Public Comments

I testified at the hearing in Englewood. I will be present at the hearing on August 3rd and am happy to answer any additional questions that may come to mind after reviewing the attached letter. Thank you again for your time and dedication to this endeavor. Stephanie Piko

I urge the commissioners who are establishing new maps in Colorado to please keep Arvada whole and a part of Jefferson County! We are a community bound together and need to remain so. There is no purpose in dividing our city into separate parts...two Senate Districts and four House Districts. We do not share common ground with Adams or Weld counties!! We need to have our voice heard at our state capitol with representation dedicated to serve us.

As I review these maps, I am surprised that your committee would think these decisions would be acceptable. First, I am a precinct captain for a house district and your seemingly random labeling of the house districts will cause confusion for everyone and may even lead to people voting at an incorrect polling location. Second, dividing HD8 makes no sense and is completely undermining of the black community’s voting power. The same is true of the Latino voting bloc. Why did you separate Globeville and Elyria-Swansea from the NW neighborhoods of many Latinx people? Third, Denver, Park Hill, Central Park, Montbello and Green Valley should remain in CD1. Again, by separating them, you’re diluting the minority voices in those neighborhoods. Finally, I wonder about your goal for redistricting. It seems as if community cohesiveness and voice were not considered. What were your underlying values and motivations? Please share those during the redistricting meetings you’re holding to hear our reactions to your proposed redistricted maps. Thank you.

Leave it the way it is.

Oak Creek is becoming just as progressive as Steamboat. Please redistrict Oak Creek with Steamboat and Stagecoach areas. Our median age is young here and we have many young, diverse families here who respect the traditions here, but also see the need for governmental change.

If this commission has a shred of patriotism they will apportion our Colorado State Senate _BY COUNTY_, in a direct challenge to the Warren Court's 1964 Reynolds v Simms decision which UNCONSTITUTIONALLY , in DIRECT violation of Article !V, Section 4 of OUR Constitution, and quite likely as a result of HIGH TREASON by Earl Warren, mandated the apportionment of State Senates by population rather than by local polity !!

Routt County should not be in the same district as Moffat County!! I am sick and tired of the liberals taking over this state!!

The proposed GOP map for legislative redistricting constrains CSU and doesn't reflect our educational community.

Dear Commissioners and Staff, Copy-pasted here are the comments that I handed out and spoke on at the July23 hearing in Steamboat Springs, first the Congressional comments( with an introduction to me), then the Legislative comments. 2021 Congressional Redistricting Comments regarding CD3 by Diane Mitsch Bush July 23 Hearing of the Colorado Congressional Redistricting Commission in Steamboat Springs Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on Congressional redistricting. I am Diane Mitsch Bush. I first moved to Routt County, and thus to CD3, in 1976. From 1983-1993 I commuted weekly during the academic year to Fort Collins to my job as a tenured faculty member at CSU. From 1996-2006, I served on the Routt County Planning Commission. From 2007 through 2012, I served as a Routt County Commissioner and Chaired the CDOT NW Regional Transportation Planning Commission (NWTPR). From 2007-2012, I was a Board member of Club20. I served on the Club20 Executive Committee from 2010-2012. I served as a Colorado State House Representative for HD26 (Eagle and Routt Counties) from 2013-2017, and was Chair of the House Transportation and Energy Committee and Vice-Chair of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. The map now proposed for Congressional Redistricting for CD3 does not comply with the constitutional criteria in sections 44.1 or 44.3 of our revised Colorado Constitution: In 44.1: Declaration of the People 44.1 (c) The redistricting commission should set district lines by ensuring constitutionally guaranteed voting rights, including the protection of minority group voting, as well as fair and effective representation of constituents using politically neutral criteria 44.1(d) Competitive elections for members of the United States House of Representatives provide voters with a meaningful choice among candidates, promote a healthy democracy, help ensure that constituents receive fair and effective representation, and contribute to the political well-being of key communities of interest and political subdivisions Communities of Interest defined in the Colorado Constitution 44.3(b) (I) "Community of interest" means any group in Colorado that shares one or more substantial interests that may be the subject of federal legislative action, is composed of a reasonably proximate population, and thus should be considered for inclusion within a single district for purposes of ensuring its fair and effective representation. Section 44.3 II and