Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Naugatuck Valley R e g i o n a l P r o f i l e 2 0 1 4 September 2014 A Report by T h e N a u g a t u c k Va l l e y Council of Governments Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Several tables and figures in this report compare data from the 2008 -2012 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 2008 -2012 ACS is a five -year estimate where a small percent- age of all households are sampled each year. ACS estimates repre- sent an average over the course of five years and are not equiva- lent to the 100 percent 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 approxi- mately 16% of households. Both data sets used samples to calcu- late estimates for the entire population. The differences in meth- odology between the long -form 2000 Census and the 2008 -2012 ACS make their comparisons difficult. However, 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. Front Cover: Panorama, Naugatuck River, Naugatuck State Forest, Connecticut © 2013 James A. Robertson All other photos were taken by NVCOG staff The material contained herein may be quoted or reproduced with- out special permission, although mention of the source is appreci- ated. The preparation of this report was financed through grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Admin- istration, and the Federal Transit Administration, and by contribu- tions from member municipalities of the Naugatuck Valley Region. Data Disclaimer Photo Credits Attribution Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table of Contents Chapter Page 1. Introduction ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 1 2. Population and Demographic Trends ………………………….. ……………….. 5 3. Economic Trends ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 11 4. Housing Trends ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 15 Appendices Page Appendix A: Population and Demographic Trends: Tables and Maps …. 19 Appendix B: Economic Trends: Tables and Maps ………………………….. …. 49 Appendix C: Housing Trends: Tables and Maps ………………………….. ……. 61 Appendix D: Other Regional Information ………………………….. ……………. 81 Depot Street Bridge, Beacon Falls Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 1 The following chapters present demo- graphic, economic, and housing data for the Naugatuck Valley Region, a 19 – town region in West Central Connecti- cut. Data comes from a variety of sources including the 2010 Decennial Census, the 2008 -2012 American Com- munity Survey (ACS), the Connecticut Department of Labor (DOL), and the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD). Summary of Findings This report examines past trends and provides an outlook for the future. In recent years, the region’s popula- tion, housing, and economic trends have been shaped by the 2007 to 2009 Great Recession and housing bubble. The recession hit the region harder and longer than the state and nation as a whole. As of 2013, the unemploy- ment rate remains high at 8.7%. While the region has added jobs since 2011, it remains well below pre -recession levels. During the early 2000s, the region ex- perienced a building boom, adding over 5,000 new housing units. The bursting of the housing bubble in 2008 brought new construction to a halt and led to a decline in home values . Since bottoming out in 2011, new home con- struction has picked up since 2012. The economic and housing crashes have brought population growth to a standstill. Adults are getting married later, families are having fewer chil- dren, and the lack of new housing has prevented new residents from moving in. In addition, the recession has led to a growth in poverty and a decline in household incomes. In the near future, the region will be shaped by the retirement of the baby boomers. A surge in the elderly popu- lation will put greater financial burdens on the workforce, and will lead to new fiscal challenges for municipalities. 1. Introduction Economy Population Housing Figure 1a. This report will examine the relationship between population, economic, and housing trends Lock 12 Historic Park, Cheshire 2 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Figure 1b. Composition of the Naugatuck Valley Region Urban Core Inner Ring Outer Ring Methodology is based on Data Haven’s Community Well Being Index Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 3 Composition of the Region While overall regional trends are in- formative, they fail to account for the differences that exist between munici- palities, or even neighborhoods within a municipality. Each scale of analysis tells a different story, and this report will show data in a variety of scales in order to provide as complete an over- view as possible. This report presents data at regional, subregional, municipal, and neighbor- hood scales. In order to highlight key trends among similar municipalities, a three -level subregional classification was developed (Figure 1b). Municipali- ties were classified as urban core, inner ring, or outer ring based on current and historic population, economic, and housing trends. Table 1a below high- lights some of the differences that exist between the urban core, inner ring, and outer ring communities. To supplement the regional and sub – regional scales, tables in the text and appendices present data for each mu- nicipality. Where applicable, neighbor- hood (block -group) level maps were created to highlight the differences that exist from neighborhood to neigh- borhood. Region Urban Core Inner Ring Outer Ring Population 2010 448,708 234,856 127,974 85,878 Population Density per sq. mi. 1,080 2,817 906 453 Population Growth 2000 -2010 + 4.8% + 2.4% +4.4% +12.1% Percent Minority 23.9% 36.6% 11.6% 7.3% Percent Foreign Born 10.6% 12.4% 9.0% 7.1% Percent Over Age 65 14.6% 13.3% 15.0% 17.7% Median Age 40.7 37.3 42.9 45.1 Median Household Income $64,700 $50,600 $84,500 $85,800 Poverty Rate 10.3% 15.6% 4.3% 4.4% Percent with Bachelors Degree 27.8% 19.7% 35.0% 38.3% Unemployment Rate 8.7% 10.3% 7.3% 6.6% Jobs 2013 155,182 76,481 54,689 24,012 Job Growth 2004 -2013 -1.4% -4.2% 2.7% -1.2% Housing Growth 2004 -2013 +3.8% +1.6% +5.6% +7.9% Average Household Size 2.55 2.50 2.62 2.60 Percent Single -Family Homes 65.2% 51.7% 78.9% 86.3% Homeownership Rate 70.1% 57.6% 82.7% 87.3% Median Home Value (2012) $249,000 $193,000 $299,000 $326,000 Table 1a. Subregional Population, Economic, and Housing Trends 4 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Urban Core During the 19th century, the urban core emerged as a leading manufactur- ing center for brass, copper, clocks, watches, and rubber products. The urban core has high levels of racial and income diversity, high population den- sity, good access to public transit, and plentiful affordable housing. The char- acter of the urban core varies signifi- cantly from neighborhood to neighbor- hood. Most of the region’s major insti- tutions, such as hospitals and higher education, call the urban core home. Inner Ring Inner ring communities contain a mix of urban and suburban characteristics. Smaller manufacturing centers such as Oakville, Terryville, and Shelton emerged in the 19th century, forming the historic cores of the inner ring mu- nicipalities. In the post World War II years, these communities became more suburban in character as urban core residents and young families moved in. Today, the population is highly educated and moderately di- verse. In the last decade, the inner ring has seen job growth as companies leave the urban core to be closer to their workforce. Outer Ring The traditionally rural outer ring has become more suburban in character over the last two decades. From 2000 to 2010, the outer ring population grew at 12.1%, far faster than the re- gion, state, and nation. These towns have the lowest population densities, the highest incomes, and the highest proportion of elderly residents. With few local jobs, most outer ring resi- dents commute to jobs in neighboring towns and cities. Urban Core The urban core is comprised of the region’s historic manufacturing centers. They have the highest population density and most diverse populations. Inner Ring Inner ring commu- nities contain a mix of urban and suburban charac- teristics. Outer Ring Traditionally rural outer ring commu- nities have seen explosive popula- tion growth over the last two dec- ades. Congregational Church, Cheshire Main Street, Ansonia Tranquility Farm, Middlebury Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 5 This chapter summarizes regional demographic trends such as population change, race and ethnicity, age, house- hold structure, education, and income. The major population and demograph- ic trends shaping the region are:  Population growth in the outer ring is outpacing the rest of the region.  All municipalities are becoming more racially and ethnically diverse.  In the next ten years, the region will see a large increase in retirees and a decline in school aged population.  Non -traditional households (non – married couples) are becoming more common.  There is a large education and in- come gap between the urban core and surrounding municipalities. Population Growth From 2000 to 2010, the region saw a modest 4.8% growth rate, adding 19,918 new residents. This was a faster growth rate than the 1990s, but much slower than the 1980s. About half of the population growth was due to nat- ural increase (births minus deaths), while the other half was due to in – migration from outside the region. De- mand for new single family homes in the early 2000s led to explosive growth in outer ring municipalities, which grew at 12.1%. The remainder of the region grew at a slower rate, with a 4.4% in- crease in the inner ring and a 2.4% in- crease in the urban core. Since 2010, population growth has stagnated as a result of the 2007 to 2009 recession and housing market crash. From 2007 to 2011, the number of births dropped by 14.4%. Many fam- ilies have delayed having children due to economic uncertainty and rising stu- dent loan debt. The lack of new home construction since 2008 has prevented new residents from moving to the re- gion, particularly in the outer ring. 2. Population and Demographic Trends Figure 2a. Population Growth in the Naugatuck Valley, by Location: 2000 to 2010 The Gathering, Waterbury 6 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Immigration and Migration While birth rates have fallen, immigra- tion and migration have allowed the region’s population to continue to grow at a modest rate. Just over 10% of the region’s population is foreign born, with the largest groups hailing from Portugal, Poland, Italy, the Do- minican Republic, and Jamaica. The region is also home to a large migrant population from Puerto Rico. From 2000 to 2010, the region had a net gain of 9,320 residents through in – migration. While the outer ring experi- enced a natural decrease in population (more deaths than births), they added 9,490 residents through in -migration (people moving into the region). At the other end of the spectrum, the urban core had a large natural increase (more births than deaths) offset by a loss of nearly 4,000 residents through out -migration. The inner ring saw a small natural increase and gained 3,787 residents through in -migration. Population Projections Population projections from the Con- necticut State Data Center indicate that up to 2025, the region’s popula- tion will continue to grow, but at a slower rate than in the past. From 2010 to 2025, the region is projected to grow by 4.9%, adding approximately 22,000 new residents. The outer ring is projected to grow at the fastest rate, adding 8,700 residents by 2025, a 10.1% increase. New home construction and in -migration will con- tinue to drive population growth in the outer ring. Middlebury and Oxford are projected to be the two fastest – growing municipalities in the region. In the inner ring, shrinking household size and an increase in elderly resi- dents means that new housing units are necessary to maintain population growth. The growth rate in the inner ring is expected to slow to just 2.2% between 2010 and 2025. Communities such as Cheshire and Shelton are close to being “built out” and have little developable land to support new hous- ing units. The population is projected to level out by 2020 in Cheshire and by 