the District they live in; people in District 5
think it is unfair that they have to drive all the way to Immokalee.
• What is the deadline to submit comments to David Weeks, Redistricting Project Manager?
• Some Census boundaries (Blocks) no longer make sense.
• Is there a process to get out from under preclearance requirement?
• Aren't Commissioners not supposed to be involved in this process?
Public Meetings Comments for Exsuin
GACDES Planning Services\ Comprehensive \David\Redistricting 201 l\BCC map approval 9 -13 -11 dw /9 -2 -11
2
Packet Page -262-
/—I'll
ll�
O
O
N
O
t
1
Vs
lJ
P-A
O
H�
O
N
O
O
C�
Packet Page -263-
idl
N
0 P--4 �
$D O
> d
CD �.
1-5 r+ O
N N
W O Ch Cit
W O �-►
CJl -P� N W
C l W
�1 Cn O) C l �1
N W
CTt Ch 0) N
M 00 -p
N 00 W CI1
Packet Page -264-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
0
0
(D
N
O
O
n
�D
r
O
C)
if)
m
on
O
r+-
P)
0
N •
r+-
W
00
N
0 \o
CA
Cil
CA
ON
O
0
c't
n�
P.
N
-P
m
CJ
Q
(D
W
ro],
-p
r+-
••
W
0
N
Q
W
O
0)
m
O
r+
O
Pr
0
all
N
W
N
N
-p
W
N
-P
�-►
N
N
Packet Page -265-
KM
0
N 1 1Iwo
X0000 ,004
CD RE
r+ 't 0 0
cl)� o r-+- ��
cD �
nr
0 n "0
n C� r+ 0 O
Cp•
r+ " CO
0�(D
n • Co Cn
r+ cD
W
Packet Page -266-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
/-1
?10\
..
00 N)
!� -P 00
�► N }._► F...� }Packet gUe -2V--.
V
I
Qzt
0
ti
Z
C
ku
0
O
O
u�
O
•
®G%
CD
r+
0
cD
Co
cD
O
N •
F"d •
P--A
P
�N
V%
\ I
N
,,..1
E.—L •
f
Packet Page -268-
O
CD
CD
O
V
O
IZ
C
O1
C I
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
AMMI N
PIC
(n
G
O `
� m
O rnt. •
O
N
7-1
'i
r+
V
�L
r+
P-As
O
v
'1'r'
A)
O
r+
n
•
A)
(D
A�
►-�
O
O-'
CD
O
•
t
C
CD
1
j"r •
r+
�
O
•
r+
/'11
lV�
O
uu
1�
�•
O
C'D
O
O
O
u�
O
•
®G%
CD
r+
0
cD
Co
cD
O
N •
F"d •
P--A
P
�N
V%
\ I
N
,,..1
E.—L •
f
Packet Page -268-
O
CD
CD
O
V
O
IZ
C
O1
C I
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
AMMI N
PIC
(n
G
O `
� m
O rnt. •
O
N
7-1
'i
r+
V
�L
r+
P-As
O
O
0
O
•
0
(D
(D
O
r+
11
(D
r+
r.+
Packet Page -269-
v
0
cD
110
(D
0
•
0
r+
(D
0
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
r+
Ct)
0
C)
r+
0
r+
r.+
CD
�
(D
O
rti
(D
CD
(D
0
CO
(D
(7)
r+-
Co
Co
(D
(D
P-L 0
C/)
r+
(
D
(D
(D
r+
0
Co
O
(D
O
0
O
•
0
(D
(D
O
r+
11
(D
r+
r.+
Packet Page -269-
v
0
cD
110
(D
0
•
0
r+
(D
0
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
ALO
O
rti
IN
L
(D
r.+
W
�-" 0
rmt-
R
5
ou
C)
C)
n
n
N
W
n
n
w
00
n
n
.A
W
n
n
Ul
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Co
0 0
0
0
1
0
m
m
n
'-r
O
M
El
0
O
�
c
o
0
�
c
O
0
Packet
Page -270-
0
0
��
le�
r
Ll
h
11
Packet Page -271-
(7
c-+
N
n
O
r+
�r
O
r
IL�
n
r+
IN
F--L .
1�
O
r+
0
hO
F3
f+
rO
c
cD
V
0
0
it
n
rr �
°m
KA
w
s
O
0�
CD
P-0
O
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
° 0
n
b CA
O
0
o
O rn
CD
�C I
o
N
O`
0^
0``
cn
O
A�
A�
-Q
s
O
0�
CD
P-0
O
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
° 0
n
b CA
O
0
o
O rn
CD
�C I
o
N
O`
0^
0``
cn
O
s
O
0�
CD
P-0
O
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
° 0
n
b CA
O
0
o
O rn
CD
�C I
o
N
O`
0^
0``
00
0
N
W
O
W
Ul
U1
O
�n
Packet Page -272-
al
Cn
c�
N
O
`O
0
�D
cn
-Q
o
lv
o
00
0
N
W
O
W
Ul
U1
O
�n
Packet Page -272-
al
Cn
c�
N
O
`O
0
�D
4
4
T
0
P)
P)
CD
o
o
4
4
T
0
P)
P)
CD
o
4
4
T
0
P)
P)
CD
r+
No
0
Q0
.PAO
w
PC
Packet
Page, -2,73-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Co
V)
0
r+ I
P-A • 0
0 " I
(D
0
U
V)
l
CD
0
CU
O
R
im
to
Packet Page -274-
r—►
O
n
0
r+
�
PAO
CD
UQ
r+
(D
C
r+
r+
O
�
n
CD
o
A+
CD
r +
r+
(DD
CD
O
0.
O
r-+
(D
C
�.
0�
`+
c�
r
r+
r*
'
r+
A�
r
'0
r
CD
O
Packet Page -274-
r—►
O
ww
of
O
N•
cD
n
0
w
CO �?
r
CD
o °
CD
C
O
CD
r+ CO
�r
cD � Co
O CD
co
co
(DD
(D O
r+
n O
A�
AP CD
CD 1-4.
6 r+
°
-u
tj
r
C/) r+
o`+
co � �
o° �
C+ ~'
p " �' •
o � �
�
C ' p•
0 (D
co
Packe page -275
w
o
�
�
00
d�
LA
ri
0 L4 N `.J
�
N W W
-P Oh O 00
W O) ipl. O)
0 0 o
Page-276-
CD
0
O
CD
O
r+
0�
n
O
n
n
O
(D
0)
�-A•
C
CD
•-0
J
r+
F." •
O
Oo
Packet Page -277-
PIY'1
0
0
n
m rn
o'
im
R
Packet Page -278-
�4
O1
C +
0
O
1
U)
C
CD
O
O
Alt
m
n
rt �
O
7
I
x4
r
•E
, �ap�'"`�s°�`,r`
".k"',.�.. a
k'
77, 77
. a m%°j
,t=*
` s •�r��
SEb1'!$p77m.rF
xg
17
w
w`
w
n.
a�
x4
r
•E
, �ap�'"`�s°�`,r`
".k"',.�.. a
k'
77, 77
. a m%°j
,t=*
` s •�r��
SEb1'!$p77m.rF
ml
a
�
�x�^|
'
/
`
Packet Page -280-
9J13/2011 |hpm 8.D.
n
a
LM
c>
E
i
E
i
t
1
t
3
M
SITIO 9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Packet Page -281-
'uu
I
u+
T •
Ul
4
W
V
00
'uu
I
u+
T •
Ul
-4,
0)
V
00
V
--.4
V
�
V
N
V
Ul
O
1
�
W
W
W
N
No
N
w
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
� C:)
00 P
F+•
~ • �' �.
(D �4
Cn a
� N
CD N cD ~' '
o n Cn o r+ V:
f DD • Q N 0 (D
CD Cn W (�
° ID o,
r
�.. r+ C
cD o °
• • • A�
(DC
CD Q
CD
00
Q0 d
� o �
-p
rn °
r+
0
Packet Page -282-
r--N
ti
-p
0
O
t
O
Packet Page -283-
a,
m 9
c
cD
0
0
1
0
rn �
rt
�m
a�
No
Packet Page -284-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
July 29, 2011
Mr. David Weeks AICP
Collier County Government
Growth Management Division
2900 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
Re: New Commission Districts
Mr. Weeks,
This letter is to state our organizations preference in regards to the proposed changes to the
county commissioner districts.
The Oakes Estates neighborhood is a part of the original Golden Gates Subdivision and is
comprised of large lots /acreage that present a semi -rural type of environment. We share this
environment with many of our neighboring areas such as Logan Woods. It is with that thought
that we feel it is in the best interest of our neighborhood to remain a part of County Commission
District 3. Our neighborhood has been a part of District 3 for many years now and during this time
we have been honorably served by Commissioner Tom Henning. We feel we share much in
common with many of the areas of District 3 and Commissioner Henning has been a great
advocate for our area as he fully understands the issues that face our neighborhoods.
After reviewing all five of the proposed district maps we have noticed that in one scenario (Map 4)
shows our neighborhood being moved into District 2. While we are sure that Commissioner Hiller
would represent our neighborhood well we feel that we do not share nearly as much in common
with the remainder of District 2 as it is made up of neighborhoods that are very different than
which we live in as opposed to District 3 were many of the neighborhoods share much in
common..
It is therefore the preference of the Oakes Estates Advisory Board that the Oakes Blvd.
neighborhood remains in County Commission District 3.
,rimothy Wtherite
Timothy Witherite
Oakes Estates Advisory Board
President
twith erite(cDoakeadvisorv. com
(239)- 566 -7893
n Cc: Oakes Estates Advisory Board
Commissioner Tom Henning
Packet Page -285-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: Cindy Pierce [cpierce @floddaweekly.com]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 1:32 PM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: Question about public meetings from Florida Weekly
Hi, David — I will be happy to spread the word about the upcoming redistricting meetings. A couple of questions:
Will the current commisioner and school board representative be at his /her respective district meeting? If so, will they
have any part of the program, or will the presentation be only by staff?
And people can go to any meeting they want, right?
Many thanks!
Cindy Pierce
Managing Editor
ftIN)EEKLY
9051 Tamiami Trail North, STE 202
Naples, Florida 34108
PH: 239.325.1960
FAX: 239.325.1964
CELL: 239.994.4980
E -mail: cpierce@floridaweekly.com
www.FloridaWeekly.com
Packet Page -286-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
,'From: Chuck Marshall [ChuckMarshall @earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 1:44 PM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: Minorities Disenfranchised by all 5 District Maps
Attachments: Commission Redistricting.xlsx
David,
I have reviewed the five maps for County Districts. See the attached analysis as a reference. I am concerned that
these maps will be challenged in court due to minority representation.
1. Map 2 has the least percentage of Hispanic voters in District 5 at 43.8 %.
2. Map 5 has the highest percentage of Hispanic voters in District 5 at 47.4 %.
3. Map 3 has a very uneven population distribution between the districts, ranging from 62,583 to 66,847. It has
the potential of a higher percentage of Hispanic voters if District 3 was to expand into one of the following
Census Tracts.
a. 104.12
b. 104.13
c. 104.14
4. If Map 3 was modified to expand into District 3 using one of the Census tracts above, it would help make the
population distribution more even and would also help with the goal of improving minority representation.
shuck Marshall
(239) 963 -5732 (M)
Packet Page -287-
Packet Page -288-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
O
cc
u
C
M
Q
N
2
01
L
v
N
N
�
O
Z
Vl
�
�
f0
m to
f0
f0
fU
L
U
C
C
N
i
n
m
fo
CD
A
3
O
[]
C
f0
of
f0
Cu
f0
fU
N
U
3
u
fl
o
0
0
0
0
N
N
N
N
N
f0
0
fL
N
0)
2
�Z
Z�Z
Ln
2
u
C
t+do CL
Q
h
1b
LD
M
N
LD
M
N
M
N
m
O
C
LD
00
in
� M m
O
Ln
LD
d'
N
fn
M
N
m
Ln
N
O
N
N
00
h
LD
h
M
z'
LD
N
ct 111 O
h oo �
=
to
C p
h
h
LD
00
LD
111
Ln
Ln
Lf1
N
h
LD
Ln
M
h
Lo
-t
M
N N `~
00 Ln N
h
M
M
M
LD
o
N
Q
h
'GT
O
Ln
Ln
'�
N
00
tD
N
O
O
111.
Ln
Ln
M
.4
�
N
Ln
R
o0
M
LD
o
.-1
M
V
00 00
LD M N
d'
M
d'
N
N
d'
C
M
[i N ON
d'
M
Ln
i N
fN
tt
Ln
n
e7
N
M
V N
� C
O
a
V
�
C
M
11
a°
• a
o
0
0\
L'\
c o
In
3
\\
o
e
o
e
o
o
0)
C
O1
B
O
O
O
01
00
N
Ln'
h W -. 00
M'
L
�
O
O
O
Cl
Ol
O
at
N
h
01
M
LfI
N V m
V
O
Cn
:Zr
LD
r-1
Ln
N
LT
N rn 1-4
W I
01
1-4
LD
.-1
Ln
00
M
LD
r1
C
Ol
0)
d' � rl
Q
.-1
N
N
e i iY N
.1
N
N
V
N
ei
N
a--1
Cf
N
e I
N
c-1 _ V'.. N
=
I
�
i
u
fL -C
Q d
to
CO
Ln
Ln
! M
1 N
h'.
00
1-4
Ol h N
00
Co i
LD
.1
Cn
N
N
Lfl
M
N
O
N
Co
0o
�'
M Ol N
OQ N
O
M
fJft
O
ti
00
M
h
d.
h
d'
h
! t0
M
h
V
W cy h
M
,
a
h
00 '
O
N
Ql
M
N
d.
h
V
r7,
M
00
O
M
"t
00
!
h
t11
O
00
O
M
M:
O
111 In h
h
C =
00
N
'-N
-4
t0
Ln
0
-,I-
lD c1 lP
N Ln
OM
O
-1 �
N
� l0
Lo
�
�
�
�
-1
N
ID
11
fp
V
H LD
N Ln
> O
14
�
1-I
c1
a
N
a
Q
N.
V'
h
W
N
rn
h
V
Ql
M
O^
M
CT
O
V
N^
h
Ln
111
cn
h^
N
<Y
<D
h
C
00
Ln !
N
h
.-i
W
O
Ol
h
N
W
V
N
M
lD
O
N
O
h
M
N
.�
N
h
111
O
O I
h
h
N
00
to
lD
N
L71
h
M
N
V
W
00
e-1
to
N
h
r
lD
N
O
LD
M
C Q
lD
tll
M
N
00
R
N
Ln I
t
V:
00
N
U1
LIl
M
Ln
01
�7
V
1l1
00
V
O
N
ff1
to
f'f7
00
V'
LD
h
CO
Ln
tr
tT
N
Vl
V
00
lD'
fl1
W
[i
Vl
00
G
Ln
N
7
N
L/1
Lft
V
tlt
N
Ln
Ln
V
Ln
d'
N
O
a
-J
Ln
M
LD
01
h
O
M
Ln
t
.-i
h
O
O
M
W
N
O
M�
D1
O
Ct
O
N
M
01
N
C
O
Q
F
h
to
W
Ln
a--1
LD
M
00
N
Ln
tD
01
N
01
V
Ln
h
O
00
Ol
N
tb
N
00
ll1
N
LI'1
00
N
N
(ei
Lf1
00
N
h
N
LD
h
ei
N
LIS
to
to
W
In I
N
N
to
�'
O
lD
N
O
Lr
fl
N
LO
d
[t
M
M
cT
~
M
N
tit
N
i
Ln
V
d
1
~
V1
N
V
a
H
to
Lp
LD
LD
tD
N
M
LD
Lo
LD
LD
LD
N
M
LO
LD
LD
LD
- N
M
tD
LD
LD
Lo
LD
N
M
O
O
LD
LD
LO
N
M
N
N
M
V'
Ln
e-I
N
M
V I
Lfl
N
N
M
V
Ln
e-1
N
en
Ln
a-1
N
M
e7
Ln
u
V
u_
V
-N
U
V
U
L.l
U
-N
u
u
-N
u
-N
U
u
u
U
V
-N
U
-�VI
V
-VI
u
U
-N
u
u
u
U
N
UI
to
VI
N_
VI
C
I
N
C
H
N
r
C
H
VI
VI
G
Cl
M
o
a
N
a
0
0
0
0
N
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u�u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u,u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
M
Co
M
Co
M
CO
fn
Co
rM
Co
Co
Co
m
Co
m
m
M
M
M
M
M
Co
Co
Co
Co
N
'-i
y
N
v
M
C
Ct
y
Ln
#
:w
N
O
o
a
o
a
a
a
L
o
D-
o
a
o
a
o
n
Packet Page -288-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
H
Q
ro
Y
U
M
O
tl
O
Cu
u
Lr
a
.s
c
0
Q
O
d
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
U
CZ
N I
H N
R I 0
m
C
1-1
tD
d'
M
O
m
n
n
H
to
l6
m
O
a
m
N
h
H
tD
h
m
n
n
H
LD
N
Ln
N
MO
O
to
O
M
O
n
h
h
L!'1
m
Ln
m
N
H
%D
n
h
Ln
m
N
MO
H
a
I O
I H
m
M
h
h
>o
m
`n
m
M
M
h
n
n
.N-I n
N
OH
M
W
H
ON
M
1:31
h
H
ON
a0
H
O
M
n
lD
^
M
H
m
h
n
ON
O
C
-1
N
UD
N
I
N
H
S
M
oo
-4
M
00
H
N
M
m
H
H
M
W
H
O
N
h
M
W
N
QW
M
M
O
lD
M
O
N
N
m
N
lD
H
1p
O
LD
O
M
N
Ln
N
LD
OO
Ln
lD
n
O
H
tD
N
N
N
lD
N
00
m
lD
n
h
lD
N
lD
H
I
'LD
N
h
Oo
n
Ln
h
N
lD
M
m
H
lD
Ln
Ln
N
lD
W
w
1
m
W
to
m
a0
H
O
lD
LD
m
o0
01
I
H
N
m
O
h
O
m
m
00
lD
m
n
lt>
LD
O
00
H
O
Ln
Ib
00
00
an0
O
H
ri
.-i
tD
e-1
si
LD
1-1'
.1
LD
.i
e-1
w
.-1'
N
Lo
A
i
W
O
m!
h
I o0
M
to
r,
I 114
m
W
lD
H
n
N
n
m
M
Ln
Lo
Ln
Lo
n
m
O
N
m
Cr
lD
m
O
m
M
W
00
�Y
O
=
I O
N
m•
M
O
Ln
m
H
[t
m
tb
Ln
O
N
N
m
o0
Lo
m
H
N
O
m
to
m
N
O
LfI
oo
V
m
m
m
M
e-1
N'
m
M
e-I
tri
H
m�
M
1
MIN
m
m
M
c-I
d'
.--I'
m
a,
N
c-I
a
N
m
Z
Q
Q
N
N
n-1
H
H
M
N
m
Ln
N
N
O
N
O
H
O
N
M
Lo
�t
N
h
H
M
H
N
N
Cl
ct
H
N
m
H
N
H
H
N
N
Ln
m
H
N
n
H
d'
H
[t
N�
m
to
O
N
n.
H
m
H
LD
M
m
rN-1
H
Ln
i
Qh
N
O
�I
M
m
M
I
00
tD
p
m
n
h
lD
N
m
0
lD
m
O
p
Ln
O
lD
lD
d'
m
th
[f
o0
OD
O
p
N
�
m
lD
Ln
n
n
O
Ln
M
H
N
n
p
I cY
s*
LHp
N
LD
N
p
Q
V1
n
. 00
h
Ln
Ln
m
n
lD
Ln
Ln
n
m'
to
Ln
l!1
h
m
n
to
tN
n
m
h
to
Cn
Ln
r-I
m
to
I M
Z
I.
Q
O
Z
l0
m
H
L>D
V
ry
n
V
a
lD
In
N
M
ry
H
O
N�
Ln
H
O
h
V'
A
! N
N
O
Ln
m
N
M
lD
d'
N
h
m
H
N
M
H
N
0',
Ln
r-
m
N
H
N
H
d'
N
00
N
H
N
N
H
i-1
NII
N
H
C
H
00
H
N
NIH
m
M
H
h
H
mIN
V
V
H
n
I`
Q
I
Y
M
r
O
W
1 n
1
m
I oo
h
D
O
O
Ct
W,
O
Ln
0
Lo
Lo
n
0
M
00
h
0O 0
N
M
1D
Ln
1
N
h
O
h
W
Ln
o
O
n
h
M
to
n
0.0
M
Ln
m
N m
tco
H
00
O
M
n
N
o
'Ct
o
H
Ln
0
N
w
CD
N
H
O
LOM
N
h
O
N
H
H
LO
I
Ln
M
tD
O
0
N
N
d'
O
H
b
Ln
N
M
lD
LD
O
N
M
O
H
o
<D
H
N
t
l h
O
N
i
u,
Cu
r
0
M
N
W
Ln
H
LD
n
n
N
�
N
61
Ln
O
00
m
N
m
O
O
It
N
m
-
N
d,
M
N
W
oo
M
Ln
n
LD
N
d'
N
m
n
N
M
C
h
h
h
O
O
N
W
N
LD
N 1
Ln
M 00 N
m
00
n 1
O
M
n
H
O
1-7
N
.M-I
m
,d
r-I
LD
W
H
m
c.
h
! O m
0'
ti
L.O
m
C
01
fn
�Ni
h
H
IHn
°1
'7
�Hi
l0
14 0)
H Ln
°
M
H
O
.M-1
Ln
1'`1
O
Ln
00
M
h M
00
f'n
Ln
°
G
I
I
I-i
�r-I
I
.Ni
Ln
Ln
v
I
I
I
000
=
Gt
O
0000
O
H
m
lD
00
Ln
Co i
0
m
0
O
0
m
0
lD
1
0
LD
00,000
LD
m j
m
m
O
00000
V
O
H
m
lD
0
M
00�,�
O
N O lD
d'
W
H
n
lD
H
N
H
N
H
H
H
H
N
H
H
H
N
H
H
O
N
H
N
H
H
11
N
H M: H
H
H
H
N
H
0
m m,
W
F
N
h
H
o0
H
M
N
m
O
>o
O
W
oo
Lo
ao
O
m
m;
o
W
H
O
W•
H
O
h
0
0
to
H
N
M
d
O
[P
H
M
�t
Ln
h.
c7
w
O
=
v
Lo
n
00
Ln
-q
ry l
Ln
n
Cn
v
m
Ln
LD
m
0)
m
m
N
m
n
W
Co
H
H
H
I
Co
n
n
b!
LD
00
m
o
m
n
�
o
m
0
b I
00
h
0
Ln
m H
m Ln
m
at
Ln
v
m
n
h
n
m
n
Ln
Lri
In I
L17
Ln
Ln.
to
N
Lo
Ln
0
In
rl
Ln
Lo'
Ln
Ln
N ID
Ln
In
.--1'
ll')
Ol
Ln
h
0
I
Ln
In
O
<D .
N
Ln
V
1n I
LD
Ct
N
to
Ln I
Do
Ln
r-
Lf1
lD Ln
Ln a' N
i
m
�'
w
Ln
Ln
w
N
It
Ln
Ln
m
N
N
I
J
Q
Ln
n
M
o0
to i
m
lD
h
M
lfl
Ln ,
m
V
V
H
h
n
tb
O
Co
M
00
00
N
N
W
h
M
d'
m
0
-zr
N
M
m
N't
r4
M
N
h
H
n
O
N
to
LJ1
N'
.-i
M
N
m i
lD I
u'1
m
m
m
M
O
m
m
C
`i
N
M
Ln
N
LJ'1 j
M
N
Ln
d'
00
l0
u1
H
Lfl
00
�{
N
h
a
N
LD
N
n
H
Ln
to
H
Ln
LD
Lf}
W
Ln
N I
N
N
Ln
O
Lo
Ln
i
H
lD
n
M
O
O
N
O
H
Lo
Ln
H
u't
H
I-
O
LD
LD
LD
LD
r4
M
W
w
LD
LD
lD
M
to
LD
lD
O
LD
M
LD
lD
LD
O
lD
M
LD
W
V
O •
V
W
17
to
M
Ln
O
w
oo
n
lD
n
M
H
Y
U
N
U
m
Y
U
V
Y
U I
N
Y
U
H
Y
U
N
Y
U
M
U
V
U
M
U
H
N
M
ct
Ln
H
N
M
d'
Ln
H
N
M
Ln
H
N
M
Y
Ln
Y
N
VI
N
Vt
N
C
G
Y
VI
}+
V)
.i
}J
V1
.L
Y
H
_
Y
H
C
C
_ V
Y
VI
U
Y
VL
U
i�
N
U
.L I
N
U
Y
Vl
U
}+
vt
U
VL
V
Y
V1
V
Y
N
U
Y
N
U
N
U
.`
VL
U
Y
y
U
.`
Y
VL
U
.`
Y
V
�
U
.
Y
U
.L
Y
U
,
�-+
u
.i
Y
0
0
0
0
0
vii
O
D
0
0
0
vii
0
0
0
p
vi
o
in
o
0
D=
h
H
V/
VL
N
UL
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u,u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
m
m
m
m
Co
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m'm
m
m
m
m
m
m
Co
m
m
m
m
m
Co
Co
Co
Co
N
U
Cu
N
N
v,
V
Yt
y
vt
Ln
3L
tm
C
Y
n
a
°a
a
OQ
CL
Q
n
C
Q
a
s
Q
N
i
0
a
0
i
o
o
o
X
i
0-
Packet Page -289-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
TOTAL
Pop/ All Races
Pop /Hispanic
Hispanic %
non Hispanic
104.12 9212
9061
2599
28.7%
6462
104.13 6584
6430
2574
40.0%
3856
104.14 7623
7444
2447
32.9%
4997
Packet Page -290-
9/13/2011 Item 8. D.
WeeksDavid
/0��rom:
Frogwngl@aol.com
Sent:
Friday, August 05, 2011 1:16 PM
To:
WeeksDavid
Subject:
Re: Redistricting
Mr. Weeks,
Thanks for your help
Jacob Winge
In a message dated 8/5/2011 11:51:44 A.M. Central Daylight Time, DavidWeeksCa.colliergov.net writes:
Mr. Winge,
Apologies for the delayed response - I was unexpectedly out of office Wed. & Thur.
The public is welcome to attend any and all of the 5 public meetings. Though one meeting is
being held within each existing District, the format of each meeting will be the same and is
,not focused on the District in which the meeting is held. County staff will make a brief
presentation, the 5 proposed maps will be available for viewing, the public is welcome to ask
questions and make comments, handouts will be available (e.g. copies of the proposed
maps).
Please contact me if I might be of further assistance, and note the BCC Redistricting website
below.
Vaald Wee&
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager /BCC Redistricting Project Manager
Collier County Government
Growth Management Division /Planning and Regulation
Land Development Services Department, Comprehensive Planning Section
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104
phone: 239-252-2306; E- fax:239- 252 -6689
email: davidweeks @colliergov.net
, website: www.colliergov.net
Packet Page -291-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
2011 BCC Redistricting website:
http: / /www.colliergov.net/index.aspx ?page =3214
n
From: FrogwnglCabaol.com fmailto:Frogwngl @aol.coml
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 20118:45 PM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: Redistricting
Mr. Weeks,
was wondering if you could give me a short synopsis of these meetings will go. Also, do we have to live in a
district to attend its meeting, for example, i live currently in district 5, but will most likely be re- districted to district
1, can i attend both meetings?
Thanks So much!
Jacob W. Winge
Board of Directors Collier County Museum
SWFL 9.12
Collier Youth Political Activists
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e -mail address released in response to a public records request, do
not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
A*_%,
2
Packet Page -292-
WeeksDavid
/*��rom:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Fpau116871 [fpaull6871 @aol.com]
Friday, August 05, 2011 3:11 PM
WeeksDavid
TeachScott; Ossnapsaw @aol.com; docsew @embargmail.com; rwl25 @msn.com;
JDITULLIO @comcast.net; bdillman @comcast.net; afogelstrom @comcast.net;
katadams @embargmail.com; rroach @comcast.net; vwmgr @comcast.net;
vwadmin @comcast.net; stiffany @comcast.net; HenningTom; HillerGeorgia
Re: Public Meetings regarding proposed redistricting boundaries for Collier County
Mr. Weeks, Thank's for the update. I appreciate the information that you provided. I believe it would be appropriate to
address any further questions or concerns that our community may have at the District 2 and /or District 3 public meetings
scheduled for August 18, 2011 and August 23, 2011 respectively .
Respectfully
Paul Feuer
- --- Original Message- -
From: WeeksDavid <DavidWeeks @colliergov.net>
To: Fpaull6871 <fpaull6871 @aol.com>
Cc: TeachScott <ScottTeach @colliergov.net >; Ossnapsaw @aol.com <Ossnapsaw @aol.com >;
docsew @embargmaii.com < docsew @embarq mail.com >; rwl25 @msn.com <rw125 @msn.com >; JDITULLIO @comcast.net
<JDITULLIO @comcast.net >; bdillman @comcast.net <bdillman @comcast.net >; afogelstrom @comcast.net
afogelstrom @comcast.net >; katadams @embargmail.com <katadams @embarg mail. com >; rroach @comcast.net
rroach @comcast.net >; vwmgr @comcast.net <vwmgr @comcast.net >; vwadmin @comcast.net
<vwadmin @comcast.net >; stiffany @comcast.net <stiffany @comcast.net >; HenningTom <TomHenning @colliergov_net >;
HillerGeorgia <Georg iaH iller@colliergov. net>
Sent: Fri, Aug 5, 2011 12:45 pm
Subject: RE: Public Meetings regarding proposed redistricting boundaries for Collier County
Mr. Feuer,
Apologies for the delayed response - I was unexpectedly out of office Wed. & Thur.
As you noted in your phone message, the public is welcome to attend any and all of the 5 public meetings. Though one
meeting is being held within each existing District, the format of each meeting will be the same and is not focused on the
District in which the meeting is held. County staff will make a brief presentation, the 5 proposed maps will be available for
viewing, the public is welcome to ask questions and make comments, handouts will be available (e.g. copies of the
proposed maps). Staff to attend: me; Scott Teach, Deputy County Attorney; Tom Eastman, representing the District
School Board of Collier County; Spanish and Creole Interpreters provided by the School District.
The BCC is aware of the 5 public meetings and the 5 proposed maps. The BCC will not adopt [ "support "] a new District
map until they hold a hearing for that purpose, presently scheduled for September 13, 2011. The BCC approved
redistricting criteria and authorized staff to create map options on 4/26/11.
In proposed Maps 1, 3, 4 and 5, Village Walk falls within District 2; in proposed Map 2, Village Walk remains within District
3.
Please contact me if I might be of further assistance, and note the BCC Redistricting website below.
David Weeks
vavid Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager /BCC Redistricting Project Manager
Collier County Government
Growth Management Division /Planning and Regulation
Packet Page -293-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Land Development Services Department, Comprehensive Planning Section
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104
phone: 239-252-2306; E- fax:239- 252 -6689
email: davidweeks(a)-collieraov.net
website: www.collier-gov.net
2011 BCC Redistricting website: http: / /www.colliergov.net/index.aspx ?gape =3214
From: Fpaul16871 [mailto:fpaul16871(a)_aol.coml
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 6:49 PM
To: WeeksDavid
Cc: TeachScott; Ossnapsaw(a)aol.com: FPau116871(a�aol.com; docsew(a)embargmail.com; rwl25(a)_msn.com;
JDITULLIO(cb- comcast riet; bdillman(a)-comcast.net; afogelstrom(aD-comcast.net; katadams(aD-embargmail.com;
rroach(a)comcast. net; vwmgracomcast.net; vwadminiccDcomcast.net; stiffanv @comcast.net; HenningTom; HillerGeorgia
Subject: Public Meetings regarding proposed redistricting boundaries for Collier County
Mr. Weeks, I left a message for you this morning regarding subject meetings. I had indicated that we may send
representatives to both meetings for Districts 2 & 3. However, before we send representation I had stated that it clearly
appears that under the proposed redistricting, Village Walk of Naples, located on Vanderbilt Beach Road on the west side
of 175 will move from District 3 (Tom Henning) to District 2 (Georgia Hiller). I had asked you to confirm. Please advise.
I'd also like to know if these meetings are going to be held as an open forum beginning with a presentation by County
Officials followed by Q & A's or will it simply be an informal walk through with various County reps available to answer
questions? Who will be representing the County at these meetings? Has the BOCC unanimously supported what is
being proposed at these meetings? If not, please explain.
The courtesy of a prompt response will be appreciated.
Respectfully
Paul Feuer
President, Village Walk Home Owners Association
Under Florida Law, e -mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request; do not send
electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
11*�
Packet Page -294-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
"from: Glenda Hancock [swampbuggytours @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 12:14 PM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: Re: Redistricting
I know where Chokoloskee is, I live on Chokoloskee. My question was what district will it fall into, as the
map shows 29 as the dividing line. Will the line disect Everglades and Chokoloskee or will it be moved to
either side placing the intire environment into one or the other district?
Thanks
Glenda Hancock
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 11:20 AM, WeeksDavid <DavidWeeks(Qcollier ov.net> wrote:
Ms. Hancock,
Thank you for your inquiry. No cities or communities are identified by name on the proposed Redistricting maps as it
would create map clutter given the scale of the maps - but they are surely there. Chokoloskee is, of course, located at the
end of Highway 29; Highway 29 is depicted and identified on the maps.
Chokoloskee would remain in District 5 on proposed Maps 2 and 4, and would be within District 1 on proposed Maps 1,
3, 5.
V4Wd Wea&
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager/BCC Redistricting Project Manager
Collier County Government
Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation
Land Development Services Department, Comprehensive Planning Section
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104
phone: 239-252-2306; E- fax:239- 252 -6689
�m ail: davidweeksZ_coltier ov.net
website: www.colliergov.net
2011 BCC Redistricting website: http://Nvww.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?12age--3214
Packet Page -295-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
From: Glenda Hancock [mailto:swampbus ours ,gmail.com)
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 20117:52 PM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: Redistricting
So, is Chokoloskee in Dist 1 or 5? It is not even on your map, does that mean we are no longer in Collier
County?
Glenda Hancock
C &G's Big Cypress Swamp Buggy Tours
(239) 695 4756 or (239) 734 0084
www.biacypressswaml)bugg3jours.com
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e -mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send
electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
Glenda Hancock
C &G's Big Cypress Swamp Buggy Tours
(239) 695 4756 or (239) 734 0084
www.bigcypres sswampbugg Yytours. com
Packet Page -296-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
/'%"Vrom: HillerGeorgia
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 5:01 PM
To: OchsLeo
Cc: WeeksDavid; CasalanguidaNick
Subject: Re: Public Meetings regarding proposed redistricting boundaries for Collier County
I would like to attend my district's meeting, however, I'll be out of town through the 19th. Please change the
date to the following week so I can attend and hear my constituents concerns.
Thank you -
Georgia Hiller
Commissioner, District 2
On Aug 5, 2011, at 12:45 PM, WeeksDavid <DavidWeeksncollier ov.net> wrote:
Mr. Feuer,
Apologies for the delayed response - I was unexpectedly out of office Wed. & Thur.
As you noted in your phone message, the public is welcome to attend any and all of
the 5 public meetings. Though one meeting is being held within each existing District,
the format of each meeting will be the some and is not focused on the District in which
the meeting is held. County staff will make a brief presentation, the 5 proposed maps
will be available for viewing, the public is welcome to ask questions and make
comments, handouts will be available (e.g. copies of the proposed maps). Staff to
attend: me; Scott Teach, Deputy County Attorney; Tom Eastman, representing the
District School Board of Collier County; Spanish and Creole Interpreters provided by the
School District.
The BCC is aware of the 5 public meetings and the 5 proposed maps. The BCC will not
adopt [ "support "] a new District map until they hold a hearing for that purpose,
presently scheduled for September 13, 2011. The BCC approved redistricting criteria
and authorized staff to create map options on 4/26/11.
In proposed Maps 1, 3, 4 and 5, Village Walk falls within District 2; in proposed Map 2,
Village Walk remains within District 3.
Packet Page -297-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Please contact me if I might be of further assistance, and note the BCC Redistricting
website below.
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager /BCC Redistricting Project Manager
Collier County Government
Growth Management Division /Planning and Regulation
Land Development Services Department, Comprehensive Planning Section
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104
phone: 239-252-2306; E- fax:239- 252 -6689
email: davidweeks@coIliergov.net
website: www.collieraov.net
2011 BCC Redistricting website:
http: / /www.colliergov.net/index.aspx ?page =3214
From: Fpau116871 jmailto:fpau116871Paol.com1 n
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 20116:49 PM
To: WeeksDavid
Cc: TeachScott; OssnapsawCcbaol.com; FPaul168710)aoI.com; docsew(abembargmail.com;
rwl25(a)msn.com: J DITU LLIOC&comcast. net; bdillman@comcast.net; afogeistromocomcast.net-
katadams(a>embargmail.com; rroach(a)comcast. net; vwmgr @comcast.net; vwadmin*comcast.net,
stiffany(a)comcast.net; HenningTom; HillerGeorgia
Subject: Public Meetings regarding proposed redistricting boundaries for Collier County
Mr. Weeks, I left a message for you this morning regarding subject meetings. I had indicated that we may
send representatives to both meetings for Districts 2 & 3. However, before we send representation I had
stated that it clearly appears that under the proposed redistricting, Village Walk of Naples, located on
Vanderbilt Beach Road on the west side of 175 will move from District 3 (Tom Henning) to District 2
(Georgia Hiller). I had asked you to confirm. Please advise.
I'd also like to know if these meetings are going to be held as an open forum beginning with a
presentation by County Officials followed by Q & A's or will it simply be an informal walk through with
various County reps available to answer questions? Who will be representing the County at these
meetings? Has the BOCC unanimously supported what is being proposed at these meetings? if not,
please explain.
The courtesy of a prompt response will be appreciated.
Packet Page -298-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Respectfully
Paul Feuer
President, Village Walk Home Owners Association
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records
request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
Packet Page -299-
9/13/2011 Item 8. D.
WeeksDavid
From: HillerGeorgia
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 12:16 PM
To: OchsLeo
Cc: CasalanguidaNick; KlatzkowJeff; WeeksDavid; TorreJohn
Subject: Re: Redistricting public meeting schedule
I would appreciate if you could answer the questions sent this morning.
Thank you -
Georgia Hiller
Commissioner, District 2
On Aug 9, 2011, at 12:12 PM, "OchsLeo" <Leo0chs(@colliergov.net> wrote:
> Commissioner,
> I concur with the staff analysis below and for that reason have decided to maintain the
noticed meeting schedule. Thank you.
> VR,
> Leo
> From: CasalanguidaNick
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 6:18 PM
> To: OchsLeo
> Cc: WeeksDavid; Klatzkowieff
> Subject: memo to Nick 8 -8 -11 Redistricting public meeting schedule.doc
> Leo,
> We contacted our partners in the process and we have determined that a significant amount
of notice has already been released. We are concerned that if we change it now we may have
members of the public confused over which meeting to attend, where and what date. The
redistricting team thinks a change in time and possibly venue now could negatively affect the
process. We respectfully request that we maintain the schedule as advertised in order to
avoid negative repercussions from the public.
> David has drafted a memorandum documenting our efforts and concerns.
> Thank you,
> Nick
1
Packet Page -300-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
> Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail
address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this
,entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
> <memo to Nick 8 -8 -11 Redistricting public meeting schedule.doc>
z
Packet Page -301-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: HillerGeorgia
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 12:17 PM
To: OchsLeo
Cc: CasalanguidaNick; KlatzkowJeff; WeeksDavid; TorreJohn
Subject: Re: Redistricting public meeting schedule
As to the meeting, I'll attend electronically. You can connect me with Skype.
Thanks -
Georgia Hiller
Commissioner, District 2
On Aug 9, 2011, at 12:12 PM, "OchsLeo" <LeoOchs(@colliergov.net> wrote:
> Commissioner,
> I concur with the staff analysis below and
noticed meeting schedule. Thank you.
> VR,
> Leo
for that reason have decided to maintain the
> From: CasalanguidaNick
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 6:18 PM
> To: OchsLeo
> Cc: WeeksDavid; Klatzkowieff
> Subject: memo to Nick 8 -8 -11 Redistricting public meeting schedule.doc
> Leo,
> We contacted our partners in the process and we have determined that a significant amount
of notice has already been released. We are concerned that if we change it now we may have
members of the public confused over which meeting to attend, where and what date. The
redistricting team thinks a change in time and possibly venue now could negatively affect the
process. We respectfully request that we maintain the schedule as advertised in order to
avoid negative repercussions from the public.
> David has drafted a memorandum documenting our efforts and concerns.
> Thank you,
> Nick
1
Packet Page -302-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
> Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail
address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this
11�ntity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
> <memo to Nick 8 -8 -11 Redistricting public meeting schedule.doc>
z
Packet Page -303-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: OchsLeo
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 2:41 PM
To: HillerGeorgia
Cc: EdwardsJennifer; CasalanguidaNick; WeeksDavid
Subject: FW: Public Redistricting Meetings
Commissioner,
Staff response to your inquiry provided below. I personally have had no discussion with any Commissioner regarding
these meetings.
