November 2018 A Report by T h e N a u g a t u c k Va l l e y Council of Governments Naugatuck Valley R e g i o n a l P r o f i l e 2 0 1 8 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Several tables and figures in this report compare data from the 2012 -2016 American Community Survey (ACS) five -year estimates to the 2000 Census. Beginning in 2005, the ACS replaced the long – form census as the source for detailed socioeconomic and housing data. The first complete ACS data set covered the years 2005 -2009. The 2012 -2016 ACS is a five -year estimate where a small percent- age of all households are sampled each year. ACS estimates repre- sent an average over the course of five years and are not equiva- lent to the 100 percent count data from the 2010 census. The ACS five -year estimates are not optimal for analyzing year to year trends because four of the five years of samples are reused in the next year ’s estimates. One -year and three -year ACS data are only available for larger municipalities. The ACS surveys approximately 3 million households per year (roughly 2.5% of households) and aggregates the data on multi – year intervals. The long -form 2000 Census was given to approxi- mately 16% of households. Both data sets used samples to calcu- late estimates for the entire population. The differences in meth- odology between the long -form 2000 Census and the 2012 -2016 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: Naugatuck River Greenway in Seymour/Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments All other photos were taken by NVCOG staff The material contained herein may be quoted or reproduced with- out special permission, although mention of the source is appreci- ated. The preparation of this report was financed through grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Admin- istration, and the Federal Transit Administration, and by contribu- tions from member municipalities of the Naugatuck Valley Region. Data Disclaimer Photo Credits Attribution Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table of Contents Chapter Page 1. Introduction ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 1 2. Population and Demographic Trends ………………………….. ……………….. 5 3. Economic Trends ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 11 4. Housing Trends ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 15 Appendices Page Appendix A: Population and Demographic Trends: Tables and Maps .. 19 Appendix B: Economic Trends: Tables and Maps ………………………….. … 49 Appendix C: Housing Trends: Tables and Maps ………………………….. ….. 61 Appendix D: Other Regional Information ………………………….. …………… 81 Depot Street Bridge, Beacon Falls Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 1 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile The following chapters present demo- graphic, economic, and housing data for the Naugatuck Valley Region, a 19 -town region in West Central Connecticut. Data comes from a variety of sources including the 2010 Decennial Census, the 2012 -2016 American Community Survey (ACS), the Connecticut Department of Labor (DOL), and the Connecticut Department of Eco- nomic and Community Development (DECD). Summary of Findings This report examines past trends and pro- vides an outlook for the future. The re- gion ’s economic, housing, and population trends have been on the upswing since the 2007‐2009 Great Recession. The Naugatuck Valley has long benefitted from strong local and regional leadership, effective economic development organiza- tions and a well -trained workforce. As of 2017, the unemployment rate has moved down to 5.3 %. Other positive factors not- ed in this report include the fact that de- spite volatility in the housing market over the last few years, the region remains more affordable than the state as a whole. Also, it has maintained steady population growth of about 4.3%, with all municipali- ties becoming more ethnically diverse dur- ing the past 16 years. In addition, it is important to note that the region is positioning itself well for years ahead. Local officials recognize that cre- ating the conditions for sustainable, transit -dependent communities is key to stimu- lating greater private investment. Such transportation improvements and creating sustainable growth around transit, as well as a Naugatuck River area revitalization, are in the works. The 27 miles of the Wa- terbury Branch Rail Line is a priority under the state ’s 30 -year “Let ’s Go CT! ” transpor- tation initiative and key changes are under- way to increase capacity and service offer- ings. These projects are designed to bring numerous quality of life and future eco- nomic development benefits. In the near future, the region will be shaped by the retirement of the baby boomers. A surge in the elderly population will require a shift in the provision of ser- vices and access to affordable housing to meet this demand. 1. Introduction Economy Population 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 in- formative, they fail to account for the differences that exist between munici- palities, or even neighborhoods within a municipality. Each scale of analysis tells a different story, and this report will show data in a variety of scales in order to provide as complete an over- view as possible. This report presents data at regional, subregional, municipal, and neighbor- hood scales. In order to highlight key trends among similar municipalities, a three -level subregional classification was developed (Figure 1b). Municipali- ties were classified as urban core, inner ring, or outer ring based on current and historic population, economic, and housing trends. Table 1a below high- lights some of the differences that exist between the urban core, inner ring, and outer ring communities. To supplement the regional and sub – regional scales, tables in the text and appendices present data for each mu- nicipality. Where applicable, neighbor- hood (block -group) level maps were created to highlight the differences that exist from neighborhood to neigh- borhood. Region Urban Core Inner Ring Outer Ring Population 2016 447,390 232,978 128,446 85,966 Population Density per sq. mi. 1,061 2,782 890 444 Population Growth 2000 -2016 + 4.3% + 1.6% +4.5% +12.2% Percent Minority 2016 27.7% 42.3% 13.0% 10.0% Percent Foreign Born 2015 11.2% 13.2% 9.6% 7.4% Percent Over Age 65 2016 15.9% 13.8% 17.1% 19.6% Median Age 2016 43.4 37.7 44.0 46.3 Median Household Income $67,541 $49,691 $85,859 $89,592 Poverty Rate 2016 11.9% 18.3% 4.6% 5.5% Percent with Bachelors Degree 29.8% 20.4% 38.3% 41.0% Unemployment Rate 2017 5.3% 6.3% 4.3% 4.2% Jobs 2017 158,781 76,532 57,991 24,258 Job Growth 2004 -2017 0.9% -4.1% 8.9% -0.2% Housing Growth 2000 -2016 +5.6% +0.4% +10.5% +15.3% Average Household Size 2016 2.61 2.60 2.60 2.67 Percent Single -Family Homes 64.2% 49.7% 79.3% 83.8% Homeownership Rate 2016 67.9% 54.6% 80.9% 85.4% Median Home Value 2016 $242,145 $169,869 $288,057 $305,301 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 4 Urban Core During the 19th century, the urban core emerged as a leading manufactur- ing center for brass, copper, clocks, watches, and rubber products. The urban core has high levels of racial and income diversity, high population den- sity, good access to public transit, and plentiful affordable housing. The char- acter of the urban core varies signifi- cantly from neighborhood to neighbor- hood. Most of the region ’s major insti- tutions, such as hospitals and higher education, call the urban core home. Inner Ring Inner ring communities contain a mix of urban and suburban characteristics. Smaller manufacturing centers such as Oakville, Terryville, and Shelton emerged in the 19th century, forming the historic cores of the inner ring mu- nicipalities. In the post World War II years, these communities became more suburban in character as urban core residents and young families moved in. Today, the population is highly educated and moderately di- verse. In the last decade, the inner ring has seen job growth as companies leave the urban core to be closer to their workforce. Outer Ring The traditionally rural outer ring has become more suburban in character over the last two decades. From 2000 to 2016, the outer ring population grew at 12.1%, far faster than the re- gion, state, and nation. These towns have the lowest population densities, the highest incomes, and the highest proportion of elderly residents. With few local jobs, most outer ring resi- dents commute to jobs in neighboring towns and cities. 5 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile This chapter summarizes regional demographic trends such as population change, race and ethnicity, age, house- hold structure, education, and income. The major population and demograph- ic trends shaping the region are:  Population growth in the outer ring outpaced the rest of the region through 2010 but has since slowed and shifted to the inner ring.  All municipalities are becoming more racially and ethnically diverse.  In the next ten years, the region will see a large increase in retirees and a decline in school -aged population.  Non -traditional households (non – married couples) are becoming more common.  There is a large education and in- come gap between the urban core and surrounding municipalities. Population Growth From 2000 to 2016, the region saw a modest 4.3% growth rate, adding 18,600 new residents. This was a faster growth rate than the 1990s, but much slower than the 1980s. About 60% of the population growth was due to nat- ural increase (births minus deaths), while 40% was due to in -migration from outside the region. Demand for new single family homes in the early 2000s led to explosive growth in outer ring municipalities, which grew 12.2% between 2000 and 2016. The remain- der of the region grew at a slower rate, with a 4.5% increase in the inner ring and a 1.6% increase in the urban core. Since 2010, population growth has stagnated as a result of the 2007 to 2009 recession. From 2007 to 2015, the number of births dropped by 13.1%. Many families have delayed having children due to economic un- certainty and rising student loan debt. The drop in new home construction since 2008 has prevented new resi- dents from moving to the region, par- ticularly in the urban core. 2. Population and Demographic Trends The Gathering, Waterbury Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 6 Immigration and Migration While birth rates have fallen, immigra- tion and migration have allowed the region ’s population to continue to grow at a modest rate. Just over 11% of the region ’s population is foreign born, with the largest groups hailing from Portugal, Poland, Italy, the Do- minican Republic, and Jamaica. The region is also home to a large migrant population from Puerto Rico. From 2000 to 2015, the region had a net gain of 7,119 residents through in – migration. While the outer ring experi- enced a natural decrease in population (more deaths than births), they added 10,984 residents through in -migration (people moving into the region). At the other end of the spectrum, the urban core had a large natural