Public Comments

To Colorado Independent Redistricting Commission. As a sixty year resident of western Colorado I am definitely not in favor of the proposed redistricting that this committee has conjured up. The western slope counties must be grouped together as the larger populated counties of Denver and surrounding counties will over ride the western side of the state with their urban ideas and their liberal philosophy. The rural areas of Colorado have a much more conservative approach to life and these two groups must reach a mutual approach to the regulatory system of government. Respectfully, Benny Kilgore #2 Twelfth Ct. Grand unction, CO 81506

We live in Broomfield, a rapidly growing community with shared interests of concern with gas and oil development, affordable housing, and have an effective CCOB which governs our public health, transportation, our water and business development. We are also a suburban community and do not have much in common with rural areas. The proposal now is to split Broomfield into two districts; CD 7 and CD 8. I am very concerned about that. We are small city and a small county. Having two congressional representatives would be detrimental to our interests. I believe that Broomfield is a "whole community of interest." Section 44 (3)(B) defines communities of interest as reflecting "Shared public policy concerns such as education, employment, environment, public health, transportation, water needs and supplies, and issues of demonstrable regional significance." Please place all of Broomfield into CD-8.

Do not divide Broomfield! We are one community.

I am a resident of Gilpin County which resides in in the new (and old) SD16. I want to encourage you to consider including the southern part of Boulder County in SD 16 in lieu of parts of Douglas County. You included most of Boulder County in HD13, why not at least part of it in SD16? We have NO communities of interest in common with Douglas County and many with Boulder County on our northern border including a School District, Fire control, health care, watersheds, employment locations and shopping locations. Thank you for your consideration! Eric Douglas

We are two residents of Loveland who jointly posted a comment on the first staff Redistricting plan urging that Fort Collins not be separated from Loveland and the rest of CD-2. While we are pleased to see that Fort Collins remains in CD-2 (for now), we are even more distressed at the prospect that our own city of Loveland may be moved out of CD-2 and into CD-4 (as reconfigured). Loveland’s interests are aligned with those of the cities of Fort Collins, Boulder, Berthoud, Longmont, Estes Park and those of Larimer as well as Boulder, Grand, Eagle, Summit, Routt and Jackson Counties -- and not with the interests of Weld or the other Eastern Plains counties that are primarily agricultural. The second staff plan would remove Loveland, but no other cities, from Larimer County. One of the important goals of Congressional district assignment is to keep political subdivisions whole and intact. For that reason, Loveland must remain in the same district as the rest of Larimer County. We form a community of interests with the other foothills communities, extending into Rocky Mountain National Park and the Rocky Mountains themselves: 1. We have similar economies, workforces and needs. We partner very closely with the other cities in CD-2. We have regional partnerships for a growth management area along Interstate 25, and we have inter-governmental agreements with Fort Collins, Berthoud and Larimer County. We share a regional airport with Fort Collins. 2. We are the gateway to RMNP. Growing tourism and its attendant challenges link us not just to other foothills communities, but also to the mountain resorts such as Estes Park, Vail and Steamboat Springs. Our transportation issues are shared within CD-2 and not with most of CD-4. CD-4 is heavily agricultural; we are continuing to urbanize at high speed, and we need to work together with the rest of CD-2 to manage rapid population growth. 3. Our foothills communities are united in interest with the Eastern Rockies in responding to and mitigating wildfires, floods and other natural disasters. Ask FEMA. CD-4 contrasts with CD-2 and Loveland in heavily promoting oil and gas extraction -- the source of a good deal of our environmental concerns rather than of our revenues. For all of these reasons, we respectfully urge the Commission --again-- to keep Loveland and Fort Collins in CD-2. Thank you. Karin Bierstein and Giles Morris

I am providing comments specifically on the proposal to place Loveland in Congressional District 4 in the proposed 2nd redistricting draft of Congressional Districts as shown in the map found at: https://coleg.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=e5449b6c8d454e97a9262c2f523c786e . Loveland is a suburban area abutting the Front Range, west of I-25 and is currently part of District 2. The entire corridor along the Front Range and west of I-25 is composed of similar communities. Because of their location at the base of the Front Range, Loveland and its closely adjacent communities share the same geographic and climate properties that contribute greatly to the same problems presented by the climate, environment, and water supply due to their geographic location which impacts. For example, Fort Collins, Longmont, and Boulder all rated in IQAir within the top 10 of cities in Colorado with the worst the air quality in 2020, and we all have been experiencing similar air quality issues in 2021. Loveland is found within a direct line drawn between Fort Collins, Longmont, and Boulder. This is just one example of the commonalities Loveland shares with the other Northern Front Range communities west of I-25. We need the same Congressional Representative who will tackle climate, environmental, and water issues for the citizens of our shared Community of Interest along the Northern Front Range west of I-25. To treat Loveland as uniquely different from all the communities along the Northern Front Range west of I-25 in the current second draft of the Congressional Redistricting Map and not part of the same community of interest is unconscionable. Loveland has everything in common with these other towns and cities while we have nothing in common with District 4. The entire corridor along the Front Range and west of I-25 is one community of interest and its collective interests will be best served when they are in the same Congressional District.

I am in favor of the Tofoya map, it keeps Bent and Prowers with Otero, just the way it should be, the way it's always been.

Commissioners: I would like to begin with thanking you for listening to the public and keeping the 3rd congressional district together encompassing all the western slope. We are grateful and this renews faith that the commission has listened to the public over this last several months. Secondly I appreciate that the newly released Colorado legislative map is more reflective our the western slopes values, commerce, and agriculture interests. I believe keeping Delta with Mesa is advantageous to both communities. My only concern is the splitting of Mesa (Grand Junction) and putting part it in with Montrose County. Grand Junction is by far the largest "urban" community on the western slope and being lumped with Montrose could result in the largest community being represented from someone that doesn't live in Mesa. It would seem better to keep the urban center whole potentially drawing the line further south putting Mesa urban area into district 8. Putting part of Gunnison county and Montrose together with a small south west area of Mesa might be a consideration. Once again thank you so very much for your time, consideration of public comments and concerns in this 2021 redistricting. Respectfully, Karen Seibold, DVM DACVECC Grand Junction

Thank you for your work in giving Colorado voters access to representation that will encourage diversity, competitive districts, and legislators who are accountable to a large spectrum of voters. With these goals in mind, I am asking you to please use the Tafoya 5 map for the Third Congressional District. As a registered voter in Pueblo County, I believe the Tafoya 5 most fairly represents the needs of my area. With it's emphasis on water policy, the Tafoya 5 map will provide my area with a legislator who will advocate for the needs of the whole district; not one partisan group over another. Thank you for your efforts in this important work.

I believe strongly that the Tofoya P005 map is in the best interest of Southern Colorado and the state as a whole. I do believe that keeping southern colorado mixed in with Western/Northwestern Colorado makes the district too large and keeps Southern Colorado orphaned from having a voice in the US Congress. Priority has been centered on Northwestern Colorado which has left Pueblo with no voice and left behind. Please please consider that southern colorado district which has common cultural, water and agricultural issues would be best working together for the good of the folks that live here.