V R,
Leo
From: WeeksDavid
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 1:39 PM
To: OchsLeo; Casa languidaN ick
Subject: RE: Public Redistricting Meetings
Leo,
Staff did not consult the schedule of any Commissioner prior to creating the public meeting schedule, nor advise any
Commissioner of the schedule as it was being proposed; the only coordination was between the staff that need to
attend the meetings and the availability of meeting facilities within the necessary timeline.
The scheduling decision was made by the project manager, David Weeks. It is unfortunate that the public meetings
need to be scheduled during the off season and some prior to start of school in Collier County on Aug. 22.
However, this is necessary due to the number of meetings involved (5 public meetings plus 2 advisory boards); the
meeting schedule of the advisory boards (both in the 4th week of the month); the desire /need to hold the BCC map
adoption hearing as early as possible - Sept. 13 - due to preclearance requirement and to accommodate the
Supervisor of Elections Office — thus need to hold all of the meetings prior to Sept. 13; the need /desire to provide
written summary comments to the BCC from the public meetings and advisory boards in advance of their Sept. 13
hearing; and, the decision not to schedule public meetings on weekend nights (Fri., Sat., Sun.) nor Wednesday
nights (traditionally, and still, a church night for some). All 7 meetings run on consecutive Monday- Tuesday-
Thursday (August 16, 18, 22, 23, 25, 29, 30) - scheduled as late in August as could be done.
I don't want the above reference to SOE Office to be viewed as blaming them for the schedule; accommodating their
request for expediency only played a part. Further, the SOE Office has been extremely supportive and helpful in
this Redistricting process — providing some GIS support ; providing quality control check of mapping and data efforts
of Growth Management GIS staff (in addition to that which will be provided by the independent review of Bond,
Schoeneck and King), providing staff to assist in presentations at the 5 public meetings, providing their expertise in
the Redistricting process. However, SOE has been fully removed from the actual mapping exercise — they played
no part.
Vacfd 7660114
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager /BCC Redistricting Project Manager
Collier County Government
Growth Management Division /Planning and Regulation
Land Development Services Department, Comprehensive Planning Section
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104
phone: 239-252-2306; E- fax:239- 252 -6689
Packet Page -304-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
email: davidweeks @collieraov.net
website: www.colliergov.net
011 BCC Redistricting website: http: / /Www.colliergov.net/index.aspx ?page =3214
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: HillerGeorgia
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:47 AM
To: OchsLeo; Edwardslennifer
Subject: Public Redistricting Meetings
Please advise which county commissioners were consulted /advised
about the dates of the upcoming public redistricting meetings by your offices /staff before
these dates were finalized.
Who made the decision to hold these meetings when so many voters are out of town on vacation.
Thank you.
Georgia Hiller
Commissioner, District 2
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail
address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this
entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
,-44nder Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail
ddress released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this
entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
Under Florida Law, e -mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send
electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
2
Packet Page -305-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: gothiclilies @aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 20114:03 AM
To: WeeksDavid; Voting.Section @usdoj.gov; askdoj @usdoj.gov
Cc: HillerGeorgia; FialaDonna; ColettaJim; CoyleFred; HenningTom
Subject: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
Attachments: MinorityDistrictMap.pdf; Preclearance_Guidance_ _DOJ_ _02- 09- 11.pdf
Attention:
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager/
Collier Board of County Commissioners Redistricting Project Manager/
2800 Horseshoe Drive, Florida 34104
Phone: 239 - 252 -2306
Re: Minority Voting District Map
Collier County is a "covered jurisdiction" under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The five proposed Redistricting maps for the Collier Board of County Commissioners are not in
compliance with the Voting Rights Act:
* The 5 proposed Redistricting maps dilute the Hispanic voting population by not creating the
largest possible Hispanic voting district, based on the 2010 Census.
* The 2010 Census population for Hispanics in Collier County is 83,177 out of 321,520 total �
population,
an increase of 69% from the 2000 Census. The Hispanic population is now 26.7 % of Collier
County population.
The five proposed Redistricting maps do not comply with U.S. Department of Justice Guidance
Concerning Redistricting
(see attached document):
* (pg. 7471, par. 1) "the jurisdiction has met it's burden of establishing that the plan was adopted
free of any discriminatory practice ".
* (pg. 7471, par. 2) "the term 'purpose' includes 'any discriminatory purpose' and is not limited to a
purpose to retrogress... to determine whether direct or circumstantial evidence exists of any
discriminatory purpose of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of... a membership in a
language minority group ".
* (pg. 7471, last par. 1) "whether minority concentrations are fragmented among different
districts ".
It is customary in most government jurisdictions for the public to submit proposed redistricting
maps for review.
I am submitting to you a proposed district map (see attached map) with a 59.9% Hispanic
population in District 5
that complies with the Voting Rights Act and the Department of Justice Guidance Concerning
Redistricting.
Packet Page -306-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
I request that the map be made available to the public and included with the 5 proposed maps to the
Collier Board of County Commissioners for the September 13, 2011 meeting on Redistricting.
printed copy of this email has been mailed to the:
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Main
Washington, D.C. 20530
Thank you,
John Lundin
(407) 920 -2422
rdmil
/,—IN.
COLLIER COUNTY 2010 (HISPANIC MINORITY) REDISTRICTING MAP
Total
: 321,520
2010 CENSUS BY POPULATION PROPOSED COMMISSION DISTRICT
Corn. District Total Population Hispanic Pop. Hispanic %
BCC 1
63.280
14,526
18.3 °16
BCC 2
62,583
7,032
9.51%
BCC 3
65,187
13,847
21.2%
BCC 4
65,282
8,666
11.0%
BCC 5
65.188
39.106
59.9%
TOTAL
321,520
83,177
NOTE: DISTRICTS 1.2 & a ARE THE SAME
AS IN MAP # 3
Packet Page -307-
CQ
G
z
V
_H
Z
V
Z
_M
S
O
O
N
Z
n
O
V
C:
W
J
J
O
u
N
L
TM
N
M
on
C
0
01
Q
O
CL
0
F
0-0
U
'E
o 0 0
\ \o c c
Co
Lo N p 0
a
MM
CD of T T Gi
(A
,- N r co
N
Q
I
O
CL
U
CoNI-- COcoN
C\j CY) It CD 0
z�
=3 C CA
L 0C! (q -:
wO
„
/E
CL
T T Cr)
M-
W
D)
N
2
=
0
as
"
=
OCMNNCDO
Q
Co CD Co CD CO
N
p
N to T N_ r
LC)
1
'M^ N 'L'^^ U'^)) V))
W CD W W Co
*-
�
_
/e f
1
` )
r
U
Q
r NM -,tInQ
000UUI-
EUUUUUO
o
MMMMfn
—
U
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Packet Page -308-
C)
N
g
:^^ N
L
ui
to
z�
=3 C CA
f
CL 0 O
MODE
N
=
"
ui
r-
1
1
M
d
i
U
'
}
LLJ z
i
t
O rr3
z Q .;
3
�i
r
Packet Page -308-
n
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
SO "10
Vol. 76 Wednesday,
No. 27 February 9, 2011
Part III
Department of Justice
Guidance Concerning Redistricting Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act; Notice
Packet Page -309-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
7470 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 27/Wednesday, February 9, 2011 /Notices
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Guidance Concerning Redistricting
Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act; Notice
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Attorney
General, Civil Rights Division,
Department of Justice.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Attorney General has
delegated responsibility and authority
for determinations under Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act to the Assistant
Attorney General, Civil Rights Division,
who finds that, in view of recent
legislation and judicial decisions, it is
appropriate to issue guidance
concerning the review of redistricting
plans submitted to the Attorney General
for review pursuant to Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
T. Christian Herren, Jr., Chief, Voting
Section, Civil Rights Division, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC 20530, (202) 514 -1416.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 5
of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.
1973c, requires jurisdictions identified
in Section 4 of the Act to obtain a
determination from either the Attorney
General or the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia that
any change affecting voting which they
seek to enforce does not have a
discriminatory purpose and will not
have a discriminatory effect.
Beginning in 2011, these covered
jurisdictions will begin to seek review
under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
of redistricting plans based on the 2010
Census. Based on past experience, the
overwhelming majority of the covered
jurisdictions will submit their
redistricting plans to the Attorney
General. This guidance is not legally
binding; rather, it is intended only to
provide assistance to jurisdictions
covered by the preclearance
requirements of Section 5.
Guidance Concerning Redistricting
Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973c
Following release of the 2010 Census
data, the Department of Justice expects
to receive several thousand submissions
of redistricting plans for review
pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act. The Civil Rights Division
has received numerous requests for
guidance similar to that it issued prior
to the 2000 Census redistricting cycle
concerning the procedures and
standards that will be applied during
review of these redistricting plans. 67
FR 5411 (January 18, 2001). In addition,
in 2006, Congress reauthorized the
Section 5 review requirement and
refined its definition of some
substantive standards for compliance
with Section 5. In view of these
developments, issuing revised guidance
is appropriate.
The "Procedures for the
Administration of Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act," 28 CFR Part 51,
provide detailed information about the
Section 5 review process. Copies of
these Procedures are available upon
request and through the Voting Section
Web site (http: / /www.usdoj.govlcrtl
voting). This document is meant to
provide additional guidance with regard
to current issues of interest. Citations to
judicial decisions are provided to assist
the reader but are not intended to be
comprehensive. The following
discussion provides supplemental
guidance concerning the following
topics:
• The Scope of Section 5 Review;
• The Section 5 Benchmark,
• Analysis of Plans (discriminatory
purpose and retrogressive effect);
• Alternatives to Retrogressive Plans;
and
• Use of 2010 Census Data.
The Scope of Section 5 Review
Under Section 5, a covered
jurisdiction has the burden of
establishing that a proposed
redistricting plan "neither has the
purpose nor will have the effect of
denying or abridging the right to vote on
account of race or color, or in
contravention of the guarantees set forth
in [Section 4(f)(2) of the Act]" (i.e.,
membership in a language minority
group defined in the Act). 42 U.S.0
1973c(a). A plan has a discriminatory
effect under the statute if, when
compared to the benchmark plan, the
submitting jurisdiction cannot establish
that it does not result in a "retrogression
in the position of racial minorities with
respect to their effective exercise of the
electoral franchise." Beer v. United
States, 425 U.S. 125, 141 (1976).
If the proposed redistricting plan is
submitted to the Department of Justice
for administrative review, and the
Attorney General determines that the
jurisdiction has failed to show the
absence of any discriminatory purpose
or retrogressive effect of denying or
abridging the right to vote on account of
race, color or membership in a language
minority group defined in the Act, the
Attorney General will interpose an
objection. If, in the alternative, the
jurisdiction seeks a declaratory
judgment from the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia, that
court will utilize the identical standard
Packet Page -310-
to determine whether to grant the
request; i.e., whether the jurisdiction
has established that the plan is free from
discriminatory purpose or retrogressive
effect. Absent administrative
preclearance from the Attorney General
or a successful declaratory judgment
action in the district court, the
jurisdiction may not implement its
proposed redistricting plan.
The Attorney General may not
interpose an objection to a redistricting
plan on the grounds that it violates the
one - person one -vote principle, on the
grounds that it violates Shaw v. Reno,
509 U.S. 630 (1993), or on the grounds
that it violates Section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act. The same standard applies
in a declaratory judgment action.
Therefore, jurisdictions should not
regard a determination of compliance
with Section 5 as preventing subsequent
legal challenges to that plan under other
statutes by the Department of Justice or
by private plaintiffs. 42 U.S.C. 1973c(a);
28 CFR 51.49.
The Section 5 "Benchmark"
As noted, under Section 5, a
jurisdiction's proposed redistricting
plan is compared to the "benchmark"
plan to determine whether the use of the
new plan would result in a retrogressive
effect. The "benchmark" against which a
new plan is compared is the last legally
enforceable redistricting plan in force or
effect. Riley v. Kennedy, 553 U.S. 406
(2008); 28 CFR 51.54(b)(1). Generally,
the most recent plan to have received
Section 5 preclearance or to have been
drawn by a Federal court is the last
legally enforceable redistricting plan for
Section 5 purposes. When a jurisdiction
has received Section 5 preclearance for
a new redistricting plan, or a Federal
court has drawn a new plan and ordered
it into effect, that plan replaces the last
legally enforceable plan as the Section
5 benchmark. McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452
U.S. 130 (1981); Texas v. United States,
785 F. Supp. 201 (D.D.C. 1992);
Mississippi v. Smith, 541 F. Supp. 1329,
1333 (D.D.C. 1982), appeal dismissed,
461 U.S. 912 (1983).
A plan found to be unconstitutional
by a Federal court under the principles
of Shaw v. Reno and its progeny cannot
serve as the Section 5 benchmark,
Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997),
and in such circumstances, the
benchmark for Section 5 purposes will
be the last legally enforceable plan
predating the unconstitutional plan.
Absent such a finding of
unconstitutionality under Shaw by a
Federal court, the last legally
enforceable plan will serve as the
benchmark for Section 5 review.
Therefore, the question of whether the
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 27/Wednesday, February 9, 2011/Notices 7471
�\ benchmark plan is constitutional will
not be considered during the
Department's Section 5 review.
�1
Analysis of Plans
As noted above, there are two
necessary components to the analysis of
whether a proposed redistricting plan
meets the Section 5 standard. The first
is a determination that the jurisdiction
has met its burden of establishing that
the plan was adopted free of any
discriminatory purpose. The second is a
determination that the jurisdiction has
met its burden of establishing that the
proposed plan will not have a
retrogressive effect.
Discriminatory Purpose
Section 5 precludes implementation
of a change affecting voting that has the
purpose of denying or abridging the
right to vote on account of race or color,
or membership in a language minority
group defined in the Act. The 2006
amendments provide that the term
"purpose" in Section 5 includes "any
discriminatory purpose," and is not
limited to a purpose to retrogress, as
was the case after the Supreme Court's
decision in Reno v. Bossier Parish
( "Bossier II), 528 U.S. 320 (2000). The
Department will examine the
circumstances surrounding the
submitting authority's adoption of a
submitted voting change, such as a
redistricting plan, to determine whether
direct or circumstantial evidence exists
of any discriminatory purpose of
denying or abridging the right to vote on
account of race or color, or membership
in a language minority group defined in
the Act.
Direct evidence detailing a
discriminatory purpose may be gleaned
from the public statements of members
of the adopting body or others who may
have played a significant role in the
process. Busbee v. Smith, 549 F. Supp.
494, 508 (D.D.C. 1982), aff'd, 459 U.S.
1166 (1983). The Department will also
evaluate whether there are instances
where the invidious element may be
missing, but the underlying motivation
is nonetheless intentionally
discriminatory. In the Garza case, Judge
Kozinski provided the clearest example:
Assume you are an anglo homeowner who
lives in an all-white neighborhood. Suppose,
also, that you harbor no ill feelings toward
minorities. Suppose further, however, that
some of your neighbors persuade you that
having an integrated neighborhood would
lower property values and that you stand to
lose a lot of money on your home. On the
basis of that belief, you join a pact not to sell
your house to minorities. Have you engaged
in intentional racial and ethnic
discrimination? Of course you have. Your
personal feelings toward minorities don't
matter; what matters is that you intentionally
took actions calculated to keep them out of
your neighborhood.
Garza and United States v. County of
Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763, 778 n.1 (9th
Cir. 1990) ( Kozinski, J., concurring and
dissenting in part), cert. denied, 498
U.S. 1028 (1991).
In determining whether there is
sufficient circumstantial evidence to
conclude that the jurisdiction has not
established the absence of the
prohibited discriminatory purpose, the
Attorney General will be guided by the
Supreme Court's illustrative, but not
exhaustive, list of those "subjects for
proper inquiry in determining whether
racially discriminatory intent existed,"
outlined in Village of Arlington Heights
v. Metropolitan Housing Development
Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 268 (1977). In that
case, the Court, noting that such an
undertaking presupposes a "sensitive
inquiry," identified certain areas to be
reviewed in making this determination:
(1) The impact of the decision; (2) the
historical background of the decision,
particularly if it reveals a series of
decisions undertaken with
discriminatory intent; (3) the sequence
of events leading up to the decision; (4)
whether the challenged decision
departs, either procedurally or
substantively, from the normal practice;
and (5) contemporaneous statements
and viewpoints held by the decision -
makers. Id. at 266 -68.
The single fact that a jurisdiction's
proposed redistricting plan does not
contain the maximum possible number
of districts in which minority group
members are a majority of the
population or have the ability to elect
candidates of choice to office, does not
mandate that the Attorney General
interpose an objection based on a failure
to demonstrate the absence of a
discriminatory purpose. Rather, the
Attorney General will base the
determination on a review of the plan in
its entirety.
Retrogressive Effect
An analysis of whether the
jurisdiction has met its burden of
establishing that the proposed plan
would not result in a discriminatory or
"retrogressive" effect starts with a basic
comparison of the benchmark and
proposed plans at issue, using updated
census data in each. Thus, the Voting
Section staff loads the boundaries of the
benchmark and proposed plans into the
Civil Rights Division's geographic
information system [GIS). Population
data are then calculated for each district
in the benchmark and the proposed
plans using the most recent decennial
census data.
Packet Page -311-
A proposed plan is retrogressive
under Section 5 if its net effect would
be to reduce minority voters' "effective
exercise of the electoral franchise" when
compared to the benchmark plan. Beer
v. United States at 141. In 2006,
Congress clarified that this means the
jurisdiction must establish that its
proposed redistricting plan will not
have the effect of "diminishing the
ability of any citizens of the United
States" because of race, color, or
membership in a language minority
group defined in the Act, "to elect their
preferred candidate of choice." 42 U.S.C.
1973c(b) & (d). In analyzing redistricting
plans, the Department will follow the
congressional directive of ensuring that
the ability of such citizens to elect their
preferred candidates of choice is
protected. That ability to elect either
exists or it does not in any particular
circumstance.
In determining whether the ability to
elect exists in the benchmark plan and
whether it continues in the proposed
plan, the Attorney General does not rely
on any predetermined or fixed
demographic percentages at any point in
the assessment. Rather, in the
Department's view, this determination
requires a functional analysis of the
electoral behavior within the particular
jurisdiction or election district. As
noted above, census data alone may not
provide sufficient indicia of electoral
behavior to make the requisite
determination. Circumstances, such as
differing rates of electoral participation
within discrete portions of a population,
may impact on the ability of voters to
elect candidates of choice, even if the
overall demographic data show no
significant change.
Although comparison of the census
population of districts in the benchmark
and proposed plans is the important
starting point of any Section 5 analysis,
additional demographic and election
data in the submission is often helpful
in making the requisite Section 5
determination. 28 CFR 51.28(a). For
example, census population data may
not reflect significant differences in
group voting behavior. Therefore,
election history and voting patterns
within the jurisdiction, voter
registration and turnout information,
and other similar information are very
important to an assessment of the actual
effect of a redistricting Ian
The Section 5 Procedures contain the
factors that the courts have considered
in deciding whether or not a
redistricting plan complies with Section
5. These factors include whether
minority voting strength is reduced by
the proposed redistricting; whether
minority concentrations are fragmented
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
7472 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 27/Wednesday, February 9, 2011/Notices
among different districts; whether
minorities are overconcentrated in one
or more districts; whether alternative
plans satisfying the jurisdiction's
legitimate governmental interests exist,
and whether they were considered;
whether the proposed plan departs from
objective redistricting criteria set by the
submitting jurisdiction, ignores other
relevant factors such as compactness
and contiguity, or displays a
configuration that inexplicably
disregards available natural or artificial
boundaries; and, whether the plan is
inconsistent with the jurisdiction's
stated redistricting standards. 28 CFR
51.56 -59.
Alternatives to Retrogressive Plans
There may be circumstances in which
the jurisdiction asserts that, because of
shifts in population or other significant
changes since the last redistricting (e.g.,
residential segregation and demographic
distribution of the population within
the jurisdiction, the physical geography
of the jurisdiction, the jurisdiction's
historical redistricting practices,
political boundaries, such as cities or
counties, and /or state redistricting
requirements), retrogression is
unavoidable. In those circumstances,
the submitting jurisdiction seeking
preclearance of such a plan bears the
burden of demonstrating that a less -
retrogressive plan cannot reasonably be
drawn.
In considering whether less -
retrogressive alternative plans are
available, the Department of Justice
looks to plans that were actually
considered or drawn by the submitting
jurisdiction, as well as alternative plans
presented or made known to the
submitting jurisdiction by interested
citizens or others. In addition, the
Department may develop illustrative
alternative plans for use in its analysis,
taking into consideration the
jurisdiction's redistricting principles. If
it is determined that a reasonable
alternative plan exists that is non -
retrogressive or less retrogressive than
the submitted plan, the Attorney
General will interpose an objection.
Preventing retrogression under
Section 5 does not require jurisdictions
to violate the one - person, one -vote
principle. 52 FR 488 (Jan. 6, 1987).
Similarly, preventing retrogression
under Section 5 does not require
jurisdictions to violate Shawv. Reno
and related cases.
The one - person, one -vote issue arises
most commonly where substantial
demographic changes have occurred in
some, but not all, parts of a jurisdiction.
Generally, a plan for congressional
redistricting that would require a greater
overall population deviation than the
submitted plan is not considered a
reasonable alternative by the
Department. For state legislative and
local redistricting, a plan that would
require significantly greater overall
population deviations is not considered
a reasonable alternative.
In assessing whether a less
retrogressive plan can reasonably be
drawn, the geographic compactness of a
jurisdiction's minority population will
be a factor in the Department's analysis.
This analysis will include a review of
the submitting jurisdiction's historical
redistricting practices and district
configurations to determine whether the
alternative plan would (a) abandon
those practices and (b) require highly
unusual features to link together widely
separated minority concentrations.
At the same time, compliance with
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act may
require the jurisdiction to depart from
strict adherence to certain of its
redistricting criteria. For example,
criteria that require the jurisdiction to
make the least possible change to
existing district boundaries, to follow
county, city, or precinct boundaries,
protect incumbents, preserve partisan
balance, or in some cases, require a
certain level of compactness of district
boundaries may need to give way to
some degree to avoid retrogression. In
evaluating alternative or illustrative
plans, the Department of Justice relies
upon plans that make the least
departure from a jurisdiction's stated
redistricting criteria needed to prevent
retrogression.
The Use of 2010 Census Data
The most current population data are
used to measure both the benchmark
plan and the proposed redistricting
plan. 28 CFR 51.54(b)(2) (Department of
Justice considers "the conditions
existing at the time of the submission. ");
City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S.
156, 186 (1980) ( "most current available
population data" to be used for
measuring effect of annexations); Reno
v. Bossier Parish School Board, 528 U.S.
320, 334 (2000) ( "the baseline is the
status quo that is proposed to be
changed: If the change `abridges the
right to vote' relative to the status quo,
preclearance is denied * * * .").
For redistricting after the 2010
Census, the Department of Justice will,
consistent with past practice, evaluate
redistricting submissions using the 2010
Census population data released by the
Bureau of the Census for redistricting
pursuant to Public Law 94 -171, 13
U.S.C. 141(c). Thus, our analysis of the
proposed redistricting plans includes a
review and assessment of the Public
Packet Page -312-
Law 94 -171 population data, even if
those data are not included in the
submission or were not used by the
jurisdiction in drawing the plan. The
failure to use the Public Law 94 -171
population data in redistricting does
not, by itself, constitute a reason for
interposing an objection. However,
unless other population data used can
be shown to be more accurate and
reliable than the Public Law 94-171
data, the Attorney General will consider
the Public Law 94-171 data to measure
the total population and voting age
population within a jurisdiction for
purposes of its Section 5 analysis.
As in 2000, the 2010 Census Public
Law 94-171 data will include counts of
persons who have identified themselves
as members of more than one racial
category. This reflects the October 30,
1997, decision by the Office of
Management and Budget [OMB] to
incorporate multiple -race reporting into
the Federal statistical system. 62 FR
58782 - 58790. Likewise, on March 9,
2000, OMB issued Bulletin No. 00-02
addressing "Guidance on Aggregation
and Allocation of Data on Race for Use
in Civil Rights Enforcement." Part H of
that Bulletin describes how such census
responses will be allocated by Federal
executive agencies for use in civil rights
monitoring and enforcement.
The Department will follow both
aggregation methods defined in Part H of
the Bulletin. The Department's initial
review of a plan will be based upon
allocating any multiple -item response
that includes white and one of the five
other race categories identified in the
response. Thus, the total numbers for
"Black/African American," "Asian,"
"American Indian /Alaska Native,"
"Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander" and "Some other race" reflect
the total of the single -race responses and
the multiple responses in which an
individual selected a minority race and
white race.
The Department will then move to the
second step in its application of the
census data to the plan by reviewing the
other multiple -race category, which is
comprised of all multiple -race responses
consisting of more than one minority
race. Where there are significant
numbers of such responses, we will, as
required by both the OMB guidance and
judicial opinions, allocate these
responses on an iterative basis to each
of the component single -race categories
for analysis. Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539
U.S. 461, 473, n.1 (2003).
As in the past, the Department will
analyze Latino voters as a separate
group for purposes of enforcement of
the Voting Rights Act. If there are
significant numbers of responses which
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 27/Wednesday, February 9, 2011/Notices 7473
report Latino and one or more minority alternatively to the Latino category and
races (for example, Latinos who list the minority race category.
their race as Black/African- American),
those responses will be allocated
Packet Page -313-
Dated: February 3, 2011.
Thomas E. Perez,
Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights
Division.
[FR Doc. 2011 -2797 Filed 2 -8-11; 8:45 am)
BILLING CODE 4410 -13-P
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: HillerGeorgia
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 8:02 AM
To: gothiclilies @aol.com
Cc: WeeksDavid; Voting.Section @usdoj.gov; askdoj @usdoj.gov; OchsLeo; CasalanguidaNick;
EdwardsJennifer
Subject: Re: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
John,
Thank you for sharing this information.
I just asked the same question.
I have also asked for the retrogression analyses for all proposed maps, for all districts.
However, what I am additionally very concerned about is that the public district meetings
being held are not being videotaped, nor even audio - taped. Why not, when we have the means to
do so?
The meetings are being held at a time when few people are in town. They are being noticed
ineffectively. At the district 2 public meeting, my understanding was that there were only
about 20 or so residents that attended. This does not reflect a lack of voter interest.
This reflects ineffective notice and inconsiderate timing.
I remain very concerned about the entire process.
Georgia Hiller
Commissioner, District 2
On Aug 23, 2011, at 4:03 AM, "gothicliliespaol.com" <gothiclilies(@aol.com> wrote:
> Attention:
> David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager/ Collier Board of
> County Commissioners Redistricting Project Manager/ 2800 Horseshoe
> Drive, Florida 34104
> Phone: 239 -252 -2306
> Re:,Minority Voting. District Map
> Collier County is a "covered jurisdiction" under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
> The five proposed Redistricting maps for the Collier Board of County Commissioners are not
in compliance with the Voting Rights Act:
> * The 5 proposed Redistricting maps dilute the Hispanic voting population by not creating
the largest possible Hispanic voting district, based on the 2010 Census.
> * The 2010 Census population for Hispanics in Collier County is 83,177
> out of 321,520 total population, an increase of 69% from the 2000 Census. The Hispanic
population is now 26.7 % of Collier County population.
> n
> The five proposed Redistricting maps do not comply with U.S.
> Department of Justice Guidance Concerning Redistricting (see attached document):
> * (pg. 7471, par. 1) "the jurisdiction has met it's burden of establishing that the plan
was adopted free of any discriminatory practice ".
1
Packet Page -314-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
> * (pg. 7471, par. 2) "the term 'purpose' includes 'any discriminatory purpose' and is not
limited to a purpose to retrogress... to determine whether direct or circumstantial evidence
exists of any discriminatory purpose of denying or abridging the right to vote on account
^�f... a membership in a language minority group ".
* (pg. 7471, last par. 1) "whether minority concentrations are fragmented among different
districts ".
> It is customary in most government jurisdictions for the public to submit proposed
redistricting maps for review.
> I am submitting to you a proposed district map (see attached map) with
> a 59.9% Hispanic population in District 5 that complies with the Voting Rights Act and the
Department of Justice Guidance Concerning Redistricting.
> I request that the map be made available to the public and included with the 5 proposed
maps to the Collier Board of County Commissioners for the September 13, 2011 meeting on
Redistricting.
> A printed copy of this email has been mailed to the:
> U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania
> Avenue, N.W.
> Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Main Washington, D.C. 20530
> Thank you,
> John Lundin
> (407) 920 -2422
> [ cid: tie_8CE2F81A8OF84E7_2274_45DC2]
> <MinorityDistrictMap.jpg>
> <MinorityDistrictMap.pdf>
> < Preclearance _Guidance_- _DOJ_- _02- 09- 11.pdf>
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e -mail
address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this
entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
2
Packet Page -315-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: bduane0l@comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 20119:57 AM
To: WeeksDavid
Cc: John Lundin
Subject: Fwd: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
Attachments: MinorityDistrictMap.jpg
John
You'll get no support from me on this. As far as I'm concerned this is prejudiced in favor of Hispanics
at the expense of the other races in the district you created. It is long past time that we no longer look
at race or ethnicity as a criteria for defining voting districts. It is simply reverse discrimination that
emphasizes the interest of one group over the other race.
The people who have emigrated to this country over the years have been required to blend into our
culture and learn our laws. Learning about our government has long been a requirement of
citizenship. This has created a strong and diverse America.
The census count does not require proof of citizenship, it is a requirement of voting. The creation of a
voting district based on the number of people from one ethnic group, some of whom may not be here
legally, is wrong.
Duane Billington
455 -8579
From: gothicliliesCa)_aol.com
To: gothiclilies(cb-aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 7:48:55 AM
Subject: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
Attention:
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager/
Collier Board of County Commissioners Redistricting Project Manager/
2800 Horseshoe Drive, Florida 34104
Phone: 239 - 252 -2306
Re: Minority Voting District Map
Collier County is a "covered jurisdiction" under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The five proposed Redistricting maps for the Collier Board of County Commissioners are not in compliance
with the Voting Rights Act:
* The 5 proposed Redistricting maps dilute the Hispanic voting population by not creating the largest possible
Hispanic voting district, based on the 2010 Census.
* The 2010 Census population for Hispanics in Collier County is 83,177 out of 321,520 total population,
an increase of 69% from the 2000 Census. The Hispanic population is now 26.7 % of Collier County
population.
Packet Page -316-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
The five proposed Redistricting maps do not comply with U.S. Department of Justice Guidance Concerning
i2edistricting
see attached document):
* (pg. 7471, par. 1) "the jurisdiction has met it's burden of establishing that the plan was adopted free of any
discriminatory practice ".
* (pg. 7471, par. 2) "the term 'purpose' includes 'any discriminatory purpose' and is not limited to a purpose to
retrogress... to determine whether direct or circumstantial evidence exists of any discriminatory purpose of
denying or abridging the right to vote on account of... a membership in a language minority group ".
* (pg. 7471, last par. 1) "whether minority concentrations are fragmented among different districts ".
It is customary in most government jurisdictions for the public to submit proposed redistricting maps for
review.
I am submitting to you a proposed district map (see attached map) with a 59.9% Hispanic population in
District 5
that complies with the Voting Rights Act and the Department of Justice Guidance Concerning Redistricting.
I request that the map be made available to the public and included with the 5 proposed maps to the Collier
Board of County Commissioners for the September 13, 2011 meeting on Redistricting.
A printed copy of this email has been mailed to the:
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
,,—Qffice of the Assistant Attorney General, Main
Jashington, D.C. 20530
Thank you,
John Lundin
(407) 920 -2422
Packet Page -317-
COLLIER COUNTY 2010 (HISPANIC MINORITY) REDISTRICTING MAP
Total
: 321,520
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
2010 CENSUS BY POPULATION PROPOSED COMMISSION DISTRICT
Com. District Total Population Hispanic Pop. Hispanic %
BCC 1
63,280
14.526
18.3%
BCC 2
62.583
7,032
9,5%
BCC 3
65,187
13;847
21.211.
BCC 4
65,282
8,666
11.0%
BCC 5
65.188
39.1
59.9%
TOTAL.
321,520
83,177
Packet Page -318-
RE THE SAME
I
r1rA 1
0 2.5 5 10
o�Miles
lap submitted by
John Lundin
407- 920 -2422
?0-111
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
� rom: gothiclilies @aol.com
_ient: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 10:59 AM
To: WeeksDavid
Cc: TeachScott; CasalanguidaNick; HillerGeorgia
Subject: Re: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
Thanks David,
Just to let you know Mark Herron the attorney for the Florida Democratic Party and
Congresswomen Debbie Wasserman Schultz's staff is helping me to contact the DOJ.
John Lundin
- - - -- Original Message--- -
From: WeeksDavid < DavidWeeks@colliergov. net>
To: gothiclilies < gothiclilies @aol.com>
Cc: TeachScott <ScottTeach @colliergov.net >; CasalanguidaNick < NickCasalanguida @colliergov.net>
Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2011 5:35 am
Subject: RE: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
Mr. Lundin,
"',hank you for your communication.
David Weeks
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager /BCC Redistricting Project Manager
Collier County Government
Growth Management Division /Planning and Regulation
Land Development Services Department, Comprehensive Planning Section
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104
phone: 239 -252 -2306; E- fax:239- 252 -6689
email: davidweeks(a-.colliergov.net
website: www.colliergov.net
2011 BCC Redistricting website: http: / /www.colliergov.net/index.aspx ?page =3214
From: gothiclilies(cDaol.com jmailto:gothiclilies(a).aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 20114:03 AM
To: WeeksDavid; Voting. Section (ci)_usdoi.gov; askdoi(a- usdoi.gov
Cc: HillerGeorgia; FialaDonna; ColettaJim; CoyleFred; HenningTom
Subject: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
Attention:
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager/
Collier Board of County Commissioners Redistricting Project Manager/
800 Horseshoe Drive, Florida 34104
lone: 239 -252 -2306
Re: Minority Voting District Map
Packet Page -319-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Collier County is a "covered jurisdiction" under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The five proposed Redistricting maps for the Collier Board of County Commissioners are not in compliance with the
Voting Rights Act: �
* The 5 proposed Redistricting maps dilute the Hispanic voting population by not creating the largest possible Hispanic
voting district, based on the 2010 Census.
* The 2010 Census population for Hispanics in Collier County is 83,177 out of 321,520 total population,
an increase of 69% from the 2000 Census. The Hispanic population is now 26.7 % of Collier County population.
The five proposed Redistricting maps do not comply with U.S. Department of Justice Guidance Concerning
Redistricting
(see attached document):
* (pg. 7471, par. 1) "the jurisdiction has met it's burden of establishing that the plan was adopted free of any discriminatory
practice ".
* (pg. 7471, par. 2) "the term 'purpose' includes 'any discriminatory purpose' and is not limited to a purpose to
retrogress... to determine whether direct or circumstantial evidence exists of any discriminatory purpose of denying or
abridging the right to vote on account of... a membership in a language minority group ".
* (pg. 7471, last par. 1) "whether minority concentrations are fragmented among different districts ".
It is customary in most government jurisdictions for the public to submit proposed redistricting maps for review.
I am submitting to you a proposed district map (see attached map) with a 59.9% Hispanic population in District 5
that complies with the Voting Rights Act and the Department of Justice Guidance Concerning Redistricting.
I request that the map be made available to the public and included with the 5 proposed maps to the Collier Board of
County Commissioners for the September 13, 2011 meeting on Redistricting.
A printed copy of this email has been mailed to the:
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Main
Washington, D.C. 20530
Thank you,
John Lundin
(407) 920 -2422
Packet Page -320-
,,—IN
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
COLLIER CiiUNTY2090 (HISPANIC MINORITY) REDISTRICTING MAP
T&W pop- ula#loa : 324,520
I
.'241@1 CENSUS BY POPULAMN PROPOSED CD% &ESSION DfSTRICT
Com_ Distfict Total Population } hspank Pop. Hispanic
>
62. 3
7.4132
95% .
Br—ca
65 ,t97
t3;9kT
212%
=4
65,W2
W-C,-;
65.x'_
t F
_o 25- s 10
�''° W Wi m
John LiA
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e -mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send
electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
3
Packet Page -321-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: bduane0l@comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 11:32 AM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: Fwd: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
Attachments: MinorityDistrictMap.jpg
Add one more against the minority district
From: 'Wm Arthur' <wmenaples()-yahoo.com>
To: bduane01(a)-comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 11:12:00 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
I agree with you that his proposal would create a Dist. of race and not numbers of resident people
regardless of what race they are.
From: " bduane01(cDcomcast.net' <bduane01(�comcast.net>
To: DavidWeeks(a)_CollierGov.net
Cc: John Lundin <Gothiclilies(a-)-ao1.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 9:57 AM
Subject: Fwd: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
John
You'll get no support from me on this. As far as I'm concerned this is prejudiced in favor of Hispanics
at the expense of the other races in the district you created. It is long past time that we no longer look
at race or ethnicity as a criteria for defining voting districts. It is simply reverse discrimination that
emphasizes the interest of one group over the other race.
The people who have emigrated to this country over the years have been required to blend into our
culture and learn our laws. Learning about our government has long been a requirement of
citizenship. This has created a strong and diverse America.
The census count does not require proof of citizenship, it is a requirement of voting. The creation of a
voting district based on the number of people from one ethnic group, some of whom may not be here
legally, is wrong.
Duane Billington
455 -8579
From: gothiclilies(a)aol.com
To: gothiclilies(a)_aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 7:48:55 AM
Subject: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
Attention:
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager/
Collier Board of County Commissioners Redistricting Project Manager/
Packet Page -322-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
2800 Horseshoe Drive, Florida 34104
Phone: 239 - 252 -2306
e: Minority Voting District Map
Collier County is a "covered jurisdiction" under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The five proposed Redistricting maps for the Collier Board of County Commissioners are not in compliance
with the Voting Rights Act:
* The 5 proposed Redistricting maps dilute the Hispanic voting population by not creating the largest possible
Hispanic voting district, based on the 2010 Census.
* The 2010 Census population for Hispanics in Collier County is 83,177 out of 321,520 total population,
an increase of 69% from the 2000 Census. The Hispanic population is now 26.7 % of Collier County
population.
The five proposed Redistricting maps do not comply with U.S. Department of Justice Guidance Concerning
Redistricting
(see attached document):
* (pg. 7471, par. 1) "the jurisdiction has met it's burden of establishing that the plan was adopted free of any
discriminatory practice ".
* (pg. 7471, par. 2) "the term 'purpose' includes 'any discriminatory purpose' and is not limited to a purpose to
retrogress... to determine whether direct or circumstantial evidence exists of any discriminatory purpose of
denying or abridging the right to vote on account of... a membership in a language minority group ".
* (pg. 7471, last par. 1) "whether minority concentrations are fragmented among different districts ".
^. is customary in most government jurisdictions for the public to submit proposed redistricting maps for
review.
I am submitting to you a proposed district map (see attached map) with a 59.9% Hispanic population in
District 5
that complies with the Voting Rights Act and the Department of Justice Guidance Concerning Redistricting.
I request that the map be made available to the public and included with the 5 proposed maps to the Collier
Board of County Commissioners for the September 13, 2011 meeting on Redistricting.
A printed copy of this email has been mailed to the:
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Main
Washington, D.C. 20530
Thank you,
John Lundin
(407) 920 -2422
n
Packet Page -323-
V
i
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
COLLIER COUNTY 2010 (HISPANIC MINORITY) REDISTRICTING MAP
Total
321,520
2010 CENSUS BY POPULATION PROPORFO COMWIMRION rNRTRICT
' w?
Com. District Total Population Hispanic Pop. Hispanic %
BCC 1
63,280
14,526
18.3%
`I
i
BCC 2
62.563
7,032
9.5%
BCC 3
65,187
13,847
21.2
--
a
BCC 4
65,282
8,666
11.0%
K
\.
BCC 5
65.188
39.106
59,9%
TOTAL
321,520
83,177
3
Packet Page -324-
NOTE: D'sSTRICTS 1, 2 & 4 ARE THE SAME
AS IN MAP 3
'1
i
04, es. O
.4
LprW
a
Map submitted by
John Lundin
407- 920 -2422
3
Packet Page -324-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
,"'Vrom: bduane01 @comcast. net
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 11:46 AM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: Fwd: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
David, add another person against the Hispanic District.
From: "William Poteet" <PoteetProperties(a)-gmail.com>
To: bduane01(a-)-comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 11:40:46 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
Well said.
On Aug 23, 2011 9:58 AM, <bduane01 acomcast.net> wrote:
> John
> You'll get no support from me on this. As far as I'm concerned this is prejudiced in favor of
Hispanics at the expense of the other races in the district you created. It is long past time that we no
,-- Ipnger look at race or ethnicity as a criteria for defining voting districts. It is simply reverse
.iscrimination that emphasizes the interest of one group over the other race.
> The people who have emigrated to this country over the years have been required to blend into our
culture and learn our laws. Learning about our government has long been a requirement of
citizenship. This has created a strong and diverse America.
> The census count does not require proof of citizenship, however, it is a requirement of voting. The
creation of a voting district based on the number of people from one ethnic group, some of whom may
not be here legally, is wrong.
