This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
June 2012 Annual Update
1~ Communities ~~Naugatuck Valley Corrid~~Comprehensive Econorr~~
Development Strategy(CEDS~
~~~~n [r~~~C~ ̀ ~O~~~ o ~ o i~ c~~~~ ~i~,~-~~~~~~~ o~~ ~ommerc~,
coo ~ c~ ~r-~~ o C~ - ~~~ ~
~ ~i° ~~~~ ~~`i~~C~ ~~~~
Shelt~»~~~ ~=economic Develop~me~~Corpora~~uo~ ~
Waterbury development Corp~~r.~~~~
2012 Comprehensive Economic Development StrategyNaugatuck Valley Corridor Annual Update
~ortter~~~
Section PageIntroductionGoals/Work Plan and Accomplishments 2010/2011 1District Designation 1Tier 1 Project Advancements 2Public Forum on Transportation 3Administration 3Regional Profile 4Financial Assistance 5Organization 6Goals for the NVC —Five Year Document 2010-2015 6Work Plan 2012 7Local Infrastructure Capital Improvement Projects 9Business &Employment Changes 10Demographics — NVC — 18 Communities 10Unemployment and Labor Force Characteristics — NVC 11Changes in Employment Force and Unemployment RateOver Time 11Lessons Learned 11Priorities 2012/2013 Action Plan 12Future Plans 13The CEDS Process 13Work Plan 2012/2013 Outcomes 142011 /2012 Action Items 14
Demographic Updates 18 Communities
Charts: Business &Employment Changes (2012)Population in NVC Based on Sex and Age 2010 CensusPopulation in NVC 2000 to 2009 to 2010Employment April 2000 to April 2011 to April 2012Employment April 2000 to April 2012Unemployment April 2011 to April 2012Median Household Income
NVC Capital Investment Projects — Ranking and Rating —June 19, 2012
Organization and Management
Brownfields
CEDS Implementation/Coordination of Partners Chart
Exhibits: Committee Meeting Minutes/Agenda
* * * 2012 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy~~ , ~+ Naugatuck Valley Corridor Annual Update* *~`
Introduction — CEDS Annual Update June 2012
Goals/Work Plan and Accomplishments for 2011/2012
The Shelton Economic Development Corporation (SEDC) submitted the Annual Reportto EDA for the period of July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012 in accordance with the EDArequirement of the 5-year Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)approval granted on December 1, 2010. EDA commended all who have contributed tothe successful preparation and approval of the 2010 documents in accordance withEDA guidelines. The 2011/2012 activities focused on the designation of the NVC CEDSas an Economic Development District (EDD). The following sections depict the variousactions taken.
Economic Development District (EDD) Designation
As noted in the June 2011 Annual CEDS Report to EDA, the NVC CEDS 18communities began the process of seeking EDA approval and designation of the Regionas a Federal Economic Development District (EDD).
Governor Dannel P. Malloy on June 6, 2011 requested in writing to EDA's PhiladelphiaRegional Office, their approval of the NVC as a Regional Economic DevelopmentDistrict (EDD).
The Governor's request was based on the Connecticut Legislation and the NVC'spetition to the state for the EDD designation for the NVC CEDS area. The ConnecticutDepartment of Economic and Community Development (DECD) and the Office of Policy& Management (OPM) determined the following:
DECD findings:
a The CEDS is generally consistent with the statewide comprehensive economicdevelopment strategy.The region has sufficient size and represents 18 Connecticut municipalities.The NVC region has four municipalities that meet the minimum distress criteriafor unemployment. These include Ansonia, Naugatuck, Thomaston andWaterbury.
• The NVC CEDS is organized within the Central Naugatuck Valley and the ValleyCouncils of Government borders.DECD acknowledged that they will recommend approval of the NVC CEDSapplication to Governor Malloy.
Page 1
'` * 2012 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy,:,,~:,+. ~~ :~' Naugatuck Valley Corridor Annual Update*' ~'*
OPM findings:
• The State of Connecticut Office of Policy and Management per the Secretarydetermined that the NVC CEDS was generally consistent with the StateConservation and Development Plan and granted its approval as an EDD.
The Strategy Committee (Board of Directors) of the NVC on June 13, 2011 unanimouslyapproved a resolution requesting the undersecretary of the U.S. Department ofCommerce, EDA to designate the NVC as an EDA EDD, which will be one of the firstdistricts within the State of Connecticut.
EDA acknowledged on January 25, 2012 the NVC EDD submission and request, andasked for additional information and/or clarification of some administrative functions ofthe proposed District. EDA requested 8 items be addressed. The NVC CEDSChairperson, Sheila O'Malley and James E. Ryan, President of the Shelton EconomicDevelopment Corporation responded in writing to EDA on February 17, 2012, providingthe necessary clarifications and/or support data.
One clarification request was to provide letters of support from a majority of therepresentative communities within the 18 NVC municipalities. SEDC requested from all18 communities a letter of support. To date, 15 of the community's I~llayors, FirstSelectmen and/or Chief Administrative Officers have endorsed in writing the designationof the NVC as one of Connecticut's first EDDs. That is 83%. No negative responseshave been received. The Strategy Committee continues to work with the other 3communities to seek their input to the formation of the EDD.
Certified Resolutions were signed and sealed regarding the approval of the formation ofthe District and were provided to EDA. The resolutions were unanimously authorized.
The Strategy and Advisory Committees along with the chairperson and administrativestaff and consultant continue to work with EDA's Regional Office regarding the EDDdesignation.
Tier 1 Project Advancements
Currently two public works type projects are under construction. The two grants exceed$2,140,000 in EDA funding. Without the CEDS approval, these projects would not havebeen funded by EDA. The grants are further supported by DECD funds in the amount of$1,350,000. Waterbury has received $550,000 and Derby has received $800,000.Additionally, the Cities of Derby and Waterbury are also providing financial support.
Page 2
2012 Comprehensive Economic Development StrategyNaugatuck Valley Corridor Annual Update
The City of Derby prepared plans and specifications for the construction of an AccessRoad including all public utilities for the construction of the Derby Commerce Park. Thisinfrastructure project will open up 20+ acres for private development, creating bothtemporary and permanent jobs; improve the local, state and federal tax base. TheDerby project resulted in 9 bids being received out of 14 potential bidders. The contractwas awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. Construction has commenced and theproject is expected to be completed by December 2012.
The City of Waterbury —Cherry Street Industrial Park -The Waterbury DevelopmentCorporation is the implementing agency for these improvements, which includes thedemolition of a vacant rundown older industrial complex, environmental clean up of thesite, site and public improvements for conveyance of the property to a privatedeveloper. These improvements will permit a local company to expand within the Cityand create new jobs and retain existing jobs. The Waterbury Development Corporationcontinues to work with its design firm on the overall Cherry Street Industrial Parkpreliminary design for the public works infrastructure improvements. The first phase ofthe project is proceeding with the demolition of the industrial complex, while the designprocess continues.
The project is expected to have a separate public works infrastructure bid during the fallof 2012 and the planned improvements are expected to be completed by December2013.
Public Forum on Transportation
The Advisory and Strategy Committees voted at one of the quarterly workshop sessionsto hold a Transportation Summit, this is in keeping with Goal IV: Improve overallTransportation and Communications systems. The Greater Valley Chamber ofCommerce, one of the members of the Advisory Committee, has agreed to host thesummits once the final plans are in place. The Advisory Committee will coordinate theevent with the two Councils of Government, as they represent the overall transportationneeds of the NVC including the development of the Transit Oriented District (TOD).Further coordination for the summit will be based on Congress passing a new five-yeartransportation act including the budget to support many of the overall projects outlinedin the CEDS five-year plan.
Administration
The Chairperson for the NVC Economic Development District (CEDS), Sheila O'Malley,the Derby Director of Economic and Community Development, has consented tocontinue in that position for the coming year, for the CEDS District Committees. JamesE. Ryan, President of the Shelton Economic Development Corporation provides thelead administrative services required for the maintenance of the CEDS process, underthe Naugatuck Valley Corridor Economic Development District.
Page 3
2012 Comprehensive Economic Development StrategyNaugatuck Valley Corridor Annual Update
During the preparation of the new five-year CEDS in 2010 a Stakeholder's Survey wasconducted to determine the administration and direction of the CEDS process.
The Stakeholder's Survey indicated a very strong support for the continuation of theCEDS particularly with the current administration of the CEDS under the direction of theAdvisory Committee and its membership, the Strategy Committee and its make up withthe administrative element to be led by SEDC in conjunction with WDC.
The CEDS Governing/Partnering Committee manages and oversees the CEDS processand is made up of the Advisory Committee membership, which meets quarterly and theStrategy Committee membership made up of community and business leaders, alsomeets quarterly or as needed. Minutes of these meetings are located within theExhibits section of this submission. See organizational chart at the end of this section.
The Advisory Committee make up consists of the Chairperson, the Shelton EconomicDevelopment Corporation, the Waterbury Development Corporation, Valley Council ofiGovernments, Central Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments, Greater ValleyChamber and Greater Waterbury Chamber.
The Strafiegy Committee includes Mayors, First Selectmen and/or Town Managers fromeach of the 18 communities plus representatives from banking, business, communityorganizations, education, finance, government, higher education, industry, labor,minorities, professional, public health, public safety and women. The StrategyCommittee monitors and revises the CEDS document.
Regional Profile
The Naugatuck Valley Corridor (NVC) is made up ofeighteen Connecticut communities that have been apart of the historic fabric of the Connecticut economyfor 375 years. Today, the NVC is positioned to be anactive region in support of the 21ST Century economyincluding the Governor and State Agency's support ofthe NVC as one of ConnecticuYs new EconomicDevelopment Districts. The State of Connecticutinvestment decisions will be made a part ofResponsible Growth Initiatives under the ConnecticutEconomic Strategy dated 2009.
The NVC is a Region of 18 communities that are bestserviced from a transportation means by Interstate 84serving the East to West, Cheshire on the East and Newtown on the Wesf,North to South from Thomaston to Shelton on the South.
and Route 8
Page 4
2012 Comprehensive Economic Development StrategyNaugatuck Valley Corridor Annual Update
The rail service for passengers is provided by ConnDOT/MetroNorth via the Waterburyto Bridgeport line. The CEDS process encourages and supports the upgrading of thispassenger service. The region is further supported by the ever expanding OxfordAirport, which was just designated by the 2011 Connecticut General Assembly underSpecial Legislation as the Oxford Airport Zone. This designation is intended to createjobs and encourage private investment.
Employment in the NVC is based on fourindustries, ranking very close to one another,which comprise over sixty percent (62.49%)of NVC employment. These four industriesare Wholesale and Retail Trade (16.44%),Education and Health Services (16.33%),Manufacturing (15.02%), and Government(14.70%). The University of ConnecticutWaterbury branch and other highereducational systems and students areworking to prepare for and support the futureNVC economy. Higher education is workingwith the public-private partnership focusing onnew technology transfer capabilities to reachthe 21St Century.
Financial Assistance
SEDC as the lead agency for implementingthe CEDS on an annual basis has submittedand received financial assistance from theKatharine Matthies Foundation, the ValleyCommunity Foundation, the UnitedIlluminating Company, and NaugatuckSavings and Loan Association. Without thisfinancial support and continued financialsupport the CEDS process can not continue.
Page 5
Organization
2012 Comprehensive Economic Development StrategyNaugatuck Valley Corridor Annual Update
SEDC acts as the lead administrative agent providing the staff necessary to administerand implement the CEDS, with assistance from WDC as necessary. This includescontact with all the Chief Elected Officials, or administrative staff, assembly of theAdvisory and Strategy Committee, outreach to the community organizations,stakeholders survey, and development of community forums for the processing andexchange of information and programs that will be included or carried over fromprevious CEDS. The current economic recession has been very difficult for most of thecommunities in the NVC. All of the 18 communities have seen a drop in the totalunemployment rate from a year ago. The NVC unemployment rates indicated 10communities are at or below the state average with 8 above the national average.Currently, 8 communities (Ansonia, Beacon Falls, Derby, Naugatuck, Seymour,Thomasfion, Waterbury and Wolcott) are in excess of the national average.
As further outlined in the CEDS document the NVC is a Tale of Two NVCs. Thecommunities in the Naugatuck Valley Corridor represent the strengths and weaknessesof Connecticut. Some of the municipalities perform quite well either as a place toconduct business, a residential area, or both. By contrast, other cities struggleeconomically and provide less than optimal living conditions for current and potentialresidents. The municipalities that thrive maintain a stake in those cities ghat strugglebecause their success depends in part on the condition of towns that border them.
Goals for the NVC —Five Year Document 2010-2015
Goal I: Continue to develop local infrastructure that supports economic expansionwhile maintaining and protecting the environment.
Goal II: Utilize the Connecticut Economic Strategic Plan 2009 (DECD) to provideopportunities for job growth, advancement, and jo,6 training.
Goal III: Sustain economic expansion while reinforcing and complimenting the regionalland use and quality of life of the NVC.
Goal IV: Improve overall Transportation and Communications systems.
Goal V: Continue the implementation and reclamation of Regional BrownfieldsPartnership (RBP) and to support the management, capacity and financial resources forthe municipal members.
Goal VI: Support and encourage the designation of the NVC as a Nafional HeritageArea under the National Park Service, which will capitalize on the history, culture andnatural attraction of the NVC.
Page 6
1 y~
2012 Comprehensive Economic Development StrategyNaugatuck Valley Corridor Annual Update
Goal VII: Encourage growth and participation in the Philanthropy efforts in fihe NVC,through the private sector, individuals and other stakeholders' efforts and contributions.
Work Plan 2012
The State of Connecticut starting with Governor Malloy and the Department ofEconomic Development and Office of Policy &Management support the designation ofthe NVC as an Economic Development District (EDD), and have requested the variousregions to include Brownfield redevelopment priorities and strategies in each of theannual updates.
CEDS Brownfield topics could include:
1. Assembly, update and consolidation of Brownfield property inventories.2. Identification of critical Brownfield properties where redevelopment will have a
significant impact on the state and regional economy and create jobs.3. Assembly of a list of Brownfields requiring environmental assessments.4. Assembly of a list of Brownfields requiring environmental remediation.5. Proposed land use strategies for Brownfields including: housing, alternative
.energy, urban agriculture, "shovel-ready" sites for economic development,commercial development, and open space/park space.
Attached is a list of EDA Brownfields projects either submitted by the communities, theEPA or the DEEP and/or the Naugatuck Valley Brownfields program.
One of the top work program activities of the new 5-year CEDS will be to re-evaluatethe previous approved CEDS action plans and to reflect on changes in the 18-townCEDS area. Concentration will be on job retention for our existing businesses withassistance as appropriate. Attached is the state list of pending or actual businesseswith a reduction in their workforce. Also, based on availability of federal and/or statefunds, assist those communities that have been impacted with plant shutdowns orrelocation of businesses including Municipal Development Plan (MDP), BrownfieldRemediation, and improve access to local and major arteries.
The 2010 CEDS will continue to examine the NVC needs, problems, and resources;establish goals and objectives, select amulti-year plan of action; and establish aprocess for evaluating its achievements and illustrating changing conditions.
Capital Needs/Infirastructure Program will be implemented with a new e-mail only surveykeeping with green standards, which will be ranked and rated by the StrategyCommittee on a rolling time frame, and incorporated as the building bloc{< of the new
Page ~
public works infrastructure programs.
2012 Comprehensive Economic Development StrategyNaugatuck Valley Corridor Annual Update
The Planning Organization for the compilation of a CEDS for the 18-town IVVC is madeup the Shelton Economic Development (SEDC) and the Waterbury DevelopmentCorporation (WDC). DeCarlo &Doll will assist the Planning Organization with thefollowing key activities of the CEDS:
• Review and revise as appropriate the existing Strategy Committee.• Maintain a CEDS that complies with 13 C.F.R. § 303.7.• Revise and/or replace the approved CEDS and have available for review and
comment by the public at all times, which is always posted on the SEDCwebsite.
0 The NVC Committee will submit an annual report to EDA (performance report) byJune 30t" of each year.Submit a revised or replacement CEDS to EDA at least every 5 years (or asnecessary based on available funding.)
The Strategy Committee, also acting as the Board of Directors, is responsible fordeveloping, implementing, revising, or replacing the CEDS for the "PlanningOrganization". The Strategy Committee will consist of broad-based representatives ofthe main economic interests of the region including private sector representatives,public officials, community leaders, and representatives of workforce developmentboards, representatives of institutions of higher education, minority and labor groupsand private individuals who have an interest in the economic development activities ofthe 18-town NVC CEDS.
The Advisory Committee will continue to implement the new 5-year CEDS and willupdate and modify as necessary and appropriate the following:
• Background of the economic development situation of the 18-towns that paints arealistic picture of the NVC including a narrative on the economy, population,geography, workforce development and use, transportation access, resources,environment and other pertinent information.
o Analysis of Economic Development Problems and Opportunities identifyingstrengths and weaknesses in the 18-town NVC.
• Incorporate relevant material from other government-sponsored plans anddemonstrate consistency with other state and local workforce investmentstrategies.
s Identify past, present and projected future economic development investments inthe region.
o Goals and Objectives — monitor the existing goals and objectives necessary toevaluate the economic problems and/or capitalize on the resources of the regionover the 5 year time frame of the CEDS, and modify as conditions mandate.
