Public Comments

Thank you for your efforts in this process, I see that Western Delta County and a couple of water municipalities (including Orchard City) have been removed from the proposed preliminary mapping of District 54, on both the House and Senate Maps. Mesa & Western Delta Counties have had the same Representative for decades. Nearly 2000 people commute between these counties for work on a daily basis because they share a very direct and convenient roadway Highway 50. Highway 65 also connects the two counties and helps facilitate many recreational and tourism related activities. Also there are multiple municipalities in both counties that share The Grand Mesa as their watersheds, and have water storage reservoirs on the slopes of the Grand Mesa. I am submitting two amended maps for your consideration, one for the House District, and one for the Senate District. Thank you again for your efforts in this process, Sincerely, Kris Frazier

This is my testimony at the Montrose hearing on 30 July. It supplements my longer comments and map submitted earlier in July. It is submitted by request of a member of the commission or its staff. Redistricting testimony – Western Slope Good morning! I am Tom Mowle from Colorado Springs. I appreciate being able to Zoom into this meeting in Montrose; my comments on the Congressional map mostly relate to the Western Colorado district. I agree with the commission’s preference to keep all of the true Western Slope in one district rather than splitting it up the way it is now. I also agree with adding other mountain counties that are on the Eastern Slope – Jackson in the north, and Lake, Chaffee, Park, and Teller in central Colorado. Whatever population estimates are used, this is still not enough people to make equal-sized districts. My comments address how to finish the edges of the district. Doing so requires making judgment calls about communities of interest – whether communities on the edges of the district should be included in it or placed in a neighboring district. In Central Colorado, the commission would add all of Fremont County — Canon City, Florence, Penrose — to the Western Colorado district. I suggest that these communities are tied much more closely to Pueblo than they are to Western Colorado; including them in this district breaks up a community of interest. In Northern Colorado, the commission would reach under the divide to add Clear Creek County – Georgetown and Idaho Springs. This is more defensible than adding Fremont because Clear Creek does share a mountain economy with Western Colorado. However, Clear Creek also shares a watershed, commuters, and economic interests with Metro Denver. Idaho Springs is closer to downtown Denver than it is to Silverthorne. Finally, the commission would add parts of Boulder County that cannot be reached by road from the rest of the district. Those areas, or any other part of the major Front Range counties that could be added, obviously form a community of interest with them, not with Western Colorado. Parts of Gilpin County would have been a better choice here. The commission added these counties because it recommends grouping the San Luis Valley, as far upstream as Creede in Mineral County, with Pueblo and the Eastern Plains. While a case can be made that at least parts of the San Luis form an historic and ethnic community of interest with Pueblo, that case is not as strong as the ties that Fremont, Clear Creek, and Boulder Counties have with areas to their east. The San Luis also has stronger economic and geographic ties with the mountain communities of Western Colorado than do those other counties. I recommend that when the commission drafts final maps, it include the San Luis Valley with Western Colorado, using the Sangres as the geographic dividing line. The exact details must await the release of final population data in a few weeks. My own map, submitted as a written comment, would meet the remaining population requirement by adding the western part of Fremont County, upstream of Royal Gorge, and the Wet Mountain Valley in Custer County. As an alternative, rather than reaching into the main Front Range Counties, the commission could instead include areas upstream from Del Norte—Southfork and Creede--with the Western Colorado district, and look to Gilpin County or Custer County for additional population. Following this recommendation has beneficial effects in the Metro Denver area, as it allows districts to be created that divide fewer cities and counties. I’d be happy to address that if there is extra time, or I will do so at a later meeting. Thank you for your time.

Dear Committee Members, I am a resident of Wind Crest Senior Living Community. Under the current preliminary legislative district map Wind Crest community will be split in half using the Highline canal as the dividing line creating 2 separate districts. Wind Crest residents are politically active in both major parties. The population is growing rapidly toward 2000 residents, the requirement for a separate precinct. I would like to suggest the committee consider County Line Road as the dividing line. It does not cut through any communities but through open space and business areas. Please keep Wind Crest in one district. Sincerely, Jean R Grattet Highlands Ranch, CO 80129 (submitted by email 7/29/21)

As a resident of Mesa County, I would offer the following comments as you work through the redistricting mapping process: 1. We here in Mesa County enjoy many features that lend to the concept of "Community of Interest". These would include a diverse agricultural mix of orchards, vineyards, and farm and ranch operations. There are numerous recreational opportunities here, with a mixture of both summer and winter activities from which to choose. Tourism accounts for a large portion of our economic picture. Thus, it is important that our Congressional and Legislative Districts be configured to allow us to continue to support this Community of Interest. 2. It would seem detrimental to this concept to expand either of the Districts any further East than the Continental Divide. 3. We share many of the same features listed above with our neighbor to the south, the City of Delta. Additionally, there are numerous people from Mesa County that travel daily to work in Delta and a like number who travel in the opposite direction for the same reason. Our local hospitals in Grand Junction and in Delta share numerous affiliations. It would benefit both Communities of Interest if Mesa County, the City of Delta, and Eastern Delta County were in the same District(s). This has been the case for the past 50 years, and it should be allowed to continue. 4. Outside of Mesa County, it appears that other areas have been proposed to be incorporated along with Mesa County in the mapping process for re-aligned Districts. This includes areas along the Roaring Fork Valley, including Glenwood Springs, Carbondale and, El Jebel. These areas might be considered their own "Community of Interest", and should rightly be aligned with Aspen in the Roaring Fork District, as that area has many unique features, which vary widely from the areas further to the west. 5. This same concern would apply to the Rifle, Silt, and New Castle areas, which have historically been aligned with the Northwestern legislative seat, and have never been attached to Mesa County. Jay and Shelia Hosburgh Palisade, CO (submitted by email 7/29/21)

To: The members of the Colorado Independent Congressional and Legislative Redistricting Commission From: Susie Gamelin, a voter in Douglas County I am grateful for your time and work on the important matter of drawing up new legislative districts as we prepare for an additional member of the Colorado congressional delegation. I’m writing as a resident of Wind Crest retirement community in Highlands Ranch. I wish to respectfully request that 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 district map, I notice that the Wind Crest campus would be split between District 22 and District 33. Wind Crest is a community of senior folks who live, study, eat and take part in activities throughout the campus. *We are very active voters. Having our community located in two districts would create confusion among a group of people who are and want to continue to be engaged together in political activities. Thank you for your attention to my concern. (submitted by email 7/29/21)

Hello, I have been a resident of Colorado since 1989. Since that time I have lived in Lake City, Gunnison, Crawford, Hotchkiss, Greeley, Fort Collins, Montrose, and Fruita, and have worked, recreated, or regularly frequented the nearby areas of Loveland, Colorado Springs, Paonia, Delta, Cedaredge, Glenwood Springs, and Grand Junction. I will limit my comments only to the Western Slope of CO, as that is where I currently reside. Comments on the proposed Congressional Map: Keep Delta with Grand Junction/Mesa County (not with Montrose) --Delta and Mesa County share the Gunnison River, Grand Mesa National Forest, Dominguez and Escalante Canyons, Highway 50 and Highway 65, and have many residents who commute in both directions. --Delta, and Delta County naturally align with Mesa County in many important ways: 1. Commerce--people from Delta County frequently make big shopping trips to Grand Junction, many businesses in Delta have clients & customers in GJ and vice versa. This is not the case between Delta and Montrose. 2. Agriculture--Mesa and Delta counties both have large farming/ranching communities, and a lot of the state's orchards and vineyards. Less so between Delta and Montrose. 3. Hospital affiliations exist between GJ and Delta hospitals. None exist between Delta and Montrose hospitals. --There is a distinct difference in the cultures of Delta and Montrose. There is much less overlap between those communities. --Montrose's economy is more driven by and tied to Telluride's than any other surrounding city. --Keep the North Fork Valley together as a community of interest (Paonia, Hotchkiss and Crawford all feed into one high school) --Paonia should not be included with Mesa County, keep it with its community of interest --Surface Creek area should be kept intact (Cedaredge and Orchard City) --Keep the Roaring Fork Valley (from Glenwood to Aspen) intact as a community of interest --Rifle, Silt and New Castle should be kept intact as a community of interest --Meeker, Craig and Maybell should be kept intact as a community of interest Comments on proposed Legislative Map --To keep Mesa County's district compact, remove the North Fork Area from Mesa County, and add Delta to Mesa County --Remove Larimer County from the NW district! This would be the only district crossing the continental divide, bringing up major issues regarding water needs/rights etc. Fort Collins is a densely populated college and technology/engineering business oriented city with little to nothing in common with the rest of the northwest corner of Colorado. This is definitely NOT a community of interest, nor does it keep this district compact. --District 34 has little political competitiveness as currently proposed --Garfield County could be split up between Rifle and Glenwood ( 1. Keep New Castle, Silt, Rifle, Parachute together as a community of interest 2. Keep Glenwood with Gypsum and Eagle as a community of interest --Ski towns are an area of interest and should be kept together for the most part, rather than parceled off to other nearby districts Thank you for your time! Andrea Barber

Good Morning, Thank you for your time and for your work on this important issue. I’m writing as a resident of Wind Crest retirement community in Highlands Ranch. I wish to respectfully request that 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 district map, I notice that the Wind Crest campus would be split between District 22 and District 33. Wind Crest is a community of senior folks who live, eat and do activities throughout the campus. We also are very active voters. Having our community located in two districts would create confusion among a group of people who are and want to continue to be engaged in political activities." Sheree Weverstad (submitted by email 7/29/21)

Please put Wind Crest in one precinct. (submitted by email 7/29/21)

Redistricting is a very important piece of legislation. I notice that the Wind Crest community of over 1500 residents is proposed to be split between District 22 and District 33. We are a very active community of senior folks and we also are very active voters. Having the community located in two districts would create confusion among our residents who are and want to continue to be engaged in political activities. Thanks for considering this impact on our community. Muriel Johnson, Highlands Ranch, CO 80129 (submitted by email 7/29/21)

Thank you for your time and for your work on redistricting. I’m writing as a resident of the Wind Crest retirement community in Highlands Ranch. I wish to respectfully request that the Wind Crest community be included within a single legislative district, and not two separate districts as is currently proposed. Wind Crest has currently about 1500 residents, mostly seniors, and most of whom vote. The community property straddles the Highline Canal, which might be considered to be a natural dividing line, but this will split a homogeneous neighborhood into two parts. The community is still growing and will top out at somewhere between 2000 and 2200 residents. We have little interaction and few common interests with the surrounding community. In the most recent preliminary legislative district map, I understand that the Wind Crest campus would be split between District 22 and District 33. Wind Crest is a community of seniors who live, eat and share activities throughout the campus on both sides of the Canal. This would be like dividing a small town into two parts. We also are very active voters. Having our community located in two districts would create confusion among a group of people who collectively engage in political activities. Respectfully, Jonathan F. Ormes (submitted by email 7/29/21)