HomeMy WebLinkAboutR96-136 approval of economic development plan for northwest colorado enterprise zoneCommissioner ~~ ~~~~ moved adoption
of the following Resolution:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ,
COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. 96 - ~_
APPROVAL OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE
NORTHWEST COLORADO ENTERPRISE ZONE
WHEREAS, the State of Colorado has enacted the "Urban and
Rural Enterprise Zone Act" (~39-30-101-08, C.R.S., as amended) to
allowed qualified areas of the state to form urban or rural
enterprise zones; and
WHEREAS, these enterprise zones are formed for the continued
encouragement, development, and expansion of opportunities for
employment in areas that meet certain unemployment, population
and/or income criteria; and
WHEREAS, the County of Eagle, State of Colorado appears to
meet these criteria; and
WHEREAS, the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado has
prepared an Economic Development Plan for the Northwest Colorado
Enterprise Zone, Dated August 31, 1996, a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A", that addressed the need for an enterprise
zone designation in Northwest Colorado.
NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO:
THAT, the Eagle County Board of Commissioners hereby approves
the Economic Development Plan for the Northwest Colorado-Enterprise
Zone, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
THAT, the Board hereby finds, determines and declares that
this Resolution is necessary for the public health, safety and
welfare of the residents of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado.
MOVED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners
of the Coun,,t~y.~of Eagle, State of Colorado, at its regular meeting
held the ~~~.,~- day of October, 1996.
ATTEST:
Clerk to the $oard of
County Commissioners
COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF
COLORADO, By and Through Its
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By: ,
George Gates, Chairman
Commissioner p~ ,~~,-,~ seconded adoption of the
foregoing resoluti n. The roll having been called, the vote was as
follows:
Commissioner Gates _ ~~~
Commissioner Phillips LLI~y{_
Commissioner Johnson ~~
This Resolution passed by ~ ~ ~ vote of the Board of
County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado.
No file
.~ ~
{
JJohnnette Phillips, Commiss oner
i
NORTHWEST COLORADO
ENTERPRISE ZONE
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN
August 31, 1996
Prepared by:
.Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado
Northwest Comer
of Colorado
c u~aRaNT
N. w• cow. ~~~SE zoo
.~~
oaANC ~ tOULDER
tto auwco
u~
~~~ ~ SUMMR SON ,
. tiTKW WC8
tAR1C
MESA
OELTA
OUNNISON CHAiSEP '
2
fRElYIONT
'~
~n use
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I: History of the Northwest Colorado Enterprise Zone and
Summary of Proposed Changes ...................... 2
SECTION II: Ovcrview of Regional Economy and Economic Development
Trends
.............................................. 4
SECTION III: Economic Development Barriers and Major Adverse Eco~:omic
Changes Since 1990 ............................... 9
SECTION IV: Regional Economic Development Goals and Infrastructurc
Needed to Support Goals .......................... 12
SECTION V: Proposed E~:terprise Zone Boundaries ................. 14
SECTION VI: Enterprise Zone Administrative Information, Measurable
Objectives and Preliminary Contributiof~s List ......... 25
ADDENDUM I: Enterprise Zone Population Per Capita h:come,
Unemployment, Jobs and E. Z. Be~:efits Data .......... 31
ADDENDUM II: Development Plan Final Guidelines and Copy of the Colorado
Urban and Rural Enterprise Zone Act . ............... SO
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Northwest Colorado Enterprise Zone
August 31, 1996
Prepared by:
Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado (AGNC)
Jim Evans, Enterprise Zone Administrator
SECTION I: History of the Northwest Colorado E~:terprise Zoe:e a~:d
Summary of Proposed Changes
A• History
1• Designated January 1, 1988: Garfield (except residential
.subdivisions), Moffat, Routt and the "urban areas of Rio Blanco
Counties.
2. Added December 12, 1989: The "rural" areas of Rio Blanco
Counties.
3• Added March 2, 1990: The Gypsum/Dotsero area of Eagle
County.
B. Summary of Current E. Z. Boundaries, Effective March 2, 1990
1 • Routt County (entire county)
2• Rio Blanco County (entire county)
3• Moffat County (entire county)
4• Garfield County (entire county, excluding ail residentially zoned
subdivisions)
S• Eagle County (Contiguous strip of Industrial Zoned land along I-
70 from the Garfield County line east to the Town of Eagle. This
includes the Town of Gypsum, except for residentially zoned
areas. It includes the Gypsum Wall Board Plant, the Gypsum
Mine, the Industrial Parlc east of the Eagle Airport, and the
industrial areas in Dotsero. The legal descriptions are as follows:
Range 85 West, Township 4 South, Sections 25-36
Range 35 West, Township 5 South, Sections 1-6
Range 86 West, Township -} South, Sections 25-3b
Economic Development Plan
4
SECTION II: Overvieiy of Regional Economy and ,Economic Developme~:t
Trcnds
A. Economic Development Overview:
1 • Commonality of Economic Development Sectors in Northwest
Colorado. The conomy in each of the eight (8) counties includes
a 4-sector base:
a• The boom bust cycles of resource development: coal,
mining, oil, natural gas and timber.
b• Historical agricultural (farm and ranch) activities and
public land grazing.
c• Growing tourism and service related activities.
d• Little or no manufacturing or heavy industry.