III (section elaborates on interests and policy) Communities of Interest are not preserved in this Preliminary Congressional map for CD3 Contrary to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, as amended and section 44.1(d) of our Colorado Constitution, the map dilutes and divides Hispanic communities of interest in the current CD3. The proposed preliminary map separates San Luis Valley (SLV) and Pueblo from the Hispanic Communities on I-70 corridor and in other mountain communities on the Western Slope. Hispanic communities in the current (old) CD3 have different interests than do those up in Weld county/Greeley. Many families in the San Luis Valley are proud that they are 6th or 7th generation from when this region was part of Mexico and before that the Spanish land grant. This map weakens the ability of Hispanic Communities of Interest to be adequately represented. It may be a violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act as amended at Section 2(Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 52 U.S.C. 10301, section (b) at https://bit.ly/3f52VWm. Accessed on June 25, 2021) Instead of retaining the SLV in CD3, the proposed map adds 3 counties not in current CD3 that share communities of interest with Colorado Springs, Jefferson County, and other areas of the Front Range, not with the Western Slope: Park, Fremont and Teller. In the proposed map, these 3 counties account for over 13% of the population of the proposed CD3 or 92,072 of the population of 721,713. By adding these 3 counties to CD3, this map fails to reflect our State Constitution at 44.3 (b) (I) "Community of interest" means any group in Colorado that shares one or more substantial interests that may be the subject of federal legislative action, is composed of a reasonably proximate population, and thus should be considered for inclusion within a single district for purposes of ensuring its fair and effective representation. Section 44.3 (b) (I-IV) The inclusion of these 3 counties is particularly problematic with regard to fair and effective representation of the Western Slope on Federal Public lands policy, Federal Water policy, Federal Housing Policy, and climate policy, as well as economic communities of interest. See below for more detail on how Fremont, Teller, and Park differ significantly in communities of interest from our Western Slope counties and should not be included in CD3 By adding Park, Fremont, and Teller, the preliminary map would make it very difficult for the interests of many of our Western Slope counties to be represented in the US House. 3. Water- The proposed staff map removes the San Luis Valley (SLV) from CD3 and places the SLV with Weld county and other counties in the South Platte Basin and the Colorado Springs area who are currently destinations for proposed major trans basin diversions from the SLV. Regarding public lands and water, the SLV has much more in common with the mountain counties of the current CD3 than with those CD4 counties in the new map. The Western Slope mountain counties are headwaters for major rivers that are water sources for our whole state and for states to the West and East of us. The Club20 map previously presented to you keeps the SLV in CD3 for these reasons and because high elevation family agriculture is critical in both the SLV and on the Western Slope. One national park, a wilderness area, and several wildlife refuges along with mountain ranges are major tourist destinations for outdoor recreation in the SLV, just as similar areas are on the Western Slope. Competitiveness of congressional districts (Section 44.3 (3) (a) through (c)) The map makes CD3 far less competitive compared to the current CD3. Current CD3 has a Republican +6 voter registration. The proposed map is R+11 voter registration. Thus, it does not comply with section 44.3 (3): (3) (a) “..Thereafter, the commission shall, to the extent possible, maximize the number of politically competitive districts. (b) In its hearings in various locations in the state, the commission shall solicit evidence relevant to competitiveness of elections in Colorado and shall assess such evidence in evaluating proposed maps. Having run twice for the current CD3, I know first hand how hard it is to surmount a +6 margin. The +11 margin would make it extremely difficult if not impossible for a challenger to oust the current incumbent. While not intended, the map is out of compliance with section 44.3 (4)(a); “incumbent protection” 44.3(4) No map may be approved by the commission or given effect by the Supreme Court if: (a) It has been drawn for the purpose of protecting one or more incumbent members, or one or more declared candidates, of the United States House of Representatives or any political party Because it changes CD3 from R+6 voter registration advantage to R+ 11, it will likely protect the current incumbent until 2032. Solutions for the Commission to consider To solve these non-compliance issues in the preliminary map for CD3, I propose: 1. Remove Park, Teller and Fremont counties and 2. Add • Gilpin • Reinstate the 6 SLV counties of Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Mineral, Rio Grande, and Saguache Detailed bases for these solutions Removal of Park, Teller and Fremont counties These 3 counties share many interests with Front Range counties of El Paso County, Douglas County and Jefferson County, and they are in the economic and water orbits of the Front Range. They do not share some key Western Slope interests. Indeed, their interests seem to be the opposite from Western Slope interests in many cases. 