2025 in Shelton. Due to high birth rates, the urban core is projected to see modest growth up to 2025, adding over 10,000 new resi- dents. Waterbury, which has a much higher birth rate than the rest of the region, is projected to grow by 6.1%. While population projections are use- ful, they are unable to predict changes in the housing market and economy. The housing market will dictate where growth will occur, particularly for the inner and outer ring. Similarly, birth rates, migration, and immigration are closely tied to the economy. A growing economy generally sees higher popula- tion growth than a stagnant economy. Figure 2b. Projected Popula- tion Growth in the Naugatuck Valley, by Location: 2010 to 2025 Sources: Connecticut State Data Center, Population Projections by Municipality: 2015, 2020, and 2025. U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 7 Figure 2c. Race and Ethnicity in the Naugatuck Valley: 2000 and 2010 B l a c k 6.7% W h i t e 76.1% H i s p a n i c 12.7% A s i a n 2.3% 2010 O t h e r 2.2% 2000 B l a c k 5.4% W h i t e 83.1% H i s p a n i c 8.2% A s i a n 1.5% O t h e r 1.8% “Other” includes American =ndian/Alaska Natives, Pacific =slanders, Some Other Race, and Multiracial persons. Black, Asian, Other, and White populations only include non -:ispanic persons. Source: American Community Survey, 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, 2000 Census. Race and Ethnicity Immigration, migration, and higher birth rates among minority groups have made the region’s population more diverse than ever before. As of 2010, 86,052 residents were of a minority race or ethnicity, making up 23.9% of the total. This is an increase from 2000, when just 16.9% of the population be- longed to a minority group. From 2000 to 2010, the urban core experienced “white flight” as their non -Hispanic white populations declined by over 20,000. This coincided with rapid growth among Hispanics, African Amer- icans, and Asians. Waterbury is a minority -majority city, with 54.6% of its population belonging to a minority racial or ethnic group. Ansonia, Derby, Naugatuck, and Bristol have the next highest minority popula- tions. Outside of the urban core, less than 10% of the population belongs to a minority group, although this trend is changing. Between 2000 and 2010, in- ner ring and outer ring communities saw their minority populations grow at rates of 60.6% and 94.7% respectively, exceeding the urban core growth rate of 43.3%. Hispanics are the largest and fastest growing minority group in the region with a population of 57,176, a 63% in- crease from 2000. Hispanics now make up 12.7% of the population. A majority of Hispanics who live in the region are of Puerto Rican heritage, including nearly 25,000 who live in Waterbury. There was also sizable growth among African Americans, who make up 6.7% of the population. Asians, the second fastest growing minority group from 2000 to 2010 (61.9%), are more likely to live in the suburbs than the urban core. Figure 2c compares the racial and ethnic composition of the Naugatuck Valley in 2000 and 2010. 8 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Age The region’s population is aging. In 1990, the median age was 34.3. By 2000 it increased to 37.6, and by 2010 reached 40.7 years old. The urban core has the youngest median age at 37.3 years old while the outer ring is the oldest at 45.1 years old. From 2000 to 2010, the number of residents over the age of 65 increased by 5.1%, with the fastest growth in the inner ring (15.9%) and outer ring (26.5%). The urban core saw a decrease in elderly residents (-6.4%). The aging trend will accelerate as baby boomers reach retirement age. The population over the age of 65 is pro- jected to balloon from 66,227 in 2010 to over 100,000 by 2025. The working -aged (age 15 to 64) popu- lation is expected to stay stable up to 2020 and then decline slightly by 2025. As the baby boomers age into retire- ment, millennials (born between 1980 and 2000) will make up a greater por- tion of the region’s workforce. As of 2010 there are 83,735 children under the age of 15, making up 18.7% of the total. This age group is expected to decline to 70,805 by 2025. Inner ring and outer ring communities are projected to see their population un- der age 15 decrease by over 25%. The changing age structure of the re- gion will shift the financial burdens of municipalities. Budgets will shift away from education and youth services to- wards elderly services such as health care, transportation, and recreation. This is particularly true in inner and outer ring communities, where a dra- matic increase in elderly population will correspond with a decrease in school -aged population. Greater finan- cial burdens will be placed on the working aged population, who will have to support the growing number of retirees. Figure 2d. Population by Age in the Naugatuck Valley, 2010 and 2025 2025 2010 Source: Connecticut State Data Center, Population Projections: 2010 -2025 U.S. Census 2010 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 9 Household and Family Structure Household arrangements have changed as the average age of mar- riage increases, family sizes decrease, and life expectancy increases. For the first time in history, less than half of the region’s households are made up of married couples. Persons living alone, cohabitating couples, married couples without children, and single parent households are becoming more prevalent. Less than half of married couples have children age 18 and under. “Empty nesters” are becoming more common as the millennial generation ages, and many young couples have delayed hav- ing children in the last few years due to economic uncertainty. Household structure in the urban core differs significantly from the inner and outer ring communities. Just 40.5% of urban core households are married couples compared to 57.8% in the in- ner ring and 61.2% in the outer ring. A disproportionate number of single – parent households are found in the urban core. Education As of 2012, 27.8% of the region’s adults age 25 and over have a Bache- lor’s degree or higher. This compares to 28.5% of adults nationwide, and 36.1% statewide. There is a large dis- crepancy in educational attainment between the urban core and the re- mainder of the region. In the urban core, just 19.7% of the population age 25 and older has a Bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 35% in the in- ner ring, and 38.3% in the outer ring. Since 2000, educational attainment has improved across all municipalities. The number of residents with a Bache- lor’s degree increased by 28.7%, with the fastest increase occurring in the urban core. During the same period, the number of residents without a high school diploma dropped by over 25%. Education is strongly correlated with income. Persons with a college degree have much higher incomes than high school graduates. Municipalities with a higher proportion of college gradu- ates have higher incomes than less educated municipalities. Figure 2e be- low illustrates the relationship be- tween education and income. Urban Core Region Outer Ring Inner Ring Figure 2e. Educational Attainment and Household In- come, by Loca- tion 2008 -2012 $40, 000 $60, 000 $80, 000 $100,000 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% Me d i an Ho usehold In come Pe rce n t o f Ad ults with Bachelor’ s De grees 10 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Income and Poverty There is a large income gap between the urban core and remainder of the region. From 2008 to 2012, median household income in the urban core was $50,600 compared to $84,500 in the inner ring and $85,800 in the outer ring. Over a quarter of households in the urban core are low income (making less than $25,000 per year) compared to 12% in the inner ring and 11.6% in the outer ring. On the opposite end of the income spectrum, over 40% of households in the inner and outer ring are high income (making $100,000 or more per year) compared to less than 20% in the urban core. The Great Recession negatively im- pacted household and family income throughout the region. In addition, the growing number of elderly persons puts additional financial strain on households (retirees have less income than working -aged persons). Since 1999, median household income de- clined in 14 out of 19 municipalities. The highest drops in household income occurred in the outer ring towns of Southbury, Woodbury, and Bethlehem. These three towns have large and growing elderly populations. The number of people in poverty in- creased by 43.5% from 2000 to 2012. In 2000, there were 31,412 persons living in poverty (7.5% of total). By 2012, it had increased to 45,081 (10.3% of total). Poverty increased at an equal rate in urban core, inner ring, and outer ring municipalities. Water- bury, which has a poverty rate of 21.9%, is home to over half of the re- gion’s impoverished. Child poverty is a prevalent issue in the urban core, where 24.5% of chil- dren live below the poverty line. Anso- nia, Derby and Waterbury have child poverty rates exceeding 20%. Child poverty is also strongly correlated with household structure. Children in single parent households are 4.4 times more likely to live in poverty than house- holds with both parents present. Figure 2f. Percentage of Households that are Low Income and High Income, by Location, 2008 -2012 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 11 The Naugatuck Valley economy was hit hard by the 2007 to 2009 recession. The major economic trends shaping the region are:  Unemployment disproportionately affects young workers under the age of 25.  As of 2013, the region has gained back 42% of the jobs that were lost during the recession.  Jobs are suburbanizing. During the last ten years the inner ring saw job growth while the urban core lost jobs.  Over half of Naugatuck Valley resi- dents commute to jobs outside the region. Labor Force The labor force is made up of Nau- gatuck Valley residents over the age of 16 who are either employed, or are unemployed and looking for work. As of 2013, the region’s labor force was 231,896, of which 211,778 were em- ployed and 20,118 were unemployed. From 2010 to 2013 the state and re- gion experienced a labor force contrac- tion, meaning that there were fewer residents who were employed or look- ing for work. The labor force contrac- tion can be attributed to stagnant job growth, unemployed workers dropping out of the labor force, and a growing number of residents hitting retirement age. Data from the first half of 2014 indicates that the labor force is grow- ing for the first time since 2009. People who had difficulty finding work during the last few years are reentering the labor force as the job market im- proves. Employment As of 2013 there were 211,778 em- ployed residents living in the region. This is a decline of nearly 10,000 (-4.1%) from 2007, when there were 221,045 employed residents. The num- ber of employed residents decreased every year from 2008 to 2013. Population projections indicate that a significant number of baby boomers are nearing retirement age. The num- ber of working aged residents is pro- jected to remain stable up to 2020 and decline thereafter as the last of the baby boomers retire. Attracting and retaining young workers will be neces- sary to replace the growing number of retirees. 3. Economic Trends Shelton Corporate Park, Shelton 12 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Figure 3a. Labor Force, Employment and Unemployment in the Naugatuck Valley: 2013 Unemployment From 2007 to 2010 the region saw the number of unemployed residents more than double from 11,954 to 25,273. The jump in unemployment was caused by both job losses and labor force growth. Unemployment has de- creased each year since 2010. As of 2013, it stands at 20,118, or 8.7% of the labor force. The labor force con- traction (unemployed persons that have stopped looking for work) is re- sponsible for some of the drop in un- employment. Despite improvements over the last three years, the unem- ployment rate remains above state and national averages. Figure 3a sum- marizes labor force, employment, and unemployment trends over the last 20 years. Unemployment trends vary by location and age. As of 2013, unemployment is highest in the urban core communities of Waterbury (12.5%), Naugatuck (9.4%), and Ansonia (9.3%) and lowest in the outer ring communities of Beth- lehem (5.8%), Woodbury (5.9%), and Middlebury (5.9%). Due to the collapse of the stock market from 2007 to 2009, many older work- ers have continued to work into retire- ment age. This trend, combined with the lack of new job creation, has led to a disproportionately high unemploy- ment rate among young people. The unemployment rate for residents un- der the age of 25 is 18.4% compared to 8.8% for middle aged workers (age 25 – 44) and 7.7% for older workers (age 45 and older). Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 13 Jobs During the recession, the region expe- rienced sharper job losses than the state and nation as a whole. From 2007 to 2011, 12,337 jobs were lost, a decline of 7.6%. The manufacturing, finance and insurance, and construc- tion sectors experienced the sharpest job losses. Some sectors, such as health care and social assistance, and educational services, added jobs during the recession. These sectors have tra- ditionally been “recession -proof.” Since 2011 the economy has improved, adding over 5,000 jobs. As of 2013, the region has gained back 41.8% of the jobs that were lost during the reces- sion. Comparatively, the state has gained back 87.8% of the jobs that were lost during the recession. As of 2013 there are 155,182 jobs in the region. Despite job losses during the last ten years, Waterbury remains the job center of the region followed by Shelton, Bristol, and Cheshire. As the population shifts to the suburbs, many employers have followed in or- der to be closer to their workforce. From 2004 to 2013, the urban core lost over 3,000 jobs while the inner ring gained nearly 1,500 jobs, mostly in Shelton and Cheshire. Outer ring towns with good highway access (such as Ox- ford and Middlebury) also saw job growth. Over the last half century, the region has shifted from a manufacturing – oriented economy to a service – oriented one. Health care and social assistance is now the largest job sector followed by government (which in- cludes public school teachers). While much less prominent than in the past, manufacturing remains the third larg- est sector of the region’s economy, with over 20,000 jobs. A majority of manufacturing jobs are now located outside of the urban core. Employment projections from the Con- necticut Department of Labor indicate that the health care and social assis- tance sector will drive job creation up to 2020, largely due to increased de- mand for health care by the baby boomers. Other sectors projected to add jobs up to 2020 are professional and business services, and construc- tion, although the latter is largely de- pendent on the housing market. Figure 3b. ESPN in Bristol is the largest employer in the region, with 3,800 workers 14 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Commuting There is a large mismatch between the number of employed residents living in the region and the number of jobs in the region. There are enough jobs to employ just 73% of working residents. The result is a net export of over 56,000 workers each day to other re- gions, with many commuting to Hart- ford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Danbury, and lower Fairfield County. Cheshire, Middlebury, Shelton, and Southbury are the only municipalities in the region that have more jobs than employed residents. The remaining municipalities have more employed residents than jobs and are net export- ers of commuters. As of 2011, when the most recent com- muting data was available, just 41.3% of employed Naugatuck Valley resi- dents worked in the region. The re- maining 58.7% commute to jobs out- side of the region. Waterbury is the most popular commuting destination followed by Bristol and Shelton. Out- side of the region, the most popular destinations are Hartford, New Haven, Stratford, Bridgeport, and Danbury. Similarly, nearly half of the people who work in the Naugatuck Valley live out- side of the region. Wages The average wage of workers in the region is $54,913 which is above the national average of $46,440, but below the state average of $62,284. Since 2007, the region has seen wages de- crease at a smaller rate ( -0.4%) than the state, which declined by -3.7%. Average wages vary significantly from sector to sector. The Management of Companies and Enterprises has an av- erage wage of over $275,000, while the Accommodation and Food Services Sector has an average wage of just $16,600. Table 3a below shows the highest and lowest wage sectors in the region. Sector Average Wage Management of Companies and Enterprises $276,336 Information $107,270 Utilities $105,116 Finance and Insurance $85,416 Manufacturing $72,651 Top 5 Highest Paying Sectors Bottom 5 Lowest Paying Sectors Table 3a. Highest and Lowest Paying Sectors of the Naugatuck Val- ley Economy: 2013 Sector Average Wage Accommodation and Food Services $16,602 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation $19,143 Other Services $24,233 Retail Trade $29,504 Agriculture $30,066 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 15 In recent years, the housing market has been shaped by the Great Reces- sion and ensuing housing bubble. The major housing trends shaping the region are:  New construction in the outer ring is outpacing new construction in the rest of the region.  Since peaking in 2005, new con- struction decreased -82% by 2009.  Home prices grew rapidly from 2003 to 2007, but have declined each year since 2007.  Homes in the region are more af- fordable than the state as a whole.  Most of the affordable housing in the region is found in the urban core. New Construction During the early 2000s the region ex- perienced a building boom. New con- struction peaked from 2002 to 2005 when over 5,000 housing units were built. The vast majority (85%) of new homes were single -family homes. Shel- ton and Oxford led the region in new construction. Shelton added 826 hous- ing units (340 of which were multi – family) while Oxford added 715 single family units. Similar to population trends, housing growth was fastest in the outer ring (7.9%) and inner ring (5.6%). Due to shrinking household sizes, housing has grown at a faster rate than the number of households. New home construction peaked in 2005 with 1,676 units, but fell to just 302 units in 2009 as the national hous- ing bubble burst. New construction has remained well below its historic levels since then. The multi family market has picked up pace in 2012 and 2013 due to apartment and condominium con- struction in Shelton. Construction of new single family homes has remained stagnant. 4. Housing Trends Figure 4a. Newly Constructed Housing Units in the Naugatuck Valley, by Unit Size: 2004 to 2013 Oxford Greens, Oxford 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Singl e Fa mily Multi Fa mily 16 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Urban Core Originally built to house factory workers, two and three family homes are com- monly found throughout the urban core. Inner Ring Containing a mix of both urban and suburban charac- teristics, the inner ring offers a varie- ty of housing op- tions. Outer Ring Since 1990, much of the new con- struction in the region has oc- curred in the outer ring. Single -family homes on large lots have been the predominant form of development. Housing Stock As of 2013, the region has 186,044 housing units. Single -family homes comprise 65% of units. Outer ring com- munities such as Oxford, Bethlehem, and Prospect are made up almost en- tirely of single -family homes. By con- trast, a vast majority of the region’s multi -family housing units are found in the urban core. However, in the last decade, a majority of the new multi – family units were built outside of the urban core. Homes in the inner and outer ring are larger and newer than their urban core counterparts. The median year of con- struction for the region is 1965. The urban core has the oldest housing stock (1959) followed by the inner ring (1969) and outer ring (1974). Suburban homes are also larger. Over 60% of housing units in the inner and outer rings have six or more rooms compared to 41.3% in the urban core. Home Ownership As of 2012, 70.1% of households in the region live in an owner -occupied home. This is slightly higher than the 68.3% homeownership rate statewide. Out- side the core, over 80% of households live in owner -occupied homes. Three – quarters of all rental units are located in the urban core. Homeownership trends also vary by type of housing unit and income. Single family units are much more likely to be owner occupied (91.9%) than multi – family units (24.3%). High income households are more likely to own a home than low income households. Less than 40% of households that make under $25,000 live in an owner – occupied unit compared to over 90% for households that make over $100,000. Katharine Matthies House, Seymour Wolcott Green Historic District, Wolcott West End neighborhood, Bristol Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 17 Home Values In keeping with national and state trends, the region saw rapid home val- ue appreciation in the early 2000s. From 2003 to 2007, the equalized net grand list, or ENGL, (the total market value of all properties in the region) increased by 36.2%, or nearly $16 bil- lion. While the bulk of the increase was due to overvalued real estate, some of the increase was due to new construc- tion. After peaking in 2007, the hous- ing market began its subsequent col- lapse. From 2007 to 2012, the ENGL dropped by -24%, a loss of $14.5 bil- lion. The urban core saw the highest ENGL growth from 2003 to 2007 (38.7%) followed by the sharpest de- cline from 2007 to 2012 ( -26.6%). Fig- ure 4b shows changes in inflation ad- justed ENGL from 2002 to 2013. The drop in property values and mu- nicipal grand list value has led to fiscal challenges for municipalities, who have been forced to either raise property tax rates, cut services, or both. In addi- tion, many homeowners have negative equity (their home is worth less than their mortgage) leading to increases in foreclosure and home vacancy. Despite volatility in the housing market over the last few years, the region re- mains more affordable than the state as a whole. The median home value for owner occupied units in the region is $249,000, compared to $285,900 statewide. Eleven of the 19 municipali- ties in the region are more affordable than the statewide median. Homes are most affordable in the urban core ($193,000) while the inner ($299,000) and outer ($326,000) rings have the most expensive homes. Figure 4b. Inflation Adjusted Equalized Net Grand List, by Location: 2003 to 2012 Urban Core Inner Ring Outer Ring Source: Connecticut Office of Policy and Management, Municipal Fiscal =ndicators Report, 2008 -2012, and 2003 -2007 $0 $10, 000 $20, 000 $30, 000 $40, 000 $50, 000 $60, 000 $70, 000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Equalized Net Grand List ($millions) Year 18 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Housing Costs Monthly homeowner costs and month- ly rent also provide insight into the re- gion’s affordability. Median monthly homeowner costs range from a low of $1,420 in Water- bury to $2,062 in Cheshire. Homeown- ers with a mortgage pay more than twice as much per month as homeown- ers without a mortgage. From 2000 to 2012, median monthly homeowner costs have risen between 7% and 25% depending on the municipality . Non – mortgaged homeowner costs increased at a faster rate than mortgage costs, suggesting that fuel prices, electricity rates, taxes, and insurance are increas- ing . Renters pay less per month than home- owners. Median gross rents (lease amount plus utilities) range from a low of $478 in Middlebury to $1,490 in Ox- ford. Rent has not increased as fast as homeowner costs. In five outer ring towns, inflation -adjusted rents actually decreased from 2002 to 2012 . Affordable Housing The U.S. Census Bureau uses 30% of household income as a standard for measuring housing affordability. In or- der to be considered affordable, home- owners should pay 30% or less of their income towards housing. As of 2012, 40.6% of households pay 30% or more of their income towards housing. Renters (49.5%) are more likely to pay 30% or more of their income towards housing than homeowners (36.9%). More than half of urban core residents pay 30% or more of their income for housing. Low income households may qualify for publicly assisted housing programs such as Section 8 vouchers, deed re- strictions, and Connecticut Housing Finance Authority (CHFA) or Farmer’s Home Administration (FmHA) mortgag- es. Over 85% of publicly assisted hous- ing units are found in the urban core, including more than half in the City of Waterbury. Municipalities that have less than 10% affordable housing are subject to Con- necticut General Statutes (CGS) Section 8-30g, which exempts affordable hous- ing developments from local zoning regulations. Ansonia (15.3%), Bristol (13.5%), Derby (10.8%), and Waterbury (23.3%) are the only municipalities that meet the 10% affordable housing threshold. The remaining municipalities have less than 10% affordable housing and are subject to CGS Section 8 -30g. Figure 4c. Percent of Housing Units that are Affordable, by Location: 2013 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 19 Appendix A Population and Demographic Trends Tables and Maps Topic Page Population ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. . 