> Duane Billington
> 455 -8579
> - - - -- Original Message - - - --
> From: gothiclilies(a)-aol.com
> To: gothiclilies(c-_)aol.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 7:48 :55 AM
> Subject: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
> Attention:
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager/
Collier Board of County Commissioners Redistricting Project Manager/
> 2800 Horseshoe Drive, Florida 34104
> Phone: 239 - 252 -2306
Packet Page -325-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
> Re: Minority Voting District Map
>
> Collier County is a "covered jurisdiction" under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
> The five proposed Redistricting maps for the Collier Board of County Commissioners are not in
compliance with the Voting Rights Act:
> * The 5 proposed Redistricting maps dilute the Hispanic voting population by not creating the
largest possible Hispanic voting district, based on the 2010 Census.
> * The 2010 Census population for Hispanics in Collier County is 83,177 out of 321,520 total
population,
> an increase of 69% from the 2000 Census. The Hispanic population is now 26.7 % of Collier County
population.
> The five proposed Redistricting maps do not comply with U.S. Department of Justice Guidance
Concerning Redistricting
> (see attached document) :
> * (pg. 7471, par. 1) "the jurisdiction has met it's burden of establishing that the plan was adopted
free of any discriminatory practice ".
> * (pg. 7471, par. 2) "the term 'purpose' includes 'any discriminatory purpose' and is not limited to a
purpose to retrogress... to determine whether direct or circumstantial evidence exists of any
discriminatory purpose of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of... a membership in a
language minority group ".
> * (pg. 7471, last par. 1) "whether minority concentrations are fragmented among different districts ".
> It is customary in most government jurisdictions for the public to submit proposed redistricting maps
for review.
> I am submitting to you a proposed district map (see attached map) with a 59.9% Hispanic
population in District 5
> that complies with the Voting Rights Act and the Department of Justice Guidance Concerning
Redistricting.
> I request that the map be made available to the public and included with the 5 proposed maps to
the Collier Board of County Commissioners for the September 13, 2011 meeting on Redistricting.
> A printed copy of this email has been mailed to the:
> U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
> 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
> Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Main
> Washington, D.C. 20530
> Thank you,
> John Lundin
Packet Page -326-
> (407) 920 -2422
^> MinorityDistrictMap.jpg
n
Packet Page -327-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
8-7.3-//
3-13-11
BCC Redistricting - Public Comment Sheet
Name:
zz
Address: " � ;"
Comments:
4
Packet Page -328-
/1-1-1
Name:
Address:
Comments:
fit-CIO z
)(91
BCC Redistricting - Public Comment Sheet
� "I--
qqo�,?,
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Fi
Name:
Address:
Comments:
2- 5pfAs 476- rk Y--/J'
A
V
14?�
tt V eo a 74X,�
7/vi� Prvonzg- 5rh& �� i
g -23 -1r
BCC Redistricting - Public Comment Sheet
-, - Rlwk-6 b-j -11,
1911,45 wc-
bvif
c f
(71,<�
Packet Page -329-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
/ BCC Redistricting - Public Comment Sheet
Name: C 81,1
Address: /;j2
Comments:
"4 / /S r�E /3:! -Y.7-
Packet Page -330-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
1'—"-q: rom:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Duane,
I totally agree with you.
John Chandler
John Chandler Uohnchandler219 @g mail. com]
Tuesday, August 23, 20118:36 PM
bduane0l@comcast.net
WeeksDavid; John Lundin
Re: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:57 AM, <bduane0l (cr�comcast.net> wrote:
John
You'll get no support from me on this. As far as I'm concerned this is prejudiced in favor of Hispanics
at the expense of the other races in the district you created. It is long past time that we no longer look
at race or ethnicity as a criteria for defining voting districts. It is simply reverse discrimination that
emphasizes the interest of one group over the other race.
The people who have emigrated to this country over the years have been required to blend into our
culture and learn our laws. Learning about our government has long been a requirement of
itizenship. This has created a strong and diverse America.
The census count does not require proof of citizenship, it is a requirement of voting. The creation of a
voting district based on the number of people from one ethnic group, some of whom may not be here
legally, is wrong.
Duane Billington
455 -8579
From: gothiclilies(a.aol.com
To: gothiclilies(a--)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 7:48:55 AM
Subject: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
Attention:
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager/
Collier Board of County Commissioners Redistricting Project Manager/
2800 Horseshoe Drive, Florida 34104
Phone: 239 - 252 -2306
�Re: Minority Voting District Map
.:oilier County is a "covered jurisdiction" under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Packet Page -331-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
The five proposed Redistricting maps for the Collier Board of County Commissioners are not in compliance
with the Voting Rights Act:
* The 5 proposed Redistricting maps dilute the Hispanic voting population by not creating the largest possible
Hispanic voting district, based on the 2010 Census.
* The 2010 Census population for Hispanics in Collier County is 83,177 out of 321,520 total population,
an increase of 69% from the 2000 Census. The Hispanic population is now 26.7 % of Collier County
population.
The five proposed Redistricting maps do not comply with U.S. Department of Justice Guidance Concerning
Redistricting
(see attached document):
* (pg. 7471, par. 1) "the jurisdiction has met it's burden of establishing that the plan was adopted free of any
discriminatory practice ".
* (pg. 7471, par. 2) "the term 'purpose' includes 'any discriminatory purpose' and is not limited to a purpose to
retrogress... to determine whether direct or circumstantial evidence exists of any discriminatory purpose of
denying or abridging the right to vote on account of... a membership in a language minority group ".
* (pg. 7471, last par. 1) "whether minority concentrations are fragmented among different districts ".
It is customary in most government jurisdictions for the public to submit proposed redistricting maps for
review.
I am submitting to you a proposed district map (see attached map) with a 59.9% Hispanic population in
District 5
that complies with the Voting Rights Act and the Department of Justice Guidance Concerning Redistricting.
I request that the map be made available to the public and included with the 5 proposed maps to the Collier
Board of County Commissioners for the September 13, 2011 meeting on Redistricting.
A printed copy of this email has been mailed to the:
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Main
Washington, D.C. 20530
Thank you,
John Lundin
f407) 920 -2422
Packet Page -332-
10—�
COLLIER COUNTY 2010 (HISPANIC MINORITY) REDISTRICTING MAP
Total population: 321,520
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
2010 CENSUS BY POPULATION PROPOSED COMMISSION DISTRICT
Com. District Total Population Hispanic Pop. Hispanic %
BCC 1
63,280
14.526
1&3%
BCC 2
62.583
7,032
9Z%
BCC 3
65,187
13,847
212%
BCC 4
65.282
8,666
11.0°:
BCC 5
65.188
39.106
59.9%
TOTAL
321,520
83,177
Packet Page -333-
RE THE SAME
r�
I
� ems•»
0 2.5 5 10
®Miles
Map submitted by
John Lundin
407- 920 -2422
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From:
bduane0l@comcast.net
Sent:
Tuesday, August 23, 2011 9:45 PM
To:
WeeksDavid
Cc:
John Chandler
Subject:
Fwd: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
Attachments:
MinorityDistrictMap.jpg
David
Here is one more against a Hispanic district.
From: "John Chandler" <iohnchandler219(a)_gmaiI.com>
To: bduane01(a--comcast.net
Cc: DavidWeeks(a-)-colliergov.net, "John Lundin" <Gothiclilies(a-_)aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 8:36:20 PM
Subject: Re: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
Duane,
I totally agree with you.
John Chandler
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:57 AM, <bduane01(o)-comcast.net> wrote:
John
You'll get no support from me on this. As far as I'm concerned this is prejudiced in favor of Hispanics
at the expense of the other races in the district you created. It is long past time that we no longer look
at race or ethnicity as a criteria for defining voting districts. It is simply reverse discrimination that
emphasizes the interest of one group over the other race.
The people who have emigrated to this country over the years have been required to blend into our
culture and learn our laws. Learning about our government has long been a requirement of
citizenship. This has created a strong and diverse America.
The census count does not require proof of citizenship, it is a requirement of voting. The creation of a
voting district based on the number of people from one ethnic group, some of whom may not be here
legally, is wrong.
Duane Billington
455 -8579
From: gothiclilies(a-aol.com
To: gothiclilies(aD-aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 7:48:55 AM
Subject: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
Packet Page -334-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Attention:
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager/
Collier Board of County Commissioners Redistricting Project Manager/
"—"�800 Horseshoe Drive, Florida 34104
Phone: 239 - 252 -2306
Re: Minority Voting District Map
Collier County is a "covered jurisdiction" under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The five proposed Redistricting maps for the Collier Board of County Commissioners are not in compliance
with the Voting Rights Act:
* The 5 proposed Redistricting maps dilute the Hispanic voting population by not creating the largest possible
Hispanic voting district, based on the 2010 Census.
* The 2010 Census population for Hispanics in Collier County is 83,177 out of 321,520 total population,
an increase of 69% from the 2000 Census. The Hispanic population is now 26.7 % of Collier County
population.
The five proposed Redistricting maps do not comply with U.S. Department of Justice Guidance Concerning
Redistricting
(see attached document):
* (pg. 7471, par. 1) "the jurisdiction has met it's burden of establishing that the plan was adopted free of any
discriminatory practice ".
* (pg. 7471, par. 2) "the term 'purpose' includes 'any discriminatory purpose' and is not limited to a purpose to
retrogress ... to determine whether direct or circumstantial evidence exists of any discriminatory purpose of
enying or abridging the right to vote on account of... a membership in a language minority group ".
(pg. 7471, last par. 1) "whether minority concentrations are fragmented among different districts ".
It is customary in most government jurisdictions for the public to submit proposed redistricting maps for
review.
I am submitting to you a proposed district map (see attached map) with a 59.9% Hispanic population in
District 5
that complies with the Voting Rights Act and the Department of Justice Guidance Concerning Redistricting.
I request that the map be made available to the public and included with the 5 proposed maps to the Collier
Board of County Commissioners for the September 13, 2011 meeting on Redistricting.
A printed copy of this email has been mailed to the:
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Main
Washington, D.C. 20530
Thank you,
John Lundin
(407 ) 920 -2422
n
Packet Page -335-
v
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
COLLIER COUNTY 2010 (HISPANIC MINORITY) REDISTRICTING MAP
Total population : 321,520
2010 CENSUS BY POPULATION PROPOSED COMMISSION DISTRICT
r
✓`
corn. District Total Population Hispanic Pop. Hispanic %
BCC 1
63,280
14.526
18.3%
BCC 2
62.583
7,032
9.5%
- - ,
BCC
65,187
13.847
21.2%
BCC 4
BCC 5
65,282
65188
8,666
39,106
11.0%
59.9%
TOTAL
321,520
63,177
z 4
r..l
wL
n
3
Packet Page -336-
11�
l NOTE: DISTRICTS 1, 2 & 4 ARE THE SAME
—�'
AS IN MAP 03
' i
I
- - ,
x �
z 4
wL
n
0 Z5 5 10
�~Map
oMiles
submitted by
John Lundin
407- 920 -2422
3
Packet Page -336-
11�
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
,`From: gothiclilies @aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 11:40 PM
To: WeeksDavid; HillerGeorgia
Cc: kalbers @napiesnews.com; plewis @naplesnews.com; Voting. Section @usdoj.gov;
askdoj @usdoj.gov; annisa_k @hotmail.com
Subject: Redistricting Power Point Presentation Collier County
Attachments: Preclearance_Guidance_ _DOJ_ _02- 09- 11.pdf
Hello David Weeks,
I attended the Collier County, Florida Redistricting meeting tonight on Tuesday August 23, 2011 at the Golden Gate
Community Center.
Could you please forward to me the power point presentation used at the meeting?
There were 3 slides that do not comply with the U.S. Department of Justice Guidance Concerning Redistricting
(ATTACHED).
would like to send it to the DOJ...
U.S. Department of Justice Guidance Concerning Redistricting:
* (pg. 7471, par. 1) "the jurisdiction has met it's burden of establishing that
the plan was adopted free of any discriminatory practice ".
* (pg. 7471, par. 2) "the term 'purpose' includes 'any discriminatory purpose'
and is not limited to a purpose to retrogress... to determine whether direct or
circumstantial evidence exists of any discriminatory purpose of denying or
abridging the right to vote on account of... a membership in a language minority
group "
�` (pg. 7471, last par. 1) "whether minority concentrations are fragmented among
lifferent districts ".
Thank you,
John Lundin
407- 920 -2422
Packet Page -337-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: gothiclilies @aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 9 :07 AM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: Fwd: Collier County Proposed Map 2 Retrogressive
Commissioner Hiller,
You are correct. Map 2 is the most retrogressive Collier County proposed redistricting map ( +3.8%) in violation of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the U.S. Department of Justice Guidance Concerning
Redistricting.
with kind regards, John Lundin
Packet Page -338-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Retrogression Analysis: District 5
Proposed Maps #1 & #3
Table 1
2010 Voting Age Population Comparison - District 5
Present Confi uration vs. Pro Dosed District Ma s #1 & #3
Plan
Total
Black
Hispanic (All)
Present District 5
I 55,065
5,012 (9.1 %)
23,013 (41.8 %)
Proposed District 5
47,272
4,612 (9.8 %)
21,749 (46.0 %)
Change
+0.7%
( +4.2%
Proposed Map #2
Table :L
2010 Voting Age Population Comparison - District 5
Present Conflauratlon V[- Prnnncarl nictrirt lMan 3t71
Plan
Total
Black I Hispanic (All)
i
Present District 5
55,065
5,012 (9.1 %) 23,013 (41.8 %)
Proposed District 5
46,370
4,580 (9.9 %) 1 21,167 (45.6 %)
Change
4,581 (10.0 %)
+0.8% +3.8%
Proposed Man #4
Table 1
2010 Voting Age Population Comparison - District 5
Present Confiouration vs_ PrnnncPri nir t•rirt (Man .teal
Plan j
Total
Black
Hispanic (All)
Present District 5
55,065
5,012 (9.1 0/6)
23,013 (41.8 %)
Proposed District 5
I 45,887
4,581 (10.0 %)
21,450 (46.7 %)
Change I
+0.9%
+4.9%
Table 1
2010 Voting Age Population Comparison - District 5
Present Configuration vs. Pr000sed Distrirt (Man #S1
Plan
Total
- - Black -
Hispanic (All)
Present District 5
55,065
5,012 (9.1 %)
23,013 (41.8 %)
Proposed District 5
45,364
4,568 (10.1 %)
21,509 (47.4 %)
Change I
+1.0%
+5.6%
Source: Ali popuianon figures extracted rrorn U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Redistricting Data (Public Law 94 -171).
NOTE: "Hispanic" is an ethnicity, not a race; accordingly, a person may be of any race and be of Hispanic ethnicity.
Retr°gmssion Analt5is bietrict 5 -on 1 page C CDES Mm ing Services:Compr&mnsivelDav Redisidddng 2011 dw &1511
- - -- Original Message—
From: Georgia <georgiahiller(a)me.com>
To: gothiclilies <gothiclilies(a�aol.com >; Fee Doug <feegroup(aD_aol.com>
Cc: askdoj <askdoi(d)_usdoi.gov >; "" Voting. Section" <' Voting.Section <Voting.Section "" @usdoj.gov >; georgiahiller
<georgiahiller(c_mac.com >; annisa_k <annisa ka_hotmail.com >; kalbers <kalbers(d-)_naplesnews.com>
^ent: Wed, Aug 24,20114:23 am
,ubject: Re: NAPLESDAILYNEWS: Low turnout at Collier redistricting meetings questioned by Commissioner Hiller
John,
Packet Page -339-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Thank you for the article.
Just for your information, David Weeks statement that Map 2 (which shifts Pelican Bay into District 4 and is the most
retrogressive of the proposed maps) was offered because Pelican Bay wanted to annex into the city of Naples is total ^
bunk.
The vast majority of Pelican Bay residents rejected annexation about six plus years ago, and it hasn't been contemplated
since. Additionally, the city of Naples rejected any suggestion of Pelican Bay's annexation at that time.
What is being contemplated in my district is the incorporation of a new city which would likely be the shape of District 2
as it presently exists - totally excluding the city of Naples.
From what I hear, neither Pelican Bay nor any other district 2 communities want to be a part of the city of Naples which
could see district 2 taxes going to pay for the city of Naples financial woes.
I would like to know why Mr. Weeks is presenting dated and incorrect information as a justification for Map 2. You may
want to ask this question yourself.
If you'd like further information about this matter please contact Doug Fee - his email is included above.
With kind regards,
Georgia Hiller
Commissioner, District 2
On Aug 24, 2011, at 12:49 AM, gothiclilies(a)aol.com wrote:
http:/ /www.naplesnews.com /news /2011 /aug/23 f low- turnout - collier - redistricting- meetings - question
Low turnout at Collier redistricting meetings
questioned by Commissioner Hiller
By KATHERINE ALBERS
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
COLLIER COUNTY — Commissioner Georgia Hiller is worried that Collier County voters might not
be getting their say.
Hiller wrote in the email sent Tuesday to several county government officials, including County
Manager Leo Ochs and Elections Supervisor Jennifer Edwards, that she is concerned that the
meetings about redistricting are being held when few people are in town and are being noticed
ineffectively.
"At the district 2 public meeting, my understanding was that there were only about 20 or so residents
that attended. This does not reflect a lack of voter interest," she wrote. "This reflects ineffective
notice and inconsiderate timing."
Hiller's point was hammered home Tuesday night when only about 30 residents showed up in
Golden Gate for the presentation. The East Naples meeting had a similar turnout last week with only
40 residents in attendance. ?001�
But the timing, according to Collier County Chief Deputy Elections Supervisor Tim Durham, could not
be any closer.
Packet Page -340-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Collier County received its census figures in late March, Durham said, and began working on its
maps. The Florida Legislature, in its session this spring, set the presidential preference primary as
early as Jan. 3 and as late as March, and the Legislature will not make a decision on the primary
until Oct. 1. Durham said that if that Jan. 3 date was chosen, it would require the county to hold early
voting on Dec. 19; which would require sample ballots to be sent out Dec. 5; which would mean
voter information cards with new information about polling places and a change in local
representation, to be sent out in late November.
The Justice Department has to preclear Collier County's redistricting plan, a process that takes 60
days, according to Durham.
Collier County is a "covered jurisdiction" under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As a result, Collier
County's maps have to be "precleared" by the Justice Department to ensure they do not violate the
Voting Rights Act.
If the county would like to have its plan cleared before those voter information cards, Durham said, it
will have to submit its map choice Sept. 15, two days after the commissioners approve it.
Despite the low turnouts at the meetings, Durham said voter interest in the maps has increased
since the last time Collier County redrew its boundaries.
Durham said 88 entities, including media outlets, neighborhood associations and governmental
entities, received notice of the meetings. He added that presentations have also been made to the
Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce, the East Naples Civic Association, the Golden Gate Area
/� Civic Association and the NAACP, among other organizations.
The first meeting for redistricting was taped and is being shown on the county's television channel,
Durham said. The presentation about the redistricting is the same at each meeting, although
questions posed by community members are different.
Golden Gate resident James McDonald wanted to know during Tuesday's meeting if the comments
from the public were being recorded.
Redistricting Project Manager David Weeks said staff was taking notes on the comments.
That didn't satisfy McDonald.
"You are relaying them through noted, which might not capture the passion," he said.
Weeks encouraged those with comments to email him at davidweeks(a)colliergov.net, adding all of
those emails will be presented verbatim to the commissioners.
Several members of the public at Tuesday's meeting questioned Map 2, which would give Pelican
Bay to Commissioner Fred Coyle from Hiller's district. Those members of the public insinuated that
there might be a deal to give away Pelican Bay as political punishment for Hiller.
Weeks said the decision to lump Pelican Bay in with the city of Naples in one map was done
n because Pelican Bay has discussed annexation and incorporation in the past.
Packet Page -341-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
"This map takes Pelican Bay and puts it into the same representation as Naples... Was it political?
Were we thinking, 'Oh, this will take Pelican Bay away from Commissioner Hiller and give it to
Commissioner Coyle? No, that was not part of the consideration. There is no political consideration."
Durham urged voters to look at the maps, not by who could represent them, but as the boundaries
they will have to live in within the next 10 years.
Naples resident John Lundin sent a message to Weeks and came to the meeting Tuesday alleging
that the five proposed maps are not in compliance with the Voting Rights Act because District 5 does
not contain 59.9 percent Hispanic population, which would meet guidelines set by the Voting Rights
Act and the Department of Justice.
"The 5 proposed Redistricting maps dilute the Hispanic voting population by not creating the largest
possible Hispanic voting district, based on the 2010 census," he wrote in his email to Weeks.
Lundin has asked the county to accept his map with District 5 showing a 59.9 percent Hispanic
population, which included portions of Golden Gate as well as Immokalee and the Estates, and that
it be included in the maps presented to the Collier County Commissioners at their Sept. 13 meeting
on redistricting.
"I submit a map to the county and want it to be presented," he said Tuesday night. "In 2000, you
could have drawn the map I have drawn.... The idea is to give the minorities the opportunity to elect
someone that they want. ..."Your maps violate the Voting Rights Act."
But Durham said the county's maps do not violate the Voting Rights Act and county officials said i
Lundin's map will not be presented to commissioners.
"The percentage of Hispanics in District 5 grows in every map we have presented," he said. "You
cannot take race and make it a predominant criteria. You can't ignore it and run afoul of the equal
protection clause, but race cannot be the overreaching criteria for drawing a district. It is important,
but you can't ignore other factors."
To ensure the maps meet the criteria set out by the government, the county has contracted with the
law firm of Bond, Schoeneck & King to conduct an independent review of the redistricting process,
the maps and the maps' effect on the minority population.
Packet Page -342-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
'"From: DLYDON124@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 12:53 PM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: Redistricting
It would appear that Map 3 offers the closest population division among all districts.
Believe that is the reason for the distribution.
Go with it!
Packet Page -343-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: joeswaja @comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 20112:27 PM
To: bduane0l@comcast.net
Cc: John Lundin; WeeksDavid
Subject: Re: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
I will agree with this as soon as a district with 62% Polish is put together. What are we designing a
banana republic. I am with Duane, enough is enough.
Joe
From: bduane01()comcast.net
To: DavidWeeks(c-D-CollierGov.net
Cc: "John Lundin" <Gothiclilies(- )aoI.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 9:57:20 AM
Subject: Fwd: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
John
You'll get no support from me on this. As far as I'm concerned this is prejudiced in favor of Hispanics
at the expense of the other races in the district you created. It is long past time that we no longer look
at race or ethnicity as a criteria for defining voting districts. It is simply reverse discrimination that
emphasizes the interest of one group over the other race.
The people who have emigrated to this country over the years have been required to blend into our
culture and learn our laws. Learning about our government has long been a requirement of
citizenship. This has created a strong and diverse America.
The census count does not require proof of citizenship, it is a requirement of voting. The creation of a
voting district based on the number of people from one ethnic group, some of whom may not be here
legally, is wrong.
Duane Billington
455 -8579
From: gothiclilies(cDaol.com
To: gothiclilies @aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 7:48:55 AM
Subject: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
Attention:
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager/
Collier Board of County Commissioners Redistricting Project Manager/
2800 Horseshoe Drive, Florida 34104
Phone: 239- 252 -2306
Re: Minority Voting District Map
Packet Page -344-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Collier County is a "covered jurisdiction" under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
I'he five proposed Redistricting maps for the Collier Board of County Commissioners are not in compliance
with the Voting Rights Act:
* The 5 proposed Redistricting maps dilute the Hispanic voting population by not creating the largest possible
Hispanic voting district, based on the 2010 Census.
* The 2010 Census population for Hispanics in Collier County is 83,177 out of 321,520 total population,
an increase of 69% from the 2000 Census. The Hispanic population is now 26.7 % of Collier County
population.
The five proposed Redistricting maps do not comply with U.S. Department of Justice Guidance Concerning
Redistricting
(see attached document):
* (pg. 7471, par. 1) "the jurisdiction has met it's burden of establishing that the plan was adopted free of any
discriminatory practice ".
* (pg. 7471, par. 2) "the term 'purpose' includes 'any discriminatory purpose' and is not limited to a purpose to
retrogress ... to determine whether direct or circumstantial evidence exists of any discriminatory purpose of
denying or abridging the right to vote on account of... a membership in a language minority group ".
* (pg. 7471, last par. 1) "whether minority concentrations are fragmented among different districts ".
It is customary in most government jurisdictions for the public to submit proposed redistricting maps for
review.
I am submitting to you a proposed district map (see attached map) with a 59.9% Hispanic population in
')istrict 5
that complies with the Voting Rights Act and the Department of Justice Guidance Concerning Redistricting.
I request that the map be made available to the public and included with the 5 proposed maps to the Collier
Board of County Commissioners for the September 13, 2011 meeting on Redistricting.
A printed copy of this email has been mailed to the:
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Main
Washington, D.C. 20530
Thank you,
John Lundin
(407) 920 -2422
Packet Page -345-
COLLIER COUNTY 2010 (HISPANIC MINORITY) REDISTRICTING MAP
Total population: 321,520
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
"in CPNRI Is Rv POPULATION PROPOSED COMMISSION DISTRICT
Com. District Total Population Hispanic Pop. Hispanic %
BCC 1
63,280
14,526
18.3%
BCC 2
62,563
7,032
9Z%
BCC 3
65,187
13;847
21.2%
BCC 4
65,282
6,666
11.0%
BCC 5
65.186
39.106
59.9%
TOTAL
321,520
83,177
3
Packet Page -346-
NOTE: DISTRICTS 1, 2 & 4ARE THE SAME
- —
AS IN MAP n 3
i
t'..
Y
h l y
l
0 2.5 5 10
viMiles
a
-�
yMap submitted by
John Lundin
407
-920 -2422
v.. w,-- -------
- --...._- --- ---�....
nnihirliliesGanfrnm
3
Packet Page -346-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
,'—**From: bduane0l@comcast.net
.lent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:05 PM
To: joeswaja @comcast.net
Cc: John Lundin; WeeksDavid
Subject: Re: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
I'm half Irish and I want a district that's at least half Irish. Fair is Fair.
From: joeswaja(@-comcast.net
To: bduane01(aD-comcast.net
Cc: "John Lundin" <Gothiclilies(a-aol.com >, DavidWeeks(a)CollierGov.net
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 2:27:15 PM
Subject: Re: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
I will agree with this as soon as a district with 62% Polish is put together. What are we designing a
banana republic. I am with Duane, enough is enough.
Joe
�rom: bduane01Ca-)- corn cast. net
o: DavidWeekse- CollierGov.net
Cc: "John Lundin" <Gothiclilies(a-)-aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 9:57:20 AM
Subject: Fwd: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
John
You'll get no support from me on this. As far as I'm concerned this is prejudiced in favor of Hispanics
at the expense of the other races in the district you created. It is long past time that we no longer look
at race or ethnicity as a criteria for defining voting districts. It is simply reverse discrimination that
emphasizes the interest of one group over the other race.
The people who have emigrated to this country over the years have been required to blend into our
culture and learn our laws. Learning about our government has long been a requirement of
citizenship. This has created a strong and diverse America.
The census count does not require proof of citizenship, it is a requirement of voting. The creation of a
voting district based on the number of people from one ethnic group, some of whom may not be here
legally, is wrong.
Duane Billington
X55 -8579
Packet Page -347-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
From: gothiclilies(a--)aol.com
To: gothiclilies(a-)-aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 7:48:55 AM
Subject: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
Attention:
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager/
Collier Board of County Commissioners Redistricting Project Manager/
2800 Horseshoe Drive, Florida 34104
Phone: 239 - 252 -2306
Re: Minority Voting District Map
Collier County is a "covered jurisdiction" under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The five proposed Redistricting maps for the Collier Board of County Commissioners are not in compliance
with the Voting Rights Act:
* The 5 proposed Redistricting maps dilute the Hispanic voting population by not creating the largest possible
Hispanic voting district, based on the 2010 Census.
* The 2010 Census population for Hispanics in Collier County is 83,177 out of 321,520 total population,
an increase of 69% from the 2000 Census. The Hispanic population is now 26.7 % of Collier County
population.
The five proposed Redistricting maps do not comply with U.S. Department of Justice Guidance Concerning
Redistricting
(see attached document):
* (pg. 7471, par. 1) "the jurisdiction has met it's burden of establishing that the plan was adopted free of any
discriminatory practice ".
* (pg. 7471, par. 2) "the term 'purpose' includes 'any discriminatory purpose' and is not limited to a purpose to
retrogress... to determine whether direct or circumstantial evidence exists of any discriminatory purpose of
denying or abridging the right to vote on account of... a membership in a language minority group ".
* (pg. 7471, last par. 1) "whether minority concentrations are fragmented among different districts ".
It is customary in most government jurisdictions for the public to submit proposed redistricting maps for
review.
I am submitting to you a proposed district map (see attached map) with a 59.9% Hispanic population in
District 5
that complies with the Voting Rights Act and the Department of Justice Guidance Concerning Redistricting.
I request that the map be made available to the public and included with the 5 proposed maps to the Collier
Board of County Commissioners for the September 13, 2011 meeting on Redistricting.
A printed copy of this email has been mailed to the:
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Main
Washington, D.C. 20530
Thank you,
John Lundin
Packet Page -348-
(407) 920 -2422
/--1
COLLIER COUNTY 2010 (HISPANIC MINORITY) REDISTRICTING MAP
Total population : 321,520
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
2010 CENSUS BY POPULATION PROPOSED COMMISSION DISTRICT
Corn. District Total Population Hispanic Pop. Hispanic
BCC 1
63280
14,526
18.3°%
BCC 2
62,563
7,032
9.5%
BCC 3
65.187
13,847
21,2°%
BCC 4
65,282
8,666
11.0%
BCC 5
65.168
39106
59.9%
TOTAL
321,520
83,177
Nis
NOTE: D.STRIC T S 1, 2 & 4 ARE THE SAME
Packet Page -349-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From:
Albers, Kate [kalbers @naplesnews.com]
Sent:
Wednesday, August 24, 20114:54 PM
To:
WeeksDavid
Subject:
Re: Question
Good afternoon, Mr. Weeks,
I wanted to make a public records request to get copies of all of the correspondence you receive from Collier County
residents about the redistricting. Essentially, I would like to receive copies of the emails and comments you will be giving
the commissioners.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Kate
Katherine Albers
Multimedia journalist
Naples Daily News
(239) 263.4764
(239) 682.4430 (cell)
kalbers(a)naplesnews.com
Packet Page -350-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
"from: bduane01 @comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 9:17 PM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: Fwd:: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
Attachments: MinorityDistrictMap.jpg
Dave
Here's another one.
From: secretary (a--)Qoldengateisgreat.com
To: bduane01Ca)-comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 7:39:02 PM
Subject: Re:: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
totally agree with you!
Kaydee Tuff
,--J,-,- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: bduaneOl(a)comcast.net rmailto:bduaneOlOcomcast.netl_
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 201109:57 AM
To: DavidWeeks(d�CollierGov.net
Cc: 'John Lundin'
Subject: Fwd: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
John
You'll get no support from me on this. As far as I'm concerned this is prejudiced in favor of Hispanics
at the expense of the other races in the district you created. It is long past time that we no longer look
at race or ethnicity as a criteria for defining voting districts. It is simply reverse discrimination that
emphasizes the interest of one group over the other race.
The people who have emigrated to this country over the years have been required to blend into our
culture and learn our laws. Learning about our government has long been a requirement of
citizenship. This has created a strong and diverse America.
The census count does not require proof of citizenship, it is a requirement of voting. The creation of a
voting district based on the number of people from one ethnic group, some of whom may not be here
legally, is wrong.
Duane Billington
455 -8579
Packet Page -351-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
From: gothiclilies(a)-aol.com
To: gothicliliesCa)-aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 7:48:55 AM
Subject: Minority Voting District Map Collier County, Florida
Attention:
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager/
Collier Board of County Commissioners Redistricting Project Manager/
2800 Horseshoe Drive, Florida 34104
Phone: 239 - 252 -2306
Re: Minority Voting District Map
Collier County is a "covered jurisdiction" under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The five proposed Redistricting maps for the Collier Board of County Commissioners are not in compliance
with the Voting Rights Act:
* The 5 proposed Redistricting maps dilute the Hispanic voting population by not creating the largest possible
Hispanic voting district, based on the 2010 Census.
* The 2010 Census population for Hispanics in Collier County is 83,177 out of 321,520 total population,
an increase of 69% from the 2000 Census. The Hispanic population is now 26.7 % of Collier County
population.
The five proposed Redistricting maps do not comply with U.S. Department of Justice Guidance Concerning
Redistricting
(see attached document):
* (pg. 7471, par. 1) "the juri sdiction has met it's burden of establishing that the plan was adopted free of any
discriminatory practice ".
* (pg. 7471, par. 2) "the term'purpose' includes'any discriminatory purpose' and is not limited to a purpose to
retrogress—to determine whether direct or circumstantial evidence exists of any discriminatory purpose of
denying or abridging the right to vote on account of... a membership in a language minority group ".
* (pg. 7471, last par. 1) "whether minority concentrations are fragmented among different districts ".
It is customary in most government jurisdictions for the public to submit proposed redistricting maps for
review.
I am submitting to you a proposed district map (see attached map) with a 59.9% Hispanic population in
District 5
that complies with the Voting Rights Act and the Department of Justice Guidance Concerning Redistricting.
I request that the map be made available to the public and included with the 5 proposed maps to the Collier
Board of County Commissioners for the September 13, 2011 meeting on Redistricting.
A printed copy of this email has been mailed to the:
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Main �..�
Washington, D.C. 20530
Thank you,
John Lundin
Packet Page -352-
(407) 920 -2422
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
COLLIER COUNTY 2010 (HISPANIC MINORITY) REDISTRICTING MAP
Total population: 321,520
2010 CENSUS BY POP11I ATInM Pnn0f19Fn r'MARAiecinni nier —
3
Packet Page -353-
Com. District Total Population Hispanic Pop. Hispanic %
BCC 1
63,260
14,526
18.3%
BCC 2
62,583
7,032
9.5%
BCC 3
65,187
13,x47
21.2'A
BCC 4
65.262
9,666
11.0%
i
BCC 5
65.188
39.106
59.9%
III
TOTAL
321,520
63,177
3
Packet Page -353-
9/13/2011 Item 8. D.
WeeksDavid
From: bduane0l@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 12:03 PM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: Fwd: Collier County Florida minority voting district CONTROVERSY
Attachments: MinorityDistrictMap.jpg
David
Please pass this on to Nick and Tim Durham with a copy to me. I don't want anyone to be confused
on where I stand on this.
am against map number 2. It removes Pelican Bay from Commissioner Hiller's district and it divides
the Golden Gate Estates in a manner not consistent with the requirements of redistricting statutes.
The Golden Gate Estates is an area of common interest in so much as the property owners have
been disadvantaged by the bankruptcy of the developer, GAC Corp.. The Estates has unpaved
roads and locations where planned bridges were never built. There is also the Golden Gate Land
Trust that is administered by Collier County with input from the Citizen's Advisory Committee.
My comments below express my feelings regarding a Hispanic District.
Your hard work is appreciated.
Respectfully
Duane Billington
455 -8579
From: bduane0l@comcast.net
To: gothiclilies @aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 20118:32:05 AM
Subject: Re: Collier County Florida minority voting district CONTROVERSY
Mr. Lundin
John, I agree entirely with Chucks comments. The Department of Justice is already scheduled to
review Collier's redistricting.
You have every right to make your opinions heard. I would suggest the best place for your comments,,,
is the D.O.J.
You may want to ask yourself if your public displays on this matter unite or divide Democrats and are
detrimental to attracting those with no political affiliation.
Packet Page -354-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Duane Billington
"455 -8579
From: gothiclilies @aol.com
To: framoh @aol.com, askdoj @usdoj.gov, "Voting Section" <Voting.Section @usdoj.gov>
Cc: estaats @naplesnews.com, ramills @naplesnews.com, djosborn @naplesnews.com,
kalbers @naplesnews.com, jlytle @naplesnews.com, ahale @naplesnews.com,
rwilliams @floridaweekly.com, russell @tuffnews.com, dnalbers @bonitanews.com,
news @colliercitizen.com, tmiguel @naplesnews.com, (freeman @naplesnews.com,
tiaten @naplesnews.com, features @naplesnews.com, ppiewis @naplesnews.com,
editor @naplessuntimes.com, bannereditor @bonitanews.com, AAswift @naplesnews.com,
bbatten @naplesnews.com, mmchan @news - press.com, dholmes@fortmyer.gannett.com,
rtennant @Fortmyer.gannett.com, szoldan @Fortmyer.gannett.com, fgluck @news - press.com,
dhusty @news - press.com, fgluck @Fortmyer.gannett.com, acisner@eagle.fgcu.edu,
cjthomps @eagle.fgcu.edu, jhayes @edison.edu, jamonroy @eagle.fgcu.edu, "marisa brahney"
<marisa.brahney @nbc- 2.com >, pnolan @wftx4.com, news @fox4now.com, newstips @abc- 7.com,
"chris cifatte" <chris.cifatte @winktv.com >, "renee stoll" <renee.stoll @winknews.com >,
winknews @winktv.com, "mike baldyga" <mike.baldyga @abc- 7.com >, "darrel adams"
<darrel.adams @abc- 7.com >, "jamie yuccas" <jamie.yuccas @nbc- 2.com >, "Judd cribbs"
<judd.cribbs @winktv.com >, georgiahiller @me.com, lizamac @comcast.net, stevehemping @aol.com,
"annisa k" <annisa_k @hotmail.com >, bduane01 @comcast.net, genevaccaro @embargmail.com,
laneybojaney @yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 10:51:55 PM
Subject: Collier County Florida minority voting district CONTROVERSY
Dear Chuck Mohlke,
I read your statements in the Naples Daily News article (Wed Aug 24, 2011)
"Brent Batten: Collier's conscience clear on redistricting process"
http: / /www.naplesnews .coin /news /2011 /aug /24 /brent- batten - redistricting - mohlke- hiller- lundinz
While I respect your opinion as a longtime Democratic Parry official,
I have to disagree with your position on the minority district map I submitted to the Collier County to review.
The 5 maps proposed by Collier County Florida do not comply with the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
They dilute the Hispanic voting population by not creating the largest possible Hispanic voting
district, based on the 2010 Census.
The Voting Rights Act mandates that jurisdictions draw (majority) minority districts.
My map clearly documents a 59.9% Hispanic population in District 5 (see attached map)
Collier County is a covered jurisdiction under the Voting Rights Act and must receive pre - clearance approval of any map
voted by the Collier Board of County Commissioners on September 13, 2011.
The 2010 Census population for Hispanics in Collier County is 83,177 out of 321,520 total population,
an increase of 69% from the 2000 Census. The Hispanic population is now 26.7 % of Collier County
population.
The five proposed Redistricting maps do not comply with U.S. Department of Justice Guidance
'oncerning Redistricting
(see attached document):
(pg. 7471, par. 1) "the jurisdiction has met it's burden of establishing that the plan was adopted free of
any discriminatory practice ".
Packet Page -355-
9/13/2011 Item 8. D.
(pg• 7471, par. 2) "the term 'purpose' includes 'any discriminatory purpose' and is not limited to a
purpose to retrogress —to determine whether direct or circumstantial evidence exists of any
discriminatory purpose of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of... a membership in a �.
language minority group ".
(pg- 7471, last par. 1) "whether minority concentrations are fragmented among different districts ".
Thank you,
John Lundin
407-920 -2422
COLLIER COUNTY 2010 (HISPANIC MINORITY) REDISTRICTING MAP
Total
=1
t
: 321,520
2010 CENSUS BY POPULATION PROPOSED COMMISSION DISTRICT
corn. District Total Population Hispanic Pop. Hispanic
BCC 1
63,280
14,526
18.3%
BCC 2
62,583
7,032
9.51%
BCC
65,187
13.847
21.20,6
BCC 4
65,282
8,666
11.0%
BCC 5
65.188
39.106
59.9%
TOTAL
321,520
83,177
NOTE: DISTRICTS 1.2 & 4ARE -HE SAME
AS IN MAP 4 3
Packet Page -356-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc.
August 25, 2411
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager /
Collier Board of County Commissioners Redistricting Project Manager/
2800 Horseshoe. Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Email: davidweeks @colliergov.net
Re: Establishing New District Boundaries for the Board of County Commissioners
On behalf of the Pelican Bay community, the Pelican Bray Foundation Board of Directors
have reviewed the five (5) proposed redistricting maps, have reviewed the County staff-
prepared Executive Summary, and have heard reports from the community outreach.
meetings.
The Foundation Board would like to commend the work of County staff in putting together
5 options which meet the criteria established for the redistricting. The Foundation Board
believes that each of the five (5) presented options:
1) Balances the population of each district
2) Allows incumbents to continue to represent the district they currently reside in,
and,
3) Maintains racial and ethnic representation ratios in a manner so as to be fair and
equitable.
However, the Pelican Bay Foundation believes that Collier County 2010 Redistricting Map 1
distinguishes itself as best by providing for districts that are the easiest for constituents to
.remember, and recognize by most closely following boundaries that are aligned with
known and established roadways and County borders; and so; the Pelican Bay Foundations
endorses Map option 1.
Again, on behalf of the Pelican Bay community, the Pelican Bay Foundation Board extends
its appreciation to the County for the opportunity to have input on the process, and
applauds the process used to elicit community involvement.
Sincerely,
FOUNDATION.
Jinn Hop
President
Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. • 6251 Pelican Bay Boulevard Naples, Florida 34108.
