HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinances 2052 ORDINANCE NO. a bsa
AN ORDINANCE UPDATING AND ADOPTING THE CENTRAL POINT COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN POPULATION ELEMENT (2019-2039)
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 implementing
ordinances 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 and
compatibility with City and County Comprehensive Plans.
C. ORS 195.033 directs jurisdictions to utilize the most current population forecast data
published by Portland State University Research Center (PRC) as the basis for
Comprehensive Plan and land use regulation amendments.
D. The PRC published an updated Coordinated Population Forecast for Jackson
County and Urban Growth Boundaries on June 30, 2018.
E. Pursuant to authority granted by the City Charter and the ORS, the City has
determined it in the best interest of the city to update its Population Element which
was recently adopted in 2016 as necessary to comply with ORS 195.033.
F. 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 amendments
and conducted the following duly advertised public hearings to consider the
proposed amendments:
a) Planning Commission hearing on February 5, 2019
b) City Council hearing on February 28, 2019.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Based upon all the information received. the City Council adopts the Staff
Reports and evidence which are 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 Element is hereby updated and
adopted as set forth in Exhibit A —Comprehensive Plan Population Element. 2019-2039 which is
attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.
Section 3. The City Manager or his designee is directed to conduct post
acknowledgement procedures defined in ORS 197.610 et seq. upon adoption of the Population
Element.
Pa sed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this l41 dray of
614.417 , 2019.
Mayor Hank Williams
ATTE:T:
L/1. : _ . -
City Recorder '
Page 1 of 1
City of Central Point
Staff Report to Council
CENTRAL ISSUE SUMMARY
POINT
•
TO: City Council DEPARTMENT:
Community Development
FROM: Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner
MEETING DATE: February 28, 2019
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. . An Ordinance to Update and Adopt the
Central Point Comprehensive Plan Population Element (2019-2039)
ACTION REQUIRED: RECOMMENDATION:
Ordinance 2nd Reading Approval
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On February 5, 2019 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider an
update to the City's Comprehensive Plan Population Element and forwarded a recommendation
of approval to the City Council. Following consideration of the Planning Commission's
recommendation and a public hearing at the February 28, 2019 City Council meeting, the draft
Population Element was forwarded to a second reading. Attached is a draft of the Population
Element. It was last updated in 2016 to account for impacts of the Great Recession and
HB2253/ORS 195.033, which assigns population forecasting responsibility for all Oregon
counties and cities to Portland State University Population Research Center (PRC).
Population Element Overview:
The draft Population Element update reflects the recently updated population forecast for
Central Point's Urban Area (city limits and Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) published by the
PRC on June 30, 2018. Per ORS 195.033, the City is obligated to utilize the PRC Forecast
when updating its Comprehensive Plan or land use regulations. The proposed update is
consistent with ORS 195.033 and documents forecast growth over 20-year period 2019-2039.
Changes include updated tables and text: however, the goal and policies remain unchanged.
The most significant finding in the updated PRC Forecast and 2019-2039 Population Element
update is the increase in the City's Average Annual Growth Rate from 1.1% to 1.5.% over the
next 20-years. The result is a forecast population increase of 7,216 people within the City's
urban area by 2039. As the City grows, this will impact the need for housing and estimated
residential land need as shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Summa of Po•ulation Forecast Chan•es & Housin s Im•acts
Population and 2015 PRC 2018 PRC Change
Housing Characteristics Forecast Forecast (+1-)
0
al 2019 Population 18,919 19,101 182
Q
a° 2039 Population 23,497 26,317 2,820
Population Change (2019-2039) I 4,578 7,216 2,638
s No. Persons Per HH 2.5 2.5 0
= Forecast No. Housing Unit Need I 1,831 2,886 1,055
Average Density 7.04 7.04 0
Gross Land Need 260 410 150
(2019-2039 Buildable Lands) (105) (105) 0
Estimated Additional Land Need I 155 305 150
The estimated impact of population change impacts to housing and residential land need in
Table 1 are for illustration purposes only. Final assessment of buildable land availability and
residential land needs are subject to approve of the Residential Buildable Lands Inventory
(CPA-18003) and the 2019-2039 Housing Element (CPA-18005)
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS:
The forecast population change does not generate additional cost to the City beyond the in-kind
staff expenses. postage and legal notification costs included within the budgeted funds for
Community Development. The fiscal impact of extending public infrastructure and services will
be evaluated at such time the City proposes amendments to its UGB.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
The Population Element Comprehensive Plan text amendments are considered "Major
Amendments" per CPMC 17.96.300 and are subject to Type IV Legislative application
procedures per CPMC 17.05.500. Conducting a second public hearing by the City Council is
necessary and consistent with the requisite procedures to adopt changes to the forecast
population.
Aside from procedural compliance. the primary changes to be discussed include those identified
in the 2018 PRC Forecast as required by ORS 195.033 and the City's efforts to engage and
inform the public about forecast growth over the next 20-years.
COUNCIL GOALS/STRATEGIC PLAN ANALYSIS:
The City Council goal to provide managed growth and infrastructure is predicated on the ability
of the City to forecast growth and the corresponding land and service needs over the long term.
The 2019-2039 Population Element aligns with Council's goal by: "Continually ensuring that
planning and zoning review and regulations are consistent with comprehensive plans and
vision."
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Consider the second reading of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan,
Population Element (2019-2039) and 1) approve the ordinance. 2) approve the ordinance with
revisions: 3) deny the ordinance.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Approve Ordinance No. Updating and Adopting the Central Point Comprehensive
Plan Population Element (2019-2039).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. ORDINANCE (Population)
2. PC Resolution 864 (Population)
3. 02052019 Population Element
Population
1
Demographics
Element
. •
i • 2019-2039
• ` .It Iii./if .'
re City of Central Point
4
Comprehensive Plan
; ,I o Final Draft
N., t
1-29-2019
z Al
•
Adopted Central Point City Council
Ordinance No. 2030
1;
.- Recertified Central Point City Council
Ordinance No.
DLCD Acknowledged
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
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 6
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: 8
3.8.3.Group Quarters 9
3.9.Average Household Size; 9
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 15
Element 1 -Population and Demographics
Page 1
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
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 updated in 2016. The
2016 update accounted for two events that 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 statet.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 2018 through 2068 for Jackson County dated June 2018 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 cycle'', 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.
'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)
Element I -Population and Demographics
Page 2
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
This update represents the first update for the PRC Population Forecast for Jackson
County. The next update is tentatively scheduled to occur in 2022.
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 ORS 195.033. 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 2019-2039 the result was a 12%reduction in the
City's initial 2008 population forecast figures5(29,006 vs 25,933). 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 1.4%. Based on the forecasted growth rate it is projected that
between 2019 and 2039 the City of Central Point is expected to realize a net increase in
population of 7,216. Based on a projected average household size of 2.5 persons6 the population
increase will result in the formation of 2,886 new households by 2039.
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 of
543. 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.
S Extended to 2036 from the Jackson County 2007 Population Element.
6 City of Central Point Regional Plan Element
1890 U.S.Census
Element 1 -Population and Demographics
Page 3
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
FIGURE 1. HISTORIC & FORECAST POPULATION,
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, 1900-2039
30000 ( IIIIIIII I 1.
25000 I I I I I I I I I I '`
20000 ( IIIIIIII ___
15000 ( I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2018 PSU
I I�( I I I I 1
p°, 10000 I I ( 1/I' 2016 PSU
5000 IIIII I III
0
DO ••rOrn �OhObo^o 0o 0o o0 v '•• gNoeV elel
el
OS OS q q q q q qq rO N ry N N N
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.
FIGURE 2. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT HISTORIC
AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATE 1910-2019
14% -
11
•
10% II
grAIMMIMAIM
4% 1
•
o,
0%
1'10 wt 1'00 1'•0 1'.0 1'•0 1. 0 1960 1990 2101 .010 2019
-4% MEI i
City AAGR ----County AAGR
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. In 1900
Element I -Population and Demographics
Page 4
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
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 from 3.1%to
4.2%. By 2018, 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).
FIGURE 4. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT RACIAL
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENTAGE,
2000- 2014
100% 92%-
86%
80%
60%
40%
20% 4% 4% 9% 5%
0% I I I I
2000 2014
•White •Hispanic 0 Other
Source:2000 U.S.Census&U.S.Census Bureau American Fact Finder
FIGURE 5.JACKSON COUNTY RACIAL
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENTAGE,
2000- 2014
100% 89°!0 — -- _—
83%
80%
60%
40%
20% 7% 5% 11% 6%
0%
■White ■Hispanic ❑Other
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).
Element 1 -Population and Demographics
Page 5
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
3.5. Natural Increase
Growth occurring as a result of natural increase typically represents a very small
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 growths.
FIGURE 6.CITY OF CENTRAL POINT NATURAL
POPULATION RATE*,2000 and 2010
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0 '
10.0 I 8.0 --- lt;.c,
6.0 '
4.0
2.0 — ■
0.0 --
Birth Rate Death Rate Net Change
■2000 02010
Source:PRC Coordinated Population Forecast,Jackson County
a U.S.Census Bureau,Census 2010
Element 1-Population and Demographics
Page 6
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
FIGURE 7.JACKSON COUNTY NATURAL
POPULATION RATE*,2000 and 2010
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
11
11 I
4.0
2.0
1.0 0.8
Birth Rate Death Rate Net Change
.2000 .2010
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.
FIGURE 8. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT AGE
STRUCTURE OF POPULATION,2000 through 2014
100%
90% - I7.9°/0
80%
70% —
60%
50% 61.9% 63.3% 60.6%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2000 S2(0�110 2014
U.S.Census&U.S.Census Bureau Amerls an Fa�ct,ifinder •65+
Element I -Population and Demographics
Page 7
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
FIGURE 9.COUNTY AGE STRUCTURE OF THE
POPULATION,2000 through 2014
100% -
16.0% 17.6%
80% — —
60%
64.0% 64.5% 63.6%
40% —
20%
Mt-
0%
2000 2010 2014
■0-14 ❑15-64 .65+
U.S.Census&U.S.Census Bureau American Fact Finder
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.
