Public Comments

Congressional Redistricting: The 3rd Congressional District should be re drawn to be competitive this will benefit all residents of the 3rd CD and allow us to have the strongest most effective representation possible. Perhaps there should be consideration for grouping the rural resort communities together as we share certain public policy concerns including housing, infrastructure, climate change and the impacts on on our water and other natural resources. Most importantly the 3rd CD as drawn will never be competitive and there for there will be no accountability for the 3rd CD Congressperson. Legislative Redistricting Important to maintain rural representation. With the redrawn House map, it seems that we are loosing a rural legislator since HD 56 and HD 61 now overlap. In addition, Routt County and Eagle County share many common interests and policy issues. Both are rural resort communities with tourism and specifically the ski industry as a main economic driver. In addition, water (lack of water this summer) is a shared policy issue.

2021 Redistricting Commissioners: As an independent board you have the responsibility to remain non partisan when making recommendations for re districting in Colorado. The finalized map will have a tremendous impact to Colorado for the next 10 years. Colorado is an extremely diverse state and geographically has a natural boundary, the Rocky Mountains, between the eastern and western slopes as well as the vast eastern plains. The rural versus urban areas are dynamically different in economics, education, agriculture, culture, population and political leanings. As a western Colorado resident I was somewhat dismayed at some of the proposed changes in the preliminary maps provided. With that in mind, it would seem reasonable to adjust the preliminary legislative map based on the following considerations. Roaring Fork Valley 1. Keeping the Roaring Fork Valley together. The Glenwood springs Carbondale El Jebel, Basalt and Aspen communities share numerous common interests centered around tourism, outdoor recreation, upscale construction, architecture, cultural and geographic landmarks such as Mt Sopris and the Roaring Fork River. Because of this they also share economic, employment, housing, education and medical facilities. Additionally, they have a shared political and cultural subdivision in that area. They are easily connected via HWYS 82 and 133. Delta should be kept in Mesa county 2. Historically (for 50 years), the City of Delta has had the same representation as Mesa county. This geographically makes sense given they share the Gunnison River, Grand Mesa National Forest, Dominguez and Escalante Canyons via HWYS 50 and 65. Beyond the geographic considerations numerous economic common interests between the two are also important! 1. They have the unique commonality of established commercial orchards and vineyards. 2. With respect to education Part of the joint district 50-j headquartered in Delta is in MESA county 3. They have similar real estate markets compared to Montrose that is more in keeping with the San Miguel County, the driving force being Ouray and Telluride. 4. it is well established that significant numbers of people tcommute from Delta to GJ and vice versa for employment. 5. Medical facilities in Delta are associated with those in Grand Junction, not Montrose.. 6. There is a strong client base between the businesses in Mesa county and Delta County as compared to Delta and the City of Montrose. 7. Church districts in Delta are associated with Mesa County - not Montrose. Rifle, Silt, and New Castle 1. Since the 1970’s, these areas have been represented by the northwest region of Garfield and have never been attached to Mesa county. 2. These communities of the Roan Plateau are more connected to the towns of Meeker and Craig through the ranching and extraction industries. Based on census information fewer than 1,000 people commute from Garfield to Mesa County, Whereas more than 3000 people commute eastward towards Aspen and Denver. Transitioning to the Senate Map: Reiterating the relationship of Delta and Eastern Delta County to Mesa - the preliminary map puts Paonia, Hotchkiss and Crawford with Mesa County. This results in a state senator having to geographically cross another district to get to the North Fork area. The communities of Paonia and Hotchkiss and Crawford have more in common with the Roaring Fork corridor given a more mountainous geography as well as real estate values, a predominance of second homes, as well as shared cultural and political values. They are easily connected with the Roaring Fork valley via Hwys 92 and 133 Finally, the Western Slope district should not extend significantly beyond the continental divide to the east. If it does, then it should be in the southern region where farming and agriculture predominate. At the northern end, to have Larimer County extend into the Western Slope Region is going to result in a huge conflict of interest for the communities on either side of the divide putting a senate representative at odds with his or her constituents, particularly over water rights. I recommend that there are significant changes to the preliminary maps to accommodate the above mentioned communities of interest. I have attached two Maps for consideration. Respectfully Karen Seibold

Thank you for your time and for your work on this important issue. I am a resident of Wind Crest a retirement community in Highlands Ranch. I wish to respectfully request what the Wind Crest community be included within only one legislative district, and not two separate districts as is currently proposed. In the most recent preliminary legislative map, I notice that the Wind Crest campus would be spit between District 22 and District 33. Wind Crest is a community of senior folks who live, eat and engage together in activities throughout the campus. We also are very active voters. Having our community located in two districts would create confusion among a a group of people who are and want to continue to be engaged in political activities. Our community is located entirely on the south side of the High Line Canal . Please consider keeping Wind Crest in one district.

