This feature class contains county boundaries for all 64 Colorado counties and 2010 US Census attributes data describing the population within each county.

The trails included in this dataset are owned and/or operated by Boulder County. purpose: To provide accurate spatial and tabular data for all trails that are owned and/or operated by Boulder County. Many meetings were held with Operations and Law Enforcement staff to ensure that attribute values were agreed upon and corrected from the previous dataset. Niwot and Rock Creek/Coal Creek are the most complex trail systems since there are multiple entities involved in the ownership and maintenance of individual trail segments. The data is accurate to the best of the knowledge by BCPOS staff.

OSA web map to view State of Colorado property data

This is my second input on the preliminary Congressional Commission redistricting map, based this time on the census numbers that were released in mid-August. These additional comments again use on Dave’s Redistricting App (DRA), which has the current data for counties and precincts. As of this writing, the commission’s tool did not seem to have the current data loaded. My revised draft alternative is at https://davesredistricting.org/join/b26ec349-27da-4df9-a087-ce77af348056. As background, I participated in redistricting initiatives in South Bend, Indiana, in the mid-1980s and for Indiana legislative seats after the 1990 census. I didn’t engage with redistricting during the rest of my 20-year military career. After retiring, and while serving as Public Trustee for El Paso County, I participated in redistricting efforts at the county and city level. I also stood for El Paso County Clerk in 2010. I have lived in Colorado since 2000. Description of Draft Alternative My process started by identifying large-scale geographic communities of interest within Colorado: the Western Slope/mountain areas, the Eastern Plains, Colorado Springs/El Paso County, the North Front Range, and Denver Metro. Two smaller geographic communities of interest are Pueblo and the San Luis Valley—neither is nearly large enough to sustain a district and both are somewhat distinct from their neighboring communities of interest. A choice thus must be made about which other communities of interest to group them with. A second principle I adopted was to prioritize keeping counties intact over municipalities. County boundaries are fixed, unlike municipal boundaries, and do not interlock based on annexation patterns. Precincts and census blocks do not overlap counties, but they may overlap municipal boundaries. Furthermore, county lines more often correspond to other layers of government than do municipal boundaries. This most matters along the western border of Weld County, which several municipalities overlap while also being rather entangled with each other. I was not able to find a particularly elegant alternative to using the county line that would not then require other communities of interest to be divided.I started with El Paso County, which exceeds the ideal district population (721,714) by 8,681 or 1.2%. It therefore must be split among different districts. El Paso, where I have lived for these past 20 years, is itself a coherent community that should remain as intact as possible – no plan that split it into two large pieces would comply with the commission’s mandate. The best options for moving population into other districts would be on the eastern and western edges. The northern part of El Paso County – Palmer Lake, Monument, Woodmoor, and Black Forest – is much more closely tied to the rest of El Paso County than it is to Douglas County. The small population along I-25 in southern El Paso County is also more closely tied to Fort Carson and the Fountain Valley than it is to Pueblo. The eastern parts of El Paso County, on the other hand – Ramah, Calhan, Yoder, Rush, Truckton – have far more in common with Lincoln County and the Eastern Plains than they do with Colorado Springs. Unfortunately, there is not enough population in the easternmost precincts to bring the county within the population limits. Once you get as far west as Peyton, you are reaching the edge of the Colorado Springs exurbs; once you get to Ellicott, you are reaching communities around Schriever Air Force Base that are part of the community of interest associated with the military. Rather than divide the community of interest there, it would be better to link the precincts in Ute Pass, the Rampart Range, and along the southern part of Gold Camp Road with Woodland Park and Teller County. While I will not claim that they are part of the Colorado Springs community, they are more linked to the larger town to their west than the northern and southern edges of El Paso County are to their neighboring counties. The use of census block data, not yet available on DRA, might allow more fine-tuning of this split that creates District 5 out of all but the western and eastern edges of El Paso County. The true Western Slope is not large enough to sustain District 3, even with the obvious addition of Jackson County and the necessary additions of Lake, Chafee, Park, and Teller Counties. The preliminary commission map would exclude most of the San Luis Valley (all but Hinsdale) from the Western Slope district. Based on the revised census numbers, a district that did this would need to add all of Clear Creek, Gilpin, and Fremont Counties to the Western Slope along with the small part of El Paso County. On its face, this maintains county integrity very well and would be a better map than the preliminary commission map that groups parts of Boulder County into the Western Slope. However, there are two problems with such a design. One would be that it breaks up communities of interest to the east: Gilpin and Clear Creek Counties are more associated with the Denver Metro, and Canon City with Pueblo, than any of them are with the Western Slope. The second problem is that it means any district centered in the North Front Range would need to take on arbitrary parts of neighboring Broomfield and Weld County or an even less-logical division of Arvada or Golden in Jefferson County. The draft alternative map submitted with these comments places the San Luis Valley with the Western Slope. To complete the required population, it adds western El Paso County (as described above), western Fremont County, Custer County, and Huerfano County to the Western Slope district. Certainly, arguments can be made about dividing communities of interest here as well, but ties do exist along the Wet Mountain Valley and across La Veta Pass. Throughout the map – throughout any map – tradeoffs must be made among which communities remain together. The draft alternative District 4 is based on the Eastern Plains. In the south, this includes eastern Fremont County (including Canon City), Pueblo County, Las Animas County, the Lower Arkansas Valley, and parts of far eastern El Paso County. In the north, this includes all of Weld and Elbert Counties, retaining them as intact political subdivisions. It does not extend into Larimer, Broomfield, Adams, Arapahoe, or Douglas Counties. The draft alternative District 2 is placed in the North Front Range and includes Larimer, Boulder, Gilpin, and Clear Creek Counties. This is nearly enough population to form a complete district, so it is rounded out by adding Evergreen and the rest of Coal Creek in Jefferson County. The City and County of Denver (and the Arapahoe County enclave municipalities of Glendale and Holly Hills) forms the basis of draft alternative District 1. This is approximately the right size to form a district, but the complexities of interlocking communities make it sensible to include Bow Mar and a small piece of southern Lakewood in this district and exclude the Indian Creek and Kennedy neighborhoods. This leaves three districts to place in suburban Denver. A great place for a boundary among these three districts that does not split communities of interest is in the area of low population to the northeast of Denver International Airport. District 7 in this numbering (which is arbitrary) would include all of Adams County to the west of the airport: to name only the largest communities, Commerce City, Brighton (except the part in Weld), Thornton, Northglenn, and Westminster. It would also include the City and County of Broomfield, and Arvada and the rest of Westminster in Jefferson County. District 6 would include all of the City of Aurora and the parts of Adams and Arapahoe Counties to its east. It would also include Parker, Stonegate, and Meridian in Douglas County; Centennial, Greenwood Village, and Cherry Hills Village in Arapahoe County; and the Indian Creek and Kennedy neighborhoods in Denver. District 8 would include the rest. It would include all of Jefferson County from Golden and Lakewood south (except for small parts of southeastern Lakewood and western Bow Mar) It would include the rest of Douglas County, including Highlands Ranch, Lone Tree, Castle Pines, and The Pinery. Comparison of Maps Precise Population Equality The preliminary commission map has exact population equality. The draft alternative map has a variation of 0.28% (2,038 persons). This is well within the courts’ guidelines for population equality, without even considering that errors in the census data likely exceed this variation, the census data are already a year out of date, and relative district populations will fluctuate over the next 10 years. Both the “good-faith effort†and “as practicable†language leave room for a bit of variance in service of other goals. The need to “justify any variance†does not mean “no variance will be allowed.†It may be better to maintain unity in a community of interest or political subdivision rather than separate part of it for additional precision. Contiguity The draft alternative map meets this requirement. The preliminary commission map violates the spirit if not the actual language of this requirement. While its districts are connected by land, the only way to travel to all parts of preliminary Districts 3 and 4 without leaving the districts would be on foot. There is no road connection between the parts of Boulder County that are in District 3 and the rest of that district in Grand County without leaving the district and passing through District 2 in either Gilpin or Larimer Counties. There also is no road connection between some of the southwestern portions of Mineral County and the rest of District 4 without passing through Archuleta or Hinsdale Counties in District 3. Voting Rights Act The draft alternative