(239) 597 -8081 • (239) 597 -6802 FAX• E -Mail; memberse,,vices @pelicanbay.org
Packet Page -357-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
PELICAN BAY PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION,
INC. 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 600, * Naples, FL 34108
(239) 566-9707 *FAX (239) 598-9485 *E-Mail PBPQ_
August 25, 2011
DAVID WEEKS, AICP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN MANAGER/
REDISTRICTING PROJECT MANAGER
COLLIER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
NAPLES, FL, 34104
RE: Establishing New District Boundaries
On behalf of the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association members,
the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Board of Directors have
reviewed the five (5) proposed redistricting maps, and the County
staff prepared Executive Summary, and have listened to the citizens
attending the community outreach meetings. This Board commends
the diligent work of the County staff in putting together the options
which meet the criteria established for the redistricting.
We support the endorsement of the Pelican Bay Foundation in
selecting Map 1, as it best reflects the approved redistricting criteria
aligning the communities with common geographic boundaries while
balancing the population of each of the other districts.
On behalf of the Pelican Bay Property Owners members, the PBPOA
Board extends its appreciation to the County for the opportunity to
have input on this'issue and applauds the process used to elicit
community involvement.
Sincerely,
Susan M. Boland
President
c: James Hoppensteadt
Packet Page -358-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
,'—"�From: gothiclilies @aol.com
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 12:22 AM
To: askdoj @usdoj.gov; Voting.Section @usdoj.gov; WeeksDavid
Cc: estaats @naplesnews.com; ramills @naplesnews.com; djosborn @naplesnews.com;
kalbers @naplesnews.com; jlytle @napiesnews.com; ahale @naplesnews.com;
rwilliams @floridaweekly.com; russell @tuffnews.com; dnalbers @bonitanews.com;
news @colliercitizen.com; tmiguel @napiesnews.com; (freeman @naplesnews.com;
tlaten @naplesnews.com; features @naplesnews.com; ppiewis @naplesnews.com;
editor @napiessuntimes.com; bannereditor @bonitanews.com; AAswift@naplesnews.com;
bbaften @napiesnews.com; mmchan @news- press.com; dholmes @fortmyer.gannett.com;
rtennant @Fortmyer.gannett.com; szoldan @Fortmyer.gannett.com; fgluck @news - press.com;
dhusty @news - press.com; fgluck @Fortmyer.gannett.com; acisner @eagle.fgcu.edu;
cjthomps @eagle.fgcu.edu; jhayes @edison.edu; jamonroy @eagle.fgcu.edu;
marisa.brahney @nbc- 2.com; pnolan @wfbc4.com; news @fox4now.com;
newstips @abc- 7.com; chris.cifatte @winktv.com; renee.stoll @winknews.com;
winknews @winktv.com; mike.baldyga @abc- 7.com; darrel.adams @abc- 7.com;
jamie.yuccas @nbc- 2.com; judd.cribbs @winktv.com
Subject: Collier County Florida Redistricting Powerpoint Presentation
Packet Page -359-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
i j�Jv^J !Edward*
Supervisor of- Efectwns
Section 2, VRA - Dilution
Thornburg v Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986):
APre- conditions:
1) The minority group must be sufficielamajj and
geographically compact to constitute ty in a
single - member district.
The minority group must be politically cohesive.
3, The majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it
usually to. defeat the minority's prefe ed candidate.
BTotality of the Circumstances Test
!6
Jenne,r j. Fawardk
Supervisor of Bertions
Section 2, VRA - Dilu
Are Collier County Hispanics politically cohesive?
DEM 38.6%
REP 34.4%
17
2
Packet Page -360-
uis Rojas
j . 1992
House 102 `
NPA 26.6%
Ralph Arza
:2000
House 102
David Rivera
' 2002
House 112
Mario Diaz- Balart
2002
Con g. 25
David Rivera
i 2010
' Con 25`
Jeanette Nufiez
2010
j House 112''
17
2
Packet Page -360-
David Weeks, AICP
Growth Management Plan Manager/
BCC Redistricting Project Manager
Growth Management Division, Planning & Regulation
Land Dev. Services Dept., Comprehensive Planning Section
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104
Phone: 239-252-2306; E-fax: 239-252-6689
E-mail: ciao , idyreel- 2L4',coll.ier.nel:
website: wwrxy.colliergoy.net
2011 BCC Redistricting website:
htW: Av-,am collier gov, net/ 1ndex..as12x?12a,7_e=3214
23
�\
3
Packet Page -361-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: Anessa Allen Santos [aallensantos @gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 11:29 PM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: Redistricting Maps
Dear Mr. Weeks:
I had the pleasure of meeting you at the HAAB meeting yesterday evening. If you recall, I am the lady that
suggested Map 2 as a preference because it seemed to consider not only racial demographics, but the
geographical distribution of disparate incomes as well. For example, if you look at the layout of District 3 as
suggested in map 2 - it is extended in what appears to me to be the estates area. Likewise, with the exception of
District 1, the other Districts are expanded further east. I like this idea of slowly but surely working out districts
eastward so as to represent a wider cross - section of economically disparate demographics.
Thank you for your time and for your consideration.
Kindest Regards,
Anessa Allen Santos
Attorney & Soccer Agent
Allen Santos Law PA
6561 Marbella Lane
Naples, FL 34105
cell. 2 ,29- 595 =3794
aallensantos(@gmail.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION * *" * * * * * * * * **
This email contains confidential information that is privileged and intended only for the identified
addressees. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Please reply to this
message and inform the sender that the message was misdirected, and then erase it from
your computer system. Your assistance in correcting this matter is greatly appreciated.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Packet Page -362-
WeeksDavid
11�rom: gothiclilies @aol.com
ent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 7:14 AM
fo: askdoj @usdoj.gov; Voting.Section @usdoj.gov; WeeksDavid
Cc: FialaDonna; HillerGeorgia; CoyleFred; HenningTom; ColettaJim
Subject: Collier County "politically cohesive" = Jim Crow
..this "politically cohesive" requirement by Collier County, Florida
for a minority group to have a majority district is a "means test',
...classic Jim Crow discrimination.
Packet Page -363-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Thornburg v Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986):
A.Pre- conditions:
i; The minority group must be sufficiently lar and
geographically compact to constitute a maj ty in a
single- member district.
2; The minority group must be politically cohesive.
3j The majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it
usually to defeat the minority's prefe ed candidate.
$.Totality of the Circumstances Test
16
tCrJmrJ Edaaardl
Supervisor of Elections 1.
Section 2, VRA - Diluti
Are Collier County Hispanics politically cohesive?
DEM 38.6%
REP -30.4%
2
Packet Page -364-
uis Rojas
1992
House 102
NPA 26.6%
Ralph Azza
2000
House 102
David Rivera ;
2002
House `1 12
Mario Diaz -Balart
2002
Con 25
David Rivera
2010
Cone, 25
Jeanette Vuhez
2010
House 112
2
Packet Page -364-
David Weeks, AICP
Growth Management Plan Manager/
BCC Redistricting Project Manager
Growth Management Division, Planning & Regulation
Land Dev. Services Dept., Comprehensive Planning Section
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104
Phone: 239-252-2306; E-fax: 239-252-6£89
E-mail: da:vid-v7eeksr_colher. net
website:,kN,r".,,,v,.coll.iergov.net
2011 BCC Redistricting website:
htt.p,: / /www.colhergov. net/ 1ndex.as-Dx?na.gt,=321.4
23
111 �\
11—N,
3
Packet Page -365-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From:
gothiclilies @aol.com
Sent:
Sunday, August 28, 2011 7:01 AM
To:
gothiclilies @aol.com; Voting. Section @usdoj.gov; askdoj @usdoj.gov; WeeksDavid
Cc:
estaats @naplesnews.com; ramills @naplesnews.com; djosbom @naplesnews.com;
kalbers @naplesnews.com; jlytle @naplesnews.com; ahaie @naplesnews.com;
rwilliams @floridaweekly.com; russell @tuffnews.com; dnalbers @bonitanews.com;
news @colliercitizen.com; tmiguel @naplesnews.com; Ifreeman @naplesnews.com;
tiaten @napiesnews.com; features @naplesnews.com; ppiewis @napiesnews.com;
editor @napiessuntimes.com; bannereditor @bonitanews.com; AAswift @naplesnews.com;
bbatten@naplesnews.com; mmchan @news - press.com; dholmes @fortmyer.gannett.com;
rtennant @Fortmyer.gannett.com; szoldan @Fortmyer.gannett.com; fgluck @news - press.com;
dhusty@news- press.com; fgluck @Fortmyer.gannett.com; acisner @eagle.fgcu.edu;
cjthomps @eagle.fgcu.edu; jhayes @edison.edu; jamonroy @eagle.fgcu.edu;
marisa.brahney @nbc- 2.com; pnolan @wftx4.com; news @fox4now.com;
newstips @abc- 7.com; chris.cifatte @winktv.com; renee.stoll @winknews.com;
winknews @winktv.com; mike.baldyga @abc- 7.com; darrel.adams @abc- 7.com;
jamie.yuccas @nbc- 2.com; judd.cribbs @winktv.com
Subject:
NaplesDailyNews: "Good Old Boy" discrimination Collier County Florida
Lytle's article is an example "good old boy" discrimination towards minorities in Collier County,
Florida...
--N, JEFF LYTLE: Aug. 28, 2011 ... Farmworker coalition's target should be education,
not Publix
http: / /www.napiesnews.com /news /2011 /aug /28 /ieff- lytle- aug -28- 2011- farmworker-
coalitions- targe/
YOUTUBE: Coalition of Immokalee Workers & Collier Democratic Party
http: / /www.youtube.com /watch ?v= j46fMFRSyCI-
Packet Page -366-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
MIAMI -i IUM'
Packet Page -367-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: Mickeygg2 @aol.com
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 11:26 AM
To: DurhamTim; WeeksDavid
Cc: framoh @aol.com; alistrom @comcast.net; lizamac @comcast.net; r.randolph1 @comcast.net
Subject: Re: FW: Naples DailyNews: "Good Old Boy" discrimination Collier County Florida
Hi Tim and David,
FYI
John Lundin DOES NOT SPEAK for the Collier County Democratic Party in any way. He has been asked to either clear
his Democratic Party looking statements with us or to stop sending emails out with our name on them (or any reference to
us!)
See you tonight!
Thanks,
Mickey
Marlene "Mickey" Gargan, Chairwoman
Democratic Party of Collier County
239 - 774 -3809
(c) 847- 502 -1636
In a message dated 8/29/2011 11:03:09 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, TimDurham(cD_colliergov.net writes:
FYI
uY I
Chief Deputy Supervisor of Elections - Collier County (FL)
Serving the Honorable Jennifer J. Edwards
www.colliervotes.com
Under Florida law, written communications to or from public officials regarding public business must be made available to the
public or the media upon request with very few exceptions. Therefore, this e -mail, your e -mail address, and the e -mail that
generated this response may be subject to disclosure.
i
Packet Page -368-
9/13/2011 Item B.D.
hftp://www.floridaredistricting.org/
From: WeeksDavid
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 10:45 AM
To: TeachScott; DurhamTim; Thomas Eastman
Subject: FW: NaplesDailyNews: "Good Old Boy" discrimination Collier County Florida
FYI. Cannot view YOUTUBE on County PC so don't know what it contains.
?)WAV
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager /BCC Redistricting Project Manager
Collier County Government
Growth Management Division /Planning and Regulation
Development Services Department, Comprehensive Planning Section
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104
phone: 239-252-2306; E- fax:239- 252 -6689
email: davidweeks@colliergov.net
website: www.colfiergov.net
2011 BCC Redistricting website: http: / /www.collier_qov.net /index.aspx ?paqe =3214
From: gothiclilies @aol.com [mailto:gothiclilies @aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 20117:01 AM
To: gothiclilies@aol.com; Voting.Section@usdojyov; askdoj usdoj.gov; WeeksDavid
Cc: estaats@naplesnews.com; ramills @naplesnews.com; djosborn@napllesnews.com; kalbers @naplesnews.com;
illytie napiesnews.com; ahale @naplesnews.com; rwilliams@floridaweekly.com; russell @tuffnews.com;
dnalbers@bonitanews.com; news @colliercitizen.com; tmiguel@naplesnews.com; lfreemanC@naplesnews.com;
tlaten @naplesnews.com; features@naplesnews.com; pplewis@naplesnews.com; editor @napiessuntimes.com;
bannereditor @bonita news. com; AAswift @naplesnews.com; bbatten @naplesnews.com; mmchan@news-
press.com; dholmes @fortmver.gannett.com; rtennant @Fortmyer.gannett.com; szoldan @Fortmyer.aannett.com;
fgluck(abnews- press.com; dhusty @news- press.com; fgluck @Fortmver.gannett.com; acisner @eagle.fgcu.edu,
0thomps @eagle.fgcu.edu; jhayes @edison.edu; jamonroy @eagle.fgcu.edu; marisa.brahney @nbc- 2.com;
pnolan @wftx4.com; newsC@fox4now.com; newstips @abc- 7.com; chris.cifatte @winktvxom;
renee.stoll @winknews.com; winknews @winktvxom; mike . baldyga @abc- 7.com; darrel.adams @abc- 7.com;
�amie.yuccas@nbc- 2.com; judd.cribbs @winktv.com
Subject: NaplesDailyNews: "Good Old Boy" discrimination Collier County Florida
Packet Page -369-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Lytle's article is an example "good old boy" discrimination towards minorities in Collier County,
Florida... �
JEFF LYTLE: Aug. 28, 2011 ... Farmworker coalition's target should be
education, not Publix
hftp://www.napiesnews.com/news/201 I /aug/28/jeff-lytie-aug-28-201 I -
farmworker-coalitions-targe /
YOUTUBE: Coalition of Immokalee Workers & Collier Democratic Party
http• / /www.youtube .com /watch ?v= i46fMFRSyCI-
I
Packet Page -370-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
i1 , MI-D
Jnder Florida Law, e -mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e -mail address released in response to a public records request, do
of send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
Packet Page -371-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: nannice @comcast.net
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 1:11 PM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: proposed Map 1
Dear David Weeks,
Thank you for receiving the input of Collier County property owners about the proposed re- districting plans. I have
looked at the maps and favor Map 1. What a task for the county to undertake.
Thank you.
Annice Gregerson
5555 Heron Point Dr. #1602
Naples, FL 34108
Packet Page -372-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
,mom: HillerGeorgia
!nt: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:54 AM
o: OchsLeo
Cc: WeeksDavid; DurhamTim
Subject: Tape and Notes
Please provide a copy of the audio tape and all staff notes from last night's redistricting
meeting. Please include Scott Teach's notes.
Please consider this a public records request.
Thank you.
Georgia Hiller
Commissioner, District 2
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e -mail
address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this
entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
1
Packet Page -373-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From:
Wm Arthur [wmenaples @yahoo.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, August 30, 2011 9:41 AM
To:
WeeksDavid
Subject:
Voteing Districts
The Golden Gate Area Civic Association at a recesnt meeting voted to recommend that the County
go with map number 1. We feel that it gives the best coverage for the voters and divides the
population more equally that the other proposals.
We didn't like the idea of Dist # 3 extending across Collier Blvd. and didn't care for Marco being tied
with Naples as some of the maps show.
Wm.Arthur Pres.
Packet Page -374-
WeeksDavid
/from: William J. Kennelly [wkennelly @comcast.net]
ent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:09 AM
To: WeeksDavid
I favor map one.It seems the simplest change. Thanks
Bill Kennelly
Packet Page -375-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From:
Mary Lou Smart [smartieml @earthlink.net]
Sent:
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 12:42 AM
To:
WeeksDavid
Cc:
TeachScott
Subject:
Redistricting
Dear Mr. Weeks: Thank you for the informative presentation tonight. I spoke in favor of Map
2. I believe that moving Pelican Bay into District 4 is an excellent move. I enjoy visiting
Vanderbilt Beach as much as possible, and feel that very obvious problems due to an extreme
lack of planning in years past in regards to the public's needs on the beach in North Naples
could be alleviated by adding Pelican Bay into the mix of a coastal community that has
traditionally fostered an open beach policy, the City of Naples. Putting more communities to
the east into District 2, which Map 2 calls for, would possibly give more people inland a
voice at Vanderbilt Beach County Beach Park. Any move to improve the beach experience in
North Naples is a move to improve tourism and Collier County's economy. Residents in Pelican
Bay, after all, pushed for annexation into the City of Naples not too long ago, maintaining
that the upscale demographic of its master - planned community was practically identical.
Additionally, I had not ever thought of this before attending your meeting, but I
wholeheartedly support creating more diversity in District 2 by selecting Map 2, which seems
to offer the most balanced proportion of voting Hispanics. With such a low distribution in
the other maps, why would you choose anything else? Thanks again. Mary Lou Smart
Mary Lou Smart
576 103rd Avenue North
Naples, FL 34108
566 -3501
Packet Page -376-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
/" S,rom: Frank Halas [fhalas @comcast.net]
ent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 8.20 AM
To: WeeksDavid
Cc: OchsLeo; CoyleFred
Subject: Map 2
Hi David -
I have looked at the redistricting maps and believe what is best for District 2 and the county is Map 2. 1 believe that extending district
2 farther to the East also will help in making sure that more residents are brought into the issues of what is happening in the coastal
areas and what requirements will be needed to addressed water quality, boating access, and beach access, for all our citizens as this
county continues to have a population increase. My major concerns for all citizens are, adequate access to beaches and waterways that
boarder the Gulf of Mexico. And with extending the District 2 area to the east, hopefully this will encourage the county and its
citizens to actively address future beach access and boating access needs for all! Thank you for your time on this very important
concern to all our citizens.
Respectfully Yours,
Emeritus County Commissioner District 2
Packet Page -377-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From:
Andrea Whitmore [whitmoreandy @hotmaii.com]
Sent:
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:11 AM
To:
WeeksDavid
Subject:
redistricting
Dear Mr. Weeks:
I like Map 2 for the considered redistricting.
Thank you,
Andrea Whitmore
697 109th Ave N.
Naples
Packet Page -378-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
from: John Barbaro [John.Barbaro @verizon.net]
ent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 1:37 PM
1,0: WeeksDavid
Cc: John Barbaro; Barbaro, Laura
Subject: FW: REDISTRICTING
Dear David, I have been made aware of the REDISTRICTING meetings and recommendations that are to be voted on in
the September timeframe. As a resident of North Naples Florida, I encourage you and your colleagues to abide by the
Constitution of the State of Florida. My wife Laura and I encourage you to support MAP2 so that the districts are
contiguous and equally divided as mandated by the State Constitution.
GROWTH in Collier County is positive news and we as current residents should embrace the positive aspects of
redistricting as a means to promote, positive changes for residents, tourism and industry within our county. Population
growth is a blessing that comes with many challenges that requires some difficult changes and challenges that need to
be reviewed and updated periodically. The current redistricting alternatives that I have reviewed seem to support MAP2.
The reasons behind our vote and suggestion is that District 4 could annex Pelican Bay and still have a voice in the
Greater Naples community. From a state constitution standpoint District 4 would achieve their mandate to increase
their population to support equal representation across the county.
Redistricting, should not be a maneuver of special interests, but as a means to encourage an equal voice and
participation for all those who wish to participate. By supporting MAP2 you have an opportunity to rebalance what is
required to be done as well as providing different suggestions and viewpoints for the greater good of the community
/" \nd Collier County.
Best Regards,
John & Laura
John& Laura Barbaro
675 92 "d Avenue N
Naples, Florida 34108
Packet Page -379-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From:
BETTY [bmathys @centurylink.netj
Sent:
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 2:37 PM
To:
WeeksDavid
Subject:
redistricting
as a resident of naples park, i feel map 2 which removes pelican bay from district 2 would be the best.
Packet Page -380-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
/—From:
Djfinlay @aol.com
ant:
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 3:07 PM
1,0:
EdwardsJennifer; CoyleFred; FialaDonna; ColettaJim; HillerGeorgia; HenningTom; OchsLeo;
bmoss @naplesgov.com
Cc:
DurhamTim; WeeksDavid
Subject:
Re: County Redistricting
Jennifer,
Agreed. David Weeks and Tim Durham did a superb job.
Doug Finlay
In a message dated 08/31/2011 2:51:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, JenniferEdwards(d,)col liergov. net writes:
Hi Doug,
Thanks for your kind words and thoughtful comments. They are greatly appreciated. I want to give credit to
David Weeks, who is actually County staff. Tim Durham is from my office. Thank you for your willingness to
participate in the process. Jennifer
Jennifer J. Edwards, CERA
Supervisor of Elections
Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Building
Collier Government Complex
3295 Tamiami Trl E
Naples FI 34112 -5758
239 - 252 -8450
www.CollierVotes.com
=lorida has a very broad public records law. Written communications to or from public officials regarding public business
constitute public records and are available to the public and media upon request unless the information is subject to a
specific statutory exemption. Therefore, this email and any that you sent that generated this response may be subject to
public disclosure.
1
Packet Page -381-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
From: Djfinlayaaol.com rmailto:DifinlaX @ aol.com1
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 10:19 AM
To: CoyleFred; FialaDonna; ColettaJim; HillerGeorgia; HenningTom; EdwardsJennifer; OchsLeo;
bmoss@)napiesgov.com
Subject: County Redistricting
Dear Commissioners and Supervisor of Elections,
I attended last night's District 4's redistricting meeting. I want to thank the staff of our elections office for offering
a well run program. Those in attendance received an updated civics lesson in addition to redistricting information.
With this e -mail I will offer you my opinion on the best of the proposed maps. Keep in mind this opinion is only my
own —no one else or no group of people.
Recommendation:
Maps 1, 4, or 5 are my preferences. Why? There are several reasons, but in this e-mail I will only offer one— n
taxable values. In approximate numbers, the coastal areas of Naples, Marco Island, Pelican Bay and Vanderbilt
Beach represent about 15% of the county's population but 50% of the county's total, taxable value. When
considering taxable value, maps 1, 4 or 5 divide coastal representation among the commissioners more
equitably (evenly) than map 3 or even map 2. Taxable value is significant because the electorate places a higher
level of importance on ad valorem revenue than any other county fee or tax. Whereas taxable value cannot be
used as a perimeter for drawing district boundaries (justifiably so), once the proposed boundaries have been
selected and deemed legal (voting act requirements), there should be no reason why a citizen can't use
equitable taxable value representation as an afterthought perimeter.
Refining my choice beyond maps 1, 4, or 5 is far more difficult. However, if pressed, I might choose map 5, which
expands District 4 into the Davis Triangle and Keewaydin Island.
Side Note: Although I am opposed to maps 2 and 3, 1 do feel offering up these choices were a legitimate though
self admitted, "bold" offering. Too often government fails to consider a bolder or different way of doing things.
Therefore, you will receive no criticism from me with the proposals to included either Marco Island or Pelican Bay
into District 4. Whereas I have chosen a more status quo approach to redistricting (say map 5, or possibly 1 or
4), 1 am fine with maps 2 and 3 having been offered.
Again, thanks for the content of the public meetings.
Packet Page -382-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Doug Finlay
.:c: Leo Ochs, Bill Moss
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e -mail address released in response to a public records request, do
not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
Packet Page -383-
9/13/2011 Item &D.
WeeksDavid
From:
Richard Clark [rwcjbc @hotmail.com]
Sent:
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 4:29 PM
To:
WeeksDavid
Subject:
Redistricting
WE hope that map2 is pased to improve access to our beloved beach.Dick and Julie Clark „534
Capt'n Kate Ct. Naples.
Sent from Dick's iPad
Packet Page -384-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
from: gothiclilies @aol.com
ent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 6:17 PM
fo: WeeksDavid; HillerGeorgia
Subject: Fwd: bartlett v strickland
- -- Original Message--- -
From: Liza McClenaghan <1 izamac(a)comcast. net>
To: John Lundin <gothiclilies(cilaol.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 31, 2011 11:23 am
Subject: bartlett v strickland
John - Georgia Hiller mentioned Bartlett v Strickland last night at the BCC -SB meeting. Here's a
quote from the National Conference of State Legislature's handbook.
begin quote:
Majority- Minority Districts
A majority- minority district in the voting rights context is a district in which the majority of the population is
either African American, Hispanic, Asian or Native American. In Bartlett v. Strickland, the U.S. Supreme Court
said Section 2 does not require the drawing of a majority- minority district in which the minority croup is less than 50 percent of the
district's voting age population. (emphasis added)
end quote
Here's the Iink to the whole handbook:
hLp: / /www. floridaredistrictinsz. org/ Handlers /HouseContentDocumentRetriever. ashx ?Leaf= housecontent/redistri
cting /Lists /Legal Resources /Attaclunents /4/ Redistricting _Law_2010[Final].pdf
^ee page 66
- -Liza
Packet Page -385-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From:
Brendan Denis Flynn [brendandenisflynn @gmaii.com]
Sent:
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:05 PM
To:
WeeksDavid
Subject:
Re: Redistricting
I was speaking for just family members. We all have condos there.
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:38 PM, WeeksDavid <DavidWeeks(a?colliergov.ngt> wrote:
Mr. Flynn,
Thank you for expressing your map preference. It will be relayed to the Board of County Commissioners prior to their
meeting on September 13, 2011.
For purposes of accuracy in representation, would you please advise if you are the condo assn. president or otherwise an
authorized representative of the Piper's Pointe residences? You did not so indicate in your email. Thank you.
Vaa[d 766Ck4
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager/BCC Redistricting Project Manager
Collier Countv Government
Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation
Land Development Services Department, Comprehensive Planning Section
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104
phone: 239 -252 -2306: E- fax:239- 252 -6689
email: davidweeksa..collier ov.net
website: www.collier2ov.net
2011 BCC Redistricting website: htty: /hiwA,.collier2ov.net/Index.aspx ?pace =3214
From: Brendan Denis Flynn [mailto:brendandenisflynn ( aQmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:10 AM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: Redistricting
Packet Page -386-
9/13/2011 Item &D.
Sir:
^n behalf of the 47 people here in Piper's Pointe, we respectfully vote for Map 42.
Brendan Denis
Under Florida Law, e -mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e -mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send
electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
Brendan Denis
Packet Page -387-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: gothiclilies @aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 3:30 AM
To: Voting.Section @usdoj.gov; askdoj @usdoj.gov; WeeksDavid
Cc: HillerGeorgia; CoyleFred; FialaDonna; HenningTom; FialaDonna
Subject: YOUTUBE: Collier County Voting Rights Act VIOLATION
Collier County Voting Rights Act VIOLATION
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHAD-DYWPkQ
Collier County (Florida) Commissioner Georgia Hiller questions county staff about non compliance of the Voting Rights
Act as mandated by the U.S. Department of Justice. Collier County Growth Management Plan Manager David Weeks
admits the county deliberately did not design a Hispanic majority district because "we are not required to ". (August 30,
2011)
http://media.napiesnews.com/media/static/MinoritvDistrictMap.pd f
Packet Page -388-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: SELMSW @aol.com
,`**,ent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 2:45 PM
o: WeeksDavid
Subject: redistricting
Dear Mr. Weeks, I live in District 2 and I believe that we of District 2 are disenfranchised
voters. I believe in a democracy, you vote for whom you want to represent you in government. This
is being taken away from us--- people the globe over have put their lives on the line to achieve a
representative government. Collier County is going backwards. And the redistricting is being rushed
through (a meeting to voice one's opinion just two days after an announcement in the local paper of
the redistricting) -- rushed through at a time when all of you in the County government know that most
people are away for the summer. I wonder what the A.C.L.U. would think of this. I can tell you, for
myself, I'm very disappointed in Collier County. I've lived here for almost 12 years and up until now
have felt lucky to be living here. Selma Petker
MR
Packet Page -389-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: Joyce Fletcher obfletcher @embargmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 2:48 PM
To: WeeksDavid
Cc: CoyleFred; FialaDonna
Subject: Comments of map preference
David,
First of all thank you for all the time and work on the maps and the multiple public and
special interest group meetings. I have attended 3 different ones. You and your team have
done a superb job and were very patient with some who made parts of the hearings more
difficult than they needed to be. Thanks so much.
I actually prefer Map 2, but it has sounded like it will never get accepted. Thus as a back-
up, I think Map 5 seems to have the fewest odd circumstances and does provide a
majority /minority district, which seems to be important to many.
Again, thanks for a terrific job under somewhat difficult circumstances.
3oyce Fletcher
District 4
1
Packet Page -390-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: BETTY [bmathys @centuryfink.net]
'�ent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 7:45 PM
o: WeeksDavid
Subject: redistricting
henri reve1,700 94th av, naples park, called you today and you returned his call telling him to write a letter or e-
mail you. henri does not have a computer so he asked me to send an e -mail.
henri supports map 2 removing pelican bay from district 2 and adding more inland communities to district 2
because it would benefit the beach.
henri revel
Packet Page -391-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: Ted Raia [tedraia @gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 8:06 PM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: Redistricting
Dear Mr. Weeks,
After 26 years of active duty in the military I retired 14 years ago to Pelican Bay. Please
take the common sense approach and have Pelican Bay remain part of north Naples with Plan 1
being the best fit for stability.
Thank you.
Ted Raia
COL (Ret)
Pelican Bay
1
Packet Page -392-
WeeksDavid
)erom: gothiclilies @aol.com
nt: Thursday, September 01, 2011 8:35 PM
fo: Voting.Section @usdoj.gov; askdoj @usdoj.gov; WeeksDavid
Cc: CoyleFred; HillerGeorgia; FialaDonna; HenningTom; ColettaJim
Subject: Whites Only
COLLIER COUNTY 2010 REDISTRICTING MAP 2
Total Population: 321,520
1
Packet Page -393-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: David Zonies [drzonies @earthiink.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 8:43 PM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: map
Mr. Weeks,
As a Florida citizen for 9 years living in District 2, I would support map 1.
David Zonies
6573 Marissa Loop
Naples FL 34108
1
Packet Page -394-
WeeksDavid
'erom: BeruttiJ @aol.com
nt: Thursday, September 01, 2011 9:13 PM
o: WeeksDavid
Subject: REDISTRICTING
I am a resident of Pelican Bay
James Berutti, 5890 Via Lugano apt. 304, Naples< FL. 34108.
1 vote for Collier County 2010 redistricting Map #1.
Thanks
Packet Page -395-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: Lesley Oliver [lesleymoliver @aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 9:28 PM
To: WeeksDavid
Cc: smarteml @earthlink.net
Subject: Collier County Redistricting
We are IN FAVOR OF MAP 2 when the Commissioners are voting for redistricting in Collier County on September 13th.
Thank you.
Lesley Oliver
Paul Toneguzzo
2272 Island Cove Circle
Naples, Florida
34109
Packet Page -396-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
"-tom: Linda Stavropoulos jilindastav @aol.com]
nt: Friday, September 02, 2011 9:15 AM
10: WeeksDavid
Subject: MAP 1
Please vote for MAP1 since it meets all criteria suggested by the State and County. The
boundaries are fair, compact and regularly shaped. They, also, closely follow known roadways
and county borders and the concentration of racial and ethnic populations are not diluted.
Thank you.
Bill and Linda Stavropoulos
Sent from my iPad
MINQ
Packet Page -397-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: David Silberg [dsilberg @wairisystems.com]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 9:54 AM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: Reapportioning Collier County
David:
Thank you for all your hard work in putting together 5 different alternative ways to reapportion Collier County to meet
the requirements set by the Commissioners and Members of the School Board. Just thinking about the amount of effort
you had to expend gives me a headache.
I enjoyed the presentation you gave at the Golden Gate auditorium; it started my own thought process as to which of
the alternatives I prefer (and why). As you might have guessed, I live in District 3, and my reasoning is based on what
seems best for my district.
My preference is that map alternative #5 be adopted. My reasons for this choice include:
• Map 5 produces the most compact version of district 3, a laudable objective of our State constitution
• Map 5 moves the southernmost section of the current district 3 with whom I, as a resident of Island
Walk, have little in common
• Map 5 adds Vanderbilt Estates to district 3, an area with which we have more in common
I should mention that I am a member of the Board of Directors of the Island Walk Homeowners Association; however,
the comments I have provided in this note are my personal opinions, and do not represent any policy or other official
positions of the Board.
David Silberg
Registered Voter
Precinct 315
Packet Page -398-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
11�m: Linda Stavropoulos [ilindastav @aol.com]
.nt: Friday, September 02, 2011 10:01 AM
o: WeeksDavid
Subject: Re: MAP 1
I'm very concerned about this meeting. Will there be discussion about the pros and cons of redistricting or is
this an open and shut case? What more can be done to keep the districts as they are?
Linda Stavropoulos
8665 Bay Colony Drive
Males, FL
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 2, 2011, at 9:43 AM, WeeksDavid <DavidWeeks(a -,) ergo 7.net> wrote:
Ms. Stavropoulos,
Thank you for indicating your map preference and articulating your rationale.
This will be provided to the Board of County Commissioners prior to their meeting
on September 13, 2011 at which they are scheduled to adopt a redistricting
map.
G
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager /BCC Redistricting Project Manager
Collier County Government
Growth Management Division /Planning and Regulation
Land Development Services Department, Comprehensive Planning Section
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104
phone: 239-252-2306; E- tax:239- 252 -6689
email: davidweeks@colliergov.net
website: www.colliergov.net
2011 BCC Redistricting website: http: / /www.colliergov.net/index.aspx ?page =3214
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Linda Stavropoulos [mailto:ilindastav@u,aol.coml
Sent: Friday, September 02, 20119:15 AM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: MAP 1
Packet Page -399-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Please vote for MAP since it meets all criteria suggested by the State and County. The
boundaries are fair, compact and regularly shaped. They, also, closely follow known roadways
and county borders and the concentration of racial and ethnic populations are not diluted.
Thank you.
Bill and Linda Stavropoulos
Sent from my iPad
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records
request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
Packet Page -400-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
'-�om: Walt Rogers [walt @kovacicusa.com]
Mt: Friday, September 02, 2011 10:21 AM
fo: WeeksDavid
Subject: Please support Map option 1
David - - - --
I am writing to you as a resident of Pelican Bay to solicit you support for Map option 1 for the
following reasons:
• Map option 1 meets all of the criteria put forth by the State and County.
• The boundaries are fair, compact, and regularly shaped. It is easy for constituents and
county officials to remember.
• The boundaries closely follow known roadways and county borders.
• The boundaries of the 3 districts which need additional population simply extend
eastward a little; there are no drastic unprecedented changes.
• The concentration of racial and ethnic populations are not diluted.
Thank you for your support.
NTF IR
,- ` alt Rogers
A. Maarten
6101 Pelican Bay Blvd
Naples, FI 34108
Packet Page -401-
WeeksDavid
From: William Makelim [wmwahoo @gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 11:03 AM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: Redistricting Map
I believe that the 2010 Redistricting Map 1 is best for our area.
William Makelim
765 Bentwater Circle Apt 204
Naples, Florida 34108 -6778
239 597 -0098
1
Packet Page -402-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
,-..From: John laizzo [iaizzo @comcast.net]
nt: Friday, September 02, 2011 11:05 AM
o: WeeksDavid
Subject: Boundaries...!
"—**N
FREE Animations for your email — by IncrediMai!! CIick,Her�e! g
-.
Packet Page -403-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: HillerGeorgia
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 1:14 PM
To: Staros, Ed
Cc: OchsLeo; WeeksDavid
Subject: Re: Possible Redstricting / Collier County
Thank you for your comments.
Georgia Hiller
Commissioner, District 2
On Sep 2, 2011, at 12:42 PM, "Staros, Ed" <Ed.Starosaritzcarlton.com> wrote:
Dear Commissioner Hiller:
With regarding to your upcoming Board meeting on September 13th when redisctricting will be
discussed, per your request I am responding with our position.
As a constituent of Collier County, I have reviewed the five maps presented. Of those maps,
Map #1 is the most fair. The other maps appear to split districts; The Ritz- Carlton Resorts of
Naples wishes to remain in the current District 2. I strongly encourage the Board of County
Commissioners to support Map #l.
Best regards,
—Ed Staros
Edward V. Staros
Vice President/Managing Director
The Ritz- Carlton Resorts of Naples
280 Vanderbilt Beach Road
Naples, Florida 34108
(239) 598 -3300
(239) 598 -6667 /fax
ed. staro s Oritzcarlton. com
www.ritzcarlton.com/ResortsOfNEles
Read about our latest news and offers in The Ritz - Carlton Resorts of Naples' 2011 Summer e-
Newsletter
Find us on Facebook: www .facebook.com /ritzcarltonapies
. t_ f J _: �/{ .,. ,__+ .. Vii✓ v. - ..
Z7 01 Ti 7
C. C_ _ -. t. .r�� , _.. _r 1..�:- _ °F ✓Ci-. ..., ....,
r.
-r- I'. f 7x7
�_..,.3 i. ..� . 7 S.i._
_
Under Florida Law, e -mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e -mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send
electronic mail to this entity. instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
Packet Page -404-
The Golde
Civic 1
September 2, 2011
David Weeks
Comprehensive Planning
Collier County
Dear Mr. Weeks:
Cates Area
n, Inc.
P.O. Box 990596, Naples, FL 34116 -6002
www.estates-civic.org
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
At the final redistricting meeting you requested that all comments be submitted to you by
today.
The compressed timeline of the redistricting process has made it difficult for us to formally
comment as we are in summer recess until 9 /8/11. At our formal board meeting on that date
I fully expect that the Civic Association will develop a detailed and formal response to the
maps that have been proposed. I will see to it that you receive our formal position as soon as
possible.
In the meantime I have been informally polling our board as well as the general
membership. Without exception, Map #2 has drawn the most criticism. At your last meeting,
one of our members Mr. Doug Rankin expressed his opinion that Map #2 would be
"disastrous" for Golden Gate Estates. The loss of our transportation impact funds to other
areas has compromised public safety and resulted in severe hardships in our community.
Our need for safety bridges and paved roads remains unfilled. In addition, we have been
denied a regional park, while lavish expenditures proceeded in other districts.
Map #2 will split Golden Gate Estates into two districts and thereby dilute the political
influence of a cohesive community. This is inconsistent with the direction given to you by
the County Commission, which was to preserve existing communities. Your statement that
Golden Gate Estates is already divided into 2 districts is not functionally correct. The portion
of the Estates which lies West of 951 has for more than a decade or longer not been
considered "parts' of the Estates. They even have a different Street naming convention and
are generally considered part of metropolitan Collier.
Please enter these preliminary comments on the record, with the understanding that a formal
resolution will be forthcoming on this matter.
Peter Gaddy
President
Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association
Packet Page -405-
The Golde
September 2, 2011
Civic Ass
David Weeks
Comprehensive Planning
Collier County
Dear Mr. Weeks:
tates Area
Lion, Inc.
P.O. Box 990596, Naples, FL 34116 -6002
www.estates- civic.or�
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
At the final redistricting meeting you requested that all comments be submitted to you by
today.
The compressed timeline of the redistricting process has made it difficult for us to formally
comment as we are in summer recess until 9/8/11. At our formal board meeting on that date
I fully expect that the Civic Association will develop a detailed and formal response to the
maps that have been proposed. I will see to it that you receive our formal position as soon as
possible.
In the meantime I have been informally polling our board as well as the general
membership. Without exception, Map #2 has drawn the most criticism. At your last meeting,
one of our members Mr. Doug Rankin expressed his opinion that Map #2 would be
"disastrous" for Golden Gate Estates. The loss of our transportation impact funds to other
areas has compromised public safety and resulted in severe hardships in our community.
Our need for safety bridges and paved roads remains unfilled. In addition, we have been
denied a regional park, ,while lavish expenditures proceeded in other districts.
Map #2 will split Golden Gate Estates into two districts and thereby dilute the political
influence of a cohesive community. This is inconsistent with the direction given to you by
the County Commission, which was to preserve existing communities. Your statement that
Golden Gate Estates is already divided into 2 districts is not functionally correct. The portion
of the Estates which lies West of 951 has for more than a decade or longer not been
considered "part" of the Estates. They even have a different Street naming convention and
are generally considered part of metropolitan Collier.
Please enter these preliminary comments on the record, with the understanding that a formal
resolution will be forthcoming on this matter.
Peter Gaddy
President
Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association
Packet Page -406-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
10-1 Hi David,
Thank you so much for the outstanding job you did on the Collier County Commission & School Board
Districts. At all the Public Meetings that I attended, your presentation with such calm, common sense,
respect & thoroughness is /was truly appreciated and remarkable.
1. As an individual, I would prefer that the Eastern boundary of District 1 could be Miller Blvd.
My con - reasons to going out to SR29 are:
• Including such a rural area, remote area east to SR 29, in a much denser, more urban -like area as
the Lely communities & Marco Island, is a stretch for the Communities of Interest criteria. I do
understand that District 1 must increase its population, but I'm not sure where District 1 picks
up that much population, except that probably, the part of Dist 3 it picks up, is dense enough to
increase the population, as well as adding Verona Walk, Reflection Lakes & Beach Resort (east of
Collier & north of E. Tamaimi
• Including Everglades City, Plantation and Chokoloskee Island, such smaller, remote
communities, in with Marco island & the afore mentioned Lely Communities as well as
Lakewood, and other dense communities, also does not fit the Communities of Interest criteria.
I have friends in Everglades City who are quite upset with being moved to District 1.
However, I feel that Map 4 does not address sufficiently, the Minority /Majority Hispanic population,
even though their percentage does go up.
Therefore, map 4 is not the answer!
2. Map 3 is just not acceptable because it includes the City of Naples & Marco Island in the same
District 4.
