The URL can be used to link to this page

2003-194-Ordinance No. 2003-001 Recorded 3/26/2003ttl,vll"WED H;OAL C)UNSIT Ri"Vil;W1?D 1iY'S CODF RI?VII?W COMMI"f`fl?I? DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK tnl L 'r7 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 111111111111,1,.,..,,,,,,,1011., ,,, 03/26/2003 02:47:23 PM 2003-000104 For Recording Stamp Only I31,1'0RI"'I'l IF BOARD OF ('OUN'FY COMMISSIONI�;RS OF DFSC1ItVF1?S COON'I'N , ORIXiON An Ordinance Amending "Title 23, the Deschutes ('ounty Comprehensive Plan, of tile Deschutes * ORDINAWL NO. 2003-001 ('ounty Code, to adopt a coordinated population foreCC21St for Deschutes County, including the cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters. W1IFIRI?AS, pursuant to ORS 195.036, Deschutes ('ounty, acting as the coordinating body under ORS 195.0')5, is required to establish and to maintain a population forecast for the ('ounty, including the cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters; and WI IFRI,AS, the County first adopted a coordinated population forecast in 1998 after coordinating with the cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters to develop and come to an agreement on the lorecast; and WI 11'kVAS, after the. 2000 decennial ('ensus, and subsequent population estimates ol' the Population Research ('enter of the State of Oregon, the ('ounty found that population growth was occu►ring faster than originally contemplated in the 1998 forecast; and WI IIiRFAS, the ('ounty has coordinated with the cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters, and the Orcgon Dcpartmcnt of land ('onservation and Icvclopment, to develop a new population forecast from the year 2000 to the year 2025; and WI II`,RI?AS, the ('ounty recognizes the value of adopting a coordinated population forecast for guiding the lone, range planning efforts of the county and each city, and WI IVRVAS, the Deschutes County Planning Commission and Board of County Conmrissioncrs have cacti considered the coordinated population forecast after public hearings; now, therefore, '[11F BOARD OF ('O11N"1'Y COMMISSIONI?RS OF DFS('I lLYF ?S COtW[Y, ORFIGON, ORDAINS as lollows: Section 1. AMI.NDMI?N"I'. DC(' 23.16.020 is amended to read as described in FAhibil "A," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and language to be deleted ill sU ikethrough. PA(il" I oft- ORDINANCI',NO. 2003-001 (3/26/03) Section 2. FINDINGS. The Board of County Commissioners adopts as its findings in support of the amendment set forth herein the report titled "Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast 2000-2025: Discussion and Explanation" and dated February 2003 attached hereto as Exhibit `B," and the Findings attached hereto as Exhibit "C," and by this reference incorporated herein. ell?41 DATED this && day of )0/i OIL , 2003. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON DENNIS R. LUKE, Chai TOM DEWOLF, Com i er Aw MI EL M. DA Y, Co issioner Date of 1st Reading: day of k,, ZZ003. Date of 2°d Reading: -ray of 2 " , 2003. Record of Adoption Vote Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Dennis R. Luke Tom DeWolf Michael M. Daly Effective date: gi day of 2003. ATTEST: Recording Secretary PAGE 2 of 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (3/26/03) 1 A 111131'1' "A" 23.16.020. Population. ORS 195.025(1) requires the counties to coordinate local plans and population forecasts. Deschutes County ccx►rdinated-with then-itiesSister,� to-ieveoj"-eoordinaled population -forecast. In 1996, tl►ecitiesBend, Redmond, Sisters, and the eCounty reviewed the most recent population forecasts t'ronr the Portland State University Center for Population Research and Census, the Iepartnunt of Transportation, Woods and Poole, the Bonneville Power Administration and the State Department of Administrative Services Office of I?conomic Analysis. Auer review of these projections, the cities and DCSChl11eS County agreed on the coordinated population forecast adopted -by the County in 1998 through Ordinance 98-084.displayed in Table A. -lit 1999 or 1999, all -three cities expect -to -adopt updated eonrprehensive plans. =The -cities -will -Arse -the coordinated Ixrlm►lation lorecasl numbers in their revised conrprel►ensive plans. Between the years 1999 and 2020, thecion-urban lx►ptrlation-is hroiec{ed to increase4)y 30,842. This populationforecastIs based on all average -household ws eof-1.95persons. "Phis household size is based on census data that shows a large percentage of retirement household",- and second homes in the non -urban co{arty.- 'flrefounty{-alc�Iatec�tl pac4tyoftlre no rrrbarr a+tea k> abscN1>�Ire ht jeeted-population haled on the hest estimate of the nunrberof existingvacant lotsplusthe I"ential new lols4hat cot►kibecreated under present zotring-at)([4, d--ttw--eguIatiorrs -The-source-for theAmmbens is by the county: I,irfxl& RR -W) L;.Yce ►lie trArvu4. "1'he numbers from this report were relined using county (AS data.—'l'ahle B displays the potential new-dwellings-irr exceptim areas, resort area", unincorporated cc►►unrtmities;-and exclusive -farm use and forestlart The live -year growth rate for ix)rt-trrltan-j)ol)trlatierr--should decrease -over time from approximately 24 percent in -199 -to 8 percent -in 202-0This_lec[4 1-growth-ratewiWoccmr-aswmilahle n klablelots in the county are used and the growth-shift,,,to lhe-available-land in lhe-urban-areas. The rcsults of'thc 2000 decennial census and subsequent population estimates prepared b)' the Population Rcscarch Center (ITC)_at_I_'ortland State University revealed the respective populations of the county and the incorporated cities were growing faster that contemplated under the -1998 coordinated forecast. Beginning in the fall of 2001, Deschutes County embarked on a process to updatc the coordinated population forecast. The County obtained a technical assistance grant front the Oregon Department of' Land Conservation and Development (DI,CD) and began work to coordinate an update ofthe coordinated iorccast with the cities. Planning stafffrom the county, the three cities, and DI,CD met several times between the tall of 2001 and early 2003 to coordinate the development of the updated population forecast. 'I he Oregon Office of licononric _Analysis (OI?A) provided a draft population forecast for DCSChuICS County that the County and the cities relied on in developing the forecast. The process through which the County and the cities coordinated to develop this forecast is outlined in the report titled "Deschwes CotnNY Coon inuicd Populution Fot-ecusl 2000-2025: Discussion mid I;:a/�hmotion" dated l�ebruary 2003. Phis same report provided the findings in support_of the forecast adopted by the e Board of`( o nim lissl0liers in 2003. 'Pablo A displays the 2000-2025 coordinated population forecast. Between the years 2000 and _2025, the County estimates the population of the unincorporated county will grow by 28,851 people, or 60 percent._ This forecast assumes an average annual_ growth rate of' 1.89 perccnt per year. The forecast shows the unincorporated county will continue to grow at rates slower than those of - each city. This trend will continue throughout the life of the forecast as the County assumes that population growth will slow in the rural unincorporated portions of'the County as available land is developed. During the last 10 years of the forecast, from 2015 to 2025, the County estimates that population growth will slow to a rate of approximately one (1) percent per year until the -county reaches buildout or additional lands become available in either destination resorts or unincorporated communities. I'M & I of 5 - IiX111131T "A" TO ORDINANCI? 2003-001 (3/26/03) In the Rd! of 1991 the C)regon Water Resources Department acknowledged that virtually all groundwater in the I )eschutes River basin discharges to the rivers of the basin. 'Hie Water Resources Department may place restrictions on the consumptive use of groundwater to protect the free flowing nature of the Deschutes laver, instrearn water rights and existing water rights. 'These restrictions may aflect the use of groundwater resources for future development and consecluenll_y aflect the future growth and allocation of population in the County and the three urban jurisdictions. PAGI- 2 of S - FXI11BIT "A" TO ORDINANCE, 2003-001 (3/26/03) TAB1,1;-A Descluites counly Ciordii►ated Oopulation]"Oreeast Wild IICTII I Reelnu►ne1 NGB dill " Fear y 1 Population 1990 32,550 1995 39,720 1996 41,210 1997 42;652 1998 44,038 1999 45,359 2000 46,607 2001 47;772 2002 48,847 2003 49,946 2004 51,069 2005 52,193 2006 53,341 2007 54,488 2008 55,1,32 2009 56,801 2010 67,937 2011 59,095 2012 60,218 2013 61,362 2014 62,467 2015 63,591 2016 64,672 2017 65,772 2018 66,758 2019 67,760 2020 68,776 Dive Year Increase. 22.03% -17.34% 11.99% 41.00% 9.76% 8.15% Sisters t1G11 Non -Urban County -Tot►►1 County Poplillition Ally - I" five duly - -I" give duly I" Dive Year Population Year Population Year Population Increase Increase Increase 8,635 900 32,873 74,955 42-,585 45.74% 945 5;00% 40;850 24.27% 94,100 -17,241 42;29 43,-675 45;160 46;695 37M% 4,100 16.40% 48,283 118.20% 413,231 49,952 51,472 53,145 44,740 22,414 30.{)()% 1,24so -13:64% 50,3$2_ Oft. -77% 432,239 - 57932 -. 59,525 61,014 62,447 28,241 26.00% 4,400 12.00% )3,953 43.25% 4 51,431 65,225 66,530 67,794 69,014 32,548 45.25% 4,550 40.71% 7012-?? 9:98°!a 167,911 71,451 72,594 ------ -73,356 74,899 35,845 4D.13% 4,710 40.32% 76,022 8.26% 182,353 PAGF 3 of 5 - FIXI 1111IT "A" TO ORDINANCE' 2003-001 (3/26/03) Non-lJrl»+}-P(TttlatieH 1'Aception Area 1"M illil I' "A" Potential New Dwellings Misters R R 10 780 Nisters MUA-W 269 Terrelxtnit -M1-1A40 154 M1 -)A4-0 -122 13end I�astMt]A10 - 4-88 Bend North/=1'Air}taloRR If) - - 390 West-MlJA-10 303 Bend Fast RIZ)0 - 409 Redmond/ l erfetxttute-RR 10 - -- - - 390 - - Deselutles River Woods - - - 999 1,a Pine North 2;800 stinrivet'-soutl} 3r;�{1'S StIItT TAI; 40,789 Resort Areas Potential New Dwellings sunriver 650 Black Butte -1{)0 1 �,agle Crest 300 lnii at 7'1'- Mountain/ Widgi 11-7 Creek SUIt'1'()3'A1, - 4-,467 1 Inincorporated Communities Altana Brothers Deschutes 4unction Deschutes River Woods 1 lamplou 1,a Pine millican sltrin'o River "1 ertehonne 'I'untalo Whistlestol} Wickiul} Juncliori Wild Hunt U13'I'L)"Il, Potential New Dwellings =1 4 S - Ct .824 -- 45 0 456 - 400 3 -I0 0 4431 PAGI? 4 of 5 - FIXI11BI'l"A" "1'U ORIANAN(,J? 2003-001 (3/26/03) Ycar ?000 ?005 2010 2015 ?020 20?5 IA111131T "A" Table A: 2003 Deschutes County Coordinated Ponulation Forrcast_ l;encs UG13* Redmond UG13 Sisters UG13 Non -Urban County July l'S' Forecast 52,800 Dive Yr. Change �� July 1" Forecast - 15 505 Dive Yr. Change f� July l" Forecast -1,100 Five Yr. Chan gc July 1 ' Forecast 48,283 Dive Yr. Chan ge 67,180 76,211 84,123 27.23% 13.44% 10.38% 21,582. 27,873 34,795 41,051 39.20% 29.15% 24.83% 17.98% 1,556 2,200 2,757 3,394 41.45% 53,564 10.94% 13.17% 11.23% 8.93% 41.39%60,619 25.32%_ 67,427 73,447 93,712 11.40% 23.10% 102,750 9.64% 47,169 14.90% 4,167 22.78% 77.134 5.02% Total County 117,688 143,88? 166,903 189,101 211,60d 23 1,??() * UG13 means Urban Growth Boundary -Source for July 1, 2000 data: PSU certified population for cities and county GIS data for UG13 areas and the rural population. -Source. Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast 2000-2025: Discussion and 1?Nplanation, -February 2003 O Nhibit "13" to Ordinance 2003-001). (Ord. 2003-001 § 1, 2003; Ord. 2000-017 { 1, 2000; Ord. 98-084 { 1, 1998; IT -20, 1979) PA(& 5 of 5 - FX111BIT "A" TO ORDINANCI'. 2003-001 (3/26/03) EXHIBIT "I]'" Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast 2000 -2025 Discussion and Explanation FINAL REPORT FEBRUARY 2003 This project was funded in part by a grant from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Developmcnt PAG1` 1 OF -24 - I'M 11BIT"B" TO ORDINANCE, No. 2003-001 (3/26/03) 1,:X1111117' "11" Tabic of Contents Purpose ] Overview 1 Forecasting Methods 3 Coordinated Forecast 4 County -wide Patterns 6 OPA 2003 Draft F orceast H Jurisdictional Dctails Non -urban County 10 Bend 16 Redmond 21 Sisters 22 The following agencies and individuals were involved in the development of a coordinated population forecast for Deschutes County. lleschutcs County Community Development Department George Rcad, Community Development Director Catherine Morrow, Principal Planner Damian Syrn_yk, Senior Planner Tim Bcrg, GIS Analyst/Programmer Bclid Community Developmcnt Department Brian Shetterly, Principal Planner Mike Byers, contract planner Redmond Community Development Department Bob Quitrncicr, Community Devclopment Director Chuck McGraw, Senior Planner Sisters Planning Department Neil 'Thompson, City Planner 01-cgon Department of land Conservation and Development Laren Woolley, Regional Representative - Central &, Eastern Oregon Jon Jirrings, Regional Representative - Central &, Eastern 01-cgon PAG F' 2 OF 24 - 1.XI IIBIT "]3" 7'O ORDINANCE' No. 2003-001 (3/26/03) FX111111T "11" PUM10S]" The purpose of this working paper is to describe and explain the process and results of the local coordinated population forecast conducted in Deschutes County in 2002. ']'his paper is divided into the following sections: • Overview - background information for the. forecast, • Forecasting Methods - general discussion of ways to forecast growth, • Coordinated Forecast - population growth forecasts for each jurisdiction, • County -wide Patterns - data for the Deschutes County as a whole, and • Jurisdiction Details - explanation of forecasts for non -urban Deschutes County, Bend, Rcdmond, and Sisters. OVERVIEW The 1995 legislature recognized the need for local consistency in population forecasting and for a coordinated statcwidc total by adding a statute requiring counties to: ...establish and maintain o population forecast for the entire area within its boundary for use in maintaining and updating comprehensive plans, and shall coordinate the forecast with the local governments within its boundary. JOBS 195.036] The state Office of Economic Analysis (OF,A), a division of the Department of Administrative Services, was designated as the main forecasting unit for the state of Oregon. In addition to preparing population and emplo_ymcnt forecasts that could be used consistently by state agencies, the O14;A was given the task to forecast population and employment changes for the whole state and each county. The basic concept is that within the county, the total population forecast for each of the cities and unincorporated arca must match the county -wide forecast as estimated by ()EA. Ilowever, there is no requirement in state laNN, or administrative rule that the 0EA forecast must be adopted by the county and cities. As an alternative to strictly following the OEA forecast, the jurisdictions must agree on other population figures and justify to the Department of land Conservation and D(welopment why the locally prepared forecast is different than the ()EA forecast. Ill January 1997, the OEA produced the first statcwidc coordinated population and employment forecast for all the counties through the year 2010. Latcr that year representatives from Deschutes County, Bend, Rcdmond, and Sisters - in cooperation with OEA - agreed upon a coordinated county poptjlation forecast through the year 2020.1 Table 1 below shows the 1997 coordinated OEA forecast for the total county population through 2025. I 'These 1997 coordinated population numbers were adopted by the county through 01-diu<11 ce 98-081 as part of the County Comprehensive flan, and Ikend included the coordinated population numbers in its 1998 update to the Hend Area General flan. P/1GF 3 O 24 - lull BIT "11" TO ( RDINANCI? NO. 2003-001 (3/26/03) I�AlII111']' 111 In Table 1 _ 1997 OEA Forecast for Deschutes Count 2000 2005 20]0 2015 2020 2025 ] 12,846 ] 32,829 l 5 ] ,230 ] 67,23 ] ] 8 ] ,448 190,697 The rate of population growth in Deschutes County during the late 1990s and early 2000s was one of the highest in the state. By late 2000 the local planning staffs were aware that the actual population numbers for the county were exceeding the OEA population forecast prepared just three _years earlier. The unpl-ccedented rate of population growth statewide during the I990s and into this decade also generated interest at the state level for a new 0EA forecast. The OEA was originally scheduled to generate new population and crrrploymerrt numbers in March of 2002, but did not release draft forecast numbers for the counties until 1,'ebruory 2003.2 In February 2002, the County Community Development Department received a grant from the Department of band Conservation and Development JDLCD] to coordinate another round of local population forecasting in auticipaiion of the March 2002 OEA numbers. This new effort undertaken by the county involved six meetings among staff of all four jurisdictions in the county and the two DLCD regional field representatives. The county and city staffs agreed that a new forecast was needed and set 2025 year as the ending date for this coordinated forecast.3 Issues discussed during the coordination meetings included: • Data sources including County GIS records, • Comparison of OEA forecast numbers to actual population numbers, • Short term (10 year) historic growth rates for each jurisdiction, • hong term (20 _year) historic growth rates for each jurisdiction, • Growth of urban areas relative to non -urban areas of the county, • Demographic patterns, • Limitations and incentives affecting growth, and • Various methods to forecast population change. FORECASTING METHODS There are at least four different methods on which to base a populatiorI forecast. 'There is no one best method for all situations. One rrlcthod might 1 The county coordinating group released its forecast for public hearings in November 2002, heforc the 0EA draft forecast came out. A comparison of the two population forecasts is discussed in the Section titled OPA 2003 FORVCAS'r beginning on page 8. ;i l:edmond is currently conducting an urban reserve study and will independently forecast its population growth out an additional 25 years to 2050. PAG I� 4 01` 24 - YXI IIIil"I' "13" 7'O OIZI)INANC7? NO. 2003-001 (3/26/03) JAI 111317' 93" work well for one community, but not anothcr. In addition, these foil]- methods arc not necessarily independent and can be combined as necessary to create a reasonable forccast. Thcsc four methods are described below. llemographic's and Mimmation. - natural increase -+ migration pattern"; = total. This is the method that the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis used ire its statewide 2003 forccast. This method looks at the age/sex groupings of the existing population and future aging patterns to estimate birth and death rates Ill order to c,"ilculatc the "natural change" ill population. The natural change component is especially useful for areas with a stable population (like many Eastern Oregon cities and counti('s) or a city with a lame retircTnent population (like Florcncc, Oregon for (,-xample). however, this component by itself is less useful when a lame share of the forccast increase is duc to people moving; into the areas. For example, if all area has a high percentage of growth due to in - migration the in -migration numbers can "swamp" the natural rncrcasC numbers and make them less important. Because migration can be a significant part of the growth calculation this method usually considers both the natural ir)crease and migration patterns to generate t1lc total population change. But, as the 0EA states in its draft 2003 long-term forccast, "Migration is the most complex and most volatile component of population change."d The migration component cannot be easily predicted because the reasons people choose to move from one arca to anothcr arc based on individual and family decisions based on personal choice, cconorrlics, quality of life changes, duality of cdt-zcation, safety, politicral c1in��aic alld others factors. 7Tend Data. — growth rotes and patterns are the basis for fixture growth. In this method various trends in population changed arc evaluated as a basis for future growth. 'Trend data could include annual population changes by percent or mambo, school enrollment, housing starts, and utility service connections. A longer trend period is better because it can reflect the impact of changes in demographics, economic conditions and other factors in the population growth or decline. The trend data does not automatically lead to a continuation of past trends and can be adjusted With other data that reflect expected changes over time. This is the method that the City of Bend staff used in preparing its forccast. This is a simple, yct elegant, forecasting method. The beauty of using; Ill],, nictlgod is that many of the factors that affect the pattern of growth are already imbedded in the trend data. ]n other words, since this method uses the real numbers for historic change it already includes the aggrcgatc result of various growth components such as natural change fi-om births and deaths, irl- "hong-Term Population Forecast for Oregon and its Counties, 2000-2040 (Draft)" office of Economic Analysis, January 2003, first page. PAGF 5 O 24 - 1?X111131T "B" To ORDINANCI? No. 2003-001 (3/26/03) I ;X l H BVY "11" migration rates, employment levels, local and national economic conditions, political and social impacts, and so forth. Physic_ol and political constraints - availability of land or housing stock growth. This forecast method assumes that there are physical and/or political constraints that will control the amount of growth. Physical constraints could bC a limited supply of land for future holrres or infrastructure capacity issues. The political component Could be due to state law, local policies, zoning limitations, or othcl- Conditions that Constrain or control the rate of growth. The physical or political Constraints (or a combination of both) form the basis for Calculating the potential population change. This is basically the method that Deschutes County used to forecast the rural growth portion of thc coordinated forecast. The amount of land or homes available for future growth is calculated and tills number used to generate dwelling unitsav 61r 1b1c for growth over a period of time. The dwelling unit numbers can then be converted to a population number based on expected persons per household, vacancy rates, and other factors. _Ph_C,-lI and political stimulus - uvailability of land or housing stock growth. 'Phis is similar to the previous method except that there are local physical conditions or political activities that stimulate ol• support growth. I'hysical conditions could include things 111<C a surplus of land for dcvclopment and new or expanded public facilities. The new wastewater treatlrrent plant for the City of S1stCrS is an excimple of infrastructure change that allows a dirge in the economic and population growth to occur. Political stimuli could be from either local or state governments and are things like tax incentives to support job creation, active employer recruitment, low ilrrpact fees, choosing to locate offices or facilities In an area, and tourism Campaigns. '111c physical and political stimuli can create short or long-terrrl growth rates that arc above those predicted by the Deis rahhic and Mi raiior1 or Trcnd Data methods. COORDINATED 2003 FORECAST The county and city planning; staffs evaluated several draft growth scenarios. Absent new official forecast numbers in 2002 from 0EA the Deschutes County staff and staff from fiend, kc(Imond and Sisters proceeded on their own to develop a coordinated population forecast for the county as a whole and for each jurisdiction in five-year increments to the year 2025. Tabic 2 below provides the locally forecast numbers and percentage increase in population for each jurisdiction in five-year increments. PAGE, 6 O 24 - EXI IJBI 1' "B" TO ( RIANANCl? NO. 2003-001 (3/26/03) Year 2000 2005 2010 2015) 2020 2025 1? X l l 11317' "l3" Table 2 Deschutes Countv 2003 Coordinated Po>nulation Forecast Bend UGF3* Redmond UG13 Sisters UG13 Non -Urban County July l -t Folccast Five Yr. Chane July I "t Forecast }rive Yr. Chan c July P Forecast Five Yr. Chane July l st 1,'orecast Five Yr. Chan e 52,800 48,283 41.03%, ] 5,505 2005 l , 100 21,582 15.00/,A 48,283 if 67,180 27.23% - 21,582 39.20% 1,556 41.45%, 53,564 10.941%o 76 211 84,12.3 (3,-.71-2 102,750 13.44% 10.38% 11.40% 9.64%, 27,87 3 29.15%, 2,,200 41.39%, 25.32% 60,61 9 67,427 13.17% ll.23% 8.93% :i.02,%, 34,795 41,051 47,169 24.830% 2,757 1 7.98% 14.90% 3,394 4,167 23.10% 73,447 22.78% 77,13d , U(M recurs Urban Growth Boundary Sow ce for July 1, 2000 data: PSU cerlifiicd c) >ulation for cities and county GIS data Tor UGH areas and the rural Total Comity 117,088 14 3,88?, 166,903 189,101 21 1 ,604 231,220 Table 3 below shows how the five-year forecast numbers for each Jurisdiction relates to the countywide total and how each jurisdiction's share of the total county population changes over time. - ----------------------- Table 3 _J_urisdiction Po ulation and Percent of Count Total -Mend Year % of lbtal Redmond% of Total Sisters % of Total Non- % of urban Total _ 'Total Comity 2000 _ 52,800 44.86% - 15,505 13.17% 1,100 0.93%, 48,283 41.03%, 117,688 2005 _ 67,180 46.69%, 21,582 15.00/,A l 556 1 ( � 53 564 37.2,3/ 13 881 143,, 2010 76,211 45.66/) 27,873 16.70/, 2,200 1.32% 60,619 36.32'/, 166,903 2015 _ 84,123 44.49% 34,795 18.40% 2,757 1.46 /" 67,427 35.66 /, " -- ----- 189,101 2020 93,712 44.29/, -----41,051 - ] 9.40 /�, 3,394 l .60 /, ' 73,447 34.71 /, 211,604 2025 -102,750 44.44'%, 47,169 20.40%, 4,167 1.80% 77,134 33.36%, 2311220 Figures 1 and 2 on the following page provide graphical rcpreserltations of the change in each jurisdiction's percent of the total and share of the future population growth between 2000 and 2025. The total county population number here for 2000 is higher than YSU estimate of 109,0()() Local planning staffs feel the PSU estimate under -counted the total population for July 1, 2000. The PSU estimate. for 2001 of 122,050 persons in the county appears to have corrccicel fur the unclercount in the picvious year. PAGE 7 OF 24 - 1?XI11131T "13" TO ORUINANCF, NO. 2003-001 (3/26/03) FX111111T"11" Figure 1 Percent of Total Population O 2000 0 2025 Figure 2 Who Gets the Population Growth 2000-2025 Redmond 28% Particular details and facts that support the individual forecasts are provided later in this report under the section for each jurisdiction. }lowevcr, in general, the coordinating group derived the forecast numbers using several underlying assumptions or themes: • GFOXV h in the rural portion of the county will slow relative to the urban areas • Redmond will continue to have high growth rates and will capture a greater percentage of the total county growth • }lend will continue to ]lave high growth rates in the short terra followed b_y a decline in the rate of growth • Sisters will grow consistently during the forecast period. PAG 1` 8 OF 24 - I ?Xl I I I IFF"IV TO OR])]NANC]? NO. 2003-001 (3/26/03) IIA1111111, 11" COUNTY -WIDE PATTERNS Deschutes County experienced a substantial increase in its population during the 1990s. According to data prepared by the Population Research Center at Portland State University, Deschutes County had the highest percent change in population of all the Oregon counties - almost 54 percent - between the I()()0 and 2000 U.S. Census periods. In real numbers, the county had the fifth largest population increase, trailing only the three metropolitan Portland Counties and Marion County. The data below are from the U.S. Census and the Portland State University Population Research Center. Table 4 Deschutes Count Com onents of Population Change April 1, 1990 to Airil 1, 2000 Popul `]/1/ 115, 5, ation 2000 Population C,Iran rc Percent }firths Deaths 4/1/1990 €' Change Natural Increase 30' 74,958 40,409 53.9(%, 12,101 7,388 '1_713 Nct Migration - 35,0% It is in-1portant to note that almost 90 percent of the county population growth was due to individuals and families moving into the area. In other words, the rapid growth of the past decade has been primarily driven by outside national and regional factors rather than local land use conditions and costs. Central Oregon continues to be a very attractive place for people to live, work, and retire. The rapid population increase in Deschutes County has exceeded the growth rates previously forecast by state experts. For a point of comparison, in July 1993 Portland State University forecast Deschutes County's 2000 population to be 106,671. The more recent 1997 Office of Economic Analysis forecast the county's population in 2000 at 112,816. Based on the PSU certified population for the cities, and Deschutes County GIS and building permit data, the calculated population for the county as of July 1, 2000 was ] ] 7,688 - almost 5,000 more than the 1997 Olga forecast numbers. In addition, the PSU Certified 2002 population for Dcschutes County was 126,500 - up 8.5% from 2000. The local governments III Deschutcs County expect that the population growth rates will continue to be higher than predicted in the 2003 draft OEA forecast. The chart on the next page compares the OF;A 2003 forecast numbers for Deschutes County to the locally coordinated forecast and to a forecast based on a continuation of the County's historical 20 -year average growth rate of 3.2 percent per year. PA61? 9 OF 24 - E.X1111111' "13" TO ORDINANCEE, NO. 2003-001 (3/26/03) 275,000 250,000 225,000 200,000 O a 175,000 150,000 II:X111BIT "II" Figure 3 Comparison of Corurty Population Forecast's 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Much of the countywide population increase has been within the cities, but the non -urban (rural) portion of the county has also maintained consistent growth levels. For the 12 -year period from 1990 through 2001 the county issued building permits for almost 1 l ,000 new single-family homes outside the three Urban Growth Boundaries.6 These recent growth rates, combined with the apparent lack of constraints to rapid growth, led the coordinating group to forecast strong growth averaging about five percent a year for the county as a whole during the five year period ending in 2005. OEA 2003 DRAFT FORECAST In February 2003 the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis released a draft population forecast for the state as a whole and for each of the 30 counties. The population forecast numbers for 1)eschutcs County in the O}i;f1 draft report are lower than the numbers forecast by the local coordinated effort. Table 5 bClow compares the two forecasts. Even assuming that some of these new dwellings are "second homes" or "future retirement homes" the total number of dwellings consumes the limited supply of lots for future devclopnent outside of UGHS. The declining supply of rural lots over the long term shifts rrunr of the future growth into the urban areas. PAGE 10 O 24 - EXHIBIT "13" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (3/26/03) l?X111131"l' "ll" Table 5 Comparison of Local and State Forecasts At first glance the differences in the forccast population numbers appear significant, but the main difference in the two forecasts is the expected rate of growth in Deschutes County over the next few Years. Figure 4 compares the 5 - year growth rates in the local forecast and the OEA forecast. 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% U 10.00% 5.00% Figure 4 Comparison of Forecast Growth Rates 2000-05 2005-10 2010-15 2015-20 2020-25 Local Forecast ® OEA 2003 Draft The maim difference in the two forecasts is the level of €;rowth during the first ten Years of the forecast. The OEA expects the rate of growth in I)eschutcs County in the next few Years to be significantly less than the growth rates experienced in the 1990s, while the local forccast expects continued strong growth rates. Since the level of "natural increase" (births over deaths) is a small part of the total population increase the driving component of growth in either forecast is the amount of in migration that will occur. PAU" 11 OF 24 - I?X1111317' "B" YO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (3/26103) Local Coorciinated Orcgon OEA 2003 Year Forecast Forecast 2000 117,688 - 116,600 2005--- 143,882134,397 -- 2010 166,903 151,635 2015 - 189,101 171,167 2020 2.1 1,604 - 192,329 2025 231,220 209,919 Souicc Tahlc 2 on p igc 5 of this report and GEA J mummy 2003 draft report, Tablc 1 At first glance the differences in the forccast population numbers appear significant, but the main difference in the two forecasts is the expected rate of growth in Deschutes County over the next few Years. Figure 4 compares the 5 - year growth rates in the local forecast and the OEA forecast. 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% U 10.00% 5.00% Figure 4 Comparison of Forecast Growth Rates 2000-05 2005-10 2010-15 2015-20 2020-25 Local Forecast ® OEA 2003 Draft The maim difference in the two forecasts is the level of €;rowth during the first ten Years of the forecast. The OEA expects the rate of growth in I)eschutcs County in the next few Years to be significantly less than the growth rates experienced in the 1990s, while the local forccast expects continued strong growth rates. Since the level of "natural increase" (births over deaths) is a small part of the total population increase the driving component of growth in either forecast is the amount of in migration that will occur. PAU" 11 OF 24 - I?X1111317' "B" YO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (3/26103) 1:X1111317' "13" ']'he OEA forecast predicts that the level of in -migration that currently makes up almost 90 percent of the growth will decline dramatically in the short term and fall to 75 percent of the growth by 2025." In contrast, the local forecast predicts continued high levels of in -migration to I)es(,hutes County through at least the end of the decade. As noted earlier in this report, the rate of migration is the volatile part of the forecast and subject to different interpretations and estimates. The 0EA forecast is strongly influenced by the recent recession and the sluggish national and statewide economy. Although, in general, the state economy has slowed, local conditions seem to run contrary to the state pattern. I ousing starts in 2000-2002 were at rates comparable to the 1990s, new cornmcrcial developments continue to come on line throughout the county, and employment numbers arc increasing rather than decreasing. Many people move to Central Oregon for "quality of life:" issues rather than job opportunities, and the influx of people has led to the creation of more jobs in the arca rather thalr the other way around. JURISDICTION DETAILS NON -URBAN COUNTY The sul-)ply of rural buildable lots is limited due to land use regulations with about 12,800 vacant lots remaining in the inventory as of 2002 according to county G]S data. If the new construction in the rural parts of the county continues at the average of 910 homes a year the supply of rural lots would be gone in 14 years. This combination of conditions ]cads to an assumption that the rurkrl lot supply there will not be consumed by 2015, but there will be vcry slow growth in the non -urban population over the long-term, especially after 2015. This slower growth leads to a corresponding reduction in the County's historical share or percentage of total growth and a shift of population to the cities. [Sec 'fable 3 above] lleschutes County completed the following steps to develop the forecast for the unincorporated portions of the County. This forecast covers the entire county with the exceptions of the urban growth boundaries of its three cities. The County first developed a build -out analysis for the unincorporated county. The end result was the final number of residential units that could be developed in each zoning district, based on current zoning and land use law. The County calculated the number of residential units in each zoning district, ]used on current minimum lot size standards and density limitations. planning staff made assumptions about the available land to be developed in " 'fables 4 through 6 in the OA report provide the number of forecast births, deaths, and net mi€;ration for Deschutes County. PAGF 12 OF 24 - JAI JI IT "13" 7'O OIZDINANCI? NO. 2003-001 (3/26/03) EXHIBIT "l3" exclusive farm and forest uses as part of the calculation. The calculation also included potential developmcrrt in the destination resorts Eagle Crest and Pronghorn. Forecast Assumptions 1 . Potential Dwelling Units. The County assumed that land within each zoning district would be developed according to the current standards of each respective zoning district and state law. For each zone, Staff used the Community Development Department's geographic information system (GIS) to perform the following calculations for potential number of existing, new, and total dwelling units. The County assumes that one (1) new dwelling unit per lot Of record (existing and potential) would be developed. a. Exclusive Farm Use Zones. ']'he County performed two (2) calculations for the EFU Zones. For the six (6) subzones, not including the horse Ridge East subzone, the County assumed each parte] eligible for a partition under Sections 18.16.055 and 18.16.060 of the ETU Zone would be partitioned. For the E U-1lorse Ridge Fast subzone, the. County assumed divisions of parcels greater than or equal to 610 acres because of the minimum lot size of 320 acres in this subzone. b. Forest Use F1 and F2) Zones. Chapters 18.36 and 18.,10 of the County Zoning Ordinance include the applicable standards for ]and divisions in the Forest Zones. 7'he County assumed partition of parcels that would result in new parcels of 240 acres, which could potentially qualify for a large tract dwelling under the terms of the Forest Use Zones. The analysis did not include public forest lands or corporate -owned forest lands. The analysis also allocated potential dwellings per parcel for parcels less than 480 acres. C. Rural Residential and Multiple Use Agricultural Zone. The County treated tax lots in these zones the same be each has a minimum lot size of ten (10) acres. The analysis counted vacant and developed tax lots less than 19 acres. For potential land divisions to create lots or parcels of 10 acres in size, the analysis counted tax lots of 19 or more acres in size to develop an estimate of the potential number of lots that could be created in these districts. d. La_ Pine Urban Unincorporated Community. The County assumed that parcels or lots eligible for a land division would be divided to create the maximum number of parcels permitted by each zone district. The La Pine Community has both public sewer and water services, which allow for greater density. In the La Pine Residential (L,PR) and the Wickiup Junction Commcrcial/Residential (LPWJ) zones, the analysis assumed 25 percent of land for a given property would be PAGE 13 OF 24 - FX111131'1' " 13" TO ORDINANCE, NO. 2003-001 (3/26/03) 1?X111111'1' "l3" devoted to roads and infrastructure and not available for creation of a residential lot. For the LPR lone, the analysis assumed a density of 3.5 units per acre. For the La Pine Commercial (LPC) 'Lone, which does not allow land divisions for residential purposes, the analysis assumed no residential land division and counted individual tax lots with dwellings. For the Neighborhood Residential General (l,PNRG) 'Lone, the analysis developed an estimate of 1,717 units based on the planning for the Neighborhood Planning Area. C_ Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community. The analysis assumed no new land divisions because of the lack of parcels large enough for land divisions. The analysis counted the number of vacant and developed tax lots to determine the number of existing and potential dwelling units. f. Tcrrebonne Rural Community. The County assumed potential divisions of residential land for new residences, but not the commercial land. For the TeR Zone, the analysis assumed existing sewer system and a fixture public water system that would allow one-half (0.51) -acre lots. For the TcR5 Zone, the analysis assumed parcels 10 or - more acres in size could be divided to create five (5) -acre parcels under the terms of the zone. The TeRS Zone has a minimum lot size of five (5) acres. For the commercial zones TeC and `I'eCR, the County assumed r,o residential land divisions and counted individual tax lots with residences. g. 7'trmalo Rural Comrnun�. The County assumed potential divisions of residential land for new residences, but not the commercial land. For the TUR Zone, the County assumed a future public water system that would allow one-half (0.51) -acre lots. For the TuRS 'Lone, the analysis assumed parcels 10 or more acres in size: could be divided to create five (5) -acre parcels under the terms of the zone. The TuR5 Zone also has minimum lot size of five (5) acres. For the commercial zone TuC, no residential land divisions were assumed and the analysis counted individual tax lots with residences. h. Resort Community Zones of Black Butte Ranch (13131:R) and Inn at the 701 Mountain/Widgi Creek (WCR) districts, the analysis counted vacant and developed tax lots. i. Urban Reserve 'hones. The County has jurisdiction over two (2) urban reserve zones for the Bend Urban Area: Urban Area Reserve (UAR1O) and Suburban Low Density Residential (SR2.5). The analysis counted vacant and developed tax lots. For lots zoned UAR1O, the analysis estimated the potential number of new parcels using the minimum lot size of 10 acres for parcels 20 or more acres in size. For PAG1{ 14 01`24 - 1?X111BIT "B" TO ORDINANCl? NO. 2003-001 (3/26/03) I�Al 111111, "11" the SR2.5 Zone, the analysis estimated the potential number of new parcels using the minimum lot size of 2.5 acres for parcels five (5) or more acres in size. j. Destination Resorts. For the destination resorts of Eagle Crest and Pronghorn, the analysis included 700 dwelling units and 900 dwelling units, respectively, based on the land use approvals for each resort. 2. Forecast Growth Rates. County Staff relied on the proposed draft growth rates from OEA for each five-year period for forecasting the change of the unincorporated population of Deschutes County over the forecast horizon. Staff assumed lower rates of growth in each period. As rural lots are developed acid become more scarce, potential buyers will look to lots with the cities for residential development. The following table shows the proposed growth rates developed by OEA for Deschutes County and the (ounty's proposed growth rates for the urnincorporated Comity during the forecast period. Table 6 Unincorporated Area and OEA Growth Rates Five Year Unincorporated OEA 2003 Draft Period Deschutes Report - County 2000-20 05 10.94% 15.20%) 2005-2010 13.17%, 12.83%, 2010-2015 l l .23% 12.88% 2015- 20 20 8.93% 12.36(yo 2020-2025 5.02% 9.151% 3. Housing Unii and }lousehold Size. To develop the final forecast for the unincorporated County, County Staff relied on persons per housing unit, instead of persons per household, from the 2000 Cc»sus. household size is a terra that refers to all of the people who occupy a housing unit. The household size for Deschutes County in 2000 was 2.50 persons per household. The household size is calculated by dividing the total population in households by the number of households. A housing unit may be a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied as separate living quarters. The term persons per housing unit refers to the number Of persons living in each housing unit. To forecast the population of the unincorporated county, Staff relied on persons per housing unit, rather than persons per household. The purpose of doing this was to reduce the potential number of persons per housing unit to account for second homes and vacancies in the PAGI? 15 OF 24 - FIXI I I I WI113" "I'O OZDINANCI? NO. 2003-001 (3/26/03) l X 111131'1' "13" unincorporated county. ']'he 2000 Ccnsus showed that 16.5 percent of the housing units in Deschutes County were counted as vacant because they were the market or for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. As indicated above, the per -sons per household calculated from the 2000 Ccnsus was 2.5 persons per household. The County relied on persons per housing unit size of 2.1 for the county that took into consideration vacancies and second homes. The housing unit size of 2.1 was developed using the total population county for the County in the 2000 Ccnsus (115,367) and dividing it by the total number of housing units (54,583). Instead of focusing on only occupied household, this approach looks at the population as a whole and spreads it across all housing units. Results The following table summarizes the number of potential units in eacll district: Table 7 _ Non -urban Dwellin Units by Zone_ LAND USE EXISTING POTENTIAL TOTAL EXISTING and CATEGORY ZONE UNITS UNITS POTENTIAL UNITS Rcsourc'e Irl 66 52 118 Resource F2. 949 – -- 1993 1,1d2 - Unincorporated Community, LPC 79 37 116 Unincorporated Community LPN 0 1,800 1,800 Urlulcorporated ('01111)] 11nity I,1'R 84 756 840 Unincorporated Community 11PWCR 25 332 357 Rural Residential MUA10 5,093 1,069 6,162 Rural Residential BRIO 12.,247 6,349 _ 18,596 Urban Reserve SR2.5 227 124 _ 351 Unincorporated CO1I1111Un1t}' SURM 1, ' 0 '��` l 79 Unincorporated — Community SURS 2,885 34l 3,226 Unillcorporatcd C1o111111Unity TEC l4 ] 0 2.4 Unincorporated Community 7'}?C1� 4 9 13 Unincorporated Community TER 294 376 670 Unlllcorporatc.d Coli immity ER5 36 6 42 PAGF, 16 O1' 24 - YX111131T "13" TO ORDINANCF NO. 2003-001 (3/26/03) EXHIBIT "l3" Table 7 Non -urban Dwelling Units by Zone Unincorporated C_01ni1]lll]lt�' 7'UC 30 48 _ 78 —- Unincorporated Community TUR 93 85 178 Unincorporated COn]mull)ty TLJR5 62 35 97 Urban Reserve UAR10 226 — 190 416 Resource ETU1,13 11 56 - - 67 Resoil rce PIFUSC 25 -- -- 137 _.-------------- l62 Rcsource_ EFUTE 44 133 177 Rcsource EFUTRB — 169 44_5 _ 614 .1:esource--_--- N,FUAI, 37 - - 147 18_4 Resource EFULA 7 34 41-- -- Resource 1?FU11R -- 22 100 122, ---- Dcstination Resort PRONGHORN 0 700 700 tion Re'sol-ti EAGLE CREST 111 0 900 _14,46 900 38,772 TOTAL ULNI f S 24,308 The figure on the next page shows the proportions of the existing and potential units in each rural land use category: Figure 5 Residential Lots in Nonurban Deschutes County Destination Resort Unincorporated Community Urban Reserve Resource Rural Residential Using the geographic information system (GIS), the County calculated a potential of 14,464 residential units. To develop a final population of the till Incorporated county at build -out, the County staff used an historical average I'Mil' 17 O 24 - 1:X111131T "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (3/26/03) 1;X1111317''73" of 9l 0 building permits per year (based on a l 2 -year historic average) and an average of 2.1 persons per housing unit. This resulted in a final population in the unincorporated county of 81,421 people. ']'his estimate of population relics on an as am-iption that the 2.1 persons per housing units takes into account the fact that some of these new units will be vacation or second homes in the unincorporated county. According to the year 2000 U.S. Census, the average household size 2.5 persons for year-round occupied dwellings in Deschutes County. Uninc Table 8 gated Buildout Population Existing - Potential units 38.772 Persons per housing unit 2.l persons Build -out population - 81,921 TO forecast this population change from 2000 to 2030, the County assumed that the population of the non -urban County would continue to grow, but at rates below those forecast by 0EA. By the year 2030, the County will begin reaching its build out and possibly seeing a slow down in growth to approximately one (1) percent per year. ']'his element of the forecast is based on an assumption that certain unincorporated communities, such as La fine, may expand to include additional land within its growth boundary. This forecast also assumes that other lands that are mapped and eligible for destination resort development will be developed and include permanent and year-round housing. As land in the incorporated portion of the county is built -out, population growth will slow as population moves to available lands within the urban growth boundaries of cities. finally, the forecast assumes that the current county zoning and state land use laws will not change during the forecast period to accommodate additional population in the unincorporated portions of the county. BEND The Portland State University Population }research Center estimates Bend's July 1, 2002 population at 57,750 persons. In the previous coordinated forecast Rcnd was not expected to reach this level until 2010, so Rend is about eight years ahead of the 1997 forecast. In preparing Bend's population forecast the city's long Range Planning staff considered eleven different population growth scenarios. The preferred forecast that makes up Rcncl's portion of the coordinated forecast was in the low mid-range of the growth scenarios. The preferred forecast is based on several factors: • Historic growth trends for Rend, PAGE IS OF 24 - 1?X11MIT "B" TO ORD] NANCI? No). 2003-001 (3/26/03) ]?X1111317' "13" • Comparative growth rates and percentages, • Current age groupings, and • Conditions that might limit future growth rates. One aspect of forecasting is to evaluate historic data to deternline if there are patterns or trends that may affect future growth. The average annual population increase for Fiend is shown in Table 9. Table 9 Bend Average Annual Growth Rate 22 -years 1980-2002 12 -years 1990-2002 3.9 % 5.9 %S _ Source: Portland State University annual repo ts; annual housing date fionl Bend and Deschutes county; city annexation records. Over the longer 22 -year historic period - including the recession of the 111](1- l 980s - the annual average growth rate in Fiend was almost double the statewide average. ']'he even higher short-term rate has continued into 2002, despite the current national economic recession. These short-term growth rates, combined with other factors described below, create a reasonable argument for continued high population growth rates in Fiend during the next few years up to 2010. Although Bend's annual growth rate has been robust during the past 10 years, Redmond's annual growth rates have been even higher with an average 7.0% a year during this period. Redr170r1d'S high growth rates and its increasing share of the total population growth will affect Bend's long term forecast by reducing Bend's share of total county growth. These comparative percentage changes for the jurisdictions are shown in ']'able 2. Another factor considered in Bend's forecast is the current age groupings in Bend. Most of the recent population increase has corrre largely from "in -migrants" that are baby -boomers and the following generation of children and grandchildren rather than elderly retirecs.9 Figure 6 on the next page below shows the age distribution for Rend from the 2000 U.S. Census. " The 1990-2002 average annual growth rate is for the whole LKIII which included parts that were within County jurisdiction that developed with septic tanks and drain fields. ]aside the Bend city limits during this period the annual growth rate, excluding annexations, was higher at 6.3%, duc to sewer service and other factors. " ']'his fact is supported by the rapid increase in school age children in the bend schools and in -migrant age data for Deschutes County. PA(;F 19 OF 24 - EX111131T "13" TO ORDINANCF NO. 2.003-001 (3/26/03) 20 15 0 FX1111317' "13" Figure 6 Bend Age Groupings - Year 2000 5-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 Ages In the 2000 Census data, the peak of baby -boomers follows the rapidly declining percent of older residents. The baby -boomer group is in turn followed by the slightly smaller plateau of the "echo" generation. As Fiend's population ages over 10 or 20 years (imagine the line of age grouping in Figure 5 sliding to the right) the oldest baby -boomers will be in their early 60s and then early 70s - still not into the high mortality years. Correspondingly, the baby -boomer children who are now in their teens and 20s will be in their 30s and mid 40s by the end of the 2025 forecast period. These age characteristics affect Fiend's forecast because it is assumed that there will not be a significant natural decline (death due to aging) of the existing population and that the echo generation will continue to add to the natural increase (births) of the population. The change in Fiend's population, as noted earlier, is not primarily due to natural increase, but is greatly affected by factors that are not influenced by local political decisions or economic development efforts. Reasons to migrate to Fiend (and other cities throughout Oregon) are relative to the reasons that lead to people to leave other places - crime, high housing prices, aging school facilities, poor air and water quality, and so forth. Els part of the population forecasting for Fiend the city staff considered several factors that could be cxpectcd to affect Bend's attractiveness to potential in -migrants. Some of these factors concern the City's ability to provide for growth (infrastructure `supply'); others relate to the overall livability of bend (in -migrant `demand'). The factors are listed below. A primary purpose of this forecast is to provide a reasonable basis for long-term land use and public facility planning. The forecast figure is a technical tool, indicating a likely fixture condition based on historical patterns 1'/ 6I? 20 OF 24 - 16X1111317' "IV TO ORD] NANCE' NO. 2003-001 (3/26/03) FX1111117' "13" and what is assumed about future trends. From this standpoint, in the absence of clear indicators of likely service deficiencies, it is more prudent to assume that needed public facilities will be available to accommodate growth. That is, it is better- in the long term to plan for expected growth, even if actual growth rates turn out to be somewhat lower- than expected, because the community will already have planned for the needed facilities rather than being forced to play "catch-up" due to faulty assumptions to the availability of adequate facilities. In addition, Oregon's land use planning law requires cities to provide for expected growth by resolving any potential building moratorium due to inadequate facilities, while allowing for expansion of UG13s to handle an expanding population. Adjusting a population forecast downward by way of unfounded assumptions that adequate public facilities will not be available runs counter both to good planning and to state law. INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPLY • Water Supply -- adequate ground water supply exists, but mitigation will be necessary. Although the City will need to obtain additional water rights through the Oregon Water Resources Department, it seems more reasonable at this time to assume that permits for an adequate water supply will be obtained than to assume that they will not. The Avion Water District currently serves most areas outside the UG13. • Seiner Supply - the city has adequate land for expansion of the treatment plant and facilities. • INousing Supply - new construction of all housing types continues to be strong and hundreds of single-family lots are available for construction or are in the development phase. If additional land is needed to provide for a 20 -year supply of housing, the UGB may be expanded for that purpose. • School Crowding - not a problem in the short term as the district is building new school facilities; the Bend -La Pine school district has been successful in passing bonds for new school construction and facility improvements. While future financing for necded facilities cannot be guaranteed, historical experience suggests that a lack of school facilities is unlikely to act as a significant growth constraint. • Yorks and Recreation Opportunities - the Bend Metro Park &, Recreation District recently forecast growth in its service district population that is comparable to this Coordinated Population Forecast. In late 2002 the District adopted higher System Development Charges for new housing development. The new fee level is calculated to accommodate growth by providing funds necded to buy land and build the expected level of park and recreation facilities. Also, Bend's proximity to national forest, state parks, and other public lands will continue to allow new residents to pursue a wide variety of recreational interests. PAGF 21 OF 24 - FX11113IT "I3" TO ORDINANCE, NO. 2003-001 (3/26/03) ]AMBIT "ll" • Transportation System - Bend's rapid growth has made it difficult to provide system components (roads, Dial -A -Ride, trails, bike lanes, and sidewalks) fast enough to keep up with the short-term demand. Regular evaluations of system needs are provided through updates to the city's Transportation System Plan and requirements for coordinated transportation planning under- the new Metropolitan Planning Organization. Although certain components of the transportation system are often considered to be operating at less than optimal levels, historical experience suggests that the overall system wil] continue to operate at levels that do not act as a serious constraint to growth. IN -MIGRATION DEMAND • Ilousing Prices - although among the highest in Ccntral Oregon, prices are still low relative to major metropolitan areas in California, Washington and other states - the main areas from which people migrate to Ccntral Oregon. • Social Services - regional medical and education facilities continue to grow. Bend will continue to be the regional center for county, state, and federal social service programs. • Grime Incidents - increasing relative to the past, but mainly property crimes and rates lower- than metropolitan areas. • Economic Recession - the most recent recession did not slow growth in Deschutes County or Bcnd.10 It would probably take a major national economic collapse or decline to slow growth in Bend. • Job Growth - during the past decade in the tri -county Central Oregon region the rate of job growth has been faster than population growth. Bend's role as regional retail and service center increases opportunities for continued job growth in Bend. • Parks and Recreation Programs - the Park and Recreation District continues to address the growing demand for its program and facilities by developing new parks and expanding its recreation programs that suit the changing interests and demographics of the community. • Natural Disaster-- two wildfires in and adjacent to Bend in the past 12 years did not slow growth and the city and county are better prepared now to fight wildfires. Volcanic eruptions could discourage people from moving here. '1 hcsc factors, and the other points described in the previous pages, support a pattern of continued rapid growth for Bend in the short term and a long-term growth pattern that will almost double Bend's current population by 2025. 10 /According to the Oregon Department of Employment Central Oregon Labor Trends nesv-sletters, hctwcen January 2001 and September 2002 the number of non-farm wage and salary jobs in Deschutes County increased from 51,500 to 54,020. PA(iF 22 O 24 -1.X111131"1' "13" TO ORDINANCE' NO. 2003-001 (3/26/03) EXIIIIIII, "II" Rr.nMnNT1 During the past 12 _years, and especially in the most recent years, Redmond has had exceptional population increases. Growth in the Redmond UGB averaged about 7.0 percent per year during this time, with the last couple of years in Redmond approaching 1 1 percent! An assumption built into the coordinated forecast is that Redmond's percentage or share of the total countywide population will continue to increase slightly over time due to the city's aggressive growth policies and housing prices that are lower- than in Bend. Redmond's portion of total growth is forecast to increase from the 2000 level of 13.7 percent to 18.4 percent in 2015 and to 21.4 percent by 2025. In developing a population forecast for the City of Redmond, several factors were considered: • historic growth trends • Comparative growth rates and percentages, and • Comparative housing costs Table 8 shows the average annual growth rate for the Redmond UGB. Table 1 O Redmond UGB Population Change and Short-term Average Annual Growth Rate 1980- ] 990 1990-2000 2000 - 2010 Forecast 6,452 -- 7,163 7,163 - 13,481 13,481 - 27,873 (6.53%) .-- -- (7-.53%,) Source: Trends from U.S. census and Portland Statc University Center for Population Research; Forccast from Oregon Offiee of Economic Analysis Recent analysis of housing costs between Bend and Redmond shows that the average sale price for a 2200 square foot home, 3-4 bedrooms with 2.5 baths in Bend is $293,225, while the sale price for the equivalent home in Redmond is $204,606. Building permit activity also reflects a continued increase in population growth. In 1999, the Community Development Department issued 394 building permits; of which 360 were single family units including manufactured homes, and 34 were multi -family units. In 2000, 595 permits were issued, of which 419 were single family units including manufactured homes, and 176 were multi -family units. And in 2001, as of June 30th, 433 permits were issued, of which 283 were single family units including manufactured homes and 150 were multi -family units. The housing permit numbers are consistent with the PSU July 1, 2002 estimate of 16,110 persons within the Redmond city limits. PAG 1? 23 OF 24 - I"XI IIIIFF "13" TO ORDINANCE, NO. 2003-001(3/26/03) 1:X 1111317' "l3" These factors support a continued pattern of substantial growth that will more than double the City of Redmond's population by 2010, and more than triple the population by 2025. SISTERS The official July 1, 2002 population estimated for Sisters is 1,080. The Sisters population is forecast to remain small compared to the other jurisdictions, but will experience consistent growth over the long-term. Sisters will use the new population forecast numbers as a component of its buildable lands inventory as their- comprehensive plan is updated. The consistent growth forecast for Sisters is based on the recent completion of the sanitary sewer system in Sisters. The lack of a sanitary sewer system artificially limited growth in Sisters during the biggest growth period in the county's history. The city sewer- system, completed in 2001, will support faster growth than was possible in the past. The sewer system construction has caused a notable increase in the issuance of building permits from a pre -sewer average of between 10 and 20 anmzall_y to 51 in 2000, to 75 in 2001, to a projected peak of 122 for 2002. This surge in demand is expected to decline over the projection period, with the exception of a three-year period of no decline from 2009 to 2012 as residential opportunities in the unincorporated County areas are depleted and a portion of that demand is transferred to the cities. The Central Oregon quality of life and our proximity to west coast population centers like Portland, Seattle and San Francisco insure a steady stream of visitors, some of whom will choose to relocate. Also, there currently are a high percentage of retirement homes being built in Sisters, and the eventual full-time occupancy of these homes over time will help maintain sustained growth. The City has community facilities plans for water, wastewater, parks and transportation. A voter mandated Charter amendment that Systems Development Charges be paid as development permits are issued ensul•es there will be adequate capacity in those systems to accommodate growth. The Sisters School district has adequate facilities to accept increased enrolment and their reputation for quality attracts families to the district. pr� ��, Q:ADATA\Population Update\Coordination Forecast Report - February 2003.doc Last Edit: February 21, 2003 PAG1? 24 OF 24 - IAI IIBY] ' "l3" TO ORDINANCI', NO. 2003-001 (3/26/03) EX111111T "C" FINDINGS OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUPPORTING AN AMI!NDNIFINT TO TI ]f. DESCI IU77?S COUNTY COMPREIIIENSIVE P1,AN TO ADOPT A COORDINATED POPULATION FORI?CAST FROM 2000 TO 2025. Puosc. 1. The purpose of these findings is to support the adoption by the Board of County Commissioners (Board) of an amendment to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan (plan) to adopt a coordinated population forecast for Deschutes County, including the cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters, from the year 2000 to the year 2025. 2. The report titled "Deschutes County Coordinated Population forecast 2000-2025 Discussion and I?xplanation" presents the assumptions and the methods behind the proposed forecast. Procedural Back -ound. 3. The Planning Division began the process for updating the coordinated forecast in the fall of 2001. between January of 2002 and February 2003, a working group of planning staff from the county, the cities, and the Oregon Department of band Conservation and Development met and coordinated to develop a new forecast. 4. Planning Staff held a work session with the Planning Commission on the forecast on September 26, 2002. On December 12, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed population forecast. After the close of the hearing, the Planning Commission deliberated and then voted to forward the forecast to the Board for adoption. The boars] of Commissioners held a work session on this amendment on January 27, 2003 and a public hearing on January 29, 2003. The Board received oral and written testimony at this hearing that is part of the record. The Board also left the written record open for one (1) week after the close of the hearing to receive additional written comments. The board continued the hearing to February 12, 2003 6. At the February 12, 2003 public hearing, Staff recommended the Board continue the hearing to a future date so that Staff could reconvene the working group to review the proposed forecast against a draft population forecast prepared by the State of Oregon Office of Economic Analysis (OFIA) released on February 6, 2003. The Board continued the hearing to March 12, 2003. Statewide Planning Goals. 7. ']'lie following findings demonstrate that the proposed amendment to the County Comprehensive Plan complies with the applicable statewide planning goals. PAGE, 1 OF 3 FX111BIT "C" TO ORDINAN(T NO. 2003-001 (3/26/03) EX1-11131"1' "C' 8. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, will be met because the County's land use process provides for notice of proposed comprehensive plan text amendments to the general public by publication in The Bulletin and by posting notices in public places in the county. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on December 12, 2002. This hearing was noticed in the Bulletin and through a press release dated December 4, 2002. The Board of County Commissioners held public hearings on January 29, February 12, and March 12, 2003. The January 29 and March 12, 2003 public hearings were both noticed in the Bulletin newspaper. The County also issued a press release on February 26, 2003 for the March 12, 2003 public hearing. 9. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, will be met because at least four (4) public hearings will be held prior to adoption of any amendment to the comprehensive plan. The County land use procedures code provides require at least one (1) hearing, complying with Goal 2. The amendment is consistent with the requirement of Goal 2 that implementing measures be amended at times to reflect changes in public policy or changed circumstances. 10. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands, is not applicable, because the proposed amendment would change the text of the Population section, and does not include concurrent changes to the text of the comprehensive plan with respect to agricultural lands. 11. Goal 4, Forest Lands, is not applicable, because the proposed amendment would change the text of the Population section, and does not include concurrent changes to the text of the comprehensive plan with respect to forest lands. 12. Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources, is not applicable because the proposed amendment would change only the text of the Population section of the plan and does not include concurrent changes to the text of the comprehensive plan with respect to Goal 5 resources. 13. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality, will be met because, if approved, the, proposal will not create any new impacts to the quality of air, water and land resources. 14. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards, is not applicable because the proposal does not amend regulations for development in flood plains or areas subject to slides. 15. Goal 8, Recreational Needs, is not applicable because the proposal would not affect land designated for destination resort development under this goal. 16. Goal 9, h;conomic Development, is not applicable because the proposal does not allow for changing the plan designation and zoning on property from forest to commercial of industrial. 17. Goal 10, ]lousing, is not applicable because the proposal would adopt a new coordinated population forecast for the County and each incorporated city within the county. The. PAGE, 2 OF 3 —1,X111131'1' "C" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (3/26/03)