GBV LRTP TIP Ozone Air Quality Emission Results Summary October 2016

Ozone Air Quality Conformity Determination Page | 1 Emissions Results Summary REGIONAL AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT ONE -HOUR OZONE NAAQS TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM – FFY 2015 -2018 FOR THE GREATER BRIDGEPORT AND VALLEY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION October 201 6 The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 and the federal transportation regulations and legislation r ecognized the major contributions of transportation sources to the overall air quality problem evidenced throughout the count ry. To effectuate a reduction in transportation – related emissions and a corresponding improvement in air quality, areas designated as non – attainment or maintenance for a criterion pollutant were required to demonstrate that their transportation plans, prog rams and projects contributed to the attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and would not cause a new violation or delay attainment of the NAAQS . This process is referred to as Air Quality Conformity . Connecticut is divided into two non -attainment area for the 8 -hour ozone NAAQS , both are classified as “ Moderate ” non -attainment areas . Fairfield, New Haven and Middlesex counties are included as part of the New York -Northern New Jersey -Long Island non -attainment area. The remainder of the state is designated as the Greater Connecticut non -attainment area. In June, 2004, the EPA finalized the 8 -hour conformity for Ozone non -attainment areas and the designated the Connecticut portion of the New York -Northern New Jersey -Long Island non – attainment area as a “moderate” non -attainment areas for the 8 -hour Ozone standard. Subsequent decisions by the EPA and revisions to the approach for classifying non -attainment areas re -designated both of Connecticut’s non -attainment area s as a “marginal” non – attainment areas with an attainment date of December 31, 2015. Based on 2012 -2014 air quality data, the EPA determined that Connecticut’s non -attainment areas did not attain ozone standards by July20, 2015. Both the Greater Connecticut and the New York -New Jersey -Long Island areas were reclassified as “Moderate,” effective June 3, 2016. The new attainment date for these two areas is July 20, 2018. The Connecticut Department of Transportation is responsible for conducting the air quality emissions asses sments for the metropolitan planning organizations in Connecticut. The CTDOT uses the statewide travel demand model to estimate vehicle miles of travel for various classes of highways and during various time periods. The future transportation network inclu des all planned improvement projects and is based on the complete implementation of the transportation improvement program (TIP) and the long range transportation plans. The MOVES2014a emissions model is used to calculate emissions from transportation tra vel and establish emissions budgets. The 8 -hour budgets were developed jointly by CTDOT and CTDEEP. The budgets were found to be adequate by EPA and can be used in comparing future transportation -related emission to determine conformity. Ozone Air Quality Conformity Determination Page | 2 Emissions Results Summary The conformity test requires the emissions from the future transportation system to be less than the EPA -approved budgets for all analysis years. The emissions analyses were conducted for the following years:  2017 – New Attainment year and near term analysis year  2025 – Interim modeling year  2035 – Interim modeling year  2040 – Long range transportation plan horizon year The results of the quantitative emis sions analysis conducted by CT DOT are shown in the following tables and the analysis year trends are depicted in th e charts following the tables. VALLEY P LANNING REGI ON 2015 -20 40 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION P LAN REGION EMISSIONS ANALY SIS RESULTS 8-Ho ur Oz o ne NAAQS Co nnecticut Po rtio n o f the NY -NJ -LI-CT Area VOC Emission Analysis NOX Emission Analysis Ana lysis Ye a r Action SIP Budge t Diffe re nce Action SIP Budge t Diffe re nce 201 7 Emissions 17.52 27.40 -9.88 24.80 54.60 -29.80 2025 Emissions 12.31 27.40 .15.16 13.24 54.60 -41.36 2035 Emissions 7.24 27.40 -20.16 7.83 54.60 -46.77 2040 Emissions 6.66 27.40 20.74 7.33 54.60 -47.27 1. A small reduction in VMT and emissions in the Greater Connecticut area will occur from the ECO program in the Connecticut portion of the NY -NJ-LI area due to travel between the areas. 2. Emission analysis based on S UMMER conditions. 3. VOC & NOx emissions are in tons per day and are calculated using Connecticut’s vehicle mix. 4. HMPS 12 Functional Class system used. 5. National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program included in 2008 and future years. 6. Eight Hour Ozone emission budgets effective June 27, 2008. Ozone Air Quality Conformity Determination Page | 3 Emissions Results Summary 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2017 2025 2035 2040 Estimated VOC Emissions by Analysis Year Compared to Approved EPA Budget CT Portion of NY -NJ -CT Non -Attainment Area Estimated VOC emission s (Tons/D ay) EPA VOC Bud get (Tons/Day) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2017 2025 2035 2040 Estimated NOx Emissions by Analysis Year Compared to Approved EPA Budget CT Portion of NY -NJ -CT Non -Attainment Area Estimated NOx Emissions (Ton s/Day) EPA NOx Budget (To ns/D ay)

GBV LRTP TIP PM 2.5 Air Quality Emission Results Summary October 2016

PM2.5 Air Quality Conformity Determination Page | 1 Emissions Results Summary REGIONAL AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT PM2.5 NAAQS FFY 2015 -2018 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM & LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANS GREATER BRIDGEPORT AND VALLEY MPO October 201 6 The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 and the federal transportation regulations and legislation r ecognized the major contributions of transportation sources to the overall air quality problem evidenced throughout the country. To effectuate a reducti on in transportation – related emissions and a corresponding improvement in air quality, areas designated as non – attainment or maintenance for a criterion pollutant were required to demonstrate that their transportation plans, programs and projects contribut ed to the attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and would not cause a new violation or delay attainment of the NAAQS . This process is referred to as Air Quality Conformity . The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated n ational ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter in 1997. Fine particulate matter is referred to as PM2.5 and is a mixture of microscopic solids and suspended liquid solids in the air. It is formed directly as a by -product of combustion, such as smoke or automobile exhaust, or indirectly from chemical reactions i n the atmosphere. Fairfield and New Haven Counties are included in the New York -New Jersey -Connecticut (NY -NJ -CT) PM2.5 non -attainment area. On April 17, 200 7 the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP) submitted a revision to the State Implementation Plan to establish interim progress for achieving the NAAQS for fine particulate matter and motor vehicle emission budgets. The annual emission budgets for the Connecticut portion of the NY -NJ -CT non -attainment area were determin ed to be adequate and are used in future analysis years. The EPA has also determined Connecticut’s PM2.5 attainment demonstration SIP to be administratively and technically complete as of January 8, 2009. Effective October 24, 2013, the Connecticut portion of the multi -state PM2.5 non -attainment area was re -designated as “attainment maintenance.” EPA’s guidance for maintenance plans calls for a demonstration of continued compliance by showing that future emissions during the maintenance period will not exce ed the level of emission in the attainment inventory. The end of the maintenance period is 2025. The Connecticut Department of Transportation is responsible for conducting the air quality emissions assessments for the metropolitan planning organizations i n Connecticut. The CTDOT uses the statewide travel demand model to estimate vehicle miles of travel for various classes of highways and during various time periods. The future transportation network includes all planned improvement projects and is based on the complete implementation of the transportation improvement program (TIP) and the long range transportation plans. PM2.5 Air Quality Conformity Determination Page | 2 Emissions Results Summary The MOVES201 4a emissions model is used to establish emissions budgets for the 2017 and 2025 analysis years . Emission estimates were developed for direct PM2.5 and indirect PM2.5 emissions based on the estimate of NOx emissions, the most critical precursor of PM2.5. The conformity test requires the emissions from the future transportation system expected to be in place in 2017 to be less than the EPA -approved budget for 2017 and the emissions from the 2025 build scenario and subsequent years to be less than the 2025 budget. The emissions analyses were conducted for the following years:  201 7 – Att ainment year  2025 – End maintenance period  2035 – Interim modeling year  2040 – Long range transportation plan horizon year The results of the quantitative emis sions analysis conducted by CT DOT are shown i n the following table and the analysis year trends are depicted in the charts following the table. VALLEY PLANNING REGION 2015 -2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN REGION EMISSIONS ANALY SIS RESULTS Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2 .5 ) Annual NAAQS Co nnecticut Po rtio n o f the NY -NJ -LI-CT Area Direct PM 2. 5 Emission Analysis NO x Emission Analysis Analysis Year Action SIP Budget Difference Action SIP Budget Difference 2017 Emissions 313.10 575.80 -262.70 7942.80 12791.80 -4849.00 2025 Emissions 201.50 516.00 -314.50 4350.30 9728.10 -5377.80 2035 Emissions 153.50 516.00 -362.50 2713.10 9728.10 -7015.00 2045 Emissions 143.90 516.00 -372.10 2563.80 9728.10 -7164.30 1. A small reduction in VMT and emissions in the Greater Connecticut area will occur from the ECO program. 2. Emission analysis based on S UMMER and WINTER conditions. 3. NOx emissions are in tons per day and are calculated using Connecticut’s vehicle mix. 4. HMPS 12 Functional Class system used. PM2.5 Air Quality Conformity Determination Page | 3 Emissions Results Summary 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 2017 2025 2035 2040 Estimated Direct PM 2.5 Emissions by Analysis Year Compared to Approved EPA Budget CT Portion of the NY -NJ -LI -CT Non -Attainment Area Estimated Direct PM 2.5 Emissio ns (Tons/Year) SIP Bud get (To ns/Year) 0.00 2,000.00 4,000.00 6,000.00 8,000.00 10,000.0 0 12,000.0 0 14,000.0 0 2017 2025 2035 2040 Estimated NOx (I ndirect) Emissions by Analysis Year Compared to Approved EPA Budget CT Portion of the NY -NJ -LI -CT Non -Attainment Area Estimated Nox (Ind ir ect) Emissio ns (Ton s/Year ) SIP Bud get (To ns/Year)

Ozone Air Quality Conformity Determination September 2016

Connecticut Department of Transportation OZONE Air Quality Conformity Determination of the 2015 Regional Transportation Plans and the FY 2015 -2018 Transportation Improvement Programs Amendments for the Connecticut portion of the New York -Northern New Jersey -Long Island, NY -NJ -CT Ozone Nonattainment Area and the Greater Connecticut Ozone Nonattainment Area September 201 6 Note: The Connecticut portion of the New York -Northern New Jersey -Long Island Nonattainment area (Fairfield, New Haven and Middlesex counties) and the Greater Connecticut Nonattainment area (Hartford, New London, Tolland, Windham and Litchfield counties) have been designated as Marginal Nonattainment areas. This document includes the documentation of the regional analysis for both nonattainment areas within the State of Connecticut, as well as documentation and information on the processes and procedures undertaken by Connecticut Department of Transportation, coordinator of Air Quality Conformity for the Connecticut Regional Planning Organizations. 2 Table of Contents Emissions Analysis 1) Introduction……………………………………………………………… 4 2) Vehicle Emissions…..…………………………………………………….. 9 3) Ozone Nonattainment Areas………………………………………………. 10 4) CO Nonattainment Areas……………………………………….…….…. 11 5) Conformity Tests……………………………………………………………………………. 12 6) Interagency Consultation………………………………………….….…. 13 7) Public Consultation………………………………………………………. 14 8) VMT and Emissions Estimates.…………………………………….……. 15 9) PM 10……………………………………………………………………. 39 10) PM 2.5………………………………………………………………………………………… 40 11) Other Planning Documents…………………………………………….. 40 12) Transportation Planning Work Program..……………………………… 41 13) Conclusions…………………………………………………………….. 41 3 List of Tables Table 1: Classification Categories and Attainment Dates…………………………………… 6 Table 2: List of Connecticut Network Changes……………………………………………… 16 Table 3: VMT Ozone Emissions SIP Budgets………………………………………………………………. 37 Figure 1: List of Figures Connecticut Ozone Nonattainment Areas and PM2.5 Attainment/Maintenance Area 10 Figure 2 Connecticut CO attainment/maintenance areas……………………………………. 11 List of Appendices Appendix A: Interagency Consultation Meeting Minutes………………………………………… 43 Appendix B: MOVES 2010b Tabulations………………………………………………………… 47 Appendix C: MOVES 2010b Input Ozone Emission Runs……………………………………….. 49 Appendix D: Acronyms…………………………………………………………………………… 205 4 INTRODUCTION This report was prepared to document the emissions analysis that was completed to evaluate Transportation Conformity of the Metropolitan Regional Planning Organizations’ Fiscal Year 2015 -2018 Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) , as Amended and the 2015 Regional Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTP) to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality. This submittal incorporates the FY 2015 -2018 TIPs , as Amended and 2015 LRTPs from Connecticut’s Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs), and Mobile Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs). The report is submitted to satisfy the requirements of the SIP, as revised. The statewide travel demand models were rerun, along with accompanying Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) and the MOVES201 4a emissions model. The results of these runs show a decrease in emissions in the affected area and therefore the transportation program and plan continue to conform to the State’s air quality plan. On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 was signed into law. On August 15, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Final Conformity Rule. Effective February 17, 2004, EPA approved a revision to the Connecticut SIP for the attainment and maintenance of the one -hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ground level ozone. 1 Emissions budgets for the 2007 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) motor vehicle emissions were calculated using MOBILE6.2 for the Connecticut portion of the New York -Northern New Jersey -Long Island Nonattainment area and the 2007 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MV EBs) for the Greater Connecticut Nonattainment area. Procedures and criteria contained in that document provided the basis for this Conformity determination. Implementation of these rules has been accomplished through a cooperative effort of the Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs), EPA, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 1 40CFR Part 52 5 Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) and the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP). In June of 2004, EPA finalized eight -hour conformity rules for ozone nonattainment areas in Connecticut, which became effective in June of 2005. These areas were designated as ‘moderate’ nonattainment for the eight -hour standard: the Connecticut portion of the New York -Northern New Jersey -Long Island eight -hour ozone nonattainment area, consisting of Fairfield, New Haven and Middlesex counties and the Greater Connecticut eight -hour ozone nonattainment area, consisting of Hartford, Litchfield, New London, Tolland and Windham counties. Emissions were tested against the new eight -hour budgets, which were developed jointly by CTDEEP and CTDOT, and found adequate by EPA on June 27, 2008. The 2009 MVEBs established in 2008 for each of Connecticut’s nonattainment areas represented CTDEEP’s planning estimate at that time of the level of motor vehicle emissions that would be necessary to produce timely attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The appropriateness of the 2009 MVEBs was confirmed by actual monitored 2009 design values, which demonstrated that both nonattainment areas had achieved timely attainment of the NAAQS. On August 23, 2010, CTDEEP requested EPA to retain the 2009 MVEBs as adequate ozone precursor budgets for future transportation conformity determinations and for EPA to withdraw the adequacy determination for the 2012 MVEBs, which were set at lower emission levels in case attainment was not achieved by 2009. On December 30, 2010 EPA informed CTDEEP that it was withdrawing its previous adequacy finding on the 2012 out year MVEBs contained in Connecticut’s 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP. Connecticut’s withdrawal of the 2012 MVEBs was published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2011 and the budget change became effective 15 days after publication of the announcement. 6 On May 21, 2012, the Federal Register (77 FR 30160) established the approach for classifying nonattainment areas, set attainment deadlines, and revoked the 1997 Ozone standard for transportation conformity purposes. Areas designated nonattainment for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS were classified into one of the following categories, based on the severity of their ozone problem: Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, or Extreme. EPA established attainment dates for the 2008 primary ozone NAAQS based on the area’s classification, as show n in Table 1.2 Both of the State’s nonattainment areas were classified as “Marginal” for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. TABLE 1: Classification Categories and Attainment Dates Classification Attainment Date Marginal December 31, 2015 Moderate December 31, 2018 Serious December 31, 2021 Severe December 31, 2027 Extreme December 31, 2032 The EPA has determined that 11 Marginal areas did not attain the 2008 ozone standards by the July 20, 2015, attainment date, and that these areas do not qualify for a 1 -year attainment date extension, and that they must be reclassified as Moderate based on their 2012 -2014 air quality data. Both the Greater Connecticut and the New York -North ern New Jersey -Long Island (NY -NJ -CT) area were two of the eleven areas. 3 The “bump -up” designation to Moderate was effective on June 3, 2016. In this action, the EPA is also establishing a due date of January 1, 2017, by which states with newly -reclassified Moderate areas must submit State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions to address Moderate nonattainment area requirements for those areas. Th e 2Source: Table 4 in 77 FR 30160 3 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016 -04/documents/20160411factsheet.pdf 7 reclassified areas must attain the 2008 ozone standards as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than the Moderate area attainment date of July 20, 2018. Finally, for the New York -Northern New Jersey -Long Island, NY -NJ -CT, area, the EPA is rescinding the clean data determination issued in June 2012, and is issuing a new SIP call, for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The states in the New York City area may satisfy the SIP call for the 1997 NAAQS by making timely submittals to meet the Moderate area SIP requirements that n ow apply to this area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 4 MOVES2014a includes three new emission control programs associated with regulation promulgated sine the release of MOVES2010b:  Tier 3 emission standards that phase in beginning in 2017 for cars, light -duty trucks, medium -duty passenger vehicles, and some heavy -duty trucks, and Tier 3 fuel standards that require lower sulfur gasoline be ginning in 2017.  Heavy -duty engine and vehicle greenhouse has (GHG) regulations that phase in during model years 2014 -2018.  The second phase of light -duty vehicle GHG regulations that phase in for model years 2017 -2025 cars and light trucks. MOVES2014a also includes new and updated e missions data from a wide range of test programs and other sources. The most significant changes include new effects of fuel properties such as gasoline sulfur and ethoanol, new data on evaporative emissions from fuel leaks and from vehicles parked for mu ltiple days, new analysis of particulate matter (PM) data related to P M speciation and temperature effects on running PM emissions and new real worl d in -use emissions for heavy -duty v ehic les using data from p ortable emission monitoring systems. MOVES201 4a estimates exhaust and evaporative emissions as well as brake and tire wear emissions from all types of on -road vehicles. MOVES2014a also uses a vehicle 4 https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/05/04/2016 -09729/determinations -of-attainment -by -the -attainment – date -extensions -of-the -attainment -date -and#h -41 8 classification system based on the way vehicles are classified in the FHWA’s Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). Other parameters include vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by vehicle and road type, vehicle hours traveled (VHT) by vehicle and road type, the number of each type of vehicle in the fleet, vehicle age distribution, model year, travel speed, roadway type, fuel information, meteorological data, such as ambient temperature and humidity, and applicable control measures such as reformulated gasoline (RFG) and inspection and maintenance (I/M). Local inputs were cooperatively developed by CTDEEP and CTDOT where applicable using EPA recommended methods. 5 Emissions are now tested against the established eight -hour budgets, which were developed jointly by CTDEEP and CTDOT, and found adequate by EPA on June 27, 2008. In November 2012, EPA confirmed by telephone to CTDEEP that future conformity determinations utilizing the MOVES2010b model can be made by comparing emission results to the existing MOBILE6.2 budgets for Ozone. Until superseded by an updated emissions model, all future transportation conformity analysis will be required to demonstrate compliance with MOVES2014a emission budgets. Therefore, as the 2009 MVEBs are adequate ozone precursor budgets, this Air Quality Conformity analysis will compare future year emissions to this base. 5 “M O VE S2 0 1 4 a n d MO VE S 2 0 1 4 a T ec h n i ca l G u i d an c e : U s i n g MO V E S to P r e par e E mi s s i on I n v e n t o r ie s fo r S ta t e I mp l eme n t a t i o n P la n s a n d T r a n sp o r ta t io n Co n f o r mi t y” , E P A -420 -B-15 -0 9 3 , N o v e mb er 2 0 1 5 9 VEHICLE EMISSIONS Ozone Ground level ozone is a major component of smog. It is formed by sunlight and heat acting upon fuel combustion products such as nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons. Ozone occurs naturally in the upper atmosphere and shields the earth from ultraviolet radiation. However, at ground level, ozone is a severe irritant. Because ozone formation is directly related to atmospheric temperatures, problematic ozone levels occur most frequently on hot summer afternoons. Ozone exposure is linked to respiratory illnesses such as asthma and lung inflammation and can exacerbate existing respiratory ailments. Ozone pollution can also severely damage vegetation, including agricultural crops and forest habitats. Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Mobile source nitrogen oxides form when nitrogen and oxygen atoms chemically react inside the high pressure and temperature conditions in an engine. Nitrogen oxides are precursors for ozone and can also contribute to the formation of acidic rain. Hydrocarbons or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Hydrocarbon emissions are a product of partial fuel combustion, fuel evaporation and refueling losses caused by spillage and vapor leakage. VOC reacts with nitrogen oxides and sunlight to form ozone. Carbon Monoxide (CO) Carbon monoxide is produced by the incomplete burning of carbon in fuels, including gasoline. High concentrations of CO occur along roadsides in heavy traffic, particularly at major intersections and in enclosed areas such as garages and poorly ventilated tunnels. Peak concentrations occur during the colder months of the year when CO vehicular emissions are greater. 10 Ozone Nonattainment Areas On March 27, 2008, EPA finalized new ozone standards which tightened the standard to 0.075 parts per million (ppm) from the previous, 1997 ozone standard of 0.08 ppm. On May 21, 2012, EPA finalized designations for this new ozone standard, effective July 20, 2012. The nonattainment areas have changed under the latest 2008 ground -level ozone eight -hour standard. The Connecticut portion of the New York -Northern New Jersey -Long Island nonattainment area (Fairfield, New Haven and Middlesex counties) has been designated a Marginal Nonattainment area, while the Greater Connecticut area (Hartford, New London, Tolland, Windham and Litchfield counties) has also been designated as a Marginal Nonattainment area. Figure 1 below shows the two Marginal Nonattainment areas in Connecticut. Figure 1: Connecticut Ozone Nonattainment Areas and PM 2.5 Attainment/Maintenance Area 11 CO Nonattainment Areas There were formerly three CO Nonattainment areas in the state. These were the Southwest portion of the state, the greater New Haven area, and the greater Hartford area. The remainder of the state was in attainment for CO. Attainment was demonstrated in each of these areas and, subsequently, they were designated as Full Maintenance areas. On September 13, 2004, EPA approved a CTDEEP submittal for a SIP revision for re -designation of these areas to Limited Maintenance Plan status, thus eliminating the need for budget testing. In the future, “hot -spot” carbon monoxide analyses will be performed to satisfy “project level” conformity determinations. Figure 2 below shows the CO attainment/maintenance areas in Connecticut. Figure 2: Connecticut Carbon Monoxide Maintenace and Attainment Areas 12 Conformity Tests Under the Conformity Rules, the following test for VOC/NOx must be met:  TEST 1 For VOC and NOx, transportation emissions from the Action Scenarios must be less than the 2009 transportation emission budgets if analysis year is 2009 or later. As the CO areas have been approved by EPA for Limited Maintenance Plan status, no tests for CO are required. The ACTION SCENARIO is the future transportation system that will result from full implementation of the Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) and Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTP). VOC/NOx emission analysis was conducted for summer conditions and for the following years:  2009 (eight -hour MVEB year)  201 7 (New Attainment year and near term analysis year)  2025 (Interim modeling year)  2035 (Interim modeling year)  2040 (Long Range Transportation Plan horizon year) At this time, the following eight -hour emission budgets have been approved by EPA for use in this conformity analysis: 1. In 2009 and subsequent years, VOC in the Connecticut portion of the New York – Northern New Jersey -Long Island Marginal Nonattainment area must be less than 27.4 tons per day. 2. In 2009 and subsequent years, NOx in the Connecticut portion of the New York – Northern New Jersey -Long Island Marginal Nonattainment area must be less than 54.6 tons per day. 3. In 2009 and subsequent years, VOC in the Greater Connecticut Marginal 13 Nonattainment area must be less than 26.3 tons per day. 4. In 2009 and subsequent years, NOx in the Greater Connecticut Marginal Nonattainment area must be less than 49.2 tons per day. INTERAGENCY CONSULTATION An Interagency Consultation Meeting was held on A p r i l 19 , 201 6 to address the need to prepare an Air Quality Determination Analysis for these TIP amendments. All Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO’s), rural COGs, FHWA, FTA, EPA, and CTDEEP were invited to review and comment on the project’s Air Quality coding, analysis years to be modeled, and comments on the latest planning assumptions to be utilized for this conformity. The project Air Quality coding is as follows: CC – Conformity Analysis Completed M – Modeled in the Department’s highway or transit networks NM – Requires modeling and will be included into the Department’s highway and transit networks prior to conformity analysis NRS –a highway or transit project on a facility that does not serve regional needs or is not normally included in the regional travel simulation model and does not fit into an exempt project category in Table 2 or 3 of the Final Rule (40 CFR 93). RS – Regionally Significant refers to a transportation project in the TIP and/or STIP (other than an exempt project) that is on a facility which serves regional transportation needs such as access to and from the area outside of the region, major activity centers in the regions, major planned development such as new retail malls, sports complexes, etc., or transportation terminals as well as most terminals themselves) and would normally be included in the modeling of a metropolitan area’s transportation network, including at a minimum all principal arterial highways and all fixed guide -way transit facilities that offer an alternative to regional highway travel (40 CFR 93.101). Once a project is identified as regionally significant, it must be included in the analysis regardless of funding source. Exempt Project – a project listed in Table 2 or 3 of the Final Rule (40 CFR 93) that 14 primarily enhances safety or aesthetics, maintains mass transit, continues current levels of ridesharing, or builds bicycle and pedestrian facilities . X6 – Project exempt from the requirement to determine conformity under 40 CFR 93.126 X7 – Project exempt form regional emissions analysis requirements under 40 CFR 93.127 X8 – Traffic synchronization projects may be approved, funded and implemented without satisfying conformity requirements under 40 CFR 93.128 It was agreed upon that the 2011 vehicle registration data file would be utilized for this Conformity Determination and CTDEEP and CTDOT staff would discuss update of this file at a May 2016 meeting . A copy of the Interagency Consultation Meeting minutes is included in Appendix A. The final emissions analysis was prepared and the report was distributed for the 30 day public comment period. PUBLIC CONSULTATION As required by the Final Rule, the transportation conformity process must include public consultation on the emissions analysis and conformity determination for Ozone determinations. This includes posting of relevant documentation and analysis on a “clearinghouse” webpage maintained through the interagency consultation process. All MPOs in the Connecticut Ozone Nonattainment areas must provide thirty day public comment periods and address any comments received. For this Ozone transportation conformity determination, all Connecticut MPOs will hold a thirty day public comment period. 15 VMT and EMISSIONS ESTIMATES VMT estimates were developed from CTDOT’s statewide network -based travel model. The 201 5 travel model year, to the extent practical, represents all state highways and major connecting non -state streets and roads, as well as the rail, local bus, and expresses bus systems that currently exist. Future highway networks for 2018, 2020 , 2025 and 2030 and transit networks for 2015, 2016, 2020, 2030 and 2040 were built by adding Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), TIP and LRTP projects (programmed for opening after 201 5) to the 201 5 network year. These networks were used to run travel models and conduct emissions analysis for the years 201 7, 2025, 2035, and 2040. Projects for each model analysis year for which network changes were required are shown on Table 2 as follows: 16 TABLE 2 LIST OF NETWORK CHANGES 2015 NETWORK CHANGES MPO LANES PROJECT NUMBER DESCRIPTION FROM TO HIGHWAY NAME TOWN IMPROVEMENT CAPITAL REGION 0063 -XXXX Project enhancing Union Station as a regional intermodal transportation Hub and connecting that with the rest of downtown through improved transit, pedestrian and biking infrastructure Varies INTERMODAL TRIANGLE HARTFORD 0077 -0215 Extension of existing Hillside Road to Route 44. Congressional earmark 0/0 1/1 HILLSIDE ROAD MANSFIELD CCD 2015, TIP NEW ROAD 0171 -0305 From New Britain to Hartford, District 1 funding Hartford and New Britain N/A CT FASTRAK NEW BRITAIN -HARTFORD CCD 8/14/2015, TIP NEW BUS SERVICE CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY 0151 -XXXX Boyden Street Extension Construct new road from Bucks Hill Road to North Main Street 0/0 1/1 BOYDEN STREET WATERBURY Long Range Plan EXTENSION SOUTH CENTRAL 0092 -0614 Reconstruction of Route 34 to at grade Boulevard N/A ROUTE 34 Long Range Plan NEW HAVEN BOULEVARD 0106 -0125 Project to extend Edison Road from its current terminus to Marsh Hill Road, a length of approximately 2,200 feet 0/0 1/1 EDISON ROAD ORANGE EXTEND 17 SOUTH WESTERN 0102 -0278 Add auxiliary lanes between Int. 14 and 15 (NB and SB) on I -95 3/3 4/4 I-95 NORWALK CCD 12 -1-2014 OPERATIONAL LANES 0135 -0310 Removal of automobile bridge over the Mill River 1/1 0/0 WEST MAIN STREET CCD 2014, TIP STAMFORD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 18 2016 NETWORK CHANGES NEW MPO DESCRIPTION LANES PROJECT NUMBER FROM TO HIGHWAY NAME TOWN IMPROVEMENT LOWER CT RIVER VALLEY 0478 -0077 New Estuary Transit District bus service starting in the center of Madison that will travel along Route 1, Route 81, and Route 154 to downtown Middletown. N/A MADISON -MIDDLETOWN NEW BUS SERVICE CCD 2016 TIP SOUTH CENTRAL N/A 0478 -0077 New Estuary Transit District bus service starting in the center of Madison that will travel along Route 1, Route 81, and Route 154 to downtown Middletown. MADISON -MIDDLETOWN NEW BUS SERVICE CCD 2016 TIP HOUSATONIC VALLEY 0416 -0076 New HARTransit bus service loop between the Interstate 84 Exit 2 Park & Ride, Belimo, and the Matrix Corporate Center. N/A MATRIX COMMUTER DANBURY NEW BUS SERVICE CCD 2016, TIP 19 2018 NETWORK CHANGES REGION DESCRIPTION LANES PROJECT NUMBER FROM TO HIGHWAY NAME TOWN CAPITAL REGION 0131 -0190 Remove Bridge Number 00518 Reconstruct 10/322 Intersection 1/1 0/0 ROUTE 10 SOUTHINGTON CCD 11/2017, TIP BRIDGE REMOVAL GREATER BRIDGEPORT 0015 -TMP1 Realignment of Lafayette Circle and establishment of bidirectional traffic on Fairfield Avenue 0/1 1/1 LAFAYETTE CIRCLE BRIDGEPORT CCD 2017, TIP REALIGNMENT 0036 -0184 Main Street Derby from Bridge Street to Route 8 South Exit15 On/Off Ramps (Ausonio Street) 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 34 DERBY CCD 2018, TIP WIDENING HOUSATONIC VALLEY 0034 -0347 State Route 806 (Newtown Road) from Old Newtown to Plumtrees & from Eagle to Industrial Plaza, Danbury – Widening from 1 lane each direction to 2 lanes each direction 1/1 2/2 SR 806 NEWTOWN ROAD DANBURY CCD 2016, TIP SOUTH CENTRAL 0079 -XXXX Multiple lane and directional changes in the center of town. Conversion of multiple one way streets to two ways, two way streets to one way, lane reductions. VARIOUS WEST MAIN STREET MERIDEN MULTIPLE LANE CHANGES CCD 2017, TIP 0092 -0531 Q Bridge Replacement and demolition; Contract E 3/3 5/5 I-95 CCD 2016, TIP NEW HAVEN BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 20 0092 -0532 Q Bridge Replacement and demolition; Contract B 3/3 5/5 I-95 CCD 2016, TIP NEW HAVEN BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 0092 -0627 Q Bridge Replacement and demolition; Contract B2 3/3 5/5 I-95 CCD 2016, TIP NEW HAVEN BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 0092 -XXXX Removal of North Frontage Road between State Street & Orange Street 1/1 0/0 NORTH FRONTAGE ROAD NEW HAVEN CCD 2016, TIP ROADWAY REMOVAL 0100 -0175 SACKETT POINT ROAD Project to widen Sackett Point Road from 1 lane to 2 lanes 1/1 2/2 NORTH HAVEN CCD 2018, TIP WIDENING SOUTH WESTERN 0102 -0325 Addition of a through lane on Route 1 Northbound from France Street to Route 53 1/1 1/2 ROUTE 1 NORWALK CCD 2017, TIP WIDENING 0135 -0301 Reconstruction of I -95 off ramps and Atlantic Street in vicinity of Metro North Railroad Bridge No. 08012R 2/2 3/3 ATLANTIC STREET STAMFORD CCD 2018, TIP WIDENING GREATER BRIDGEPORT 0138 -0211 Addition of a through lane on Route 1 Southbound from Nobel Street to Soundview Avenue 1/1 2/1 ROUTE 1 STRATFORD CCD 2017, TIP WIDENING 21 CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY 0017 -0182 Addition of a second through lane on Route 6 Eastbound from Carol Drive to Peggy Lane 2/1 2/2 ROUTE 6 BRISTOL CCD 2018, TIP WIDENING 22 2020 NETWORK CHANGES NEW MPO DESCRIPTION LANES PROJECT NUMBER FROM TO HIGHWAY NAME TOWN IMPROVEMENT CAPITAL REGION 0051 -0259 Interchange improvements at Routes 4, 6, and 9 including a new EB C/D Roadway N/A I84/RT4/RT6 FARMINGTON BID 12 -31 -08, CCD 2019, TIP INTERCHANGE BSWY 0063 -0703 Relocation and Reconfiguration of Interchange 29 on I -91; New addtioanl lanes Rte. 15 NB from 2 to 3 lanes exit 90 to 0.5 miles beyond Exit 91 3/3 4/3 I-91, EXIT 29 HARTFORD WIDENING CCD 2020 Long Range Plan 0155 -0156 Add an Operational Lane WB between Interchanges 42 & 39A; Add an Operational Lane EB between Interchanges 40 & 41 3/3 4/4 I-84 WEST HARTFORD OPERATIONAL LANES CCD 2018 CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY 0151 -0273 Interstate 84 2/2 3/3 I-84 CCD 11/2020, TIP WATERBURY WIDENING 0151 -XXXX TIGER Grant includes various roadway changes including reconstruction/extension of Jackson Street. Extension will meet at Freight Street and continue to West Main N/A 1/1 DOWNTOWN AREA WATERBURY ADDED ROADWAY CCD 2019, Long Range Plan 23 GREATER BRIDGEPORT 0015 -HXXX Reconstruct and widen Route 130 from Stratford Avenue bridge to Yellow Mill bridge 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 130 BRIDGEPORT Long Range Plan WIDENING 0124 -0165 **As of 2/15/2011current scope from consultant is spot improvements for from Swan Avenue to Franklin Street Project Manager**Bank Street from West Street to North Main St is full scope being reviewed by consultant 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 67 SEYMOUR MAJOR WIDENING Long Range Plan 0124 -XXXX Between Interchange 22 and 23 to improve access N/A ROUTE 8 Long Range Plan SEYMOUR INTERCHANGE 0124 -XXXX ROUTE 8 Realign interchange with new extension of Derby Road N/A SEYMOUR Long Range Plan INTERCHANGE 0126 -XXXX Interchaneg 11 – Construct new SB entrance ramp, Widen Bridgeport Avenue N/A ROUTE 8 SHELTON Long Range Plan MAJOR WIDENING 0126 -XXXX ROUTE 714 Between Huntington Avenue and Constitution Boulevard 1/1 2/2 SHELTON Long Range Plan MAJOR WIDENING 0138 -0248 Recontsruct Interchange 33 on I -95 to provide full interchange from partial to full diamond interchange N/A I-95, EXIT 33 STRATFORD INTERCHANGE RECONSTRUCTION CCD 2020, Long Range Plan 24 HOUSATONIC VALLEY 0008 -XXXX Operational Improvements on White Street at Locust Avenue and Eighth Avenue 1/1 1/2 WHITE STREET DANBURY CCD 2020, Long Range Plan WIDENING 0096 -0204 Addition of a through lane on Route 34 EB from Wasserman Way to Toddy Hill Road. Addition of I – 84 WB and EB on -ramp from Route 34 WB 1/1 2/1 ROUTE 34 NEWTOWN WIDENING CCD 2020, TIP SOUTH CENTRAL 0092 -XXXX ROUTE 69 Intersection Imrpovements at Route 69 and Pond Lily Avenue N/A NEW HAVEN Long Range Plan INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 25 2025 NETWORK CHANGES NEW MPO DESCRIPTION LANES PROJECT NUMBER FROM TO HIGHWAY NAME TOWN IMPROVEMENT CAPITAL REGION 0042 -0317 Removal of Cambridge Street to Route 2 WB On – Ramp and Sutton Avenue to Route 2 EB Off -Ramp. New through lane on Main Street NB at the approach to the Route 2 WB Off -Ramp. 0/1 0/2 ROUTE 2 EAST HARTFORD WIDENING CCD 2021, TIP LOWER CT RIVER VALLEY 0082 -0316 Reconfiguration and realignment of Route 17 On – Ramp onto Route 9 from Main Street. Removal of the Harbor Drive to Route 9 NB On -Ramp N/A ROUTE 17 MIDDLETOWN INTERCHANGE RECONFIGURATION CCD 2021, TIP SOUTH WESTERN 0102 -0358 Reconfiguration of the interchanges between Route 7, Route 15, and Main Avenue. These changes include multiple new and reconfigured on and off ramps designed to allow access to and from all three major roadways. N/A ROUTES 7 & 15 NORWALK INTERCHANGE RECONFIGURATION CCD 2025, TIP 26 2030 NETWORK CHANGES NEW MPO DESCRIPTION LANES PROJECT NUMBER FROM TO HIGHWAY NAME TOWN IMPROVEMENT CAPITAL REGION VARIOUS TOWNS New Haven/Hartford/Springfield Rail Service Governor’s Transportation Initiative N/A NEW COMMUTER RAIL Long Range Plan 0109 -XXXX New Britain Avenue Cooke Street to Hooker Street 1/1 2/2 PLAINVILLE Long Range Plan ADD LANE CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY 0080 -0128 I-84, Routes 63 -64 Add auxiliary lanes at Int. 17 and on Routes 63/64 CCD 2030 1/1 2/2 MIDDLEBURY/WATERBURY Long Range Plan WIDENING GREATER BRIDGEPORT 0036 -0179 ROUTE 8 Interchange 18 – Construct New NB entrance ramp. ANSONIA Long Range Plan N/A INTERCHANGE 0036 -XXXX Route 8 Interchange 16 and 17; Construct new NB ramps. Close old ramps N/A ROUTE 8 DERBY Long Range Plan INTERCHANGE 0126 -XXXX Interchange 14 – Construct new SB entrance ramp N/A ROUTE 8 Long Range Plan SHELTON INTERCHANGE 27 HOUSATONIC VALLEY 0018 -0124 South of Old State Road to Route 133 1/1 2/2 US 202 Long Range Plan BROOKFIELD WIDENING 0034 -0288 From Kenosia Avenue easterly to I -84 (Exit 4) 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 6 Long Range Plan DANBURY ADD LANES 0034 -XXXX From I -84 (Exit 2) East to Kenosia Avenue 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 6 Long Range Plan DANBURY ADD LANES 0034 -XXXX ROUTE 37 From Route I -84 (Exit 6) Northerly to Jeanette Street 1/1 2/2 DANBURY Long Range Plan ADD LANES 0034 -XXXX Between Interchanges 3 and 4.Between Interchanges 12 and 13 3/3 4/4 I-84 DANBURY, NEWTOWN, SOUTHBURY Long Range Plan ADD LANES 0034 -XXXX Widen Kenosia Avenue from Backus Avenue to Vicinity of Lake Kenosia 1/1 2/2 DANBURY ADD LANES Long Range Plan 0034 -XXXX Widen Backus Avenue from Kenosia Avenue to Miry Brook Road 1/1 2/2 DANBURY ADD LANES Long Range Plan 0034 -XXXX From South Street northerly to Boughton Street; 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 53 Long Range Plan DANBURY ADD LANES 28 0034 -XXXX ROUTE 37 From Route 53 (Main Street) northerly to I -84 (Exit 6) 1/1 2/2 DANBURY Long Range Plan ADD LANES 0096 -XXXX New Road across Old Fairfield Hills Hospital Campus, From Route 6 South to Route 860 0/0 1/1 NEWTOWN NEW ROAD Long Range Plan ADD LANES SOUTH CENTRAL 0014 -XXXX East Haven Town Line to Alps Road (Echlin Road Private) 2/2 2/3 ROUTE 1 Long Range Plan BRANFORD WIDENING 0014 -XXXX Route 146 to Cedar Street 2/2 2/3 ROUTE 1 Long Range Plan BRANFORD WIDENING 0014 -XXXX Cedar Street to East Main 1/1 1/2 ROUTE 1 Long Range Plan BRANFORD WIDENING 0014 -XXXX East Main to 1 -95 Exit 55 1/1 1/2 ROUTE 1 Long Range Plan BRANFORD WIDENING 0014 -XXXX I-95 Exit 55 to Leetes Island Road 1/1 1/2 ROUTE 1 Long Range Plan BRANFORD WIDENING 0059 -XXXX Bullard Road extension to Route 77 0/0 1/1 BULLARD RD Long Range Plan GUILFORD WIDENING 29 0059 -XXXX State Street to Tanner Marsh Road 1/1 1/2 ROUTE 1 Long Range Plan GUILFORD WIDENING 0061 -XXXX Washington Avenue to Route 40 2/2 2/3 ROUTE 10 Long Range Plan HAMDEN WIDENING 0061 -XXXX Route 40 to Todd Street 2/2 2/3 ROUTE 10 Long Range Plan HAMDEN WIDENING 0061 -XXXX Todd Street to Shepard Avenue 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 10 Long Range Plan HAMDEN WIDENING 0061 -XXXX River Street to Cheshire Town Line 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 10 Long Range Plan HAMDEN WIDENING 0061 -XXXX Olds Street (Hamden) to Sackett Point Road 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 5 Long Range Plan HAMDEN, NORTH HAVEN WIDENING 0073 -XXXX New Rail Station near Salemme Lane in Orange N/A ORANGE CCD 2030, Long Range Plan NEW COMMUTER RAIL 0079 -XXXX Wallingford Town Line to Olive Street (Route 71) 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 5 Long Range Plan MERIDEN WIDENING 0083 -XXXX From West of Old Gate Lane to Gulf Street/Clark Street to Route 1 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 162 MILFORD Long Range Plan WIDENING 30 0092 -0649 Long Wharf access Plan Widen I -95 (in separate project), Eliminate Long Wharf Drive to expand park, add new road from Long Wharf Drive VARIES NEW HAVEN Long Range Plan 0092 -XXXX From Route 63 to Landin Street 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 69 Long Range Plan NEW HAVEN, WOODBRIDGE WIDENING 0092 -XXXX From Dayton Street (NH) to Landin Street (Wdbg) 1/2 2/3 ROUTE 63 Long Range Plan NEW HAVEN, WOODBRIDGE WIDENING 0098 -XXXX From East Haven Town Line to Doral Farms Road and Route 22 to Guilford Town Line 1/1 1/2 ROUTE 80 NORTH BRANFORD Long Range Plan WIDENING 0106 -XXXX From West Haven Town Line to US 1 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 162 Long Range Plan ORANGE WIDENING 0148 -XXXX From South Orchard Street. to Ward Street and Christian Road to Meriden Town Line 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 5 WALLINGFORD Long Range Plan ROUTE 5 0148 -XXXX From Route 71 overpass South of Old Colony Road to Route 68 1/1 1/2 ROUTE 150 WALLINGFORD Long Range Plan WIDENING 0156 -XXXX Route 1 to Elm Street 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 122 Long Range Plan WEST HAVEN WIDENING 31 0156 -XXXX Campbell Avenue to Orange Town Line 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 1 Long Range Plan WEST HAVEN WIDENING 0156 -XXXX Elm Street to Greta Street 2/2 2/3 ROUTE 162 Long Range Plan WEST HAVEN WIDENING 0156 -XXXX Bull Hill Ln to Orange Town Line 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 162 Long Range Plan WEST HAVEN WIDENING VARIOUS TOWNS New Haven/Hartford/Springfield Rail Service Governor’s Transportation Initiative N/A NEW COMMUTER RAIL Long Range Plan SOUTH WESTERN 0035 -XXXX Add Lane from Stamford Exit 8 to Darien Exit 10, Operational Lane 3/3 4/4 I-95 Darien -Stamford Long Range Plan WIDENING 0102 -0269 Upgrade to full interchange at Merritt Parkway (Route 15) BID 01 -09 -08 N/A US 7/RT 15 NORWALK CCD 2030, Long Range Plan UPGRADE EXPRESSWAY 0102 -0297 East Avenue from the vicinity of the I -95 Ramps southerly to the vicinity of Van Zant Street 1/1 2/2 EAST AVE #1 NORWALK Long Range Plan WIDENING 0102 -0312 Reconstruction of Interchange 40 Merritt Parkway and Route 7 (Main Avenue). Breakout of 0102 – 0269 Phase 1 N/A ROUTE 7/15 NORWALK CCD 2030, Long Range Plan UPGRADE EXPRESSWAY 32 0102 -XXXX Express Bus/BRT between Norwalk and Greenwich N/A NORWALK -GREENWICH Long Range Plan BRT 33 2040 NETWORK CHANGES NEW MPO DESCRIPTION LANES PROJECT NUMBER FROM TO HIGHWAY NAME TOWN IMPROVEMENT GREATER BRIDGEPORT 0015 -XXXX New Rail Station near Barnum Street in Bridgeport N/A NEW COMMUTER RAIL CCD 2040 Long Range Plan 34 In addition, the travel model incorporates the effect of the Employer Commute Options (ECO) Program in Southwest Connecticut (part of the Connecticut Portion of the NY -NJ – LI Marginal Nonattainment area). In response to federal legislation, Connecticut has restructured the ECO Program to emphasize voluntary participation, combined with positive incentives, to encourage employees to rideshare, use transit, and continue to expand their trip reduction activities. This program has been made available to all employers. It is felt that this process is an effective means of achieving Connecticut’s clean air targets. Funding for this effort under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvements (CMAQ) Program is included in the TIP for FY 2015 -2018. It is estimated that this program, if fully successful, could reduce Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) and mobile source VOC emissions by two percent in Southwestern Connecticut. It should be noted that TIP and LRTP projects which have negligible impact on trip distribution and/or highway capacity have not been incorporated into the network. These include, but are not limited to, geometric improvements of existing interchanges, short sections of climbing lanes, intersection improvements, and transit projects dealing with equipment for existing facilities and vehicles, and transit operating assistance. Essentially, those projects that do not impact the travel demand forecasts are not included in the networks and/or analysis. The network -based travel model used for this analysis is the model that CTDOT utilizes for transportation planning, programming and design requirements. This travel demand model uses demographic and land use assumptions which are based on 2010 Census population and population projections developed jointly by CTDOT and Connecticut’s 14 RPOs in 2012. Employment data was updated in 2012 based upon State Department of Labor 2010 town estimates. The model uses a constrained equilibrium approach to allocate trips among links. The model was calibrated using 2013 ground counts and 2013 Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) Vehicle Miles of Travel data. 35 Peak hour directional traffic volumes were estimated as a percentage of the ADT on a link by link basis. Based on automatic traffic recorder data, 9.0 percent, 8.5 percent, 8.0 percent and 7.5 percent of the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) occurs during the four highest hours of the day. A 55:45 directional split was assumed. Hourly volumes were then converted to Service Flow Levels (SFL) and Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratios calculated as follows:  SFL = DHV/PHF*N  VC = SFL / C where:  DHV = Directional Hourly Volume  PHF = Peak Hour Factor = .9  N = Number of lanes  C = Capacity of lane Peak period speeds were estimated from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual based on the design speed, facility class, area type and the calculated V/C ratio. On the expressway system, Connecticut -based free flow speed data was available. This data was deemed more appropriate and superseded the capacity manual speed values. The expressway free flow speeds were updated in 2005. For the off -peak hours, traffic volume is not the controlling factor for vehicle speed. Off – peak link speeds were based on the Highway Capacity Manual free flow speeds as a function of facility class and area type. As before, Connecticut -based speed data was substituted for expressway facilities and was updated in 2005. Two special cases exist in the modeling process: centroid connectors and intrazonal trips.  Centroid connectors represent the local roads used to gain access to the model network from centers of activity in each traffic analysis zone (TAZ). A speed of 25 36 mph is assumed for these links.  Intrazonal trips are trips that are too short to get on to the model network. VMT for intrazonal trips is calculated based on the size of each individual TAZ. A speed of 20 to 24 mph is assumed for the peak period and 25 to 29 mph for the off –peak period. The Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel (DVMT) is calculated using a methodology based on disaggregate speed, converted to summer and winter VMTs, and summarized by Nonattainment area, functional class, and speed. The VMT and speed profiles developed by this process are then combined with the emission factors from the MOVES201 4a model to produce emission estimates for each scenario and time frame. The MOVES201 4a input and output data may be found in the Appendices. Table 3 on the following page shows the 2015 through 2040 Action Emissions and Eight – Hour Budgets for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) resulting from this process. 37 TABLE 3 VMT – OZONE EMISSIONS – SIP BUDGETS Ser ies 30G Year Ozone Area Series 30G Budgets Difference VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX 2015 CT Portion of NY -NJ -LI Area 23.15 42.08 27.40 54.60 -4.25 -12.52 Greater CT Portion 21.41 36.79 26.30 49.20 -4.89 -12.41 2025 CT Portion of NY -NJ -LI Area 15.48 22.66 27.40 54.60 -11.92 -31.94 Greater CT Portion 14.54 19.82 26.30 49.20 -11.76 -29.38 2035 CT Portion of NY -NJ -LI Area 13.32 20.12 27.40 54.60 -14.08 -34.48 Greater CT Portion 12.70 18.00 26.30 49.20 -13.60 -31.20 2040 CT Portion of NY -NJ -LI Area 13.72 20.72 27.40 54.60 -13.68 -33.88 Greater CT Portion 13.05 18.44 26.30 49.20 -13.25 -30.76 Note : 1 A small reduction in the Greater Connecticut area will occur from the ECO program in the Connecticut portion of the NY -NJ -LI due to travel between the areas. 2 VOC & NOX emissions are in tons per day and are calculated using Connecticut’svehicle mix. 3 HPMS 14 Functional Class system used. 4 National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program included in 2008 and all future years. 5 Eight Hour Ozone emission budgets effective June 27, 2008 6 Series 30G with 20 iteration equilibrium assignment. 7 Year 2015 emissions are based on Series 30G. 38 In all cases, the transportation program and plan meet the required conformity test:  Action year emissions are less than approved 2009 budgets for VOX/NOx This analysis in no way reflects the full benefit on air quality from the transportation plan and program. The network -based modeling process is capable of assessing the impact of major new highway or transit service. It does not reflect the impact from the many pr ojects which are categorically excluded from the requirement of conformity. These projects include numerous improvements to intersections, which will allow traffic to flow more efficiently, thus reducing delay, fuel usage and emissions. The program also includes a significant number of miles of resurfacing. Studies have shown that smooth pavement reduces fuel consumption and the attendant CO and VOC emissions. Included in the TIP but not reflected in this analysis are many projects to maintain existing rail and bus systems. Without these projects, those systems could not offer a high level of service. With them, the mass transit systems function more efficiently, with improved safety, and provide a more dependable and aesthetically appealing service. These advantages will retain existing patrons and attract additional riders to the system. The technology to quantify the air quality benefits from these programs is not currently available. As shown in this analysis, transportation emissions are declining dramatically and will continue to do so. This is primarily due to programs such as reformulated fuels, enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs, stage two vapor recovery (area source), and the low emissions vehicles (LEV) program. Changes in the transportation system will not produce significant emission reductions because of the massive existing rail, bus, highway systems, and land development already in place. Change in these aspects is usually marginal, producing very small impacts. 39 PM 10 EPA previously designated the City of New Haven as Nonattainment with respect to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with a nominal diameter of ten microns or less (PM 10). The PM 10 Nonattainment status in New Haven was a local problem stemming from activities of several businesses located in the Stiles Street section of the City. Numerous violations in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s of Section 22a -174 -18 (Fugitive Dust) of CTDEEP regulations in that section of the city led to a nonattainment designation (CTDEEP, 1994: Narrative Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, State Implementation Plan Revision For PM 10, March 1994). Corrective actions were subsequently identified in the State Implementation Plan and implemented, with no violations of the PM 10 NAAQS since the mid -1990’s. All construction activities undertaken in the City of New Haven are required to be performed in compliance with Section 22a -174 -18 (Control of Particulate “Emissions”) of the CTDEEP regulations. All reasonable available control measures must be implemented during construction to mitigate particulate matter emissions, including wind -blown fugitive dust, mud and dirt carry out, and re -entrained fugitive emission from mobile equipment. The projects contained in the STIP and Plans, designated within the City of New Haven, are expected to have little effect on the overall projected vehicle miles of travel for the area and are not expected to cause significant additional airborne particulate matter to be generated. The transportation projects initiated in New Haven are not designed to enhance development in the area. Therefore, the projects undertaken in this area will not have a detrimental effect on PM 10 in New Haven. On October 13, 2005, EPA published in the Federal Register (Vol. 70, No. 197), approval of a request by CTDEEP for a Limited Maintenance Plan and redesignation of the New Haven Nonattainment Area to Attainment for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM 10. This direct final rule became effective on December 12, 2005. As with limited maintenance plans for other pollutants, emissions budgets are 40 considered to satisfy transportation conformity’s “budget test”. However, future “project level” conformity determination may require “hot spot” PM 10 analyses for new transportation projects with significant diesel traffic in accordance with EPA’s Final Rule for “PM 2.5 and PM 10 Hot -Spot Analyses in Project -level Transportation Conformity Rule PM 2.5 and PM 10 Amendments; Final Rule (75 FR 4260, March 24, 2010) which became effective on April 23, 2010. PM 2.5 In December of 2004, EPA signed the final rulemaking notice to designate attainment and Nonattainment areas with respect to the Fine Particles (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards, becoming effective April 5, 2005. In Connecticut, Fairfield and New Haven counties are included in the New York -Northern New Jersey -Long Island, NY -NJ – CT PM 2.5 Nonattainment area. Transportation plans and transportation improvement programs (TIPS) for the tri-state nonattainment area were found to be collectively conforming as of November 2006 . On June 20, 2007, PM 2.5 budgets were found to be adequate for the early progress SIP. As EPA New England has determined the MOVES2010b 2017 and 2025 motor vehicle emissions budgets submitted on June 22, 2012 to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes, the emissions analysis in this report will be limited to these areas only and the budgets effective as of February 20, 2013. On September 24, 2013, EPA published its approval of the PM 2.5 redesignation request, establishing October 24, 2013 as the effective date of redesignation to attainment/maintenance for Connecticut’s portion of the NY -NJ -T area for both the 1997 annual and 24 -hours PM 2.5 NAAQS . The PM 2.5 Conformity Submittal is a separate document which currently includes data specific to Connecticut’s five MPO’s contained in that attainment/maintenance area. OTHER PLANNING DOCUMENTS The enaction of Section 81 of Connecticut Public Act 13 -277 repealed Section 13b -15 of the Connecticut General Statutes, no longer mandating a biennial Master Transportation Plan effective July 1, 2013. The Department’s Capital Plan has been expanded to include much of the project information that was formerly included in the MTP. In addition , the 41 Existing Systems document and the Statewide Long Range Transportation Plan contain other information that was includedin various MTPs. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING WORK PROGRAM CTDOT’s FY 201 7-2018 Transportation Planning Work Program contains a description of all planning efforts (including those related to air quality) to be sponsored or undertaken with federal assistance during FY 201 7 and 201 8. Included with this program are several tasks directly related to CTDOT’s responsibilities under Connecticut’s SIP for Air Quality. Additional functions, such as those supporting the preparation of project level conformity analysis, are funded under project related tasks. This work program is available at CTDOT for review. CONCLUSIONS CTDOT has assessed its compliance with the applicable conformity criteria requirements of the 1990 CAAA. Based upon this analysis, it is concluded that all elements of CTDOT’s transportation program and the Regional Long -Range Transportation Plans conform to applicable SIP and 1990 CAAA Conformity Guidance criteria and the approved interim transportation conformity budgets. In addition to the information required for a conformity determination , the following is attached:  Appendix B: The MOVES2014a tabulations for each analysis year  Appendix C: The MOVES201 4a input data for each analysis year (Ozone) 42 Please direct any questions you may have on the air quality emission analysis to: Connecticut Department of Transportation Bureau of Policy and Planning Division of Coordination, Modeling and Crash Data – Unit 57531 2800 Berlin Turnpike Newington, CT. 06111 (860) 594 -2032 Email: Judy.Raymond@ct.gov 43 APPENDIX A 44 INTERAGENCY CONSULTATION MEETING Statewide Transportation Improvement Program Amendments Connecticut Department of Transportation Room 2324 –April 19, 2016 Go To Meeting Attendees: Eloise Powell – FHWA Ken Shooshan -Stoller, FHWA P a u l F a r r e l l – C T D E E P Paul Bodner – CT DEEP Lou Corsino – CTDEEP Jennifer Carrier – CRCOG P r a m a d P a n d e y – CRCOG C a r a R a d z i n s – CRCOG J i l l i a n M a s s e y – CRCOG Mark Nielson – CNVMPO Christian Meyer – CNVMPO Meghan Sloan – CT Metro COG Pat Carleton – CT Metro COG Robert Haramut – LCRVCOG Stephen Dudley –SCRCOG James Rode – SCRCOG Richard Guggenheim – SECCOG Joanna Wozniak – NWHill COG Hoween Flexer – NW Hill COG Susan Prosi – Western COG Jon Chew – Western COG Maribeth Wojenski – CTDOT Judy Raymond – CTDOT Rose Etuka – CTDOT Roxane Fromson – CTDOT Grayson Wright – CTDOT Edgar Wynkoop – CTDOT S a r a R a d a c s i – CTDOT Matthew Cegielski – CTDOT Tiffany Garcia – CTDOT Joe Ouellette – CTDOT Ryan Dolan – CTDOT The Interagency Consultation Meeting was held to review projects submitted to the STIP Unit for inclusion in the updated, amended STIP . Both the Ozone and PM 2.5 reports will be electronically distributed to the MPOs in the appropriate Nonattainment/Maintenance areas, FTA, FHWA, DEEP and EPA. The MPOs 45 will need to hold a 30 day public comment and review period. At the end of this review period, the MPO will hold a Policy Board meeting to endorse the Air Quality Conformity determination. There was also a brief discussion on the travel model and emissions software planning assumptions employed in the conformity analysis. The schedule for the 2015 -2018 Regional Transportation Improvement Plans Amendments Conformity Determination Analysis is as follow:  MPOs transmit signed and dated Concurrence Form to judy.raymond@ct.gov by April 19 , 201 6.  CTDOT Travel Demand Model Unit performs the air quality analysis and sends the Air Quality Conformity Determination Reports electronically to all MPOs in A g u s t 201 6.  MPOs advertise and hold a 30 -day public review and comment period for the Air Quality Conformity.  MPOs hold a Policy Board meeting approving and endorsing the Air Quality Conformity.  MPOs transmit resolutions endorsing the Air Quality Conformity to judy.raymond@ct.gov by end of October 201 6. It is important that all MPOs follow this schedule to ensure that the LRTP and TIP/STIP Amendment Conformity Determinations can go forward on schedule. 46 PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS Ozone and PM2.5 2015 Regional Long Range Transportation Plan Conformity Analysis A p r i l 19 , 201 6 Planning Assumptions for Review Frequency of Review * Responsible Agency Year of Data Socioeconomic Data At least every 5 years CTDOT 2010 Census Data available 2012 DMV Vehicle Registration Data At least every 5 years CTDEEP 2011 Data available 2012 State Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program Each conformity round CTDEEP 2005 Plus State Low Emission Vehicle Program Each conformity round following approval into the SIP CTDEEP Same as SIP VMT Mix Data At least every 5 years CTDEEP 2010 Analysis Years – PM 2.5 Each conformity round CTDOT/CTDEEP 2017, 2025, 2035, 2040 Analysis Years – Ozone Each conformity round CTDOT/CTDEEP 201 7, 2025, 2035, 2040 Emission Budget – PM2.5 As SIP revised/updated CTDEEP 2017 / 2025 PM 2.5 Emission Budget – Ozone As SIP revised/updated CTDEEP 2009 Temperatures and Humidity As SIP revised/updated CTDEEP X Control Strategies Each conformity round CTDEEP X HPMS VMT Each conformity round CTDOT 2013 EPA Software Each conformity round CTDOT MOVES201 4a * Review of Planning Assumptions does not necessarily prelude an update or calibration of the travel demand model. 47 Appendix B MOVES201 4a tabulations 48 201 7 MOVES201 4a County Summary: Pollutants 2017 Emission Quantities (Tons/Day) NY/NJ/CT Non -Attainment Area Greater CT Non -Attainment Area Statewide ID Name Fairfield Middlesex New Haven Subtotal Hartford Litchfield New London Tolland Windham Subtotal 1 Hydrocarbons 8.0244 1.7403 7.5397 17.3044 8.2636 1.9294 2.8036 1.5749 1.1707 15.7420 33.0465 3 Nox 11.0054 2.6815 11.1141 24.8010 11.7062 2.0233 4.2962 2.3874 1.5816 21.9947 46.7956 79 NM Hydrocarbons 7.6573 1.6511 7.1680 16.4765 7.8769 1.8698 2.6626 1.4907 1.1175 15.0175 31.4940 87 VOC 8.1366 1.7551 7.6239 17.5157 8.3870 1.9875 2.8346 1.5897 1.1905 15.9892 33.5049 2025 MOVES201 4a County Summary: Pollutants 2025 Emission Quantities (Tons/Day) NY/NJ/CT Non -Attainment Area Greater CT Non -Attainment Area Statewide ID Name Fairfield Middlesex New Haven Subtotal Hartford Litchfield New London Tolland Windham Subtotal 1 Hydrocarbons 5.6711 1.2587 5.4201 12.3499 6.0043 1.3971 1.9931 1.1458 0.8431 11.3834 23.7333 3 Nox 5.7985 1.4516 5.9869 13.2370 6.3876 1.0402 2.2868 1.3119 0.8444 11.8708 25.1078 79 NM Hydrocarbons 5.3148 1.1686 5.0445 11.5279 5.6115 1.3461 1.8519 1.0583 0.7907 10.6585 22.1863 87 VOC 5.6697 1.2474 5.3887 12.3059 5.9991 1.4344 1.9796 1.1337 0.8456 11.3925 23.6984 2035 MOVES201 4a County Summary: Pollutants 2035 Emission Quantities (Tons/Day) NY/NJ/CT Non -Attainment Area Greater CT Non -Attainment Area Statewide ID Name Fairfield Middlesex New Haven Subtotal Hartford Litchfield New London Tolland Windham Subtotal 1 Hydrocarbons 3.3031 0.7511 3.3384 7.3926 3.5361 0.8431 1.1997 0.7077 0.5125 6.7990 14.1916 3 Nox 3.3255 0.8551 3.6517 7.8322 3.7176 0.5383 1.3636 0.8205 0.5007 6.9406 14.7728 79 NM Hydrocarbons 3.0079 0.6748 3.0071 6.6898 3.2058 0.8061 1.0782 0.6300 0.4681 6.1882 12.8780 87 VOC 3.2499 0.7304 3.2554 7.2357 3.4704 0.8669 1.1680 0.6844 0.5069 6.6967 13.9324 2040 MOVES201 4a County Summary: Pollutants 2040 Emission Quantities (Tons/Day) NY/NJ/CT Non -Attainment Area Greater CT Non -Attainment Area Statewide ID Name Fairfield Middlesex New Haven Subtotal Hartford Litchfield New London Tolland Windham Subtotal 1 Hydrocarbons 3.0164 0.6921 3.0725 6.7810 3.2556 0.7386 1.1065 0.6605 0.4776 6.2386 13.0197 3 Nox 3.0953 0.8026 3.4347 7.3326 3.4884 0.4673 1.2823 0.7818 0.4727 6.4924 13.8250 79 NM Hydrocarbons 2.7278 0.6170 2.7458 6.0905 2.9303 0.7047 0.9867 0.5832 0.4336 5.6384 11.7289 87 VOC 2.9781 0.6749 3.0040 6.6570 3.2058 0.7655 1.0802 0.6402 0.4745 6.1662 12.8232 49 APPENDIX C MOVES 201 4a Input Ozone Emission Runs 50 2017 Fairfield 51 52 53 54 2017 Hartford 55 56 57 < /internalcontrolstrategy> 58 59 2017 Litchfield 62 63 64 2017 Middlesex 67 68 69 2017 New Haven 70 71 72 73 74 2017 New London 75 76 77 78 79 2017 Tolland 82 83 84 2017 Windham 85 86 87 88 89 2025 Fairfield 90 91 92 93 2025 Hartford 94 96 97 2025 Litchfield 98 100 101 2025 Middlesex 102 103 104 105 2025 New Haven 106 107 108 109 110 2025 New London 111 112 113 114 115 2025 Tolland 118 119 120 2025 Windham < ![CDATA[Windham County (09015) for 2025. County scale, inventory mode, july (summer day run), weekdays, 24 hours, all fuels (except placeholder and LPG)/source use ty pe combinations, all road types. VOCs and NOx. For use in the 2016 Conformity August 2016 ]]> 123 124 125 2035 Fairfield 128 129 130 2035 Hartford 131 132 133 134 135 2035 Litchfield 136 137 138 139 140 2035 Middlesex 141 142 143 144 145 2035 New Haven 146 147 148 149 150 2035 New London 153 154 155 2035 Tolland 156 157 158 159 160 2035 Windham 161 162 163 164 165 2040 Fairfield < ![CDATA[Fairfield County (09001) for 2040. County scale, inventory mode, july (summer day run), weekdays, 24 hours, all fuels (except placeholder and LPG)/source use ty pe combinations, all road types. VOCs and NOx. For use in the 2016 Conformity August 20 16]]> 168 169 170 2040 Hartford 173 174 175 2040 Litchfield 178 179 180 2040 Middlesex 181 182 183 184 185 2040 New Haven < /description> 186 187 188 189 190 2040 New London 191 192 193 194 195 2040 Tolland 198 199 200 2040 Windham 203 204 205 Appendix D ACRONYMS 206 Acronyms Acronym Meaning CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments (1990) CO Carbon Monoxide COG Council of Government CTDOT Connecticut Department of Transportation CTDEEP Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FSD Final Scope Development (Now PD) ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act MAP -21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century Act MOVES Mobile Vehicle Emission Simulator MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NH 3 Ammonia NOx Nitrogen Oxides PD Preliminary Design (Formerly FSD) PDWP Project Development Work Program PM 2.5 Fine Particulate Matter PMT Person Miles Traveled RA Regional Administer ROP Rate of Progress RTP Regional Transportation Plan (generally refers to Regional Transportation Plan Update) SAFETEA -LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SD Study and Development SIP State Implementation Plan SO x Sulfur Oxides STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program TCM Transportation Control Measure TIP Transportation Improvement Program USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VOC Volatile Organic Compound

