State demographers and Elbert County agree to tighten data exchange after forecast mismatch

Elbert County commissioners and staff met with presenters from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs State Demography Office on Nov. 20 to review the county's population estimates and projections and to resolve apparent mismatches between state forecasts and recent local development approvals.

Commissioner Mike Bug (District 1) told the demographers the county's consultants rely on state projections for local studies and that several recently approved rezonings and plats do not appear to be reflected in the state's forecast. "Who have you been talking to at the county to know what's in our pipeline?" he asked, saying the discrepancy was costing the county money through reliance on outdated numbers.

Nancy, a presenter from the State Demography Office, acknowledged that communication channels had been informal and that some inputs in the projection cycle were dated. She explained the estimate process: "We start with the 2020 census, add births, subtract deaths and add migration using Census Bureau inputs such as Medicare enrollments and IRS tax flows," and said the office updates estimates annually. Neil, the projection lead, said projections require assumptions about future births, deaths and migration and that migration is the most uncertain component.

State presenters showed that Elbert County's population increased almost 12% from 2020 to 2024, far above the statewide 2.9% growth rate, and said much of recent growth is concentrated in census blocks adjacent to Douglas County. The demographers noted the county tends to attract families (higher shares of children and 30'to—5-year-olds) and to lose young adults (20'to'9), which affects births and household composition.

County officials pressed the office on a forecasted "plateau" that capped future population around the mid-30,000s. "We have multiple developments throughout the county that'll put us well beyond that by 2039," Jennifer Jones, Community and Development Services, said, later reporting the county's pipeline currently contains roughly 9,500 potential housing units from early rezones through final plats.

Neil described the SDO's baseline migration model as job-driven and noted the office uses job and labor-demand forecasts, commuting patterns and long-term migration trends as starting points. He said housing-production signals are not part of the baseline but are used for review and adjustment: building permits, permit surveys and a Census-derived housing-unit-change application can provide faster signals of near-term housing growth. The presenters also acknowledged time lags between permits and certificates of occupancy and uncertainty about exact completion timing.

To reconcile the discrepancy, the demographers agreed to remove the prior communication-based cap from the model as a first step and to begin an immediate, iterative data exchange with county planning staff. Nancy said she will reach out to county contacts and asked for housing-unit and pipeline data to inform revised forecasts. "We want to be quick to respond to a shift in the trajectory," Neil said, adding the office will produce a set of scenarios (high/low) rather than a single fixed number.

County staff and demographers also discussed constraints that affect feasibility, including water availability, metro-district financing, and market conditions that determine whether entitled or zoned units will be built and when. Both sides emphasized that some portions of Elbert County are unlikely to urbanize and that growth is concentrated on the western side near Douglas County.

The meeting ended with an agreement to start an email chain, exchange building-permit and pipeline data, and iterate on projections so the county's comprehensive plan and consultants can use updated, scenario-based forecasts. Participants said they expect multiple iterations and acknowledged the limits of a single long-range forecast when approvals, market forces and infrastructure timing remain fluid.