increase (more births than deaths) offset by a loss of nearly 9,006 residents through out -migration. The inner ring saw a small natural increase and gained 5,228 residents through in -migration. Population Projections Population projections from the Con- necticut State Data Center indicate that up to 2025, the region ’s popula- tion will continue to grow, but at a much slower rate than in the past. From 2025 to 2040, the region is pro- jected to shrink by 1.2%, losing approx- imately 5,355 residents. The urban core is projected to grow at the fastest rate, adding 7,856 residents between 2015 and 2040, a 3.3% in- crease. Waterbury, which has a much higher birth rate than the rest of the region, is projected to grow by 7.3%. New home construction and in – migration will slow and limit popula- tion growth in the outer ring. Middle- bury and Oxford are projected to be the two fastest -growing municipalities in the region. In the inner ring, shrinking household size and a decrease in the population under 15 will limit growth. The popula- tion in the inner ring is expected to decline by 9.7% between 2015 and 2040. Communities such as Cheshire and Shelton are close to being “built out ” and have little developable land to support new housing units. While population projections are use- ful, they are unable to predict changes in the housing market and economy. The housing market will dictate where growth will occur, particularly for the inner and outer ring. Similarly, birth rates, migration, and immigration are closely tied to the economy. A growing economy generally sees higher popula- tion growth than a stagnant economy. Sources: Connecticut State Data Center, Population Projections by Municipality: 2015 –2040 7 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile B l a c k 6.9% A s i a n 2.6% B l a c k 5.4% W h i t e 83.1% H i s p a n i c 8.2% A s i a n 1.5% O t h e r 1.8% O t h e r 2.3% “Other ” includes American =ndian/Alaska Natives, Pacific =slanders, Some Other Race, and Multiracial persons. Black, Asian, Other, and White populations only include non -:ispanic persons. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 U.S. Census, American Community Survey 5– Year Estimates: 2012 -2016 DP5 . 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 2016, 123,878 residents were of a minority race or ethnicity, making up 27.7% of the total. This is an increase from 2000, when just 16.9% of the population be- longed to a minority group. From 2000 to 2016, the urban core experienced “white flight ” as their non -Hispanic white populations declined by over 33,000. This coincided with rapid growth among Hispanics, African Amer- icans, and Asians. Waterbury is a minority -majority city, with 60.6% of its population belonging to a minority racial or ethnic group. Ansonia, Derby, Naugatuck, Seymour, and Bristol have the next highest mi- nority populations. Outside of the ur- ban core, less than 13% of the popula- tion belongs to a minority group, alt- hough this trend is changing. Between 2000 and 2016, inner ring and outer ring communities saw their minority populations grow at rates of 80.9% and 165.9% respectively, exceeding the ur- ban core growth rate of 64.2%. Hispanics are the largest and fastest growing minority group in the region with a population of 71,097, a 103% increase from 2000. Hispanics now make up 15.9% of the population. A majority of Hispanics who live in the region are of Puerto Rican heritage, including nearly 25,000 who live in Wa- terbury. There was also sizable growth among African Americans, who make up 6.9% of the population. Asians, the second fastest growing minority group through 2000 to 2016 (88.4%), 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 2016. H i s p a n i c 15.9% W h i t e 72.3% 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 2016 reached 43.4 years old. The urban core has the youngest median age at 37.7 years old while the outer ring is the oldest at 46.3 years old. From 2000 to 2016, the number of residents over the age of 65 increased by 13.6%, with the fastest growth in the inner ring (29.8%) and outer ring (39.7%). The urban core saw a decrease in elderly residents (-4.0%). The aging trend will accelerate as baby boomers reach retirement age. The population over the age of 65 is pro- jected to balloon from 70,934 in 2015 to over 89,451 by 2040. The working -aged (age 15 to 64) popu- lation is expected to stay stable up to 2020 and then decline slightly through 2040. As the baby boomers age into retirement, millennials (born between 1980 and 2000) will make up a greater portion of the region ’s workforce. As of 2015, there are 79,727 children under the age of 15, making up 17.7% of the total. This age group is expected to decline to 75,456 by 2040. Inner ring and outer ring communities are projected to see their population un- der age 15 decrease by over 11.4%. The changing age structure of the re- gion will shift the financial burdens of municipalities. Budgets will shift away from education and youth services to- wards elderly services such as health care, transportation, and recreation. This is particularly true in inner and outer ring communities, where a dra- matic increase in elderly population will correspond with a decrease in school -aged population. Greater finan- cial burdens will be placed on the working aged population, who will have to support the growing number of retirees. Source: Connecticut State Data Center, Population Projections: 2015 –2030 Male Male Female Female 9 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Household and Family Structure Household arrangements have changed as the average age of mar- riage increases, family sizes decrease, and life expectancy increases. For the first time in history, less than half of the region ’s households are made up of married couples. Persons living alone, cohabitating couples, married couples without children, and single parent households are becoming more prevalent. Less than half of married couples have children age 18 and under. “Empty nesters ” are becoming more common as the millennial generation ages, and many young couples have delayed hav- ing children in the last few years due to economic uncertainty. Household structure in the urban core differs significantly from the inner and outer ring communities. Just 39.2% of urban core households are married couples compared to 56.8% in the in- ner ring and 59.0% in the outer ring. A disproportionate number of single – parent households are found in the urban core. Education As of 2016, 29.8% of the region ’s adults age 25 and over have a Bache- lor ’s degree or higher. This compares to 30.3% of adults nationwide, and 38% statewide. There is a large dis- crepancy in educational attainment between the urban core and the re- mainder of the region. In the urban core, just 20.4% of the population age 25 and older has a Bachelor ’s degree or higher, compared to 38.3% in the inner ring, and 41.0% 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 38.0%, 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 33%. Education is strongly correlated with income. Persons with a college degree have much higher incomes than high school graduates. Municipalities with a higher proportion of college gradu- ates have higher incomes than less educated municipalities. Figure 2e be- low illustrates the relationship be- tween education and income. Urban Core Region Outer Ring Inner Ring Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 10 Income and Poverty There is a large income gap between the urban core and remainder of the region. From 2012 to 2016 estimates, median household income in the urban core was $49,691 compared to $85,859 in the inner ring and $89,592 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 11.1% in the inner ring and 11.7% in the outer ring. On the opposite end of the income spec- trum, over 40% of households in the inner and outer ring are high income (making $100,000 or more per year) compared to less than 21% in the ur- ban core. The Great Recession negatively im- pacted household and family income throughout the region. In addition, the growing number of elderly persons puts additional financial strain on households (retirees have less income than working -aged persons). Since 1999, median household income de- clined in 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 in- creased by 66.8% from 2000 to 2016. In 2000, there were 31,412 persons living in poverty (7.5% of total). By 2016, it had increased to 52,396 (11.9% 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 25.4%, is home to over half of the region ’s impoverished. Child poverty is a prevalent issue in the urban core, where 27.8% of chil- dren live below the poverty line. Anso- nia, Derby and Waterbury have child poverty rates exceeding 20%. Child poverty is also strongly correlated with household structure. Children in single parent households are 4.4 times more likely to live in poverty than house- holds with both parents present. 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:  Unemployment disproportionately affects young workers under the age of 25.  As of 2017, the region has gained back 71% of the jobs that were lost during the recession.  Jobs are suburbanizing. During the last ten years the inner ring saw job growth while the urban core lost jobs.  Over half of Naugatuck Valley resi- dents commute to jobs outside the region. Labor Force The labor force is made up of Nau- gatuck Valley residents over the age of 16 who are either employed, or are unemployed and looking for work. As of 2017, the region ’s labor force was 237,050, of which 224,546 were em- ployed and 12,504 were unemployed. From 2010 to 2013 the state and re- gion experienced a labor force contrac- tion, meaning that there were fewer residents who were employed or look- ing for work. The labor force contrac- tion can be attributed to stagnant job growth, unemployed workers dropping out of the labor force, and a growing number of residents hitting retirement age. In 2014 the labor force grew for the first time since 2009 and has re- mained steady. People who had diffi- culty finding work during the last few years are reentering the labor force as the job market improves. Employment As of 2017 there were 224,546 em- ployed residents living in the region. This is only 3,501 more than the 2007 number when there were 221,045 em- ployed residents. The number of em- ployed residents decreased every year from 2008 to 2013 but has continued to rebound from 2014 to 2017. Population projections indicate that a significant number of baby boomers are nearing retirement age. The num- ber of working aged residents is pro- jected to remain stable up to 2020 and decline thereafter as the last of the baby boomers retire. Attracting and retaining young workers will be neces- sary to replace the growing number of retirees. 3. Economic Trends Shelton Corporate Park, Shelton 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 de- creased each year since 2010. As of 2017, it stands at 12,504, or 5.3% of the labor force. The labor force con- traction (unemployed persons that have stopped looking for work) is re- sponsible for some of the drop in un- employment. Despite improvements over the last three years, the unem- ployment rate remains slightly above state and national averages. Figure 3a summarizes labor force, employment, and unemployment trends over the last 23 years. Unemployment trends vary by location and age. As of 2017, unemployment is highest in the urban core communities of Waterbury (7.4%), Ansonia (6.5%), and Derby (5.8%), and lowest in the inner ring community of Cheshire (3.3%) and the outer ring communities of Woodbury (3.6%), Thomaston (4.0%), and Prospect (4.0%). Due to the collapse of the stock market from 2007 to 2009, many older work- ers have continued to work into retire- ment age. This trend, combined with the lack of new job creation, has led to a disproportionately high unemploy- ment rate among young people. The unemployment rate for residents un- der the age of 25 is 17.3% compared to 8.9% for middle aged workers (age 25 – 44) and 6.3% for older workers (age 45 and older)* *Source: ACS 2012 -2016, B23001 13 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Jobs During the recession, the region expe- rienced sharper job losses than the state and nation as a whole. From 2007 to 2011, 12,337 jobs were lost, a decline of 7.6%. The manufacturing, finance and insurance, and construc- tion sectors experienced the sharpest job losses. Some sectors, such as health care and social assistance, and educational services, added jobs during the recession. These sectors have tra- ditionally been “recession -proof. ” Since 2011 the economy has improved, adding over 8,700 jobs. As of 2017, the region has gained back 71% of the jobs that were lost during the recession. Comparatively, the state has gained back 146% of the jobs that were lost during the recession. As of 2017 there are 158,781 jobs in the region. Despite job losses during the last ten years, Waterbury remains the job center of the region followed by Shelton, Bristol, and Cheshire. As the population shifts to the suburbs, many employers have followed in or- der to be closer to their workforce. From 2004 to 2017, the urban core lost over 3,300 jobs while the inner ring gained over 4,700 jobs, mostly in Shel- ton, and Cheshire. Bristol was the only urban core municipality to gain jobs (1032). Outer ring towns with good highway access (such as Oxford and Middlebury) also saw job growth. Over the last half century, the region has shifted from a manufacturing – oriented economy to a service – oriented one. Health care and social assistance is now the largest job sector followed by government (which in- cludes public school teachers). While much less prominent than in the past, manufacturing remains the third larg- est sector of the region ’s economy, with over 20,000 jobs. A majority of manufacturing jobs are now located outside of the urban core. Employment projections from the Con- necticut Department of Labor indicate that the health care and social assis- tance sector will drive job creation up to 2020, largely due to increased de- mand for health care by the baby boomers. Other sectors projected to add jobs up to 2020 are professional and business services, and construc- tion, although the latter is largely de- pendent on the housing market. 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 71% of working residents. The result is a net export of over 65,000 workers each day to other re- gions, with many commuting to Hart- ford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Danbury, and lower Fairfield County. Cheshire, Middlebury and Shelton are the only municipalities in the region that have more jobs than employed residents. The remaining municipalities have more employed residents than jobs and are net exporters of commut- ers. As of 2015, when the most recent com- muting data was available, just 39.8% of employed Naugatuck Valley resi- dents worked in the region. The re- maining 60.2% commute to jobs out- side of the region. Waterbury is the most popular commuting destination followed by Bristol, Cheshire and Shel- ton. Outside of the region, the most popular destinations are Hartford, New Haven, Stratford, Bridgeport, and Dan- bury. Similarly, nearly half of the peo- ple who work in the Naugatuck Valley live outside of the region. Wages The average wage of workers in the region is $56,323 which is above the national average of $50,620, but below the state average of $66,648. Since 2007, the region has seen wages in- crease slightly (1.2%) compared to the state, which declined by –1.1%. Average wages vary significantly from sector to sector. The Management of Companies and Enterprises has an av- erage wage of over $148,999, while the Accommodation and Food Services Sector has an average wage of just $19,178. Table 3a below shows the highest and lowest wage sectors in the region. Sector Average Wage Management of Companies and Enterprises $148,999 Information $123,962 Finance and Insurance $99,816 Professional, Scientific, & Technical Services $89,437 Utilities $89,189 Sector Average Wage Accommodation and Food Services $19,178 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation $23,497 Other Services $26,719 Retail Trade $30,874 Administrative & Waste Management $35,795 15 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile In recent years, the housing market has been shaped by the Great Reces- sion and preceding housing bubble. The major housing trends shaping the region are:  Multi family homes account for 42.4% of the total new construction in the region since 2011.  Since peaking in 2005, new con- struction decreased 80% by 2016.  Home prices grew rapidly from 2003 to 2007, but have declined each year since 2007.  Homes in the region are more af- fordable than the state as a whole.  Most of the affordable housing in the region is found in the urban core. New Construction During the early 2000s the region ex- perienced a building boom. New con- struction peaked from 2002 to 2005 when over 5,000 housing units were built. The vast majority (85%) of new homes were single -family homes. Shel- ton and Oxford led the region in new construction. In 2005 new home construction to- taled 1,676 units, but fell to just 298 units in 2011 as the national housing 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 con- struction in Shelton and Bristol. In 2015 the inner ring added 224 multi family units with 152 in Shelton, 72 in Seymour, and 11 in Thomaston. In 2016 the multi family housing market stalled with only 17 units built in the region. Construction of new single family homes has remained stagnant. Due to shrinking household sizes, housing has grown at a faster rate than the number of households. 4. Housing Trends Oxford Greens, Oxford Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 16 Housing Stock As of 2016, the region has 184,984 housing units. Single -family homes comprise 64.2% of units. Outer ring communities such as Oxford, Bethle- hem, and Middlebury are made up al- most entirely of single -family homes. By contrast, a vast majority of the region ’s multi -family housing units are found in the urban core. However, in the last decade, a majority of the new multi – family units were built in the inner ring. Homes in the inner and outer ring are larger and newer than their urban core counterparts. The median year of con- struction for the region is 1965. The urban core has the oldest housing stock (1962) followed by the inner ring (1969) and outer ring (1974). Suburban homes are also larger. Over 60% of housing units in the inner and outer rings have six or more rooms compared to 40.5% in the urban core. Home Ownership As of 2016, 67.5% of households in the region live in an owner -occupied home. This is slightly higher than the 66.5% homeownership rate statewide. Out- side the urban core, over 80% of house- holds live in owner -occupied homes. Three -quarters of all rental units are located in the urban core. Homeownership trends also vary by type of housing unit and income. Single family units are much more likely to be owner occupied (90.0%) than multi – family units (23.1%). High income households are more likely to own a home than low income households. Less than 32% of households that make under $25,000 live in an owner – occupied unit compared to approxi- mately 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 val- ue appreciation in the early 2000s. From 2003 to 2007, the equalized net grand list, or ENGL, (the total market value of all properties in the region) increased by 38.6%, or nearly $17 bil- lion. While the bulk of the increase was due to overvalued real estate, some of the increase was due to new construc- tion. After peaking in 2007, the hous- ing market began its subsequent col- lapse. From 2007 to 2015, the ENGL dropped by –37.8%, a loss of more than $23 billion. The urban core saw the highest ENGL growth from 2003 to 2007 (41.2%) followed by the sharpest decline from 2007 to 2015 ( -43.6%). Figure 4b shows changes in inflation adjusted ENGL from 2002 to 2015. The drop in property values and mu- nicipal grand list value has led to fiscal challenges for municipalities, who have been forced to either raise property tax rates, cut services, or both. In addi- tion, many homeowners have negative equity (their home is worth less than their mortgage) leading to increases in foreclosure and home vacancy. Despite volatility in the housing market over the last few years, the region re- mains more affordable than the state as a whole. The median home value for owner occupied units in the region is $242,145, compared to $269,300 statewide. Eleven of the 19 municipali- ties in the region are more affordable than the statewide median. Homes are most affordable in the urban core ($169,869) while the inner ($288,057) and outer ($305,301) rings have the most expensive homes. Source: Connecticut Office of Policy and Management. Equalized Net Grand List, by Municipality: 2003 -2015 All values are in 2015 dollars Outer Ring Inner Ring Urban Core Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 18 Housing Costs Monthly homeowner costs and month- ly rent also provide insight into the re- gion ’s affordability. Median monthly homeowner costs range from a low of $1,367 in Water- 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 2016, median monthly homeowner costs for homes with a mortgage have risen between 1% and 18% depending on the municipality. Non -mortgaged homeowner costs increased at a faster rate than mortgage costs, suggesting that fuel prices, electricity rates, taxes, and insurance are increasing . Renters pay less per month than home- owners. Median gross rents (lease amount plus utilities) range from a low of $832 in Thomaston to $1,499 in Southbury. Rent has not increased as fast as homeowner costs. In five outer ring towns and three inner ring towns, inflation -adjusted rents actually de- creased from 2000 to 2016 . Affordable Housing The U.S. Census Bureau uses 30% of household income as a standard for measuring housing affordability. In or- der to be considered affordable, home- owners should pay 30% or less of their income towards housing. As of 2016, 36.8% of households pay 30% or more of their income towards housing. Renters (48.6%) are more likely to pay 30% or more of their income towards housing than homeowners (31.2%). 