1. Public lands and county policies. Unlike counties in current CD3, these three counties have a smaller proportion of their landmass in Federally managed public lands and, as per their websites, seem to view public lands very differently than do counties and people in current CD3, especially with regard to Federal policy on protection of public lands. 2. Unlike counties on the Western slope, these counties’ websites have no climate plans or Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission reduction plans. These are major Federal policy issues for Western Slope counties, given the relationship between climate change, drought and wildfires, as well as the impact of climate change on snowpack and the ski industry. 3. These three counties’ water interests are significantly different from the Western slope counties. All three counties are Eastern Slope routes or destinations for transmountain diversions from the Western Slope. In fact the oldest Trans basin diversion in Colorado comes over Hoosier Pass through Park and into Teller to supply Colorado Springs. Currently there is an additional, new trans basin diversion proposed from the Homestake area (partly in Eagle County, partly in Lake) over to the Front Range. As mentioned before, several investors are attempting to do major transbasin diversions from the San Luis Valley. Moreover, these 3 counties are lower on key drought indices than the state average. All Western Slope Mountain counties score significantly higher than the state average drought index. All Western Slope Mountain counties are now in either “severe”, “extreme” or “exceptional drought”. Being at severe, extreme, or exceptional makes family farming and ranching even more difficult and uncertain than agriculture already is. Additionally, ranking at extreme or exceptional means higher likelihood of catastrophic wildfires and greater difficulty and danger in containing them. These 3 counties do not share this community of interest and should not be in CD3. 4.Contrary to the staff summary of public comments on the website under “Regional Comments- Mountain counties”, these 3 are not “mountain counties”. They contain no ski areas and are not members of the Colorado Association of Ski Towns. Their economies are not primarily outdoor recreation based. Outdoor recreation industries, both retail and manufacturing, are not a significant element in their economies. In contrast, outdoor recreation industries are key elements of the economic base and increasingly important job generators in Western Slope mountain counties and in Mesa County. There is a major synergy in all the Western Slope Mountain counties between public lands, snowpack and water, the outdoor rec industry and the ability to attract new businesses and new skilled employees. Also, Teller, Park, and Fremont have zero reliance on I-70 and little reliance on the mountain portion of US 50. As noted in points 1-3, above, the communities of interest in these counties are quite different from Western Slope Mountain Resort Counties regarding water interests and their economies. In fact all three are closely associated with Front Range counties, including Jefferson, Douglas, and/or El Paso. 5. In Fremont County, 20% of the population is incarcerated in the 15 prisons in the County. This needs to be considered for reliable and valid determination of eligible voter numbers because these inmates cannot vote, but the Census counts them as residents. 6. Economy: key industries and jobs in these 3 counties are significantly different from those in actual Western Slope Mountain counties. Instead they align with larger metro counties on the Front Range and should be grouped with them. Fremont- The 15 prisons in the county are the major jobs generator. They are by far the largest employer. Another way to look at Fremont County is to examine what industries account for the county’s total 15,206 jobs in 2020. Government (which includes prisons and ancillary government services as well as other state and local agencies and land management agencies) accounts for over 5,000 jobs - by far and away the largest employment sector of the county’s total of 15,206 jobs in 2020. The sectors usually prominent in mountain resort counties account for far fewer of the jobs in Fremont County (outdoor rec, outdoor retail, accommodation and food, construction). Economically, Fremont County is very different from Western Slope Counties. It should not be in CD3 Teller – Within Teller County, the top job generators are government, accommodation/food services, retail, and mining. The mining jobs are primarily gold mining in and near Cripple Creek and Victor. There are other smaller mines that extract other minerals. Mining accounts for about 600 jobs, and government jobs account for over 1,400 jobs out of a total of 8,047 jobs in Teller County. However, the