Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Revenue Forecast
September 2017
Volume XXXVII, No. 3
Release Date: August 23, 2017
http://oregon.gov/DAS/OEA
http://oregoneconomicanalysis.com
http://twitter.com/OR_EconAnalysis
2
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 Governors 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
3
Table of Contents
Extended Outlook .. 16
State Comparisons 21
REVENUE OUTLOOK .. 22
Extended Outlook .. 25
APPENDIX A: ECONOMIC .. 34
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
September 2017
The economic expansion continues and the outlook remains bright. For the first time since the financial crisis,
the U.S. economy lacks a major headwind. Expectations are not for a substantial pick-up in growth rates
themselves, but for the expansion to endure, possibly becoming the nations longest on record. If anything, the
current macroeconomy is a conundrum for the Federal Reserve given low unemployment and low inflation.
Even so, there do remain significant risks to the outlook, particularly the uncertainty of federal policy.
Oregons economy is largely tracking expectations of slower growth in a mature expansion. The state continues
to see healthy job gains that are enough to keep pace with a growing population and hold down the
unemployment rate. However recent, preliminary employment reports, and stabilizing growth in withholdings
out of Oregonian paychecks indicate that risks may be tilted toward the upside over the next year.
To maintain stronger labor market gains Oregon will need to see either stronger population growth overall or
higher labor force participation rates among current residents. To date Oregon has experienced a very strong,
and needed labor force response. Participation rates have increased considerably in recent years as more
Oregonians have come back to the workforce in search of the more-plentiful and better-paying jobs. Further
participation gains, particularly among the prime-age population is not unreasonable to expect in a strong
economy. Oregon continues to hit the sweet spot as the economy approaches full employment.
Oregons General Fund revenues surged at the end of the 2015-17 biennium, putting Oregons unique kicker law
into play. Both personal and corporate tax collections grew at double-digit rates during the fourth quarter of the
fiscal year. As such, the personal and corporate tax kicker payments that were assumed in the May forecast
have become a reality, and have grown in size.
Personal income taxes ended the biennium 2.3% above the Close of Session forecast, triggering a $464 million
kicker for tax year 2017 to largely be paid out during income tax filing season in April 2018. Corporate excise
taxes ended 2015-17 $111 million above their Close of Session forecast, and above 2% kicker threshold.
However, instead of returning unanticipated corporate collections to taxpayers, statute directs that the
corporate income tax kicker be dedicated to education spending.
Heading into the 2017-19 biennium, a larger kicker payment reduces expected revenue growth. Combined with
weaker outlooks for corporate profits and inflation, the larger kicker has resulted in a $60 million reduction in
the outlook for General Fund tax collections. However, this reduction is more than offset by a stronger lottery
sales forecast, higher ending balances in BI2017-19, and $227 million in legislative changes made during the
2017 session.
Although revenue growth is still healthy compared to other states, the slowing pace of Oregons expansion has
become evident in tax return data just as it is has in the economic data. Income growth has been cut in half over
the past two years, with slowing across a wide range of income types. While still growing for now, business,
retirement, investment and labor income have all decelerated rapidly. Looking ahead, General Fund revenue
growth in the current biennium is expected to be only one-third of what was seen during BI2015-17.
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.
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
Economic Summary
The economic expansion continues and the outlook remains bright. For the first time since the financial crisis,
the U.S. economy lacks a major headwind. Expectations are not for a substantial pick-up in growth rates
themselves, but for the expansion to endure, possibly becoming the nations longest on record. If anything, the
current macroeconomy is a conundrum for the Federal Reserve given low unemployment and low inflation.
Even so, there do remain significant risks to the outlook, particularly the uncertainty of federal policy.
Oregons economy is largely tracking expectations of slower growth in a mature expansion. The state continues
to see healthy job gains that are enough to keep pace with a growing population and hold down the
unemployment rate. However recent, preliminary employment reports, and stabilizing growth in withholdings
out of Oregonian paychecks indicate that risks may be tilted toward the upside over the next year.
To maintain stronger labor market gains Oregon will need to see either stronger population growth overall or
higher labor force participation rates among current residents. To date Oregon has experienced a very strong,
and needed labor force response. Participation rates have increased considerably in recent years as more
Oregonians have come back to the workforce in search of the more-plentiful and better-paying jobs. Further
participation gains, particularly among the prime-age population is not unreasonable to expect in a strong
economy. Oregon continues to hit the sweet spot as the economy approaches full employment.
U.S. Economy
The current economic expansion is now eight years old making it the third longest expansion in the U.S. since
World War II. Even as the economy is closer to the next the recession than it is to the last, the outlook remains
bright. Maybe not so much in terms of growth rates, but in terms of sustainability and duration of the cycle. For
the first time since the financial crisis, the U.S. economy lacks a major economic headwind or cyclical issue.
In years past the U.S. faced the financial crisis itself, the
household debt overhang from the housing bubble, the
Greek debt crisis, a federal government shutdown, and an
oil bust to name a few. The good news is that today none of
those impediments remain. The U.S. has weathered each
storm and overall has outperformed the other major
financial crisis in history. To quote Mark Zandi, Moody
Analytics chief economist, the macroeconomic outlook
looks to be, if anything, boring. Even so, risks remain as do
long-term structural challenges.
But first some good news. The one major drag on growth in
recent years has been the fallout of the oil bust that began
in late 2014. As oil prices have stabilized and increased some since then, mining activity has revived. The
declines seen in nationwide industrial production have reversed. Hard hit sectors like mining and related
activities and metal manufacturing are growing again. Manufacturing is once again adding jobs, reaching new
post-Great Recession highs in each recent month. Overall business investment has picked up as well, at least in
part due to new mines and wells.
2
While job growth nationwide, and here in Oregon, has slowed over the past 18 months, it remains strong
enough to both pull workers back into the labor force and bring down the unemployment rate. Wage growth
continues to improve at the U.S. level, however in fits and starts and at a slower pace than the unemployment
rate alone would suggest. This indicates some economic slack remains, particularly among the prime working-
age population (25-54 years old) where the share of such Americans with a job remains a couple percentage
points lower today than a decade ago. Inflation remains well-anchored, however consistently below the Federal
Reserves target for the past five years.
While nearly all economic news in recent months continues to be positive, there is one persistent and on-going
issue plus significant risks to the outlook. Total U.S. personal income continues to grow at a slow pace.
Additionally the annual revisions undertaken by the Bureau of Economic Analysis shows that there is less
personal income than estimates initially thought and the
growth rates have been slower as well. This is concerning in
its own right, however the downward revisions are also
problematic from an economic and revenue forecasting
perspective. Even though the revisions are to historical
data, estimates of Oregons personal income in early 2017
have been revised down nearly one percent, with wages
down nearly two percent. While these slower income
trends may overstate any economic weakness given the
plethora of other data points, they still flow through to the
underlying economic and revenue outlook.
3
That said, as detailed earlier this year 1, many of the big policy ideas being discussed generally fall into two camps
when it comes to their impact here in Oregon. The first camp consists of policies like tax rate reductions,
infrastructure spending, deregulation, and immigration reform, that will likely impact Oregon to the same
degree as the typical state. The second camp consists of policies like tax base broadening, health care reform,
federal land policies including Canadian lumber tariffs, and international trade wars that are expected to have a
larger impact on Oregon than seen in the typical state. Campaign promises rarely turn word for word into
legislation and the devil is always in the detail. As such, until actual legislation is drafted and passed, it can be
hard to predict the economic impact of these broad and wide-ranging topics.
Oregon Economy
Oregons relatively tight labor market is now driving a virtuous cycle of stronger wage gains, businesses hiring
candidates with a gap in their resume or an incomplete skill set, and pulling more Oregonians back into the
workforce in search of the more-plentiful and better-paying jobs. Furthermore the tight market is leading to
slower growth as the economy transitions down to a more sustainable rate. An economy digging out from a
recession behaves considerably different than once approaching full employment.
1
See the March 2017 forecast document for details http://library.state.or.us/repository/2009/200908311536431/
2
https://www.qualityinfo.org/documents/10182/90519/A+Lack+of+Applicants+in+a+Growing+Economy?version=1.2
4
peak a bit over the past year. Now, Oregons population will increase faster than most states, its just that
further acceleration in these gains is unlikely at this point in the cycle.
Keep in mind that while labor force participation may appear to be a yes or no decision, it really operates on a
continuum. A lot of factors go into the decision. What if a job offer came in $2/hr higher? $5/hr higher? What if
the neighborhood childcare center had an opening making it easier to drop off and pick up your kid? What if
that one company on the bus line had an opening? And so forth.
While it is hard to pin down the exact reasons, an increase in disability benefits is not the major driver. For
economists, it is clear that incentives matter. By paying some people not to work, there is an incentive to apply
for benefits. However the increase in the share of 18-54 year old Oregonians actually receiving disability income,
or the caseloads from the Social Security Disability Insurance Program are considerably smaller than the overall
increase in people citing bad health as the reason why they are not working. Now, there has been an increase,
thus it is one factor, however it is clearly not the major driver.
5
All told, the current outlook for Oregon remains positive. The economy is expected to continue to improve. Even
as Oregon is transitioning down to a more sustainable rate of growth, something closer to gains in the working-
age population, job growth may surprise to the upside. Between now and the next recession, all of the good
dynamics that are finally happening, like rising household incomes and falling poverty rates, should continue.
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, however wages slowed to end
2016 and early in 2017. The unemployment is under what can be considered full employment for Oregon.
The preliminary data for both 2015 and 2016 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 process (i.e. revisions). The overall pattern of
Oregons unemployment rate has been a fairly steady decline since the depths of the Great Recession.
However, it must be noted that once again Oregons unemployment rate has plunged in early 2017 followed by
increases in recent months. If the recent past is any guide, expect the month to month changes to be moderated
once the data is revised in early 2018. Similarly, should the unemployment rate increase a handful of tenths of a
percentage point over the rest of the summer and into the fall, it is unlikely a tell-tale sign of pending doom.
3
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 2016. The QCEW is currently available through March 2017, thus the preliminary benchmark used here covers
the October 2016 March 2017 period.
4
Each industrys pre-recession peak was allowed to vary as, for example, construction and housing-related industries began
losing jobs earlier than other industries or the recessions official start date per NBER.
7
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 months 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 17 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 housing and related sectors are now recovery, 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 industrys collapse 5. 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 quarter or two 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 states manufacturing industry is comprised of newer
technologies like aerospace and semiconductors. Similarly
Oregons food processing industry continues to boom.
All told, each of Oregons 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 quarters 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 may be breaking through the malaise to the upside. In keeping with the general pattern of
economic growth, the mixed bag of indicators in both our offices Oregon Index of Leading Indicators (OILI) and
the University of Oregons Index of Economic Indicators, showed many of the manufacturing, or goods-
5
http://oregoneconomicanalysis.com/2012/07/10/rv-workers-and-reemployment/
8
producing indicators languishing while all others pointed toward growth. As discussed in recent quarters, the
manufacturing indicators began picking up, leading to gains in the overall index. This pattern continued in recent
months.
As of today no individual indicators are showing no growth. Oregon Economic Indexes, Jan 2005 = 100
Last quarter both Help Wanted Ads and the Oregon Dollar 120 100%
Index were flashing warning signs for those indicator series. 115 90%
In recent months, businesses are posting more job 110
Employment 80%
openings and the dollar is depreciating. Among the 70%
105
indicators that are currently slowing, none are particularly OILI
60%
100
worrisome from an economic growth perspective. The fact 50%
that housing permits and new construction continues to 95
40%
increase slowly in fits and starts is worrisome from an 90
30%
affordability point of view, but it also suggests the housing 85 20%
expansion still has legs to run. UO Index
80 10%
Recession Probability, rhs
Across both aggregate leading indicators there are no real 75 0%
signs for concerns at the moment. Jan-05 Jan-10 Jan-15
Individual Indicators
Right now the U.S. economy is not in recession. University
Improving OILI
of Oregon professor Jeremy Piger has created a real time Slowing Air Freight
probability of recession 6 model, and finds there is just 0.4 Not Improving Help Wanted Ads
Industrial Production
percent chance the U.S. has entered into a recession. UO Index Initial Claims
However, another recession will come, of that we can be Capital Good Orders Manufacturing PMI
Employment Services New Incorporations
sure. IHS Global Insight puts the probability of recession Initial Claims Oregon Dollar Index
over the next year at 20 percent, and the Wall Street Manufacturing Hrs Semiconductor Bill.
Weight Distance Tax Withholding
Journal consensus is at 15 percent. Consumer Sentiment Consumer Sentiment
Housing Permits Housing Permits
Hopefully Oregons leading indicators will give a signal in Interest Rate Spread
advance of the next recession, which neither is doing
today. While past experience is no guarantee of future performance, Oregons 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 Oregons 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 3,000 per
month or about 2 percent over the course 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.
6
http://pages.uoregon.edu/jpiger/us_recession_probs.htm/
9
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, this marks a slight downward revision to the economic
outlook. This revision is extremely minor for employment a few thousand jobs years in the future however
personal income has been revised down significantly. Total personal income is lowered by approximately one
percent, primarily due to a slower wage outlook which has been lowered 1.5-2 percent. Much of these changes
are due to the historical revisions made by the BEA as discussed previously. The expectation of future growth
rates remains largely unchanged, however the base has been revised lower.
The states 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 offices 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
next few years would be considerably less than that seen in the past few years. Only construction is expected to
add jobs at the same pace as the rest of the private sector, as the housing rebound continues.
Manufacturing in particular was expected to see minimal 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
10
expected to be strongest among the states food processors, and beverage manufacturers, predominantly
breweries. That said, any global weakening or further strengthening of the dollar will weigh further on growth.