* 2012 Com rehensive Economic Develo ment Strate~, ~w` ,,~~' Naugatuck Valley Corridor Annual Update***
• Community and Private Sector Participation — discuss in narrative form therelationship between the community in general and the private sector in thedevelopment and implementation of the CEDS.
0 Strategic Projects, Programs and Activities — Identify regional projecfis, programsand activities designed to implement the Goals and Objectives of the CEDSincluding suggested projects and vital projects including projects that have beenlisted as potential Brownfield redevelopment project or zones.CEDS Plan of Action — A narrative/guide necessary to implement the goals andobjectives of the CEDS promoting economic development and opportunity,fostering effective transportation access, enhance and protect the environment,maximize effective development and use of the workforce consistent with anyapplicable state or local workforce investment strategies, promote the use oftechnology, including the use of Green Building Council standards andtechnology to foster the use of the State Energy Program (SEP) with LEED andpartner with utilities (CL&P and UI) to conserve energy, balance resourcesthrough sound management of physical development, and obtain and ufiilizeadequate funds and other resources.
o Methodology for cooperating and integrating the CEDS with the State's economicdevelopment priorities, including clusters and Brownfield redevelopment projects.Performance Measures — a list of performance measures used to evaluate thePlanning Organization's successful development and implementation of theCEDS, such as number of jobs created after implementation of a CEDS activity,number and types of investments undertaken in the region, number of jobsretained in the region, amount of private sector investment.
Loral Infrastructure Capital Improvements Projects
The CEDS Advisory Committee notified all the 18 communities that they wereencouraged to submit new or revised Capital Improvement Projects.
All 18 communities received two requests from SEDC during the year to submit orrevise as needed their capital project requests for review or modification including anylisting of Brownfields Remediation projects per the state's request. As of the June 19,2012 Strategy Committee meeting 13 communities have indicated no changes in theirsubmissions, which are included in the current approved CEDS. Two new projects havebeen included in the June 30, 2012 annual report. The matrix attached lists 33 projectsin the 2012 report. Eleven projects were ranked as Tier I, six were ranked as Tier II, onewas ranked as a Tier III, seven were ranked and supported as Technical Assistanceand need further study, and eight were not ranked as Economic Development Activities.Communities may submit at any time during the year for consideration of incorporatinga project into the CEDS. Overall the NVC Capital Investment Priority Project Lisp nowhas a total of 33 projects. A project must be submitted and ranked in order to beconsidered for future EDA funding. All projects are included in the Annual Report toEDA due June 30th (matrix attached).
Page g
Business &Employment Changes
2012 Comprehensive Economic Development StrategyNaugatuck Valley Corridor Annual Update
Based on sudden and severe economic conditions of higher unemployment rates andplant closings or a reduction in business employment changes as incorporated with theannual report, EDA has made the entire NVC area eligible to receive funding providingthe communities have submitted projects that have been ranked and rated by theStrategy and Advisory Committees. The two corporations have contacted each of thechief elected officials in the 18 communities, highly recommending that they review theircapital improvement projects relative to job growth, economic development andBrownfield Redevelopment needs.
Attached is a list of businesses that are registered with the State Labor Department fora possible reduction in their workforce.
As reported earlier, Ansonia, Naugatuck and fVewtown had interest in submittingapplications to the EDA Philadelphia Regional office. However, EDA has advised allcommunities of its new quarterly funding round application process. Currently, EDA ison a continuing funding resolution until Congress authorizes a new federal fiscal budget.EDA is the only agency in the federal government with the exclusive mission to helpcreate and retain jobs and leverage private investment in the nation's regions. EDArecently announced several important changes to its grant application and reviewprocess to ensure it is as efficient, transparent and competitive as possible.
Local officials have become more aware of the CEDS process and their participation inthe quarterly meetings improves from quarter to quarter pertaining to attendance andsubmission of recommendafiions for inclusion.
Demographics — NVC —18 Communities
The demographics have been revised to show the expansion of the CEDS to 18communities. The 18 communities of the NVC CEDS population in 2000 was 382,125and in 2010 per the US Census the population increased to 403,578, a difference of21,453 a 5.6% change. The Connecticut population in 2000 was 3,405,565 and in 2010increased to 3,574,097, a difference of 168,532 a 4.9% change.
Eleven of the eighteen communities grew at a rate equal to or higher than the state (seechart 2). All of the eighteen communities had an increase in population from 2000 to2010 per the US Census. Oxford had the largest percentage increase of 29.1 %.
Page to
2012 Comprehensive Economic Development StrategyNaugatuck Valley Corridor Annual Update
Unemployment and Labor Force Characteristics - NVC
The Connecticut unemployment rate for the year from April 2011 to April 2012decreased from 8.9% to 7.5°/o. The average unemployment rate for the eighteen NVCcommunities decreased from 9.9% to 8.5%. Ten of the eighteen communities were ator below the state average with Newtown the lowest at 5.2%. The United Statesadjusted rate for the same period was 7.7%. Eight of the NVC communities were abovethe national average of 7.7%. The labor force for the NVC increased to 210,662 people.Waterbury had the largest workforce with Shelton second. Bethlehem had the smallestwork force.
Changes in Employment Force and Unemployment Rate Over Time
The labor force in the NVC and the State of Connecticut had a modest increase of16,842 and 162,700 respectively from April of 2000 to April of 2012. All of thecommunities in the NVC except Shelton had an increase in the labor force from April2011 to April 2012.
Connecticut's labor force increased from April 2011 to April 2012 by 15,700 peopleaccording to the CT Labor Department. The NVC increased by 991 people during thesame period.
All of the communities in the NVC had an increase in the labor force from April 2000 toApril 2012 with Waterbury, Oxford and Newtown showing the largest changes.Waterbury had an increase of 3,406, Oxford had1770 followed by Newtown with 1,557people. (see Employment Chart April 2000 to April 2012).
Lessons Learned
The Advisory and Strategy Committees under the leadership of its Chairperson, SheilaO'Malley of the City of Derby has continued to develop a partnership with governmentand business leaders through the CEDS Outreach process. The results of the publicforums have drawn more than six hundred parfiicipants.
SEDC/WDC continues to utilize the CEDS process to develop economic partners withthe eighteen communities and prepare data and information to support one ofConnecticut's eight EDDs. Governor Malloy has recognized the efforts and supportedthe NVC designation to EDA. The Advisory Committee will focus its attention onobtaining EDA approval of the EDD, which will further regional projects and provide foradditional financial opportunities. The partnering committees continue to oversee theCEDS document, maintain, update and adjust, prepare and submit reports, monitorsignificant changes in the economy, coordinate all committees, outsource information by
Page 11
2012 Comprehensive Economic Development StrategyNaugatuck Valley Corridor Annual Update
communicating with all the partners, all of which are reported in detail throughout theannual update.
Implementation and monitoring of the CEDS will have direct impacts on each of thecommunities with some communities having a greater economic benefit througheconomic growth, job expansion, new businesses and/or relocation than others, but theentire region will have the benefit because job opportunities will be available for allresidents of the corridor. The demographics show thaf fourteen communities hadincreases in the labor force while four communities had decreases in their labor forceduring the past year. The NVC labor fiorce showed and increase of 991 workers and 17of the 18 communities had a reduction in their unemployment rate. This is a positivesign concerning the economy future as we set our vision for 2012/2013. The CEDSprocess is also to be used as a measuring stick for improving transportation, which isthe bloodline for economic growth since the majority of our residents and/or businessesuse our highways to commute and to deliver their products and services. As per thestakeholders survey improved rail services on the Waterbury to Bridgeport line willassist with the traffic congestion by reducing car usage.
CT Congressional representatives are aware of the NVC CEDS and have participated inour public forums and assisted with economic development grants for our communities.Their assistance in procuring additional grants in aid for our individual communities or aregional organization will have an overall economic benefit.
Priorities — 2012/2013 Action Plan
o EDA approval of the NVC as an EDDTransportation Summit fall of 2012Brownfields Remediation/Redevelopment — creating and identifying sites
o Infrastructure Investments Action on pending Pre-Applications from EDAJob retention and growth through various approachesNational Heritage designation — continued supportPhilanthropy —the philanthropic movement is a long term activity thatcontinuously educates the public about the needs for time and financing to betterserve our various communities.
o Current major foundations and current major ED organizationso Role that foundations are playing with economic developmento Role that foundations might play in economic developmento Role thaf economic development organizations can play with philanthropic
effortso Maintain and update the 5-year CEDS:
o Implement the new CEDS plan for the next 3-year periodo Work Force development priorities
Next Steps
Page 12
2012 Comprehensive Economic Development StrategyNaugatuck Valley Corridor Annual Update
o Review the priorities in the 2012/2013 CEDS work plan includingBrownfield Remediation.
o Final acceptance of the NVC/CEDS as one of Connecticut's first EDDs.
Future Plans
The two corporations will focus on the implementation of the EDA accepted 5-yearstrategy. Continued commitment from EDA for financial assistance and the approval ofthe NVC area as an EDD is required. Other funding partners are in place or anapplication for assistance has been made for continued participation. Based on theapproval of the CEDS, the two corporations continue to monitor, amend and report onthe progress of the goals and objectives of the overall strategy. Applications have beenmade to EDA, The Community Foundation for Greater New Haven, the ValleyCommunity Foundation, The Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan Association and theKatharine Matthies Foundation, fhe various utility companies that service the CEDSdistrict, and any other organization in order to support the implementation of the CEDS.The funding from all of the organizations is vital in order to permit the successfulimplementation of the CEDS. Without full financial aid some activities will be reduced oreliminated and the future of the CEDS process could be in jeopardy.
The CEDS Process
The CEDS process has permitted SEDC/WDC to reach out to the 18 municipalities, theCouncils of Government and the private sector through the Chambers of Commerce toprovide them with a framewor{< for a planning process that incorporates all segments foreconomic development and growth within the region. The municipalities in the NVCrepresent the strengths and weaknesses of Connecticut. The NVC (SWOT) story wasoutlined in the Strategy, which was reviewed and accepted by EDA on the federal sideand on the state side with Governor Malloy recommending the creation of the NVCEDD. Some of the municipalities perForm quite well either as a place to conductbusiness, a residential area, or both. By contrast, other cities struggle economically andprovide less than optimal living conditions for current and potential residents. Themunicipalities that thrive maintain a stake in those cities that struggle because theirsuccess depends in part on the condition of towns that border them. The CEDS hasfocused on industry clusters, transportation needs, Brownfields remediation,environmental awareness and community development activities, and encouragedinformation technology zones like the one currently existing in downtown Waterbury.Based on the Transportation Summit, the Economic Development Summit and theRegional [3rownfields Partnership Summit, the CEDS leaders are planning on follow-upsummits to further explore "new development" opportunities for the NVC CEDS area.The summits have the support of the Councils of Government, the Regional PlanningAgencies and the two Chambers of Commerce. Through the ongoing planning processthe corporations will attempt to identify new funding sources to benefit the continuedplanning thafi is necessary for the modification of the CEDS. Continued support of local
Page 13
2012 Comprehensive Economic Development StrategyNaugatuck Valley Corridor Annual Update
community foundations similar to the excellent support provided by the CommunityFoundation for Greater New Haven and the Matthies Foundation have beeninstrumental in the continued success of the CEDS process for the region.
Work Plan 2012-2013 Outcomes
1. Receive EDA designation of the NVC as an EDD.2. Continue the Implementation the NVC CEDS Strategy.3. Improve overall transportation infrastructure through capital projects.4. Improve local infrastructure through capital projects listed in the CEDS.5. Brownfield's land/building reclamation/remediation.6. Increase philanthropic activities and efforts.7. Increase awareness of National Heritage Corridor.8. Economic recession continues to have an impact on the 18 communities, while
some improvement in the unemployment statics have been noted there arecontinued —loss of jobs, planting closings or relocations, housing slow downs,and foreclosures continue at an all time high. The 2010 census indicate most ofthe communities have show an increase in their population, please refer to thepopulation chart for the actual changes.
The SEDC/WDC will with the assistance of its financial partners continue theinvolvement of the eighteen communities and all its leaders to monitor amend andstrengthen the overall CEDS strategy. Encourage all the economic developmentpartners to actively participate in the planning process, attend seminars and submitvarious capital projects, identify and monitor the remediation of Brownfields, utilize state(DECD/Office of Brownfield Remediation and Development) financial program for returnof Brownfields to productive use, monitor the current jobs/employment status, and assistbusinesses with visions of expansion into the CEDS market area:
2012/2013 Action Items
o Designation of NVC as an EDDo Inventory Brownfield reclamation/development sites in NVCo Access Brownfield Financial Program through DECD Loan Programo Job training, retraining efforts to reduce unemploymento Philanthropic investmento Improved transportation networks via highway and railo Expand and improve public infrastructureo Establishment of the Area as a National Heritage Park.
Page 14
Ansonia's Demographics
Population: The population findings are based on the new US Census data for 2010. Ansonia'spopulation for 2010 was 19,249 a difference of 695 people from the 2000 population of 18,554.Ansonia's population, the eighth largest population in the NVC, increased from 2000 to 2010 by 3.7%.The population in the NVC increased by 5.6% from 2000 to 2010. Connecticut's population grew by4.9% during the 2000 to 2010 period. Eleven of the eighteen communities grew at a rate equal to orhigher than the state during the 2000 to 2010 period. Ansonia had an increase of 3.7%. Ansonia'srate was lower than the State and NVC averages.
Population by Sex/Age: Ansonia had 9,265 males, 9,984 females, 4,579 people were under age 18,and 14,670 were age 18 and over.
Unemployment and Labor Force Characteristics in Ansonia: In April of 2012, the unemploymentrate was 9.9% in Ansonia, 8.5% in the NVC, and 7.5% in Connecticut and 7.7% in the US. Ansoniapossessed the second highest unemployment rate among NVC towns. Waterbury had the highestunemployment rate (12.3%) whereas Newtown possessed the lowest unemployment rate at 6.2%followed by Cheshire and Woodbury at 5.6%.
The unemployment and labor force have changed during the past years because of thenational/worldwide economic crisis. Most of the communities in the NVC reflect an increase in thelabor force and a decrease in the unemployment percentages.
In April of 2012, Ansonia possessed 5% of the labor force in the NVC. Its total labor force of 10,458was the seventh largest in the NVC in 2012. Waterbury maintained the highest share of the NVC'slabor force at 24.4% whereas Bethlehem possessed about one percent of the NVC's labor force in2012.
Despite its small labor force, Ansonia had more than 1,038 people of the unemployed labor force inthe NVC in April of 2012. Ansonia maintained the fourth largest number of the NVC's total number ofunemployed in April of 2012. Waterbury possessed the highest number of unemployed (6,308)whereas Bethlehem possessed the smallest number (132) of the NVC's unemployed in April of 2012.
Changes in Employment Force and Unemployment Rate Over Time: Ansonia's labor forceincreased by 962 people from April 2000 to April of 2012. The employed labor force in the NVC andin the state increased by 16,842 people, and 162,700, respectively.
Ansonia's percent of unemployed went from 2.5% in 2000 to 10.9% in 2011 and down in 2012 to9.9%. The NVC went from 2.3% in 2000 to 9.9% in 2011 to 8.5% in 2012. Connecticut's unemployedwent from 2.2% in 2000 to 8.9% in 2011 to 7.5% in 2012.
Median Household Income: based on CERC 2010 data -Ansonia $49,794, County/ New Haven$58,719 and the NVC $74,286 and Connecticut $65,686.
