CNVR Profile 2013

S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 3 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3 A P r o f i l e o f t h e C e n t r a l N a u g a t u c k V a l l e y R e g i o n : 2 0 1 3 B e a c o n F a l l s ∙ B e t h l e h e m ∙ C h e s h i r e ∙ M i d d l e b u r y ∙ N a u g a t u c k ∙ O x f o r d ∙ P r o s p e c t ∙ S o u t h b u r y ∙ T h o m a s t o n ∙ W a t e r b u r y ∙ W a t e r t o w n ∙ W o l c o t t ∙ W o o d b u r y A Profile of the Central Naugatuck Valley Region: 2013 T i t l e : A u t h o r : Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley S u b j e c t : Compilation of population, economic, and housing information giving characteristics and trends of the Central Naugatuck Valley Region and its municipalities L o c a l P l a n n i n g A g e n c y : Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley S u b j e c t : Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 49 Leavenworth Street, Suite 303 Waterbury, Connecticut 06702 S e r i e s N o . : N/A N u m b e r O f P a g e s : 77 A b s t r a c t : This report is a compilation of population, economic, and housing data for the Central Naugatuck Valley Region and its municipalities. The tables present information on past trends and current conditions. Data contained in the report include the U.S. Census, U.S. Department of :ousing and Urban Development, and the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, in addition to other sources. The material contained herein may be quoted or reproduced without special permission, although men- tion of the source is appreciated. The preparation of the report was financed through grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal :ighway Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration, a grant from the Connecticut Department of Transportation, and by the contributions from member municipalities of the Central Nau- gatuck Valley Region. T:GeneralReportsProfile2013Final DraftFinal Draft.docx Several tables and figures in this report compare data from the 2007 -2011 American Community Survey (ACS) five -year estimates to the 2000 Census. Beginning in 2005, the ACS replaced the long -form census as the source for detailed socioeconomic and housing data. The first complete ACS data set covered the years 2005 – 2009. The 2007- 2011 ACS is a five -year estimate where a small percentage of all households are sampled each year. ACS estimates represent an average over the course of five years and are not equivalent to the 100 per- cent count data from the 2010 census. The ACS five -year estimates are not optimal for analyzing year to year trends because four of the five years of samples are reused in the next year’s estimates. One -year and three – year ACS data are only available for larger municipalities. The ACS surveys approximately 3 million households per year (roughly 2.5% of households) and aggregates the data on multi -year intervals. The long -form 2000 Census was given to approximately 16% of households. Both data sets used samples to calculate estimates for the entire population. The differences in methodology be- tween the long -form 2000 Census and the 2007 -2011 ACS make their comparisons difficult. :owever, because of the lack of related data sets, they were compared in several tables and maps. Readers should take note that these comparisons can help show general trends, but may be inaccurate in providing specific numbers. Tables and figures using these data sets are marked with an asterisk (*) in the List of Tables and Figures on the follow- ing pages. A M E R = C A N C O M M U N = T Y S U R V E Y & C E N S U S D A TA D = S C L A = M E R = . G E N E R A L P O P U L A T = O N T R E N D S = = = . : O U S = N G = = . L A B O R F O R C E & E M P L O Y M E N T A. Population Growth B. Population Density C. Racial Composition D. Population of Hispanic Origin E. Age Distribution F. Household Types G. Income H. Educational Attainment I. Population Projections A. Labor Force B. Employment A. Housing Stock B. Tenure C. Household Size D. Publicly Assisted Housing E. Housing Vacancy F. Housing Costs A P P E N D = C E S = N T R O D U C T = O N Page 1 3 4 4 8 8 15 21 24 31 31 36 37 42 47 48 54 54 58 58 61 67 TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S = . G E N E R A L P O P U L A T = O N T R E N D S = = . L A B O R F O R C E & E M P L O Y M E N T Table I -A1: CNVR Population, by Municipality: 2000 -2012 CNVR Population Density, by Municipality: 2000 -2012 Total Population, by Race, of CNVR Municipalities: 2010 CNVR Minority Population, by Municipality: 2000 -2010 Top 10 Reported Ancestry Groups: 2007 -2011 CNVR Hispanic Population, by Municipality: 2000 -2010 CNVR Population of Hispanic Origin, by Race and Municipality: 2010 CNVR Age Distribution: 2000 -2010 5 7 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 Table I -B1: Table I -C1: Table I -C2: Table I -C3: Table I -D1: Table I -D2: Table I -E1: Table I -E2: Age Distribution of CNVR Population, by Municipality: 2010 CNVR Median Age, by Municipality: 1990 -2010 CNVR Percent of Population Age 65 and Older, by Municipality: 2000 -2010 19 20 26 Table I -E3: Table I -E4: Table I -G1: Estimated Median Household Income of CNVR Municipalities: 1999 -2011 Types of Households in the CNVR, by Municipality: 2010 22 Table I -F1: 27 Table I -G2: Estimated CNVR Household Income Distribution, by Municipality: 2007 -2011 28 Table I -G3: CNVR Per Capita Income, Median Household Income, and Median Family Income, by Municipality: 2007 -2011 CNVR Persons in Poverty, by Municipality: 2000 -2011 29 Table I -G4: 30 Table I -G5: CNVR Persons Under 150 Percent of the Poverty Threshold, by Municipality: 2000 -2011 32 Table I -H1: Educational Attainment of Persons 25 Years Old and Over in the CNVR, by Municipality: 2007 -2011 CNVR Population Projections, by Municipality: 2010 -2025 34 Table I -I1: 39 Table II -A1: Estimated CNVR Labor Force Status, by Place of Residence: 2000 -2012 Estimated CNVR Labor Force Status: 1990 -2012 40 Table II -A2: 41 Table II -A3: Occupation of Employed CNVR Residents, 16 Years Old and Over, 2007 -2011 Total Employment in the CNVR, by Municipality: 1980 -2012 43 Table II -B1: Page * * * * * * * L = S T O F TA B L E S = = = . : O U S = N G 45 Table II -B2: Manufacturing Employment in the Waterbury Labor Market Area, 2000 -2012 46 Table II -B3: Estimated Nonagricultural Employment by Industry Forthe Waterbury Labor Market Area: 2000 -2012 Page 49 Table III -A1: CNVR’s Total Housing Stock, by Municipality: 1980 -2010 CNVR Multi -Family Housing, by Municipality: 2000 -2011 Estimated Number of Housing Units in CNVR Municipalities, by Type of Structure: 2007 -2011 50 51 Table III -A2: Table III -A3: Annual Growth in the CNVR Housing Stock, by Municipality: 2000 -2012 52 Table III -A4: Changes in Housing Stock in CNVR Municipalities, by Type of New Construction, Other Gains, and Losses: 2012 53 Table III -A5: CNVR Housing Tenure, by Municipality: 2000 -2010 55 Table III -B1: Occupied Year -Round Housing Units in CNVR Municipalities, by Type of Structure and Tenure Status: 2007 -2011 56 Table III -B2: CNVR Average Household Size, by Municipality: 1970 -2010 57 Table III -C1: Publicly Assisted Housing in the CNVR, by Municipality: 2012 59 Table III -D1: CNVR Property Vacancy, as a Percent of Housing Units, by Municipality: 2010 60 Table III -E1: CNVR Median Home Value, by Municipality: 2000 -2011 63 Table III -F1: CNVR Median Monthly Homeowner Costs, by Municipality: 2000 -2011 64 Table III -F2: CNVR Homeowner Costs as a Percentage of Income, by Municipality: 2007 -2011 65 Table III -F3: CNVR Median Rent, by Municipality: 2000 -2011 66 Table III -F4: * * * * * * * * * * * L = S T O F TA B L E S = . G E N E R A L P O P U L A T = O N T R E N D S = = . L A B O R F O R C E & E M P L O Y M E N T Figure 1: Central Naugatuck Valley Region CNVR Population, by Block Group: 2010 CNVR population Change: 1950 -2012 Distribution of Regional Population: 1950 -2012 CNVR Population Density, by Block Group: 2010 Major Racial Groups in the CNVR, by Block Group: 2010 CNVR Minority Population, by Block Group: 2010 CNVR Hispanic Population, by Block Group: 2010 2 5 6 6 7 10 11 13 14 Figure I -A1: Figure I -A2: Figure I -A3: Figure I -B1: Figure I -C1: Figure I -C2: Figure I -D1: Figure I -D2: Racial Identification of CNVR Hispanic Population: 2010 Population Pyramids and Age Distribution in the CNVR: 2010 CNVR Median Age, by Block Group: 2010 18 19 26 Figure I -E1: Figure I -E2: Figure I -G1: Change in Inflation Adjusted Median Household Income of CNVR Municipalities: 1999 -2011 CNVR Percent Single Parent Households, by Block Group: 2010 23 Figure I -F1: 28 Figure I -G2: CNVR Per Capita Income, by Block Group: 2007 -2011 29 Figure I -G3: CNVR Percent of Persons in Poverty, by Block Group: 2007 -2011 CNVR Persons Under 150% of Poverty Level: 2007 -2011 30 Figure I -G4: 33 Figure I -H1: CNVR Educational Attainment of Persons Age 25 Years and Older, by Block Group: 2007 -2011 34 Figure I -I1: CNVR Population Projections, by Municipality: 2010 -2025 CNVR Population Projections and Age Distribution: 2010 -2025 35 Figure I -I2: 38 Figure II -A1: CNVR Labor Force and Employed Residents Trends: 1990 -2012 Percent Unemployment in the CNVR: 1992 -2012 38 Figure II -A2: 39 Figure II -A3: Change in Employed Residents, by Municipality: 2000 -2012 Change in Employed Persons, by Census Tract: 2000 -2011 44 Figure II -B1: Page CNVR Population Age 65 and Older, by Block Group: 2010 20 Figure I -E3: Manufacturing Employment in the Waterbury Labor Market Area, 2000 -2012 45 Figure II -B2: * * * * * L = S T O F F = G U R E S = = = . : O U S = N G Page 49 Figure III -A1: Change in CNVR Housing Stock, by Municipality: 2000 -2010 CNVR Multi -Family Housing, by Block Group: 2007 -2011 Net Growth in the CNVR Housing Stock, by Municipality: 2012 50 52 Figure III -A2: Figure III -A3: New Housing Units by Number of Housing Units: 2012 53 Figure III -A4: CNVR Renter -Occupied Housing, by Block Group: 2010 55 Figure III -B1: CNVR Average Household Size, by Block Group: 2010 57 Figure III -C1: CNVR Vacancy Rate, by Block Group: 2010 59 Figure III -D1: 60 Figure III -E1: Median Owner -Occupied Home Value, by Block Group: 2007 -2011 63 Figure III -F1: CNVR Median Monthly Homeowner Costs, by Block Group: 2007 -2011 64 Figure III -F2: CNVR Homeowners Paying 30% of More of their Income to Housing Costs, by Block Group: 2007 -2011 65 Figure III -F3: CNVR Median Gross Rent, by Block Group: 2007 -2011 66 Figure III -F4: L = S T O F A P P E N D = C E S Publically Assisted Housing as a Percent of Total, by Municipality: 2012 Glossary of Population, Housing, and Statistical Concepts 67 Appendix A: Listing of Agencies Responsible for Regional Planning and Map of the Connecticut Regional Planning Agencies 70 Appendix B: Waterbury Labor Market Area (LMA) and Metropolitan NECTA 73 Appendix C: Income Limits for Selected Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Programs, CNVR Towns: 2013 74 Appendix D: CNVR Urbanized Areas: 2010 76 Appendix E: * * * * * * L = S T O F F = G U R E S This report presents a statistical overview of the population, economic, and housing characteristics of the Central Naugatuck Valley Region (CNVR). Figure 1 on the following page shows the location of the CNVR in Connecticut. The data shows trends as drawn from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the Connecticut Depart- ment of Labor, the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, and other sources. The statistics include information on population growth, race and ethnicity, age distribution, income, labor force and employment characteristics, growth and composition of housing stock, tenure status and house- hold size. The report includes 100 percent count data from the 2010 U.S. Census as well as detailed social, economic, and housing data from the 2007 -2011 American Community Survey (ACS). The report provides useful statistical data to public officials, local organizations, developers, private citizens, students, businesses, and others interested in population, housing and economic trends in the Central Nau- gatuck Valley Region (CNVR). The Profile is updated annually by the staff of the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley. The tables and figures in this publication are divided into three general subject areas: Part = – Population; Part == – Labor Force and Employment; and Part === – :ousing. =n each section, the figures are grouped by subject. A list of all subject areas is presented at the beginning of each section; a list of figures is available at the begin- ning of the report. =n addition to the figures, this report contains a brief analysis of the data, providing an overview of the major regional trends. =NTRODUCT=ON Heremy Swamp Mill :ouse, Southbury. Credit: Don Antilla  § ¨ ¦84 Long Island Sound Oxford Middlebury Watertown Bethlehem Woodbury Southbury BeaconFalls Naugatuck Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Waterbury Thomaston Sharon Canton Simsbury Cornwall Goshen Bloomfield New Hartford Torrington Avon Burlington West Hartford Harwinton Litchfield Kent Warren Farmington Bristol Morris New Britain Plymouth Washington Plainville New Milford Southington Berlin Roxbury Meriden Bridgewater New Fairfield Brookfield Wallingford Newtown Bethany Danbury Hamden North Haven Bethel North Branford Seymour Woodbridge Monroe Shelton East Haven Derby Redding New Haven Easton Branford Orange West Haven Trumbull Milford Weston Stratford Wilton Fairfield Bridgeport Westport Norwalk Northwestern CT Region Litchfield Hills Region Capitol Region Central CT Region Central Naugatuck Valley Region Housatonic Valley Region South Central CT Region Va ll e y Region Greater Bridgeport Region SouthwesternCT Region Sau ga t uckR i v e r Naugatu ckR i v e r Q ui n ni p i a cRi ve r Farmi ngt onRi v e r Housa to ni cRiver § ¨ ¦95 § ¨ ¦91 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 ” )8 ” )9 ¯ 0 5 Miles Figure 1: Central  Naugatuck  Va l l e y  Region          A . P o p u l a ti o n G r o w t h B . P o p u l a ti o n D e n s i t y C . R a c i a l C o m p o s i ti o n D . P o p u l a ti o n o f : i s p a n i c O r i g i n E . A g e D i s t r i b u ti o n F . : o u s e h o l d T y p e s G . = n c o m e : . E d u c a ti o n a l A tt a i n m e n t = . P o p u l a ti o n P r o j e c ti o n s =. GENERAL POPULAT=ON TRENDS  =. GENERAL POPULAT=ON TRENDS A . P o p u l a ti o n G r o w t h A c c o r d i n g t o 2 0 1 2 C e n s u s B u r e a u e s ti m a t e s , t h e t o t a l p o p u l ati o n o f t h e C e n t r a l N a u – g a t u c k V a l l e y R e g i o n w a s 2 8 7 , 1 5 1 , a 5 . 3 % i n c r e a s e f r o m 2 0 0 0 a n d a s l i g h t d e c l i n e (-0 . 2 % ) f r o m 2 0 1 0 . S i n c e 2 0 0 0 , t h e r e g i o n ’ s p o p u l a ti o n h a s g r o w n a t a r a t e s i m i l a r t o t h e s t a t e a s a w h o l e ( 5 . 4 % ) . A l l t h i r t e e n m u n ic i p a l i ti e s i n t h e r e g i o n s a w p o p u l a ti o n g r o w t h f r o m 2 0 0 0 t o 2 0 1 2 w i t h t h e h i g h e s t g r o w t h o c c u r r i n g i n O x f o r d ( 3 0 . 5 % ) , M i d d l e b u r y ( 1 7 . 4 % ) , a n d B e a c o n F a l l s ( 1 5 . 6 % ) . W a t e r b u r y , t h e r e g i o n ’ s l a r g e s t m u n i c i p a l i t y a n d t h e s t a t e ’ s fi ft h l a r g e s t c i t y , e x p e r i e n c e d a 2 . 5 % g a i n ( F i g u r e = -A 1 a n d T a b l e = -A 1 ) . T h e r e g i o n h a s a d d e d o v e r 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 r e s i d e n t s i n t h e l a s t 6 0 y e a r s , w i t h t h e f a s t e s t g r o w t h o c c u r r i n g i n t h e s u b u r b a n p a r t s o f t h e C N V R ( F i g u r e = -A 2 ) . S i n c e 1 9 7 0 , a m a j o r i t y o f t h e C N V R p o p – u l a ti o n h a s b e e n l o c a t e d o u t s i d e o f W a t e r b u r y . T h i s t r e n d h a s c o n ti n u e d , a n d a s o f 2 0 1 2 , o n l y 3 8 . 4 % o f t h e r e g i o n ’ s p o p u l a ti o n l i v e d i n W a t e r b u r y ( F i g u r e = -A 3 ) . B . P o p u l a ti o n D e n s i t y T h e C N V R h a s a h i g h e r p o p u l a ti o n d e n s i t y t h a n t h e s t a t e a s a w h o l e . = n 2 0 1 2 , t h e r e g i o n h a d 9 2 9 p e r s o n s p e r s q u a r e m i l e ( w h i c h i n c l u d e s n o n -r e s i d e n ti a l l a n d a n d r o a d s ) , c o m – p a r e d t o 7 4 1 s t a t e w i d e . F i g u r e = -B 1 s h o w s p o p u l a ti o n d e n s i t y b y c e n s u s b l o c k u s i n g e s ti – m a t e s a n d c o u n t s f r o m t h e U . S . C e n s u s B u r e a u . P o p u l a ti o n d e n s i t y v a r i e s s i g n i fi c a n t l y i n t h e r e g i o n . W a t e r b u r y , w h i c h i s e x t e n s i v e l y d e – v e l o p e d a n d h a s t h e h i g h e s t p r o p o r ti o n o f m u l ti -f a m i l y u n i t s , h a s t h e h i g h e s t p o p u l a ti o n d e n s i t y i n t h e r e g i o n a t 3 , 8 5 0 p e r s o n s p e r s q u a r e m i l e . : o w e v e r , p o p u l a ti o n d e n s i t y v a r – i e s s i g n i fi c a n t l y f r o m n e i g h b o r h o o d t o n e i g h b o r h o o d . S e v e r a l c e n s u s b l o c k g r o u p s n e a r t h e d o w n t o w n h a v e p o p u l a ti o n d e n s i ti e s o f o v e r 1 0 , 0 0 0 p e r sq u a r e m i l e , w h i l e b l o c k g r o u p s i n W a t e r b u r y ’ s o u t l y i n g n e i g h b o r h o o d s h a v e p o p u l a ti o n d e n s i ti e s u n d e r 2 , 5 0 0 p e r s q u a r e m i l e . N a u g a t u c k , t h e r e g i o n ’ s s e c o n d l a r g e s t m u n i c i p a l i t y , h a d t h e s e c o n d h i g h e s t p o p u l a ti o n d e n s i t y a t 1 , 9 3 9 p e r s o n s p e r s q u a r e m i l e . P o p u l a ti o n d e n s i t y i s lo w – e s t i n t h e r e g i o n ’ s w e s t e r n s e c ti o n ( B e t h l e h e m , W o o d b u r y , O x f o r d , M i d d l e b u r y , a n d S o u t h b u r y ) w i t h d e n s i ti e s r a n g i n g f r o m 1 8 4 t o 5 0 9 p e r s o n s p e r s q u a r e m i l e ( T a b l e = -B 1 ) . AN OVERV=EW OF T:E REG=ON’S TRENDS  0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% To t a l  Population ! ! ! ! !!1 Dot = 25 ! Pop  To t a l ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon  Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on block  group geography. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of the  Census,  2010 Census Figure  I‐ A1     CNVR  Population  by  Block  Group:  2010 To w n s Block Groups Ta b l e  I ‐ A1.    CNVR  Population,  By  Municipality:  2000 ‐2012 CNVR  Population Change:  2000 ‐2012 Source:   U.S.  Bureau of  the Census,  Census 2000; Census  2010, Profile of  General Population  and Housing  Characteristics;                  2012 Population  Estimates 05 Miles ¯ Population Geographic A re a 2012 2010 2000 2010 ‐ 2012 2000 ‐ 2012 CN V R 287, 151 287, 768 272, 594 ‐0. 2% 5. 3% Wate rbury 109, 915 110,366 107, 271 ‐0. 4% 2. 5% Remainder  of   Region 177, 236 177, 402 165, 323 ‐0. 1% 7. 2% Beacon  Fal l s 6, 065 6,049 5, 246 0. 3% 15. 6% Be thl e he m 3, 566 3,607 3, 422 ‐1. 1% 4. 2% Cheshire 29,30 0 29, 261 28, 543 0. 1% 2. 7% Mi dd l e bu ry 7, 572 7, 575 6, 451 0. 0% 17. 4% Naugatuck 31,77 4 31, 862 30, 989 ‐0. 3% 2. 5% Ox f ord 12, 819 12, 683 9, 821 1. 1% 30. 5% P ro sp e ct 9, 642 9, 405 8, 707 2. 5% 10. 7% Southbury 19,877 19,904 18,567 ‐0. 1% 7. 1% Thomaston 7, 788 7,887 7, 503 ‐1. 3% 3. 8% Wate rtow n 22, 261 22, 514 21, 661 ‐1. 1% 2. 8% Wo l cott 16, 72 4 16, 680 15, 215 0. 3% 9. 9% Woodbury 9,848 9,975 9,198 ‐1. 3% 7. 1% Conne cti cut 3, 590, 347 3, 574, 097 3, 405, 565 0. 5% 5. 4%     Percent  Change Total  Population C on n e ct ic u t C N V R W at er bu ry R e m a in d e r o f  R eg i o n  Figure = -A2. CNVR Population Change: 1950 -2012 Figure = -A3. Distribution of Regional Population: 1950 -2012 Source: US Census Bureau, Census 1950 -2010, 2012 Population Estimates 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2012 CN VR Waterbury Remai nder of Region 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2012 Remai nder of Regi on Waterbury  0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Data  based on  block group geography. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of the  Census,  2010 Census Figure  I‐ B1     CNVR  Population  Density,  by Block  Group:  2010 To w n s Block Groups Population Density (Per Sq Mi) Up to 1,000 1,000 – 2,499 2,500 – 4,999 5,000 – 9,999 10,000 and Over Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon  Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Ta b l e  I ‐ B1.    CNVR  Population  Density,  By  Municipality:  2000 ‐2012 CNVR  Population  Density:  2012 Source:  U.S.  Bureau  of the  Census,  U.S. Census  2000 ‐ 2010;  2012 Population Estimates 0 5 Miles ¯ Area Population Density %  Change Geographic  Area (Sq  Mi) 2012 2010 2000 1990  ‐ 2010 CNVR 309.0 929 931 882 5.3% Waterbury 28.6 3,850 3,866 3,757 2.5% Remainder  of   Region 280.5 632 633 589 7.2% Beacon  Falls 9.8 621 619 537 15.6% Bethlehem 19.4 184 186 177 4.2% Cheshire 32.9 891 889 868 2.7% Middlebury 17.8 427 427 363 17.4% Naugatuck 16.4 1,939 1,944 1,891 2.5% Oxford 32.9 390 386 299 30.5% Prospect 14.3 673 657 608 10.7% Southbury 39.1 509 510 475 7.1% Thomaston 12.0 648 657 625 3.8% Watertown 29.2 764 772 743 2.8% Wolcott 20.4 819 816 745 9.9% Woodbury 36.5 270 274 252 7.1% Connecticut 4844.1 741 738 703 5.4% C o n n ec t ic u t C N V R W at er b u r y R em ai n d er o f R eg io n  C . R a c i a l C o m p o s i ti o n The Census Bureau classifies individuals based on both race and ethnicity. Racial groups include per- sons who identified themselves as White, Black or African American, and Asian. The CNVR has be- come increasingly diverse since the 2000 Census. Whites remain the largest racial group in the region, comprising 79.4% of the population in 2010 (Table = -C1 and Figure = -C1). While the White population experienced a slight gain since 2000, it has declined as a share of the regional population from 83.4% to 79.4%. The sharpest decline occurred in Waterbury, with a 9.9% reduction in its White population. Naugatuck and Cheshire also experienced declines in their White population. =n the CNVR, 9.2% of the population characterized themselves as Black or African American, and 2.2% as Asian. Persons of ‘Other’ races accounted for 6.1% of the regional population, while 2.7% of the population considered themselves as belonging to two or more races. Despite making up only a small percentage of the pop- ulation, Asians are the fastest growing racial group in the region, with a population increase of 64.3% since 2000, while Blacks saw an increase of 29.6%. Racial minorities (59,206) comprised 20.6% of the region’s total population in 2010, a 34.4% increase from 2000 (Figure = -C2 and Table = -C2). 76.9% of the region’s minority population lived in Waterbury, accounting for 41.2% of the city’s population. Minorities make up 7.7% of the population in the re- mainder of the CNVR with the highest percentages in Naugatuck (13.1%) and Cheshire (12.8%). =n the last decade, Middlebury, Prospect, and Southbury saw their minority populations double. A n c e s t r y From 2007 -2011, the largest ancestry group in the CNVR was =talian (24.0%) followed by =rish (18.0%), German (9.3%), English (8.4%) and Polish (7.2%). Rounding out the top ten are French, Portuguese, French -Canadian, American, and Lithuanian. Waterbury also has an Albanian (2.3%) and Hamaican (1.9%) presence while the remainder of the region has a Russian presence (1.9%). Persons reporting ‘Other’ ancestries accounted for 26.2% of the region’s population. Table = -C3 shows the top 10 ances- try groups in the region. D . P o p u l a ti o n o f : i s p a n i c O r i g i n =ndividuals considered to be :ispanic are those who were born in or are the descendants of persons from Spanish -speaking countries. The Census Bureau considers :ispanics as an ethnic group rather than a race. The :ispanic population has grown 53.9% since 2000. =n 2010, a total of 42,518 persons, or 14.8% of the region’s population was :ispanic (Figure = -D1 and Table = -D1). 81.0% of the region’s :ispanic population resided in Waterbury, constituting 31.2% of the city’s population, while 19% re- sided in the other twelve towns in the region. Naugatuck (9.2%) and Beacon Falls (5.0%) had the sec- ond and third highest percentages of :ispanics in the region. 47.4% of :ispanics identified their race as White while 45.7% identified their race as ‘Other’ (Table = -D2 and Figure = -D2).  Table = -C1. Total Population, by Race of CNVR Municipalities: 2010 Single Race Geographic Area Total Population White Black or African American American =ndian and Alaska Native Asian Some Other Race Two or More Races CNVR 287,768 228,562 26,545 917 6,435 17,602 7,707 Waterbury 110,366 64,864 22,138 626 1,989 15,648 5,101 Remainder of Region 177,402 163,698 4,407 291 4,446 1,954 2,606 Beacon Falls 6,049 5,741 95 2 70 54 87 Bethlehem 3,607 3,532 16 4 18 6 31 Cheshire 29,261 25,503 1,461 30 1,489 362 416 Middlebury 7,575 7,096 73 4 287 34 81 Naugatuck 31,862 27,700 1,575 62 969 810 746 Oxford 12,683 12,106 145 13 195 85 139 Prospect 9,405 8,964 177 12 73 73 106 Southbury 19,904 18,871 166 21 531 78 237 Thomaston 7,887 7,631 34 26 60 53 83 Watertown 22,514 21,249 315 58 376 214 302 Wolcott 16,680 15,758 293 26 210 147 246 Woodbury 9,975 9,547 57 33 168 38 132 Connecticut 3,574,097 2,772,410 362,296 11,256 135,565 199,894 92,676 Percent of Total Population CNVR 100.0% 79.4% 9.2% 0.3% 2.2% 6.1% 2.7% Waterbury 100.0% 58.8% 20.1% 0.6% 1.8% 14.2% 4.6% Remainder of Region 100.0% 92.3% 2.5% 0.2% 2.5% 1.1% 1.5% Beacon Falls 100.0% 94.9% 1.6% 0.0% 1.2% 0.9% 1.4% Bethlehem 100.0% 97.9% 0.4% 0.1% 0.5% 0.2% 0.9% Cheshire 100.0% 87.2% 5.0% 0.1% 5.1% 1.2% 1.4% Middlebury 100.0% 93.7% 1.0% 0.1% 3.8% 0.4% 1.1% Naugatuck 100.0% 86.9% 4.9% 0.2% 3.0% 2.5% 2.3% Oxford 100.0% 95.5% 1.1% 0.1% 1.5% 0.7% 1.1% Prospect 100.0% 95.3% 1.9% 0.1% 0.8% 0.8% 1.1% Southbury 100.0% 94.8% 0.8% 0.1% 2.7% 0.4% 1.2% Thomaston 100.0% 96.8% 0.4% 0.3% 0.8% 0.7% 1.1% Watertown 100.0% 94.4% 1.4% 0.3% 1.7% 1.0% 1.3% Wolcott 100.0% 94.5% 1.8% 0.2% 1.3% 0.9% 1.5% Woodbury 100.0% 95.7% 0.6% 0.3% 1.7% 0.4% 1.3% Connecticut 100.0% 77.6% 10.1% 0.3% 3.8% 5.6% 2.6% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94 -171) Summary File P1 E Figure I‐ C1     Major  Racial Groups  in  the  CNVR,  by  Block  Group:  2010 % White Less than 30% 30% – 49.9% 50% – 69.9% 70% – 89.9% 90% or Higher Source:  U.S. Census  Bureau,  Census, 2010 ‐  Profile of General Population  and Housing Characteristics Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston White Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Other Races % Other Races Less than 3% 3% – 4.9% 5% – 9.9% 10% – 24.9% 25% or Higher Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Black  or  African  American % Black Less than 5% 5% – 9.9% 10% – 14.9% 15% – 24.9% 25% or Greater Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston % Asian Less than 1% 1% – 2.9% 3% – 3.9% 4% – 5.9% 6% or Higher Asian  Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Figure  I ‐ C2.    CNVR  Minority  Population,  by  Block  Group:  2010 To w n s Block Groups Percent Minority Up to 10% 10% – 14.9% 15% – 24.9% 25% – 49.9% 50% or Higher CNVR  Percent  Minority Population:  2010 Ta b l e  I ‐ C2.    CNVR  Minority  Population,  By  Municipality:  2000 ‐2010 Source:   U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  Census 2000. PL94 ‐171  Tables  ‐ Connecticut.                 Profile of General  Population  and  Housing  Characteristics: 2010 05M ile s ¯ Data  based  on block  group geography.  Includes persons who identified  themselves  as Black/African  American, Asian, Pacific  Islander,  American  Indian/Alaska  Native, Other  Races or  Two  or More  Races  on  their  2010 Census form.  Includes prison  population  in Cheshire. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of the  Census,  2010 Census   Percent Change Geographic  A re a 2010 2000 2010 2000 2000 ‐2010 CN V R 59, 206 44, 063 20. 6% 16. 2% 34. 4% Wate rbury 45,502 35, 253 41. 2% 32. 9% 29. 1% Remainder  of   Region 13, 704 8, 807 7. 7% 5. 3% 55. 6% Be acon  Falls 308 159 5.1% 3.0% 93.7% Bethlehem 75 86 2.1% 2.5%‐12. 8% Che shi re 3,758 3, 025 12. 8% 10. 6% 24. 2% Mi ddl e bury 479 186 6. 3% 2. 9% 157. 5% N au gatu ck 4, 162 2, 554 13. 1% 8. 2% 63. 0% Ox f ord 577227 4. 5% 2. 3% 154. 2% P ro sp e ct 441 321 4. 7% 3. 7% 37. 4% Southbury 1,033 49 4 5. 2% 2. 7% 109. 1% Thomaston 256 161 3.2% 2.1% 59.0% Watertown 1,265 767 5.6% 3.5% 64.9% Wol cott 922 57 4 5. 5% 3. 8% 60. 6% Woodbury 428 253 4.3% 2.8% 69.2% Conne cti cut 801,687 625, 210 22. 4% 18. 4% 28. 2% Number Percent  of   Total 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% C on n e ct ic u t C N V R W at er bu ry R e m a in d e r o f  R eg i o n  Table = -C3. Top 10 Reported Ancestry Groups: 2007 -2011 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2007 -2011 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates, 2007 -2011, B04003 Geographic Area Ancestry Group Population % of Total CNVR =talian 69,157 24.0% =rish 51,806 18.0% German 26,629 9.3% English 24,060 8.4% Polish 20,757 7.2% French 19,162 6.7% Portuguese 8,452 2.9% French Canadian 8,058 2.8% American 7,156 2.5% Lithuanian 5,386 1.9% Waterbury =talian 20,107 18.2% =rish 12,576 11.4% French 5,639 5.1% German 4,296 3.9% English 4,238 3.8% Polish 3,595 3.3% Albanian 2,569 2.3% Portuguese 2,517 2.3% French Canadian 2,170 2.0% Hamaican 2,097 1.9% Remainder =talian 49,050 27.6% of Region =rish 39,230 22.1% German 22,333 12.6% English 19,822 11.2% Polish 17,162 9.7% French 13,523 7.6% Portuguese 5,935 3.3% French Canadian 5,888 3.3% American 5,209 2.9% Swedish 4,258 2.4% Connecticut =talian 680,770 19.0% =rish 606,736 17.0% German 359,200 10.1% English 353,181 9.9% Polish 296,439 8.3% French 222,976 6.2% American 103,055 2.9% French Canadian 102,924 2.9% Scottish 70,103 2.0% Russian 69,284 1.9%  Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based on  block group geography.  Includes persons who  identified  themselves  as Hispanic  on their  2010 Census form.  Includes prison  population  in Cheshire. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of the  Census,  2010 Census Figure  I‐ D1.     CNVR  Hispanic  Population  by,  Block  Group:  2010 Ta b l e  I ‐ D1.    CNVR  Hispanic  Population,  by  Municipality:  2000 ‐2010 CNVR  Percent  Hispanic:  2010 Source:   U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  Census 2000. PL94 ‐171  Tables  ‐ Connecticut.                 Profile of General  Population  and  Housing  Characteristics: 2010 To w n s Block Groups Percent Hispanic Less  than 5% 5%  ‐ 9.9% 10%  ‐ 24.9% 25%  ‐ 49.9% 50%  or  Greater 05 Mil e s ¯ 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% CNVR Waterbury Remainder of Region Connecticut C on n e ct ic u t C N V R W at er bu ry R em ain d e r o f  R eg i o n Percent Change Ge ographi c  A re a 2010 2000 2010 2000 2000 ‐2010 CN V R 42, 518 27, 53 4 14. 8% 10. 1% 54. 4% Wate rbury 34,446 23, 25 4 31. 2% 21. 8% 48. 1% Remainder  of   Region 8,072 4, 280 4. 6% 2. 6% 88. 6% Beacon  Falls 30 0 112 5.0% 2.1% 167.9% Bethlehem 61 22 1.7% 0.6% 177.3% Che shi re 1,375 1, 097 4. 7% 3. 8% 25. 3% Middlebury 208 79 2.7% 1.2% 163.3% N augatu ck 2, 929 1, 386 9. 2% 4. 5% 111. 3% Oxford 468 18 0 3. 7% 1. 8% 160. 0% P rospe ct 312 168 3. 3% 1. 9% 85. 7% S ou th bu ry 523 296 2. 6% 1. 6% 76. 7% Tho masto n 202 109 2. 6% 1. 5% 85. 3% Watertown 838 406 3.7% 1.9% 106.4% Wolcott 611 273 3.7% 1.8% 123.8% Woodbury 245 152 2. 5% 1. 7% 61. 2% Con ne cti cu t 479, 087 320, 323 13. 4% 9. 4% 49. 