The New Castle area, Rifle, and Silt belong with Meeker and Craig, not Mesa County (legislative). Aspen should be grouped with Basal, El Jebel, Carbondale and a good portion of Glenwood Springs being that they make up the Roaring Fork district and share so many things in common like tourism and construction / architectural style. Their cultures blend really well, but don't blend so well west of Glenwood Springs (legislative). Because of the rivalry between Delta and Montrose, they should not be put together in the legislative districts. Rather, put Delta and east Delta County with Mesa County; these areas have strong economic ties. This also applies to the senate district maps particularly because, in order to get to the North Fork (as preliminarily proposed) a senator would have to travel outside their district and through another district. The West Slope district should not extend (at least not significantly) beyond the Continental Divide to the east. Doing so makes no sense for several reasons, one major issue being water rights.

1. What rationale is used to form the boundaries of the Congressional Districts and Colorado Legislative Districts? 2. What will be the first election year when representatives and state senators for the new districts will be voted: a. US House of Representatives and b. Colorado Legislature Senators and House representatives. 3. How long will the current districts remain as the territories of this currently in office? 4. How and when will the new districting be enacted and followed?

Thanks for your work on this important function. I am writing as a resident of the Wind Crest senior living community. I respectfully request that the Wind Crest community be wholly included in one legislative district -- not two, as is currently proposed. In the most recent preliminary map, I note that the Wind Crest campus is split between District 22 and District 33. Wind Crest is a community of seniors who live, eat, and engage in activities throughout the campus. Also, we are very active voters! Splitting our community into two districts would create confusion among our people who are and want to continue to be engaged in political activities. Please consider keeping the Wind Crest campus entirely in one district. Regards, Dick Erdmann

The following written comments reflect my testimony in person in Montrose, Colo. on July 30: My name is Chris Rourke, and I am a resident of Gunnison County, and a former journalist who covered the county and the Western Slope for more than a decade. Thank you to the Commission and the staff who have developed these initial maps. I am a writer by trade and the first draft is always the toughest. It is my hope that with the many public hearings you are doing, you will find great guidance in revising these maps into a document that all can find some compromise. I want to address both the legislative Senate and House maps that impact Gunnison County and propose a regrouping of areas to truly reflect the community interests of my county and indeed make it more competitive. I believe that competitiveness leads to accountability of representatives to the voters. The currently drawn House District 54 and Senate District 34 are not competitive. Senate map I know it may seem obvious to group Gunnison County with Eagle, Pitkin and Summit counties because the northern portion of our county has a ski resort, so one might thing that Gunnison County is a ski community. What the map does not take into consideration is the following: • Gunnison County has a completely different watershed, and therefore decisions made in light of our watershed will look much differently than the Roaring Fork Valley. Our water flows from the mountains through Gunnison through the Gunnison Tunnel to Montrose and Grand Junction. When there is a call on the Gunnison River the water goes to the Uncompahgre Valley water district. • We have different routes of transportation than, say, Vail/Eagle that is right on Interstate 70. Gunnison County is more remote and our main connection to anywhere is State Highway 50. In fact, I have traveled through Chaffee and Park counties FAR MORE in the last decade that I have to Summit, Pitkin or Eagle counties. For this reason, I think Gunnison County shares more in common with Chaffee and Park. Most notably, Cottonwood Pass was paved in the last three years further strengthening our connection with Chaffee. Gunnison County is also a part of Region 10 with Montrose, Delta, San Miguel, Ouray and Hinsdale counties. • Gunnison County is also a part of Region 10 with Montrose, Delta, San Miguel, Ouray and Hinsdale counties. • Gunnison County is not just a “tourism” county but is highly agricultural and underrepresented in this area. There are more cattle than people in Gunnison County. • Gunnison County shops in Montrose County; mental health services for Gunnison County are supported by Montrose County; hospital services are supported by Mesa County. • Additionally, I believe Hinsdale County should be grouped with Gunnison County because the only way to Hinsdale is through Gunnison. We also share a BOCES with the Lake City school. • To further illustrate my point, a recent study written about in the Aspen Times talks about the impacts of tourism on ski communities and housing. Gunnison County is not included in that report. “Released in June, the Mountain Migration Report is a wide-sweeping examination of the coronavirus pandemic’s impact on housing and services in mountain-resort communities in Pitkin, Eagle, Grand, 
Routt, San Miguel and Summit counties. Those counties are home to Colorado’s top-flight resort towns — among them Aspen, Breckenridge, Snowmass Village, Steamboat Springs, Telluride, Vail and Winter Park — which have attracted increased demand not only because of people relocating due to the pandemic, but also because of civil unrest, the report said.” • Finally, did anyone attend the Montrose meeting from Eagle, Pitkin or Summit counties? House District map I do think we have a lot in common with San Miguel county. We both are ski town counties (Telluride and Crested Butte), and we have worked with San Miguel on the Gunnison Sage Grouse ESA listing. Hinsdale County should absolutely be grouped with Gunnison County as it is tied together through an education BOCES (K-12) and because you have to go through Gunnison County to get there. People from Hinsdale County shop in Gunnison County too. Overall, I agree that Pitkin and Eagle counties are not great fits with Gunnison County due to the difference in watersheds and transportation arteries. Vail/Eagle are right on I-70… a vast difference from our little state Hwy. 50. I suppose the argument could be made that Pitkin County resembles Gunnison County because both ski towns are at the end of highways. But Aspen is far more commercialized than Crested Butte, and agricultural producers are about 30% prevalent in Gunnison County.

I have been informed that the current Redistricting Commission has proposed to split our Wind Crest retirement community into two legislative districts (District 22 and District 23). Please do not do this. All buidings in Wind Crest are physically connected, with and heated and air conditioned indoor walkway over the High Line Canal. Wind Crest is a single community. The vast majority of us are also active voters. Having our inter connected retirement community split into two different legislative districts would create confusion among a group of senior citizens who are and want to continue to be engaged in political activities. Toby F. Montgomery 3237 Summer Wind Lane. Apt 1305 Highlands Ranch, CO 80129

My fellow Grand Junction resident and friend, Karen Seibold and I, put these comments together. Thank you for the opportunity of testifying remotely in Montrose today. Your decision as a commission will impact every resident in Colorado. Thank you for being willing to serve in this manner. As I understand it quoting from the Redistricting website- the commissioners are tasked with re-districting in Colorado with a focus on equal populations, compliance of the Voters Registration Act of 1965, strive to keep districts geographically contiguous and compact, preserving communities of interest, preserving whole political subdivisions, and maintaining competitiveness to any extent possible. With that in mind, it would seem reasonable to adjust the preliminary legislative map based on the following considerations! Roaring Fork Valley 1. Keeping the Roaring Fork Valley together. The Glenwood springs Carbondale El Jebel, Basalt and Aspen communities share numerous common interests centered around tourism, outdoor recreation, upscale construction, architecture, cultural and geographic landmarks such as Mt Sopris and the Roaring Fork River. Because of this they also share economic, employment, housing, schools and medical facilities. Additionally, they have a shared political and cultural subdivision in that area. They are easily connected via HWYS 82 and 133. Delta should be kept in Mesa county 2. Historically (for 50 years), the City of Delta has had the same representation as Mesa county. This geographically makes sense given they share the Gunnison River, Grand Mesa National Forest, Dominguez and Escalante Canyons via HWYS 50 and 65. Beyond the geographic considerations numerous economic common interests between the two are also important! 1. They have the unique commonality of established commercial orchards and vineyards. 2. With respect to education Part of the joint district 50-j headquartered in Delta is in MESA county 3. They have similar real estate markets compared to Montrose that is more in keeping with the San Miguel County, the driving force being Telluride. 4. There are significant numbers of people that commute from Delta to GJ and vice versa for employment. 5. Medical facilities in Delta are associated with those in Grand Junction, not Montrose.. 6. There is a strong client base between the businesses in Mesa county and Delta County as compared to Delta and the City of Montrose. 7. Church districts in Delta are associated with Mesa County - not Montrose. Rifle, Silt, and New Castle 1. Since the 1970’s, these areas have been represented by the northwest region of Garfield and have never been attached to Mesa county. 2. These communities of the Roan Plateau are more connected to the towns of Meeker and Craig through the ranching and extraction industries. Fewer than 1,000 people commute from Garfield to Mesa County. Almost 2,000 Garfield County residents work in Aspen, and 1,300 in Denver. Transitioning to the Senate Map: Reiterating the relationship of Delta and Eastern Delta County to Mesa - the preliminary map puts Paonia, Hotchkiss and Crawford with Mesa County. This results in a state senator having to geographically cross another district to get to the North Fork area. The communities of Paonia and Hotchkiss have more in common with the Roaring Fork corridor given real estate values, predominance of second homes, as well as shared cultural and political values. Finally, the Western Slope district should not extend significantly beyond the continental divide to the east. If it does, then it should be in the southern region where farming and agriculture predominate. At the northern end, to have Larimer County extend into the Western Slope Region is going to result in a huge conflict of interest for the communities on either side of the divide putting a senate representative at odds with his or her constituents, particularly over water rights. I recommend that there are significant changes to the preliminary maps to accommodate the above mentioned communities of interest. Thank you. Sincerely, Jen Schumann

I am commenting on the legislative redistricting related to Routt County, particularly for the State House representative. Routt County shares a community of interest with other mountain communities that have an economic base mixing agriculture, location neutral workers, and tourism. These very clear and dominant factors in our economy suggest that Routt County has much stronger common interests with Counties such as Grand, Summit, Eagle, and Pitkin, than it does with the counties to the west such as Moffat and Rio Blanco. Some comments have suggested that Routt County is an energy producing County, due to its coal mines and coal fired electric generation units. Yet, it has already been determined that coal production and use will end in Routt County within the decade covered by this redistricting. Any arguments to the contrary are clearly not supported by evidence. The future for the energy economy in Routt County will lie in clean energy, and our state Representative should reflect those clear economic trends. Routt County's elected commissioners have adopted a Climate Action Plan that embraces a shift to clean energy, and that should determine a community of interest that is different from Moffat and Rio Blanco counties. Rural agriculture is an important aspect of Routt County economy, yet that is also true in other mountain counties to the south, so it does not preclude a District shared with some portion of Grand, Summit, and Eagle counties.