Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 2020
Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 2019
Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 2018
November 2018 A Report by T h e N a u g a t u c k Va l l e y Council of Governments Naugatuck Valley R e g i o n a l P r o f i l e 2 0 1 8 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Several tables and figures in this report compare data from the 2012 -2016 American Community Survey (ACS) five -year estimates to the 2000 Census. Beginning in 2005, the ACS replaced the long – form census as the source for detailed socioeconomic and housing data. The first complete ACS data set covered the years 2005 -2009. The 2012 -2016 ACS is a five -year estimate where a small percent- age of all households are sampled each year. ACS estimates repre- sent an average over the course of five years and are not equiva- lent to the 100 percent count data from the 2010 census. The ACS five -year estimates are not optimal for analyzing year to year trends because four of the five years of samples are reused in the next year ’s estimates. One -year and three -year ACS data are only available for larger municipalities. The ACS surveys approximately 3 million households per year (roughly 2.5% of households) and aggregates the data on multi – year intervals. The long -form 2000 Census was given to approxi- mately 16% of households. Both data sets used samples to calcu- late estimates for the entire population. The differences in meth- odology between the long -form 2000 Census and the 2012 -2016 ACS make their comparisons difficult. However, because of the lack of related data sets, they were compared in several tables and maps. Readers should take note that these comparisons can help show general trends, but may be inaccurate in providing specific numbers. Front Cover: Naugatuck River Greenway in Seymour/Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments All other photos were taken by NVCOG staff The material contained herein may be quoted or reproduced with- out special permission, although mention of the source is appreci- ated. The preparation of this report was financed through grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Admin- istration, and the Federal Transit Administration, and by contribu- tions from member municipalities of the Naugatuck Valley Region. Data Disclaimer Photo Credits Attribution Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table of Contents Chapter Page 1. Introduction ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 1 2. Population and Demographic Trends ………………………….. ……………….. 5 3. Economic Trends ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 11 4. Housing Trends ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 15 Appendices Page Appendix A: Population and Demographic Trends: Tables and Maps .. 19 Appendix B: Economic Trends: Tables and Maps ………………………….. … 49 Appendix C: Housing Trends: Tables and Maps ………………………….. ….. 61 Appendix D: Other Regional Information ………………………….. …………… 81 Depot Street Bridge, Beacon Falls Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 1 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile The following chapters present demo- graphic, economic, and housing data for the Naugatuck Valley Region, a 19 -town region in West Central Connecticut. Data comes from a variety of sources including the 2010 Decennial Census, the 2012 -2016 American Community Survey (ACS), the Connecticut Department of Labor (DOL), and the Connecticut Department of Eco- nomic and Community Development (DECD). Summary of Findings This report examines past trends and pro- vides an outlook for the future. The re- gion ’s economic, housing, and population trends have been on the upswing since the 2007‐2009 Great Recession. The Naugatuck Valley has long benefitted from strong local and regional leadership, effective economic development organiza- tions and a well -trained workforce. As of 2017, the unemployment rate has moved down to 5.3 %. Other positive factors not- ed in this report include the fact that de- spite volatility in the housing market over the last few years, the region remains more affordable than the state as a whole. Also, it has maintained steady population growth of about 4.3%, with all municipali- ties becoming more ethnically diverse dur- ing the past 16 years. In addition, it is important to note that the region is positioning itself well for years ahead. Local officials recognize that cre- ating the conditions for sustainable, transit -dependent communities is key to stimu- lating greater private investment. Such transportation improvements and creating sustainable growth around transit, as well as a Naugatuck River area revitalization, are in the works. The 27 miles of the Wa- terbury Branch Rail Line is a priority under the state ’s 30 -year “Let ’s Go CT! ” transpor- tation initiative and key changes are under- way to increase capacity and service offer- ings. These projects are designed to bring numerous quality of life and future eco- nomic development benefits. In the near future, the region will be shaped by the retirement of the baby boomers. A surge in the elderly population will require a shift in the provision of ser- vices and access to affordable housing to meet this demand. 1. Introduction Economy Population Housing This report will examine the relationship between population, economic, and housing trends Lock 12 Historic Park, Cheshire Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 2 Methodology is based on Data Haven ’s Community Well Being Index 3 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Composition of the Region While overall regional trends are in- formative, they fail to account for the differences that exist between munici- palities, or even neighborhoods within a municipality. Each scale of analysis tells a different story, and this report will show data in a variety of scales in order to provide as complete an over- view as possible. This report presents data at regional, subregional, municipal, and neighbor- hood scales. In order to highlight key trends among similar municipalities, a three -level subregional classification was developed (Figure 1b). Municipali- ties were classified as urban core, inner ring, or outer ring based on current and historic population, economic, and housing trends. Table 1a below high- lights some of the differences that exist between the urban core, inner ring, and outer ring communities. To supplement the regional and sub – regional scales, tables in the text and appendices present data for each mu- nicipality. Where applicable, neighbor- hood (block -group) level maps were created to highlight the differences that exist from neighborhood to neigh- borhood. Region Urban Core Inner Ring Outer Ring Population 2016 447,390 232,978 128,446 85,966 Population Density per sq. mi. 1,061 2,782 890 444 Population Growth 2000 -2016 + 4.3% + 1.6% +4.5% +12.2% Percent Minority 2016 27.7% 42.3% 13.0% 10.0% Percent Foreign Born 2015 11.2% 13.2% 9.6% 7.4% Percent Over Age 65 2016 15.9% 13.8% 17.1% 19.6% Median Age 2016 43.4 37.7 44.0 46.3 Median Household Income $67,541 $49,691 $85,859 $89,592 Poverty Rate 2016 11.9% 18.3% 4.6% 5.5% Percent with Bachelors Degree 29.8% 20.4% 38.3% 41.0% Unemployment Rate 2017 5.3% 6.3% 4.3% 4.2% Jobs 2017 158,781 76,532 57,991 24,258 Job Growth 2004 -2017 0.9% -4.1% 8.9% -0.2% Housing Growth 2000 -2016 +5.6% +0.4% +10.5% +15.3% Average Household Size 2016 2.61 2.60 2.60 2.67 Percent Single -Family Homes 64.2% 49.7% 79.3% 83.8% Homeownership Rate 2016 67.9% 54.6% 80.9% 85.4% Median Home Value 2016 $242,145 $169,869 $288,057 $305,301 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 4 Urban Core During the 19th century, the urban core emerged as a leading manufactur- ing center for brass, copper, clocks, watches, and rubber products. The urban core has high levels of racial and income diversity, high population den- sity, good access to public transit, and plentiful affordable housing. The char- acter of the urban core varies signifi- cantly from neighborhood to neighbor- hood. Most of the region ’s major insti- tutions, such as hospitals and higher education, call the urban core home. Inner Ring Inner ring communities contain a mix of urban and suburban characteristics. Smaller manufacturing centers such as Oakville, Terryville, and Shelton emerged in the 19th century, forming the historic cores of the inner ring mu- nicipalities. In the post World War II years, these communities became more suburban in character as urban core residents and young families moved in. Today, the population is highly educated and moderately di- verse. In the last decade, the inner ring has seen job growth as companies leave the urban core to be closer to their workforce. Outer Ring The traditionally rural outer ring has become more suburban in character over the last two decades. From 2000 to 2016, the outer ring population grew at 12.1%, far faster than the re- gion, state, and nation. These towns have the lowest population densities, the highest incomes, and the highest proportion of elderly residents. With few local jobs, most outer ring resi- dents commute to jobs in neighboring towns and cities. 5 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile This chapter summarizes regional demographic trends such as population change, race and ethnicity, age, house- hold structure, education, and income. The major population and demograph- ic trends shaping the region are: Population growth in the outer ring outpaced the rest of the region through 2010 but has since slowed and shifted to the inner ring. All municipalities are becoming more racially and ethnically diverse. In the next ten years, the region will see a large increase in retirees and a decline in school -aged population. Non -traditional households (non – married couples) are becoming more common. There is a large education and in- come gap between the urban core and surrounding municipalities. Population Growth From 2000 to 2016, the region saw a modest 4.3% growth rate, adding 18,600 new residents. This was a faster growth rate than the 1990s, but much slower than the 1980s. About 60% of the population growth was due to nat- ural increase (births minus deaths), while 40% was due to in -migration from outside the region. Demand for new single family homes in the early 2000s led to explosive growth in outer ring municipalities, which grew 12.2% between 2000 and 2016. The remain- der of the region grew at a slower rate, with a 4.5% increase in the inner ring and a 1.6% increase in the urban core. Since 2010, population growth has stagnated as a result of the 2007 to 2009 recession. From 2007 to 2015, the number of births dropped by 13.1%. Many families have delayed having children due to economic un- certainty and rising student loan debt. The drop in new home construction since 2008 has prevented new resi- dents from moving to the region, par- ticularly in the urban core. 2. Population and Demographic Trends The Gathering, Waterbury Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 6 Immigration and Migration While birth rates have fallen, immigra- tion and migration have allowed the region ’s population to continue to grow at a modest rate. Just over 11% of the region ’s population is foreign born, with the largest groups hailing from Portugal, Poland, Italy, the Do- minican Republic, and Jamaica. The region is also home to a large migrant population from Puerto Rico. From 2000 to 2015, the region had a net gain of 7,119 residents through in – migration. While the outer ring experi- enced a natural decrease in population (more deaths than births), they added 10,984 residents through in -migration (people moving into the region). At the other end of the spectrum, the urban core had a large natural increase (more births than deaths) offset by a loss of nearly 9,006 residents through out -migration. The inner ring saw a small natural increase and gained 5,228 residents through in -migration. Population Projections Population projections from the Con- necticut State Data Center indicate that up to 2025, the region ’s popula- tion will continue to grow, but at a much slower rate than in the past. From 2025 to 2040, the region is pro- jected to shrink by 1.2%, losing approx- imately 5,355 residents. The urban core is projected to grow at the fastest rate, adding 7,856 residents between 2015 and 2040, a 3.3% in- crease. Waterbury, which has a much higher birth rate than the rest of the region, is projected to grow by 7.3%. New home construction and in – migration will slow and limit popula- tion growth in the outer ring. Middle- bury and Oxford are projected to be the two fastest -growing municipalities in the region. In the inner ring, shrinking household size and a decrease in the population under 15 will limit growth. The popula- tion in the inner ring is expected to decline by 9.7% between 2015 and 2040. Communities such as Cheshire and Shelton are close to being “built out ” and have little developable land to support new housing units. While population projections are use- ful, they are unable to predict changes in the housing market and economy. The housing market will dictate where growth will occur, particularly for the inner and outer ring. Similarly, birth rates, migration, and immigration are closely tied to the economy. A growing economy generally sees higher popula- tion growth than a stagnant economy. Sources: Connecticut State Data Center, Population Projections by Municipality: 2015 –2040 7 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile B l a c k 6.9% A s i a n 2.6% B l a c k 5.4% W h i t e 83.1% H i s p a n i c 8.2% A s i a n 1.5% O t h e r 1.8% O t h e r 2.3% “Other ” includes American =ndian/Alaska Natives, Pacific =slanders, Some Other Race, and Multiracial persons. Black, Asian, Other, and White populations only include non -:ispanic persons. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 U.S. Census, American Community Survey 5– Year Estimates: 2012 -2016 DP5 . Race and Ethnicity Immigration, migration, and higher birth rates among minority groups have made the region ’s population more diverse than ever before. As of 2016, 123,878 residents were of a minority race or ethnicity, making up 27.7% of the total. This is an increase from 2000, when just 16.9% of the population be- longed to a minority group. From 2000 to 2016, the urban core experienced “white flight ” as their non -Hispanic white populations declined by over 33,000. This coincided with rapid growth among Hispanics, African Amer- icans, and Asians. Waterbury is a minority -majority city, with 60.6% of its population belonging to a minority racial or ethnic group. Ansonia, Derby, Naugatuck, Seymour, and Bristol have the next highest mi- nority populations. Outside of the ur- ban core, less than 13% of the popula- tion belongs to a minority group, alt- hough this trend is changing. Between 2000 and 2016, inner ring and outer ring communities saw their minority populations grow at rates of 80.9% and 165.9% respectively, exceeding the ur- ban core growth rate of 64.2%. Hispanics are the largest and fastest growing minority group in the region with a population of 71,097, a 103% increase from 2000. Hispanics now make up 15.9% of the population. A majority of Hispanics who live in the region are of Puerto Rican heritage, including nearly 25,000 who live in Wa- terbury. There was also sizable growth among African Americans, who make up 6.9% of the population. Asians, the second fastest growing minority group through 2000 to 2016 (88.4%), are more likely to live in the suburbs than the urban core. Figure 2c compares the racial and ethnic composition of the Naugatuck Valley in 2000 and 2016. H i s p a n i c 15.9% W h i t e 72.3% Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 8 Age The region ’s population is aging. In 1990, the median age was 34.3. By 2000 it increased to 37.6, and by 2016 reached 43.4 years old. The urban core has the youngest median age at 37.7 years old while the outer ring is the oldest at 46.3 years old. From 2000 to 2016, the number of residents over the age of 65 increased by 13.6%, with the fastest growth in the inner ring (29.8%) and outer ring (39.7%). The urban core saw a decrease in elderly residents (-4.0%). The aging trend will accelerate as baby boomers reach retirement age. The population over the age of 65 is pro- jected to balloon from 70,934 in 2015 to over 89,451 by 2040. The working -aged (age 15 to 64) popu- lation is expected to stay stable up to 2020 and then decline slightly through 2040. As the baby boomers age into retirement, millennials (born between 1980 and 2000) will make up a greater portion of the region ’s workforce. As of 2015, there are 79,727 children under the age of 15, making up 17.7% of the total. This age group is expected to decline to 75,456 by 2040. Inner ring and outer ring communities are projected to see their population un- der age 15 decrease by over 11.4%. The changing age structure of the re- gion will shift the financial burdens of municipalities. Budgets will shift away from education and youth services to- wards elderly services such as health care, transportation, and recreation. This is particularly true in inner and outer ring communities, where a dra- matic increase in elderly population will correspond with a decrease in school -aged population. Greater finan- cial burdens will be placed on the working aged population, who will have to support the growing number of retirees. Source: Connecticut State Data Center, Population Projections: 2015 –2030 Male Male Female Female 9 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Household and Family Structure Household arrangements have changed as the average age of mar- riage increases, family sizes decrease, and life expectancy increases. For the first time in history, less than half of the region ’s households are made up of married couples. Persons living alone, cohabitating couples, married couples without children, and single parent households are becoming more prevalent. Less than half of married couples have children age 18 and under. “Empty nesters ” are becoming more common as the millennial generation ages, and many young couples have delayed hav- ing children in the last few years due to economic uncertainty. Household structure in the urban core differs significantly from the inner and outer ring communities. Just 39.2% of urban core households are married couples compared to 56.8% in the in- ner ring and 59.0% in the outer ring. A disproportionate number of single – parent households are found in the urban core. Education As of 2016, 29.8% of the region ’s adults age 25 and over have a Bache- lor ’s degree or higher. This compares to 30.3% of adults nationwide, and 38% statewide. There is a large dis- crepancy in educational attainment between the urban core and the re- mainder of the region. In the urban core, just 20.4% of the population age 25 and older has a Bachelor ’s degree or higher, compared to 38.3% in the inner ring, and 41.0% in the outer ring. Since 2000, educational attainment has improved across all municipalities. The number of residents with at least a Bachelor ’s degree increased by 38.0%, with the fastest increase occurring in the outer ring. During the same period, the number of residents without a high school diploma dropped by over 33%. Education is strongly correlated with income. Persons with a college degree have much higher incomes than high school graduates. Municipalities with a higher proportion of college gradu- ates have higher incomes than less educated municipalities. Figure 2e be- low illustrates the relationship be- tween education and income. Urban Core Region Outer Ring Inner Ring Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 10 Income and Poverty There is a large income gap between the urban core and remainder of the region. From 2012 to 2016 estimates, median household income in the urban core was $49,691 compared to $85,859 in the inner ring and $89,592 in the outer ring. Over a quarter of households in the urban core are low income (making less than $25,000 per year) compared to 11.1% in the inner ring and 11.7% in the outer ring. On the opposite end of the income spec- trum, over 40% of households in the inner and outer ring are high income (making $100,000 or more per year) compared to less than 21% in the ur- ban core. The Great Recession negatively im- pacted household and family income throughout the region. In addition, the growing number of elderly persons puts additional financial strain on households (retirees have less income than working -aged persons). Since 1999, median household income de- clined in 16 out of 19 municipalities. The highest drops in household income occurred in the urban core towns of Ansonia, Derby, and Naugatuck. These three towns have a high percentage of single parent households. The number of people in poverty in- creased by 66.8% from 2000 to 2016. In 2000, there were 31,412 persons living in poverty (7.5% of total). By 2016, it had increased to 52,396 (11.9% of total). Poverty increased at a moderate rate in the inner ring and highest in outer ring municipalities and the urban core. Waterbury, which has a poverty rate of 25.4%, is home to over half of the region ’s impoverished. Child poverty is a prevalent issue in the urban core, where 27.8% of chil- dren live below the poverty line. Anso- nia, Derby and Waterbury have child poverty rates exceeding 20%. Child poverty is also strongly correlated with household structure. Children in single parent households are 4.4 times more likely to live in poverty than house- holds with both parents present. 11 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile The Naugatuck Valley economy was hit hard by the 2007 to 2009 recession. The major economic trends shaping the region are: Unemployment disproportionately affects young workers under the age of 25. As of 2017, the region has gained back 71% of the jobs that were lost during the recession. Jobs are suburbanizing. During the last ten years the inner ring saw job growth while the urban core lost jobs. Over half of Naugatuck Valley resi- dents commute to jobs outside the region. Labor Force The labor force is made up of Nau- gatuck Valley residents over the age of 16 who are either employed, or are unemployed and looking for work. As of 2017, the region ’s labor force was 237,050, of which 224,546 were em- ployed and 12,504 were unemployed. From 2010 to 2013 the state and re- gion experienced a labor force contrac- tion, meaning that there were fewer residents who were employed or look- ing for work. The labor force contrac- tion can be attributed to stagnant job growth, unemployed workers dropping out of the labor force, and a growing number of residents hitting retirement age. In 2014 the labor force grew for the first time since 2009 and has re- mained steady. People who had diffi- culty finding work during the last few years are reentering the labor force as the job market improves. Employment As of 2017 there were 224,546 em- ployed residents living in the region. This is only 3,501 more than the 2007 number when there were 221,045 em- ployed residents. The number of em- ployed residents decreased every year from 2008 to 2013 but has continued to rebound from 2014 to 2017. Population projections indicate that a significant number of baby boomers are nearing retirement age. The num- ber of working aged residents is pro- jected to remain stable up to 2020 and decline thereafter as the last of the baby boomers retire. Attracting and retaining young workers will be neces- sary to replace the growing number of retirees. 