majority of people in Teller County work in Colorado Springs, and Teller is in the Colorado Springs SMSA. The 911 emergency services is called “Teller-El Paso”. Teller is considered Front Range I-25 corridor, and it is in the Colorado Springs SMSA. Teller County’s non-profit coalitions, mental health services, and broadband are all organized with El Paso County. Teller County is a satellite for El Paso County. It should not be in CD3. Park - Similar to Teller, a substantial number of Park County residents commute to other counties for jobs, mostly to the Front Range. Some people from both Alma and Fairplay commute to Summit County to work, however the number seems to be small. Subdivisions around Bailey account for about 65% of Park County's 16,029 residents. The Bailey area is closely connected to Jefferson County, especially with regard to construction. According to the most recent Park County Master Plan, “The rural Bailey area appeals to people who want to work in the Denver Metro Area and live in a more rural and natural environment “… and “When compared to nearby counties, Park County has the highest percentage of residents who work outside of the county with 67% of the population commuting to other counties for employment.” Park County is far more connected by communities of interest to the Front Range than to the Western slope. In fact, it is included in the Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area. It should not be in CD3. Add Gilpin to the proposed CD3 Gilpin shares all the I-70 congestion concerns that plague Western Slope mountain resort counties from Grand to Summit to Routt to Eagle and Pitkin. And it self-identifies as a “rural mountain environment” in its county and chamber planning documents Put the San Luis Valley back into CD3 where it has been for over 50 years. It has little in common with the counties in proposed CD4, and it shares major communities of interest with the Western Slope Mountain Counties. 1. Compliance with voting rights act: by splitting it off, the Latino culture and voting power is diluted and divided. 2. Like Western Slope Mountain counties, it has a major ski area, Wolf Creek. 3. Water issues: as noted above the threat of new trans basin diversions from the subsurface waters of the SLV (Rio Grande aquifer) to supply Front Range Metro areas is similar to threats of transbasin diversions in several Western Slope Mountain Counties. 4. A national park and national wildlife refuge are key parts of its tourist economy, just as such areas are on the Western Slope 5. In the San Luis Valley, family agriculture is critical to community heritage and to the economy, just as it is on the Western Slope. The Club20 CD3 map also keeps the San Luis Valley counties in CD3. Legislative Redistricting- Comments by Diane Mitsch Bush, Routt County for Preliminary map for Proposed HD57 Hearing July 23, 2021 in Steamboat Springs The proposed staff generated map for new State Legislative districts dated June 23 does not comply with the Constitutional criteria set forth at 43.1 (d) and 44.3 (I-III) for proposed HD57. Communities of Interest are not preserved in this Preliminary map, Instead two very distinct communities of interest are put together as HD 57. The Commission staff proposed map for Colorado State House Districts puts Routt County with Moffat, Rio Blanco and Garfield as a new HD57. Previously Routt was paired with Eagle County as HD26. That District fit the current constitutional criteria for keeping communities of interest together in regard to many important issues, including similar economies and available jobs, a water quantity and quality crisis, public lands issues, lack of affordable, available workforce housing, worries over high health care premiums, and transportation issues. As a rural western slope mountain resort county that is a headwaters county, Routt’s communities of interest are much more aligned with other rural Western Slope mountain resort headwaters counties like Eagle, Grand, Summit, Pitkin, and others. Communities of interest in these Western Slope mountain resort headwaters counties are quite different from those in rural Western Slope extraction based counties like Moffat, Rio Blanco, and West Garfield. In fact for many key state and Federal policies, they are opposed. Description of and evidence for Similarity of Routt’s Communities of Interest with those in Eagle and other rural Western Slope Mountain Resort headwaters counties. Economic drivers and top job sectors are very similar in all the rural Western slope mountain resort headwaters counties and very different from economic drivers and job sectors in extraction-based economies of Moffat, Rio Blanco, and West Garfield. In Routt and the other rural Western Slope mountain resort headwaters counties, the outdoor recreation industry has diversified and boomed in the past decade. Accommodation/food services and retail are in the top 3 industries and job sectors (Emsi, 2021). In these mountain counties, arts/entertainment/recreation, construction, real estate, education, and health services also account for significant jobs and are economic drivers (Emsi, 2021). In Moffat, Rio Blanco, and West Garfield extraction jobs are in the top 3 industries and jobs (Emsi, 2021). 