ATHENA WESTON SCHOOL DISTRICT NOVEMBER 2018 · Mark Aby Bob Baumann Kathy Baumann Tim Crampton...

LONG-RANGE FACILITY PLANNOVEMBER 2018AT HENA WESTON SCHOOL D IS T R ICT

Athena-Weston fans attending Semifinal Playoff.Photo by AJ Mazzolini from http://ajmazzo.weebly.com/

ATHENA-WESTON SCHOOL DISTRICT_LONG RANGE FACILITY PLAN2

01 PROCESS & OBJECTIVES

02 COLLABORATORS/COMMITTEE

03 EDUCATIONAL VISION & PRIORITIES

04 DISTRICT FACTS & NEEDS

05 CAPACITY & GROWTH

06 COMMUNITY USE

07 EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY EVALUATION

08 EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY STANDARDS

09 HISTORIC PRESERVATION

10 DISTRICT OPTIONS

11 PLAN

12 FUNDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

APPENDIX(1) O.D.E. LRFP Requirements Index(2) Athena Weston School District Strategic Plan 2017-2022(3) Umatilla County Coordinated Population Forecast, 2016 through 2066

Rend

erin

g fro

m o

rigin

al d

raw

ings

of A

then

a El

emen

tary

Sch

ool f

rom

197

6


PROCESS

The Athena-Weston School District began developing a long-range facility plan in February 2018. The district selected BBT Architects to facilitate and assist with the process of long-range facility planning and simultaneously conduct a facilities condition assessment. The committee put together by the District met on consecutive months through the spring and early summer of 2018 to the evaluate District’s future goals, needs, and desires.

OBJECTIVES

• Identify the long term needs of the students in a rural Oregon community and how to best serve them.

• Determine how the location of each facility works with the others from a logistic and maintenance standpoint.

• Identify how the students can be led into the 21st century learning environment and how to give them a pathway to trade education.

• Meet the requirements of Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 581-027-0040.• Requirements detailed on the following page

Athena-Weston School District Boundary + Schools

Weston

A

W

W

WMHS

AES

WMS

AthenaA




OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULE (OAR) 581-027-0040

Collaborate with staff, board members, local governments/planning, and community members to:

• Review population/growth projections

• Establish educational vision and priorities of the community

• Analyze current facilities ability to meet current national educational adequacy standards

• Identify and analyze facility deficiencies, capacities, and long term needs to meet the District’s educational vision

• Develop a plan for the District’s facilities to match the growth projections and educational needs for the next ten years

• Propose recommendations for funding

• Identify buildings on any historic preservation lists


Mark AbyBob Baumann Kathy BaumannTim CramptonRachel GigerKenzie HansellBob IrvineJack Jasperson Katy KingAlaina MildenbergerTom Munck Board MemberNancy ParkerCasey PerkinsLaure Quaresma AWSD SuperintendentScott Rogers Board ChairAdam Schmidtgall

COLLABORATORS/COMMITTEE

Weston Middle School

Weston McEwen High School & Athena ElementaryWMHS + AES

WMS

02 COLLABORATORS/COMMITTEE

John Shafer Mayor of AthenaDavid SpurgeonJennifer Spurgeon Board Member Mayor of WestonLoren Stroud

AWSD Maintenance Supervisor

Brad ThulDuane ThulBob WaldherPaula Warner

AWSD Business Manager

Jeremy Wolf

SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS

Marty GrahamClell HasenbankThom MunckScott Rogers ChairJennifer Spurgeon Vice-chairKristin WilliamsPreston Winn

BBT ARCHITECTS

Al Levage


Wes

ton

Mid

dle

Sch

ool -

Out

doo

r Sch

ool ENSURE EDUCATING KIDS IS THE HIGHEST PRIORITY.

The facilities should provide effective and adequate spaces to best educate chil-dren and better prepare them for their futures.

The facility’s core role is to enable various programs necessary to teach.

Planning must factor long-term maintenance and operating costs that draw from educational funds, which could help keep class sizes small and continue to attract top-quality teachers.

MEET THE DIVERSE NEEDS OF STUDENTS.

Understand that the students in the district have a range of learning styles and that the schools need to accommodate every student.

The facilities and curriculum should expose students to opportunities at the earliest time possible so they can attempt them- e.g. business, shop/CTE, art, college prep, pathway to trade education, music, etc.

PROVIDE SAFE AND SECURE FACILITIES.

Ensure that students and staff feel safe when in a school.

In addition to security, all facilities should meet appropriate life-safety, seismic and accessibility requirements.

At the early onset of the discussions with the committee, they wanted it to be well-known that although they are rural, they are progressive in their methodology. They care deeply that the students get every opportunity to achieve in society. Through these early discussions, the committee established a vision for the Athena-Weston com-munity’s educational priorities.



PROVIDE 21ST CENTURY LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS.

Students need access to up-to-date technology and curriculum.

Updated infrastructure should provide flexible facilities that can be used with current technologies and are adaptable for future generations (specifically relevant for sci-ence labs and CTE curriculum).

PARTNER WITH THE COMMUNITY.

The schools in this district are valuable community spaces.

Planning for continued partnerships with the community and looking at opportunities to improve the school’s role as a resource for the larger community is vital.

PRIORITIZE ENERGY & SUSTAINABILITY.

Focusing on the ability to CONTINUE providing high-quality educational services in the schools.

Understanding that sustainability means being fiscally responsible to this specific com-munity by passing on safe and functional facilities to future generations and also the larger community by consuming responsibly.

Maintenance and operating costs should be considered in reviewing facilities.

Weston M

idd

le School - Shop



CREATE A SENSE OF CIVIC PRIDE.

Being a small community, the schools should be welcoming and places of pride.

Having a sense of continuity of service between the schools and capacity flexibility (i.e. no modular classrooms) would improve the perception of the schools for stu-dents, staff and the outside community.

MINIMIZE TRANSPORTATION.

Reduce busing of students between middle and high school.


Union-Bulletin.com. Weston Middle School fitness center celebrated. September 21, 2017http://www.union-bulletin.com/news/health_fitness/with-video-weston-middle-school-fitness-center-celebrated/article_30b78bdc-9ef0-11e7-ad97-172e09900a2e.html

East Oregonian. Schools hope to step up street safety. November 30, 2017.http://www.eastoregonian.com/eo/local-news/20171130/schools-hope-to-step-up-street-safety

Wikimedia Commons. Weston Middle School – Weston Oregon.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Weston_Middle_School_-_Weston_Oregon.jpg


04 DISTRICT FACTS & NEEDSFACTS

• The community passed a Capital Improvement Bond in May 2016.

• District operates 3 separate schools in 2 separate towns; Athena Elementary School and Weston McEwen High School in Athena and Weston Middle School in Weston. This split between towns is more costly to operate than a central campus.

• The District has purchased 10 acres of land in Athena that is wedged between AES and WMHS.

• The newest of the schools is AES built in 1976. WMHS was built in 1948 and WMS in 1927 with the 4th and 5th grade wing built in 1960. These buildings are well maintained but some have reached an age that major improvements are needed.

• WMS has become a liability to the District for safety, security and ADA non-compliance reasons.

• The District has a very good academic reputation. The District attracts students from different areas of the county because of the variety of curriculum and excellent teaching.

• The District has a very high graduation rate – 90 to 95%. Students get dual credits for college.

• Community pride for all the schools in the District.


04 DISTRICT FACTS & NEEDSNEEDS

• Safety and security of all the school sites. As stated below in the Recent Capital Investments, the school have been equipped now with secure entries and lock-out capabilities with access control of all the buildings. However, not all of the sites are secure and need to be upgraded.

• Seismic upgrades. Many of the buildings are unreinforced masonry. Seismic evaluation for two of the buildings are in process.

• Additional athletic facilities. Many of the facilities are too small for use and need upgrades.

• Middle school CTE and trades programs could use expansion.

• An early learning childhood education building. An early learning childhood education building is a very real desire for the community.

• New good staff with 3 to 4 getting ready to retire.

• Housing – there is very limited housing available for new teachers. Athena and Weston have exhausted the UGBs because of the surrounding farmable land.

• Reduced maintenance costs. The Capital Improvement Bond allowed the District to add and change some of the lighting and HVAC systems to the buildings, but maintenance cost are still fairly high due to the age of the facilities.

• ADA requirements for all of the buildings needs to be improved. When the buildings were built, it was before the American Disabilities Act was instigated. Deferred maintenance over the years has tried to address some items and the recent bond measure has done many improvements, but many still need to be addressed.


04 DISTRICT FACTS & NEEDS

HOW HAS THE DISTRICT ADDRESSED DEFERRED MAINTENANCE?

Over the years of operation, the Facilities Department has budgeted money to the for the building systems to be upgraded and repaired as much as possible. The prob-lem that occurs, as buildings age the amount of dollars that need to be budgeted is to great for the General Fund to accommodate. The 2016 capital improvement bond has allowed for the much needed improvements and maintenance to be met.

Athena Elementary School - 42 years old

Weston Middle School - 91 years old4/5 wing – 58 years old

Weston McEwen High School - 70 years old

General fund budget keeps current buildings/systems functioning.

12

04 DISTRICT FACTS & NEEDSRECENT CAPITAL INVESTMENTS

2016 BOND IMPROVEMENTS In May 2016, voters in the AWSD passed a capital improvement bond of $4 million with a $4 million Oregon School Capital Improvement Matching (OSCIM) to provide upgrades to all of their existing facilities. The bond committee set a tiered approach of 3 layers of priorities to occur over the summers of 2017, 2018, and 2019. Below are some of the capital improvements that have occurred in 2017 and 2018.

ATHENA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

• Provided cooling and DDC controls throughout the school

• Replaced all of the windows and storefronts

• Replaced the majority of roofing

• Replaced the majority of the exterior metal siding along with built-in gutters

• Replaced carpet throughout

• Provided ADA parking

• Provided security entry vestibules and access controls to the exterior doors

WESTON MIDDLE SCHOOL

• Upgraded DDC control

• Provided security entry vestibules and access controls to exterior doors

• Reconstructed the school office

• Upgraded low voltage and data throughout the school

• Replaced all lighting with LED

• Provided an ADA stair lift for 3 stories

• Changed the bus access to the school with better ADA access

• Provided ADA parking spots

• Replaced the boiler system in the upper gym

• Removed asbestos

WESTON McEWEN HIGH SCHOOL

• Upgraded DDC control

• Provided the school portion of the campus with security fencing and access control gates

• Provided cooling in the gymnasium

• Rebuilt the agriculture building

• Provided ADA parking and an ADA walkway to AES for lunches

• Provided new roofing on the gymnasium and the modulars

• Demolished and rebuilt new tennis courts and fencing

• Removed some of the asbestos

• Provided portions of flooring

• Repurposed the Girl’s locker room with new showers, lockers, etc.

Umatilla County Coordinated Population Forecast, 2016 through 2066 from the Population Research Center at Portland State University.



Figure 1. Umatilla County and Sub-Areas—Historical and Forecast Populations, and Average Annual Growth Rates (AAGR)

2000 2010AAGR

(2000-2010) 2016 2035 2066AAGR

(2016-2035)AAGR

(2035-2066)Umatilla County 70,548 75,889 0.7% 81,438 94,765 118,308 0.8% 0.7%

Adams UGB 298 350 1.6% 370 391 407 0.3% 0.1%Athena UGB 1,229 1,134 -0.8% 1,151 1,165 1,180 0.1% 0.0%Echo UGB 668 722 0.8% 744 781 824 0.3% 0.2%Helix UGB 192 194 0.1% 204 213 214 0.2% 0.0%Hermiston UGB 15,635 19,234 2.1% 21,488 28,667 41,104 1.5% 1.2%Milton-Freewater UGB 6,677 7,213 0.8% 7,653 8,738 10,993 0.7% 0.7%Pendleton UGB 17,161 17,015 -0.1% 17,325 18,359 21,607 0.3% 0.5%Pilot Rock UGB 1,641 1,576 -0.4% 1,576 1,576 1,576 0.0% 0.0%Stanfield UGB 2,011 2,061 0.2% 2,144 2,280 2,383 0.3% 0.1%Ukiah UGB 258 193 -2.9% 256 258 261 0.1% 0.0%Umatilla UGB 5,786 7,623 2.8% 8,714 12,284 17,517 1.8% 1.1%Weston UGB 742 679 -0.9% 695 713 722 0.1% 0.0%Outside UGBs 18,250 17,895 -0.2% 19,119 19,341 19,520 0.1% 0.0%

Historical Forecast


2000 2010AAGR

(2000-2010) 2016 2035 2066AAGR

(2016-2035)AAGR

(2035-2066)Umatilla County 70,548 75,889 0.7% 81,438 94,765 118,308 0.8% 0.7%

Adams UGB 298 350 1.6% 370 391 407 0.3% 0.1%Athena UGB 1,229 1,134 -0.8% 1,151 1,165 1,180 0.1% 0.0%Echo UGB 668 722 0.8% 744 781 824 0.3% 0.2%Helix UGB 192 194 0.1% 204 213 214 0.2% 0.0%Hermiston UGB 15,635 19,234 2.1% 21,488 28,667 41,104 1.5% 1.2%Milton-Freewater UGB 6,677 7,213 0.8% 7,653 8,738 10,993 0.7% 0.7%Pendleton UGB 17,161 17,015 -0.1% 17,325 18,359 21,607 0.3% 0.5%Pilot Rock UGB 1,641 1,576 -0.4% 1,576 1,576 1,576 0.0% 0.0%Stanfield UGB 2,011 2,061 0.2% 2,144 2,280 2,383 0.3% 0.1%Ukiah UGB 258 193 -2.9% 256 258 261 0.1% 0.0%Umatilla UGB 5,786 7,623 2.8% 8,714 12,284 17,517 1.8% 1.1%Weston UGB 742 679 -0.9% 695 713 722 0.1% 0.0%Outside UGBs 18,250 17,895 -0.2% 19,119 19,341 19,520 0.1% 0.0%Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses; Forecast by Population Research Center (PRC).

Historical Forecast

GROWTH

In June 2016, the Population Research Center at Portland State University provided a population fore-cast for Umatilla County, its Urban Growth Boundary and the areas outside of the UGB. Below is the syn-opsis of the projected growth of the communities of Athena and Weston.

As shown below, the average annual growth rate is projected at only 0.1% in both Athena and Weston UGBs. This translates to approximately 2% increase in population over the next 10 years. Demographics of the AWSD draw students from the surrounding areas of Milton-Freewater, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Pendleton, etc.

CAPACITY CAPACITYW/ MODULAR

CURRENT POPULATION

EXPECTED GROWTH



CAPACITY

Based on the minimal growth projections, the district should not expect to encounter any overall capacity problems over the next 10 years.

NOTE: this doesn’t account for the quality or type of space (e.g. athletics or CTE)

ATHENA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

WESTON MIDDLE SCHOOL



Caledonian DaysHodaka WeekSummer CampsYouth Sports CampsChristmas BazaarWild Fire Crews Base Camps Fire Department TrainingCommunity ThanksgivingBenefits & Auctions4H MeetingsCommunity KitchenCycle Oregon

Summer CampsYouth Sports CampsMemorial ServicesWild Fire Crews Base CampsFire Department Training4H Meetings

Caledonian DaysHodaka Week Summer CampsYouth Sports CampsWild Fire Crews Base CampsFire Department Training4H MeetingsCycle Oregon

AES WMS WMHS

06 COMMUNITY USE

Caledonian Dayshttps://allevents.in/Athena/athena-caledonian-games-and-scottish-highland-games-2018/1977643372500544

Hodaka Week https://www.facebook.com/HodakaClub/videos/vb.1426592687567511/1943103742583067/?type=2&theater

Cycle Oregon https://www.flickr.com/photos/hirano-k/256430705

These schools’ communities take pride in being able to use all of these facilities year-round for community events. As typical in rural communities, these schools have become a much needed strong-holds and gathering places. At certain times of the year, these schools are in high demand, particularly for times of wild fires and summer sports camps. Below lists some of the extra-curriculum events that occur throughout the year.


ATHENA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (AES)

Grades served: K-3

Population: 160

Capacity: approx. 225

Year Built: 1976

EDUCATION

• No multi-purpose/auditorium room• Not enough storage space

ATHLETICS

• Inadequately sized gymnasium (only accommodates small students)

• No bleachers in gymnasium - space not big enough

PARKING/SITE

• Not enough parking• No paving for entry• Student drop-off is challenging• Circulation of buses + parent drop-off is difficult


17

WESTON MIDDLE SCHOOL (WMS)

Grades served: 4-8

Population: 247

Capacity: 375 (including modulars)

Year Built: 1927elementary wing: 1960 gym: 1964

EDUCATION

• Building layout does not allow for efficient use of space• Modular is rarely used• Infrastructure/technology is outdated and limiting even

though updated Summer 2018• CTE program in the middle school curriculum could be

expanded • Mixing 4th and 5th grade with 6th – 8th graders is not

ideal• ADA non-compliant. Even the compliant routes are

difficult to manage• Multiple story building is limiting

ATHLETICS

• Football field is regulation size but very confining

BUILDING

• Energy inefficient - very little insulation, old windows, etc.• Age of building requires maintenance• Does not meet seismic code• Site is challenging & treacherous in winter for students• The campus houses 5 buildings that are in use with

multiple grade issues • Still a lot of asbestos in building

PARKING/SITE

• West side entry is difficult• Very limited parking spaces



WESTON-McEWEN HIGH SCHOOL (WMHS)

Grades served: 9-12

Population: 168

Capacity: approx. 300 (including modulars)

Year Built: 1948

EDUCATION

• No cafeteria- students walk to AES for lunch• No Early Learning Center• Too many access points into the building• Does not meet current seismic code• Modular classrooms not ideal

ATHLETICS

• No covered bleachers on the ball fields• Old bleachers in gymnasium are small to sit in• No softball field on-site (on other side of town)

PARKING/SITE

• Parking lot is gravel• Bus barn is in poor location



08 EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY STANDARDS

The Athena Weston School District has established a Strategic Plan 2017-2022. The strategic goals that have been established drive their work and focus their efforts toward accomplishing their mission and vision for the students.

AWSD Mission: The Athena-Weston School District produces graduates exceptionally educated; ready to excel in college, career and life.

AWSD Vision: Ensuring a system which provides opportunities for all to reach their highest potential; the Athena-Weston School Board has established four cornerstones of excellence.

CORNERSTONE #1 - EXCELLENCE:

Excellence is a balance of rigorous, engaging and aligned instructional programs for all. CORNERSTONE #2 - CITIZENSHIP:

Citizenship establishes an environment of equity, responsibility and respect.

CORNERSTONE #3 - COMMUNITY:

Community engagement is proactive engagement benefiting all stakeholders.

CORNERSTONE #4 - LIFELONG LEARNING: Active learners achieve their highest potential, prepared for post-secondary, career and life.

Each goal is evaluated and reviewed by each school annually to see what can be improved.



HISTORIC PRESERVATION In 2012, the Weston Middle School site was placed on the National Register of Historic Places under the name of Weston School. The register acknowledges 4 contributing buildings (the main 1927 building, the upper gymnasium, the lower gymnasium, and the shop/maintenance building) and 1 object (the school bell). The noncontributing buildings of the modular and the field shack are not part of the register’s places. As noted following, the committee’s recommended option for future growth removes a portion of this building (the 4th and 5th grade wing constructed in 1960). The State of Oregon SHPO department relegates any improvements or reconstruction to the local Historic Landmark Commission. For the future, any modifications will be required to go through the Landmarks process. This is the only school on the Register of Historic Places in the District.

ALL IMAGES ON THIS PAGE:United States Department of the Interior, National Park ServiceNational Register of Historic Places Registration Form


SITE OPTIONS: DISTRICT-OWNED LAND

Current School Sites

The district owns all three sites for Athena Elementary, Weston Middle and Weston-McEwen High School. These sites all have potential for expansion or replacement on site.

Potential School Sites

The district already owns a plot of land (approximately 10 acres) in Athena adjacent to Athena Elementary and Weston-McEwen High School. This land is suitable for an addition or new school building. This site benefits from the proximity to the two other schools and will allow for more efficient operations in conjunction with the other district schools.

Site Acquisition

The committee discussed buying additional property in either Athena or Weston but there was consensus that there was no need to acquire new property and abandon the existing school sites or the District-owned property in Athena.

Location

In discussing options for school locations, the committee discussed the potential economic impact on local businesses by moving schools. These two communities are rural and fairly small. Having schools in each community helps econmically. If schools were removed from either town, the economic impact could be great. Although the committee did not feel that it is the responsibility of the District to keep schools in the location for the community’s economics, they still felt a moral obligation to do so.

10 DISTRICT OPTIONSBANISTER RD.E MAIN ST.

S 5T

H ST

.

WIL

DHO

RSE

RD.

SCHOOL DISTRICT OWNED LOT

11 - OREGON-W

ASHINGTON HWY

SCHO

OL

DIS

TRIC

T O

WN

ED L

OT


OPT

ION

1A

WMHS + AES

WM

S

WM

HS +

AES

WM

S

10 DISTRICT OPTIONS

WMS

WMHS + AES WMSO

PTIO

N 1

BO

PTIO

N 1

CO

PTIO

N 2

OPT

ION

3

OPT

ION

10

OPT

ION

9O

PTIO

N 7

OPT

ION

5

OPT

ION

1

OPTIONS

Initial discussions led to 10 options with 3 taken off the table immediately as not being progressive enough to accommodate for future needs. The pros + cons of each option were discussed over two months of meetings. Costs associated with each option were presented so that the committee could get a real sense of dollar amounts required for each option. The estimated amounts were for today’s costs without inflation added. Each committee member was given the opportunity to vote for what they felt was the best option from an education base and financial. Option 5 was the clear direction.

One of the options taken off the table was to just make minor adjustments (i.e. no new construction or major renovations) to allow the existing buildings to meet the District’s minimum needs but the committee wanted to plan for future generations.

*Options 4, 6 & 8 were eliminated

NO IMMEDIATE WORK

VACATE EXISTING

NO IMMEDIATE WORK

VACATE EXISTINGNO IMMEDIATE WORK

VACATE EXISTING VACATE EXISTING

NO IMMEDIATE WORK

NO IMMEDIATE WORK

23

OPTION 1A

AES: --

WMS: Tear down the existing 4th and 5th grade wing; rebuild the wing to work better with the school; and add a 3-floor elevator

WMHS: --

OPTION 1B

AES: --

WMS: --

WMHS: Remove the modulars; and build a new wing

OPTION 1C

AES: Upgrade ADA, remove asbestos, and do cosmetic upgrades

WMS: --

WMHS: --

*Build new ELC on Athena campus

10 DISTRICT OPTIONSWMHS + AES WMS

NO IMMEDIATE WORK

NO IMMEDIATE WORK

NO IMMEDIATE WORK

VACATE EXISTING

VACATE EXISTING

24

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED OPTIONOPTION 5

AES: Renovate to accommodate grades 6-8

WMS: Renovate to accommodate grades 1-5

WMHS: Delete the WMHS mods and build new wing

*Build new ELC on Athena Elementary campus.*Build new shared Gym, Cafeteria, Shop/CTE building on the 10 acre site.

OPTION 3

AES: --

WMS: Vacate Weston Middle School and build a new middle school in Weston on a different site.

WMHS: --

OPTION 2

AES: --

WMS: Vacate existing Weston Middle School and build a new middle school on the 10 acres adjacent to WMHS

WMHS: --


NO IMMEDIATE WORK

VACATE EXISTING VACATE EXISTING

25

OPTION 7

AES: Renovate to accommodate grades K-5

WMS: Remove the 4-5 wing and add ADA upgrades – this becomes a middle school only

WMHS: --

*Build new ELC on Athena campus.

OPTION 9

AES: -- (Vacate)

WMS: -- (Vacate)

WMHS: -- (Vacate)

OPTION 10

AES: --

WMS: Build a new elementary school in Weston on the existing football field

WMHS: --

Build a new campus for all 3 schools off of Banister Road.



EXISTING WESTON MIDDLE SCHOOL

modify for elementary school(1st-5th)

11 PLAN

WESTON MIDDLE SCHOOL Repurpose for Elementary (1st - 5th grade)

• Repurposing the Middle School in Weston into the Elementary School would entail removing the existing 4th/5th grade wing that was added in 1960. An addition of a cafeteria and an elevator that would connect all of the floors from the basement to upper levels would allow for ADA access throughout the entire school. The addition of this new wing would be designed to be more congruous with the original 1927 building.

• Removal of all ADA barriers throughout would allow for compliance to current codes.

• The two different basement wings would be connected together so that students could pass back and forth without going up and back down stairs for access.

• With the addition of the elevator, the recently installed stair lift could be removed.

• ADA access would be added to the play fields.

• The District owns adjacent land that could be used for much needed parking.

lots owned by District - possible future parking

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED OPTION - OPTION 5


EXISTING ATHENA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

EXISTING WESTON-McEWEN HIGH SCHOOL11 PLAN

ATHENA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Repurpose into the Middle School (6th - 8th grade)

• Remodel the existing gymnasium into two science classrooms and an addition of one classroom.

• All of the ADA barriers would be removed.

• The existing cafeteria would be turned into break-out spaces and media center.

• An EARLY LEARNING CENTER would be constructed on the site and have access directly to the school.

• The ELC could partner with an early headstart, childhood intervention, health and wellness, lifeways mental health and women, infants, and children (WIC) programs


• The existing modulars housing a library and two classrooms would be removed.

• An addition would be added for break-out/gathering spaces, additional classrooms and a media center.

• All ADA barriers would be removed.


renovate existing gym into 2 science

add 1 classroom

new early learning centerwith connection to allow sharing of facilities

remove modulars and build a new wingnew cafeteria, kitchen, 2 gyms, admin, and 4 CTE classrooms

modify for middle school (6-8)


EXISTING ATHENA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

EXISTING WESTON-McEWEN HIGH SCHOOL11 PLAN

SHARED MIDDLE & HIGH SCHOOL COMPLEX

• On the 10 acre site adjacent to both of the Middle School and High School a shared complex would be built. The complex could house:

• 2 full-size gymnasiums with locker rooms.

• Kitchen and cafeteria space for both schools

• 4 CTE classrooms

• Adequate parking for events

• District administrative spaces


renovate existing gym into 2 science

add 1 classroom

new early learning centerwith connection to allow sharing of facilities

remove modulars and build a new wingnew cafeteria, kitchen, 2 gyms, admin, and 4 CTE classrooms

modify for middle school (6-8)


sf $/sfFACILITY UPGRADES AND REPAIRS

Modify WMS for elementary school $500,000Modify AES – add 1 classroom, modify existing

gym into 2 science $950,000

NEW ACADEMIC/CTE BUILDINGSite work – 5 acres $655,000Cafeteria 3,200 $300 $960,000Kitchen 1,800 $375 $675,0002 Gyms 16,000 $250 $4,000,000Admin. 1,000 $250 $250,000CTE Classes – 4 4,800 $500 $2,400,000Circulation (25%) 6,700 $250 $1,675,000

NEW HS WINGRemove modular $10,000Site work (pave all parking areas) $300,000Building

Classrooms – 4 @ 950 sf 3,800 $250 $950,000Library 2,500 $250 $625,000Circulation (25%) 1,575 $250 $393,750

NEW ELC BUILDINGELC 12,000 $305 $3,660,000

Soft Costs (25%) $4,501,000Contingency (10%) $2,251,000

Estimated Total Project Total $24,755,750

Estimated Bond Costs (2%) $496,000

ESTIMATED TOTAL CAPITAL NEED $25,251,750

PLAN BUDGET11 PLAN

Above is a preliminary budget based upon 2018 dollar amounts for construction. Estimated costs based on current project costs in northeast Oregon.



FUNDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

The proposed improvements are recommended to be part of a voter-approved bond. General Obligation (G.O.) bonds are the typical means of funding capital improvement projects for school districts in the state of Oregon. The bond debt is borrowed by the school district, allowing the district to build or improve its facilities, and then is repaid by a special property tax.

Additional opportunities for funds/grants are available through:

• Oregon School Capital Improvement Matching (OSCIM) Program

• Seismic Rehabilitation Grant Program (SRGP)

• Oregon Department of Energy


• Energy Trust of Oregon

• Maintenance Levy


Graph adapted from Baker School District 5J - February 14, 2018 LRFPC Presentation to Board https://www.baker5j.org/apps/pages/LRFMP

BOND CAPACITY In 2016, the Athena-Weston community passed a 10 year bond at a tax rate of $1.45 per $1,000 assessed property value. The current total District bond rate is 5.83%.

As the District and Board consider a next bond, we recommend revisiting the community’s bond capacity.



a.Population projections by school age group for the next ten years using U.S. Census or Census partner data.

05 CAPACITY & GROWTH See Appendix

b. Collaboration with local government planning agencies (city and/or county) that results in: A.

Identification of suitable school sites if needed; 10 DISTRICT OPTIONS

B.

Site acquisition schedules and programs. n/a

c.Evidence of community involvement in determining:

A.

Educational vision of local community; 03 EDUCATIONAL VISION & PRIORITIES04 DISTRICT FACTS & NEEDS08 EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY STANDARDS

B.

Proposals to fund long-range facility needs. 10 DISTRICT OPTIONS11 PLAN

d.Identification of buildings on historic preservation lists including the National Historic Register, State Historical Preservation Office, and local historic building lists.


e.Analysis of district’s current facilities’ ability to meet current national educational adequacy standards:

A.

Identification of facility standards used to meet district educational vision as well as national educational adequacy standards;


B.

Identification of current facility capacity; 07 EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY EVALUATION

C.

Identification of ability of current facility capacity to meet current national educational adequacy standards;


D.

If current facilities are unable to meet current national educational adequacy standards district will then:

i.

Identify deficiencies in current facilities; 07 EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY EVALUATION

ii.

Identify changes needed to bring current facilities up to national educational adequacy standards; and

07 EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY EVALUATION10 DISTRICT OPTIONS

iii.

Identify potential alternatives to new construction or major renovation of current facilities to meet current national educational adequacy standards;

10 DISTRICT OPTIONS

E.

A description of the plan the district will undertake to change its facility to match the projections and needs for the district for the next ten years.

11 PLAN12 FUNDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

O.D.E. - LONG RANGE FACILITY PLAN REQUIREMENTS INDEX

Strategic Plan 2017-2022 Strategy Strategic goals drive our work and focus our efforts toward accomplishing our mission and vision for students. The following pages present our primary strategic goals. For each goal, a specific set of objectives and implementation strategies have been outlined. Each of our schools will annually review school improvement plans to incorporate and monitor district strategic plan goals.

Mission The Why: Our mission explains our fundamental purpose as an organization. The Athena-Weston School District produces graduates exceptionally educated;

ready to excel in college, careers and life.

Vision The What: Our vision captures the future we seek to create for our students.

Ensuring a system which provides opportunities for all to reach their highest

potential; the Athena-Weston School Board has established Four cornerstones of excellence.

❖ Cornerstone #1 Excellence

Excellence is a balance of rigorous, engaging and aligned instructional programs for all.

❖ Cornerstone #2 Citizenship


❖ Cornerstone #3 Community

Community engagement is proactive engagement benefiting all stakeholders

❖ Cornerstone #4 Lifelong Learning

Active learners achieve their highest potential, prepared for post-secondary, career and life.

❖ Cornerstone #1 Excellence

Excellence is a balance of rigorous, engaging and aligned instructional programs for all.

Commitments Proposed Strategies Metrics 1.1 Identify and monitor instructional implementation of common core standards

✓ Implement and monitor high quality, rigorous

standards in all areas ✓ Support a growth mindset in all areas of academic

instruction. ✓ Coordinate common assessments to measure

student progress tied to common core standards ✓ Clearly Identify what students should know and be

able to do at each grade level (curriculum maps) ✓ Maintain curriculum renewal process for state

approved adoptions ✓ Identify and implement professional development

needs to align curriculum, instruction and common assessment practices

✓ Create a system to support Professional Learning Teams (PLT)

1. Student achievement data – focus on growth: *State Assessments (SBAC) cohort data *SAT *iready progress monitoring *Easy CBM *Common Assessment data

2. Indistar Indicators: academic assurances 3. Current curriculum adoption cycle – full

alignment by 2020 4. Aligned resources to support commitments

1.2

Expand academic

growth options and

intervention supports

for all students

✓ Further build systems that lead to positive outcomes

for all underperforming students. ✓ Increase use of classroom instructional strategies

that foster students’ social and emotional skills (Trauma informed practices)

✓ Implement a Multi-Tiered System of support for struggling students and reduce disproportional representation of subgroups in special education. (RTI)

✓ Offer more options for personalized learning including, but not limited to, tutoring, independent study, credit recovery, online learning

✓ Expand kindergarten readiness programs

✓ Initiate ongoing Student Support Teams ✓ Maintain Student Success coordinators

1. 9th grade on track to graduate at 100% by 2020

2. Attendance rates at 95% by 2020 3. 99% on time graduation by 2020 4. Align resources to support commitments

1.3 Expand the continuum of learning opportunities and support all students in navigating the path to college and career success

✓ Ensure that School Improvement Plans identify

differentiated pathways and are aligned to the strategic plan

✓ Increase participation in Advanced Placement, dual credit enrollment, and college partnerships

✓ Continue to expand and improve use of instructional technology in the classroom

✓ Increase options for work-based learning ✓ Increase STEM learning experiences K-12 ✓ Explore and recommend technology programs to

support learning at all levels ✓ Implement a comprehensive system to provide

students with the tools to succeed in post-secondary endeavors

✓ Provide information, services and resources to students and their families to ensure they prepare for and succeed in college

1. Students taking advanced placement or

dual credit courses at 90% by 2020 2. Students graduating with a college,

military or technical school plan at 100% by 2020

3. Post- graduation success data: review college or technical school success rates

4. Increase number of students making adequate annual growth based on common district assessments and state assessments

5. 2020 Assessment Targets: *3rd grade Reading: 60% *3rd grade Math: 60% *5th grade Reading: 70% *5th grade Math: 70% *8th grade Reading: 75%

1.3 (continued) Expand the continuum of learning opportunities and support all students in navigating the path to college and career success

✓ Commit to a partnership between BMCC, EOU, and the community to make education and the completion of a college degree an attainable goal for all students.

✓ Expand partnerships with career mentors and provide information about post-secondary expectations and opportunities

✓ Ensure equitable access to schools’ arts, CTE, athletics, and other extra-curricular programs.

✓ Research and Replicate effective innovative school designs

2020 Assessment Targets: *11th grade Reading: 100% *11th grade Math: 100% (includes alternate assessments)

6. Career and Technical education pathway completions and potential certifications

7. Ensure resources to support commitments

1.4 Hire, support, and retain high quality teachers and leaders, and improve teacher and leader practice

✓ Establish systems for professional learning teams

among networks of teachers and leaders ✓ Support Professional Learning opportunities with

time and resources ✓ Provide ongoing support for authentic evaluation

process ✓ Create strategies to grow, recruit and hire skilled

teaching staff

1. Educator Development Continuum for

effective practice 2. Annual Professional Development survey 3. Time and resources to support collaboration

and professional learning opportunities

❖ Cornerstone #2 Citizenship


Commitments Proposed Strategies Metrics 2.1 Provide students and staff with culturally relevant social, emotional, and health supports to ensure positive school climates

✓ All staff trauma informed (ACES) including

understanding and strategies to support ✓ Implement School-wide Positive Behavior Supports ✓ Teach and practice strategies that ensure safe and

supportive school culture ✓ Provide social-emotional learning opportunities

through restorative practices. ✓ Expand student support systems (behavior support) ✓ Increase use of school data on school climate and

academics to make data-driven decisions ✓ Ensure prevention and crisis response systems are

effective, practiced, and always improving ✓ Increase mental health services for our students and

families. ✓ Establish “safe” rooms in all buildings ✓ Implement Conscious Discipline school-wide (AES) ✓ Pro-social skills, including a focus on decreasing

bullying and illicit substance use, will be taught and reinforced

✓ District Wellness Team initiatives for healthy eating and lifetime fitness

✓ Character education at all levels ✓ Health curriculum review and adoption for 2019

1. School wide PBIS data (baseline) 2. Healthy student surveys 3. School improvement plans

2.2 Ensure safe, welcoming environments conducive to learning

✓ Maintain clean, safe and appealing facilities ✓ Provide sufficient staffing, training, and

communication to ensure campus safety “I Love You Guys protocols)

✓ Provide ongoing training for staff and community focused on Trauma informed practices

✓ School transition activities (move-up day) ✓ Student Leadership (ASB, NHS, FFA, Link Crew) ✓ School climate/culture activities

1. Annual training documentation through Safe Schools

2. Student involvement data 3. Long Range Facilities Planning 4. Budget to support facilities 5. Bond resources and goal attainment

2.3 Provide additional opportunities for high quality learning and community involvement

✓ Increase access to internships and summer learning ✓ Encourage participation in service learning projects ✓ Continue graduation milestones projects ✓ Create opportunities for community engagement ✓ Seek out and listen to multiple perspectives from a

wide-range of diverse community members in decision-making.

✓ Jumpstart kindergarten program ✓ Partnerships with local pre-school and daycare

providers ✓ Friday block schedules(community involvement) ✓ Career and Technical education (Measure 98) ✓ Expanded options and online courses (credit retrieval

and college partnerships)

1. Budget support for additional opportunities:

(Expanded options, field trips, internships, AP exams, SAT testing, summer programs)

2. Internship data 3. Equity data 4. Community Involvement data 5. College credits and AP 6. CTE pathways

❖ Cornerstone #3 Community

Community engagement is proactive engagement benefiting all stakeholders.

Commitments Proposed Strategies Metrics 3.1 Increase parent involvement

✓ Expand opportunities for parent learning ✓ Provide increased parent/family communication ✓ Support and sustain district parent leadership

through partnerships ✓ Enhance systems and strategies to connect parents,

staff, and community ✓ Support our parent groups; PTA, Boosters,

Educational Foundation, FFA advisory, 4-H leadership, libraries, alumni,

✓ Seek local experts to support learning opportunities and internships

✓ Tutors and mentors supporting afterschool programs ✓ Website updated - social media support ✓ Events that get parents to school (breakfast with a

buddy, science night, assemblies, open house, conferences,

✓ Improvement plans that engage stakeholders to share multiple perspectives in decision making

1. Community survey 2. Compile baseline parent involvement data

3.2 Ensure that schools are welcoming to all members of the community

✓ Facilitate development of Parent Resources ✓ Initiate effective models for parent engagement

(volunteer coordinator) ✓ Maintain facility availability outside of the school

day

3.2 (continued) Ensure that schools are welcoming to all members of the community

✓ Open schools to highlight Fine arts programs, athletics, community events

✓ Patron Tours ✓ ADA requirements met (Bond upgrades)

3.3 Maintain, foster, and strengthen community partnerships

✓ Align community partners to Strategic Plan ✓ Offer parent workshops in the community ✓ Partner with higher education institutions to provide

enriching experiences for families ✓ Continue facility planning as a community to support

quality learning at all sites ✓ Foster partnerships with tribal leadership ✓ CTE community partnerships (industry) ✓ Higher Ed. Partnerships maintained and expanded

(Friday block schedules and internships) ✓ Tribal partnerships (beyond the grants ✓ Project based learning opportunities within the

community ✓ City Parks and Recreation partnerships ✓ Career Day (expand to all levels and beyond one day)

❖ Cornerstone #4 Lifelong Learning

Active learners achieve their highest potential, prepared for post-secondary, career and life.

Commitments Proposed Strategies Metrics 4.1 Implement transdisciplinary learning

✓ Identify opportunities to expand, design, or refine

programs of choice based on student interests, workforce trends, and global developments

✓ Remove barriers for underrepresented students to increase access to and participation in programs

✓ Strengthen and connect existing programs and pathways to prepare for postsecondary options

✓ Provide advisory opportunities for students, partnering with community, staff and parents

✓ Incorporate 21st century skills (informational technology)

✓ Foster technological literacy and adaptability with emerging technology

✓ Advance cross-cutting concepts to support STEM educational standards

✓ Support Fine Arts options with funding and staffing ✓ Success 101 for all High School Students ✓ Career education at all levels ✓ Graduation Plans with mentoring ✓ Special interest Internships (GEM example) ✓ Transition services for school to work (sped)

1. Graduation Plans - rate of completions 2. Post High School success data (self-

supporting, contributing citizen, graduate, career)

3. Scholarships

UmatillaCounty

Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) & Area Outside UGBs

Through

2016

2066

Coordinated Population

Forecast

Photo Credit: Wheat in a field along Kings Corner Road. (Photo No. umaDA0009a)

Gary Halvorson, Oregon State Archives

http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/records/local/county/scenic/umatilla/75.html

1

Coordinated Population Forecast for Umatilla County, its Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), and

Area outside UGBs 2016-2066

Prepared by

Population Research Center

College of Urban and Public Affairs

Portland State University

June 30, 2016

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:

Xiaomin Ruan, Population Forecast Program Coordinator

Risa S. Proehl, Population Estimates Program Manager

Jason R. Jurjevich, PhD. Assistant Director, Population Research Center

Kevin Rancik, GIS Analyst

Janai Kessi, Research Analyst

David Tetrick, Graduate Research Assistant

Julia Michel, Graduate Research Assistant

The Population Research Center and project staff wish to acknowledge and express

gratitude for support from DLCD’s Forecast Advisory Committee, 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 methods employed to prepare the forecasts. This document also

describes the data sets and assumptions that feed into these methods and determine the forecast

output.

Forecast Tables—Provides complete tables of population forecast numbers by county and all sub-

areas within each county for each five-year interval of the forecast period (i.e., 2016-2066).

http://www.pdx.edu/prc/opfp

4

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 6

Historical Trends ........................................................................................................................................... 8

Population ................................................................................................................................................. 8

Age Structure of the Population ............................................................................................................... 9

Race and Ethnicity ................................................................................................................................... 10

Births ....................................................................................................................................................... 11

Deaths ..................................................................................................................................................... 13

Migration ................................................................................................................................................ 14

Historical Trends in Components of Population Change ........................................................................ 15

Housing and Households ........................................................................................................................ 16

Assumptions for Future Population Change ............................................................................................... 19

Assumptions for the County and Larger Sub-Areas ................................................................................ 19

Assumptions for Smaller Sub-Areas ........................................................................................................ 20

Forecast Trends ........................................................................................................................................... 21

Forecast Trends in Components of Population Change ......................................................................... 24

Glossary of Key Terms ................................................................................................................................. 27

Appendix A: Surveys and Supporting Information ..................................................................................... 28

Appendix B: Specific Assumptions .............................................................................................................. 57

Appendix C: Detailed Population Forecast Results ..................................................................................... 60

5

Table of Figures Figure 1. Umatilla County and Sub-Areas—Historical and Forecast Populations, and Average Annual

Growth Rates (AAGR) .................................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 2. Umatilla County—Total Population (1975-2015) .......................................................................... 8

Figure 3. Umatilla County and Sub-areas—Total Population and Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR)

(2000 and 2010) ............................................................................................................................................ 9

Figure 4. Umatilla County—Age Structure of the Population (2000 and 2010) ......................................... 10

Figure 5. Umatilla County—Hispanic or Latino and Race (2000 and 2010) ................................................ 11

Figure 6. Umatilla County and Oregon—Total Fertility Rates (2000 and 2010) ......................................... 11

Figure 7. Umatilla County—Age Specific Fertility Rate (2000 and 2010) ................................................... 12

Figure 8. Oregon—Age Specific Fertility Rate (2000 and 2010) ................................................................. 12

Figure 9. Umatilla County and Sub-Areas—Total Births (2000 and 2010) .................................................. 13

Figure 10. Umatilla County and Sub-Areas—Total Deaths (2000 and 2010) .............................................. 14

Figure 11. Umatilla County and Oregon—Age Specific Migration Rates (2000-2010) ............................... 15

Figure 12. Umatilla County—Components of Population Change (2000-2014) ......................................... 16

Figure 13. Umatilla County and Sub-Areas—Total Housing Units (2000 and 2010) ................................... 17

Figure 14. Umatilla County and Sub-Areas—Persons per Household (PPH) and Occupancy Rate ............ 18

Figure 15. Umatilla County—Total Forecast Population by Five-year Intervals (2016-2066) .................... 21

Figure 16. Umatilla County and Larger Sub-Areas—Forecast Population and AAGR ................................. 22

Figure 17. Umatilla County and Larger Sub-Areas—Share of Countywide Population Growth ................. 23

Figure 18. Umatilla County and Smaller Sub-Areas—Forecast Population and AAGR ............................... 23

Figure 19. Umatilla County and Smaller Sub-Areas—Share of Countywide Population Growth ............... 24

Figure 20. Umatilla County—Age Structure of the Population (2016, 2035, and 2066) ............................ 25

Figure 21. Umatilla County—Components of Population Change, 2016-2066 .......................................... 26

Figure 22. Umatilla County - Population by Five-Year Age Group .............................................................. 60

Figure 23. Umatilla County's Sub-Areas - Total Population ........................................................................ 60

6

Executive Summary

Historical

Umatilla County’s total population has grown steadily since 2000, with average annual growth rates near

one percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 1); however, some of its sub-areas experienced more rapid

population growth during the 2000s. Hermiston, the most populous UGB, and Umatilla UGB posted the

highest average annual growth rates at 2.1 and 2.8 percent, respectively, during the 2000 to 2010

period.

Umatilla County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of a steady natural increase

and periods of substantial net in-migration. A larger number of births relative to deaths led to a natural

increase (more births than deaths) in every year from 2000 to 2015 (Figure 12). While net in-migration

fluctuated dramatically during the early and middle years of the last decade, the number of in-migrants

has been slightly more stable during recent years, contributing to a population increase. Even so the

natural increase continues to account for most of the population growth.

Forecast

Total population in Umatilla County as a whole as well as within its sub-areas will likely grow at a slightly

faster pace in the near-term (2016 to 2035) compared to the long-term (2035-2066) (Figure 1). The

tapering of growth rates is driven by an aging population—a demographic trend which is expected to

contribute to an increase in deaths. Even so, natural increase is expected to persist, combining with

steady in-migration for continued strong population growth.

Umatilla County’s total population is forecast to increase by nearly 13,300 over the next 19 years (2016-

2035) and by close to 36,800 over the entire 50-year forecast period (2016-2066). All sub-areas are

expected to experience population growth during the forecast period.

7


2000 2010

AAGR

(2000-2010) 2016 2035 2066

AAGR

(2016-2035)

AAGR

(2035-2066)

Umatilla County 70,548 75,889 0.7% 81,438 94,765 118,308 0.8% 0.7%

Adams UGB 298 350 1.6% 370 391 407 0.3% 0.1%

Athena UGB 1,229 1,134 -0.8% 1,151 1,165 1,180 0.1% 0.0%

Echo UGB 668 722 0.8% 744 781 824 0.3% 0.2%

Helix UGB 192 194 0.1% 204 213 214 0.2% 0.0%

Hermiston UGB 15,635 19,234 2.1% 21,488 28,667 41,104 1.5% 1.2%

Milton-Freewater UGB 6,677 7,213 0.8% 7,653 8,738 10,993 0.7% 0.7%

Pendleton UGB 17,161 17,015 -0.1% 17,325 18,359 21,607 0.3% 0.5%

Pilot Rock UGB 1,641 1,576 -0.4% 1,576 1,576 1,576 0.0% 0.0%

Stanfield UGB 2,011 2,061 0.2% 2,144 2,280 2,383 0.3% 0.1%

Ukiah UGB 258 193 -2.9% 256 258 261 0.1% 0.0%

Umatilla UGB 5,786 7,623 2.8% 8,714 12,284 17,517 1.8% 1.1%

Weston UGB 742 679 -0.9% 695 713 722 0.1% 0.0%

Outside UGBs 18,250 17,895 -0.2% 19,119 19,341 19,520 0.1% 0.0%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses; Forecast by Population Research Center (PRC).

Historical Forecast

8

Historical Trends Different growth patterns occur in different parts of the County. Each of Umatilla County’s sub-areas

was examined for any significant demographic characteristics or changes in population or housing

growth that might influence their individual forecasts. Factors that were analyzed include age

composition of the population, ethnicity and race, births, deaths, migration, and number or growth rate

of housing units as well as the occupancy rate and persons per household (PPH). It should be noted that

population trends of individual sub-areas often differ from those of the county as a whole. However, in

general, local trends within sub-areas collectively influence population growth rates for the county.

Population

Umatilla County’s total population grew by about 62 percent between 1975 and 2015—from roughly

48,800 in 1975 to about 79,100 in 2015 (Figure 2). During this 40-year period, the county realized the

highest growth rates during the late 1970s, which coincided with a period of relative economic

prosperity. During the 1980s, challenging economic conditions, both nationally and within the county,

led to population decline. Again, during the early 1990s population growth increased, but gave away to

a steady decrease in population growth, continuing through the end of the last decade. Even so Umatilla

County experienced positive population growth over the last decade (2000 to 2010)—averaging a little

less than one percent per year. In recent years, growth rates have slightly increased, leading to faster

paced population growth between 2010 and 2015.

Figure 2. Umatilla County—Total Population (1975-2015)

Umatilla County’s population change is the combined population growth or decline within each sub-

area. During the 2000s, Umatilla County’s average annual population growth rate stood at a less than

one percent (Figure 3). At the same time Umatilla and Hermiston UGBs recorded average annual growth

9

rates of 2.8 and 2.1 percent, respectively. Adams also experienced an average annual growth rate

greater than one percent, while population in Echo, Helix, Milton-Freewater, and Stanfield increased at

rates near or below that of the county as a whole. Athena, Pendleton, Pilot Rock, Ukiah, Weston, and

the area outside UGBs recorded population decline between 2000 and 2010.

Figure 3. Umatilla County and Sub-areas—Total Population and Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR) (2000 and 2010)

Age Structure of the Population

Umatilla County’s population is aging, but at a much slower pace compared to most areas across

Oregon. An aging population significantly influences the number of deaths, but also yields a smaller

proportion of women in their childbearing years, which may result in a decline in births. For Umatilla

County the decline in the population of women at childbearing ages has not been true. Births have

actually increased, in spite of the slight rise in the proportion of county population 65 or older between

2000 and 2010 (Figure 4). Further underscoring Umatilla County’s modest trend in aging, the median

age went from about 35 in 2000 to 36 in 2010, an increase that is half of what is observed statewide and

in many cases a quarter of the increase in age seen in many of Oregon’s counties over the same time

period.1

1 Median age is sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2000 and 2010 Censuses, DP-1.

2000 2010

AAGR

(2000-2010)

Share of

County 2000

Share of

County 2010

Umatilla County 70,548 75,889 0.7% 100.0% 100.0%

Adams 298 350 1.6% 0.4% 0.5%

Athena 1,229 1,134 -0.8% 1.7% 1.5%

Echo 668 722 0.8% 0.9% 1.0%

Helix 192 194 0.1% 0.3% 0.3%

Hermiston 15,635 19,234 2.1% 22.2% 25.3%

Milton-Freewater 6,677 7,213 0.8% 9.5% 9.5%

Pendleton 17,161 17,015 -0.1% 24.3% 22.4%

Pilot Rock 1,641 1,576 -0.4% 2.3% 2.1%

Stanfield 2,011 2,061 0.2% 2.9% 2.7%

Ukiah 258 193 -2.9% 0.4% 0.3%

Umatilla 5,786 7,623 2.8% 8.2% 10.0%

Weston 742 679 -0.9% 1.1% 0.9%

Outside UGBs 18,250 17,895 -0.2% 25.9% 23.6%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses.

Note 1: For simplicity each UGB is referred to by its primary city's name.

10

Figure 4. Umatilla 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 size2. The Hispanic population within Umatilla County

increased substantially from 2000 to 2010 (Figure 5), while the White, non-Hispanic population

decreased over the same time period. The increase in the Hispanic population and other minority

populations brings with it several implications for future population change. First, both nationally and at

the state level, fertility rates among Hispanic and minority women have tended to be higher than among

White, non-Hispanic women. Second, Hispanic and minority households tend to be larger relative to

White, non-Hispanic households.

2 Historical data shows that some racial/ethnic groups, such as Hispanics, generally have higher fertility rates than other groups (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/05/17/explaining-why-minority-births-now-outnumber-white-births/); also average household sizes can vary among racial/ethnic groups (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjp09-PltXMAhUC_WMKHQFZCBEQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fpopulation%2Fsocdemo%2Fhh-fam%2Fcps2011%2FtabAVG1.xls&usg=AFQjCNFfO2dYB_OKGxp-ag3hBMVDx4_j9w&cad=rja).

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/05/17/explaining-why-minority-births-now-outnumber-white-births/

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/05/17/explaining-why-minority-births-now-outnumber-white-births/

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjp09-PltXMAhUC_WMKHQFZCBEQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fpopulation%2Fsocdemo%2Fhh-fam%2Fcps2011%2FtabAVG1.xls&usg=AFQjCNFfO2dYB_OKGxp-ag3hBMVDx4_j9w&cad=rja



11

Figure 5. Umatilla County—Hispanic or Latino and Race (2000 and 2010)

Births

Historical fertility rates for Umatilla County do not mirror trends similar to Oregon as a whole. Total

fertility rates increased in Umatilla County from 2000 to 2010, while they decreased in the state over the

same time period (Figure 6). Fertility for high end mothers marginally increased in both Umatilla County

and Oregon (Figure 7 and Figure 8), while peak fertility remained relatively unchanged in Umatilla

County. The peak in Oregon as a whole shifts to a slightly older age group. County fertility changes are

distinct from those of the state in three ways. First, total fertility in Umatilla County increased during the

2000s, which differed from the decrease observed statewide. Second, total fertility in the county

remains well above replacement fertility, while for Oregon as a whole, total fertility continues to fall

further below replacement fertility. Third, the number of births to younger women did not decline as

sharply in Umatilla County when compared to Oregon as a whole.

Figure 6. Umatilla County and Oregon—Total Fertility Rates (2000 and 2010)

Hispanic or Latino and Race

Absolute

Change

Relative

Change

Total population 70,548 100.0% 75,889 100.0% 5,341 7.6%

Hispanic or Latino 11,366 16.1% 18,107 23.9% 6,741 59.3%

Not Hispanic or Latino 59,182 83.9% 57,782 76.1% -1,400 -2.4%

White alone 54,670 77.5% 52,691 69.4% -1,979 -3.6%

Black or African American alone 535 0.8% 557 0.7% 22 4.1%

American Indian and Alaska Native alone 2,258 3.2% 2,383 3.1% 125 5.5%

Asian alone 518 0.7% 626 0.8% 108 20.8%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 51 0.1% 95 0.1% 44 86.3%

Some Other Race alone 118 0.2% 55 0.1% -63 -53.4%

Two or More Races 1,032 1.5% 1,375 1.8% 343 33.2%


2000 2010

2000 2010

Umatilla County 2.33 2.49

Oregon 1.98 1.80

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Censuses .

Oregon Health Authority, Center for Health Statistics.

Calculated by Population Research Center (PRC).

12

Figure 7. Umatilla County—Age Specific Fertility Rate (2000 and 2010)

Figure 8. Oregon—Age Specific Fertility Rate (2000 and 2010)

Figure 9 shows the number of births by the area in which the mother resides. Generally the number of

births fluctuates from year to year. For example, a sub-area with an increase in births between two

years could easily show a decrease for a different time period unless there were a general trend in

13

either direction. However for the 10- year period from 2000 to 2010 the county as a whole and three of

its most populous cities saw an increase in births, while the Umatilla UGB, all smaller UGBs, and the area

outside UGBs recorded a decrease in births (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Umatilla County and Sub-Areas—Total Births (2000 and 2010)

Deaths

Contrary to the statewide trend, people in Umatilla County are not necessarily living longer.3 For

Umatilla County in 2000, life expectancy for males was 76 years and for females was 80 years. By 2010,

life expectancy had remained relatively the same for males, but had slightly decreased for females.

However, for both Umatilla County and Oregon, the survival rates changed little for most age groups

between 2000 and 2010—underscoring the fact that mortality is the most stable component of

population change. Even so, the total number of countywide deaths increased because of the aging

baby boomers and the larger share of total population they represent (Figure 10).

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.

2000 2010

Absolute

Change

Relative

Change

Share of

County 2000

Share of

County 2010

Umatilla County 1,040 1,106 66 6.3% 100.0% 100.0%

Hermiston 271 368 97 35.8% 26.1% 33.3%

Milton-Freewater 112 134 22 19.6% 10.8% 12.1%

Pendleton 212 222 10 4.7% 20.4% 20.1%

Umatilla 141 110 -31 -22.0% 13.6% 9.9%

Smaller UGBs 246 187 -59 -24.0% 23.7% 16.9%

Outside UGBs 199 195 -4 -2.0% 19.1% 17.6%


Sources: Oregon Health Authority, Center for Health Statistics. Aggregated by Population Research Center (PRC).

Note 2: Smaller UGBs are those with populations less than 7,000 in forecast launch year.

14

Figure 10. Umatilla County and Sub-Areas—Total Deaths (2000 and 2010)

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 group. Figure 11 shows the

historical age-specific migration rates by five-year age group, both for Umatilla County and Oregon. The

migration rate is shown as the number of net migrants per person by age group.

From 2000 to 2010, younger individuals (ages with the highest mobility levels) moved out of the county

in search of employment and education opportunities, as well as for military service. At the same time

however, the county attracted a substantial number of middle aged migrants who likely moved into the

county due to economic opportunities. Many in this group of in-migrants were assumed to be

accompanied by their children as shown in the in-migration of persons under the age of 14 in Figure 11.

Net in-migration of persons of retiree ages also occurred followed by a net out-migration of the oldest

age groups perhaps moving to become closer in proximity to family members who live elsewhere or for

medical facilities.

2000 2010

Absolute

Change

Relative

Change

Share of

County 2000

Share of

County 2010

Umatilla County 456 529 73 16.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Hermiston 109 132 23 21.1% 23.9% 25.0%

Pendleton 104 149 45 43.3% 22.8% 28.2%

All other areas 243 248 5 2.1% 53.3% 46.9%


Sources: Oregon Health Authority, Center for Health Statistics. Aggregated by Population Research Center (PRC).

Note 2: All other areas includes some larger UGBs (those with populations greater than 7,000), all smaller UGBs (those with

populations less than 7,000), and the area outside UGBs. Detailed, point level death data were unavailable for 2000, thus PRC was

unable to assign deaths to some areas.

15

Figure 11. Umatilla County and Oregon—Age Specific Migration Rates (2000-2010)

Historical Trends in Components of Population Change

In summary, Umatilla County’s positive population growth in the 2000s was the result of a steady

natural increase and periods of substantial net in-migration (Figure 12). The larger number of births

relative to deaths led to a natural increase (more births than deaths) in every year from 2000 to 2015.

While net in-migration fluctuated dramatically during the early and middle years of the last decade, the

number of in-migrants has been slightly more stable during recent years, also contributing to population

increase. Even so natural increase continues to account for most of the population growth.

16

Figure 12. Umatilla County—Components of Population Change (2000-2014)

Housing and Households

The total number of housing units in Umatilla 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 2007. Over

the entire 2000 to 2010 period, the total number of housing units increased by about seven percent

countywide; this resulted in more than 2,000 new housing units (Figure 13). Hermiston captured the

largest share of the growth in total housing units, with Pendleton, Milton-Freewater, Umatilla, and the

area outside UGBs also seeing large shares of the countywide housing growth. In terms of relative

housing growth, Adams grew the most during the 2000s, its total housing units increased more than 18

percent (22 housing units) by 2010.

The rates of increase in the number of total housing units in the county, UGBs, and area outside UGBs

are similar to the growth rates of their corresponding populations. The growth rates for housing may

slightly differ from the rates for population because the numbers of total housing units are smaller than

the numbers of persons, or the UGB has experienced changes in the average number of persons per

household (PPH) or in occupancy rates. However, the pattern of population and housing change in the

county is relatively similar.

17

Figure 13. Umatilla County and Sub-Areas—Total Housing Units (2000 and 2010)

Occupancy rates tend to fluctuate more than PPH. This is particularly true in smaller UGB areas where

fewer housing units cause larger changes—in relative terms. From 2000 to 2010 the occupancy rate in

Umatilla County declined slightly; this was most likely due to slack in demand for housing as individuals

experienced the effects of the Great Recession. Many sub-areas experienced similar declines in

occupancy rates, with two smaller UGBs (i.e., Helix and Ukiah) experiencing more extreme declines in

their rates. A few UGBs recorded increases in occupancy rates of more than one percentage point.

These were Adams, Hermiston, Milton-Freewater, and Umatilla.

Average household size, or PPH, in Umatilla County was 2.7 in 2010, the same as in 2000 (Figure 14).

Umatilla County’s PPH in 2010 was slightly higher than for Oregon as a whole, which had a PPH of 2.5.

PPH varied across the 12 UGBs, with all of them falling between two and three persons per household.

In 2010 the highest PPH was in Helix with 3.3 and the lowest in Ukiah at 2.1.

2000 2010

AAGR

(2000-2010)

Share of

County 2000

Share of

County 2010

Umatilla County 27,676 29,693 0.7% 100.0% 100.0%

Adams 119 141 1.7% 0.4% 0.5%

Athena 476 486 0.2% 1.7% 1.6%

Echo 260 267 0.3% 0.9% 0.9%

Helix 70 72 0.3% 0.3% 0.2%

Hermiston 6,234 7,243 1.5% 22.5% 24.4%

Milton-Freewater 2,573 2,813 0.9% 9.3% 9.5%

Pendleton 6,682 6,976 0.4% 24.1% 23.5%

Pilot Rock 679 680 0.0% 2.5% 2.3%

Stanfield 725 742 0.2% 2.6% 2.5%

Ukiah 128 127 -0.1% 0.5% 0.4%

Umatilla 1,848 2,076 1.2% 6.7% 7.0%

Weston 288 274 -0.5% 1.0% 0.9%

Outside UGBs 7,594 7,796 0.3% 27.4% 26.3%



18

Figure 14. Umatilla County and Sub-Areas—Persons per Household (PPH) and Occupancy Rate

2000 2010

Change

2000-2010 2000 2010

Change

2000-2010

Umatilla County 2.7 2.7 0.0 91.0% 90.6% -0.4%

Adams 2.7 2.6 -0.1 89.9% 94.3% 4.4%

Athena 2.7 2.5 -0.2 94.3% 92.2% -2.1%

Echo 2.7 2.8 0.2 95.4% 95.5% 0.1%

Helix 3.0 3.3 0.3 91.4% 80.6% -10.9%

Hermiston 2.7 2.8 0.1 92.7% 94.8% 2.1%

Milton-Freewater 2.8 2.8 0.0 89.4% 90.4% 1.0%

Pendleton 2.4 2.4 0.0 94.0% 91.5% -2.5%

Pilot Rock 2.6 2.6 0.0 92.8% 89.7% -3.1%

Stanfield 3.0 3.0 0.0 92.7% 92.9% 0.2%

Ukiah 2.5 2.1 -0.4 76.6% 66.1% -10.4%

Umatilla 3.0 3.0 0.0 90.5% 92.8% 2.3%

Weston 2.7 2.7 -0.1 94.8% 93.1% -1.7%

Outside UGBs 2.7 2.7 -0.1 87.3% 85.4% -1.9%


Persons Per Household (PPH) Occupancy Rate


19

Assumptions for Future Population Change Evaluating past demographic trends provides clues about what the future will look like, and helps

determine the most likely scenarios for population change. Past trends also explain the dynamics of

population growth specific to local areas. Relating recent and historical population change to

demographic events that influence population change serves as a gauge for what might realistically

occur in a given area over the long-term.

Assumptions about fertility, mortality, and migration were developed for Umatilla County’s population

forecast as well as for the forecasts for larger sub-areas.4 The assumptions are derived from

observations based on life events, as well as trends unique to Umatilla County and its larger sub-areas.

Population change for smaller sub-areas is determined by the change in the number of total housing

units, PPH, and housing occupancy. Assumptions around housing unit growth as well as occupancy rates

are derived from observations of historical building patterns and current plans for future housing

development. In addition assumptions for PPH are based on observed historical patterns of household

demographics—for example the average age of householder. Young families tend to have higher PPH

than older populations. The forecast period is 2016-2066.

Assumptions for the County and Larger Sub-Areas

During the forecast period, the population in Umatilla County is expected to age more quickly during the

first half of the forecast period and then remain relatively stable over the remainder of the forecast

horizon. Fertility rates are expected to slightly decline throughout the forecast period. Total fertility in

Umatilla County is forecast to very slightly decrease from 2.2 children per woman in 2015 to 2.1 children

per woman by 2065. Similar patterns of mildly declining total fertility are expected within the county’s

larger sub-areas.

Changes in mortality and life expectancy are more stable compared to fertility and migration. One

influential factor affecting mortality and life expectancy is the advancement in medical technology and

health care. The county and larger sub-areas are projected to follow the statewide trend of increasing

life expectancy throughout the forecast period—progressing from a life expectancy of 78 years in 2010

to 85 in 2060. However, in spite of increasing life expectancy and the corresponding increase in survival

rates, Umatilla County’s aging population and large population cohort reaching a later stage of life will

increase the overall number of deaths throughout the forecast period. Larger sub-areas within the

county will experience a similar increase in deaths as their population ages.

Migration is the most volatile and challenging demographic component to forecast due to the many

factors influencing migration patterns. Economic, social, and environmental factors—such as

employment, educational opportunities, housing availability, family ties, cultural affinity, climate

change, and natural amenities—occurring both inside and outside the study area can affect both the

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.

20

direction and the volume of migration. Net migration rates consider historical trends unique to Umatilla

County. Net out-migration of younger persons and net in-migration of middle-age individuals will persist

throughout the forecast period. Countywide average annual net migration is expected to increase from

about 200 net in-migrants in 2015 to about 300 net in-migrants in 2035. Over the last 30 years of the

forecast period average annual net migration is expected to grow more steadily, remaining at about 400

net in-migrants through 2065. Net in-migration is expected to account for roughly less than half of the

Umatilla County’s population growth for the first half forecast period and more than half of it during the

second half period.

Assumptions for Smaller Sub-Areas

Rates of population growth for the smaller UGBs are assumed to be determined by corresponding

growth in the number or the growth rate 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.

PPH is assumed to stay fairly stable over the forecast period with some small decline. Smaller household

size is associated with an aging population in Umatilla County and its sub-areas. Occupancy rates are

assumed to decline a little over the forecast period, as more housing is available.

In addition, for sub-areas experiencing population growth, we assume a higher growth rate in the near-

term, with growth stabilizing over the remainder of the forecast period. If planned housing units were

reported in the surveys, then they are assumed to be constructed over the next 5-15 years. Finally, for

county sub-areas where population growth has been flat or has declined, and there is no planned

housing construction, population growth is held mostly stable with little to no change.

21

Forecast Trends Under a most-likely population growth scenario in Umatilla County, countywide and sub-area

populations are expected to increase over the forecast period. The countywide population growth rate

is forecast to slowly decline throughout the forecast period. Forecasting tapered population growth is

driven by both an aging population—contributing to steady increase in deaths over the entire forecast

period—although the expectation of steadily growing in-migration over the second half of the forecast

period will occur. The combination of these factors will likely result in a slowly declining population

growth rate as time progresses through the forecast period.

Umatilla County’s total population is forecast to increase by a little more than 36,800 persons (45

percent) from 2016 to 2066, which translates into a total countywide population of 118,308 in 2066

(Figure 15). The population is forecast to grow at the highest rate—approximately one percent per

year—in the near-term (2016-2025). This anticipated population growth in the near-term is based on

two core assumptions: (1) Umatilla County’s economy will continue to strengthen in the next 10 years;

(2) Middle-age persons will continue to migrate into the county—bringing their children or having more

children after they arrive. The largest component of growth in this initial period is natural increase.

Nearly 4,100 more births than deaths are forecast for the 2016 to 2025 period. At the same time more

than 2,100 in-migrants are also forecast, combining with a natural increase for continued strong

population growth.

Figure 15. Umatilla County—Total Forecast Population by Five-year Intervals (2016-2066)

Umatilla County’s four largest UGBs—Hermiston, Milton-Freewater, Pendleton, and Umatilla—are

forecast to experience a combined population growth of more than 12,800 from 2016 to 2035 and more

than 23,100 from 2035 to 2066 (Figure 16). The Hermiston UGB is expected to increase by more than

22

7,100 persons from 2016 to 2035, growing from a total population of 21,400 in 2016 to 28,600 in 2035.

The Umatilla UGB is forecast to increase by a slightly faster rate, growing from 8,700 persons in 2016 to

a population of 12,200 in 2035. Both Milton-Freewater and Pendleton are forecast to experience more

mild population growth from 2016-2035. Growth is expected to occur more slowly for Hermiston,

Umatilla, and Milton-Freewater during the second part of the forecast period, with total population

increasing to 41,100, 17,500, and 10,900 respectively by 2066. At the same time Pendleton is forecast to

grow at a slightly faster pace from 2035-2066, increasing to 21,600. Both Hermiston and Umatilla UGBs

are expected to grow as a share of total county population, while Milton-Freewater and Pendleton are

forecast to decrease as a share of total county population.

Population outside UGBs is expected to grow by more than 200 people from 2016 to 2035, but is

expected to grow at a slower rate during the second half of the forecast period, only adding a little more

than 180 people from 2035 to 2066. The population of the area outside UGBs is forecast to decline as a

share of total countywide population over the forecast period, composing 24 percent of the countywide

population in 2015 and less than 20 percent in 2066.

Figure 16. Umatilla County and Larger Sub-Areas—Forecast Population and AAGR

Hermiston, Umatilla County’s largest UGB, and Umatilla UGB are expected to capture the largest share

of total countywide population growth during the initial 19 years of the forecast period (Figure 17);

however, both of these areas are forecast to capture a smaller share of countywide population growth

during the last 31 years of the forecast period. Milton-Freewater and Pendleton are expected to

capture an increasing share of countywide population growth over the forecast period.

2016 2035 2066

AAGR

(2015-2035)

AAGR

(2035-2066)

Share of

County 2016

Share of

County 2035

Share of

County 2066

Umatilla County 81,438 94,765 118,308 0.8% 0.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Hermiston 21,488 28,667 41,104 1.5% 1.2% 26.4% 30.3% 34.7%

Milton-Freewater 7,653 8,738 10,993 0.7% 0.7% 9.4% 9.2% 9.3%

Pendleton 17,325 18,359 21,607 0.3% 0.5% 21.3% 19.4% 18.3%

Umatilla 8,714 12,284 17,517 1.8% 1.1% 10.7% 13.0% 14.8%

Smaller UGBS 7,140 7,376 7,568 0.2% 0.1% 8.8% 7.8% 6.4%

Outside UGBs 19,119 19,341 19,520 0.1% 0.0% 23.5% 20.4% 16.5%

Source: Forecast by Population Research Center (PRC)


Note: Smaller UGBs are those with populations less than 7,000 in forecast launch year.

23

Figure 17. Umatilla County and Larger Sub-Areas—Share of Countywide Population Growth

The remaining smaller UGBs are expected to grow by a combined number of about 230 persons from

2016 to 2035, with a combined average annual growth rate of 0.2 percent (Figure 16). This growth rate

is due to expected mild growth in all smaller UGBs (Figure 18). Athena, Pilot Rock, Ukiah, and Weston

are expected to record population increase rather than the decrease observed during the last decade

(2000 to 2010). Similar to the larger UGBs and the county as a whole, population growth rates are

forecast to decline for the second half of the forecast period (2035 to 2066). The smaller UGBs are

expected to collectively add nearly 190 people from 2035 to 2066.

Figure 18. Umatilla County and Smaller Sub-Areas—Forecast Population and AAGR

Umatilla County’s smaller sub-areas are expected to compose roughly 1.8 percent of countywide

population growth in the first 19 years of the forecast period and about 0.8 percent in the last 31 years

(Figure 17). Every smaller UGB is expected to capture an increasing share of countywide population

growth, with Pilot Rock and Stanfield capturing the largest increase in their share of countywide

population growth between the initial 19 and final 31 years of the forecast period.

2016-2035 2035-2066

Umatilla County 100.0% 100.0%

Hermiston 53.9% 52.8%

Milton-Freewater 8.1% 9.6%

Pendleton 7.8% 13.8%

Umatilla 26.8% 22.2%

Smaller UGBS 1.8% 0.8%

Outside UGBs 1.7% 0.8%



Note: Smaller UGBs are those with populations less than 7,000 in forecast launch year.

2016 2035 2066

AAGR

(2016-2035)

AAGR

(2035-2066)

Share of

County 2016

Share of

County 2035

Share of

County 2066

Umatilla County 81,438 94,765 118,308 0.8% 0.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Adams 370 391 407 0.3% 0.1% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3%

Athena 1,151 1,165 1,180 0.1% 0.0% 1.4% 1.2% 1.0%

Echo 744 781 824 0.3% 0.2% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7%

Helix 204 213 214 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%

Pilot Rock 1,576 1,576 1,576 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 1.7% 1.3%

Stanfield 2,144 2,280 2,383 0.3% 0.1% 2.6% 2.4% 2.0%

Ukiah 256 258 261 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2%

Weston 695 713 722 0.1% 0.0% 0.9% 0.8% 0.6%

Larger UGBs 55,179 68,049 91,220 1.1% 0.9% 67.8% 71.8% 77.1%

Outside UGBs 19,119 19,341 19,520 0.1% 0.0% 23.5% 20.4% 16.5%



Note 2: Larger UGBs are those with populations equal to or greater than 7,000 in forecast launch year.

24

Figure 19. Umatilla County and Smaller Sub-Areas—Share of Countywide Population Growth

Forecast Trends in Components of Population Change

As previously discussed, a key factor in increasing deaths is an aging population. From 2016 to 2035 the

proportion of county population 65 or older is forecast to grow from roughly 15 percent to about 19

percent; however the proportion of the population 65 or older is expected to actually slightly decrease

from 2035 to 2066 (Figure 20). For a more detailed look at the age structure of Umatilla County’s

population see the forecast table published to the forecast program website

(http://www.pdx.edu/prc/opfp).

2016-2035 2035-2066

Umatilla County 100.0% 100.0%

Adams 0.2% 0.1%

Athena 0.1% 0.1%

Echo 0.3% 0.2%

Helix 0.1% 0.0%

Pilot Rock 0.0% 0.0%

Stanfield 1.0% 0.4%

Ukiah 0.0% 0.0%

Weston 0.1% 0.0%

Larger UGBs 96.6% 98.4%

Outside UGBs 1.7% 0.8%



Note 2: Larger UGBs are those with populations equal to or greater than 7,000 in forecast launch year.

http://www.pdx.edu/prc/opfp

25

Figure 20. Umatilla County—Age Structure of the Population (2016, 2035, and 2066)

As the countywide population ages in the near-term—contributing to a slow-growing population of

women in their years of peak fertility—and more women choose to have fewer children and have them

at an older age, the increase in average annual births is expected to slow; this combined with the rise in

number of deaths, is expected to cause a natural increase to remain relatively stable over the forecast

period (Figure 21).

Net in-migration is forecast to increase gradually over the remainder of the forecast period. The

majority of these net in-migrants are expected to be middle-aged individuals and children under the age

of 14.

In summary, a steady magnitude of natural increase and increasing net in-migration are expected to

lead to population growth through the entire forecast period (Figure 21).

26

Figure 21. Umatilla County—Components of Population Change, 2016-2066

27

Glossary of Key Terms

Cohort-Component Method: A method used to forecast future populations based on changes in births,

deaths, and migration over time; this method models the population in age cohorts, which are survived

into progressively older age groups over time and are subject to age-specific mortality, fertility and net

migration rates to account for population change.

Coordinated population forecast: A population forecast prepared for the county along with population

forecasts for its city urban growth boundary (UGB) areas and non-UGB area.

Housing unit: A house, apartment, mobile home or trailer, group of rooms, or single room that is

occupied or is intended for residency.

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 quarters

population counts.

Occupancy rate: The proportion of total housing units that is occupied by individuals or groups of

persons.

Persons per household (PPH): The average household size (i.e. the average number of persons per

occupied housing unit for a particular geographic area).

Replacement Level Fertility: The average number of children each woman needs to bear in order to

replace the population (to replace each male and female) under current mortality conditions. This is

commonly estimated to be 2.1 children per woman in the U.S.

28

Appendix A: Surveys and Supporting Information Supporting information is based on planning documents and reports, and from submissions to PRC from city officials and staff, and other

stakeholders. The information pertains to characteristics of each city area, and to changes thought to occur in the future. The cities of Helix,

Pendleton, Pilot Rock, Stanfield, Ukiah, and Weston did not submit survey responses.

Adams—Umatilla County—11/02/2015

Observations

about Population

Composition (e.g.

about children, the

elderly, racial

ethnic groups)

Observations

about

Housing

(including

vacancy

rates)

Planned Housing

Development/Es

t. Year

Completion

Future Group

Quarters

Facilities

Future

Employers Infrastructure

Promotions (Promos) and

Hindrances (Hinders) to

Population and Housing Growth;

Other notes

Diverse group of all

age groups. There

are families with

school age kids,

double income no

kids, single

occupants, and

retired individuals,

and retired

couples. Not

diverse in ethnic

groups.

The city has

the

opportunity

to have a few

housing

development

s but not

many. City is

on a septic

system which

influences

development

. Several

houses need

demolished

which may

There are

potentially 4 to 5

new house sites

that could be

developed. One

will be

completed in

2016. There are 4

vacant lots for

sale which could

be developed in

the next 3-5

years.

None None Infrastructure is in

good shape and

capable of expansion.

Some roads could use

some work but the

water utility is capable

of growth.

Promos:

Hinders: Septic system and the

few amount of developable lots

within urban growth boundary

are hindrances to growth

29


spur

additional

growth.

Occupancy

rates remain

fairly stable.

Highlights or

summary of

influences on or

anticipation of

population and

housing growth

from planning

documents and

studies

Planning commission and council have begun completing surveys of citizens then doing review of the developmental code book /

comprehensive plan. This will allow the city to keep on top of the changes necessary to help with growth. The city adopted a “Tiny

House” provision which may help with growth on smaller lots within the city limits.

30


Other information

(e.g. planning

documents, email

correspondence,

housing

development

survey)

31

Athena—Umatilla County—10/27/2015

Observations

about Population

Composition (e.g.

about children, the

elderly, racial

ethnic groups)

Observations

about

Housing

(including

vacancy

rates)

Planned Housing

Development/Es

t. Year

Completion

Future Group

Quarters

Facilities

Future





Other notes

Population is

virtually unchanged

4 unit Senior

Housing

building

completed

12/2014.

N/A N/A N/A N/A Promos:

Hinders: Very small community

with limited housing and

business opportunities.

Highlights or

summary of

influences on or

anticipation of

population and

housing growth

from planning

documents and

studies

Due to the number of businesses in town, limited housing availability and being in a bedroom community we do not anticipate

population or housing growth.

32

Athena—Umatilla County—10/27/2015

Other information

(e.g. planning

documents, email

correspondence,

housing

development

survey)

33

Echo—Umatilla County—10/26/2015

Observations

about Population

Composition (e.g.

about children, the

elderly, racial

ethnic groups)

Observations

about

Housing

(including

vacancy

rates)

Planned Housing

Development/Es

t. Year

Completion

Future Group

Quarters

Facilities

Future





Other notes

Echo is primarily

White. The

Hispanic population

is low and relatively

stable. Older 2 bed

room homes

dominate so we do

attract an unstable

low income white

population for

these homes that

tend to have a high

proportion of drug

users and those on

government

assistance (about

10%)

Housing

shortage, but

little easily

developable

land is

available. We

do have a

large urban

growth

boundary,

but it is land

on the hills

above town

with no

sewer or

water and we

are in a

critical

ground water

area, so

getting water

rights is

None N/A New

wine/vineyard

businesses.

One well

established

vineyard

business has

created a

surge of

improvements

in the

downtown

that is

attracting

visitors, but

because of the

housing

market—no

residents and

limited

employees. A

second winery

is being

Water good

distribution system. No

water for high use

industries. The city is

on a DEQ order

requiring upgrades,

project is waiting to

see if we can get land

and funding.

Promos:

Hinders: Housing as noted

earlier. Area wide job market

34


difficult.

There are

people

wanting

homes in

Echo and

who want to

bring their

children to

school here.

We definitely

could fill

some nice 3

bedroom

apartments

or homes in

the $80,000

to $140,000

range.

developed

now with

completion

targeted for

2016.

Highlights or

summary of

influences on or

anticipation of

population and

housing growth

from planning

documents and

No new comp plan changes in last few years. The Downtown has undergone major improvements and private upgrades to historic

buildings. City’s participation and success in America in Bloom Livability Program is attracting attention and interest in Echo, but no

growth yet.

35


studies

Other information

(e.g. planning

documents, email

correspondence,

housing

development

survey)

36

Helix—Umatilla County—NO SURVEY RESPONSE

Observations

about Population

Composition (e.g.

about children, the

elderly, racial

ethnic groups)

Observations

about

Housing

(including

vacancy

rates)

Planned Housing

Development/Es

t. Year

Completion

Future Group

Quarters

Facilities

Future





Other notes

Promos:

Hinders:

Highlights or

summary of

influences on or

anticipation of

population and

housing growth

from planning

documents and

studies

37

Helix—Umatilla County—NO SURVEY RESPONSE

Other information

(e.g. planning

documents, email

correspondence,

housing

development

survey)

38

Hermiston—Umatilla County—11/02/2015

Observations

about Population

Composition (e.g.

about children, the

elderly, racial

ethnic groups)

Observations

about

Housing

(including

vacancy

rates)

Planned Housing

Development/Es

t. Year

Completion

Future Group

Quarters

Facilities

Future





Other notes

Increase in number

of enrolled

students.

Reference PSU

school forecast

from 2014.

Housing is

steady.

Absorption is

3-6 houses

per month.

66 apts units and

60 SFR units

planned. Olive

Court, Abarim

Meadows, Desert

Sky, Castle

Homes, Highland

Summit, Sterling

Ridge. (More

development

detail below)

Guardian

Angel, Aspen

Springs

Holiday Inn

Express,

Guardian

Angel, Aspen

Springs, Ranch

& Home. City

aggressively

recruits

industry.

Waste water treatment

plant, new signal lights

Promos: Largest city on the East

side, ag center, retail hub,

transport hub.

Hinders: Proximity to Tri-Cities,

lack of upper market retail

opportunities, increasing

congestion

Highlights or

summary of

influences on or

anticipation of

population and

housing growth

from planning

documents and

studies

39

Hermiston—Umatilla County—11/02/2015

Other information

(e.g. planning

documents, email

correspondence,

housing

development

survey)

City anticipates 2% population growth each year. Infrastructure has capacity to reach about 36,000 without substantial upgrades.

Olive Court with 8 SFR units, preliminary plat approved. Target price: $250k range. Abarim Meadows with 7 SFR units, ph1 of 2

approved 4 lots. Desert Sky Estates with 14 SFR units, at ph4 of multiphase plan. Castle Homes with 10 SFR units, at ph3 of

multiphase plan. Highland Summit with 21 SFR units, at ph7 of multiphase plan. Sterling Ridge with 66 MF 2-3 bedroom apt units,

site plan approved.

40

Milton-Freewater—Umatilla County—11/04/2015

Observations

about Population

Composition (e.g.

about children, the

elderly, racial

ethnic groups)

Observations

about

Housing

(including

vacancy

rates)

Planned Housing

Development/Es

t. Year

Completion

Future Group

Quarters

Facilities

Future





Other notes

Slight increase in

Hispanic population

over the past

several years. Also

increase in aging

population.

Almost no

new housing

starts in

2015.

We have a

developer very

interested in re-

filing a

preliminary

subdivision plat

from several

years ago for

approximately 49

lots. Estimated

completion in

2016. Too soon

to tell but more

than likely

targeting

families.

None Potential

industrial

expansion -

could see up

to 50 new

employees.

Otherwise,

expect a few

small new

businesses.

Sewer treatment plant

upgrades in progress.

As a result, all

infrastructure will be in

place to serve all land

within the City's UGB.

Promos: Plenty of land within

the UGB to accommodate

additional housing needs. Lower

development costs in City than in

neighboring cities across state

line, and lower utility costs as

well.

Hinders: There are few very large

employers.

41

Milton-Freewater—Umatilla County—11/04/2015

Highlights or

summary of

influences on or

anticipation of

population and

housing growth

from planning

documents and

studies

Have not met anticipated population growth in all studies previously done; however, still feel that we are poised for increased

growth.

Other information

(e.g. planning

documents, email

correspondence,

housing

development

survey)

42

Pendleton—Umatilla County—NO SURVEY RESPONSE

Observations

about Population

Composition (e.g.

about children, the

elderly, racial

ethnic groups)

Observations

about

Housing

(including

vacancy

rates)

Planned Housing

Development/Es

t. Year

Completion

Future Group

Quarters

Facilities

Future





Other notes

Promos:

Hinders:

Highlights or

summary of

influences on or

anticipation of

population and

housing growth

from planning

documents and

studies

43

Pendleton—Umatilla County—NO SURVEY RESPONSE

Other information

(e.g. planning

documents, email

correspondence,

housing

development

survey)

44

Pilot Rock—Umatilla County—NO SURVEY RESPONSE

Observations

about Population

Composition (e.g.

about children, the

elderly, racial

ethnic groups)

Observations

about

Housing

(including

vacancy

rates)

Planned Housing

Development/Es

t. Year

Completion

Future Group

Quarters

Facilities

Future





Other notes

Promos:

Hinders:

Highlights or

summary of

influences on or

anticipation of

population and

housing growth

from planning

documents and

studies

45

Pilot Rock—Umatilla County—NO SURVEY RESPONSE

Other information

(e.g. planning

documents, email

correspondence,

housing

development

survey)

46

Stanfield—Umatilla County—NO SURVEY RESPONSE

Observations

about Population

Composition (e.g.

about children, the

elderly, racial

ethnic groups)

Observations

about

Housing

(including

vacancy

rates)

Planned Housing

Development/Es

t. Year

Completion

Future Group

Quarters

Facilities

Future





Other notes

Promos:

Hinders:

Highlights or

summary of

influences on or

anticipation of

population and

housing growth

from planning

documents and

studies

47

Stanfield—Umatilla County—NO SURVEY RESPONSE

Other information

(e.g. planning

documents, email

correspondence,

housing

development

survey)

48

Ukiah—Umatilla County—NO SURVEY RESPONSE

Observations

about Population

Composition (e.g.

about children, the

elderly, racial

ethnic groups)

Observations

about

Housing

(including

vacancy

rates)

Planned Housing

Development/Es

t. Year

Completion

Future Group

Quarters

Facilities

Future





Other notes

Promos:

Hinders:

Highlights or

summary of

influences on or

anticipation of

population and

housing growth

from planning

documents and

studies

49

Ukiah—Umatilla County—NO SURVEY RESPONSE

Other information

(e.g. planning

documents, email

correspondence,

housing

development

survey)

50

Umatilla—Umatilla County—11/04/2015

Observations

about Population

Composition (e.g.

about children, the

elderly, racial

ethnic groups)

Observations

about

Housing

(including

vacancy

rates)

Planned Housing

Development/Es

t. Year

Completion

Future Group

Quarters

Facilities

Future





Other notes

Percentage of

Hispanic to White,

non-Hispanic

population is nearly

50/50. White, non-

Hispanic population

tends to be

predominantly

older, while

Hispanic population

tends to be

younger and easily

has a larger

population of

school-age children

and younger.

For at least

the 2-3 years

new housing

units have

been

associated

more with

infill on

vacant lots

within

existing

subdivisions

with most of

those built in

the

moderate

income

range.

Umatilla

appears to

have a

relatively

large

No new housing

subdivision since

mid-2000s. One

developer is

currently hoping

to rezone

property in a

commercial zone

to residential to

accommodate

30-40 new single

family dwellings

despite

abundance of

undeveloped R-1

zoned land

within the City,

which makes

likelihood of

approval fair at

best.

Development

plan unknown

None 3-5 data

centers are in

various

phases of

development

within the

Port Umatilla

with each

projected to

employ

approximately

25 employees

each with

incomes

expected to

be in the $50k

to $75k range.

There has

been little, if

any noticeable

multiplier

effect to date.

City is working on

water & sewer plans to

serve problems areas

in UGB which will

require annexations,

but probably won’t

happen for 2-5 years.

Wastewater treatment

plans are being

developed to support

industrial development

in the Port of Umatilla

Industrial Park.

Promos: Close proximity to

natural resources can promote

to make the community an

attractive place to live work, and

play. Greater attention to areas

within the UGB could greatly

improve the City’s base for

attracting commercial and

industrial uses.

Hinders: Low-income, utility-

impacted community to nearby

Hermiston. Absentee ownership

and owners making light or no

effort to market or develop their

properties.

51

Umatilla—Umatilla County—11/04/2015

percentage

of

substandard

housing units

occupied by

low-income

and seasonal

farmworkers.

but expect 1 – 3

years until

completion.

Target price

between $135k

and $160k.

Target

population young

to middle-age

families with 1-3

children.

Highlights or

summary of

influences on or

anticipation of

population and

housing growth

from planning

documents and

studies

The City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan really only focuses on the downtown area with a Downtown Revitalization Plan that was

adopted in 2002 and which focuses on developing a core business area (there are a lot of vacant and/or underutilized parcels in

the downtown area) surrounded by high density residential development. Until recently, efforts at implementing the plan have

been minimal at best, due largely to a lack of staffing.

Other information

(e.g. planning

documents, email

correspondence,

housing

development

survey)

52

Weston—Umatilla County—NO SURVEY RESPONSE

Observations

about Population

Composition (e.g.

about children, the

elderly, racial

ethnic groups)

Observations

about

Housing

(including

vacancy

rates)

Planned Housing

Development/Es

t. Year

Completion

Future Group

Quarters

Facilities

Future





Other notes

Promos:

Hinders:

Highlights or

summary of

influences on or

anticipation of

population and

housing growth

from planning

documents and

53

Weston—Umatilla County—NO SURVEY RESPONSE

studies

Other information

(e.g. planning

documents, email

correspondence,

housing

development

survey)

54

Non-UGB Unincorporated Area—Umatilla County—11/04/2015

Observations

about Population

Composition (e.g.

about children, the

elderly, racial

ethnic groups)

Observations

about

Housing

(including

vacancy

rates)

Planned Housing

Development/Es

t. Year

Completion

Future Group

Quarters

Facilities

Future





Other notes

Housing size in

Hispanic

community is larger

than average. West

Co. area and NE

County areas have

large Hispanic

populations.

Very low

vacancy rate.

Especially in

Pendleton

and

Hermiston

areas. Need

for farm

worker/temp

orary/low

income

housing.

Partition plats

created 13 new 5

acre parcels for

SFD

development.

Currently, no

permits issued

for development.

Housing will

mostly be used

for

seasonal/recreati

onal homes.

Barracks at

Army Depot.

UAV project in

Pendleton

N/A Promos: West Co. School District

growing – especially Hermiston.

Hinders:

Highlights or

summary of

influences on or

anticipation of

population and

housing growth

from planning

Highway 395 Redevelopment Study shows growth continuing in west County.

55

Non-UGB Unincorporated Area—Umatilla County—11/04/2015

documents and

studies

Other information

(e.g. planning

documents, email

correspondence,

housing

development

survey)

Growth in 2015 was at high range of projection. See PSU population forecast.

Email sent March 11, 2016, following the preliminary forecast meeting presentation. The comments

below and the revision to the preliminary population forecasts were based on comments received

during the meeting.

Hello Umatilla County and City Partners,

Thank you all again for participating our regional meetings and providing your valuable comments.

According to your feedback on the presentations, we revisited our assumptions for the county and all

UGBs and adjusted most preliminary forecasts.

Specifically, we lowered the forecasts for smaller UGBs to be closer to their historical average levels,

while we increased the forecasts for Hermiston, Milton‐Freewater, and Pendleton UGBs. We assume

that historical net out‐migration in Pendleton and Milton‐Freewater will lessen (as additional people

move to these places in search of affordable housing and livable locations outside of the Portland Metro

and other areas). We increased Hermiston UGB's forecast slightly to more closely align with recent

population and school enrollment growth (including population the ages of children's parents). Umatilla

UGB's forecast remains the same as the presentation demonstrated. We lowered the forecasts for the

non‐UGB area according to local observations and expectations, and which match more closely with

historical growth. As the increases and decreases did not exactly offset each other, the county total

forecasts are updated accordingly as well.

These changes are supported by a previous version of the forecasts we had prepared prior to our

meeting, but did not use for the presentation.

Attached are the two summary slides with updated forecasts. Please take a look and give us your

feedback again at your early convenience. The publication of the proposed forecasts is scheduled by the

end of March. We'll post the whole presentation soon on our website.

57

Appendix B: Specific Assumptions

Adams

The 5-year average annual housing unit growth rate is assumed to gradually decrease throughout the

forecast period. The decreasing trend is consistent with the trend in the 2000s and in the 2010-2015

period. The occupancy rate is assumed to be fairly stable at 96.4 percent throughout the 50-year

horizon. PPH is assumed to stay steady at 2.72 over the forecast period. The group quarters population

is assumed to remain at zero.

Athena

The 5-year average annual housing unit growth rate is assumed to slightly decrease throughout the

forecast period, which follows historical trends. The overall 50-year annual average housing unit growth

rate is 0.1 percent. The occupancy rate is assumed to be stable at 92 percent throughout the 50-year

horizon, which correlates to the Census 2010 occupancy rate. PPH is assumed to stay steady at 2.53 over

the forecast period, also the same level as Census 2010. There is no group quarters population in

Athena.

Echo

The 5-year average annual housing unit growth rate is assumed to be stable throughout the forecast

period, and is at a slightly higher than the historical average annual rate in 2000s. The overall 50-year

annual average housing unit growth is 0.4 percent. The occupancy rate is assumed to gradually decrease

throughout the 50-year horizon, and averages 93.2 percent. This declining rate follows the trend post-

2000. PPH is assumed to be stable at 2.85 over the forecast period, a level that is consistent with Census

2010. The group quarters population is assumed to be the average of Census 2000 and 2010 through the

entire 50-year forecast period.

Helix

The 5-year average annual housing unit growth rate is assumed to be steady throughout the forecast

period, and the overall 50-year annual average is 0.2 percent, which follows a declining trend of the

2000s. The occupancy rate is assumed to gradually decrease, following a trend that is consistent with

the trend from the 2000s. The occupancy rate averages 86 percent throughout the 50-year horizon. PPH

is assumed to stay stable at 3.15 over the forecast period, which is consistent with the ACS 2005-2009 5-

year estimated PPH. The group quarters population is assumed to remain at zero.

Hermiston

Total fertility rates are assumed to follow the countywide historical trend (observed from the 2000 to

2010 period), gradually declining over the forecast period. Survival rates for the entire 50-year horizon

are assumed to gradually increase to 2060. Survival rates for 2060 are assumed to be the same as those

forecast for the county as a whole. Age-specific net migration rates are assumed to generally follow

58

historical patterns for Umatilla County, but at slightly higher rates for most age groups over the forecast

period.

Milton-Freewater

Total fertility rates are assumed to follow the countywide historical trend of the 2000s, and gradually

decline over the forecast period. Survival rates for the entire 50-year horizon are assumed to gradually

increase to 2060. Survival rates for 2060 are assumed to be the same as those forecast for the county as

a whole. Age-specific net migration rates are assumed to generally follow historical patterns for Umatilla

County, but at higher rates for multiple age groups over the forecast period.

Pendleton

Total fertility rates are assumed to follow the trend of the 2000s and gradually decline over the forecast

period. Survival rates for the whole 50-year horizon are assumed to gradually increase to 2060. Survival

rates for 2060 are assumed to be the same as those forecast for the county as a whole. Age-specific net

migration rates are assumed to generally follow historical patterns for Umatilla County, but with higher

rates for multiple age groups over the forecast period.

Pilot Rock

The 5-year average annual housing unit growth rate is assumed to be stable at 0.1 percent throughout

the forecast period, which is a little higher than in the 2000s. The occupancy rate is assumed to slightly

decrease, a trend that is consistent with the trend from the 2000s and 2010-2015 period. The occupancy

rate averages 86 percent throughout the 50-year horizon. PPH is assumed to stay stable at 2.60 over the

forecast period, a rate that is consistent with historical census rates. The group quarters population is

assumed to remain at zero.

Stanfield

The 5-year average annual housing unit growth rate is assumed to be stable at 0.1 percent throughout

the forecast period, which is a little lower than in the 2000s. The occupancy rate is assumed to gradually

increase throughout the 50-year horizon, and averages 96 percent, a higher rate than the 2010 Census

level. PPH is assumed to stay steady at 3.0 over the forecast period, the same level as in Census 2010.

There is no group quarters population in Stanfield.

Ukiah


forecast period; and the overall 50-year annual average is zero percent, a rate that is slightly above the

historical growth rate in the 2000s. The occupancy rate is assumed to be stable at 71 percent

throughout the 50-year horizon, which is roughly the average of the Census 2000 and 2010 rates. PPH is

assumed to stay stable at 2.50 over the forecast period, the same level as in the most recent Census.

The group quarters population is assumed to also stay at Census 2010 level throughout the forecast

period.

59

Umatilla UGB

Total fertility rates are assumed to follow the historical trend (observed from the 2000 to 2010 period),

gradually declining over the forecast period. Survival rates for the whole 50-year horizon are assumed to

gradually increase. Survival rates for 2060 are assumed to be the same as those forecast for the county

as a whole. Age-specific net migration rates are assumed to generally follow historical patterns for

Umatilla County, but with higher rates for multiple age groups over the forecast period.

Weston


forecast period. The overall 50-year annual average housing unit growth rate is zero percent, a rate that

is slightly above the rate in 2000s. The occupancy rate is assumed to gradually increase, and averages 94

percent throughout the 50-year horizon, which is roughly the average of Census 2000 and 2010 rates.

PPH is assumed to stay stable at 2.68 persons per household over the forecast period, slightly higher

than the 2010 Census. The group quarters population is assumed to remain at zero.

Outside UGBs

Total fertility rates are assumed to follow recent historical trends, gradually declining over the forecast

period. Survival rates for the whole 50-year horizon are assumed to gradually increase to 2060. Survival

rates for 2060 are assumed to be the same as those forecast for the county as a whole. Age-specific net

migration rates are assumed to generally follow historical patterns for Umatilla County, but with higher

rates for multiple age groups over the forecast period.

60

Appendix C: Detailed Population Forecast Results

Figure 22. Umatilla County - Population by Five-Year Age Group

Figure 23. Umatilla County's Sub-Areas - Total Population

Population

Forecasts by Age

Group / Year 2016 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2066

00-04 5,686 5,852 6,107 6,351 6,553 6,747 6,969 7,220 7,461 7,689 7,888 7,934

05-09 5,980 5,862 6,075 6,335 6,607 6,858 7,060 7,287 7,516 7,760 7,988 8,037

10-14 5,978 6,254 6,097 6,314 6,603 6,928 7,190 7,396 7,601 7,833 8,077 8,132

15-19 5,809 6,038 6,386 6,222 6,462 6,799 7,133 7,398 7,577 7,780 8,008 8,066

20-24 5,528 5,548 5,821 6,155 6,015 6,287 6,615 6,936 7,165 7,333 7,522 7,572

25-29 4,981 5,450 5,474 5,741 6,088 5,987 6,257 6,580 6,870 7,090 7,249 7,294

30-34 5,412 5,059 5,665 5,688 5,983 6,384 6,278 6,558 6,868 7,165 7,388 7,428

35-39 5,168 5,655 5,198 5,818 5,859 6,201 6,616 6,503 6,765 7,079 7,379 7,431

40-44 5,067 5,175 5,790 5,320 5,972 6,052 6,406 6,832 6,688 6,952 7,268 7,336

45-49 4,842 4,974 5,108 5,714 5,268 5,952 6,034 6,387 6,786 6,640 6,898 6,968

50-54 5,017 4,753 4,918 5,051 5,673 5,267 5,956 6,040 6,371 6,768 6,621 6,679

55-59 5,148 5,054 4,726 4,893 5,042 5,705 5,301 5,996 6,060 6,391 6,789 6,767

60-64 4,984 5,013 4,905 4,591 4,775 4,957 5,622 5,231 5,902 5,970 6,299 6,384

65-69 4,028 4,632 4,678 4,586 4,317 4,530 4,714 5,360 4,980 5,629 5,703 5,774

70-74 2,833 3,458 4,129 4,182 4,124 3,918 4,124 4,302 4,889 4,553 5,157 5,179

75-79 2,038 2,318 2,982 3,570 3,638 3,618 3,446 3,637 3,784 4,317 4,028 4,137

80-84 1,458 1,576 1,857 2,400 2,893 2,980 2,975 2,842 3,001 3,127 3,588 3,546

85+ 1,481 1,638 1,901 2,383 2,895 3,075 3,104 2,977 3,026 3,219 3,606 3,644

Total 81,438 84,306 87,818 91,314 94,765 98,245 101,798 105,481 109,309 113,295 117,457 118,308

Population Forecasts prepared by: Population Research Center, Portland State University, June 30, 2016.

Area/Year 2016 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2066

Umatilla County 81,438 84,306 87,818 91,314 94,765 98,245 101,798 105,481 109,309 113,295 117,457 118,308

Adams UGB 370 376 382 387 391 394 397 400 402 405 407 407

Athena UGB 1,151 1,156 1,160 1,162 1,165 1,168 1,171 1,174 1,176 1,178 1,180 1,180

Echo UGB 744 754 764 773 781 789 796 802 809 816 823 824

Helix UGB 204 208 211 212 213 213 213 213 214 214 214 214

Hermiston UGB 21,488 22,988 24,859 26,763 28,667 30,599 32,541 34,493 36,462 38,500 40,657 41,104

Milton-Freewater UGB 7,653 7,897 8,180 8,458 8,738 9,048 9,386 9,744 10,113 10,499 10,906 10,993

Pendleton UGB 17,325 17,541 17,814 18,085 18,359 18,654 19,006 19,469 20,054 20,723 21,453 21,607

Pilot Rock UGB 1,576 1,576 1,576 1,576 1,576 1,576 1,576 1,576 1,576 1,576 1,576 1,576

Stanfield UGB 2,144 2,186 2,223 2,253 2,280 2,301 2,320 2,337 2,353 2,367 2,380 2,383

Ukiah UGB 256 256 257 258 258 259 259 260 260 261 261 261

Umatilla UGB 8,714 9,484 10,441 11,380 12,284 13,151 14,003 14,853 15,702 16,542 17,363 17,517

Weston UGB 695 701 706 710 713 715 717 718 719 720 722 722

Outside UGB Area 19,119 19,182 19,245 19,297 19,341 19,379 19,412 19,442 19,469 19,493 19,516 19,520

Population Forecasts prepared by: Population Research Center, Portland State University, June 30, 2016.

Date post:	04-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

ATHENA WESTON SCHOOL DISTRICT NOVEMBER 2018 · Mark Aby Bob Baumann Kathy Baumann Tim Crampton...

Documents