Naugatuck Valley Corridor June 2012Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
~~~~~~~~~or~~ec9~~cu~~
Governme~zt
~_,( /~_~ \ ~ .;tart here
Co~rnee-ticiit Econo»aic Resource Center I~1c;
Government Form: Mayor-Board of Aldermen~u of Debt Service (2009) $8,934,708
As /o of Expenditures 15.6 /o
Total Revenue (2009) $58,164,892Total Expenditures (2009) $57,203,675
Eq. Net Grand List (2007) $1,675,945,517
Tax Revenue $28,644,425Education $31,520,992
per Capita $88,768
Non-taac Revenue $29,520,467Other $16,747,975
As % of State Average 53%
Intergovernmental $26,302,924 Total Indebtness (2009) $2g~4g0,079 Date of Last Revaluation (2009) 2007
Per Capita Tax (2009) $1,556As % of Expenditures 49.8% Moody's Bond Rating (2009) A3
As % of State Average 63.9%Per Capita $1,547 Actual Mill Rate (2007) 32.30As % of State Average 73.0% Equalized Mill Rate (2007) 14.98
of Grand List Com/Ind (2007) 10.8%
Hocrsing/Real Estate
Housi~ag Stock (2009) Tow» County Stnte
Existing Units (total) 8,026 352,042 1,452,007
%Single Unit 48.5°/a 59.5°/a 64.8%
New Permits Auth. (2009) 2 509 3,786
As %Existing Units 0.02% 0.14% 0.26%
Demolitions (2009) 2 212 1,219
House Sales (2009) 63 3,553 14,696
Median Price $228,000 $246,000 $265,000
Built Pre 1950 share (2000) 49.5% 33.2% 31.5%
Owner Occupied Dwellings (2009)
As %Total Dwellings
Subsidize Housing (2008)
Dish•ib:~tion of Horse Sales (2009)
Number of Sales
Less than $100,000
$100,000-$199,999
$200,000-$299,999
$300,000-$399,999
$400,000 or MoreLabor Force
Place of Residence Connnuters (2000)
(2009) Town Cormty S1nte Commuters into Town from:
Labor Force 10,126 450,421 1,889,947 Ansonia 1,335
Employed 9,142 410,346 1,734,291 Seymour 357
Unemployed 98~t 40,075 155,656 Derby 324
Unemployment Rate 9.7% 8.9% 8.2% Shelton 259
Place of YYoek (2009) Oxford 163
# of Units 318 22,428 104,.314 Waterbury 154
Total Employment 3,623 349,363 1,615,355 New Haven 130
Orange 90I~fIf ON TN fnYNfOf1nN......... ~. J ... ..........~
Town Sinte
Banks (2007) 5 1,029
Crime Rate (2009) Distance to A~ajo~• Cities Miles
Per 100,000 Residents 188 298 Hartford 35
Boston 126
Library (2010) TotivrrNe~v York City 6~
Total Volumes 97,011Providence 92
Circulation Per Capita 5.6
3,687 185,400 812,964
48% 53% 57%
1,147 41,649 149,355
Town Corutty Stnte
80 346
24 953 3,539
31 1,347 4,847
8 6~5 2,510
528 3,454
Town Residents Commuting to:
Ansonia 1,335
Shelton 849
Derby 721
Bridgeport 645
New Haven 639
Stratford 533
Milford 503
Seymour 387
Trumbull 339
Stamford 212
Residential Utilities
Electric Provider
The United Illuminating Co.
(800) 257-0141
Gas Provider
Yankee Gas Company
(800)-989-0900
Water Provider
Birmingham Utilities
(203)735-1888
Cable Provider
COMCAST/SEYMOUR
(800)266-2278
Town Profiles May, 2011. Page 2 wtivw.cerc.cont No representalron a• tirarranties, expressed or implied, are girenregardi»g the accuracy of dzis it formation.
Ansonia Shopping Center $10,966,900 0.9%Agriculture 2.1°/a 0.5% p~sonia E & A LLC $8,945,900 0.8%Coast. and Mining 15.2°/a 5.6% United Illuminating Co. $6,823,547 0.6%
Trans. and Utilities 2.0% 4.1% Net Grand List (2009) $1,164,619,962
Trade 23.2% 19.7% Top Five ~Yfajor Enrplo~~ers (2006)
Finance, Ins. and 5 g% 2 4~~a
Ansonia Copper &Brass Farrell CorporationReal Estate Big Y Supermarket Hilltop Health CenterServices 42.6% 40.8% Birmingham Group Health SeivicGovernment 4.6% 10.3% Town State
Most public school students in Ansonia attend Ansonia SchoolDistrict, ~~~hich has 2,674 students.
For more education dataplease see:http://www.state.ct.us/sde/
Students per Computer Town
Elementary: 6.3
Middle: 4.2
Secondary: 4.0
Co~vzectictrt ~1laste~y Test Percent Above Goal
Graded Grade 6 Grade 8
Taiv~r State Town S/nte Tower Sfnte
Reading 54 61 51 69 49 69
Math 81 64 70 69 50 65
Writing 53 64 43 62 45 67A>>erage SAT Sco1•e
Sfnfe Ave~•age Class Size Tow~t Stn1e
4.1 Grade K 20.5 Grade 2 23.Q Reading 481 503
2.8 Grade 5 20.6 Grade 7 19.0 Writing 470 506
2.7 High School 18.6 Math 445 508
To~~m Profiles Ma ~, 2011. Pa e 1 No representation or irarranlies, eipressed or rmplred, are5 g 1V1V1V.Cet'C.COVt given regarding the accia•acy of this i~ for~uatio~i.
2010 Census Interactive Population Search
I`Vii~ll~ View: 2010 Census Interactive Population Mai
Population: The population findings are based on the new US Census data for 2010. BeaconFalls' population for 2010 was 6,049 a difference of 803 additional people from the 2000population of 5,246. Beacon Falls' population, the second smallest population in the NVC, grewby 15.3% from 2000 to 2010. The population in the NVC increased by 5.6% from 2000 to 2010.Connecticut's population grew by 4.9%during the 2000 to 2010 period. Eleven of the eighteencommunities grew at a rate equal to or higher than the state during the 2000 to 2010 period.Beacon Falls had the 3rd highest increase at 15.3% or 803 people during this period. BeaconFalls' rate was higher than the State and NVC averages.
Population by Sex/Age: Beacon Falls had 3,020 males, 3,029 females, 1,377 people wereunder age 18, and 4,672 were age 18 and over.
Unemployment and Labor Force Characteristics in Beacon Falls: In April of 2012, theunemployment rate was 8.1% in Beacon Falls, 8.5% in the NVC, and 7.5% in Connecticut and8.7% in the US. Beacon Falls possessed the seventh highest unemployment rate among NVCtowns. Waterbury had the highest unemployment rate (12.3%) whereas Newtown possessedthe lowest unemployment rates at 5.2.7%.
The unemployment and labor force have changed during the past years because of thenational/worldwide economic crisis. Most of the communities in the NVC reflect an increase inthe labor force and a decrease in the unemployment percentages.
In April of 2012, Beacon Falls possessed 1.6 percent of the labor force in the NVC. Its totallabor force of 3,452 was the second smallest in the NVC in 2012. Waterbury maintained thehighest share of the NVC's labor force at 24.4 percent whereas Bethlehem only about morethan one percent of the NVC's labor force in 2012.
Beacon Falls had 279 unemployed in the labor force in the NVC in 2012. Beacon Fallsmaintained the 2~d smallest share of the NVC's total number of unemployed in 2012. Waterburypossessed the largest number of unemployed (6308) whereas Bethlehem possessed thesmallest number (132) of the NVC's unemployed in 2012.
Changes in Employment Force and Unemployment Rates Over Time: Beacon Falls' laborforce increased by 472 workers from April of 2000 to April of 2012 whereas the employmentforce in the NVC and the state increased by 16,842 and 163,700, respectively.
Beacon Falls' percent of unemployment went from1.8% in 2000 to 9.9% in 2011, to 8.1 % in2012. The NVC went from 2.3% in 2000 to 9.9% in 2011 to 8.5% in 2012. Connecticut'sunemployed went from 2.2% in 2000 to 8.9% in 2011 to 7.5% in 21012.
Median Household Income: based on CERC 2010 data -Beacon Falls $66,901, County/NewHaven $58,719 and the NVC $74,286 and Connecticut $65,686.
Naugatuck Valley Corridor June 2012Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
1~~~~~~ ~ ~~11~~ CC~~r~rnc~~~~c~l~~.~CERC Town Profile 2011
Town Hall Belongs ~o
10 Maple Avenue New Haven County
Beacon Falls, CT 06403 LMA Waterbury
(203) 729-4340 Naugatuck Valley Economic Dev. Region
Watertown 20nil,,,.. 1..t .. ,.s;.,..Vl/I G/ 1/{f VI ~/(UL[V/L
Tow~t Stnte
Banks (2007) 0 1,029
G•inte Rafe (2009) Distance to Major Cities Miles
Per 100,000 Residents 55 298 Hartford 30
Boston 122
Library (2010) To►vitNew York City 71
Total Volumes 16,509Providence 39
Circulation Per Capita 5.7
$485,626
2.7%
$738,923,414
$137,015
82%
2006
34.06
14.05
8.1%
1,574 185,400 812,964
66% 53% 57%
31 41,649 149,355
Toi~~n County Sfnte
9 80 346
5 953 3,539
15 1,347 4,847
8 .645 2,510
2 528 3,454
Town Residents Commuting to:
Shelton 245
Waterbury 230
Naugatuck 149
Beacon Falls 145
Seymour 144
Bridgeport 138
Trumbull 125
New Haven 123
Stratford 119
Southbury 115
Reside~7tial Utilities
Electric Provider
Connecticut Light & Power
(800)286-2000
Gas Provider
Yankee Gas Company
(800)989-0900
Water Provider
CT Water Company/Aquazion Water Compan
(800)286-5700
Cable Provider
COMCAST/SEYMOUR
(800)266-2278
Totvn Profiles May, 2011. Page 2 www.cerc.cmn n'o,•ep,•esenrar;on or•,~~arra~~ries, expressed or implied, are girenregardi~rg dte accur•ac~~ of this it forn~atroii.
2010 Census Interactive Population Search
IVi[~ll~ ~IIl~~~: 2010 Census Interactive Population MaU
~C'1[' ~ IE~~~~~~~ lia ~~➢~ ~~vv~u
Page 1 of 5
Population
Total Population 6,Q49
Housing Statusin housing units unless noted )
Total 2,509
Occupied 2,360
Owner-occupied 1,915
Population in owner-occupied 5,144( number of individuals )
Renter-occupied 445
Population in renter-occupied 905( number of individuals )
Vacant 149
Vacant: for rent 21
Vacant: for sale 39
Vacant: for seasonaUrecreational/occasional use 19
Population: The population findings are based on the new US Census data for 2010.Bethlehem's population for 2010 was 3,607 a difference of 185 additional people from the 2000population of 3,422. Bethlehem's population, the smallest in the NVC, grew by 5.4% from 2000to 2010. The population in the NVC increased by 5.6% from 2000 to 2010. Connecticut'spopulation grew by 4.9% during the 2000 to 2010 period. Eleven of the eighteen communitiesgrew at a rate equal to or higher than the state during the 2000 to 2010 period. Bethlehem'spopulation increased by 5.4% or 185 residents. Bethlehem's rate was higher than the State andequal to the NVC average.
Population by Sex/Age: Bethlehem had 1,779 males, 1,828 females, 747 people were underage 18, and 2,860 were age 18 and over.
Unemployment and Labor Force Characteristics in Bethlehem: In April of 2012 theunemployment rate was 5.6% in Bethlehem, 8.5% in the NVC, and 7.5% in Connecticut and7.7% in the US. Bethlehem possessed the third lowest unemployment rate among NVC towns.Waterbury had the highest unemployment rate (12.3%) whereas Newtown possessed thelowest unemployment rate (5.2%).
The unemployment and labor force have changed during the past years because of thenational/worldwide economic crisis. Most of the communities in the NVC reflect an increase inthe labor force, and a decrease in the higher unemployment percentages.
In April of 2012, Bethlehem possessed about 1 percent of the labor force in the NVC. Its totallabor force of 1,925 was the smallest in the NVC in 2012. Waterbury maintained the highestshare of the NVC's labor force at 24.4 percent whereas Bethlehem possessed about 1 percentof the NVC's labor force in 2012.
Bethlehem maintained less than 1 percent of the unemployed labor force in the NVC in 2012.Bethlehem maintained the smallest number of the NVC's total number of unemployed in 20121.Waterbury possessed the largest number of unemployed (6,308) whereas Bethlehempossessed the smallest number (132) of the NVC's unemployed in 2012.
Changes in Employment Force and Unemployment Rates Over Time: Bethlehem's laborforce increased by 86 workers from April 2000 to April 2012, whereas the employment force inthe NVC and the state increased by 16,842 people and 162,700 respectively.
Bethlehem's percent of unemployed went from 1.6% in 2000 to 7.5% in 2011 to 6.4 % in 2012.The NVC went from 2.3% in 2000 to 9.9% in 2011 to 8.5% in 2012. ConnecticuYs unemployedwent from 2.2% in 2000 to 8.9% in 2011 to 7.5% in 2012.
Median Household Income: based on CERC 2010 data -Bethlehem $85,096, County/Litchfield $68.682 and the NVC $74,286 and Connecticut $65,686.
Naugatuck Valley Corridor June 2012Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
~'~~~~~~I'r~~r~9 CC~:~Ir~~r~~c~~ll~u1~;CERC Town Profile 2011
Town Hall Belargs to
P.O. Box 160 Litchfield County
Bethlehem, CT 06751 LMA Torrington
(203) 266-7677 Naugatuck Valley Economic Dev. Region
Central Naugatuck Valley Planning Area
DemographicsRace/Ethnicity (2010) Town Cornrty Slnte
Po trlation 2010P ( ~ Toxnr Corntry Stn/e White 3,391 176,854 2,786,7611990 3,071 174,092 3,287,116 Black 9 1,872 337,2992000 3,422 182,193 3,405,565 Asian Pacific 44 3,453 128,6512010 3,523 187,467 3,511,137 Native American 1 170 6,4182015 3,444 186,535 3,545,169 Other/Multi-Race 78 5,118 252,008
Most public school students in Bethlehem attend Regional SchoolDistrict 14, which has 2,127 students.
I'or more education dataplease see:http://www.statc.ct.us/sde/
Students per Conrp:rler Toivn
Elementazy: 4.9
Middle: 2.8Secondary: 2.6
Conneclictr! Mastery Tes[ Percent Above Goal
Grade 4 Grade 6 Grade 8
Town State Town S/rate Totivn Strafe
Reading 70 61 85 69 81 69
Math 82 64 90 69 74 65
Writing 72 64 82 62 80 67Average S~iTScore
Stnte Average Class Size Town Stnte
4.1 Grade K 16.9 Grade 2 20.4 Reading 525 503
2.8 Grade 5 21.0 Grade 7 21.4 Writing 526 506
2.7 High School 21.2 Math 518 508
Town Profiles Ma , 2011. Pa e 1 No represerrtallon or irarraniies, expressed w• iinp/ied, areY g wiv~v. cerc.COt)t given regarding the acc:n•acy of d7is i~ foruration.
.-r ~__~ t._~ i
.rtn~•t here~
~~~~YllYfleCtlCYll~ ~.~• ~ U ~Coitncctruit Ecouaiiic 2esniirieCei~ter, l~n:
Governme~rt
~ua~l Debt Service (2009) $169,599Government Form: Selectman-Town MeetingAs /o of Expenditures 1.8 /o
Total Revenue (2009) $10,115,801Total Expenditures (2009) $9,385,525
Eq. Net Grand List (2007) $663,369,368Tax Revenue $8,192,774
Education $6,984,949 pe►• Capita $181,100
Non-tax Revenue $1,923,027Other $2,230,977
As % of State Average 109%Intergovernmental $1,601,535 Total Indebtness (2009) $x,670,104 Date of Last Revaluation (2009) 2003
Per Capita Tax (2009) $2,362As % of Expenditures 17.8% Moody's Bond Rating (2009)
As % of State Average 96.9%Per Capita $481 Actual Mill Rate (2007) 21.82As % of State Average 22.7% Equalized Mill Rate (2007) 12.02
Place of Y~'a•k (2009) Bridgewater 35 Woodbury 101
# of Units 112 6,066 104,314 Watertown 34 Washington 91Total Employment 656 59,332 1,615,355 Thomaston 29 Litchfield 562000-'09GrowtUAAGR 2.8% -1.2% -0.4% O~ord 20 Torrington 54
Mfg Employment n.a. Naugatuck 15 New Milford 45
Litchfield 11 Danbury 43Other Information
Reside~alial Utilities
Toiv~r Stnte Electric ProviderBanks (2007) 1 1,029 Connecticut Light &Power
(800)286-2000Crime Rale (2009) Distance to ~llajor Cities Mi/es
Gas ProviderPer 100,000 Residents 0 298 Hanford 29 na
Boston 123 naLibrary (2010) Town Water Provider
Ne~v York City ~~ Municipal ProviderTotal Volumes 26,408
Providence 93 local ContactCirculation Per Capita 7.5
Cable Provider
Charter Conununications of Western Connect800 827-8288
Town Profiles May, 2011. Page 2 www.CeJ'C.COflt n~o represenlalion or warrrn~ties, expressed or implied, are girenregal ding the accm ac~~ of this i~ formation
Population: The population findings are based on the new US Census data for 2010.Cheshire's population for 2010 was 29,261 a difference of 718 people from the 2000 populationof 28,543. Cheshire's population, the fourth largest in the NVC, grew by 2.5%from 2000 to2010. The population in the NVC increased by 5.6%from 2000 to 2010. Connecticut'spopulation grew by 4.9%during the 2000 to 2010 period. Eleven of the eighteen communitiesgrew at a rate equal to or higher than the state during the 2000 to 2010 period. Cheshire had anincrease of 2.5% or 718 residents. Cheshire's rate was lower than the State and NVC average.
Population by Sex/Age: Cheshire had 15,189 males, 14,072 females, 7,093 people wereunder 18 and 22,168 were 18 and over.
Unemployment and Labor Force Characteristics in Cheshire: In April of 2012, theunemployment rate was 5.6% in Cheshire, 8.5% in the NVC, and 7.5% in Connecticut and 7.7%in the US. Cheshire possessed the second lowest unemployment rate amongst NVC towns.Waterbury had the highest unemployment rate (112.3%) whereasNewtown had the lowest unemployment rate among NVC towns (5.2%).
The unemployment and labor force have changed during the past years because of thenational/worldwide economic crisis most of the communities in the NVC reflect an increase inthe labor force and a decrease~in unemployment percentages.
