Loading...
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