6% Number Percent  of  Total  By Race Geographic Area :ispanic or Latino Percent of Total Population White Black or African American Other CNVR 42,518 14.8% 20,269 2,820 19,429 Waterbury 34,446 31.2% 14,783 2,484 17,179 Remainder of Region 8,072 4.6% 5,486 336 2,250 Beacon Falls 300 5.0% 226 8 66 Bethlehem 61 1.7% 55 0 6 Cheshire 1,375 4.7% 866 87 422 Middlebury 208 2.7% 171 6 31 Naugatuck 2,929 9.2% 1,933 148 848 Oxford 468 3.7% 361 11 96 Prospect 312 3.3% 224 2 86 Southbury 523 2.6% 409 10 104 Thomaston 202 2.6% 120 7 75 Watertown 838 3.7% 542 23 273 Wolcott 611 3.7% 398 32 181 Woodbury 245 2.5% 181 2 62 Connecticut 479,087 13.4% 226,148 27,177 225,762 Table = -D2. CNVR Population of :ispanic Origin, by Race and Municipality: 2010 Figure = -D2. Racial =dentification of CNVR :ispanic Population: 2010 White 47.7% Other 45.7% Black 6.6% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census :Profile of General Population and :ousing Statistics White Bla ck or Africa n American Other  E . Ag e D i s t r i b u ti o n The region’s age distribution changed dramatically between 2000 and 2010 (Table = -E1 and Table = -E2). The “baby boomers” of the post -World War == era increased the 45 -64 age group by 33.2%. School age children (5 -17) decreased by 0.7% over the decade, while preschoolers (under 5) decreased by 10.7%. There was an increase in young adults (age 18 -24) by 20.5%. Adults age 25 to 34 decreased by 9.7% and adults age 35 to 44 decreased by 15.1%. Those 65 years old and over represented 14.5% of the region’s population. Population pyramids for the region can be seen in Figure = -E1. The median age for the region was 40.4 years old, slightly higher than the state average of 40.0. Val- ues for municipalities ranged from a low of 35.2 in Waterbury to a high of 49.9 in Southbury (Figure = – E2 and Table = -E3). Waterbury and Naugatuck had the highest percent population of those under 5 years old, 20 to 24 years old, and 25 to 34 years old. Coincidentally, these two municipalities also had the two lowest median ages in the region. Middlebury and Cheshire had the highest percentage of those aged 5 to 19 years. Bethlehem had the highest percentage of 45 to 64 year olds while South- bury had the highest percentage of persons 65 years old and over. Southbury had the lowest percent- age of people in the five youngest age groups (under 5 years, 5 to 19, 20 to 24, 25 to 34, and 35 to 44). Bethlehem, Southbury, and Woodbury all had median ages of over 45. Elderly Population =n 2010, 14.5% of the CNVR population was 65 years old and over, an increase of 6.4% since 2000. The distribution of persons 65 years old and over can be seen in Figure = -E3 and Table = -E4. Despite making up only 12.6% of the city’s population, Waterbury was home to the most elderly persons in the region (13,943). :owever, the elderly population in Waterbury declined by 13.1% since 2000. During that same time period, the region’s suburban portion saw its elderly population grow by 19.8%. Oxford’s elderly population doubled in the last decade with the construction of a large age -restricted golf com- munity. Beacon Falls and Woodbury saw their elderly populations grow by over 40% in the last dec- ade. Southbury continues to have the largest percentage of elderly persons, comprising 26.3% of the population. This is largely due to the presence of :eritage Village, a large retirement community, con- valescent homes, and assisted living developments. D Table = -E1. CNVR Age Distribution: 2000 -2010 Number Percent of Total Percent Change 2000 -2010 Geographic Area 2010 2000 2010 2000 CNVR Under 5 years 16,267 18,209 5.7% 6.7% – 10.7% 5 to 17 years 52,398 52,040 18.2% 19.1% 0.7% 18 to 24 years 23,607 19,583 8.2% 7.2% 20.5% 25 to 34 years 31,748 35,164 11.0% 12.9% – 9.7% 35 to 44 years 39,319 46,287 13.7% 17.0% – 15.1% 45 to 64 years 82,655 62,033 28.7% 22.8% 33.2% 65 years and over 41,774 39,278 14.5% 14.4% 6.4% Total 287,768 272,594 100.0% 100.0% 5.6% Waterbury Under 5 years 7,920 8,176 7.2% 7.6% – 3.1% 5 to 17 years 20,345 20,278 18.4% 18.9% 0.3% 18 to 24 years 11,095 9,566 10.1% 8.9% 16.0% 25 to 34 years 15,600 15,844 14.1% 14.8% – 1.5% 35 to 44 years 14,647 16,183 13.3% 15.1% – 9.5% 45 to 64 years 26,816 21,179 24.3% 19.7% 26.6% 65 years and over 13,943 16,045 12.6% 15.0% – 13.1% Total 110,366 107,271 100.0% 100.0% 2.9% Remainder of Region Under 5 years 8,347 10,033 4.7% 6.1% – 16.8% 5 to 17 years 32,053 31,762 18.1% 19.2% 0.9% 18 to 24 years 12,512 10,017 7.1% 6.1% 24.9% 25 to 34 years 16,148 19,320 9.1% 11.7% – 16.4% 35 to 44 years 24,672 30,104 13.9% 18.2% – 18.0% 45 to 64 years 55,839 40,854 31.5% 24.7% 36.7% 65 years and over 27,831 23,233 15.7% 14.1% 19.8% Total 177,402 165,323 100.0% 100.0% 7.3% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and :ousing: 2000. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2010 Demographic Profile Summary File  Table = -E2. Age Distribution of CNVR Population, by Municipality: 2010 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000; Census 2010 Demographic Profile SF1 Geographic Area Total Under 5 -17 18 -24 25 -34 35 -44 45 -64 65 years 5 years years years years years years & over Total Population CNVR 287,768 16,267 52,398 23,607 31,748 39,319 82,655 41,774 Waterbury 110,366 7,920 20,345 11,095 15,600 14,647 26,816 13,943 Remainder of 177,402 8,347 36,010 12,512 16,148 24,672 55,839 27,831 Region Beacon Falls 6,049 321 1,056 428 635 939 1,887 783 Bethlehem 3,607 132 615 241 227 448 1,405 539 Cheshire 29,261 1,291 5,802 2,299 2,443 4,187 9,137 4,102 Middlebury 7,575 355 1,508 431 514 1,125 2,340 1,302 Naugatuck 31,862 1,887 5,493 2,735 4,504 4,545 8,892 3,806 Oxford 12,683 683 2,402 726 993 1,927 4,240 1,712 Prospect 9,405 428 1,696 711 702 1,367 3,076 1,425 Southbury 19,904 707 3,343 959 1,077 2,252 6,331 5,235 Thomaston 7,887 364 1,451 531 745 1,210 2,539 1,047 Watertown 22,514 1,047 3,812 1,598 2,186 2,983 7,251 3,637 Wolcott 16,680 736 3,172 1,302 1,363 2,439 5,128 2,540 Woodbury 9,975 396 1,703 551 759 1,250 3,613 1,703 Connecticut 3,475,336 202,106 614,909 227,898 420,377 484,438 1,019,049 506,559 Percent Distribution CNVR 100.0% 5.7% 18.2% 8.2% 11.0% 13.7% 28.7% 14.5% Waterbury 100.0% 7.2% 18.4% 10.1% 14.1% 13.3% 24.3% 12.6% Remainder of 100.0% 4.7% 20.3% 7.1% 9.1% 13.9% 31.5% 15.7% Region Beacon Falls 100.0% 5.3% 17.5% 7.1% 10.5% 15.5% 31.2% 12.9% Bethlehem 100.0% 3.7% 17.1% 6.7% 6.3% 12.4% 39.0% 14.9% Cheshire 100.0% 4.4% 19.8% 7.9% 8.3% 14.3% 31.2% 14.0% Middlebury 100.0% 4.7% 19.9% 5.7% 6.8% 14.9% 30.9% 17.2% Naugatuck 100.0% 5.9% 17.2% 8.6% 14.1% 14.3% 27.9% 11.9% Oxford 100.0% 5.4% 18.9% 5.7% 7.8% 15.2% 33.4% 13.5% Prospect 100.0% 4.6% 18.0% 7.6% 7.5% 14.5% 32.7% 15.2% Southbury 100.0% 3.6% 16.8% 4.8% 5.4% 11.3% 31.8% 26.3% Thomaston 100.0% 4.6% 18.4% 6.7% 9.4% 15.3% 32.2% 13.3% Watertown 100.0% 4.7% 16.9% 7.1% 9.7% 13.2% 32.2% 16.2% Wolcott 100.0% 4.4% 19.0% 7.8% 8.2% 14.6% 30.7% 15.2% Woodbury 100.0% 4.0% 17.1% 5.5% 7.6% 12.5% 36.2% 17.1% Connecticut 100.0% 5.8% 17.7% 6.6% 12.1% 13.9% 29.3% 14.6%  Figure = -E1. Population Pyramids and Age Distribution in the CNVR: 2010 CNVR Median Age: 40.4 Waterbury Median Age: 35.2 Remainder of Region Median Age: 43.2 Connecticut Median Age: 40.0 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census  Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based on  block group geography.   Shows median age  of all  persons within  a  block  group.  Includes  prison population  in Cheshire. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of the  Census,  2010 Census Figure  I‐ E2.     CNVR  Median  Age,  by  Block  Group:  2010 Ta b l e  I ‐ E3.    CNVR  Median  Age,  By  Municipality:  1990 ‐2010 CNVR  Median  Age:  2010 Source:   U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  Census 2000. PL94 ‐171  Tables  ‐ Connecticut; Census  2010 05 Miles ¯ Me d i an Age %  Change Ge ographi c  A re a 2010 2000 1990 1990  ‐  2010 CN V R 40. 4 37. 5 34. 5 17. 1% Wate rbu ry 35. 2 34. 9 32. 9 7. 0% Remainder   of  Region 43. 2 40. 0 35. 6 21. 3% Beacon  Fal l s 41. 5 36. 7 32. 7 26. 9% Be thl e h e m 47. 1 42. 2 37. 0 27. 3% Che shi re 42. 2 38. 4 35. 3 19. 5% Mi ddl e bury 43. 9 42. 8 39. 8 10. 3% N au gatu ck 38. 2 35. 5 32. 0 19. 4% Ox f ord 43. 4 38. 4 34. 1 27. 3% P rospe ct 43. 8 39. 4 36. 5 20. 0% Sou th bu ry 49. 9 45. 7 43. 1 15. 8% Tho mas ton 42. 5 37. 8 33. 8 25. 7% Wate rto w n 44. 0 39. 0 35. 5 23. 9% Wol co tt 42. 7 38. 1 35. 4 20. 6% Woodbury 46. 9 41. 0 37. 2 26. 1% Conne cti cut 40. 0 37. 4 34. 4 16. 3% 0 10 20 30 40 50 C o n n ect ic u t C N VR W at er bu r y R em ain d er o f  R eg io n Median  Age  (Years) Less  than 30 30  ‐ 34 35  ‐ 39 40  ‐ 44 45  and  Up To w n s Block Groups  Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based on  block group geography.   Shows median age  of all  persons within  a  block  group.  Includes  prison population  in Cheshire. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of the  Census,  2010 Census Figure  I ‐ E3.     CNVR  Population  Age  65 and  Older,  by  Block  Group:  2010 Source:   U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  Census 2000. PL94 ‐171  Tables  ‐ Connecticut.                 U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  Profile of  General Population  and Housing  Characteristics:  2010 Percent of  Population  Age  65 Ye a r s  and  Older:  2010 0 5 Miles ¯ To w n s Block Groups Percent 65  and  Older Up  to  10% 10%  ‐ 19.9% 20%  ‐ 29.9% 30%  ‐ 49.9% 50%  or  Higher Percent Change Ge ographi c  A re a 2010 2000 2010 2000 2000 ‐2010 CN V R 41, 774 39, 278 14. 5% 14.4% 6. 4% Wate rbury 13, 943 16, 045 12. 6% 15.0% ‐13. 1% Remainder  of   Region 27, 831 23, 233 15. 7% 14.1% 19. 8% Be acon  Fal l s 783 506 12. 9% 9.6% 54. 7% Be thl e he m 539 440 14. 9% 12.9% 22. 5% Ch e sh i re 4, 102 3, 592 14. 0% 12.6% 14. 2% Mi ddl e bury 1, 302 1, 067 17. 2% 16.5% 22. 0% N augatuck 3, 806 3, 633 11. 9% 11.7% 4. 8% Ox f ord 1, 712 857 13. 5% 8.7% 99. 8% P rospe ct 1, 425 1, 153 15. 2% 13.2% 23. 6% South bury 5, 235 4, 841 26. 3% 26.1% 8. 1% Thomas ton 1, 047 909 13. 3% 12.1% 15. 2% Wate rtow n 3, 637 3, 050 16. 2% 14.1% 19. 2% Wol cott 2, 540 1, 992 15. 2% 13.1% 27. 5% Woodbu ry 1, 703 1, 193 17. 1% 13.0% 42. 7% Conne cti cut 506, 559 470, 183 14. 2% 13.8% 7. 7% Number Percent  of  Total Population 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% CNVR Waterbury Remainder of Region Connecticut C onne cti c u t C N V R W a ter b u ry R em a in d er o f R eg ion Ta b l e  I ‐ E4.      CNVR  Percent  of  Population  Age  65  Ye a r s  and  Older, By  Municipality:  2000 ‐2010  F. :ousehold Types The U.S. Bureau of the Census divides households into four categories: single person households, married couples, single householder/no spouse, and non -family households. Married couples (with and without children) accounted for 49.4% of the region’s households in 2010, a decline of 3.1% from 2000. This is the first time that married couples dropped below 50.0%. =n 1980, 63.0% of all CNVR households were married couples (Table = -F1). Single person households constituted 26.4% of the total population. Single parent households with children accounted for another 19.0%, with 58.2% of these households living in Waterbury (Figure = – F1). The remaining 5.2% of the region’s households consisted of two or more persons, unrelated by blood or marriage, who shared a unit – an increase over the 2000 share of 4.6%. =n Waterbury, married couple families occupied 34.7% of the households in 2010, down from 38.8% in 2000. Divorced or single parents with children accounted for 28.4% of Waterbury’s households, rising from 24.3% in 2000. 30.7% of Waterbury’s households were occupied by only one person and 6.2% by non -families. =n contrast, married couples accounted for 58.8% of the suburban households, while single parent families were only 13.0% and single person households 23.6%. The concentration of single person and single parent households may reflect the lack of affordable housing, especially rentals, in the subur- ban portion of the CNVR and Waterbury’s available transportation and social services. The high per- centage of single person households (31.7%) in Southbury reflects the large elderly population.  Table = -F1. Types of :ouseholds in the CNVR, by Municipality: 2010 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Profile of General Population and :ousing Characteristics: 2010 2 or More Person :ouseholds Geographic Area Single Person :ousehold Married Couples Single :ouse- holder/ No Spouse Non -Family :ouseholds Total CNVR 28,927 54,231 20,865 5,712 109,735 Waterbury 13,118 14,849 12,147 2,647 42,761 Remainder of Region 15,809 39,382 8,718 3,065 66,974 Beacon Falls 581 1,355 315 109 2,360 Bethlehem 327 857 156 71 1,411 Cheshire 2,150 6,439 1,083 369 10,041 Middlebury 537 1,822 286 103 2,748 Naugatuck 3,129 6,166 2,320 724 12,339 Oxford 641 3,217 455 191 4,504 Prospect 602 2,226 390 139 3,357 Southbury 2,607 4,606 684 316 8,213 Thomaston 771 1,710 463 164 3,108 Watertown 2,087 4,987 1,237 361 8,672 Wolcott 1,175 3,664 893 275 6,007 Woodbury 1,202 2,333 436 243 4,214 Connecticut 373,648 672,013 236,648 88,778 1,371,087 Percent Distribution CNVR 26.4% 49.4% 19.0% 5.2% 100.0% Waterbury 30.7% 34.7% 28.4% 6.2% 100.0% Remainder of Region 23.6% 58.8% 13.0% 4.6% 100.0% Beacon Falls 24.6% 57.4% 13.3% 4.6% 100.0% Bethlehem 23.2% 60.7% 11.1% 5.0% 100.0% Cheshire 21.4% 64.1% 10.8% 3.7% 100.0% Middlebury 19.5% 66.3% 10.4% 3.7% 100.0% Naugatuck 25.4% 50.0% 18.8% 5.9% 100.0% Oxford 14.2% 71.4% 10.1% 4.2% 100.0% Prospect 17.9% 66.3% 11.6% 4.1% 100.0% Southbury 31.7% 56.1% 8.3% 3.8% 100.0% Thomaston 24.8% 55.0% 14.9% 5.3% 100.0% Watertown 24.1% 57.5% 14.3% 4.2% 100.0% Wolcott 19.6% 61.0% 14.9% 4.6% 100.0% Woodbury 28.5% 55.4% 10.3% 5.8% 100.0% Connecticut 27.3% 49.0% 17.3% 6.5% 100.0%  Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on block  group geography. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of the  Census,  Profile  of General Population  and Housing  Characteristics:  2010 To w n s Block Groups Households Up to  10% 10%  ‐ 19% 20%  ‐ 29% 30%  ‐ 39% 40%  ‐ 66% 0 5 Miles ¯ Figure I ‐ F1.     CNVR  Percent  Single  Parent  Households, by  Block  Group:  2010  G . = n c o m e =ncome data in this edition of the Profile are from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Sur- vey 5 -year estimates from 2007 to 2011. Median household income, median family income, per capi- ta income, and poverty rates are described below. Median :ousehold =ncome :ousehold income is defined as the total combined income of all members of the household. Median income is the amount which divides income distribution into two equal groups, half having incomes above the median, and half having incomes below the median. Since almost one out of three house- holds does not comprise a family, household income is more inclusive than family income. Based on household income figures for 2007 -2011, Oxford ($111,122) had the highest median household in- come in the region followed by Cheshire ($109,535) and Middlebury ($99,679). Waterbury’s median household income was $41,499 – the lowest in the region and 40% below the state’s median. The re- maining towns in the region had median incomes ranging from $63,414 to $93,631 (Table = -G1). All towns in the region saw their net median household income increase between 1999 and 2011. :owever, adjusting for inflation, some towns saw increases while others saw decreases (Table = -G1 and Figure 1 -G1). Oxford saw the highest increase in median household income with an inflation ad- justed increase of 6.7 percent. Other towns that saw an increase were Beacon Falls, Middlebury, Pro- spect, Watertown, and Cheshire. The remaining municipalities saw decreases in median household income with Southbury declining by 13.7%. Southbury’s decline can be partially explained by its large elderly population. Waterbury and Thomaston also saw declines of 10.0% or more between 1999 and 2011. The distribution of household income in the CNVR can be seen in Table = -G2. Median Family =ncome Median family income is based on households with two or more related persons living in one housing unit. The total income for that unit includes the income from any non -related persons in the same unit. As shown in Table = -G3, median family income tends to be higher than the median household income. The distribution of this value among municipalities in the region is very similar to the distribu- tion seen for median household income. Cheshire had the highest ($125,260) median family income while Waterbury ($49,059) had the lowest. With the exceptions of Waterbury, Naugatuck, and Thomaston, all municipalities had median family incomes exceeding the state average. Per Capita =ncome Per capita income is the aggregate income of the population 15 years and older divided by that popu- lation. From 2007- 2011 Middlebury ($46,013), Oxford ($44,495), and Woodbury ($44,458) had the highest per capita incomes. Waterbury had the lowest per capita income with $22,004. The per capita income for the remaining towns ranged from $28,801 to $44,331 (Figure = -G2 and Table = -G3).  