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 and jobs in Routt County compared to Moffat, Rio Blanco, and Garfield Both jobs and production at the only remaining coal mine in Routt County have declined dramatically over the past decade, especially in the past 5 years due to less international and domestic coal demand. One of the major sources of demand for the Twenty Mile Underground Coal Mine (Foidel Creek Mine, owned by Peabody Energy) has been the Hayden Power plant now owned by Xcel Energy. Hayden power plant Unit 1 will close in 2028 and Unit 2 closes in 2027. Coal mining jobs in Routt County declined from 2017 to 2020 from 278 to 114. https://drms.colorado.gov/data-search 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. 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. Construction has long been a key occupation in mountain resort counties. It has grown in the new real estate boom since the pandemic. When I talk of “jobs” in this presentation, I refer to the jobs by industry sector data. During this same period in which extraction jobs and industries declined in Routt, the outdoor recreation industry has boomed, including during the 2008 Great Recession and especially during the COVID-19 induced recession. Ancillary to outdoor recreation are: airfare, lodging, fuel, groceries, and tickets Outdoor recreation and related industries will become even more important to our economy in Routt County through this decade. Moreover this industry fuels real estate, accommodation, restaurants, and retail. https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/orsa1120_1.pdf Another critical element of the growing outdoor recreation sector not captured in Census or BEA data is outdoor manufacturing. These local small manufacturing businesses provide good paying jobs and are deeply invested in our communities. They have grown during the pandemic. Outdoor manufacturing is here and booming because of proximity to intact whole public lands, clean air, free flowing rivers, major ski areas, and avid backcountry outdoors enthusiasts. In Routt some examples are: Moots Cycles, Big Agnes/BAP/Honey Stinger (producer of outdoor energy foods, tents, sleeping bags, clothing and gear for backpacking), Harvest Skis, Hala SUP (stand up paddleboards). In Eagle some examples are: Liberty Skis, Bishop ski bindings, Quiet Kat (e-bikes), and several apparel manufacturers, including Ski Town All-Stars and Locale. Many of these are internationally renowned companies, recognized in magazines and outdoors expos. They are one reason that people want to visit here and move here. Not only are these companies growing here but also they play a major role in Colorado’s burgeoning outdoor recreation industry, which also includes retail and guiding/teaching. I used to advise Moots Cycles and I raced for them. When coal and oil were in the bust cycle of the energy boom/ bust economies, Moots hired highly skilled welders from the coal industry. As our county moves away from coal mining and fossil fueled power generation, outdoor manufacturing and other kinds of manufacturing will play even larger roles in our local economy and we already have a highly skilled manufacturing work force. Water conservation. People, local businesses, and local governments value keeping our rivers free flowing and pristine and in their basin of origin. There are many community organizations in mountain resort counties dedicated to preserving our watersheds. Conservation has become even more important as the Colorado River and its water users are more and more affected by unpredictability and rising temperatures that have lowered water levels. https://www.coloradoriverdistrict.org/about-us/#Protecting-West-Slope-water-supplies-in-times-of-increasing-unpredictability-and-rising-temperatures Municipal and county governments have a host of polices to conserve water and protect riparian habitat. Among these are RICD’s (Recreational In Channel Diversions). This type of water right is aimed at keeping water in the river for wildlife habitat and for kayaking, stand up paddle boarding, rafting, and fishing. These rights are adjudicated by the State of Colorado and are critical to maintaining quality of life and vibrant outdoor recreation economics in both Routt and Eagle, as well as many rural mountain resort counties. Extractive counties are not as supportive of RICD’s. https://cwcb.colorado.gov/recreation Wildfire and Drought The current drought started for mountain resort counties in 2002. Eagle, Routt and other mountain resort counties are headwaters counties for major tributaries of the Colorado River. With levels in Lakes Powell and Mead at record lows as of July 2021, we have a growing, immediate crisis. Wildfires in the mountain counties have become more frequent, long lasting, and more deadly since 2002 as the drought has worsened. At the same time, we now have many more homes in the Wildland fire Urban Interface- the WUI. Both Eagle County https://csfs.colostate.edu/media/sites/22/2020/11/Vail_Community_Wildfire_Protection_Plan-Final-Draft.pdf https://www.resilienteaglecounty.com/infrastructure and Routt County have polices and programs to solve the WUI