Board of Trustees Town of Limon, Colorado July 23, 2014

APPLICATION

FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A

FOREIGN-TRADE ZONE

FOR

TOWN OF LIMON, COLORADO

Submitted By:

Board of Trustees

Town of Limon, Colorado

July 23, 2014

Grantee Structure and Legal Authority

2. Legal Authority for Application

Please see Collective Attachment I, which is comprised of

A--copy of the State’s enabling legislation;

B—charter or organization papers showing the powers granted to Boards of Trustees and sections that are pertinent to FTZs; and

C—certified copy of the Board of Trustees Resolution

3. Discuss the nature of the grantee organization (public or private; non-profit or for-profit).

The proposed Grantee is a municipal corporation that has the legal status of a “town” under the laws of Title 31 of the Revised Statutes of the State of Colorado. This governmental entity is a body politic. The Grantee is governed by a mayor and a six member Board of Trustees (the mayor and each Trustee are elected for four year terms) with elections being held every two years by the qualified voters of the Town of Limon.

4. Summarize what you foresee as the operating structure of the zone and discuss the financing plan (as applicable).

A summary of the operating structure of the zone and financing plan is: Zone status is being sought under an Alternative Site Framework (ASF) format for some 2,000 acres to be activated in the aggregate. As indicated above, this initial application has identified two sites totaling approximately +- 421.46 acres. The proposed Grantee believes that the flexibility offered by ASF is consistent with the flexibility which it intends to pursue in its development efforts. The first two sites have been identified.

The proposed Grantee intends to offer FTZ status to qualified companies interested in benefiting from the program. Each prospective user that meets the qualifications of the zone schedule, upon the establishment of the zone and the development and promulgation of the schedule, will operate independently. The proposed Grantee is committed to this zone project on the basis of each individually activated site being operated by its owner/operator. Each individual user will bear its own financial obligations required to effectively operate its FTZ project.

Economic Justification

5. State the community’s1 overall economic and trade-related goals and strategies in relation to those of the region and state, including a reference to the plan or plans on which the goals are based and how they relate to the proposed zone. If you have letters of support from local organizations, please include those letters as an attachment (Attachment II).

Limon is known as the “Hub City.”

Limon, Colorado is located in the eastern section of Colorado, approximately 70 miles due east of Denver. Limon is located in Lincoln County which, along with the Counties of Cheyenne, Elbert and Kit Carson, is included within the four-county area referred to as the East Central Colorado Region (the Region). For many decades, agriculture has been the main economic activity in Limon, the surrounding East Central Colorado region and eastern Colorado in general. While agriculture continues to be a major economic driver in Limon and Lincoln County, the transportation network is once again a growing economic force in the community.

The Town of Limon is currently highly reliant upon the transportation system for its primary source of revenue and jobs. The Town of Limon is home to two (2) major truck stops and twenty (20) hotels and restaurants. Over 1.2 million trucks pass through Limon annually. This translates to average per capita retail sales of $70,000.

1 Note that the economic data that are presented in this and other sections are derived from varying levels—the Town of Limon, Lincoln County, the East Central Region or other designations of the eastern half of Colorado (Eastern High Plains), and the state as a whole. Also note that no data is compiled or available for the geographic area that corresponds exactly to the proposed Service Area. Location Quotients associated with this transportation system include Accommodations and Food Services (2.5), Gas Stations (24.3) and Retail Trade (2.0) also show the economic draw created by the transportation system.

Recently the Limon Retail Leakage Study, completed in January 2013 by Colorado State University, Regional Economics Institute made this statement regarding the implications of the current economy:

Clearly, Limon’s tax base is largely based on gas station related sales, with the community able to fund much of their government activities through taxes imposed on non-residents. Although this is a popular and effective strategy, it is important to recognize that this ability may be influenced by recent national policy developments. In particular, increased vehicle fuel efficiency standards will likely eventually significantly reduce the overall demand for gasoline. This is especially true if people do not respond to better fuel efficiency by driving more. Thus, Limon’s gas stations may very well see fewer motorists stopping, meaning not only lower fuel sales, but also reduced taxable sales of food, drink and convenience goods.

This statement played into the decision of the Town and Lincoln County to work together to diversify the economy by attracting other industry including manufacturing and distribution which will be discussed in Section 5 of this application.

During the period 1970-2011, the Region has experienced a population growth of 78.8%. The region is projected to continue moderate growth through 2040 by the Colorado State Demographer, as shown below. x Area resources including port facilities and transportation networks

The designation of “Hub City” describes the Town of Limon well. Throughout its history, the economy of Lincoln County has relied upon its transportation system to create and move its economy.

Colorado’s Front Range lies along the east slope of the Rocky Mountains and includes the communities from Fort Collins on the north to Pueblo on the south. Colorado’s major population centers are located along the Front Range. Front Range cities such as Denver, Colorado Springs, Aurora, Lakewood, Thornton and Arvada are all within an hour and twenty minute drive from Limon and Lincoln County.

The Town of Limon is approximately 60 minutes east of Denver on Interstate 70. Highways traversing Limon are Interstate 70 and U.S. Highways 40/287 and 24. Colorado State Highway 71 bisects Limon north to south connecting to Nebraska and New Mexico. Colorado Highway 86, seven minutes west of Limon connects Interstate 70 to Elizabeth, Franktown, Castle Rock and Interstate 25. Twenty minutes to the south of Limon on Highway 71 is the junction with Colorado State Highway 94, a route into Colorado Springs. U.S. Highway 24 is the major route to Colorado Springs and ultimately connects with the north and south Interstate 25. There are two railroads servicing Limon: Union Pacific and the KYLE Railroad which is part of the Genesee & Wyoming Railroad System.

Limon is positioned in the center of the Ports-to-Plains Corridor. This is a federally designated High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System and the State of Colorado’s primary freight corridor. See the map which shows the Ports-to-Plains connections among the seaports and international border crossings served by the Corridor, as well as the locations of FTZs including the proposed site at Limon, Attachment VI. The corridor runs from the Port of Mazatlan in Mexico through Laredo, Eagle Pass or Del Rio, Texas to Canada through Alberta and Saskatchewan. The Colorado highways in the corridor, U.S. Highways 40/287 and I-70, and Colorado State Highway 71, are a direct route from Mexico to Canada creating an international trade corridor through North America’s Energy and Agricultural Heartland.

The Limon Municipal Airport is rated a B-1 airport. The runway is 4,700 feet with 24 hour lighting and part-time FBO availability. Denver International Airport is 77 minutes west of Limon and Colorado Springs Airport is 80 minutes to the southwest.

x Strengths and weaknesses of the local economy as well as economic imbalances and unemployment rates

As indicated above, the Town of Limon is heavily economically dependent upon gas station retail sales. Lincoln County, as a whole, is seeing new economic growth in the area of natural resources. In the past five (5) years, new development of both wind resources and oil and gas development is bringing a new sector to the community. Currently ranking second in the state with installed production capacity of 652 mw, the wind capacity in Lincoln County is second to none. Three projects have been developed, permitted, constructed and producing in the past three years.

Renewable Energy Systems developed the Cedar Point Wind Farm with 139 - 1.8 mw Vestas turbines, two onsite project substations, one operations and maintenance building and more than 40 miles of overhead transmission line. The Cedar Point Project is owned by the Canadian company Enbridge under a power agreement with Xcel Energy. The Cedar Point Wind Farm generates 252 megawatts of electricity.

NextEra Energy Resources developed the Limon I and Limon II Wind Energy Center which came on line in late 2012. The 400 mw facility is comprised of twin 200-MW projects and 125 GE 1.6 MW wind turbines. Located on more than 55,000 acres, a 45- mile long, 345 kV transmission line connects the wind farms to the substation. Both these projects also operate under a power agreement with Xcel Energy.

Limon III Wind Energy Center is currently being constructed with production scheduled to begin in 2014. This will add an additional 200 MW bringing Lincoln County to 852 MW of installed capacity.

Since 2008, there has been more oil development than at anytime in Lincoln County’s history. Oil and gas property tax revenues have grown in the past 5 years from minimal revenue to 35% of all county property tax revenue. That development is continuing to grow. Through mid-October 2013, Lincoln County has 71 new permits approved this year through the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Only three counties in Colorado had more oil and gas permits granted. These permits are primarily conventional, vertical wells.

The Colorado State Demography Office prepares an Economic Base Analysis for each county in Colorado which evaluates the economy for a.) "direct basic" (DB), i.e., produce exports or derive their sales or income from other outside sources including tourists or the Federal government, b.) "indirect basic" (IB), i.e., provide supplies or business services to basic industries, and c.) non-basic, i.e,, worker-related local resident services. Lincoln County shows total employment of all industries at 3,013, with direct basic accounting for 2,020 of that employment. Employment of 994 is identified as indirect basic and 201 non-basic. This results in a ratio of Total/Direct Basic of 1.49.

A significant concern about these results is that 19.22% of the direct employment is based on Agriculture which, in terms of employment, is very flat in growth and is affected by weather trends. Four of the past four years the county has been significantly impacted by drought.

While it is encouraging to see the new sectors of wind, oil and gas, overall the economy remains heavily dependent upon agriculture and the transportation service sectors. Both of these latter sectors are heavily affected by weather and the overall economy, respectively.

The local economy, as described above was summarized in Opportunities Assessment, East Central Colorado Region, RUPRI Center for Rural Entrepreneurship in the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy of East Central Colorado (Economic Development Administration). In that assessment two primary concerns are being addressed by the establishment of a Foreign Trade Zone:

x Personal income growth is weak and a primary area of concern. Real earnings are flat. The share of income related to non-labor sources (such as Social Security) is 42% of total income. This suggests an aging population with relatively weak new wealth creation.

x The economy is relatively specialized and dependent upon production agriculture, the I-70 transportation corridor and government (both local and prison). There is moderate economic instability due to net income swings in production agriculture.

Key recommendations made in the assessment include:

x Making income improvements a primary focus for the County’s development

x Increasing core or basic economic activity x Increasing value from existing production agriculture and the I-70 transportation corridor offer some opportunities for both increasing incomes and economic activity.

x Opportunity for warehousing and wholesale development due to the County’s location on I-70 and the proximity to Denver Metro region and Colorado Springs region.