In April of 2012, Cheshire possessed nearly 7.0 percent of the labor force in the NVC. Its totallabor force of 14,721 was the fourth largest in the NVC in 2012. Waterbury maintained thehighest share of the NVC's labor force at 24.4 percent whereas Bethlehem possessed onlyabout 1 percent of the NVC's labor force in 2012.
Cheshire had 822 unemployed in the labor force in the NVC in 2012. Woodbury had the lowestnumber of the NVC's total number of unemployed in 2012. Waterbury possessed the largestnumber of unemployed (6,308) whereas Bethlehem possessed the smallest number (132) of theNVC's unemployed in 20121.
Changes in Employment Force and Unemployment Rates Over Time: Cheshire's laborforce increased by 900 workers from April 2000 to April 2012, whereas the employment force inthe NVC and the state increased by 16,842 people and 162,700, respectively.
Cheshire's percent of unemployed went from 1.6% in 2000 to 7.5% in 2011 t 6.4% in 2012. TheNVC went from 2.3% in 2000 to 9.9% in 2011 to 8.5% in 2012. Connecticut's unemployed wentfrom 2.2% in 2000 to 8.9% in 2011 to 7.5% in 2012.
Median Household Income: based on CERC 2010 data -Cheshire $101,392, County/ NewHaven $58,719 and the NVC $74,286 and Connecticut $65,686.
Naugatuck Valley Corridor June 2012Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
C~~~~~~r~~~ C~'~~~~~C~~~1~~CERC Town Profile 2011
Town Hall Belongs to
84 South Main Sheet New Haven County
Cheshire, CT 06410 LMA New Haven
(203) 271-6660 Naugatuck Valley Economic Dev. Region
Central Naugatuck Valley Planning Area
DemographicsRace/E[h~Ticity (2010) Town Comity State
PopzJation (2010) Town County State White 24,977 647,897 2,786,7611990 25,684 804,219 3,287,116 Black 1,922 105,120 337,2992000 28,543 824,008 3,405,565 Asian Pacific 1,198 30,934 128,6512010 29,411 849,161 3,511,137 Native American 51 1,551 6,4182015 29,124 858,824 3,545,169 Other/Multi-Race 1,263 63,659 252,008
Town Profiles Ma , 2011. Pa e 1 No represe~vtation or irai~~anties, expressed or inrplred, areY g 1Vw1U. Ce1'C. Coat given regardhtg the accuracy of dais i~ formation.
Annual Debt Service (2009) $10,774,110Govermnent Form: Council-Manager o 0As /o of Expenditures 11.1 /o
Total Revenue (2009) $96,524,388Total Expenditures (2009) $96,814,093
Eq. Net Grand List (2007) $4,354,132,463Tax Revenue $71,546,221
EducationOther
$63,051,443$22,988,540
per Capita $147,763Non-tar Revenue $24,978,167 As % of State Average 89%Intergovernmental $22,600,186 Total Indebtness (2009) $1,537,604 Date of Last Revaluation (2009) 2003
Per Capita Ta~c (2009) $2421As % of Expenditures 73.9% Moody's Bond Rating (2009) Aa2
As % of State Average 99.4%Per Capita $2,421 Actual Mill Rate (2007) 27.15As % of State Average 114.1% Equalized Mill Rate (2007) 15.10
# of Units 939 22,428 104,314 Hamden 488 Meriden 579Total Employment 15,209 349,363 1,615,355 Bristol 456 Hartford 4612000-'09 Growth AAGR 0.6% -0.6% -0.4% Naugatuck 448 North Haven 35~
Mfg Employment n.a Wolcott 401 Southington 257
Ne~m Haven 389 West Haven 220- OtIlBF IIIfOYiltQt%O/t
Reside~tlial Utilities
Town State Electric ProviderBanks (2007) 10 1,029 Connecticut Light &Power
(800)286-2000Crime Rate (2009) Distance to Major Cities Miles
Gas ProviderPer 100,000 Residents 44 298 Hanford 21 Yankee Gas Company
X800) 989-0900Boston 112
Library (2010) Totivn Water ProviderNewYork City 8~ South Central CT Regional Water Auth.
Total Volumes 120,220Providence 79 (203)562-4020
Circulation Per Capita 16.8Cable Provider
Cox Conununications NEW ENGLAND/ME800 955-9515
Town Profiles May, 2011. Page 2 www, cerc.cotn No represenlatiwr or u~a»•anties, expressed or implied, are girenregarding the accts acy of 1I17S H7fOl7/1Qh017
Population: The population findings are based on the new US Census data for 2010. Derby'spopulation 2010 was 12,902 a difference of 511 additional people from the 2000 population of12,391. Derby's population, the eleventh smallest in the NVC, grew by 4.1 %from 2000 to 2010.The population in the NVC increased by 5.6%from 2000 to 2010. ConnecticuYs populationgrew by 4.9% during the 2000 to 2010 period. Derby was below the state average of 4.9% andthe NVC of 5.6%. Eleven of the eighteen communities grew at a rate equal to or higher than thestate during the 2000 to 2010 period. Derby had an increase of 4.1%. Derby's rate was lowerthan the State and NVC average.
Population by Sex/Age: Derby had 6,192 male, 6,710 females, 2,708 people were under age18 and 10,914 were 18 and over.
Unemployment and Labor Force Characteristics in Derby: In April of 2012, theunemployment rate was 8.6% in Derby, 8.5% in the NVC, and 7.5% in Connecticut and 7.7% inthe US. Derby possessed the fifth highest unemployment rate among NVC towns. Waterburyhad the highest unemployment rate (12.3%) whereas Newtown possessed the lowestunemployment rate (5.2%).
The unemployment and labor force have changed during the past years because of thenational/worldwide economic crisis. Most of the communities in the NVC reflect an increase inthe labor force and a decrease in the higher unemployment percentages.
In April of 2012, Derby possessed 3.4 percent of the labor force in the NVC. Its total labor forceof7, 154 was the twelfth largest in the NVC in 2012. Waterbury maintained the highest share ofthe NVC's labor force at 24.4 percent whereas Bethlehem only possessed about 1 percent ofthe NVC's labor force in 2012.
Derby had more than 616 unemployed in the labor force in the NVC in 2012. Derby had thetenth largest share of the NVC's total number of unemployed in 2012. Waterbury possessedthe largest share of number on unemployed (6,308) whereas Bethlehem possessed thesmallest number (132) of the NVC's unemployed in 2012.
Changes in Employment Force and Unemployment Rate Over Time: Derby's labor forceincreased by 577 workers from April 2000 to April 2012, whereas the employment force in theNVC and the state increased by 16,842 people and 162,700, respectively.
Derby's percent of unemployed went from 2.7% in 2000 to 9.8% in 2011 to 8.6% in 2012. TheNVC went from 2.3% in 2000 to 9.9% in 2011 to 8.5% in 2012. Connecticut's unemployed wentfrom 2.2% in 2000 to 8.9% in 2011 to 7.5% in 2012
Median Household Income: based on CERC 2010 data -Derby $54,185, County/New Haven$58,719 and the NVC $74,286 and Connecticut $65,686.
Naugatuck Valley Corridor June 2012Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
I~~~l~~~ C~~r~rrll~~~~~~~CERC Town Profile 2011
Town Hall Belongs to
35 Fifth Street New Haven County
Derby, CT 06418 LMA Bridgeport - Stamford
(203) 736-1450 Valley Economic Dev. Region
Valley Planning Area
DemographicsRace/Ethnicity (2010) Town Corntty Stote
Population (2010) Toivrr Cou~ety Stnte White 10,809 647,897 2,786,7611990 12,199 804,219 3,287,116 Black 706 105,120 337,2992000 12,391 824,008 3,405,565 Asian Pacific 366 30,934 128,6512010 ]2,598 849,161 3,511,137 Native American 17 1,551 6,4182015 12,313 858,824 3,545,169 Other/Multi-Race 700 63,659 252,008
Derby Shopping CenterLLC $13,234,900 1.5%Agriculture 1.8% 0.4% ~tinozzi Peter ET AL $12,481,630 1.4%Const. and Mining 12.9% 4.3% United Illuminating Co. $10,266,570 11%Manufacturing 4.7% 7.6% Home Depot USA Inc $9,010,120 1.0%
Trans. and Utilities 1.8% 2.0°fo Net Grand List (2009) $908,690,081
Trade 27.4% 26.9% Top Five Alajor Employers (2006)Finance, Ins. and o
x•4/0o
2.6/0Griffin Health Services George Hegyi Industries
Real Estate Birmingham Health Center Home DepotServices 40.3%a 38.2% Derby Cellular Products, IncGovernment 3.6°/a 18.0% Toii>>r S1nfe
Most public school students in Derby attend Derby School District,which has 1,462 students.
For more education dataplease see:http:/hvww.s tate.c t.us/sde/
Students per Coi~~pi~ter
Elementary:
Middle:Secondary:
T'ois~n Sfnle
4.7 4.1
2.83.0 2.7
Co~v7ectictrt ~llaste~y Tesl Perce~a! flbove Goal
Grade 4 Grade 6 Grade 8
Town State Town Stnie Toivir StnteReading 42 61 56 69 55 69Math 35 64 47 69 34 65
Writing 38 64 50 62 73 67Arerage SHIT Score
Average Class Size Toiv~r Stnte
Grade K 22.0 Grade 2 18.8 heading 436 503
Grade 5 16.3 Grade 7 23.0 Writing 453 506
High School 21.3 Math 423 508
Town Profiles Ma , 2011. Pa e 1 , No 1~epreserttation or iran•anties, expressed or implied, areY g W Wlt CCl'C.COAt gireri regarding llte accia•ac~~ of Jhis fr forixalion.
Q.OY~~I~~C~YCY~IIL
Governynent
Government Form: Mayor-Board of Aldermen
Total Revenue (2009) $37,271,196Total Expenditures (2009)
Ta~c Revenue $23,586,413Education
Non-taac Revenue $13,684,783Other
Intergovernmental $12,310,056 Total Indebtness (2009)
Per Capita Tam (2009) $l~gg2As %of Expenditures
As % of State Average 77,2o/a Per Capita
As % of State Average
Housing/Real Estate
Housing Slock (2009)
E~sting Units (total)
%Single Unit
New Permits Autl~. (2009)
As %Existing Units
Demolitions (2009)
House Sales (2009)
Median Price
Built Pre 1950 share (2000)
Labor Force
Place of Reside~ace
(2009)
Labor Force
Employed
Unemployed
Unemployment Rate
Place of IVork (2009)# of Units
Total Employment
2000-'09 Growth AAGR
Mfg Employment
Town Cornrty
5,629 352,042
47.7% 59.5%
7 509
0.12% 0.14%
13 212
42 3,553
$222,070 $246,000
44.3% 33.2%
Totvn County
6,990 450,421
6,340 410,346
650 40,075
9.3% 8.9%
316 22,4284,928 349,363-0.3% -0.6%
n.a
~ Other Info~~mation ~
Banks (2007)
Crime Rate (2009)
Per 100,000 Residents
Tower Stnte
2 1,029
195
Library (2010) ToH~~t
Total Volumes 131,225
Circulation Per Capita 8.3
State
1,452,00764.8%
3,786
0.26°/a
1,219
14,696
$265,000
31.5%
( mart here'\~~UUV~
Co~tirecticnt Eca~onrii R<:rorirceCenter, Inc.
Annual Debt Service (2009) $2,262,919As % of Expenditures 5.8%
$38,788,369Eq. Net Grand List (2007) $1,380,321,088
$19,873,813per Capita $107,804
$16,651,637As % of State Average 65%
$13,320,988 Date of Last Revaluation (2009) 200534.3% Moody's Bond Rating (2009) A2
Town Profiles May, 2011. Page 2 ~vtiviv. ce~'c. cof►t No represenlalion or tivarranfies, expressed or implied, are girenrega~ ding tl~e acc:n•acy ofThis infor•maiio~t.
2010 Census Interactive Population Search
I~V~a~~~ View: 2010 Census Interactive Population Mai
Population: The population findings are based on the new US Census data for 2010.Middlebury's population for 2010 was 7,575 a difference of 1,124 additional people from the2000 population of 6,451. Middlebury's population, the third smallest in the NVC, however grewby 17.4% from 2000 to 2010. The population in the NVC increased by 5.6%from 2000 to 2010.Connecticut's population grew by 4.9% during the 2000 to 2010 period. Eleven of the eighteencommunities grew at a rate equal to or higher than the state during the 2000 to 2010 period.Middlebury had the 2~d highest increase to 17.4%. Middlebury's rate was higher than the Stateand NVC average.
Population by Sex/Age: Middlebury had 3,663 males, 3,912 females, 1,863 people were underage 18, and 5,712 were age 18 and over.
Unemployment and Labor Force Characteristics in Middlebury: In April of 2012 theunemployment rate was 6.0% in Middlebury, 8.5% in the NVC, and 7.5% in Connecticut and7.7% in the US. Middlebury possessed the forth lowest unemployment rate among NVC towns.Waterbury had the highest unemployment rate (12.3%) whereas Newtown possessed thelowest unemployment rate (5.2%).
The unemployment and labor force have changed during the past years because of thenational/worldwide economic crisis. Most of the communities in the NVC reflect an increase inthe labor force and a decrease in the unemployment percentages.
In April of 2012, Middlebury possessed 1.9 percent of the labor force in the NVC. Its total laborforce of 3,762 was the third smallest in the NVC in 2012. Waterbury maintained the highestshare of the NVC's labor force at 24.4 percent whereas Bethlehem possessed about 1 percentof the NVC's labor force in 2012.
Middlebury had 241 of the unemployed labor force in the NVC in 2012. Middlebury had thesecond smallest share of the NVC's total number of unemployed in 2012. Waterburypossessed the largest number of unemployed (6,308), whereas Bethlehem possessed thesmallest share (132) of the NVC's unemployed in 2012.
Changes in Employment Force and Unemployment Rates Over Time: Middlebury's laborforce increased by more than 548 workers from April 2000 to April 2012, whereas theemployment force in the NVC and the state increased by 16,842 people and 162,700,respectively.
Middlebury's percent of unemployed went from 1.6% in 2000 to 7.5% in 2011 to 6.0% in 2012.The NVC went from 2.3% in 2000 to 9.9% in 2011 to 8.5% in 2012. Connecticut's unemployedwent from 2.2% in 2000 to 8.9% in 2011 to 7.5% in 2012.
Median Household Income: based on CERC 2010 data - Middlebury $91,990, County/NewHaven $58,719 and the NVC $74,286 and Connecticut $65,686.
Naugatuck Valley Corridor June 2012Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
1V1I~o1o~]1~~~~~r~~ ~~~r~~~~^~~~v1CERC Town Profile 2011
Town Hall Belongs to
P.O. Box 392 Ne~v Haven County
Middlebury, CT 06762 LMA Waterbury
(203) 758-2439 Naugatuck Valley Economic Dev. Region
County Total 51,376 6% 141,x}20 17% 82,147 10% 287,846 34% 165,112 19% 121,260 14% 849,161
State Total 211,807 6% 586,571 17% 330,532 9% 1,173,203 33% 708,910 20% 500,114 14% 3,511,137
Rnnronrr~irc
ofBusi~~ess Profile (2005) % of Totnl Top Five Grand List (2009) Anrorrnt Net
Preston Park 2004 $24,611,900 2.3%Sector EslablisGnrents Eiunlovmerrt
Timex Group $14,563,192 1.3%Agriculture 2.2% 1.1% Chemtura USA Corporation $9,760,177 0.9%Const. and Mining 13.1% 7.0°/a Ridgewood at Middlebury $9,209,997 0.9%
Most public school students in Middlebury attend Regional SchoolDistrict 15, which has 4,544 students.
I'or more education dataplease see:http://www. state.ct.us/sde/
Sludei7ts per Conrptder Town
Elementary: 3.4
Middle: 2.6
Secondary: 3.9
Conr7ectictrt Mastery Test Pe~~cent Above Goal
Grade 4 Grade 6 Grade 8
Towrr State Tow►t Sfnte Town State
Reading 79 61 85 69 83 69
Math 81 64 91 69 81 65
Writing 84 64 80 62 79 67Av¢rage SPITScore
State Average Class Size Toivrt Stn1e
4.1 Grade K 18.5 Grade 2 19.9 Reading 529 503
2.8 Grade 5 233 Grade 7 22.4 Writing 531 506
2.7 High School 20.1 Math 538 508
Town Profiles Ma , 2011. Pa e 1 No representation or ~rarrm~ties, e.~pressed or implied, areY g wtivty. cerc.CO))1 given regarding the accuracy+ of this it formation.
G~i~ne Rate (2009) Distance to hfajor Cities Miles
Per 100,000 Residents 45 298 Hanford 28
Boston 122
Library (2010) TownNew York City 73
Total Volumes 70,722Providence 90
Circulation Per Capita 13.9
2,182 185,400 812,964
82% 53% 57%
95 41,649 149,355
Tow~t Cou~tty State
80 346
7 953 3,539
17 1,347 4,847
12 645 2,510
14 528 3,454
Town Residents Commuting to:
Waterbury 747
Middlebury 441
Southbury 207
Naugatuck 181
Watertown 121
Woodbury 87
Danbury 84
New Haven 70
Newto~m 69
Southington b6
Residential Utilities
Electric Provider
Connecticut Light &Power
(800)286-2000
Gas Provider
Yankee Gas Company
(800)989-0900
Water Provider
Connecticut Water Company
(800)286-5700
Cable Provider
COMCAST/WATERBURY
(800)266-2278
Town Profiles May, 2011. Page 2 1V1V1V. cerc, cof)1 No representation or Iran anties, expressed or i~~rplied, are girenrega~ ding tTre accea acy ofthis i, fo,v,anon.