problems. https://www.co.routt.co.us/DocumentCenter/View/2242/Routt-County-CWPP---September-2010?bidId= These are partnerships with the counties, state and federal agencies, and the private sector, especially real estate and homeowners' associations. There appears to be a major policy difference between the mountain resort counties and the extraction-based counties on the Western slope on how best to deal with drought and wildfire on both public and private lands. Tackling climate change and targeting interventions for fuel reduction are favored by the mountain counties, while the extraction counties have not seen climate change as a central issue and have favored more clear-cutting and less targeting of the WUI (in part because they have fewer WUI areas). Both Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) and the Colorado State Forest Service, as well as Federal agencies (BLM and USFS) are important in preventing and managing wildland fires. State policies have recognized and supported these partnerships. Having Eagle and Routt in a House district with counties that see the drought and wildlife issues through a fundamentally different lens and thus seek state and federal help differently (or not at all) could dilute and perhaps dismantle key policies and partnerships that have begun to solve these problems. This could move Eagle and Routt backwards. Public Lands Having whole, intact public lands is critical for outdoor manufacturing, which is a growing, dynamic industry that creates good paying jobs as part of the larger outdoor recreation industry sector, especially in Routt and Eagle counties. Conserving public lands is essential for outdoor retail, guiding and outfitting, restaurants and accommodations, and for tourism in general and ski area tourism in particular. All of these are big economic drivers in the rural mountain resort counties like Eagle and Routt. For Eagle and Routt our ski areas are a major economic driver, with the base areas largely on private land and the ski runs on USFS land. Both Routt and Eagle have Federally designated wilderness areas on public lands that are beloved by residents and tourists alike and are also key economic drivers for our communities. In contrast, mineral extraction is seen as the key value of public lands in Western slope counties that rely primarily on extraction such as Moffat, Rio Blanco, West Garfield, and Mesa. Methane and oil/ gas development on public lands Surveys, public forums, and letters to editors of local newspapers show that the majority of people in rural mountain resort communities oppose more oil and gas development on public lands and want strict methane rules. The opposite policy preferences hold in extraction-based counties. Climate change action Overwhelming majorities of people in rural mountain resort counties believe that climate change exists and that we must deal with it now. Towns and counties in rural mountain resort areas have taken bold steps to lower GHG emissions. https://www.co.routt.co.us/396/Climate-Action-Information#:~:text=In%202019%20Colorado%20Governor%20Jared,by%202050%20from%202005%20levels Ski companies have been particularly active, since their industry is so affected by lack of snow, which leads to drought. https://www.steamboat.com/community Family ranchers in mountain resort counties have worked hard on climate solutions, for agriculture, water and for wildlife habitat preservation. Climate action is not such a key priority in Western Slope, extraction-based counties. Lack of Workforce Housing The gap between locally prevailing wages and available, affordable workforce housing has plagued rural mountain resort communities since at least the 1990’s. Lack of housing that is affordable at the prevailing wage levels has made it difficult for small businesses to attract and keep employees. Additionally, teachers, nurses, firefighters, and law enforcement officers are hard to recruit and especially difficult to retain due to lack of affordable housing. This has not been a longstanding key policy issue in extraction-based economies in other western slope areas like Moffat, Rio Blanco, and Mesa. All the mountain rural resort counties face serious problems due more generally to the gap between locally prevailing wages and the cost of living from housing, to childcare, to food, to health insurance/care and more. State and Federal programs are essential. Health insurance and health care The mountain resort counties have the dubious distinction of having the highest health insurance premiums in the country. While they also have high quality clinics and hospitals, many employed people do not have coverage through the workplace, and small businesses struggle with providing health insurance to employees. State policies have helped here because our representatives in the State House and Senate understand these issues and prioritize them Higher Education: Colorado Mountain College (CMC) In Eagle and Routt, as well as Garfield, Summit, Lake, and Pitkin, Colorado Mountain College (CMC) is a key employer and provides a host of higher ed opportunities ranging from traditional Liberal Arts and Sciences to resort hospitality and culinary programs/degrees, to outdoor recreation