Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-09-24 Planning PACKET Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please fill out a Speaker Request Form and place it in the Speaker Request Box by staff. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION September 24, 2019 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. PUBLIC FORUM IV.DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Update on Recent State Housing Legislation B. Population forecast for Ashland and Jackson County V. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). ƦķğƷĻķ {ĻƦƷ͵ ЊЉͲ ЋЉЊВ KEY ELEMENTS OF HOUSE BILL 2001 (Middle Housing) IƚǒƭĻ .źƌƌ ЋЉЉЊ ΛI. ЋЉЉЊΜ ƦƩƚǝźķĻƭ υЌ͵Ў ƒźƌƌźƚƓ Ʒƚ 5\[/5 ŅƚƩ ƷĻĭŷƓźĭğƌ ğƭƭźƭƷğƓĭĻ Ʒƚ ƌƚĭğƌ ŭƚǝĻƩƓƒĻƓƷƭ Ʒƚʹ ЊΜ ğƭƭźƭƷ ƌƚĭğƌ ŭƚǝĻƩƓƒĻƓƷƭ ǞźƷŷ ƷŷĻ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ ƚŅ ƩĻŭǒƌğƷźƚƓƭ Ʒƚ ğƌƌƚǞ ķǒƦƌĻǣĻƭ ğƓķΉƚƩ ƒźķķƌĻ ŷƚǒƭźƓŭͲ ğƭ ƭƦĻĭźŅźĻķ źƓ ƷŷĻ ĬźƌƌͲ ğƓķΉƚƩ ЋΜ ğƭƭźƭƷ ƌƚĭğƌ ŭƚǝĻƩƓƒĻƓƷƭ ǞźƷŷ ƷŷĻ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ ƚŅ ƦƌğƓƭ Ʒƚ źƒƦƩƚǝĻ ǞğƷĻƩͲ ƭĻǞĻƩͲ ƭƷƚƩƒ ķƩğźƓğŭĻ ğƓķ ƷƩğƓƭƦƚƩƷğƷźƚƓ ƭĻƩǝźĭĻƭ źƓ ğƩĻğƭ ǞŷĻƩĻ ķǒƦƌĻǣĻƭ ğƓķ ƚƷŷĻƩ ƒźķķƌĻ ŷƚǒƭźƓŭ ƷǤƦĻƭ Ǟƚǒƌķ ƓƚƷ ĬĻ ŅĻğƭźĬƌĻ ķǒĻ Ʒƚ ƭĻƩǝźĭĻ ĭƚƓƭƷƩğźƓƷƭ͵ DLCD Infrastructure Deficiency Required Middle Housing Requirements Process Rulemaking: Who is Medium Cities Large Cities Medium & Large Cities affected: DLCD Rules and model code DLCD Rules and model code DLCD Rules adoption Significant adoption adoption \[no date specified in bill\] dates: December 31, 2020 December 31, 2020 Target: July 2020 Medium Cities Extension Requests due by Local Local Government Adoption of Local Government Adoption December 31, 2020 Government model code or alternative of model code or alternative Deadlines: June 30, 2021 June 30, 2022 Large Cities Extension Requests due by June 30, 2021 Effect of missed Model code applies directly Model code applies directly No extension granted deadline: Medium Cities All Oregon cities outside the Portland Metro boundary with a population between 10,000 and 25,000. Middle Duplexes to be allowed Housing Requirement Large Cities All Oregon cities with a population of more than 25,000, unincorporated areas within the Portland Metro boundary that are served by sufficient urban services, and all cities within the Portland Metro boundary with a population of more than 1,000. Middle Duplexes (as above) AND triplexes, quadplexes, cottage clusters, and townhouse Housing Requirement Flexibility permitted under this section, provided that the regulations do not, individually or cumulatively, discourage the development of all middle housing types permitted in the area through unreasonable cost or delay. Other Provisions in HB 2001 A local government may request an extension of time to adopt the required regulations based on an application identifying an infrastructure constraint (water, sewer, storm drainage, or transportation) to accommodating middle housing development, along with a plan of actions to remedy the deficiencies in those services. The applications for time extensions based on infrastructure deficiency will be reviewed by DLCD and approved or denied. Housing Needs Analyses may not assume more than a three percent increase in housing units produced as a result of the adoption of middle housing regulations unless the local government can show that higher increases have been achieved to date. The bill local regulations relating t ADUs\] does not include owner-occupancy requirements of either the primary or accessory structure or requirements to construct additional off- Changes the annual housing production survey required by passage of HB 4006 in 2018. Adds requirement to report on ADUs and units of middle housing, both for market rate housing and for regulated affordable units. Directs the Building Codes Division to develop standards to facilitate conversions of single-family dwellings into no more than four residential dwelling units. Prohibits the establishment of new Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions or similar instruments that would prohibit middle housing or ADUs in a residential neighborhood. The bill also notes that the department shall prioritize technical assistance to cities or counties with limited planning staff, or that commit to implementation earlier than the date required by the act. This fact sheet is intended to summarize key elements of HB 2001. It is not intended to replace a detailed review of the legislation. For specific bill language, please review the enrolled version of the HB 2001: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2001 not by limiting construction of single family homes, but by allowing development of duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes. Through technical assistance and resources for local governments, DLCD joins the effort to help create housing opportunities for all Oregonians Jim Rue, DLCD Director - For more information visit our website at www.oregon.gov/lcd DLCD Staff Contacts: With questions about Kevin Young Gordon Howard local implementation Senior Urban Planner Community Services Division Contact your Regional kevin.young@state.or.us Manager Representative 503-934-0030 gordon.howard@state.or.us 503-934-0034 ƦķğƷĻķ {ĻƦƷ͵ ЊЉͲ ЋЉЊВ KEY ELEMENTS OF HOUSE BILL 2003 (Housing Needs) House Bill 2003 (HB 2003) allocates $1 million to DLCD to provide technical assistance to local governments to implement provisions of HB 2003, including housing needs analyses. Housing Needs Analyses Regional Housing Needs Housing Production Strategy Elements of bill: (HNA) Analysis (RNHA) (HPS) DLCD Required Adoption of Statewide Develop Methodology & Develop Methodology & Action: Schedule Conduct Analysis Adopt Rules State agencies: DLCD OHCS, DLCD, DAS DLCD Analysis completed by September 1, 2020 DLCD Rules adoption LCDC approval by Significant dates: \[no date specified in bill\] December 31, 2019 Reports to Legislature by Target: Sept. 2020 March 1, 2021 All cities with a population All cities with a population Affected cities: Statewide greater than 10,000 greater than 10,000 Earliest HPS deadlines for cities estimated: Sept. 2023 HNA update requirements to begin ~2 years Local Government City submits HPS to DLCD following the adoption of none Deadlines: no more than 20 days after HPS rules local adoption (est. Sept. 2022) DLCD has 120 days for review Establishes LCDC No change to current LCDC Enforcement: n/a enforcement authority to enforcement authority ensure HPS progress Key Elements Regional Housing Needs Analyses (RNHA): Requires multi-agency coordination, led by Oregon Housing and Community Services, in the development of a needs analysis by region to analyze and quantify the housing shortage in our state. The housing needs of a region will be determined for a 20 year period. Among other requirements, the RNHA will include analysis related to the equitable distribution of publicly supported housing within a region and a housing shortage analysis for each city and Metro. Housing Needs Analyses: Requires adoption of a statewide schedule for cities with a population greater than 10,000 to update a local Housing Needs Analysis (HNA). Cities within Metro will be required to update HNAs every six years, cities outside Metro must update every eight years. Housing Production Strategies: Requires cities with a population greater than 10,000 to prepare and adopt a housing production strategy, in accordance with rules adopted by DLCD, update deadline. A housing production strategy (HPS) must include a list of specific actions that the city shall undertake to promote development within the city to address housing needs identified in their HNA. opportunities for the Department of Land Conservation and Development to partner with and assist local governments. We look forward to our continued work together to remove barriers to the supply of housing options. - Jim Rue, DLCD Director Other Provisions Allows qualified affordable housing development on public land within an urban growth boundary, notwithstanding land use regulations, comprehensive plan, or statewide planning goals, subject to certain requirements. Clarifies that affordable housing provided in conjunction with religious uses may be accommodated in multiple buildings under certain circumstances. Clarifies limited circumstances in which height and density limitations beyond zoning limits may be applied to residential development. Transfers responsibility for administration of the annual housing production survey required by HB 4006 (2018) of cities above 10,000 population to DLCD. Survey will continue to be administered online. This fact sheet is intended to summarize key elements of HB 2003. It is not intended to replace a detailed review of the legislation. For specific bill language, please review the enrolled version of the HB 2003: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2003 For more information visit our website at www.oregon.gov/lcd DLCD Staff Contacts: With questions about Kevin Young Gordon Howard local implementation Senior Urban Planner Community Services Division Contact your Regional kevin.young@state.or.us Manager Representative 503-934-0030 gordon.howard@state.or.us 503-934-0034 ! /ƚƚƩķźƓğƷĻķ tƚƦǒƌğƷźƚƓ !! CƚƩĻĭğƭƷ ЋЉЊБ ŷƩƚǒŭŷ ЋЉЏБ ! WğĭƉƭƚƓ /ƚǒƓƷǤ Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) & Area Outside UGBs Qipup!Dsfeju;!!Mpxfs!Ubcmf!Spdl!bu!tvotfu/!Hbsz!Ibmwpstpo-!Psfhpo!Tubuf!Bsdijwft/! Coordinated Population Forecast for JacksonCounty, 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. 2! ! Project Staff: Nicholas Chun, Population Forecast Program Manager Kevin Rancik, GIS & Research Analyst Rhey Haggerty, Graduate Research Assistant Joshua Ollinger, 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. 3! ! How to Read this Report This report should be read with reference to the documents listed below—downloadable on the Forecast Program website (http://www.pdx.edu/prc/opfp). Specifically, the reader should refer to the following documents: Methods and Data for Developing Coordinated Population Forecasts—Provides a detailed description and discussion of the forecast methods employed. This document also describes the assumptions that feed into these methods and determine the forecast output. Forecast Tables—Provides complete tables of population forecast numbers by county and all sub- areas within each county for each five-year interval of the forecast period (2018-2068). 4! ! 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 5! ! 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 6! ! 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 24 th-25 th 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. 7! ! ExecutiveSummary 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 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 t 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). 8! Figure 1. Jackson County and Sub-Areas—Historical and Forecast Populations, and Average Annual Growth Rates (AAGR) HistoricalForecast AAGRAAGRAAGRAAGR 20002010(2000-2010)201820432068(2010-2018)(2018-2043)(2043-2068) Jackson County181,795203,340 1.1%219,270272,226320,852 0.9%0.9%0.3% Ashland20,02320,626 0.3%21,50123,62524,177 0.5%0.4%0.1% Butte Falls440423-0.4%419444452-0.1%0.2%0.1% Central Point13,31017,736 2.9%19,10127,80338,008 0.9%1.5%1.3% Eagle Point4,9528,508 5.6%9,18814,11420,172 0.9%1.7%1.4% Gold Hill1,1731,228 0.5%1,2341,3821,477 0.1%0.5%0.3% Jacksonville2,2562,785 2.1%2,9854,2035,643 0.8%1.4%1.2% Medford67,86576,581 1.2%82,566108,638136,046 0.9%1.1%0.9% Phoenix4,3794,774 0.9%4,8615,9677,124 0.2%0.8%0.7% Rogue River2,5442,714 0.6%2,8463,4684,076 0.6%0.8%0.6% Shady Cove2,5283,050 1.9%3,2884,3385,533 0.9%1.1%1.0% Talent5,6836,123 0.7%6,4168,38610,617 0.6%1.1%0.9% Outside UGBs56,11658,658 0.4%64,86569,85767,527 1.2%0.3%-0.1% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses; Forecast by Population Research Center (PRC). Note: For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name. 9! 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 th sub-areas. Populations at the 14year of the forecast were interpolated usingthe 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 14-YearAAGR 20182032 Change(2018-2032) Jackson County219,270250,81531,546 1.0% Ashland21,50123,3371,836 0.6% Butte Falls41943010 0.2% Central Point19,10123,6624,562 1.5% Eagle Point9,18811,6032,415 1.7% Gold Hill1,2341,31985 0.5% Jacksonville2,9853,594609 1.3% Medford82,56696,35513,789 1.1% Phoenix4,8615,434573 0.8% Rogue River2,8463,171325 0.8% Shady Cove3,2883,846558 1.1% Talent6,4167,4831,068 1.1% Outside UGBs64,86570,5825,716 0.6% Note: For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name. :! 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) 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 21! 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 1 2010) AAGRShare of Share of Change 20002010 (2000-2010)County 2000County 2010(2000-2010) Jackson County 181,795 203,3401.1%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). Further underscoring the countywide trend in 2 aging, the median age in Jackson County increased from 39.2 in 2000 to 42.1 in 2010. 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. 22! Figure 5. Jackson County—Age Structure of the Population (2000 and 2010) Race and Ethnicity While the statewide population is aging, another demographic shift is occurring across Oregon: minority populations are growing as a share of total population. A growing minority population affects both the number of births and average household size. The Hispanic 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. 23! Figure 6. Jackson County—Hispanic or Latino and Race (2000 and 2010) Absolute Relative ChangeChange Hispanic or Latino and Race20002010 Total population 181,269100.0%203,206100.0%21,93712.1% Hispanic or Latino12,1266.7%21,74510.7%9,61979.3% Not Hispanic or Latino169,14393.3%181,46189.3%12,3187.3% White alone160,79588.7%170,02383.7%9,2285.7% Black or African American alone6740.4%1,2270.6%55382.0% American Indian and Alaska Native alone1,7821.0%1,8740.9%925.2% Asian alone1,5830.9%2,3041.1%72145.5% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone2910.2%5620.3%27193.1% Some Other Race alone1980.1%2290.1%3115.7% Two or More Races3,8202.1%5,2422.6%1,42237.2% 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) 20002010 Jackson County 1.871.96 Oregon 1.981.81 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses. Oregon Health Authority, Center for Health Statistics. Calculations by Population Research Center (PRC). 24! Figure 8. Jackson County—Age Specific Fertility Rate (2000 and 2010) 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) 25! 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 3. 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. JacksonCounty—Average Annual Deaths (2010-2045) 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 3 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. 26! 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) 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. 27! Figure 12. Jackson County—Components of Population Change (2001-2016) 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. 28! Figure 13. Jackson County and Sub-Areas—Total Housing Units (2000 and 2010) AAGR Share of Share of Change 20002010(2000-2010)County 2000County 2010(2000-2010) Jackson County 75,737 90,9371.8%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. 29! Figure 14. Jackson County and Sub-Areas—Persons per Household (PPH) and Occupancy Rate Persons Per Household (PPH)Occupancy Rate Change Change 200020102000-2010200020102000-2010 Jackson County2.52.4-3.2%94.4%91.4%-3.1% Ashland2.52.0-18.0%94.2%90.0%-4.1% Butte Falls2.22.518.5%94.1%88.3%-5.8% Central Point2.82.6-4.9%96.8%93.8%-3.0% Eagle Point2.72.6-2.6%93.5%89.5%-4.0% Gold Hill2.82.4-15.1%89.8%92.3%2.5% Jacksonville2.52.0-19.5%93.6%89.0%-4.7% Medford2.12.413.5%95.4%92.8%-2.6% Phoenix2.52.3-8.4%94.5%93.2%-1.4% Rogue River2.32.1-10.2%92.7%90.2%-2.5% Shady Cove2.12.38.1%89.8%88.3%-1.5% Talent2.32.3-2.4%96.1%93.4%-2.7% Outside UGBs2.42.54.1%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. 2:! Assumptions for Future PopulationChange 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, 4 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 to3,196 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. 4 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. 31! 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. 32! 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) Jackson County’s four largest UGBs—Ashland, Central Point, Eagle Point, and Medford—are forecast to experience a combined population growth of nearly 42,000from 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 33! 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 UGBs 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 AAGRAAGRShare of Share of Share of 201820432068(2018-2043)(2043-2068)County 2018County 2043County 2068 Jackson County------ 219,270 272,226 320,8520.9%0.7% 9.8%8.7%7.5% Ashland 21,501 23,625 24,177 0.4%0.1% 8.7%10.2%11.8% Central Point 19,101 27,803 38,008 1.5%1.3% 4.2%5.2%6.3% Eagle Point 9,188 14,114 20,172 1.7%1.4% 37.7%39.9%42.4% Medford 82,566 108,638 136,046 1.1%0.9% 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 UGBs mirror expected countywide growth rates, and similar to the larger UGBs 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. 34! Figure 17. Jackson County and Smaller Sub-Areas—Forecast Population and AAGR AAGRAAGRShare of Share of Share of 201820432068(2018-2043)(2043-2068)County 2018County 2043County 2068 Jackson County------ 219,270 272,226 320,8520.9%0.7% 0.2%0.2%0.1% Butte Falls 419 444 452 0.2%0.1% 0.6%0.5%0.5% Gold Hill 1,234 1,382 1,477 0.5%0.3% 1.4%1.5%1.8% Jacksonville2,985 4,203 5,643 1.4%1.2% 2.2%2.2%2.2% Phoenix 4,861 5,967 7,124 0.8%0.7% 1.3%1.3%1.3% Rogue River 2,846 3,468 4,076 0.8%0.6% 1.5%1.6%1.7% Shady Cove 3,288 4,338 5,533 1.1%1.0% 2.9%3.1%3.3% Talent 6,416 8,386 10,617 1.1%0.9% 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. 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) (). The majority of these net in-migrants are expected to be middle-aged Figure 18 and older individuals. 35! Figure 18. Jackson County—Average Annual Net In/Out-Migration (2000-2010, 2010-2020, and 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). 36! Figure 19. Jackson County—Age Structure of the Population (2018, 2030, and 2043) 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) 37! 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. 38!