2010 Census Interactive Population Search
PV~[~~~ ~Iiew: 2010 Census Interactive Population Map
Population: The population findings are based on new US Census data for 2010. Naugatuck'spopulation for 2010 was 31,862 a difference of 673 additional people from the 2000 populationof 30,989. Naugatuck's population, the third largest in the NVC, grew by 2.8% from 2000 to2010. The population in the NVC increased by 5.6% from 2000 to 2010. Connecticut'spopulation grew by 4.9% during the 2000 to 2010 period. Eleven of the eighteen communitiesgrew at a rate equal to or higher than the state during the 2000 to 2010 period. Naugatuck hadan increase of 2.8%. Naugatuck's rate was lower than the State and NVC average.
Population by Se~c/Age: Naugatuck had 15,623 males, 16,239 females, 7,380 people under 18and 24,482 18 andover.
Unemployment and Labor Force Characteristics in Naugatuck: In April of 2012, theunemployment rate was 9.2% in Naugatuck, 8.5% in the NVC, and 7.5% in Connecticut and7.7°/o in the US. Naugatuck possessed the third highest unemployment rate among NVC towns.Waterbury had the highest unemployment rate (12.3%) whereas Newtown possessed thelowest unemployment rate (5.2%).
The unemployment and labor force have changed during the past years because of thenational/worldwide economic crisis. Mostl of the communities in the NVC reflect an increase inthe labor force and a decrease in the higher unemployment percentages.
In April of 2012, Naugatuck possessed 8.1 percent of the labor force in the NVC. Its total laborforce of 17,004 was the third largest in the NVC in 2012. Waterbury maintained the highestshare of the NVC's labor force at 24.4 percent whereas Bethlehem possessed 1 percent of theNVC's labor force in 2012.
Naugatuck has 1,567 people of the unemployed in the labor force in the NVC in 2012.Naugatuck had the third largest share of the NVC's total number of unemployed in 2012.Waterbury possessed the largest number of unemployed (6,308), whereas Bethlehempossessed the smallest number (132) of the NVC's unemployed in 2012.
Changes in Employment Force and Labor Force Over Time: Naugatuck's labor forcedecreased by 1,086 workers from April 2000 to April 2012, whereas the employment force in theNVC and the state increased by 16,842 people and 162,700, respectively.
Naugatuck's percent of unemployed went from 2.6% in 2000 to 10.7% in 2011 to 9.2% in 2012.The NVC went from 2.3% in 2000 to 9.9% in 2011 to 8.5% in 2012. Connecticut's unemployedwent from 2.2% in 2000 to 8.9% in 2011 to 7.5% in 2012.
Median Household Income: based on CERC 2010 data -Naugatuck $59,472, County/NewHaven $58,719 and the NVC $74,286 and Connecticut $65,686.
Naugatuck Valley Corridor June 2012Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
~~~~1~v1~~~, ~;~~n~n~~~~~~v:~^CERC Town Profile 2011
Town Hall Belongs to
229 Church Street New Haven County
Naugatuck, CT 06770 LMA Waterbury
(203) 720-7007 Naugatuck Valley Economic Dev. Region
To~vtt Profiles May, 201 1. Page 2 ~UfyW.CerC.COt)t No rep~•esentation orirarranties, expressed or implied, are girenrega~ ding Hie accts acy of phis i~ formation.
Population: The population findings are based on new US Census data for 2010. Newtown'spopulation for 2010 was 27,560 a difference of 2,529 additional people from the 2000 populationof 25,031. Newtown's population, the fifth largest in the NVC, grew by 10.1% from 2000 to2010. The population in the NVC increased by 5.6% from 2000 to 2011. Connecticut'spopulation grew by 4.9%during the 2000 to 2010 period. Eleven of the eighteen communitiesgrew at a rate equal to or higher than the state during the 2000 to 2010 period. Newtown had anincrease of 2,529 residents or 10.1 %. Newtown was above the NVC and State averages.
Population by Sex/Age: Newtown had 13,907 males, 13,653 females, 7,605 people under 1~and 19,955 18 and over.
Unemployment and Labor Force Characteristics in Newtown: In April of 2012, theunemployment rate was5.2% in Newtown, 8.5% in the NVC, and 7.5% in Connecticut and76.7% in the US. Newtown possessed the lowest unemployment rate among NVC towns.Waterbury had the highest unemployment rate (12.3%).
The unemployment and labor force have changed during the past years because of thenational/worldwide economic crisis. Most of the communities in the NVC reflect an increase inthe labor force and a decrease in the higher unemployment percentages.
In April 2012, Newtown possessed 6.9 percent of the labor force in the NVC. Its total laborforce of 14,526 was the fifth largest in the NVC in 2012. Waterbury maintained the highestshare of the NVC's labor force at 24.4 percent whereas Bethlehem possessed about 1 percentof the NVC's labor force in 2012.
Newtown had 759 people of the unemployed labor force in the NVC in 2012. Newtown had theninth largest share of the NVC's total number of unemployed in 2012. Waterbury possessed thelargest number of unemployed (6,308) whereas Bethlehem possessed the smallest number(132) of the NVC's unemployed in 2012.
Changes in Employment Force and Unemployment Rates Over Time: Newtown'semployment work force increased by 1,557 workers from April 2007 to April 2012 to 14,526workers. Whereas the employed labor force in the NVC and the state increased by 16,842people and 162,700, respectively.
Newtown's percent of unemployed went from 1.4% in 2000 to 6.7% in 2011 to 5.2% in 2012.The NVC went from 2.3% in 2000 to 9.9% in 2011 to 8.5% in 2012. Connecticut's unemployedwent from 2.2% in 2000 to 8.9% in 2011 to 7.5% in 2012.
Median Household Income: based on CERC 2010 data - Newtown $105,744, County/Fairfield $68,682 and the NVC $74,286 and Connecticut $65,686.
Naugatuck Valley Corridor June 2012Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
~`~T~~v~~~vv~~~ C~rr~U~~~~~~~~ir,CERC Town Profile 2011
Town Hall Belo~~gs !o
45 Main Street Fairfield County
Ne~~~town, CT 06470 LMA Bridgeport - Stamford
(203) 270-4201 Housatonic Valley Economic Dev. Region
Housatonic Valley Planning Area
DemographicsRnce/Etlmicity (2010) Town Cornrty Stnte
Po ldalio~r 2010P ( ) Tox~~r Cou~rry Sinie White 24,435 696,534 2,786,7611990 20,779 827,645 3,287,116 Black 681 91,016 337,2992000 25,031 882,567 3,405,565 Asian Pacific 593 40,545 128,6512010 26,331 898,137 3,511,137 Native American 18 907 6,4182015 26,680 908,999 3,545,169 Other/Multi-Race 604 69,135 252,008
Most public school students in Newtown attend Newtown SchoolDistrict, which has 5,602 students.
For more education dataplease see:http:/hvww.state.ct.us/sde/
Siude~~ls per Computer Town
Elementary: 4.0
Middle: 5.0Secondary: 3.1
Co~r»eclicut Mastery Test Perce»t Above Goal
Grade 4 Grade 6 Grade 8
Town Stnte Toiv~t Sfnle Toiv~t Stnte
Reading 84 61 89 69 91 69
Math 89 64 93 69 89 65
Writing 83 64 77 62 85 67Arerage SAT Score
Stnte Average Class Size Tower Stnte
4.1 Grade K 17.1 Grade 2 18.7 Reading 534 503
2.8 Grade 5 23.9 Grade 7 21.5 Writing 535 506
2.7 High School 21.3 Math 546 508
Town Profiles Ma , 2011. Pa e 1 No representation or iran•artlies, eipressed or irnp/ied, areY g 1V1vIV.Ce~'GCOnt given regarding dre accuracy of this i~ for~nalion.
Charter Communications of Western Connect(800)827-8288
Town Profiles May, 2011. Page 2 ~v~v~v. cerc, coin No representation or irarrantfes, expressed or implied, are gi>>enrega~ ding the accts acy of this ir~/ornration.
2010 Census Interactive Population Search
I`Vi[~~~View: 2010 Census Interactive Population Map
Population: The population findings are based on the new US Census data for 2010. Oxford'spopulation for 2010 was 12,683 a difference of 2,862 additional people from the 2000 populationof 9,821. Oxford's population, the twelfth largest in the NVC, grew by 29.1% from 2000 to 2010,the largest percent of growth in the NVC and the state. The population in the NVC increased by5.6% from 2000 to 2010. Connecticut's population grew by 4.9%during the 2000 to 2010period. Eleven of the eighteen communities grew at a rate equal to or higher than the stateduring the 2000 to 2010 period. Oxford had the largest percent increase in the NVC. Oxford'srate was substantially higher than the State and NVC average.
Population by Sex/Age: Oxford had 6,307 males, 6,376 females, 3,085 people were under age18, and 9,598 were age 18 and over.
Unemployment and Labor Force Characteristics in Oxford: In April of 2012, theunemployment rate was 5.7% in Oxford, 8.5°/o in the NVC, and 7.5% in Connecticut and 7.7% inthe US. Newtown possessed the lowest unemployment rate among NVC towns.(5.2%).Waterbury had the highest unemployment rate (12.3%).
The unemployment and labor force have changed during the past years because of thenafional/worldwide economic crisis. Most of the communities in the NVC reflect an increase inthe labor force, and a decrease in the higher unemployment percentages.
In April of 2012, Oxford possessed 3.5% of the labor force in the NVC. Its total labor force of7,021 was the seventh smallest in the NVC in 2012. Waterbury maintained the highest share ofthe NVC's labor force at 24.4% whereas Bethlehem only possessed about 1 % of the NVC'slabor force in 2012.
Oxford has4225 persons of the unemployed labor force in the NVC in 20121. Oxford had theninth smallest share of the NVC's total number of unemployed in 2012. Waterbury possessedthe largest number of unemployed (6,308) whereas Bethlehem possessed the smallest number(132) of the NVC's unemployed in 2012.
Changes in Employment Force and Unemployment Rates Over Time: Oxford's labor forceincreased by 1,770 workers from April 2000 to April 2012, whereas the employment force in theNVC and the state increased by 16,842 people and 162,700 respectively.
Oxford's percent of unemployed wenfi from 1.8% in 2000 to 6.7% in 2011 to 5.7% in 2012. TheNVC went from 2.3% in 2000 to 9.9% in 2011to 8.5% in 2012. Connecticut's unemployed wentfrom 2.2% in 2000 to 8.9% in 2011 to 7.55 in 2012.
Median Household Income: based on CERC 2010 data — Oxford $90,190, County/ NewHaven $58,719 and the NVC $74,286 and Connecticut $65,686.
Naugatuck Valley Corridor June 2012Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
~~`~i~arc~1~ C~r~l~~ctll~~~i~;CERC Town Profile 2011
Town Hall Belongs to
486 Oxford Road New Haven County
O~'ord, CT 06478 LMA Bridgeport - Sta►nford
(203) 888-2543 Naugatuck Valley Economic Dev. Region
Most public school students through grade 8 attend O~'ord SchoolDish•ict, which has 2,014 students. Students then go to multipleschool districts including Seymour School District, Regional SchoolDistrict 14.
For more education dataplease see:http:/1www.state.ctus/sde/
Shrdents per Computer Town State
Elementary: 7.8 4.1
Middle: 0.0 0.0Secondary: 0.0 0.0
Co~v~ectic:rt Mastery Test Perce~al Above Goal
Grade 9 Grade 6 Grade 8
Toiv~r State Town S/n!e Tofvn State
Reading 65 61 75 69 85 69
Math 72 64 74 69 78 65
Writing 77 64 76 62 77 67Average SAT Score
Avera e Class Size Toiv~t Stn/eS
Grade K 21.6 Grade 2 21.3 Reading n.a.
Grade 5 25.3 Grade 7 21.5 Writing n.a.
High School 21.4 Math n.a.
To~v~t Profiles Ma , 2011. Pa e I No representation a• irarranties, expressed or• implied, arey g lvlvw.Cel'C.CO1)1
gii~ett regarding dte acctn•acy of this ii formation.
~~`~~1~T~~1
~~~h~~~~flCYYY
Govern~rrent
/- -, - -,.~ L ~
.,!m7 here
~vEJiCat~recticnt Ee-o~tomic Reroii~ ce Center, lire:
Annual Debt Service (2009) $2,895,234Government Form: Selectman-Town Meeting
As % of Expenditures 7.5%
Total Revenue (2009) $38,980,310Total Expenditures (2009) $38,788,486
Eq. Net Grand List (2007) $2,122,957,162
Ta~c Revenue $27,949,703Education $26,840,609
per Capita $196,679
Non-taY Revenue $11,030,607Other $9,052,643
As % of State Average 118%
Intergovernmental $9,400,486 Total Indebtness (2009) $31,384,000 Date of Last Revaluation (2009) 2005
Per Capita Tax (2009) $2225As % of Expenditures 80.9% Moody's Bond Rating (2009) Al
As % of State Average 91.3%Per Capita $2 499> Actual Mill Rate 2007~ ~ 1937As % of State Average 117.8% Equalized Mill Rate (2007) 13.55
G~ime Rate (2009) Distance to Afajor• Cities Miles Gas Provider
Per 100,000 Residents 0 298 Hartford 33 Yankee Gas Company
Boston 126 X800) 989-0900
Librmy (2010) Towf: Water ProviderNew York City 68 Aquarion Water Company
Total Volumes 33,002Providence 93 (800)732-9678
Circulation Per Capita 3.4Cable Provider
COMCAST/SEYMOUR
800 266-2278
Town Profiles May, 2011. Page 2 www.cerc.co~n No representation or warrm~ties, expressed or invplied, are girenrega~ ding the accuracy of this information
2010 Census Interactive Population Search
I~V~[~a~~ View: 2010 Census Interactive Population Map
~~~~ ~e~~~~ ~r~terac~~~~ P~~o~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~r~~~r~
~~ ~ ~~~u~~m~ ~~~~~
Page 1 of 8
Population
Total Population 12,683 ~
Housing Status( in lousing iuiits w~less noted )
Total 4,746
Occupied 4,504
Owner-occupied 4,131
Population in owner-occupied 11,868( number of individuals )
Renter-occupied 373
Population in renter-occupied802( number of individuals)
Vacant 242
Vacant: for rent 18
Vacant: for sale 54
Vacant: for seasonaUrecreational/occasional use 12
Population: The population findings are based on the new US Census data for 2010.Prospect's population for 2010 was 9,405 a difference of 698 additional people from the 2000population of 8,707. Prospect's population, the fifth smallest in the NVC, grew by 8.0% from2000 to 2010. The population in the NVC increased by 5.6% percent from 2000 to 2010.Connecticut's population grew by 4.9% during the 2000 to 2010 period. Eleven of the eighteencommunities grew at a rate equal to or higher than the state during the 2000 to 2010 period.Prospect had an increase of 8.0%. Prospect's rate was higher than the State and NVC average.
Population by Sex/Age: Prospect had 4,533 males, 4,872 females, 2,124 people were underage 18, and 7,281 were age 18 and over.
Unemployment and Labor Force Characteristics in Prospect: In April of 2012, theunemployment rate was 6.6% in Prospect, 8.59% in the NVC, and 7.5% in Connecticut and7.7% in the US. Prospect possessed the eleventh lowest unemployment rate among NVCtowns. Waterbury had the highest unemployment rate (12.3%) whereas Newtown possessedthe lowest unemployment rate (5.2%).
The unemployment and labor force have changed during the past years because of thenational/worldwide economic crisis. Most of the communities in the NVC reflect an increase inthe labor force and a decrease in the higher unemployment percentages.
In April of 2012 Prospect possessed 2.5% of the labor force in the NVC. Its total labor force of5,233 was the 5th smallest in the NVC in 2012. Waterbury maintained the highest share of theNVC's labor force at 24.4 percent whereas Bethlehem possessed about 1 percent of the NVC'slabor force in 2012.
Prospect had 344 people of the unemployed labor force in the NVC in 2012. Prospect had thefourteenth smallest share of the NVC's total number of unemployed in 2012. Waterburypossessed the largest number of unemployed (6,308) whereas Bethlehem possessed thesmallest number (132) of the NVC's unemployed in 2012.
Changes in Employment Force and Unemployment Rates Over Time: Prospects laborforce increased by 338 workers from April 2000 to April 2012, whereas the employment force inthe NVC and the state increased by 16,842 people and 162,700, respectively.
Prospect's percent of unemployed went from 1.7% in 2000 to 9.2% in 2011 to 6.6% in 2012.The NVC went from 2.3% in 2000 to 9.9% in 2011 to 8.5 in 2012. Connecticut's unemployedwent from 2.2% in 2000 to 8.9% in 2011 to 7.5% in 2012.
Median Household Income: based on CERC 2010 data -Prospect $83,866, County/ NewHaven $58,719 and the NVC $74,286 and Connecticut $65,686.
Naugatuck Valley Corridor June 2012Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
I~r~~~~o~~~~ C~'~rr~rn~~~~ll~u1~~CERC Town Profile 2011
Town Hall Belongs to
36 Center Street New Haven County
Prospect, CT 06712-1699 LMA Waterbury
(203) 758-4461 Naugatuck Valley Economic Dev. Region
Manufacturing 5.9% 13,5% Connecticut Water Company $3,240,980 0.4%
Trans. and Utilities 4.8% 4.9% Net Grand List (2009) $819,547,973
Trade 14.3% 15.7% Top Five Major Eir~ployeis (2006)
Finance, Ins. and o6.2 /0
o5.3 /o
Regional School District 16- Lon Townof ProspectReal Estate 2350 Marathon Health Center DLJRA FormServices 40.5% 43.5% Olivers SupermarketGovernment 5.5% 0.9% Town Sinte
Most public school students in Prospect attend Regional SchoolDish~ict 16, which has 2,855 students.
I'or more education dataplease see:http://www.state. ct. us/s V e/
Students per Conrptrter Town
Elementary: 2.8
Middle: 1.8
Secondary: 2.0
Con~zecticut Mastery Test Percent Above Goal
Grade 4 Grade 6 Grade 8
Town Stnte Town Sfnte Town Sfnte
Reading 64 61 76 69 76 69
Math 64 64 75 69 71 65
Writing 7l 64 75 62 74 67Average SAT Score
Sfate Average Class Size Town Stnte
4.1 Grade K 16.8 Grade 2 19.0 Reading 516 503
2.8 Grade 5 21.1 Grade 7 24.1 Writing 522 506
2.7 High School 19.1 Math 533 508
Town Profiles Ma 2011. Pa e 1 No represerrlation or iran•anties, e~pr•essed or i»rplied, areY~ g tivwtiv.eere.COt)t girenregardingtlveaccmacyafthisi~rforn~a~ion.
~JT~~~10~(~^
(C~~fl~e~.~c~~:a~~
Government
Government Form: Mayor-Council
Total Revenue (2009) $26,185,187
Tax Revenue $20,066,563
Non-tax Revenue $6,118,624
Intergovernmental $5,691,962
Per Capita Ta~c (2009) $2,199
As % of State Average 90.2%
~ L----~
l~~ ~~~ -1 ~ ~, ~ .ftdl'l ~JCi'B
G01111eG'I1Cl/t EC01J0/JIlC RPJ01/J CC CCJI/Cl, 111[;
Annual Debt Service (2009) $788,767
As % of Expenditures 3.0%Total Expenditures (2009) $26,499,110
Eq. Net Grand List (2007) $1,291,438,333Education $19,460,041
per Capita $143,302Other $6,250,302
As % of State Average 86%Total Indebtness (2009) $18,609,482 Date of Last Revaluation (2009) 2005As % of Expenditures 70.2% Moody's Bond Rating (2009) A3Per Capita $2,039 Actual Mill Rate (2007) 23.98As % of State Average 96.2% Equalized Mill Rate (2007) 16.72
Existing Units (total) 3,388 352,042 1,452,007 As %Total Dwellings
%Single Unit 93.4% 59.5% 64.8% Subsidize Housing (2008)
New Permits Auth. (2009) 36 509 3,786 Disb•rbcdion of House Sales (2009)As % Existing Units 1.06% 0.14% 0.26% Number of Sales
Demolitions (2009) 1 212 1,219 Less than $100,000House Sales (2009) 72 3,553 14,696 $100,000-$199,999
Median Price $246,750 $246,000 $265,000 $200,000-$299,999
Built Pre 1950 share (2000) 13.7% 33.2% 31.5°/a $300,000-$399,999$400,000 or More
Labor Force
Place ofReside~~ce Commuters (2000)
(2009) Tower County Stnte Commuters into Town fiom:
Labor Force 5,284 450,421 1,889,947 Prospect 566
Employed 4,872 410,346 1,734,291 Waterbury 444
Unemployed 412 40,075 155,656 Naugatuck 257
Unemployment Rate 7.8o~a g 9o~a g 20~o Wolcott 103
Place of I~i'a•k (2009) Cheshire 61
# of Units 240 22,428 104,314 Watertown 57
Total Employment 1,946 349,363 1,615,355 New Haven 55
2000-'09 Growth AAGR -1.4% -0.6% -0.4% Han~den 48
Mfg Employment n.a Beacon Falls 33
Wallingford 32nt/oor Ir~fm•vr~ntinr~
Town Stnte
Barks (2007) 4 1,029
Crime Rate (2009) Distance to ~llnjor Cities Miles
Per 100,000 Residents 56 298 Hartford 24
Boston 116
Library (2010) Toi~~nNew York City 77
Total Volumes 41,37Providence 83
Circulation Per Capita 7.0
2,623 185,400 812,964
80% 53% 57%
20 41,649 149,355
Toiv~r County Stnte
5 80 346
10 953 3,539
36 1,347 4,847
10 645 2,510
11 528 3,454
Town Residents Commuting to:
WaterUuiy 1,003
Prospect 566
Naugatuck 313
Cheshire 285
New Haven 174
Meriden 134
North Haven 100
Torrington 98
Wallingford 95
Bridgeport 86
Residential Utilities
Electric Provider
Connecticut Light &Power
(800)286-2000
Gas Provider
Yankee Gas Company
(800) 989-0900
Water Provider
Connecticut Water Company
(800)286-5700
Cable Provider
COMCAST/WATERBURY
Town Profiles May, 2011. Page 2 1V1V1U.CerC.COVt No representation or ira~ranties, expressed or i~uplied, are girenregarding the acctu•ac~~ of this it fw•rnatiwt.
Population: The population findings are based on the new US Census data for 2010.Seymour's population for 2010 was 16,540 a difference of 1,086 additional people from the2000 population of 15,454. Seymour's population, the tenth largest in the NVC, grew by 7.0%from 2000 to 2010. The population in the NVC increased by 5.6% from 2000 to 2010.Connecticut's population grew by 4.9% during the 2000 to 2010 period. Eleven of the eighteencommunities grew at a rate equal to or higher than the state during the 2000 to 2010 period.Seymour has the eighth highest percent increase at 7.0%. Seymour's rate was higher than theState and NVC average.
Population by Sex/Age: Seymour had 8,041 males, 8,499 females, 3,618 people were underage 18, and 12,922 were age 18 and over.
Unemployment and Labor Force Characteristics in Seymour: In April of 2012, theunemployment rate was 8.0% in Seymour, 8.5% in the NVC, and 7.5% in Connecticut and 7.7%in the US. Seymour possessed the eighth lowest unemployment rate among NVC towns.Waterbury had fihe highest unemployment rate (12.3%) whereas Newtown possessed thelowest unemployment rate (5.2%).
The unemployment and labor force have changed during the past years because of thenational/worldwide economic crisis. Most of the communities in the NVC reflect an increase inthe labor force and a decrease in the higher unemployment percentages.
In April of 2012, Seymour possessed 4.5 percent of the labor force in the NVC. Its total laborforce of 9,491 was the eighth largest in the NVC in 2012. Waterbury maintained the highestshare of the NVC's labor force at 24.4 percent whereas Bethlehem possessed about 1 percentof the NVC's labor force in 2012.
Seymour had 760 people of the unemployed labor force in the NVC in 2012. Seymour had theeighth highest share of the NVC's total number of unemployed in 2012. Waterbury possessedthe largest number of unemployed (6,308) whereas Bethlehem possessed the smallest number(132) of the NVC's unemployed in 2012.
Changes in Employment Force and Unemployment Rates over TimeSeymour's labor force increased by 990 workers from April 2000 to April 2012, whereas theemployment force in the NVC and the state increased by 16,842 people and 162,700,respectively.
Seymour's percent of unemployed went from 2.1 % in 2000 to 9.2% in 2011 to 8.0 in 2012. TheNVC went from 2.3% in 2000 to 9.9% in 2011 to 7.5% in 2012. Connecticut's unemployed wentfrom 2.2% in 2000 to 8.9% in 2011 to 7.5% in 2012.
Median Household Income: based on CERC 2010 data -Seymour $61,705, County/ NewHaven $58,719 and the NVC $74,286 and Connecticut $65,686.
Naugatuck Valley Corridor June 2012Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
~c~~rr~~t~~~ C~'~~nr~~~i~~~uif;CERC Town Profile 2011
Totim Hall Belongs to
1 First Street Ne~v Haven County
Seymour, CT 06483 LMA Bridgeport - Stamford
(203) 888-2511 Valley Economic Dev. Region
Valley Planning?.rea
~ DemographicsRace/Ethnicity (2010) Town Coratty Stnte
Popidation (2010) Tower Co[urry Stnte White 14,448 647,897 2,786,7611990 14,288 804,219 3,287,116 Black 581 105,120 337,2992000 15,454 824,008 3,405,565 Asian Pacific 477 30,934 128,6512010 16,059 849,161 3,511,137 Native American 29 1,551 6,4182015 1b,202 858,824 3,545,169 Other/Multi-Race 524 63,659 252,008
Most public school students in Seymour attend Seymour SchoolDistrict, which has 2,568 students.
For more education clat~please see:http://~vw.state.ct. u s/sd e/
Students per Computer Town
Elementary: 5.1
Middle: 1.4Secondary: 2.7
Connecticut Mastery Test Percent Above Goal
Grade 4 Grade 6 Grade 8
Toiv~t Stnte Toifm Sinle Toiv~► Stnte
Reading 60 61 72 69 70 69
Math 76 64 73 69 64 65
Writing 76 64 76 62 70 67Average SATScore
State Average Class Size Town Stnte
4.1 Grade K 17.2 Grade 2 20.2 Reading 493 503
2.8 Grade 5 23.2 Grade 7 17.5 Writing 488 506
2.7 High School 19.7 Math 489 508
To~vtt Profiles Ma , 2011. Pa e 1 No representation or tt~an•anties, e~~ressed or implied, areY g iV1V1V.C2PC.007tt gn+en regarding the accta~acy of dais i~tfornration.
~~~I~[1~1lQDU.11~
~o~~~~~Il~;u~~
Goveri:mei:t
Goveriunent Form: Selectman-Town Meeting
Total Revenue (2009) $49,307,382Total Expenditures (2009)
Tax Revenue $35,225,188Education
Non-tax Revenue $14,082,194Other
Intergovernmental $12,679,117 Total Indebtness (2009)
Per Capita Tax (2009) $2~2pgAs % of Expenditures
As % of State Average 90.6%Per Capita
As % of State Average
(__ C =-
\ ~- -, .
~ start he►'e
Cn~t~recticirt Ee-o»oi~ricReroi~rceCe»ter, Ire:
Annual Debt Service (2009) $4,787,112As °/a of Expenditures 9.6%
$49,610,755Eq. Net Grand List (2007) $2,121,453,505
$30,293,597per Capita $133,981
$14,530,046As % of State Average 80%
$36,345,911 Date of Last Revaluation (2009) 200573.3% Moody's Bond Rating (2009) A2
Town Profiles May, 2011. Page 2 ww1y, cerc. colt No rep~•esentation or ivarranfies, expressed or rrnplied, are girenregal ding the accw•ac~~ of this i~ fa~naBo~7.
2010 Census Interactive Population Search
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander
Other
Identified by two or more
C'I' ° ~~~Il1C~~DAIl° f~~~JIrn
Population
Page 2 of 11
4
74
237
Total Population 16,540
Housing Status( i~~ housing units unless noted )
Total 6,968
Occupied 6,654
Owner-occupied 4,913
Population in owner-occupied 12,991( number of individuals )
Renter-occupied 1,741
Population in renter-occupied 3,406( number of individuals)
Vacant 314
Vacant: for rent 114
Vacant: for sale 69
Vacant: for seasonal/recreational/occasional use 24
Population: The population findings are based on the new US Census data for 2010. Shelton'spopulation for 2010 was 39,559 a difference of 1,458 additional people from the 2000 populationof 38,101. Shelton's population, the second largest in the NVC, grew by 3.8% from 2000 to2010. The population in the NVC increased by 5.6%from 2000 to 2010. Connecticut'spopulation grew by 4.9% during the 2000 to 2010 period. Eleven of the eighteen communitiesgrew at a rate equal to or higher than the state during the 2000 to 2010 period. Shelton had thetwelfth highest increase at 3.8%. Shelton's percentage was lower than the state the NVCaverage.
Population by Sex/Age: Shelton had 19,184 males, 20,375 females, 8,338 people were underage 18, and 31,221 were age 18 and over.
Unemployment and Labor Force Characteristics in Shelton: In April of 2012, theunemployment rate was 7.1 % in Shelton, 8.5% in the NVC, and 7.5% in Connecticut and78.7%in the US. Shelton possessed the tenth lowest unemployment rate among NVC towns.Waterbury had the highest unemployment rate (12.3) whereas Newtown possessed the lowestunemployment rate (5.2%).
The unemployment and labor force have changed during the past years because of thenational/worldwide economic crisis. Most of the communities in the NVC reflect an increase inthe labor force and a decrease in the higher unemployment percentages.
In April of 2012, Shelton possessed 10.8 percent of the labor force in the NVC. Its total laborforce of 22,783 was the second largest in the NVC in 2012. Waterbury maintained the highestshare of the NVC's labor force at 24.4 percent whereas Bethlehem possessed about 1 percentof the NVC's labor force in 2012.
Shelton had 1,625 people of the unemployed labor force in the NVC in 2012. Shelton had thesecond highest of the NVC's total number of unemployed in 2012. Waterbury possessed thelargest number of unemployed (6,308) whereas Bethlehem possessed the smallest number(132) of the NVC's unemployed in 2012.
Changes in Employment Force and Unemployment Rates Over Time: Shelton's labor forceincreased by 1545 workers from April 2000 to April 2012, whereas the employment force in theNVC and the state increased by 16,842 people and 162,700, respectively.
Shelton's percent of unemployed went from 2.0% in 2000 to 8.1.9% in 2011 to 7.1 % in 2012.The NVC went from 2.3% in 2000 to 9.9% in 2011 to 8.5% in 2012. Connecticut's unemployedwent from 2.2% in 2000 to 8.9% in 2011 to 7.55 in 2012.
Median Household Income: based on CERC 2010 data -Shelton $76,084, County/Fairfield$77,620 and the NVC $74,286 and Connecticut $65,686.
Naugatuck Valley Corridor June 2012Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~^~~~~1~~~CERC Town Profile 2011
Town Hall Belongs fo
54 Hill Street Fairfield County
Shelton, CT 06484 LMA Bridgeport - Stamford
(203) 924-1555 Valley Economic Dev. Region
Valley Planning Area
DemographicsRace/Efhniciry (2010) Town County Sfate
Populnlion (2010) Town Co~nety Stnte White 36,024 696,534 2,786,7611990 35,418 827,645 3,287,.116 Black 839 91,016 337,2992000 38,101 882,567 3,405,565 Asian Pacific 1,203 40,545 128,6512010 39,261 898,137 3,511,137 Native American 31 907 6,4182015 40,880 908,999 3,545,169 Other/Multi-Race 1,164 69,135 252,008
County Total 57,382 6% 160,277 18% 81,440 9% 291,013 32°/u 183,490 20% 124,535 14% 898,137
State Total 211,807 6% 586,571 17% 330,532 9% 1,173,203 33% 708,910 20% 500,114 14% 3,511,137
Frns~nra~inc
of
Business Profrle (2005) % of Totn/ Top Five Grad List (2009) A~nom~t Net
Seclor Eslnblislvner~ts Eu~nloynrentScinto Robert $245,362,320 X4.7%
Pitney Bowes Inc. $58,057,120 1.1%Agriculture 2.5% 0.6% CRE Ivy Brook LLC $55,200,170 L 1°foConst. and Mining 17.1°/a 5.0% United Illuminating Co. $43,179,030 0.8%
Manufacturing 7.1% 23.4% Aquarion Water Co $37,069,820 0.7%
Trans. and Utilities 2.9% 3.7% Net Grand List (2009) $5,198,475,110
Trade 18.1% 18.3% Top Five rlajor Emplo~~el•s (2006)Fuiance, Ins. and
g,0% 8.3% Health Net of the Northeast Prudential FinancialReal Estate Perkin Elmer Instruments Ray Tech Corp.Services 40.5% 39.0°/a Pitney BowesGovernment 3.6% 1.7°/a Toiv►r Sinte
Most public school students in Shelton attend Shelton SchoolDistrict, which has 5,547 students.
For more education dataplease see:http://w~nv. state. c t. uslsde/
Students per Cornptiter Town
Elementary: 3.9
Middle: 3.1Secondary: 4.9
Cor7necticut Mastery Test Percent dbove Goal
Grade 4 Grade 6 Grade 8
Toiv~t Stnte Town S1nfe Town State
Reading 69 61 82 69 74 69
Math 71 64 80 69 74 65
Writing 75 64 74 62 72 67Average SAT Score
Stnte Average Class Size Toiv~r Slnte
4.1 Grade K 19.0 Grade 2 20.6 Reading 499 503
2.8 Grade 5 19.6 Grade 7 21.4 Writing 502 506
2.7 High School 19.2 Math 505 508
To~~~n Profiles Ma , 2011. Pa e 1 No representatio~i or irar•rartfies, e~yressed or implied, areY g 1V1UlU.CC1'C.COIft giren regarding the acc:nac~~ of this i~ formation.
West Haven 553 New Haven 462~tl1CP IItfOYi'I1QtlOK
Residential Utilities
Towv~~ State Electric Provider
Ba~~lcs (2007) 14 1,029 The United Illuminating Co.
(800) 257-0141
Crime Rate (2009) Distance to Major Cities Miles Gas Provider
Per 100,000 Residents 81 298 Hartford 40 Yankee Gas Company
~g00) 989-0900Boston 131
Libraiy(2010) Town Water ProviderNe~v York City 60 Aquarion Water Company
Total Volumes 153,649Providence )~ (800)732-9678
Circulation Per Capita 7.3Cable Provider
COMCASTJSEYMOUR
800 266-2278
Town Profiles May, 2011. Page 2 WWW.CeYC.COt)t ~~o ~'~p~'ese~itafion or tirarranties, expressed or implied, are gii~eraregal ding the aeon acy of t)tis ii formation
2010 Census Interactive Population Search
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander
Other
Identified by two or mare
~c~ ~ ~~~ll~~~~ ~ll~y
Page 3 of 9
12
16
Population
Total Population 39,559
Housing Status( in housing units unless noted )
Total 16,146
Occupied 15,325
Owner-occupied 12,480
Population in owner-occupied 33 115'(number of individuals)
Renter-occupied 2,845
Population in renter-occupied 5,942( number of individuals )
Vacant 821
Vacant: for rent 196
Vacant: for sale 149
Vacant: for seasonaUrecreational/occasional use 122
Population: The population findings are based on the new US Census data for 2010.Southbury's population for 2010 was 19,904 a difference of 1,271 additional people from the2000 population of 18,567. Southbury's population, the seventh largest in the NVC, grew by7.2%from 2000 to 2010. The population in the NVC increased by 5.6% from 2000 to 2010.ConnecticuYs population grew by 4.9% during the 2000 to 2010 period. Eleven of the eighteencommunities grew at a rate equal to or higher than the state during the 2000 to 2010 period.Southbury had an increase of 7.2% or 1,337 people. Southbury's rate was higher than theState and NVC averages.
Population by Sex/Age: Southbury had 9,300 males, 10,604 females, 4,050 people wereunder age 18, and 15,854 were age 18 and over.
Unemployment and Labor Force Characteristics in Southbury: In April of 2012, theunemployment rate was6.18% in Southbury, 8.5% in the NVC, and 7.5% in Connecticut and7.7% in the US. Southbury possessed the fourth lowest unemployment rate among NVC towns.Waterbury had the highest unemployment rate (12.3%) whereas Newtown possessed thelowest unemployment rates (5.2%).
The unemployment and labor force have changed during tie past years because of thenational/worldwide economic crisis. Most of the communities in the NVC reflect an increase inthe labor force and a decrease in the higher unemployment percentages.
In April of 2012, Southbury possessed nearly 4.3 percent of the labor force in the NVC. Its totallabor force of 9,160 was the tenth largest in the NVC in 2012. Waterbury maintained thehighest share of the NVC's labor force at 24.4 percent, whereas Bethlehem only possessedabout 1 percent of the NVC's labor force in 2012.
Southbury had 558 people of the unemployed labor force in the NVC in 2012. Southbury hadthe eleventh lowest share of the NVC's total number of unemployed in 2013. Waterburypossessed the largest number of unemployed (6,308) whereas Bethlehem possessed thesmallest number (132) of the NVC's unemployed in 2012.
Changes in Employment Force and Unemployment Rate Over Time: Southbury's laborforce increased by 832 workers from April 2000 to April 2012, whereas the employment force inthe NVC and the state increased by 16,842 people and 162,700, respectively.
Southbury's percent of unemployed went from 1.6% in 2000 to 7.8% in 2011 to 6.1 % in 2012.The NVC went from 2.3% in 2000 to 9.9% in 2011 to 8.5% in 2012. ConnecticuYs unemployedwent from 2.2% in 2000 to 8.9% in 2011 to 7.5% in 2012.
Median Household Income: based on CERC 2010 data -Southbury $79,194, County/NewHaven $58,719 and the NVC $74,286 and Connecticut $65,686.
Naugatuck Valley Corridor June 2012Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
~~L~1~~~1'~~rr~r~ CC~~n~~~~~c~~~~~CERC Town Profile 2011
Town Hall Belongs to
501 Maiu Street South New Haven County
Southbury, CT 06488 LMA Bridgeport - Stamford
(203) 262-0647 Naugatuck Valley Economic Dev. Region
Central Naugatuck Valley Planning .Area
Demographics
Pop:rlatio~~ (2010)Race/Eth»icity (2010) Town Cornrty Stn1e
Totivn Co~rrrty S1nte White 18,335 647,897 2,786,7611990 15,818 804,219 3,287,116 Black 566 105,120 337,2992000 18,567 824,008 3,405,565 Asian Pacific 443 30,934 128,6512010 19,838 849,161 3,511,137 Native American 11 1,551 6,4182015 19,676 858,824 3,545,169 Other/Multi-Race 483 63,659 252,00&
south Haven Associates $21,798,560 0.8%Agriculture 3.4°/a 1.1% Watermark East Hill Woods $21,280,000 0.8%Const. and Mining 14.1% 4.4% First Light Hydro Generating Co $17,281,720 0.7%
Trans. and Utilities 3.4% 2.7% Net Grand List (2009} $2,589,622,975
Trade 19.6% 51.8% Top Five Major• Employers (2006)Finance, Ins. and 9 300 ~ ~o~o Mediples of Southbury The HeritageReal Estate International Business Machines ( East Hill Woods, Inc.Services 40.8% 25.5% Southbury HiltonGovernment 5.3% 2.7% Town Stnte
Annual Debt Service (2009) $1,296,955Government Form: Selectman-Town Meeting
As /o of Expenditures 2.3 /o
Total Revenue (2009) $59,547,291Total Expenditures (2009) $56,175,483
Eq. Net Grand List (2007) $3,721,949,969
Taa Revenue $54,580 261Education $41,080,048
per Capita $193 821Other $13,798,480
Non-ta~c Revenue $4,967,030 As % of State Average 116%Intergovernmental $3,339,621 Total Indebfiess (2009) $34,860,562 Date of Last Revaluation (2009) 2007
Per Capita Tax (2009) $2,751As % ofExpenditures 62.1% Moody's Bond Rating (2009) Aa3
As % of State Average 112.9°/aPer Capita $1,757 ~ ~Actual Mill Rate 2007 25.10As % ofState Average 82.8% Equalized Mill Rate (2007) 13.02
Town Profiles May, 2011. Page 2 tiV1V1v.Ce/'C. co»t No representation a~ tivarranties, e~p~essed or implied, are girettregarding llre accea•acy of!)tis i~ formation.
Population: The population findings are based on the new US Census data for 2010.Thomaston's population for 2010 was 7,883 a difference of 384 additional people from the 2000population of 7,503. Thomaston's population, the fourth smallest in the NVC, grew by 5.1 %from2000 to 2010. The population in the NVC increased by 5.6%from 2000 to 2010. Connecticut'spopulation grew by 4.9% during the 2000 to 2010 period. Eleven of the eighteen communitiesgrew at a rate equal to or higher than the state during the 2000 to 2010 period. Thomaston hadthe eleventh highest increase at 5.1 %. Thomaston's rate was higher than the State and NVCaverage.
Population by Sex/Age: Thomaston had 3,821 males, 4,066 females, 1,815 people wereunder age 18, and 6,072 were age 18 and over.
Unemployment and Labor Force Characteristics in Thomaston: In April of 2012, theunemployment rate was 8.2% in Thomaston, 8.5% in the NVC, and 7.5% in Connecticut and7.7% in the US. Thomaston possessed the sixth highest unemployment rate among NVCtowns. Waterbury had the highest unemployment rate (12.3) whereas Newtown possessed thelowest unemployment rates (5.2%).
The unemployment and labor force have changed during the past years because of thenational/worldwide economic crisis. Most the communities in the NVC reflect an increase in thelabor force and a decrease in the higher unemployment percentages.
In April of 2012, Thomaston possessed 2.2 percent of the labor force in the NVC. Its total laborforce of 4,332 was the forth smallest in the NVC in 2012. Waterbury maintained the highestshare of the NVC's labor force at 24.4 percent whereas Bethlehem possessed about 1 percentof the NVC's labor force in 2012.
Thomaston had 386 people of the unemployed labor force in the NVC in 2012. Thomaston hadthe sixth lowest share of the NVC's total number of unemployed in 2012. Waterbury possessedthe largest number of unemployed (6,308) whereas Bethlehem possessed the smallest number(132) of the NVC's unemployed in 2012.
Changes in Employment Force and Unemployment Rates Over Time: Thomaston's laborforce increased by 441 workers from April of 2000 to April of 2012, whereas the employmentforce in the NVC and the state increased by 16,842 people and 162,700, respectively.
Thomaston's percent of unemployed went from 2.1 % in 2000 to 7.9% in 2011 to 8.2 % in 2012.The NVC went from 2.3% in 2000 to 9.9% in 2011 to 8.5% in 2012. Connecticut's unemployedwent from 2.2% in 2000 to 8.9% in 2011 to 7.5% in 2012.
Median Household Income: based on CERC 2010 data -Thomaston $62,898,County/Litchfield $68,682 and the NVC $74,286 and Connecticut $65,686.
Naugatuck Valley Corridor June 2012Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
~11~Ir~~~r~~~~~ll7~ ~~U~rr~~~~~~~~CERC Town Profile 2011
Town Hall Belongs to
158 Main Street Litchfield County
Thomaston, CT 06787 LMA Hartford
(860) 283-4421 Naugatuck Valley Economic Dev. Region
Electric ProviderComiecticut Light &Power(800)286-2000
Gas ProviderYankee Gas Company(800)989-0900
Water ProviderConnecticut Water Company(800)286-5700
Cable ProviderCABLEVISION OF LITCHFIELD, INC.(860) 567-3103
Towtt Profiles May, 2011. Page 2 1V1V1V.cerc.CO)11 No r•epreseirtatioir w•ira•ra~rlies, expressed or implied, are gii~er7regarding IJ~e accm~acy of this i~ fa i»ation.
2010 Census Interactive Population Search
I`v1~~~ ~Iiew: 2010 Census Interactive Population Map
Population: The population findings are based on the new US Census data for 2010.Waterbury's population for 2010 was 110,366 an increase of 3,095 people from 2000 populationof 107,271. Waterbury's population increased by 2.9% from 2000 to 2010. The population inthe NVC increased by 5.6% from 2000 to 2010. Connecticut's population grew by 4.9% percentduring the 2000 to 2010 period. Eleven of the eighteen communities grew at a rate equal to orhigher than the state during the 2000 to 2010 period. Waterbury had the third lowest percentchange at 2.9%. Waterbury's rate was lower than the State and NVC average.
Population by Sex/Age: Waterbury had 52,517 males, 57,849 females, 28,265 people wereunder age 18, and 82,101 were age 18 and over.
Unemployment and Labor Force Characteristics in Waterbury: In April of 2012, theunemployment rate was 12.3% in Waterbury, 8.5% in the NVC, and 7.5% in Connecticut and7.7% in the US. Waterbury possessed the highest unemployment rate (12.3) among NVCtowns whereas Newtown possessed the lowest unemployment rates at (5.2%) of the NVC.
The unemployment and labor force have changed during the past year because of thenational/worldwide economic crisis. Most of the communities in the NVC reflect the recessionand loss of jobs and a decrease in the unemployment numbers.
In April of 2012, Waterbury possessed 24.4 percent of the labor force in the NVC. Its total laborforce of 51,374 was the largest in the NVC in 2012. Waterbury maintained the highest share ofthe NVC's labor force at 24.4 percent whereas Bethlehem possessed about 1 percent of theNVC's labor force in 2012.
Waterbury had the highest number of the NVC's total number of unemployed 6,308 in 2012whereas Bethlehem possessed the smallest number 132 (1%) of the NVC's unemployed in2012.
Changes in Employment Force and Unemployment Rates Over Time: Waterbury's laborforce increased by 3,406 workers jobs from April of 2000 to April 2012, whereas theemployment force in the NVC and the state increased by 16,842 people and 162,700,respectively.
Waterbury's percent of unemployed went from 3.4% in 2000 to 14.4% in 2011 to 12.3% in 2012.The NVC went from 2.3% in 2000 to 9.9% in 2011 to 8.5% in 2012. Connecticut's unemployedwent from 2.2% in 2000 to 8.9% in 2011 to 7.5°/a in 2012.
Median Household Income: based on CERC 2010 data — Waterbury $38,714, County/NewHaven $58,719 and the NVC $74,286 and Connecticut $65,686.
Naugatuck Valley Corridor June 2012Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
~J~~i~:~rr~o~rry~ C~~r~~r~~c~~~~~~CERC Town Profile 2011
Town Hall Belongs to
235 & 236 Grand Street New Haven County
Waterbury, CT 06702 LMA Waterbury
(203) 574-6716 Naugatuck Valley Economic Dev. Region
Central Naugatuck Valley Planning Area
DemographicsRace/Ethnicity (2010) Toiv~r Cotutty~ State
Most public school students in Waterbury attend Waterbury SchoolDistrict, which has 18,057 students.
For more education dataplease see:http:/hvww.s tate.ct.us/sde/
Sltrc~ents per Computer Town
Elementary: 3.~
Middle: 4.6Secondary: 2.~3
Strafe
4.1
2.8
2.7
Con~~ecticut Mastery Test Percent Above Goal
Grade 4 Grnde 6 Grade 8
Town Sinte Toiv~r SIaIe Taiv~r State
Reading 37 61 37 69 37 69
Math 45 64 35 69 ZS 65
Writing 46 64 33 62 40 67Average SAT Score
Average Class Size Town Stnte
Grade K 18.5 Grade 2 21.0 Reading 418 503
Grade 5 23.8 Grade 7 27.6 Writing 422 506
High School 18.6 Math 41~ 508
To«~n Profiles Ma , 2011. Pa e 1 No represe~ttation or iran•anties, e.~pressed or implied, areY g W1VW.CC/'C.00711 given regarding fhe acctnac~~ of this i~tfon~ralion.
Existing Units (total) 47,492 352,042 1,452,007 As %Total Dwellings
%Single Unit 40.9% 59.5% 64.8% Subsidize Housing (2008)
New Permits Auth. (2009) 37 509 3,786Disb~ib:rtion of House Sales (2009)
As %Existing Units 0.08% 0.14% 0.26% Number of SalesDemolitions (2009) 20 212 1,219 Less than $100,000House Sales (2009) 312 3,553 14,696 $100,000-$199,999
Median Price $149,250 $246,000 $265.,000 $200,000-$299,999
Built Pre 1950 share (2000) 40.0% 33.2% 31.5% $300,000-$399,999
$400,000 or MoreLabof• Force
Place ofReside~zce Com~ntders (2000)
(2009) Town County Stnte Commuters into To~~m from
Labor Force 50,568 450,421 1,889,947 Waterbury 18,170
Employed 43,792 410,346 1,734,291 Watertown 2,385
Unemployed 6,776 40,075 155,656 Naugatuck 2,162
Unemployment Rate 13.4% 8.9% 8.2% Wolcott 1,978
Place of GT'ork (2009) Cheshire 1,105
of Units 2,290 22,428 104,314 New Haven 1,075
Total Employment 39,070 349,363 1,615,355 Prospect 1,003
Meriden 685nfhnr Ti~fnrrs~ntinn.~.,..., s. ~....,~»....,.
Toiv~~ Strafe
Banks (2007) 24 1,029
Crime Rate (2009) Distance to Major Cities Miles
Per 100,000 Residents 338 298 Hartford 23
Boston 117
Library (2010) TownNew York City 77
Total Volumes 262,806
Circulation Per Capita 1.9Providence 85
17,350 185,400 812,964
37% 53% 57%
10,142 41,649 149,355
Toiv~r Corrnty S1nte
27 80 346
243 953 3,539
38 1,347 4,847
3 645 2,510
1 528 3,454
Town Residents Commuting to:
Waterbury 18,170
Watertown 2,604
Cheshire 1,797
Naugatuck 1,449
Southbury 1,389
New Haven 1,380
Wolcott 1,080
Danbury 773
Meriden 729
Hanford 696
Residential Utilities
Electric Provider
Connecticut Light &Power
(800) 286-2000
Gas Provider
Yankee Gas Company
(800)989-0900
Water Provider
Connecticut Water Company
(800) 286-5700
Cable Provider
COMCAST/WATERBURY
(800)266-2278
Town Profiles May, 2011. Page 2 1V1vW.Ce1'C. Coast No representation or ivarran~ies, ejpressed or implied, are girenregarding the acc~n•acy of this i~ forrotatron.