Official Technical Information * Distance: 25.8 miles * Start Elevation: 8,756 feet * Finish Elevation: 9,080 feet * Low Point: 8,745 feet * High Point: 9,945 feet * Total Climbing: 4,011 feet

DescriptionPoint geographic dataset representing the location along a CDOT highway where that highway's linear reference system indicates a whole number reference point.Please note, mile posts are not necessarily found at milepoints. Last Update2024Update FrequencyAs neededData OwnerDivision of Transportation DevelopmentData ContactGIS Support UnitCollection Method ProjectionNAD83 / UTM zone 13NCoverage AreaStatewideTemporal Disclaimer/LimitationsThere are no restrictions and legal prerequisites for using the data set. The State of Colorado assumes no liability relating to the completeness, correctness, or fitness for use of this data.

Platted parcels of the City of Aurora, Colorado. For ownership parcels, please see the county's GIS parcel data. The City of Aurora, Colorado sits in three different counties: Adams County, Arapahoe County, and Douglas County and lies just east of the City and County of Denver. The city's population was recently estimated over 400,000. Currently, the city is approximately 158 square miles and is annexing land in enclaves and to the east of the city.

"Colorado (table 3) - Number of SSI recipients in state (by eligibility category, age, and receipt of OASDI benefits) and amount of payments, by county, December 2007 Data not shown to avoid disclosure of information for particular individuals was filled with -1 County data on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) are a measure of the local impact of the program. This report is a resource for Social Security Administration (SSA) staff in formulating policy and for local service providers and economic planners. The SSI program is a cash assistance program that provides monthly benefits to low-income aged, blind, or disabled persons in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The states and other jurisdictions have the option of supplementing their residents' SSI payments and may choose to have the additional payments administered by the federal government. When a state chooses federal administration, SSA maintains the payment records and issues the federal payment and the state supplement in one check. The data presented in this document are for federal and federally administered state payments only. State-administered supplementation payments are not included. The tables present SSI data by eligibility category (aged, blind, and disabled) and age. SSI recipients who also receive Social Security (Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance) benefits are shown also in Table 3, which presents data at the county level."

The polyshape file shows results of Colorado Democratic presidential primary by county.

Southeast Colorado House Preliminary Plan Colorado Independent Congressional & Legislative Redistricting Commission Public Hearing - Lamar, CO July 9th, 2021 [Via Zoom]

Good evening - my name is Jack Johnston. I'm proud to be the CEO of

Southeast Colorado Power Association and its broadband subsidiary, SECOM. Southeast is an electric cooperative with the largest certificated territory in Colorado - over 13K sq. miles in all or parts of 11 counties. SECOM serves almost 9000 customers who wouldn’t otherwise have high-speed Internet access. Between our electric and broadband consumers, Southeast and SECOM understand, well, communities of interest and their differing needs throughout Colorado. I also understand that concept from a personal perspective as my family and I happily reside on a rural property in unincorporated Crowley County. While I like the preliminary plan and applaud the efforts to get to this point, I think I speak for many residents of southeast Colorado that we are not fond of the split to the Lower Arkansas Valley. I recreated the southeast House Districts in the Dave’s Redistricting website and would like to suggest a simple amendment to improve the maps for the southeast and northeast plains districts Please see the handouts being passed around by some neighbors and friends.
This amendment involves swapping territory between districts 40, 41, and 65. There are very small consequences to a couple of other districts but given the state constitution allows for a +/- 2.5% variance between the largest and smallest district, there shouldn’t be a problem adjusting a couple surrounding districts. Principally, you could place Crowley and the remainder of Otero County into HD 40. This creates a clean, population-balanced HD 40 consisting of the southeastern plains. This area is simply like a single piece of knitted fabric. The communities of southeastern Colorado have similar needs and challenges. To accomplish this request, you could remove Washington County and the El Paso County precincts from HD 40. This allows Washington County to go with the northeastern plains seat, where it has a more natural commonality. You could then balance out HD 41 in El Paso County, from the territory removed from HD 40. Lastly, by adding Washington County to HD 65, it should help eliminate a small split to the City of Aurora. HD 65 is the most easily adjusted because it contains multiple precincts/districts. Thank you for your time and commitment to achieving the best possible legislative districting.

Link to the map with suggested amendment

https://davesredistricting.org/join/7af327ce-e15b-4216-8587-8389f4d450cd

Colorado Unified School Boundary - School districts are geographic entities within which state, county, or local officials provide public educational services for the area's residents. The U.S. Census Bureau obtains the boundaries and names for school districts from state officials. The U.S. Census Bureau first provided data for school districts in the 1970 census. For Census 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau tabulated data for three types of school districts: elementary, secondary, and unified. Each school district is assigned a five-digit code that is unique within state. School district codes are assigned by the Department of Education and are not necessarily in alphabetical order by school district name.

This dataset includes motor vehicle crashes reported to the Denver Police Department, that occurred within the City and County of Denver and during the previous five calendar years plus the current year to date. The data are dynamic, which allows for additions, deletions and/or modifications at any time, resulting in more accurate information in the database. Due to continuous data entry, the number of records in subsequent extractions are subject to change. General variable descriptions can be found below within the downloadable file, Metadata.xml. For additional information, please review the Colorado Investigating Officer's Traffic Accident Reporting Manual, available online.