B. Negative Economic Development Trends:
1 • The region is recovering from a major energy/mineral bust of the
late 1980's that has extended into the 1990's.
a. Oil shale activity with more than 2,000 jobs in the early
1980's has dropped to about 10 maintenance/security
personnel. Projections that Northwest Colorado would
grow to as much as 1.0 million population have never
materialized.
b• A term has been coined in the region called the "invisible
bust" which describes the ongoing shift occurring from the
loss of higher salary resource base jobs to lower income
service related jobs. In September, 1995, this shift vas
documented in a survey conducted by the Yampa Valley
Economic Development Council. The Council identified
the loss in the region in the past t~vo (2) years of 740 direct
resource base jobs as follows:
Economic Development Plan
6
3. The total of 2,371 Direct jobs Lost (740 plus 1,631) would mean
that there has been up to 7, 613 indirect jobs lost. This estimate is
based upon the jobs multiplier of 3.211 computed in an economic
study of the Colorado Mining Industry by the University of
Pennsylvania in 1994. These indirect jobs could be located
throughout Colorado.
4. There is a lack of agricultural growth in the region, plus there is
an undocumented, but well perceived, ongoing loss of agricultural
lands.
S. A trend has developed in the 1990's for Federal Public Lands
agencies (BLM, U.S. Forest Service) to oppose resource base
economic activities on federal lands. This is a serious threat to the
resource base activities in the region and is probably one of the
factors resulting in the "invisible bust" that is occurring. This
trend is also a threat to ongoing grazing operations that are
dependent upon the public lands.
6• There is an alarming trend that most rural areas are facing in the
transportation industry that is true in Northwest Colorado:
Higher costs and less service. This is a result of federal
deregulation of the airline, truck and bus industries. The recent
merger of the SP/UP Railroad lines may add railroad costs and
services to this list. The airline service and cost problems caused
by deregulation have been aggravated by the opening of the high
cost DIA airport in Colorado.
7. There also appears to be a trend toward higher costs/less service in
the telephone utilities industry also caused by deregulation. This
could jeopardize efforts under way throughout the region to
encourage the telecommunications industry.
8. There appears to be a serious problem developing for sport fishing
in Northwest Colorado due to conflicting State and Federal
stream management policies.
Economic Development Plan
4• The K ~ N and Colorado Interstate Gas (CIG) pipelines are
scheduled to be constructed within the ne~ct several years to give
additional access to natural gas from Garfield and Rio Blanco
Counties.
S• Federal legislation is being implemented within the ne~ct year to
open the Naval Oil Shale Reserve (NOSR) in Garfield County to
natural gas drilling. Opening these natural gas reserves plus the
CIG pipeline should increase natural gas production in Garfield
County.
6• Another positive trcnd in the region is the growing use of "smart
growth" initiatives that help resolve economic development/
growth issues. Two of the State's award winning smart growth
initiatives are located in this region: The Yampa Valley initiative
in Moffat and Routt Counties, and the Grand County Smart
Growth Plan.
8
Economic
Plan
connecting highway improvements, especially to move goods
north and south within the State.
10
High costs and lack of service are the pattern for airline, truck,
and bus services since deregulation of these industries. The UP/SP
Railroad merger will decrease competition and probably reduce
services in the Northwest Region as well.
5• The lack of a high quality health, education and public safety
inh'astructure is a barrier to recnutment and development of a
manufacturing industry base in Northwest Colorado.
6• The need for quality of life improvements is also a battier at
times. Affordable housing in or near high real estate cost
communities is needed. This is particularly true in Eagle, Gazfield
and Routt Counties.
7• The inability of counties to control 35-acre subdivisions is a
barrier to the preservation of agricultural lands.
B. ~ Major Economic Changes Since 1990:
1 • Perhaps the greatest adverse economic impact in the 1990's is the
"invisible bust" described above in Section II, B-1. This term
describes the ongoing loss of high-paving resource base jobs,
amounting to as much as a 2,317 direct job loss since 1990. As
indicated above, this includes the closure of the Unocal Oil Shale
Project, the completion of UMTRA projects, and the layoffs at six
(6) coal mines, two (2) power plants, one (1) lumber mill and one
(1) Molybdenum mine.
2• The agricultural industry in Northwest Colorado during the
1990's has been caught in a squeeze of higher costs and lower
prices.
3• The one bright spot in the 1990's is the completion of the I-70
Interstate corridor at Debeque and Glemvood Canyons. However,
this too has a downside with the loss of 300 construction ~vorlcers.
Economic Development Plan
12
SEG'TIOI~T N: Regional Economic Development Goals and Infrastructure
Needed to Support Goals
A. Primary Goal # 1: To maintain a viable and diversified steady
growth economy while protecting a clean, health
environment.
1. Specific goals of the Enterprise Zone to achieve this primary
economic development goal includes:
a. Provide incentives to help stabilize the resource base
industries in order to minimize boom/bust cycles, especially
where affected by public land management policy changes.
b. Provide incentives to maintain strong tourism, recreation
and retail industries.
c. Provide incentives to retain a strong agricultural industry,
including grazing and forestry.
d. Provide incentives to increase manufacturing industry
opportunities.
e. Provide incentives to maintain strong support/services
industries, such as banking, real estate, utilities,
construction and telecommunications industries.
B. Primary Goal #2: To encourage improvements and expansion of
existing industries, with emphasis on small
business opportunities.
1. Specific goals of the Enterprise Zone to achieve this primary goal
include:
a. Provide investment incentives to e.•dsting companies, to
encourage and reward improvements and expansions.
b. Provide incentives for job training and job retention
efforts, as well as job creation, recognizing the value of
Economic Development Plan
SECTION V: Proposed Enterprise Zone Boundaries
A. Proposed Boundary Changes:
1. • Areas retained:
14
• All of Garfield County, except residential subdivisions and the
cities of Glenwood Springs and Carbondale.
• All of Moffat County
• All of Rio Blanco County
• All of Routt County, except the ski resort area of Steamboat
Springs
• The Gypsum area of Eagle County
2• Areas to be excluded:
The cities of Glenwood Springs and Carbondale in Garfield
County
• The ski resort area of Steamboat Springs in Routt County
3• Areas to be added:
• All of Jackson County
• Clear Creelc County, except for the Evergreen area
• Grand County, except for the Winter Parlc Slci resort area, the
Rocky Mountain National Parlc, and Denver owned lands
throughout the county
B. Areas Directly Meeting the Three (3) Specified Statistical
Measures for Economic Distress:
• Population growth 25% less than the state average;
• Per capita income 25% less than the state average; and
An unemployment rate 25% more than the state average.
1 • Clear Creek County areas:
• Utilizing either the 10-year period 1985-95 or the 10-year
period between official census 1980-90, the entire County of
Economic Development Plan
17
of Grand Lake (-32.2%), Hot Sulphur Springs (_ 14.3%), and
IC~'etnmling (-10.0%) each lost population, while Granby only
gained 3 residents in the 10-year period (0.3%). These rates
are clearly less than 75% of the state average annual growth
rate of 2.8% for the same period.
• The ~'emmling area (BNA9564) which is the largest census
area of Grand County, also qualifies based upon a per capita
income of ~ 10,800 (1990) which is 72,2% of the state
average.
• The Grand Lake area BNA9561
( )qualifies based upon an
unemployment rate of 8.09% (1990) which is 140.9% of the
state average.
Two Granby sub areas (BNA9562-003 N. Granby, and
BNA9563-005 S. Granby) also qualify with unemployment
rates (1990) that exceed the 125% state E.Z. threshold 348%
and 128% respectively.
• The FraserJSilvercreelc sub area (BNA9566-003) also qualifies
vv~th an unemployment rate of 8.42% (1990) which is 168.9%
of the state average.
5 • Jackson County areas:
The entire area of Jackson County qualifies based upon the
distress criteria of unemployment. The Jackson County
unemployment rate of 7.4% (1995) is 188.3% of the state
average.
6• Moffat County areas:
The entire area of Moffat County qualifies based upon the
distress criteria of unemployment. The Moffat County
unemployment rate of 6.10% (1995) is 155.2% of the state
average.
• Moffat County also qualifies based upon population growth
Economic Development Plan Page 18
less than 75% of the state average. From 1980 to 1990,
Moffat County actually lost -13.5% of its population. From
1990 to 1995, Moffat County population grew at an annual
rate of 1.12% which is 45% of the state average growth of
2.48%.
7. Rio Blanco County areas:
• The entire area of Rio Blanco County qualifies based upon the
distress criteria of unemployment. The Rio Blanco County
unemployment rate of 7.3% (1995) is 185.8% of the state
average.
• Rio Blanco County also qualifies based upon population
growth less than 75% of the state average. From 1980 to
1990, Rio Blanco County actually lost -3.3% of its population.
However, kom 1990 to 1995, Rio Blanco County population
grew at an estimated annual rate of 2.88% which is 116% of
the state average growth rate. Considering the entire 15-year
period 1980-95, Rio Blanco County's average annual growth
rate was 0.7%, compared to the state's annual average growth
rate of 1.98%.
8. Routt County areas:
• The Hayden, Oalc Creelc and Yampa areas, plus the
unincorporated area of Routt County qualify based upon the
population criteria of growth less than 75% of the state
average.
Economic Development Plan Page 20
2. Eagle County areas:
• The existing Enterprise Zone area of Gypsum/Dotsero is
retained in the proposed Enterprise Zone because:
(1) The area has not achieved its economic development
goals; and
(2) The major employer in the area is dependent upon the
continuation of Enterprise Zone tax credits.
Although the Gypsum/Dotsero area no longer meets the 125%
threshold for the unemployment rate criteria, its
unemployment rate of 3.99% (1990} is still above the state
average of 3.93%.
The Gypsum/Dotsero area's per capita income of $13,278 is
still only 89.6% of the state average. This distress criteria is
compounded by the high cost of living in the area. For
example, according to an economist in the area, a typical
family must spend approximately 40% of its income on
housing (virtually no affordable housing is now available in
the area), gasoline prices average 20% more than the region,
and there is no food market, no pharmacy, and no bank
located in the area. The town of Gypsum also faces a large
water and sewer debt.