Persons Below the Poverty Level The U.S. Census Bureau calculated poverty using income before taxes excluding capital gains or non – cash benefits such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps. Poverty thresholds vary based on age (over or under 65 years old), household size, and presence of children. =n 2010, a family of four consisting of two adults and two children under the age of 18 would have to have a family income of less than $22,113 to be considered below the poverty line. Waterbury, which was home to 75.7% of the region’s impoverished persons, had 20.6% of its popula- tion below the poverty level from 2007 -2011, making it by far the poorest municipality in the region (Figure = -G3 and Table = -G4). Among the other towns, Naugatuck (8.5%) and Southbury (5.2%) had the next highest percentage of persons below the poverty level, but less than the overall percentage for Connecticut (9.1%). From 2000 to 2011, poverty rates increased from 8.4% to 10.5%. The 150% pov- erty threshold is commonly used to measure persons that are in poverty or in danger of falling into poverty. Figure = -F5 shows persons under 150% of the poverty threshold. Like the 100% poverty threshold, the highest percent of persons below the 150% poverty threshold was found in Waterbury (31.5%), followed by Naugatuck (14.0%) and Bethlehem (10.3%) (Figure = -G4 and Table = -G5). D Table = -G1. Estimated Median :ousehold =ncome of CNVR Municipalities: 1999 -2011 Figure = -G1. Change in =nflation Adjusted Median :ousehold =ncome of CNVR Municipalities: 1999 -2011 Geographic Area Median :ousehold =ncome Percent Change Percent Change 2011 1999 1999 – 2011 (=nflation Adjusted) Beacon Falls $80,182 $56,592 41.7% 5.0% Bethlehem $86,891 $68,542 26.8% – 6.1% Cheshire $109,535 $80,466 36.1% 0.8% Middlebury $99,679 $70,469 41.5% 4.8% Naugatuck $63,414 $51,247 23.7% – 8.3% Oxford $111,122 $77,126 44.1% 6.7% Prospect $93,631 $67,560 38.6% 2.7% Southbury $72,177 $61,919 16.6% – 13.7% Thomaston $64,982 $54,297 19.7% – 11.3% Waterbury $41,499 $34,285 21.0% – 10.3% Watertown $81,203 $59,420 36.7% 1.2% Wolcott $80,529 $61,376 31.2% – 2.8% Woodbury $86,802 $68,322 27.0% – 5.9% Connecticut $69,243 $53,935 28.4% – 4.9% Source: U.S Bureau of the Census, Census 2000. Summary File 3 (SF 3) 2007-2011 American Community Survey, 5 -year estimates, B19013 US Department of Labor, CP= =nflation Calculator [CP= 1999 -2011: 1.35] -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10%  Number of :ouseholds Geographic Area Less Than $10,000 $10,000 – $14,999 $15,000 – $24,999 $25,000 – $34,999 $35,000 – $49,999 $50,000 – $74,999 $75,000 – $99,999 $100,000 or More CNVR 7,282 4,982 9,270 9,112 13,110 18,505 14,803 31,531 Waterbury 5,053 3,043 5,409 5,181 5,658 7,963 4,492 5,800 Remainder of Region 2,229 1,939 3,861 3,931 7,452 10,542 10,311 25,731 Beacon Falls 96 22 139 128 299 364 543 678 Bethlehem 23 55 58 71 137 226 302 530 Cheshire 208 167 406 463 611 1,158 1,127 5,227 Middlebury 74 19 154 72 236 337 453 1,327 Naugatuck 843 503 954 835 1,942 2,172 1,961 3,176 Oxford 32 62 92 210 294 679 520 2,471 Prospect 67 83 110 223 294 467 620 1,475 Southbury 221 444 745 640 1,007 1,146 766 3,227 Thomaston 109 74 202 212 478 731 512 927 Watertown 245 252 475 501 1,091 1,336 1,747 2,985 Wolcott 193 168 295 329 604 1,143 1,132 2,032 Woodbury 118 90 231 247 459 783 628 1,676 Connecticut 73,015 54,549 111,327 105,984 151,940 231,321 185,459 446,520 Percent Distribution CNVR 6.7% 4.6% 8.5% 8.4% 12.1% 17.0% 13.6% 29.0% Waterbury 11.9% 7.1% 12.7% 12.2% 13.3% 18.7% 10.5% 13.6% Remainder of Region 3.4% 2.9% 5.9% 6.0% 11.3% 16.0% 15.6% 39.0% Beacon Falls 4.2% 1.0% 6.1% 5.6% 13.2% 16.0% 23.9% 29.9% Bethlehem 1.6% 3.9% 4.1% 5.1% 9.8% 16.1% 21.5% 37.8% Cheshire 2.2% 1.8% 4.3% 4.9% 6.5% 12.4% 12.0% 55.8% Middlebury 2.8% 0.7% 5.8% 2.7% 8.8% 12.6% 17.0% 49.7% Naugatuck 6.8% 4.1% 7.7% 6.7% 15.7% 17.5% 15.8% 25.6% Oxford 0.7% 1.4% 2.1% 4.8% 6.7% 15.6% 11.9% 56.7% Prospect 2.0% 2.5% 3.3% 6.7% 8.8% 14.0% 18.6% 44.2% Southbury 2.7% 5.4% 9.1% 7.8% 12.3% 14.0% 9.3% 39.4% Thomaston 3.4% 2.3% 6.2% 6.5% 14.7% 22.5% 15.8% 28.6% Watertown 2.8% 2.9% 5.5% 5.8% 12.6% 15.5% 20.2% 34.6% Wolcott 3.3% 2.8% 5.0% 5.6% 10.2% 19.4% 19.2% 34.5% Woodbury 2.8% 2.1% 5.5% 5.8% 10.8% 18.5% 14.8% 39.6% Connecticut 5.4% 4.0% 8.2% 7.8% 11.2% 17.0% 13.6% 32.8% Table = -G2. Estimated CNVR :ousehold =ncome Distribution, by Municipality: 2007 -2011 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 -2011 American Community Survey, 5 year estimates, B19001  $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon  Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on block  group geography.   The ACS collects  data throughout  the year  on an on ‐going,  monthy  basis and  asks for  a respondents  income over  the “past  12 months.” Source:  U.S. Bureau  of the  Census,  American  Community Survey,  5‐Ye a r   Estimates,  2007‐2011 Figure  I‐ G2.     CNVR  Per  Capita  Income,  by  Block  Group:  2007 ‐2011 CNVR Per  Capita  Income: 2007 ‐2011 Source:   U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  American  Community  Survey, 5‐Ye a r  Estimates,  2007‐2011, B19013, B19113,  B19301 To w n s Block Groups Per Capita  Income (Dollars) $15,000  and  Under $15,000  ‐ $24,999 $25,000  ‐ $34,999 $35,000  ‐ $44,999 $45,000  and  Over 05M ile s ¯ Ta b l e  I ‐ G3.     CNVR  Per Capita  Income,  Median  Household  Income &  Median  Family  Income,  by Municipality:  2007 ‐2011 C on n e ct ic u t C N VR W at er bu ry R em ain d e r o f  R eg io n Ge ographi c  Area Per Capita Income Me d i an   House hol d Income Me d i an  Family House hol d   Income CN V R $31, 928 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Wate rbu ry $22, 004 $41, 499 $49, 059 Re mai nde r  of   Re gi on $38, 102 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Be acon  Fal l s $32, 023 $80, 182 $88, 895 Be thl e he m $39, 255 $86, 891 $91, 946 Ch e s hi re $42, 144 $109, 535 $125, 260 Mi dd l e b ury $46, 013 $999, 679 $110, 299 N au gatu ck $28, 801 $63, 414 $76, 984 Ox f ord $44, 495 $111, 122 $117, 886 P ros pe ct $41, 460 $93, 631 $104, 306 Sou th bu ry $44, 331 $72, 177 $107, 020 Thomas ton $32, 512 $64, 982 $80, 070 Wate rtow n $36, 207 $81, 203 $94, 280 Wol cott $34, 349 $80, 529 $89, 671 Wood bu ry $44, 458 $86, 802 $106, 944 Conn e cti cut $37, 627 $69, 243 $86, 395  0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% CNVR Waterbury Remainder  of Region CT Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon  Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Figure  I ‐ G3.      CNVR  Percent  of  Persons  in Poverty,  by  Block  Group:  2007 ‐2011 Ta b l e  I ‐ G4.       CNVR  Persons  in  Poverty,  by  Municipality:  2000 ‐2011 CNVR  Percent  of  Population  in Poverty:  2007 ‐2011 Source:   U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  ACS 2009;  ACS, 5‐Ye a r  Estimates,  2007‐ 2011, 17001;  Census  2000 To w n s Block Groups % in  Poverty Up  to  5% 5%  ‐ 9.9% 10%  ‐ 19.9% 20%  ‐ 29.9% 30%  or  Higher 0 5 Miles ¯ C o n n ec t ic u t C N V R W at er bu r y R em ai n d er o f R eg io n Data  based on  block group geography.  Includes persons that  reported  having a household  income below 100% of the  Census poverty  threshold  on their  2010  Census  form. Does  not include  institutionalized  people, people  in military  quarters,  people in college  dormitories  or unrelated  individuals under  15 years old. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of the  Census,  2007‐ 2011 American  Community  Survey ,  5 ‐Ye a r  Estimates,  C17002                Number                Percent %  Change Geographic  A re a 2011 2000 2011 2000 2000  ‐  2010 CN V R 29, 291 22, 832 10. 5% 8. 4% 28. 3% Wate rbury 22, 181 16, 774 20. 6% 15. 6% 32. 2% Remainder   of  Region 6, 759 6, 058 3. 9%3. 7% 11. 6% Beacon  Fal l s 210 309 3. 5% 5. 9% ‐32. 0% Be thl e he m 123 89 3. 5% 2. 6% 38. 2% Che shi re 648 750 2. 5% 2. 6% ‐13. 6% Mi ddl e bury 198 174 2. 7% 2. 7% 13. 8% N augatuck 2, 676 1, 977 8. 5% 6. 4% 35. 4% Ox f ord 209 206 1. 7% 2. 1% 1. 5% P rospe ct 216 89 2. 4% 1. 0% 142. 7% Southbury 987 878 5.2% 4.7% 12.4% Thomaston 220 311 2. 8% 4. 1% ‐29. 3% Wate rtow n 750 471 3. 4% 2. 2% 59. 2% Wol cott 540 392 3. 3% 2. 6% 37. 8% Woodbury 465 412 4.7% 4.5% 12.9% Conne cti cut 314, 306 259, 514 9. 1% 7. 6% 21. 1%  0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon  Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Figure  I ‐ G4:  CNVR  Persons  Under  150%  of  Poverty  Level:  2007 ‐2011 CNVR Percent  Under  150  Percent of  Poverty:  2007 ‐2011 Source:   U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  Census 2000; ACS,  5‐Ye a r  Estimates,  2007‐2011, C17002 To w n s Block Groups 0 5 Miles ¯ C on n e ct ic u t C N V R W a ter bu ry R em ain d e r o f  R eg i o n Persons  Under  150% Poverty  Threshold Up  to  10% 10%  ‐ 19.9% 20%  ‐ 29.9% 30%  ‐ 49.9% 50%  or  Higher Ta b l e  I ‐ G5.     CNVR  Persons  Under  150  Percent  of  the  Poverty Threshold,  by  Municipality:  2000 ‐2011 Data  based on  block group geography.  Includes persons that  reported  having a median  household  income  below 150%  of  the  Census  poverty threshold  on their  2010 Census form.  Does not include  institutionalized  people, people  in military  quarters,  people in college  dormitories, or  unrelated  individuals  under  15  years  old. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of the  Census,  2007 ‐2011  American Community  Surv ey, 5 ‐Ye a r  Estimates,  C17002 Geographic  A re a 2011 2000 2011 2000 CN V R 47, 162 39, 429 16. 9% 14. 5% 19. 6% Wate rbury 33, 891 27, 975 31. 5% 26. 1% 21. 1% Remainder  of   Region 13, 271 11, 454 7. 7% 6. 9% 15. 9% Be acon  Fal l s 497 389 8. 3% 7. 4% 27. 8% Be thl e he m 368 163 10. 3% 4. 8% 125. 8% Ch e shi re 1, 083 1, 225 4. 1% 4. 3% ‐11. 6% Mi ddl e bury 396 349 5. 4% 5. 4% 13. 5% N augatuck 4, 382 3, 510 14. 0% 11. 3% 24. 8% Ox f ord 436 538 3. 5% 5. 5% ‐19. 0% P rospe ct 557 186 6. 1% 2. 1% 199. 5% Southbury 1,838 1,414 9.6% 7.6% 30.0% Thomas ton 466 732 6. 0% 9. 8% ‐36. 3% Wate rto w n 1, 476 1, 435 6. 6% 6. 6% 2. 9% Wol cott 1, 074 767 6. 6% 5. 0% 40. 0% Woodbury 698 746 7.1% 8.1% ‐6. 4% Conne cti cut 527, 280 437, 481 15. 3% 12. 8% 20. 5% %  Change 2000 ‐2011 Number Percent of  Total  : . E d u c a ti o n a l Att a i n m e n t From 2007 -2011, 87.3% of the region’s population 25 years old and over had attained at least a high school diploma (Table = -:1). Waterbury (78.8%) had the lowest percentage of high school graduates in the region, while Bethlehem (96.4%) had the highest. 8.7% of the region’s population had obtained an Associate’s degree while another 29.3% had a Bachelor’s degree or higher. =n four towns (Cheshire, Woodbury, Middlebury, and Southbury), over 45% of the population had a Bachelor’s de- gree or higher. Waterbury (17.2%) had the lowest percentage of persons with a Bachelor’s degree or higher, followed by Naugatuck (23.2%), Thomaston (24.5%), and Wolcott (24.5%). The remainder of the region had between 27.7% and 38.9% of their population 25 years old and over with a Bachelor’s degree or higher. Figure = -:1 shows the percent of persons with a Bachelor’s degree or higher at the block group level. = . P o p u l a ti o n P r o j e c ti o n s Population projections were done by the Connecticut State Data Center for the years 2015, 2020 and 2025. Twelve of the thirteen municipalities in the region are projected to grow from 2010 to 2025 with the highest growth rates occurring in Oxford (22.4%), Middlebury (17.6%) and Beacon Falls (13.7%). Cheshire’s population is projected to decline by 1.1% while Watertown’s is projected to grow by only 2.3%. Table = -=1 and Figure = -=1 show population projections for each municipality . The age makeup of the region will also alter significantly between 2010 and 2025. =n 2010, 14.5% of the region’s population was 65 years old or older. With the continued aging of the ‘baby boomers,’ persons 65 years old or older are projected to increase to 19.2% of the region’s population by 2025. Persons under the age of 15 are projected to decline from 19.2% of the region’s population in 2010 to 15.6% by 2025 (Figure = -=2).  Table = -:1. Educational Attainment of Persons 25 Years Old and Over in the CNVR, by Municipality: 2007 -2011 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 -2011 American Community Survey, 5 year estimates, B15002 :igh School College Geographic Area Persons 25 Years and Over Less than 9th Grade No Diploma Graduate Some College, No Degree Associate’s Degree Bachelor’s Degree or :igher Number of Persons CNVR 194,474 9,522 15,174 60,897 35,089 16,897 56,895 Waterbury 70,641 6,153 8,861 25,335 11,947 6,207 12,138 Remainder of Region 123,833 3,369 6,313 35,562 23,142 10,690 44,757 Beacon Falls 4,145 91 135 1,505 931 333 1,150 Bethlehem 2,603 23 71 656 503 338 1,012 Cheshire 19,672 585 710 4,149 3,091 1,456 9,681 Middlebury 5,266 104 171 990 969 523 2,509 Naugatuck 22,038 891 1,892 7,570 4,591 1,972 5,122 Oxford 8,538 162 326 2,555 1,620 570 3,305 Prospect 6,684 179 393 2,281 1,050 620 2,161 Southbury 14,753 416 597 3,244 2,592 1,005 6,899 Thomaston 5,659 80 434 1,978 1,166 616 1,385 Watertown 15,921 438 862 4,704 3,195 1,552 5,170 Wolcott 11,324 340 497 4,191 2,451 1,068 2,777 Woodbury 7,230 60 225 1,739 983 637 3,586 Connecticut 2,413,922 111,783 164,150 678,997 420,489 176,481 862,022 Percent Distribution CNVR 100.0% 4.9% 7.8% 31.3% 18.0% 8.7% 29.3% Waterbury 100.0% 8.7% 12.5% 35.9% 16.9% 8.8% 17.2% Remainder of Region 100.0% 2.7% 5.1% 28.7% 18.7% 8.6% 36.1% Beacon Falls 100.0% 2.2% 3.3% 36.3% 22.5% 8.0% 27.7% Bethlehem 100.0% 0.9% 2.7% 25.2% 19.3% 13.0% 38.9% Cheshire 100.0% 3.0% 3.6% 21.1% 15.7% 7.4% 49.2% Middlebury 100.0% 2.0% 3.2% 18.8% 18.4% 9.9% 47.6% Naugatuck 100.0% 4.0% 8.6% 34.3% 20.8% 8.9% 23.2% Oxford 100.0% 1.9% 3.8% 29.9% 19.0% 6.7% 38.7% Prospect 100.0% 2.7% 5.9% 34.1% 15.7% 9.3% 32.3% Southbury 100.0% 2.8% 4.0% 22.0% 17.6% 6.8% 46.8% Thomaston 100.0% 1.4% 7.7% 35.0% 20.6% 10.9% 24.5% Watertown 100.0% 2.8% 5.4% 29.5% 20.1% 9.7% 32.5% Wolcott 100.0% 3.0% 4.4% 37.0% 21.6% 9.4% 24.5% Woodbury 100.0% 0.8% 3.1% 24.1% 13.6% 8.8% 49.6% Connecticut 100.0% 4.6% 6.8% 28.1% 17.4% 7.3% 35.7%  Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on block  group  geography. Source:   U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  American  Community Survey, Five  Ye a r Estimates,  2007‐2011,  B15002 To w n s Block Groups Percent  of  Population With  Bachelor’s  Degree  or  Higher Up  to  5% 5%  ‐ 9.9% 10%  ‐ 19.9% 20%  ‐ 29.9% 30%  ‐ 39.9% 40%  or  Higher 0 5 Miles ¯ Figure I ‐ H1.      CNVR  Educational  Attainment  of  Persons  Age  25 and  Older, by  Block  Group:  2007 ‐2011  Table = -=1. CNVR Population Projections, by Municipality: 2010 -2025 Geographic Area Total Population Population Change 2010 2015 2020 2025 2010 – 2015 2015 – 2020 2020 – 2025 Beacon Falls 6,049 6,377 6,648 6,879 5.4% 4.2% 3.5% Bethlehem 3,607 3,679 3,711 3,721 2.0% 0.9% 0.3% Cheshire 29,261 29,278 29,120 28,931 0.1% – 0.5% – 0.6% Middlebury 7,575 8,048 8,471 8,911 6.2% 5.3% 5.2% Naugatuck 31,862 32,436 32,877 33,078 1.8% 1.4% 0.6% Oxford 12,683 13,793 14,714 15,530 8.8% 6.7% 5.5% Prospect 9,405 9,661 9,864 10,055 2.7% 2.1% 1.9% Southbury 19,904 20,278 20,480 20,653 1.9% 1.0% 0.8% Thomaston 7,887 8,029 8,112 8,162 1.8% 1.0% 0.6% Waterbury 110,366 112,736 115,128 117,149 2.1% 2.1% 1.8% Watertown 22,514 22,863 23,020 23,031 1.6% 0.7% 0.0% Wolcott 16,680 17,286 17,821 18,352 3.6% 3.1% 3.0% Woodbury 9,975 10,233 10,395 10,491 2.6% 1.6% 0.9% Connecticut 3,574,097 3,644,546 3,702,472 3,746,184 2.0% 1.6% 1.2% Figure = -=1. CNVR Population Projections, by Municipality: 2010 -2025 Source: Connecticut State Data Center, Population Projections, by Municipality: 2010 -2025 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010  Figure = -=2. CNVR Population Projections and Age Distribution: 2010 -2025 2010 Age 65+: 14.5% 2015 Age 65+: 16.4% 2020 Age 65+: 18.6% 2025 Age 65+: 19.2% Source: Connecticut State Data Center, Po pulation Projections, by Municipality: 2010 -2025 U.S. Censu s Bureau, Census 2010 D ==. LABOR FORCE & EMPLOYMENT A . L a b o r F o r c e B . E m p l o y m e n t  ==. LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT =nformation in this section comes primarily from the Connecticut Department of Labor’s Office of Research. Statistics on the employment by industrial sector are available only for the Waterbury Labor Market Area (WLMA). Between 1984 and 2004, the WLMA consisted of all CNVR municipalities except Beacon Falls, Cheshire, and Oxford (Appendix C). A shrinking of the WMLA boundaries to seven towns in 2004 makes WLMA data for 2005 and later incompatible with earlier information. A. Labor Force The labor force is the number of residents age 16 years and older who are working or seeking work. As of 2012, the region’s labor force totaled 144,287, an increase of 6.6% from 2000 and a decrease of 1.9% since 2011. After contracting throughout the 1990s, the CNVR labor force grew steadily from 2000 to 2011. 