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.
9 U.S.Census,Current Population Survey(CPS)-Definitions and Explanations
1°American Fact Finder,2014
Element 1 -Population and Demographics
Page 8
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
FIGURE 10.CITY OF CENTRAL POINT FAMILY
vs.NON-FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS, 1990-2010
90%
80%
70% __
60%
50%
40% 1 ,
30%
20
10% I 23% - I 25% - I 29%
%
0%
1990 2000 2010
UFamily ❑N -Family
U.S.Census&U.S.Census Bureau AmerlcanFact Finder
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.
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.
Element 1 -Population and Demographics
Page 9
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
FIGURE 11.AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE, 1950-
2010,CITY OF CENTRAL POINT& JACKSON
COUNTY
4 i
3.5
2.5 1 1' z
2 I: i "' II
1.5 0 ' M o '1 3 m ,,, ., Io, .� '
M M N rn r` in UN N h '
N
0.5
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Source:U.S.Census ■City ■County
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.
FIGURE 12.AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME,
2000-2014,CITY OF CENTRAL POINT&JACKSON
COUNTY
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000 r� , 1 - 1
$30,00000 1. . 1 1
$20,000 0 `it `, 1
$10,000
1 1
2000 2010 2014
■City ■County
U.S.Census&U.S.Census Bureau American Fact Finder
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
national and state changes in median household income. Figure 14 compares the
changes in income distributions from 2000, 2010, and 2014.
Element I -Population and Demographics
Page 10
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
FIGURE 13.CITY OF CENTRAL POINT MEDIAN
HOUSEHOLD INCOME MEASURED TO 2000
DOLLARS
$60,000
$50,000 —
$40,000 -
$30,000 N
$20,000 — o o N ai V c
V m N Ct
$10,000
2000 2010 2014
•Median Household Income M 2000 Dollars
Source:2000 U.S.Census&U.S.Census Bureau American Fact Finder
FIGURE 14.HOUSEHOLD INCOME
DISTRIBUTION, CITY OF CENTRAL POINT 2010-
2014
100% r 5l° 11% 12%
90%
80% 34%
70% - 40% 34% — ❑$100,000 or More
60% — M$50,000 to$99,000
50% — •$25,000 to$49,999
40%
30% 0$10,000 to$24,999
20% •Less than$10,000
10% 20% 15% 15%
0%
2000 2010 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).
Element I -Population and Demographics
Page 11
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
FIGURE 15.2014 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
INCOME
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000 r`
$30,000 8 `^ O1 (.o
°° m `° -
00 �O
CO
$20000
. ,n .1 An `n r n O
ri a a dco. m
$10,000 N +^ 1/ H v.
S-
Pr\acaa�a°`c{`eta\ zs,�' °`.�h°�,\�ea�°` r�c �a\ec°¢Q\Je`a`°J� ygQc`L°Jc'
�a� �a° Q°°0 hra Q
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 2018
through 2068 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 2019 to 2039
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 1.5%,taking the population from 19,101 in 2019 to
26,317 in 2039 (Table 1). During this same period the City's percentage of the County
population is expected to increase from 8.5%to 9.9%. By 2068 Central Point will be the second
largest City in Jackson County12.
11 Coordinated Population Forecast 2015 through 2065 Jackson County
12 ibid
Element 1 -Population and Demographics
Page 12
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
TABLE 1.POPULATION GROWTH PROJECTIONS
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT AND JACKSON COUNTY
Year Central Point .Jackson Count
2019 19,101 219,270
2020 19,714 235,066
2025 21,035 246,611
2030 22,920 257,256
2035 24,815 263,006
2039 26,317 264,951
('hanf4c _,2 I6 45.6S I
Source:2018 PRC Coordinated Population Forecast,Jackson County
6. PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH CHARACTERISTICS
The following represents a general overview of the City's and County's population
characteristics throughout the 2019-39 planning period. The information is taken from PRC's
Coordinated Population Forecast 2018 through 2068,Jackson County.
6.1. Age Characteristics.
Based on the projected County age cohorts (Figure 16)the City's population will continue to
get older with the 65+cohort claiming a larger percentage of the population. Although the
City 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).
FIGURE 16. COUNTY AGE STRUCTURE
OF THE POPULATION,2019 vs.2039
100% -
22.4% 25.9%
80%
60%
40% 60.7°0 ;8.5%
20%
0%
2019 2039
110-14 ❑15-64 ■65+
6.2. Growth Rate.
The City's population will continue to grow, but at a decreasing average annual growth rate
of 1.5%vs.the 2.9%experienced between 2000 and 2010. Similarly,the County's average
annual growth rate is expected to decline to 0.9%vs. 1.1%.
6.3. Percentage Share of County.
Element 1 -Population and Demographics
Page 13
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
As illustrated in Table 2 the City's percentage of the County's population will continue to
increase from 8.7% in 2016 to 9.9%by 2039.
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 2019 through 2039 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
Element 1 -Population and Demographics
Page 14
City of Central Point
Comprehensive Plan
community regardless of race or ethnicity.
APPENDIX A-Coordinated Population Forecast, 2018 Through 2068, Jackson
County
Element 1 -Population and Demographics
Page 15
Coordinated
Population
Forecast
2018
_ •4 .4104-4 ► Through 11114
3
:444110
Jackson
County
Urban Growth
Boundaries (UGB)
& Area Outside UGBs
Population Research Center
PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY
Photo Credit: Lower Table Rock at sunset.Gary Halvorson,Oregon State Archives.
172
Coordinated Population Forecast for Jackson County,
its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and
Area Outside UGBs
2018-2068
Prepared by
Population Research Center
College of Urban and Public Affairs
Portland State University
June 30, 2018
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.
1
173
Project Staff:
Nicholas Chun, Population Forecast Program Manager
Kevin Rancik, GIS & Research Analyst
Rhey Haggerty, Graduate Research Assistant
Joshua 01linger, Graduate Research Assistant
Charles Rynerson, Research Consultant
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.
2
174
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 (2018-2068).
3
175
Table of Contents
Modified Methodology 6
Comparison to Cycle 1 (2015-17) 6
Executive Summary 7
14-Year Population Forecast 9
Historical Trends 10
Population 10
Age Structure of the Population 11
Race and Ethnicity 12
Births 13
Deaths 15
Migration 15
Historical Trends in Components of Population Change 16
Housing and Households 17
Assumptions for Future Population Change 20
Assumptions for the County and Larger Sub-Areas 20
Assumptions for Smaller Sub-Areas 21
Forecast Trends 22
Forecast Trends in Components of Population Change 24
Glossary of Key Terms 27
Appendix A:Surveys and Supporting Information 28
Appendix B: Specific Assumptions 45
Appendix C: Detailed Population Forecast Results 47
4
176
Table of Figures
Figure 1.Jackson County and Sub-Areas—Historical and Forecast Populations, and Average Annual
Growth Rates (AAGR) 8
Figure 2.Jackson County and Sub-Areas-14-Year Population Forecast 9
Figure 3.Jackson County—Total Population by Five-year Intervals (1975-2017) 10
Figure 4.Jackson County and Sub-areas—Total Population and Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR)
(2000 and 2010) 11
Figure 5.Jackson County—Age Structure of the Population (2000 and 2010) 12
Figure 6.Jackson County—Hispanic or Latino and Race (2000 and 2010) 13
Figure 7.Jackson County and Oregon—Total Fertility Rates(2000 and 2010) 13
Figure 8.Jackson County—Age Specific Fertility Rate (2000 and 2010) 14
Figure 9.Jackson County—Average Annual Births (2010-2045) 14
Figure 10.Jackson County—Average Annual Deaths (2010-2045) 15
Figure 11.Jackson County and Oregon—Age Specific Migration Rates (2000-2010) 16
Figure 12.Jackson County—Components of Population Change (2001-2016) 17
Figure 13.Jackson County and Sub-Areas—Total Housing Units(2000 and 2010) 18
Figure 14.Jackson County and Sub-Areas—Persons per Household (PPH) and Occupancy Rate 19
Figure 15.Jackson County—Total Forecast Population by Five-year Intervals(2018-2068) 22
Figure 16.Jackson County and Larger Sub-Areas—Forecast Population and AAGR 23
Figure 17.Jackson County and Smaller Sub-Areas—Forecast Population and AAGR 24
Figure 18.Jackson County—Average Annual Net In/Out-Migration (2000-2010, 2010-2020, and 2020-
2043) 25
Figure 19.Jackson County—Age Structure of the Population (2018, 2030, and 2043) 26
Figure 20.Jackson County—Components of Population Change (2015-2045) 26
Figure 21.Jackson County—Population by Five-Year Age Group 47
Figure 22.Jackson County's Sub-Areas—Total Population 47
5
177
Modified Methodology
The Population Research Center, in consultation with DLCD, has identified cost savings associated with a
modified methodology for the latter half of the 50-year forecast period (years 26 to 50). Based on
feedback we have received, a 25-year forecast fulfills most requirements for local planning purposes
and, in an effort to improve the cost effectiveness of the program; we will place more focus on years 1
through 25. Additionally,the cost savings from this move will allow DLCD to utilize additional resources
for local government grants. To clarify, we use forecast methods to produce sub-area and county
populations for the first 25 years and a modified projection method for the remaining 25 years.The
description of our forecast methodology can be accessed through the forecast program website
(www.pdx.edu/prc/opfp),while the summary of our modified projection method is below.
For years 26-50, PRC projects the county population using the annual growth rate from the 24th-25th
year. For example, if we forecast a county to grow .4% between the 24th and 25th year of the forecast,
we would project the county population thereafter using a .4%AAGR.To allocate the projected county
population to its sub-areas, we extrapolate the change in sub-area shares of county population
observed in years 1-25 and apply them to the projected county population.