PM 2.5 Air Quality Conformity Determination September 2016

Table of Contents Connecticut Department of Transportation Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley Greater Bridgeport and Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization South Central Regional Council of Governments Western Connecticut Council of Goverments PM 2.5 Air Quality Conformity Determination of the 2015 Regional Transportation Plans and the FY 2015 -2018 Transportation Improvement Programs Amendments for the Connecticut portion of the NY -NJ -CT PM 2.5 Attainment/Maintenance Area September 2016 Note: The five Connecticut MPOs (CNVMPO, GBVMPO, HVMPO, SCRCOG and SWRMPO ) are part of the larger NY – NJ -CT PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area and this document includes the documentation of the regional analysis for the entire Connecticut portion of the nonattainment area, as well as documentation and information on the processes and procedures undertaken by CTDOT, coordinator of the Air Quality Conformity for the five Connecticut Metropolitan Planning Organizations. 2 Table of Contents Emissions Analysis 1) Overview……………………………………………………………… 4 2) Purpose and Need…………………………………………………….. 5 3) Connecticut PM2.5 Attainment Maintenance Area ………………… .. 11 4) Interagency Consultation…………………………………….…….…. 12 5) Public Consultation……………………………………..……………. 13 6) PM2.5 Emission Analysis……………………………………….… .… 13 7) Connecticut PM2.5 Regional Emissions Analysis Components……. 15 8) Annual Inventories for PM2.5…………………………………….… .. 15 9) VMT and Emission Analysis…………………………………………. 16 10) Analysis Results…………………………………………………..…. 37 11) Conclusion…………………………………………………………… 38 3 List of Tables Table 1: Adequate Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets – MOVES2010b……………………. 14 Table 2: List of Connecticut Network Changes ……………………………………………. 17 Table 3: Direct PM 2.5 and NOx Emissions Budget Test Results (tons per year) …………… 38 List of Figures Figure 1: Connecticut Portion of the NY -NJ -CT PM 2.5 Attainment/Maintenance Area…… … 10 List of Appendices Appendix A: Interagency Consultation Meeting Minutes……………………………………… 39 Appendix B: PM 2.5 and NOx Precursor Emission Outputs By Analysis Year ………………… . 43 Appendix C: PM 2.5 Input Files to MOVES2010b ……………………………………………… . 45 Appendix D: Acronyms ……………………………… ………… ………….. …… …………….. 85 4 Regional Emissions Analysis 1) OVERVIEW In March 2007, the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in Connecticut proposed to update their Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs). These revisions to Connecticut’s LRTPs required a new multi -state transportation conformity determination for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5). Therefore, the November 2006 NY -NJ -CT PM 2.5 non -attainment area conformity determination was revised to reflect emission projections from the new or revised, non -exempt projects in Connecticut’s 2007 -2035 LRTPs. On April 17, 2007, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP) submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) its State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for Establishment of Interim Progress for the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and early fine particulate (PM 2.5 ) transportation conformity emission budgets. The SIP revision identified year 2009 annual direct PM 2.5 and annual nitrogen oxides (NOx) Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) associated with the Interim/Early Progress SIP. The annual 2009 MVEBs for the Connecticut portion of the New York -Northern New Jersey -Long Island, NY -NJ -CT PM 2.5 Area were 360 tons per year of direct PM 2.5 and 18,279 tons per year of NOx. 1 These emissions budgets were found adequate as of June 20, 2007 and were approved into the Connecticut SIP on August 30, 2007. The annual 2009 motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Connecticut portion of the New York – Northern New Jersey -Long Island, NY -NJ -CT PM 2.5 Area were determined adequate through a May 24, 2007 letter from Anne E. Arnold, Manager Air Quality Planning Unit, EPA New England Regional Office to Anne Gobin, Chief CTDEEP and a June 5, 2009 Federal Register Notice of Adequacy. The adequacy process made the MVEBs effective June 20, 2007 for transportation conformity determinations. The annual 2009 motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Connecticut portion of the New York – Northern New Jersey -Long Island, NY -NJ -CT PM 2.5 Area were approved into the Connecticut SIP through a direct final rulemaking Federal Register on August 30, 2007 (72 FR 50029). This SIP element “2009 Early Progress Direct PM 2.5 and NOx Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for Transportation Conformity Purposes; Connecticut; New York -Northern New Jersey -Long Island, NY -NJ -CT PM 2.5 Area” became effective on October 29, 2007. On December 14, 2009, EPA’ s final rule designating areas for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS became effective. This Air Quality Conformity analysis is being prepared to meet both the 1997 Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24 -hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. 1 Letter from U.S. EPA to Anne Gobin, Chief CTDEP, dated May 24, 2007. 5 This report was prepared to document the emissions analysis that was completed to evaluate Fiscal Year 2015 -2018 Conformity of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Amendments and the 2015 LRTPs to the SIP for air quality. This submittal incorporates the FY 2015 – 2018 STIP and 2015 LRT Ps from Connecticut’s Regional Planning Organizations (R PO), and the 2017 and 2025 MOVES2010b emissions budgets deemed adequate by EPA and effective as of February 20, 2013 2. EPA’s guidance for maintenance plans calls for a demonstration of continued compliance by showing that future emissions during the maintenance period will not exceed the level of emission in the attainment inventory. The end of the maintenance period was established as 2025, consistent with the CAA section 175A(a) requirement that the plan provide for maintenance of the NAAQS for at least 10 years after EPA formally approves the redesignation request. Emission estimates were developed for direct PM 2.5, as well as for the most important PM 2.5 precursor NOx. Emissions are projected to decrease from the levels in the 2007 attainment inventory through the end of the maintenance period in 2025, including in the selected interim year of 2017, thus providing for continuing maintenance of the NAAQS. The report is submitted to satisfy the requirements of the SIP, as revised. 2) PURPOSE AND NEED a – What is Transportation Conformity? Transportation Conformity is the process, established by joint guidance from the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that ensures that transportation investments will contribute to improving air quality in areas where concentrations of certain pollutants exceed national air quality standards. Transportation conformity as it currently exists emerged from the passage of environmental and transportation legislation in the early 1990s (Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991). EPA promulgated a transportation conformity rule initially in 1993. The latest amendment to the transportation conformity rule, Transportation Conformity Rule, Amendments to Implement Provisions Contained in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Final Rule was published January 24, 2008 (73 FR 4420). Other recent conformity rules related to particulate matter include: PM 2.5 and PM 10 Hot -Spot Analyses in Project -Level Transportation Conformity Determinations for the New PM 2.5 and 2 Federal Register, February 15, 2013. EPA -R01 -OAR -2013 -0020; A-1-FRL -9776 -2 Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicles Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity Purposes; Connecticut http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR – 2013 -02 -05/pdf/2013 -02492.pdf 6 Existing PM 10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Final Rule March 10, 2006 (71 FR 12468); Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the New PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard: PM 2.5 Precursors; Final Rule May 6, 2005 (70 FR 24280), [Note: On June 1, 2005, (70 FR 31354), EPA published a Final Rule correction effective June 6, 2005 for Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the New PM 2.5National Ambient Air Quality Standard: PM 2.5 Precursors ]; and, Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the New 8-hour Ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Changes; Final Rule July 1, 2004 (69 FT 40004). Recently EPA published Transportation Conformity Rule PM 2.5 and PM 10 Amendments, Final Rule March 24, 2010 (75 FR 14259 -14285). Transportation Conformity rulemaking actions can be found on EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality web site at URL address: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/trasconf/conf -regs.htm Transportation conformity works in the following way:  EPA establishes National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) based on public health research. The standards set maximum concentrations of six criteria pollutants in the ambient (outdoor) air.  EPA designates parts of the country where the NAAQS are exceeded as a “non – attainment area.” States that have non -attainment areas within their boundaries are required to submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to EPA to demonstrate how the non -attainment areas will improve their air quality and meet the NAAQS in the timeframe specified by the Clean Air Act.  Non -attainment areas must conform their transportation plans, programs and projects to their area’s motor vehicle emissions budget that is contained within its SIP. If a state does not yet have SIP emissions budgets in place, interim emission tests must be passed to show conformity. Under the Conformity Rules, the following test for PM 2.5 and NOx must be met:  TEST: Emissions from future Action Scenarios from 2017 on, must be less than the 2017 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets  TEST: Emissions from future Action Scenarios from 2025 on, must be less than the 2025 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 7 To do this, MPOs use a model created by the EPA that applies emission factors to the region’s vehicle fleet. These emission factors are combined with vehicle miles traveled data, which is generated by an MPO’s travel demand model. The travel demand model uses the region’s highway network, estimated travel conditions and demographic data to estimate where trips begin and end. It is important to note that the transportation conformity determination is based on the mix of new and existing projects and the current infrastructure. Some projects, particularly highway capacity expansions, may be individually deleterious to air quality but are offset by beneficial initiatives such as new transit projects and engineering improvements that mitigate local congestion or reduce vehicular travel. The conformity regulations recognize this balance between projects that increase and reduce emissions by requiring that MPOs demonstrate that the overall set of investments moves the region toward cleaner air, in keeping with EPA policies. b – Background on Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 ) Fine particulate matter, also called PM 2.5 , is a mixture of microscopic solids and liquid droplets suspended in air, where the size of the particles is equal to or less than 2.5 micrometers (about one -thirtieth the diameter of a human hair). Fine particles can be emitted directly (such as smoke from a fire, or as a component of automobile exhaust) or be formed indirectly in the air from power plant, industrial and mobile source emissions of gases such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The health effects associated with exposure to fine particles are serious. Scientific studies have shown significant associations between elevated fine particle levels and premature death. Effects associated with fine particle exposure include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, absences from school or work, and restricted activity days), lung disease, decreased lung function, asthma attacks, and certain cardiovascular problems such as heart attacks and cardiac arrhythmia. While fine particles are unhealthy for anyone to breathe, people with heart or lung disease, asthmatics, older adults, and children are especially at risk. c – PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards In July 1997, EPA issued NAAQS for PM 2.5 , designed to protect the public from exposure to PM 2.5 at levels that may cause health problems. The standards include an annual standard set at 15 micrograms per cubic meter, based on the three year average of annual PM 2.5 concentrations and a 24 -hour standard of 65 micrograms per cubic meter based on the three – 8 year average of 24 -hour concentrations. In general, areas need to meet both standards to be considered to attain PM 2.5 NAAQS. Areas not meeting the PM 2.5 NAAQS are called PM 2.5 non -attainment areas. These areas have had or contributed to PM 2.5 levels higher than allowed under the NAAQS. Non -attainment areas are subject to transportation conformity, through which local transportation and air quality officials coordinate planning efforts to ensure that transportation projects do not hinder an area’s ability to reach its clean air goals. Transportation conformity requirements become effective one year after an area is designated as a non -attainment area. EPA issued official designations for the PM 2.5 standard on December 17, 2004 and made modifications in April 2005. On April 5, 2005, designations under the national air quality standards for fine particle pollution or PM 2.5 became effective. Therefore, by April 4, 2006, all PM 2.5 non -attainment areas were required to implement transportation conformity. Under the EPA designation, non -attainment areas are required to meet the PM 2.5 NAAQS as soon as possible, but no later than 2010. EPA may grant attainment date extensions of up to five years in areas with more severe PM 2.5 problems and where emissions control measures are not available or feasible. EPA has determined that meeting the PM 2.5 NAAQS nationwide will annually prevent at least 15,000 premature deaths; 75,000 cases of chronic bronchitis; 10,000 hospital admissions for respiratory and cardiovascular disease; hundreds of thousands of occurrences of aggravated asthma; and 3.1 million person -days of missed work due to symptoms related to particle pollution exposure. On April 17, 2007, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection submitted a SIP Revision for 2009 Early Progress Direct PM 2.5 and NO x Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity Purposes; Connecticut; New York -Northern New Jersey -Long Island, NY -NJ -CT PM 2.5 Area. (See http://www.regulations.govsearch on docket number EPA -R01 -OAR – 2007 -0373). States with designated PM 2.5 non -attainment areas had to submit SIPs that outline how they will meet the PM 2.5 NAAQS within three years of April 5, 2005. On November 18, 2008 CTDEEP submitted a SIP Revision “Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 Annual PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Connecticut portion of the New York -Northern New Jersey -Long Island, NY -NJ -CT PM 2.5 Non -attainment Area”. EPA determined Connecticut’s PM 2.5 attainment demonstration SIP to be administratively and technically complete on January 8, 2009. 9 On October 17, 2006, EPA issued a final rule which tightened the 24 -hour PM 2.5 NAAQS from the 1997 level of 65 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m 3) to 35 ug/m 3 (71FR61144). In this final rule, EPA retained the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 ug/m 3. EPA’s final rule designating non -attainment areas for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, published in the Federal Register on November 13, 2009, was effective December 14, 2009. A MPO and the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S.DOT) must make a conformity determination with regard to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS for the metropolitan transportation plan and TIP within one year after the effective date of the initial non -attainment designation for this NAAQS, as stated in 40CFR Part 93, “Transportation Conformity Rule PM 2.5 and PM 10 Amendments; Final Rule”, dated March 24, 2010. On June 22, 2012, CTDEEP submitted a “PM 2.5 Redesignation/Maintenance State Implementation Plan” which established new Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for 2017 and 2025 using new EPA required software, MOVES 2010b. These budgets were deemed adequate by EPA and effective as of February 20, 2013. Monitoring data show that the NY -NJ -CT multi -state area has achieved compliance with both the 1997 annual and 2006 24 -hour PM 2.5 NAAQS since 2009. On November 15, 2010, EPA published a formal determination that the NY -NJ -CT multi -state area had achieved measured attainment of the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. EPA published a similar finding for the 2006 24 – hour PM 2.5 NAAQS on December 31, 2012. DEEP monitoring data also indicate that Connecticut complies with the 2012 annual NAAQS. On June 22, 2012, DEEP formally submitted to the EPA, the final PM2.5 redesignation request and maintenance plan State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Connecticut’s portion of the NY -NJ – CT PM 2.5 nonattainment area. The plan demonstrated that Connecticut’s air quality met both the 1997 annual and the 2006 24 -hour PM 2.5 NAAQS due to a combination of national, regional and local control measures implemented to reduce emissions and presented a maintenance plan that ensures continued attainment through the year 2025. On September 24, 2013, EPA published its approval of the PM 2.5 redesignation request, establishing October 24, 2013 as the effective date of redesignation to attainment/maintenance for Connecticut’s portion of the NY – NJ -CT area for both the 1997 annual and 2006 24 -hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. This report was prepared to show conformity for the 1997 Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM 2.5 24 -hour NAAQS by meeting new MOVES2010b 2017 and 2025 motor vehicle budgets as discussed above. The Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) within this area are as follow s: 10 1. SouthWestern Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (SWRMPO) 2. Housatonic Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (HVMPO) 3. Central Naugatuck Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (CNVMPO) 4. Valley portion of GBVMPO 5. Greater Bridgeport portion of GBVMPO 6. South Central Metropolitan Planning Organization (SCMPO) Figure 1 below shows the Connecticut counties included in the PM 2.5 attainment/maintenance area . Figure 1: Connecticut Portion of the NY -NJ -CT PM 2.5 Attainment/Maintenance Area 11 d – PM 10 Attainment/Maintenance Area EPA previously designated the City of New Haven as Nonattainment with respect to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with a nominal diameter of ten microns or less (PM 10). The PM 10 Nonattainment status in New Haven was a local problem stemming from activities of several businesses located in the Stiles Street section of the City. Numerous violations in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s of Section 22a -174 -18 (Fugitive Dust) of CTDEEP regulations in that section of the city led to a nonattainment designation (CTDEEP, 1994: Narrative Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, State Implementation Plan Revision For PM 10, March 1994). Corrective actions were subsequently identified in the State Implementation Plan and implemented, with no violations of the PM 10 NAAQS since the mid -1990’s. All construction activities undertaken in the City of New Haven are required to be performed in compliance with Section 22a -174 -18 (Control of Particulate “Emissions”) of the CTDEEP regulations. All reasonable available control measures must be implemented during construction to mitigate particulate matter emissions, including wind -blown fugitive dust, mud and dirt carry out, and re -entrained fugitive emission from mobile equipment. The projects contained in the STIP and Plans, designa ted within the City of New Ha ve n, are expected to ha ve little effect on the overall projecte d ve hicle miles of travel for the area and are not expected to cause signifi can t addi tional airborne pa rticula te matter to be ge nerated. The transpo rtation projects ini tiated in New Haven are not designed to enhan ce deve lop me nt in the area. Th ere fore, the project s und ert ake n in this area will not have a detr ime ntal effect on PM 10 in New Haven. On Octob er 13, 2005, EPA publish ed in the Federal Register (Vol. 70, No. 197), approval of a requ est by CTDEE P for a Limited M ain tenan ce Plan and redesigna tion of the New Haven Nona ttain me nt Area to Att ain me nt for the National Ambient Air Quality Standa rds for PM 10. This direct final rule became effect ive on December 12, 2005. As with limited maintenance plans for other pollutants, emissions budgets are considered to satisfy transportation conformity’s “budget test”. However, future “project level” conformity determination may require “hot spot” PM 10 analyses for new transportation projects with significant diesel traffic in accordance with EPA’s Final Rule for “PM 2.5 and PM 10 Hot -Spot Analyses in Project -level Transportation Conformity Rule PM 2.5 and PM 10 Amendments; Final Rule (75 FR 4260, March 24, 2010) which became effective on April 23, 2010. 3) CONNECTICUT PM 2.5 ATTAINMENT MAINTENANCE AREA The New Jersey – New York – Connecticut multi -state non -attainment area was designated by 12 EPA because this region’s air quality fails to meet the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. As EPA New England has determined the MOVES2010b 2017 and 2025 motor vehicle emissions budgets submitted on June 22, 2012 to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes, the emissions analysis in this report will be limited to these areas only and the budgets effective as of February 20, 2013. The non -attainment areas under the 2006 PM 2.5 24 -hour NAAQS are the same as under the 1997 PM 2.5 non -attainments areas. Since the 1997 PM 2.5 non -attainment area has an adequate budget, EPA states that to be consistent with the Clean Air Act, the areas must meet the budget test for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS using existing adequate or approved SIP budgets for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. Effective October 24, 2013, the Connecticut portion of the New Jersey – New York – Connecticut multi -state PM 2.5 Non -Attainment Areas were redesignated as Attainment Maintenance. 4) INTERAGENCY CONSULTATION An Interagency Consultation Meeting was held on A p r i l 1 9 , 2 0 1 6 to review the air quality codes for projects funded in the regions ’ Transportation Improvement Plans and the 201 5 Long Range Transportation Plans. The meeting also discussed the analysis years to be modeled. The project Air Quality coding is as follows: CC – Conformity Analysis Completed M – Modeled in the Department’s highway or transit networks NM – Requires modeling and will be included into the Department’s highway and transit networks prior to conformity analysis NRS –a highway or transit project on a facility that does not serve regional needs or is not normally included in the regional travel simulation model and does not fit into an exempt project category in Table 2 or 3 of the Final Rule (40 CFR 93). RS – Regionally significant refers to a transportation project in the TIP and/or STIP (other than an exempt project) that is on a facility which serves regional transportation needs (such as access to and from the area outside of the region, major activity centers in the regions, major planned development such as new retail malls, sports complexes, etc., or transportation terminals as well as most terminals themselves) and would normally be included in the modeling of a metropolitan area’s transportation network, including at a minimum all principal arterial highways and all fixed guide -way transit facilities that offer an alternative to regional highway travel (40 CFR 93.101). Once a project is 13 identified as regionally significant, it must be included in the analysis regardless of funding source. Exempt Project – a project listed in Table 2 or 3 of the Final Rule (40 CFR 93) that primarily enhances safety or aesthetics, maintains mass transit, continues current levels of ridesharing, or builds bicycle and pedestrian facilities . X6 – Project exempt from the requirement to determine conformity under 40 CFR 93.126 X7 – Project exempt form regional emissions analysis requirements under 40 CFR 93.127 X8 – Traffic synchronization projects may be approved, funded and implemented without satisfying conformity requirements under 40 CFR 93.128 It was agreed upon that the 2011 vehicle registration data file would be utilized for this Conformity Determination and CTDEEP and CTDOT staff would discuss update of this file at a May 2016 meeting. A copy of the minutes of the Interagency Consultation Meeting is included in Appendix A, as well as a list of attendees and call -in participants. The final emissions analysis was prepared and the report was distributed for the 30 -day public comment period. 5) PUBLIC CONSULTATION As required by the Final Rule, the transportation conformity process must include public consultation on the emissions analysis and conformity determination for PM2.5 determinations. This includes posting of relevant documentation and analysis on a “clearinghouse” webpage maintained through the interagency consultation process. All MPOs in the Connecticut PM 2.5 non -attainment area must provide thirty -day public comment periods and address any comments received. For this PM2.5 transportation conformity determination, all Connecticut MPOs will hold a thirty -day public comment period. 6) PM 2.5 EMISSIONS ANALYSIS As stated above, EPA has found that the 2017 and 2025 MVEBs in the June 22, 2012 Connecticut SIP revision are adequate for transportation conformity purposes and effective as of February 20, 2013. Table 1 on the following page shows the MOVES2010 MVEBs for 2017 and 2025. 14 Table 1: Adequate Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets – MOVE2014a Direct PM 2 .5 NOx (Tons/Year) (Tons/Year) Year 2017 MVEBs for the Connecticut 575.8 12,791.8 portion of the New York – Northern New Jersey -, Long Island, NY -NJ -CT PM 2.5 Area Year 2025 MVEBs for the Connecticut 516.0 9,728.1 portion of the New York – Northern New Jersey -, Long Island, NY -NJ -CT PM 2.5 Area The PM 2.5 budget emissions are the amount to which projected future emissions resulting from implementation of Plans and TIPs will be compared. Per 75 FR 14271, as the non -attainment boundary for the 2006 Connecticut portion of the NY – NJ -CT PM 2.5 Non -attainment Area is exactly the same as the 1997 PM 2.5 boundary, the budget test for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS must use the existing adequate or approved SIP budgets for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. EPA regulations require that emissions analysis be conducted for specific analysis years. Section 93.119(g) of the Final Rule states that these analysis years must include:  Attainment or near term year  The last (horizon) year of the regions’ long range transportation plan  An intermediate year or years such that the analysis years are no more than 10 years apart The attainment year is based upon the Clean Air Act section 172(a)(2) which states that the attainment year for the 2006 PM 2.5 areas will be 2014, five years after the effective date of 15 designations (December 14, 2009). The year 2017 is also within five years (near -term) of the year in which the analysis is being performed (2015). Furthermore, because this attainment/maintenance area includes multiple MPOs, the last year of all of the MPOs’ Plans must be included as analysis years. Within the Connecticut PM 2.5 attainment area, the plan horizon year is 2040. Intermediate years of 2025 and 2035 have been selected so that no two – analysis years are more than 10 years apart. Therefore, the analysis years for this conformity determination are 2017, 2025, 2035 and 2040. 7) CONNECTICUT PM 2.5 REGIONAL EMISSIONS ANALYSIS COMPONENTS PM 2.5 emissions can result from both direct and indirect sources. Gasoline and diesel on -road vehicles emit both direct PM 2.5 and other gases that react in the air to form PM 2.5 . Direct PM 2.5 emissions can result from particles in exhaust fumes, from brake and tire wear, from road dust kicked up by vehicles, and from highway and transit construction. Indirect PM 2.5 emissions can result from one or more of several exhaust components , including nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sulfur oxides (SOx), and ammonia (NH 3). For the regional analysis of direct PM 2.5 emissions, EPA has ruled that both exhaust and brake/tire wear must be included. However, EPA has also ruled that emissions analysis for direct PM 2.5 should include road dust only if road dust is found to be a significant contributor to PM 2.5 by either the EPA Regional Administrator or a state air quality agency. For the Connecticut PM 2.5 non -attainment area, neither the EPA Regional Administrators nor the state air quality agency have found that road dust is a significant PM 2.5 contributor. For the regional analysis of indirect PM 2.5 emissions (also called PM 2.5 precursors), EPA has identified four potential transportation -related PM 2.5 precursors: NOx, VOCs, SOx, and NH 3. The only indirect PM 2.5 component that needs to be considered in the Connecticut PM 2.5 non – attainment area is NOx. 8) ANNUAL INVENTORIES FOR PM 2.5 Because the multi -state PM 2.5 non -attainment area does not meet the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS, the emissions analysis for PM 2.5 must consider annual emissions. Guidance from EPA (dated August 10, 2005) presents four possible options for developing an annual inventory before a SIP is developed: using a single air quality model output to represent daily emissions for the entire year; running the air quality model to represent two seasons; running the air quality model to represent four seasons; or running the air quality model to represent twelve individual months. Analysis showed that there is a negligible difference between the two -season approach and the twelve -month approach for the Connecticut PM 2.5 non -attainment area and was therefore determined that the two season approach would be used. 16 9) VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL AND EMISSIONS ANALYSIS Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) estimates were developed from the Connecticut Department of Transportation’s (CTDOT’s) statewide network -based travel model supplemented by off -model analysis. The 2015 travel model network, to the extent practical, represents all state highways and major connecting non -state streets and roads as well as the rail, local bus and express bus systems that currently exist. Future highway networks for 2018, 2020, 2025 and 2030 and transit networks for 2015, 2016, 2020, 2030 and 2040 were built by adding STIP, TIP and LRTP projects (programmed for opening after 2015) to the 2015 network. These networks were used to run travel models and conduct emissions analysis for the years 2017, 2025, 2035 and 2040. Table 2 lists the projects for each model analysis year for which network changes were required. 17 TABLE 2 LIST OF NETWORK CHANGES 2015 NETWORK CHANGES MPO LANES PROJECT NUMBER DESCRIPTION FROM TO HIGHWAY NAME TOWN IMPROVEMENT CAPIT OL REGION 0063 -XXXX Project enhancing Union Station as a regional intermodal transportation Hub and connecting that with the rest of downtown through improved transit, pedestrian and biking infrastructure Varies INTERMODAL TRIANGLE HARTFORD 0077 -0215 Extension of existing Hillside Road to Route 44. Congressional earmark 0/0 1/1 HILLSIDE ROAD MANSFIELD CCD 2015, TIP NEW ROAD 0171 -0305 From New Britain to Hartford, District 1 funding Hartford and New Britain N/A CT FASTRAK NEW BRITAIN -HARTFORD CCD 8/14/2015, TIP NEW BUS SERVICE CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY 0151 -XXXX Boyden Street Extension Construct new road from Bucks Hill Road to North Main Street 0/0 1/1 BOYDEN STREET WATERBURY Long Range Plan EXTENSION SOUTH CENTRAL 0092 -0614 Reconstruction of Route 34 to at grade Boulevard N/A ROUTE 34 Long Range Plan NEW HAVEN BOULEVARD 0106 -0125 Project to extend Edison Road from its current terminus to Marsh Hill Road, a length of approximately 2,200 feet 0/0 1/1 EDISON ROAD ORANGE EXTEND 18 SOUTH WESTERN 0102 -0278 Add auxiliary lanes between Int. 14 and 15 (NB and SB) on I -95 3/3 4/4 I-95 NORWALK CCD 12 -1-2014 OPERATIONAL LANES 0135 -0310 Removal of automobile bridge over the Mill River 1/1 0/0 WEST MAIN STREET CCD 2014, TIP STAMFORD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 19 2016 NETWORK CHANGES NEW MPO DESCRIPTION LANES PROJECT NUMBER FROM TO HIGHWAY NAME TOWN IMPROVEMENT LOWER CT RIVER VALLEY 0478 -0077 New Estuary Transit District bus service starting in the center of Madison that will travel along Route 1, Route 81, and Route 154 to downtown Middletown. N/A MADISON -MIDDLETOWN NEW BUS SERVICE CCD 2016 TIP SOUTH CENTRAL N/A 0478 -0077 New Estuary Transit District bus service starting in the center of Madison that will travel along Route 1, Route 81, and Route 154 to downtown Middletown. MADISON -MIDDLETOWN NEW BUS SERVICE CCD 2016 TIP HOUSATONIC VALLEY 0416 -0076 New HARTransit bus service loop between the Interstate 84 Exit 2 Park & Ride, Belimo, and the Matrix Corporate Center. N/A MATRIX COMMUTER DANBURY NEW BUS SERVICE CCD 2016, TIP 20 2018 NETWORK CHANGES REGION DESCRIPTION LANES PROJECT NUMBER FROM TO HIGHWAY NAME TOWN CAPITAL REGION 0131 -0190 Remove Bridge Number 00518 Reconstruct 10/322 Intersection 1/1 0/0 ROUTE 10 SOUTHINGTON CCD 11/2017, TIP BRIDGE REMOVAL GREATER BRIDGEPORT 0015 -TMP1 Realignment of Lafayette Circle and establishment of bidirectional traffic on Fairfield Avenue 0/1 1/1 LAFAYETTE CIRCLE BRIDGEPORT CCD 2017, TIP REALIGNMENT 0036 -0184 Main Street Derby from Bridge Street to Route 8 South Exit15 On/Off Ramps (Ausonio Street) 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 34 DERBY CCD 2018, TIP WIDENING HOUSATONIC VALLEY 0034 -0347 State Route 806 (Newtown Road) from Old Newtown to Plumtrees & from Eagle to Industrial Plaza, Danbury – Widening from 1 lane each direction to 2 lanes each direction 1/1 2/2 SR 806 NEWTOWN ROAD DANBURY CCD 2016, TIP SOUTH CENTRAL 0079 -XXXX Multiple lane and directional changes in the center of town. Conversion of multiple one way streets to two ways, two way streets to one way, lane reductions. VARIOUS WEST MAIN STREET MERIDEN MULTIPLE LANE CHANGES CCD 2017, TIP 0092 -0531 Q Bridge Replacement and demolition; Contract E 3/3 5/5 I-95 CCD 2016, TIP NEW HAVEN BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 21 0092 -0532 Q Bridge Replacement and demolition; Contract B 3/3 5/5 I-95 CCD 2016, TIP NEW HAVEN BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 0092 -0627 Q Bridge Replacement and demolition; Contract B2 3/3 5/5 I-95 CCD 2016, TIP NEW HAVEN BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 0092 -XXXX Removal of North Frontage Road between State Street & Orange Street 1/1 0/0 NORTH FRONTAGE ROAD NEW HAVEN CCD 2016, TIP ROADWAY REMOVAL 0100 -0175 SACKETT POINT ROAD Project to widen Sackett Point Road from 1 lane to 2 lanes 1/1 2/2 NORTH HAVEN CCD 2018, TIP WIDENING SOUTH WESTERN 0102 -0325 Addition of a through lane on Route 1 Northbound from France Street to Route 53 1/1 1/2 ROUTE 1 NORWALK CCD 2017, TIP WIDENING 0135 -0301 Reconstruction of I -95 off ramps and Atlantic Street in vicinity of Metro North Railroad Bridge No. 08012R 2/2 3/3 ATLANTIC STREET STAMFORD CCD 2018, TIP WIDENING GREATER BRIDGEPORT 0138 -0211 Addition of a through lane on Route 1 Southbound from Nobel Street to Soundview Avenue 1/1 2/1 ROUTE 1 STRATFORD CCD 2017, TIP WIDENING 22 CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY 0017 -0182 Addition of a second through lane on Route 6 Eastbound from Carol Drive to Peggy Lane 2/1 2/2 ROUTE 6 BRISTOL CCD 2018, TIP WIDENING 23 2020 NETWORK CHANGES NEW MPO DESCRIPTION LANES PROJECT NUMBER FROM TO HIGHWAY NAME TOWN IMPROVEMENT CAPITAL REGION 0051 -0259 Interchange improvements at Routes 4, 6, and 9 including a new EB C/D Roadway N/A I84/RT4/RT6 FARMINGTON BID 12 -31 -08, CCD 2019, TIP INTERCHANGE BSWY 0063 -0703 Relocation and Reconfiguration of Interchange 29 on I -91; New addtioanl lanes Rte. 15 NB from 2 to 3 lanes exit 90 to 0.5 miles beyond Exit 91 3/3 4/3 I-91, EXIT 29 HARTFORD WIDENING CCD 2020 Long Range Plan 0155 -0156 Add an Operational Lane WB between Interchanges 42 & 39A; Add an Operational Lane EB between Interchanges 40 & 41 3/3 4/4 I-84 WEST HARTFORD OPERATIONAL LANES CCD 2018 CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY 0151 -0273 Interstate 84 2/2 3/3 I-84 CCD 11/2020, TIP WATERBURY WIDENING 0151 -XXXX TIGER Grant includes various roadway changes including reconstruction/extension of Jackson Street. Extension will meet at Freight Street and continue to West Main N/A 1/1 DOWNTOWN AREA WATERBURY ADDED ROADWAY CCD 2019, Long Range Plan 24 GREATER BRIDGEPORT 0015 -HXXX Reconstruct and widen Route 130 from Stratford Avenue bridge to Yellow Mill bridge 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 130 BRIDGEPORT Long Range Plan WIDENING 0124 -0165 **As of 2/15/2011current scope from consultant is spot improvements for from Swan Avenue to Franklin Street Project Manager**Bank Street from West Street to North Main St is full scope being reviewed by consultant 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 67 SEYMOUR MAJOR WIDENING Long Range Plan 0124 -XXXX Between Interchange 22 and 23 to improve access N/A ROUTE 8 Long Range Plan SEYMOUR INTERCHANGE 0124 -XXXX ROUTE 8 Realign interchange with new extension of Derby Road N/A SEYMOUR Long Range Plan INTERCHANGE 0126 -XXXX Interchaneg 11 – Construct new SB entrance ramp, Widen Bridgeport Avenue N/A ROUTE 8 SHELTON Long Range Plan MAJOR WIDENING 0126 -XXXX ROUTE 714 Between Huntington Avenue and Constitution Boulevard 1/1 2/2 SHELTON Long Range Plan MAJOR WIDENING 0138 -0248 Recontsruct Interchange 33 on I -95 to provide full interchange from partial to full diamond interchange N/A I-95, EXIT 33 STRATFORD INTERCHANGE RECONSTRUCTION CCD 2020, Long Range Plan 25 HOUSATONIC VALLEY 0008 -XXXX Operational Improvements on White Street at Locust Avenue and Eighth Avenue 1/1 1/2 WHITE STREET DANBURY CCD 2020, Long Range Plan WIDENING 0096 -0204 Addition of a through lane on Route 34 EB from Wasserman Way to Toddy Hill Road. Addition of I – 84 WB and EB on -ramp from Route 34 WB 1/1 2/1 ROUTE 34 NEWTOWN WIDENING CCD 2020, TIP SOUTH CENTRAL 0092 -XXXX ROUTE 69 Intersection Imrpovements at Route 69 and Pond Lily Avenue N/A NEW HAVEN Long Range Plan INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 26 2025 NETWORK CHANGES NEW MPO DESCRIPTION LANES PROJECT NUMBER FROM TO HIGHWAY NAME TOWN IMPROVEMENT CAPITAL REGION 0042 -0317 Removal of Cambridge Street to Route 2 WB On – Ramp and Sutton Avenue to Route 2 EB Off -Ramp. New through lane on Main Street NB at the approach to the Route 2 WB Off -Ramp. 0/1 0/2 ROUTE 2 EAST HARTFORD WIDENING CCD 2021, TIP LOWER CT RIVER VALLEY 0082 -0316 Reconfiguration and realignment of Route 17 On – Ramp onto Route 9 from Main Street. Removal of the Harbor Drive to Route 9 NB On -Ramp N/A ROUTE 17 MIDDLETOWN INTERCHANGE RECONFIGURATION CCD 2021, TIP SOUTH WESTERN 0102 -0358 Reconfiguration of the interchanges between Route 7, Route 15, and Main Avenue. These changes include multiple new and reconfigured on and off ramps designed to allow access to and from all three major roadways. N/A ROUTES 7 & 15 NORWALK INTERCHANGE RECONFIGURATION CCD 2025, TIP 27 2030 NETWORK CHANGES NEW MPO DESCRIPTION LANES PROJECT NUMBER FROM TO HIGHWAY NAME TOWN IMPROVEMENT CAPITAL REGION VARIOUS TOWNS New Haven/Hartford/Springfield Rail Service Governor’s Transportation Initiative N/A NEW COMMUTER RAIL Long Range Plan 0109 -XXXX New Britain Avenue Cooke Street to Hooker Street 1/1 2/2 PLAINVILLE Long Range Plan ADD LANE CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY 0080 -0128 I-84, Routes 63 -64 Add auxiliary lanes at Int. 17 and on Routes 63/64 CCD 2030 1/1 2/2 MIDDLEBURY/WATERBURY Long Range Plan WIDENING GREATER BRIDGEPORT 0036 -0179 ROUTE 8 Interchange 18 – Construct New NB entrance ramp. ANSONIA Long Range Plan N/A INTERCHANGE 0036 -XXXX Route 8 Interchange 16 and 17; Construct new NB ramps. Close old ramps N/A ROUTE 8 DERBY Long Range Plan INTERCHANGE 0126 -XXXX Interchange 14 – Construct new SB entrance ramp N/A ROUTE 8 Long Range Plan SHELTON INTERCHANGE 28 HOUSATONIC VALLEY 0018 -0124 South of Old State Road to Route 133 1/1 2/2 US 202 Long Range Plan BROOKFIELD WIDENING 0034 -0288 From Kenosia Avenue easterly to I -84 (Exit 4) 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 6 Long Range Plan DANBURY ADD LANES 0034 -XXXX From I -84 (Exit 2) East to Kenosia Avenue 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 6 Long Range Plan DANBURY ADD LANES 0034 -XXXX ROUTE 37 From Route I -84 (Exit 6) Northerly to Jeanette Street 1/1 2/2 DANBURY Long Range Plan ADD LANES 0034 -XXXX Between Interchanges 3 and 4.Between Interchanges 12 and 13 3/3 4/4 I-84 DANBURY, NEWTOWN, SOUTHBURY Long Range Plan ADD LANES 0034 -XXXX Widen Kenosia Avenue from Backus Avenue to Vicinity of Lake Kenosia 1/1 2/2 DANBURY ADD LANES Long Range Plan 0034 -XXXX Widen Backus Avenue from Kenosia Avenue to Miry Brook Road 1/1 2/2 DANBURY ADD LANES Long Range Plan 0034 -XXXX From South Street northerly to Boughton Street; 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 53 Long Range Plan DANBURY ADD LANES 29 0034 -XXXX ROUTE 37 From Route 53 (Main Street) northerly to I -84 (Exit 6) 1/1 2/2 DANBURY Long Range Plan ADD LANES 0096 -XXXX New Road across Old Fairfield Hills Hospital Campus, From Route 6 South to Route 860 0/0 1/1 NEWTOWN NEW ROAD Long Range Plan ADD LANES SOUTH CENTRAL 0014 -XXXX East Haven Town Line to Alps Road (Echlin Road Private) 2/2 2/3 ROUTE 1 Long Range Plan BRANFORD WIDENING 0014 -XXXX Route 146 to Cedar Street 2/2 2/3 ROUTE 1 Long Range Plan BRANFORD WIDENING 0014 -XXXX Cedar Street to East Main 1/1 1/2 ROUTE 1 Long Range Plan BRANFORD WIDENING 0014 -XXXX East Main to 1 -95 Exit 55 1/1 1/2 ROUTE 1 Long Range Plan BRANFORD WIDENING 0014 -XXXX I-95 Exit 55 to Leetes Island Road 1/1 1/2 ROUTE 1 Long Range Plan BRANFORD WIDENING 0059 -XXXX Bullard Road extension to Route 77 0/0 1/1 BULLARD RD Long Range Plan GUILFORD WIDENING 30 0059 -XXXX State Street to Tanner Marsh Road 1/1 1/2 ROUTE 1 Long Range Plan GUILFORD WIDENING 0061 -XXXX Washington Avenue to Route 40 2/2 2/3 ROUTE 10 Long Range Plan HAMDEN WIDENING 0061 -XXXX Route 40 to Todd Street 2/2 2/3 ROUTE 10 Long Range Plan HAMDEN WIDENING 0061 -XXXX Todd Street to Shepard Avenue 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 10 Long Range Plan HAMDEN WIDENING 0061 -XXXX River Street to Cheshire Town Line 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 10 Long Range Plan HAMDEN WIDENING 0061 -XXXX Olds Street (Hamden) to Sackett Point Road 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 5 Long Range Plan HAMDEN, NORTH HAVEN WIDENING 0073 -XXXX New Rail Station near Salemme Lane in Orange N/A ORANGE CCD 2030, Long Range Plan NEW COMMUTER RAIL 0079 -XXXX Wallingford Town Line to Olive Street (Route 71) 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 5 Long Range Plan MERIDEN WIDENING 0083 -XXXX From West of Old Gate Lane to Gulf Street/Clark Street to Route 1 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 162 MILFORD Long Range Plan WIDENING 31 0092 -0649 Long Wharf access Plan Widen I -95 (in separate project), Eliminate Long Wharf Drive to expand park, add new road from Long Wharf Drive VARIES NEW HAVEN Long Range Plan 0092 -XXXX From Route 63 to Landin Street 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 69 Long Range Plan NEW HAVEN, WOODBRIDGE WIDENING 0092 -XXXX From Dayton Street (NH) to Landin Street (Wdbg) 1/2 2/3 ROUTE 63 Long Range Plan NEW HAVEN, WOODBRIDGE WIDENING 0098 -XXXX From East Haven Town Line to Doral Farms Road and Route 22 to Guilford Town Line 1/1 1/2 ROUTE 80 NORTH BRANFORD Long Range Plan WIDENING 0106 -XXXX From West Haven Town Line to US 1 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 162 Long Range Plan ORANGE WIDENING 0148 -XXXX From South Orchard Street. to Ward Street and Christian Road to Meriden Town Line 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 5 WALLINGFORD Long Range Plan ROUTE 5 0148 -XXXX From Route 71 overpass South of Old Colony Road to Route 68 1/1 1/2 ROUTE 150 WALLINGFORD Long Range Plan WIDENING 0156 -XXXX Route 1 to Elm Street 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 122 Long Range Plan WEST HAVEN WIDENING 32 0156 -XXXX Campbell Avenue to Orange Town Line 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 1 Long Range Plan WEST HAVEN WIDENING 0156 -XXXX Elm Street to Greta Street 2/2 2/3 ROUTE 162 Long Range Plan WEST HAVEN WIDENING 0156 -XXXX Bull Hill Ln to Orange Town Line 1/1 2/2 ROUTE 162 Long Range Plan WEST HAVEN WIDENING VARIOUS TOWNS New Haven/Hartford/Springfield Rail Service Governor’s Transportation Initiative N/A NEW COMMUTER RAIL Long Range Plan SOUTH WESTERN 0035 -XXXX Add Lane from Stamford Exit 8 to Darien Exit 10, Operational Lane 3/3 4/4 I-95 Darien -Stamford Long Range Plan WIDENING 0102 -0269 Upgrade to full interchange at Merritt Parkway (Route 15) BID 01 -09 -08 N/A US 7/RT 15 NORWALK CCD 2030, Long Range Plan UPGRADE EXPRESSWAY 0102 -0297 East Avenue from the vicinity of the I -95 Ramps southerly to the vicinity of Van Zant Street 1/1 2/2 EAST AVE #1 NORWALK Long Range Plan WIDENING 0102 -0312 Reconstruction of Interchange 40 Merritt Parkway and Route 7 (Main Avenue). Breakout of 0102 – 0269 Phase 1 N/A ROUTE 7/15 NORWALK CCD 2030, Long Range Plan UPGRADE EXPRESSWAY 33 0102 -XXXX Express Bus/BRT between Norwalk and Greenwich N/A NORWALK -GREENWICH Long Range Plan BRT 34 2040 NETWORK CHANGES NEW MPO DESCRIPTION LANES PROJECT NUMBER FROM TO HIGHWAY NAME TOWN IMPROVEMENT GREATER BRIDGEPORT 0015 -XXXX NEW COMMUTER RAIL New Rail Station near Barnum Street in Bridgeport N/A CCD 2040 Long Range Plan 35 The PM 2.5 input file into MOVES2014a for each analysis year consisted of “annual average” scenario. All months were selected for an “annual average” evaluation . Appropriate minimum/maximum temperatures were employed, as well as annual average FUEL RVP, SPEED VMT, and DIESEL SULFUR values. Annual emission factors were obtained for each county by roadway classification. In addition, model runs incorporate the effect of the Employer Commute Options (ECO) Program in Southwest Connecticut (Fairfield County). In response to federal legislation, Connecticut has restructured the ECO program to emphasize voluntary participation, combined with positive incentives, to encourage employees to rideshare, use transit and continue to expand their trip reduction activities. In addition, the program has been made available to all employers. It is felt that this process is an effective means of achieving Connecticut’s clean air targets. Funding of this effort under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program is included in the TIP for FY 2015 -2018. It is estimated that this program, if fully successful, could reduce VMT and mobile source emissions by 2% in Southwest Connecticut. It should be no ted that TIP and LRTP projects, which have negligible impa ct on trip dis tribu tion and/or highway capa city, have not been incorpo rated into the network. These includ e, but are not limited to, geometric improveme nts of existing interc han ge s, sho rt sections of climbin g lan es, inter sect ion improveme nts, transit projects dealing with equip me nt for existing facilities and vehicles, and transi t operating assis tan ce . Ess entiall y, those projects that do not impa ct the trave l demand forecasts are not includ ed in the network and/or anal ysis. The network -based travel model used for this analysis is the model that CTDOT utilizes for transportation planning, programming and design requirements. This travel demand model uses demographic and land use assumptions based on the 2010 Census population and Connecticut Department of Labor 2010 employment estimates. Population and employment projections for the years 2020, 2030 and 2040 were developed by the Connecticut Department of Transportation, Travel Demand and Air Quality Modeling Unit and approved by all the regional planning agencies in early 2012. The model uses a cons train ed equilib rium app roa ch to allocate trips among links. The model was calib rated using 2013 ground coun ts and 2013 HPMS VMT data. Peak hour direct ional traffic volu me s were estimated as a perce ntage of the Aver age Daily Traffi c (ADT) on a lin k-by -lin k basis. Based on au tomatic traffic rec order data, 9.0 perce nt, 8.5 perce nt, 8.1 perce nt and 7.5 perce nt of the ADT occurs during the four highest hours of the day. A 55:45 direct ional spli t was assu me d. Hou rly volu me s were then con verte d to Serv ice Flow Levels (SFL) 36 and Volume to Capa city (V/C) ratios calcula ted as follows: SFL = DHV/PHF*N VC = SFL / C where: DHV = Direct ional Hourly Volume PHF = Peak Hour Factor = 0.9 N = Number of lanes C = Capa city of lane Peak period sp ee ds were estimated from the 2000 Highway Capa city Manual based on the design speed, facility class , area type and calcula ted V/C ratio. On the expressway system, Connecticut – based free flow speed data was available. This data was deeme d more app rop riate and sup erseded the capacity manual speed values. The exp ressway free flow speeds were upda ted in 2005. For the off – peak hours, traffic volume is not the con trollin g factor for ve hicle speed. Off -peak link speeds were based on the Highway Capa city Manual free flow sp ee ds as a function of facility class and area type. As before, Conn ect icut-bas ed speed data was subs tituted for expressway travel, where availabl e, and was also updated in 2005. Two sp ec ial cases exist in the travel demand modeling process. These are ce ntroid conn ect ors and intrazonal trips.  Centroid conn ect ors represent the local roads used to gain acce ss to the mod el network from ce nter s of activity in each traffic anal ysis zone (TAZ). A speed of 25 mph is utilized for these links.  Intrazonal trips are trips that are too short to get on to the model netw ork. VMT for intrazonal trips is calcula ted based on the siz e of each indi vidual TAZ. A speed of 20 to 24 mph is utiliz ed for peak period and 25 to 29 mph for off – peak. The Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel (DVMT) is calcula ted using a met hodolo gy based on disa ggreg ate speed and su mm arized by inventory area, fun ctional classifi cation , and sp ee d. The annual VMT and speed profiles developed by this process are then combin ed with the em ission factors from the M OVES 2014a mod el to produ ce em ission estimates for each sce na rio and time frame. M OVES 2014a PM 2.5 and NOx annual emissions by County may be found in App endix B. The M OVES 2014a input files are in App endix C. Appendix D lists various acronyms us ed in the report. In all cases the transpo rtation program and plan meets the requi red confo rm ity tests: 37  For years 2017 to 2024, Direct PM 2.5 in the Conn ect icut portion of the New York -Northern New Jer sey -Lon g Island attain me nt/main tenan ce area mus t be less than 575.8 tons per year.  For years 2017 to 2024, NOx in the Conn ect icut po rtion of the New Yo rk-Northern New Jer sey -Lon g Island attain me nt/main tenan ce area must be less than 12,791 .8 tons per year.  For year 2025 and subs equ ent ye ars, Direct PM 2.5 in the Conn ect icut po rtion of the New Yo rk-Northern New Jer sey -Lon g Island attain me nt/main tenan ce area must be less than 516.0 tons per year.  In year 2025 and subs equ ent ye ars, NOx in the Connecticut po rtion of the New York – Northern New Jer sey -Lon g Island attain me nt/main tenan ce area must be less than 9,728 .1 tons per year. This anal ysis in no way reflects the full benefit on air quality from the transpo rtation plan and program. The netw ork-bas ed modeling process is capable of assessing the impa ct of majo r new highway or transit serv ice . It does not reflect the impa ct from the many projects, which are categ oricall y exclud ed from the requi reme nt of confo rm ity. These project s includ e nu mer ous improvements to inter sect ions , which will allow traffic to flow more efficiently, thus redu cing delay, fuel usage and em issions. Includ ed in the TIP, but not reflecte d in this analysis, are many projects to main tain existing rail and bus system s. Without these project s, those system s could not offer the high level of serv ice they do. With them, the mass transi t systems fun ction more efficiently, improve saf ety, and provide a more dependable and aestheticall y app ealin g service. These ad van tage s will ret ain existing patrons and attract addi tional riders to the system . The technology to quantify the air quality benefits from these programs is not curre ntly availabl e. As shown in this anal ysis , transpo rtation emissions are declining dramaticall y and will con tinu e to do so. This is primarily due to programs such as reform ula ted fuels, enhan ce d insp ect ion and main tenan ce programs, stage two vapor recovery (area sou rce ), the low em issions vehicles (LEV) program, and the Tier 2 / Sulfur -in-Gas redu ction program. Changes in the transpo rtation system will not produce signifi can t emissions redu ctions because of the massi ve exis ting rail, bus, highway systems, and land deve lop me nt already in place. Change in these aspects is always at the margin, producing very small impacts. 10) ANALYSIS RESULTS As part of the redesignation request, the State submitted a maintenance plan as required by section 175A of the Clean Air Act. Elements of the section 175A maintenance plan include a contingency plan and an obligation to submit a subsequent maintenance plan revision as required by the Clean Air Act. The PM 2.5 maintenance plan also establishes 2017 and 2025 MVEBs for the Area. Connecticut is establishing 2017 MVEBs of 575.8 tons per year (tpy) for direct PM 2.5 and 12,791.8 tpy for NO X, and 2025 MVEBs of 516 tpy for direct PM 2.5 and 9,728.1 38 tpy for NO X, for the Southwestern CT Area for maintenance of the 1997 annual and 2006 24 – hour PM 2.5 standards. The emissions analysis results for the Connecticut portion of the New Yo rk-Northern New Jer sey -Lon g Island multi -state attainment/maintenance area are presented in Tables 3 and 4 below. Table 3: Direct PM2.5 and NOx Emission Budget Test Results (tons per year ) Year Series 30G Budgets Difference Direct PM 2.5 NOx Direct PM 2.5 NOx Direct PM 2.5 NOx 2017 450.2 10,365.7 575.8 12,791.8 -125.6 -2,426.1 2025 369.3 6,900.0 516.0 9,728.1 -146.7 -2,828.1 2035 369.5 6,129.6 516.0 9,728.1 -146.5 -3,598.5 2040 382.5 6,266.0 516.0 9,728.1 -133.5 -3,462.1 11) CONCLUSION This em issions anal ysis transpo rtation confo rm ity has been dem ons trated for the Conn ect icut po rtion of the NY-NJ -CT PM 2.5 attain me nt/main tenan ce area bas ed upon the direct PM 2.5 and the NOx emission budgets for 2017 and 2025 effect ive as of Februa ry 20, 2013. The region has attained National Am bient Air Quali ty Standa rds and EPA publish ed its approval of the PM 2.5 redesigna tion request, establishin g Octob er 24, 2013 as the effect ive date of redesigna tion to attainment for Connecticut’s portion of the NY -NJ -CT area for both the 1997 annual and 2006 24 – hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. Please direct any questions you may have on the air quality em ission anal ysis to: Conn ect icut Depa rtme nt of Transpo rtation Bureau of Policy and Plannin g Division of Coo rdina tion , Modeling and Crash Data – Unit 57531 2800 Ber lin Tu rnpi ke Newington, CT. 06111 (860) 594 -2032 Email: Judy. Raymond@c t.go v 39 APPENDIX A Interagency Consultation Meeting Minutes 40 INTERAGENCY CONSULTATION MEETING Statewide Transportation Improvement Program Amendments Connecticut Department of Transportation Room 2324 –April 19, 2016 Go To Meeting Attendees: Eloise Powell – FHWA Ken Shooshan -Stoller, FHWA Paul Farrell – CTDEEP Paul Bodner – CT DEEP Lou Corsino – CTDEEP Jennifer Carrier – CRCOG Pramad Pandey – CRCOG Cara Radzins – CRCOG Jillian Massey – CRCOG Mark Nielson – CNVMPO Christian Meyer – CNVMPO Meghan Sloan – CT Metro COG Pat Carleton – CT Metro COG Robert Haramut – LCRVCOG Stephen Dudley –SCRCOG James Rode – SCRCOG Richard Guggenheim – SECCOG Joanna Wozniak – NWHill COG Hoween Flexer – NE CT COG Susan Prosi – Western COG Jon Chew – Housatonic Valley Maribeth Wojenski – CTDOT Judy Raymond – CTDOT Rose Etuka – CTDOT Roxane Fromson -CTDOT Grayson Wright – CTDOT Edgar Wynkoop – CTDOT Sara Radacsi – CTDOT Matthew Cegielski – CTDOT Tiffany Garcia – CTDOT Joe Ouellette – CTDOT Ryan Dolan – CTDOT The Interagency Consultation Meeting was held to review projects submitted to the STIP Unit for inclusion in the updated, amended STIP. Both the Ozone and PM 2.5 reports will be electronically distributed to the MPOs in the appropriate Nonattainment/Maintenance areas, FTA, FHWA, DEEP and EPA. The MPOs will need to hold a 30 day public comment and review period. At the end of this review period, the MPO will hold a Policy Board meeting to endorse the Air Quality Conformity determination. 41 There was also a brief discussion on the travel model and emissions software planning assumptions employed in the conformity analysis. The schedule for the 2015 -2018 Regional Transportation Improvement Plans Amendments Conformity Determination Analysis is as follow:  MPOs transmit signed and dated Concurrence Form to judy.raymond@ct.gov by April 19, 2016.  CTDOT Travel Demand Model Unit performs the air quality analysis and sends the Air Quality Conformity Determination Reports electronically to all MPOs in A u g u s t 2016 .  MPOs advertise and hold a 30 -day public review and comment period for the Air Quality Conformity.  MPOs hold a Policy Board meeting approving and endorsing the Air Quality Conformity.  MPOs transmit resolutions endorsing the Air Quality Conformity to judy.raymond@ct.gov by end of October 2016. It is important that all MPOs follow this schedule to ensure that the LRTP and TIP/STIP Amendment Conformity Determinations can go forward on schedule. 42 PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS Ozone and PM2.5 2015 Regional Long Range Transportation Plan Conformity Analysis A p r i l 19 , 2016 Planning Assumptions for Review Frequency of Review * Responsible Agency Year of Data Socioeconomic Data At least every 5 years CTDOT 2010 Census Data available 2012 DMV Vehicle Registration Data At least every 5 years CTDEEP 2011 Data available 2012 State Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program Each conformity round CTDEEP 2005 Plus State Low Emission Vehicle Program Each conformity round following approval into the SIP CTDEEP Same as SIP VMT Mix Data At least every 5 years CTDEEP 2010 Analysis Years – PM 2.5 Each conformity round CTDOT/CTDEEP 2017, 2025, 2035, 2040 Analysis Years – Ozone Each conformity round CTDOT/CTDEEP 2017, 2025, 2035, 2040 Emission Budget – PM2.5 As SIP revised/updated CTDEEP 2017 / 2025 PM 2.5 Emission Budget – Ozone As SIP revised/updated CTDEEP 2009 Temperatures and Humidity As SIP revised/updated CTDEEP X Control Strategies Each conformity round CTDEEP X HPMS VMT Each conformity round CTDOT 2013 EPA Software Each conformity round CTDOT MOVES2014a * Review of Planning Assumptions does not necessarily prelude an update or calibration of the travel demand model. 43 APPENDIX B PM 2.5 AND NOx PRECURSOR EMISSION OUTPUTS BY ANALYSIS YEAR 44 MOVES2014a 2017 County Summary: County Total Energy Consumption Oxides of Nitrogen 91 3 (Joules/Day) (Tons/Day) 110 116 117 County Primary Exhaust 2.5 Total Brakewear Tirewear Total Fairfield 4.156320E+16 3.949566E+03 120.5385196 24.24356767 10.9236477 155.70573 New Haven 4.169195E+16 3.993233E+03 123.429806 23.07694603 10.89799633 157.40475 Totals 8.325515E+16 7.942799E+03 313.11048 MOVES2014a 2025 County Summary: County Total Energy Consumption Oxides of Nitrogen 91 3 (Joules/Day) (Tons/Day) 110 116 117 County Primary Exhaust 2.5 Total Brakewear Tirewear Total Fairfield 3.495167E+16 2.143620E+03 63.45501713 25.92118839 11.48147335 100.85768 New Haven 3.541139E+16 2.206702E+03 64.2380279 24.90041685 11.53142286 100.66987 Totals 7.036306E+16 4.350323E+03 201.52755 MOVES2014a 2035 County Summary: County Total Energy Consumption Oxides of Nitrogen 91 3 (Joules/Day) (Tons/Day) 110 116 117 County Primary Exhaust 2.5 Total Brakewear Tirewear Total Fairfield 2.938622E+16 1.300432E+03 35.0217624 27.70370133 12.04642738 74.77189 New Haven 3.115337E+16 1.412685E+03 36.79070391 29.27241723 12.62698451 78.69011 Totals 6.053959E+16 2.713118E+03 153.46200 MOVES2014a 2040 County Summary: County Total Energy Consumption Oxides of Nitrogen 91 3 (Joules/Day) (Tons/Day) 110 116 117 County Primary Exhaust 2.5 Total Brakewear Tirewear Total Fairfield 2.886547E+16 1.223008E+03 29.37515389 28.33778892 12.22001177 69.93295 New Haven 3.072112E+16 1.340771E+03 31.07709275 30.0642041 12.85691512 73.99821 Totals 5.958659E+16 2.563780E+03 143.93117 45 APPENDIX C PM2.5 and NOx INPUT FILES TO MOVES2014a 46 20 17 Fair field 49 50 51 20 17 New Haven 55 20 25 Fairfield 56 57 59 60 20 25 New Haven < ![CDATA[RunSpec for New Haven County (09009) for 2025. County scale, inventory mode, 12 months (annual run), weekdays and weekends, 24 hours, all fuels (except placeholder and LPG)/source use type combinations, all road types. All pollutants. Caution: Need to eliminate Primary Exhaust PM2.5 Total to avoid double counting. CALEV and NLEV databases. Output: Activity: all. Include: Fuel Type, Emission Processes, Road Type and Source Use Type For use in 2016 Conformity. September 8, 2016]]> 61 62 64 65 20 35 Fairfield 66 67 69 70 20 35 New Haven 71 72 74 75 20 40 Fairfield 76 77 79 80 20 40 New Haven 81 82 84 85 APPENDIX D ACRONYMS 86 Acronyms Acronym Meaning CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments (1990) CO Carbon Monoxide COG Council of Government CTDOT Connecticut Department of Transportation CTDEEP Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FSD Final Scope Development (Now PD) ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act MAP -21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century Act MOVES Mobile Vehicle Emission Simulator MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NH 3 Ammonia NOx Nitrogen Oxides PD Preliminary Design (Formerly FSD) PDWP Project Development Work Program PM 2.5 Fine Particulate Matter PMT Person Miles Traveled RA Regional Administer ROP Rate of Progress RTP Regional Transportation Plan (generally refers to Regional Transportation Plan Update) SAFETEA -LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SD Study and Development SIP State Implementation Plan SO x Sulfur Oxides STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program TCM Transportation Control Measure TIP Transportation Improvement Program USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VOC Volatile Organic Compound