3. Map 2 is too BOLD. But I have a feeling this is the most political map because of moving Pelican
Bay into District 4 and adding that big area of Golden Gate Estates to District 3.
4. Map 1 is feasible except for my concern above about extending the Eastern boundary of District
1toSR29
5. Which brings us to Map 5. Map 5 has the Eastern boundary of District 1 going to SR29
Otherwise this seems to be the fairest, most compact redistricting given the criteria of
incumbent residencies in their current districts and not breaking up communities of Interest or
Political Subdivisions (again, except for moving Everglades City, Plantation & Chokoloskee Island
into District 1. Map 5 also seems to address sufficiently, the Minority /Majority Hispanic
population, giving them an above 50% majority!
M. GarganRed
Packet Page -407-
Thanks again for all of your efforts.
Marlene "Mickey" Gargan
149 Forest Hills Blvd.
Naples, FL 34113
Packet Page -408-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
11— (Om: Arthur Chase [arthur @checkernet.com]
ynt: Friday, September 02, 2011 2:22 PM
i "o: WeeksDavid
Subject: Redistricting
David: I am a retired State Senator and I do know the importance and difficulty in the
redistricting process. I recognize the importance of keeping a community within a single
district. I am a resident of Pelican bay and everyone I have talked with is in favor of
Map 1. It keeps the community of Pelican Bay within the same district and it combines
Pelican bay with a contiguous community with similar needs.. As a resident of Pelican Bay I
urge you to support Map 1.
Thank You for your help in this matter
Senator Arthur E. Chase, retired.
1
Packet Page -409-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: Jeanne Findlater [findlater @comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 2:44 PM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: Please choose Map 1
I am a resident of Pelican Bay and keenly interested in the
welfare of both my immediate community and the larger community of
Collier County.
I urge you to choose Map 1. It keeps the community of Pelican
Bay politically stable and does not combine us with a contiguous
community with different needs.
Jeanne Findlater
239.514.1133 (Land)
239.537.5373 (Cellular)
5555 Heron Point Drive, 901
Naples, FL 34108 -2781
1
Packet Page -410-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
_ rom: FRAMOH @aol.com
nt: Friday, September 02, 2011 3:18 PM
10: Mickeygg2 @aol.com; lizamac @comcast.net; SteveHemping @aol.com
Subject: District Map Resolution
Democratic Party of Collier County
Evaluation of Proposed County Commission and School Board District Maps
The Constitution of the State of Florida requires that, after each decennial census, the Board of Commissioners is to divide the county
into districts of contiguous territories as nearly equal population as practicable, with one commissioner residing in each district elected
as provided by law.
Underlying Federal law as the basis for all U. S. Census information to be provided to Collier County for reapportioning and
redistricting purposes is provided for in Public Law (P.L.) 94 -171. This law requires the Census Bureau to make special preparations
to provide redistricting data to the 50 states no later than April 1 st of the year following a census and to provide each state and its
subordinate jurisdictions with the small-area data it will need to redraw districts boundaries and, in the case of a covered jurisdiction
like Collier County, county commission and school board districts that permits our local redistricting efforts to meet the lawful
requirements of a "pre - clearance" process conducted by the U. S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Voting Rights Section
prior to final adoption by the County Commission and the School Board.
Specifically, P.L. 94 -171 provides for a voluntary program between the Census Bureau and those jurisdictions that wish to receive
population tabulations for voting districts and other state - specified geographic areas (counties and cities) that elect representatives on a
district basis. Under this program, those responsible for the legislative apportionment and redistricting of each state may devise a plan
identifying the voting districts for which they need specific tabulations and then submit it to the Census Bureau.
Collier County's Supervisor of Elections (SOE) has provided the U. S. Census with a very detailed Geographic Information System
^ TIS) mapping for the entire county. It was the intention of the SOE that their "Voter Tabulation District" (VTD) mapping, accepted
_!y the U. S. Census in 2009, will pay a central role in defining County Commission and School Board district boundaries. The VTD
program was written into P.L. 94 -171 to avoid the outcome common to singular use of census blocks groups in redistricting, i.e.,
ignoring natural geographic features, jurisdictional boundaries, and geographic communities of interest -- political subdivisions
(cities), planned unit developments, and compact and contiguous neighborhoods.
Analysis of the Five Draft Maps Proposing Redistricting Options
On Friday, July 15, 2011, five County Commission and School Board redistricting map options were placed on the public websites of
the Supervisor of Elections (SOE) and Collier County government. An analysis of each of the map proposals follows.
MAP 1: This map proposal bears a strong resemblance to the existing district map configuration adopted in 2002. Modest changes to
the eastern boundaries of District 2, adding 4,071 persons, and that of District 4, adding 16,502 persons, reflect the requirement that
both districts need to add to their populations to approximate an ideal population of 64,304 persons, equaling 20 percent of Collier's
2010 census of 321,520 persons. In this process, Map 1 subtracts 16,663 persons from District 3's 2010 population of 80,204. The
substantial eastward bulge observed in the proposed new boundary for District 1 reflects the need to reduce District 5's population by
11,853 persons while increasing District 1's population by 6,490 persons.
Map 1 includes a total of 32,803 Hispanic persons in District 5, equal to 49.07 percent of the District's draft -map total assignment of
66,847 persons; adding a modest 621 persons of Hispanic origin to Map 1's District 5 would provide it with a slight Hispanic majority
population. The net difference in population between the largest and the smallest Map 1 district is 4,478 persons.
MAP 2: This map proposal bears little resemblance to the existing 2002 district map configuration for District 2, District 3 and
District 4. In the remapping process, District 3 subtracts 16,660 persons from its 2010 population of 80,204 and District 5 subtracts
11,170 persons from its 2010 population of 76,157. The proposed boundary changes for District 1 reflect the need to increase its
population by 7,350 persons; its proposed Map 2 population of 64,963 persons for District 1 represents 20.2 percent of the county total
1'_**N,010 population of 321,520 persons.
The challenge confronting advocates of adopting Map 2 is that it subtracts Pelican Bay from District 2 and adds it to District 4. Also,
it removes a significant part of the northern segment of District 3 and adds it to District 2. Further, Map 2 moves a proposed eastern
Packet Page -411-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
component of a new District 3 into the Golden Gate Estates approximately six miles east of Collier Boulevard/County Road 951 along
a corridor defined by Immokalee Road to the north and White Boulevard to the south.
Map 2 includes a total of 31,976 Hispanic persons in District 5, equal to 49.20 percent of the District's total assignment of 64,987
persons; adding a modest 518 persons of Hispanic origin to Map 2's District 5 would provide it with a slight Hispanic majority
population. The net difference in population between the largest and the smallest Map 2 district is 1,892 persons.
MAP 3: This map proposal bears little resemblance to the existing 2002 district map configuration for District 1 and District 4. In the
remapping process, District 3 subtracts 16,676 persons from its 2010 population of 80,204, adding 2,551 persons to District 2, and
District 5 subtracts 7,310 persons from its 2010 population of 76,157.
The challenge confronting advocates of adopting the Map 3 draft is that it subtracts Marco Island from District 1 and adds it to District
4.
If Map 3 were adopted, it would appear to lead to no county commission election being conducted in that current component of
District 1 that now lies south of US-41 and for much of the land area west of Collier Boulevard/State Road 951.
Map 3 includes a total of 32,803 Hispanic persons in District 5, equal to 49.07 percent of the District's 66,847 persons; by adding a
modest 621 persons of Hispanic origin to Map 3's District 5 population, it would provide Map 3's District 5 with a slight Hispanic
majority population. The net difference in population between the largest and the smallest Map 3 district is 4,264 persons.
MAP 4: Like Map 2, this map proposal impacts District 3 significantly. It subtracts 15,475 persons from its 2010 population of 80,204
by having District 5 lose a major part of the 10,983 persons from its 2010 population of 76,157 due to an eastward bulge of District 3
into the Golden Gate Estates north of the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension.
The proposed boundary changes for District 1 reflect the need to increase is population by 7,540 persons by reducing correspondingly
the 2010 population of District 5.
The challenge confronting advocates of adopting the Map 4 proposal may be that it moves a proposed eastern component of District 3
into the Golden Gate Estates approximately five miles east of Collier Boulevard/County Road 951 along a corridor defined, in part, by
Immokalee Road to the north and Vanderbilt Beach Road to the south.
Map 4 includes a total of 32,361 Hispanic persons in District 5, equal to 49.65 percent of the District's 65,174 persons; by adding a
very modest 227 persons of Hispanic origin to Map 4's District 5 population, it would provide the District with a slight Hispanic
majority population. The net difference in population between the largest and the smallest Map 4 district is 3,554 persons.
MAP 5: This map proposal resembles closely the boundary features for District 2 and District 5 as shown in Map 1. It avoids Map 3's
conundrum of the possibility of no county commission election being conducted in 2012 for the current component of District 1 lying
south of US-41 and most of the area west of State Road 951. The proposed boundary changes for District 1 in Map 5 approximates
closely its boundaries in Map 1; the boundary variations for District 1 in Map 5 are confined to its northwestern corner along eastern
segments of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard.
The reduction of District 5's population and a needed adjustment to District 3's population distribution are the result of adding a small
segment from District 5's current western boundary to District 3 through the addition of the area west of the county's urban-area
boundary line along Collier Boulevard/County Road 951 south of Immokalee Road and north of Vanderbilt Beach Road. This mile -
wide area does not intrude District 3 into the platted Golden Gate Estates.
Map 5 includes a total of 32,439 Hispanic persons in District 5, equal to 50.21 percent of the District's assignment of 64,604 persons;
it is the only one of the five map options that provides clearly for a Hispanic majority population. The net difference in population
between the largest and the smallest district is 3,069 persons.
NOTE: Map 5 is the only one of the five map options providing for a clear majority Hispanic population in District 5. The U.S.
Department of Justice preclearance process would be aided by adopting Map 5 as a clear demonstration that Collier's redistricting
effort has been designed to accommodate its Hispanic voters.
Boundary adjustment for map options 1-4 in order to provide a majority Hispanic population in those districts could be made by
adding to each an area of Precinct 325 west of Collier Boulevard that is east of 42nd Street SW, north of Golden Gate Parkway, and ,\
south of Green Boulevard.
Hispanic Population Considerations
Packet Page -412-
9/13/2011 item 8.D.
Hispanic voters in County Commission/School Board District 5 number a total of 6,383 persons, or 19.68 percent of the 32,439
persons of Hispanic origin in District 5. Total voters in District 5 number 32,055 persons. District 5's 6,383 Hispanic voters represent
X9.91 percent of all District 5 voters.
ne largest concentrations of Hispanic voters are clustered around the Orangetree settlement area in Precinct 590 (746 voters) and
Precinct 591 (1,252 voters), and in Immokalee's Precinct 592 (892 voters) and Precinct 594 (1,142 voters). These four precincts
constitute 63.17 percent of all of the 6,383 Hispanic voters in District 5.
Due to Collier County's status as a "covered jurisdiction" under the terms of the Voting Rights Act it is obligated to address
specifically the desires of Hispanic voters to elect a person(s) of their choice, virtually requiring District 5 candidate(s) to address the
specific needs and desires of Hispanic residents in the District.
Completion of Tasks Associated With Redistricting
On Wednesday, July 13, 2011, Collier County released its schedule for completing the redistricting process. The followinff tasks are
not vet completed:
1. Reporting of independent consultant review of the redistricting process as authorized by the Board of County Commissioners on
April 26, 2011;
2. Adopting legal descriptions for each of the five electoral districts describing each of the five map options prepared for later
review by elected officials and the general public;
3. Preparing an analysis of each of the five map options that incorporates a "pro & con" overview for each map and a retrogression
analysis reporting on the impact of each map option on protected populations;
4. Composing Resolutions for map adoption (one for each map) by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and the District
School Board (DSB);
Composing an Executive Summary for map adoption by the BCC and DSB;
6. Holding BCC and DSB public hearings to adopt a final redistricting map;
7. The District School Board (DSB) has determined that, "After the BCC selects one of the redistricting proposals at its September
13, 2011, meeting, that selection will be placed on the agenda and presented for consideration by the School Board at its October 18th,
2011, meeting ;"
8. Preparing and transmitting a redistricting package to U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division, Voting Rights
Section, for DOJ preclearance as required by Public Law 94 -171; and
9. Holding final Redistricting Adoption Hearings by the BCC and DSB as may be required following the DOJ preclearance review.
R- E- S- O- L- U- T -I -O -N
WHEREAS, the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department has prepared five well crafted map options and presented them
in public meetings in each commission district to hear public comments on each the map options providing members of the public
with an open, transparent process offering opportunities to all interested persons to record their opinions by speaking in public
meetings and/or submitting their comments in writing;
WHEREAS, careful monitoring of the redistricting process by attorneys with redistricting experience will be accomplished by the
Board of County Commissioner (BCC) selection on April 26, 2011, of the law firm Bond Schoeneck & King (658 -3800) to advise the
BCC on the conduct of the redistricting process;
WHEREAS, reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that a sufficient record of public comments on redistricting will be available
/-�1 interested persons with easy access to redistricting records for anyone desiring to participate in the redistricting process;
WHEREAS, the Democratic Party of Collier County believes is important to evaluate the concerns of voters, and others, who,
following redistricting may be located in a different district than they presently reside in, to minimize concerns that they may not
Packet Page -413-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
receive sufficient attention to the needs of their community's from a new commissioner or school board member;
WHEREAS, Map 5 has a small net difference in population between the largest and the smallest district of 3,069 persons, second only
to the net difference of 1,892 persons for Map 2; n
WHEREAS, Map 5 represents the only one of the five map options providing for a majority Hispanic population in District 5; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Justice preclearance process would be aided by the Board of County Commissioners and the
District School Board adopting Map 5 as a clear demonstration that Collier County's redistricting effort has been designed to
accommodate its Hispanic voters.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Collier County Democratic Party recommends the adoption of Map 5 by the
Board of County Commissioners and the District School Board as a balanced distribution of Collier County's 2010 population,
district -by- district, and providing for a District 5 majority- minority population of Hispanic persons.
Respectfully submitted,
7 &41&" 14. Cava, 64,16T
Democratic Executive Committee of Collier County
Packet Page -414-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
�
om: Peggy and Frank Butler [peggyfrank @comcast.net]
nt: Friday, September 02, 2011 3:38 PM
o: WeeksDavid
Subject: Redistricting Options for Collier County
Dear David,
The purpose of this email is to voice my opionion concerning which of the five (5) options for
redistricting Collier County should be adopted by the BCC. I have reviewed the five (5) proposed
redistricting maps, and, for maximum consistency with the current boundaries of all five districts, I
highly recommend that the Board choose MAP 1. The less impact caused by redistricting, the better!
By moving the boundaries of the three districts that require additional population slightly eastward, as
outlined in Map 1, the boundaries that exist currently would remain basically intact -- maintaining a
high degree of familiarity for, and the least amount of change required of, almost all county residents.
Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Frank Butler
Naples, FL
n
Packet Page -415-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: Joan Klipping Doanstudio @earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 4:27 PM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: please support map 1
Dear David,
It is easy for constituents and county officials to remember.
MAP 1 meets all the criteria put forth by the State and the County and
it's boundaries are fair, compact, and regularly shaped.
Thank You,
Joan Klipping
5555 Heron Point Drive 4 1002
Naples, Florida 34108
Packet Page -416-
n
n
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: Laurel Paster [Ipaster4 @gmail.com]
"O�nt: Friday, September 02, 2011 4:43 PM
o: WeeksDavid
Subject: Redistricting choice
Dear Mr. Weeks:
After attending several redistricting sessions where ,you carefully and thoroughly explained the process your
team went through to arrive at the five maps I have decided that #5 seems best to me.
I chose it because I like its lines regarding District 2 and District 5. I live in 2 and like the clean lines you have
drawn -- compact and contiguous and with some diversity of communities but also some commonalities. I think
Pelican Bay and Barefoot Beach as well as the other beach front properties have much in common, while the
part of North Naples in 2 has much in common with Bonita Shores, Emerald Lakes and parts of Bay Forest. It
is also clearly divided from 3 by I -75 and that makes sense to me.
As for 5, I like the idea of majority- minority district so that people there will (maybe) finally have
representation of their own choosing (if they go out to vote).
Thank you for taking input from the public. I hope the commissioners do the same.
Laurel Paster
64 4th St. C -204
^onita Springs, Fl 34134
.ny post office address.
Ipaster4 ,amail.com
(I live in Bonita Shores and Collier County, not the Springs in Lee County. That is
Packet Page -417-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: george koliber [gnjknpls @yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 20114:52 PM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: support MAP 1 redistricting
After reviewing all of the available maps it appears that MAP 1 is the most logical for our community.
The boundaries are simple to follow and provide a homogeneous district.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the plans.
George and June Koliber
5555 Heron Point Drive
Naples, Fl 34108
Packet Page -418-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
, - •'�rom: lor3lor3 @aol.com
ent: Friday, September 02, 2011 5:39 PM
fo: WeeksDavid
Subject: Comments on Redistricting
Dear Mr. Weeks,
After careful and objective examination of the five county redistricting maps, it is clear that
MAP 1 best meets the redistricting criteria set forth by the state and the county.
U";
1. The boundaries are fair, compact, and regularly shaped. Thus, it is easy for
constituents and county officials to remember.
2. The boundaries closely follow familiar roadways and county borders.
3. The boundaries of the 3 districts which need additional population simply extend
eastward a little from their current boundaries; there is no drastic unprecedented
changes.
4. The concentration of racial and ethnic populations is minimally affected, and
not diluted.
urge you to recommend MAP 1 to the Board of County Commissioners.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Linda Roth
Pelican Bay
North Naples
Packet Page -419-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: leeazaroff @comcast.net
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 6:41 PM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: Support Plan 1
Dear Mr. Weeks,
Please add my voice to those supporting Map 1 in the upcoming redistricting. In virtually all
respects it makes the most sense in that it follows natural boundaries, is ethnically representative,
and reflects the desires and wishes of the residents most affected.
I would greatly appreciate your supporting this position and passing on my views to the County
Commissioners.
Sincerely yours,
L. V, Azaroff
The Heron in Pelican Bay
Packet Page -420-
WeeksDavid
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
/--q�om: gothiclilies @aol.com
ant: Friday, September 02, 2011 8:33 PM
o: Voting.Section @usdoj.gov; askdoj @usdoj.gov; WeeksDavid
Cc: HenningTom; HillerGeorgia; CoyleFred; FialaDonna; ColettaJim
Subject: Collier County, Florida voting rights apartheid
COLLIER COUNTY 2010 (HISPANIC MINORITY) REDISTRICTING MAP
Packet Page -421-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: lousjo @comcast.net
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 12:27 PM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: Redistricting
Mr. Weeks,
definitely agree with the Pelican Bay Foundation and the Pelican Bay Property
Owners that MAP 1 most closely meets the redistricting criteria of the state and the
county.
I strongly urge that you recommend this solution to the Collier County Commissioners.
Thank you for seeing that the additional comments will be provided to the
Commissioners. and
thank you for your attention to this issue.
Joanne K. Smith
25 year resident of Collier County
Packet Page -422-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
mom: Noreen Murray [noreenmurray @comcast.net]
;nt: Saturday, September 03, 2011 12:29 PM
go: WeeksDavid
Subject: Redistricting
We are voting residents of District 2. We attended you presentation in North Naples and think Map 1 makes the most
sense.
Noreen Murray and Keith Dallas
111�
Packet Page -423-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: BAllison @aol.com
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 20114:11 PM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: Redistricting
Dear Mr. Weeks,
We would like to add our voices to those who favor MAP 1 as it seems to be the most reasonable and
effective solution. Barbara and William Allison, Pelican Bay Blvd.
Packet Page -424-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
from: Donna Sadler [pschuck86 @hotmail.com]
Ent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 9:07 PM
ro: WeeksDavid
Subject: Redistricting
Dear David Weeks, I know that it is too late to make a comment about the redistricting but I would still like to
put my two cents worth in.
First of all, how map #2 even got drawn as one of the choices is beyond me, second, the citizens of Collier
County know how three of the current Commissioners will choose how they want the lines drawn no matter
what we have to say about it. I have heard many people already talking about it and say that a decision has
already been made and it looks like map #2 is the one the Commissioners are choosing.
What happened to "commission districts be as compact and regularly shaped as feasible "? Map #2 is the most
chopped up one out of the five. I will be affected by this map #2 if voted on and I don't think that I should be
apart of district #3. 1 don't have anything against Commissioner Henning, in fact I like his views but I am part
of the Estates not Golden Gate City Limits.
Maybe I am jumping the gun in thinking that map #2 is going to be the final line but if it is, it is not fair as I was
hoping to be able to vote against Commissioner Coletta in 2012!
Thank you, Donna Sadler
Packet Page -425-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: Henry Price [hprice @price- law.com] n
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 7:30 AM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: Map 1
Preserve private property rights from from the sneak attack which the proponents of map 2
hope To launch.
Sent from my iPad
1
Packet Page -426-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
/-AITm: gothiclilies @aol.com
nt: Sunday, September 04, 2011 9:10 AM
o: askdoj @usdoj.gov; WeeksDavid; Voting.Section @usdoj.gov
Cc: CoyleFred; FialaDonna; ColettaJim; HillerGeorgia; HenningTom; KlatzkowJeff
Subject: Collier County, Florida CRITERIA for redistricting
Why did Collier County, Florida staff purposely use SUBSTITUTE criteria instead of the approved criteria for the public
meetings powerpoint presentation?
Because they do not want to show the 4 approved criteria...
At the 4/26/11 meeting, the Collier BCC passed the original Executive Summary with only 3 approved criteria of "population,
compactness, & incumbents". "Racial and ethnic populations" was in the next paragraph as a consideration. It was not voted on to be a
criteria.
Then, two days after the 5 maps were posted on the redistricting website, new criteria was posted, adding the 4th approved criteria,
"Consider racial and ethnic populations in accordance with the law ", (those are the words Commissioner Hiller used at the April
meeting).
County staff claims the approved 4th criteria "consider racial and ethnic populations" is just an additional consideration, which can
be compared to other "unlisted" criteria such as "communities of interest ". This is the basis of their claim that they are "not required
to" draw majority minority districts, because the other "unlisted "criteria are equal.
THEIR MISTAKE was when they changed "consider racial and ethnic populations" from an "additional consideration" to the
4th approved criteria. As a now approved criteria the definition of the word "consider" changes to mean:
"racial and ethnic populations" can now "only be considered" to the 4 approved criteria and not to other "unlisted" criteria like
"communities of interest".
iey cannot use "communities of interest" as a reason to not draw a majority minority district because "communities of interest" is
not one of the 4 approved criteria.
All 5 of the proposed BCC redistricting maps do not comply with the 4th criteria, therefor in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
My majority minority district map proposal satisfies the first 3 criteria of "population, compactness, & incumbents" and "racial and ethnic
populations" (with 59.9% hispanic population).
So, they must also draw a 59.9% district
John Lundin
Packet Page -427-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: Alice Kay Potter [akpotter01 @comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 10:08 AM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: recommend collier county redistricting map No. One
Dear Mr. Weeks, Will you kindly inform the five commissioners of Collier County that I strongly recommend
that they select Map Number One as the new redistricting map of our county. The new districts drawn on this
map accomplish the intended purpose of the redistricting decree in the most democratic manner. Yours
sincerely, Alice Kay Potter, 30 year loyal resident, voter and taxpayer of Collier County, 6001 Pelican Bay
Blvd., PHC, Naples, Fl. 34108, 239 -598 -2149.
Packet Page -428-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
mom: Ritabernstein @aol.com
:nt: Monday, September 05, 2011 10:53 AM
o: WeeksDavid
Subject: redistricting
gentlemen: i am requesting that you recommend MAP 1 -- MAP 1 meets all the criteria put forth by the state and the
county - -the boundaries are fair, compact, and regularly shaped (easy for constituents and county officials to remember) —
and the boundaries closely follow known roadways and county borders - -thank you for your kind attention - -rita bernstein
Packet Page -429-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: Haftl @aol.com
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 1:44 PM n
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: Redistricting
Mr. Weeks
We are residents of Pelican Bay. We support Collier County Redistricting Map 1.
We feel the boundaries as set forth in Map 1 are fair and perceptible, They are compact and regularly
shaped. They follow known roadways and borders. The can easily be remembered in particular by those
in the county and state who must have knowledge of them.
Thanks all of you for your time and effort.
Mr. and Mrs. Richard J. Haftl
700 Bentwater Circle
Naples, Fl. 34108
Packet Page -430-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
from: Johan Domenie [hobodory@comcast.net]
ant: Monday, September 05, 2011 4:58 PM
ro: WeeksDavid
Subject: Re- districting
You have been tasked with an unenviable job. Florida's population has increased and we will
have two more representatives in the Federal Congress. In Collier County we have also seen
an increased population over the last ten years - but the population has not increased
proportionally over the five Districts which elect our five Commissioners.
District lines have to be redrawn so that each Commissioner will represent approximately
the same number of constituents, without resorting to Gerrymandering to satisfy certain
interests or minorities.
To resolve this dilemma five (5) proposed District delineations have been presented.
I support "Map 1 ".
It follows existing and traditional geographic lines (roads) and does not resort to
Gerrymandering to achieve some ethnic variety, without restricting any segment of the
population.
Please note I have been a full time year -round resident of Collier County since 1987. 1 have
,erved on Association Boards; 10 years on the Board of an MSTBU; volunteer for CERT
(Community Emergency Response Team); three terms as Treasurer of St. John's Episcopal
Church; etc; etc. I follow with great interest what happens here in Collier County!
Please vote for "Map 1"
Johan Domenie
749 Bentwater Circle #201
Naples, FL 34108
566 -3179
Packet Page -431-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: ron diorio [diorioron @yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 6:23 PM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: Proposed redistricting plan
Mr. Weeks,
I wish you and the County Commissioners to know that I object strenuously to your sneaking through important new rules
during the time of year when our population is at its lowest.
I am a year round resident for 17 years but I take vacations too and this is the best time of year to be away. Therefore
even year round residents are penalized by this clearly politically driven agenda.
If you or the commissioners are afraid to present this in the light of day then you must have reasons that are not to my
benefit.
Shall I guess that this important measure does not require a super - majority vote? It is of a magnitude that it should be
required to be approved by a super majority. Or are we being sneaky on this too?
If you (plural) insist on moving ahead now despite my and others' complaints about your timing then please record my
opposition to Redistricting Map 2 which also is clearly a politically driven move for reasons you have to be aware of. It is a
classic bit of gerrymandering.
I encourage the Commissioners to approve Map 1. Its boundaries are fair and reasonably shaped. It recognizes the major
population increase of the eastern part of the county and avoids major upheaval.
Ronald J. Diorio
6510 Valen Way
Naples, FL 34108
Packet Page -432-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Weeks-David
'erom: Pburghjim @aol.com
nt: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 3:55 PM
o: WeeksDavid
Subject: Comments on Collier County Redistricting
Dear Mr. Weeks,
My wife and I are residents of Pelican Bay and I am a registered voter of Florida. I am writing to
express our support for Map Option 1, which retains Pelican Bay in District 2. This option is the least
disruptive of the proposed alternatives and meets state and county requirements. It ensures that our
community will continue with its historical identification that conforms to well -known geographic and
political boundaries.
It is disturbing to read of efforts to dilute our community's voice by those who live elsewhere, who
would advocate that Pelican Bay's district affiliation be changed, as per the recent article published on
a Naples real estate web site:
www.napies-fl-real-estate.com/201 1 /red istricting-nap les/
Please convey our strong support for Map Option 1 to the BCC at the upcoming meeting on
September 13.
ja��,lo�yr�o�ti
n
iary and James Johnson
6573 Marissa Loop
Naples, FL 34108
Packet Page -433-
9/1312011 Item 8.D.
WeeksDavid
From: stanley stolar [sstolar @gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 4:09 PM
To: WeeksDavid
Subject: Redistricting
I agree with these reasons for urging adoption of Map Option 1:
1 . Map 1 meets all the criteria put forth by the State and County
2. The boundaries are fair, compact and regularly shaped. It is easy for constituents and county officials
3. The boundaries closely follow known roadways and county borders.
4. The boundaries of the three districts that need additional population are simply extended eastward sl
5. The concentrations of racial and ethnic populations are not diluted.
Stanley Stolar
5555 Heron Point Drive, Unit 601
Naples, 34108
Packet Page -434-
WeeksDavid
from: Dorrine Stolar [dgstolar @gmail.com]
Tuesday, September 06, 2011 4:13 PM
o: WeeksDavid
Subject: I agree with Map Option 1 adoption
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
......
I agree with these reasons for urging adoption of Map Option 1:
1. Map 1 meets all the criteria put forth by the State and County
2. The boundaries are fair, compact and regularly shaped. It is easy for constituents and county officials tc
3. The boundaries closely follow known roadways and county borders.
4. The boundaries of the three districts that need additional population are simply extended eastward slig!
5. The concentrations of racial and ethnic populations are not diluted.
Dorrine Stolar
5555 Heron Point Drive, #601, Naples, Florida 34-1-0-8
- -. .
1
Packet Page -435
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
2011 COLLIER COUNTY REDISTRICTING
Independent Review by
Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
of the
2011 Redistricting Process conducted by the
Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department
Overview prepared for the
Board of County Commissioners by:
Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
4001 Tamiami Trail N, Suite 250
Naples, FL 34103
Tel: 239.659.3800
Fax: 239.659.3812
Packet Page -436-
n
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
2011 Collier County Redistricting
Independent Review by Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
Table of Contents
1. Background ................................................................................ ..............................1
2. Purpose of this Review .............................................................. ..............................2
3. Statement Regarding Bond, Schoeneck & King's Involvement .. ..............................3
4. Compliance with the County Commissioner's Redistricting Criteria .........................4
a. Criterion #1 (Equal Population) ........:..................................... ............................... 4
b. Criterion #2 (Compact and Regularly Shaped) ...................... .............................. 5
c. Criterion #3 (Incumbents) ...................................................... ............................... 6
d. Criterion #4 (Racial /Ethnic Considerations) ........................... ............................... 6
i. Voting Rights Act of 1965 .................................................... ..............................6
1. Section 5 (Preclearance) ............................................... ..............................6
a. Discriminatory Effect (Retrogression) ........................ ............................... 7
b. Discriminatory Purpose ............................................. ............................... 8
2. Section 2 (Minority Dilution) •.••.•••• 9
................................. ...............................
ii. Equal Protection .................................................................. .............................11
iii. Potential Voting Rights Act Liability .................................... .............................11
5. Other Considerations ................................................................ .............................12
a. Presidential Preference Primary ............................................ .............................12
b. Traditional Redistricting Principles .................. ...............................
.....................
6. Verification of Data .................................................................... .............................13
7. Process and Public Feedback ................................................... ...:.........................14
a. Map Drawing Process ........................................................... .............................15
b. Public Meetings and other Outreach ..................................... .............................16
c. Recommendations for 2021 ................................................... .............................17
8. Conclusion ................................................................................ .............................17
Packet Page -437-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
2011 Collier County Redistricting
Independent Review by Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
Table of Exhibits
Exhibit A
County's Request for Information and Bond's Response
Exhibit B
Bond's Total Population Deviation Calculations
Exhibit C
Department of Justice Section 5 Guidance
Exhibit D
Bond's Summary of Retrogression Analysis
Exhibit E
Supervisor of Elections Timeline
Exhibit F
Bond's Data Verification Maps
Packet Page -438-
/'\
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
2011 Collier County Redistricting
Independent Review by Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
1. Background
Pursuant to Article VII, Section 1(e) of the Florida Constitution, after completion of the
2010 Census, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (the "BCC ") shall
divide Collier County into five districts of "contiguous territory as nearly equal in
population as practicable ". Florida Statute §124.01(3) allows changes to the districts
"only in odd - numbered years." Due to population increases since 2001, the BCC must
adopt new district boundaries in 2011, or wait until 2013 to do so.
In deference of the 2011 adoption deadline, on April 26, 2011, the BCC resolved to
adopt a new redistricting map in September. The September adoption date took
account of the preclearance requirement under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
(discussed in Paragraph 4.d.i.1. below), pursuant to which the Department of Justice
must pre- approve the BCC's redistricting map. The Department of Justice has a
maximum of sixty (60) days to review the map. As an additional incentive for a timely
adoption of a new redistricting map, the BCC should appraise the impact of the new
redistricting map on the Presidential Preference Primary (discussed in Paragraph 5.a.
below).
The BCC directed the Comprehensive Planning Department ( "Staff ") to draw five (5)
alternative redistricting maps using the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data. The BCC
established four specific redistricting criteria to be followed by Staff in development of
the five map alternatives. These criteria assure compliance with: (i) the Florida
Constitution, (ii) Florida Statutes, (iii) the U.S. Constitution, and (iv) Federal Law. This is
the same procedure used in the 2001 redistricting process. The four redistricting criteria
identified by the BCC are:
2011 BCC Redistricting Criteria
1. The population of each district should be as similar as possible.
2. All districts should be as compact and regularly shaped as feasible.
3. The incumbent Commissioner's residence (and the School Board
members) must remain in his or her current district.
4. Consider racial and ethnic populations in accordance with the law.
The BBC instructed Staff to create five alternative redistricting maps, each shall comply
with these four criteria. The BCC further directed Staff to solicit comments from the
public as to their map preference. In September, the BCC shall choose one of the five
maps for submission to the Department of Justice for preclearance.
n
Packet Page -439-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
2011 Collier County Redistricting
Independent Review by Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
2. Purpose of this Review
At the direction of the BCC, Staff engaged the law firm of Bond, Schoeneck & King,
PLLC ( "Bond ") to conduct an independent review of the 2011 redistricting process. The
Comprehensive Planning Department selected Bond competitively on its response to
Request for Information #11 -5654 ( "RFI "). A copy of the RFI and Bond's response are
attached as composite Exhibit "A ".
During the 2001 redistricting process, the BCC and Staff did not have independent
review; however, during this 2011 redistricting process, the guidance provided by Bond
was requested as an additional measure by the BCC and Staff to ensure compliance
with the constitutional and statutory requirements (both Federal and State) of the
redistricting process. As specified in the RFI, Bond was retained to:
• Service #1 "Review state law and provide feedback to the Comprehensive Planning Department
to ensure the process used meets state law requirements;"
Addressed in Article 7 of this review (Process and Public Feedback)
• Service #2 "Review the County's updated US Census Bureau data based on the most recent
federal census data; using GIS mapping techniques ensure the data accuracy of map
options developed by the Comprehensive Planning Department,"
Addressed in Article 6 of this review (Data Verification)
• Service #3a "Review and provide feedback to the County on the process methodology used to
garner feedback from the community-"
Addressed in Article 7 of this review (Process and Public Feedback)
• Service #3b "Ensure the re- districting criteria is followed in development of the map options;"
Addressed in Article 4 of this review (Compliance with Criteria)
• Service #4 "Observe one community feedback session;"
Addressed in Article 7 of this review (Process and Public Feedback)
• Service #5 "Provide feedback, so as to ensure consistency with state law, on the five options for
redistricting prior to the presentation to the Board of County Commissioners; and"
Addressed in Article 4 of this review (Compliance with Criteria)
• Service #6 "Prepare a brief overview of the accuracy and completeness of the methodology
used for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners when options are
presented. "
Addressed in Article 7 of this review (Process and Public Feedback) ^
2
Packet Page -440-
11-1*N
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
2011 Collier County Redistricting
Independent Review by Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
3. Statement Regarding Bond, Schoeneck & King's Involvement
Bond's role in the 2011 redistricting process has been to serve as an independent third
party.
On May 20, 2011, Bond attorney Adam C. Kerlek attended a staff redistricting meeting
with David Weeks (Staff's Redistricting Project Manager), Scott Teach (County
Attorney's Office), Michael Bosi (Comprehensive Planning Manager), a Geographic
Information System ( "GIS ") technician, and Tim Durham (Supervisor of Elections). At
this meeting, Bond observed the staff's finalization of the redistricting timeline and
issues regarding publication of notice of public meetings. Bond provided a summary of
permissible considerations when drawing the five alternative maps, as set out in federal
and state case law. The Voting Rights Act was also discussed, with additional input
from Tim Durham. The parties in attendance determined that Bond should not
participate in the drawing of the alternative maps. Rather, Bond would conduct an
independent evaluation of the five alternative maps and verify that they are in full
compliance with the law. At this meeting, it was established that Bond would not be
duplicating the efforts of the County Attorney's office, but would be verifying that the
County was acting in accordance with the law.
Bond attended both the first and last public meetings. Bond intentionally did not answer
questions, but monitored the information contained in the answers provided by David
Weeks, Tim Durham and Scott Teach.
Bond communicated primarily with David Weeks, the Project Panager. Mr. Weeks
forwarded to Bond all relevant a -mails received by him, as well as any other pertinent
correspondence between Staff and the public.
Bond also communicated with Tim Durham of the Collier Supervisor of Elections Office.
The Supervisor of Elections had no role in drawing the maps, but provided technical
support. Mr. Durham was involved in the 2001 redistricting process when he was at the
County Attorney's Office. Mr. Durham possesses detailed knowledge of the redistricting
process and has taught redistricting principles to Supervisor of Election personnel
throughout Florida. Mr. Durham also provided insight as to timing issues surrounding
the redistricting process from the perspective of the Collier Supervisor of Elections
Office.
Packet Page -441-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
2011 Collier County Redistricting
Independent Review by Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
4. Compliance with the County Commissioner's Redistricting
Criteria
The BCC and Staff instructed that Bond verify each of the five alternative map's
compliance with the BCC's four redistricting criteria.
a. Criterion #1 (Equal Population)
"The population of each district should be as similar as possible."
The Florida Constitution, Florida Statutes, and the U.S. Constitution, require nearly
equal population in each voting district.
The Florida Constitution and Florida Statutes require the BCC to adopt a redistricting
map that has contiguous districts which are as equal in population as practicable, and
that the boundaries thereof be adopted in odd numbered years. See Florida
Constitution, Article VIII, Section 1(e) and Florida Statutes, Chapter 124.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution also requires that the districts be of
substantially equal population. This is known as the "one person, one vote"
requirement. For counties, an exact equality of population is not required. Case law
suggests that total population deviation should be no more than 10% between the most
heavily populated district and the least populated district. The districts are to be drawn
using total population and not voting age, citizen, or registered voter count.
In Collier County, the ideal or target population for each district based on 2010 census
data is 64,304 persons. A total deviation of 10% between the districts is permitted (or ±
5% from 64,304). Therefore, any potential proposed districts should have populations
between 61,089 and 67,519.
Each of the five districts in Collier County have experienced population growth since
2001; however, the growth has been disparate among the districts. The following data
shows the current population of each district as they stand now, and the adjustments
needed to achieve the ideal population.
BCC District
Population
as of April 1,
2010
Ideal
Population
Adjustment
Needed
1
57,613
64,304
+6,691
2
60,032
64,304
+4,272
3
80,207
64,304
- 15,903
4
47,511
64,304
+16,793
5
76,157
64,304
- 11,853
Total
321,520
321,520
Packet Page -442-
/-IN
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
2011 Collier County Redistricting
Independent Review by Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
The BCC specified as its primary redistricting criterion that "the population of each
district should be as similar as possible ", which is in compliance with the U.S.
Constitution's "one person, one vote" principle.
BCC CRITERION #1 CONCLUSION: Bond has reviewed the population data under
each of the five alternative maps and has concluded that all five maps meet Criterion #1
established by the BCC. Please see the summary of Bond's population deviation
analysis attached as Exhibit "B" .
Alternative Map 1
COMPLIES,
maximum deviation is 7.0% < 10%
Alternative Map 2
COMPLIES,
maximum deviation is 3.0% < 10%
Alternative Map 3
COMPLIES,
maximum deviation is 6.6% < 10%
Alternative Map 4
COMPLIES,
maximum deviation is 5.5% < 10%
Alternative Map 5
COMPLIES,
maximum deviation is 4.8% < 10%
b. Criterion #2 (Compact and Regularly Shaped)
"All districts should be as compact and regularly shaped as
feasible."
Both Florida Statutes and Federal law require that the BCC adopt districts that are
geographically "contiguous ". Contiguous districts may be connected by land or water,
but there may not be any pockets contained within another district. Note, the BCC's
Criterion #2 uses the words "compact" and "regularly shaped" rather than "contiguous ",
but all districts which are compact and regularly shaped are by definition contiguous.
"Compactness" or "regular shape" is recognized by the Federal courts as a traditional
redistricting principle, but the courts have not established a general standard under
which to measure compactness. Courts have applied an intuitive "eyeball" test - does. it
look reasonably compact and is it similar in shape to other districts drawn? The U.S.
Supreme Court has found districts to violate compactness if they are "dramatically
irregular" or "bizarre ", but has also held that the U.S. Constitution does not mandate
regularity of shape.
BCC CRITERION #2 CONCLUSION: Bond has reviewed the contiguousness,
compactness, and general shape of the districts under each of the five alternative maps
and has concluded that all five alternative maps meet Criterion #2 established by the
BCC.
Packet Page -443-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
2011 Collier County Redistricting
Independent Review by Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
C. Criterion #3 (Incumbents)
"The incumbent Commissioner's residence (and School Board
members) must remain in his or her current district."
The incumbency criterion is recognized by the courts as a traditional redistricting
principle under the theory that maintaining an incumbent in his or her district recognizes
the will of the voters who elected the incumbent.