Comparison to Cycle 1 (2015-17)
To keep up to date with local trends and shifting demands, OPFP regularly updates coordinated
population forecasts for Oregon's areas. Beyond the modification to our methodology and additional
forecast region (from three regions to four), there are differences between the 2018 updated forecast
for Jackson County and the 2015 version. The county level forecast is consistent with last round, though
there are differences amongst the sub-areas.A number of Jackson County's sub-areas have grown at a
slower pace than what we anticipated in 2015. As a result, our expectations of future sub-area shares of
county population are different from last round. Central Point, Medford, and the area outside the UGBs
are expected to capture larger shares of Jackson County's future population, while shares for all other
sub-areas are consistent to or smaller than shares from last round. The full breakdown of differences by
county and sub-area is stored here: www.pdx.edu/prc/cycle-2-region-1-documents.
6
178
Executive Summary
Historical
Different parts of the county experience different growth patterns. Local trends within UGBs and the
area outside them collectively influence population growth rates for the county as a whole.
Jackson County's total population grew rapidly in the 2000s, with an average annual growth rate of just
over 1 percent (Figure 1); however, some of its sub-areas experienced faster population. Central Point
and Eagle Point posted the highest average annual growth rates at 2.9 and 5.6 percent, respectively,
during the 2000 to 2010 period, while Jacksonville and Shady Cove also experienced growth rates above
that of the county as a whole.All other sub-areas experienced average annual growth rates at or below
that of the county as a whole.
Jackson County's positive population growth in the 2000s was largely the result of substantial net in-
migration.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 having children at older
ages has led to births stagnating in recent years. A larger number of births relative to deaths caused
natural increase (more births than deaths) in every year from 2000 to 2014,though increasing deaths
and stagnating births has transitioned the county to a natural decrease since 2015. Even still, net in-
migration is far outpacing natural decrease, leading to steady population growth in more recent years
(2012-15) (Figure 12).
Forecast
Total population in Jackson County, as a whole as well as within its sub-areas, will likely grow at a faster
pace in the near-term (2018 to 2043) compared to the long-term (Figure 1). The tapering of growth
rates is largely driven by a growing natural decrease that will cut into population growth from net in-
migration.Jackson County's total population is forecast to increase by nearly 53,000 over the next 25
years (2018-2043) and by more than 101,500 over the entire 50 year forecast period (2018-2068).
7
179
Figure 1.Jackson County and Sub-Areas-Historical and Forecast Populations,and Average Annual Growth Rates(AAGR)
I Historical I Forecast
AAGR AAGR AAGR AAGR
2000 2010 (2000-2010) 2018 2043 2068 (2010-2018) (2018-2043) (2043-2068)
Jackson County 181,795 203,34.0 1.1% 219,270 272,226 320,852 0.9% 0.9% 0.3%
Ashland 20,023 20,626 0.3% 21,501 23,625 24,177 0.5% 0.4% 0.1%
Butte Falls 440 423 -0.4% 419 444 452 -0.1% 0.2% 0.1%
Central Point 13,310 17,736 2.9% 19,101 27,803 38,008 0.9% 1.5% 1.3%
Eagle Point 4,952 8,508 5.6% 9,188 14,114 20,172 0.9% 1.7% 1.4%
Gold Hill 1,173 1,228 0.5% 1,234 1,382 1,477 0.1% 0.5% 0.3%
Jacksonville 2,256 2,785 2.1% 2,985 4,203 5,643 0.8% 1.4% 1.2%
Medford 67,865 76,581 1.2% 82,566 108,638 136,046 09% 1.1% 0.9%
Phoenix 4,379 4,774 0.9% 4,861 5,967 7,124 0.2% 0.8% 0.7%
Rogue River 2,544 2,714 0.6% 2,846 3,468 4,076 0.6% 0.8% 0.6%
Shady Cove 2,528 3,050 1.9% 3,288 4,338 5,533 0.9% 1.1% 1.0%
Talent 5,683 6,123 0.7% 6,416 8,386 10,617 0 6% 1 1% 0 9%
Outside UGBs 56,116 58,658 0.4% 64,865 69,857 67,527 1.2% 0.3% -0.1%
Sources:U.S.Census Bureau,
Note:For simplicity eoch UG8 is
8
13C
1
14-Year Population Forecast
In accordance with House Bill 2254, which streamlined the UGB process based on long-term housing and
employment needs, Figure 2 provides a 14-year population forecast (2018-2032)for the County and its
sub-areas. Populations at the 14th year of the forecast were interpolated using the average annual
growth rate between the 2030-2035 period. The population interpolation template is stored here:
www.pdx.edu/prc/cycle-2-region-1-documents.
Figure 2.Jackson County and Sub-Areas-14-Year Population Forecast
2018 2032 14-Year AAGR
Change (2018-2032)
Jackson County 219,270 250,815 31,546 1.0%
Ashland 21,501 23,337 1,836 0.6%
Butte Falls 419 430 10 0.2%
Central Point 19,101 23,662 4,562 1.5%
Eagle Point 9,188 11,603 2,415 1.7%
Gold Hill 1,234 1,319 85 0.5%
Jacksonville 2,985 3,594 609 1.3%
Medford 82,566 96,355 13,789 1.1%
Phoenix 4,861 5,434 573 0.8%
Rogue River 2,846 3,171 325 0.8%
Shady Cove 3,288 3,846 558 1.1%
Talent 6,416 7,483 1,068 1.1%
Outside UGBs 64,865 70,582 5,716 0.6% _
Note:For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name.
9
181
Historical Trends
Different growth patterns occur in different parts of Jackson County. Each of Jackson County's sub-areas
were examined for any significant demographic characteristics or changes in population or housing
growth that might influence their individual forecasts. Factors analyzed include age composition of the
population, race and ethnicity, births, deaths, migration, the number of housing units, 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, population growth rates for the county are
collectively influenced by local trends within its sub-areas.
Population
Jackson County's total population grew from roughly 114,000 in 1975 to nearly 217,000 in 2017 (Figure
3). During this 40-year period,the county experienced the highest growth rates during the late 1970s,
which coincided with a period of relative economic prosperity. During the early 1980s challenging
economic conditions, both nationally and within the county, led to a decline in population growth rates.
During the early 1990s population growth rates again increased but challenging economic conditions
late in the decade again yielded declines. Following the turn of the century,Jackson County has
experienced strong population growth between 2000 and 2017—averaging around 1 percent per year.
Figure 3.Jackson County—Total Population by Five-year Intervals(1975-2017)
250,000 4.0%
3.5%
200,000
0
3.0% 0J
ca
2,-150,000 -- 2.5% L
2.0% 2
8100,000 `°
1.5%
o �
� a
50,000 -- 1.0%
0.5% Q
0 – ._ 0.0%
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2017
Population 113,850 133,000 136,445 146,389 167,330 181,795 192,054 203,340 216,900
�AAGR
3.8% 3.2% 0.5% L4% 2.7% 1.7% L1% 1.1% 0.9%
Sources:U.S.Census Bureau,1980,1990,2000,and 2010 Censuses;Population Research Center(PRC),July 1st Annual Estimates 1975,1985,1995,
2005 and 2017.
During the 2000s,Jackson County's average annual population growth rate stood at 1.1 percent (Figure
4). Central Point and Eagle Point posted the highest average annual growth rates in the county at 2.9
and 5.6 percent, respectively, while Jacksonville and Shady Cove also grew faster than the county as a
whole (around 2 percent).Ashland and Gold Hill experienced minimal population growth, with growth
10
182
rates at or below half a percent. Only Butte Falls saw a slight population decline, recording an average
annual growth rate of-0.4 percent.
Figure 4.Jackson County and Sub-areas-Total Population and Average Annual Growth Rate(AAGR)(2000 and
2010)'
2000 2010 AAGR Share of Share of Change
(2000-2010) County 2000 County 2010 (2000-2010)
Jackson County 181,795 203,340 1.1% 62.9% 65.2% 2.3%
Ashland 20,023 20,626 0.3% 11.0% 10.1% -0.9%
Butte Falls 440 423 -0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0%
Central Point 13,310 17,736 2.9% 7.3% 8.7% 1.4%
Eagle Point 4,952 8,508 5.6% 2.7% 4.2% 1.5%
Gold Hill 1,173 1,228 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0%
Jacksonville 2,256 2,785 2.1% 1.2% 1.4% 0.1%
Medford 67,865 76,581 1.2% 37.3% 37.7% 0.3%
Phoenix 4,379 4,774 0.9% 2.4% 2.3% -0.1%
Rogue River 2,544 2,714 0.6% 1.4% 1.3% -0.1%
Shady Cove 2,528 3,050 1.9% 1.4% 1.5% 0.1%
Talent 5,683 6,123 0.7% 3.1% 3.0% -0.1%
Outside UGBs 56,116 58,658 0.4% 30.9% 28.8% -2.0%
Sources:U.S.Census Bureau,2000 and 2010 Censuses.
Note:For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name.
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 slowdown or decline in births.The shift in age structure from
2000 to 2010 illustrates this phenomenon (Figure 5). Furthercountywide trend in
aging,the median age in Jackson County increased from 39.2 in 2000 to 42.1 in 20102.
1 When considering growth rates and population growth overall, it should be noted that a slowing of growth rates
does not necessarily correspond to a slowing of population growth in absolute numbers. For example,if a UGB
with a population of 100 grows by another 100 people, it has doubled in population. If it then grows by another
100 people during the next year, its relative growth is half of what it was before even though absolute growth
stays the same.
2 Median age is sourced from the U.S.Census Bureau's 2000 and 2010 Censuses.
11
183
Figure 5.Jackson County—Age Structure of the Population(2000 and 2010)
•2000(Male) 2000(Female) ■2010(Male) 2010(Female)
85+ - 85+ 1.7111
80-84 - 80-84
75-79 75-79
70-74 70-74 1111.
65-69 65-69 M
60-64 I 60-64 IIIIIIIIIIA
a 55-59 n 55-59
50-54 a�`o 50-54
45-49MEN. 45-49
a) ro
w
'F, 40-44 V 40-44
35-39 —_ a)>- 35-39
i 30-34 _ ;i 30 -34
25-29 - 25-29
20-24 11 20-24 MIS
15-19 =. 15-19
10-14 111 10-14
5-9 MM. 1 5-9
0-4 0-4
5% 3% 1% 1% 3% 5% 5% 3% 1% 1% 3% 5%
Percent of total population Percent of total population
Sources:U.S.Census Bureau,2000 and 2010 Censuses
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 share of total population within Jackson
County increased from 2000 to 2010(Figure 6), while the White, non-Hispanic share deceased 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 tend to be higher than among White, non-Hispanic women.
However, it is important to note more recent trends show these rates are quickly decreasing. Second,
Hispanic and minority households tend to be larger relative to White, non-Hispanic households.
12
184
Figure 6.Jackson County-Hispanic or Latino and Race(2000 and 2010)
Absolute Relative
Hispanic or Latino and Race 2000 2010 Change 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.
Births
Historical fertility rates for Jackson County do not mirror statewide trends in Oregon as a whole. Fertility
for women over 30 increased for the county and state (Figure 8) and, as a result,Total fertility rates
increased in the former from 2000 to 2010 (Figure 7), while they declined for the latter over the same
time period.Total fertility in the county and state remain below replacement fertility (2.1), indicating
that future cohorts of women in their birth-giving years will shrink overtime without net in-migration.
Figure 7.Jackson County and Oregon-Total Fertility Rates(2000 and 2010)
Total Fertility Rate (TFR)
2000 2010
Jackson County 1.87 1.96
Oregon 1.98 1.81
Sources:U.S.Census Bureau,2000 and 2010 Censuses.
Oregon Health Authority,Center for Health Statistics.
Calculations by Population Research Center(PRC).
13
185
Figure 8.Jackson County—Age Specific Fertility Rate(2000 and 2010)
0 ,i
—Oregon 2010
0.12 -- Oregon 2000
Jackson 2010
To
010 --- ,Jackson 2000
o �
O 0.08 --- - -- --- ---
U '
$ 006
Q � `
0.04 `
002 `
0.00 .
10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49
Five-year age groups
Sources:U.S.Census Bureau,2000 and 2010Censuses.PRC Estimates.Oregon Health Authority,Center for Health Statistics.Calculations and
Forecast by Population Research Center(PRC).
Figure 9 shows the number of historic and forecasted births for the county.The number of annual births
from 2000-10 to 2010-15 remained stable. Due a shrinking cohort of women in their birth giving years,
births are expected to remain fairly stable throughout the forecast period, despite population growth.
Figure 9.Jackson County—Average Annual Births(2010-2045)
4,500
4,000
3,500
m 3,000
To
c
2,500
✓▪ 2,000
00
1,500
1,000
500 _--
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Births 2,254 2,328 I 2,326 2,377 2,400 2,449 2,530 2,613
Sources:Oregon Health Authority,Center for Health Statistics.Calculations and Forecast by Population Research Center(PRC).
Note:The years signify the end of the period for which average annual numbers were calculated.The average annual numbers for"2010"were
calculated for the 2000-2010 period,with the remaining years calculated for their preceding five-year periods.
14
186
Deaths
The population in the county, as a whole, is aging and contrary to the statewide trend, people of all ages
are not necessarily living longer'. 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, relative to
birth and migration rates, of population change.Average annual deaths increased from 2000-10 and
2010-15 and are expected to increase steadily overtime (Figure 10).
Figure 10.Jackson County—Average Annual Deaths(2010-2045)
4,500
4,000
L 3,500
r
fa
0 3,000
To
2,500
c
m 2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 1 2045
Deaths 1,993 2,274 2,454 2,788 3,082 3,437 3,770 4,025
Sources:Oregon Health Authority,Center for Health Statistics.Calculations and Forecast by Population Research Center(PRC).
Note:The years signify the end of the period for which average annual numbers were calculated.The average annual numbers for"2010" were
calculated for the 2000-2010 period,with the remaining years calculated for their preceding five-year periods.
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 for Oregon.
The migration rate is shown as the number of net migrants per person by age group.
Jackson County's migration rates reflect the patterns of many other Oregon counties. Young adults(20-
29) leave the county seeking higher education and employment opportunities, but return in their 30's
'Researchers have found evidence for a widening rural-urban gap in life expectancy.This gap is particularly
apparent between race and income groups and may be one explanation for the decline in life expectancy in the
2000s. See the following research article for more information.Singh, Gopal K., and Mohammad Siahpush.
"Widening rural-urban disparities in life expectancy, US, 1969-2009."American Journal of Preventative Medicine
46,no.2(2014):e19-e29.
15
187
and 40's with their children. Retirees made up a large proportion of net in-migrants in the 00's, but left
the county shortly thereafter to areas with end-of-life care.
Figure 11.Jackson County and Oregon—Age Specific Migration Rates(2000-2010)
0.25
020
015
'
g10
0 !
45 / ice ♦
o a 00 05 /
co to_
w
0 000
`" -0 05
-0-10 �,leq�on — — Oregon
-0.15
0) a rn rn
6 u5 n N ' 1 v 'Q 4 � 4
O N N O U)) O U) O Y) O Y) O U) O
v v u) u) co co N- n CO
Five-year age groups
Sources:U.S.Census Bureau,2000 and 2010 Censuses.Calculated by Population Research Center(PRC).
Historical Trends in Components of Population Change
In summary,Jackson County's positive population growth during the 2000s was the result of substantial
net in-migration (Figure 12). The more births than deaths led to natural increase for Jackson County in
every year from 2000 to 2014, but has since transitioned to a natural decrease.While net in-migration
fluctuated dramatically during the early and late years of the last decade, the number of in-migrants
recently (2012-16) has been increasing, far outweighing the emerging natural decrease. With this recent
increase, net in-migration accounts for all of the population growth in the county, leading to strong
population growth.
16
188
Figure 12.Jackson County—Components of Population Change(2001-2016)
4,000 2.00%
3,500 1.75%
3,000
1.50% „,
o �
oc + 2,500 1.25%
9 n1 O
1`' 2,000 1.00% 00
o A a
a c �
Ec
v � 1,`�0 a
O/5%
� c
c c
1,000 0.50%
ro
500
� . III0.25%
c 0
0.00%
500 0 25%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2006 2007 2009 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Nat hr/Out Mig. 1,960 2,294 902 1,434 7,607 3,459 2,854 2,164 952 364 361 644 1,636 2,065 2,637 2.07
num Nat.Inc./Dec. 227 170 162 I 230 312 203 I 425 995 317 169 229 96 44 10 -37 if
AGR L2% 1.3% 0.6% 0.9% L5% 1.9% 1.7% 1.3% 10.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.9% 0.8% 10% L2% 13%
Sources:Population Research Center,July 1st Annual Estimates 2001-2016 Oregon Health Authority,Center for I lealth Statistics.Calculated by Population Research Center(PRC).
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 Great Recession in 2008. Over
the entire 2000 to 2010 period, the total number of housing units increased by 20.1 percent
countywide;this was more than 15,000 new housing units (Figure 13). Medford captured the largest
share of the growth in total housing units, adding nearly 5,000 units over the last decade. Central Point
also saw a large share of countywide housing growth, adding 2,130 units and increasing as a share of
total countywide housing units by 1.2 percent. In terms of relative housing growth, Eagle Point had the
highest growth rate; its total housing units increased nearly 93 percent(1,746 housing units) by 2010,
and its share of countywide housing units increased by 1.5 percent.
Housing growth rates may differ from population growth rates because (1)the numbers of total housing
units are smaller than the numbers of people; (2) the UGB has experienced changes in the average
number of persons per household; or(3) occupancy rates have changed (typically most pronounced in
coastal locations with vacation-oriented housing). However,the patterns of population and housing
change in Jackson County are relatively similar.
17
189
Figure 13.Jackson County and Sub-Areas-Total Housing Units(2000 and 2010)
AAGR Share of Share of Change
2000 2010 (2000-2010) County 2000 County 2010 (2000-2010)
Jackson County 75,737 90,937 1.8% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0%
Ashland 9,289 10,735 1.5% 12.3% 11.8% -0.5%
Butte Falls 170 188 1.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0%
Central Point 5,072 7,202 3.6% 6.7% 7.9% 1.2%
Eagle Point 1,882 3,628 6.8% 2.5% 4.0% 1.5%
Gold Hill 520 557 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% -0.1%
Jacksonville 1,116 1,548 3.3% 1.5% 1.7% 0.2%
Medford 28,215 33,166 1.6% 37.3% 36.5% -0.8%
Phoenix 2,017 2,251 1.1% 2.7% 2.5% -0.2%
Rogue River 1,309 1,462 1.1% 1.7% 1.6% -0.1%
Shady Cove 1,200 1,533 2.5% 1.6% 1.7% 0.1%
Talent 2,453 2,853 1.5% 3.2% 3.1% -0.1%
Outside UGBs 22,494 25,814 1.4% 29.7% 28.4% -1.3%
Sources:U.S.Census Bureau,2000 and 2010 Censuses
Note:For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name.
Average household size,or PPH, in Jackson County was 2.4 in 2010, a small decline from 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 county's UGBs, with all of them falling between 2.0 and 2.6 persons per
household. In 2010 the highest PPH was in Central Point and Eagle Point with 2.6 and the lowest in
Ashland and Jacksonville at 2.0.
Occupancy rates tend to fluctuate more than PPH.This is particularly true in smaller UGBs where fewer
housing units allow for larger relative changes in occupancy rates. From 2000 to 2010 the occupancy
rate in Jackson County decreased slightly (Figure 14).A drop in occupancy rates was uniform across
almost all sub-areas,with Butte Falls experiencing the highest decline at 5.8 percent between 2000 and
2010. Only Gold Hill saw an increase in occupancy rates, increasing by 2.5 percent during this time
period.
18
190
Figure 14.Jackson County and Sub-Areas-Persons per Household (PPH)and Occupancy Rate
Persons Per Household(PPH) I Occupancy Rate
Change Change
2000 2010 2000-2010 2000 2010 2000-2010
Jackson County 2.5 2.4 -3.2% 94.4% 91.4% -3.1%
Ashland 2.5 2.0 -18.0% 94.2% 90.0% -4.1%
Butte Falls 2.2 2.5 18.5% 94.1% 88.3% -5.8%
Central Point 2.8 2.6 -4.9% 96.8% 93.8% -3.0%
Eagle Point 2.7 2.6 -2.6% 93.5% 89.5% -4.0%
Gold Hill 2.8 2.4 -15.1% 89.8% 92.3% 2.5%
Jacksonville 2.5 2.0 -19.5% 93.6% 89.0% -4.7%
Medford 2.1 2.4 13.5% 95.4% 92.8% -2.6%
Phoenix 2.5 2.3 -8.4% 94.5% 93.2% -1.4%
Rogue River 2.3 2.1 -10.2% 92.7% 90.2% -2.5%
Shady Cove 2.1 2.3 8.1% 89.8% 88.3% -1.5%
Talent 2.3 2.3 -2.4% 96.1% 93.4% -2.7%
Outside UGBs 2.4 2.5 4.1% 93.3% 89.7% -3.6%
Sources:U.S.Census Bureau,2000 and 2010 Censuses.Calculated by Population Research Center(PRC)
Note:For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name.
19
191
Assumptions for Future Population Change
Evaluating past demographic trends provides clues about what the future will look like and helps
determine assumptions of likely scenarios for population change. Assumptions about fertility, mortality,
and migration were developed for Jackson County's forecast and for each of its larger sub-areas'.
Population change for smaller sub-areas is determined by the change in the number of total housing
units, PPH, occupancy rates, and group quarters population. Assumptions around these components of
growth are derived from observations of historical building patterns,current plans for future housing
development, and household demographics. Our forecast period is 2018-2068.
Jackson County's larger sub-areas include Ashland, Central Point, Eagle Point, and Medford, and smaller
sub-areas include Butte Falls, Gold Hill,Jacksonville, Phoenix, Rogue River,Shady Cove, and Talent.
Assumptions for the County and Larger Sub-Areas
During the forecast period, the population in Jackson County is expected to age more quickly during the
first half of the forecast period and then remain relatively stable over the forecast horizon.Total fertility
rates are expected to slightly decline throughout the forecast period (1.93 in 2015 to 1.88 in 2043), and
fertility rates for women under 30 are expected to decline even more. Our assumptions of fertility for
the county's larger sub-areas vary and are detailed in Appendix B.
Changes in survival rates are more stable than fertility and migration rates; overall life expectancy is
expected to increase slightly over the forecast period. In spite of the rent,Jackson County's aging
population will increase the overall number of deaths throughout the forecast period.
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.
We assume rates will change in line with historic trends unique to Jackson County. Net out-migration of
younger adults and net in-migration of middle-aged individuals will persist throughout the forecast
period. Countywide average annual net in-migration is expected to increase from 2,928 net in-migrants
in 2015 to 3,196 net in-migrants in 2043. Net in-migration is expected to curb the results of a growing
natural decrease, accounting for the all of Jackson County's population growth throughout the entire
forecast period.
County sub-areas with populations greater than 7,000 in the forecast launch year were forecast using the cohort-
component method.County sub-areas with populations less than 7,000 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.
20
192
Assumptions for Smaller Sub-Areas
Rates of population growth for the smaller UGBs are 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 and PPH are assumed to stay relatively stable over the forecast period. Smaller
household size is associated with an aging population in Jackson County and its sub-areas.
If planned housing units were reported in the surveys, we accounted for them being constructed over
the next 5-15 years (or as specified by local officials). Finally, for sub-areas where population growth has
been flat or declining, and there is no planned housing construction, we temper population change.
21
193
Forecast Trends
Under the most-likely population growth scenario for 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 2020 and then slowly decline throughout the forecast period. A reduction in
population growth rates is driven by both (1) an aging population—contributing to steady increase in
deaths—as well as(2) in-migration tapering in the long run to account for uncertainty.
Jackson County's total population is forecast to grow by 101,582 persons(46 percent) from 2018 to
2068, which translates into a total countywide population of 320,852 in 2068 (Figure 15).The
population is forecast to grow at the highest rate— 1 percent per year—during the near-term (2018-
2025).This anticipated population growth in the near-term is based on two core assumptions: (1) strong
net in-migration and housing construction will continue into 2020; (2) net in-migration of retirees will
continue. Over 4,800 in-migrants are forecasted in the near term, leaning to a continued population
growth.This growth be tapered slightly by the nearly 350 more deaths than births that are forecast for
the 2018-2025 period.
Figure 15.Jackson County—Total Forecast Population by Five-year Intervals(2018-2068)
350,000 3.5%
300,000 t7
3.0%o
c 250,000 - - - - - 2.5% s
L
a 200,000 °
`E.
2.0%
�o
150,000
-
-- - - ---
-- - -- 1.5% c
o
100,000 on
-- 1.0%
a
50,000 -- -- --- .. --
0 -- 0.0%
2018 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 206D 2065 2068
Population 219,270 224,980 235,066 246,611 257,256 266,910 275,829 285,046 294,571 904,414 314,586 320,852
-AAGR 0.9% L3% 0.9% 1.0% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%
Source:Forecast by Population Research Center(PRC).
Jackson County's four largest UGBs—Ashland, Central Point, Eagle Point, and Medford—are forecast to
experience a combined population growth of nearly 42,000 from 2018 to 2043 and over 44,000 from
2043 to 2068(Figure 16). The Medford UGB is expected to increase by more than 26,000 persons during
the first half of the forecast period and almost 27,500 during the second half, at average annual growth
rates of 1.1 percent and 0.9 percent. Both Central Point and Eagle Point are expected to increase at
faster rates,with forecasted growth rates of at least 1.5 percent from 2018 to 2043 and just below 1.5
22
194
percent from 2043 to 2068.This growth translates to population increases for Central Point and Eagle
Point of roughly 8,700 and 5,000, respectively, during the first half of the forecast period and 10,000 and
6,000, respectively, during the second half of the forecast period.Slower growth is expected in Ashland,
where the population is expected to increase by just over 2,000 from 2018 to 2043 (0.4%AAGR) and 550
from 2043 to 2068 (0.1%AAGR).All larger UGBs, except Ashland, are projected to grow as shares of the
total county population. Medford,Jackson County's largest UGB, and Central Point are expected to
capture the largest shares of total countywide population growth during the entire forecast period
(Figure 16).
The population outside the UGB5 is expected to grow by almost 5,000 people from 2018 to 2043 but is
expected to shrink during the second half of the forecast period, declining by more than 2,300 people
from 2043 to 2068. Its share is forecast to decline over the 50-year period,composing about 30 percent
of the countywide population in 2018 and 21 percent in 2068.
Figure 16.Jackson County and Larger Sub-Areas-Forecast Population and AAGR
AAGR AAGR Share of Share of Share of
2018 2043 2068 (2018-2043) (2043-2068) County 2018 County 2043 County 2068
Jackson County 219,270 272,226 320,852 0.9% 0.7% -- --
Ashland 21,501 23,625 24,177 0.4% 0.1% • • 9.8% 8.7% 7.5%
Central Point 19,101 27,803 38,008 1.5% 1.3% _ _ 8.7% 10.2% 11.8%
Eagle Point 9,188 14,114 20,172 1.7% 1.4% 4.2% 5.2% 6.3%
Medford 82,566 108,638 136,046 1.1% 0.9% 37.7% 39.9% 42.4%
Outside UGBs 64,865 69,857 67,527 0.3% -0.1% 29.6% 25.7% 21.0%
Source:Forecast by Population Research Center(PRC)
Note:For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name.
The smaller UGBs are expected to grow by a combined number of over 6,100 persons from 2018 to 2043
and over 6,700 from 2043 to 2068 (Figure 17). Combined average annual growth rates for the small
UGB5 mirror expected countywide growth rates, and similar to the larger UGB5 and Jackson County as a
whole, population growth rates are forecast to decline for the second half of the forecast period.
Jacksonville is expected to experience the highest growth rates-1.4 percent from 2018 to 2043 and 1.2
percent from 2043 to 2068-adding a total of almost 2,700 people throughout the entire forecast
period. Talent will experience the largest total population growth, increasing by around 4,200 over the
forecast period.
23
195
Figure 17.Jackson County and Smaller Sub-Areas-Forecast Population and AAGR
AAGR AAGR Share of Share of Share of
2018 2043 2068 (2018-2043) (2043-2068) County 2018 County 2043 County 2068
Jackson County 219,270 272,226 320,852 0.9% 0.7% -- -- --
Butte Falls 419 444 452 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%
Gold Hill 1,234 1,382 1,477 0.5% 0.3% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5%
Jacksonville 2,985 4,203 5,643 1.4% 1.2% 1.4% 1.5% 1.8%
Phoenix 4,861 5,967 7,124 0.8% 0.7% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2%
Rogue River 2,846 3,468 4,076 0.8% 0.6% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3%
Shady Cove 3,288 4,338 5,533 1.1% 1.0% 1.5% 1.6% 1.7%
Talent 6,416 8,386 10,617 1.1% 0.9% 2.9% 3 1% 3.3%
Outside UGBs 64,865 69,857 67,527 0.3% -0.1% 29.6% 25.7% 21.0%
Source;Forecast by Population Research Center(PRC)
Note.For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its pnmary city's name.
Jackson County's smaller sub-areas are expected to experience fairly uniform growth.As a result,there
will be little change in shares of countywide population;the smaller UBGS are expected to capture 10.2
percent of countywide population during the first half of the 50-year period and 10.7 during the second
half.
Forecast Trends in Components of Population Change
As previously discussed,the number of in-migrants is forecasted to outweigh the number of out-
migrants in Jackson County, creating a positive net in-migration of new residents that is expected to
persist throughout the forecast period. Furthermore,the average annual net in-migration is forecasted
to increase from the near-term rate of 2,214 individuals (2010-2020)to 2,981 individuals later in the
forecast (2020-2043) (Figure 18).The majority of these net in-migrants are expected to be middle-aged
and older individuals.
24
196
Figure 18.Jackson County—Average Annual Net In/Out-Migration (2000-2010,2010-2020,and 2020-2043)
3,500
'a
C
Z2.0 3,000
2 2,500
c
io
'c 2,000
111m
a 1500
a 1,000
500
0
2000-2010 2010.2020 2020-2013
Jackson County 1,893 2,211 2,981
Sources:U.S.Census Bureau,2000 and 2010Censuses Calculations and Forecast by Population Research Center(PRC).
Note:The average annual numbers were calculated for the 10 year periods(2000-2010 and 2010-2070)and the 23 year period(2020-2043).
In addition to net in-migration,the other key component shaping Jackson County's forecast is the aging
population. From 2018 to 2030,the proportion of the county population 65 years of age and older is
forecast to grow from roughly 22 percent to 26 percent, and then to maintain that proportion through
2043 (Figure 19). 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 (www.pdx.edu/prc/cycle-2-region-1-
documents).
25
197
Figure 19.Jackson County—Age Structure of the Population(2018,2030,and 2043)
r
■2018(Male) 2018(female) ■2030(Male) 2030(Female) is 2043(Male) 2043(Female)
85+ 85+ 85+
80-84 80-84 80-84
75-79 75-79 75-79
70-74 70-74 iv70-74
65-69 65-69 65-69
60-64 60-64 60-64
a 55-59 .55-59 -55-59
m 50- ro 54 50-54 m50-54
i 45-49 F 45-49 45-49
x 40-44 4-, 40-44 m` 40-44
>
35-39 g•35.39 >35-39
-I 3434 -1 30-34 1 30-34
25-29 25-29 25-29
20-24 20-24 20-24
15-19 15-19 15-19 U
10-14 10-14 10-14 IS 41
5-9 5-9 5-9
0-4 0-4 0-4
6% 4% 2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 6% 4% 2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 6% 4% 2% 0% 2% 4% 6%
Percent of total population Percent of total population Percent of total population
source•Forecast by Population Research Center(PRC)
In summary, current population growth is expected to peak around 2020 before the average annual
growth rates begins to taper (Figure 20). Net in-migration is expected to be steady throughout the
forecast period,though the magnifying natural decrease will temper this growth, resulting in moderate
population growth.
Figure 20.Jackson County—Components of Population Change(2015-2045)
.:;xm
2.0%
v 1,cxul •
1.5%
1.0%
d
Zi 2,000 - i
v
c 0.5%
o c
TO' To o
n .'. 1,000 0.0% to
°a c c
c c
ao c 0 •
-0.5% 00
03 L°
-10%Q
E 1,000
c -1 S4„
c
i -2,000
2010-15 2015-20 2020-25 2025-30 2030-35 2035-40 204445 I;P>
&mei Nit In/Out-Ng. 1,500 2,928 2,429 2991 3,117 3,170 3,196
Nat.Inc./Doc. 54 -127 -411 -682 -988 -1,240 -1,412
-AAGR 0.7% L3% 0.9% 1.096 0.8% 0.7% 0.7%
Source:Forecast by Population Research Center(PR()
26
198
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 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).
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.
27
199
Appendix A: Surveys and 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.There was one challenge to Phoenix's proposed
forecast during the formal review period. PRC reviewed the challenge and adjusted the sub-area's final
forecast.The cities of Ashland, Butte Falls,and Gold Hill did not submit survey responses. Talent
indicated there were no updates from the 2015 survey.
General Survey for Oregon Population Forecast Program
Jurisdiction: City of Central Point Date: January 11, 2018
Observations about Population Distribution of population based on age,racial and ethnic groups
Composition (e.g.children,the remains consistent with 2010 census.
elderly,racial and ethnic groups)
Observations about Housing Under Construrtion
A 245-unit multifamily development has been approved within the
Twin Creeks TOD. The first phase consisting of 100-units is currently
under construction with completion anticipated by the end of 2018.
Phase 2 construction of 145-units will commence early 2019.
A 16-unit multifamily infill project near South Haskell Street was
approved in 2016 and is nearing completion.
Final phases of the North Village(5 and 2)are completing infrastructure
improvements for final plat of 90 residential lots for single-family
construction.
Twin Creeks Phase 1 has final plat approval for 19 lots. All but five(5)
have building permits issued for construction.
Aooroved.Panrline Construction
Plans for development of the Eastside Transit Oriented Development
District have been approved for 288 apartments,30 townhomes,and 8
duplexes. This project was noted earlier but has been delayed to
environmental remediation. Revised construction start is within the
next 2-years.
A 50-unit multifamily development has been approved on South
Haskell Street for the Housing Authority of Jackson County. The
estimated start of construction is Fall 2018.
Housing Observation Summary:
At this time,there are 746 units under construction or approved for
development. There are an additional 84 units approved for assisted
living/memory care within Twin Creeks(see reverse),and an additional
670+units anticipated pending UGB amendment and/or submittal and
approval of required master plan/subdivision applications.
28
200
Planned Housing Dev./Est.Year There is a preliminary master plan under development in the MMR
Completion zone within the Eastside TOD. Minimum density for this zone is
expected to yield a minimum of 89 units.
There is a master plan under development within the LMR zone in the
TOD Corridor. The preliminary housing yield is 27 single-family
detached and attached housing. Submittal is anticipated in the Spring
2018/19.
Pending UGB Expansion and Annexation,there is a preliminary
conceptual development plan for 137 acres to include a mix of single-
family attached and detached units(570+units). A UGB Amendment
application is anticipated in Spring 2018. (See Planning Documents
section for summary of Housing Element/need for additional
residential acreage.)
Summary: There are pending application to add an additional 690
estimated residential units.
Future Group Quarters Facilities Pear Valley Senior Living is currently under construction and will add 60
assisted living and 24 memory care units.
Future Employers Rogue Valley Microdevices has an approved CUP and Site Plan and
Architectural Review to construct a 43,000 s.f. light manufacturing
building. The business currently has 25 employees and is expected to
double their staff following the move to Central Point.
Infrastructure Pine Street is being improved to provide a more pedestrian friendly
environment to support the Central Business District. The project is
under construction and scheduled for completion near the end of 2018.
The Twin Creeks Rail Crossing is under construction and will provide
connectivity between the Twin Creeks activity Center and Highway
99/Front Street. Completion of this project in the Spring 2018 will
allow addition development within the commercial core of the Twin
Creeks Master Plan area, including possibly development of a new
Asante Facility,which would add to the City's employment base.
29
201
Promotions(promos)and Promos:
Hindrances(hinders)to Available urban lands with necessary infrastructure plus a fast and
Population Growth;Other notes efficient land use process. Costco's recent relocation to Central Point
brings additional visitors to the City and has generated interest in
commercial and residential development. Urban Renewal is being
implemented to make improvements to the downtown,and needed
infrastructure that make Central Point more attractive to business and
visitors.
Hinders:
Economy/market;although,economic conditions appear to be
improving.
Highlights or summary from Per the Housing Element,there is a need for the City to add 150 gross
planning documents and studies acres of residential land to the UGB. The City has approved a
on influences and anticipation of resolution of intent to expand the UGB into one of the City's urban
population and housing growth. reserve areas to add new residential land. There is a resolution of
intent to add acreage from the CP-6A urban reserve area. The
preliminary concept identifies 570 units, but this number is expected to
increase to meet minimum density requirements(currently under
consideration in the Land Use Element update).
30
202
General Survey for Oregon Population Forecast Program
1Jurisdiction: City of Eagle Point Date: 9/26/17
1
Observations about Population Majority is families and retirees, predominantly caucasian.
Composition (e.g. children,the elderly,
racial and ethnic groups)
Observations about Housing Highest demand and best supply is SF detached.
Multi-family(esp. affordable) is not a strong market here.
Planned Housing Dev./Est.Year We estimate approx 100 bldg permits for new SF homes in FY
Completion (for detailed information 2017-18.
submissions please use the Housing
Development Survey)
Planned future construction of Group None.
Quarters facilities
Future Employers Locating to the Area Potentially 1-2 new employers with 5 - 10 employees each
in FY 2017-18.
Capacity and condition of infrastructure Adequate capacity is in place for build-out of our current UGB.
to accommodate growth.
Any Promotions(promos) and Still have surplus land within UGB for near term growth.
Hindrances(hinders)to Population
Growth; Other notes
Do you have a buildable lands inventory Urban Reserve Analysis with BLI being completed now by Rogue
for your area/UGB? If yes, it would be Valley Council of Governments.
helpful if you could please share it with
our center in GIS format.
Highlights or summary from planning Areas zoned Residential Farm (min 5 acre lots) account for much
documents and studies on influences of the residential capacity,and it's these areas that will need to
and anticipation of population and be rezoned to Single-Family Residential to accommodate the
housing growth (including any plans for density increase required by our agreement with the state in
UGB expansion and the stage in the order to expand our UGB.
expansion process)
Available land for future employment growth appears to be
easily accommodated in the City's existing Light Industrial and
Business Park zoning districts.
31
203
General Survey for Oregon Population Forecast Program
Jurisdiction: City of Jacksonville Date: December 21, 2017
Observations about Population Jacksonville has the highest median age (60.4) in Jackson County,
Composition (e.g. children, the according to the 2015 ACS 5-year estimate.The next highest point
elderly, racial and ethnic groups) is Phoenix at 51.1.
Observations about Housing Median house value well above the county average.Single-family
units dominate, but accessory dwelling units are becoming more
commonplace.Jacksonville currently has a deficit of multi-family
zoned land
Planned Housing Dev./Est.Year The city recently approved a 26-lot subdivision that will be
Completion available for development after the final plat is recorded in 2018.
Future Group Quarters Facilities None anticipated
Future Employers None anticipated
Infrastructure Jacksonville contracts with the Medford Water Commission for
domestic water and with Rogue Valley Sewer Services for sewage
disposal, Because these are regional providers,they have adequate
capacity to anticipate growth.
Promotions (promos) and Jacksonville is nearing capacity under existing zoning, and the
Hindrances(hinders)to general sentiment does not favor increasing densities. Much of the
Population Growth; Other notes available land is on steeper slopes, and therefore more expensive
to develop.
