Publications Categories: Regional Profiles

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 Naugatuck Valley R e g i o n a l P r o f i l e 2 0 1 4 September 2014 A Report by T h e N a u g a t u c k Va l l e y Council of Governments Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Several tables and figures in this report compare data from the 2008 -2012 American Community Survey (ACS) five -year estimates to the 2000 Census. Beginning in 2005, the ACS replaced the long – form census as the source for detailed socioeconomic and housing data. The first complete ACS data set covered the years 2005 -2009. The 2008 -2012 ACS is a five -year estimate where a small percent- age of all households are sampled each year. ACS estimates repre- sent an average over the course of five years and are not equiva- lent to the 100 percent count data from the 2010 census. The ACS five -year estimates are not optimal for analyzing year to year trends because four of the five years of samples are reused in the next year’s estimates. One -year and three -year ACS data are only available for larger municipalities. The ACS surveys approximately 3 million households per year (roughly 2.5% of households) and aggregates the data on multi – year intervals. The long -form 2000 Census was given to approxi- mately 16% of households. Both data sets used samples to calcu- late estimates for the entire population. The differences in meth- odology between the long -form 2000 Census and the 2008 -2012 ACS make their comparisons difficult. However, because of the lack of related data sets, they were compared in several tables and maps. Readers should take note that these comparisons can help show general trends, but may be inaccurate in providing specific numbers. Front Cover: Panorama, Naugatuck River, Naugatuck State Forest, Connecticut © 2013 James A. Robertson All other photos were taken by NVCOG staff The material contained herein may be quoted or reproduced with- out special permission, although mention of the source is appreci- ated. The preparation of this report was financed through grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Admin- istration, and the Federal Transit Administration, and by contribu- tions from member municipalities of the Naugatuck Valley Region. Data Disclaimer Photo Credits Attribution Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table of Contents Chapter Page 1. Introduction ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 1 2. Population and Demographic Trends ………………………….. ……………….. 5 3. Economic Trends ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 11 4. Housing Trends ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 15 Appendices Page Appendix A: Population and Demographic Trends: Tables and Maps …. 19 Appendix B: Economic Trends: Tables and Maps ………………………….. …. 49 Appendix C: Housing Trends: Tables and Maps ………………………….. ……. 61 Appendix D: Other Regional Information ………………………….. ……………. 81 Depot Street Bridge, Beacon Falls Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 1 The following chapters present demo- graphic, economic, and housing data for the Naugatuck Valley Region, a 19 – town region in West Central Connecti- cut. Data comes from a variety of sources including the 2010 Decennial Census, the 2008 -2012 American Com- munity Survey (ACS), the Connecticut Department of Labor (DOL), and the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD). Summary of Findings This report examines past trends and provides an outlook for the future. In recent years, the region’s popula- tion, housing, and economic trends have been shaped by the 2007 to 2009 Great Recession and housing bubble. The recession hit the region harder and longer than the state and nation as a whole. As of 2013, the unemploy- ment rate remains high at 8.7%. While the region has added jobs since 2011, it remains well below pre -recession levels. During the early 2000s, the region ex- perienced a building boom, adding over 5,000 new housing units. The bursting of the housing bubble in 2008 brought new construction to a halt and led to a decline in home values . Since bottoming out in 2011, new home con- struction has picked up since 2012. The economic and housing crashes have brought population growth to a standstill. Adults are getting married later, families are having fewer chil- dren, and the lack of new housing has prevented new residents from moving in. In addition, the recession has led to a growth in poverty and a decline in household incomes. In the near future, the region will be shaped by the retirement of the baby boomers. A surge in the elderly popu- lation will put greater financial burdens on the workforce, and will lead to new fiscal challenges for municipalities. 1. Introduction Economy Population Housing Figure 1a. This report will examine the relationship between population, economic, and housing trends Lock 12 Historic Park, Cheshire 2 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Figure 1b. Composition of the Naugatuck Valley Region Urban Core Inner Ring Outer Ring Methodology is based on Data Haven’s Community Well Being Index Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 3 Composition of the Region While overall regional trends are in- formative, they fail to account for the differences that exist between munici- palities, or even neighborhoods within a municipality. Each scale of analysis tells a different story, and this report will show data in a variety of scales in order to provide as complete an over- view as possible. This report presents data at regional, subregional, municipal, and neighbor- hood scales. In order to highlight key trends among similar municipalities, a three -level subregional classification was developed (Figure 1b). Municipali- ties were classified as urban core, inner ring, or outer ring based on current and historic population, economic, and housing trends. Table 1a below high- lights some of the differences that exist between the urban core, inner ring, and outer ring communities. To supplement the regional and sub – regional scales, tables in the text and appendices present data for each mu- nicipality. Where applicable, neighbor- hood (block -group) level maps were created to highlight the differences that exist from neighborhood to neigh- borhood. Region Urban Core Inner Ring Outer Ring Population 2010 448,708 234,856 127,974 85,878 Population Density per sq. mi. 1,080 2,817 906 453 Population Growth 2000 -2010 + 4.8% + 2.4% +4.4% +12.1% Percent Minority 23.9% 36.6% 11.6% 7.3% Percent Foreign Born 10.6% 12.4% 9.0% 7.1% Percent Over Age 65 14.6% 13.3% 15.0% 17.7% Median Age 40.7 37.3 42.9 45.1 Median Household Income $64,700 $50,600 $84,500 $85,800 Poverty Rate 10.3% 15.6% 4.3% 4.4% Percent with Bachelors Degree 27.8% 19.7% 35.0% 38.3% Unemployment Rate 8.7% 10.3% 7.3% 6.6% Jobs 2013 155,182 76,481 54,689 24,012 Job Growth 2004 -2013 -1.4% -4.2% 2.7% -1.2% Housing Growth 2004 -2013 +3.8% +1.6% +5.6% +7.9% Average Household Size 2.55 2.50 2.62 2.60 Percent Single -Family Homes 65.2% 51.7% 78.9% 86.3% Homeownership Rate 70.1% 57.6% 82.7% 87.3% Median Home Value (2012) $249,000 $193,000 $299,000 $326,000 Table 1a. Subregional Population, Economic, and Housing Trends 4 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Urban Core During the 19th century, the urban core emerged as a leading manufactur- ing center for brass, copper, clocks, watches, and rubber products. The urban core has high levels of racial and income diversity, high population den- sity, good access to public transit, and plentiful affordable housing. The char- acter of the urban core varies signifi- cantly from neighborhood to neighbor- hood. Most of the region’s major insti- tutions, such as hospitals and higher education, call the urban core home. Inner Ring Inner ring communities contain a mix of urban and suburban characteristics. Smaller manufacturing centers such as Oakville, Terryville, and Shelton emerged in the 19th century, forming the historic cores of the inner ring mu- nicipalities. In the post World War II years, these communities became more suburban in character as urban core residents and young families moved in. Today, the population is highly educated and moderately di- verse. In the last decade, the inner ring has seen job growth as companies leave the urban core to be closer to their workforce. Outer Ring The traditionally rural outer ring has become more suburban in character over the last two decades. From 2000 to 2010, the outer ring population grew at 12.1%, far faster than the re- gion, state, and nation. These towns have the lowest population densities, the highest incomes, and the highest proportion of elderly residents. With few local jobs, most outer ring resi- dents commute to jobs in neighboring towns and cities. Urban Core The urban core is comprised of the region’s historic manufacturing centers. They have the highest population density and most diverse populations. Inner Ring Inner ring commu- nities contain a mix of urban and suburban charac- teristics. Outer Ring Traditionally rural outer ring commu- nities have seen explosive popula- tion growth over the last two dec- ades. Congregational Church, Cheshire Main Street, Ansonia Tranquility Farm, Middlebury Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 5 This chapter summarizes regional demographic trends such as population change, race and ethnicity, age, house- hold structure, education, and income. The major population and demograph- ic trends shaping the region are:  Population growth in the outer ring is outpacing the rest of the region.  All municipalities are becoming more racially and ethnically diverse.  In the next ten years, the region will see a large increase in retirees and a decline in school aged population.  Non -traditional households (non – married couples) are becoming more common.  There is a large education and in- come gap between the urban core and surrounding municipalities. Population Growth From 2000 to 2010, the region saw a modest 4.8% growth rate, adding 19,918 new residents. This was a faster growth rate than the 1990s, but much slower than the 1980s. About half of the population growth was due to nat- ural increase (births minus deaths), while the other half was due to in – migration from outside the region. De- mand for new single family homes in the early 2000s led to explosive growth in outer ring municipalities, which grew at 12.1%. The remainder of the region grew at a slower rate, with a 4.4% in- crease in the inner ring and a 2.4% in- crease in the urban core. Since 2010, population growth has stagnated as a result of the 2007 to 2009 recession and housing market crash. From 2007 to 2011, the number of births dropped by 14.4%. Many fam- ilies have delayed having children due to economic uncertainty and rising stu- dent loan debt. The lack of new home construction since 2008 has prevented new residents from moving to the re- gion, particularly in the outer ring. 2. Population and Demographic Trends Figure 2a. Population Growth in the Naugatuck Valley, by Location: 2000 to 2010 The Gathering, Waterbury 6 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Immigration and Migration While birth rates have fallen, immigra- tion and migration have allowed the region’s population to continue to grow at a modest rate. Just over 10% of the region’s population is foreign born, with the largest groups hailing from Portugal, Poland, Italy, the Do- minican Republic, and Jamaica. The region is also home to a large migrant population from Puerto Rico. From 2000 to 2010, the region had a net gain of 9,320 residents through in – migration. While the outer ring experi- enced a natural decrease in population (more deaths than births), they added 9,490 residents through in -migration (people moving into the region). At the other end of the spectrum, the urban core had a large natural increase (more births than deaths) offset by a loss of nearly 4,000 residents through out -migration. The inner ring saw a small natural increase and gained 3,787 residents through in -migration. Population Projections Population projections from the Con- necticut State Data Center indicate that up to 2025, the region’s popula- tion will continue to grow, but at a slower rate than in the past. From 2010 to 2025, the region is projected to grow by 4.9%, adding approximately 22,000 new residents. The outer ring is projected to grow at the fastest rate, adding 8,700 residents by 2025, a 10.1% increase. New home construction and in -migration will con- tinue to drive population growth in the outer ring. Middlebury and Oxford are projected to be the two fastest – growing municipalities in the region. In the inner ring, shrinking household size and an increase in elderly resi- dents means that new housing units are necessary to maintain population growth. The growth rate in the inner ring is expected to slow to just 2.2% between 2010 and 2025. Communities such as Cheshire and Shelton are close to being “built out” and have little developable land to support new hous- ing units. The population is projected to level out by 2020 in Cheshire and by 2025 in Shelton. Due to high birth rates, the urban core is projected to see modest growth up to 2025, adding over 10,000 new resi- dents. Waterbury, which has a much higher birth rate than the rest of the region, is projected to grow by 6.1%. While population projections are use- ful, they are unable to predict changes in the housing market and economy. The housing market will dictate where growth will occur, particularly for the inner and outer ring. Similarly, birth rates, migration, and immigration are closely tied to the economy. A growing economy generally sees higher popula- tion growth than a stagnant economy. Figure 2b. Projected Popula- tion Growth in the Naugatuck Valley, by Location: 2010 to 2025 Sources: Connecticut State Data Center, Population Projections by Municipality: 2015, 2020, and 2025. U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 7 Figure 2c. Race and Ethnicity in the Naugatuck Valley: 2000 and 2010 B l a c k 6.7% W h i t e 76.1% H i s p a n i c 12.7% A s i a n 2.3% 2010 O t h e r 2.2% 2000 B l a c k 5.4% W h i t e 83.1% H i s p a n i c 8.2% A s i a n 1.5% O t h e r 1.8% “Other” includes American =ndian/Alaska Natives, Pacific =slanders, Some Other Race, and Multiracial persons. Black, Asian, Other, and White populations only include non -:ispanic persons. Source: American Community Survey, 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, 2000 Census. Race and Ethnicity Immigration, migration, and higher birth rates among minority groups have made the region’s population more diverse than ever before. As of 2010, 86,052 residents were of a minority race or ethnicity, making up 23.9% of the total. This is an increase from 2000, when just 16.9% of the population be- longed to a minority group. From 2000 to 2010, the urban core experienced “white flight” as their non -Hispanic white populations declined by over 20,000. This coincided with rapid growth among Hispanics, African Amer- icans, and Asians. Waterbury is a minority -majority city, with 54.6% of its population belonging to a minority racial or ethnic group. Ansonia, Derby, Naugatuck, and Bristol have the next highest minority popula- tions. Outside of the urban core, less than 10% of the population belongs to a minority group, although this trend is changing. Between 2000 and 2010, in- ner ring and outer ring communities saw their minority populations grow at rates of 60.6% and 94.7% respectively, exceeding the urban core growth rate of 43.3%. Hispanics are the largest and fastest growing minority group in the region with a population of 57,176, a 63% in- crease from 2000. Hispanics now make up 12.7% of the population. A majority of Hispanics who live in the region are of Puerto Rican heritage, including nearly 25,000 who live in Waterbury. There was also sizable growth among African Americans, who make up 6.7% of the population. Asians, the second fastest growing minority group from 2000 to 2010 (61.9%), are more likely to live in the suburbs than the urban core. Figure 2c compares the racial and ethnic composition of the Naugatuck Valley in 2000 and 2010. 8 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Age The region’s population is aging. In 1990, the median age was 34.3. By 2000 it increased to 37.6, and by 2010 reached 40.7 years old. The urban core has the youngest median age at 37.3 years old while the outer ring is the oldest at 45.1 years old. From 2000 to 2010, the number of residents over the age of 65 increased by 5.1%, with the fastest growth in the inner ring (15.9%) and outer ring (26.5%). The urban core saw a decrease in elderly residents (-6.4%). The aging trend will accelerate as baby boomers reach retirement age. The population over the age of 65 is pro- jected to balloon from 66,227 in 2010 to over 100,000 by 2025. The working -aged (age 15 to 64) popu- lation is expected to stay stable up to 2020 and then decline slightly by 2025. As the baby boomers age into retire- ment, millennials (born between 1980 and 2000) will make up a greater por- tion of the region’s workforce. As of 2010 there are 83,735 children under the age of 15, making up 18.7% of the total. This age group is expected to decline to 70,805 by 2025. Inner ring and outer ring communities are projected to see their population un- der age 15 decrease by over 25%. The changing age structure of the re- gion will shift the financial burdens of municipalities. Budgets will shift away from education and youth services to- wards elderly services such as health care, transportation, and recreation. This is particularly true in inner and outer ring communities, where a dra- matic increase in elderly population will correspond with a decrease in school -aged population. Greater finan- cial burdens will be placed on the working aged population, who will have to support the growing number of retirees. Figure 2d. Population by Age in the Naugatuck Valley, 2010 and 2025 2025 2010 Source: Connecticut State Data Center, Population Projections: 2010 -2025 U.S. Census 2010 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 9 Household and Family Structure Household arrangements have changed as the average age of mar- riage increases, family sizes decrease, and life expectancy increases. For the first time in history, less than half of the region’s households are made up of married couples. Persons living alone, cohabitating couples, married couples without children, and single parent households are becoming more prevalent. Less than half of married couples have children age 18 and under. “Empty nesters” are becoming more common as the millennial generation ages, and many young couples have delayed hav- ing children in the last few years due to economic uncertainty. Household structure in the urban core differs significantly from the inner and outer ring communities. Just 40.5% of urban core households are married couples compared to 57.8% in the in- ner ring and 61.2% in the outer ring. A disproportionate number of single – parent households are found in the urban core. Education As of 2012, 27.8% of the region’s adults age 25 and over have a Bache- lor’s degree or higher. This compares to 28.5% of adults nationwide, and 36.1% statewide. There is a large dis- crepancy in educational attainment between the urban core and the re- mainder of the region. In the urban core, just 19.7% of the population age 25 and older has a Bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 35% in the in- ner ring, and 38.3% in the outer ring. Since 2000, educational attainment has improved across all municipalities. The number of residents with a Bache- lor’s degree increased by 28.7%, with the fastest increase occurring in the urban core. During the same period, the number of residents without a high school diploma dropped by over 25%. Education is strongly correlated with income. Persons with a college degree have much higher incomes than high school graduates. Municipalities with a higher proportion of college gradu- ates have higher incomes than less educated municipalities. Figure 2e be- low illustrates the relationship be- tween education and income. Urban Core Region Outer Ring Inner Ring Figure 2e. Educational Attainment and Household In- come, by Loca- tion 2008 -2012 $40, 000 $60, 000 $80, 000 $100,000 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% Me d i an Ho usehold In come Pe rce n t o f Ad ults with Bachelor’ s De grees 10 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Income and Poverty There is a large income gap between the urban core and remainder of the region. From 2008 to 2012, median household income in the urban core was $50,600 compared to $84,500 in the inner ring and $85,800 in the outer ring. Over a quarter of households in the urban core are low income (making less than $25,000 per year) compared to 12% in the inner ring and 11.6% in the outer ring. On the opposite end of the income spectrum, over 40% of households in the inner and outer ring are high income (making $100,000 or more per year) compared to less than 20% in the urban core. The Great Recession negatively im- pacted household and family income throughout the region. In addition, the growing number of elderly persons puts additional financial strain on households (retirees have less income than working -aged persons). Since 1999, median household income de- clined in 14 out of 19 municipalities. The highest drops in household income occurred in the outer ring towns of Southbury, Woodbury, and Bethlehem. These three towns have large and growing elderly populations. The number of people in poverty in- creased by 43.5% from 2000 to 2012. In 2000, there were 31,412 persons living in poverty (7.5% of total). By 2012, it had increased to 45,081 (10.3% of total). Poverty increased at an equal rate in urban core, inner ring, and outer ring municipalities. Water- bury, which has a poverty rate of 21.9%, is home to over half of the re- gion’s impoverished. Child poverty is a prevalent issue in the urban core, where 24.5% of chil- dren live below the poverty line. Anso- nia, Derby and Waterbury have child poverty rates exceeding 20%. Child poverty is also strongly correlated with household structure. Children in single parent households are 4.4 times more likely to live in poverty than house- holds with both parents present. Figure 2f. Percentage of Households that are Low Income and High Income, by Location, 2008 -2012 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 11 The Naugatuck Valley economy was hit hard by the 2007 to 2009 recession. The major economic trends shaping the region are:  Unemployment disproportionately affects young workers under the age of 25.  As of 2013, the region has gained back 42% of the jobs that were lost during the recession.  Jobs are suburbanizing. During the last ten years the inner ring saw job growth while the urban core lost jobs.  Over half of Naugatuck Valley resi- dents commute to jobs outside the region. Labor Force The labor force is made up of Nau- gatuck Valley residents over the age of 16 who are either employed, or are unemployed and looking for work. As of 2013, the region’s labor force was 231,896, of which 211,778 were em- ployed and 20,118 were unemployed. From 2010 to 2013 the state and re- gion experienced a labor force contrac- tion, meaning that there were fewer residents who were employed or look- ing for work. The labor force contrac- tion can be attributed to stagnant job growth, unemployed workers dropping out of the labor force, and a growing number of residents hitting retirement age. Data from the first half of 2014 indicates that the labor force is grow- ing for the first time since 2009. People who had difficulty finding work during the last few years are reentering the labor force as the job market im- proves. Employment As of 2013 there were 211,778 em- ployed residents living in the region. This is a decline of nearly 10,000 (-4.1%) from 2007, when there were 221,045 employed residents. The num- ber of employed residents decreased every year from 2008 to 2013. Population projections indicate that a significant number of baby boomers are nearing retirement age. The num- ber of working aged residents is pro- jected to remain stable up to 2020 and decline thereafter as the last of the baby boomers retire. Attracting and retaining young workers will be neces- sary to replace the growing number of retirees. 3. Economic Trends Shelton Corporate Park, Shelton 12 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Figure 3a. Labor Force, Employment and Unemployment in the Naugatuck Valley: 2013 Unemployment From 2007 to 2010 the region saw the number of unemployed residents more than double from 11,954 to 25,273. The jump in unemployment was caused by both job losses and labor force growth. Unemployment has de- creased each year since 2010. As of 2013, it stands at 20,118, or 8.7% of the labor force. The labor force con- traction (unemployed persons that have stopped looking for work) is re- sponsible for some of the drop in un- employment. Despite improvements over the last three years, the unem- ployment rate remains above state and national averages. Figure 3a sum- marizes labor force, employment, and unemployment trends over the last 20 years. Unemployment trends vary by location and age. As of 2013, unemployment is highest in the urban core communities of Waterbury (12.5%), Naugatuck (9.4%), and Ansonia (9.3%) and lowest in the outer ring communities of Beth- lehem (5.8%), Woodbury (5.9%), and Middlebury (5.9%). Due to the collapse of the stock market from 2007 to 2009, many older work- ers have continued to work into retire- ment age. This trend, combined with the lack of new job creation, has led to a disproportionately high unemploy- ment rate among young people. The unemployment rate for residents un- der the age of 25 is 18.4% compared to 8.8% for middle aged workers (age 25 – 44) and 7.7% for older workers (age 45 and older). Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 13 Jobs During the recession, the region expe- rienced sharper job losses than the state and nation as a whole. From 2007 to 2011, 12,337 jobs were lost, a decline of 7.6%. The manufacturing, finance and insurance, and construc- tion sectors experienced the sharpest job losses. Some sectors, such as health care and social assistance, and educational services, added jobs during the recession. These sectors have tra- ditionally been “recession -proof.” Since 2011 the economy has improved, adding over 5,000 jobs. As of 2013, the region has gained back 41.8% of the jobs that were lost during the reces- sion. Comparatively, the state has gained back 87.8% of the jobs that were lost during the recession. As of 2013 there are 155,182 jobs in the region. Despite job losses during the last ten years, Waterbury remains the job center of the region followed by Shelton, Bristol, and Cheshire. As the population shifts to the suburbs, many employers have followed in or- der to be closer to their workforce. From 2004 to 2013, the urban core lost over 3,000 jobs while the inner ring gained nearly 1,500 jobs, mostly in Shelton and Cheshire. Outer ring towns with good highway access (such as Ox- ford and Middlebury) also saw job growth. Over the last half century, the region has shifted from a manufacturing – oriented economy to a service – oriented one. Health care and social assistance is now the largest job sector followed by government (which in- cludes public school teachers). While much less prominent than in the past, manufacturing remains the third larg- est sector of the region’s economy, with over 20,000 jobs. A majority of manufacturing jobs are now located outside of the urban core. Employment projections from the Con- necticut Department of Labor indicate that the health care and social assis- tance sector will drive job creation up to 2020, largely due to increased de- mand for health care by the baby boomers. Other sectors projected to add jobs up to 2020 are professional and business services, and construc- tion, although the latter is largely de- pendent on the housing market. Figure 3b. ESPN in Bristol is the largest employer in the region, with 3,800 workers 14 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Commuting There is a large mismatch between the number of employed residents living in the region and the number of jobs in the region. There are enough jobs to employ just 73% of working residents. The result is a net export of over 56,000 workers each day to other re- gions, with many commuting to Hart- ford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Danbury, and lower Fairfield County. Cheshire, Middlebury, Shelton, and Southbury are the only municipalities in the region that have more jobs than employed residents. The remaining municipalities have more employed residents than jobs and are net export- ers of commuters. As of 2011, when the most recent com- muting data was available, just 41.3% of employed Naugatuck Valley resi- dents worked in the region. The re- maining 58.7% commute to jobs out- side of the region. Waterbury is the most popular commuting destination followed by Bristol and Shelton. Out- side of the region, the most popular destinations are Hartford, New Haven, Stratford, Bridgeport, and Danbury. Similarly, nearly half of the people who work in the Naugatuck Valley live out- side of the region. Wages The average wage of workers in the region is $54,913 which is above the national average of $46,440, but below the state average of $62,284. Since 2007, the region has seen wages de- crease at a smaller rate ( -0.4%) than the state, which declined by -3.7%. Average wages vary significantly from sector to sector. The Management of Companies and Enterprises has an av- erage wage of over $275,000, while the Accommodation and Food Services Sector has an average wage of just $16,600. Table 3a below shows the highest and lowest wage sectors in the region. Sector Average Wage Management of Companies and Enterprises $276,336 Information $107,270 Utilities $105,116 Finance and Insurance $85,416 Manufacturing $72,651 Top 5 Highest Paying Sectors Bottom 5 Lowest Paying Sectors Table 3a. Highest and Lowest Paying Sectors of the Naugatuck Val- ley Economy: 2013 Sector Average Wage Accommodation and Food Services $16,602 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation $19,143 Other Services $24,233 Retail Trade $29,504 Agriculture $30,066 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 15 In recent years, the housing market has been shaped by the Great Reces- sion and ensuing housing bubble. The major housing trends shaping the region are:  New construction in the outer ring is outpacing new construction in the rest of the region.  Since peaking in 2005, new con- struction decreased -82% by 2009.  Home prices grew rapidly from 2003 to 2007, but have declined each year since 2007.  Homes in the region are more af- fordable than the state as a whole.  Most of the affordable housing in the region is found in the urban core. New Construction During the early 2000s the region ex- perienced a building boom. New con- struction peaked from 2002 to 2005 when over 5,000 housing units were built. The vast majority (85%) of new homes were single -family homes. Shel- ton and Oxford led the region in new construction. Shelton added 826 hous- ing units (340 of which were multi – family) while Oxford added 715 single family units. Similar to population trends, housing growth was fastest in the outer ring (7.9%) and inner ring (5.6%). Due to shrinking household sizes, housing has grown at a faster rate than the number of households. New home construction peaked in 2005 with 1,676 units, but fell to just 302 units in 2009 as the national hous- ing bubble burst. New construction has remained well below its historic levels since then. The multi family market has picked up pace in 2012 and 2013 due to apartment and condominium con- struction in Shelton. Construction of new single family homes has remained stagnant. 4. Housing Trends Figure 4a. Newly Constructed Housing Units in the Naugatuck Valley, by Unit Size: 2004 to 2013 Oxford Greens, Oxford 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Singl e Fa mily Multi Fa mily 16 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Urban Core Originally built to house factory workers, two and three family homes are com- monly found throughout the urban core. Inner Ring Containing a mix of both urban and suburban charac- teristics, the inner ring offers a varie- ty of housing op- tions. Outer Ring Since 1990, much of the new con- struction in the region has oc- curred in the outer ring. Single -family homes on large lots have been the predominant form of development. Housing Stock As of 2013, the region has 186,044 housing units. Single -family homes comprise 65% of units. Outer ring com- munities such as Oxford, Bethlehem, and Prospect are made up almost en- tirely of single -family homes. By con- trast, a vast majority of the region’s multi -family housing units are found in the urban core. However, in the last decade, a majority of the new multi – family units were built outside of the urban core. Homes in the inner and outer ring are larger and newer than their urban core counterparts. The median year of con- struction for the region is 1965. The urban core has the oldest housing stock (1959) followed by the inner ring (1969) and outer ring (1974). Suburban homes are also larger. Over 60% of housing units in the inner and outer rings have six or more rooms compared to 41.3% in the urban core. Home Ownership As of 2012, 70.1% of households in the region live in an owner -occupied home. This is slightly higher than the 68.3% homeownership rate statewide. Out- side the core, over 80% of households live in owner -occupied homes. Three – quarters of all rental units are located in the urban core. Homeownership trends also vary by type of housing unit and income. Single family units are much more likely to be owner occupied (91.9%) than multi – family units (24.3%). High income households are more likely to own a home than low income households. Less than 40% of households that make under $25,000 live in an owner – occupied unit compared to over 90% for households that make over $100,000. Katharine Matthies House, Seymour Wolcott Green Historic District, Wolcott West End neighborhood, Bristol Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 17 Home Values In keeping with national and state trends, the region saw rapid home val- ue appreciation in the early 2000s. From 2003 to 2007, the equalized net grand list, or ENGL, (the total market value of all properties in the region) increased by 36.2%, or nearly $16 bil- lion. While the bulk of the increase was due to overvalued real estate, some of the increase was due to new construc- tion. After peaking in 2007, the hous- ing market began its subsequent col- lapse. From 2007 to 2012, the ENGL dropped by -24%, a loss of $14.5 bil- lion. The urban core saw the highest ENGL growth from 2003 to 2007 (38.7%) followed by the sharpest de- cline from 2007 to 2012 ( -26.6%). Fig- ure 4b shows changes in inflation ad- justed ENGL from 2002 to 2013. The drop in property values and mu- nicipal grand list value has led to fiscal challenges for municipalities, who have been forced to either raise property tax rates, cut services, or both. In addi- tion, many homeowners have negative equity (their home is worth less than their mortgage) leading to increases in foreclosure and home vacancy. Despite volatility in the housing market over the last few years, the region re- mains more affordable than the state as a whole. The median home value for owner occupied units in the region is $249,000, compared to $285,900 statewide. Eleven of the 19 municipali- ties in the region are more affordable than the statewide median. Homes are most affordable in the urban core ($193,000) while the inner ($299,000) and outer ($326,000) rings have the most expensive homes. Figure 4b. Inflation Adjusted Equalized Net Grand List, by Location: 2003 to 2012 Urban Core Inner Ring Outer Ring Source: Connecticut Office of Policy and Management, Municipal Fiscal =ndicators Report, 2008 -2012, and 2003 -2007 $0 $10, 000 $20, 000 $30, 000 $40, 000 $50, 000 $60, 000 $70, 000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Equalized Net Grand List ($millions) Year 18 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Housing Costs Monthly homeowner costs and month- ly rent also provide insight into the re- gion’s affordability. Median monthly homeowner costs range from a low of $1,420 in Water- bury to $2,062 in Cheshire. Homeown- ers with a mortgage pay more than twice as much per month as homeown- ers without a mortgage. From 2000 to 2012, median monthly homeowner costs have risen between 7% and 25% depending on the municipality . Non – mortgaged homeowner costs increased at a faster rate than mortgage costs, suggesting that fuel prices, electricity rates, taxes, and insurance are increas- ing . Renters pay less per month than home- owners. Median gross rents (lease amount plus utilities) range from a low of $478 in Middlebury to $1,490 in Ox- ford. Rent has not increased as fast as homeowner costs. In five outer ring towns, inflation -adjusted rents actually decreased from 2002 to 2012 . Affordable Housing The U.S. Census Bureau uses 30% of household income as a standard for measuring housing affordability. In or- der to be considered affordable, home- owners should pay 30% or less of their income towards housing. As of 2012, 40.6% of households pay 30% or more of their income towards housing. Renters (49.5%) are more likely to pay 30% or more of their income towards housing than homeowners (36.9%). More than half of urban core residents pay 30% or more of their income for housing. Low income households may qualify for publicly assisted housing programs such as Section 8 vouchers, deed re- strictions, and Connecticut Housing Finance Authority (CHFA) or Farmer’s Home Administration (FmHA) mortgag- es. Over 85% of publicly assisted hous- ing units are found in the urban core, including more than half in the City of Waterbury. Municipalities that have less than 10% affordable housing are subject to Con- necticut General Statutes (CGS) Section 8-30g, which exempts affordable hous- ing developments from local zoning regulations. Ansonia (15.3%), Bristol (13.5%), Derby (10.8%), and Waterbury (23.3%) are the only municipalities that meet the 10% affordable housing threshold. The remaining municipalities have less than 10% affordable housing and are subject to CGS Section 8 -30g. Figure 4c. Percent of Housing Units that are Affordable, by Location: 2013 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 19 Appendix A Population and Demographic Trends Tables and Maps Topic Page Population ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. . 20 Population Density ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 22 Race and Ethnicity ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 24 Hispanic Population ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 26 Age Distribution ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 28 Elderly Population ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 30 Median Age ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………………. 32 Income Distribution ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 34 Income ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……. 36 Poverty ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 38 Household Structure ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 40 Educational Attainment ………………………….. ………………………….. ………… 44 Population Projections ………………………….. ………………………….. ………….. 46 Waterbury on Wheels 20 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A1. Population Growth in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2000 -2013 Population Percent Change Geography 2013 2010 2000 2010 -2013 2000 -2013 Ansonia 19,020 19,249 18,554 -1.2% 2.5% Beacon Falls 6,052 6,049 5,246 0.0% 15.4% Bethlehem 3,553 3,607 3,422 -1.5% 3.8% Bristol 60,568 60,477 60,062 0.2% 0.8% Cheshire 29,150 29,261 28,543 -0.4% 2.1% Derby 12,801 12,902 12,391 -0.8% 3.3% Middlebury 7,571 7,575 6,451 -0.1% 17.4% Naugatuck 31,707 31,862 30,989 -0.5% 2.3% Oxford 12,874 12,683 9,821 1.5% 31.1% Plymouth 12,047 12,213 11,634 -1.4% 3.5% Prospect 9,671 9,405 8,707 2.8% 11.1% Seymour 16,571 16,540 15,454 0.2% 7.2% Shelton 40,999 39,559 38,101 3.6% 7.6% Southbury 19,859 19,904 18,567 -0.2% 7.0% Thomaston 7,761 7,887 7,503 -1.6% 3.4% Waterbury 109,676 110,366 107,271 -0.6% 2.2% Watertown 22,228 22,514 21,661 -1.3% 2.6% Wolcott 16,725 16,680 15,215 0.3% 9.9% Woodbury 9,822 9,975 9,198 -1.5% 6.8% Region Total 448,655 448,708 428,790 0.0% 4.6% Urban Core 233,772 234,856 229,267 -0.5% 2.4% Inner Ring 128,756 127,974 122,896 0.6% 4.1% Outer Ring 86,127 85,878 76,627 0.3% 12.1% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 Population Estimates, 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 21 Figure A1. Population in the Naugatuck Valley, by Census Block: 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census 22 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A2. Population Density in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2000 -2013 Land Area % Change Population Density (Per Sq. Mi.) Geography (Sq. Mi.) 2013 2010 2000 2000 -2013 Ansonia 6.2 3,074 3,111 2,999 2.5% Beacon Falls 9.8 619 618 536 15.4% Bethlehem 19.7 181 183 174 3.8% Bristol 26.8 2,259 2,255 2,240 0.8% Cheshire 33.4 874 877 856 2.1% Derby 5.4 2,368 2,387 2,292 3.3% Middlebury 18.4 410 411 350 17.4% Naugatuck 16.4 1,933 1,943 1,890 2.3% Oxford 33.3 386 380 295 31.1% Plymouth 22.3 539 547 521 3.5% Prospect 14.5 668 650 602 11.1% Seymour 15.0 1,106 1,104 1,032 7.2% Shelton 31.9 1,285 1,240 1,194 7.6% Southbury 40.1 496 497 463 7.0% Thomaston 12.2 636 646 615 3.4% Waterbury 28.9 3,790 3,813 3,706 2.2% Watertown 29.5 753 763 734 2.6% Wolcott 21.1 793 791 721 9.9% Woodbury 36.6 268 272 251 6.8% Region Total 421.5 1,064 1,064 1,017 4.6% Urban Core 83.7 2,791 2,804 2,738 2.0% Inner Ring 144.3 892 887 852 4.8% Outer Ring 193.5 445 444 396 12.4% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 Population Estimates , 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 23 Figure A2. Population Density in the Naugatuck Valley, by Census Block: 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census 24 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A3. Race and Ethnicity in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2010 Non Hispanic Hispanic or Latino Percent Minority Geography White Black Asian Other Ansonia 13,163 2,040 365 469 3,212 31.6% Beacon Falls 5,515 87 70 77 300 8.8% Bethlehem 3,477 16 18 35 61 3.6% Bristol 50,194 2,035 1,155 1,264 5,829 17.0% Cheshire 24,637 1,374 1,477 398 1,375 15.8% Derby 9,599 891 323 259 1,830 25.6% Middlebury 6,925 67 286 89 208 8.6% Naugatuck 25,767 1,427 962 777 2,929 19.1% Oxford 11,745 134 195 141 468 7.4% Plymouth 11,494 94 98 187 370 6.1% Prospect 8,740 175 73 105 312 7.1% Seymour 14,516 395 359 206 1,064 12.2% Shelton 34,333 865 1,522 486 2,353 13.2% Southbury 18,462 156 531 232 523 7.2% Thomaston 7,511 27 58 89 202 4.8% Waterbury 50,081 19,654 1,933 4,252 34,446 54.6% Watertown 20,707 292 376 301 838 8.0% Wolcott 15,360 261 205 243 611 7.9% Woodbury 9,366 55 167 142 245 6.1% Region Total 341,592 30,045 10,173 9,752 57,176 23.9% Urban Core 148,804 26,047 4,738 7,021 48,246 36.6% Inner Ring 113,198 3,047 3,890 1,667 6,202 11.6% Outer Ring 79,590 951 1,545 1,064 2,728 7.3% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau , 2010 U.S. Census Note: “Other” category includes Pacific =slander, American =ndian/Alaska Natives, Other, or 2 or more aces Minority population includes Black, Asian, Other, and :ispanic populations Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 25 Figure A3. Minority Population in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census Note: Minority population includes Black, Asian, Other, and :ispanic populations 26 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A4. Hispanic Population in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2000 -2010 Number Percent of Total % Change 2000 -2010 Geography 2010 2000 2010 2000 Ansonia 3,212 1,376 16.7% 7.4% 133.4% Beacon Falls 300 112 5.0% 2.1% 167.9% Bethlehem 61 22 1.7% 0.6% 177.3% Bristol 5,829 3,166 9.6% 5.3% 84.1% Cheshire 1,375 1,097 4.7% 3.8% 25.3% Derby 1,830 950 14.2% 7.7% 92.6% Middlebury 208 79 2.7% 1.2% 163.3% Naugatuck 2,929 1,386 9.2% 4.5% 111.3% Oxford 468 180 3.7% 1.8% 160.0% Plymouth 370 147 3.0% 1.3% 151.7% Prospect 312 168 3.3% 1.9% 85.7% Seymour 1,064 470 6.4% 3.0% 126.4% Shelton 2,353 1,326 5.9% 3.5% 77.5% Southbury 523 296 2.6% 1.6% 76.7% Thomaston 202 109 2.6% 1.5% 85.3% Waterbury 34,446 23,354 31.2% 21.8% 47.5% Watertown 838 406 3.7% 1.9% 106.4% Wolcott 611 273 3.7% 1.8% 123.8% Woodbury 245 152 2.5% 1.7% 61.2% Region Total 57,176 35,069 12.7% 8.2% 63.0% Urban Core 48,246 30,232 20.5% 13.2% 59.6% Inner Ring 6,202 3,555 4.8% 2.9% 74.5% Outer Ring 2,728 1,282 3.2% 1.7% 112.8% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 27 Figure A4. Hispanic Population in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census 28 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A5. Age Distribution in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2010 Total Population Age Group Geography Under 5 Years 5-17 Years 18 -24 Years 25 -34 Years 35 -44 Years 45 -64 Years > 64 Years Ansonia 19,249 1,184 3,395 1,643 2,629 2,599 5,207 2,592 Beacon Falls 6,049 321 1,056 428 635 939 1,887 783 Bethlehem 3,607 132 615 241 227 448 1,405 539 Bristol 60,477 3,416 9,547 4,790 8,194 8,399 17,105 9,026 Cheshire 29,261 1,291 5,802 2,299 2,443 4,187 9,137 4,102 Derby 12,902 804 1,904 1,067 1,777 1,809 3,526 2,015 Middlebury 7,575 355 1,508 431 514 1,125 2,340 1,302 Naugatuck 31,862 1,887 5,493 2,735 4,504 4,545 8,892 3,806 Oxford 12,683 683 2,402 726 993 1,927 4,240 1,712 Plymouth 12,243 589 2,118 920 1,335 1,802 3,912 1,567 Prospect 9,405 428 1,696 711 702 1,367 3,076 1,425 Seymour 16,540 858 2,760 1,235 1,852 2,438 5,047 2,350 Shelton 39,559 1,851 6,487 2,640 3,844 5,372 12,462 6,903 Southbury 19,904 707 3,343 959 1,077 2,252 6,331 5,235 Thomaston 7,887 364 1,451 531 745 1,210 2,539 1,047 Waterbury 110,366 7,920 20,345 11,095 15,600 14,647 26,816 13,943 Watertown 22,514 1,047 3,812 1,598 2,186 2,983 7,251 3,637 Wolcott 16,680 736 3,172 1,302 1,363 2,439 5,128 2,540 Woodbury 9,975 396 1,703 551 759 1,250 3,613 1,703 Region Total 448,738 24,969 78,609 35,902 51,379 61,738 129,914 66,227 Urban Core 234,856 15,211 40,684 21,330 32,704 31,999 61,546 31,382 Inner Ring 128,004 6,000 22,430 9,223 12,405 17,992 40,348 19,606 Outer Ring 85,878 3,758 15,495 5,349 6,270 11,747 28,020 15,239 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 29 Table A6. Age Distribution (Percent) in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality 2010 Age Group Geography Under 5 Years 5-17 Years 18 -24 Years 25 -34 Years 35 -44 Years 45 -64 Years Over 64 Years Ansonia 6.2% 17.6% 8.5% 13.7% 13.5% 27.1% 13.5% Beacon Falls 5.3% 17.5% 7.1% 10.5% 15.5% 31.2% 12.9% Bethlehem 3.7% 17.1% 6.7% 6.3% 12.4% 39.0% 14.9% Bristol 5.6% 15.8% 7.9% 13.5% 13.9% 28.3% 14.9% Cheshire 4.4% 19.8% 7.9% 8.3% 14.3% 31.2% 14.0% Derby 6.2% 14.8% 8.3% 13.8% 14.0% 27.3% 15.6% Middlebury 4.7% 19.9% 5.7% 6.8% 14.9% 30.9% 17.2% Naugatuck 5.9% 17.2% 8.6% 14.1% 14.3% 27.9% 11.9% Oxford 5.4% 18.9% 5.7% 7.8% 15.2% 33.4% 13.5% Plymouth 4.8% 17.3% 7.5% 10.9% 14.7% 32.0% 12.8% Prospect 4.6% 18.0% 7.6% 7.5% 14.5% 32.7% 15.2% Seymour 5.2% 16.7% 7.5% 11.2% 14.7% 30.5% 14.2% Shelton 4.7% 16.4% 6.7% 9.7% 13.6% 31.5% 17.4% Southbury 3.6% 16.8% 4.8% 5.4% 11.3% 31.8% 26.3% Thomaston 4.6% 18.4% 6.7% 9.4% 15.3% 32.2% 13.3% Waterbury 7.2% 18.4% 10.1% 14.1% 13.3% 24.3% 12.6% Watertown 4.7% 16.9% 7.1% 9.7% 13.2% 32.2% 16.2% Wolcott 4.4% 19.0% 7.8% 8.2% 14.6% 30.7% 15.2% Woodbury 4.0% 17.1% 5.5% 7.6% 12.5% 36.2% 17.1% Region Total 5.6% 17.5% 8.0% 11.4% 13.8% 29.0% 14.8% Urban Core 6.5% 17.3% 9.1% 13.9% 13.6% 26.2% 13.4% Inner Ring 4.7% 17.5% 7.2% 9.7% 14.1% 31.5% 15.3% Outer Ring 4.4% 18.0% 6.2% 7.3% 13.7% 32.6% 17.7% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census 30 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A7. Population Age 65 Years Old and Over in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2000 -2010 2010 2000 % Change Geography Number Percent Number Percent 2000 -2010 Ansonia 2,592 13.5% 2,871 15.5% -9.7% Beacon Falls 783 12.9% 506 9.6% 54.7% Bethlehem 539 14.9% 440 12.9% 22.5% Bristol 9,026 14.9% 8,925 14.9% 1.1% Cheshire 4,102 14.0% 3,592 12.6% 14.2% Derby 2,015 15.6% 2,059 16.6% -2.1% Middlebury 1,302 17.2% 1,067 16.5% 22.0% Naugatuck 3,806 11.9% 3,633 11.7% 4.8% Oxford 1,712 13.5% 857 8.7% 99.8% Plymouth 1,567 12.8% 1,473 12.7% 6.4% Prospect 1,425 15.2% 1,153 13.2% 23.6% Seymour 2,350 14.2% 2,221 14.4% 5.8% Shelton 6,903 17.4% 5,672 14.9% 21.7% Southbury 5,235 26.3% 4,841 26.1% 8.1% Thomaston 1,047 13.3% 909 12.1% 15.2% Waterbury 13,943 12.6% 16,045 15.0% -13.1% Watertown 3,637 16.2% 3,050 14.1% 19.2% Wolcott 2,540 15.2% 1,992 13.1% 27.5% Woodbury 1,703 17.1% 1,193 13.0% 42.7% Region Total 66,227 14.8% 62,499 14.6% 6.0% Urban Core 31,382 13.4% 33,533 14.6% -6.4% Inner Ring 19,606 15.3% 16,917 13.8% 15.9% Outer Ring 15,239 17.7% 12,049 15.7% 26.5% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 31 Figure A5. Population Age 65 Years Old and Over in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census 32 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A8. Median Age in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 1980 to 2010 Median Age % Change Geography 2010 2000 1990 1990 -2010 Ansonia 38.4 36.8 34.0 12.9% Beacon Falls 41.5 36.7 32.6 27.3% Bethlehem 47.1 42.2 36.2 30.1% Bristol 40.3 37.6 33.7 19.6% Cheshire 42.2 38.4 35.5 18.9% Derby 40.3 37.7 35.6 13.2% Middlebury 43.9 42.8 40.1 9.5% Naugatuck 38.2 35.5 32.2 18.6% Oxford 43.4 38.4 34.0 27.6% Plymouth 41.9 37.5 33.9 23.6% Prospect 43.8 39.4 36.3 20.7% Seymour 41.6 38.5 34.7 19.9% Shelton 44.4 39.8 35.3 25.8% Southbury 49.9 45.7 42.9 16.3% Thomaston 42.5 37.8 34.1 24.6% Waterbury 35.2 34.9 33.3 5.7% Watertown 44.0 39.0 35.6 23.6% Wolcott 42.7 38.1 35.5 20.3% Woodbury 46.9 41.0 37.0 26.8% Region Total 40.1 37.6 34.3 16.9% Urban Core 37.3 35.9 33.2 12.3% Inner Ring 42.9 38.7 35.0 22.6% Outer Ring 45.1 40.6 37.4 20.6% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census, 2000 U.S. Census, 1990 U.S. Census Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 33 Figure A6. Median Age in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census 34 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A9. Household Income Distribution in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2008 -2012 Total Households Household Income ($) Geography Less than $25,000 $25,000 – $49,999 $50,000 – $74,999 $75,000 – $99,999 $100,000 or More Ansonia 7,380 1,606 1,827 1,234 1,202 1,511 Beacon Falls 2,244 249 446 362 366 821 Bethlehem 1,409 155 230 216 318 490 Bristol 25,231 4,632 5,943 5,108 3,654 5,894 Cheshire 9,528 800 1,094 1,107 1,114 5,413 Derby 5,195 1,237 1,168 1,029 667 1,094 Middlebury 2,797 272 411 315 451 1,348 Naugatuck 12,461 2,401 2,719 2,258 1,776 3,307 Oxford 4,420 277 464 542 653 2,484 Plymouth 4,739 604 751 1,062 848 1,474 Prospect 3,280 260 491 469 600 1,460 Seymour 6,313 1,161 864 1,168 912 2,208 Shelton 15,019 1,720 2,507 2,564 1,980 6,248 Southbury 8,022 1,441 1,700 1,114 746 3,021 Thomaston 3,192 393 642 686 432 1,039 Waterbury 42,241 13,508 10,815 7,850 4,513 5,555 Watertown 8,578 996 1,581 1,407 1,500 3,094 Wolcott 5,947 664 944 1,124 1,055 2,160 Woodbury 4,204 447 808 713 568 1,668 Region Total 172,200 32,823 35,405 30,328 23,355 50,289 Urban Core 92,508 23,384 22,472 17,479 11,812 17,361 Inner Ring 47,369 5,674 7,439 7,994 6,786 19,476 Outer Ring 32,323 3,765 5,494 4,855 4,757 13,452 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B19001 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 35 Table A10. Household Income Distribution (Percent) in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality 2008 -2012 Household Income ($) Geography Less than $25,000 $25,000 – $49,999 $50,000 – $74,999 $75,000 – $99,999 $100,000 or More Ansonia 21.8% 24.8% 16.7% 16.3% 20.5% Beacon Falls 11.1% 19.9% 16.1% 16.3% 36.6% Bethlehem 11.0% 16.3% 15.3% 22.6% 34.8% Bristol 18.4% 23.6% 20.2% 14.5% 23.4% Cheshire 8.4% 11.5% 11.6% 11.7% 56.8% Derby 23.8% 22.5% 19.8% 12.8% 21.1% Middlebury 9.7% 14.7% 11.3% 16.1% 48.2% Naugatuck 19.3% 21.8% 18.1% 14.3% 26.5% Oxford 6.3% 10.5% 12.3% 14.8% 56.2% Plymouth 12.7% 15.8% 22.4% 17.9% 31.1% Prospect 7.9% 15.0% 14.3% 18.3% 44.5% Seymour 18.4% 13.7% 18.5% 14.4% 35.0% Shelton 11.5% 16.7% 17.1% 13.2% 41.6% Southbury 18.0% 21.2% 13.9% 9.3% 37.7% Thomaston 12.3% 20.1% 21.5% 13.5% 32.6% Waterbury 32.0% 25.6% 18.6% 10.7% 13.2% Watertown 11.6% 18.4% 16.4% 17.5% 36.1% Wolcott 11.2% 15.9% 18.9% 17.7% 36.3% Woodbury 10.6% 19.2% 17.0% 13.5% 39.7% Region Total 19.1% 20.6% 17.6% 13.6% 29.2% Urban Core 25.3% 24.3% 18.9% 12.8% 18.8% Inner Ring 12.0% 15.7% 16.9% 14.3% 41.1% Outer Ring 11.6% 17.0% 15.0% 14.7% 41.6% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B19001 36 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A11. Income in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 1999 -2012 (Inflation Adjusted) Median Household Income Median Family Income Geography 2012 1999 % Change 2012 1999 % Change Ansonia $54,720 $59,294 -7.7% $67,500 $74,029 -8.8% Beacon Falls $79,207 $77,989 1.6% $91,337 $86,078 6.1% Bethlehem $80,884 $94,458 -14.4% $93,657 $108,681 -13.8% Bristol $58,814 $65,352 -10.0% $74,185 $80,287 -7.6% Cheshire $110,587 $110,890 -0.3% $124,241 $125,096 -0.7% Derby $54,561 $62,938 -13.3% $63,967 $75,403 -15.2% Middlebury $97,996 $97,113 0.9% $107,188 $112,136 -4.4% Naugatuck $62,574 $70,623 -11.4% $76,846 $81,606 -5.8% Oxford $107,308 $106,287 1.0% $118,221 $110,830 6.7% Plymouth $73,603 $74,073 -0.6% $86,204 $86,283 -0.1% Prospect $95,325 $93,104 2.4% $102,083 $102,032 0.1% Seymour $73,099 $72,223 1.2% $92,350 $89,593 3.1% Shelton $83,755 $92,735 -9.7% $102,459 $104,078 -1.6% Southbury $67,195 $85,331 -21.3% $105,057 $111,776 -6.0% Thomaston $67,426 $74,827 -9.9% $83,096 $87,760 -5.3% Waterbury $40,867 $47,248 -13.5% $48,407 $58,294 -17.0% Watertown $80,899 $81,887 -1.2% $97,433 $94,760 2.8% Wolcott $80,655 $84,582 -4.6% $89,183 $93,135 -4.2% Woodbury $80,167 $94,155 -14.9% $101,063 $113,888 -11.3% Region Total $64,700 $69,870 -7.4% $81,000 $85,029 -4.7% Urban Core $50,600 $57,329 -11.7% $61,900 $70,421 -12.1% Inner Ring $84,500 $86,958 -2.8% $102,200 $100,188 2.0% Outer Ring $85,800 $91,368 -6.1% $101,800 $103,909 -2.0% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B19113, B19301 2000 U.S. Census [ CP= =nflation Rate 1999 -2012: 1.3781] Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 37 Figure A7. Median Household Income in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2008 -2012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B19013, 38 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A12. Poverty in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2000 -2012 2012 2000 Change 2000 -2012 Geography Number Percent Number Percent Net Percent Ansonia 2,651 13.9% 1,394 7.6% 1,257 90.2% Beacon Falls 231 3.8% 309 5.9% -78 -25.2% Bethlehem 155 4.4% 89 2.6% 66 74.2% Bristol 5,375 9.0% 3,921 6.6% 1,454 37.1% Cheshire 750 2.8% 750 3.0% 0 0.0% Derby 1,675 13.3% 1,014 8.3% 661 65.2% Middlebury 191 2.6% 174 2.7% 17 9.8% Naugatuck 2,708 8.6% 1,977 6.4% 731 37.0% Oxford 572 4.5% 206 2.1% 366 177.7% Plymouth 812 6.7% 470 4.1% 342 72.8% Prospect 299 3.2% 89 1.0% 210 236.0% Seymour 1,104 6.8% 573 3.7% 531 92.7% Shelton 1,708 4.4% 1,208 3.2% 500 41.4% Southbury 1,235 6.4% 878 4.9% 357 40.7% Thomaston 210 2.7% 311 4.2% -101 -32.5% Waterbury 23,632 21.9% 16,774 16.0% 6,858 40.9% Watertown 757 3.4% 471 2.2% 286 60.7% Wolcott 561 3.4% 392 2.6% 169 43.1% Woodbury 455 4.6% 412 4.5% 43 10.4% Region Total 45,081 10.3% 31,412 7.5% 13,669 43.5% Urban Core 36,041 15.6% 25,080 11.1% 10,961 43.7% Inner Ring 5,341 4.3% 3,783 3.2% 1,558 41.2% Outer Ring 3,699 4.4% 2,549 3.4% 1,150 45.1% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, C17002 2000 U.S. Census Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 39 Figure A8. Poverty Rate in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2008 -2012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, C17002 40 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A13. Household Structure in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2000 -2012 Total Households Family Households Non -Family Households Geography Single Parent Married Couple Ansonia 7,510 24.3% 42.7% 33.0% Beacon Falls 2,360 13.3% 57.4% 29.2% Bethlehem 1,411 11.1% 60.7% 28.2% Bristol 25,320 17.6% 45.0% 37.5% Cheshire 10,041 10.8% 64.1% 25.1% Derby 5,388 20.5% 39.6% 39.8% Middlebury 2,748 10.4% 66.3% 23.3% Naugatuck 12,339 18.8% 50.0% 31.2% Oxford 4,504 10.1% 71.4% 18.5% Plymouth 4,803 15.0% 54.8% 30.2% Prospect 3,357 11.6% 66.3% 22.1% Seymour 6,654 15.5% 51.4% 33.1% Shelton 15,325 13.1% 58.0% 28.9% Southbury 8,213 8.3% 56.1% 35.6% Thomaston 3,108 14.9% 55.0% 30.1% Waterbury 42,761 28.4% 34.7% 36.9% Watertown 8,672 14.3% 57.5% 28.2% Wolcott 6,007 14.9% 61.0% 24.1% Woodbury 4,214 10.3% 55.4% 34.3% Region Total 174,735 18.3% 49.2% 32.5% Urban Core 93,318 23.4% 40.5% 36.1% Inner Ring 48,603 13.5% 57.8% 28.8% Outer Ring 32,814 11.0% 61.2% 27.8% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 41 Figure A9. Single Parent Households in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2008 -2012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012 42 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A14. Average Household Size in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2000 -2012 Average Household Size % Change 1980 -2010 Geography 2010 2000 1990 1980 Ansonia 2.55 2.46 2.57 2.71 -5.9% Beacon Falls 2.56 2.58 2.69 2.98 -14.1% Bethlehem 2.49 2.69 2.73 2.86 -12.9% Bristol 2.35 2.38 2.51 2.77 -15.2% Cheshire 2.66 2.71 2.82 3.06 -13.1% Derby 2.35 2.32 2.40 2.65 -11.3% Middlebury 2.72 2.66 2.73 2.94 -7.5% Naugatuck 2.56 2.60 2.69 2.80 -8.6% Oxford 2.81 2.94 3.09 3.18 -11.6% Plymouth 2.53 2.60 2.72 2.92 -13.4% Prospect 2.76 2.83 2.97 3.24 -14.8% Seymour 2.46 2.49 2.55 2.73 -9.9% Shelton 2.55 2.65 2.79 3.05 -16.4% Southbury 2.33 2.41 2.34 2.39 -2.5% Thomaston 2.53 2.57 2.64 2.86 -11.5% Waterbury 2.54 2.46 2.48 2.67 -4.9% Watertown 2.57 2.67 2.80 3.00 -14.3% Wolcott 2.75 2.79 2.93 3.30 -16.7% Woodbury 2.36 2.48 2.51 2.61 -9.6% Region Total 2.53 2.54 2.62 2.81 -10.2% Urban Core 2.48 2.45 2.52 2.71 -8.5% Inner Ring 2.56 2.64 2.75 2.97 -13.8% Outer Ring 2.59 2.65 2.72 2.91 -11.0% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Table P17, Census 2000, Census 1990, Census 1980 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 43 Figure A10. Single Parent Households in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P17 44 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A15. Educational Attainment of Population Age 25 and Over, by Municipality: 2008 -2012 Population Age 25 and Over Less than High School High School Graduate Some College Associates Degree Bachelor's Degree or Higher Geography Ansonia 12,841 14.5% 39.1% 21.7% 8.4% 16.3% Beacon Falls 4,141 4.5% 33.7% 22.4% 8.1% 31.2% Bethlehem 2,596 5.2% 28.3% 18.4% 11.2% 36.9% Bristol 43,101 11.7% 37.4% 20.5% 7.4% 23.0% Cheshire 19,728 6.4% 20.8% 16.5% 6.3% 49.9% Derby 8,921 14.0% 34.7% 18.4% 7.2% 25.8% Middlebury 5,395 5.9% 20.2% 17.3% 9.6% 47.0% Naugatuck 22,327 12.9% 35.6% 20.1% 9.2% 22.3% Oxford 8,629 6.1% 27.8% 19.2% 6.2% 40.6% Plymouth 8,498 11.1% 32.0% 26.2% 11.3% 19.5% Prospect 6,646 9.6% 34.0% 15.3% 8.7% 32.4% Seymour 11,285 6.7% 37.9% 22.0% 6.9% 26.5% Shelton 28,902 8.0% 30.1% 17.9% 8.2% 35.8% Southbury 14,522 7.4% 23.6% 17.4% 7.1% 44.4% Thomaston 5,688 9.9% 34.7% 21.4% 9.2% 24.8% Waterbury 70,718 21.2% 35.9% 17.5% 8.7% 16.8% Watertown 15,768 7.2% 30.1% 21.0% 8.5% 33.1% Wolcott 11,520 7.6% 37.1% 20.7% 9.8% 24.9% Woodbury 7,265 4.7% 24.5% 14.7% 7.9% 48.3% Region Total 308,491 12.0% 32.9% 19.1% 8.2% 27.8% Urban Core 157,908 16.5% 36.4% 19.1% 8.3% 19.7% Inner Ring 89,869 7.8% 29.5% 19.7% 8.0% 35.0% Outer Ring 60,714 6.8% 28.6% 18.1% 8.2% 38.3% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B15002 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 45 Figure A11. Percent of Population Age 25 and Over with a Bachelor’s Degree, by Block Group: 2008 -2012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B15002 46 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table A16. Population Projections in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2010 -2025 Population Projections % Change Geography 2010 2015 2020 2025 2010 -2025 Ansonia 19,249 19,714 20,169 20,571 6.9% Beacon Falls 6,061 6,376 6,648 6,879 13.5% Bethlehem 3,607 3,678 3,708 3,722 3.2% Bristol 60,477 60,807 60,956 60,704 0.4% Cheshire 29,261 29,275 29,122 28,930 -1.1% Derby 12,902 13,239 13,580 13,855 7.4% Middlebury 7,575 8,049 8,475 8,910 17.6% Naugatuck 31,862 32,438 32,877 33,078 3.8% Oxford 12,683 13,791 14,714 15,532 22.5% Plymouth 12,243 12,550 12,790 12,968 5.9% Prospect 9,405 9,659 9,866 10,057 6.9% Seymour 16,540 17,014 17,421 17,773 7.5% Shelton 39,559 39,981 40,094 39,985 1.1% Southbury 19,904 20,277 20,479 20,652 3.8% Thomaston 7,887 8,030 8,108 8,162 3.5% Waterbury 110,366 112,736 115,126 117,146 6.1% Watertown 22,514 22,863 23,020 23,029 2.3% Wolcott 16,680 17,287 17,818 18,352 10.0% Woodbury 9,975 10,234 10,393 10,493 5.2% Region Total 448,750 457,998 465,364 470,798 4.9% Urban Core 234,856 238,934 242,708 245,354 4.5% Inner Ring 128,004 129,713 130,555 130,847 2.2% Outer Ring 85,890 89,351 92,101 94,597 10.1% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010. Connecticut State Data Center, Population Projections: 2015 -2025 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 47 Table A17. Population Projections for Children and the Elderly in the Naugatuck Valley: 2010 -2025 Population Age 15 and Under Population Age 65 and Over Geography 2010 2025 % Change 2010 2025 % Change Ansonia 3,733 3,413 -8.6% 2,592 3,913 51.0% Beacon Falls 805 877 8.9% 1,089 1,675 53.8% Bethlehem 549 347 -36.8% 539 1,156 114.5% Bristol 10,645 9,690 -9.0% 9,026 13,209 46.3% Cheshire 5,457 3,337 -38.8% 4,102 6,164 50.3% Derby 2,212 2,335 5.6% 2,015 2,988 48.3% Middlebury 1,501 1,056 -29.6% 1,302 2,018 55.0% Naugatuck 5,975 5,425 -9.2% 3,806 6,452 69.5% Oxford 2,559 1,688 -34.0% 1,712 4,139 141.8% Plymouth 2,134 1,717 -19.5% 1,567 3,015 92.4% Prospect 1,705 1,222 -28.3% 1,425 2,538 78.1% Seymour 2,918 2,527 -13.4% 2,350 3,935 67.4% Shelton 6,735 5,065 -24.8% 6,903 10,661 54.4% Southbury 3,176 2,020 -36.4% 5,235 7,289 39.2% Thomaston 1,427 1,057 -25.9% 1,047 1,950 86.2% Waterbury 23,308 22,429 -3.8% 13,943 19,215 37.8% Watertown 3,849 2,998 -22.1% 3,637 6,263 72.2% Wolcott 3,080 2,465 -20.0% 2,540 4,147 63.3% Woodbury 1,650 1,137 -31.1% 1,703 3,243 90.4% Region Total 83,418 70,805 -15.1% 66,533 103,970 56.3% Urban Core 45,873 43,292 -5.6% 31,382 45,777 45.9% Inner Ring 22,520 16,701 -25.8% 19,606 31,988 63.2% Outer Ring 15,025 10,812 -28.0% 15,545 26,205 68.6% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010. Connecticut State Data Center, Population Projections: 2015 -2025 48 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 49 Appendix B Economic Trends Tables and Maps Topic Page Labor Force and Employment ………………………….. ………………………….. … 50 Unemployment Rate ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 51 Total Jobs ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. … 52 Jobs by Sector ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 54 Commuting Patterns ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 56 Jobs Vs. Employment ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………. 58 Wages ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …….. 59 Economic data presented in Appendix B comes from a variety of sources including the US Census Bureau, and the Connecticut Department of Labor. Datasets may not match up due to differing data collection methods and years of analysis. Derby Green, Derby 50 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table B1. Labor Force Status in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2013 Geography Labor Force Employed Unemployed Percent Unemployed Ansonia 10,040 9,108 932 9.3% Beacon Falls 3,356 3,120 236 7.0% Bethlehem 1,991 1,877 115 5.8% Bristol 33,365 30,660 2,705 8.1% Cheshire 14,474 13,583 891 6.2% Derby 6,895 6,316 579 8.4% Middlebury 3,919 3,687 233 5.9% Naugatuck 16,661 15,096 1,565 9.4% Oxford 7,332 6,894 438 6.0% Plymouth 6,759 6,156 603 8.9% Prospect 5,269 4,915 354 6.7% Seymour 9,198 8,493 705 7.7% Shelton 22,493 20,920 1,572 7.0% Southbury 8,934 8,346 588 6.6% Thomaston 4,494 4,143 352 7.8% Waterbury 50,323 44,010 6,313 12.5% Watertown 11,916 11,003 913 7.7% Wolcott 8,951 8,250 701 7.8% Woodbury 5,527 5,202 325 5.9% Region Total 231,896 211,778 20,118 8.7% Urban Core 117,284 105,190 12,094 10.3% Inner Ring 69,333 64,298 5,035 7.3% Outer Ring 45,279 42,290 2,989 6.6% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), by Town 2007 -2013 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 51 Table B2. Unemployment Rate in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2007 -2013 Unemployment Rate Geography 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Ansonia 9.3% 10.1% 10.2% 11.0% 9.9% 7.0% 5.6% Beacon Falls 7.0% 8.0% 8.5% 9.6% 8.8% 5.6% 4.4% Bethlehem 5.8% 6.7% 7.1% 7.9% 7.6% 4.6% 3.7% Bristol 8.1% 8.6% 9.2% 10.2% 9.1% 6.1% 5.1% Cheshire 6.2% 6.5% 7.1% 7.2% 6.4% 4.4% 3.7% Derby 8.4% 9.1% 9.5% 10.7% 9.4% 6.6% 5.1% Middlebury 5.9% 6.6% 7.5% 7.2% 7.0% 4.4% 3.6% Naugatuck 9.4% 10.1% 10.7% 11.5% 9.8% 6.9% 5.2% Oxford 6.0% 6.3% 6.8% 7.3% 6.6% 4.5% 3.5% Plymouth 8.9% 9.5% 10.1% 11.3% 10.2% 6.6% 5.5% Prospect 6.7% 7.7% 8.2% 9.1% 7.8% 5.1% 4.2% Seymour 7.7% 8.1% 8.7% 9.4% 8.2% 5.7% 4.6% Shelton 7.0% 7.4% 8.0% 8.3% 7.3% 5.0% 4.0% Southbury 6.6% 6.9% 7.7% 8.1% 7.0% 4.6% 3.7% Thomaston 7.8% 8.5% 8.4% 9.3% 9.9% 6.1% 5.0% Waterbury 12.5% 13.1% 13.9% 14.7% 13.5% 9.1% 7.4% Watertown 7.7% 8.3% 8.7% 9.3% 8.6% 5.7% 4.4% Wolcott 7.8% 8.7% 9.1% 10.1% 8.6% 5.5% 4.3% Woodbury 5.9% 6.3% 6.3% 7.6% 6.7% 4.2% 3.2% Region Total 8.7% 9.2% 9.8% 10.6% 9.5% 6.4% 5.1% Urban Core 10.3% 10.9% 11.5% 12.4% 11.1% 7.6% 6.1% Inner Ring 7.3% 7.7% 8.3% 8.8% 7.9% 5.3% 4.3% Outer Ring 6.6% 7.2% 7.7% 8.5% 7.5% 4.8% 3.8% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), by Town 2007 -2013 52 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table B3. Jobs in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2007 -2013 Jobs % Change Geography 2013 2011 2009 2007 2011 -2013 2007 -2009 Ansonia 3,359 3,910 3,623 3,724 -14.1% 5.0% Beacon Falls 843 929 887 1,059 -9.3% -12.3% Bethlehem 696 711 656 670 -2.1% 6.2% Bristol 21,592 20,597 20,286 21,231 4.8% -3.0% Cheshire 15,431 14,428 15,209 16,127 6.9% -10.5% Derby 4,872 4,643 4,929 5,153 4.9% -9.9% Middlebury 3,940 3,665 3,321 3,417 7.5% 7.3% Naugatuck 7,767 7,039 7,245 7,691 10.3% -8.5% Oxford 3,173 2,776 2,637 2,503 14.3% 10.9% Plymouth 2,061 2,001 2,112 2,253 3.0% -11.2% Prospect 1,980 1,983 1,946 2,062 -0.2% -3.9% Seymour 4,412 4,170 4,160 4,517 5.8% -7.7% Shelton 22,050 21,005 22,340 22,687 5.0% -7.4% Southbury 8,396 8,573 8,829 9,479 -2.1% -9.6% Thomaston 2,724 2,643 2,612 3,026 3.1% -12.6% Waterbury 38,890 38,378 39,071 42,484 1.3% -9.7% Watertown 8,011 7,731 7,873 8,784 3.6% -12.0% Wolcott 2,966 2,821 3,009 3,077 5.1% -8.3% Woodbury 2,020 2,028 2,101 2,425 -0.4% -16.4% Region Total 155,182 150,031 152,846 162,368 3.4% -7.6% Urban Core 76,481 74,567 75,154 80,284 2.6% -7.1% Inner Ring 54,689 51,978 54,306 57,392 5.2% -9.4% Outer Ring 24,012 23,486 23,386 24,691 2.2% -4.9% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), by Town 2007 -2013 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 53 Figure B1. Jobs in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2011 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On The Map, LODES Dataset, 2011 54 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table B4. Jobs in the Naugatuck Valley, by Sector and Location: 2013 Location Total Jobs Sector Urban Core Inner Ring Outer Ring Region % of Total Agriculture 0 316 0 316 0.2% Utilities 238 67 0 305 0.2% Construction 1,946 2,110 1,634 5,690 3.7% Manufacturing 7,942 11,017 1,632 20,591 13.3% Wholesale Trade 2,027 3,708 794 6,529 4.2% Retail Trade 11,479 5,997 2,201 19,677 12.7% Transportation and Warehousing 831 1,039 495 2,365 1.5% Information 4,571 869 219 5,660 3.6% Finance and Insurance 1,833 2,208 609 4,650 3.0% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 564 446 347 1,357 0.9% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 1,439 2,887 600 4,926 3.2% Management of Companies and Enterprises 471 1,140 460 2,071 1.3% Administrative & Support and Waste Management 2,545 3,629 772 6,945 4.5% Educational Services 1,218 804 140 2,163 1.4% Health Care and Social Assistance 18,049 5,988 3,736 27,773 17.9% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 318 492 121 931 0.6% Accommodation and Food Services 5,885 3,316 1,797 10,998 7.1% Other Services (except Public Administration) 2,882 1,478 1,026 5,385 3.5% Total Government 11,072 5,324 4,251 20,648 13.3% Total All Jobs 80,421 54,689 24,012 155,182 100.0% Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), by Town 2013 Note: All Public Sector Employees (including school teachers) are in the “Total Government” category Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 55 Table B5. Change in Jobs in the Naugatuck Valley, by Sector and Location: 2007 -2013 Number of Jobs Job Change 2007 -2013 Sector 2013 2007 Net Percent Agriculture 316 316 -1 -0.2% Utilities 305 288 17 5.7% Construction 5,690 6,809 -1,119 -16.4% Manufacturing 20,591 26,107 -5,517 -21.1% Wholesale Trade 6,529 6,031 498 8.3% Retail Trade 19,677 20,513 -836 -4.1% Transportation and Warehousing 2,365 2,431 -66 -2.7% Information 5,660 4,850 810 16.7% Finance and Insurance 4,650 7,310 -2,660 -36.4% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,357 1,548 -191 -12.3% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 4,926 5,182 -256 -4.9% Management of Companies and Enterprises 2,071 1,746 325 18.6% Administrative & Support and Waste Management 6,945 7,951 -1,006 -12.6% Educational Services 2,163 991 1,172 118.3% Health Care and Social Assistance 27,773 25,146 2,626 10.4% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 931 838 93 11.1% Accommodation and Food Services 10,998 9,592 1,406 14.7% Other Services (except Public Administration) 5,385 5,332 53 1.0% Total Government 20,648 22,041 -1,394 -6.3% Total All Jobs 155,182 162,368 -7,185 -4.4% Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), by Town 2007 -2013 Note: All Public Sector Employees (including school teachers) are in the “Total Government” category 56 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table B6. Place of Work of Naugatuck Valley Residents, by Municipality: 2011 Work Within Town of Residence Work Within Other Town in Region Work Outside of Region Geography Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 650 7.8% 2,050 24.7% 5,591 67.4% Beacon Falls 145 4.8% 1,043 34.5% 1,831 60.6% Bethlehem 181 10.9% 714 42.9% 770 46.2% Bristol 7,172 24.1% 2,702 9.1% 19,887 66.8% Cheshire 2,305 16.2% 1,802 12.7% 10,136 71.2% Derby 396 7.5% 1,188 22.6% 3,668 69.8% Middlebury 284 7.8% 1,497 40.9% 1,878 51.3% Naugatuck 1,942 11.2% 5,068 29.3% 10,272 59.4% Oxford 522 8.6% 1,665 27.4% 3,900 64.1% Plymouth 528 8.2% 2,311 36.1% 3,562 55.6% Prospect 399 7.7% 2,070 40.2% 2,685 52.1% Seymour 834 10.9% 1,954 25.6% 4,834 63.4% Shelton 3,335 17.6% 1,163 6.1% 14,490 76.3% Southbury 979 12.5% 1,772 22.7% 5,063 64.8% Thomaston 593 14.1% 1,565 37.3% 2,037 48.6% Waterbury 13,462 30.9% 10,342 23.8% 19,699 45.3% Watertown 1,744 15.6% 4,793 42.9% 4,626 41.4% Wolcott 947 10.7% 3,569 40.2% 4,363 49.1% Woodbury 484 11.3% 1,453 34.0% 2,331 54.6% Region Total 36,902 17.8% 48,721 23.5% 121,623 58.7% Urban Core 23,622 22.7% 21,350 20.5% 59,117 56.8% Inner Ring 9,339 14.9% 13,588 21.7% 39,685 63.4% Outer Ring 3,941 9.7% 13,783 34.0% 22,821 56.3% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On the Map LODES Dataset: 2011, Area Profile for Residents Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 57 Table B7. Place of Residence of Naugatuck Valley Workers, by Municipality: 2011 Live Within Town of Employment Live Within Other Town in Region Live Outside of Region Geography Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 650 18.1% 1,120 31.3% 1,813 50.6% Beacon Falls 145 9.7% 964 64.7% 380 25.5% Bethlehem 181 26.3% 294 42.7% 214 31.1% Bristol 7,172 32.4% 3,278 14.8% 11,697 52.8% Cheshire 2,305 15.3% 4,214 28.0% 8,514 56.6% Derby 396 10.2% 1,357 34.8% 2,145 55.0% Middlebury 284 8.1% 1,990 57.0% 1,220 34.9% Naugatuck 1,942 26.2% 3,031 41.0% 2,426 32.8% Oxford 522 17.8% 1,345 45.8% 1,071 36.5% Plymouth 528 26.1% 831 41.0% 667 32.9% Prospect 399 20.1% 1,089 54.8% 500 25.2% Seymour 834 20.2% 1,760 42.6% 1,540 37.3% Shelton 3,335 14.4% 4,494 19.4% 15,343 66.2% Southbury 979 13.1% 2,778 37.2% 3,706 49.7% Thomaston 593 21.5% 1,292 46.9% 868 31.5% Waterbury 13,462 32.4% 12,946 31.2% 15,101 36.4% Watertown 1,744 21.2% 3,774 45.8% 2,722 33.0% Wolcott 947 33.9% 1,171 41.9% 674 24.1% Woodbury 484 24.4% 993 50.1% 507 25.6% Region Total 36,902 23.5% 48,721 31.1% 71,108 45.4% Urban Core 23,622 30.1% 21,732 27.7% 33,182 42.3% Inner Ring 9,339 16.9% 16,365 29.6% 29,654 53.6% Outer Ring 3,941 17.3% 10,624 46.5% 8,272 36.2% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On the Map LODES Dataset: 2011, Area Profile for Workers 58 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table B8. Jobs and Employment in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2013 Geography Jobs Employed Residents Ratio Commuter Import/Export Ansonia 3,359 9,108 0.37 -5,749 Beacon Falls 843 3,120 0.27 -2,277 Bethlehem 696 1,877 0.37 -1,181 Bristol 21,592 30,660 0.70 -9,067 Cheshire 15,431 13,583 1.14 1,848 Derby 4,872 6,316 0.77 -1,443 Middlebury 3,940 3,687 1.07 254 Naugatuck 7,767 15,096 0.51 -7,329 Oxford 3,173 6,894 0.46 -3,721 Plymouth 2,061 6,156 0.33 -4,096 Prospect 1,980 4,915 0.40 -2,935 Seymour 4,412 8,493 0.52 -4,081 Shelton 22,050 20,920 1.05 1,130 Southbury 8,396 8,346 1.01 50 Thomaston 2,724 4,143 0.66 -1,418 Waterbury 38,890 44,010 0.88 -5,120 Watertown 8,011 11,003 0.73 -2,992 Wolcott 2,966 8,250 0.36 -5,284 Woodbury 2,020 5,202 0.39 -3,183 Region Total 155,182 211,778 0.73 -56,596 Urban Core 76,481 105,190 0.73 -28,709 Inner Ring 54,689 64,298 0.85 -9,609 Outer Ring 24,012 42,290 0.57 -18,278 Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Local Area Unemployment Statistics: 2013. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages: 2013 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 59 Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages: 2013 Note: All Public Sector Employees (including school teachers) are in the “Total Government” category Table B9. Wages in the Naugatuck Valley, by Sector and Location: 2013 Average Annual Wages 2013 Sector Urban Core Inner Ring Outer Ring Region Agriculture – $30,066 – $30,066 Utilities $113,053 $76,712 – $105,116 Construction $50,899 $63,834 $37,967 $56,353 Manufacturing $58,214 $85,889 $11,809 $72,651 Wholesale Trade $54,275 $80,526 $41,629 $72,014 Retail Trade $26,370 $36,919 $10,169 $29,504 Transportation and Warehousing $42,346 $50,321 $50,563 $50,088 Information $115,831 $73,243 $3,088 $107,270 Finance and Insurance $73,694 $97,024 $42,669 $85,416 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing $39,540 $94,857 $53,831 $57,015 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services $69,123 $75,868 $35,108 $71,853 Management of Companies and Enterprises $140,790 $392,134 $174,160 $276,336 Administrative & Support and Waste Management $30,306 $31,737 $31,851 $32,276 Educational Services $41,655 $43,403 $8,976 $40,846 Health Care and Social Assistance $44,872 $38,955 $21,312 $42,889 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation $19,986 $19,557 $19,992 $19,143 Accommodation and Food Services $15,703 $18,192 $10,047 $16,602 Other Services (except Public Administration) $21,946 $25,414 $18,843 $24,233 Total Government $54,497 $56,363 $43,796 $55,146 Total All Jobs $47,346 $66,034 $29,141 $54,913 60 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 61 Appendix C Housing Trends Tables and Maps Topic Page Housing Units ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 62 Housing Permits ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 63 Number of Units ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 64 Housing Age ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………………. 66 Tenure ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……. 68 Housing Vacancy ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………….. 70 Housing Costs ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 72 Home Values ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………….. 76 Affordable Housing ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 78 Housing data presented in Appendix C comes from a variety of sources including the 2010 US Census, 2008 -2012 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates, the Con- necticut Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD), and the Con- necticut Office of Policy and Management (OPM). Datasets may not match up due to differing data collection methods and years of analysis. David Sherman House, W oodbury 62 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table C1. Change in Housing Units in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 1980 -2013 Total Housing Units % Change Geography 2010 2000 1990 1980 2000 -2010 1990 -2000 Ansonia 8,148 7,937 7,503 7,267 2.7% 5.8% Beacon Falls 2,509 2,104 1,990 1,380 19.2% 5.7% Bethlehem 1,575 1,388 1,262 1,074 13.5% 10.0% Bristol 27,011 26,125 24,989 21,004 3.4% 4.5% Cheshire 10,424 9,588 8,590 6,996 8.7% 11.6% Derby 5,849 5,568 5,269 4,828 5.0% 5.7% Middlebury 2,892 2,494 2,365 2,168 16.0% 5.5% Naugatuck 13,061 12,341 11,930 9,728 5.8% 3.4% Oxford 4,746 3,420 2,930 2,197 38.8% 16.7% Plymouth 5,109 4,646 4,556 3,811 10.0% 2.0% Prospect 3,474 3,094 2,625 2,063 12.3% 17.9% Seymour 6,968 6,356 5,877 5,081 9.6% 8.2% Shelton 16,146 14,707 12,981 10,385 9.8% 13.3% Southbury 9,091 7,799 6,826 5,838 16.6% 14.3% Thomaston 3,276 3,014 2,736 2,248 8.7% 10.2% Waterbury 47,991 46,827 47,205 40,854 2.5% -0.8% Watertown 9,096 8,298 7,522 6,618 9.6% 10.3% Wolcott 6,276 5,544 4,870 4,071 13.2% 13.8% Woodbury 4,564 3,869 2,924 2,924 18.0% 32.3% Region Total 188,206 175,119 164,950 140,535 7.5% 6.2% Urban Core 102,060 98,798 96,896 83,681 3.3% 2.0% Inner Ring 51,019 46,609 42,262 35,139 9.5% 10.3% Outer Ring 35,127 29,712 25,792 21,715 18.2% 15.2% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, :001; Census 2000, Census 1990, Census 1980 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 63 Table C2. Annual Housing Permits in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2007 -2013 Annual Housing Permits % Change 2007 -2013 Geography 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Ansonia 3 4 2 5 2 5 13 -76.9% Beacon Falls 11 5 3 9 28 23 22 -50.0% Bethlehem 2 2 1 2 7 4 15 -86.7% Bristol 92 28 21 37 19 29 101 -8.9% Cheshire 48 24 58 39 17 41 51 -5.9% Derby 3 2 2 5 7 2 3 0.0% Middlebury 19 7 4 7 6 28 47 -59.6% Naugatuck 12 21 10 8 9 34 42 -71.4% Oxford 33 30 13 45 31 74 86 -61.6% Plymouth 5 5 9 11 6 6 18 -72.2% Prospect 20 23 49 48 36 57 39 -48.7% Seymour 14 23 17 22 15 38 28 -50.0% Shelton 129 299 35 31 17 111 93 38.7% Southbury 42 14 6 7 6 9 33 27.3% Thomaston 6 3 5 7 6 7 9 -33.3% Waterbury 34 62 28 32 37 58 146 -76.7% Watertown 33 21 16 21 25 35 47 -29.8% Wolcott 16 13 13 22 18 24 27 -40.7% Woodbury 9 5 6 4 10 14 27 -66.7% Region Total 531 591 298 362 302 599 847 -37.3% Urban Core 144 117 63 87 74 128 305 -52.8% Inner Ring 235 375 140 131 86 238 246 -4.5% Outer Ring 152 99 95 144 142 233 296 -48.6% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, Annual :ousing Permit Data by Town: 2007 -2013 64 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table C3. Housing Stock in the Naugatuck Valley, by Number of Units and Municipality: 2013 Geography Total Units Single Family 2 Units 3-4 Units 5+ Units Mobile Home Ansonia 8,180 4,197 2,209 915 841 18 Beacon Falls 2,465 1,798 120 246 167 134 Bethlehem 1,615 1,513 42 41 11 8 Bristol 26,586 15,528 2,877 3,261 4,784 136 Cheshire 9,711 7,994 477 346 894 0 Derby 5,613 2,968 1,130 589 926 0 Middlebury 2,798 2,585 51 8 146 8 Naugatuck 13,416 8,386 1,702 1,070 1,798 460 Oxford 4,469 4,314 91 16 48 0 Plymouth 5,140 4,165 352 275 253 95 Prospect 3,452 3,195 73 0 39 145 Seymour 6,802 4,767 589 295 1,151 0 Shelton 15,914 12,512 683 843 1,614 262 Southbury 8,025 6,202 543 550 686 44 Thomaston 3,296 2,381 259 132 499 25 Waterbury 49,003 22,027 4,628 9,560 12,707 81 Watertown 8,907 7,469 553 532 353 0 Wolcott 6,179 5,622 26 123 396 12 Woodbury 4,473 3,676 127 273 397 0 Region Total 186,044 121,299 16,532 19,075 27,710 1,428 Urban Core 102,798 53,106 12,546 15,395 21,056 695 Inner Ring 49,770 39,288 2,913 2,423 4,764 382 Outer Ring 33,476 28,905 1,073 1,257 1,890 351 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: NVCOG Staff Calculations based on: Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, Annual Construction Report: 2012 -2013 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 65 Figure C1. Multi -Family Housing in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2008 -2012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B25024 66 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table C4. Housing Stock in the Naugatuck Valley, by Year Built and Municipality: 2008 -2012 Housing Units Year Built Median Year Built Geography After 1999 1980 to 1999 1960 to 1979 1940 to 1959 Before 1940 Ansonia 7,830 145 746 1,541 2,228 3,170 1951 Beacon Falls 2,388 367 682 525 435 379 1975 Bethlehem 1,531 168 498 431 240 194 1975 Bristol 26,861 1,237 6,463 7,498 5,846 5,817 1965 Cheshire 9,945 948 2,865 3,041 2,192 899 1973 Derby 5,805 143 1,088 1,122 1,332 2,120 1954 Middlebury 2,902 419 647 685 638 513 1969 Naugatuck 13,395 743 2,687 3,726 2,792 3,447 1963 Oxford 4,626 1,052 1,316 1,183 816 259 1981 Plymouth 5,105 470 1,158 1,065 1,325 1,087 1963 Prospect 3,374 462 1,077 918 738 179 1976 Seymour 6,647 563 1,308 2,031 1,392 1,353 1968 Shelton 15,858 1,488 4,793 4,904 2,478 2,195 1973 Southbury 8,629 634 2,402 4,113 565 915 1975 Thomaston 3,255 294 943 690 531 797 1966 Waterbury 48,222 1,366 9,270 11,495 11,087 15,004 1957 Watertown 9,121 515 1,864 2,379 2,481 1,882 1962 Wolcott 6,142 555 1,546 1,777 1,784 480 1967 Woodbury 4,637 425 1,501 1,232 660 819 1974 Region Total 186,273 11,994 42,854 50,356 39,560 41,509 1965 Urban Core 102,113 3,634 20,254 25,382 23,285 29,558 1959 Inner Ring 49,931 4,278 12,931 14,110 10,399 8,213 1969 Outer Ring 34,229 4,082 9,669 10,864 5,876 3,738 1974 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B25034 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 67 Figure C2. Median Year of Construction of Homes in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2008 -2012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B25034 68 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table C5. Tenure for Occupied Housing Units in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2008 -2012 Occupied Housing Units Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Geography Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 7,380 4,188 56.7% 3,192 43.3% Beacon Falls 2,244 1,869 83.3% 375 16.7% Bethlehem 1,409 1,196 84.9% 213 15.1% Bristol 25,231 16,787 66.5% 8,444 33.5% Cheshire 9,528 8,187 85.9% 1,341 14.1% Derby 5,195 2,988 57.5% 2,207 42.5% Middlebury 2,797 2,552 91.2% 245 8.8% Naugatuck 12,461 8,566 68.7% 3,895 31.3% Oxford 4,420 4,080 92.3% 340 7.7% Plymouth 4,739 4,071 85.9% 668 14.1% Prospect 3,280 3,106 94.7% 174 5.3% Seymour 6,313 4,869 77.1% 1,444 22.9% Shelton 15,019 12,353 82.2% 2,666 17.8% Southbury 8,022 6,781 84.5% 1,241 15.5% Thomaston 3,192 2,506 78.5% 686 21.5% Waterbury 42,241 20,768 49.2% 21,473 50.8% Watertown 8,578 7,182 83.7% 1,396 16.3% Wolcott 5,947 5,247 88.2% 700 11.8% Woodbury 4,204 3,391 80.7% 813 19.3% Region Total 172,200 120,687 70.1% 51,513 29.9% Urban Core 92,508 53,297 57.6% 39,211 42.4% Inner Ring 47,369 39,168 82.7% 8,201 17.3% Outer Ring 32,323 28,222 87.3% 4,101 12.7% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, 25003 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 69 Figure C3. Renter -Occupied Housing Units in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2008 -2012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, 25003 70 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table C6. Vacant Housing Units in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2010 Vacant Units Vacancy Status Geography Number Percent of Total For Sale or Sold For Rent or Rented Seasonal Other Vacant Ansonia 638 7.8% 84 300 22 232 Beacon Falls 149 5.9% 58 24 13 54 Bethlehem 164 10.4% 17 10 114 23 Bristol 1,691 6.3% 310 821 121 439 Cheshire 383 3.7% 136 79 65 103 Derby 461 7.9% 76 173 38 174 Middlebury 144 5.0% 33 7 68 36 Naugatuck 722 5.5% 184 297 33 208 Oxford 242 5.1% 66 19 82 75 Plymouth 306 6.0% 85 93 32 96 Prospect 117 3.4% 35 24 15 43 Seymour 314 4.5% 84 120 24 86 Shelton 821 5.1% 175 216 122 308 Southbury 878 9.7% 239 178 323 138 Thomaston 168 5.1% 41 58 20 49 Waterbury 5,230 10.9% 844 2,690 144 1,552 Watertown 424 4.7% 86 116 54 168 Wolcott 269 4.3% 105 34 65 65 Woodbury 350 7.7% 81 78 112 79 Region Total 11,994 7.2% 2,739 5,337 1,467 3,928 Urban Core 8,742 8.6% 1,498 4,281 358 2,605 Inner Ring 2,416 4.7% 607 682 317 810 Outer Ring 2,313 6.6% 634 374 792 513 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, :5 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 71 Figure C4. Vacant Housing Units in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, :5 72 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table C7. Median Rental Costs in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2000 -2012 (Inflation Adjusted) Gross Rent % Change 2000 -2012 Contract Rent % Change 2000 -2012 Geography 2012 2000 2012 2000 Ansonia $1,105 $921 19.9% $867 $749 15.7% Beacon Falls $1,147 $1,155 -0.7% $952 $971 -1.9% Bethlehem $826 $1,311 -37.0% $634 $1,024 -38.1% Bristol $887 $792 12.0% $736 $688 7.0% Cheshire $1,239 $1,064 16.5% $1,120 $944 18.6% Derby $1,079 $921 17.1% $845 $789 7.1% Middlebury $478 $891 -46.3% $396 $757 -47.7% Naugatuck $964 $841 14.6% $809 $713 13.4% Oxford $1,490 $917 62.4% $1,148 $715 60.6% Plymouth $948 $813 16.6% $749 $683 9.7% Prospect $930 $943 -1.3% $810 $767 5.7% Seymour $999 $904 10.5% $840 $791 6.2% Shelton $1,100 $1,053 4.4% $894 $885 1.0% Southbury $1,315 $1,419 -7.3% $1,116 $1,231 -9.3% Thomaston $865 $865 0.0% $748 $708 5.7% Waterbury $883 $749 17.8% $718 $629 14.1% Watertown $943 $861 9.5% $784 $752 4.3% Wolcott $924 $980 -5.7% $770 $869 -11.4% Woodbury $1,097 $1,044 5.1% $978 $940 4.0% Region Total $943 $839 12.4% $770 $704 9.4% Urban Core $917 $800 14.6% $744 $675 10.3% Inner Ring $1,025 $964 6.3% $843 $825 2.1% Outer Ring $1,130 $1,145 -1.3% $947 $989 -4.3% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B25064, 2000 Census NVCOG Staff Calculations [=nflation Rate 2000 -2012: 1.3333] Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 73 Figure C5. Median Monthly Gross Rent in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2008 -2012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B25064 74 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table C8. Median Home Value in the Naugatuck Valley, by Municipality: 2000 -2012 (Inflation Adjusted) Median Home Value % Change 2000 -2012 Geography 2012 2000 Ansonia $253,200 $186,662 35.6% Beacon Falls $270,100 $206,128 31.0% Bethlehem $365,900 $285,060 28.4% Bristol $211,700 $172,396 22.8% Cheshire $349,800 $282,660 23.8% Derby $232,200 $182,129 27.5% Middlebury $363,200 $264,793 37.2% Naugatuck $211,100 $177,329 19.0% Oxford $377,500 $277,060 36.3% Plymouth $216,700 $165,329 31.1% Prospect $301,300 $240,927 25.1% Seymour $277,900 $210,261 32.2% Shelton $360,700 $289,726 24.5% Southbury $335,000 $278,793 20.2% Thomaston $230,300 $181,062 27.2% Waterbury $158,300 $135,063 17.2% Watertown $268,500 $197,728 35.8% Wolcott $251,200 $191,195 31.4% Woodbury $371,000 $313,326 18.4% Region Total $249,000 $195,995 27.0% Urban Core $193,000 $162,663 18.7% Inner Ring $299,000 $241,327 23.9% Outer Ring $326,000 $247,994 31.5% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B25077 NVCOG Staff Calculations. [=nflation Rate 2000 -2012: 1.1269] Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 75 Figure C6. Median Home Value in the Naugatuck Valley, by Block Group: 2008 -2012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B25077 76 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table C9. Home Value Ranges for Owner Occupied Units, by Municipality: 2008 -2012 Owner Occupied Units Home Value Geography Less than $100,000 $100,000 – $199,999 $200,000 – $299,999 $300,000 – $399,999 $400,000 or Higher Ansonia 4,188 52 951 2,141 905 139 Beacon Falls 1,869 157 347 589 533 243 Bethlehem 1,196 33 153 203 317 490 Bristol 16,787 770 6,718 6,846 1,751 702 Cheshire 8,187 194 545 2,065 2,590 2,793 Derby 2,988 31 917 1,408 445 187 Middlebury 2,552 30 178 600 740 1,004 Naugatuck 8,566 657 3,204 3,179 932 594 Oxford 4,080 64 297 723 1,234 1,762 Plymouth 4,071 193 1,576 1,531 503 268 Prospect 3,106 222 288 1,032 870 694 Seymour 4,869 120 764 2,077 1,068 840 Shelton 12,353 307 683 3,011 3,582 4,770 Southbury 6,781 388 1,398 1,195 1,171 2,629 Thomaston 2,506 126 845 957 414 164 Waterbury 20,768 2,813 12,384 4,435 638 498 Watertown 7,182 203 1,193 3,324 1,443 1,019 Wolcott 5,247 146 1,369 1,885 1,025 822 Woodbury 3,391 100 430 565 846 1,450 Region Total 120,687 6,606 34,240 37,766 21,007 21,068 Urban Core 53,297 4,323 24,174 18,009 4,671 2,120 Inner Ring 39,168 1,143 5,606 12,965 9,600 9,854 Outer Ring 28,222 1,140 4,460 6,792 6,736 9,094 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, B25077 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 77 Table C10. Equalized Net Grand List, by Municipality: 2007 -2013 (Inflation Adjusted) Equalized Net Grand List ($ Millions) Percent Change Geography 2012 2007 2003 2007 -2012 2003 -2007 Ansonia $1,456.1 $1,925.5 $1,423.5 -24.4% 35.3% Beacon Falls $636.2 $869.6 $530.0 -26.8% 64.1% Bethlehem $552.9 $707.1 $499.5 -21.8% 41.6% Bristol $5,587.4 $7,209.7 $5,397.6 -22.5% 33.6% Cheshire $4,000.7 $4,956.2 $4,237.5 -19.3% 17.0% Derby $1,091.6 $1,420.6 $1,115.2 -23.2% 27.4% Middlebury $1,307.5 $1,742.1 $1,160.7 -24.9% 50.1% Naugatuck $2,503.0 $3,423.3 $2,513.3 -26.9% 36.2% Oxford $1,995.5 $2,023.0 $1,512.7 -1.4% 33.7% Plymouth $1,075.9 $1,322.0 $941.6 -18.6% 40.4% Prospect $1,170.6 $1,237.6 $1,093.2 -5.4% 13.2% Seymour $1,787.6 $2,088.9 $1,601.7 -14.4% 30.4% Shelton $6,465.7 $9,079.9 $5,708.8 -28.8% 59.0% Southbury $3,167.6 $4,340.5 $3,726.3 -27.0% 16.5% Thomaston $730.3 $1,126.0 $858.1 -35.1% 31.2% Waterbury $6,105.4 $8,836.3 $5,998.5 -30.9% 47.3% Watertown $2,560.4 $3,459.0 $2,674.6 -26.0% 29.3% Wolcott $1,999.8 $2,331.2 $1,499.9 -14.2% 55.4% Woodbury $1,586.2 $2,132.5 $1,745.9 -25.6% 22.1% Region Total $45,780.4 $60,230.9 $44,238.6 -24.0% 36.2% Urban Core $16,743.5 $22,815.4 $16,448.1 -26.6% 38.7% Inner Ring $16,620.5 $22,031.9 $16,022.2 -24.6% 37.5% Outer Ring $12,416.4 $15,383.6 $11,768.3 -19.3% 30.7% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Office of Policy and Management. Equalized Net Grand List, by Municipality: 2003 -2013 All values are in 2012 dollars [=nflation Rate 2003 -2012: 1.2478] [=nflation Rate 2007 -2012: 1.1073] 78 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table C11. Households Paying More than 30% of Income For Housing, by Municipality: 2008 -2012 Total Owner -Occupied Renter -Occupied Geography Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Ansonia 3,700 50.1% 1,911 45.6% 1,789 56.0% Beacon Falls 718 32.0% 558 29.9% 160 42.7% Bethlehem 566 40.2% 481 40.2% 85 39.9% Bristol 9,293 36.8% 5,699 33.9% 3,594 42.6% Cheshire 2,519 26.4% 1,979 24.2% 540 40.3% Derby 2,397 46.1% 1,263 42.3% 1,134 51.4% Middlebury 1,026 36.7% 984 38.6% 42 17.1% Naugatuck 4,705 37.8% 3,109 36.3% 1,596 41.0% Oxford 1,340 30.3% 1,225 30.0% 115 33.8% Plymouth 1,800 38.0% 1,539 37.8% 261 39.1% Prospect 1,057 32.2% 936 30.1% 121 69.5% Seymour 2,595 41.1% 1,894 38.9% 701 48.5% Shelton 5,674 37.8% 4,729 38.3% 945 35.4% Southbury 3,747 46.7% 3,057 45.1% 690 55.6% Thomaston 1,166 36.5% 874 34.9% 292 42.6% Waterbury 21,306 50.4% 9,136 44.0% 12,170 56.7% Watertown 2,614 30.5% 2,077 28.9% 537 38.5% Wolcott 1,989 33.4% 1,752 33.4% 237 33.9% Woodbury 1,764 42.0% 1,291 38.1% 473 58.2% Region Total 69,976 40.6% 44,494 36.9% 25,482 49.5% Urban Core 41,401 44.8% 21,118 39.6% 20,283 51.7% Inner Ring 16,368 34.6% 13,092 33.4% 3,276 39.9% Outer Ring 12,207 37.8% 10,284 36.4% 1,923 46.9% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, C25095 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 79 Table C12. Publicly Assisted Housing, by Municipality: 2007 -2013 Govt. Assisted Tenant Rental Assistance CHFA/ USDA Mortgage Deed Restricted Total Affordable Geography Total Percent Ansonia 371 756 112 9 1,248 15.3% Beacon Falls 0 5 32 0 37 1.5% Bethlehem 24 1 1 0 26 1.7% Bristol 1,771 798 1,065 0 3,634 13.5% Cheshire 237 7 76 17 337 3.2% Derby 259 307 68 0 634 10.8% Middlebury 76 4 20 8 108 3.7% Naugatuck 493 293 311 0 1,097 8.4% Oxford 36 1 14 0 51 1.1% Plymouth 179 5 179 0 363 7.1% Prospect 0 4 34 0 38 1.1% Seymour 262 16 103 0 381 5.5% Shelton 254 21 87 82 444 2.7% Southbury 89 2 23 0 114 1.3% Thomaston 105 4 117 0 226 6.9% Waterbury 4,901 3,635 2,327 326 11,189 23.3% Watertown 206 24 145 0 375 4.1% Wolcott 312 3 131 0 446 7.1% Woodbury 60 4 25 0 89 2.0% Region Total 9,635 5,890 4,870 442 20,837 11.1% Urban Core 7,795 5,789 3,883 335 17,802 17.4% Inner Ring 1,243 77 707 99 2,126 4.2% Outer Ring 597 24 280 8 909 2.6% ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Source: Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development. Affordable :ousing Appeals List: 2013 80 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 81 Appendix D Other Regional Information Tables and Maps Topic Page Urbanized Areas: 2010 ………………………….. ………………………….. ………….. 82 Labor Market Areas: 2014 ………………………….. ………………………….. ……… 83 Income Limits for Select HUD Programs: 2014 ………………………….. ……… 84 Housing data presented in Appendix C comes from a variety of sources including the 2010 US Census, 2008 -2012 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates, and the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD), and the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management (OPM). Datasets may not match up due to differing data collection methods and years of analysis. Naugatuck River Greenway, Ansonia 82 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Figure D1. Urbanized Areas in the Naugatuck Valley Region: 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 83 Figure D2. Labor Market Areas in the Naugatuck Valley Region: 2014 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Labor Market Areas: 2014 84 Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Table D1. Income Limits for Select Housing and Urban Development Programs: 2014 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates: 2008 -2012, C25095 Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 29,000 33,150 37,300 41,400 44,750 48,050 51,350 54,650 Low -Income 44,750 51,150 57,550 63,900 69,050 74,150 79,250 84,350 Section 236 45,100 51,550 58,000 64,400 69,600 74,750 79,900 85,050 Section 221 BMIR 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 Section 235 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 Waterbury Metro FMR Area Median Household Income: $62,800 =ncludes Middlebury, Naugatuck, Prospect, Southbury, Waterbury, and Wolcott Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 30,950 35,400 39,800 44,200 47,750 51,300 54,850 58,350 Low -Income 44,750 51,150 57,550 63,900 69,050 74,150 79,250 84,350 Section 236 45,100 51,550 58,000 64,400 69,600 74,750 79,900 85,050 Section 221 BMIR 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 Section 235 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 Milford -Ansonia -Seymour Metro FMR Area Median Household Income: $91,400 =ncludes Ansonia, Beacon Falls, Derby, Oxford, and Seymour Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 31,400 35,850 40,350 44,800 48,400 52,000 55,600 59,150 Low -Income 44,750 51,150 57,550 63,900 69,050 74,150 79,250 84,350 Section 236 45,100 51,550 58,000 64,400 69,600 74,750 79,900 85,050 Section 221 BMIR 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 Section 235 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 Litchfield County Nonmetropolitan FMR Area Median Household Income: $87,500 =ncludes Bethlehem, Plymouth, Thomaston, Watertown, and Woodbury Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile 85 Table D1.(Continued). Income Limits for Select Housing and Urban Development Programs: 2014 Source: Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development. Affordable :ousing Appeals List: 2013 Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 29,000 33,150 37,300 41,400 44,750 48,050 51,350 54,650 Low -Income 44,750 51,150 57,550 63,900 69,050 74,150 79,250 84,350 Section 236 45,100 51,550 58,000 64,400 69,600 74,750 79,900 85,050 Section 221 BMIR 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 Section 235 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 New Haven -Meriden Metro FMR Area Median Household Income: $80,500 =ncludes Cheshire Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 30,000 34,300 38,600 42,850 46,300 49,750 53,150 56,600 Low -Income 44,750 51,150 57,550 63,900 69,050 74,150 79,250 84,350 Section 236 45,100 51,550 58,000 64,400 69,600 74,750 79,900 85,050 Section 221 BMIR 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 Section 235 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 Hartford -East Hartford -West Hartford Metro FMR Area Median Household Income: $85,500 =ncludes Bristol Income Limits by Household Size ($) Program 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Very Low -Income 29,300 33,500 37,700 41,850 45,200 48,550 51,900 55,250 Low -Income 44,750 51,150 57,550 63,900 69,050 74,150 79,250 84,350 Section 236 45,100 51,550 58,000 64,400 69,600 74,750 79,900 85,050 Section 221 BMIR 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 Section 235 53,550 61,200 68,850 76,500 82,650 88,750 94,900 101,000 Bridgeport Metro FMR Area Median Household Income: $87,900 =ncludes Shelton Naugatuck Valley Regional Profile Council Members Municipality Chief Elected Official Title Ansonia David Cassetti Mayor Beacon Falls Christopher Bielik First Selectman Bethlehem Leonard Assard First Selectman Bristol Kenneth Cockayne Mayor Cheshire Timothy Slocum Town Council Chairman Derby Anita Dugatto Mayor Middlebury Edward St. John First Selectman Naugatuck Robert Mezzo Mayor Oxford George Temple First Selectman Plymouth David Merchant Mayor Prospect Robert Chatfield First Selectman Seymour Kurt Miller First Selectman Shelton Mark Lauretti Mayor Southbury Edward Edelson First Selectman Thomaston Edmond Mone First Selectman Waterbury Neil O'Leary Mayor Watertown Raymond Primini Town Council Chairman Wolcott Thomas Dunn Mayor Woodbury William Butterly Mayor Council members comprise the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments Transitional Executive Committee (TEC) as of September 2014. Effective Hanuary 1, 2015, the Chief Elected Officials of the 19 municipalities will comprise the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments (NVCOG) board.

C e n t r a l N a u g a t u c k V a l l e y Economic Profile: 2013 February, 2014 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S I I . A n a l y s i s o f R e g i o n a l E c o n o m i c C o n d i t i o n s Goods Producing Sectors 4 15 I . I n t r o d u c t i o n 2 I I I . S e c t o r S c o r e c a r d s 15 Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 20 Financial Activities and Information 25 Professional & Business Services 29 Health Care and Social Assistance 33 Leisure and Hospitality 36 Other Services 39 P H O T O C R E D I T S Page Photographer Description Front Cover Aaron Budris, COGCNV Waterbury and I- 84 from Highland Avenue Page 4 Joe Perrelli, COGCNV Interstate 84 in Middlebury Page 5 Bing Maps ™ Aerial view of Cheshire Industrial Park Page 15 Don Antilla Grinding at bench Page 20 Wikimedia User Emmyceru Brass Mill Center Mall, Waterbury Page 25 Aaron Budris Webster Bank Headquarters, Waterbury Page 29 Don Antilla IBM Complex, Southbury Page 33 Aaron Budris UCONN Waterbury Campus Page 36 Aaron Budris Dock on Lake Quassapaug, Middlebury Page 39 COGCNV Southbury Farmers Market Page 41 Aaron Budris Thomaston Opera House and Town Hall S u m m a r y o f M a j o r F i n d i n g s 1 Public Administration 41 This document presents data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s LEHD Origin -Destination Employment Statistics (LODES), a product of the Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics (LEHD) program. The LODES dataset combines wage records, employer reports, administrative and demographic information, and records from the U.S. Census Bureau. The most recent dataset was available for the year 2011. The LODES dataset offers an un- precedented level of geographic and demographic detail compared to other economic datasets. Employment locations are aggregated to the Census Block geography to protect privacy and are for general planning pur- poses only. LODES data was supplemented with data from the Connecticut Department of Labor and U.S. Bu- reau of Labor Statistics. Statistics from the different data sources do not match up perfectly due to differing data collection methods. For example, the Connecticut Department of Labor data classifies all government employees into one category while the LODES dataset separates them by function (public school teachers would be considered “educational services” employees). These discrepancies were marked in the report with an asterisk. D A T A D I S C L A I M E R Dataset Source Employment U.S. Census Bureau, LODES dataset, Area Profile for All Jobs, 2011 Employment Change U.S. Census Bureau, LODES dataset, 2002 and 2011, COGCNV staff calculations Percent of Employment: U.S. Census Bureau, LODES dataset, 2011, COGCNV staff calculations Location Quotient: U.S. Census Bureau, LODES dataset, 2011, COGCNV staff calculations Number of Establishments: Connecticut Department of Labor, LAUS Employment Statistics, by Town, 2011 Average Establishment Size: Connecticut Department of Labor, LAUS Employment Statistics, by Town, 2011 Average Annual Wage: Connecticut Department of Labor, LAUS Employment Statistics, by Town, 2011 Median Worker Age (Years): U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Median Worker Age (Nationally) by Sector, 2012 State Employment Projections Connecticut Department of Labor, Connecticut Occupational Projections: 2010 -2020 National Employment Projections U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Industry Employment and Output Projections to 2020 D A T A S O U R C E S Su mmar y of Major Findi ngs  The Central Naugatuck Valley Region (CNVR) had a total employment of 98,453 in 2011, a loss of 5,100 jobs ( -4.9%) from 2002. Comparatively, there were 130,968 employed persons living in the region, a net export of over 32,500 workers. Half of all CNVR residents now work outside the re- gion and over 40 percent of all CNVR workers live outside the region.  Recovery from the 2007 -2009 economic recession has been slow, particularly for goods -producing sectors. Regional employment peaked at 104,492 in 2007 and declined to a low of 96,423 in 2010. Employment has grown slowly since 2010 but only education and health services has exceeded pre -recession employment levels.  Service -producing sectors now make up nearly 80 percent of the region’s total employment. The service sector contains a mix of low paying jobs (accommodation and food services, retail trade) and high paying jobs (finance and insurance, management of companies and enterprises).  The region has high concentrations of manufacturing, retail trade, wholesale trade, and health care and social assistance employment compared to other parts of the state.  The region has very low concentrations of employment in the finance and insurance, arts, enter- tainment and recreation, management of companies and enterprises, and information sectors compared to other parts of the state.  The wholesale trade sector was identified as the strongest major sector of the CNVR economy. It saw employment growth from 2002 -2011, has a high job concentration relative to the state and nation, and has seen positive regional trends. Much of the wholesale trade employment in the re- gion is found in Cheshire Industrial Park near the I -84 and I-691 interchange.  After decades of decline, manufacturing employment is projected to stay relatively stable from 2010 to 2020. Manufacturing subsectors such as plastics and rubber product manufacturing and chemical manufacturing are projected to add jobs statewide. 1 Par t I : In t roduc tion This report presents an overview of the economy in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region (CNVR). Each sector of the region’s economy is examined, highlighting past trends and projections for future economic growth. The Central Naugatuck Valley The Central Naugatuck Valley Region is comprised of thir- teen municipalities in west central Connecticut: Beacon Falls, Bethlehem, Cheshire, Middlebury, Naugatuck, Ox- ford, Prospect, Southbury, Thomaston, Waterbury, Wa- tertown, Wolcott, and Woodbury. Waterbury, the fifth largest city in the state, anchors the region and is sur- rounded by a mix of suburban and rural towns. The re- gion is centrally located within Connecticut and the Northeast. Hartford, New Haven, and Bridgeport are all within a 30 mile radius. New York City is 80 miles to the southwest, and Boston is 130 miles to the northeast. The Central Naugatuck Valley Region Historically, the region was the center of American brass manufacturing, producing products such as clocks, buttons, munitions and machines. During the post -WWII years, brass producers moved west, and eventually abroad, and plastics replaced brass in many products. The CNVR economy has diversified significantly since its manufacturing heyday. Healthcare, educational services, retail, and professional and business services now domi- nate the economy. Fabricated metal production remains an important component of the economy. The second half of the 20th century saw extraordinary population and employment growth in the CNVR’s subur- ban and rural communities. Despite suburbanization, Waterbury remains the social, cultural, institutional, and employment center of the region. Today, residents of the CNVR are more mobile than ever before. As of 2011, a majority of residents worked outside the region, with many commuting to New Haven, Hartford, and Fairfield County. Similarly, over 40 percent of the CNVR workforce lives outside the region. The increasing interplay be- tween Connecticut’s regions suggests that partnerships outside our borders are a key component to the region’s future economic growth. Impact of the Great Recession Like the state and nation, the Central Naugatuck Valley Region saw significant job losses during the Great Reces- sion of 2007 -2009. Employment peaked in 2007 at 104,492 and declined to a low of 96,423 in 2010, a loss of 7,752 jobs (Figure 1). During that same time period, un- employment more than doubled from 5.3% in 2007 to 10.8% in 2010. The goods -producing sectors, notably manufacturing and construction, were the hardest hit parts of the region’s economy, losing a combined 5,339 jobs from 2007 to 2010. From 2010 to 2011 the trend was reversed and employment grew by 550 employees. Not all sectors con- tracted in the wake of recession. Education and health services added nearly 1,000 jobs from 2007 to 2010. Since 2010, the region’s economy has slowly recovered. From 2010 to 2011, the region gained back 2,000 jobs. By 2012, the unemployment rate dropped to 9.7%, but re- mained above state and national averages. Likewise, Connecticut’s recovery from the Great Recession has been slow and it will take many years to regain all the jobs that were lost. 2 GREAT RECESSION Figure 1. Total Employment in the CNVR: 2002 -2011 Figure 2. Employment as a Percentage of Pre -Recession Employment, by Super Sector: 2007 -2011 + 4.0% – 0.7% – 5.5% – 7.8% – 13.9% – 23.0% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, On The Map, LODES Dataset: Area Profile for All Jobs 2002 – 2011 90,00092,00094,00096,00098,000100, 000102, 000104, 000106, 000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 60.0.00. 00. 0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Goods Producing Tra de, Transporta tion & Utilities Fina ncia l Activities & I nformation Profess ional & B usiness Services Educa tion & H ea lth Services Leis ure & Hospi tali ty 3 Par t I I: Ana lysis of Re giona l Eco nomi c Co nditi ons Employment Trends Between 2002 and 2011, the Central Naugatuck Valley Region saw its employment drop from 103,553 to 98,453 resulting in a loss of 5,100 jobs ( -4.9%). During that same time period, the state as a whole grew slowly and added 2,521 jobs (0.2% increase). The four largest sectors of the region’s economy, health care and social assistance (19,921), retail trade (12,666), manufacturing (11,935), and educational services (11,400), comprised 56.8% of the region’s total jobs. Employment in the health care and social assistance and educational ser- vices sectors both increased from 2002 to 2011 while manufacturing and retail trade employment declined. Manufacturing ( -5,575) and construction ( -1,178) saw the largest net job losses from 2002 to 2011 while edu- cational services (1,449) and health care and social assis- tance (1,412) saw the largest net gains. Employment tends for all sectors can be seen in Table 1. Employment vs. Workforce The CNVR has a significant employment to workforce mismatch. 98,453 people work in the region, compared to 130,968 employed residents (workforce) living in the region, a net export of over 32,500 workers. As a result, an increasing number of CNVR residents work outside of the region. The sectors with the largest net exports were manufacturing ( -4,751), health care and social assistance ( -4,721), and finance and insurance ( -3,712). Only the utilities, and agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting sectors (two of the smallest sectors of the region’s econ- omy) saw net imports of workers from other regions. A comparison of employment and workforce by sector can be seen in Table 2 and Figure 3. The employment to workforce ratio is calculated by di- viding employment (people working in a municipality) by workforce (employed people living in a municipality). Ratios of 1.00 or over indicate that a municipality is a net importer of workers while values less than 1.00 indi- cate net exporters. Ratios vary significantly between CNVR municipalities. Cheshire is the only town in the region is a net importer of workers (ratio of 1.06). South- bury, Waterbury, and Middlebury each have ratios be- tween 0.95 and 1.00 indicating that they are small ex- Municipality Employment Workforce Ratio Beacon Falls 1,489 3,019 0.49 Bethlehem 689 1,665 0.41 Cheshire 15,053 14,243 1.06 Middlebury 3,494 3,659 0.95 Naugatuck 7,400 17,282 0.43 Oxford 2,938 6,087 0.48 Prospect 1,988 5,154 0.39 Southbury 7,463 7,814 0.96 Thomaston 2,753 4,195 0.66 Waterbury 41,510 43,503 0.95 Watertown 8,240 11,163 0.74 Wolcott 2,792 8,879 0.31 Woodbury 1,985 4,268 0.47 Municipality Employment Workforce Ratio Hartford 121,334 42,770 2.84 New Haven 82,658 43,823 1.89 Stamford 72,101 54,747 1.32 Danbury 45,394 32,739 1.39 Norwalk 44,466 42,855 1.04 Bridgeport 44,197 52,176 0.85 Waterbury 41,510 43,503 0.95 Employment vs. Workforce in the CNVR, by Town: 2011 Employment vs. Workforce in Connecticut Cities: 2011 The employment to workforce mismatch has led to an increase in inter -regional commuting, notably on the I -84 and Route 8 corridors Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, On The Map, LODES Dataset: All Jobs 2011 4 porters. The remaining municipalities have ratios rang- ing from 0.74 to 0.31 and are large exporters of workers. Most large cities in Connecticut are net importers of workers from their surrounding suburban towns. Hartford (2.84), New Haven (1.89), Stamford (1.32), and Danbury (1.39) are the largest employment centers in the state and have high employment to workforce rati- os. Despite being among the largest employment cen- ters in the state, Bridgeport (0.85) and Waterbury (0.95) are both net exporters of workers. The sectors with the lowest employment to workforce ratios were finance and insurance (0.42), information (0.47), and management of companies and enterprises (0.49). CNVR residents who work in these sectors are most likely to commute to jobs outside the region. Rati- os 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 mean that the sector has a higher job concentration than the reference area, while values between 0 and 1 indicate a lower concentration. Nine of the twenty sectors of the region’s economy, in- cluding the four largest sectors, had higher job concen- tration than the state. Mining, quarrying and oil and gas extraction (4.8) and agriculture, forestry, fishing , and hunting (1.5) had the two highest location quotients but do not indicate strong performing sectors since employ- ment is so low. The wholesale trade sector had the high- est concentration (1.4) of any major sector. The lowest concentrated sectors were finance and insurance (0.4), management of companies and enterprises (0.5), and arts, entertainment, and recreation (0.5). 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 attribut- able to state growth, national growth, and industry trends, and how much is due to regional characteristics (regional share). Sectors with a positive regional share have a higher growth rate than national, state, and in- dustry averages and are becoming more competitive. Wholesale trade and “other services” were the only two major sectors that had positive regional shares com- pared to both the state and the nation. These industries grew at a faster rate than can be explained by state, na- tional, or industry trends. The health care and social as- sistance and manufacturing sectors had the largest neg- ative regional shares indicating that they contracted faster (manufacturing) or grew slower (health care and social assistance) compared to state, national, and in- dustry averages. A complete shift -share analysis for all sectors can be seen in Table 4 and Table 5. Identifying Regional Strengths Regional strengths were identified using the industry targeting analysis decision tree (Figure 5), which uses location quotients, employment trends, and shift -share analysis to identify high -performing and low-performing sectors. Sectors were classified into four categories: re- gional strengths, high priority retention targets, emerg- ing strengths, and limited prospects. Regional strengths, high priority retention targets, and emerging strengths are the best performing sectors and have the most po- tential for future economic growth. Limited prospects have performed poorly in the past and are unlikely to be drivers of future economic growth without changes to economic structure, technology, or policy. Cheshire Industrial Park, located near the I -84 and I -691 interchange is home to much of the region’s wholesale trade employment. 5 Table 1. Change in Employment in the CNVR, by Sector: 2002 -2011 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, On The Map, LODES Dataset: Area Profile for All Jobs, 2002 and 2011 Sector Regional Employment State Employment 2002 2011 Percent Change 2002 2011 Percent Change Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 433 413 -4.6% 5,400 4,503 -16.6% Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 170 155 -8.8% 654 534 -18.3% Utilities 429 700 63.2% 9,803 8,649 -11.8% Construction 4,909 3,731 -24.0% 63,731 51,703 -18.9% Manufacturing 17,510 11,935 -31.8% 219,118 172,367 -21.3% Wholesale Trade 5,384 5,438 1.0% 67,097 65,808 -1.9% Retail Trade 12,985 12,666 -2.5% 188,448 174,890 -7.2% Transportation and Warehousing 2,722 2,540 -6.7% 38,944 40,380 3.7% Information 1,874 1,367 -27.1% 44,233 36,415 -17.7% Finance and Insurance 3,295 2,697 -18.1% 118,028 118,683 0.6% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,145 933 -18.5% 21,173 19,340 -8.7% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 5,746 5,008 -12.8% 91,404 90,029 -1.5% Management of Companies and Enterprises 1,117 1,029 -7.9% 27,587 30,925 12.1% Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 3,875 4,167 7.5% 80,071 81,512 1.8% Educational Services 9,951 11,400 14.6% 158,987 183,975 15.7% Health Care and Social Assistance 18,509 19,921 7.6% 223,236 265,251 18.8% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1,245 1,170 -6.0% 43,862 41,462 -5.5% Accommodation and Food Services 5,544 5,810 4.8% 96,254 109,602 13.9% Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 3,187 3,806 19.4% 54,410 58,116 6.8% Public Administration 3,523 3,567 1.2% 58,307 59,124 1.4% Total All Jobs 103,553 98,453 -4.9% 1,610,747 1,613,268 0.2% 6 Table 2. Employment to Workforce Ratio in the CNVR, by Sector: 2011 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, On The Map, LODES Dataset: Area Profile for All Jobs 2002 and 2011 Sector Employment Workforce Difference Ratio Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 413 0.4% 294 0.2% 119 28.8% 1.40 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 155 0.2% 74 0.1% 81 52.3% 2.09 Utilities 700 0.7% 780 0.6% -80 -11.4% 0.90 Construction 3,731 3.8% 4,991 3.8% -1,260 -33.8% 0.75 Manufacturing 11,935 12.1% 16,686 12.7% -4,751 -39.8% 0.72 Wholesale Trade 5,438 5.5% 5,715 4.4% -277 -5.1% 0.95 Retail Trade 12,666 12.9% 15,035 11.5% -2,369 -18.7% 0.84 Transportation and Warehousing 2,540 2.6% 3,261 2.5% -721 -28.4% 0.78 Information 1,367 1.4% 2,933 2.2% -1,566 -114.6% 0.47 Finance and Insurance 2,697 2.7% 6,410 4.9% -3,713 -137.7% 0.42 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 933 0.9% 1,543 1.2% -610 -65.4% 0.60 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 5,008 5.1% 6,222 4.8% -1,214 -24.2% 0.80 Management of Companies and Enterprises 1,029 1.0% 2,114 1.6% -1,085 -105.4% 0.49 Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 4,167 4.2% 6,136 4.7% -1,969 -47.3% 0.68 Educational Services 11,400 11.6% 14,524 11.1% -3,124 -27.4% 0.78 Health Care and Social Assistance 19,921 20.2% 24,642 18.8% -4,721 -23.7% 0.81 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1,170 1.2% 1,730 1.3% -560 -47.9% 0.68 Accommodation and Food Services 5,810 5.9% 8,196 6.3% -2,386 -41.1% 0.71 Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 3,806 3.9% 4,737 3.6% -931 -24.5% 0.80 Public Administration 3,567 3.6% 4,945 3.8% -1,378 -38.6% 0.72 Total All Jobs 98,453 100.0% 130,968 100.0% -32,515 -33.0% 0.75 7 Figure 3. Net Difference Between CNVR Workers and Employed CNVR Residents, by Sector: 2011 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, On The Map, LODES Dataset: Area Profile for All Jobs 2002 and 2011 -4,751 -4,721 -3,713 -3,124 -2,386 -2,369 -1,969 -1,566 -1,378 -1,260 -1,214 -1,085 -931 -721 -610 -560 -277 -80 81 119 -5,000 -4,000 -3,000 -2,000 -1,000 0 1,000Agriculture, F orestry, Fishing a nd HuntingMini ng, Qua rrying, and Oil and G as Extraction Utilit iesWholesal e TradeArts, Enterta inment, and Recreation Real Estate and R ental a nd Leas ing Tra nsportation and Wa rehousingOther Services (excluding Public Administrati on) Ma nagement of Companies and Enterpris esProfess ional, Scientific, and Technical Servi ces ConstructionPublic Administration InformationAdmini stration & Support, Wa ste M anag ement and Remedia tion Reta il TradeAccommo da tion a nd Food Services Educa tiona l ServicesFina nce and I nsuranceHealth C are and Social Ass ista nce Ma nufacturing 8 Table 3. Location Quotients in the CNVR, by Sector: 2011 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, On The Map, LODES Dataset: Area Profile for All Jobs, 2011 Employment (2011) Location Quotients Sector Regional State Count Percent Count Percent State National Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 413 0.4% 4,503 0.3% 1.5 0.5 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 155 0.2% 534 0.0% 4.8 0.3 Utilities 700 0.7% 8649 0.6% 1.3 1.1 Construction 3,731 3.8% 51,703 3.3% 1.2 0.9 Manufacturing 11,935 12.1% 172,367 11.1% 1.1 1.3 Wholesale Trade 5,438 5.5% 65,808 4.2% 1.4 1.3 Retail Trade 12,666 12.9% 174,890 11.3% 1.2 1.1 Transportation and Warehousing 2,540 2.6% 40,380 2.6% 1.0 0.8 Information 1,367 1.4% 36,415 2.3% 0.6 0.6 Finance and Insurance 2,697 2.7% 118,683 7.6% 0.4 0.6 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 933 0.9% 19340 1.2% 0.8 0.6 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 5,008 5.1% 90,029 5.8% 0.9 0.8 Management of Companies and Enterprises 1,029 1.0% 30,925 2.0% 0.5 0.7 Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 4,167 4.2% 81,512 5.2% 0.8 0.7 Educational Services 11,400 11.6% 183,975 11.8% 1.0 1.2 Health Care and Social Assistance 19,921 20.2% 265,251 17.1% 1.2 1.4 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1,170 1.2% 41,462 2.7% 0.5 0.7 Accommodation and Food Services 5,810 5.9% 109,602 7.1% 0.9 0.7 Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 3,806 3.9% 58,116 3.7% 1.1 1.1 Public Administration 3,567 3.6% 59,124 3.7% 1.0 0.7 Total All Jobs 98,453 100.0% 1,554,144 100.0% – – 9 Figure 4. Employment Growth and Job Concentration in the CNVR Relative to State, by Sector: 2002 -2011 Low Concentration Shrinking Employment Low Concentration Growing Employment High Concentration Shrinking Employment High Concentration Growing Employment Average Annual Change in Employment: 2002 to 2011 Job Concentration Relative to State This figure shows average annual change in employment from 2002 to 2011 and job concentration (LQs) relative to the state. Th e figure 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 employment . Bubbles are colored based on their NAICS super -sector classification. 10 Table 4. CNVR Employment Shift -Share Relative to State, by Sector: 2002 -2011 Sector Regional Employment State Employment Employment Shift -Share 2002 2011 Change Percent Change Percent Change Total State Growth State Industry Trends Regional Share Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 433 413 -20 -4.6% -16.6% 0.5 -72.4 51.9 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 170 155 -15 -8.8% -18.3% 0.2 -31.4 16.2 Utilities 429 700 271 63.2% -11.8% 0.5 -51.0 321.5 Construction 4,909 3,731 -1,178 -24.0% -18.9% 5.4 -931.9 -251.5 Manufacturing 17,510 11,935 -5575 -31.8% -21.3% 19.2 -3,755.2 -1,839.1 Wholesale Trade 5,384 5,438 54 1.0% -1.9% 5.9 -109.3 157.4 Retail Trade 12,985 12,666 -319 -2.5% -7.2% 14.3 -948.5 615.2 Transportation and Warehousing 2,722 2,540 -182 -6.7% 3.7% 3.0 97.4 -282.4 Information 1,874 1,367 -507 -27.1% -17.7% 2.1 -333.3 -175.8 Finance and Insurance 3,295 2,697 -598 -18.1% 0.6% 3.6 14.7 -616.3 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,145 933 -212 -18.5% -8.7% 1.3 -100.4 -112.9 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 5,746 5,008 -738 -12.8% -1.5% 6.3 -92.7 -651.6 Management of Companies and Enterprises 1,117 1,029 -88 -7.9% 12.1% 1.2 133.9 -223.2 Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 3,875 4,167 292 7.5% 1.8% 4.3 65.5 222.3 Educational Services 9,951 11,400 1,449 14.6% 15.7% 10.9 1,553.1 -115.0 Health Care and Social Assistance 18,509 19,921 1,412 7.6% 18.8% 20.3 3,463.2 -2,071.6 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1,245 1,170 -75 -6.0% -5.5% 1.4 -69.5 -6.9 Accommodation and Food Services 5,544 5,810 266 4.8% 13.9% 6.1 762.7 -502.8 Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 3,187 3,806 619 19.4% 6.8% 3.5 213.6 401.9 Total—All Industries 103,553 98,453 -5,100 -4.9% 0.1% 109.8 -191.4 -5,062.4 Sectors highlighted in green have performed much better than state and industry trends from 2002 to 2011 Sectors highlighted in red performed much worse than state and industry trends from 2002 to 2011 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, On The Map, LODES Dataset: Area Profile for All Jobs, 2002 and 2011 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2002 and 2011 11 Table 5. CNVR Employment Shift -Share Relative to Nation, by Sector: 2002 -2011 Sectors highlighted in green have performed better than national and industry trends from 2002 to 2011 Sectors highlighted in red performed much worse than national and industry trends from 2002 to 2011 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, On The Map, LODES Dataset: Area Profile for All Jobs, 2002 and 2011 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2002 and 2011 Sector Regional Employment National Employment Employment Shift -Share 2002 2011 Change Percent Change Percent Change Total National Growth National Industry Trends Regional Share Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 433 413 -20 -4.6% 0.4% 3.9 -62.8 38.9 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 170 155 -15 -8.8% 44.3% 1.6 66.1 -82.7 Utilities 429 700 271 63.2% -7.1% 3.9 -9.5 276.6 Construction 4,909 3,731 -1,178 -24.0% -18.1% 44.8 -913.7 -309.1 Manufacturing 17,510 11,935 -5,575 -31.8% -23.1% 159.7 -4,307.1 -1,427.6 Wholesale Trade 5,384 5,438 54 1.0% -1.3% 49.1 -264.0 268.9 Retail Trade 12,985 12,666 -319 -2.5% -2.3% 118.4 -224.8 -212.7 Transportation and Warehousing 2,722 2,540 -182 -6.7% 1.7% 24.8 374.5 -581.3 Information 1,874 1,367 -507 -27.1% -20.5% 17.1 -236.9 -287.2 Finance and Insurance 3,295 2,697 -598 -18.1% -3.0% 30.1 -301.3 -326.8 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,145 933 -212 -18.5% -5.8% 10.4 -67.0 -155.4 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 5,746 5,008 -738 -12.8% 15.3% 52.4 668.2 -1,458.6 Management of Companies and Enterprises 1,117 1,029 -88 -7.9% 12.9% 10.2 -7.2 -91.0 Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 3,875 4,167 292 7.5% 1.6% 35.3 473.9 -217.3 Educational Services 9,951 11,400 1,449 14.6% 30.5% 90.8 2,430.0 -1,071.7 Health Care and Social Assistance 18,509 19,921 1,412 7.6% 23.1% 168.8 3,755.2 -2,512.1 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1,245 1,170 -75 -6.0% 6.9% 11.4 128.4 -214.7 Accommodation and Food Services 5,544 5,810 266 4.8% 11.5% 50.6 781.1 -565.6 Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 3,187 3,806 619 19.4% 3.8% 29.1 -169.2 759.1 Total—All Industries 103,553 98,453 -5,100 -4.9% 0.6% 912.5 2,113.9 -8,170.3 12 Industries No Yes No Lagging Performer Yes Strong Performer No Poor Performer Yes Constrained Performer Screen 1: Does the industry have high job concentration indicated by a location quotient of higher than 1.0? Screen 2: Is the industry experiencing regional employment growth? High Priority Retention Target Current Strength Limited Prospect due to local weaknesses Limited Prospect due to external trends Limited Prospect due to weak base and declining competitive- ness Emerging Strength Limited Prospect overall Limited Prospect due to weak base and external trends Sources: McLean, Mary L. and Kenneth P. Voytek (1992). Understanding Your Economy. Planners Press Figure 5. Industry Targeting Analysis, Decision Tree: Identifying Economic Strengths and Weaknesses No Lagging Performer Yes Strong Performer No Poor Performer Yes Constrained Performer No Yes No Yes Screen 3: Does the industry have a positive regional share as seen with shift -share analysis? Lower Priority Retention Targets 13 Regional St reng t hs Current Strengths Current Strengths refer to sectors of the regional economy that have higher job concentration than the state and national averages (location quotient of 1.1 or higher), employment growth of 50 or more employees from 2002 to 2011, and a positive regional share in the shift -share analysis. This indicates that a sector has high job concentra- tion, high growth, and has become more competitive from 2002 to 2011. 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 1.0), job growth of 50 or more employees from 2002 to 2011, and a negative regional share in the shift -share analysis. The negative regional share indicates that the sector is losing competitiveness. Emerging Strengths Emerging Strength sectors have low job concentration relative to the state and national averages (location quotient of less than 1.1), job growth of 50 or more employees from 2002 to 2011, 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 2002 to 2011. Relative to State Relative to Nation  Wholesale Trade  Wholesale Trade  Utilities  Utilities  Other Services  Other Services Relative to State Relative to Nation  Health Care & Social Assistance  Health Care & Social Assistance  Educational Services  Educational Services Relative to State Relative to Nation  Administration and Support, Waste Management and Remediation 14 Goods Producing Sectors 15 Agri c ultu re , Fo res tr y, Fis hing, & Hu nting Shrinking Growing Low High Employment Change 2002 -2011 Job Concentration Relative to State The agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting sector has 413 employees in the CNVR, constituting 0.4% of all jobs. Nearly all of the region’s employment is found in Cheshire, which is home to several commercial greenhouses and nurse- ries. Forestry, hunting, and fishing employment in the region is negligible. Statewide, greenhouses and nurseries account for 49% of all agricultural re- ceiptsᵃ. While agriculture is a small sector in terms of employment, its secondary impacts such as tourism, environmental benefits, and food security solidify its importance. Regional, state, and local plans of conservation and development all list farmland preservation as an important goal. From 2002 to 2011, employment in the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting sector contracted by 4.6%, resulting in a loss of 20 jobs. Despite a projected de- cline ( -0.6%) in employment on the national level from 2010 to 2020, statewide employment in the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting sector is projected to grow at 14.8%. Local farmers markets and the statewide CT Grown Program have helped lead a resurgence in locally produced agricultural products. Region al Trends Indust ry Pr ofile Majo r S ubs ec t ors Employment (2011): 413 Employment Change (2002 -2011): – 4.6% Percent of Employment: 0.4% Location Quotient: 1.1 Number of Establishments: 9 Average Establishment Size: 37 Average Annual Wage: $30,009 Median Worker Age (Years): 47.5 ∙ Crop production ∙ Animal production ∙ Forestry and logging ∙ Support activities for agriculture & forestry -0.6% Decline 14.8% Growth State: National: Indust ry O ut look 2010— 202 0 Agr ic ult ur e, Forest ry , Hunt ing, and Fishin g Employ me nt in t he CNVR: 2011 ᵃ Economic Impacts of Connecticut’s Agricultural Industry (2010), The CT for Economic Analysis Sources: Connecticut Department of Labor, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 16 Qua rr yi ng, Mi ni ng, an d Oil & G as E x tra ct i on Shrinking Growing Low High Employment Change 2002 -2011 Job Concentration Relative to State Like Connecticut as a whole, the quarrying, mining, and oil & gas extraction sec- tor is a minor player in the Central Naugatuck Valley economy. Nationally, it was the fastest growing sector from 2002 to 2011 due to the discovery of large natu- ral gas deposits in Appalachia and the Western United States. Statewide, most of the employment in this sector is in quarrying. The quarrying, mining, and oil & gas extraction sector is the smallest sector of the region’s economy, with just 115 employees, or 0.2% of total. A vast majority of the employment is located in the northern part of Southbury. It has the highest location quotient of any sector, with 4.8, meaning it is 4.8 times more concen- trated in the region than it is statewide. However, the location quotients are skewed because the sector has so few jobs statewide. Despite the high location quotient, the quarrying, mining, and oil & gas extraction sector will continue to be minor player in the region’s economy. The state is pushing a Comprehensive Energy Strategy to make natural gas available to an additional 300,000 Connecti- cut homes and businesses by 2020. The jobs created by this initiative will primari- ly involve the construction of new infrastructure and the transportation of natu- ral gas to market. Region al Trends Indust ry Pr ofile Majo r S ubs ec t ors Employment (2011): 155 Employment Change (2002 -2011): – 8.8% Percent of Employment: 0.2% Location Quotient: 4.8 Number of Establishments: 3 Average Establishment Size: 5 Average Annual Wage: $17,021 Median Worker Age (Years): 41.5 ∙ Non -metallic mineral mining & quarrying 4.0% Growth 2.5% Growth State: National: Indust ry O ut look 2010— 202 0 Q uarry in g, Mining, an d O il & Gas Ext rac t io n Employ me nt in t he CNVR: 2011 Sources: Connecticut Department of Labor, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 17 Manu fac tu ring Shrinking Growing Low High Employment Change 2002 -2011 Job Concentration Relative to State Manufacturing has historically been the backbone of the Central Naugatuck Val- ley economy, but has changed dramatically over the last half century with plas- tics replacing brass and other metals, and manufacturing jobs moving to lower cost locations in the Southern United States and abroad. Despite sharp declines in employment over the last several decades, nationwide manufacturing output has stayed relatively stable and worker productivity has increased significantly. Traditionally concentrated in central cities, many manufacturers are now located in suburban towns where undeveloped land is more readily available. Tripper bus service connects the City of Waterbury to industrial parks in surrounding towns. In 2011, there were 11,935 manufacturing jobs, representing 12.1% of the re- gion’s total employment. However, from 2002 to 2011, manufacturing employ- ment in the region contracted by -31.8%, resulting in a loss of 5,575 jobs. Both state and national projections show manufacturing employment staying relative- ly stable from 2010 to 2020, with decreases of –0.6% and –2.3% respectively. The median age for manufacturing workers is 44.7 years old, one of the oldest median ages of any sector. Partnerships with higher education, such as NVCC’s Advanced Manufacturing Technology Center, are working to replace an aging manufacturing workforce with a younger generation of skilled employees. Region al Trends Indust ry Pr ofile Majo r S ubs ec t ors Employment (2011): 11,935 Employment Change (2002 -2011): – 31.8% Percent of Employment: 12.1% Location Quotient: 1.1 Number of Establishments: 507 Average Establishment Size: 23 Average Annual Wage: $62,053 Median Worker Age (Years): 44.7 ∙ Fabricated Metal Products ∙ Computers and Electronics ∙ Transportation Equipment ∙ Machinery Manufacturing – 0.6% Decline – 2.3% Decline State: National: Indust ry O ut look 2010— 202 0 Manuf ac t ur ing Empl oy ment in t he C NVR: 2011 Sources: Connecticut Department of Labor, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 18 Cons truc ti on Shrinking Growing Low High Employment Change 2002 -2011 Job Concentration Relative to State In 2011, there were 3,731 workers in the construction sector, representing 3.8% of the region’s employment. With a location quotient of 1.2, it is slightly more concentrated in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region than the state as a whole. Small construction businesses are scattered throughout the region and larger establishments are concentrated near industrial parks in Cheshire, Naugatuck, Waterbury, and Watertown. The average annual wage for the construction sec- tor is $56,656, which is higher than the regional average. Similar to state and national trends, the construction industry has been hard hit by the late 2000s housing bubble and recession. The sector saw regional employ- ment drop by 24% from 2002 to 2011, resulting in a loss of 1,178 jobs. A majority of construction job losses can be attributed to the slowing of residential con- struction. The number of new housing units built in the region has dropped from a high of 894 in 2005 to just 151 in 2012. From 2010 and 2020, state and national projections show growth rates of 20.0% and 33.3% respectively. Even with a 20.0% increase up to 2020, the number of construction jobs will still fall short of their pre -recession levels. Region al Trends Indust ry Pr ofile Majo r S ubs ec t ors Employment (2011): 3,731 Employment Change (2002 -2011): – 24.0% Percent of Employment: 3.8% Location Quotient: 1.2 Number of Establishments: 656 Average Establishment Size: 5 Average Annual Wage: $56,656 Median Worker Age (Years): 42.6 ∙ Specialty Trade Construction ∙ Construction of Buildings ∙ Heavy & Civil Engineering Construction 33.3% Growth 20.0% Growth State: National: Indust ry O ut look 2010— 202 0 C onst ruc t i on Empl oy ment in t he C NVR: 2011 Sources: Connecticut Department of Labor, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 19 Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 20 Shrinking Growing Low High Employment Change 2002 -2011 Job Concentration Relative to State Whol esale Trade The wholesale trade sector is one the region’s current economic strengths rela- tive to the state and nation. It has seen a gain in employment from 2002 to 2011, has a higher job concentration than the state and nation, and has seen a positive regional employment share. Located at the crossroads of I -84, I -691, and Route 8, the Central Naugatuck Valley’s location offers easy access to major markets in Connecticut as well as the New York and Boston metropolitan areas. A particular- ly high concentration of wholesale trade employment can be found in the Chesh- ire Industrial Park, adjacent to the I -84/ I-691 interchange. In 2011, the sector had 5,438 employees, accounting for 5.5% of the region’s em- ployment. With a location quotient of 1.4, the wholesale trade sector has the highest concentration of any major sector of the region’s economy. From 2002 to 2011, wholesale trade employment grew by 1.0%. Both state and national pro- jections show the sector growing from 2010 to 2020, with increases of 9.9% and 13.6% respectively. The I -84 widening projects and I -84/Route 8 Interchange pro- ject will help alleviate traffic congestion in the Central Naugatuck Valley and could bolster our region’s comparative advantages as a wholesale trade center. Region al Trends Indust ry Pr ofile Majo r S ubs ec t ors Employment (2011): 5,438 Employment Change (2002 -2011): 1.0% Percent of Employment 5.5% Location Quotient: 1.4 Number of Establishments: 541 Average Establishment Size: 10 Average Annual Wage: $63,904 Median Worker Age : 43.8 ∙ Electronic Markets, Agents, and Brokers ∙ Wholesalers—Durable Goods ∙ Wholesalers— Non-durable Goods 13.6% Growth 9.9% Growth State: National: Indust ry O ut look 2010— 202 0 Wholes ale Trade Emp loy ment in t he C NVR: 2011 Sources: Connecticut Department of Labor, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 21 Shrinking Growing Low High Employment Change 2002 -2011 Job Concentration Relative to State Retai l Tra d e Retail trade is the second largest sector of the Central Naugatuck Valley econo- my, with 12,666 employees, comprising 12.9% of the region’s workforce. Water- bury, which is home to the Brass Mill Center Mall, has the highest concentration of retail trade employment followed by Cheshire, Naugatuck, Southbury, and Watertown. Retail trade workers are among the youngest (median age of 37.9 years old) and have the second lowest average wage ($26,849) of any sector. The retail trade sector was hard -hit by the late 2000s recession due to declines in discretionary income and lower retail sales. From 2002 to 2011, retail trade em- ployment declined by 2.5%, resulting in a loss of 319 jobs. Job losses peaked in 2008 and 2009 and have remained relatively stagnant since. However, as the economy continues to recover from recession, employment is expected to in- crease. Projections show the sector growing by 12.3% nationally and 5.1% statewide between 2010 and 2020. State projections show furniture stores (24.9%) and lawn and garden stores (16.5%)having the largest employment gains and book and music stores ( -42.3%) and department stores ( -15.7%) having the sharpest declines. The declining subsectors can be attributed to the rise of e – commerce, especially for smaller items such as books, music, and clothing. Region al Trends Indust ry Pr ofile Majo r S ubs ec t ors Employment (2011): 12,666 Employment Change (2002 -2011): – 2.5% Percent of Employment: 12.9% Location Quotient: 1.2 Number of Establishments: 851 Average Establishment Size: 14 Average Annual Wage: $26,849 Median Worker Age (Years): 37.9 ∙ Food and Beverage Stores ∙ General Merchandise Stores ∙ Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers ∙ Clothing and Accessories Stores 12.3% Growth 5.1% Growth State: National: Indust ry O ut look 2010— 202 0 Ret ail Trad e Employ m ent in t he C NVR: 2011 Sources: Connecticut Department of Labor, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 22 Shrinking Growing Low High Employment Change 2002 -2011 Job Concentration Relative to State Trans por ta tion and Ware housi ng The transportation and warehousing sector had an employment of 2,540 in 2011, representing 2.6% of regional employment. The largest concentrations of trans- portation and warehousing employment can be found in industrial parks in Cheshire, Naugatuck, Oxford, and Watertown near Route 8, I -84, I -691 and Wa- terbury -Oxford Airport. Like the wholesale trade sector, the transportation and warehousing sector is closely tied to the transportation system. Despite the re- gion’s central location relative to major markets in the Northeast, it has per- formed poorly over the last decade. From 2002 to 2011, regional employment in the transportation and warehousing sector declined by 6.7%, a loss of 182 jobs. During that same time period, the state as a whole added 1,436 jobs, an increase of 3.7%. From 2010 to 2020 the sector is projected to grow by 20.4% nationally and 13.4% statewide. Some of the highest concentrations of transportation and warehousing employment in the state can be found near airports such as Bradley International in Windsor Locks, and general aviation airports such as Hartford -Brainard, Groton-New Lon- don, and Sikorsky Memorial in Stratford. The Waterbury -Oxford Airport and its newly designated airport incentive zone have potential to become a growth pole for transportation and warehouse employment in the state. Region al Trends Indust ry Pr ofile Majo r S ubs ec t ors Employment (2011): 2,540 Employment Change (2002 -2011): – 6.7% Percent of Employment: 2.6% Location Quotient: 1.0 Number of Establishments: 108 Average Establishment Size: 14 Average Annual Wage: $46,953 Median Worker Age (Years): 46.2 ∙ Truck Transportation ∙ Transit & Ground Passenger Transport ∙ Warehousing and Storage 20.4% Growth 13.2% Growth State: National: Indust ry O ut look 2010— 202 0 Transp ort a t ion and Ware housi ng Empl oy ment in t he C NVR: 2011 Sources: Connecticut Department of Labor, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 23 Utili t ies Shrinking Growing Low High Employment Change 2002 -2011 Job Concentration Relative to State As of 2011, the utilities sector had 700 employees, representing 0.7% of the re- gion’s workforce. The sector was identified as one of the three current strengths of the region’s economy, but its small employment make it an unlikely source of future economic growth. The highest concentrations of employment are found in Waterbury and Cheshire, with smaller concentrations in Naugatuck and Middle- bury. With a location quotient of 1.3, job concentration was higher than the state as a whole. From 2002 to 2011, utilities grew faster than any sector (63.2%), resulting in 271 new jobs. During that same time period, the sector declined by 11.8% statewide. Projections show employment declining 0.6% nationally and 11.3% statewide from 2010 to 2020. Renewable energy and natural gas will be two emerging utili- ties up to 2020. The 2013 Connecticut Comprehensive Energy Strategy aims to make natural gas available to an additional 300,000 Connecticut homes and busi- nesses by 2020. In addition to lower energy costs, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) anticipates that natural gas expansion could create up to 7,000 jobs in the utilities and construction sectorsᵃ. In addition, the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) calls for 20% of the state’s electricity to be produced by renewable resources by 2020 ᵃ. Region al Trends Indust ry Pr ofile Majo r S ubs ec t ors Employment (2011): 700 Employment Change (2002 -2011): 63.2% Percent of Employment: 0.7% Location Quotient: 1.3 Number of Establishments: 4 Average Establishment Size: 60 Average Annual Wage: $114,610 Median Worker Age (Years): 46.7 ∙ Electric power generation & transmission ∙ Natural gas distribution ∙ Water, sewage, and other systems -0.6% Decline – 11.3% Decline State: National: Indust ry O ut look 2010— 202 0 U t ilit ies Employ ment in t he C NVR: 2011 ᵃ 2013 Connecticut Comprehensive Energy Strategy. Connecticut DEEP. Sources: Connecticut Department of Labor, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 24 Financial Activities and Information 25 Shrinking Growing Low High Employment Change 2002 -2011 Job Concentration Relative to State Finan ce an d In s ura nc e Finance and insurance is one of the most important sectors of Connecticut’s economy. Connecticut has the highest concentration of insurance employment in the nation, much of which is located in the Greater Hartford Region. The insur- ance cluster hasn’t spilled over to the Central Naugatuck Valley and many region- al banks have consolidated in the last few decades. Finance and insurance has the lowest location quotient (0.4) out of any sector of the region’s economy, meaning it has a very low concentration of jobs relative to the state as a whole. In 2011, there were 2,697 finance and insurance jobs in the region, representing 2.7% of the total. By comparison, Greater Hartford had 56,932 finance and insur- ance employees (12.7% of total). Many CNVR residents employed in the finance and insurance sectors commute to jobs in Greater Hartford or Fairfield County. From 2002 to 2011, finance and insurance employment declined by 18.1% re- sulting in a loss of 598 jobs. During that same time period, the sector grew statewide. Between 2010 and 2020, national and state projections show growth rates of 10.2% and 5.0% respectively. Transportation projects such as the I -84 widening project and CT Fastrak will improve connections with Greater Hartford and could allow the Central Naugatuck Valley to draw on a skilled finance and insurance workforce. Region al Trends Indust ry Pr ofile Majo r S ubs ec t ors Employment (2011): 2,697 Employment Change (2002 -2011): – 18.1% Percent of Employment: 2.7% Location Quotient: 0.4 Number of Establishments: 314 Average Establishment Size: 8 Average Annual Wage: $70,607 Median Worker Age (Years): 42.7 ∙ Credit intermediation ∙ Insurance carriers ∙ Funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles 10.2% Growth 5.0% Growth State: National: Indust ry O ut look 2010— 202 0 Financ e an d Insura nc e Employ m ent in t he C NVR: 2011 Sources: Connecticut Department of Labor, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 26 Shrinking Growing Low High Employment Change 2002 -2011 Job Concentration Relative to State Real Esta t e and Rent al an d Lea sing The real estate and rental and leasing sector had 933 employees in 2011, com- prising 0.9% of the region’s total. The largest clusters of employment can be found in the Heritage Village section of Southbury and in Waterbury. From 2007 to 2011, 68.2% of CNVR residents lived in owner -occupied housing units while 31.8% lived in renter -occupied units. The majority of renter -housing units are found in Waterbury. Like the construction sector, the real estate and rental and leasing sector has been hard hit by the late 2000s housing crisis and recession. An analysis of home sales in the Waterbury Labor Market area found that there were 330 home sales in 2012, down from a high of 716 in 2004ᵃ. As a result, regional employment con- tracted by 18.5% from 2002 to 2011, a loss of 212 jobs. During this same period, the state saw an 8.7% decline. As the housing market recovers, the sector is pro- jected to grow at both the state (9.3%) and national (10.2%) levels from 2010 to 2020. Rental and leasing services is projected to be the fastest growing subsector statewide. Two population groups will drive rental housing demand over the coming decades. Many retiring baby boomers are shifting to the rental market and younger generations (“echo boomers”) are purchasing homes at a slower rate than their predecessors. Region al Trends Indust ry Pr ofile Majo r S ubs ec t ors Employment (2011): 933 Employment Change (2002 -2011): – 18.5% Percent of Employment: 0.9% Location Quotient: 0.8 Number of Establishments: 202 Average Establishment Size: 4 Average Annual Wage: $39,252 Median Worker Age (Years): 47.1 ∙ Real estate ∙ Rental and leasing services ∙ Lessors of nonfinancial intangible assets 10.2% Growth 9.3% Growth State: National: Indust ry O ut look 2010— 202 0 Real Est at e and Rent al and Leasin g Empl oy m ent in t he C NVR: 2011 ᵃ Center for Real Estate and Urban Economic Studies, University of Connecticut Sources: Connecticut Department of Labor, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 27 Shrinking Growing Low High Employment Change 2002 -2011 Job Concentration Relative to State Info rmatio n There are 1,367 employees in the information sector in the CNVR, or 1.4% of the total. The highest concentration of information sector jobs is found in Waterbury, which is home to regional media outlets. The Central Naugatuck Valley is part of a larger television media market that includes Hartford and New Haven. Many media companies locate in Connecticut’s larger cities, which can partially explain the low job concentration (LQ of 0.6) relative to the state. The information sector has changed dramatically over the last decade with the growing importance of digital media. The result has been declines in traditional information services (such as print media) and gains in web -based information services. The largest collection of information employment in the state is located in neighboring Bristol, which is home to ESPN’s headquarters. Employment in the CNVR contracted by 27.1% from 2002 to 2011, resulting in a loss of 507 jobs. Dur- ing that same time period, the sector contracted by 17.7% statewide. From 2010 to 2020, employment is projected to grow by 5.2% nationally and just 1.2% statewide. State projections show declines in publishing industries and telecom- munications, and gains in internet service providers and broadcasting. Region al Trends Indust ry Pr ofile Majo r S ubs ec t ors Employment (2011): 1,367 Employment Change (2002 -2011): – 27.1% Percent of Employment: 1.4% Location Quotient: 0.6 Number of Establishments: 59 Average Establishment Size: 14 Average Annual Wage: $56,833 Median Worker Age (Years): 41.4 ∙ Publishing Industries ∙ Telecommunications ∙ ISPs, search portals, & data processing 5.2% Growth 1.2% Growth State: National: Indust ry O ut look 2010— 202 0 Infor mat i o n Employ m ent in t he C NVR: 2011 Sources: Connecticut Department of Labor, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 28 Professional and Business Services 29 Shrinking Growing Low High Employment Change 2002 -2011 Job Concentration Relative to State Pro fe ssion al, S ci entifi c , an d Tec hnica l Se r vices The professional, scientific, and technical services sector employed 5,008 people in the Central Naugatuck Valley, representing 5.1% of the region’s employment. The largest concentration of employment is in Southbury, home to an IBM corpo- rate center. Other concentrations can be found along Route 10 in Cheshire and in downtown Waterbury. The sector has high educational requirements and a ma- jority of the occupations require a college degree. The sector contracted by 12.8% from 2002 to 2011, a loss of 738 jobs. Some of the job loss can be attributed to downsizing at IBM’s Southbury office in the last decade. Comparatively, the state as a whole saw a 1.5% decline in the sector a loss of 1,375 jobs. The sector is projected to grow by 19.4% in the state from 2010 to 2020, making it one of the fastest growing sectors of the state economy. The largest gains are projected to be in computer systems design (38.3%) and scientific research and development services (34.5%). The State of Connecticut has instituted two industry cluster initiatives in the professional, scientific, and technical services sector: Bioscience and Software & Information Technology. The cluster initiatives are aimed at key industries that will drive future economic growth in the state. Region al Trends Indust ry Pr ofile Majo r S ubs ec t ors Employment (2011): 5,008 Employment Change (2002 -2011): – 12.8% Percent of Employment: 5.1% Location Quotient: 0.9 Number of Establishments: 495 Average Establishment Size: 5 Average Annual Wage: $54,313 Median Worker Age (Years): 43.4 ∙ Accounting, tax prep, and payroll ∙ Legal services ∙ Architectural, and engineering services ∙ Computer systems design 29.0% Growth 19.4% Growth State: National: Indust ry O ut look 2010— 202 0 Professi on al, S c ient ific , and Tec hnic al S erv ic es Employ me nt in t he CNVR: 2011 Sources: Connecticut Department of Labor, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 30 Shrinking Growing Low High Employment Change 2002 -2011 Job Concentration Relative to State Mana geme nt o f Companie s & E nte rp rises The management of companies and enterprises sector makes up just 1.0% of the region’s employment, with 1,029 jobs. With a location quotient of 0.5, the job concentration means that sector is much more prevalent in other parts of the state. For example, the management of companies and enterprises sector consti- tutes 3.3% of all employment in Fairfield County (LQ of 1.7). The highest concen- tration of employment in the CNVR can be found in Middlebury which is home to Timex Group and Chemtura. Other concentrations can be found in Naugatuck, Thomaston, and Waterbury. The sector has an average annual wage of $112,649, the second highest of any sector. From 2002 to 2011, the employment in the management of companies and en- terprises sector declined by 7.9%, resulting in a loss of 88 jobs. During that same time period, the sector grew by 12.1% statewide. National and state projections both show modest growths from 2010 to 2020 with 5.9% and 4.2% growth rates respectively. Since corporate headquarters are located in larger metropolitan areas (New York, Boston, Hartford, and Fairfield County), the region will struggle to attract outside companies and should instead focus on maintaining existing companies that have strong historic ties to the area. Region al Trends Indust ry Pr ofile Majo r S ubs ec t ors Employment (2011): 1,029 Employment Change (2002 -2011): – 7.9% Percent of Employment: 1.0% Location Quotient: 0.5 Number of Establishments: 18 Average Establishment Size: 41 Average Annual Wage: $112,649 Median Worker Age (Years): 45.2 ∙ Management of companies & enterprises 5.9% Growth 4.2% Growth State: National: Indust ry O ut look 2010— 202 0 Man ageme nt of C om panies an d Ent erprise s Employ me nt in t he CNVR: 2011 Sources: Connecticut Department of Labor, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 31 Shrinking Growing Low High Employment Change 2002 -2011 Job Concentra- tion Relative to Admi nist ration & Su ppo r t , Was te Mana geme nt & Reme diati on The administration and support, waste management and remediation sector was identified as an emerging strength of the region’s economy. With 4,167 employ- ees in 2011, it comprised 4.2% of the region’s employment. High concentrations of employment are found in Beacon Falls*, Waterbury, Middlebury, Naugatuck, and Cheshire. The sector was identified as being an emerging strength relative to the state as a whole, indicating that it has become more competitive in the last decade but still has a lower job concentration compared to the state and nation. The administration and support, waste management and remediation sector grew by 7.5% from 2002 to 2011 resulting in 292 new jobs. It was the largest of the four sectors of the region’s economy to grow at a faster rate than the state. The sector is projected to grow nationally (21.2%) and statewide (15.4%) from 2010 to 2020. Employment in the remediation and other waste services subsec- tor is projected to be nearly double the statewide figure. Region al Trends Indust ry Pr ofile Majo r S ubs ec t ors Employment (2011): 4,167 Employment Change (2002 -2011): 7.5% Percent of Employment: 4.2% Location Quotient: 0.8 Number of Establishments: 290 Average Establishment Size: 9 Average Annual Wage: $33,319 Median Worker Age (Years): 41.3 ∙ Employment services ∙ Services to buildings and dwellings ∙ Waste collection ∙ Remediation and other waste services 21.2% Growth 15.4% Growth State: National: Indust ry O ut look 2010— 202 0 Administ ra t ion & S upport , W ast e Mana gem ent & Remediat ion Employ me nt in t he CNVR: 2011 * After reviewing other employment datasets, COGCNV staff has concerns about the validity of the large employment concentration in Beacon Falls Sou rces: Connecticut Department of Labor, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 32 Picture of Southbury Training School Education and Health Services 33 Shrinking Growing Low High Employment Change 2002 -2011 Job Concentration Relative to State Healt h Ca re and So ci al As sista n ce Health care and social assistance is the largest employment sector in the Central Naugatuck Valley, with 19,921 jobs (20.2% of total employment). Employment is concentrated in the City of Waterbury, home of St. Mary’s Hospital and Water- bury Hospital, with other centers in Cheshire and Southbury. The health care and social assistance sector is resilient and historically has been immune from eco- nomic downturns. The sector even saw employment increases during the late 2000s economic recession, despite significant declines in other sectors. The health care and social assistance sector grew by 7.6% from 2002 to 2011, an increase of 1,412 jobs. It is projected to be the fastest growing sector of the state and national economies between 2010 and 2020, with 21.6% growth statewide and 34.4% growth nationally. Personal care aides, registered nurses, and home health aides are projected to be three of the four fastest growing occupations over that same time period. The aging of the baby boomers will dramatically in- crease the demand for health care and social services in the next decade. The region’s population of persons age 65 years and older is projected to increase from 41,774 in 2010 to 55,889 in 2020, an increase of 33.8%. State and national healthcare policy has expanded insurance coverage and will further increase de- mand for health care and social services. Region al Trends Indust ry Pr ofile Majo r S ubs ec t ors Employment (2011): 19,921 Employment Change (2002 -2011): 7.6% Percent of Employment: 20.2% Location Quotient: 1.2 Number of Establishments: 744 Average Establishment Size: 24 Average Annual Wage: $42,654 Median Worker Age (Years): 43.2 ∙ Ambulatory health care services ∙ Hospitals ∙ Nursing and residential care facilities ∙ Social assistance 34.4% Growth 21.6% Growth State: National: Indust ry O ut look 2010— 202 0 Healt h C ar e & S oc ial Assist anc e Employ me nt in t he CNVR: 2011 Sources: Connecticut Department of Labor, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 34 Shrinking Growing Low High Employment Change 2002 -2011 Job Concentration Relative to State Edu c ation al Se r vi ce s Educational services is the fourth largest sector of the region’s economy with 11,400 jobs, comprising 11.6% of total employment. 2,076 educational services jobs (18.2%) were private sector while the remaining 9,324 (81.8%) were public sector. Like health care and social services, the educational services sector is more resilient to economic fluctuations than many other sectors, and employ- ment increased during the Great Recession. The educational services sector had the highest growth from 2002 to 2011, in- creasing by 14.6% and resulting in 1,449 new jobs. National and state employ- ment projections show continued growth in the sector from 2010 to 2020, with growth rates of 26.0% and 12.5% respectively. However, during that same time period, regional population projections show the number of persons under the age of 20 declining by 8.8% from 75,946 in 2010 to 69,254 in 2020. This could lead to smaller school enrollments and lower demand for public school teachers. The region has three higher -education institutions with a combined enrollment of approximately 8,800 students: Naugatuck Valley Community College, the Uni- versity of Connecticut—Waterbury, and Post University. Emerging sectors such as bioscience, nanotechnology, and advanced manufacturing rely on higher edu- cation for both research and development and workforce training. Region al Trends Indust ry Pr ofile Majo r S ubs ec t ors Employment (2011): 11,400 Employment Change (2002 -2011): 14.6% Percent of Employment: 11.6% Location Quotient: 1.0 Number of Establishments: 85 Average Establishment Size:* 20 Average Annual Wage:* $40,882 Median Worker Age (Years): 44.4 ∙ Elementary and secondary school teachers ∙ Teacher assistants ∙ Colleges, universities, & professional ∙ Other schools and instruction 26.0% Growth 12.5% Growth State: National: Indust ry O ut look 2010— 202 0 Educ at ion a l S erv ic es Employ me nt in t he CNVR: 2011 * Only includes private -sector employment Sources: Connecticut Department of Labor, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics * 35 Leisure and Hospitality 36 Shrinking Growing Low High Employment Change 2002 -2011 Job Concentration Relative to State Ar t s, Ente r tain ment, a nd R ecrea tion The arts, entertainment, and recreation sector had 1,170 employees, comprising 1.2% of the region’s total. Downtown Waterbury had the highest concentration of employment followed by Watertown, Middlebury, and Cheshire. With a loca- tion quotient of 0.5, job concentration is much lower than the state as a whole, suggesting that CNVR residents travel to other parts of the state for arts, enter- tainment, and recreation. Over one -third of all employees in the sector work at the state’s two casinos: Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, which can partially explain the low location quotient. Average annual wages were $20,320, making it the one of the lowest paying sectors of the region’s economy. From 2002 to 2011, the arts, entertainment, and recreation sector lost 75 jobs, a 6.0% decline. This is similar to the 5.5% decline seen statewide. The high unem- ployment rate and ensuing decline in consumer spending during the last reces- sion can largely explain the declines in employment. As the region recovers from the recession and consumer spending increases, job growth is expected statewide (8.8%) and nationally (18.1%) from 2010 to 2020. Job growth in the sector is often a result of multiplier effects from other sectors. If other sectors of the economy are doing well and income increases, households will have more discretionary income to spend on arts, entertainment and recreation. Region al Trends Indust ry Pr ofile Majo r S ubs ec t ors Employment (2011): 1,170 Employment Change (2002 -2011): – 6.0% Percent of Employment: 1.2% Location Quotient: 0.5 Number of Establishments: 62 Average Establishment Size: 11 Average Annual Wage: $20,320 Median Worker Age (Years): 38.2 ∙ Amusement, gambling, and recreation ∙ Performing arts and spectator sports ∙ Museums and historical sites 18.1% Growth 8.8% Growth State: National: Indust ry O ut look 2010— 202 0 Art s, Ent er t ainment , & Rec reat ion Empl oy ment in t he C NVR: 2011 Sources: Connecticut Department of Labor, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 37 Shrinking Growing Low High Employment Change 2002 -2011 Job Concentration Relative to State Acco mmo datio n an d Foo d Se r vices The accommodation and food services sector comprises 4.8% of the region’s em- ployment with 5,810 jobs. Employment patterns closely follow population and retail patterns with the highest concentration in Waterbury, and smaller concen- trations in Southbury, Naugatuck, Cheshire, and Watertown. With an average annual wage of $15,677, the sector has the lowest pay of any sector in the re- gion. Coincidentally, the median age of workers is 30.0 years, the youngest of any sector. The accommodation and food services sector was one of the few sectors to grow from 2002 from 2011, adding 266 jobs, an increase of 4.8%. Employment grew significantly from 2002 to 2008, peaking at 6,372 in 2008. Since 2008 however, the sector has lost over 500 jobs. Similar to other leisure and hospitality indus- tries, job losses can be attributed to the recession and declines in consumer spending. As the economy continues to recover, employment is expected to in- crease. Employment projections show the accommodation and food services sec- tor growing by 9.2% nationally and 7.8% statewide from 2010 to 2020. Region al Trends Indust ry Pr ofile Majo r S ubs ec t ors Employment (2011): 5,810 Employment Change (2002 -2011): 4.8% Percent of Employment: 5.9% Location Quotient: 0.9 Number of Establishments: 483 Average Establishment Size: 12 Average Annual Wage: $15,677 Median Worker Age (Years): 30.0 ∙ Accommodation ∙ Food services and drinking places 9.2% Growth 7.8% Growth State: National: Indust ry O ut look 2010— 202 0 Ac c omm od at ion an d Food S erv ic es Employ ment in t he C NVR: 2011 Sources: Connecticut Department of Labor, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 38 Other Services 39 Shrinking Growing Low High Employment Change 2002 -2011 Job Concentration Relative to State Ot he r Ser vices The “other services” sector contains industries that do not fit into other NAICS categories such as non -profit organizations, repair and maintenance facilities, personal and laundry services, and private households. This sector had 3,806 em- ployees in 2011, comprising 3.6% of the region’s workforce. Employment patterns closely follow population patterns, with the highest concentration in Waterbury and smaller concentrations in Cheshire, Naugatuck, Southbury, and Watertown. The average annual wage was $24,337, which is 49.6% less than the regional average. From 2002 to 2011, the “other services” sector grew by 19.4%, the highest growth rate of any sector and an increase of 619 jobs. The region grew much faster than the state, which grew by 6.8% during the same time period. The sec- tor is projected to continue growing from 2010 to 2020 with a 13.6% increase nationally and 10.5% statewide. The “other services” sector was identified as one of the three current strengths of the region’s economy. However, because the sector is so broad, economic development strategies should focus on particular subsectors as opposed to the sector as a whole. Region al Trends Indust ry Pr ofile Majo r S ubs ec t ors Employment (2011) 3,806 Employment Change (2002 -2011) 19.4% Percent of Employment 3.9% Location Quotient 1.1 Number of Establishments: 918 Average Establishment Size: 4 Average Annual Wage: $24,337 Median Worker Age (Years): 43.1 ∙ Religious, professional and civic orgs. ∙ Repair and maintenance ∙ Personal and laundry services ∙ Private households 13.6% Growth 10.5% Growth State: National: O t her S erv ic es Emplo y ment in t he C NVR: 2011 Sources: Connecticut Department of Labor, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Indust ry O ut look 2010— 202 0 40 Public Administration 41 Shrinking Growing Low High Employment Change 2002 -2011 Job Concentration Relative to State Publi c Ad minis tra ti on The public administration sector includes federal, state, and local government employees that manage and oversee public programs. In 2011 there were a total of 3,567 employees in the public administration sector accounting for 3.6% of total employment. Public school teachers, who are counted as employees in the educational services sector, are not included in the public administration employ- ment totals. The largest concentration of employment is found in Waterbury, followed by Cheshire (home of two state correctional institutions) and Nau- gatuck. Public administration employment generally follows population patterns, with larger municipalities having more employees. The region has a location quo- tient of 1.0, which is consistent with other parts of the state. Public administration employment stayed stable from 2002 to 2011, growing 1.2%, an increase of 44 jobs. From 2010 to 2020 employment is expected to con- tract by 1.2% statewide and grow by 5.6% nationally. State and local government employment is expected to grow by 4.0% while federal government employment is expected to drop by -24.4%. Most of the federal job losses are postal service workers lost through layoffs or attrition. Region al Trends Indust ry Pr ofile Majo r S ubs ec t ors Employment (2011) 3,567 Employment Change (2002 -2011) 1.2% Percent of Employment 3.6% Location Quotient 1.0 Number of Establishments: 235 Average Establishment Size:* 65 Average Annual Wage:* $55,967 Median Worker Age (Years): 45.3 ∙ Executive, legislative, and other government support ∙ Justice, public order, and safety ∙ Administration of government programs 5.6% Growth – 1.2% Decline State: National: Indust ry O ut look 2010— 202 0 Sources: Connecticut Department of Labor, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Public Ad minist rat i o n Employ m ent in t he C NVR: 2011 * Includes all public sector employment * 42

S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 3 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3 A P r o f i l e o f t h e C e n t r a l N a u g a t u c k V a l l e y R e g i o n : 2 0 1 3 B e a c o n F a l l s ∙ B e t h l e h e m ∙ C h e s h i r e ∙ M i d d l e b u r y ∙ N a u g a t u c k ∙ O x f o r d ∙ P r o s p e c t ∙ S o u t h b u r y ∙ T h o m a s t o n ∙ W a t e r b u r y ∙ W a t e r t o w n ∙ W o l c o t t ∙ W o o d b u r y A Profile of the Central Naugatuck Valley Region: 2013 T i t l e : A u t h o r : Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley S u b j e c t : Compilation of population, economic, and housing information giving characteristics and trends of the Central Naugatuck Valley Region and its municipalities L o c a l P l a n n i n g A g e n c y : Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley S u b j e c t : Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 49 Leavenworth Street, Suite 303 Waterbury, Connecticut 06702 S e r i e s N o . : N/A N u m b e r O f P a g e s : 77 A b s t r a c t : This report is a compilation of population, economic, and housing data for the Central Naugatuck Valley Region and its municipalities. The tables present information on past trends and current conditions. Data contained in the report include the U.S. Census, U.S. Department of :ousing and Urban Development, and the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, in addition to other sources. The material contained herein may be quoted or reproduced without special permission, although men- tion of the source is appreciated. The preparation of the report was financed through grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal :ighway Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration, a grant from the Connecticut Department of Transportation, and by the contributions from member municipalities of the Central Nau- gatuck Valley Region. T:GeneralReportsProfile2013Final DraftFinal Draft.docx Several tables and figures in this report compare data from the 2007 -2011 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 2007- 2011 ACS is a five -year estimate where a small percentage of all households are sampled each year. ACS estimates represent an average over the course of five years and are not equivalent to the 100 per- cent 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 approximately 16% of households. Both data sets used samples to calculate estimates for the entire population. The differences in methodology be- tween the long -form 2000 Census and the 2007 -2011 ACS make their comparisons difficult. :owever, 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. Tables and figures using these data sets are marked with an asterisk (*) in the List of Tables and Figures on the follow- ing pages. A M E R = C A N C O M M U N = T Y S U R V E Y & C E N S U S D A TA D = S C L A = M E R = . G E N E R A L P O P U L A T = O N T R E N D S = = = . : O U S = N G = = . L A B O R F O R C E & E M P L O Y M E N T A. Population Growth B. Population Density C. Racial Composition D. Population of Hispanic Origin E. Age Distribution F. Household Types G. Income H. Educational Attainment I. Population Projections A. Labor Force B. Employment A. Housing Stock B. Tenure C. Household Size D. Publicly Assisted Housing E. Housing Vacancy F. Housing Costs A P P E N D = C E S = N T R O D U C T = O N Page 1 3 4 4 8 8 15 21 24 31 31 36 37 42 47 48 54 54 58 58 61 67 TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S = . G E N E R A L P O P U L A T = O N T R E N D S = = . L A B O R F O R C E & E M P L O Y M E N T Table I -A1: CNVR Population, by Municipality: 2000 -2012 CNVR Population Density, by Municipality: 2000 -2012 Total Population, by Race, of CNVR Municipalities: 2010 CNVR Minority Population, by Municipality: 2000 -2010 Top 10 Reported Ancestry Groups: 2007 -2011 CNVR Hispanic Population, by Municipality: 2000 -2010 CNVR Population of Hispanic Origin, by Race and Municipality: 2010 CNVR Age Distribution: 2000 -2010 5 7 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 Table I -B1: Table I -C1: Table I -C2: Table I -C3: Table I -D1: Table I -D2: Table I -E1: Table I -E2: Age Distribution of CNVR Population, by Municipality: 2010 CNVR Median Age, by Municipality: 1990 -2010 CNVR Percent of Population Age 65 and Older, by Municipality: 2000 -2010 19 20 26 Table I -E3: Table I -E4: Table I -G1: Estimated Median Household Income of CNVR Municipalities: 1999 -2011 Types of Households in the CNVR, by Municipality: 2010 22 Table I -F1: 27 Table I -G2: Estimated CNVR Household Income Distribution, by Municipality: 2007 -2011 28 Table I -G3: CNVR Per Capita Income, Median Household Income, and Median Family Income, by Municipality: 2007 -2011 CNVR Persons in Poverty, by Municipality: 2000 -2011 29 Table I -G4: 30 Table I -G5: CNVR Persons Under 150 Percent of the Poverty Threshold, by Municipality: 2000 -2011 32 Table I -H1: Educational Attainment of Persons 25 Years Old and Over in the CNVR, by Municipality: 2007 -2011 CNVR Population Projections, by Municipality: 2010 -2025 34 Table I -I1: 39 Table II -A1: Estimated CNVR Labor Force Status, by Place of Residence: 2000 -2012 Estimated CNVR Labor Force Status: 1990 -2012 40 Table II -A2: 41 Table II -A3: Occupation of Employed CNVR Residents, 16 Years Old and Over, 2007 -2011 Total Employment in the CNVR, by Municipality: 1980 -2012 43 Table II -B1: Page * * * * * * * L = S T O F TA B L E S = = = . : O U S = N G 45 Table II -B2: Manufacturing Employment in the Waterbury Labor Market Area, 2000 -2012 46 Table II -B3: Estimated Nonagricultural Employment by Industry Forthe Waterbury Labor Market Area: 2000 -2012 Page 49 Table III -A1: CNVR’s Total Housing Stock, by Municipality: 1980 -2010 CNVR Multi -Family Housing, by Municipality: 2000 -2011 Estimated Number of Housing Units in CNVR Municipalities, by Type of Structure: 2007 -2011 50 51 Table III -A2: Table III -A3: Annual Growth in the CNVR Housing Stock, by Municipality: 2000 -2012 52 Table III -A4: Changes in Housing Stock in CNVR Municipalities, by Type of New Construction, Other Gains, and Losses: 2012 53 Table III -A5: CNVR Housing Tenure, by Municipality: 2000 -2010 55 Table III -B1: Occupied Year -Round Housing Units in CNVR Municipalities, by Type of Structure and Tenure Status: 2007 -2011 56 Table III -B2: CNVR Average Household Size, by Municipality: 1970 -2010 57 Table III -C1: Publicly Assisted Housing in the CNVR, by Municipality: 2012 59 Table III -D1: CNVR Property Vacancy, as a Percent of Housing Units, by Municipality: 2010 60 Table III -E1: CNVR Median Home Value, by Municipality: 2000 -2011 63 Table III -F1: CNVR Median Monthly Homeowner Costs, by Municipality: 2000 -2011 64 Table III -F2: CNVR Homeowner Costs as a Percentage of Income, by Municipality: 2007 -2011 65 Table III -F3: CNVR Median Rent, by Municipality: 2000 -2011 66 Table III -F4: * * * * * * * * * * * L = S T O F TA B L E S = . G E N E R A L P O P U L A T = O N T R E N D S = = . L A B O R F O R C E & E M P L O Y M E N T Figure 1: Central Naugatuck Valley Region CNVR Population, by Block Group: 2010 CNVR population Change: 1950 -2012 Distribution of Regional Population: 1950 -2012 CNVR Population Density, by Block Group: 2010 Major Racial Groups in the CNVR, by Block Group: 2010 CNVR Minority Population, by Block Group: 2010 CNVR Hispanic Population, by Block Group: 2010 2 5 6 6 7 10 11 13 14 Figure I -A1: Figure I -A2: Figure I -A3: Figure I -B1: Figure I -C1: Figure I -C2: Figure I -D1: Figure I -D2: Racial Identification of CNVR Hispanic Population: 2010 Population Pyramids and Age Distribution in the CNVR: 2010 CNVR Median Age, by Block Group: 2010 18 19 26 Figure I -E1: Figure I -E2: Figure I -G1: Change in Inflation Adjusted Median Household Income of CNVR Municipalities: 1999 -2011 CNVR Percent Single Parent Households, by Block Group: 2010 23 Figure I -F1: 28 Figure I -G2: CNVR Per Capita Income, by Block Group: 2007 -2011 29 Figure I -G3: CNVR Percent of Persons in Poverty, by Block Group: 2007 -2011 CNVR Persons Under 150% of Poverty Level: 2007 -2011 30 Figure I -G4: 33 Figure I -H1: CNVR Educational Attainment of Persons Age 25 Years and Older, by Block Group: 2007 -2011 34 Figure I -I1: CNVR Population Projections, by Municipality: 2010 -2025 CNVR Population Projections and Age Distribution: 2010 -2025 35 Figure I -I2: 38 Figure II -A1: CNVR Labor Force and Employed Residents Trends: 1990 -2012 Percent Unemployment in the CNVR: 1992 -2012 38 Figure II -A2: 39 Figure II -A3: Change in Employed Residents, by Municipality: 2000 -2012 Change in Employed Persons, by Census Tract: 2000 -2011 44 Figure II -B1: Page CNVR Population Age 65 and Older, by Block Group: 2010 20 Figure I -E3: Manufacturing Employment in the Waterbury Labor Market Area, 2000 -2012 45 Figure II -B2: * * * * * L = S T O F F = G U R E S = = = . : O U S = N G Page 49 Figure III -A1: Change in CNVR Housing Stock, by Municipality: 2000 -2010 CNVR Multi -Family Housing, by Block Group: 2007 -2011 Net Growth in the CNVR Housing Stock, by Municipality: 2012 50 52 Figure III -A2: Figure III -A3: New Housing Units by Number of Housing Units: 2012 53 Figure III -A4: CNVR Renter -Occupied Housing, by Block Group: 2010 55 Figure III -B1: CNVR Average Household Size, by Block Group: 2010 57 Figure III -C1: CNVR Vacancy Rate, by Block Group: 2010 59 Figure III -D1: 60 Figure III -E1: Median Owner -Occupied Home Value, by Block Group: 2007 -2011 63 Figure III -F1: CNVR Median Monthly Homeowner Costs, by Block Group: 2007 -2011 64 Figure III -F2: CNVR Homeowners Paying 30% of More of their Income to Housing Costs, by Block Group: 2007 -2011 65 Figure III -F3: CNVR Median Gross Rent, by Block Group: 2007 -2011 66 Figure III -F4: L = S T O F A P P E N D = C E S Publically Assisted Housing as a Percent of Total, by Municipality: 2012 Glossary of Population, Housing, and Statistical Concepts 67 Appendix A: Listing of Agencies Responsible for Regional Planning and Map of the Connecticut Regional Planning Agencies 70 Appendix B: Waterbury Labor Market Area (LMA) and Metropolitan NECTA 73 Appendix C: Income Limits for Selected Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Programs, CNVR Towns: 2013 74 Appendix D: CNVR Urbanized Areas: 2010 76 Appendix E: * * * * * * L = S T O F F = G U R E S This report presents a statistical overview of the population, economic, and housing characteristics of the Central Naugatuck Valley Region (CNVR). Figure 1 on the following page shows the location of the CNVR in Connecticut. The data shows trends as drawn from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the Connecticut Depart- ment of Labor, the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, and other sources. The statistics include information on population growth, race and ethnicity, age distribution, income, labor force and employment characteristics, growth and composition of housing stock, tenure status and house- hold size. The report includes 100 percent count data from the 2010 U.S. Census as well as detailed social, economic, and housing data from the 2007 -2011 American Community Survey (ACS). The report provides useful statistical data to public officials, local organizations, developers, private citizens, students, businesses, and others interested in population, housing and economic trends in the Central Nau- gatuck Valley Region (CNVR). The Profile is updated annually by the staff of the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley. The tables and figures in this publication are divided into three general subject areas: Part = – Population; Part == – Labor Force and Employment; and Part === – :ousing. =n each section, the figures are grouped by subject. A list of all subject areas is presented at the beginning of each section; a list of figures is available at the begin- ning of the report. =n addition to the figures, this report contains a brief analysis of the data, providing an overview of the major regional trends. =NTRODUCT=ON Heremy Swamp Mill :ouse, Southbury. Credit: Don Antilla  § ¨ ¦84 Long Island Sound Oxford Middlebury Watertown Bethlehem Woodbury Southbury BeaconFalls Naugatuck Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Waterbury Thomaston Sharon Canton Simsbury Cornwall Goshen Bloomfield New Hartford Torrington Avon Burlington West Hartford Harwinton Litchfield Kent Warren Farmington Bristol Morris New Britain Plymouth Washington Plainville New Milford Southington Berlin Roxbury Meriden Bridgewater New Fairfield Brookfield Wallingford Newtown Bethany Danbury Hamden North Haven Bethel North Branford Seymour Woodbridge Monroe Shelton East Haven Derby Redding New Haven Easton Branford Orange West Haven Trumbull Milford Weston Stratford Wilton Fairfield Bridgeport Westport Norwalk Northwestern CT Region Litchfield Hills Region Capitol Region Central CT Region Central Naugatuck Valley Region Housatonic Valley Region South Central CT Region Va ll e y Region Greater Bridgeport Region SouthwesternCT Region Sau ga t uckR i v e r Naugatu ckR i v e r Q ui n ni p i a cRi ve r Farmi ngt onRi v e r Housa to ni cRiver § ¨ ¦95 § ¨ ¦91 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 ” )8 ” )9 ¯ 0 5 Miles Figure 1: Central  Naugatuck  Va l l e y  Region          A . P o p u l a ti o n G r o w t h B . P o p u l a ti o n D e n s i t y C . R a c i a l C o m p o s i ti o n D . P o p u l a ti o n o f : i s p a n i c O r i g i n E . A g e D i s t r i b u ti o n F . : o u s e h o l d T y p e s G . = n c o m e : . E d u c a ti o n a l A tt a i n m e n t = . P o p u l a ti o n P r o j e c ti o n s =. GENERAL POPULAT=ON TRENDS  =. GENERAL POPULAT=ON TRENDS A . P o p u l a ti o n G r o w t h A c c o r d i n g t o 2 0 1 2 C e n s u s B u r e a u e s ti m a t e s , t h e t o t a l p o p u l ati o n o f t h e C e n t r a l N a u – g a t u c k V a l l e y R e g i o n w a s 2 8 7 , 1 5 1 , a 5 . 3 % i n c r e a s e f r o m 2 0 0 0 a n d a s l i g h t d e c l i n e (-0 . 2 % ) f r o m 2 0 1 0 . S i n c e 2 0 0 0 , t h e r e g i o n ’ s p o p u l a ti o n h a s g r o w n a t a r a t e s i m i l a r t o t h e s t a t e a s a w h o l e ( 5 . 4 % ) . A l l t h i r t e e n m u n ic i p a l i ti e s i n t h e r e g i o n s a w p o p u l a ti o n g r o w t h f r o m 2 0 0 0 t o 2 0 1 2 w i t h t h e h i g h e s t g r o w t h o c c u r r i n g i n O x f o r d ( 3 0 . 5 % ) , M i d d l e b u r y ( 1 7 . 4 % ) , a n d B e a c o n F a l l s ( 1 5 . 6 % ) . W a t e r b u r y , t h e r e g i o n ’ s l a r g e s t m u n i c i p a l i t y a n d t h e s t a t e ’ s fi ft h l a r g e s t c i t y , e x p e r i e n c e d a 2 . 5 % g a i n ( F i g u r e = -A 1 a n d T a b l e = -A 1 ) . T h e r e g i o n h a s a d d e d o v e r 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 r e s i d e n t s i n t h e l a s t 6 0 y e a r s , w i t h t h e f a s t e s t g r o w t h o c c u r r i n g i n t h e s u b u r b a n p a r t s o f t h e C N V R ( F i g u r e = -A 2 ) . S i n c e 1 9 7 0 , a m a j o r i t y o f t h e C N V R p o p – u l a ti o n h a s b e e n l o c a t e d o u t s i d e o f W a t e r b u r y . T h i s t r e n d h a s c o n ti n u e d , a n d a s o f 2 0 1 2 , o n l y 3 8 . 4 % o f t h e r e g i o n ’ s p o p u l a ti o n l i v e d i n W a t e r b u r y ( F i g u r e = -A 3 ) . B . P o p u l a ti o n D e n s i t y T h e C N V R h a s a h i g h e r p o p u l a ti o n d e n s i t y t h a n t h e s t a t e a s a w h o l e . = n 2 0 1 2 , t h e r e g i o n h a d 9 2 9 p e r s o n s p e r s q u a r e m i l e ( w h i c h i n c l u d e s n o n -r e s i d e n ti a l l a n d a n d r o a d s ) , c o m – p a r e d t o 7 4 1 s t a t e w i d e . F i g u r e = -B 1 s h o w s p o p u l a ti o n d e n s i t y b y c e n s u s b l o c k u s i n g e s ti – m a t e s a n d c o u n t s f r o m t h e U . S . C e n s u s B u r e a u . P o p u l a ti o n d e n s i t y v a r i e s s i g n i fi c a n t l y i n t h e r e g i o n . W a t e r b u r y , w h i c h i s e x t e n s i v e l y d e – v e l o p e d a n d h a s t h e h i g h e s t p r o p o r ti o n o f m u l ti -f a m i l y u n i t s , h a s t h e h i g h e s t p o p u l a ti o n d e n s i t y i n t h e r e g i o n a t 3 , 8 5 0 p e r s o n s p e r s q u a r e m i l e . : o w e v e r , p o p u l a ti o n d e n s i t y v a r – i e s s i g n i fi c a n t l y f r o m n e i g h b o r h o o d t o n e i g h b o r h o o d . S e v e r a l c e n s u s b l o c k g r o u p s n e a r t h e d o w n t o w n h a v e p o p u l a ti o n d e n s i ti e s o f o v e r 1 0 , 0 0 0 p e r sq u a r e m i l e , w h i l e b l o c k g r o u p s i n W a t e r b u r y ’ s o u t l y i n g n e i g h b o r h o o d s h a v e p o p u l a ti o n d e n s i ti e s u n d e r 2 , 5 0 0 p e r s q u a r e m i l e . N a u g a t u c k , t h e r e g i o n ’ s s e c o n d l a r g e s t m u n i c i p a l i t y , h a d t h e s e c o n d h i g h e s t p o p u l a ti o n d e n s i t y a t 1 , 9 3 9 p e r s o n s p e r s q u a r e m i l e . P o p u l a ti o n d e n s i t y i s lo w – e s t i n t h e r e g i o n ’ s w e s t e r n s e c ti o n ( B e t h l e h e m , W o o d b u r y , O x f o r d , M i d d l e b u r y , a n d S o u t h b u r y ) w i t h d e n s i ti e s r a n g i n g f r o m 1 8 4 t o 5 0 9 p e r s o n s p e r s q u a r e m i l e ( T a b l e = -B 1 ) . AN OVERV=EW OF T:E REG=ON’S TRENDS  0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% To t a l  Population ! ! ! ! !!1 Dot = 25 ! Pop  To t a l ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! !! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon  Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on block  group geography. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of the  Census,  2010 Census Figure  I‐ A1     CNVR  Population  by  Block  Group:  2010 To w n s Block Groups Ta b l e  I ‐ A1.    CNVR  Population,  By  Municipality:  2000 ‐2012 CNVR  Population Change:  2000 ‐2012 Source:   U.S.  Bureau of  the Census,  Census 2000; Census  2010, Profile of  General Population  and Housing  Characteristics;                  2012 Population  Estimates 05 Miles ¯ Population Geographic A re a 2012 2010 2000 2010 ‐ 2012 2000 ‐ 2012 CN V R 287, 151 287, 768 272, 594 ‐0. 2% 5. 3% Wate rbury 109, 915 110,366 107, 271 ‐0. 4% 2. 5% Remainder  of   Region 177, 236 177, 402 165, 323 ‐0. 1% 7. 2% Beacon  Fal l s 6, 065 6,049 5, 246 0. 3% 15. 6% Be thl e he m 3, 566 3,607 3, 422 ‐1. 1% 4. 2% Cheshire 29,30 0 29, 261 28, 543 0. 1% 2. 7% Mi dd l e bu ry 7, 572 7, 575 6, 451 0. 0% 17. 4% Naugatuck 31,77 4 31, 862 30, 989 ‐0. 3% 2. 5% Ox f ord 12, 819 12, 683 9, 821 1. 1% 30. 5% P ro sp e ct 9, 642 9, 405 8, 707 2. 5% 10. 7% Southbury 19,877 19,904 18,567 ‐0. 1% 7. 1% Thomaston 7, 788 7,887 7, 503 ‐1. 3% 3. 8% Wate rtow n 22, 261 22, 514 21, 661 ‐1. 1% 2. 8% Wo l cott 16, 72 4 16, 680 15, 215 0. 3% 9. 9% Woodbury 9,848 9,975 9,198 ‐1. 3% 7. 1% Conne cti cut 3, 590, 347 3, 574, 097 3, 405, 565 0. 5% 5. 4%     Percent  Change Total  Population C on n e ct ic u t C N V R W at er bu ry R e m a in d e r o f  R eg i o n  Figure = -A2. CNVR Population Change: 1950 -2012 Figure = -A3. Distribution of Regional Population: 1950 -2012 Source: US Census Bureau, Census 1950 -2010, 2012 Population Estimates 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2012 CN VR Waterbury Remai nder of Region 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2012 Remai nder of Regi on Waterbury  0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Data  based on  block group geography. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of the  Census,  2010 Census Figure  I‐ B1     CNVR  Population  Density,  by Block  Group:  2010 To w n s Block Groups Population Density (Per Sq Mi) Up to 1,000 1,000 – 2,499 2,500 – 4,999 5,000 – 9,999 10,000 and Over Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon  Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Ta b l e  I ‐ B1.    CNVR  Population  Density,  By  Municipality:  2000 ‐2012 CNVR  Population  Density:  2012 Source:  U.S.  Bureau  of the  Census,  U.S. Census  2000 ‐ 2010;  2012 Population Estimates 0 5 Miles ¯ Area Population Density %  Change Geographic  Area (Sq  Mi) 2012 2010 2000 1990  ‐ 2010 CNVR 309.0 929 931 882 5.3% Waterbury 28.6 3,850 3,866 3,757 2.5% Remainder  of   Region 280.5 632 633 589 7.2% Beacon  Falls 9.8 621 619 537 15.6% Bethlehem 19.4 184 186 177 4.2% Cheshire 32.9 891 889 868 2.7% Middlebury 17.8 427 427 363 17.4% Naugatuck 16.4 1,939 1,944 1,891 2.5% Oxford 32.9 390 386 299 30.5% Prospect 14.3 673 657 608 10.7% Southbury 39.1 509 510 475 7.1% Thomaston 12.0 648 657 625 3.8% Watertown 29.2 764 772 743 2.8% Wolcott 20.4 819 816 745 9.9% Woodbury 36.5 270 274 252 7.1% Connecticut 4844.1 741 738 703 5.4% C o n n ec t ic u t C N V R W at er b u r y R em ai n d er o f R eg io n  C . R a c i a l C o m p o s i ti o n The Census Bureau classifies individuals based on both race and ethnicity. Racial groups include per- sons who identified themselves as White, Black or African American, and Asian. The CNVR has be- come increasingly diverse since the 2000 Census. Whites remain the largest racial group in the region, comprising 79.4% of the population in 2010 (Table = -C1 and Figure = -C1). While the White population experienced a slight gain since 2000, it has declined as a share of the regional population from 83.4% to 79.4%. The sharpest decline occurred in Waterbury, with a 9.9% reduction in its White population. Naugatuck and Cheshire also experienced declines in their White population. =n the CNVR, 9.2% of the population characterized themselves as Black or African American, and 2.2% as Asian. Persons of ‘Other’ races accounted for 6.1% of the regional population, while 2.7% of the population considered themselves as belonging to two or more races. Despite making up only a small percentage of the pop- ulation, Asians are the fastest growing racial group in the region, with a population increase of 64.3% since 2000, while Blacks saw an increase of 29.6%. Racial minorities (59,206) comprised 20.6% of the region’s total population in 2010, a 34.4% increase from 2000 (Figure = -C2 and Table = -C2). 76.9% of the region’s minority population lived in Waterbury, accounting for 41.2% of the city’s population. Minorities make up 7.7% of the population in the re- mainder of the CNVR with the highest percentages in Naugatuck (13.1%) and Cheshire (12.8%). =n the last decade, Middlebury, Prospect, and Southbury saw their minority populations double. A n c e s t r y From 2007 -2011, the largest ancestry group in the CNVR was =talian (24.0%) followed by =rish (18.0%), German (9.3%), English (8.4%) and Polish (7.2%). Rounding out the top ten are French, Portuguese, French -Canadian, American, and Lithuanian. Waterbury also has an Albanian (2.3%) and Hamaican (1.9%) presence while the remainder of the region has a Russian presence (1.9%). Persons reporting ‘Other’ ancestries accounted for 26.2% of the region’s population. Table = -C3 shows the top 10 ances- try groups in the region. D . P o p u l a ti o n o f : i s p a n i c O r i g i n =ndividuals considered to be :ispanic are those who were born in or are the descendants of persons from Spanish -speaking countries. The Census Bureau considers :ispanics as an ethnic group rather than a race. The :ispanic population has grown 53.9% since 2000. =n 2010, a total of 42,518 persons, or 14.8% of the region’s population was :ispanic (Figure = -D1 and Table = -D1). 81.0% of the region’s :ispanic population resided in Waterbury, constituting 31.2% of the city’s population, while 19% re- sided in the other twelve towns in the region. Naugatuck (9.2%) and Beacon Falls (5.0%) had the sec- ond and third highest percentages of :ispanics in the region. 47.4% of :ispanics identified their race as White while 45.7% identified their race as ‘Other’ (Table = -D2 and Figure = -D2).  Table = -C1. Total Population, by Race of CNVR Municipalities: 2010 Single Race Geographic Area Total Population White Black or African American American =ndian and Alaska Native Asian Some Other Race Two or More Races CNVR 287,768 228,562 26,545 917 6,435 17,602 7,707 Waterbury 110,366 64,864 22,138 626 1,989 15,648 5,101 Remainder of Region 177,402 163,698 4,407 291 4,446 1,954 2,606 Beacon Falls 6,049 5,741 95 2 70 54 87 Bethlehem 3,607 3,532 16 4 18 6 31 Cheshire 29,261 25,503 1,461 30 1,489 362 416 Middlebury 7,575 7,096 73 4 287 34 81 Naugatuck 31,862 27,700 1,575 62 969 810 746 Oxford 12,683 12,106 145 13 195 85 139 Prospect 9,405 8,964 177 12 73 73 106 Southbury 19,904 18,871 166 21 531 78 237 Thomaston 7,887 7,631 34 26 60 53 83 Watertown 22,514 21,249 315 58 376 214 302 Wolcott 16,680 15,758 293 26 210 147 246 Woodbury 9,975 9,547 57 33 168 38 132 Connecticut 3,574,097 2,772,410 362,296 11,256 135,565 199,894 92,676 Percent of Total Population CNVR 100.0% 79.4% 9.2% 0.3% 2.2% 6.1% 2.7% Waterbury 100.0% 58.8% 20.1% 0.6% 1.8% 14.2% 4.6% Remainder of Region 100.0% 92.3% 2.5% 0.2% 2.5% 1.1% 1.5% Beacon Falls 100.0% 94.9% 1.6% 0.0% 1.2% 0.9% 1.4% Bethlehem 100.0% 97.9% 0.4% 0.1% 0.5% 0.2% 0.9% Cheshire 100.0% 87.2% 5.0% 0.1% 5.1% 1.2% 1.4% Middlebury 100.0% 93.7% 1.0% 0.1% 3.8% 0.4% 1.1% Naugatuck 100.0% 86.9% 4.9% 0.2% 3.0% 2.5% 2.3% Oxford 100.0% 95.5% 1.1% 0.1% 1.5% 0.7% 1.1% Prospect 100.0% 95.3% 1.9% 0.1% 0.8% 0.8% 1.1% Southbury 100.0% 94.8% 0.8% 0.1% 2.7% 0.4% 1.2% Thomaston 100.0% 96.8% 0.4% 0.3% 0.8% 0.7% 1.1% Watertown 100.0% 94.4% 1.4% 0.3% 1.7% 1.0% 1.3% Wolcott 100.0% 94.5% 1.8% 0.2% 1.3% 0.9% 1.5% Woodbury 100.0% 95.7% 0.6% 0.3% 1.7% 0.4% 1.3% Connecticut 100.0% 77.6% 10.1% 0.3% 3.8% 5.6% 2.6% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94 -171) Summary File P1 E Figure I‐ C1     Major  Racial Groups  in  the  CNVR,  by  Block  Group:  2010 % White Less than 30% 30% – 49.9% 50% – 69.9% 70% – 89.9% 90% or Higher Source:  U.S. Census  Bureau,  Census, 2010 ‐  Profile of General Population  and Housing Characteristics Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston White Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Other Races % Other Races Less than 3% 3% – 4.9% 5% – 9.9% 10% – 24.9% 25% or Higher Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Black  or  African  American % Black Less than 5% 5% – 9.9% 10% – 14.9% 15% – 24.9% 25% or Greater Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston % Asian Less than 1% 1% – 2.9% 3% – 3.9% 4% – 5.9% 6% or Higher Asian  Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Figure  I ‐ C2.    CNVR  Minority  Population,  by  Block  Group:  2010 To w n s Block Groups Percent Minority Up to 10% 10% – 14.9% 15% – 24.9% 25% – 49.9% 50% or Higher CNVR  Percent  Minority Population:  2010 Ta b l e  I ‐ C2.    CNVR  Minority  Population,  By  Municipality:  2000 ‐2010 Source:   U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  Census 2000. PL94 ‐171  Tables  ‐ Connecticut.                 Profile of General  Population  and  Housing  Characteristics: 2010 05M ile s ¯ Data  based  on block  group geography.  Includes persons who identified  themselves  as Black/African  American, Asian, Pacific  Islander,  American  Indian/Alaska  Native, Other  Races or  Two  or More  Races  on  their  2010 Census form.  Includes prison  population  in Cheshire. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of the  Census,  2010 Census   Percent Change Geographic  A re a 2010 2000 2010 2000 2000 ‐2010 CN V R 59, 206 44, 063 20. 6% 16. 2% 34. 4% Wate rbury 45,502 35, 253 41. 2% 32. 9% 29. 1% Remainder  of   Region 13, 704 8, 807 7. 7% 5. 3% 55. 6% Be acon  Falls 308 159 5.1% 3.0% 93.7% Bethlehem 75 86 2.1% 2.5%‐12. 8% Che shi re 3,758 3, 025 12. 8% 10. 6% 24. 2% Mi ddl e bury 479 186 6. 3% 2. 9% 157. 5% N au gatu ck 4, 162 2, 554 13. 1% 8. 2% 63. 0% Ox f ord 577227 4. 5% 2. 3% 154. 2% P ro sp e ct 441 321 4. 7% 3. 7% 37. 4% Southbury 1,033 49 4 5. 2% 2. 7% 109. 1% Thomaston 256 161 3.2% 2.1% 59.0% Watertown 1,265 767 5.6% 3.5% 64.9% Wol cott 922 57 4 5. 5% 3. 8% 60. 6% Woodbury 428 253 4.3% 2.8% 69.2% Conne cti cut 801,687 625, 210 22. 4% 18. 4% 28. 2% Number Percent  of   Total 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% C on n e ct ic u t C N V R W at er bu ry R e m a in d e r o f  R eg i o n  Table = -C3. Top 10 Reported Ancestry Groups: 2007 -2011 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2007 -2011 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates, 2007 -2011, B04003 Geographic Area Ancestry Group Population % of Total CNVR =talian 69,157 24.0% =rish 51,806 18.0% German 26,629 9.3% English 24,060 8.4% Polish 20,757 7.2% French 19,162 6.7% Portuguese 8,452 2.9% French Canadian 8,058 2.8% American 7,156 2.5% Lithuanian 5,386 1.9% Waterbury =talian 20,107 18.2% =rish 12,576 11.4% French 5,639 5.1% German 4,296 3.9% English 4,238 3.8% Polish 3,595 3.3% Albanian 2,569 2.3% Portuguese 2,517 2.3% French Canadian 2,170 2.0% Hamaican 2,097 1.9% Remainder =talian 49,050 27.6% of Region =rish 39,230 22.1% German 22,333 12.6% English 19,822 11.2% Polish 17,162 9.7% French 13,523 7.6% Portuguese 5,935 3.3% French Canadian 5,888 3.3% American 5,209 2.9% Swedish 4,258 2.4% Connecticut =talian 680,770 19.0% =rish 606,736 17.0% German 359,200 10.1% English 353,181 9.9% Polish 296,439 8.3% French 222,976 6.2% American 103,055 2.9% French Canadian 102,924 2.9% Scottish 70,103 2.0% Russian 69,284 1.9%  Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based on  block group geography.  Includes persons who  identified  themselves  as Hispanic  on their  2010 Census form.  Includes prison  population  in Cheshire. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of the  Census,  2010 Census Figure  I‐ D1.     CNVR  Hispanic  Population  by,  Block  Group:  2010 Ta b l e  I ‐ D1.    CNVR  Hispanic  Population,  by  Municipality:  2000 ‐2010 CNVR  Percent  Hispanic:  2010 Source:   U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  Census 2000. PL94 ‐171  Tables  ‐ Connecticut.                 Profile of General  Population  and  Housing  Characteristics: 2010 To w n s Block Groups Percent Hispanic Less  than 5% 5%  ‐ 9.9% 10%  ‐ 24.9% 25%  ‐ 49.9% 50%  or  Greater 05 Mil e s ¯ 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% CNVR Waterbury Remainder of Region Connecticut C on n e ct ic u t C N V R W at er bu ry R em ain d e r o f  R eg i o n Percent Change Ge ographi c  A re a 2010 2000 2010 2000 2000 ‐2010 CN V R 42, 518 27, 53 4 14. 8% 10. 1% 54. 4% Wate rbury 34,446 23, 25 4 31. 2% 21. 8% 48. 1% Remainder  of   Region 8,072 4, 280 4. 6% 2. 6% 88. 6% Beacon  Falls 30 0 112 5.0% 2.1% 167.9% Bethlehem 61 22 1.7% 0.6% 177.3% Che shi re 1,375 1, 097 4. 7% 3. 8% 25. 3% Middlebury 208 79 2.7% 1.2% 163.3% N augatu ck 2, 929 1, 386 9. 2% 4. 5% 111. 3% Oxford 468 18 0 3. 7% 1. 8% 160. 0% P rospe ct 312 168 3. 3% 1. 9% 85. 7% S ou th bu ry 523 296 2. 6% 1. 6% 76. 7% Tho masto n 202 109 2. 6% 1. 5% 85. 3% Watertown 838 406 3.7% 1.9% 106.4% Wolcott 611 273 3.7% 1.8% 123.8% Woodbury 245 152 2. 5% 1. 7% 61. 2% Con ne cti cu t 479, 087 320, 323 13. 4% 9. 4% 49. 6% Number Percent  of  Total  By Race Geographic Area :ispanic or Latino Percent of Total Population White Black or African American Other CNVR 42,518 14.8% 20,269 2,820 19,429 Waterbury 34,446 31.2% 14,783 2,484 17,179 Remainder of Region 8,072 4.6% 5,486 336 2,250 Beacon Falls 300 5.0% 226 8 66 Bethlehem 61 1.7% 55 0 6 Cheshire 1,375 4.7% 866 87 422 Middlebury 208 2.7% 171 6 31 Naugatuck 2,929 9.2% 1,933 148 848 Oxford 468 3.7% 361 11 96 Prospect 312 3.3% 224 2 86 Southbury 523 2.6% 409 10 104 Thomaston 202 2.6% 120 7 75 Watertown 838 3.7% 542 23 273 Wolcott 611 3.7% 398 32 181 Woodbury 245 2.5% 181 2 62 Connecticut 479,087 13.4% 226,148 27,177 225,762 Table = -D2. CNVR Population of :ispanic Origin, by Race and Municipality: 2010 Figure = -D2. Racial =dentification of CNVR :ispanic Population: 2010 White 47.7% Other 45.7% Black 6.6% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census :Profile of General Population and :ousing Statistics White Bla ck or Africa n American Other  E . Ag e D i s t r i b u ti o n The region’s age distribution changed dramatically between 2000 and 2010 (Table = -E1 and Table = -E2). The “baby boomers” of the post -World War == era increased the 45 -64 age group by 33.2%. School age children (5 -17) decreased by 0.7% over the decade, while preschoolers (under 5) decreased by 10.7%. There was an increase in young adults (age 18 -24) by 20.5%. Adults age 25 to 34 decreased by 9.7% and adults age 35 to 44 decreased by 15.1%. Those 65 years old and over represented 14.5% of the region’s population. Population pyramids for the region can be seen in Figure = -E1. The median age for the region was 40.4 years old, slightly higher than the state average of 40.0. Val- ues for municipalities ranged from a low of 35.2 in Waterbury to a high of 49.9 in Southbury (Figure = – E2 and Table = -E3). Waterbury and Naugatuck had the highest percent population of those under 5 years old, 20 to 24 years old, and 25 to 34 years old. Coincidentally, these two municipalities also had the two lowest median ages in the region. Middlebury and Cheshire had the highest percentage of those aged 5 to 19 years. Bethlehem had the highest percentage of 45 to 64 year olds while South- bury had the highest percentage of persons 65 years old and over. Southbury had the lowest percent- age of people in the five youngest age groups (under 5 years, 5 to 19, 20 to 24, 25 to 34, and 35 to 44). Bethlehem, Southbury, and Woodbury all had median ages of over 45. Elderly Population =n 2010, 14.5% of the CNVR population was 65 years old and over, an increase of 6.4% since 2000. The distribution of persons 65 years old and over can be seen in Figure = -E3 and Table = -E4. Despite making up only 12.6% of the city’s population, Waterbury was home to the most elderly persons in the region (13,943). :owever, the elderly population in Waterbury declined by 13.1% since 2000. During that same time period, the region’s suburban portion saw its elderly population grow by 19.8%. Oxford’s elderly population doubled in the last decade with the construction of a large age -restricted golf com- munity. Beacon Falls and Woodbury saw their elderly populations grow by over 40% in the last dec- ade. Southbury continues to have the largest percentage of elderly persons, comprising 26.3% of the population. This is largely due to the presence of :eritage Village, a large retirement community, con- valescent homes, and assisted living developments. D Table = -E1. CNVR Age Distribution: 2000 -2010 Number Percent of Total Percent Change 2000 -2010 Geographic Area 2010 2000 2010 2000 CNVR Under 5 years 16,267 18,209 5.7% 6.7% – 10.7% 5 to 17 years 52,398 52,040 18.2% 19.1% 0.7% 18 to 24 years 23,607 19,583 8.2% 7.2% 20.5% 25 to 34 years 31,748 35,164 11.0% 12.9% – 9.7% 35 to 44 years 39,319 46,287 13.7% 17.0% – 15.1% 45 to 64 years 82,655 62,033 28.7% 22.8% 33.2% 65 years and over 41,774 39,278 14.5% 14.4% 6.4% Total 287,768 272,594 100.0% 100.0% 5.6% Waterbury Under 5 years 7,920 8,176 7.2% 7.6% – 3.1% 5 to 17 years 20,345 20,278 18.4% 18.9% 0.3% 18 to 24 years 11,095 9,566 10.1% 8.9% 16.0% 25 to 34 years 15,600 15,844 14.1% 14.8% – 1.5% 35 to 44 years 14,647 16,183 13.3% 15.1% – 9.5% 45 to 64 years 26,816 21,179 24.3% 19.7% 26.6% 65 years and over 13,943 16,045 12.6% 15.0% – 13.1% Total 110,366 107,271 100.0% 100.0% 2.9% Remainder of Region Under 5 years 8,347 10,033 4.7% 6.1% – 16.8% 5 to 17 years 32,053 31,762 18.1% 19.2% 0.9% 18 to 24 years 12,512 10,017 7.1% 6.1% 24.9% 25 to 34 years 16,148 19,320 9.1% 11.7% – 16.4% 35 to 44 years 24,672 30,104 13.9% 18.2% – 18.0% 45 to 64 years 55,839 40,854 31.5% 24.7% 36.7% 65 years and over 27,831 23,233 15.7% 14.1% 19.8% Total 177,402 165,323 100.0% 100.0% 7.3% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and :ousing: 2000. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2010 Demographic Profile Summary File  Table = -E2. Age Distribution of CNVR Population, by Municipality: 2010 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000; Census 2010 Demographic Profile SF1 Geographic Area Total Under 5 -17 18 -24 25 -34 35 -44 45 -64 65 years 5 years years years years years years & over Total Population CNVR 287,768 16,267 52,398 23,607 31,748 39,319 82,655 41,774 Waterbury 110,366 7,920 20,345 11,095 15,600 14,647 26,816 13,943 Remainder of 177,402 8,347 36,010 12,512 16,148 24,672 55,839 27,831 Region Beacon Falls 6,049 321 1,056 428 635 939 1,887 783 Bethlehem 3,607 132 615 241 227 448 1,405 539 Cheshire 29,261 1,291 5,802 2,299 2,443 4,187 9,137 4,102 Middlebury 7,575 355 1,508 431 514 1,125 2,340 1,302 Naugatuck 31,862 1,887 5,493 2,735 4,504 4,545 8,892 3,806 Oxford 12,683 683 2,402 726 993 1,927 4,240 1,712 Prospect 9,405 428 1,696 711 702 1,367 3,076 1,425 Southbury 19,904 707 3,343 959 1,077 2,252 6,331 5,235 Thomaston 7,887 364 1,451 531 745 1,210 2,539 1,047 Watertown 22,514 1,047 3,812 1,598 2,186 2,983 7,251 3,637 Wolcott 16,680 736 3,172 1,302 1,363 2,439 5,128 2,540 Woodbury 9,975 396 1,703 551 759 1,250 3,613 1,703 Connecticut 3,475,336 202,106 614,909 227,898 420,377 484,438 1,019,049 506,559 Percent Distribution CNVR 100.0% 5.7% 18.2% 8.2% 11.0% 13.7% 28.7% 14.5% Waterbury 100.0% 7.2% 18.4% 10.1% 14.1% 13.3% 24.3% 12.6% Remainder of 100.0% 4.7% 20.3% 7.1% 9.1% 13.9% 31.5% 15.7% Region Beacon Falls 100.0% 5.3% 17.5% 7.1% 10.5% 15.5% 31.2% 12.9% Bethlehem 100.0% 3.7% 17.1% 6.7% 6.3% 12.4% 39.0% 14.9% Cheshire 100.0% 4.4% 19.8% 7.9% 8.3% 14.3% 31.2% 14.0% Middlebury 100.0% 4.7% 19.9% 5.7% 6.8% 14.9% 30.9% 17.2% Naugatuck 100.0% 5.9% 17.2% 8.6% 14.1% 14.3% 27.9% 11.9% Oxford 100.0% 5.4% 18.9% 5.7% 7.8% 15.2% 33.4% 13.5% Prospect 100.0% 4.6% 18.0% 7.6% 7.5% 14.5% 32.7% 15.2% Southbury 100.0% 3.6% 16.8% 4.8% 5.4% 11.3% 31.8% 26.3% Thomaston 100.0% 4.6% 18.4% 6.7% 9.4% 15.3% 32.2% 13.3% Watertown 100.0% 4.7% 16.9% 7.1% 9.7% 13.2% 32.2% 16.2% Wolcott 100.0% 4.4% 19.0% 7.8% 8.2% 14.6% 30.7% 15.2% Woodbury 100.0% 4.0% 17.1% 5.5% 7.6% 12.5% 36.2% 17.1% Connecticut 100.0% 5.8% 17.7% 6.6% 12.1% 13.9% 29.3% 14.6%  Figure = -E1. Population Pyramids and Age Distribution in the CNVR: 2010 CNVR Median Age: 40.4 Waterbury Median Age: 35.2 Remainder of Region Median Age: 43.2 Connecticut Median Age: 40.0 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census  Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based on  block group geography.   Shows median age  of all  persons within  a  block  group.  Includes  prison population  in Cheshire. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of the  Census,  2010 Census Figure  I‐ E2.     CNVR  Median  Age,  by  Block  Group:  2010 Ta b l e  I ‐ E3.    CNVR  Median  Age,  By  Municipality:  1990 ‐2010 CNVR  Median  Age:  2010 Source:   U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  Census 2000. PL94 ‐171  Tables  ‐ Connecticut; Census  2010 05 Miles ¯ Me d i an Age %  Change Ge ographi c  A re a 2010 2000 1990 1990  ‐  2010 CN V R 40. 4 37. 5 34. 5 17. 1% Wate rbu ry 35. 2 34. 9 32. 9 7. 0% Remainder   of  Region 43. 2 40. 0 35. 6 21. 3% Beacon  Fal l s 41. 5 36. 7 32. 7 26. 9% Be thl e h e m 47. 1 42. 2 37. 0 27. 3% Che shi re 42. 2 38. 4 35. 3 19. 5% Mi ddl e bury 43. 9 42. 8 39. 8 10. 3% N au gatu ck 38. 2 35. 5 32. 0 19. 4% Ox f ord 43. 4 38. 4 34. 1 27. 3% P rospe ct 43. 8 39. 4 36. 5 20. 0% Sou th bu ry 49. 9 45. 7 43. 1 15. 8% Tho mas ton 42. 5 37. 8 33. 8 25. 7% Wate rto w n 44. 0 39. 0 35. 5 23. 9% Wol co tt 42. 7 38. 1 35. 4 20. 6% Woodbury 46. 9 41. 0 37. 2 26. 1% Conne cti cut 40. 0 37. 4 34. 4 16. 3% 0 10 20 30 40 50 C o n n ect ic u t C N VR W at er bu r y R em ain d er o f  R eg io n Median  Age  (Years) Less  than 30 30  ‐ 34 35  ‐ 39 40  ‐ 44 45  and  Up To w n s Block Groups  Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based on  block group geography.   Shows median age  of all  persons within  a  block  group.  Includes  prison population  in Cheshire. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of the  Census,  2010 Census Figure  I ‐ E3.     CNVR  Population  Age  65 and  Older,  by  Block  Group:  2010 Source:   U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  Census 2000. PL94 ‐171  Tables  ‐ Connecticut.                 U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  Profile of  General Population  and Housing  Characteristics:  2010 Percent of  Population  Age  65 Ye a r s  and  Older:  2010 0 5 Miles ¯ To w n s Block Groups Percent 65  and  Older Up  to  10% 10%  ‐ 19.9% 20%  ‐ 29.9% 30%  ‐ 49.9% 50%  or  Higher Percent Change Ge ographi c  A re a 2010 2000 2010 2000 2000 ‐2010 CN V R 41, 774 39, 278 14. 5% 14.4% 6. 4% Wate rbury 13, 943 16, 045 12. 6% 15.0% ‐13. 1% Remainder  of   Region 27, 831 23, 233 15. 7% 14.1% 19. 8% Be acon  Fal l s 783 506 12. 9% 9.6% 54. 7% Be thl e he m 539 440 14. 9% 12.9% 22. 5% Ch e sh i re 4, 102 3, 592 14. 0% 12.6% 14. 2% Mi ddl e bury 1, 302 1, 067 17. 2% 16.5% 22. 0% N augatuck 3, 806 3, 633 11. 9% 11.7% 4. 8% Ox f ord 1, 712 857 13. 5% 8.7% 99. 8% P rospe ct 1, 425 1, 153 15. 2% 13.2% 23. 6% South bury 5, 235 4, 841 26. 3% 26.1% 8. 1% Thomas ton 1, 047 909 13. 3% 12.1% 15. 2% Wate rtow n 3, 637 3, 050 16. 2% 14.1% 19. 2% Wol cott 2, 540 1, 992 15. 2% 13.1% 27. 5% Woodbu ry 1, 703 1, 193 17. 1% 13.0% 42. 7% Conne cti cut 506, 559 470, 183 14. 2% 13.8% 7. 7% Number Percent  of  Total Population 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% CNVR Waterbury Remainder of Region Connecticut C onne cti c u t C N V R W a ter b u ry R em a in d er o f R eg ion Ta b l e  I ‐ E4.      CNVR  Percent  of  Population  Age  65  Ye a r s  and  Older, By  Municipality:  2000 ‐2010  F. :ousehold Types The U.S. Bureau of the Census divides households into four categories: single person households, married couples, single householder/no spouse, and non -family households. Married couples (with and without children) accounted for 49.4% of the region’s households in 2010, a decline of 3.1% from 2000. This is the first time that married couples dropped below 50.0%. =n 1980, 63.0% of all CNVR households were married couples (Table = -F1). Single person households constituted 26.4% of the total population. Single parent households with children accounted for another 19.0%, with 58.2% of these households living in Waterbury (Figure = – F1). The remaining 5.2% of the region’s households consisted of two or more persons, unrelated by blood or marriage, who shared a unit – an increase over the 2000 share of 4.6%. =n Waterbury, married couple families occupied 34.7% of the households in 2010, down from 38.8% in 2000. Divorced or single parents with children accounted for 28.4% of Waterbury’s households, rising from 24.3% in 2000. 30.7% of Waterbury’s households were occupied by only one person and 6.2% by non -families. =n contrast, married couples accounted for 58.8% of the suburban households, while single parent families were only 13.0% and single person households 23.6%. The concentration of single person and single parent households may reflect the lack of affordable housing, especially rentals, in the subur- ban portion of the CNVR and Waterbury’s available transportation and social services. The high per- centage of single person households (31.7%) in Southbury reflects the large elderly population.  Table = -F1. Types of :ouseholds in the CNVR, by Municipality: 2010 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Profile of General Population and :ousing Characteristics: 2010 2 or More Person :ouseholds Geographic Area Single Person :ousehold Married Couples Single :ouse- holder/ No Spouse Non -Family :ouseholds Total CNVR 28,927 54,231 20,865 5,712 109,735 Waterbury 13,118 14,849 12,147 2,647 42,761 Remainder of Region 15,809 39,382 8,718 3,065 66,974 Beacon Falls 581 1,355 315 109 2,360 Bethlehem 327 857 156 71 1,411 Cheshire 2,150 6,439 1,083 369 10,041 Middlebury 537 1,822 286 103 2,748 Naugatuck 3,129 6,166 2,320 724 12,339 Oxford 641 3,217 455 191 4,504 Prospect 602 2,226 390 139 3,357 Southbury 2,607 4,606 684 316 8,213 Thomaston 771 1,710 463 164 3,108 Watertown 2,087 4,987 1,237 361 8,672 Wolcott 1,175 3,664 893 275 6,007 Woodbury 1,202 2,333 436 243 4,214 Connecticut 373,648 672,013 236,648 88,778 1,371,087 Percent Distribution CNVR 26.4% 49.4% 19.0% 5.2% 100.0% Waterbury 30.7% 34.7% 28.4% 6.2% 100.0% Remainder of Region 23.6% 58.8% 13.0% 4.6% 100.0% Beacon Falls 24.6% 57.4% 13.3% 4.6% 100.0% Bethlehem 23.2% 60.7% 11.1% 5.0% 100.0% Cheshire 21.4% 64.1% 10.8% 3.7% 100.0% Middlebury 19.5% 66.3% 10.4% 3.7% 100.0% Naugatuck 25.4% 50.0% 18.8% 5.9% 100.0% Oxford 14.2% 71.4% 10.1% 4.2% 100.0% Prospect 17.9% 66.3% 11.6% 4.1% 100.0% Southbury 31.7% 56.1% 8.3% 3.8% 100.0% Thomaston 24.8% 55.0% 14.9% 5.3% 100.0% Watertown 24.1% 57.5% 14.3% 4.2% 100.0% Wolcott 19.6% 61.0% 14.9% 4.6% 100.0% Woodbury 28.5% 55.4% 10.3% 5.8% 100.0% Connecticut 27.3% 49.0% 17.3% 6.5% 100.0%  Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on block  group geography. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of the  Census,  Profile  of General Population  and Housing  Characteristics:  2010 To w n s Block Groups Households Up to  10% 10%  ‐ 19% 20%  ‐ 29% 30%  ‐ 39% 40%  ‐ 66% 0 5 Miles ¯ Figure I ‐ F1.     CNVR  Percent  Single  Parent  Households, by  Block  Group:  2010  G . = n c o m e =ncome data in this edition of the Profile are from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Sur- vey 5 -year estimates from 2007 to 2011. Median household income, median family income, per capi- ta income, and poverty rates are described below. Median :ousehold =ncome :ousehold income is defined as the total combined income of all members of the household. Median income is the amount which divides income distribution into two equal groups, half having incomes above the median, and half having incomes below the median. Since almost one out of three house- holds does not comprise a family, household income is more inclusive than family income. Based on household income figures for 2007 -2011, Oxford ($111,122) had the highest median household in- come in the region followed by Cheshire ($109,535) and Middlebury ($99,679). Waterbury’s median household income was $41,499 – the lowest in the region and 40% below the state’s median. The re- maining towns in the region had median incomes ranging from $63,414 to $93,631 (Table = -G1). All towns in the region saw their net median household income increase between 1999 and 2011. :owever, adjusting for inflation, some towns saw increases while others saw decreases (Table = -G1 and Figure 1 -G1). Oxford saw the highest increase in median household income with an inflation ad- justed increase of 6.7 percent. Other towns that saw an increase were Beacon Falls, Middlebury, Pro- spect, Watertown, and Cheshire. The remaining municipalities saw decreases in median household income with Southbury declining by 13.7%. Southbury’s decline can be partially explained by its large elderly population. Waterbury and Thomaston also saw declines of 10.0% or more between 1999 and 2011. The distribution of household income in the CNVR can be seen in Table = -G2. Median Family =ncome Median family income is based on households with two or more related persons living in one housing unit. The total income for that unit includes the income from any non -related persons in the same unit. As shown in Table = -G3, median family income tends to be higher than the median household income. The distribution of this value among municipalities in the region is very similar to the distribu- tion seen for median household income. Cheshire had the highest ($125,260) median family income while Waterbury ($49,059) had the lowest. With the exceptions of Waterbury, Naugatuck, and Thomaston, all municipalities had median family incomes exceeding the state average. Per Capita =ncome Per capita income is the aggregate income of the population 15 years and older divided by that popu- lation. From 2007- 2011 Middlebury ($46,013), Oxford ($44,495), and Woodbury ($44,458) had the highest per capita incomes. Waterbury had the lowest per capita income with $22,004. The per capita income for the remaining towns ranged from $28,801 to $44,331 (Figure = -G2 and Table = -G3).  Persons Below the Poverty Level The U.S. Census Bureau calculated poverty using income before taxes excluding capital gains or non – cash benefits such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps. Poverty thresholds vary based on age (over or under 65 years old), household size, and presence of children. =n 2010, a family of four consisting of two adults and two children under the age of 18 would have to have a family income of less than $22,113 to be considered below the poverty line. Waterbury, which was home to 75.7% of the region’s impoverished persons, had 20.6% of its popula- tion below the poverty level from 2007 -2011, making it by far the poorest municipality in the region (Figure = -G3 and Table = -G4). Among the other towns, Naugatuck (8.5%) and Southbury (5.2%) had the next highest percentage of persons below the poverty level, but less than the overall percentage for Connecticut (9.1%). From 2000 to 2011, poverty rates increased from 8.4% to 10.5%. The 150% pov- erty threshold is commonly used to measure persons that are in poverty or in danger of falling into poverty. Figure = -F5 shows persons under 150% of the poverty threshold. Like the 100% poverty threshold, the highest percent of persons below the 150% poverty threshold was found in Waterbury (31.5%), followed by Naugatuck (14.0%) and Bethlehem (10.3%) (Figure = -G4 and Table = -G5). D Table = -G1. Estimated Median :ousehold =ncome of CNVR Municipalities: 1999 -2011 Figure = -G1. Change in =nflation Adjusted Median :ousehold =ncome of CNVR Municipalities: 1999 -2011 Geographic Area Median :ousehold =ncome Percent Change Percent Change 2011 1999 1999 – 2011 (=nflation Adjusted) Beacon Falls $80,182 $56,592 41.7% 5.0% Bethlehem $86,891 $68,542 26.8% – 6.1% Cheshire $109,535 $80,466 36.1% 0.8% Middlebury $99,679 $70,469 41.5% 4.8% Naugatuck $63,414 $51,247 23.7% – 8.3% Oxford $111,122 $77,126 44.1% 6.7% Prospect $93,631 $67,560 38.6% 2.7% Southbury $72,177 $61,919 16.6% – 13.7% Thomaston $64,982 $54,297 19.7% – 11.3% Waterbury $41,499 $34,285 21.0% – 10.3% Watertown $81,203 $59,420 36.7% 1.2% Wolcott $80,529 $61,376 31.2% – 2.8% Woodbury $86,802 $68,322 27.0% – 5.9% Connecticut $69,243 $53,935 28.4% – 4.9% Source: U.S Bureau of the Census, Census 2000. Summary File 3 (SF 3) 2007-2011 American Community Survey, 5 -year estimates, B19013 US Department of Labor, CP= =nflation Calculator [CP= 1999 -2011: 1.35] -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10%  Number of :ouseholds Geographic Area Less Than $10,000 $10,000 – $14,999 $15,000 – $24,999 $25,000 – $34,999 $35,000 – $49,999 $50,000 – $74,999 $75,000 – $99,999 $100,000 or More CNVR 7,282 4,982 9,270 9,112 13,110 18,505 14,803 31,531 Waterbury 5,053 3,043 5,409 5,181 5,658 7,963 4,492 5,800 Remainder of Region 2,229 1,939 3,861 3,931 7,452 10,542 10,311 25,731 Beacon Falls 96 22 139 128 299 364 543 678 Bethlehem 23 55 58 71 137 226 302 530 Cheshire 208 167 406 463 611 1,158 1,127 5,227 Middlebury 74 19 154 72 236 337 453 1,327 Naugatuck 843 503 954 835 1,942 2,172 1,961 3,176 Oxford 32 62 92 210 294 679 520 2,471 Prospect 67 83 110 223 294 467 620 1,475 Southbury 221 444 745 640 1,007 1,146 766 3,227 Thomaston 109 74 202 212 478 731 512 927 Watertown 245 252 475 501 1,091 1,336 1,747 2,985 Wolcott 193 168 295 329 604 1,143 1,132 2,032 Woodbury 118 90 231 247 459 783 628 1,676 Connecticut 73,015 54,549 111,327 105,984 151,940 231,321 185,459 446,520 Percent Distribution CNVR 6.7% 4.6% 8.5% 8.4% 12.1% 17.0% 13.6% 29.0% Waterbury 11.9% 7.1% 12.7% 12.2% 13.3% 18.7% 10.5% 13.6% Remainder of Region 3.4% 2.9% 5.9% 6.0% 11.3% 16.0% 15.6% 39.0% Beacon Falls 4.2% 1.0% 6.1% 5.6% 13.2% 16.0% 23.9% 29.9% Bethlehem 1.6% 3.9% 4.1% 5.1% 9.8% 16.1% 21.5% 37.8% Cheshire 2.2% 1.8% 4.3% 4.9% 6.5% 12.4% 12.0% 55.8% Middlebury 2.8% 0.7% 5.8% 2.7% 8.8% 12.6% 17.0% 49.7% Naugatuck 6.8% 4.1% 7.7% 6.7% 15.7% 17.5% 15.8% 25.6% Oxford 0.7% 1.4% 2.1% 4.8% 6.7% 15.6% 11.9% 56.7% Prospect 2.0% 2.5% 3.3% 6.7% 8.8% 14.0% 18.6% 44.2% Southbury 2.7% 5.4% 9.1% 7.8% 12.3% 14.0% 9.3% 39.4% Thomaston 3.4% 2.3% 6.2% 6.5% 14.7% 22.5% 15.8% 28.6% Watertown 2.8% 2.9% 5.5% 5.8% 12.6% 15.5% 20.2% 34.6% Wolcott 3.3% 2.8% 5.0% 5.6% 10.2% 19.4% 19.2% 34.5% Woodbury 2.8% 2.1% 5.5% 5.8% 10.8% 18.5% 14.8% 39.6% Connecticut 5.4% 4.0% 8.2% 7.8% 11.2% 17.0% 13.6% 32.8% Table = -G2. Estimated CNVR :ousehold =ncome Distribution, by Municipality: 2007 -2011 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 -2011 American Community Survey, 5 year estimates, B19001  $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon  Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on block  group geography.   The ACS collects  data throughout  the year  on an on ‐going,  monthy  basis and  asks for  a respondents  income over  the “past  12 months.” Source:  U.S. Bureau  of the  Census,  American  Community Survey,  5‐Ye a r   Estimates,  2007‐2011 Figure  I‐ G2.     CNVR  Per  Capita  Income,  by  Block  Group:  2007 ‐2011 CNVR Per  Capita  Income: 2007 ‐2011 Source:   U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  American  Community  Survey, 5‐Ye a r  Estimates,  2007‐2011, B19013, B19113,  B19301 To w n s Block Groups Per Capita  Income (Dollars) $15,000  and  Under $15,000  ‐ $24,999 $25,000  ‐ $34,999 $35,000  ‐ $44,999 $45,000  and  Over 05M ile s ¯ Ta b l e  I ‐ G3.     CNVR  Per Capita  Income,  Median  Household  Income &  Median  Family  Income,  by Municipality:  2007 ‐2011 C on n e ct ic u t C N VR W at er bu ry R em ain d e r o f  R eg io n Ge ographi c  Area Per Capita Income Me d i an   House hol d Income Me d i an  Family House hol d   Income CN V R $31, 928 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Wate rbu ry $22, 004 $41, 499 $49, 059 Re mai nde r  of   Re gi on $38, 102 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Be acon  Fal l s $32, 023 $80, 182 $88, 895 Be thl e he m $39, 255 $86, 891 $91, 946 Ch e s hi re $42, 144 $109, 535 $125, 260 Mi dd l e b ury $46, 013 $999, 679 $110, 299 N au gatu ck $28, 801 $63, 414 $76, 984 Ox f ord $44, 495 $111, 122 $117, 886 P ros pe ct $41, 460 $93, 631 $104, 306 Sou th bu ry $44, 331 $72, 177 $107, 020 Thomas ton $32, 512 $64, 982 $80, 070 Wate rtow n $36, 207 $81, 203 $94, 280 Wol cott $34, 349 $80, 529 $89, 671 Wood bu ry $44, 458 $86, 802 $106, 944 Conn e cti cut $37, 627 $69, 243 $86, 395  0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% CNVR Waterbury Remainder  of Region CT Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon  Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Figure  I ‐ G3.      CNVR  Percent  of  Persons  in Poverty,  by  Block  Group:  2007 ‐2011 Ta b l e  I ‐ G4.       CNVR  Persons  in  Poverty,  by  Municipality:  2000 ‐2011 CNVR  Percent  of  Population  in Poverty:  2007 ‐2011 Source:   U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  ACS 2009;  ACS, 5‐Ye a r  Estimates,  2007‐ 2011, 17001;  Census  2000 To w n s Block Groups % in  Poverty Up  to  5% 5%  ‐ 9.9% 10%  ‐ 19.9% 20%  ‐ 29.9% 30%  or  Higher 0 5 Miles ¯ C o n n ec t ic u t C N V R W at er bu r y R em ai n d er o f R eg io n Data  based on  block group geography.  Includes persons that  reported  having a household  income below 100% of the  Census poverty  threshold  on their  2010  Census  form. Does  not include  institutionalized  people, people  in military  quarters,  people in college  dormitories  or unrelated  individuals under  15 years old. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of the  Census,  2007‐ 2011 American  Community  Survey ,  5 ‐Ye a r  Estimates,  C17002                Number                Percent %  Change Geographic  A re a 2011 2000 2011 2000 2000  ‐  2010 CN V R 29, 291 22, 832 10. 5% 8. 4% 28. 3% Wate rbury 22, 181 16, 774 20. 6% 15. 6% 32. 2% Remainder   of  Region 6, 759 6, 058 3. 9%3. 7% 11. 6% Beacon  Fal l s 210 309 3. 5% 5. 9% ‐32. 0% Be thl e he m 123 89 3. 5% 2. 6% 38. 2% Che shi re 648 750 2. 5% 2. 6% ‐13. 6% Mi ddl e bury 198 174 2. 7% 2. 7% 13. 8% N augatuck 2, 676 1, 977 8. 5% 6. 4% 35. 4% Ox f ord 209 206 1. 7% 2. 1% 1. 5% P rospe ct 216 89 2. 4% 1. 0% 142. 7% Southbury 987 878 5.2% 4.7% 12.4% Thomaston 220 311 2. 8% 4. 1% ‐29. 3% Wate rtow n 750 471 3. 4% 2. 2% 59. 2% Wol cott 540 392 3. 3% 2. 6% 37. 8% Woodbury 465 412 4.7% 4.5% 12.9% Conne cti cut 314, 306 259, 514 9. 1% 7. 6% 21. 1%  0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon  Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Figure  I ‐ G4:  CNVR  Persons  Under  150%  of  Poverty  Level:  2007 ‐2011 CNVR Percent  Under  150  Percent of  Poverty:  2007 ‐2011 Source:   U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  Census 2000; ACS,  5‐Ye a r  Estimates,  2007‐2011, C17002 To w n s Block Groups 0 5 Miles ¯ C on n e ct ic u t C N V R W a ter bu ry R em ain d e r o f  R eg i o n Persons  Under  150% Poverty  Threshold Up  to  10% 10%  ‐ 19.9% 20%  ‐ 29.9% 30%  ‐ 49.9% 50%  or  Higher Ta b l e  I ‐ G5.     CNVR  Persons  Under  150  Percent  of  the  Poverty Threshold,  by  Municipality:  2000 ‐2011 Data  based on  block group geography.  Includes persons that  reported  having a median  household  income  below 150%  of  the  Census  poverty threshold  on their  2010 Census form.  Does not include  institutionalized  people, people  in military  quarters,  people in college  dormitories, or  unrelated  individuals  under  15  years  old. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of the  Census,  2007 ‐2011  American Community  Surv ey, 5 ‐Ye a r  Estimates,  C17002 Geographic  A re a 2011 2000 2011 2000 CN V R 47, 162 39, 429 16. 9% 14. 5% 19. 6% Wate rbury 33, 891 27, 975 31. 5% 26. 1% 21. 1% Remainder  of   Region 13, 271 11, 454 7. 7% 6. 9% 15. 9% Be acon  Fal l s 497 389 8. 3% 7. 4% 27. 8% Be thl e he m 368 163 10. 3% 4. 8% 125. 8% Ch e shi re 1, 083 1, 225 4. 1% 4. 3% ‐11. 6% Mi ddl e bury 396 349 5. 4% 5. 4% 13. 5% N augatuck 4, 382 3, 510 14. 0% 11. 3% 24. 8% Ox f ord 436 538 3. 5% 5. 5% ‐19. 0% P rospe ct 557 186 6. 1% 2. 1% 199. 5% Southbury 1,838 1,414 9.6% 7.6% 30.0% Thomas ton 466 732 6. 0% 9. 8% ‐36. 3% Wate rto w n 1, 476 1, 435 6. 6% 6. 6% 2. 9% Wol cott 1, 074 767 6. 6% 5. 0% 40. 0% Woodbury 698 746 7.1% 8.1% ‐6. 4% Conne cti cut 527, 280 437, 481 15. 3% 12. 8% 20. 5% %  Change 2000 ‐2011 Number Percent of  Total  : . E d u c a ti o n a l Att a i n m e n t From 2007 -2011, 87.3% of the region’s population 25 years old and over had attained at least a high school diploma (Table = -:1). Waterbury (78.8%) had the lowest percentage of high school graduates in the region, while Bethlehem (96.4%) had the highest. 8.7% of the region’s population had obtained an Associate’s degree while another 29.3% had a Bachelor’s degree or higher. =n four towns (Cheshire, Woodbury, Middlebury, and Southbury), over 45% of the population had a Bachelor’s de- gree or higher. Waterbury (17.2%) had the lowest percentage of persons with a Bachelor’s degree or higher, followed by Naugatuck (23.2%), Thomaston (24.5%), and Wolcott (24.5%). The remainder of the region had between 27.7% and 38.9% of their population 25 years old and over with a Bachelor’s degree or higher. Figure = -:1 shows the percent of persons with a Bachelor’s degree or higher at the block group level. = . P o p u l a ti o n P r o j e c ti o n s Population projections were done by the Connecticut State Data Center for the years 2015, 2020 and 2025. Twelve of the thirteen municipalities in the region are projected to grow from 2010 to 2025 with the highest growth rates occurring in Oxford (22.4%), Middlebury (17.6%) and Beacon Falls (13.7%). Cheshire’s population is projected to decline by 1.1% while Watertown’s is projected to grow by only 2.3%. Table = -=1 and Figure = -=1 show population projections for each municipality . The age makeup of the region will also alter significantly between 2010 and 2025. =n 2010, 14.5% of the region’s population was 65 years old or older. With the continued aging of the ‘baby boomers,’ persons 65 years old or older are projected to increase to 19.2% of the region’s population by 2025. Persons under the age of 15 are projected to decline from 19.2% of the region’s population in 2010 to 15.6% by 2025 (Figure = -=2).  Table = -:1. Educational Attainment of Persons 25 Years Old and Over in the CNVR, by Municipality: 2007 -2011 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 -2011 American Community Survey, 5 year estimates, B15002 :igh School College Geographic Area Persons 25 Years and Over Less than 9th Grade No Diploma Graduate Some College, No Degree Associate’s Degree Bachelor’s Degree or :igher Number of Persons CNVR 194,474 9,522 15,174 60,897 35,089 16,897 56,895 Waterbury 70,641 6,153 8,861 25,335 11,947 6,207 12,138 Remainder of Region 123,833 3,369 6,313 35,562 23,142 10,690 44,757 Beacon Falls 4,145 91 135 1,505 931 333 1,150 Bethlehem 2,603 23 71 656 503 338 1,012 Cheshire 19,672 585 710 4,149 3,091 1,456 9,681 Middlebury 5,266 104 171 990 969 523 2,509 Naugatuck 22,038 891 1,892 7,570 4,591 1,972 5,122 Oxford 8,538 162 326 2,555 1,620 570 3,305 Prospect 6,684 179 393 2,281 1,050 620 2,161 Southbury 14,753 416 597 3,244 2,592 1,005 6,899 Thomaston 5,659 80 434 1,978 1,166 616 1,385 Watertown 15,921 438 862 4,704 3,195 1,552 5,170 Wolcott 11,324 340 497 4,191 2,451 1,068 2,777 Woodbury 7,230 60 225 1,739 983 637 3,586 Connecticut 2,413,922 111,783 164,150 678,997 420,489 176,481 862,022 Percent Distribution CNVR 100.0% 4.9% 7.8% 31.3% 18.0% 8.7% 29.3% Waterbury 100.0% 8.7% 12.5% 35.9% 16.9% 8.8% 17.2% Remainder of Region 100.0% 2.7% 5.1% 28.7% 18.7% 8.6% 36.1% Beacon Falls 100.0% 2.2% 3.3% 36.3% 22.5% 8.0% 27.7% Bethlehem 100.0% 0.9% 2.7% 25.2% 19.3% 13.0% 38.9% Cheshire 100.0% 3.0% 3.6% 21.1% 15.7% 7.4% 49.2% Middlebury 100.0% 2.0% 3.2% 18.8% 18.4% 9.9% 47.6% Naugatuck 100.0% 4.0% 8.6% 34.3% 20.8% 8.9% 23.2% Oxford 100.0% 1.9% 3.8% 29.9% 19.0% 6.7% 38.7% Prospect 100.0% 2.7% 5.9% 34.1% 15.7% 9.3% 32.3% Southbury 100.0% 2.8% 4.0% 22.0% 17.6% 6.8% 46.8% Thomaston 100.0% 1.4% 7.7% 35.0% 20.6% 10.9% 24.5% Watertown 100.0% 2.8% 5.4% 29.5% 20.1% 9.7% 32.5% Wolcott 100.0% 3.0% 4.4% 37.0% 21.6% 9.4% 24.5% Woodbury 100.0% 0.8% 3.1% 24.1% 13.6% 8.8% 49.6% Connecticut 100.0% 4.6% 6.8% 28.1% 17.4% 7.3% 35.7%  Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on block  group  geography. Source:   U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  American  Community Survey, Five  Ye a r Estimates,  2007‐2011,  B15002 To w n s Block Groups Percent  of  Population With  Bachelor’s  Degree  or  Higher Up  to  5% 5%  ‐ 9.9% 10%  ‐ 19.9% 20%  ‐ 29.9% 30%  ‐ 39.9% 40%  or  Higher 0 5 Miles ¯ Figure I ‐ H1.      CNVR  Educational  Attainment  of  Persons  Age  25 and  Older, by  Block  Group:  2007 ‐2011  Table = -=1. CNVR Population Projections, by Municipality: 2010 -2025 Geographic Area Total Population Population Change 2010 2015 2020 2025 2010 – 2015 2015 – 2020 2020 – 2025 Beacon Falls 6,049 6,377 6,648 6,879 5.4% 4.2% 3.5% Bethlehem 3,607 3,679 3,711 3,721 2.0% 0.9% 0.3% Cheshire 29,261 29,278 29,120 28,931 0.1% – 0.5% – 0.6% Middlebury 7,575 8,048 8,471 8,911 6.2% 5.3% 5.2% Naugatuck 31,862 32,436 32,877 33,078 1.8% 1.4% 0.6% Oxford 12,683 13,793 14,714 15,530 8.8% 6.7% 5.5% Prospect 9,405 9,661 9,864 10,055 2.7% 2.1% 1.9% Southbury 19,904 20,278 20,480 20,653 1.9% 1.0% 0.8% Thomaston 7,887 8,029 8,112 8,162 1.8% 1.0% 0.6% Waterbury 110,366 112,736 115,128 117,149 2.1% 2.1% 1.8% Watertown 22,514 22,863 23,020 23,031 1.6% 0.7% 0.0% Wolcott 16,680 17,286 17,821 18,352 3.6% 3.1% 3.0% Woodbury 9,975 10,233 10,395 10,491 2.6% 1.6% 0.9% Connecticut 3,574,097 3,644,546 3,702,472 3,746,184 2.0% 1.6% 1.2% Figure = -=1. CNVR Population Projections, by Municipality: 2010 -2025 Source: Connecticut State Data Center, Population Projections, by Municipality: 2010 -2025 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010  Figure = -=2. CNVR Population Projections and Age Distribution: 2010 -2025 2010 Age 65+: 14.5% 2015 Age 65+: 16.4% 2020 Age 65+: 18.6% 2025 Age 65+: 19.2% Source: Connecticut State Data Center, Po pulation Projections, by Municipality: 2010 -2025 U.S. Censu s Bureau, Census 2010 D ==. LABOR FORCE & EMPLOYMENT A . L a b o r F o r c e B . E m p l o y m e n t  ==. LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT =nformation in this section comes primarily from the Connecticut Department of Labor’s Office of Research. Statistics on the employment by industrial sector are available only for the Waterbury Labor Market Area (WLMA). Between 1984 and 2004, the WLMA consisted of all CNVR municipalities except Beacon Falls, Cheshire, and Oxford (Appendix C). A shrinking of the WMLA boundaries to seven towns in 2004 makes WLMA data for 2005 and later incompatible with earlier information. A. Labor Force The labor force is the number of residents age 16 years and older who are working or seeking work. As of 2012, the region’s labor force totaled 144,287, an increase of 6.6% from 2000 and a decrease of 1.9% since 2011. After contracting throughout the 1990s, the CNVR labor force grew steadily from 2000 to 2011. 2012 marks the first time since 2000 that the size of the labor force contracted. Figures ==- A1 and == -A2 present historical trends in the region’s labor force, employed residents, and unem- ployment. Despite the growth in the labor force over the last decade, growth in employment has not been able to keep pace. =n 2012, employed CNVR residents totaled 130,322, a 1.2% decrease since 2000. Despite a sizable growth in the labor force since 2000, the number of employed residents has decreased, resulting in a higher unemployment rate than the Connecticut average of 8.4% and the national average of 8.9%ᵃ. The region’s unemployment rate in 2012 was 9.7%, a dramatic increase from 2.6% in 2000 and a slight decrease from 2011. Similar to state trends, the reduction in the un- employment rate can be attributed to the decrease in labor force size rather than an increase in em- ployment. Unemployment was highest in Waterbury (13.1%) followed by Naugatuck (10.1%) and Wolcott (8.7%). Woodbury had the lowest unemployment rate in the region at 6.3% (Table == -A1 and Figure == -A3.) Long term changes in labor force, employed residents and unemployment can be seen in Table == -A2. An occupational breakdown of employed CNVR residents for 2007 -2011 is presented in Table == -A3. ᵃ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Annual Average Data  Figure == -A2. Percent Unemployment in the CNVR: 1992 -2012 Figure == -A1. CNVR Labor Force and Employed Residents Trends: 1992 -2012 Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Office of Research, Labor Market =nformation for Researchers, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), LAUS Monthly Data with Annual Averages -:istorical Data by Town 115, 000 120, 000 125, 000 130, 000 135, 000 140, 000 145, 000 150, 000 Labor Force Employed Residents 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0%  Table== -A1. Estimated CNVR Labor Force Status, by Place of Residence: 2000 -2012 Figure == -A3. Change in Employed Residents, by Municipality: 2000 -2012 Geographic Area Employed Residents Unemployed Residents Percent Unemployed 2012 2000 2012 2000 2012 2000 CNVR 130,322 131,847 13,965 3,464 9.7% 2.6% Waterbury 44,094 46,417 6,649 1,667 13.1% 3.5% Remainder of Region 86,228 85,430 7,316 1,797 7.8% 2.1% Beacon Falls 3,104 2,932 271 65 8.0% 2.2% Bethlehem 1,893 1,917 136 36 6.7% 1.8% Cheshire 13,631 13,576 942 245 6.5% 1.8% Middlebury 3,680 3,404 260 68 6.6% 2.0% Naugatuck 15,104 15,924 1,688 439 10.1% 2.7% Oxford 6,886 5,582 461 106 6.3% 1.9% Prospect 4,784 4,819 401 92 7.7% 1.9% Southbury 8,437 8,208 627 151 6.9% 1.8% Thomaston 4,189 4,183 387 103 8.5% 2.4% Watertown 11,055 11,590 1,000 236 8.3% 2.0% Wolcott 8,210 8,130 787 172 8.7% 2.1% Woodbury 5,255 5,165 356 84 6.3% 1.6% Connecticut 1,722,394 1,697,700 157,058 39,200 8.4% 2.3% Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Office of Research, Labor Market =nformation for Researchers, Local Area Unemployent Statistics (LAUS), LAUS Monthly Data with Annual Averages -:istorical Data by Town. http://www1.ctdol.state.ct.us/lmi/LAUS/laustown.asp -3,000 -2,500 -2,000 -1,500 -1,000 -500 0 500 1,000 1,500 E Table == -A2. Estimated CNVR Labor Force Status: 1990 -2012 Source: Connecticut Department of Labor, Office of Research, Labor Market =nformation for Researchers, Local Area Unemployent Statistics (LAUS), LAUS Monthly Data with Annual Averages -:istorical Data by Town, 1990 -2012. :ttp://www1.ctdol.state.ct.us/lmi/LAUS/laustown.asp Year Labor Force Employed Residents Unemployed Residents Percent Unemployed 2012 144,287 130,322 13,965 9.7% 2011 147,236 132,021 15,125 10.3% 2010 146,478 130,716 15,762 10.8% 2009 145,475 131,165 14,310 9.8% 2008 144,894 135,122 9,772 6.7% 2007 143,618 136,041 7,577 5.3% 2006 142,847 135,709 7,138 5.0% 2005 141,500 133,530 7,970 5.6% 2004 140,272 132,396 7,876 5.6% 2003 140,348 131,395 8,953 6.4% 2002 138,627 131,377 7,250 5.2% 2001 136,315 131,122 5,193 3.8% 2000 135,311 131,847 3,464 2.6% 1999 136,636 131,744 4,892 3.6% 1998 136,278 131,182 5,096 3.7% 1997 138,608 130,876 7,732 5.6% 1996 137,915 129,322 8,593 6.2% 1995 136,543 128,383 8,160 6.0% 1994 137,650 129,982 7,668 5.6% 1993 142,180 132,109 10,071 7.1% 1992 145,426 132,464 12,962 8.9% 1991 146,719 135,035 11,684 8.0% 1990 143,590 135,054 8,536 5.9% 2000 -2012 Change: Numerical 8,976 – 1,525 10,501 — Percent 6.6% – 1.2% 303.1% — 1990 -2012 Change: Numerical 697 – 4,732 5,429 — Percent 0.5% – 3.5% 63.6% —  Occupation CNVR Waterbury Remainder of Region Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Management, Business, Science, and Arts: 51,819 37.6% 12,593 26.8% 39,226 43.2% Management, Business, and Financial Occupations 19,397 14.1% 3,909 8.3% 15,488 17.1% Computer, Engineering, and Science Occupations 6,903 5.0% 1,452 3.1% 5,451 6.0% Education, Legal, Community Service, Arts, and Media 16,615 12.1% 4,937 10.5% 11,678 12.9% :ealthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 8,904 6.5% 2,295 4.9% 6,609 7.3% Service Occupations: 23,995 17.4% 11,202 23.8% 12,793 14.1% :ealthcare Support Occupations 5,037 3.7% 2,627 5.6% 2,410 2.7% Protective Service Occupations 2,968 2.2% 1,167 2.5% 1,801 2.0% Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 5,805 4.2% 2,644 5.6% 3,161 3.5% Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance 4,541 3.3% 2,374 5.0% 2,167 2.4% Personal Care and Service 5,644 4.1% 2,390 5.1% 3,254 3.6% Sales and Office Occupations: 33,729 24.5% 11,724 24.9% 22,005 24.3% Sales and Related Occupations 15,335 11.1% 4,998 10.6% 10,337 11.4% Office and Administrative Support Occupations 18,394 13.4% 6,726 14.3% 11,668 12.9% Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations: 455 0.3% 20 0.0% 435 0.5% Construction, Extraction and Maintenance: 10,837 7.9% 4,028 8.6% 6,809 7.5% Construction and Extraction Occupations 6,691 4.9% 2,467 5.2% 4,224 4.7% =nstallation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 4,146 3.0% 1,561 3.3% 2,585 2.8% Production, Transportation, and Material Moving: 16,927 12.3% 7,486 15.9% 9,441 10.4% Production Occupations 10,636 7.7% 4,672 9.9% 5,964 6.6% Transportation Occupations 4,066 3.0% 1,757 3.7% 2,309 2.5% Material Moving Occupations 2,225 1.6% 1,057 2.2% 1,168 1.3% Total Employed Persons 137,762 100% 47,053 100% 90,709 100% Table == -A3. Occupation of Employed CNVR Residents, 16 Years Old and Over: 2007 -2011 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 -2011 American Community Survey 5 -year Estimates, C24010  B. E m p l o y m e n t Regional and Municipal Employment The Connecticut Department of Labor changed its method of computing municipal -level employment between 2001 and 2002, switching from annual Hune data to average annual data. =n 2012, employment covered by unemployment insurance totaled 95,583 jobs in the CNVR. Water- bury was the region’s largest employment center, with 38,464 jobs followed by Cheshire with 15,162 jobs. Other municipalities with major employment were Southbury, Watertown, and Naugatuck. For decades, the location of employment in the region has been shifting away from Waterbury to the sub- urban portion of the region, but the shift has come to a standstill in recent years. =n 1980, 54.7% of all jobs were in Waterbury; by 2000, 40.8%, and in 2011, 40.1% were still in Waterbury (Table == -B1). Between 2000 and 2012, the region’s employment declined by 6.9% while statewide employment de- clined by 2.9%. Within the region, Oxford’s employment grew the most rapidly from 2000 to 2012 (74.3%) followed by Bethlehem (41.9%) which has a small employment base. Middlebury (8.1%) and Cheshire (6.8%) also saw gains. The other municipalities lost jobs with Watertown ( -23.6%), Thomas- ton (- 18.7%), Naugatuck ( -13.9%), and Southbury ( -13.9%) experiencing the greatest declines (Figure == – B1 and Table == -B1). Waterbury Labor Market Area =ndustrial Sector Employment Although the region has a relatively strong manufacturing sector, total employment continues to shift away from manufacturing. Table == -B2 and Figure == -B2 show employment trends in manufacturing in the Waterbury Labor Market Area (WLMA) from 2000 to 2012. =n 2012, the WLMA had 7,628 manu- facturing jobs, a 47.8% decrease from 2000. During the same time period, manufacturing employ- ment declined from 20.6% to 12.0% of total employment. =nflation -adjusted wages for manufacturing jobs have remained relatively stable over the last decade. Table == -B3 shows employment in the WMLA by industry. The goods -producing sector of the economy consists of manufacturing, construction and mining. =n 2012, the goods -producing sector comprised only 15.5% of the WMLA employment. Nonetheless, this percentage was still higher than the 13.4% state average. On the service -producing side, education and health services (25.6%), trade, transportation and utili- ties (19.6%), and government (16.1%) were the major employers. Overall, the service -producing sec- tor comprised 84.5% of the total non -farm labor force in 2012.  Geographic Area Covered Employmentᵇ Annual Average Non -Agricultural Hune Employment Percent Change 2000 – 2012 1980 – 2000 2012 2010 2000 2000 1990 1980 CNVR 95,583 93,330 102,648 103,750 99,600 89,980 – 6.9% 15.3% Waterbury 38,363 38,171 41,902 42,640 48,510 49,230 – 8.4% – 13.4% Remainder of Region 57,220 55,159 60,746 61,110 51,090 40,750 – 5.8% 50.0% Beacon Falls 855 942 969 960 820 700 – 11.8% 37.1% Bethlehem 711 676 501 510 300 160 41.9% 218.8% Cheshire 15,162 14,544 14,194 14,350 12,060 8,100 6.8% 77.2% Middlebury 3,846 3,436 3,557 3,640 3,660 4,170 8.1% – 12.7% Naugatuck 7,406 7,235 8,605 8,590 7,970 6,780 – 13.9% 26.7% Oxford 3,079 2,707 1,766 1,870 1,320 850 74.3% 120.0% Prospect 2,012 1,974 2,092 2,210 1,800 1,360 – 3.8% 62.5% Southbury 8,513 8,573 9,885 9,550 6,440 4,250 – 13.9% 124.7% Thomaston 2,691 2,554 3,310 3,340 3,880 3,840 – 18.7% – 13.0% Watertown 8,009 7,631 10,478 10,610 8,040 6,650 – 23.6% 59.5% Wolcott 2,836 2,852 3,144 3,140 2,690 2,250 – 9.8% 39.6% Woodbury 2,100 2,035 2,245 2,340 2,110 1,640 – 6.5% 42.7% Connecticut 1,628,028 1,596,050 1,676,799 1,710,900 1,630,600 1,440,100 – 2.9% 18.8% Table == -B1. Total Employment in the CNVR, by Municipality: 1980 -2012 a ᵃ Starting in 2002, data became available using the North American =ndustry Classification System (NA=CS), which includes agric ultural employment. The Standard =ndustrial Classification System had previously been used. Data before 2002 is not comparable to lat er years. ᵇ Covered employment is employment that is covered by unemployment insurance. Note: Total Nonagricultural Employment excludes workers idled due to labor -management conflicts. Source: Connecticut Department of Labor website, "Covered Employment & Wages by =ndustry – Annual Averages" http://www1.ctdol.state.ct.us/lmi/202/202_annualaverage.asp  Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on census  tract group  geography. Based  on  place of  residence.  The region  added two  census  tracts  since 2000.  Data was interpolated  for the new  census tracts based  on  a proportion of  the labor  force  located  within them. Employed  persons refers  to the  pouplation  that is currently working. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of  the  Census,  American Community  Su rvey, 5 ‐Ye a r   Estimates,  2007‐2011; Census  2000 Figure II‐B1.      Change  in  Employed  Persons,  by  Census  Tra c t : 2000 ‐2011 To w n s Change in Employment Less than -10% -10.0% to -0.1% 0.0% to 4.9% 5.0% to 14.9% 15.0% or Higher 0 5 Miles ¯  Employment Wages Year Total Manufacturing Percent of Total Average =nflation – Adjustedᵃ 2012 63,316 7,628 12.0% $57,488 $57,488 2011 62,547 7,626 12.2% $57,299 $58,485 2010 62,187 7,511 12.1% $56,049 $59,015 2009 63,349 7,965 12.6% $50,922 $54,496 2008 66,946 9,703 14.5% $53,585 $57,142 2007 68,539 10,138 14.8% $53,144 $58,847 2006 68,984 10,011 14.5% $50,954 $58,029 2005 68,000 10,340 15.2% $48,651 $57,194 2004 67,733 10,840 16.0% $48,023 $58,368 2003 67,356 11,304 16.8% $46,242 $57,700 2002 68,234 12,148 17.8% $45,108 $57,568 2001 69,460 13,558 19.5% $43,764 $56,736 2000 70,874 14,604 20.6% $44,273 $59,029 Table == -B2. Manufacturing Employment in the Waterbury Labor Market Area: 2000 -2012 Figure == -B2. Manufacturing Employment in the Waterbury Labor Market Area: 2000 -2012 Note: The Waterbury LMA consists of 7 municipalities in the CNVR (Waterbury, Naugatuck, Beacon Falls, Watertown, Wolcott, Middlebury and Prospect) Source: Connecticut Department of Labor. Labor Market =nformation – Annual Employment and Wages by =ndustry: Waterbury LMA http://www1.ctdol.state.ct.us/lmi/202/202_annualaverage.asp U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. CP= =nflation Calculator ᵃ Note: =nflation -adjusted wages are in 2012 dollars 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 D Table == -B3. Estimated Nonagricultural Employment by =ndustry For the Waterbury Labor Market Area: 2000 -2012 =ndustry Percent of Total Employment Percent Change 2012 2012 2010 2000 2000 -12 Total 100.0% 63,200 62,000 72,100 – 12.3% Goods -Producing 15.5% 9,800 9,600 17,600 – 44.3% Manufacturing 12.0% 7,600 7,500 14,700 – 49.0% Construction, Natural Resources, & Mining 3.5% 2,200 2,100 2,900 – 17.2% Service -Producing 84.5% 53,400 52,400 54,500 – 2.0% Trade, Transp. & Utilities 19.6% 12,400 12,200 14,000 – 11.4% =nformation 0.9% 600 700 1,000 – 40.0% Financial Activities 3.2% 2,000 2,000 3,100 – 35.5% Professional & Business Services 7.0% 4,400 4,400 6,000 – 26.7% Education & :ealth Services 25.6% 16,200 15,900 13,100 23.7% Leisure & :ospitality 8.1% 5,100 5,000 5,300 – 3.8% Other Services 4.0% 2,500 2,300 2,800 – 10.7% Government 16.1% 10,200 10,000 9,200 10.9% Note: =n this table, the Waterbury LMA consists of seven municipalities in the CNVR (Beacon Falls, Middlebury, Naugatuck, Prospect, Waterbury, Watertown and Wolcott). The Waterbury LMA changed from 10 municipalities to 7 in 2002. Data is rounded to the nearest hundred. 2009 data benchmarked to 2010. Source: Connecticut Labor Department, Office of Research. Waterbury LMA, Current Employment Statistics – Nonfarm Employment Monthly :istorical Data (Not Seasonally Adjusted ). http://www1.ctdol.state.ct.us/lmi/202/202_annualaverage.asp  ===. :OUS=NG A . : o u s i n g S t o c k B . T e n u r e C . : o u s e h o l d S i z e D . A s s i s t e d : o u s i n g E . : o u s i n g V a c a n c y F . : o u s i n g C o s t s  ===. :OUS=NG =nformation in this section comes from the 2010 United States Census, the 2007 -2011 American Communi- ty Survey, and the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development. :ousing unit num- bers may vary from these different sources. Census 2010 data is based on 100% counts while the American Community Survey is based on estimates. A . : o u s i n g S t o c k =n 2010, the region’s housing stock totaled 118,975 units, a net gain of 9,195 residences (8.4%) since 2000 (Table === -A1). Oxford (38.8%) and Beacon Falls (19.2%) had the most rapid growth in housing while Waterbury (2.5%) experienced the smallest growth. Oxford experienced the largest numerical increase (1,326 units) from 2000 to 2010, followed by Southbury with 1,292 units and Waterbury with 1,164 units (Figure === -A1). From 2007 -2011, 65.2% of the region’s housing units were single -family units. 34.1% of the region’s housing units were multi -family units (Figure === -A2 and Table === -A2). 7.7% of the total housing units were two -family units, 10.6% were three to four family units, and 15.8% consisted of five or more units. Less than 1% of the region’s housing consisted of mobile homes or other types of housing units. Single -family units made up only 43.9% of Waterbury’s housing units, while 80% of the units in the suburban towns were single -family (Table === -A3). :ousing Construction The region’s housing stock experienced an annual net gain of 151 units in 2012 (Table === -A4 and Fig- ure === -A4) based on building permit data from the Connecticut Department of Economic and Com- munity Development. This is a decline of 83% (739 units) from 2005. Oxford had the most new con- struction in 2012 with 25 units, ranking 30th in the state, followed by Prospect (21 units) and Wa- tertown (19 units). Despite seeing the most new construction in 2012, Waterbury saw its net hous- ing stock increase by only 5 units. While Waterbury saw 62 new units built in 2012, it also saw 57 demolitions, resulting in only a small net gain. (Table === -A5 and Figure === -A5).  Table === -A1. CNVR’s Total :ousing Stock, by Municipality: 1980 -2010 Figure === -A1. Change in CNVR :ousing Stock, by Municipality: 2000 -2010 Total :ousing Units Percent Change Geographic Area 2010 2000 1990 1980 2000 – 2010 1990 – 2000 CNVR 118,975 109,780 103,775 88,159 8.4% 5.8% Waterbury 47,991 46,827 47,205 40,854 2.5% – 0.8% Remainder of Region 70,984 62,953 56,570 47,305 12.8% 11.3% Beacon Falls 2,509 2,104 1,990 1,380 19.2% 5.7% Bethlehem 1,575 1,388 1,262 1,074 13.5% 10.0% Cheshire 10,424 9,588 8,590 6,996 8.7% 11.6% Middlebury 2,892 2,494 2,365 2,168 16.0% 5.5% Naugatuck 13,061 12,341 11,930 9,728 5.8% 3.4% Oxford 4,746 3,420 2,930 2,197 38.8% 16.7% Prospect 3,474 3,094 2,625 2,063 12.3% 17.9% Southbury 9,091 7,799 6,826 5,838 16.6% 14.3% Thomaston 3,276 3,014 2,736 2,248 8.7% 10.2% Watertown 9,096 8,298 7,522 6,618 9.6% 10.3% Wolcott 6,276 5,544 4,870 4,071 13.2% 13.8% Woodbury 4,564 3,869 2,924 2,924 18.0% 32.3% Connecticut 1,487,891 1,385,987 1,320,850 1,158,884 7.4% 4.9% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000. PL94 -171 Tables – Connecticut. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Profile of General Population and :ousing Characteristics: 2010 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 E 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% CWRCT Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon  Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on block  group  geography.  Single  family includes  both attached  and detatched  housing  units. Mult‐ family  includes  housing  with two  or more  units. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of  the  Census,  American  Community Survey  5‐Ye a r  Estimates:  2007‐2011 B25024 Figure  III ‐A2.      CNVR  Multi ‐Family  Housing,  by Block  Group:  2007 ‐2011 Ta b l e  III ‐A2.    CNVR  Multi‐ Family  Housing,  by Municipality:  2000 ‐2011 Percent  Multi ‐Family  Housing: 2007 ‐2011 Source:   U.S.  Bureau of  the Census,  American  Community  Survey 5‐Ye a r  Estimates  2007 ‐2011. To w n s Block Groups % Multi-Family Housing Up to 10% 10% – 24.9% 25% – 49.9% 50% – 74.9% 75% or Higher 05M ile s ¯ C o n n ec t ic u t C N V R W at er b u r y R em a i n d er o f R eg io n Geographic  A re a 2011 2000 2011 2000 2011 2000 CN V R 118, 131 111,339 40, 248 39,508 34. 1% 35.5% Wate rbury 48, 426 47,536 27, 09 4 27,805 55. 9% 58.5% Remainder  of   Region 69, 705 63,803 13, 154 11,703 18. 9% 18.3% Beacon  Fal l s 2, 395 2,264 488 44 8 20. 4% 19.8% Be thl e he m 1, 560 1,410 8 4 115 5. 4% 8.2% Che s hi re 9, 790 9, 638 1, 692 1, 28 0 17. 3% 13.3% Mi dd l e b ury 2, 779 2, 578 206 11 0 7. 4% 4. 3% N augatuck 13, 212 12,551 4, 655 4, 605 35. 2% 36.7% Ox f ord 4, 568 3, 536 119 89 2. 6% 2. 5% P ros p e ct 3, 397 3, 085 135 68 4. 0% 2. 2% So uthbu ry 8, 805 7, 792 1, 879 1, 157 21. 3% 14. 8% Thomaston 3, 314 3,072 783 84 0 23. 6% 27.3% Wate rtow n 9, 171 8,276 1, 490 1, 712 16. 2% 20.7% Wol cott 6, 125 5,697 650 50 0 10. 6% 8.8% Woodbury 4,589 3,904 973 779 21.2% 20.0% Conne cti cut 1, 482, 798 1, 399, 819 513, 036 483, 246 34. 6% 34. 5% Total  Uni ts Mul ti ‐Family Percent  Mu l ti ‐Family  Table === -A3. Estimated Number of :ousing Units in CNVR Municipalities, by Type of Structure: 2007 -2011 Number of :ousing Units Geographic Area Total Units 1 Unit 2 Units 3 -4 Units 5+ Units Mobile :omes & Others CNVR 118,131 77,041 9,041 12,561 18,646 842 Waterbury 48,426 21,275 4,859 9,135 13,100 57 Remainder of Region 69,705 55,766 4,182 3,426 5,546 785 Beacon Falls 2,395 1,735 107 231 150 172 Bethlehem 1,560 1,468 34 37 13 8 Cheshire 9,790 8,068 432 346 914 30 Middlebury 2,779 2,564 0 25 181 9 Naugatuck 13,212 8,216 1,790 1,080 1,785 341 Oxford 4,568 4,449 99 12 8 0 Prospect 3,397 3,126 50 35 50 136 Southbury 8,805 6,868 518 622 739 58 Thomaston 3,314 2,510 180 101 502 21 Watertown 9,171 7,681 646 446 398 0 Wolcott 6,125 5,465 162 147 341 10 Woodbury 4,589 3,616 164 344 465 0 Connecticut 1,475,657 950,446 119,757 132,977 259,280 13,197 Percent Distribution CNVR 100.0% 65.2% 7.7% 10.6% 15.8% 0.7% Waterbury 100.0% 43.9% 10.0% 18.9% 27.1% 0.1% Remainder of Region 100.0% 80.0% 6.0% 4.9% 8.0% 1.1% Beacon Falls 100.0% 72.4% 4.5% 9.6% 6.3% 7.2% Bethlehem 100.0% 94.1% 2.2% 2.4% 0.8% 0.5% Cheshire 100.0% 82.4% 4.4% 3.5% 9.3% 0.3% Middlebury 100.0% 92.3% 0.0% 0.9% 6.5% 0.3% Naugatuck 100.0% 62.2% 13.5% 8.2% 13.5% 2.6% Oxford 100.0% 97.4% 2.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% Prospect 100.0% 92.0% 1.5% 1.0% 1.5% 4.0% Southbury 100.0% 78.0% 5.9% 7.1% 8.4% 0.7% Thomaston 100.0% 75.7% 5.4% 3.0% 15.1% 0.6% Watertown 100.0% 83.8% 7.0% 4.9% 4.3% 0.0% Wolcott 100.0% 89.2% 2.6% 2.4% 5.6% 0.2% Woodbury 100.0% 78.8% 3.6% 7.5% 10.1% 0.0% Connecticut 100.0% 64.4% 8.1% 9.0% 17.6% 0.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 -2011 American Community Survey, 5 -Year Estimates, B25024. Total :ousing Units may not match counts performed during the 2010 Census, which are 100% counts rather than estimates. D Table === -A4. Annual Growth in the CNVR :ousing Stock, by Municipality: 2000 -2012 Figure === -A3. Net Growth in the CNVR :ousing Stock, by Municipality: 2012 Annual Net Gain in :ousing Units Geographic Area 2012 2005 2000 CNVR 151 890 663 Waterbury 5 118 19 Remainder of Region 140 772 644 Beacon Falls 5 59 48 Bethlehem 2 6 20 Cheshire 16 32 66 Middlebury 7 83 27 Naugatuck 16 92 43 Oxford 25 241 84 Prospect 21 31 64 Southbury 12 60 80 Thomaston 3 14 53 Watertown 19 59 58 Wolcott 7 57 60 Woodbury 5 38 41 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Profile of General Population and :ousing Characteristics Annual Net Gain in :ousing Units: Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, Publications, :ousing Re – ports, Construction Reports: :ousing Production and Permits 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 D Table === -A5. Changes in :ousing Stock in CNVR Municipalities, by Type of New Construction, Other Gains, And Losses: 2012 Figure === -A4. New :ousing Units, by Number of :ousing Units: 2012 Number of :ousing Units New Construction State 3 and 4 5 Units Total Net Rank by Geographic Area 1 Unit 2 Unit Units or More Units Demolitions Gain Net Gain CNVR 180 0 3 47 230 79 151 — Waterbury 15 0 0 47 62 57 5 103 Remainder of Region 165 0 3 0 168 28 140 — Beacon Falls 5 0 0 0 5 0 5 95 Bethlehem 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 128 Cheshire 24 0 0 0 24 8 16 46 Middlebury 7 0 0 0 7 0 7 87 Naugatuck 21 0 0 0 21 5 16 48 Oxford 27 0 3 0 30 5 25 30 Prospect 23 0 0 0 23 2 21 38 Southbury 14 0 0 0 14 2 12 63 Thomaston 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 122 Watertown 21 0 0 0 21 2 19 41 Wolcott 13 0 0 0 13 6 7 89 Woodbury 5 0 0 0 5 0 5 105 Connecticut 2,534 62 81 1,992 4,669 955 3714 — Source: Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, :ousing Production & Permits Note: Net housing gain subtracts demolitions from new construction. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Singl e Fa mily Multi-Fa mily D B . T e n u r e =n 2010, 68.2% of the region’s occupied housing units were owner -occupied and 31.8% were renter – occupied (Figure === -B1 and Table === -B1). =n Waterbury, 53.0% of units were renter -occupied, while only 18.3% were renter -occupied in the suburban portion of the CNVR. The suburban towns with the greatest proportion of rental housing were Naugatuck (32.1%), Thomaston (24.0%) and Woodbury (22.1%). Prospect, Oxford and Middlebury had the least, with only 7.6% to 10.9% of their occupied housing units being rented. :ousing tenure also varies significantly based on the type of housing structure (Table === -B2). 91.7% of the region’s year -round occupied single -family housing units, 24.1% of multi -family units and 67.4% of mobile homes or trailers were owner -occupied. Waterbury had the lowest ownership rate of single – family housing units at 84.7% while Beacon Falls had the highest at 97.2%. Ownership rates of multi – family housing units ranged from a high of 67.4% in Southbury to a low of 0% in Bethlehem. Only 18.2% of multi -family housing units in Waterbury were owner -occupied. C. :ousehold Size :ousehold size is the average number of persons living in a housing unit. Reflecting state and national trends, household size has been shrinking in the region. But, over the last decade, the regional de- crease was minimal. Waterbury actually saw its average household size increase from 2.46 in 2000 to 2.54 in 2010. The remainder of the region saw continued declines in household size. =n 2010, Oxford had the highest average (2.81 persons), while Southbury (2.33 persons) had the lowest (Figure === -C1 and Table === -C1). D Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on block  group  geography. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of  the  Census,  Profile of  General Population  and Housing  Characteristics: 2010 Figure III ‐B1.      CNVR Renter ‐Occupied  Housing,  by Block  Group:  2010 Ta b l e  III ‐B1.     CNVR  Housing  Te n u r e , By  Municipality:  2000 ‐2010 Source:   U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  Census 2000‐2010  Profile of  General Population  and  Housing  Characteristics To w n s Block Groups %  Renter  Occupied Up  to  10% 10%  ‐ 24.9% 25% ‐ 49.9% 50% ‐ 74.9% 75% or  Higher 0 5 Miles ¯ Geographic Area 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 CNVR 109,735 103,255 74,793 69,538 34,942 33,717 31.8% 32.7% Waterbury 42,761 42,622 20,081 20,291 22,680 22,331 53.0% 52.4% Remainder  of   Region 66,974 60,633 54,712 49,247 12,262 11,386 18.3% 18.8% Beacon  Falls 2,360 2,032 1,915 1,594 445 438 18.9% 21.6% Bethlehem 1,411 1,246 1,199 1,065 212 181 15.0% 14.5% Cheshire 10,041 9,349 8,701 8,097 1,340 1,252 13.3% 13.4% Middlebury 2,748 2,398 2,449 2,135 299 263 10.9% 11.0% Naugatuck 12,339 11,829 8,376 7,863 3,963 3,966 32.1% 33.5% Oxford 4,504 3,343 4,131 3,043 373 300 8.3% 9.0% Prospect 3,357 3,020 3,102 2,797 255 223 7.6% 7.4% Southbury 8,213 7,225 7,035 6,464 1,178 761 14.3% 10.5% Thomaston 3,108 2,916 2,363 2,152 745 764 24.0% 26.2% Watertown 8,672 8,046 6,920 6,385 1,752 1,661 20.2% 20.6% Wolcott 6,007 5,514 5,239 4,866 768 648 12.8% 11.8% Woodbury 4,214 3,715 3,282 2,786 932 929 22.1% 25.0% Connecticut 1,371,087 1, 301,670 925,286 869,729 445,801 431,941 32.5% 33.2% Renter  Occupied Total  Housing  Units Owner ‐Occupied R enter  Occupied Number  of  Occupied  Housing  Units Percent  Table === -B2. Occupied Year -Round :ousing Units in CNVR Municipalities, by Type of Structure and Tenure Status: 2007 -2011 Geographic Area Single Family Multi -Family Mobile :ome or Trailer Total Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Total Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Total Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Waterbury 20,114 17,038 3,076 22,428 4,079 18,349 57 26 31 Remainder of Region 53,612 50,599 3,013 11,665 4,121 7,544 719 497 222 Beacon Falls 1,705 1,657 48 392 111 281 172 123 49 Bethlehem 1,310 1,227 83 84 0 84 8 0 8 Cheshire 7,828 7,466 362 1,509 520 989 30 0 30 Middlebury 2,482 2,357 125 181 78 103 9 9 0 Naugatuck 8,006 7,175 831 4,039 1,154 2,885 341 245 96 Oxford 4,241 4,099 142 119 78 41 0 0 0 Prospect 3,096 2,985 111 135 54 81 108 98 10 Southbury 6,489 6,044 445 1,687 1,137 550 20 0 20 Thomaston 2,469 2,245 224 755 260 495 21 12 9 Watertown 7,360 7,060 300 1,272 293 979 0 0 0 Wolcott 5,304 5,087 217 582 136 446 10 10 0 Woodbury 3,322 3,197 125 910 300 610 0 0 0 Percentage Distribution CNVR 100% 91.7% 8.3% 100% 24.1% 75.9% 100% 67.4% 32.6% Waterbury 100% 84.7% 15.3% 100% 18.2% 81.8% 100% 45.6% 54.4% Remainder of Region 100% 94.4% 5.6% 100% 35.3% 64.7% 100% 69.1% 30.9% Beacon Falls 100% 97.2% 2.8% 100% 28.3% 71.7% 100% 71.5% 28.5% Bethlehem 100% 93.7% 6.3% 100% 0.0% 100.0% 100% 0.0% 100.0% Cheshire 100% 95.4% 4.6% 100% 34.5% 65.5% — — — Middlebury 100% 95.0% 5.0% 100% 43.1% 56.9% 100% 100.0% 0.0% Naugatuck 100% 89.6% 10.4% 100% 28.6% 71.4% 100% 71.8% 28.2% Oxford 100% 96.7% 3.3% 100% 65.5% 34.5% — — — Prospect 100% 96.4% 3.6% 100% 40.0% 60.0% 100% 90.7% 9.3% Southbury 100% 93.1% 6.9% 100% 67.4% 32.6% 100% 0.0% 100.0% Thomaston 100% 90.9% 9.1% 100% 34.4% 65.6% 100% 57.1% 42.9% Watertown 100% 95.9% 4.1% 100% 23.0% 77.0% — — — Wolcott 100% 95.9% 4.1% 100% 23.4% 76.6% 100% 100.0% 0.0% Woodbury 100% 96.2% 3.8% 100% 33.0% 67.0% — — — — no value Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2007 -2011 American Community Survey, 5 -Year Estimates, B25032 Total :ousing Units may not match counts reported in Census 2010 DP -1 and : -1 which are 100% counts rather than estimates. D Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on block  group  geography. Source:  U.S. Bureau  of  the  Census,  Census 2010, Ta b l e  P17 Figure III‐C1.      CNVR  Average  Household  Size,  by Block  Group:  2010 Ta b l e  III ‐C1.     CNVR  Average  Household  Size, by Municipality:  1970 ‐2010 Average Household  Size: 2010 Source:   U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  Census 1970‐2010 Towns Block Groups Household  Size Up  to  2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.24 2.25 ‐ 2.49 2.50 ‐ 2.99 3.00  or Higher 0 5 Miles ¯ 2.5 2.52 2.54 2.56 2.58 2.6 CWRCT C N VR Con n e ct ic u t W at er bu ry R em ain d e r o f  R e gi o n Geographic  A re a 2010 2000 1990 1980 1970 CN V R 2. 56 2. 57 2. 62 2. 79 3. 19 Waterbury   2. 54 2. 46 2. 48 2. 67 3. 05 Remainder   of  Region 2. 58 2. 64 2. 73 2. 91 3. 32 Beacon  Falls   2. 56 2. 58 2. 69 2. 98 3. 31 Bethlehem   2. 49 2. 69 2. 73 2. 86 3. 23 Cheshire   2. 66 2. 71 2. 82 3. 06 3. 48 Mi d d l e b u ry   2. 72 2. 66 2. 73 2. 94 3. 30 Naugatuck 2.56 2.60 2.69 2.80 3.16 Oxford   2. 81 2. 94 3. 09 3. 18 3. 41 P rospe ct 2. 76 2. 83 2. 97 3. 24 3. 66 Southbury   2. 33 2. 41 2. 34 2. 39 2. 82 Thomaston 2.53 2.57 2.64 2.86 3.30 Watertown 2.57 2.67 2.80 3.00 3.43 Wol cott   2. 75 2. 79 2. 93 3. 30 3. 74 Woodbury   2. 36 2. 48 2. 51 2. 61 3. 07 Connecticut 2.52 2.53 2.67 2.76 3.16Average  Number  of  Persons  per  House hol d  D . P u b l i c l y A s s i s t e d : o u s i n g Under Connecticut General Statutes, municipalities with 10% or more of their units in affordable housing are exempt from override of their zoning ordinance for the creation of this type of housing. The Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development monitors assisted housing and divides it into three categories: governmentally assisted housing, Connecticut :ousing Finance Authority (C:FA) or Farmer’s :ome Administration (Fm:A) mortgages, and deed restricted proper- ties. Governmentally assisted housing includes housing occupied by persons receiving rental assis- tance under Chapter 138a of the Connecticut General Statutes (State Rental Assistance) or Section 1437f of Title 42 of the United States Code (:UD Section 8). According to the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, in 2012 only Waterbury met the 10% minimum for publicly assisted housing (Table === -D1). Three towns adjacent to Waterbury – Naugatuck (8.3%), Wolcott (6.9%) and Thomaston (6.1%) – led the remainder of the re- gion. The towns with the least amount of publicly assisted housing were Prospect (0.8%), Oxford (0.9%), Southbury (1.2%), and Beacon Falls (1.2%) (Figure === -D1). E . : o u s i n g V a c a n c y =n 2010, there were 9,240 vacant housing units, constituting 7.8% of the region’s total housing units (Figure === -E1 and Table === -E1). The region’s vacancy rate was slightly less than the statewide rate of 7.9%. Waterbury had the highest vacancy rate in the region at 10.9%, while Prospect (3.4%) and Cheshire (3.7%) had the lowest. The region’s for -sale -only vacancy rate (1.4%) was slightly higher than the state average of 1.0%. Southbury’s for -sale -only vacancy rate was the highest in the region at 2.3% followed by Beacon Falls at 1.6%. The lowest rates were in Watertown (0.7%), followed by Prospect (0.9%) and Thomaston (0.9%). For rental units, Waterbury had the highest vacancy rate (5.5%).Naugatuck was second at 2.2%. Mid- dlebury, Oxford, Bethlehem and Wolcott were the lowest with percentages ranging from 0.2% to 0.5%. The region as a whole had a slightly higher rental vacancy rate (2.9%) than the state (2.7%). D Figure === -D1. Publicly Assisted :ousing as a Percent of Total, by Municipality: 2012 Table === -D1. Publicly Assisted :ousing in the CNVR, by Municipality: 2012 Number of :ousing Units Geographic Area Govt. Assisted Tenant Rental Assistance C:FA/Fm:A Mortgages Deed Restricted Total Assisted 2010 Census :ousing Percent Assisted CNVR 6,507 3,501 3,077 351 13,436 118,975 11.3% Waterbury 4,870 3,149 2,256 326 10,601 47,991 22.1% Remainder of Region 1,637 352 821 25 2,835 70,984 4.0% Beacon Falls 0 5 26 0 31 2,509 1.2% Bethlehem 24 1 0 0 25 1,575 1.6% Cheshire 237 7 70 17 331 10,424 3.2% Middlebury 76 4 12 8 100 2,892 3.5% Naugatuck 492 293 301 0 1,086 13,061 8.3% Oxford 36 1 8 0 45 4,746 0.9% Prospect 0 4 25 0 29 3,474 0.8% Southbury 89 2 14 0 105 9,091 1.2% Thomaston 105 4 91 0 200 3,276 6.1% Watertown 206 24 134 0 364 9,096 4.0% Wolcott 312 3 121 0 436 6,276 6.9% Woodbury 60 4 19 0 83 4,564 1.8% Connecticut 86,209 42,649 26,829 5,692 161,379 1,487,891 10.8% Source: Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, Affordable :ousing Appeals List, 2012 U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94 -171) Summary File, Table :1, for 2010 Census :ousing data 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% DE 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% CWRCT Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon  Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on block  group  geography. Source:   U.S.  Bureau of  the Census,  Profile of General Population  and Housing  Characteristics: 2010,  H3 CNVR  Va ca n c y  Rate:  2010 Source:   U.S.  Bureau of  the Census,  Profile of General  Population  and Housing  Characteristics:  2010, H5 To w n s Block Groups %  of  To t a l  Housing  Va ca nt Less  than 5% 5%  ‐ 10.9% 11%  ‐ 14.9% 15% ‐ 19.9% 20% or  Higher 0 5 Miles ¯ Figure III ‐E1.        CNVR  Va ca n c y  Rate,  by  Block  Group:  2010 CN V R Co nn ec ti cu t W a t e rbu ry R e m ai n d er o f  R eg io n Ta b l e  III ‐E1.     CNVR  Property  Vaca n c y as  a  Percent  of  Housing Units, by  Municipality:  2010 %  Vacant Geographic  Area Total For   Sale For   Rent Rented  or   Sold  Not   Occupied For  Seasonal ,   Recreational  or   Occassional  Use Other   Vacant Total   Housi ng   Un i ts CN V R 9, 240 1, 608 3, 500 431 1, 108 2, 593 7. 8% Wate rb ury 5, 230 712 2, 635 187 144 1, 552 10. 9% Remainder  of   Region 4, 010 896 865 244 964 1, 041 5. 6% Beacon  F al l s 149 39 21 22 13 54 5. 9% Be thl e he m 164 17 8 2 114 23 10. 4% Che s hi re 383 109 75 31 65 103 3. 7% Mi ddl e b ury 144 29 5 6 68 36 5. 0% N augatu ck 722 157 283 41 33 208 5. 5% Ox f ord 242 54 18 13 82 75 5. 1% P ros pe ct 117 30 22 7 15 43 3. 4% S outhbu ry 878 207 166 44 323 138 9. 7% Thomaston 168 31 52 16 20 49 5. 1% Wate rtow n 424 68 108 26 54 168 4. 7% Wol cott 269 87 33 19 65 65 4. 3% Woodbury 350 68 74 17 112 79 7.7% Conne cti cut 116, 804 15, 564 40, 004 5, 689 29, 618 25, 929 7. 9% Vacant  Housi ng  Uni ts  F . : o u s i n g C o s t s Four measures of housing costs are presented in this section: for owner -occupied units, the value and homeowner costs; for rental units, median contract rent and median gross rent. Value of Owner -Occupied :ousing Units From 2007 -2011, median home value was highest in Oxford ($392,100), followed by Woodbury ($389,600) and Bethlehem ($388,600) while the lowest home values were found in Waterbury ($164,000), Naugatuck ($221,400) and Thomaston ($236,800) (Figure === -F1). For all of the region’s municipalities, the median value of owner -occupied housing units has increased dramatically over the last decade. Beacon Falls (95.2%)saw the highest growth in median home value, followed by Middle- bury (91.3%), and Oxford (88.7%). Southbury (61.1%), Waterbury (61.9%), and Woodbury (65.8%) saw the slowest growth from 2000 to 2011 (Table === -F1). Monthly :omeowner Costs Monthly homeowner costs tabulated by the Census Bureau consist of the total cost of mortgage, real estate taxes, fire and hazard insurance, utilities, and fuel. For units with a mortgage during the period 2007 -2011, Middlebury ($2,517) had the highest median cost, while Waterbury ($1,697) had the lowest. All towns in the region saw their monthly homeowner costs increase from 2000 to 2011 with the smallest increase occurring in Naugatuck (40.4%) and the largest increase occurring in Middlebury (62.8%) (Table === -F2). For units without a mortgage, Middlebury and Southbury had the highest median cost at $1,001 per month, while Wolcott had the lowest at $735 per month. From 2000 -2011, all municipalities saw an increase in median cost for units without a mortgage, with the smallest increase occurring in Cheshire (57.1%) and the largest increase occurring in Naugatuck (102.6%). =n all cases, growth in non – mortgaged monthly costs outpaced mortgaged monthly homeowner costs. This suggests that increas- es in monthly homeowner costs are largely attributed to higher costs of taxes, insurance, utilities and fuel. Median homeowner costs (for both mortgaged and non -mortgaged homeowners) can be seen in Figure === -F2. The Census Bureau uses 30% of income as a standard for measuring housing affordability. The 30% standard is a suggested maximum percent of income that a family should spend and still have enough income left over for other nondiscretionary spending. =n the CNVR, 36.3% of households pay more than 30% of their income to housing costs, slightly higher than the state average of 35.9%. =n South- bury, 41.7% of households were paying more than 30% of income to housing costs while in Cheshire, only 24.7% of households were doing so (Figure == -F3 and Table === -F3). Southbury’s high percentage can be partially explained by the presence of a large elderly population with limited incomes. Contract Rent for Renter -Occupied :ousing Contract rent is the monthly rent agreed to, which may or may not include utilities. Median contract rent in the CNVR ranged from a low of $543 in Bethlehem to a high of $1,151 in Southbury. The most affordable suburban towns had median rents between $450 and $750: Bethlehem ($483), Thomaston ($718), Middlebury ($765), Watertown ($723), and Prospect ($746). Waterbury’s median contract  rent ($716) was well below the state average of $845 (Table === -F4). From 2000 to 2011, median contract rent rose throughout most of the region. Oxford (155.6%), Cheshire (54.4%), and Waterbury (51.7%) saw the highest growth in contract rent. During the same time period, Bethlehem experienced a 37.1% decrease in median contract rent. The remaining muni – cipalities in the region saw growth rates between 17.1% and 48.8%. Gross Rent for Renter -Occupied :ousing Gross rent is the monthly rent and utilities combined. =n the period 2007 -2011, Oxford had the high- est median gross rent of $1,455, while Bethlehem had the lowest at $722 (Figure === -F4). Woodbury ($1,033), Beacon Falls ($1,078), Cheshire ($1,238), Southbury ($1,281), and Oxford ($1,455) all had median gross rents above the state median of $982 (Figure === -F4 and Table === -F4). From 2000 to 2011, Oxford (111.5%), Waterbury (56.8%), Cheshire (55.1%), and Naugatuck (53.1%) experienced growth in median gross rent above the state average (49.8%). Bethlehem actually saw its median gross rent de- crease by 26.6%.  Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on block  group  geography. Home  value applies  only to  owner‐occupied housing  units. Source:   U.S.  Bureau of  the Census,  American  Community Survey, 5 ‐Ye a r  Estimates,  2007‐2011, B25077 Figure  III ‐F1.     Median  Owner ‐Occupied  Home  Va l u e ,  by  Block  Group:  2007‐2011 Ta b l e  III ‐F1.     CNVR  Median  Home Va l u e ,  by  Municipality:  2000 ‐2011 To w n s Block Groups Median Home Value Up to $100,000 $100,000 – $199,999 $200,000 – $299,999 $300,000 – $399,999 $400,000 or Higher No Data 05 Mile s ¯ Source:   U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  American  Community  Survey, Five Ye a r  Estimates,  2007‐2011;   Census  2000 WaterburyNaugatuck Thomaston Wolcott Watertown Beacon  Falls Prospect Southbury Cheshire Middlebury BethlehemWoodbury Oxford $0 $ 200 ,000 $400 ,000 Geographic  A re a 2011 2000 Beacon  Fal l s $301, 900 $154, 699 95. 2% Be thl e he m $388, 600 $213, 800 81. 8% Che s hi re $358, 200 $212, 000 69. 0% Mi ddl e bury $379, 900 $198, 600 91. 3% N augatuck $221, 400 $133, 000 66. 5% O x f ord $392, 100 $207, 800 88. 7% P ros pe ct $323, 000 $180, 700 78. 7% Southbury $336, 800 $209, 100 61. 1% Thomaston $236, 800 $135, 800 74. 4% Wate rbury $164, 000 $101, 300 61. 9% Wate rtow n $277, 000 $148, 300 86. 8% Wol cott $263, 300 $143, 400 83. 6% Woodbu ry $389, 600 $235, 000 65. 8% Conne cti cut $293, 100 $166, 900 75. 6% Me d i an  Home  Value % Change 2000  ‐  2011 Median  Home  Va l u e : 2007 ‐2011  Waterbury Thomaston Naugatuck Watertown Beacon  Falls Wolcott Southbury Prospect Woodbury Bethlehem Middlebury Oxford Cheshire Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon  Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on block  group  geography. Costs  include mortgage,  real estate  taxes, fire and hazard  insurance, utilities,  and  fuel. Source:   U.S.  Bureau of  the Census,  American  Community Survey, 5 ‐Ye a r  Estimates,  2007‐2011, B25088 Figure  III ‐F2.      CNVR  Median  Monthly  Homeowner  Costs, by  Block  Group:  2007 ‐2011 Monthly  Monthly  Home ‐ owner  Costs:  2007 ‐2011 Source:   U.S.  Bureau of  the Census,  American  Community  Survey, Five Ye a r  Estimates,  2007‐2011 To w n s Block Groups Monthly Cost Up to $1,000 $1,000 – $1,249 $1,250 – $1,499 $1,500 – $1,999 $2,000 or Higher No Data 0 5 Miles ¯ Ta b l e III ‐F2.     CNVR  Median  Monthly  Homeowner  Costs,  by Municipality:  2000 ‐2011 Geographic  A re a 2011 200 0 Percent Change 2011 2000 Percent Change Beacon  Fal l s $2, 009 $1, 298 54. 8% $780 $432 80. 6% Be th l e he m $2, 155 $1, 525 41. 3% $800 $442 81. 0% Ch e s h i re $2, 480 $1, 665 48. 9% $869 $553 57. 1% Mi ddl e bury $2, 517 $1, 546 62. 8% $1, 001 $568 76. 2% N augatuck $1, 757 $1, 251 40. 4% $786 $388 102. 6% O x f o rd $2, 405 $1, 569 53. 3% $852 $483 76. 4% P ros p e ct $2, 117 $1, 365 55. 1% $758 $388 95. 4% Southbury $2, 418 $1, 579 53. 1% $1, 001 $634 57. 9% Thomaston $1, 713 $1, 218 40. 6% $758 $436 73. 9% Wate rbury $1, 697 $1, 115 52. 2% $768 $392 95. 9% Wate rtow n $1, 961 $1, 349 45. 4% $738 $423 74. 5% Wol cott $1, 959 $1, 275 53. 6% $735 $399 84. 2% Woo d bu ry $2, 388 $1, 491 60. 2% $931 $546 70. 5% Conne cti cut $2, 143 $1, 426 50. 3% $798 $473 68. 7% Wi th  a  Mo rt gage N o t  Mo rt gag e d $ 0 $ 5 00 $ 1 ,0 00 $ 1, 50 0 $ 2 ,0 0 0 $ 2 ,5 0 0  0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% CWRCT Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon  Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on block  group geography.  Homeowner costs apply  only  to owner ‐occupied  housing  units. Source:   U.S. Bureau  of the  Census,  American  Community Survey,  Five Ye a r  Estimates,  2007‐ 2011 C25095 Homeowners  Paying  30%  of  Income to  Housing  Costs:  2007 ‐2011 Source:   U.S. Bureau  of the  Census,  American  Community  Survey, Five  Ye a r  Estimates,  2007‐2011 To w n s Block Groups Homeowners Up  to  20% 20%  ‐ 29.9% 30% ‐ 39.9% 40% ‐ 49.9% 50% or  Higher 05M il e s ¯ Figure  III ‐F3.       CNVR  Homeowners  Paying  30%  or  More  of  their  Income  to Housing  Costs,  by  Block  Group:  2007‐2011 C N V R Co n n ec t ic u t W at er b u r y R em a i n d er o f R eg io n Ta b l e  III ‐F3.     CNVR  Homeowner  Costs  as  a  Percentage  of  Income, by  Municipality:  2007 ‐2011 Geographic  Area Number Percent Number Percent CNVR 75,463 48,073 63.7% 27,390 36.3% Waterbury 21,143 11,936 56.5% 9,086 43.0% Remainder of  Region 54,004 35,698 66.1% 18,306 33.9% Beacon  Falls 1,891 1,158 61.2% 720 38.1% Bethlehem 1,227 746 60.8% 481 39.2% Ches hire 7,986 6,001 75.1% 1,971 24.7% Middlebury 2,444 1,599 65.4% 839 34.3% Naugatuck 8,574 5,468 63.8% 3,037 35.4% Oxford 4,177 2,890 69.2% 1,287 30.8% Pros pect 3,137 2,177 69.4% 948 30.2% Southbury 7,181 4,113 57.3% 2,995 41.7% Thomaston 2,517 1,676 66.6% 829 32.9% Watertown 7,353 5,285 71.9% 2,068 28.1% Wolcott 5,233 3,276 62.6% 1,947 37.2% Woodbury 3,497 2,258 64.6% 1,239 35.4% Connecticut 937,339 597,218 63.7% 336,282 35.9% Greater  than  30%  of  Income Less  than  30%  of  Income Total Households  Bethlehem Middlebury Wolcott Waterbury Watertown Prospect Thomaston NaugatuckWoodbury Beacon  Falls Cheshire Southbury Oxford Waterbury Wolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck Beacon  Falls Oxford Middlebury Southbury Woodbury Bethlehem Watertown Thomaston Data  based  on census  tract geography.  Because the American  Community  Survey  is estimated,  block groups with  low numbers  of renters  may have  no data. Source:   U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  American  Community Survey, 5 ‐Ye a r  Estimates,  2007‐2011, B25064 Figure  III ‐F4.      CNVR  Median  Gross  Rent,  by  Block  Group:  2007 ‐2011 Figure  III‐F4.     CNVR  Median  Rent,  by  Municipality:  2000 ‐2011 CNVR   Median  Gross Rent: 2007 ‐2011 To w n s Block Groups Median Gross Rent Up to $750 $750 – $999 $1,000 – $1,249 $1,250 – $1,499 $1,500 and Higher 0 5 Miles ¯ Source:  U.S. Bureau of  the Census,  American  Community  Survey, Five Ye a r  Estimates,  2007‐2011; Census  2000 $0 $5 00 $1, 0 00 $1 , 5 00 Geographic  A re a 2011 2000 Percent Change 2011 2000 Percent Change Beacon  Fal l s $938 $728 28.8% $1, 078 $866 24.5% Be thl e he m $483 $768‐37.1% $722 $983 ‐26.6% Che shi re $1, 093 $708 54.4% $1, 238 $798 55.1% Mi ddl e bury $802 $568 41.2% $805 $668 20.5% N augatuck $793 $535 48.2% $966 $631 53.1% Ox f ord $1, 370 $536 155.6% $1, 455 $688 111.5% P rospe ct $746 $575 29.7% $893 $707 26.3% Southbury $1, 081 $923 17.1% $1, 281 $1, 064 20.4% Thomaston $718 $531 35.2% $902 $649 39.0% Wate rbury $716 $472 51.7% $881 $562 56.8% Wate rtow n $765 $564 35.6% $889 $646 37.6% Wol cott $768 $652 17.8% $870 $735 18.4% Woodbury $900 $705 27.7% $1, 033 $783 31.9% Conne cti cut $845 $588 43.7% $1, 020 $681 49.8%Me d i an  Contract  Rent Median Gross  Re nt  APPENDIX A: Glossary of Population, Housing, and Statistical Concepts Extracted from the U.S. Census Census The U.S. Census counts every resident in the United States. It is mandated by Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution and takes place every 10 years. The data collected by the decennial census determine the number of seats each state has in the U.S. House of Representatives and is also used to distribute billions in federal funds to local communities. Educational Data on education attainment are derived from a single question that asks, “What Attainment is the highest grade of school…has completed, or the highest degree…has received?” Ethnic Origin People of Hispanic origin were identified by a question that asked for self-identification of the person’s origin or descent. Respondents were asked to select their origin (and the origin of other household members) from a “flash card” listing ethnic origins. People of Hispanic origin, in particular, were those who indicated that their origin was Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or some other Hispanic origin. It should be noted that people of Hispanic origin may be of any race. People who were Non-Hispanic White origin, were identified by crossing the responses to two self-identification questions: (1) origin or descent and (2) race. Respondents were asked to select their race (and the race of other household members) from a “flash card” listing racial groups. Beginning with March 1989, the population is divided into five groups on the basis of race: White, Black, American Indian, Eskimo or Aleut, Asian or Pacific Islander, and Other races. The last category includes any other race except the four mentioned. Respondents who selected their race as White and indicated that their origin was not one of the Hispanic origin subgroups Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, were called Non-Hispanic White origin. Family A family is a group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together; all such people (including related subfamily members) are considered as members of one family. Beginning with the 1980 Current Population Survey, unrelated subfamilies (referred to in the past as secondary families) are no longer included in the count of families, nor are the members of unrelated subfamilies included in the count of family members. The number of families is equal to the number of family households, however, the count of family members differs from the count of family household members because family household members include any non-relatives living in the household. Family Group A family group is any two or more people (not necessarily including a householder) residing together, and related by birth, marriage, or adoption. A household may be composed of one such group, more than one, or none at all. The count of family groups includes family households, related subfamilies, and unrelated subfamilies .  Family Household A family household is a household maintained by a householder who is in a family (as defined above), and includes any unrelated people (unrelated subfamily members and/or secondary individuals) who may be residing there. The number of family households is equal to the number of families. The count of family household members differs from the count of family members, however, in that the family household members include all people living in the household, whereas family members include only the householder and his/her relatives. See the definition of family. Hispanic or “Hispanic or Latino” refers to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Latino Origin Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race. Household A household consists of all the people who occupy a housing unit. A house, an apartment or other group of rooms, or a single room, is regarded as a housing unit when it is occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters; that is, when the occupants do not live and eat with any other persons in the structure and there is direct access from the outside or through a common hall. A household includes the related family members and all the unrelated people, if any, such as lodgers, foster children, wards, or employees who share the housing unit. A person living alone in a housing unit, or a group of unrelated people sharing a housing unit such as partners or roomers, is also counted as a household. The count of households excludes group quarters. There are two major categories of households, "family" and "nonfamily”. Householder The householder refers to the person (or one of the people) in whose name the housing unit is owned or rented (maintained) or, if there is no such person, any adult member, excluding roomers, boarders, or paid employees. If the house is owned or rented jointly by a married couple, the householder may be either the husband or the wife. The person designated as the householder is the “reference person” to whom the relationship of all other household members, if any, is recorded. The number of householders is equal to the number of households. Also, the number of family householders is equal to the number of families. Housing Unit A house, apartment, a group of rooms, or single room occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. Labor Force The sum of employed and unemployed persons. The labor force participation rate is the labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population. Mean The arithmetic average Median The middle point in a distribution Median Income Median income is the amount which divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having incomes above the median, half having incomes below the median. The medians for households, families, and unrelated individuals are based on all households, families, and unrelated individuals, respectively. The medians for people are based on people 15 years old and over with income.  Multi-Unit Structure A building that contains more than one housing unit (for example, an apartment building). Per Capita Income Per capita income is the average income computed for every man, woman, and child in a particular group. The Census Bureau derived per capita income by dividing the total income of a particular group by the total population in that group (excluding patients or inmates in institutional quarters). Poverty Definition Following the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to detect who is poor. If the total income for a family or unrelated individual falls below the relevant poverty threshold, then the family or unrelated individual is classified as being “below the poverty level.” Race Race is a self identification data item in which respondents choose the race or races with which they most closely identify. Starting in 1997, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) required federal agencies to use a minimum of five race categories: White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. For respondents unable to identify with any of these five race categories, OMB approved the Census Bureau’s inclusion of a sixth category — Some Other Race — on the Census 2000 and 2010 Census questionnaires.  Appendix B: Regional Planning Organizations in Connecticut Capitol Region Council of Governments 241 Main Street, 4th Floor Lyle Wray, Executive DirectorHartford, CT 06106-5310 lwray@crcog.org 860 522-2217 Central Connecticut Regional Planning Agency 225 North Main Street, Suite 304 Carl Stephani, Executive DirectorBristol, CT 06010-4993 director@ccrpa.org 860 589-7820 Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 49 Leavenworth Street, Suite 303 Sam Gold, Acting Executive DirectorWaterbury, CT 06702 cogcnv@cogcnv.org 203 757-0535 Greater Bridgeport Regional Council 525 Water Street Brian Bidolli, Executive DirectorBridgeport, CT 06604-4902 bbidolli@gbrct.org 203 366-5405 Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials Old Town Hall, 162 Whisconier Road Jonathan Chew, Executive DirectorBrookfield, CT 06804 jchew@hvceo.org 203 775-6256 Litchfield Hills Council of Elected Officials* 42D North Street Richard Lynn, Planning DirectorGoshen, CT 06756 lhceol@snet.net 860 491-9884 Lower Connecticut River Valley Council of Governments 145 Dennison Road Linda Krause, Executive DirectorEssex, CT 06426 lkrause@rivercog.org 860 581-8554 Northeastern Connecticut Council of Governments 125 Putnam Pike, P.O. Box 759 John Filchak, Executive DirectorDayville, CT 06241-0759 john.filchak@neccog.net 860 774-1253 001A0013 Northwestern Connecticut Council of Governments* 17 Sackett Hill Road Jocelyn Ayer, Executive DirectorWarren, CT 06754 nwccog1@snet.net 860 868-7341 South Central Connecticut Regional Council of Governments 127 Washington Avenue, 4th Floor W Carl Amento, Executive DirectorNorth Haven, CT 06473-1715 camento@scrcog.org 203 234-7555 Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments 5 Connecticut Avenue James Butler, Executive DirectorNorwich, CT 06360-4592 jsbutler.seccog@snet.net 860 889-2324 Southwestern Regional Planning Agency 888 Washington Blvd., 3rd Floor Floyd Lapp, Executive DirectorStamford, CT 06901 lapp@swrpa.org 203 316-5190 Valley Council of Governments Derby Railroad Station, 12 Main Street Richard Dunne, Executive DirectorDerby, CT 06418 rdunne@valleycog.org 203 735-8688 Windham Region Council of Governments 700 Main Street Mark Paquette, Executive DirectorWillimantic, CT 06226-2604 director@wincog.org 860 456-2221 *Note: OPM has approved a merger between the Litchfield Hills Council of Elected Officials and the Northwestern Connecticut Council of Governments. The new region will be named the “Northwest Hills Planning Region” 001A0014 NORTHWEST HILLS HOUSATONIC VALLEY SOUTHWESTERN CONNECTICUT GREATER BRIDGEPORT VALLEY CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY CENTRAL CONNECTICUT LOWER CONNECTICUT RIVER SOUTH CENTRAL CONNECTICUT CAPITOL REGION WINDHAM NORTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT LITCHFIELD HILLS NORTHWEST KentSharon Stafford Salisbury Litchfield Killingly Newtown Norfolk Lebanon Guilford LymeWoodstock Goshen Suffield New Milford Granby HaddamTolland Cornwall Danbury Pomfret Ashford Montville Hebron Ledyard Enfield MansfieldUnion Oxford Plainfield Colchester Thompson Greenwich Groton Glastonbury Salem Berlin East HaddamCoventry Griswold Avon Wilton Canaan Shelton Bristol Preston Hartland Torrington Ellington Southbury Easton Redding Stonington Fairfield Windsor Canterbury Wallingford Simsbury Woodbury Warren Somers WaterfordNorwich Ridgefield North Stonington Monroe Washington Canton Brooklyn Colebrook Harwinton Roxbury Winchester Burlington Barkhamsted New Hartford Windham Portland Durham Meriden Waterbury Morris Bozrah Wolcott Farmington Putnam Bethany Branford Bethel Manchester Vernon Orange Chester Madison Stamford Hamden Voluntown Middletown Cheshire Sterling Willington Eastford Eas t Lyme Milford Killin g – worth Southington Watertown Hampton Norwalk East Hampton Trumbull Weston Old Lyme Sherman Bloomfield Chaplin Franklin Lisbon Plymouth Columbia Clinton Westport Bolton Hartford Strat- ford Scotland East Windsor Brookfield South Windsor New Fairfield Marlborough North Branford Bethlehem Andover Darien Essex New Canaan North Haven Middlebury West Hartford New Haven Seymour WoodbridgeProspect Bridgeport Sprague Naugatuck West-brook Bridgewater East Hartford North Canaan East Granby Rocky HillCromwell Deep River Newington Middlefield Old Saybrook New Britain East Haven Plainville Thomaston Wethersfield West Haven Derby Beacon Falls Ansonia Windsor Locks New London Regional Planning Organizations in Connecticut ¯ 01 0Mil e s APPENDIX B: 001A0015 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 ” )8 ” )8 § ¨ ¦84 ” )70 ” )70 ” )10 ” )68 ” )68 ” )42 ” )69 ” )69 ” )69 ³ ± 188 ” )73 ” )63 ” )63 ³ ± 322 ³ ± 109 ³ ± 222 ³ ± 262 ³ ± 132 ³ ± 132 ³ ± 317 ³ ± 172 ³ ± 188 ” )61 ” )61 ” )64 ” )64 ” )67 ” )67 ” )42 ” )63 ” )68 ” )63 ” )42 ” )47 Woodbury Southbury Oxford Middlebury Waterbury Naugatuck Beacon Falls Cheshire Wolcott £ ¤6 Thomaston Bethlehem £ ¤6 £ ¤6 Watertown ³ ± 188 ” )67 Prospect ¯ 0 5 Miles Waterbury Labor Market Area (LMA) and Metropolitan NECTA Appendix C Waterbury NECTA The New England City and Town Area (NECTA) is a geographic and statistical entity defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. NECTA metropolitan areas are associated with core populations of at least 50,000. Unlike census statistical areas (such as metropolitan statistical areas) which are composed of counties, NECTAs are comprised of towns, allowing for a closer approximation to the actual metropolitan area. This is especially useful when there are multiple urban cores in the same county (in this case, New Haven County). With the exceptions of Bethlehem and Woodbury, the Waterbury Labor Market Area contains all of the towns in the Waterbury metropolitan NECTA. Cheshire is located in the New Haven metropolitan NECTA, Oxford and Southbury are located in the Bridgeport/Stamford/Norwalk metropolitan NECTA, and Thomaston is located in the Hartford metropolitan NECTA. Waterbury Labor Market Area Waterbury Metropolitan NECTA Population: 1980-2010 Source: US Census Bureau, Census 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010; 2012 Population Estimates 160,000 170,000 180,000 190,000 200,000 210,000 220,000 230,000 1980 1990 2000 2010 2012 001A0016 Appendix D: Income Limits for Selected Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Programs, CNVR Towns: 2013 Waterbury HUD Metro FMR Area* FY 2013 Median Family Income: $68,800 Income Limits Program 1 Person2 Person 3 Person4 Person 5 Person6 Person 7 Person8 PersonVery Low-Income 28,95033,050 37,20041,300 44,65047,950 51,25054,550Low-Income 45,10051,550 58,00064,400 69,60074,750 79,90085,050Section 236 45,10051,550 58,00064,400 69,60074,750 79,90085,050Section 221 BMIR 53,55061,200 68,85076,500 82,65088,750 94,900101,000Section 235 53,550 61,200 68,85076,500 82,65088,750 94,900101,000* Towns of Middlebury, Naugatuck, Prospect, Southbury, Waterbury, and Wolcott are located in the Waterbury HMFA Litchfield Nonmetropolitan County HUD Statistical Area* FY 2013 Median Family Income: $87,500 Income Limits Program 1 Person2 Person 3 Person4 Person 5 Person6 Person 7 Person8 PersonVery Low-Income 30,65035,000 39,40043,750 47,25050,750 54,25057,750Low-Income 45,10051,550 58,00064,400 69,60074,750 79,90085,050Section 236 45,10051,550 58,00064,400 69,60074,750 79,90085,050Section 221 BMIR 53,55061,200 68,85076,500 82,65088,750 94,900101,000Section 235 53,550 61,200 68,85076,500 82,65088,750 94,900101,000* Towns of Bethlehem, Thomaston, Watertown, and Woodbury are located in the Litchfield County HUD SA Milford-Ansonia-Seymour HUD Metro FMR Area* FY 2013 Median Family Income: $91,400 Income Limits Program 1 Person2 Person 3 Person4 Person 5 Person6 Person 7 Person8 PersonVery Low-Income 32,00036,600 41,15045,700 49,40053,050 56,70060,350Low-Income 45,10051,550 58,00064,400 69,60074,750 79,90085,050Section 236 45,10051,550 58,00064,400 69,60074,750 79,90085,050Section 221 BMIR 53,55061,200 68,85076,500 82,65088,750 94,900101,000Section 235 53,550 61,200 68,85076,500 82,65088,750 94,900101,000* Towns of Beacon Falls and Oxford are located in the Milford-Ansonia-Seymour HMFA. 001A0017 New Haven-Meriden HUD Metro FMR Area* FY 2013 Median Family Income: $80,500 Income Limits Program 1 Person2 Person 3 Person4 Person 5 Person6 Person 7 Person8 PersonVery Low-Income 28,95033,050 37,20041,300 44,65047,950 51,25054,550Low-Income 45,10051,550 58,00064,400 69,60074,750 79,90085,050Section 236 45,10051,550 58,00064,400 69,60074,750 79,90085,050Section 221 BMIR 53,55061,200 68,85076,500 82,65088,750 94,900101,000Section 235 53,550 61,200 68,85076,500 82,65088,750 94,900101,000*Town of Cheshire is located in the New Haven – Meriden HMFA. Note: HUD Metro FMR Area indicates that only a portion of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) defined core-based statistical area (CBSA) is in the area to which the income limits or Fair Market Rents (FMRs) apply. HUD is required by OMB to alter the name of the metropolitan geographic entities it derives from the CBSAs when the geography is not the same as that established by OMB Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Connecticut income limits 2013. 001A0018 Major Roads Highways 2 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 ” )8 ” )8 § ¨ ¦84 Woodbury Southbury Oxford Middlebury Naugatuck Beacon  Falls Cheshire Wolcott Thomaston Bethlehem Watertown Prospect Waterbury ¯ 0 5 Miles CNVR Urbanized  Areas:  2010 Appendix  E Urbanized  Area Waterbury Bridgeport  ‐ Stamford New  Haven Hartford The  U.S.  Census  Bureau  defines an  urbanized  area  as  an area  of  50,000  or  more  people  from  the  urban  cores  of metropolitan  statistical  areas.  Municipalities  in the  CNVR are  located  in  four  urbanized  areas.  Nine  CNVR municipalities,  Waterbury,  Watertown,  Wolcott, Middlebury,  Naugatuck,  Beacon  Falls, Prospect,  Cheshire and  Woodbury,  are  located  in  the  Waterbury  Urbanized Area.  Th e Waterbur y U rbanized Area also  includes  portions of  Plymouth  and  Bethany.  Thomaston  is  located  in  the Hartford  Urbanized  Area. Parts  of  Prospect  and  Cheshire are  located  in  the  New  Haven  Urbanized  Area. Finally, parts  of  Southbury,  Oxford,  Beacon  Falls  Middlebury  and Woodbury  are located  in  the  Bridgeport ‐Stamford Urbanized  Area.  APPENDIX E: CNVR Urbanized Areas: 2010 Waterbury Urbanized Area Geographic Area Urbanized Area Population Urbanized Area (Sq Miles) Urbanized Area Total 194,535 90.3CNVR Total 193,833 89.0Beacon Falls 3,5833.5Cheshire 4740.5Middlebury 4,8086.7Naugatuck 30,74712.2Prospect 8,0629.8Waterbury 110,36628.5Watertown 20,50814.6Wolcott 15,17913.1Woodbury 1060.1Bridgeport – Stamford Urbanized Area Geographic Area Urbanized Area Population Urbanized Area (Sq Miles) Urbanized Area Total 923,311 466.2CNVR Total 31,767 46.6Beacon Falls 1,4242.1Middlebury 1,1741.3Oxford 8,38615.1Southbury 17,20623.4Woodbury 3,5774.7New Haven Urbanized Area Geographic Area Urbanized Area Population Urbanized Area (Sq Miles) Urbanized Area Total 562,839 306.1CNVR Total 27,144 25.2Cheshire 26,85924.8Prospect 2850.4Hartford Urbanized Area Geographic Area Urbanized Area Population Urbanized Area (Sq Miles) Urbanized Area Total 924,859 516.2CNVR Total 7,487 9.0Thomaston 7,4879.0Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Urbanized Areas 001A001A Municipality Chief Elected Alternate Regional Planning Official Commission Beacon Falls Gerard Smith Dominick Sorrentino David Chadderton First Selectman Richard Minnick Bethlehem Heff :amel Ellen Samoska Ellen Samoska First Selectman Maria :ill Cheshire Timothy Slocum Michael Milone Martin Cobern Chrm, Town Council Vacant Middlebury Edward St. Hohn Hoseph Salvini Ken Long First Selectman Mary Barton Naugatuck Robert Mezzo Tamath Rossi Anthony Malone Mayor Hoseph McAvoy Oxford George Temple Hoanne Pelton :arold Cosgrove First Selectman Vacant Prospect Robert Chatfield Tom Galvin Gil Graveline Mayor Peter :ughes Southbury Edward Edelson Carol :ubert Leslie Maclise -Kane First Selectman Nancy Clark Thomaston Edmond Mone Roger Perrault Bill Guererra First Selectman Robert Flanagan Waterbury Neil O'Leary Hoseph McGrath Hames Sequin Mayor Dennis Casey Watertown Raymond Primini Charles Frigon Ruth Mulcahy Chrm, Town Council Vacant Wolcott Thomas Dunn Vacant Steven Bosco Mayor Cathe Sherman Woodbury Gerald Stomski Barbara Perkinson Martin Overton First Selectman Vacant COGCNV Staff Acting Executive Director, Samuel Gold G=S Coordinator, Glenda Prentiss Senior Planner, Hoseph Perrelli G=S/Planning Assistant, Aaron Budris Regional Planner, Patrick Gallagher Financial Manager, Patricia Bauer Administrative Assistant, Lauren Rizzo COUNCIL MEMBERS, ALTERNATES, & REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION