Thank you to everyone who replied. In addition to answers, I received quite a few requests to "let me know what you find out". The majority of replies, and my planning dept., said that each city's planning department submits, to the state, either the number of housing permits issued or the number of "finaled" housing units for the calendar year. Using the number of "permits/finaled" from each city the state estimates the city population and publishes a "bottom up" number in May. However, since the state has the most accurate count of all people in the state, including ages and number of school children, they also do a "top down" massage of all submitted "permits/finaled" to bring the "bottom up" number in line with the total population of the state. These revised estimated figures are used in the next year's published population. So, the Dept. of Finance's May letter has a "bottom up" estimate for the current year and a "top down" estimate for the prior year. A few people have tried discussing the logic error with the state without much success. Some cities calculate their population change based on their original population and use that to calculate their Gann limit. This has been acceptable to their auditors. The most accurate populations are for the census years, and the further we get from a census the more estimating there is. Perhaps we'll see some resetting of the numbers, which may compensate for the previous gaps, once the 2000 census results are in. Elizabeth Hudson Fin. Dir. Town of Danville > -----Original Message----- > From: Elizabeth Hudson > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 4:18 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: City population increase for Gann limit > > I have a question concerning the Dept. of Finance population numbers > available for use in the Gann calculation: Since increase in City > population is one of the adjustment factors we can use, and the Dept. of > Finance supplies this number, can anyone explain to me why the January 1st > population is not consistent from year to year? Here is an illustration > using the Town of Danville. For last year's report, Jan. 1st reported > populations are 39,425 for Jan. 1, 1998 and 39,881 for Jan. 1, 1999 > (1.16%) increase): For this years report, Jan. 1st reported populations > are 40,233 for Jan.1, 1999 and 40,484 for Jan. 1, 2000 (.62)% increase). > It seems to me the Jan. 1, 1999 population should have been the same > number for both reports. We "lost" 352 residents between the two reported > years. All cites in Contra Costa County show this inconsistency. Do > other cities have this inconsistency and can anyone explain the reasoning > to me? Or is it an error? > Thanks for any insight you can give. > > Elizabeth Hudson > Finance Director > Town of Danville
