Oregon Economic and 

Revenue Forecast  

 

 

June 2018 

Volume XXXVIII, No. 2 

Release Date: May 23, 2018 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Katy Coba  Kate Brown  Prepared By: 

Chief Operating Officer  Governor  Office of Economic Analysis 

DAS Director    Department of Administrative Services 

2  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Department of Administrative Services Katy Coba                  

DAS Director Chief Operating Officer 

 

Office of Economic Analysis 

Mark McMullen, State Economist 

Josh Lehner, Senior Economist 

Kanhaiya Vaidya, Senior Demographer 

Michael Kennedy, Senior Economist 

 

http://oregon.gov/DAS/OEA  

http://oregoneconomicanalysis.com  

http://twitter.com/OR_EconAnalysis 

3  

Foreword 

This document contains the Oregon economic and revenue forecasts. The Oregon economic forecast is published 

to provide information to planners and policy makers in state agencies and private organizations for use in their 

decision making processes. The Oregon revenue forecast is published to open the revenue forecasting process to 

public review. It is the basis for much of the budgeting in state government. 

The report is issued four times a year; in March, June, September, and December. 

The economic  model assumptions  and  results are  reviewed by  the  Department  of Administrative  Services 

Economic  Advisory  Committee  and  by  the  Governor's  Council  of  Economic  Advisors.  The  Department  of 

Administrative  Services  Economic Advisory Committee  consists of 15 economists  employed by  state agencies, 

while the Governor's Council of Economic Advisors is a group of 12 economists from academia, finance, utilities, 

and industry. 

Members of the Economic Advisory Committee and the Governor's Council of Economic Advisors provide a two‐ 

way  flow of  information. The Department of Administrative Services makes preliminary  forecasts and  receives 

feedback  on  the  reasonableness  of  such  forecasts  and  assumptions  employed.  After  the  discussion  of  the 

preliminary forecast, the Department of Administrative Services makes a final forecast using the suggestions and 

comments made by the two reviewing committees. 

The results from the economic model are  in turn used to provide a preliminary forecast for state tax revenues. 

The  preliminary  results  are  reviewed  by  the  Council  of  Revenue  Forecast  Advisors.  The  Council  of  Revenue 

Forecast Advisors consists of 15 specialists with backgrounds  in accounting,  financial planning, and economics. 

Members bring specific specialties  in tax  issues and represent private practices, accounting firms, corporations, 

government  (Oregon Department  of Revenue  and  Legislative  Revenue Office),  and  the Governor’s  Council of 

Economic  Advisors.  After  discussion  of  the  preliminary  revenue  forecast,  the  Department  of  Administrative 

Services makes the final revenue forecast using the suggestions and comments made by the reviewing committee. 

Readers who  have  questions  or wish  to  submit  suggestions may  contact  the Office  of  Economic  Analysis  by 

telephone at 503‐378‐3405.  

 

Katy Coba                             

DAS Director           

Chief Operating Officer 

4  

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .………………………………………….……...…….…….....…………….. 1

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK ……………………………………………………………….……………….. 2

U.S. Economy ……………………………………………………………..….……………………. 2

Oregon Economy ……………………………………………………………...…………………… 4

Oregon Labor Market …………………………………………….……………..……….............. 6

Leading Indicators ……………………………………………………………..………………….. 9

Short-term Outlook ………………………………………………………………..………………. 10

Forecast Risks ………………………………………………………………..…………............... 13

Alternative Scenarios ………………………………………………………..……………………. 14

Extended Outlook ……………………………………………………………..…………………… 16

Regional Trends ……………………………………………..…………………………………….. 19

State Comparisons ………………………………………………………………………………… 20

REVENUE OUTLOOK ………………………………………………………………………………….. 22

General Fund Revenues, 2017-19 ………………………..…………………………………….. 24

Extended Outlook ………………………………………..………………………………………… 25

Tax Law Assumptions …………………………………..……………………………….............. 25

Alternative Scenarios ……………………………………..………………………………………. 26

Lottery Outlook …………………………………………..……………………………….............. 27

Budgetary Reserves …………………………………..………………………..………............... 28

Recreational Marijuana ………………………………..………………………..………............... 29

POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC OUTLOOK ………………………………………………….. 33

APPENDIX A: ECONOMIC …………………………………………………………………………….. 36

APPENDIX B: REVENUE ………………………………………………………………….................. 44

APPENDIX C: DEMOGRAPHIC ………….……………………………………………….................. 58

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

June 2018 

The U.S. economy continues to perform well. Economic growth remains above potential and job gains are strong 

enough to pull down the unemployment rate even as more individuals are looking for a job. The business cycle is 

not yet waning and the near‐term prospects for economic growth are good. The consensus of forecasters peg 

the probability of recession over the next year at just 15 percent. However, longer‐run forecasts remain 

relatively muted, in part due to the impact of an aging population and the temporary provisions in the federal 

fiscal stimulus. From today’s relatively strong cyclical vantage point, three real downside risks stand out. First is 

the Federal Reserve’s ability to engineer a soft landing. Second is the potential for deteriorating international 

relations and trade. Third is the recent run‐up in energy prices which crimp household budgets in the near‐term. 

To date, actual constraints on growth appear to be minimal, but bear watching in a mature expansion. 

In Oregon, the outlook remains bright as the economy continues to hit the sweet spot. Wages are rising faster 

than in the typical state, as are household incomes. That said, growth is slower today than a few years ago as the 

regional economy transitions down to more sustainable rates. While housing affordability is set to improve due 

to rising income and more new construction, the impact on household budgets and migration flows makes it a 

risk. All told, the forecast calls for ongoing growth and there are no real concerns seen in the Oregon data. 

Oregon’s General Fund revenues are heavily dependent upon personal income tax collections.  As such, the April 

peak tax filing season often makes or breaks the state budget. This year’s tax collections came in at a healthy 

rate, somewhat faster than what was assumed in the March 2018 forecast. If not for the payment of kicker 

credits from the 2015‐17 biennium, Oregon’s growth would have ranked among the top handful of states. 

Typically, year‐end payments and refunds are the most difficult tax components to forecast. This season refunds 

will likely end around $150 million short of expectations, while payments closely matched the outlook. However, 

the biggest surprises came from usually stable sources ‐‐ quarterly estimated payments and withholdings. 

2017 fourth‐quarter estimated payments of personal income taxes were up nearly 50% relative to last year, and 

continued to post strong gains in early 2018. Advanced corporate tax payments have been up sharply in recent 

months as well, with the first quarter of 2018 coming in 79% larger than last year.  Furthermore, large year‐end 

bonuses are driving withholdings significantly above what recent wage growth alone could explain.   

This strong growth across payment types was not unique to Oregon, with many other states reporting even 

stronger gains. That sort of uniformity is rare, and suggests that tax planning around the federal Tax Cuts and 

Jobs Act is already affecting the timing of tax collections. Taxpayers rushed to take advantage of expiring breaks, 

including an uncapped deduction for state and local taxes paid, even as Oregon does not allow the prepayment 

of state taxes. Some of the recently strong revenue growth will no doubt evaporate going forward.   

While changes in the timing of tax payments are already evident, it will take some time before it becomes clear 

how many taxpayers will change their filing status in light of TCJA provisions.  Some workers could choose to file 

as businesses.  Some businesses could change from pass‐through entities into C‐Corporations, or the other way 

around. While the exact magnitude of the tax law changes is uncertain, it is sure to be large.  These changes are 

expected to directly add hundreds of millions of revenue dollars over the next few budget cycles. 

Together with healthy economic growth and strong tax collections, law changes have helped push both personal 

income taxes and corporate income taxes over their kicker thresholds. If this outlook holds true, $555 million in 

personal income tax kicker credits will be paid out two years from now, and an additional $197 million will be 

dedicated to spending on K‐12 education next biennium.    

2  

 

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK 

Economic Summary 

The U.S. economy continues to perform well. Economic growth remains above potential and job gains are strong 

enough to pull down the unemployment rate even as more individuals are looking for a job. Importantly, the 

business cycle is not yet waning and the near‐term prospects for economic growth are good. The consensus of 

forecasters peg the probability of recession over the next year at just 15 percent. However, longer‐run forecasts 

remain relatively muted, in part due to the impact of an aging population and the temporary provisions in the 

federal fiscal stimulus. From today’s relatively strong cyclical vantage point, three real downside risks stand out. 

First is the Federal Reserve’s tightening cycle, its response to the fiscal stimulus, and ability to engineer a soft 

landing for the economy. Second is the potential for deteriorating international relations creating a drag on 

overall economic growth. Third is the recent run‐up in energy prices which crimp household budgets in the near‐

term. To date, actual constraints on growth appear to be minimal, but bear watching in a mature expansion. 

In Oregon, the outlook remains bright as the economy continues to hit the sweet spot. Employment growth is 

enough to meet population gains and to absorb the workers coming back into the labor market. Wages are 

rising faster than in the typical state, as are household incomes. That said, growth is slower today than a few 

years ago as the regional economy transitions down to more sustainable rates. While housing affordability is set 

to improve in the coming years due to rising income and more new construction, the impact on household 

budgets and migration flows is a risk for the local economy. All told, the forecast calls for ongoing growth and 

there are no real worrisome signs seen in the Oregon data. 

U.S. Economy 

The current U.S. economic expansion turns nine years old next month, making it the second longest on record. 

Given the ongoing healthy data flow, more economists now forecast this expansion to eventually surpass the 

record‐setting 1990s in length, which was exactly 10 years long. If anything, near‐term risks to the outlook skew 

to the upside given the federal fiscal stimulus hitting the economy this year and next. However, the combination 

of rising interest rates and fiscal stimulus that is set to unwind in a couple of years has a growing chorus of 

forecasters more concerned over the medium term. Such a scenario is not a foregone conclusion as 

policymakers, the Federal Reserve in particular, can adjust course as needed. For now the outlook remains 

bright. There are no real worrisome sings seen in the data yet. 

Even so, the economy is beginning to run into some supply side constraints. Chief among these issues is labor. 

Pick any standard measure and the labor market is tight – 

the unemployment rate, new claims for unemployment 

insurance, job openings, quits rate, and the like. However, 

inflation and wage growth is not yet as high as in past 

cycles. As such some economists are lamenting the death 

of the Phillips Curve, or the idea there is a tradeoff 

between unemployment and inflation (or wages). If the 

labor market is really tight, as many measures indicate, 

shouldn’t we see faster wage growth? 

One answer is that the unemployment rate likely 

overstates the strength, and tightness of the labor market 

today. An alternative measure that just looks at the share 

3  

 

of prime working‐age adults with a job continues to indicate there is room to run, and some slack remaining. So‐

called prime‐age EPOP, for the employment to population ratio, remains a percentage point lower than prior to 

the Great Recession and a couple percentage points lower than the late 1990s. Using this measure of the labor 

market, or rather its opposite, the share of prime‐age adults who are not working, shows the relationship 

between wage growth and slack remains strong. Wage growth in recent years is exactly what one would expect. 

That said, other factors identified in recent economic research like lower inflation expectations, slower 

productivity gains, monopsony power of firms, nominal wage rigidity, and fewer workers switching jobs are also 

impacting wage growth in recent years and over the long‐term. 

Most encouraging is the fact that the improving economy 

is drawing workers who were previously on the sidelines 

back into the labor market. The flows of those who one 

month say they are not actively looking for work but the 

next month have a job continue to be large. And labor 

force participation rates for working‐age Americans 

continue to rise. The economy is seeing a labor force 

response. That said, labor is harder to find today than a 

few years ago. As detailed previously, there are at three 

large groups from which more workers may come in the 

future. These include those with self‐reported disabilities 

being a barrier to work, stay‐at‐home moms of 

elementary school‐age children, and teenagers and young adults enrolled in higher education, particularly two 

year programs. 

Another potential supply side constraint facing the economy, in large part due to federal policy proposals, is that 

of international relations. The U.S. is working to adjust terms of trade with both our closest neighbors in NAFTA 

in addition to proposing tariffs on some goods from China. Given that Oregon is more trade‐dependent than the 

typical state, China is our number one destination for exports, and Canada is our number two destination, any 

substantial revisions to trade relations would impact the regional economy to a larger degree than the typical 

state. In fact, Oregon’s trade exposure to China is among the largest in the nation. However, much of our direct 

trade reflects within firm shipments of high‐tech goods that are not yet listed as targets of the proposed tariffs.  

When examining the specific products that are 

targeted, Oregon’s trade exposure to China is in‐

line with the typical state. Even this may 

overstate Oregon’s direct exposure, due to data 

limitations. Right now, approximately half of the 

tariff‐impacted exports from Oregon can be tied 

to automobiles and soybeans. Oregon is neither 

an auto manufacturing hub nor a major grower 

of soybeans. However both products do flow 

through the state on their way to the rest of the 

world. As such, should these exports decline 

there would still be a local impact due to the 

transportation aspects of loading and shipping products around the world. 

4  

 

The good news is that the economy continues to expand and looks to have further room to run in the near‐term. 

That said, while expansions do not die of old age, they do typically die due to mistakes and policies that slow or 

even snuff out growth. For the first time this expansion, a plausible recession scenario over the medium‐term is 

beginning to come into focus. The heart of it lies in the fact that the federal stimulus unwinds in a couple years, 

moving from a new positive to a net drag on growth. Furthermore the Federal Reserve is in a tightening cycle 

and signals their intention to continue to raise interest rates. This combination of fiscal and monetary policy, at 

best, would slow growth. Provided the economy truly is near full employment and at capacity, slower growth is 

just what the doctored ordered to head off inflationary pressures and grow at a sustainable pace. However, 

engineering the so‐called soft landing is very difficult in practice. Restrictive fiscal and monetary policy may be 

more likely to send the economy into recession. Of course this is far from a foregone conclusion. Policymakers, 

in particular the “data dependent” Fed, can adjust course as needed.  

Besides the Federal Reserve raising interest rates, another common issue that can derail an economic expansion 

is an oil shock, or energy prices more broadly. Today, oil prices are rising quickly and are up around 50 percent 

relative to a year ago. Given the big increase in U.S. oil production in the past 15 years, rising prices are no 

longer just a drag on growth. In fact, some recent research 

indicates that high oil prices are now a positive of the U.S. 

economy overall due to wages and business investment in 

new mining equipment. That said, rising gas prices still crimp 

household budgets, slowing consumer spending for those in 

the middle and bottom part of the distribution in particular. 

To help put this impact in perspective, it is very likely that 

higher gas prices in 2018 are enough to wipe out any tax 

savings from the Tax Cut and Jobs Act for lower‐income 

households. And these higher prices will likely negate a 

quarter to a half of the tax savings for middle‐income 

households as well.  

Oregon Economy 

Oregon’s expansion continues to outperform the typical state 

due to our industrial structure and ability to attract and retain 

young, working‐age households. That said, job growth 

continues to slow as the regional economy transitions down 

to more sustainable rates. This slowdown is not driven by one 

or two industries in particular, but is broad‐based across 

nearly all sectors and all regions within the state. 

Encouragingly, job growth remain strong enough to keep up 

with population gains and to absorb the workers coming back 

into the labor market. 

While the tight labor market continues to drive a virtuous economic cycle as local wage growth outpaces the 

typical state, like the U.S. overall, it is harder for businesses to find workers. This tight labor pool is due to both 

the cyclical strength of the economy, and due to rising Baby Boomer retirements. As such, these conditions are 

expected to remain until the next recession. 

For firms looking to expand and growth with the economy, they must dig deeper into their resume stacks and 

hire candidates they may have previously passed over. During and after the Great Recession we know employers 

5  

 

upskilled many positions. That is they added additional education or experience requirements for new hires. 

Some of this was so firms could be more productive during tough economic times. But some upskilling was also 

used more as an applicant screening tool for human resource reasons. 

In a tight labor market, expectations are for employers to 

downskill many of these positions in order to fill the openings. 

Given the increase in employment rates across all age groups 

and all levels of educational attainment in Oregon, we know 

downskilling is happening to some degree. New hires today 

generally do have less formal education than a few years ago. 

However, was is surprising in the hiring data is that the industries 

with higher levels of educational attainment have seen the 

largest declines. And the industries with lower levels of 

educational attainment, like retail and leisure and hospitality, 

have seen their college graduate share stay steady or even rise 

during the economic expansion. 

One possibility for this pattern could simply be the industry mix 

of job growth. Sectors with lower levels of educational 

attainment are hiring in greater numbers today than a few years 

ago, but this accounts for only a minor share of the overall decline. Another possibility may simply be a shift in 

the occupations that businesses are hiring. After running lean for years, firms may now be filling out their office 

support staff, their sales teams, and the like in greater numbers. This may or may not count as true downskilling, 

but it would certainly alter hiring patterns. 

Finally, one labor issue that continues to crop up is drug testing. At least anecdotally, more firms are reporting 

trouble finding workers who can pass a drug test. Given the tight labor market, and legal recreational marijuana 

up and down the Left Coast, these reports are a bit surprising. It may be that the pool of available applicants has 

shifted; that individuals who can pass drug test already have a job. It may be for insurance‐related reasons that 

employers are ensuring they have a drug‐free workplace, even if it means monitoring their employees behavior 

on their own time. However it is possible that these anecdotal reports reflect a broader increase in drug usage 

that would be both an economic and societal problem. 

Housing: Affordability and Migration 

Oregon is a magnet state. Our ability to attract, and retain young, working‐age households is an economic 

tailwind ever and always. It ensures an ample supply of labor for local businesses, and an increase in demand of 

consumer services. As such, any event that restricts migration 

has clear implications for the longer‐run outlook. And when 

examining surveys of why people move, most do so for housing 

and job reasons. Given Oregon’s history we know migration 

flows dry up during recessions and return in expansions.  

One growing concern is that eroding housing affordability may 

slow or even choke of migration flows as households are unable 

to afford to move to Oregon. While this scenario remains a 

concern and risk to the outlook, to date it does not yet appear to 

6  

 

be a real constraint on growth. For example, the Portland region continues to see net in‐migration among lower‐

income households in recent years.  

That said, the housing crunch has clearly displaced many 

lower‐income households within the region, by pushing 

them toward the edges of the metro, and into east 

Multnomah County in particular. However, Portland’s 

lower‐income households are not packing up and leaving 

the region entirely for lower‐cost metros like Boise, or 

Dallas, or the like. This displacement, and sorting within 

the region causes plenty of economic and societal issues 

in terms of geographic disparities, mismatches between 

where people live and where they work, broader transit 

access, and the like.  

Another fallout from increased segregation due to the housing crunch may be lower levels of economic mobility 

in the future. The potential is real for the role model effect or peer impact from better‐integrated communities, 

along with access to higher quality schools. These characteristics, along with a larger middle class, strong 

families, and greater social capital, do correlate across regions in terms of economic mobility. While the Portland 

area is better‐integrated than most large metros around the country, the trends in the past decade are certainly 

towards more displacement and segregation. All told, the silver lining in the housing market thus far is that 

there is no pick‐up in out‐migration, nor in those specifically leaving for housing‐related reasons.  

Similarly, another housing‐related issue that is coming to the forefront in recent years is that of homelessness. 

While good data on homelessness is hard to come by, we dive into the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development’s Point‐in‐Time numbers in the State Comparisons section on pg. 20.  

Oregon’s Labor Market 

The Office of Economic Analysis examines four main sources for jobs data: the monthly payroll employment 

survey, the monthly household survey, monthly withholding tax receipts and the quarterly census of 

employment and wages. Right now all four measures of the labor market are improving. Jobs are being added, 

albeit at a slower rate. Wages are rising, both in aggregate and for each worker. The unemployment is under 

what can be considered full employment for Oregon. 

As our office has been discussing, or more accurately, 

warning over the past few years, the pattern of 

unemployment rate changes does not likely reflect the 

overall pattern of growth in the Oregon economy. 

The preliminary data for 2015, 2016 and 2017 all showed the 

Oregon unemployment rate going on a roller coaster ride. A 

few months of extreme declines to start each year were 

followed by huge increases over the next few months. These 

types of increases in the unemployment rate have only been 

seen during recessions. These wild swings have largely been 

revised away each year during the annual benchmarking 

7  

 

process (i.e. revisions). This latest round, for the 2017 data, was no exception. 

That said, the Oregon unemployment rate has now essentially stopped declining in the past 16 or so months. It 

has hovered right around 4.1 percent during this period. What this indicates is that job growth has slowed to 

match population and labor force gains in the past year or so. Expectations are for this relative pattern to 

continue in the near future. 

More importantly, wages in Oregon remain relatively strong, 

although different measures have diverged over the past 

year or two. Withholding collections, which matter the most 

to our office given the revenue forecast, continue to see 

healthy gains.  After slowing in 2016 and 2017, along with 

slower employment growth, withholdings have picked up in 

the first quarter of 2018, likely a result of federal tax policy. 

Withholding growth has cooled thus far in the second 

quarter, more in‐line with expectations.  

However, measures of economic wages remain below 

withholding, which does include revenue from bonuses, 

stock options and the like. Withholding is more than just wages. However the sizable gap between these wage 

measures is an outlier and something our office will continue to monitor. For now, expectations are for ongoing 

healthy wage gains in Oregon, and for upward revisions to the BEA measure of wages. 

Overall, getting a handle of the health of Oregon’s labor market is being somewhat complicated by technical 

issues within the underlying payroll jobs data. For this reason the employment data in our office’s forecast is 

adjusted for two important technical purposes: seasonality at the detailed industry level and the upcoming 

benchmark revisions1. Specifically, our office uses the benchmarked, or revised employment data through 

2017q4 and imputes the 2018q1 employment data based upon the available preliminary Oregon estimates, 

national data, and our office’s economic forecast model. As such, for this quarterly forecast, the first pure 

forecast period is 2018q2. 

In the first quarter, total nonfarm employment increased 2.0 percent over the past year with the private sector 

growing at 2.3 percent and the public sector at 0.3 percent. These rates of growth are a clear step down from 

                                                            1 Each year the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics revise the employment data – a process known as benchmarking. The current establishment survey (CES), also known as the monthly payroll survey, is benchmarked against the quarterly census of employment and wages (QCEW), a series that contains all employees covered by unemployment insurance. The monthly CES is based on a sample of firms, whereas the QCEW contains approximately 96 percent of all employees, or nearly a complete count of employment in Oregon. The greatest benefit of the CES is the timeliness – monthly employment estimates are available with only a one month lag – and these estimates are reasonably accurate. However the further removed from the latest benchmark, the larger the errors. The QCEW is less timely as the data is released approximately 3‐4 months following the end of the quarter. The greatest benefit of the QCEW is that is a near 100 percent count of statewide employment. For these reasons, the CES is usually used to discuss recent monthly employment trends, however once a year the data is revised to match the historical QCEW employment trends. The last month of official benchmark data is September 2017. The QCEW is currently available through December 2017, thus the preliminary benchmark used here covers the October 2017 – December 2017 period. 

8  

 

the full‐throttle rates seen in recent years, however still remain faster than needed to keep pace with 

population gains so far. 

The nearby graph illustrates the number of job gains by major 

industry by the length of the bar. The percentage increase 

these changes represent is noted as well. The bars are color 

coded by growth rate relative to total employment growth. 

Industries with dark blue colored bars are growing at rates 

much faster than total employment, light blue bars represent 

industries which are growing approximately in line with the 

average, while grey bar industries are growing at rates 

significantly less than the average.  

So far in recovery, the large service sector industries have 

generally led job growth in terms of the number of jobs added 

and with above‐average growth rates. These include jobs in 

professional and business services, health services, and leisure 

and hospitality industries. These three industries have gained 

14,500 jobs in the past year and account for 39 percent of all job gains across the state. The good news is that 

this share has fallen as the expansion continues and other industries add jobs, which was not the case earlier in 

the expansion. 

In terms of illustrating how each industry has fared over the Great Recession and so far in recovery, the second 

graph shows both the depths of recessionary losses2 and where each industry stands today relative to pre‐

recession peak levels.  

Currently, ten major industries are at all‐time highs. Private 

sector food manufacturing, education, and health never really 

suffered recessionary losses – although their growth did slow 

during the recession. Professional and business services and 

leisure and hospitality have each regained all of their losses 

and are leading growth today. In recent quarters retail 

emploment, other services, wholesale, and transportation, 

warehousing and utilities, in addition to the public sector have 

surpassed their pre‐recession levels and are at all‐time highs. 

The nine private sector industries at all‐time highs account for 

62 percent of all statewide jobs. The public sector accounts for 

an additional 16 percent of all jobs. 

With the Great Recession being characterized by a housing 

bubble, it is no surprise to see wood products, construction, 

mining and logging and financial services (losses are mostly 

real estate agents) among the hardest hit industries. These 

                                                            2 Each industry’s pre‐recession peak was allowed to vary as, for example, construction and housing‐related industries began losing jobs earlier than other industries or the recession’s official start date per NBER. 

9  

 

housing and related sectors are now recovering, although they still have much ground to make up. 

Transportation equipment manufacturing suffered the worst job cuts and is likely a structural decline due to the 

RV industry’s collapse3. With that being said, the subsectors tied to aerospace are doing better and the ship and 

boat building subsector is growing again. Metals and machinery manufacturing, along with mining and logging, 

have shown the largest improvements since the depths of the recession. 

Coming off such a deep recession, goods‐producing industries exhibited stronger growth than in past cycles. 

While all manufacturing subsectors have seen some growth, they are unlikely to fully regain all of their lost jobs. 

The good news, certainly in the short‐term, is that much of the manufacturing sector has returned to growth in 

recent months following declines a year ago. All told, Oregon manufacturers typically outperform those in other 

states, in large part due to the local industry make‐up. Oregon does not rely upon old auto makers or textile 

mills. The state’s manufacturing industry is comprised of newer technologies like aerospace and 

semiconductors. Similarly Oregon’s food processing industry continues to boom.  

All told, each of Oregon’s major industries has experienced some growth in recovery, albeit uneven. As the 

economy continues to recover there will be net winners and net losers when it comes to jobs, income and sales. 

Business cycles have a way of restructuring the economy.  

For additional information on the most recent quarter’s employment forecast errors, please refer to Table A.1 in 

Appendix A. 

Leading Indicators 

After more than two years of no real sustained movement 

up or down, both of the Oregon‐specific composite 

leading indicators have broken through the malaise to the 

upside in recent quarters. Previously many of the 

manufacturing, or goods‐producing indicators languished, 

while all other pointed toward growth. As the 

manufacturing rebound continues, now nearly all 

indicators are flashing green. As such, the overall indices 

are likewise signaling growth. 

As of today no individual indicators are showing no 

growth. In recent quarters both Help Wanted Ads and the 

Oregon Dollar Index were flashing warning signs for those 

indicator series. However businesses are posting more job 

openings and the dollar is depreciating. Among the 

indicators that are currently slowing, none are particularly 

worrisome from an economic growth perspective. The fact 

that housing permits and new construction continues to 

increase slowly in fits and starts is worrisome from an 

affordability point of view, but it also suggests the housing 

expansion still has legs to run.  

                                                            3 http://oregoneconomicanalysis.com/2012/07/10/rv‐workers‐and‐reemployment/ 

Improving OILISlowing Air FreightNot Improving Consumer Sentiment

Housing PermitsUO Index Industrial ProductionCapital Good Orders Initial ClaimsConsumer Sentiment Manufacturing PMIEmployment Services New IncorporationsHousing Permits Oregon Dollar IndexInitial Claims Semiconductor BillingsManufacturing Hrs WithholdingWeight Distance Tax Help Wanted AdsInterest Rate Spread

Individual Indicators

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

Jan‐05 Jan‐08 Jan‐11 Jan‐14 Jan‐17

Oregon Economic Indexes, Jan 2005 = 100

Employment

OILI

UO Index 

Recession Probability, rhs

10  

 

Across both aggregate leading indicators there are no real signs for concerns at the moment. This is one reason 

economic forecasters are sanguine about the risk of recession in the immediate future, outside of unforeseen 

geopolitical shocks and the like. University of Oregon professor Jeremy Piger has created a real time probability 

of recession4 model, and finds there is just 0.1 percent chance the U.S. has entered into a recession. However, 

another recession will come, of that we can be sure. IHS Global Insight puts the probability of recession over the 

next year at 20 percent, and the Wall Street Journal consensus is at 15 percent.  

Hopefully Oregon’s leading indicators will give a signal in advance of the next recession, which neither is doing 

today. While past experience is no guarantee of future performance, Oregon’s leading indicator series do have a 

good track record in their relatively brief history. Both series flattened out in 2006 and began their decline in 

advance of the Great Recession. Similarly both Oregon series reached their nadir in March 2009, a few months 

before the technical end of the recession (June 2009 per NBER) and about 9 months in advance of job growth 

returning to Oregon.  

Short‐term Outlook 

While Oregon’s economic expansion continues, growth has slowed and stabilized. In recent years, the state has 

enjoyed robust, full‐throttle rates of job gains in the 3‐3.5 percent range, or nearly 5,000 jobs per month. No 

longer is this the case. Oregon is expected to continue to see healthy job gains – a bit more than 2,000 per 

month or about 2 percent over the remainder of the 2017‐19 biennium – but the state is now past its peak 

growth rates for this expansion. Importantly, such gains remain strong enough to hold unemployment down and 

account for ongoing population growth. 

After these near‐term job gains, longer‐run demographic trends weigh on growth to a larger degree. While 

consistent with the general character of recent forecasts, there are a few minor revisions to the fundamental 

outlook and one large technical revision. 

Employment is revised up by 2‐4,000 jobs in 2020 and beyond due to a slightly stronger outlook for growth. 

Somewhat larger revisions are seen for personal income and inflation. Personal income data from the BEA 

continues to come in below previous expectations. In large part this reflects the previously discussed gap 

between withholdings and other measures of wages. Nevertheless, one result is that the outlook for personal 

income has been revised lower to match the data. Additionally, the outlook calls for slightly faster inflation 

today than last forecast. Inflation has firmed in recent quarters, and given the strong economy it is expected to 

increase a bit faster moving forward. Combined, these two adjustments lower real, or inflation‐adjusted income 

to a larger degree. 

The large technical revision has to do with how home health workers are treated in the employment data. A 

decade ago, such workers were counted as independent contractors. As such they would be counted in the 

household survey but not the employer survey. Back in 2010, these home health workers were brought into the 

employer survey, or the Current Employment Statistics (CES) as government employees. While many of these 

workers were paid via public sector programs, such employees really were not government workers per se. 

Beginning in 2018, home health workers are now being counted as private sector health workers. The end result 

here is that the forecast now shows government employment in Oregon declining by nearly 5 percent in 2018, 

                                                            4 http://pages.uoregon.edu/jpiger/us_recession_probs.htm/ 

11  

 

while private sector health care employment grows by 10 percent in 2018. Absent this reclassification, the 

underlying outlooks for both the private and public sectors remains essentially unchanged. 

The state’s new minimum wage law, passed during the 2016 legislative session, will also impact the Oregon 

economy over the forecast horizon. Using estimates provided by the Oregon Legislative Revenue Office, along 

with the academic literature, our office’s outlook includes a slowdown in job growth due to the higher minimum 

wage moving forward. While the impact is small when compared to the size of the Oregon economy, it does 

result in approximately 40,000 fewer jobs in 2025 than would have been the case absent the legislation. Our 

office is not predicting outright job losses due to the higher minimum wage, however we are expecting future 

growth to be slower as a result. In the near term, the higher minimum wage boosts overall state income as low‐

wage workers receive raises. Over the medium term, employers are expected to adjust to the higher wages and 

increase worker productivity, possibly via capital for labor substitutions. Our office has incorporated these 

overall effects into the outlook for wages and in the industries which employ the largest numbers of low‐wage 

workers. These include the obvious like leisure and hospitality, and retail trade, but also health care and food 

processing manufacturing, among others. 

Should this overall economic outlook come to pass, it will have matched the equivalent of previous expansions 

in Oregon. Given demographic trends today, particularly the aging Baby Boomer cohort, job growth of 3 percent 

is considered full throttle. In decades past, growth of 4 or 5 percent was common during expansions in Oregon, 

however that time period also coincided with the Baby Boomers entering their prime working years. Today the 

opposite is occurring. Even so, demographic trends are not all bad, as the even larger cohort of Millennials are 

currently entering their prime working years. The net effect is overall lower rates of labor force and economic 

growth, due to demographics.  

 

Private sector growth, measured by the number of jobs created, will be dominated by the large, service sector 

industries like professional and business services, leisure and hospitality and health.   

Nevertheless, goods‐producing industries, while smaller, had previously been growing at above‐average rates. 

Expectations in recent forecasts have been that these goods‐producing industries would slow. Growth over the 

Economic Forecast Summary

2018:1 2018:2 2018:3 2018:4 2019:1 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Personal Income, Nominal U.S. 5.2 4.0 5.2 5.4 6.0 3.1 4.5 5.4 5.1 4.8% change Oregon 6.4 5.4 6.2 6.2 6.2 3.3 5.1 6.0 5.4 5.1Wages and Salaries, Nominal U.S. 6.0 4.5 4.9 5.3 5.8 3.3 4.9 5.2 5.0 4.8% change Oregon 9.0 6.6 6.5 6.2 6.1 3.8 6.2 6.0 5.3 4.9Population U.S. 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7% change Oregon 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3Housing Starts U.S. 1.29 1.31 1.32 1.34 1.36 1.21 1.31 1.37 1.39 1.41U.S. millions, Oregon thousands Oregon 24.1 21.1 21.5 21.8 22.6 19.3 22.1 22.9 24.2 24.8Unemployment Rate U.S. 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.6 4.4 3.9 3.6 3.6 3.7

Oregon 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.8Total Nonfarm Employment U.S. 1.9 1.7 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.0 0.5% change Oregon 2.9 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.2 0.7Private Sector Employment U.S. 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.1 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.0 0.5% change Oregon 7.5 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.3 3.5 2.2 1.2 0.7

Quarterly Annual

12  

 

next few years would be considerably less than that seen in the 

past few years. Even construction is expected to add jobs at a 

slower pace even as the housing rebound continues. This is in 

part due to the fact that growth must cool off after the 

exceptionally strong gains in construction in recent years. 

Additionally construction employment growth has far outpaced 

increases in new home construction. 

Natural Resources (mining and logging) are somewhat of a 

technical exception. There was a reclassification of a few firms 

out of this industry, leading to employment “losses” in 2017 and 

weighing on the growth rate seen in the nearby chart. What looks like less of a deceleration in employment 

growth in natural resources is merely a return to growth rates seen in past forecasts.  

Additionally, manufacturing is expected to see slower gains 

in the coming years. The good news is that after sustaining 

losses during the middle of 2016, manufacturing 

employment in Oregon has started to add jobs again. As the 

manufacturing cycle continues to strengthen some, 

additional gains are expected. This growth is expected to be 

strongest among the state’s food processors, and beverage 

manufacturers, predominantly breweries. That said, any 

global weakening or further strengthening of the dollar will 

weigh further on growth. 

Public sector employment at the local, county and state 

level for both education and non‐education workers is 

growing in Oregon, as state and local revenues continue to 

improve along with the economy. Over the forecast horizon, 

government employment is expected to grow roughly in line 

with population growth and the increased demand for 

public services, albeit just a hair faster than population 

growth alone. One risk to the outlook is the Oregon 

Supreme Court decision which reversed earlier PERS 

changes enacted by the Legislature. The extent to which 

PERS will impact hiring by local and state entities is 

unknown, but it is a risk to the outlook. Also note the reclassification of home health workers out of the public 

sector and into private health care employment in the outlook, beginning in 2018. 

Along with an improving labor market, stronger personal income gains are here, although tax law changes have 

pushed around growth rates in the recent past (see the expiring Bush tax cuts and the fiscal cliff) and may do so 

again moving forward. Personal income is forecasted to be 5.1 percent in 2018, 6.0 percent in 2019, before 

tapering off to 5.4 percent in 2020 and averaging 4.8 percent per year through 2027.  

As the economy continues to improve, household formation is increasing too, which will help drive up demand 

for new houses. Household formation was suppressed earlier in the recovery, however the improving economy 

13  

 

and increase in migration have returned in full force. Even as more young Oregonians are living at home, as the 

Millennials continue to age beyond their early 20s, demand for housing will increase as well. 

Housing starts in the first quarter totaled 24,100 at an annual pace, driven in large part by a run‐up in 

multifamily permit activity in recent quarters. Expectations are that this represents a one‐time surge, with 

housing starts cooling in the coming quarters as they resume their long‐run march higher. Overall a level of 

about 21,000 housing starts is the long‐run average for the state prior to the housing bubble. The forecast calls 

for moderate to strong growth in the coming few years with starts reaching just over 22,000 in 2018, 22,900 in 

2019 and 24,200 in 2020. Over the extended horizon, starts are expected to average around 24,000 per year to 

meet demand for a larger population and also, partially, to catch‐up for the underbuilding that has occurred in 

recent years. As of today, new home construction is cumulatively about one year behind the stable growth 

levels of prior decades even after accounting for the overbuilding during the boom. 

A more complete summary of the Oregon economic outlook and forecast changes relative to the previous 

outlook are available as Table A.2 and A.3 in Appendix A. 

Forecast Risks 

The economic and revenue outlook is never certain. Our office will continue to monitor and recognize the 

potential impacts of risk factors on the Oregon economy. Although far from comprehensive, we have identified 

several major risks now facing the Oregon economy in the list below: 

U.S. Economy. While Oregon is more volatile than the nation overall, the state has never missed a U.S. 

recession or a U.S. expansion. In fact, Oregon’s business cycle is perfectly aligned with the nation’s, at 

least when measuring peak and trough dates for total nonfarm employment. If anything, Oregon 

actually leads the U.S. by a month or two. The fact that there are a few worrisome trends at the U.S. 

level and the slowdown has hit Oregon means there should be some concerns about the outlook. Should 

the U.S. fall into recession, Oregon will too. That said, should the U.S. economy accelerate following the 

lifting of headwinds, Oregon’s economy should receive a similar boost as well. 

Housing affordability. Even as the housing market recovers, new supply has not kept up with demand 

(both from new households and investor activity). This applies to both the rental and ownership sides of 

the market. As such, prices have risen considerably and housing (in)affordability is becoming a larger risk 

to the outlook. Expectations are that new construction will pick up in the next year or three, to match 

the increase in demand, which will alleviate some price pressures. However to the extent that supply 

does not match demand, home prices and rents increasing significantly faster than income or wages for 

the typical household is a major concern. While not included in the baseline outlook, significantly worse 

housing affordability may dampen future growth given Oregon’s reliance on net in‐migration. 

Global Spillovers Both Up and Down. The international list of risks seems to change by the day: 

sovereign debt problems in Europe, equity and property bubbles in places like Canada, South America 

and Asia, political unrest in the Middle East and Ukraine, nuclear arsenal concerns with North Korea, and 

commodity price spikes and inflationary pressures in emerging markets. In particular, with China now a 

top destination for Oregon exports, the state of the Chinese economy – and its real estate market, or 

public debt burden – has spillover effects to the Oregon economy. Any economic slowing in Asia is a 

potential threat to the Pacific Northwest. 

14  

 

Federal fiscal policy. The uncertainty regarding federal fiscal policy remains a risk. Some policies are 

likely to impact Oregon than the typical state, while others maybe not as much. The good news for 

Oregon is that outside of outright land ownership, the federal government has a relatively small physical 

presence in the state. This means that direct spending reductions are less likely to hurt Oregon. Of 

course, it also limits the local benefit from any potential increases in federal spending, as was recently 

passed by Congress in early 2018. In terms of federal grants as a share of state revenue, Oregon ranks 

29th highest. For federal procurement as a share of the economy, Oregon ranks 48th highest. Oregon 

ranks below average in terms of military‐dependent industries as well. The one area that Oregon ranks 

above average is in terms of direct federal employment, ranking 19th highest among all states. Oregon 

also is exposed to an above‐average share of federal transfer payments to households. Transportation 

funding is also a major local concern. Overall, the direct impact may be less than in other states but the 

impact will be felt nevertheless, particularly as our closest neighboring states have large federal and 

military workforces. 

Climate and Natural Disasters. Weather forecasting is even more difficult than economic forecasting a 

year or two into the future. While the severity, duration and timing of catastrophic events like 

earthquakes, wildfires and droughts are difficult to predict, we do know they impact regional 

economies. Fires damage forests and tourism. Droughts in particular impact our agricultural sector and 

rural economies to a larger degree. Whenever Cascadia, the big earthquake, hits, we know our regional 

economy and its infrastructure will be crippled and in need of immediate repairs. Longer‐term issues like 

the potential impact of climate change on domestic migration patterns are likewise hard to predict and 

outside our office’s forecast horizon. There is a reasonable expectation that migration flows will 

continue to be strong as the rest of the country becomes less habitable over time. 

Commodity price inflation. Always worrisome is the possibility of higher oil (and gasoline) prices. While 

consumer spending has held up pretty consistently in this recovery, anytime there is a surge in gas 

prices, it eats away at consumers’ disposable income, leaving less income to spend on all other, non‐

energy related goods and services. 

Federal timber policy. Even with a temporary reinstatement of payments, it has been and it is clear that 

federal policymakers will not reinstate the program the same as before, however negotiations are 

ongoing for more sustainable timber harvests and related revenue. In the meantime, reductions in 

public employment and services are being felt in the impacted counties. For more information from a 

historical perspective, see two recent blog posts, here and here5. 

Initiatives, referendums, and referrals. Generally, the ballot box and legislative changes bring a number 

of unknowns that could have sweeping impacts on the Oregon economy and revenue picture. 

Alternative Scenarios 

The baseline forecast is our outlook of the most likely path for the Oregon economy. As with any forecast, 

however, many other scenarios are possible. In conjunction with the Legislative Revenue Office, this forecast 

provides three alternative scenarios, which are modeled on growth patterns over previous business cycles. 

                                                            5 http://oregoneconomicanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/historical‐look‐at‐oregons‐wood‐product‐industry http://oregoneconomicanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/timber‐counties/ 

15  

 

Optimistic Scenario:  

The recovery gathers steam and pulls the economy into a stronger cyclical expansion. The relatively lackluster 

economic growth seen in the earlier stages of recovery, the manufacturing weakness in 2015 and 2016 and the 

recent slowing in U.S. personal income all recede into the rearview mirror of history and the U.S. economy 

builds momentum throughout 2018 and into 2019. The economy is soon firing on all cylinders. Economic growth 

is above potential in 2018, resulting in stronger job and income gains. This stronger growth leads to more 

consumer spending and more business investment. 

In Oregon, job gains are broad based with strong growth in all private sector industries. The unemployment rate 

remains lower than under the baseline scenario as individuals are able to find employment more readily and 

income growth accelerates.  The labor force participation gap closes and even turns positive. The increase in 

employment and income support a self‐sustaining economic expansion in which new income fuels increased 

consumer spending (and debt reduction) which begets further increases in employment. Such an expansion 

increases housing demand as newly employed households (and increasing income for existing households) find 

their own homes after doubling‐up with family and friends during the recession. This results in new construction 

returns to normal levels about a year earlier than the baseline.  

 

Mild Recession Scenario:  

The Oregon employment and GDP grow slowly in 2018. The housing market stalls (again), removing one driver 

of growth. Strained trade relations result in falling exports, business confidence tumbles and so does capital 

spending. The U.S. dollar strengthens, chocking off the manufacturing cycle. These factors are enough weight on 

the recovery that by mid‐ or late‐2018 the economy slides back into recession. Job losses ensue and while not 

severe – about 48,000 jobs in Oregon when it is all said and done – it takes a toll on business income, housing 

starts and personal income. The unemployment rate returns to nearly 7 percent. The net effect of the mild 

recession is an extended period of prolonged economic weakness, not unlike Japan’s so‐called Lost Decade(s). 

Although inflation is expected to remain positive, a key difference. 

Severe Recession Scenario:  

After expanding for 9 years at relatively lackluster growth rates, the U.S. economy falls back into recession. 

Industrial production declines and the slower personal income growth in the U.S. worsens. Strained trade 

relations develop into an all‐out trade war. The Fed, already lacking in traditional monetary policy ammunition, 

2018 2019 2020 2021

Employment

Baseline 2.1% 2.1% 1.2% 0.7%

Optimistic 3.0% 4.3% 1.4% 0.5%

Mild Recession 2.1% 0.2% ‐1.6% 0.2%

Severe Recession 1.8% ‐4.2% ‐2.3% 1.5%

Personal Income

Baseline 5.1% 6.0% 5.4% 5.1%

Optimistic 7.4% 8.7% 5.9% 4.8%

Mild Recession 5.1% 4.0% 2.9% 5.8%

Severe Recession 5.1% ‐1.2% 1.9% 7.0%

Jun 2018Alternative Scenarios

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

2.1

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Millio

ns

Total Nonfarm Employment

Forecast‐‐>

Optimistic

Baseline

Mild Rec.

Severe Rec.

16  

 

is not able to stave off the impact. While the catalyst may be different, the economic effect is similar to late 

2008 and early 2009, although not quite as severe when the dust settles. This is little comfort when the 

unemployment spikes back to 10 percent and nearly 135,000 Oregonians lose their jobs by late‐2019. Besides 

the domestic economic headwinds and Federal Reserve tightening, the likely culprit in this scenario is either a 

meltdown of the financial markets sparked by some geopolitical shock, or quickly rising inflation in part due to 

the fiscal stimulus. Economic growth in the U.S., while fairly steady as of late, is not nearly strong enough to 

withstand an external financial shock of this magnitude, nor a Federal Reserve quickly raising rates to fight 

inflation. Further economic effects of a recession this size are personal income losses of around 4 percent, about 

three‐quarters the size of the Great Recession losses in Oregon. Housing starts plummet to near historical low 

levels of construction and home prices decline further. On the bright side, when construction does rebound, it 

will result in a surge of new home building that will rise above the state’s long term average level of building due 

to pent‐up demand for housing and that the state will have under built housing during this time period. 

Extended Outlook 

IHS Economics projects Oregon’s economy to fare well relative to the rest of the country in the coming years. 

The state’s Real Gross State Product is projected to be the seventh fastest among all states across the country in 

terms of growth with gains averaging 2.6 percent through 2023. Total employment is expected to be the eighth 

strongest among all states at an annualized 1.3 percent, while manufacturing employment will be the fourth 

fastest in the country at 1.1 percent. Total personal income growth is expected to be 4.8 percent per year, the 

thirteenth fastest among all states, according to IHS Economics.  

Our office is equally bullish in terms of Oregon’s relative growth prospects. Much of Oregon’s advantage comes 

from population growth, specifically the ability to attract and retain young, working‐age households. In recent 

years, IHS had been forecasting Oregon population growth of around 1 percent annually. Our office expects it to 

average 1.3 per year over the next handful of years. In recent months, IHS has raised their Oregon population 

forecast to 1.2 percent annually, which is very close to our office’s expectations. As such, our overall economic 

outlooks are now similar. 

OEA has identified three main avenues of economic growth that are important to continue to monitor over the 

extended horizon: the state’s dynamic labor supply, the state’s industrial structure and the current number of 

start‐ups, or new businesses. 

Oregon has typically benefited from an influx of households from other states, including an ample supply of 

skilled workers. Households continue to move to Oregon even when local jobs are scarce, as long as the 

economy is equally bad elsewhere, particularly in California. Relative housing prices also contribute to migration 

flows in and out of the state. For Oregon’s recent history – data available from 1976 – the labor force in the 

state has both grown faster than the nation overall and the labor force participation rate has been higher. 

However while the past two years have brought considerable improvements there remain potentially worrisome 

signs, particularly when the next recession comes. 

First, on the bright side, all of the recessionary‐induced declines in the labor force itself have been reversed in 

the recent years. Oregon’s labor force has never been larger. However, the participation rate remains a little 

lower than expected, when adjusting for the size of the population and the aging demographics. Oregon’s 

participation rate continues to rebound today, which is great news, however any participation gap is still cause 

for concern. While much of the past decade’s patterns can be attributed to the severe nature of the Great 

17  

 

Recession, and even the lackluster housing boom itself, 

some damage is likely permanent. The longer the 

expansion continues without seeing rising participation 

rates among some segments of the population, the more 

likely the damage is permanent. A stronger economy and a 

longer expansion will minimize any permanent damage.  

All told, our office’s baseline outlook calls for some 

continued improvement in the near‐term for both the labor 

force participation rate and the employment to population 

ratio. These gains are due to the shorter run cyclical 

rebound in the economy, before longer‐run demographic 

trends will weigh on these measures. Focusing just on the prime working age cohorts reveals stronger 

improvements and a better outlook. 

Oregon’s industrial structure is very similar to the U.S. overall, even moreso than nearly all other states. That 

said, Oregon’s manufacturing industry is larger and weighted toward semiconductors and wood products, 

relative to the nation which is much more concentrated in transportation equipment (autos and aerospace). 

However, these industries which have been Oregon’s 

strength in both the recent past and historically, are now 

expected to grow the slowest moving forward. Productivity 

and output from the state’s technology producers is 

expected to continue growing quickly, however 

employment is not likely to follow suit. Similarly, the timber 

industry remains under pressure from both market based 

conditions and federal regulations. Barring major changes 

to either, the slow growth to downward trajectory of the 

industry in Oregon is likely to continue.  

With that being said, certainly not all hope is lost. Those top industries in Oregon comprise approximately 7 

percent of all statewide employment. And many industries in which Oregon has a larger concentration that then 

typical state are expected to perform quite well over the coming decade. These industries include management 

of companies, food and beverage manufacturing, published software along with some health care related firms. 

The state’s real challenges and opportunities will come in industries in which Oregon does not have a relatively 

large concentration. These industries, like consulting, computer 

system design, financial investment, and scientific R&D, are 

expected to grow quickly in the decade ahead. To the extent 

that Oregon is behind the curve, then the state may not fully 

realize these gains if they rely more on clusters and 

concentrations of similar firms that may already exist elsewhere 

in the country. 

Another area of potential concern that may impact longer term 

economic growth is that of new business formation. Over the 

past few years, the number of new business license applications 

18  

 

with the Oregon Secretary of State have begun to grow again and even accelerate. However data available from 

the U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics clearly indicate that entrepreneurship and business 

formation remain at subdued levels and rates.  

The share of all businesses that are start‐ups, either in Oregon 

or across the nation, is effectively at an all‐time low, with data 

starting in the late 1970s. Associated start‐up employment 

follows a similar pattern. The concern is that new businesses 

are generally considered the source of innovation and new 

ideas, products and services that help propel economic growth. 

To the extent that fewer start‐ups indicate that R&D more 

broadly is not being undertaken, slower growth is to be 

expected moving forward. However, if the larger firms that have 

won out in today’s marketplace are investing in R&D and 

making those innovations themselves, then the worries about 

the number of start‐ups today is overstated. It can be hard to say which is the correct view. However seeing 

these longer run, downward trends in new business formation warrants, at the very least, concern about future 

growth prospects.  

Finally, Oregon also enjoys the long‐term advantages of low electricity costs; a central location between the 

large markets of California, Vancouver and Asia; clean water; low business rents and living costs when compared 

to other Left Coast locations; and an increasingly diverse 

industrial base.  

One long‐run concern for policymakers, think tanks and 

Oregon’s economy is that very little progress on raising per 

capita income is projected out to 2027. In and of itself, a higher 

per capita income level would better fund public services for 

citizens. The benefit side of the state’s relatively low income 

figures is that local firms do not have to pay higher wages, thus 

helping support the firms’ balance sheets as well. It is not purely 

a lose‐lose proposition. The Oregon Employment Department 

has published6 a detailed look at Oregon’s per capita income. 

Today, Oregon’s average wage relative to the nation is at its 

highest point since the mills closed in the 1980s. While some 

industries are seeing stronger growth, these gains are broad‐

based across regions and industries in Oregon. Similarly, 

Oregon’s per capita personal income is at its highest relative 

point since the dotcom crash. 

In terms of the outlook, expectations are that wages will remain 

at this high watermark but not increase much further, at least 

relative to the nation. The primary reason for this is that 

                                                            6 http://olmis.emp.state.or.us/olmisj/PubReader?itemid=00007366 

19  

 

Oregon’s average wages have already accelerated in recent years, even as U.S. wages are just now picking up. 

Our office expects Oregon’s average wage to continue to increase by 4 percent per year. However as the U.S. 

accelerates closer to Oregon’s annual rate, Oregon’s growth advantage in recent years will lessen.  

As for the per capita personal income outlook, expectations 

are that some progress will continue to be made. One major 

factor influencing these trends is the relative incomes at the 

very top of the distribution. Make no mistake, Oregon’s 

highest‐income households have done well financially. 

However incomes at the top of the national distribution 

have increased even further. This gap among the richest 

households is large enough to weigh on Oregon’s overall 

per capita income figures.  

The good news is that median incomes in Oregon have not 

eroded over time relative to the nation. That means the 

typical household in Oregon is not continually becoming worse off relative to the typical American household. 

This difference of trends at various points along the income distribution indicates a more complicated economic 

story is unfolding. Yes, Oregon’s per capita personal income has eroded over the past generation. However that 

erosion is not seen among the typical household or for the typical worker. Given the distribution issues and the 

economic outlook, Oregon’s per capita personal income is not expected to catch the national average. 

Regional Comparisons 

A common refrain heard across Oregon in recent years is 

that the population growth is unprecedented. This is 

usually in the context of the housing market and 

explaining away the fundamental lack of supply and only 

pointing toward demand as the reason for rising prices. 

However, population growth in recent years for the vast 

majority of the state is very precendented. Yes, growth is 

generally faster than what was experienced in the mid‐

2000s, but is on par with the growth experienced in the 

1970s and 1990s. Individuals and families have been 

moving to the Pacific Northwest since before Lewis & 

Clark. Population growth and migration is nothing new.  

That said, there are a few exceptions where growth in 

recent years really is about as fast as it ever has been. In 

particular the City of Portland is truly seeing 

unprecedented growth in its modern history. One has to 

go back to the early 1900s to see growth like this in the 

City itself. However the rest of the Portland MSA certainly 

is not growth that fast, leaving the region overall seeing 

similar patterns to the state. Other areas experiencing 

20  

 

near historic gains in population include Baker, Clatsop, Hood River, and Deschutes counties.  

State Comparisons 

Homelessness is a real societal issue that can be hard to address, at least in part due to the transient nature of 

some of these individuals and families. As such it difficult to get good data and information on the homeless 

population and trends over time. The best available information comes from the U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development’s annual point‐in‐time estimates. These efforts represent a count of both the sheltered 

and unsheltered populations on one specific night each year, usually in January. The sheltered population 

includes those in emergency shelters and in transitional housing. Such figures likely represent an undercount of 

the true homeless population. They also do not include those that are housing insecure, or live in crowded 

housing situations, where a housing unit has more people than it does non‐bathroom rooms. 

Over the past decade, homelessness, at least when 

measured by this imperfect HUD estimate, has declined 

by 10 to 20 percent across much of the nation. The 

same is true here in Oregon as well. Some researchers 

point toward federal policies around Housing First, and 

Rapid Re‐Housing for some of these long‐run 

improvements in homelessness. The goal of these 

programs is to find permanent housing as quickly as 

possible for the homeless, and then provide 

wraparound services for their other needs. 

However, in recent years homelessness is again on the 

rise along the West Coast. California, Oregon, and 

Washington have experienced 3 of the 5 largest 

increases since 2014, with New York and Wyoming 

rounding out the Top 5. 

Research shows there are a number of reasons and 

factors for why individuals and families experience 

homelessness. Some are more societal in nature, like 

domestic violence, mental health issues, and drug 

addictions. Some are more economic in nature including 

insufficient income due to unemployment, low‐wage or 

part‐time work and the like.  

However, at its root, homelessness is fundamentally 

about housing costs. These individuals and families literally cannot afford a roof over their heads, even as other 

issues complicate their lives. There is a relationship across states and metropolitan regions between rents and 

the share of the population experiencing homelessness. High housing costs do not fully explain patterns of 

homelessness, but they are clearly a factor. And given that we have underbuilt housing in the past decade, the 

lack of supply is one of the factors as well. 

21  

 

As Portland State’s Northwest Economic Research Center details7 for Washington County here in Oregon, 

providing emergency support is important, but unlikely to address the root causes of homelessness. This 

emergency support is costly with about 70% of these service costs spent on medical, 16% spent on shelter, 12% 

on mental health, and 2% on law enforcement. In fact, half of homeless individuals accessed at least one 

hospital service during their period of homelessness with many of these visits being to the emergency room. 

Overall, while the long‐term trends in homelessness are 

largely encouraging – the numbers have fallen in the past 

decade – these changes are uneven across geographies. For 

example, in both the Portland and Seattle metro regions the 

largest county, Multnomah and King respectively, have seen 

increases, while the suburban counties have seen declines.  

Some of these changes likely reflect homeless individuals and 

families locating to be closer to resources like shelters, 

addiction clinics, and counseling services. Given the ability of 

the homeless to move around, funding for programs and 

services is likely best addressed at the federal and not the local 

level. Allowing for local governments to draw upon sufficient federal resources would better allow for local 

services to match the local needs, which will shift over time as the trends in overall homelessness and the types 

of individuals and families who find themselves homeless likewise shift. To date, local governments are largely 

left with a patchwork system of federal programs, nonprofits, and community support to try and address 

homelessness in their communities. 

   

                                                            7 https://www.pdx.edu/nerc/sites/www.pdx.edu.nerc/files/Homeless%20Cost%20Study_NERC%20Report_1.pdf 

22  

 

Revenue Summary 

Oregon’s General Fund revenues are heavily dependent upon personal income tax collections.  As such, the April 

peak tax filing season often makes or breaks the state budget. This year’s tax collections came in at a healthy 

rate, somewhat faster than what was assumed in the March 2018 forecast.  If not for the payment of kicker 

credits generated during the 2015‐17 budget cycle, Oregon’s revenue growth would have ranked among the top 

handful of states, as has been the case for much of the current economic expansion.  

Tax refund payments got off to a slow start this year due 

to a delayed federal filing season, but quickly made up 

ground in early spring. Due in part to kicker credits, 

refund payments came in significantly higher than in 

recent years.  Even so, refund payments will end the filing 

season around $150 million short of expectations. 

Oregon’s income tax filers are now cutting it closer than 

they have in the past, with many getting smaller checks 

than they would prefer.  With the option to fill out an 

Oregon‐specific W‐4 form on the way, filers will be better 

able to tailor their state tax refunds in future years. 

On the payment side, the tax filing season closely 

matched expectations.  Although final personal income 

tax payments will likely end the season smaller than they 

were last year, this is a reflection of kicker credits and not 

weakness in the underlying economy.  As always, the jury 

will remain out until high‐income filers reconcile their 

accounts in the fall when extensions and amended 

returns come due. 

Typically, year‐end payments and refunds are generally 

the most difficult tax components to forecast. This 

season, however, the biggest surprises came from 

typically stable sources ‐‐ quarterly estimated payments and withholdings out of labor income. 

Fourth‐quarter estimated payments of personal income taxes for 2017 were up nearly 50% relative to last year, 

and continued to post strong gains in early 2018. Advanced corporate tax payments have been up sharply in 

recent months as well, with the first quarter of 2018 coming in 79% larger than last year.  Furthermore, large 

year‐end bonuses are driving withholdings significantly above what recent wage growth alone could explain.   

This strong growth across payment types was not unique to Oregon, with many other states reporting even 

stronger gains. That sort of uniformity is rare, and suggests that tax planning around the federal Tax Cuts and 

Jobs Act is already affecting the timing of tax collections. Taxpayers rushed to take advantage of expiring breaks, 

including an uncapped deduction for state and local taxes paid. Oregon does not allow the prepayment of state 

taxes, but with rates set to change, many businesses have faced a strong incentive to pull forward costs into 

2017, and push income into future years. As a result, some of the recently strong revenue growth will no doubt 

evaporate going forward.   

23  

 

While changes in the timing of tax payments are already evident, it will take some time before it becomes clear 

how many taxpayers will change their filing status in light of TCJA provisions.  Some workers and investors could 

choose to file as businesses.  Also, some businesses could benefit by changing from pass‐through entities into C‐

Corporations, or the other way around. Although the exact magnitude of tax law impacts is uncertain, it is sure 

to be large.  Recent tax law changes are expected to directly add hundreds of millions of revenue dollars over 

the next few budget cycles. 

 

Together with healthy economic growth and strong tax collections, law changes have helped push both personal 

income taxes and corporate income taxes over their kicker thresholds. If this outlook holds true, personal 

income tax kicker credits will be paid out two years from now, and additional spending on K‐12 education will be 

required next biennium.  

 

Personal Income BI2017‐19 BI2019‐21 BI2021‐23 BI2023‐25 BI2025‐27

Provisions in Federal TJCA that Flow Through to Oregon Revenues (e.g. small business accounting, capital expensing, change in itemized deductions & OR deduction for federal taxes paid)

$149 $306 $425 $517 $217

Automatic Replication of 20% Federal Pass-through Deduction on Oregon Taxable Income* ($245) ($375) ($422) ($492) ($161)

Eliminating Replication (SB1528) $245 $375 $422 $492 $161

OR Tuition Deduction ($12) ($12) ($12) ($12) ($12)

Special Session Inclusion of Sole Proprietorships for OR Preferential Rate ($15) ($25) ($27) ($29) ($31)

Total $122 $269 $386 $476 $174

Corporate Excise BI2017‐19 BI2019‐21 BI2021‐23 BI2023‐25 BI2025‐27

Provisions in Federal TJCA that Flow Through to Oregon Revenues (e.g. bonus depreciation, R&D amortization & limits on net interest deduction)

$119 $95 $201 $195 $191

Automatic Replication of Federal Dividend Received Deduction on Oregon Taxable Income (Repatriation) ($240) ($5) $0 $0 $0

Eliminating Replication (SB1529)** $240 $5 $0 $0 $0

Total $119 $95 $201 $195 $191

Grand Total $241 $364 $587 $671 $365

** Unlike most states, filers in Oregon calculate a state‐specific dividend recieved deduction.  If OR had not changed its tax code, filers would have received a 

double deduction on Oregon taxes. $145 Million of the Revenue Recovered from SB1529 Will be Transferred out of the General Fund in BI2019‐21

Direct Impact of Law Changes Relative to the Close of Session Forecast, $ MillionsSources:  Legislative Revenue Office, OEA

*Unlike most states, Oregon connects to federal tax law through Federal Taxable Income (not AGI).  If OR had remained connected to this provision, filers would 

have received a deduction on Oregon taxes in addition to a deduction on their federal taxes.

24  

 

2017‐19 General Fund Revenues 

General Fund revenues for the 

2017‐19 biennium are expected to 

reach $20,304 million. This 

represents an increase of $813.2 

million from the December 2018 

forecast, and an increase of $1.7 

billion relative to the 2015‐17 

biennium. This outlook is now 

tracking ahead of the assumptions 

used when crafting the budget. 

General Fund revenues for the 

2017‐19 biennium are expected to 

come in $752 million ahead of the 

Close of Session forecast.  

Personal Income Tax 

Personal income tax collections were $1,964 million during the third quarter of fiscal year 2018, $11 million 

(0.6%) above the latest forecast. Compared to the year‐ago level, total personal income tax collections grew by 

8.0% relative to a forecast that called for a 7.4% increase.  Table B.8 in Appendix B presents a comparison of 

actual and projected personal income tax revenues for the January‐March quarter. Strong growth is expected to 

persist throughout the biennium due in part to tax law changes.  Non‐corporate General Fund revenues are now 

expected to end 2017‐19 3.0% above the Close of Session forecast, generating a $555 million kicker payment.   

Corporate Excise Tax 

Corporate excise tax collections equaled $146 million for the third quarter of fiscal year 2018, $77 million (111%) 

above the March forecast. Compared to the year‐ago level, net corporate excise tax collections rose by 80% 

relative to a forecast that called for an 11% decrease. 

Federal Tax Law Changes have injected a good deal of uncertainty into the outlook for corporate tax payments.  

Some employees, investors, partnerships, S‐corps and sole proprietorships face a larger tax incentive to 

incorporate.  Conversely, some C‐corporations will benefit from becoming pass‐through entities. Excluding these 

behavioral changes, under current law, the TJCA stands to significantly reduce Oregon’s corporate tax collections 

in the near term, while boosting them in later years. Accelerated depreciation provisions contribute to this 

pattern, as does the repatriation of deferred income from multinational corporations. Some repatriation 

revenue is already being received. Following legislative action this year, Oregon is expected to take in $245 in 

repatriation‐related revenues, generating a large corporate kicker payment ($197 million).  As required by 

statute, this kicker will be distributed as spending on K‐12 education. 

Other Sources of Revenue 

While estate tax collections continue to be strong, they are no longer coming in significantly above forecast in 

recent quarters. In examining estate tax collections two clear trends emerge. The first is that Oregon is seeing an 

increase in the number of estates impacted by the tax. Compared to other states and the federal government, 

Oregon has a relatively low threshold at $1 million. Given home prices and asset markets, $1 million estates, 

(Millions)2017 COS Forecast

March 2018 Forecast

June 2018 Forecast

Change from Prior Forecast

Change from COS Forecast

Structural RevenuesPersonal Income Tax $17,147.4 $17,174.8 $17,694.8 $520.1 $547.5

Corporate Income Tax $1,077.0 $978.2 $1,273.7 $295.5 $196.7

All Other Revenues $1,327.6 $1,337.8 $1,335.4 -$2.4 $7.8

Gross GF Revenues $19,551.9 $19,490.7 $20,303.9 $813.2 $752.0

Offsets and Transfers -$75.5 -$67.0 -$69.5 -$2.6 $5.9

Administrative Actions1 -$21.5 -$21.5 -$21.5 $0.0 $0.0

Legislative Actions -$180.1 -$179.4 -$179.4 $0.0 $0.7

Net Available Resources $20,055.7 $20,200.8 $21,033.8 $833.1 $978.1

Confidence Intervals67% Confidence +/- 4.8% $975.495% Confidence +/- 9.6% $1,950.8

1 Reflects cost of cashflow management actions, exclusive of internal borrowing.

2017-19 General Fund Forecast Summary

$19.33B to $21.28B$18.35B to $22.25B

Table R.1

25  

 

while still very rare, are somewhat more commonplace 

today than a decade ago. The second trend, which 

impacts the revenues to a larger degree, is a considerable 

increase in the size of estates for a few taxpayers. Oregon 

tends to see approximately 60 estate tax payers with 

estate valuations greater than $5 million each year. 

However in the last decade, among these estates, the 

average size, and average tax payment has increased 

considerably. These trends are heavily influenced by a 

handful of estates. Moving forward, the outlook for 

estate tax collections remains strong. However not quite 

as strong as demographics and asset markets alone suggest due to tax planning. 

All told, General Fund revenues excluding personal and corporate taxes are revised lower by $2.4 million this 

forecast, relative to the previous forecast. Such revenues are $7.8 million above the Close of Session outlook. 

Extended General Fund Outlook 

Table R.2 exhibits the long‐run forecast for General Fund revenues through the 2025‐27 biennium. Users should 

note that the potential for error in the forecast increases substantially the further ahead we look. 

Revenue growth in Oregon and other states will face considerable downward pressure over the 10‐year 

extended forecast horizon.  As the baby boom population cohort works less and spends less, traditional state tax 

instruments such as personal income taxes and general sales taxes will become less effective, and revenue 

growth will fail to match the pace seen in the past.  

 

 

Tax Law Assumptions 

The revenue forecast is based on existing law, including measures and actions signed into law during the 2017 

Oregon Legislative Session. OEA makes routine adjustments to the forecast to account for legislative and other 

actions not factored into the personal and corporate income tax models. These adjustments can include 

expected kicker refunds, when applicable, as well as any tax law changes not yet present in the historical data. A 

summary of actions taken during the 2017 Legislative Session can be found in Appendix B Table B.3. For a 

Table R.2

General Fund Revenue Forecast Summary (Millions of Dollars, Current Law)

Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast

2015-17 % 2017-19 % 2019-21 % 2021-23 % 2023-25 % 2025-27 %

Revenue Source Biennium Chg Biennium Chg Biennium Chg Biennium Chg Biennium Chg Biennium Chg

Personal Income Taxes 16,055.8 15.0% 17,694.8 10.2% 19,180.8 8.4% 21,912.2 14.2% 24,041.3 9.7% 26,135.8 8.7%

Corporate Income Taxes 1,210.7 8.4% 1,273.7 5.2% 1,075.4 -15.6% 1,238.0 15.1% 1,343.1 8.5% 1,509.1 12.4%

All Others 1,289.3 25.2% 1,335.4 3.6% 1,309.9 -1.9% 1,391.1 6.2% 1,464.2 5.2% 1,542.9 5.4%

Gross General Fund 18,555.9 15.2% 20,303.9 9.4% 21,566.1 6.2% 24,541.3 13.8% 26,848.6 9.4% 29,187.7 8.7%

Offsets and Transfers (32.9) (69.5) (217.2) (74.6) (79.2) (83.4)

Net Revenue 18,523.0 15.5% 20,234.4 9.2% 21,348.9 5.5% 24,466.7 14.6% 26,769.3 9.4% 29,104.3 8.7%

26  

 

detailed treatment of the components of the 2017 Legislatively Enacted Budget, see: LFO 2017‐19 Budget 

Summary. 

Although based on current law, many of the tax policies that impact the revenue forecast are not set in stone. In 

particular, sunset dates for many large tax credits have been scheduled. As credits are allowed to disappear, 

considerable support is lent to the revenue outlook in the outer years of the forecast. To the extent that tax 

credits are extended and not allowed to expire when their sunset dates arrive, the outlook for revenue growth 

will be reduced. The current forecast relies on estimates taken from the Oregon Department of Revenue’s 2017‐

19 Tax Expenditure Report together with more timely updates produced by the Legislative Revenue Office. 

Alternative Scenarios 

The latest revenue forecast for 

the current biennium 

represents the most probable 

outcome given available 

information. OEA feels that it is 

important that anyone using 

this forecast for decision‐

making purposes recognize the 

potential for actual revenues to 

depart significantly from this 

projection.  

Currently, the overwhelming 

downside risk facing the 

revenue outlook is the threat 

that the U.S. economic recovery 

will lose steam in the near 

term. Such a scenario, however 

it played out, would result in 

drastic revenue losses. Two 

recessionary scenarios are 

displayed in table R.2b. In a 

severe recession, biennial 

revenues could come in as 

much as $2.4 billion lower than 

predicted8.   

   

                                                            8 The methodology for computing alternative scenarios has been changed to reflect recent work done by the Legislative Revenue Office.  Assumptions: Recessions begin in 2018 and return to baseline income by 2025.  The moderate recession scenario assumes personal income growth will be reduced by one‐half relative to the baseline in 2018 and 2019. The severe recession scenario assumes personal income will decline in 2018 by as much as it did in 2009. The percentage deviation in personal income taxes is 1.4 times the deviation in personal income. The percentage deviation in corporate income taxes is 2.0 times the deviation in personal income. 

TABLE R2b

Baseline Case FY '16 FY '17 FY '18 FY '19 FY '20 FY '21 FY '22 FY '23 FY '24 FY '25

Personal IncomeLevel 182.96 188.72 196.27 207.96 219.98 231.37 241.69 255.60 267.68 279.99% change 6.1% 3.2% 4.0% 6.0% 5.8% 5.2% 4.5% 5.8% 4.7% 4.6%

Taxes

Personal Income 7,599 8,457 8,780 8,915 9,164 10,017 10,719 11,193 11,704 12,338Corporate Excise & Income 603 608 755 518 521 554 600 638 659 684Other General Fund 528 761 603 732 643 667 687 704 722 742Total General Fund 8,729 9,826 10,139 10,165 10,328 11,238 12,006 12,536 13,085 13,763% change 3.2% 12.6% 3.2% 0.3% 1.6% 8.8% 6.8% 4.4% 4.4% 5.2%

Moderate Recession FY '16 FY '17 FY '18 FY '19 FY '20 FY '21 FY '22 FY '23 FY '24 FY '25

Personal IncomeLevel 183.0 188.7 191.5 198.0 211.7 225.2 237.2 252.7 265.3 277.9% change 6.1% 3.2% 1.5% 3.4% 6.9% 6.4% 5.3% 6.5% 5.0% 4.8%

Taxes

Personal Income 7,599 8,457 8,481 8,315 8,680 9,644 10,439 11,017 11,549 12,194Deviation from baseline -300 -599 -484 -373 -279 -177 -154 -143Corporate Excise & Income 603 608 719 468 482 525 578 624 648 674Deviation from baseline -37 -50 -39 -29 -22 -14 -12 -10Other General Fund 528 761 603 732 643 667 687 704 722 742Total General Fund 8,729 9,826 9,803 9,516 9,805 10,835 11,704 12,344 12,919 13,610% change 3.2% 12.6% -0.2% -2.9% 3.0% 10.5% 8.0% 5.5% 4.7% 5.3%Deviation from baseline 0 -336 -649 -523 -402 -302 -191 -166 -153Biennial Deviation 0 -986 -926 -493 -319

Severe Recession FY '16 FY '17 FY '18 FY '19 FY '20 FY '21 FY '22 FY '23 FY '24 FY '25

Personal IncomeLevel 183.0 188.7 178.9 187.7 203.6 219.2 233.5 251.4 263.9 276.5% change 6.1% 3.2% -5.2% 5.0% 8.4% 7.7% 6.5% 7.7% 5.0% 4.8%

Taxes

Personal Income 7,599 8,457 7,690 7,700 8,206 9,281 10,210 10,935 11,464 12,104Deviation from baseline -1,090 -1,215 -958 -736 -508 -259 -240 -234Corporate Excise & Income 496 608 621 417 443 496 559 617 641 667Deviation from baseline -134 -101 -78 -58 -41 -21 -18 -17Other General Fund 528 761 603 732 643 667 687 704 722 742Total General Fund 8,623 9,826 8,915 8,849 9,293 10,444 11,457 12,256 12,827 13,512% change 3.2% 14.0% -9.3% -0.7% 5.0% 12.4% 9.7% 7.0% 4.7% 5.3%Deviation from baseline -1,224 -1,316 -1,035 -794 -549 -280 -258 -251Biennial Deviation -2,540 -1,830 -829 -509

June 2018

Alternative Cyclical Revenue Forecast ($ millions)

2015-17 BN 2017-19 BN 2019-21 BN 2021-23 BN 2023-25 BN

27  

 

Lottery Earnings 

Overall the lottery forecast is relatively unchanged this quarter. However there are two fundamental, largely 

offsetting forecast changes beneath the topline. On the downside, video lottery sales came in slightly below 

expectations in recent months, or peak lottery season. This relative weakness has been carried forward into 

future years to the tune of a few million dollars in transfers each year. At ‐0.8 percent, this does not represent a 

substantial change and the underlying economic drivers remain intact. On the upside, sales for traditional 

products, and jackpot games in particular continue to come in above expectations over the past year. An update 

of the jackpot models has raised the outlook to the tune of just under two million dollars in each year.  

All told, available resources for the 2017‐19 biennium are revised upward by $8.9 million (+0.6%), while 2019‐21 

resources are revised downward by $1.4 million (‐0.1%). The outer biennia are each revised lower by $7‐8 

million (‐0.5%). 

Cowlitz Tribe’s ilani Casino Resort Impact 

Over the past year and a half our office has incorporated 

a lower video lottery sales forecast due to the opening of 

the ilani Casino Resort in southwest Washington. The 

casino has now been open for one year and there has 

been a noticeable impact on Oregon video lottery sales. 

However the impact is considerably smaller than was 

initially expected. In the recent sales data, the impact is 

averaging just 15 percent the original estimate. 

It is challenging to do a full and accurate postmortem on 

the reasons for such a large error. Many factors 

influenced the forecast itself and the grand opening and 

rollout of the casino was not without issues either. That said there was a clear forecast mistake. Our office 

overestimated the impact of the new casino on video lottery sales at the neighborhood level in North and 

Northeast Portland, and the impact on sales throughout the rest of the Portland metropolitan area. Video 

lottery sales in zip codes along the Oregon‐Washington border in the Portland region have fallen around 15 

percent, instead of the 40 percent expected. The rest of the metro area sales have increased some compared 

with expectations of small declines. Sales in the rest of Oregon, outside the Portland region continue to grow, 

which was expected.  

In somewhat comforting news, our office was not alone is overestimating the initial impact of the new casino. 

The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, owners of the Spirit Mountain casino which was previously the closest 

casino to the Portland metro region, announced back in fall that sales had fallen around 17 percent relative to 

the previous year whereas they forecasted sales would fall by 40 percent. 

Even as video lottery sales have come in considerably higher than expected prior to the casino opening, the 

outlook remains uncertain. In analyzing casino trends elsewhere in the country, sales increase for a year or two 

after a new casino opens. Furthermore expectations are that opening the gaming floor is just phase one for the 

ilani Resort Casino. Future expansions may include a buffet, and a hotel to attract overnight guests and make it 

more of a destination and not a day trip activity. In the event any of these options materialized, our office would 

reassess the impact on video lottery sales. Our office will continue to work with the Oregon Lottery, particularly 

28  

 

the research team, the Legislative Fiscal Office and 

Legislative Revenue Office to monitor sales and discuss the 

outlook. 

Lottery Sales and Distributions 

The robust gains seen in video lottery sales following the 

first wave of terminal replacements have slowed. This was 

expected. The second wave of replacements are nearing 

completion today, however their impact on sales is less, 

even as the upgrade in new technology and underlying 

infrastructure is important.  

Issues to watch include broader national trends in gaming markets, demographic preferences for recreational 

activities, and to what extent consumers increase the share of their incomes spent on gaming. In much of the 

past 6 years, consumers have remained cautious with their disposable income. 

Finally, Oregon voters last year approved two new 

amendments for where lottery resources are to 

be spent. The Outdoor School Education Fund is 

set to receive the lesser of 4 percent of net 

proceeds or $5.5 million per quarter ($44 million 

per biennium), adjusted for inflation. The 

Veterans’ Services Fund is set to receive 1.5 

percent of net proceeds.  

The full extended outlook for lottery earnings can 

be found in Table B.9 in Appendix B. 

 Budgetary Reserves 

The state currently administers two general reserve accounts, the Oregon Rainy Day Fund9 (ORDF) and the 

Education Stability Fund10 (ESF). This section updates balances and recalculates the outlook for these funds 

based on the June revenue forecast. 

                                                            9 The ORDF is funded from ending balances each biennium, up to one percent of appropriations. The Legislature can deposit 

additional  funds,  as  it  did  in  first  populating  the ORDF with  surplus  corporate  income  tax  revenues  from  the  2005‐07 

biennium.   The ORDF also retains  interest earnings. Withdrawals from the ORDF require one of three triggers,  including a 

decline  in employment, a projected budgetary  shortfall, or declaration of a  state of emergency, plus a  three‐fifths vote. 

Withdrawals are capped at two‐thirds of the balance as of the beginning of the biennium  in question. Fund balances are 

capped at 7.5 percent of General Fund revenues in the prior biennium.  10 The ESF gained its current reserve structure and mechanics via constitutional amendment in 2002.  The ESF receives 18 

percent of lottery earnings, deposited on a quarterly basis – 5% of which are deposited in the Oregon Growth sub‐account. 

The ESF does not retain interest earnings. The ESF has similar triggers as the ORDF, but does not have the two‐thirds cap on 

withdrawals. The ESF balance is capped at five percent of General Fund revenues collected in the prior biennium. 

29  

 

As of this forecast, the two reserve funds currently total a combined $1.05 billion.  

The forecast for the ORDF includes two deposits for this biennium. One relates to the General Fund ending 

balance from last biennium (2015‐17). A deposit of $179.4 million occurred in January 2018 after the 

accountants closed the book on the biennium. The other one related to increased corporate taxes from Measure 

67 during the 2015‐17 biennium. A $16.2 million transfer occurred in September 2017. These bring the 

projected ORDF ending balance at the end of 2017‐19 to $595.4 million.  

The forecast calls for $226.2 million in deposits into the ESF in 2017‐19 based on the current Lottery forecast. 

This would bring the ESF balance to $609.9 million at the end of the current biennium. 

Together, the ORDF and ESF are projected to have a combined balance of $1.2 billion at the close of the 2017‐19 

biennium. Provided the General Fund ending balance remains unallocated, total effective reserves at the end of 

2017‐19 would total more than $2.3 billion, or more than 11 percent of current revenues. That said, the ending 

balance figure includes the projected $555 million personal income tax kicker to be paid out in the 2019‐21 

biennium. As such, the true level of effective reserves is closer to $1.8 billion, or nearly 9 percent of the current 

biennium’s revenues. 

Such levels of reserve balances are bigger than Oregon has ever been able to accumulate, at least in the state’s 

recent history. However, such reserves would barely be sufficient to withstand a typical recession’s impact on 

state revenues, let alone account for 

the increase in public services and 

programs during downturns. That 

said, reserves of approximately 7 

percent are generally accepted to 

withstand a medium sized recession.  

B.10 in Appendix B provides more 

details for Oregon’s budgetary 

reserves.  

Recreational Marijuana Tax Collections 

During the 2017 legislative session, HB 3470 officially gave our office the responsibilities for forecasting 

recreational marijuana taxes. Overall our office’s baseline outlook remains essentially unchanged given it has 

tracked well since our very first such forecast back in May 2017. Available resources for the 2017‐19 biennium 

are raised $2.3 million relative to the previous outlook, while the outer biennia remain unchanged. 

Recreational Marijuana Forecast Process 

In developing the marijuana outlook, our office has held two preliminary forecast meetings with stakeholders 

from state agencies, local governments and industry professionals over the past year. Our office also spoke 

again with our counterparts in both Colorado and Washington to better understand what their experiences and 

to discuss marketplace trends. Moving forward, our office will continue to work with stakeholders and those 

who can advise us on industry and consumer trends, regulatory impacts, issues to watch, and the like. 

Currently the outlook for recreational marijuana sales and tax collections remains highly uncertain. While 

Oregon has now collected two years’ worth of taxes, there have been substantial changes during this time that 

complicate any analysis. These changes include early start sales, differing tax rates, changes in product testing 

Effective Reserves ($ millions)

Apr 2018

End 2017-19

ESF $472.9 $609.9

RDF $578.2 $595.4

Reserves $1,051.1 $1,205.3

Ending Balance $1,108.2 $1,108.2

Total $2,159.3 $2,313.5

% of GF 10.6% 11.4%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

Oregon Budgetary Reserves (billions)Gen. Fund Ending Balance Educ. Stability Fund Rainy Day Fund

Forecast ‐‐>

Percent of

General Fund  ‐‐>

Source: Oregon Office of Economic Analysis

30  

 

requirements and Mother Nature. Thankfully, Oregon is not alone. Both Colorado and Washington are two years 

ahead of Oregon in terms of recreational sales. Both states have seen tremendous growth in sales and tax 

collections, which serves as a guide for where Oregon is likely headed in the near‐term. Over time, as the market 

matures, future growth will follow trends in the economy and consumer spending. However the coming few 

years will see reasonably strong growth as the product becomes more widely available, more socially 

acceptable, and more black and gray market sales are realized in the legal market. 

Two years’ worth of tax collections, and a couple sets of quarterly tax returns filed by dispensaries is certainly 

more valuable than no data. Our office’s forecasting responsibilities are made considerably easier than what 

faced those estimating the potential impact of Measure 91 (2014) which legalized recreational sales. That said, 

two years’ worth of data is not enough to build a full‐fledged forecasting model, particularly when it is a brand 

new legal market. Over time, as we accumulate more data, a longer history of sales, and detailed breakdowns of 

consumer purchases and consumer demographics, our office will build an econometric model. Until then, in 

consultation with our advisory group, and using Colorado and Washington as a guide, our office is relying on 

trends for the short‐term outlook. 

Recent Market Trends and State Comparisons 

So far, Oregon’s first two years of recreational sales 

closely tracks Colorado’s first two years and outpaces 

Washington’s, after controlling for the fact both states 

have larger populations than Oregon. There are at least 

four likely reasons for this pattern.  

First, Oregon’s marijuana usage rates are higher than 

those seen in Washington. In fact, in the most recent 

survey data from 2015‐2016, Oregon saw a large 

increase in reported usage. As such, Oregon is more 

likely to see larger sales than in Washington, when 

adjusting for population size. While usage rates are not 

the only metric that matters, it does make sense that Oregon and Colorado are seeing similar sales figures, given 

they have similar usage rates. 

Second, prices and taxes matter. Oregon has a 

significantly lower tax rate than does Washington, 

which helps keep final consumer prices lower. Even as 

Colorado and Washington have two additional years to 

build their industry in the newly legalized world, 

Oregon’s prices are very competitive with those seen in 

the other states. A lower price, everything else equal, 

should bring more consumers into the market and also 

induce more black market conversions.  

Third, the cross‐border effect with legal sales beginning 

earlier in Washington likely had an impact on Oregon’s first year of sales. Counties in southwest Washington saw 

sales fall by nearly 40 percent once Oregon’s early sales began. Clearly there was plenty of cross‐border activity. 

31  

 

Effectively this meant Oregon had somewhat of a built‐in customer base who were used to going to dispensaries 

and retailers and purchasing in the legal market. Thus Oregon’s initial sales were larger than in Washington, but 

this may, at least in part, have some to do with social acceptance and being used to the new system rather than 

fundamentally stronger sales. 

Fourth, both Colorado and Washington initially had relatively few retail outlets in major population centers. In 

Colorado, Denver had retailers but Boulder did not initially. In Washington, Seattle had only a few retailers at 

first, but have added quite a few in recent years. Some of each state’s strong growth in the first two years was 

simply due to market access and product availability, particularly in places where lots of people live. It is unlikely 

this is a similar issue in Oregon, with our major population centers having dispensaries at first, and retailers now.  

In fact, today each state has just over 500 licensed 

recreational marijuana dispensaries or retailers. 

However once you account for the adult population size 

differences, Oregon has more stores than either 

Colorado or Washington. This does not necessarily mean 

that Oregon is overstored. That may be the case, 

however the other states may be understored. For 

example, while Colorado has a bit more than 500 

recreational licenses issued, the state supports 700+ 

marijuana businesses that sell recreational and/or 

medical marijuana. At the least, the vast majority of 

Oregon consumers do not lack for access to recreational marijuana. 

Recreational Marijuana Outlook 

In terms of the outlook, Oregon is poised for strong growth in the coming years. However, it remains highly 

uncertain with substantial upside and downside risks. 

On the downside, supply constraints that keep products and inventory low will result in fewer sales, and tax 

collections. Such constraints could be regulatory changes that impact grower, processors or retailers, or 

regulatory bottlenecks where companies in the industry are unable to get their licenses, renewals or tests 

completed or approved in a timely manner. Another downside risk for tax collections are prices, given Oregon 

levies the tax based on the sales price. Recent data shows retail marijuana prices declining between 10 and 20 

percent in Colorado, Washington, and Oregon. Marijuana is a commodity and eventually will be commoditized. 

How far and how quickly prices decline is a risk to the outlook for tax collections. Offsetting this risk somewhat is 

the fact that lower prices should result in larger sales. Finally, the one risk that looms large over the entire 

forecast is the federal government, which recently rescinded the so‐called Cole memos, and the U.S. attorney 

for the District of Oregon announced updated guidelines on how they will enforce black market grow operations 

and leakages of product to other states. While there has yet to be any real action taken, there is a non‐zero 

chance the federal government could step in and eliminate, or severely restrict recreational marijuana sales. In 

this event, taxes collected would be considerably less than forecasted. 

On the upside, consumers overall could get more comfortable with legalized recreational marijuana and the 

industry gains broader social acceptance, resulting in larger sales. As the earlier chart shows, reported usage 

rates have doubled in the past decade. Furthermore, a faster rate of black market conversion would also result 

32  

 

in more legal sales. Similarly, conversions from the medical marijuana market to the recreational market would 

result in more sales and taxes collections. The impact of the seed‐to‐sale tracking system may also increase 

activity within the legal market, resulting in fewer black or grey market sales, provided enforcement is effective. 

Long‐term the real economic impact from recreational 

marijuana will come not from the growing and 

retailing, which are low‐wage and low value‐added 

market segments. It will come from higher value‐

added products like oils, creams, and edibles, in 

addition to niche, specialty strains. These 

developments, as economist Beau Whitney points out, 

would be quite similar to the emergence and growth 

of craft beer in recent decades. Here, among the 

value‐added manufacturing processes in addition to 

the building up of a broader cluster of suppliers and 

ancillary industries that Oregon will see the real 

economic impacts. Furthermore, the long‐term potential of exporting Oregon products and business know‐how 

to the rest of the country remains large, at least once marijuana is legalized nationwide. 

The other market development will be mass‐produced and lower priced products. This is the end result of the 

commodification of marijuana. Margins will be low, but due to scale, businesses remain viable. These are more 

likely to be outdoor grows, due to costs. Even a world of legalized marijuana nationwide, it is plausible that 

Oregon, along with California, would remain a national leader in this market due to agricultural and growing 

conditions in the Emerald Triangle. 

See Table B.11 in Appendix B for a full breakdown of distributions for recreational marijuana tax collections. Note 

that these distributions are based on current law. 

   

33  

 

POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC OUTLOOK 

Population and Demographic Summary 

Oregon’s population count on April 1, 2010 was 3,831,074. Oregon gained 409,550 persons between the years 

2000 and 2010. The population growth during the decade of 2000 to 2010 was 12.0 percent, down from 20.4 

percent growth from the previous decade. Oregon’s rankings in terms of decennial growth rate dropped from 

11th between 1990‐2000 to 18th between 2000 and 2010. Oregon’s national ranking, including D.C., in 

population growth rate was 12th between 2010 and 2016 lagging behind all of the neighboring states, except 

California. Slow population growth during the decade preceding the 2010 Census characterized by double 

recessions probably cost Oregon one additional seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Actually, Oregon’s 

decennial population growth rate during the most recent decade was the second lowest since 1900. As a result 

of economic downturn and sluggish recovery that followed, Oregon’s population increased at a slow pace in the 

recent past. However, Oregon’s current population is showing very strong growth as a consequence of state’s 

strong economic recovery. Population growth between 2015 and 2016 was 6th fastest in the nation.  Based on 

the current forecast, Oregon’s population of 4.14 million in 2017 will reach 4.63 million in the year 2026 with an 

annual rate of growth of 1.2 percent between 2017 and 2026. 

Oregon’s economic condition heavily influences the state’s population growth. Its economy determines the 

ability to retain existing work force as well as attract job seekers from national and international labor market. 

As Oregon’s total fertility rate remains below the replacement level and number of deaths continue to rise due 

to ageing population, long‐term growth comes mainly from net in‐migration. Working‐age adults come to 

Oregon as long as we have favorable economic and employment environments. During the 1980s, which include 

a major recession and a net loss of population during the early years, net migration contributed to 22 percent of 

the population change. On the other extreme, net migration accounted for 76 percent of the population change 

during the booming economy of early 1990s. This share of migration to population change declined to 32 

percent in 2010, lowest since early 1980s when we actually had negative net migration for several years. As a 

sign of slow to modest economic gain, the ratio of net migration‐to‐population change has already exceeded 80 

percent and remain that way throughout the forecast horizon due largely to combination of continued high net 

migration and rise in the number of deaths among elderly population associated with increasing number of 

elderly population. Although economy and employment situation in Oregon looked stagnant in the recent past, 

migration situation was not similar to the early 1980s pattern of negative net migration. Potential Oregon out‐

migrants had no better place to go since other states were also in the same boat in terms of economy and 

employment. California is the number one state of origin of migrants to Oregon. With improvement in 

California’s housing market and Oregon’s growing economy continues, we expect positive impact on Oregon’s 

net migration. 

Age structure and its change affect employment, state revenue, and expenditure. Demographics are the major 

budget drivers, which are modified by policy choices on service coverage and delivery. Growth in many age 

groups will show the effects of the baby‐boom and their echo generations during the period of 2017‐2026. It will 

also reflect demographics impacted by the depression era birth cohort combined with diminished migration of 

working age population and elderly retirees.  After a period of slow growth during the 1990s and early 2000s, 

the elderly population (65+) has picked up a faster pace of growth and will surge to the record high levels as the 

baby‐boom generation continue to enter this age group and attrition of small depression era cohort due to 

death. The average annual growth of the elderly population will be 3.4 percent during the 2017‐2026 forecast 

34  

 

period. However, the youngest elderly (aged 65‐74) has been growing at an extremely fast pace in the recent 

past and will continue the trend in the near future exceeding 4 percent annual rate of growth due to the direct 

impact of the baby‐boom generation entering the retirement age and smaller pre‐baby boom cohort exiting the 

65‐74 age group. This fast paced growth rate will taper off to below one percent by the end of the forecast 

period as a sign of baby‐boom generation’s transition to elderly age group. Reversing several years of slow 

growth and shrinking population, the elderly aged 75‐84 started to show a positive growth as the effect of 

depression era birth‐cohort has dissipated. An unprecedented fast pace of growth of population in this age 

group has started as the baby‐boom generation starts to mature into 75‐84 age group. Annual growth rate 

during the forecast period is expected to be unusually high 5.7 percent. The oldest elderly (aged 85+) will 

continue to grow at a slow but steady rate in the near future due to the combination of cohort change, 

continued positive net migration, and improving longevity. The average annual rate of growth for this oldest 

elderly over the forecast horizon will be 2.0 percent. An unprecedented growth in oldest elderly will commence 

near the end of the forecast horizon. 

As the baby‐boom generation matures out of oldest working‐age cohort combined with slowing net migration, 

the once fast‐paced growth of population aged 45‐64 has gradually tapered off to below zero percent rate of 

growth by 2012 and will remain at slow or below zero growth phase for several years. The size of this older 

working‐age population will remain virtually unchanged at the beginning to the end of the forecast period. The 

25‐44 age group population is recovering from several years of declining and slow growing trend. The decline 

was mainly due to the exiting baby‐boom cohort.  This age group has seen positive growth starting in the year 

2004 and will increase by 1.7 percent annual average rate during the forecast horizon mainly because of the 

exiting smaller birth (baby‐bust) cohort being replaced by baby‐boom echo cohort. The young adult population 

(aged 18‐24) will remain nearly unchanged over the forecast period. Although the slow or stagnant growth of 

college‐age population (age 18‐24), in general, tend to ease the pressure on public spending on higher 

education, college enrollment typically goes up during the time of very competitive job market, high 

unemployment, and scarcity of well‐paying jobs when even the older people flock back to colleges to better 

position themselves in a tough job market.  The growth in K‐12 population (aged 5‐17) will remain very low 

which will translate into slow growth in school enrollments.  This school‐age population has actually declined in 

size in recent past years and will grow in the future at well below the overall state average. The growth rate for 

children under the age of five has remained below or near zero percent in the recent past due to the sharp 

decline in the number of births. This cohort of children will see steady positive growth after 2016. Although the 

number of children under the age of five declined in the recent years, the demand for child care services and 

pre‐Kindergarten program will be additionally determined by the labor force participation and poverty rates of 

the parents. Overall, elderly population over age 65 will increase rapidly whereas population groups under age 

65 will experience slow growth in the coming years. Hence, based solely on demographics of Oregon, demand 

for public services geared towards children and young adults will likely to increase at a slower pace, whereas 

demand for elderly care and services will increase rapidly.  

Procedure and Assumptions 

Population forecasts by age and sex are developed using the cohort‐component projection procedure.  The 

population by single year of age and sex is projected based on the specific assumptions of vital events and 

migrations. Oregon’s estimated population of July 1, 2010 based on the most recent decennial census is the 

base for the forecast. To explain the cohort‐component projection procedure very briefly, the forecasting model 

35  

 

"survives" the initial population distribution by age and sex to the next age‐sex category in the following year, 

and then applies age‐sex‐specific birth and migration rates to the mid‐period population.  Further iterations 

subject the in‐and‐out migrants to the same mortality and fertility rates.  

Populations by age‐sex detail for the years 2000 through 2009, called intercensal estimates, in the following 

tables are developed by OEA based on 2000 and 2010 censuses. Post‐censal population totals for the years 2010 

through 2015 are from the Population Research Center, Portland State University. The numbers of births and 

deaths through 2015 are from Oregon's Center for Health Statistics. All other numbers and age‐sex detail are 

generated by OEA.  

Annual numbers of births are determined from the age‐specific fertility rates projected based on Oregon's past 

trends and past and projected national trends.  Oregon's total fertility rate is assumed to remain below the 

replacement level of 2.1 children per woman during the forecast period, tracking at slightly lower than the 

national rate. 

Life Table survival rates are developed for the year 2010.  Male and female life expectancies for the 2010‐202 

period are projected based on the past three decades of trends and national projected life expectancies.  

Gradual improvements in life expectancies are expected over the forecast period.  At the same time, the 

difference between the male and female life expectancies will continue to shrink.  The male life expectancy at 

births of 77.4 and the female life expectancy of 81.8 in 2010 are projected to improve to 79.0 years for males 

and 83.2 years for females by the year 2026. 

Estimates and forecasts of the number of net migrations are based on the residuals from the difference between 

population change and natural increase (births minus deaths) in a given forecast period.  The migration 

forecasting model uses Oregon’s employment, unemployment rates, income/wage data from Oregon and 

neighboring states, and past trends. Distribution of migrants by age and sex is based on detailed data from the 

American Community Survey. The annual net migration between 2017 and 2026 is expected to remain in the 

range of 44,500 to 53,400, averaging 47,600 persons annually.  Slowdown in Oregon’s economy in the recent 

years resulted in smaller net migration and slow population growth. Estimated population growth and net 

migration rates in 2010 and 2011 were the lowest in over two decades. Oregon’s population growth has already 

rebounded and will continue high rate of growth in the near future. Migration is intrinsically related to economy 

and employment situation of the state. Still, high unemployment and job loss in the recent past have impacted 

net migration and population growth, but not to the extent in the early 1980s. Main reason for this is the fact 

that other states of potential destination for Oregon out‐migrants were not faring any better either. Hence the 

potential out‐migrants had very limited destination choices. The future growth will not look like high growth 

period of 1990s. The role of net migration in Oregon’s population growth will get more prominence as the 

natural increase will decline considerably due to rapid increase in the number of deaths associated with ageing 

population. 

   

36  

 

APPENDIX A:  ECONOMIC FORECAST DETAIL 

 

Table A.1  Employment Forecast Tracking ………………………………….................................................  37 

Table A.2  Short‐term Oregon Economic Summary ………………......................................................  38 

Table A.3  Oregon Economic Forecast Change ………………………………….……………………….……………  39 

Table A.4  Annual Economic Forecast ……………………………………………….……………..……………………….  40 

 

 

   

37  

 

Table A.1 – Employment Forecast Tracking 

 

   

Total Nonfarm Employment, 1st quarter 2018(Employment in thousands, Annualized Percent Change)

Y/YChange

level % ch level % ch level % % ch

Total Nonfarm 1,895.0 2.9 1,895.3 2.2 (0.4) (0.0) 2.0 Total Private 1,602.5 7.5 1,583.0 2.4 19.6 1.2 3.4 Mining and Logging 6.8 9.6 7.1 3.9 (0.3) (4.5) (1.4) Construction 103.5 11.2 99.5 2.3 4.0 4.0 9.7 Manufacturing 194.1 3.6 191.9 2.1 2.2 1.1 3.2 Durable Goods 134.5 3.9 133.1 2.0 1.5 1.1 3.2 Wood Product 23.3 0.9 23.1 1.4 0.2 0.8 1.6 Metals and Machinery 38.3 4.0 37.9 2.5 0.5 1.2 4.3 Computer and Electronic Product 37.8 3.4 37.5 0.9 0.3 0.8 3.7 Transportation Equipment 12.0 2.2 11.8 5.1 0.2 1.4 2.9 Other Durable Goods 23.2 8.5 22.8 2.0 0.4 1.7 2.5 Nondurable Goods 59.6 2.9 58.9 2.2 0.7 1.2 3.2 Food 30.7 6.8 30.2 0.9 0.6 1.9 3.5 Other Nondurable Goods 28.8 (1.0) 28.7 3.7 0.1 0.5 2.8 Trade, Transportation & Utilities 352.3 2.2 351.3 1.9 1.0 0.3 0.8 Retail Trade 210.4 2.4 210.7 1.4 (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) Wholesale Trade 76.9 1.5 76.5 2.8 0.5 0.6 0.8 Transportation, Warehousing & Utilities 64.9 2.6 64.1 2.1 0.9 1.3 4.0 Information 33.6 (1.2) 34.4 2.2 (0.8) (2.2) (1.3) Financial Activities 100.4 3.6 99.9 3.0 0.5 0.5 1.4 Professional & Business Services 244.9 0.3 248.2 5.4 (3.3) (1.3) 1.3 Educational & Health Services 293.2 32.3 276.4 2.4 16.8 6.1 8.7 Educational Services 36.6 3.4 36.4 (0.5) 0.2 0.7 3.5 Health Services 256.5 37.2 240.0 2.9 16.6 6.9 9.5 Leisure and Hospitality 209.4 1.9 210.4 0.8 (0.9) (0.4) 3.0 Other Services 64.3 2.6 63.9 0.1 0.4 0.7 2.3Government 292.4 (18.4) 312.4 1.3 (20.0) (6.4) (5.2) Federal 28.0 (2.4) 28.0 (0.6) (0.0) (0.1) (0.8) State 39.0 (77.6) 57.1 (1.3) (18.2) (31.8) (30.5) State Education 0.8 (61.9) 0.8 (11.0) (0.1) (9.3) 0.2 Local 225.5 4.8 227.2 2.2 (1.8) (0.8) 0.6 Local Education 131.3 5.0 132.4 1.1 (1.1) (0.8) (0.3)

EstimatePreliminary Forecast ErrorForecast

38  

 

Table A.2 – Short‐Term Oregon Economic Summary 

 

Oregon Forecast Summary

2018:1 2018:2 2018:3 2018:4 2019:1 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Nominal Personal Income 197.7 200.3 203.4 206.4 209.5 192.1 202.0 214.0 225.7 237.2 249.4% change 6.4 5.4 6.2 6.2 6.2 3.3 5.1 6.0 5.4 5.1 5.1

173.1 174.8 176.6 178.5 180.5 170.5 175.7 182.9 188.2 193.4 198.8% change 3.5 4.0 4.2 4.5 4.5 1.6 3.1 4.1 2.9 2.7 2.8Nominal Wages and Salaries 103.4 105.0 106.7 108.3 109.9 99.7 105.9 112.2 118.2 124.0 130.2% change 9.0 6.6 6.5 6.2 6.1 3.8 6.2 6.0 5.3 4.9 4.9

Per Capita Income ($1,000) 47.2 47.7 48.2 48.7 49.3 46.3 48.0 50.1 52.1 54.1 56.2% change 5.0 3.9 4.4 4.8 4.9 1.8 3.6 4.5 4.0 3.8 3.9Average Wage rate ($1,000) 54.1 54.6 55.2 55.7 56.2 52.8 54.9 57.0 59.3 61.8 64.5% change 6.1 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.8 1.7 4.0 3.8 4.1 4.2 4.3Population (Millions) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.15 4.21 4.27 4.33 4.38 4.44% change 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2Housing Starts (Thousands) 24.1 21.1 21.5 21.8 22.6 19.3 22.1 22.9 24.2 24.8 24.8% change 79.4 (40.7) 7.1 5.1 15.2 1.4 14.5 3.7 5.5 2.6 (0.1)Unemployment Rate 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.8 4.9Point Change (0.1) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 (0.6) 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1

Total Nonfarm 1,895.0 1,905.9 1,917.5 1,928.4 1,939.1 1,871.6 1,911.7 1,952.5 1,976.7 1,990.4 2,003.0% change 2.9 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.2 0.7 0.6 Private Nonfarm 1,602.5 1,612.4 1,622.9 1,632.6 1,642.2 1,562.6 1,617.6 1,654.0 1,673.5 1,685.3 1,694.8 % change 7.5 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.3 3.5 2.2 1.2 0.7 0.6 Construction 103.5 103.9 103.7 103.9 104.2 97.6 103.7 104.8 106.3 107.2 107.6 % change 11.2 1.7 (0.6) 0.4 1.3 7.9 6.3 1.0 1.4 0.9 0.4 Manufacturing 194.1 193.7 194.9 195.5 196.0 189.9 194.6 196.7 197.7 197.8 198.0 % change 3.6 (0.9) 2.5 1.3 0.9 0.9 2.5 1.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 Durable Manufacturing 134.5 134.3 135.3 135.8 135.9 131.6 135.0 136.5 137.0 136.5 136.2 % change 3.9 (0.6) 3.0 1.3 0.5 0.3 2.6 1.1 0.4 (0.3) (0.3) Wood Product Manufacturing 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.4 23.0 23.3 23.4 23.7 23.9 23.9 % change 0.9 0.1 (0.1) 1.3 0.1 1.0 1.3 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.3 High Tech Manufacturing 37.8 37.4 37.8 37.9 37.9 36.9 37.7 37.9 37.7 37.3 37.1 % change 3.4 (3.5) 4.6 0.9 (0.8) (2.4) 2.4 0.3 (0.3) (1.2) (0.5) Transportation Equipment 12.0 11.8 12.1 12.2 12.2 11.9 12.0 12.3 12.1 11.9 11.8 % change 2.2 (6.5) 10.8 2.2 1.7 (2.3) 1.2 2.3 (1.4) (1.7) (0.6) Nondurable Manufacturing 59.6 59.4 59.6 59.8 60.0 58.2 59.6 60.3 60.8 61.3 61.8 % change 2.9 (1.5) 1.5 1.3 1.6 2.3 2.3 1.2 0.8 0.9 0.8 Private nonmanufacturing 1,408.4 1,418.7 1,428.0 1,437.1 1,446.2 1,372.7 1,423.0 1,457.2 1,475.7 1,487.4 1,496.8 % change 8.0 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.5 3.7 2.4 1.3 0.8 0.6 Retail Trade 210.4 211.0 211.6 212.2 212.7 210.3 211.3 213.5 214.8 215.4 215.8 % change 2.4 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.6 0.5 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.2 Wholesale Trade 76.9 77.4 77.8 78.2 78.4 76.6 77.6 78.7 79.2 79.6 79.7 % change 1.5 2.5 2.3 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.4 0.6 0.5 0.2 Information 33.6 34.3 34.5 34.6 34.6 34.1 34.3 34.5 34.6 35.0 35.1 % change (1.2) 8.2 2.7 1.1 0.5 1.6 0.5 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.3 Professional and Business Services 244.9 248.4 252.0 256.1 260.0 243.1 250.4 265.4 273.6 277.7 281.7 % change 0.3 5.8 5.9 6.6 6.4 2.0 3.0 6.0 3.1 1.5 1.4 Health Services 256.5 258.8 261.0 262.9 264.8 236.2 259.8 267.5 272.5 277.1 280.9 % change 37.2 3.6 3.4 2.9 3.0 2.9 10.0 3.0 1.8 1.7 1.4 Leisure and Hospitality 209.4 210.6 211.9 212.9 214.0 206.0 211.2 214.7 215.1 214.6 214.3 % change 1.9 2.3 2.4 1.9 2.1 3.1 2.5 1.6 0.2 (0.2) (0.1) Government 292.4 293.5 294.7 295.8 296.9 309.0 294.1 298.5 303.3 305.1 308.2 % change (18.4) 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 0.7 (4.8) 1.5 1.6 0.6 1.0

Personal Income ($ billions)

Other Indicators

Employment (Thousands)

Annual

Real Personal Income (base year=200

Quarterly

39  

 

Table A.3 – Oregon Economic Forecast Change 

 

Oregon Forecast Change (Current vs. Last)

2018:1 2018:2 2018:3 2018:4 2019:1 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Nominal Personal Income 197.7 200.3 203.4 206.4 209.5 192.1 202.0 214.0 225.7 237.2 249.4% change (0.6) (0.7) (0.7) (0.6) (0.5) (0.3) (0.6) (0.4) (0.3) (0.1) 0.2

173.1 174.8 176.6 178.5 180.5 170.5 175.7 182.9 188.2 193.4 198.8% change (1.0) (1.3) (1.3) (1.2) (1.2) (0.3) (1.2) (1.2) (1.3) (1.2) (1.1)Nominal Wages and Salaries 103.4 105.0 106.7 108.3 109.9 99.7 105.9 112.2 118.2 124.0 130.2% change (0.5) (0.6) (0.6) (0.7) (0.7) (0.5) (0.6) (0.8) (0.5) (0.2) 0.2

Per Capita Income ($1,000) 47.2 47.7 48.2 48.7 49.3 46.3 48.0 50.1 52.1 54.1 56.2% change (0.6) (0.7) (0.7) (0.6) (0.5) (0.3) (0.6) (0.4) (0.3) (0.1) 0.2Average Wage rate ($1,000) 54.1 54.6 55.2 55.7 56.2 52.8 54.9 57.0 59.3 61.8 64.5% change (0.5) (0.6) (0.6) (0.6) (0.7) (0.3) (0.6) (0.8) (0.7) (0.5) (0.2)Population (Millions) 4.19 4.20 4.22 4.2 4.2 4.15 4.21 4.27 4.33 4.38 4.44% change 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Housing Starts (Thousands) 24.1 21.1 21.5 21.8 22.6 19.3 22.1 22.9 24.2 24.8 24.8% change 22.8 3.5 2.6 3.0 4.9 1.7 7.8 3.8 2.1 1.1 (0.1)Unemployment Rate 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.8 4.9Point Change (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.1) 0.0 0.2 (0.2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Nonfarm 1,895.0 1,905.9 1,917.5 1,928.4 1,939.1 1,871.6 1,911.7 1,952.5 1,976.7 1,990.4 2,003.0% change (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (0.0) 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 Private Nonfarm 1,602.5 1,612.4 1,622.9 1,632.6 1,642.2 1,562.6 1,617.6 1,654.0 1,673.5 1,685.3 1,694.8 % change 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 0.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8 Construction 103.5 103.9 103.7 103.9 104.2 97.6 103.7 104.8 106.3 107.2 107.6 % change 4.0 4.0 3.7 3.2 3.5 0.5 3.7 3.9 5.0 5.6 5.7 Manufacturing 194.1 193.7 194.9 195.5 196.0 189.9 194.6 196.7 197.7 197.8 198.0 % change 1.1 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.2 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.2 (0.0) Durable Manufacturing 134.5 134.3 135.3 135.8 135.9 131.6 135.0 136.5 137.0 136.5 136.2 % change 1.1 0.5 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.9 0.7 0.4 (0.0) (0.4) Wood Product Manufacturing 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.4 23.0 23.3 23.4 23.7 23.9 23.9 % change 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 High Tech Manufacturing 37.8 37.4 37.8 37.9 37.9 36.9 37.7 37.9 37.7 37.3 37.1 % change 0.8 (0.4) 0.5 0.4 (0.3) 0.0 0.3 (0.8) (1.4) (1.8) (1.8) Transportation Equipment 12.0 11.8 12.1 12.2 12.2 11.9 12.0 12.3 12.1 11.9 11.8 % change 1.4 (0.9) 1.2 1.4 1.7 0.5 0.8 2.1 0.8 (0.5) (0.8) Nondurable Manufacturing 59.6 59.4 59.6 59.8 60.0 58.2 59.6 60.3 60.8 61.3 61.8 % change 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 Private nonmanufacturing 1,408.4 1,418.7 1,428.0 1,437.1 1,446.2 1,372.7 1,423.0 1,457.2 1,475.7 1,487.4 1,496.8 % change 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.0 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.0 Retail Trade 210.4 211.0 211.6 212.2 212.7 210.3 211.3 213.5 214.8 215.4 215.8 % change (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) 0.0 (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) Wholesale Trade 76.9 77.4 77.8 78.2 78.4 76.6 77.6 78.7 79.2 79.6 79.7 % change 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 Information 33.6 34.3 34.5 34.6 34.6 34.1 34.3 34.5 34.6 35.0 35.1 % change (2.2) (0.9) (0.7) (0.8) (1.0) (0.3) (1.1) (1.8) (2.1) (1.5) (1.6) Professional and Business Services 244.9 248.4 252.0 256.1 260.0 243.1 250.4 265.4 273.6 277.7 281.7 % change (1.3) (1.3) (1.3) (1.3) (1.3) (0.1) (1.3) (1.3) (1.3) (1.4) (1.2) Health Services 256.5 258.8 261.0 262.9 264.8 236.2 259.8 267.5 272.5 277.1 280.9 % change 6.9 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.3 (0.1) 7.1 7.5 8.2 8.9 9.2 Leisure and Hospitality 209.4 210.6 211.9 212.9 214.0 206.0 211.2 214.7 215.1 214.6 214.3 % change (0.4) (0.4) (0.3) (0.2) (0.1) (0.2) (0.3) (0.0) 0.3 0.6 1.0 Government 292.4 293.5 294.7 295.8 296.9 309.0 294.1 298.5 303.3 305.1 308.2 % change (6.4) (6.4) (6.4) (6.4) (6.4) (0.6) (6.4) (6.4) (6.4) (6.4) (6.4)

