Public Comments

Hello Redistricting Commissioners, I want to start by thanking the Commission staff for your commitment to this particularly important process. As a woman of color, your decisions on how lines are drawn and communities are sectioned, will have resonating ramifications on the life I live.  I am (sometimes painfully) always aware that the outside appearance of my person presents before I have the chance to represent the person within. While the thoughts of others are none of my business, in times as divisive as these, it is hard for that to not be a constant reminder. Taking that fact into consideration it is imperative for people like myself to have a voice and stake in the decisions happening around them. HD-17, or as I like to call her, home - is a beautifully blended community that has room for all. Historically, the district has been home to one of the highest blended populations outside of Denver, and HD-17 will not be represented if it’s voice is suppressed by tearing it apart. If that happens, it will be clear the undervalued importance of black and brown voices - and that is not the Colorado I know. Please keep the boundaries of HD 17 as similar as possible to where they are now. I’m baring my soul to you, the Commissioners, who are making a choice that is so much bigger than me or you. I am asking you to please be the Coloradans that so many are counting on you to be. Be fair to us. Show the nation that as a community we value black and brown voices and the communities they forge. Show us that we matter and that you care that our voices remain a contributing sound in the chorus of Colorado. Thank you so much,  Mischa Smith HD-17

Good Day Redistricting Commissioners, My name is Donna Smith and I want to thank the Commissioners for your commitment to this extremely important process we are facing in Colorado. The stakes in the decisions you are making right now will cause a wave in the communities they affect no matter what that looks like. You taking on this decision is no small feat and I thank you for it. When I arrived in Colorado nearly 30 years ago, I was a young member of the Army, with a beautiful young family, that just so happened to be interracial. We were previously stationed in Alabama, where the ugliness of views past sometimes showed themselves. We then went to Germany and saw more inclusion but I still witnessed my oldest baby get on a bus where his peers asked the embarrassing questions young mouths mutter, about the color of his skin. We were searching for a home, an inclusive home. We came to the Centennial State and saw many families that looked similar to ours right here in Colorado Springs. We were never made to feel uncomfortable when others saw our gorgeous family. We knew right away this place is where we were meant to raise this young family. HD-17 is home to one of the most diverse populations in our entire state. We grew up with our neighbors there, had play dates and sports events and loved that our kids saw representatives who looked like them too. After basking in this for many years, the idea that it could be shattered, split apart and torn down, is heartbreaking. Please Commissioners, hear that. Over the course of many years, our country has tried many times to knock people that look like my family down. To put them in a box from many years ago. The home we chose has resisted and persisted to show them, we will not stand for that. As our neighbors, I implore you to continue to stand with us while you determine these lines. Keep HD-17 a place that my kids and now grandchild, see as a place where people who look like them, matter. Sincerely, Donna L. Smith Security, CO

I write to support retaining something close to the legislative district I currently live in, i.e. pairing La Plata County with Gunnison County. I oppose pairing La Plata with Montezuma County or Montrose County and instead suggest pairing together those two, Montezuma with Montrose, which would again more or less retain the legislative district that is current. First, as a physician I suggest that state resources relating to healthcare, specifically to Medicaid and to vaccine distribution (for SARS-COV-2 most recently and imperatively), are more efficiently allocated and implemented when a Representative advocates for a "shared community of interest" as the Redistricting Commission has defined it. Rates of enrollment with Medicaid are nearly identical in La Plata and Gunnison counties; enrollment in Montezuma and Montrose counties are also nearly identical to each other but very different from La Plata or Gunnison--roughly 50% higher! Hence Montezuma and Montrose would benefit from a Representative more focused on Medicaid rather than splitting attention with very different La Plata or Gunnison healthcare priorities. And as an active volunteer vaccinator at La Plata County Fairgrounds, I saw the remarkable volunteer/community support for Covid vaccination yielding vaccination rates for La Plata County that led the state for many months. Gunnison County rates too have been quite high. Montezuma and Montrose Counties, in contrast, both remained below 50%--showing a need for greater state attention that is again shared in common in those two counties and would be best served by a Representative fixed more on that need than if representing counties at the same time who are addressing unrelated local healthcare priorities of their own. My professional expertise has been in medicine, hence my comments emphasize a perspective of healthcare. But from a standpoint of economics too, La Plata & Gunnison form a "shared community of interest" with local economies both relying heavily on tourism and on their 4-year public colleges while Montezuma and Montrose economies both revolve more around agriculture with no economic demands of 4-year post-secondary educational institutions. The differences in infrastructure requirements for these very different local economies alone would clearly indicate La Plata and Gunnison Counties as a "shared community of interest," very distinct from Montezuma and Montrose that naturally form another in fact, based on their economic profiles. As a coda, I note that the districting I support pairing La Plata County with Gunnison and pairing Montezuma with Montrose meets a separate criterion of the Redistricting Commission: the districts I present here would create no distortion of geography/natural boundaries since La Plata and Gunnison Counties are contiguous as are Montezuma and Montrose Counties. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Colorado State University is by far the most important community of interest within Ft. Collins. With enrollment by over 33,000 students, it is also the largest employer and largest economic contributor to the area. Residential areas near CSU's campus that house so many of CSU's students and faculty should clearly be in one legislative district, to speak in a unified way about the unique needs of the higher education community.

Thank you for the long hours and diligent work you are putting in to make the redistricting fair and equitable for all Coloradoans. In the community, I am active participant in Jefferson County Town Halls, Board of County Commission Hearings, Voter Registration Drives and Hiwan Hills Improvement Association. I have been active in Veteran Affairs and the local Evergreen Schools. I would like to express my support for Unincorporated Portions of Jefferson County being kept separate from Home Rule Municipalities as much as possible. This will group folks with similar interest & experience. In our neighborhood, we gather often to prune the large open space trees & shrubs to mitigate fire danger. This local neighborhood activity is not a significant issue with more urbanized unincorporated parts of Jefferson County like Golden. A compact and contiguous house district can contain more than 90% of the protected open space in Jeffco. Perhaps, combining us with the more diverse Dakota Ridge area communities like Morrison would be a better mix.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on Colorado’s state legislative redistricting. I am Diane Mitsch Bush. I first moved to Routt County in 1976. 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 as a Colorado State House Representative for HD26 (Eagle and Routt Counties) from 2013-2017, and was Chair of the State House Transportation and Energy Committee and Vice-Chair of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. Please keep Eagle and Routt Counties in one Colorado State House District. Please do not add counties whose communities of interest are significantly different from those of Routt and Eagle. Please let me expand on communities of interest that unite Routt and Eagle and distinguish them from other Western Slope counties. Both counties are rural Western slope mountain resort counties and also headwaters counties, similar to Lake, Pitkin, Summit and other mountain resort counties. Communities of interest in Routt and Eagle are quite different from those in rural Western Slope extraction based counties like Moffat and Rio Blanco. Rural mountain resort counties like Eagle and Routt have a unique set of economic drivers, public policy concerns (especially around land and water) and values that are significantly different from those of extraction based Western Slope counties. On 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. I ask that you keep Eagle and Routt in the same Colorado House District. Please let me elaborate. Economic drivers and top job sectors are very similar in Eagle and Routt In both Eagle and Routt, accommodation/food services and retail are in the top 3 industries and job sectors. In these counties, arts/entertainment/recreation, construction, real estate, education, and health services also account for significant jobs and are economic drivers. In contrast key job sectors for Western Slope counties like Moffat, Rio Blanco and are extraction, construction, health services, sales and retail. This basic difference in the job market and in key economic drivers leads to differences on policy and values. Policy and Issues differ considerably between the rural mountain resort counties and the more extraction-based counties, making representation of these two kinds of counties difficult if they are in the same Colorado House District Water conservation. Routt and Eagle are headwaters counties. 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 these counties dedicated to preserving our watersheds. 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 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, in 2002. With levels in Lake Mead at record lows as of last week, we have a 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 urban fire interface- the WUI. Both Eagle County and Routt County have polices and programs to solve the WUI problems. 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. 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) would 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 for our economies. 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, 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. Ski companies have been particularly active, since their industry is so affected by lack of snow, which leads to drought. 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 other Western Slope, extraction-based counties. Affordable Housing The gap between locally prevailing wages and available 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 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. Higher Education: Colorado Mountain College (CMC) In both Eagle and Routt, Colorado Mountain College 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 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 local district 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. Transportation needs and funding Mountain resort counties like Routt and Eagle are extremely reliant on I-70 and on help with local transit and trails, in addition to roads and bridges. 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 counties. For both counties bringing 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. 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 likewise become an important element in our rural mountain resort tourism economies. These have a synergy with Ag tourism As you can see, the needs and interests of rural mountain resort counties like Eagle and Routt counties are not just different from extraction-based counties, but in many cases community interests are opposed on key state and federal policies and issues. Please draw a Colorado legislative map that puts Eagle and Routt counties together in one State House district as they are now. I had the honor of representing these two rural mountain resort communities (HD26) in the Colorado House. 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.

Dear Colorado Independent Redistricting Commission Members Thank you for your time and attention to the redistricting process. My name is Cris Cardenas and I am a native to Colorado and a long time resident in Unincorporated Jefferson County. I request that you maintain the contiguous portions of unincorporated Jeffco in two House Districts. I live in the Dakota Ridge area and it has more mixed suburban communities. I think you should divide the two Unincorporated Jeffco districts according to open space vs. suburban areas. I greatly appreciate the open spaces in Colorado and in particular Jefferson County. In those open space areas the legislative issues are focused on wildfire mitigation. These issues are not as significant in the most surbanized portions of Jefferson County unincorporated areas, south, where I live. This is one reason we need two distinct districts. Each distinct district can focus on what makes sense for the two areas. Respectfully Submitted Cris Cardenas

I get concerned when I here the word redistricting. I understand there maybe times when this is necessary but in general recent redistricting, in my opinion, has the purpose of making it more difficult to vote and be represented. I’m truly in hopes that is NOT the purpose, hidden or otherwise, for Colorado. When it comes to LaPlata and Montezuma counties though one has to be very aware. For 25 years my employment for the State of Colorado included both of these counties along with San Juan County and Archuleta. So I have some first hand experience in the population and the local governance of both counties. LaPlata and Montezuma could not be more different in nature and citizenry. I question whether either county will be fully represented in a good way if these two counties are represented in one district. I would see more infighting amongst neighboring counties and I believe Montezuma already has many issues with LaPlata county. I see no reason to make this change and incur more hard feelings and difficulties. To make sure both counties are represented at the State consideration they need to remain in their current district. Thank you for listening. Lyn Goldberg, Bayfield, CO 81122 (submitted by email 6/16/2021)

Hello, Please keep Eagle and Routt counties in the same district as you re-evaluate district boundaries. Eagle and Routt counties both face very similar economic challenges, have similar workforce housing shortages, and are defined by very tourism dominated industries. It makes sense that these counties should be grouped together and share common representation. Thank you, Jon Quinn Northwest Data Services.

Please keep the City & County of Denver as it currently is configured. Do not disrupt the representation by mixing its citizens with other legislative areas whose interests are unique to theirs, as are Denver’s unique to Denver. Thanks for the consideration. I live in Green Valley Ranch area of Denver.