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 re- strictions, and Connecticut Housing Finance Authority (CHFA) or Farmer ’s Home Administration (FmHA) mortgag- es. Over 84% of publicly assisted hous- ing units are found in the urban core, including more than half in the City of Waterbury. Municipalities that have less than 10% affordable housing are subject to Con- necticut General Statutes (CGS) Section 8-30g, which limits the conditions un- der which towns may deny applications for such developments. Ansonia (14.4%), Bristol (14.0%), Derby (11.6%), and Waterbury (21.6%) are the only municipalities that meet the 10% af- fordable housing threshold. The re- maining municipalities have less than 10% affordable housing and are subject to CGS Section 8 -30g. 19 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Appendix A Population and Demographic Trends Tables and Maps Topic Page Population ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. . 20 Population Density ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 22 Race and Ethnicity ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 24 Hispanic Population ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 26 Age Distribution ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 28 Elderly Population ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 30 Median Age ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………………. 32 Income Distribution ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 34 Income ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……. 36 Poverty ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 38 Household Structure ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 40 Educational Attainment ………………………….. ………………………….. ………… 44 Population Projections ………………………….. ………………………….. ………….. 46 Waterbury on Wheels Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 20 Population Percent Change Geography 2016 2010 2000 2010 -2016 2000 -2010 Ansonia 18,950 19,249 18,554 -1.6% 3.7% Beacon Falls 6,075 6,049 5,246 0.4% 15.3% Bethlehem 3,492 3,607 3,422 -3.2% 5.4% Bristol 60,437 60,477 60,062 -0.1% 0.7% Cheshire 29,254 29,261 28,543 0.0% 2.5% Derby 12,755 12,902 12,391 -1.1% 4.1% Middlebury 7,606 7,575 6,451 0.4% 17.4% Naugatuck 31,625 31,862 30,989 -0.7% 2.8% Oxford 12,916 12,683 9,821 1.8% 29.1% Plymouth 11,926 12,213 11,634 -2.3% 5.0% Prospect 9,720 9,405 8,707 3.3% 8.0% Seymour 16,540 16,540 15,454 0.0% 7.0% Shelton 40,979 39,559 38,101 3.6% 3.8% Southbury 19,727 19,904 18,567 -0.9% 7.2% Thomaston 7,699 7,887 7,503 -2.4% 5.1% Waterbury 109,211 110,366 107,271 -1.0% 2.9% Watertown 22,048 22,514 21,661 -2.1% 3.9% Wolcott 16,707 16,680 15,215 0.2% 9.6% Woodbury 9,723 9,975 9,198 -2.5% 8.4% Region Total 447,390 448,708 428,790 -0.3% 4.6% Urban Core 232,978 234,856 229,267 -0.8% 2.4% Inner Ring 128,446 127,974 122,896 0.4% 4.1% Outer Ring 85,966 85,878 76,627 0.1% 12.1% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016 (B01003), 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.) 2016 2010 2000 2000 -2016 Ansonia 6.2 3,063 3,111 2,999 2.1% Beacon Falls 9.8 621 618 536 15.8% Bethlehem 19.7 178 183 174 2.0% Bristol 26.8 2,254 2,255 2,240 0.6% Cheshire 33.4 877 877 856 2.5% Derby 5.4 2,360 2,387 2,292 2.9% Middlebury 18.4 412 411 350 17.9% Naugatuck 16.4 1,928 1,943 1,890 2.1% Oxford 33.3 387 380 295 31.5% Plymouth 22.3 534 547 521 2.5% Prospect 14.5 672 650 602 11.6% Seymour 15.0 1,104 1,104 1,032 7.0% Shelton 31.9 1,285 1,240 1,194 7.6% Southbury 40.1 492 497 463 6.2% Thomaston 12.2 631 646 615 2.6% Waterbury 28.9 3,774 3,813 3,706 1.8% Watertown 29.5 747 763 734 1.8% Wolcott 21.1 792 791 721 9.8% Woodbury 36.6 265 272 251 5.7% Region Total 421.5 1,061 1,064 1,017 4.3% Urban Core 83.7 2,782 2,804 2,738 1.6% Inner Ring 144.3 890 887 852 4.5% Outer Ring 193.5 444 444 396 12.2% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016 (B01003), 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census 23 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B01003 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 24 Non Hispanic Hispanic or Latino Percent Minority Geography White Black Asian Other Ansonia 11,681 1,953 490 284 4,542 38.4% Beacon Falls 5,568 87 37 62 321 8.3% Bethlehem 3,415 55 2 2 18 2.2% Bristol 47,376 1,855 1,191 1,835 8,180 21.6% Cheshire 23,722 1,245 2,018 732 1,537 18.9% Derby 7,973 743 480 315 3,244 37.5% Middlebury 6,642 81 463 110 310 12.7% Naugatuck 24,265 1,927 910 1,092 3,431 23.3% Oxford 11,717 324 129 170 576 9.3% Plymouth 11,022 170 11 206 517 7.6% Prospect 8,585 532 95 134 374 11.7% Seymour 12,919 562 364 325 2,370 21.9% Shelton 36,182 495 1,515 301 2,486 11.7% Southbury 17,606 123 693 279 1,026 10.8% Thomaston 7,373 2 61 64 199 4.2% Waterbury 43,056 19,879 2,501 3,741 40,034 60.6% Watertown 20,558 405 253 158 674 6.8% Wolcott 15,132 500 266 105 704 9.4% Woodbury 8,720 39 359 51 554 10.3% Region Total 323,512 30,977 11,838 9,966 71,097 27.7% Urban Core 134,351 26,357 5,572 7,267 59,431 42.3% Inner Ring 111,776 2,879 4,222 1,786 7,783 13.0% Outer Ring 77,385 1,741 2,044 913 3,883 10.0% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau , American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, DP5 Note: “Other ” category includes Pacific =slander, American =ndian/Alaska Natives, Other, or 2 or more aces Minority population includes Black, Asian, Other, and :ispanic populations 25 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B03002 Note: Minority population includes Black, Asian, Other, and :ispanic populations Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 26 Number Percent of Total % Change 2000 -2016 Geography 2016 2010 2000 2016 2010 2000 Ansonia 4,542 3,212 1,376 24.0% 16.7% 7.4% 230.1% Beacon Falls 321 300 112 5.3% 5.0% 2.1% 186.6% Bethlehem 18 61 22 0.5% 1.7% 0.6% -18.2% Bristol 8,180 5,829 3,166 13.5% 9.6% 5.3% 158.4% Cheshire 1,537 1,375 1,097 5.3% 4.7% 3.8% 40.1% Derby 3,244 1,830 950 25.4% 14.2% 7.7% 241.5% Middlebury 310 208 79 4.1% 2.7% 1.2% 292.4% Naugatuck 3,431 2,929 1,386 10.8% 9.2% 4.5% 147.5% Oxford 576 468 180 4.5% 3.7% 1.8% 220.0% Plymouth 517 370 147 4.3% 3.0% 1.3% 251.7% Prospect 374 312 168 3.8% 3.3% 1.9% 122.6% Seymour 2,370 1,064 470 14.3% 6.4% 3.0% 404.3% Shelton 2,486 2,353 1,326 6.1% 5.9% 3.5% 87.5% Southbury 1,026 523 296 5.2% 2.6% 1.6% 246.6% Thomaston 199 202 109 2.6% 2.6% 1.5% 82.6% Waterbury 40,034 34,446 23,354 36.7% 31.2% 21.8% 71.4% Watertown 674 838 406 3.1% 3.7% 1.9% 66.0% Wolcott 704 611 273 4.2% 3.7% 1.8% 157.9% Woodbury 554 245 152 5.7% 2.5% 1.7% 264.5% Region Total 71,097 57,176 35,069 15.9% 12.7% 8.2% 102.7% Urban Core 59,431 48,246 30,232 25.5% 20.5% 13.2% 96.6% Inner Ring 7,783 6,202 3,555 6.1% 4.8% 2.9% 118.9% Outer Ring 3,883 2,728 1,282 4.5% 3.2% 1.7% 202.9% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, DP5; U.S. Census, 2000 , 2010 27 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B03002 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 28 Total Population Age Group Geography Under 5 Years 5-17 Years 18 -24 Years 25 -34 Years 35 -44 Years 45 -64 Years > 64 Years Ansonia 18,950 921 3,309 2,002 2,293 2,451 5,206 2,768 Beacon Falls 6,075 156 1,194 582 462 778 2,027 876 Bethlehem 3,492 91 642 290 206 424 1,297 542 Bristol 60,437 2,791 9,516 4,999 8,509 7,646 17,345 9,631 Cheshire 29,254 1,028 5,183 2,422 2,583 3,381 9,836 4,821 Derby 12,755 746 2,112 752 2,144 1,404 3,722 1,875 Middlebury 7,606 273 1,389 539 575 979 2,371 1,480 Naugatuck 31,625 2,373 4,699 2,574 4,240 4,344 8,791 4,604 Oxford 12,916 675 2,581 929 812 1,644 4,273 2,002 Plymouth 11,926 651 1,658 1,342 1,627 1,160 3,694 1,794 Prospect 9,720 307 1,559 725 1,161 1,119 3,085 1,764 Seymour 16,540 954 2,965 1,526 1,597 2,482 4,896 2,120 Shelton 40,979 1,486 6,269 3,419 3,626 4,634 13,337 8,208 Southbury 19,727 1,007 3,278 967 1,138 1,829 5,998 5,510 Thomaston 7,699 268 1,301 590 972 875 2,504 1,189 Waterbury 109,211 7,901 20,218 11,574 15,289 14,448 26,472 13,309 Watertown 22,048 995 3,632 1,819 2,309 2,280 7,193 3,820 Wolcott 16,707 566 2,825 1,407 1,590 1,885 5,641 2,793 Woodbury 9,723 543 1,533 287 920 1,140 3,433 1,867 Region Total 447,390 23,732 75,863 38,745 52,053 54,903 131,121 70,973 Urban Core 232,978 14,732 39,854 21,901 32,475 30,293 61,536 32,187 Inner Ring 128,446 5,382 21,008 11,118 12,714 14,812 41,460 21,952 Outer Ring 85,966 3,618 15,001 5,726 6,864 9,798 28,125 16,834 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B01001 29 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Age Group Geography Under 5 Years 5-17 Years 18 -24 Years 25 -34 Years 35 -44 Years 45 -64 Years Over 64 Years Ansonia 4.9% 17.5% 10.6% 12.1% 12.9% 27.5% 14.6% Beacon Falls 2.6% 19.7% 9.6% 7.6% 12.8% 33.4% 14.4% Bethlehem 2.6% 18.4% 8.3% 5.9% 12.1% 37.1% 15.5% Bristol 4.6% 15.7% 8.3% 14.1% 12.7% 28.7% 15.9% Cheshire 3.5% 17.7% 8.3% 8.8% 11.6% 33.6% 16.5% Derby 5.8% 16.6% 5.9% 16.8% 11.0% 29.2% 14.7% Middlebury 3.6% 18.3% 7.1% 7.6% 12.9% 31.2% 19.5% Naugatuck 7.5% 14.9% 8.1% 13.4% 13.7% 27.8% 14.6% Oxford 5.2% 20.0% 7.2% 6.3% 12.7% 33.1% 15.5% Plymouth 5.5% 13.9% 11.3% 13.6% 9.7% 31.0% 15.0% Prospect 3.2% 16.0% 7.5% 11.9% 11.5% 31.7% 18.1% Seymour 5.8% 17.9% 9.2% 9.7% 15.0% 29.6% 12.8% Shelton 3.6% 15.3% 8.3% 8.8% 11.3% 32.5% 20.0% Southbury 5.1% 16.6% 4.9% 5.8% 9.3% 30.4% 27.9% Thomaston 3.5% 16.9% 7.7% 12.6% 11.4% 32.5% 15.4% Waterbury 7.2% 18.5% 10.6% 14.0% 13.2% 24.2% 12.2% Watertown 4.5% 16.5% 8.3% 10.5% 10.3% 32.6% 17.3% Wolcott 3.4% 16.9% 8.4% 9.5% 11.3% 33.8% 16.7% Woodbury 5.6% 15.8% 3.0% 9.5% 11.7% 35.3% 19.2% Region Total 5.3% 17.0% 8.7% 11.6% 12.3% 29.3% 15.9% Urban Core 6.3% 17.1% 9.4% 13.9% 13.0% 26.4% 13.8% Inner Ring 4.2% 16.4% 8.7% 9.9% 11.5% 32.3% 17.1% Outer Ring 4.2% 17.4% 6.7% 8.0% 11.4% 32.7% 19.6% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B01001 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 30 2016 2000 % Change Geography Number Percent Number Percent 2000 -2016 Ansonia 2,768 14.6% 2,871 15.5% -3.6% Beacon Falls 876 14.4% 506 9.6% 73.1% Bethlehem 542 15.5% 440 12.9% 23.2% Bristol 9,631 15.9% 8,925 14.9% 7.9% Cheshire 4,821 16.5% 3,592 12.6% 34.2% Derby 1,875 14.7% 2,059 16.6% -8.9% Middlebury 1,480 19.5% 1,067 16.5% 38.7% Naugatuck 4,604 14.6% 3,633 11.7% 26.7% Oxford 2,002 15.5% 857 8.7% 133.6% Plymouth 1,794 15.0% 1,473 12.7% 21.8% Prospect 1,764 18.1% 1,153 13.2% 53.0% Seymour 2,120 12.8% 2,221 14.4% -4.5% Shelton 8,208 20.0% 5,672 14.9% 44.7% Southbury 5,510 27.9% 4,841 26.1% 13.8% Thomaston 1,189 15.4% 909 12.1% 30.8% Waterbury 13,309 12.2% 16,045 15.0% -17.1% Watertown 3,820 17.3% 3,050 14.1% 25.2% Wolcott 2,793 16.7% 1,992 13.1% 40.2% Woodbury 1,867 19.2% 1,193 13.0% 56.5% Region Total 70,973 15.9% 62,499 14.6% 13.6% Urban Core 32,187 13.8% 33,533 14.6% -4.0% Inner Ring 21,952 17.1% 16,917 13.8% 29.8% Outer Ring 16,834 19.6% 12,049 15.7% 39.7% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B01001, U.S. Census, 2000 31 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B01001 