Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 2015 July 2016 A Report by The Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Several tables and figures in this report compare data from the 2010r2014 American Community Survey (ACS) fiveryear estimates to the 2000 Census. Beginning in 2005, the ACS replaced the longr form census as the source for detailed socioeconomic and housing data. The first complete ACS data set covered the years 2005r2009. The 2010r2014 ACS is a fiveryear estimate where a small percentr age of all households are sampled each year. ACS estimates reprer sent an average over the course of five years and are not equivar lent to the 100 percent count data from the 2010 census. The ACS fiveryear 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. Oneryear and threeryear 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 multir year intervals. The longrform 2000 Census was given to approxir mately 16% of households. Both data sets used samples to calcur late estimates for the entire population. The differences in methr odology between the longrform 2000 Census and the 2010r2014 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: Thomaston Dam, Ryan Clair / US Army Corps of Enr gineers All other photos were taken by NVCOG staff The material contained herein may be quoted or reproduced withr out special permission, although mention of the source is apprecir ated. The preparation of this report was financed through grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Adminr istration, and the Federal Transit Administration, and by contribur tions from member municipalities of the Naugatuck Valley Region. Data Disclaimer Photo Credits Attribution Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table of Contents Chapter Page 1. Introduc?on ……………………………………………………………..………………. 1 2. Popula?on and Demographic Trends ……………………………………………. 5 3. Economic Trends ……………………………………………………………..………. 11 4. Housing Trends ……………………………………………………………..………… 15 Appendices Page Appendix A: Popula?on 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 Informa?on ……………………………………….. 81 Depot Street Bridge, Beacon Falls Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 1 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile The following chapters present demor graphic, economic, and housing data for the Naugatuck Valley Region, a 19rtown region in West Central Connecticut. Data comes from a variety of sources including the 2010 Decennial Census, the 2010r2014 American Community Survey (ACS), the Connecticut Department of Labor (DOL), and the Connecticut Department of Ecor nomic and Community Development (DECD). Summary of Findings This report examines past trends and pror vides an outlook for the future. In recent years, the region?s population, housing, and economic trends have been on the upswing. The 2007r2009 Great Rer cession hit the region harder and longer than the state and nation as a whole. Howr ever, certain industries, such as Manufacr turing, have seen a steady rebound since 2010. The State of Connecticut made a major investment to address future workr force needs in this sector of the region?s economy by creating one of three new Advanced Manufacturing Programs at Naur gatuck Valley Community College in 2012. In addition, Waterbury, the region?s largest city, has made similar investments in creatr ing a manufacturing program at Waterbury Career Academy High School in 2013 and the planned acquisition of a large manufacr turing training facility from the Manufacr turing Alliance Service Corp. in 2016. As of 2014, the unemployment rate has moved down to 7.4%. While the region has added jobs since 2011, it still remains ber low prerrecession levels. During the early 2000s, the region experir enced a building boom, adding over 5,000 new housing units. However, because the housing market bubble was not large in the region to begin with, its negative impact was not as prominent as in other regions and new home construction has picked up since 2012. In the near future, the region will be shaped by the retirement of the baby boomers. A surge in the elderly population will put greater financial burdens on the workforce, and will lead to new fiscal chalr lenges for municipalities. 1. Introduction Economy Popula?on Housing This report will examine the relationship between population, economic, and housing trends Lock 12 Historic Park, Cheshire Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 2 Methodology is based on Data Haven?s Community Well Being Index 3 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Composition of the Region While overall regional trends are inr formative, they fail to account for the differences that exist between municir 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 overr view as possible. This report presents data at regional, subregional, municipal, and neighborr hood scales. In order to highlight key trends among similar municipalities, a threerlevel subregional classification was developed (Figure 1b). Municipalir ties were classified as urban core, inner ring, or outer ring based on current and historic population, economic, and housing trends. Table 1a below highr lights some of the differences that exist between the urban core, inner ring, and outer ring communities. To supplement the regional and subr regional scales, tables in the text and appendices present data for each mur nicipality. Where applicable, neighborr hood (blockrgroup) level maps were created to highlight the differences that exist from neighborhood to neighr borhood. Region Urban Core Inner Ring Outer Ring Popula?on 2010 448,708 234,856 127,974 85,878 Popula?on Density per sq. mi. 1,064 2,804 887 444 Popula?on Growth 2000r2010 + 4.6% + 2.4% +4.1% +12.1% Percent Minority 2010 23.9% 36.6% 11.6% 7.3% Percent Foreign Born 2010 10.6% 12.4% 9.0% 7.1% Percent Over Age 65 2020 14.8% 13.4% 15.3% 17.7% Median Age 2010 40.1 37.3 42.9 45.1 Median Household Income 66,989 $49,560 $86,633 $87,357 Poverty Rate 2014 11.3% 17.4% 4.3% 5.1% Percent with Bachelors Degree 28.8% 19.9% 36.8% 39.7% Unemployment Rate 2014 7.4% 9.0% 6.0% 5.5% Jobs 2014 157,198 76,826 56,448 23,924 Job Growth 2004r2014 r0.1% r3.8% 6.0% r1.6% Housing Growth 2004r2014 +3.9% +1.6% +5.9% +8.4% Average Household Size 2010 2.53 2.48 2.56 2.59 Percent SinglerFamily Homes 64.0% 49.5% 79.4% 84.2% Homeownership Rate 2014 68.9% 56.2% 81.6% 86.1% Median Home Value 2014 $248,694 $178,413 $297,045 $311,107 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 4 Urban Core During the 19th century, the urban core emerged as a leading manufacturr ing center for brass, copper, clocks, watches, and rubber products. The urban core has high levels of racial and income diversity, high population denr sity, good access to public transit, and plentiful affordable housing. The charr acter of the urban core varies signifir cantly from neighborhood to neighborr hood. Most of the region?s major instir 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 mur 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 dir 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 rer 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 resir dents commute to jobs in neighboring towns and cities. 5 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile This chapter summarizes regional demographic trends such as population change, race and ethnicity, age, houser hold structure, education, and income. The major population and demographr ic trends shaping the region are: x Population growth in the outer ring is outpacing the rest of the region. x All municipalities are becoming more racially and ethnically diverse. x In the next ten years, the region will see a large increase in retirees and a decline in school aged population. x Nonrtraditional households (nonr married couples) are becoming more common. x There is a large education and inr come gap between the urban core and surrounding municipalities. Population Growth From 2000 to 2010, the region saw a modest 4.6% 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 natr ural increase (births minus deaths), while the other half was due to inr migration from outside the region. Der 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 4.1% inr crease in the inner ring and a 2.4% inr crease in the urban core. Since 2010, population growth has stagnated as a result of the 2007 to 2009 recession. From 2007 to 2013, the number of births dropped by 14.1%. Many families have delayed having children due to economic unr certainty and rising student loan debt. The drop in new home construction since 2008 has prevented new resir dents from moving to the region, parr ticularly in the outer ring. 2. Population and Demographic Trends The Gathering, Waterbury Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 6 Immigration and Migration While birth rates have fallen, immigrar 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 Dor 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 inr migration. While the outer ring experir enced a natural decrease in population (more deaths than births), they added 9,490 residents through inrmigration (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 outrmigration. The inner ring saw a small natural increase and gained 3,787 residents through inrmigration. Population Projections Population projections from the Conr necticut State Data Center indicate that up to 2025, the region?s popular 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 inrmigration will conr tinue to drive population growth in the outer ring. Middlebury and Oxford are projected to be the two fastestr growing municipalities in the region. In the inner ring, shrinking household size and an increase in elderly resir 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 housr 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 resir 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 user 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 popular tion growth than a stagnant economy. Sources: Connec?cut State Data Center, Popula?on Projec?ons by Municipality: 2015, 2020, and 2025. U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 7 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Black 6.7% White 76.1% Hispanic 12.7% Asian 2.3% Other 2.2% Black 5.4% White 83.1% Hispanic 8.2% Asian 1.5% Other 1.8% ?Other? includes American Indian/Alaska Na?ves, Paci?c Islanders, Some Other Race, and Mul?racial persons. Black, Asian, Other, and White popula?ons only include nonrHispanic persons. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 . 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 ber longed to a minority group. From 2000 to 2010, the urban core experienced ?white flight? as their nonrHispanic white populations declined by over 20,000. This coincided with rapid growth among Hispanics, African Amerr icans, and Asians. Waterbury is a minorityrmajority 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 popular 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, inr 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% inr 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. Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 8 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 40.1 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 6.0%, with the fastest growth in the inner ring (15.9%) and outer ring (26.5%). The urban core saw a decrease in elderly residents (r6.4%). The aging trend will accelerate as baby boomers reach retirement age. The population over the age of 65 is pror jected to balloon from 66,227 in 2010 to over 100,000 by 2025. The workingraged (age 15 to 64) popur lation is expected to stay stable up to 2020 and then decline slightly by 2025. As the baby boomers age into retirer ment, millennials (born between 1980 and 2000) will make up a greater porr 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 unr der age 15 decrease by over 25%. The changing age structure of the rer gion will shift the financial burdens of municipalities. Budgets will shift away from education and youth services tor wards elderly services such as health care, transportation, and recreation. This is particularly true in inner and outer ring communities, where a drar matic increase in elderly population will correspond with a decrease in schoolraged population. Greater finanr cial burdens will be placed on the working aged population, who will have to support the growing number of retirees. Source: Connec?cut State Data Center, Popula?on Projec?ons: 2010r2025 U.S. Census 2010 9 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Household and Family Structure Household arrangements have changed as the average age of marr 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 havr 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 40.1% of urban core households are married couples compared to 57.9% in the inr ner ring and 60.3% in the outer ring. A disproportionate number of singler parent households are found in the urban core. Education As of 2014, 28.8% of the region?s adults age 25 and over have a Bacher lor?s degree or higher. This compares to 29.2% of adults nationwide, and 36.9% statewide. There is a large disr crepancy in educational attainment between the urban core and the rer mainder of the region. In the urban core, just 19.9% of the population age 25 and older has a Bachelor?s degree or higher, compared to 36.8% in the inner ring, and 39.7% in the outer ring. Since 2000, educational attainment has improved across all municipalities. The number of residents with at least a Bachelor?s degree increased by 33.6%, with the fastest increase occurring in the outer ring. During the same period, the number of residents without a high school diploma dropped by over 30%. 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 gradur ates have higher incomes than less educated municipalities. Figure 2e ber low illustrates the relationship ber tween education and income. Urban Core Region Outer Ring Inner Ring Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 10 Income and Poverty There is a large income gap between the urban core and remainder of the region. From 2010 to 2014, median household income in the urban core was $49,560 compared to $86,633 in the inner ring and $87,357 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 11.6% in the inner ring and 11.3% 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 imr 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 workingraged persons). Since 1999, median household income der clined in 16 out of 19 municipalities. The highest drops in household income occurred in the urban core towns of Ansonia, Derby, and Naugatuck. These three towns have a high percentage of single parent households. The number of people in poverty inr creased by 58.8% from 2000 to 2014. In 2000, there were 31,412 persons living in poverty (7.5% of total). By 2014, it had increased to 49,880 (11.3% of total). Poverty increased at a moderate rate in the inner ring and highest in outer ring municipalities and the urban core. Waterbury, which has a poverty rate of 24.2%, is home to over half of the region?s impoverished. Child poverty is a prevalent issue in the urban core, where 26.6% of chilr dren live below the poverty line. Ansor 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 houser holds with both parents present. 11 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile The Naugatuck Valley economy was hit hard by the 2007 to 2009 recession. The major economic trends shaping the region are: x Unemployment disproportionately affects young workers under the age of 25. x As of 2014, the region has gained back 58% of the jobs that were lost during the recession. x Jobs are suburbanizing. During the last ten years the inner ring saw job growth while the urban core lost jobs. x Over half of Naugatuck Valley resir dents commute to jobs outside the region. Labor Force The labor force is made up of Naur 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 234,819, of which 217,415 were emr ployed and 17,404 were unemployed. From 2010 to 2013 the state and rer gion experienced a labor force contracr tion, meaning that there were fewer residents who were employed or lookr ing for work. The labor force contracr 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. In 2014 the labor force grew 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 improves. Employment As of 2014 there were 217,415 emr ployed residents living in the region. This is a decline of 3,630 (r1.6%) from 2007, when there were 221,045 emr ployed residents. The number of emr ployed residents decreased every year from 2008 to 2013 but grew in 2014. Population projections indicate that a significant number of baby boomers are nearing retirement age. The numr ber of working aged residents is pror 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 necesr sary to replace the growing number of retirees. 3. Economic Trends Shelton Corporate Park, Shelton Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 12 Unemployment From 2007 to 2010 the region saw the number of unemployed residents more than double from 11,954 to 24,656. The jump in unemployment was caused by both job losses and labor force growth. Unemployment has der creased each year since 2010. As of 2014, it stands at 17,404, or 7.4% of the labor force. The labor force conr traction (unemployed persons that have stopped looking for work) is rer sponsible for some of the drop in unr employment. Despite improvements over the last three years, the unemr ployment rate remains above state and national averages. Figure 3a sumr marizes labor force, employment, and unemployment trends over the last 20 years. Unemployment trends vary by location and age. As of 2014, unemployment is highest in the urban core communities of Waterbury (10.7%), Ansonia (9.2%), and Derby (7.9%), and lowest in the inner ring community of Cheshire (4.6%) and the outer ring communities of Woodbury (5.1%), Middlebury (5.1%), and Prospect (5.3%). Due to the collapse of the stock market from 2007 to 2009, many older workr ers have continued to work into retirer ment age. This trend, combined with the lack of new job creation, has led to a disproportionately high unemployr ment rate among young people. The unemployment rate for residents unr der the age of 25 is 20.5% compared to 10.0% for middle aged workers (age 25 r44) and 7.6% for older workers (age 45 and older). 