2012 marks the first time since 2000 that the size of the labor force contracted. Figures ==- A1 and == -A2 present historical trends in the region’s labor force, employed residents, and unem- ployment. Despite the growth in the labor force over the last decade, growth in employment has not been able to keep pace. =n 2012, employed CNVR residents totaled 130,322, a 1.2% decrease since 2000. Despite a sizable growth in the labor force since 2000, the number of employed residents has decreased, resulting in a higher unemployment rate than the Connecticut average of 8.4% and the national average of 8.9%ᵃ. The region’s unemployment rate in 2012 was 9.7%, a dramatic increase from 2.6% in 2000 and a slight decrease from 2011. Similar to state trends, the reduction in the un- employment rate can be attributed to the decrease in labor force size rather than an increase in em- ployment. Unemployment was highest in Waterbury (13.1%) followed by Naugatuck (10.1%) and Wolcott (8.7%). Woodbury had the lowest unemployment rate in the region at 6.3% (Table == -A1 and Figure == -A3.) Long term changes in labor force, employed residents and unemployment can be seen in Table == -A2. An occupational breakdown of employed CNVR residents for 2007 -2011 is presented in Table == -A3. ᵃ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Annual Average Data  Figure == -A2. Percent Unemployment in the CNVR: 1992 -2012 Figure == -A1. CNVR Labor Force and Employed Residents Trends: 1992 -2012 Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Office of Research, Labor Market =nformation for Researchers, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), LAUS Monthly Data with Annual Averages -:istorical Data by Town 115, 000 120, 000 125, 000 130, 000 135, 000 140, 000 145, 000 150, 000 Labor Force Employed Residents 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0%  Table== -A1. Estimated CNVR Labor Force Status, by Place of Residence: 2000 -2012 Figure == -A3. Change in Employed Residents, by Municipality: 2000 -2012 Geographic Area Employed Residents Unemployed Residents Percent Unemployed 2012 2000 2012 2000 2012 2000 CNVR 130,322 131,847 13,965 3,464 9.7% 2.6% Waterbury 44,094 46,417 6,649 1,667 13.1% 3.5% Remainder of Region 86,228 85,430 7,316 1,797 7.8% 2.1% Beacon Falls 3,104 2,932 271 65 8.0% 2.2% Bethlehem 1,893 1,917 136 36 6.7% 1.8% Cheshire 13,631 13,576 942 245 6.5% 1.8% Middlebury 3,680 3,404 260 68 6.6% 2.0% Naugatuck 15,104 15,924 1,688 439 10.1% 2.7% Oxford 6,886 5,582 461 106 6.3% 1.9% Prospect 4,784 4,819 401 92 7.7% 1.9% Southbury 8,437 8,208 627 151 6.9% 1.8% Thomaston 4,189 4,183 387 103 8.5% 2.4% Watertown 11,055 11,590 1,000 236 8.3% 2.0% Wolcott 8,210 8,130 787 172 8.7% 2.1% Woodbury 5,255 5,165 356 84 6.3% 1.6% Connecticut 1,722,394 1,697,700 157,058 39,200 8.4% 2.3% Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Office of Research, Labor Market =nformation for Researchers, Local Area Unemployent Statistics (LAUS), LAUS Monthly Data with Annual Averages -:istorical Data by Town. http://www1.ctdol.state.ct.us/lmi/LAUS/laustown.asp -3,000 -2,500 -2,000 -1,500 -1,000 -500 0 500 1,000 1,500 E Table == -A2. Estimated CNVR Labor Force Status: 1990 -2012 Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Office of Research, Labor Market =nformation for Researchers, Local Area Unemployent Statistics (LAUS), LAUS Monthly Data with Annual Averages -:istorical Data by Town, 1990 -2012. :ttp://www1.ctdol.state.ct.us/lmi/LAUS/laustown.asp Year Labor Force Employed Residents Unemployed Residents Percent Unemployed 2012 144,287 130,322 13,965 9.7% 2011 147,236 132,021 15,125 10.3% 2010 146,478 130,716 15,762 10.8% 2009 145,475 131,165 14,310 9.8% 2008 144,894 135,122 9,772 6.7% 2007 143,618 136,041 7,577 5.3% 2006 142,847 135,709 7,138 5.0% 2005 141,500 133,530 7,970 5.6% 2004 140,272 132,396 7,876 5.6% 2003 140,348 131,395 8,953 6.4% 2002 138,627 131,377 7,250 5.2% 2001 136,315 131,122 5,193 3.8% 2000 135,311 131,847 3,464 2.6% 1999 136,636 131,744 4,892 3.6% 1998 136,278 131,182 5,096 3.7% 1997 138,608 130,876 7,732 5.6% 1996 137,915 129,322 8,593 6.2% 1995 136,543 128,383 8,160 6.0% 1994 137,650 129,982 7,668 5.6% 1993 142,180 132,109 10,071 7.1% 1992 145,426 132,464 12,962 8.9% 1991 146,719 135,035 11,684 8.0% 1990 143,590 135,054 8,536 5.9% 2000 -2012 Change: Numerical 8,976 – 1,525 10,501 — Percent 6.6% – 1.2% 303.1% — 1990 -2012 Change: Numerical 697 – 4,732 5,429 — Percent 0.5% – 3.5% 63.6% —  Occupation CNVR Waterbury Remainder of Region Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Management, Business, Science, and Arts: 51,819 37.6% 12,593 26.8% 39,226 43.2% Management, Business, and Financial Occupations 19,397 14.1% 3,909 8.3% 15,488 17.1% Computer, Engineering, and Science Occupations 6,903 5.0% 1,452 3.1% 5,451 6.0% Education, Legal, Community Service, Arts, and Media 16,615 12.1% 4,937 10.5% 11,678 12.9% :ealthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 8,904 6.5% 2,295 4.9% 6,609 7.3% Service Occupations: 23,995 17.4% 11,202 23.8% 12,793 14.1% :ealthcare Support Occupations 5,037 3.7% 2,627 5.6% 2,410 2.7% Protective Service Occupations 2,968 2.2% 1,167 2.5% 1,801 2.0% Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 5,805 4.2% 2,644 5.6% 3,161 3.5% Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance 4,541 3.3% 2,374 5.0% 2,167 2.4% Personal Care and Service 5,644 4.1% 2,390 5.1% 3,254 3.6% Sales and Office Occupations: 33,729 24.5% 11,724 24.9% 22,005 24.3% Sales and Related Occupations 15,335 11.1% 4,998 10.6% 10,337 11.4% Office and Administrative Support Occupations 18,394 13.4% 6,726 14.3% 11,668 12.9% Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations: 455 0.3% 20 0.0% 435 0.5% Construction, Extraction and Maintenance: 10,837 7.9% 4,028 8.6% 6,809 7.5% Construction and Extraction Occupations 6,691 4.9% 2,467 5.2% 4,224 4.7% =nstallation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 4,146 3.0% 1,561 3.3% 2,585 2.8% Production, Transportation, and Material Moving: 16,927 12.3% 7,486 15.9% 9,441 10.4% Production Occupations 10,636 7.7% 4,672 9.9% 5,964 6.6% Transportation Occupations 4,066 3.0% 1,757 3.7% 2,309 2.5% Material Moving Occupations 2,225 1.6% 1,057 2.2% 1,168 1.3% Total Employed Persons 137,762 100% 47,053 100% 90,709 100% Table == -A3. Occupation of Employed CNVR Residents, 16 Years Old and Over: 2007 -2011 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 -2011 American Community Survey 5 -year Estimates, C24010  B. E m p l o y m e n t Regional and Municipal Employment The Connecticut Department of Labor changed its method of computing municipal -level employment between 2001 and 2002, switching from annual Hune data to average annual data. =n 2012, employment covered by unemployment insurance totaled 95,583 jobs in the CNVR. Water- bury was the region’s largest employment center, with 38,464 jobs followed by Cheshire with 15,162 jobs. Other municipalities with major employment were Southbury, Watertown, and Naugatuck. For decades, the location of employment in the region has been shifting away from Waterbury to the sub- urban portion of the region, but the shift has come to a standstill in recent years. =n 1980, 54.7% of all jobs were in Waterbury; by 2000, 40.8%, and in 2011, 40.1% were still in Waterbury (Table == -B1). Between 2000 and 2012, the region’s employment declined by 6.9% while statewide employment de- clined by 2.9%. Within the region, Oxford’s employment grew the most rapidly from 2000 to 2012 (74.3%) followed by Bethlehem (41.9%) which has a small employment base. Middlebury (8.1%) and Cheshire (6.8%) also saw gains. The other municipalities lost jobs with Watertown ( -23.6%), Thomas- ton (- 18.7%), Naugatuck ( -13.9%), and Southbury ( -13.9%) experiencing the greatest declines (Figure == – B1 and Table == -B1). Waterbury Labor Market Area =ndustrial Sector Employment Although the region has a relatively strong manufacturing sector, total employment continues to shift away from manufacturing. Table == -B2 and Figure == -B2 show employment trends in manufacturing in the Waterbury Labor Market Area (WLMA) from 2000 to 2012. =n 2012, the WLMA had 7,628 manu- facturing jobs, a 47.8% decrease from 2000. During the same time period, manufacturing employ- ment declined from 20.6% to 12.0% of total employment. =nflation -adjusted wages for manufacturing jobs have remained relatively stable over the last decade. Table == -B3 shows employment in the WMLA by industry. The goods -producing sector of the economy consists of manufacturing, construction and mining. =n 2012, the goods -producing sector comprised only 15.5% of the WMLA employment. Nonetheless, this percentage was still higher than the 13.4% state average. On the service -producing side, education and health services (25.6%), trade, transportation and utili- ties (19.6%), and government (16.1%) were the major employers. Overall, the service -producing sec- tor comprised 84.5% of the total non -farm labor force in 2012.  Geographic Area Covered Employmentᵇ Annual Average Non -Agricultural Hune Employment Percent Change 2000 – 2012 1980 – 2000 2012 2010 2000 2000 1990 1980 CNVR 95,583 93,330 102,648 103,750 99,600 89,980 – 6.9% 15.3% Waterbury 38,363 38,171 41,902 42,640 48,510 49,230 – 8.4% – 13.4% Remainder of Region 57,220 55,159 60,746 61,110 51,090 40,750 – 5.8% 50.0% Beacon Falls 855 942 969 960 820 700 – 11.8% 37.1% Bethlehem 711 676 501 510 300 160 41.9% 218.8% Cheshire 15,162 14,544 14,194 14,350 12,060 8,100 6.8% 77.2% Middlebury 3,846 3,436 3,557 3,640 3,660 4,170 8.1% – 12.7% Naugatuck 7,406 7,235 8,605 8,590 7,970 6,780 – 13.9% 26.7% Oxford 3,079 2,707 1,766 1,870 1,320 850 74.3% 120.0% Prospect 2,012 1,974 2,092 2,210 1,800 1,360 – 3.8% 62.5% Southbury 8,513 8,573 9,885 9,550 6,440 4,250 – 13.9% 124.7% Thomaston 2,691 2,554 3,310 3,340 3,880 3,840 – 18.7% – 13.0% Watertown 8,009 7,631 10,478 10,610 8,040 6,650 – 23.6% 59.5% Wolcott 2,836 2,852 3,144 3,140 2,690 2,250 – 9.8% 39.6% Woodbury 2,100 2,035 2,245 2,340 2,110 1,640 – 6.5% 42.7% Connecticut 1,628,028 1,596,050 1,676,799 1,710,900 1,630,600 1,440,100 – 2.9% 18.8% Table == -B1. Total Employment in the CNVR, by Municipality: 1980 -2012 a ᵃ Starting in 2002, data became available using the North American =ndustry Classification System (NA=CS), which includes agric ultural employment. The Standard =ndustrial Classification System had previously been used. Data before 2002 is not comparable to lat er years. ᵇ Covered employment is employment that is covered by unemployment insurance. Note: Total Nonagricultural Employment excludes workers idled due to labor -management conflicts. Source: Connecticut Department of Labor website, "Covered Employment & Wages by =ndustry – Annual Averages" http://www1.ctdol.state.ct.us/lmi/202/202_annualaverage.asp  Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on census  tract group  geography. Based  on  place of  residence.  The region  added two  census  tracts  since 2000.  Data was interpolated  for the new  census tracts based  on  a proportion of  the labor  force  located  within them. Employed  persons refers  to the  pouplation  that is currently working. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of  the  Census,  American Community  Su rvey, 5 ‐Ye a r   Estimates,  2007‐2011; Census  2000 Figure II‐B1.      Change  in  Employed  Persons,  by  Census  Tra c t : 2000 ‐2011 To w n s Change in Employment Less than -10% -10.0% to -0.1% 0.0% to 4.9% 5.0% to 14.9% 15.0% or Higher 0 5 Miles ¯  Employment Wages Year Total Manufacturing Percent of Total Average =nflation – Adjustedᵃ 2012 63,316 7,628 12.0% $57,488 $57,488 2011 62,547 7,626 12.2% $57,299 $58,485 2010 62,187 7,511 12.1% $56,049 $59,015 2009 63,349 7,965 12.6% $50,922 $54,496 2008 66,946 9,703 14.5% $53,585 $57,142 2007 68,539 10,138 14.8% $53,144 $58,847 2006 68,984 10,011 14.5% $50,954 $58,029 2005 68,000 10,340 15.2% $48,651 $57,194 2004 67,733 10,840 16.0% $48,023 $58,368 2003 67,356 11,304 16.8% $46,242 $57,700 2002 68,234 12,148 17.8% $45,108 $57,568 2001 69,460 13,558 19.5% $43,764 $56,736 2000 70,874 14,604 20.6% $44,273 $59,029 Table == -B2. Manufacturing Employment in the Waterbury Labor Market Area: 2000 -2012 Figure == -B2. Manufacturing Employment in the Waterbury Labor Market Area: 2000 -2012 Note: The Waterbury LMA consists of 7 municipalities in the CNVR (Waterbury, Naugatuck, Beacon Falls, Watertown, Wolcott, Middlebury and Prospect) Source: Connecticut Department of Labor. Labor Market =nformation – Annual Employment and Wages by =ndustry: Waterbury LMA http://www1.ctdol.state.ct.us/lmi/202/202_annualaverage.asp U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. CP= =nflation Calculator ᵃ Note: =nflation -adjusted wages are in 2012 dollars 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 D Table == -B3. Estimated Nonagricultural Employment by =ndustry For the Waterbury Labor Market Area: 2000 -2012 =ndustry Percent of Total Employment Percent Change 2012 2012 2010 2000 2000 -12 Total 100.0% 63,200 62,000 72,100 – 12.3% Goods -Producing 15.5% 9,800 9,600 17,600 – 44.3% Manufacturing 12.0% 7,600 7,500 14,700 – 49.0% Construction, Natural Resources, & Mining 3.5% 2,200 2,100 2,900 – 17.2% Service -Producing 84.5% 53,400 52,400 54,500 – 2.0% Trade, Transp. & Utilities 19.6% 12,400 12,200 14,000 – 11.4% =nformation 0.9% 600 700 1,000 – 40.0% Financial Activities 3.2% 2,000 2,000 3,100 – 35.5% Professional & Business Services 7.0% 4,400 4,400 6,000 – 26.7% Education & :ealth Services 25.6% 16,200 15,900 13,100 23.7% Leisure & :ospitality 8.1% 5,100 5,000 5,300 – 3.8% Other Services 4.0% 2,500 2,300 2,800 – 10.7% Government 16.1% 10,200 10,000 9,200 10.9% Note: =n this table, the Waterbury LMA consists of seven municipalities in the CNVR (Beacon Falls, Middlebury, Naugatuck, Prospect, Waterbury, Watertown and Wolcott). The Waterbury LMA changed from 10 municipalities to 7 in 2002. Data is rounded to the nearest hundred. 2009 data benchmarked to 2010. Source: Connecticut Labor Department, Office of Research. Waterbury LMA, Current Employment Statistics – Nonfarm Employment Monthly :istorical Data (Not Seasonally Adjusted ). http://www1.ctdol.state.ct.us/lmi/202/202_annualaverage.asp  ===. :OUS=NG A . : o u s i n g S t o c k B . T e n u r e C . : o u s e h o l d S i z e D . A s s i s t e d : o u s i n g E . : o u s i n g V a c a n c y F . : o u s i n g C o s t s  ===. :OUS=NG =nformation in this section comes from the 2010 United States Census, the 2007 -2011 American Communi- ty Survey, and the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development. :ousing unit num- bers may vary from these different sources. Census 2010 data is based on 100% counts while the American Community Survey is based on estimates. A . : o u s i n g S t o c k =n 2010, the region’s housing stock totaled 118,975 units, a net gain of 9,195 residences (8.4%) since 2000 (Table === -A1). Oxford (38.8%) and Beacon Falls (19.2%) had the most rapid growth in housing while Waterbury (2.5%) experienced the smallest growth. Oxford experienced the largest numerical increase (1,326 units) from 2000 to 2010, followed by Southbury with 1,292 units and Waterbury with 1,164 units (Figure === -A1). From 2007 -2011, 65.2% of the region’s housing units were single -family units. 34.1% of the region’s housing units were multi -family units (Figure === -A2 and Table === -A2). 7.7% of the total housing units were two -family units, 10.6% were three to four family units, and 15.8% consisted of five or more units. Less than 1% of the region’s housing consisted of mobile homes or other types of housing units. Single -family units made up only 43.9% of Waterbury’s housing units, while 80% of the units in the suburban towns were single -family (Table === -A3). :ousing Construction The region’s housing stock experienced an annual net gain of 151 units in 2012 (Table === -A4 and Fig- ure === -A4) based on building permit data from the Connecticut Department of Economic and Com- munity Development. This is a decline of 83% (739 units) from 2005. Oxford had the most new con- struction in 2012 with 25 units, ranking 30th in the state, followed by Prospect (21 units) and Wa- tertown (19 units). Despite seeing the most new construction in 2012, Waterbury saw its net hous- ing stock increase by only 5 units. While Waterbury saw 62 new units built in 2012, it also saw 57 demolitions, resulting in only a small net gain. (Table === -A5 and Figure === -A5).  Table === -A1. CNVR’s Total :ousing Stock, by Municipality: 1980 -2010 Figure === -A1. Change in CNVR :ousing Stock, by Municipality: 2000 -2010 Total :ousing Units Percent Change Geographic Area 2010 2000 1990 1980 2000 – 2010 1990 – 2000 CNVR 118,975 109,780 103,775 88,159 8.4% 5.8% Waterbury 47,991 46,827 47,205 40,854 2.5% – 0.8% Remainder of Region 70,984 62,953 56,570 47,305 12.8% 11.3% Beacon Falls 2,509 2,104 1,990 1,380 19.2% 5.7% Bethlehem 1,575 1,388 1,262 1,074 13.5% 10.0% Cheshire 10,424 9,588 8,590 6,996 8.7% 11.6% Middlebury 2,892 2,494 2,365 2,168 16.0% 5.5% Naugatuck 13,061 12,341 11,930 9,728 5.8% 3.4% Oxford 4,746 3,420 2,930 2,197 38.8% 16.7% Prospect 3,474 3,094 2,625 2,063 12.3% 17.9% Southbury 9,091 7,799 6,826 5,838 16.6% 14.3% Thomaston 3,276 3,014 2,736 2,248 8.7% 10.2% Watertown 9,096 8,298 7,522 6,618 9.6% 10.3% Wolcott 6,276 5,544 4,870 4,071 13.2% 13.8% Woodbury 4,564 3,869 2,924 2,924 18.0% 32.3% Connecticut 1,487,891 1,385,987 1,320,850 1,158,884 7.4% 4.9% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000. PL94 -171 Tables – Connecticut. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Profile of General Population and :ousing Characteristics: 2010 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 E 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% CWRCT Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon  Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on block  group  geography.  Single  family includes  both attached  and detatched  housing  units. Mult‐ family  includes  housing  with two  or more  units. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of  the  Census,  American  Community Survey  5‐Ye a r  Estimates:  2007‐2011 B25024 Figure  III ‐A2.      CNVR  Multi ‐Family  Housing,  by Block  Group:  2007 ‐2011 Ta b l e  III ‐A2.    CNVR  Multi‐ Family  Housing,  by Municipality:  2000 ‐2011 Percent  Multi ‐Family  Housing: 2007 ‐2011 Source:   U.S.  Bureau of  the Census,  American  Community  Survey 5‐Ye a r  Estimates  2007 ‐2011. To w n s Block Groups % Multi-Family Housing Up to 10% 10% – 24.9% 25% – 49.9% 50% – 74.9% 75% or Higher 05M ile s ¯ C o n n ec t ic u t C N V R W at er b u r y R em a i n d er o f R eg io n Geographic  A re a 2011 2000 2011 2000 2011 2000 CN V R 118, 131 111,339 40, 248 39,508 34. 1% 35.5% Wate rbury 48, 426 47,536 27, 09 4 27,805 55. 9% 58.5% Remainder  of   Region 69, 705 63,803 13, 154 11,703 18. 9% 18.3% Beacon  Fal l s 2, 395 2,264 488 44 8 20. 4% 19.8% Be thl e he m 1, 560 1,410 8 4 115 5. 4% 8.2% Che s hi re 9, 790 9, 638 1, 692 1, 28 0 17. 3% 13.3% Mi dd l e b ury 2, 779 2, 578 206 11 0 7. 4% 4. 3% N augatuck 13, 212 12,551 4, 655 4, 605 35. 2% 36.7% Ox f ord 4, 568 3, 536 119 89 2. 6% 2. 5% P ros p e ct 3, 397 3, 085 135 68 4. 0% 2. 2% So uthbu ry 8, 805 7, 792 1, 879 1, 157 21. 3% 14. 8% Thomaston 3, 314 3,072 783 84 0 23. 6% 27.3% Wate rtow n 9, 171 8,276 1, 490 1, 712 16. 2% 20.7% Wol cott 6, 125 5,697 650 50 0 10. 6% 8.8% Woodbury 4,589 3,904 973 779 21.2% 20.0% Conne cti cut 1, 482, 798 1, 399, 819 513, 036 483, 246 34. 6% 34. 5% Total  Uni ts Mul ti ‐Family Percent  Mu l ti ‐Family  Table === -A3. Estimated Number of :ousing Units in CNVR Municipalities, by Type of Structure: 2007 -2011 Number of :ousing Units Geographic Area Total Units 1 Unit 2 Units 3 -4 Units 5+ Units Mobile :omes & Others CNVR 118,131 77,041 9,041 12,561 18,646 842 Waterbury 48,426 21,275 4,859 9,135 13,100 57 Remainder of Region 69,705 55,766 4,182 3,426 5,546 785 Beacon Falls 2,395 1,735 107 231 150 172 Bethlehem 1,560 1,468 34 37 13 8 Cheshire 9,790 8,068 432 346 914 30 Middlebury 2,779 2,564 0 25 181 9 Naugatuck 13,212 8,216 1,790 1,080 1,785 341 Oxford 4,568 4,449 99 12 8 0 Prospect 3,397 3,126 50 35 50 136 Southbury 8,805 6,868 518 622 739 58 Thomaston 3,314 2,510 180 101 502 21 Watertown 9,171 7,681 646 446 398 0 Wolcott 6,125 5,465 162 147 341 10 Woodbury 4,589 3,616 164 344 465 0 Connecticut 1,475,657 950,446 119,757 132,977 259,280 13,197 Percent Distribution CNVR 100.0% 65.2% 7.7% 10.6% 15.8% 0.7% Waterbury 100.0% 43.9% 10.0% 18.9% 27.1% 0.1% Remainder of Region 100.0% 80.0% 6.0% 4.9% 8.0% 1.1% Beacon Falls 100.0% 72.4% 4.5% 9.6% 6.3% 7.2% Bethlehem 100.0% 94.1% 2.2% 2.4% 0.8% 0.5% Cheshire 100.0% 82.4% 4.4% 3.5% 9.3% 0.3% Middlebury 100.0% 92.3% 0.0% 0.9% 6.5% 0.3% Naugatuck 100.0% 62.2% 13.5% 8.2% 13.5% 2.6% Oxford 100.0% 97.4% 2.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% Prospect 100.0% 92.0% 1.5% 1.0% 1.5% 4.0% Southbury 100.0% 78.0% 5.9% 7.1% 8.4% 0.7% Thomaston 100.0% 75.7% 5.4% 3.0% 15.1% 0.6% Watertown 100.0% 83.8% 7.0% 4.9% 4.3% 0.0% Wolcott 100.0% 89.2% 2.6% 2.4% 5.6% 0.2% Woodbury 100.0% 78.8% 3.6% 7.5% 10.1% 0.0% Connecticut 100.0% 64.4% 8.1% 9.0% 17.6% 0.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 -2011 American Community Survey, 5 -Year Estimates, B25024. Total :ousing Units may not match counts performed during the 2010 Census, which are 100% counts rather than estimates. D Table === -A4. Annual Growth in the CNVR :ousing Stock, by Municipality: 2000 -2012 Figure === -A3. Net Growth in the CNVR :ousing Stock, by Municipality: 2012 Annual Net Gain in :ousing Units Geographic Area 2012 2005 2000 CNVR 151 890 663 Waterbury 5 118 19 Remainder of Region 140 772 644 Beacon Falls 5 59 48 Bethlehem 2 6 20 Cheshire 16 32 66 Middlebury 7 83 27 Naugatuck 16 92 43 Oxford 25 241 84 Prospect 21 31 64 Southbury 12 60 80 Thomaston 3 14 53 Watertown 19 59 58 Wolcott 7 57 60 Woodbury 5 38 41 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Profile of General Population and :ousing Characteristics Annual Net Gain in :ousing Units: Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, Publications, :ousing Re – ports, Construction Reports: :ousing Production and Permits 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 D Table === -A5. Changes in :ousing Stock in CNVR Municipalities, by Type of New Construction, Other Gains, And Losses: 2012 Figure === -A4. New :ousing Units, by Number of :ousing Units: 2012 Number of :ousing Units New Construction State 3 and 4 5 Units Total Net Rank by Geographic Area 1 Unit 2 Unit Units or More Units Demolitions Gain Net Gain CNVR 180 0 3 47 230 79 151 — Waterbury 15 0 0 47 62 57 5 103 Remainder of Region 165 0 3 0 168 28 140 — Beacon Falls 5 0 0 0 5 0 5 95 Bethlehem 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 128 Cheshire 24 0 0 0 24 8 16 46 Middlebury 7 0 0 0 7 0 7 87 Naugatuck 21 0 0 0 21 5 16 48 Oxford 27 0 3 0 30 5 25 30 Prospect 23 0 0 0 23 2 21 38 Southbury 14 0 0 0 14 2 12 63 Thomaston 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 122 Watertown 21 0 0 0 21 2 19 41 Wolcott 13 0 0 0 13 6 7 89 Woodbury 5 0 0 0 5 0 5 105 Connecticut 2,534 62 81 1,992 4,669 955 3714 — Source: Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, :ousing Production & Permits Note: Net housing gain subtracts demolitions from new construction. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Singl e Fa mily Multi-Fa mily D B . T e n u r e =n 2010, 68.2% of the region’s occupied housing units were owner -occupied and 31.8% were renter – occupied (Figure === -B1 and Table === -B1). =n Waterbury, 53.0% of units were renter -occupied, while only 18.3% were renter -occupied in the suburban portion of the CNVR. The suburban towns with the greatest proportion of rental housing were Naugatuck (32.1%), Thomaston (24.0%) and Woodbury (22.1%). Prospect, Oxford and Middlebury had the least, with only 7.6% to 10.9% of their occupied housing units being rented. :ousing tenure also varies significantly based on the type of housing structure (Table === -B2). 91.7% of the region’s year -round occupied single -family housing units, 24.1% of multi -family units and 67.4% of mobile homes or trailers were owner -occupied. Waterbury had the lowest ownership rate of single – family housing units at 84.7% while Beacon Falls had the highest at 97.2%. Ownership rates of multi – family housing units ranged from a high of 67.4% in Southbury to a low of 0% in Bethlehem. Only 18.2% of multi -family housing units in Waterbury were owner -occupied. C. :ousehold Size :ousehold size is the average number of persons living in a housing unit. Reflecting state and national trends, household size has been shrinking in the region. But, over the last decade, the regional de- crease was minimal. Waterbury actually saw its average household size increase from 2.46 in 2000 to 2.54 in 2010. The remainder of the region saw continued declines in household size. =n 2010, Oxford had the highest average (2.81 persons), while Southbury (2.33 persons) had the lowest (Figure === -C1 and Table === -C1). D Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on block  group  geography. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of  the  Census,  Profile of  General Population  and Housing  Characteristics: 2010 Figure III ‐B1.      CNVR Renter ‐Occupied  Housing,  by Block  Group:  2010 Ta b l e  III ‐B1.     CNVR  Housing  Te n u r e , By  Municipality:  2000 ‐2010 Source:   U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  Census 2000‐2010  Profile of  General Population  and  Housing  Characteristics To w n s Block Groups %  Renter  Occupied Up  to  10% 10%  ‐ 24.9% 25% ‐ 49.9% 50% ‐ 74.9% 75% or  Higher 0 5 Miles ¯ Geographic Area 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 CNVR 109,735 103,255 74,793 69,538 34,942 33,717 31.8% 32.7% Waterbury 42,761 42,622 20,081 20,291 22,680 22,331 53.0% 52.4% Remainder  of   Region 66,974 60,633 54,712 49,247 12,262 11,386 18.3% 18.8% Beacon  Falls 2,360 2,032 1,915 1,594 445 438 18.9% 21.6% Bethlehem 1,411 1,246 1,199 1,065 212 181 15.0% 14.5% Cheshire 10,041 9,349 8,701 8,097 1,340 1,252 13.3% 13.4% Middlebury 2,748 2,398 2,449 2,135 299 263 10.9% 11.0% Naugatuck 12,339 11,829 8,376 7,863 3,963 3,966 32.1% 33.5% Oxford 4,504 3,343 4,131 3,043 373 300 8.3% 9.0% Prospect 3,357 3,020 3,102 2,797 255 223 7.6% 7.4% Southbury 8,213 7,225 7,035 6,464 1,178 761 14.3% 10.5% Thomaston 3,108 2,916 2,363 2,152 745 764 24.0% 26.2% Watertown 8,672 8,046 6,920 6,385 1,752 1,661 20.2% 20.6% Wolcott 6,007 5,514 5,239 4,866 768 648 12.8% 11.8% Woodbury 4,214 3,715 3,282 2,786 932 929 22.1% 25.0% Connecticut 1,371,087 1, 301,670 925,286 869,729 445,801 431,941 32.5% 33.2% Renter  Occupied Total  Housing  Units Owner ‐Occupied R enter  Occupied Number  of  Occupied  Housing  Units Percent  Table === -B2. Occupied Year -Round :ousing Units in CNVR Municipalities, by Type of Structure and Tenure Status: 2007 -2011 Geographic Area Single Family Multi -Family Mobile :ome or Trailer Total Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Total Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Total Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Waterbury 20,114 17,038 3,076 22,428 4,079 18,349 57 26 31 Remainder of Region 53,612 50,599 3,013 11,665 4,121 7,544 719 497 222 Beacon Falls 1,705 1,657 48 392 111 281 172 123 49 Bethlehem 1,310 1,227 83 84 0 84 8 0 8 Cheshire 7,828 7,466 362 1,509 520 989 30 0 30 Middlebury 2,482 2,357 125 181 78 103 9 9 0 Naugatuck 8,006 7,175 831 4,039 1,154 2,885 341 245 96 Oxford 4,241 4,099 142 119 78 41 0 0 0 Prospect 3,096 2,985 111 135 54 81 108 98 10 Southbury 6,489 6,044 445 1,687 1,137 550 20 0 20 Thomaston 2,469 2,245 224 755 260 495 21 12 9 Watertown 7,360 7,060 300 1,272 293 979 0 0 0 Wolcott 5,304 5,087 217 582 136 446 10 10 0 Woodbury 3,322 3,197 125 910 300 610 0 0 0 Percentage Distribution CNVR 100% 91.7% 8.3% 100% 24.1% 75.9% 100% 67.4% 32.6% Waterbury 100% 84.7% 15.3% 100% 18.2% 81.8% 100% 45.6% 54.4% Remainder of Region 100% 94.4% 5.6% 100% 35.3% 64.7% 100% 69.1% 30.9% Beacon Falls 100% 97.2% 2.8% 100% 28.3% 71.7% 100% 71.5% 28.5% Bethlehem 100% 93.7% 6.3% 100% 0.0% 100.0% 100% 0.0% 100.0% Cheshire 100% 95.4% 4.6% 100% 34.5% 65.5% — — — Middlebury 100% 95.0% 5.0% 100% 43.1% 56.9% 100% 100.0% 0.0% Naugatuck 100% 89.6% 10.4% 100% 28.6% 71.4% 100% 71.8% 28.2% Oxford 100% 96.7% 3.3% 100% 65.5% 34.5% — — — Prospect 100% 96.4% 3.6% 100% 40.0% 60.0% 100% 90.7% 9.3% Southbury 100% 93.1% 6.9% 100% 67.4% 32.6% 100% 0.0% 100.0% Thomaston 100% 90.9% 9.1% 100% 34.4% 65.6% 100% 57.1% 42.9% Watertown 100% 95.9% 4.1% 100% 23.0% 77.0% — — — Wolcott 100% 95.9% 4.1% 100% 23.4% 76.6% 100% 100.0% 0.0% Woodbury 100% 96.2% 3.8% 100% 33.0% 67.0% — — — — no value Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2007 -2011 American Community Survey, 5 -Year Estimates, B25032 Total :ousing Units may not match counts reported in Census 2010 DP -1 and : -1 which are 100% counts rather than estimates. D Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on block  group  geography. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of  the  Census,  Census 2010, Ta b l e  P17 Figure III‐C1.      CNVR  Average  Household  Size,  by Block  Group:  2010 Ta b l e  III ‐C1.     CNVR  Average  Household  Size, by Municipality:  1970 ‐2010 Average Household  Size: 2010 Source:   U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  Census 1970‐2010 Towns Block Groups Household  Size Up  to  2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.24 2.25 ‐ 2.49 2.50 ‐ 2.99 3.00  or Higher 0 5 Miles ¯ 2.5 2.52 2.54 2.56 2.58 2.6 CWRCT C N VR Con n e ct ic u t W at er bu ry R em ain d e r o f  R e gi o n Geographic  A re a 2010 2000 1990 1980 1970 CN V R 2. 56 2. 57 2. 62 2. 79 3. 19 Waterbury   2. 54 2. 46 2. 48 2. 67 3. 05 Remainder   of  Region 2. 58 2. 64 2. 73 2. 91 3. 32 Beacon  Falls   2. 56 2. 58 2. 69 2. 98 3. 31 Bethlehem   2. 49 2. 69 2. 73 2. 86 3. 23 Cheshire   2. 66 2. 71 2. 82 3. 06 3. 48 Mi d d l e b u ry   2. 72 2. 66 2. 73 2. 94 3. 30 Naugatuck 2.56 2.60 2.69 2.80 3.16 Oxford   2. 81 2. 94 3. 09 3. 18 3. 41 P rospe ct 2. 76 2. 83 2. 97 3. 24 3. 66 Southbury   2. 33 2. 41 2. 34 2. 39 2. 82 Thomaston 2.53 2.57 2.64 2.86 3.30 Watertown 2.57 2.67 2.80 3.00 3.43 Wol cott   2. 75 2. 79 2. 93 3. 30 3. 74 Woodbury   2. 36 2. 48 2. 51 2. 61 3. 07 Connecticut 2.52 2.53 2.67 2.76 3.16Average  Number  of  Persons  per  House hol d  D . P u b l i c l y A s s i s t e d : o u s i n g Under Connecticut General Statutes, municipalities with 10% or more of their units in affordable housing are exempt from override of their zoning ordinance for the creation of this type of housing. The Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development monitors assisted housing and divides it into three categories: governmentally assisted housing, Connecticut :ousing Finance Authority (C:FA) or Farmer’s :ome Administration (Fm:A) mortgages, and deed restricted proper- ties. Governmentally assisted housing includes housing occupied by persons receiving rental assis- tance under Chapter 138a of the Connecticut General Statutes (State Rental Assistance) or Section 1437f of Title 42 of the United States Code (:UD Section 8). According to the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, in 2012 only Waterbury met the 10% minimum for publicly assisted housing (Table === -D1). Three towns adjacent to Waterbury – Naugatuck (8.3%), Wolcott (6.9%) and Thomaston (6.1%) – led the remainder of the re- gion. The towns with the least amount of publicly assisted housing were Prospect (0.8%), Oxford (0.9%), Southbury (1.2%), and Beacon Falls (1.2%) (Figure === -D1). E . : o u s i n g V a c a n c y =n 2010, there were 9,240 vacant housing units, constituting 7.8% of the region’s total housing units (Figure === -E1 and Table === -E1). The region’s vacancy rate was slightly less than the statewide rate of 7.9%. Waterbury had the highest vacancy rate in the region at 10.9%, while Prospect (3.4%) and Cheshire (3.7%) had the lowest. The region’s for -sale -only vacancy rate (1.4%) was slightly higher than the state average of 1.0%. Southbury’s for -sale -only vacancy rate was the highest in the region at 2.3% followed by Beacon Falls at 1.6%. The lowest rates were in Watertown (0.7%), followed by Prospect (0.9%) and Thomaston (0.9%). For rental units, Waterbury had the highest vacancy rate (5.5%).Naugatuck was second at 2.2%. Mid- dlebury, Oxford, Bethlehem and Wolcott were the lowest with percentages ranging from 0.2% to 0.5%. The region as a whole had a slightly higher rental vacancy rate (2.9%) than the state (2.7%). D Figure === -D1. Publicly Assisted :ousing as a Percent of Total, by Municipality: 2012 Table === -D1. Publicly Assisted :ousing in the CNVR, by Municipality: 2012 Number of :ousing Units Geographic Area Govt. Assisted Tenant Rental Assistance C:FA/Fm:A Mortgages Deed Restricted Total Assisted 2010 Census :ousing Percent Assisted CNVR 6,507 3,501 3,077 351 13,436 118,975 11.3% Waterbury 4,870 3,149 2,256 326 10,601 47,991 22.1% Remainder of Region 1,637 352 821 25 2,835 70,984 4.0% Beacon Falls 0 5 26 0 31 2,509 1.2% Bethlehem 24 1 0 0 25 1,575 1.6% Cheshire 237 7 70 17 331 10,424 3.2% Middlebury 76 4 12 8 100 2,892 3.5% Naugatuck 492 293 301 0 1,086 13,061 8.3% Oxford 36 1 8 0 45 4,746 0.9% Prospect 0 4 25 0 29 3,474 0.8% Southbury 89 2 14 0 105 9,091 1.2% Thomaston 105 4 91 0 200 3,276 6.1% Watertown 206 24 134 0 364 9,096 4.0% Wolcott 312 3 121 0 436 6,276 6.9% Woodbury 60 4 19 0 83 4,564 1.8% Connecticut 86,209 42,649 26,829 5,692 161,379 1,487,891 10.8% Source: Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, Affordable :ousing Appeals List, 2012 U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94 -171) Summary File, Table :1, for 2010 Census :ousing data 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% DE 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% CWRCT Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon  Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on block  group  geography. Source:   U.S.  