Employment (Thousands)

Personal Income ($ billions)

Quarterly Annual

Real Personal Income (base year=200

Other Indicators

40  

 

Table A.4 – Annual Economic Forecast 

 

Jun 2018 - Personal Income

(Billions of Current Dollars)

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027Total Personal Income* Oregon 185.8 192.1 202.0 214.0 225.7 237.2 249.4 261.6 273.8 286.3 299.5 312.7 % Ch 4.2 3.3 5.1 6.0 5.4 5.1 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.4

U.S. 15,928.7 16,427.3 17,159.0 18,081.6 19,002.9 19,907.5 20,813.0 21,769.9 22,709.0 23,666.7 24,672.7 25,683.8 % Ch 2.4 3.1 4.5 5.4 5.1 4.8 4.5 4.6 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.1

Wage and SalaryOregon 96.0 99.7 105.9 112.2 118.2 124.0 130.2 136.5 143.1 149.8 156.8 163.9 % Ch 5.4 3.8 6.2 6.0 5.3 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.5

U.S. 8,085.2 8,351.2 8,762.3 9,214.9 9,678.8 10,145.1 10,623.8 11,136.1 11,650.8 12,175.3 12,716.6 13,264.8 % Ch 2.9 3.3 4.9 5.2 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.3

Other Labor IncomeOregon 22.2 23.0 23.8 25.0 26.4 27.9 29.4 30.9 32.3 33.7 35.0 36.3 % Ch 5.0 4.0 3.1 5.1 5.6 5.7 5.3 5.1 4.7 4.2 3.9 3.5 U.S. 1,309.8 1,345.8 1,385.4 1,454.0 1,526.6 1,599.5 1,672.4 1,750.8 1,825.5 1,891.6 1,954.0 2,016.4 % Ch 2.5 2.7 2.9 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.6 4.7 4.3 3.6 3.3 3.2

Nonfarm Proprietor's IncomeOregon 14.3 15.1 16.0 17.0 17.6 17.9 18.2 18.4 18.7 19.3 20.2 20.9 % Ch 9.5 5.1 6.0 6.7 3.5 1.2 1.7 1.2 1.9 3.0 4.4 3.9 U.S. 1,298.7 1,350.9 1,424.0 1,517.4 1,566.6 1,582.0 1,589.9 1,591.2 1,601.8 1,628.1 1,669.3 1,712.5 % Ch 2.7 4.0 5.4 6.6 3.2 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.7 1.6 2.5 2.6

Dividend, Interest and RentOregon 36.8 38.0 39.9 42.3 44.9 47.7 50.5 53.1 55.5 57.8 60.2 62.6

% Ch 1.8 3.4 4.9 6.1 6.1 6.1 5.9 5.2 4.4 4.1 4.3 3.9 U.S. 3,085.1 3,186.3 3,323.0 3,494.2 3,690.6 3,902.6 4,117.5 4,318.4 4,495.3 4,669.2 4,863.2 5,052.3 % Ch 1.2 3.3 4.3 5.2 5.6 5.7 5.5 4.9 4.1 3.9 4.2 3.9

Transfer PaymentsOregon 36.6 37.2 38.6 40.6 42.8 45.3 47.9 50.8 53.5 56.4 59.3 62.3

% Ch 2.4 1.6 3.7 5.3 5.3 5.7 5.9 5.9 5.5 5.4 5.2 5.0 U.S. 2,722.1 2,819.5 2,961.1 3,121.3 3,301.1 3,497.4 3,714.1 3,946.3 4,197.8 4,464.3 4,739.3 5,023.8

% Ch 3.6 3.6 5.0 5.4 5.8 5.9 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.0

Contributions for Social SecurityOregon 16.7 17.5 18.4 19.4 20.4 21.5 22.5 23.7 24.9 26.2 27.4 28.5 % Ch 4.6 5.0 5.0 5.2 5.3 5.2 4.9 5.4 5.1 4.9 4.6 4.3 U.S. 661.7 692.1 720.3 752.8 787.9 824.1 861.8 902.6 943.7 985.8 1,029.2 1,073.4 % Ch 3.9 4.6 4.1 4.5 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.3

Residence AdjustmentOregon (3.9) (4.0) (4.2) (4.3) (4.4) (4.5) (4.6) (4.7) (4.8) (5.0) (5.1) (5.3) % Ch 5.6 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.8 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.5 3.0

Farm Proprietor's IncomeOregon 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 % Ch (40.9) 10.6 (30.3) 7.9 10.8 (6.8) (12.4) 2.7 4.7 2.1 1.2 1.6

Per Capita Income (Thousands of $)Oregon 45.5 46.3 48.0 50.1 52.1 54.1 56.2 58.3 60.3 62.4 64.6 66.8 % Ch 2.6 1.8 3.6 4.5 4.0 3.8 3.9 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 U.S. 49.2 50.4 52.3 54.7 57.1 59.4 61.6 64.0 66.3 68.7 71.2 73.6 % Ch 1.7 2.4 3.7 4.6 4.4 4.0 3.8 3.9 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.4

* Personal Income includes all classes of income minus Contributions for Social Security

41  

 

 

Jun 2018 - Employment By Industry(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027Total NonfarmOregon 1,833.6 1,871.6 1,911.7 1,952.5 1,976.7 1,990.4 2,003.0 2,014.6 2,024.4 2,034.3 2,045.1 2,056.3

% Ch 3.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 U.S. 144.3 146.6 149.1 151.7 153.3 154.0 154.5 155.0 155.2 155.4 155.7 156.2

% Ch 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3

Private NonfarmOregon 1,526.9 1,562.6 1,617.6 1,654.0 1,673.5 1,685.3 1,694.8 1,703.7 1,710.8 1,717.6 1,725.1 1,732.6 % Ch 3.2 2.3 3.5 2.2 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

U.S. 122.1 124.3 126.8 129.2 130.4 131.1 131.4 131.7 131.8 131.8 131.9 132.3

% Ch 1.9 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2

Mining and LoggingOregon 7.1 6.9 6.9 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.3

% Ch (1.2) (3.8) 1.1 1.9 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4

U.S. 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

% Ch (17.8) 1.5 8.5 3.5 2.8 2.1 1.3 1.2 1.2 0.2 (0.7) (0.5)

ConstructionOregon 90.4 97.6 103.7 104.8 106.3 107.2 107.6 108.4 108.5 108.5 109.1 109.6

% Ch 8.6 7.9 6.3 1.0 1.4 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5

U.S. 6.7 7.0 7.2 7.5 7.8 8.0 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.6 8.7

% Ch 4.1 3.4 3.4 3.9 4.4 2.8 2.2 2.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.7

ManufacturingOregon 188.1 189.9 194.6 196.7 197.7 197.8 198.0 198.1 198.4 199.3 200.2 201.1

% Ch 1.0 0.9 2.5 1.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.4

U.S. 12.4 12.4 12.7 12.9 13.0 12.9 12.8 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 % Ch 0.1 0.7 1.8 2.1 0.7 (0.7) (1.1) (0.5) (0.4) 0.2 0.1 (0.2)

Durable ManufacturingOregon 131.2 131.6 135.0 136.5 137.0 136.5 136.2 135.9 135.7 135.8 136.2 136.5

% Ch 0.6 0.3 2.6 1.1 0.4 (0.3) (0.3) (0.2) (0.1) 0.1 0.3 0.2 U.S. 7.7 7.7 7.9 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.0 8.0 7.9 7.9 8.0 8.0

% Ch (0.7) 0.3 2.4 2.9 0.9 (1.0) (1.5) (0.8) (0.6) 0.3 0.3 (0.1)

Wood Products

Oregon 22.8 23.0 23.3 23.4 23.7 23.9 23.9 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.3

% Ch 1.2 1.0 1.3 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2

U.S. 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 % Ch 2.7 1.1 1.3 2.7 4.6 (0.9) 0.3 2.9 3.4 2.5 0.7 0.3

Metal and Machinery

Oregon 36.6 37.3 38.7 39.4 39.7 39.6 39.4 39.3 39.4 39.6 39.9 40.1

% Ch (0.6) 1.7 3.8 1.8 0.7 (0.1) (0.5) (0.3) 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.4

U.S. 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 % Ch (3.4) 0.4 3.6 3.6 1.9 (0.6) (0.9) 0.4 1.0 1.1 0.6 (0.4)

Computer and Electronic Products

Oregon 37.8 36.9 37.7 37.9 37.7 37.3 37.1 36.8 36.6 36.4 36.3 36.2

% Ch 0.2 (2.4) 2.4 0.3 (0.3) (1.2) (0.5) (0.7) (0.7) (0.5) (0.2) (0.2)

U.S. 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1

% Ch (0.5) (0.5) 2.5 2.0 (0.1) (0.6) 0.6 0.4 (0.1) 0.0 (0.3) (0.7) Transportation Equipment

Oregon 12.1 11.9 12.0 12.3 12.1 11.9 11.8 11.7 11.6 11.6 11.5 11.5

% Ch (2.7) (2.3) 1.2 2.3 (1.4) (1.7) (0.6) (1.0) (0.8) (0.7) (0.4) 0.1

U.S. 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

% Ch 1.6 0.1 0.3 1.3 (1.2) (1.9) (4.6) (5.0) (4.6) (2.4) 0.4 1.4

Other DurablesOregon 21.9 22.6 23.3 23.5 23.8 23.9 23.9 24.0 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.4

% Ch 4.5 3.5 2.8 1.2 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8

U.S. 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3

% Ch 1.3 0.9 2.3 3.7 1.6 (1.2) (1.2) (0.0) (0.3) 1.1 0.2 (0.1)

Nondurable ManufacturingOregon 56.9 58.2 59.6 60.3 60.8 61.3 61.8 62.2 62.7 63.4 64.0 64.6

% Ch 2.1 2.3 2.3 1.2 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.0 0.8

U.S. 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.7

% Ch 1.5 1.4 0.7 0.8 0.3 (0.1) (0.3) 0.1 (0.2) (0.0) (0.3) (0.4) Food Manufacturing

Oregon 29.1 29.9 30.7 31.2 31.5 31.8 32.0 32.2 32.4 32.7 33.1 33.4

% Ch 3.1 2.5 2.9 1.6 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.1

U.S. 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8

% Ch 3.0 3.0 0.9 2.7 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.7 1.4 1.3 0.9 0.6

Other NondurableOregon 27.8 28.4 28.9 29.0 29.3 29.5 29.8 30.1 30.3 30.7 31.0 31.1

% Ch 0.9 2.1 1.6 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.9 1.2 0.8 0.5

U.S. 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9

% Ch 0.8 0.6 0.6 (0.1) (0.3) (0.8) (1.1) (0.9) (1.1) (0.8) (1.0) (1.1)

Trade, Transportation, and UtilitiesOregon 343.5 350.0 354.3 358.6 360.5 361.7 362.4 362.8 362.5 362.1 362.2 362.3

% Ch 1.8 1.9 1.2 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 (0.1) (0.1) 0.0 0.1

U.S. 27.3 27.5 27.8 28.0 28.0 27.8 27.6 27.4 27.1 26.9 26.8 26.8

% Ch 1.4 0.8 1.1 0.8 (0.2) (0.5) (0.7) (0.9) (1.0) (0.7) (0.3) (0.1)

42  

 

 

Jun 2018 - Employment By Industry(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027Retail TradeOregon 206.9 210.3 211.3 213.5 214.8 215.4 215.8 216.1 215.8 215.5 215.6 215.7

% Ch 1.5 1.6 0.5 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 (0.1) (0.1) 0.1 0.0 U.S. 15.8 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.7 15.6 15.4 15.1 15.0 14.9 14.9

% Ch 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 (0.5) (0.8) (1.0) (1.4) (1.4) (1.0) (0.5) 0.1

Wholesale TradeOregon 75.4 76.6 77.6 78.7 79.2 79.6 79.7 79.8 79.8 79.7 79.6 79.6 % Ch 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.4 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 (0.0) (0.1) (0.1) (0.0)

U.S. 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.1 % Ch 0.1 0.7 2.1 1.6 0.5 0.2 (0.0) 0.0 (0.1) (0.3) (0.4) (0.3)

Transportation and Warehousing, and UtilitiesOregon 61.1 63.2 65.4 66.4 66.6 66.8 66.9 66.9 66.9 66.9 66.9 67.0

% Ch 2.7 3.4 3.5 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 (0.0) 0.0 0.0 0.2 U.S. 5.6 5.7 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8

% Ch 2.7 2.8 2.8 1.1 (0.2) (0.5) (0.7) (0.6) (0.7) (0.2) 0.1 (0.3)

InformationOregon 33.6 34.1 34.3 34.5 34.6 35.0 35.1 35.1 35.0 34.9 34.8 34.8 % Ch 2.0 1.6 0.5 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.3 (0.0) (0.2) (0.3) (0.3) (0.1)

U.S. 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7

% Ch 1.6 (0.0) (1.0) 0.3 0.5 1.3 0.3 (0.5) (0.6) (1.1) (1.5) (1.5)

Financial ActivitiesOregon 96.9 99.4 101.6 103.5 104.6 105.1 105.1 105.1 105.0 104.6 104.2 103.9

% Ch 2.2 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.0 0.5 (0.0) 0.0 (0.1) (0.4) (0.4) (0.3)

U.S. 8.3 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.8 8.8 8.7 8.7 % Ch 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.5 0.7 (0.2) (0.1) (0.3) (0.6) (0.6) (0.6)

Professional and Business ServicesOregon 238.4 243.1 250.4 265.4 273.6 277.7 281.7 285.5 288.4 291.8 295.0 297.6

% Ch 4.0 2.0 3.0 6.0 3.1 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.9 U.S. 20.0 20.5 21.1 22.3 23.0 23.3 23.6 23.9 24.2 24.5 24.8 25.1

% Ch 2.1 2.1 3.2 5.7 3.0 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.2

Education and Health ServicesOregon 265.2 272.3 296.5 304.4 309.6 314.5 318.6 322.4 325.9 328.4 330.6 332.9

% Ch 3.4 2.7 8.9 2.7 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.7

U.S. 22.6 23.2 23.6 23.9 24.0 24.1 24.3 24.4 24.5 24.5 24.6 24.7 % Ch 2.8 2.4 2.0 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.5

Educational ServicesOregon 35.7 36.1 36.6 36.8 37.2 37.5 37.7 37.8 37.9 38.0 38.0 38.0

% Ch 1.2 1.0 1.6 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 U.S. 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.0

% Ch 2.9 2.8 0.4 (2.1) (2.4) (2.3) (2.1) (2.4) (2.4) (2.7) (2.6) (2.2)

Health Care and Social AssistanceOregon 229.5 236.2 259.8 267.5 272.5 277.1 280.9 284.6 288.0 290.4 292.7 294.9 % Ch 3.8 2.9 10.0 3.0 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.8

U.S. 19.1 19.5 20.0 20.3 20.5 20.7 20.9 21.1 21.3 21.4 21.5 21.7 % Ch 2.8 2.3 2.3 1.6 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.9

Leisure and HospitalityOregon 199.8 206.0 211.2 214.7 215.1 214.6 214.3 214.2 214.6 215.2 215.7 216.8

% Ch 4.3 3.1 2.5 1.6 0.2 (0.2) (0.1) (0.1) 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.5 U.S. 15.7 16.1 16.4 16.6 16.6 16.7 16.8 16.8 16.9 16.8 16.7 16.6

% Ch 3.3 2.6 2.4 0.8 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.0 (0.5) (0.7) (0.1)

Other ServicesOregon 63.9 63.4 64.1 64.4 64.3 64.5 64.8 65.0 65.2 65.6 66.0 66.2 % Ch 4.9 (0.7) 1.2 0.4 (0.1) 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.3

U.S. 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.4 % Ch 1.2 1.5 0.4 (1.5) (1.3) (0.9) (0.6) (0.8) (0.7) (0.8) (0.5) (0.2)

GovernmentOregon 306.8 309.0 294.1 298.5 303.3 305.1 308.2 310.9 313.6 316.7 320.0 323.7

% Ch 1.9 0.7 (4.8) 1.5 1.6 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 U.S. 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.6 22.9 22.9 23.1 23.3 23.5 23.6 23.8 24.0

% Ch 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.8 1.4 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7

Federal GovernmentOregon 28.3 28.2 28.0 28.0 29.4 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.2 % Ch 1.9 (0.3) (0.7) 0.0 5.0 (4.2) 0.0 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0

U.S. 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8

% Ch 1.4 0.4 (0.4) (0.0) 4.5 (4.3) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

State Government, OregonState Total 55.9 56.4 39.2 39.8 40.1 40.4 40.9 41.3 41.7 42.1 42.7 43.3

% Ch (3.6) 1.0 (30.5) 1.5 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.5

State Education 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 % Ch (77.1) 4.5 (7.9) 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

Local Government, OregonLocal Total 222.6 224.4 226.9 230.7 233.8 236.5 239.1 241.4 243.7 246.3 249.1 252.2

% Ch 3.3 0.8 1.1 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 Local Education 131.2 131.7 131.7 132.7 133.6 134.5 135.3 136.0 136.5 137.0 137.7 138.5

% Ch 4.1 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.6

43  

 

    

Jun 2018 - Other Economic Indicators

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027GDP (Bil of 2009 $), Chain Weight (in billions of $) 16,716.2 17,096.2 17,559.0 18,074.7 18,457.3 18,768.6 19,074.5 19,395.0 19,729.4 20,074.3 20,429.1 20,779.1 % Ch 1.5 2.3 2.7 2.9 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.7

Price and Wage IndicatorsGDP Implicit Price Deflator, Chain Weight U.S., 2009=100 111.4 113.4 115.7 118.6 121.8 124.9 128.1 131.1 134.1 137.1 140.2 143.2

% Ch 1.3 1.8 2.0 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2

Personal Consumption Deflator, Chain Weight U.S., 2009=100 110.8 112.7 114.9 117.0 119.9 122.6 125.4 128.2 130.9 133.7 136.6 139.4 % Ch 1.2 1.7 2.0 1.8 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1

CPI, Urban Consumers, 1982-84=100West Region, Urban Size A 254.3 262.0 269.9 275.1 283.5 290.9 298.0 305.2 312.8 320.4 328.0 335.7 % Ch 2.2 3.0 3.0 1.9 3.1 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3 U.S. 240.0 245.1 250.8 255.0 262.4 268.8 275.1 281.6 288.1 294.8 301.4 308.1 % Ch 1.3 2.1 2.3 1.7 2.9 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2

Oregon Average Wage Rate (Thous $) 51.9 52.8 54.9 57.0 59.3 61.8 64.5 67.3 70.2 73.2 76.2 79.2 % Ch 2.2 1.7 4.0 3.8 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.0

U.S. Average WageWage Rate (Thous $) 56.0 57.0 58.8 60.7 63.1 65.9 68.8 71.9 75.1 78.3 81.7 84.9 % Ch 1.1 1.7 3.2 3.4 4.0 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.0

Housing IndicatorsFHFA Oregon Housing Price Index 1991 Q1=100 367.6 398.2 422.8 449.1 475.0 499.2 522.7 546.5 569.9 592.9 616.8 641.2 % Ch 11.3 8.3 6.2 6.2 5.8 5.1 4.7 4.5 4.3 4.0 4.0 4.0

FHFA National Housing Price Index 1991 Q1=100 232.4 248.0 261.7 274.8 286.3 298.7 310.4 323.0 335.9 348.6 361.6 375.3 % Ch 6.1 6.7 5.6 5.0 4.2 4.4 3.9 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.8

Housing StartsOregon (Thous) 19.1 19.3 22.1 22.9 24.2 24.8 24.8 24.9 24.4 23.9 23.7 23.5 % Ch 19.9 1.4 14.5 3.7 5.5 2.6 (0.1) 0.3 (2.0) (2.1) (0.5) (0.8) U.S. (Millions) 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 % Ch 6.3 2.6 8.7 4.7 1.3 1.0 0.6 (0.4) (1.5) (0.8) (2.0) (4.1)

Other IndicatorsUnemployment Rate (%)Oregon 4.8 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 Point Change (0.8) (0.6) 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 U.S. 4.9 4.4 3.9 3.6 3.6 3.7 4.0 4.3 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.8 Point Change (0.4) (0.5) (0.4) (0.4) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0

Industrial Production IndexU.S, 2002 = 100 102.1 103.7 109.1 112.7 115.1 116.9 118.5 120.3 121.9 123.7 125.9 127.9 % Ch (1.9) 1.6 5.2 3.3 2.1 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.6

Prime Rate (Percent) 3.5 4.1 4.9 5.8 6.4 6.5 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 % Ch 7.7 16.7 19.7 19.1 9.4 1.7 0.0 (2.1) (3.9) (1.8) (2.3) (1.9)

Population (Millions)Oregon 4.09 4.15 4.21 4.27 4.33 4.38 4.44 4.49 4.54 4.59 4.64 4.68 % Ch 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 U.S. 323.7 325.9 328.3 330.7 333.1 335.4 337.7 340.0 342.3 344.5 346.8 349.0 % Ch 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6

Timber Harvest (Mil Bd Ft)Oregon 3,888.3 3,700.0 3,915.4 3,972.3 4,047.9 4,110.7 4,175.6 4,126.6 4,128.9 4,179.4 4,176.9 4,173.0 % Ch 2.6 (4.8) 5.8 1.5 1.9 1.5 1.6 (1.2) 0.1 1.2 (0.1) (0.1)

44  

 

APPENDIX B:  REVENUE FORECAST DETAIL  

Table B.1  General Fund Revenue Statement – 2017‐19 ……………………………….………………..……..……  45 

Table B.2  General Fund Revenue Forecast by Fiscal Year .…..……………….………..……………….……….…  46 

Table B.3  Summary of 2017 Legislative Session Adjustments …………………………………………………….  47 

Table B.4  Oregon Personal Income Tax Revenue Forecast …………………………..….……………….………..  48 

Table B.5  Oregon Corporate Income Tax Revenue Forecast ……………………….….………………………….  50 

Table B.6  Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Distribution ……………………………………….……………………..………  52 

Table B.7  Liquor Apportionment and Revenue Distribution to Local Governments ……………...……  53 

Table B.8    Track Record for the May 2017 Forecast ………………………………………………………………..…..  54 

Table B.9  Summary of Lottery Resources …………….……………………………………………………………….......  55 

Table B.10  Budgetary Reserve Summary ……………..………………………………………………………………………  56 

Table B.11  Recreational Marijuana Resources and Distributions …………………………………………………  57 

     

 

45  

 

Table B.1 General Fund Revenue Statement 

 

Table B.1General Fund Revenue Statement -- 2017-19

Total Total2017-18 2018-19 2017-19 2017-18 2018-19 2017-19

Taxes Personal Income Taxes (Before Kicker) 17,147,386,000 8,495,564,000 8,679,195,000 17,174,759,000 8,780,238,000 8,914,605,000 17,694,843,000 520,084,000 547,457,000

Transfer to Counties (Gain Share) (32,956,000) (16,449,000) (16,472,000) (32,921,000) (16,473,000) (16,497,000) (32,970,000) (49,000) (14,000)

Corporate Income Taxes (Before Kicker) 1,076,977,000 557,488,000 420,686,000 978,174,000 755,398,000 518,270,000 1,273,668,000 295,494,000 196,691,000

Transfer to Rainy Day Fund (Minimum Tax) (42,504,000) (16,183,000) (17,856,000) (34,039,000) (16,183,000) (20,385,000) (36,568,000) (2,529,000) 5,936,000

Insurance Taxes 129,852,000 58,719,000 67,933,000 126,652,000 61,963,000 67,605,000 129,568,000 2,916,000 (284,000)

Estate Taxes 290,015,000 150,716,000 152,299,000 303,015,000 150,716,000 152,299,000 303,015,000 0 13,000,000

Cigarette Taxes 67,837,000 34,861,000 33,616,000 68,477,000 33,708,000 33,616,000 67,324,000 (1,153,000) (513,000)

Other Tobacco Products Taxes 66,329,000 32,990,000 33,419,000 66,409,000 32,900,000 33,419,000 66,319,000 (90,000) (10,000)

Other Taxes 1,676,000 843,000 833,000 1,676,000 843,000 833,000 1,676,000 0 0

Fines and FeesState Court Fees 114,733,000 57,459,000 58,063,000 115,522,000 58,139,000 58,118,000 116,257,000 735,000 1,524,000

Secretary of State Fees 64,707,000 32,140,000 32,567,000 64,707,000 32,140,000 32,567,000 64,707,000 0 0

Criminal Fines & Assessments 66,796,000 33,483,000 33,483,000 66,966,000 32,386,000 32,386,000 64,772,000 (2,194,000) (2,024,000)

Securities Fees 23,008,000 11,687,000 11,923,000 23,610,000 11,345,000 11,628,000 22,973,000 (637,000) (35,000)

Central Service Charges 10,876,000 5,438,000 5,438,000 10,876,000 5,438,000 5,438,000 10,876,000 0 0

Liquor Apportionment 326,090,000 155,717,000 166,229,000 321,946,000 153,721,000 166,229,000 319,950,000 (1,996,000) (6,140,000)

Interest Earnings 35,279,000 17,563,000 20,016,000 37,579,000 17,563,000 20,016,000 37,579,000 0 2,300,000

Miscellaneous Revenues 19,027,000 9,425,000 9,602,000 19,027,000 9,425,000 9,602,000 19,027,000 0 0

One-time Transfers 111,340,000 3,040,000 108,300,000 111,340,000 3,040,000 108,300,000 111,340,000 0 0

Gross General Fund Revenues 19,551,928,000 9,657,133,000 9,833,602,000 19,490,735,000 10,138,963,000 10,164,931,000 20,303,894,000 813,159,000 751,966,000

Total Personal and Corporate Transfers (75,460,000) (32,632,000) (34,328,000) (66,960,000) (32,656,000) (36,882,000) (69,538,000) (2,578,000) 5,922,000

Net General Fund Revenues 19,476,468,000 9,624,501,000 9,799,274,000 19,423,775,000 10,106,307,000 10,128,049,000 20,234,356,000 810,581,000 757,888,000

Plus Beginning Balance 780,836,010 977,872,335 1,000,385,138 22,512,803 219,549,128

Less Anticipated Administrative Actions* (21,472,000) (21,472,000) (21,472,000) 0 0

Less Legislatively Adopted Actions** (180,120,396) (179,424,096) (179,424,096) 0 696,300

Available Resources 20,055,711,615 20,200,751,239 21,033,845,042 833,093,803 978,133,428

Appropriations 19,858,800,000 19,855,894,308 19,925,773,545 69,879,237 66,973,545

Projected Expenditures 19,858,800,000 19,855,894,308 19,925,773,545 69,879,237 66,973,545

Estimated Ending Balance 196,911,615 344,856,931 1,108,071,497 763,214,566 911,159,883

Estimate at COS 2017

Forecasts Dated: 3/1/2018 Forecasts Dated: 6/1/2018 Difference

06/1/2018 Less 3/1/2018

06/1/2018 Less COS

46  

 

Table B.2 General Fund Revenue Forecast by Fiscal Year 

 

Fiscal Years

2015-16Fiscal Year

2016-17Fiscal Year

2017-18Fiscal Year

2018-19Fiscal Year

2019-20Fiscal Year

2020-21Fiscal Year

2021-22Fiscal Year

2022-23Fiscal Year

2023-24Fiscal Year

2024-25Fiscal Year

2025-26Fiscal Year

2026-27Fiscal Year

Taxes

Personal Income 7,598.6 8,457.3 8,780.2 8,914.6 9,163.9 10,016.9 10,718.7 11,193.4 11,703.7 12,337.6 12,882.9 13,252.9Offsets and Transfers (16.4) (16.4) (16.5) (16.5) (16.5) (16.5) (16.6) (16.6) (16.6) (16.7) (16.7) (16.7)Corporate Excise & Income 603.1 607.7 755.4 518.3 521.1 554.3 599.9 638.2 659.2 683.9 735.8 773.3Offsets and Transfers 0.0 0.0 (16.2) (20.4) (164.4) (19.7) (20.6) (20.9) (23.8) (22.1) (24.8) (25.2)Insurance 64.9 74.3 62.0 67.6 68.6 70.7 75.9 75.0 76.7 78.3 80.0 82.1Estate 126.0 196.9 150.7 152.3 155.3 159.7 164.7 169.1 173.6 178.6 183.7 189.1Cigarette 36.2 34.3 33.7 33.6 33.2 32.5 31.9 31.4 30.8 30.3 29.8 29.3Other Tobacco Products 31.0 31.4 32.9 33.4 34.0 34.6 35.2 35.9 36.7 37.4 38.1 38.7Other Taxes 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

Other Revenues

Licenses and Fees 124.7 121.4 134.0 134.7 136.2 137.7 137.9 139.3 140.1 141.1 141.5 142.4Charges for Services 5.2 5.1 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4Liquor Apportionment 127.1 134.8 153.7 166.2 173.7 181.5 189.7 198.2 207.2 216.5 226.2 236.4Interest Earnings 7.4 17.5 17.6 20.0 26.4 33.7 35.5 38.5 40.5 42.5 44.8 47.0Others 4.4 144.9 12.5 117.9 9.8 10.0 10.2 10.4 10.6 10.8 10.6 10.8

Gross General Fund 8,729.5 9,826.4 10,139.0 10,164.9 10,328.3 11,237.8 12,005.7 12,535.6 13,085.3 13,763.3 14,379.6 14,808.2

Net General Fund 8,713.1 9,810.0 10,106.3 10,128.0 10,147.4 11,201.5 11,968.5 12,498.2 13,044.9 13,724.5 14,338.0 14,766.2

Biennial Totals2015-17

BienniumPercent Change

2017-19 Biennium

Percent Change2019-21

BienniumPercent Change

2021-23 Biennium

Percent Change2023-25

BienniumPercent Change

2025-27 Biennium

Percent Change

Taxes

Personal Income 16,055.8 15.0% 17,694.8 10.2% 19,180.8 8.4% 21,912.2 14.2% 24,041.3 9.7% 26,135.8 8.7%Corporate Excise & Income 1,210.7 8.4% 1,273.7 5.2% 1,075.4 -15.6% 1,238.0 15.1% 1,343.1 8.5% 1,509.1 12.4%Insurance 139.2 15.0% 129.6 -6.9% 139.2 7.4% 150.9 8.4% 155.1 2.8% 162.1 4.5%Estate Taxes 322.8 64.3% 303.0 -6.1% 315.0 3.9% 333.7 6.0% 352.1 5.5% 372.8 5.9%Cigarette 70.5 -3.8% 67.3 -4.5% 65.6 -2.6% 63.3 -3.5% 61.1 -3.5% 59.1 -3.3%Other Tobacco Products 62.4 3.8% 66.3 6.3% 68.5 3.3% 71.0 3.7% 74.1 4.3% 76.7 3.6%Other Taxes 1.8 -10.8% 1.7 -7.0% 1.6 -2.4% 1.6 -0.6% 1.6 0.0% 1.6 0.0%

Other Revenues

Licenses and Fees 246.2 -4.0% 268.7 9.2% 273.9 1.9% 277.1 1.2% 281.2 1.5% 283.9 0.9%Charges for Services 10.3 17.8% 10.9 5.8% 10.9 0.0% 10.9 0.0% 10.9 0.0% 10.9 0.0%Liquor Apportionment 261.9 6.2% 319.9 22.1% 355.2 11.0% 387.9 9.2% 423.6 9.2% 462.6 9.2%Interest Earnings 24.9 176.1% 37.6 51.1% 60.1 60.0% 74.0 23.1% 83.0 12.2% 91.8 10.5%Others 149.4 164.6% 130.4 -12.7% 19.8 -84.8% 20.6 4.0% 21.4 3.9% 21.4 0.0%

Gross General Fund 18,555.9 15.2% 20,303.9 9.4% 21,566.1 6.2% 24,541.3 13.8% 26,848.6 9.4% 29,187.7 8.7%

Net General Fund 18,523.0 15.5% 20,234.4 9.2% 21,348.9 5.5% 24,466.7 14.6% 26,769.3 9.4% 29,104.3 8.7%

General Fund Revenue Forecast($Millions)

June 2018

47  

 

Table B.3 Summary of 2017 Legislative Session Adjustments 

17-19 19-21 21-23

Revenue Impact Statement

Personal Income Tax Impacts (millions)

Film/Video Rebate - HB 2244 -$4.6 -$9.7 -$10.5 HB 2244

Employee Training – HB 3206 $0.0 -$0.1 -$0.1 HB 3206

Withholding from Lottery Prizes

DOR Data Match – SB 254 $1.7 $7.0 $8.6 SB 254

Prize Threshold Change – SB 251 $2.4 $3.3 $3.3 SB 251

Tax Credits - HB 2066 HB 2066

Rural Medical Providers $1.0 -$1.4 -$3.9

Personal Income Tax Total $0.5 -$0.9 -$2.6

Corporate Income Tax Impacts (millions)

Market Based Apportionment - SB 28 $5.5 $11.1 $11.7 SB 28

Tax Credits - HB 2066 HB 2066

Affordable Lender’s Credit $0.0 -$1.1 -$6.8

C-Corp Min Tax Credits $0.0 $0.0 $1.7 Corporate Income Tax Total $5.5 $10.0 $6.6

Other Tax/Revenue Impacts (millions)

Program Change Bill - HB 3470 $111.3 $0.0 $0.0 HB 3470

OLCC Revenues - HB 5019 $9.2 $9.5 $9.7 HB 5019

Provider Tax - HB 2391 -$2.0 -$6.0 $0.0 HB 2391

Tobacco Under 21 - SB 754 -$0.4 -$1.0 -$1.5 SB 754

Photo Radar - HB 2409 $8.3 $10.4 $12.2 HB 2409

Other Tax Total $126.4 $12.9 $20.4

   

48  

 

Table B.4 Oregon Personal Income Tax Revenue Forecast 

 

 

 

 

TABLE B.4

2009:3 2009:4 2010:1 2010:2 FY 2010 2010:3 2010:4 2011:1 2011:2 FY 2011

WITHHOLDING 1,092,795 1,151,673 1,157,857 1,116,552 4,518,878 1,146,189 1,196,214 1,262,781 1,218,439 4,823,622 %CHYA -6.0% -2.6% 2.6% 2.5% -1.0% 4.9% 3.9% 9.1% 9.1% 6.7%

EST. PAYMENTS 176,110 161,759 186,894 265,703 790,467 179,692 148,589 207,036 284,662 819,978 %CHYA -33.4% -7.5% -14.0% 1.0% -14.1% 2.0% -8.1% 10.8% 7.1% 3.7%

FINAL PAYMENTS 63,363 77,013 105,745 515,262 761,383 62,259 81,728 114,877 607,592 866,456 %CHYA -9.9% -22.5% 1.6% -2.8% -5.3% -1.7% 6.1% 8.6% 17.9% 13.8%

REFUNDS 96,477 188,704 459,550 380,459 1,125,190 92,291 151,515 432,478 340,652 1,016,937 %CHYA 4.8% 4.6% 2.6% -5.9% 0.1% -4.3% -19.7% -5.9% -10.5% -9.6%

OTHER (138,521) - - 136,193 (2,328) (136,193) - - 165,933 29,740 TOTAL 1,097,271 1,201,740 990,947 1,653,251 4,943,210 1,159,655 1,275,015 1,152,216 1,935,973 5,522,860 %CHYA -10.2% -5.9% -1.2% 2.3% -3.4% 5.7% 6.1% 16.3% 17.1% 11.7%

2011:3 2011:4 2012:1 2012:2 FY 2012 2012:3 2012:4 2013:1 2013:2 FY 2013

WITHHOLDING 1,235,508 1,287,030 1,348,171 1,269,562 5,140,271 1,262,589 1,364,547 1,354,116 1,321,413 5,302,666 %CHYA 7.8% 7.6% 6.8% 4.2% 6.6% 2.2% 6.0% 0.4% 4.1% 3.2%

EST. PAYMENTS 194,674 185,239 199,238 299,646 878,797 205,533 159,104 278,341 321,896 964,874 %CHYA 8.3% 24.7% -3.8% 5.3% 7.2% 5.6% -14.1% 39.7% 7.4% 9.8%

FINAL PAYMENTS 85,889 87,233 117,628 627,762 918,512 72,224 91,338 123,456 785,542 1,072,560 %CHYA 38.0% 6.7% 2.4% 3.3% 6.0% -15.9% 4.7% 5.0% 25.1% 16.8%

REFUNDS 64,687 156,272 530,800 360,618 1,112,377 52,211 109,503 536,506 383,176 1,081,397 %CHYA -29.9% 3.1% 22.7% 5.9% 9.4% -19.3% -29.9% 1.1% 6.3% -2.8%

OTHER (165,933) - - 193,614 27,681 (193,614) - - 201,367 7,753 TOTAL 1,285,451 1,403,230 1,134,237 2,029,966 5,852,884 1,294,521 1,505,486 1,219,407 2,247,042 6,266,457 %CHYA 10.8% 10.1% -1.6% 4.9% 6.0% 0.7% 7.3% 7.5% 10.7% 7.1%

2013:3 2013:4 2014:1 2014:2 FY 2014 2014:3 2014:4 2015:1 2015:2 FY 2015

WITHHOLDING 1,333,946 1,435,630 1,442,755 1,420,313 5,632,644 1,455,822 1,523,453 1,576,188 1,505,337 6,060,801 %CHYA 5.7% 5.2% 6.5% 7.5% 6.2% 9.1% 6.1% 9.2% 6.0% 7.6%

EST. PAYMENTS 221,695 214,342 247,826 357,218 1,041,080 264,823 236,303 305,582 408,957 1,215,665 %CHYA 7.9% 34.7% -11.0% 11.0% 7.9% 19.5% 10.2% 23.3% 14.5% 16.8%

FINAL PAYMENTS 83,096 112,495 139,923 730,795 1,066,309 92,647 144,239 156,188 847,330 1,240,403 %CHYA 15.1% 23.2% 13.3% -7.0% -0.6% 11.5% 28.2% 11.6% 15.9% 16.3%

REFUNDS 67,098 197,448 472,018 354,437 1,091,001 100,729 173,522 520,272 375,119 1,169,642 %CHYA 28.5% 80.3% -12.0% -7.5% 0.9% 50.1% -12.1% 10.2% 5.8% 7.2%

OTHER (201,367) - - 180,356 (21,011) (180,356) - - 163,398 (16,959) TOTAL 1,370,272 1,565,018 1,358,485 2,334,246 6,628,021 1,532,207 1,730,473 1,517,685 2,549,903 7,330,268 %CHYA 5.9% 4.0% 11.4% 3.9% 5.8% 11.8% 10.6% 11.7% 9.2% 10.6%

2015:3 2015:4 2016:1 2016:2 FY 2016 2016:3 2016:4 2017:1 2017:2 FY 2017

WITHHOLDING 1,551,517 1,644,209 1,711,568 1,634,728 6,542,022 1,675,744 1,705,280 1,835,155 1,769,354 6,985,533 %CHYA 6.6% 7.9% 8.6% 8.6% 7.9% 8.0% 3.7% 7.2% 8.2% 6.8%

EST. PAYMENTS 309,470 141,009 327,008 423,839 1,201,325 300,866 319,225 382,445 450,241 1,452,777 %CHYA 16.9% -40.3% 7.0% 5.7% -0.5% -2.8% 126.4% 17.0% 6.2% 20.9%

FINAL PAYMENTS1

99,618 321,345 141,818 813,132 1,375,913 103,631 144,248 175,235 919,186 1,342,301 %CHYA 7.5% 122.8% -9.2% -4.9% 10.2% 4.0% -55.1% 23.6% 13.0% -2.4%

REFUNDS 85,113 203,981 577,546 562,601 1,429,241 138,825 254,851 574,417 454,899 1,422,992 %CHYA -15.5% 17.6% 11.0% 50.0% 22.2% 63.1% 24.9% -0.5% -19.1% -0.4%

OTHER (163,398) - - 236,108 72,710 (236,108) - - 192,251 (43,856) TOTAL 1,712,094 1,902,583 1,602,848 2,545,205 7,762,729 1,705,308 1,913,902 1,818,419 2,876,134 8,313,763 %CHYA 11.7% 9.9% 5.6% -0.2% 5.9% -0.4% 0.6% 13.4% 13.0% 7.1%

June 2018OREGON PERSONAL INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS

Thousands of Dollars - Not Seasonally Adjusted

Note: "Other" includes July withholding accrued to June. Tax law impacts are reflected in the collections numbers to produce more meaningful projections.

49  

 

 

TABLE B.4

2017:3 2017:4 2018:1 2018:2 FY 2018 2018:3 2018:4 2019:1 2019:2 FY 2019

WITHHOLDING 1,748,844 1,836,249 2,011,564 1,844,292 7,440,948 1,829,728 1,866,731 2,118,122 1,915,025 7,729,605 %CHYA 4.4% 7.7% 9.6% 4.2% 6.5% 4.6% 1.7% 5.3% 3.8% 3.9%

EST. PAYMENTS 321,032 451,037 464,534 438,900 1,675,503 313,682 269,358 377,126 424,935 1,385,101 %CHYA 6.7% 41.3% 21.5% -2.5% 15.3% -2.3% -40.3% -18.8% -3.2% -17.3%

FINAL PAYMENTS1

92,364 169,785 174,096 875,851 1,312,097 92,488 147,229 172,604 963,535 1,375,855 %CHYA -10.9% 17.7% -0.6% -4.7% -2.3% 0.1% -13.3% -0.9% 10.0% 4.9%

REFUNDS 133,143 266,467 686,100 612,763 1,698,474 136,815 268,957 647,302 541,833 1,594,907 %CHYA -4.1% 4.6% 19.4% 34.7% 19.4% 2.8% 0.9% -5.7% -11.6% -6.1%

OTHER (192,251) - - 242,415 50,163 (242,415) - - 261,364 18,950 TOTAL 1,836,845 2,190,604 1,964,094 2,788,695 8,780,238 1,856,668 2,014,362 2,020,550 3,023,025 8,914,605 %CHYA 7.7% 14.5% 8.0% -3.0% 5.6% 1.1% -8.0% 2.9% 8.4% 1.5%

2019:3 2019:4 2020:1 2020:2 FY 2020 2020:3 2020:4 2021:1 2021:2 FY 2021

WITHHOLDING 1,940,463 2,048,736 2,244,085 2,019,200 8,252,484 2,051,914 2,166,407 2,363,835 2,125,736 8,707,892 %CHYA 6.1% 9.7% 5.9% 5.4% 6.8% 5.7% 5.7% 5.3% 5.3% 5.5%

EST. PAYMENTS 319,828 306,809 382,661 474,903 1,484,202 334,592 320,972 400,452 498,525 1,554,540 %CHYA 2.0% 13.9% 1.5% 11.8% 7.2% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 5.0% 4.7%

FINAL PAYMENTS1

107,193 155,296 158,298 869,887 1,290,674 98,099 139,036 170,734 1,047,007 1,454,876 %CHYA 15.9% 5.5% -8.3% -9.7% -6.2% -8.5% -10.5% 7.9% 20.4% 12.7%

REFUNDS 101,841 226,262 832,494 641,792 1,802,389 128,860 292,567 744,306 560,456 1,726,189 %CHYA -25.6% -15.9% 28.6% 18.4% 13.0% 26.5% 29.3% -10.6% -12.7% -4.2%

OTHER (261,364) - - 200,280 (61,084) (200,280) - - 226,040 25,760 TOTAL 2,004,279 2,284,579 1,952,550 2,922,479 9,163,888 2,155,464 2,333,848 2,190,714 3,336,852 10,016,878 %CHYA 8.0% 13.4% -3.4% -3.3% 2.8% 7.5% 2.2% 12.2% 14.2% 9.3%

2021:3 2021:4 2022:1 2022:2 FY 2022 2022:3 2022:4 2023:1 2023:2 FY 2023

WITHHOLDING 2,160,059 2,280,612 2,488,317 2,237,668 9,166,657 2,273,542 2,400,429 2,620,649 2,356,884 9,651,504 %CHYA 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3%

EST. PAYMENTS 351,211 336,914 420,089 519,892 1,628,106 366,222 351,315 438,252 544,897 1,700,686 %CHYA 5.0% 5.0% 4.9% 4.3% 4.7% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.8% 4.5%

FINAL PAYMENTS1

107,281 156,649 183,070 1,106,130 1,553,130 113,257 164,752 187,695 1,135,423 1,601,127 %CHYA 9.4% 12.7% 7.2% 5.6% 6.8% 5.6% 5.2% 2.5% 2.6% 3.1%

REFUNDS 114,957 257,510 747,034 565,241 1,684,742 121,004 271,872 806,122 610,896 1,809,893 %CHYA -10.8% -12.0% 0.4% 0.9% -2.4% 5.3% 5.6% 7.9% 8.1% 7.4%

OTHER (226,040) - - 281,611 55,571 (281,611) - - 331,622 50,011

TOTAL 2,277,553 2,516,666 2,344,442 3,580,059 10,718,720 2,350,406 2,644,625 2,440,475 3,757,929 11,193,435 %CHYA 5.7% 7.8% 7.0% 7.3% 7.0% 3.2% 5.1% 4.1% 5.0% 4.4%

2023:3 2023:4 2024:1 2024:2 FY 2024 2024:3 2024:4 2025:1 2025:2 FY 2025

WITHHOLDING 2,392,663 2,526,194 2,760,562 2,483,061 10,162,479 2,519,860 2,660,482 2,901,949 2,609,521 10,691,813 %CHYA 5.2% 5.2% 5.3% 5.4% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.1% 5.1% 5.2%

EST. PAYMENTS 383,516 367,904 459,405 576,782 1,787,608 405,815 389,296 485,869 606,991 1,887,970 %CHYA 4.7% 4.7% 4.8% 5.9% 5.1% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.2% 5.6%

FINAL PAYMENTS1

116,131 169,292 198,671 1,189,412 1,673,506 123,190 178,824 210,198 1,269,776 1,781,988 %CHYA 2.5% 2.8% 5.8% 4.8% 4.5% 6.1% 5.6% 5.8% 6.8% 6.5%

REFUNDS 130,239 292,882 854,858 647,801 1,925,780 137,932 309,911 891,360 675,397 2,014,600 %CHYA 7.6% 7.7% 6.0% 6.0% 6.4% 5.9% 5.8% 4.3% 4.3% 4.6%

OTHER (331,622) - - 337,463 5,842 (337,463) - - 327,937 (9,526) TOTAL 2,430,449 2,770,508 2,563,781 3,938,917 11,703,655 2,573,470 2,918,691 2,706,656 4,138,828 12,337,645 %CHYA 3.4% 4.8% 5.1% 4.8% 4.6% 5.9% 5.3% 5.6% 5.1% 5.4%

2025:3 2025:4 2026:1 2026:2 FY 2026 2026:3 2026:4 2027:1 2027:2 FY 2027

WITHHOLDING 2,631,174 2,778,023 3,027,053 2,721,607 11,157,857 2,739,693 2,892,608 3,148,535 2,830,382 11,611,218 %CHYA 4.4% 4.4% 4.3% 4.3% 4.4% 4.1% 4.1% 4.0% 4.0% 4.1%

EST. PAYMENTS 424,322 407,049 507,806 631,716 1,970,893 440,881 422,934 527,565 655,587 2,046,968 %CHYA 4.6% 4.6% 4.5% 4.1% 4.4% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.8% 3.9%

FINAL PAYMENTS1

129,536 188,495 220,298 1,334,483 1,872,813 135,329 197,128 229,896 1,388,982 1,951,335 %CHYA 5.2% 5.4% 4.8% 5.1% 5.1% 4.5% 4.6% 4.4% 4.1% 4.2%

REFUNDS 144,806 324,876 978,734 749,641 2,198,057 154,181 346,023 1,048,874 803,515 2,352,593 %CHYA 5.0% 4.8% 9.8% 11.0% 9.1% 6.5% 6.5% 7.2% 7.2% 7.0%

OTHER (327,937) - - 270,061 79,414 (270,061) - - 303,955 (4,072) TOTAL 2,712,288 3,048,691 2,776,424 4,208,226 12,882,920 2,891,662 3,166,647 2,857,122 4,375,392 13,252,856 %CHYA 5.4% 4.5% 2.6% 1.7% 4.4% 6.6% 3.9% 2.9% 4.0% 2.9%

Note: "Other" includes July withholding accrued to June. Tax law impacts are reflected in the collections numbers to produce more meaningful projections.

June 2018OREGON PERSONAL INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS

Thousands of Dollars - Not Seasonally Adjusted

50  

 

Table B.5 Oregon Corporate Income Tax Revenue Forecast  

 

 

TABLE B.5

FY FY2009:3 2009:4 2010:1 2010:2 2010 2010:3 2010:4 2011:1 2011:2 2011

ADVANCE PAYMENTS 79,579 163,877 66,451 147,313 457,220 115,286 175,561 76,405 165,354 532,606 %CHYA -20.9% 12.8% 4.2% 51.3% 12.3% 44.9% 7.1% 15.0% 12.2% 16.5%

FINAL PAYMENTS 20,404 24,009 38,412 45,714 128,539 21,781 21,206 35,770 40,805 119,562 %CHYA -13.2% -10.2% 72.1% 109.5% 36.2% 6.8% -11.7% -6.9% -10.7% -7.0%

REFUNDS 29,072 137,244 40,080 25,774 232,170 23,130 89,877 39,065 31,489 183,562 %CHYA 3.3% 9.9% -40.6% -30.7% -9.9% -20.4% -34.5% -2.5% 22.2% -20.9%

TOTAL 70,910 50,642 64,784 167,254 353,589 113,936 106,890 73,111 174,670 468,606 %CHYA -26.1% 7.3% 247.5% 104.0% 45.1% 60.7% 111.1% 12.9% 4.4% 32.5%

FY FY2011:3 2011:4 2012:1 2012:2 2012 2012:3 2012:4 2013:1 2013:2 2013

ADVANCE PAYMENTS 120,766 154,290 86,873 156,652 518,581 130,348 110,207 80,942 282,526 604,023 %CHYA 4.8% -12.1% 13.7% -5.3% -2.6% 7.9% -28.6% -6.8% 80.4% 16.5%

FINAL PAYMENTS 19,117 26,841 32,512 33,322 111,792 16,387 21,377 36,660 34,009 108,433 %CHYA -12.2% 26.6% -9.1% -18.3% -6.5% -14.3% -20.4% 12.8% 2.1% -3.0%

REFUNDS 34,927 91,252 55,051 18,153 199,384 33,212 17,832 25,595 182,929 259,568 %CHYA 51.0% 1.5% 40.9% -42.4% 8.6% -4.9% -80.5% -53.5% 907.7% 30.2%

TOTAL 104,955 89,878 64,335 171,820 430,989 113,524 113,751 92,007 133,606 452,888 %CHYA -7.9% -15.9% -12.0% -1.6% -8.0% 8.2% 26.6% 43.0% -22.2% 5.1%

FY FY2013:3 2013:4 2014:1 2014:2 2014 2014:3 2014:4 2015:1 2015:2 2015

ADVANCE PAYMENTS 123,591 187,195 150,401 183,348 644,535 193,248 206,088 106,689 183,611 689,637 %CHYA -5.2% 69.9% 85.8% -35.1% 6.7% 56.4% 10.1% -29.1% 0.1% 7.0%

FINAL PAYMENTS 27,794 18,162 32,218 52,283 130,456 28,815 73,552 57,268 71,415 231,051 %CHYA 69.6% -15.0% -12.1% 53.7% 20.3% 3.7% 305.0% 77.8% 36.6% 77.1%

REFUNDS 20,123 118,303 109,296 32,511 280,232 49,952 155,439 58,361 35,167 298,918 %CHYA -39.4% 563.4% 327.0% -82.2% 8.0% 148.2% 31.4% -46.6% 8.2% 6.7%

TOTAL 131,262 87,054 73,323 203,120 494,759 172,111 124,202 105,597 219,860 621,770 %CHYA 15.6% -23.5% -20.3% 52.0% 9.2% 31.1% 42.7% 44.0% 8.2% 25.7%

FY FY2015:3 2015:4 2016:1 2016:2 2016 2016:3 2016:4 2017:1 2017:2 2017

ADVANCE PAYMENTS 173,329 220,326 118,673 202,813 715,141 136,698 215,677 102,663 195,412 650,449 %CHYA -10.3% 6.9% 11.2% 10.5% 3.7% -21.1% -2.1% -13.5% -3.6% -9.0%

FINAL PAYMENTS 67,305 59,752 63,509 70,433 260,998 44,746 93,441 52,164 81,824 272,175 %CHYA 133.6% -18.8% 10.9% -1.4% 13.0% -33.5% 56.4% -17.9% 16.2% 4.3%

REFUNDS 42,388 156,984 85,446 81,453 366,271 39,680 166,537 73,066 57,733 337,016

%CHYA -15.1% 1.0% 46.4% 131.6% 22.5% -6.4% 6.1% -14.5% -29.1% -8.0%

TOTAL 198,245 123,094 96,736 191,793 609,868 141,764 142,581 81,761 219,503 585,608 %CHYA 15.2% -0.9% -8.4% -12.8% -1.9% -28.5% 15.8% -15.5% 14.4% -4.0%

OREGON CORPORATE INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONSThousands of Dollars - Not Seasonally Adjusted June 2018

51  

 

 

TABLE B.5

FY FY2017:3 2017:4 2018:1 2018:2 2018 2018:3 2018:4 2019:1 2019:2 2019

ADVANCE PAYMENTS 179,603 185,787 182,395 217,656 765,440 169,776 204,445 112,337 188,381 674,939 %CHYA 31.4% -13.9% 77.7% 11.4% 17.7% -5.5% 10.0% -38.4% -13.5% -11.8%

FINAL PAYMENTS 42,600 66,460 86,270 155,840 351,170 35,483 77,431 52,463 63,111 228,489 %CHYA -4.8% -28.9% -11.3% 41.6% -0.4% -16.7% 16.5% -39.2% -59.5% -34.9%

REFUNDS 72,225 129,963 122,291 36,734 361,212 57,476 165,347 96,856 65,480 385,158

%CHYA 82.0% -22.0% 67.4% -36.4% 7.2% -20.4% 27.2% -20.8% 78.3% 6.6%

TOTAL 149,978 122,284 146,374 336,762 755,398 147,783 116,529 67,945 186,013 518,270 %CHYA 5.8% -14.2% 30.1% 35.2% 15.3% -1.5% -4.7% -53.6% -44.8% -31.4%

FY FY2019:3 2019:4 2020:1 2020:2 2020 2020:3 2020:4 2021:1 2021:2 2021

ADVANCE PAYMENTS 155,870 203,117 109,541 188,061 656,588 161,558 210,792 113,362 195,167 680,880 %CHYA -8.2% -0.6% -2.5% -0.2% -2.7% 3.6% 3.8% 3.5% 3.8% 3.7%

FINAL PAYMENTS 32,764 101,856 72,275 62,308 269,203 33,268 113,944 78,037 66,206 291,455 %CHYA -7.7% 31.5% 37.8% -1.3% 17.8% 1.5% 11.9% 8.0% 6.3% 8.3%

REFUNDS 49,032 192,818 96,676 66,203 404,730 48,359 201,157 100,094 68,417 418,027

%CHYA -14.7% 16.6% -0.2% 1.1% 5.1% -1.4% 4.3% 3.5% 3.3% 3.3%

TOTAL 139,601 112,154 85,140 184,166 521,061 146,468 123,578 91,305 192,957 554,308 %CHYA -5.5% -3.8% 25.3% -1.0% 0.5% 4.9% 10.2% 7.2% 4.8% 6.4%

FY FY2021:3 2021:4 2022:1 2022:2 2022 2022:3 2022:4 2023:1 2023:2 2023

ADVANCE PAYMENTS 168,284 219,432 118,725 204,828 711,268 174,554 227,411 123,719 213,330 739,015 %CHYA 4.2% 4.1% 4.7% 4.9% 4.5% 3.7% 3.6% 4.2% 4.2% 3.9%

FINAL PAYMENTS 35,266 131,002 86,245 72,973 325,486 38,517 147,369 94,635 80,605 361,126 %CHYA 6.0% 15.0% 10.5% 10.2% 11.7% 9.2% 12.5% 9.7% 10.5% 10.9%

REFUNDS 49,246 212,324 104,370 70,937 436,877 51,096 226,208 110,201 74,484 461,988

%CHYA 1.8% 5.6% 4.3% 3.7% 4.5% 3.8% 6.5% 5.6% 5.0% 5.7%

TOTAL 154,304 138,110 100,600 206,863 599,878 161,976 148,573 108,154 219,451 638,154 %CHYA 5.4% 11.8% 10.2% 7.2% 8.2% 5.0% 7.6% 7.5% 6.1% 6.4%

FY FY2023:3 2023:4 2024:1 2024:2 2024 2024:3 2024:4 2025:1 2025:2 2025

ADVANCE PAYMENTS 178,673 232,554 126,750 217,857 755,835 181,348 235,756 128,628 221,392 767,124 %CHYA 2.4% 2.3% 2.4% 2.1% 2.3% 1.5% 1.4% 1.5% 1.6% 1.5%

FINAL PAYMENTS 42,150 162,524 122,669 101,885 429,229 55,018 231,928 146,626 122,954 556,525 %CHYA 9.4% 10.3% 29.6% 26.4% 18.9% 30.5% 42.7% 19.5% 20.7% 29.7%

REFUNDS 54,090 245,303 136,205 90,300 525,899 63,276 312,968 159,084 104,381 639,709

%CHYA 5.9% 8.4% 23.6% 21.2% 13.8% 17.0% 27.6% 16.8% 15.6% 21.6%

TOTAL 166,732 149,775 113,214 229,443 659,164 173,090 154,716 116,170 239,965 683,940 %CHYA 2.9% 0.8% 4.7% 4.6% 3.3% 3.8% 3.3% 2.6% 4.6% 3.8%

FY FY2025:3 2025:4 2026:1 2026:2 2026 2026:3 2026:4 2027:1 2027:2 2027

ADVANCE PAYMENTS 187,000 243,319 132,730 228,643 791,692 193,565 251,701 122,780 211,615 779,661 %CHYA 3.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.3% 3.2% 3.5% 3.4% -7.5% -7.4% -1.5%

FINAL PAYMENTS 69,254 291,243 151,686 134,303 646,485 77,863 296,948 62,413 105,999 543,223 %CHYA 25.9% 25.6% 3.5% 9.2% 16.2% 12.4% 2.0% -58.9% -21.1% -16.0%

REFUNDS 70,425 365,581 160,769 105,641 702,416 71,320 367,681 62,984 47,598 549,582

%CHYA 11.3% 16.8% 1.1% 1.2% 9.8% 1.3% 0.6% -60.8% -54.9% -21.8%

TOTAL 185,829 168,981 123,646 257,305 735,761 200,108 180,968 122,209 270,017 773,302 %CHYA 7.4% 9.2% 6.4% 7.2% 7.6% 7.7% 7.1% -1.2% 4.9% 5.1%

June 2018OREGON CORPORATE INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS

Thousands of Dollars - Not Seasonally Adjusted

52  

 

Table B.6 Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Distribution 

 

 

 

TABLE B.6Cigarette & Tobacco Tax Distribution (Millions of $)

Tobacco Use Mental Cities, Counties Tobacco UseGeneral Fund Health Plan Reduction Health State Total & Public Transit Total General Fund Health Plan Reduction State Total

Distribution Forecast*

2015-16 36.214 138.247 5.609 18.950 199.020 10.926 209.946 30.983 23.905 2.659 57.547 2016-17 34.266 136.682 5.452 22.318 198.718 10.904 209.622 31.379 24.734 2.751 58.864 2015-17 Biennium 70.480 274.929 11.061 41.268 397.738 21.830 419.568 62.362 48.639 5.410 116.411

- 2017-18 33.708 131.369 5.240 22.124 192.441 10.480 202.921 32.900 25.384 2.823 61.108 2018-19 33.616 131.012 5.226 22.920 192.774 10.452 203.226 33.419 25.784 2.868 62.071 2017-19 Biennium 67.324 262.381 10.466 45.044 385.216 20.932 406.147 66.319 51.168 5.691 123.178

- 2019-20 33.152 129.201 5.154 22.603 190.110 10.307 200.417 33.977 26.215 2.916 63.108 2020-21 32.454 126.482 5.045 22.128 186.109 10.090 196.199 34.557 26.663 2.965 64.185 2019-21 Biennium 65.606 255.683 10.199 44.731 376.219 20.397 396.616 68.535 52.878 5.881 127.293

- 2021-22 31.938 124.470 4.965 21.776 183.148 9.930 193.078 35.151 27.120 3.016 65.288 2022-23 31.376 122.281 4.878 21.393 179.927 9.755 189.682 35.890 27.691 3.080 66.661 2021-23 Biennium 63.314 246.751 9.842 43.168 363.075 19.685 382.760 71.041 54.811 6.096 131.948

- 2023-24 30.848 120.224 4.796 21.033 176.901 9.591 186.492 36.671 28.293 3.147 68.111 2024-25 30.272 117.977 4.706 20.640 173.594 9.412 183.006 37.399 28.855 3.209 69.462 2023-25 Biennium 61.120 238.201 9.501 41.673 350.495 19.003 369.498 74.069 57.148 6.356 137.573

- 2025-26 29.762 115.992 4.627 20.293 170.674 9.253 179.928 38.067 29.370 3.267 70.704 2026-27 29.312 114.237 4.557 19.985 168.091 9.113 177.204 38.679 29.843 3.319 71.841 2025-27 Biennium 59.074 230.229 9.183 40.278 338.765 18.367 357.132 76.746 59.213 6.586 142.544

June 2018

Cigarette Tax Distribution* Other Tobacco Tax Distribution

* Prior to January 1, 2014 the cigarette tax per pack totaled $1.18 with the following distribution. $0.8574 to the Health Plan, $0.22 to the state general fund, $0.0342 to Tobacco Use Reducation and $0.0684 to Cities, Counties and Public Transit. Following the passage of HB 3601 during the 2013 Special Session, the following changes were made to cigarette taxes. Beginning January 1, 2014 taxes per pack were raised $0.13 to a total of $1.31 per pack. Beginning January 1, 2016 taxes will increase an additional $0.01 for a total of $1.32 per pack with a further $0.01 increase on January 1, 2018 for a total of $1.33 per pack. The distribution of the $0.13 increase beginning in 2014 is split $0.10 to Mental Health, $0.013 to the state general fund, $0.002 to Tobacco Use Reduction and $0.016 to the Health Plan. Beginning January 1, 2016 the full tax increase of $0.14 per pack relative to pre-2014 tax rates, is dedicated to Mental Health. Similarly the full $0.15 post January 1, 2018 is likewise dedicated to Mental Health.

53  

 

Table B.7 Revenue Distribution to Local Governments 

 

TABLE B.7Liquor Apportionment and Revenue Distribution to Local Governments (Millions of $)

Total LiquorRevenue General Mental Oregon Revenue Cigarette Tax

Available Fund (56%) Health 1 Wine Board Sharing Regular Total Counties Distribution 2

2015-16 224.137 127.421 8.991 0.307 39.735 27.815 67.550 19.868 10.926

2016-17 241.105 137.016 9.254 0.319 42.962 30.073 73.035 21.481 10.904

2015-17 Biennium 465.242 264.437 18.245 0.627 82.697 57.888 140.585 41.349 21.830

2017-18 270.654 153.721 8.974 0.320 48.930 34.251 83.182 24.465 10.480

2018-19 292.677 166.229 9.705 0.338 52.912 37.038 89.950 26.456 10.452

2017-19 Biennium 563.331 319.949 18.679 0.658 101.842 71.290 173.132 50.921 20.932

2019-20 305.627 173.709 9.928 0.346 55.293 38.705 93.998 27.646 10.307

2020-21 319.155 181.526 10.156 0.355 57.781 40.447 98.228 28.891 10.090

2019-21 Biennium 624.782 355.235 20.084 0.701 113.074 79.152 192.226 56.537 20.397

2021-22 333.286 189.694 10.390 0.364 60.381 42.267 102.648 30.191 9.930

2022-23 348.048 198.231 10.629 0.373 63.098 44.169 107.267 31.549 9.755

2021-23 Biennium 681.335 387.925 21.018 0.736 123.480 86.436 209.915 61.740 19.685

2023-24 363.469 207.151 10.873 0.382 65.938 46.156 112.094 32.969 9.5912024-25 379.578 216.473 11.123 0.392 68.905 48.233 117.138 34.452 9.4122023-25 Biennium 743.048 423.624 21.996 0.774 134.843 94.390 229.233 67.421 19.003

2025-26 396.407 226.214 11.379 0.401 50.404 72.006 122.410 36.003 9.2532026-27 413.987 236.394 11.641 0.411 52.672 75.246 127.918 37.623 9.1132025-27 Biennium 810.394 462.608 23.020 0.813 103.076 147.252 250.328 73.626 18.367

1 Mental Health Alcoholism and Drug Services Account, per ORS 471.8102 For details on cigarette revenues see TABLE B.6 on previous page

June 2018

Liquor Apportionment DistributionCity Revenue

54  

 

Table B.8 Track Record for the December 2017 Forecast 

 

 

(Millions of dollars)Actual

RevenuesLatest

ForecastPercent

DifferencePriorYear

PercentChange

Withholding $2,011.6 $1,971.2 2.0% $1,835.2 9.6%Dollar difference $40.3 $131.0

Estimated Payments* $464.5 $439.2 5.8% $382.4 21.5%Dollar difference $25.3 $131.8

Final Payments* $174.1 $202.1 -13.9% $175.2 -0.6%

Dollar difference -$28.0 $25.5

Refunds -$686.1 -$659.9 4.0% -$574.4 19.4%

Dollar difference -$26.2 -$111.7

Total Personal Income Tax $1,964.1 $1,952.7 0.6% $1,818.4 8.0%

Dollar difference $11.4 $145.7

(Millions of dollars)Actual

RevenuesLatest

ForecastPercent

DifferencePriorYear

PercentChange

Advanced Payments $182.4 $102.3 78.4% $102.7 77.7%

Dollar difference $80.1 $79.7

Final Payments $86.3 $54.6 57.9% $52.2 65.4%

Dollar difference $31.6 $34.1

Refunds -$122.3 -$87.6 39.6% -$73.1 67.4%

Dollar difference -$34.7 -$49.2

Total Corporate Income Tax $146.4 $69.3 111.3% $81.8 79.0%

Dollar difference $77.1 $64.6

(Millions of dollars)Actual

RevenuesLatest

ForecastPercent

DifferencePriorYear

PercentChange

Corporate and Personal Tax $2,110.5 $2,022.0 4.4% $1,900.2 11.1%Dollar difference $88.4 $210.3

* A new processing system for the personal income tax program was deployed in November. Data on estimated and other personal income tax payments has yet to become available.

Corporate Income Tax Forecast Comparison

Table B.8 Track Record for the March 2018 Forecast(Quarter ending March 31, 2018)

Total Income Tax Forecast Comparison Year/Year Change

Forecast Comparison Year/Year Change

Year/Year Change

Personal Income Tax

55  

 

Table B.9 Summary of Lottery Resources 

 

TABLE B.9 Jun 2018 ForecastSummary of Lottery Resources

2017-19 2019-21 2021-23 2023-25 2025-207

(in millions of dollars)Current

ForecastChange from

Mar-18Change from

COS 2017Current

ForecastChange from

Mar-18Current

ForecastChange from

Mar-18Current

ForecastChange from

Mar-18Current

ForecastChange from

Mar-18LOTTERY EARNINGS

Traditional Lottery 151.910 10.620 28.928 130.032 3.970 129.931 4.007 129.950 4.004 129.990 4.001Video Lottery 1,211.859 (1.662) 88.667 1,279.949 (5.335) 1,391.099 (10.937) 1,477.128 (11.616) 1,566.980 (12.323)Administrative Actions 32.413 0.000 1.713 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Total Available to Transfer 1,396.182 8.959 119.308 1,409.981 (1.365) 1,521.030 (6.930) 1,607.078 (7.613) 1,696.970 (8.322)

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDBeginning Balance 49.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000Transfers from Lottery 1,396.182 8.959 119.308 1,409.981 (1.365) 1,521.030 (6.930) 1,607.078 (7.613) 1,696.970 (8.322)

Other Resources1 6.035 0.000 0.000 2.000 0.000 2.000 0.000 2.000 0.000 2.000 0.000Total Available Resources 1,451.233 8.959 119.308 1,411.981 (1.365) 1,523.030 (6.930) 1,609.078 (7.613) 1,698.970 (8.322)

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES Constitutional Distributions

Education Stability Fund2 251.313 1.613 21.475 253.797 (0.246) 273.785 (1.247) 289.274 (1.370) 305.455 (1.498)

Parks and Natural Resources Fund3 209.427 1.344 17.896 211.497 (0.205) 228.154 (1.040) 241.062 (1.142) 254.545 (1.248)

Veterans' Services Fund4 20.943 0.134 1.790 21.150 (0.020) 22.815 (0.104) 24.106 (0.114) 25.455 (0.125) Other Distributions

Outdoor School Education Fund5 24.000 0.000 0.000 46.806 0.000 49.357 0.000 51.751 0.000 54.261 0.000County Economic Development 41.286 0.000 0.000 51.198 (0.213) 55.644 (0.437) 59.085 (0.465) 62.679 (0.493)

HECC Collegiate Athletic & Scholarships6 8.240 0.000 0.000 14.100 (0.014) 15.210 (0.069) 16.071 (0.076) 16.970 (0.083)

Gambling Addiction 6 12.499 0.000 0.042 14.100 (0.014) 15.210 (0.069) 16.071 (0.076) 16.970 (0.083)County Fairs 3.828 0.000 0.000 3.828 0.000 3.828 0.000 3.828 0.000 3.828 0.000

Other Legislatively Adopted Allocations7 853.830 0.000 71.381 235.300 0.000 238.900 0.000 234.300 0.000 234.300 0.000Total Distributions 1,425.365 3.091 112.584 851.775 (0.711) 902.905 (2.967) 935.548 (3.243) 974.462 (3.53)

Ending Balance/Discretionary Resources 25.868 5.868 6.724 560.206 (0.653) 620.125 (3.963) 673.530 (4.369) 724.508 (4.792) Note: Some totals may not foot due to rounding.

1. Includes interest earnings on Economic Development Fund and reversions.

2. Eighteen percent of proceeds accrue to the Ed. Stability Fund, until the balance equals 5% of GF Revenues. Thereafter, 15% of proceeds accrue to the School Capital Matching Fund.

3. The Parks and Natural Resources Fund Constitutional amendment requires 15% of net proceeds be transferred to this fund.

4. Per Ballot Measure 96 (2016), 1.5% of net lottery proceeds are dedicated to the Veterans' Services Fund

5. Per Ballot Measure 99 (2016), the lesser of 4% of Lottery transfers or $22 million per year is transferred to the Outdoor Education Account. Adjusted annually for inflation.

6. Approximately one percent of net lottery proceeds are dedicated to each program. Certain limits are imposed by the Legislature.

7. Includes Debt Service Allocations, Allocations to State School Fund and Other Agency Allocations

56  

 

Table B.10 Budgetary Reserve Summary and Outlook  

 

  

 

Table B.10: Budgetary Reserve Summary and Outlook Jun 2018

Rainy Day Fund(Millions) 2015-17 2017-19 2019-21 2021-23 2023-25 2025-27

Beginning Balance $211.8 $376.4 $595.4 $881.7 $1,214.6 $1,587.0

Interest Earnings $6.3 $23.4 $50.5 $74.0 $88.8 $105.6

Deposits1 $158.3 $195.6 $235.8 $258.9 $283.6 $310.9

Triggered Withdrawals $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0

Ending Balance2$376.4 $595.4 $881.7 $1,214.6 $1,587.0 $2,003.4

Education Stability Fund3

(Millions) 2015-17 2017-19 2019-21 2021-23 2023-25 2023-26

Beginning Balance $179.4 $384.2 $609.9 $837.2 $958.7 $1,087.1

Interest Earnings4 $5.2 $22.4 $49.4 $66.1 $67.6 $70.6

Deposits5 $204.4 $226.2 $227.2 $121.5 $128.4 $135.6

Distributions $5.2 $22.4 $49.4 $66.1 $67.6 $70.6 Oregon Education Fund $0.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Oregon Opportunity Grant $5.2 $22.4 $49.4 $66.1 $67.6 $70.6 Withdrawals $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0

Ending Balance $384.2 $609.9 $837.2 $958.7 $1,087.1 $1,089.9

Total Reserves(Millions) 2015-17 2017-19 2019-21 2021-23 2023-25 2025-27

Ending Balances $760.6 $1,205.3 $1,718.8 $2,173.2 $2,674.0 $3,093.3

Percent of General Fund Revenues 4.1% 6.0% 8.1% 8.9% 10.0% 10.6%

Footnotes:1. Includes transfer of ending General Fund balances up to 1% of budgeted appropriations as well as private donations. Assumes future appropriations equal to 98.75 percent of available resources. Includes forecast for corporate income taxes above rate of 6.6% for the biennium are deposited on or before Jun 30 of each odd-numbered year.2. Available funds in a given biennium equal 2/3rds of the beginning balance under current law.3. Excludes funds in the Oregon Growth and the Oregon Resource and Technology Development subaccounts.4. Interest earnings are distributed to the Oregon Education Funds (75%) and the State Scholarship Fund (25%), provided there remains debt outstanding. In the event that debt is paid off, all interest earnings distributed to the State Scholarship Fund.5. Contributions to the ESF are capped at 5% of the prior biennium's General Fund revenue total. Quarterly contributions are made until the balance exceeds the cap.

57  

 

Table B.11 Recreational Marijuana Resources and Distributions  

 

TABLE B.11Summary of Marijuana Resources

2017-19 2019-21 2021-23 2023-25 2025-27

(in millions of dollars)Current

ForecastChange from

Mar-18Change from

COS 2017Current

ForecastChange from

Mar-18Current

ForecastChange from

Mar-18Current

ForecastChange from

Mar-18Current

ForecastChange from

Mar-18MARIJUANA EARNINGS

+ Tax Revenue 1 162.835 2.266 4.639 215.280 0.000 244.018 0.000 268.576 0.000 293.821 0.000

- Administrative Costs 2 15.478 0.000 (0.303) 13.225 0.000 13.225 0.000 13.225 0.000 13.225 0.000Net Available to Transfer 147.357 2.266 4.942 202.055 0.000 230.793 0.000 255.351 0.000 280.596 0.000

OREGON MARIJUANA ACCOUNTBeginning Balance 59.304 0.000 (0.748) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000Revenue Transfers 147.357 2.266 4.942 202.055 0.000 230.793 0.000 255.351 0.000 280.596 0.000Other Resources 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Total Available Resources 206.662 2.266 4.194 202.055 0.000 230.793 0.000 255.351 0.000 280.596 0.000

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCESState School Fund (40%) 80.987 0.000 0.000 80.822 0.000 92.317 0.000 102.140 0.000 112.238 0.000Mental Health, Alcoholism, & Drug Services (20%)

40.494 0.000 0.000 40.411 0.000 46.159 0.000 51.070 0.000 56.119 0.000

State Police (15%) 30.370 0.000 0.000 30.308 0.000 34.619 0.000 38.303 0.000 42.089 0.000Cities (10%) 20.666 0.227 0.419 20.205 0.000 23.079 0.000 25.535 0.000 28.060 0.000Counties (10%) 20.666 0.227 0.419 20.205 0.000 23.079 0.000 25.535 0.000 28.060 0.000Alcohol & Drug Abuse Prevention, Intervention & Treatment (5%)

10.123 0.000 0.000 10.103 0.000 11.540 0.000 12.768 0.000 14.030 0.000

Total Distributions 3 203.307 0.453 0.000 202.055 0.000 230.793 0.000 255.351 0.000 280.596 0.000

Ending Balance 3.355 1.813 3.355 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Note: Some totals may not foot due to rounding.

Jun 2018

1. Retailers pay taxes monthly, however taxes are not available for distribution to recepient programs until the Department of Revenue receives and processes retailers' quarterly tax returns. As such, there is a one to two quarter lag between when the initial monthly payments are made and when monies be come available to distribute.

2. In 2015-17, Administrative Costs include $7.7 million in one-time costs associated with program start-up, including construction funds for the Department of Revenue, and repayment of the Liquor Fund loan for OLCC. Administrative Costs for 2017-19 and beyond reflect monthly collection costs for the Department of Revenue.

3. Revenues are not distributed to recipient programs until the OLCC liquor fund loan has been repayed. This is due to occur at the end of the 2015-17 biennium. As such, no distributions are likely to be made in 2015-17. These monies will be carried forward into 2017-19 for distribution when the liquor fund loan has been repayed, and retailers' quarterly tax returns are processed.

58  

 

APPENDIX C:   POPULATION FORECASTS BY AGE AND SEX  

Table C.1  Population Forecasts: Component of Change 1990‐2026 ………………………….………………...  59 

Table C.2  Population Forecasts by Age and Sex: 2000‐2026 ………………………………………………..………..  60 

Table C.3  Population of Oregon: 1980‐2026 ………………………………………………………………………………….  61 

Table C.4  Children: Ages 0‐4 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..….  61 

Table C.5  School Age Population: Ages 5‐17 ……………………………………………………………………………..….  61 

Table C.6  Young Adult Population: Ages 18‐24 ……………………………………………………….……………….…..  61 

Table C.7  Criminally At Risk Population: Males Ages 15‐39 …………………………………………….…………….  62 

Table C.8  Prime Wage Earners: Ages 25‐44 …………………………………………………………………………………..  62 

Table C.9  Older Wage Earners: Ages 45‐64 …………………………………………………………………………………..  62 

Table C.10  Elderly Population by Age Group …………………………………………………………………………………  62 

 

59  

 

Table C.1 Population Forecasts Component of Change 1990‐2026  

 

STATE OF OREGONPOPULATION FORECASTS

COMPONENTS OF CHANGE 1990 -2026

Year Population Change Births Deaths Natural Net Migration(July 1) Population Number Percent Number Rate/1000 Number Rate/1000 Increase Number Rate/1000------ ----------- ----------- -------- ----------- -------- ----------- -------- ----------- ----------- --------1990 2,860,400 69,800 2.50 42,008 14.87 24,763 8.76 17,245 52,555 18.601991 2,928,500 68,100 2.38 42,682 14.75 24,944 8.62 17,738 50,362 17.401992 2,991,800 63,300 2.16 42,427 14.33 25,166 8.50 17,261 46,039 15.551993 3,060,400 68,600 2.29 41,442 13.69 26,543 8.77 14,899 53,701 17.751994 3,121,300 60,900 1.99 41,487 13.42 27,564 8.92 13,923 46,977 15.201995 3,184,400 63,100 2.02 42,426 13.46 27,552 8.74 14,874 48,226 15.30

1990-1995 324,000 210,464 131,769 78,695 245,305

1996 3,247,100 62,700 1.97 43,196 13.43 28,768 8.95 14,428 48,272 15.011997 3,304,300 57,200 1.76 43,625 13.32 29,201 8.91 14,424 42,776 13.061998 3,352,400 48,100 1.46 44,696 13.43 28,705 8.62 15,991 32,109 9.651999 3,393,900 41,500 1.24 45,188 13.40 29,848 8.85 15,340 26,160 7.762000 3,431,100 37,200 1.10 45,534 13.34 28,909 8.47 16,625 20,575 6.03

1995-2000 246,700 222,239 145,431 76,808 169,892

2001 3,470,400 39,300 1.15 45,536 13.20 29,934 8.67 15,602 23,698 6.872002 3,502,600 32,200 0.93 44,995 12.91 30,828 8.84 14,167 18,033 5.172003 3,538,600 36,000 1.03 45,686 12.98 30,604 8.69 15,082 20,918 5.942004 3,578,900 40,300 1.14 45,599 12.81 30,721 8.63 14,878 25,422 7.142005 3,626,900 48,000 1.34 45,892 12.74 30,717 8.53 15,175 32,825 9.11

2000-2005 195,800 227,708 152,804 74,904 120,896

2006 3,685,200 58,300 1.61 46,946 12.84 30,771 8.42 16,175 42,125 11.522007 3,739,400 54,200 1.47 49,404 13.31 31,396 8.46 18,008 36,192 9.752008 3,784,200 44,800 1.20 49,659 13.20 32,008 8.51 17,651 27,149 7.222009 3,815,800 31,600 0.84 47,960 12.62 31,382 8.26 16,578 15,022 3.952010 3,837,300 21,500 0.56 46,256 12.09 31,689 8.28 14,567 6,933 1.81

2005-2010 210,400 240,225 157,246 82,979 127,421

2011 3,857,625 20,325 0.53 45,381 11.80 32,437 8.43 12,944 7,381 1.922012 3,883,735 26,110 0.68 44,897 11.60 32,804 8.47 12,093 14,017 3.622013 3,919,020 35,285 0.91 44,969 11.53 33,168 8.50 11,801 23,484 6.022014 3,962,710 43,690 1.11 45,447 11.53 33,731 8.56 11,716 31,974 8.112015 4,013,845 51,135 1.29 45,660 11.45 35,318 8.86 10,342 40,793 10.23

2010-2015 176,545 226,354 167,458 58,896 117,649

2016 4,076,350 62,505 1.56 45,647 11.28 35,339 8.74 10,308 52,197 12.902017 4,141,100 64,749 1.59 45,861 11.16 36,629 8.92 9,232 55,518 13.512018 4,203,200 62,100 1.50 46,350 11.11 37,635 9.02 8,715 53,385 12.802019 4,263,300 60,100 1.43 46,786 11.05 38,227 9.03 8,559 51,541 12.182020 4,321,400 58,100 1.36 47,131 10.98 38,878 9.06 8,253 49,847 11.61

2015-2020 307,554 231,776 186,709 45,067 262,488

2021 4,376,400 55,000 1.27 47,365 10.89 39,609 9.11 7,756 47,244 10.862022 4,430,300 53,900 1.23 47,511 10.79 40,395 9.17 7,116 46,784 10.622023 4,482,200 51,900 1.17 47,576 10.68 41,239 9.25 6,337 45,562 10.222024 4,532,100 49,900 1.11 47,550 10.55 42,167 9.36 5,383 44,517 9.882025 4,581,000 48,900 1.08 47,415 10.41 43,118 9.46 4,297 44,602 9.79

2020-2025 259,600 237,417 206,528 30,889 228,711

2026 4,628,900 47,900 1.05 47,184 10.25 44,062 9.57 3,122 44,778 9.72

1990-2000 570,700 432,703 277,200 155,503 415,197 13.202000-2010 406,200 467,933 310,050 157,883 248,317 6.832010-2020 484,100 458,130 354,167 103,963 380,137 9.322016-2026 552,550 470,730 401,960 68,770 483,780 11.11

Sources: 1990-1999 population - U.S. Census Bureau; 2000-2009 population - intercensal estimates by Office of Economic Analysis;population estimates 2010-2017 by Population Research Center, PSU; births and deaths 1990-16: Oregon Center for Health Statistics.