Lincoln County’s current unemployment rate is 4.9%. Historical unemployment since 1990 is shown below.

This rate and the chart do not, however, provide a complete picture of the unemployment situation in Lincoln County. Within Lincoln County, 5.7% of the labor force has “multiple job holding,” i.e., people are working at two or more jobs. The multiple job holding rate is projected to grow to 6.0% by 2015. Looking at the larger East Central Region, the 2013 unemployment rate is 6.1% with a multiple job holding rate of 6.5%.

Combined with the multiple job holding rate is educational attainment. The American Community Survey, U.S. Census indicates that for the population over age 25 in Lincoln County that over 82% are high school graduates and 15.6% have a bachelor’s degree or better. The educational attainment in the overall region is similar.

Lincoln County, the East Central Region and eastern Colorado experience a significant underemployment on an individual and a collective basis.

x Current and projected levels of foreign trade

Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) from the U.S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Freight Management and Operations, indicates foreign trade exports from Colorado will grow 327% in value and 335% by weight by 2040. Import values are projected to grow 199% in value and 111% in weight in the same period.

ExportFlowsͲValueͲAllCommodities

TotalM$in TotalM$in %Change TotalM$in %Change ForeignDestination 2002 2011 2002Ͳ2011 2040 2011Ͳ2040 Canada $1,546 $2,258 46% $9,386 316% Mexico $447 $1,230 175% $4,974 304% RestofAmericas $75 $118 56% $528 348% Europe $510 $4,686 819% $21,325 355% Africa $22 $22 Ͳ1% $150 576% SW&CentralAsia $51 $110 117% $507 362% EasternAsia $410 $1,434 249% $5,271 267% SEAsia&Oceania $99 $214 116% $906 323% Total $3,161 $10,072 219% $43,046 327%

ExportFlowsͲWeightͲAllCommodities

TotalKTonsTotalKTons %ChangeTotalKTons %Change ForeignDestination in2002 in2011 2002Ͳ2011 in2040 2011Ͳ2040 Canada 351 1,032 194% 4,674 353% Mexico 244 331 36% 1,346 307% RestofAmericas 28 27 Ͳ1% 191 599% Europe 73 249 243% 2,008 707% Africa 11 75 576% 797 958% SW&CentralAsia 23 52 125% 324 528% EasternAsia 466 1,227 163% 3,872 216% SEAsia&Oceania 73 136 87% 396 191% Total 1,267 3,129 147% 13,609 335% Exports to Europe are projected to grow by 355% to over $21 billion by 2040. Eastern Asia will also remain a significant market of over $5.2 billion by 2040. Canada and Mexico will continue to be important markets. Colorado’s exports are projected to reach over $43 billion with every region experiencing gains for 267-567 percent by 2040.

ImportFlowsͲValueͲAllCommodities Foreign TotalM$in TotalM$in %Change TotalM$in %Change Destination 2002 2011 2002Ͳ2011 2040 2011Ͳ2040 Canada $1,552 $6,572 323% $16,249 147% Mexico $436 $1,086 149% $4,096 277% RestofAmericas $128 $197 54% $577 192% Europe $1,004 $1,691 68% $6,169 265% Africa $14 $56 301% $164 195% SW&CentralAsia $84 $277 228% $903 226% EasternAsia $1,649 $2,404 46% $8,593 257% SEAsia&Oceania $442 $941 113% $2,801 198% Total $5,309 $13,223 149% $39,552 199%

ImportFlowsͲWeightͲAllCommodities

Foreign TotalKTonsTotalKTons %ChangeTotalKTons %Change Destination in2002 in2011 2002Ͳ2011 in2040 2011Ͳ2040 Canada 2,407 6,471 169% 11,858 83% Mexico 100 158 57% 587 271% RestofAmericas 166 321 93% 815 154% Europe 386 293 Ͳ24% 869 196% Africa 25 200 704% 441 121% SW&CentralAsia 75 326 337% 826 153% EasternAsia 457 643 41% 2,211 244% SEAsia&Oceania 163 289 77% 770 167% Total 3,778 8,702 130% 18,377 111%

Outside of Canada and Mexico, leading importers to Colorado are Eastern Asia, Europe and SW and Central Asia. On a weight basis, imports from Europe (at 196 percent (196%) and Eastern Asia (at 244 percent (244%) are projected to grow the greatest.

Colorado is a destination state. With over $13 billion of current total imports projected to grow to over $39 billion by 2040, imports are an important part of Colorado’s economy. This leads to the question of how these imports contribute to the jobs and employment in the state and locally in the community and service area. The development of additional manufacturing, assembly and distribution with a Foreign Trade Zone should stimulate more opportunities as well as benefit the export market in Colorado.

Transportation and logistics costs for the exports are dependent upon efficient usage of transportation resources. Empty resources, i.e., trucks, containers, etc. created by imports result in lower freight costs for exports.

Specific opportunities in Colorado associated with Vestas, a Danish-based Wind Energy Manufacturer that has located in three Colorado communities across the Colorado Front Range and Aero Electric located in the Denver area were considered by the community and region. Vestas’ FTZ subzone operations were recently granted activated status by Denver five (5) years after their initial approval. Suppliers to Vestas and Aero Electric are potential users of this proposed zone.

x Dominant sectors in terms of percentage of employment/income

Looking regionally at the Key Industry Clusters identified by the state of Colorado, the East Central Region is led in terms of employment by Food and Agriculture (38.2 percent), Financial Services (10.5 percent) and Transportation and Logistics (9.3 percent). Energy and Natural Resources (6.4 percent) and Advanced Manufacturing (5.3 percent) certainly present sectors of opportunity for the Foreign Trade Zone. LevelJobChg AvgAnnual LevelJobChg AvgAnnual KIN 2012Emp 10Ͳ12 Growth10Ͳ12 02Ͳ12 Growth02Ͳ12 Food&Agriculture 4,251 164 2.0% 420 1.0% FinancialServices 1,166 86 3.8% 489 5.4% Transportation&Logistics 1,038 34 1.6% Ͳ132 Ͳ1.2% InfrastructureEngineering 875 52 3.0% 81 1.0% Energy&NaturalResources 760 102 7.2% 86 1.2% Health&Wellness 709 50 3.7% 145 2.3% Tourism&OutdoorRecreation 680 2 0.1% 76 1.2% AdvancedManufacturing 598 Ͳ17 Ͳ1.4% 117 2.2% CreativeIndustries 572 Ͳ7 Ͳ0.6% 101 1.9% Technology&Information 252 9 1.8% 23 0.9% Defense 110 Ͳ1 Ͳ0.5% 50.4% Electronics 40 4 5.2% 19 6.4% Bioscience 36 Ͳ8 Ͳ9.4% 92.9% Aerospace 33 58.7%Ͳ5 Ͳ1.4% GrandTotal 11,120 475 2.2% 1,433 1.4%

The highest annual growth rate from 2010 to 2012 was Energy and Natural Resources. The chart below shows the importance of developing industry beyond Food and Agriculture with an average wage of $24,003. The Foreign Trade Zone would provide the community and Region with significantly larger economic benefits with greater average wages in Energy and Natural Resources ($50,376), Advanced Manufacturing ($40,539), and Transportation and Logistics ($43,723).

Location Quotients certainly indicate opportunities in each of these sectors.

2012 KIN 2012Est Emp/Est 2012LQ 2001LQ Wage Food&Agriculture $24,033 106 40 1.8 1.8 FinancialServices $37,585 61 19 1.1 0.9 Transportation&Logistics $43,723 97 11 1.0 1.1 InfrastructureEngineering $37,819 86 10 1.0 1.1 Energy&NaturalResources $50,376 67 11 0.4 0.4 Health&Wellness $25,871 55 13 0.4 0.4 Tourism&OutdoorRecreation $18,587 37 19 0.7 0.3 AdvancedManufacturing $40,539 43 14 0.1 0.2 CreativeIndustries $21,090 41 14 0.3 0.2 Technology&Information $44,555 46 5 0.2 0.2 Defense $32,771 NA NA 0.5 0.5 Electronics $74,862 670.10.0 Bioscience $57,183 940.00.0 Aerospace $51,046 480.10.0 GrandTotal $31,621 657 17 0.5 0.4 6. Describe the economic profile of the community and discuss the following:

x Dominant sectors in terms of employment or income

x Area strengths and weaknesses

x Unemployment rates

x Area foreign trade statistics

This response is in addition to the data provided in response to questions 5 and 7. The community’s and Service Area’s economic development strategy is guided by three documents: (i) Lincoln County Economic Development Strategic Plan, (ii) East Central Colorado Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (for the region consisting of Lincoln, Elbert, Cheyenne and Kit Carson counties) and (iii) Colorado Blueprint Summaries for the Proposed Service Area. Asterisks (*) will denote areas where this proposed zone project will interact with these strategies.

Lincoln County Economic Development Strategic Plan identifies the following goals:

x Create and promote programs that retain, create, and promote jobs for both existing and new businesses in Lincoln County*

x Develop and expand local businesses and recruit new business to Lincoln County*

x Strive for economic diversity*

x Encourage the development of infrastructure for business and industrial recruitment*

x Increase tourism development efforts

x Ensure stable, long term funding for Lincoln County Economic Development East Central Colorado Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) identifies the following goals:

x Attract People*

x Plan for Energy Opportunities*

x Capitalize on Heritage and Recreational Resources

x Plan and Be Ready for Transportation Corridors Development*

x Offer Technical Assistance

x Strengthen/Expand Existing Businesses*

x Attract Recruit New Businesses*

Colorado Blueprint Summaries

The Blueprint has given Colorado a framework to build a comprehensive economic development plan that aligns existing efforts and identifies opportunities for growth and focused investments. Implementation of the Colorado Blueprint will depend on the three-dimensional alignment of State, Regions and Industry Clusters in a way that focuses people, ideas and resources on our greatest opportunities for success.

