Peak to Peak Regional Self-Study
Community Forums, November 5—7, 2001
facilitated by: lisa mccarley, PPHCP
Pete’s Beaver Park Inn Gilpin
Library Nederland Community Center
Monday, November 5 Tuesday,
November 6 Wednesday, November 7
5:00pm—6:00pm 6:00pm—8:00pm 6:00pm—8:00pm
This report summarizes the three community forums
listed above.
Pete’s Beaver Park Inn: Approximately 20 people attended the
community forum at Pete’s Beaver Park Inn on Monday, November 5th. Those attending included: Melissa Selby, Lynn Hirshman, Mike Sloane,
Peter Graham, Steve Sessions, Meah Sessions, Paul Linn, Ray Visco, Terri
Collons, Jon Linn, Cathy Carrithers, Joel Carrithers, Susan Wahl, Tim Doughty,
James Price, Randall Price, and Mark Graham.
Gilpin Library:
Five people attended the
community forum at the Gilpin Library on November 6th. They were:
Chuck Grossman, Rick Newman, Beth Fitzpatrick, Colleen Flanagan, and
Garry Sanfacon.
Nederland Community Center: Four people attended the community forum at
the Nederland Community Center on November 7th. They were:
Ginny Anderson, Sandy LaJudice, Roger Cornell, and Leslie Brossman.
The following agenda was used, and will outline
the meeting summaries.
I.
Introductions
A. Who are we?
o
PPHCP and Advisory Board
B. Why are we here?
C. Roadmap for the whole process
D. Agenda
o
Working Agreements
o
Desired outcomes for this meeting
II.
Questions
A. Why do we live here?
B. What are areas/issues of
concern?
III. Present list of areas (generated by advisory
board)
A. Compare with areas generated
by small groups
IV. Which
areas are the most important to track?
A. Prioritize areas
B. Vote for top areas
V. How
to keep in touch for next community forums
A. Schedule and contact
information
VI.
Meeting evaluation
A. What worked, what didn’t work
Peak to Peak Healthy Communities Project convened
and facilitated this community forum addressing the quality of life in the Peak
to Peak mountain region. Advisory board
members for this project include: Garry Sanfacon, Executive Director, Peak to Peak
Healthy Communities Project; Jeanne Nicholson, Nurse Supervisor, Intermountain
Nurse Family Partnership Program; Melissa Selby, Social Worker; Larry Grieco,
Director, Gilpin Library; Leslie Brossman, Community Member; Lynn Hirshman,
Director, Gilpin County Health and Human Services; Michele Bradley, Social
Worker.
The Peak to Peak
Regional Self-Study is a quality of life study in which community members in
the Peak to Peak region (including the greater Nederland area and Gilpin
County) define areas of life that are important to them and their quality of
life as mountain residents. Then the
community members define specific indicators, specific things to measure within
the defined areas of life, which they want to measure and track over time. This first year of the study is to provide a
baseline of indicator measurements.
Subsequent years of tracking indicators will reveal progress or warning
signals within the various areas reflecting our desired quality of life. This is an
opportunity for our mountain community to explore our strengths and weaknesses,
and take part in defining and contributing to our desired quality of life.
The result of this study
will be a report that will be made available to all community members. The results of this study will also be
presented to local government administrators, school administrators, business leaders,
and other community leaders so they can use this information to guide decision
making for the Peak to Peak region.
Each of these community
forums is part of a set of community forums which are designed to define
quality of life areas that community members find important enough to
measure. The areas defined and
information gathered at these community forums will be combined and a master
list of areas will be created.
This master list of
areas will be presented at the second set of community forums held at the end
of November, 2001. This second set of
forums are designed to define specific things to measure within each
area—specific indicators—which will track and measure the desired quality of life
as defined by community members. Again,
the indicators and information gathered at these community forums will be
combined and a master list of indicators will be created.
A community wide survey
will be distributed revealing the areas and indicators generated by the
community forums. This is the
opportunity for the community at large to express their ideas and agreement or
disagreement with ideas defined by community forum participants.
PPHCP will then gather
data and start creating the baseline for the community defined areas and
indicators. PPHCP will generate a
report and present the results to the community at large and government and
school administrators, along with other community leaders, as described
above. This report will serve as the baseline
for future tracking of the community defined indicators.
II. Why do we live here?
The different groups of participants created lists of the following areas, and discussed them as reasons for living in the mountains:
Pete’s Beaver Park Inn
· scenery
· recreation
· less/fewer people
· away from the rat race
· quiet
· less traffic
· cleaner environment
· good opportunities in the building trades
· good people
· good place to raise kids
· away from bad/negative city influences
· USED to be affordable
· sense of community in mountains
· limited/less crime
· four-legged wildlife
Gilpin Library
· wildlife
· access to nature
· privacy
· sense of security
· clean air
· serenity
· safe for my kids
· the music scene
· diversity of people
· maintenance of rural lifestyle
· friendly folks
· recreation opportunities
· opportunities to make a difference
· slower pace of life
· friends
· space
· better life for dogs
· living in the mountains gives people a unique perspective of the big picture—they are more aware of others, and they are more self-reliant
· makes people more organized
· great things are happening in the community—groups are working together
· often people with a more global perspective live here
· WAS affordable
· people nicer to each other
Nederland Community Center
· less people
· natural beauty
· community inclusion
· no neighbors/privacy
· slower pace of life
· no traffic
· low crime
· people concerned with others’ needs
· casual
· mix of people
· no financial cliques/mix of socioeconomic status
· good schools
· good community services available for kids and families
· small volunteer government
· wildlife—personal elk friends
· limited inundation of commerce—no large corporate chains
· proximity to outdoor recreation
· no sidewalks, street lights
· proximity to outdoor recreation
· proximity to Boulder
· community center is great—offers cultural opportunities
Pete’s Beaver Park Inn
This group made the following observations about their discussion of the reasons they live in the mountains. They noted the themes of more space and lower population. They also noted that most of the reasons they live here have positive attributes—except for the issue of housing. They also observed that our mountain life is inverse to urban living—that it is unique and really rural. However, it is getting to appear more urban due to development, and huge changes in the increasing amount of people and traffic have occurred over time. It was also noted that we have one main road in this region—the Peak to Peak Highway. This has its advantages and disadvantages.
Gilpin Library
This group of participants made the following observations about their discussion of the reasons they live in the mountains. They noted a people theme and an outdoors/natural theme. They also discussed that people who live here aim to live here—they live here on purpose—and that tends to make them likeminded.
Nederland Community Center
These are the observations and themes noted by this group about their discussion of reasons to live in the mountains. They noted that people tend to be likeminded and have a common bond due to their natural setting. They observed that their appreciation for fewer people in this region, and their seclusion, is enhanced by their community structure and its offerings to community members. They also noted an outdoor theme, which includes appreciation for nature, the presence of those great big mountains, and enjoyment of outdoor recreation.
What are some issues/areas of concern?
·
possibilities of other
north/south paved roads/corridors
·
real estate
issues—affordable housing, but not too many people
·
minimum acreage per
house—lot size—and a moratorium on acreage for houses as an effort to control
growth
·
the fact that no
apartments or multifamily dwellings exist in the mid county area
·
no shopping centers
·
water rights/issues
·
no accountability of
county officials to citizens
·
open space issues (with
county officials)
·
(eventual) conflict
between Central City/Black Hawk and rest of the county
·
gaming funds supporting
growth of sheriff’s department—with subsequent harassment of Gilpin County
residents
·
county inspectors should
do what they are supposed to do
·
more and more county
services should be available
·
need more plowing of
more roads—this involves a conflict between Boulder and Gilpin counties and
school district lines
·
need more opportunities
and services for kids
·
need more public
transportation
·
there is no emergency
health care
Some thoughtful
suggestions were also made at this point at the Pete’s Beaver Park Inn meeting:
·
Peak to Peak Highway
could use more vistas and scenic pullouts with picnic tables for travelers
·