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 32 Median Age Median Age Median Age Median Age % Change Geography 2016 2010 2000 1990 1990 -2016 Ansonia 39.1 38.4 36.8 34.0 15.0% Beacon Falls 43.3 41.5 36.7 32.6 32.8% Bethlehem 47.9 47.1 42.2 36.2 32.3% Bristol 41.2 40.3 37.6 33.7 22.3% Cheshire 45.1 42.2 38.4 35.5 27.0% Derby 39.0 40.3 37.7 35.6 9.6% Middlebury 45.5 43.9 42.8 40.1 13.5% Naugatuck 39.5 38.2 35.5 32.2 22.7% Oxford 44.0 43.4 38.4 34.0 29.4% Plymouth 40.3 41.9 37.5 33.9 18.9% Prospect 44.9 43.8 39.4 36.3 23.7% Seymour 40.9 41.6 38.5 34.7 17.9% Shelton 46.7 44.4 39.8 35.3 32.3% Southbury 51.0 49.9 45.7 42.9 18.9% Thomaston 44.0 42.5 37.8 34.1 29.0% Waterbury 34.7 35.2 34.9 33.3 4.2% Watertown 45.0 44.0 39.0 35.6 26.4% Wolcott 45.3 42.7 38.1 35.5 27.6% Woodbury 47.7 46.9 41.0 37.0 28.9% Region Total 43.4 40.1 37.6 34.3 26.6% Urban Core 37.7 37.3 35.9 33.2 13.6% Inner Ring 44.0 42.9 38.7 35.0 25.7% Outer Ring 46.3 45.1 40.6 37.4 23.8% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B01002, 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census, 1990 U.S. Census 33 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B01002 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 34 Total Households Household Income ($) Geography Less than $25,000 $25,000 – $49,999 $50,000 – $74,999 $75,000 – $99,999 $100,000 or More Ansonia 6,897 2,122 1,621 984 648 1,522 Beacon Falls 2,404 323 343 385 318 1,035 Bethlehem 1,277 164 177 216 158 562 Bristol 24,985 4,769 5,261 4,927 3,506 6,522 Cheshire 10,045 696 1,263 1,245 1,421 5,420 Derby 4,949 949 1,293 1,035 583 1,089 Middlebury 2,690 278 317 339 358 1,398 Naugatuck 11,910 2,064 2,953 1,898 1,291 3,704 Oxford 4,390 345 482 663 732 2,168 Plymouth 4,733 624 920 1,026 737 1,426 Prospect 3,288 261 364 511 454 1,698 Seymour 6,063 713 1,049 1,124 920 2,257 Shelton 15,803 1,820 2,602 2,438 2,195 6,748 Southbury 7,782 1,177 1,153 1,196 1,097 3,159 Thomaston 3,027 384 608 720 421 894 Waterbury 39,735 13,727 9,690 6,646 4,284 5,388 Watertown 8,344 1,079 1,516 1,506 1,138 3,105 Wolcott 5,844 670 896 1,044 925 2,309 Woodbury 4,059 492 646 786 538 1,597 Region Total 168,225 32,657 33,154 28,689 21,724 52,001 Urban Core 88,476 23,631 20,818 15,490 10,312 18,225 Inner Ring 48,015 5,316 7,958 8,059 6,832 19,850 Outer Ring 31,734 3,710 4,378 5,140 4,580 13,926 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B19001 35 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Household Income ($) Geography Less than $25,000 $25,000 – $49,999 $50,000 – $74,999 $75,000 – $99,999 $100,000 or More Ansonia 30.8% 23.5% 14.3% 9.4% 22.1% Beacon Falls 13.4% 14.3% 16.0% 13.2% 43.1% Bethlehem 12.8% 13.9% 16.9% 12.4% 44.0% Bristol 19.1% 21.1% 19.7% 14.0% 26.1% Cheshire 6.9% 12.6% 12.4% 14.1% 54.0% Derby 19.2% 26.1% 20.9% 11.8% 22.0% Middlebury 10.3% 11.8% 12.6% 13.3% 52.0% Naugatuck 17.3% 24.8% 15.9% 10.8% 31.1% Oxford 7.9% 11.0% 15.1% 16.7% 49.4% Plymouth 13.2% 19.4% 21.7% 15.6% 30.1% Prospect 7.9% 11.1% 15.5% 13.8% 51.6% Seymour 11.8% 17.3% 18.5% 15.2% 37.2% Shelton 11.5% 16.5% 15.4% 13.9% 42.7% Southbury 15.1% 14.8% 15.4% 14.1% 40.6% Thomaston 12.7% 20.1% 23.8% 13.9% 29.5% Waterbury 34.5% 24.4% 16.7% 10.8% 13.6% Watertown 12.9% 18.2% 18.0% 13.6% 37.2% Wolcott 11.5% 15.3% 17.9% 15.8% 39.5% Woodbury 12.1% 15.9% 19.4% 13.3% 39.3% Region Total 19.4% 19.7% 17.1% 12.9% 30.9% Urban Core 26.7% 23.5% 17.5% 11.7% 20.6% Inner Ring 11.1% 16.6% 16.8% 14.2% 41.3% Outer Ring 11.7% 13.8% 16.2% 14.4% 43.9% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B19001 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 36 Median Household Income Median Family Income Geography 2016 1999 % Change 2016 1999 % Change Ansonia $43,386 $63,248 -31.4% $65,134 $78,965 -17.5% Beacon Falls $84,570 $83,190 1.7% $119,591 $91,818 30.2% Bethlehem $87,056 $100,757 -13.6% $110,000 $115,929 -5.1% Bristol $61,551 $69,710 -11.7% $76,991 $85,641 -10.1% Cheshire $108,559 $118,285 -8.2% $127,913 $133,438 -4.1% Derby $55,316 $67,135 -17.6% $66,087 $80,431 -17.8% Middlebury $103,235 $103,589 -0.3% $120,645 $119,614 0.9% Naugatuck $59,522 $75,333 -21.0% $78,137 $87,048 -10.2% Oxford $99,311 $113,375 -12.4% $110,147 $118,220 -6.8% Plymouth $70,635 $79,013 -10.6% $82,329 $92,037 -10.5% Prospect $103,659 $99,313 4.4% $111,979 $108,836 2.9% Seymour $79,734 $77,040 3.5% $103,359 $95,568 8.2% Shelton $87,277 $98,919 -11.8% $102,108 $111,019 -8.0% Southbury $85,068 $91,021 -6.5% $111,489 $119,230 -6.5% Thomaston $65,901 $79,817 -17.4% $82,250 $93,613 -12.1% Waterbury $39,681 $50,399 -21.3% $48,822 $62,181 -21.5% Watertown $76,175 $87,347 -12.8% $99,375 $101,079 -1.7% Wolcott $83,828 $90,223 -7.1% $93,938 $99,346 -5.4% Woodbury $79,387 $100,433 -21.0% $97,070 $121,482 -20.1% Region Total $67,541 $73,563 -8.2% $84,531 $88,444 -4.4% Urban Core $49,691 $58,749 -15.4% $62,960 $71,866 -12.4% Inner Ring $85,859 $91,418 -6.1% $104,502 $105,498 -0.9% Outer Ring $89,592 $93,268 -3.9% $107,301 $108,375 -1.0% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B19113, S1903 2000 U.S. Census, DP003 [ CP= =nflation Rate 1999 -2016: 1.47] 37 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B19013 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 38 2016 2000 Change 2000 -2016 Geography Number Percent Number Percent Net Percent Ansonia 3,896 20.7% 1,394 7.6% 2,502 179.5% Beacon Falls 311 5.1% 309 5.9% 2 0.6% Bethlehem 300 8.6% 89 2.6% 211 237.1% Bristol 6,144 10.3% 3,921 6.6% 2,223 56.7% Cheshire 639 2.4% 750 3.0% -111 -14.8% Derby 1,593 12.7% 1,014 8.3% 579 57.1% Middlebury 315 4.2% 174 2.7% 141 81.0% Naugatuck 3,022 9.6% 1,977 6.4% 1,045 52.9% Oxford 430 3.3% 206 2.1% 224 108.7% Plymouth 760 6.4% 470 4.1% 290 61.7% Prospect 365 3.8% 89 1.0% 276 310.1% Seymour 925 5.7% 573 3.7% 352 61.4% Shelton 2,037 5.0% 1,208 3.2% 829 68.6% Southbury 1,786 9.2% 878 4.9% 908 103.4% Thomaston 470 6.1% 311 4.2% 159 51.1% Waterbury 27,291 25.4% 16,774 16.0% 10,517 62.7% Watertown 893 4.1% 471 2.2% 422 89.6% Wolcott 726 4.4% 392 2.6% 334 85.2% Woodbury 493 5.1% 412 4.5% 81 19.7% Region Total 52,396 11.9% 31,412 7.5% 20,984 66.8% Urban Core 41,946 18.3% 25,080 11.1% 16,866 67.2% Inner Ring 5,724 4.6% 3,783 3.2% 1,941 51.3% Outer Ring 4,726 5.5% 2,549 3.4% 2,177 85.4% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, S1701 2000 U.S. Census 39 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, C17002 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 40 Total House- holds Family Households Non -Family Households Geography Single Parent Married Couple Ansonia 6,897 22.4% 42.2% 35.4% Beacon Falls 2,404 10.9% 49.7% 39.5% Bethlehem 1,277 13.7% 59.9% 26.4% Bristol 24,985 17.4% 42.7% 39.9% Cheshire 10,045 11.3% 63.9% 24.8% Derby 4,949 18.3% 38.3% 43.5% Middlebury 2,690 9.3% 66.1% 24.6% Naugatuck 11,910 18.4% 49.8% 31.8% Oxford 4,390 12.8% 70.4% 16.9% Plymouth 4,733 17.4% 49.3% 33.3% Prospect 3,288 13.2% 59.1% 27.7% Seymour 6,063 12.6% 55.5% 31.9% Shelton 15,803 13.7% 56.5% 29.8% Southbury 7,782 10.9% 53.1% 36.0% Thomaston 3,027 15.6% 53.2% 31.2% Waterbury 39,735 29.3% 33.4% 37.3% Watertown 8,344 13.1% 55.3% 31.7% Wolcott 5,844 19.1% 58.9% 22.0% Woodbury 4,059 10.8% 59.0% 30.3% Region Total 168,225 18.5% 48.0% 33.5% Urban Core 88,476 23.3% 39.2% 37.5% Inner Ring 48,015 13.4% 56.8% 29.8% Outer Ring 31,734 12.9% 59.0% 28.1% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B11001 41 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B11001 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 42 Average Household Size % Change 1980 -2016 Geography 2016 2010 2000 1990 1980 Ansonia 2.74 2.55 2.46 2.57 2.71 1.1% Beacon Falls 2.53 2.56 2.58 2.69 2.98 -15.1% Bethlehem 2.67 2.49 2.69 2.73 2.86 -6.6% Bristol 2.39 2.35 2.38 2.51 2.77 -13.7% Cheshire 2.65 2.66 2.71 2.82 3.06 -13.4% Derby 2.53 2.35 2.32 2.40 2.65 -4.5% Middlebury 2.78 2.72 2.66 2.73 2.94 -5.4% Naugatuck 2.63 2.56 2.60 2.69 2.80 -6.1% Oxford 2.94 2.81 2.94 3.09 3.18 -7.5% Plymouth 2.50 2.53 2.60 2.72 2.92 -14.4% Prospect 2.91 2.76 2.83 2.97 3.24 -10.2% Seymour 2.70 2.46 2.49 2.55 2.73 -1.1% Shelton 2.56 2.55 2.65 2.79 3.05 -16.1% Southbury 2.45 2.33 2.41 2.34 2.39 2.5% Thomaston 2.54 2.53 2.57 2.64 2.86 -11.2% Waterbury 2.70 2.54 2.46 2.48 2.67 1.1% Watertown 2.61 2.57 2.67 2.80 3.00 -13.0% Wolcott 2.83 2.75 2.79 2.93 3.30 -14.2% Woodbury 2.39 2.36 2.48 2.51 2.61 -8.4% Region Total 2.61 2.53 2.54 2.62 2.81 -7.2% Urban Core 2.60 2.48 2.45 2.52 2.71 -4.3% Inner Ring 2.60 2.56 2.64 2.75 2.97 -12.7% Outer Ring 2.67 2.59 2.65 2.72 2.91 -8.2% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016 B25010, Census 2010 Table P17, Census 2000, Census 1990, Census 1980 43 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25010 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 44 Population Age 25 and Over Less than High School High School Graduate Some College Associates Degree Bachelor's Degree or Higher Geography Ansonia 12,718 13.0% 42.9% 19.3% 8.4% 16.4% Beacon Falls 4,143 8.6% 33.3% 16.8% 10.2% 31.0% Bethlehem 2,469 6.5% 27.1% 19.6% 7.6% 39.3% Bristol 43,131 11.0% 35.3% 19.0% 8.3% 26.5% Cheshire 20,621 4.9% 20.6% 14.3% 6.3% 53.8% Derby 9,145 13.6% 33.0% 18.7% 8.9% 25.7% Middlebury 5,405 4.2% 16.6% 17.4% 7.9% 54.0% Naugatuck 21,979 11.1% 33.7% 19.4% 9.9% 25.8% Oxford 8,731 4.9% 27.7% 19.7% 8.2% 39.5% Plymouth 8,275 9.7% 38.2% 17.9% 11.4% 22.9% Prospect 7,129 7.6% 31.4% 14.3% 9.2% 37.5% Seymour 11,095 5.8% 31.1% 22.7% 7.2% 33.1% Shelton 29,805 6.5% 28.4% 16.6% 8.2% 40.2% Southbury 14,475 6.9% 21.8% 13.4% 8.2% 49.7% Thomaston 5,540 9.0% 37.1% 21.6% 9.4% 22.9% Waterbury 69,518 20.9% 36.1% 20.3% 7.6% 15.1% Watertown 15,602 7.6% 29.7% 20.1% 11.1% 31.4% Wolcott 11,909 8.3% 36.0% 17.5% 9.7% 28.4% Woodbury 7,360 6.2% 22.6% 18.7% 6.4% 46.1% Region Total 309,050 11.3% 32.0% 18.5% 8.4% 29.8% Urban Core 156,491 15.7% 35.9% 19.6% 8.3% 20.4% Inner Ring 90,938 6.7% 28.6% 17.9% 8.5% 38.3% Outer Ring 61,621 6.8% 27.1% 16.7% 8.5% 41.0% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B15003 45 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 —2016, B15003, B15011 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 46 % Change Population Projections Geography 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2015 -2040 Ansonia 19,480 19,839 20,265 20,651 20,889 21,067 8.1% Beacon Falls 6,265 6,420 6,532 6,585 6,590 6,587 5.1% Bethlehem 3,605 3,595 3,596 3,576 3,483 3,342 -7.3% Bristol 59,918 59,535 59,359 59,006 58,205 57,129 -4.7% Cheshire 28,889 28,257 27,087 26,127 25,288 24,860 -13.9% Derby 13,035 13,250 13,553 13,803 13,959 14,081 8.0% Middlebury 7,948 8,233 8,412 8,522 8,662 8,828 11.1% Naugatuck 31,973 32,210 32,537 32,636 32,375 31,853 -0.4% Oxford 13,841 14,924 15,695 16,353 17,061 17,855 29.0% Plymouth 12,253 12,218 12,156 11,987 11,722 11,383 -7.1% Prospect 9,367 9,222 8,979 8,693 8,449 8,218 -12.3% Seymour 16,676 16,797 16,880 16,926 16,854 16,752 0.5% Shelton 39,101 38,374 37,508 36,568 35,565 34,544 -11.7% Southbury 19,661 19,357 19,164 18,984 18,957 18,760 -4.6% Thomaston 7,887 7,836 7,781 7,694 7,553 7,369 -6.6% Waterbury 111,081 112,571 114,896 117,113 118,463 119,213 7.3% Watertown 22,345 22,011 21,640 21,219 20,616 19,869 -11.1% Wolcott 16,906 