The main employer in the region (The Gypsum Mine and
Wall Board Plant) with 133 employees appears dependent on
continued Enterprise Zone tax credits and continued
competitive railroad rates.
3. Garfield County areas:
The Silt and unincorporated area of Garfield County are
included in the Enterprise Zone because the area functions
economically as part of the larger qualifying areas of Garfield
County.
Economic Development Plan Page 22
as an integral part of the entire Moffat County/Routt County
Yampa Valley area. Most economic development initiatives for
the area are joint endeavors, such as the Yampa Valley
Airport, and the Yampa Valley Economic Development
Council.
D. Areas Excluded from the Enterprise Zone:
1. Clear Creelc County areas:
The Evergreen area of Clear, Creek County is excluded. This
will exclude the fastest growing area of the County, which is
primarily residential. This excludes an estimated 25% of the
county population. Also, this area does not meet the distressed
criteria of low per capita income or higher than average
unemployment.
2. Eagle County areas:
The entire county is excluded except for the Gypsum/Dotsero
area. The county does not meet the distressed economic
criteria.
The residential subdivision of the Gypsum/Dotsero area are
also excluded.
3. Garfield County areas:
All residential subdivisions in the county are excluded. This is
not a change from the existing Enterprise Zone.
The Cities of Glenwood Springs and Carbondale are excluded.
Neither city meets any of the three (3) distress criteria, as
follows: -
Economic Development Plan Page 24
7.
8.
Rio Blanco County areas:
• No areas are excluded.
Routt County areas:
The Eastern/Sld Resort area of Steamboat Springs is excluded.
This area does not meet any of the three (3) Enterprise Zone
distress criteria, as follows:
~~ " "~
~~~
~4
Economic Development Plan Page 2 6
B. 1995 Enterprise Zone Population Estimate:
,.~ ..4. • ....:.:::......... . ......
.............:..
...
..:.
::: -
:::::
'~'~ . ET
POPUTATIQN~~
.....;
:::;:.>:::;::.;::.>;:;::<>:;::;::::::>r;:
.::.;:.;::.:.;~:.:.;:::::::::.:;:.;:.;.::;..~ :.:.;~.;::.:.::::~~..::.~.:::::. :.:.::..:..........
:
>.:>:: .:
...
..:::~ .:. < P :: :. ~3'ION>:°.>:::<;::<::;~~~:~<::.> _
::.;;
..
~<.::.;~:>:::.;:~. >.~:::..;.:..:. .
1. Clear Creek 8,622
:::..: ....: ~ ~.:......:. ~:. ?~;.:;.::.:>: ~::<:<::<:..:::::::;: .....:........
~ ~. ~>~<::: ~:<:>:: ; .. ~ I..~i.~.:: ~;::;::;::::>~<: ~: ~ ::::;::;.::::;:::;>. .. :.:.:.
:.::::;: :::.:.:::..:..:. ~ ..; ::6,467 ..
2. Eagle (Gypsum/Dotsero) 2,216
...... .
....
.. ; ::..:::.:..:.:::.:;;>; : ;:.:: :
::.~:. .
:::~ :~>
.....;:.:; :::..::.:...:. ,; ...:. ~:v .
.~.:..~:::.~::.~:.::.: ::.
........... ~~:::::.~:. .:>.
........:...:.... .... t ..v...... ,
...:...........:....: ........
t~ L~ ...;:•..::•:::.::::::::..~:•:...u;:•..
..
..
,•
.:....:.......~Lti7~:ilV1S2DI~~
..: ::.::.:.~.
.:.:::..:..,. .. n.:::>::::.:;:.:::::
E,~~..~.::::.:>. .:.... ..:.:....t..:. ::::.:::~.
:::: r<.:::.,.:::. .:::: :......: ...................
... ~.... y ** ~~yy
::::.:
:
:
>
:
:
:
:
:>
::-
<:s>
:rr•
:>
;>
:
~
~
•
;.;>::>;:::>.>.:....;.; :.;>::::::;:::.::; ;.
....
:.....::::::....::..... .
~:
... p
~: ~.
......::•:::.:..:•;::..:~.:.
:: :•.:: ~: .
..
-
.
..
.......:............
~:::: •._._::::.~:.:.:..,,:...
....... .... ......... ......: .............::: ;:r;;
;:•;;
h:
:;
:;
:;
;>::
:
:
:
:
.
F•:
r;k
:_;:
:::
»>:
<
v::.-v:::::; ..; ..::: /vw•:}w.v::::.:.:ii:-ii4iii?::•!'riii: { ;
3. Garfield 35,737
~~: ~:: ~;:::<:;`.:.`::`~ss;{G1et:wood.S . =~ .<.:::~::»:: ;:::»::>::;::>::<:~:~ .24>;:.: <:>:.~~::.><::::>:<:>::;~::><; :::::..:::>:;.<:.;:>.~.:.:~: ~.::..;.;.:::.. ~~;:.:....:~::....:.
I! Less (Carbondale) <4,007>
E.>:;.::;:.::<~>::::::::>:<:: Res ~;~;:..<.;~.;n:;, .:::..:. .:::...
..:..:::::,.:.~:::::::-:::.::;~~-:.:::.;::.:::::::.:::~.:~~:::~::;.:::~:
:...:~:::~:.:.
:;.~::..:.:...::.=.....:.~~.. ~-.
..
>:~:. ~;~.:;:;:.;>:>:~ ::;;;;::><;::::::;>::>:::>;:;:::>:::::>;;: ::::r:::>:::;r.~::>:.::;:.> :.::::::.:::.:>:::::::::.::;:.;:.>:::::~.::>~:::.:;:>.. . .:~:.:.. ~~~ .12.103
4. Grand County 9,15 9
::~>~:::::..>::.::;:Less~: ~!ifantet?~P.ack ::::>:::>::::::::> ~<:~:::<:: :.>~:<:;:::::>'~::~:<:<_::~~6X:~::.::~:~~;<::':~::~:>~;:~:>':.°:>.>: ~::... ~: ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ 78
Ii 5. Jackson County 1,724 1,724
...._-
7. Rio Blanco County 6,925 6,925
8. Rout ~. o ~:.::.:~::~ :.:>:;.;::<:::;;:.:~.:..:.:... ::;~: .
.;.:
<:; :.::;
:~.;, .. .
~~
Less (E. St. Springs) <2,061 > 18,685
TOTAL, $ COUNTIES ~ ~ :. ~ :. ; : ~ ::; ~ ::.::.: fi7,632.
Economic Development Plan Page 28
2. Garfield County:
• Garfield County Lift•up Program.'
To assist the homeless. Administration of tax credit forms
will be delegated.
• Rifle Information Centert
To provide regional Economic Development/Tourism
information at the I-70 visitor center.
• Resource Centerfi
To assist with job training efforts. The Resource Center
also has job training/referral offices in Rio Blanco and
Moffat Counties.
3. Jackson County:
• Jackson County Library
To assist with fundraising for improvements to the
Jackson County Library. Administration of the tax credit
forms will be delegated.
4. Moffat County:
• Center for Craigt
To assist with job creation, incubator services, downtown
improvements and other job related services.
Administration of tax credit forms will be delegated.
• Dinosaur Visitor Centerfi
To assist with dissemination of economic
development tourism information at the State Welcome
Center.
t Denotes pre May 1, 1996 Contribution Program
Economic Development Plan Page 30
Commissioners, who are encouraged to appoint private sector
and/or city representatives as well as a county representative.
Jackson County and the City of Walden are planning to appoint
one (1) each rather than two (2) by the County.
2. E. Z. Polity for the Zone is governed by AGNC Board of
Directors. The AGNC Bylaws will be amended to add one (1)
representative appointed by each non-member county to vote on
Enterprise Zone matters. Administrative and policy issues are
determined on a majority vote basis. Any ne~v or changed
legislative policy will require a unanimous vote of those present
and voting.
3. The Enterprise Zone Administrator will be appointed by the
AGNC Board. Currently, it is Jim Evans, the AGNC Executive
Director.
F. Implementation of Changes:
1. It is the request that Northwest Colorado Enterprise Zone
additions become effective January 1, 1997. This will allow full
effect of the E. Z. Benefits for the entire calendar year.
2. If the Commission does not act prior to January 1, 1997, it is
requested that the additio~:s become effective upon the date of
Commission approval.
3. It is requested that deletions to the district become effective
January 1, 1998. This will allow a one (1) calendar year phase
out.
ADDENDUM I: Entcrprise Zone Population Per Capita Incon:e, Unen:ploys:ent,
Jobs and E. Z. Benefits Data
ENTF°"RISE ZONE DATA
198..-~ 1993 Per 9.5 Unem-
Popul. Capita ptoymt.
data: Change Income Rate
Garfield _ 17.81% 18,592 4.10%
Moffat 28996 18,109 6.10°/.
Rio Blanco 9.88% 16,023 7.30%
Routt 15.43% 23,838 4.20°k
pt. Eagie (Gypsum) Na Na Na
Clear Creek 9.57% 21,118 420°/.
Grand 6.49% 19,602 3.10%
Jackson 4.97% 17.333 7 ani
1990 Census Data
State avg: 514,821 5.747°
EZ Thresholds: 511,116 7
17°k
Qualifies .
by:
~ C
o m
Unem-
o ~
Zone Section Per Capita
Census Tracts Total # Pers Income pby~
Rare
NORTHWEST EZ
Garfield-GknwdNo. BNA95t6 2,495 15,408 2.41°k
Garfield-0knwd b via BNA 9517 5,381 14,008 4.20°k
Ga~eld-C'dale/GMrd So. BNA 9518 7,305 15,071 3.29%
Garfield-New Castle/Silt BNA 9519 4,815 11,444 4.14%
Garfield-Rifle BNA 9520 7,379 11,637 8.19°/.
' Garfield-Parachute/SW BNA 9521 2,599 10,522 4.70°~
Moffat-E Rural BNA 9501 973 11.201 6.27X
Moffat-0raig E BNA 9502 4,505 12.638 6.g6%
Moffat-Craig BNA 9503 4,980 12.645 5.36°~
° ' Moffat-MaybelVDinosaur BNA 9504
899
10.571 °
11.62 /°
Rio Blanco BNA 9511 3,255 13.245 5.04%
Rio Blanco BNA 9512 2.717 1 t,292 4.97%
Routt-Hayden vic. BNA 9546 2,123 12,197 4.15%
° Routt-Clark Vic. BNA 9547 1,019 20,954 8.93%
Routt-0ak Creek vic. BNA 9548 1,786 14,540 4.74%
Routt-Steambt/W. BNA 9549 6,488 16,163 5.27°/.
Routt-Steambt/E. BNA 9550 1,949 15,755 4.16°/.
Routt-Yampa vic. BNA 9551 723 11,854 2.47°/.
Eagle-GypsumJEagle BNA 9531 6.124 13.278 3.99%
ZONE TOTAL 67,515 13.405 4.65°/.
° Hayden (muni)
1,444 10,738 5.42°/.
Oak Creek (muni) 649 tt,tff4 7.08°/.
Steamboat Springs (muni) 6.695 15,927 6.06%
° Yampa (muni) 341 10,204 2.07°/.
° Grand BNA 9561 659 13.669 8.09°/.
Grand BNA 9562 505 13,734 2.66°/.
Grand BNA 9563 2,197 12,737 3.97°/.
° Grand 8NA 9564 1,919 10,800 2.85•/.
Grand BNA 9565 1,102 17,222 2.45%
Grand BNA 9566 1,584 14,878 1.48%
TABLE S. PRELIMMARY POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR COlJNTItiS APlD Iv1t~NICIPALITIES, 1980- 1995.
AVER. ANNUAL PC'f. CHNG
COUNTIES & Places April 1980 July 1985 April 1990 July 1991 July 1992 July 1993 July 1994 July 1995 1980-85 1985-90 1990-95
COLORAUU TOTAI. ~ 2,889,735 3,214,448 3,29x,473 3,370,605 3,465,032 3,568,218 :i,Gf~l.(-(,s ~;,7.16,588 ~ 2.05 0.52 2.x8
CI_EA R CREF K COIJN'fY
Empire
Georgclmvn
Idaho Springs
Silver Plume
Unincotp. Arca
EAGLE COUNTY
Avon
Nasalt (M(:P)
Eagle
Gypsum
Minturn
Red CIitT
Vail
Unincorp. Area
GARFIEI,D COUNTY
Carbondale
Glenwood Springs
New Castle
Parachute
Rifle ~,
Silt
Unincorp. Area
GRAND COUNTY
Fraser
Granby
Grand Lake
Flot Sulphur Springs
Kremmlirrg
Winlcr Par1c
Unincorp Area
7,308 7,976 7,G 19 7,654 7,819 A,U(-; 8 -! 11 8,622
423 433 4U I 403 41-y 412 r!'1.9 433
830 946 891 88b RN9 910 9.16 965
2,077 2,116 1,898 1,898 1,936 1,961 2,1138 2,U(i5
140 143 134 133 137 142 ISI IS9
3,838 4,298 4,295 4,333 4;137 4,578 4,848 5,000
13,320 18,029 21,928 23,070 24,175 25,633 27,323 28,692
640 1,444 1,798 1,858 2,233 2,366 2,433 1,490
529 713 1,089 1,130 1,140 1,199 1,252 1,363
950 1,309 1,580 I ,603 I,G23 1,647 1,71 1 2,071
743 1,621 1,750 1,811 1,877 1,946 2,139 2,216
1,060 942 1,066 1,095 1,116 1,134 1,135 1,107
409 319 297 298 298 302 302 295
3,555 3,789 3,716 3,742 3,812 3,870 4,419 4,35E
5,434 .7,892 10,637 11,533 12,07b 13,168 13,932 14,794
22,514 25,714 29,974 31,117 31,134 32,238 33,985 .15
737
2,084 2,579 3,004 3, I S I 3,206 3,414 3,617 ,
4
007
4,637 5,432 6,561 6,803 6,758 7,071 7,278 ,
7
524
863 467 679 710 729 794 1,038 ,
277
1
33R 746 658 667 658 GGO LOGS ,
092
1
3,21 S 4, 153 4,858 4,977 4,937 4,997 5,109 ,
5
271
923 1,046 1,095 1,130 1,113 I ,ISO 1,175 ,
240
1
IU,754 11,291 13,119 13,678 13,728 14,153 14,683 ,
15,326
7,475 9,212 7,966 8,233 8,31 S 8,480 8,720 9, I S9
470 665 573 591 899 GIO G2' 659
963 1,184 966 1,000 1,011 1,029 LOGO 1,115
382 392 259 265 264 269 276 291
405 414 347 359 364 371 ?RI 401
1,296 1,403 1,166 1,210 1,225 1,2.14 1,2k2 1,348
480 651 528 .54U 536 549 SG? 581
3,479 4,503 4,127 4,266 4,3 I S 4,407 4, 5 } I 4,764
1.56 -0.85 2.38
0.45 - I,fiO 1.47
2.52 -1.25 I .
U.35 -2.26 1.__
0.40 -1.36 3.31
2.18 -0.0 I 2.94
5.94 4.21 5.25
16.76 x.72 6.40
5.85 9.22 4.46
6.30 4.04 5.29
16.02 1.63 4.60
-2.22 2.64 0.72
-4.62 -1.49 -0.13
1.22 -0.4 I 3.07
7.37 6.49 6.49
2.56 3.28 3.4
4.14 3.26 S.6
3.06 4.U6 2.64
-3.50 8.20 12.79
16.28 -2.61 10.13
5.00 3.36 1.57
2.41 i).97 2.40
0.93 3.21 3.01
4.06 -3.01 2.69
6.83 -3.09 2.70
4.01 -4.19 2.77
U.49 -8.36 2.24
0.42 -3.65 2.79
1.52 -3.82 2.8U
5.98 -4.3 I 1.84
5.04 -1.82 2.77
Ass. Value, with residential
$250
y $200
c° $150
0
c $100
~ $50
$0
^ Non-Residential
Residential
Assessed Valuation of Clear Creek County
Page 1
N M d' LA CO t~ O C1 O ~ N M fit'
OD OC 00 00 00 O O O O M ~ Q7 Q1
Q7 T 07 07 07 O G7 ~ O Q'f C1 07 p7
w
N
W
Henderson Mine History
Tots( Pounds: Manpower
1978 32,200 1,770
1979 42,8?2 1,921
19K0 50,047 1,913
1981 40,533 1,609
l 982 18,411 1,896
1983 (22) 565
1984 26,818 897
1985 27,944 829
1986 35,084 687
1987 24,920 347
1988 30,001 402
1989 41,609 561
1990 37,628 523
1991 35,320 535
1992 33,311 524
1993 20,170 478
1994 20,033 434
l Sys ~f So
i`r56 yes
The Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance Program
receives most of its revenue from the Western Slope-
where higher federal royalty and severance tax rates
generate more revenue per unit of production
than in other parts of the state.
SE-6,7,13,14 (4%)
SW-8,9,10 (1 T
N~-~ ~ 3,4,5 (12%)
ENERGY AND MINERAL IMPACT PROGRAM
PERCENT OF REVENUE BY STATE QUADRANT
1988 to 1993
sr~rc a ~.o~rwo
TSE FACT OF COAL ON TSE U.S. ECONOMY
~~ E,ose sad Osear Frias
Departmeat of Miaeral Ecoaomia
The Penasyivania State IIniveraity
~TniveraitY Par;c, PA 16802
Report to the Natianai Coal Association
II~ACTS OF'I~ COAL IIvDUSIRY ON THE COLORADO ECONOMY. I
Apra, I9s~
Outgza Ptiasonal Inccmc - E
Direst Outlrut of Coal - Sd1Qa SI l0a ~
Siraple Muitipiier 3I_ E2.1~~
Sub-Tom SSI2 SI25
Danz Inve.~icat SZ7 S7
Simpic iti/IuitiPIicr EZ. ZZ EZ•~4
Sub-Tarsi S60 SI7
Direct ~~ of S64 SI7
Sim~Ic ~IluidpiiQ EZ.:~~ EZ.~~Z
Sub-Tarsi SI46 S41
Gs~rld Total I.OI S _ - "Z84 _
Souztt: Based on a 1990 :BLS II Ia~"~-O~t~ Tables ti7.S. of
Co~acrtrlBiarsn of F.ca:a~c Yom) fcrCoiariado cod dma~m deal=
1~~ (U.S. DcPn:m~att at'~ag~-l~aSY ~~ )•
=In ~Iions of 1992 doila~.
t~-~I~t mrssmr~ in fuII-timc ~ ~"-~- Caoshiaa iII a~ioy~ors arc
..,;....... ~saoas. ;*+r+udiaQ vf~cc wQr~cc...
Background
In the mid-1980's the Colorado General Assembly enacted a series of income, sales, and
severance tax credits as incentive to spur economic development investment in Colorado.
The enterprise zone sales and income tax credits are an important pan of this incentive
"package". l:n Northwest Colorado we were suffering from the collapsed oiI shale industry
and a fairly steady 4.3% annual decline in Colorado coal production. Basically, we were
losing our share of the national coal market to the cheaper sub-bituminous Powder River
Basin coal from Wyoming. Colorado coal production declined 25% in the 6 years from 1981
(19.3 million tons) to 1987 (14.4 million tons).
The tax credit incentives have encouraged Colorado coal companies to make multi-million
dollar investments to make Colorado coal more competitive. Coal companies have installed
or purchased very expensive long-wall continuous mining systems, super-large coal hauling
trucks, and enornnous capacity drag Iine systems. Some of these im~estments have led to
world record coal production at two Colorado underground mines (Cyprus-Amax 20 Mile
Mine and the Arco West EIk Mine). .
1 RPCP f/TTIP IV ~T\IPC„7Twui.~i n~~~ I /11 /~r0 /1/1 ~rl 9 n/~pi~il~w •.. ...~ .\ .. w.. ~ i ei.: '-'
~• ~ •----~• ~ t/ . ~..vLV •..rV L~• Y r/VJLLavLI \V \un~, uu~41~-45\r \JL \1!\. 1J JV \.L~.a1L1
Air Act Amendments which has increased demand for hiLh-quality bituminous coal. Our
state tax policies helped our coal companies capture sales to midwestern and southern
utilities who needed cleaner burning coal. Colorado coal is among the cleanest burning coal
in the world, especially with some of the latest clean burning coal technologies now available.
Without the timely Colorado investments, these utilities would have undoubtedly turned to
other coals or other technologies.
In fact, without the tax incentives encouraging these investments even our Colorado coal
companies might have invested elsewhere. Since most of our companies also have coat
facilities in other states, it is important that we maintain a ta.~ climate that rewards Colorado
investment.
What has happened is that Colorado coal production has now increased to a record 26.0
million tons in 1994. This is an 180% increase since 1987, and exactly half (13.0 million
tons) was exported to out-af-state utilities. This helps bri~~•, -;::: and royalty revenues into
Colorado which are actually paid by the out-of-state utilit}' .:LS-c~mers.
How has this increased coal production affected our region? First, it has bolstered our
entire economy. It has also been done in a sound environmental manner with close
environmental review by the Colorado Division of Mining and Geology, and the Colorado
Coal Land Reclamation Board. Both of us have personally inspected the reclaimed. cflal
lands which we consider a source of pride for our region. These award winning lands
provide for open space and they are a masnet for wildlife. We have personally observed
hundreds of elk, deer and antelope grazing on the reclaimed coal lands which are more
productive than before mining.
lorado Caat Produ~tior~ Hn ~4naiysis by AGNC May, 1996
25
2Q
c
0
`o
o ,I
~ i
I
t0 r
I
I
I ,
B t 82 33 Ba 25 96 ~; --- , c -- ~. = 3 ,3 t ~2 33 3~: 95 96
wears
~. :actual Production Priur to Tax Incenti~•es f I'I?{ I -.~ i ) _
Q. Production Increase :lfter Tax Inrenti-•es ~ !')}i}i-')(~)
C. Projected Productirn ~.•ithout Tas [nccnti~~~, ; Iyti}i-1')')h-
Prc;:~rrJ !~~ Jmt F~.tnti .:ncf Ru., '.1~rr::t
30
I
s !
5y°~
P
September 11,
R~
~.._ ~~
~S~€~ ~ ~ ...,.
.~ ~; : a
v~~
~ / S
- ~ /
George Gates ~ Z/
Chairman of Board of County Commissloners / ~~
Ea a Coun ... __, .--.. ~- _, ~~%%C D
~ ~' `_-~,
_ F /`
P.O. Box 850 . ;;. ~ ~ /
Ea a CO 81631 ~ ~ `~ ' 1 ~
<f ~ Y: ~ ~ ~ ~ I~
Dear Chairman Gates: :. _' . , A~, .9 ~~,i :;~~~~'',~h ;
Enclosed for your approval is a copy of the Economic Development Plan for~he
Northwest Colorado Enterprise Zone.
This plan has been prepared by the Associated Govenunents of Northwest ' ~ ~
Colorado and submitted for review by the State Economic Development Commission. ~
The Economic Develo ment Plan includes economic development goals for the
P
region and an overview of both adverse and positive economic trends. The plan would
continue the Enterprise Zone unchanged in Moffat County, Rio Blanco County, and the ~~
Gypsum/Dotsero area of Eagle County. y~
. o~
The plan would delete the cities of Glenwood Spnngs and Carbondale in Garfield O P
County and the ski resort area of Steamboat Spnngs 1n Routt County. These areas no
longer meet the state income, population growth or unemployment criteria for Enterprise ~/ ~' ~,
Zone ualifications. v
q
The plan would add Jackson County plus qualified portions of Grand and Clear
Creek Counties. The plan identifies the econolruc commonality for the 8 county area as an
area that must deal with the boom/bust cycles of resource development (coal, mining, oil,
natural gas and/or timber). The area also has an extensive agricultural and ranching
commonality plus a growing tourism and service related industry with little or no
manufacturing base.
BOX 351 RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 TELEPHONE 303.625-1723
tea
~J
~ ~~
i~
~G,
~t
A draft resolution is attached for your consideration. The State Economic
Development Commission will require an adopted resolution of support from each of the
affected counties.
Please let me know if I can answer any questions concerning the plan or the
Enterprise Zone.
Sincerely,
~ / ~~~~v~
Jjx~ Evans
E.Z. Administrator,
Northwest Colorado
Enterprise Zone
JE:bd
Attachment
ENC.
Whereas the State of Colorado has enacted the "Urban and Rural Enterprise Zone Act"
(CRS 39-30-101 through 108, as amended) to allow qualified areas of the state to form
urban or rural enterprise zones;
Whereas_these enterprise zones are formed for the continued encouragement,
development, and expansion of opportunities for employment in areas that meet certain
unemployment, popluation andlor income criteria;
Whereas the County of (or areas of
County identified in the Economic Development Plan) appear to meet these criteria; and
Whereas the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado has prepared an Economic
Development Plan for the Northwest Colorado Enterprise Zone, dated August 31, 1996,
that addresses the need for an enterprise zone designation in Northwest Colorado.
Now therefore be it resolved that the Board of County Commissioners for the County of
hereby approves the Economic Development Plan for the
Northwest Colorado Enterprise Zone.
Date Adopted
Signed
xc: Colorado Economic Development Commisison
Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado