Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Population Forecast topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Forecast sees Chittenden County growing to about 180,000 by 2050; planners say meeting housing targets could push it higher
Summary
RSG presented municipal and county population and employment projections to the CCRPC Planning Advisory Committee on June 10, projecting roughly 180,000 residents in Chittenden County by 2050 while staff cautioned that meeting municipal housing targets could raise that total to 220,000–230,000.
At its June 10 meeting, the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Planning Advisory Committee heard a presentation from consultant Jon Slason of RSG on updated population and employment forecasts for the region.
Slason said the model combines the Statewide Joint Fiscal Office consensus approach with cohort-component modeling and that "most immigration into the State is occurring into Chittenden County." He presented a baseline forecast showing "continued growth with a total population of 180,000 in 2050," while noting projections are sensitive to migration and housing assumptions.
The consultant and CCRPC staff explained the forecast uses a uniform 10% assumed decline in people per household applied across municipalities and allocates population based on each town's share of regional housing targets. Slason told the committee the employment forecast will be refined to report "qualified (payroll-based) employment" instead of total employment and that he would return with an employment forecast at the July meeting.
Committee members pressed on several assumptions. Committee member C. Shaheen said there is a "credibility gap" between the forecast and municipal housing targets; Slason and staff agreed the two are reconciled differently and that the forecast represents a likely trajectory under current trends, while meeting targets would require different policy choices. Chair P. Conner said the forecast should be used to frame conversations with communities and that municipal staff need to consider how to message the differences.
Staff and the consultant acknowledged other data limitations. Slason said the model does not incorporate anticipated domestic migration related to climate change because there is insufficient data to model that trend; he also attributed a sharp 2020 uptick in one input series to corrections in ACS/Census reporting. Jason Charest, CCRPC Senior Transportation Planner, asked for municipal-level feedback on the proposed allocations; Slason requested comments by June 18 and the PAC will be asked to recommend final population and employment projections to the CCRPC Board in July.
The presentation drew several technical clarifications from staff, including whether "qualified" employment aligns with "covered" employment definitions and how reductions in household size were applied. K. McCarthy, Senior Planner, suggested distinguishing the forecast tools used for a likely future scenario from the policy tools needed to attain housing targets. The committee did not take action on the forecast at the June meeting; staff requested written feedback by the stated deadline.