CRITERION #3 CONCLUSION: Bond has reviewed the residential addresses of the
Commissioners and School Board Members under each of the five alternative maps
and has concluded that all five maps meet Criterion #3 established by the BCC.
d. Criterion #4 (Racial /Ethnic Considerations)
"Consider racial and ethnic populations in accordance with the
law."
Consideration of racial /ethnic population while redistricting is permissible under the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the U.S. Constitution, but only in specific circumstances
as explained below. Because of Collier County's significant Hispanic population in 10—N
District 5, the BCC should be alert to potential violations of the Voting Rights Act.
L Voting Rights Act of 1965
Two sections of the Voting Rights Act apply to Collier County. First, Section 5 requires
the BCC to submit its proposed map to the Department of Justice for preclearance. If
the Department of Justice determines the submitted map has a discriminatory effect, or
that the BCC had a discriminatory purpose, the Department of Justice will object to the
map and require the BCC to draw a compliant map. If no objection is made, the BCC
may adopt the map without modification. Second, Section 2 provides an affected citizen
with a remedy to oppose the BCC's precleared map, if the affected citizen can show the
map dilutes a minority population's voting strength in a district or districts.
1. Section 5 (Preclearance)
Collier County is a "covered jurisdiction" under Section 5 of the Act.' Collier County
must obtain a determination from the Department of Justice in advance of implementing
' Collier County was added in 1975 as a "covered jurisdiction" because less than 50 percent of the voting
age population was registered to vote or voted in the 1972 presidential election, and Collier County had
utilized some form of literacy test only in areas where more than 5% of the population was a language
minority. The other five counties in Florida covered by Section 5 are Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough and
Monroe.
0
Packet Page -444-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
2011 Collier County Redistricting
Independent Review by Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
the redistricting map that the BCC's submitted map: (i) does not have a discriminatory
purpose, and (ii) will not have the discriminatory effect of denying or abridging the right
to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. The
burden of proof is on Collier County to demonstrate that there is no discriminatory
purpose or effect.
On February 9, 2011, the Department of Justice published guidance concerning
redistricting under Section 5. The Department of Justice's guidance is not legally
binding, but does provide some instruction as to what the Department of Justice is
looking at during their review process. A copy of the Department of Justice Guidance is
attached as Exhibit "C ".
a. Discriminatory Effect (Retrogression)
Under Section 5, the BCC's selected map cannot have a "discriminatory effect ". The
Act specifically states that the map may not diminish the ability of any citizens of the
U.S. because of race, color, or membership in a language minority to elect the
candidate of their choice. A map has a discriminatory effect if the map, when compared
to the benchmark map (2001 district map), results in a "retrogression" in the number of
minorities. Simply, are the minorities "worse off" in 2011 than they were in 2001 ?
Traditionally, the Department of Justice compares the old 2001 map with the proposed
2011 map, and uses census data to determine if any minority population has
experienced a percentage decrease in each district. See the summary of Staff's
retrogression analysis - attached as Exhibit "D" which shows that there were minimal
decreases ( <2 %) in minority population percentages in District 1 in alternative maps 1
and 5, and in District 4 in alternative maps 2 and 3. These minimal decreases are
explained by natural shifts in population and are not the result of any discriminatory
purpose. Further, Districts 1 and 4 do not have a large enough minority population to
be subject to a retrogression challenge (i.e. minorities in Districts 1 and 4 are no more
or less likely to be able to elect their candidate of choice under the new map). More
significantly, the five alternative maps drawn by Staff do not-have a statistical
retrogressive effect in District 5, which is the only District with a significant Hispanic
citizen voting age population, and therefore the District most likely to raise any
retrogression issues.
Notwithstanding the purely mathematical retrogression analysis, the Department of
Justice may require additional demographic and election data to assist them in making
the determination of whether there is any discriminatory effect. The Department of
Justice and Federal Courts have used the following criteria to determine whether a
redistricting map complies with Section 5's requirement against "discriminatory effect 2
• whether minority voting strength is reduced by the proposed redistricting;
• whether minority concentrations are fragmented among different districts;
2 28 CFR 51.56 -59
7
Packet Page -445-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
2011 Collier County Redistricting
Independent Review by Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
• whether minorities are over - concentrated in one or more districts;
• whether alternative plans satisfying the jurisdiction's legitimate governmental
interests exist, and whether they were considered;
• whether the proposed map departs from objective redistricting criteria set by the
submitting jurisdiction and ignores other relevant factors such as compactness
and contiguity, or displays a configuration that inexplicably disregards available
natural or artificial boundaries; and
• whether the map is consistent with the jurisdiction's stated redistricting
standards.
It appears that none of the five alternative maps: (i) reduce the Hispanic voting strength
in any districts, (ii) fragment or over - concentrate the Hispanic population among the
districts (i.e. the Hispanic population is not intentionally "packed" into District 5 to avoid
multiple majority- minority districts, or "cracked" between Districts to avoid a majority -
minority district). Finally, as mentioned throughout this review, all five of the alternative
plans are consistent with the BCC's redistricting criteria and do not ignore traditional
redistricting principles. Notwithstanding the above, Bond suggests the BCC submit
additional demographic and election data to the Department of Justice, such as election
history, voting patterns, voter registration and turnout information in order to expedite
the Department of Justice's analysis.
b. Discriminatory Purpose 10-1-1
The U.S. Congress' 2006 amendments to Section 5 have clarified that a map may not
have a "discriminatory purpose ". Prior to this clarification by Congress, the Supreme
Court held in Reno v. Bossier Parish, 528 U.S. 320 (2000) that if a map does not
retrogress (i.e. the minority population is not worse off under the new map) then it does
not matter whether there is any underlying discriminatory purpose. However, the
Department of Justice guidance mentioned above suggests that the Department of
Justice will look beyond a purely statistical analysis of whether there is retrogression
and review direct or circumstantial evidence of whether there is any discriminatory
purpose. The Department of Justice has stated that it will consider public statements of
members involved in the redistricting process.
During Bond's involvement in the redistricting process, Bond observed no evidence of
discriminatory intent or purpose in the map drawing process. There have been
allegations from a member of the public that Staff has intentionally failed to create a
majority- minority district in District 5, and consequently had a discriminatory purpose in
doing so. While Bond believes that to be patently false, the Department of Justice has
the authority to object to any of the plans presented to the BCC.
Significantly, the Department of Justice guidance states "the single fact that a
jurisdiction's proposed redistricting map does not contain the maximum possible
number of districts in which minority group members are a majority of the population or
have the ability to elect candidates of choice to office, does not mandate that the ^
Packet Page -446-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
2011 Collier County Redistricting
Independent Review by Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
Attorney General interpose an objection based on a failure to demonstrate the absence
of a discriminatory purpose. Rather the Attorney General will base the determination on
a review of the map in its entirety ".3
2. Section 2 (Minority Dilution)
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits voting practices that result "in a denial or
abridgment of the right of any citizen ... to vote on account of race or color, [or language
minority status]." Simply, Section 2 prohibits the dilution of minority voting strength.
Unlike Section 5, Section 2 of the Act applies nationwide. Section 2 is less burdensome
to the BCC because a person claiming that a redistricting map violates its provisions
must file a lawsuit and prove his or her case. However, Collier County has a significant
minority population (specifically Hispanic) and must consider whether any adopted
redistricting map will avoid potential section 2 liability should there be a challenge.
In practical terms, this non - discrimination provision prohibits districting practices that
result in "packing" minorities into a single district in an effort to limit their voting strength.
Also, "cracking" minority populations into small groups in a number of district, so that
their overall voting strength is diminished, can be dilution under Section 2. There is no
precise number that designates the threshold of "packing" or "cracking ". Each map must
be judged on a case -by -case basis.
In the case of Thornburg v. Gingles, 470 U.S. 30 (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court
established three (3) conditions that are essential to a plaintiff's success in proving
minority dilution. The affected plaintiff must show:
(1) the minority group's voting age population is numerically large enough and
geographically compact enough so that a commissioner district with a
numerical majority of the minority group can be drawn (a "majority- minority
district 11 ). In the federal appellate 11 th Circuit, which includes Florida, the minority population to be considered is citizen voting age population 4 ;
(2) the minority group is..politically cohesive, that is, it usually votes and acts
politically in concert on major issues; and
(3) there is "polarized voting" such that the white majority usually votes to
defeat candidates of the minority group's preference.
Once the three conditions are satisfied, the court then considers the following objective
factors to determine the "totality of the circumstances ":
• the extent of the history of official discrimination;
3 Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 27, Pg 7471.
4 Negron v. City of Miami Beach, 113 F. 3d 1563 (1 it" Cir. 1997)
Packet Page -447-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
2011 Collier County Redistricting
Independent Review by Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
• racially polarized voting;
• the extent to which the county has used voting practices that enhance the
opportunity for discrimination;
• denial of access to the candidate slating process for members of the
class;
• the extent to which the members of the minority group bear the effects of
discrimination in areas like education, employment, and health, which
hinder effective participation;
• whether political campaigns have been characterized by racial appeals;
• the extent to which members of the protected class have been elected;
• whether there is significant lack of responsiveness by elected officials to
the particularized needs of the group; and,
• whether the policies underlying the use of voting qualifications, standards,
practices, or procedures are tenuous.
When analyzing the Staff's five alternative maps, only District 5 in each map could be
subject to a potential Section 2 claim since it is the only district close to having a total
Hispanic citizen voting age population greater than 50% (referred to as a "majority -
minority" district). A potential plaintiff would have to prove: (1) the Hispanic citizen
voting age population is large enough and compact enough to draw District 5 as a
majority- minority district ( >50 %); (2) The Hispanic population in District 5 is politically
cohesive and votes for the same candidates; and (3) the white majority usually votes to
defeat the candidate preferred by the Hispanic voters. A*—N
The BCC may consider with respect to factor (1) there is a significant non - citizen
population in Collier County, specifically District 5, which may make it impracticable to
draw District 5 with a Hispanic citizen voting age majority in a compact and contiguous
manner; with respect to factor (2), there are voting records in all of Collier County that
show the Hispanic population does not primarily vote Republican or Democratic and
thus do not necessarily vote cohesively; and with respect to factor (3), black minorities
in District 5 make up 9.8% to 10% of the voting age population, and thus when Black
and Hispanic populations are combined, together with any white cross -over voters;
there may not be a white majority in District 5 to overcome a minority population's vote.5
Even if a potential plaintiff were to meet the (3) pre- condition factors, the plaintiff would
then have to meet the "totality of the circumstances" test. The plaintiff would have to
show a combination of history of discriminating against Hispanics; racially polarized
voting; County voting practices causing discrimination, denying Hispanics from the
slating process; discrimination against Hispanics in education, employment, and health;
a lack of Hispanic candidates being elected to office; a lack of County responsiveness
to Hispanic needs; and use of voting qualifications, standards and practices that are
tenuous.
e In areas with substantial crossover voting it is unlikely that the plaintiffs would be able to establish the
third Gingles precondition —bloc voting by majority voters. Barlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1, 44 (2009).
10
Packet Page -448-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
2011 Collier County Redistricting
Independent Review by Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
ii. Equal Protection
In order to satisfy Section 5 and Section 2, the BCC is permitted to explicitly consider
race. However, in Shaw v. Reno, the U.S. Supreme Court used the Equal Protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to hold that racial
considerations cannot predominate in the redistricting process to the subordination of
traditional non - race -based factors. The use of race to comply with the Voting Rights Act
(usually Section 2) can be used in limited circumstances. In effect, therefore, the BCC
must walk a legal tightrope, where the competing legal standards must all be met.
The following principles emerge in the post -Shaw environment to guide BCC's
redistricting process:
• race may be considered; but race may not be the predominant factor in the
redistricting process to the subordination of traditional redistricting principles;
• if race is the predominant consideration, the map may still be constitutional if it is
"narrowly tailored" to address compelling governmental interest such as
compliance with the Voting Rights Act; and
• if a map is narrowly tailored, it will use race no more than is necessary to address
the compelling governmental interest.
It is therefore legally permissible for the BCC to consider the Hispanic population when
drawing and adopting the districts, but the Supreme Court has held that the U.S.
n Constitution requires a strong justification if Hispanic population considerations
predominate over traditional redistricting principles. A strong justification may be the
need to avoid a Section 2 claim, but based on the discussion already set forth in this
review, a successful Section 2 claim is unlikely. Therefore, the BCC is not required to
adopt a redistricting map with a Hispanic majority district as the three Gingles
preconditions and the totality of the circumstances suggest a Section 2 claim would not
succeed.6 Bond emphasizes that Staff did not demonstrate any intent not to adopt a
majority- minority district, but when drawing the maps following the BCC's criteria and
based on traditional redistricting principles (maintaining communities of interest and
neighborhoods, preserving core existing districts), a majority- minority district was not
indicated.
iii. Potential Voting Rights Act Liability
An objection by the Department of Justice to any of the five alternative maps under
Section 5 is unlikely based on the lack of any statistical retrogression in District 5 in any
of the five maps submitted. However, the Department of Justice may request additional
information from the BCC verifying that Staff and the BCC did not have a discriminatory
purpose. The thorough and involved process conducted by Staff using the BCC's
redistricting criteria suggests that there was no discriminatory purpose or effect in
drawing any of the five alternative maps.
6 Barlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1, 44 (2009)
11
Packet Page -449-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
2011 Collier County Redistricting
Independent Review by Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
A successful Section 2 claim against the BCC is also unlikely, but there can be no
guarantee that such a claim will not be filed. However, based on Bond's observation, a
Section 2 claimant is not likely to prevail. Accordingly, the BCC need not consider race
or language groups as a driving factor in the redistricting process, and is not required to
create a majority- minority District 5 over all other traditional redistricting principles.
BCC CRITERION #4 CONCLUSION: Bond has reviewed the five alternative maps with
reference to the Voting Rights Act and has concluded that all five maps appear to be
free from any retrogression or discriminatory purpose (Section 5) or dilution of minority
voting power (Section 2). *
* Bond notes that there is always a possibility that the Department of Justice may object under Section 5,
or that an affected citizen may file a Section 2 lawsuit. However, Bond believes that a successful
objections /complaint is unlikelv.
5. Other Considerations
a. Presidential Preference Primary
At the public meetings, Tim Durham described the impact of the BCC's adoption of a
new redistricting map on the Presidential Preference Primary. The Collier Supervisor of
Elections has chosen to update the voting precincts, with the new voting precincts to be
based on the Commissioner Districts, as adopted by the BCC in September 2011. The
Supervisor of Elections has already begun the first phase of this process with the
Department of Justice. In each of the five of the alternative maps, there exists 5 to 10
instances where an existing precinct will be affected by a change in the Commissioner
Districts.
Mr. Durham explained that the Presidential Preference Primary could be scheduled as
early January 3, 2012 by law. The date of the primary must be determined no later than
October 1, 2011 by the Florida Primary Date Selection Committee. Working backwards
from a January 3, 2012 date, the early voting would be on December 19, 2011. Before
early voting, a sample ballot would need to go out by December 5, 2011. Prior to the
sample ballot, a Voter Information Card needs to be mailed and prepared showing the
polling place, precinct, etc. Mailing would have to occur on November 21, 2011,
production beginning on November 14, 2011. Then accounting for Department of
Justice preclearance under Section 5 (60 day maximum), Thursday September 15,
2011 would be the last day for the BCC to adopt a new redistricting map. Attached as
Exhibit "E" is a schedule with the timeline.
If the BCC delays adoption of a redistricting map after. September 15, 2011, there is a
risk that Collier County voters may receive confusing voting information. A voter could.
12
Packet Page -450-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
2011 Collier County Redistricting
Independent Review by Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
receive a Voter Information Card and Sample Ballot identifying a precinct and polling
place for the Presidential Preference Primary, and then later in the year receive an
updated Voter Information Card and Sample Ballot with a different precinct and polling
place for the Fall Presidential election — thus creating voter confusion in an important
election.
b. Traditional Redistricting Principles
The Supreme Court has recognized the following as traditional redistricting criteria that
may be used by the BCC and Staff:
• use of natural and man -made boundaries;
• maintaining communities of interest;
• basing the new map on existing districts;
• drawing districts that are compact and contiguous;
• keeping existing incumbents in their districts; and
• narrow tailoring to comply with the Voting Rights Act (i.e. race may be considered
as a predominant factor only to the extent there is a potential Voting Rights Act
claim).
Thought not specifically included in the BCC's redistricting criteria, all five of the
alternative maps preserve the core of the existing districts and do not arbitrarily divide
neighborhoods. Discussion as to whether communities of interest were maintained (i.e.
combining Marco Island and the City of Naples, or Pelican Bay and the City of Naples)
has been raised by the public, and might be considered by the BCC when adopting their
preferred map.
6. Verification of Data
Staff requested Bond verify the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data employed by the
County, as well as ensure the data accuracy of the five map options developed by Staff
To verify the census data used by Staff and the accuracy of the five map options, Bond
used the online tool entitled "My District Builder ". My District Builder is provided by the
Florida House of Representatives (www.floridaredistricting.org).
DATA VERIFICATION CONCLUSION: My District Builder allowed Bond to re -draw the
five proposed map options, and verify the population and miniority data used by Staff.
Exhibit "F" attached hereto contains the five maps recreated by Bond, which show the
identical numbers used by Staff.
13
Packet Page -451-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
2011 Collier County Redistricting
Independent Review by Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
7. Process and Public Feedback
BCC and Staff directed Bond to review and provide feedback on the redistricting
process to ensure the process meets State requirements. Additionally, BCC and Staff
requested Bond review and provide comment on the process used to obtain feedback
from the public, to include attendance at one community feedback session. Bond
attended the first and last of the five public feedback sessions.
The process for the 2011 redistricting was the same as the 2001 redistricting. Pursuant
to the Florida Constitution and Chapter 124 of the Florida Statutes, the BCC was
charged with redrawing the commissioner district boundaries this year. The BCC
determined that a September 2011 adoption date was appropriate as a result of the
time limitations imposed by: (i) the release of the US Census Data in March 2011, (ii)
the 60 day Department of Justice preclearance requirements, and (iii) encouragement
from the Collier Supervisor of Elections to timely adopt a redistricting map in order to be
prepared for the Presidential Preference Primary which may occur as early as January
3, 2012. Accordingly, the BCC instructed Staff to prepare five alternative maps, each of
which complied with the BCC's four redistricting criteria.
The BCC is the body responsible for creating and adopting new district boundaries.
There is no constitutional or statutory requirement directing the BCC or Staff to draw
more than one map option, or to involve the public in the adoption process. The BCC's
decision to hold public meetings was not required by law, but is typical in the
redistricting process in counties throughout Florida.
During the initial meetings with David Weeks and Deputy County Attorney Scott Teach,
it was determined that no formal process would be created for accepting and sharing
maps submitted by the public. The "My District Builder" online software permits the
public to use sophisticated GIS software, similar to Staff's software, which would allow
the public to submit professional quality maps. Due to time constraints beyond the
control of the BCC and Staff, it was decided that maps submitted by the public would be
shared with the BCC prior to the adoption of one of the five alternative maps, but the
public maps would not ultimately be submitted. for consideration by the public or the
BCC in September.
The five -map alternative method, as implemented, does provide the BCC with some
flexibility in choosing an acceptable map, and it did enable the public to comment on the
same five alternative maps during the month of August. However, time constraints
made it impracticable to accept public maps or adjust the five alternative maps based
on public comment.
Broward, Hillsborough, Orange, Lake, Osceole, Clay and Flagler Counties all have active websites
displaying a range of 4 to 12 map options considered for adoption.
14
Packet Page -452-
9/13/2011 Item &D.
2011 Collier County Redistricting
Independent Review by Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
Nevertheless, the BCC has the final authority to accept, reject, or modify the alternative
maps, but must do so with the understanding that any delay may jeopardize the
adoption of a map in 2011 because of the Department of Justice preclearance
requirements. Further delay may also have a negative impact on the Presidential
Preference Primary. Bond notes Hillsborough County (another of the five Florida
counties covered by Section 5) considered 10 maps and submitted their proposed map
to the Department of Justice on June 20, 2011.
a. Map Drawing Process
Prior to Staff's drawing of the maps, Bond and Tim Durham advised David Weeks of the
implications of Federal law in drawing the five alternative maps (including Section 2 of
the Voting Rights Act prohibiting dilution of minority voting power and Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act prohibiting retrogressive effect). Traditional redistricting criteria that
was not specified in the BCC's four redistricting criteria were also mentioned, including:
consideration of major physical boundaries, political subdivision boundaries (City of
Naples), communities of interest (coastal vs. agricultural), and preservation of the cores
of existing districts.
To Bond's knowledge and belief, the maps were drawn by David Weeks and the GIS
staff, together with the assistance of Scott Teach and Thomas Eastman (School Board).
Jeff Klatzkow (County Attorney) attended for a portion of the map drawing process.
Neither Bond nor Mr. Durham were present. It was determined that Bond should
independently review the maps after the drawing process was complete.
Throughout the public meeting process, David Weeks advised the public that the BCC's
redistricting criteria were the Staff's primary considerations in making decisions during
the map drawing process. Staff strived to create districts with population nearly as
equal as possible; however, Staff did consider the ±5% deviation permitted under
Federal law. This deviation allowance permitted Staff to consider natural and manmade
boundaries when drawing the maps, and to avoid dividing neighborhoods and
communities of interest in order to achieve an exact population of 64,304 in each
district. Staff did not create any "dramatically irregular" or "bizarre" shaped districts.
Staff maintained all incumbents in their respective districts. Staff did consider the
Hispanic minority population in District 5 to the extent permissible, by not reducing the
Hispanic population in District 5 in any alternative map.
David Weeks, at the public meeting on August 30, 2011, in response to a question from
Commissioner Hiller, stated that Staff "did not intentionally try to create a Hispanic
majority- minority district ". Perhaps David Weeks meant to say that Staff did not set out
to create a Hispanic majority- minority district over all other redistricting criteria as set
forth by the BCC, and other traditional redistricting criteria such as maintaining
communities of interests and neighborhoods. Race cannot be the predominant factor in
drawing districts, and the creation of a majority- minority district is not necessarily
required.
15
Packet Page -453-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
2011 Collier County Redistricting
Independent Review by Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
Not having been present during the map drawing process, Bond cannot represent that
there was no discriminatory purpose or intent to dilute the Hispanic vote. Nevertheless,
based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the entire process and the
alternative maps, it would be hard to suggest, let alone prove, that the BCC and Staff
had any such discriminatory purpose or intent by adopting any of the five alternative
maps, particularly in light of the public involvement discussed immediately below.
b. Public Meetings and other Outreach
Notice. With the goal to solicit the public's preference as to the five alternative maps,
Staff made an extensive effort to notify the public of the redistricting process. Five
public meetings were held, one in each district, which permitted the pubic to view the
alternative maps and associated data and offer any comments or criticisms (including
map preferences). The schedule for the five public meetings was set on July 20, 2011,
and was distributed to the following outlets:
• a press release was distributed on or about July 25, 2011;
• posted on the County's Redistricting website (in English, Spanish and Creole);
• mailed to the Chairman of the Seminole Tribe and Chairman of the Miccosukee
Tribe;
• emailed to and /or discussed on phone with several individuals, organizations (e.g.
homeowners' associations) and entities (e.g. Florida Weekly newspaper);
• the Supervisor of Elections CGffice has widely distributed the schedule to a variety
of entities, some of which have distributed to others; one of SOE's distribution lists
contained 88 entities, including several media outlets (English and Spanish
language media), Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce (which has already
distributed it to its membership), Isles of Capri (which has already distributed it to
its membership);
• a three - fourths page trilingual public notice appeared in the Naples Daily News on
August 5, 2011;
the same trilingual notice appeared in the Immokalee Bulletin on August 11;
In addition to the five public meetings, David Weeks and Tim Durham conducted
presentations to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board on August 25, 2011 and to the
Black Affairs Advisory Board on August 22, 2011. Additional presentations are
scheduled at the North Naples Rotary — September 1, 2011, Naples City Council —
September 7, 2011, and President's Council (Chamber) — September 9, 2011.
The public input provided at the meetings and received by Staff via mail, e-mail, website
or otherwise, will be presented to the BCC for their consideration prior to the BCC map
adoption meeting in September.
Staff intentionally did not coordinate the public meeting schedule with any
Commissioner to remain as apolitical as possible.
16
Packet Page -454-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
2011 Collier County Redistricting
Independent Review by Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
n Format. Each public meeting had an initial introduction by David Weeks, followed by a
45 minute presentation by Tim Durham explaining the redistricting process and the
various principles and laws that must be considered. Tim Durham's presentation was
objective and specifically addressed the possibility of any violations of the Voting Rights
Act (both Section 2 and Section 5). David Weeks was available to answer any map
specific or redistricting process questions, while Tim Durham and Scott Teach were
available to answer any legal questions. David Weeks encouraged citizens to voice
their opinions and submit written statements via letter or e-mail. Handouts were
provided with all of the maps and supporting data.
Website. The redistricting website contains all of the handouts and information
available at the public meetings. There is also a link to the video from the first public
meeting. The first public meeting was rebroadcast on Collier Television on numerous
occasions.
Public input. Staff has shared with Bond all written public comments received by Staff.
Bond notes that Staff is preparing a summary of the public input for the BCC, and will be
providing copies of all original written public input to the BCC. Bond makes no
representation as to what map is preferred by the public. Bond has limited the scope of
this report to verifying that the redistricting process and the five alternative maps are in
accordance with the law.
Bond notes that other counties in Florida have adopted similar public
� meeting /presentation procedures. Broward and Orange Counties have six meetings
scheduled, while Hillsborough County had eleven public meetings. Other counties such
as Leon and Clay, whose districts require minimal changes, are having one or no
meetings.
c. Recommendations for 2021
For the 2021 redistricting process, the BCC and Staff may wish to consider accepting
maps from the public. With the advancements in technology, it has become easier for
the average citizen to create and submit a proposed map. There should be a deadline
for accepting proposed maps from the public, and perhaps a requirement in format (i.e
it should be in an acceptable computer format so Staff can verify its accuracy quickly).
Bond notes that at least Broward, Hillsborough and Orange Counties accepted public
maps during their 2011 redistricting process.
8. Conclusion.
Bond, as an independent reviewer of the redistricting process, concludes that the
criteria and procedures mandated by the BCC and Staff resulted in a set of five
alternative maps that will each withstand legal challenges. The BCC should consider
n the public feedback gathered by Staff, and may adopt any of the five alternative maps
without reservations.
17
Packet Page -455-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Exhibit A
County's Request for Information and Bond's Response
Packet Page -456-
/-IN
C 'er couvrtv
AdmusbaM Services DwNcn
Purchasing
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
RFI 11 -5654 Redistricting
February 23, 2011
To interested service providers:
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
The County's Growth Management — Comprehensive Planning Department is interested in receiving
proposals from interested suppliers who would perform the following service tasks between July 1 —
October 31, 2011:
1. Review state law and provide feedback to the Comprehensive Planning Department to ensure the
process used meets state law requirements;
2. Review the County's updated US Census Bureau data based on the most recent federal census
data; using GIS mapping techniques ensure the data accuracy of map options developed by the
Comprehensive Planning Department;
3. Review and provide feedback to the County on the process methodology used to garner
feedback from the community, ensure the re- districting criteria is followed and development of the
map options;
4. Observe one community feedback session;
5. Provide feedback, so as to ensure consistency with state law, on the five options for redistricting
prior to the presentation to the Board of County Commissioners; and
6. Prepare a brief overview of the accuracy and completeness of the methodology used for
presentation to the Board of County Commissioners when options are presented.
Backoround
The Constitution of the State of Florida requires that, after each decennial census, the Board of
Commissioners are to divide the county into districts of contiguous territories as nearly equal population
as practicable, with one commissioner residing in each district elected as provided by law. Estimates of
the 2010 census data illustrates the current imbalance within populations for the Districts and shows the
deviation from the Ideal Population.
Sol
BCC District
2010 Population
Estimate
1 Ideal Population
1 Deviation from Ideal
Population
E District 1
61,184
67,338
-9.1% i
District 2
61,195
67,338
-9.1
District 3
80,020
67,338
+18.8%
District 4
i 53,081
I 67,338
- 21.2%
District 5
81,213
67,338
1 +20.1%
I TOTAL
336.693
BCC Action
October 2011
irr•c- Finrnras axtrartarl frnm us Census Rureau_ Census 2000
and 2010 Redistrictina Data (Public Law 94 -171)
Based upon this project imbalance the County is required to redraw the District lines based upon the
following:
P.v9"Di4wrm+ -33V Ts Tre EW -KMW F+ 3411249W oanervs+renwR+�a+rg
Packet Page -457-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Redistricting Criteria
1. The population of each district should be a similar as possible;
2. All districts should be as compact and regularly shaped as feasible; and
3. The incumbent Commissioner's residence must remain in his or her current district. The Board has
also expressed designed to achieve uniformity between the district boundaries of the School Board
and the County Commission.
4. Additional considerations related to pre - clearance requirement to take into account:
a. To avoid retrogression of minority voting strength;
b. Maintain communities of interest;
c. Minimize disruption to former districts; and
d. Choose well- defined and easily recognizable boundaries.
Process Overview
Based on the level of interest and responses to the proposal information request (below), the County
may engage with interested firms to determine which firm may address all of the service tasks in the
most complete and effective manner in the interest of the citizens of Collier County. Information provided
as a result of this Request for Information (RFI) is subject to the State of Florida public records law. This
RFI does not obligate the County to take any action whatsoever. Nothing within the RFI should be
interpreted as a contract with, or obligation of the County.
Proposal Information Request
The County requests that firms who may be interested in providing these services provide responses to
the following items listed below:
1. Name, address, email and telephone information, and federal tax identification number of primary
place of business.
2. Brief description of at least three similar /relevant census studies completed for public agencies;
include dates of the projects and contact information (name, address, telephone and email address)
for the main contact individual at the public agency.
3. Cost to complete the seven (7) service tasks on page 1.
4. Overview of credentials and experiences (for similar engagements) of staff assigned to this project,
and, any other information the proposer may deem as relevant to the tasks listed.
5. Completed Attachment 1 - Conflict of Interest Affidavit.
Please return one (1) complete paper copy and one (1) copy on DC / DVD of the Proposal Information
Request by 2:30pm on March 10, 2011 to:
Collier County Purchasing Department
3327 E. Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
Email: johncurran(.colliergov.net
Telephone: 239 -252 -6098
FAX: 239 - 252 -6596
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Jack Curran, Procurement Strategist
Collier County Purchasing Department
Packet Page -458-
"-**N
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
coMr County
Admt iistrdM Ser+rims ?Ctosiun
Purchasing
Attachment 1: Conflict of Interest Affidavit
By the signature below, the firm (employees, officers and /or agents) certifies, and hereby discloses,
that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, all relevant facts concerning past, present, or currently
planned interest or activity (financial, contractual, organizational, or otherwise) which relates to the
proposed work; and bear on whether the firm (employees, officers and /or agents) has a possible conflict
have been fully disclosed.
Additionally, the firm (employees, officers and /or agents) agrees to immediately notify in writing the
Purchasing /General Services Director, or designee, if any actual or potential conflict of interest arises
during the contract and /or project duration.
Firm:
Signature and Date:
Print Name:
Title of Signatory:
State of
County of
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this
20 , by
personally known to me to be the
the Firm, OR who produced the following identification
Notary Public
My Commission Expires
Packet Page -459-
day of
who is
for
RFI #11 -5654 Redistricting
COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RESPONSE TO
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
FOR
OUTSIDE SERVICES
Submitted by:
Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 250
Naples, FL 34103
Telephone: 239.659.3861
Fax: 239.659.3812
Contact: F. Joseph McMackin III
jmcmackin @bsk.com
Packet Page -460-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
283755.1
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC
RESPONSE TO RFI #11 -5654 REDISTRICTING
Item 1. Basic Information Request
Request: Name, address, email and telephone information, and federal tax identification number
of primary place of business.
1. Name of Proposer: Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
2. Name of Contact Person: F. Joseph McMackin III, Esq.
3. Local business and mailing address:
Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 250
Naples, FL 34103
4. Business phone: 239.659.3861
Fax number: 239.659.3812
5. Federal Tax I.D. Number: 27- 0015651
6. E -mail address: jmcmackin @bsk.com
2
Packet Page -461-
283755.1
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC
RESPONSE TO RF1 #11 -5654 REDISTRICTING
Item 2. Experience
Re uest: Brief description of at least three similar /relevant census studies completed for public
agencies; include dates of the projects and contact information (name, address, telephone and
email address) for the main contact individual at the public agency.
Matter # 1
Public Agency: Greene County, New York
Census Study: Reapportionment of Greene County Legislature
Date: December 2002 through February 2003
Contact Information at Public Agency:
Carol D. Stevens, Esq.
411 Main Street
Catskill, NY 12414
Phone: (518)719 -3540
Email: countyattomey @discovergreene.com
Brief Description of Census Study:
Counseled and advised Greene County, New York with respect to redistricting prior to
the 2003 general election using 2000 census data. Assisted the County in adopting a �..�
reapportionment plan for their 12- member legislature. Reviewed and analyzed applicable
statutory law and case law at the state and federal level, including an analysis of possible
U.S. Constitutional challenges. Determined acceptable population deviations per district,
and advised County as to the referendum and adoption process.
Primary Attorney: Hermes Fernandez
Matter #2
Public Agency: City of Oswego, New York
Census Study: Opinion Letter to City of Oswego
Date: 1993
Contact Information at Public Agency:
Not Available
Brief Description of Census Study:
Drafted opinion letter to the City of Oswego finding that the City's Wards violated the
one man/one vote rule because some Wards had greater populations than others. Assisted
the City in reducing the 8 Wards to 7 Wards in order to equalize representation.
Primary Attorney: John D. Allen
k3
Packet Page -462-
283755.1
BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC
RESPONSE TO RF1 #11 -5654 REDISTRICTING
Additional Experience:
9/13/2011 Item B.D.
Bond, Schoeneck & King has a long history of representing municipalities in New York State
with a comprehensive array -of services to meet their varied and sophisticated needs. The firm's
public sector roster includes over 300 municipalities -- 34 cities, 31 counties, 130 towns, 91
villages and 14 governmental agencies.
On a local level, the firm represents the following local government clients:
City of Naples Airport Authority
160 Aviation Drive North
Naples, FL 34104
Telephone: 239.643.0733
Fax: 239.643.4084
Contact: Theodore D. Soliday,
Executive Director
Collier County Value Adjustment Board
3301 Tamiami Trail East
Purchasing Building "G"
Naples, FL 34112
Telephone: 239.252.8407
Fax: 239.252.0844
Contact: Patricia Morgan, Clerk
Collier Mosquito Control District
600 North Road
Naples, FL 34104
Telephone: 239.436.1000
Fax: 239.436.1005
Contact: Dr. Frank Van Essen,
Executive Director
Collier County, Florida
Preparation & Delivery of Title
Commitments and Real Estate
Closing Services
3301 Tamiami Trail East
Naples, FL 34112
Contact: Stephen Y. Carrell, Director of
Purchasing
The firm's lawyers have practiced in Collier County since 1973 and they are familiar with the
changes in Collier County over the last several decades. Our firm is up to date on events
impacting the County.
We welcome the challenge of representing a government body entrusted by our community with
such an important task.
2
Packet Page -463-
283755.1
BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC 9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
RESPONSE TO RFI #11-5654 REDISTRICTING
Item 3. Cost
We recommend billing our services hourly and time measured in units of one -tenth of an hour.
Detailed time records for hourly billing will be submitted and payments will be due on a monthly
basis. Statements itemizing the actual time expended will be provided to the County. We bill
disbursements at cost. We suggest the following billing rates for your consideration:
Hourly Rate Schedule *: Standard Government
F. Joseph McMackin III $395 $250
Hermes Fernandez $350 $250
Adam C. Kerlek $210 $195
* Please note that we are providing the County with a significantly reduced hourly rate, from
that charged to private clients.
In light of the above, we estimate the costs as follows:
Cost to complete the six (6) service tasks:
1. Review state law and provide feedback to the Comprehensive Planning Department to
ensure the process used meets state law requirements;
Hours 10 Cost $2500
2. Review the County's updated US Census Bureau data based on the most recent federal
census data; using GIS mapping techniques ensure the data accuracy of map options
developed by the Comprehensive Planning Department;
Hours 20 Cost $4500
3. Review and provide feedback to the County on the process methodology used to garner
feedback from the community, ensure the re- districting criteria are followed and
development of the map options;
Hours 10 Cost $2500
4. Observe one community feedback session;
Hours 4 Cost $780
R
Packet Page -464-
283755.1
n
n
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC
RESPONSE TO RFl #11 -5654 REDISTRICTING
5. Provide feedback, so as to ensure consistency with state law, on the five options for
redistricting prior to the presentation to the Board of County Commissioners; and
Hours 20 Cost $4450
6. Prepare a brief overview of the accuracy and completeness of the methodology used for
presentation to the Board of County Commissioners when options are presented.
Hours 10 Cost $2060
TOTAL
Estimated Hours 74 Estimated Cost $16,790.00
0
Packet Page -465-
283755.1
BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC 9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
RESPONSE TO RFI #11 -5654 REDISTRICTING
Item 4. Credentials
Request: Overview of credentials and experiences (for similar engagements) of staff assigned to
this project, and, any other information the proposer may deem as relevant to the tasks listed.
F. Joseph McMackin III
• Practiced law in Collier County since 1973. Martindale- Hubbell "A" rated attorney by
his peers. 'Best Lawyers in America"
• Treasurer, Member of the Board of Sunrise Community, Inc., the largest independent
agency in the nation providing services to developmentally delayed adults.
• President/Trustee of Tech/Sunrise of Collier County, providing services to
developmentally delayed adults in Collier County.
• Secretary /Treasurer, Member of the Board of the Telford Foundation, providing financial
support to educational, scientific and medical organizations throughout the United States.
• General Counsel to City of Naples Airport Authority, Collier Mosquito Control District
and the Collier County Value Adjustment Board
Successfully represented the City of Naples Airport Authority before, now Chief Justice
Roberts, in the U.S. Court of Appeals in a landmark case defining the line separating
local and federal jurisdiction.
• B.A., Wesleyan University
• J.D. University of Miami
• Lieutenant, U.S. Navy (Reserve)
• Naples Office
Admitted to practice in all Florida courts; District of Columbia; Wisconsin; United States
Tax Court; U.S. District Courts; U.S. Court of Appeals
His government clients include The City of Naples Airport Authority; Collier Mosquito
Control District; and, the Collier County Value Adjustment Board. Mr. McMackin is Secretary
and Treasurer of The Telford Foundation, a charitable foundation with an endowment of
$40,000,000.00; and, Treasurer of Sunrise Community, Inc., a national charity benefitting
developmentally delayed citizens with an annual budget of over $100,000,000.00.
Mr. McMackin is a senior partner of the Firm and, having practiced law in Florida since
1973, has a breadth of legal experience in governmental, corporate and litigation matters. In his
career representing local governments, lenders, businesses, and individuals, he has encountered
and resolved almost every conceivable legal issue these entities have faced.
In conjunction with his governmental and litigation practice, Mr. McMackin has been
involved in bonding matters for the City of Naples Airport Authority and Naples Community
Hospital. Additionally, Mr. McMackin was General Counsel to the Barnett Bank of Naples and
a member of its Board of Directors for over a decade. ^
7 283755.1
Packet Page -466-
11�
9/13/2011 item 8.D.
BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC
RESPONSE TO RFI #11 -5654 REDISTRICTING
Hermes Fernandez
• Mr. Fernandez concentrates his practice in the areas of administrative and legislative law,
health law, government regulation, and litigation, advising clients on the requirements of
and compliance with State statutes and regulations. He frequently represents clients
before the Legislature and state agencies and appears in administrative proceedings and
in the courts. His experience runs the gamut from state contracts to constitutional issues
to rate - making to regulatory compliance to minority and women -owned business
enterprises.
• Mr. Fernandez served as Assistant Counsel to Governor Mario Cuomo. Mr. Fernandez
has written and lectured on various topics in health law, and administrative and
governmental practice.
Albany Office
• B.A. (honors), Le Moyne College
• J.D. (magna cum laude), Syracuse University College of Law
Admitted to practice in New York
n
Adam C. Kerlek
• Mr. Kerlek is an associate attorney with the firm who practices real property and probate
law, and assists attorney McMackin in his representation of the City of Naples Airport
Authority and the Collier Mosquito Control District.
• In law school, Mr. Kerlek was an intern at a law firm in Miami -Dade County where he
practiced in the Public Land Use Group and represented local governments in all aspects
of land use, planning and zoning.
• Prior to practicing law, Mr. Kerlek was a Systems Engineer for various companies
-including Honda Motor Cars, and New Product Innovations, Inc. which handled projects
for Georgia Pacific, Maytag and Motorola.
• Mr. Kerlek has extensive experience with complex mathematics and statistics.
• Naples Office
• B.A. (magna cum laude), The Ohio State University
• J.D. (cum laude), University of Miami School of Law
Admitted to practice in Florida.
n
Packet Page -467-
283755.1
BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC 9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
RESPONSE TO RFI #11 -5654 REDISTRICTING
Firm Information
The Naples office of Bond, Schoeneck & King has 13 full time practicing attorneys, 4
full time paralegals and 7 staff members. Bond, Schoeneck & King has in addition to its office
in Naples, offices throughout the State of New York and in Kansas.
Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC was founded in 1897 and since that date, the firm has
developed a reputation for professional excellence, integrity and success that lives on more than
a century later. These hallmarks of the firm have played an important role in attracting quality
clients and legal work; have allowed us to participate in the evolution and growth of the
communities we serve, and have been the basis not only for noteworthy cases we have won but
for our acknowledged leadership in the marketplace, the breadth of our practice and the talent we
offer. As a result, Bond has grown to a law firm of 200 lawyers. Our attorneys have extensive
expertise in 18 different practice areas and 10 different industry groups.
Bond, Schoeneck & King boasts 100 rated lawyers under the Martindale - Hubbell "Peer
Review Rated" attorneys.
Bond, Schoeneck & King's intimate knowledge of Collier County having on its staff
attorneys who have practiced in the county since 1973, coupled with its nationally recognized
municipality practice will provide the Collier County with effective and immediate local service
supported by in -depth knowledge of the intricacies of the federal and state law questions that the
County will eventually confront.
9 283755.1
Packet Page -468-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC
RESPONSE TO RFI #11 -5654 REDISTRICTING
Quality of Services
The primary contacts for the County will be Mr. McMackin and Mr. Kerlek. One or both are
available to the County on a moment's notice. Their formula for success is simple:
• Develop a working relationship with the contact people at the County
• Return telephone calls and a -mails promptly and respond promptly and understandably to
questions posed
• Draw on the depth experience of the firm for specific issues and questions when
necessary
• Attend all meetings of the County Commissioners as requested so that we remain familiar
with the functioning of the Board and its staff and are able to stay ahead of the issues that
may come forward
• Strive every day to provide the highest quality legal services in the most cost efficient
manner to the County
Mr. McMackin has learned the business of the City of Naples Airport Authority. He has
attended seminars not only on the legal aspects of airport law, but also on the practical concerns
that confront the Executive Director and the Board of Commissioners. He believes that in order
to provide competent legal counsel, an attorney must understand the industry and the practical
facts surrounding the client. In representation of the Collier Mosquito Control District, Mr.
McMackin studied the biology of the mosquito so that he could be conversant with
environmental issues that affect the District through the course of its mosquito control efforts.
He has developed rapport with the staff as well as the Commissioners and the designated
contacts feel comfortable in calling him early when a problem arises to avoid it developing into a
more serious concern.
In summary, Bond, Schoeneck & King proposes to bring expertise and experience to the
County, to deploy that expertise and experience in a cost effective manner; and, to be responsive
and as proactive as possible to the County's legal problems.
10 283755.1
Packet Page -469-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
MINI
Bond's Total Population Deviation Calculations
Packet Page -470-
2011 COLLIER COUNTY REDISTRICTING - Total Population Deviation
64304 IDEAL DISTRICT
Map 1
Corn. District Total Population
BCC 1
65,575
2.0%
BCC 2
62,583
-2.7%
BCC 3
64,146
-0.2%
BCC 4
62,369
-3.0%
BCC 5
66,847
4.0%
TOTAL
321,520
0.0%
Total Deviation
7.0%
Map 2
Corn. District Total Population
BCC 1
64,963
1.0%
BCC 2
64,955
1.0%
BCC 3
63,544
-1.2%
BCC 4
63,071
-1.9%
BCC 5
64,987
1.1%
TOTAL
321,520
0.0%
Total Deviation
3.0%
Map 3
Corn. District
Total Population
/-� BCC 1
63,280
-1.6%
BCC 2
62,583
-2.7%
BCC 3
63,528
-1.2%
BCC 4
65,282
1.5%
BCC 5
66,847
4.0%
TOTAL
321,520
0.0%
Total Deviation
6.6%
Map 4
Corn. District Total Population
BCC 1
65,153
1.3%
BCC 2
64,844
0.8%
BCC 3
64,729
0.7%
BCC 4
61,620
-4.2%
BCC 5
65,174
1.4%
TOTAL
321,520
0.0%
Total Deviation
5.5%
Map 5
Corn. District
Total Population
BCC 1
65,652
2.1%
BCC 2
62,583
-2.7%
BCC 3
64,229
-0.1%
BCC 4
64,452
0.2%
BCC 5
64,604
0.5%
TOTAL
321,520
0.0%
Total Deviation
4.8%
Packet Page -471-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Exhibit C
Department of Justice Section 5 Guidance
Packet Page -472-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
FEDERAL REGISTER
Vol. 76 Wednesday,
No. 27 February 9, 2011
Part III
Department of Justice
Guidance Concerning Redistricting Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act; Notice
Packet Page -473-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
7470 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 27/Wednesday, February 9, 2011/Notices
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Guidance Concerning Redistricting
Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act; Notice
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Attorney
General, Civil Rights Division,
Department of Justice.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Attorney General has
delegated responsibility and authority
for determinations under Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act to the Assistant
Attorney General, Civil Rights Division,
who finds that, in view of recent
legislation and judicial decisions, it is
appropriate to issue guidance
concerning the review of redistricting
plans submitted to the Attorney General
for review pursuant to Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
T. Christian Herren, Jr., Chief, Voting
Section, Civil Rights Division, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC 20530, (202) 514 -1416.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION' Section 5
of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.
1973c, requires jurisdictions identified
in Section 4 of the Act to obtain a
determination from either the Attorney
General or the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia that
any change affecting voting which they
seek to enforce does not have a
discriminatory purpose and will not
have a discriminatory effect.
Beginning in 2011, these covered
jurisdictions will begin to seek review
under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
of redistricting plans based on the 2010
Census. Based on past experience, the
overwhelming majority of the covered
jurisdictions will submit their
redistricting plans to the Attorney
General. This guidance is not legally
binding; rather, it is intended only to
provide assistance to jurisdictions
covered by the preclearance
requirements of Section 5.
Guidance Concerning Redistricting
Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973c
Following release of the 2010 Census
data, the Department of justice expects
to receive several thousand submissions
of redistricting plans for review
pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act. The Civil Rights Division
has received numerous requests for
guidance similar to that it issued prior
to the 2000 Census redistricting cycle
concerning the procedures and
standards that will be applied during
review of these redistricting plans. 67
FR 5411 (January 18, 2001). In addition,
in 2006, Congress reauthorized the
Section 5 review requirement and
refined its definition of some
substantive standards for compliance
with Section 5. In view of these
developments, issuing revised guidance
is appropriate.
The "Procedures for the
Administration of Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act," 28 CFR Part 51,
provide detailed information about the
Section 5 review process. Copies of
these Procedures are available upon
request and through the Voting Section
Web site (http: / /www.usdoj.govlcrtl
voting). This document is meant to
provide additional guidance with regard
to current issues of interest. Citations to
Judicial decisions are provided to assist
the reader but are not intended to be
comprehensive. The following
discussion provides supplemental
guidance concerning the following
topics:
• The Scope of Section 5 Review;
• The Section 5 Benchmark;
• Analysis of Plans (discriminatory
purpose and retrogressive effect);
• Alternatives to Retrogressive Plans;
and
• Use of 2010 Census Data.
The Scope of Section 5 Review
Under Section 5, a covered
jurisdiction has the burden of
establishing that a proposed
redistricting plan "neither has the
purpose nor will have the effect of
denying or abridging the right to vote on
account of race or color, or in
contravention of the guarantees set forth
in [Section 4(f)(2) of the Act]" (i.e.,
membership in a language minority
group defined in the Act). 42 U.S.0
1973c(a). A plan has a discriminatory
effect under the statute if, when
compared to the benchmark plan, the
submitting jurisdiction cannot establish
that it does not result in a "retrogression
in the position of racial minorities with
respect to their effective exercise of the
electoral franchise." Beer v. United
States, 425 U.S. 125, 141 (1976).
If the proposed redistricting plan is
submitted to the Department of justice
for administrative review, and the
Attorney General determines that the
jurisdiction has failed to show the
absence of any discriminatory purpose
or retrogressive effect of denying or
abridging the right to vote on account of
race, color or membership in a language
minority group defined in the Act, the
Attorney General will interpose an
objection. If, in the alternative, the
jurisdiction seeks a declaratory
judgment from the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia, that
court will utilize the identical standard
Packet Page -474-
to determine whether to grant the
request; i.e., whether the jurisdiction
has established that the plan is free from
discriminatory purpose or retrogressive
effect. Absent administrative
preclearance from the Attorney General
or a successful declaratory judgment
action in the district court, the
jurisdiction may not implement its
proposed redistricting plan.
The Attorney General may not
interpose an objection to a redistricting
plan on the grounds that it violates the
one - person one -vote principle, on the
grounds that it violates Shaw v. Reno,
509 U.S. 630 (1993), or on the grounds
that it violates Section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act. The same standard applies
in a declaratory judgment action.
Therefore, jurisdictions should not
regard a determination of compliance
with Section 5 as preventing subsequent
legal challenges to that plan under other
statutes by the Department of justice or
by private plaintiffs. 42 U.S.C. 1973c(a);
28 CFR 51.49.
The Section 5 "Benchmark"
As noted, under Section 5, a
jurisdiction's proposed redistricting
plan is compared to the "benchmark"
plan to determine whether the use of the
new plan would result in a retrogressive
effect. The "benchmark" against which a
new plan is compared is the last legally
enforceable redistricting plan in force or
effect. Riley v. Kennedy, 553 U.S. 406
(2008); 28 CFR 51.54(b)(1). Generally,
the most recent plan to have received
Section 5 preclearance or to have been
drawn by a Federal court is the last
legally enforceable redistricting plan for
Section 5 purposes. When a jurisdiction
has received Section 5 preclearance for
a new redistricting plan, or a Federal
court has drawn a new plan and ordered
it into effect, that plan replaces the last
legally enforceable plan as the Section
5 benchmark. McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452
U.S. 130 (1981); Texas v. United States,
785 F. Supp. 201 (D.D.C. 1992);
Mississippi V. Smith, 541 F. Supp. 1329,
1333 (D.D.C. 1982), appeal dismissed,
461 U.S. 912 (1983).
A plan found to be unconstitutional
by a Federal court under the principles
of Shaw v. Reno and its progeny cannot
serve as the Section 5 benchmark,
Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997),
and in such circumstances, the
benchmark for Section 5 purposes will
be the last legally enforceable plan
predating the unconstitutional plan.
Absent such a finding of
unconstitutionality under Shaw by a
Federal court, the last legally
enforceable plan will serve as the
benchmark for Section 5 review.
Therefore, the question of whether the
11_�
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 27/Wednesday, February 9, 2011/Notices 7471
benchmark plan is constitutional will
not be considered during the
Department's Section 5 review.
Analysis of Plans
As noted above, there are two
necessary components to the analysis of
whether a proposed redistricting plan
meets the Section 5 standard. The first
is a determination that the jurisdiction
has met its burden of establishing that
the plan was adopted free of any
discriminatory purpose. The second is a
determination that the jurisdiction has
met its burden of establishing that the
proposed plan will not have a
retrogressive effect.
Discriminatory Purpose
Section 5 precludes implementation
of a change affecting voting that has the
purpose of denying or abridging the
right to vote on account of race or color,
or membership in a language minority
group defined in the Act. The 2006
amendments provide that the term
"purpose" in Section 5 includes "any
discriminatory purpose," and is not
limited to a purpose to retrogress, as
was the case after the Supreme Court's
decision in Reno v. Bossier Parish
( "Bossier 14, 528 U.S. 320 (2000). The
Department will examine the
circumstances surrounding the
submitting authority's adoption of a
submitted voting change, such as a
redistricting plan, to determine whether
direct or circumstantial evidence exists
of any discriminatory purpose of
denying or abridging the right to vote on
account of race or color, or membership
in a language minority group defined in
the Act.
Direct evidence detailing a
discriminatory purpose may be gleaned
from the public statements of members
of the adopting body or others who may
have played a significant role in the
process. Busbee v. Smith, 549 F. Supp.
494, 508 (D.D.C. 1982), aff'd, 459 U.S.
1166 (1983). The Department will also
evaluate whether there are instances
where the invidious element may be
missing, but the underlying motivation
is nonetheless intentionally
discriminatory. In the Garza case, Judge
Kozinski provided the clearest example:
Assume you are an anglo homeowner who
lives in an all -white neighborhood. Suppose,
also, that you harbor no ill feelings toward
minorities. Suppose further, however, that
some of your neighbors persuade you that
having an integrated neighborhood would
lower property values and that you stand to
lose a lot of money on your home. On the
basis of that belief, you join a pact not to sell
your house to minorities. Have you engaged
in intentional racial and ethnic
discrimination? Of course you have. Your
personal feelings toward minorities don't
matter; what matters is that you intentionally
took actions calculated to keep them out of
your neighborhood.
Garza and United States v. County of
Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763, 778 n.1 (9th
Cir. 1990) (Kozinski, j., concurring and
dissenting in part), cent. denied, 498
U.S. 1028 (1991).
In determining whether there is
sufficient circumstantial evidence to
conclude that the jurisdiction has not
established the absence of the
prohibited discriminatory purpose, the
Attorney General will be guided by the
Supreme Court's illustrative, but not
exhaustive, list of those "subjects for
proper inquiry in determining whether
racially discriminatory intent existed,"
outlined in Village of Arlington Heights
v. Metropolitan Housing Development
Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 268 (1977). In that
case, the Court, noting that such an
undertaking presupposes a "sensitive
inquiry," identified certain areas to be
reviewed in making this determination:
(1) The impact of the decision; (2) the
historical background of the decision,
particularly if it reveals a series of
decisions undertaken with
discriminatory intent; (3) the sequence
of events leading up to the decision; (4)
whether the challenged decision
departs, either procedurally or
substantively, from the normal practice;
and (5) contemporaneous statements
and viewpoints held by the decision -
makers. Id. at 266 -68.
The single fact that a jurisdiction's
proposed redistricting plan does not
contain the maximum possible number
of districts in which minority group
members are a majority of the
population or have the ability to elect
candidates of choice to office, does not
mandate that the Attorney General
interpose an objection based on a failure
to demonstrate the absence of a
discriminatory purpose. Rather, the
Attorney General will base the
determination on a review of the plan in
its entirety.
Retrogressive Effect
An analysis of whether the
jurisdiction has met its burden of
establishing that the proposed plan
would not result in a discriminatory or
"retrogressive" effect starts with a basic
comparison of the benchmark and
proposed plans at issue, using updated
census data in each. Thus, the Voting
Section staff loads the boundaries of the
benchmark and proposed plans into the
Civil Rights Division's geographic
information system (GIS]. Population
data are then calculated for each district
in the benchmark and the proposed
plans using the most recent decennial
census data.
Packet Page -475-
A proposed plan is retrogressive
under Section 5 if its net effect would
be to reduce minority voters' "effective
exercise of the electoral franchise" when
compared to the benchmark plan. Beer
v. United States at 141. In 2006,
Congress clarified that this means the
jurisdiction must establish that its
proposed redistricting plan will not
have the effect of "diminishing the
ability of any citizens of the United
States" because of race, color, or
membership in a language minority
group defined in the Act, "to elect their
preferred candidate of choice." 42 U.S.C.
1973c(b) & (d). In analyzing redistricting
plans, the Department will follow the
congressional directive of ensuring that
the ability of such citizens to elect their
preferred candidates of choice is
protected. That ability to elect either
exists or it does not in any particular
circumstance.
In determining whether the ability to
elect exists in the benchmark plan and
whether it continues in the proposed
plan, the Attorney General does not rely
on any predetermined or fixed
demographic percentages at any point in
the assessment. Rather, in the
Department's view, this determination
requires a functional analysis of the
electoral behavior within the particular
jurisdiction or election district. As
noted above, census data alone may not
provide sufficient indicia of electoral
behavior to make the requisite
determination. Circumstances, such as
differing rates of electoral participation
within discrete portions of a population,
may impact on the ability of voters to
elect candidates of choice, even if the
overall demographic data show no
significant change.
Although comparison of the census
population of districts in the benchmark
and proposed plans is the important
starting point of any Section 5 analysis,
additional demographic and election
data in the submission is often helpful
in making the requisite Section 5
determination. 28 CFR 51.28(a). For
example, census population data may
not reflect significant differences in
group voting behavior. Therefore,
election history and voting patterns
within the jurisdiction, voter
registration and turnout information,
and other similar information are very
important to an assessment of the actual
effect of a redistricting plan.
The Section 5 Procedures contain the
factors that the courts have considered
in deciding whether or not a
redistricting plan complies with Section
5. These factors include whether
minority voting strength is reduced by
the proposed redistricting; whether
minority concentrations are fragmented
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
7472 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 27/Wednesday, February 9, 2011/Notices
among different districts; whether
minorities are overconcentrated in one
or more districts; whether alternative
plans satisfying the jurisdiction's
legitimate governmental interests exist,
and whether they were considered;
whether the proposed plan departs from
objective redistricting criteria set by the
submitting jurisdiction, ignores other
relevant factors such as compactness
and contiguity, or displays a
configuration that inexplicably
disregards available natural or artificial
boundaries; and, whether the plan is
inconsistent with the jurisdiction's
stated redistricting standards. 28 CFR
51.56 -59.
Alternatives to Retrogressive Plans
There may be circumstances in which
the jurisdiction asserts that, because of
shifts in population or other significant
changes since the last redistricting (e.g.,
residential segregation and demographic
distribution of the population within
the jurisdiction, the physical geography
of the jurisdiction, the jurisdiction's
historical redistricting practices,
political boundaries, such as cities or
counties, and /or state redistricting
requirements), retrogression is
unavoidable. In those circumstances,
the submitting jurisdiction seeking
preclearance of such a plan bears the
burden of demonstrating that a less -
retrogressive plan cannot reasonably be
drawn.
In considering whether less -
retrogressive alternative plans are
available, the Department of Justice
looks to plans that were actually
considered or drawn by the submitting
jurisdiction, as well as alternative plans
presented or made known to the
submitting jurisdiction by interested
citizens or others. In addition, the
Department may develop illustrative
alternative plans for use in its analysis,
taking into consideration the
jurisdiction's redistricting principles. If
it is determined that a reasonable
alternative plan exists that is non -
retrogressive or less retrogressive than
the submitted plan, the Attorney
General will interpose an objection.
Preventing retrogression under
Section 5 does not require jurisdictions
to violate the one - person, one -vote
principle. 52 FR 488 (Jan. 6, 1987).
Similarly, preventing retrogression
under Section 5 does not require
jurisdictions to violate Shaw v. Reno
and related cases.
The one - person, one -vote issue arises
most commonly where substantial
demographic changes have occurred in
some, but not all, parts of a jurisdiction.
Generally, a plan for congressional
redistricting that would require a greater
overall population deviation than the
submitted plan is not considered a
reasonable alternative by the
Department. For state legislative and
local redistricting, a plan that would
require significantly greater overall
population deviations is not considered
a reasonable alternative.
In assessing whether a less
retrogressive plan can reasonably be
drawn, the geographic compactness of a
jurisdiction's minority population will
be a factor in the Department's analysis.
This analysis will include a review of
the submitting jurisdiction's historical
redistricting practices and district
configurations to determine whether the
alternative plan would (a) abandon
those practices and (b) require highly
unusual features to link together widely
separated minority concentrations.
At the same time, compliance with
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act may
require the jurisdiction to depart from
strict adherence to certain of its
redistricting criteria. For example,
criteria that require the jurisdiction to
make the least possible change to
existing district boundaries, to follow
county, city, or precinct boundaries,
protect incumbents, preserve partisan
balance, or in some cases, require a
certain level of compactness of district
boundaries may need to give way to
some degree to avoid retrogression. In
evaluating alternative or illustrative
plans, the Department of Justice relies
upon plans that make the least
departure from a jurisdiction's stated
redistricting criteria needed to prevent
retrogression.
The Use of 2010 Census Data
The most current population data are
used to measure both the benchmark
plan and the proposed redistricting
plan. 28 CFR 51.54(b)(2) (Department of
Justice considers "the conditions
existing at the time of the submission. ");
City of Rome y, United States, 446 U.S.
156, 186 (1980) ( "most current available
population data" to be used for
measuring effect of annexations); Reno
v. Bossier Parish School Board, 528 U.S.
320, 334 (2000) ( "the baseline is the
status quo that is proposed to be
changed: If the change `abridges the
right to vote' relative to the status quo,
preclearance is denied * * * . ").
For redistricting after the 2010
Census, the Department of justice will,
consistent with past practice, evaluate
redistricting submissions using the 2010
Census population data released by the
Bureau of the Census for redistricting
pursuant to Public Law 94 -171, 13
U.S.C. 141(c). Thus, our analysis of the
proposed redistricting plans includes a
review and assessment of the Public
Packet Page -476-
Law 94 -171 population data, even if
those data are not included in the
submission or were not used by the
jurisdiction in drawing the plan. The
failure to use the Public Law 94 -171
population data in redistricting does
not, by itself, constitute a reason for
interposing an objection. However,
unless other population data used can
be shown to be more accurate and
reliable than the Public Law 94 -171
data, the Attorney General will consider
the Public Law 94-171 data to measure
the total population and voting age
population within a jurisdiction for
purposes of its Section 5 analysis.
As in 2000, the 2010 Census Public
Law 94 -171 data will include counts of
persons who have identified themselves
as members of more than one racial
category. This reflects the October 30,
1997, decision by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to
incorporate multiple -race reporting into
the Federal statistical system. 62 FR
58782 - 58790. Likewise, on March 9,
2000, OMB issued Bulletin No. 00-02
addressing "Guidance on Aggregation
and Allocation of Data on Race for Use
in Civil Rights Enforcement." Part II of
that Bulletin describes how such census
responses will be allocated by Federal
executive agencies for use in civil rights
monitoring and enforcement.
The Department will follow both
aggregation methods defined in Part II of
the Bulletin. The Department's initial
review of a plan will be based upon
allocating any multiple -item response
that includes white and one of the five
other race categories identified in the
response. Thus, the total numbers for
"Black /African American," "Asian,"
"American Indian /Alaska Native,"
"Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander" and "Some other race" reflect
the total of the single -race responses and
the multiple responses in which an
individual selected a minority race and
white race.
The Department will then move to the
second step in its application of the
census data to the plan by reviewing the
other multiple -race category, which is
comprised of all multiple -race responses
consisting of more than one minority
race. Where there are significant
numbers of such responses, we will, as
required by both the OMB guidance and
judicial opinions, allocate these
responses on an iterative basis to each
of the component single -race categories
for analysis. Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539
U.S. 461, 473, n.1 (2003).
As in the past, the Department will
analyze Latino voters as a separate
group for purposes of enforcement of
the Voting Rights Act. If there are
significant numbers of responses which
/"1
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 27/Wednesday, February 9, 2011/Notices 7473
report Latino and one or more minority alternatively to the Latino category and
�.� races (for example, Latinos who list the minority race category.
their race as Black /African- American),
those responses will be allocated
/--I-
Packet Page -477-
Dated: February 3,'2011.
Thomas E. Perez,
Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights
Division.
[FR Doc. 2011 -2797 Filed 2 -8 -11; 8;45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410 -13-P
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Exhibit D
Bond's Summary of Retrogression Analysis
Packet Page -478-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Packet Page -479-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
�1P M
Supervisor of Elections Timeline
Packet Page -480-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Packet Page -481-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Exhibit F
Bond's Data Verification Maps
Packet Page -482-
C.fl
GJ
N
O
CD
/01
CD
\
CA)
N
CM
�1
CD
E3
OD
Mum
CD
W
N
O
CD
W
N
t_]
.-r
(D
00
0
O
W
N
O
.=r
CD
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Packet Page -488-
--1 n
00
�-* c
z
0
= o
� o
rt �
0m
.. v
a
Cl)
j T
V
C37 0
U
C)
z
-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
E@
"nSc (n
1
o Z
CD
s 3 fC
n
ge��8
DN
Packet Page -489-
A
O) O A O A
O
2
3
Z
O
v
D
�
N
WA
W
INaA�A�
A O A O
Z
O
2
N
d
J
A
-1 n
00
r.r C
Z
O
-0 IV
r O
1w O
O. �
�m
.. v
wCn
Nj
i T
0
N
0
Z
Y+
Y
N
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Packet Page -490-
--1n
00
,-* c
z
0
-0 N
0 0
2) o
0m
.. v
wCn
N-j
X
Nn
C) -I
z
G)
-v
W
n
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Packet Page -491-
--lo
00
�* c
z
-�
0
� N
= o
a: Q
i••h T
0• N
�m
.. v
w cn
N-j
;_
�n
N
z
G)
'0
4
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Packet Page -492-
N
O
O
n
M
z
C
n
O
r
r
M
X
--1n
o D
�c
z
0
�a N
= O
O
0 m
.. v
W Cl)
CTI
N n
O �
z
G)
ic
M
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
EXHIBIT "A"
General Descriptions, MAP #1
District 1 — Begin at a point at the intersection of the eastern shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico and the
north line of Section 34, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; thence along the
north line of said Section 34 (also being the southern boundary of the city of Naples), easterly to the
center of Dollar Bay; thence along the center of Dollar Bay, southeasterly to the center of the Lely
Outfall Canal; thence along the center of the Lely Outfall Canal, northeasterly to the center of Highway
U.S. 41; thence along the center of said highway, northwesterly to the center of County Road 31
(Airport- Pulling Road); thence along the center of County Road 31, northerly to the center of State Road
84 (Davis Boulevard); thence along the center of State Road 84, easterly to the center of County Barn
Road; thence along the center of County Barn Road, southerly to the center of Cope Lane; thence along
the center of Cope Lane, easterly to the center of Sunset Boulevard; thence along the center of Sunset
Boulevard, southerly to the north line of Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East; thence along
the north line of said Section 16, easterly to the northeast corner of said Section 16; thence along the
east line of said Section 16, also being the east boundary of the Wing South Airstrip, southerly to the
north boundary of the Naples Lakes Country Club; thence along said north boundary, easterly to the
center of County Road 951; thence along the center of County Road 951, northerly to the center of Beck
Boulevard; thence along the center of Beck Boulevard, easterly to the center of Benfield Road; thence
north to the center of Interstate 75 (I -75); thence along the center of I -75, easterly to the center of
State Road 29; thence along the center of State Road 29, southerly to the center of the intersection of
Highway U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail) and State Road /County Road 29; thence along the center of County
Road 29, southerly to the northern boundary of Everglades City; thence along the northern boundary of
Everglades City, easterly to the eastern boundary of Everglades City; thence along the eastern boundary
of Everglades City, southerly to the center of Plantation Parkway; thence along the center of Plantation
n Parkway, easterly then southeasterly to the center of Halfway Creek; thence along the center of Halfway
Creek, easterly to the east line of Collier County, Florida 2010 Census Block Number 2064; thence along
the east line of Block 2064, southerly to the south line of Block 2064; thence along the south line of
Block 2064, westerly to the center of Copeland Avenue South (County Road 29) lying southeast of
Everglades City; thence along the center of Copeland Avenue South, southeasterly then southerly to the
northern edge of Chokoloskee Island; thence along the edge (shoreline) of Chokoloskee Island, easterly
then southerly then southwesterly to the southernmost shoreline of Chokoloskee Island, a point
approximately on the west line of Section 31, Township 53 South, Range 30 East; thence south,
approximately following the west line of Range 30 East, Township 53 South, to the Collier County -
Monroe County boundary line; thence along the Collier County- Monroe County boundary line, westerly to
the end of said boundary line; thence along the shoreline of Collier County, westerly - northwesterly then
northerly - northwesterly to the Point of Beginning.
District 2 — Begin at a point at the intersection of the eastern shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico and the
north section line of Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; thence along
the north line of Sections 6 and 5 of said Township and Range (also being the Lee County - Collier County
boundary line), easterly to the center of County Road 901 (Vanderbilt Drive); thence along the center of
County Road 901, southerly to the northwest corner of Section 9 of said Township and Range; thence
along the northern boundary of Collier County, easterly to the center of Interstate 75 (I -75); thence
along the center of said I -75, southerly to the center of County Road 896 (Pine Ridge Road); thence
along the center of County Road 896, westerly to the intersection of Highway U.S. 41 and County Road
896 /Seagate Drive, also being approximately the northeast corner of the City of Naples; thence along
the northern boundary of the City of Naples, a portion of which follows Seagate Drive, westerly to the
n easterly shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico, also being the northwest corner of the City of Naples; thence
along the easterly shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico, northerly to the Point of Beginning.
Packet Page -493-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
District 3 — Begin at a point at the center of Interstate 75 (I -75) at the Lee County - Collier County
boundary, Collier County, Florida; thence along said County boundary, easterly to the northeast corner
of Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 26 East; thence along the east line of Sections 10, 15 and 22
of said Township and Range, southerly to the intersection of County Road 846 (Immokalee Road) and
County Road 951 (Collier Boulevard); thence along the center of County Road 951, southerly to the
north boundary of the Naples Lakes Country Club; thence along said north boundary of the Naples Lakes
Country Club, westerly to the east line of Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East; thence along
the east line of Section 16 of said Township and Range, also being the east boundary of the Wing South
Airstrip, northerly to the north line of said Section 16; thence along the north line of said Section 16,
westerly to the center of Sunset Boulevard; thence along the center of Sunset Boulevard, northerly to
the center of Cope Lane; thence along the center of Cope Lane, westerly to the center of County Barn
Road; thence along the center of County Barn Road, northerly to the center of State Road 84 (Davis
Boulevard); thence along the center of State Road 84, easterly to the center of Santa Barbara
Boulevard; thence along the center of Santa Barbara Boulevard, northerly to the center of Interstate 75
(I -75); thence along the center of I -75, westerly then northerly to the Point of Beginning.
District 4 — Begin at a point at the intersection of the easterly shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico and the
northern boundary of the City of Naples, Collier County, Florida; thence along the northern boundary of
the City of Naples, a portion of which follows Seagate Drive, easterly to the intersection of Highway U.S.
41 (Tamiami Trail) and Seagate Drive /County Road 896 (Pine Ridge Road); thence along the center of
County Road 896, easterly to the center of Interstate 75 (I -75); thence along the center of I -75,
southerly then easterly to the center of Santa Barbara Boulevard; thence along the center of Santa
Barbara Boulevard, southerly to the center of State Road 84 (Davis Boulevard); thence along the center
of State Road 84, westerly to the center of County Road 31 (Airport- Pulling Road); thence along the
center of County Road 31, southerly to the center of Highway U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail); thence along the
center of Highway U.S. 41, southeasterly to the center of the Lely Outfall Canal; thence along the center
of the Lely Outfall Canal, southwesterly to the center of Dollar Bay; thence along the center of Dollar
Bay, northwesterly to the north line of Section 34, Township 50 South, Range 25 East; thence along the
north line of said Section 34 (also being the south boundary of the City of Naples), westerly to the
eastern shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico; thence along said shoreline, northerly to the Point of Beginning.
District 5 — Begin at a point at the northeast corner of Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,
also being a point on the Lee County - Collier County boundary, Collier County, Florida; thence along said
Lee County - Collier County boundary, easterly to the point where said boundary line turns and goes
north; thence continue along said Lee County - Collier County boundary line, northerly until said boundary
line turns and goes east; thence continue along said Lee County - Collier County boundary line, easterly to
the point where said boundary line turns north; thence along said boundary line, northerly to the point
where the Collier County -Lee County boundary line meets the Collier County -Hendry County boundary
line; thence along the Collier County -Hendry County boundary line, easterly to the point where said
boundary turns south; thence along said boundary line, southerly to the point where said boundary turns
east; thence along said boundary, easterly to the point where said boundary line meets the Collier
County - Broward County boundary line; thence along the Collier County - Broward County boundary line,
southerly to the point where the Collier County— Miami -Dade boundary line begins; thence along the
Collier County- Miami -Dade boundary line, southerly to the point where the Collier County- Monroe County
boundary line begins; thence along the Collier County- Monroe County boundary line, westerly to a point
south of the southernmost shoreline of Chokoloskee Island being approximately on the west line of
Range 30 East, Township 53 South; thence along a line south of the southernmost shoreline of
Chokoloskee Island being approximately on the west line of Range 30 East, Township 53 South,
northerly to the southerly shoreline of Chokoloskee Island; thence along the shoreline of Chokoloskee
Island, northeasterly then northerly then westerly to the center of Copeland Avenue South (County Road
29); thence along the center of Copeland Avenue South, northerly then northwesterly to the south line
of Collier County, Florida 2010 Census Block Number 2064, a point lying southeast of Everglades City;
Packet Page -494-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
thence along the south line of Block 2064, easterly to the east line of block 2064; thence along the east
line of Block 2064, northerly to the center of Halfway Creek; thence along the center of Halfway Creek,
westerly to the center of Plantation Parkway; thence along the center of Plantation Parkway,
n northwesterly then westerly to the eastern boundary of Everglades City; thence along the eastern
boundary of Everglades City, northerly to the northern boundary of Everglades City; thence along the
northern boundary of Everglades City, westerly to the center of County Road 29; thence along the center
of County Road 29, northerly to the intersection of Highway U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail) and State
Road /County Road 29; thence along the center of State Road 29, northerly to the center of Interstate 75
(I -75); thence along the center of I -75, westerly to a point north of the center of Benfield Road; thence
south to the center of Beck Boulevard at its intersection with Benfield Road; thence along the center of
Beck Boulevard, westerly to the center of County Road 951 (Collier Boulevard); thence along the center
of County Road 951, northerly to the center of County Road 846 (Immokalee Road); thence along the
east line of Sections 22, 15, and 10, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, northerly to the Point of
Beginning.
General Descriptions Map #1— draft but w -o watermark
GACDES Planning Services\ Comprehensive \David \Redistricting 2011 \General Descriptions dw/8- 10 &18 -11
Packet Page -495-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
EXHIBIT "A"
General Descriptions, MAP #2
District 1 — Begin at a point at the center of the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and County
Road 856 (Radio Road), Collier County, Florida; County Road 856, easterly to a point where Radio Road
turns southeasterly, being a distance of approximately. 1.25 miles; thence along an imaginary easterly
extension of Radio Road, a portion of which contains Radio Lane, easterly to the center of State Road 84
(Davis Boulevard); thence along the center of State Road 84, easterly to the center of County Road 951
(Collier Boulevard); thence along the center of County Road 951, southerly then southwesterly to the
center of the intersection of Highway U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail) and State Road /County Road 951; thence
along the center of Highway U.S. 41, southeasterly to the intersection of County Road 92 (San Marco
Road); thence along the center of County Road 92, westerly then southwesterly to the center of the
Marco River; thence along the center of the Marco River, southeasterly then southerly, running east of
Goodland, to the shoreline of unincorporated Collier County; thence along the shoreline, southwesterly
then northwesterly to the boundary of the City of Marco Island near the southwest corner of the City of
Marco Island; thence along the boundary of the City of Marco Island, westerly then northerly then
northeasterly to the Marco River; thence across the Marco River, northerly - northwesterly to the shoreline
of unincorporated Collier County; thence along the shoreline of unincorporated Collier County, northerly
to the intersection of the eastern shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico and the north line of Section 34,
Township 50 South, Range 25 East; thence along the north line of said Section 34 (also being the
southern boundary of the city of Naples), easterly to the center of Dollar Bay; thence along the center of
Dollar Bay, southeasterly_ to the center of the Lely Outfall Canal; thence along the center of the Lely
Outfall Canal, northeasterly to the center of Highway U.S. 41; thence along the center of said Highway,
northwesterly to the intersection of State Road 84 (Davis Boulevard); thence along the center of State
Road 84, easterly to the center of Santa Barbara Boulevard; thence along the center of Santa Barbara
Boulevard, northerly to the Point of Beginning.
District 2 — Begin at a point at the intersection of the eastern shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico and the
north section line of Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; thence along
the north line of Sections 6 and 5 of said Township and Range (also being the Lee County - Collier County
boundary line), easterly to the center of County Road 901 (Vanderbilt Drive); thence along the center of
County Road 901, southerly to the northwest corner of Section 9 of said Township and Range; thence
along the northern boundary of Collier County, easterly to the northeast corner of Section 10, Township
48 South, Range 26 East, thence along the east line of Sections 10, 15 and 22 of said Township and
Range, southerly to the intersection of County Road 846 (Immokalee Road) and County Road 951
(Collier Boulevard); thence along the center of County Road 951, southerly to the center of County Road
862 (Vanderbilt Beach Road); thence along the center of County Road 862, westerly to a point south of
the eastern boundary of Islandwalk Planned Unit Development (PUD) in Section 34, Township 49 South,
Range 26 East; thence along an imaginary southerly extension of said eastern boundary of Islandwalk
PUD, northerly to said eastern boundary; thence along said eastern boundary of Islandwalk PUD,
northerly to the northern boundary of Islandwalk PUD in said Section 34; thence along said northern
boundary of Islandwalk PUD, westerly to the eastern boundary of Islandwalk PUD in Section 33,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, also being the east line of said Section 33; thence along said eastern
boundary of Islandwalk PUD, northerly to the north boundary of Islandwalk PUD, also being the north
line of said Section 33; thence along said northern boundary of Islandwalk PUD, westerly to Logan
Boulevard; thence along the center of Logan Boulevard, northerly to the intersection of County Road 846
(Immokalee Road) and Logan Boulevard /Olde Cypress Boulevard; then along the center of Olde Cypress
Boulevard, northerly to the northern terminus of Olde Cypress Boulevard, a point being approximately
the northwest corner of Olde Cypress PUD and the northeast corner of Longshore Lakes PUD; thence
along the northern boundary of the Longshore Lakes PUD,. westerly to the northwest corner of
Longshore Lakes PUD, also being the northeast corner of Quail II PUD; thence along the northern
Packet Page -496-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
boundary of Quail II PUD, westerly to the northwest corner of Quail II PUD, also being the northeast
corner of the Huntington PUD; thence along the northern boundary of Huntington PUD, westerly to the
northwest corner of Huntington PUD, also being the northeast corner of Section 19, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East; thence along the north line of said Section 19, westerly to Interstate 75 (I -75); thence
along the center of I -75, southerly to County Road 862; thence along the center of County Road 862,
westerly to Livingston Road; thence along the center of Livingston Road, southerly to County Road 896
(Pine Ridge Road); thence along the center of County Road 896, westerly to the center of Highway U.S.
41; thence along the center of Highway U.S. 41, northerly to County Road 862; thence along the center
of County Road 862, westerly to the western terminus of County Road 862; thence along an imaginary
extension of County Road 862, westerly to the easterly shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico; thence along the
easterly shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico, northerly to the Point of Beginning.
District 3 — Begin at a point at the center of the intersection of County Road 862 (Vanderbilt Beach
Road) and Livingston Road, Collier County, Florida; thence along the center of County Road 862,
easterly to Interstate 75 (I -75); thence along the center of I -75, northerly to the north line of Section
19, Township 48 South, Range 26 East; thence along said Section line, easterly to the northeast corner
of said Section, also being the northwest corner of Huntington Planned Unit Development (PUD); thence
along the northern boundary of Huntington PUD, easterly to the northeast corner of Huntington PUD,
also being the northwest corner of Quail II PUD; thence along the northern boundary of Quail II PUD,
easterly to the northeast corner of Quail II PUD, also being the northwest corner of Longshore Lakes
PUD; thence along the northern boundary of Longshore Lakes PUD, easterly to the northeast corner of
Longshore Lakes PUD, also being the northwesterly corner of Olde Cypress PUD and approximately the
northern terminus of Olde Cypress Boulevard; thence along Olde Cypress Boulevard, southerly to the
intersection of County Road 846 (Immokalee Road) and Olde Cypress Boulevard /Logan Boulevard;
thence along Logan Boulevard, southerly to the northern boundary of Islandwalk PUD; thence along the
northern boundary of Islandwalk PUD, easterly to the northeast corner of Islandwalk PUD, also being the
northeast corner of Section 33, Township 48 South, Range 26 East; thence along the east boundary of
Islandwalk PUD, also being the east line of said Section 33, southerly approximately one -half (1/2) mile
to the northwest corner of that portion of Islandwalk PUD lying in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range
26 East; thence along the northern boundary of Islandwalk PUD in said Section 34, easterly to the east
boundary of Islandwalk PUD in said section 34; thence along said eastern boundary of Islandwalk PUD,
southerly to County Road 862 (Vanderbilt Beach Road); thence along the center of County Road 862,
easterly to County Road 951 (Collier Boulevard); thence along County Road 951, northerly to County
Road 846 (Immokalee Road); thence along County Road 846, easterly to Wilson Boulevard; thence
along the center of Wilson Boulevard, southerly to the Golden Gate Canal; thence along the center of the
Golden Gate Canal, westerly then southerly to White Boulevard; thence along White Boulevard, westerly
to County Road 951; thence along County Road 951, southerly to State Road 84 (Davis Boulevard);
thence along the center of State Road 84, westerly to the intersection of State Road 84 and an
imaginary easterly extension of County Road 856 (Radio Road), being a distance of approximately 3/8 of
one mile; thence along said imaginary extension of County Road 856, a portion of which contains Radio
Lane, westerly to the center of County Road 856; thence along the center of County Road 856, westerly
to the center of Santa Barbara Boulevard; thence along the center of Santa Barbara Boulevard, northerly
to the center of Interstate 75 (I -75); thence along the center of I -75, northwesterly to the center of
Golden Gate Parkway; thence along the center of Golden Gate Parkway, westerly to the center of
Livingston Road; thence along the center of Livingston Road, northerly to the Point of Beginning.
District 4 — Begin at a point at the intersection of the easterly shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico and an
imaginary extension of County Road 862 (Vanderbilt Beach Road), Collier County, Florida; thence along
said imaginary extension then the center of County Road 862, easterly to Highway U.S. 41 (Tamiami
Trail); thence along the center of Highway U.S. 41, southerly to County Road 896 (Pine Ridge Road);
thence along the center of County Road 896, easterly to the center of Livingston Road; thence along the
center of Livingston Road, southerly to its intersection with County Road 886 (Golden Gate Parkway); -
2
Packet Page -497-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
thence along the center of County Road 886, easterly to Interstate 75 (I -75); thence along the center of
I -75, southeasterly to Santa Barbara Boulevard; thence along the center of Santa Barbara Boulevard,
southerly to the center of State Road 84 (Davis Boulevard); thence along the center of State Road 84,
westerly to the center of the intersection of State Road 84 and Highway U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail); thence
along the center of Highway U.S. 41, southeasterly to the center of the Lely Outfall Canal; thence along
the center of the Lely Outfall Canal, southwesterly to the center of Dollar Bay; thence along the center of
Dollar Bay, northwesterly to the north line of Section 34, Township 50 South, Range 25 East; thence
along the north line of said Section 34 (also being the south boundary of the City of Naples), westerly to
the eastern shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico; thence along said shoreline, northerly to the Point of
Beginning.
District 5 — Begin at a point at the northeast corner of Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,
also being a point on the Lee County - Collier County boundary, Collier County, Florida; thence along said
Lee County - Collier County boundary, easterly to the point where said boundary line turns and goes
north; thence continue along said Lee County - Collier County boundary line, northerly until said boundary
line turns and goes east; thence continue along said Lee County - Collier County boundary line, easterly to
the point where said boundary line turns north; thence along said boundary line, northerly to the point
where the Collier County -Lee County boundary line meets the Collier County -Hendry County boundary
line; thence along the Collier County -Hendry County boundary line, easterly to the point where said
boundary turns south; thence along said boundary line, southerly to the point where said boundary turns
east; thence along said boundary, easterly to the point where said boundary line meets the Collier
County - Broward County boundary line; thence along the Collier County - Broward County boundary line,
southerly to the point where the Collier County— Miami -Dade boundary line begins; thence along the
Collier County- Miami -Dade boundary line, southerly to the point where the Collier County- Monroe County
boundary line begins; thence along the Collier County- Monroe County boundary line, westerly to the end
of said boundary; thence along the shoreline, northwesterly then westerly to the Marco River; thence
along the center of the Marco River, northerly then northwesterly, running east of Goodland, to the
center of County Road 92 (San Marco Road); thence along the center of County Road 92, northeasterly
then easterly to the intersection of Highway U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail); thence along the center of Highway
U.S. 41, northwesterly to the intersection of Highway U.S. 41 and State Road /County Road 29 (Collier
Boulevard); thence along the center of County Road 29, northeasterly then northerly to the intersection
of County Road 29 and County Road 896 (Pine Ridge Road) /White Boulevard; thence along the center of
White Boulevard, easterly to the Golden Gate Canal; thence along the center of the Golden Gate Canal,
northerly then westerly to Wilson Boulevard; thence along the center of Wilson Boulevard, northerly to
County Road 846 (Immokalee Road); thence along the center of County Road 846, westerly to the
intersection of County Road 846 and County Road 951 (Collier Boulevard) also being the east line of
Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East; thence along the east line of Sections 10, 15 and 22, of
said Township and Range, northerly to the Point of Beginning.
General Descriptions Map #2 — draft but w -o watermark
GACDES Planning ServiceslComprehensive \David \Redistricting 2011 \General Descriptions dw/8- 10 &18 -11
3
Packet Page -498-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
EXHIBIT "A"
General Descriptions, MAP #3
District 1 — Begin at a point at the intersection of the center of the Golden Gate Canal and Livingston
Road, Collier County, Florida; thence along the center of the Golden Gate Canal, easterly to the center of
Interstate 75 (I -75); thence along the center of I -75, southeasterly to the center of Santa Barbara
Boulevard; thence along the center of Santa Barbara Boulevard, southerly to the center of County Road
856 (Radio Road); thence along the center of Radio Road, easterly to a point where Radio Road turns
southeasterly, being a distance of approximately 1.25 miles; thence along an imaginary easterly
extension of Radio Road, a portion of which contains Radio Lane, easterly to the center of State Road 84
(Davis Boulevard); thence along the center of State Road 84, easterly to the center of the intersection of
State Road 84 /Beck Boulevard and County Road 951 (Collier Boulevard); thence along the center of Beck
Boulevard, easterly to the center of Benfield Road; thence north to the center of Interstate 75 (I -75);
thence along the center of I -75, easterly to the center of State Road 29; thence along the center of
State Road 29, southerly to the center of the intersection of Highway U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail) and State
Road /County Road 29; thence along the center of County Road 29, southerly to the northern boundary
of Everglades City; thence along the northern boundary of Everglades City, easterly to the eastern
boundary of Everglades City; thence along the eastern boundary of Everglades City, southerly to the
center of Plantation Parkway; thence along the center of Plantation Parkway, easterly then southeasterly
to the center of Halfway Creek; thence along the center of Halfway Creek, easterly to the east line of
Collier County, Florida 2010 Census Block Number 2064; thence along the east line of Block 2064,
southerly to the south line of Block 2064; thence along the south line of Block 2064, westerly to the
center of Copeland Avenue South (County Road 29) lying southeast of Everglades City; thence along the
center of Copeland Avenue South, southeasterly then southerly to the northern edge of Chokoloskee
Island; thence along the edge (shoreline) of Chokoloskee Island, easterly then southerly then
southwesterly to the southernmost shoreline of Chokoloskee Island, a point approximately on the west
line of Section 31, Township 53 South, Range 30 East; thence south, approximately following the west
line of Range 30 East, Township 53 South, to the Collier County- Monroe County boundary line; thence
along the Collier County- Monroe County boundary line, westerly to the end of said boundary line; thence
along the shoreline of Collier County, westerly - northwesterly then northerly - northwesterly to the center
of the Marco River; thence along the center of the Marco River, northerly then northwesterly, running
east of Goodland, to County Road 92 (San Marco Road); thence continue along the Marco River,
northerly then northwesterly to the center of State Road 951 (Collier Boulevard); thence along the
center of State Road 951, northerly to the center of Highway U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail); thence along the
center of Highway U.S. 41, northeasterly to the center of the intersection of Highway U.S. 41 and State
Road 84 (Davis Boulevard); thence along the center of State Road 84, easterly to the east line of Section
1, Township 50 South, Range 25 East; thence along the east line of Section 1, northerly to the north line
of Section 1, also being a point lying within the intersection of County Road 856 (Radio Road) and
Livingston Road; thence along the center of Livingston Road, northerly to the Point of Beginning.
District 2 — Begin at a point at the intersection of the eastern shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico and the
north section line of Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; thence along
the north line of Sections 6 and 5 of said Township and Range (also being the Lee County - Collier County
boundary line), easterly to the center of County Road 901 (Vanderbilt Drive); thence along the center of
County Road 901, southerly to the northwest corner of Section 9 of said Township and Range; thence
along the northern boundary of Collier County, easterly to the center of Interstate 75 (I -75); thence
along the center of said I -75, southerly to the center of County Road 896 (Pine Ridge Road); thence
along the center of County Road 896, westerly to the intersection of Highway U.S. 41 and County Road
n 896 /Seagate Drive, also being approximately the northeast corner of the City of Naples; thence along
the northern boundary of the City of Naples, a portion of which follows Seagate Drive, westerly to the
Packet Page -499-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
easterly shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico, also being the northwest corner of the City of Naples; thence
along the easterly shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico, northerly to the Point of Beginning.
District 3 — Begin at a point at the center of Interstate 75 (I -75) at the Lee County - Collier County
boundary, Collier County, Florida; thence along said County boundary, easterly to the northeast corner
of Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 26 East; thence along the east line of Sections 10, 15 and 22
of said Township and Range, southerly to the intersection of County Road 846 (Immokalee Road) and
County Road 951 (Collier Boulevard); thence along the center of County Road 951, southerly to the
center of State Road 84 (Davis Boulevard); thence along the center of State Road 84, westerly to the
intersection of State Road 84 and an imaginary easterly extension of County Road 856 (Radio Road),
being a distance of approximately 3/8 of one mile; thence along said imaginary extension of County
Road 856, a portion of which contains Radio Lane, westerly to the center of County Road 856; thence
along the center of County Road 856, westerly to the center of Santa Barbara Boulevard; thence along
the center of Santa Barbara Boulevard, northerly to the center of Interstate 75 (I -75); thence along the
center of I -75, northwesterly to the center of the Golden Gate Canal; thence along the center of the
Golden Gate Canal, westerly to the center of Livingston Road; thence along the center of Livingston
Road, northerly to the center of County Road 896 (Pine Ridge Road); thence along the center of County
Road 896, easterly to the center of I -75; thence along the center of I -75, northerly to the Point of
Beginning.
District 4 — Begin at a point at the intersection of the easterly shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico and the
northern boundary of the City of Naples, Collier County, Florida; thence along the northern boundary of
the City of Naples, a portion of which follows Seagate Drive, easterly to the intersection of Highway U.S.
41 (Tamiami Trail) and Seagate Drive /County Road 896 (Pine Ridge Road); thence along the center of
County Road 896, easterly to the center of Livingston Road; thence along the center of Livingston Road,
southerly to its intersection with County Road 856 (Radio Road), also being the northeast corner of
Section 1, Township 50 South, Range 25 East; thence along the east line of Section 1, southerly to the
center of State Road 84 (Davis Boulevard); thence along the center of State Road 84, westerly to the
center of the intersection of State Road 84 and Highway U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail); thence along the
center of Highway U.S. 41, southeasterly to the center of State Road 951 (Collier Boulevard); thence
along the center of State Road 951, southerly to the center of the Marco River; thence southeasterly
then southerly along the center of the Marco River to County Road 92 (San Marco Road); thence
continue along the Marco River, southerly then southeasterly, running east of Goodland, then southerly
to the shoreline of unincorporated Collier County; thence along the shoreline, southwesterly then
northwesterly to the boundary of the City of Marco Island near the southwest corner of the City of Marco
Island; thence along the boundary of the City of Marco Island, westerly then northerly then
northeasterly to the Marco'River; thence across the Marco River, northerly - northwesterly to the shoreline
of unincorporated Collier County; thence along the shoreline of unincorporated Collier County, northerly
to the shoreline boundary of the City of Naples; thence along the City of Naples shoreline, northerly to
the Point of Beginning.
District 5 — Begin at a point at the northeast corner of Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,
also being a point on the Lee County - Collier County boundary, Collier County, Florida; thence along said
Lee County - Collier County boundary, easterly to the point where said boundary line turns and goes
north; thence continue along said Lee County - Collier County boundary line, northerly until said boundary
line turns and goes east; thence continue along said Lee County - Collier County boundary line, easterly to
the point where said boundary line turns north; thence along said boundary line, northerly to the point
where the Collier County -Lee County boundary line meets the Collier County -Hendry County boundary
line; thence along the Collier County -Hendry County boundary line, easterly to the point where said
boundary turns south; thence along said boundary line, southerly to the point where said boundary turns
east; thence along said boundary, easterly to the point where said boundary line meets the Collier
County- Broward County boundary line; thence along the Collier County - Broward County boundary line,
2
Packet Page -500-
11—IN
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
southerly to the point where the Collier County— Miami -Dade boundary line begins; thence along the
Collier County- Miami -Dade boundary line, southerly to the point where the Collier County- Monroe County
boundary line begins; thence along the Collier County- Monroe County boundary line, westerly to a point
south of the southernmost shoreline of Chokoloskee Island being approximately on the west line of
Range 30 East, Township 53 South; thence along a line south of the southernmost shoreline of
Chokoloskee Island being approximately on the west line of Range 30 East, Township 53 South,
northerly to the southerly shoreline of Chokoloskee Island; thence along the shoreline of Chokoloskee
Island, northeasterly then northerly then westerly to the center of Copeland Avenue South (County Road
29); thence along the center of Copeland Avenue South, northerly then northwesterly to the south line
of Collier County, Florida 2010 Census Block Number 2064, a point lying southeast of Everglades City;
thence along the south line of Block 2064, easterly to the east line of block 2064; thence along the east
line of Block 2064, northerly to the center of Halfway Creek; thence along the center of Halfway Creek,
westerly to the center of Plantation Parkway; thence along the center of Plantation Parkway,
northwesterly then westerly to the eastern boundary of Everglades City; thence along the eastern
boundary of Everglades City, northerly to the northern boundary of Everglades City; thence along the
northern boundary of Everglades City, westerly to the center of County Road 29; thence along the center
of County Road 29, northerly to the intersection of Highway U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail) and State
Road /County Road 29; thence along the center of State Road 29, northerly to the center of Interstate 75
(I -75); thence along the center of I -75, westerly to a point north of the center of Benfield Road; thence
south to the center of Beck Boulevard at its intersection with Benfield Road; thence along the center of
Beck Boulevard, westerly to the center of County Road 951 (Collier Boulevard); thence along the center
of County Road 951, northerly to the center of County Road 846 (Immokalee Road); thence along the
east line of Sections 22, 15, and 10, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, northerly to the Point of
Beginning.
General Descriptions Map #3 — draft but w -o watermark
GACDES Planning ServiceslComprehensive \David\Redistricting 20NGeneral Descriptions dw/8- 10 &18 -11
Packet Page -501-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
EXHIBIT "A"
General Descriptions, MAP #4
District 1 — Begin at a point at the intersection of the eastern shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico and the
north line of Section 34, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; thence along the
north line of said Section 34 (also being the southern boundary of the city of Naples), easterly to the
center of Dollar Bay; thence along the center of Dollar Bay, southeasterly to the center of the Lely
Outfall Canal; thence along the center of the Lely Outfall Canal, northeasterly to the center of Highway
U.S. 41; thence along the center of said Highway, northwesterly to the intersection of State Road 84
(Davis Boulevard); thence along the center of State Road 84, easterly to the center of County Barn
Road; thence along the center of County Barn Road, southerly to the center of Cope Lane; thence along
the center of Cope Lane, easterly to the center of Santa Barbara Boulevard; thence along an imaginary
extension of Cope Lane, easterly to the center of Sunset Boulevard; thence along the center of Sunset
Boulevard, southerly to the north line of Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East; thence along
the north line of said Section 16, easterly to the northeast corner of said Section 16; thence along the
east line of said Section 16, also being the east boundary of the Wing South Airstrip, southerly to the
north boundary of the Naples Lakes Country Club; thence along said north boundary, easterly to the
center of County Road 951 (Collier Boulevard); thence along the center of County Road 951, northerly to
the center of Beck Boulevard; thence along the center of Beck Boulevard, easterly to the center of
Benfield Road; thence north to the center of Interstate 75 (I -75); thence along the center of I -75,
easterly to the center of Miller Boulevard; thence along the center of Miller Boulevard then Miller
Boulevard Extension, southerly to the intersection of Highway U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail); thence along the
center of Highway U.S. 41, westerly then northwesterly to the intersection of County Road 92 (San
Marco Road); thence along the center of County Road 92, westerly then southwesterly to the center of
the Marco River; thence along the center of the Marco River, southeasterly then southerly, running east
of Goodland, to the shoreline of unincorporated Collier County; thence along the shoreline,
southwesterly then northwesterly to the boundary of the City of Marco Island near the southwest corner
of the City of Marco Island; thence along the boundary of the City of Marco Island, westerly then
northerly then northeasterly to the Marco River; thence across the Marco River, northerly - northwesterly
to the shoreline of unincorporated Collier County; thence along the shoreline of unincorporated Collier
County, northerly to the Point of Beginning.
District 2 — Begin at a point at the intersection of the eastern shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico and the
north section line of Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; thence along
the north line of Sections 6 and 5 of said Township and Range (also being the Lee County - Collier County
boundary line), easterly to the center of County Road 901 (Vanderbilt Drive); thence along the center of
County Road 901, southerly to the northwest corner of Section 9 of said Township and Range; thence
along the northern boundary of Collier County, easterly to the center of Interstate 75 (I -75); thence
along the center of I -75, southerly to the intersection of County Road 846 (Immokalee Road); thence
along the center of County Road 846, easterly to the intersection of Logan Boulevard; thence along the
center of Logan Boulevard, southerly for a distance of approximately 1.5 miles to a point where Logan
Boulevard veers to the southeast; thence continue southerly - southwesterly to the swale along the east
side of Golden Gate Estates Unit 96; thence along the center of the swale, southerly to the intersection
of County Road 862 (Vanderbilt Beach Road); thence along the center of County Road 862, westerly to
the intersection of I -75; thence along the center of I -75, southerly to the intersection of County Road
896 (Pine Ridge Road); thence along the center of County Road 896, westerly to the intersection of
Highway U.S. 41 and County Road 896 /Seagate Drive, also being approximately the northeast corner of
the City of Naples; thence along the northern boundary of the City of Naples, a portion of which follows
Seagate Drive, westerly to the easterly shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico, also being the northwest corner
of the City of Naples; thence along the easterly shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico, northerly to the Point of
Beginning.
Packet Page -502-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
District 3 — Begin at a point at the center of Interstate 75 (I -75) at the Lee County- Collier County
boundary, Collier County, Florida; thence along said County boundary, easterly to the northeast corner
of Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 26 East; thence along the east line of Section 10, of said
Township and Range, southerly to the southeast corner of said Section 10, also being the northwest
corner of the Heritage Bay Planned Unit Development (PUD); thence along the north boundary of
Heritage Bay PUD, easterly to the east boundary of Heritage Bay PUD, also being the northeast corner of
Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 26 East; thence along the east boundary of Heritage Bay PUD,
southerly to County Road 846 (Immokalee Road); thence along the center of County Road 846, easterly
approximately two (2) miles to the north -south canal along the west boundary of Golden Gate Estates
Units 20 and 19; thence along the center of said canal, southerly approximately two (2) miles to the
east -west canal along the north boundary of Golden Gate Estates Units 10, 7 and 6; thence along said
east -west canal, a portion of which lies south of and parallel to County Road 862 (Vanderbilt Beach Road
Extension), westerly to a point south of the intersection of Douglas Street and Vanderbilt Beach Road
Extension; thence north to Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension; thence along the center of Vanderbilt
Beach Road Extension, westerly to the intersection of County Road 951 (Collier Boulevard); thence along
the center of County Road 951, southerly to the north boundary of the Naples Lakes Country Club;
thence along said north boundary of the Naples Lakes Country Club, westerly to the east line of Section
16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East; thence along the east line of Section 16 of said Township and
Range, also being the east boundary of the Wing South Airstrip, northerly to the north line of said
Section 16; thence along the north line of said Section 16, westerly to the center of Sunset Boulevard;
thence along the center of Sunset Boulevard, northerly to the center of an imaginary easterly extension
of Cope Lane; thence along the imaginary extension of Cope Lane, westerly to the intersection of Santa
Barbara Boulevard; thence along the center of Santa Barbara Boulevard, northerly to the center of I -75;
thence along the center of I -75, westerly then northerly to the center of County Road 862 (Vanderbilt
Beach Road); thence along the center of County Road 862, easterly approximately one (1) mile to the
swale along the east side of Golden Gate Estates Unit 96; thence along the center of said swale,
northerly approximately 1/2 mile, also being south of the point where Logan Boulevard veers from north -
south to the southeast; thence northerly - northeasterly to the center of Logan Boulevard at the point
where Logan Boulevard veers from north -south to the southeast; thence along the center of Logan
Boulevard, northerly approximately 1.5 miles to the center of. County Road 846 (Immokalee Road);
thence along the center of County Road 846, westerly to the center of I -75; thence along the center of
I -75, northerly to the Point of Beginning.
District 4 — Begin at a point at the intersection of the easterly shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico and the
northern boundary of the City of Naples, Collier County, Florida; thence along the northern boundary of
the City of Naples, a portion of which follows Seagate Drive, easterly to the intersection of Highway U.S.
41 (Tamiami Trail) and Seagate Drive /County Road 896 (Pine Ridge Road); thence along the center of
County Road 896, easterly to the center of Interstate 75 (I -75); thence along the center of I -75,
southerly then easterly to the center of Santa Barbara Boulevard; thence along the center of Santa
Barbara Boulevard, southerly to the center of Cope Lane; thence along the center of Cope Lane,
westerly to the center of County Barn Road; thence along the center of County Barn Road, northerly to
the center of State Road 84 (Davis Boulevard); thence along the center of State Road 84, westerly to the
center of intersection of State Road 84 and Highway U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail); thence along the center of
Highway U.S. 41, southeasterly to the center of the Lely Outfall Canal; thence along the center of the
Lely Outfall Canal, southwesterly to the center of Dollar Bay; thence along the center of Dollar Bay,
northwesterly to the north line of Section 34, Township 50 South, Range 25 East; thence along the north
line of said Section 34 (also being the south boundary of the City of Naples), westerly to the eastern
shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico; thence along said shoreline, northerly to the Point of Beginning.
n District 5 — Begin at a point at the northeast corner of Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,
also being a point on the Lee County- Collier County boundary, Collier County, Florida; thence along said
2
Packet Page -503-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Lee County - Collier County boundary, easterly to the point where said boundary line turns and goes
north; thence continue along said Lee County - Collier County boundary line, northerly until said boundary
line turns and goes east; thence continue along said Lee County - Collier County boundary line, easterly to
the point where said boundary line turns north; thence along said boundary line, northerly to the point
where the Collier County -Lee County boundary line meets the Collier County -Hendry County boundary
line; thence along the Collier County -Hendry County boundary line, easterly to the point where said
boundary turns south; thence along said boundary line, southerly to the point where said boundary turns
east; thence along said boundary, easterly to the point where said boundary line meets the Collier
County - Broward County boundary line; thence along the Collier County - Broward County boundary line,
southerly to the point where the Collier County— Miami -Dade boundary line begins; thence along the
Collier County- Miami -Dade boundary line, southerly to the point where the Collier County - Monroe County
boundary line begins; thence along the Collier County- Monroe County boundary line, westerly to the end
of said boundary; thence along the shoreline, northwesterly then westerly to the Marco River; thence
along the center of the Marco River, northerly then northwesterly, running east of Goodland, to the
center of County Road 92 (San Marco Road); thence along the center of County Road 92, northeasterly
then easterly to the intersection of Highway U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail); thence along the center of Highway
U.S. 41, southeasterly then easterly to the intersection of Miller Boulevard Extension; thence along the
center of Miller Boulevard Extension then Miller Boulevard, northerly to the center of Interstate 75 (I-
75); thence along the center of I -75, westerly to a point north of the center of Benfield Road; thence
south to the center of Beck Boulevard at its intersection with Benfield Road; thence along the center of
Beck Boulevard, westerly to the center of County Road 951 (Collier Boulevard); thence along the center
of County Road 951, northerly to the center of County Road 862 (Vanderbilt Beach Road /Vanderbilt
Beach Road Extension; thence along the center of Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension, easterly to the
intersection of Douglas Street; thence south to the east -west canal along the north boundary of Golden
Gate Estates Units 10, 7 and 6, a portion of which lies south of and parallel to Vanderbilt Beach Road
Extension; thence along said canal, easterly to the north -south canal along the west boundary of Golden
Gate Estates Units 20 and 19; thence along said north -south canal, northerly to County Road 846
(Immokalee Road); thence along the center of County Road 846, westerly approximately two (2) miles
to the east boundary of the Heritage Bay Planned Unit Development (PUD); thence along the east
boundary of Heritage Bay PUD to the north boundary of Heritage Bay PUD, also being the northeast
corner of Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 26 East; thence along the north boundary of Heritage
Bay PUD, westerly to the west boundary of Heritage Bay PUD, also being the southeast corner of Section
10, Township 48 South, Range 26 East; thence along the east boundary of said Section 10, northerly to
the Point of Beginning.
General Descriptions Map #4 — draft but w -o watermark
GACDES Planning Services\ Comprehensive \David \Redistricting 2011 \General Descriptions dw/8- 10 &18 -11
Packet Page -504-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
EXHIBIT "A"
General Descriptions, MAP #5
District 1 — Begin at a point at the intersection of State Road 84 (Davis Boulevard) and County Road 31
(Airport- Pulling Road), Collier County, Florida; thence along the center of State Road 84, easterly then
northeasterly then easterly to the intersection of State Road 84 and County Road 951 (Collier
Boulevard) /Beck Boulevard; thence along the center of Beck Boulevard, easterly to the cente- of Benfield
Road; thence north to the center of Interstate 75 (I -75); thence along the center of I -75, easterly to the
center of State Road 29; thence along the center of State Road 29, southerly to the center of the
intersection of Highway U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail) and State Road /County Road 29; thence along the
center of County Road 29, southerly to the northern boundary of Everglades City; thence along the
northern boundary of Everglades City, easterly to the eastern boundary of Everglades City; thence along
the eastern boundary of Everglades City, southerly to the center of Plantation Parkway; thence along the
center of Plantation Parkway, easterly then southeasterly to the center of Halfway Creek; thence along
the center of Halfway Creek, easterly to the east line of Collier County, Florida 2010 Census Block
Number 2064; thence along the east line of Block 2064, southerly to the south line of Block 2064;
thence along the south line of Block 2064, westerly to the center of Copeland Avenue South (County
Road 29) lying southeast of Everglades City; thence along the center of Copeland Avenue South,
southeasterly then southerly to the northern edge of Chokoloskee Island; thence along the edge
(shoreline) of Chokoloskee Island, easterly then southerly then southwesterly to the southernmost
shoreline of Chokoloskee Island, a point approximately on the west line of Section 31, Township 53
South, Range 30 East; thence south, approximately following the west line of Range 30 East, Township
53 South, to the Collier County- Monroe County boundary line; thence along the Collier County- Monroe
County boundary line, westerly to the end of said boundary line; thence along the shoreline of Collier
County, westerly - northwesterly then northerly to the Marco River; thence along the center of the Marco
River, northeasterly to the intersection of Henderson Creek; thence along the center of Henderson
Creek, northeasterly to a point being an imaginary extension of Antigua Street; thence continue along
the center of Henderson Creek, northwesterly then northeasterly to Barefoot Williams Road; thence
along the center of Barefoot Williams Road, northerly then northwesterly to the intersection of Highway
U.S. 41; thence along the center of Highway U.S. 41, northwesterly to. the intersection of County Road
31; thence along the center of County Road 31, northerly to the Point of Beginning.
District 2 — Begin at a point at the intersection of the eastern shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico and the
north section line of Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; thence along
the north line of Sections 6 and 5 of said Township and Range (also being the Lee County - Collier County
boundary line), easterly to the center of County Road 901 (Vanderbilt Drive); thence along the center of
County Road 901, southerly to the northwest corner of Section 9 of said Township and Range; thence
along the northern boundary of Collier County, easterly to the center of Interstate 75. (I -75); thence
along the center of said I -75, southerly to the center of County Road 896 (Pine Ridge Road); thence
along the center of County Road 896, westerly to the intersection of Highway U.S. 41 and County Road
896 /Seagate Drive, also being approximately the northeast corner of the City of Naples; thence along
the northern boundary of the City of Naples, a portion of which follows Seagate Drive, westerly to the
easterly shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico, also being the northwest corner of the City of Naples; thence
along the easterly shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico, northerly to the Point of Beginning.
District 3 — Begin at a point at the center of Interstate 75 (I -75) at the Lee County- Collier County
boundary, Collier County, Florida; thence along said County boundary, easterly to the northeast corner
of Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 26 East; thence along the east line of Sections 10, 15 and 22
of said Township and Range, southerly to the intersection of County Road 846 (Immokalee Road) and
County Road 951 (Collier Boulevard); thence along the center of County Road 846, easterly to the center
of Woodcrest Drive; thence along the center of Woodcrest Drive, southerly to the terminus of Woodcrest
Packet Page -505-
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
Drive; thence along an imaginary southerly extension of Woodcrest Drive, southerly to the
commencement of Massey Street, a point being approximately one mile north of County Road 862
(Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension); thence along the center of Massey Street, southerly to the center of
County Road 862; thence along the center of County Road 862, westerly to the center of County Road
951; thence along the center of County Road 951, southerly to the center of State Road 84 (Davis
Boulevard); thence along the center of State Road 84, westerly then southwesterly then westerly to the
center of Santa Barbara Boulevard; thence along the center of Santa Barbara Boulevard, northerly to the
center of I -75; thence along the center of I -75, westerly then northerly to the Point of Beginning.
District 4 — Begin at a point at the intersection of the easterly shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico and the
northern boundary of the City of Naples, Collier County, Florida; thence along the northern boundary of
the City of Naples, a portion of which follows Seagate Drive, easterly to the intersection of Highway U.S.
41 (Tamiami Trail) and Seagate Drive /County Road 896 (Pine Ridge Road); thence along the center of
County Road 896, easterly to the center of Interstate 75 (1 -75); thence along the center of I -75,
southerly then easterly to the center of Santa Barbara Boulevard; thence along the center of Santa
Barbara Boulevard, southerly to the center of State Road 84 (Davis Boulevard); thence along the center
of State Road 84, westerly to the center of County Road 31 (Airport- Pulling Road); thence along the
center of County Road 31, southerly to the center of Highway U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail); thence along the
center of Highway U.S. 41, southeasterly to the intersection of Barefoot Williams Road; thence along the
center of Barefoot Williams Road, southeasterly then southerly to Henderson Creek; thence along the
center of Henderson Creek, southwesterly then southeasterly to a point being an imaginary extension of
Antigua Street; thence continue along the center of Henderson Creek, southwesterly to the Marco River;
thence along the center of the Marco River, southwesterly to the Gulf of Mexico; thence along the
shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico, northerly to the Point of Beginning.
District 5 — Begin at a point at the northeast corner of Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,
also being a point on the Lee County - Collier County boundary, Collier County, Florida; thence along said
Lee County - Collier County boundary, easterly to the point where said boundary line turns and goes
north; thence continue along said Lee County - Collier County boundary line, northerly until said boundary
line turns and goes east; thence continue along said Lee County - Collier County boundary line, easterly to
the point where said boundary line turns north; thence along said boundary line, northerly to the point .
where the Collier County -Lee County boundary line meets the Collier County -Hendry County boundary
line; thence along the Collier County -Hendry County boundary line, easterly to the point where said
boundary turns south; thence along said boundary line, southerly to the point where said boundary turns
east; thence along said boundary, easterly to the point where said boundary line meets the Collier
County - Broward County boundary line; thence along the Collier County- Broward County boundary line,
southerly to the point where the Collier County— Miami -Dade boundary line begins; thence along the
Collier County- Miami -Dade boundary line, southerly to the point where the Collier County- Monroe County
boundary line begins; thence along the Collier County- Monroe County boundary line, westerly to a point
south of the southernmost shoreline of Chokoloskee Island being approximately on the west line of
Range 30 East, Township 53 South; thence along a line south of the southernmost shoreline of
Chokoloskee Island being approximately on the west line of Range 30 East, Township 53 South,
northerly to the southerly shoreline of Chokoloskee Island; thence along the shoreline of Chokoloskee
Island, northeasterly then northerly then westerly to the center of Copeland Avenue South (County Road
29); thence along the center of Copeland Avenue South, northerly then northwesterly to the south line
of Collier County, Florida 2010 Census Block Number 2064, a point lying southeast of Everglades City;
thence along the south line of Block 2064, easterly to the east line of block 2064; thence along the east
line of Block 2064, northerly to the center of Halfway Creek; thence along the center of Halfway Creek,
westerly to the center of Plantation Parkway; thence along the center of Plantation Parkway,
northwesterly then westerly to the eastern boundary of Everglades City; thence along the eastern
boundary of Everglades City, northerly to the northern boundary of Everglades City; thence along the
northern boundary of Everglades City, westerly to the center of County Road 29; thence along the center
2
Packet Page -506-
/—*N
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
of County Road 29, northerly to the intersection of Highway U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail) and State
Road /County Road 29; thence along the center of State Road 29, northerly to the center of Interstate 75
(I -75); thence along the center of I -75, westerly to a point north of the center of Benfield Road; thence
south to the center of Beck Boulevard at its intersection with Benfield Road; thence along the center of
Beck Boulevard, westerly to the intersection of County Road 951 (Collier Boulevard); thence along the
center of County Road 951, northerly to the intersection of County Road 862 (Vanderbilt Beach Road
Extension); thence along the center of County Road 862, easterly to the intersection of Massey Street;
thence along the center of Massey Street, northerly to the terminus of Massey Street, a point being
approximately one mile north of County Road 862; thence along an imaginary northerly extension of
Massey Street, northerly to the southerly terminus of Woodcrest Drive; thence along the center of
Woodcrest Drive, northerly to the intersection of County Road 846 (Immokalee Road); thence along the
center of County Road 846, westerly to the intersection of County Road 951, also being the. east line of
Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East; thence along the east line of Sections 22, 15, and 10,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, northerly to the Point of Beginning.
General Descriptions Map #5 — draft but w -o watermark
GACDES Planning Services\ Comprehensive \David\Redistdcting 2011\General Descriptions dw/8- 10 &18 -11
3
Packet Page -507-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
. NOTICE OF RESOLUTION
NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION /ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION REDISTRICT-
ING COUNTY COMMISSION DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND ESTABLISH-
ING NEW COUNTY COMMISSION DISTRICT BOUNDARIES PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 124, FLORIDA STATUTES; AND THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION.
The Collier County Board of County Commissioners proposes to adopt a resolution
redistricting county commission district boundaries and establishing new county com-
mission district boundaries in accordance with Chapter 124, Florida Statutes, and the
Florida.Constitution. Five (5) maps of Collier County delineating five (5) alternative pro-
posals for new county commission district boundaries are included in this advertise-
ment, as well as one (1) map depicting the existing district boundaries. The delineated
boundaries of each of the five (5) alternative proposals will be proposed for the board's
consideration and are subject to review, changes (if applicable) and final approval of
the Board of County Commissioners.
A public hearing on this resolution will be held TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1.3, 2011 at
9:00 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioners' Chambers, Third Floor, Collier Coun-
ty Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34112.
All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. 'Copies of the proposed
BCC Redistricting Maps and data will be made available for inspection at the Land,
Development Services Dept., Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800. N. Horseshoe
Dr., Naples, FL between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday.
Furthermore the materials will be made available for inspection at toe Collier County
Clerk's Office, Fourth Floor, Suite 401, Collier County Government Center, East Naples,
one week prior to the scheduled hearing.
Any questions regarding this action should be directed to David Weeks, AICP, :GMP
Manager, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, phone 239 -252 -2306, email
davidweeks @colliergov.net or Scott Teach, Deputy County Attorney, 3299 E. Tamiami
Trail, 8th Floor, Collier County Government Center, Naples, Florida, phone 239 -252-
8400, email scottteach @colliergov.net.
Written comments filed with the GMP Manager, Deputy County Attorney, or the Board
of County Commissioners prior to TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 will be read and
considered at the public hearing.
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Board of
County Commissioners with respect to any matter considered at such .meeting or
hearing, will need a record of that proceeding, and for such purpose may •need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made; which record includes the
testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to partici-
pate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain
assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, lo-
cated at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112 -5356, (239) 252 -8380,
at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing im-
paired are available in the Board of County Commissioners. Office.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
By: Teresa Polaski
Deputy Clerk (Senn
Packet Page -508- --
F
/1-111
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE
AVISO DE AUDIENCIA POSLICA
NOTIFICACION DE RESOLUCION
AViSO DE DELI BERACIbN/ADOPCIbN DE UNA RESOLUC16N PARA REDISTRI-
BUIR LAS LINERS DIVISORIAS DE DISTRITO DE LA COMiS16N CONDAL Y PARA
ESTABLECER NUEVAS LINERS DIVISORIAS DE DISTRITO PARA LA COMIS16N
CONDAL CONFORME AL CAPTULO 124, ESTATUTOS DE LA FLORIDA Y LA CON -
STITUCI6N DEL ESTADO DE LA FLORIDA,
EL Consejo Condal de Comisionados del Condado de Collier propone pasar una resoluci6n
que redistribuye Jas lineas divisoria de los distritos de la Comision Condal y que estabtece .
nuevas lineas divisorias de los distritos de la Comision Condai conforme al Capltulo 124 de
Jos Estatutos de la Florida y a la Constftuci6n del Estado de la Florida. Cinco (5) mapas del
Condado de Collier delinean cinco (5) propuestas alternativas de las lineas divisodas de los
distdtos de la Comision Condal y se hayan incluidas'en este.aviso, asi como un (1) mapa
que ilustra las.lineas de los distritos existentes. Las lineas divisorias delineadas de cads
una de las cnco (5) propuestas aftemas seran presentadas a la Junta de Directores.para
su consideraci6n y estaran sujetas a ser revisadas, cambiadas (si esto aplica) y a recibir
aprobaci6n final del Consejo Condal de-Comisionados.
,Una audiencia publica sera llevada a cabo para considerar esta resolucion el dia MARTES,
13 de SETIEMBRE de 2011 a las. 9 :00 A.M. en la Sala Consistorial del Consejo Condal
de Comisionados, tercer piso, en el Centro Gubernamental. del Condado de Collier (Collier
County Government Center), 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34112.
Se invita a todas las partes interesadas a que asistan y sean otdas. Se ponds a disposici6n
del p6blico Coptas de Jos mapas y datos de Redistribuci6n de las lineas divisorias de los
distritos del Consejo Condal de Comisionados (BCC) propuestos para que puedan ser ex-
aminados en el Departamento de Servicios de Desarrollo de Terrenos, Secci6n de Planifi-
caci6n Global (Land Development Services Dept., Comprehensive Planning Section), 2800
N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL de 8:00 A.M. a 5:00 P.M., de Junes a viernes. Ademas, los
materiales estaran disponibles para ser inspeccionados en la Oficina del Empieado Admin-
istrativo (Clerk's Office) del Condado de Collier, cuarto piso, Suite 401, Centro de Gobiemo
del Condado de Collier (Collier County Government Center), East Naples, una semana antes
de la audiencia publica programada.
Cualquier pregunta-relacionada con esta acci6n debe ser dirigida a David Weeks, AJCP,
GMP Manager, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, telefono 239 - 252 -2306, correo
electr6nico davidweeks @colliergov.net, o a Scott Teach, Deputy County Attorney, 3299 E.
Tamiaml Trail, 8th Floor, Collier County Government Center, Naples, Florida, telefono 239-
252 -8400, correo electr6nico scottteach *colliergov.net.
Los comentario que se.presenten al.Administrador GMP (GMP Manager), Abogado Diputado
Condal jDeputy County Attorney), o al Consejo Condal de Comisionados (Board of County
Commissioners) antes del MARTES 13 DE SETIEMBRE DE 2011, seran leidos y se les darn
debida atenci6n en la audiencia publica.
Si una persona decide apelar cualquier decisi6n tomada por el Consejo Condal de Comis-
ionados del Condado de Collier (Collier County Board of County Commissioners) con -
cemiente a cualquier asunto que sea ventilado en dicha audiencia, necesitara una copia del
acta de dicha audiencia, y para este prop6sito debe asegurarse de que se haga un registro
literal de Jos actos, cuyo registro debe incluir el testimonio y la evidencia sobre la que se
fundamenta dicha apelaci6n.
Si usted es una persona discapachada que necesita cualquier tipo de acomodo para poder
participar en estos actos, usted tiene derecho, de forma gratufta, a que se le provea cierta
asistencia. Por favor p6ngase en contacto con el Departamento de Administraci6n de lnsta-
laciones del Condado Collier (Collier County Facilities Management Department), ubicado
en el 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112 -5356, (239) 252 -8380, por to
menos dos dias antes de la reunion. Tenemos disponibles en la Oficina del Consejo Condal
de Comisionados (Board of County Commissioners Office) dispositivos de escucha asistida
para los que tienen problemas auditivos.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FRED W. COYLE, PRESIDENTE (CHAIRMAN)
DWIGHT E. BROCK, OFICiNISTA (CLERK)
By: Teresa Polaski
Oficinista Diputado (Deputy Clerk) (Curio)
Packet Page -509-
f
0 26 s IDS
F-u�
COLLIER COUNTY 2010 REDISTRICTING MAP 2
Total, P*PulattOn, 321s520
[t.
COLLIER COUNTY EXISTING 8 C DISTRICTS MAP
WITH Z410 CENSUS POPULATION
Tot*) Papa I.,
O
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
No. 231-18258
Packet Page -510-
�\
r
COLLIER COUNTY 2010 REDISTRICTING MAP 1
Total Population: 321,520
»i o cuuw .o.uwia„ n Msam a�n,er
Ins
0 ' Ib 6 70
o��Ws
COLLIER COUNTY 2010 REDISTRICTING MAP 3
Total Population: 321,520
sneram.oruna... Maa.m�sraeMm,cr
lid
0 T.4 5 10
v�
COLLIER COUNTY 2010 REDISTRICTING MAP 5
l Total Populatlon: 321,520
Mt CBWY6 M1L�110Y AMUKO�OGWIpYW E41FR
9/13/2011 Item 8.D.
I I
4
L
.ii.........
0 i6 6 10
A! aunt 24. 2011
Packet Page -511-