20 Population Density ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 22 Race and Ethnicity ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 24 Hispanic Population ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 26 Age Distribution ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 28 Elderly Population ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 30 Median Age ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………………. 32 Income Distribution ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 34 Income ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……. 36 Poverty ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 38 Household Structure ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 40 Educational Attainment ………………………….. ………………………….. ………… 44 Population Projections ………………………….. ………………………….. ………….. 46 Waterbury on Wheels 20 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A1. Population Growth in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2000 -2013 Population Percent Change Geography 2013 2010 2000 2010 -2013 2000 -2013 Ansonia 19,020 19,249 18,554 -1.2% 2.5% Beacon Falls 6,052 6,049 5,246 0.0% 15.4% Bethlehem 3,553 3,607 3,422 -1.5% 3.8% Bristol 60,568 60,477 60,062 0.2% 0.8% Cheshire 29,150 29,261 28,543 -0.4% 2.1% Derby 12,801 12,902 12,391 -0.8% 3.3% Middlebury 7,571 7,575 6,451 -0.1% 17.4% Naugatuck 31,707 31,862 30,989 -0.5% 2.3% Oxford 12,874 12,683 9,821 1.5% 31.1% Plymouth 12,047 12,213 11,634 -1.4% 3.5% Prospect 9,671 9,405 8,707 2.8% 11.1% Seymour 16,571 16,540 15,454 0.2% 7.2% Shelton 40,999 39,559 38,101 3.6% 7.6% Southbury 19,859 19,904 18,567 -0.2% 7.0% Thomaston 7,761 7,887 7,503 -1.6% 3.4% Waterbury 109,676 110,366 107,271 -0.6% 2.2% Watertown 22,228 22,514 21,661 -1.3% 2.6% Wolcott 16,725 16,680 15,215 0.3% 9.9% Woodbury 9,822 9,975 9,198 -1.5% 6.8% Region Total 448,655 448,708 428,790 0.0% 4.6% Urban Core 233,772 234,856 229,267 -0.5% 2.4% Inner Ring 128,756 127,974 122,896 0.6% 4.1% Outer Ring 86,127 85,878 76,627 0.3% 12.1% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 Population Estimates, 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 21 Figure A1. Population in the Naugatuck Valley, by Census Block: 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census 22 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A2. Population Density in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2000 -2013 Land Area % Change Population Density (Per Sq. Mi.) Geography (Sq. Mi.) 2013 2010 2000 2000 -2013 Ansonia 6.2 3,074 3,111 2,999 2.5% Beacon Falls 9.8 619 618 536 15.4% Bethlehem 19.7 181 183 174 3.8% Bristol 26.8 2,259 2,255 2,240 0.8% Cheshire 33.4 874 877 856 2.1% Derby 5.4 2,368 2,387 2,292 3.3% Middlebury 18.4 410 411 350 17.4% Naugatuck 16.4 1,933 1,943 1,890 2.3% Oxford 33.3 386 380 295 31.1% Plymouth 22.3 539 547 521 3.5% Prospect 14.5 668 650 602 11.1% Seymour 15.0 1,106 1,104 1,032 7.2% Shelton 31.9 1,285 1,240 1,194 7.6% Southbury 40.1 496 497 463 7.0% Thomaston 12.2 636 646 615 3.4% Waterbury 28.9 3,790 3,813 3,706 2.2% Watertown 29.5 753 763 734 2.6% Wolcott 21.1 793 791 721 9.9% Woodbury 36.6 268 272 251 6.8% Region Total 421.5 1,064 1,064 1,017 4.6% Urban Core 83.7 2,791 2,804 2,738 2.0% Inner Ring 144.3 892 887 852 4.8% Outer Ring 193.5 445 444 396 12.4% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 Population Estimates , 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 23 Figure A2. Population Density in the Naugatuck Valley, by Census Block: 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census 24 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A3. Race and Ethnicity in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2010 Non Hispanic Hispanic or Latino Percent Minority Geography White Black Asian Other Ansonia 13,163 2,040 365 469 3,212 31.6% Beacon Falls 5,515 87 70 77 300 8.8% Bethlehem 3,477 16 18 35 61 3.6% Bristol 50,194 2,035 1,155 1,264 5,829 17.0% Cheshire 24,637 1,374 1,477 398 1,375 15.8% Derby 9,599 891 323 259 1,830 25.6% Middlebury 6,925 67 286 89 208 8.6% Naugatuck 25,767 1,427 962 777 2,929 19.1% Oxford 11,745 134 195 141 468 7.4% Plymouth 11,494 94 98 187 370 6.1% Prospect 8,740 175 73 105 312 7.1% Seymour 14,516 395 359 206 1,064 12.2% Shelton 34,333 865 1,522 486 2,353 13.2% Southbury 18,462 156 531 232 523 7.2% Thomaston 7,511 27 58 89 202 4.8% Waterbury 50,081 19,654 1,933 4,252 34,446 54.6% Watertown 20,707 292 376 301 838 8.0% Wolcott 15,360 261 205 243 611 7.9% Woodbury 9,366 55 167 142 245 6.1% Region Total 341,592 30,045 10,173 9,752 57,176 23.9% Urban Core 148,804 26,047 4,738 7,021 48,246 36.6% Inner Ring 113,198 3,047 3,890 1,667 6,202 11.6% Outer Ring 79,590 951 1,545 1,064 2,728 7.3% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau , 2010 U.S. Census Note: “Other” category includes Pacific =slander, American =ndian/Alaska Natives, Other, or 2 or more aces Minority population includes Black, Asian, Other, and :ispanic populations Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 25 Figure A3. Minority Population in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census Note: Minority population includes Black, Asian, Other, and :ispanic populations 26 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A4. Hispanic Population in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2000 -2010 Number Percent of Total % Change 2000 -2010 Geography 2010 2000 2010 2000 Ansonia 3,212 1,376 16.7% 7.4% 133.4% Beacon Falls 300 112 5.0% 2.1% 167.9% Bethlehem 61 22 1.7% 0.6% 177.3% Bristol 5,829 3,166 9.6% 5.3% 84.1% Cheshire 1,375 1,097 4.7% 3.8% 25.3% Derby 1,830 950 14.2% 7.7% 92.6% Middlebury 208 79 2.7% 1.2% 163.3% Naugatuck 2,929 1,386 9.2% 4.5% 111.3% Oxford 468 180 3.7% 1.8% 160.0% Plymouth 370 147 3.0% 1.3% 151.7% Prospect 312 168 3.3% 1.9% 85.7% Seymour 1,064 470 6.4% 3.0% 126.4% Shelton 2,353 1,326 5.9% 3.5% 77.5% Southbury 523 296 2.6% 1.6% 76.7% Thomaston 202 109 2.6% 1.5% 85.3% Waterbury 34,446 23,354 31.2% 21.8% 47.5% 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% Region Total 57,176 35,069 12.7% 8.2% 63.0% Urban Core 48,246 30,232 20.5% 13.2% 59.6% Inner Ring 6,202 3,555 4.8% 2.9% 74.5% Outer Ring 2,728 1,282 3.2% 1.7% 112.8% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 27 Figure A4. Hispanic Population in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census 28 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A5. Age Distribution in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2010 Total Population Age Group Geography Under 5 Years 5-17 Years 18 -24 Years 25 -34 Years 35 -44 Years 45 -64 Years > 64 Years Ansonia 19,249 1,184 3,395 1,643 2,629 2,599 5,207 2,592 Beacon Falls 6,049 321 1,056 428 635 939 1,887 783 Bethlehem 3,607 132 615 241 227 448 1,405 539 Bristol 60,477 3,416 9,547 4,790 8,194 8,399 17,105 9,026 Cheshire 29,261 1,291 5,802 2,299 2,443 4,187 9,137 4,102 Derby 12,902 804 1,904 1,067 1,777 1,809 3,526 2,015 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 Plymouth 12,243 589 2,118 920 1,335 1,802 3,912 1,567 Prospect 9,405 428 1,696 711 702 1,367 3,076 1,425 Seymour 16,540 858 2,760 1,235 1,852 2,438 5,047 2,350 Shelton 39,559 1,851 6,487 2,640 3,844 5,372 12,462 6,903 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 Waterbury 110,366 7,920 20,345 11,095 15,600 14,647 26,816 13,943 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 Region Total 448,738 24,969 78,609 35,902 51,379 61,738 129,914 66,227 Urban Core 234,856 15,211 40,684 21,330 32,704 31,999 61,546 31,382 Inner Ring 128,004 6,000 22,430 9,223 12,405 17,992 40,348 19,606 Outer Ring 85,878 3,758 15,495 5,349 6,270 11,747 28,020 15,239 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 29 Table A6. Age Distribution (Percent) in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality 2010 Age Group Geography Under 5 Years 5-17 Years 18 -24 Years 25 -34 Years 35 -44 Years 45 -64 Years Over 64 Years Ansonia 6.2% 17.6% 8.5% 13.7% 13.5% 27.1% 13.5% Beacon Falls 5.3% 17.5% 7.1% 10.5% 15.5% 31.2% 12.9% Bethlehem 3.7% 17.1% 6.7% 6.3% 12.4% 39.0% 14.9% Bristol 5.6% 15.8% 7.9% 13.5% 13.9% 28.3% 14.9% Cheshire 4.4% 19.8% 7.9% 8.3% 14.3% 31.2% 14.0% Derby 6.2% 14.8% 8.3% 13.8% 14.0% 27.3% 15.6% Middlebury 4.7% 19.9% 5.7% 6.8% 14.9% 30.9% 17.2% Naugatuck 5.9% 17.2% 8.6% 14.1% 14.3% 27.9% 11.9% Oxford 5.4% 18.9% 5.7% 7.8% 15.2% 33.4% 13.5% Plymouth 4.8% 17.3% 7.5% 10.9% 14.7% 32.0% 12.8% Prospect 4.6% 18.0% 7.6% 7.5% 14.5% 32.7% 15.2% Seymour 5.2% 16.7% 7.5% 11.2% 14.7% 30.5% 14.2% Shelton 4.7% 16.4% 6.7% 9.7% 13.6% 31.5% 17.4% Southbury 3.6% 16.8% 4.8% 5.4% 11.3% 31.8% 26.3% Thomaston 4.6% 18.4% 6.7% 9.4% 15.3% 32.2% 13.3% Waterbury 7.2% 18.4% 10.1% 14.1% 13.3% 24.3% 12.6% Watertown 4.7% 16.9% 7.1% 9.7% 13.2% 32.2% 16.2% Wolcott 4.4% 19.0% 7.8% 8.2% 14.6% 30.7% 15.2% Woodbury 4.0% 17.1% 5.5% 7.6% 12.5% 36.2% 17.1% Region Total 5.6% 17.5% 8.0% 11.4% 13.8% 29.0% 14.8% Urban Core 6.5% 17.3% 9.1% 13.9% 13.6% 26.2% 13.4% Inner Ring 4.7% 17.5% 7.2% 9.7% 14.1% 31.5% 15.3% Outer Ring 4.4% 18.0% 6.2% 7.3% 13.7% 32.6% 17.7% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census 30 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A7. Population Age 65 Years Old and Over in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2000 -2010 2010 2000 % Change Geography Number Percent Number Percent 2000 -2010 Ansonia 2,592 13.5% 2,871 15.5% -9.7% Beacon Falls 783 12.9% 506 9.6% 54.7% Bethlehem 539 14.9% 440 12.9% 22.5% Bristol 9,026 14.9% 8,925 14.9% 1.1% Cheshire 4,102 14.0% 3,592 12.6% 14.2% Derby 2,015 15.6% 2,059 16.6% -2.1% Middlebury 1,302 17.2% 1,067 16.5% 22.0% Naugatuck 3,806 11.9% 3,633 11.7% 4.8% Oxford 1,712 13.5% 857 8.7% 99.8% Plymouth 1,567 12.8% 1,473 12.7% 6.4% Prospect 1,425 15.2% 1,153 13.2% 23.6% Seymour 2,350 14.2% 2,221 14.4% 5.8% Shelton 6,903 17.4% 5,672 14.9% 21.7% Southbury 5,235 26.3% 4,841 26.1% 8.1% Thomaston 1,047 13.3% 909 12.1% 15.2% Waterbury 13,943 12.6% 16,045 15.0% -13.1% Watertown 3,637 16.2% 3,050 14.1% 19.2% Wolcott 2,540 15.2% 1,992 13.1% 27.5% Woodbury 1,703 17.1% 1,193 13.0% 42.7% Region Total 66,227 14.8% 62,499 14.6% 6.0% Urban Core 31,382 13.4% 33,533 14.6% -6.4% Inner Ring 19,606 15.3% 16,917 13.8% 15.9% Outer Ring 15,239 17.7% 12,049 15.7% 26.5% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 31 Figure A5. Population Age 65 Years Old and Over in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census 32 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A8. Median Age in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 1980 to 2010 Median Age % Change Geography 2010 2000 1990 1990 -2010 Ansonia 38.4 36.8 34.0 12.9% Beacon Falls 41.5 36.7 32.6 27.3% Bethlehem 47.1 42.2 36.2 30.1% Bristol 40.3 37.6 33.7 19.6% Cheshire 42.2 38.4 35.5 18.9% Derby 40.3 37.7 35.6 13.2% Middlebury 43.9 42.8 40.1 9.5% Naugatuck 38.2 35.5 32.2 18.6% Oxford 43.4 38.4 34.0 27.6% Plymouth 41.9 37.5 33.9 23.6% Prospect 43.8 39.4 36.3 20.7% Seymour 41.6 38.5 34.7 19.9% Shelton 44.4 39.8 35.3 25.8% Southbury 49.9 45.7 42.9 16.3% Thomaston 42.5 37.8 34.1 24.6% Waterbury 35.2 34.9 33.3 5.7% Watertown 44.0 39.0 35.6 23.6% Wolcott 42.7 38.1 35.5 20.3% Woodbury 46.9 41.0 37.0 26.8% Region Total 40.1 37.6 34.3 16.9% Urban Core 37.3 35.9 33.2 12.3% Inner Ring 42.9 38.7 35.0 22.6% Outer Ring 45.1 40.6 37.4 20.6% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census, 1990 U.S. Census Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 33 Figure A6. Median Age in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census 34 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A9. Household Income Distribution in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2008 -2012 Total Households Household Income ($) Geography Less than $25,000 $25,000 – $49,999 $50,000 – $74,999 $75,000 – $99,999 $100,000 or More Ansonia 7,380 1,606 1,827 1,234 1,202 1,511 Beacon Falls 2,244 249 446 362 366 821 Bethlehem 1,409 155 230 216 318 490 Bristol 25,231 4,632 5,943 5,108 3,654 5,894 Cheshire 9,528 800 1,094 1,107 1,114 5,413 Derby 5,195 1,237 1,168 1,029 667 1,094 Middlebury 2,797 272 411 315 451 1,348 Naugatuck 12,461 2,401 2,719 2,258 1,776 3,307 Oxford 4,420 277 464 542 653 2,484 Plymouth 4,739 604 751 1,062 848 1,474 Prospect 3,280 260 491 469 600 1,460 Seymour 6,313 1,161 864 1,168 912 2,208 Shelton 15,019 1,720 2,507 2,564 1,980 6,248 Southbury 8,022 1,441 1,700 1,114 746 3,021 Thomaston 3,192 393 642 686 432 1,039 Waterbury 42,241 13,508 10,815 7,850 4,513 5,555 Watertown 8,578 996 1,581 1,407 1,500 3,094 Wolcott 5,947 664 944 1,124 1,055 2,160 Woodbury 4,204 447 808 713 568 1,668 Region Total 172,200 32,823 35,405 30,328 23,355 50,289 Urban Core 92,508 23,384 22,472 17,479 11,812 17,361 Inner Ring 47,369 5,674 7,439 7,994 6,786 19,476 Outer Ring 32,323 3,765 5,494 4,855 4,757 13,452 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B19001 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 35 Table A10. Household Income Distribution (Percent) in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality 2008 -2012 Household Income ($) Geography Less than $25,000 $25,000 – $49,999 $50,000 – $74,999 $75,000 – $99,999 $100,000 or More Ansonia 21.8% 24.8% 16.7% 16.3% 20.5% Beacon Falls 11.1% 19.9% 16.1% 16.3% 36.6% Bethlehem 11.0% 16.3% 15.3% 22.6% 34.8% Bristol 18.4% 23.6% 20.2% 14.5% 23.4% Cheshire 8.4% 11.5% 11.6% 11.7% 56.8% Derby 23.8% 22.5% 19.8% 12.8% 21.1% Middlebury 9.7% 14.7% 11.3% 16.1% 48.2% Naugatuck 19.3% 21.8% 18.1% 14.3% 26.5% Oxford 6.3% 10.5% 12.3% 14.8% 56.2% Plymouth 12.7% 15.8% 22.4% 17.9% 31.1% Prospect 7.9% 15.0% 14.3% 18.3% 44.5% Seymour 18.4% 13.7% 18.5% 14.4% 35.0% Shelton 11.5% 16.7% 17.1% 13.2% 41.6% Southbury 18.0% 21.2% 13.9% 9.3% 37.7% Thomaston 12.3% 20.1% 21.5% 13.5% 32.6% Waterbury 32.0% 25.6% 18.6% 10.7% 13.2% Watertown 11.6% 18.4% 16.4% 17.5% 36.1% Wolcott 11.2% 15.9% 18.9% 17.7% 36.3% Woodbury 10.6% 19.2% 17.0% 13.5% 39.7% Region Total 19.1% 20.6% 17.6% 13.6% 29.2% Urban Core 25.3% 24.3% 18.9% 12.8% 18.8% Inner Ring 12.0% 15.7% 16.9% 14.3% 41.1% Outer Ring 11.6% 17.0% 15.0% 14.7% 41.6% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B19001 36 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A11. Income in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 1999 -2012 (Inflation Adjusted) Median Household Income Median Family Income Geography 2012 1999 % Change 2012 1999 % Change Ansonia $54,720 $59,294 -7.7% $67,500 $74,029 -8.8% Beacon Falls $79,207 $77,989 1.6% $91,337 $86,078 6.1% Bethlehem $80,884 $94,458 -14.4% $93,657 $108,681 -13.8% Bristol $58,814 $65,352 -10.0% $74,185 $80,287 -7.6% Cheshire $110,587 $110,890 -0.3% $124,241 $125,096 -0.7% Derby $54,561 $62,938 -13.3% $63,967 $75,403 -15.2% Middlebury $97,996 $97,113 0.9% $107,188 $112,136 -4.4% Naugatuck $62,574 $70,623 -11.4% $76,846 $81,606 -5.8% Oxford $107,308 $106,287 1.0% $118,221 $110,830 6.7% Plymouth $73,603 $74,073 -0.6% $86,204 $86,283 -0.1% Prospect $95,325 $93,104 2.4% $102,083 $102,032 0.1% Seymour $73,099 $72,223 1.2% $92,350 $89,593 3.1% Shelton $83,755 $92,735 -9.7% $102,459 $104,078 -1.6% Southbury $67,195 $85,331 -21.3% $105,057 $111,776 -6.0% Thomaston $67,426 $74,827 -9.9% $83,096 $87,760 -5.3% Waterbury $40,867 $47,248 -13.5% $48,407 $58,294 -17.0% Watertown $80,899 $81,887 -1.2% $97,433 $94,760 2.8% Wolcott $80,655 $84,582 -4.6% $89,183 $93,135 -4.2% Woodbury $80,167 $94,155 -14.9% $101,063 $113,888 -11.3% Region Total $64,700 $69,870 -7.4% $81,000 $85,029 -4.7% Urban Core $50,600 $57,329 -11.7% $61,900 $70,421 -12.1% Inner Ring $84,500 $86,958 -2.8% $102,200 $100,188 2.0% Outer Ring $85,800 $91,368 -6.1% $101,800 $103,909 -2.0% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B19113, B19301 2000 U.S. Census [ CP= =nflation Rate 1999 -2012: 1.3781] Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 37 Figure A7. Median Household Income in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2008 -2012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B19013, 38 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A12. Poverty in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2000 -2012 2012 2000 Change 2000 -2012 Geography Number Percent Number Percent Net Percent Ansonia 2,651 13.9% 1,394 7.6% 1,257 90.2% Beacon Falls 231 3.8% 309 5.9% -78 -25.2% Bethlehem 155 4.4% 89 2.6% 66 74.2% Bristol 5,375 9.0% 3,921 6.6% 1,454 37.1% Cheshire 750 2.8% 750 3.0% 0 0.0% Derby 1,675 13.3% 1,014 8.3% 661 65.2% Middlebury 191 2.6% 174 2.7% 17 9.8% Naugatuck 2,708 8.6% 1,977 6.4% 731 37.0% Oxford 572 4.5% 206 2.1% 366 177.7% Plymouth 812 6.7% 470 4.1% 342 72.8% Prospect 299 3.2% 89 1.0% 210 236.0% Seymour 1,104 6.8% 573 3.7% 531 92.7% Shelton 1,708 4.4% 1,208 3.2% 500 41.4% Southbury 1,235 6.4% 878 4.9% 357 40.7% Thomaston 210 2.7% 311 4.2% -101 -32.5% Waterbury 23,632 21.9% 16,774 16.0% 6,858 40.9% Watertown 757 3.4% 471 2.2% 286 60.7% Wolcott 561 3.4% 392 2.6% 169 43.1% Woodbury 455 4.6% 412 4.5% 43 10.4% Region Total 45,081 10.3% 31,412 7.5% 13,669 43.5% Urban Core 36,041 15.6% 25,080 11.1% 10,961 43.7% Inner Ring 5,341 4.3% 3,783 3.2% 1,558 41.2% Outer Ring 3,699 4.4% 2,549 3.4% 1,150 45.1% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, C17002 2000 U.S. Census Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 39 Figure A8. Poverty Rate in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2008 -2012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, C17002 40 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A13. Household Structure in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2000 -2012 Total Households Family Households Non -Family Households Geography Single Parent Married Couple Ansonia 7,510 24.3% 42.7% 33.0% Beacon Falls 2,360 13.3% 57.4% 29.2% Bethlehem 1,411 11.1% 60.7% 28.2% Bristol 25,320 17.6% 45.0% 37.5% Cheshire 10,041 10.8% 64.1% 25.1% Derby 5,388 20.5% 39.6% 39.8% Middlebury 2,748 10.4% 66.3% 23.3% Naugatuck 12,339 18.8% 50.0% 31.2% Oxford 4,504 10.1% 71.4% 18.5% Plymouth 4,803 15.0% 54.8% 30.2% Prospect 3,357 11.6% 66.3% 22.1% Seymour 6,654 15.5% 51.4% 33.1% Shelton 15,325 13.1% 58.0% 28.9% Southbury 8,213 8.3% 56.1% 35.6% Thomaston 3,108 14.9% 55.0% 30.1% Waterbury 42,761 28.4% 34.7% 36.9% Watertown 8,672 14.3% 57.5% 28.2% Wolcott 6,007 14.9% 61.0% 24.1% Woodbury 4,214 10.3% 55.4% 34.3% Region Total 174,735 18.3% 49.2% 32.5% Urban Core 93,318 23.4% 40.5% 36.1% Inner Ring 48,603 13.5% 57.8% 28.8% Outer Ring 32,814 11.0% 61.2% 27.8% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 41 Figure A9. Single Parent Households in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2008 -2012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012 42 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A14. Average Household Size in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2000 -2012 Average Household Size % Change 1980 -2010 Geography 2010 2000 1990 1980 Ansonia 2.55 2.46 2.57 2.71 -5.9% Beacon Falls 2.56 2.58 2.69 2.98 -14.1% Bethlehem 2.49 2.69 2.73 2.86 -12.9% Bristol 2.35 2.38 2.51 2.77 -15.2% Cheshire 2.66 2.71 2.82 3.06 -13.1% Derby 2.35 2.32 2.40 2.65 -11.3% Middlebury 2.72 2.66 2.73 2.94 -7.5% Naugatuck 2.56 2.60 2.69 2.80 -8.6% Oxford 2.81 2.94 3.09 3.18 -11.6% Plymouth 2.53 2.60 2.72 2.92 -13.4% Prospect 2.76 2.83 2.97 3.24 -14.8% Seymour 2.46 2.49 2.55 2.73 -9.9% Shelton 2.55 2.65 2.79 3.05 -16.4% Southbury 2.33 2.41 2.34 2.39 -2.5% Thomaston 2.53 2.57 2.64 2.86 -11.5% Waterbury 2.54 2.46 2.48 2.67 -4.9% Watertown 2.57 2.67 2.80 3.00 -14.3% Wolcott 2.75 2.79 2.93 3.30 -16.7% Woodbury 2.36 2.48 2.51 2.61 -9.6% Region Total 2.53 2.54 2.62 2.81 -10.2% Urban Core 2.48 2.45 2.52 2.71 -8.5% Inner Ring 2.56 2.64 2.75 2.97 -13.8% Outer Ring 2.59 2.65 2.72 2.91 -11.0% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Table P17, Census 2000, Census 1990, Census 1980 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 43 Figure A10. Single Parent Households in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P17 44 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A15. Educational Attainment of Population Age 25 and Over, by Municipality: 2008 -2012 Population Age 25 and Over Less than High School High School Graduate Some College Associates Degree Bachelor's Degree or Higher Geography Ansonia 12,841 14.5% 39.1% 21.7% 8.4% 16.3% Beacon Falls 4,141 4.5% 33.7% 22.4% 8.1% 31.2% Bethlehem 2,596 5.2% 28.3% 18.4% 11.2% 36.9% Bristol 43,101 11.7% 37.4% 20.5% 7.4% 23.0% Cheshire 19,728 6.4% 20.8% 16.5% 6.3% 49.9% Derby 8,921 14.0% 34.7% 18.4% 7.2% 25.8% Middlebury 5,395 5.9% 20.2% 17.3% 9.6% 47.0% Naugatuck 22,327 12.9% 35.6% 20.1% 9.2% 22.3% Oxford 8,629 6.1% 27.8% 19.2% 6.2% 40.6% Plymouth 8,498 11.1% 32.0% 26.2% 11.3% 19.5% Prospect 6,646 9.6% 34.0% 15.3% 8.7% 32.4% Seymour 11,285 6.7% 37.9% 22.0% 6.9% 26.5% Shelton 28,902 8.0% 30.1% 17.9% 8.2% 35.8% Southbury 14,522 7.4% 23.6% 17.4% 7.1% 44.4% Thomaston 5,688 9.9% 34.7% 21.4% 9.2% 24.8% Waterbury 70,718 21.2% 35.9% 17.5% 8.7% 16.8% Watertown 15,768 7.2% 30.1% 21.0% 8.5% 33.1% Wolcott 11,520 7.6% 37.1% 20.7% 9.8% 24.9% Woodbury 7,265 4.7% 24.5% 14.7% 7.9% 48.3% Region Total 308,491 12.0% 32.9% 19.1% 8.2% 27.8% Urban Core 157,908 16.5% 36.4% 19.1% 8.3% 19.7% Inner Ring 89,869 7.8% 29.5% 19.7% 8.0% 35.0% Outer Ring 60,714 6.8% 28.6% 18.1% 8.2% 38.3% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B15002 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 45 Figure A11. Percent of Population Age 25 and Over with a Bachelor’s Degree, by Block Group: 2008 -2012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B15002 46 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A16. Population Projections in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2010 -2025 Population Projections % Change Geography 2010 2015 2020 2025 2010 -2025 Ansonia 19,249 19,714 20,169 20,571 6.9% Beacon Falls 6,061 6,376 6,648 6,879 13.5% Bethlehem 3,607 3,678 3,708 3,722 3.2% Bristol 60,477 60,807 60,956 60,704 0.4% Cheshire 29,261 29,275 29,122 28,930 -1.1% Derby 12,902 13,239 13,580 13,855 7.4% Middlebury 7,575 8,049 8,475 8,910 17.6% Naugatuck 31,862 32,438 32,877 33,078 3.8% Oxford 12,683 13,791 14,714 15,532 22.5% Plymouth 12,243 12,550 12,790 12,968 5.9% Prospect 9,405 9,659 9,866 10,057 6.9% Seymour 16,540 17,014 17,421 17,773 7.5% Shelton 39,559 39,981 40,094 39,985 1.1% Southbury 19,904 20,277 20,479 20,652 3.8% Thomaston 7,887 8,030 8,108 8,162 3.5% Waterbury 110,366 112,736 115,126 117,146 6.1% Watertown 22,514 22,863 23,020 23,029 2.3% Wolcott 16,680 17,287 17,818 18,352 10.0% Woodbury 9,975 10,234 10,393 10,493 5.2% Region Total 448,750 457,998 465,364 470,798 4.9% Urban Core 234,856 238,934 242,708 245,354 4.5% Inner Ring 128,004 129,713 130,555 130,847 2.2% Outer Ring 85,890 89,351 92,101 94,597 10.1% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010. Connecticut State Data Center, Population Projections: 2015 -2025 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 47 Table A17. Population Projections for Children and the Elderly in the Naugatuck Valley: 2010 -2025 Population Age 15 and Under Population Age 65 and Over Geography 2010 2025 % Change 2010 2025 % Change Ansonia 3,733 3,413 -8.6% 2,592 3,913 51.0% Beacon Falls 805 877 8.9% 1,089 1,675 53.8% Bethlehem 549 347 -36.8% 539 1,156 114.5% Bristol 10,645 9,690 -9.0% 9,026 13,209 46.3% Cheshire 5,457 3,337 -38.8% 4,102 6,164 50.3% Derby 2,212 2,335 5.6% 2,015 2,988 48.3% Middlebury 1,501 1,056 -29.6% 1,302 2,018 55.0% Naugatuck 5,975 5,425 -9.2% 3,806 6,452 69.5% Oxford 2,559 1,688 -34.0% 1,712 4,139 141.8% Plymouth 2,134 1,717 -19.5% 1,567 3,015 92.4% Prospect 1,705 1,222 -28.3% 1,425 2,538 78.1% Seymour 2,918 2,527 -13.4% 2,350 3,935 67.4% Shelton 6,735 5,065 -24.8% 6,903 10,661 54.4% Southbury 3,176 2,020 -36.4% 5,235 7,289 39.2% Thomaston 1,427 1,057 -25.9% 1,047 1,950 86.2% Waterbury 23,308 22,429 -3.8% 13,943 19,215 37.8% Watertown 3,849 2,998 -22.1% 3,637 6,263 72.2% Wolcott 3,080 2,465 -20.0% 2,540 4,147 63.3% Woodbury 1,650 1,137 -31.1% 1,703 3,243 90.4% Region Total 83,418 70,805 -15.1% 66,533 103,970 56.3% Urban Core 45,873 43,292 -5.6% 31,382 45,777 45.9% Inner Ring 22,520 16,701 -25.8% 19,606 31,988 63.2% Outer Ring 15,025 10,812 -28.0% 15,545 26,205 68.6% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010. Connecticut State Data Center, Population Projections: 2015 -2025 48 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 49 Appendix B Economic Trends Tables and Maps Topic Page Labor Force and Employment ………………………….. ………………………….. … 50 Unemployment Rate ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 51 Total Jobs ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. … 52 Jobs by Sector ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 54 Commuting Patterns ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 56 Jobs Vs. Employment ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………. 58 Wages ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …….. 59 Economic data presented in Appendix B comes from a variety of sources including the US Census Bureau, and the Connecticut Department of Labor. Datasets may not match up due to differing data collection methods and years of analysis. Derby Green, Derby 50 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table B1. Labor Force Status in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2013 Geography Labor Force Employed Unemployed Percent Unemployed Ansonia 10,040 9,108 932 9.3% Beacon Falls 3,356 3,120 236 7.0% Bethlehem 1,991 1,877 115 5.8% Bristol 33,365 30,660 2,705 8.1% Cheshire 14,474 13,583 891 6.2% Derby 6,895 6,316 579 8.4% Middlebury 3,919 3,687 233 5.9% Naugatuck 16,661 15,096 1,565 9.4% Oxford 7,332 6,894 438 6.0% Plymouth 6,759 6,156 603 8.9% Prospect 5,269 4,915 354 6.7% Seymour 9,198 8,493 705 7.7% Shelton 22,493 20,920 1,572 7.0% Southbury 8,934 8,346 588 6.6% Thomaston 4,494 4,143 352 7.8% Waterbury 50,323 44,010 6,313 12.5% Watertown 11,916 11,003 913 7.7% Wolcott 8,951 8,250 701 7.8% Woodbury 5,527 5,202 325 5.9% Region Total 231,896 211,778 20,118 8.7% Urban Core 117,284 105,190 12,094 10.3% Inner Ring 69,333 64,298 5,035 7.3% Outer Ring 45,279 42,290 2,989 6.6% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), by Town 2007 -2013 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 51 Table B2. Unemployment Rate in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2007 -2013 Unemployment Rate Geography 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Ansonia 9.3% 10.1% 10.2% 11.0% 9.9% 7.0% 5.6% Beacon Falls 7.0% 8.0% 8.5% 9.6% 8.8% 5.6% 4.4% Bethlehem 5.8% 6.7% 7.1% 7.9% 7.6% 4.6% 3.7% Bristol 8.1% 8.6% 9.2% 10.2% 9.1% 6.1% 5.1% Cheshire 6.2% 6.5% 7.1% 7.2% 6.4% 4.4% 3.7% Derby 8.4% 9.1% 9.5% 10.7% 9.4% 6.6% 5.1% Middlebury 5.9% 6.6% 7.5% 7.2% 7.0% 4.4% 3.6% Naugatuck 9.4% 10.1% 10.7% 11.5% 9.8% 6.9% 5.2% Oxford 6.0% 6.3% 6.8% 7.3% 6.6% 4.5% 3.5% Plymouth 8.9% 9.5% 10.1% 11.3% 10.2% 6.6% 5.5% Prospect 6.7% 7.7% 8.2% 9.1% 7.8% 5.1% 4.2% Seymour 7.7% 8.1% 8.7% 9.4% 8.2% 5.7% 4.6% Shelton 7.0% 7.4% 8.0% 8.3% 7.3% 5.0% 4.0% Southbury 6.6% 6.9% 7.7% 8.1% 7.0% 4.6% 3.7% Thomaston 7.8% 8.5% 8.4% 9.3% 9.9% 6.1% 5.0% Waterbury 12.5% 13.1% 13.9% 14.7% 13.5% 9.1% 7.4% Watertown 7.7% 8.3% 8.7% 9.3% 8.6% 5.7% 4.4% Wolcott 7.8% 8.7% 9.1% 10.1% 8.6% 5.5% 4.3% Woodbury 5.9% 6.3% 6.3% 7.6% 6.7% 4.2% 3.2% Region Total 8.7% 9.2% 9.8% 10.6% 9.5% 6.4% 5.1% Urban Core 10.3% 10.9% 11.5% 12.4% 11.1% 7.6% 6.1% Inner Ring 7.3% 7.7% 8.3% 8.8% 7.9% 5.3% 4.3% Outer Ring 6.6% 7.2% 7.7% 8.5% 7.5% 4.8% 3.8% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), by Town 2007 -2013 52 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table B3. Jobs in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2007 -2013 Jobs % Change Geography 2013 2011 2009 2007 2011 -2013 2007 -2009 Ansonia 3,359 3,910 3,623 3,724 -14.1% 5.0% Beacon Falls 843 929 887 1,059 -9.3% -12.3% Bethlehem 696 711 656 670 -2.1% 6.2% Bristol 21,592 20,597 20,286 21,231 4.8% -3.0% Cheshire 15,431 14,428 15,209 16,127 6.9% -10.5% Derby 4,872 4,643 4,929 5,153 4.9% -9.9% Middlebury 3,940 3,665 3,321 3,417 7.5% 7.3% Naugatuck 7,767 7,039 7,245 7,691 10.3% -8.5% Oxford 3,173 2,776 2,637 2,503 14.3% 10.9% Plymouth 2,061 2,001 2,112 2,253 3.0% -11.2% Prospect 1,980 1,983 1,946 2,062 -0.2% -3.9% Seymour 4,412 4,170 4,160 4,517 5.8% -7.7% Shelton 22,050 21,005 22,340 22,687 5.0% -7.4% Southbury 8,396 8,573 8,829 9,479 -2.1% -9.6% Thomaston 2,724 2,643 2,612 3,026 3.1% -12.6% Waterbury 38,890 38,378 39,071 42,484 1.3% -9.7% Watertown 8,011 7,731 7,873 8,784 3.6% -12.0% Wolcott 2,966 2,821 3,009 3,077 5.1% -8.3% Woodbury 2,020 2,028 2,101 2,425 -0.4% -16.4% Region Total 155,182 150,031 152,846 162,368 3.4% -7.6% Urban Core 76,481 74,567 75,154 80,284 2.6% -7.1% Inner Ring 54,689 51,978 54,306 57,392 5.2% -9.4% Outer Ring 24,012 23,486 23,386 24,691 2.2% -4.9% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), by Town 2007 -2013 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 53 Figure B1. Jobs in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2011 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On The Map, LODES Dataset, 2011 54 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table B4. Jobs in the Naugatuck Valley, by Sector and Location: 2013 Location Total Jobs Sector Urban Core Inner Ring Outer Ring Region % of Total Agriculture 0 316 0 316 0.2% Utilities 238 67 0 305 0.2% Construction 1,946 2,110 1,634 5,690 3.7% Manufacturing 7,942 11,017 1,632 20,591 13.3% Wholesale Trade 2,027 3,708 794 6,529 4.2% Retail Trade 11,479 5,997 2,201 19,677 12.7% Transportation and Warehousing 831 1,039 495 2,365 1.5% Information 4,571 869 219 5,660 3.6% Finance and Insurance 1,833 2,208 609 4,650 3.0% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 564 446 347 1,357 0.9% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 1,439 2,887 600 4,926 3.2% Management of Companies and Enterprises 471 1,140 460 2,071 1.3% Administrative & Support and Waste Management 2,545 3,629 772 6,945 4.5% Educational Services 1,218 804 140 2,163 1.4% Health Care and Social Assistance 18,049 5,988 3,736 27,773 17.9% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 318 492 121 931 0.6% Accommodation and Food Services 5,885 3,316 1,797 10,998 7.1% Other Services (except Public Administration) 2,882 1,478 1,026 5,385 3.5% Total Government 11,072 5,324 4,251 20,648 13.3% Total All Jobs 80,421 54,689 24,012 155,182 100.0% Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), by Town 2013 Note: All Public Sector Employees (including school teachers) are in the “Total Government” category Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 55 Table B5. Change in Jobs in the Naugatuck Valley, by Sector and Location: 2007 -2013 Number of Jobs Job Change 2007 -2013 Sector 2013 2007 Net Percent Agriculture 316 316 -1 -0.2% Utilities 305 288 17 5.7% Construction 5,690 6,809 -1,119 -16.4% Manufacturing 20,591 26,107 -5,517 -21.1% Wholesale Trade 6,529 6,031 498 8.3% Retail Trade 19,677 20,513 -836 -4.1% Transportation and Warehousing 2,365 2,431 -66 -2.7% Information 5,660 4,850 810 16.7% Finance and Insurance 4,650 7,310 -2,660 -36.4% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,357 1,548 -191 -12.3% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 4,926 5,182 -256 -4.9% Management of Companies and Enterprises 2,071 1,746 325 18.6% Administrative & Support and Waste Management 6,945 7,951 -1,006 -12.6% Educational Services 2,163 991 1,172 118.3% Health Care and Social Assistance 27,773 25,146 2,626 10.4% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 931 838 93 11.1% Accommodation and Food Services 10,998 9,592 1,406 14.7% Other Services (except Public Administration) 5,385 5,332 53 1.0% Total Government 20,648 22,041 -1,394 -6.3% Total All Jobs 155,182 162,368 -7,185 -4.4% Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), by Town 2007 -2013 Note: All Public Sector Employees (including school teachers) are in the “Total Government” category 56 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table B6. Place of Work of Naugatuck Valley Residents, by Municipality: 2011 Work Within Town of Residence Work Within Other Town in Region Work Outside of Region Geography Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 650 7.8% 2,050 24.7% 5,591 67.4% Beacon Falls 145 4.8% 1,043 34.5% 1,831 60.6% Bethlehem 181 10.9% 714 42.9% 770 46.2% Bristol 7,172 24.1% 2,702 9.1% 19,887 66.8% Cheshire 2,305 16.2% 1,802 12.7% 10,136 71.2% Derby 396 7.5% 1,188 22.6% 3,668 69.8% Middlebury 284 7.8% 1,497 40.9% 1,878 51.3% Naugatuck 1,942 11.2% 5,068 29.3% 10,272 59.4% Oxford 522 8.6% 1,665 27.4% 3,900 64.1% Plymouth 528 8.2% 2,311 36.1% 3,562 55.6% Prospect 399 7.7% 2,070 40.2% 2,685 52.1% Seymour 834 10.9% 1,954 25.6% 4,834 63.4% Shelton 3,335 17.6% 1,163 6.1% 14,490 76.3% Southbury 979 12.5% 1,772 22.7% 5,063 64.8% Thomaston 593 14.1% 1,565 37.3% 2,037 48.6% Waterbury 13,462 30.9% 10,342 23.8% 19,699 45.3% Watertown 1,744 15.6% 4,793 42.9% 4,626 41.4% Wolcott 947 10.7% 3,569 40.2% 4,363 49.1% Woodbury 484 11.3% 1,453 34.0% 2,331 54.6% Region Total 36,902 17.8% 48,721 23.5% 121,623 58.7% Urban Core 23,622 22.7% 21,350 20.5% 59,117 56.8% Inner Ring 9,339 14.9% 13,588 21.7% 39,685 63.4% Outer Ring 3,941 9.7% 13,783 34.0% 22,821 56.3% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On the Map LODES Dataset: 2011, Area Profile for Residents Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 57 Table B7. Place of Residence of Naugatuck Valley Workers, by Municipality: 2011 Live Within Town of Employment Live Within Other Town in Region Live Outside of Region Geography Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 650 18.1% 1,120 31.3% 1,813 50.6% Beacon Falls 145 9.7% 964 64.7% 380 25.5% Bethlehem 181 26.3% 294 42.7% 214 31.1% Bristol 7,172 32.4% 3,278 14.8% 11,697 52.8% Cheshire 2,305 15.3% 4,214 28.0% 8,514 56.6% Derby 396 10.2% 1,357 34.8% 2,145 55.0% Middlebury 284 8.1% 1,990 57.0% 1,220 34.9% Naugatuck 1,942 26.2% 3,031 41.0% 2,426 32.8% Oxford 522 17.8% 1,345 45.8% 1,071 36.5% Plymouth 528 26.1% 831 41.0% 667 32.9% Prospect 399 20.1% 1,089 54.8% 500 25.2% Seymour 834 20.2% 1,760 42.6% 1,540 37.3% Shelton 3,335 14.4% 4,494 19.4% 15,343 66.2% Southbury 979 13.1% 2,778 37.2% 3,706 49.7% Thomaston 593 21.5% 1,292 46.9% 868 31.5% Waterbury 13,462 32.4% 12,946 31.2% 15,101 36.4% Watertown 1,744 21.2% 3,774 45.8% 2,722 33.0% Wolcott 947 33.9% 1,171 41.9% 674 24.1% Woodbury 484 24.4% 993 50.1% 507 25.6% Region Total 36,902 23.5% 48,721 31.1% 71,108 45.4% Urban Core 23,622 30.1% 21,732 27.7% 33,182 42.3% Inner Ring 9,339 16.9% 16,365 29.6% 29,654 53.6% Outer Ring 3,941 17.3% 10,624 46.5% 8,272 36.2% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On the Map LODES Dataset: 2011, Area Profile for Workers 58 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table B8. Jobs and Employment in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2013 Geography Jobs Employed Residents Ratio Commuter Import/Export Ansonia 3,359 9,108 0.37 -5,749 Beacon Falls 843 3,120 0.27 -2,277 Bethlehem 696 1,877 0.37 -1,181 Bristol 21,592 30,660 0.70 -9,067 Cheshire 15,431 13,583 1.14 1,848 Derby 4,872 6,316 0.77 -1,443 Middlebury 3,940 3,687 1.07 254 Naugatuck 7,767 15,096 0.51 -7,329 Oxford 3,173 6,894 0.46 -3,721 Plymouth 2,061 6,156 0.33 -4,096 Prospect 1,980 4,915 0.40 -2,935 Seymour 4,412 8,493 0.52 -4,081 Shelton 22,050 20,920 1.05 1,130 Southbury 8,396 8,346 1.01 50 Thomaston 2,724 4,143 0.66 -1,418 Waterbury 38,890 44,010 0.88 -5,120 Watertown 8,011 11,003 0.73 -2,992 Wolcott 2,966 8,250 0.36 -5,284 Woodbury 2,020 5,202 0.39 -3,183 Region Total 155,182 211,778 0.73 -56,596 Urban Core 76,481 105,190 0.73 -28,709 Inner Ring 54,689 64,298 0.85 -9,609 Outer Ring 24,012 42,290 0.57 -18,278 Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Local Area Unemployment Statistics: 2013. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages: 2013 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 59 Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages: 2013 Note: All Public Sector Employees (including school teachers) are in the “Total Government” category Table B9. Wages in the Naugatuck Valley, by Sector and Location: 2013 Average Annual Wages 2013 Sector Urban Core Inner Ring Outer Ring Region Agriculture – $30,066 – $30,066 Utilities $113,053 $76,712 – $105,116 Construction $50,899 $63,834 $37,967 $56,353 Manufacturing $58,214 $85,889 $11,809 $72,651 Wholesale Trade $54,275 $80,526 $41,629 $72,014 Retail Trade $26,370 $36,919 $10,169 $29,504 Transportation and Warehousing $42,346 $50,321 $50,563 $50,088 Information $115,831 $73,243 $3,088 $107,270 Finance and Insurance $73,694 $97,024 $42,669 $85,416 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing $39,540 $94,857 $53,831 $57,015 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services $69,123 $75,868 $35,108 $71,853 Management of Companies and Enterprises $140,790 $392,134 $174,160 $276,336 Administrative & Support and Waste Management $30,306 $31,737 $31,851 $32,276 Educational Services $41,655 $43,403 $8,976 $40,846 Health Care and Social Assistance $44,872 $38,955 $21,312 $42,889 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation $19,986 $19,557 $19,992 $19,143 Accommodation and Food Services $15,703 $18,192 $10,047 $16,602 Other Services (except Public Administration) $21,946 $25,414 $18,843 $24,233 Total Government $54,497 $56,363 $43,796 $55,146 Total All Jobs $47,346 $66,034 $29,141 $54,913 60 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 61 Appendix C Housing Trends Tables and Maps Topic Page Housing Units ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 62 Housing Permits ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 63 Number of Units ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 64 Housing Age ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………………. 66 Tenure ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……. 68 Housing Vacancy ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………….. 70 Housing Costs ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 72 Home Values ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………….. 76 Affordable Housing ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 78 Housing data presented in Appendix C comes from a variety of sources including the 2010 US Census, 2008 -2012 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates, the Con- necticut Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD), and the Con- necticut Office of Policy and Management (OPM). Datasets may not match up due to differing data collection methods and years of analysis. David Sherman House, W oodbury 62 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table C1. Change in Housing Units in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 1980 -2013 Total Housing Units % Change Geography 2010 2000 1990 1980 2000 -2010 1990 -2000 Ansonia 8,148 7,937 7,503 7,267 2.7% 5.8% 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% Bristol 27,011 26,125 24,989 21,004 3.4% 4.5% Cheshire 10,424 9,588 8,590 6,996 8.7% 11.6% Derby 5,849 5,568 5,269 4,828 5.0% 5.7% 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% Plymouth 5,109 4,646 4,556 3,811 10.0% 2.0% Prospect 3,474 3,094 2,625 2,063 12.3% 17.9% Seymour 6,968 6,356 5,877 5,081 9.6% 8.2% Shelton 16,146 14,707 12,981 10,385 9.8% 13.3% 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% Waterbury 47,991 46,827 47,205 40,854 2.5% -0.8% 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% Region Total 188,206 175,119 164,950 140,535 7.5% 6.2% Urban Core 102,060 98,798 96,896 83,681 3.3% 2.0% Inner Ring 51,019 46,609 42,262 35,139 9.5% 10.3% Outer Ring 35,127 29,712 25,792 21,715 18.2% 15.2% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, :001; Census 2000, Census 1990, Census 1980 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 63 Table C2. Annual Housing Permits in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2007 -2013 Annual Housing Permits % Change 2007 -2013 Geography 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Ansonia 3 4 2 5 2 5 13 -76.9% Beacon Falls 11 5 3 9 28 23 22 -50.0% Bethlehem 2 2 1 2 7 4 15 -86.7% Bristol 92 28 21 37 19 29 101 -8.9% Cheshire 48 24 58 39 17 41 51 -5.9% Derby 3 2 2 5 7 2 3 0.0% Middlebury 19 7 4 7 6 28 47 -59.6% Naugatuck 12 21 10 8 9 34 42 -71.4% Oxford 33 30 13 45 31 74 86 -61.6% Plymouth 5 5 9 11 6 6 18 -72.2% Prospect 20 23 49 48 36 57 39 -48.7% Seymour 14 23 17 22 15 38 28 -50.0% Shelton 129 299 35 31 17 111 93 38.7% Southbury 42 14 6 7 6 9 33 27.3% Thomaston 6 3 5 7 6 7 9 -33.3% Waterbury 34 62 28 32 37 58 146 -76.7% Watertown 33 21 16 21 25 35 47 -29.8% Wolcott 16 13 13 22 18 24 27 -40.7% Woodbury 9 5 6 4 10 14 27 -66.7% Region Total 531 591 298 362 302 599 847 -37.3% Urban Core 144 117 63 87 74 128 305 -52.8% Inner Ring 235 375 140 131 86 238 246 -4.5% Outer Ring 152 99 95 144 142 233 296 -48.6% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, Annual :ousing Permit Data by Town: 2007 -2013 64 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table C3. Housing Stock in the Naugatuck Valley, by Number of Units and Municipality: 2013 Geography Total Units Single Family 2 Units 3-4 Units 5+ Units Mobile Home Ansonia 8,180 4,197 2,209 915 841 18 Beacon Falls 2,465 1,798 120 246 167 134 Bethlehem 1,615 1,513 42 41 11 8 Bristol 26,586 15,528 2,877 3,261 4,784 136 Cheshire 9,711 7,994 477 346 894 0 Derby 5,613 2,968 1,130 589 926 0 Middlebury 2,798 2,585 51 8 146 8 Naugatuck 13,416 8,386 1,702 1,070 1,798 460 Oxford 4,469 4,314 91 16 48 0 Plymouth 5,140 4,165 352 275 253 95 Prospect 3,452 3,195 73 0 39 145 Seymour 6,802 4,767 589 295 1,151 0 Shelton 15,914 12,512 683 843 1,614 262 Southbury 8,025 6,202 543 550 686 44 Thomaston 3,296 2,381 259 132 499 25 Waterbury 49,003 22,027 4,628 9,560 12,707 81 Watertown 8,907 7,469 553 532 353 0 Wolcott 6,179 5,622 26 123 396 12 Woodbury 4,473 3,676 127 273 397 0 Region Total 186,044 121,299 16,532 19,075 27,710 1,428 Urban Core 102,798 53,106 12,546 15,395 21,056 695 Inner Ring 49,770 39,288 2,913 2,423 4,764 382 Outer Ring 33,476 28,905 1,073 1,257 1,890 351 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: NVCOG Staff Calculations based on: Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, Annual Construction Report: 2012 -2013 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 65 Figure C1. Multi -Family Housing in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2008 -2012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B25024 66 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table C4. Housing Stock in the Naugatuck Valley, by Year Built and Municipality: 2008 -2012 Housing Units Year Built Median Year Built Geography After 1999 1980 to 1999 1960 to 1979 1940 to 1959 Before 1940 Ansonia 7,830 145 746 1,541 2,228 3,170 1951 Beacon Falls 2,388 367 682 525 435 379 1975 Bethlehem 1,531 168 498 431 240 194 1975 Bristol 26,861 1,237 6,463 7,498 5,846 5,817 1965 Cheshire 9,945 948 2,865 3,041 2,192 899 1973 Derby 5,805 143 1,088 1,122 1,332 2,120 1954 Middlebury 2,902 419 647 685 638 513 1969 Naugatuck 13,395 743 2,687 3,726 2,792 3,447 1963 Oxford 4,626 1,052 1,316 1,183 816 259 1981 Plymouth 5,105 470 1,158 1,065 1,325 1,087 1963 Prospect 3,374 462 1,077 918 738 179 1976 Seymour 6,647 563 1,308 2,031 1,392 1,353 1968 Shelton 15,858 1,488 4,793 4,904 2,478 2,195 1973 Southbury 8,629 634 2,402 4,113 565 915 1975 Thomaston 3,255 294 943 690 531 797 1966 Waterbury 48,222 1,366 9,270 11,495 11,087 15,004 1957 Watertown 9,121 515 1,864 2,379 2,481 1,882 1962 Wolcott 6,142 555 1,546 1,777 1,784 480 1967 Woodbury 4,637 425 1,501 1,232 660 819 1974 Region Total 186,273 11,994 42,854 50,356 39,560 41,509 1965 Urban Core 102,113 3,634 20,254 25,382 23,285 29,558 1959 Inner Ring 49,931 4,278 12,931 14,110 10,399 8,213 1969 Outer Ring 34,229 4,082 9,669 10,864 5,876 3,738 1974 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B25034 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 67 Figure C2. Median Year of Construction of Homes in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2008 -2012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B25034 68 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table C5. Tenure for Occupied Housing Units in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2008 -2012 Occupied Housing Units Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Geography Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 7,380 4,188 56.7% 3,192 43.3% Beacon Falls 2,244 1,869 83.3% 375 16.7% Bethlehem 1,409 1,196 84.9% 213 15.1% Bristol 25,231 16,787 66.5% 8,444 33.5% Cheshire 9,528 8,187 85.9% 1,341 14.1% Derby 5,195 2,988 57.5% 2,207 42.5% Middlebury 2,797 2,552 91.2% 245 8.8% Naugatuck 12,461 8,566 68.7% 3,895 31.3% Oxford 4,420 4,080 92.3% 340 7.7% Plymouth 4,739 4,071 85.9% 668 14.1% Prospect 3,280 3,106 94.7% 174 5.3% Seymour 6,313 4,869 77.1% 1,444 22.9% Shelton 15,019 12,353 82.2% 2,666 17.8% Southbury 8,022 6,781 84.5% 1,241 15.5% Thomaston 3,192 2,506 78.5% 686 21.5% Waterbury 42,241 20,768 49.2% 21,473 50.8% Watertown 8,578 7,182 83.7% 1,396 16.3% Wolcott 5,947 5,247 88.2% 700 11.8% Woodbury 4,204 3,391 80.7% 813 19.3% Region Total 172,200 120,687 70.1% 51,513 29.9% Urban Core 92,508 53,297 57.6% 39,211 42.4% Inner Ring 47,369 39,168 82.7% 8,201 17.3% Outer Ring 32,323 28,222 87.3% 4,101 12.7% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, 25003 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 69 Figure C3. Renter -Occupied Housing Units in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2008 -2012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, 25003 70 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table C6. Vacant Housing Units in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2010 Vacant Units Vacancy Status Geography Number Percent of Total For Sale or Sold For Rent or Rented Seasonal Other Vacant Ansonia 638 7.8% 84 300 22 232 Beacon Falls 149 5.9% 58 24 13 54 Bethlehem 164 10.4% 17 10 114 23 Bristol 1,691 6.3% 310 821 121 439 Cheshire 383 3.7% 136 79 65 103 Derby 461 7.9% 76 173 38 174 Middlebury 144 5.0% 33 7 68 36 Naugatuck 722 5.5% 184 297 33 208 Oxford 242 5.1% 66 19 82 75 Plymouth 306 6.0% 85 93 32 96 Prospect 117 3.4% 35 24 15 43 Seymour 314 4.5% 84 120 24 86 Shelton 821 5.1% 175 216 122 308 Southbury 878 9.7% 239 178 323 138 Thomaston 168 5.1% 41 58 20 49 Waterbury 5,230 10.9% 844 2,690 144 1,552 Watertown 424 4.7% 86 116 54 168 Wolcott 269 4.3% 105 34 65 65 Woodbury 350 7.7% 81 78 112 79 Region Total 11,994 7.2% 2,739 5,337 1,467 3,928 Urban Core 8,742 8.6% 1,498 4,281 358 2,605 Inner Ring 2,416 4.7% 607 682 317 810 Outer Ring 2,313 6.6% 634 374 792 513 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, :5 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 71 Figure C4. Vacant Housing Units in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, :5 72 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table C7. Median Rental Costs in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2000 -2012 (Inflation Adjusted) Gross Rent % Change 2000 -2012 Contract Rent % Change 2000 -2012 Geography 2012 2000 2012 2000 Ansonia $1,105 $921 19.9% $867 $749 15.7% Beacon Falls $1,147 $1,155 -0.7% $952 $971 -1.9% Bethlehem $826 $1,311 -37.0% $634 $1,024 -38.1% Bristol $887 $792 12.0% $736 $688 7.0% Cheshire $1,239 $1,064 16.5% $1,120 $944 18.6% Derby $1,079 $921 17.1% $845 $789 7.1% Middlebury $478 $891 -46.3% $396 $757 -47.7% Naugatuck $964 $841 14.6% $809 $713 13.4% Oxford $1,490 $917 62.4% $1,148 $715 60.6% Plymouth $948 $813 16.6% $749 $683 9.7% Prospect $930 $943 -1.3% $810 $767 5.7% Seymour $999 $904 10.5% $840 $791 6.2% Shelton $1,100 $1,053 4.4% $894 $885 1.0% Southbury $1,315 $1,419 -7.3% $1,116 $1,231 -9.3% Thomaston $865 $865 0.0% $748 $708 5.7% Waterbury $883 $749 17.8% $718 $629 14.1% Watertown $943 $861 9.5% $784 $752 4.3% Wolcott $924 $980 -5.7% $770 $869 -11.4% Woodbury $1,097 $1,044 5.1% $978 $940 4.0% Region Total $943 $839 12.4% $770 $704 9.4% Urban Core $917 $800 14.6% $744 $675 10.3% Inner Ring $1,025 $964 6.3% $843 $825 2.1% Outer Ring $1,130 $1,145 -1.3% $947 $989 -4.3% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B25064, 2000 Census NVCOG Staff Calculations [=nflation Rate 2000 -2012: 1.3333] Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 73 Figure C5. Median Monthly Gross Rent in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2008 -2012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B25064 74 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table C8. Median Home Value in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2000 -2012 (Inflation Adjusted) Median Home Value % Change 2000 -2012 Geography 2012 2000 Ansonia $253,200 $186,662 35.6% Beacon Falls $270,100 $206,128 31.0% Bethlehem $365,900 $285,060 28.4% Bristol $211,700 $172,396 22.8% Cheshire $349,800 $282,660 23.8% Derby $232,200 $182,129 27.5% Middlebury $363,200 $264,793 37.2% Naugatuck $211,100 $177,329 19.0% Oxford $377,500 $277,060 36.3% Plymouth $216,700 $165,329 31.1% Prospect $301,300 $240,927 25.1% Seymour $277,900 $210,261 32.2% Shelton $360,700 $289,726 24.5% Southbury $335,000 $278,793 20.2% Thomaston $230,300 $181,062 27.2% Waterbury $158,300 $135,063 17.2% Watertown $268,500 $197,728 35.8% Wolcott $251,200 $191,195 31.4% Woodbury $371,000 $313,326 18.4% Region Total $249,000 $195,995 27.0% Urban Core $193,000 $162,663 18.7% Inner Ring $299,000 $241,327 23.9% Outer Ring $326,000 $247,994 31.5% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B25077 NVCOG Staff Calculations. [=nflation Rate 2000 -2012: 1.1269] Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 75 Figure C6. Median Home Value in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2008 -2012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B25077 76 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table C9. Home Value Ranges for Owner Occupied Units, by Municipality: 2008 -2012 Owner Occupied Units Home Value Geography Less than $100,000 $100,000 – $199,999 $200,000 – $299,999 $300,000 – $399,999 $400,000 or Higher Ansonia 4,188 52 951 2,141 905 139 Beacon Falls 1,869 157 347 589 533 243 Bethlehem 1,196 33 153 203 317 490 Bristol 16,787 770 6,718 6,846 1,751 702 Cheshire 8,187 194 545 2,065 2,590 2,793 Derby 2,988 31 917 1,408 445 187 Middlebury 2,552 30 178 600 740 1,004 Naugatuck 8,566 657 3,204 3,179 932 594 Oxford 4,080 64 297 723 1,234 1,762 Plymouth 4,071 193 1,576 1,531 503 268 Prospect 3,106 222 288 1,032 870 694 Seymour 4,869 120 764 2,077 1,068 840 Shelton 12,353 307 683 3,011 3,582 4,770 Southbury 6,781 388 1,398 1,195 1,171 2,629 Thomaston 2,506 126 845 957 414 164 Waterbury 20,768 2,813 12,384 4,435 638 498 Watertown 7,182 203 1,193 3,324 1,443 1,019 Wolcott 5,247 146 1,369 1,885 1,025 822 Woodbury 3,391 100 430 565 846 1,450 Region Total 120,687 6,606 34,240 37,766 21,007 21,068 Urban Core 53,297 4,323 24,174 18,009 4,671 2,120 Inner Ring 39,168 1,143 5,606 12,965 9,600 9,854 Outer Ring 28,222 1,140 4,460 6,792 6,736 9,094 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B25077 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 77 Table C10. Equalized Net Grand List, by Municipality: 2007 -2013 (Inflation Adjusted) Equalized Net Grand List ($ Millions) Percent Change Geography 2012 2007 2003 2007 -2012 2003 -2007 Ansonia $1,456.1 $1,925.5 $1,423.5 -24.4% 35.3% Beacon Falls $636.2 $869.6 $530.0 -26.8% 64.1% Bethlehem $552.9 $707.1 $499.5 -21.8% 41.6% Bristol $5,587.4 $7,209.7 $5,397.6 -22.5% 33.6% Cheshire $4,000.7 $4,956.2 $4,237.5 -19.3% 17.0% Derby $1,091.6 $1,420.6 $1,115.2 -23.2% 27.4% Middlebury $1,307.5 $1,742.1 $1,160.7 -24.9% 50.1% Naugatuck $2,503.0 $3,423.3 $2,513.3 -26.9% 36.2% Oxford $1,995.5 $2,023.0 $1,512.7 -1.4% 33.7% Plymouth $1,075.9 $1,322.0 $941.6 -18.6% 40.4% Prospect $1,170.6 $1,237.6 $1,093.2 -5.4% 13.2% Seymour $1,787.6 $2,088.9 $1,601.7 -14.4% 30.4% Shelton $6,465.7 $9,079.9 $5,708.8 -28.8% 59.0% Southbury $3,167.6 $4,340.5 $3,726.3 -27.0% 16.5% Thomaston $730.3 $1,126.0 $858.1 -35.1% 31.2% Waterbury $6,105.4 $8,836.3 $5,998.5 -30.9% 47.3% Watertown $2,560.4 $3,459.0 $2,674.6 -26.0% 29.3% Wolcott $1,999.8 $2,331.2 $1,499.9 -14.2% 55.4% Woodbury $1,586.2 $2,132.5 $1,745.9 -25.6% 22.1% Region Total $45,780.4 $60,230.9 $44,238.6 -24.0% 36.2% Urban Core $16,743.5 $22,815.4 $16,448.1 -26.6% 38.7% Inner Ring $16,620.5 $22,031.9 $16,022.2 -24.6% 37.5% Outer Ring $12,416.4 $15,383.6 $11,768.3 -19.3% 30.7% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Office of Policy and Management. Equalized Net Grand List, by Municipality: 2003 -2013 All values are in 2012 dollars [=nflation Rate 2003 -2012: 1.2478] [=nflation Rate 2007 -2012: 1.1073] 78 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table C11. Households Paying More than 30% of Income For Housing, by Municipality: 2008 -2012 Total Owner -Occupied Renter -Occupied Geography Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 3,700 50.1% 1,911 45.6% 1,789 56.0% Beacon Falls 718 32.0% 558 29.9% 160 42.7% Bethlehem 566 40.2% 481 40.2% 85 39.9% Bristol 9,293 36.8% 5,699 33.9% 3,594 42.6% Cheshire 2,519 26.4% 1,979 24.2% 540 40.3% Derby 2,397 46.1% 1,263 42.3% 1,134 51.4% Middlebury 1,026 36.7% 984 38.6% 42 17.1% Naugatuck 4,705 37.8% 3,109 36.3% 1,596 41.0% Oxford 1,340 30.3% 1,225 30.0% 115 33.8% Plymouth 1,800 38.0% 1,539 37.8% 261 39.1% Prospect 1,057 32.2% 936 30.1% 121 69.5% Seymour 2,595 41.1% 1,894 38.9% 701 48.5% Shelton 5,674 37.8% 4,729 38.3% 945 35.4% Southbury 3,747 46.7% 3,057 45.1% 690 55.6% Thomaston 1,166 36.5% 874 34.9% 292 42.6% Waterbury 21,306 50.4% 9,136 44.0% 12,170 56.7% Watertown 2,614 30.5% 2,077 28.9% 537 38.5% Wolcott 1,989 33.4% 1,752 33.4% 237 33.9% Woodbury 1,764 42.0% 1,291 38.1% 473 58.2% Region Total 69,976 40.6% 44,494 36.9% 25,482 49.5% Urban Core 41,401 44.8% 21,118 39.6% 20,283 51.7% Inner Ring 16,368 34.6% 13,092 33.4% 3,276 39.9% Outer Ring 12,207 37.8% 10,284 36.4% 1,923 46.9% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, C25095 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 79 Table C12. Publicly Assisted Housing, by Municipality: 2007 -2013 Govt. Assisted Tenant Rental Assistance CHFA/ USDA Mortgage Deed Restricted Total Affordable Geography Total Percent Ansonia 371 756 112 9 1,248 15.3% Beacon Falls 0 5 32 0 37 1.5% Bethlehem 24 1 1 0 26 1.7% Bristol 1,771 798 1,065 0 3,634 13.5% Cheshire 237 7 76 17 337 3.2% Derby 259 307 68 0 634 10.8% Middlebury 76 4 20 8 108 3.7% Naugatuck 493 293 311 0 1,097 8.4% Oxford 36 1 14 0 51 1.1% Plymouth 179 5 179 0 363 7.1% Prospect 0 4 34 0 38 1.1% Seymour 262 16 103 0 381 5.5% Shelton 254 21 87 82 444 2.7% Southbury 89 2 23 0 114 1.3% Thomaston 105 4 117 0 226 6.9% Waterbury 4,901 3,635 2,327 326 11,189 23.3% Watertown 206 24 145 0 375 4.1% Wolcott 312 3 131 0 446 7.1% Woodbury 60 4 25 0 89 2.0% Region Total 9,635 5,890 4,870 442 20,837 11.1% Urban Core 7,795 5,789 3,883 335 17,802 17.4% Inner Ring 1,243 77 707 99 2,126 4.2% Outer Ring 597 24 280 8 909 2.6% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development. Affordable :ousing Appeals List: 2013 80 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 81 Appendix D Other Regional Information Tables and Maps Topic Page Urbanized Areas: 2010 ………………………….. ………………………….. ………….. 82 Labor Market Areas: 2014 ………………………….. ………………………….. ……… 83 Income Limits for Select HUD Programs: 2014 ………………………….. ……… 84 Housing data presented in Appendix C comes from a variety of sources including the 2010 US Census, 2008 -2012 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates, and the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD), and the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management (OPM). Datasets may not match up due to differing data collection methods and years of analysis. Naugatuck River Greenway, Ansonia 82 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Figure D1. Urbanized Areas in the Naugatuck Valley Region: 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 83 Figure D2. Labor Market Areas in the Naugatuck Valley Region: 2014 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Labor Market Areas: 2014 84 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table D1. Income Limits for Select Housing and Urban Development Programs: 2014 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, C25095 Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 29,000 33,150 37,300 41,400 44,750 48,050 51,350 54,650 Low -Income 44,750 51,150 57,550 63,900 69,050 74,150 79,250 84,350 Section 236 45,100 51,550 58,000 64,400 69,600 74,750 79,900 85,050 Section 221 BMIR 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 Section 235 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 Waterbury Metro FMR Area Median Household Income: $62,800 =ncludes Middlebury, Naugatuck, Prospect, Southbury, Waterbury, and Wolcott Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 30,950 35,400 39,800 44,200 47,750 51,300 54,850 58,350 Low -Income 44,750 51,150 57,550 63,900 69,050 74,150 79,250 84,350 Section 236 45,100 51,550 58,000 64,400 69,600 74,750 79,900 85,050 Section 221 BMIR 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 Section 235 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 Milford -Ansonia -Seymour Metro FMR Area Median Household Income: $91,400 =ncludes Ansonia, Beacon Falls, Derby, Oxford, and Seymour Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 31,400 35,850 40,350 44,800 48,400 52,000 55,600 59,150 Low -Income 44,750 51,150 57,550 63,900 69,050 74,150 79,250 84,350 Section 236 45,100 51,550 58,000 64,400 69,600 74,750 79,900 85,050 Section 221 BMIR 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 Section 235 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 Litchfield County Nonmetropolitan FMR Area Median Household Income: $87,500 =ncludes Bethlehem, Plymouth, Thomaston, Watertown, and Woodbury Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 85 Table D1.(Continued). Income Limits for Select Housing and Urban Development Programs: 2014 Source: Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development. Affordable :ousing Appeals List: 2013 Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 29,000 33,150 37,300 41,400 44,750 48,050 51,350 54,650 Low -Income 44,750 51,150 57,550 63,900 69,050 74,150 79,250 84,350 Section 236 45,100 51,550 58,000 64,400 69,600 74,750 79,900 85,050 Section 221 BMIR 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 Section 235 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 New Haven -Meriden Metro FMR Area Median Household Income: $80,500 =ncludes Cheshire Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 30,000 34,300 38,600 42,850 46,300 49,750 53,150 56,600 Low -Income 44,750 51,150 57,550 63,900 69,050 74,150 79,250 84,350 Section 236 45,100 51,550 58,000 64,400 69,600 74,750 79,900 85,050 Section 221 BMIR 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 Section 235 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 Hartford -East Hartford -West Hartford Metro FMR Area Median Household Income: $85,500 =ncludes Bristol Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 29,300 33,500 37,700 41,850 45,200 48,550 51,900 55,250 Low -Income 44,750 51,150 57,550 63,900 69,050 74,150 79,250 84,350 Section 236 45,100 51,550 58,000 64,400 69,600 74,750 79,900 85,050 Section 221 BMIR 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 Section 235 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 Bridgeport Metro FMR Area Median Household Income: $87,900 =ncludes Shelton Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Council Members Municipality Chief Elected Official Title Ansonia David Cassetti Mayor Beacon Falls Christopher Bielik First Selectman Bethlehem Leonard Assard First Selectman Bristol Kenneth Cockayne Mayor Cheshire Timothy Slocum Town Council Chairman Derby Anita Dugatto Mayor Middlebury Edward St. John First Selectman Naugatuck Robert Mezzo Mayor Oxford George Temple First Selectman Plymouth David Merchant Mayor Prospect Robert Chatfield First Selectman Seymour Kurt Miller First Selectman Shelton Mark Lauretti Mayor Southbury Edward Edelson First Selectman Thomaston Edmond Mone First Selectman Waterbury Neil O'Leary Mayor Watertown Raymond Primini Town Council Chairman Wolcott Thomas Dunn Mayor Woodbury William Butterly Mayor Council members comprise the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments Transitional Executive Committee (TEC) as of September 2014. Effective Hanuary 1, 2015, the Chief Elected Officials of the 19 municipalities will comprise the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments (NVCOG) board.