Personal Income, Nominal U.S. 3.4 4.3 4.6 5.1 4.5 3.4 3.6 4.7 5.2 5.0
% change Oregon 6.0 5.2 5.9 6.0 5.5 4.5 4.4 5.7 5.6 5.5
Wages and Salaries, Nominal U.S. 3.8 5.1 4.8 5.2 5.2 3.9 3.5 5.0 5.2 4.9
% change Oregon 8.1 6.3 6.6 6.6 6.3 6.1 4.7 6.5 5.7 5.2
Population U.S. 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8
% change Oregon 1.5 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3
Housing Starts U.S. 1.14 1.22 1.25 1.32 1.34 1.18 1.21 1.35 1.40 1.44
U.S. millions, Oregon thousands Oregon 17.0 19.9 21.2 22.2 22.7 19.1 19.1 22.7 23.1 24.1
Unemployment Rate U.S. 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.9 4.4 4.1 3.9 4.0
Oregon 3.7 3.9 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.9 3.9 4.4 4.5 4.7
Total Nonfarm Employment U.S. 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0
% change Oregon 2.2 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.9 2.1 2.2 1.5 1.0
Private Sector Employment U.S. 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.9
% change Oregon 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.1 3.1 2.4 2.3 1.5 0.8
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
recent Oregon Supreme Court decision which reversed
earlier Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) changes
enacted by the Legislature. The extent to which the court
decision will impact hiring by local and state public entities
is unknown, but it is a risk to the outlook.
Along with an improving labor market, stronger personal
income gains are here. 2013 personal income is estimated
to have increased by just 1.7 percent. This largely reflects
the pulling forward of investment-type income into 2012 in
anticipation of increased federal tax rates in 2013. Since then, personal income has rebounded strongly with
robust gains seen in both 2014 (6.7%) and 2015 (6.6%). Continued gains are expected moving forward, albeit at
slower rates particularly in 2016 due to revisions and 2017 as well. Income growth is estimated to be 4.5 percent
in 2016 and forecasted to be 4.4 percent in 2017. Growth is expected to reach 5.7 percent in 2018.
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
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 second quarter totaled 17,000 at an annual pace. This marks slowing from earlier in 2016,
however new construction has improved in fits and starts in recent years. That said, a level of about 21,000
11
housing starts is the long-run average for the state prior to the housing bubble. The forecast calls for relatively
strong growth in the coming few years with starts reaching just over 19,100 in 2017 and 22,700 in 2018. 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, Oregons business cycle is perfectly aligned with the nations, 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, Oregons economy should receive a similar boost as well.
Housing affordability. Even as the housing market recovers, new supply entering the market 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 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 Oregons 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, 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.
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
12
course, it also limits the local benefit from any potential increases in federal spending. 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. 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 and droughts are
difficult to predict, we do know they impact regional economies. Droughts in particular impact our
agricultural sector and rural economies to a larger degree. Longer-term issues like the potential impact
of climate change on domestic migration patterns are likewise hard to predict and outside our offices
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 here 7.
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.
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 through the end of 2017 and into 2018. The economy is soon firing on all cylinders. Economic
7
http://oregoneconomicanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/historical-look-at-oregons-wood-product-industry
http://oregoneconomicanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/timber-counties/
13
growth is above potential in 2017 and 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. 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.
Optimistic
2.0 Baseline 2.1% 2.2% 1.5% 1.0%
Baseline
Optimistic 2.5% 4.4% 2.2% 0.8%
1.9 Mild Recession 2.1% 1.0% -1.4% -0.1%
Mild Rec.
1.8 Severe Recession 2.0% -2.3% -3.9% 1.3%
Severe Rec.
1.7 Personal Income
Baseline 4.4% 5.7% 5.6% 5.5%
1.6 Optimistic 5.8% 8.9% 6.5% 5.2%
Forecast-->
Mild Recession 4.4% 4.4% 2.8% 5.3%
1.5
Severe Recession 4.4% 0.9% -0.4% 6.7%
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
15
All told, our offices 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.
Oregons industrial structure is very similar to the U.S.
overall, even moreso than nearly all other states. That
said, Oregons 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
Oregons strength in both the recent past and historically, are now expected to grow the slowest moving
forward. Productivity and output from the states 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. Many
industries in which Oregon has a larger concentration
that then typical state are expected to perform well
over the coming decade. These industries include
management of companies, food and beverage
manufacturing, published software along with gains in
crop production and nurseries.
The states real challenges and opportunities will come
in industries in which Oregon does not have a relatively
large concentration (the orange bars in the graph).
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 year or two, the number of new business license applications 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.
16
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 todays 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
Oregons 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 states
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
published 8 a detailed look at Oregons per capita personal income.
While the states per capita income remains low, the
states average wage does not. Today, Oregons 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.
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 Oregons average wages
have already accelerated in recent years, even as U.S.
8
http://olmis.emp.state.or.us/olmisj/PubReader?itemid=00007366
17
wages are just now picking up. Our office expects Oregons average wage to continue to increase 3-4 percent
per year. However as the U.S. accelerates closer to Oregons annual rate, Oregons 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 the per capita income trends is the
relative incomes at the very top of the distribution. Make no
mistake, Oregons highest-income households have done
well financially. However incomes at the top of the national
distribution have increased even further. Additionally,
Oregons highest-income households have considerably less
income than their national counterparts. The further up in
the distribution you go, the less income Oregonians have
relative to the entire country. The concentration among the
richest households is large enough to weigh on Oregons
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, Oregons 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, Oregons per capita personal income is not
expected to catch the national average.
Regional Comparisons
Just as Oregon economic expansion continues, so too does
regional growth across the state. While half of the Oregons
individual counties are currently at all-time highs for
employment, nearly all have added jobs in the past year.
Given regional variations, industrial mix, and noisy data, not
once in the past 20+ years have each of Oregons 36
counties added jobs at the same time. In the second quarter
34 did add jobs over the past year, keeping in-line with the
typical pattern seen during expansions. Only Morrow and
Sherman counties lost jobs in the past 12 months.
18
Even as growth continues, it has slowed, particularly in
the Portland region. Jobs are now being added at
approximately a 2 percent pace throughout much of the
metro area. This is the slowest growth the region has
seen during an expansion in quite some time. Typically
the Portland region sees 2% job growth when it is
entering or exiting a recession. Job growth in recent
months has picked up some in unrevised data, which is
encouraging, if true.
Even as the state overall and the large urban areas have
slowed, not every county has. Encouragingly a few of the
hardest hit areas of the state are actually, finally seeing a
pick-up in growth. These include coastal, eastern, and
southern communities. In particular Coos, Crook, Grant,
Josephine, Klamath, Lake, Lincoln, and Wheeler counties are now adding jobs at a faster rate than in either 2015
or 2016. These regions of the state are not back to employment levels seen prior to the Great Recession, let
alone in the late 1990s, however the trajectory of growth has improved considerably. The South Coast, and
Southeastern Oregon regional economies are now more than halfway back to where they were prior to the
recession. All other regional economies within Oregon are back.
Such gains in rural Oregon are driven in part due to the
local industrial structure and nature of the Great
Recession. Many rural economies are more reliant upon
housing and government than the larger, more diverse
urban economies. It is not so much that rural areas love
housing and government. Rather it is the rest of the
private sector is smaller, thus making the public sector in
particular a larger share. As the economy has continued
to improve, migration flows have returned and public
sector budgets are growing again, rural economies across
Oregon have seen better growth.
State Comparisons
The key economic question economists are trying to answer today is whether or not the U.S. economy is at
full employment. Given it is more a concept then a hard calculation, researchers look for signs in the data that
suggest the economy is there. In terms of jobs and the unemployment rate, there is no question the data do
suggest this. However, at least nationally, wage growth is still relatively slow, albeit picking up some, and
inflation remains consistently below target.
In looking across the states there is no question that the headline numbers suggest the typical state is at or near
full employment. The vast majority of states are at all-time highs for the total number of jobs. Half of the states
have unemployment rates that are lower than a decade ago. However digging underneath the surface reveals
most states have considerable room for further improvement in the deeper measures of economic well-being
before they could be considered truly at full employment. Labor force participation rates, even after adjusting
19
for demographics remains low in a majority of states while those working part-time but want a full-time job
remains considerably higher today than a decade ago.
Most concerning is the fact that the share of the
prime working-age population with a job is back to
where it was before the Great Recession in just
two states. Two! Focusing just on the prime
working-age population is a really good way to
strip out the impact of the aging demographics.
This age group also has the highest labor force
participation and employment rates. And by
looking at rates, or shares, you control for any
population growth at the same time.
Focusing on employment by age across the Pacific
Northwest reveals interesting patterns. Idaho is
largely back except for employment rates for
Idahoans in their 40s and 50s. This is exactly where
Oregon was in 2015. The concern here is that this
gap may be structural based on skills or
geographic mismatches or age discrimination in
the hiring process. Given Oregons middle-age gap
has now closed, structural issues may be less of a
concern than initially feared. As the labor market
gets tight firms must cast a wider net when hiring.
They must dig a bit deeper into the resume stack
and hire those with an incomplete skill set or a gap
in their resume due to long-term unemployment
and the like. Thats happening nationally and here
in Oregon. I expect it to happen in Idaho too.
Montana and Washington are seeing some of
these same trends, albeit their prime-age EPOP
isnt back nearly as much. Montana was making
progress until the oil crash in late 2014 set them
back, along with the other energy states and
Canadian provinces.
For more information on each state individually
see our offices recent report: https://oregoneconomicanalysis.com/2017/05/24/states-at-full-employment-a-
prime-age-epop-story/
20
Revenue Summary
Oregons General Fund revenues surged at the end of the 2015-17 biennium, putting Oregons unique kicker law
into play. Both personal and corporate tax collections grew at double-digit rates during the fourth quarter of the
fiscal year. As such, the personal and corporate tax kicker payments that were assumed in the May forecast
have become a reality, and have grown in size.
Personal income taxes ended the biennium
2.3% above the Close of Session forecast.
Estate taxes and insurance taxes also came in
significantly above the Close of Session
forecast. As a result, a personal income tax
kicker of $464 million will be triggered for tax
year 2017. The personal income tax kicker is
based on all General Fund revenues excluding
corporate excise taxes. When these revenues
exceed the Close of Session forecast by more
than 2%, all of the unanticipated revenue
above the Close of Session forecast is
returned to taxpayers. Similarly, corporate excise taxes ended the biennium $111 million above their Close of
Session Forecast and above the 2% kicker threshold. However, instead of returning unanticipated corporate
collections to taxpayers, statute directs that the corporate income tax kicker be dedicated to education
spending.
Heading into the 2017-19 biennium, a larger kicker payment reduces expected revenue growth. Combined with
weaker outlooks for corporate profits and inflation, the larger kicker has resulted in a $60 million reduction in
the outlook for General Fund tax collections. However, this reduction is more than offset by a stronger lottery
sales forecast, higher ending balances in BI2017-19, and $227 million in legislative changes made during the
2017 session.
Although revenue growth is still healthy
compared to other states, the slowing pace of
Oregons expansion has become evident in tax
return data just as it is has in the economic
data. Income growth has been cut in half over
the past two years, with slowing across a wide
range of income types. While still growing for
now, business, retirement, investment and
labor income have all decelerated rapidly.
Looking ahead, General Fund revenue growth
in the current biennium is expected to be only
one-third of what was seen during BI2015-17.
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
21
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.
2015-17 General Fund Revenues
General Fund revenues for the 2015-17 biennium came in at $18,556 million. This represents an increase of
$90.7 million from the May 2017 forecast, and an increase of $2.5 billion (15.2%) relative to the 2013-15
biennium. General Fund revenues for the 2015-17 biennium are now expected to come in $574 million above
the Close of Session forecast.
Corporate taxes and other tax collections both surpassed Oregons 2% kicker threshold during the 2015-17
biennium. Personal income taxes exceeded the Close of Session forecast by 2.3%, while corporate income taxes
came in 10.2% above the Close of Session forecast. As a result, a personal income tax kicker of $464 million will
be returned to personal income tax filers when they file their 2017 tax returns. For the corporate tax kicker,
$110 million will be dedicated to education funding. Kicker estimates remain preliminary and may change
slightly before they are certified this fall.
2017-19 General Fund Revenues
General Fund revenues for the Table R.1
2015-17 biennium are expected 2017-19 General Fund Forecast Summary
to reach $17,122 million. This 2017 COS May 2017 September 2017 Change from Change from
(Millions) Forecast Forecast Forecast Prior Forecast COS Forecast
represents an increase of $75.2 Structural Revenues
million from the May 2017 Personal Income Tax $17,147.4 $17,146.9 $17,121.5 -$25.3 -$25.8
forecast, and an increase of $0.9 Corporate Income Tax $1,077.0 $1,071.5 $1,045.4 -$26.0 -$31.5
All Other Revenues $1,327.6 $1,198.4 $1,325.1 $126.6 -$2.5
billion (5.0%) relative to the
Gross GF Revenues $19,551.9 $19,416.8 $19,492.1 $75.2 -$59.9
2015-17 biennium. The
Offsets and Transfers -$75.5 -$75.5 -$71.8 $3.7 $3.7
increased outlook comes largely
1
Administrative Actions -$21.5 -$21.5 -$21.5 $0.0 $0.0
from legislative actions taken
Legislative Actions -$180.1 -$180.7 -$180.1 $0.6 $0.0
during the 2017 session.
Net Available Resources $20,055.7 $19,863.1 $20,094.3 $231.3 $38.6
General Fund revenues for the Confidence Intervals
2015-17 biennium are expected 67% Confidence +/- 8.7% $1,695.8 $17.80B to $21.19B
95% Confidence +/- 17.4% $3,391.6 $16.10B to $22.88B
to come in $60 million below
1 Reflects cost of cashflow management actions, ex clusiv e of internal borrow ing.
the Close of Session forecast.
Personal Income Tax
Personal income tax collections were $2,567 million during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2017, $117 million
above the latest forecast. Compared to the year-ago level, total personal income tax collections grew by 16.2%
relative to a forecast that called for an 11.2% increase. Table B.8 in Appendix B presents a comparison of actual
and projected personal income tax revenues for the April-June quarter. It should be noted, however, that
comparisons with past tax collections have been complicated by the use of a new personal income tax
processing system.
Corporate Excise Tax
22
Corporate excise tax collections equaled $200 million for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2017, $19.8 million
above the May forecast. Compared to the year-ago level, net corporate excise tax collections rose by 14.4%
relative to a forecast that called for a 4.1% increase.
Following sharp declines in recent months, corporate tax collections have returned to their historical norms. In
addition to profitability, recent law changes have supported collections, as has a decline in outstanding Business
Energy Tax Credits. The baseline outlook calls for corporate collections to stabilize going forward.
Other Sources of Revenue
While estate tax collections continue to be strong, they are no longer coming in above forecast. Estate taxes last
biennium were $106 million above the 2015 Close of Session. Fiscal year 2017 set a record by a considerable
amount. This means, everything else being equal, estate taxes accounted for 22% of the states kicker for last
biennium. This from a revenue source that accounts for roughly 1% of General Fund revenues.