Regional Partnerships

Central Plains (Lincoln, Elbert, Cheyenne, Kit Carson)

x Develop strategies and programs to promote and support agricultural producers and businesses* x Create additional opportunities for heritage tourism and recreation

x Market the strong cooperative spirit among the communities that results in numerous partnerships… “doing together what we cannot do alone”*

x Support additional opportunities involving all energy production and the continued development of various transportation corridors*

x Support strategies and collaborations in order to maintain a competitive and innovative workforce*

Northeast Colorado Region (Morgan, Logan, Sedgwick, Phillips, Yuma, Washington) will focus on: x Marketing programs* x Telecommunications x Improving access to capital x Agriculture* x Tourism

Southeast Business Retention and Expansion Alliance (SEBREA) (Crowley, Kiowa, Prowers, Otero, Baca, Bent) is a support partnership to assist in strengthening the economy of southeast Colorado through the x Retention of jobs* x Expansion and attraction of businesses* x Providing resources to thrive in today’s changing business environment regionally, nationally, and globally* Industry Clusters (Key Industry Network)

Each of the fourteen (14) clusters will consist of groups of related businesses and organizations within an industry whose collective excellence, collaboration and knowledge-base provide a sustainable competitive advantage. Strong clusters will translate directly into tangible benefits for businesses, citizens and educational institutions by allowing related businesses to (i) have shared access to suppliers, services, resources, technology and workforce and (ii) work together to reduce barriers to growth and achieve new economies of scale, distribution and supply channels and, ultimately, increased profitability. Overall, a higher level of focus on Colorado’s key clusters will help identify opportunities for growth, and foster an environment for job creation.

x Advanced Manufacturing* x Aerospace* x Bioscience* x Creative Industries x Defense & Homeland Security x Electronics* x Energy & Natural Resources* x Financial Services x Food & Agriculture* x Health & Wellness x Infrastructure Engineering* x Technology & Information x Tourism & Outdoor Recreation x Transportation & Logistics*

This proposed Service Area addresses the goals, objectives, and plans of the immediate community (Town of Limon), the wider Service Area and the state of Colorado as a whole. Historically, the focus of economic development in all three areas has been on the export of goods, primarily agriculture, and transportation of goods. Natural resources development, through renewable energy and oil and gas, has expanded opportunities, as previously described. The proposed Service Area comes from a new recognition of the local, regional and state role in a global economy and the imports, along with direct foreign investment, can and should play in our economies. Indeed, we observe that the mere process of preparing and filing this application has already increased interest in the community and the proposed Service Area.

Many recent Request for Proposal’s (“RFP’s”) from prospective investors require that a community or site has obtained, or is willing to apply for, Foreign Trade Zone status as a condition of considering a location in the community. In other words, if a community does not have FTZ sites, some companies will not even entertain a reply to an RFP.

The site(s) for this FTZ designation do not present any adverse impact on the environment. Big Sandy has not been used as a feedlot, its only previous use, for the past fourteen years so it is virtually a Greenfield site; the Airport site is in fact a Greenfield site. We anticipate neither air emissions nor the creation of any hazardous waste materials. Each of the sites is environmentally friendly with little population in these areas, yet the sites have excellent access to major roads with utilities in close proximity.

The use of FTZ procedures will not significantly change the physical aspects of any existing or proposed operations on these identified sites for the simple fact that there are no existing or other proposed operations for the sites.

Industries that we have targeted for recruitment include warehousing and distribution and manufacturing and assembly. Today, most industries recognize the importance of global connections – often seeking customers and/or sourcing parts and raw materials from around the world. A Foreign Trade Zone, along with other incentive programs, will draw industry to the Limon region, enabling us to increase jobs and create a more diverse economy.

Demographic Information—See Attachment V for data that will show the nature of the immediate six-county Service Area as evidenced by housing, income, education, racial background of residents and other measurements. 7. State the role and objective of the proposed zone and discuss the anticipated economic impact, direct and indirect, of the zone, including references to public costs and benefits, employment and U.S. international trade.

The economic impact of the zone project will encompass a number of different segments of the economy of Limon and Lincoln County, including direct and indirect job creation, increased tax revenues and greater payrolls.

The economic impact to businesses making use of the zone will come in the form of various zone benefits, including:

x Duty deferral x Duty elimination for re-exported goods and scrap x Merchandise processing fee savings due to weekly entry x Duty reduction through inverted tariffs for those zone users who might seek and obtain manufacturing authority

The combination of these benefits provides a wide range of potential benefits to prospective importers interested in locating to Limon and Lincoln County. The potential beneficiaries of a new zone may be divided into two categories, the General Purpose Zone and Subzone Users.

The expected Zone Users would initially come from the following industry categories:

Warehousing/Distribution

Given its location, the grantee of the proposed FTZ anticipates users will be importing various types of products and storing them in inventory prior to their use in manufacturing or for sale.

Manufacturing

There are some companies who are actively considering Subzone/usage driven site status for their facilities should they locate in Limon and Lincoln County. From their perspective, such status is a potential benefit that will increase their competitive advantage in United States and overseas markets.

8. Describe the need for zone services in your community. If the CBP port of entry (which you will identify in response to Question 10 below) is already served by one or more foreign-trade zone(s), explain why the existing zone(s) will not adequately serve the “convenience of commerce” (needs of potential users). Cite evidence to support all assertions.

See letters of support in Attachment II.

As described more fully in the preceding discussions, the economy of the Town of Limon and Lincoln County has heavily depended on both agriculture and on transportation and retail sales to support their operations in the past.

The political leadership in the Town of Limon and in Lincoln County has been focused on the need for job creation and diversification.

As has been shown over the past several years with what has been termed “the global economic crisis,” the economy is indeed global. Just consider the impact of the euro zone financial crisis on the U.S. economy. Indications are that manufacturing is “re- shoring” (coming back to the US) in many industries because of the low dollar and uncertainty in many other countries. Also, it has been our experience that many international companies consider a location in the U.S. to be highly desired.

Other communities within the United States are able to offer FTZs and for us to remain competitive, create jobs, and restructure and improve our economy, we need to be able to offer the same opportunity here in site selection contests. One of the projects on which we are currently working is only considering sites that can provide FTZ services, so without this designation, we will be immediately eliminated from the site search.

Since we are still a small economy in a rural area with a relatively small population, providing every possible advantage we can to prospects gives us a chance to compete with larger, more developed areas. The support for establishing this FTZ and Service Area is significant. Congressional support is demonstrated by a joint letter from U.S. Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet and U.S. Representative Cory Gardner. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper provided a letter of support. The Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade has provided a written letter of support. County Commissioners in five (5) of the six (6) counties included in the Service Area took the time to provide letters or resolutions of support. Additionally seven (7) local economic development organizations as well as businesses, education interests and others provided letters of support. The largely rural area is excited about the potential that this FTZ would provide.

The CBP port of entry is Denver. The port of Denver is currently served by two existing foreign trade zone sites.2

Because there are existing zone sites serving the Port of Denver, we must address the fact that the customs laws recite that “[e]ach port of entry is entitled to at least one FTZ and that zones in addition to those to which a port of entry is entitled shall be authorized only if…existing or authorized zones will not adequately serve the convenience of commerce.”3

In regard to this issue of the “convenience of commerce” neither of these existing zones will serve the needs of the prospective users of the proposed zone.

The Foreign Trade Zones Board enunciated a four factor test in examining “convenience of commerce” questions.4 These factors, and the way in which they arise in this Application, are as follows:

2 There are two separate zones: (1) Denver--General Purpose Zone 123, grantee City and County of Denver and (2) Colorado Springs-- General Purpose Zone 112, grantee Colorado Springs Foreign Trade-Zone, Inc. a private corporation. 3 19 USC § 81b (b).

4 This was upon remand in the case of Miami Free Zone Corp. v. United States, 945 F. Supp. 273, 20 CIT 1297 (CIT 1996). Factor 1: Level of international trade in the port of entry area and demand for international trade, including FTZ services there

Trade data for the Denver Customs Service Area (CSA)5

The Freight Analysis Framework (FAF3) was used to summarize the historical and future international imports into the Denver Customs Service Area. Data for value in millions of U.S. dollars is provided from a base of 2007, the latest data in 2011 and projected data to 2025 and 2040.

DenverCustoms TotalM$ TotalM$ TotalM$ TotalM$ TotalM$ TotalM$ TotalM$ TotalM$ ServiceAreaImports in2007 in2011 in2015 in2020 in2025 in2030 in2035 in2040 Truck $557 $764 $969 $1,262 $1,600 $1,966 $2,317 $2,743 Rail $2 $3 $4 $5 $7 $9 $10 $13 Air(includetruckͲair) $5 $7 $9 $11 $14 $17 $20 $24 Multiplemodes&mail $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pipeline $84 $118 $135 $159 $199 $247 $302 $364 Otherandunknown $182 $173 $218 $295 $393 $507 $603 $720 TotalImports $831 $1,065 $1,335 $1,733 $2,213 $2,746 $3,252 $3,864 %Changeperperiod 28% 25% 30% 28% 24% 18% 19% %Change2011to2025 108% %Change2011to2040 263%

Currently the Denver CSA imported slightly under $1.1 billion in goods through all modes in 2011. A significant majority (72%) of those imports enter the Denver CSA by truck. Additionally, the summary indicates that the overall increase between 2011 and 2025 is projected to be more than double the existing level of imports at 108%. By 2040 the increase projected from 2011 is projected to be 263%. The proposed FTZ provides an alternative to the pattern of trucks entering the Denver CSA at an increasing rate and adding to the current congestion and air quality issues that Denver continues to address.

5 Freight Analysis Framework (FAF), Center for Transportation Analysis in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory under funding from the Federal Highway Administration. % Change LeadingImportsto TotalM$ TotalM$ TotalM$ 2011to DenverCSAbyTruck in2011 in2025 in2040 2040 1 Machinery $262 $603 $1,104 322% 2Precisioninstruments $89 $193 $319 259% 3Basicchemicals $87 $168 $282 224% 4 Electronics $85 $179 $291 243% 5Mixedfreight $57 $95 $138 142% 6Misc.mfg.prods. $48 $101 $183 282% 7 Textiles/leather $25 $47 $79 209% 8Liveanimals/fish $22 $36 $48 115% 9Chemicalproducts $17 $41 $76 338% 10 Motorizedvehicles $15 $25 $34 131%

Above is a listing of the top ten commodities being imported into the Denver CSA by truck. Each category is projected to more than double by 2040 with Machinery and Chemical Products exceeding three times the current value.

