HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP120816CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
City Council Meeting Agenda
December 8, 2016
Next Res. 1480
Next Ord. 2030
I. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER – 7:00 P.M.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. PUBLIC APPEARANCES – Comments will be limited to 3 minutes per
individual or 5 minutes if representing a group or organization.
V. SPECIAL RECOGNITION
VI. CONSENT AGENDA
Page 2 - 8 A. Approval of November 10, 2016 City Council Minutes
VII. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA
VIII. PUBLIC HEARING, ORDINANCES, AND RESOLUTIONS
10 - 16 A. Resolution No. ________, A Resolution Canvassing the
Votes Cast at the General Election Held November 8,
2016 (Clayton)
18 - 94 B. Ordinance No. __________, Updating and Adopting the
Central Point Comprehensive Plan Population and
Demographics Element (2016 – 2036) (Humphrey)
96 - 97 C. Resolution No. ________, Authorizing Staff to Seek Debt
Financing that will Refinance the City’s Water Reservoir
Loan and Finance the East Pine Streetscape Project
(Webber)
100 - 101 D. Resolution No. _________, Allowing a Budget Increase
Pursuant to ORS 294.471(1)(a), Providing for the Receipt
and Expenditure of Unanticipated Revenues in the
2015/17 Budget (Weber)
Central Point
City Hall
541-664-3321
City Council
Mayor Hank Williams
Ward I Bruce Dingler
Ward II Michael Quilty
Ward III Brandon Thueson
Ward IV Allen Broderick
At Large Rick Samuelson Taneea Browning
Administration Chris Clayton, City Manager Deanna Casey, City Recorder
Community Development Tom Humphrey, Director
Finance Steven Weber, Director
Human Resources Elizabeth Simas, Director
Parks and Public Works Matt Samitore, Director Jennifer Boardman, Manager
Police Kris Allison Chief
IX. BUSINESS
--- --- A. Planning Commission Report (Humphrey)
102 B. Approval of Backflow Inspection Bid Award (Samitore)
X. MAYOR’S REPORT
XI. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
XII. COUNCIL REPORTS
XIII. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
XIV. EXECUTIVE SESSION - ORS 192.660(2)(i) Employee Evaluations
The City Council will adjourn to executive session under the provisions of ORS 192.660(2)(i)
Employee Evaluations. Under the provisions of the Oregon Public Meetings Law, the
proceedings of an executive session are not for publication or broadcast.
A. City Manager Annual Performance Review (Mayor Williams)
XV. ADJOURNMENT
Individuals needing special accommodations such as sign language, foreign language interpreters or equipment for the hearing impaired must request such services at least 72 hours prior to the City Council meeting. To make your request, please contact the City Recorder at 541-423-1026 (voice), or by e-mail at: Deanna.casey@centralpointoregon.gov . Si necesita traductor en español o servicios de discapacidades (ADA) para asistir a una junta publica de la ciudad por favor llame con 72 horas de anticipación al 541-664-3321 ext. 201
Consent Agenda
CAP120816 Page 1
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT City Council Meeting Minutes
November 10, 2016
I. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Mayor Williams called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL: Mayor: Hank Williams Council Members: Allen Broderick, Bruce Dingler, Brandon
Thueson, Taneea Browning, Rick Samuelson, and Mike Quilty
were present.
City Manager Chris Clayton; City Attorney Sydnee Dreyer; Police
Chief Kris Allison; Community Development Director Tom Humphrey; Parks and Public Works Director Matt Samitore;
Finance Director Steven Weber; and City Recorder Deanna Casey were also present.
IV. PUBLIC APPEARANCES - None V. SPECIAL PRESENTATION A. Police Volunteer Swearing-In
Police Chief Kris Allison introduced the newest members of the Volunteers in
Police Service. She explained the program and the amount of hours our Police Volunteers put in. She administered the Oath of Office to Brett Stewart, Katherine
Piland, Michael Parson, Denise Walker, Charles Piland and Deborah Goodwin.
She also explained that the program is run by Bobbie Pomeroy and Nikki Peterson.
B. Fire District No. 3 Quarterly Report Fire Chief Dan Peterson presented the Third Quarter Report for Fire District #3.
He highlighted the Pulse Point Program. The Department is working on the marketing of this project; they will be looking for volunteers to help get this program up and running. They have begun design work for a class room at the
RCC Table Rock Campus. They are applying for grants to help retrofit some of their stations to be more earthquake proof. V. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of October 27, 2016 City Council Minutes
Allen Broderick moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Brandon Thueson seconded. Roll call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes;
Taneea Browning, yes; Brandon Thueson, yes; Allen Broderick, yes; Rick Samuelson, yes; and Mike Quilty, yes. Motion approved.
VI. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA - None
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
CAP120816 Page 2
City of Central Point City Council Minutes November 10, 2016
Page 2
A. Resolution No. 1479, Transferring Budget Appropriations within the 2015-17 Budget Regarding Lease of Street Sweeper Finance Director Steven Weber explained that during the 2015-17 budget
process, funds were allocated for the purchase of a new street sweeper. It has been decided that the purchase will be done as a lease instead of a capital outlay
item. To keep the city in compliance with Oregon budget law, funds must be
transferred from capital outlay to materials and services for the lease. The proposed Resolution states the reason and purpose of the transfer of funds.
Allen Broderick moved to approve Resolution No. 1479, Transferring Budget Appropriations within the 2015-17 Budget Regarding Lease of
Street Sweeper. Taneea Browning seconded. Roll call: Hank Williams, yes;
Bruce Dingler, yes; Taneea Browning, yes; Brandon Thueson, yes; Allen Broderick, yes; Rick Samuelson, yes; and Mike Quilty, yes. Motion approved.
B. Public Hearing/First Reading, An Ordinance Updating and Adopting
the Central Point Comprehensive Plan Population and Demographics Element, 2016-2036 Community Development Director Tom Humphrey presented the Comprehensive
Plan Population and Demographic Element to the City Council. Population forecasts are a necessary planning tool, they serve as the basis for identifying
long-term land and infrastructure needs. He explained how these projections
were derived and how they compare with the projections from the Regional Plan. Population forecasts will be updated on a four year cycle.
The purpose of the Population Element is to identify the City’s basic population characteristics such as age, sex, household size, etc., and includes projections of
total population over a twenty-year period. We can use this element to forecast
future land need and the needs of the public by looking at single family housing vs. multiple family housing. This is a pre-requisite to updating the Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB). The next element to be updated is the housing element. There was discussion of how they came to the numbers they are projecting. He
explained that the projections cover all necessary groups taking into account natural increase, net migration, and aging population. It also takes into consideration race/ethnicity, and shows that the Hispanic population is growing in
Central Point.
Mayor Williams opened the public hearing.
Larry Martin, Taylor Road, Central Point. Mr. Martin stated that he is in favor of
the Ordinance and recommends moving to second reading. He doesn’t agree
with Portland State University increase of 1.1%. he thinks that 4% would be a closer forecast for us for the next 20 years. The impact will restrict the amount of
land we will be able to have in our UGB in the future. The city will need to be
strategic when including more land in the UGB, or we will be stuck with those numbers for years.
CAP120816 Page 3
City of Central Point City Council Minutes November 10, 2016
Page 3
No one else came forward and Mayor Williams closed the public hearing.
There was discussion regarding areas that are ready to be developed in the urban reserve area. Currently the City does not have any developable lands within the city boundaries that would be able to impact the population forecast.
There are some properties that may be ready in a few years when the UGB has been expanded. The Council will be looking at specifics for the housing element
after the first of the year.
Mike Quilty moved to second reading An Ordinance Updating and Adopting
the Central Point Comprehensive Plan Population and Demographics Element, 2016-2036. Bruce Dingler seconded. Roll call: Hank Williams, yes; Bruce Dingler, yes; Taneea Browning, yes; Brandon Thueson, yes; Allen
Broderick, yes; Rick Samuelson, yes; and Mike Quilty, yes. Motion approved. VIII. BUSINESS
A. Discussion of Potential Revisions to Central Point Management
Compensation Plan
City Manager Chris Clayton explained the Management Compensation plan and presented a salary survey for the managers. He provided a brief description of
current structure and descriptions of the salary survey including the cities that were used for comparison. As a result of the salary survey there are several
recommended revisions. The city’s management compensation plan was created
in March of 2010 and has had one minor revision by adding one position to the group in 2013.
The management bands have minimum and maximum salary ranges. Per the Management Compensation Plan, a manager may not receive more than a 6%
annual increase within the band without approval by the Mayor. Currently we
have two employees in Band II and three in Band IV that are at the top of their respective ranges. Our ranges are between 13 and 20+% below average for a
couple of positions. We also have a compression issue between the police union officers and Lieutenants. The reason for the compression is the Police unit is a strike prohibited unit so we are mandated to stay competitive with comparative
jurisdictions. Currently there are two police unit positions that are making more than the average wage of Lieutenants. We have a similar situation happening between the Lieutenant and Captain positions. None of the Police Managers are
at the top of their range. In light of this information he recommends:
1. Increase the top end of the salary scale for the Lieutenants, Captain and
Police Chief by 10%. It will take the people in these positions to reach the top of the range.
2. Increase the top end of Band IV by 5%, currently the directors are making
less than the comparable cities and this will allow for performance based increases particularly for those already at the top scale.
3. Consider increasing the minimum and max of each of the bands each year.
4. Provide Education incentives as we do with the unit groups such as a 5% incentive for managers.
CAP120816 Page 4
City of Central Point City Council Minutes November 10, 2016
Page 4
5. Optional consideration of increasing contributions to all mangers HRA accounts.
6. Automatically increase the bands with the CPI increases annually, this would increase the top of the bands and allow those who reach the top to still see a cost of living increase.
At this point he is looking for direction from the council so they can start
preparing for the budget. He will return to the Council with updates to the
Management Compensation plan for the 2017/2019 budget year.
Council direction is to break out the police positions, and increase the directors
by 5% and allow for annual CPI increases.
B. Consideration of Traffic Control Comments for Country Crossing Music Festival
Community Development Director Tom Humphrey stated that he and Mr. Samitore attended a local agency meeting on October 31st to discuss a traffic control plan that was submitted to Jackson County Roads by Country Crossing
Representatives. The representatives presented a preliminary map to try and
keep most of the traffic off of the main roads and down town Central Point. He explained that most of these concerts are outside city limits and they don’t
usually have to worry about the impacts to local citizens. The Country Crossing Representatives are being very thoughtful of how this event will impact the citizens in Central Point.
The proposed map shows the different options for camping and how attendees
would be directed to those locations without using the main streets of Central
Point. There will be reader boards on I-5 and along the routes to direct people to their assigned locations for camping. There will be public transportation from
various parking areas.
It was suggested that during the discussion about camping and traffic
representatives keep the residents in the areas effected updated. Several homes will be impacted by the traffic plan and the camping locations. He would like to see the expo and the city make every effort to keep those residents updated.
They will continue to keep the Council updated on the different planning stages for the Country Crossings Event in 2017. C. Planning Commission Report
Community Development Director Tom Humphrey presented the November 1, 2016 Planning Commission Report:
The Commission passed a Resolution approving a conditional use permit to place a Mobilite Telecommunications Antenna in the public right-of-way
near McDonalds restaurant. The proposed project site is located in the C-
4, Zoning district. The Commission received additional testimony from the applicant following the earlier consideration of a 75 foot pole on 9th Street.
Acknowledging that a pole like this raises visual and aesthetic concerns,
the applicant modified their proposal to reduce the pole height to 50 feet,
CAP120816 Page 5
City of Central Point City Council Minutes November 10, 2016
Page 5
confine equipment to inside a metal pole and agreed to paint it a light color.
The Commission approved a resolution recommending approval of the City of Central Point Population & Demographics Element to the City
Council. The Commission heard the same presentation that the Council
heard tonight regarding the Population Element.
The Commission was updated on the Urban Renewal project for East
Pine Street. Staff summarized the Development Commission’s open house on October 24th.
The Commission was updated on the Costco Conditional Use Application. They were informed of a further appeal to the State Appellate Court.
There will be changes in the Planning Commission in 2017. Chuck Piland will be retiring from the Commission and staff will be recommending Mike
Oliver as the new Chair. If members know of anyone who would be
interested in being on the Committee, City Recorder Deanna Casey has started advertising for the vacancy.
IX. MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Williams reported that he attended the Medford Water Commission meeting and Study Session on the water rate study. He has provided each
Council member with a copy of the City Managers Self Evaluation. Council will be
conducting his contract review at the meeting in December.
X. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT City Manager Chris Clayton reported that:
Unfortunately the Historic District Levy did not pass and we cannot ask them to put the Central Point Cemetery on their list of historic landmarks
for financial assistance to help maintain it.
Several of the cities in the valley have voted to not allow dispensaries in
their boundaries. He will be working on a letter to the legislature regarding
the tax sharing issue. These cities feel that even if there are no dispensaries in our cities we will still feel the effect of them and should
receive the sales tax to help with protective services.
He met with the new RCC President this week and updated her on the
availability of land in Central Point if they still wish to build a campus here.
XI. COUNCIL REPORTS
Council Member Mike Quilty reported that:
Last month he attended an OMPOC and OBEC meeting.
He interviewed with the local Charter representative regarding
construction in the area for the coming year.
Several committees are working on new proposals for greenhouse gas,
the MPO’s can’t be responsible for all the state and federal mandates, it
must be a joint process.
He has been appointed to a policy advisory committee to discuss air
quality management.
CAP120816 Page 6
City of Central Point City Council Minutes November 10, 2016
Page 6
There has been discussion that because RVTD was able to get their
property tax increase the MPO’s should get some of it to help with alternative transportation measures.
He attended the tabulation certification test at the Jackson County
Elections office.
Council Members Brandon Thueson, Rick Samuelson, and Bruce Dingler had no
reports.
Council Member Taneea Browning reported that:
Her family took a vacation to Disneyland last week which is why she was
not here for the meeting. It is great to be back in Central Point where there is less traffic.
She attended Greeters at the Goodwill in October.
She attended the Fire District No. 3 Board meeting.
She attended a luncheon for the Children’s Advocacy Center. The speaker was incredible and spoke about her training in recognizing child
abuse and how it helps to keep the children around her safe. It was
inspiring and thought provoking, if you have not heard of the “Stewards of Children Training” she would encourage everyone to check it out.
She attended the Trick or Treat the Streets for Halloween.
She attended the Crater Hall of Fame induction. We have some pretty
decorated graduates from Crater High School. Chris John is a national photographer with eight cover photos; he is an Air Force Lieutenant
Colonel that has flown around the world twice during his career.
She is looking forward to the Decorate Downtown on Friday, December
2nd. There will be baked goods, beverages, caroling and decorating from
2:30 – 4:30.
Planning has begun for the Annual Chamber Awards and Auction Dinner
on Saturday, February 11, 2017.
Council Member Allen Broderick reported that he attended a five hour retreat at
SOREDI. This was a get to know each other event, and discussion of how to make Southern Oregon more appealing to businesses. Central Point was a topic
of conversion about how easy it is to talk and work with staff, as opposed to
working with some other jurisdictions in the area. He has personal experience with this, Staff has been awesome to work with while he has been making
improvements to his building downtown.
XII. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
Parks and Public Works Director Matt Samitore reported that twin creeks is at 90% done on the planning. We are hoping to have construction begin in July next
year. There will be some archeological testing done in the area.
Police Chief Kris Allison reported that:
The Judge will be hearing the case for 75 Bush Street next week. City Attorney Sydnee Dreyer and she have been asked to attend the hearing.
We are hoping to find out the direction the court is going in regards to this property.
CAP120816 Page 7
City of Central Point City Council Minutes November 10, 2016
Page 7
On November 16th we will be having our Volunteer Holiday Luncheon in
the Council Chambers at 11:30. All the Council Members are encouraged to attend. This is our way of thanking all the Police Volunteers for what they do.