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, while still very 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 $5 million each year. However in the last decade, among these estates, the average size,
and average tax payment has increased considerably. These trends are heavily influenced by a handful of
estates. Moving forward, the outlook for estate tax collections remains strong. However not quite as strong as
demographics and asset markets alone suggest due to tax planning.
Among other revenue items, insurance taxes to end 2015-17 were above forecast, and contributing to the size
of the kicker, due to a bulge of refunds not being issued prior to the end of the biennium. Those refunds are
being issued today, which results in a reduction in insurance taxes in 2017-19 relative to the Close of Session.
23
growth will fail to match the pace seen in the past.
Table R.2
General Fund Revenue Forecast Summary (Millions of Dollars, Current Law)
Personal Income Taxes 13,958.3 15.2% 16,055.8 15.0% 17,121.5 6.6% 19,251.9 12.4% 21,327.9 10.8% 23,229.5 8.9%
Corporate Income Taxes 1,116.5 26.3% 1,210.7 8.4% 1,045.4 -13.7% 1,028.4 -1.6% 1,074.9 4.5% 1,123.5 4.5%
All Others 1,030.2 -11.4% 1,289.3 25.2% 1,325.1 2.8% 1,315.8 -0.7% 1,400.9 6.5% 1,486.1 6.1%
Gross General Fund 16,105.0 13.7% 18,555.9 15.2% 19,492.0 5.0% 21,596.1 10.8% 23,803.7 10.2% 25,839.2 8.6%
Net Revenue 16,030.5 13.3% 18,506.8 15.4% 19,420.3 4.9% 21,522.6 10.8% 23,728.2 10.2% 25,761.7 8.6%
24
Alternative Scenarios
The latest revenue TABLE R2b September 2017
forecast for the current Alternative Cyclical Revenue Forecast ($ millions)
biennium represents the 2015-17 BN 2017-19 BN 2019-21 BN 2021-23 BN 2023-25 BN
most probable outcome Baseline Case FY '16 FY '17 FY '18 FY '19 FY '20 FY '21 FY '22 FY '23 FY '24 FY '25
Pe rsonal Income
given available Level 180.79 187.93 197.87 209.13 220.89 232.26 242.38 255.35 267.57 280.52
information. OEA feels % change 5.6% 3.9% 5.3% 5.7% 5.6% 5.2% 4.4% 5.4% 4.8% 4.8%
Taxe s
that it is important that Personal Income 7,599 8,457 8,263 8,858 9,339 9,913 10,456 10,872 11,353 11,877
anyone using this Corporate Excise & Income 603 608 529 516 514 515 528 547 557 567
Other General Fund 530 759 597 728 645 671 690 711 732 754
forecast for decision- T otal General Fund 8,732 9,824 9,389 10,103 10,498 11,098 11,674 12,130 12,641 13,198
making purposes % change 3.2% 12.5% -4.4% 7.6% 3.9% 5.7% 5.2% 3.9% 4.2% 4.4%
recognize the potential Moderate Recession FY '16 FY '17 FY '18 FY '19 FY '20 FY '21 FY '22 FY '23 FY '24 FY '25
for actual revenues to Pe rsonal Income
Two recessionary Personal Income 7,599 8,457 7,237 7,651 8,363 9,185 9,960 10,621 11,120 11,652
Deviation from baseline -1,026 -1,207 -976 -728 -496 -251 -233 -225
scenarios are displayed in Corporate Excise & Income 496 608 436 416 437 461 493 528 541 553
9
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.
25
Lottery Earnings
The lottery forecast has been raised considerably relative to last quarter. Available resources for the 2017-19
biennium are revised upward by $105 million (+8.1%) with the outer biennia raised between $45 million (+3.3%)
and $53 million (+3.4%). As discussed in greater detail below, by far the biggest factor in the new outlook is a
significantly smaller impact on video lottery sales due to the new ilani Casino Resort in southwest Washington.
Included in the 2017-19 biennium forecast changes is $32.4 million in administrative actions usually savings
and excess contingency funds from the Oregon Lottery. The revised outlook also includes an updated and
slightly weaker economic forecast for consumer spending on video lottery in the outer years due at least in part
to the personal income revisions and slower inflation outlook.
Cowlitz Tribes ilani Casino Resort Impact
Over the past year our office has incorporated a lower video lottery sales forecast due to the opening of the ilani
Casino Resort in southwest Washington. The increased competition in the regional gaming market was expected
to result in a loss of around $110 million per year in video lottery sales relative to an outlook without a new
casino. At the time of the May 2017 forecast publication the casino had been open for three weeks and there
had yet to be any noticeable impact on Oregon video lottery sales.
Today the casino has been open for more than three
months and there has been a noticeable impact on Oregon
video lottery sales. However the impact is considerably
smaller than was previously expected. The impact is around
one-fourth the expected size with even smaller estimates in
recent weeks.
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, recently announced that sales had fallen around 17 percent relative to last
year whereas they forecasted sales would fall by 40 percent.
Even as video lottery sales have come in considerably higher than expected, 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. If these come to pass, how will they impact sales? Will Oregon video lottery take a step
26
down, and/or will sales grow at a slower pace moving forward? Answers to these questions are still unknown.
Our office will continue to work with the Oregon Lottery, particularly the research team, the Legislative Fiscal
Office and Legislative Revenue Office to monitor sales and discuss the outlook.
One outlook question we do know is that the initial impact
of the new casino is less than previously forecasted. The
large decline in video lottery sales expected did not
materialize. As such the outlook for video lottery sales is
raised considerably in the near-term. Given the uncertainty
and the fact that it is highly unlikely the full impact of the
new casino has been reached after just a few months, the
outlook does include relatively small declines of 1-2 percent
for the rest of fiscal year 2018. Video lottery sales in fiscal
year 2019 are forecasted to increase around 2 percent,
however such a sluggish growth rate is less than the
underlying economic growth would suggest. Video lottery sales are expected to grow more in-line with income
gains in Oregon in the outer years of the forecast. Given recent sales figures, risks to this outlook are likely tilted
toward the upside.
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.
Video lottery sales in the Portland region are flat year-over-
year, primarily due to the new casino, while sales in the rest
of the state remain healthy at +4% year-over-year.
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.
27
Budgetary Reserves
The state currently administers two general reserve accounts, the Oregon Rainy Day Fund 10 (ORDF) and the
Education Stability Fund 11 (ESF). This section updates balances and recalculates the outlook for these funds
based on the May revenue forecast.
As of this forecast, the two reserve funds currently total a combined $777.3 million. Additionally there is a
projected General Fund ending balance for this biennium of $235.5 million, bringing effective reserves to
$1,012.9 million, or about 5 percent of current bienniums revenue.
The forecast for the ORDF includes two deposits for this biennium. The first, $180.1 million, is related to the
General Fund ending balance from last biennium (2015-17) and is expected to occur in March 2018. The second,
$38.9 million, is due to the increased corporate taxes from Measure 67. This brings the projected ORDF ending
balance at the end of 2017-19 to $635.0 million.
The forecast calls for $218.2 million in deposits into the ESF in 2017-19 based on the current Lottery forecast.
This would bring the ESF balance to $602.0 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 nearly $1.5 billion, or nearly 8 percent of current revenues.
Such levels of reserve balances are bigger than Oregon has ever been able to accumulate, at least in the states
recent history. However,
if you exclude the Oregon Budgetary Reserves (billions)
projected kicker that will Gen. Fund Ending Balance Educ. Stability Fund Rainy Day Fund Effective Reserves ($ millions)
$3.0 12% July End
be paid out next $2.5
Forecast -->
10% 2017 2017-19
biennium, the net $2.0 Percent of 8% ESF $384.2 $602.0
reserves are still $1.5
General Fund -->
6% RDF $393.1 $635.0
10
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.
11
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.
28
approximately 7 percent are generally accepted to be able to withstand a recession of average size 12.
B.10 in Appendix B provides more details for Oregons budgetary reserves.
Recreational Marijuana Tax Collections
House Bill 3470 (2017) officially gave our office the recreational marijuana forecasting responsibilities on a
permanent basis. Our baseline outlook remains essentially unchanged relative to our first marijuana forecast last
quarter. We did adjust the forecast to account for legislation. Senate Bill 1057 (2017) decreased available
resources in the Oregon Marijuana Account by $7.8 million for the 2017-19 biennium. SB 1057 increased
administrative costs (less available revenue) by $9.3 million, however there was a somewhat offsetting increase
in expected sales of $1.5 million. The net effect is the $7.8 million reduction in resources. Other adjustments
made to the current outlook include a small increase in administrative costs from 2015-17 which reduces the
ending balance carry forward into the current 2017-19 by $0.7 million. Additionally our office added a 10% sales
increase for August 2017 due to the eclipse. Otherwise the outlook remains the same as last quarter.
Our office would like to thank the Department of Revenues research team for ongoing efforts to track and
update marijuana program costs which are paid directly from marijuana tax collections prior to the distribution
to recipient programs.
Note: Given there has been no fundamental change to the outlook, the remainder of this section on the
recreational marijuana forecast is the same as last quarter, although lightly edited. Our office includes it here
again to lay out our offices process and methodology in producing the recreational marijuana forecast.
This quarterly forecast marks the first time our office has produced a recreational marijuana outlook for the
state. In developing the outlook, our office held a preliminary forecast meeting with stakeholders from state
agencies and invited input from local governments and industry professionals. Additionally, our office spoke
with our counterparts in both Colorado and Washington to better understand their experiences and views.
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 just over a years worth of
taxes, there have been substantial changes during this
time that complicate any analysis. Early start sales
through medical dispensaries were taxed at a 25
percent of rate, while sales at OLCC licensed retailers
are now taxed at a 17 percent rate, with the local option
of adding up to 3 additional percent. Furthermore,
regulatory changes, more stringent product testing
requirements, and Mother Nature all impacted and
reduced available supply on the market during this time.
Combined, it is challenging to get a handle on the underlying trends in this newly legalized world. Thankfully,
Oregon is not alone. Both Colorado and Washington are two years ahead of Oregon. Both states have seen
12
Based on a one standard deviation change in revenues. Larger reserves needed to insure against a more severe recession.
29
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 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.
One years worth of tax collections, and one set of quarterly tax returns filed by dispensaries is certainly more
valuable than no data. Our offices forecasting responsibilities are made considerably easier than what faced
those estimating the potential impact of Measure 91 (2014) which legalized recreational sales. That said, one
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.
So far, Oregons first year of recreational sales closely tracks Colorados first year and outpaces Washingtons,
after controlling for the fact both states have larger populations than Oregon. There are at least four main
reasons for this pattern.
First, marijuana usage rates from surveys indicate a larger share of Oregonians have used marijuana in the past
month than what is reported in Washington. As such, Oregon is more likely to see larger sales than Washington,
when adjusting for population size. However, usage is not the only measure that matters, as Colorados usage
rates are even higher than Oregons.
Second, prices and taxes matter. Oregon has a significantly lower tax rate than does Washington, which helps
keep final consumer prices lower. Furthermore, the first set of quarterly tax returns, a very limited data set,
indicates that Oregon prices were very competitive with Washington prices, even though Washington had two
additional years to get accustomed to the newly legal market, license growers, processors and the like. A lower
retail price, everything else equal, should bring more consumers and more black market conversions.
Third, the cross-border effect with legal sales beginning earlier in Washington likely had an impact on Oregons
first year of sales. Counties in southwest Washington saw sales fall by nearly 40 percent once Oregons early
sales began. Clearly there was plenty of cross-border activity. Effectively this meant Oregon had somewhat of a
built-in customer base who were used to purchasing in the legal market. Thus Oregons initial sales were larger
than in Washington, but this may 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. As such, some of each states 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. Not that Oregon is overstored, or that there cannot be more room for growth Colorado, for
example, has considerably more retailers even after adjusting for their larger population however lack of
consumer access does not appear to be a major issue in Oregon today for much of the population.
In terms of the outlook, Oregon is poised for strong growth in the coming years. However, given the above and
the advice from our advisory group, our office is not forecasting revenues to be quite as strong as those seen in
30
Colorado over their second and third years. This outlook 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. To date in
Colorado and Washington, prices have fallen
around 20 percent per year. Marijuana is a commodity and eventually will be commoditized. How far and how
quickly prices decline is a considerable risk to the outlook for tax collections. Offsetting this risk somewhat is the
fact that lower prices should result in larger sales, helping to buoy tax collections overall, which is what has
happened in both Colorado and Washington so far. Finally, the one risk that looms large over the entire forecast
is the federal government. While there has been no clear warning or 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 sales, and
the industry gains broader social acceptance, resulting in larger sales. Furthermore, a faster rate of black market
conversion would also result 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.
While the sales and tax collection outlook is uncertain, it is also fairly straightforward. The same cannot be said
for distributing the taxes, or at least not yet. Currently there have been no distributions from the collected
recreational marijuana taxes and there are likely to be none in the current biennium. Start-up costs to OLCC and
other state programs need to be repaid first, with only the net revenues after accounting for these costs
available for transfer to recipient programs like schools, state police, city and county law enforcement and the
like. The exact reimbursement figures will be finalized in the coming months, with the first tax distributions
made early in the 2017-19 biennium.
The process and timing for future tax distributions is as follows. First, retailers pay taxes on a monthly basis.
However these taxes are not immediately available for distribution. They only become available for recipient
programs once the Department of Revenue has received and processed a retailers quarterly tax return. This
ensures transfers are made based on the correct, not estimated, taxes paid by retailers. As such there is a time
lag of between one and two quarters from when taxes are initially paid to the Department of Revenue and when
they are available to transfer to programs. This discrepancy is likely to shorten some in the future as retailers file
their taxes in a timelier manner, however the time lag will not be eliminated entirely.
31
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.
32
POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC OUTLOOK
Population and Demographic Summary
Oregons 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. Oregons rankings in terms of decennial growth rate dropped from
11th between 1990-2000 to 18th between 2000 and 2010. Oregons 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, Oregons
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, Oregons population increased at a slow pace in the
recent past. However, Oregons current population is showing very strong growth as a consequence of states
strong economic recovery. Population growth between 2015 and 2016 was 6th fastest in the nation. Based on
the current forecast, Oregons population will reach 4.59 million in the year 2026 with an annual rate of growth
of 1.2 percent between 2016 and 2026.
Oregons economic condition heavily influences the states 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 Oregons 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
Californias housing market and Oregons growing economy continues, we expect positive impact on Oregons
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 2016-2026. 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 3.5 percent during the 2016-2026 forecast
33
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 5 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. The annual growth rate will taper off to below one percent by the end of the forecast period as
a sign of baby-boom generations 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 5.6 percent. The oldest elderly (aged 85+) will continue to grow at a slow but
steady rate 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 2.1 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 1.6 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. Oregons 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
"survives" the initial population distribution by age and sex to the next age-sex category in the following year,
34
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 Oregons 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 2016 and 2026 is expected to remain in the
range of 38,700 to 50,600, averaging 42,800 persons annually. Slowdown in Oregons 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. Oregons 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 Oregons 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.
35
APPENDIX A: ECONOMIC FORECAST DETAIL
36
Table A.1 Employment Forecast Tracking
37
Table A.2 Short-Term Oregon Economic Summary
Nominal Personal Income 191.2 193.7 196.5 199.3 202.0 184.3 192.4 203.4 214.9 226.7 238.0
% change 6.0 5.2 5.9 6.0 5.5 4.5 4.4 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.0
Real Personal Income (base year=2005) 170.4 172.1 173.9 175.9 177.7 166.5 171.1 178.6 185.4 191.2 196.2
% change 5.8 3.9 4.4 4.7 4.1 3.4 2.8 4.4 3.8 3.1 2.6
Nominal Wages and Salaries 100.5 102.0 103.7 105.3 107.0 96.6 101.2 107.7 113.9 119.8 125.7
% change 8.1 6.3 6.6 6.6 6.3 6.1 4.7 6.5 5.7 5.2 4.9
Other Indicators
Per Capita Income ($1,000) 46.2 46.6 47.1 47.7 48.2 45.1 46.4 48.4 50.5 52.6 54.5
% change 4.4 3.5 4.6 4.7 4.1 2.9 2.9 4.3 4.2 4.2 3.8
Average Wage rate ($1,000) 53.4 53.8 54.4 55.0 55.6 52.2 53.6 55.8 58.2 60.6 63.1
% change 6.2 3.4 4.2 4.3 4.3 3.1 2.5 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.1
Population (Millions) 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.08 4.15 4.20 4.26 4.31 4.36
% change 1.5 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2
Housing Starts (Thousands) 17.0 19.9 21.2 22.2 22.7 19.1 19.1 22.7 23.1 24.1 24.7
% change (23.7) 88.5 29.6 18.5 9.7 19.9 (0.0) 18.9 2.0 4.0 2.6
Unemployment Rate 3.7 3.9 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.9 3.9 4.4 4.5 4.7 4.8
Point Change (0.3) 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 (0.7) (0.9) 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1
Employment (Thousands)
Total Nonfarm 1,866.7 1,878.2 1,889.3 1,899.6 1,909.2 1,833.3 1,872.7 1,913.5 1,942.6 1,961.6 1,976.9
% change 2.2 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.9 2.1 2.2 1.5 1.0 0.8
Private Nonfarm 1,558.3 1,567.5 1,576.9 1,585.9 1,594.3 1,526.3 1,562.8 1,598.1 1,622.5 1,636.3 1,649.4
% change 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.1 3.1 2.4 2.3 1.5 0.8 0.8
Construction 97.3 97.8 97.9 98.5 99.0 90.2 97.0 99.2 100.4 100.5 100.6
% change 11.1 2.0 0.2 2.8 2.0 8.3 7.5 2.3 1.2 0.1 0.0
Manufacturing 190.2 190.7 191.2 191.5 192.0 188.0 190.3 192.0 193.3 194.6 195.8
% change 1.9 0.9 1.1 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6
Durable Manufacturing 132.1 132.4 132.7 132.7 133.1 131.2 132.2 133.1 133.6 134.2 134.8
% change 2.0 0.8 0.9 0.2 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4
Wood Product Manufacturing 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 22.8 23.0 23.0 23.1 23.3 23.5
% change 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 1.2 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.8
High Tech Manufacturing 37.5 37.5 37.6 37.5 37.8 38.1 37.5 37.7 37.8 37.6 37.5
% change (0.5) 0.2 0.8 (0.4) 2.4 1.0 (1.6) 0.5 0.1 (0.4) (0.3)
Transportation Equipment 12.0 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4
% change 2.6 2.2 (0.0) 0.9 (1.2) (2.9) (0.5) 0.5 0.5 1.1 0.5
Nondurable Manufacturing 58.1 58.3 58.5 58.7 58.9 56.9 58.2 58.9 59.7 60.4 61.0
% change 1.8 1.2 1.7 1.5 1.0 1.9 2.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.0
Private nonmanufacturing 1,368.1 1,376.8 1,385.7 1,394.4 1,402.3 1,338.2 1,372.4 1,406.1 1,429.2 1,441.6 1,453.6
% change 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.3 3.4 2.6 2.5 1.6 0.9 0.8
Retail Trade 207.2 207.9 208.8 209.0 209.4 205.6 207.8 209.8 212.1 214.1 215.7
% change 0.1 1.2 1.7 0.4 0.9 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.7
Wholesale Trade 76.3 76.6 77.0 77.2 77.6 75.7 76.5 77.6 78.3 78.7 79.0
% change 0.1 1.6 1.9 1.5 1.7 2.3 1.1 1.5 0.8 0.6 0.4
Information 33.3 33.4 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.3 33.5 33.6 33.8 34.2 34.4
% change (4.7) 1.9 0.3 0.2 0.5 1.3 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.0 0.7
Professional and Business Services 243.8 246.5 248.7 251.6 255.0 238.5 244.9 256.4 267.6 273.2 279.1
% change 5.0 4.6 3.6 4.8 5.5 4.0 2.7 4.7 4.4 2.1 2.2
Health Services 237.2 239.2 241.1 242.3 243.5 230.9 238.3 244.1 246.4 249.2 252.9
% change 2.5 3.3 3.3 2.0 2.0 3.8 3.2 2.4 0.9 1.2 1.5
Leisure and Hospitality 204.3 205.9 207.9 210.3 211.3 199.6 205.2 211.8 214.1 214.0 213.0
% change 3.0 3.3 3.9 4.7 2.0 4.2 2.8 3.2 1.1 (0.1) (0.4)
Government 308.4 310.7 312.4 313.7 314.9 307.1 309.9 315.4 320.1 325.4 327.5
% change 0.3 3.0 2.3 1.7 1.5 2.0 0.9 1.8 1.5 1.6 0.7
38
Table A.3 Oregon Economic Forecast Change
Nominal Personal Income 191.2 193.7 196.5 199.3 202.0 184.3 192.4 203.4 214.9 226.7 238.0
% change (0.7) (0.8) (0.7) (0.7) (0.7) (0.0) (0.7) (0.7) (0.8) (0.9) (0.9)
Real Personal Income (base year=2005) 170.4 172.1 173.9 175.9 177.7 166.5 171.1 178.6 185.4 191.2 196.2
% change (0.4) (0.4) (0.4) (0.4) (0.4) (0.0) (0.5) (0.3) (0.1) (0.1) 0.0
Nominal Wages and Salaries 100.5 102.0 103.7 105.3 107.0 96.6 101.2 107.7 113.9 119.8 125.7
% change (1.6) (1.6) (1.6) (1.6) (1.5) (0.1) (1.6) (1.5) (1.6) (1.8) (1.9)
Other Indicators
Per Capita Income ($1,000) 46.2 46.6 47.1 47.7 48.2 45.1 46.4 48.4 50.5 52.6 54.5
% change (0.7) (0.8) (0.7) (0.7) (0.7) (0.0) (0.7) (0.7) (0.8) (0.9) (0.9)
Average Wage rate ($1,000) 53.4 53.8 54.4 55.0 55.6 52.2 53.6 55.8 58.2 60.6 63.1
% change (1.7) (1.8) (1.8) (1.7) (1.6) (0.2) (1.9) (1.6) (1.6) (1.7) (1.9)
Population (Millions) 4.14 4.15 4.17 4.2 4.2 4.08 4.15 4.20 4.26 4.31 4.36
% change 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Housing Starts (Thousands) 17.0 19.9 21.2 22.2 22.7 19.1 19.1 22.7 23.1 24.1 24.7
% change (19.4) (7.3) (4.0) (1.1) (1.1) 0.2 (8.4) (0.7) 0.1 0.2 0.6
Unemployment Rate 3.7 3.9 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.9 3.9 4.4 4.5 4.7 4.8
Point Change (0.2) (0.2) (0.0) (0.0) 0.0 0.0 (0.1) (0.0) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Employment (Thousands)
Total Nonfarm 1,866.7 1,878.2 1,889.3 1,899.6 1,909.2 1,833.3 1,872.7 1,913.5 1,942.6 1,961.6 1,976.9
% change 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 (0.1) (0.1) (0.0)
Private Nonfarm 1,558.3 1,567.5 1,576.9 1,585.9 1,594.3 1,526.3 1,562.8 1,598.1 1,622.5 1,636.3 1,649.4
% change 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1
Construction 97.3 97.8 97.9 98.5 99.0 90.2 97.0 99.2 100.4 100.5 100.6
% change 2.2 2.1 1.5 1.7 1.7 0.1 1.6 1.7 2.0 1.8 1.1
Manufacturing 190.2 190.7 191.2 191.5 192.0 188.0 190.3 192.0 193.3 194.6 195.8
% change 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 (0.0) (0.1) 0.1 (0.0) 0.0 0.2 0.3
Durable Manufacturing 132.1 132.4 132.7 132.7 133.1 131.2 132.2 133.1 133.6 134.2 134.8
% change 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 (0.0) 0.3 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 0.1
Wood Product Manufacturing 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 22.8 23.0 23.0 23.1 23.3 23.5
% change (0.3) (0.5) (0.6) (0.7) (0.7) 0.0 (0.4) (0.8) (0.7) (0.2) (0.2)
High Tech Manufacturing 37.5 37.5 37.6 37.5 37.8 38.1 37.5 37.7 37.8 37.6 37.5
% change (1.1) (1.3) (1.4) (1.7) (1.4) (0.1) (1.1) (1.4) (0.7) (0.2) (0.2)
Transportation Equipment 12.0 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4
% change 0.7 2.2 2.7 2.0 0.5 0.0 1.4 0.5 (0.7) (0.6) (1.0)
Nondurable Manufacturing 58.1 58.3 58.5 58.7 58.9 56.9 58.2 58.9 59.7 60.4 61.0
% change (0.4) (0.5) (0.4) (0.3) (0.3) (0.1) (0.4) (0.2) 0.1 0.5 0.8
Private nonmanufacturing 1,368.1 1,376.8 1,385.7 1,394.4 1,402.3 1,338.2 1,372.4 1,406.1 1,429.2 1,441.6 1,453.6
% change 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 (0.0) 0.0
Retail Trade 207.2 207.9 208.8 209.0 209.4 205.6 207.8 209.8 212.1 214.1 215.7
% change 0.3 0.2 0.2 (0.0) (0.2) 0.0 0.4 (0.3) (0.5) (0.5) (0.4)
Wholesale Trade 76.3 76.6 77.0 77.2 77.6 75.7 76.5 77.6 78.3 78.7 79.0
% change (0.0) (0.2) (0.1) (0.0) 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0
Information 33.3 33.4 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.3 33.5 33.6 33.8 34.2 34.4
% change (0.5) (0.5) (0.6) (0.8) (1.0) 0.2 (0.1) (1.1) (1.7) (1.6) (1.2)
Professional and Business Services 243.8 246.5 248.7 251.6 255.0 238.5 244.9 256.4 267.6 273.2 279.1
% change 0.6 0.4 (0.0) (0.2) (0.1) 0.4 0.4 (0.1) 0.3 0.4 0.7
Health Services 237.2 239.2 241.1 242.3 243.5 230.9 238.3 244.1 246.4 249.2 252.9
% change (0.1) 0.0 0.1 (0.1) (0.2) 0.0 0.0 (0.2) (0.6) (0.6) (0.6)
Leisure and Hospitality 204.3 205.9 207.9 210.3 211.3 199.6 205.2 211.8 214.1 214.0 213.0
% change 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.5 (0.1) (0.5) (0.6)
Government 308.4 310.7 312.4 313.7 314.9 307.1 309.9 315.4 320.1 325.4 327.5
% change (0.5) (0.3) (0.3) (0.3) (0.4) 0.0 (0.3) (0.4) (0.5) (0.6) (0.6)
39
Table A.4 Annual Economic Forecast
Sep 2017 - Personal Income
(Billions of Current Dollars)
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Total Personal Income*
Oregon 165.6 176.4 184.3 192.4 203.4 214.9 226.7 238.0 249.6 261.3 274.0 287.2
% Ch 6.7 6.5 4.5 4.4 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.0 4.9 4.7 4.9 4.8
U.S. 14,809.8 15,458.5 15,986.7 16,566.0 17,339.7 18,234.5 19,151.5 20,080.3 21,026.3 21,987.9 22,989.0 24,016.3
% Ch 5.2 4.4 3.4 3.6 4.7 5.2 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.5
Transfer Payments
Oregon 33.5 35.7 36.7 37.9 39.8 42.1 44.6 47.0 49.9 52.8 56.3 60.0
% Ch 8.9 6.4 2.8 3.4 5.0 5.7 5.9 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.5
U.S. 2,494.9 2,627.2 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
% Ch 4.5 5.3 3.6 3.6 5.0 5.4 5.8 5.9 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.3
Residence Adjustment
Oregon (3.5) (3.9) (4.1) (4.1) (4.2) (4.3) (4.4) (4.5) (4.6) (4.7) (4.8) (5.0)
% Ch (1.1) 11.5 5.8 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.0 2.2 1.8 2.1 2.8 2.9
* Personal Income includes all classes of income minus Contributions for Social Security
40
Sep 2017 - Employment By Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Total Nonfarm