3. Economic Trends Shelton Corporate Park, Shelton Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 12 Unemployment From 2007 to 2010 the region saw the number of unemployed residents more than double from 11,954 to 24,656. The jump in unemployment was caused by both job losses and labor force growth. Unemployment has de- creased each year since 2010. As of 2017, it stands at 12,504, or 5.3% of the labor force. The labor force con- traction (unemployed persons that have stopped looking for work) is re- sponsible for some of the drop in un- employment. Despite improvements over the last three years, the unem- ployment rate remains slightly above state and national averages. Figure 3a summarizes labor force, employment, and unemployment trends over the last 23 years. Unemployment trends vary by location and age. As of 2017, unemployment is highest in the urban core communities of Waterbury (7.4%), Ansonia (6.5%), and Derby (5.8%), and lowest in the inner ring community of Cheshire (3.3%) and the outer ring communities of Woodbury (3.6%), Thomaston (4.0%), and Prospect (4.0%). Due to the collapse of the stock market from 2007 to 2009, many older work- ers have continued to work into retire- ment age. This trend, combined with the lack of new job creation, has led to a disproportionately high unemploy- ment rate among young people. The unemployment rate for residents un- der the age of 25 is 17.3% compared to 8.9% for middle aged workers (age 25 – 44) and 6.3% for older workers (age 45 and older)* *Source: ACS 2012 -2016, B23001 13 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Jobs During the recession, the region expe- rienced sharper job losses than the state and nation as a whole. From 2007 to 2011, 12,337 jobs were lost, a decline of 7.6%. The manufacturing, finance and insurance, and construc- tion sectors experienced the sharpest job losses. Some sectors, such as health care and social assistance, and educational services, added jobs during the recession. These sectors have tra- ditionally been “recession -proof. ” Since 2011 the economy has improved, adding over 8,700 jobs. As of 2017, the region has gained back 71% of the jobs that were lost during the recession. Comparatively, the state has gained back 146% of the jobs that were lost during the recession. As of 2017 there are 158,781 jobs in the region. Despite job losses during the last ten years, Waterbury remains the job center of the region followed by Shelton, Bristol, and Cheshire. As the population shifts to the suburbs, many employers have followed in or- der to be closer to their workforce. From 2004 to 2017, the urban core lost over 3,300 jobs while the inner ring gained over 4,700 jobs, mostly in Shel- ton, and Cheshire. Bristol was the only urban core municipality to gain jobs (1032). Outer ring towns with good highway access (such as Oxford and Middlebury) also saw job growth. Over the last half century, the region has shifted from a manufacturing – oriented economy to a service – oriented one. Health care and social assistance is now the largest job sector followed by government (which in- cludes public school teachers). While much less prominent than in the past, manufacturing remains the third larg- est sector of the region ’s economy, with over 20,000 jobs. A majority of manufacturing jobs are now located outside of the urban core. Employment projections from the Con- necticut Department of Labor indicate that the health care and social assis- tance sector will drive job creation up to 2020, largely due to increased de- mand for health care by the baby boomers. Other sectors projected to add jobs up to 2020 are professional and business services, and construc- tion, although the latter is largely de- pendent on the housing market. Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 14 Commuting There is a large mismatch between the number of employed residents living in the region and the number of jobs in the region. There are enough jobs to employ just 71% of working residents. The result is a net export of over 65,000 workers each day to other re- gions, with many commuting to Hart- ford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Danbury, and lower Fairfield County. Cheshire, Middlebury and Shelton are the only municipalities in the region that have more jobs than employed residents. The remaining municipalities have more employed residents than jobs and are net exporters of commut- ers. As of 2015, when the most recent com- muting data was available, just 39.8% of employed Naugatuck Valley resi- dents worked in the region. The re- maining 60.2% commute to jobs out- side of the region. Waterbury is the most popular commuting destination followed by Bristol, Cheshire and Shel- ton. Outside of the region, the most popular destinations are Hartford, New Haven, Stratford, Bridgeport, and Dan- bury. Similarly, nearly half of the peo- ple who work in the Naugatuck Valley live outside of the region. Wages The average wage of workers in the region is $56,323 which is above the national average of $50,620, but below the state average of $66,648. Since 2007, the region has seen wages in- crease slightly (1.2%) compared to the state, which declined by –1.1%. Average wages vary significantly from sector to sector. The Management of Companies and Enterprises has an av- erage wage of over $148,999, while the Accommodation and Food Services Sector has an average wage of just $19,178. Table 3a below shows the highest and lowest wage sectors in the region. Sector Average Wage Management of Companies and Enterprises $148,999 Information $123,962 Finance and Insurance $99,816 Professional, Scientific, & Technical Services $89,437 Utilities $89,189 Sector Average Wage Accommodation and Food Services $19,178 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation $23,497 Other Services $26,719 Retail Trade $30,874 Administrative & Waste Management $35,795 15 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile In recent years, the housing market has been shaped by the Great Reces- sion and preceding housing bubble. The major housing trends shaping the region are: Multi family homes account for 42.4% of the total new construction in the region since 2011. Since peaking in 2005, new con- struction decreased 80% by 2016. Home prices grew rapidly from 2003 to 2007, but have declined each year since 2007. Homes in the region are more af- fordable than the state as a whole. Most of the affordable housing in the region is found in the urban core. New Construction During the early 2000s the region ex- perienced a building boom. New con- struction peaked from 2002 to 2005 when over 5,000 housing units were built. The vast majority (85%) of new homes were single -family homes. Shel- ton and Oxford led the region in new construction. In 2005 new home construction to- taled 1,676 units, but fell to just 298 units in 2011 as the national housing bubble burst. New construction has remained well below its historic levels since then. The multi family market picked up pace in 2012 and 2013 due to apartment and condominium con- struction in Shelton and Bristol. In 2015 the inner ring added 224 multi family units with 152 in Shelton, 72 in Seymour, and 11 in Thomaston. In 2016 the multi family housing market stalled with only 17 units built in the region. Construction of new single family homes has remained stagnant. Due to shrinking household sizes, housing has grown at a faster rate than the number of households. 4. Housing Trends Oxford Greens, Oxford Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 16 Housing Stock As of 2016, the region has 184,984 housing units. Single -family homes comprise 64.2% of units. Outer ring communities such as Oxford, Bethle- hem, and Middlebury are made up al- most entirely of single -family homes. By contrast, a vast majority of the region ’s multi -family housing units are found in the urban core. However, in the last decade, a majority of the new multi – family units were built in the inner ring. Homes in the inner and outer ring are larger and newer than their urban core counterparts. The median year of con- struction for the region is 1965. The urban core has the oldest housing stock (1962) followed by the inner ring (1969) and outer ring (1974). Suburban homes are also larger. Over 60% of housing units in the inner and outer rings have six or more rooms compared to 40.5% in the urban core. Home Ownership As of 2016, 67.5% of households in the region live in an owner -occupied home. This is slightly higher than the 66.5% homeownership rate statewide. Out- side the urban core, over 80% of house- holds live in owner -occupied homes. Three -quarters of all rental units are located in the urban core. Homeownership trends also vary by type of housing unit and income. Single family units are much more likely to be owner occupied (90.0%) than multi – family units (23.1%). High income households are more likely to own a home than low income households. Less than 32% of households that make under $25,000 live in an owner – occupied unit compared to approxi- mately 90% for households that make over $100,000. 17 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Home Values In keeping with national and state trends, the region saw rapid home val- ue appreciation in the early 2000s. From 2003 to 2007, the equalized net grand list, or ENGL, (the total market value of all properties in the region) increased by 38.6%, or nearly $17 bil- lion. While the bulk of the increase was due to overvalued real estate, some of the increase was due to new construc- tion. After peaking in 2007, the hous- ing market began its subsequent col- lapse. From 2007 to 2015, the ENGL dropped by –37.8%, a loss of more than $23 billion. The urban core saw the highest ENGL growth from 2003 to 2007 (41.2%) followed by the sharpest decline from 2007 to 2015 ( -43.6%). Figure 4b shows changes in inflation adjusted ENGL from 2002 to 2015. The drop in property values and mu- nicipal grand list value has led to fiscal challenges for municipalities, who have been forced to either raise property tax rates, cut services, or both. In addi- tion, many homeowners have negative equity (their home is worth less than their mortgage) leading to increases in foreclosure and home vacancy. Despite volatility in the housing market over the last few years, the region re- mains more affordable than the state as a whole. The median home value for owner occupied units in the region is $242,145, compared to $269,300 statewide. Eleven of the 19 municipali- ties in the region are more affordable than the statewide median. Homes are most affordable in the urban core ($169,869) while the inner ($288,057) and outer ($305,301) rings have the most expensive homes. Source: Connecticut Office of Policy and Management. Equalized Net Grand List, by Municipality: 2003 -2015 All values are in 2015 dollars Outer Ring Inner Ring Urban Core Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 18 Housing Costs Monthly homeowner costs and month- ly rent also provide insight into the re- gion ’s affordability. Median monthly homeowner costs range from a low of $1,367 in Water- bury to $2,097 in Oxford. Homeowners with a mortgage pay more than twice as much per month as homeowners without a mortgage. From 2000 to 2016, median monthly homeowner costs for homes with a mortgage have risen between 1% and 18% depending on the municipality. Non -mortgaged homeowner costs increased at a faster rate than mortgage costs, suggesting that fuel prices, electricity rates, taxes, and insurance are increasing . Renters pay less per month than home- owners. Median gross rents (lease amount plus utilities) range from a low of $832 in Thomaston to $1,499 in Southbury. Rent has not increased as fast as homeowner costs. In five outer ring towns and three inner ring towns, inflation -adjusted rents actually de- creased from 2000 to 2016 . Affordable Housing The U.S. Census Bureau uses 30% of household income as a standard for measuring housing affordability. In or- der to be considered affordable, home- owners should pay 30% or less of their income towards housing. As of 2016, 36.8% of households pay 30% or more of their income towards housing. Renters (48.6%) are more likely to pay 30% or more of their income towards housing than homeowners (31.2%). More than half of urban core renters pay 30% or more of their income for housing. Low income households may qualify for publicly assisted housing programs such as Section 8 vouchers, deed re- strictions, and Connecticut Housing Finance Authority (CHFA) or Farmer ’s Home Administration (FmHA) mortgag- es. Over 84% of publicly assisted hous- ing units are found in the urban core, including more than half in the City of Waterbury. Municipalities that have less than 10% affordable housing are subject to Con- necticut General Statutes (CGS) Section 8-30g, which limits the conditions un- der which towns may deny applications for such developments. Ansonia (14.4%), Bristol (14.0%), Derby (11.6%), and Waterbury (21.6%) are the only municipalities that meet the 10% af- fordable housing threshold. The re- maining municipalities have less than 10% affordable housing and are subject to CGS Section 8 -30g. 19 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Appendix A Population and Demographic Trends Tables and Maps Topic Page Population ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. . 20 Population Density ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 22 Race and Ethnicity ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 24 Hispanic Population ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 26 Age Distribution ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 28 Elderly Population ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 30 Median Age ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………………. 32 Income Distribution ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 34 Income ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……. 36 Poverty ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 38 Household Structure ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 40 Educational Attainment ………………………….. ………………………….. ………… 44 Population Projections ………………………….. ………………………….. ………….. 46 Waterbury on Wheels Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 20 Population Percent Change Geography 2016 2010 2000 2010 -2016 2000 -2010 Ansonia 18,950 19,249 18,554 -1.6% 3.7% Beacon Falls 6,075 6,049 5,246 0.4% 15.3% Bethlehem 3,492 3,607 3,422 -3.2% 5.4% Bristol 60,437 60,477 60,062 -0.1% 0.7% Cheshire 29,254 29,261 28,543 0.0% 2.5% Derby 12,755 12,902 12,391 -1.1% 4.1% Middlebury 7,606 7,575 6,451 0.4% 17.4% Naugatuck 31,625 31,862 30,989 -0.7% 2.8% Oxford 12,916 12,683 9,821 1.8% 29.1% Plymouth 11,926 12,213 11,634 -2.3% 5.0% Prospect 9,720 9,405 8,707 3.3% 8.0% Seymour 16,540 16,540 15,454 0.0% 7.0% Shelton 40,979 39,559 38,101 3.6% 3.8% Southbury 19,727 19,904 18,567 -0.9% 7.2% Thomaston 7,699 7,887 7,503 -2.4% 5.1% Waterbury 109,211 110,366 107,271 -1.0% 2.9% Watertown 22,048 22,514 21,661 -2.1% 3.9% Wolcott 16,707 16,680 15,215 0.2% 9.6% Woodbury 9,723 9,975 9,198 -2.5% 8.4% Region Total 447,390 448,708 428,790 -0.3% 4.6% Urban Core 232,978 234,856 229,267 -0.8% 2.4% Inner Ring 128,446 127,974 122,896 0.4% 4.1% Outer Ring 85,966 85,878 76,627 0.1% 12.1% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016 (B01003), 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census 21 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census, SF1 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 22 Land Area % Change Geography (Sq. Mi.) 2016 2010 2000 2000 -2016 Ansonia 6.2 3,063 3,111 2,999 2.1% Beacon Falls 9.8 621 618 536 15.8% Bethlehem 19.7 178 183 174 2.0% Bristol 26.8 2,254 2,255 2,240 0.6% Cheshire 33.4 877 877 856 2.5% Derby 5.4 2,360 2,387 2,292 2.9% Middlebury 18.4 412 411 350 17.9% Naugatuck 16.4 1,928 1,943 1,890 2.1% Oxford 33.3 387 380 295 31.5% Plymouth 22.3 534 547 521 2.5% Prospect 14.5 672 650 602 11.6% Seymour 15.0 1,104 1,104 1,032 7.0% Shelton 31.9 1,285 1,240 1,194 7.6% Southbury 40.1 492 497 463 6.2% Thomaston 12.2 631 646 615 2.6% Waterbury 28.9 3,774 3,813 3,706 1.8% Watertown 29.5 747 763 734 1.8% Wolcott 21.1 792 791 721 9.8% Woodbury 36.6 265 272 251 5.7% Region Total 421.5 1,061 1,064 1,017 4.3% Urban Core 83.7 2,782 2,804 2,738 1.6% Inner Ring 144.3 890 887 852 4.5% Outer Ring 193.5 444 444 396 12.2% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016 (B01003), 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census 23 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B01003 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 24 Non Hispanic Hispanic or Latino Percent Minority Geography White Black Asian Other Ansonia 11,681 1,953 490 284 4,542 38.4% Beacon Falls 5,568 87 37 62 321 8.3% Bethlehem 3,415 55 2 2 18 2.2% Bristol 47,376 1,855 1,191 1,835 8,180 21.6% Cheshire 23,722 1,245 2,018 732 1,537 18.9% Derby 7,973 743 480 315 3,244 37.5% Middlebury 6,642 81 463 110 310 12.7% Naugatuck 24,265 1,927 910 1,092 3,431 23.3% Oxford 11,717 324 129 170 576 9.3% Plymouth 11,022 170 11 206 517 7.6% Prospect 8,585 532 95 134 374 11.7% Seymour 12,919 562 364 325 2,370 21.9% Shelton 36,182 495 1,515 301 2,486 11.7% Southbury 17,606 123 693 279 1,026 10.8% Thomaston 7,373 2 61 64 199 4.2% Waterbury 43,056 19,879 2,501 3,741 40,034 60.6% Watertown 20,558 405 253 158 674 6.8% Wolcott 15,132 500 266 105 704 9.4% Woodbury 8,720 39 359 51 554 10.3% Region Total 323,512 30,977 11,838 9,966 71,097 27.7% Urban Core 134,351 26,357 5,572 7,267 59,431 42.3% Inner Ring 111,776 2,879 4,222 1,786 7,783 13.0% Outer Ring 77,385 1,741 2,044 913 3,883 10.0% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau , American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, DP5 Note: “Other ” category includes Pacific =slander, American =ndian/Alaska Natives, Other, or 2 or more aces Minority population includes Black, Asian, Other, and :ispanic populations 25 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B03002 Note: Minority population includes Black, Asian, Other, and :ispanic populations Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 26 Number Percent of Total % Change 2000 -2016 Geography 2016 2010 2000 2016 2010 2000 Ansonia 4,542 3,212 1,376 24.0% 16.7% 7.4% 230.1% Beacon Falls 321 300 112 5.3% 5.0% 2.1% 186.6% Bethlehem 18 61 22 0.5% 1.7% 0.6% -18.2% Bristol 8,180 5,829 3,166 13.5% 9.6% 5.3% 158.4% Cheshire 1,537 1,375 1,097 5.3% 4.7% 3.8% 40.1% Derby 3,244 1,830 950 25.4% 14.2% 7.7% 241.5% Middlebury 310 208 79 4.1% 2.7% 1.2% 292.4% Naugatuck 3,431 2,929 1,386 10.8% 9.2% 4.5% 147.5% Oxford 576 468 180 4.5% 3.7% 1.8% 220.0% Plymouth 517 370 147 4.3% 3.0% 1.3% 251.7% Prospect 374 312 168 3.8% 3.3% 1.9% 122.6% Seymour 2,370 1,064 470 14.3% 6.4% 3.0% 404.3% Shelton 2,486 2,353 1,326 6.1% 5.9% 3.5% 87.5% Southbury 1,026 523 296 5.2% 2.6% 1.6% 246.6% Thomaston 199 202 109 2.6% 2.6% 1.5% 82.6% Waterbury 40,034 34,446 23,354 36.7% 31.2% 21.8% 71.4% Watertown 674 838 406 3.1% 3.7% 1.9% 66.0% Wolcott 704 611 273 4.2% 3.7% 1.8% 157.9% Woodbury 554 245 152 5.7% 2.5% 1.7% 264.5% Region Total 71,097 57,176 35,069 15.9% 12.7% 8.2% 102.7% Urban Core 59,431 48,246 30,232 25.5% 20.5% 13.2% 96.6% Inner Ring 7,783 6,202 3,555 6.1% 4.8% 2.9% 118.9% Outer Ring 3,883 2,728 1,282 4.5% 3.2% 1.7% 202.9% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, DP5; U.S. Census, 2000 , 2010 27 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B03002 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 28 Total Population Age Group Geography Under 5 Years 5-17 Years 18 -24 Years 25 -34 Years 35 -44 Years 45 -64 Years > 64 Years Ansonia 18,950 921 3,309 2,002 2,293 2,451 5,206 2,768 Beacon Falls 6,075 156 1,194 582 462 778 2,027 876 Bethlehem 3,492 91 642 290 206 424 1,297 542 Bristol 60,437 2,791 9,516 4,999 8,509 7,646 17,345 9,631 Cheshire 29,254 1,028 5,183 2,422 2,583 3,381 9,836 4,821 Derby 12,755 746 2,112 752 2,144 1,404 3,722 1,875 Middlebury 7,606 273 1,389 539 575 979 2,371 1,480 Naugatuck 31,625 2,373 4,699 2,574 4,240 4,344 8,791 4,604 Oxford 12,916 675 2,581 929 812 1,644 4,273 2,002 Plymouth 11,926 651 1,658 1,342 1,627 1,160 3,694 1,794 Prospect 9,720 307 1,559 725 1,161 1,119 3,085 1,764 Seymour 16,540 954 2,965 1,526 1,597 2,482 4,896 2,120 Shelton 40,979 1,486 6,269 3,419 3,626 4,634 13,337 8,208 Southbury 19,727 1,007 3,278 967 1,138 1,829 5,998 5,510 Thomaston 7,699 268 1,301 590 972 875 2,504 1,189 Waterbury 109,211 7,901 20,218 11,574 15,289 14,448 26,472 13,309 Watertown 22,048 995 3,632 1,819 2,309 2,280 7,193 3,820 Wolcott 16,707 566 2,825 1,407 1,590 1,885 5,641 2,793 Woodbury 9,723 543 1,533 287 920 1,140 3,433 1,867 Region Total 447,390 23,732 75,863 38,745 52,053 54,903 131,121 70,973 Urban Core 232,978 14,732 39,854 21,901 32,475 30,293 61,536 32,187 Inner Ring 128,446 5,382 21,008 11,118 12,714 14,812 41,460 21,952 Outer Ring 85,966 3,618 15,001 5,726 6,864 9,798 28,125 16,834 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B01001 29 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Age Group Geography Under 5 Years 5-17 Years 18 -24 Years 25 -34 Years 35 -44 Years 45 -64 Years Over 64 Years Ansonia 4.9% 17.5% 10.6% 12.1% 12.9% 27.5% 14.6% Beacon Falls 2.6% 19.7% 9.6% 7.6% 12.8% 33.4% 14.4% Bethlehem 2.6% 18.4% 8.3% 5.9% 12.1% 37.1% 15.5% Bristol 4.6% 15.7% 8.3% 14.1% 12.7% 28.7% 15.9% Cheshire 3.5% 17.7% 8.3% 8.8% 11.6% 33.6% 16.5% Derby 5.8% 16.6% 5.9% 16.8% 11.0% 29.2% 14.7% Middlebury 3.6% 18.3% 7.1% 7.6% 12.9% 31.2% 19.5% Naugatuck 7.5% 14.9% 8.1% 13.4% 13.7% 27.8% 14.6% Oxford 5.2% 20.0% 7.2% 6.3% 12.7% 33.1% 15.5% Plymouth 5.5% 13.9% 11.3% 13.6% 9.7% 31.0% 15.0% Prospect 3.2% 16.0% 7.5% 11.9% 11.5% 31.7% 18.1% Seymour 5.8% 17.9% 9.2% 9.7% 15.0% 29.6% 12.8% Shelton 3.6% 15.3% 8.3% 8.8% 11.3% 32.5% 20.0% Southbury 5.1% 16.6% 4.9% 5.8% 9.3% 30.4% 27.9% Thomaston 3.5% 16.9% 7.7% 12.6% 11.4% 32.5% 15.4% Waterbury 7.2% 18.5% 10.6% 14.0% 13.2% 24.2% 12.2% Watertown 4.5% 16.5% 8.3% 10.5% 10.3% 32.6% 17.3% Wolcott 3.4% 16.9% 8.4% 9.5% 11.3% 33.8% 16.7% Woodbury 5.6% 15.8% 3.0% 9.5% 11.7% 35.3% 19.2% Region Total 5.3% 17.0% 8.7% 11.6% 12.3% 29.3% 15.9% Urban Core 6.3% 17.1% 9.4% 13.9% 13.0% 26.4% 13.8% Inner Ring 4.2% 16.4% 8.7% 9.9% 11.5% 32.3% 17.1% Outer Ring 4.2% 17.4% 6.7% 8.0% 11.4% 32.7% 19.6% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B01001 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 30 2016 2000 % Change Geography Number Percent Number Percent 2000 -2016 Ansonia 2,768 14.6% 2,871 15.5% -3.6% Beacon Falls 876 14.4% 506 9.6% 73.1% Bethlehem 542 15.5% 440 12.9% 23.2% Bristol 9,631 15.9% 8,925 14.9% 7.9% Cheshire 4,821 16.5% 3,592 12.6% 34.2% Derby 1,875 14.7% 2,059 16.6% -8.9% Middlebury 1,480 19.5% 1,067 16.5% 38.7% Naugatuck 4,604 14.6% 3,633 11.7% 26.7% Oxford 2,002 15.5% 857 8.7% 133.6% Plymouth 1,794 15.0% 1,473 12.7% 21.8% Prospect 1,764 18.1% 1,153 13.2% 53.0% Seymour 2,120 12.8% 2,221 14.4% -4.5% Shelton 8,208 20.0% 5,672 14.9% 44.7% Southbury 5,510 27.9% 4,841 26.1% 13.8% Thomaston 1,189 15.4% 909 12.1% 30.8% Waterbury 13,309 12.2% 16,045 15.0% -17.1% Watertown 3,820 17.3% 3,050 14.1% 25.2% Wolcott 2,793 16.7% 1,992 13.1% 40.2% Woodbury 1,867 19.2% 1,193 13.0% 56.5% Region Total 70,973 15.9% 62,499 14.6% 13.6% Urban Core 32,187 13.8% 33,533 14.6% -4.0% Inner Ring 21,952 17.1% 16,917 13.8% 29.8% Outer Ring 16,834 19.6% 12,049 15.7% 39.7% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B01001, U.S. Census, 2000 31 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B01001 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 32 Median Age Median Age Median Age Median Age % Change Geography 2016 2010 2000 1990 1990 -2016 Ansonia 39.1 38.4 36.8 34.0 15.0% Beacon Falls 43.3 41.5 36.7 32.6 32.8% Bethlehem 47.9 47.1 42.2 36.2 32.3% Bristol 41.2 40.3 37.6 33.7 22.3% Cheshire 45.1 42.2 38.4 35.5 27.0% Derby 39.0 40.3 37.7 35.6 9.6% Middlebury 45.5 43.9 42.8 40.1 13.5% Naugatuck 39.5 38.2 35.5 32.2 22.7% Oxford 44.0 43.4 38.4 34.0 29.4% Plymouth 40.3 41.9 37.5 33.9 18.9% Prospect 44.9 43.8 39.4 36.3 23.7% Seymour 40.9 41.6 38.5 34.7 17.9% Shelton 46.7 44.4 39.8 35.3 32.3% Southbury 51.0 49.9 45.7 42.9 18.9% Thomaston 44.0 42.5 37.8 34.1 29.0% Waterbury 34.7 35.2 34.9 33.3 4.2% Watertown 45.0 44.0 39.0 35.6 26.4% Wolcott 45.3 42.7 38.1 35.5 27.6% Woodbury 47.7 46.9 41.0 37.0 28.9% Region Total 43.4 40.1 37.6 34.3 26.6% Urban Core 37.7 37.3 35.9 33.2 13.6% Inner Ring 44.0 42.9 38.7 35.0 25.7% Outer Ring 46.3 45.1 40.6 37.4 23.8% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B01002, 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census, 1990 U.S. Census 33 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B01002 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 34 Total Households Household Income ($) Geography Less than $25,000 $25,000 – $49,999 $50,000 – $74,999 $75,000 – $99,999 $100,000 or More Ansonia 6,897 2,122 1,621 984 648 1,522 Beacon Falls 2,404 323 343 385 318 1,035 Bethlehem 1,277 164 177 216 158 562 Bristol 24,985 4,769 5,261 4,927 3,506 6,522 Cheshire 10,045 696 1,263 1,245 1,421 5,420 Derby 4,949 949 1,293 1,035 583 1,089 Middlebury 2,690 278 317 339 358 1,398 Naugatuck 11,910 2,064 2,953 1,898 1,291 3,704 Oxford 4,390 345 482 663 732 2,168 Plymouth 4,733 624 920 1,026 737 1,426 Prospect 3,288 261 364 511 454 1,698 Seymour 6,063 713 1,049 1,124 920 2,257 Shelton 15,803 1,820 2,602 2,438 2,195 6,748 Southbury 7,782 1,177 1,153 1,196 1,097 3,159 Thomaston 3,027 384 608 720 421 894 Waterbury 39,735 13,727 9,690 6,646 4,284 5,388 Watertown 8,344 1,079 1,516 1,506 1,138 3,105 Wolcott 5,844 670 896 1,044 925 2,309 Woodbury 4,059 492 646 786 538 1,597 Region Total 168,225 32,657 33,154 28,689 21,724 52,001 Urban Core 88,476 23,631 20,818 15,490 10,312 18,225 Inner Ring 48,015 5,316 7,958 8,059 6,832 19,850 Outer Ring 31,734 3,710 4,378 5,140 4,580 13,926 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B19001 35 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Household Income ($) Geography Less than $25,000 $25,000 – $49,999 $50,000 – $74,999 $75,000 – $99,999 $100,000 or More Ansonia 30.8% 23.5% 14.3% 9.4% 22.1% Beacon Falls 13.4% 14.3% 16.0% 13.2% 43.1% Bethlehem 12.8% 13.9% 16.9% 12.4% 44.0% Bristol 19.1% 21.1% 19.7% 14.0% 26.1% Cheshire 6.9% 12.6% 12.4% 14.1% 54.0% Derby 19.2% 26.1% 20.9% 11.8% 22.0% Middlebury 10.3% 11.8% 12.6% 13.3% 52.0% Naugatuck 17.3% 24.8% 15.9% 10.8% 31.1% Oxford 7.9% 11.0% 15.1% 16.7% 49.4% Plymouth 13.2% 19.4% 21.7% 15.6% 30.1% Prospect 7.9% 11.1% 15.5% 13.8% 51.6% Seymour 11.8% 17.3% 18.5% 15.2% 37.2% Shelton 11.5% 16.5% 15.4% 13.9% 42.7% Southbury 15.1% 14.8% 15.4% 14.1% 40.6% Thomaston 12.7% 20.1% 23.8% 13.9% 29.5% Waterbury 34.5% 24.4% 16.7% 10.8% 13.6% Watertown 12.9% 18.2% 18.0% 13.6% 37.2% Wolcott 11.5% 15.3% 17.9% 15.8% 39.5% Woodbury 12.1% 15.9% 19.4% 13.3% 39.3% Region Total 19.4% 19.7% 17.1% 12.9% 30.9% Urban Core 26.7% 23.5% 17.5% 11.7% 20.6% Inner Ring 11.1% 16.6% 16.8% 14.2% 41.3% Outer Ring 11.7% 13.8% 16.2% 14.4% 43.9% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B19001 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 36 Median Household Income Median Family Income Geography 2016 1999 % Change 2016 1999 % Change Ansonia $43,386 $63,248 -31.4% $65,134 $78,965 -17.5% Beacon Falls $84,570 $83,190 1.7% $119,591 $91,818 30.2% Bethlehem $87,056 $100,757 -13.6% $110,000 $115,929 -5.1% Bristol $61,551 $69,710 -11.7% $76,991 $85,641 -10.1% Cheshire $108,559 $118,285 -8.2% $127,913 $133,438 -4.1% Derby $55,316 $67,135 -17.6% $66,087 $80,431 -17.8% Middlebury $103,235 $103,589 -0.3% $120,645 $119,614 0.9% Naugatuck $59,522 $75,333 -21.0% $78,137 $87,048 -10.2% Oxford $99,311 $113,375 -12.4% $110,147 $118,220 -6.8% Plymouth $70,635 $79,013 -10.6% $82,329 $92,037 -10.5% Prospect $103,659 $99,313 4.4% $111,979 $108,836 2.9% Seymour $79,734 $77,040 3.5% $103,359 $95,568 8.2% Shelton $87,277 $98,919 -11.8% $102,108 $111,019 -8.0% Southbury $85,068 $91,021 -6.5% $111,489 $119,230 -6.5% Thomaston $65,901 $79,817 -17.4% $82,250 $93,613 -12.1% Waterbury $39,681 $50,399 -21.3% $48,822 $62,181 -21.5% Watertown $76,175 $87,347 -12.8% $99,375 $101,079 -1.7% Wolcott $83,828 $90,223 -7.1% $93,938 $99,346 -5.4% Woodbury $79,387 $100,433 -21.0% $97,070 $121,482 -20.1% Region Total $67,541 $73,563 -8.2% $84,531 $88,444 -4.4% Urban Core $49,691 $58,749 -15.4% $62,960 $71,866 -12.4% Inner Ring $85,859 $91,418 -6.1% $104,502 $105,498 -0.9% Outer Ring $89,592 $93,268 -3.9% $107,301 $108,375 -1.0% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B19113, S1903 2000 U.S. Census, DP003 [ CP= =nflation Rate 1999 -2016: 1.47] 37 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B19013 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 38 2016 2000 Change 2000 -2016 Geography Number Percent Number Percent Net Percent Ansonia 3,896 20.7% 1,394 7.6% 2,502 179.5% Beacon Falls 311 5.1% 309 5.9% 2 0.6% Bethlehem 300 8.6% 89 2.6% 211 237.1% Bristol 6,144 10.3% 3,921 6.6% 2,223 56.7% Cheshire 639 2.4% 750 3.0% -111 -14.8% Derby 1,593 12.7% 1,014 8.3% 579 57.1% Middlebury 315 4.2% 174 2.7% 141 81.0% Naugatuck 3,022 9.6% 1,977 6.4% 1,045 52.9% Oxford 430 3.3% 206 2.1% 224 108.7% Plymouth 760 6.4% 470 4.1% 290 61.7% Prospect 365 3.8% 89 1.0% 276 310.1% Seymour 925 5.7% 573 3.7% 352 61.4% Shelton 2,037 5.0% 1,208 3.2% 829 68.6% Southbury 1,786 9.2% 878 4.9% 908 103.4% Thomaston 470 6.1% 311 4.2% 159 51.1% Waterbury 27,291 25.4% 16,774 16.0% 10,517 62.7% Watertown 893 4.1% 471 2.2% 422 89.6% Wolcott 726 4.4% 392 2.6% 334 85.2% Woodbury 493 5.1% 412 4.5% 81 19.7% Region Total 52,396 11.9% 31,412 7.5% 20,984 66.8% Urban Core 41,946 18.3% 25,080 11.1% 16,866 67.2% Inner Ring 5,724 4.6% 3,783 3.2% 1,941 51.3% Outer Ring 4,726 5.5% 2,549 3.4% 2,177 85.4% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, S1701 2000 U.S. Census 39 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, C17002 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 40 Total House- holds Family Households Non -Family Households Geography Single Parent Married Couple Ansonia 6,897 22.4% 42.2% 35.4% Beacon Falls 2,404 10.9% 49.7% 39.5% Bethlehem 1,277 13.7% 59.9% 26.4% Bristol 24,985 17.4% 42.7% 39.9% Cheshire 10,045 11.3% 63.9% 24.8% Derby 4,949 18.3% 38.3% 43.5% Middlebury 2,690 9.3% 66.1% 24.6% Naugatuck 11,910 18.4% 49.8% 31.8% Oxford 4,390 12.8% 70.4% 16.9% Plymouth 4,733 17.4% 49.3% 33.3% Prospect 3,288 13.2% 59.1% 27.7% Seymour 6,063 12.6% 55.5% 31.9% Shelton 15,803 13.7% 56.5% 29.8% Southbury 7,782 10.9% 53.1% 36.0% Thomaston 3,027 15.6% 53.2% 31.2% Waterbury 39,735 29.3% 33.4% 37.3% Watertown 8,344 13.1% 55.3% 31.7% Wolcott 5,844 19.1% 58.9% 22.0% Woodbury 4,059 10.8% 59.0% 30.3% Region Total 168,225 18.5% 48.0% 33.5% Urban Core 88,476 23.3% 39.2% 37.5% Inner Ring 48,015 13.4% 56.8% 29.8% Outer Ring 31,734 12.9% 59.0% 28.1% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B11001 41 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B11001 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 42 Average Household Size % Change 1980 -2016 Geography 2016 2010 2000 1990 1980 Ansonia 2.74 2.55 2.46 2.57 2.71 1.1% Beacon Falls 2.53 2.56 2.58 2.69 2.98 -15.1% Bethlehem 2.67 2.49 2.69 2.73 2.86 -6.6% Bristol 2.39 2.35 2.38 2.51 2.77 -13.7% Cheshire 2.65 2.66 2.71 2.82 3.06 -13.4% Derby 2.53 2.35 2.32 2.40 2.65 -4.5% Middlebury 2.78 2.72 2.66 2.73 2.94 -5.4% Naugatuck 2.63 2.56 2.60 2.69 2.80 -6.1% Oxford 2.94 2.81 2.94 3.09 3.18 -7.5% Plymouth 2.50 2.53 2.60 2.72 2.92 -14.4% Prospect 2.91 2.76 2.83 2.97 3.24 -10.2% Seymour 2.70 2.46 2.49 2.55 2.73 -1.1% Shelton 2.56 2.55 2.65 2.79 3.05 -16.1% Southbury 2.45 2.33 2.41 2.34 2.39 2.5% Thomaston 2.54 2.53 2.57 2.64 2.86 -11.2% Waterbury 2.70 2.54 2.46 2.48 2.67 1.1% Watertown 2.61 2.57 2.67 2.80 3.00 -13.0% Wolcott 2.83 2.75 2.79 2.93 3.30 -14.2% Woodbury 2.39 2.36 2.48 2.51 2.61 -8.4% Region Total 2.61 2.53 2.54 2.62 2.81 -7.2% Urban Core 2.60 2.48 2.45 2.52 2.71 -4.3% Inner Ring 2.60 2.56 2.64 2.75 2.97 -12.7% Outer Ring 2.67 2.59 2.65 2.72 2.91 -8.2% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016 B25010, Census 2010 Table P17, Census 2000, Census 1990, Census 1980 43 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25010 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 44 Population Age 25 and Over Less than High School High School Graduate Some College Associates Degree Bachelor's Degree or Higher Geography Ansonia 12,718 13.0% 42.9% 19.3% 8.4% 16.4% Beacon Falls 4,143 8.6% 33.3% 16.8% 10.2% 31.0% Bethlehem 2,469 6.5% 27.1% 19.6% 7.6% 39.3% Bristol 43,131 11.0% 35.3% 19.0% 8.3% 26.5% Cheshire 20,621 4.9% 20.6% 14.3% 6.3% 53.8% Derby 9,145 13.6% 33.0% 18.7% 8.9% 25.7% Middlebury 5,405 4.2% 16.6% 17.4% 7.9% 54.0% Naugatuck 21,979 11.1% 33.7% 19.4% 9.9% 25.8% Oxford 8,731 4.9% 27.7% 19.7% 8.2% 39.5% Plymouth 8,275 9.7% 38.2% 17.9% 11.4% 22.9% Prospect 7,129 7.6% 31.4% 14.3% 9.2% 37.5% Seymour 11,095 5.8% 31.1% 22.7% 7.2% 33.1% Shelton 29,805 6.5% 28.4% 16.6% 8.2% 40.2% Southbury 14,475 6.9% 21.8% 13.4% 8.2% 49.7% Thomaston 5,540 9.0% 37.1% 21.6% 9.4% 22.9% Waterbury 69,518 20.9% 36.1% 20.3% 7.6% 15.1% Watertown 15,602 7.6% 29.7% 20.1% 11.1% 31.4% Wolcott 11,909 8.3% 36.0% 17.5% 9.7% 28.4% Woodbury 7,360 6.2% 22.6% 18.7% 6.4% 46.1% Region Total 309,050 11.3% 32.0% 18.5% 8.4% 29.8% Urban Core 156,491 15.7% 35.9% 19.6% 8.3% 20.4% Inner Ring 90,938 6.7% 28.6% 17.9% 8.5% 38.3% Outer Ring 61,621 6.8% 27.1% 16.7% 8.5% 41.0% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B15003 45 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 —2016, B15003, B15011 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 46 % Change Population Projections Geography 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2015 -2040 Ansonia 19,480 19,839 20,265 20,651 20,889 21,067 8.1% Beacon Falls 6,265 6,420 6,532 6,585 6,590 6,587 5.1% Bethlehem 3,605 3,595 3,596 3,576 3,483 3,342 -7.3% Bristol 59,918 59,535 59,359 59,006 58,205 57,129 -4.7% Cheshire 28,889 28,257 27,087 26,127 25,288 24,860 -13.9% Derby 13,035 13,250 13,553 13,803 13,959 14,081 8.0% Middlebury 7,948 8,233 8,412 8,522 8,662 8,828 11.1% Naugatuck 31,973 32,210 32,537 32,636 32,375 31,853 -0.4% Oxford 13,841 14,924 15,695 16,353 17,061 17,855 29.0% Plymouth 12,253 12,218 12,156 11,987 11,722 11,383 -7.1% Prospect 9,367 9,222 8,979 8,693 8,449 8,218 -12.3% Seymour 16,676 16,797 16,880 16,926 16,854 16,752 0.5% Shelton 39,101 38,374 37,508 36,568 35,565 34,544 -11.7% Southbury 19,661 19,357 19,164 18,984 18,957 18,760 -4.6% Thomaston 7,887 7,836 7,781 7,694 7,553 7,369 -6.6% Waterbury 111,081 112,571 114,896 117,113 118,463 119,213 7.3% Watertown 22,345 22,011 21,640 21,219 20,616 19,869 -11.1% Wolcott 16,906 16,921 16,885 16,770 16,629 16,511 -2.3% Woodbury 9,999 9,835 9,703 9,499 9,281 9,052 -9.5% Region Total 450,230 451,405 452,628 452,712 450,601 447,273 -0.7% Urban Core 235,487 237,405 240,610 243,209 243,891 243,343 3.3% Inner Ring 127,151 125,493 123,052 120,521 117,598 114,777 -9.7% Outer Ring 87,592 88,507 88,966 88,982 89,112 89,153 1.8% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut State Data Center, Population Projections: 2015 -2040 47 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Population Under Age 15 Population Age 65 and Over Geography 2015 2040 % Change 2015 2040 % Change Ansonia 3,609 3,754 4.0% 2,617 3,209 22.6% Beacon Falls 1,032 909 -11.9% 988 1,624 64.4% Bethlehem 478 453 -5.2% 680 876 28.8% Bristol 10,269 9,583 -6.7% 9,278 9,995 7.7% Cheshire 4,951 4,343 -12.3% 4,641 5,045 8.7% Derby 2,157 2,306 6.9% 2,066 2,476 19.8% Middlebury 1,540 1,702 10.5% 1,425 1,553 9.0% Naugatuck 5,806 5,494 -5.4% 4,181 5,039 20.5% Oxford 2,567 2,132 -16.9% 2,493 7,189 188.4% Plymouth 1,951 1,623 -16.8% 1,717 2,488 44.9% Prospect 1,582 1,384 -12.5% 1,590 1,834 15.3% Seymour 2,820 2,674 -5.2% 2,518 3,343 32.8% Shelton 6,223 5,471 -12.1% 7,531 8,282 10.0% Southbury 2,855 2,341 -18.0% 5,560 7,671 38.0% Thomaston 1,292 1,176 -9.0% 1,146 1,711 49.3% Waterbury 22,825 23,241 1.8% 13,529 14,799 9.4% Watertown 3,528 2,940 -16.7% 4,127 5,331 29.2% Wolcott 2,803 2,685 -4.2% 2,806 4,141 47.6% Woodbury 1,439 1,245 -13.5% 2,041 2,845 39.4% Region Total 79,727 75,456 -5.4% 70,934 89,451 26.1% Urban Core 44,666 44,378 -0.6% 31,671 35,518 12.1% Inner Ring 20,765 18,227 -12.2% 21,680 26,200 20.8% Outer Ring 14,296 12,851 -10.1% 17,583 27,733 57.7% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut State Data Center, Population Projections: 2015 -2040. Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 48 49 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Appendix B Tables and Maps Topic Page Labor Force and Employment ………………………….. ………………………….. … 50 Unemployment Rate ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 51 Total Jobs (Nonfarm Employment) ………………………….. ……………………… 52 Jobs by Sector (Nonfarm Employment) ………………………….. ……………….. 54 Commuting Patterns ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 56 Jobs Vs. Employment ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………. 58 Wages ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …….. 59 Economic data presented in Appendix B comes from a variety of sources including the US Census Bureau, and the Connecticut Department of Labor. Datasets may not match up due to differing data collection methods and years of analysis. Derby Green, Derby Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 50 Geography Labor Force Employed Unemployed Percent Unemployed Ansonia 9,420 8,809 611 6.5% Beacon Falls 3,503 3,350 153 4.4% Bethlehem 1,986 1,887 80 5.0% Bristol 33,349 31,612 1,737 5.2% Cheshire 15,910 15,385 525 3.3% Derby 6,887 6,486 401 5.8% Middlebury 3,944 3,777 167 4.2% Naugatuck 17,475 16,529 946 5.4% Oxford 7,275 6,971 304 4.2% Plymouth 6,725 6,374 351 5.2% Prospect 5,671 5,444 227 4.0% Seymour 9,113 8,678 435 4.8% Shelton 22,476 21,435 1,041 4.6% Southbury 8,822 8,441 381 4.3% Thomaston 4,762 4,573 189 4.0% Waterbury 51,045 47,275 3,770 7.4% Watertown 13,095 12,559 536 4.1% Wolcott 10,007 9,577 430 4.3% Woodbury 5,585 5,384 201 3.6% Region Total 237,050 224,546 12,504 5.3% Urban Core 118,176 110,711 7,465 6.3% Inner Ring 72,081 69,004 3,077 4.3% Outer Ring 46,793 44,831 1,962 4.2% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), by Town 2017 51 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Unemployment Rate Geography 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Ansonia 6.5% 7.0% 8.7% 9.2% 10.8% 11.4% 11.8% 11.7% Beacon Falls 4.4% 4.6% 5.4% 6.1% 6.5% 7.4% 8.3% 9.2% Bethlehem 5.0% 4.4% 4.8% 5.4% 5.7% 6.5% 7.1% 7.7% Bristol 5.2% 5.7% 6.9% 7.3% 8.4% 9.1% 9.8% 10.3% Cheshire 3.3% 3.5% 3.9% 4.6% 5.2% 5.6% 6.2% 6.4% Derby 5.8% 6.4% 7.3% 7.9% 9.0% 9.7% 10.5% 10.8% Middlebury 4.2% 3.9% 4.5% 5.1% 5.8% 6.7% 7.1% 7.2% Naugatuck 5.4% 5.8% 7.0% 7.6% 8.9% 9.4% 10.2% 10.8% Oxford 4.2% 4.2% 4.9% 5.4% 6.1% 6.5% 7.0% 7.5% Plymouth 5.2% 6.0% 7.2% 7.8% 9.1% 9.7% 10.6% 11.3% Prospect 4.0% 4.0% 5.0% 5.3% 5.9% 6.9% 7.6% 8.4% Seymour 4.8% 5.5% 6.3% 7.0% 7.8% 8.4% 9.2% 9.6% Shelton 4.6% 4.9% 5.7% 6.2% 7.2% 7.8% 8.5% 8.6% Southbury 4.3% 4.8% 5.4% 5.7% 6.7% 7.0% 7.8% 8.1% Thomaston 4.0% 4.3% 5.2% 6.1% 7.2% 7.6% 8.0% 9.0% Waterbury 7.4% 8.1% 10.3% 10.7% 12.2% 12.9% 13.6% 14.2% Watertown 4.1% 4.4% 5.1% 5.7% 6.5% 7.1% 7.6% 8.2% Wolcott 4.3% 4.3% 4.9% 5.5% 6.8% 7.6% 8.3% 8.9% Woodbury 3.6% 3.9% 4.5% 5.1% 6.0% 6.2% 6.6% 7.4% Region Total 5.3% 5.7% 6.4% 7.4% 8.5% 9.2% 9.8% 10.3% Urban Core 6.3% 6.9% 7.9% 9.0% 10.4% 11.0% 11.7% 12.2% Inner Ring 4.3% 4.6% 5.1% 6.0% 6.9% 7.5% 8.1% 8.5% Outer Ring 4.2% 4.3% 4.7% 5.5% 6.3% 6.9% 7.6% 8.1% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), by Town 2010 -2017 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 52 Jobs % Change Geography 2015 2013 2011 2009 2013 -2017 2009 -2013 2017 Ansonia 3,399 3,359 3,910 3,623 -0.9% -7.3% 3,328 Beacon Falls 912 843 929 887 7.2% -5.0% 903 Bethlehem 723 696 711 656 13.1% 6.0% 787 Bristol 22,307 21,592 20,597 20,286 3.4% 6.4% 22,317 Cheshire 15,961 15,431 14,428 15,209 5.3% 1.5% 16,254 Derby 4,776 4,872 4,643 4,929 -5.2% -1.1% 4,618 Middlebury 3,787 3,940 3,665 3,321 -0.2% 18.6% 3,931 Naugatuck 7,521 7,767 7,039 7,245 -9.0% 7.2% 7,065 Oxford 3,050 3,173 2,776 2,637 11.2% 20.3% 3,528 Plymouth 2,196 2,061 2,001 2,112 6.9% -2.5% 2,202 Prospect 1,982 1,980 1,983 1,946 7.3% 1.8% 2,125 Seymour 4,471 4,412 4,170 4,160 -2.2% 6.1% 4,317 Shelton 22,969 22,050 21,005 22,340 7.8% -1.3% 23,774 Southbury 8,218 8,396 8,573 8,829 -7.2% -4.9% 7,790 Thomaston 2,802 2,724 2,643 2,612 10.6% 4.3% 3,014 Waterbury 38,885 38,890 38,378 39,071 0.8% -0.5% 39,205 Watertown 8,265 8,011 7,731 7,873 5.2% 1.8% 8,431 Wolcott 2,955 2,966 2,821 3,009 6.2% -1.4% 3,149 Woodbury 2,082 2,020 2,028 2,101 1.3% -3.9% 2,045 Region Total 157,259 155,182 150,030 152,845 2.3% 1.5% 158,781 Urban Core 76,888 76,481 74,566 75,153 0.1% 1.8% 76,532 Inner Ring 56,663 54,689 51,979 54,307 6.0% 0.7% 57,991 Outer Ring 23,708 24,012 23,485 23,386 1.0% 2.7% 24,258 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), by Town 2009 -2017 53 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On The Map, LODES Dataset, 2015 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 54 Location Total Jobs Sector Urban Core Inner Outer Region % of Total Agriculture 0 333 0 333 0.2% Utilities 200 76 0 276 0.2% Construction 1,297 1,989 1,710 4,996 3.1% Manufacturing 7,942 10,926 1,697 20,565 13.0% Wholesale Trade 1,857 3,943 716 6,516 4.1% Retail Trade 11,941 4,162 2,371 18,474 11.6% Transportation and Ware- housing 861 1,570 441 2,872 1.8% Information 4,426 682 173 5,281 3.3% Finance and Insurance 1,726 2,323 866 4,915 3.1% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 608 484 395 1,487 0.9% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 1,483 3,483 1,791 6,757 4.3% Management of Companies and Enterprises 620 808 363 1,791 1.1% Administrative & Support and Waste Management 3,592 3,802 900 8,294 5.2% Educational Services 1,205 825 152 2,182 1.4% Health Care and Social Assis- tance 18,130 7,006 4,174 29,310 18.5% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 392 532 86 1,010 0.6% Accommodation and Food Services 5,379 3,524 2,042 10,945 6.9% Other Services (except Public Administration) 3,314 1,700 1,122 6,136 3.9% Total Government 10,878 5,407 3,815 20,100 12.7% Total All Jobs 76,533 57,992 24,258 158,783 100.0% Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), by Town 2017 Note: All Public Sector Employees (including school teachers) are in the “Total Government ” category 55 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Number of Jobs Job Change 2007 -2017 Sector 2017 2007 Net Percent Agriculture 333 316 17 5.3% Utilities 276 288 -12 -4.2% Construction 4,996 6,809 -1,813 -26.6% Manufacturing 20,565 26,107 -5,542 -21.2% Wholesale Trade 6,516 6,031 485 8.0% Retail Trade 18,474 20,513 -2,039 -9.9% Transportation and Warehous- ing 2,872 2,431 441 18.1% Information 5,281 4,850 431 8.9% Finance and Insurance 4,915 7,310 -2,395 -32.8% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,487 1,548 -61 -3.9% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 6,757 5,182 1,576 30.4% Management of Companies and Enterprises 1,791 1,746 45 2.6% Administrative & Support and Waste Management 8,294 7,951 344 4.3% Educational Services 2,182 991 1,191 120.2% Health Care and Social Assis- tance 29,310 25,146 4,164 16.6% Arts, Entertainment, and Rec- reation 1,010 838 172 20.6% Accommodation and Food Services 10,945 9,592 1,353 14.1% Other Services (except Public Administration) 6,136 5,332 804 15.1% Total Government 20,100 22,041 -1,941 -8.8% Total All Jobs 158,783 162,368 -3,585 -2.2% Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), by Town 2007 -2017 Note: All Public Sector Employees (including school teachers) are in the “Total Government ” category Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 56 Work Within Town of Residence Work Within Other Town in Region Work Outside of Re- gion Geography Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 541 6.1% 2,222 25.3% 6,035 68.6% Beacon Falls 87 2.6% 1,202 36.5% 2,003 60.8% Bethlehem 170 9.4% 737 40.6% 910 50.1% Bristol 7,459 22.9% 2,818 8.6% 22,333 68.5% Cheshire 2,105 14.7% 1,742 12.2% 10,436 73.1% Derby 417 7.4% 1,252 22.1% 4,000 70.6% Middlebury 302 7.6% 1,540 38.7% 2,140 53.7% Naugatuck 1,805 11.0% 5,168 31.5% 9,443 57.5% Oxford 493 7.8% 1,780 28.3% 4,025 63.9% Plymouth 542 7.9% 2,323 33.7% 4,018 58.4% Prospect 323 6.1% 1,953 37.0% 3,000 56.9% Seymour 850 10.7% 2,025 25.5% 5,077 63.8% Shelton 3,326 16.0% 1,358 6.5% 16,154 77.5% Southbury 1,099 12.7% 1,909 22.1% 5,628 65.2% Thomaston 502 11.5% 1,637 37.4% 2,238 51.1% Waterbury 13,901 30.5% 10,569 23.2% 21,067 46.3% Watertown 1,743 14.6% 4,689 39.2% 5,516 46.2% Wolcott 787 8.4% 3,593 38.2% 5,022 53.4% Woodbury 542 11.9% 1,433 31.6% 2,564 56.5% Region Total 36,994 16.9% 49,950 22.9% 131,605 60.2% Urban Core 24,123 22.1% 22,029 20.2% 62,878 57.7% Inner Ring 9,068 13.7% 13,774 20.8% 43,439 65.5% Outer Ring 3,803 8.8% 14,147 32.7% 25,292 58.5% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On the Map LODES Dataset: 2015 Area Profile for Residents 57 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Live Within Town of Employment Live Within Other Town in Region Live Outside of Re- gion Geography Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 541 17.1% 1,018 32.1% 1,610 50.8% Beacon Falls 87 13.5% 362 56.1% 196 30.4% Bethlehem 170 23.3% 318 43.6% 242 33.2% Bristol 7,457 31.1% 3,485 14.5% 13,061 54.4% Cheshire 2,105 13.2% 4,660 29.1% 9,225 57.7% Derby 417 8.8% 1,891 40.0% 2,414 51.1% Middlebury 302 8.3% 2,097 57.5% 1,248 34.2% Naugatuck 1,805 23.2% 3,366 43.3% 2,600 33.5% Oxford 493 16.5% 1,305 43.7% 1,185 39.7% Plymouth 542 24.4% 848 38.2% 827 37.3% Prospect 323 18.7% 881 51.1% 519 30.1% Seymour 850 19.5% 1,831 41.9% 1,688 38.6% Shelton 3,326 13.3% 4,774 19.1% 16,949 67.7% Southbury 1,099 14.2% 2,865 37.1% 3,754 48.6% Thomaston 502 17.6% 1,343 47.1% 1,007 35.3% Waterbury 13,901 33.4% 12,792 30.7% 14,927 35.9% Watertown 1,743 20.4% 3,937 46.0% 2,880 33.6% Wolcott 787 28.2% 1,232 44.2% 769 27.6% Woodbury 542 26.2% 944 45.7% 580 28.1% Region Total 36,992 22.7% 49,949 30.7% 75,681 46.5% Urban Core 24,121 29.7% 22,552 27.7% 34,612 42.6% Inner Ring 9,068 15.4% 17,393 29.5% 32,576 55.2% Outer Ring 3,803 17.1% 10,004 44.9% 8,493 38.1% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On the Map LODES Dataset: 2015, Area Profile for Workers Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 58 Geography Jobs Employed Residents Ratio Commuter Im- port/Export Ansonia 3,328 8,809 0.38 -5,481 Beacon Falls 903 3,350 0.27 -2,447 Bethlehem 787 1,887 0.42 -1,100 Bristol 22,317 31,612 0.71 -9,295 Cheshire 16,254 15,385 1.06 869 Derby 4,618 6,486 0.71 -1,868 Middlebury 3,931 3,777 1.04 154 Naugatuck 7,065 16,529 0.43 -9,464 Oxford 3,528 6,971 0.51 -3,443 Plymouth 2,202 6,374 0.35 -4,172 Prospect 2,125 5,444 0.39 -3,319 Seymour 4,317 8,678 0.50 -4,361 Shelton 23,774 21,435 1.11 2,339 Southbury 7,790 8,441 0.92 -651 Thomaston 3,014 4,573 0.66 -1,559 Waterbury 39,205 47,275 0.83 -8,070 Watertown 8,431 12,559 0.67 -4,128 Wolcott 3,149 9,577 0.33 -6,428 Woodbury 2,045 5,384 0.38 -3,339 Region Total 158,783 224,546 0.71 -65,763 Urban Core 76,533 110,711 0.69 -34,178 Inner Ring 57,992 69,004 0.84 -11,012 Outer Ring 24,258 44,831 0.54 -20,573 Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Local Area Unemployment Statistics: 2017. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW): 2017 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 59 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages: 2017 Note: All Public Sector Employees (including school teachers) are in the “Total Government ” category Average Annual Wages 2017 Sector Urban Core Inner Ring Outer Ring Region Agric., Forestry, Fishing & Hunting – $36,009 – $36,009 Utilities $85,558 $98,735 – $89,189 Construction $59,241 $71,622 $60,278 $63,858 Manufacturing $61,942 $73,903 $61,806 $68,285 Wholesale Trade $62,337 $86,570 $92,642 $80,329 Retail Trade $29,197 $36,681 $28,419 $30,874 Transportation & Warehous- ing $49,403 $52,785 $70,585 $54,506 Information $130,758 $95,017 $64,251 $123,962 Finance & Insurance $89,643 $112,002 $80,832 $99,816 Real Estate and Rental & Leas- ing $42,339 $70,317 $44,270 $51,973 Professional, Scientific, & Technical Services $68,732 $80,057 $124,847 $89,437 Management of Companies & Enterprises $126,969 $158,793 $164,854 $148,999 Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & Remed. Services $29,985 $38,700 $46,697 $35,795 Educational Services $46,058 $45,793 $23,477 $44,388 Health Care & Social Assis- tance $49,037 $42,995 $42,646 $46,682 Arts, Entertainment, & Recre- ation $24,117 $23,496 $20,650 $23,497 Accommodation & Food Ser- vices $18,347 $20,402 $19,257 $19,178 Other Services (except Public Administration) $23,468 $28,806 $33,161 $26,719 Total Government $60,340 $57,808 $61,099 $59,803 Total – All Industries $51,776 $62,211 $56,592 $56,323 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 60 61 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Appendix C Tables and Maps Topic Page Housing Units ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 62 Housing Permits ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 63 Number of Units ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 64 Housing Age ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………………. 66 Tenure ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……. 68 Housing Vacancy ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………….. 70 Housing Costs ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 72 Home Values ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………….. 76 Affordable Housing ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 78 Housing data presented in Appendix C comes from a variety of sources including the 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010 US Census, 2012 -2016 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates, the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD), and the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management (OPM). Datasets may not match up due to differing data collection methods and years of analysis. David Sherman House, W oodbury Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 62 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2012 -2016, B25024, Census 2010, :001; Census 2000, Census 1990, Census 1980 Total Housing Units % Change Geography 2016 2010 2000 1990 1980 2010 – 2016 2000 – 2010 1990 – 2000 Ansonia 7,486 8,148 7,937 7,503 7,267 -8.1% 2.7% 5.8% Beacon Falls 2,678 2,509 2,104 1,990 1,380 6.7% 19.2% 5.7% Bethlehem 1,547 1,575 1,388 1,262 1,074 -1.8% 13.5% 10.0% Bristol 26,917 27,011 26,125 24,989 21,004 -0.3% 3.4% 4.5% Cheshire 10,623 10,424 9,588 8,590 6,996 1.9% 8.7% 11.6% Derby 5,479 5,849 5,568 5,269 4,828 -6.3% 5.0% 5.7% Middlebury 2,898 2,892 2,494 2,365 2,168 0.2% 16.0% 5.5% Naugatuck 12,808 13,061 12,341 11,930 9,728 -1.9% 5.8% 3.4% Oxford 4,620 4,746 3,420 2,930 2,197 -2.7% 38.8% 16.7% Plymouth 5,204 5,109 4,646 4,556 3,811 1.9% 10.0% 2.0% Prospect 3,409 3,474 3,094 2,625 2,063 -1.9% 12.3% 17.9% Seymour 6,619 6,968 6,356 5,877 5,081 -5.0% 9.6% 8.2% Shelton 17,041 16,146 14,707 12,981 10,385 5.5% 9.8% 13.3% Southbury 8,529 9,091 7,799 6,826 5,838 -6.2% 16.6% 14.3% Thomaston 3,175 3,276 3,014 2,736 2,248 -3.1% 8.7% 10.2% Waterbury 46,525 47,991 46,827 47,205 40,854 -3.1% 2.5% -0.8% Watertown 8,842 9,096 8,298 7,522 6,618 -2.8% 9.6% 10.3% Wolcott 6,070 6,276 5,544 4,870 4,071 -3.3% 13.2% 13.8% Woodbury 4,514 4,564 3,869 2,924 2,924 -1.1% 18.0% 32.3% Region Total 184,984 188,206 175,119 164,950 140,535 -1.7% 7.5% 6.2% Urban Core 99,215 102,060 98,798 96,896 83,681 -2.8% 3.3% 2.0% Inner Ring 51,504 51,019 46,609 42,262 35,139 1.0% 9.5% 10.3% Outer Ring 34,265 35,127 29,712 25,792 21,715 -2.5% 18.2% 15.2% 63 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile New Housing Units by Year % Change 2009 -2016 Geography 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2009 2010 Ansonia 0 0 0 3 4 2 2 -100.0% 5 Beacon Falls 23 21 25 11 5 3 28 -17.9% 9 Bethlehem 2 2 2 2 2 1 7 -71.4% 2 Bristol 37 30 61 92 28 21 19 94.7% 37 Cheshire 29 41 41 48 24 58 17 70.6% 39 Derby 2 5 5 3 2 2 7 -71.4% 5 Middlebury 27 21 33 19 7 4 6 350.0% 7 Naugatuck 8 18 19 12 21 10 9 -11.1% 8 Oxford 23 16 61 33 30 13 31 -25.8% 45 Plymouth 5 5 6 5 5 9 6 -16.7% 11 Prospect 22 29 27 20 23 49 36 -38.9% 48 Seymour 3 78 6 14 23 17 15 -80.0% 22 Shelton 46 191 47 129 299 35 17 170.6% 31 Southbury 12 16 20 42 14 6 6 100.0% 7 Thomaston 14 11 4 6 3 5 6 133.3% 7 Waterbury 40 71 44 34 62 28 37 8.1% 32 Watertown 20 9 31 33 21 16 25 -20.0% 21 Wolcott 17 27 20 16 13 13 18 -5.6% 22 Woodbury 8 6 2 9 5 6 10 -20.0% 4 Region Total 338 597 454 531 591 298 302 11.9% 362 Urban Core 87 124 129 144 117 63 74 17.6% 87 Inner Ring 117 335 135 235 375 140 86 36.0% 131 Outer Ring 134 138 190 152 99 95 142 -5.6% 144 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, Annual :ousing Permit Data by Town: 2009 -2016 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 64 Geography Total 1 Unit 2 Units 3-4 Units 5+ Units Mobile Ansonia 7,486 3,793 1,928 998 757 10 Beacon Falls 2,678 1,889 106 257 210 216 Bethlehem 1,547 1,416 79 29 15 8 Bristol 26,917 16,194 2,986 2,553 4,993 191 Cheshire 10,623 8,904 142 437 1,127 13 Derby 5,479 2,740 901 590 1,205 43 Middlebury 2,898 2,696 9 59 126 8 Naugatuck 12,808 7,971 1,660 934 1,941 302 Oxford 4,620 4,465 59 54 42 0 Plymouth 5,204 4,059 265 315 477 88 Prospect 3,409 2,947 108 88 44 222 Seymour 6,619 4,580 678 299 1,038 24 Shelton 17,041 13,710 662 944 1,443 282 Southbury 8,529 6,381 841 631 634 42 Thomaston 3,175 2,363 205 195 387 25 Waterbury 46,525 18,574 5,103 9,887 12,803 158 Watertown 8,842 7,217 613 437 564 11 Wolcott 6,070 5,422 196 115 337 0 Woodbury 4,514 3,481 147 291 579 16 Region Total 184,984 118,802 16,688 19,113 28,722 1,659 Urban Core 99,215 49,272 12,578 14,962 21,699 704 Inner Ring 51,504 40,833 2,565 2,627 5,036 443 Outer Ring 34,265 28,697 1,545 1,524 1,987 512 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25024 65 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25024 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 66 Housing Units Year Built Median Year Built Geography After 1999 1980 to 1999 1960 to 1979 1940 to 1959 Before 1940 Ansonia 7,486 180 664 1,796 1,704 3,142 1952 Beacon Falls 2,678 383 804 592 502 397 1976 Bethlehem 1,547 268 521 330 244 184 1981 Bristol 26,917 1,148 6,025 7,456 6,366 5,922 1963 Cheshire 10,623 855 2,868 3,488 2,631 781 1970 Derby 5,479 241 992 1,241 1,352 1,653 1958 Middlebury 2,898 461 560 650 808 419 1966 Naugatuck 12,808 781 2,761 3,806 2,588 2,872 1966 Oxford 4,620 1,039 1,356 1,039 757 429 1981 Plymouth 5,204 547 1,158 1,201 1,174 1,124 1965 Prospect 3,409 541 1,071 765 866 166 1977 Seymour 6,619 590 1,220 1,896 1,311 1,602 1965 Shelton 17,041 1,835 5,252 5,399 2,588 1,967 1975 Southbury 8,529 621 2,838 3,872 614 584 1977 Thomaston 3,175 287 825 643 618 802 1965 Waterbury 46,525 1,387 8,490 11,302 10,770 14,576 1957 Watertown 8,842 576 1,771 2,682 2,164 1,649 1965 Wolcott 6,070 633 1,475 1,563 1,832 567 1966 Woodbury 4,514 260 1,255 1,462 656 881 1972 Region Total 184,984 12,633 41,906 51,183 39,545 39,717 1965 Urban Core 99,215 3,737 18,932 25,601 22,780 28,165 1962 Inner Ring 51,504 4,690 13,094 15,309 10,486 7,925 1969 Outer Ring 34,265 4,206 9,880 10,273 6,279 3,627 1974 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25034, B25035 67 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25035 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 68 Occupied Housing Units Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Geography Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 6,897 4,006 58.1% 2,891 41.9% Beacon Falls 2,404 2,054 85.4% 350 14.6% Bethlehem 1,277 1,055 82.6% 222 17.4% Bristol 24,985 16,351 65.4% 8,634 34.6% Cheshire 10,045 8,864 88.2% 1,181 11.8% Derby 4,949 2,727 55.1% 2,222 44.9% Middlebury 2,690 2,397 89.1% 293 10.9% Naugatuck 11,910 7,898 66.3% 4,012 33.7% Oxford 4,390 3,847 87.6% 543 12.4% Plymouth 4,733 3,758 79.4% 975 20.6% Prospect 3,288 2,908 88.4% 380 11.6% Seymour 6,063 4,332 71.4% 1,731 28.6% Shelton 15,803 12,846 81.3% 2,957 18.7% Southbury 7,782 6,772 87.0% 1,010 13.0% Thomaston 3,027 2,352 77.7% 675 22.3% Waterbury 39,735 17,367 43.7% 22,368 56.3% Watertown 8,344 6,682 80.1% 1,662 19.9% Wolcott 5,844 5,056 86.5% 788 13.5% Woodbury 4,059 3,011 74.2% 1,048 25.8% Region Total 168,225 114,283 67.9% 53,942 32.1% Urban Core 88,476 48,349 54.6% 40,127 45.4% Inner Ring 48,015 38,834 80.9% 9,181 19.1% Outer Ring 31,734 27,100 85.4% 4,634 14.6% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, 25003 69 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25003 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 70 Vacant Units Vacancy Status Geography Number Percent of Total For Sale or Sold For Rent or Rented Seasonal Other Vacant Ansonia 589 7.9% 118 297 13 161 Beacon Falls 274 10.2% 0 0 51 223 Bethlehem 270 17.5% 7 0 204 59 Bristol 1,932 7.2% 247 777 78 830 Cheshire 578 5.4% 66 113 61 338 Derby 530 9.7% 40 395 14 81 Middlebury 208 7.2% 48 69 30 61 Naugatuck 898 7.0% 207 172 69 450 Oxford 230 5.0% 15 0 109 106 Plymouth 471 9.1% 107 52 83 229 Prospect 121 3.5% 44 0 10 67 Seymour 556 8.4% 83 98 91 284 Shelton 1,238 7.3% 372 438 227 201 Southbury 747 8.8% 164 51 212 320 Thomaston 148 4.7% 37 0 9 102 Waterbury 6,790 14.6% 828 2,383 292 3,287 Watertown 498 5.6% 168 0 78 252 Wolcott 226 3.7% 0 0 0 226 Woodbury 455 10.1% 117 0 99 239 Region Total 16,759 9.1% 2,668 4,845 1,730 7,516 Urban Core 10,739 10.8% 1,440 4,024 466 4,809 Inner Ring 3,489 6.8% 833 701 549 1,406 Outer Ring 2,531 7.4% 395 120 715 1,301 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25004 71 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25002 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 72 Gross Rent % Change 2000 -2016 Contract Rent % Change 2000 -2016 Geography 2016 2000 2016 2000 Ansonia $1,031 $1,002 2.9% $827 $815 1.5% Beacon Falls $1,147 $1,256 -8.7% $979 $1,056 -7.3% Bethlehem $945 $1,425 -33.7% $808 $1,114 -27.4% Bristol $895 $861 3.9% $782 $748 4.5% Cheshire $1,148 $1,157 -0.8% $1,012 $1,027 -1.4% Derby $1,069 $1,002 6.7% $865 $858 0.8% Middlebury $1,339 $969 38.2% $1,092 $824 32.6% Naugatuck $954 $915 4.3% $834 $776 7.5% Oxford $1,295 $998 29.8% $952 $777 22.5% Plymouth $1,037 $885 17.2% $856 $742 15.3% Prospect $1,024 $1,025 -0.1% $830 $834 -0.4% Seymour $996 $983 1.3% $860 $860 0.0% Shelton $1,195 $1,146 4.3% $973 $963 1.1% Southbury $1,499 $1,543 -2.8% $1,374 $1,338 2.7% Thomaston $832 $941 -11.6% $747 $770 -3.0% Waterbury $912 $815 11.9% $746 $684 9.0% Watertown $913 $937 -2.5% $777 $818 -5.0% Wolcott $1,086 $1,066 1.9% $895 $945 -5.3% Woodbury $1,115 $1,135 -1.8% $971 $1,022 -5.0% Region Median $976 $913 7.0% $817 $775 5.4% Urban Core $930 $860 8.1% $775 $728 6.5% Inner Ring $1,057 $1,031 2.5% $892 $885 0.8% Outer Ring $1,216 $1,204 1.0% $1,033 $1,036 -0.3% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25064, B25058, 2000 Census. NVCOG Staff Calculations [=nflation Rate 2000 -2016: 1.40] 73 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25064 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 74 Median Home Value % Change 2000 -2016 Geography 2016 2000 Ansonia $214,800 $196,490 9.3% Beacon Falls $231,800 $216,981 6.8% Bethlehem $351,200 $300,068 17.0% Bristol $192,500 $181,473 6.1% Cheshire $330,600 $297,542 11.1% Derby $199,400 $191,718 4.0% Middlebury $353,800 $278,735 26.9% Naugatuck $178,800 $186,666 -4.2% Oxford $346,500 $291,647 18.8% Plymouth $188,900 $174,034 8.5% Prospect $295,300 $253,612 16.4% Seymour $255,800 $221,332 15.6% Shelton $338,200 $304,981 10.9% Southbury $318,600 $293,472 8.6% Thomaston $205,100 $190,595 7.6% Waterbury $129,500 $142,175 -8.9% Watertown $241,100 $208,139 15.8% Wolcott $243,400 $201,262 20.9% Woodbury $331,800 $329,823 0.6% Region Total $242,145 $219,170 10.5% Urban Core $169,869 $168,427 0.9% Inner Ring $288,057 $256,515 12.3% Outer Ring $305,301 $269,063 13.5% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25077 NVCOG Staff Calculations. [=nflation Rate 2000 -2016: 1.40] 75 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25077 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 76 Owner Occupied Units Home Value Geography Less than $100,000 $100,000 – $199,999 $200,000 – $299,999 $300,000 – $399,999 $400,000 or Higher Ansonia 4,006 165 1,516 1,854 366 105 Beacon Falls 2,054 224 580 701 332 217 Bethlehem 1,055 7 137 231 298 382 Bristol 16,351 1,116 7,675 5,520 1,441 599 Cheshire 8,864 273 761 2,555 2,755 2,520 Derby 2,727 93 1,278 833 306 217 Middlebury 2,397 62 119 621 737 858 Naugatuck 7,898 933 4,130 2,064 522 249 Oxford 3,847 98 277 811 1,585 1,076 Plymouth 3,758 313 1,858 1,125 291 171 Prospect 2,908 222 266 1,019 869 532 Seymour 4,332 186 1,030 1,624 830 662 Shelton 12,846 516 936 3,261 4,476 3,657 Southbury 6,772 567 1,386 1,183 1,347 2,289 Thomaston 2,352 249 891 744 366 102 Waterbury 17,367 4,629 10,485 1,668 324 261 Watertown 6,682 297 1,877 2,387 1,246 875 Wolcott 5,056 234 1,260 2,119 719 724 Woodbury 3,011 99 582 573 790 967 Region Total 114,283 10,283 37,044 30,893 19,600 16,463 Urban Core 48,349 6,936 25,084 11,939 2,959 1,431 Inner Ring 38,834 1,834 7,353 11,696 9,964 7,987 Outer Ring 27,100 1,513 4,607 7,258 6,677 7,045 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25075 77 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Equalized Net Grand List ($ Millions) Percent Change Geography 2015 2007 2003 2007 -2015 2003 -2007 Ansonia $1,170.3 $1,975.2 $1,434.6 -40.8% 37.7% Beacon Falls $580.0 $892.0 $534.1 -35.0% 67.0% Bethlehem $430.0 $725.4 $503.4 -40.7% 44.1% Bristol $4,645.7 $7,396.0 $5,439.5 -37.2% 36.0% Cheshire $3,466.1 $5,084.2 $4,270.5 -31.8% 19.1% Derby $867.7 $1,457.3 $1,123.9 -40.5% 29.7% Middlebury $1,191.6 $1,787.1 $1,169.8 -33.3% 52.8% Naugatuck $1,913.7 $3,511.7 $2,532.8 -45.5% 38.6% Oxford $1,761.7 $2,075.3 $1,524.4 -15.1% 36.1% Plymouth $880.1 $1,356.1 $948.9 -35.1% 42.9% Prospect $1,028.9 $1,269.6 $1,101.7 -19.0% 15.2% Seymour $1,468.5 $2,142.8 $1,614.1 -31.5% 32.8% Shelton $5,820.0 $9,314.4 $5,753.2 -37.5% 61.9% Southbury $2,724.2 $4,452.6 $3,755.3 -38.8% 18.6% Thomaston $626.5 $1,155.1 $864.7 -45.8% 33.6% Waterbury $4,614.0 $9,064.6 $6,045.2 -49.1% 49.9% Watertown $2,211.1 $3,548.4 $2,695.3 -37.7% 31.6% Wolcott $1,636.1 $2,391.4 $1,511.5 -31.6% 58.2% Woodbury $1,381.8 $2,187.6 $1,759.5 -36.8% 24.3% Region Total $38,417.8 $61,786.6 $44,582.5 -37.8% 38.6% Urban Core $13,211.3 $23,404.7 $16,576.0 -43.6% 41.2% Inner Ring $14,472.3 $22,601.0 $16,146.8 -36.0% 40.0% Outer Ring $10,734.2 $15,780.9 $11,859.8 -32.0% 33.1% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Office of Policy and Management. Equalized Net Grand List, by Municipality: 2003 -2015 All values are in 2015 dollars [=nflation Rate 2003 -2015: 1.2575] [=nflation Rate 2007 -2015: 1.1359] 2015 is for FY 2016 -2017 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 78 Total >30% Owner -Occupied >30% Renter -Occupied >30% Geography Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 3,464 50.2% 1,764 44.0% 1,700 58.8% Beacon Falls 534 22.2% 427 20.8% 107 30.6% Bethlehem 421 33.0% 309 29.3% 112 50.5% Bristol 8,400 33.6% 4,619 28.2% 3,781 43.8% Cheshire 2,209 22.0% 1,871 21.1% 338 28.6% Derby 2,251 45.5% 1,107 40.6% 1,144 51.5% Middlebury 794 29.5% 693 28.9% 101 34.5% Naugatuck 4,159 34.9% 2,400 30.4% 1,759 43.8% Oxford 1,274 29.0% 1,146 29.8% 128 23.6% Plymouth 1,627 34.4% 1,156 30.8% 471 48.3% Prospect 663 20.2% 567 19.5% 96 25.3% Seymour 2,008 33.1% 1,244 28.7% 764 44.1% Shelton 5,240 33.2% 4,117 32.0% 1,123 38.0% Southbury 3,174 40.8% 2,586 38.2% 588 58.2% Thomaston 966 31.9% 721 30.7% 245 36.3% Waterbury 19,218 48.4% 6,887 39.7% 12,331 55.1% Watertown 2,396 28.7% 1,860 27.8% 536 32.3% Wolcott 1,647 28.2% 1,208 23.9% 439 55.7% Woodbury 1,430 35.2% 998 33.1% 432 41.2% Region Total 61,875 36.8% 35,680 31.2% 26,195 48.6% Urban Core 37,492 42.4% 16,777 34.7% 20,715 51.6% Inner Ring 14,446 30.1% 10,969 28.2% 3,477 37.9% Outer Ring 9,937 31.3% 7,934 29.3% 2,003 43.2% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2012 -2016, B25106 79 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Govt. Assisted Tenant Rental As- sistance CHFA/ USDA Mortgage Deed Re- stricted Total Affordable Geography Total Percent Ansonia 347 696 118 9 1,170 14.4% Beacon Falls 0 3 37 0 40 1.6% Bethlehem 24 0 5 0 29 1.8% Bristol 1,908 868 996 0 3,772 14.0% Cheshire 258 20 76 17 371 3.6% Derby 274 315 88 0 677 11.6% Middlebury 76 4 22 20 122 4.2% Naugatuck 493 299 317 0 1,109 8.5% Oxford 36 5 30 0 71 1.5% Plymouth 178 13 192 0 383 7.5% Prospect 0 6 39 0 45 1.3% Seymour 262 27 109 0 398 5.7% Shelton 253 45 103 82 483 3.0% Southbury 89 7 30 0 126 1.4% Thomaston 104 6 86 0 196 6.0% Waterbury 5,272 3,143 1,761 172 10,348 21.6% Watertown 205 25 184 0 414 4.6% Wolcott 312 9 133 0 454 7.2% Woodbury 59 3 24 0 86 1.9% Region Total 10,150 5,494 4,350 300 20,294 10.8% Urban Core 8,294 5,321 3,280 181 17,076 16.7% Inner Ring 1,260 136 750 99 2,245 4.4% Outer Ring 596 37 320 20 973 2.8% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development. Affordable :ousing Appeals List: 2017 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 80 81 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Appendix D Tables and Maps Topic Page Urbanized Areas: 2010 ………………………….. ………………………….. ………….. 82 Labor Market Areas: 2018. ………………………….. ………………………….. …….. 83 Income Limits for Select HUD Programs: 2018 ………………………….. ……… 84 Naugatuck River Greenway, Ansonia Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 82 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 83 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Labor Market Areas: 2018 * Bethlehem and Woodbury were added to the Water-bury LMA in 2015. Each mid -decade, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) updates statistical area definitions (geographical composition) or labor market areas based on population and commuter patterns from the most recent decennial Census (2010). Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 84 Source: U.S. Department of :ousing and Urban Development (:UD), =ncome Limits: 2018 Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 33,900 38,750 43,600 48,400 52,300 56,150 60,050 63,900 Low -Income 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 236 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 221 BMIR 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 Section 235 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 =ncludes Middlebury, Naugatuck, Prospect, Southbury, Waterbury, and Wolcott Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 33,900 38,750 43,600 48,400 52,300 56,150 60,050 63,900 Low -Income 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 236 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 221 BMIR 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 Section 235 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 =ncludes Ansonia, Beacon Falls, Derby, Oxford, and Seymour Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 33,900 38,750 43,600 48,400 52,300 56,150 60,050 63,900 Low -Income 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 236 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 221 BMIR 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 Section 235 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 =ncludes Bethlehem, Plymouth, Thomaston, Watertown, and Woodbury 85 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Source: U.S. Department of :ousing and Urban Development (:UD), =ncome Limits: 2018 Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 33,900 38,750 43,600 48,400 52,300 56,150 60,050 63,900 Low -Income 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 236 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 221 BMIR 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 Section 235 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 =ncludes Town of Cheshire Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 33,900 38,750 43,600 48,400 52,300 56,150 60,050 63,900 Low -Income 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 236 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 221 BMIR 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 Section 235 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 =ncludes City of Bristol Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 33,900 38,750 43,600 48,400 52,300 56,150 60,050 63,900 Low -Income 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 236 50,350 57,550 64,750 71,900 77,700 83,450 89,200 94,950 Section 221 BMIR 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 Section 235 59,800 68,350 76,900 85,400 92,250 99,100 105,900 112,750 =ncludes City of Shelton Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Council Members Municipality Representative Title Ansonia David Cassetti Mayor Beacon Falls Christopher Bielik First Selectman Bethlehem Leonard Assard First Selectman Bristol Ellen Zoppo -Sassu Mayor Cheshire Rob Oris Jr. Town Council Chairman Derby Richard Dziekan Mayor Middlebury Edward St. John First Selectman Naugatuck N. Warren “Pete ” Hess Mayor Oxford George Temple First Selectman Plymouth David Merchant Mayor Prospect Robert Chatfield Mayor Seymour W. Kurt Miller First Selectman Shelton Mark Lauretti Mayor Southbury Jeffrey Manville First Selectman Thomaston Edmond Mone First Selectman Waterbury Neil O'Leary Mayor Watertown Thomas Winn Town Council Chairman Wolcott Thomas Dunn Mayor Woodbury William Butterly, Jr. First Selectman
Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 2016
Naugatuck Valley Regional Economic Profile 2014
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
Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 2015
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 ………………………………………………………………