Bureau of  the Census,  Profile of General Population  and Housing  Characteristics: 2010,  H3 CNVR  Va ca n c y  Rate:  2010 Source:   U.S.  Bureau of  the Census,  Profile of General  Population  and Housing  Characteristics:  2010, H5 To w n s Block Groups %  of  To t a l  Housing  Va ca nt Less  than 5% 5%  ‐ 10.9% 11%  ‐ 14.9% 15% ‐ 19.9% 20% or  Higher 0 5 Miles ¯ Figure III ‐E1.        CNVR  Va ca n c y  Rate,  by  Block  Group:  2010 CN V R Co nn ec ti cu t W a t e rbu ry R e m ai n d er o f  R eg io n Ta b l e  III ‐E1.     CNVR  Property  Vaca n c y as  a  Percent  of  Housing Units, by  Municipality:  2010 %  Vacant Geographic  Area Total For   Sale For   Rent Rented  or   Sold  Not   Occupied For  Seasonal ,   Recreational  or   Occassional  Use Other   Vacant Total   Housi ng   Un i ts CN V R 9, 240 1, 608 3, 500 431 1, 108 2, 593 7. 8% Wate rb ury 5, 230 712 2, 635 187 144 1, 552 10. 9% Remainder  of   Region 4, 010 896 865 244 964 1, 041 5. 6% Beacon  F al l s 149 39 21 22 13 54 5. 9% Be thl e he m 164 17 8 2 114 23 10. 4% Che s hi re 383 109 75 31 65 103 3. 7% Mi ddl e b ury 144 29 5 6 68 36 5. 0% N augatu ck 722 157 283 41 33 208 5. 5% Ox f ord 242 54 18 13 82 75 5. 1% P ros pe ct 117 30 22 7 15 43 3. 4% S outhbu ry 878 207 166 44 323 138 9. 7% Thomaston 168 31 52 16 20 49 5. 1% Wate rtow n 424 68 108 26 54 168 4. 7% Wol cott 269 87 33 19 65 65 4. 3% Woodbury 350 68 74 17 112 79 7.7% Conne cti cut 116, 804 15, 564 40, 004 5, 689 29, 618 25, 929 7. 9% Vacant  Housi ng  Uni ts  F . : o u s i n g C o s t s Four measures of housing costs are presented in this section: for owner -occupied units, the value and homeowner costs; for rental units, median contract rent and median gross rent. Value of Owner -Occupied :ousing Units From 2007 -2011, median home value was highest in Oxford ($392,100), followed by Woodbury ($389,600) and Bethlehem ($388,600) while the lowest home values were found in Waterbury ($164,000), Naugatuck ($221,400) and Thomaston ($236,800) (Figure === -F1). For all of the region’s municipalities, the median value of owner -occupied housing units has increased dramatically over the last decade. Beacon Falls (95.2%)saw the highest growth in median home value, followed by Middle- bury (91.3%), and Oxford (88.7%). Southbury (61.1%), Waterbury (61.9%), and Woodbury (65.8%) saw the slowest growth from 2000 to 2011 (Table === -F1). Monthly :omeowner Costs Monthly homeowner costs tabulated by the Census Bureau consist of the total cost of mortgage, real estate taxes, fire and hazard insurance, utilities, and fuel. For units with a mortgage during the period 2007 -2011, Middlebury ($2,517) had the highest median cost, while Waterbury ($1,697) had the lowest. All towns in the region saw their monthly homeowner costs increase from 2000 to 2011 with the smallest increase occurring in Naugatuck (40.4%) and the largest increase occurring in Middlebury (62.8%) (Table === -F2). For units without a mortgage, Middlebury and Southbury had the highest median cost at $1,001 per month, while Wolcott had the lowest at $735 per month. From 2000 -2011, all municipalities saw an increase in median cost for units without a mortgage, with the smallest increase occurring in Cheshire (57.1%) and the largest increase occurring in Naugatuck (102.6%). =n all cases, growth in non – mortgaged monthly costs outpaced mortgaged monthly homeowner costs. This suggests that increas- es in monthly homeowner costs are largely attributed to higher costs of taxes, insurance, utilities and fuel. Median homeowner costs (for both mortgaged and non -mortgaged homeowners) can be seen in Figure === -F2. The Census Bureau uses 30% of income as a standard for measuring housing affordability. The 30% standard is a suggested maximum percent of income that a family should spend and still have enough income left over for other nondiscretionary spending. =n the CNVR, 36.3% of households pay more than 30% of their income to housing costs, slightly higher than the state average of 35.9%. =n South- bury, 41.7% of households were paying more than 30% of income to housing costs while in Cheshire, only 24.7% of households were doing so (Figure == -F3 and Table === -F3). Southbury’s high percentage can be partially explained by the presence of a large elderly population with limited incomes. Contract Rent for Renter -Occupied :ousing Contract rent is the monthly rent agreed to, which may or may not include utilities. Median contract rent in the CNVR ranged from a low of $543 in Bethlehem to a high of $1,151 in Southbury. The most affordable suburban towns had median rents between $450 and $750: Bethlehem ($483), Thomaston ($718), Middlebury ($765), Watertown ($723), and Prospect ($746). Waterbury’s median contract  rent ($716) was well below the state average of $845 (Table === -F4). From 2000 to 2011, median contract rent rose throughout most of the region. Oxford (155.6%), Cheshire (54.4%), and Waterbury (51.7%) saw the highest growth in contract rent. During the same time period, Bethlehem experienced a 37.1% decrease in median contract rent. The remaining muni – cipalities in the region saw growth rates between 17.1% and 48.8%. Gross Rent for Renter -Occupied :ousing Gross rent is the monthly rent and utilities combined. =n the period 2007 -2011, Oxford had the high- est median gross rent of $1,455, while Bethlehem had the lowest at $722 (Figure === -F4). Woodbury ($1,033), Beacon Falls ($1,078), Cheshire ($1,238), Southbury ($1,281), and Oxford ($1,455) all had median gross rents above the state median of $982 (Figure === -F4 and Table === -F4). From 2000 to 2011, Oxford (111.5%), Waterbury (56.8%), Cheshire (55.1%), and Naugatuck (53.1%) experienced growth in median gross rent above the state average (49.8%). Bethlehem actually saw its median gross rent de- crease by 26.6%.  Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on block  group  geography. Home  value applies  only to  owner‐occupied housing  units. Source:   U.S.  Bureau of  the Census,  American  Community Survey, 5 ‐Ye a r  Estimates,  2007‐2011, B25077 Figure  III ‐F1.     Median  Owner ‐Occupied  Home  Va l u e ,  by  Block  Group:  2007‐2011 Ta b l e  III ‐F1.     CNVR  Median  Home Va l u e ,  by  Municipality:  2000 ‐2011 To w n s Block Groups Median Home Value Up to $100,000 $100,000 – $199,999 $200,000 – $299,999 $300,000 – $399,999 $400,000 or Higher No Data 05 Mile s ¯ Source:   U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  American  Community  Survey, Five Ye a r  Estimates,  2007‐2011;   Census  2000 WaterburyNaugatuck Thomaston Wolcott Watertown Beacon  Falls Prospect Southbury Cheshire Middlebury BethlehemWoodbury Oxford $0 $ 200 ,000 $400 ,000 Geographic  A re a 2011 2000 Beacon  Fal l s $301, 900 $154, 699 95. 2% Be thl e he m $388, 600 $213, 800 81. 8% Che s hi re $358, 200 $212, 000 69. 0% Mi ddl e bury $379, 900 $198, 600 91. 3% N augatuck $221, 400 $133, 000 66. 5% O x f ord $392, 100 $207, 800 88. 7% P ros pe ct $323, 000 $180, 700 78. 7% Southbury $336, 800 $209, 100 61. 1% Thomaston $236, 800 $135, 800 74. 4% Wate rbury $164, 000 $101, 300 61. 9% Wate rtow n $277, 000 $148, 300 86. 8% Wol cott $263, 300 $143, 400 83. 6% Woodbu ry $389, 600 $235, 000 65. 8% Conne cti cut $293, 100 $166, 900 75. 6% Me d i an  Home  Value % Change 2000  ‐  2011 Median  Home  Va l u e : 2007 ‐2011  Waterbury Thomaston Naugatuck Watertown Beacon  Falls Wolcott Southbury Prospect Woodbury Bethlehem Middlebury Oxford Cheshire Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon  Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on block  group  geography. Costs  include mortgage,  real estate  taxes, fire and hazard  insurance, utilities,  and  fuel. Source:   U.S.  Bureau of  the Census,  American  Community Survey, 5 ‐Ye a r  Estimates,  2007‐2011, B25088 Figure  III ‐F2.      CNVR  Median  Monthly  Homeowner  Costs, by  Block  Group:  2007 ‐2011 Monthly  Monthly  Home ‐ owner  Costs:  2007 ‐2011 Source:   U.S.  Bureau of  the Census,  American  Community  Survey, Five Ye a r  Estimates,  2007‐2011 To w n s Block Groups Monthly Cost Up to $1,000 $1,000 – $1,249 $1,250 – $1,499 $1,500 – $1,999 $2,000 or Higher No Data 0 5 Miles ¯ Ta b l e III ‐F2.     CNVR  Median  Monthly  Homeowner  Costs,  by Municipality:  2000 ‐2011 Geographic  A re a 2011 200 0 Percent Change 2011 2000 Percent Change Beacon  Fal l s $2, 009 $1, 298 54. 8% $780 $432 80. 6% Be th l e he m $2, 155 $1, 525 41. 3% $800 $442 81. 0% Ch e s h i re $2, 480 $1, 665 48. 9% $869 $553 57. 1% Mi ddl e bury $2, 517 $1, 546 62. 8% $1, 001 $568 76. 2% N augatuck $1, 757 $1, 251 40. 4% $786 $388 102. 6% O x f o rd $2, 405 $1, 569 53. 3% $852 $483 76. 4% P ros p e ct $2, 117 $1, 365 55. 1% $758 $388 95. 4% Southbury $2, 418 $1, 579 53. 1% $1, 001 $634 57. 9% Thomaston $1, 713 $1, 218 40. 6% $758 $436 73. 9% Wate rbury $1, 697 $1, 115 52. 2% $768 $392 95. 9% Wate rtow n $1, 961 $1, 349 45. 4% $738 $423 74. 5% Wol cott $1, 959 $1, 275 53. 6% $735 $399 84. 2% Woo d bu ry $2, 388 $1, 491 60. 2% $931 $546 70. 5% Conne cti cut $2, 143 $1, 426 50. 3% $798 $473 68. 7% Wi th  a  Mo rt gage N o t  Mo rt gag e d $ 0 $ 5 00 $ 1 ,0 00 $ 1, 50 0 $ 2 ,0 0 0 $ 2 ,5 0 0  0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% CWRCT Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon  Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on block  group geography.  Homeowner costs apply  only  to owner ‐occupied  housing  units. Source:   U.S. Bureau  of the  Census,  American  Community Survey,  Five Ye a r  Estimates,  2007‐ 2011 C25095 Homeowners  Paying  30%  of  Income to  Housing  Costs:  2007 ‐2011 Source:   U.S. Bureau  of the  Census,  American  Community  Survey, Five  Ye a r  Estimates,  2007‐2011 To w n s Block Groups Homeowners Up  to  20% 20%  ‐ 29.9% 30% ‐ 39.9% 40% ‐ 49.9% 50% or  Higher 05M il e s ¯ Figure  III ‐F3.       CNVR  Homeowners  Paying  30%  or  More  of  their  Income  to Housing  Costs,  by  Block  Group:  2007‐2011 C N V R Co n n ec t ic u t W at er b u r y R em a i n d er o f R eg io n Ta b l e  III ‐F3.     CNVR  Homeowner  Costs  as  a  Percentage  of  Income, by  Municipality:  2007 ‐2011 Geographic  Area Number Percent Number Percent CNVR 75,463 48,073 63.7% 27,390 36.3% Waterbury 21,143 11,936 56.5% 9,086 43.0% Remainder of  Region 54,004 35,698 66.1% 18,306 33.9% Beacon  Falls 1,891 1,158 61.2% 720 38.1% Bethlehem 1,227 746 60.8% 481 39.2% Ches hire 7,986 6,001 75.1% 1,971 24.7% Middlebury 2,444 1,599 65.4% 839 34.3% Naugatuck 8,574 5,468 63.8% 3,037 35.4% Oxford 4,177 2,890 69.2% 1,287 30.8% Pros pect 3,137 2,177 69.4% 948 30.2% Southbury 7,181 4,113 57.3% 2,995 41.7% Thomaston 2,517 1,676 66.6% 829 32.9% Watertown 7,353 5,285 71.9% 2,068 28.1% Wolcott 5,233 3,276 62.6% 1,947 37.2% Woodbury 3,497 2,258 64.6% 1,239 35.4% Connecticut 937,339 597,218 63.7% 336,282 35.9% Greater  than  30%  of  Income Less  than  30%  of  Income Total Households  Bethlehem Middlebury Wolcott Waterbury Watertown Prospect Thomaston NaugatuckWoodbury Beacon  Falls Cheshire Southbury Oxford Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon  Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on census  tract geography.  Because the American  Community  Survey  is estimated,  block groups with  low numbers  of renters  may have  no data. Source:   U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  American  Community Survey, 5 ‐Ye a r  Estimates,  2007‐2011, B25064 Figure  III ‐F4.      CNVR  Median  Gross  Rent,  by  Block  Group:  2007 ‐2011 Figure  III‐F4.     CNVR  Median  Rent,  by  Municipality:  2000 ‐2011 CNVR   Median  Gross Rent: 2007 ‐2011 To w n s Block Groups Median Gross Rent Up to $750 $750 – $999 $1,000 – $1,249 $1,250 – $1,499 $1,500 and Higher 0 5 Miles ¯ Source:  U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  American  Community  Survey, Five Ye a r  Estimates,  2007‐2011; Census  2000 $0 $5 00 $1, 0 00 $1 , 5 00 Geographic  A re a 2011 2000 Percent Change 2011 2000 Percent Change Beacon  Fal l s $938 $728 28.8% $1, 078 $866 24.5% Be thl e he m $483 $768‐37.1% $722 $983 ‐26.6% Che shi re $1, 093 $708 54.4% $1, 238 $798 55.1% Mi ddl e bury $802 $568 41.2% $805 $668 20.5% N augatuck $793 $535 48.2% $966 $631 53.1% Ox f ord $1, 370 $536 155.6% $1, 455 $688 111.5% P rospe ct $746 $575 29.7% $893 $707 26.3% Southbury $1, 081 $923 17.1% $1, 281 $1, 064 20.4% Thomaston $718 $531 35.2% $902 $649 39.0% Wate rbury $716 $472 51.7% $881 $562 56.8% Wate rtow n $765 $564 35.6% $889 $646 37.6% Wol cott $768 $652 17.8% $870 $735 18.4% Woodbury $900 $705 27.7% $1, 033 $783 31.9% Conne cti cut $845 $588 43.7% $1, 020 $681 49.8%Me d i an  Contract  Rent Median Gross  Re nt  APPENDIX A: Glossary of Population, Housing, and Statistical Concepts Extracted from the U.S. Census Census The U.S. Census counts every resident in the United States. It is mandated by Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution and takes place every 10 years. The data collected by the decennial census determine the number of seats each state has in the U.S. House of Representatives and is also used to distribute billions in federal funds to local communities. Educational Data on education attainment are derived from a single question that asks, “What Attainment is the highest grade of school…has completed, or the highest degree…has received?” Ethnic Origin People of Hispanic origin were identified by a question that asked for self-identification of the person’s origin or descent. Respondents were asked to select their origin (and the origin of other household members) from a “flash card” listing ethnic origins. People of Hispanic origin, in particular, were those who indicated that their origin was Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or some other Hispanic origin. It should be noted that people of Hispanic origin may be of any race. People who were Non-Hispanic White origin, were identified by crossing the responses to two self-identification questions: (1) origin or descent and (2) race. Respondents were asked to select their race (and the race of other household members) from a “flash card” listing racial groups. Beginning with March 1989, the population is divided into five groups on the basis of race: White, Black, American Indian, Eskimo or Aleut, Asian or Pacific Islander, and Other races. The last category includes any other race except the four mentioned. Respondents who selected their race as White and indicated that their origin was not one of the Hispanic origin subgroups Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, were called Non-Hispanic White origin. Family A family is a group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together; all such people (including related subfamily members) are considered as members of one family. Beginning with the 1980 Current Population Survey, unrelated subfamilies (referred to in the past as secondary families) are no longer included in the count of families, nor are the members of unrelated subfamilies included in the count of family members. The number of families is equal to the number of family households, however, the count of family members differs from the count of family household members because family household members include any non-relatives living in the household. Family Group A family group is any two or more people (not necessarily including a householder) residing together, and related by birth, marriage, or adoption. A household may be composed of one such group, more than one, or none at all. The count of family groups includes family households, related subfamilies, and unrelated subfamilies .  