13 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Jobs During the recession, the region exper 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 construcr 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 trar ditionally been ?recessionrproof.? Since 2011 the economy has improved, adding over 7,000 jobs. As of 2014, the region has gained back 58.1% of the jobs that were lost during the recesr sion. Comparatively, the state has gained back 114% of the jobs that were lost during the recession. As of 2014 there are 157,198 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 orr der to be closer to their workforce. From 2004 to 2014, the urban core lost over 3,000 jobs while the inner ring gained over 3000 jobs, mostly in Shelr ton and Cheshire. Outer ring towns with good highway access (such as Oxr ford and Middlebury) also saw job growth. Over the last half century, the region has shifted from a manufacturingr oriented economy to a servicer oriented one. Health care and social assistance is now the largest job sector followed by government (which inr cludes public school teachers). While much less prominent than in the past, manufacturing remains the third largr 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 Conr necticut Department of Labor indicate that the health care and social assisr tance sector will drive job creation up to 2020, largely due to increased der mand for health care by the baby boomers. Other sectors projected to add jobs up to 2020 are professional and business services, and construcr tion, although the latter is largely der pendent on the housing market. Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 14 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 75% of working residents. The result is a net export of over 50,000 workers each day to other rer gions, with many commuting to Hartr ford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Danbury, and lower Fairfield County. Cheshire and Shelton are the only mur nicipalities in the region that have more jobs than employed residents. The remaining municipalities have more employed residents than jobs and are net exporters of commuters. As of 2014, when the most recent comr muting data was available, just 40.1% of employed Naugatuck Valley resir dents worked in the region. The rer maining 59.9% commute to jobs outr side of the region. Waterbury is the most popular commuting destination followed by Bristol, Cheshire and Shelr ton. Outside of the region, the most popular destinations are Hartford, New Haven, Stratford, Bridgeport, and Danr bury. Similarly, nearly half of the peor ple who work in the Naugatuck Valley live outside of the region. Wages The average wage of workers in the region is $55,845 which is above the national average of $47,230, but below the state average of $63,909. Since 2007, the region has seen wages der crease at a smaller rate (r0.3%) than the state, which declined by ?2.8%. Average wages vary significantly from sector to sector. The Management of Companies and Enterprises has an avr erage wage of over $281,049, while the Accommodation and Food Services Sector has an average wage of just $17,088. Table 3a below shows the highest and lowest wage sectors in the region. Sector Average Wage Management of Companies and Enterprises $281,049 Informa?on $119,050 U?li?es $99,288 Finance and Insurance $91,564 Wholesale Trade $74,213 Sector Average Wage Accommoda?on and Food Services $17,074 Arts, Entertainment, and Recrea?on $20,844 Other Services $24,255 Retail Trade $29,686 Administra?ve & Waste Management $32,413 15 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile In recent years, the housing market has been shaped by the Great Recesr sion and preceding housing bubble. The major housing trends shaping the region are: x New construction in the outer ring is outpacing new construction in the rest of the region. x Since peaking in 2005, new conr struction decreased r82% by 2011. x Home prices grew rapidly from 2003 to 2007, but have declined each year since 2007. x Homes in the region are more afr fordable than the state as a whole. x Most of the affordable housing in the region is found in the urban core. New Construction During the early 2000s the region exr perienced a building boom. New conr struction peaked from 2002 to 2005 when over 5,000 housing units were built. The vast majority (85%) of new homes were singlerfamily homes. Shelr ton and Oxford led the region in new construction. Shelton added 826 housr ing units (340 of which were multir 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 298 units in 2011 as the national housr ing bubble burst. New construction has remained well below its historic levels since then. The multi family market picked up pace in 2012 and 2013 due to apartment and condominium conr struction in Shelton. In 2014 the urban core added 77 units with 46 in Bristol and 31 in Waterbury. Construction of new single family homes has remained stagnant. 4. Housing Trends Oxford Greens, Oxford Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 16 Housing Stock As of 2014, the region has 185,942 housing units. Singlerfamily homes comprise 64% of units. Outer ring comr munities such as Oxford, Bethlehem, and Middlebury are made up almost entirely of singlerfamily homes. By conr trast, a vast majority of the region?s multirfamily housing units are found in the urban core. However, in the last decade, a majority of the new multir 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 conr struction for the region is 1965. The urban core has the oldest housing stock (1962) followed by the inner ring (1969) and outer ring (1975). 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 2014, 68.9% of households in the region live in an ownerroccupied home. This is slightly higher than the 67.3% homeownership rate statewide. Outr side the core, over 80% of households live in ownerroccupied homes. Threer 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 (90.8%) than multir family units (23.7%). High income households are more likely to own a home than low income households. Less than 35% of households that make under $25,000 live in an ownerr occupied unit compared to over 90% for households that make over $100,000. 17 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Home Values In keeping with national and state trends, the region saw rapid home valr 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 38.4%, or nearly $17 bilr lion. While the bulk of the increase was due to overvalued real estate, some of the increase was due to new construcr tion. After peaking in 2007, the housr ing market began its subsequent colr lapse. From 2007 to 2013, the ENGL dropped by r26.2%, a loss of almost $16 billion. The urban core saw the highest ENGL growth from 2003 to 2007 (41.0%) followed by the sharpest decline from 2007 to 2013 (r26.2%). Figure 4b shows changes in inflation adjusted ENGL from 2002 to 2013. The drop in property values and mur 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 addir 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 rer 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 $274,500 statewide. Eleven of the 19 municipalir ties in the region are more affordable than the statewide median. Homes are most affordable in the urban core ($178,000) while the inner ($297,000) and outer ($311,000) rings have the most expensive homes. Urban Core Inner Ring Outer Ring Source: Connec?cut O8ce of Policy and Management. Equalized Net Grand List, by Municipality: 2003r2013 All values are in 2013 dollars Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 18 Housing Costs Monthly homeowner costs and monthr ly rent also provide insight into the rer gion?s affordability. Median monthly homeowner costs range from a low of $1,367 in Waterr bury to $2,097 in Oxford. Homeowners with a mortgage pay more than twice as much per month as homeowners without a mortgage. From 2000 to 2014, median monthly homeowner costs for homes with a mortgage have risen between 5% and 20% depending on the municipality . Nonrmortgaged homeowner costs increased at a faster rate than mortgage costs, suggesting that fuel prices, electricity rates, taxes, and insurance are increasing . Renters pay less per month than homer owners. Median gross rents (lease amount plus utilities) range from a low of $839 in Thomaston to $1,357 in Southbury. Rent has not increased as fast as homeowner costs. In four outer ring towns and one inner ring town, inflationradjusted rents actually der creased from 2000 to 2014 . Affordable Housing The U.S. Census Bureau uses 30% of household income as a standard for measuring housing affordability. In orr der to be considered affordable, homer owners should pay 30% or less of their income towards housing. As of 2014, 39.2% of households pay 30% or more of their income towards housing. Renters (49.3%) are more likely to pay 30% or more of their income towards housing than homeowners (34.6%). More than half of urban core renters 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 rer strictions, and Connecticut Housing Finance Authority (CHFA) or Farmer?s Home Administration (FmHA) mortgagr es. Over 84% of publicly assisted housr 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 Conr necticut General Statutes (CGS) Section 8r30g, which limits the conditions unr der which towns may deny applications for such developments. Ansonia (13.9%), Bristol (13.0%), Derby (11.3%), and Waterbury (22.7%) are the only municipalities that meet the 10% afr fordable housing threshold. The rer maining municipalities have less than 10% affordable housing and are subject to CGS Section 8r30g. 19 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Appendix A Population and Demographic Trends Tables and Maps Topic Page Popula?on ……………………………………………………………..…………………… 20 Popula?on Density ………………………………………………………………………. 22 Race and Ethnicity ………………………………………………………….……………. 24 Hispanic Popula?on ……………………………………………………………..………. 26 Age Distribu?on ……………………………………………………………..…………… 28 Elderly Popula?on ……………………………………………………………..………… 30 Median Age ………………………………………………………………………………… 32 Income Distribu?on ……………………………………………………………..………. 34 Income ………………………………………………………..……………………………… 36 Poverty ………………………………………………………………………………………. 38 Household Structure ……………………………………………………………………. 40 Educa?onal A?ainment ……………………………………………………….………. 44 Popula?on Projec?ons ……………………………………………………………..….. 46 Waterbury on Wheels Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 20 Popula?on Percent Change Geography 2014 2010 2000 2010r2014 2000r2014 Ansonia 19,128 19,249 18,554 r0.6% 3.0% Beacon Falls 6,065 6,049 5,246 0.3% 13.5% Bethlehem 3,551 3,607 3,422 r1.6% 3.6% Bristol 60,556 60,477 60,062 0.1% 0.8% Cheshire 29,272 29,261 28,543 0.0% 2.5% Derby 12,837 12,902 12,391 r0.5% 3.5% Middlebury 7,575 7,575 6,451 0.0% 14.8% Naugatuck 31,790 31,862 30,989 r0.2% 2.5% Oxford 12,831 12,683 9,821 1.2% 23.7% Plymouth 12,085 12,213 11,634 r1.0% 3.7% Prospect 9,615 9,405 8,707 2.2% 9.7% Seymour 16,551 16,540 15,454 0.1% 6.6% Shelton 40,472 39,559 38,101 2.3% 6.0% Southbury 19,876 19,904 18,567 r0.1% 6.6% Thomaston 7,793 7,887 7,503 r1.2% 3.7% Waterbury 109,887 110,366 107,271 r0.4% 2.4% Watertown 22,286 22,514 21,661 r1.0% 2.8% Wolco? 16,724 16,680 15,215 0.3% 9.0% Woodbury 9,851 9,975 9,198 r1.2% 6.5% Region Total 448,745 448,708 428,790 0.0% 4.4% Urban Core 234,198 234,856 229,267 r0.3% 2.1% Inner Ring 128,459 127,974 122,896 0.4% 4.3% Outer Ring 86,088 85,878 76,627 0.2% 11.0% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014 (B11003), 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census 21 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census, SF1 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 22 Land Area % Change Geography (Sq. Mi.) 2014 2010 2000 2000r2014 Ansonia 6.2 3,092 3,111 2,999 3.1% Beacon Falls 9.8 620 618 536 15.6% Bethlehem 19.7 181 183 174 3.8% Bristol 26.8 2,258 2,255 2,240 0.8% Cheshire 33.4 877 877 856 2.6% Derby 5.4 2,375 2,387 2,292 3.6% Middlebury 18.4 411 411 350 17.4% Naugatuck 16.4 1,938 1,943 1,890 2.6% Oxford 33.3 385 380 295 30.6% Plymouth 22.3 541 547 521 3.9% Prospect 14.5 665 650 602 10.4% Seymour 15.0 1,105 1,104 1,032 7.1% Shelton 31.9 1,269 1,240 1,194 6.2% Southbury 40.1 496 497 463 7.1% Thomaston 12.2 639 646 615 3.9% Waterbury 28.9 3,797 3,813 3,706 2.4% Watertown 29.5 755 763 734 2.9% Wolco? 21.1 793 791 721 9.9% Woodbury 36.6 269 272 251 7.1% Region Total 421.5 1,065 1,064 1,017 4.7% Urban Core 83.7 2,796 2,804 2,738 2.2% Inner Ring 144.3 890 887 852 4.5% Outer Ring 193.5 445 444 396 12.3% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014 (B11003), 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census 23 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B01003 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 24 Non Hispanic Hispanic or La?no 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% Wolco? 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% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau , 2010 U.S. Census Note: ?Other? category includes Paci?c Islander, American Indian/Alaska Na?ves, Other, or 2 or more aces Minority popula?on includes Black, Asian, Other, and Hispanic popula?ons 25 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census Note: Minority popula?on includes Black, Asian, Other, and Hispanic popula?ons Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 26 Number Percent of Total % Change 2000r2010 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% Wolco? 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% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census 27 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 28 Total Popula?on Age Group Geography Under 5 Years 5r17 Years 18r24 Years 25r34 Years 35r44 Years 45r64 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 Wolco? 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 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census 29 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Age Group Geography Under 5 Years 5r17 Years 18r24 Years 25r34 Years 35r44 Years 45r64 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% Wolco? 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% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 30 2010 2000 % Change Geography Number Percent Number Percent 2000r2010 Ansonia 2,592 13.5% 2,871 15.5% r9.7% 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% r2.1% 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% r13.1% Watertown 3,637 16.2% 3,050 14.1% 19.2% Wolco? 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% r6.4% Inner Ring 19,606 15.3% 16,917 13.8% 15.9% Outer Ring 15,239 17.7% 12,049 15.7% 26.5% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census 31 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 32 Median Age % Change Geography 2010 2000 1990 1990r2010 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% Wolco? 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% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census, 1990 U.S. Census 33 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 34 Total Households Household Income ($) Geography Less than $25,000 $25,000 r $49,999 $50,000 r $74,999 $75,000 r $99,999 $100,000 or More Ansonia 7,240 2,072 1,847 1,010 833 1,478 Beacon Falls 2,334 169 457 383 345 980 Bethlehem 1,353 204 205 176 240 528 Bristol 25,194 4,907 5,492 5,219 3,432 6,144 Cheshire 9,799 769 1,137 1,248 1,316 5,329 Derby 4,972 1,174 1,183 941 584 1,090 Middlebury 2,761 324 400 313 459 1,265 Naugatuck 12,157 2,332 2,815 2,153 1,486 3,371 Oxford 4,411 280 418 760 781 2,172 Plymouth 4,711 687 768 1,038 769 1,449 Prospect 3,256 252 474 416 459 1,655 Seymour 6,090 896 864 1,215 1,022 2,093 Shelton 15,186 1,715 2,482 2,302 1,987 6,700 Southbury 7,841 1,226 1,472 1,108 1,033 3,002 Thomaston 3,000 361 604 572 475 988 Waterbury 40,960 13,692 10,139 7,297 4,279 5,553 Watertown 8,476 1,063 1,581 1,461 1,325 3,046 Wolco? 5,827 621 926 968 1,081 2,231 Woodbury 4,096 514 715 640 461 1,766 Region Total 169,664 33,258 33,979 29,220 22,367 50,840 Urban Core 90,523 24,177 21,476 16,620 10,614 17,636 Inner Ring 47,262 5,491 7,436 7,836 6,894 19,605 Outer Ring 31,879 3,590 5,067 4,764 4,859 13,599 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B19001 35 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Household Income ($) Geography Less than $25,000 $25,000 r $49,999 $50,000 r $74,999 $75,000 r $99,999 $100,000 or More Ansonia 28.6% 25.5% 14.0% 11.5% 20.4% Beacon Falls 7.2% 19.6% 16.4% 14.8% 42.0% Bethlehem 15.1% 15.2% 13.0% 17.7% 39.0% Bristol 19.5% 21.8% 20.7% 13.6% 24.4% Cheshire 7.8% 11.6% 12.7% 13.4% 54.4% Derby 23.6% 23.8% 18.9% 11.7% 21.9% Middlebury 11.7% 14.5% 11.3% 16.6% 45.8% Naugatuck 19.2% 23.2% 17.7% 12.2% 27.7% Oxford 6.3% 9.5% 17.2% 17.7% 49.2% Plymouth 14.6% 16.3% 22.0% 16.3% 30.8% Prospect 7.7% 14.6% 12.8% 14.1% 50.8% Seymour 14.7% 14.2% 20.0% 16.8% 34.4% Shelton 11.3% 16.3% 15.2% 13.1% 44.1% Southbury 15.6% 18.8% 14.1% 13.2% 38.3% Thomaston 12.0% 20.1% 19.1% 15.8% 32.9% Waterbury 33.4% 24.8% 17.8% 10.4% 13.6% Watertown 12.5% 18.7% 17.2% 15.6% 35.9% Wolco? 10.7% 15.9% 16.6% 18.6% 38.3% Woodbury 12.5% 17.5% 15.6% 11.3% 43.1% Region Total 19.6% 20.0% 17.2% 13.2% 30.0% Urban Core 26.7% 23.7% 18.4% 11.7% 19.5% Inner Ring 11.6% 15.7% 16.6% 14.6% 41.5% Outer Ring 11.3% 15.9% 14.9% 15.2% 42.7% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B19001 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 36 Median Household Income Median Family Income Geography 2014 1999 % Change 2014 1999 % Change Ansonia $43,144 $61,097 r29.4% $61,840 $76,280 r18.9% Beacon Falls $87,273 $80,361 8.6% $106,630 $88,695 20.2% Bethlehem $88,616 $97,330 r9.0% $99,756 $111,985 r10.9% Bristol $60,208 $67,339 r10.6% $74,047 $82,728 r10.5% Cheshire $107,716 $114,262 r5.7% $125,625 $128,899 r2.5% Derby $52,136 $64,851 r19.6% $65,087 $77,695 r16.2% Middlebury $95,320 $100,066 r4.7% $105,691 $115,545 r8.5% Naugatuck $58,641 $72,771 r19.4% $77,372 $84,087 r8.0% Oxford $98,504 $109,519 r10.1% $106,216 $114,199 r7.0% Plymouth $71,441 $76,325 r6.4% $82,966 $88,906 r6.7% Prospect $100,592 $95,935 4.9% $109,665 $105,134 4.3% Seymour $77,465 $74,419 4.1% $95,490 $92,317 3.4% Shelton $88,369 $95,555 r7.5% $105,833 $107,243 r1.3% Southbury $76,896 $87,925 r12.5% $101,423 $115,175 r11.9% Thomaston $73,679 $77,102 r4.4% $88,239 $90,428 r2.4% Waterbury $41,136 $48,685 r15.5% $48,256 $60,066 r19.7% Watertown $78,767 $84,376 r6.6% $97,647 $97,641 0.0% Wolco? $83,317 $87,154 r4.4% $94,080 $95,966 r2.0% Woodbury $84,868 $97,017 r12.5% $105,691 $117,350 r9.9% Region Total $66,989 $73,563 r8.9% $82,378 $88,444 r6.9% Urban Core $49,560 $58,749 r15.6% $61,409 $71,866 r14.6% Inner Ring $86,633 $91,418 r5.2% $104,145 $105,498 r1.3% Outer Ring $87,357 $93,268 r6.3% $102,851 $108,375 r5.1% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B19113, S1903 2000 U.S. Census, DP003 [ CPI In?a?on Rate 1999r2014: 1.42] 37 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 20010r2014, B19013, Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 38 2014 2000 Change 2000r2014 Geography Number Percent Number Percent Net Percent Ansonia 3,656 19.2% 1,394 7.6% 2,262 162.3% Beacon Falls 111 1.8% 309 5.9% r198 r64.1% Bethlehem 270 7.7% 89 2.6% 181 203.4% Bristol 5,744 9.6% 3,921 6.6% 1,823 46.5% Cheshire 570 2.1% 750 3.0% r180 r24.0% Derby 1,605 12.8% 1,014 8.3% 591 58.3% Middlebury 315 4.2% 174 2.7% 141 81.0% Naugatuck 3,058 9.7% 1,977 6.4% 1,081 54.7% Oxford 469 3.7% 206 2.1% 263 127.7% Plymouth 826 6.9% 470 4.1% 356 75.7% Prospect 405 4.3% 89 1.0% 316 355.1% Seymour 918 5.6% 573 3.7% 345 60.2% Shelton 1,998 5.0% 1,208 3.2% 790 65.4% Southbury 1,646 8.4% 878 4.9% 768 87.5% Thomaston 265 3.4% 311 4.2% r46 r14.8% Waterbury 26,122 24.2% 16,774 16.0% 9,348 55.7% Watertown 797 3.6% 471 2.2% 326 69.2% Wolco? 518 3.1% 392 2.6% 126 32.1% Woodbury 587 6.0% 412 4.5% 175 42.5% Region Total 49,880 11.3% 31,412 7.5% 18,468 58.8% Urban Core 40,185 17.4% 25,080 11.1% 15,105 60.2% Inner Ring 5,374 4.3% 3,783 3.2% 1,591 42.1% Outer Ring 4,321 5.1% 2,549 3.4% 1,772 69.5% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, S1701 2000 U.S. Census 39 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, C17002 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 40 Total Households Family Households NonrFamily Households Geography Single Parent Married Couple Ansonia 7,240 20.1% 44.0% 35.9% Beacon Falls 2,334 10.5% 54.3% 35.2% Bethlehem 1,353 14.0% 57.6% 28.5% Bristol 25,194 17.8% 43.9% 38.3% Cheshire 9,799 11.0% 64.1% 24.9% Derby 4,972 20.1% 41.0% 38.8% Middlebury 2,761 8.8% 66.9% 24.3% Naugatuck 12,157 17.8% 49.1% 33.1% Oxford 4,411 14.8% 69.0% 16.2% Plymouth 4,711 16.2% 52.3% 31.5% Prospect 3,256 11.4% 63.5% 25.1% Seymour 6,090 14.8% 53.0% 32.2% Shelton 15,186 13.2% 57.9% 28.9% Southbury 7,841 9.5% 54.7% 35.8% Thomaston 3,000 16.3% 54.2% 29.5% Waterbury 40,960 28.9% 34.2% 37.0% Watertown 8,476 11.6% 58.6% 29.8% Wolco? 5,827 13.6% 61.4% 25.0% Woodbury 4,096 9.7% 57.5% 32.8% Region Total 169,664 18.1% 48.8% 33.0% Urban Core 90,523 23.1% 40.1% 36.8% Inner Ring 47,262 13.1% 57.9% 29.0% Outer Ring 31,879 11.4% 60.3% 28.3% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B11001 41 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 42 Average Household Size % Change 1980r2010 Geography 2010 2000 1990 1980 Ansonia 2.55 2.46 2.57 2.71 r5.9% Beacon Falls 2.56 2.58 2.69 2.98 r14.1% Bethlehem 2.49 2.69 2.73 2.86 r12.9% Bristol 2.35 2.38 2.51 2.77 r15.2% Cheshire 2.66 2.71 2.82 3.06 r13.1% Derby 2.35 2.32 2.40 2.65 r11.3% Middlebury 2.72 2.66 2.73 2.94 r7.5% Naugatuck 2.56 2.60 2.69 2.80 r8.6% Oxford 2.81 2.94 3.09 3.18 r11.6% Plymouth 2.53 2.60 2.72 2.92 r13.4% Prospect 2.76 2.83 2.97 3.24 r14.8% Seymour 2.46 2.49 2.55 2.73 r9.9% Shelton 2.55 2.65 2.79 3.05 r16.4% Southbury 2.33 2.41 2.34 2.39 r2.5% Thomaston 2.53 2.57 2.64 2.86 r11.5% Waterbury 2.54 2.46 2.48 2.67 r4.9% Watertown 2.57 2.67 2.80 3.00 r14.3% Wolco? 2.75 2.79 2.93 3.30 r16.7% Woodbury 2.36 2.48 2.51 2.61 r9.6% Region Total 2.53 2.54 2.62 2.81 r10.2% Urban Core 2.48 2.45 2.52 2.71 r8.5% Inner Ring 2.56 2.64 2.75 2.97 r13.8% Outer Ring 2.59 2.65 2.72 2.91 r11.0% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Table P17, Census 2000, Census 1990, Census 1980 43 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P17 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 44 Popula?on Age 25 and Over Less than High School High School Graduate Some College Associates Degree Bachelor’s Degree or Higher Geography Ansonia 13,181 12.1% 45.4% 19.2% 7.0% 16.3% Beacon Falls 4,311 6.4% 35.8% 20.8% 8.5% 28.6% Bethlehem 2,524 6.4% 26.0% 21.4% 8.9% 37.4% Bristol 43,135 11.0% 36.6% 20.4% 8.2% 23.7% Cheshire 20,303 5.6% 22.5% 13.8% 6.3% 51.7% Derby 9,093 12.6% 36.1% 18.1% 6.5% 26.7% Middlebury 5,338 4.1% 17.9% 17.6% 10.7% 49.6% Naugatuck 21,883 12.6% 32.8% 21.0% 9.1% 24.5% Oxford 8,648 5.1% 26.9% 20.4% 6.0% 41.6% Plymouth 8,384 10.6% 36.7% 21.9% 11.5% 19.4% Prospect 7,002 9.6% 32.8% 15.4% 8.1% 34.2% Seymour 11,045 5.1% 36.1% 20.3% 7.0% 31.5% Shelton 29,230 7.2% 28.5% 18.7% 7.8% 37.8% Southbury 14,705 7.7% 22.2% 16.9% 7.2% 46.0% Thomaston 5,508 9.5% 35.5% 19.6% 10.6% 24.9% Waterbury 70,744 20.5% 36.2% 19.1% 8.2% 16.0% Watertown 15,706 7.2% 30.4% 19.9% 9.7% 32.7% Wolco? 11,772 8.6% 36.7% 16.7% 9.6% 28.3% Woodbury 7,372 4.9% 21.8% 16.7% 7.7% 48.9% Region Total 309,884 11.4% 32.8% 18.9% 8.2% 28.8% Urban Core 158,036 15.7% 36.6% 19.7% 8.1% 19.9% Inner Ring 90,176 7.0% 29.6% 18.4% 8.2% 36.8% Outer Ring 61,672 6.9% 27.5% 17.7% 8.1% 39.7% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B15003 45 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010?2014, B15003 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 46 Popula?on Projec?ons % Change Geography 2010 2015 2020 2025 2010r2025 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 r1.1% 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% Wolco? 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% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010. Connec?cut State Data Center, Popula?on Projec?ons: 2015r2025 47 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Popula?on Age 15 and Under Popula?on Age 65 and Over Geography 2010 2025 % Change 2010 2025 % Change Ansonia 3,733 3,413 r8.6% 2,592 3,913 51.0% Beacon Falls 805 877 8.9% 1,089 1,675 53.8% Bethlehem 549 347 r36.8% 539 1,156 114.5% Bristol 10,645 9,690 r9.0% 9,026 13,209 46.3% Cheshire 5,457 3,337 r38.8% 4,102 6,164 50.3% Derby 2,212 2,335 5.6% 2,015 2,988 48.3% Middlebury 1,501 1,056 r29.6% 1,302 2,018 55.0% Naugatuck 5,975 5,425 r9.2% 3,806 6,452 69.5% Oxford 2,559 1,688 r34.0% 1,712 4,139 141.8% Plymouth 2,134 1,717 r19.5% 1,567 3,015 92.4% Prospect 1,705 1,222 r28.3% 1,425 2,538 78.1% Seymour 2,918 2,527 r13.4% 2,350 3,935 67.4% Shelton 6,735 5,065 r24.8% 6,903 10,661 54.4% Southbury 3,176 2,020 r36.4% 5,235 7,289 39.2% Thomaston 1,427 1,057 r25.9% 1,047 1,950 86.2% Waterbury 23,308 22,429 r3.8% 13,943 19,215 37.8% Watertown 3,849 2,998 r22.1% 3,637 6,263 72.2% Wolco? 3,080 2,465 r20.0% 2,540 4,147 63.3% Woodbury 1,650 1,137 r31.1% 1,703 3,243 90.4% Region Total 83,418 70,805 r15.1% 66,533 103,970 56.3% Urban Core 45,873 43,292 r5.6% 31,382 45,777 45.9% Inner Ring 22,520 16,701 r25.8% 19,606 31,988 63.2% Outer Ring 15,025 10,812 r28.0% 15,545 26,205 68.6% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010. Connec?cut State Data Center, Popula?on Projec?ons: 2015r2025 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 48 49 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Appendix B Tables and Maps Topic Page Labor Force and Employment ……………………………………………………….. 50 Unemployment Rate ………………………………………………………….………… 51 Total Jobs (Nonfarm Employment) ………………………………………………….. 52 Jobs by Sector (Nonfarm Employment) ……………………………………………. 54 Commu?ng Pa?erns ………………………………………………………….………… 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 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 50 Geography Labor Force Employed Unemployed Percent Unemployed Ansonia 9,534 8,660 874 9.2% Beacon Falls 3,404 3,197 207 6.1% Bethlehem 1,976 1,869 107 5.4% Bristol 32,747 30,367 2,380 7.3% Cheshire 15,261 14,564 697 4.6% Derby 6,914 6,366 548 7.9% Middlebury 3,783 3,590 193 5.1% Naugatuck 17,372 16,049 1,323 7.6% Oxford 7,078 6,695 383 5.4% Plymouth 6,758 6,231 527 7.8% Prospect 5,475 5,185 290 5.3% Seymour 9,043 8,412 631 7.0% Shelton 21,951 20,580 1,371 6.2% Southbury 8,793 8,293 500 5.7% Thomaston 4,746 4,458 288 6.1% Waterbury 51,573 46,051 5,522 10.7% Watertown 13,057 12,318 739 5.7% Wolco? 9,791 9,248 543 5.5% Woodbury 5,563 5,282 281 5.1% Region Total 234,819 217,415 17,404 7.4% Urban Core 118,140 107,493 10,647 9.0% Inner Ring 70,816 66,563 4,253 6.0% Outer Ring 45,863 43,359 2,504 5.5% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: Connec?cut Department of Labor, Local Area Unemployment Sta?s?cs (LAUS), by Town 2007r2014 51 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Unemployment Rate Geography 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 Ansonia 9.2% 10.8% 11.4% 11.8% 11.7% 9.9% 7.0% Beacon Falls 6.1% 6.5% 7.4% 8.3% 9.2% 8.8% 5.6% Bethlehem 5.4% 5.7% 6.5% 7.1% 7.7% 7.6% 4.6% Bristol 7.3% 8.4% 9.1% 9.8% 10.3% 9.1% 6.1% Cheshire 4.6% 5.2% 5.6% 6.2% 6.4% 6.4% 4.4% Derby 7.9% 9.0% 9.7% 10.5% 10.8% 9.4% 6.6% Middlebury 5.1% 5.8% 6.7% 7.1% 7.2% 7.0% 4.4% Naugatuck 7.6% 8.9% 9.4% 10.2% 10.8% 9.8% 6.9% Oxford 5.4% 6.1% 6.5% 7.0% 7.5% 6.6% 4.5% Plymouth 7.8% 9.1% 9.7% 10.6% 11.3% 10.2% 6.6% Prospect 5.3% 5.9% 6.9% 7.6% 8.4% 7.8% 5.1% Seymour 7.0% 7.8% 8.4% 9.2% 9.6% 8.2% 5.7% Shelton 6.2% 7.2% 7.8% 8.5% 8.6% 7.3% 5.0% Southbury 5.7% 6.7% 7.0% 7.8% 8.1% 7.0% 4.6% Thomaston 6.1% 7.2% 7.6% 8.0% 9.0% 9.9% 6.1% Waterbury 10.7% 12.2% 12.9% 13.6% 14.2% 13.5% 9.1% Watertown 5.7% 6.5% 7.1% 7.6% 8.2% 8.6% 5.7% Wolco? 5.5% 6.8% 7.6% 8.3% 8.9% 8.6% 5.5% Woodbury 5.1% 6.0% 6.2% 6.6% 7.4% 6.7% 4.2% Region Total 7.4% 8.5% 9.2% 9.8% 10.3% 9.5% 6.4% Urban Core 9.0% 10.4% 11.0% 11.7% 12.2% 11.1% 7.6% Inner Ring 6.0% 6.9% 7.5% 8.1% 8.5% 7.9% 5.3% Outer Ring 5.5% 6.3% 6.9% 7.6% 8.1% 7.5% 4.8% 2007 5.6% 4.4% 3.7% 5.1% 3.7% 5.1% 3.6% 5.2% 3.5% 5.5% 4.2% 4.6% 4.0% 3.7% 5.0% 7.4% 4.4% 4.3% 3.2% 5.1% 6.1% 4.3% 3.8% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: Connec?cut Department of Labor, Local Area Unemployment Sta?s?cs (LAUS), by Town 2007r2014 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 52 Jobs % Change Geography 2013 2011 2009 2007 2009r2014 2007r2009 Ansonia 3,359 3,910 3,623 3,724 r13.8% 5.0% Beacon Falls 843 929 887 1,059 r6.7% r12.3% Bethlehem 696 711 656 670 r0.6% 6.2% Bristol 21,592 20,597 20,286 21,231 6.7% r3.0% Cheshire 15,431 14,428 15,209 16,127 11.8% r10.5% Derby 4,872 4,643 4,929 5,153 5.4% r9.9% Middlebury 3,940 3,665 3,321 3,417 3.7% 7.3% Naugatuck 7,767 7,039 7,245 7,691 9.6% r8.5% Oxford 3,173 2,776 2,637 2,503 17.9% 10.9% Plymouth 2,061 2,001 2,112 2,253 9.0% r11.2% Prospect 1,980 1,983 1,946 2,062 2.1% r3.9% Seymour 4,412 4,170 4,160 4,517 7.2% r7.7% Shelton 22,050 21,005 22,340 22,687 7.8% r7.4% Southbury 8,396 8,573 8,829 9,479 r4.4% r9.6% Thomaston 2,724 2,643 2,612 3,026 8.2% r12.6% Waterbury 38,890 38,378 39,071 42,484 1.3% r9.7% Watertown 8,011 7,731 7,873 8,784 5.7% r12.0% Wolco? 2,966 2,821 3,009 3,077 6.7% r8.3% Woodbury 2,020 2,028 2,101 2,425 0.8% r16.4% Region Total 155,182 150,031 152,846 162,368 4.8% r7.6% Urban Core 76,481 74,567 75,154 80,284 3.0% r7.1% Inner Ring 54,689 51,978 54,306 57,392 8.6% r9.4% Outer Ring 24,012 23,486 23,386 24,691 1.9% r4.9% 2014 3,371 867 707 21,977 16,128 4,894 3,802 7,713 3,272 2,182 2,024 4,470 22,639 8,198 2,861 38,871 8,168 3,010 2,044 157,198 76,826 56,448 23,924 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: Connec?cut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), by Town 2007r2014 53 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On The Map, LODES Dataset, 2014 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 54 Loca?on Total Jobs Sector Urban Core Inner Ring Outer Ring Region % of Total Agriculture 0 307 0 307 0.2% U?li?es 294 61 0 355 0.2% Construc?on 2,040 2,098 1,461 5,599 3.6% Manufacturing 7,750 11,395 1,645 20,790 13.2% Wholesale Trade 1,921 3,759 851 6,531 4.2% Retail Trade 11,292 6,192 2,212 19,695 12.5% Transporta?on and Warer housing 840 1,223 456 2,519 1.6% Informa?on 4,624 1,095 199 5,918 3.8% Finance and Insurance 1,797 2,258 631 4,686 3.0% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 555 489 333 1,377 0.9% Professional, Scien??c, and Technical Services 1,602 2,885 604 5,091 3.2% Management of Companies and Enterprises 439 1,052 389 1,881 1.2% Administra?ve & Support and Waste Management 2,874 3,981 818 7,674 4.9% Educa?onal Services 1,222 808 166 2,195 1.4% Health Care and Social Assisr tance 18,372 5,995 3,656 28,023 17.8% Arts, Entertainment, and Recrea?on 313 501 127 941 0.6% Accommoda?on and Food Services 5,819 3,438 1,952 11,208 7.1% Other Services (except Public Administra?on) 2,934 1,526 1,065 5,525 3.5% Total Government 11,045 5,392 4,162 20,599 13.1% Total All Jobs 76,827 56,448 23,924 157,199 100.0% Source: Connec?cut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), by Town 2014 Note: All Public Sector Employees (including school teachers) are in the ?Total Government? category 55 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Number of Jobs Job Change 2007r2014 Sector 2014 2007 Net Percent Agriculture 307 316 r9 r2.8% U?li?es 355 288 67 23.1% Construc?on 5,599 6,809 r1,210 r17.8% Manufacturing 20,790 26,107 r5,317 r20.4% Wholesale Trade 6,531 6,031 500 8.3% Retail Trade 19,695 20,513 r818 r4.0% Transporta?on and Warehousr ing 2,519 2,431 88 3.6% Informa?on 5,918 4,850 1,068 22.0% Finance and Insurance 4,686 7,310 r2,623 r35.9% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,377 1,548 r171 r11.0% Professional, Scien??c, and Technical Services 5,091 5,182 r91 r1.8% Management of Companies and Enterprises 1,881 1,746 135 7.7% Administra?ve & Support and Waste Management 7,674 7,951 r277 r3.5% Educa?onal Services 2,195 991 1,204 121.5% Health Care and Social Assisr tance 28,023 25,146 2,877 11.4% Arts, Entertainment, and Recr rea?on 941 838 103 12.3% Accommoda?on and Food Services 11,208 9,592 1,616 16.9% Other Services (except Public Administra?on) 5,525 5,332 194 3.6% Total Government 20,599 22,041 r1,442 r6.5% Total All Jobs 155,182 162,368 r7,185 r4.4% Source: Connec?cut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), by Town 2007r2014 Note: All Public Sector Employees (including school teachers) are in the ?Total Government? category Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 56 Work Within Town of Residence Work Within Other Town in Region Work Outside of Region Geography Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 491 6.0% 2,064 25.3% 5,591 68.6% Beacon Falls 94 3.2% 1,022 34.3% 1,864 62.6% Bethlehem 165 9.8% 690 40.8% 835 49.4% Bristol 7,086 23.4% 2,599 8.6% 20,647 68.1% Cheshire 1,967 14.5% 1,747 12.9% 9,839 72.6% Derby 477 9.2% 1,077 20.7% 3,649 70.1% Middlebury 304 8.3% 1,404 38.2% 1,963 53.5% Naugatuck 1,767 11.6% 4,941 32.4% 8,527 56.0% Oxford 387 6.7% 1,616 27.8% 3,808 65.5% Plymouth 472 7.5% 2,201 34.9% 3,641 57.7% Prospect 349 6.9% 1,930 38.2% 2,767 54.8% Seymour 786 10.3% 1,989 26.0% 4,883 63.8% Shelton 2,955 15.4% 1,238 6.4% 15,001 78.2% Southbury 1,007 12.5% 1,827 22.6% 5,254 65.0% Thomaston 511 12.7% 1,460 36.3% 2,051 51.0% Waterbury 12,821 30.9% 9,725 23.5% 18,891 45.6% Watertown 1,809 16.0% 4,324 38.2% 5,176 45.8% Wolco? 781 9.0% 3,281 37.7% 4,648 53.4% Woodbury 445 10.5% 1,407 33.1% 2,405 56.5% Region Total 34,674 17.1% 46,542 23.0% 121,440 59.9% Urban Core 22,642 22.6% 20,406 20.3% 57,305 57.1% Inner Ring 8,500 13.7% 12,959 20.9% 40,591 65.4% Outer Ring 3,532 8.8% 13,177 32.7% 23,544 58.5% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On the Map LODES Dataset: 2014, Area Pro?le for Residents 57 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Live Within Town of Employment Live Within Other Town in Region Live Outside of Region Geography Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 491 17.0% 917 31.8% 1,480 51.2% Beacon Falls 94 12.6% 413 55.4% 238 31.9% Bethlehem 165 26.0% 261 41.2% 208 32.8% Bristol 7,086 31.9% 3,155 14.2% 11,940 53.8% Cheshire 1,967 13.1% 4,411 29.3% 8,693 57.7% Derby 477 10.0% 1,898 39.7% 2,405 50.3% Middlebury 304 8.7% 1,950 55.7% 1,245 35.6% Naugatuck 1,767 23.6% 3,150 42.1% 2,564 34.3% Oxford 387 13.3% 1,327 45.5% 1,201 41.2% Plymouth 472 22.7% 798 38.4% 807 38.9% Prospect 349 19.5% 918 51.4% 519 29.1% Seymour 786 18.7% 1,751 41.6% 1,670 39.7% Shelton 2,955 12.9% 4,483 19.6% 15,444 67.5% Southbury 1,007 14.3% 2,601 36.9% 3,448 48.9% Thomaston 511 18.6% 1,299 47.3% 935 34.1% Waterbury 12,821 33.3% 11,563 30.0% 14,135 36.7% Watertown 1,809 22.0% 3,697 44.9% 2,719 33.1% Wolco? 781 29.9% 1,120 42.9% 709 27.2% Woodbury 445 24.3% 830 45.3% 559 30.5% Region Total 34,674 22.8% 46,542 30.6% 70,919 46.6% Urban Core 22,642 29.9% 20,683 27.3% 32,524 42.9% Inner Ring 8,500 15.4% 16,439 29.8% 30,268 54.8% Outer Ring 3,532 16.8% 9,420 44.7% 8,127 38.6% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On the Map LODES Dataset: 2014, Area Pro?le for Workers Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 58 Geography Jobs Employed Residents Ra?o Commuter Import/Export Ansonia 3,371 8,660 0.39 r5,289 Beacon Falls 867 3,197 0.27 r2,330 Bethlehem 707 1,869 0.38 r1,162 Bristol 21,977 30,367 0.72 r8,390 Cheshire 16,128 14,564 1.11 1,564 Derby 4,894 6,366 0.77 r1,472 Middlebury 3,802 3,590 1.06 212 Naugatuck 7,713 16,049 0.48 r8,336 Oxford 3,272 6,695 0.49 r3,423 Plymouth 2,182 6,231 0.35 r4,049 Prospect 2,024 5,185 0.39 r3,161 Seymour 4,470 8,412 0.53 r3,942 Shelton 22,639 20,580 1.10 2,059 Southbury 8,198 8,293 0.99 r95 Thomaston 2,861 4,458 0.64 r1,597 Waterbury 38,871 46,051 0.84 r7,180 Watertown 8,168 12,318 0.66 r4,150 Wolco? 3,010 9,248 0.33 r6,238 Woodbury 2,044 5,282 0.39 r3,238 Region Total 157,198 217,415 0.72 r60,217 Urban Core 76,826 107,493 0.71 r30,667 Inner Ring 56,448 66,563 0.85 r10,115 Outer Ring 23,924 43,359 0.55 r19,435 Source: Connec?cut Department of Labor, Local Area Unemployment Sta?s?cs: 2014. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW): 2014 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v 59 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: Connec?cut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages: 2014 Note: All Public Sector Employees (including school teachers) are in the ?Total Government? category Average Annual Wages 2014 Sector Urban Core Inner Ring Outer Ring Region Agriculture r $32,556 r $32,556 U?li?es $102,142 $85,442 r $99,288 Construc?on $52,660 $63,652 $52,356 $56,698 Manufacturing $59,280 $82,939 $55,915 $71,981 Wholesale Trade $58,215 $80,683 $81,378 $74,166 Retail Trade $27,356 $35,096 $26,045 $29,642 Transporta?on and Warehousing $45,568 $47,738 $63,690 $49,901 Informa?on $129,972 $79,749 $64,292 $118,472 Finance and Insurance $75,662 $106,884 $79,062 $91,165 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing $41,515 $76,376 $39,001 $53,280 Professional, Scien??c, and Technical Services $67,548 $78,158 $60,461 $72,719 Management of Companies and Enterprises $196,551 $371,201 $132,834 $281,049 Administra?ve & Support and Waste Management $30,185 $32,264 $40,889 $32,405 Educa?onal Services $41,777 $44,346 $18,573 $40,972 Health Care and Social Assistance $46,200 $40,494 $40,120 $44,186 Arts, Entertainment, and Recrea?on $21,811 $21,703 $15,054 $20,844 Accommoda?on and Food Services $15,489 $19,875 $16,948 $17,088 Other Services (except Public Administra?on) $22,411 $25,804 $27,833 $24,393 Total Government $56,686 $56,603 $56,969 $56,721 Total All Jobs $49,586 $65,318 $53,594 $55,845 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 60 61 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Appendix C 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 A+ordable Housing …………………………………………………………..………….. 78 Housing data presented in Appendix C comes from a variety of sources including the 2010 US Census, 2010r2014 American Community Survey 5rYear Estimates, the Conr necticut Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD), and the Conr 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, Woodbury Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 62 Total Housing Units % Change Geography 2010 2000 1990 1980 2000r2010 1990r2000 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% r0.8% Watertown 9,096 8,298 7,522 6,618 9.6% 10.3% Wolco? 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% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, H001; Census 2000, Census 1990, Census 1980 63 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile New Housing Units by Year % Change 2007r2014 Geography 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2007 Ansonia 0 3 4 2 5 2 13 r100.0% Beacon Falls 25 11 5 3 9 28 22 13.6% Bethlehem 2 2 2 1 2 7 15 r86.7% Bristol 61 92 28 21 37 19 101 r39.6% Cheshire 41 48 24 58 39 17 51 r19.6% Derby 5 3 2 2 5 7 3 66.7% Middlebury 33 19 7 4 7 6 47 r29.8% Naugatuck 19 12 21 10 8 9 42 r54.8% Oxford 61 33 30 13 45 31 86 r29.1% Plymouth 6 5 5 9 11 6 18 r66.7% Prospect 27 20 23 49 48 36 39 r30.8% Seymour 6 14 23 17 22 15 28 r78.6% Shelton 47 129 299 35 31 17 93 r49.5% Southbury 20 42 14 6 7 6 33 r39.4% Thomaston 4 6 3 5 7 6 9 r55.6% Waterbury 44 34 62 28 32 37 146 r69.9% Watertown 31 33 21 16 21 25 47 r34.0% Wolco? 20 16 13 13 22 18 27 r25.9% Woodbury 2 9 5 6 4 10 27 r92.6% Region Total 454 531 591 298 362 302 847 r46.4% Urban Core 129 144 117 63 87 74 305 r57.7% Inner Ring 135 235 375 140 131 86 246 r45.1% Outer Ring 190 152 99 95 144 142 296 r35.8% 2008 5 23 4 29 41 2 28 34 74 6 57 38 111 9 7 58 35 24 14 599 128 238 233 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: Connec?cut Department of Economic and Community Development, Annual Housing Permit Data by Town: 2007r2014 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 64 Geography Total Units 1 Unit 2 Units 3r4 Units 5+ Units Mobile Home Ansonia 7,711 3,699 2,064 1,091 839 18 Beacon Falls 2,579 1,850 106 243 197 183 Bethlehem 1,502 1,397 62 26 11 6 Bristol 27,131 16,410 2,619 2,948 4,976 178 Cheshire 10,209 8,517 173 426 1,041 52 Derby 5,505 2,673 1,020 639 1,117 56 Middlebury 2,924 2,674 0 69 181 0 Naugatuck 13,103 8,310 1,758 1,000 1,835 200 Oxford 4,681 4,496 90 62 33 0 Plymouth 5,124 4,045 298 288 385 108 Prospect 3,293 2,896 72 102 39 184 Seymour 6,590 4,792 640 366 767 25 Shelton 16,200 12,821 775 930 1,412 262 Southbury 8,565 6,540 826 592 568 39 Thomaston 3,110 2,391 166 151 385 17 Waterbury 47,983 19,118 5,214 10,211 13,354 73 Watertown 9,098 7,421 698 397 566 16 Wolco? 6,139 5,471 249 108 311 0 Woodbury 4,495 3,447 127 278 643 0 Region Total 185,942 118,968 16,957 19,927 28,660 1,417 Urban Core 101,433 50,210 12,675 15,889 22,121 525 Inner Ring 50,331 39,987 2,750 2,558 4,556 480 Outer Ring 34,178 28,771 1,532 1,480 1,983 412 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B25024 65 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B25024 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 66 Housing Units Year Built Median Year Built Geography ALer 1999 1980 to 1999 1960 to 1979 1940 to 1959 Before 1940 Ansonia 7,711 60 712 1,847 1,848 3,244 1951 Beacon Falls 2,579 429 683 580 523 364 1976 Bethlehem 1,502 218 543 264 267 210 1980 Bristol 27,131 1,194 6,786 7,513 6,120 5,518 1965 Cheshire 10,209 938 2,838 3,325 2,230 878 1971 Derby 5,505 223 1,043 977 1,392 1,870 1955 Middlebury 2,924 443 580 701 786 414 1968 Naugatuck 13,103 896 2,326 3,911 2,889 3,081 1963 Oxford 4,681 1,055 1,399 1,032 836 359 1982 Plymouth 5,124 610 1,072 1,104 1,353 985 1964 Prospect 3,293 474 1,095 757 734 233 1978 Seymour 6,590 644 1,153 1,932 1,358 1,503 1965 Shelton 16,200 1,515 5,169 5,173 2,335 2,008 1975 Southbury 8,565 654 2,636 3,945 479 851 1976 Thomaston 3,110 341 877 612 527 753 1967 Waterbury 47,983 1,367 9,279 10,678 11,266 15,393 1956 Watertown 9,098 591 1,947 2,480 2,370 1,710 1964 Wolco? 6,139 716 1,419 1,634 1,869 501 1967 Woodbury 4,495 312 1,412 1,376 635 760 1974 Region Total 185,942 12,680 42,969 49,841 39,817 40,635 1965 Urban Core 101,433 3,740 20,146 24,926 23,515 29,106 1962 Inner Ring 50,331 4,639 13,056 14,626 10,173 7,837 1969 Outer Ring 34,178 4,301 9,767 10,289 6,129 3,692 1975 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B25034, B25035 67 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B25035 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 68 Occupied Housing Units Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Geography Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 7,240 3,956 54.6% 3,284 45.4% Beacon Falls 2,334 1,921 82.3% 413 17.7% Bethlehem 1,353 1,162 85.9% 191 14.1% Bristol 25,194 16,853 66.9% 8,341 33.1% Cheshire 9,799 8,624 88.0% 1,175 12.0% Derby 4,972 2,897 58.3% 2,075 41.7% Middlebury 2,761 2,471 89.5% 290 10.5% Naugatuck 12,157 8,080 66.5% 4,077 33.5% Oxford 4,411 3,889 88.2% 522 11.8% Plymouth 4,711 3,831 81.3% 880 18.7% Prospect 3,256 2,965 91.1% 291 8.9% Seymour 6,090 4,606 75.6% 1,484 24.4% Shelton 15,186 12,133 79.9% 3,053 20.1% Southbury 7,841 6,746 86.0% 1,095 14.0% Thomaston 3,000 2,415 80.5% 585 19.5% Waterbury 40,960 19,130 46.7% 21,830 53.3% Watertown 8,476 6,975 82.3% 1,501 17.7% Wolco? 5,827 5,149 88.4% 678 11.6% Woodbury 4,096 3,140 76.7% 956 23.3% Region Total 169,664 116,943 68.9% 52,721 31.1% Urban Core 90,523 50,916 56.2% 39,607 43.8% Inner Ring 47,262 38,584 81.6% 8,678 18.4% Outer Ring 31,879 27,443 86.1% 4,436 13.9% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, 25003 69 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, 25003 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 70 Vacant Units Vacancy Status Geography Number Percent of Total For Sale or Sold For Rent or Rented Seasonal Other Vacant Ansonia 485 6.0% 141 285 50 9 Beacon Falls 188 7.5% 18 37 48 85 Bethlehem 141 9.0% 19 0 80 42 Bristol 1,774 6.6% 325 668 179 602 Cheshire 478 4.6% 57 43 126 252 Derby 633 10.8% 47 466 62 58 Middlebury 123 4.3% 26 0 0 97 Naugatuck 955 7.3% 304 265 87 299 Oxford 211 4.4% 67 0 144 0 Plymouth 384 7.5% 33 65 92 194 Prospect 67 1.9% 0 0 33 34 Seymour 480 6.9% 68 145 123 144 Shelton 952 5.9% 222 386 48 296 Southbury 695 7.6% 157 44 196 298 Thomaston 156 4.8% 33 64 9 50 Waterbury 6,412 13.4% 666 2,344 176 3,226 Watertown 592 6.5% 181 49 26 336 Wolco? 215 3.4% 41 23 58 93 Woodbury 489 10.7% 93 63 228 105 Region Total 15,430 8.3% 2,498 4,947 1,765 6,220 Urban Core 10,259 10.1% 1,483 4,028 554 4,194 Inner Ring 3,042 6.0% 594 752 424 1,272 Outer Ring 2,129 6.1% 421 167 787 754 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B25004 71 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B25002 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 72 Gross Rent % Change 2000r2014 Contract Rent % Change 2000r2014 Geography 2014 2000 2014 2000 Ansonia $1,082 $947 14.3% $843 $770 9.5% Beacon Falls $1,191 $1,186 0.4% $939 $997 r5.9% Bethlehem $849 $1,347 r37.0% $768 $1,052 r27.0% Bristol $904 $814 11.1% $772 $707 9.2% Cheshire $1,195 $1,093 9.3% $988 $970 1.9% Derby $1,086 $947 14.7% $856 $811 5.5% Middlebury $967 $915 5.7% $827 $778 6.3% Naugatuck $988 $864 14.3% $825 $733 12.6% Oxford $1,252 $943 32.8% $982 $734 33.7% Plymouth $986 $836 18.0% $838 $701 19.5% Prospect $1,011 $969 4.4% $827 $788 5.0% Seymour $949 $929 2.2% $840 $812 3.4% Shelton $1,147 $1,082 6.0% $942 $910 3.6% Southbury $1,357 $1,458 r6.9% $1,180 $1,265 r6.7% Thomaston $839 $889 r5.6% $759 $727 4.3% Waterbury $904 $770 17.4% $731 $647 13.0% Watertown $882 $885 r0.3% $758 $773 r1.9% Wolco? $880 $1,007 r12.6% $757 $893 r15.3% Woodbury $1,133 $1,073 5.6% $1,038 $966 7.5% Region Median $970 $862 12.5% $801 $732 9.4% Urban Core $937 $813 15.3% $765 $687 11.4% Inner Ring $1,037 $975 6.4% $876 $836 4.8% Outer Ring $1,138 $1,137 0.1% $975 $979 r0.4% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B25064, B25058, 2000 Census. NVCOG Sta+ Calcula?ons [In?a?on Rate 2000r2014: 1.37] 73 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 20010r2014, B25064 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 74 Median Home Value % Change 2000r2014 Geography 2014 2000 Ansonia $219,200 $191,800 14.3% Beacon Falls $255,900 $211,802 20.8% Bethlehem $359,600 $292,906 22.8% Bristol $199,000 $177,141 12.3% Cheshire $340,000 $290,440 17.1% Derby $212,700 $187,142 13.7% Middlebury $349,900 $272,082 28.6% Naugatuck $192,500 $182,210 5.6% Oxford $355,100 $284,686 24.7% Plymouth $199,300 $169,880 17.3% Prospect $298,500 $247,559 20.6% Seymour $266,700 $216,049 23.4% Shelton $348,200 $297,701 17.0% Southbury $314,000 $286,467 9.6% Thomaston $226,500 $186,046 21.7% Waterbury $140,700 $138,781 1.4% Watertown $253,100 $203,171 24.6% Wolco? $243,300 $196,458 23.8% Woodbury $358,800 $321,950 11.4% Region Total $248,694 $213,939 16.2% Urban Core $178,413 $164,407 8.5% Inner Ring $297,045 $250,393 18.6% Outer Ring $311,107 $262,641 18.5% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2008r2012, B25077 NVCOG Sta+ Calcula?ons. [In?a?on Rate 2000r2014: 1.37] 75 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B25077 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 76 Owner Occupied Units Home Value Geography Less than $100,000 $100,000 r $199,999 $200,000 r $299,999 $300,000 r $399,999 $400,000 or Higher Ansonia 3,956 65 1,450 1,976 395 70 Beacon Falls 1,921 164 423 637 484 213 Bethlehem 1,162 8 131 275 280 468 Bristol 16,853 1,084 7,438 6,263 1,407 661 Cheshire 8,624 306 767 2,252 2,466 2,833 Derby 2,897 90 1,198 1,089 321 199 Middlebury 2,471 52 155 681 697 886 Naugatuck 8,080 639 3,753 2,550 808 330 Oxford 3,889 105 331 693 1,480 1,280 Plymouth 3,831 324 1,606 1,307 407 187 Prospect 2,965 237 284 979 843 622 Seymour 4,606 184 863 1,912 968 679 Shelton 12,133 476 852 2,980 3,652 4,173 Southbury 6,746 545 1,544 1,112 1,233 2,312 Thomaston 2,415 196 818 810 478 113 Waterbury 19,130 4,076 11,844 2,523 375 312 Watertown 6,975 266 1,756 2,642 1,377 934 Wolco? 5,149 177 1,320 2,108 807 737 Woodbury 3,140 130 434 561 757 1,258 Region Total 116,943 9,124 36,967 33,350 19,235 18,267 Urban Core 50,916 5,954 25,683 14,401 3,306 1,572 Inner Ring 38,584 1,752 6,662 11,903 9,348 8,919 Outer Ring 27,443 1,418 4,622 7,046 6,581 7,776 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B25075 77 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Equalized Net Grand List ($ Millions) Percent Change Geography 2013 2007 2003 2007r2013 2003r2007 Ansonia $1,346.1 $1,945.0 $1,414.8 r30.8% 37.5% Beacon Falls $629.4 $878.4 $526.8 r28.3% 66.7% Bethlehem $520.5 $714.3 $496.4 r27.1% 43.9% Bristol $5,747.9 $7,282.7 $5,364.3 r21.1% 35.8% Cheshire $3,860.0 $5,006.3 $4,211.4 r22.9% 18.9% Derby $982.9 $1,435.0 $1,108.3 r31.5% 29.5% Middlebury $1,373.3 $1,759.7 $1,153.6 r22.0% 52.5% Naugatuck $2,267.9 $3,457.9 $2,497.8 r34.4% 38.4% Oxford $2,078.4 $2,043.5 $1,503.3 1.7% 35.9% Plymouth $1,011.1 $1,335.4 $935.8 r24.3% 42.7% Prospect $1,175.9 $1,250.1 $1,086.4 r5.9% 15.1% Seymour $1,707.8 $2,110.0 $1,591.8 r19.1% 32.6% Shelton $6,665.8 $9,171.7 $5,673.6 r27.3% 61.7% Southbury $3,206.3 $4,384.4 $3,703.3 r26.9% 18.4% Thomaston $724.5 $1,137.4 $852.8 r36.3% 33.4% Waterbury $5,705.7 $8,925.7 $5,961.5 r36.1% 49.7% Watertown $2,456.3 $3,494.0 $2,658.0 r29.7% 31.5% Wolco? $1,809.6 $2,354.8 $1,490.6 r23.2% 58.0% Woodbury $1,610.3 $2,154.1 $1,735.2 r25.2% 24.1% Region Total $44,879.8 $60,840.1 $43,965.6 r26.2% 38.4% Urban Core $16,050.5 $23,046.2 $16,346.6 r30.4% 41.0% Inner Ring $16,425.5 $22,254.8 $15,923.4 r26.2% 39.8% Outer Ring $12,403.7 $15,539.2 $11,695.7 r20.2% 32.9% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: Connec?cut O8ce of Policy and Management. Equalized Net Grand List, by Municipality: 2003r2013 All values are in 2013 dollars [In?a?on Rate 2003r2013: 1.2628] [In?a?on Rate 2007r2013: 1.1158] Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 78 Total >30% OwnerrOccupied RenterrOccupied Geography Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 3,802 52.5% 1,790 45.2% 2,012 61.3% Beacon Falls 613 26.3% 481 25.0% 132 32.0% Bethlehem 529 39.1% 478 41.1% 51 26.7% Bristol 9,181 36.4% 5,538 32.9% 3,643 43.7% Cheshire 2,510 25.6% 2,151 24.9% 359 30.6% Derby 2,454 49.4% 1,209 41.7% 1,245 60.0% Middlebury 981 35.5% 878 35.5% 103 35.5% Naugatuck 4,762 39.2% 2,847 35.2% 1,915 47.0% Oxford 1,271 28.8% 1,177 30.3% 94 18.0% Plymouth 1,574 33.4% 1,257 32.8% 317 36.0% Prospect 755 23.2% 632 21.3% 123 42.3% Seymour 2,330 38.3% 1,747 37.9% 583 39.3% Shelton 5,328 35.1% 4,267 35.2% 1,061 34.8% Southbury 3,448 44.0% 2,843 42.1% 605 55.3% Thomaston 961 32.0% 713 29.5% 248 42.4% Waterbury 20,044 48.9% 7,867 41.1% 12,177 55.8% Watertown 2,648 31.2% 2,117 30.4% 531 35.4% Wolco? 1,689 29.0% 1,399 27.2% 290 42.8% Woodbury 1,620 39.6% 1,106 35.2% 514 53.8% Region Total 66,500 39.2% 40,497 34.6% 26,003 49.3% Urban Core 40,243 44.5% 19,251 37.8% 20,992 53.0% Inner Ring 15,351 32.5% 12,252 31.8% 3,099 35.7% Outer Ring 10,906 34.2% 8,994 32.8% 1,912 43.1% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B25106 79 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Govt. Assisted Tenant Rental Assistance CHFA/ USDA Mortgage Deed Restricted Total A+ordable Geography Total Percent Ansonia 371 642 112 9 1,134 13.9% Beacon Falls 0 2 31 0 33 1.3% Bethlehem 24 0 1 0 25 1.6% Bristol 1,633 823 1,065 0 3,521 13.0% Cheshire 277 12 78 17 384 3.7% Derby 275 314 69 0 658 11.3% Middlebury 77 3 15 20 115 4.0% Naugatuck 537 368 311 0 1,216 9.3% Oxford 36 3 12 0 51 1.1% Plymouth 178 18 224 0 420 8.2% Prospect 0 4 38 0 42 1.2% Seymour 262 18 97 0 377 5.4% Shelton 344 34 87 82 547 3.4% Southbury 90 4 18 0 112 1.2% Thomaston 104 4 115 0 223 6.8% Waterbury 5171 3,074 2,327 326 10898 22.7% Watertown 205 18 145 0 368 4.1% Wolco? 313 4 131 0 448 7.1% Woodbury 59 2 25 0 86 2.8% Region Total 9,956 5,347 4,901 454 20,658 11.0% Urban Core 7,987 5,221 3,884 335 17,427 17.1% Inner Ring 1,370 104 746 99 2,319 4.5% Outer Ring 599 22 271 20 912 2.6% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: Connec?cut Department of Economic and Community Development. A+ordable Housing Appeals List: 2014 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 80 81 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Appendix D Tables and Maps Topic Page Urbanized Areas: 2010 …………………………………………………………………. 82 Labor Market Areas: 2015. ………………………………………………………………3 Income Limits for Select HUD Programs: 2015 ………………………………….. 84 Naugatuck River Greenway, Ansonia Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 82 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 83 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Sta?s?cs: Labor Market Areas: 2015 * Bethlehem and Woodbury were added to the Waterr bury LMA in 2015. Each midrdecade, the U.S. O8ce of Management and Budget (OMB) updates sta?s?cal area de?ni?ons (geographical composi?on) or labor market areas based on popula?on and commuter pa?erns from the most recent decennial Census (2010). Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 84 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Income Limits: 2015 Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very LowrIncome 28,400 32,450 36,500 40,550 43,800 47,050 50,300 53,550 LowrIncome 45,450 51,950 58,450 64,900 70,100 75,300 80,500 85,700 Sec?on 236 45,450 51,950 58,450 64,900 70,100 75,300 80,500 85,700 Sec?on 221 BMIR 53,950 61,650 69,350 77,050 83,250 89,400 95,550 101,750 Sec?on 235 53,950 61,650 69,350 77,050 83,250 89,400 95,550 101,750 Income Limits by Household Size ($) Includes Middlebury, Naugatuck, Prospect, Southbury, Waterbury, and Wolco? Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very LowrIncome 32,750 37,400 42,100 46,750 50,500 54,250 58,000 61,750 LowrIncome 46,100 52,650 59,250 65,800 71,100 76,350 81,600 86,900 Sec?on 236 46,100 52,650 59,250 65,800 71,100 76,350 81,600 86,900 Sec?on 221 BMIR 54,750 62,550 70,350 78,150 84,450 90,700 96,950 103,200 Sec?on 235 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 Income Limits by Household Size ($) Includes Ansonia, Beacon Falls, Derby, Oxford, and Seymour Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very LowrIncome 30,450 34,800 39,150 43,500 47,000 50,500 53,950 57,450 LowrIncome 46,100 52,650 59,250 65,800 71,100 76,350 81,600 86,900 Sec?on 236 46,100 52,650 59,250 65,800 71,100 76,350 81,600 86,900 Sec?on 221 BMIR 54,750 62,550 70,350 78,150 84,450 90,700 96,950 103,200 Sec?on 235 54,750 62,550 70,350 78,150 84,450 90,700 96,950 103,200 Income Limits by Household Size ($) Includes Bethlehem, Plymouth, Thomaston, Watertown, and Woodbury 85 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Income Limits: 2015 Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very LowrIncome 29,200 33,400 37,550 41,700 45,050 48,400 51,750 55,050 LowrIncome 46,100 52,650 59,250 65,800 71,100 76,350 81,600 86,900 Sec?on 236 46,100 52,650 59,250 65,800 71,100 76,350 81,600 86,900 Sec?on 221 BMIR 54,750 62,550 70,350 78,150 84,450 90,700 96,950 103,200 Sec?on 235 54,750 62,550 70,350 78,150 84,450 90,700 96,950 103,200 Income Limits by Household Size ($) Includes Cheshire Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very LowrIncome 30,650 35,000 39,400 43,750 47,250 50,750 54,250 57,750 LowrIncome 46,100 52,650 59,250 65,800 71,100 76,350 81,600 86,900 Sec?on 236 46,100 52,650 59,250 65,800 71,100 76,350 81,600 86,900 Sec?on 221 BMIR 54,750 62,550 70,350 78,150 84,450 90,700 96,950 103,200 Sec?on 235 54,750 62,550 70,350 78,150 84,450 90,700 96,950 103,200 Income Limits by Household Size ($) Includes Bristol Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very LowrIncome 31,050 35,450 39,900 44,300 47,850 51,400 54,950 58,500 LowrIncome 46,100 52,650 59,250 65,800 71,100 76,350 81,600 86,900 Sec?on 236 46,100 52,650 59,250 65,800 71,100 76,350 81,600 86,900 Sec?on 221 BMIR 54,750 62,550 70,350 78,150 84,450 90,700 96,950 103,200 Sec?on 235 54,750 62,550 70,350 78,150 84,450 90,700 96,950 103,200 Income Limits by Household Size ($) Includes Shelton Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Council Members Municipality Representa?ve Title Ansonia David Casse? Mayor Beacon Falls Christopher Bielik First Selectman Bethlehem Leonard Assard First Selectman Bristol Kenneth Cockayne Mayor Cheshire Timothy Slocum Town Council Member Derby Anita Duga?o Mayor Middlebury Edward St. John First Selectman Naugatuck N. Warren ?Pete? Hess Mayor Oxford George Temple First Selectman Plymouth David Merchant Mayor Prospect Robert Cha?ield Mayor Seymour W. Kurt Miller First Selectman Shelton Mark Laure? Mayor Southbury Je+rey Manville First Selectman Thomaston Edmond Mone First Selectman Waterbury Neil O’Leary Mayor Watertown Raymond Primini Town Council Member Wolco? Thomas Dunn Mayor Woodbury William Bu?erly, Jr. First Selectman