60  

 

Table C.2 Population Forecasts by Age and Sex: 2000‐2026   

 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Age Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

0-4 114,100 109,107 223,207 114,742 109,903 224,645 115,219 109,865 225,084 116,118 110,533 226,652 117,038 111,315 228,353 117,847 112,161 230,008 118,832 113,050 231,882

5- 9 119,699 113,984 233,683 118,879 113,240 232,119 117,908 112,625 230,533 117,595 112,522 230,117 118,055 112,983 231,038 118,737 113,851 232,588 119,959 115,315 235,274

10-14 124,726 118,350 243,076 125,950 119,470 245,421 126,474 120,344 246,818 127,007 120,408 247,415 126,169 119,728 245,898 124,732 118,604 243,336 124,400 118,240 242,639

15-19 126,002 119,265 245,267 127,311 119,879 247,190 127,250 119,862 247,112 126,490 120,236 246,726 127,484 121,227 248,711 129,634 122,978 252,612 131,680 124,886 256,567

20-24 119,300 113,318 232,618 120,814 115,792 236,605 122,925 118,001 240,926 125,433 119,922 245,356 127,001 121,951 248,952 128,090 122,777 250,867 129,625 123,869 253,494

25-29 120,547 112,269 232,816 119,436 111,809 231,245 119,216 112,937 232,153 120,690 114,847 235,536 122,799 117,484 240,282 125,208 121,121 246,329 128,110 125,220 253,330

30-34 122,441 114,757 237,198 125,882 117,768 243,651 127,842 119,417 247,259 128,373 120,485 248,858 127,650 119,951 247,601 126,179 119,324 245,503 126,016 119,767 245,782

35-39 128,698 126,230 254,928 125,463 122,883 248,346 123,019 119,340 242,360 121,225 116,792 238,017 121,489 116,438 237,927 124,789 119,125 243,914 128,779 122,827 251,606

40-44 134,421 137,137 271,558 134,585 136,761 271,346 133,102 135,121 268,224 131,876 133,467 265,343 131,106 132,016 263,121 129,401 129,428 258,829 126,728 126,664 253,391

45-49 135,644 137,430 273,074 136,214 138,948 275,162 136,992 140,305 277,297 136,336 140,343 276,679 134,864 139,381 274,245 134,310 139,320 273,629 135,135 139,543 274,678

50-54 118,659 119,623 238,282 125,826 127,295 253,120 126,548 128,354 254,902 129,544 132,212 261,756 132,767 136,330 269,097 135,022 138,899 273,921 136,187 140,978 277,165

55-59 85,965 88,187 174,151 89,314 91,758 181,072 98,235 100,967 199,202 103,863 106,596 210,460 109,932 112,923 222,855 117,120 120,794 237,914 124,581 129,098 253,680

60-64 64,543 67,459 132,003 67,383 70,539 137,922 70,666 74,175 144,841 75,490 79,114 154,604 80,095 83,740 163,835 84,062 88,300 172,361 87,811 92,304 180,115

65-69 53,103 59,261 112,364 53,861 59,438 113,299 54,996 60,295 115,291 56,889 62,083 118,972 59,083 64,273 123,356 61,643 66,384 128,027 64,860 69,850 134,710

70-74 48,532 58,102 106,633 48,249 57,290 105,539 47,788 56,535 104,323 47,448 55,941 103,389 47,523 55,493 103,016 48,249 55,650 103,899 49,222 55,999 105,221

75-79 40,475 54,794 95,269 40,503 54,397 94,900 40,508 53,697 94,204 40,627 52,917 93,545 40,403 52,009 92,412 40,366 51,512 91,878 40,359 51,026 91,385

80-84 26,469 40,450 66,919 27,465 41,513 68,978 28,398 42,507 70,905 28,798 43,326 72,124 29,266 44,164 73,430 29,725 44,474 74,199 29,996 44,406 74,402

85+ 18,517 39,538 58,055 19,293 40,549 59,843 19,854 41,313 61,167 20,727 42,323 63,050 21,444 43,325 64,769 22,398 44,689 67,087 23,554 46,323 69,877

Total 1,701,841 1,729,259 3,431,100 1,721,170 1,749,230 3,470,400 1,736,939 1,765,661 3,502,600 1,754,532 1,784,068 3,538,600 1,774,167 1,804,733 3,578,900 1,797,511 1,829,389 3,626,900 1,825,834 1,859,366 3,685,200

Mdn. Age 35.2 37.6 36.4 35.3 37.8 36.6 35.5 38.0 36.8 35.7 38.2 36.9 35.8 38.4 37.1 36.0 38.5 37.2 36.3 38.6 37.3

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Age Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

0-4 121,058 115,102 236,160 122,723 116,618 239,340 123,056 116,873 239,929 122,327 116,130 238,457 121,092 115,088 236,180 119,516 113,359 232,875 118,293 111,850 230,143

5- 9 120,925 115,818 236,743 121,906 116,639 238,545 122,109 116,793 238,901 121,539 116,369 237,908 121,767 115,893 237,660 122,733 116,900 239,634 124,024 117,953 241,977

10-14 124,017 118,145 242,162 124,144 118,401 242,545 124,495 118,646 243,140 124,508 118,732 243,241 124,074 119,044 243,118 123,603 118,287 241,890 123,386 118,206 241,593

15-19 133,027 126,562 259,588 134,019 127,039 261,058 133,094 126,245 259,339 131,126 124,540 255,667 129,068 121,927 250,996 127,517 120,587 248,104 126,643 119,875 246,518

20-24 129,491 124,047 253,538 128,090 124,102 252,192 128,034 124,294 252,328 128,787 124,903 253,689 130,576 126,691 257,267 132,853 128,787 261,640 135,293 130,705 265,998

25-29 131,446 128,889 260,335 134,251 131,308 265,559 134,893 132,724 267,617 134,019 131,816 265,835 133,302 130,829 264,132 132,463 129,927 262,390 132,508 130,403 262,911

30-34 126,936 121,971 248,907 128,841 124,231 253,072 130,499 126,264 256,763 131,489 128,325 259,814 133,512 130,743 264,255 135,689 133,329 269,018 137,321 135,074 272,395

35-39 131,387 125,260 256,647 132,046 126,581 258,627 130,807 125,534 256,341 128,070 123,596 251,665 125,924 121,787 247,710 126,018 122,275 248,293 128,683 124,338 253,022

40-44 124,917 123,759 248,677 123,362 121,440 244,802 123,395 120,853 244,249 125,969 122,843 248,811 128,974 125,358 254,332 130,795 126,620 257,415 131,483 127,467 258,950

45-49 134,349 138,533 272,882 133,523 137,181 270,705 132,802 135,635 268,437 130,825 132,538 263,363 127,795 128,542 256,337 125,434 124,976 250,410 123,864 122,179 246,043

50-54 137,589 142,901 280,489 137,266 143,176 280,443 135,862 142,064 277,926 135,129 141,565 276,693 134,682 140,654 275,335 133,445 139,197 272,643 132,080 137,545 269,625

55-59 125,683 130,760 256,444 128,665 134,868 263,533 131,454 138,782 270,236 133,011 140,802 273,812 134,009 142,349 276,358 134,403 143,058 277,461 134,376 142,746 277,122

60-64 97,117 102,054 199,171 102,948 107,873 210,821 108,952 114,138 223,090 115,236 121,045 236,281 121,440 127,818 249,258 122,921 129,548 252,470 124,925 132,821 257,745

65-69 68,563 73,945 142,509 73,612 79,164 152,776 78,191 83,768 161,959 81,854 87,917 169,771 84,425 90,852 175,277 92,096 98,785 190,881 97,983 105,059 203,042

70-74 50,569 57,052 107,622 52,510 58,915 111,425 54,604 61,042 115,646 56,925 62,949 119,874 59,485 65,640 125,125 62,496 69,113 131,609 67,184 73,899 141,083

75-79 40,218 50,594 90,812 40,073 50,211 90,285 40,236 49,905 90,141 40,932 50,101 91,034 41,549 50,075 91,624 42,654 50,692 93,346 44,224 52,064 96,287

80-84 30,251 44,085 74,336 30,464 43,606 74,069 30,361 43,011 73,372 30,391 42,734 73,126 30,500 42,287 72,787 30,560 41,822 72,381 30,774 41,257 72,031

85+ 24,585 47,794 72,379 25,325 49,078 74,403 26,014 50,369 76,383 26,800 51,458 78,258 27,598 52,275 79,874 28,360 52,915 81,276 28,995 53,538 82,533

Total 1,852,129 1,887,271 3,739,400 1,873,769 1,910,431 3,784,200 1,888,859 1,926,941 3,815,800 1,898,938 1,938,362 3,837,300 1,909,773 1,947,852 3,857,625 1,923,557 1,960,178 3,883,735 1,942,040 1,976,980 3,919,020

Mdn. Age 36.5 38.7 37.5 36.7 38.8 37.8 37.0 39.1 38.0 37.2 39.4 38.3 37.4 39.7 38.5 37.6 39.9 38.7 37.8 40.0 38.9

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Age Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

0-4 117,872 111,493 229,365 118,065 111,542 229,607 119,058 112,181 231,240 120,160 113,255 233,416 121,095 113,969 235,064 121,781 114,535 236,315 122,393 115,092 237,485

5- 9 124,734 118,038 242,772 125,502 118,321 243,824 125,540 118,120 243,660 125,221 117,252 242,472 125,019 116,458 241,478 125,252 116,538 241,789 125,751 116,771 242,522

10-14 123,403 118,463 241,865 122,975 118,328 241,303 123,808 118,633 242,441 125,546 120,542 246,088 127,461 122,288 249,748 128,580 122,811 251,391 129,595 123,350 252,945

15-19 126,847 119,972 246,819 127,735 120,633 248,368 128,448 121,638 250,086 129,097 121,847 250,944 129,478 122,163 251,641 129,862 122,682 252,543 129,576 122,661 252,237

20-24 136,741 132,080 268,821 137,304 132,672 269,977 137,526 132,652 270,179 138,058 133,209 271,267 138,121 133,525 271,646 138,728 134,028 272,756 139,564 134,608 274,171

25-29 134,578 132,874 267,452 137,959 137,056 275,015 143,647 143,913 287,560 149,248 150,149 299,398 154,482 155,657 310,139 157,610 159,263 316,873 158,677 160,569 319,246

30-34 139,932 137,412 277,344 141,525 138,707 280,232 144,070 140,722 284,792 146,124 142,817 288,941 148,399 145,568 293,967 152,221 149,918 302,139 156,751 155,468 312,219

35-39 130,858 126,562 257,420 134,484 129,808 264,292 138,182 133,110 271,291 142,277 136,955 279,232 145,217 139,446 284,663 148,788 142,340 291,128 150,889 143,935 294,825

40-44 131,047 126,698 257,745 130,040 125,302 255,342 129,051 124,315 253,366 130,180 125,641 255,822 133,696 128,254 261,951 136,452 130,858 267,311 140,462 134,336 274,798

45-49 124,309 121,474 245,783 127,060 123,545 250,606 131,248 126,803 258,051 134,127 128,864 262,991 135,564 130,217 265,782 135,578 129,744 265,322 134,739 128,449 263,188

50-54 131,568 136,140 267,708 129,981 133,569 263,550 127,849 130,620 258,469 126,374 127,681 254,055 125,373 125,428 250,800 126,227 125,051 251,278 129,247 127,426 256,674

55-59 133,344 142,041 275,385 133,245 142,271 275,516 133,805 142,711 276,517 133,238 142,210 275,449 132,444 141,305 273,749 132,277 140,331 272,608 130,827 137,740 268,567

60-64 127,753 136,837 264,590 130,407 139,689 270,096 132,876 142,411 275,287 134,403 144,187 278,590 135,275 144,631 279,906 134,785 144,375 279,159 134,935 144,796 279,731

65-69 103,544 110,487 214,031 109,922 117,550 227,472 116,865 124,948 241,813 119,210 127,434 246,643 121,902 131,203 253,105 125,156 135,503 260,659 128,022 138,480 266,502

70-74 71,303 78,473 149,776 74,860 82,510 157,370 77,693 85,603 163,297 85,397 93,597 178,994 91,336 99,832 191,168 96,826 105,140 201,965 102,960 111,910 214,870

75-79 46,443 54,145 100,588 48,615 56,084 104,698 51,005 58,688 109,693 53,755 62,016 115,771 57,957 66,423 124,380 61,615 70,583 132,198 64,784 74,217 139,001

80-84 31,046 40,788 71,834 31,707 40,809 72,517 32,515 40,929 73,444 33,598 41,561 75,159 35,014 42,718 77,732 36,893 44,425 81,319 38,766 46,046 84,811

85+ 29,522 53,890 83,411 30,095 53,967 84,062 30,847 54,319 85,166 31,462 54,407 85,869 32,032 54,251 86,283 32,554 53,992 86,546 33,492 54,116 87,608

Total 1,964,844 1,997,866 3,962,710 1,991,483 2,022,363 4,013,845 2,024,032 2,052,318 4,076,350 2,057,475 2,083,625 4,141,100 2,089,865 2,113,335 4,203,200 2,121,185 2,142,115 4,263,300 2,151,430 2,169,970 4,321,400

Mdn. Age 38.0 40.1 39.0 38.1 40.2 39.1 38.2 40.2 39.2 38.3 40.2 39.2 38.4 40.3 39.3 38.6 40.3 39.4 38.7 40.4 39.6

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Age Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

0-4 123,171 115,840 239,011 123,934 116,609 240,543 124,477 117,178 241,655 124,767 117,499 242,266 125,003 117,754 242,756 125,221 117,970 243,191

5- 9 126,449 117,166 243,616 127,167 117,664 244,831 127,796 118,166 245,961 128,243 118,580 246,823 128,714 119,067 247,782 129,415 119,780 249,195

10-14 129,506 123,044 252,550 128,909 121,862 250,771 128,390 120,692 249,082 128,381 120,495 248,876 128,664 120,488 249,151 129,299 120,807 250,106

15-19 130,256 122,764 253,020 131,646 124,370 256,016 133,214 125,829 259,043 134,040 126,103 260,143 134,829 126,441 261,271 134,560 125,971 260,531

20-24 139,730 135,160 274,890 139,825 134,553 274,378 140,045 134,659 274,703 140,214 134,932 275,147 139,674 134,659 274,333 140,023 134,369 274,392

25-29 158,134 159,549 317,682 157,382 159,001 316,383 156,633 158,286 314,919 156,632 157,960 314,592 157,143 158,043 315,186 157,252 158,502 315,755

30-34 162,667 162,716 325,382 168,471 169,499 337,970 173,409 174,667 348,076 176,003 177,697 353,700 176,491 178,372 354,863 175,477 176,795 352,272

35-39 153,231 145,800 299,031 154,995 147,517 302,513 156,972 150,143 307,116 160,624 154,424 315,047 165,114 159,976 325,090 171,137 167,306 338,443

40-44 144,171 137,673 281,844 147,907 141,131 289,038 150,668 143,502 294,171 154,093 146,294 300,387 156,048 147,780 303,829 158,351 149,605 307,955

45-49 133,534 127,308 260,842 134,463 128,326 262,789 137,839 130,844 268,683 140,430 133,348 273,778 144,373 136,783 281,156 148,074 140,106 288,180

50-54 133,368 130,669 264,037 136,062 132,543 268,605 137,264 133,731 270,995 137,061 133,052 270,113 136,089 131,577 267,667 134,826 130,330 265,155

55-59 128,548 134,517 263,066 126,794 131,468 258,261 125,617 128,914 254,531 126,309 128,318 254,627 129,203 130,603 259,806 133,284 133,841 267,124

60-64 135,288 145,038 280,326 134,599 144,447 279,046 133,506 143,304 276,810 133,061 142,103 275,164 131,410 139,336 270,746 129,052 135,983 265,035

65-69 130,204 141,044 271,249 131,588 142,622 274,210 132,210 142,926 275,136 131,508 142,548 274,056 131,524 142,895 274,419 131,832 143,088 274,920

70-74 109,189 118,784 227,974 111,359 121,107 232,465 113,786 124,713 238,500 116,709 128,781 245,490 119,306 131,620 250,926 121,314 134,028 255,341

75-79 67,128 76,960 144,088 73,801 84,180 157,981 79,000 89,928 168,928 83,730 94,775 178,505 89,002 100,916 189,918 94,371 107,046 201,417

80-84 40,638 48,232 88,870 42,811 51,015 93,826 46,176 54,798 100,975 49,081 58,351 107,432 51,589 61,431 113,021 53,471 63,719 117,190

85+ 34,334 54,590 88,924 35,345 55,326 90,672 36,527 56,389 92,917 38,070 57,883 95,953 39,720 59,360 99,080 41,421 61,277 102,698

Total 2,179,547 2,196,853 4,376,400 2,207,059 2,223,241 4,430,300 2,233,531 2,248,668 4,482,200 2,258,956 2,273,145 4,532,100 2,283,898 2,297,102 4,581,000 2,308,379 2,320,522 4,628,900

Mdn. Age 38.9 40.6 39.7 39.1 40.7 39.9 39.2 40.8 40.0 39.4 41.0 40.2 39.6 41.1 40.3 39.7 41.3 40.5

State of Oregon

Oregon's Population Forecasts by Age and Sex: 2000-2026 (July 1 population)

(July 1 Population)

61  

 

Table C.3 Population of Oregon: 1990‐2026   

 

Table C.4 Children: Ages 0‐4  Table C.5 School Age 

Population: Ages 5‐17  

Table C.6 Young Adult 

Population: Ages 18‐24  

 

Year Total(July 1) Population Number Percent

--------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------1990 2,860,400 - -1991 2,928,500 68,100 2.38%1992 2,991,800 63,300 2.16%1993 3,060,400 68,600 2.29%1994 3,121,300 60,900 1.99%1995 3,184,400 63,100 2.02%1996 3,247,100 62,700 1.97%1997 3,304,300 57,200 1.76%1998 3,352,400 48,100 1.46%1999 3,393,900 41,500 1.24%2000 3,431,100 37,200 1.10%2001 3,470,400 39,300 1.15%2002 3,502,600 32,200 0.93%2003 3,538,600 36,000 1.03%2004 3,578,900 40,300 1.14%2005 3,626,900 48,000 1.34%2006 3,685,200 58,300 1.61%2007 3,739,400 54,200 1.47%2008 3,784,200 44,800 1.20%2009 3,815,800 31,600 0.84%2010 3,837,300 21,500 0.56%2011 3,857,625 20,325 0.53%2012 3,883,735 26,110 0.68%2013 3,919,020 35,285 0.91%2014 3,962,710 43,690 1.11%2015 4,013,845 51,135 1.29%2016 4,076,350 62,505 1.56%2017 4,141,100 64,749 1.59%2018 4,203,200 62,100 1.50%2019 4,263,300 60,100 1.43%2020 4,321,400 58,100 1.36%2021 4,376,400 55,000 1.27%2022 4,430,300 53,900 1.23%2023 4,482,200 51,900 1.17%2024 4,532,100 49,900 1.11%2025 4,581,000 48,900 1.08%2026 4,628,900 47,900 1.05%

Change from previous year

-1.0%

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000

5,000,000

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Perc

ent C

hang

e

Popu

latio

n

Year

Oregon's Population and Annual Percent Change, 1950-2026

Forecast

Annual Percent Change

Total Population

Year(July 1) Population Number Percent Population Number Percent Population Number Percent

--------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------1980 199,525 --- --- 524,446 --- --- 329,407 --- ---1990 209,638 10,113 5.07% 532,727 8,281 1.58% 268,134 -61,273 -18.60%2000 223,207 13,569 6.47% 624,316 91,589 17.19% 330,328 62,194 23.20%2001 224,645 1,438 0.64% 624,675 358 0.06% 336,660 6,333 1.92%2002 225,084 439 0.20% 624,611 -64 -0.01% 340,778 4,118 1.22%2003 226,652 1,568 0.70% 624,349 -262 -0.04% 345,266 4,487 1.32%2004 228,353 1,701 0.75% 625,461 1,112 0.18% 349,138 3,873 1.12%2005 230,008 1,655 0.72% 628,326 2,865 0.46% 351,076 1,938 0.55%2006 231,882 1,874 0.81% 633,646 5,320 0.85% 354,328 3,252 0.93%2007 236,160 4,278 1.85% 635,720 2,074 0.33% 356,311 1,983 0.56%2008 239,340 3,180 1.35% 635,372 -348 -0.05% 358,967 2,656 0.75%2009 239,929 589 0.25% 633,575 -1,797 -0.28% 360,134 1,166 0.32%2010 238,457 -1,472 -0.61% 630,741 -2,835 -0.45% 359,764 -370 -0.10%2011 236,180 -2,277 -0.95% 628,366 -2,375 -0.38% 360,675 911 0.25%2012 232,875 -3,305 -1.40% 628,688 323 0.05% 362,580 1,904 0.53%2013 230,143 -2,733 -1.17% 630,161 1,473 0.23% 365,925 3,346 0.92%2014 229,365 -777 -0.34% 631,753 1,592 0.25% 368,525 2,600 0.71%2015 229,607 242 0.11% 633,304 1,550 0.25% 370,167 1,642 0.45%2016 231,240 1,632 0.71% 635,485 2,182 0.34% 370,880 712 0.19%2017 233,416 2,176 0.94% 637,942 2,457 0.39% 372,830 1,950 0.53%2018 235,064 1,648 0.71% 639,710 1,768 0.28% 374,802 1,973 0.53%2019 236,315 1,251 0.53% 642,117 2,407 0.38% 376,362 1,560 0.42%2020 237,485 1,170 0.50% 645,475 3,358 0.52% 376,400 38 0.01%2021 239,011 1,525 0.64% 647,705 2,229 0.35% 376,371 -29 -0.01%2022 240,543 1,532 0.64% 648,999 1,295 0.20% 376,998 627 0.17%2023 241,655 1,112 0.46% 650,820 1,821 0.28% 377,970 972 0.26%2024 242,266 612 0.25% 652,054 1,234 0.19% 378,935 965 0.26%2025 242,756 490 0.20% 652,311 257 0.04% 380,226 1,291 0.34%2026 243,191 435 0.18% 652,593 282 0.04% 381,631 1,405 0.37%

% Change from previous decade/yr.% Change from previous decade/yr.% Change from previous decade/yr.

62  

 

Table C.7 Criminally At Risk 

Population (males): Ages 15‐39 

Table C.8 Prime Wage 

Earners: Ages 25‐44 

Table C.9 Older Wage 

Earners: Ages 45‐64 

 

Table C.10 Elderly Population by Age Group  

 

Year(July 1) Population Number Percent Population Number Percent Population Number Percent

--------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------1980 561,931 --- --- 790,750 --- --- 491,249 --- ---1990 544,738 -17,193 -3.06% 926,326 135,576 17.15% 531,181 39,932 8.13%2000 616,988 72,250 13.26% 996,500 70,174 7.58% 817,510 286,329 53.90%2001 618,906 1,918 0.31% 994,587 -1,913 -0.19% 847,276 29,766 3.64%2002 620,252 1,347 0.22% 989,996 -4,591 -0.46% 876,242 28,966 3.42%2003 622,211 1,959 0.32% 987,755 -2,241 -0.23% 903,499 27,257 3.11%2004 626,423 4,212 0.68% 988,932 1,177 0.12% 930,032 26,533 2.94%2005 633,901 7,478 1.19% 994,575 5,644 0.57% 957,826 27,793 2.99%2006 644,210 10,309 1.63% 1,004,110 9,535 0.96% 985,638 27,813 2.90%2007 652,287 8,077 1.25% 1,014,565 10,455 1.04% 1,008,986 23,348 2.37%2008 657,248 4,961 0.76% 1,022,060 7,495 0.74% 1,025,501 16,515 1.64%2009 657,327 79 0.01% 1,024,971 2,911 0.28% 1,039,689 14,188 1.38%2010 653,491 -3,836 -0.58% 1,026,126 1,155 0.11% 1,050,150 10,461 1.01%2011 652,382 -1,109 -0.17% 1,030,430 4,304 0.42% 1,057,288 7,138 0.68%2012 654,540 2,158 0.33% 1,037,116 6,686 0.65% 1,052,983 -4,305 -0.41%2013 660,449 5,909 0.90% 1,047,277 10,162 0.98% 1,050,536 -2,447 -0.23%2014 668,956 8,507 1.29% 1,059,961 12,683 1.21% 1,053,466 2,930 0.28%2015 679,008 10,051 1.50% 1,074,881 14,920 1.41% 1,059,767 6,301 0.60%2016 691,873 12,865 1.89% 1,097,009 22,128 2.06% 1,068,324 8,557 0.81%2017 704,804 12,931 1.87% 1,123,392 26,383 2.41% 1,071,084 2,760 0.26%2018 715,697 10,893 1.55% 1,150,720 27,327 2.43% 1,070,236 -849 -0.08%2019 727,209 11,512 1.61% 1,177,450 26,731 2.32% 1,068,368 -1,868 -0.17%2020 735,457 8,248 1.13% 1,201,088 23,638 2.01% 1,068,159 -209 -0.02%2021 744,017 8,560 1.16% 1,223,939 22,851 1.90% 1,068,271 111 0.01%2022 752,319 8,302 1.12% 1,245,904 21,965 1.79% 1,068,702 432 0.04%2023 760,273 7,954 1.06% 1,264,282 18,378 1.48% 1,071,019 2,316 0.22%2024 767,514 7,241 0.95% 1,283,727 19,445 1.54% 1,073,682 2,663 0.25%2025 773,251 5,737 0.75% 1,298,968 15,241 1.19% 1,079,375 5,693 0.53%2026 778,450 5,199 0.67% 1,314,425 15,457 1.19% 1,085,495 6,120 0.57%

% Change from previous decade/yr. % Change from previous decade/yr. % Change from previous decade/yr.

Year (July 1) Ages 65+

%Change from previous

decade/yr. Ages 65-74

%Change from previous

decade/yr. Ages 75-84

%Change from previous

decade/yr. Ages 85+

%Change from previous

decade/yr.--------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------

1980 305,841 --- 185,863 --- 91,137 --- 28,841 ---1990 392,369 28.29% 224,772 20.93% 128,813 41.34% 38,784 34.48%2000 439,239 11.95% 218,997 -2.57% 162,187 25.91% 58,055 49.69%2001 442,558 0.76% 218,838 -0.07% 163,878 1.04% 59,843 3.08%2002 445,890 0.75% 219,614 0.35% 165,109 0.75% 61,167 2.21%2003 451,080 1.16% 222,361 1.25% 165,669 0.34% 63,050 3.08%2004 456,984 1.31% 226,373 1.80% 165,842 0.10% 64,769 2.73%2005 465,089 1.77% 231,926 2.45% 166,077 0.14% 67,087 3.58%2006 475,596 2.26% 239,931 3.45% 165,787 -0.17% 69,877 4.16%2007 487,657 2.54% 250,131 4.25% 165,148 -0.39% 72,379 3.58%2008 502,959 3.14% 264,201 5.63% 164,354 -0.48% 74,403 2.80%2009 517,502 2.89% 277,606 5.07% 163,513 -0.51% 76,383 2.66%2010 532,062 2.81% 289,645 4.34% 164,159 0.40% 78,258 2.45%2011 544,686 2.37% 300,402 3.71% 164,410 0.15% 79,874 2.06%2012 569,493 4.55% 322,490 7.35% 165,727 0.80% 81,276 1.75%2013 594,977 4.47% 344,125 6.71% 168,319 1.56% 82,533 1.55%2014 619,639 4.15% 363,807 5.72% 172,422 2.44% 83,411 1.06%2015 646,119 4.27% 384,842 5.78% 177,215 2.78% 84,062 0.78%2016 673,412 4.22% 405,110 5.27% 183,137 3.34% 85,166 1.31%2017 702,436 4.31% 425,637 5.07% 190,930 4.26% 85,869 0.83%2018 732,668 4.30% 444,273 4.38% 202,112 5.86% 86,283 0.48%2019 762,687 4.10% 462,624 4.13% 213,517 5.64% 86,546 0.31%2020 792,792 3.95% 481,373 4.05% 223,812 4.82% 87,608 1.23%2021 821,105 3.57% 499,222 3.71% 232,958 4.09% 88,924 1.50%2022 849,154 3.42% 506,675 1.49% 251,807 8.09% 90,672 1.97%2023 876,455 3.22% 513,636 1.37% 269,903 7.19% 92,917 2.48%2024 901,436 2.85% 519,546 1.15% 285,937 5.94% 95,953 3.27%2025 927,364 2.88% 525,345 1.12% 302,939 5.95% 99,080 3.26%2026 951,567 2.61% 530,261 0.94% 318,608 5.17% 102,698 3.65%