Highlights or summary from Some decision-makers expect the final result of our recent BLI will
planning documents and studies be a decision to pursue a UGB expansion. No applications are
on influences and anticipation of active at this point.
population and housing growth.
32
204
General Survey for Oregon Population Forecast Program
Jurisdiction: City of Medford Date: November 8, 2017
Observations about Population April 2010 U.S. Census data notes the following percentages:
Composition (e.g. children,the
elderly, racial and ethnic groups) -
Under 5 years old–7.2%
- Under 18 years old–24.1%
- 65 years and older–16.2%
Despite Medford's(the Rogue Valley's) well-established popularity
as a retirement destination, Medford remains relatively younger
than other communities in this region. In fact,the Medford School
District is struggling to provide adequate physical space in at least
3 of its elementary schools and is assessing the feasibility of
constructing a new middle school in the very near future.
The Rogue Valley and Medford are also becoming more ethnically
diverse with a rapidly growing Hispanic community.
Observations about Housing We are currently averaging 28 new SFR permits monthly this year,
but the City has already issued 224 building permits for single
family detached homes and 114 permits for multi-family dwellings
(duplex and larger) within the first 10 months of 2017. Unlike
typical years, building and land use permits have continued to be
submitted through the end of the calendar year—a period that is
historically slower for development activity.
In conversations with Mahar Homes, the largest single family home
developer in the Rogue Valley,their staff have stated that all of
their available lots, except one, are pre-sold in their last remaining
large subdivision, Summer Field.They will be moving to their
property across from Vista Pointe on McAndrews Road, waiting for
approval of Medford's UGBA. Demand for multi-family formats is
equally strong, and MH has stated that they can't keep up with the
demand: most are leased or sold prior to completion.
33
205
The City has also partnered with the Housing Authority of Jackson
County and other affordable housing providers to deliver several
hundred dwelling units over the last several years. "The Concord",
a 50 unit subsidized housing development,was completed in early
2017 and is the first significant residential development in
Medford's downtown. "Newbridge Place" is scheduled to start
construction in early 2018 and will provide 64 affordable units
upon completion-20%of which are reserved for veterans.
Planned Housing Dev./Est.Year Please review the attached sheet labeled "City of Medford Active
Completion (for detailed Subdivision and Multi-Family Projects"
information submissions please
use the Housing Development
Survey)
Planned future construction of Bonaventure of Medford will be opening a group quarter facility
Group Quarters facilities with 69 independent living suites, 55 assisted living suites and 23
memory care suites. Weatherly Court is assisted living/memory
care senior housing being built including 78 units (with 97 beds).
Rogue Valley Manor is building a 40 unit memory care facility.
Future Employers Locating to the Lighthouse Worldwide Solutions, a high-tech company that
Area manufactures pharmaceutical products, will be moving their
headquarters complete with over two dozen executive and
management jobs to Medford.
Stewart Meadows is a very large Planned Unit Development which
includes a large flagship Providence Medical office building (nearly
constructed), retail, restaurants, offices and multi-family.
A new phase of the Northgate Center is currently being developed
north of Rossanley Dr. (Hwy 238). Offices, retail and restaurants
are being proposed.
The soon to be old Costco building on Hwy 62 will be subdivided to
house two new large businesses with additional pads being built
for other tenants.
34
206
Capacity and condition of The City currently has numerous sanitary sewer collection system
infrastructure to accommodate constraints preventing zone changes east of Bear Creek.
growth.
The City is nearing completion of a Sanitary Sewer Collection
System Master Plan that addresses how we get the sanitary sewer
system to meet the needs for development of the City out to the
urban reserves.
Capacity and condition of Our Transportation System Plan (TSP) is currently being updated
infrastructure to accommodate and is showing that we will see transportation capacity constraints
growth. around the South Medford Interchange and along the Crater Lake
(coni) Highway corridor. The TSP will identify strategies to address these
areas. Medford's existing street infrastructure is in very good
condition.
Any Promotions(promos) and Medford and the Rogue Valley is a desirable place to live. It is
Hindrances(hinders)to understood that older adults are retiring here and families are
Population Growth; Other notes moving here. Affordability and availability of needed and
preferred housing types are significant challenges. Some issues
include a low median household income ($41,931), high poverty
rate (23.0%), low housing vacancy rates, and high housing prices
and rent.
Do you have a buildable lands Yes, we have a BLI in a GIS format and will share it.
inventory for your area/UGB? If
yes, it would be helpful if you
could please share it with our
center in GIS format.
Highlights or summary from Population Element adopted in 2007—estimates 115,869 people
planning documents and studies by 2029
on influences and anticipation of
population and housing growth Housing Element adopted in 2010; shows a need for 15,050
(including any plans for UGB dwelling units through 2029
expansion and the stage in the Medford has completed the local land use process to expand its
expansion process) Urban Growth Boundary by 4,046 acres(511—
developed/unbuildable; 1,877—parkland; 1,658—developable
land). 1,039 of the 1,658 acres are proposed for residential
35
207
development. City is working on the application to submit to the
State.
Regional Housing Study,to be completed by January 2018, is
evaluating housing affordability and availability challenges and will
recommend policy solutions.
36
208
General Survey for Oregon Population Forecast Program
Jurisdiction: City of Phoenix Date: 12/19/2107
Observations about Population
Composition (e.g. children, the
elderly, racial and ethnic groups)
Observations about Housing The city hasn't had more than 20 new residential units in the last
two years. The city is below density standards set by the Regional
plan and will look at some areas of higher density housing in other
expansion areas east of 1-5
Planned Housing Dev./Est.Year The city recently received permits for 15 new attached units
Completion
Future Group Quarters Facilities
Future Employers
Infrastructure
Promotions (promos) and
Hindrances(hinders)to
Population Growth; Other notes
37
209
Highlights or summary from The city plans to annex PH-3 area at some point, but there are a
planning documents and studies number of procedural and logistical issues that need to be resolved
on influences and anticipation of beforehand.The process to expand the UGB into the URAs may
population and housing growth. begin at 2018 at best,though these areas will be incorporated
incrementally over time rather than all at once.
38
210
4 Population Research Center
PORTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY
Population Forecast Formal Review Process and Appeal Form
The 45-day formal review process begins when the proposed population forecasts are posted on the
forecast program website,March 31,2018,and ends on May 15,2018.Within this 45-day period,a
member of the public or an affected local government may file objections with PRC. IF YOU PLAN TO
FILE AN OBJECTION TO A PROPOSED POPULATION FORECAST, PLEASE FIRST SEND
AN EMAIL TO LOFTUS2@PDX.EDU TO NOTIFY US OF YOUR INTENT PRIOR TO
SUBMITTING YOUR APPEAL FORM AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION. These objections
must be filed in writing using the below appeal form and must be submitted via US Mail or electronic
mail to PRC by no later than 5:00 pm on May, 15,2018.
A valid objection must include data or other information to support the objection.Acceptable data and
information may include:
1. Corrections or revisions to information that had been previously sent to PRC(e.g.,General
Demographic Survey,Housing Development Survey).
2. New information that was obtained after submitting a completed demographic or housing
development survey during the forecast development period.
3. Evidence that any of the supporting information used to develop the forecasts is erroneous.
4. Other information that PRC determines is relevant.
Please note there are three possible outcomes of the formal review period. First,if PRC does not receive
an objection within the 45-day period,the proposed forecast becomes the basis for the final forecast.
Second,if PRC receives an objection within the 45-day period,PRC will review the objection along with
its supporting information,and make appropriate changes to the proposed forecast,which will be
reflected in the final forecast.Third, PRC may overrule the objection as a reserved right,and affirm the
proposed forecast,which would then be issued as the final forecast.
Please note that a separate appeal form must be filed for each unique geography(i.e.,one completed
form per county,UGB,or area outside UGBs).
Date: May 14, 2018
Name: Josh LeBombard
Title/Organization: Department of Land Conservation and Development
Address: 100 E. Main Street, Medford, OR 97501
Email: josh.lebombard@state.or.us
Phone:541-414-7932
Which geography are you appealing?The county, UGB,or area outside UGB?
39
211
City of Phoenix
Do you think the proposed population forecast is too high or too low?
Unsure. See my emailed comments.
For which five-year forecast time interval does your appeal apply?Are you challenging the proposed
population forecast for certain five-year time intervals or the forecasts for all 50 years?
First 20 years.
Please provide evidence to support your appeal (See "Acceptable data and information"described
above). PRC will not consider supporting information that is not attached to this completed appeal
form.
Population Research Center
PO Box 751
Portland OR 97207
(503)725-3922
Loftus2@pdx.edu
40
212
Population Forecast Challenge
1 message
LeBombard,Josh<josh.lebombard@state.or us> Mon, May 14,2018 at 2:48 PM
To:"loftus2@pdx.edu"<Ioftus2@pdx.edu>
Cc: Nicholas Chun<nicchun@pdx edu>
Deborah.
Please see the attached population forecast challenge form.Nick and I have been in communication about this. My
explanation for the challenge is below:
1. The area known as PH-3 should not be counted towards future population growth in the 20 year projection
even if it is expected to be brought in by the City within that timeframe.This is due to the fact that the population
growth numbers can and will and should be used by cities to expand their UGBs.There are two ways to look at
this and both support the previous statement. 1)If existing population from PH-3 is used in the 20 year forecast,
theoretically Phoenix could use that additional population to expand its boundary and not take in PH-3.2)Phoenix
could still expand into PH-3 even without the additional population allocated within the 20 year horizon because
the UGB process is meant to accommodate a 20 year demand for new housing.PH-3 has limited ability to
accommodate new housing needs.
2. Phoenix's population growth has been constrained by land availability for a number of years.The City is
currently in the process of updating studies and plans to justify a UGB amendment.If the UGB amendment is
successful,then new land will become available for Phoenix.There is a very good likelihood that this will take
place and result in higher population growth within the 20 year horizon.
Cheers.
Josh
Josh LeBontbard I Southern Oregon Regional Representative
Community Services Division
Oregon Dept.of Land Conservation and Development
Southern Oregon Regional Solution Center
c/o Roque Workforce Partnership
100 E blain Street,Suite A I Medford, OR 97501
Cell: (541)414-7932
josh lebombard@state or.us I www.oregon.gov/LCD
Population_Forecast_Appeal_and_Review_Form 2018_LeBombard.pdf
41
213
General Survey for Oregon Population Forecast Program
Jurisdiction: Rogue River Date: 11/8/2017
Observations about Population We are seeing younger families moving into town but are still a
Composition (e.g. children,the senior community.
elderly, racial and ethnic groups)
Observations about Housing Affordable housing is a big issue and available housing both rental
and for sale is almost nonexistent.
Planned Housing Dev./Est.Year At this time there are no plans for any large developments just
Completion (for detailed infill of single family houses
information submissions please
use the Housing Development
Survey)
Planned future construction of None
Group Quarters facilities
Future Employers Locating to the There are two commercial developments on the horizon both just
Area relocating and building new facilities, no increase in employment is
expected.
Capacity and condition of All infrastructures are adequate for the infill that is expected, but if
infrastructure to accommodate annexation from the UGB happens that would need to be
growth. reevaluated.
Any Promotions(promos) and The biggest hindrance to growth and development in the city are
Hindrances (hinders)to traffic related.The geographic constraints make solving this
Population Growth; Other notes problem almost impossible. We are currently updating our TSP.
Do you have a buildable lands The city does not have a buildable lands inventory for residential
inventory for your area/UGB? If but did one about 15 years ago for commercial.
yes, it would be helpful if you
could please share it with our
center in GIS format.
42
214
Highlights or summary from The city has grown at about a 1% rate for the last 15 years and •
planning documents and studies before that was in moratoriums for about 6 years and I don't see
on influences and anticipation of any change in this rate unless there is UGB annexation.
population and housing growth
(including any plans for UGB
expansion and the stage in the
expansion process)
43
215
General Survey for Oregon Population Forecast Program
Jurisdiction: Shady Cove Date: 1/10/2018
Observations about Population Contrast between very wealthy (high income housing) and strong
Composition (e.g. children,the inventory of Manufactured dwelling in mobile home parks
elderly, racial and ethnic groups)
Observations about Housing
Occupancy rates stable;
Slow and steady construction on vacant lots
Planned Housing Dev./Est.Year
Completion
Future Group Quarters Facilities
Future Employers
Infrastructure A private water company is constructing municipal-level water
lines that will increase potential for urban density residential
development in newly served areas.
Promotions (promos)and Promos: Has enough land in and outside city for residential
Hindrances (hinders)to development, enough to accommodate at least 3,500 persons.
Population Growth; Other notes Hinders: Properties along primary physical attraction (Rogue River)
are occupied; Distance from medical services;
Highlights or summary from There haven't been any changes from the information the city
planning documents and studies submitted in 2015, with the exception of the infrastructure
on influences and anticipation of section.
population and housing growth.
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.
44
216
Appendix B: Specific Assumptions
Ashland
We assume total fertility rates will remain stable throughout the forecast period. We assume forecasted
trends in survival rates to be the same as those for the county as a whole;these rates are expected to
increase slightly for the 65+ population over the 25 year horizon.Age specific net migration rates are
generally in line with county patterns, though there is greater movement of college-age and graduate
cohorts within the sub-area.
Butte Falls
We assume the 5-year average annual housing unit growth rate to remain stable throughout the
forecast period. We assume the occupancy rate to decline to 85.3%and persons per household (PPH)to
be steady at 2.55 for the 25-year horizon.There is no group quarters population in this sub-area.
Central Point
We assume total fertility rates will follow a historical trend (observed from the 2000 to 2010 period) and
gradually decline over the forecast period. We assume forecasted trends in survival rates to be the same
as those for the county as a whole;these rates are expected to increase slightly for the 65+ population
over the 25 year horizon. Age specific net migration rates are generally in line with county patterns.
Eagle Point
We assume total fertility rates will follow a historical trend (observed from the 2000 to 2010 period) and
gradually decline over the forecast period. We assume forecasted trends in survival rates to be the same
as those for the county as a whole;these rates are expected to increase slightly for the 65+ population
over the 25 year horizon.Age specific net migration rates are generally in line with county patterns.
Gold Hill
We assume the 5-year average annual housing unit growth rate to taper throughout the forecast period.
We assume the occupancy rate and persons per household (PPH)to be steady at 92.3% percent and
2.39 for the 25-year horizon, respectively.There is no group quarters population for this sub-area.
Jacksonville
We assume the 5-year average annual housing unit growth rate to taper throughout the forecast period.
We assume the occupancy rate to be steady at 89%and persons per household (PPH)to decline to 1.96
for the 25-year horizon. We assume the group quarters population to remain at 109.
45
217
Medford
We assume total fertility rates will follow a historical trend (observed from the 2000 to 2010 period) and
gradually decline over the forecast period. We assume forecasted trends in survival rates to be the same
as those for the county as a whole;these rates are expected to increase slightly for the 65+ population
over the 25 year horizon. Age specific net migration rates deviate from county patterns;we expect the
net in-migration from all age groups.
Phoenix
We assume slow 5-year average annual housing unit growth rates to pick up after 2025 and taper
thereafter throughout the forecast period. We assume the occupancy rate and persons per household
(PPH)to be steady at 90.2% percent and 2.06 for the 25-year horizon, respectively. There is no group
quarters population in this sub-area.
Rogue River
We assume the 5-year average annual housing unit growth rate to taper throughout the forecast period.
We assume the occupancy rate and persons per household (PPH)to be steady at 93.2% percent and
2.27 for the 25-year horizon, respectively. We assume the group quarters population to remain at 23.
Shady Cove
We assume slow 5-year average annual housing unit growth rates to pick up after 2025 and taper
thereafter throughout the forecast period. We assume the occupancy rate and persons per household
(PPH) to be steady at 88.3% percent and 2.25 for the 25-year horizon, respectively. We assume the
group quarters population to remain at 2.
Talent
We assume the 5-year average annual housing unit growth rate to taper throughout the forecast period.
We assume the occupancy rate and persons per household (PPH)to be steady at 93.4% percent and
2.29 for the 25-year horizon, respectively. We assume the group quarters population to remain at 16.
Outside UGBs
We assume total fertility rates will follow a historical trend (observed from the 2000 to 2010 period) and
gradually decline over the forecast period. We assume forecasted trends in survival rates to be the same
as those for the county as a whole;these rates are expected to increase slightly for the 65+ population
over the 25 year horizon.Age specific net migration rates are generally in line with county patterns,
though we expect a net out-migration of the population 70+to continue into the future.
46
218
Appendix C: Detailed Population Forecast Results
Figure 21.Jackson County-Population by Five-Year Age Group
Population
Forecasts by Age
Group/Year 2018 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2043
00-04 12,109 11,925 11,973 12,246 12,579 13,010 13,252
05-09 12,483 13,265 12,934 13,141 13,527 13,907 14,181
10-14 12,604 12,526 14,369 14,049 14,235 14,666 14,901
15-19 12,959 13,162 12,636 14,681 14,452 14,658 14,911
20-24 12,064 12,200 12,209 11,885 13,911 13,708 13,812
25-29 11,824 11,719 11,978 11,901 11,608 13,601 13,470
30-34 12,906 13,374 13,012 13,334 13,330 12,725 13,984
35-39 12,556 12,744 14,118 13,902 14,338 14,214 13,813
40-44 13,176 13,655 14,097 15,798 15,516 16,017 15,922
45-49 13,495 13,816 15,026 15,692 17,538 17,240 17,559
50-54 13,927 13,908 14,668 16,141 16,809 18,803 18,597
55-59 14,803 14,584 14,451 15,424 17,080 17,804 19,028
60-64 15,689 15,891 14,951 14,994 15,817 17,525 17,956
65-69 14,845 15,654 15,936 15,040 14,905 15,738 16,721
70-74 12,172 13,118 14,634 15,110 14,364 14,246 14,707
75-79 8,978 9,802 11,793 13,377 13,927 13,245 13,164
80-84 6,318 6,897 8,348 10,230 11,391 11,871 11,504
85+ 6,362 6,738 7,934 9,666 11,931 13,933 14,743
Total 219,270 224,980 235,066 246,611 257,256 266,910 272.226
Figure 22.Jackson County's Sub-Areas-Total Population
Area/Year I 2018 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 20661
Jackson County 219,270 224,980 235,066 246,611 257,256 266,910 275,829 285,046 294,571 304,414 314,586 320,852
Ashland UGB 21,501 21,788 22,539 23,196 23,544 23,630 23,617 23,710 23,595 23,767 24,085 24,177
Butte Falls UGB 419 412 420 427 434 440 446 447 443 446 451 452
Central Point UGB 19,101 19,714 21,035 22,920 24,815 26,707 28,553 30,520 32,859 34,855 36,713 38,008
Eagle Point UGB 9,188 9,515 10,034 11,159 12,298 13,444 14,575 15,742 17,153 18,329 19,407 20,172
Gold Hill UGB 1,234 1,238 1,274 1,307 1,338 1,366 1,392 1,408 1,416 1,437 1,465 1,477
Jacksonville UGB 2,985 3,056 3,199 3,483 3,767 4,044 4,311 4,588 4,914 5,196 5,460 5,643
Medford UGB 82,566 84,966 88,985 94,210 99,640 105,225 110,950 116,134 121,936 127,319 132,583 136,046
Phoenix UGB 4,861 4,896 5,051 5,331 5,591 5,826 6,063 6,280 6,510 6,741 6,976 7,124
Rogue River UGB 2,846 2,891 2,958 3,114 3,258 3,389 3,521 3,635 3,751 3,872 3,999 4,076
Shady Cove UGB 3,288 3,338 3,463 3,749 3,995 4,213 4,422 4,652 4,915 5,152 5,380 5,533
Talent UGB 6,416 6,489 6,796 7,314 7,743 8,142 8,551 8,978 9,463 9,904 10,332 10,617
Outside UGB Area 64,865 66.676 69,314 70,402 70,835 70,483 69.428 68,952 67,615 67.396 67,736 67,527
47
219