Family Household A family household is a household maintained by a householder who is in a family (as defined above), and includes any unrelated people (unrelated subfamily members and/or secondary individuals) who may be residing there. The number of family households is equal to the number of families. The count of family household members differs from the count of family members, however, in that the family household members include all people living in the household, whereas family members include only the householder and his/her relatives. See the definition of family. Hispanic or “Hispanic or Latino” refers to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Latino Origin Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race. Household A household consists of all the people who occupy a housing unit. A house, an apartment or other group of rooms, or a single room, is regarded as a housing unit when it is occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters; that is, when the occupants do not live and eat with any other persons in the structure and there is direct access from the outside or through a common hall. A household includes the related family members and all the unrelated people, if any, such as lodgers, foster children, wards, or employees who share the housing unit. A person living alone in a housing unit, or a group of unrelated people sharing a housing unit such as partners or roomers, is also counted as a household. The count of households excludes group quarters. There are two major categories of households, "family" and "nonfamily”. Householder The householder refers to the person (or one of the people) in whose name the housing unit is owned or rented (maintained) or, if there is no such person, any adult member, excluding roomers, boarders, or paid employees. If the house is owned or rented jointly by a married couple, the householder may be either the husband or the wife. The person designated as the householder is the “reference person” to whom the relationship of all other household members, if any, is recorded. The number of householders is equal to the number of households. Also, the number of family householders is equal to the number of families. Housing Unit A house, apartment, a group of rooms, or single room occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. Labor Force The sum of employed and unemployed persons. The labor force participation rate is the labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population. Mean The arithmetic average Median The middle point in a distribution Median Income Median income is the amount which divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having incomes above the median, half having incomes below the median. The medians for households, families, and unrelated individuals are based on all households, families, and unrelated individuals, respectively. The medians for people are based on people 15 years old and over with income.  Multi-Unit Structure A building that contains more than one housing unit (for example, an apartment building). Per Capita Income Per capita income is the average income computed for every man, woman, and child in a particular group. The Census Bureau derived per capita income by dividing the total income of a particular group by the total population in that group (excluding patients or inmates in institutional quarters). Poverty Definition Following the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to detect who is poor. If the total income for a family or unrelated individual falls below the relevant poverty threshold, then the family or unrelated individual is classified as being “below the poverty level.” Race Race is a self identification data item in which respondents choose the race or races with which they most closely identify. Starting in 1997, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) required federal agencies to use a minimum of five race categories: White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. For respondents unable to identify with any of these five race categories, OMB approved the Census Bureau’s inclusion of a sixth category — Some Other Race — on the Census 2000 and 2010 Census questionnaires.  Appendix B: Regional Planning Organizations in Connecticut Capitol Region Council of Governments 241 Main Street, 4th Floor Lyle Wray, Executive DirectorHartford, CT 06106-5310 lwray@crcog.org 860 522-2217 Central Connecticut Regional Planning Agency 225 North Main Street, Suite 304 Carl Stephani, Executive DirectorBristol, CT 06010-4993 director@ccrpa.org 860 589-7820 Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 49 Leavenworth Street, Suite 303 Sam Gold, Acting Executive DirectorWaterbury, CT 06702 cogcnv@cogcnv.org 203 757-0535 Greater Bridgeport Regional Council 525 Water Street Brian Bidolli, Executive DirectorBridgeport, CT 06604-4902 bbidolli@gbrct.org 203 366-5405 Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials Old Town Hall, 162 Whisconier Road Jonathan Chew, Executive DirectorBrookfield, CT 06804 jchew@hvceo.org 203 775-6256 Litchfield Hills Council of Elected Officials* 42D North Street Richard Lynn, Planning DirectorGoshen, CT 06756 lhceol@snet.net 860 491-9884 Lower Connecticut River Valley Council of Governments 145 Dennison Road Linda Krause, Executive DirectorEssex, CT 06426 lkrause@rivercog.org 860 581-8554 Northeastern Connecticut Council of Governments 125 Putnam Pike, P.O. Box 759 John Filchak, Executive DirectorDayville, CT 06241-0759 john.filchak@neccog.net 860 774-1253 001A0013 Northwestern Connecticut Council of Governments* 17 Sackett Hill Road Jocelyn Ayer, Executive DirectorWarren, CT 06754 nwccog1@snet.net 860 868-7341 South Central Connecticut Regional Council of Governments 127 Washington Avenue, 4th Floor W Carl Amento, Executive DirectorNorth Haven, CT 06473-1715 camento@scrcog.org 203 234-7555 Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments 5 Connecticut Avenue James Butler, Executive DirectorNorwich, CT 06360-4592 jsbutler.seccog@snet.net 860 889-2324 Southwestern Regional Planning Agency 888 Washington Blvd., 3rd Floor Floyd Lapp, Executive DirectorStamford, CT 06901 lapp@swrpa.org 203 316-5190 Valley Council of Governments Derby Railroad Station, 12 Main Street Richard Dunne, Executive DirectorDerby, CT 06418 rdunne@valleycog.org 203 735-8688 Windham Region Council of Governments 700 Main Street Mark Paquette, Executive DirectorWillimantic, CT 06226-2604 director@wincog.org 860 456-2221 *Note: OPM has approved a merger between the Litchfield Hills Council of Elected Officials and the Northwestern Connecticut Council of Governments. The new region will be named the “Northwest Hills Planning Region” 001A0014 NORTHWEST HILLS HOUSATONIC VALLEY SOUTHWESTERN CONNECTICUT GREATER BRIDGEPORT VALLEY CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY CENTRAL CONNECTICUT LOWER CONNECTICUT RIVER SOUTH CENTRAL CONNECTICUT CAPITOL REGION WINDHAM NORTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT LITCHFIELD HILLS NORTHWEST KentSharon Stafford Salisbury Litchfield Killingly Newtown Norfolk Lebanon Guilford LymeWoodstock Goshen Suffield New Milford Granby HaddamTolland Cornwall Danbury Pomfret Ashford Montville Hebron Ledyard Enfield MansfieldUnion Oxford Plainfield Colchester Thompson Greenwich Groton Glastonbury Salem Berlin East HaddamCoventry Griswold Avon Wilton Canaan Shelton Bristol Preston Hartland Torrington Ellington Southbury Easton Redding Stonington Fairfield Windsor Canterbury Wallingford Simsbury Woodbury Warren Somers WaterfordNorwich Ridgefield North Stonington Monroe Washington Canton Brooklyn Colebrook Harwinton Roxbury Winchester Burlington Barkhamsted New Hartford Windham Portland Durham Meriden Waterbury Morris Bozrah Wolcott Farmington Putnam Bethany Branford Bethel Manchester Vernon Orange Chester Madison Stamford Hamden Voluntown Middletown Cheshire Sterling Willington Eastford Eas t Lyme Milford Killin g – worth Southington Watertown Hampton Norwalk East Hampton Trumbull Weston Old Lyme Sherman Bloomfield Chaplin Franklin Lisbon Plymouth Columbia Clinton Westport Bolton Hartford Strat- ford Scotland East Windsor Brookfield South Windsor New Fairfield Marlborough North Branford Bethlehem Andover Darien Essex New Canaan North Haven Middlebury West Hartford New Haven Seymour WoodbridgeProspect Bridgeport Sprague Naugatuck West-brook Bridgewater East Hartford North Canaan East Granby Rocky HillCromwell Deep River Newington Middlefield Old Saybrook New Britain East Haven Plainville Thomaston Wethersfield West Haven Derby Beacon Falls Ansonia Windsor Locks New London Regional Planning Organizations in Connecticut ¯ 01 0Mil e s APPENDIX B: 001A0015 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 ” )8 ” )8 § ¨ ¦84 ” )70 ” )70 ” )10 ” )68 ” )68 ” )42 ” )69 ” )69 ” )69 ³ ± 188 ” )73 ” )63 ” )63 ³ ± 322 ³ ± 109 ³ ± 222 ³ ± 262 ³ ± 132 ³ ± 132 ³ ± 317 ³ ± 172 ³ ± 188 ” )61 ” )61 ” )64 ” )64 ” )67 ” )67 ” )42 ” )63 ” )68 ” )63 ” )42 ” )47 Woodbury Southbury Oxford Middlebury Waterbury Naugatuck Beacon Falls Cheshire Wolcott £ ¤6 Thomaston Bethlehem £ ¤6 £ ¤6 Watertown ³ ± 188 ” )67 Prospect ¯ 0 5 Miles Waterbury Labor Market Area (LMA) and Metropolitan NECTA Appendix C Waterbury NECTA The New England City and Town Area (NECTA) is a geographic and statistical entity defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. NECTA metropolitan areas are associated with core populations of at least 50,000. Unlike census statistical areas (such as metropolitan statistical areas) which are composed of counties, NECTAs are comprised of towns, allowing for a closer approximation to the actual metropolitan area. This is especially useful when there are multiple urban cores in the same county (in this case, New Haven County). With the exceptions of Bethlehem and Woodbury, the Waterbury Labor Market Area contains all of the towns in the Waterbury metropolitan NECTA. Cheshire is located in the New Haven metropolitan NECTA, Oxford and Southbury are located in the Bridgeport/Stamford/Norwalk metropolitan NECTA, and Thomaston is located in the Hartford metropolitan NECTA. Waterbury Labor Market Area Waterbury Metropolitan NECTA Population: 1980-2010 Source: US Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010; 2012 Population Estimates 160,000 170,000 180,000 190,000 200,000 210,000 220,000 230,000 1980 1990 2000 2010 2012 001A0016 Appendix D: Income Limits for Selected Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Programs, CNVR Towns: 2013 Waterbury HUD Metro FMR Area* FY 2013 Median Family Income: $68,800 Income Limits Program 1 Person2 Person 3 Person4 Person 5 Person6 Person 7 Person8 PersonVery Low-Income 28,95033,050 37,20041,300 44,65047,950 51,25054,550Low-Income 45,10051,550 58,00064,400 69,60074,750 79,90085,050Section 236 45,10051,550 58,00064,400 69,60074,750 79,90085,050Section 221 BMIR 53,55061,200 68,85076,500 82,65088,750 94,900101,000Section 235 53,550 61,200 68,85076,500 82,65088,750 94,900101,000* Towns of Middlebury, Naugatuck, Prospect, Southbury, Waterbury, and Wolcott are located in the Waterbury HMFA Litchfield Nonmetropolitan County HUD Statistical Area* FY 2013 Median Family Income: $87,500 Income Limits Program 1 Person2 Person 3 Person4 Person 5 Person6 Person 7 Person8 PersonVery Low-Income 30,65035,000 39,40043,750 47,25050,750 54,25057,750Low-Income 45,10051,550 58,00064,400 69,60074,750 79,90085,050Section 236 45,10051,550 58,00064,400 69,60074,750 79,90085,050Section 221 BMIR 53,55061,200 68,85076,500 82,65088,750 94,900101,000Section 235 53,550 61,200 68,85076,500 82,65088,750 94,900101,000* Towns of Bethlehem, Thomaston, Watertown, and Woodbury are located in the Litchfield County HUD SA Milford-Ansonia-Seymour HUD Metro FMR Area* FY 2013 Median Family Income: $91,400 Income Limits Program 1 Person2 Person 3 Person4 Person 5 Person6 Person 7 Person8 PersonVery Low-Income 32,00036,600 41,15045,700 49,40053,050 56,70060,350Low-Income 45,10051,550 58,00064,400 69,60074,750 79,90085,050Section 236 45,10051,550 58,00064,400 69,60074,750 79,90085,050Section 221 BMIR 53,55061,200 68,85076,500 82,65088,750 94,900101,000Section 235 53,550 61,200 68,85076,500 82,65088,750 94,900101,000* Towns of Beacon Falls and Oxford are located in the Milford-Ansonia-Seymour HMFA. 001A0017 New Haven-Meriden HUD Metro FMR Area* FY 2013 Median Family Income: $80,500 Income Limits Program 1 Person2 Person 3 Person4 Person 5 Person6 Person 7 Person8 PersonVery Low-Income 28,95033,050 37,20041,300 44,65047,950 51,25054,550Low-Income 45,10051,550 58,00064,400 69,60074,750 79,90085,050Section 236 45,10051,550 58,00064,400 69,60074,750 79,90085,050Section 221 BMIR 53,55061,200 68,85076,500 82,65088,750 94,900101,000Section 235 53,550 61,200 68,85076,500 82,65088,750 94,900101,000*Town of Cheshire is located in the New Haven – Meriden HMFA. Note: HUD Metro FMR Area indicates that only a portion of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) defined core-based statistical area (CBSA) is in the area to which the income limits or Fair Market Rents (FMRs) apply. HUD is required by OMB to alter the name of the metropolitan geographic entities it derives from the CBSAs when the geography is not the same as that established by OMB Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Connecticut income limits 2013. 001A0018 Major Roads Highways 2 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 ” )8 ” )8 § ¨ ¦84 Woodbury Southbury Oxford Middlebury Naugatuck Beacon  Falls Cheshire Wolcott Thomaston Bethlehem Watertown Prospect Waterbury ¯ 0 5 Miles CNVR Urbanized  Areas:  2010 Appendix  E Urbanized  Area Waterbury Bridgeport  ‐ Stamford New  Haven Hartford The  U.S.  Census  Bureau  defines an  urbanized  area  as  an area  of  50,000  or  more  people  from  the  urban  cores  of metropolitan  statistical  areas.  Municipalities  in the  CNVR are  located  in  four  urbanized  areas.  Nine  CNVR municipalities,  Waterbury,  Watertown,  Wolcott, Middlebury,  Naugatuck,  Beacon  Falls, Prospect,  Cheshire and  Woodbury,  are  located  in  the  Waterbury  Urbanized Area.  Th e Waterbur y U rbanized Area also  includes  portions of  Plymouth  and  Bethany.  Thomaston  is  located  in  the Hartford  Urbanized  Area. Parts  of  Prospect  and  Cheshire are  located  in  the  New  Haven  Urbanized  Area. Finally, parts  of  Southbury,  Oxford,  Beacon  Falls  Middlebury  and Woodbury  are located  in  the  Bridgeport ‐Stamford Urbanized  Area.  APPENDIX E: CNVR Urbanized Areas: 2010 Waterbury Urbanized Area Geographic Area Urbanized Area Population Urbanized Area (Sq Miles) Urbanized Area Total 194,535 90.3CNVR Total 193,833 89.0Beacon Falls 3,5833.5Cheshire 4740.5Middlebury 4,8086.7Naugatuck 30,74712.2Prospect 8,0629.8Waterbury 110,36628.5Watertown 20,50814.6Wolcott 15,17913.1Woodbury 1060.1Bridgeport – Stamford Urbanized Area Geographic Area Urbanized Area Population Urbanized Area (Sq Miles) Urbanized Area Total 923,311 466.2CNVR Total 31,767 46.6Beacon Falls 1,4242.1Middlebury 1,1741.3Oxford 8,38615.1Southbury 17,20623.4Woodbury 3,5774.7New Haven Urbanized Area Geographic Area Urbanized Area Population Urbanized Area (Sq Miles) Urbanized Area Total 562,839 306.1CNVR Total 27,144 25.2Cheshire 26,85924.8Prospect 2850.4Hartford Urbanized Area Geographic Area Urbanized Area Population Urbanized Area (Sq Miles) Urbanized Area Total 924,859 516.2CNVR Total 7,487 9.0Thomaston 7,4879.0Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Urbanized Areas 001A001A Municipality Chief Elected Alternate Regional Planning Official Commission Beacon Falls Gerard Smith Dominick Sorrentino David Chadderton First Selectman Richard Minnick Bethlehem Heff :amel Ellen Samoska Ellen Samoska First Selectman Maria :ill Cheshire Timothy Slocum Michael Milone Martin Cobern Chrm, Town Council Vacant Middlebury Edward St. Hohn Hoseph Salvini Ken Long First Selectman Mary Barton Naugatuck Robert Mezzo Tamath Rossi Anthony Malone Mayor Hoseph McAvoy Oxford George Temple Hoanne Pelton :arold Cosgrove First Selectman Vacant Prospect Robert Chatfield Tom Galvin Gil Graveline Mayor Peter :ughes Southbury Edward Edelson Carol :ubert Leslie Maclise -Kane First Selectman Nancy Clark Thomaston Edmond Mone Roger Perrault Bill Guererra First Selectman Robert Flanagan Waterbury Neil O'Leary Hoseph McGrath Hames Sequin Mayor Dennis Casey Watertown Raymond Primini Charles Frigon Ruth Mulcahy Chrm, Town Council Vacant Wolcott Thomas Dunn Vacant Steven Bosco Mayor Cathe Sherman Woodbury Gerald Stomski Barbara Perkinson Martin Overton First Selectman Vacant COGCNV Staff Acting Executive Director, Samuel Gold G=S Coordinator, Glenda Prentiss Senior Planner, Hoseph Perrelli G=S/Planning Assistant, Aaron Budris Regional Planner, Patrick Gallagher Financial Manager, Patricia Bauer Administrative Assistant, Lauren Rizzo COUNCIL MEMBERS, ALTERNATES, & REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION