State demographers propose higher Elbert County population forecasts; commissioners say revised numbers could spur business interest

Neil Mark and Nancy Gideon of the State Demography Office told the Elbert County Board of County Commissioners on April 15 that preliminary data show stronger recent growth in the county and warrant moving away from a previously applied growth cap. "This is just with the most current data that we have," Mark said, stressing the figures are preliminary.

The demographers said Colorado’s recent population revisions reflected a methodological change at the U.S. Census Bureau that reallocated international migrants using alternative administrative data, a shift that largely boosted counts on the Front Range but did not materially change Elbert County’s allocation. Neil Mark said Elbert has nonetheless seen elevated domestic migration in the past year, and that preliminary counts show net migration above 1,000 — a level not seen since the 1990s.

Nancy Gideon presented housing data the State Demography Office had compiled for the county and said nearly 450 new housing units were recorded between July 2024 and July 2025, the strongest annual countywide housing growth since the late 1990s. "That is something that's very useful for looking forward to see what capacity could be for housing units," Gideon said, while also explaining that the office’s population estimates are calculated from the components of change — births, deaths and migration — and then allocated to housing units rather than forecasting population directly from zoning counts.

The demographers underscored demographic balances that moderate growth: births in Elbert County rose about 11–12% year‑over‑year (mid‑2024 to mid‑2025), but deaths remain elevated compared with pre‑pandemic levels because the county’s population is older than peer counties. Mark said those components together determine county population estimates.

Board members pressed presenters about a past practice of imposing a growth "cap" on Elbert’s forecasts. Neil Mark said that the capped projections currently on the State Demography Office website hold the county near about 34,000 residents through mid‑century. He presented two alternative scenarios: an "unrestricted" baseline that would put 2040 at roughly 36,000 and 2050 at about 39,000, and an "accelerated" scenario that would rise to about 38,000 in 2040 and about 43,000 in 2050. "Between these three scenarios, we're talking about plus or minus 2,000 people in 2040," he said, adding that differences widen after 2040.

One commissioner said the capped forecast could discourage business relocations and hamper the county’s ability to capture retail sales tax and other revenues, arguing revised population projections could influence commercial investment decisions. "If we don't change the way we're doing these numbers, we won't get any job growth," the commissioner said.

Mark and Gideon said the county’s recent zoning data and permitted development should be reflected in the migration and IRS‑based address change data that feed the demography office’s net migration estimates, but they cautioned that zoned units are not guaranteed to be platted or built. Gideon added that the office does not forecast population from housing unit zoning alone because assumptions about build‑out timing and occupancy introduce large uncertainty.

As next steps, the presenters said they will finalize input data (notably age‑structure information) and provide the county with a more concise table of the scenarios and a draft forecast in roughly two months; the statewide vintage 2025 estimates are scheduled for release in late October or early November. The demographers emphasized the drafts would remain preliminary until all 2025 inputs are processed.

The board thanked the presenters and concluded the work study session.