They have installed No Parking signs on West Pine Street near the school. We have received calls concerning kids stepping out into the
street from between cars, and the congestion caused by parents picking
up students. This portion was a No Parking zone that wasn’t marked and turned into a pick up zone over the last few years. Now the parents must
go through the proper pick up area at the school. We will be meeting with school representatives about how we are going to address this issue going forward. We also need to encourage students to ride the bus or
bike to school.
Finance Director Steven Weber had no report.
Community Development Director Tom Humphrey reported that we will be having
a Citizens Advisory Committee meeting next week to begin discussions of the
Housing Element of the Comp Plan.
City Attorney Sydnee Dreyer reported that we have received the opening brief for
the Costco appeal to the State Board of Appeals. She wanted to clarify that the City will not be participating in this brief unless we feel that something important
is not being addressed by Costco representatives.
We will be bringing forward some amendments to the code regarding
marijuana dispensaries, and the land use restrictions. We hope they will
be minor changes.
On 75 Bush there is a prior judgement for $43,000 that was not sent to
collections. After the hearing we will be going forward with a foreclosure process. We currently have new charges that are totaling over $50,000
for this one property.
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION - None
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
Bruce Dingler moved to adjourn, Rick Samuelson seconded, all said “aye” and the Council Meeting was adjourned 9:40 at p.m.
The foregoing minutes of the November 10, 2016, Council meeting were approved by the City Council at its meeting of December 8, 2016.
Dated: _________________________
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Recorder
CAP120816 Page 8
Resolution
Canvasing Votes
CAP120816 Page 9
STAFF REPORT
December 8, 2016
AGENDA ITEM:
Resolution Canvassing Votes for November 8, 2016 General Election
STAFF SOURCE:
Chris Clayton, City Manager
Deanna Casey, City Recorder BACKGROUND/SYNOPSIS:
The City Charter requires that the City Council canvass all election returns at the first regularly
scheduled meeting following receipt from the County Clerk of the certification of election results.
The city received the election report from Jackson County on November 28, 2016. A copy of the report is attached to the resolution.
The proposed resolution specifies who won the election for each position and the final tally for the
three measures presented to the voters of Central Point.
The resolution also directs the City Recorder to prepare, sign, and deliver a certificate of election to each person elected within thirty (30) days after the canvass has been accepted.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact to the City.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution Abstract of Votes
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the attached Resolution PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED:
No Public Hearing is required.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move approve Resolution No. ________, Canvassing the Votes Cast at the General Election Held November 8, 2016.
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT 140 South 3rd Street · Central Point, OR 97502 · (541) 664-3321 · www.centralpointoregon.gov
CAP120816 Page 10
Resolution No._________ (120816) Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION CANVASSING THE VOTES CAST AT
THE GENERAL ELECTION HELD NOVEMBER 8, 2016
Recitals
1. A general city election was held on November 8, 2016, during which time legal
voters of the City of Central Point considered the election of City officers and three measures;
2. Pursuant to state law, the Jackson County Clerk has certified the results of said
election, said certification having been issued on the 20th day of November, 2016;
and
3. The City Charter requires that the City Council meet and canvass the returns of
the election at the first regularly scheduled meeting following receipt of the
Jackson County Clerk’s certification of election results.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON,
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the votes cast by the electors of the City of Central Point for Measure 15-146,
Measure 15-147, and Measure 15-148 at the general election of November 8, 2016, are hereby found, determined and declared to be as follows:
MEASURE 15-146:
Shall City Of Central Point Prohibit Recreational Marijuana Producers, Processors,
Wholesalers and Retailers In City Limits Yes 5254 61.74%
No 3256 38.26%
Total 8510 100.00%
MEASURE 15-147: Shall City Of Central Point Prohibit Medical Marijuana Processors and Medical Marijuana Dispensaries In City Limits Yes 4794 56.31%
No 3720 43.69%
Total 8514 100.00%
MEASURE 15-148: Shall City Of Central Point Impose A Three Percent Tax On The Sale Of Marijuana
Items By A Marijuana Retailer
Yes 6767 79.84% No 1709 20.16%
Total 8476 100.00%
CAP120816 Page 11
Resolution No._________ (120816) Page 2
Section 2. That the votes cast by electors of the City of Central Point for one Ward IV Council
position, two At-Large Council positions, and one Mayor position at the general election of
November 8, 2016, are hereby found, determined and declared to be as follows:
COUNCILMEMBER WARD IV (VOTE FOR ONE) Taneea Browning 4386
Miscellaneous write-ins 64
COUNCILMEMBER AT-LARGE (VOTE FOR TWO) Allen Broderick 4744
Robert Hernandez 3869
Richard Wedsted 1816
Miscellaneous write-ins 95
MAYOR (VOTE FOR ONE) Henry Williams 3820
Rick Samuelson Jr 2809
Bret J. Barlow Jr 645 Miscellaneous write-ins 51
Pursuant to Central Point City Charter Section 27 (d) provided that the council is the final judge
of the election and qualifications of its members.
Section 3. Pursuant to the foregoing election results, certified to by the Jackson County Clerk
and canvassed and ratified by the City Council by this resolution, it is hereby found, determined
and declared that the following are the official results of the general election held on November
8, 2016.
APPROVED Measure 15-146: shall city of central point prohibit recreational marijuana producers,
processors, wholesalers and retailers in city limits.
APPROVED Measure 15-147: shall city of central point prohibit medical marijuana processors and medical marijuana dispensaries in city limits.
APPROVED
Measure 15-148: shall city of central point impose a three percent tax on the sle of marijuana items by a marijuana retailer
COUNCIL WARD IV Taneea Browning
COUNCIL MEMBER AT-LARGE Allen Broderick Rob Hernandez
CAP120816 Page 12
Resolution No._________ (120816) Page 3
MAYOR OF CENTRAL POINT Hank Williams
Section 4. The City Recorder is hereby directed to issue certificates of election to the persons declared elected in Section 3 above within thirty (30) days after the effective date of this
resolution.
Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 8th day of
December, 2016.
___________________________________
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Recorder, Deanna Casey
CAP120816 Page 13
CAP120816 Page 14
CAP120816 Page 15
CAP120816 Page 16
Ordinance
Population Element
CAP120816 Page 17
Page 1 of 2
December 10, 2016
AGENDA ITEM: File No. 15029
Second Reading to consider Central Point 2016-2036 Population & Demographics Element for the Comprehensive Plan; Applicant: City of Central Point.
STAFF SOURCE:
Tom Humphrey AICP, Community Development Director
BACKGROUND:
Population forecasts are a necessary comprehensive planning tool, they serve as the basis for identifying long-term
land and infrastructure needs. City staff introduced new PSU population forecasts to the Planning Commission last
November with an explanation of how these projections were derived and how they compare with the projections from the Regional Plan. Population forecasts will now be updated under a continuing four-year cycle. For Jackson
County that cycle was completed in 2015 and is referred to as the Coordinated Population Forecast 2015 through
2065, Jackson County (PSU Forecast). The forecast produced by PSU estimates 50-year population growth, but also
provides shorter-term incremental forecasts (for example, 1-, 10- and 20-year forecasts).
As a pre-requisite to updating the City’s Housing Element it is
necessary for the City to amend its 2008 Population Element to
be consistent with PSU Forecast. The most significant change is
the difference between the 2008 Regional Plan population forecast (higher) and the PSU Forecast (lower). The table to the
left identifies the broadening differences between each forecast
from 2010 to 2060. The PSU forecast is what the City will use
in the attached Population & Demographic Element (Attachment A).
The structure of this Population Element will follow that of the PSU Forecast, including reference to an extended forecast period
2015 through 2065. The forecast period for the first 20-years
(2016-2036) will be the basis for the goals and policies of this element. The extended forecast period (2036-2065) will be used
for informational purposes only, i.e. long-term in population
characteristics.
The purpose of the Population Element is to identify the City of Central Point’s basic population characteristics such as age, sex, household size, etc., and includes projections of total population over a twenty-year period. The importance of the Population Element cannot be over stated. From the Population Element we can forecast future land need for housing
and jobs, future need for infrastructure, as well as the composition of the population and the needs of different age and sex cohorts. The Population Element feeds the Housing and Economic Elements. As a land use planning document, the Population Element is constructed to comply with Statewide Planning Goal 14 and administrative rules (OAR 660
Division 024-00301). Amending the 2008 Population Element is also a pre-requisite to updating the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
Year
City of Central Point
Regional Plan PSU City
City
Gain/(Loss)
2010 17,736 17,169 (567)
2011 18,050 17,235 (815)
2012 18,411 17,275 (1,136)
2013 18,778 17,315 (1,463)
2014 19,152 17,375 (1,777)
2015 19,541 18,329 (1,212)
2020 21,491 19,332 (2,159)
2025 23,483 20,484 (2,999)
2030 25,880 21,638 (4,242)
2035 28,469 22,680 (5,789)
2040 31,237 23,706 (7,531)
2050 34,155 25,416 (8,739)
2060 39,151 26,836 (12,315)
Source: Jackson County Comprehensive Plan, 2007 Population Element
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan, 2010
PSU Proposed Population Forecast, 2015
CAP120816 Page 18
Page 2 of 2
The Planning Commission considered the draft Population and Demographics Element (Attachment A) at their meeting
on November 1, 2016 and recommended City Council approval. Planning staff made various typographic and formatting
changes at the direction of the Planning Commission and prepared an ordinance (Attachment B) for this document to initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment for adoption. The City Council conducted a hearing and received public
testimony on November 10, 2016 after which they moved the ordinance to adopt the element to its second and final
reading.
ISSUES: The PSU Population Research Center (PRC) Forecast reduces the prior population forecast by 21%. If over time the PRC Forecast holds, the City will need less land to service its projected growth needs. However, the PRC Forecast is required
to be updated every four (4) years. Future updates may result in increases to the population forecasts.
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment “A” – Ordinance No. ____, An Ordinance Updating and Adopting the Central Point Comprehensive Plan Population and Demographics Element (2016-2036).
Exhibit “A” Population Demographics Final Draft.
ACTION:
Consider the second reading of the ordinance to adopt Central Point 2016-2036 Population & Demographics Element of
the Comprehensive Plan, and 1) approve the ordinance; 2) approve the ordinance with revisions; 3) deny the ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Ordinance No. ___ An Ordinance Updating and Adopting the Central Point Comprehensive Plan Population and Demographics Element (2016-2036).
CAP120816 Page 19
Page 1 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE UPDATING AND ADOPTING THE CENTRAL POINT COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS ELEMENT (2016-2036)
Recitals:
A.The City of Central Point (City) is authorized under Oregon Revised Statute (ORS)
Chapter 197 to prepare, adopt and revise comprehensive plans and implementingordinances consistent with the Statewide Land Use Planning Goals.B.The City has coordinated its planning efforts with the State in accordance with ORS
197.040(2)(e) and OAR 660-030-0060 to assure compliance with goals andcompatibility with City and County Comprehensive Plans.
C.Pursuant to authority granted by the City Charter and the ORS, the City has
determined to update its Population and Demographics Element to be consistentwith the Coordinated Population Forecast, 2015 through 2065, Jackson County
dated June 2015 prepared by the Portland State University’s Population Research
Center.D.Pursuant to the requirements set forth in CPMC Chapter 17.10.100 Amendments –
Purpose and Chapter 17.96.010, Procedure, the City has initiated the amendmentsand conducted the following duly advertised public hearings to consider theproposed amendments:
a)Planning Commission hearing on November 1, 2016b)City Council hearing on November 10, 2016.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Based upon all the information received, the City Council accepts the Staff Report dated November 1, 2016 as Findings of Fact and incorporated herein by reference; determines that changing community conditions, needs and desires justify the amendments and
hereby adopts the changes entirely.
Section 2. The City Comprehensive Plan Population and Demographics Element is
hereby updated and adopted as set forth in Exhibit A –Comprehensive Plan Population and Demographics Element, 2016-2036 which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated
herein.
Section 3. The City Manager is directed to conduct post acknowledgement procedures
defined in ORS 197.610 et seq. upon adoption of the Population and Demographics Element.
Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 8th day of
December, 2016.
__________________________
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Recorder
CAP120816 Page 20
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
November 1, 2016
AGENDA ITEM: File No. 15029
City of Central Point 2016-2036 Population & Demographic Element; Applicant: City of Central Point.
STAFF SOURCE:
Don Burt, Planning Manager
BACKGROUND:
Population forecasts are an important comprehensive planning tool. They are the basis for identifying a community’s
long-term land and infrastructure needs. Their availability and accuracy are important.
Prior to July 1, 2013 Oregon law required each county to adopt a
"coordinated population forecast" for its urban and rural areas. As part of the Regional Planning Process, Jackson County updated their Population Element in 2007. In 2008 the City of Central
Point updated its Population Element using the County’s forecast as required. On July 1, 2013 HB 2253 was signed into law and
became immediately effective. HB 2253 re-assigns the
responsibility for the preparation of population forecasts from all counties to the Population Forecasting Center at Portland State
University (PRC). Population forecasts will now be updated under
a continuing four-year cycle. For Jackson County that cycle was completed in 2015 and is referred to as the Coordinated
Population Forecast 2015 through 2065, Jackson County (PRC Forecast). The forecast produced by PRC estimates 50-year population growth, but also provides shorter-term incremental
forecasts (for example, 1-, 10- and 20-year forecasts). By law the PRC Forecast must be updated under a continuing four-year cycle.
As a pre-requisite to updating the urban growth boundary it is
necessary for the City to amend its 2008 Population Element to reflect the PRC Forecast. The most significant change is
the difference between the 2008 population forecast (higher) and the PRC Forecast (lower). The table identifies the divergence between each forecast from 2010 to 2060. In all other respects (average household size, age cohorts, etc.) the
two population forecasts are consistent.
ISSUES:
The PRC Forecast reduces the prior population forecast by 21%. If, over time, the PRC Forecast holds the City will need less land to service its projected growth needs. However, the PRC Forecast is required to be updated every 4-years.
Future updates may result in increases in the population forecasts.
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment “A – City of Central Point 2016-2036 Population & Demographics Element”
Year
City of Central Point
Regional Plan PSU City
City
Gain/(Loss)
2010 17,736 17,169 (567)
2011 18,050 17,235 (815)
2012 18,411 17,275 (1,136)
2013 18,778 17,315 (1,463)
2014 19,152 17,375 (1,777)
2015 19,541 18,329 (1,212)
2020 21,491 19,332 (2,159)
2025 23,483 20,484 (2,999)
2030 25,880 21,638 (4,242)
2035 28,469 22,680 (5,789)
2040 31,237 23,706 (7,531)
2050 34,155 25,416 (8,739)
2060 39,151 26,836 (12,315)
Source: Jackson County Comprehensive Plan, 2007 Population Element
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan, 2010
PSU Proposed Population Forecast, 2015
CAP120816 Page 22
Page 2 of 2
ACTION:
Consideration of Resolution No. 835 recommending to the City Council approval of the City of Central Point 2016-2036 Population & Demographics Element.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Resolution No. 835 recommending to the City Council approval of the City of Central Point 2016-20136 Population & Demographics Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
CAP120816 Page 23
`
Population
&
Demographics
Element
2016-2036
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
Adopted Central Point City Council
Ordinance No.
DLCD Acknowledged
CAP120816 Page 24
City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 1
Table of Contents
1.INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 2
2.SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 3
3.POPULATION HISTORY & CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................... 3
3.1. Historic Growth Rate ................................................................................................................. 4
3.2. Percentage Share of the County Population. ............................................................................ 4
3.3. Race and Ethnicity ..................................................................................................................... 5
3.4. Components of Population Growth. ......................................................................................... 5
3.5. Natural Increase ........................................................................................................................ 5
3.6. Net Migration. ........................................................................................................................... 6
3.7. Age Characteristics. ................................................................................................................... 7
3.8. Household Types. ...................................................................................................................... 8
3.8.1.Family Households. ................................................................................................................. 8
3.8.2.Non-Family Households: ......................................................................................................... 9
3.8.3.Group Quarters. ...................................................................................................................... 9
3.9. Average Household Size; ......................................................................................................... 10
3.10.Median Household Income. ................................................................................................... 10
4.ASSUMPTIONS FOR FUTURE POPULATION CHANGE ..................................................................... 12
5.POPULATION PROJECTIONS 2016 to 2036..................................................................................... 12
6.PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................ 13
6.1. Age Characteristics. ................................................................................................................. 13
6.2. Growth Rate. ........................................................................................................................... 13
6.3. Percentage Share of County. .................................................................................................. 13
6.4. Race & Ethnicity. ..................................................................................................................... 14
6.5. Source of Growth. ................................................................................................................... 14
6.6. Household Characteristics. ..................................................................................................... 14
6.7. Median Household Income. .................................................................................................... 14
7.Population & Demographic Goals & Policies ........................................................................................... 14
APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................................. 16
CAP120816 Page 25
City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 2
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Population Element is to track the historic characteristics and growth of the City’s population, and based on that information develop a 20-year forecast of the population. Based on the 20-year population forecast the City can plan for land and urban service needs to
accommodate the population growth.
The City’s Population & Demographics Element (Population Element) was last updated in 2008.
Since 2008 two events have occurred, each of which has significantly affected the results of the City’s 2008 Population Element. The first event was the Great Recession; the second was HB 2253 designating the Portland State University Population Research Center (PRC) as the sole
and official provider of population forecasts for cities and counties throughout the
state1.Together these two events necessitate an update of the City’s Population Element.
The Great Recession Within a year of completion of the Jackson County 2007 Population Element (Feb. 2007)2, which was the basis for the City’s 2008 Population Element, the national
economy was hit hard by the Great Recession (December 2007 to June 2009). The
economic impacts of the Great Recession were severe and the recovery period extremely
sluggish and tenuous. Because job losses were deep across all sectors of the economy and the recovery in job creation slow, the reliance on net migration as a key component to population growth had a significant impact on the City’s 2008 population forecasts.
HB 2253
Prior to 2013 Oregon law required that counties prepare coordinated population forecasts
according to "generally accepted" demographic methods. The result was population projections throughout the state that were based on highly diverse methods of forecasting that varied from county to county, both in terms of frequency of completion and outcome.
Recognizing that population forecasting is the foundation for long-term planning the
Oregon legislature in 2013 approved House Bill 2253 assigning Portland State Population
Research Center (PRC) the responsibility for preparing coordinated population forecasts for all counties and cities. The population forecasting requirements of HB 2253 were later adopted as ORS 195.033.
The population forecasts presented in this Population Element are from the Coordinated
Population Forecast 2015 through 2065 for Jackson County dated June 2015 prepared
by PRC (“PRC Population Forecast”) in accordance with ORS 195.033 and is attached to this Population Element as Appendix A. Typically, the City’s Population Element is
based on a 20-year planning period. The PRC Population Forecast uses a fifty (50) year
forecasting period3 with a four (4) year update cycle4, allowing for consideration of both
short and long term population change variables, and the re-evaluation of demographic
trends and economic events used in prior forecasts. Consequently, every four years the City’s Population Element will be updated using the latest PRC Jackson County forecast.
1 The Portland Metro is exempt from this requirement.
2 Basis for determining the City’s 2008 population projections.
3 ORS 195.003(6)
4 ORS 195.033(4)
CAP120816 Page 26
City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 3
The first update for the PRC Population Forecast for Jackson County is tentatively
scheduled to occur in 2019.
PRC’s population forecasts are not considered land use decisions and as such are not
subject to review or appeal other than as provided in ORS195.033. However, the City’s Population Element, because it contains policies based on assumptions beyond the PRC
Population Forecasts, is considered a land use action and therefore subject to the
procedural requirements of Section 17.96, Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth
Boundary Amendments, City of Central Point Municipal Code.
With the completion of each 4-year cycle the Population Element will be reviewed for changes in forecasted population and any needed policy changes. If no policy changes are required then
the Population Element will be re-certified by resolution of the City Council, including
incorporation of the up-dated PRC Population Forecast as an appendix to the Population
Element. If, for any reason, the policies of the Population Element need to be modified, then the
Population Element shall be updated by ordinance in accordance with ORS 195.033.
2.SUMMARY
When factors such as the economy, fertility, social trends, etc. are factored into the latest
population forecast for the planning period 2016-2036 the result was a 27% reduction in the City’s initial 2008 population forecast figures5 (29,006 vs 22,882). When measured in terms of the population’s average annual growth rate (AAGR) the forecasted AAGR for the planning
period dropped from 4.3% to 1.1%. Based on the forecasted growth rate it is projected that
between 2016 and 2036 the City of Central Point is expected to realize a net increase in
population of 4,357. Based on a projected average household size of 2.5 persons6 the population increase will result in the formation of 1,743 new households by 2036.
The City’s population is aging and is expected to continue to do so over the course of the
planning period. Net in-migration will be the primary source of population growth (97%), while
natural increases will continue to decline (3%). The City’s population will also become racially
and ethnically more diverse, a trend which is expected to continue throughout the planning period.
3.POPULATION HISTORY & CHARACTERISTICS
The Town of Central Point was founded on February 26, 1889 and by 18907 had a population of543. With the exception of the decade between 1910 and 1920 the City has steadily grown
(Figure 1), and today is the third largest city in Jackson County.
5 Extended to 2036 from the Jackson County 2007 Population Element.
6 City of Central Point Regional Plan Element
7 1890 U.S. Census
CAP120816 Page 27
City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 4
Source: U.S. Census and PRC Coordinated Population Forecast, Jackson County
3.1. Historic Growth Rate
Between 2000 and 2007 the City of Central Point’s average annual growth rate (AAGR) was 4.5%, three times Jackson County’s AAGR of 1.5% (Figure 2). Since the Great Recession the City and County have experienced a significant slowdown in population
growth, particularly from net in-migration. For the period 2010-2015 the City’s AAGR
dropped below 1%, while the County’s AAGR dropped to .6%. As Figure 2 illustrates
the decline in AAGR is not an unusual event following recessions, but does bounce back as the economy improves.
Source: U.S. Census & U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder
3.2. Percentage Share of the County Population. The City’s percentage of the county population has consistently increased (Figure 3). In 1900 Central Point’s population accounted for 2.4% of the County’s population, and
remained fairly constant until 1970 when the City’s percentage participation jumped
CAP120816 Page 28
City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 5
from 3.1% to 4.2%. By 2015, the City accounted for 8.7% of the County’s population.
3.3. Race and Ethnicity
Since the 2000 Census the City’s racial diversity has continued to increase, particularly
within the Hispanic Community, which more than doubled in size from 4% in 2000 to 9% in 2014 (Figure 4). During this same period the County’s Hispanic population
increased from 7% to 11% (Figure 5).
Source: 2000 U.S. Census & U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder
Source: 2000 U.S. Census & U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder
3.4. Components of Population Growth. There are two basic sources of population growth: natural increase (births minus deaths)
and net migration (in-migration minus out-migration).
3.5. Natural Increase Growth occurring as a result of natural increase typically represents a very small
CAP120816 Page 29
City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 6
percentage of a community’s population growth. Since 2000 the City’s net natural
increase rate (Figure 6) went from 7.6 to 8.0 per thousand population, representing 3%
of the City’s total population increase during that period. During the same period the
County’s rate of natural increase dropped from 1.0 to 0.8 (Figure 7).
3.6. Net Migration. By far the most significant contributor to a community’s population growth is net
migration. Based on the 2010 U.S. Census, the predominant source of growth for
Jackson County was due to net migration, which was responsible for over 80% of the
county’s population growth8.
Source: PRC Coordinated Population Forecast, Jackson County
8 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010
CAP120816 Page 30
City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 7
Source: PRC Coordinated Population Forecast, Jackson County
3.7. Age Characteristics. Between 2000 and 2014 the City’s median age increased from 34.4 to 37.5 reflecting the continued aging of the Baby Boom generation. For the County the median age changed
from 39.2 to 42.7 during the same period. Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the changes in the
three major age cohort categories as a percentage of the City’s and County’s total
population.
CAP120816 Page 31
City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 8
3.8. Household Types. A by-product of population growth is household formation. The U.S. Census allocates
the population to one of two household types; family and non-family. By definition a
household consists of all the people occupying a housing unit9, which is the basic unit for residential land use planning.
Since the early 1900’s (Figure 10) these two household types (family and non-family)
have been gradually changing in response to socio-economic conditions. The following
is a brief overview of these characteristics as they relate to the City. In addition to the
decline in average household size, the distribution of households by type has been gradually shifting from family to non-family households.
3.8.1. Family Households.
9 U.S. Census, Current Population Survey (CPS) - Definitions and Explanations
CAP120816 Page 32
City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 9
Family households are comprised of two or more people who are related by
marriage, birth, or adoption. Family households are most commonly represented
by married-couples. Family households have, and continue to, dominate
household types. Although the formation of family households continues to increase, it is doing so at a decreasing rate. In 1990, family households in the
City accounted for 77% of all households. By the 2010 Census, and through
201410, family households represented 71% of total households.
3.8.2. Non-Family Households:
Non-family households are comprised of single persons, or two or more people who are not related. In 1990, non-family households represented 23% of all
households within the City. By 2010 non-family households represented 29% of
all households. As the City’s population grows older, the number of non-family
households is expected to increase as the elderly lose spouses and the young
postpone marriage, or get divorced.
3.8.3. Group Quarters. To a much lesser extent there is a third, and smaller segment of the population
that is housed in what is referred to as group quarters. Group quarters are defined
as non-institutional living arrangements for groups not living in conventional
housing units or groups living in housing units containing ten or more unrelated people or nine or more people unrelated to the person in charge. Examples of
people in group quarters include a person residing in a rooming house, staff
quarters at a hospital, college dormitories, or in a halfway house.
The City’s Group Housing population has historically accounted for a very small
percentage of the population. Based on the 2000 Census City’s Group Housing population accounted for 0.8% (106) of the City’s total population and by 2010
had dropped to 0.4% (70) of the total population.
10 American Fact Finder, 2014
CAP120816 Page 33
City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 10
3.9. Average Household Size; Historically, the City’s average household size has been gradually declining from
3.42 average persons per households in 1960 to 2.61 in 2010 (Figure 11). At 2.61
the Cities average household size exceeded the County’s average of 2.40, and by 2010 is slightly higher than the U.S. average of 2.58.
3.10. Median Household Income.
Figure 13 compares the median household income for the City of Central Point and the County from 2000 to 2014. As illustrated in Figure 12 the City’s median
household income over the past 15 years peaked in 2010 and by 2014 declined to
$46,765.
In Figure 13 the median household income for 2010 and 2014 has been adjusted
to 2000 dollars. The Great Recession’s impact on median household income has not yet recovered from 2000 median income level, which is consistent with
CAP120816 Page 34
City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 11
national and state changes in median household income. Figure 14 compares the
changes in income distributions from 2000, 2010, and 2014.
Source: 2000 U.S. Census & U.S Census Bureau American Fact Finder
As of 2014 The City of Central Point had the second highest median income of all
cities in Jackson County (Figure 15).
CAP120816 Page 35
City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 12
Source: U.S Census Bureau American Fact Finder
4. ASSUMPTIONS FOR FUTURE POPULATION CHANGE
The City’s future population projections are from the Coordinated Population Forecast 2015
through 2065 Jackson County (Appendix A). These projections are based on the Cohort-
Component method of population forecasting, which essentially relies on trends in age,
fertility/births, mortality, and net migration.
As the population of Jackson County continues to age the fertility rate will continue to decline.
The decline in the fertility rate will be minimal, dropping from 1.9 in 2015 to 1.8 by 206511.
Historically changes in fertility rates have not had a significant impact on the City’s population
growth. Similarly, the death rate, although increasing is expected to have a minimal impact on
population growth over the next twenty years. When these two components are combined the net difference does not yield any significant increases in the population. As previously discussed of
all the components of population change migration is the greatest contributor to population
growth throughout the planning period. Migration is also the most volatile component and is
very sensitive to changes in the economy, both positive and negative.
5. POPULATION PROJECTIONS 2016 to 2036
Over the course of the next twenty (20) years the City of Central Point’s population is expected
to increase at an average annual rate of 1.1%, taking the population from 17,485 in 2015 to 2,882
in 2036 (Table 1). During this same period the City’s percentage of the County population is expected to increase from 8.7% to 8.9%. By 2065 Central Point will be the second largest City in
Jackson County12.
11 Coordinated Population Forecast 2015 through 2065 Jackson County
12 ibid
CAP120816 Page 36
City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 13
6. PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH CHARACTERISTICS
The following represents a general overview of the City’s and County’s populationcharacteristics throughout the 2016-36 planning period. The information is taken from PRC’s
Coordinated Population Forecast 2015 through 2065, Jackson County.
6.1. Age Characteristics.
Based on the projected County age cohorts (Figure 16) the City’s population will continue toget older with the 65+ cohort claiming a larger percentage of the population. Although theCity has a younger overall population it will experience a similar increase in the 65+ cohort
over the next 20-years. The aging of the population will also have an effect on the demand
for housing services, ranging from reductions in household size to changing demand for
housing types (i.e. senior housing).
6.2. Growth Rate. The City’s population will continue to grow, but at a decreasing average annual growth rate
of 1.1% vs. the 2.9% experienced between 2000 and 2010. Similarly, the County’s average
annual growth rate is expected to decline to 1.0% vs. 1.1%.
6.3. Percentage Share of County.
Year Central Point Jackson County
2016 18,525 213,286
2020 19,332 222,583
2025 20,484 234,561
2030 21,638 245,963
2035 22,680 255,840
2036 23,255 257,741
Change 4,730 44,455
Source: PRC Coordinated Population Forecast, Jackson County
TABLE 1. POPULATION GROWTH PROJECTIONS
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT AND JACKSON
CAP120816 Page 37
City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 14
As illustrated in Table 2 the City’s percentage of the County’s population will continue to
increase from 8.7% in 2016 to 8.9% by 2036.
6.4. Race & Ethnicity.
The race and ethnicity of both Jackson County and the City of Central Point are expected to continue to diversify. However, over the 20-year planning period the White, non-Hispanic
population will remain the dominant race.
6.5. Source of Growth.
The City’s primary source of growth will come from net migration (90%+), which is heavily
dependent on the economy.
6.6. Household Characteristics. As illustrated in Figure 11 the average household size has been declining since 1960. For the
City of Central Point, the average household size has dropped from 3.42 in 1960, to 2.61 in
2010. It is expected that during the term of the planning period (2016 - 2036) the average
household size will continue to decrease, but at a decreasing rate. The City of Central Point Regional Plan Element uses an average household size of 2.5.
6.7. Median Household Income. Changes in median household income will be a function of the strength of the general
economy and the rate of inflation. Time will tell.
7. Population & Demographic Goals & Policies
Goal - To maintain population and demographic forecasts as the primary data source for developing and implementing plans and programs for management of the City’s growth.
Policy 1 - Population Forecast: The population data presented in Table 1 is the acknowledged population forecast for the period 2016 through 2036 and is to be used in maintaining and
updating the City’s Comprehensive Plan. It shall be the responsibility of the City to update the
data presented in Table 1 based on the decennial U.S. Census. During the interim census periods adjustments to Table 1 will be based on the latest PRC Forecast (4-year cycle).