degrees, to nursing degrees, to programs tailored to fit the needs of local employers. Concurrent enrollment is a critical part of CMC’s function, providing many opportunities to people in our district. CMC is chartered as a local district junior college, so its funding and governance structure are different from those for state community colleges like CNCC- Colorado Northwest Community College, serving Moffat and Rio Blanco counties. CMC is funded by local property taxes. When I represented HD26, Routt and Eagle, I carried several bills that clarified and strengthened CMC funding. Transportation needs and funding Mountain resort counties like Routt and Eagle are extremely reliant on I-70 and on State and Federal grants to help with local transit and trails, in addition to roads and bridges. When I-70 closes, we do. Many mountain resort communities strongly support and need multi-modal transportation funding. There is less support in extraction-based counties for transit and trails and more emphasis on roads and bridges. Both Routt and Eagle have commercial airports, unlike many other rural Western Slope counties that have only general aviation airports (GA with no commercial flights). For both counties, paying airlines to bring in jet flights from all over the country is a key part of the local economy, not just for tourism, but also for small businesses of all kinds to thrive. Both the Yampa Valley Regional Airport (in Routt County) and the Eagle County Regional Airport are owned and managed by the counties with private and taxpayer help for flight guarantees. With the exception of Mesa County, the extraction-based counties have general aviation (GA) airports, but not commercial airports. Family Agriculture is a critical part of our heritage in both Routt and Eagle counties. Helping family ranches and farms stay on the land and preserving productive agriculture has been a major policy emphasis in all the mountain resort counties since the 1990’s. Both Routt and Eagle have very active local land trusts that work with ranching families to preserve productive agricultural lands. Such lands also provide critical wildlife habitat. More recently, farm to table and farm to school programs have grown, helping family farms with new markets and educating young people about nutrition and where their food comes from. Likewise agritourism has emerged as an important element of tourism in the mountain resort counties like Eagle and Routt. Arts and historical preservation have become an important element in our rural mountain resort tourism economies. These have a synergy with Ag tourism. Rural mountain resort counties like Eagle and Routt have a unique set of economic drivers, public policy concerns (especially around pubic land, water, housing and transportation) and values that are significantly different from those of extraction based Western Slope counties. On key State and Federal policy issues like public lands, water conservation, wildlife habitat, and climate change, policy solutions supported by residents of mountain resort counties are diametrically opposed to those in extractive counties. Please draw a Colorado legislative map that pairs Routt and Eagle, along with any other mountain resort counties needed to make the required population number. (Such as Grand, Summit, or Lake) to make a State House district that represents actual shared communities of interest. I had the honor of representing the two rural mountain resort communities (HD26) of Eagle and Routt in the Colorado House for three terms. Because both counties share so many values and needs as communities of interest, I was able to really represent both of them well in the State House. Adding in extraction-based counties with very different interests would mean that neither type of county would be well represented. Thank you for all your dedication and hard work.

Congressional Districting: Routt, Eagle, Pitken, Summet, and Grand should be separated from the 3rd and in their own District (the 5th, for example). In compensation, El Paso could be incorporated into the 4th. The mountain resort communities have next to nothing in common with the Western Slope communities but certainly El Paso could easily fit sociallogically into the 4th. Other solutions may be acceptable with the goal to sever the ties with the 3rd. House Districts: It should be obvious that Routt County should be transfered from the 57th to the 54th. So obvious in fact, it looks like a "typo" or mapping software bug. As others have pointed out, the mountain resorts have very different challenges than our western neighbors. Even water policy differs. One comment was that we're all (in the 57th) trying to protect our precious water resources, yet Moffat County is still encouraging small (5 acre?) subdivisions even though the water resources are drastically inadequate for this density. Senate Districts: I'm going to remain neutral since Colorado has so many Senate Districts, l have difficulty seeing how the "representation objective" differs from the House Districts. At the Federal level it's by design that lower population states get equal representation by the 2 Senate seats per State. Is the redistricting representative of this concept?