Until the September, 2013 activation of the Vestas Nacelles America sites (Subzone #123E), FTZ activities associated with the Denver FTZ #123 were principally limited to the jet fuel operations at Denver International Airport. The Colorado Springs FTZ has had no FTZ activity to date.

The following data are derived from Appendices to the 74th Annual Report of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board for calendar year 2012. This Annual Report was published in October, 2013.

Appendix C—Top 25 States—FTZ Activity, 2012

Warehouse/Distribution Activity:

Imports (Merchandise received)—Colorado ranks 21st

Exports—Colorado ranks 16th Appendix D—Movement of Merchandise By State, 2012

1. FTZ 123

Foreign status—100% oil/petroleum

Shipments—imports US $1-5 billion, exports $75-100 million

2. FTZ 112—no reported zone activity

The Eastern Colorado Mobility Study, undertaken by the Colorado Department of Transportation looked at the projected growth of inbound and outbound commodity flows by truck and rail between 1998 and 2025 with a breakdown between the counties comprising the Colorado Front Range and those in the Eastern Plains Region, the latter including many of the counties identified as being within the primary Service Area of this application. While this study did not differentiate between domestic and international trade, it speaks to the anticipated growths of cargo traffic within the State.

Rest of this page intentionally BLANK Beginning from a larger base, the Front Range was projected to grow by 115% overall. Inbound growth was projected to grow by 103 percent. Outbound projected to grow by 131 percent.

Cargo traffic movement in the Eastern Plains counties, identified as the primary Service Area in this application, were projected to increase by 89 percent by 2015. Consequentially, while the outbound movement was projected to increase 67 percent, the inbound movement was projected to keep pace with the Front Range rate increasing by 113 percent. The opportunity for a Foreign Trade Zone would be an important tool in realizing this projection and to diversify the commodities.

Factor 2: Need for FTZ Services within the Community

The major reason for a need for FTZ services within the Town of Limon is that several of the companies with whom the Town has spoken, and to whom it has exerted direct efforts to locate their operations within the Town and Lincoln County, have made an FTZ status a key issue in their site selection process.

Naturally, we will continue to search for potential users. We have every expectation that we will attract new companies with our FTZ potential. We must emphasize that, from the potential Grantee’s perspective, even if we were only able to attract companies that created some new well-paying, permanent jobs by means of the zone status, we would still consider the project a tremendous success. It will have signaled a shift away from the retail sector upon which we have been relying.

Neither of the other general purpose zones are local to the proposed zone sites or to the land that the Town plans to offer prospective users. Denver and Colorado Springs are both remote and the Town of Limon displays a need for FTZ services within and for its own community and within and for the Service Area. Further to this point, it is apparent that the grantee of FTZ 123, the city and county of Denver, is committed to and focused upon serving the interests of Denver and not those of the Town, Lincoln County or any of the other jurisdictions which make up the Service Area. That having been said, we are advised that FTZ 123 is generally supportive of this application, as noted in our Factor 4 response, below.

Beyond this point, it is clear that the Town of Limon and Lincoln County have their own deep-rooted challenges and have set their own goals in meeting those challenges by winning projects and in attracting new companies, creating a more diversified economic base and offering employment opportunities to its citizens. The grantees of each of the existing general purpose zones have the same and competing economic goals for the development of their own respective areas, if they are public organizations or, if they are private companies, have a profit motive to see that the land they own is utilized. The Town of Limon’s interest is not in serving the needs of other communities or their citizens, nor in making a profit on the zone operation. Instead, the goal of the officials of the Town of Limon and Lincoln County is in providing a service that meets the needs of their citizens and, by extension, the needs of the citizens of the wider Service Area that would be served by FTZ designation.

Those development efforts and the public interests of those citizens are not at all served by the existence of other general purpose zones in view of these separate interests of the Town of Limon and Lincoln County and the other communities in the eastern part of the state. If the “public interest” criterion which plays such a key, indeed a decisive role in the review of FTZ applications, is applied from the perspective of the Town of Limon and of Lincoln County and the other counties in the proposed Service Area and, on a larger basis, the State of Colorado, then it is clear that this Application merits your attention and fulfills that public interest criterion.

Factor 3: Competitive Effect of the proposed zone

This Application does not present “a rob Peter to pay Paul” application in the sense that, in order to demonstrate a need for zone status, the proposed Grantee is luring away or hoping to lure away zone users from any of the existing zone sites. This is not a “zero sum” game in that any positive zone activity in the Town and the wider Service Area will come at the expense of lowered zone activity elsewhere.

Indeed, at no time has the potential Grantee marketed or even approached a company that is a user at any of the other zones with a view toward suggesting that the user should relocate. The potential Grantee has no plans to actively market to any of those other companies either to relocate to its zone sites or to sponsor any Subzones within the jurisdictions covered by these other zones. Indeed, the point is that the driving forces that may convince a company to locate within the potential zone sites we seek, such as the characteristics of the available land, potential employee base, transportation network and other infrastructure factors, will usually be such that their confluence will be unique to our site. In short, the reason why a company will come to the potential zone sites will dictate that it will not go to one of the existing zone sites.

We submit that it is on the basis of these facts that the State’s Office of Economic Development and International Trade (OEDIT) and Colorado’s Governor have viewed this application as congruent with the State’s overall economic development efforts. The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, which has a state-centric focus, has also expressed its strong support for this application and sees no tension created by a successful effort on this present application.

As indicated earlier in this application, Colorado is a destination state for manufactured goods and other products. This situation creates a transportation imbalance with more trucks and containers carrying goods and products into Colorado than available goods and products moving out of Colorado. Empty trucks and containers increase consumer costs and add to the cost of doing business. The FTZ proposed in this application could be significant in adding to the manufacturing and assembly base within Colorado and would improve the utilization of the transportation system in Colorado.

Factor 4: Support from State and Local Officials

This Application has received overwhelming support from affected cities, regional economic development bodies and the OEDIT and the Department of Labor and Employment of the State of Colorado. The Congressional delegation comprised of the U.S. Congressman representing Lincoln County and the majority of eastern Colorado making up the Service Area, Cory Gardner, the two United States Senators representing the State of Colorado, and the Governor of Colorado have all joined in unanimous support of this Application. It is fair to say that few other zone applications have demonstrated this both wide and deep level of public official support.

Importantly, the State has conferred with responsible officials of both of the grantees of the other existent zones, Denver and Colorado Springs. We have been advised that those grantees have expressed that they have no opposition to this application and, moreover, can see the rationale for making the application for this separate zone in eastern Colorado.

In summary, we submit that, on the basis of all of the foregoing information in this subsection, the present Application has fully met the convenience of commerce requirement. There is no currently existing zone site that can support the needs of the Town of Limon and Lincoln County and the other counties comprising the Service Area and of the companies who are potential zone users who are considering locating to that geographic locale.

9. Provide specific expressions of interest from proposed zone users. Please include those letters as Attachment III.

At this time, there are no persons who have committed to act as zone users due to the fact that the proposed zone is in its early stages of development.

Proposed Zone Structure and Description

10. Indicate the CBP port of entry for the proposed zone.

The CBP port of entry is Denver.

11. Describe the counties or other distinguishable legal jurisdictions that make up the proposed service area. In the Service Area Correspondence attachment (Attachment IV), please include documentation of support from each county in your proposed Service Area. Provide letters from local jurisdictions in using the standard format for service area letters provided at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ftzpage/majorexp.html.

The applicant is requesting the establishment of a new zone with a Service Area in order to serve the public interest in the Town of Limon and in communities (i) in the following Counties in their entireties: Adams, Arapahoe and Morgan and (ii) in portions of the following Counties (as further delineated within Attachment V, Service Area Boundary Description and Map): Lincoln, Elbert and Washington. See letters in Attachment IV, including letter from Town of Limon. 12. In a “General Maps” attachment (Attachment V), please provide the following:

a. (optional) a map of the proposed service area with proposed boundaries outlined in red;

b. (required) if your proposed service area includes any partial jurisdictions, prove a map clearly showing in red the line dividing the portions of the jurisdictions inside and outside the Service Area; and

c. (required) one or more maps showing the proposed sites in a regional context. All documents must be legible and letter-sized (8 1/2" X 11").

See Attachment V, Service Area Boundary Description and Map. Proposed Magnet Sites and Site Selection Criteria

Questions 13 through 17 apply only if you are proposing one or more Magnet sites:

13. Provide the following information in the table provided below for each Magnet site: the site number; the county or other legal jurisdiction in which the site is located (which must correspond to the county or legal jurisdictions listed for question 11); a basic description of the site and its address; and the site’s acreage.

Site Site County / Name of Site and Address Acreage Site Type # Legal within site Activation (Magnet Jurisdiction boundaries Limit / Usage) Magnet 1 Town of Big Sandy 141.16+/- N/A Limon 1055 Immel St., Limon, CO 80828 Magnet 2 Town of East Airport 280.3 +/- N/A Limon 21650 State Highway 40/287, Limon, CO 80828

Total (sum site activation limits) N/A Reserve (2,000 less sum of activation limits) N/A

14. Describe in detail the grantee's process for selecting each site for which Magnet designation is proposed. Discuss the criteria applied in that process and how those criteria relate to the local economic development plans. Indicate the public entities involved in the site-selection process.

The Town of Limon has been actively engaged in the economic development process for approximately twenty-three (23) years. In 1990, the Town’s direction was initially changed following an F3 tornado that destroyed a significant portion of its historical downtown. A major economic revitalization followed including the active development of facilities in the downtown areas including a new town hall, library, senior center and medical center. These activity centers, along with development of new downtown streetscape, strengthened the downtown area. That area has become the business service area of the community.

In 1997, both the Town of Limon and Lincoln County became active members of the Ports-to-Plains Alliance. For the past eight years, the Town of Limon has provided a staff member to the Ports-to-Plains Alliance. The Ports-to-Plains Alliance provided a catalyst to see the value of global trade to the local area as well as the Service Area Region.

The next step in the progression was the creation of Lincoln County Economic Development Corporation, Inc (LCEDC) in 2000. This 501(c)(3) corporation is a public- private partnership committed to expanding and retaining the economy across Lincoln County. Public investors in this organization include Lincoln County and every municipality within the county including Limon, Hugo, Arriba and Genoa. Additional information can be found at www.lincolncountyed.org. Following a lengthy community outreach to reestablish its strategic plan in 2013, LCEDC’s budget for 2014 is the largest in its history.

As indicated in Section 5 above, the Town of Limon and Lincoln County are active participants at regional and statewide levels. The Assistant Town Manager in Limon serves on the Board of Directors of the Economic Development Council of Colorado.

More specifically, the process of selecting the magnet sites included a county-wide outreach through LCEDC. Interest in the proposed FTZ came from all areas of the county, but two publicly owned sites became clearly the top opportunities. Both these sites are owned by the Town of Limon. As described in Section 5 above, the Big Sandy site has been lying vacant for the past fourteen years and East Airport site is completely greenfield. As the two sites were evaluated the following strengths were identified for each site:

Big Sandy

x Location: Good connection to Highway 71 to accommodate the movement of freight. x Utilities: Good ability to extend utilities including water, sewer, electricity, natural gas and telecommunications infrastructure from existing locations. x Environment: Adequate land for development will still leave significant open space and riparian areas untouched. x Other: Public ownership allows negotiation on public incentives to be part of the discussion with potential users. Development adds the property to tax rolls. Can be subdivided to the specific needs of users.

East Airport

x Location: Adjacent to Interstate 70 and U.S. 40/287 (Ports-to-Plains) and direct access to the Limon Municipal Airport. x Utilities: Good ability to extend utilities including water, sewer, electricity, natural gas and telecommunications infrastructure from existing locations. x Environmental: Complete greenfield site with only current use as grassland for cattle grazing. x Other: Public ownership allows negotiation on public incentives to be part of the discussion with potential users. Development adds the property to tax rolls. Can be subdivided to the specific needs of users.

15. Explain in detail why each proposed Magnet site is needed to provide FTZ services to your community(ies). Address the degree to which each site may duplicate types of facilities at other proposed sites.

The two magnet sites, while located geographically common, each provide separate opportunities for interested parties. The East Airport site provides direct access to the general aviation available at Limon Municipal Airport. The Big Sandy site would be the select location for a company looking for a location with significant open space from an environmental viewpoint. The Big Sandy site includes riparian areas in the Big Sandy Creek along the north and east boundaries.

16. The default sunset period for each designated Magnet site in a zone is five years. A proposed grantee is allowed to request a waiver of the sunset limit for one Magnet site. If you would like to request a waiver of the sunset limit for one of your Magnet sites, indicate the site number and describe in detail why this site was chosen for the waiver request. Key considerations would be the publicly owned nature of a site and public processes leading to the site’s selection.

The Town of Limon would like to request a waiver of the sunset limit for Site #1, the Big Sandy Site. This site is one of two publicly owned sites in the proposed foreign trade zone. We anticipate that the full development of the Big Sandy Site may take a number of years due to funding. Therefore, this site may require a more extended timeframe to meet our strategic goals. The Limon Board of Trustees, the public body governing the use of the site, agrees that to meet our strategic goals may require a longer period of time. The fact that the Town of Limon owns and controls the use of the property places this property in a more advantageous position than privately owned property due to previous infrastructure planning and construction and a more narrowly targeted industry group.

17. If you believe that a sunset period of longer than five years is justified for one or more specific Magnet sites, provide separately for each such site a detailed description of the specific circumstances that you believe justify a sunset period of longer than five years for the site in question.

A sunset period of greater than five years is justified for the East Airport site for reasons similar to those noted in point 15 regarding the Big Sandy site. As a publicly owned property, we are being realistic in thinking that it will take some time to attract potential users. Proposed Subzone/Usage-Driven sites (if applicable)

Question 18 only applies if you are proposing one or more Subzone/Usage-Driven sites:

18. Using the table provided below, outline your zone describing the proposed Subzones or usage-driven sites, if applicable, with site type, site identification, which county or other legal jurisdiction (which must correspond to the county or legal jurisdictions listed for Question 10) they are located in, basic description of site and address, and the acreage.

Not applicable

Other Requirements

19. CBP Automated Systems Requirements: For the proposed new sites, do you commit to working with Customs and Border Protection, as appropriate, to meet current and future CBP automated-systems requirements (such as ACE) and to meet any CBP security requirements related to activation?

Yes, the proposed Grantee makes that commitment.

20. Please state that the applicant is aware that FTZ status would not exempt any site or party (e.g. operators or users) from any Federal, state or local environmental requirements.

The applicant is aware that FTZ status would not create any site or party exemptions from any Federal, state or local environmental requirements.

General Attachments

I. Legal Authority to Apply (see Question 2) II. Support from Local Organizations (see Question 7) III. Support from Local Jurisdictions (see Question 9) IV. General Maps (see Question 10) V. Demographic Information VI. Ports-to-Plains Map VII. Site-Specific Documents PART TWO: SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR MAGNET SITE 2 (Big Sandy)

This section should be filled out separately for each magnet site. Attach any documents needed for Questions M13 and M14 (and M15, if applicable) directly behind the copy of this section for each site.

M1. Indicate the site’s distinct identifying number: Magnet Site No. 1. This distinct identifying number must tie to your table for Question 13 in Part One of this application.

M2. List the site’s address, including the jurisdiction in which the site falls (town, city, county).

1055 Immel St., Limon, Lincoln County, CO 80828

M3. Indicate the site’s proposed acreage:

141.16 +/- acres

M4. Explain if the site is within the boundaries of the CBP port of entry (as listed in Question 9 in Part One of the application). If not, indicate how many miles the site is from the outer limits of the CBP port of entry. If the site is beyond 60 miles from the outer limits of the CBP port of entry, provide the driving time from the outer limits of the port of entry to the site.

The closest CBP port of entry is Denver. The site is not within the boundaries of the CBP port of entry. The site is 84.6 miles from the outer limits of the CBP port of entry: from port boundary. The driving time from the outer limits of the port of entry to the site is 74 minutes. M5. Indicate the type of site (port, industrial park, warehouse complex) and its current zoning. (Note: Sites with inappropriate zoning – such as agricultural, retail, or residential – should not be included in an FTZ application.)

The site is currently zoned as a Commercial (C-1) Zone District by the Town of Limon.

The Commercial Zone District (C-1) was developed and approved by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Limon specifically to meet the needs of a potential FTZ.

Allowed Uses-By-Right: x commercial storage (indoor) x Places for the conduct of mixed x processing plants commercial and industrial uses, x emergency response facilities including, but not limited to, the x public safety facilities following: x utility service facility x assembling and light x utility generation facilities manufacturing plants greater than or equal to 50 x electronic, electrical, megawatts of power communication equipment Allowed Conditional Uses: manufacturing/assembly x manufacturing (food) x warehouse and distribution x manufacturing (machinery) facilities x manufacturing (metal) x manufacturing, assembly, and x manufacturing (non-metallic distribution of secondary and mineral) basic goods x manufacturing (textile) x truck terminals and loading areas x manufacturing (wood product) x oil and gas drilling service x carpentry and woodworking operation and storage areas shops x commercial storage areas and x food and beverage processing warehouses used to store or plants distribute goods and x food lockers commodities x recreational vehicle storage lots x crop dusting and associated x commercial and general aviation chemical storage and airstrips airports and heliports x aircraft related recreational x concrete, asphalt and mortar activities batching plants x water tanks, water and sewer x temporary batch plants treatment facilities, utility x warehouse (flammable materials) substations, and regulator station x aircraft related commercial x communication facilities facilities exceeding the height limit x major facility of a public utility Allowed Special Review Uses: Allowed Accessory Uses: x manufacturing (oil and gas) x airplane hangars x outdoor commercial storage areas The Commercial Zone District designation, because of its allowed uses being compatible with the goals of recruiting new business development in manufacturing and distribution, will make the property marketing simpler and make the land development process more streamlined.

M6. Describe the proposed site’s:

x existing and planned buildings (including square footage) x existing and planned activities x whether the site is master planned x projected timetable for construction and activation x possibilities and plans for future expansion of the site.

This site is not part of a master plan. There are no existing or planned buildings. The site is ready for development, but with today’s economy, completion of the buildings to house industries to use FTZ will not take place until there is a company who has agreed to locate there and needs a facility. We are actively marketing this site to industrial prospects and have had several visits by companies, but no decisions at this time. Presently there are no applications for construction approvals or timeline for CBP activation.

M7. List the companies that currently occupy the site:

None.

M8. Briefly describe the transportation infrastructure serving the site, including its ties to the broader regional/national transportation system:

This site connects to Colorado Highway 71 within 1000 feet of the property and is only 0.4 mile to the intersection of Highway 71 and U.S. 24/40/287 and only 1.6 miles to Interstate 70 going west and 1.9 miles east. Interstate 70 connects to west to Denver and east to Kansas City. U.S. Highway 24 connects to Colorado Springs. Colorado Highway 71 north is part of the Ports-to-Plains Corridor, identified as a High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System called Heartland Expressway. U.S. 40/287 connects south into Texas markets. The entire Ports-to-Plains Corridor connects internationally to Mexico and Canada.

M9. Explain how the site will accommodate multiple companies’ use.

The site is open to any businesses that need significant acreage, or support activities by these businesses site under public utility principles (under uniform rates and conditions).

M10. Briefly describe the physical security measures that will be used for the proposed site in order to meet CBP requirements.

The site will be fenced with controlled access.

M11. Confirm that FTZ designation or the use of FTZ procedures is not a requirement or a precondition for future activity or construction at the site.

Confirmed; FTZ designation is not a pre-condition. M12. List the owner(s). (If the site is not owned by the applicant, then provide a “Site Ownership” attachment with a letter of concurrence from the property owner(s).)

The site is owned by the Town of Limon.

M13. A clear and detailed site map showing existing and planned structures. The site boundaries must be outlined clearly in red. Note that if streets or similar landmarks are not legible on the site map, you will also need to provide a detailed street map with the proposed site’s boundaries in red. Any map should be no larger than letter-sized (8 ½” x 11”) and clearly labeled, with legends provided for any markings.

See Attachment VIII.

M14. Signed letters of intent to use the proposed FTZ site in question on letterhead from firms considered prime prospects for use of the site.

Given that this application proposes the Town’s publicly owned land as one of two magnet sites for a new FTZ under the ASF in a county unserved by another FTZ, we believe it is justifiable to waive the ordinary need for letters of interest and intent.

M15. If your state (such as TX, KY, AZ) has one or more taxes for which collections will be affected by the proposed FTZ designation of the new site, please attach all of the following:

a) An explanation of the specific local taxes that will be affected; b) A stand-alone letter (in other words, a letter separate from the application letter) that: x Lists all of the affected parties; x Includes a statement below the list certifying that this is a complete list of all parties that would be affected by this particular request; and, x Is signed by an official of the grantee organization. c) Correspondence from all of the affected parties (such as a local school board) indicating their concurrence (or non-objection) regarding the proposed FTZ designation.

Not Applicable. PART TWO: SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR MAGNET SITE 2 (East Airport)

PART II: MAGNET SITE JUSTIFICATION: SITE 2 (East Airport)

This section should be filled out separately for each site.

M2. Indicate the site’s distinct identifying number: Magnet Site No. 2. This distinct identifying number must tie to your table for Question 13 in Part One of this application.

M2. List the site’s address, including the jurisdiction in which the site falls (town, city, county).

21650 State Highway 40/287, Limon, Lincoln County, CO 80828

M3. Indicate the site’s proposed acreage:

280.3 +/- acres

The closest CBP port of entry is Denver. The site is not within the boundaries of the CBP port of entry. The site is 85.0 miles from the outer limits of the CBP port of entry: from port boundary. The driving time from the outer limits of the port of entry to the site is 75 minutes. M5. Indicate the type of site (port, industrial park, warehouse complex) and its current zoning. (Note: Sites with inappropriate zoning – such as agricultural, retail, or residential – should not be included in an FTZ application.)

The site is currently zoned as a Commercial (C-1) Zone District by the Town of Limon.

The Commercial Zone District (C-1) was developed and approved by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Limon specifically to meet the needs of a potential FTZ.

M6. Describe the proposed site’s:

M7. List the companies that currently occupy the site:

None.

M8. Briefly describe the transportation infrastructure serving the site, including its ties to the broader regional/national transportation system:

This site is adjacent to Interstate 70 and U.S. 40/287 (Ports-to-Plains Corridor) and direct access to the Limon Municipal Airport. Interstate 70 connects to west to Denver and east to Kansas City. U.S. Highway 24, in 2.3 miles, connects to Colorado Springs. Colorado Highway 71 north is part of the Ports-to-Plains Corridor, identified as a High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System called Heartland Expressway. U.S. 40/287 connects south into Texas markets. The entire Ports-to-Plains Corridor connects internationally to Mexico and Canada.

M9. Explain how the site will accommodate multiple companies’ use.

The site is open to any businesses that need significant acreage, or support activities by these businesses site under public utility principles (under uniform rates and conditions).

M10. Briefly describe the physical security measures that will be used for the proposed site in order to meet CBP requirements.

The site will be fenced with controlled access.

M11. Confirm that FTZ designation or the use of FTZ procedures is not a requirement or a precondition for future activity or construction at the site.

The site is owned by the Town of Limon.

See Attachment VIII.

M14. Signed letters of intent to use the proposed FTZ site in question on letterhead from firms considered prime prospects for use of the site.

M15. If your state (such as TX, KY, AZ) has one or more taxes for which collections will be affected by the proposed FTZ designation of the new site, please attach all of the following:

Not Applicable. ATTACHMENT I – LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR APPLICATION

A--Certified Copy of the State’s Enabling Legislation B—Charter or Organization Papers Showing the Powers Granted to Boards of Trustees and Sections Pertinent to FTZs

C—Certified Copy of the Board of Trustees Resolution

ATTACHMENT II - SUPPORT FROM LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS

November25,2013 Mr.AndrewMcGilvary,ExecutiveSecretary ForeignTradeZonesBoard U.S.DepartmentofCommerce 1401ConstitutionAvenue,NW,Room2111 Washington,DC20230 Re:Limon/LincolnCountyApplicationtoEstablishaForeignTradeZoneGrantofAuthorityunderthe AlternativeSiteFramework DearMr.McGilvary: AdamsCountyEconomicDevelopmentsupportsLimon/LincolnCounty’sapplicationtoEstablisha ForeignTradeZoneGrantofAuthorityundertheAlternativeSiteFrameworkineasternColorado. Additionally,AdamsCountywouldliketobeincludedintheserviceareaoftheproposednewForeign TradeZone. TheApplicationtoEstablishaForeignTradeZoneGrantofAuthoritywouldsupportandenhanceour local,regionalandstateplansforeconomicdevelopment–helpingtoretainandattractprimaryjobs andcapitalinvestment–inanareathatisunderservedbyexistingforeigntradezones. ThisapplicationisbeingmadeaftercarefulandextensiveevaluationundertakenbytheTownofLimon onbehalfofLimon,LincolnCountyandtheothercountiescomprisingtheproposedServiceArea.The projectmeetsgoalsoftheregioninattractingandretainingU.S.basedeconomicactivity.TheStateof ColoradowouldwelcomenewopportunitiesineasternColoradotoencourageinternationalinvestment andpromoteimport/exportactivities. Wethankyouforyourthoughtfulreviewandconsiderationoftheapplicationandaskforyourapproval. TheentireeasternColoradoregionwillbenefitfromthecreationofneweconomicopportunitiesand primaryjobs. Sincerely,

BarryGore President/CEO

November 12, 2013

Mr. Andrew McGilvary Executive Secretary Foreign-Trade Zones Board U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Rm 2111 Washington, DC 20230

RE: Limon/Lincoln County Application to Establish a Foreign Trade Zone Grant of Authority under the Alternative Site Framework

Dear Mr. McGilvary:

As the owner of several businesses located in the Limon/Lincoln County area of Colorado, I would like to add my whole-hearted support for Limon/Lincoln County’s application to establish a Foreign Trade Zone Grant of Authority under the Alternative Site Framework in eastern Colorado. I encourage your favorable determination of this proposal.

Our enterprises include transportation; commercial, industrial and agricultural real estate; agricultural production; and environmental services for customers located throughout the Rocky Mountain West. The institution of the Foreign Trade Zone in this region will be a complementary factor to many existing businesses in our locale, perhaps including my own. I believe this will lead to the creation or expansion of many other businesses, too. The creation of the FTZ will allow the entire region of eastern Colorado to participate more directly in this world-wide economy in which we operate today.

There are many favorable qualities that currently exist in this area that will benefit the proposed FTZ. Limon & Lincoln County are at the heart of the eastern Colorado region. We are home to a large, new and growing wind energy business. We have also been the benefactor of new and substantial oil and natural gas energy developments in the area. Community wise, local citizens have recently approved the funding and building of three brand new K-12 school facilities in Limon, Hugo and nearby Simla. Of course, production agriculture serves as the traditional economic foundation of the region.

As for transportation, the possibilities are very favorable. Limon is known as the “Hub City of the Plains,” complete with an interstate highway and 6 other primary state highways. There are two railroad lines that serve this area, as well as a great “jet-capable” municipal airport. Further, the close proximity to Denver and the entire Front Range area of Colorado spells great economic opportunities for many businesses serving a wide range of industries. (And by way of reference, it is a four hour drive to Cheyenne, WY and approx 5 hours to Albuquerque, NM.)

Perhaps most importantly, The Town of Limon is served by uncommon leaders who are forward thinking, creative and hard working. This FTZ application, in and of itself, is proof positive of my assertion. As a local businessman, I can assure you that these folks are quite capable of completing any and all responsibilities associated with this proposal, both now and into the future.

Indeed, the creation of the proposed FTZ would be an ideal fit for this community and the citizens of the entire region. I can share that community support for this application is at an incredibly high level. It is my estimation that this community will serve as a great home for the FTZ and that a mutually symbiotic relationship between the two will undoubtedly be created.

Thank you for your consideration. I would be pleased to visit with you if such a need should arise. We look forward to welcoming you to our community as the process allows.

Warmest regards,

KIPP PARKER, OWNER / MANAGER

Parker Ag Services, LLC AWS Dredge, LLC West Park Transport, LLC Western Resources Group, LLC Parker Farms

O) 719-775-9870 F) 719-775-9871 C) 719-740-9870 [email protected] 5401 N. MLK Blvd. #395 ~ Lubbock, TX 79403 ~ p 806 775-2338 ~ f 806 775-3981 ~ www.portstoplains.com

October 29, 2013

Mr. Andrew McGilvary Executive Secretary Foreign-Trade Zones Board U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Rm 2111 Washington, DC 20230

Re: Limon/Lincoln County Application to Establish a Foreign Trade Zone Grant of Authority under the Alternative Site Framework

Dear Mr. McGilvary:

We would like to add the support of the Ports-to-Plains Alliance for Limon/Lincoln County’s application to establish a Foreign Trade Zone Grant of Authority under the Alternative Site Framework in eastern Colorado.

The Ports-to-Plains Alliance is a grassroots alliance of over 170 communities and businesses in a region extended from Texas to Montana and North Dakota including Colorado whose mission is to advocate for a robust transportation infrastructure to promote economic security and prosperity throughout North America's energy and agricultural heartland. Colorado’s international imports are projected to grow from its current over $13 billion by 199% to over $39 billion by 2040. Both Limon and Lincoln County are active members of the Ports-to-Plains Alliance and have demonstrated a strong understanding of the importance of trade to their local, regional and national economies.

The Application to Establish a Foreign Trade Zone Grant of Authority would support and enhance local, regional and state plans for economic development and job retention and creation in an area that is underserved by existing foreign trade zones.

This application is being made after careful and extensive evaluation undertaken by the Town of Limon on behalf of Limon, Lincoln County and the other counties comprising the proposed Service Area. The project meets goals of the region in attracting and retaining U.S. based economic activity. It is also confirmed that such development in eastern Colorado would be welcomed by the State of Colorado and easily integrated with the state’s existing programs for inviting inward international investment and for promoting exports from the state.

We look forward to your thoughtful consideration as you review and consider approval of this application. We thank you in advance for enabling this service area to access this important economic development tool. We will use it to result in the betterment of the entire region by creating new economic opportunities and jobs in eastern Colorado.

Sincerely yours,

Michael Reeves President

PORTSORORTORTR S-TOT -P-PLAINSLAINSN ALLIANCELLLLILILIAANNNCE 5401544010 N MLKMLK BLVDLVVDD. #395##339595 LUBBOCKUBBBOCKO , TXTX 79403779944003 808806-775-23386-77775-22333388 MICHAELMICMMICHAEL.REEVESREEEEVEVESV [email protected]

ATTACHMENT III -- SUPPORT FROM LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ATTACHMENT III -- SUPPORT FROM LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ATTACHMENT III -- SUPPORT FROM LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ATTACHMENT III -- SUPPORT FROM LOCAL JURISDICTIONS

Mr. Andrew McGilvary Executive Secretary Foreign-Trade Zones Board U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Rm 2111 Washington, DC 20230

Re: Limon/Lincoln County Application to Establish a Foreign Trade Zone Grant of Authority under the Alternative Site Framework

Dear Mr. McGilvary:

The State of Colorado, through the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, supports the Town of Limon/Lincoln County application to Establish a Foreign Trade Zone Grant of Authority under the Alternative Site Framework in eastern Colorado.

This application is being submitted after an evaluation by the Town of Limon, Lincoln County and the other counties comprising the proposed Service Area. These counties are included in the Ports-to-Plains Alliance region, a growing economic transportation corridor that connects North America through 10 U.S. states and into Canada and Mexico. The proposed Zone District lies at the very center of this corridor that consists of four High Priority Corridors on the National Highway System, a designation included in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) approved by the U.S. Congress. Additional connections to the east and west are created by numerous highways including Interstate 70, Interstate 76 and U.S. Highway 50.

The establishment of a Foreign Trade Zone in eastern Colorado serves a region that is seeing significant business opportunities, especially in the energy sector. The Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade (OEDIT) works closely with international firms looking to establish or expand business operations in the United States. For example, Enbridge, a Canada-based company, is already doing business in Lincoln County.

The state of Colorado looks forward to your thoughtful consideration as you review and approve this application. Thank you in advance for enabling this service area to access this important economic development tool.

Sincerely,

Kenneth W. Lund Executive Director ATTACHMENT III -- SUPPORT FROM LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ATTACHMENT III -- SUPPORT FROM LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ATTACHMENT III -- SUPPORT FROM LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ATTACHMENT III -- SUPPORT FROM LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ATTACHMENT III -- SUPPORT FROM LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ATTACHMENT III -- SUPPORT FROM LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ATTACHMENT III -- SUPPORT FROM LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ATTACHMENT III -- SUPPORT FROM LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ATTACHMENT III -- SUPPORT FROM LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ATTACHMENT IV – GENERAL MAPS

Proposed Service Area

Complete Boundary

The service area boundaries are the following boundary:

Starting at the southwest corner of Adams County proceeding north along the entire western border of Adams County, then proceeding east along northern border of Adams County to its intersection with Morgan County border; then proceeding north along the western border of Morgan County, then proceeding east along the northern border of Morgan County, then proceeding south along the eastern border of Morgan County to its intersection with the northern border of Washington County; then proceeding east along the northern border of Washington County to Colorado Highway 63, then proceeding south along Colorado Highway 63 to the northern border of the Town of Akron, then proceeding along the border of the Town of Akron to the southern intersection with Colorado Highway 63 including all the Town of Akron, then proceeding south along Colorado Highway 63 to its intersection with the southern border of Washington County, then proceeding west along the southern border of Washington County to Colorado Highway 63; then proceeding south along Colorado Highway 63 in Lincoln County to Interstate 70 including the entire border of the Town of Arriba, then proceeding south along Colorado Highway 63 to its intersection with Lincoln County Road 2W, then proceeding west along Lincoln County Road 2W to its intersection with U.S. Highway 40/287, then proceeding northwest along U.S. Highway 40/287 to the border of the Town of Hugo, including the entirety of the Town of Hugo, then proceeding south from the border of the Town of Hugo along Lincoln County Road 109 to its intersection with Lincoln County Road 2W, then proceeding west along Lincoln County Road 2W to its intersection with Colorado Highway 71, then proceeding south along Colorado Highway 71 to its intersection with Lincoln County Road 2X, then west along Lincoln County Road 2X to its intersection with the border of Lincoln County; then proceeding west from the border of Elbert County line along Elbert County Road 34 to its intersection with Elbert County Road 137, then proceeding north along Elbert County Road 137 to its intersection with Elbert County Road 38, then proceeding west along Elbert County Road 38 to the Elbert County line, then proceeding north along the western border of Elbert County to its intersection with the border of Arapahoe County; then proceeding west along the southern border of Arapahoe County to its southwest corner, then proceeding along the western border of Arapahoe County to the point of beginning. Morgan County

Adams County Washington County

ArapahoeCounty

Lincoln County Elbert County

Magnet Sites Regional Context Magnet Site #1 – Big Sandy Local Context Magnet Site #1 – Big Sandy Site Map -- Aerial Magnet Site #1 – Big Sandy Site Map – Base Magnet Site #2 – East Airport Local Context Magnet Site #2 – East Airport Site Map -- Aerial Magnet Site #2 – East Airport Site Map – Base Attachment V – Demographic Information

Service Area Population

Population by Age Profile of General Population Characteristics: 2010 2010 Demographic Profile Data

Median age 16 years and 18 years and 21 years and 62 years and 65 years and Total population (years) over over over over over Number Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Colorado 5,029,196 36.1 3,937,831 78.3 3,803,587 75.6 3,595,067 71.5 703,251 14.0 549,625 10.9

Adams 441,603 32.4 327,815 74.2 315,480 71.4 298,478 67.6 47,443 10.7 36,862 8.3 Arapahoe 572,003 35.7 441,687 77.2 424,679 74.2 405,171 70.8 74,567 13.0 57,580 10.1 Baca 3,788 47.4 3,078 81.3 2,974 78.5 2,869 75.7 1,083 28.6 911 24.0 Bent 6,499 39.8 5,527 85.0 5,403 83.1 5,255 80.9 1,098 16.9 888 13.7 Crowley 5,823 38.9 5,147 88.4 5,034 86.5 4,869 83.6 786 13.5 614 10.5 Elbert 23,086 43.8 18,026 78.1 17,232 74.6 16,505 71.5 3,132 13.6 2,193 9.5 Kiowa 1,398 47.4 1,129 80.8 1,084 77.5 1,044 74.7 345 24.7 300 21.5 Kit Carson 8,270 39.7 6,665 80.6 6,431 77.8 6,177 74.7 1,577 19.1 1,322 16.0 Lincoln 5,467 40.9 4,517 82.6 4,347 79.5 4,195 76.7 1,090 19.9 918 16.8 Logan 22,709 38.4 18,728 82.5 18,167 80.0 16,864 74.3 4,000 17.6 3,321 14.6 Morgan 28,159 36.0 21,191 75.3 20,284 72.0 19,222 68.3 4,757 16.9 3,965 14.1 Otero 18,831 40.9 14,750 78.3 14,171 75.3 13,326 70.8 4,115 21.9 3,458 18.4 Phillips 4,442 42.8 3,463 78.0 3,320 74.7 3,190 71.8 1,056 23.8 919 20.7 Prowers 12,551 36.7 9,502 75.7 9,147 72.9 8,578 68.3 2,265 18.0 1,835 14.6 Sedgwick 2,379 49.2 1,974 83.0 1,919 80.7 1,855 78.0 678 28.5 569 23.9 Washington 4,814 44.2 3,847 79.9 3,689 76.6 3,560 74.0 1,083 22.5 928 19.3 Yuma 10,043 38.5 7,708 76.7 7,396 73.6 7,088 70.6 1,959 19.5 1,623 16.2 Service Area 1,171,865 40.7 894,754 76.4 860,757 73.5 818,246 69.8 151,034 12.9 118,206 10.1 Race and Ethnicity

2010 Population by Race and Hispanic Origin Colorado Counties - Total Population

Non-Hispanic American Asian / Some Two or Black / Hispanic Total Indian & Pacific Other More County White African Origin (of Population Alaska Islander Race Races American any race) Native alone alone Total Colorado 5,029,196 3,520,793 188,778 31,244 141,225 7,622 100,847 1,038,687

Adams 441,603 234,970 12,207 2,478 15,907 677 7,486 167,878 Arapahoe 572,003 361,747 55,657 2,386 29,631 1,002 16,058 105,522 Baca 3,788 3,323 20 39 6 6 46 348 Bent 6,499 3,832 491 91 60 4 36 1,985 Crowley 5,823 3,369 555 91 59 4 59 1,686 Elbert 23,086 21,005 159 126 187 17 358 1,234 Kiowa 1,398 1,304 3 3 0 0 10 78 Kit Carson 8,270 6,320 217 48 40 3 68 1,574 Lincoln 5,467 4,345 280 38 41 3 77 683 Logan 22,709 17,754 881 177 130 15 201 3,551 Morgan 28,159 17,370 755 102 145 35 246 9,506 Otero 18,831 10,639 93 111 142 24 226 7,596 Phillips 4,442 3,526 14 13 30 4 25 830 Prowers 12,551 7,873 54 65 40 11 91 4,417 Sedgwick 2,379 2,036 7 8 17 1 21 289 Washington 4,814 4,306 30 7 12 2 50 407 Yuma 10,043 7,824 16 33 23 9 50 2,088 Service Area 1,171,865 711,543 71,439 5,816 46,470 1,817 25,108 309,672 Households by Type

Households By Type Profile of General Population Characteristics: 2010 2010 Demographic Profile Data

Total households Family households (families) Nonfamily households Male Female Husband-wife householder, householder, With own family with Male no wife Female no husband children own children householder present with householder, present with under 18 Husband-wife under 18 , no wife own children no husband own children Householder Total years family years present under 18 present under 18 Total living alone Average Average household family Number Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % size size Colorado 1,972,868 1,261,527 63.9 590,217 29.9 971,397 49.2 422,864 21.4 91,299 4.6 49,079 2.5 198,831 10.1 118,274 6.0 711,341 36.1 550,794 27.9 2.49 3.08

Adams 153,764 108,794 70.8 56,219 36.6 78,596 51.1 39,244 25.5 10,177 6.6 5,408 3.5 20,021 13.0 11,567 7.5 44,970 29.2 34,239 22.3 2.85 3.36 Arapahoe 224,011 146,128 65.2 72,296 32.3 108,501 48.4 50,379 22.5 11,215 5.0 5,941 2.7 26,412 11.8 15,976 7.1 77,883 34.8 62,651 28.0 2.53 3.13 Baca 1,685 1,042 61.8 394 23.4 861 51.1 292 17.3 57 3.4 32 1.9 124 7.4 70 4.2 643 38.2 590 35.0 2.20 2.84 Bent 1,832 1,185 64.7 473 25.8 856 46.7 287 15.7 95 5.2 51 2.8 234 12.8 135 7.4 647 35.3 586 32.0 2.34 2.94 Crowley 1,306 856 65.5 341 26.1 646 49.5 224 17.2 71 5.4 38 2.9 139 10.6 79 6.0 450 34.5 394 30.2 2.41 2.99 Elbert 8,380 6,719 80.2 2,748 32.8 5,949 71.0 2,323 27.7 287 3.4 154 1.8 483 5.8 271 3.2 1,661 19.8 1,297 15.5 2.75 3.05 Kiowa 619 406 65.6 138 22.3 355 57.4 113 18.3 15 2.4 9 1.5 36 5.8 16 2.6 213 34.4 200 32.3 2.24 2.82 Kit Carson 3,038 1,955 64.4 849 27.9 1,578 51.9 609 20.0 142 4.7 84 2.8 235 7.7 156 5.1 1,083 35.6 961 31.6 2.37 2.98 Lincoln 1,948 1,210 62.1 541 27.8 967 49.6 374 19.2 78 4.0 58 3.0 165 8.5 109 5.6 738 37.9 654 33.6 2.28 2.90 Logan 8,047 5,095 63.3 2,145 26.7 3,991 49.6 1,479 18.4 338 4.2 201 2.5 766 9.5 465 5.8 2,952 36.7 2,523 31.4 2.34 2.91 Morgan 10,294 7,202 70.0 3,429 33.3 5,520 53.6 2,407 23.4 591 5.7 334 3.2 1,091 10.6 688 6.7 3,092 30.0 2,630 25.5 2.68 3.23 Otero 7,729 5,035 65.1 2,055 26.6 3,555 46.0 1,179 15.3 410 5.3 226 2.9 1,070 13.8 650 8.4 2,694 34.9 2,363 30.6 2.38 2.96 Phillips 1,819 1,194 65.6 513 28.2 1,024 56.3 413 22.7 55 3.0 26 1.4 115 6.3 74 4.1 625 34.4 565 31.1 2.41 3.04 Prowers 4,935 3,351 67.9 1,515 30.7 2,444 49.5 947 19.2 286 5.8 163 3.3 621 12.6 405 8.2 1,584 32.1 1,395 28.3 2.48 3.04 Sedgwick 1,093 671 61.4 227 20.8 561 51.3 170 15.6 32 2.9 16 1.5 78 7.1 41 3.8 422 38.6 384 35.1 2.14 2.76 Washington 1,980 1,293 65.3 492 24.8 1,093 55.2 393 19.8 80 4.0 37 1.9 120 6.1 62 3.1 687 34.7 621 31.4 2.34 2.95 Yuma 3,952 2,693 68.1 1,214 30.7 2,257 57.1 951 24.1 165 4.2 106 2.7 271 6.9 157 4.0 1,259 31.9 1,120 28.3 2.49 3.06 Service Area 436,432 294,829 67.1 145,589 33.4 218,754 50.1 101,784 23.1 24,094 5.5 12,884 3.0 51,981 11.9 30,921 7.1 141,603 32.4 113,173 25.9 2.43 3.00 Housing Occupancy

Housing Occupancy Profile of General Population Characteristics: 2010 2010 Demographic Profile Data

Vacant housing units For Homeowner Rental Total seasonal, vacancy vacancy housing Occupied Vacant housing Rented, not Sold, not recreational, All other rate rate units housing units units For rent occupied For sale only occupied or occasional vacants (percent) (percent) County Number Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Colorado 2,212,898 1,972,868 89.2 240,030 10.8 57,644 2.6 3,058 0.1 32,673 1.5 5,418 0.2 101,965 4.6 39,272 1.8 2.5 7.8

Adams 163,136 153,764 94.3 9,372 5.7 4,083 2.5 188 0.1 2,309 1.4 302 0.2 353 0.2 2,137 1.3 2.2 7.2 Arapahoe 238,301 224,011 94.0 14,290 6.0 6,419 2.7 290 0.1 3,203 1.3 475 0.2 844 0.4 3,059 1.3 2.2 7.4 Baca 2,248 1,685 75.0 563 25.0 66 2.9 1 0.0 18 0.8 9 0.4 49 2.2 420 18.7 1.4 12.6 Bent 2,242 1,832 81.7 410 18.3 96 4.3 10 0.4 28 1.2 27 1.2 33 1.5 216 9.6 2.2 13.4 Crowley 1,559 1,306 83.8 253 16.2 30 1.9 0 0.0 33 2.1 20 1.3 24 1.5 146 9.4 3.4 7.4 Elbert 8,939 8,380 93.7 559 6.3 56 0.6 12 0.1 183 2.0 31 0.3 72 0.8 205 2.3 2.4 5.3 Kiowa 805 619 76.9 186 23.1 26 3.2 1 0.1 12 1.5 11 1.4 26 3.2 110 13.7 2.7 12.0 Kit Carson 3,527 3,038 86.1 489 13.9 108 3.1 4 0.1 39 1.1 24 0.7 45 1.3 269 7.6 1.8 10.9 Lincoln 2,420 1,948 80.5 472 19.5 97 4.0 2 0.1 48 2.0 13 0.5 50 2.1 262 10.8 3.5 12.9 Logan 8,981 8,047 89.6 934 10.4 300 3.3 8 0.1 134 1.5 22 0.2 92 1.0 378 4.2 2.4 10.4 Morgan 11,490 10,294 89.6 1,196 10.4 347 3.0 21 0.2 179 1.6 33 0.3 269 2.3 347 3.0 2.6 8.7 Otero 8,969 7,729 86.2 1,240 13.8 331 3.7 12 0.1 138 1.5 74 0.8 65 0.7 620 6.9 2.6 10.8 Phillips 2,087 1,819 87.2 268 12.8 50 2.4 3 0.1 32 1.5 8 0.4 40 1.9 135 6.5 2.4 8.8 Prowers 5,942 4,935 83.1 1,007 16.9 307 5.2 13 0.2 98 1.6 54 0.9 69 1.2 466 7.8 2.9 15.5 Sedgwick 1,415 1,093 77.2 322 22.8 82 5.8 2 0.1 20 1.4 7 0.5 47 3.3 164 11.6 2.5 20.3 Washington 2,434 1,980 81.3 454 18.7 99 4.1 3 0.1 36 1.5 34 1.4 45 1.8 237 9.7 2.4 15.2 Yuma 4,466 3,952 88.5 514 11.5 85 1.9 10 0.2 46 1.0 35 0.8 77 1.7 261 5.8 1.7 6.3 Service Area 468,961 436,432 93.1 32,529 6.9 12,582 3.2 580 0.1 6,556 1.5 1,179 0.7 2,200 1.6 9,432 7.7 2.4 10.9 Housing Tenure

Housing Tenure Profile of General Population Characteristics: 2010 2010 Demographic Profile Data

Occupied Owner-occupied housing units Renter-occupied housing housing Average Average units Total household Total household size of size of owner- renter- occupied occupied County Number Number %units Number % units Colorado 1,972,868 1,293,100 65.5 2.57 679,768 34.5 2.34

Adams 153,764 101,041 65.7 2.87 52,723 34.3 2.80 Arapahoe 224,011 143,520 64.1 2.60 80,491 35.9 2.42 Baca 1,685 1,227 72.8 2.22 458 27.2 2.14 Bent 1,832 1,224 66.8 2.31 608 33.2 2.41 Crowley 1,306 930 71.2 2.36 376 28.8 2.51 Elbert 8,380 7,382 88.1 2.74 998 11.9 2.81 Kiowa 619 429 69.3 2.24 190 30.7 2.23 Kit Carson 3,038 2,160 71.1 2.39 878 28.9 2.32 Lincoln 1,948 1,297 66.6 2.32 651 33.4 2.19 Logan 8,047 5,460 67.9 2.39 2,587 32.1 2.22 Morgan 10,294 6,691 65.0 2.72 3,603 35.0 2.61 Otero 7,729 5,019 64.9 2.42 2,710 35.1 2.31 Phillips 1,819 1,306 71.8 2.46 513 28.2 2.27 Prowers 4,935 3,279 66.4 2.54 1,656 33.6 2.36 Sedgwick 1,093 773 70.7 2.19 320 29.3 2.04 Washington 1,980 1,431 72.3 2.30 549 27.7 2.44 Yuma 3,952 2,688 68.0 2.47 1,264 32.0 2.53 Service Area 436,432 285,857 65.5 2.44 150,575 34.5 2.39 Median Household Income

Median Household Income Profile of General Population Characteristics: 2010 2010 Demographic Profile Data

Income Colorado $56,089

Adams $56,089 Arapahoe $59,937 Baca $37,111 Bent $35,667 Crowley $40,636 Elbert $79,367 Kiowa $41,542 Kit Carson $43,194 Lincoln $43,375 Logan $42,324 Morgan $42,792 Otero $31,246 Phillips $44,717 Prowers $34,513 Sedgwick $36,797 Washington $43,945 Yuma $44,991 Service Area $44,603 Attachment VI – Port-to-Plains Map ATTACHMENT VII - SITE-SPECI IC C MENTS

Magnet Site o. 1 ig Sandy

Approved evelopment lan Magnet Site o. 1 ig Sandy

Resolution o. 14 04 16 Approval of evelopment lan Magnet Site o. 1 ig Sandy rdinance o. 72 oning for ig Sandy Addition

Magnet Site o. 2 East Airport

Approved evelopment lan Magnet Site o. 2 East Airport

Resolution o. 14 04 17 Approval of evelopment lan Magnet Site o. 2 East Airport rdinance o. 73 oning for ig Sandy Addition