16,921 16,885 16,770 16,629 16,511 -2.3% Woodbury 9,999 9,835 9,703 9,499 9,281 9,052 -9.5% Region Total 450,230 451,405 452,628 452,712 450,601 447,273 -0.7% Urban Core 235,487 237,405 240,610 243,209 243,891 243,343 3.3% Inner Ring 127,151 125,493 123,052 120,521 117,598 114,777 -9.7% Outer Ring 87,592 88,507 88,966 88,982 89,112 89,153 1.8% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut State Data Center, Population Projections: 2015 -2040 47 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Population Under Age 15 Population Age 65 and Over Geography 2015 2040 % Change 2015 2040 % Change Ansonia 3,609 3,754 4.0% 2,617 3,209 22.6% Beacon Falls 1,032 909 -11.9% 988 1,624 64.4% Bethlehem 478 453 -5.2% 680 876 28.8% Bristol 10,269 9,583 -6.7% 9,278 9,995 7.7% Cheshire 4,951 4,343 -12.3% 4,641 5,045 8.7% Derby 2,157 2,306 6.9% 2,066 2,476 19.8% Middlebury 1,540 1,702 10.5% 1,425 1,553 9.0% Naugatuck 5,806 5,494 -5.4% 4,181 5,039 20.5% Oxford 2,567 2,132 -16.9% 2,493 7,189 188.4% Plymouth 1,951 1,623 -16.8% 1,717 2,488 44.9% Prospect 1,582 1,384 -12.5% 1,590 1,834 15.3% Seymour 2,820 2,674 -5.2% 2,518 3,343 32.8% Shelton 6,223 5,471 -12.1% 7,531 8,282 10.0% Southbury 2,855 2,341 -18.0% 5,560 7,671 38.0% Thomaston 1,292 1,176 -9.0% 1,146 1,711 49.3% Waterbury 22,825 23,241 1.8% 13,529 14,799 9.4% Watertown 3,528 2,940 -16.7% 4,127 5,331 29.2% Wolcott 2,803 2,685 -4.2% 2,806 4,141 47.6% Woodbury 1,439 1,245 -13.5% 2,041 2,845 39.4% Region Total 79,727 75,456 -5.4% 70,934 89,451 26.1% Urban Core 44,666 44,378 -0.6% 31,671 35,518 12.1% Inner Ring 20,765 18,227 -12.2% 21,680 26,200 20.8% Outer Ring 14,296 12,851 -10.1% 17,583 27,733 57.7% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut State Data Center, Population Projections: 2015 -2040. 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 Commuting Patterns ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 56 Jobs Vs. Employment ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………. 58 Wages ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …….. 59 Economic data presented in Appendix B comes from a variety of sources including the US Census Bureau, and the Connecticut Department of Labor. Datasets may not match up due to differing data collection methods and years of analysis. Derby Green, Derby Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 50 Geography Labor Force Employed Unemployed Percent Unemployed Ansonia 9,420 8,809 611 6.5% Beacon Falls 3,503 3,350 153 4.4% Bethlehem 1,986 1,887 80 5.0% Bristol 33,349 31,612 1,737 5.2% Cheshire 15,910 15,385 525 3.3% Derby 6,887 6,486 401 5.8% Middlebury 3,944 3,777 167 4.2% Naugatuck 17,475 16,529 946 5.4% Oxford 7,275 6,971 304 4.2% Plymouth 6,725 6,374 351 5.2% Prospect 5,671 5,444 227 4.0% Seymour 9,113 8,678 435 4.8% Shelton 22,476 21,435 1,041 4.6% Southbury 8,822 8,441 381 4.3% Thomaston 4,762 4,573 189 4.0% Waterbury 51,045 47,275 3,770 7.4% Watertown 13,095 12,559 536 4.1% Wolcott 10,007 9,577 430 4.3% Woodbury 5,585 5,384 201 3.6% Region Total 237,050 224,546 12,504 5.3% Urban Core 118,176 110,711 7,465 6.3% Inner Ring 72,081 69,004 3,077 4.3% Outer Ring 46,793 44,831 1,962 4.2% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), by Town 2017 51 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Unemployment Rate Geography 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Ansonia 6.5% 7.0% 8.7% 9.2% 10.8% 11.4% 11.8% 11.7% Beacon Falls 4.4% 4.6% 5.4% 6.1% 6.5% 7.4% 8.3% 9.2% Bethlehem 5.0% 4.4% 4.8% 5.4% 5.7% 6.5% 7.1% 7.7% Bristol 5.2% 5.7% 6.9% 7.3% 8.4% 9.1% 9.8% 10.3% Cheshire 3.3% 3.5% 3.9% 4.6% 5.2% 5.6% 6.2% 6.4% Derby 5.8% 6.4% 7.3% 7.9% 9.0% 9.7% 10.5% 10.8% Middlebury 4.2% 3.9% 4.5% 5.1% 5.8% 6.7% 7.1% 7.2% Naugatuck 5.4% 5.8% 7.0% 7.6% 8.9% 9.4% 10.2% 10.8% Oxford 4.2% 4.2% 4.9% 5.4% 6.1% 6.5% 7.0% 7.5% Plymouth 5.2% 6.0% 7.2% 7.8% 9.1% 9.7% 10.6% 11.3% Prospect 4.0% 4.0% 5.0% 5.3% 5.9% 6.9% 7.6% 8.4% Seymour 4.8% 5.5% 6.3% 7.0% 7.8% 8.4% 9.2% 9.6% Shelton 4.6% 4.9% 5.7% 6.2% 7.2% 7.8% 8.5% 8.6% Southbury 4.3% 4.8% 5.4% 5.7% 6.7% 7.0% 7.8% 8.1% Thomaston 4.0% 4.3% 5.2% 6.1% 7.2% 7.6% 8.0% 9.0% Waterbury 7.4% 8.1% 10.3% 10.7% 12.2% 12.9% 13.6% 14.2% Watertown 4.1% 4.4% 5.1% 5.7% 6.5% 7.1% 7.6% 8.2% Wolcott 4.3% 4.3% 4.9% 5.5% 6.8% 7.6% 8.3% 8.9% Woodbury 3.6% 3.9% 4.5% 5.1% 6.0% 6.2% 6.6% 7.4% Region Total 5.3% 5.7% 6.4% 7.4% 8.5% 9.2% 9.8% 10.3% Urban Core 6.3% 6.9% 7.9% 9.0% 10.4% 11.0% 11.7% 12.2% Inner Ring 4.3% 4.6% 5.1% 6.0% 6.9% 7.5% 8.1% 8.5% Outer Ring 4.2% 4.3% 4.7% 5.5% 6.3% 6.9% 7.6% 8.1% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), by Town 2010 -2017 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 52 Jobs % Change Geography 2015 2013 2011 2009 2013 -2017 2009 -2013 2017 Ansonia 3,399 3,359 3,910 3,623 -0.9% -7.3% 3,328 Beacon Falls 912 843 929 887 7.2% -5.0% 903 Bethlehem 723 696 711 656 13.1% 6.0% 787 Bristol 22,307 21,592 20,597 20,286 3.4% 6.4% 22,317 Cheshire 15,961 15,431 14,428 15,209 5.3% 1.5% 16,254 Derby 4,776 4,872 4,643 4,929 -5.2% -1.1% 4,618 Middlebury 3,787 3,940 3,665 3,321 -0.2% 18.6% 3,931 Naugatuck 7,521 7,767 7,039 7,245 -9.0% 7.2% 7,065 Oxford 3,050 3,173 2,776 2,637 11.2% 20.3% 3,528 Plymouth 2,196 2,061 2,001 2,112 6.9% -2.5% 2,202 Prospect 1,982 1,980 1,983 1,946 7.3% 1.8% 2,125 Seymour 4,471 4,412 4,170 4,160 -2.2% 6.1% 4,317 Shelton 22,969 22,050 21,005 22,340 7.8% -1.3% 23,774 Southbury 8,218 8,396 8,573 8,829 -7.2% -4.9% 7,790 Thomaston 2,802 2,724 2,643 2,612 10.6% 4.3% 3,014 Waterbury 38,885 38,890 38,378 39,071 0.8% -0.5% 39,205 Watertown 8,265 8,011 7,731 7,873 5.2% 1.8% 8,431 Wolcott 2,955 2,966 2,821 3,009 6.2% -1.4% 3,149 Woodbury 2,082 2,020 2,028 2,101 1.3% -3.9% 2,045 Region Total 157,259 155,182 150,030 152,845 2.3% 1.5% 158,781 Urban Core 76,888 76,481 74,566 75,153 0.1% 1.8% 76,532 Inner Ring 56,663 54,689 51,979 54,307 6.0% 0.7% 57,991 Outer Ring 23,708 24,012 23,485 23,386 1.0% 2.7% 24,258 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), by Town 2009 -2017 53 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On The Map, LODES Dataset, 2015 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 54 Location Total Jobs Sector Urban Core Inner Outer Region % of Total Agriculture 0 333 0 333 0.2% Utilities 200 76 0 276 0.2% Construction 1,297 1,989 1,710 4,996 3.1% Manufacturing 7,942 10,926 1,697 20,565 13.0% Wholesale Trade 1,857 3,943 716 6,516 4.1% Retail Trade 11,941 4,162 2,371 18,474 11.6% Transportation and Ware- housing 861 1,570 441 2,872 1.8% Information 4,426 682 173 5,281 3.3% Finance and Insurance 1,726 2,323 866 4,915 3.1% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 608 484 395 1,487 0.9% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 1,483 3,483 1,791 6,757 4.3% Management of Companies and Enterprises 620 808 363 1,791 1.1% Administrative & Support and Waste Management 3,592 3,802 900 8,294 5.2% Educational Services 1,205 825 152 2,182 1.4% Health Care and Social Assis- tance 18,130 7,006 4,174 29,310 18.5% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 392 532 86 1,010 0.6% Accommodation and Food Services 5,379 3,524 2,042 10,945 6.9% Other Services (except Public Administration) 3,314 1,700 1,122 6,136 3.9% Total Government 10,878 5,407 3,815 20,100 12.7% Total All Jobs 76,533 57,992 24,258 158,783 100.0% Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), by Town 2017 Note: All Public Sector Employees (including school teachers) are in the “Total Government ” category 55 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Number of Jobs Job Change 2007 -2017 Sector 2017 2007 Net Percent Agriculture 333 316 17 5.3% Utilities 276 288 -12 -4.2% Construction 4,996 6,809 -1,813 -26.6% Manufacturing 20,565 26,107 -5,542 -21.2% Wholesale Trade 6,516 6,031 485 8.0% Retail Trade 18,474 20,513 -2,039 -9.9% Transportation and Warehous- ing 2,872 2,431 441 18.1% Information 5,281 4,850 431 8.9% Finance and Insurance 4,915 7,310 -2,395 -32.8% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,487 1,548 -61 -3.9% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 6,757 5,182 1,576 30.4% Management of Companies and Enterprises 1,791 1,746 45 2.6% Administrative & Support and Waste Management 8,294 7,951 344 4.3% Educational Services 2,182 991 1,191 120.2% Health Care and Social Assis- tance 29,310 25,146 4,164 16.6% Arts, Entertainment, and Rec- reation 1,010 838 172 20.6% Accommodation and Food Services 10,945 9,592 1,353 14.1% Other Services (except Public Administration) 6,136 5,332 804 15.1% Total Government 20,100 22,041 -1,941 -8.8% Total All Jobs 158,783 162,368 -3,585 -2.2% Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), by Town 2007 -2017 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 Re- gion Geography Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 541 6.1% 2,222 25.3% 6,035 68.6% Beacon Falls 87 2.6% 1,202 36.5% 2,003 60.8% Bethlehem 170 9.4% 737 40.6% 910 50.1% Bristol 7,459 22.9% 2,818 8.6% 22,333 68.5% Cheshire 2,105 14.7% 1,742 12.2% 10,436 73.1% Derby 417 7.4% 1,252 22.1% 4,000 70.6% Middlebury 302 7.6% 1,540 38.7% 2,140 53.7% Naugatuck 1,805 11.0% 5,168 31.5% 9,443 57.5% Oxford 493 7.8% 1,780 28.3% 4,025 63.9% Plymouth 542 7.9% 2,323 33.7% 4,018 58.4% Prospect 323 6.1% 1,953 37.0% 3,000 56.9% Seymour 850 10.7% 2,025 25.5% 5,077 63.8% Shelton 3,326 16.0% 1,358 6.5% 16,154 77.5% Southbury 1,099 12.7% 1,909 22.1% 5,628 65.2% Thomaston 502 11.5% 1,637 37.4% 2,238 51.1% Waterbury 13,901 30.5% 10,569 23.2% 21,067 46.3% Watertown 1,743 14.6% 4,689 39.2% 5,516 46.2% Wolcott 787 8.4% 3,593 38.2% 5,022 53.4% Woodbury 542 11.9% 1,433 31.6% 2,564 56.5% Region Total 36,994 16.9% 49,950 22.9% 131,605 60.2% Urban Core 24,123 22.1% 22,029 20.2% 62,878 57.7% Inner Ring 9,068 13.7% 13,774 20.8% 43,439 65.5% Outer Ring 3,803 8.8% 14,147 32.7% 25,292 58.5% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On the Map LODES Dataset: 2015 Area Profile for Residents 57 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Live Within Town of Employment Live Within Other Town in Region Live Outside of Re- gion Geography Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 541 17.1% 1,018 32.1% 1,610 50.8% Beacon Falls 87 13.5% 362 56.1% 196 30.4% Bethlehem 170 23.3% 318 43.6% 242 33.2% Bristol 7,457 31.1% 3,485 14.5% 13,061 54.4% Cheshire 2,105 13.2% 4,660 29.1% 9,225 57.7% Derby 417 8.8% 1,891 40.0% 2,414 51.1% Middlebury 302 8.3% 2,097 57.5% 1,248 34.2% Naugatuck 1,805 23.2% 3,366 43.3% 2,600 33.5% Oxford 493 16.5% 1,305 43.7% 1,185 39.7% Plymouth 542 24.4% 848 38.2% 827 37.3% Prospect 323 18.7% 881 51.1% 519 30.1% Seymour 850 19.5% 1,831 41.9% 1,688 38.6% Shelton 3,326 13.3% 4,774 19.1% 16,949 67.7% Southbury 1,099 14.2% 2,865 37.1% 3,754 48.6% Thomaston 502 17.6% 1,343 47.1% 1,007 35.3% Waterbury 13,901 33.4% 12,792 30.7% 14,927 35.9% Watertown 1,743 20.4% 3,937 46.0% 2,880 33.6% Wolcott 787 28.2% 1,232 44.2% 769 27.6% Woodbury 542 26.2% 944 45.7% 580 28.1% Region Total 36,992 22.7% 49,949 30.7% 75,681 46.5% Urban Core 24,121 29.7% 22,552 27.7% 34,612 42.6% Inner Ring 9,068 15.4% 17,393 29.5% 32,576 55.2% Outer Ring 3,803 17.1% 10,004 44.9% 8,493 38.1% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On the Map LODES Dataset: 2015, Area Profile for Workers Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 58 Geography Jobs Employed Residents Ratio Commuter Im- port/Export Ansonia 3,328 8,809 0.38 -5,481 Beacon Falls 903 3,350 0.27 -2,447 Bethlehem 787 1,887 0.42 -1,100 Bristol 22,317 31,612 0.71 -9,295 Cheshire 16,254 15,385 1.06 869 Derby 4,618 6,486 0.71 -1,868 Middlebury 3,931 3,777 1.04 154 Naugatuck 7,065 16,529 0.43 -9,464 Oxford 3,528 6,971 0.51 -3,443 Plymouth 2,202 6,374 0.35 -4,172 Prospect 2,125 5,444 0.39 -3,319 Seymour 4,317 8,678 0.50 -4,361 Shelton 23,774 21,435 1.11 2,339 Southbury 7,790 8,441 0.92 -651 Thomaston 3,014 4,573 0.66 -1,559 Waterbury 39,205 47,275 0.83 -8,070 Watertown 8,431 12,559 0.67 -4,128 Wolcott 3,149 9,577 0.33 -6,428 Woodbury 2,045 5,384 0.38 -3,339 Region Total 158,783 224,546 0.71 -65,763 Urban Core 76,533 110,711 0.69 -34,178 Inner Ring 57,992 69,004 0.84 -11,012 Outer Ring 24,258 44,831 0.54 -20,573 Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Local Area Unemployment Statistics: 2017. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW): 2017 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 59 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages: 2017 Note: All Public Sector Employees (including school teachers) are in the “Total Government ” category Average Annual Wages 2017 Sector Urban Core Inner Ring Outer Ring Region Agric., Forestry, Fishing & Hunting – $36,009 – $36,009 Utilities $85,558 $98,735 – $89,189 Construction $59,241 $71,622 $60,278 $63,858 Manufacturing $61,942 $73,903 $61,806 $68,285 Wholesale Trade $62,337 $86,570 $92,642 $80,329 Retail Trade $29,197 $36,681 $28,419 $30,874 Transportation & Warehous- ing $49,403 $52,785 $70,585 $54,506 Information $130,758 $95,017 $64,251 $123,962 Finance & Insurance $89,643 $112,002 $80,832 $99,816 Real Estate and Rental & Leas- ing $42,339 $70,317 $44,270 $51,973 Professional, Scientific, & Technical Services $68,732 $80,057 $124,847 $89,437 Management of Companies & Enterprises $126,969 $158,793 $164,854 $148,999 Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & Remed. Services $29,985 $38,700 $46,697 $35,795 Educational Services $46,058 $45,793 $23,477 $44,388 Health Care & Social Assis- tance $49,037 $42,995 $42,646 $46,682 Arts, Entertainment, & Recre- ation $24,117 $23,496 $20,650 $23,497 Accommodation & Food Ser- vices $18,347 $20,402 $19,257 $19,178 Other Services (except Public Administration) $23,468 $28,806 $33,161 $26,719 Total Government $60,340 $57,808 $61,099 $59,803 Total – All Industries $51,776 $62,211 $56,592 $56,323 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 Affordable Housing ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 78 Housing data presented in Appendix C comes from a variety of sources including the 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010 US Census, 2012 -2016 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates, the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD), and the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management (OPM). Datasets may not match up due to differing data collection methods and years of analysis. David Sherman House, W oodbury Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 62 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2012 -2016, B25024, Census 2010, :001; Census 2000, Census 1990, Census 1980 Total Housing Units % Change Geography 2016 2010 2000 1990 1980 2010 – 2016 2000 – 2010 1990 – 2000 Ansonia 7,486 8,148 7,937 7,503 7,267 -8.1% 2.7% 5.8% Beacon Falls 2,678 2,509 2,104 1,990 1,380 6.7% 19.2% 5.7% Bethlehem 1,547 1,575 1,388 1,262 1,074 -1.8% 13.5% 10.0% Bristol 26,917 27,011 26,125 24,989 21,004 -0.3% 3.4% 4.5% Cheshire 10,623 10,424 9,588 8,590 6,996 1.9% 8.7% 11.6% Derby 5,479 5,849 5,568 5,269 4,828 -6.3% 5.0% 5.7% Middlebury 2,898 2,892 2,494 2,365 2,168 0.2% 16.0% 5.5% Naugatuck 12,808 13,061 12,341 11,930 9,728 -1.9% 5.8% 3.4% Oxford 4,620 4,746 3,420 2,930 2,197 -2.7% 38.8% 16.7% Plymouth 5,204 5,109 4,646 4,556 3,811 1.9% 10.0% 2.0% Prospect 3,409 3,474 3,094 2,625 2,063 -1.9% 12.3% 17.9% Seymour 6,619 6,968 6,356 5,877 5,081 -5.0% 9.6% 8.2% Shelton 17,041 16,146 14,707 12,981 10,385 5.5% 9.8% 13.3% Southbury 8,529 9,091 7,799 6,826 5,838 -6.2% 16.6% 14.3% Thomaston 3,175 3,276 3,014 2,736 2,248 -3.1% 8.7% 10.2% Waterbury 46,525 47,991 46,827 47,205 40,854 -3.1% 2.5% -0.8% Watertown 8,842 9,096 8,298 7,522 6,618 -2.8% 9.6% 10.3% Wolcott 6,070 6,276 5,544 4,870 4,071 -3.3% 13.2% 13.8% Woodbury 4,514 4,564 3,869 2,924 2,924 -1.1% 18.0% 32.3% Region Total 184,984 188,206 175,119 164,950 140,535 -1.7% 7.5% 6.2% Urban Core 99,215 102,060 98,798 96,896 83,681 -2.8% 3.3% 2.0% Inner Ring 51,504 51,019 46,609 42,262 35,139 1.0% 9.5% 10.3% Outer Ring 34,265 35,127 29,712 25,792 21,715 -2.5% 18.2% 15.2% 63 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile New Housing Units by Year % Change 2009 -2016 Geography 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2009 2010 Ansonia 0 0 0 3 4 2 2 -100.0% 5 Beacon Falls 23 21 25 11 5 3 28 -17.9% 9 Bethlehem 2 2 2 2 2 1 7 -71.4% 2 Bristol 37 30 61 92 28 21 19 94.7% 37 Cheshire 29 41 41 48 24 58 17 70.6% 39 Derby 2 5 5 3 2 2 7 -71.4% 5 Middlebury 27 21 33 19 7 4 6 350.0% 7 Naugatuck 8 18 19 12 21 10 9 -11.1% 8 Oxford 23 16 61 33 30 13 31 -25.8% 45 Plymouth 5 5 6 5 5 9 6 -16.7% 11 Prospect 22 29 27 20 23 49 36 -38.9% 48 Seymour 3 78 6 14 23 17 15 -80.0% 22 Shelton 46 191 47 129 299 35 17 170.6% 31 Southbury 12 16 20 42 14 6 6 100.0% 7 Thomaston 14 11 4 6 3 5 6 133.3% 7 Waterbury 40 71 44 34 62 28 37 8.1% 32 Watertown 20 9 31 33 21 16 25 -20.0% 21 Wolcott 17 27 20 16 13 13 18 -5.6% 22 Woodbury 8 6 2 9 5 6 10 -20.0% 4 Region Total 338 597 454 531 591 298 302 11.9% 362 Urban Core 87 124 129 144 117 63 74 17.6% 87 Inner Ring 117 335 135 235 375 140 86 36.0% 131 Outer Ring 134 138 190 152 99 95 142 -5.6% 144 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, Annual :ousing Permit Data by Town: 2009 -2016 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 64 Geography Total 1 Unit 2 Units 3-4 Units 5+ Units Mobile Ansonia 7,486 3,793 1,928 998 757 10 Beacon Falls 2,678 1,889 106 257 210 216 Bethlehem 1,547 1,416 79 29 15 8 Bristol 26,917 16,194 2,986 2,553 4,993 191 Cheshire 10,623 8,904 142 437 1,127 13 Derby 5,479 2,740 901 590 1,205 43 Middlebury 2,898 2,696 9 59 126 8 Naugatuck 12,808 7,971 1,660 934 1,941 302 Oxford 4,620 4,465 59 54 42 0 Plymouth 5,204 4,059 265 315 477 88 Prospect 3,409 2,947 108 88 44 222 Seymour 6,619 4,580 678 299 1,038 24 Shelton 17,041 13,710 662 944 1,443 282 Southbury 8,529 6,381 841 631 634 42 Thomaston 3,175 2,363 205 195 387 25 Waterbury 46,525 18,574 5,103 9,887 12,803 158 Watertown 8,842 7,217 613 437 564 11 Wolcott 6,070 5,422 196 115 337 0 Woodbury 4,514 3,481 147 291 579 16 Region Total 184,984 118,802 16,688 19,113 28,722 1,659 Urban Core 99,215 49,272 12,578 14,962 21,699 704 Inner Ring 51,504 40,833 2,565 2,627 5,036 443 Outer Ring 34,265 28,697 1,545 1,524 1,987 512 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25024 65 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25024 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 66 Housing Units Year Built Median Year Built Geography After 1999 1980 to 1999 1960 to 1979 1940 to 1959 Before 1940 Ansonia 7,486 180 664 1,796 1,704 3,142 1952 Beacon Falls 2,678 383 804 592 502 397 1976 Bethlehem 1,547 268 521 330 244 184 1981 Bristol 26,917 1,148 6,025 7,456 6,366 5,922 1963 Cheshire 10,623 855 2,868 3,488 2,631 781 1970 Derby 5,479 241 992 1,241 1,352 1,653 1958 Middlebury 2,898 461 560 650 808 419 1966 Naugatuck 12,808 781 2,761 3,806 2,588 2,872 1966 Oxford 4,620 1,039 1,356 1,039 757 429 1981 Plymouth 5,204 547 1,158 1,201 1,174 1,124 1965 Prospect 3,409 541 1,071 765 866 166 1977 Seymour 6,619 590 1,220 1,896 1,311 1,602 1965 Shelton 17,041 1,835 5,252 5,399 2,588 1,967 1975 Southbury 8,529 621 2,838 3,872 614 584 1977 Thomaston 3,175 287 825 643 618 802 1965 Waterbury 46,525 1,387 8,490 11,302 10,770 14,576 1957 Watertown 8,842 576 1,771 2,682 2,164 1,649 1965 Wolcott 6,070 633 1,475 1,563 1,832 567 1966 Woodbury 4,514 260 1,255 1,462 656 881 1972 Region Total 184,984 12,633 41,906 51,183 39,545 39,717 1965 Urban Core 99,215 3,737 18,932 25,601 22,780 28,165 1962 Inner Ring 51,504 4,690 13,094 15,309 10,486 7,925 1969 Outer Ring 34,265 4,206 9,880 10,273 6,279 3,627 1974 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25034, B25035 67 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25035 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 68 Occupied Housing Units Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Geography Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 6,897 4,006 58.1% 2,891 41.9% Beacon Falls 2,404 2,054 85.4% 350 14.6% Bethlehem 1,277 1,055 82.6% 222 17.4% Bristol 24,985 16,351 65.4% 8,634 34.6% Cheshire 10,045 8,864 88.2% 1,181 11.8% Derby 4,949 2,727 55.1% 2,222 44.9% Middlebury 2,690 2,397 89.1% 293 10.9% Naugatuck 11,910 7,898 66.3% 4,012 33.7% Oxford 4,390 3,847 87.6% 543 12.4% Plymouth 4,733 3,758 79.4% 975 20.6% Prospect 3,288 2,908 88.4% 380 11.6% Seymour 6,063 4,332 71.4% 1,731 28.6% Shelton 15,803 12,846 81.3% 2,957 18.7% Southbury 7,782 6,772 87.0% 1,010 13.0% Thomaston 3,027 2,352 77.7% 675 22.3% Waterbury 39,735 17,367 43.7% 22,368 56.3% Watertown 8,344 6,682 80.1% 1,662 19.9% Wolcott 5,844 5,056 86.5% 788 13.5% Woodbury 4,059 3,011 74.2% 1,048 25.8% Region Total 168,225 114,283 67.9% 53,942 32.1% Urban Core 88,476 48,349 54.6% 40,127 45.4% Inner Ring 48,015 38,834 80.9% 9,181 19.1% Outer Ring 31,734 27,100 85.4% 4,634 14.6% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, 25003 69 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25003 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 589 7.9% 118 297 13 161 Beacon Falls 274 10.2% 0 0 51 223 Bethlehem 270 17.5% 7 0 204 59 Bristol 1,932 7.2% 247 777 78 830 Cheshire 578 5.4% 66 113 61 338 Derby 530 9.7% 40 395 14 81 Middlebury 208 7.2% 48 69 30 61 Naugatuck 898 7.0% 207 172 69 450 Oxford 230 5.0% 15 0 109 106 Plymouth 471 9.1% 107 52 83 229 Prospect 121 3.5% 44 0 10 67 Seymour 556 8.4% 83 98 91 284 Shelton 1,238 7.3% 372 438 227 201 Southbury 747 8.8% 164 51 212 320 Thomaston 148 4.7% 37 0 9 102 Waterbury 6,790 14.6% 828 2,383 292 3,287 Watertown 498 5.6% 168 0 78 252 Wolcott 226 3.7% 0 0 0 226 Woodbury 455 10.1% 117 0 99 239 Region Total 16,759 9.1% 2,668 4,845 1,730 7,516 Urban Core 10,739 10.8% 1,440 4,024 466 4,809 Inner Ring 3,489 6.8% 833 701 549 1,406 Outer Ring 2,531 7.4% 395 120 715 1,301 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25004 71 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25002 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 72 Gross Rent % Change 2000 -2016 Contract Rent % Change 2000 -2016 Geography 2016 2000 2016 2000 Ansonia $1,031 $1,002 2.9% $827 $815 1.5% Beacon Falls $1,147 $1,256 -8.7% $979 $1,056 -7.3% Bethlehem $945 $1,425 -33.7% $808 $1,114 -27.4% Bristol $895 $861 3.9% $782 $748 4.5% Cheshire $1,148 $1,157 -0.8% $1,012 $1,027 -1.4% Derby $1,069 $1,002 6.7% $865 $858 0.8% Middlebury $1,339 $969 38.2% $1,092 $824 32.6% Naugatuck $954 $915 4.3% $834 $776 7.5% Oxford $1,295 $998 29.8% $952 $777 22.5% Plymouth $1,037 $885 17.2% $856 $742 15.3% Prospect $1,024 $1,025 -0.1% $830 $834 -0.4% Seymour $996 $983 1.3% $860 $860 0.0% Shelton $1,195 $1,146 4.3% $973 $963 1.1% Southbury $1,499 $1,543 -2.8% $1,374 $1,338 2.7% Thomaston $832 $941 -11.6% $747 $770 -3.0% Waterbury $912 $815 11.9% $746 $684 9.0% Watertown $913 $937 -2.5% $777 $818 -5.0% Wolcott $1,086 $1,066 1.9% $895 $945 -5.3% Woodbury $1,115 $1,135 -1.8% $971 $1,022 -5.0% Region Median $976 $913 7.0% $817 $775 5.4% Urban Core $930 $860 8.1% $775 $728 6.5% Inner Ring $1,057 $1,031 2.5% $892 $885 0.8% Outer Ring $1,216 $1,204 1.0% $1,033 $1,036 -0.3% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25064, B25058, 2000 Census. NVCOG Staff Calculations [=nflation Rate 2000 -2016: 1.40] 73 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25064 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 74 Median Home Value % Change 2000 -2016 Geography 2016 2000 Ansonia $214,800 $196,490 9.3% Beacon Falls $231,800 $216,981 6.8% Bethlehem $351,200 $300,068 17.0% Bristol $192,500 $181,473 6.1% Cheshire $330,600 $297,542 11.1% Derby $199,400 $191,718 4.0% Middlebury $353,800 $278,735 26.9% Naugatuck $178,800 $186,666 -4.2% Oxford $346,500 $291,647 18.8% Plymouth $188,900 $174,034 8.5% Prospect $295,300 $253,612 16.4% Seymour $255,800 $221,332 15.6% Shelton $338,200 $304,981 10.9% Southbury $318,600 $293,472 8.6% Thomaston $205,100 $190,595 7.6% Waterbury $129,500 $142,175 -8.9% Watertown $241,100 $208,139 15.8% Wolcott $243,400 $201,262 20.9% Woodbury $331,800 $329,823 0.6% Region Total $242,145 $219,170 10.5% Urban Core $169,869 $168,427 0.9% Inner Ring $288,057 $256,515 12.3% Outer Ring $305,301 $269,063 13.5% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25077 NVCOG Staff Calculations. [=nflation Rate 2000 -2016: 1.40] 75 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25077 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 76 Owner Occupied Units Home Value Geography Less than $100,000 $100,000 – $199,999 $200,000 – $299,999 $300,000 – $399,999 $400,000 or Higher Ansonia 4,006 165 1,516 1,854 366 105 Beacon Falls 2,054 224 580 701 332 217 Bethlehem 1,055 7 137 231 298 382 Bristol 16,351 1,116 7,675 5,520 1,441 599 Cheshire 8,864 273 761 2,555 2,755 2,520 Derby 2,727 93 1,278 833 306 217 Middlebury 2,397 62 119 621 737 858 Naugatuck 7,898 933 4,130 2,064 522 249 Oxford 3,847 98 277 811 1,585 1,076 Plymouth 3,758 313 1,858 1,125 291 171 Prospect 2,908 222 266 1,019 869 532 Seymour 4,332 186 1,030 1,624 830 662 Shelton 12,846 516 936 3,261 4,476 3,657 Southbury 6,772 567 1,386 1,183 1,347 2,289 Thomaston 2,352 249 891 744 366 102 Waterbury 17,367 4,629 10,485 1,668 324 261 Watertown 6,682 297 1,877 2,387 1,246 875 Wolcott 5,056 234 1,260 2,119 719 724 Woodbury 3,011 99 582 573 790 967 Region Total 114,283 10,283 37,044 30,893 19,600 16,463 Urban Core 48,349 6,936 25,084 11,939 2,959 1,431 Inner Ring 38,834 1,834 7,353 11,696 9,964 7,987 Outer Ring 27,100 1,513 4,607 7,258 6,677 7,045 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25075 77 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Equalized Net Grand List ($ Millions) Percent Change Geography 2015 2007 2003 2007 -2015 2003 -2007 Ansonia $1,170.3 $1,975.2 $1,434.6 -40.8% 37.7% Beacon Falls $580.0 $892.0 $534.1 -35.0% 67.0% Bethlehem $430.0 $725.4 $503.4 -40.7% 44.1% Bristol $4,645.7 $7,396.0 $5,439.5 -37.2% 36.0% Cheshire $3,466.1 $5,084.2 $4,270.5 -31.8% 19.1% Derby $867.7 $1,457.3 $1,123.9 -40.5% 29.7% Middlebury $1,191.6 $1,787.1 $1,169.8 -33.3% 52.8% Naugatuck $1,913.7 $3,511.7 $2,532.8 -45.5% 38.6% Oxford $1,761.7 $2,075.3 $1,524.4 -15.1% 36.1% Plymouth $880.1 $1,356.1 $948.9 -35.1% 42.9% Prospect $1,028.9 $1,269.6 $1,101.7 -19.0% 15.2% Seymour $1,468.5 $2,142.8 $1,614.1 -31.5% 32.8% Shelton $5,820.0 $9,314.4 $5,753.2 -37.5% 61.9% Southbury $2,724.2 $4,452.6 $3,755.3 -38.8% 18.6% Thomaston $626.5 $1,155.1 $864.7 -45.8% 33.6% Waterbury $4,614.0 $9,064.6 $6,045.2 -49.1% 49.9% Watertown $2,211.1 $3,548.4 $2,695.3 -37.7% 31.6% Wolcott $1,636.1 $2,391.4 $1,511.5 -31.6% 58.2% Woodbury $1,381.8 $2,187.6 $1,759.5 -36.8% 24.3% Region Total $38,417.8 $61,786.6 $44,582.5 -37.8% 38.6% Urban Core $13,211.3 $23,404.7 $16,576.0 -43.6% 41.2% Inner Ring $14,472.3 $22,601.0 $16,146.8 -36.0% 40.0% Outer Ring $10,734.2 $15,780.9 $11,859.8 -32.0% 33.1% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Office of Policy and Management. Equalized Net Grand List, by Municipality: 2003 -2015 All values are in 2015 dollars [=nflation Rate 2003 -2015: 1.2575] [=nflation Rate 2007 -2015: 1.1359] 2015 is for FY 2016 -2017 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 78 Total >30% Owner -Occupied >30% Renter -Occupied >30% Geography Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 3,464 50.2% 1,764 44.0% 1,700 58.8% Beacon Falls 534 22.2% 427 20.8% 107 30.6% Bethlehem 421 33.0% 309 29.3% 112 50.5% Bristol 8,400 33.6% 4,619 28.2% 3,781 43.8% Cheshire 2,209 22.0% 1,871 21.1% 338 28.6% Derby 2,251 45.5% 1,107 40.6% 1,144 51.5% Middlebury 794 29.5% 693 28.9% 101 34.5% Naugatuck 4,159 34.9% 2,400 30.4% 1,759 43.8% Oxford 1,274 29.0% 1,146 29.8% 128 23.6% Plymouth 1,627 34.4% 1,156 30.8% 471 48.3% Prospect 663 20.2% 567 19.5% 96 25.3% Seymour 2,008 33.1% 1,244 28.7% 764 44.1% Shelton 5,240 33.2% 4,117 32.0% 1,123 38.0% Southbury 3,174 40.8% 2,586 38.2% 588 58.2% Thomaston 966 31.9% 721 30.7% 245 36.3% Waterbury 19,218 48.4% 6,887 39.7% 12,331 55.1% Watertown 2,396 28.7% 1,860 27.8% 536 32.3% Wolcott 1,647 28.2% 1,208 23.9% 439 55.7% Woodbury 1,430 35.2% 998 33.1% 432 41.2% Region Total 61,875 36.8% 35,680 31.2% 26,195 48.6% Urban Core 37,492 42.4% 16,777 34.7% 20,715 51.6% Inner Ring 14,446 30.1% 10,969 28.2% 3,477 37.9% Outer Ring 9,937 31.3% 7,934 29.3% 2,003 43.2% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25106 79 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Govt. Assisted Tenant Rental As- sistance CHFA/ USDA Mortgage Deed Re- stricted Total Affordable Geography Total Percent Ansonia 347 696 118 9 1,170 14.4% Beacon Falls 0 3 37 0 40 1.6% Bethlehem 24 0 5 0 29 1.8% Bristol 1,908 868 996 0 3,772 14.0% Cheshire 258 20 76 17 371 3.6% Derby 274 315 88 0 677 11.6% Middlebury 76 4 22 20 122 4.2% Naugatuck 493 299 317 0 1,109 8.5% Oxford 36 5 30 0 71 1.5% Plymouth 178 13 192 0 383 7.5% Prospect 0 6 39 0 45 1.3% Seymour 262 27 109 0 398 5.7% Shelton 253 45 103 82 483 3.0% Southbury 89 7 30 0 126 1.4% Thomaston 104 6 86 0 196 6.0% Waterbury 5,272 3,143 1,761 172 10,348 21.6% Watertown 205 25 184 0 414 4.6% Wolcott 312 9 133 0 454 7.2% Woodbury 59 3 24 0 86 1.9% Region Total 10,150 5,494 4,350 300 20,294 10.8% Urban Core 8,294 5,321 3,280 181 17,076 16.7% Inner Ring 1,260 136 750 99 2,245 4.4% Outer Ring 596 37 320 20 973 2.8% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development. Affordable :ousing Appeals List: 2017 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 80 81 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Appendix D Tables and Maps Topic Page Urbanized Areas: 2010 ………………………….. ………………………….. ………….. 82 Labor Market Areas: 2018. ………………………….. ………………………….. …….. 83 Income Limits for Select HUD Programs: 2018 ………………………….. ……… 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 Statistics: Labor Market Areas: 2018 * Bethlehem and Woodbury were added to the Water-bury LMA in 2015. Each mid -decade, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) updates statistical area definitions (geographical composition) or labor market areas based on population and commuter patterns from the most recent decennial Census (2010). Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 84 Source: U.S. Department of :ousing and Urban Development (:UD), =ncome Limits: 2018 Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 33,900 38,750 43,600 48,400 52,300 56,150 60,050 63,900 Low -Income 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 236 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 221 BMIR 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 Section 235 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 =ncludes Middlebury, Naugatuck, Prospect, Southbury, Waterbury, and Wolcott Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 33,900 38,750 43,600 48,400 52,300 56,150 60,050 63,900 Low -Income 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 236 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 221 BMIR 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 Section 235 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 =ncludes Ansonia, Beacon Falls, Derby, Oxford, and Seymour Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 33,900 38,750 43,600 48,400 52,300 56,150 60,050 63,900 Low -Income 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 236 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 221 BMIR 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 Section 235 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 =ncludes Bethlehem, Plymouth, Thomaston, Watertown, and Woodbury 85 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Department of :ousing and Urban Development (:UD), =ncome Limits: 2018 Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 33,900 38,750 43,600 48,400 52,300 56,150 60,050 63,900 Low -Income 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 236 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 221 BMIR 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 Section 235 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 =ncludes Town of Cheshire Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 33,900 38,750 43,600 48,400 52,300 56,150 60,050 63,900 Low -Income 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 236 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 221 BMIR 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 Section 235 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 =ncludes City of Bristol Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 33,900 38,750 43,600 48,400 52,300 56,150 60,050 63,900 Low -Income 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 236 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 221 BMIR 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 Section 235 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 =ncludes City of Shelton Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Council Members Municipality Representative Title Ansonia David Cassetti Mayor Beacon Falls Christopher Bielik First Selectman Bethlehem Leonard Assard First Selectman Bristol Ellen Zoppo -Sassu Mayor Cheshire Rob Oris Jr. Town Council Chairman Derby Richard Dziekan Mayor Middlebury Edward St. John First Selectman Naugatuck N. Warren “Pete ” Hess Mayor Oxford George Temple First Selectman Plymouth David Merchant Mayor Prospect Robert Chatfield Mayor Seymour W. Kurt Miller First Selectman Shelton Mark Lauretti Mayor Southbury Jeffrey Manville First Selectman Thomaston Edmond Mone First Selectman Waterbury Neil O'Leary Mayor Watertown Thomas Winn Town Council Chairman Wolcott Thomas Dunn Mayor Woodbury William Butterly, Jr. First Selectman