Oregon 1,722.0 1,781.1 1,833.3 1,872.7 1,913.5 1,942.6 1,961.6 1,976.9 1,990.8 2,002.6 2,016.5 2,031.7
% Ch 2.9 3.4 2.9 2.1 2.2 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8
U.S. 138.9 141.8 144.3 146.4 148.1 149.7 151.2 152.4 153.8 154.9 155.9 156.6
% Ch 1.9 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5
Private Nonfarm
Oregon 1,428.1 1,479.9 1,526.3 1,562.8 1,598.1 1,622.5 1,636.3 1,649.4 1,659.6 1,668.2 1,678.7 1,690.3
% Ch 3.1 3.6 3.1 2.4 2.3 1.5 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7
U.S. 117.1 119.8 122.1 124.1 125.9 127.5 128.7 130.0 131.2 132.2 133.0 133.7
% Ch 2.2 2.3 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5
Mining and Logging
Oregon 7.7 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8
% Ch 1.8 0.5 (0.5) (0.9) 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3
U.S. 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
% Ch 3.2 (8.7) (16.6) 5.4 4.4 0.9 2.1 2.3 1.9 1.6 1.0 0.1
C onstruction
Oregon 80.1 83.3 90.2 97.0 99.2 100.4 100.5 100.6 100.7 100.9 101.1 101.4
% Ch 8.0 4.0 8.3 7.5 2.3 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4
U.S. 6.1 6.5 6.7 6.9 7.2 7.5 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3
% Ch 5.0 5.0 3.9 2.9 3.8 4.3 2.2 2.0 2.2 1.9 1.5 1.2
Manufacturing
Oregon 179.6 186.2 188.0 190.3 192.0 193.3 194.6 195.8 197.0 197.8 198.6 199.8
% Ch 2.6 3.7 1.0 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6
U.S. 12.2 12.3 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.7 12.9 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.1
% Ch 1.4 1.2 0.1 0.5 0.9 1.7 1.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2
Durable Manufacturing
Oregon 126.3 130.5 131.2 132.2 133.1 133.6 134.2 134.8 135.4 135.7 136.0 136.5
% Ch 2.4 3.3 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.4
U.S. 7.7 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.9 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3
% Ch 1.7 1.2 (0.6) 0.4 1.4 2.2 1.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.5
Wood Products
Oregon 22.0 22.5 22.8 23.0 23.0 23.1 23.3 23.5 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.7
% Ch 4.0 2.3 1.2 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.5 (0.1) 0.1 0.6
U.S. 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
% Ch 5.2 2.9 2.5 1.3 4.1 5.7 4.8 3.8 3.7 3.4 2.8 2.1
Metal and Machinery
Oregon 35.9 36.9 36.7 37.1 37.7 37.8 37.9 38.1 38.4 38.8 39.2 39.5
% Ch 1.5 2.5 (0.4) 1.1 1.5 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0
U.S. 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.3
% Ch 1.7 (0.2) (3.0) 0.7 2.1 3.3 2.3 0.8 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.0
Computer and Electronic Products
Oregon 36.6 37.7 38.1 37.5 37.7 37.8 37.6 37.5 37.4 37.2 37.0 36.8
% Ch (0.1) 3.1 1.0 (1.6) 0.5 0.1 (0.4) (0.3) (0.2) (0.7) (0.5) (0.4)
U.S. 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
% Ch (1.5) 0.4 (0.5) (0.6) 3.1 1.4 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.3
T ransportation Equipment
Oregon 11.5 12.5 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4
% Ch 6.0 8.5 (2.9) (0.5) 0.5 0.5 1.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 (0.2) (0.1)
U.S. 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5
% Ch 3.3 2.9 1.3 (0.4) (1.4) 0.3 1.3 (0.5) (2.5) (2.9) (2.8) (0.8)
Other Durables
Oregon 20.3 20.9 21.5 22.5 22.5 22.8 23.1 23.3 23.5 23.7 23.8 24.0
% Ch 5.4 3.3 2.7 4.8 0.1 1.2 1.3 0.9 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.5
U.S. 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4
% Ch 2.2 2.3 1.3 1.0 1.5 2.4 1.7 1.0 1.5 1.2 0.8 0.7
Nondurable Manufacturing
Oregon 53.4 55.8 56.9 58.2 58.9 59.7 60.4 61.0 61.6 62.1 62.6 63.3
% Ch 3.1 4.5 1.9 2.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.1
U.S. 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.7
% Ch 0.9 1.3 1.3 0.7 0.2 1.0 0.7 0.1 (0.1) (0.1) (0.2) (0.2)
Food Manufacturing
Oregon 27.0 28.2 29.1 30.0 30.4 30.7 31.0 31.3 31.6 31.7 32.0 32.3
% Ch 4.2 4.7 3.1 3.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.0
U.S. 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8
% Ch 0.7 1.8 2.8 2.4 1.2 2.5 1.9 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.1
Other Nondurable
Oregon 26.4 27.5 27.7 28.2 28.6 28.9 29.4 29.7 30.0 30.3 30.7 31.0
% Ch 2.0 4.4 0.7 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.2
U.S. 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9
% Ch 0.9 1.0 0.5 (0.1) (0.3) 0.3 0.1 (0.6) (0.9) (0.9) (1.0) (1.0)
Trade , Transportation, and Utilitie s
Oregon 325.7 335.4 341.8 347.7 351.7 355.5 358.4 360.4 361.3 361.7 361.5 361.5
% Ch 2.4 3.0 1.9 1.7 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.1 (0.1) (0.0)
U.S. 26.4 26.9 27.2 27.4 27.5 27.6 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.6 27.5
% Ch 2.0 1.9 1.3 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 (0.0) (0.1) (0.3) (0.2)
41
Sep 2017 - Employment By Industry
(Oregon - Thousands, U.S. - Millions)
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Re tail Trade
Oregon 196.3 202.4 205.6 207.8 209.8 212.1 214.1 215.7 216.4 216.8 216.6 216.4
% Ch 2.5 3.1 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.3 0.2 (0.1) (0.1)
U.S. 15.4 15.6 15.8 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.8 15.7 15.7
% Ch 1.9 1.6 1.4 0.4 0.1 0.2 (0.1) (0.1) (0.2) (0.3) (0.5) (0.4)
Whole sale Trade
Oregon 72.5 74.0 75.7 76.5 77.6 78.3 78.7 79.0 79.2 79.2 79.2 79.3
% Ch 1.5 2.0 2.3 1.1 1.5 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 (0.0) 0.1
U.S. 5.8 5.9 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.0 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.2 6.2 6.2
% Ch 1.4 0.7 0.2 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.1
Transportation and Ware housing, and Utilitie s
Oregon 56.9 59.0 60.5 63.4 64.3 65.2 65.6 65.7 65.7 65.7 65.7 65.8
% Ch 3.6 3.8 2.6 4.7 1.4 1.4 0.6 0.2 0.1 (0.0) (0.1) 0.2
U.S. 5.2 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7
% Ch 3.2 4.1 2.2 1.3 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.1 (0.1) (0.2) (0.3) 0.3
Information
Oregon 32.2 32.9 33.3 33.5 33.6 33.8 34.2 34.4 34.6 34.7 34.7 34.9
% Ch (0.2) 2.3 1.3 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.4
U.S. 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9
% Ch 0.8 0.9 0.8 (1.7) 0.4 (0.2) 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.3
Financial Activitie s
Oregon 92.4 94.8 96.6 98.1 100.5 101.6 102.0 102.4 102.7 102.8 102.8 102.8
% Ch 0.9 2.6 2.0 1.5 2.5 1.1 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 (0.1)
U.S. 8.0 8.1 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.7 8.7
% Ch 1.1 1.8 2.0 1.8 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 (0.1)
Profe ssional and Busine ss Se rvice s
Oregon 219.8 229.3 238.5 244.9 256.4 267.6 273.2 279.1 282.7 285.9 290.1 293.9
% Ch 4.9 4.3 4.0 2.7 4.7 4.4 2.1 2.2 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.3
U.S. 19.1 19.6 20.1 20.7 21.4 22.2 22.6 23.2 23.8 24.4 24.8 25.2
% Ch 2.9 3.0 2.6 2.8 3.6 3.4 2.0 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.0 1.6
Education and He alth Se rvice s
Oregon 248.5 257.8 266.6 274.0 280.1 282.5 285.6 289.5 293.6 297.8 302.6 307.7
% Ch 2.4 3.8 3.4 2.8 2.2 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.7
U.S. 21.4 22.0 22.6 23.1 23.3 23.5 23.7 24.0 24.2 24.5 24.8 25.1
% Ch 1.7 2.7 2.7 2.1 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2
Educational Se rvice s
Oregon 34.7 35.3 35.7 35.7 35.9 36.2 36.4 36.6 36.8 36.9 37.0 37.1
% Ch 1.9 1.6 1.1 (0.0) 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.4
U.S. 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.2
% Ch 1.8 1.6 2.6 2.2 (0.4) (0.6) (1.6) (1.4) (2.0) (2.5) (2.6) (2.5)
He alth C are and Social Assistance
Oregon 213.7 222.5 230.9 238.3 244.1 246.4 249.2 252.9 256.8 260.9 265.6 270.5
% Ch 2.5 4.1 3.8 3.2 2.4 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.8
U.S. 18.0 18.6 19.1 19.5 19.7 19.9 20.2 20.5 20.8 21.1 21.5 21.9
% Ch 1.6 3.0 2.7 2.1 1.3 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.7
Le isure and Hospitality
Oregon 182.9 191.5 199.6 205.2 211.8 214.1 214.0 213.0 212.5 211.9 212.1 212.6
% Ch 3.6 4.7 4.2 2.8 3.2 1.1 (0.1) (0.4) (0.3) (0.3) 0.1 0.2
U.S. 14.7 15.2 15.6 15.9 16.2 16.2 16.4 16.5 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6
% Ch 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.0 1.5 0.4 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 (0.4)
O the r Se rvice s
Oregon 59.2 60.9 63.7 64.5 65.1 65.8 66.1 66.3 66.8 67.0 67.4 68.0
% Ch 2.0 3.0 4.6 1.1 1.0 1.1 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.8
U.S. 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.5
% Ch 1.5 1.0 1.1 1.0 (0.0) (0.7) (0.7) (0.3) (0.6) (0.8) (0.8) (0.6)
Gove rnme nt
Oregon 293.9 301.2 307.1 309.9 315.4 320.1 325.4 327.5 331.2 334.4 337.7 341.5
% Ch 1.7 2.5 2.0 0.9 1.8 1.5 1.6 0.7 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1
U.S. 21.9 22.0 22.2 22.3 22.2 22.2 22.5 22.5 22.6 22.7 22.8 22.9
% Ch 0.1 0.7 0.9 0.4 (0.5) 0.2 1.1 (0.0) 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4
Fe de ral Gove rnme nt
Oregon 27.4 27.8 28.3 28.4 27.8 27.5 28.8 27.1 27.0 27.0 27.0 26.9
% Ch (0.3) 1.2 1.9 0.4 (2.0) (1.1) 4.6 (5.8) (0.3) (0.1) (0.1) (0.2)
U.S. 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5
% Ch (1.4) 0.8 1.5 0.3 (3.7) (1.9) 3.9 (6.0) (0.6) (0.3) (0.3) (0.3)
State Gove rnme nt, O re gon
State T otal 70.8 58.0 56.0 54.4 55.4 56.6 57.4 58.4 59.4 60.3 61.2 62.3
% Ch (12.7) (18.1) (3.5) (2.8) 1.7 2.2 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.7
State Education 17.6 3.4 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
% Ch (46.5) (80.6) (76.4) (22.1) (4.5) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Local Gove rnme nt, O re gon
Local T otal 195.7 215.4 222.8 227.1 232.3 236.0 239.2 242.0 244.8 247.1 249.5 252.3
% Ch 8.6 10.1 3.5 1.9 2.3 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1
Local Education 108.2 126.0 131.5 135.3 138.7 139.7 140.7 141.6 142.4 143.1 143.7 144.2
% Ch 15.7 16.5 4.3 2.9 2.5 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3
42
Sep 2017 - Other Economic Indicators
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
GDP (Bil of 2009 $),
Chain Weight (in billions of $) 15,982.3 16,397.2 16,662.1 17,048.4 17,514.0 17,911.7 18,287.8 18,703.5 19,096.8 19,477.3 19,844.5 20,203.7
% Ch 2.4 2.6 1.6 2.3 2.7 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8
Housing Indicators
FHFA Oregon Housing Price Index
1991 Q1=100 304.6 332.3 369.6 402.6 433.3 456.6 479.2 499.6 519.2 538.4 555.4 569.2
% Ch 7.7 9.1 11.2 8.9 7.6 5.4 4.9 4.3 3.9 3.7 3.2 2.5
Housing Starts
Oregon (Thous) 15.5 15.9 19.1 19.1 22.7 23.1 24.1 24.7 24.9 24.8 24.4 24.1
% Ch 9.1 2.4 19.9 (0.0) 18.9 2.0 4.0 2.6 1.1 (0.4) (1.9) (1.2)
U.S. (Millions) 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
% Ch 7.8 10.6 6.3 3.1 10.9 4.3 2.9 2.9 1.3 0.3 (0.6) (0.9)
Other Indicators
Unemployment Rate (%)
Oregon 6.8 5.6 4.9 3.9 4.4 4.5 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.1
Point Change (1.1) (1.2) (0.7) (0.9) 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
U.S. 6.2 5.3 4.9 4.4 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.4
Point Change (1.2) (0.9) (0.4) (0.5) (0.3) (0.1) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Prime Rate (Percent) 3.3 3.3 3.5 4.1 4.7 5.7 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
% Ch 0.0 0.3 7.7 16.7 15.2 19.8 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Population (Millions)
Oregon 3.97 4.02 4.08 4.15 4.20 4.26 4.31 4.36 4.41 4.46 4.51 4.55
% Ch 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0
U.S. 319.2 321.5 323.7 325.9 328.5 331.1 333.8 336.4 339.0 341.5 344.1 346.6
% Ch 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7
43
APPENDIX B: REVENUE FORECAST DETAIL
Table B.1b General Fund Revenue Statement 2017 Close of Session ..... 46
Table B.7 Liquor Apportionment and Revenue Distribution to Local Governments ... 55
Table B.8 Track Record for the May 2017 Forecast .... 56
44
Table B.1 General Fund Revenue Statement
Table B.1a
General Fund Revenue Statement -- 2015-17
Forecasts Dated: 5/15/2017 Forecasts Dated: 9/1/2017 Difference
Estimate at Total Total 09/1/2017 Less 09/1/2017 Less
COS 2015 2015-16 2016-17 2015-17 2015-16 2016-17 2015-17 5/15/2017 COS
Taxes
Personal Income Taxes 15,713,459,000 7,690,765,000 8,330,007,000 16,020,772,000 7,598,557,000 8,473,702,000 16,072,259,000 51,487,000 358,800,000
Shared Service Fund (Gainshare) (32,663,000) (16,423,000) (16,444,000) (32,867,000) (16,423,000) (16,428,000) (32,851,000) 16,000 (188,000)
Corporate Income Taxes 1,100,007,000 609,868,000 565,847,000 1,175,715,000 603,078,000 607,658,000 1,210,736,000 35,021,000 110,729,000
Rainy Day Fund Transfer (Minimum Tax) (10,114,000) (6,366,000) (5,959,000) (12,325,000) (4,731,000) (11,479,000) (16,210,000) (3,885,000) (6,096,000)
Insurance Taxes 118,885,000 64,945,000 63,492,000 128,437,000 64,945,000 74,270,000 139,215,000 10,778,000 20,330,000
Estate Taxes 217,126,000 125,970,000 201,944,000 327,914,000 125,970,000 196,856,000 322,826,000 (5,088,000) 105,700,000
Cigarette Taxes 65,029,000 36,214,000 35,071,000 71,285,000 36,214,000 34,266,000 70,480,000 (805,000) 5,451,000
Other Tobacco Products Taxes 63,819,000 30,983,000 32,058,000 63,041,000 30,983,000 31,379,000 62,362,000 (679,000) (1,457,000)
Other Taxes 1,736,000 905,000 868,000 1,773,000 905,000 897,000 1,802,000 29,000 66,000
Central Service Charges 8,152,000 5,190,000 4,076,000 9,266,000 5,190,000 5,087,000 10,277,000 1,011,000 2,125,000
Liquor Apportionment 273,519,000 127,117,000 144,171,000 271,288,000 127,117,000 134,830,000 261,947,000 (9,341,000) (11,572,000)
Interest Earnings 14,943,000 7,366,000 12,469,000 19,835,000 7,366,000 17,507,000 24,873,000 5,038,000 9,930,000
Miscellaneous Revenues 12,409,960 4,060,000 6,305,000 10,365,000 4,060,000 4,422,000 8,482,000 (1,883,000) (3,927,960)
One-time Transfers 139,088,000 2,334,000 136,088,000 138,422,000 365,000 140,518,000 140,883,000 2,461,000 1,795,000
Gross General Fund Revenues 17,998,055,960 8,832,521,000 9,649,100,000 18,481,621,000 8,731,554,000 9,840,757,000 18,572,311,000 90,690,000 574,255,040
Offsets and Transfers (42,777,000) (22,789,000) (22,403,000) (45,192,000) (21,154,000) (27,907,000) (49,061,000) (3,869,000) (6,284,000)
Net General Fund Revenues 17,955,278,960 8,809,732,000 9,626,697,000 18,436,429,000 8,710,400,000 9,812,850,000 18,523,250,000 86,821,000 567,971,040
45
Table B.1b
General Fund Revenue Statement -- 2017-19 -- Close of Session
Taxes
Personal Income Taxes (Before Kicker) 8,227,135,000 8,919,751,000 17,146,886,000 8,227,375,000 8,920,011,000 17,147,386,000 500,000
Offsets and Transfers (16,466,000) (16,490,000) (32,956,000) (16,466,000) (16,490,000) (32,956,000) 0
Corporate Income Taxes (Before Kicker) 532,596,000 538,881,000 1,071,477,000 535,291,000 541,686,000 1,076,977,000 5,500,000
Offsets and Transfers (21,983,000) (20,521,000) (42,504,000) (21,983,000) (20,521,000) (42,504,000) 0
Insurance Taxes 65,050,000 66,802,000 131,852,000 64,250,000 65,602,000 129,852,000 (2,000,000)
Estate Taxes 142,216,000 147,799,000 290,015,000 142,216,000 147,799,000 290,015,000 0
Cigarette Taxes 34,280,000 33,781,000 68,061,000 34,221,000 33,616,000 67,837,000 (224,000)
Other Tobacco Products Taxes 32,968,000 33,583,000 66,551,000 32,910,000 33,419,000 66,329,000 (222,000)
Other Taxes 843,000 833,000 1,676,000 843,000 833,000 1,676,000 0
Central Service Charges 4,076,000 4,076,000 8,152,000 5,438,000 5,438,000 10,876,000 2,724,000
Gross General Fund Revenues 9,349,477,000 10,067,330,000 19,416,807,000 9,364,556,000 10,187,372,000 19,551,928,000 135,121,000
Net General Fund Revenues 9,311,028,000 10,030,319,000 19,341,347,000 9,326,107,000 10,150,361,000 19,476,468,000 135,121,000
Appropriations NA 19,858,800,000 NA
46
Table B.1c
General Fund Revenue Statement -- 2017-19
Taxes
Personal Income Taxes (Before Kicker) 17,147,386,000 8,227,135,000 8,919,751,000 17,146,886,000 8,263,396,000 8,858,141,000 17,121,537,000 (25,349,000) (25,849,000)
Offsets and Transfers (32,956,000) (16,466,000) (16,490,000) (32,956,000) (16,449,000) (16,472,000) (32,921,000) 35,000 35,000
Corporate Income Taxes (Before Kicker) 1,076,977,000 532,596,000 538,881,000 1,071,477,000 529,450,000 515,998,000 1,045,448,000 (26,029,000) (31,529,000)
Offsets and Transfers (42,504,000) (21,983,000) (20,521,000) (42,504,000) (19,298,000) (19,569,000) (38,867,000) 3,637,000 3,637,000
Insurance Taxes 129,852,000 65,050,000 66,802,000 131,852,000 57,084,000 67,827,000 124,911,000 (6,941,000) (4,941,000)
Estate Taxes 290,015,000 142,216,000 147,799,000 290,015,000 142,216,000 147,799,000 290,015,000 0 0
Cigarette Taxes 67,837,000 34,280,000 33,781,000 68,061,000 34,221,000 33,616,000 67,837,000 (224,000) 0
Other Tobacco Products Taxes 66,329,000 32,968,000 33,583,000 66,551,000 32,910,000 33,419,000 66,329,000 (222,000) 0
Other Taxes 1,676,000 843,000 833,000 1,676,000 843,000 833,000 1,676,000 0 0
Central Service Charges 10,876,000 4,076,000 4,076,000 8,152,000 5,438,000 5,438,000 10,876,000 2,724,000 0
Liquor Apportionment 326,090,000 155,266,000 161,603,000 316,869,000 159,784,000 166,306,000 326,090,000 9,221,000 0
Interest Earnings 35,279,000 15,763,000 19,516,000 35,279,000 17,563,000 20,016,000 37,579,000 2,300,000 2,300,000
Gross General Fund Revenues 19,551,928,000 9,349,477,000 10,067,330,000 19,416,807,000 9,389,438,000 10,102,614,000 19,492,052,000 75,245,000 (59,876,000)
Total Kicker Refunds/Credits (75,460,000) (38,449,000) (37,011,000) (75,460,000) (35,747,000) (36,041,000) (71,788,000) 3,672,000 3,672,000
Net General Fund Revenues 19,476,468,000 9,311,028,000 10,030,319,000 19,341,347,000 9,353,691,000 10,066,573,000 19,420,264,000 78,917,000 (56,204,000)
47
Table B.2 General Fund Revenue Forecast by Fiscal Year
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25
Fiscal Ye ar Fiscal Ye ar Fiscal Ye ar Fiscal Ye ar Fiscal Ye ar Fiscal Ye ar Fiscal Ye ar Fiscal Ye ar Fiscal Ye ar Fiscal Ye ar Fiscal Ye ar Fiscal Ye ar
Fiscal Years
Taxe s
Personal Income 6,628.0 7,330.3 7,598.6 8,457.3 8,263.4 8,858.1 9,339.0 9,912.9 10,455.8 10,872.1 11,353.0 11,876.5
Offsets and T ransfers (24.1) (38.1) (16.4) (16.4) (16.4) (16.5) (16.5) (16.5) (16.5) (16.6) (16.6) (16.6)
Corporate Excise & Income 494.8 621.8 603.1 607.7 529.5 516.0 513.6 514.8 528.3 546.5 556.7 566.9
Offsets and T ransfers (6.9) (5.4) (4.7) (11.5) (19.3) (19.6) (20.2) (20.3) (20.8) (21.5) (21.9) (22.3)
Insurance 59.8 61.3 64.9 74.3 57.1 67.8 68.7 70.6 72.6 74.2 76.1 77.9
Estate 85.5 111.0 126.0 196.9 142.2 147.8 154.3 159.2 164.2 167.6 171.6 176.6
Cigarette 36.1 37.2 36.2 34.3 34.2 33.6 33.2 32.5 31.9 31.4 30.8 30.3
Other T obacco Products 30.2 29.9 31.0 31.4 32.9 33.4 34.0 34.6 35.2 35.9 36.7 37.4
Other T axes 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
O the r Re ve nue s
Licenses and Fees 128.2 128.1 126.8 119.4 134.1 135.3 137.0 138.5 138.6 140.0 141.1 142.1
Charges for Services 3.6 5.1 5.2 5.1 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4
Liquor Apportionment 120.8 125.9 127.1 134.8 159.8 166.3 175.5 185.5 195.6 206.8 218.1 230.6
Interest Earnings 4.2 4.8 7.4 17.5 17.6 20.0 26.4 33.7 35.5 38.5 40.5 42.5
Others 50.8 5.7 4.4 144.9 12.5 117.9 9.8 10.0 10.2 10.4 10.6 10.8
Gross Ge ne ral Fund 7,643.1 8,461.8 8,731.6 9,824.3 9,389.4 10,102.6 10,497.7 11,098.5 11,674.1 12,129.5 12,641.5 13,197.7
Ne t Ge ne ral Fund 7,612.1 8,418.3 8,710.4 9,796.4 9,353.7 10,066.6 10,460.9 11,061.7 11,636.8 12,091.4 12,602.9 13,158.8
2013-15 Pe rce nt 2015-17 Pe rce nt 2017-19 Pe rce nt 2019-21 Pe rce nt 2021-23 Pe rce nt 2023-25 Pe rce nt
Biennial Totals Bie nnium C hange Bie nnium C hange Bie nnium C hange Bie nnium C hange Bie nnium C hange Bie nnium C hange
Taxe s
Personal Income 13,958.3 15.2% 16,055.8 15.0% 17,121.5 6.6% 19,251.9 12.4% 21,327.9 10.8% 23,229.5 8.9%
Corporate Excise & Income 1,116.5 26.3% 1,210.7 8.4% 1,045.4 -13.7% 1,028.4 -1.6% 1,074.9 4.5% 1,123.5 4.5%
Insurance 121.0 22.2% 139.2 15.0% 124.9 -10.3% 139.3 11.6% 146.8 5.3% 154.0 4.9%
Estate T axes 196.5 -3.5% 322.8 64.3% 290.0 -10.2% 313.5 8.1% 331.7 5.8% 348.1 4.9%
Cigarette 73.3 -1.8% 70.5 -3.8% 67.8 -3.7% 65.6 -3.3% 63.3 -3.5% 61.1 -3.5%
Other T obacco Products 60.1 3.2% 62.4 3.8% 66.3 6.4% 68.5 3.3% 71.0 3.7% 74.1 4.3%
Other T axes 2.0 -15.9% 1.8 -10.8% 1.7 -7.0% 1.6 -2.4% 1.6 -0.6% 1.6 0.0%
O the r Re ve nue s
Licenses and Fees 256.4 -7.1% 246.2 -4.0% 269.4 9.4% 275.5 2.3% 278.6 1.1% 283.2 1.7%
Charges for Services 8.7 -24.7% 10.3 17.8% 10.9 5.8% 10.9 0.0% 10.9 0.0% 10.9 0.0%
Liquor Apportionment 246.7 5.9% 261.9 6.2% 326.1 24.5% 360.9 10.7% 402.4 11.5% 448.7 11.5%
Interest Earnings 9.0 -44.1% 24.9 176.1% 37.6 51.1% 60.1 60.0% 74.0 23.1% 83.0 12.2%
Others 56.5 -70.0% 149.4 164.6% 130.4 -12.7% 19.8 -84.8% 20.6 4.0% 21.4 3.9%
Gross Ge ne ral Fund 16,105.0 13.7% 18,555.9 15.2% 19,492.0 5.0% 21,596.1 10.8% 23,803.7 10.2% 25,839.2 8.6%
Ne t Ge ne ral Fund 16,030.5 13.3% 18,506.8 15.4% 19,420.3 4.9% 21,522.6 10.8% 23,728.2 10.2% 25,761.7 8.6%
48
Table B.3 Summary of 2017 Legislative Session Adjustments
Revenue Impact
17-19 19-21 21-23
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
49
Table B.4 Oregon Personal Income Tax Revenue Forecast
TABLE B.4 OREGON PERSONAL INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS
Thousands of Dollars - Not Seasonally Adjusted September 2017
2007:3 2007:4 2008:1 2008:2 FY 2008 2008:3 2008:4 2009:1 2009:2 FY 2009
WITHHOLDING 1,115,359 1,200,822 1,196,532 1,111,034 4,623,747 1,162,107 1,182,763 1,128,994 1,089,305 4,563,169
%CHYA -0.3% 2.4% 1.2% 2.1% 1.4% 4.2% -1.5% -5.6% -2.0% -1.3%
EST. PAYMENTS 250,749 217,163 281,441 399,475 1,148,828 264,440 174,826 217,305 263,135 919,707
%CHYA 8.2% 22.7% 5.3% 10.0% 10.6% 5.5% -19.5% -22.8% -34.1% -19.9%
FINAL PAYMENTS 57,503 129,817 104,841 971,325 1,263,486 70,306 99,430 104,105 529,995 803,836
%CHYA 3.8% 45.2% 4.3% 24.6% 23.3% 22.3% -23.4% -0.7% -45.4% -36.4%
REFUNDS 71,372 155,912 389,876 365,908 983,068 92,063 180,329 447,706 404,229 1,124,327
%CHYA -20.0% 23.0% -12.3% -1.0% -4.6% 29.0% 15.7% 14.8% 10.5% 14.4%
OTHER (177,781) (1,084,201) - 182,322 (1,079,660) (182,322) - - 138,521 (43,801)
TOTAL 1,174,457 307,689 1,192,938 2,298,247 4,973,332 1,222,469 1,276,690 1,002,698 1,616,726 5,118,583
%CHYA 3.0% -76.6% 7.9% 12.7% -11.1% 4.1% 314.9% -15.9% -29.7% 2.9%
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%
1
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%
Note: "Other" includes kicker and federal pension refunds, as well as July withholding accrued to June.
Tax law impacts are reflected in the collections numbers to produce more meaningful projections.
50
TABLE B.4 OREGON PERSONAL INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS
Thousands of Dollars - Not Seasonally Adjusted September 2017
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%
1
FINAL PAYMENTS 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%
2017:3 2017:4 2018:1 2018:2 FY 2018 2018:3 2018:4 2019:1 2019:2 FY 2019
WITHHOLDING 1,772,757 1,858,934 1,894,285 1,800,505 7,326,482 1,807,244 1,912,146 1,975,561 1,881,953 7,576,904
%CHYA 5.8% 9.0% 3.2% 1.8% 4.9% 1.9% 2.9% 4.3% 4.5% 3.4%
EST. PAYMENTS 319,779 300,662 381,878 463,120 1,465,439 339,212 309,262 393,025 479,553 1,521,052
%CHYA 6.3% -5.8% -0.1% 2.9% 0.9% 6.1% 2.9% 2.9% 3.5% 3.8%
1
FINAL PAYMENTS 109,596 142,888 148,496 796,552 1,197,532 91,913 127,481 158,279 955,223 1,332,896
%CHYA 5.8% -0.9% -15.3% -13.3% -10.8% -16.1% -10.8% 6.6% 19.9% 11.3%
REFUNDS 137,360 242,104 786,340 605,753 1,771,557 158,959 273,380 657,380 498,952 1,588,672
%CHYA -1.1% -5.0% 36.9% 33.2% 24.5% 15.7% 12.9% -16.4% -17.6% -10.3%
OTHER (192,251) - - 237,751 45,500 (237,751) - - 253,713 15,962
TOTAL 1,872,521 2,060,380 1,638,319 2,692,175 8,263,396 1,841,659 2,075,508 1,869,484 3,071,490 8,858,141
%CHYA 9.8% 7.7% -9.9% -6.4% -0.6% -1.6% 0.7% 14.1% 14.1% 7.2%
2019:3 2019:4 2020:1 2020:2 FY 2020 2020:3 2020:4 2021:1 2021:2 FY 2021
WITHHOLDING 1,867,955 1,998,384 2,075,750 1,979,048 7,921,137 1,964,273 2,101,383 2,177,198 2,074,929 8,317,783
%CHYA 3.4% 4.5% 5.1% 5.2% 4.5% 5.2% 5.2% 4.9% 4.8% 5.0%
EST. PAYMENTS 354,248 323,236 410,591 508,395 1,596,471 373,177 340,493 432,459 534,256 1,680,385
%CHYA 4.4% 4.5% 4.5% 6.0% 5.0% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.1% 5.3%
FINAL PAYMENTS1 99,441 142,644 164,958 1,016,879 1,423,923 101,945 145,101 169,220 1,063,174 1,479,441
%CHYA 8.2% 11.9% 4.2% 6.5% 6.8% 2.5% 1.7% 2.6% 4.6% 3.9%
REFUNDS 99,454 224,969 689,050 528,965 1,542,438 105,414 239,453 704,380 539,844 1,589,091
%CHYA -37.4% -17.7% 4.8% 6.0% -2.9% 6.0% 6.4% 2.2% 2.1% 3.0%
TOTAL 1,968,477 2,239,295 1,962,248 3,169,018 9,339,039 2,140,321 2,347,524 2,074,497 3,350,551 9,912,894
%CHYA 6.9% 7.9% 5.0% 3.2% 5.4% 8.7% 4.8% 5.7% 5.7% 6.1%
2021:3 2021:4 2022:1 2022:2 FY 2022 2022:3 2022:4 2023:1 2023:2 FY 2023
WITHHOLDING 2,059,466 2,203,243 2,279,373 2,171,804 8,713,886 2,155,635 2,306,139 2,385,708 2,273,105 9,120,587
%CHYA 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4.7% 4.8% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7%
EST. PAYMENTS 389,118 354,762 451,015 552,473 1,747,369 404,659 368,931 469,175 576,641 1,819,406
%CHYA 4.3% 4.2% 4.3% 3.4% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.4% 4.1%
FINAL PAYMENTS1 109,115 154,704 184,094 1,071,859 1,519,772 111,737 159,675 185,139 1,088,213 1,544,763
%CHYA 7.0% 6.6% 8.8% 0.8% 2.7% 2.4% 3.2% 0.6% 1.5% 1.6%
REFUNDS 107,700 244,294 697,752 527,962 1,577,708 111,191 252,506 737,040 558,477 1,659,214
%CHYA 2.2% 2.0% -0.9% -2.2% -0.7% 3.2% 3.4% 5.6% 5.8% 5.2%
OTHER (218,036) - - 270,532 52,496 (270,532) - - 317,040 46,507
TOTAL 2,231,962 2,468,416 2,216,731 3,538,706 10,455,815 2,290,307 2,582,239 2,302,982 3,696,522 10,872,050
%CHYA 4.3% 5.1% 6.9% 5.6% 5.5% 2.6% 4.6% 3.9% 4.5% 4.0%
2023:3 2023:4 2024:1 2024:2 FY 2023 2024:3 2024:4 2025:1 2025:2 FY 2025
WITHHOLDING 2,256,183 2,413,708 2,503,504 2,386,324 9,559,719 2,368,527 2,533,869 2,629,439 2,506,555 10,038,390
%CHYA 4.7% 4.7% 4.9% 5.0% 4.8% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
EST. PAYMENTS 422,361 385,069 489,855 604,079 1,901,365 442,458 403,392 513,286 634,562 1,993,698
%CHYA 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.8% 4.5% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 5.0% 4.9%
FINAL PAYMENTS1 118,756 167,591 196,184 1,136,874 1,619,404 119,344 170,251 200,013 1,179,956 1,669,565
%CHYA 6.3% 5.0% 6.0% 4.5% 4.8% 0.5% 1.6% 2.0% 3.8% 3.1%
REFUNDS 117,125 266,238 767,382 581,384 1,732,129 121,714 276,585 806,271 611,414 1,815,984
%CHYA 5.3% 5.4% 4.1% 4.1% 4.4% 3.9% 3.9% 5.1% 5.2% 4.8%
OTHER (317,040) - - 321,688 4,649 (321,688) - - 312,536 (9,153)
TOTAL 2,363,135 2,700,130 2,422,160 3,867,582 5111,353,008 2,486,927 2,830,928 2,536,466 4,022,195 11,876,516
%CHYA 3.2% 4.6% 5.2% 4.6% 4.4% 5.2% 4.8% 4.7% 4.0% 4.6%
Note: "Other" includes July withholding accrued to June. Tax law impacts are reflected in the collections numbers to produce more meaningful projections.
Table B.5 Oregon Corporate Income Tax Revenue Forecast
TABLE B.5 OREGON CORPORATE INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS
Thousands of Dollars - Not Seasonally Adjusted September 2017
FY FY
2007:3 2007:4 2008:1 2008:2 2008 2008:3 2008:4 2009:1 2009:2 2009
ADVANCE PAYMENTS 133,408 205,375 64,256 155,284 558,323 100,589 145,285 63,802 97,368 407,044
%CHYA 2.8% -13.1% 7.5% -4.4% -5.1% -24.6% -29.3% -0.7% -37.3% -27.1%
FINAL PAYMENTS 23,631 45,064 35,076 52,143 155,912 23,501 26,721 22,314 21,822 94,357
%CHYA 19.8% 162.7% 37.9% -20.5% 21.9% -0.6% -40.7% -36.4% -58.1% -39.5%
REFUNDS 39,623 158,106 36,380 39,394 273,503 28,134 124,826 67,471 37,218 257,649
%CHYA 76.3% -20.7% -6.0% -21.0% -11.9% -29.0% -21.0% 85.5% -5.5% -5.8%
TOTAL 117,416 92,333 62,951 168,032 440,732 95,956 47,181 18,645 81,971 243,753
%CHYA -7.5% 70.4% 35.4% -5.7% 8.6% -18.3% -48.9% -70.4% -51.2% -44.7%
FY FY
2009:3 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 FY
2011:3 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 FY
2013:3 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%
52
TABLE B.5 OREGON CORPORATE INCOME TAX REVENUE FORECAST - QUARTERLY COLLECTIONS
Thousands of Dollars - Not Seasonally Adjusted September 2017
FY FY
2015:3 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%
FY FY
2017:3 2017:4 2018:1 2018:2 2018 2018:3 2018:4 2019:1 2019:2 2019
ADVANCE PAYMENTS 153,052 207,594 98,745 177,978 637,368 146,224 205,039 99,528 179,827 630,617
%CHYA 12.0% -3.7% -3.8% -8.9% -2.0% -4.5% -1.2% 0.8% 1.0% -1.1%
FINAL PAYMENTS 46,590 96,509 64,188 64,467 271,754 37,903 97,455 64,798 63,511 263,667
%CHYA 4.1% 3.3% 23.1% -21.2% -0.2% -18.6% 1.0% 0.9% -1.5% -3.0%
REFUNDS 44,353 196,587 80,110 58,623 379,672 38,985 197,995 81,430 59,875 378,286
%CHYA 11.8% 18.0% 9.6% 1.5% 12.7% -12.1% 0.7% 1.6% 2.1% -0.4%
TOTAL 155,289 107,516 82,824 183,821 529,450 145,141 104,499 82,895 183,462 515,998
%CHYA 9.5% -24.6% 1.3% -16.3% -9.6% -6.5% -2.8% 0.1% -0.2% -2.5%
FY FY
2019:3 2019:4 2020:1 2020:2 2020 2020:3 2020:4 2021:1 2021:2 2021
ADVANCE PAYMENTS 147,969 207,142 100,713 181,976 637,800 149,914 210,310 102,107 184,990 647,321
%CHYA 1.2% 1.0% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.3% 1.5% 1.4% 1.7% 1.5%
FINAL PAYMENTS 36,403 109,221 67,719 63,537 276,880 35,551 124,078 71,945 65,389 296,964
%CHYA -4.0% 12.1% 4.5% 0.0% 5.0% -2.3% 13.6% 6.2% 2.9% 7.3%
REFUNDS 39,525 212,684 85,972 62,945 401,126 40,935 230,351 91,570 66,587 429,444
%CHYA 1.4% 7.4% 5.6% 5.1% 6.0% 3.6% 8.3% 6.5% 5.8% 7.1%
TOTAL 144,848 103,679 82,460 182,568 513,554 144,530 104,037 82,482 183,791 514,840
%CHYA -0.2% -0.8% -0.5% -0.5% -0.5% -0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.7% 0.3%
FY FY
2021:3 2021:4 2022:1 2022:2 2022 2022:3 2022:4 2023:1 2023:2 2023
ADVANCE PAYMENTS 152,861 215,434 104,745 190,045 663,085 157,279 221,442 107,624 195,045 681,390
%CHYA 2.0% 2.4% 2.6% 2.7% 2.4% 2.9% 2.8% 2.7% 2.6% 2.8%
FINAL PAYMENTS 36,549 140,400 77,915 70,655 325,519 39,715 156,999 83,878 75,342 355,935
%CHYA 2.8% 13.2% 8.3% 8.1% 9.6% 8.7% 11.8% 7.7% 6.6% 9.3%
REFUNDS 42,783 249,102 97,711 70,665 460,261 44,817 267,942 103,646 74,401 490,806
%CHYA 4.5% 8.1% 6.7% 6.1% 7.2% 4.8% 7.6% 6.1% 5.3% 6.6%
TOTAL 146,628 106,731 84,949 190,035 528,343 152,178 110,499 87,856 195,986 546,519
%CHYA 1.5% 2.6% 3.0% 3.4% 2.6% 3.8% 3.5% 3.4% 3.1% 3.4%
FY FY
2023:3 2023:4 2024:1 2024:2 2024 2024:3 2024:4 2025:1 2025:2 2025
ADVANCE PAYMENTS 160,944 226,013 109,456 197,529 693,942 162,447 227,521 110,245 199,151 699,363
%CHYA 2.3% 2.1% 1.7% 1.3% 1.8% 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8%
FINAL PAYMENTS 41,381 172,135 106,459 90,482 410,457 49,176 246,151 126,090 105,057 526,474
%CHYA 4.2% 9.6% 26.9% 20.1% 15.3% 18.8% 43.0% 18.4% 16.1% 28.3%
REFUNDS 46,504 285,688 126,528 89,014 547,734 53,374 359,265 145,296 101,037 658,972
%CHYA 3.8% 6.6% 22.1% 19.6% 11.6% 14.8% 25.8% 14.8% 13.5% 20.3%
TOTAL 155,821 112,459 89,387 198,998 556,665 158,248 114,406 91,040 203,172 566,865
%CHYA 2.4% 1.8% 1.7% 1.5% 1.9% 1.6% 1.7% 1.8% 2.1% 1.8%
53
Table B.6 Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Distribution
* Prior to January 1, 2014 the cigarette tax per pack totaled $1.18 w ith the follow ing 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. Follow ing the passage of
HB 3601 during the 2013 Special Session, the follow ing changes w ere made to cigarette tax es. Beginning January 1, 2014 tax es per pack w ere raised $0.13 to a total of $1.31 per pack. Beginning January 1, 2016 tax es w ill increase an additional $0.01 for a total of $1.32
per pack w ith 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 relativ e to pre-2014 tax rates, is dedicated to Mental Health. Similarly the full $0.15 post January 1, 2018 is likew ise dedicated to Mental Health.
54
Table B.7 Revenue Distribution to Local Governments
2013-14 213.810 121.426 8.626 0.294 26.557 37.938 64.495 18.969 11.086
2014-15 221.681 125.959 8.720 0.295 27.589 39.413 67.001 19.706 10.727
2013-15 Biennium 435.491 247.385 17.345 0.589 54.146 77.351 131.497 38.675 21.813
2015-16 224.137 127.421 8.991 0.307 27.815 39.735 67.550 19.868 10.926
2016-17 253.806 144.171 8.933 0.319 31.940 45.628 77.568 22.814 10.904
2015-17 Biennium 477.943 271.592 17.925 0.626 59.755 85.364 145.118 42.682 21.830
2017-18 258.187 159.784 9.595 0.334 35.478 50.683 86.161 25.341 10.640
2018-19 271.892 166.306 9.987 0.347 36.926 52.751 89.677 26.376 10.452
2017-19 Biennium 530.079 326.089 19.582 0.681 72.404 103.434 175.838 51.717 21.091
2019-20 285.806 175.460 9.968 0.359 38.701 55.287 93.988 27.643 10.307
2020-21 300.999 185.462 10.228 0.372 40.636 58.051 98.687 29.026 10.090
2019-21 Biennium 586.805 360.922 20.196 0.732 79.337 113.338 192.674 56.669 20.397
2021-22 316.332 195.613 10.471 0.385 42.576 60.823 103.399 30.412 9.930
2022-23 333.171 206.763 10.743 0.399 44.705 63.864 108.569 31.932 9.755
2021-23 Biennium 649.503 402.376 21.214 0.783 87.281 124.687 211.969 62.344 19.685
2023-24 350.233 218.122 11.001 0.412 46.849 66.927 113.775 33.463 9.591
2024-25 368.901 230.555 11.287 0.427 49.191 70.273 119.464 35.136 9.412
2023-25 Biennium 719.135 448.677 22.288 0.839 96.040 137.200 233.239 68.600 19.003
1
Mental Health Alcoholism and Drug Services Account, per ORS 471.810
2
For details on cigarette revenues see TABLE B.6 on previous page
55
Table B.8 Track Record for the May 2017 Forecast
* 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.
56
Table B.9 Summary of Lottery Resources
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES
Constitutional Distributions
Education Stability Fund2 242.482 18.171 12.645 251.017 8.054 272.323 8.982 288.349 9.598 304.788 NA
Parks and Natural Resources Fund3 202.068 15.142 10.537 209.181 6.712 226.936 7.485 240.291 7.999 253.990 NA
Veterans' Services Fund4 20.207 1.514 1.054 20.918 0.671 22.694 0.748 24.029 0.800 25.399 NA
Other Distributions
Outdoor School Education Fund5 24.000 (20.535) 0.000 47.427 0.778 49.913 0.811 52.334 0.851 54.872 NA
County Economic Development 41.286 (1.845) 0.000 50.851 3.067 55.587 2.044 59.149 2.182 62.801 NA
HECC Collegiate Athletic & Scholarships6 8.240 (4.222) 0.000 13.945 0.447 15.129 0.499 16.019 0.533 16.933 NA
Gambling Addiction 6 12.457 (0.005) 0.000 13.945 0.447 15.129 0.499 16.019 0.533 16.933 NA
County Fairs 3.828 0.180 0.000 3.828 0.180 3.828 0.180 3.828 0.180 3.828 NA
Other Legislatively Adopted Allocations7 782.449 523.849 0.000 235.300 (23.300) 238.900 (19.700) 234.300 (24.300) 234.300 NA
Total Distributions 1,337.017 532.250 24.235 846.413 (2.944) 900.439 1.548 934.318 (1.624) 973.843 NA
Ending Balance/Discretionary Resources 65.156 (427.268) 46.012 550.127 47.689 614.469 48.350 669.621 54.948 721.422 NA
57
Table B.10 Budgetary Reserve Summary and Outlook
Total Reserves
(Millions) 2013-15 2015-17 2017-19 2019-21 2021-23 2023-25
Ending Balances $391.2 $776.8 $1,237.0 $1,750.3 $2,228.5 $2,697.0
Percent of General Fund Revenues 2.4% 4.2% 6.4% 8.1% 9.4% 10.5%
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.
58
Table B.11 Recreational Marijuana Resources and Distributions
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES
State School Fund (40% ) 80.987 (3.120) 0.000 80.915 (2.761) 92.410 (1.961) 102.233 (1.578) 112.331 (1.933)
Mental Health, Alcoholism, & Drug
40.494 (1.560) 0.000 40.457 (1.380) 46.205 (0.980) 51.117 (0.789) 56.166 (0.967)
Services (20% )
State Police (15% ) 30.370 (1.170) 0.000 30.343 (1.035) 34.654 (0.735) 38.338 (0.592) 42.124 (0.725)
Cities (10% ) 20.397 (0.630) 0.150 20.229 (0.690) 23.103 (0.490) 25.558 (0.394) 28.083 (0.483)
Counties (10% ) 20.397 (0.630) 0.150 20.229 (0.690) 23.103 (0.490) 25.558 (0.394) 28.083 (0.483)
Alcohol & Drug Abuse Prevention,
10.123 (0.390) 0.000 10.114 (0.345) 11.551 (0.245) 12.779 (0.197) 14.041 (0.242)
Intervention & Treatment (5% )
Total Distributions 3 202.769 (7.499) 0.000 202.287 (6.902) 231.026 (4.902) 255.584 (3.944) 280.828 (4.833)
Ending Balance 1.204 1.204 1.204 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
2. In 2015-17, Administrativ e Costs include $7.7 million in one-time costs associated w ith program start-up, including construction funds for the Department of Rev enue, and repay ment of the Liquor Fund loan for OLCC. Administrativ e Costs for 2017-19 and
bey ond reflect monthly collection costs for the Department of Rev enue.
3. Rev enues are not distributed to recipient programs until the OLCC liquor fund loan has been repay ed. 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 w ill be carried
forw ard into 2017-19 for distribution w hen the liquor fund loan has been repay ed, and retailers' quarterly tax returns are processed.
59
APPENDIX C: POPULATION FORECASTS BY AGE AND SEX
60
Table C.1 Population Forecasts Component of Change 1990-2026
STATE OF OREGON
POPULATION 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 18.60
1991 2,928,500 68,100 2.38 42,682 14.75 24,944 8.62 17,738 50,362 17.40
1992 2,991,800 63,300 2.16 42,427 14.33 25,166 8.50 17,261 46,039 15.55
1993 3,060,400 68,600 2.29 41,442 13.69 26,543 8.77 14,899 53,701 17.75
1994 3,121,300 60,900 1.99 41,487 13.42 27,564 8.92 13,923 46,977 15.20
1995 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 15.01
1997 3,304,300 57,200 1.76 43,625 13.32 29,201 8.91 14,424 42,776 13.06
1998 3,352,400 48,100 1.46 44,696 13.43 28,705 8.62 15,991 32,109 9.65
1999 3,393,900 41,500 1.24 45,188 13.40 29,848 8.85 15,340 26,160 7.76
2000 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 6.87
2002 3,502,600 32,200 0.93 44,995 12.91 30,828 8.84 14,167 18,033 5.17
2003 3,538,600 36,000 1.03 45,686 12.98 30,604 8.69 15,082 20,918 5.94
2004 3,578,900 40,300 1.14 45,599 12.81 30,721 8.63 14,878 25,422 7.14
2005 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 11.52
2007 3,739,400 54,200 1.47 49,404 13.31 31,396 8.46 18,008 36,192 9.75
2008 3,784,200 44,800 1.20 49,659 13.20 32,008 8.51 17,651 27,149 7.22
2009 3,815,800 31,600 0.84 47,960 12.62 31,382 8.26 16,578 15,022 3.95
2010 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 1.92
2012 3,883,735 26,110 0.68 44,897 11.60 32,804 8.47 12,093 14,017 3.62
2013 3,919,020 35,285 0.91 44,969 11.53 33,168 8.50 11,801 23,484 6.02
2014 3,962,710 43,690 1.11 45,447 11.53 33,731 8.56 11,716 31,974 8.11
2015 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 45,732 11.31 35,692 8.82 10,040 52,465 12.97
2017 4,136,900 60,550 1.49 46,382 11.29 36,081 8.79 10,301 50,250 12.24
2018 4,195,100 58,200 1.41 46,936 11.27 36,691 8.81 10,246 47,954 11.51
2019 4,251,600 56,501 1.35 47,451 11.24 37,299 8.83 10,152 46,349 10.97
2020 4,306,000 54,399 1.28 47,929 11.20 37,958 8.87 9,971 44,428 10.38
2015-2020 292,155 234,430 183,721 50,709 241,446
2021 4,357,400 51,400 1.19 48,297 11.15 38,693 8.93 9,603 41,797 9.65
2022 4,407,400 50,000 1.15 48,576 11.08 39,479 9.01 9,097 40,903 9.33
2023 4,455,400 48,000 1.09 48,770 11.01 40,317 9.10 8,453 39,547 8.92
2024 4,502,000 46,600 1.05 48,877 10.91 41,233 9.21 7,644 38,956 8.70
2025 4,547,500 45,500 1.01 48,886 10.80 42,170 9.32 6,716 38,784 8.57
2026 4,591,800 44,299 0.97 48,798 10.68 43,099 9.43 5,699 38,600 8.45
Sources: 1990-1999 population - U.S. Census Bureau; 2000-2009 population - intercensal estimates by Office of Economic Analysis;
population estimates 2010-2016 by Population Research Center, PSU; births and deaths 1990-15: Oregon Center for Health Statistics.
61
Table C.2 Population Forecasts by Age and Sex: 2000-2026
State of Oregon
Oregon's Population Forecasts by Age and Sex: 2000-2026 (July 1 population)
(July 1 Population)
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
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
Total 1,964,843 1,997,866 3,962,710 1,991,482 2,022,362 4,013,845 2,024,076 2,052,273 4,076,350 2,055,359 2,081,541 4,136,900 2,085,696 2,109,404 4,195,100 2,115,128 2,136,473 4,251,600 2,143,438 2,162,562 4,306,000
Mdn. Age 38.0 40.1 39.0 38.1 40.2 39.1 38.2 40.2 39.2 38.3 40.3 39.3 38.5 40.3 39.4 38.6 40.4 39.5 38.8 40.5 39.6
Total 2,169,687 2,187,713 4,357,400 2,195,178 2,212,222 4,407,400 2,219,629 2,235,771 4,455,400 2,243,345 2,258,656 4,502,000 2,266,520 2,280,980 4,547,500 2,289,120 2,302,679 4,591,800
Mdn. Age 39.0 40.7 39.8 39.1 40.8 40.0 39.3 41.0 40.1 39.5 41.1 40.3 39.7 41.3 40.4 39.8 41.4 40.6
62
Table C.3 Population of Oregon: 1990-2026
Year Total Change from previous year
(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% Oregon's Population and Annual Percent Change, 1950-2026
1993 3,060,400 68,600 2.29%
1994 3,121,300 60,900 1.99% 5,000,000 3.5%
Percent Change
3,000,000
Population
2001 3,470,400 39,300 1.15% 1.5%
2002 3,502,600 32,200 0.93% 2,500,000
2003 3,538,600 36,000 1.03% 1.0%
2,000,000
2004 3,578,900 40,300 1.14%
0.5%
2005 3,626,900 48,000 1.34% 1,500,000
2006 3,685,200 58,300 1.61%
0.0%
2007 3,739,400 54,200 1.47% 1,000,000
2008 3,784,200 44,800 1.20% -0.5%
500,000 Forecast
2009 3,815,800 31,600 0.84%
2010 3,837,300 21,500 0.56% 0 -1.0%
2011 3,857,625 20,325 0.53% 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
2012 3,883,735 26,110 0.68% Year
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 4,136,900 60,550 1.49%
2018 4,195,100 58,200 1.41%
2019 4,251,600 56,501 1.35%
2020 4,306,000 54,399 1.28%
2021 4,357,400 51,400 1.19%
2022 4,407,400 50,000 1.15%
2023 4,455,400 48,000 1.09%
2024 4,502,000 46,600 1.05%
2025 4,547,500 45,500 1.01%
2026 4,591,800 44,299 0.97%
Table C.4 Children: Ages 0-4 Table C.5 School Age Table C.6 Young Adult
Population: Ages 5-17 Population: Ages 18-24
Year % Change from p revious decade/y r. % Change from p revious decade/y r. % Change from p revious decade/y r.
(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 230,142 -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 231,488 1,881 0.82% 635,548 2,244 0.35% 370,415 247 0.07%
2017 233,685 2,197 0.95% 638,325 2,777 0.44% 370,874 460 0.12%
2018 235,742 2,057 0.88% 639,402 1,077 0.17% 372,350 1,476 0.40%
2019 237,556 1,814 0.77% 641,201 1,800 0.28% 373,567 1,217 0.33%
2020 239,481 1,925 0.81% 643,929 2,728 0.43% 373,344 -223 -0.06%
2021 241,880 2,399 1.00% 645,638 1,709 0.27% 373,138 -205 -0.06%
2022 243,955 2,076 0.86% 646,860 1,221 0.19% 373,561 422 0.11%
2023 245,654 1,699 0.70% 648,715 1,855 0.29% 374,336 775 0.21%
2024 246,946 1,292 0.53% 650,133 1,418 0.22% 375,099 764 0.20%
2025 248,089 1,143 0.46% 650,722 589 0.09% 376,070 971 0.26%
2026 249,132 1,043 0.42% 651,470 748 0.11% 377,258 1,188 0.32%
63
Table C.7 Criminally At Risk Table C.8 Prime Wage Table C.9 Older Wage
Population (males): Ages 15-39 Earners: Ages 25-44 Earners: Ages 45-64
Year % Change from p revious decade/y r. % Change from p revious decade/y r. % Change from p revious decade/y r.
(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 691,331 12,324 1.81% 1,096,579 21,698 2.02% 1,068,918 9,150 0.86%
2017 702,649 11,318 1.64% 1,120,823 24,244 2.21% 1,070,771 1,853 0.17%
2018 712,120 9,470 1.35% 1,145,645 24,822 2.21% 1,069,045 -1,726 -0.16%
2019 722,265 10,145 1.42% 1,169,760 24,115 2.10% 1,066,366 -2,679 -0.25%
2020 729,098 6,833 0.95% 1,190,543 20,783 1.78% 1,065,311 -1,055 -0.10%
2021 736,236 7,139 0.98% 1,210,400 19,857 1.67% 1,064,565 -746 -0.07%
2022 743,001 6,764 0.92% 1,229,210 18,810 1.55% 1,064,009 -557 -0.05%
2023 749,395 6,394 0.86% 1,244,372 15,162 1.23% 1,065,314 1,305 0.12%
2024 755,245 5,851 0.78% 1,260,893 16,521 1.33% 1,067,071 1,757 0.16%
2025 759,576 4,331 0.57% 1,273,223 12,330 0.98% 1,071,804 4,733 0.44%
2026 763,355 3,779 0.50% 1,285,524 12,302 0.97% 1,076,901 5,098 0.48%
64