Policy 2 - Average Household Size. For purposes of calculating household formation, the City will use an average household size of 2.5 for lands within the urban growth boundary. This
figure will serve as the basis for determining the number of households expected to be formed
throughout the planning period. It shall be the responsibility of the City to periodically monitor and, if necessary, update the average household size through data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Policy 3 - Household Distribution. For purposes of calculating household formation, the City
will use 70% as the percentage of households that are family households and 30% as Non-
Family Households. These figures shall be used in maintaining and updating the City’s Comprehensive Plan. It shall be the responsibility of the City to periodically monitor and, if necessary, update the percentage of family households through data provided by the U.S. Census
Bureau.
Policy 4 – Racial and Ethnic Diversity. Racial and Ethnic Diversity. The City acknowledges the
changing racial and ethnic diversity of the community and will continue to develop the strategies and tools necessary to ensure that the benefits of growth meet the needs of all people within the
CAP120816 Page 38
City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 15
community regardless of race or ethnicity.
CAP120816 Page 39
City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan
Element 1 - Population and Demographics
Page 16
APPENDIX A – Coordinated Population Forecast, 2015 Through 2065, Jackson
County
CAP120816 Page 40
Jackson
County
Urban Growth
Boundaries (UGB)
& Area Outside UGBs
Through
2015
2065
Coordinated
Population
Forecast
CAP120816 Page 41
1
Coordinated Population Forecast for Jackson County,
its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and
Area Outside UGBs
2015-2065
Prepared by
Population Research Center
College of Urban and Public Affairs
Portland State University
June, 2015
This project is funded by the State of Oregon through the Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD). The contents of this document do not
necessarily reflect the views or policies of the State of Oregon.
CAP120816 Page 42
2
Project Staff:
Xiaomin Ruan, Population Forecast Program Coordinator
Risa S. Proehl, Population Estimates Program Manager
Jason R. Jurjevich, PhD. Assistant Director, Population Research Center
Kevin Rancik, GIS Analyst
Janai Kessi, Research Analyst
Carson Gorecki, Graduate Research Assistant
David Tetrick, Graduate Research Assistant
The Population Research Center and project staff wish to acknowledge and express
gratitude for support from the Forecast Advisory Committee (DLCD), the hard work of
our staff Deborah Loftus and Emily Renfrow, data reviewers, and many people who
contributed to the development of these forecasts by answering questions, lending
insight, providing data, or giving feedback.
CAP120816 Page 43
3
How to Read this Report
This report should be read with reference to the documents listed below—downloadable on the
Forecast Program website (http://www.pdx.edu/prc/opfp).
Specifically, the reader should refer to the following documents:
Methods and Data for Developing Coordinated Population Forecasts—Provides a detailed
description and discussion of the forecast methods employed. This document also describes the
assumptions that feed into these methods and determine the forecast output.
Forecast Tables—Provides complete tables of population forecast numbers by county and all sub-
areas within each county for each five-year interval of the forecast period (i.e., 2015-2065). These
tables are also located in Appendix C of this report.
CAP120816 Page 44
4
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Historical Trends ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Population ................................................................................................................................................. 8
Age Structure of the Population ............................................................................................................... 9
Race and Ethnicity ................................................................................................................................... 10
Births ....................................................................................................................................................... 11
Deaths ..................................................................................................................................................... 13
Migration ................................................................................................................................................ 14
Historical Trends in Components of Population Change ........................................................................ 14
Housing and Households ........................................................................................................................ 15
Assumptions for Future Population Change ............................................................................................... 18
Assumptions for the County and Larger Sub-Areas ................................................................................ 18
Assumptions for Smaller Sub-Areas ........................................................................................................ 19
Supporting Information and Specific Assumptions ................................................................................ 19
Forecast Trends ........................................................................................................................................... 20
Forecast Trends in Components of Population Change ......................................................................... 23
Glossary of Key Terms ................................................................................................................................. 25
Appendix A: Supporting Information .......................................................................................................... 26
Appendix B: Specific Assumptions .............................................................................................................. 49
Appendix C: Detailed Population Forecast Results ..................................................................................... 52
CAP120816 Page 45
5
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Jackson County and Sub-Areas—Historical and Forecast Populations, and Average Annual
Growth Rates (AAGR) .................................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2. Jackson County—Total Population by Five-year Intervals (1975-2010 and 2010-2014) ............... 8
Figure 3. Jackson County and Sub-Areas—Total Population and Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR)
(2000 to 2010) ............................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4. Jackson County—Age Structure of the Population (2000 and 2010) .......................................... 10
Figure 5. Jackson County—Hispanic or Latino and Race (2000 and 2010) ................................................. 11
Figure 6. Jackson County and Oregon—Total Fertility Rates (2000 and 2010) .......................................... 11
Figure 7. Jackson County—Age Specific Fertility Rate (2000 and 2010) ..................................................... 12
Figure 8. Jackson County and Oregon—Age Specific Fertility Rate (2000 and 2010) ................................. 12
Figure 9. Jackson County and Sub-Areas—Total Births (2000 and 2010) ................................................... 13
Figure 10. Jackson County and Sub-Areas—Total Deaths (2000 and 2010) ............................................... 13
Figure 11. Jackson County and Oregon—Five-year Migration Rates (2000-2010) ..................................... 14
Figure 12. Jackson County—Components of Population Change (2000-2014) .......................................... 15
Figure 13. Jackson County and Sub-Areas—Total Housing Units (2000 and 2010) .................................... 16
Figure 14. Jackson County and Sub-Areas—Persons per Household (PPH) and Occupancy Rate ............. 17
Figure 15. Jackson County—Total Forecast Population by Five-year Intervals (2015-2065) ..................... 20
Figure 16. Jackson County and Larger Sub-Areas—Forecast Population and AAGR .................................. 21
Figure 17. Jackson County and Larger Sub-Areas—Share of Countywide Population Growth .................. 21
Figure 18. Jackson County and Smaller Sub-Areas—Forecast Population and AAGR ................................ 22
Figure 19. Jackson County and Smaller Sub-Areas—Share of Countywide Population Growth ................ 22
Figure 20. Jackson County—Age Structure of the Population (2015, 2035, and 2065) ............................. 23
Figure 21. Jackson County—Components of Population Change, 2015-2065 ........................................... 24
Figure 22. Jackson County—Population by Five-Year Age Group ............................................................... 52
Figure 23. Jackson County's Sub-Areas—Total Population......................................................................... 53
CAP120816 Page 46
6
Executive Summary
Historical
Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county and these local trends within the UGBs
and the area outside UGBs collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole.
Jackson County’s total population has grown steadily since 2000, with an average annual growth rate of
above one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however some of its sub-areas experienced more
rapid population growth during the 2000s. Eagle Point and Central Point UGBs posted the highest
average annual growth rates at 5.6 and 2.9 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010 period.
Jackson County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of substantial net in-migration
and natural increase. Meanwhile an aging population not only led to an increase in deaths, but also
resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years. This along with more women
choosing to have fewer children and have them at older ages has led to slower growth in births. The
more rapid growth in deaths relative to that of births caused natural increase—the difference between
births and deaths—to decline to almost nothing by 2014. While net in-migration outweighed declining
natural increase during the early and middle years of the last decade, the gap between these two
numbers shrank during the later years—slowing population growth by 2010. Since 2010 net in-migration
has driven rising population growth rates, while natural increase continues to shrink.
Forecast
Total population in Jackson County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly
faster pace in the first 20 years of the forecast period (2015 to 2035), relative to the last 30 years (Figure
1). The tapering of growth rates is largely driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is
expected to lead to natural decrease (more deaths than births). As natural decrease occurs, population
growth will become increasingly reliant on net in-migration.
Even so, Jackson County’s total population is forecast to increase by nearly 44,600 over the next 20
years (2015-2035) and by nearly 95,600 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2015-2065). Sub-areas
that showed strong population growth in the 2000s are expected to experience similar rates of
population growth during the forecast period.
CAP120816 Page 47
7
Figure 1. Jackson County and Sub-Areas—Historical and Forecast Populations, and Average Annual Growth Rates (AAGR)
2000 2010
AAGR
(2000-2010)2015 2035 2065
AAGR
(2015-2035)
AAGR
(2035-2065)
Jackson County 181,269 203,206 1.1% 211,275 255,840 306,858 1.0% 0.6%
Ashland1 20,023 20,626 0.3% 20,905 23,183 24,138 0.5% 0.1%
Butte Falls 440 423 -0.4%421 437 447 0.2% 0.1%
Central Point 13,310 17,736 2.9% 18,329 22,680 27,485 1.1% 0.6%
Eagle Point 4,952 8,508 5.6% 9,657 14,839 18,669 2.2% 0.8%
Gold Hill 1,181 1,228 0.4% 1,267 1,496 2,018 0.8% 1.0%
Jacksonville 2,256 2,785 2.1% 2,927 4,316 6,687 2.0% 1.5%
Medford 67,865 76,581 1.2% 80,024 99,835 124,582 1.1% 0.7%
Phoenix 4,379 4,774 0.9% 4,955 6,883 9,775 1.7% 1.2%
Rogue River 2,544 2,714 0.6% 2,838 3,705 5,545 1.3% 1.4%
Shady Cove 2,528 3,050 1.9% 3,168 4,343 6,105 1.6% 1.1%
Talent 5,683 6,123 0.7% 6,411 9,020 14,290 1.7% 1.5%
Outside UGBs 56,108 58,658 0.4% 60,373 65,104 67,119 0.4% 0.1%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses; Forecast by Population Research Center (PRC).
1 For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name.
Historical Forecast
CAP120816 Page 48
8
Historical Trends
Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the county. Each of Jackson County’s sub-areas was
examined for any significant demographic characteristics or changes in population or housing growth
that might influence their individual forecasts. Factors that were analyzed include age composition of
the population, ethnicity and race, births, deaths, migration, and number of housing units as well as the
occupancy rate and persons per household (PPH). It should be noted that population trends of individual
sub-areas often differ from those of the county as a whole. However, in general, population growth
rates for the county are collectively influenced by local trends within its sub-areas.
Population
Jackson County’s total population grew by about 83 percent between 1975 and 2014—from roughly
114,000 in 1975 to more than 208,000 in 2014 (Figure 2). During this approximately 40-year period, the
county realized the highest growth rates during the 1970s, which coincided with a period of relative
economic prosperity. During the early 1980s, challenging economic conditions, both nationally and
within the county, yielded a sharp decline in population growth. Since 1985, the county has experienced
steady population growth averaging just over one percent per year. During the 2000s, population
growth remained positive and averaged more than one percent per year, in spite of the Great Recession.
Figure 2. Jackson County—Total Population by Five-year Intervals (1975-2010 and 2010-2014)
Jackson County’s population change is the sum of its parts, in the sense that countywide population
change is the combined population growth or decline within each UGB and the area outside UGBs.
During the 2000s, Jackson County’s average annual population growth rate stood at 1.1 percent, but the
growth rate varied to a large degree in sub-areas across the county. Some UGBs, such as Central Point,
Eagle Point, Jacksonville, and Shady Cove, realized average annual growth rates that were well above
CAP120816 Page 49
9
the countywide rate of one percent (Figure 3). At the same time the remaining UGBs recorded growth
rates near or below one percent, or even population decline as was the case for Butte Falls. Most UGBs
increased as a share of total county population, but some decreased. The most notable decrease was
Ashland. The area outside UGBs experienced an average annual growth rate below that of the county as
a whole and declined as a share of total county population between 2000 and 2010.
Figure 3. Jackson County and Sub-Areas—Total Population and Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR) (2000 to
2010)
Age Structure of the Population
Similar to most areas across Oregon, Jackson County’s population is aging. An aging population
significantly influences the number of deaths, but also yields a smaller proportion of women in their
childbearing years, which may result in a decline in births. This demographic trend underlies some of the
population change that has occurred in recent years. From 2000 to 2010 the proportion of county
population 65 or older grew from about 16 percent to approximately 18 percent (Figure 4).1 Further
underscoring the countywide trend in aging, the median age went from about 39 in 2000 to 42 in 2010.2
1 The population over the age of 65 calculated as a proportion of the working age population is known as the
elderly dependency ratio. In general this dependency ratio has been growing more rapidly in recent years.
2 Median age is sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2000 and 2010 Censuses
2000 2010
AAGR
(2000-2010)
Share of
County 2000
Share of
County 2010
Jackson County 181,269 203,206 1.1% 100.0% 100.0%
Ashland1 20,023 20,626 0.3% 11.0% 10.2%
Butte Falls 440 423 -0.4% 0.2% 0.2%
Central Point 13,310 17,736 2.9%7.3% 8.7%
Eagle Point 4,952 8,508 5.6%2.7% 4.2%
Gold Hill 1,181 1,228 0.4%0.7% 0.6%
Jacksonville 2,256 2,785 2.1%1.2% 1.4%
Medford 67,865 76,581 1.2% 37.4% 37.7%
Phoenix 4,379 4,774 0.9%2.4% 2.3%
Rogue River 2,544 2,714 0.6%1.4% 1.3%
Shady Cove 2,528 3,050 1.9%1.4% 1.5%
Talent 5,683 6,123 0.7%3.1% 3.0%
Outside UGBs 56,108 58,658 0.4% 31.0% 28.9%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses
1 For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name.
CAP120816 Page 50
10
Figure 4. Jackson County—Age Structure of the Population (2000 and 2010)
Race and Ethnicity
While the statewide population is aging, another demographic shift is occurring across Oregon—
minority populations are growing as a share of total population. A growing minority population affects
both the number of births and average household size. The Hispanic population within Curry County
increased substantially from 2000 to 2010 (Figure 5), while the White, non-Hispanic population
increased by a smaller amount (in relative terms) over the same time period. This increase in the
Hispanic population and other minority populations brings with it several implications for future
population change. First, both nationally and at the state level, fertility rates among Hispanic and
minority women have tended to be higher than among White, non-Hispanic women. Second, Hispanic
and minority households tend to be larger relative to White, non-Hispanic households.
CAP120816 Page 51
11
Figure 5. Jackson County—Hispanic or Latino and Race (2000 and 2010)
Births
Historical fertility rates for Jackson County don’t mirror the decline in total fertility observed for Oregon
overall (Figure 6). Furthermore fertility for younger women in Jackson County has remained at a much
higher level than for younger women statewide (Figure 7 and Figure 8). As Figure 7 demonstrates,
fertility rates for younger women in Jackson County are lower in 2000 compared to 2010, and women
are choosing to have children at older ages. While the decrease in fertility among younger women
largely mirrors statewide changes, county fertility changes are distinct from those of the state in two
ways. First, while fertility among younger women did decrease within the county, the drop was less
pronounced than for younger women statewide. Second, the increase in total fertility in Jackson County
during the 2000s runs contrary to the statewide decline during this same period. At the same time
Jackson County’s total fertility remains below replacement fertility.
Figure 6. Jackson County and Oregon—Total Fertility Rates (2000 and 2010)
Hispanic or Latino and Race
Absolute
Change
Relative
Change
Total population 181,269 100.0% 203,206 100.0% 21,937 12.1%
Hispanic or Latino 12,126 6.7% 21,745 10.7% 9,619 79.3%
Not Hispanic or Latino 169,143 93.3% 181,461 89.3% 12,318 7.3%
White alone 160,795 88.7% 170,023 83.7% 9,228 5.7%
Black or African American alone 674 0.4% 1,227 0.6%553 82.0%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 1,782 1.0% 1,874 0.9%92 5.2%
Asian alone 1,583 0.9% 2,304 1.1%721 45.5%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 291 0.2%562 0.3%271 93.1%
Some Other Race alone 198 0.1%229 0.1%31 15.7%
Two or More Races 3,820 2.1% 5,242 2.6% 1,422 37.2%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses
2000 2010
2000 2010
Jackson County 1.87 1.97
Oregon 1.98 1.79
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010
Censuses. Oregon Health Authority, Center for Health
Statistics. Calculations by Population Research
CAP120816 Page 52
12
Figure 7. Jackson County—Age Specific Fertility Rate (2000 and 2010)
Figure 8. Jackson County and Oregon—Age Specific Fertility Rate (2000 and 2010)
Figure 9 shows the number of births by the area in which the mother resides. Please note that the
number of births fluctuates from year to year. For example a sub-area with an increase in births
CAP120816 Page 53
13
between two years could easily show a decrease for a different time period; however for the 10-year
period from 2000 to 2010 the county as a whole saw an increase in births (Figure 9).
Figure 9. Jackson County and Sub-Areas—Total Births (2000 and 2010)
Deaths
While the population in the county as a whole is aging, more people are living longer. For Jackson
County in 2000, life expectancy for males was 76 years and for females was 80 years. By 2010, life
expectancy had increased to 77 for males and 82 for females. For both Jackson County and Oregon, the
survival rates changed little between 2000 and 2010—underscoring the fact that mortality is the most
stable component of population change. Even so, the total number of countywide deaths increased
(Figure 10).
Figure 10. Jackson County and Sub-Areas—Total Deaths (2000 and 2010)
2000 2010
Absolute
Change
Relative
Change
Share of
County 2000
Share of
County 2010
Jackson County 2,050 2,341 291 14.2% 100.0% 100.0%
Ashland1 162 123 -39 -24.0% 7.9% 5.3%
Central Point 180 270 90 50.1% 8.8% 11.5%
Eagle Point 93 103 10 10.8% 4.5% 4.4%
Medford 920 1,111 191 20.8% 44.9% 47.5%
Smaller UGBs2 234 230 -4 -1.7% 11.4% 9.8%
Outside UGBs 462 504 42 9.1% 22.5% 21.5%
1For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name.
Sources: Oregon Health Authority, Center for Health Statistics. Aggregated by Population Research Center (PRC).
2 Smaller UGBs are those with populations less than 8,000 in forecast launch year.
2000 2010
Absolute
Change
Relative
Change
Share of
County 2000
Share of
County 2010
Jackson County 1,877 2,172 295 15.7% 100.0% 100.0%
Ashland1 164 190 26 15.8% 8.7% 8.8%
Central Point 114 135 21 18.4% 6.1% 6.2%
Medford 796 904 108 13.6% 42.4% 41.6%
All other areas2 803 943 140 17.4% 42.8% 43.4%
Sources: Oregon Health Authority, Center for Health Statistics. Aggregated by Population Research Center (PRC).
2 All other areas includes some larger UGBs (those with populations greater than 8,000), all smaller UGBs (those with
populations less than 8,000), and the area outside UGBs. Detailed, point level death data were unavailable for 2000, thus
PRC was unable to assign deaths to some UGBs.
1 For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name.
CAP120816 Page 54
14
Migration
The propensity to migrate is strongly linked to age and stage of life. As such, age-specific migration rates
are critically important for assessing these patterns across five-year age cohorts. Figure 11 shows the
historical age-specific migration rates by five-year age group, both for Jackson County and Oregon as a
whole. The migration rate is shown as the number of net migrants per person by age group.
From 2000 to 2010, younger individuals (ages with the highest mobility levels) moved out of the county
in search of employment and education opportunities, as well as military service. At the same time the
county attracted a large number of middle-aged to older migrants who likely moved into the county for
work-related reasons, to retire, or to be closer family members.
Figure 11. Jackson County and Oregon—Five-year Migration Rates (2000-2010)
Historical Trends in Components of Population Change
In summary, Jackson County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of substantial net
in-migration and natural increase (Figure 12). Meanwhile an aging population not only led to an increase
in deaths, but also resulted in a smaller proportion of women in their childbearing years. This along with
more women choosing to have fewer children and have them at older ages has led to slower growth in
births. The more rapid growth in deaths relative to that of births caused natural increase—the
difference between births and deaths—to decline to almost nothing by 2014. While net in-migration
outweighed declining natural increase during the early and middle years of the last decade, the gap
between these two numbers shrank during the later years—slowing population growth by 2010. Since
2010 net in-migration has driven rising population growth rates, while natural increase continues to
shrink.
CAP120816 Page 55
15
Figure 12. Jackson County—Components of Population Change (2000-2014)
Housing and Households
The total number of housing units in Jackson County increased rapidly during the middle years of this
last decade (2000 to 2010), but this growth slowed with the onset of the national recession in 2007.
Over the entire 2000 to 2010 period, the total number of housing units increased by 20 percent
countywide; this equaled more than 15,000 new housing units (Figure 13). Medford captured the largest
share of growth in total housing units, with the area outside UGBs, Central Point, Eagle Point, and
Ashland also seeing large shares of the countywide housing growth. In terms of relative housing growth
Eagle Point grew the most during the 2000s; its total housing units increased nearly 93 percent (1,746
housing units) by 2010.
The rates of increase in the number of total housing units in the county, UGBs, and area outside UGBs
are similar to the growth rates of their corresponding populations. The growth rates for housing may
slightly differ than the rates for population because the numbers of total housing units are smaller than
the numbers of persons, or the UGB has experienced changes in the average number of persons per
household or in occupancy rates. However, the pattern of population and housing change in the county
is relatively similar.
CAP120816 Page 56
16
Figure 13. Jackson County and Sub-Areas—Total Housing Units (2000 and 2010)
Occupancy rates tend to fluctuate more than PPH. This is particularly true in smaller UGB areas where
fewer housing units allow for larger changes—in relative terms—in occupancy rates. From 2000 to 2010
the occupancy rate in Jackson County declined slightly; this was most likely due to slack in demand for
housing as individuals experienced the effects of the Great Recession. A slight drop in occupancy rates
was mostly uniform across all sub-areas.
Average household size, or PPH, in Jackson County was 2.4 in 2010, down from 2.5 in 2000 (Figure 14).
Jackson County’s PPH in 2010 was slightly lower than for Oregon as a whole, which had a PPH of 2.5.
PPH varied across the sub-areas, with all of them falling between 2.0 and 2.6 persons per household. In
2010 Central Point and Eagle Point had the highest PPH of 2.6. Ashland and Jacksonville had the lowest
PPH of 2.0.
2000 2010
AAGR
(2000-2010)
Share of
County 2000
Share of
County 2010
Jackson County 75,737 90,937 1.8% 100.0% 100.0%
Ashland1 9,289 10,735 1.5%12.3% 11.8%
Butte Falls 170 188 1.0% 0.2% 0.2%
Central Point 5,072 7,202 3.6% 6.7% 7.9%
Eagle Point 1,882 3,628 6.8% 2.5% 4.0%
Gold Hill 523 557 0.6% 0.7% 0.6%
Jacksonville 1,116 1,548 3.3% 1.5% 1.7%
Medford 28,215 33,166 1.6% 37.3% 36.5%
Phoenix 2,017 2,251 1.1% 2.7% 2.5%
Rogue River 1,309 1,462 1.1% 1.7% 1.6%
Shady Cove 1,200 1,533 2.5%1.6% 1.7%
Talent 2,453 2,853 1.5% 3.2% 3.1%
Outside UGBs 22,491 25,814 1.4% 29.7% 28.4%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses
1 For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name.
CAP120816 Page 57
17
Figure 14. Jackson County and Sub-Areas—Persons per Household (PPH) and Occupancy Rate
2000 2010
Change
2000-2010 2000 2010
Change
2000-2010
Jackson County 2.5 2.4 -3.2% 94.4% 91.4% -3.1%
Ashland1 2.2 2.0 -5.4% 94.2% 90.0% -4.1%
Butte Falls 2.8 2.5 -7.3% 94.1% 88.3% -5.8%
Central Point 2.7 2.6 -2.8% 96.8% 93.8% -3.0%
Eagle Point 2.8 2.6 -6.9% 93.5% 89.5% -4.0%
Gold Hill 2.5 2.4 -4.9% 89.9% 92.3% 2.4%
Jacksonville 2.1 2.0 -5.9% 93.6% 89.0% -4.7%
Medford 2.5 2.4 -1.4% 95.4% 92.8% -2.6%
Phoenix 2.3 2.3 -1.2% 94.5% 93.2% -1.4%
Rogue River 2.1 2.1 -1.2% 92.7% 90.2% -2.5%
Shady Cove 2.3 2.3 -4.0% 89.8% 88.3% -1.5%
Talent 2.4 2.3 -4.5% 96.1% 93.4% -2.7%
Outside UGBs 2.6 2.5 -5.0% 93.3% 89.7% -3.6%
1 For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name.
Persons Per Household (PPH)Occupancy Rate
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses. Calculated by Population Research Center (PRC)
CAP120816 Page 58
18
Assumptions for Future Population Change
Evaluating past demographic trends provides clues about what the future will look like, and helps
determine the most likely scenarios for population change. Past trends also explain the dynamics of
population growth specific to local areas. Relating recent and historical population change to events that
influence population change serves as a gauge for what might realistically occur in a given area over the
long-term.
Assumptions about fertility, mortality, and migration were developed for Jackson County’s population
forecast as well as the forecasts for larger sub-areas.3 The assumptions are derived from observations
based on life course events, as well as trends unique to Jackson County and its larger sub-areas.
Population change for smaller sub-areas is determined by the change in the number of total housing
units and PPH. Assumptions around housing unit growth as well as occupancy rates are derived from
observations of historical building patterns and current plans for future housing development. In
addition assumptions for PPH are based on observed historical patterns of household demographics—
for example the average age of householder. The forecast period is 2015-2065.
Assumptions for the County and Larger Sub-Areas
During the forecast period, as the population in Jackson County is expected to continue to age, fertility
rates will begin to decline in the near term and continue on this path throughout the remainder of the
forecast period. Total fertility in Jackson County is forecast to decrease from 1.9 children per woman in
2015 to 1.8 children per woman by 2065. Similar patterns of declining total fertility are expected within
the county’s larger sub-areas.
Changes in mortality and life expectancy are more stable compared to fertility and migration. One
influential factor affecting mortality and life expectancy is advances in medical technology. The county
and larger sub-areas are projected to follow the statewide trend of increasing life expectancy
throughout the forecast period—progressing from a life expectancy of 79 years in 2010 to 87 in 2060.
However in spite of increasing life expectancy and the corresponding increase in survival rates, Jackson
County’s aging population and large population cohort reaching a later stage of life will increase the
overall number of deaths throughout the forecast period. Larger sub-areas within the county will
experience a similar increase in deaths as their population ages.
Migration is the most volatile and challenging demographic component to forecast due to the many
factors influencing migration patterns. Economic, social and environmental factors—such as
employment, educational opportunities, housing availability, family ties, cultural affinity, climate
change, and natural amenities—occurring both inside and outside the study area can affect both the
direction and the volume of migration. Net migration rates will change in line with historical trends
unique to Jackson County. Net out-migration of younger persons and net in-migration of older
3 County sub-areas with populations greater than 8,000 in forecast launch year were forecast using the cohort-
component method. County sub-areas with populations less than 8,000 in forecast launch year were forecast using
the housing-unit method. See Glossary of Key Terms at the end of this report for a brief description of these
methods or refer to the Methods document for a more detailed description of these forecasting techniques.
CAP120816 Page 59
19
individuals will persist throughout the forecast period. Countywide average annual net migration is
expected to increase from 1,505 net in-migrants in 2015 to 2,855 net in-migrants in 2035. Over the last
30 years of the forecast period average annual net migration is expected to be more steady, increasing
to 3,479 net in-migrants by 2065. With natural increase diminishing in its potential to contribute to
population growth, net in-migration will become an increasingly important component of population
growth.
Assumptions for Smaller Sub-Areas
Rates of population growth for the smaller UGBs are assumed to be determined by corresponding
growth in the number of housing units, as well as changes in housing occupancy rates and PPH. The
change in housing unit growth is much more variable than change in housing occupancy rates or PPH.
Occupancy rates are assumed to stay relatively stable over the forecast period, while PPH is expected to
decline slightly. Smaller household size is associated with an aging population in Jackson County and its
sub-areas.
In addition, for sub-areas experiencing population growth, we assume a higher growth rate in the near
term, with growth stabilizing over the remainder of the forecast period. If planned housing units were
reported in the surveys, then we account for them being constructed over the next 5-15 years. Finally,
for county sub-areas where population growth has been flat or declined, and there is no planned
housing construction, we hold population growth mostly stable with little to no change.
Supporting Information and Specific Assumptions
Assumptions used for developing population forecasts are partially derived from surveys and other
information provided by local planners and agencies. See Appendix A for a summary of all submitted
surveys and other information that was directly considered in developing the sub-area forecasts. Also,
see Appendix B for specific assumptions used in each sub-area forecast.
CAP120816 Page 60
20
Forecast Trends
Under the most-likely population growth scenario in Jackson County, countywide and sub-area
populations are expected to increase over the forecast period. The countywide population growth rate
is forecast to peak in 2025 and then slowly decline throughout the forecast period. Forecasting tapered
population growth is largely driven by an aging population, which is expected to contribute to an
increase in deaths, as well as a decrease in births—fewer women within child-bearing years. The aging
population is expected to in turn contribute to natural decrease over the forecast period. Net migration
is expected to grow steadily throughout the forecast period, but this growth will likely not fully offset
the decline in natural increase. The combination of these factors is expected to result in a slowly
declining population growth rate as time progresses through the forecast period.
Jackson County’s total population is forecast to grow by nearly 95,600 persons (45 percent) from 2015
to 2065, which translates into a total countywide population of 306,858 in 2065 (Figure 15). The
population is forecast to grow at the highest rate—approximately one percent per year—in the near
term (2015-2025). This anticipated population growth in the near term is based on two core
assumptions: 1) Jackson County’s economy will continue to strengthen in the next five years, and; 2) an
increasing number of Baby Boomers will retire to the county. The single largest component of growth in
this initial period is net in-migration. Nearly 24,000 net in-migrants are forecast for the 2015 to 2025
period.
Figure 15. Jackson County—Total Forecast Population by Five-year Intervals (2015-2065)
Jackson County’s larger UGBs are forecast to experience a combined population growth of more than
31,600 from 2015 to 2035 and more than 34,300 from 2035 to 2065 (Figure 16). Eagle Point is expected
to grow at the fastest average annual rate at more than two percent per year during the first 20 years of
CAP120816 Page 61
21
the forecast period. Over this same time period Central Point and Medford are forecast to grow at
average annual rates greater than one percent, while Ashland is expected to grow at a relatively slower
pace of about one half percent per year. Average annual growth rates are expected to slow during the
final 30 years of the forecast period. The majority of larger UGBs are expected to grow as a share of total
county population; however Ashland is forecast to decline as a share of total countywide population.
Population outside UGBs is expected to grow by more than 4,700 people from 2015 to 2035, but is
expected to grow at a much slower rate during the second half of the forecast period, only adding a little
more than 2,000 people from 2035 to 2065. The population of the area outside UGBs is expected to
decline as a share of total countywide population over the forecast period, composing 29 percent of the
countywide population in 2015 and about 22 percent in 2065.
Figure 16. Jackson County and Larger Sub-Areas—Forecast Population and AAGR
Medford, Jackson County’s largest UGB, is expected to capture the largest share of total countywide
population growth throughout the entire forecast period (Figure 17). The remaining larger UGBs all
account for significant portions of countywide population growth, but they are all expected to capture a
smaller share (in relative terms) of population growth during the final 30 years of the forecast period.
The area outside UGBs is forecast to capture a decreasing share of countywide population growth as
time progresses through the forecast period.
Figure 17. Jackson County and Larger Sub-Areas—Share of Countywide Population Growth
2015 2035 2065
AAGR
(2015-2035)
AAGR
(2035-2065)
Share of
County 2015
Share of
County 2035
Share of
County 2065
Jackson County 211,275 255,840 306,858 1.0% 0.6%100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Ashland1 20,905 23,183 24,138 0.5% 0.1%9.9% 9.1% 7.9%
Central Point 18,329 22,680 27,485 1.1% 0.6%8.7% 8.9% 9.0%
Eagle Point 9,657 14,839 18,669 2.2% 0.8%4.6% 5.8% 6.1%
Medford 80,024 99,835 124,582 1.1% 0.7%37.9% 39.0% 40.6%
Smaller UGBs2 21,987 30,199 44,865 1.6% 1.3%10.4% 11.8% 14.6%
Outside UGBs 60,373 65,104 67,119 0.4% 0.1% 28.6% 25.4% 21.9%
Source: Forecast by Population Research Center (PRC)
1For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name.
2Smaller UGBs are those with populations less than 8,000 in forecast launch year.
2015-2035 2035-2065
Jackson County 100.0%100.0%
Ashland1 5.1%1.9%
Central Point 9.8%9.4%
Eagle Point 11.6%7.5%
Medford 44.5%48.5%
Smaller UGBs2 18.4%28.7%
Outside UGBs 10.6%3.9%
Source: Forecast by Population Research Center (PRC)
1 For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name.
2 Smaller UGBs are those with populations less than 8,000 in forecast launch year.
CAP120816 Page 62
22
The remaining smaller UGBs are expected to grow by a combined number of more than 8,200 persons
from 2015 to 2035, with a combined average annual growth rate of 1.6 percent (Figure 16). This growth
rate is driven by expected rapid growth in Jacksonville, Phoenix, Rogue River, Shady Cove, and Talent
(Figure 18). Butte Falls and Gold Hill are forecast to grow at average annual rates below one percent per
year during the first 20 years of the forecast period. Similar to the larger UGBs and the county as a
whole, population growth rates are expected to decline for the second half of the forecast period (2035
to 2065). Even so, the smaller UGBs are forecast to collectively add nearly 14,700 people from 2035 to
2065.
Figure 18. Jackson County and Smaller Sub-Areas—Forecast Population and AAGR
All of Jackson County’s smaller sub-areas are expected to capture an increasing share of countywide
population growth over the 50-year forecast period (Figure 19).
Figure 19. Jackson County and Smaller Sub-Areas—Share of Countywide Population Growth
2015 2035 2065
AAGR
(2015-2035)
AAGR
(2035-2065)
Share of
County 2015
Share of
County 2035
Share of
County 2065
Jackson County 211,275 255,840 306,858 1.0% 0.6%100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Butte Falls1 421 437 447 0.2% 0.1%0.2% 0.2% 0.1%
Gold Hill 1,267 1,496 2,018 0.8% 1.0%0.6% 0.6% 0.7%
Jacksonville 2,927 4,316 6,687 2.0% 1.5%1.4% 1.7% 2.2%
Phoenix 4,955 6,883 9,775 1.7% 1.2%2.3% 2.7% 3.2%
Rogue River 2,838 3,705 5,545 1.3% 1.4%1.3% 1.4% 1.8%
Shady Cove 3,168 4,343 6,105 1.6% 1.1%1.5% 1.7% 2.0%
Talent 6,411 9,020 14,290 1.7% 1.5%3.0% 3.5% 4.7%
Larger UGBs2 128,915 160,537 194,874 1.1% 0.6%61.0% 62.7% 63.5%
Outside UGBs 60,373 65,104 67,119 0.4% 0.1% 28.6% 25.4% 21.9%
Source: Forecast by Population Research Center (PRC)
1For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name.
2Larger UGBs are those with populations greater than 8,000 in forecast launch year.
2015-2035 2035-2065
Jackson County 100.0%100.0%
Butte Falls1 0.0%0.0%
Gold Hill 0.5%1.0%
Jacksonville 3.1%4.6%
Phoenix 4.3%5.7%
Rogue River 1.9%3.6%
Shady Cove 2.6%3.5%
Talent 5.9%10.3%
Larger UGBs2 71.0%67.3%
Outside UGBs 10.6%3.9%
Source: Forecast by Population Research Center (PRC)
1 For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name.
2 Larger UGBs are those with populations greater than 8,000 in forecast launch year.
CAP120816 Page 63
23
Forecast Trends in Components of Population Change
As previously discussed, a key factor in both declining births and increasing deaths is Jackson County’s
aging population. From 2015 to 2035 the proportion of county population 65 or older is forecast to grow
from a little over 20 percent to nearly 30 percent. By 2065 approximately 37 percent of the total
population is expected to be 65 or older (Figure 20). For a more detailed look at the age structure of
Jackson County’s population see the final forecast table published to the forecast program website
(http://www.pdx.edu/prc/opfp).
Figure 20. Jackson County—Age Structure of the Population (2015, 2035, and 2065)
As the countywide population ages—contributing to a slow-growing population of women in their years
of peak fertility—and more women choose to have fewer children and have them at an older age,
average annual births are expected to decline, although slowly, over the forecast period; this combined
with the rising number of deaths, will lead to a natural decrease (Figure 21). The total number of deaths
countywide is expected to increase more rapidly in the near term, followed by slower growth during the
later years of the forecast period. This pattern of initial growth in the number of deaths is explained by
the relative size and aging patterns of the Baby Boom and Baby Boom Echo generations. For example, in
Jackson County, deaths are forecast to begin to increase significantly during the 2025-2035 period as
Baby Boomers age out, and peak again in the 2040-2050 period as children of Baby Boomers (i.e. Baby
Boom Echo) experience the effects of aging.
As the increase in the number of deaths outpaces births, population growth in Jackson County is
expected to become increasingly reliant on net in-migration; and in fact positive net in-migration is
expected to persist throughout the forecast period. The majority of these net in-migrants are expected
to be middle-aged and older individuals.
CAP120816 Page 64
24
In summary, declining natural increase and steady net in-migration is forecast to result in population
growth reaching its peak in 2025 and then tapering through the remainder of the forecast period (Figure
21). An aging population is expected to not only lead to an increase in deaths, but a smaller proportion
of women in their childbearing years is expected to result in a long-term decline in births. Net migration
is expected to grow steadily throughout the forecast period, but it will not fully offset the growth in
natural decrease.
Figure 21. Jackson County—Components of Population Change, 2015-2065
CAP120816 Page 65
25
Glossary of Key Terms
Cohort-Component Method: A method used to forecast future populations based on changes in births,
deaths, and migration over time.
Coordinated population forecast: A population forecast prepared for the county along with population
forecasts for its city urban growth boundary (UGB) areas and non-UGB area.
Housing unit: A house, apartment, mobile home or trailer, group of rooms, or single room that is
occupied or is intended for occupancy.
Housing-Unit Method: A method used to forecast future populations based on changes in housing unit
counts, vacancy rates, the average numbers of persons per household (PPH), and group quarter
population counts.
Occupancy rate: The proportion of total housing units that are occupied by an individual or group of
persons.
Persons per household (PPH): The average household size (i.e. the average number of persons per
occupied housing unit for a particular geographic area).
Replacement Level Fertility: The average number of children each woman needs to bear in order to
replace the population (to replace each male and female) under current mortality conditions in the U.S.
This is commonly estimated to be 2.1 children per woman.
CAP120816 Page 66
26
Appendix A: Supporting Information
Supporting information is based on planning documents and reports, and from submissions to PRC from city officials and staff, and other stakeholders.
The information pertains to characteristics of each city area, and to changes thought to occur in the future. The cities of Gold Hill and Talent did not
submit survey responses.
Ashland—Jackson County
Observations
about Population
Composition (e.g.
about children,
the elderly, racial
ethnic groups)
Observations
about
Housing
(including
vacancy rates)
Planned Housing
Development/Est.
Year Completion
Future Group
Quarters
Facilities
Future
Employers Infrastructure
Promotions (Promos) and Hindrances
(Hinders) to Population and Housing
Growth; Other notes
Ashland’s persons
per household
number has
decreased from
2.2 to 2.14
between 2000 and
2010.
See demographic
changes cited in
Ashland 2012
Housing Needs
Analysis
Vacancy rates
for rental
units (1%)
and
ownership
units (4.2%)
remained
relatively
unchanged
between 2000
and 2010
A
questionnaire
of rental
property
owners
conducted by
A Neighborhood
Masterplan for a
94 acre residential
area within the
UGB is in review
and adoption
process. The
Normal
Neighborhood
Plan area would
accommodate
450-550
residential units of
various housing
types over a 20+
year planning
period consistent
with Ashland’s
No new
facilities
identified
No new large
scale
employers are
identified
See
Transportatio
n System Plan
approved in
2013.
Promos: Has enough vacant land in Urban
Growth Boundary to accommodate
expected 20 year growth, with a total
capacity of an estimated 2,853 dwelling
units.
Hinders: The overall impact of a low
vacancy rate is that there are fewer
options in the rental market when people
are looking for a unit to rent.
Retail and Service are the fastest growing
employment sectors in Ashland. The
average monthly earnings from jobs in the
Retail sector ($2420) and Service sector
($2271) are insufficient to afford fair
market rents in Ashland when measured
as spending less than 30% of one’s income
CAP120816 Page 67
27
Ashland—Jackson County
the City in
2012 showed
the current
rental vacancy
rate to be 1%.
Comprehensive
Plan. (see
www.ashland.or.u
s/normalplan )
on housing costs. However, this trend is
not specific to Ashland; in general wages
have been outpaced by housing costs for
at least the past decade.
Highlights or
summary of
influences on or
anticipation of
population and
housing growth
from planning
documents and
studies
Ashland’s Housing Needs Analysis 2012 cites the population growth rate of individuals 65 years old and older grew at a faster rate in
Ashland than in the rest of the State, while the population of individuals between the ages of 35 and 44 actually declined. In the last
decades Ashland has also seen a substantial decrease in the population of nearly all age groups between 15 and 55 (one exception
was the 25-34 age groups which saw a 3.4% increase between 2000 and 2010). The populations of age groups 55 years old and
older see growth.
SOU’s 2014 fall enrollment was 6,203 students, up from 6,140 a year ago, representing the first increase in fall enrollment since
2011, in contrast to an expected decrease projected by Oregon University System (see
http://www.ous.edu/sites/default/files/factreport/enroll/files/enrdmnd.pdf).
Other information
(e.g. planning
documents, email
correspondence,
housing
development
survey)
Ashland’s low vacancy rate is symptomatic of a mismatch between the price of existing housing stock and the ability to pay for this
housing. In short there is an abundance of high priced single family dwellings, but a shortage of affordable multi-family housing. The
2013 Housing Needs Analysis identified that “the largest dwelling unit gap exists for households earning less than $10,000
annually.” This population makes up about 12 percent of all Ashland households. While there is clearly a gap in affordable dwelling
units for renters, there is also a growing number of retirees moving to Ashland—a demographic that may have sufficient assets to
purchase the higher priced single family dwellings. In any case the city is definitely facing a substantial shortage of affordable rental
housing for its workforce. One constraint is the volume of buildable land which is currently zoned for multi-family residential use.
The 2013 Housing Needs Analysis identifies solutions such as re-zoning commercial land to encourage more mixed use
development, enforce current zoning ordinances to ensure multi-family development occurs in the areas already zoned for it, allow
for and facilitate adaptive reuse and infill of existing built-out areas, etc.
CAP120816 Page 68
28
Butte Falls—Jackson County
Observations
about Population
Composition (e.g.
about children, the
elderly, racial
ethnic groups)
Observations
about
Housing
(including
vacancy
rates)
Planned Housing
Development/Es
t. Year
Completion
Future Group
Quarters
Facilities
Future
Employers Infrastructure
Promotions (Promos) and
Hindrances (Hinders) to
Population and Housing Growth;
Other notes
Elderly population
is stable. No
population
decreases or
increases.
Quite a few
homes in
foreclosure.
Vacancy rate
for rentals is
low.
None None Water Bottling
Plant will add
an estimated
4 jobs.
Promos:
Hinders:
Highlights or
summary of
influences on or
anticipation of
population and
housing growth
from planning
documents and
studies
CAP120816 Page 69
29
Butte Falls—Jackson County
Other information
(e.g. planning
documents, email
correspondence,
housing
development
survey)
CAP120816 Page 70
30
Central Point—Jackson County
Observations
about Population
Composition (e.g.
about children, the
elderly, racial
ethnic groups)
Observations
about
Housing
(including
vacancy
rates)
Planned Housing
Development/Es
t. Year
Completion
Future Group
Quarters
Facilities
Future
Employers Infrastructure
Promotions (Promos) and
Hindrances (Hinders) to
Population and Housing Growth;
Other notes
Remains consistent
with 2010 U.S.
Census population
characteristics.
Has been increased
interest in
retirement
facilities, including
some assisted
living, but generally
consistent with
projections.
Occupancy
Rates stable
both for
ownership
and rental
units.
Significant
majority
(90+%) of
new
construction
is for new
housing.
North Village,
Phase 1 (75
detached
dwelling units)
and 2 (31
detached
dwelling units)
pending receipt
of a Letter of
Map Revision
from FEMA (est.
timing Summer
2015). Estimated
Build-out Fall
2018.
Plans for
development of
the Eastside
Transit Oriented
District (8
duplexes, 30
No plans for
future Group
Quarters.
Combined
Trucking will
add in excess
of 100
employees
City's infrastructure
and capital
improvement program
adequate to serve
planned growth.
Promos: Sufficient urbanizable
land with infrastructure plus a
fast and efficient land use
process.
Hinders: Economy
CAP120816 Page 71
31
Central Point—Jackson County
townhomes, 288
apartments over
three phases.
Estimated timing
summer 2016
start)
Highlights or
summary of
influences on or
anticipation of
population and
housing growth
from planning
documents and
studies
City infrastructure is in good condition to accept projected growth. Currently preparing documentation to expand UGB as
necessary to add more residential land.
Other information
(e.g. planning
documents, email
correspondence,
housing
development
survey)
There are three approved housing development applications that will result in a total of 49 townhomes and 20 single family
dwellings. The townhomes are expected to be built out by 2018 and the single family dwellings by 2016. The townhomes are
targeted at first time home buyers as well as retirees looking to downsize. The single family dwellings are targeted at a more
affluent home buyer, and are priced at $225,000 to $350,000.
CAP120816 Page 72
32
Eagle Point—Jackson County
Observations
about Population
Composition (e.g.
about children, the
elderly, racial
ethnic groups)
Observations
about
Housing
(including
vacancy
rates)
Planned Housing
Development/Es
t. Year
Completion
Future Group
Quarters
Facilities
Future
Employers Infrastructure
Promotions (Promos) and
Hindrances (Hinders) to
Population and Housing Growth;
Other notes
In the past 20 years
Eagle Point has
morphed from a
small, working
class, timber-
oriented bedroom
community to a
more diverse,
growing city with a
broad range of
neighborhoods,
housing types and
costs. Middle
income families
and retirees have
been the town’s
primary market in
recent years.
Ethnicity here is
almost 90% white,
with Hispanic and
mixed races making
up most of the
Eagle Point
has a wide
variety of
housing
types,
densities and
costs, with
noticeable
distinctions
between the
north, south,
and center of
town. After
a period of
foreclosures
and
vacancies,
existing stock
is more
stable now.
Please refer to
the 2014 PSU
Housing
Development
Survey for Eagle
Point.
None planned
beyond the
existing senior
housing
development.
Same as
current.
Major
employers in
town are the
Eagle Point
School District
and Walmart.
However, over
90% of the
working
population
commutes to
other nearby
cities
(primarily
Medford) for
work.
Planned water system
improvement and
expansion as outlined
in the 2013 Water
System Master Plan;
ongoing street capital
improvements and
maintenance.
Promos: Over 200 acres of
vacant and subdivided land
available for single family and
multifamily home construction,
along with a Town Center Plan
that promotes urban, higher
density residential infill and
redevelopment.
Hinders: Development within the
SE area of City limited to 25 – 30
more residences before water
supply has reached its maximum
for that zone. An additional
water tank is currently being
planned.
CAP120816 Page 73
33
Eagle Point—Jackson County
remainder.
Highlights or
summary of
influences on or
anticipation of
population and
housing growth
from planning
documents and
studies
The number of issued residential building permits increased significantly during the latter part of 2013, and has been picking up
steam since then. The city is investing in maintenance of its existing infrastructure, particularly roads, water and storm water
system. The Town Center Plan, adopted in 2008, envisions significant growth in and around the downtown, with a supply of
residential and commercial infill and redevelopment opportunities that well exceed current market demand. At the same time,
over 200 acres of available, subdivided and un-subdivided residential land is primed for construction. Further, in 2012 Eagle Point
received approval from the State, and has since formally established, four urban reserve areas totaling almost 3,000 acres of land
for future expansion outside the city’s current urban growth boundary.
Other information
(e.g. planning
documents, email
correspondence,
housing
development
survey)
Eagle Point has six housing development projects either under review or approved for construction. These projects—if built out to
specifications—will result in 550 single family dwellings and 14 duplexes. The majority of the new houses—including the
duplexes—will be targeting retirees and those able to afford housing priced at $300,000 to $700,000. Only 30 single family
dwellings will be targeting working class families.
CAP120816 Page 74
34
Jacksonville—Jackson County
Observations
about Population
Composition (e.g.
about children, the
elderly, racial
ethnic groups)
Observations
about
Housing
(including
vacancy
rates)
Planned Housing
Development/Es
t. Year
Completion
Future Group
Quarters
Facilities
Future
Employers Infrastructure
Promotions (Promos) and
Hindrances (Hinders) to
Population and Housing Growth;
Other notes
High percentage of
retired and empty
nesters. High home
prices make it
difficult for young
families with
children.
Predominantly
white Caucasian.
High
percentage
of single
family
dwellings,
very few
multi-family
development
s.
See Housing
Development
Survey
None None City is in the process of
looking into purchasing
more water rights to
satisfy the usage at our
present time and
eventual growth. It is
already capable of
handling a population
up to approximately
5000. Recent water
master plan update is
mainly for upgrading
the system for
maintenance purposes.
Promos: The City’s National
Historic Landmark District brings
tourism and commerce. Wine
industry is growing in the area,
more people visiting and
deciding to purchase property.
Hinders: The City of Jacksonville
does not have an urban reserve
area. The City’s Urban Growth
Boundary is identical to its City
Limits with the exception of 10
acres. The City must expand its
urban growth boundary before
additional growth can occur.
CAP120816 Page 75
35
Jacksonville—Jackson County
Highlights or
summary of
influences on or
anticipation of
population and
housing growth
from planning
documents and
studies
City of Jacksonville. See above.
Other information
(e.g. planning
documents, email
correspondence,
housing
development
survey)
Within Jacksonville there are six housing development projects. All of these are approved, but two (39 single family dwellings) have
not started construction yet. The remaining projects will yield 16 single family dwellings and 51 manufactured townhomes. The
manufactured townhomes are targeting a mix of young families and retirees at $250,000 to $300,000. The remaining single family
dwellings are mostly targeting a more affluent home buyer, with some lots projected to be above $400,000.
CAP120816 Page 76
36
Medford—Jackson County
Observations
about Population
Composition (e.g.
about children, the
elderly, racial
ethnic groups)
Observations
about
Housing
(including
vacancy
rates)
Planned Housing
Development/Es
t. Year
Completion
Future Group
Quarters
Facilities
Future
Employers Infrastructure
Promotions (Promos) and
Hindrances (Hinders) to
Population and Housing Growth;
Other notes
One interesting
thing I found out in
the last Census was
Medford had a
younger population
than Ashland
(home of Southern
Oregon University).
Medford has a
sizeable retirement
population and is
more affordable
than many places in
the Rogue Valley
(easier for young
families to buy a
house).
The vacancy
rates are
extremely
low in
Medford.
There are two
large multi-family
developments
being planned for
downtown.
Additional
planned housing
development is
depicted on the
Housing Survey.
Bonaventure
Senior Living
and Fern
Gardens Phase
III
Denny's
Restaurant
opening in
2015 (70
employees)
Promos: The city has just
"upzoned" 40 acres of low
density residential to higher
density residential.
Hinders:
CAP120816 Page 77
37
Medford—Jackson County
Highlights or
summary of
influences on or
anticipation of
population and
housing growth
from planning
documents and
studies
With Medford's population rate of increase roughly in line with the state (over the past 25 years), the City will taking a greater
share of population in Jackson County. The following is an excerpt from the Population Element:
“For many decades, Medford consistently made up a 30% to 33% proportion of the County population. The proportion increased
to 36% in 2005; and the forecast increases this proportion to 42% in 2027 and to 44% in 2040. This is consistent with the Regional
Problem Solving (RPS) program’s future growth proposal, which increases Medford’s share of the urban population in the County
over roughly a 50-year period, allowing for some other cities to grow more slowly. The RPS program is designating Urban Reserve
Areas for each city, which will ultimately be taken into the UGB to accommodate future growth.”
Other information
(e.g. planning
documents, email
correspondence,
housing
development
survey)
Medford has 18 residential development projects which are either under construction or in the process of being approved. These
projects, if built out, will result in about 216 single family dwellings and roughly 217 multi-family units. No price information was
available.
CAP120816 Page 78
38
Phoenix—Jackson County
Observations
about Population
Composition (e.g.
about children, the
elderly, racial
ethnic groups)
Observations
about
Housing
(including
vacancy
rates)
Planned Housing
Development/Es
t. Year
Completion
Future Group
Quarters
Facilities
Future
Employers Infrastructure
Promotions (Promos) and
Hindrances (Hinders) to
Population and Housing Growth;
Other notes
Established &
growing latino
community as
demonstrated by
latino-owned
business cluster in
downtown Phoenix
Multifamily
vacancy is
very low
(roughly 1-
2%); no
single family
rental;
increasing
single family
fee simple
infill
development
;
4 projects to
begin
construction in
2015 and finish in
2017, adding
approximately
300 new dwelling
units; Phoenix
will annex
approximately
1,229 existing
dwelling units
that are located
within its
designated
Urban Reserve
Areas within the
next 5-10 years
None planned
currently
Development
of
approximately
300 acres of
employment
land in next
10 years
All infrastructure is
currently available to
serve new residential
and employment
development
Promos: See comments below.
Hinders: Regional economy is
plagued by high unemployment,
particularly at low skill levels,
and wage stagnation. While
competition for housing
increases, many low and
moderate income households
will confront more barriers to
securing quality housing that is
consistent with their life
circumstances and consumer
preferences.
CAP120816 Page 79
39
Phoenix—Jackson County
Highlights or
summary of
influences on or
anticipation of
population and
housing growth
from planning
documents and
studies
Phoenix is initiating its first UGB amendment ever which includes the addition of residential and employment land. With the
annexation of one Urban Reserve Area, it will increase its population by 50% of its 2015 estimated population. Comprehensive
planning efforts are supportive of increasing density through infill development in existing residential neighborhoods and mixed
use redevelopment projects that will achieve densities that are 2-3 times current densities. Phoenix will also be the beneficiary of
development pressure in Ashland and Talent as low and median income homebuyers and renters are priced out of those
communities. The City has also initiated ambitious community development projects with the goal of attracting developers, small
businesses, and residents.
Other information
(e.g. planning
documents, email
correspondence,
housing
development
survey)
Phoenix has four residential development projects which are either under construction or in the process of being approved. These
projects, if built out, will result in about 291 single and multi-family dwellings. Roughly 41 of these dwellings would be priced for
young families or single professionals. Forty to fifty of these dwellings are intended for workforce housing or low income senior
housing. No market information was provided for the largest development (approximately 200 dwellings). In addition to the
planned residential development, Phoenix plans to annex roughly 1,229 dwellings into its UGB within the next 5-10 years.
CAP120816 Page 80
40
Rogue River—Jackson County
Observations
about Population
Composition (e.g.
about children, the
elderly, racial
ethnic groups)
Observations
about
Housing
(including
vacancy
rates)
Planned Housing
Development/Es
t. Year
Completion
Future Group
Quarters
Facilities
Future
Employers Infrastructure
Promotions (Promos) and
Hindrances (Hinders) to
Population and Housing Growth;
Other notes
No reason to think
the demographics
of our population
has changed in the
last four years, nor
to think that will
change in the next
four years.
Almost all
new homes
here are
being built in
a P.U.D.
where
buildings
costs are
$127,000 and
selling costs
are about
$180,000
Foothill Estates is
the P.U.D. It is
about 35%
complete and
might be
completed by the
end of 2018.
None than we
know of.
None that we
know of.
Except
possible small
business
(Subway/Dolla
r General)
with 1-12
employees
each.
No plans for
infrastructure
improvements or
expansions.
Promos:
Hinders:
Highlights or
summary of
influences on or
anticipation of
population and
housing growth
from planning
documents and
studies
Only the Foothill Estates planned unit development (P.U.D.) as described above.
CAP120816 Page 81
41
Rogue River—Jackson County
Other information
(e.g. planning
documents, email
correspondence,
housing
development
survey)
Rogue River has one housing development project approved and under construction. Twenty-four of the 74 total lots in the
Foothills Estates P.U.D. are currently built. The target is small families and retirees, with a price ranging from $180,000 to
$190,000.
CAP120816 Page 82
42
Shady Cove—Jackson County
Observations
about Population
Composition (e.g.
about children, the
elderly, racial
ethnic groups)
Observations
about
Housing
(including
vacancy
rates)
Planned Housing
Development/Es
t. Year
Completion
Future Group
Quarters
Facilities
Future
Employers Infrastructure
Promotions (Promos) and
Hindrances (Hinders) to
Population and Housing Growth;
Other notes
Contrast between
very wealthy (high
income housing)
and strong
inventory of
Manufactured
dwelling in mobile
home parks
Occupancy
rates stable;
Slow and
steady
construction
on vacant
lots
None Unlikely Unknown Promos: Has enough land in and
outside city for residential
development, enough to
accommodate at least 3,500
persons.
Hinders: Properties along
primary physical attraction
(Rogue River) are occupied;
Distance from medical services;
Lack of municipal water.
CAP120816 Page 83
43
Shady Cove—Jackson County
Highlights or
summary of
influences on or
anticipation of
population and
housing growth
from planning
documents and
studies
Population growth is slightly less than projected for the period beginning in 1990. Current estimates are around 2,920 in 2014; the
estimate for 2015 is 3,178.
Other information
(e.g. planning
documents, email
correspondence,
housing
development
survey)
The response to the housing development survey stated that there are numerous scattered, but vacant lots in subdivisions.
Beyond this there is no current or planned housing development.
CAP120816 Page 84
44
Non-UGB Unincorporated Area—Jackson County
Observations
about Population
Composition (e.g.
about children, the
elderly, racial
ethnic groups)
Observations
about
Housing
(including
vacancy
rates)
Planned Housing
Development/Es
t. Year
Completion
Future Group
Quarters
Facilities
Future
Employers Infrastructure
Promotions (Promos) and
Hindrances (Hinders) to
Population and Housing Growth;
Other notes
Promos:
Hinders:
.
Highlights or
summary of
influences on or
anticipation of
population and
housing growth
from planning
documents and
studies
CAP120816 Page 85
45
Non-UGB Unincorporated Area—Jackson County
Other information
(e.g. planning
documents, email
correspondence,
housing
development
survey)
Jackson County recorded a total of 88 building permits issued for 2014. The majority of these building permits were for
construction of single family dwellings, but a few were for duplex structures and out buildings.
CAP120816 Page 86
46
Email Communication
Comment from State of Oregon DLCD: March25, 2015
Here are my comments as iterated in the meetings last week.
City of Talent- the City has some significant land constraint/availability issues that will likely affect their ability to
grow at the level predicted. The City has a limited amount of land within its current UGB that is developable.
What is developable has some fairly serious development constraints (e.g. railroad crossing, steep slopes). Also,
they do not have much residential land in their Urban Reserve areas.
Glendale- Population estimates seem high for this community. Even if they have the infrastructure available to
accommodate growth (which I’m not sure about) the estimates still seem high based on isolated location and
limited services and employment.
Comments from City of Phoenix: March 26, 2015
I recently attended the Oregon Population Forecast Program in Medford and learned that the City of Phoenix
had not submitted the housing development and demographic surveys. They have been completed and are
attached.
I have the following general comments regarding the population forecast
The forecasts apply only to existing UGBs. The City of Phoenix and five other communities in the Rogue Valley
have identified Urban Reserve Areas through a Regional Problem Solving planning process. In the case of
Phoenix, one of those URAs consists of urbanized land that will be annexed by the City within the next 10 years.
With approximately 1,229 dwelling units in this area the City’s population will grow by 2,500 to 2,700 in a
relatively short period of time. At the same time, Jackson County will lose that population.
Two other URAs, which are currently undeveloped agricultural land, will likely be included (at least in part) in the
City’s upcoming UGB amendment process. Between them, 124 acres have been designated for residential
development. At an average density of 10 dwelling units per gross developable acre, we anticipate that these
residential lands will accommodate approximately 1,240 new households or another 2,500 people. We expect
this development to begin over the next 5 years, reaching its peak between 10 to 20 years, and reaching
buildout within the next 30-40 years.
Please contact me with any questions or comments you might have.
CAP120816 Page 87
47
Question from Jacksonville: March 17, 2015
I went to your presentation on the population forecast for Jackson County. We are concerned that the numbers
the forecast reflect for Jacksonville are too high.
As I understand it, it sounds like you need comments fairly soon. Since next week is spring break, and some key
people in our office are going to be gone, the soonest I can discuss this with our department and City
Administrator is the week of March 30th.
Could you send me some information regarding the process? What would you need with regards to data?
One thing I can tell you right now is that our current water capacity will only support for a maximum population
of about 5,000. Additionally, we have very little buildable land at this point. There are murmurs of possibly
expanding our UGB, but even with that, I think the numbers in the forecast are still too high.
If you could let me know how we should proceed, and your timeline, that would be great.
Response from PSU: March 19, 2015
If you can send comments prior to March 31, that would be great. We will post the proposed forecasts on March
31. The formal challenge period begins April 1 and continues through May 15. We will request that evidence or
additional data be submitted to us to consider for revising the proposed forecast (in addition to survey data
previously submitted). The link below will take you to our web page where additional information can be found
about the 45-day review/challenge period (deadlines, type of data to submit).
http://www.pdx.edu/prc/opfp
Your comments and information included in your email (this one) are helpful to have. We will revisit the forecast
for Jacksonville and reevaluate our assumptions for future growth.
Follow up question from Jacksonville: March 26, 2015
Our Planning Director is out of town this week, so I haven't had the opportunity to sit down with her and our
City Administrator about the numbers. We are planning on meeting early next week. Any chance we can have
until Friday, April 3rd to send you our comments?
Follow up response from PSU: March 26, 2015
We cannot extend the period in which to respond to the preliminary forecasts because we release the proposed
forecasts on March 31. The release of the proposed forecasts begins the formal challenge period.
We did adjust Jacksonville's forecasts down to account for lower density growth and issues with water rights.
If you check back later today, we can give you the revised average annual growth rates
CAP120816 Page 88
48
Follow up questions from Jacksonville: March30, 2015
Could you send me the revised annual growth rates for the City of Jacksonville?
I am meeting with our City Administrator and Planning Director tomorrow morning and would like to show them
the revised numbers.
Follow up response from PSU: March 30, 2015
Below are tentative Proposed numbers for Jacksonville for 2015, 2035, and 2065. As you'll see these numbers
are roughly 400 lower in 2035 and 700 lower by 2065. The AAGR is now at 2% for the 2015-2035 period and
remains at 1.5% for the 2035-2065 period.
Contact us with any questions or concerns.
Other general inquiry for Jackson County and UGBs, April and May, 2015
Per telephone conversation and emails after the challenge period commenced, more information and insight
about population growth in Jackson County and its sub-areas from a local planning firm were provided and
discussed.
CAP120816 Page 89
49
Appendix B: Specific Assumptions
Ashland
The total fertility rate (TFR) is assumed to stay slightly above the historical average TFR observed in the
2000s. Survival rates for 2060 are assumed to be a little above those forecast for the county as a whole.
Ashland has historically had slightly higher survival rates than observed countywide; this corresponds
with a slightly longer life expectancy. Age-specific net migration rates are assumed to generally follow
historical patterns for Ashland, but at slightly higher rates over the forecast period.
Butte Falls
The annual housing unit growth rate is assumed to rapidly increase to one percent during the initial
years of the forecast period and then gradually decline to zero over the remainder of the forecast
period. The occupancy rate is assumed to steadily decline over the forecasting period, starting at a rate
higher than observed in 2010 and ending at a rate slightly lower than observed in 2010. Average
household size is assumed to slightly decrease over the forecast period. Group quarters population is
assumed to stay steady over the forecast period.
Central Point
The total fertility rate (TFR) is assumed to begin at the rate observed in 2010 and then gradually decline
over the forecast period. Survival rates for 2060 are assumed to be a little above those forecast for the
county as a whole. Central Point has historically had slightly higher survival rates than observed
countywide; this corresponds with a slightly longer life expectancy. Age-specific net migration rates are
assumed to generally follow countywide historical patterns, but at slightly higher rates over the forecast
period.
Eagle Point
The total fertility rate (TFR) is assumed to decline over the forecast period—although more slowly than
it has historically—from the rate observed in 2010. Survival rates for 2060 are assumed to be a little
above those forecast for the county as a whole. Eagle Point has historically had slightly higher survival
rates than observed countywide; this corresponds with a slightly longer life expectancy. Age-specific net
migration rates are assumed to generally follow historical patterns for Eagle Point, but at slightly higher
rates over the forecast period.
Gold Hill
The annual housing unit growth rate is assumed to rapidly increase in the initial years of the forecast
period and then slightly decline to a rate just greater than one percent and remain at this level for the
duration of the forecast period. The occupancy rate is assumed to slightly increase during the initial
years of the forecast period and then gradually decline through the remainder of the forecast period.
Average household size is assumed to gradually decline over the forecast period. Group quarters
population is assumed to remain at zero over the forecast period.
CAP120816 Page 90
50
Jacksonville
The annual housing unit growth rate is assumed to slightly increase during the initial years of the
forecast period and then gradually decline to a rate just above a long term historical average annual rate
over the later years of the forecast period. The occupancy rate is assumed to slightly increase in the first
few years of the forecast period and then gradually decline through the remainder of the forecast
period, ending at rate slightly lower than what was observed in 2010. Average household size is
assumed to gradually decline over the forecast period. Group quarters population is assumed to stay
relatively steady over the forecast period.
Medford
The total fertility rate (TFR) is assumed to begin at the rate observed in 2010 and then gradually decline
over the forecast period. Survival rates for 2060 are assumed to be a little below those forecast for the
county as a whole. Medford has historically had slightly lower survival rates than observed countywide;
this corresponds with a slightly shorter life expectancy. Age-specific net migration rates are assumed to
generally follow countywide historical patterns, but at slightly higher rates over the forecast period.
Phoenix
The annual housing growth rate is assumed to rapidly increase during the initial years of the forecast
period and then gradually decline over the remainder of the forecast period. The occupancy rate is
assumed to remain slightly above 90 percent throughout the forecast period. Average household size is
assumed to gradually decline over the forecast period. Group quarters population is assumed to stay
relatively steady over the forecast period.
Rogue River
The annual housing unit growth rate is assumed to rapidly increase during the initial years of the
forecast period and then decrease slightly and remain at this level through the remainder of the forecast
period. The occupancy rate is assumed to slightly decrease over the forecast period, starting from the
rate observed in 2010. Average household size is assumed to remain at about two persons per
household over the forecast period. Group quarters population is assumed to stay relatively steady over
the forecast period.
Shady Cove
The annual housing unit growth rate is assumed to rapidly increase during the initial years of the
forecast period and then gradually decline to and remain at a rate slightly higher than a long term
historical average over the duration of the forecast period. The occupancy rate is assumed to initially
increase and then gradually decrease through the end of the forecast period. Average household size is
assumed to gradually decline over the forecast period. Group quarters population is assumed to remain
relatively steady over the forecast period.
Talent
The annual housing unit growth rate is assumed to rapidly increase during the initial years of the
forecast period and then gradually decline through the end of the forecast period. The occupancy rate is
assumed to slightly decline over the forecast period. Average household size is assumed to slightly
CAP120816 Page 91
51
decline over the forecast period. Group quarters population is assumed to remain relatively steady over
the forecast period.
Outside UGBs
The total fertility rate (TFR) is assumed to gradually decline over the forecast period from the rate
observed in 2010. Survival rates for 2060 are assumed to be a little above those forecast for the county
as a whole. The area outside UGBs in Lane County has historically had slightly higher survival rates than
observed countywide; this corresponds with a slightly longer life expectancy. Age-specific net migration
rates are assumed to generally follow countywide historical patterns, but at slightly higher rates over
the forecast period.
CAP120816 Page 92
52
Appendix C: Detailed Population Forecast Results
Figure 22. Jackson County—Population by Five-Year Age Group
Age Group 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065
00-04 11,470 11,439 11,502 11,558 11,608 11,516 11,432 11,339 11,343 11,359 11,356
05-09 12,213 11,626 11,620 11,713 11,826 11,813 11,737 11,620 11,592 11,622 11,652
10-14 12,208 12,699 12,115 12,140 12,295 12,349 12,353 12,243 12,190 12,187 12,233
15-19 12,733 12,308 12,832 12,273 12,357 12,448 12,521 12,493 12,454 12,428 12,440
20-24 12,723 12,490 12,167 12,732 12,240 12,258 12,367 12,407 12,454 12,443 12,433
25-29 11,694 12,453 12,273 11,994 12,610 12,065 12,103 12,181 12,296 12,373 12,381
30-34 12,255 12,282 13,148 13,002 12,770 13,363 12,808 12,821 12,979 13,135 13,237
35-39 12,032 13,182 13,304 14,295 14,207 13,890 14,560 13,927 14,023 14,231 14,423
40-44 11,835 12,999 14,346 14,535 15,697 15,532 15,215 15,918 15,316 15,461 15,716
45-49 12,643 12,716 14,054 15,566 15,855 17,050 16,907 16,534 17,405 16,793 16,983
50-54 14,465 13,475 13,633 15,129 16,850 17,097 18,431 18,250 17,965 18,970 18,344
55-59 15,885 15,270 14,296 14,525 16,219 18,002 18,321 19,733 19,678 19,442 20,586
60-64 16,613 16,876 16,286 15,310 15,654 17,428 19,402 19,736 21,411 21,434 21,243
65-69 14,745 17,416 17,851 17,326 16,403 16,736 18,711 20,832 21,363 23,284 23,398
70-74 10,253 14,592 17,443 18,005 17,610 16,946 17,430 19,516 21,509 22,091 24,157
75-79 7,165 9,589 13,801 16,629 16,706 17,246 16,306 17,265 19,160 21,163 21,834
80-84 5,376 6,187 8,388 12,181 14,846 15,235 15,880 15,060 15,837 17,653 19,603
85+ 4,967 4,983 5,500 7,051 10,085 13,687 16,538 19,028 20,265 22,011 24,839
Total 211,275 222,583 234,561 245,963 255,840 264,660 273,023 280,902 289,239 298,078 306,858
CAP120816 Page 93
53
Figure 23. Jackson County's Sub-Areas—Total Population
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065
Ashland UGB 20,905 21,547 22,231 22,839 23,183 23,335 23,433 23,557 23,742 23,941 24,138
Butte Falls Town UGB 421 428 429 438 437 443 447 447 455 447 447
Central Point UGB 18,329 19,332 20,484 21,638 22,680 23,706 24,599 25,416 26,155 26,836 27,485
Eagle Point UGB 9,657 11,030 12,424 13,735 14,839 15,796 16,612 17,315 17,912 18,372 18,669
Gold Hill UGB 1,267 1,318 1,383 1,441 1,496 1,520 1,604 1,684 1,788 1,899 2,018
Jacksonville UGB 2,927 3,227 3,659 3,980 4,316 4,584 5,031 5,347 5,651 6,147 6,687
Medford UGB 80,024 84,813 89,917 95,002 99,835 104,598 108,917 113,026 117,001 120,892 124,582
Phoenix UGB 4,955 5,437 5,919 6,401 6,883 7,365 7,847 8,329 8,811 9,293 9,775
Rogue River UGB 2,838 2,938 3,158 3,421 3,705 3,975 4,247 4,538 4,850 5,185 5,545
Shady Cove UGB 3,168 3,462 3,756 4,049 4,343 4,637 4,930 5,224 5,517 5,811 6,105
Talent UGB 6,411 6,829 7,429 8,084 9,020 9,714 10,702 11,318 12,195 13,201 14,290
Outside UGBs 60,373 62,222 63,775 64,934 65,104 64,986 64,656 64,702 65,161 66,053 67,119
CAP120816 Page 94
Photo Credit: A view of the rugged landscape along Highway 66 in the Cascade Mountains.
(Photo No. jacDA0063) Gary Halvorson, Oregon State Archives
http://www.sos.state.or.us/archives/pages/records/local/county/scenic/jackson/103.html
CAP120816 Page 95
Resolution
Debt Financing
CAP120816 Page 96
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Steve Weber, Finance Director
Date: December 8, 2016
Subject: Debt Financing Authorization
Purpose:
Adopt a resolution authorizing staff to seek debt financing that will refinance the City’s water reservoir loan and the
East Pine Streetscaping project.
Summary
The City has been reviewing the terms and rates on its existing debt in comparison to current market trends for
potential savings on annual debt obligations. The market has presented the opportunity to refinance the water
reservoir loan at interest rates in the 2.1% to 2.5% in a bank placement. This would result in a net present value
savings of approximately $392,000 as the current debt is at 3.4%.
While reviewing the potential savings on a refinance, discussions turned to financing the Development Commission’s
East Pine Streetscaping project. If the Development Commission financed the project on its own, it would be limited
to a debt capacity of $1,700,000 at interest rates between 4.5% and 5%. However, there is the opportunity to “piggy
back” the financing of the project with the refinancing of the City’s water reservoir loan which would provide more
funds towards the project while taking advantage of the lower interest rates. This option was presented at the
November 14th Development Commission study session where staff was directed to continue pursuing this option.
Once the structure of the debt financing has been determined (bank placement vs. bonds) a resolution authorizing
that particular debt issuance as well as an intergovernmental agreement between the City and the Development
Commission will be presented at the January 12, 2017 City Council meeting.
Recommended Action:
Adopt the resolution authorizing staff to seek debt financing that will refinance existing City debt as well as finance the
East Pine Streetscaping project.
Staff Report
Finance Department
Steve Weber, Finance Director
CAP120816 Page 97
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SEEK DEBT FINANCING THAT WILL REFINANCE THE CITY’S WATER RESERVOIR LOAN AND FINANCE THE EAST PINE STREETSCAPE PROJECT
RECITALS:
A. The City financed the water reservoir project in 2010 at an interest rate of 3.4%.
B. The City has been presented an opportunity to refinance that debt at an interest rate of
2.1% to 2.5% which would result in a net present value savings of approximately $392,000.
C. The City also has an opportunity to include in a refinance, the financing for the East Pine
Streetscaping project at a significantly lower rate than the Development Commission could
obtain for said project.
D. Staff seeks direction from Council authoring staff to seek debt financing to refinance the
water reservoir loan and finance the East Pine Streetscaping project.
The City of Central Point resolves as follows:
Section 1. Council directs staff to seek debt refinancing to refinance the existing City debt for
the water reservoir.
Section 2. Council directs staff to seek debt refinancing that would include financing the East
Pine Streetscaping project.
Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 8th day of
December, 2016.
__________________________
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Recorder
CAP120816 Page 98
Resolution
Unanticipated Revenue
CAP120816 Page 99
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Steve Weber, Finance Director
Date: December 8, 2016
Subject: Transfer of Budget Appropriation
Purpose:
Adopt a resolution allowing a budget increase to appropriate unanticipated revenues in accordance with ORS
294.471(1) (a).
Summary
On August 9, 2016 the Police Department received $15,000 in asset forfeiture funds through their work with Medford
Area Drug and Gang Enforcement (MADGE). These funds were not anticipated when the 2015/17 budget was
adopted, however, the Department would like to use the proceeds to start the Department’s narcotics K-9 program.
ORS 294.471(1) (a) allows for a budget increase for an occurrence or condition that is not ascertained when preparing
the original budget or a previous supplemental budget for the current year or current budget period and that requires a
change in financial planning. The attached resolution meets the requirements of ORS 294.471 (1) (a).
Recommended Action:
Adopt the resolution allowing a budget increase to appropriate the unanticipated revenues.
Staff Report
Finance Department
Steve Weber, Finance Director
CAP120816 Page 100
RESOLUTION NO. ___
A RESOLUTION ALLOWING A BUDGET INCREASE PURSUANT TO ORS 294.471(1)(a),
PROVIDING FOR THE RECEIPT AND EXPENDITURE OF UNANTICIPATED REVENUES IN THE
2015/17 BUDGET
RECITALS:
1. The Central Point Police Department received $15,000 in asset forfeiture funds through
their work with Medford Area Drug and Gang Enforcement (MADGE).
2. The funds were not anticipated when the 2015/17 budget was adopted, however, the
Department would like to use these funds to start the narcotics K-9 program.
3. ORS 294.471(1) (a) allows for a budget increase for an occurrence or condition that is
not ascertained when preparing the original budget or a previous supplemental budget
for the current year or current budget period and that requires a change in financial
planning.
THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Adjusted
Appropriation Revenues Expenses Appropriation
General Fund 20,140,885$ 20,140,885$
Police Donations & Grants 30,000$ 15,000$ 45,000$
Police/Small Equipment 72,000$ 15,000$ 87,000$
General Fund - Revised 20,155,885$ 20,155,885$
Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 8th day of
December, 2016.
__________________________________
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTEST:
__________________________________
City Recorder
CAP120816 Page 101
Business
Backflow Bid Award
CAP120816 Page 102
Parks & Public Works Department
Matt Samitore, Director
140 South 3rd Street | Central Point, OR 97502 | 541.664.7602 | www.centralpointoregon.gov
November 29, 2016 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Matt Samitore, Parks & Public Works Director
SUJECT: Award of City Backflow Testing
PURPOSE:
The Public Works Department recently sent a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the City instituted
backflow prevention program.
SUMMARY:
Staff received two bid proposals for the backflow prevention testing program. The low bid is B-2
Backflow Service out of Eagle Point, with a base charge of $11.99 and a re-test amount of $7.00.
Current rates for city customers are $1.00 per month if a resident has a registered backflow or has an in
ground sprinkler system. Residents who do not have either are charged $0.25 per month. The bid
provided matches what was budgeted for in the current year budget.
Bid Tabulation Table:
Company Location
Annual
Test
Re-
Test
B-2 Backflow Service
Eagle
Point 11.99 7
A-Team Backflow Service Keizer 12.95 12.95
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the bid to B-2 Backflow Service for testing of all backflow devices for 2017-2019.
CAP120816 Page 103