Public Comments

The first staff plan for Colorado's legislative redistricting is as bad as the second staff plan for the congressional redistricting in my neck of the woods. The voters stats for the proposed legislative plan is plainly favors the GOP: House District 58 (Montrose, NFV, Gunnison (includes CB and Gunnison), Hinsdale, Ouray, Montrose, San Miguel, Dolores, part of Montezuma)—35.5%-R, 22.7%-D, 41% U. This plan completely disenfranchises me, as a liberal independent, as it has for decades. Where I'd hoped for improvement in balanced representation, this plan worsens that situation. Please reject this plan and add move voters from Eagle county, at a minimum.

Broomfield city/county are currently split on the map between 2 districts and I believe that it should be a whole part of a single district, so all residents of Broomfield county can have a fair voice in our election process.

Commissioners, Thank you for your public service and by participating in the work being done by this important committee. I support the most recent version of the congressional map and the district lines that have been drawn for CD 2 and 3 – the second staff-drawn map. This map now has a central mountain region that includes Colorado’s largest ski communities. I favor putting Eagle, Summit and Routt counties together as they have many public policy concerns in common, including transportation, affordable housing, and preservation of pubic lands for outdoor recreation Eagle County has more compatibility with north-central counties like Grand, Larimer and Boulder than with southeastern counties like Crowley, Otero and even Pueblo. Likewise, Eagle County little shared interest with western-most counties like Mesa, Delta and Montrose whose commissioners advocate for extraction of fossil fuels over the conservation of our public lands which are critical to the economic future of our county. I hope you will consider keeping CD 2 and CD 3 as shown in the second staff map. Colorado’s ski resorts need a single voice in Congress. Sincerely, Cass Gassman Edwards, CO

The City and County of Broomfield is a single city of interest. Separating us into two different congressional districts is unfathomable. Please don’t eliminate the impact of our votes by splitting our city into two districts.

I am a Broomfield resident. It appears the city is being divided down the middle. I know Broomfield is the oddest of shapes, but I believe it would be beneficial for as much of Broomfield as possible to be in the same Congressional District. Thank you. I hope to be in Joe Neguse's district!

Dear Commissioners, I am following up on my remote verbal testimony yesterday, September 18 regarding State House and State Senate maps and plans. I am Diane Mitsch Bush Thank you and the nonpartisan staff for all your work. In yesterday’s legislative redistricting hearing (9/18), you were very responsive to our comments and really listened well. Thank you. Thank you for being transparent and accountable, including the requirement that paid lobbyists identify themselves and their organization. Public deliberations are so critical for fair districts. I have lived in Routt County for 45 years. Here, I represent my self as a citizen, taxpayer and voter. I am not a lobbyist. I served two terms as Routt County Commissioner and three terms as State House Representative for House District 26, Eagle and Routt Counties. I chaired the House Transportation/Energy Committee, served on the Joint House-Senate Interim water Committee, and was Vice-Chair of the Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee. I have worked closely with ranchers and farmers in Routt County on a host of issues since the 1980’s and with the outdoor manufacturing sector Regarding the September 13 State House map Thank you for listening to our July 23 comments on the preliminary State House map and putting the Steamboat Springs area portion of Routt back in with Eagle as HD26. This map for HD 26 reflects the numerous shared communities of interest and policy preferences of these mountain resort areas. This September 13 “Staff Map 1” is a great improvement over the Preliminary map. I support the adoption of Staff Map 1. I am strongly opposed to the map submitted by Sheriff Fitzsimons because it does not reflect shared community interests and policy preferences for Routt and Eagle County as required by the Constitution. Instead, it pairs these two mountain resort counties that have outdoor recreation economies with Moffat and Rio Blanco, two counties with extraction-based economies. Many of the comments I gave today (also found below in this document) on the Staff Senate plan 1 also apply to the House map found in the Gallery entitled “Competitive Mountain Counties” https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::146b45bf-538f-4abe-a73a-ed5cd9808333 There are several ways to map House districts so that Summit County is made whole and keep Routt and Eagle’s shared community interests whole also. One way would be to include South Routt County in lieu of the northern split portion of Summit. Then make Summit whole and delete Teller County. Teller does not share communities of interest with Western Slope Mountain resort Counties. It is closely tied economically with El Paso County, as comments on your website by Teller residents show. Senate Staff Map 1, September 13 Please redraw the staff map 1 September 13 for the State Senate to accurately reflect our communities of interest and policy preferences in Routt County, especially for Steamboat Springs. In staff map 1, proposed Senate District 8 mixes two very different types of counties together in such a way that policy preferences that have been clearly stated by Routt residents, especially in Steamboat Springs, will not be heard and our shared communities of interest will not be reflected down at the Capitol. In fact, extraction counties will cancel out the policy preferences of mountain resort headwaters counties. Communities of interest in mountain resort headwaters counties like Routt, Eagle, Grand, Summit, and Gunnison are quite different from those in rural extraction based counties like Moffat, Rio Blanco, West Garfield and part of Mesa. Because the major economic driver in rural mountain resort headwaters counties is outdoor recreation, especially ski area and public lands recreation, our public policy preferences at the State Capitol are very different from those of fossil fuel extraction based Western Slope counties. In some cases they are diametrically opposed First, let’s be clear: Routt County is no longer an extraction-based economy. In fact outdoor recreation and related industries have far eclipsed resource extraction as our major economic driver. Coal jobs and production have plummeted in RC, as have jobs at the Hayden Xcel coal fired power plant. Likewise oil/gas production and jobs have decreased. Extraction: Oil and gas production compared in Routt vs. Moffat, Rio Blanco, and Garfield 2020 Natural Gas & Coalbed Gas Produced (in MCF- 1,000 x number cubic feet): https://cogcc.state.co.us/data.html#/cogis Routt: 50,570 Moffat: 8,375,465 Rio Blanco: 108,860,328 Garfield: 463,161,029 2020 Oil Produced (in barrels): https://cogcc.state.co.us/data.html#/cogis Routt: 44,481 Moffat: 231,829 Rio Blanco: 3,393 719 Garfield: 1,281,493 As you see, oil/gas production in the extraction based economies of Moffat, Rio Blanco and Garfield is vastly larger than in Routt. For example in Moffat natural gas production is over 165 times greater than in Routt. Coal production has varied in Moffat and Rio Blanco, but it is higher than in Routt. Both Rio Blanco and Moffat continue to have significantly more coal mine jobs than Routt. https://drms.colorado.gov/data-search EMSI, 2021 lists coal mining as the number 2 job in Rio Blanco County and the number 3 job in Moffat. Coal mining comes in at number 16 in EMSI’s 2021 Routt County report. Similarly, In Moffat, Rio Blanco and West Garfield, extraction jobs are in the top 3 industries and jobs (Emsi, 2021). Whereas in mountain resort counties, the top 6 industries and the jobs they produce are all dependent upon outdoor recreation such as hospitality, construction, real estate, outdoor retail and especially outdoor manufacturing (Emsi, 2020). Construction and real estate have long been key industries in mountain resort counties. And they have grown in the new pandemic real estate boom. It is important to note that using the census category for “occupations” conflates construction and extraction- they are placed in one category under “occupations” in the Census data. That masks the difference between ski counties and extraction counties in terms of actual jobs and industries. When I talk of “jobs” in this presentation, I refer to the jobs by industry sector data as per EMSI, 2020. The outdoor recreation economic sector is booming here because of our proximity to intact whole public lands, clean air, free flowing rivers, and major ski areas, One of the biggest growth sectors in outdoor recreation industries is Outdoor manufacturing like skis, bindings, stand up paddleboards, kayaks, bikes, tents, sleeping bags, outdoor apparel and accessories. These local firms provide good paying jobs and are deeply invested in our communities. They have grown during the pandemic here, and have become more important as a part of our state’s GDP. In Steamboat Springs there are at least 21 outdoor manufacturing companies that generate good paying jobs, contribute to our communities, and attract other businesses to further diversity our economies. https://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/eagle-creek-comes-to-town-becomes-steamboats-21st-outdoor-gear-brand/ There is a major synergy in our mountain rural resort counties between whole, intact public lands, snowpack and water, the outdoor rec industry and the ability to attract new businesses and new skilled employees. Routt, Eagle, Grand, Summit and other mountain rural resort counties like Gunnison, Lake, and Pitkin are also headwaters counties. As such, they have policies and plans to address climate change now, prevent wildfires, and ensure that watersheds and public lands are whole and intact. Routt, particularly Steamboat Springs, needs to be in a State Senate district that shares these communities of interest and has similar policy priorities. One example of an important state policy here is in-stream flow water rights. These enable habitat protection and enhanced municipal river parks for headwaters counties. The extraction counties have opposed in-stream flow right legislation. On key state policy issues like affordable housing for workers, available and affordable childcare, and transportation Routt shares policy preferences with the other mountain resort counties especially the Eagle River Valley/I-70 portion of Eagle County. On state polices regarding public lands, water conservation, wildlife habitat, and climate change, policy solutions supported by residents of mountain resort counties like Routt are diametrically opposed to those in fossil fuel extractive counties. With this September 13 Senate map our interests in Steamboat Springs will not be heard. People in our mountain resort towns and counties have repeatedly formally stated policy preferences in our city and county documents and plans to keep our public lands whole and intact, tackle climate change now, and protect our watersheds and free flowing rivers. These are both shared values and economic needs for our outdoor recreation economies to flourish and grow. Please redraw the Senate map so that Routt County, especially Steamboat Springs, and other mountain counties’ shared community interests and policy preferences will be heard, understood, and actually represented at our Capitol.

Re: Congressional Redistricting. The 2nd draft seems to be reasonable and fair. Please stay with this option. Your first attempt was not acceptable. Re: Legislative Redistricting. Having Delta County divided is unacceptable. The eastern portion of Delta Co. has little to nothing in common with the other communities you are attempting to pair us with.

Please don't divide the City and County of Broomfield into separate districts. Remember, Broomfield used to be located within 4 counties, which is why the city became its own county. It was a good move for Broomfield. Citizens of Broomfield fear that this redistricting will cause our voices to become insignificant. We need to remain unified in ALL ways. Keep us in the same district!!

We are divided enough as a world. Broomfield belongs together. I am opposed to these redistrict lines.

Please do not divide Broomfield into two districts. It is a smaller city/county that shares one community of interest. Division will only serve to reduce voters due to unnecessary confusion regarding which district you are in but also introduces voting complexity which serves no one. It also introduces division of the citizens potentially leading to increased conflict and animosity. Unity is the answer….not division. Thanks.