MICHAEL J. WILLIAMS

Staff Writer

CARLSBAD -- About 83,500 folks lived in the city as of Jan. 1, according to the state Department of Finance's latest statewide population estimates released May 9.

But municipal representatives throughout the county and state are asserting that the estimates appear incorrect.

Carlsbad's chief demographer, Principal Planner Dennis Turner, said the state's estimate seems low based on comparisons with past population projections and a flurry of housing construction that has occurred in Carlsbad in the last couple of years.

Finance department representatives, however, say the new estimates for Carlsbad as well as the rest of the state are the most accurate available because they are based on the national census taken April 1, 2000, combined with statewide housing data and other related factors.

"When the census numbers are released, we benchmark to it," said John Malson, a research program specialist for the department's demographic research unit. "Theoretically, the census is more accurate because it's based on an actual count. As far as accuracy goes, we don't do that. We estimate population based on housing growth."

Turner said the new estimate for Carlsbad appears low compared with the finance department's original Jan. 1, 2000, estimate that placed the city's population at 82,030.

If that estimate was accurate, the city grew by just 1,470 people during a period in which 1,759 homes were added, Turner said. Based on an average household size of 2.5 residents, the new homes would have yielded nearly 4,400 people.

Turner said the finance department's annual figures typically are regarded by municipal officials as reliable since its demographers track population shifts from year to year in between the national census counts taken every 10 years. The state relies on the department's estimates to establish spending limits on cities and counties as well as to allocate tax revenues to them on a per capita basis.

Whereas the state's original Jan. 1, 2000, figure was built on nine years of estimates and data following the 1990 Census, the new figure for Carlsbad this year was derived from a readjustment, based on the census, which counted 78,247 residents as of April 1, 2000.

With the U.S. Census Bureau's release of population figures, the finance department recalculated its Jan. 1, 2000, estimates and lowered its estimate for Carlsbad's population at that time to 77,500. Still, city analysts question whether the census was accurate because of the discrepancy with the earlier finance department estimates and the city's high rate of housing production.

"The finance department is the best source of annual population information we have," Turner said. "What we're concerned with is that maybe the census didn't count all the housing units that we believe were built. As of late 1999, they were missing thousands of households in Carlsbad, and we worked with them to provide updated housing lists. The problem is, it was a moving target.

"The whole thing is messed up because we don't know how many housing units the census is crediting the city of Carlsbad with for April 1, 2000. We gave the Department of Finance the housing counts for both Jan. 1 and April 1, 2000."

The U.S. Census is releasing household figures next week.

Carlsbad's concerns aren't unique, said Malson and Karen Lamphere, the census coordinator for the San Diego Association of Governments, the clearinghouse for population data within the county. Lamphere said many officials in the county are questioning the new state numbers as well as the census. Malson said he has fielded many calls from city representatives around the state inquiring about the new figures.

"Most cities are finding that the census counts are not to their liking," Malson said. "In almost all cases, if our estimates are higher than the census, there's a lot of concern because obviously there are financial implications to the cities. The general feeling is that our estimates are more accurate, but it's not likely that they are because the census is a better count."

Malson said, however, that cities can seek readjustments from the U.S. Census Bureau, and the department itself may alter its estimates based on census revisions, undercount calculations, and additional census data on housing that has not yet been released. In fact, he said he expects that the state's estimates will be modified later this year or next year.

"If the census is revised, we will adjust to it," Malson said. "It happens quite frequently, in fact. These (census) numbers are official numbers, but they're not the final numbers because this review process will go on for another three years. If (census officials) find something that is flawed, we'll incorporate it (into the state calculations)."

Turner said he hopes the discrepancies will be clarified when the U.S. Census Bureau releases its housing data in the months to come. The city then should be able to use that data to determine whether the census counted all or most of the existing occupied houses, he said.

If there is no readjustment, Carlsbad could lose some revenues distributed by population, Turner said. He said the city receives about $300 per person in state and federal tax dollars allocated on a per capita basis.

"It may or may not have a real-world effect, but that remains to be determined," Turner said.

Contact staff writer Michael J. Williams at (760) 901-4082 or mwilliams@nctimes.com.

5/19/01