Naugatuck Valley Regional Economic Profile 2014

RegionalEconomicProfile.jpg

N V Eonomi Po 2014 A Report by the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments ii ii Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments Executive Committee  Neil O’Leary, Mayor, Waterbury ? Chairman  Mark Lauretti, Mayor, Shelton ? Vice Chairman  Ken Cockayne, Mayor, Bristol ? Secretary  Tom Dunn, Mayor, Wolcott ? Treasurer  Leonard Assard, First Selectman, Bethlehem  Chris Bielik, First Selectman, Beacon Falls  Kurt Miller, First Selectman, Seymour  Ed Mone, First Selectman, Thomaston Sta  Rick Dunne, Executive Director  Mark C. Nielsen, Director of Planning  Trish Bauer, Oce & Financial Manager  Arthur Bogen, Brownelds Consultant  Aaron Budris, Senior Regional Planner  Max Tanguay-Colucci, Regional Planner  John DiCarlo, Municipal Shared Services Coordinator  Christian Meyer, Supervising Transportation Planner  Benjamin Muller, Transportation Planner*  Mark Pandol, Transit Capital Administrator  Glenda Prentiss, GIS Program Coordinator  Lauren Rizzo, Administrative Assistant  Joanna Rogalski, Regional Planner / Emergency Mgmt  Karen Svetz, P.E., Regional Transportation Engineer Sources of Copies  Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 49 Leavenworth Street, 3rd Floor Waterbury, CT 06702  Phone: (203) 757-0535  Email: nvcog@nvcogct.org  Website: www.nvcogct.org Acknowledgments & Errata  Cover Photo: Post University Building Detail, Waterbury, CT  All photos are from NVCOG sta unless otherwise noted.  This report is based on COGCNV’s Economic Proles. EN Translations available by request. ES Traducciones disponibles bajo petici?n. IT Traduzioni disponibili su richiesta. PL Tumaczenia dostpne na zam?wienie. PT Tradu??es dispon?veis mediante solicita??o. SQ P?rkthime n? dispozicion me k?rkes?. ZH |?}F?~???~ ??  i i Summary & Data Sources ii Area Proe 1 A Slow Recovery ……………………………………………. 2 Regional Conditions ………………………………………….. 3 Regional Strengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Indsri Pos 15 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, & Hunting ……………………………… 16 Quarrying, Mining, and Oil/Gas Extraction ……………………………. 17 Manufacturing ……………………………………………… 18 Construction ……………………………………………….. 19 Wholesale Trade …………………………………………….. 20 Retail Trade ……………………………………………….. 21 Transportation and Warehousing ………………………………….. 22 Utilities …………………………………………………… 23 Finance & Insurance ………………………………………….. 24 Real Estate & Rental and Leasing …………………………………. 25 Information ………………………………………………… 26 Professional, Scientic, & Technical Services …………………………… 27 Management of Companies & Enterprises ……………………………. 28 Administration and Waste Management …………………………….. 29 Healthcare and Social Assistance …………………………………. 30 Educational Services ………………………………………….. 31 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation ………………………………… 32 Accommodation and Food Services ……………………………….. 33 Other Services ……………………………………………… 34 Public Administration ………………………………………….. 35 Tables Table 1: Employment v. Workforce by Town, 2014 ……………………….. 3 Table 2: Change in Employment by Sector, 2005-2014 ……………………. 4 Table 3: Employment to Workforce Ratio, 2014 ………………………… 5 Table 4: Location Quotients by Sector, 2014 ………………………….. 8 Table 5: Shift-Share Analysis by Sector Relative to CT, 2005-2014 …………….. 10 Talbe 6: Shift-Share Analysis by Sector Relative to US, 2005-2014 …………….. 11 Figures Figure 1: Total Employment in the Naugatuck Valley, 2005-2014 ……………… 2 Figure 2: Employment as a Percentage of Total, by Super Sector, 2005-2014 …….. 2 Figure 3: Net Dierence Between Employment & Workforce by Sector, 2014 …….. 6 Figure 4: Employment Growth & Job Concentration, 2005?2014 ……………… 9 Figure 5: Industry Targeting Analysis Decision Tree ………………………. 12 Tbe of Conens iii iii Summary of Major Findings  The Naugatuck Valley Region had a total employment of 165,277 in 2014, an increase of 807 jobs (0.5%) from 2005. Comparatively, there were 219,250 employed persons living in the region, a net export of 53,973 workers.  Recovery from the 2007-2009 recession continues to be slow. Regional employment peaked in 2007 and declined to a low in 2012. Employment has grown steadily since 2012, with the Leisure & Hospitality, Education & Health, and Professional Services sectors reaching or surpassing their peak employment levels and Trade & Utilities and Financial Activites nearing theirs. Only Goods Producing sectors have failed to reclaim their lost jobs, though these elds are slowly growing.  The region has very high concentrations of Information employment compared to the state at large, and fairly high concentrations of Manufacturing, Retail & Wholesale Trade, and Health Care & Social Assistance employment.  The region has very low concentrations of employment in Finance & Insurance, Arts & Recreation, and Professional Services compared to other parts of the state.  Health Care & Social Assistance is a dominant force in the regional economy, making up 18.4% of the region’s employment and 17.8% of the region’s workforce. However, growth in this sector has slowed relative to growth state- and nation-wide, indicating that this industry may be losing competitiveness. This industry has been identied in this report as a High Priority Retention Area.  The Information and Retail Trade sectors are the strongest large sectors of the local economy, as they have both seen signicant growth in employment and are more concentrated in the region compared with other portions of the state. The Information sector is largely made up of a single company, whereas Retail Trade is spread across the region.  The Education sector is a rapidly growing major industry in the region, outpacing state- and nation-wide growth rates. Much of this growth is attributable to expansions in several higher educational institutions regionally. The Naugatuck Valley towns should consider working to encourage growth in this sector, as it is a substantial Emerging Strength.  The state has made investments to develop the Manufacturing workforce by creating an Advanced Manufacturing program at Naugatuck Valley Community College. Waterbury has made complementary investments by creating a manufacturing programs at a local high school. Manufacturing employment is projected to remain stable into the next decade, as plastics, rubber, and chemical manufacturing grow statewide, osetting the decline in machine parts manufacturing. Data Sources  U.S. Census Bureau, LODES dataset, Work Area Prole for All Jobs, 2005-2014  Connecticut Department of Labor, LAUS Employment Statistics, by Town, 2014  Connecticut Department of Labor, Connecticut Occupational Projections: 2012-2022  Connecticut Economic Resource Center, Town Proles: 2014  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Industry Employment and Output Projections to 2024  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Median Work Ages by Sector, 2014  Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments Sta, Photographs & Graphics Summr & D Sorces Hartford Torrington New Haven New London Bridgeport Norwalk Stamford Danbury Poughkeepsie Springeld Worcester Lowell Boston Brockton Nashua Providence New Bedford New York Waterbury Albany Manchester 1 1 Naugatuck Valley The Naugatuck Valley Region is composed of nineteen municipalities in west-central Connecticut: Ansonia, Beacon Falls, Bethlehem, Bristol, Cheshire, Derby, Middlebury, Naugatuck, Oxford, Plymouth, Prospect, Seymour, Shelton, Southbury, Thomaston, Waterbury, Watertown, Wolcott, & Woodbury. Waterbury?the 5th largest city in the state? is a major anchor for the region, while other municipalities range from smaller urban centers to predominantly rural towns. The region is centrally located within Connecticut and the Northeast. Hartford, New Haven, and Bridgeport are all within a 30 mile radius. New York is 80 miles to the southwest, and Boston is 130 miles to the northeast. The 20th Century Historically, the region was the center of American brass manufacturing, producing products such as clocks, buttons, munitions, and machines. Drin the post-WWII years, brass producers moved west, and eventually abroad, and plastics replaced brass in many products. The Flood of 1955 had a major impact on the region, ooding the centers of many of towns directly along the river and causing roughly $380 million in damage (2016 dollars) across most of the towns in the region. The ood quickened the decline of manufacturing in the region by destroying many existing factories, and coincided with the rise of suburbanization more broadly, setting o a period of economic malaise for the urban centers in the area. The latter half of the 20th century saw great population and employment growth in the suburban and rural communities in the region. Despite suburbanization, Waterbury remains a major institutional and employment center of the region. Today The Naugatuck Valley economy has diversied since its manufacturing heyda. Manufacturing still makes up a large proportion of the region’s economy, but Health Care & Social Assistance jobs make up a larger portion, and Retail and Educational Services have met Manufacturing employment levels. Hospitality is the fastest growing industry sector in the region. In 2015, the Central Naugatuck Valley Region (COGCNV) and the Valley Region (VCOG) were merged along with portions of the Central Connecticut RPA (CCRPA), to create the fully constituted Naugatuck Valley region. This merger has created new relationships between towns in the area and new opportunities for cooperation on all fronts among municipalities. Naugatuck Valley Fast Facts  Population (2014): 448,745 people  Median Home Price: $231,738.58  Area State Parks: 10  National Register of Historic Sites: 110  Amusement Parks: 2 High Water Mark of the Flood, August 19th, 1955 Mill Apartments Beacon Falls Brockton Area Proe 2 2 A Slow Recovery Like the state and the nation, the Naugatuck Valley saw signicant job losses during the Great Recession of 2007-2009. Total jobs peaked in 2007 at 167,098 and declined to a low of 154,809 jobs in 2009, a loss of 12,289 jobs (Figure 1). The region saw a particularly slow recovery period through 2012, which included a new low of 154,328 jobs. During that same period unemployment more than doubled from 5.3% in 2007 to 10.8% in 2010. The Goods Producing sector?notably Manufacturing and Construction?was the hardest hit parts of the region’s economy, losing a combined 8,464 jobs from 2007 to 2010. Not all sectors contracted during the recession, however. Education & Health services added 1,998 jobs from 2007 to 2010. Economic growth as a whole stagnated between the end of the recession and 2012, as dierent industry super sectors uxed dramatically (Figure 2). Since 2012, however, the recovery has begun to pick up steam. From 2010 to 2014, the region gained 9,846 jobs. By 2014, the unemployment rate was 7.4%, but remained above state (6.6%) and Figure 1: Total Employment in the Naugatuck Valley 2005-2014 Figure 2: Employment as a Percentage of Total Employment, by Super Sector 2005-2014 -20.4% -3.4% -0.5% 1.7% 14.1% 16.8% Naugatuck Valley Community College 3 3 national (6.2%) averages. 1 The best-performing super sectors continue to be Leisure & Hospitality and Education & Health, which have each seen near 15% increases in total jobs. 2 Goods-producing industries have made meager gains since the depth of the recession, but growth has been proportionally slow in these elds. All other industry super sectors have remained fairly level. Regional Conditions Employment Trends Between 2005 and 2014, the Naugatuck Valley saw its employment grow from 164,470 to 165,277 resulting in a small gain of 807 jobs (0.5%). During that same time period, the state as a whole grew much more quickly, adding 45,261 jobs (a 2.8% increase). The four largest sectors of the region’s economy, Health Care & Social Assistance (30,481 jobs), Manufacturing (22,413 jobs), Retail Trade (21,115 jobs), and Educational Services (15,880 jobs) comprised 54.2% of the region’s total jobs. Employment in the Health Care & Social Assistance, Educational Services, and Retail Trade industries all increased from 2005 to 2014, while Manufacturing employment declined. Manufacturing (-6,223) and Finance and Insurance (-1,726) saw the largest net job losses from 2005 to 2014, while Health Care & Social Assistance (3,969) and Accommodation & Food Services (1,842) saw the largest net gains. Employment trends for all sectors can be seen in Table 2. Employment vs. Workforce The Naugatuck Valley has a signicant employment to workforce mismatch. There are 165,277 jobs in the region, compared to 219,250 employed residents (workforce) living in the region, a net export of 53,973 workers. As a result, a large number of Naugatuck Valley residents work outside of the region. The sectors with the largest net exports were Health Care & Social Assistance (-8,542, or 21.9% of the regional workforce), Educational Services (-7,575, or 32.3%), and Finance & Insurance (-5,924, or 52.1%). Only the Information (1,152, or 16.7% of regional employment), Agriculture, 1 As of 2016, Connecticut’s unemployment rate has remained stubbornly high, and is now both the highest and the slowest falling in New England. Unemployment in the Naugatuck Valley is inherently tied to employment rates statewide. The Waterbury MSA also now has the highest unemployment rate out of all New England MSAs, at 7.7%. 2 The Other Services sector has also seen its employment increase 14.8% since 2005. While this sector is small, its continued growth may indicate increases in non-prot workt or diculty classifying new forms of work. NAICS codes are reviewed every ve years, and the next revision is scheduled for 2017. Forestry, & Fishing (84, or 19.2%), and Mining & Gas Extraction (33, or 21.4%) industries saw net imports of workers from other regions. A comparison of employment and workforce by sector can be seen in Table 2 and in Figure 3. Municipality Employment Workforce Ratio Ansonia , , . Beacon Falls , , . Bethlehem  , .  Bristol , , . Cheshire ,  , . Derby ,  , . Middlebury , , . Naugatuck ,  ,  .  Oxford , , .  Plymouth ,  , . Prospect , , . Seymour , , .  Shelton  ,  , . Southbury , , . Thomaston , ,  . Waterbury , ,  . Watertown , , . Wolcott , , . Woodbury , , . Region , , . Municipality Employment Workforce Ratio Hartford , , . New Haven  , , . Stamford , , . Danbury ,  , . Norwalk ,  , . Waterbury , ,  . Bridgeport , ,  . The employment to workforce ratio is calculated by dividing employment (the number of jobs in a municipality) by workforce. Ratios of 1.00 and over indicate that a municipality is a net importer of workers, while values less than 1.00 indicate net exporters. Ratios vary signicantly between municipalities in the region. Shelton (1.19) and Cheshire (1.12) are the only towns in the region that Table 1: Employment vs. Workforce by Town, 2014 4 4 Table 2: Change in Employment in the Naugatuck Valley, 2005-2014 Sector Regional Employment State Employment 2005 2014 Change 2005 2014 Change Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting   -.% , ,  -.% Mining, Quarrying, and Oil & Gas Extraction   -.%    -.% Utilities   -.% , , -.% Construction , , - .%  , ,  -.% Manufacturing , ,  -.% , , - .% Wholesale Trade , , . % ,  , -.% Retail Trade , , . % ,  , -.% Transportation and Warehousing , ,  -.% ,  , .% Information ,  , .% ,  , -.% Finance and Insurance , ,  - .% ,  , -.% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing , ,  -.% , ,  – .% Professional, Scientic, and Technical Services ,  , -.% ,  , .% Management of Companies and Enterprises , , .%  ,  , .% Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation , , . % , , .% Educational Services  ,  , .% , ,  .% Health Care and Social Assistance ,  ,   .%  , , .% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation , , .% ,  , -.% Accommodation and Food Services , , .% , , .% Other Services (excluding Public Administration) , ,  .% , , .% Public Administration , , .% , , .% Total All Jobs  ,  , .% ,,  , , . % 5 5 Table 3: Employment to Workforce Ratio in the Naugatuck Valley by Sector, 2014 Sector Employment Workforce Dierence Ratio Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting  .%   .%  .% . Mining, Quarrying, and Oil & Gas Extraction  .%  .%  . % . Utilities  . % , . % - -.% . Construction , .% , .% -, - . % . Manufacturing ,  . % , . % – , -.% . Wholesale Trade , .% , .% -,  -. % . Retail Trade , .%  , .% - , -.% . Transportation and Warehousing ,  .% , . % -, – .% . Information , .% , .% ,  .% . Finance and Insurance ,  .% , .% – , -.% .  Real Estate and Rental and Leasing ,  .% ,  .% - – .% . Professional, Scientic, and Technical Services , . % ,  .% -, - . % . Management of Companies and Enterprises , .% , .% - - .% . Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation , .% , .% -, -.% . Educational Services  , .% , .% -,  - .% . Health Care and Social Assistance ,  . % , .% -,  -.% . Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation , . % ,  .% -, – .% . Accommodation and Food Services , .%  , .% -, - . % . Other Services (excluding Public Administration) , . % , . % -,  - .% . Public Administration , .% , .% -, – .% . Total All Jobs , .% , .% - , - .% . 6 6 -8,524 -7,575 -5,924 -5,112 -4,274 -3,819 -3,655 -2,945 -2,888 -1,941 -1,938 -1,936 -1,572 -1,169 -906 -775 -289 33 84 1,152 Figure 3: Net Di erence between NVCOG Workforce & Employment by Sector, 2014 7 7 are net importers of workers. Waterbury, the largest employment center in the region, has seen the employment to workforce ratio continue to deteriorate. Middlebury (0.98) and Derby (0.95) each have ratios between 0.95 and 1.00, indicating that they are small exporters. The remaining municipalities have ratios ranging from 0.31 to 0.93 and are all exporters of workers. Ratios for all towns can be seen in Table 1. Most large cities in Connecticut are net importers of workers from their surrounding suburban towns. Hartford (2.44), New Haven (1.85), Stamford (1.34), and Danbury (1.17) are among the largest employment centers in the state and have high employment to workforce ratios. Despite being among the largest employment centers in the state, Waterbury (0.93) and Bridgeport (0.81) are both net exporters of workers. Mining & Gas Extraction (1.27) and Agriculture, Forestry, & Fishing (1.24) continue to have high employment to workforce ratios. The sectors with the lowest employment to workforce ratios are Finance & Insurance (0.48), Public Administration (0.63), and Real Estate & Rental (0.63). Naugatuck Valley residents who work in these sectors are most likely to commute to jobs outside the region. Ratios for all sectors can be seen in Table 2. Location Quotients Location quotients (LQs) are a measurement of regional job concentration relative to a reference area (usually the state or nation). LQs are calculated by dividing the percentage of regional employment in a sector by the percentage of state or national employment in that same sector. Values over 1.00 mean that the sector has a higher job concentration than the reference area, while values between 0.00 and 1.00 indicate a lower concentration. 6 of the 20 sectors of the region’s economy?including the three largest sectors Health Care & Social Assistance (1.14), Manufacturing (1.32), and Retail Trade (1.14)?had higher job concentrations than the state. Mining, Quarrying, & Oil and Gas Extraction (2.90) had the highest location quotient, but does not necessarily indicate a strong-performing sector since employment is so low (154 total). The Information sector (1.86) had the second- highest location quotient, and also represents a large increase in its share of the region’s employment (6,888 jobs, up from 5,430 in 2005). The lowest concentrated sectors were Finance & Insurance (0.49) and Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation (0.55). Relative to the nation, the Naugatuck Valley shows strengths in Information (1.87), Manufacturing (1.48), and Health Care & Social Assistance (1.26). A complete list of location quotients by sector can be found in Table 3. Shift-Share Analysis Shift-share analysis is a technique used to determine how much employment change in the region is attributable to state, national, and broad industrial growth, and how much is due to regional characteristics (or regional share). Sectors with a positive regional share have a higher growth rate than can be explained by growth in the larger economy, and are becoming more Old Pin Shop, Watertown 8 8 Sector Regional Connecticut Location Quotients Count Percent Count Percent State National Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting  .% ,  .% . . Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction  .%  .% . . Utilities  . % , . % . . Construction , .% ,  . % . . Manufacturing ,  . % , .% . .  Wholesale Trade , .%  , .% . . Retail Trade , .%  , .% . . Transportation and Warehousing ,  .% , .% . .  Information , .% , .% . . Finance and Insurance ,  .% , .% .  . Real Estate and Rental and Leasing ,  .% ,  .% . . Professional, Scientic, and Technical Services , . % , .% . . Management of Companies and Enterprises , .% , .% . . Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation , .% , .% . . Educational Services  , .% ,  .% . . Health Care and Social Assistance ,  . % , .% . . Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation , . % , . % . . Accommodation and Food Services , .% , .% . . Other Services (excluding Public Administration) , . % , .% . . Public Administration , .% , .% . . Total All Jobs , .% , , .% Table 4: Location Quotients in the Naugatuck Valley by Sector, 2014 9 9 Figure 4: Employment Growth & Job Concentration in the Naugatuck Valley Relative to Connecticut, 2005?2014 Accommodation & Food Services Other Services Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation Management Health Care & Social Services Educational Services Information Retail Trade Wholesale Trade Manufacturing Construction Agriculture, etc. Utilities Administration, etc. Public Administration Real Estate, Rental & Leasing Finance & Insurance Transportation & Warehousing Professional Services Mining, Quarrying, & Oil Extraction Job Concentration Relative to State Average Annual Change in Employment: 2005-2014 This gure shows average annual change in employment from 2005?2014 and job concentration (LQs) relative to the state. The gure is divided up into four quadrants based on job concentration (higher or lower than state) and employment change (growing or shrinking). Bubbles are scaled by the number of employees in each sector. Larger bubbles indicate sectors with larger employent. Bubbles are colored based on their NAICS super-sector classication. 10 10 Sector Regional Employment State % Change Employment Shift-Share 2005 2014 Change Percent State Growth Industry Trends Region Share Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting   - -.% -.%  –  Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction   -  -.% -.%  -  - Utilities   - -.% -.%  -   Construction , , -, - .% -.%  -, - Manufacturing , ,  -, -.% - .%  – , -, Wholesale Trade , ,  . % -.%  -   Retail Trade , ,  . % -.%  -  Transportation and Warehousing , ,  –  -.% .%   - Information ,  , ,  .% -.%   - , Finance and Insurance , ,  -, - .% -.%  - -, Real Estate and Rental and Leasing , ,  - -.% – .%  -  - Professional, Scientic, and Technical Services ,  , -, -.% .%    -, Management of Companies and Enterprises , , , .% .%    Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation , ,  . % .%    Educational Services  ,  , ,  .% .%    Health Care and Social Assistance ,  ,  ,  .% .%   , -, Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation , ,  .% -.%  -  Accommodation and Food Services , , ,  .% .%  ,   Other Services (excluding Public Administration) , ,   .% .%     Public Administration , ,   .% .%   - Total All Jobs  ,  ,  .% . % ,  N/A - ,  Table 5: Shift-Share Analysis of the Naugatuck Valley by Sector, Relative to Connecticut, 2005?2014 11 11 Table 6: Shift-Share Analysis of the Naugatuck Valley by Sector, Relative to the Nation, 2005?2014 Sector Regional Employment U.S. % Change Employment Shift-Share 2005 2014 Change Percent U.S. Growth Industry Trends Region Share Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting   - -.% .%   - Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction   -  -.% .%   -  Utilities   - -.% .%   - Construction , , -, - .% -.%  - –  Manufacturing , ,  -, -.% -.%  - , -,  Wholesale Trade , ,  . % .%   - Retail Trade , ,  . % .%   -  Transportation and Warehousing , ,  –  -.% .%   - Information ,  , ,  .% -.%   - ,  Finance and Insurance , ,  -, - .% .%   -, Real Estate and Rental and Leasing , ,  - -.% -.%  - - Professional, Scientic, and Technical Services ,  , -, -.% .%   , -, Management of Companies and Enterprises , , , .% .%    Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation , ,  . % .%   - Educational Services  ,  , ,  .% .%  ,  Health Care and Social Assis – tance ,  ,  ,  .% . %   ,  - , Arts, Entertainment, and Recre – ation , ,  .% .%   - Accommodation and Food Services , , ,  .% .%  ,   Other Services (excluding Public Administration) , ,   .% . %   -  Public Administration , ,   .% .%  , -, Total All Jobs  ,  ,  .% .% ,  N/A -,  12 12 Figure 5: Industry Targeting Analysis, Decision Tree: Identifying Economic Strengths & Weaknesses No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No All Industries Screen 1: Does the industry have high job concentration indicated by a location quotient higher than 1.10? Screen 3: Does the industry have a positive regional share as seen with shift-share analysis? Screen 2: Is the industry experiencing regional employment growth (>50 growth)? Current Strength High Priority Retention Target Limited Prospect Low Priority Retention Targets Emerging Strength Limited Prospect Source: McLean, Mary L, and Kenneth P. Voytek (1992). Understanding Your Economy. Planners Press 13 13 competitive. 3 Information (2,086 relative to the state; 1,502 relative to the nation) is the only industry which saw a major regional advantage in shift-share, with all of its growth explainable by regional factors. Management of Companies & Enterprises (493; 499) and Other Services (231; 610) are other industries which saw proportionally large positive regional shares. These industries grew at a faster rate than can be explained by state, national, or industry trends. Public Administration (-444; -1,167), Professional, Scientic, & Technical Services (-2,122; -3,328), and Transportation & Warehousing (-760; -920) had the proportionally largest negative regional shares, indicating that they contracted faster or grew more slowly compared to state, national, and industry averages. 6 of the 8 remaining industries all had 3 The shift-share analysis attempts to look not just at absolute shares, but at proportional shares. In short, the analysis looks at the size of the regional share compared to the absolute change in employment over the study period. proportionally minor negative regional shares, listed here in proportional order:  Finance & Insurance (-1,298, -1,966)  Real Estate, Rental, & Leasing (-115, -197)  Health Care & Social Assistance (-1,072 -4,375)  Manufacturing (-1,702, -2,846)  Construction (-170, -507)  Mining, Quarrying, & Gas Extraction (-9, -140) Of particular note is the Health Care & Social Assistance sector, which is one of the fastest- growing sectors in the Naugatuck Valley, is still growing more slowly than the state and the national industry. NVCC is presently expanding its Allied Health program to better support this sector’s workforce development needs. A complete shift-share analysis for all sectors can be seen in Tables 4 and 5. Source: McLean, Mary L, and Kenneth P. Voytek (1992). Understanding Your Economy. Planners Press Naugatuck Valley Community College Advanced Manufacturing Technology Center 14 14 Regional Strengths Regional strengths were identied using the industry targeting analysis decision tree (Figure 5), which uses location quotients, employment trends, and shift-share analysese to identify high-performing and low- performing sectors. Sectors were classied into four categories: regional strengths, high priority retention targets, emergening strenghts, and limited prospects. Regional strengths, high priority retention targets, and emerging strengths are the best-performing sectors and have the most potential for future economic growth. Limited prospects have performed poorly in the past are unlikely to be drivers of future economic growth without changes to economic structure, technology, or policy changes. Current Strengths Current Strenghts refer to sectors of the regional economy that have higher job concentration than the state and national averages (location quotient of 1.10 or higher), employment growth or 50 or more employees from 2005 to 2014, and positive regional share in the shift-share analysis. This indicates that a sector has high job concentration, high growth, and has become more competitive from 2005 to 2014. High Priority Retention Targets High Priority Retention Targets are strong economic sectors that are in danger of becoming less competitive. They are characterized by high job concentration relative to the state and national averages (location quotient of higher than 1.10), job growth of 50 or more employees from 2005 to 2014, and a negative regional share in the shift-share analysis. The negative regional share indicates that the sector is losing competitiveness. Health Care & Social Assistance, the only industry sector in this category, will be a turbulent one in the near future, with two major hospitals in Waterbury undergoing ownership changes. Preserving competitiveness through this process is key to maintaining this sector’s strength. Emerging Strengths Emerging Strength sectors have low job concentration relative to the state and national averages (location quotient of less than 1.10), job growth of 50 or more employees from 2005 to 2014, and a positive regional share in the shift-share analysis. This indicates that while the sector has lower job concentration relative to the state and nation, it is growing and has become more competitive from 2005 to 2014. Relative to State  Information  Retail Trade Relative to Nation  Information Relative to State  Health Care & Social Assistance Relative to Nation  Health Care & Social Assistance Relative to State  Management of Companies  Administration & Support  Educational Services  Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation  Accommodation & Food Services  Other Services Relative to Nation  Educational Services  Accommodation & Food Services Indsri Pos 16 16 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, & Hunting Regional Trends Industry Prole  Employment: 437  Employment Change: -7.0%  Percent of Employment: 0.3%  Location Quotient: 0.95  Number of Establishments: 11  Average Establishment Size: 28  Average Wage: $32,556  Median Worker Age: 47.9 Industry Outlook 2014-2024  National: -5.5% Decline  State: 11.3% Growth Major Subsectors  Nurseries & Greenhouses  Forestry & Logging Low High Shrinking Growing Employment Change 2005-2014 Job Concentration Relative to State Agriculture, forestry, shing, and hunting provides 437 jobs in the Naugatuck Valley, or 0.3% of all employment, putting our region about on par with the state for proportional employment. (It is important to note that this sector only includes non-farm employment, so it does not represent all agriculture jobs.) This sector is primarily made up of nurseries and greenhouses. Virtually all employment is based out of Cheshire, which houses several large nurseries serving the wholesale and retail gardening markets. From 2005-2014, employment in the agriculture, forestry, shing, and hunting sector contracted by 7.0%, or a loss of 33 jobs. Nationally, this industry is forecast to decline 5.5%, though Connecticut forecasts a growth of 11.3% statewide. The Naugatuck Valley may look to improve the competitive advantage of Cheshire’s businesses in this industry, though regionally this sector is not expected to be responsible for much employment growth. Map 1: Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, & Hunting Employment, 2014 Bethlehem Woodbury Waterbury Middlebury Southbury Watertown Oxford Seymour Shelton Naugatuck Beacon Falls Ansonia Derby Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston 17 17 Quarrying, Mining, and Oil/Gas Extraction Low High Shrinking Growing Employment Change 2005-2014 Job Concentration Relative to State Regional Trends Industry Prole  Employment: 154  Employment Change: -23.0%  Percent of Employment: 0.1%  Location Quotient: 2.90  Number of Establishments: N/A  Average Establishment Size: N/A  Average Wage: N/A  Median Worker Age: 40.5 Industry Outlook 2014-2024  National: 9.5% Growth  State: 13.9% Growth Major Subsectors  Quarrying & Mining While quarrying and mining is a very small sector in the Naugatuck Valley, with only 154 jobs and 0.1% of all regional employment, this makes up 29.1% of all jobs in the sector in the state. Most of the employment in this sector in our region?and statewide?is in quarrying, with the vast majority of employment in this sector located in northern Southbury at O&G’s Southbury Sand & Gravel Yard (headquartered in nearby Torrington). There are also smaller quarrying locations in Woodbury, Naugatuck, and Waterbury. Because of the focus on quarrying in this sector, employment is tied to the construction sector and the real estate market. Nationally, this sector is expected to grow as investment in natural gas continues. How the current slump in oil prices will aect this industry nationally is unclear, though the Naugatuck Valley’s quarry-oriented businesses in this sector are less likely to be aected by these national trends. Bethlehem Woodbury Waterbury Middlebury Southbury Watertown Oxford Seymour Shelton Naugatuck Beacon Falls Ansonia Derby Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston Map 2: Quarrying, Mining, and Oil/Gas Extraction Employment, 2014 18 18 Manufacturing Low High Shrinking Growing Employment Change 2005-2014 Job Concentration Relative to State Regional Trends Industry Prole  Employment: 22,143  Employment Change: -21.9%  Percent of Employment: 13.4%  Location Quotient: 1.32  Number of Establishments: 791  Average Establishment Size: 26  Average Wage: $71,981  Median Worker Age: 44.6 Industry Outlook 2014-2024  National: -6.7% Decline  State: 0.8% Growth Major Subsectors  Fabricated Metals  Machinery Manufacturing  Plastics & Rubber  Computers & Electronics Manufacturing has historically been the backbone of the Naugatuck Valley’s economy, but has changed dramatically over the last half century. Smaller niche manufacturers have been replacing larger companies, and jobs have been moving to lower cost locations in the United States and abroad. Despite sharp declines in employment over the last several decades, statewide manufacturing employment is anticipated to remain steady. In 2014, there were 22,143 manufacturing jobs, representing 13.4% of the region’s total employment. Between 2005 and 2014, the total number of jobs in manufacturing has contracted 21.9%, however most of that contraction occurred during the Great Recession. Since the recession, employment has steadily risen, although at a rate slower than the national and state averages. Despite this slow rise, Manufacturing remains the second-most concentrated major industry in the region. The state and region have both invested heavily in developing Advanced Manufacturing as an industry in the region. Map 3: Manufacturing Employment in the Naugatuck Valley, 2014 Bethlehem Woodbury Waterbury Middlebury Southbury Watertown Oxford Seymour Shelton Naugatuck Beacon Falls Ansonia Derby Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston 19 19 Construction Low High Shrinking Growing Employment Change 2005-2014 Job Concentration Relative to State Regional Trends Industry Prole  Employment: 6,088  Employment Change: -15.3%  Percent of Employment: 3.7%  Location Quotient: 1.07  Number of Establishments: 935  Average Establishment Size: 9  Average Wage: $56,720  Median Worker Age: 42.5 Industry Outlook 2014-2024  National: 12.9% Growth  State: 22.9% Growth Major Subsectors  Specialty Contracting  Construction of Buildings In 2014, there were 6,088 jobs in the construction sector, representing 3.7% of the region’s employment. This is roughly on par with the state proportion. Jobs in this sector are widespread throughout the region, with few large rms and many smaller ones. The construction industry has seen many uctuations in employment over the past decade as the housing industry recovers from the Great Recession. In the Naugatuck Valley, the sector saw an overall drop in employment of 15.3%, or 1,100 jobs. Because of the many factors built into construction, this industrial sector aects the health of several others, most notably for our region quarrying and agriculture. Regionally, there were 454 housing permits issued in 2014, down from 1,676 in 2005, but up from the low of 298 in 2011. The 5-year rolling average change in housing permits (2009-2014) was an increase of 5.1%. Map 4: Construction Employment in the Naugatuck Valley, 2014 Bethlehem Woodbury Waterbury Middlebury Southbury Watertown Oxford Seymour Shelton Naugatuck Beacon Falls Ansonia Derby Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston 20 20 Wholesale Trade Low High Shrinking Growing Employment Change 2005-2014 Job Concentration Relative to State Regional Trends Industry Prole  Employment: 7,721  Employment Change: 0.5%  Percent of Employment: 4.7%  Location Quotient: 1.18  Number of Establishments: 702  Average Establishment Size: 9  Average Wage: $72,589  Median Worker Age: 44.9 Industry Outlook 2014-2024  National: 5.6% Growth  State: 9.9% Growth Major Subsectors  Durable Goods Merchants  Perishable Goods Merchants Employment in wholesale trade has remained stable in the Naugatuck Valley over the past decade, with employment growing 0.5%. Wholesale trade makes up 4.7% of employment in the region, and it is a local strength. Furthermore, the average wages in this industry are higher than the median wage. The region’s employment is scattered on the edge of urbanized areas ialong Route 8 in southern Shelton, around the East End and in Waterville in Waterbury, and near the interchange between I-84 and I-691 in Cheshire. This sector accounts for 4.7% of the regional employment, and is a minor strength for the region. Slow growth in this industry indicates that the Naugatuck Valley may fall behind Connecticut in the coming years, as the state projects a 9.9% growth rate in this industry. Increased access for these industries may be a helpful way to encourge regional growth in this sector. Map 5: Wholesale Trade Employment in the Naugatuck Valley, 2014 Bethlehem Woodbury Waterbury Middlebury Southbury Watertown Oxford Seymour Shelton Naugatuck Beacon Falls Ansonia Derby Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston 21 21 Retail Trade Low High Shrinking Growing Employment Change 2005-2014 Job Concentration Relative to State Regional Trends Industry Prole  Employment: 21,115  Employment Change: 2.4%  Percent of Employment: 12.8%  Location Quotient: 1.14  Number of Establishments: 1,230  Average Establishment Size: 15  Average Wage: $29,928  Median Worker Age: 38.2 Industry Outlook 2014-2024  National: 5.0% Growth  State: 5.5% Growth Major Subsectors  Food & Beverage Stores  Clothing Stores  Building Materials & Gardens Retail trade is one of the region’s economic strengths relative to the state, and is the third largest sector of the regional economy at 12.8% of total employment. Waterbury remains the retail center of the region, though Bristol and Ansonia-Derby-Shelton also maintain large retail outposts relative to the region. This sector is growing, particularly in fast-growing towns in the region such as Cheshire, Southbury, and Woodbury. Despite growth, Connecticut and the nation are projecting faster rates of growth in retail trade than the Naugatuck Valley. These projections are at odds with recent growth rates statewide and nationally, however, as Retail Trade has continued to grow more concentrated in the Naugatuck Valley. This sector has low pay for the region, with an average salary of $29,928. Because of the low wages, growth in this industry will not signicantly improve the earning potential of the region’s workers. Map 6: Retail Trade Employment in the Naugatuck Valley, 2014 Bethlehem Woodbury Waterbury Middlebury Southbury Watertown Oxford Seymour Shelton Naugatuck Beacon Falls Ansonia Derby Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston 22 22 Transportation and Warehousing Low High Shrinking Growing Employment Change 2005-2014 Job Concentration Relative to State Regional Trends Industry Prole  Employment: 3,424  Employment Change: -13.1%  Percent of Employment: 2.1%  Location Quotient: 0.79  Number of Establishments: 151  Average Establishment Size: 17  Average Wage: $49,901  Median Worker Age: 46.1 Industry Outlook 2014-2024  National: 2.9% Growth  State: 8.0% Growth Major Subsectors  Truck Transportation  Air Transportation  Warehousing & Storage The transportation and warehousing sector represents 2.1% of the regional economy. This industry is one of the weakest for the Naugatuck Valley, with a location quotient of 0.79 (and 0.59 relative to the nation) and shrinking employment. Some of the highest concentrations of employment in the region are surrounding the Oxford airport, along industrial parks in northern Cheshire, in downtown Ansonia, and scattered along Route 8. Despite a large decline regionally, Connecticut and the nation are expecting growth in this sector. Due to the regional infrastructure and access to other cities, there is potential to improve in this industry, but it is currently classied as a Limited Prospect due to a low concentration and declining employment. Map 5: Transportation and Warehousing Employment, 2014 Bethlehem Woodbury Waterbury Middlebury Southbury Watertown Oxford Seymour Shelton Naugatuck Beacon Falls Ansonia Derby Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston 23 23 Utilities Low High Shrinking Growing Employment Change 2005-2014 Job Concentration Relative to State Regional Trends Industry Prole  Employment: 766  Employment Change: -18.3%  Percent of Employment: 0.5%  Location Quotient: 0.99  Number of Establishments: 10  Average Establishment Size: 35  Average Wage: $99,288  Median Worker Age: 46.1 Industry Outlook 2014-2024  National: -8.7% Decline  State: 24.3% Growth Major Subsectors  Utilites The utilities sector was one of the worst performing sectors in the 2005-2014 time period, with a loss of 18.3% of employment. Because this sector is very small, the impact felt by this sector’s uctuations is small. However, the average wages in this industry indicate that the loss of employment may be reducing the buying power of workers in our region. Proportionally, employment in this sector is roughly the same as statewide. The state is expecting 24.3% growth in this sector over the coming decade, despite an anticipated decline nationally. This is likely due to continued growth at Eversource, which has recently merged with another major regional utility company to create a regional powerhouse. Despite these statewide trends, Eversource is closing its primary Waterbury facility to consolidate operations in Cheshire. This consolidation will likely mean a continued decrease in overall employment in this sector regionally. Bethlehem Woodbury Waterbury Middlebury Southbury Watertown Oxford Seymour Shelton Naugatuck Beacon Falls Ansonia Derby Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston Map 6: Utilities Employment in the Naugatuck Valley, 2014 24 24 Finance & Insrnce Low High Shrinking Growing Employment Change 2005-2014 Job Concentration Relative to State Regional Trends Industry Prole  Employment: 5,453  Employment Change: -24.0%  Percent of Employment: 3.3%  Location Quotient: 0.49  Number of Establishments: 480  Average Establishment Size: 9  Average Wage: $91,198  Median Worker Age: 43.0 Industry Outlook 2014-2024  National: 6.9% Growth  State: 3.0% Growth Major Subsectors  Securities & Investments  Insurance Carriers  Credit Intermediation  Personal Banking The nance and insurance sector is one of the most important sectors to Connecticut’s economy, but that strength doesn’t correlate to a regional strength within the Naugatuck Valley. The Naugatuck Valley’s workforce in nance and insurance is more than double its employment, with many residents of the region commuting to work in the Hartford and Bridgeport areas. Webster Bank, a regional banking institution, maintains its headquarters in downtown Waterbury. However many of the jobs at the headquarters count in other categories such as Management rather than being concentrated in Finance & Insurance. Greater transportation connections between the Naugatuck Valley and surrounding nance and insurance powerhouses will ease the commutes of these workers, and may spur rms to consider the Naugatuck Valley for satellite oces or relocation. Additionally, investment in transit-oriented development and improvement of the Waterbury Branch Line may ease access for these workers. Map 7: Finance & Insurance Employment in the Naugatuck Valley, 2014 Bethlehem Woodbury Waterbury Middlebury Southbury Watertown Oxford Seymour Shelton Naugatuck Beacon Falls Ansonia Derby Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston 25 25 Real Estate & Rental and Leasing Low High Shrinking Growing Employment Change 2005-2014 Job Concentration Relative to State Regional Trends Industry Prole  Employment: 1,556  Employment Change: -12.2%  Percent of Employment: 0.9%  Location Quotient: 0.79  Number of Establishments: 280  Average Establishment Size: 4  Average Wage: $56,632  Median Worker Age: 47.8 Industry Outlook 2014-2024  National: 4.9% Growth  State: 9.6% Growth Major Subsectors  Real Estate Sales  Rental Administration  Rental & Leasing Services The real estate, rental, and leasing sector had 1,556 jobs in the Naugatuck Valley in 2014, a decrease of 12.2% over the last decade. Much of this job loss occurred during the Great Recession, which heavily impacted the housing markets. While this industry is not currently a strong performer for the Naugatuck Valley, it is likely to increase in strength over the coming years, as transit-oriented developments are planned and developed along the Waterbury Branch Line and retirees downsize or move into retirement communities. This industry also includes non real estate rental and leasing, though that sector of the industry doesn’t make up a large proportion of employment in the Naugatuck Valley region. Notable centers for this industry regionally are Southbury, in their Heritage Village development, and in Shelton near oce parks on the southern side of the city. Bethlehem Woodbury Waterbury Middlebury Southbury Watertown Oxford Seymour Shelton Naugatuck Beacon Falls Ansonia Derby Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston Map 7: Real Estate & Rental and Leasing Employment, 2014 26 26 Information Low High Shrinking Growing Employment Change 2005-2014 Job Concentration Relative to State Regional Trends Industry Prole  Employment: 6,888  Employment Change: 1,458  Percent of Employment: 4.2%  Location Quotient: 1.86  Number of Establishments: 109  Average Establishment Size: 53  Average Wage: $119,750  Median Worker Age: 40.9 Industry Outlook 2014-2024  National: -1.0% Decline  State: -1.8% Decline Major Subsectors  Broadcasting  Publishing Industries  Motion Pictures  Data Processing The Information industry is one of the Naugatuck Valley’s strengths, though employment in this industry is heavily concentrated in the oces of a single rm-ESPN’s headquarters lie on the edge of Bristol. ESPN accounts for nearly 4,000 of the 6,888 jobs in this industry in the region, and has grown since 2005 after a large campus expansion in 2013. Because of the relative size of ESPN to other media outlets, the Naugatuck Valley has a fairly high location quotient of 1.86 (1.87 nationally). Outside of ESPN, employment in this sector is primarily in local media outlets. Because this industry is so heavily concentrated in a single global headquarters, there is both risk in relying on a single highly mobile employer and opportunity to diversify related and supportive jobs in the northeastern portions of the region. The City of Waterbury established an Information Technology Zone in downtown Waterbury in 2005, though as of yet this initiative has not realized major gains in employment. Map 8: Information Employment in the Naugatuck Valley, 2014 Bethlehem Woodbury Waterbury Middlebury Southbury Watertown Oxford Seymour Shelton Naugatuck Beacon Falls Ansonia Derby Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston 27 27 Professional & Scientic Services Low High Shrinking Growing Employment Change 2005-2014 Job Concentration Relative to State Regional Trends Industry Prole  Employment: 7,358  Employment Change: -1,108  Percent of Employment: 4.5%  Location Quotient: 0.76  Number of Establishments: 812  Average Establishment Size: 6  Average Wage: $72,719  Median Worker Age: 43.2 Industry Outlook 2014-2024  National: 12.5% Growth  State: 19.6% Growth Major Subsectors The professional, scientic, and technical services sector is one of the Naugatuck Valley’s weaknesses, with a 0.76 location quotient and a declining employment. The largest employment center for this sector is an IBM oce located in Southbury, which employs over 1,000 workers. Several smaller oces in Shelton together make another large center. The past decade has seen departures of national and regional headquarters from the state, raising the potential of a departure of these oces. Major playors in this sector nationally have called for more urban locations for their workforce, which creates opportunity for land use changes near these facilities or for promotion of transit-oriented development projects in more urban locations. There are additional clusters of employment in this sector spread fairly evenly across the more urbanized portions of the region. As the state and nation project growth in this sector, and the average wages are relatively high, the Naugatuck Valley may be interested in encouraging growth in this particular industry. Bethlehem Woodbury Waterbury Middlebury Southbury Watertown Oxford Seymour Shelton Naugatuck Beacon Falls Ansonia Derby Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston Map 9: Professional, Scientic, & Technical Services Employment, 2014 28 28 Management of Companies & Enterprises Low High Shrinking Growing Employment Change 2005-2014 Job Concentration Relative to State Regional Trends Industry Prole  Employment: 3,032  Employment Change: 54.1%  Percent of Employment: 1.8%  Location Quotient: 0.91  Number of Establishments: 42  Average Establishment Size: 45  Average Wage: $281,493  Median Worker Age: 43.3 Industry Outlook 2014-2024  National: 4.1% Growth  State: 2.6% Growth Major Subsectors  Management of Corporations  Management of Small Firms Management makes up only 1.8% of employment in the Naugatuck Valley, though this industry has an outsize impact on the economy because of the extremely high average wages. Additionally, growth in this industry can often be seen as a marker of local strength, giving this industry an outsize impact on economic development plans as well. The Naugatuck Valley region has seen growth in the management sector over the past decade, as several companies headquartered in the region have expanded. This sector has been classied as an Emerging Strength for the region, with a concentration nearing par with the state (LQ of 0.91) and heavy growth. Currently, the largest employers in the region in this sector are Timex, headquartered in Middlebury, and Bic, headquartered in Shelton. Shelton has has corporate and regional headquarters of a number of smaller companies, and has shown most of the growth in this sector regionally. Other companies are located in Cheshire and in Bristol, with a smaller number in Waterbury and Naugatuck Map 10: Management of Companies & Enterprises Employment, 2014 Bethlehem Woodbury Waterbury Middlebury Southbury Watertown Oxford Seymour Shelton Naugatuck Beacon Falls Ansonia Derby Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston 29 29 Administration and Waste Management Low High Shrinking Growing Employment Change 2005-2014 Job Concentration Relative to State Regional Trends Industry Prole  Employment: 8,670  Employment Change: 4.5%  Percent of Employment: 5.2%  Location Quotient: 1.00  Number of Establishments: 513  Average Establishment Size: 15  Average Wage: $32,517  Median Worker Age: 41.5 Industry Outlook 2014-2024  National: 8.8% Growth  State: 15.0% Growth Major Subsectors  Business Administration  Waste Management The administration and waste management sector has been a steadily growing portion of the regional economy, and is at par with the state proportionally (LQ of 1.00). This sector is a dicult one to compare, as the state as a whole is losing competitiveness on this sector nationally, but the Naugatuck Valley is improving its share of employment in the sector statewide. As a result, this sector is becoming a strength of the Naugatuck Valley with reference to Connecticut, but still shows a large negative share of growth when compared to the nation at large (-699). Regionally, employment in this sector is widespread, with concentrations near business parks and in downtown Shelton, activity across Waterbury, and clusters in Cheshire, Bristol, and Terryville in Plymouth. Bethlehem Woodbury Waterbury Middlebury Southbury Watertown Oxford Seymour Shelton Naugatuck Beacon Falls Ansonia Derby Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston Map 11: Administration & Support, Waste Management Employment, 2014 30 30 Healthcare and Social Assistance Low High Shrinking Growing Employment Change 2005-2014 Job Concentration Relative to State Regional Trends Industry Prole  Employment: 30,481  Employment Change: 15.0%  Percent of Employment: 18.4%  Location Quotient: 1.14  Number of Establishments: 1,066  Average Establishment Size: 25  Average Wage: $44,333  Median Worker Age: 43.1 Industry Outlook 2014-2024  National: 19.8% Growth  State: 9.9% Growth Major Subsectors  Hospitals  Urgent / Primary Care Centers  Nursing & Residential Care  Social Services Healthcare and social assistance is the largest employment sector in the Naugatuck Valley, with 30,481 jobs (18.4% of total employment). Employment is concentrated in Waterbury (home of St. Mary’s Hospital and Waterbury Hospital), in Derby at the Grin Hospital, and at the Bristol Hospital. Smaller concentrations exist along Route 8 in Shelton and through Cheshire, with smaller centers in most towns in the region. The Naugatuck Valley has a large employment-workforce mismatch in this sector, with 28.0% fewer jobs than workers. This indicates that a large number of Naugatuck Valley residents are already working in this industry but commuting outside for work. While growth has been strong in this sector, particularly through the Great Recession, the region’s performance is now lagging behind statewide and national growth. This industry has been identied as a High Priority Retention Target in this report. Focusing regional resources of maintaining and developing our strength in this industry is an important eort moving forward. Map 12: Healthcare and Social Assistance Employment, 2014 Bethlehem Woodbury Waterbury Middlebury Southbury Watertown Oxford Seymour Shelton Naugatuck Beacon Falls Ansonia Derby Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston 31 31 Educational Services Low High Shrinking Growing Employment Change 2005-2014 Job Concentration Relative to State Regional Trends Industry Prole  Employment: 15,880  Employment Change: 12.3%  Percent of Employment: 9.6%  Location Quotient: 0.87  Number of Establishments: 114  Average Establishment Size: 19  Average Wage: $41,578  Median Worker Age: 44.2 Industry Outlook 2014-2024  National: 6.4% Growth  State: 9.8% Growth Major Subsectors  Primary and Secondary Education  Higher Education Education is one of the region’s emerging strengths, both statewide and nationally. Much of the region’s employment in education is in the individual towns’ public school systems. Additional major players are UConn, which has continued expansion of its Waterbury campus (relocated to an expanded campus downtown in 2003), Naugatuck Valley Community College (NVCC, the second largest community college by enrollment in Connecticut), and Post University. Much of the growth in this sector has been in the expansion of higher education facilities across the region. This includes a new Advanced Manufacturing educational facility at NVCC. The growth in this sector may be leveraged into growth in other sectors, as there is potential to encourage more students to stay in the region post-education to work or start businesses. Because of the large growth in this sector the Naugatuck Valley towns could work to expand employment opportunities in this industry. Bethlehem Woodbury Waterbury Middlebury Southbury Watertown Oxford Seymour Shelton Naugatuck Beacon Falls Ansonia Derby Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston Map 13: Educational Services Employment in the Naugatuck Valley, 2014 32 32 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Low High Shrinking Growing Employment Change 2005-2014 Job Concentration Relative to State Regional Trends Industry Prole  Employment: 2,310  Employment Change: 3.8%  Percent of Employment: 1.4%  Location Quotient: 0.55  Number of Establishments: 62  Average Establishment Size: 13  Average Wage: $21,343  Median Worker Age: 38.4 Industry Outlook 2014-2024  National: 7.1% Growth  State: -1.7% Decline Major Subsectors Arts, entertainment, and recreation is a growing sector for the Naugatuck Valley, with a positive shift-share compared against the state. However, the region’s proportional employment in this sector is very low against the rest of Connecticut, meaning this sector must grow much faster to have a major impact on the regional economy. The majority of workers in this sector in Connecticut work at the two casinos?Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun?which can partially explain the low concentration of employment in our region. Much of this sector is based in downtown Waterbury and Bristol, with a smattering of small organizations located in southern Shelton as well. While this sector is an emerging strength for the region, special care should be taken to ensure that new growth opportunities in this sector improve average wages, as arts, entertainment, and recreation jobs in the Naugatuck Valley have some of the lowest average wages. Map 14: Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Employment, 2014 Bethlehem Woodbury Waterbury Middlebury Southbury Watertown Oxford Seymour Shelton Naugatuck Beacon Falls Ansonia Derby Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston 33 33 Accommodation and Food Services Low High Shrinking Growing Employment Change 2005-2014 Job Concentration Relative to State Regional Trends Industry Prole  Employment: 11,061  Employment Change: 20.0%  Percent of Employment: 6.7%  Location Quotient: 0.91  Number of Establishments: 808  Average Establishment Size: 13  Average Wage: $16,927  Median Worker Age: 30.1 Industry Outlook 2014-2024  National: 6.3% Growth  State: 9.0% Growth Major Subsectors  Restaurants  Fast Food  Hotels Accommodation and food services is a relatively large and growing sector of the regional economy, with 11,061 jobs and a growth rate of 20.0%. This high growth rate makes the sector an emerging strength relative to both Connecticut and the nation at large. The sector is fairly distributed throughout the region, closely tracking the population levels. This sector has the lowest pay among any sector of the economy, indicating that its massive growth may be stunting wages regionally. The Naugatuck Valley towns should maintain an eye towards increasing the average wages in this sector when investigating opportunities to strengthen the industry. Bethlehem Woodbury Waterbury Middlebury Southbury Watertown Oxford Seymour Shelton Naugatuck Beacon Falls Ansonia Derby Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston Map 15: Accommodation and Food Services Employment, 2014 34 34 Other Services Low High Shrinking Growing Employment Change 2005-2014 Job Concentration Relative to State Regional Trends Industry Prole  Employment: 5,696  Employment Change: 732  Percent of Employment: 3.4%  Location Quotient: 0.93  Number of Establishments: 1,348  Average Establishment Size: 4  Average Wage: $23,967  Median Worker Age: 43.1 Industry Outlook 2014-2024  National: 4.2% Growth  State: 10.8% Growth Major Subsectors  Repair & Maintenance  Religious & Civic Organizations  Private Households The other services sector contains industries that do not t into other NAICS categories such as non-prot organizations, repair and maintenance facilities, personal and laundry services, and private households. This sector had 5,696 employees in 2014, comprising 3.4% of the region’s employment. Employment patterns largely follow population patterns, with the highest concentrations in Waterbury, Bristol, and Shelton. From 2005 to 2014 this sector grew by 14.7%,with an increase of 732 jobs. This is much faster than the state’s increase of 10.1%, identifying this sector as an emerging strength for the region at large. To support the expansion of aspects of this “sector,” economic development policies must look at individual components, as few of them are directly related to one another. Of particular note in the Naugatuck Valley are religious and civic organizations, which serve many of the recent immigrants to the region. Map 16: Other Services Employment in the Naugatuck Valley, 2014 Bethlehem Woodbury Waterbury Middlebury Southbury Watertown Oxford Seymour Shelton Naugatuck Beacon Falls Ansonia Derby Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston 35 35 Public Administration Low High Shrinking Growing Employment Change 2005-2014 Job Concentration Relative to State Regional Trends Industry Prole  Employment: 5,017  Employment Change: 151  Percent of Employment: 3.0%  Location Quotient: 0.84  Number of Establishments: 328  Average Establishment Size: 57  Average Wage: $55,932  Median Worker Age: 45.5 Industry Outlook 2014-2024  National: -1.2% Decline  State: 1.2% Growth Major Subsectors  Local Government  Federal Government The public administration sector includes federal, state, and local government employees that manage and oversee public programs. In 2014 there were a total of 5,017 employees in the public administration sector, accounting for 3.0% of total employment. Public school teachers, who are counted as employees in the educational services sector, are not included in the public administration employment totals, though they are included in average wages and establishment sizes (to the right). The largest concentration of employment is found in Waterbury, with smaller concentrations in Bristol, downtown Derby-Shelton, and Cheshire (home of two state correctional institutions). Because of the recent trends in downsizing both state and federal government employment, and due to the fact that employment in this sector is typically out of the hands of local and regional government, it is unlikely that the region can lean on this sector for continued growth prospects. Bethlehem Woodbury Waterbury Middlebury Southbury Watertown Oxford Seymour Shelton Naugatuck Beacon Falls Ansonia Derby Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston Map 17: Public Administration Employment in the Naugatuck Valley, 2014

NVCOG Annual Report 2015 – 2016

NVCOG-Annual-Report-2015-2016-1.jpg

Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments Annual Report FY 2015–2016View an interactive, online version of this Annual Report HERE this d 3 The 2015-2016 Annual Reportof the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments A forum for chief elected officials to discuss issues of common concern and to develop programs to address them on a regional level. The Council of Governments (NVCOG) is the regional planning organization for the Naugatuck Valley Region. The NVR, consisting of 19 municipalities in the greater Waterbury area, is one of the nine state-designated planning regions in Connecticut. The mission of the NVCOG is to support the needs of its member communities, and promote innovation, economies of scale, and regional cooperation. The NVCOG strives to implement and create programs and projects that better align the Naugatuck Valley to a changing future. This report details the ongoing accomplishments of the organization over the 2015-2016 fiscal year. 4 Table of Contents Letter From Chairman of the Board. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 NVision Corridor Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Regional Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Municipal Shared Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 MS4 Requirements and Low Impact Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Transportation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Transportation – LOTCIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Transportation Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Transportation Planning Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Land Use Planning and Referrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Regional Brownfields Partnership (RBP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Greenway Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Geographic information Systems Services (GIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Emergency Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Civil Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Financial Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Special Activity Grants Awarded & Announced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 Looking Forward into the Coming Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 5 Letter From Chairman of the Board It has been a fantastic year for the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments. We worked hard to help every city and town in our region. Since the consolidation of the new organization in early 2015, office renovations have been completed and the new space fully reflects both the impressive work that has been accomplished and projects we continue to undertake every day. The collaboration of all member communities and external partners are crucial to this success. Local residents can be secure in our mission to move the region forward for their benefit through the expansion of programs and facilitation of infrastructure improvements. Among our recent accomplishments are facilitating more than $20 million in local road funding though the Local Transportation Capital Improvement Program (LOTCIP), which is used to complete needed rehabilitation and enhancement of our local roads. We continue to support the Regional Brownfields Partnership and champion it as a model for our entire state in the remediation and repurposing of contaminated sites, with nearly $1 million in grants announced during the past year. As many Millennials desire proximity to lower Fairfield County and New York City but are restricted by the high cost of living there, they are seeking more affordable housing. This provides our region a unique opportunity in the coming decade, as these young people recognize the value the greater Naugatuck Valley offers. We must leverage this increased interest in our region as a place to work, learn and play to guide the continued development of key transportation infrastructure and encouragement of private investment streams into our region. While our respective municipal budgets are stretched further with each year, we are working to determine greater economies of scale for members. The introduction of our municipal shared services programming was established with this very goal in mind. This innovative approach strives to coordinate services with communities across a regional scale to reduce costs to cities and towns and we will provide new opportunities in this regard in the coming year. I thank my fellow municipal leaders and NVCOG staff for their incredibly dedicated and continued efforts towards achieving the goals set out by our member communities and working to make our region better than ever. We look forward to building on the successes of the last year and a-half. Mayor Neil O’Leary Chairman of the Board Mayor Neil O’Leary 6 NVision Corridor Conference Mix-Master Rendering The NVCOG hosted a conference in late January at the Palace Theater in downtown Waterbury. The conference focused on the need to improve and reclaim the Region’s existing infrastructure to enhance economic development and create sustainable and livable communities. The focus was on I-84, Route 8 and Waterbury branch line corridors. The NVision Conference 2020 featured presentations from Commissioner James Redeker of the CT DOT, Deputy Commissioner Tim Sullivan from CT DECD, Waterbury Mayor Neil O’Leary, and State Comptroller Kevin Lembo. In addition, Senator Chris Murphy participated by providing an address via video. Two panels were convened. The first involved discussions on “Developing Economically Sustainable Communities” and the second consisted of a speaker series talking about “Linking the Region.” NVCOG developed and organized several of the presentations, conducted event planning, set the agenda, and confirmed speakers. 150 stakeholders registered for the conference. A link to the presentation can be found by clicking HERE. An aerial drone video of the region’s key transportation elements and problems within the corridors was developed for the conference. View HERE. 7 Regional Data The NVCOG provides census and other statistical information to municipal, non-profit, and private organizations in a variety of forms, including its website. A link to regional information can be found by clicking HERE. This past year the NVCOG has undertaken the updating of the Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 2015. The document organizes and presents pertinent data regarding the NVCOG region from the 2010 Census and the American Community Survey, in part providing 5 year projection of demographic changes for the period. The update was recently completed and distributed to municipal officials in the region. A link to the 2015 profile can found by clicking HERE. In addition to the Regional Profile, the NVCOG collected economic data from a variety of sources and collated the information into an Economic Profile for the Naugatuck Valley region. A draft report was prepared and is currently under review. 8 Municipal Shared Services Household Hazardous Waste Collection Sharing services and purchasing among municipalities were identified as priorities in NVCOG’s formation. Reducing costs and increasing efficiencies for programs are often the primary benefits of such programming. The former Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley has administered a regional household hazardous waste program for many years, the merged NVCOG continues the efforts of this program. The program exists to facilitate the proper disposal of hazardous materials through providing communities with the appropriate disposal channels. 19,580 gallons of hazardous waste, including flammable and corrosive materials, were collected in 2015 from 1,365 households. The organization has worked during the past year on several initiatives designed to ensure that the shared service programs to be provided meet the needs of as many of its 19 municipalities as possible. In this regard: the NVCOG hired a municipal shared service coordinator, established a municipal shared services committee and subcommittees, conducted extensive interviews and online surveys with mayors, first selectmen, top administrative and finance staff. In December 2015, staff applied for a Regional Performance Incentive Program (RPIP) grant from the Office of Policy and Management for funding to conduct a study of the consolidation of multiple municipal wastewater treatment plants in order to bring about a reduction in user fees related to state and federally mandated improvements. In June 2016, OPM announced NVCOG will receive $1.3 million to conduct this study. The grant was the largest of any awarded to a council of governments in this round of funding. 9 Derby Water Pollution Control Facility Shared service programs for Information Technology (IT), regional parcel mapping and revaluation are scheduled to be introduced in early FY ‘17. In addition, NVCOG staff are collaborating with other Connecticut councils of government in preparing regional programming to help municipalities comply with new federal MS4 permitting standards 10 MS4 Requirements and Low Impact Development Ansonia Downtown The CT DEEP adopted a new Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) General Permit on January 20, 2016. The new permit requirements become effective July 1, 2017 and apply to all MS4 municipalities partially or entirely within Urbanized Areas, as determined by the 2010 Census. Stormwater discharges are regulated by the US EPA, and, as such, the MS4 permit is federally mandated. The CT DEEP manages the program in Connecticut. The NVCOG has been working to identify portions of the permit that require legal authorities to be established, and searching for inconsistencies between current municipal regulations and the MS4 requirements where new frameworks would have to be established. The three minimum control measures that require legal authorities are: • Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination • Construction site stormwater runoff control • Post-construction stormwater management in new development or redevelopment The post-construction stormwater management section includes language requiring that municipalities: • Remove regulatory barriers to implementing Low Impact Development (LID) practices • Require developers consider LID practices before other practices To aid towns in compliance with these new permit requirements the NVCOG is working towards the development of specific action plans for each municipality in the Region, and identifying where towns will need to make changes to local regulations. This is being done with the specific intention of reducing barriers to low 11 impact development practices within local regulations. The action plans will include an assessment to the degree to which local regulations allow or encourage the consideration of LID practices as identified by UConn CLEAR and NEMO in their publication, “Developing a Sustainable Community.” And, if barriers exist, how to eliminate those barriers. This assessment is underway and substantial progress was made during the summer of 2016. Upon completion of the municipal action plans, the NVCOG will present findings and proposed actions to meet the MS4 requirements to local planning and zoning commissions. The project is expected to be completed by the end of the 2016 calendar year. 12 Transportation Programs Metropolitan Planning Organizations Route 8 The NVCOG serves as the host agency for the Central Naugatuck Valley MPO and the lower Valley portion of the Greater Bridgeport and Valley MPO, and conducts the federal metropolitan planning process for the respective MPOs. During the year, the following activities were completed: • 7 meetings of the CNV MPO were held • 6 meetings of the GBVMPO were held • Worked on efforts to re-designate the GBVMPO to incorporate the four lower Valley municipalities into the CNV MPO The current structure of the MPO boundaries within the jurisdiction of the Naugatuck Valley region creates several administrative burdens and inconsistencies with the federal metropolitan planning process. The NVCOG is working to rectify the misalignment of the planning boundaries and create a Naugatuck Valley MPO that is coterminous with the NVCOG planning region. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) During the year, the NVCOG maintained financially constrained TIPs for both MPOs and processed project amendments and Administrative Actions: • 23 Amendments to the CNV MPO TIP • 39 Actions to the CNV MPO TIP • 22 Amendments to the GBV MPO TIP • 23 Actions to the GBV MPO TIP 13 Transit Oriented Development – Model TOD Codes Beacon Falls Downtown The NVCOG completed a guide on transit oriented development (TOD) that focused on rail stations areas of the four former Valley Council of Governments municipalities. The document explores many of the land use and financial tools available to municipal governments to encourage development that is complementary to and supportive of expanded public transportation services. It focuses on those neighborhoods most favorable to TOD along the Waterbury Branch Line (WBL), examines existing zoning regulations, catalogues many of the existing zoning tools that are being used across Connecticut, as well as across the nation, identifies financial tools that could be used to promote future growth, and provides a model TOD overlay zone appropriate for adoption by the municipalities along the WBL. Although this document is part of a greater planning initiative from the lower valley and Fairfield County, the content is applicable to all towns along the Waterbury Branch Line. For municipalities without access to the train, much of this document can be used to inform development decision intended to support existing bus lines. The document has been approved by the Regional Planning Commission and will be presented to the NVCOG board during the September meeting. Once the board approves the final document a link will be found by clicking HERE. 14 Triennial Review In April of this year, the Federal Transit Administration conducted its Triennial Review of NVCOG’s federally-funded transit operations and development. The review is mandated by federal regulations (Title 49) and must be performed once every three years. The purpose of this process is both to ensure that NVCOG is fully compliant with FTA regulations, and to assist NVCOG with any potential improvements to its operations. The NVCOG completed the “Grantee Information Request and Review Package” in advance of the on-site visit and provided program and policies documents related to the NVCOG’s transit capital program. From this process, FTA made findings for corrective action in four areas. Most of these findings called for small process changes that were enacted during or shortly after the review process. Remaining corrective actions in the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program are under review and expected to be implemented by the end of September. 15 Transportation – LOTCIP LOTCIP Since the inception of the state-funded Local Transportation Capital Improvement Program (LOTCIP) in 2014, the NVCOG has helped allocate nearly $9 million for capital improvements throughout the Region. Approved projects include: • Wakelee Avenue Full Depth Reconstruction in the City of Ansonia (In Design) • Spring Street Repaving in the Borough of Naugatuck (In Design) • Waverly Road Bridge over the Farmill River in the City of Shelton (In Design) • Sylvan Lake Road Reconstruction in the Town of Watertown (In Design) • Traffic Signal Detector upgrades in the City of Bristol (Final Design Completed) • River Road Bridge Reconstruction over the Pomperaug River in Southbury (Under Construction) • Bemis Street Reconstruction in the Town of Plymouth (Under Construction) • Mountain Road Resurfacing in the Town of Cheshire (Completed) Demand for this program within the Region is very strong. In August, 2015, the NVCOG solicited new project proposals and 16 new project pre-applications were received. In response, the NVCOG hired a new Regional Transportation Engineer to assist member municipalities in refining project scopes and reviewing applications. The Program strives to ensure complete, accurate and regionally significant projects. To date, an additional eight project applications are currently being reviewed by the CT Department of Transportation for funding. The program is expected to grow in coming years as NVCOG staff works with municipalities to complete new applications for a broad array of road, bridge, bicycle and pedestrian enhancement and safety projects. The map to the left is an interactive map depicting all current LOTCIP projects by phase, to see a printable map of current projects click HERE. 16 Transportation Projects Route 34 Reconstruction – Main Street Derby Rt 34 Derby Downtown Route 34 is a primary artery through much of the lower valley and operates as a key connection between the downtowns of Shelton and Derby. Route 34 also serves as the ‘Main Street’ for Derby and high traffic volumes, congestion and alignment pose several concerns. The reconstruction and major widening of Route 34 through downtown Derby was initiated several years ago- to combat congestion and improve safety for both motorists and pedestrians along this stretch of road, A critical element of the project is the understanding that, as the City’s ‘Main Street,’ the design needs to remain cognizant of the dual purposes of addressing traffic operations and facilitating and encouraging pedestrian movement and bicycle use. The NVCOG administers the design of the project and serves as the liaison between the City, CTDOT and designer. During the year, the NVCOG met with the City and the state to ensure the project includes elements to support these multi-modal uses, restricts the speeds of traffic and deploys infrastructure appropriate for a downtown main street. The Preliminary Design plans have been submitted to the NVCOG on for review and reflect comments provided during a public comment period. The NVCOG helped developed a concept for installing a bi-directional cycle track and wide pedestrian space along the south of the roadway. Design completion is scheduled for December 2017, with construction starting in early 2018. To view a visualization of the reconstruction click HERE. 17 Derby-Shelton Bridge Enhancements The Derby-Shelton bridge carries Bridge Street (State Road 712) over the Housatonic River between downtown Shelton and Downtown Derby. The bridge further represents the primary crossing of the Housatonic River. This project will improve the bridge’s cosmetic appearance, providing an attractive gateway to the downtown areas of Derby and Shelton. Improvement to the bridge will improve traffic flow as well as fortify pedestrian and cycling infrastructures through the widening of sidewalks and the inclusion of bike lanes. These enhancements will enhance connections to both downtowns’ appearance and functionality in conjunction with the planned Rt. 34 enhancements. The project is an outgrowth of a previous visual design study sponsored by the Derby Shelton Rotary Club and a study completed by the NVCOG that looked at the pedestrian and bicycle connections between downtown Shelton and the Derby- Shelton rail station. During the year, the State Bond Commission authorized $2 million for recommended improvements. The NVCOG prepared project summaries and support documents that were presented to the Bond Commission. With the state funds available, the NVCOG worked with the CTDOT in securing additional federal funds and initiate the project. Currently, the project is waiting for the design authorization from CTDOT. The NVCOG will be responsible for overseeing and administering the design phase. 18 Transportation Planning Studies The Waterbury Area Bus Study (WATS) The NVCOG is completing the “Waterbury Area Bus Study” (WATS) to identify short and long term enhancements to the existing fixed route bus system (CT Transit- Waterbury). A consultant is conducting the study under the direction of the NVCOG and a steering committee comprising various local stakeholders. A draft market study published this year to the project website showed that the bus system is essential to the local economy and that, relative to other Connecticut systems, is very efficient. Additionally the draft analysis and recommendation for short- term recommendations was published. Recommendations were made to address fundamental service issues, including coverage gaps, reliability and underperforming routes. The assessment of possible long term changes was also completed during the year is currently under review. Findings will suggest needed enhancements to provide residents of greater Waterbury with local fixed-route bus service that is comparable to the services provided in other cities in Connecticut. More information and project notes can be found by clicking HERE. 19 Route 67 Spot Improvements, Seymour CT Rt 67 Seymour The Preliminary Engineering study is assessing the need for and feasibility of implementing various spot improvements along Route 67 from the intersection of Route 67 and Franklin Street, to just west of the intersection with Swan Avenue. The study, and the subsequent recommended improvements are designed to address heavy congestion and safety concerns through this corridor. The study is an update of previous study that looked at the entire corridor. The Preliminary Engineering study was completed in March of 2016. Milone & MacBroom, Inc. was the design consultant. A link to the preliminary design study can be found by clicking HERE. Accident history, traffic volumes and level of service at both signalized and unsignalized intersections were among the items studied. Pedestrian patterns were also reviewed. The report offers design alternatives and preliminary cost estimates to improve traffic and safety along the corridor while considering the impacts to and the needs of the adjacent residences and businesses, future redevelopment, and other interested or affected stakeholders. The draft report and recommendations were presented and reviewed by the public during a series of stakeholder and public outreach meetings held in the fall of 2015. Comments were received and incorporated into the final report, as appropriate. The NVCOG is working with the CTDOT with the initiation of the design phase of the project. 20 Land Use Planning and Referrals NVCOG Land Use Mapping The NVCOG operates to serve the needs of the communities that it represents. This strongly relates to supporting regional cooperation and acting as council to the communities, including focus on land use issues. This facet relates to the review of proposed amendments and changes to local zoning regulations and proposed development of land within 500 feet of a municipal border. The focus of the review is on how the proposed changes may result in implications for and affect adjacent and surrounding communities. The NVCOG, through its Regional Planning Commission (RPC), supports and provides guidance to the communities in the establishment and revision of mandated planning documents to aid in articulating a message that reflects each community’s needs and concerns. Referral Process State statutes require that the NVCOG is notified of any amendment to local zoning regulations and maps, and land use developments within 500 feet of municipal boundaries within the Region. In addition, member municipalities as well as those communities that border the Region are required to refer updates and amendments to their Plans of Conservation and Development (POCD) to the NVCOG for review and comment. While this notification is required, the NVCOG’s review and comments are advisory and designed to add a regional perspective to the proposed changes. The NVCOG also receives referrals from municipalities adjacent to its members. 68 referrals were completed by the NVCOG in the past year. 21 In addition, the NVCOG receives requests from municipal planning and zoning commission members and municipal planners for land use reviews and planning advice. The NVCOG conducts research and prepares memoranda. Once research is completed, the NVCOG shares its findings with the balance of its member municipalities. Update of POCDs Southbury Farm Municipal Plans of Conservation and Development serve as guiding documents for the direction and mission of a community over the following decade and strongly informs the regional POCD prepared by the NVCOG, and ultimately the statewide POCD. The NVCOG traditionally operates in an advisory role with the creation of local reports, providing mapping assistance and technical support. The NVCOG, during the past year, worked on updates of the POCDs for the communities of Derby, Seymour, and Ansonia. The POCD for Derby was completed and adopted by the city in June 2016. A link to the POCD can be found by clicking HERE. A draft of the Seymour POCD has been completed and was recently presented to local planning and zoning staff for review. A link to the draft report can be found by clicking HERE. The POCD update for Ansonia has not been started but is expected to be completed June of 2017. 22 Regional Brownfields Partnership (RBP) The NVCOG brownfield program is guided by the Regional Brownfields Partnership, a network of municipalities and community organizations in west central Connecticut. Strategic Assessment and Planning Working closely with federal, state, and municipal leaders and staff, the NVCOG brownfields team utilizes and develops inventive solutions to the legal and financial challenges that have long plagued sites with existing environmental conditions. Brownfields Grants This fiscal year, the NVCOG received two assessments grants through the state of Connecticut’s brownfield programs for projects in Derby and Beacon Falls. The NVCOG was additionally awarded a highly competitive $400,000 assessment grant through EPA, and received $427,000 in supplemental funding that will be made available for site cleanup through the NVCOG’s EPA Revolving Loan Fund (RLF). This funding forms the foundation of the NVCOG’s brownfields services and will allow our brownfields team to continue providing assessment, planning, and remediation services to eligible municipalities of the RBP. 23 Greenway Planning Derby Greenway The NVCOG plays a major role in non-motorized transportation planning for the Region. Central to a safe and convenient inter-regional bicycle and pedestrian network is the Naugatuck River Greenway (NRG), a planned 44-mile multipurpose trail adjacent to the Naugatuck River from Torrington to Derby. When complete, the Greenway will link 11 municipalities, reclaim the Naugatuck River for recreation, provide an alternate mode of transportation, drive tourism and economic development, and improve the quality of life for residents. Several sections of the greenway have been completed and are open to the public, and progress is being made to complete the remainder. Significant progress has been made in planning for the NRG in the last year. Working with the NRG Steering Committee, the NVCOG developed a priority funding framework that identifies the limits of each section of trail, details the stage of planning or construction of each, and identifies sections that are priorities for future funding. The list was published as a report, to view the report click HERE and the interactive map version of the report is embedded on the main stage to your left. 24 The Naugatuck River Greenway Steering Committee The Naugatuck River The NVCOG provides administrative support to the Naugatuck River Greenway Steering Committee (NRGSC). The mission of the NRGSC is to help coordinate the planning and construction of the NRG. The committee is comprised of representatives from all 11 communities along the planned route, plus federal, state and regional agencies, nonprofit and community organizations, and other stakeholders. The National Park Service awarded the NRGSC with a Conservation Hero award in 2016 for work done to help reclaim the Naugatuck River for recreation, a great honor! More information can be found through clicking HERE. During the year, six meetings of the NRGSC were held. The NVCOG developed the meeting agendas, arranged presentations, and prepared the reports of meetings. In addition, the NVCOG developed and maintained the NRG progress map. NRG Economic Impact Study The NVCOG has partnered with the University of Connecticut (UConn) and the Connecticut Center for Economic Assessment (CCEA) to conduct the Naugatuck River Economic Impact Study. The study will provide towns along the NRG with information and guidance regarding local economic impacts that can result from the completion of sections of the trail. To date, the study Team has conducted long-duration counts of usage along the NRG at five locations, intercept surveys, and focus group meetings. A draft report was completed that monetizes the value of the NRG in terms of construction cost, consumer surplus, amenity and health benefits, direct expenditures, and indirect and induced economic impacts, The focus groups were held to learn best practices for trail development and operation from stakeholders. Three focus groups were convened. A final report was prepared that documents the results of these meetings. An intercept survey was developed and completed along open sections of the NRG and on segments of the Middlebury Greenway and the Sue Grossman Trail in Torrington. The survey included questions on how often respondents used the trail, how much money they spent using the trail and other demographic information. Both weekday and weekend dates were surveyed. In total, 386 surveys were completed. 25 It is intended that, when completed, the document will demonstrate the strong potential for return on investment on the trail in broader ways than direct spending, highlighting the far-reaching benefits that will help our communities thrive. The NVCOG will also extract the macro economic benefits from the report and prepare municipal-level highlights to guide decision-makers as they consider investing in constructing the NRG. More information regarding the economic impact study and the role that the study has on positioning of the NRG click HERE. NRG Uniform Signage Manual The NRG is long and relatively complex, passing through 11 distinct municipalities and consisting of several completed and open sections, designated walking paths, and planned alignments. Prospective and current users need a clear and consistent wayfinding and signage system. Recognizing this need the NRGSC and the NVCOG are working on developing a uniform and common style manual to promote a shared identity among the 11 communities of the greenway corridor and build public awareness of the river as a regional and national treasure. The manual will provide specifications, engineering drawings and illustrations, defined color pallet, font style, and material and installation instructions for a family of trail-related signs. As part of this project, the logo for the NRG has been modified color scheme has been adopted. The suggested design elements are under development and review. 26 Geographic information Systems Services (GIS) Zoning GIS staff plays a strong supporting role in most projects undertaken by the NVCOG, as well as fulfilling specific requests made by member communities and regional partners. Maps for municipal POCDs were prepared for Cheshire, Oxford, and Seymour. Assistance was given to Wolcott in the preparation of an Ecomomic Profile, and a community resources map was created for DataHaven. Updates to regional digital land use data were completed using aerial photography and google street view. Transportation mapping included accident locations, congested highway segments, project locations, and proposed routes for the Waterbury to Torrington recently offered bus route. The focus of the GIS program has historically been analysis and production of static maps for reports and presentations. More recently, with the expansion of the ArcGis Online platform efforts are under way to expand programming to display map data that more readily allows user interaction, such as the map on the left. This map shows bus routes, major employers, and when zoomed in, bus and rail stops. More information can be accessed by clicking on the employer points or bus routes. It is our am to supplement the creation of static maps with production of interactive resources including full integration of reports into a web-mapping format. This document represents some of the potential this format has for conveying information as ArcGIS Online Storymap. 27 Emergency Planning The NVCOG emergency planning activities address two types of disaster events: • Weather-related events – Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hazard mitigation and resilience • Terrorism-related events – State of Connecticut Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (DEMHS) programs – Regional Emergency Planning Teams (REPT) and Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) 28 The NVCOG members participate in REPT regions 2, 3 and 5. As of January 2016, there were five active CERT’s, one of which was a two (2) town consolidated team. Over the past year, the NVCOG has participated in the following emergency planning activities: • Training regarding small and large animal rescue and sheltering. • Economic resiliency for small businesses during disaster recovery. • FEMA emergency management training for senior municipal officials. • Census of CERT teams active in 2015. • Assisting municipalities with Homeland Security Grant Program memorandums of agreement. • Assisting municipalities in prioritizing funds for regionally shared emergency equipment. • Sharing information about regional, state and federal training opportunities. 29 Civil Rights Demographic Banner The NVCOG strives to engage the public in regional planning and project development. The NVCOG also works to engage historically disadvantaged populations to ensure planning and projects work to the benefit of all residents. To that end, the following programs have been developed or are under development: Title VI Program Title VI of the Civil Rights Act ensures that meaningful access to participate in government affairs is available to racial and ethnic minorities, including those who do not speak English proficiently. During the year, the NVCOG updated and revised its Title VI Plan. It incorporates the most recent FTA regulations and requirements. The NVCOG endorsed the Title VI Plan at its March, 2016 meeting. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program (DBE) The NVCOG DBE Program aims to provide businesses owned by disadvantaged groups an equal playing field when competing for and winning contracts with our agency. In response to findings from the Triennial Review, the NVCOG developed new DBE goals and determined appropriate race-neutral measures. Environmental Justice Program The NVCOG Environmental Justice Program will evaluate the NVCOG planning activities and projects to ensure minority and low-income residents are not negatively impacted by building relationships with these communities and developing a framework for discussing project alternatives. During the year, the NVCOG initiated an update of its EJ program and completed an assessment to identified populations of concern and their location. The assessment was based on the most recent data available from the American Community Survey (US Bureau of the Census). A draft of the NVCOG Environmental Justice Program was prepared. 30 Public Participation Policy The NVCOG is working on drafting an official public participation policy. The intent of the finished document will be to provide the public an accessible, proactive and predictable means of engaging with the NVCOG 31 Financial Statements The NVCOG receives funding from federal departments, including the US Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency, to conduct its regional planning programs and implement various assessment projects. State resources are provided to the NVCOG to assist municipalities deliver services to residents, expand voluntary cooperation among member communities, and plan the future land patterns that promote efficient transportation systems, sustainable land use, preserve natural resources, and stimulate effective economic development. Member municipalities support these planning efforts through direct contributions to the NVCOG. Their membership dues help leverage the NVCOG’s ability to receive grant funds from various federal programs. As is evident from the NVCOG’s accomplishments presented in this Annual Report, funding support from all three levels of government are effectively and efficiently used to strengthen our member communities, advocate for the region and our cities and towns with the State and Federal governments, ensure environmental sustainability, revitalize core areas, and save tax dollars through shared services and direct assistance. The most recently completed audit of the NVCOG’s revenues and expenses is for State Fiscal Year 2015, which ended on June 31, 2015. The financial audit for SFY 2016 will be completed in December of this year. Revenues from all sources totaled $934,979 in SFY 2015. Federal sources were provided from the US DOT to support the NVCOG’s metropolitan transportation planning as required by federal transportation acts and from the EPA as part of the NVCOG’s administration and oversight of the Brownfields Partnership. State Grant- in-Aid (SGIA) funds were provided to the NVCOG to conduct required regional planning and to support the merger of the Valley and Central Naugatuck Valley COGs. Contributions from local governments totaled $114,065, to support NVCOG functions and the Brownfields Partnership. Overall, expenses totaled $990,987, which exceeded revenues by $56,008. The shortfall was attributable to the expenses to merge the two agencies and renovate the office space to accommodate the large staff. In addition assets were transferred from the former Valley COG to new agency. 32 Special Activity Grants Awarded & Announced $2.55M announced over the past year. The application for, and receiving of grants remains and integral part of the NVCOGs activities and serve to aid in the funding of projects and studies that would not traditionally be funded through standard state and federal funding. More importantly these grants target studies and projects that are important to our constituency, this includes the grants aimed at the remediation of contaminated sites as wells as funding for studies and improvements to the NRG. Executive Director Rick Dunn accepting EPA Assessment Grant 33 Looking Forward into the Coming Year This coming year the NVCOG will build upon the successes of 2015–2016 with both the continuation of current projects and the initiation of new projects. This will include: • A continued effort to provide services to member communities and work to foster broader regional cooperation. • Ongoing attempts to consolidate and re-designate the the MPO region boundaries such that they would operate coterminous with the NVCOG region. • Working towards the development of a long range transportation plan that reflects travel patterns across all municipalities and accounts for the changing needs of the region. • Create a regional POCD that reflects the consolidation of the old VCOG and COGCNV regions and is consistent with the goals established through the municipal POCDs. • With the revised mandates to MS4s the NVCOG will continue to work with our communities towards reaching compliance, and encourage and demonstrate the benefits of the implementation of LID infrastructures. • Continue to foster the application of sustainable development practices that seek to achieve greener and more livable communities. • Build upon the inauguration of the Municipal Shared Services program and seek out activities to leverage the greater economies of scale the program is intended to achieve. • Work towards completion of the Alternative Modes Corridor Study to gain understanding of how to better serve the NVCOG region. Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments Annual Report FY 2015–2016View an interactive, online version of this Annual Report HERE this d 3 The 2015-2016 Annual Reportof the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments A forum for chief elected officials to discuss issues of common concern and to develop programs to address them on a regional level. The Council of Governments (NVCOG) is the regional planning organization for the Naugatuck Valley Region. The NVR, consisting of 19 municipalities in the greater Waterbury area, is one of the nine state-designated planning regions in Connecticut. The mission of the NVCOG is to support the needs of its member communities, and promote innovation, economies of scale, and regional cooperation. The NVCOG strives to implement and create programs and projects that better align the Naugatuck Valley to a changing future. This report details the ongoing accomplishments of the organization over the 2015-2016 fiscal year. 4 Table of Contents Letter From Chairman of the Board. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 NVision Corridor Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Regional Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Municipal Shared Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 MS4 Requirements and Low Impact Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Transportation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Transportation – LOTCIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Transportation Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Transportation Planning Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Land Use Planning and Referrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Regional Brownfields Partnership (RBP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Greenway Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Geographic information Systems Services (GIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Emergency Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Civil Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Financial Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Special Activity Grants Awarded & Announced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 Looking Forward into the Coming Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 5 Letter From Chairman of the Board It has been a fantastic year for the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments. We worked hard to help every city and town in our region. Since the consolidation of the new organization in early 2015, office renovations have been completed and the new space fully reflects both the impressive work that has been accomplished and projects we continue to undertake every day. The collaboration of all member communities and external partners are crucial to this success. Local residents can be secure in our mission to move the region forward for their benefit through the expansion of programs and facilitation of infrastructure improvements. Among our recent accomplishments are facilitating more than $20 million in local road funding though the Local Transportation Capital Improvement Program (LOTCIP), which is used to complete needed rehabilitation and enhancement of our local roads. We continue to support the Regional Brownfields Partnership and champion it as a model for our entire state in the remediation and repurposing of contaminated sites, with nearly $1 million in grants announced during the past year. As many Millennials desire proximity to lower Fairfield County and New York City but are restricted by the high cost of living there, they are seeking more affordable housing. This provides our region a unique opportunity in the coming decade, as these young people recognize the value the greater Naugatuck Valley offers. We must leverage this increased interest in our region as a place to work, learn and play to guide the continued development of key transportation infrastructure and encouragement of private investment streams into our region. While our respective municipal budgets are stretched further with each year, we are working to determine greater economies of scale for members. The introduction of our municipal shared services programming was established with this very goal in mind. This innovative approach strives to coordinate services with communities across a regional scale to reduce costs to cities and towns and we will provide new opportunities in this regard in the coming year. I thank my fellow municipal leaders and NVCOG staff for their incredibly dedicated and continued efforts towards achieving the goals set out by our member communities and working to make our region better than ever. We look forward to building on the successes of the last year and a-half. Mayor Neil O’Leary Chairman of the Board Mayor Neil O’Leary 6 NVision Corridor Conference Mix-Master Rendering The NVCOG hosted a conference in late January at the Palace Theater in downtown Waterbury. The conference focused on the need to improve and reclaim the Region’s existing infrastructure to enhance economic development and create sustainable and livable communities. The focus was on I-84, Route 8 and Waterbury branch line corridors. The NVision Conference 2020 featured presentations from Commissioner James Redeker of the CT DOT, Deputy Commissioner Tim Sullivan from CT DECD, Waterbury Mayor Neil O’Leary, and State Comptroller Kevin Lembo. In addition, Senator Chris Murphy participated by providing an address via video. Two panels were convened. The first involved discussions on “Developing Economically Sustainable Communities” and the second consisted of a speaker series talking about “Linking the Region.” NVCOG developed and organized several of the presentations, conducted event planning, set the agenda, and confirmed speakers. 150 stakeholders registered for the conference. A link to the presentation can be found by clicking HERE. An aerial drone video of the region’s key transportation elements and problems within the corridors was developed for the conference. View HERE. 7 Regional Data The NVCOG provides census and other statistical information to municipal, non-profit, and private organizations in a variety of forms, including its website. A link to regional information can be found by clicking HERE. This past year the NVCOG has undertaken the updating of the Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 2015. The document organizes and presents pertinent data regarding the NVCOG region from the 2010 Census and the American Community Survey, in part providing 5 year projection of demographic changes for the period. The update was recently completed and distributed to municipal officials in the region. A link to the 2015 profile can found by clicking HERE. In addition to the Regional Profile, the NVCOG collected economic data from a variety of sources and collated the information into an Economic Profile for the Naugatuck Valley region. A draft report was prepared and is currently under review. 8 Municipal Shared Services Household Hazardous Waste Collection Sharing services and purchasing among municipalities were identified as priorities in NVCOG’s formation. Reducing costs and increasing efficiencies for programs are often the primary benefits of such programming. The former Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley has administered a regional household hazardous waste program for many years, the merged NVCOG continues the efforts of this program. The program exists to facilitate the proper disposal of hazardous materials through providing communities with the appropriate disposal channels. 19,580 gallons of hazardous waste, including flammable and corrosive materials, were collected in 2015 from 1,365 households. The organization has worked during the past year on several initiatives designed to ensure that the shared service programs to be provided meet the needs of as many of its 19 municipalities as possible. In this regard: the NVCOG hired a municipal shared service coordinator, established a municipal shared services committee and subcommittees, conducted extensive interviews and online surveys with mayors, first selectmen, top administrative and finance staff. In December 2015, staff applied for a Regional Performance Incentive Program (RPIP) grant from the Office of Policy and Management for funding to conduct a study of the consolidation of multiple municipal wastewater treatment plants in order to bring about a reduction in user fees related to state and federally mandated improvements. In June 2016, OPM announced NVCOG will receive $1.3 million to conduct this study. The grant was the largest of any awarded to a council of governments in this round of funding. 9 Derby Water Pollution Control Facility Shared service programs for Information Technology (IT), regional parcel mapping and revaluation are scheduled to be introduced in early FY ‘17. In addition, NVCOG staff are collaborating with other Connecticut councils of government in preparing regional programming to help municipalities comply with new federal MS4 permitting standards 10 MS4 Requirements and Low Impact Development Ansonia Downtown The CT DEEP adopted a new Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) General Permit on January 20, 2016. The new permit requirements become effective July 1, 2017 and apply to all MS4 municipalities partially or entirely within Urbanized Areas, as determined by the 2010 Census. Stormwater discharges are regulated by the US EPA, and, as such, the MS4 permit is federally mandated. The CT DEEP manages the program in Connecticut. The NVCOG has been working to identify portions of the permit that require legal authorities to be established, and searching for inconsistencies between current municipal regulations and the MS4 requirements where new frameworks would have to be established. The three minimum control measures that require legal authorities are: • Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination • Construction site stormwater runoff control • Post-construction stormwater management in new development or redevelopment The post-construction stormwater management section includes language requiring that municipalities: • Remove regulatory barriers to implementing Low Impact Development (LID) practices • Require developers consider LID practices before other practices To aid towns in compliance with these new permit requirements the NVCOG is working towards the development of specific action plans for each municipality in the Region, and identifying where towns will need to make changes to local regulations. This is being done with the specific intention of reducing barriers to low 11 impact development practices within local regulations. The action plans will include an assessment to the degree to which local regulations allow or encourage the consideration of LID practices as identified by UConn CLEAR and NEMO in their publication, “Developing a Sustainable Community.” And, if barriers exist, how to eliminate those barriers. This assessment is underway and substantial progress was made during the summer of 2016. Upon completion of the municipal action plans, the NVCOG will present findings and proposed actions to meet the MS4 requirements to local planning and zoning commissions. The project is expected to be completed by the end of the 2016 calendar year. 12 Transportation Programs Metropolitan Planning Organizations Route 8 The NVCOG serves as the host agency for the Central Naugatuck Valley MPO and the lower Valley portion of the Greater Bridgeport and Valley MPO, and conducts the federal metropolitan planning process for the respective MPOs. During the year, the following activities were completed: • 7 meetings of the CNV MPO were held • 6 meetings of the GBVMPO were held • Worked on efforts to re-designate the GBVMPO to incorporate the four lower Valley municipalities into the CNV MPO The current structure of the MPO boundaries within the jurisdiction of the Naugatuck Valley region creates several administrative burdens and inconsistencies with the federal metropolitan planning process. The NVCOG is working to rectify the misalignment of the planning boundaries and create a Naugatuck Valley MPO that is coterminous with the NVCOG planning region. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) During the year, the NVCOG maintained financially constrained TIPs for both MPOs and processed project amendments and Administrative Actions: • 23 Amendments to the CNV MPO TIP • 39 Actions to the CNV MPO TIP • 22 Amendments to the GBV MPO TIP • 23 Actions to the GBV MPO TIP 13 Transit Oriented Development – Model TOD Codes Beacon Falls Downtown The NVCOG completed a guide on transit oriented development (TOD) that focused on rail stations areas of the four former Valley Council of Governments municipalities. The document explores many of the land use and financial tools available to municipal governments to encourage development that is complementary to and supportive of expanded public transportation services. It focuses on those neighborhoods most favorable to TOD along the Waterbury Branch Line (WBL), examines existing zoning regulations, catalogues many of the existing zoning tools that are being used across Connecticut, as well as across the nation, identifies financial tools that could be used to promote future growth, and provides a model TOD overlay zone appropriate for adoption by the municipalities along the WBL. Although this document is part of a greater planning initiative from the lower valley and Fairfield County, the content is applicable to all towns along the Waterbury Branch Line. For municipalities without access to the train, much of this document can be used to inform development decision intended to support existing bus lines. The document has been approved by the Regional Planning Commission and will be presented to the NVCOG board during the September meeting. Once the board approves the final document a link will be found by clicking HERE. 14 Triennial Review In April of this year, the Federal Transit Administration conducted its Triennial Review of NVCOG’s federally-funded transit operations and development. The review is mandated by federal regulations (Title 49) and must be performed once every three years. The purpose of this process is both to ensure that NVCOG is fully compliant with FTA regulations, and to assist NVCOG with any potential improvements to its operations. The NVCOG completed the “Grantee Information Request and Review Package” in advance of the on-site visit and provided program and policies documents related to the NVCOG’s transit capital program. From this process, FTA made findings for corrective action in four areas. Most of these findings called for small process changes that were enacted during or shortly after the review process. Remaining corrective actions in the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program are under review and expected to be implemented by the end of September. 15 Transportation – LOTCIP LOTCIP Since the inception of the state-funded Local Transportation Capital Improvement Program (LOTCIP) in 2014, the NVCOG has helped allocate nearly $9 million for capital improvements throughout the Region. Approved projects include: • Wakelee Avenue Full Depth Reconstruction in the City of Ansonia (In Design) • Spring Street Repaving in the Borough of Naugatuck (In Design) • Waverly Road Bridge over the Farmill River in the City of Shelton (In Design) • Sylvan Lake Road Reconstruction in the Town of Watertown (In Design) • Traffic Signal Detector upgrades in the City of Bristol (Final Design Completed) • River Road Bridge Reconstruction over the Pomperaug River in Southbury (Under Construction) • Bemis Street Reconstruction in the Town of Plymouth (Under Construction) • Mountain Road Resurfacing in the Town of Cheshire (Completed) Demand for this program within the Region is very strong. In August, 2015, the NVCOG solicited new project proposals and 16 new project pre-applications were received. In response, the NVCOG hired a new Regional Transportation Engineer to assist member municipalities in refining project scopes and reviewing applications. The Program strives to ensure complete, accurate and regionally significant projects. To date, an additional eight project applications are currently being reviewed by the CT Department of Transportation for funding. The program is expected to grow in coming years as NVCOG staff works with municipalities to complete new applications for a broad array of road, bridge, bicycle and pedestrian enhancement and safety projects. The map to the left is an interactive map depicting all current LOTCIP projects by phase, to see a printable map of current projects click HERE. 16 Transportation Projects Route 34 Reconstruction – Main Street Derby Rt 34 Derby Downtown Route 34 is a primary artery through much of the lower valley and operates as a key connection between the downtowns of Shelton and Derby. Route 34 also serves as the ‘Main Street’ for Derby and high traffic volumes, congestion and alignment pose several concerns. The reconstruction and major widening of Route 34 through downtown Derby was initiated several years ago- to combat congestion and improve safety for both motorists and pedestrians along this stretch of road, A critical element of the project is the understanding that, as the City’s ‘Main Street,’ the design needs to remain cognizant of the dual purposes of addressing traffic operations and facilitating and encouraging pedestrian movement and bicycle use. The NVCOG administers the design of the project and serves as the liaison between the City, CTDOT and designer. During the year, the NVCOG met with the City and the state to ensure the project includes elements to support these multi-modal uses, restricts the speeds of traffic and deploys infrastructure appropriate for a downtown main street. The Preliminary Design plans have been submitted to the NVCOG on for review and reflect comments provided during a public comment period. The NVCOG helped developed a concept for installing a bi-directional cycle track and wide pedestrian space along the south of the roadway. Design completion is scheduled for December 2017, with construction starting in early 2018. To view a visualization of the reconstruction click HERE. 17 Derby-Shelton Bridge Enhancements The Derby-Shelton bridge carries Bridge Street (State Road 712) over the Housatonic River between downtown Shelton and Downtown Derby. The bridge further represents the primary crossing of the Housatonic River. This project will improve the bridge’s cosmetic appearance, providing an attractive gateway to the downtown areas of Derby and Shelton. Improvement to the bridge will improve traffic flow as well as fortify pedestrian and cycling infrastructures through the widening of sidewalks and the inclusion of bike lanes. These enhancements will enhance connections to both downtowns’ appearance and functionality in conjunction with the planned Rt. 34 enhancements. The project is an outgrowth of a previous visual design study sponsored by the Derby Shelton Rotary Club and a study completed by the NVCOG that looked at the pedestrian and bicycle connections between downtown Shelton and the Derby- Shelton rail station. During the year, the State Bond Commission authorized $2 million for recommended improvements. The NVCOG prepared project summaries and support documents that were presented to the Bond Commission. With the state funds available, the NVCOG worked with the CTDOT in securing additional federal funds and initiate the project. Currently, the project is waiting for the design authorization from CTDOT. The NVCOG will be responsible for overseeing and administering the design phase. 18 Transportation Planning Studies The Waterbury Area Bus Study (WATS) The NVCOG is completing the “Waterbury Area Bus Study” (WATS) to identify short and long term enhancements to the existing fixed route bus system (CT Transit- Waterbury). A consultant is conducting the study under the direction of the NVCOG and a steering committee comprising various local stakeholders. A draft market study published this year to the project website showed that the bus system is essential to the local economy and that, relative to other Connecticut systems, is very efficient. Additionally the draft analysis and recommendation for short- term recommendations was published. Recommendations were made to address fundamental service issues, including coverage gaps, reliability and underperforming routes. The assessment of possible long term changes was also completed during the year is currently under review. Findings will suggest needed enhancements to provide residents of greater Waterbury with local fixed-route bus service that is comparable to the services provided in other cities in Connecticut. More information and project notes can be found by clicking HERE. 19 Route 67 Spot Improvements, Seymour CT Rt 67 Seymour The Preliminary Engineering study is assessing the need for and feasibility of implementing various spot improvements along Route 67 from the intersection of Route 67 and Franklin Street, to just west of the intersection with Swan Avenue. The study, and the subsequent recommended improvements are designed to address heavy congestion and safety concerns through this corridor. The study is an update of previous study that looked at the entire corridor. The Preliminary Engineering study was completed in March of 2016. Milone & MacBroom, Inc. was the design consultant. A link to the preliminary design study can be found by clicking HERE. Accident history, traffic volumes and level of service at both signalized and unsignalized intersections were among the items studied. Pedestrian patterns were also reviewed. The report offers design alternatives and preliminary cost estimates to improve traffic and safety along the corridor while considering the impacts to and the needs of the adjacent residences and businesses, future redevelopment, and other interested or affected stakeholders. The draft report and recommendations were presented and reviewed by the public during a series of stakeholder and public outreach meetings held in the fall of 2015. Comments were received and incorporated into the final report, as appropriate. The NVCOG is working with the CTDOT with the initiation of the design phase of the project. 20 Land Use Planning and Referrals NVCOG Land Use Mapping The NVCOG operates to serve the needs of the communities that it represents. This strongly relates to supporting regional cooperation and acting as council to the communities, including focus on land use issues. This facet relates to the review of proposed amendments and changes to local zoning regulations and proposed development of land within 500 feet of a municipal border. The focus of the review is on how the proposed changes may result in implications for and affect adjacent and surrounding communities. The NVCOG, through its Regional Planning Commission (RPC), supports and provides guidance to the communities in the establishment and revision of mandated planning documents to aid in articulating a message that reflects each community’s needs and concerns. Referral Process State statutes require that the NVCOG is notified of any amendment to local zoning regulations and maps, and land use developments within 500 feet of municipal boundaries within the Region. In addition, member municipalities as well as those communities that border the Region are required to refer updates and amendments to their Plans of Conservation and Development (POCD) to the NVCOG for review and comment. While this notification is required, the NVCOG’s review and comments are advisory and designed to add a regional perspective to the proposed changes. The NVCOG also receives referrals from municipalities adjacent to its members. 68 referrals were completed by the NVCOG in the past year. 21 In addition, the NVCOG receives requests from municipal planning and zoning commission members and municipal planners for land use reviews and planning advice. The NVCOG conducts research and prepares memoranda. Once research is completed, the NVCOG shares its findings with the balance of its member municipalities. Update of POCDs Southbury Farm Municipal Plans of Conservation and Development serve as guiding documents for the direction and mission of a community over the following decade and strongly informs the regional POCD prepared by the NVCOG, and ultimately the statewide POCD. The NVCOG traditionally operates in an advisory role with the creation of local reports, providing mapping assistance and technical support. The NVCOG, during the past year, worked on updates of the POCDs for the communities of Derby, Seymour, and Ansonia. The POCD for Derby was completed and adopted by the city in June 2016. A link to the POCD can be found by clicking HERE. A draft of the Seymour POCD has been completed and was recently presented to local planning and zoning staff for review. A link to the draft report can be found by clicking HERE. The POCD update for Ansonia has not been started but is expected to be completed June of 2017. 22 Regional Brownfields Partnership (RBP) The NVCOG brownfield program is guided by the Regional Brownfields Partnership, a network of municipalities and community organizations in west central Connecticut. Strategic Assessment and Planning Working closely with federal, state, and municipal leaders and staff, the NVCOG brownfields team utilizes and develops inventive solutions to the legal and financial challenges that have long plagued sites with existing environmental conditions. Brownfields Grants This fiscal year, the NVCOG received two assessments grants through the state of Connecticut’s brownfield programs for projects in Derby and Beacon Falls. The NVCOG was additionally awarded a highly competitive $400,000 assessment grant through EPA, and received $427,000 in supplemental funding that will be made available for site cleanup through the NVCOG’s EPA Revolving Loan Fund (RLF). This funding forms the foundation of the NVCOG’s brownfields services and will allow our brownfields team to continue providing assessment, planning, and remediation services to eligible municipalities of the RBP. 23 Greenway Planning Derby Greenway The NVCOG plays a major role in non-motorized transportation planning for the Region. Central to a safe and convenient inter-regional bicycle and pedestrian network is the Naugatuck River Greenway (NRG), a planned 44-mile multipurpose trail adjacent to the Naugatuck River from Torrington to Derby. When complete, the Greenway will link 11 municipalities, reclaim the Naugatuck River for recreation, provide an alternate mode of transportation, drive tourism and economic development, and improve the quality of life for residents. Several sections of the greenway have been completed and are open to the public, and progress is being made to complete the remainder. Significant progress has been made in planning for the NRG in the last year. Working with the NRG Steering Committee, the NVCOG developed a priority funding framework that identifies the limits of each section of trail, details the stage of planning or construction of each, and identifies sections that are priorities for future funding. The list was published as a report, to view the report click HERE and the interactive map version of the report is embedded on the main stage to your left. 24 The Naugatuck River Greenway Steering Committee The Naugatuck River The NVCOG provides administrative support to the Naugatuck River Greenway Steering Committee (NRGSC). The mission of the NRGSC is to help coordinate the planning and construction of the NRG. The committee is comprised of representatives from all 11 communities along the planned route, plus federal, state and regional agencies, nonprofit and community organizations, and other stakeholders. The National Park Service awarded the NRGSC with a Conservation Hero award in 2016 for work done to help reclaim the Naugatuck River for recreation, a great honor! More information can be found through clicking HERE. During the year, six meetings of the NRGSC were held. The NVCOG developed the meeting agendas, arranged presentations, and prepared the reports of meetings. In addition, the NVCOG developed and maintained the NRG progress map. NRG Economic Impact Study The NVCOG has partnered with the University of Connecticut (UConn) and the Connecticut Center for Economic Assessment (CCEA) to conduct the Naugatuck River Economic Impact Study. The study will provide towns along the NRG with information and guidance regarding local economic impacts that can result from the completion of sections of the trail. To date, the study Team has conducted long-duration counts of usage along the NRG at five locations, intercept surveys, and focus group meetings. A draft report was completed that monetizes the value of the NRG in terms of construction cost, consumer surplus, amenity and health benefits, direct expenditures, and indirect and induced economic impacts, The focus groups were held to learn best practices for trail development and operation from stakeholders. Three focus groups were convened. A final report was prepared that documents the results of these meetings. An intercept survey was developed and completed along open sections of the NRG and on segments of the Middlebury Greenway and the Sue Grossman Trail in Torrington. The survey included questions on how often respondents used the trail, how much money they spent using the trail and other demographic information. Both weekday and weekend dates were surveyed. In total, 386 surveys were completed. 25 It is intended that, when completed, the document will demonstrate the strong potential for return on investment on the trail in broader ways than direct spending, highlighting the far-reaching benefits that will help our communities thrive. The NVCOG will also extract the macro economic benefits from the report and prepare municipal-level highlights to guide decision-makers as they consider investing in constructing the NRG. More information regarding the economic impact study and the role that the study has on positioning of the NRG click HERE. NRG Uniform Signage Manual The NRG is long and relatively complex, passing through 11 distinct municipalities and consisting of several completed and open sections, designated walking paths, and planned alignments. Prospective and current users need a clear and consistent wayfinding and signage system. Recognizing this need the NRGSC and the NVCOG are working on developing a uniform and common style manual to promote a shared identity among the 11 communities of the greenway corridor and build public awareness of the river as a regional and national treasure. The manual will provide specifications, engineering drawings and illustrations, defined color pallet, font style, and material and installation instructions for a family of trail-related signs. As part of this project, the logo for the NRG has been modified color scheme has been adopted. The suggested design elements are under development and review. 26 Geographic information Systems Services (GIS) Zoning GIS staff plays a strong supporting role in most projects undertaken by the NVCOG, as well as fulfilling specific requests made by member communities and regional partners. Maps for municipal POCDs were prepared for Cheshire, Oxford, and Seymour. Assistance was given to Wolcott in the preparation of an Ecomomic Profile, and a community resources map was created for DataHaven. Updates to regional digital land use data were completed using aerial photography and google street view. Transportation mapping included accident locations, congested highway segments, project locations, and proposed routes for the Waterbury to Torrington recently offered bus route. The focus of the GIS program has historically been analysis and production of static maps for reports and presentations. More recently, with the expansion of the ArcGis Online platform efforts are under way to expand programming to display map data that more readily allows user interaction, such as the map on the left. This map shows bus routes, major employers, and when zoomed in, bus and rail stops. More information can be accessed by clicking on the employer points or bus routes. It is our am to supplement the creation of static maps with production of interactive resources including full integration of reports into a web-mapping format. This document represents some of the potential this format has for conveying information as ArcGIS Online Storymap. 27 Emergency Planning The NVCOG emergency planning activities address two types of disaster events: • Weather-related events – Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hazard mitigation and resilience • Terrorism-related events – State of Connecticut Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (DEMHS) programs – Regional Emergency Planning Teams (REPT) and Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) 28 The NVCOG members participate in REPT regions 2, 3 and 5. As of January 2016, there were five active CERT’s, one of which was a two (2) town consolidated team. Over the past year, the NVCOG has participated in the following emergency planning activities: • Training regarding small and large animal rescue and sheltering. • Economic resiliency for small businesses during disaster recovery. • FEMA emergency management training for senior municipal officials. • Census of CERT teams active in 2015. • Assisting municipalities with Homeland Security Grant Program memorandums of agreement. • Assisting municipalities in prioritizing funds for regionally shared emergency equipment. • Sharing information about regional, state and federal training opportunities. 29 Civil Rights Demographic Banner The NVCOG strives to engage the public in regional planning and project development. The NVCOG also works to engage historically disadvantaged populations to ensure planning and projects work to the benefit of all residents. To that end, the following programs have been developed or are under development: Title VI Program Title VI of the Civil Rights Act ensures that meaningful access to participate in government affairs is available to racial and ethnic minorities, including those who do not speak English proficiently. During the year, the NVCOG updated and revised its Title VI Plan. It incorporates the most recent FTA regulations and requirements. The NVCOG endorsed the Title VI Plan at its March, 2016 meeting. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program (DBE) The NVCOG DBE Program aims to provide businesses owned by disadvantaged groups an equal playing field when competing for and winning contracts with our agency. In response to findings from the Triennial Review, the NVCOG developed new DBE goals and determined appropriate race-neutral measures. Environmental Justice Program The NVCOG Environmental Justice Program will evaluate the NVCOG planning activities and projects to ensure minority and low-income residents are not negatively impacted by building relationships with these communities and developing a framework for discussing project alternatives. During the year, the NVCOG initiated an update of its EJ program and completed an assessment to identified populations of concern and their location. The assessment was based on the most recent data available from the American Community Survey (US Bureau of the Census). A draft of the NVCOG Environmental Justice Program was prepared. 30 Public Participation Policy The NVCOG is working on drafting an official public participation policy. The intent of the finished document will be to provide the public an accessible, proactive and predictable means of engaging with the NVCOG 31 Financial Statements The NVCOG receives funding from federal departments, including the US Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency, to conduct its regional planning programs and implement various assessment projects. State resources are provided to the NVCOG to assist municipalities deliver services to residents, expand voluntary cooperation among member communities, and plan the future land patterns that promote efficient transportation systems, sustainable land use, preserve natural resources, and stimulate effective economic development. Member municipalities support these planning efforts through direct contributions to the NVCOG. Their membership dues help leverage the NVCOG’s ability to receive grant funds from various federal programs. As is evident from the NVCOG’s accomplishments presented in this Annual Report, funding support from all three levels of government are effectively and efficiently used to strengthen our member communities, advocate for the region and our cities and towns with the State and Federal governments, ensure environmental sustainability, revitalize core areas, and save tax dollars through shared services and direct assistance. The most recently completed audit of the NVCOG’s revenues and expenses is for State Fiscal Year 2015, which ended on June 31, 2015. The financial audit for SFY 2016 will be completed in December of this year. Revenues from all sources totaled $934,979 in SFY 2015. Federal sources were provided from the US DOT to support the NVCOG’s metropolitan transportation planning as required by federal transportation acts and from the EPA as part of the NVCOG’s administration and oversight of the Brownfields Partnership. State Grant- in-Aid (SGIA) funds were provided to the NVCOG to conduct required regional planning and to support the merger of the Valley and Central Naugatuck Valley COGs. Contributions from local governments totaled $114,065, to support NVCOG functions and the Brownfields Partnership. Overall, expenses totaled $990,987, which exceeded revenues by $56,008. The shortfall was attributable to the expenses to merge the two agencies and renovate the office space to accommodate the large staff. In addition assets were transferred from the former Valley COG to new agency. 32 Special Activity Grants Awarded & Announced $2.55M announced over the past year. The application for, and receiving of grants remains and integral part of the NVCOGs activities and serve to aid in the funding of projects and studies that would not traditionally be funded through standard state and federal funding. More importantly these grants target studies and projects that are important to our constituency, this includes the grants aimed at the remediation of contaminated sites as wells as funding for studies and improvements to the NRG. Executive Director Rick Dunn accepting EPA Assessment Grant 33 Looking Forward into the Coming Year This coming year the NVCOG will build upon the successes of 2015–2016 with both the continuation of current projects and the initiation of new projects. This will include: • A continued effort to provide services to member communities and work to foster broader regional cooperation. • Ongoing attempts to consolidate and re-designate the the MPO region boundaries such that they would operate coterminous with the NVCOG region. • Working towards the development of a long range transportation plan that reflects travel patterns across all municipalities and accounts for the changing needs of the region. • Create a regional POCD that reflects the consolidation of the old VCOG and COGCNV regions and is consistent with the goals established through the municipal POCDs. • With the revised mandates to MS4s the NVCOG will continue to work with our communities towards reaching compliance, and encourage and demonstrate the benefits of the implementation of LID infrastructures. • Continue to foster the application of sustainable development practices that seek to achieve greener and more livable communities. • Build upon the inauguration of the Municipal Shared Services program and seek out activities to leverage the greater economies of scale the program is intended to achieve. • Work towards completion of the Alternative Modes Corridor Study to gain understanding of how to better serve the NVCOG region.

Transit Oriented Development in the Lower Naugatuck Valley

TOD-Model-Regulations-thumbnail.jpg

Transit Oriented Development Model Zoning & Financial Tools in the Lower Naugatuck Valley: August 2016 Trish BauerOffice/Financial Manager Arthur Bogen Environmental Planner Aaron Budris Regional Planner/GIS Specialist John DiCarlo Municipal Shared Services Coordinator Rick Dunne Executive Director Kelly Lawlor GIS Assistant Catrina Meyer Planning Assistant Christian Meyer* Transportation Planner II Benjamin N. W. Muller Transportation Planner I Christian Nielsen* GIS Assistant Mark Nielsen* Director of Planning/Assistant Director Mark Pandolfi Transit Capital Administrator Sarah Parkins* Planning Assistant Glenda Prentiss GIS Program Coordinator Lauren Rizzo Administrative Assistant Joanna Rogalski Regional Planner/Emergency Management Karen Svetz, P.E. Regional Transportation Engineer Max Tanguay-Colucci R egional Planner/EnvironmentDavid Cassetti, Mayor City of Ansonia Christopher Bielik, First Selectman Town of Beacon Falls Leonard Assard, First Selectman Town of Bethlehem Ken Cockayne, Mayor City of Bristol Timothy Slocum, Town Council Town of Cheshire Anita Dugatto, Mayor City of Derby Edward St. John, First Selectman Town of Middlebury N. Warren “Pete” Hess, Mayor Borough of Naugatuck George Temple, First Selectman Town of Oxford David Merchant, Mayor Town of Plymouth Bob Chatfield, Mayor Town of Prospect W. Kurt Miller, First Selectman Town of Seymour Mark Lauretti, Mayor City of Shelton Jeff Manville, First Selectman Town of Southbury Ed Mone, First Selectman Town of Thomaston Neil O’Leary, Mayor City of Waterbury Raymond Primini, Town Council Town of Watertown Tom Dunn. Mayor Town of Wolcott William J. Butterly, Jr. , First Selectman Town of Woodbury NVCOG BOARD NVCOG STAFF David Cassetti, MayorCity of Ansonia Christopher Bielik, First Selectman Town of Beacon Falls Leonard Assard, First Selectman Town of Bethlehem Ken Cockayne, Mayor City of Bristol Timothy Slocum, Town Council Town of Cheshire Anita Dugatto, Mayor City of Derby Edward St. John, First Selectman Town of Middlebury N. Warren “Pete” Hess, Mayor Borough of Naugatuck George Temple, First Selectman Town of Oxford David Merchant, Mayor Town of Plymouth Bob Chatfield, Mayor Town of Prospect W. Kurt Miller, First Selectman Town of Seymour Mark Lauretti, Mayor City of Shelton Jeff Manville, First Selectman Town of Southbury Ed Mone, First Selectman Town of Thomaston Neil O’Leary, Mayor City of Waterbury Raymond Primini, Town Council Town of Watertown Tom Dunn. Mayor Town of Wolcott William J. Butterly, Jr. , First Selectman Town of Woodbury A passenger waits to board a northbound train on the Waterbury Branch Line. The Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments (NVCOG) is a planning organization, concerned with transportation, economic development, land use, brownfields redevelopment, environmental, and emergency planning for the Naugatuck Valley Region. NVCOG sets regional priorities for a variety of federal and state funding programs, oversees regional programs for member municipalities, and provides technical assistance to municipalities, state and federal agencies, local organizations, and the general public. The NVCOG is a forum for the chief elected officials of the nineteen municipalities located in the Naugatuck Valley region: Ansonia, Beacon Falls, Bethlehem, Bristol, Cheshire, Derby, Middlebury, Naugatuck, Oxford, Plymouth, Prospect, Seymour, Shelton, Southbury, Thomaston, Waterbury, Watertown, Wolcott, and Woodbury. Each member municipality has equal representation on the NVCOG board.This work was made possible by a grant from the Connecticut Department of Transportation’s Transit Oriented Development Program. This study is being conducted through a grant from the Connecticut TOD Pilot Program, in accordance with Section 13b-79ll of the Connecticut General Statutes. Financial assistance has also been provided by the Federal Transit Administration under the Section 5339 Discretionary Grant Program. The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this report are those of the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments (NVCOG), and do not reflect the official views of the US Department of Transportation or the Connecticut Department of Transportation. This document was reviewed and endoresed by the Naugatuck Valley Regional Planning Commission August 2, 2016. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABOUT THE NVCOG The Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments (NVCOG) Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Pilot Program seeks to implement the Six Livability Principles, promoted by HUD, Connecticut’s Responsible Growth Agenda, and the Connecticut State Plan of Conservation and Development. As a partner in SustainableNYCT, the NVCOG has a key role in adopting TOD strategies and promoting TOD plans along both the Waterbury Branch Line and the Route 8 Corridor. TOD strategies advance the development of dense, walkable residential and commercial centers within 1/2 mile, or walking distance of bus and rail rapid transit services facilities. These strategies are meant to encourage the use of public transit and facililate mobility. The proposed Lower Naugatuck Valley Region TOD project will tie together several of the municipalities’ redevelopment areas and employment centers to thoroughly examine ways in which the region can foster redevelopment near the existing transit centers. This project will be done in such a way as to utilize the existing transit infrastructure as well as identify strategies to better coordinate land use and transportation. The region is geographically constrained, limiting opportunities for highway expansion and increased capacity. The Route 8 Corridor, which serves as the major commuter option, is severely over capacity and congested at peak travel times. Additionally, the Route 34 Corridor, which is the second largest commuter corridor in the region, is also congested and experiences a high frequency of accidents. Both are part of the New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut Air Quality Non- Attainment Area. These two corridors are tightly confined between residential developments making lane expansion unlikely due to the number of affected properties. In phase two of this study NVCOG will Develop model TOD district land use guidelines that can be incorporated into each municipality’s zoning regulations. These guidelines promote mixed-use development near transit centers and encourage multi-modal transportation options. As part of this planning activity the NVCOG will conduct community outreach and public information sessions regarding TOD proposals, with formal presentations and discussions with each municipal Planning & Zoning Commission. PROJECT BACKGROUND: LOWER NAUGATUCK VALLEY TOD PILOT PROGRAM Introduction ……………………………………………………………… ……………..1 P otential TOD Neighborhoods in the Lower Valley …………….5 Derby ……………………………………………………………… …………………… 7 Shelton ……………………………………………………………… ………………. 13 Ansonia ……………………………………………………………… ……………… 17 Seymour ……………………………………………………………… ……………. 21 Land Use Tools and Policies …………………………………………………. 25 Single-Use & Euclidean Zoning ………………………………………25 F orm-Based Codes …………………………………………………………… 27 Street Hierarchy ……………………………………………………………… .. 27 Design Review Board and Design Manuals ………………….27 Design Standards …………………………………………………………….. 29 Complete Street Regulations ………………………………………….30 O verlay Districts ……………………………………………………………… .. 31 Planned Unit Development …………………………………………….32 Floating Zones………………………………………………………….. ………33 Parking Requirements …………………………………………………….. 33 Suggested Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Uses ……………………………………………………………… …………………………. 37Model TOD Regulation ………………………………………………………… 41 F inancial Tools ……………………………………………………………… ………..49 Special Assessments ………………………………………………………..49 Tax Increment Financing …………………………………………………50 Joint Development …………………………………………………………..51 Land Value Taxation ………………………………………………………….52 Tax Credits…………………………………………………………. ………………52 Publically Funded Infrastructure: Parking Facilities, Parks & Sidewalks ……………………………………………………………..52 CGS 124b – Incentive Housing Zones ……………………………52 Location Efficient Mortgages ………………………………………….52 C onclusion ……………………………………………………………… ………………53 Sources ……………………………………………………………… …………………….55 TABLE OF CONTENTS C T 1 The freedom and movement associated with individual automobile ownership have always come with trade offs. As suburban development chases low real estate prices further and further from our downtowns, problems like congestion, deteriorated air quality, national dependence on foreign oil, and the high costs associated with automobile ownership are only worsened. In the early and mid-1990s many residents and several municipalities began to seek out alternatives to promote increased use of public transportation. This movement has continued to grow and expand over the years. New principles have emerged aimed at reducing dependency on the automobile by encouraging land uses that are supportive of public transit. Residents and local governments are prioritizing new development that provides more choices for reliable transportation, more socially mixed and affordable housing, and expanded business and economic opportunities. These groups want development that reinforces existing communities and historical downtowns and enhances the opportunities for healthy, walkable and safe neighborhoods to flourish. These are the Livability Principles of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities; principles that many municipalities want to see succeed locally. Transit oriented development (TOD) has become a prominent strategy for building communities that meet these goals. Peter Calthorpe, a pioneer of the contemporary renaissance of TOD, describes TOD as:“a mixed-use community within an average 2,000-foot walking distance of a transit stop and core commercial area. TODs mix residential, retail, office, open space, and public uses in a walkable environment, making it convenient for residents and employees to travel by transit, bicycle, foot, or car” (Calthorpe 1993: 56). Many of the traits Calthorpe identifies in the above definition seem common place in the typical New England town center. Access to good, reliable and convenient transportation was a key factor that allowed the towns of the lower Naugatuck Valley to grow and prosper. The downtowns are all located along rivers, canals, or rail lines. They currently comprise mixed, commercial, office, residential and some industrial uses. And while historically these towns may have been laid out with a centrally located town green, each of the towns has continued to add parks and other open spaces in recent years. Finally, because these towns were laid out before the automobile, they are easily walkable. For the purposes of public policy, Section 13b-79o of the Connecticut General Statutes defines TOD as: “the development of residential, commercial and employment centers within one-half mile or walking distance of public transportation facilities, including rail and bus rapid transit and services, that meet transit supportive standards for land uses, built environment densities and walkable environments, in order to facilitate and encourage the use of those services.” This statutory definition covers much of what has already been discussed above. However, its entire emphasis is on supporting transportation facilities, such as BRT and train infrastructure. It is with this definition in mind that the Commissioner of Transportation will decide to participate or not in the improvement of public transportation facilities [1]. The State definition also brings to light the importance of density standards. Dwelling units per acre (density) contributes to the economic viability of different modes of transit. In a literary review of leading studies on TOD Reid Ewing, Ph.D., created the following table of threshold densities for different modes of public transit. Permitting land uses and levels of density that are high enough to support transit facilities is needed to incentivize public and private investment in the public transportation network. But in a state where most new residential development is single family detached housing, many commuters do not live 1 Title 13b – Transportation: Chapter 243 – Infrastructure Program INTRODUCTION Mode Density (dwelling units/acre) Basic bus 7 Premium bus 15 Train 20 to 30 2 within walking distance of their local train station. Most must drive to their local station and park their car in a commuter lot. This has two implications for TOD in Connecticut, (1) station design must incorporate the space and the costs of a parking lot for commuters, and (2) because a hybrid of pedestrians and motorists compose a transit ridership shed, density in the district directly adjacent to a transit facility is not sufficient to evaluate ridership demand. As the concept of a TOD has evolved, many towns are including design standards in their regulations. These communities generally prefer traditional building patterns and aesthetics. TOD supportive design standards can en- sure buildings be oriented toward the street, allow three-to-four story building heights, lower parking requirements, place parking behind buildings, and promote smaller street setbacks. By integrating traditional design standards, municipalities are leveraging existing architectural assets to create a coherent character and attract design conscious businesses. Governmental entities play a big role in creating an environment fertile for the implantation of TOD and the Livability Principles. How they chose to do so can vary greatly from municipality to municipality and from project to project. Due to the diversity of tools a municipality will have to choose from, it is important that the community have a widely shared vision for promoting TOD projects, and that there is a wide range of support from local govern- ment, transit operators, redevelopment authorities, economic development corporations, private developers, and neighborhood organizations. Following careful collaborative visioning, a municipality will ultimately adopt a local plan and a set of supporting zoning regulations. Because TOD regulations often represent a departure from the development patterns of the last seventy-five years, many experts who advocate this kind of development recommend writing supporting regulations to include com- munity goals, visions, a clearly defined TOD message and a strong preamble. Taking these extra steps will make the application process more transparent and convey to developers how their proposals will be received and the con- text in which they will be reviewed. From past experience and national review, researchers Justin Jacobson and Ann Forsyth have outlined TOD best practices. The list they created (see inset on following page) expands on the definition of TOD by adding a time-frame, public engagement, use of public space, maintenance, and safety. Addressing goals on different time-lines and engaging the public can both be accom- plished in the POCD process. Attributes three, four and seven are unique because they go beyond the completion of a project to consider how the district will survive and prosper once the building phase is complete. These practices reinforce the idea that TOD requires additional resources in the long-term that go beyond zoning changes and highlights that municipalities need to think about what entities, public or private, will be responsible for programming, maintenance, and safety. The view south along the Waterbury Branch Line from the Derby/Shelton Train Station The view north along the Waterbury Branch Line from the Seymour Train Station 3 TOD has many definitions. It is a traditional mode of urban design; it can drive economic development; it is built on a foundation of regulations that prescribe broad and intensive land uses; and, finally, it is a process that will need additional guidance and support after all the infrastructure and development has been completed. This report will first identify those neighborhoods along the Waterbury Branch Line that are viable for transit supportive development, then it will provide details on the regulatory tools available to municipalities to modify or revise their zoning regulations in a fashion that will help them achieve the goals set out by the to the Livability Principles, Peter Calthorpe, the State of Connecticut and Jacobson and Forsyth. Where possible examples will be provided of existing transit supportive regulatory language from across the Naugatuck Valley, Connecticut or beyond in support of the review of existing regulation or the creation of new regulations, suggested permitted, conditional, and prohibitied use benchmarks and a model TOD overlay zone are provided. Finally the report reviews some of the financial tools available to municipalities for new development and transit system expansion. Jacobson and Forsyth’s Twelve Attributes of successful TOD: 1. Appreciate the fact that planning and developing great places takes place on both short and long-term timelines. 2. Engage the public and experts as collaborators and work with activist energy 3. Ensure public spaces are programmed for public events and uses 4. Invest in maintaining spaces 5. Design at a human scale 6. Provide public spaces that accommodate a variety of uses and users 7. Use design and programming strategies to increase safety 8. Allow for variety and complexity 9. Create connections between spaces 10. Design sidewalks and crosswalks for appropriate pedestrian use 11. Integrate transit and transit facilities into the urban pattern 12. Don’t forget (but don’t overemphasize) car movement and parking Canal Street in Shelton with the Shelton-Derby Bridge overpass. 4 Looking towards Shelton across the Shelton-Derby bridge. 5 POTENTIAL TOD NEIGHBOORHOODS IN THE LOWER VALLEY This section identifies those neighborhoods along the Waterbury Branch Line (WBL) that are viable candidates for transit supportive development. In addi- tion to stopping in Derby, Ansonia and Seymour, Metro-North also services Beacon Falls, Naugatuck, and Waterbury. From the WBL, riders have direct access to Bridgeport and Stamford where they can transfer to main line trains to continue west to Grand Central Terminal in New York City, or head east towards New Haven. (Note: At the time of the study, all WBL trains ter- minate at the Devon wye and passengers must transfer to a main line train due to on-going construction related to the replacement of the Devon rail bridge over the Housatonic River). A summary of WBL service is shown in the table below. Weekday service is limited to eight southbound (inbound towards New York) and seven north- bound (outbound from New York) trains. Of this service only two inbound trains and two outbound trains operate during the peak service hours. The expansion of service along the WBL has been hindered by the technical capacity of the tracks. Specifically, only one train can run on the tracks at a time. This is because of the lack of communication and signal systems. Plans are in place and construction has begun on several important projects that will improve the infrastructure and allow for more trains to run along the corridor. These plans include adding passing sidings, installing Positive Train Control and implementing full Central Traffic Control signal system. When completed, these improvements will allow multiple trains to be able to run both north and south simultaneously. Promoting new development and the redevelopment of the neighborhoods surrounding the WBL stations is one method by which municipalities can take advantage of and benefit from this new investment. The neighborhoods included in this study are located in Derby, Shelton, An- sonia, and Seymour. Along with a description of each town, the maps show in detail the potential TOD districts. These maps highlight a half-mile radius drawn around the local train station, a visualization of areas that are acces- sible within a twenty-minute walk [1], the underlying zoning districts and local land marks. 2 The distance walked in twenty minutes was calculated at walkscore.com Seymour Shelton Derby Ansonia [2] 6 Northbound TimesGCT Stamford Bridgeport Derby/Shelton Ansonia Seymour Waterbury PEAK 6:207:117:56 8:238:278:348:57 OFF-PEAK 9:04 9:5110:36 11:0211:0611:1311:36 11:34 12:2112:56 1:221:261:331:57 2:04 2:513:36 4:024:064:134:36 PM PEAK 4:42 5:295:57 6:256:296:366:59 6:53 7:408:25 8:528:569:039:26 OFF-PEAK 9:3910:26 11:12 11:3911:4311:5012:13 Southbound Times Waterbury Seymour Ansonia Derby/Shelton Bridgeport Stamford GCT AM PEAK 5:44 6:046:10 6:156:467:268:24 6:42 7:037:09 7:147:478:249:23 OFF-PEAK 9:12 9:329:38 9:4310:1210:5511:45 11:51 12:1112:17 12:2212:511:252:15 2:10 2:302:36 2:413:123:554:45 4:51 5:115:17 5:225:576:307:21 7:17 7:377:43 7:488:179:009:50 10:05 10:2510:31 10:3611:1011:5612:46 Train Schedule for the WBL (Note: At the time of the study, all WBL trains terminate at the Devon wye and passengers must transfer to a main line train due to on-going construction related to the replacement of the Devon rail bridge over the Housatonic River) 7 The Derby-Shelton Train Station makes Derby an obvious candidate for future TOD. The City has space for future growth and the current downtown layout and land uses are inviting to pedestrians. Downtown Derby has short block lengths, a trait that is considered beneficial to pedestrian movement. Build- ings in the downtown are on average two-to-three stories high. And, unique to the lower valley is Derby’s centrally located town green. It is bordered by churches and historical buildings, making it a well-used public space for community events. A 1/2 mile radius drawn around the train station encompasses the entire downtown area and provides access to Route 34 (Main Street), the Derby Greenway, and the Der- by-Shelton Bridge. The Derby-Shelton Train Station is also the first station heading north along the WBL and is the transfer point for several local bus routes operated by the Greater Bridgeport Transit and CT Transit. It is also the site of the Valley Transit District. Route 34 will be reconstructed and widened through the downtown area within the next two years. A bike path along the southern edge of Main Street and creation of a landscaped pedestrian space are included in the construction plans. These proposals will provide bicyclists and walkers with a safe and direct route be – tween the downtown areas of Derby and Shelton and the train station. Future plans envision the redevelopment of vacant lots, many under the control of the City, south of the downtown and replacement of the commercial buildings removed to accom- modate the road widening. In addition, the Connecticut bond commission has ap – proved spending $2 million on renovations to the Derby-Shelton Bridge; plans for which include bike lanes, pedestrian plaza and viewing areas along the bridge. Most of downtown Derby is zoned Center Design Development District. The purpose of the CDD is to encourage the redevelopment of the downtown. Within this zone the following uses are permitted: retail, personal, business and financial services; professional and general offices; restaurants (excluding fast-food); public and semipublic institutions; hotels, motels, conference cen- ters, residential uses and clubs. CDD regulations that are complementary to TOD include a permitted residential density of twelve dwelling units per acre and the ability of the zoning commission to reduce parking requirements by up to 20 percent. Beyond this, the zoning commission is given a great deal of leeway to determine which uses are harmonious to current uses in the District. The city is currently considering revising the CDD zoning regulations to allow special exception for other harmonious uses that are neither auto-dependent nor disruptive to the downtown pedestrian orientation. And while currently the bulk requirements have been waved in the CDD, TOD supportive alter – ations are being considered. Potential changes to the parking requirements include locating off street parking behind buildings. The area to the west of the rail line and north of the Home Depot is zoned industrial. To the east of the Naugatuck River, within the 1/2 radius of the train station, the zon- ing changes to residential and commercial. Current land uses in the downtown include: single family residential, multi-fam- ily residential, first floor commercial, dining, community services, and municipal governance, including the Derby City Hall. The predominate land use north of the town green is residential. In addition to commuter rail service, downtown Derby is served by local fixed-route bus services operated by the CT Transit-New Haven Divsion and The Greater Bridge – port Transit Authority (GBT ). CT Transit-New Haven offers service south to New Hav – Derby Zoning Downtown Context [3] Transportation Assets 8 Derby Zoning Map 9 en and north to the neighboring towns of Ansonia and Seymour (Route F). The GBT offers local bus service between the train station (Routes 15 and 23) and downtown Bridgeport with intermediate stops in downtown Shelton and along the Bridgeport Avenue business corridor. Meanwhile, the Valley Transit District (VTD) provides dial- a-ride service for all residents of the lower Naugatuck Valley and specialize paratran- sit service for persons with disabilities and the elderly. The VTD’s offices and mainte- nance garage are on the same site as the Derby-Shelton rail station. Downtown Derby is connected to the entire Naugatuck Valley region, as well as the rest of the state, via the Route 8 Expressway. Automotive access to Route 8 is located across from the train station on Route 34. Designs are currently being finalized to expand Route 34 through downtown Derby to ease traffic congestion by adding turn lanes, designating on-street parking, widening sidewalks, and building a bi-directional cycle-track adjacent to the eastbound lane. As part of a study conducted in 2009 by CTDOT to prepare a Needs and Feasibility Study for improvement to transit service along the Waterbury Branch Line corridor of the New Haven rail line, several sites within a 1/4 mile radius from the Derby-Shel- ton Train Station were identified as potential locations for TOD sites. To add to these sites, this study has identified three more locations, sites four through six, in the town of Derby. These sites are shown on the map on the following page. Site One: “Site one, located between the railroad tracks and the Naugatuck River, is approximately 3.8 acres. Currently, the site has no vehicular access, but the existing North Division Street could be extended to the site to pro – vide vehicular access from the north. The site has good pedestrian access from the sidewalk on the Route 34 Bridge and from the existing bicycle and pedestrian path along the river. The site is currently vacant and is owned by the City of Derby. It is zoned under the B-1 zoning district, which allows the development of public utility buildings, retail business, hospitals, and other residential related uses. As per the City’s zoning regulations, develop – ment on this site can have a maximum lot coverage of 35 percent and the maximum allowable height of structures is thirty-five feet, or approximately three stories. Alternatively, by rezoning the site, it could be developed as a mixed-use development. In this case, the first floor of the development could be used for retail, while the top floors could be developed as residential development. The site is immediately adjacent to the existing Derby-Shelton Station and could be designed to provide direct pedestrian access to the station area via a pedestrian bridge over the railroad tracks. In addition, a parking facility could also be integrated into the site plan, providing parking for both commuters and residents. Because the site is entirely within the 100- year floodplain, flood protection measures may need to be implemented as part of the site development process.” Site Two: “Site two is a large, 5.6-acre site located north of the station. The site is currently used as a concrete factory operated by Beard Concrete, Sand & Gravel. The site is accessible from the Derby-Shelton Station via an access road paralleling Route 8. The vehicular track parallel to Route 8 leads to the site. The site is zoned B-1, which allows the development of public utility buildings, retail business, hospitals, and other residential related uses. As with Site 1, the maximum lot coverage allowed is 35 percent and the maximum allowable height of structures is thirty-five feet, or three stories. The site is large and in close proximity to the station; however, redevelopment of the site would require relocation of Beard Concrete Factory.” Site Three: “The Town of Derby owns a large parcel south of Route 34 be – tween the Housatonic River and Factory Street, adjacent to a smaller vacant property previously occupied by a lumber yard. Together, these two prop – erties provide 19.8 acres for mixed use TOD stretching from Route 8 to the Housatonic, just south of the Derby-Shelton station area. The site is zoned CDD, which allows a mix of uses. In addition, the large area of the site and its close proximity to the station makes it an ideal location for transit oriented development near the Derby-Shelton Station.” Site Four: Site four is located along Carolina Street but is accessible from Miner – Potential Sites Map Key – Land Use Classifications NV Region TOD Infrustructure I Derby/Shelton Train Station Derby/Shelton Sidewalkf fand Use blassication Agricbltbre Commbnity Facility Commercial Indbftrial Refidential Mobile Home Ref.-Urban High (>8 DUk/Acre) Ref.-Urban Med. (2-8 DU/Acre) Utilitief Undeveloped Land Water Browneld Parcel Tranfportation Ref.-Sbbbrban Low (0.5-.99 DU/Acre) Ref.-Eftate ( 8 DUk/Acre) Ref.-Urban Med. (2-8 DU/Acre) Utilitief Undeveloped Land Water Browneld Parcel Tranfportation Ref.-Sbbbrban Low (0.5-.99 DU/Acre) Ref.-Eftate ( 8 DuU/Acre) Res.-Urban Med. (2-8 DU/Acre) Utilities Undeveloped Land Water Browneld Parcel Transportation Res.-Suburban Low (0.5-.99 DU/Acre) Res.-Estate ( 8 DUA/Acre) Res.-Urban Med. (2-8 DU/Acre) Utilities Undeveloped Land Water Browneld Parcel Transportation Res.-Suburban Low (0.5-.99 DU/Acre) Res.-Estate ( <0.5 DU/Acre) Recreational or Open Space Resource Extraction Rifht Of Way Res.-Suburban Med. (1-1.99 DU/Acre) 24 00.1 0.20.30.4 0.05 Miles N 1/2 MILE RADIUS FROM SEYMOUR TRAIN STATION Sife 1 Sife 2 Sife 3 Sife 4 Sife b Sife 6 Sife 7 Seymour Land Use Map 25 There are many ways that land use policy can be used to encourage devel- opment that will both compliment and be complimented by transit infrastruc- ture. The following section looks at both tools that have been used widely across the country and others that are more experimental. While not all of these ideas have been applied within the region, most have been used within the state and where possible example regulatory language has been pro – vided. Additional, this document contains a model TOD district overlay zone. Under the enabling legislation of Chapter 124 of the Connecticut General Statutes, through the establishment of a zoning commission, municipalities may: “regulate the height, number of stories and size of buildings and other structures; the percentage of the area of the lot that may be occupied; the size of yards, courts and other open spaces; the density of population and the location and use of buildings, structures and land for trade, industry, residence or other purposes, including water-dependent uses, as defined in section 22a-93, and the height, size and location of advertising signs and billboards.” The tool most used by zoning commissions to achieve these ends is sin- gle-use or Euclidean zoning. Under a Euclidean zoning regime, land uses are segregated into mutually exclusive areas. For example, residential uses are kept separate from industrial uses. These regulations arose out of a need to protect property owners and residents from potentially harmful or conflicting uses on adjacent properties. It makes sense to most people that a paper mill does not belong in a residential neighborhood. Over time uses have become more specialized and fractured. Now it is common to have two neighboring residential zones differentiated by lot size or street setback. This has led some to question the need for this level of interference where public health is no longer the sole motivation for the restrictions. LAND USE TOOLS AND POLICIES While in most cases Euclidean zones are limited to a single use, there is noth- ing stopping a community from permitting multiple complimentary uses within a single zone or even within a single building. In a downtown, commercial uses may be permitted on the first floor and residential apartments or office space permitted in the upper floors. The code need only articulated where each use is permitted. In this way municipalities can apply Euclidean zoning to promote development that supports transit and many of the other princi- ples outlined in the introduction of this report. Because of its potential for flexibility, municipalities who currently use a Eu- clidean zoning code need not start from scratch when it comes to promoting TOD. The first step is a close review of the current zoning and subdivision ordinances. Much of the work that has gone into adopting and amending the existing zoning regulations can be preserved. It has taken years and much debate to reach the status quo and, as such, a community should be careful to avoid throwing out good regulations tailored to their local situation. Only those ordinances that are counter to the intent of the proposed TOD district need to be selectively removed or altered. This process should be considered preferable to the wholesale replacement of existing code with generic model regulations for TOD. Residents, zoning commission members and planning staff can review the existing code for transit oriented adaptability with the following questions in mind: • What is the local historical precedent for density in the downtown? • What is the historical precedent for mixed use in the downtown? • Does current zoning allow the necessary density to support transit? • Does current zoning promote active first floor uses? • Does current zoning allow for mixed uses within one building? • Does current zoning promote socially mixed development? Density bo – nuses? • Can parking requirements be relaxed for the various uses? Single-Use & Euclidean Zoning 26 Because most traditional New England village development patterns overlap with the principles of TOD, most municipalities have a head start in adapting existing regulations to support transit. The following examples from several Connecticut municipalities illustrate how Euclidean zoning can support TOD goals.Derby: Section 195-20 The City of Derby has zoned its downtown, an area that falls within a reasonable walking distance from the Derby-Shelton Train Station, as Center Design Development District (CDD). This base zone is notable for its flexibility. Within the CDD zone, permitted uses, exceptions and bulk requirements are replaced with a thorough description of the zone’s intent and a broad and inclusive list of residential, commercial and public uses, typical of a traditional New England town. In short the intent provides a vision for maintaining the character of the downtown while promoting continued economic development. It is with this in mind that applications are evaluated. The bulk requirements and use restrictions are waived provided the “spirit and intent” of the district is preserved. Parking requirements can be reduced up to 20 percent if the intended use is supported by pedestrian or bicycle traffic. New residential use is capped at twelve dwelling units per acre but this density can be increased where existing buildings are being rehabilitated. This is a healthy density that both respects the traditional form of the downtown, while helping to support transit. Derby is currently in the process of amending the CDD regulations, which will include the introduction of a Mill Design District (MDD) and a Downtown Floating Zone (DFZ) to the CDD. Meriden: Section 213-27 The City of Meriden has taken a slightly different approach than Derby. While a “mix of uses is encouraged” within the TOD districts, the municipality has maintained a table of permitted, limited, special permitted and prohibited uses. These newly adopted regulations both make it clear which uses are permitted by right and provide enough leeway to accommodate a diversity of uses. The regulations address development standards, form, and street hierarchy, which will be discusses below. Others Similarly several other Valley towns support mixed-use, often considered beyond the scope of traditional zoning, within their regulations. Shelton: Section 33.12 The Shelton Planning and Zoning Commission accepts “applications for high-density, mixed-use developments consisting primarily of elderly one bedroom and efficiency dwelling units above ground floor retail and office uses.” While residential use is limited to elderly housing and efficiency units, this section illustrates how easily language permitting mixed-use development can be integrated in traditional zoning code. Seymour: Section 23.l Mixed Use District MD “The intent of this section is to provide flexibility to traditional zoning practice. Experience has shown that some development proposals have much merit, but may not be able to conform to the letter of the zoning requirements of any zoning district. The purpose of this section is to permit such development with proper conditions and safeguards provided such proposal conforms to the Plan of Conservation and Development.” Within the River Front District, the City of Shelton is also promoting socially mixed development by providing a density bonus for developments that set aside units for affordable housing. Shelton River Front District (33.19.1.B) “Affordable Housing Component (Voluntary): At the request of an Applicant to set aside “affordable housing” units meeting the requirements of the Connecticut General Statutes, the total allowable residential density may be increased by up to ten percent (10%) provided that for each unit in excess of the allowable density at least two (2) units must be earmarked as “affordable housing” units. The Applicant shall be responsible for periodic reporting to the appropriate municipal authority attesting to occupancy in compliance with the General Statutes.“ While Euclidean zoning is able to accommodate transit supportive densities and mixed-use development, it is not always the preferred method. In the following section overlay districts, planned unit development (PUD), form- based codes, street hierarchies, floating zones, and design standards will be described and examples from across Connecticut will be provided. Many of these tools can be integrated into existing Euclidean regulations, others can replace existing codes completely, but all can be used to better leverage the benefits of transit for local development. 27 Form-based zoning differs from traditional Euclidean zoning by defining the space and not the use. That is, it defines what can be built but leaves broad discretion to the developer as to what uses can fill the space. This has made form-based codes particularly adaptable and effective in urban spaces where the municipality aims to enable mixed-use. Like most of the tools in this list, the application of form-based zoning varies from one location to another. Form-based code can address some or all of the following design standards: • Building type – A specific building type as opposed to an amorphous block • Frontage type – This can be design drawings that include how the build- ing relates to the street including the role of setbacks, entrance orienta- tion, stoops, lawns etc… • Public Space – includes drawings with significant detail of how sidewalks, streets and open space will relate to the building. For example, a building over a certain square footage must include some sort of park or sitting area. • Block and subdivision standards – When applied in form-based zoning, especially in a TOD district, these standards promote walking by capping the block lengths and perimeters. • Regulating plans – These are very specific plans, similar to a master plan, that dictate building and street layout. • By-right development – Design standards that are able to proceed by right and without public hearing or discretionary approval. By-right de – velopment can be used to streamline the approval process for specific types of development. Simsbury Center Form Based Code In 2011 the town of Simsbury adopted form-based codes for their town center. These codes sort the center district by street frontage. Design elements, façade, basic use standards by floor, building setbacks (minimum and maximum), parking setbacks, open space, street landscape standards and many other more detailed site development standards are determined based on this street frontage. Graphic representations are included to illustrate the building envelope. Height is treated independently. The regulations treat height as an overlay defined by a district wide map. One advantage to these regulations is their highly graphic presentation that is easily read and referenced. While these regulations do define which uses are permitted on which stories for each frontage area, uses are broad and mixed within zones and by story. A street hierarchy is complementary to the use and design standards de – scribed above. The municipality designates the roads within the TOD district as main streets, secondary streets and side streets. A building’s frontage must correspond to the street classification in a way that compliments its scale and promotes pedestrian and bicyclist use. Both the City of Meriden and Town of Simsbury have embraced street hi- erarchy as the principle and guiding trait to determine adjacent land use, building mass and design. Meriden: Section 213-28 As described above, in the Simsbury Center regulations street frontage is the only factor that determines use and development standards. Meriden has taken a more layered approach. Within the TOD District there are five sub-zones. While each sub-zone has a different intent and purpose and therefore different uses and design standards, the street hierarchy transcends the sub-zones and applies to the entire TOD district. Setbacks, minimum frontage, curb-cuts and the situation of parking and drive-through facilities are all determined based on street frontage and hierarchy. Many villages and towns are pursuing very specific architectural character – istics. Two methods to achieve these goals are (1) a design review board and (2) a design manual. A design review board is an advisory board to the planning and zoning commission. The design review board comprises members with architectural, engineering or design backgrounds. The board reviews applications in designated zones and provides the planning and zoning committee with a recommendation. The design review board has no Street Hierarchy Design Review Board and Design Manuals Form-Based Codes 28 Use Category Specific Use SC-1 SC-2SC-3SC-4 SC-5CIV OS Ground story Upper story Ground story Upper story Ground story Upper story Ground story Upper story Ground story Upper story All Stories Residential Household living Group living Social servicePublic Civic Parks and open space Minor utilities Major utilitiesCommercial Day care Indoor recreation Medical Office Outdoor recreation Overnight lodging Passenger terminal Personal Service Restaurant/bar Retail sales Vehice rental/saleIndustrial Agriculture Heavy industrial Light industrial Light manufacturing Research & development Self-service storage Vehicle service Warehouse & distribution Simsbury Center Form Based Code – Allowed Use Table 29 statutory power but can help guide development. Such a board could also be tasked with implementing and reviewing site plans to ensure TOD goals are also being met. The second option, which could be implemented independently or in concert with the design review board, is a design manual or guidebook. A design manual defines the elements of the local architectural vernacular that should be used in new development. The manual includes sketches and pictures to further clarify the goals. While a design guidebook is not necessarily regu- latory like zoning ordinances, it has the advantage of clearly articulating for developers which design traits will help their project be approved quickly. As such it helps to reduce an application’s risk of rejection, particularly in a PUD overlay or other zone where ordinances have been purposely written to be flexible but vague.Town of Simsbury The Town of Simsbury first adopted design guidelines in 2001. Since that time the town has continued to maintain and update the guidelines. Within the greater design approval process the guidelines follow the general zoning regulations. A project must first meet zoning requirements and then the design guidelines. The guidelines address qualitative aspects of design such as context- sensitivity and compatible relationships among new and existing buildings. While projects must meet all applicable code standards, the guidelines provide flexibility to meet a more general design intent. In preparation for an application, applicants are encouraged to informally meet with the design review board and municipal staff to ensure the process is transparent and that there are no surprises regarding final approval. Ansonia: Section 222 and the Design Guidelines Ansonia published and adopted Design Guidelines for the City Center Overlay Zone. These guidelines are meant to “assist applicants, developers, successors and assign in preparation of development plans and details for new construction and/or for the substantial improvement of existing development.” A more common method to promote certain design goals without going into the detail of a design manual is to add a clause to the zoning regulations that leaves discretion up to whichever board or commission will be reviewing the application. Typical examples include: Seymour: Mixed Use District MD § 23.4 “Architectural design shall be of superior quality and aesthetically pleasing. The structures and their location on the site shall blend in with the surrounding neighborhood.” Other municipalities have special language to support historic preservation. Ansonia: Section 222.02 “To provide for the protection and enhancement of significant historic sites, buildings and features within City Center Area by: (a) Encouraging the retention and the restoration of architectural features that prevail within the City; and by (b) Providing graphic and descriptive examples of architectural and landscaping designs and similar elements that are or were present within the area.” Derby: Section195-20-A-2 Center Design Development District Zone “Provide, whenever possible, for the preservation of meaningful historic buildings; promote appropriate architectural and site design; and provide amenities which will encourage pedestrian use and enjoyment of the city” center.” Ansonia: City Center Plan Creating and preserving public space plays an important role in creating pedestrian friendly streets. Main Street in Ansonia has many small parks tucked into relatively small open spaces. The city continues to promote this development by including supportive language in the City Center Plan. The plan lists the goal of “increas(ing) the number and size of open spaces and pocket parks.” The Regulations are further supported in the Design Guidelines: “It is hereby recommended that these setback areas be converted into pocket parks for the use by pedestrians. These pocket parks are a “breathing space” sorely needed in compact, fully developed areas. They may be furnished with benches and kiosks exhibiting notices and advertisements of local events.” Design Standards 30 Developing bicycle and pedestrian opportunities along with providing transit incentives epitomizes a fundamental shift in the way the roadway environ- ment is perceived and used. Instead of dedicating the roadway as the almost exclusive domain of motorized vehicles, the roadway is viewed as a space where the needs of all users are considered, not just drivers. This concept is embodied in the “complete streets” policy. A “complete street” provides ac- cess to bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders and drivers, while also enhancing the sidewalk area to connect it with the roadway. The intent of a “complete streets” policy is to change how the street en- vironment is planned, designed and built and, as a consequence, change how it is used. In essence, the street environment is altered from one where vehicles dominate to one where all users of all ages are accommodated. It also encompasses not just the area between the curbs but extends beyond the asphalt to include space along the roadway as well. While a “complete street” embraces many common elements, each appli- cation is unique and the features selected reflect the land use, needs and characteristics of the area. Key elements of a “complete street” include: • Bicycle facilities – bicycle routes and lanes, cycle-tracks, signage, bicycle racks, appropriate pavement markings and symbols; • Bus features and amenities – bus pull-outs, shelters, clear and accessible paths; • Pedestrian enhancements – crosswalks, pedestrian signal enhancements, curb ramps, and sidewalks; • Traffic calming actions – using textured material, intersection bump-outs, curb extensions, center refuge islands, and raised intersection tables; • Streetscape environment – appropriate urban trees, landscaping, bio- swales and rain gardens, permeable paving material, storm water plant – ers, lighting, and buffers between the street and sidewalk to dramatically alter the “atmosphere” of the street environment; • ADA compliant features – curb ramps, detectable tactile cues and warn- ings, accessible pedestrian signals, and longer walk intervals; • On-street parking treatments – delineated parking spaces and curb/ sidewalk bump-outs; and • Access management actions – driveway consolidations, modifications and closures. Finally, “complete streets” are complementary to TOD by promotiong trans- portation inter-modality TOD regulations should ensure that considerations for pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation patrons and motorists are all woven into every local roads or streetscape project. Connecticut Public Act 09-154, An Act Improving Bicycle and Pedestrian Ac – cess, includes language to promote “complete streets” goals in the planning process on all roads state or local. “Accommodations for all users shall be a routine part of the planning, design, construction and operating activities of all highways…” This law however stops short of mandating any specific outcomes. Municipali- ties can take the initiative to mandate “complete streets” goals in their zoning and subdivision regulations. New Haven Complete Streets Design Manual The City of New Haven is a good example for how to promote and encourage the implementation of complete streets. By order of the Board of Aldermen the City will create a policy that: Complete Street Regulations Ansonia Pocket Pack located along Main Street, the train station in the back ground. 31 A. r equires the accommodation of the safety and convenience of all users of the transportation system using a Complete Streets hierarchy of users, which begins with pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users. These users shall be accommodated and balanced in all types of transportation and development projects and through all phases of a project so that the vulnerable – children, elderly, and persons with disabilities – can travel safely within the public right of way; B. manda tes the application of this policy, through adherence to principles of the Design Manual, to any new or improvement project affecting the public streets and sidewalks (including resurfacing, restoring, and rehabilitation projects); C. pr ioritizes walkability, inter-modal transit, traffic calming and pedestrian based urban economic development over competing goals; and D. r eferences performance standards, with measurable outcomes and benchmarks. To fulfill this mandate the City has published a design manual that provides “technical guidance on the building, rebuilding, repair and rehabilitation of city streets with the intent of balancing the needs of all users.” The design manual is available for citizens and other interested parties on the city website. Zoning regulations from the City of Ansonia include language that extends the scope of street design to include non-automotive users. Ansonia: Section 222.02 A goal of the zoning regulations is “to promote pedestrian, bicycle and handicapped use of downtown development safe from unwarranted motorized vehicular intrusion and associated hazards.” An overlay district is a tool used to modify underlying zoning districts with- out replacing them. Overlays are often used to add additional requirements to the base zone. The following examples help introduce the reader to the diverse possibilities afforded by an overlay zone: • A historic preservation overlay provides design standards that all new development or major reconstruction must follow regardless of use. A his- toric overlay district may be used where a designated historic base zone is not desired. In its most simple application, within the boundaries of the overlay, the submittal of any application to build a new structure or “Complete street” before and after concept plans Autocentric street design prioritizes the automobile over all other modes of transportation. “Complete streets” designs treat all modes equally, slowing traffic and making safer and more pleasant environment for pedestrians and cyclists. Overlay districts 32 expand upon an existing structure would trigger a review and require endorsement by a historic building review commission. • An environmental overlay creates additional standards to protect sensi- tive elements of the local environment. Environmental or natural overlays have been widely used to protect residents and resources. Flood haz- ard zones are a common overlay applied along rivers and coastlines to prevent certain human activities within the flood zone. In rural areas, overlays designed to prohibit subdivision of large blocks of forestland are used to inhibit forest fragmentation and preserve wildlife corridors . • A TOD overlay would allow projects that meet municipal TOD goals to choose an alternative development path that permits smaller lots, sub – stantially higher densities and mixed uses. For example a TOD overlay might allow for the development of a mixed-use residential-commercial project which exceeds height limits in a base zone that is either com- mercial, residential or neither. While the application must go through additional review, much like a special use permit, the requirements are clearly articulated in the zoning ordinances. This type of overlay can be successfully used to integrate form-based code – or any other tool in- cluded in this report – into traditional, Euclidean zoning. • Density bonuses for affordable housing allow developers within the over – lay to build to a greater height and add additional units if they include a certain proportion of affordable housing in their plans. For example, a development containing a residential component where a minimum of 20% of all new units are set aside for residents making less than 80 percent of the state (or regional or metropolitan) median income would be allowed a height or floor area ratio (FAR) bonus above and beyond what is specified in the base zone. The goal is to make socially-mixed buildings a more attractive financial option for developers. This list is by no means exhaustive; some of the items on this this short list could be altered or even combined in one overlay district. Below are three examples of overlay districts that are currently being used in Connecticut and support TOD. In addition to the following examples can be found later in this document’s model TOD district overlay regulations. Branford: 5.7 Incentive Housing Overlay District The Town of Branford has an Incentive Housing Overlay District that permits for greater residential density in downtown areas and within a certain radius of public transportation. This overlay applies to any type of base zone and permits mixed residential zoning even where the base zone is not zoned for residential use. Additionally this overlay district is 4 Demolition is still permitted in a historic preservation overlay by statute. To restrict demolition a historic protection district is necessary. 5 For example an overlay might limit lot size to a minimum fifteen acres. meant to meet the requirements of CGS 124b for incentive housing should the opportunity arise. Newtown: Section 595-19 South Main Village Design District The purpose of this overlay zone is to protect the landscape and historical character of the neighborhood. To achieve these ends the overlay district focuses on design issues. All permitted uses in the underlying base zones are allowed within the overlay zone; however, applicant designs must be reviewed by the Design Advisory Board who issues a recommendation to the Zoning Commission. Ansonia: Section 222 City Center Overlay Zone The city of Ansonia uses an overlay zone to permit mixed-use development. The City Center Overlay zone has the stated goal of “achiev(ing) a suitable and compatible mix of non-residential and residential land uses within the City Center Area.” Planned unit development (PUD) is perhaps the most flexible of all the tools municipalities have at their disposal; it is also among the most complicated. The following definition gives insight into this complexity. “A PUD is a development that has been approved in a process that requires the comprehensive review of project design and that can include a variety of project types, including infill development, housing developments, and mixed-use developments, such as master-planned communities”. – Daniel Mandelker, APA Planned Unit Development, 2007. Notice that a PUD is both a process and a project. The municipality must determine not only what they are trying to promote with a PUD but also how they intend to go about approving it. Municipalities that do not clearly define the PUD design requirements and maintain a large degree of discretion over what will and will not be approved create uncertainty and risk among devel- opers. If the commission wishes to maintain discretion over all new projects, a PUD base zone may be best. A PUD overlay will suffice if the commission merely wants to provide an alternative track for developers. Many PUDs re – quire a rezone and all the legal requirements that go with it. For towns that already utilize PUD, it may prove to be an effective tool for promoting TOD, but for those communities which have no prior experience with the process, it may be simpler to rely on one of the other regulatory land use tools. [4] [5] Planned unit development 33 Shelton: Section 34 Planned Development Districts That City of Shelton offers developers a great deal of leeway and maintains a large degree of discretion within their Planned Development District. For projects within the Central Business District on a lot larger than 10,000 square feet in area, applicants can work with the Planning and Zoning Commission to amend the zoning regulations to permit development that is considered as a “harmonious design unit of stable character, consistent with the character of the Town and the long range improvement of the neighborhood and consistent with any comprehensive plan of development adopted by the Commission for the Special Development Area (SDA).” Shelton’s PDD zone is part of a floating overlay zone and more information how it functions is included in the following section. A floating zone is an overlay zone where the exact regulations are not de – fined until an application has been received, reviewed, publically heard and a zoning change been made. A PUD overlay is often a floating zone. Once the site has been rezoned the new regulations will apply to all future devel- opment on the parcel. Shelton: Section 34.1 Within the Special Development District overlay the commission permits Planned Development Districts (PDD). A PDD allows the City the maximum discretion to pursue projects that are “consistent with the character of the City and the long range improvement of the neighborhood and consistent with any comprehensive plan of development adopted by the Commission.” The City has clearly included in the zoning regulations that, “Each PDD is another independent zoning district created to accomplish a specific purpose, complete with its unique and narrowly drawn permitted uses and bulk standards and other applicable zoning provisions, whether set forth specifically therein or incorporated by reference to the applicable provisions of the overall city-wide zoning regulations.” Once a PDD zone has been created, all subsequent development within the zone will need to adhere to the regulations of this new and independent zoning district. The City of Shelton has had great success using the Special Development Area to promote dense residential development within walking distance of the the Derby-Shelton Train Station. However, due to the administrative steps required before approval, a commonly cited risk involved when pursuing a floating overlay zone is the insecurity a builder faces when developing site plans and preparing an application for the Zoning Commission. Despite the goal of reducing the need for driving, parking remains an essen- tial element of a TOD project. Vehicles need to be able to travel along the “main street” without undo congestion, and retail relies on customers from outside the area. These customers must be able to access stores and be provided sufficient and convenient parking. While surface parking lots are less expensive to build, they detract from the walkable feel of a neighborhood. To preserve a positive experience for the pedestrian most TOD neighborhoods locate parking behind the buildings, orient the building fronts toward the street, and reduce front setbacks from the street line as much as is practi- cal. Demand for additional parking spaces can be reduced through shared parking arrangements. The concept of shared parking works especially well for uses that have different parking demand times. A library and a restaurant demand parking at different times of the day and different days of the week. By sharing a lot there is no reduction in service but additional spaces need not be built. In addition, high quality and well thought out pedestrian con- nections support a “park once” philosophy and encourage walking between commercial activities. Customers park once and walk rather than driving from one stop to another. The City of Shelton has employed a number of strategies to improve the flex – ibility of their parking regulations. These include payments in lieu of parking, shared municipal parking and relaxed parking requirements. Shelton: Section 33.12.5 In CBD Mixed-Use “…the Commission may, at the request of the applicant, permit a reduction in the total number of onsite, off-street parking spaces intended to serve the dwelling units, provided that a Statement is obtained from the Shelton Parking Authority confirming that an adequate number of conveniently located off-street parking spaces are currently available in existing facilities in close proximity to the proposed mixed-use development, and that the applicant agrees, under the provisions of Sec.8-3c of the Connecticut General Statutes, to make a payment in lieu of providing said number of on-site spaces at an amount per space to be determined by the Parking Authority. Said funds are to be appropriately encumbered and reserved for use in providing additional future municipal off-street parking facilities to service the designated Central Business District. For mixed-use development proposals involving direct financial participation by the City of Shelton, in recognition of the past and on-going funding of off-street parking facilities to serve the designated Central Business Parking requirements Floating zones 34 District, the Commission and the Parking Authority may waive all of a portion of the payment in lieu of parking required above.” Shelton: Section 36.9 CBD “The Shelton Parking Authority has established municipal, off-street parking facilities throughout the Downtown CBD area. In recognition thereof, the Commission may waive the provision of all or a portion of the off-street parking specified by the Zoning Regulations for non-residential uses, provided that a Statement is obtained from the Shelton Parking Authority confirming that an adequate number of off-street parking spaces are available in existing facilities and that the Commission finds that such spaces are conveniently located and in close proximity to the proposed development/use. For residential and mixed-use developments, the Commission may permit a reduction in the total number of on-site parking spaces in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 33.12.5 of the Zoning Regulations. All off-street parking facilities shall provide appropriately located and designed handicapped parking spaces meeting A.D.A. requirements and applicable codes.” Shelton: Section 33.19.1.D in RFD Mixed-use In a mixed use residential/commercial development, depending upon the nature of the non-residential uses proposed, a credit for shared parking of up to 50% of any on-site residential parking may be allowed. The City of Derby employs a similar strategy by allowing parking require – ments to be relaxed on a project-by-project basis. Derby: Section 195-20-F Center Design Development District Zone The Commission may reduce the parking requirements up to twenty percent if it finds that the proposed uses, location of the site and the related facilities existing or proposed by the applicant will result in the generation of pedestrian, bicycle and mass transit trips in sufficient volumes to warrant the parking reduction. Main Street in Derby, the section of route 34 planned to be improved. Route 8 and the train station located in the distance 35 Form Based Zoning A form based zoning code focuses on the en- velope of the building and specifically how the mass fits the street. Traditionally building mass and setback are handled in the bulk tables. In support of TOD, form based codes are more likely to have a maximum building setback and parking is moved behind the building. Euclidean Zoning The only elements defined under a Euclidean zoning regime is the use. Typical elements of Euclidean zoning code that negatively effect TOD include minimum setbacks and excessive parking requirements.  36 Design Review Boards and Manuals There is nothing to stop design guidelines from being integrated into either a form based or Euclidean zoning code. Design guidelines fo- cus on the façade of the building to ensure complementary designs. Complete Streets A complete street equally accommodates pe- destrians, cyclists, and motorists. As such, most of the elements that facilitate a complete street are added to the street. A complete street pol- icy complements TOD and many of the other regulatory tools described in this report. 37 Multi-ModalTOD districts should integrate the widest range of transporta-tion modes possible (Example: tr ain, bus, automobile, bicycles, and pedestrians) Residential Density 7-20 dwelling units per acre Max Setback 6-15’ Frontage 65-75% Building Height Between 2-4 Stories, not ex- ceeding 75’ Sidew alk Tree & Furniture Zone (adjacent to roadway): 5’ Clear Zone: 5’-10’ Parking Requiremens Conventional parking require- ments can generally be reduced 20-50% f or both residential and commercial uses All off street parking should be located behind street front buildings Bicycle parking encouraged Community Involvement Municipal ordinances should as- sign or create a public board or c ommission to monitor progress, encourage engagement, oversee use of public space with in the transit district SUGGESTED PERMITTED, CONDITIOAL, AND PROHIBITED USES Model benchmarks for a TOD overlay zone can be derived from academic literature and research. The following represents a collection of common traits from TOD zoning codes from across the country. These numbers are only a starting point and local context will ultimately determine what are appropriate local standards for a new TOD overlay zone. These benchmarks start with the assumption that a TOD district should be mixed use, dense enough to support most modes of public transportation and encourage walking. As such, the lists of permitted, conditional and prohibited uses broadly eliminate conflicting uses and low density uses. These lists are derived from a sampling of successful TOD zoning codes from across the country. As a result, some uses can be found under several categories. This further underlines the reality that there is no cookie cutter TOD zone that will fit all contexts. 38 Permitted Uses:Accessory Buildings or Uses Antique Shops BakeriesBanks Book Stores Business Business Schools Childcare Centers, Kindergartens and Special schools Churches, Synagogues, Temples, and Other Religious Facilities Clubs, private, non-Profit or propri – etary C olleges and Universities Community Buildings Community Residence Computer Programming Services and Sales Confectionary or Candy Stores Congregate Care Homes and Rehabil- itation Centers C redit Unions Dancing Instruction Department Stores Devices for the Generation of Energy Dormitories, Fraternities and So – rorities Dr essmaking Stores Drug Stores Dry Cleaning Business Dry Cleaning, Dyeing, Pressing and Laundry Distributing Stations or Retail Dry Goods and Notions Stores Eating and Drinking Establishments Electric Appliance Stores Engraving, Watch-making, and Jew- elry Manufacturing, Where Products ar e Sold On Premises Establishments of Sale of Conve – nience Goods F ire Station Florist Shop Governmental Buildings, including Armories, Storage, Maintenance and Repair Facilities Greenhouses and Garden Sheds Grocery Stores, including Fruit, Meat, Fish, and Vegetable Hardware and Paint Stores Health Spas Historical Buildings and Grounds Home Occupations Hotel Interior Decorating Shops Jewelry Stores Laundries or Launderettes (Self Ser- vice) M eeting Hall Multiple Family Dwellings Music and Vocal instructions Music Stores Offices Parks, Playgrounds and Community Centers – Not for Profit Pet Shops Photographic Shops Police Station Professional Public Schools Public Transporation Passenger Termi- nals P ublic Utility Buildings and Facili – ties Radio and Television Stores R estaurants, Tea Rooms and Cafes Restaurants, Where Food and Drink May be Served or Consumed Outside as Well as Inside a Building Retail Establishments Retail or Wholesale Stores or Businesses Not Involving Any Kind of Manufacture, Processing or Treatment and That Such Operations or Products Are Not Objectionable Due to Noise, Odor, Dust, Smoke, Vibration or Other Similar Causes Taverns, Bars, Saloons, Lounges and Restaurants Identified by Signs Temporary Buildings, the Uses of which Are Incidental to Construction Operations Tents, Air Structures and Other Temporary Structures Not Intend-ed for Occupancy by Commercial T heaters, Enclosed Within a Building Toy and Hobby Transit Passenger Variety Stores 39 Conditional Uses:Barbershops and Beauty Salons Churches, Synagogues, Temples, and Other Religious Facilities Dance Halls Day Care Center, Day Nurseries Drive-Through Facilities Fast-Food Establishment Grocery Stores with Building Foot- prints Over 50,000 Square Feet Ligh t Industrial Facilities Liquor, Retail Sales and Package Retail Sale Outdoor Recreational Use Parking Facilities (Commercial) Or Principal Use Parking (Structured of Surface) Parking, Accessory to A Permitted Use, That Exceeds Automobile Parking Maximum Regulations Post Offices (Private) Sign Painting Sports Facilities with Over 10,000 Seats 40 Prohibited Uses:Automotive Sales and Repairs Basic Industry Boat Sales and RepairBowling Alleys, Provided Buildings is Sound Proof Bulk Retail Car Washes Cemeteries Cold Storage Plants Commercial Equipment Sales and Service Convenience Storage Drive-In Business Equipment Repair Equipment Sales Exterior Display of Goods and Ex- terior Storage F amily Day Care Center Funeral Homes and Mortuaries Furniture Stores Gas Station and Gas Station Ac- cessory Uses Such as Mini-Marts, C onvenience Food and Sundries Sales Golf Courses, including Miniature Golf Courses Homes for the Infirm and Aged Junk Yarks and Motor Vechile Wrecking Yards Kennels, Excluding Those Accessory to Veterinary Clinics Manufactured Home Sales Nurseries or Greenhouses Nursing Homes and Homes for the Infirm and Aged Plumbing and Heating Shops Stor – age and Sales Provided All Opera- tions are Totally Enclosed P rinting, Lithographing or Publish – ing Establishments, If Constructed t o Insure That There Is No Noise or Vibration Evident Outside the Walls of the Buildings Recycling Center Restaurants with Drive Through Windows RV Parks or Mobile Home Parks and Campgrounds Scrap and Salvage Service Solid Waste Transfer Stations Telecome Hotels Towing Services Truck Stops and Uses Related to Trucking Excluding Loading and Unloading for Permitted Commercial Uses Upholstery and Furniture Repair Shops Vehicle Storage Warehouses, Mini-Warehouses, Storage Facilities, and Mini-Storage Facilities (Indoor and Outdoor 41 Model Transit Oriented Development District Overlay Zone Benchmarks for a TOD district overlay zone can be derived from academic literature and research. The following overlay zone embodies the common traits of TOD zoning codes from across the country. This overlay zone and the benchmarks references herein are only a starting point; local context will ultimately determine what are appropriate standards for a new TOD overlay zone. This overlay zone assumes that a TOD district should be mixed use, be dense enough to support most modes of public transportation and encourage walking. As such, the lists of permitted, conditional and prohibited uses broadly eliminate conflicting uses and low density uses. These lists are derived from a sampling of successful TOD zoning codes from across the country. As a result, some uses may be found under several categories. This further underlines the reality that there is no cookie cutter TOD zone that will fit all contexts. 1. Jurisdiction 1.1. W ithin the [CITY/TOWN of NAME], no land, building or other structure shall be used and no building or other structure shall be constructed, reconstructed, enlarged, extended, moved or structurally altered except in conformity with these Regulations. No lot or land shall be subdivided, sold, encumbered or transferred so as to make a lot nonconforming or more nonconforming, to reduce any setback, yard, court, open space or off-street parking and loading spaces to less than is required by these Regulations or to make any nonconforming setback, yard, court, open space or off-street parking and loading spaces more nonconforming. 2. Purpose 2.1. T he purpose of the Transit Oriented Development Overlay District is to encourage an appropriate mixture and density of activity around transit stations to increase ridership along the Waterbury Branch Line and promote alternative modes of transportation to the automobile. The secondary intent is to decrease auto- dependency, and mitigate the effects of congestion and pollution. These regulations seek to achieve this by providing a pedestrian-, bicycle-, and transit-supportive environment development integrating auto uses with a complementary mix of land uses, where streets have a high level of connectivity and the blocks are small, all within a comfortable walking and bicycling distance from light rail stations. 2.2. T ransit-oriented development (TOD) often occurs as infill and reuse within areas of existing development. The regulations within this ordinance vary in some cases from other ordinances, related to infill development in the [CITY/TOWN], because of the additional need to support transit ridership. The Transit Oriented Development Overlay District prohibits uses that do not support transit ridership. 2.3. T he specific objectives of this district are to: 2.3.1. Enc ourage a mix of moderate and high density development within walking distance of transit stations to increase transit ridership; 2.3.2. P rovide sufficient density of employees, residents and recreational users to support transit, specifically a residential density of seven to twenty dwelling units per acre; 2.3.3. C reate a pedestrian-friendly environment to encourage walking, bicycling and transit use; 2.3.4. P romote traditional development by emphasizing mixed use, pedestrian oriented development; 2.3.5. C reate a neighborhood identity that promotes pedestrian activity, human interactions, safety and livability; 2.3.6. Enc ourage building reuse and infill to create higher densities; Model TOD Regulation 42 2.3.7. R educe auto dependency and roadway congestion by locating multiple destinations and trip purposes within walking distance of one another; 2.3.8. M aintain an adequate level of parking and access for automobiles and integrate this use safely with pedestrians, bicyclists, and other users; 2.3.9. P rovide a range of housing options for people of different income levels and at different stages of life. 3. Applicability 3.1 T he Transit Oriented Development Overlay District consists of those areas shown on [INSERT TITLE OF MAP] on file with the Town/City Clerk and dated [INSERT DATE MAP IS ADOPTED BY THE CITY/TOWN]. 4. I nconsistencies of Underlying Districts. 4.1. I n the event that the underlying zoning district standards, or other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with these overlay Zoning Ordinance standards or any other provisions herein, the standards of the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District shall apply. 5. Definitions 5.1. C ommercial Parking Facilities. Parking facilities created for the purpose of generating income from paid parking, but not including commuter parking lots owned by the transit operator. 5.2. D evelopment. The construction of new buildings or structures and modification of, additions to, and expansion of existing buildings or structures. 5.3. Dr ive-Through Facility. Facilities that allow for transactions of goods or services without leaving a motor vehicle. 5.4. F ast Food Establishment. A food service business that offers relatively immediate service of semi-prepared or prepared foods for take-out or in-house consumption in disposable containers and serving walk-in and/or drive-through customers. 5.5. M ixed-Use. Development contained on a single parcel or adjoining parcels that includes different, complimentary uses (both residential and non-residential) and which provide for a variety of activities throughout the day. 5.6. O verlay Zoning District. A zoning district that encompasses one or more underlying zoning districts, and imposes additional or alternative requirements or provisions than required by the underlying zoning. 5.7. P ark and Ride Lot. A parking structure or surface lot intended for use by persons riding transit or carpooling. 5.8. P edestrian-Friendly Design. The design of communities, neighborhoods, streetscapes, buildings and other uses that promotes pedestrian comfort, safety, access and visual interest. 5.9. P ublic Seating Area. Any outside seating area designated for use by the public, including outdoor seating owned and operated by eating and drinking establishments. 5.10. S ervice-Oriented Office. Office uses with walk-in business and/or whose clientele is the general public. 5.11. Shar ed Parking. Parking that is utilized by two or more different uses that generate different peak period parking demand. 5.12. S trip Commercial Development. Commercial development characterized by a low density (one story) linear development pattern (usually one lot in depth), separate curb cuts for each use, no defined pedestrian system, and high traffic volumes. Parking lots are generally located between the street and the front entrance to the businesses. 5.13. T ownhouse. A single family residence typically of two to three stories attached to a similar residence by a common sidewall. 5.14. T ransit Oriented Development. A development pattern created around a transit facility or station that is characterized by higher density, mixed uses, a safe and attractive pedestrian environment, reduced parking, and a direct and convenient access to the transit facility. 5.15. T ransit Station. The area including the platform at which commuter service operated by the Metro-North Railroad makes stops. 6. P rocedural Requirements 6.1. C ertain specified uses are allowed by right in the TOD District. Other uses may be allowed by Special Permit. In accordance with the procedures, standards and conditions hereinafter specified, the Planning and Zoning Commission may grant a Special Permit for the establishment of a TOD District. Procedural 43 Requirements, including application requirements, site plan review, abutter notification and public hearing shall be in accordance with the Special Permit Procedures as found elsewhere in the Town’s Zoning Regulations [REFERENCE SECTION OF BYLAW/ ORDINANCE]. The Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Special Permit Granting Authority, may grant a Special Permit in a TOD District if it finds that the use will: (1) promote the purpose of the Overlay District as described in section 2; and (2) include active ground floor uses, subordinate parking, and have upper floor residential units. 7. Regulations 7.1. A llowed Uses: The uses listed below are allowed in the Transit Oriented Development Overlay District 7.1.1. A partments (above ground floor in active business districts) 7.1.2. Townhouses 7.1.3. S ervice-oriented office uses 7.1.4. Non-ser vice oriented office uses on upper floors only 7.1.5. M ixed uses with ground floor retail, personal services and/or service-oriented offices 7.1.6. Banks 7.1.7. R etail under ten thousand square feet 7.1.8. G overnment buildings 7.1.9. Hospitals 7.1.10. Hotels 7.1.11. T ransit stations 7.1.12. R estaurants (except fast food establishments which may only be authorized by Special Permit) 7.1.13. C ivic, cultural and community facilities 7.1.14. T heaters, except drive-ins 7.1.15. Dr y cleaners stores with cleaning facilities outside the Transit Oriented Development Overlay District 7.1.16. Buildings and uses ac cessory to the above, such as parking garages, gift shops, cafeterias and day care facilities 7.2. P rohibited Uses: The uses listed below are prohibited in the Transit Oriented Development Overlay District 7.2.1. A uto sales, auto service and repair, auto storage and auto rental uses 7.2.2. G asoline sales 7.2.3. Hea vy equipment sales and service 7.2.4. M anufactured home sales 7.2.5. S alvage yards 7.2.6. I ndustrial uses 7.2.7. T owing services and vehicle storage yards 7.2.8. R V mobile home sales yards and storage 7.2.9. C ar wash 7.2.10. S trip Commercial Development 7.2.11. M ini-storage and self-storage facilities 7.2.12. C ommercial laundries with dry-cleaning operation on site 7.2.13. W arehousing and distribution facilities 7.2.14. L ow density housing (less than seven units per acre) 7.2.15. G olf Courses 7.2.16. Cemeteries 7.2.17. B oat sales and storage yards 7.2.18. F reight terminals 7.2.19. A musement parks 7.2.20. Building c ontractors 7.2.21. R etail uses, except grocery stores, larger than ten thousand square feet, unless part of a mixed-use 44 development 7.2.22. Dr ive-in theaters 7.2.23. Dr ive-through facilities 7.2.24. C ommercial parking facilities 7.3. Special P ermit Uses: The following uses may be allowed by Special Permit. The Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Special Permit Granting Authority, may grant a Special Permit in a TOD District if it finds that the use will: (1) promote the purpose of the Overlay District as described in Section 2.; and (2) include active ground floor uses, subordinate parking, and have upper floor residential units. 7.3.1. Single family homes 7.3.2. C ommercial surface parking lots 7.3.3. Laboratories 7.3.4. F ast Food Establishments 7.3.5. R esearch facilities 7.3.6. S tadiums and sports facilities with over ten thousand seats 7.3.7. Gr ocery stores over ten thousand square feet 8. Non- conforming Uses. 8.1. U ses prohibited in the Transit Oriented Development Overlay District which existed legally prior to the effective date of the overlay district and became non-conforming due to the overlay district may expand on the same or adjacent parcel under the following conditions: 8.1.1. Either o wned or leased prior to [DATE EFFECTIVE], and 8.1.2. B e developed under the conditions and development standards of this district, and 8.1.3. T he underlying zoning permits the use. 8.2. I f the adjacent parcel was not owned or leased prior to [DATE EFFECTIVE]. The property owner may apply for a special permit. 9. P arking Requirements 9.1. P arking requirements within the Transit Oriented Development Overlay District are as follows: 9.1.1. A maximum of one par king space per multi-family unit, plus one guest space per fifteen units, is permitted. 9.1.2. P arking for non-residential uses shall be provided at not more than three spaces per one thousand square feet (gross) and not less than less than one space per five hundred square feet (gross) for uses covering less than one thousand square feet. 9.1.3. F urther reduction in the number of required parking spaces may be permitted by a Special Permit granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission after a finding by the Board that the development will be adequately served by users of public transportation. 9.1.4. Shar ed parking is strongly encouraged. On lots serving more than one use, the total number of spaces required may be reduced, provided that the applicant submits credible evidence to the satisfaction of the City/Town Planning and Zoning Commission that the peak parking demand of the uses do not coincide, and that the accumulated parking demand at any one time shall not exceed the total capacity of the facility. Such evidence must take into account the parking demand of residents, employees, customers, visitors, and any other users of the lot. It must also take into account parking demand on both weekends and weekdays, and both during the daytime and overnight. 9.1.5. W here feasible, ingress and egress from parking shall be from side streets or alleys. 9.1.6. Sur face parking lots must be to the rear of buildings, and shall not exceed one acre in size. Surface lots are prohibited in front of businesses. 9.1.7. Sur face parking lots with more than thirty spaces shall be divided into separate areas by landscaped areas of at least ten feet in width. A minimum of 15 percent of all surface lots shall be landscaped. No row of parking shall be more than ten spaces wide without being interrupted by a landscaped area. Each landscaped area shall have at least one tree. Landscaped areas should be planted 45 with low-maintenance, salt tolerant plants capable of withstanding extreme weather conditions. 9.1.8. Sur face lots shall be screened along all sidewalks by a landscaped buffer of not less than six feet, or three foot walls or fencing compatible with the adjacent architecture. 9.1.9. Sur face parking lots shall provide pedestrian walkways and connections to the sidewalk system. 9.1.10. On-str eet parking is permitted and encouraged. 9.1.11. P arking structures shall have well-designed and marked pedestrian walkways and connections to the sidewalk system. 9.1.12. P arking structures must include ground level retail along all streets and sidewalks. 9.1.13. P arking structures shall be designed to be compatible with adjacent buildings and architecture. 9.1.14. Bic ycle racks shall be provided on site at a ratio of one space for every fifteen automobile parking spaces or portion thereof. 9.1.15. A ll parking lots and structures must provide pedestrian access ways to streets that meet the Dimensional Requirements detailed in section 10., below. 9.1.16. Sig nage that shows the location and best means of access to the transit station must be provided at all parking facilities. 10. Dimensional R equirements 10.1. Building S etbacks 10.1.1. W ithin a distance of a ½ mile of a commuter rail station located along the Waterbury Branch Rail Line, a building shall have a minimum front yard setback of zero feet and a maximum setback of ten feet from the front property line. A setback may be increased to twenty-five feet from the front property line if a courtyard, plaza or seating area is incorporated into the development adjacent to the public street. 10.1.2. T he minimum setback for a side yard shall be zero feet. Where deemed appropriate by the Planning and Zoning Commission, alleys between buildings may be encouraged for the provision of beneficial public connections between buildings, open spaces and streets. The maximum side setback shall be determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and shall not exceed twenty-five feet. 10.1.3. T he minimum setback for a back yard shall be fifteen feet. 10.1.4. T he setback provisions in section 10.1. may be waived with a Special Permit issued by the Planning and Zoning Commission where such waiver would further the purposes of this regulation as listed in section 2. 10.2. Bulk and L ot Coverage 10.2.1. M inimum lot coverage is 60 percent of the net lot area. This minimum may be reduced if a minimum of 40 percent of the lot is developed as improved public open space or if ingress, egress or other building code requirements would otherwise make the development infeasible. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall have final discretion in deciding if land constitutes improved open space for the purposes of this provision. 10.2.2. M aximum lot coverage is limited to 85 percent. This lot coverage may be increased to 100 percent for mixed use buildings, or for renovated historic structures. 10.2.3. T he maximum by-right floor-to-area ratio (FAR) is 1.5. The maximum FAR shall be 2.5, upon the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission may issue a Special Permit to grant additional FAR beyond 1.5 up to 2.5 for affordable housing or for mixed use developments if it finds that such an increase furthers the purposes of this bylaw. 10.3. Building Heigh t Requirements 10.3.1. T he minimum allowable building height is two stories or twenty-eight feet above grade. 10.3.2. T he maximum building height is four stories or forty-five feet above grade. 10.3.3. Not withstanding the building height provisions noted above, no building shall exceed by more than two stories 46 or thirty feet, whichever is less, the height of the tallest building or buildings that front on the same street and are located within 150 feet of such building. 10.3.4. No por tion of a building located within fifty feet of an existing one or two family dwelling in a residential zoning district shall be permitted to exceed three stories or forty- five feet, whichever is less. 10.4. Driveways 10.4.1. T he creation of new driveway curb cut shall be avoided whenever an alternative point of access is available or can be created. Shared access agreements are encouraged. 10.4.2. T he minimum width for one-way traffic is twelve feet, and the maximum eight-teen feet. 10.4.3. T he minimum width for two-way traffic is eight-teen feet and the maximum is twenty-two feet. 10.5. Sidewalks 10.5.1. A minimum unobstruc ted sidewalk width of eight feet is required. Sidewalk width can be up to twenty feet, and is dependent on expected level of activity. 10.5.2.. Sidew alks shall be constructed along the frontage of all public streets. 10.5.3. P edestrian scale lighting fixtures no greater than fifteen feet in height shall be provided along all sidewalks and walkways to provide ample lighting during nighttime hours. All lighting shall adhere to International Dark Sky standards. 10.5.4. A ll sidewalks and walkways shall meet ADA requirements, including curb ramps and detectable tactile cues and warnings. 11. D esign Standards 11.1. Streetscapes 11.1.1. S treet trees shall be planted by the developer along all public rights-of-way. Street trees shall be planted at intervals of no more than forty feet. Tree species shall be selected that require minimal maintenance, are of native origin, and are of a type and size appropriate to the street environment. 11.1.2. P edestrian amenities such as benches, public art, trash receptacles, etc. are encouraged and shall be located along sidewalks, and in landscaped areas, open spaces and plazas. 11.1.3. P edestrian enhancements shall be installed to ensure safety and accommodate pedestrian movement. Such enhancements include but are not limited to crosswalks using textured material, pedestrian signals that have countdown, audible features and longer walk intervals, curb extensions and bump-outs, center refuge islands. 11.1.4. Gr een infrastructure elements shall be installed to help manage storm water runoff, including bio-swales, rain gardens, storm water planters and permeable material. 11.1.5. A ll new utilities shall be placed underground. 11.1.6. On-str eet parking spaces shall be delineated and marked, and defined by curb extensions and bump-outs at road intersections. 11.2. Building F acades. 11.2.1. A ll buildings must provide a main entrance on the façade of the building facing the transit station or streets leading to the transit station. 11.2.2. T he main entrance of any building shall face the street. The main entrance shall not be set back more than five feet from the front property line, unless a public seating area or plaza is provided in front of the building. 11.2.3. F acades over fifty feet in length shall be divided into shorter segments by means of façade modulation, repeating window patterns, changes in materials, canopies or awnings, varying roof lines and/or other architectural treatments. 11.2.4. T he ground floor of a front commercial façade shall contain a minimum of 50 percent glass. 11.2.5. A rchitectural style and materials shall be compatible with the surrounding area, and facades must provide a 47 visually interesting environment. 11.2.6. A ll buildings shall articulate the line between the ground and upper levels with a cornice, canopy, balcony, arcade, or other visual device. 11.2.7. A ll structured parking must be designed so that the only openings at street level are those to accommodate vehicle ingress and egress, and pedestrian access to the building. All openings must be designed so that vehicles are not visible from the sidewalk. The remainder of the street frontage must be available for retail or commercial usage. 11.3. Signage 11.3.1. Heigh t. No signs shall extend higher than the height of the ground story. 11.3.2. Siz e. No façade sign shall exceed 25 percent of the ground floor wall area. No other sign shall exceed twenty-five square feet in size. Signs may be double sided. 11.3.3. D esign. All signs within a given district shall be complimentary in their use of color, shape, and material. 12. Ex emptions and Exclusions 12.1. T his regulation shall apply to all new construction in the TOD District. It shall apply to reconstruction or redevelopment when the redevelopment will result in an increase of property value of 50 percent or greater of the assessed values of the existing property. The provisions of this regulation shall apply to reconstruction of existing property where the reconstruction will result in less than 50 percent increase in property value over the assessed value of the existing property to the maximum extent feasible. 13. Severability 13.1. I f any provision of this regulation is found to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the regulation shall not be affected but shall remain in full force. The invalidity of any section of this regulation shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the Town’s/City’s Zoning Regulations . Footnotes The bulk of the language for this model overlay was excerpted from the Smart Growth/Smart Energy Toolkit for Transit Oriented Development Overlay District accessible through the Massachusetts State web site: http://www. mass.gov/envir/smart_growth_toolkit/pages/mod-tod.html. Additionally, TOD district overlay zoning codes from: Phoenix, Arizona; Atlanta, Georgia; Austin Texas; and Louisville, Kentucky were referenced for best practices and benchmarking. See, for example, Newman, P. and J. Kenworthy, Cities and Automobile Dependence, Gower Publishing Company Limited, Hants, England, 1989, and Parsons Brinkerhoff QQuade and Douglas, Inc., Report 16: Transit and Urban Form, Volume 1 Transportation Research Board, National academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1996. 48 The newly constructed Tingue Dam Fish By- pass Park, located at the edge of downtown and on the Naugatuck River in Seynour. 49 Whether constructing new transit, expanding upon existing transit systems, or developing supporting facilities, funding is always constrained. Additionally, TOD generally is more expensive to build then traditional development be- cause of the higher design demands and added amenities discussed in the introduction. These amenities may include “placemaking” features such as public space to support community events, structured parking to avoid large expansive parking lots, and pedestrian connections to encourage and grow the walkable distance around a given transit station. This situation is pushing municipalities to be creative with how they fund improvements. There are a number of ways municipalities have funded large infrastructure projects in the past. Bonding has been a very common method for munici- palities to fund projects of all sorts. Municipalities issue a general obligation bond to fund infrastructure improvements that are then paid off with future tax revenue collected from all residents. In the scope of transit, an obvious conflict is that taxes must be levied on residents who may have no interaction with the improvements. By contrast, federal grants, such as the TIGER grant program, provide opportunities to fund large projects across Connecticut, including transportation and freight projects in Stamford, Bridgeport, New Haven, Waterbury and Hartford. The TIGER grants are usually meant to spark correlated economic activity. The two examples above illustrate the difficulty in funding large projects. The taxes necessary to pay off a bond are unpop – ular while the TIGER grants are very competitive and difficult to secure. In addition to bonds, grants, and other public funds, municipalities are ex – ploring many other financial solutions to fund or finance all or part of a project. Most of these solutions focus on capturing the value created by the new facility. This process is not easy as most of the value created by a given project is already incorporated into the real estate prices by the completion of planning and design. That is, by the time new infrastructure is in place and open, the opportunity to capture most of the value it creates for the neigh- borhood has already passed. However by carefully assessing the particular circumstances surrounding a project a municipality can improve the degree of success a project is likely to enjoy. Certain conditions are prerequisite to any value capture strategy: 1. V alue creation is inherently dependent on economic demand. It is not enough that there is strong transit demand. For public transit investment to be a catalyst for new private investment or development there must be both strong economic and transit demand. 2. Z oning regulations must be welcoming to new development and sup- portive of high demand uses or profitable industries. 3. F inally, the new transit or transit supportive development must be seen to be solving an existing congestion problem. Congestion spurs de – mand for the alternative transportation mode. If automobiles are the preferred mode of transit then train, bus, bike or foot will have to be shown to be a more desirable alternative. Assessing a special tax on property owners, limited geographically to a designated district, has been used across the country to fund public services and infrastructure. The benefit of this special assessment is that it only levies a tax on those property owners who will be directly benefited from an im- provement. Using special assessments to finance new construction has two distinct dis- advantages, however: 1. B ecause the special assessment must be approved by voters, there is often extensive negotiation that undermines its effectiveness. For exam- ple, single family homeowners carry the greatest number of votes and therefore often must be excluded from the assessment. Observation of FINANCIAL TOOLS Special Assessments 50 special assessments from across the country show that they are often most successful where there are a few large property owners. 2. T o collect all the necessary revenue to fund the length of a linear transportation project, the tax must be assessed on the entire length of the corridor. This has proven to be difficult in existing projects where inter-jurisdictional agreements are necessary. Therefore special assess- ments benefit from being contained in a single municipality. Under CGS a municipal special services district (SSD) may be established for the promotion and economic health of the residents and may assess taxes. A SSD is established by referendum with a majority vote of all owners of property and constituting over half of the total assessed property value [1]. A tax increment financing (TIF) district allows a municipality to dedicate a portion of future property tax revenue to either financing current develop – ment or funding future development. Projects that might be appropriate for a TIF district include building new infrastructure, site development, or even brownfield remediation. Connecticut Main Street Center puts it like this: “Tax Increment Financing is a mechanism by which an anticipated fu- ture increase in property tax revenue is used to fund current investment in development or redevelopment. Bonds are issued for projects today, then repaid over time with the increased tax revenue generated as the development spurs increased property values (an increase that would not have occurred “but for” the investment).” The Connecticut State Legislature, in 2015, passed Public Act Number 15-57 enabling towns to more easily create TIF districts. Connecticut previously had legislation authorizing the use of TIF; however, its application was limited to economic development and it suffered from a number of regulatory hurdles that made the tool quite cumbersome in most contexts. Public Act Number 15-57 widely expanded the application of TIF by permitting municipal legis- lative bodies to establish their own tax increment finance districts, to issue general obligation bonds, and to levy benefit assessments. It defines a broad set of uses for the TIF district revenues and allows improvements outside of the district if they are related to the proposed TIF project. A municipality can use all or part of the district revenue for projects within a TIF district. Permitted projects now include, but are not limited to, TOD, land acquisition, infrastructure, and construction. 6 CGS Section 7-339m-t TIF districts enjoy several advantages over other economic development tools available to municipalities in Connecticut. These advantages include: 1. TIF distr icts are not limited to economically distressed communities in the same way the Enterprise Zones are. 2. B ecause TIF does not create any new taxes and only earmarks revenue beyond a baseline, it is generally more politically tenable than a special assessment. Given these advantages many municipalities may find that a TIF district de – serves closer consideration. As part of a larger strategy, TIF can provide greater commitment and secu- rity to future investment and funding. Establishing TIF districts ensures that as development prospects move forward and value appreciates within an area, a certain percentage (100 percent or less) of anticipated increased tax rev – enues will be reinvested in the district. This may be an attractive feature for investors looking to locate in downtowns and neighborhood centers, where they are assured that their investments will be matched by further public investment in the area, spurring increased traffic, revenue, and value. In prac – tice, an idealized example of a successful TIP project might look something like this: A municipality issues general obligation bond to fund remediation of blighted properties within a TIF district. Private developers build a mixed-use commercial and residential complex on the remediated site creating new val- ue for the grand list. The increased tax revenue collected by the municipality from the district is reinvested back into the district for a new bus terminal which brings more foot traffic to the district, encouraging further private investment which generates more tax revenue which allows for more public investment, fostering a virtuous cycle. The first regulatory requirement a municipality must meet in pursuing TIF is to establish a TIF district. A TIF district will generally include a known project surrounded by an area targeted for development. The selected area does not have to be contiguous, but should be carefully considered in order to optimize use of TIF funds. Under state law, a TIF district itself must include property that is blighted, in need of rehabilitation, or suitable for mixed-use or TOD. Next, Connecticut requires that municipalities adopt a planning com- mission approved TIF district master plan. The associated master plan must include a financial plan detailing the schedule of incremental tax revenues, costs of improvements, a list of planned activities eligible for use through TIF funds, and more. It is challenging to change the scope of improvements once adopted, so municipalities should be comprehensive in their presentation of proposed activities. Tax Increment Financing [6] 51 The three general forms that TIF takes in Connecticut are the following: 1. A municipality commits to spend 100 percent of additional property tax revenue beyond a base line level within the district to fund additional improvements; 2. A municipalit y issues bonds to fund new development and any increas- es in the property tax revenue beyond a base level will be used to pay off the bond; and 3. A public private partnership is signed in which all upfront development is done by a private developer with the understanding that any in- creases in the property tax revenue will be spent by the municipality on additional pre-agreed upon improvements within the district. TIF has been used successfully for decades, most widely in the states of Maine, Iowa, and Indiana. Towns and cities in Maine have utilized TIF in large and small contexts. The small, rural community of Machias utilized TIF as a mechanism to help a local bank expand its business operations, preserving its presence in the downtown area and providing resources for future infrastruc – ture improvements. There are dozens of TIF districts in the City of Portland alone, often used to support specific projects. Tax abatement does not exist in Maine; therefore, TIF is the predominant tool for economic development. In Connecticut, there are only a few examples of TIF being implemented prior to the new legislation. Generally, these TIF plans were designed around well developed, large projects due to the complicated and time consuming pro – cess required for implementation. Harbor Point, a mixed-use development in Stamford with four thousand housing units and 400,000 square feet of retail space, was partially funded by over $145 million in special obligation revenue bonds issued through a tax increment financing plan. The funding provided resources necessary for environmental remediation and construction of in- frastructure. Municipal leaders should take note that TIF is not fail proof. Issuing general obligation bonds to a private party through TIF requires confidence in a project’s success and accompanying increases in property value. When new public transportation infrastructure is built, property values generally go up because the land value has increased; the assessed value of the structure sitting on top of the land generally will see no change. The success of a TIF district is predicated on property values being significantly higher after the investment than before. The net result of this observation is that TIF is more successful where there is available open space for development and less successful where the neighborhood is already built out. In evaluating the po – tential of a TIF district, municipal assessors play a critical role and should be included as early as possible. It is recommended that municipalities engage an experienced consultant to guide the process and to ensure a TIF district’s effectiveness once implemented. Through cooperation with at least one private partner, usually a developer, the municipality can leverage public spending to have a larger impact on local development patterns. Most often, joint development requires that the municipality own some land that it wants to be developed. In exchange for an agreement to develop the project in a certain way, a private developer is selected to build, operate and maintain the facility for their own profit. A joint development needs not be overly complex. One example would be for a municipality to select one developer for multiple public properties. Doing so eliminates transaction costs and the time needed to issue multiple requests for proposals (RFP). Or similarly, a municipality may improve their outcome simply by coordinating development to be complementary with adjacent property owners. Joint development projects are often financed by a cost share, a revenue share or some mix of both between the municipality and the developer. Un- der such a contractual structure the municipality and the developer agree to fund certain proportions of the development costs or to receive certain proportions of generated revenues. Federal money is available for a joint development but there are guidelines that dictate what kinds of projects can be funded. The guidelines require that the project enhance economic development or incorporate private in- vestment, enhance the effectiveness of a public transportation project or establish new or enhanced coordination between public transportation and other transportation modes, and provide a fair share of revenue to be used for public transportation. Due to the divergent interests of the public and private sectors, these proj- ects often set private revenue in opposition to long-term public transit goals. Because public objectives often inflate costs, the overall financial feasibility of joint development is often not very good. To be successful joint developments often require very complicated partnerships between many stakeholders (de – veloper, transit agency, local jurisdictions, etc.). Furthermore, large transit projects often require a partnership with large engineering firms that may not be well suited to handle the complications of a large real estate transaction. While the complexity of a joint development poses a significant problem, perhaps more detrimental is its inability to capture value across an entire transit district. A joint development only captures the value created by the transit services at the location of the new development and not across the entire district the way TIF or a special assessment is able to do. Given the challenges and drawbacks of joint development, it is most effective to try to keep the project simple and combine it with some of the other value capture tools described in this section. Joint Development 52 As described above, new transit, or any other major infrastructure improve- ment, primarily benefits the assessed land value rather than the assessed value of the existing structures. If the appraised value on a parcel increases following new public investment in transit, this is a reflection of the increased value of the land not the structure. This is because the value of a structure is generally measured by how much it would cost to replace; transit does not affect building costs. A “split tax rate” taxes the land and the structures at different rates. If the tax rate is split, more weight can be shifted onto the land value to fully capture the premiums associated with the transit investments. Currently, because of how land value and the value of improvements com- pose the total assessed value of a property, if a proprietor allows his/her property to deteriorate or chooses not to use it at the highest and best val- ue, there is no economic penalty (besides diminished profits). In fact, in the case of a deteriorated structure, the proprietor may see their assessed value decrease and as a result their property taxes decrease. However, if property taxes are based on the assessed value of the land, and not the structures, then a proprietor will have to pay the same property tax bill regardless of the condition of the structures. For these reasons, split tax rates are often used to battle blight and incentivize the highest and best use of a property. In a transit district a split tax rate could have complimentary effects for different reasons. As land values increase as a result of infrastructure improvements and taxes follow, property owners can be expected to try to increase their FAR or dwelling units per acre in order to maximize revenue and offset the effects of their increasing tax bill. In the transit district, the expected result would be increased density and full build out. The State of Connecticut passed Public Act Number. 09-236: An Act Estab – lishing a Land Value Taxation Pilot Program in 2009. The program allows the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) to establish one split-tax program in a distressed municipality. Within the area of the pilot program taxes will be assessed independently for land and improvements, and the mill rate will be higher on the land than on the improvements. While this taxation policy has been considered in several major Connecticut cities it has not yet been ad- opted anywhere. The Legislature has continued to show interest in this policy by extending the pilot program several times, most recently in 2015. Municipalities have the right to offer tax abatements on real estate and manufacturing equipment. These abatements can be used to entice private developers to support the goals of the TOD district. Municipalities can also waive local fees developers usually would need to pay in exchange for building to a transit supportive design standard. This in- cludes impact fees and building permit fees. Similarly property tax forgiveness by the municipality is not uncommon. At the state level, the Sales and Use Tax Exemption and the CT Job Expansion Tax Credit can both be used when new jobs are being created or retained in the area. The CT Green Building Tax Credit Program, which prioritizes LEED certified buildings, can also be used to encourage development. Municipalities can also support development by providing shared infrastruc – tures to support a TOD district. Common infrastructure might include parks, sidewalks, bike lanes or commuter parking. This can be funded with parking revenue, bonds or by creative use of the ideas introduced in this section. Under CGS Chapter 124b towns that adopt incentive housing zones are el- igible for payments from the State (if funds are made available). Incentive housing developments have higher densities and include at least 20 percent affordable housing. Affordable housing is defined as requiring not more than 30 percent of an individual’s annual income who earns less than 80 percent of the area’s median income. A location efficient mortgage allows an applicant to apply for a larger mort – gage by taking into account transportation savings generated by living in an area that has access to public transportation. The program does not lower monthly mortgage payments but rather assumes that the owner will be able to afford higher payments because of the transportation savings they receive by not needing to use a car or possibly not owning a car. Although the economics of these programs are still being debated, they are an obvious solution to increase demand for residential apartments in a transit district. Land Value Taxation Tax credits Publically Funded Infrastructure: Parking Facilities, Parks & Sidewalks CGS 124b – Incentive Housing Zones Location efficient mortgages 53 This document set out to identify a broad definition for TOD, map those neighborhoods within the municipalities of Ansonia, Derby, Seymour and Shelton that are capable of supporting TOD, and provide a survey of the regulatory and financial tools being used by communities across the region and state to support TOD. While the definition of TOD differs from location to location and from text to text, two traits are universal: TOD must facilitate the use of public transit and permit a density of residential units and jobs high enough to support public transit. The four municipalities of the lower Naugatuck Valley were laid out along the river because it allowed for the transport of goods and people. Today this advantage remains. The Metro-North Waterbury Branch Line directly connects to the Metro-North New Haven Line, America’s busiest commuter rail line, with direct access to Connecticut’s coastal cities and New York City. Additionally, each municipality has maintained a dense, mixed- use downtown and zoning codes that permit or often encourage similar development. As the expected improvements progress along the WBL, these four municipalities have an opportunity to capitalize on their existing assets and spark new economic growth in their downtowns. Across the country new demand is being observed for livable downtowns served by public transit. TOD takes advantage of these trends and the regulatory and fiscal tools outlined in this document are meant to give municipal leaders ideas for how they can put together a strategy that will work within their local framework. CONCLUSION 54 A grown over canal in Shelton reminds passerbys of the important role transportation has played in the development of the Naugatuck Valley 55 Burchell, Robert. The Cost of Sprawl – Revisited. Washington, D.C.: National Reasearch Council/ Transportation Research Board National Academy Press, 1998. Cervero, Robert. Transit oriented Development in the United States: Experi- ences, Challenges, and Prospects. TCRP Report 102. Washington, D.C.: Trans- portation Research Board. 2004. Connecticut Fund for the Environment; Partnership for Strong Communities; Regional Plan Association; Tri-State Transportation Campaign. Transit oriented Development: Toolkit for CT. Durrell, Brad. City Officials Like New Matto Concept for Downtown Shelton. Shelton Herald. May 2015. Elliott, Donald; Goebel, Matthew; Meadows, Chad. The Rules that Shape Urban Form. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service. Report Number 570. October 2012. Ewing, Reid. Best Development Practices. Planners Press. Fogarty, Nadine; Eaton, Nancy; Belzer, Dena; Ohland, Gloria. Capturing the Value of Transit. Washington D.C.: Federal Transit Administration. Reconnecting America’s Center for Transit-Oriented Development. November 2008. Graves, Erin. Modern Land Banking: Can It Work in Southern New England. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. www.bostonfed.org. Summer 2013. Heart, Bennet. Community Rules: A New England Guide to Smart Growth Strategies. Conservation Law Foundation and Vermont Forum on Sprawl. 2002. Hinshaw, Mark. Design Review. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service. Report Number 454. 1995. Jacobson, Justin; Forsyth, Ann. Seven American TODs: Good practices for urban design in Transit-Oriented Development projects. 2008 Journal of Trans- port and Land Use 1:2 (Fall 2008) pp. 51–88Mandelker, Daniel. Planned Unit Development. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service. Report number 570. March 2007. Mayko, Michael. Fire Destroys Housatonic Wire in Seymour. CT Post. Septem- ber 2010. McCann, Barbara; Rynne, Suzanne. Complete Streets: Best Policy and Im- plementation Practices. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service. Report Number 559. 2010. O’Neill, David. The Smart Growth Tool Kit: Community Profiles and Case Studies to Advance Smart Growth Practices. Washington D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, 2000. Reconnecting America’s Center for Transit-Oriented Development. Station Area Planning: How to Make Great Transit-Oriented Places. Washington D.C. US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Land Banking 101: What is a Land Bank. By Neighborhood Stabilization Program. www.hudexchange. info. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Transit Administration. National Transit Institute. Transit Oriented Development. By Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Transit Administration. National Transit Institute. Transportation and Land Use. By Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Reconnecting America’s Center for Transit-Oriented Development. Transit Ori- ented Development: Tools for Metropolitan Planning Organizations. Washing- ton, D.C. February, 2010. Walkscore.com. 8/15/2015 SOURCES 56

Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 2015

NVCOG-2015-Regional-Profile-thumbnail.jpg

Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 2015 July 2016 A Report by The Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Several tables and figures in this report compare data from the 2010r2014 American Community Survey (ACS) fiveryear estimates to the 2000 Census. Beginning in 2005, the ACS replaced the longr form census as the source for detailed socioeconomic and housing data. The first complete ACS data set covered the years 2005r2009. The 2010r2014 ACS is a fiveryear estimate where a small percentr age of all households are sampled each year. ACS estimates reprer sent an average over the course of five years and are not equivar lent to the 100 percent count data from the 2010 census. The ACS fiveryear estimates are not optimal for analyzing year to year trends because four of the five years of samples are reused in the next year?s estimates. Oneryear and threeryear ACS data are only available for larger municipalities. The ACS surveys approximately 3 million households per year (roughly 2.5% of households) and aggregates the data on multir year intervals. The longrform 2000 Census was given to approxir mately 16% of households. Both data sets used samples to calcur late estimates for the entire population. The differences in methr odology between the longrform 2000 Census and the 2010r2014 ACS make their comparisons difficult. However, because of the lack of related data sets, they were compared in several tables and maps. Readers should take note that these comparisons can help show general trends, but may be inaccurate in providing specific numbers. Front Cover: Thomaston Dam, Ryan Clair / US Army Corps of Enr gineers All other photos were taken by NVCOG staff The material contained herein may be quoted or reproduced withr out special permission, although mention of the source is apprecir ated. The preparation of this report was financed through grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Adminr istration, and the Federal Transit Administration, and by contribur tions from member municipalities of the Naugatuck Valley Region. Data Disclaimer Photo Credits Attribution Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table of Contents Chapter Page 1. Introduc?on ……………………………………………………………..………………. 1 2. Popula?on and Demographic Trends ……………………………………………. 5 3. Economic Trends ……………………………………………………………..………. 11 4. Housing Trends ……………………………………………………………..………… 15 Appendices Page Appendix A: Popula?on and Demographic Trends: Tables and Maps .. 19 Appendix B: Economic Trends: Tables and Maps …………………………….. 49 Appendix C: Housing Trends: Tables and Maps ………………………………. 61 Appendix D: Other Regional Informa?on ……………………………………….. 81 Depot Street Bridge, Beacon Falls Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 1 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile The following chapters present demor graphic, economic, and housing data for the Naugatuck Valley Region, a 19rtown region in West Central Connecticut. Data comes from a variety of sources including the 2010 Decennial Census, the 2010r2014 American Community Survey (ACS), the Connecticut Department of Labor (DOL), and the Connecticut Department of Ecor nomic and Community Development (DECD). Summary of Findings This report examines past trends and pror vides an outlook for the future. In recent years, the region?s population, housing, and economic trends have been on the upswing. The 2007r2009 Great Rer cession hit the region harder and longer than the state and nation as a whole. Howr ever, certain industries, such as Manufacr turing, have seen a steady rebound since 2010. The State of Connecticut made a major investment to address future workr force needs in this sector of the region?s economy by creating one of three new Advanced Manufacturing Programs at Naur gatuck Valley Community College in 2012. In addition, Waterbury, the region?s largest city, has made similar investments in creatr ing a manufacturing program at Waterbury Career Academy High School in 2013 and the planned acquisition of a large manufacr turing training facility from the Manufacr turing Alliance Service Corp. in 2016. As of 2014, the unemployment rate has moved down to 7.4%. While the region has added jobs since 2011, it still remains ber low prerrecession levels. During the early 2000s, the region experir enced a building boom, adding over 5,000 new housing units. However, because the housing market bubble was not large in the region to begin with, its negative impact was not as prominent as in other regions and new home construction has picked up since 2012. In the near future, the region will be shaped by the retirement of the baby boomers. A surge in the elderly population will put greater financial burdens on the workforce, and will lead to new fiscal chalr lenges for municipalities. 1. Introduction Economy Popula?on Housing This report will examine the relationship between population, economic, and housing trends Lock 12 Historic Park, Cheshire Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 2 Methodology is based on Data Haven?s Community Well Being Index 3 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Composition of the Region While overall regional trends are inr formative, they fail to account for the differences that exist between municir palities, or even neighborhoods within a municipality. Each scale of analysis tells a different story, and this report will show data in a variety of scales in order to provide as complete an overr view as possible. This report presents data at regional, subregional, municipal, and neighborr hood scales. In order to highlight key trends among similar municipalities, a threerlevel subregional classification was developed (Figure 1b). Municipalir ties were classified as urban core, inner ring, or outer ring based on current and historic population, economic, and housing trends. Table 1a below highr lights some of the differences that exist between the urban core, inner ring, and outer ring communities. To supplement the regional and subr regional scales, tables in the text and appendices present data for each mur nicipality. Where applicable, neighborr hood (blockrgroup) level maps were created to highlight the differences that exist from neighborhood to neighr borhood. Region Urban Core Inner Ring Outer Ring Popula?on 2010 448,708 234,856 127,974 85,878 Popula?on Density per sq. mi. 1,064 2,804 887 444 Popula?on Growth 2000r2010 + 4.6% + 2.4% +4.1% +12.1% Percent Minority 2010 23.9% 36.6% 11.6% 7.3% Percent Foreign Born 2010 10.6% 12.4% 9.0% 7.1% Percent Over Age 65 2020 14.8% 13.4% 15.3% 17.7% Median Age 2010 40.1 37.3 42.9 45.1 Median Household Income 66,989 $49,560 $86,633 $87,357 Poverty Rate 2014 11.3% 17.4% 4.3% 5.1% Percent with Bachelors Degree 28.8% 19.9% 36.8% 39.7% Unemployment Rate 2014 7.4% 9.0% 6.0% 5.5% Jobs 2014 157,198 76,826 56,448 23,924 Job Growth 2004r2014 r0.1% r3.8% 6.0% r1.6% Housing Growth 2004r2014 +3.9% +1.6% +5.9% +8.4% Average Household Size 2010 2.53 2.48 2.56 2.59 Percent SinglerFamily Homes 64.0% 49.5% 79.4% 84.2% Homeownership Rate 2014 68.9% 56.2% 81.6% 86.1% Median Home Value 2014 $248,694 $178,413 $297,045 $311,107 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 4 Urban Core During the 19th century, the urban core emerged as a leading manufacturr ing center for brass, copper, clocks, watches, and rubber products. The urban core has high levels of racial and income diversity, high population denr sity, good access to public transit, and plentiful affordable housing. The charr acter of the urban core varies signifir cantly from neighborhood to neighborr hood. Most of the region?s major instir tutions, such as hospitals and higher education, call the urban core home. Inner Ring Inner ring communities contain a mix of urban and suburban characteristics. Smaller manufacturing centers such as Oakville, Terryville, and Shelton emerged in the 19th century, forming the historic cores of the inner ring mur nicipalities. In the post World War II years, these communities became more suburban in character as urban core residents and young families moved in. Today, the population is highly educated and moderately dir verse. In the last decade, the inner ring has seen job growth as companies leave the urban core to be closer to their workforce. Outer Ring The traditionally rural outer ring has become more suburban in character over the last two decades. From 2000 to 2010, the outer ring population grew at 12.1%, far faster than the rer gion, state, and nation. These towns have the lowest population densities, the highest incomes, and the highest proportion of elderly residents. With few local jobs, most outer ring resir dents commute to jobs in neighboring towns and cities. 5 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile This chapter summarizes regional demographic trends such as population change, race and ethnicity, age, houser hold structure, education, and income. The major population and demographr ic trends shaping the region are: x Population growth in the outer ring is outpacing the rest of the region. x All municipalities are becoming more racially and ethnically diverse. x In the next ten years, the region will see a large increase in retirees and a decline in school aged population. x Nonrtraditional households (nonr married couples) are becoming more common. x There is a large education and inr come gap between the urban core and surrounding municipalities. Population Growth From 2000 to 2010, the region saw a modest 4.6% growth rate, adding 19,918 new residents. This was a faster growth rate than the 1990s, but much slower than the 1980s. About half of the population growth was due to natr ural increase (births minus deaths), while the other half was due to inr migration from outside the region. Der mand for new single family homes in the early 2000s led to explosive growth in outer ring municipalities, which grew at 12.1%. The remainder of the region grew at a slower rate, with a 4.1% inr crease in the inner ring and a 2.4% inr crease in the urban core. Since 2010, population growth has stagnated as a result of the 2007 to 2009 recession. From 2007 to 2013, the number of births dropped by 14.1%. Many families have delayed having children due to economic unr certainty and rising student loan debt. The drop in new home construction since 2008 has prevented new resir dents from moving to the region, parr ticularly in the outer ring. 2. Population and Demographic Trends The Gathering, Waterbury Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 6 Immigration and Migration While birth rates have fallen, immigrar tion and migration have allowed the region?s population to continue to grow at a modest rate. Just over 10% of the region?s population is foreign born, with the largest groups hailing from Portugal, Poland, Italy, the Dor minican Republic, and Jamaica. The region is also home to a large migrant population from Puerto Rico. From 2000 to 2010, the region had a net gain of 9,320 residents through inr migration. While the outer ring experir enced a natural decrease in population (more deaths than births), they added 9,490 residents through inrmigration (people moving into the region). At the other end of the spectrum, the urban core had a large natural increase (more births than deaths) offset by a loss of nearly 4,000 residents through outrmigration. The inner ring saw a small natural increase and gained 3,787 residents through inrmigration. Population Projections Population projections from the Conr necticut State Data Center indicate that up to 2025, the region?s popular tion will continue to grow, but at a slower rate than in the past. From 2010 to 2025, the region is projected to grow by 4.9%, adding approximately 22,000 new residents. The outer ring is projected to grow at the fastest rate, adding 8,700 residents by 2025, a 10.1% increase. New home construction and inrmigration will conr tinue to drive population growth in the outer ring. Middlebury and Oxford are projected to be the two fastestr growing municipalities in the region. In the inner ring, shrinking household size and an increase in elderly resir dents means that new housing units are necessary to maintain population growth. The growth rate in the inner ring is expected to slow to just 2.2% between 2010 and 2025. Communities such as Cheshire and Shelton are close to being ?built out? and have little developable land to support new housr ing units. The population is projected to level out by 2020 in Cheshire and by 2025 in Shelton. Due to high birth rates, the urban core is projected to see modest growth up to 2025, adding over 10,000 new resir dents. Waterbury, which has a much higher birth rate than the rest of the region, is projected to grow by 6.1%. While population projections are user ful, they are unable to predict changes in the housing market and economy. The housing market will dictate where growth will occur, particularly for the inner and outer ring. Similarly, birth rates, migration, and immigration are closely tied to the economy. A growing economy generally sees higher popular tion growth than a stagnant economy. Sources: Connec?cut State Data Center, Popula?on Projec?ons by Municipality: 2015, 2020, and 2025. U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 7 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Black 6.7% White 76.1% Hispanic 12.7% Asian 2.3% Other 2.2% Black 5.4% White 83.1% Hispanic 8.2% Asian 1.5% Other 1.8% ?Other? includes American Indian/Alaska Na?ves, Paci?c Islanders, Some Other Race, and Mul?racial persons. Black, Asian, Other, and White popula?ons only include nonrHispanic persons. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 . Race and Ethnicity Immigration, migration, and higher birth rates among minority groups have made the region?s population more diverse than ever before. As of 2010, 86,052 residents were of a minority race or ethnicity, making up 23.9% of the total. This is an increase from 2000, when just 16.9% of the population ber longed to a minority group. From 2000 to 2010, the urban core experienced ?white flight? as their nonrHispanic white populations declined by over 20,000. This coincided with rapid growth among Hispanics, African Amerr icans, and Asians. Waterbury is a minorityrmajority city, with 54.6% of its population belonging to a minority racial or ethnic group. Ansonia, Derby, Naugatuck, and Bristol have the next highest minority popular tions. Outside of the urban core, less than 10% of the population belongs to a minority group, although this trend is changing. Between 2000 and 2010, inr ner ring and outer ring communities saw their minority populations grow at rates of 60.6% and 94.7% respectively, exceeding the urban core growth rate of 43.3%. Hispanics are the largest and fastest growing minority group in the region with a population of 57,176, a 63% inr crease from 2000. Hispanics now make up 12.7% of the population. A majority of Hispanics who live in the region are of Puerto Rican heritage, including nearly 25,000 who live in Waterbury. There was also sizable growth among African Americans, who make up 6.7% of the population. Asians, the second fastest growing minority group from 2000 to 2010 (61.9%), are more likely to live in the suburbs than the urban core. Figure 2c compares the racial and ethnic composition of the Naugatuck Valley in 2000 and 2010. Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 8 Age The region?s population is aging. In 1990, the median age was 34.3. By 2000 it increased to 37.6, and by 2010 reached 40.1 years old. The urban core has the youngest median age at 37.3 years old while the outer ring is the oldest at 45.1 years old. From 2000 to 2010, the number of residents over the age of 65 increased by 6.0%, with the fastest growth in the inner ring (15.9%) and outer ring (26.5%). The urban core saw a decrease in elderly residents (r6.4%). The aging trend will accelerate as baby boomers reach retirement age. The population over the age of 65 is pror jected to balloon from 66,227 in 2010 to over 100,000 by 2025. The workingraged (age 15 to 64) popur lation is expected to stay stable up to 2020 and then decline slightly by 2025. As the baby boomers age into retirer ment, millennials (born between 1980 and 2000) will make up a greater porr tion of the region?s workforce. As of 2010, there are 83,735 children under the age of 15, making up 18.7% of the total. This age group is expected to decline to 70,805 by 2025. Inner ring and outer ring communities are projected to see their population unr der age 15 decrease by over 25%. The changing age structure of the rer gion will shift the financial burdens of municipalities. Budgets will shift away from education and youth services tor wards elderly services such as health care, transportation, and recreation. This is particularly true in inner and outer ring communities, where a drar matic increase in elderly population will correspond with a decrease in schoolraged population. Greater finanr cial burdens will be placed on the working aged population, who will have to support the growing number of retirees. Source: Connec?cut State Data Center, Popula?on Projec?ons: 2010r2025 U.S. Census 2010 9 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Household and Family Structure Household arrangements have changed as the average age of marr riage increases, family sizes decrease, and life expectancy increases. For the first time in history, less than half of the region?s households are made up of married couples. Persons living alone, cohabitating couples, married couples without children, and single parent households are becoming more prevalent. Less than half of married couples have children age 18 and under. ?Empty nesters? are becoming more common as the millennial generation ages, and many young couples have delayed havr ing children in the last few years due to economic uncertainty. Household structure in the urban core differs significantly from the inner and outer ring communities. Just 40.1% of urban core households are married couples compared to 57.9% in the inr ner ring and 60.3% in the outer ring. A disproportionate number of singler parent households are found in the urban core. Education As of 2014, 28.8% of the region?s adults age 25 and over have a Bacher lor?s degree or higher. This compares to 29.2% of adults nationwide, and 36.9% statewide. There is a large disr crepancy in educational attainment between the urban core and the rer mainder of the region. In the urban core, just 19.9% of the population age 25 and older has a Bachelor?s degree or higher, compared to 36.8% in the inner ring, and 39.7% in the outer ring. Since 2000, educational attainment has improved across all municipalities. The number of residents with at least a Bachelor?s degree increased by 33.6%, with the fastest increase occurring in the outer ring. During the same period, the number of residents without a high school diploma dropped by over 30%. Education is strongly correlated with income. Persons with a college degree have much higher incomes than high school graduates. Municipalities with a higher proportion of college gradur ates have higher incomes than less educated municipalities. Figure 2e ber low illustrates the relationship ber tween education and income. Urban Core Region Outer Ring Inner Ring Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 10 Income and Poverty There is a large income gap between the urban core and remainder of the region. From 2010 to 2014, median household income in the urban core was $49,560 compared to $86,633 in the inner ring and $87,357 in the outer ring. Over a quarter of households in the urban core are low income (making less than $25,000 per year) compared to 11.6% in the inner ring and 11.3% in the outer ring. On the opposite end of the income spectrum, over 40% of households in the inner and outer ring are high income (making $100,000 or more per year) compared to less than 20% in the urban core. The Great Recession negatively imr pacted household and family income throughout the region. In addition, the growing number of elderly persons puts additional financial strain on households (retirees have less income than workingraged persons). Since 1999, median household income der clined in 16 out of 19 municipalities. The highest drops in household income occurred in the urban core towns of Ansonia, Derby, and Naugatuck. These three towns have a high percentage of single parent households. The number of people in poverty inr creased by 58.8% from 2000 to 2014. In 2000, there were 31,412 persons living in poverty (7.5% of total). By 2014, it had increased to 49,880 (11.3% of total). Poverty increased at a moderate rate in the inner ring and highest in outer ring municipalities and the urban core. Waterbury, which has a poverty rate of 24.2%, is home to over half of the region?s impoverished. Child poverty is a prevalent issue in the urban core, where 26.6% of chilr dren live below the poverty line. Ansor nia, Derby and Waterbury have child poverty rates exceeding 20%. Child poverty is also strongly correlated with household structure. Children in single parent households are 4.4 times more likely to live in poverty than houser holds with both parents present. 11 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile The Naugatuck Valley economy was hit hard by the 2007 to 2009 recession. The major economic trends shaping the region are: x Unemployment disproportionately affects young workers under the age of 25. x As of 2014, the region has gained back 58% of the jobs that were lost during the recession. x Jobs are suburbanizing. During the last ten years the inner ring saw job growth while the urban core lost jobs. x Over half of Naugatuck Valley resir dents commute to jobs outside the region. Labor Force The labor force is made up of Naur gatuck Valley residents over the age of 16 who are either employed, or are unemployed and looking for work. As of 2013, the region?s labor force was 234,819, of which 217,415 were emr ployed and 17,404 were unemployed. From 2010 to 2013 the state and rer gion experienced a labor force contracr tion, meaning that there were fewer residents who were employed or lookr ing for work. The labor force contracr tion can be attributed to stagnant job growth, unemployed workers dropping out of the labor force, and a growing number of residents hitting retirement age. In 2014 the labor force grew for the first time since 2009. People who had difficulty finding work during the last few years are reentering the labor force as the job market improves. Employment As of 2014 there were 217,415 emr ployed residents living in the region. This is a decline of 3,630 (r1.6%) from 2007, when there were 221,045 emr ployed residents. The number of emr ployed residents decreased every year from 2008 to 2013 but grew in 2014. Population projections indicate that a significant number of baby boomers are nearing retirement age. The numr ber of working aged residents is pror jected to remain stable up to 2020 and decline thereafter as the last of the baby boomers retire. Attracting and retaining young workers will be necesr sary to replace the growing number of retirees. 3. Economic Trends Shelton Corporate Park, Shelton Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 12 Unemployment From 2007 to 2010 the region saw the number of unemployed residents more than double from 11,954 to 24,656. The jump in unemployment was caused by both job losses and labor force growth. Unemployment has der creased each year since 2010. As of 2014, it stands at 17,404, or 7.4% of the labor force. The labor force conr traction (unemployed persons that have stopped looking for work) is rer sponsible for some of the drop in unr employment. Despite improvements over the last three years, the unemr ployment rate remains above state and national averages. Figure 3a sumr marizes labor force, employment, and unemployment trends over the last 20 years. Unemployment trends vary by location and age. As of 2014, unemployment is highest in the urban core communities of Waterbury (10.7%), Ansonia (9.2%), and Derby (7.9%), and lowest in the inner ring community of Cheshire (4.6%) and the outer ring communities of Woodbury (5.1%), Middlebury (5.1%), and Prospect (5.3%). Due to the collapse of the stock market from 2007 to 2009, many older workr ers have continued to work into retirer ment age. This trend, combined with the lack of new job creation, has led to a disproportionately high unemployr ment rate among young people. The unemployment rate for residents unr der the age of 25 is 20.5% compared to 10.0% for middle aged workers (age 25 r44) and 7.6% for older workers (age 45 and older). 13 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Jobs During the recession, the region exper rienced sharper job losses than the state and nation as a whole. From 2007 to 2011, 12,337 jobs were lost, a decline of 7.6%. The manufacturing, finance and insurance, and construcr tion sectors experienced the sharpest job losses. Some sectors, such as health care and social assistance, and educational services, added jobs during the recession. These sectors have trar ditionally been ?recessionrproof.? Since 2011 the economy has improved, adding over 7,000 jobs. As of 2014, the region has gained back 58.1% of the jobs that were lost during the recesr sion. Comparatively, the state has gained back 114% of the jobs that were lost during the recession. As of 2014 there are 157,198 jobs in the region. Despite job losses during the last ten years, Waterbury remains the job center of the region followed by Shelton, Bristol, and Cheshire. As the population shifts to the suburbs, many employers have followed in orr der to be closer to their workforce. From 2004 to 2014, the urban core lost over 3,000 jobs while the inner ring gained over 3000 jobs, mostly in Shelr ton and Cheshire. Outer ring towns with good highway access (such as Oxr ford and Middlebury) also saw job growth. Over the last half century, the region has shifted from a manufacturingr oriented economy to a servicer oriented one. Health care and social assistance is now the largest job sector followed by government (which inr cludes public school teachers). While much less prominent than in the past, manufacturing remains the third largr est sector of the region?s economy, with over 20,000 jobs. A majority of manufacturing jobs are now located outside of the urban core. Employment projections from the Conr necticut Department of Labor indicate that the health care and social assisr tance sector will drive job creation up to 2020, largely due to increased der mand for health care by the baby boomers. Other sectors projected to add jobs up to 2020 are professional and business services, and construcr tion, although the latter is largely der pendent on the housing market. Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 14 Commuting There is a large mismatch between the number of employed residents living in the region and the number of jobs in the region. There are enough jobs to employ just 75% of working residents. The result is a net export of over 50,000 workers each day to other rer gions, with many commuting to Hartr ford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Danbury, and lower Fairfield County. Cheshire and Shelton are the only mur nicipalities in the region that have more jobs than employed residents. The remaining municipalities have more employed residents than jobs and are net exporters of commuters. As of 2014, when the most recent comr muting data was available, just 40.1% of employed Naugatuck Valley resir dents worked in the region. The rer maining 59.9% commute to jobs outr side of the region. Waterbury is the most popular commuting destination followed by Bristol, Cheshire and Shelr ton. Outside of the region, the most popular destinations are Hartford, New Haven, Stratford, Bridgeport, and Danr bury. Similarly, nearly half of the peor ple who work in the Naugatuck Valley live outside of the region. Wages The average wage of workers in the region is $55,845 which is above the national average of $47,230, but below the state average of $63,909. Since 2007, the region has seen wages der crease at a smaller rate (r0.3%) than the state, which declined by ?2.8%. Average wages vary significantly from sector to sector. The Management of Companies and Enterprises has an avr erage wage of over $281,049, while the Accommodation and Food Services Sector has an average wage of just $17,088. Table 3a below shows the highest and lowest wage sectors in the region. Sector Average Wage Management of Companies and Enterprises $281,049 Informa?on $119,050 U?li?es $99,288 Finance and Insurance $91,564 Wholesale Trade $74,213 Sector Average Wage Accommoda?on and Food Services $17,074 Arts, Entertainment, and Recrea?on $20,844 Other Services $24,255 Retail Trade $29,686 Administra?ve & Waste Management $32,413 15 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile In recent years, the housing market has been shaped by the Great Recesr sion and preceding housing bubble. The major housing trends shaping the region are: x New construction in the outer ring is outpacing new construction in the rest of the region. x Since peaking in 2005, new conr struction decreased r82% by 2011. x Home prices grew rapidly from 2003 to 2007, but have declined each year since 2007. x Homes in the region are more afr fordable than the state as a whole. x Most of the affordable housing in the region is found in the urban core. New Construction During the early 2000s the region exr perienced a building boom. New conr struction peaked from 2002 to 2005 when over 5,000 housing units were built. The vast majority (85%) of new homes were singlerfamily homes. Shelr ton and Oxford led the region in new construction. Shelton added 826 housr ing units (340 of which were multir family) while Oxford added 715 single family units. Similar to population trends, housing growth was fastest in the outer ring (7.9%) and inner ring (5.6%). Due to shrinking household sizes, housing has grown at a faster rate than the number of households. New home construction peaked in 2005 with 1,676 units, but fell to just 298 units in 2011 as the national housr ing bubble burst. New construction has remained well below its historic levels since then. The multi family market picked up pace in 2012 and 2013 due to apartment and condominium conr struction in Shelton. In 2014 the urban core added 77 units with 46 in Bristol and 31 in Waterbury. Construction of new single family homes has remained stagnant. 4. Housing Trends Oxford Greens, Oxford Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 16 Housing Stock As of 2014, the region has 185,942 housing units. Singlerfamily homes comprise 64% of units. Outer ring comr munities such as Oxford, Bethlehem, and Middlebury are made up almost entirely of singlerfamily homes. By conr trast, a vast majority of the region?s multirfamily housing units are found in the urban core. However, in the last decade, a majority of the new multir family units were built outside of the urban core. Homes in the inner and outer ring are larger and newer than their urban core counterparts. The median year of conr struction for the region is 1965. The urban core has the oldest housing stock (1962) followed by the inner ring (1969) and outer ring (1975). Suburban homes are also larger. Over 60% of housing units in the inner and outer rings have six or more rooms compared to 41.3% in the urban core. Home Ownership As of 2014, 68.9% of households in the region live in an ownerroccupied home. This is slightly higher than the 67.3% homeownership rate statewide. Outr side the core, over 80% of households live in ownerroccupied homes. Threer quarters of all rental units are located in the urban core. Homeownership trends also vary by type of housing unit and income. Single family units are much more likely to be owner occupied (90.8%) than multir family units (23.7%). High income households are more likely to own a home than low income households. Less than 35% of households that make under $25,000 live in an ownerr occupied unit compared to over 90% for households that make over $100,000. 17 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Home Values In keeping with national and state trends, the region saw rapid home valr ue appreciation in the early 2000s. From 2003 to 2007, the equalized net grand list, or ENGL, (the total market value of all properties in the region) increased by 38.4%, or nearly $17 bilr lion. While the bulk of the increase was due to overvalued real estate, some of the increase was due to new construcr tion. After peaking in 2007, the housr ing market began its subsequent colr lapse. From 2007 to 2013, the ENGL dropped by r26.2%, a loss of almost $16 billion. The urban core saw the highest ENGL growth from 2003 to 2007 (41.0%) followed by the sharpest decline from 2007 to 2013 (r26.2%). Figure 4b shows changes in inflation adjusted ENGL from 2002 to 2013. The drop in property values and mur nicipal grand list value has led to fiscal challenges for municipalities, who have been forced to either raise property tax rates, cut services, or both. In addir tion, many homeowners have negative equity (their home is worth less than their mortgage) leading to increases in foreclosure and home vacancy. Despite volatility in the housing market over the last few years, the region rer mains more affordable than the state as a whole. The median home value for owner occupied units in the region is $249,000, compared to $274,500 statewide. Eleven of the 19 municipalir ties in the region are more affordable than the statewide median. Homes are most affordable in the urban core ($178,000) while the inner ($297,000) and outer ($311,000) rings have the most expensive homes. Urban Core Inner Ring Outer Ring Source: Connec?cut O8ce of Policy and Management. Equalized Net Grand List, by Municipality: 2003r2013 All values are in 2013 dollars Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 18 Housing Costs Monthly homeowner costs and monthr ly rent also provide insight into the rer gion?s affordability. Median monthly homeowner costs range from a low of $1,367 in Waterr bury to $2,097 in Oxford. Homeowners with a mortgage pay more than twice as much per month as homeowners without a mortgage. From 2000 to 2014, median monthly homeowner costs for homes with a mortgage have risen between 5% and 20% depending on the municipality . Nonrmortgaged homeowner costs increased at a faster rate than mortgage costs, suggesting that fuel prices, electricity rates, taxes, and insurance are increasing . Renters pay less per month than homer owners. Median gross rents (lease amount plus utilities) range from a low of $839 in Thomaston to $1,357 in Southbury. Rent has not increased as fast as homeowner costs. In four outer ring towns and one inner ring town, inflationradjusted rents actually der creased from 2000 to 2014 . Affordable Housing The U.S. Census Bureau uses 30% of household income as a standard for measuring housing affordability. In orr der to be considered affordable, homer owners should pay 30% or less of their income towards housing. As of 2014, 39.2% of households pay 30% or more of their income towards housing. Renters (49.3%) are more likely to pay 30% or more of their income towards housing than homeowners (34.6%). More than half of urban core renters pay 30% or more of their income for housing. Low income households may qualify for publicly assisted housing programs such as Section 8 vouchers, deed rer strictions, and Connecticut Housing Finance Authority (CHFA) or Farmer?s Home Administration (FmHA) mortgagr es. Over 84% of publicly assisted housr ing units are found in the urban core, including more than half in the City of Waterbury. Municipalities that have less than 10% affordable housing are subject to Conr necticut General Statutes (CGS) Section 8r30g, which limits the conditions unr der which towns may deny applications for such developments. Ansonia (13.9%), Bristol (13.0%), Derby (11.3%), and Waterbury (22.7%) are the only municipalities that meet the 10% afr fordable housing threshold. The rer maining municipalities have less than 10% affordable housing and are subject to CGS Section 8r30g. 19 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Appendix A Population and Demographic Trends Tables and Maps Topic Page Popula?on ……………………………………………………………..…………………… 20 Popula?on Density ………………………………………………………………………. 22 Race and Ethnicity ………………………………………………………….……………. 24 Hispanic Popula?on ……………………………………………………………..………. 26 Age Distribu?on ……………………………………………………………..…………… 28 Elderly Popula?on ……………………………………………………………..………… 30 Median Age ………………………………………………………………………………… 32 Income Distribu?on ……………………………………………………………..………. 34 Income ………………………………………………………..……………………………… 36 Poverty ………………………………………………………………………………………. 38 Household Structure ……………………………………………………………………. 40 Educa?onal A?ainment ……………………………………………………….………. 44 Popula?on Projec?ons ……………………………………………………………..….. 46 Waterbury on Wheels Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 20 Popula?on Percent Change Geography 2014 2010 2000 2010r2014 2000r2014 Ansonia 19,128 19,249 18,554 r0.6% 3.0% Beacon Falls 6,065 6,049 5,246 0.3% 13.5% Bethlehem 3,551 3,607 3,422 r1.6% 3.6% Bristol 60,556 60,477 60,062 0.1% 0.8% Cheshire 29,272 29,261 28,543 0.0% 2.5% Derby 12,837 12,902 12,391 r0.5% 3.5% Middlebury 7,575 7,575 6,451 0.0% 14.8% Naugatuck 31,790 31,862 30,989 r0.2% 2.5% Oxford 12,831 12,683 9,821 1.2% 23.7% Plymouth 12,085 12,213 11,634 r1.0% 3.7% Prospect 9,615 9,405 8,707 2.2% 9.7% Seymour 16,551 16,540 15,454 0.1% 6.6% Shelton 40,472 39,559 38,101 2.3% 6.0% Southbury 19,876 19,904 18,567 r0.1% 6.6% Thomaston 7,793 7,887 7,503 r1.2% 3.7% Waterbury 109,887 110,366 107,271 r0.4% 2.4% Watertown 22,286 22,514 21,661 r1.0% 2.8% Wolco? 16,724 16,680 15,215 0.3% 9.0% Woodbury 9,851 9,975 9,198 r1.2% 6.5% Region Total 448,745 448,708 428,790 0.0% 4.4% Urban Core 234,198 234,856 229,267 r0.3% 2.1% Inner Ring 128,459 127,974 122,896 0.4% 4.3% Outer Ring 86,088 85,878 76,627 0.2% 11.0% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014 (B11003), 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census 21 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census, SF1 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 22 Land Area % Change Geography (Sq. Mi.) 2014 2010 2000 2000r2014 Ansonia 6.2 3,092 3,111 2,999 3.1% Beacon Falls 9.8 620 618 536 15.6% Bethlehem 19.7 181 183 174 3.8% Bristol 26.8 2,258 2,255 2,240 0.8% Cheshire 33.4 877 877 856 2.6% Derby 5.4 2,375 2,387 2,292 3.6% Middlebury 18.4 411 411 350 17.4% Naugatuck 16.4 1,938 1,943 1,890 2.6% Oxford 33.3 385 380 295 30.6% Plymouth 22.3 541 547 521 3.9% Prospect 14.5 665 650 602 10.4% Seymour 15.0 1,105 1,104 1,032 7.1% Shelton 31.9 1,269 1,240 1,194 6.2% Southbury 40.1 496 497 463 7.1% Thomaston 12.2 639 646 615 3.9% Waterbury 28.9 3,797 3,813 3,706 2.4% Watertown 29.5 755 763 734 2.9% Wolco? 21.1 793 791 721 9.9% Woodbury 36.6 269 272 251 7.1% Region Total 421.5 1,065 1,064 1,017 4.7% Urban Core 83.7 2,796 2,804 2,738 2.2% Inner Ring 144.3 890 887 852 4.5% Outer Ring 193.5 445 444 396 12.3% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014 (B11003), 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census 23 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B01003 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 24 Non Hispanic Hispanic or La?no Percent Minority Geography White Black Asian Other Ansonia 13,163 2,040 365 469 3,212 31.6% Beacon Falls 5,515 87 70 77 300 8.8% Bethlehem 3,477 16 18 35 61 3.6% Bristol 50,194 2,035 1,155 1,264 5,829 17.0% Cheshire 24,637 1,374 1,477 398 1,375 15.8% Derby 9,599 891 323 259 1,830 25.6% Middlebury 6,925 67 286 89 208 8.6% Naugatuck 25,767 1,427 962 777 2,929 19.1% Oxford 11,745 134 195 141 468 7.4% Plymouth 11,494 94 98 187 370 6.1% Prospect 8,740 175 73 105 312 7.1% Seymour 14,516 395 359 206 1,064 12.2% Shelton 34,333 865 1,522 486 2,353 13.2% Southbury 18,462 156 531 232 523 7.2% Thomaston 7,511 27 58 89 202 4.8% Waterbury 50,081 19,654 1,933 4,252 34,446 54.6% Watertown 20,707 292 376 301 838 8.0% Wolco? 15,360 261 205 243 611 7.9% Woodbury 9,366 55 167 142 245 6.1% Region Total 341,592 30,045 10,173 9,752 57,176 23.9% Urban Core 148,804 26,047 4,738 7,021 48,246 36.6% Inner Ring 113,198 3,047 3,890 1,667 6,202 11.6% Outer Ring 79,590 951 1,545 1,064 2,728 7.3% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau , 2010 U.S. Census Note: ?Other? category includes Paci?c Islander, American Indian/Alaska Na?ves, Other, or 2 or more aces Minority popula?on includes Black, Asian, Other, and Hispanic popula?ons 25 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census Note: Minority popula?on includes Black, Asian, Other, and Hispanic popula?ons Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 26 Number Percent of Total % Change 2000r2010 Geography 2010 2000 2010 2000 Ansonia 3,212 1,376 16.7% 7.4% 133.4% Beacon Falls 300 112 5.0% 2.1% 167.9% Bethlehem 61 22 1.7% 0.6% 177.3% Bristol 5,829 3,166 9.6% 5.3% 84.1% Cheshire 1,375 1,097 4.7% 3.8% 25.3% Derby 1,830 950 14.2% 7.7% 92.6% Middlebury 208 79 2.7% 1.2% 163.3% Naugatuck 2,929 1,386 9.2% 4.5% 111.3% Oxford 468 180 3.7% 1.8% 160.0% Plymouth 370 147 3.0% 1.3% 151.7% Prospect 312 168 3.3% 1.9% 85.7% Seymour 1,064 470 6.4% 3.0% 126.4% Shelton 2,353 1,326 5.9% 3.5% 77.5% Southbury 523 296 2.6% 1.6% 76.7% Thomaston 202 109 2.6% 1.5% 85.3% Waterbury 34,446 23,354 31.2% 21.8% 47.5% Watertown 838 406 3.7% 1.9% 106.4% Wolco? 611 273 3.7% 1.8% 123.8% Woodbury 245 152 2.5% 1.7% 61.2% Region Total 57,176 35,069 12.7% 8.2% 63.0% Urban Core 48,246 30,232 20.5% 13.2% 59.6% Inner Ring 6,202 3,555 4.8% 2.9% 74.5% Outer Ring 2,728 1,282 3.2% 1.7% 112.8% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census 27 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 28 Total Popula?on Age Group Geography Under 5 Years 5r17 Years 18r24 Years 25r34 Years 35r44 Years 45r64 Years > 64 Years Ansonia 19,249 1,184 3,395 1,643 2,629 2,599 5,207 2,592 Beacon Falls 6,049 321 1,056 428 635 939 1,887 783 Bethlehem 3,607 132 615 241 227 448 1,405 539 Bristol 60,477 3,416 9,547 4,790 8,194 8,399 17,105 9,026 Cheshire 29,261 1,291 5,802 2,299 2,443 4,187 9,137 4,102 Derby 12,902 804 1,904 1,067 1,777 1,809 3,526 2,015 Middlebury 7,575 355 1,508 431 514 1,125 2,340 1,302 Naugatuck 31,862 1,887 5,493 2,735 4,504 4,545 8,892 3,806 Oxford 12,683 683 2,402 726 993 1,927 4,240 1,712 Plymouth 12,243 589 2,118 920 1,335 1,802 3,912 1,567 Prospect 9,405 428 1,696 711 702 1,367 3,076 1,425 Seymour 16,540 858 2,760 1,235 1,852 2,438 5,047 2,350 Shelton 39,559 1,851 6,487 2,640 3,844 5,372 12,462 6,903 Southbury 19,904 707 3,343 959 1,077 2,252 6,331 5,235 Thomaston 7,887 364 1,451 531 745 1,210 2,539 1,047 Waterbury 110,366 7,920 20,345 11,095 15,600 14,647 26,816 13,943 Watertown 22,514 1,047 3,812 1,598 2,186 2,983 7,251 3,637 Wolco? 16,680 736 3,172 1,302 1,363 2,439 5,128 2,540 Woodbury 9,975 396 1,703 551 759 1,250 3,613 1,703 Region Total 448,738 24,969 78,609 35,902 51,379 61,738 129,914 66,227 Urban Core 234,856 15,211 40,684 21,330 32,704 31,999 61,546 31,382 Inner Ring 128,004 6,000 22,430 9,223 12,405 17,992 40,348 19,606 Outer Ring 85,878 3,758 15,495 5,349 6,270 11,747 28,020 15,239 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census 29 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Age Group Geography Under 5 Years 5r17 Years 18r24 Years 25r34 Years 35r44 Years 45r64 Years Over 64 Years Ansonia 6.2% 17.6% 8.5% 13.7% 13.5% 27.1% 13.5% Beacon Falls 5.3% 17.5% 7.1% 10.5% 15.5% 31.2% 12.9% Bethlehem 3.7% 17.1% 6.7% 6.3% 12.4% 39.0% 14.9% Bristol 5.6% 15.8% 7.9% 13.5% 13.9% 28.3% 14.9% Cheshire 4.4% 19.8% 7.9% 8.3% 14.3% 31.2% 14.0% Derby 6.2% 14.8% 8.3% 13.8% 14.0% 27.3% 15.6% Middlebury 4.7% 19.9% 5.7% 6.8% 14.9% 30.9% 17.2% Naugatuck 5.9% 17.2% 8.6% 14.1% 14.3% 27.9% 11.9% Oxford 5.4% 18.9% 5.7% 7.8% 15.2% 33.4% 13.5% Plymouth 4.8% 17.3% 7.5% 10.9% 14.7% 32.0% 12.8% Prospect 4.6% 18.0% 7.6% 7.5% 14.5% 32.7% 15.2% Seymour 5.2% 16.7% 7.5% 11.2% 14.7% 30.5% 14.2% Shelton 4.7% 16.4% 6.7% 9.7% 13.6% 31.5% 17.4% Southbury 3.6% 16.8% 4.8% 5.4% 11.3% 31.8% 26.3% Thomaston 4.6% 18.4% 6.7% 9.4% 15.3% 32.2% 13.3% Waterbury 7.2% 18.4% 10.1% 14.1% 13.3% 24.3% 12.6% Watertown 4.7% 16.9% 7.1% 9.7% 13.2% 32.2% 16.2% Wolco? 4.4% 19.0% 7.8% 8.2% 14.6% 30.7% 15.2% Woodbury 4.0% 17.1% 5.5% 7.6% 12.5% 36.2% 17.1% Region Total 5.6% 17.5% 8.0% 11.4% 13.8% 29.0% 14.8% Urban Core 6.5% 17.3% 9.1% 13.9% 13.6% 26.2% 13.4% Inner Ring 4.7% 17.5% 7.2% 9.7% 14.1% 31.5% 15.3% Outer Ring 4.4% 18.0% 6.2% 7.3% 13.7% 32.6% 17.7% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 30 2010 2000 % Change Geography Number Percent Number Percent 2000r2010 Ansonia 2,592 13.5% 2,871 15.5% r9.7% Beacon Falls 783 12.9% 506 9.6% 54.7% Bethlehem 539 14.9% 440 12.9% 22.5% Bristol 9,026 14.9% 8,925 14.9% 1.1% Cheshire 4,102 14.0% 3,592 12.6% 14.2% Derby 2,015 15.6% 2,059 16.6% r2.1% Middlebury 1,302 17.2% 1,067 16.5% 22.0% Naugatuck 3,806 11.9% 3,633 11.7% 4.8% Oxford 1,712 13.5% 857 8.7% 99.8% Plymouth 1,567 12.8% 1,473 12.7% 6.4% Prospect 1,425 15.2% 1,153 13.2% 23.6% Seymour 2,350 14.2% 2,221 14.4% 5.8% Shelton 6,903 17.4% 5,672 14.9% 21.7% Southbury 5,235 26.3% 4,841 26.1% 8.1% Thomaston 1,047 13.3% 909 12.1% 15.2% Waterbury 13,943 12.6% 16,045 15.0% r13.1% Watertown 3,637 16.2% 3,050 14.1% 19.2% Wolco? 2,540 15.2% 1,992 13.1% 27.5% Woodbury 1,703 17.1% 1,193 13.0% 42.7% Region Total 66,227 14.8% 62,499 14.6% 6.0% Urban Core 31,382 13.4% 33,533 14.6% r6.4% Inner Ring 19,606 15.3% 16,917 13.8% 15.9% Outer Ring 15,239 17.7% 12,049 15.7% 26.5% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census 31 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 32 Median Age % Change Geography 2010 2000 1990 1990r2010 Ansonia 38.4 36.8 34.0 12.9% Beacon Falls 41.5 36.7 32.6 27.3% Bethlehem 47.1 42.2 36.2 30.1% Bristol 40.3 37.6 33.7 19.6% Cheshire 42.2 38.4 35.5 18.9% Derby 40.3 37.7 35.6 13.2% Middlebury 43.9 42.8 40.1 9.5% Naugatuck 38.2 35.5 32.2 18.6% Oxford 43.4 38.4 34.0 27.6% Plymouth 41.9 37.5 33.9 23.6% Prospect 43.8 39.4 36.3 20.7% Seymour 41.6 38.5 34.7 19.9% Shelton 44.4 39.8 35.3 25.8% Southbury 49.9 45.7 42.9 16.3% Thomaston 42.5 37.8 34.1 24.6% Waterbury 35.2 34.9 33.3 5.7% Watertown 44.0 39.0 35.6 23.6% Wolco? 42.7 38.1 35.5 20.3% Woodbury 46.9 41.0 37.0 26.8% Region Total 40.1 37.6 34.3 16.9% Urban Core 37.3 35.9 33.2 12.3% Inner Ring 42.9 38.7 35.0 22.6% Outer Ring 45.1 40.6 37.4 20.6% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census, 1990 U.S. Census 33 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 34 Total Households Household Income ($) Geography Less than $25,000 $25,000 r $49,999 $50,000 r $74,999 $75,000 r $99,999 $100,000 or More Ansonia 7,240 2,072 1,847 1,010 833 1,478 Beacon Falls 2,334 169 457 383 345 980 Bethlehem 1,353 204 205 176 240 528 Bristol 25,194 4,907 5,492 5,219 3,432 6,144 Cheshire 9,799 769 1,137 1,248 1,316 5,329 Derby 4,972 1,174 1,183 941 584 1,090 Middlebury 2,761 324 400 313 459 1,265 Naugatuck 12,157 2,332 2,815 2,153 1,486 3,371 Oxford 4,411 280 418 760 781 2,172 Plymouth 4,711 687 768 1,038 769 1,449 Prospect 3,256 252 474 416 459 1,655 Seymour 6,090 896 864 1,215 1,022 2,093 Shelton 15,186 1,715 2,482 2,302 1,987 6,700 Southbury 7,841 1,226 1,472 1,108 1,033 3,002 Thomaston 3,000 361 604 572 475 988 Waterbury 40,960 13,692 10,139 7,297 4,279 5,553 Watertown 8,476 1,063 1,581 1,461 1,325 3,046 Wolco? 5,827 621 926 968 1,081 2,231 Woodbury 4,096 514 715 640 461 1,766 Region Total 169,664 33,258 33,979 29,220 22,367 50,840 Urban Core 90,523 24,177 21,476 16,620 10,614 17,636 Inner Ring 47,262 5,491 7,436 7,836 6,894 19,605 Outer Ring 31,879 3,590 5,067 4,764 4,859 13,599 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B19001 35 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Household Income ($) Geography Less than $25,000 $25,000 r $49,999 $50,000 r $74,999 $75,000 r $99,999 $100,000 or More Ansonia 28.6% 25.5% 14.0% 11.5% 20.4% Beacon Falls 7.2% 19.6% 16.4% 14.8% 42.0% Bethlehem 15.1% 15.2% 13.0% 17.7% 39.0% Bristol 19.5% 21.8% 20.7% 13.6% 24.4% Cheshire 7.8% 11.6% 12.7% 13.4% 54.4% Derby 23.6% 23.8% 18.9% 11.7% 21.9% Middlebury 11.7% 14.5% 11.3% 16.6% 45.8% Naugatuck 19.2% 23.2% 17.7% 12.2% 27.7% Oxford 6.3% 9.5% 17.2% 17.7% 49.2% Plymouth 14.6% 16.3% 22.0% 16.3% 30.8% Prospect 7.7% 14.6% 12.8% 14.1% 50.8% Seymour 14.7% 14.2% 20.0% 16.8% 34.4% Shelton 11.3% 16.3% 15.2% 13.1% 44.1% Southbury 15.6% 18.8% 14.1% 13.2% 38.3% Thomaston 12.0% 20.1% 19.1% 15.8% 32.9% Waterbury 33.4% 24.8% 17.8% 10.4% 13.6% Watertown 12.5% 18.7% 17.2% 15.6% 35.9% Wolco? 10.7% 15.9% 16.6% 18.6% 38.3% Woodbury 12.5% 17.5% 15.6% 11.3% 43.1% Region Total 19.6% 20.0% 17.2% 13.2% 30.0% Urban Core 26.7% 23.7% 18.4% 11.7% 19.5% Inner Ring 11.6% 15.7% 16.6% 14.6% 41.5% Outer Ring 11.3% 15.9% 14.9% 15.2% 42.7% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B19001 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 36 Median Household Income Median Family Income Geography 2014 1999 % Change 2014 1999 % Change Ansonia $43,144 $61,097 r29.4% $61,840 $76,280 r18.9% Beacon Falls $87,273 $80,361 8.6% $106,630 $88,695 20.2% Bethlehem $88,616 $97,330 r9.0% $99,756 $111,985 r10.9% Bristol $60,208 $67,339 r10.6% $74,047 $82,728 r10.5% Cheshire $107,716 $114,262 r5.7% $125,625 $128,899 r2.5% Derby $52,136 $64,851 r19.6% $65,087 $77,695 r16.2% Middlebury $95,320 $100,066 r4.7% $105,691 $115,545 r8.5% Naugatuck $58,641 $72,771 r19.4% $77,372 $84,087 r8.0% Oxford $98,504 $109,519 r10.1% $106,216 $114,199 r7.0% Plymouth $71,441 $76,325 r6.4% $82,966 $88,906 r6.7% Prospect $100,592 $95,935 4.9% $109,665 $105,134 4.3% Seymour $77,465 $74,419 4.1% $95,490 $92,317 3.4% Shelton $88,369 $95,555 r7.5% $105,833 $107,243 r1.3% Southbury $76,896 $87,925 r12.5% $101,423 $115,175 r11.9% Thomaston $73,679 $77,102 r4.4% $88,239 $90,428 r2.4% Waterbury $41,136 $48,685 r15.5% $48,256 $60,066 r19.7% Watertown $78,767 $84,376 r6.6% $97,647 $97,641 0.0% Wolco? $83,317 $87,154 r4.4% $94,080 $95,966 r2.0% Woodbury $84,868 $97,017 r12.5% $105,691 $117,350 r9.9% Region Total $66,989 $73,563 r8.9% $82,378 $88,444 r6.9% Urban Core $49,560 $58,749 r15.6% $61,409 $71,866 r14.6% Inner Ring $86,633 $91,418 r5.2% $104,145 $105,498 r1.3% Outer Ring $87,357 $93,268 r6.3% $102,851 $108,375 r5.1% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B19113, S1903 2000 U.S. Census, DP003 [ CPI In?a?on Rate 1999r2014: 1.42] 37 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 20010r2014, B19013, Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 38 2014 2000 Change 2000r2014 Geography Number Percent Number Percent Net Percent Ansonia 3,656 19.2% 1,394 7.6% 2,262 162.3% Beacon Falls 111 1.8% 309 5.9% r198 r64.1% Bethlehem 270 7.7% 89 2.6% 181 203.4% Bristol 5,744 9.6% 3,921 6.6% 1,823 46.5% Cheshire 570 2.1% 750 3.0% r180 r24.0% Derby 1,605 12.8% 1,014 8.3% 591 58.3% Middlebury 315 4.2% 174 2.7% 141 81.0% Naugatuck 3,058 9.7% 1,977 6.4% 1,081 54.7% Oxford 469 3.7% 206 2.1% 263 127.7% Plymouth 826 6.9% 470 4.1% 356 75.7% Prospect 405 4.3% 89 1.0% 316 355.1% Seymour 918 5.6% 573 3.7% 345 60.2% Shelton 1,998 5.0% 1,208 3.2% 790 65.4% Southbury 1,646 8.4% 878 4.9% 768 87.5% Thomaston 265 3.4% 311 4.2% r46 r14.8% Waterbury 26,122 24.2% 16,774 16.0% 9,348 55.7% Watertown 797 3.6% 471 2.2% 326 69.2% Wolco? 518 3.1% 392 2.6% 126 32.1% Woodbury 587 6.0% 412 4.5% 175 42.5% Region Total 49,880 11.3% 31,412 7.5% 18,468 58.8% Urban Core 40,185 17.4% 25,080 11.1% 15,105 60.2% Inner Ring 5,374 4.3% 3,783 3.2% 1,591 42.1% Outer Ring 4,321 5.1% 2,549 3.4% 1,772 69.5% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, S1701 2000 U.S. Census 39 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, C17002 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 40 Total Households Family Households NonrFamily Households Geography Single Parent Married Couple Ansonia 7,240 20.1% 44.0% 35.9% Beacon Falls 2,334 10.5% 54.3% 35.2% Bethlehem 1,353 14.0% 57.6% 28.5% Bristol 25,194 17.8% 43.9% 38.3% Cheshire 9,799 11.0% 64.1% 24.9% Derby 4,972 20.1% 41.0% 38.8% Middlebury 2,761 8.8% 66.9% 24.3% Naugatuck 12,157 17.8% 49.1% 33.1% Oxford 4,411 14.8% 69.0% 16.2% Plymouth 4,711 16.2% 52.3% 31.5% Prospect 3,256 11.4% 63.5% 25.1% Seymour 6,090 14.8% 53.0% 32.2% Shelton 15,186 13.2% 57.9% 28.9% Southbury 7,841 9.5% 54.7% 35.8% Thomaston 3,000 16.3% 54.2% 29.5% Waterbury 40,960 28.9% 34.2% 37.0% Watertown 8,476 11.6% 58.6% 29.8% Wolco? 5,827 13.6% 61.4% 25.0% Woodbury 4,096 9.7% 57.5% 32.8% Region Total 169,664 18.1% 48.8% 33.0% Urban Core 90,523 23.1% 40.1% 36.8% Inner Ring 47,262 13.1% 57.9% 29.0% Outer Ring 31,879 11.4% 60.3% 28.3% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B11001 41 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 42 Average Household Size % Change 1980r2010 Geography 2010 2000 1990 1980 Ansonia 2.55 2.46 2.57 2.71 r5.9% Beacon Falls 2.56 2.58 2.69 2.98 r14.1% Bethlehem 2.49 2.69 2.73 2.86 r12.9% Bristol 2.35 2.38 2.51 2.77 r15.2% Cheshire 2.66 2.71 2.82 3.06 r13.1% Derby 2.35 2.32 2.40 2.65 r11.3% Middlebury 2.72 2.66 2.73 2.94 r7.5% Naugatuck 2.56 2.60 2.69 2.80 r8.6% Oxford 2.81 2.94 3.09 3.18 r11.6% Plymouth 2.53 2.60 2.72 2.92 r13.4% Prospect 2.76 2.83 2.97 3.24 r14.8% Seymour 2.46 2.49 2.55 2.73 r9.9% Shelton 2.55 2.65 2.79 3.05 r16.4% Southbury 2.33 2.41 2.34 2.39 r2.5% Thomaston 2.53 2.57 2.64 2.86 r11.5% Waterbury 2.54 2.46 2.48 2.67 r4.9% Watertown 2.57 2.67 2.80 3.00 r14.3% Wolco? 2.75 2.79 2.93 3.30 r16.7% Woodbury 2.36 2.48 2.51 2.61 r9.6% Region Total 2.53 2.54 2.62 2.81 r10.2% Urban Core 2.48 2.45 2.52 2.71 r8.5% Inner Ring 2.56 2.64 2.75 2.97 r13.8% Outer Ring 2.59 2.65 2.72 2.91 r11.0% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Table P17, Census 2000, Census 1990, Census 1980 43 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P17 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 44 Popula?on Age 25 and Over Less than High School High School Graduate Some College Associates Degree Bachelor’s Degree or Higher Geography Ansonia 13,181 12.1% 45.4% 19.2% 7.0% 16.3% Beacon Falls 4,311 6.4% 35.8% 20.8% 8.5% 28.6% Bethlehem 2,524 6.4% 26.0% 21.4% 8.9% 37.4% Bristol 43,135 11.0% 36.6% 20.4% 8.2% 23.7% Cheshire 20,303 5.6% 22.5% 13.8% 6.3% 51.7% Derby 9,093 12.6% 36.1% 18.1% 6.5% 26.7% Middlebury 5,338 4.1% 17.9% 17.6% 10.7% 49.6% Naugatuck 21,883 12.6% 32.8% 21.0% 9.1% 24.5% Oxford 8,648 5.1% 26.9% 20.4% 6.0% 41.6% Plymouth 8,384 10.6% 36.7% 21.9% 11.5% 19.4% Prospect 7,002 9.6% 32.8% 15.4% 8.1% 34.2% Seymour 11,045 5.1% 36.1% 20.3% 7.0% 31.5% Shelton 29,230 7.2% 28.5% 18.7% 7.8% 37.8% Southbury 14,705 7.7% 22.2% 16.9% 7.2% 46.0% Thomaston 5,508 9.5% 35.5% 19.6% 10.6% 24.9% Waterbury 70,744 20.5% 36.2% 19.1% 8.2% 16.0% Watertown 15,706 7.2% 30.4% 19.9% 9.7% 32.7% Wolco? 11,772 8.6% 36.7% 16.7% 9.6% 28.3% Woodbury 7,372 4.9% 21.8% 16.7% 7.7% 48.9% Region Total 309,884 11.4% 32.8% 18.9% 8.2% 28.8% Urban Core 158,036 15.7% 36.6% 19.7% 8.1% 19.9% Inner Ring 90,176 7.0% 29.6% 18.4% 8.2% 36.8% Outer Ring 61,672 6.9% 27.5% 17.7% 8.1% 39.7% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B15003 45 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010?2014, B15003 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 46 Popula?on Projec?ons % Change Geography 2010 2015 2020 2025 2010r2025 Ansonia 19,249 19,714 20,169 20,571 6.9% Beacon Falls 6,061 6,376 6,648 6,879 13.5% Bethlehem 3,607 3,678 3,708 3,722 3.2% Bristol 60,477 60,807 60,956 60,704 0.4% Cheshire 29,261 29,275 29,122 28,930 r1.1% Derby 12,902 13,239 13,580 13,855 7.4% Middlebury 7,575 8,049 8,475 8,910 17.6% Naugatuck 31,862 32,438 32,877 33,078 3.8% Oxford 12,683 13,791 14,714 15,532 22.5% Plymouth 12,243 12,550 12,790 12,968 5.9% Prospect 9,405 9,659 9,866 10,057 6.9% Seymour 16,540 17,014 17,421 17,773 7.5% Shelton 39,559 39,981 40,094 39,985 1.1% Southbury 19,904 20,277 20,479 20,652 3.8% Thomaston 7,887 8,030 8,108 8,162 3.5% Waterbury 110,366 112,736 115,126 117,146 6.1% Watertown 22,514 22,863 23,020 23,029 2.3% Wolco? 16,680 17,287 17,818 18,352 10.0% Woodbury 9,975 10,234 10,393 10,493 5.2% Region Total 448,750 457,998 465,364 470,798 4.9% Urban Core 234,856 238,934 242,708 245,354 4.5% Inner Ring 128,004 129,713 130,555 130,847 2.2% Outer Ring 85,890 89,351 92,101 94,597 10.1% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010. Connec?cut State Data Center, Popula?on Projec?ons: 2015r2025 47 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Popula?on Age 15 and Under Popula?on Age 65 and Over Geography 2010 2025 % Change 2010 2025 % Change Ansonia 3,733 3,413 r8.6% 2,592 3,913 51.0% Beacon Falls 805 877 8.9% 1,089 1,675 53.8% Bethlehem 549 347 r36.8% 539 1,156 114.5% Bristol 10,645 9,690 r9.0% 9,026 13,209 46.3% Cheshire 5,457 3,337 r38.8% 4,102 6,164 50.3% Derby 2,212 2,335 5.6% 2,015 2,988 48.3% Middlebury 1,501 1,056 r29.6% 1,302 2,018 55.0% Naugatuck 5,975 5,425 r9.2% 3,806 6,452 69.5% Oxford 2,559 1,688 r34.0% 1,712 4,139 141.8% Plymouth 2,134 1,717 r19.5% 1,567 3,015 92.4% Prospect 1,705 1,222 r28.3% 1,425 2,538 78.1% Seymour 2,918 2,527 r13.4% 2,350 3,935 67.4% Shelton 6,735 5,065 r24.8% 6,903 10,661 54.4% Southbury 3,176 2,020 r36.4% 5,235 7,289 39.2% Thomaston 1,427 1,057 r25.9% 1,047 1,950 86.2% Waterbury 23,308 22,429 r3.8% 13,943 19,215 37.8% Watertown 3,849 2,998 r22.1% 3,637 6,263 72.2% Wolco? 3,080 2,465 r20.0% 2,540 4,147 63.3% Woodbury 1,650 1,137 r31.1% 1,703 3,243 90.4% Region Total 83,418 70,805 r15.1% 66,533 103,970 56.3% Urban Core 45,873 43,292 r5.6% 31,382 45,777 45.9% Inner Ring 22,520 16,701 r25.8% 19,606 31,988 63.2% Outer Ring 15,025 10,812 r28.0% 15,545 26,205 68.6% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010. Connec?cut State Data Center, Popula?on Projec?ons: 2015r2025 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 48 49 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Appendix B Tables and Maps Topic Page Labor Force and Employment ……………………………………………………….. 50 Unemployment Rate ………………………………………………………….………… 51 Total Jobs (Nonfarm Employment) ………………………………………………….. 52 Jobs by Sector (Nonfarm Employment) ……………………………………………. 54 Commu?ng Pa?erns ………………………………………………………….………… 56 Jobs Vs. Employment ………………………………………………………..…………. 58 Wages ………………………………………………………………………………………… 59 Economic data presented in Appendix B comes from a variety of sources including the US Census Bureau, and the Connecticut Department of Labor. Datasets may not match up due to differing data collection methods and years of analysis. Derby Green, Derby Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 50 Geography Labor Force Employed Unemployed Percent Unemployed Ansonia 9,534 8,660 874 9.2% Beacon Falls 3,404 3,197 207 6.1% Bethlehem 1,976 1,869 107 5.4% Bristol 32,747 30,367 2,380 7.3% Cheshire 15,261 14,564 697 4.6% Derby 6,914 6,366 548 7.9% Middlebury 3,783 3,590 193 5.1% Naugatuck 17,372 16,049 1,323 7.6% Oxford 7,078 6,695 383 5.4% Plymouth 6,758 6,231 527 7.8% Prospect 5,475 5,185 290 5.3% Seymour 9,043 8,412 631 7.0% Shelton 21,951 20,580 1,371 6.2% Southbury 8,793 8,293 500 5.7% Thomaston 4,746 4,458 288 6.1% Waterbury 51,573 46,051 5,522 10.7% Watertown 13,057 12,318 739 5.7% Wolco? 9,791 9,248 543 5.5% Woodbury 5,563 5,282 281 5.1% Region Total 234,819 217,415 17,404 7.4% Urban Core 118,140 107,493 10,647 9.0% Inner Ring 70,816 66,563 4,253 6.0% Outer Ring 45,863 43,359 2,504 5.5% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: Connec?cut Department of Labor, Local Area Unemployment Sta?s?cs (LAUS), by Town 2007r2014 51 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Unemployment Rate Geography 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 Ansonia 9.2% 10.8% 11.4% 11.8% 11.7% 9.9% 7.0% Beacon Falls 6.1% 6.5% 7.4% 8.3% 9.2% 8.8% 5.6% Bethlehem 5.4% 5.7% 6.5% 7.1% 7.7% 7.6% 4.6% Bristol 7.3% 8.4% 9.1% 9.8% 10.3% 9.1% 6.1% Cheshire 4.6% 5.2% 5.6% 6.2% 6.4% 6.4% 4.4% Derby 7.9% 9.0% 9.7% 10.5% 10.8% 9.4% 6.6% Middlebury 5.1% 5.8% 6.7% 7.1% 7.2% 7.0% 4.4% Naugatuck 7.6% 8.9% 9.4% 10.2% 10.8% 9.8% 6.9% Oxford 5.4% 6.1% 6.5% 7.0% 7.5% 6.6% 4.5% Plymouth 7.8% 9.1% 9.7% 10.6% 11.3% 10.2% 6.6% Prospect 5.3% 5.9% 6.9% 7.6% 8.4% 7.8% 5.1% Seymour 7.0% 7.8% 8.4% 9.2% 9.6% 8.2% 5.7% Shelton 6.2% 7.2% 7.8% 8.5% 8.6% 7.3% 5.0% Southbury 5.7% 6.7% 7.0% 7.8% 8.1% 7.0% 4.6% Thomaston 6.1% 7.2% 7.6% 8.0% 9.0% 9.9% 6.1% Waterbury 10.7% 12.2% 12.9% 13.6% 14.2% 13.5% 9.1% Watertown 5.7% 6.5% 7.1% 7.6% 8.2% 8.6% 5.7% Wolco? 5.5% 6.8% 7.6% 8.3% 8.9% 8.6% 5.5% Woodbury 5.1% 6.0% 6.2% 6.6% 7.4% 6.7% 4.2% Region Total 7.4% 8.5% 9.2% 9.8% 10.3% 9.5% 6.4% Urban Core 9.0% 10.4% 11.0% 11.7% 12.2% 11.1% 7.6% Inner Ring 6.0% 6.9% 7.5% 8.1% 8.5% 7.9% 5.3% Outer Ring 5.5% 6.3% 6.9% 7.6% 8.1% 7.5% 4.8% 2007 5.6% 4.4% 3.7% 5.1% 3.7% 5.1% 3.6% 5.2% 3.5% 5.5% 4.2% 4.6% 4.0% 3.7% 5.0% 7.4% 4.4% 4.3% 3.2% 5.1% 6.1% 4.3% 3.8% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: Connec?cut Department of Labor, Local Area Unemployment Sta?s?cs (LAUS), by Town 2007r2014 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 52 Jobs % Change Geography 2013 2011 2009 2007 2009r2014 2007r2009 Ansonia 3,359 3,910 3,623 3,724 r13.8% 5.0% Beacon Falls 843 929 887 1,059 r6.7% r12.3% Bethlehem 696 711 656 670 r0.6% 6.2% Bristol 21,592 20,597 20,286 21,231 6.7% r3.0% Cheshire 15,431 14,428 15,209 16,127 11.8% r10.5% Derby 4,872 4,643 4,929 5,153 5.4% r9.9% Middlebury 3,940 3,665 3,321 3,417 3.7% 7.3% Naugatuck 7,767 7,039 7,245 7,691 9.6% r8.5% Oxford 3,173 2,776 2,637 2,503 17.9% 10.9% Plymouth 2,061 2,001 2,112 2,253 9.0% r11.2% Prospect 1,980 1,983 1,946 2,062 2.1% r3.9% Seymour 4,412 4,170 4,160 4,517 7.2% r7.7% Shelton 22,050 21,005 22,340 22,687 7.8% r7.4% Southbury 8,396 8,573 8,829 9,479 r4.4% r9.6% Thomaston 2,724 2,643 2,612 3,026 8.2% r12.6% Waterbury 38,890 38,378 39,071 42,484 1.3% r9.7% Watertown 8,011 7,731 7,873 8,784 5.7% r12.0% Wolco? 2,966 2,821 3,009 3,077 6.7% r8.3% Woodbury 2,020 2,028 2,101 2,425 0.8% r16.4% Region Total 155,182 150,031 152,846 162,368 4.8% r7.6% Urban Core 76,481 74,567 75,154 80,284 3.0% r7.1% Inner Ring 54,689 51,978 54,306 57,392 8.6% r9.4% Outer Ring 24,012 23,486 23,386 24,691 1.9% r4.9% 2014 3,371 867 707 21,977 16,128 4,894 3,802 7,713 3,272 2,182 2,024 4,470 22,639 8,198 2,861 38,871 8,168 3,010 2,044 157,198 76,826 56,448 23,924 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: Connec?cut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), by Town 2007r2014 53 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On The Map, LODES Dataset, 2014 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 54 Loca?on Total Jobs Sector Urban Core Inner Ring Outer Ring Region % of Total Agriculture 0 307 0 307 0.2% U?li?es 294 61 0 355 0.2% Construc?on 2,040 2,098 1,461 5,599 3.6% Manufacturing 7,750 11,395 1,645 20,790 13.2% Wholesale Trade 1,921 3,759 851 6,531 4.2% Retail Trade 11,292 6,192 2,212 19,695 12.5% Transporta?on and Warer housing 840 1,223 456 2,519 1.6% Informa?on 4,624 1,095 199 5,918 3.8% Finance and Insurance 1,797 2,258 631 4,686 3.0% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 555 489 333 1,377 0.9% Professional, Scien??c, and Technical Services 1,602 2,885 604 5,091 3.2% Management of Companies and Enterprises 439 1,052 389 1,881 1.2% Administra?ve & Support and Waste Management 2,874 3,981 818 7,674 4.9% Educa?onal Services 1,222 808 166 2,195 1.4% Health Care and Social Assisr tance 18,372 5,995 3,656 28,023 17.8% Arts, Entertainment, and Recrea?on 313 501 127 941 0.6% Accommoda?on and Food Services 5,819 3,438 1,952 11,208 7.1% Other Services (except Public Administra?on) 2,934 1,526 1,065 5,525 3.5% Total Government 11,045 5,392 4,162 20,599 13.1% Total All Jobs 76,827 56,448 23,924 157,199 100.0% Source: Connec?cut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), by Town 2014 Note: All Public Sector Employees (including school teachers) are in the ?Total Government? category 55 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Number of Jobs Job Change 2007r2014 Sector 2014 2007 Net Percent Agriculture 307 316 r9 r2.8% U?li?es 355 288 67 23.1% Construc?on 5,599 6,809 r1,210 r17.8% Manufacturing 20,790 26,107 r5,317 r20.4% Wholesale Trade 6,531 6,031 500 8.3% Retail Trade 19,695 20,513 r818 r4.0% Transporta?on and Warehousr ing 2,519 2,431 88 3.6% Informa?on 5,918 4,850 1,068 22.0% Finance and Insurance 4,686 7,310 r2,623 r35.9% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,377 1,548 r171 r11.0% Professional, Scien??c, and Technical Services 5,091 5,182 r91 r1.8% Management of Companies and Enterprises 1,881 1,746 135 7.7% Administra?ve & Support and Waste Management 7,674 7,951 r277 r3.5% Educa?onal Services 2,195 991 1,204 121.5% Health Care and Social Assisr tance 28,023 25,146 2,877 11.4% Arts, Entertainment, and Recr rea?on 941 838 103 12.3% Accommoda?on and Food Services 11,208 9,592 1,616 16.9% Other Services (except Public Administra?on) 5,525 5,332 194 3.6% Total Government 20,599 22,041 r1,442 r6.5% Total All Jobs 155,182 162,368 r7,185 r4.4% Source: Connec?cut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), by Town 2007r2014 Note: All Public Sector Employees (including school teachers) are in the ?Total Government? category Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 56 Work Within Town of Residence Work Within Other Town in Region Work Outside of Region Geography Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 491 6.0% 2,064 25.3% 5,591 68.6% Beacon Falls 94 3.2% 1,022 34.3% 1,864 62.6% Bethlehem 165 9.8% 690 40.8% 835 49.4% Bristol 7,086 23.4% 2,599 8.6% 20,647 68.1% Cheshire 1,967 14.5% 1,747 12.9% 9,839 72.6% Derby 477 9.2% 1,077 20.7% 3,649 70.1% Middlebury 304 8.3% 1,404 38.2% 1,963 53.5% Naugatuck 1,767 11.6% 4,941 32.4% 8,527 56.0% Oxford 387 6.7% 1,616 27.8% 3,808 65.5% Plymouth 472 7.5% 2,201 34.9% 3,641 57.7% Prospect 349 6.9% 1,930 38.2% 2,767 54.8% Seymour 786 10.3% 1,989 26.0% 4,883 63.8% Shelton 2,955 15.4% 1,238 6.4% 15,001 78.2% Southbury 1,007 12.5% 1,827 22.6% 5,254 65.0% Thomaston 511 12.7% 1,460 36.3% 2,051 51.0% Waterbury 12,821 30.9% 9,725 23.5% 18,891 45.6% Watertown 1,809 16.0% 4,324 38.2% 5,176 45.8% Wolco? 781 9.0% 3,281 37.7% 4,648 53.4% Woodbury 445 10.5% 1,407 33.1% 2,405 56.5% Region Total 34,674 17.1% 46,542 23.0% 121,440 59.9% Urban Core 22,642 22.6% 20,406 20.3% 57,305 57.1% Inner Ring 8,500 13.7% 12,959 20.9% 40,591 65.4% Outer Ring 3,532 8.8% 13,177 32.7% 23,544 58.5% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On the Map LODES Dataset: 2014, Area Pro?le for Residents 57 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Live Within Town of Employment Live Within Other Town in Region Live Outside of Region Geography Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 491 17.0% 917 31.8% 1,480 51.2% Beacon Falls 94 12.6% 413 55.4% 238 31.9% Bethlehem 165 26.0% 261 41.2% 208 32.8% Bristol 7,086 31.9% 3,155 14.2% 11,940 53.8% Cheshire 1,967 13.1% 4,411 29.3% 8,693 57.7% Derby 477 10.0% 1,898 39.7% 2,405 50.3% Middlebury 304 8.7% 1,950 55.7% 1,245 35.6% Naugatuck 1,767 23.6% 3,150 42.1% 2,564 34.3% Oxford 387 13.3% 1,327 45.5% 1,201 41.2% Plymouth 472 22.7% 798 38.4% 807 38.9% Prospect 349 19.5% 918 51.4% 519 29.1% Seymour 786 18.7% 1,751 41.6% 1,670 39.7% Shelton 2,955 12.9% 4,483 19.6% 15,444 67.5% Southbury 1,007 14.3% 2,601 36.9% 3,448 48.9% Thomaston 511 18.6% 1,299 47.3% 935 34.1% Waterbury 12,821 33.3% 11,563 30.0% 14,135 36.7% Watertown 1,809 22.0% 3,697 44.9% 2,719 33.1% Wolco? 781 29.9% 1,120 42.9% 709 27.2% Woodbury 445 24.3% 830 45.3% 559 30.5% Region Total 34,674 22.8% 46,542 30.6% 70,919 46.6% Urban Core 22,642 29.9% 20,683 27.3% 32,524 42.9% Inner Ring 8,500 15.4% 16,439 29.8% 30,268 54.8% Outer Ring 3,532 16.8% 9,420 44.7% 8,127 38.6% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On the Map LODES Dataset: 2014, Area Pro?le for Workers Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 58 Geography Jobs Employed Residents Ra?o Commuter Import/Export Ansonia 3,371 8,660 0.39 r5,289 Beacon Falls 867 3,197 0.27 r2,330 Bethlehem 707 1,869 0.38 r1,162 Bristol 21,977 30,367 0.72 r8,390 Cheshire 16,128 14,564 1.11 1,564 Derby 4,894 6,366 0.77 r1,472 Middlebury 3,802 3,590 1.06 212 Naugatuck 7,713 16,049 0.48 r8,336 Oxford 3,272 6,695 0.49 r3,423 Plymouth 2,182 6,231 0.35 r4,049 Prospect 2,024 5,185 0.39 r3,161 Seymour 4,470 8,412 0.53 r3,942 Shelton 22,639 20,580 1.10 2,059 Southbury 8,198 8,293 0.99 r95 Thomaston 2,861 4,458 0.64 r1,597 Waterbury 38,871 46,051 0.84 r7,180 Watertown 8,168 12,318 0.66 r4,150 Wolco? 3,010 9,248 0.33 r6,238 Woodbury 2,044 5,282 0.39 r3,238 Region Total 157,198 217,415 0.72 r60,217 Urban Core 76,826 107,493 0.71 r30,667 Inner Ring 56,448 66,563 0.85 r10,115 Outer Ring 23,924 43,359 0.55 r19,435 Source: Connec?cut Department of Labor, Local Area Unemployment Sta?s?cs: 2014. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW): 2014 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v 59 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: Connec?cut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages: 2014 Note: All Public Sector Employees (including school teachers) are in the ?Total Government? category Average Annual Wages 2014 Sector Urban Core Inner Ring Outer Ring Region Agriculture r $32,556 r $32,556 U?li?es $102,142 $85,442 r $99,288 Construc?on $52,660 $63,652 $52,356 $56,698 Manufacturing $59,280 $82,939 $55,915 $71,981 Wholesale Trade $58,215 $80,683 $81,378 $74,166 Retail Trade $27,356 $35,096 $26,045 $29,642 Transporta?on and Warehousing $45,568 $47,738 $63,690 $49,901 Informa?on $129,972 $79,749 $64,292 $118,472 Finance and Insurance $75,662 $106,884 $79,062 $91,165 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing $41,515 $76,376 $39,001 $53,280 Professional, Scien??c, and Technical Services $67,548 $78,158 $60,461 $72,719 Management of Companies and Enterprises $196,551 $371,201 $132,834 $281,049 Administra?ve & Support and Waste Management $30,185 $32,264 $40,889 $32,405 Educa?onal Services $41,777 $44,346 $18,573 $40,972 Health Care and Social Assistance $46,200 $40,494 $40,120 $44,186 Arts, Entertainment, and Recrea?on $21,811 $21,703 $15,054 $20,844 Accommoda?on and Food Services $15,489 $19,875 $16,948 $17,088 Other Services (except Public Administra?on) $22,411 $25,804 $27,833 $24,393 Total Government $56,686 $56,603 $56,969 $56,721 Total All Jobs $49,586 $65,318 $53,594 $55,845 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 60 61 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Appendix C Tables and Maps Topic Page Housing Units ……………………………………………………………………………… 62 Housing Permits …………………………………………………………..……………… 63 Number of Units ………………………………………………………………………….. 64 Housing Age …………………………………………………………….………………….. 66 Tenure ………………………………………………………..……………………………… 68 Housing Vacancy …………………………………………………………..…………….. 70 Housing Costs ……………………………………………………………………………… 72 Home Values ………………………………………………………………………………. 76 A+ordable Housing …………………………………………………………..………….. 78 Housing data presented in Appendix C comes from a variety of sources including the 2010 US Census, 2010r2014 American Community Survey 5rYear Estimates, the Conr necticut Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD), and the Conr necticut Office of Policy and Management (OPM). Datasets may not match up due to differing data collection methods and years of analysis. David Sherman House, Woodbury Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 62 Total Housing Units % Change Geography 2010 2000 1990 1980 2000r2010 1990r2000 Ansonia 8,148 7,937 7,503 7,267 2.7% 5.8% Beacon Falls 2,509 2,104 1,990 1,380 19.2% 5.7% Bethlehem 1,575 1,388 1,262 1,074 13.5% 10.0% Bristol 27,011 26,125 24,989 21,004 3.4% 4.5% Cheshire 10,424 9,588 8,590 6,996 8.7% 11.6% Derby 5,849 5,568 5,269 4,828 5.0% 5.7% Middlebury 2,892 2,494 2,365 2,168 16.0% 5.5% Naugatuck 13,061 12,341 11,930 9,728 5.8% 3.4% Oxford 4,746 3,420 2,930 2,197 38.8% 16.7% Plymouth 5,109 4,646 4,556 3,811 10.0% 2.0% Prospect 3,474 3,094 2,625 2,063 12.3% 17.9% Seymour 6,968 6,356 5,877 5,081 9.6% 8.2% Shelton 16,146 14,707 12,981 10,385 9.8% 13.3% Southbury 9,091 7,799 6,826 5,838 16.6% 14.3% Thomaston 3,276 3,014 2,736 2,248 8.7% 10.2% Waterbury 47,991 46,827 47,205 40,854 2.5% r0.8% Watertown 9,096 8,298 7,522 6,618 9.6% 10.3% Wolco? 6,276 5,544 4,870 4,071 13.2% 13.8% Woodbury 4,564 3,869 2,924 2,924 18.0% 32.3% Region Total 188,206 175,119 164,950 140,535 7.5% 6.2% Urban Core 102,060 98,798 96,896 83,681 3.3% 2.0% Inner Ring 51,019 46,609 42,262 35,139 9.5% 10.3% Outer Ring 35,127 29,712 25,792 21,715 18.2% 15.2% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, H001; Census 2000, Census 1990, Census 1980 63 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile New Housing Units by Year % Change 2007r2014 Geography 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2007 Ansonia 0 3 4 2 5 2 13 r100.0% Beacon Falls 25 11 5 3 9 28 22 13.6% Bethlehem 2 2 2 1 2 7 15 r86.7% Bristol 61 92 28 21 37 19 101 r39.6% Cheshire 41 48 24 58 39 17 51 r19.6% Derby 5 3 2 2 5 7 3 66.7% Middlebury 33 19 7 4 7 6 47 r29.8% Naugatuck 19 12 21 10 8 9 42 r54.8% Oxford 61 33 30 13 45 31 86 r29.1% Plymouth 6 5 5 9 11 6 18 r66.7% Prospect 27 20 23 49 48 36 39 r30.8% Seymour 6 14 23 17 22 15 28 r78.6% Shelton 47 129 299 35 31 17 93 r49.5% Southbury 20 42 14 6 7 6 33 r39.4% Thomaston 4 6 3 5 7 6 9 r55.6% Waterbury 44 34 62 28 32 37 146 r69.9% Watertown 31 33 21 16 21 25 47 r34.0% Wolco? 20 16 13 13 22 18 27 r25.9% Woodbury 2 9 5 6 4 10 27 r92.6% Region Total 454 531 591 298 362 302 847 r46.4% Urban Core 129 144 117 63 87 74 305 r57.7% Inner Ring 135 235 375 140 131 86 246 r45.1% Outer Ring 190 152 99 95 144 142 296 r35.8% 2008 5 23 4 29 41 2 28 34 74 6 57 38 111 9 7 58 35 24 14 599 128 238 233 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: Connec?cut Department of Economic and Community Development, Annual Housing Permit Data by Town: 2007r2014 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 64 Geography Total Units 1 Unit 2 Units 3r4 Units 5+ Units Mobile Home Ansonia 7,711 3,699 2,064 1,091 839 18 Beacon Falls 2,579 1,850 106 243 197 183 Bethlehem 1,502 1,397 62 26 11 6 Bristol 27,131 16,410 2,619 2,948 4,976 178 Cheshire 10,209 8,517 173 426 1,041 52 Derby 5,505 2,673 1,020 639 1,117 56 Middlebury 2,924 2,674 0 69 181 0 Naugatuck 13,103 8,310 1,758 1,000 1,835 200 Oxford 4,681 4,496 90 62 33 0 Plymouth 5,124 4,045 298 288 385 108 Prospect 3,293 2,896 72 102 39 184 Seymour 6,590 4,792 640 366 767 25 Shelton 16,200 12,821 775 930 1,412 262 Southbury 8,565 6,540 826 592 568 39 Thomaston 3,110 2,391 166 151 385 17 Waterbury 47,983 19,118 5,214 10,211 13,354 73 Watertown 9,098 7,421 698 397 566 16 Wolco? 6,139 5,471 249 108 311 0 Woodbury 4,495 3,447 127 278 643 0 Region Total 185,942 118,968 16,957 19,927 28,660 1,417 Urban Core 101,433 50,210 12,675 15,889 22,121 525 Inner Ring 50,331 39,987 2,750 2,558 4,556 480 Outer Ring 34,178 28,771 1,532 1,480 1,983 412 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B25024 65 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B25024 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 66 Housing Units Year Built Median Year Built Geography ALer 1999 1980 to 1999 1960 to 1979 1940 to 1959 Before 1940 Ansonia 7,711 60 712 1,847 1,848 3,244 1951 Beacon Falls 2,579 429 683 580 523 364 1976 Bethlehem 1,502 218 543 264 267 210 1980 Bristol 27,131 1,194 6,786 7,513 6,120 5,518 1965 Cheshire 10,209 938 2,838 3,325 2,230 878 1971 Derby 5,505 223 1,043 977 1,392 1,870 1955 Middlebury 2,924 443 580 701 786 414 1968 Naugatuck 13,103 896 2,326 3,911 2,889 3,081 1963 Oxford 4,681 1,055 1,399 1,032 836 359 1982 Plymouth 5,124 610 1,072 1,104 1,353 985 1964 Prospect 3,293 474 1,095 757 734 233 1978 Seymour 6,590 644 1,153 1,932 1,358 1,503 1965 Shelton 16,200 1,515 5,169 5,173 2,335 2,008 1975 Southbury 8,565 654 2,636 3,945 479 851 1976 Thomaston 3,110 341 877 612 527 753 1967 Waterbury 47,983 1,367 9,279 10,678 11,266 15,393 1956 Watertown 9,098 591 1,947 2,480 2,370 1,710 1964 Wolco? 6,139 716 1,419 1,634 1,869 501 1967 Woodbury 4,495 312 1,412 1,376 635 760 1974 Region Total 185,942 12,680 42,969 49,841 39,817 40,635 1965 Urban Core 101,433 3,740 20,146 24,926 23,515 29,106 1962 Inner Ring 50,331 4,639 13,056 14,626 10,173 7,837 1969 Outer Ring 34,178 4,301 9,767 10,289 6,129 3,692 1975 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B25034, B25035 67 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B25035 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 68 Occupied Housing Units Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Geography Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 7,240 3,956 54.6% 3,284 45.4% Beacon Falls 2,334 1,921 82.3% 413 17.7% Bethlehem 1,353 1,162 85.9% 191 14.1% Bristol 25,194 16,853 66.9% 8,341 33.1% Cheshire 9,799 8,624 88.0% 1,175 12.0% Derby 4,972 2,897 58.3% 2,075 41.7% Middlebury 2,761 2,471 89.5% 290 10.5% Naugatuck 12,157 8,080 66.5% 4,077 33.5% Oxford 4,411 3,889 88.2% 522 11.8% Plymouth 4,711 3,831 81.3% 880 18.7% Prospect 3,256 2,965 91.1% 291 8.9% Seymour 6,090 4,606 75.6% 1,484 24.4% Shelton 15,186 12,133 79.9% 3,053 20.1% Southbury 7,841 6,746 86.0% 1,095 14.0% Thomaston 3,000 2,415 80.5% 585 19.5% Waterbury 40,960 19,130 46.7% 21,830 53.3% Watertown 8,476 6,975 82.3% 1,501 17.7% Wolco? 5,827 5,149 88.4% 678 11.6% Woodbury 4,096 3,140 76.7% 956 23.3% Region Total 169,664 116,943 68.9% 52,721 31.1% Urban Core 90,523 50,916 56.2% 39,607 43.8% Inner Ring 47,262 38,584 81.6% 8,678 18.4% Outer Ring 31,879 27,443 86.1% 4,436 13.9% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, 25003 69 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, 25003 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 70 Vacant Units Vacancy Status Geography Number Percent of Total For Sale or Sold For Rent or Rented Seasonal Other Vacant Ansonia 485 6.0% 141 285 50 9 Beacon Falls 188 7.5% 18 37 48 85 Bethlehem 141 9.0% 19 0 80 42 Bristol 1,774 6.6% 325 668 179 602 Cheshire 478 4.6% 57 43 126 252 Derby 633 10.8% 47 466 62 58 Middlebury 123 4.3% 26 0 0 97 Naugatuck 955 7.3% 304 265 87 299 Oxford 211 4.4% 67 0 144 0 Plymouth 384 7.5% 33 65 92 194 Prospect 67 1.9% 0 0 33 34 Seymour 480 6.9% 68 145 123 144 Shelton 952 5.9% 222 386 48 296 Southbury 695 7.6% 157 44 196 298 Thomaston 156 4.8% 33 64 9 50 Waterbury 6,412 13.4% 666 2,344 176 3,226 Watertown 592 6.5% 181 49 26 336 Wolco? 215 3.4% 41 23 58 93 Woodbury 489 10.7% 93 63 228 105 Region Total 15,430 8.3% 2,498 4,947 1,765 6,220 Urban Core 10,259 10.1% 1,483 4,028 554 4,194 Inner Ring 3,042 6.0% 594 752 424 1,272 Outer Ring 2,129 6.1% 421 167 787 754 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B25004 71 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B25002 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 72 Gross Rent % Change 2000r2014 Contract Rent % Change 2000r2014 Geography 2014 2000 2014 2000 Ansonia $1,082 $947 14.3% $843 $770 9.5% Beacon Falls $1,191 $1,186 0.4% $939 $997 r5.9% Bethlehem $849 $1,347 r37.0% $768 $1,052 r27.0% Bristol $904 $814 11.1% $772 $707 9.2% Cheshire $1,195 $1,093 9.3% $988 $970 1.9% Derby $1,086 $947 14.7% $856 $811 5.5% Middlebury $967 $915 5.7% $827 $778 6.3% Naugatuck $988 $864 14.3% $825 $733 12.6% Oxford $1,252 $943 32.8% $982 $734 33.7% Plymouth $986 $836 18.0% $838 $701 19.5% Prospect $1,011 $969 4.4% $827 $788 5.0% Seymour $949 $929 2.2% $840 $812 3.4% Shelton $1,147 $1,082 6.0% $942 $910 3.6% Southbury $1,357 $1,458 r6.9% $1,180 $1,265 r6.7% Thomaston $839 $889 r5.6% $759 $727 4.3% Waterbury $904 $770 17.4% $731 $647 13.0% Watertown $882 $885 r0.3% $758 $773 r1.9% Wolco? $880 $1,007 r12.6% $757 $893 r15.3% Woodbury $1,133 $1,073 5.6% $1,038 $966 7.5% Region Median $970 $862 12.5% $801 $732 9.4% Urban Core $937 $813 15.3% $765 $687 11.4% Inner Ring $1,037 $975 6.4% $876 $836 4.8% Outer Ring $1,138 $1,137 0.1% $975 $979 r0.4% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B25064, B25058, 2000 Census. NVCOG Sta+ Calcula?ons [In?a?on Rate 2000r2014: 1.37] 73 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 20010r2014, B25064 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 74 Median Home Value % Change 2000r2014 Geography 2014 2000 Ansonia $219,200 $191,800 14.3% Beacon Falls $255,900 $211,802 20.8% Bethlehem $359,600 $292,906 22.8% Bristol $199,000 $177,141 12.3% Cheshire $340,000 $290,440 17.1% Derby $212,700 $187,142 13.7% Middlebury $349,900 $272,082 28.6% Naugatuck $192,500 $182,210 5.6% Oxford $355,100 $284,686 24.7% Plymouth $199,300 $169,880 17.3% Prospect $298,500 $247,559 20.6% Seymour $266,700 $216,049 23.4% Shelton $348,200 $297,701 17.0% Southbury $314,000 $286,467 9.6% Thomaston $226,500 $186,046 21.7% Waterbury $140,700 $138,781 1.4% Watertown $253,100 $203,171 24.6% Wolco? $243,300 $196,458 23.8% Woodbury $358,800 $321,950 11.4% Region Total $248,694 $213,939 16.2% Urban Core $178,413 $164,407 8.5% Inner Ring $297,045 $250,393 18.6% Outer Ring $311,107 $262,641 18.5% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2008r2012, B25077 NVCOG Sta+ Calcula?ons. [In?a?on Rate 2000r2014: 1.37] 75 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B25077 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 76 Owner Occupied Units Home Value Geography Less than $100,000 $100,000 r $199,999 $200,000 r $299,999 $300,000 r $399,999 $400,000 or Higher Ansonia 3,956 65 1,450 1,976 395 70 Beacon Falls 1,921 164 423 637 484 213 Bethlehem 1,162 8 131 275 280 468 Bristol 16,853 1,084 7,438 6,263 1,407 661 Cheshire 8,624 306 767 2,252 2,466 2,833 Derby 2,897 90 1,198 1,089 321 199 Middlebury 2,471 52 155 681 697 886 Naugatuck 8,080 639 3,753 2,550 808 330 Oxford 3,889 105 331 693 1,480 1,280 Plymouth 3,831 324 1,606 1,307 407 187 Prospect 2,965 237 284 979 843 622 Seymour 4,606 184 863 1,912 968 679 Shelton 12,133 476 852 2,980 3,652 4,173 Southbury 6,746 545 1,544 1,112 1,233 2,312 Thomaston 2,415 196 818 810 478 113 Waterbury 19,130 4,076 11,844 2,523 375 312 Watertown 6,975 266 1,756 2,642 1,377 934 Wolco? 5,149 177 1,320 2,108 807 737 Woodbury 3,140 130 434 561 757 1,258 Region Total 116,943 9,124 36,967 33,350 19,235 18,267 Urban Core 50,916 5,954 25,683 14,401 3,306 1,572 Inner Ring 38,584 1,752 6,662 11,903 9,348 8,919 Outer Ring 27,443 1,418 4,622 7,046 6,581 7,776 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B25075 77 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Equalized Net Grand List ($ Millions) Percent Change Geography 2013 2007 2003 2007r2013 2003r2007 Ansonia $1,346.1 $1,945.0 $1,414.8 r30.8% 37.5% Beacon Falls $629.4 $878.4 $526.8 r28.3% 66.7% Bethlehem $520.5 $714.3 $496.4 r27.1% 43.9% Bristol $5,747.9 $7,282.7 $5,364.3 r21.1% 35.8% Cheshire $3,860.0 $5,006.3 $4,211.4 r22.9% 18.9% Derby $982.9 $1,435.0 $1,108.3 r31.5% 29.5% Middlebury $1,373.3 $1,759.7 $1,153.6 r22.0% 52.5% Naugatuck $2,267.9 $3,457.9 $2,497.8 r34.4% 38.4% Oxford $2,078.4 $2,043.5 $1,503.3 1.7% 35.9% Plymouth $1,011.1 $1,335.4 $935.8 r24.3% 42.7% Prospect $1,175.9 $1,250.1 $1,086.4 r5.9% 15.1% Seymour $1,707.8 $2,110.0 $1,591.8 r19.1% 32.6% Shelton $6,665.8 $9,171.7 $5,673.6 r27.3% 61.7% Southbury $3,206.3 $4,384.4 $3,703.3 r26.9% 18.4% Thomaston $724.5 $1,137.4 $852.8 r36.3% 33.4% Waterbury $5,705.7 $8,925.7 $5,961.5 r36.1% 49.7% Watertown $2,456.3 $3,494.0 $2,658.0 r29.7% 31.5% Wolco? $1,809.6 $2,354.8 $1,490.6 r23.2% 58.0% Woodbury $1,610.3 $2,154.1 $1,735.2 r25.2% 24.1% Region Total $44,879.8 $60,840.1 $43,965.6 r26.2% 38.4% Urban Core $16,050.5 $23,046.2 $16,346.6 r30.4% 41.0% Inner Ring $16,425.5 $22,254.8 $15,923.4 r26.2% 39.8% Outer Ring $12,403.7 $15,539.2 $11,695.7 r20.2% 32.9% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: Connec?cut O8ce of Policy and Management. Equalized Net Grand List, by Municipality: 2003r2013 All values are in 2013 dollars [In?a?on Rate 2003r2013: 1.2628] [In?a?on Rate 2007r2013: 1.1158] Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 78 Total >30% OwnerrOccupied RenterrOccupied Geography Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 3,802 52.5% 1,790 45.2% 2,012 61.3% Beacon Falls 613 26.3% 481 25.0% 132 32.0% Bethlehem 529 39.1% 478 41.1% 51 26.7% Bristol 9,181 36.4% 5,538 32.9% 3,643 43.7% Cheshire 2,510 25.6% 2,151 24.9% 359 30.6% Derby 2,454 49.4% 1,209 41.7% 1,245 60.0% Middlebury 981 35.5% 878 35.5% 103 35.5% Naugatuck 4,762 39.2% 2,847 35.2% 1,915 47.0% Oxford 1,271 28.8% 1,177 30.3% 94 18.0% Plymouth 1,574 33.4% 1,257 32.8% 317 36.0% Prospect 755 23.2% 632 21.3% 123 42.3% Seymour 2,330 38.3% 1,747 37.9% 583 39.3% Shelton 5,328 35.1% 4,267 35.2% 1,061 34.8% Southbury 3,448 44.0% 2,843 42.1% 605 55.3% Thomaston 961 32.0% 713 29.5% 248 42.4% Waterbury 20,044 48.9% 7,867 41.1% 12,177 55.8% Watertown 2,648 31.2% 2,117 30.4% 531 35.4% Wolco? 1,689 29.0% 1,399 27.2% 290 42.8% Woodbury 1,620 39.6% 1,106 35.2% 514 53.8% Region Total 66,500 39.2% 40,497 34.6% 26,003 49.3% Urban Core 40,243 44.5% 19,251 37.8% 20,992 53.0% Inner Ring 15,351 32.5% 12,252 31.8% 3,099 35.7% Outer Ring 10,906 34.2% 8,994 32.8% 1,912 43.1% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Es?mates: 2010r2014, B25106 79 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Govt. Assisted Tenant Rental Assistance CHFA/ USDA Mortgage Deed Restricted Total A+ordable Geography Total Percent Ansonia 371 642 112 9 1,134 13.9% Beacon Falls 0 2 31 0 33 1.3% Bethlehem 24 0 1 0 25 1.6% Bristol 1,633 823 1,065 0 3,521 13.0% Cheshire 277 12 78 17 384 3.7% Derby 275 314 69 0 658 11.3% Middlebury 77 3 15 20 115 4.0% Naugatuck 537 368 311 0 1,216 9.3% Oxford 36 3 12 0 51 1.1% Plymouth 178 18 224 0 420 8.2% Prospect 0 4 38 0 42 1.2% Seymour 262 18 97 0 377 5.4% Shelton 344 34 87 82 547 3.4% Southbury 90 4 18 0 112 1.2% Thomaston 104 4 115 0 223 6.8% Waterbury 5171 3,074 2,327 326 10898 22.7% Watertown 205 18 145 0 368 4.1% Wolco? 313 4 131 0 448 7.1% Woodbury 59 2 25 0 86 2.8% Region Total 9,956 5,347 4,901 454 20,658 11.0% Urban Core 7,987 5,221 3,884 335 17,427 17.1% Inner Ring 1,370 104 746 99 2,319 4.5% Outer Ring 599 22 271 20 912 2.6% v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Source: Connec?cut Department of Economic and Community Development. A+ordable Housing Appeals List: 2014 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 80 81 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Appendix D Tables and Maps Topic Page Urbanized Areas: 2010 …………………………………………………………………. 82 Labor Market Areas: 2015. ………………………………………………………………3 Income Limits for Select HUD Programs: 2015 ………………………………….. 84 Naugatuck River Greenway, Ansonia Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 82 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 83 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Sta?s?cs: Labor Market Areas: 2015 * Bethlehem and Woodbury were added to the Waterr bury LMA in 2015. Each midrdecade, the U.S. O8ce of Management and Budget (OMB) updates sta?s?cal area de?ni?ons (geographical composi?on) or labor market areas based on popula?on and commuter pa?erns from the most recent decennial Census (2010). Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 84 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Income Limits: 2015 Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very LowrIncome 28,400 32,450 36,500 40,550 43,800 47,050 50,300 53,550 LowrIncome 45,450 51,950 58,450 64,900 70,100 75,300 80,500 85,700 Sec?on 236 45,450 51,950 58,450 64,900 70,100 75,300 80,500 85,700 Sec?on 221 BMIR 53,950 61,650 69,350 77,050 83,250 89,400 95,550 101,750 Sec?on 235 53,950 61,650 69,350 77,050 83,250 89,400 95,550 101,750 Income Limits by Household Size ($) Includes Middlebury, Naugatuck, Prospect, Southbury, Waterbury, and Wolco? Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very LowrIncome 32,750 37,400 42,100 46,750 50,500 54,250 58,000 61,750 LowrIncome 46,100 52,650 59,250 65,800 71,100 76,350 81,600 86,900 Sec?on 236 46,100 52,650 59,250 65,800 71,100 76,350 81,600 86,900 Sec?on 221 BMIR 54,750 62,550 70,350 78,150 84,450 90,700 96,950 103,200 Sec?on 235 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 Income Limits by Household Size ($) Includes Ansonia, Beacon Falls, Derby, Oxford, and Seymour Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very LowrIncome 30,450 34,800 39,150 43,500 47,000 50,500 53,950 57,450 LowrIncome 46,100 52,650 59,250 65,800 71,100 76,350 81,600 86,900 Sec?on 236 46,100 52,650 59,250 65,800 71,100 76,350 81,600 86,900 Sec?on 221 BMIR 54,750 62,550 70,350 78,150 84,450 90,700 96,950 103,200 Sec?on 235 54,750 62,550 70,350 78,150 84,450 90,700 96,950 103,200 Income Limits by Household Size ($) Includes Bethlehem, Plymouth, Thomaston, Watertown, and Woodbury 85 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Income Limits: 2015 Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very LowrIncome 29,200 33,400 37,550 41,700 45,050 48,400 51,750 55,050 LowrIncome 46,100 52,650 59,250 65,800 71,100 76,350 81,600 86,900 Sec?on 236 46,100 52,650 59,250 65,800 71,100 76,350 81,600 86,900 Sec?on 221 BMIR 54,750 62,550 70,350 78,150 84,450 90,700 96,950 103,200 Sec?on 235 54,750 62,550 70,350 78,150 84,450 90,700 96,950 103,200 Income Limits by Household Size ($) Includes Cheshire Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very LowrIncome 30,650 35,000 39,400 43,750 47,250 50,750 54,250 57,750 LowrIncome 46,100 52,650 59,250 65,800 71,100 76,350 81,600 86,900 Sec?on 236 46,100 52,650 59,250 65,800 71,100 76,350 81,600 86,900 Sec?on 221 BMIR 54,750 62,550 70,350 78,150 84,450 90,700 96,950 103,200 Sec?on 235 54,750 62,550 70,350 78,150 84,450 90,700 96,950 103,200 Income Limits by Household Size ($) Includes Bristol Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very LowrIncome 31,050 35,450 39,900 44,300 47,850 51,400 54,950 58,500 LowrIncome 46,100 52,650 59,250 65,800 71,100 76,350 81,600 86,900 Sec?on 236 46,100 52,650 59,250 65,800 71,100 76,350 81,600 86,900 Sec?on 221 BMIR 54,750 62,550 70,350 78,150 84,450 90,700 96,950 103,200 Sec?on 235 54,750 62,550 70,350 78,150 84,450 90,700 96,950 103,200 Income Limits by Household Size ($) Includes Shelton Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Council Members Municipality Representa?ve Title Ansonia David Casse? Mayor Beacon Falls Christopher Bielik First Selectman Bethlehem Leonard Assard First Selectman Bristol Kenneth Cockayne Mayor Cheshire Timothy Slocum Town Council Member Derby Anita Duga?o Mayor Middlebury Edward St. John First Selectman Naugatuck N. Warren ?Pete? Hess Mayor Oxford George Temple First Selectman Plymouth David Merchant Mayor Prospect Robert Cha?ield Mayor Seymour W. Kurt Miller First Selectman Shelton Mark Laure? Mayor Southbury Je+rey Manville First Selectman Thomaston Edmond Mone First Selectman Waterbury Neil O’Leary Mayor Watertown Raymond Primini Town Council Member Wolco? Thomas Dunn Mayor Woodbury William Bu?erly, Jr. First Selectman

Community Relations Plan (17-19 Henry Healey Drive, Ansonia)

ANSONIA o BEACON FALLS o BETHLEHEM o BRISTOL o CHESHIRE o DERBY o MIDDLEBURY o NAUGATUCK o OXFORD o PLYMOUTH PROSPECT o SEYMOUR o SHELTON o SOUTHBURY o THOMASTON o WATERBURY o WATERTOWN o WOLCOTT o WOODBURY Healey Main Street, LLC Proposed Cleanup Project Community Relations Plan 17 -19 Henry Healey Drive and 520 Main Street, Ansonia, Connecticut March 11 , 2016 1.0 Overview The purpose of the Community Relations Plan (CRP) is to des cribe a strategy to address the needs and concerns of City of Ansonia residents potentially affected by the proposed cleanup of environmental contamination present at three parcels located at 17 -19 Henry Healey Drive and 52 0 Main Street Ansonia, Connecticut. An adjacent parcel at 522 Main Street is a piece in the larger project proposed by Healey Main Street, LLC (here after referred to as “Healey Main Street ”) but is outside the scope of the EPA funded cleanup proposal discussed in this plan. The CRP outlines how the Regional Brownfields Partnership of West Central CT (RBP) with the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments (NVCOG) , on behalf of Healey Main Street , has involved and will contin ue to involve affected residents, Town officials, and local organizations in the decision -making process regarding the environmental cleanup at the site. This CR P is funded by the NVCOG via EPA Brownfields Revolving Loan fund grant BF 97128501 -2. Involved residents are essential resources to the success of this project. Their comprehensive understanding of the Main Street corridor will in form the project strategy and outcomes , ensuring the efficacy of environmental cleanup and redevelopment of these three parcels for the proposed relocation and expansion of Healey Main Street’s business operations. 2.0 Spokesperson and Information Repository The spokesperson for this project is Arthur Bogen, Environmental Planner Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 49 Leavenworth Street, Third Floor Waterbury, CT 06702 203.757.0535 | abogen@nvcogct.org The I nfor mation R epository is located at the NVCOG office s ( address indicated above ). Documents are available for public viewin g Monday through Friday, 8:30am to 4:30pm. All public meeting s will be held at Ansonia City Hall, unless otherwise noted. 3.0 Site Description A full description of the site and history of use are contained in the Phase I environmental study. A Phase I report details the past uses of a site. It contains maps from different periods that indicate when and where building s may have been constructed. A Phase I also helps to define areas where hazardous substances may have been used and where current conditi ons raise concerns. A Phase II investigation, built on the findings of the Phase I, includes collection and analysis of environmental samples. The data collected through previous Phase I and Phase II reports will be used as a basis for cleanup and confirma tory sampling to occur . These studies and other pertinent documents are available for public review at the Information Repository. 3.1 Site Location: The properties involved are located at 17 and 19 Henry Healey Drive and 52 0 Main Street, Ansonia. The three parcels occupy 2.86 acres at the corner of Main Street and Henry Healey Drive along a commercial corridor one half mile south of Ansonia’s historic Downtown . 17 Henry Healey Drive is bounded by three parcels – 19 Henry Healey Drive to the west, 522 M ain Street to the e ast, and 540 Main Street to the south. 19 Henry Healey Drive abuts the Naugatuck River to the west in addition to 5 other parcels . 520 Main Street, the s ite of the dealership showroom , has access to Henry Healey Drive to the south and Ch estnut Street to the north. The properties are within an area characterized by a mix of large -scale commercial activity , automotive repair facilities, and shopping plazas along the Rt. 115 corridor. 3.2 History of site use and ownership 17 and 19 Henry Healey Drive and 520 Main Street are currently owned by Healey Main Street Associates, LLC. and are vacant properties . 520 Main Street was the site of a former automotive dealership’s main showroom , constructed in 1966 and operated by Healey Ford through 2010 . 17 and 19 Henry Healey Drive served as a dditional capacity and storage for the company from the 1980s through 2010 . After Healey Ford ceased business operations in 2010, the properties were held by the Ford Motor Credit Company of Dearborn, Michigan. The Regional Water Authority and City of Anso nia provide water and sewer to the buildings of the properties. 520 Main Street The showroom and automotive servicing and body shop of the former Healey Ford automobile dealership were built in 1966. An additional showroom and service bays were added in 1988. The remainder of the parcel is covered by asphalt . The parcel had previously been residential from the late 1800s to 1920s and utilized as coal storage from the 1920s to 1950s. 17 Henry Healey Drive A 2,500 square -foot concrete pad located on the parcel was the foundation for a warehouse utilized by Kasden Fuel operations, demol ished in 2005. The remainder of the parcel is paved in asphalt . Prior to purchase by Healey Ford in the 1980s, the site had a history of petroleum fuel storage and coal storage. 19 Henry Healey Drive A vacant 3,600 square foot warehouse building with a co ncrete slab floor was originally constructed by Kasden Fuel in 1982 at the southern end of the site. There are decommissioned in-ground hydraulic lifts within the structure. The western edge of the parcel, which abuts the Naugatuck River, is undeveloped an d unpaved. The remainder of the site is partially covered by asphalt and concrete surfaces. 3.3 Nature of the threat to public health and environment Phase I assessments completed by Cody Ehlers Group in November of 2015 summarize the results of previous a ssessment and removal activities, which include Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III reports completed by Golder Associates in November 2014 at 520 Main Street, a construction completion and source removal report completed by Golder Associates in November 2014 at 520 Main Street, Phase I and Phase II assessment completed by Golder Associates in 2013 and 2014 at 17 & 19 Henry Healey Drive, and a supplemental subsurface investigation report completed by Zuvic -Carr Associates in June 2015 at 17 & 19 Henry Healey D rive. There are no current operat ions at the properties that pose a potentially significant threat to public health, or to underlying soil and ground water. The Cody Ehlers Phase I assessment concluded that remainin g concerns at the sites include : releases from former underground and aboveground storage tanks, former loading racks, and two unconfirmed 3,000 gallon spill tanks not yet located . Constituents of concern include ETPH and arsenic in subsurface soil. Detectable concentrations of chemicals in groun dwater were determined to have originated at up -gradient sources. The South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority and the City of Ansonia provide potable water and sanitary sewer services to the area, and there was no evidence of water wells at the property. The properties will enter into the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP). Per the VRP, a Connecticut Licensed Environmental Professional (LEP) will oversee the remediation of the sites following a series of milestones complying with the Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations . The EPA Revolving Loan Fund funding will be used to aid cleanup activities including soil removal, confirmatory sampling, addition of clean soil, and soil isolation by i nstallation of asphalt pavement as a self -implementing control, and any other approaches subj ect to CT DEEP and EPA approval . Groundwater monitoring will also be conducted. 4.0 Community Background Ansonia has been the site of hea vy manufacturing for more than a century. It was settled in 1652 as a part of Derby and became separate in 1889 and incorporated in 1893. The land area is 6.2 square miles. Area companies p roduce electric supplies, brass and copper, and silk goods. It is home to Farrel Corporation that makes the Banbury Mixer and to Ansonia Copper and Bras s which made metal rods, wire and tubing through the end of 2015 . It was the home of the Ansonia Clock company from 1851 – 1878. There is a Metro Nor th train stop dow ntown along the Waterbury branch line. The decrease in manufacturing activity in the City a nd the state has caused some smaller suppliers to close and a concurrent decrease in the economic activity of the downtown. However, the City has revitalized much o f the downtown area with new retail facilities. 4.1 Community Profile The parcels at 17 -19 Henry Healey Drive and 520 Main Street are located along a commercial corridor south of Ansonia’s historic downtown. The City is listed as a “distressed community” b y the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development. As such, the community is in the fourth quartile of the state in terms of 1) per capita income, 2) adjusted equalized net grand list per capita, 3) equalized mill rate, 4) per capita aid t o children receiving Temporary Family Assi stance Program benefits and 5) unemployment rate. Total population is 19,188 according to the CT Economic Resource Council report for 2012. 36% of the population are people of color . The pov erty rate is 13.9 %. Th e median household income is $ 54,720 . The unempl oyment rate in the region is 6.8 % as of December 2015. 4.2 Chronology of Community Involvement The City of Ansonia supported an application by Healey Main Street to the NVCOG’s EPA Revolving Loan Fund. Healey Main Street ’s application was followed by the submission of an EPA Eligibility Determination, which was approved. NVCOG staff aided Healey Main Street in its application to the Abandoned Brownfield Cleanup Pr ogram, which was approved by CT DEEP . Healey Main Str eet ’s application to NVCOG’s EPA Revolving Loan Fund was subsequently approved by the NVCOG Revolving Loan Fund Committee. 4.3 Key Community Concerns To date, there have been no direct comments to the NVCOG from the public concerning the proposed cleanup. However, NVCOG staff and the Licensed Environmental Professional engaged by the develope r have been in contact with CT DEEP about the cleanup. A plan for public involvement and comment will be implemented as described in S ection 5.0. 4.4 Benefit to Target ed Community The community will no longer be exposed to the risk of on -site contact with identified contaminants. The investment by EPA will help realize a favorable outcome for the City and area residents and return an unproductive, vacant site to active use . Cleanup of known soil contamination will protect groundwater quality and water quality along the nearby Naugatuck River. New landscaping, paving, and the elimination of blight will reinvigorate a large expanse of abandoned buildings, increase the City of Ansonia’s grand list, and will provide both temporary and permanent employment opportunities. The project will also support a well -established local business in expanding and improving its operations. T he long standing commitment by the City and the Re gional Brownfields Partnership to reusing challenging urban properties , bolstered by effective collaboration between EPA and CT DEEP, will have resulted in the complete turnaround of the site. 5.0 Continued Community Involvement NVCOG staff will schedule a public meeting at an ADA accessible location within the City of Ansonia to coincide with the 30 -day pu blic comment period on the Analysis of Brownfields Corrective Action (ABCA) / Remedial Action Plan (RAP) . Among the items on the agenda for this public m eeting are the findings of the ABCA/RAP, the nature of proposed environmental land use restrictions, a discussion of the proposed cleanup plan, EPA’s Green Remediation Policy, and the proposed redevelopment plan for the site. Notice of all public meetings will be posted at Ansonia City Hall, 253 Main Street, Ansonia, CT 06401, at the NVCOG website at www.nvcogct.org, and on social media. Additionally, NVCOG staff will inform area business owners and residents through a door- to-door notification strategy. A news release will be issued when the cleanup has begun. Updates of project progress will be provided as necessary at the NVCOG website and on social media. The City of Ansonia economic development office and the Office of the Mayor will be informed of project progress directly. Materials in the Information Repository will be updated as new information is gathered and finalized. A news release will announce when cleanup is complete. 6.0 Proposed Project Additional investigations will be completed to resolve data gaps at 17 Henry Healey Drive. With the approval of the RAP, soils known to be contaminated will be removed and sampled for proper disposal. Additional characterization of these areas will confirm the efficacy of soil removals. Once these actions are complete and all necessary soil removals have occurred, the installation of new pavement and landscaping will isolate all remaining soils. An Environmental Land Use Restriction on all three properties will exclude residential use of the site in the future thereby protecting public health, subject to a required release from CT DEEP prior to excavation of soils. The cleanup of the site will allow Healey Main Street to occupy currently vacant buildings. Proposed Project Schedule March 15 , 2016 Submission of the Community Rela tions Plan, Analysis of Brownfields Cleanup Alternatives, and Quality Assurance Project Plan June 2016 Field Investigation :µoÇîìíò Public Comment Period on ABCA begins Public Meeting on Proposed Cleanup Plan August 22, 2016 45-day public comment period ends July 26, 2016 Meeting at City Hall to announce start of project ^‰šuŒ îìíò Beginning of site cleanup work, excavation of contaminated soils ^‰šuŒ îìíò Installation of pavement ^‰Œ]vPîìíó Completion of compliance monitoring ^‰Œ]vPîìíó Final veri fication ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES Former Heal ey Ford Properties Ansonia, Connecticut MARCH 2016 Prepared For: Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments 49 Leavenworth Street, 3 rd Floor Waterbury, CT Prepared by: Cody Ehlers Group 935 White Plains Road –Suite 205 Trumbull, CT 06611 ii CODY EHLERS GROUP TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………… 1 1.1 Scope and Purpose ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 2 2 BACKGR OUND ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. .4 2.1 Previous Environmental Reports ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………….. 4 2.2 Site Description and History ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …. 4 2.2.1 Former Healey Ford Dealership Property ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 5 2.2.2 Former Healey Ford Annex Property ………………………….. ………………………….. …………. 6 2.3 Exposure Pathways ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 9 2.4 Future Land Use ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………….. 11 3 Applicable Laws and Regulations ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. .12 3.1 CT Brownfields Program Acceptance ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 12 3.2 Voluntary Remediation Program ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………….. 12 3.3 Remediation Standard Regulations ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………….. 13 3.4 Institutional Controls ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………… 14 4 ANALYSIS OF CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES ………………………….. ………………………….. ………….. 15 4.1 Screening of Remedial Technologies ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 15 4.1.1 Institutional Controls ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……. 15 4.1.2 Excavation and Offsite Disposal ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 17 4.2 Remedial Alternatives ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………. 18 4.2.1 Alternative #1 –No Action ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………….. 19 4.2.2 Alternative #2 -Extensive Soil and Fill Removal Allowing Future Unrestricted Use 20 4.2.3 Alternative #3 –Hotspot Soil Removal with Inaccessible Soils and ELUR …………. 21 4.3 Evaluation and Selection of Preferred Alternative ………………………….. ………………………… 23 5 AUTHORIZATION AND IMPLEMENTATION ………………………….. ………………………….. …….. 25 iii CODY EHLERS GROUP LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 –Locus Plan Figure 2 –Site Plan 520 Main Street Figure 3 –Site Plan 17/19 Henry Healey Drive LIST OF TABLES Table 1 –Exposure Pathways Table 2 –Screening of Alternatives Table 3 –Estimated Costs of Alternatives 1 CODY EHLERS GROUP 1 INTRODUCTION Cody Ehlers Group, on behalf of Road Ready Used Cars Inc. of Bridgeport, Connecticut (Road Ready), has prepared th is Analysis of Brownfields Cleanup Alternatives (ABCA) for the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments (NVCOG) . The ABCA has been prepared for the Former Healey Ford Dealership Property at 520 Main Street , Ansonia, Connecticut (also designated as “500 Mai n Street ”)and the Former Healey Ford Annex Property at 17 and 19 Henry Healey Drive , Ansonia, Connecticut (in this ABCA, these properties are collectively referred to as the Site while the remediation of the Site is referred to as the Project ). Figure 1 shows the general locus for the Site and Figure s2and 3 show the site plans for the two properties .Road Ready has recently purchased and plans to redevelop the Site for their car sales and reconditioning operations. For the environmental clean -up of these properties, Road Ready has been awarded a loan from NVCOG ,disbursed under the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Grant BF 97128501 -2. The Sardo’s Automotive Repair Garage Property at 522 Main Str eet, which has also been acquired by Road Ready and will be redeveloped concurrently by Road Ready, is not part of this ABCA as it is an operating gas station and is not eligible for Brownfield ’s funding. Therefore, loan proceeds will not be used for reme diation of the Sardo’s property. Under EPA Brownfields Revolving Loan Funds agreement, t he ABCA needs to include : • Information about the site and contamination issues (i.e., exposure pathways, identification of contaminant sources, etc.); cleanup standar ds; applicable laws; alternatives considered; and the proposed cleanup. • The evaluation of alternatives must include effectiveness, implementability, and the cost of the response proposed. • The evaluation of alternatives must also consider the resilience of the remedial options in light of reasonably foreseeable changing climate conditions (e.g., sea level rise, increased frequency and intensity of flooding and/or extreme weather events, etc.). • The alternatives may additionally consider the degree to whi ch they reduce greenhouse gas discharges, reduce energy use or employ alternative energy sources, reduce volume of wastewater generated/disposed, reduce volume of materials taken to landfills, and recycle and re -use materials generated during the cleanup p rocess to the maximum extent practicable. • The evaluation will include an analysis of reasonable alternatives including no action. • The clean up method chosen must be based on this analysis. 2 CODY EHLERS GROUP The EPA Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund also require sthat a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and Community Relations Plan (CRP) be prepared. A QA PP,required whenever EPA oversees the collection of field data , is prepared to assure that the data will be accurate and precise to the needs of the project .The QAPP describes the work to be performed, the types of samples that will be collected, the analytical procedures that will be used ,and quality assurance practices that will be followed during the work. The CRP presents a plan for informing and obta ining input from the neighboring public at key milestones in the process. A QAPP and a CRP are being submitted to EPA concurrently with the ABCA. 1.1 Scope and Purpose The scope for the Project includes remediation of contaminated soil containing petrol eum hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ,volatile organic compounds , and metals caused by potential releases from former property uses in cluding storage and handling of fuels , maintenance of automobiles including a repair facility and a body sh op , and potentially historic manufacturing . There is also historic fill at the Site that contains fly ash with components of metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that requires aremedy. The purpose of this ABCA is to develop, evaluate and recommend potential remedial alternatives for the remedy of these soil impacts. Potential remedies will need to meet criteria defined in the Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations (CGS 22a -133k -1 to -3-RSRs) . The Site has also been accepted into the Con necticut Abandoned Brownfield Cleanup (ABC) program pursuant to CGS 32 -768. As part of this acceptance, the Project is exempt from Transfer Act filing, but needs to proceed through the Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) pursuant to CGS 22a -133x until t he Site is remediated to the RSRs. This program will include the following milestones: • characterizing to “prevailing standards and guidelines” with submission of environmental characterization reports and LEP certification, • the completion and public notice of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) with LEP certification to the requirements of the RS Rs, • implementation of the remedy defined in the RAP , • groundwater monitoring to demonstrate groundwater compliance as required by the RSRs , and • submissio n of the Final Verification Report with LEP certification documenting the entire remedial process and demonstrating that the Project h as been completed to the RSRs. While the vast majority of the characterization work is completed, the Site requires some pre – remedial characterization work in preparation for the Site remediation. This additional characterization will be done using other funds (not funds from the Brownfields Revolving Loan Fun d) and will be completed before the remedy , described in this AB CA, is undertaken . 3 CODY EHLERS GROUP Remediation will allow for transfer and reuse of the se properties for Road Ready operations. Road Ready plans to reuse the 520 Main Street car sales building and the 19 Henry Healey Drive warehouse for their car sales and reconditioning operations. The remainder of the 17/19 Henry Heal ey Drive property will be used for car storage for future sales. Once redeveloped, the site operations will require 10 additional jobs ,with further expansion possible . The City will see increased tax rev enue from the redeveloped Site. A large ,blighted and visible brownfield site will be revived and brought back to productive use . 4 CODY EHLERS GROUP 2 BACKGROUND 2.1 Previous Environmental Reports Several environmental investigations have been conducted on the Site. Information developed from the following studies was used as part of this ABCA: • April 2009, LFR, 500 (520) Main Street and 17&19 Henry Healey Drive, Ansonia, CT, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. • November 2014 ,Golder Associates, 500 (520) Main Stree t, Ansonia, CT, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Non -Domestic Wastewater Collection Device Inspection . • November 2014 ,Golder Associates ,500 (520) Main Street, Ansonia, CT, Phase II and Phase III Environmental Site Assessment . • March 2015 ,Golde rAssociates, 500 (520) Main Street, Ansonia, CT, Construction Completion and Source Removal Report . • August 16, 2013 ,Golder Associates ,17/19 Henry Healey Drive, Ansonia, CT, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment . • May 2014 ,Golder Associates ,17/19 Henry Healey Drive, Ansonia, CT, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment . • July 2015 ,Zuvic -Carr ,17/19 Henry Healey Drive and 522 Main Street, Ansonia, CT, Supplemental Subsurface Investigation . • November 2015, Cody Ehlers Group, 500 (520) Main Street Ansonia, CT ,Phase I Environmental Site Assessment . • November 2015, Cody Ehlers Group, 17/ 19 Henry Healey Drive, Ansonia, CT, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment . 2.2 Site Description and History The two former Healey Ford properties are designated as the Former Healey Ford Dealership Property at 520 Main Street, and the Former Healey Ford Annex Property at 17 and 19 Henry Healey Drive. These properties are adjacent to each other in downtown Ansonia in a primarily commercial area. Groundwater in the vici nity of the parcels is classified by the CTDEEP Groundwater Classification Map of Connecticut as GB. The GB classification indicates that groundwater in the area is not suitable for potable water supply. The parcels are located approximately 500 feet eas t of Naugatuck River. The Naugatuck River is designated as a Class C/B river by the CT DEEP. There are no public or private water supply wells in this area. 5 CODY EHLERS GROUP Much of the parcels contain non -native fill material, which includes coal fly -ash. The US Department of Agriculture’s Soil Conservation Service classifies soils in the vicinity of the Property as urban land. Geologic units underlying the Property belong to the Pumpkin Ground Member o f the Harrison Gneiss . Each of these properties is described below: 2.2.1 Former Healey Ford Dealership Property The 1.28 -acre Former Healey Ford Dealership Property at 520 Main Street (Dealership Parcel) contains a 28,850 square foot building surrounded by asphalt pavement. Th is parcel occupies the southwest corner at t he intersection of Main Street and Chestnut Street in an industrial/commercial section of Ansonia, Connecticut. Multi -tenant office buildings are located across Main Street to the east and across Chestnut Street to the north. Valley Home Decor is adjacen t to the west of the Property, and the Naugatuck River is located just west of that. Henry Healey Drive is adjacent to the south of the Property. Sardo’s Automotive is located further south, across Henry Healey Drive. The site building was constructed i n 1966 for use as the Healey Ford automobile dealership. In addition to auto sales, the facility was used for automotive servicing and body shop activities. In 1988, an addition was constructed onto the original building to add a second show room and addi tional service bays. In 2010, Healey Ford closed the dealership. Ford Motor Credit Company of Dearborn, Michigan, the current owner, obtained the property through foreclosure in 2013. Prior to initiation of auto dealership activities in 1966, historical uses at the Property included residential use (late 1800s to 1920s) and coal storage (1920s to 1950s). The area surrounding the Property was developed by the late 1800s. Historical uses of surrounding properties included residential, lumber yards, brass manufacturing, apparel manufacturing, coal storage and sales, and several retail sales establishments. The property has been connected to the municipal water supply and sewer systems since at least 1966, when the existing building was constructed. No e vidence of historical on -site septic systems or water supply wells was identified. However, an oil/water separator ,trench drains and floor drains were present in former dealership service areas. The Dealership Parcel is approximately 300 to 500 feet east if the Naugatuck River. Groundwater is approximately 9 to 10 feet below ground surface with groundwater contours showing flow in a northwesterly direction toward the river. 520 Main Street Based upon a review of the above documents, a summary of the site environmental conditions for the Dealership Parcel is as follows: • Healey Ford operated its dealership showroom and repair facility at this address. Activities included auto body and mechanical repair operations. The former dealership property has been vacant for over five years. 6 CODY EHLERS GROUP • Prior work by Golder included Phase I and II assessments followed by the removal of several in -ground hydraulic lifts and soil within the former repair garage. The Golder identified Areas of Concern (AOCs) included areas where former Healey Ford operations occurred and also areas that could have been affected by either on -site historical activities or up -gradient, off -site sources. The Golder Phase II ESA included the drilling of twenty seven soil borings with six of th e soil borings completed as groundwater monitoring wells. A total of twenty three shallow soil samples were collected from depths ranging from 1.5’ –2.0’ below ground surface. Each shallow soil sample was analyzed for total metals. A total of twenty se ven deep soil samples were collected from depths ranging from 9.0’ to 13.0’ below ground surface. Each sample was submitted for laboratory analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and extractable total petrole um hydrocarbons (ETPH). One sample was analyzed for PCBs. Golder sampled the six monitoring wells for VOCs, SVOCs, ETPH and total metals. • The extent of soil and groundwater contamination has been well -documented by Golder and the property has been adeq uately characterized for the purposes of achieving compliance with the “prevailing standards and guidelines” requirements of the CTDEEP. • Following the Phase II, Golder oversaw the removal of several in -ground hydraulic lifts and impacted soil from the ve hicle repair garage. Post -excavation soil sampling in this area confirmed that no soil remained in place above applicable criteria. In addition, impacted soil beneath a compressor blow -down pipe was removed under LEP direction. Certified clean gravel wa s backfilled into the excavated areas 2.2.2 Former Healey Ford Annex Property The 17 and 19 Henry Healey Drive p roperty (Annex Parcel) consists of two separate adjacent lot s of land totaling , according to assessor records, approximately 1.6 acres in size. The 17 Henry Healey Drive portion is further east and adjacent to Sardo’s service station while the 19 Henry Healey Drive portion is closer to the river. A former railroad spur runs between the two parcels. The 17 Henry Healey Drive parcel consists of an asphalt parking lot and a 2,500 square -foot concrete pad on which rested a warehouse used by Kasden Fuel operations. The building was demolished in 2005. The adjacent Sardo’s Service Station at 522 Main Str eet presently uses this parcel for vehicle storage. The 19 Henry Healey Drive parcel contains a 3,600 square foot warehouse building used by Mr. Sardo for vehicle storage and repair. The warehouse has a concrete slab floor with decommissioned in -ground hy draulic lifts. There is a small office area and restrooms that are provided with water and sewer services by the regional water authority and the City of Ansonia, respectively. The building was constructed by Kasden Fuel in 1982 as a mechanic’s garage. The remainder of this parcel is partially covered with asphalt and concrete surfaces 7 CODY EHLERS GROUP along its eastern half. The western area is undeveloped and unpaved. A chain -linked fence and locking gates secure the propert y. The Annex Parcel is bound to the north by Henry Healey Drive and the former Healey Ford dealership property at 520 Main Street and the Valley Lighting & Home Décor showroom building to the north -northwest. Sardo’s Automotive abuts the property to the northeast and a small retail center abuts the property directly to the east. Across Main Street are retail shops including an automotive parts center. South of the property is a vacant lot with one small commercial building and west of the property is the flood control dike for the Naugatuck Riv er. A review of historical records showed the following: • 1890 -1911: Residential properties were shown on the property in an 1890 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map depicting the property and surroundings. The 1906 Sanborn map indicates a wooden shed on the prope rty owned by the Schneller, Osbourne and Cheesman Co., a manufacturer of brass products. The 1911 Sanborn map shows the shed is gone and the property is vacant. • 1924 -1950: In 1924 , the Ansonia Coal Company was operating a coal storage shed on the proper ty. Aerial photography shows a similar structure until 1950. Ansonia Coal changed its name to Kasden Coal Company (“Kasden”) and constructed additional buildings. • 1950 -1980s: Kasden operated the coal company, adding three new buildings. Subsequently, Kasden Fuel Company began operating a small bulk petroleum fuel distributorship until the property was purchased by Healey Ford in the 1980s. Kasden operated a series of underground storage tanks with a loading and unloading dock to supply fuel oil and d istillates to customers. During that time, it constructed a small building where the concrete pad now exists in the northeastern corner of the property. • 1980s -2009: Healey Ford had been operating its dealership at 520 Main Street and then purchased the Annex Parcel for additional parking and the use of the warehouse building. Reportedly the current warehouse building had been used as a vehicle body shop in the 1980s before the body shop operations were moved to the 520 Main Street building. In 2005, th e smaller warehouse was demolished and the concrete pad is all that remains. The two in -ground hydraulic lifts located inside the garage were removed in 2009, when Healey Ford ceased operations. • 2010 -Present: Sardo’s began using the Property for vehic le storage and parking. The warehouse is used for vehicle repair and body work. FMCC took over the ownership following Healey Ford bankruptcy filing. Historical information indicates that there are no wells or septic systems on the Annex Parcel . The Annex Parcel is approximately 100 to 300 east if the Naugatuck River. Groundwater is approximately 10 to 1 2feet below ground surface with groundwater contours showing flow in asouth westerly direction toward the river. Beaver Brook, which has been chann elized to flow 8 CODY EHLERS GROUP under the properties along Main Street, flo ws to the south and east of this parcel discharging into the Naugatuck River. Based upon areview of the above documents, asummary of site environmental conditions for the Annex Parcel is as fo llows: • The Annex Parcel collectively operated as part of Healey Ford operations and included an auto body repair operation for a few years before that operation was transferred to the 520 Main Street property. Historically, the site was operated as a coal and fuel oil distributorship (Ansonia Coal and Kasden Fuel Oil) from the 1920s until the 1980s after which Healey Ford began operations. The former Annex property has been vacant for over five years. . • The #19 parcel contains a 3,600 square foot build ing with limited paved surfaces. Prior uses at #19 were car storage lots and in the building, car preparation and, for a limited time, auto body repair work. Several AOCs were investigated with a determination that no releases to the soil or groundwater had occurred except for oil spillage in the southwestern corner of the parcel. • The #17 parcel has a 2,500 square foot concrete pad that remains from a former building. Most of the parcel is unpaved. Parcel #17 also had historic uses as an oil storage f acility and coal yard. The Phase II findings established that there were no significant releases. However, the historic previous use as a coal yard left some evidence of coal and coal ash and evidence of residual petroleum in the vicinity of the former o il storage tanks. • Previous assessment work was completed by both Golder and Zuvic Carr. The Golder Phase II ESA included the advancement of 16, continuously sampled, 15 foot deep soil borings. A total of 13 shallow soil samples were collected from dept hs ranging from 1.5’ –2.0’ below ground surface and were analyzed for total metals. A total of 16 deep soil samples were collected from depths ranging from 9.0’ to 13.0’ below ground surface. Each sample was submitted for laboratory analysis of VOCs, SV OCs and ETPH. Four soil borings were completed as groundwater monitoring wells. Four groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), ETPH and RCP 15 total metals. • The Zuvic Carr Supplemental Subsurface I nvestigation included the advancement of 14 soil borings ,sampled continuously to a total depth of approximately 15 feet .A total of 15 soil samples were collected from depths ranging from 2.5’ to 15.0’ below ground surface. Each sample was submitted for laboratory analysis of ETPH and VOCs. Select samples were analyzed for total metals, PCBs, herbicides and SVOCs. Four of the soil borings installed were completed as groundwater monitoring wells. A total of four groundwater samples were collected and s ubmitted for laboratory analysis of VOCs, SVOCs, ETPH and total metals. • Golder and Zuvic Carr found no ETPH and no petroleum -related VOCs or PAHs in any groundwater samples. Golder found traces of barium, copper, lead and zinc in the 9 CODY EHLERS GROUP groundwater while Zu vic Carr found concentrations of barium, copper and zinc. The metal detections were attributed to be from the fill materials which contained traces of metals. • The characterization work conducted by both Golder and Zuvic Carr produced a fundamental und erstanding of soil and groundwater conditions and identified impacts to shallow soil and groundwater from historical operations. For all but two of the identified AOCs, site conditions are well understood and no further characterization work is anticipate d. The two AOCs requiring characterization work to define remedial extent are: o A suspected drum disposal site –based on hearsay evidence provided by Mr. Sardo to Zuvic Carr, and o Former Kasden Fuel Storage and Distribution System that included the operation of several fuel tanks and associated unloading and loading racks and spill containment equipment. • Except for the above -described characterization tasks, the extent of soil and groundwater contamination has been well -documented by Golder and Zuvic Carr and the property has been adequately characterized for the purposes of achieving compliance with the “prevailing standards and guidelines” requirements of the CTDEEP . 2.3 Exposure Pathways Portions of the soils at the Site are not currently compliant with RSR criteria and may represent exposure potential to people in proximity to the Site. While there is always some risk, o nce remediation is completed and the Site is RSR compliant, the expo sure potential is reduced to levels considered to be safe according to state laws and regulations . During construction when contaminated soil is handled, potential additional short term risk may be created. However, these are short term impacts and risk equations are sensitive to “time of exposure ” and, therefore, the risk is small from th is short -duration construction work. In addition, measures can be taken to reduce the risk further (e.g., implementation of health and safety plan, wearing protective equipment, field practices to reduce dust, etc.) A summary of potential exposure pathways is presented in Table 1below: 10 CODY EHLERS GROUP TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS Pathway Regulatory Driver Mitigation Method Direct ingestion or dermal exposur e of contaminants from shallow soil. Shallow contaminants can be windblown into breathing zone and inhaled or ingested. RSR Direct Exposure Criteria either industrial/commercial or residential sets protective criteria in shallow soil. Excavation of non -compliant shallow soils removes risk. Pavement or cover over shallow soil prevents wind erosion or incidental contact, with ELUR to protect future property uses. Direct ingestion or d ermal exposure of contaminants from deep soils RSR Direct Exposure Criteria require compliance to 15 feet deep. No exposure unless excavating. ELUR will provide notice on deed preventing excavation without proper precautions. Percolating water mobilizes contaminants to groundwater. Person contacts or drinks groundwater. RSR GB Pollutant Mobility Criteria sets protective criteria in soils above water table No public or private wells in area to complete pathway. Groundwater classified as “GB”. Groundwater shows minimal impact from site contaminan ts Contaminants volatilize from soil or groundwater. Person breaths volatile chemical. RSR Volatilization Criteria in groundwater and Soil Vapor Volatilization Criteria in soil gas Volatile constituents have not been measured at levels that would cause a concern. Percolating water mobilizes contaminants to groundwater. Groundwater impacts local surface water providing exposure point. RSR Surface Water Protection Criteria in groundwater Minimal constituents in groundwater. No constituents above surfac e water protection criteria. 11 CODY EHLERS GROUP 2.4 Future Land Use Road Ready intends to redevelop the Site for its used automobile sales and maintenance operations. Current structures on the Site will be primarily preserved for their office and garage operations with Annex P arcel used for storage of inventory of automobiles. 12 CODY EHLERS GROUP 3 APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS 3.1 CT Brownfields Program Acceptance The Site has been accepted into the Connecticut Abandoned Brownfield Cleanup (ABC) program pursuant to CGS 32 -768. By acceptan ce into the program, the following provisions apply : • The site owner needs to enter and remain in the Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) established in CGS section 22a -133x; to investigate pollution in accordance with prevailing standards and guidelines and to remediate pollution in accordance with RSRs. Designation of a property in the abandoned brownfield cleanup program also exempt sfrom filing as an establishment under the Transfer Act. • The s ite owner is not responsible for investigating or remediating source sof pollution that ha ve emanated from the property prior to taking title to the property . • Upon completion of the requirements of the VRP to the satisfaction of the CTDEEP, the owner will qualify for a covenant not to sue without fee. • The s ite owner is not liable to th e CTDEEP for conditions preexisting or existing on the brownfield property as long as the site owner (1) did not cause release, (2) does not exacerbate the conditions; and (3 ) complies with reporting of significant environmental hazard requirements. 3.2 Voluntary Remediation Program As part of th e ABC acceptance, the project is exempt from Transfer Act filing, but needs to proceed through the V RP pursuant to CGS 22a -133x until th e property is remediated to the RSRs . While CTDEEP has the option to oversee this project, generally a Licensed Environmental Professional (LEP) oversee sthe investigation and remediation of the se type sof Brownfield project s.In addition, there are no c onditions (for example, affected drinking water wells) that would indicate that CTDEEP would take the lead. This VRP program will include the following milestones: • characterizing to “prevailing standards and guidelines” with submission of Investigation Report (s) and LEP certification, • the completion of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) with public notice and LEP certification defining a remediation program meeting the requirements of the RSRs, • implementation of the remedy as defined in the RAP, • as applicabl e, groundwater monitoring to demonstrate groundwater compliance, and • submission of the Final Verification Report with LE P certification documenting that the remediation work has been completed to the RSRs. 13 CODY EHLERS GROUP 3.3 Remediation Standard Regulations In 1996, the R SRs were promulgated. The RSRs set the approach to site remediation and define performance criteria (i.e., clean -up levels) for soil and groundwater at industrial/commercial sites in Connecticut. Because the Site is regulated under the Voluntary Remediat ion Program, the RSRs define standards for remediation of soil and groundwater at the Site. The RSRs define a two tiered approach for cleanup of soil and groundwater at “GA” versus “GB” groundwater classified areas. “GA” areas (or drinking water areas) require a more stringent cleanup approach. The RSRs define several sets of specific cleanup numeric criteria for different environmental pathways (for example, drinking water, surface water, volatilization to breathing zone, etc.). These sets of criteria represent a conservative model of different pathways that constituents could travel to potential human or environmental receptors. The RSRs also allow “alternative criteria” to be developed for a site based on meeting specific requirements defined in the RSRs (self -implementing provisions) or based on a risk -assessment demonstration approved by CT DEEP. Since the Site is in a “GB” groundwater area, the applicable criteria for soil are the “GB” pollutant mobility criteria (GBPMC) and the residential direct exposure criteria (RDEC). If the property chooses, the industrial/commercial direct exposure criteria (ICDEC) may be used in lieu of the RDEC provided an environmental land use restriction (ELUR) is obtained on the deed that prevents the property from ch anging to residential use without taking action on these environmental issues. Soil is defined in the RSRs for “GB” areas as above the seasonal high water table. The RSRs consider conditions where soil is ‘inaccessible’ (not subject to the DEC) or is ‘e nvironmentally isolated’ (not subject to the GBPMC). The applicable criteria for “GB” classified areas for groundwater are the surface water protection criteria (SWPC) and the residential volatilization criteria (RVC). If the property chooses, the indu strial/commercial volatilization criteria (ICVC) may be used in lieu of the RVC provided an ELUR is obtained on the deed requiring continued industrial/commercial use. The volatilization criteria is only applicable beneath buildings and if the water table is less than 15 feet deep; however an ELUR would be required to prevent future construction in areas without present buildings where volatilization criteria are exceeded. Provisions that could potentially apply to the Site include: • The RSRs have an exce ption that states that PMC do not apply to polluted fill (specifically including fly ash) provided 1) there are no VOCs above their applicable PMCs, 2) the applicable DEC is met, 3) the site does not affect a drinking water supply or private drinking water wells, 4) a public water supply is available within 200 feet of the site, and 5) the plac ement of the fill was not prohibited by law at the time it was placed [RSCA Section 22a -133k -2(c)(4)(B)]. The Site meets these conditions. • If a specific site situation meets the definition of “inaccessible soil” then it will not be subject to the RDEC. Inaccessible soil is defined as i) soil greater than 4 feet in depth, 14 CODY EHLERS GROUP ii) soil greater tha n 2 feet depth below 3 inches of pavement or iii) polluted fill soil immediately below pavement with metal contamination that is less than 2 times the RDEC. Inacces sible soil would also require an Environmental Land Use Restriction (ELUR ). 3.4 Institutional Controls It is anticipated that one or mor eELUR swill be part of the approved remediation program for the Site. The purpose of an ELUR is to minimize the risk o f human exposure to pollutants and hazards in the environment by preventing specific uses or activities at a property or a portion of a property. The ELUR permits the remedial goals for a property to be dependent on the exposure risk associated with its in tended use. The CT DEEP in its June 27, 2013 amended ELUR Regulations, provided updated forms and guidance designed to improve the process. In accordance with the RSRs, the use of an ELUR would be required to be part of the remedy if the remedy includes “inaccessible soil” which eliminates the direct exposure pathway and the need to comply with the DEC . By defining the location, depth and type of materials left in place in the permanent notice on the deed, future potential exposure by construction worker sand others will be prevented or controlled . This will allow for leaving materials such as the metals – containing fill in place. An ELUR may also be appropriate to designate future use of the Site as industrial/commercial (non residential) as this will a llow the use of higher clean -up criteria. 15 CODY EHLERS GROUP 4 ANALYSIS OF CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES Based on the anticipated future land use, environmental conditions, contaminants of concern and applicable regulations identified above, the various options for remediation were evaluated . 4.1 Screening of Remedial Technologies There are technologies that have been effective at providing remedies at sites similar to the Project with petroleum compounds and metals in soil and groundwater. The success of a given technology is very sensitive to the particular site conditions and the correct application of a technology. Table 2provides a screening of possi ble technologies. Based on a review of site conditions , the specifics of each remedial area ,and a review of relevant literature, individual technologies were either retained for further analysis or eliminated as summarized on Table 2. The eliminated technologies were technically infeasible, not well suited to site conditions, or too costly –see comment field on Table 2 . Only two technologies (Institutional Controls and Excavation and Offsite Disposal) have been retained and are formulated as parts of alternatives to clean up the Site . These are discussed below . 4.1.1 Institutional Controls Institutional controls such as an ELUR are allowed for commercial/industrial sites to 1) define ‘environmentally isolated soil’, 2) define ‘inaccessible soil’, and 3) restrict the future use of a property. ELURs require property owner approval. ELURs rele vant to all or a portion of the Site are summarized as follows: • Industrial/Commercial Use: An ELUR can be attached to the Site to restrict the subject properties to industrial/commercial (IC) use. This ELUR would reduce the theoretical exposure to recepto r populations and therefore will allow the application of ICDEC for soil, ICVC for ground water and the IC soil vapor volatilization criteria for soil vapor. This ELUR is defined in the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) Sections 22a -133k -3 ( c) (2), 22a -133k -2 (b) (2) (A), and 22a -133k -3 (c) (3) (A). • Inaccessible Soil: An ELUR defining ‘inaccessible soils’ for soils beneath a building, or under certain conditions (4 feet below gra de o r2 feet below pavement or polluted fill soil immediately below pavement with metal contamination that is less than 2 times the RDEC )which exceed the DEC can be obtained. This ELUR would allow soil with concentrations above the DEC at these location s to remain because the exposure pathway is incomplete. This ELUR would require appropriate soil management activities if future excavation was to occur at these defined locations. This ELUR is defined in RCSA Section 22a -133k -2 (b) (3). 16 CODY EHLERS GROUP TABLE 2 SCREEN ING OF ALTERNATIVES Technology Effectiveness in Meeting Objectives Acceptable Engineering Practices Cost Status Reasoning/Comments No action Not Effective Acceptable Very Low Retained for comparison Constituents above state criteria. CT Transfer Act requires cleanup at transfer Institutional controls Effective Acceptable Low Retained Land use restrictions under specific circumstances will prevent exposure Engineered control variance Effective Acceptable High Eliminated Long term monitoring , and financial assurance requirements make it undesirable and costly . Better options available Monitored natural attenuation Not Effective Acceptable Low Eliminated Not really relevant for issues at site – groundwater meets criteria Vapor control at future building Not Effective Acceptable Low Eliminated Volatile contaminants not at issue Extensive Excavation and Offsite Removal Effective Acceptable High Retained Allows unrestricted use. Hot Spot Excavation and Offsite Removal Effective Acceptable Moderate Retained Commonly applied to similar sites Air Sparging/ Vapor Extraction Not Effective Acceptable Low Eliminated Not relevant for site issues . Enhanced anaerobic biological Not Effective Acceptable Moderate Eliminated Not relevant for site issues Enhanced aerobic biological Not Effective Acceptable Moderate Eliminated Not relevant for site issues Chemical Oxidation Not Effective Acceptable Moderate Eliminated Could reduce petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations but may mobilize metals in fill 17 CODY EHLERS GROUP The RSRs define a prescriptive process to obtain an ELUR and obtaining ELURs has become fairly routine in Connecticut. This process includes submission of application to CTDEEP for approval. The application includes an A -2 survey, identific ation of the areas where ELURs are proposed and non -complying materials remain in place, and the preparation of a decision document in which the rationale for the use of an ELUR is presented. Following CTDEEP approval and a public notice period, the ELUR will be recorded on the deed. Since the ELUR needs to reflect the site conditions at filing, the ELUR is typically submitted for CTDEEP approval following the completion of the remedial actions. 4.1.2 Excavation and Offsite Disposal The most common soil remediation technology at hazardous waste sites is excavation and offsite disposal. It is simple ,used at many sites ,and found to be effective. It can be a large scale operation on a site or small scale “hot -spot” removal . In many cases, it is t he default technology used to compare to other technologies which may have a higher risk of failure but may cost less to implement .Depending on the volumes of soil involved, it can be comparable to other technologies in cost (smaller volumes) or very exp ensive (large volumes). Th e excavation process at a site typically will involve the following steps: • The extent of excavation and the cons tituents of concern will be initially defined based on the borings and sampling conducted during site investigation a nd comparison to the Connecticut RSRs. A plan for excavating will be formulated. Potential soil disposal facilities will be contacted for acceptance criteria and sampling requirements. • A contractor will be hired for excavation work. Site health and sa fety plan will be created based on constituents expected to be encountered during the excavation and other below grade excavation safety concerns .The health and safety plan will be reviewed and implemented by the contractor. • If contaminated soil exist sat depth with clean materials above, these clean materials may be removed and separately stockpiled for reuse. • During excavation, trained field personnel will oversee the contractor to insure compliance with the plan. On site personnel will observe the enc ountered soils and screen soils for volatile compounds with a portable photoionization detector (PID) .At the completion of the defined extent of the excavation, confirmation soil samples will be collected from the sidewalls and bottom of each excavation area at a prescribed frequenc y. • Samples will be transported to a certified laboratory for the analysis of constituents of concern . If the applicable RSRs are exceeded, additional excavation and sample collection process will be repeated until laborato ry results are obtained that meet RSR criteria. • Stockpiled soil awaiting off -site disposal or on -site reuse will be placed on polyethylene sheeting and surrounded with hay bales. The stockpiles will be maintained as to prevent run off of the soil to the ground surface. Polyethylene 18 CODY EHLERS GROUP sheeting will be used to cover the stockpiles. Samples will be collected and analyzed for constituents as r equired to meet disposal facilities acceptance criteria. • The excavation will be backfilled with previously removed clean material or offsite clean fill and restored to match the surrounding grade. The location of the limits of the excavation will be su rveyed or tied to existing permanent features (e.g., buildings, walls). • Once accepted by the disposal facility, the soils will be loaded onto trucks and brought to the disposal facility using a bill -of-lading or manifest. • The excavation and disposal p rocess will be documented with photos during the process, with laboratory reports, with field reports, and bills -of-lad ing from transporter and disposal facility. 4.2 Remedial Alternatives Using the retained technologies above, t he following three alternativ es were evaluated for remediation of the Site: • Alternative #1 -No action . • Alternative #2 -Extensive Soil and Fill Removal Allowing Future Unrestricted Use . • Alternative #3 -Hot Spot Soil Removal with Inaccessible Soils and ELUR. The two parcels are treated together as the most reasonable program would include similar remedial approaches for both parcel s. E ach alternative is evaluated based on : • Effectiveness –the ability of the alternative to meet cleanup goals and to protect human health and t he environment. • Implementability –the ability of the alternative to be implemented with current and proven construction methods. • Resiliency to Climate Changes –the ability of alternative to cope with future climate changes such as sea level rise, incre ased frequency and intensity of flooding and/or extreme weather events , changing temperature/precipitation patterns, changing flood zones, increased salt water intrusion, and higher or lower groundwater table . The site is located in Ansonia Connecticut a djacent to the Naugatuck River approximately 13 miles upgradient from the Long Island Sound at elevation of approximately 20 to 23 feet above mean sea level. The Naugatuck River is a medium sized river (average annual flow of 560 cfs) and a tributary to t he Housatonic River with its confluence approximately 1.5 files south of the Site in Derby, Connecticut .The river flow is affected by the rise and fall of the tide to a point south of Ansonia approximately ½ mile south of the site. The Naugatuck River w as subject to extensive flooding in the 1955 floods with many flood control and channel changes made in the area of the site by the Army Corp in reaction to damage caused by the flood. These changes included an earthen dike west of the site protecting the area from river flood stage. 19 CODY EHLERS GROUP Based on its location adjacent to the river, the most likely climatic changes would be to move the tidal influence to a point near the Site, increase the potential for flooding, increase the groundwater table at the Site. The area has already been subject to flooding in the past. Future severe weather is also possible for the Site as well as lowering the water table . • Green Factors –the impact and assessment of the alternative on production of greenhouse gas discharges, re duc ing energy use ,employ ing alternative energy sources, reduc ing volume of wastewater generated/disposed, reduc ing volume of materials taken to landfills, and recycl ing of materials generated during the cleanup process . • Cost –an estimate of costs of implementation of the alternative . 4.2.1 Alternative #1 –No Action A No Action alternative means that no remediation would be implemented at the Site and that the soil and groundwater would remain in their present condition .The alt ernative is presented as a baseline comparison of existing conditions. Effectiveness -The alternative is not effective in eliminat ing or reduc ing the toxicity, mobility or volume of the soils containing concentrations of hazardous constituents and no perm anent solution is achieved. Further, the No Action alterative does not result in the cleanup or containment of materials at the Site and therefore is not protective of human health and the environment. Implementability -This alternative is implementable in that it is the present condition of the Site. Because of environmental laws in Connecticut that require investigation and cleanup at transfer, the No Action alternative does not allow the transfer ,and therefore redevel opment ,of the Site. Resiliency to Climate Change –The No Action alternative does not remove any of the contaminated soils. If there is increased flooding , severe weather events or water table height in the future, there may be greater mobility of envi ronmental contaminants. Green Factors – There is no energy use so there is no effect on the carbon footprint. The No Action alternative does not allow the transfer of the site; therefore, the site would remain an abandoned building and not be redevel oped to a beneficial use. Cost –Costs are summarized in Table 3. This alternative has no cost in the short term, however the risks associated with the contaminants present at the Site would remain, and expenses associated with No Action may exceed other alternatives over a longer period of time due to the inability to redevelop the Site. 20 CODY EHLERS GROUP 4.2.2 Alternative #2 -Extensive Soil and Fill Removal Allowing Future Unrestricted Use Alternative #2 would include the complete remediation by excavation and offsite dispo sal of both parcels without the need for deed restrictions. Therefore, all RSR non -compliant soil would need to be removed from the Site including contaminated historic fill .Because there is fill beneath the buildings, the buildings would be demolished as well under this scenario. (Other options are available similar to this scenario, for example soils could be removed around the buildings and the buildings could be left in place. However, the fill is present over the entire property and to obtain unres tricted use requires removing all the fill; therefore, this case has been considered). Effectiveness -Removal of these contaminants would be effective as it would eliminate the risk to human health and would represent a permanent solution. Removal will e liminate the toxicity, mobility and volume of the contaminants in the soils at the Site .Implementation of this alternative will increase the potential for short term health effects on workers as large volumes of building materials and soil would need to be handled and disposed of offsite ; however this risk can be reduced through adherence to a comprehensive Health & Safety Plan. The site work would produce dust which could be inhaled by personal at neighboring properties, although construction measures c an be taken to reduce dust. Implementability -Extensive e xcavation is an accepted form of remediation at many sites with large impacted soil areas. The work is implementable as it involves use of conventional equipment for removal, handling and off -sit e transport and it is frequently undertaken . Services and equipment are available to implement this alternative. Temporary l ocal construction impacts will occur due to nuisance noise and traffic issues during the excavation, removal and transportation of contaminated soil . Resilience to Climate Change -Alternative #2 is resilient to flooding, severe weather events and water table rising , as contaminated soils and fill with hazardous constituents are removed to a licensed facility, (although the net eff ect would need to consider the degree to which the licensed facility is resilient to these factors ). Green Factors -This option has apparent negative “green” effects with increase energy use during demolition and excavation and increased materials taken t o landfills. In addition, buildings would be destroyed that have the potential to be reused. Cost -The preliminary cost estimate for soil removal (see Table 3) is based on razing the buildings, excavating the fill (0 to 5 feet depth –estimated at 35,0 00 tons) over the entire Site, transporting it to and disposing it at a regulated site, and filling the excavation with clean fill. In addition, 500 tons of deeper soil with ETPH concentrations above criteria would be excavated and disposed offsite. Demo lition of buildings was estimated at $120,000. The Alternative 2 cost is estimated at $3.2 million dollars. 21 CODY EHLERS GROUP 4.2.3 Alternative #3 –Hotspot Soil Removal with Inaccessible Soils and ELUR Alternative #3 includes excavation and offsite disposal of soils with crit eria exceedances from site releases as well as adesignation of “inaccessible soil” with two ELUR spursuant to the RSRs for 1) to designate the properties industrial/commercial and increase the soil cleanup criteria and 2) to designate the contaminated fill as “inaccessible soil” .Because “polluted fill” with fly ash is excepted from PMC requirements and “polluted fill” may be immediately below 3 inches of pavement, an efficient approach to remediation may be undertaken. The ELUR for industrial commerc ial use prevents future residential use. In addition, t he ELUR for inaccessible soil would put restrictions on work that requires excavating in the future , preventing or controlling future exposure . Based on the existing characterization data, hot -spot soil removal includes approximately 50 tons in the drum disposal area on the Annex Parcel and approximately 4 50 tons at the former Kasden Fuel loading and unloading rack areas on the Annex Parcel. Final volumes will be determined through the pre -design ch aracterization borings. Per the RSR requirements for “inaccessible soil”, 3 inches of a sphalt pavement will be installed on the remaining Annex Parcel effectively providing compliance requirements with the RSRs and removing the potential for direct exposu re of any metals or petroleum constituents in shallow fill materials . The plan calls for filling of cracks and improving the pavement on the Dealership Parcel to meet the “inaccessible soil” requirements. Effectiveness -This remedy would reduce the risk to human health as required by state regulation sand would generally be a permanent solution with periodic maintenance of the pavement undertaken to maintain its barrier properties .Removal will be effective in eliminating the toxicity, mobility and volume of the contaminants in the hot spot areas. Leaving in place historic fill and making it inaccessible with a pavement cap will protect potential pathways to human receptors. As historic fill such as fly ash is widespread in Connecticut, removing this fil l is not deemed in the State’s interest as this practice is allowed in the RSRs. The toxicity and mobility of constituents within the fill are low and pathways to receptors can be prevented with soil or pavement cover. Implementation of this alternative will slightly increase the potential for short term health effects on workers (but to a lesser exten tthan Alternative #2 as less soil is excavated) ; however this risk can be minimized through adherence to a Health & Safety Plan. Implementability -These remedies are common and tried; many of these types of remedies have been undertaken in Connecticut and other states .Hot spot excavation is an accepted form of remediation at many sites w ith small impacted soil areas. The work is implementable as it involves use of conventional equipment for removal, handling and off -site transport. Services and equipment are available to implement this alternative. In accordance with the RSRs, the use of ELURs are required to be part of the remedy since the remedy inc ludes “inaccessible soil” which eliminates the need to comply with the direct exposure criteria as well as defining future non residential use. By defining the location, depth and type of materials left in place in the permanent notice on the deed, future potential exposure by construction workers or others will 22 CODY EHLERS GROUP be prevented. This will allow for leaving materials such as the metals -containing fill materials in place. Environmental deed restrictions are now a common practice all over the country with many ELURs now in effect at Connecticut properties. Resilience to Climate Change –Alternative #3 is resilient to flooding, water table increases and severe weather events , as the most contaminated soils with hazardous constituents are removed to a licensed facility. The fill materials would remain and, if increased flooding or an increase in water table occurred, there could be increased mobilization of hazardous constituents. Present groundwater conditions and geochemical factors suggest that constituents in the fill (such as metals) are relatively immobile so this factor of increased mobility is expected to be small. Green Factors –As recognized in the RSRs, i t is not economically practical to remove fill all over the state. By minimizing material t o be taken off site, this altern ative when compared to Alternative #2reduc es volume of materials taken to landfills .This alternative allows the redevelopment of the buildings for beneficial reuse. During reconditioning, efforts are being made to upgrad e HVAC and electrical systems to be high efficiency systems and more energy efficient than the former building systems. Cost -The cost of this alternative is summarized on Table 3. The excavation and disposal of the two “hot -spot” areas is estimated at $ 75,000 based on estimated volumes of soil. Putting a land use restriction on the site is estimated to cost $ 20 ,000. The pavement cap is estimated to extend over and area of approximately 66,000 square feet on the annex parcel with an estimated cost of $2 30,000 with $ 40,000 allotted for paving upgrades on the dealership parcel . TABLE 3 ESTIMATED COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES (1) Alternative 1–No Action Alternative 2 – Extensive Soil Removal – Unrestricted Use Alternative 3 –Hot Spot Soil Removal and ELUR Demolition $0 $120,000 $0 Shallow s oil excavation, transport, and disposal $0 $3,000 ,000 $0 Deep soil excavation and disposal $0 $75,000 $75,000 Paving and paving repair $0 $0 $2 70,000 ELUR $0 $0 $20,000 TOTAL $0 $3,200,000 $365,000 23 CODY EHLERS GROUP 1) These costs represent construction phase of soil removal only and are presented as a way to compare costs. There are other project costs not represented (e.g., engineering and regulatory compliance costs). These are preliminary costs based conceptual design only and may change once there is more detailed design. 4.3 Evaluation and Selection of Preferred Alternative Three alternatives were developed. Each alternative is evaluated based on effectiveness, implementability ,resiliency to climate change, Green factors, and cost. The three alternatives were: • Alternative 1 -No action • Alternative 2 -Extensive Soil and Fill Removal Allowing Unrestricted Use, and • Alternative 3 -Hot Spot Soil Removal with Inaccessible Soils and ELUR The No Action alternative is not accep table, because the Site cannot be re -developed in its current condition, with out a willing developer who needs to file and comply with the Transfer Act. Ford C redit Corporation has been unsuccessful in trying for many years to find such a developer. Furt hermore, the No Action alternative ,while advantageous in avoidance of immediate cost ,is not protective of public health and the environment. If Alternative #2 was implemented, there could be future uncontrolled use of the parcels as there would be no ne ed for a land use restriction. However, the cost is very high and beyond the value of the properties. The industrial/commercial location and the local economy does not seem conducive to this outlay of funds to obtain unrestricted use. Extensive excavati on also goes beyond the requirements of the Connecticut RSRs, which allow the leaving of historic fill in place. The extensive excavation and demolition of the building also have negative Green impacts as a building is not reused (that could be), and a la rge amount of energy is consumed to excavate and transport the soil to another site. Due to the presence of soil impacted by petroleum releases during operation of the Site by Healey Ford and earlier owners, as well as contaminated fill with fly ash, some action to reduce the risk from the Site is important . While Alternative #2 theoretically removes all the contaminate dsoil and polluted fill, it is done so at extreme cost with little gained in environmental improvement .In addition, to completely remov e all fill requires demolition and removal of buildings. Restoration of buildings is a preferred and environmentally -green alternative. This remediation goes beyond the requirements of the RSRs which have built in provisions to leave polluted fill in pla ce. Further, the economic value of the property does not make it likely that a developer would take on this kind of cost. It would seem that the only way to implement Alternative #2 would be with state or federal grant funds, but it is unlikely they cou ld be obtained for such a project The area is adjacent to the Housatonic River but is diked and protected from flooding. If flooding did occur more frequently in the future climate change scenarios, there may be some slight additional mobilization of cons tituents in the fill versus solutions that would remove all 24 CODY EHLERS GROUP the fill to a controlled site . However, groundwater mostly meets state criteria as the fill constituents are relatively immobile. The natural occurrence of background metals as well as the omnip resence of fly ash in soils around the country would indicate that this minor increase in potential concentrations is insignificant. Therefore Alternative #3 –Hot spot removal with Inaccessible Soil and an ELUR is the preferred alternative. This alternative meets all the evaluation criteria, eliminates the potential for future exposure to those contaminants, is compliant with RSRs, and can be practically implemented with available funds. 25 CODY EHLERS GROUP 5 AUTHORIZATION AND IMP LEMENTATION The selected alternative , Alternative 3 -Hot Spot Soil Removal with Inaccessible Soils and ELUR ,will allow for redevelopment of these properties while meeting state regulations and protecting human health and the environment . This redevelop ment is an important step for downtown Ansonia . The implementation plan for the selected alternative is consists of the following steps: • Enter 520 Main Street and 17/19 Henry Healey Drive into the VRP pursuant to CGS 22k -133x by submitting a cover letter, an Environmental Condition Assessment Form, and applicable fee to the CTDEEP. Upon acceptance by CTDEEP , submit the name of the LEP and a schedule of activities defining submission dates for the key milestone deliverables and activities. • Submit ABCA, QAP P, and CRP to EPA Region 1 for review and comment. Complete documents to EPA satisfaction. Complete public notice requirements. • Prepare work plan for additional Phase III Investigative work at the Annex Parcel. This work plan will characterize the exten t of releases atthe former loading/unloading rack and the alleged drum disposal area in preparation for remediation. Implement Phase III work plan by advancing borings ,collecting additional soil samples ,installing monitoring wells, and analyzing for ap plicable constituents . • Compile and summarize characterization work of Golder, Zuvik Carr, and Cody Ehlers Group to define the Site Conceptual Model. Submit characterization reports as required by the VRP along with the Completion of Investigation Form and LEP certification . • Prepare the RAP for the Site. Perform public notice as required in the VRP. Submit the RAP, the RAP Form with LEP certification, and the documentation of public notice to CTDEEP. • Implement the RAP. Conduct hot spot removal as defined in the RAP. Conduct confirmatory sampling to the requirements of the RSRs and the QAPP. Characterize the waste as required by the QAPP and acceptance facility requirements. Transport waste soils to disposal facility. Backfill with clean fill. Prepare report documenting all remedial and confirmatory work. • Conduct 4 quarters of groundwater monitoring to the requirements of the RSRs and the QAPP to confirm soil removal impact on groundwater (as nece ssary). • Prepare the ELUR application to make the Site industrial/commercial and to make soil inaccessible. The application includes an A -2 survey, identification of the areas where materials remain in place under the cap, and the preparation of a decision document in which the rationale for the use of an ELUR is presented. Following CT DEEP approval and a public notice period, the ELUR will be recorded on the deed. 26 CODY EHLERS GROUP • Prepare the Final Verification Report (FVR) documenting the entire remedial process and accompanying form certifying completion by the LEP . CTDEEP will review the FVR and approve, will request additional information or will audit. Perform work as necessary to obtain approval. • Obtain “Convenant -Not -to-Sue ”from CTDEEP as defined by the Con necticut Abandoned Brownfield Cleanup (ABC) program pursuant to CGS 32 -768. FIGURES 1 EHS CONSULTING AND SERVICES935 WHITE PLAINS ROAD, TRUMBULL CONNECTICUT 06611 500 MAIN STREET 17 & 19 HEALEY DRIVE MAIN F L O OR S ER V IC E D E P T . A N D R EC E P TIO N P A R T S D E P T . A N D S T O R A G E A N D R EC E P TIO N O FF IC E S ( B O TH L E V E LS ) S ER V IC E D ES K SH O W R O O M C US T O M E R L O UN G E C H E S T N U T S T R E E T H E N R Y H E A L E Y D R I V E M A I N S T R E E T STAIRS TO BASEMENT U PPE R L E V E L – O FF IC ES COMPRESSOR ROOM ASPHALT TRENCH DRAINS ASPHALT ASPHALT TRENCH DRAIN STORMWATER CATCH BASIN PAD-MOUNTED TRANSFORMER FLOOR DRAIN OVERHEAD DOOR LEGENDPROPERTY BOUNDARY REFERENCE1.) MAP DIGITIZED FROM PDF OF MAP DOWNLOADEDFROM CITY OF ANSONIA, CONNECTICUT TAX ASSESSORS WEBSITE, ENTITLED "CITY OF ANSONIA, CONNECTICUT 2010 ASSESSMENT PARCEL MAP," MAP FEATURES BASED ON AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY DATED APRIL 2006. 0 40 40 SCALE FEET NOTE 1.) ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE EHS CONSULTING AND SERVICES935 WHITE PLAINS ROAD, TRUMBULL CONNECTICUT 06611 2 PREPARED FOR: OIL/WATER SEPERATOR MONITORING WELL LOCATION COAL ASH SAMPLE SOIL BORING LOCATION SOIL BORING LOCATION b   f   f  f    f bbbbbbbbbbbb bbb bbbbbbbbbbbbbb b f b  b b  bb    b  b  b fbbff bbbbff  f b f     ! f     f f  b  b f  f “ ! bfb ff bb f f  b  fb#bbb fb bf bbbbbbbbbbbbbbfbbbbf  fb f  b b $b bf%bb bb b” b fbb&b  f fbf’b” f&bff b( fbb&  f fb)**bfb   b &(b fb bb b f bf  b)**#$ * +* +*    f f”fb f b   fbf  b  fb   b     $b b  fbb ’f$ b fb bfb f        b  bfb” b bf   fbfb” b bf   b b b    b b b b% b  fb” b b% b   b b b% b  3

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Goal, FFYs 2017-2019

DBE_Goal_2016-2018_thumb.png

$3,513,567 236220, 237, 238, 323, 42, 51 $2,810,853.60 $702 ,713.40 $3,227,414 236220, 237, 238, 323, 42, 51 $2,581,931.20 $645,482.80 $164,881 323, 51, 541 $- $164,881 .00 $359,090 323, 51, 541 $- $359,090 .00 $2,400,000 236220, 237, 238, 323, 42, 51 $2,400,000 .00 $- $9,664, 952 $7,792,784.80 $1,872,167.20 ($200,000 ) ($161,258.63) ($38,741.37) $9,464,9 52 $7,631,526.17 $1,833,425.83 ( ����������� ��� ������ ������ ������ )= ( 17 180 )= 9.4% ( ���� .��� ����������� ������ ����������� )×( ������������ ��� . ������ ���������� )+( �� ��.��� ����������� ������ ����������� )×( ����������� ��� . ������ ���������� ) ( 7 99 )×80 .63% +( 10 81 )×19 .37% = ��.��%              可根据要求提供翻 译。 7/7/2016 Greater New Haven Community Events Calendar | DBE Public Hearing http://events.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/calendar/details/dbe_public_hearing/ 1/1 Back to the Calendar logged in as bnm uller | Your Account  add an event | Log Out Sponsored by The Community Foundation for Greater New Haven and The New Haven Independent Edit this Event T h u  J u l 1 4 , 2 0 1 6  6 :0 0 p m  –  7 :0 0 p m D B E  P u b lic  H e a r in g Sponsored by: Naugatuck Valley Council of Governm ents The Naugatuck Valley Council of Governm ents has updated its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program  and established a DBE goal of 8.1%  for Federal Fiscal Years 2016­2018. The public is encouraged to review and com m ent on the Draft Program  and the proposed Goal. The draft plans are also available from  8:30 am to 4:30 pm , M onday through Friday, at the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governm ents offices located at 49 Leavenworth Street, 3rd Floor, W aterbury, Connecticut 06702, and at the Valley Transit District (VTD) located at 41 M ain Street, Derby, Connecticut 06418. Admission: Free Naugatuck Valley Council of Governm ents 49 Leavenworth Street, 3rd Floor, W aterbury, CT 06702 W aterbury get directions m ore info » Download File: DBE_Program Goal_2016­2018_FINALDRAFT.pdf (417.98KB) 7/28/2016 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program & Goal Update | NVCOGCT http://nvcogct.org/news/disadvantaged­business­enterprise­dbe­program­goal­update 1/2 En español D is a d v a n ta g e d B u s in e s s E n te rp ris e (D B E ) P ro g ra m & G o a l U p d a te June 2 9 , 2 0 1 6 The Naugatuck Valley Council of Governm ents has updated its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program and established a DBE goal of 8.1% for Federal Fiscal Years 2016-2018. The public is encouraged to review and com m ent on the Draft Program (http://nvcogct.org/sites/default/貟ઔles/D BE_P rogram _2016-2018_FIN A LD RA FT.pdf) and the proposed Goal (http://nvcogct.org/sites/default/貟ઔles/D BE_G oal_2016-2018_FIN A LD RA FT.pdf). The draft plans are also available from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm , M onday through Friday, at the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governm ents of貟ઔces located at 49 Leavenw orth Street, 3rd Floor, W aterbury, Connecticut 06702, and at the Valley Transit District (VTD) located at 41 M ain Street, Derby, Connecticut 06418. DBE Program Draft (http://nvcogct.org/sites/default/貟ઔles/D BE_P rogram _2016- TRANSLATE PRINT PDF 7/28/2016 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program & Goal Update | NVCOGCT http://nvcogct.org/news/disadvantaged­business­enterprise­dbe­program­goal­update 2/2 2018_FIN A LD RA FT_0.pdf) • DBE Goal Draft (http://nvcogct.org/sites/default/貟ઔles/D BE_G oal_2016- 2018_FIN A LD RA FT.pdf) Com m ents should be sent to: Benjam in M uller Civil Rights Of琌枦cer Naugatuck Valley Council of Governm ents 49 Leavenw orth Street, 3rd Floor W aterbury Connecticut 06702 Alternatively, you can leave com m ents via phone at (203) 489-0368, or via em ail at bm uller@ nvcogct.org (m ailto:bm uller@ nvcogct.org). A public hearing regarding this update w ill be held at the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governm ents of貟ઔces at the above address on July 14th at 6:00 PM . NVCOG's of貟ઔces are ADA accessible and conveniently located near the W aterbury Green. Interpretive services are available upon request. BACK TRANSLATE PRINT PDF