I(1 OREGOil ,.,suBDivision ACTIVITY. I=Iff=" ,(=t=p1=30,-, &WM. i=c=als=1. Oregon State University Extension Service

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "I(1 OREGOil ,.,suBDivision ACTIVITY. I=Iff=" ,(=t=p1=30,-, &WM. i=c=als=1. Oregon State University Extension Service"

Bryan Wells
5 years ago
Views:

5,.,suBDivision ACTIVITY I(1 OREGOil 1963-1977,nd,(=t=p1=3,-, 13 w;:v.e==i = 1=.11 ==.

1 5,.,suBDivision ACTIVITY I(1 OREGOil ,nd,(=t=p1=3,-, 13 w;:v.e==i = 1=.11 ==.( I=Iff=" i=c=als=1 3c:=YZ 1 F=1C _ E pip 4=n=ii==i1 4,1. 1 &WM Special Report 551 April 1979 Oregon State University Extension Service

2 Subdivision Activity in Oregon Rosalyn Proffitt Shirack Research Assistant Unclassified Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics Oregon State University The research reported in this publication was supported by Title V of the Rural Development Act of April 1979 Oregon State University Extension Service

3 Contents Sources of Information on Subdivision Activity 1 Statewide Subdivision Activity 3 Subdivision Activity in the Counties 6 Summary 13 Page Appendix 1 Subdivisions Filed in Oregon by County and Year 15 Appendix 2 Subdivision Lots Created in Oregon by County and Year 16 Figures Figure 1. Subdivisions filed in Oregon, by year 5 Figure 2. Subdivision lots filed in Oregon, by year.. 5 Figure 3. Lots per subdivision in Oregon, by year 5 Figure 4. Percent of total subdivision filings occurring in each county, Figure 5. Percent of total subdivision lot filings occurring in each county, Figure 6. Percent increase in subdivision lots in each county,

4 Subdivision Activity in Oregon Subdivision activity in the State of Oregon represents a readily identifiable form of growth. Such growth is expected to have a number of impacts including increased demand on public services, shifts in land use, and changes in land values. These impacts will vary depending on the number, type, location, density, and rate of development of the subdivisions. For these reasons citizens, planners, and public officials may benefit from information on subdivision activity in the State. This report presents an overview of subdivision activity in Oregon from 1963 to It also compares and contrasts subdivision activity among counties of the State in terms of numbers of subdivisions and rate of growth of subdivision lots. Sources of Information on Subdivision Activity Records from the subdivision section of the Oregon State Department of Commerce were used to determine the extent of subdivision activity in Oregon. Subdividers who sell or advertise subdivision lots in Oregon are required to file their subdivisions with the Department of Commerce pursuant to ORS / This requirement has been in effect since In 1975, the Department of Commerce provided for an exemption filing. This abbreviated filing form may be used for subdivisions which have local verification that the required public services are provided. Subdivisions which qualify for the exemption filing are defined in this study as "full-service" subdivisions. The number of subdivisions and number of individual lots within subdivisions were compiled by year based on when the subdivision was filed with the State, rather than when actual platting took place. The final platting of subdivisions may take place before or after the subdivision is filed. Data based on year of filing were used because they were the most complete and accurate data that were available from a central source. The data do not account for a small percent of subdivisions which were not filed with the State. Only in Klamath County are these omissions expected 1/ The Department of Commerce is not a regulatory agency, but rather uses the subdivision filings to provide consumer information to potential purchasers of subdivision lots. Actual approval and regulation of subdivisions occurs at the city or county level.

5 to significantly understate subdivision activity. In 1974, there were 18 desist and refrain orders issued in Klamath County, largely due to nonfiling of subdivisions. Compared to the number of subdivisions that were filed in 1974 (2), this indicates that only about one-half of the subdivision activity in the county is accounted for by the data. Therefore, data is expected to understate subdivision activity in Klamath County. Data on desist and refrain orders are not available by county for other years. County assessors' records were used to estimate residential, recreational, and tract tax lots existing prior to The state's standard property classification codes (1's and 7's for residential, 8's for recreational, and 4's for tracts) were used to identify these lots. Only these property classifications were of interest because it was assumed most subdivided lots were assigned these classifications by the assessor. The intent was to estimate subdivided lots existing prior to 1963, the year the Department of Commerce began keeping records. The number of lots existing prior to 1963 is used as a benchmark against which the number of lots created from 1963 to 1977 can be compared. The ratio of "after" 1963 lots to "before" 1963 lots yields the percent increase in subdivision lots since _21 This information is needed in order to put the 15- year time series data in perspective with what has occurred before. While the percent increase in subdivision lots is helpful in understanding subdivision activity, it should be used with caution. Its greatest value is to illustrate relative growth rates of subdivision activity among counties rather than an absolute rate. The primary weakness of the growth rates results from estimated benchmark data (i.e., lots existing prior to 1963). Most counties did not maintain tax lot data by property class in Therefore, tax lots existing prior to 1963 were derived from 1973 tax lot data and subdivision records of lots created between 1963 and Total tax lots in the relevant property classifications (1's, 4's, 7's, and 8's) existing in 1973, minus lots created by subdivision between 1963 and 1973, provide the estimate of lots existing prior to Lots created from 1963 to 1977 Rate of growth is available for subdivision lots, but not entire subdivisions. Rate of growth was derived from county assessor records which identify lots, but not whole subdivisions. -2-

6 divided by the estimated number of lots existing prior to 1963, equals the percent increase, or rate of growth, in subdivision lots from 1963 to The reliability of the data varies among counties. While subdivided lots are expected to represent most of the lots created from 1963 to 1977, the records do not include divisions of less than four lots, unreported subdivisions, or lots not required to be filed under ORS (3). 2/ Since the number of lots estimated to exist prior to 1963 were derived in part from subdivision records, they may be overestimated. As a result, the percent increase in lots may be underestimated. subdivision data are presented for the State as a whole. Important differences in the number and rate of growth of subdivision lots among counties are also discussed. Statewide Subdivision Activity There were 6,168 subdivisions and 221,311 lots created in the State from 1963 to 1977 (Table 1). There was an average of 36 lots per subdivision. This growth represents a 37 percent increase in subdivision lots from 1963 to Subdivision activity in the State since 1963 has varied from year to year, but there has been a general trend toward increased subdivision filings. The greatest number of subdivision filings in the 15-year period from 1963 to 1977 occurred in 1976 and 1977 with 652 and 819 filings, respectively. During the 15 year period, there was increased subdivision activity about every four to five years. Subdivision filings peaked in 1964 (453 filings), 1968 (369 filings), 1974 (457 filings), and in 1977 (819 filings) with comparatively slack periods in between (Figure 1). The pattern in the number of lots filed each year generally reflects that of subdivision filings (Figures 1 and 2). Lot filings peaked in 1964 (22,58), 1969 (14,313), 1974 (18,311), and in 1977 (22,246). Yearly lot filings since 13/ Subdivision reports do not apply to ( apartments, (b) cemetary lots, (c) subdivided lands not in unit ownership created under ORS to [condominiums], to be used for residential purposes and which qualify under ORS [exemption filing], (d) condominiums, (e) subdivided lands zoned for and limited in use to nonresidential industrial or nonresidential commercial uses, or (f) land sold by lots of not less than 16 acres each. -3-

7 r1 rn C.) CO -1 O cr) Cr5 v H CU 'CI O r-i CO Cm4.64 E 1 ON O cq M N Crl OD CO 4-1 'H In 1...t %. cn CT cv r4 L-n c., ON (-,) -4,./. -a- O. m -.1- r-- N co N N c,-) CU vi 4-1. O 9-1 e. Cf a. U) $.4 3 N C4 3 r-i v-i - r-i r-i.." N 1-1 N O ( c DO N c'n M 1r1 CO DO N rl CO 1/ ) O Ul 1"-- CO rl r rl NI' rl CO N rs % CV Cr) s O N M in N N Cr) ro U) JppJ A A A A A A A A A A A A A A et 5 N 1 to U -4 CO r-1 1/4 r-i r-1 CO CO N N N N U) W U) -1 es. /1 e - N I-I 1-1 1/4 CO I 1 " cn in O P4 En CO 4-1 r4 U) 1-1 Cr/ ul as N Q 5- Li1 N CY5 Cr) to O 5. %. - CO ul tn. N -4- -) 1 N 1 1 N 1 1 CO ri 4-1 Z -i U) $ " in 1/4 n DO ON r-4 N C") s7 in r- v::) 1O 1/4 %. 1. 1/4 1/4 C t - I- CC as 's ON 1 C31 1 r4 r-i 1-1 r-4 rl r-4 r-i 1-1 rl r-i -4-

8 Year Figure 1. Subdivisions filed in Oregon, by year , 22, 18, 14, 1, 6, 2, * I s t t I I Year Figure 2. Subdivision lots filed in Oregon, by year. 4-1 ri 1 " 6 4 I.7'-"* 2 4 I a O Year Figure 3. Lots per subdivision in Oregon, by year. -5-

9 1971 have been greater (except in 1975) than mean annual lot filings for the entire study period (14,754). A record 22,246 lots were filed in By comparison, yearly lot filings prior to 1971 have generally been lower than the mean with 1963 and 1964 being the notable exceptions. Although both the number of subdivision filings and subdivision lots have increased, lots per subdivision have decreased since 1963 (Table 1 and Figure 3). There were 58 mean lots per subdivision in 1963 compared to 27 in Mean lots per subdivision held fairly constant from 1969 to 1974 at 39-4 lots per subdivision, then decreased in the period to lots per subdivision. There has been an increase in full-service subdivisions since 1975, ranging from 16 percent of total subdivision filings in 1975 to 68 percent in 1977 (Table 1). Full-service subdivisions tend to have more lots per subdivision than other subdivisions. Since 1975, they have had 3 mean lots per subdivision compared to nonfull-service subdivisions with 25 mean lots per subdivision. An increasing proportion of the total lots filed since 1975 have been in fullservice subdivisions. Seventeen percent of the lots filed in 1975 were in such subdivisions, increasing to 61 and 73 percent of lots filed in 1976 and 1977, respectively. 4/ Subdivision Activity in the Counties Subdivision activity has varied greatly among counties in the State. Table 2 offers a comparison among counties in terms of the number of subdivisions and subdivision lots filed, and the percent increase in subdivision lots during the study period)- Maps illustrate the distribution of subdivision filings (Figure 4), subdivision lot filings (Figure 5), and the rate of growth in subdivision lots 4/ 1975 was the first year the full-service exemption filing was available. This may account, in part, for the lower percent of lots filed under that exemption. 5/ See Appendix for subdivision data by county and by year. -6-

10 CD P. r-i r1 4-i ra OD ra ra U1,t CM C) cp,7 N. on cd oo cu r- cq od,7 CV.7.7 '. CO 3,t r, r, N. I - NN CV VD 1/1 ra C1 ri N. ul C4 1 CV 4 CM CT VD CA C4 ra Ch VD ra 'r 41 CO N. un CD N. r- CV ill.7 Ul CV C1 r1 - T T AO 1 ra.1 P. CD ra ri ).61 - ca co /4 P., 1J U O) 11 4-) O oca ci) IC Ca ca g NO 14.4 C. U W ra O. W O ON U co 11, 4-1 r * I W 4 - ra ra., fn 4.4 ri > 1-1 CI) es >, 'U 14 U O,-1 O 1 w -1 O! 1-1 ^ ' 4-) M 4-1 ra E r1 co X co 4-) N. 1 ill CD 1 VD C) Ul.7 C4 CV U1 1 M M ra ra VI 1 CD CA MM CV Cs1 1 V1 r.7 CD CM C4 ra ch CV CD.1. P. r, 4 CO U1 I CV 4-4 r4 CV 1 ra r4 MN CV ra ra 1 C4 CO ra ra N. N. Ch VD 1--i Cr, C4,..I N. ra r4 L1 1.7 ra ra VD CA ra CD CD C4 ra c) N-7C). N. CV OD N. N. CV.7 n r -1 ON r-i OCOO 1 en OD VDC C4 v V-1,. M ^7 V, r--i in,- I %I) in CO CD CO tr) r- r- Lin,7 C),--i 4 C) CV CD C) U1 CV 1 Li') 1 41 C4 1-- g ul,-1 ch ch r, cu up r,. A il,. Ift et I,. ft et. 11,. ft It. " w w w es a a. ra u CV CV N. ra I/1 111 ra r4 CO Ul.-7 CD ra CO c4 ul 1 ra 1 CV CV ra CV C4 ra 4-1 ra 1 CV ra r, 1 Ch U1 CM ra r, CD r1 1 CT 5 U1 r, CA es. C4 CV C4 ON r4 CV.7 ra CV n C4 CV VD CD U1 M r, CA C-4 MOO CO C 1 CV O CI\Cntr) inoeu I's r- r, f",..1- ON r EN CO C4 VD CI 4-1 Co4 ts r-- Moo Li-) Ch 4.1 C4 in VD CV CV VD ra CC Ch 41 un un CV ra Ch C) N. r- un,7 CO C N. up N. un CM 1 Ch I ra. IN Ill, IN ft A OA " IS et in v. w in e. in es Pt.. ". AN. ft.,..." et N un -4- cu un un C CV U1 C I r- r- C) un CM CV.7 VD ra C4 C4 CV Ul CV VD OD 1 C) ra VD 4-4 ra CV ra CV 1... ra ra ra VD r4 CV.7 VD ra ra ra 1 C4 VD ra $4 o w :1 A fa. rcl 4-, CO U) 4 g 14 O o,--1 CI ca 11,-1. 3 o ,-1 3 1, X co,x. 4-1 M. ca g 4) 4-) c.) 4-1 co $4 U to ist 144 w c.). ) X 1-1,-1 1-1,-1 1-). co.x,-1)-1e u 14-4coct1.X r-1p Wri s1$1won4 14O,-IMM4-1.1.,AEOWWW up pc pc, c) c) c) c) c) A CD CD DC x 1-n '1,*1 O4,4,4 r4 a a ul E-4 >4 I CV i ca W, ' 4.) 4-I 1.4 cl) f:% 1../ 14 O 4 (13 41 W O oz1 W 4-1 m 4-1 W r1 u) ) O OD W. 144 O ' cu o ' 14 C11 O 1r 41 O r./1 a 4-1 ra ',s1 w I Ca cl O) W aj M r1 - O 1J r ;31 c.) O C), AA c. 3 * ) >4 ' 4.1 OO.) U) (, O ai ) -7-

11 ai ;14-8

12 rs. 1". C71 rn C.) C.) CU aj -r1 isz.-4 bi) A...-e% 1: ) r-i 9-1 " O cd +.1 U P-1 Lf") CU -9-6'4

13 (Figure 6) among Oregon counties. These maps indicate three important differences among counties: 1. Subdivision filings have been concentrated in the five urban counties of the Willamette Valley, Washington, Multnomah, Clackamas, Marion, and Lane counties (Figure 4); 2. Subdivision lot filings have also been concentrated in these urban counties and in Deschutes and Klamath counties (Figure 5); and 3. The rate of growth of subdivision lots has been greatest in Deschutes, Crook, and Klamath counties (Figure 6). Subdivision activity in the State has been concentrated in the urban counties of the Willamette Valley (Washington, Multnomah, Clackamas, Marion, and Lane counties). Fifty-one percent of all subdivision filings and 45 percent of all lot filings in the State have occurred in these five counties. The number of subdivisions filed in Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas counties peaked in 1964, 1968, 1973, and Subdivision activity in Marion and Lane counties decreased in the mid and late 196's and then increased through the 197's. The largest number of subdivision filings in the 15-year period occurred in 1977 for all of these counties except Clackamas. Mean lots per subdivision generally decreased over the 15-year period in all five counties. However, due to yearly fluctuations, no clear trend in lots per subdivision is evident. Mean lots per subdivision ranged from 24 in Clackamas County to 42 in Washington County. Nearly three-fourths of the full-service subdivision and lot filings are in the five urban counties, particularly Washington County. Furthermore, 64 percent of the subdivisions filed in these counties since 1975 have been fullservice subdivisions. Full-service subdivisions generally have had more lots per subdivision than did nonfull-service subdivisions. A moderate level of subdivision activity has occurred in the remaining counties in western Oregon. Almost half of these subdivisions (856) are in Douglas (278), Josephine (254), and Jackson (324) counties. Likewise, nearly half of the subdivision lots (24,879) are in Jackson (8,21), Lincoln (5,86), Tillamook (5,567), and Douglas (5,431) counties. -1-

14 X XX XX X X X X X x X XX X X-X X X X X X X X X X X a, X X X X X/CX XX X X X X X X, X X X X X X XX X X XX XX X X x XX XX XCNX XX XCd X X X X e4x) X XX NCX X )(X X X X X XX X X.. XXX g%%-xxxxxxx X X X X X X X X X XXX% X X% x x x x x x x x x x X x x x x XX X X X X X XX FIX X XXX XX xx xscxxl x x XX X X X 1.--x x X x XX XX X X XX X X C.4 X X XXX X XX X X X Xx XX XXX X X X'X X x X.X X X x X X iy XX X XX XX XX XX. x X XX X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X XX XX X XX XX X X X X X X X XX X X X xx X X -X X x X XXX% X X X X XX XX X XXX XX X -XX XX rn XX X X X XXXXX X X X XX X x X X XX XX X X X X X x XX X XX X X XX X XXX X XX X X X X% X x X X XiX x )(X X XXX 'X X X X X X XXX* X XX XX Cy X Xx.X X x X XX X XX Xx XX XXX X CC 11 WENN MMMMM, 11 MMMMMM -WM= MMMMMM ou Imo mum 11 lt ' H 4.) C.) x x C X x X x x X X X X.X XX x X Xx. xx X x X N X XX X X X X X x X X XXX% X X X), X XX Xx X ' x X X X X X X X X XX X X X X x X X X X C\1 X, X X XX X M X x x x X xx XX CC XXX XXX X X (1) x x.x xx. Ca x x x x x XX x X X ee, XX,' X X,I4 X X X=X %CO XX X r O XX X X.-. X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X XX X Hem MIME X x X X x X X XX X XX x X X X x X x z x X X X X X X xx X X x xx X x X xx X X X XX X X X X xx x X X x X X X X x X xxx X X x x xx x X X X op xxc xx >,cs,jxx x x x x.4 X X X x X XX XX X X X X X X xx x X X X X X x X X XX x% X Xen X XX X X X X,, C x XX X X X X X X X' X X X' x X X X x X X `X X x X X X X X x X X X X x X X X X X C XX X X X X X X X X X x X X XX X X XX X XXX X X Ca X XX X X X X X x X x X x: : X X X X Xxxx X x x CC XXX X X x x X x. X X X X X x XX X X x X x X X X x X X x X X x X x X x X x X x X x x X Xx X X X X X X X x X x x X X X x X X x X x X X x X X X X X X X X.X X x X X X x X CC X X X x X X X X XX X X X XX X x xx X X X (NI X X. X X x X X X N X X XXX XX XX x X CjOx X X X X X X x x X X X X XX X x XX box X X X X XX X x X X XX X X xxx XX X X X X X X X X XX X X a X X x X X X XXX X X XX x X X X X X X. X x X x X X X xxx x x x x x x x x x X X X X X X XX X X X X XX X X x XX X X X X X X X X X x XX X CC XXX XXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x xicx X X X X X X X x XX XT XX X X X X al X X x X X x X X x x X X x X X X X X X x (1) x x x x X X x C X x X x...i X x M < XX "2. x x sj, X x X 4 x x x c XX X. X X X xx x x x X.,.X x X x x X X x X X x X X..,,.., X x x x 1.4 x x x x $, x x x x X X X x x --1- x U X X X% X x c,-) x XXX X X X X x X x X X x,, X x C.) U) 4-) O O H 1-1 H U 4-J Cll 1/4 4-1 O O H 1.1.) O S O CNI

15 Most coastal counties experienced most of their subdivision activity early in the study period. This tendency is particularly distinct in Clatsop, Lincoln, and Coos counties, where 64, 63, and 76 percent of the lots in each county were filed in the first half of the study period (by 1969). By comparison, the nonurban Valley counties experienced most of their subdivision activity in the last half of the study period (after 197); Benton (57 percent), Linn (64 percent), Polk (87 percent), and Yamhill (56 percent). About 23 percent of the full-service subdivisions and lots in the State are located in the nonurban counties of western Oregon. Most of these are in the "urban fringe" counties such as Benton, Linn, Polk, Jackson, and Yamhill counties. The coastal counties had few full-service subdivisions. Full-service subdivisions tended to have more lots per subdivision than did nonfull-service subdivisions, as was the case in the urban counties. Very little of the subdivision activity in the State has occurred in eastern Oregon. Most counties account for only one percent or less of the subdivision and subdivision lot filings in the State. Sherman County is the only county in the State that had no subdivisions during the study period. Many eastern counties experienced most of their subdivision lot filings in the last half of the study period (after 197); Baker (83 percent), Harney (63 percent), Jefferson (78 percent), Malheur (78 percent), Morrow (97 percent), Umatilla (58 percent), Union (65 percent), and Wasco (77 percent). No subdivisions were filed in Union County until 197. Deschutes and Klamath counties are the notable exceptions in eastern Oregon. Together those two counties accounted for 12 percent of the subdivisions and 21 percent of the lots filed in the State. Deschutes County in particular is considered a fast growth county. 2/ However, it should be noted that annual filings of subdivision lots has not increased over the study period in these two counties. The number of subdivision lots in Deschutes County 6/ Subdivision activity in Klamath County is expected to be understated due to the large number of unreported subdivisions and lots.! Population in Deschutes County increased 53.7 percent from 197 to 1977, compared to 14.6 percent increase for the State. (Oregon Population Shifts in the 197's, Bureau of Governmental Research and Service, University of Oregon, June 1978.) -12-

16 has been evenly distributed over the 15-year study period. The majority of lots in Klamath County (56 percent) were filed in the first half of the study period. Lots have tended to decline since The annual number of subdivision lots was highest in 1963 and 1964 in both Deschutes and Klamath counties. The generally higher percent of lot filings compared to subdivision filings in eastern Oregon is due to more mean lots per subdivision. Mean lots per subdivision ranged from 16 in Gilliam County to 156 in Wheeler County for an overall mean of 57 lots per subdivision in eastern Oregon counties. This is greater than the 31 mean lots per subdivision in western Oregon counties. Few full-service subdivisions are located in eastern Oregon (four percent). Most of these are found in Umatilla and Malheur counties. Counties differ not only in the amount of subdivision activity, but rate of growth as well. Figure 6 indicates the greatest percent increase in subdivision lots from 1963 to 1977 has occurred in Crook (335 percent), Deschutes (22 percent), and Klamath (117 percent) counties. These growth rates are in sharp contrast to the much lower rates found in other eastern Oregon counties, and in the urban counties of western Oregon. Multnomah County, for example, has had a nine percent increase in subdivision lots (14,244 lots created from 1963 to 1977, compared to the 162,22 lots that existed prior to 1963). By comparison, Crook County has had a 335 percent increase in subdivision lots (7,72 subdivision lots created from 1963 to 1977, compared to the 2,297 lots that existed prior to 1963). The relative growth rates of Multnomah and Washington counties offer a classic example of subdivision growth in urban areas. Multnomah County was largely developed by 1963 and has had only a nine percent increase in the number of lots since then. As Multnomah County became fully developed, growth pressures carried over to neighboring Washington County. Much of the subdivision activity there has occurred since 1963, resulting in an 85 percent increase in lots since Summary Subdivision activity in Oregon has generally increased since Subdivision and lot filings have peaked about every four or five years since -13-

17 1964, with record filings recorded in 1977 (819 subdivisions and 22,246 lots). During the 1963 to 1977 study period, the number of subdivision lots in the State increased 37 percent. Although the number of lots has increased, lots per subdivision have decreased over the study period. The amount of subdivision activity varies among counties of the State. Over 5 percent of the subdivisions filed in the State are located in Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas, Marion, and Lane counties. However, 6 percent of the subdivisions filed in the State in 1976 and 1977 were located in these counties. This increased percentage indicates that subdivision activity is becoming increasingly concentrated in the urban counties, at least in the short run. Although subdivision activity has been lower in neighboring Yamhill, Polk, Linn, and Benton counties, the increase in subdivision filings during the latter part of the study period indicates increased concentration might be expected in these counties as well. Deschutes and Klamath counties have also experienced a high degree of subdivision activity. These counties, along with Crook County, have the highest growth rates in subdivision lots in the States. However, most of that growth occurred early in the study period. Subdivision activity appears to be tapering off in those two counties. This report has identified trends in subdivision activity over the study period. These trends may reflect not only demand for residential land, but recreational and investment demand as well. The nature of that demand will in turn affect the type and degree of development that occurs on the subdivided land. The general description of subdivision activity in this report provides a basis for more detailed studies on the cause and effect of subdivisions..8/ 8/ For an example of the fiscal impacts of subdivisions, see Rural Subdivisions and Local Taxes: The Impact of Recreational and Rural Residential Subdivisions in Klamath County, Oregon, Special Report 53, Oregon State University Extension Service, February

18 Appendix 1. Subdivisions Filed in Oregon by County and Year. County Total Baker Benton Clackamas Clatsop Columbia Coos Crook Curry Deschutes , Douglas Gilliam Grant Harney Hood River Jackson Jefferson Josephine Klamath Lake Lane Lincoln Linn Malheur Marion Morrow, Multnomah Polk Sherman Tillamook Umatilla Union Wasco Washington g Wheeler Wallowa Yamhill STATE ,

19 Appendix 2. Subdivision Lots Created in Oregon by County and Year. County Total Baker Benton ,147 Clackamas ,849 Clatsop ,6 Columbia Coos ,519 Crook ,72 Curry ,781 Deschutes ,57 Douglas ,431 Gilliam Grant ,85 Harney ,163 Hood River Jackson ,21 Jefferson ,211 Josephine ,6 Klamath ,49 Lake ,541 Lane ,23 Lincoln ,86 Linn ,332 Malheur Marion ,3 Morrow Multnomah ,244 Polk ,74 Sherman Tillamook ,567 Umatilla ,112 Union Wasco ,767 Washington ,252 Wheeler Wallowa Yamhill ,787 STATE ,

House Economic Development & Trade Committee

HB 4023 Proposed Amendments (-3/-4) House Economic Development & Trade Committee 7 February 2018 Oregon s Digital Divide Oregon counties with the largest digital divide index (DDI)* and the K-12 Connectivity