Perhaps it would be
better to treat most of Gilpin County as an area separate from Central
City/Black Hawk and separate from the greater Nederland area
·
The county and state
need to focus on offering more referendums to voters
·
public transportation
(in Gilpin)
·
the lack of affordable
housing
·
development—too much and
too fast, particularly from a recreational perspective
·
traffic is increasing,
especially large construction vehicles
·
need more warning signs
and communication about traffic conditions—there is not enough prevention
·
domestic abuse and
violence
·
schooling—we need more
choices, alternatives, and flexibility
·
access to cultural
resources and technology
·
tax base and property
taxes are increasing
·
hunters and those
engaging in target practice sharing space with other wilderness users
·
recreational overuse and
misuse
·
lack of concern of USDA
forest administrators for local folks
·
lack of police presence
in Boulder Canyon;
·
bicyclists in Boulder
Canyon
(Gilpin Library group, cont’d)
·
how do small communities
like ours support numerous groups—especially when they are competing for the
same small resource pool
·
lack of coordination
among local governments
·
fire—education and fire
maintenance, or its lack
·
communication—getting
the word out is difficult
·
lack of diversity in
business community—too many real estate offices, high rent
·
increasing number of
commuters, increasingly a bedroom community
Themes were identified
by the Gilpin Library Group at this point in the meeting:
·
safety
·
growth
·
remoteness
·
cooperation in usage
·
need more compromise by
different groups
And some thoughtful
observations were made by this group as well:
·
nice people in a
particular natural environment being threatened by themselves
·
we are creating our own
problems—however, we do desire to work them out
·
our concerns revolve
around our quality of life
·
disenfranchised if not a
Nederland resident—no representation in local government
·
local government
expected to pay for non-municipal residents
·
road maintenance—dusty,
dirty, full of holes
·
affordable housing
·
the wind
·
employment opportunities
·
downtown First Street
needs development plan/theme
·
parking
·
transportation
·
growth
·
pine beetles
·
transients
·
Gilpin not in RTD
district
·
limited medical
facilities
·
sewer ponds
·
Tungsten Mine site just
sitting there
·
Separate RTD parking lot
·
County zoning
inconsistencies—building lot size
Some thoughtful
observations were made at this point by the Nederland Community Center group:
·
themes of growth and
transportation identified
·
limited, small
government has difficulty effecting change or responding to local needs
·
good mix of
people—transients an issue
·
old problems/same
problems in the greater Nederland area
III. List of areas
Community forum participants created lists of areas that reflect and encompass quality of life issues. They did this by comparing the areas they listed to the areas generated by the advisory board.
Pete’s Beaver Park Inn
·
limited growth
·
services offered for
current residents
·
affordable housing
·
rights: homeowners, citizens, business owners
·
community/social
inclusion
·
arts and culture
·
emotional
well-being/desire to live here
·
interpersonal
relationship: measured by events offered
·
environment
·
personal development:
mental health care and opportunities
·
emotional well-being
·
material well-being
·
physical well-being
·
quality childcare
·
social dynamic
·
civic involvement
·
economic diversity,
including affordable housing and taxes
·
self-determination
·
recreational health
·
respect for nature
·
education
·
arts and culture
·
transportation
·
heritage
·
economic development
·
emotional well-being
·
infrastructure
·
community inclusion
·
material well-being
·
education
·
physical well-being
·
responsive
government/civic involvement
·
rights
·
environment
·
arts and culture
·
transportation
·
historic preservation
·
growth
IV. Which areas are most important to track
The group at Pete’s Beaver Park Inn was on a limited meeting schedule, and had no time
to prioritize its list of areas of concern.
Each participant at the
two other community forums voted for five areas from their respect list of
areas that they wanted prioritized to measure.
These are the prioritized lists of the Gilpin Library and the Nederland
Community Center Forums
5 votes—Economic
Diversity, including such issues as affordable housing and taxes
4 votes—Respect for
Nature
2 votes each (listed in
no particular order)
Physical Well-Being
Quality Childcare
Social Dynamic
Recreational Health
Education
Arts and Culture
1 vote each (listed in
no particular order)
Civic Involvement
Self-Determination
Transportation
Heritage
This group decided that the
themes of people and nature, the main reasons we live here, are threatened by
growth. This group also suggested that
these forums be views as the same meeting held with different groups.
3 votes each (listed in
no particular order)
Infrastructure
Environment
Growth
2 votes each (listed in