2010 Census Interactive Population Search
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander
Other
Identified by two or more
C71' ° ~J~~i~rr~mu~l~°y ~ll~l
Total Population
Population
Housing Status( in housing units unless noted )
Page 5 of 9
0
31
33
110,366
Total 47,991
Occupied 42,761
Owner-occupied 20,081
Population in owner-occupied 52,254(number of individuals )
Renter-occupied 22,680
Population in renter-occupied 56,174(number of individuals )
Vacant 5,230
Vacant: for rent 2,635
Vacant: for sale 712
Vacant: for seasonaUrecreationaUoccasional use 144
Population: The population findings are based on the new US Census data for 2010.Watertown's population for 2010 was 22,514 a difference of 853 additional people from the2000 population of 21,661. Watertown's population, the sixth largest in the NVC, grew by 3.9%from 2000 to 2010. The population in the NVC increased by 5.6%from 2000 to 2010.Connecticut's population grew by 4.9% during the 2000 to 2010 period. Eleven of the eighteencommunities grew at a rate equal to or higher than the state during the 2000 to 2010 period.Watertown had the thirteenth lowest increase percent change at 3.9%. Watertown's rate waslower than the State and NVC average.
Population by Sex/Age: Watertown had 10,909 males, 11,605 females, 4,859 people wereunder age 18, and 17,655 were age 18 and over.
Unemployment and Labor Force Characteristics in Watertown: In April of 2012, theunemployment rate was 7.3% in Watertown, 8.5% in the NVC, and 7.5% in Connecticutand7.7% in the US. Watertown possessed the ninth highest unemployment rate among NVCtowns. Waterbury had the highest unemployment rate (12.3%) whereas Newtown possessedthe lowest unemployment rates (5.2%).
The unemployment and labor force have changed during the past years because of thenational/worldwide economic crisis. Most of the communities in the NVC reflect an increase inthe labor force and a decrease in the higher unemployment percentages.
In April of 2012, Watertown possessed 5.8 percent of the labor force in the NVC. Its total laborforce of 12,236 was the sixth largest in the NVC in 2012. Waterbury maintained the highestshare of the NVC's labor force at 24.4% whereas Bethlehem possessed about 1 percent of theNVC's labor force in 2012.
Watertown had 888 people of the unemployed labor force in the NVC in 2012. Watertown hadthe fifth highest share of the NVC's total number of unemployed in 2012. Waterbury possessedthe largest number of unemployed (6.308) whereas Bethlehem possessed the smallest number(132) of the NVC's unemployed in 2012.
Changes in Employment Force and Unemployment Rates Over Time: Watertown's laborforce increased by 451 workers from April of 2000 to April of 2012, whereas the employmentforce in the NVC and the state increased by 16,842 people and 162,700, respectively.
Watertown's percent of unemployed went from 1.8% in 2000 to 8.6% in 2011 to 7.3% in 2012.The NVC went from 2.3% in 2000 to 9.9% in 2011 to 8.5% in 2012. Connecticut's unemployedwent from 2.2% in 2000 to 8.9% in 2011 to 7.5% in 2012.
Median Household Income: based on CERC 2010 data -Watertown $72,257, County/NewHaven $58,719 and the NVC $74,286 and Connecticut $65,686.
Naugatuck Valley Corridor June 2012Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
~~I~~~~~~~~~vvrn~ C~'~r~~~~~~~~~1CERC Town Profile 2011
Town Hall Be%ngs to
37 DeForest Street Litchfield County
Watertown, CT 06795 LMA Waterbury
(860) 945-5255 Naugatuck Valley Economic Dev. Region
Trans. and Utilities 2.6% 2.5% Net Grand List (2009) $1,912,860,767
Trade 20.6% 23.5°/a Tod Five Major Employers (20Q6)Finance, Ins. and 6 2a/o 3 ~a~o The Siemon Company BristolBabock, Inc.Real Estate United Parcel Service Eyelematic Manufacturing CompaServices 36.3% 24.3% T'he Torrington CompanyGovernment 4.3% 1.4% Toiv~t Stnte
Electric ProviderConnecticut Light &Power(800)286-2000
Gas ProviderYankee Gas Company(800)989-0900
Water ProviderMunicipal Providerlocal Contact
Cable ProviderCABLEVISION OF LITCHFIELD, INC.
Town Profiles May, 2011. Page 2 1v1v1V.Ce/'c.cont No represe~rta~iorl w• irm•ranties, expressed or• ii~tp/red, are gii~e~rrega~ ding dte accuracy of this ii formation.
2010 Census Interactive Population Search
1~ap View: 2010 Census Interactive Population Map
~~1~ ~~~~~~ ~~terac~t~~e I~~~ou1~~~~~~r~ ~~~.r~~~
(C 1~[' ~ V~JQ~~i~u°~~e~~~~ ~~re~v~u
Total Population
Population
Housing Status( in housing units unless noted )
Page 1 of 14
22,514
Total 9,096
Occupied 8,672
Owner-occupied 6,920
Population in owner-occupied 18,721( number of individuals)
Renter-occupied 1,752
Population in renter-occupied3,532
(number of individuals)
Vacant 424
Vacant: for rent 108
Vacant: for sale 68
Vacant: for seasonaUrecreational/occasional use 18
Population: The population findings are based on the new US Census data for 2010. Wolcott'spopulation for 2010 was 16,680 a difference of 1,465 additional people from the 2000 populationof 15,215. Wolcott's population, the ninth largest in the NVC, grew by 9.6%from 2000 to 2010.The population in the NVC increased by 5.6%from 2000 to 2010. Connecticut's populationgrew by 4.9%during the 2000 to 2010 period. Eleven of the eighteen communities grew at arate equal to or higher than the state during the 2000 to 2010 period. Wolcott has the fifthhighest percent increase in the NVC at 9.6%. Wolcott's rate was higher than the State and NVCaverage.
Population by Sex/Age: Wolcott had 8,074 males, 8,606 females, 3,908 people were underage 18, and 12,772 were age 18 and over.
Unemployment and Labor Force Characteristics in Wolcott: In April of 2012, theunemployment rate was 8.7 % in Wolcott, 8.5% in the NVC, and 7.5% in Connecticut and 7.7%in the US. Wolcott possessed the forth highest unemployment rate among NVC towns.Waterbury had the highest unemployment rate (12.3) whereas Newtown possessed the lowestunemployment rate (5.2%).
The unemployment and labor force have changed during the past years because of thenational/worldwide economic crisis. Most of the communities in the NVC reflect an increase inthe labor force and a decline in the higher unemployment percentages.
In April of 2012, Wolcott possessed 4.4 percent of the labor force in the NVC. Its total laborforce of 9,192 was the ninth largest in the NVC in 2012. Waterbury maintained the highestshare of the NVC's labor force at 24.4 percent whereas Bethlehem only possessed 1.0 percentof the NVC's labor force in 2012.
Wolcott had 801 people of the unemployed labor force in the NVC in 2012. Wolcott had theseventh highest share of the NVC's total number of unemployed in 2012. Waterbury possessedthe largest number of unemployed 6,308 whereas Bethlehem possessed the smallest number132 of the NVC's unemployed in April 2012.
Changes in Employment Force and Unemployment Rafes Over Time: Wolcott's labor forceincreased by 921 workers from April of 2000 to April of 2012, whereas the employment force inthe NVC and the state increased by 16,842 people and 162,700, respectively.
Wolcott's percent of unemployed went from 1.9°/a in 2000 to 9.1 % in 2011 to 8.9% in 2012. TheNVC went from 2.3% in 2000 to 9.9% in 2011 to 8.5% in 2012. Connecticut's unemployed wentfrom 2.2% in 2000 to 8.9% in 2011 to 7.5% in 2012.
Median Household Income: based on CERC 2010 data -Wolcott $74,018, County/ NewHaven $58,719 and the NVC $74,286 and Connec4icut $65,686.
Naugatuck Valley Corridor June 2012Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
v~Ia~~~~~.~~~ C~~~n~ri~c~~~~~u1~~CERC Town Profile 2011
Town Hall Belongs to
10 Kenea Avenue New Haven County
Wolcott, CT 06716 LMA Waterbury
(203) 879-8100 Naugatuck Valley Economic Dev. Region
Central Naugatuck Valley Planning Area
DemographicsRace/Ethnicity (2010) Toinn County Slnte
Pop:dation (2010) Town Cou~ery Stnte White 14,786 647,897 2,786,7611990 13,700 804,219 3,287,116 Black 585 105,120 337,2992000 15,215 824,008 3,405,565 Asian Pacific 275 30,934 128,6512010 16,141 849,161 3,511,137 Native American 21 1,551 6,4182015 16,064 858,824 3,545,169 Other/Multi-Race X74 63,659 252,008
Annual Debt Service (2009) $5,109,100As % of Expenditures 9.7%
Total Expenditures (2009) $52,520,970Eq. Net Grand List (2007) $2,032,777,268
Education $34,412,326per Capita $127,160
Other $12,999,544As % of State Average 76%
Total Indebtness (2009) $32,840,655 Date of Last Revaluation (2009) 2006As % of Expenditures 62.5% Moody's Bond Rating (2009) A3Per Capita $2,050 Actual Mill Rate (2007) 31.77As % of State Average 96.7% Equalized Mill Rate (2007) 13.75
%of Grand List Com/Ind (2007) 5.6%
Housi~zg/Real Estate
Housn~g Stocic (2009) Town Cointty Stnte O~~mer Occupied Dwellings (2009)
E~sting Units (total) 6,039 352,0'#2 1,452,007 As %Total Dwellings
%Single Unit 89.9% 59.5% 64.8% Subsidize Housing (2008)
New Permits Auth. (2009) 18 509 3,786 Dish~ib:rlion of House Sales (2009)As %Existing Units 0.30% 0.14% 0.26% Number of Sales
Demolitions (2009) 212 1,219 Less than $100,000House Sales (2009) 56 3,553 14,696 $100,000-$199,999
Median Price $250,000 $246,000 $265,000 $200,000-$299,999
Built Pre 1950 share (2000) 16.9% 33.2% 31.5% $300,000-$399,999$400,000 or More
Labor Force
Place of Residence Commuters (2000)
(2009) Town Cotnrty Stnte Commuters into Townfrom:Labor Force 9,054 450,421 ],889,947 Wolcott 1,346
Employed 8,284 410,346 1,734,291 Waterbury 1,080
Unemployed 770 40,075 155,656 Naugatuck 157
Unemployment Rate 8.5% 8.9% 8.2% Plymouth 104
Plnce of ~~'ork (2009) Waterto~m 93
# of Units 329 22,428 104,314 Bristol 79
Total Employment 3,009 349,363 1,615,355 Meriden 53
Town Profiles May, 2011. Page 2 www.CeYC.COi11 No ~•ep~•esentation or tirarranties, eap~essed or implied, are girenregrn ding the accin acy of dtis i~ formation.
Population: The population findings are based on the new US Census data for 2010.Woodbury's population for 2010 was 9,975 a difference of 832 additional people from the 2000population of 9,198. Woodbury's population, the thirteenth smallest in the NVC, increased by8.4%from 2000 to 2010. The population in the NVC increased by 5.6% from 2000 to 2010.Connecticut's population grew by 4.9% percent during the 2000 to 2010 period. Eleven of theeighteen communities grew at a rate equal to or higher than the state during the 2000 to 2010period. Woodbury had the sixth highest percent change at 8.4%. Woodbury's rate was higherthan the State and NVC average.
Population by Sex/Age: Woodbury had 4,837 males, 5,138 females, 2,099 people were underage 18, and 7,876 were age 18 and over.
Unemployment and Labor Force Characteristics in Woodbury: In April of 2012, theunemployment rate was 5.6% in Woodbury, 8.5% in the NVC, and 7.5% in Connecticut and7.7% in the US. Newtown possessed the lowest unemployment rate among NVC towns at5.2%. Waterbury had the highest unemployment rate (12.3%).
The unemployment and labor force have changed during the past years because of thenational/worldwide economic crisis. Most of the communities iri the NVC reflect an increase inthe labor force and a decrease in the higher unemployment percentages.
In April of 2012, Woodbury possessed 2.7 percent of the labor force in the NVC. Its total laborforce of 5,342 was the forth smallest in the NVC in 2012. Waterbury maintained the highestshare of the NVC's labor force at 24.4 percent whereas Bethlehem possessed about 1 percentof the NVC's labor force in 2012.
Woodbury had 317 people of the unemployed labor force in the NVC in 2012. Woodbury hadthe fourth smallest share of the NVC's total number of unemployed in 2012. Waterburypossessed the largest number of unemployed (6308) whereas Bethlehem possessed thesmallest number (132) of the NVC's unemployed in 2012.
Changes in Employment Force and Unemployment Rates Over Time: Woodbury's laborforce increased by 355 workers from April of 2000 to April of 2012, whereas the employmentforce in the NVC and the state increased by 16,842 people and 162,700, respectively.
Woodbury's percent of unemployed went from 1.5% in 2000 to 6.7% in 2011 to 5.6% in 2012.The NVC went from 2.3% in 2000 to 9.9% in 2011 to 8.5% in 2012. Connecticut's unemployedwent from 2.2% in 2000 to 8.9% in 2011 to 7.5% in 2012.
IVledian Household Income: based on CERC 2010 data -Woodbury $83,649,County/Litchfield $68,682 and the NVC $74,286 and Connecticut $65,686.
Naugatuck Valley Corridor June 2012Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
Annual Debt Service (2009) $361,380As % of Expenditures 1.2%
$28,945,127Eq. Net Grand List (2007) $1,914,051,565
$19,489,236per Capita $198,677
$9,094,511As % of State Average 119%
$7,140,833 Date of Last Revaluation (2009) 200324•x% Moody's Bond Rating (2009) Aa3$781 Actual Mill Rate (2007) 22.7936.8% Equalized Mill Rate (2007) 12.]0
Disb~ib:~tion of Ho:ise Sales (2008)Number of SalesLess than $100,000$100,000-$199,999$200,000-$299,999$300,000-$399,999$400,000 or More
Conrnrulers (2000)Town Cormty State Commuters into Town from:5,488 105,588 1,889,947 Woodbury 1,193
5,121 96,928 1,734,291 Southbury 203
367 8,660 155,656 Waterbury 179
6.7% 8.2% 8.2% Watertown 156
Bethlehem 101
350 6,066 104,314 Naugatuck 92
2,101 59,332 1,615,355 Middlebury 87
-1.2% -12% -0.4% Torrington 79
n ~ Oxford 63
Danbury 47
Town S1nte
Ba~~ks (2007) 4 1,029
G•irne Rate (2009) Distance to ~llajor Cities Mi/es
Per 100,000 Residents 32 298 Hanford 30
Boston 125
Libr•a~y (2010) TownNew York City 73
Total Volumes 95,342Providence 94
Circulation Per Capita 13.9
2,916 52,087 812,96471% 63% 57°/u
80 4,303 149,355
Town County Stnte
26 273
3 250 2,797
7 376 5,622
12 221 3,083
28 279 4,831
Town Residents Commuting to:
Woodbury 1,193
Southbury 575
Waterbury 518
Danbury 406
Watertown 154
Ridgefield 138
Torrington 122
Ne~~~to~~m 102
New Milford 96
Washington 94
Resideiatial Utilities
Electric ProviderConnecticut Light & Po~~~er(800)286-2000
Gas ProviderYankee Gas Company(800) 989-0900
Water ProviderMunicipal Providerlocal Contact
Cable ProviderCharter Commm~ications of Western Connect i(800)827-8288
Town Profiles May, 2011. Page 2 wWw.Cerc.COl7t No representation or i~~arrnnties, expressed or iruplied, are girenrega~ ding Jhe accm acy of this information.
2010 Census Interactive Population Search
1~1[~~r ~Tiew: 2010 Census Interactive Population Mai
Development and 13idding/Ne~otiation —all Complete. CaisYruction
FDA
summer 2010.
Cherry Street
TI
6,200,000
900,000
1-2-3-4-
V✓DC
City, DECD,
75
25
Puuded.
Industrial Parlc
S3
Est.
5FDA
,~~cae fl
:~, Zdfl~ ~t~taus
Pr'~~cteeo~~li4~y/Project
R / S
CQ~r~
Re guested
Related
~C.i~ Ot
~5Q~3fIL
{~,~
~'~n~.c~8~sg
Jobs
.~aGs
TnrEZe name
Name
4/6/10
An2ount
Goal
~'~n-tnti~a•.
Cm~as~.
Cn~¢a~eeIl/
Ret~.emetIl
Naugatuck River
T.A.
25,3II5,000
1,000,000
1-3-4-5
V✓DC
City,
75
65
Shovel Ready 1-2 years. Feasibility Study — Complete. Pl
aiiuin~ and
Greenway
63
CTDOT,
Design underway. Construction
sta~•t early 2012.
PIMA
Waterbury Industrial
T.li
56,745,450
2,000,000
1-2-3-4-
1~/aterUury
City, State,
100
2~Shovel Ready 1-2 years. P
hase 1 complete. Phase 2 partial — in
Commons (WIC)
63
5Develop~neilt
DECD;
projress. P
hase 3 in progress. Construction start 2011— in phases.
Public Works
Corporation
Federal
Com lex
(WDC)
(TBD)
Waterbury
TIII
30,000,000
-~-1,000,000
1-2 -3-4
~~IDC
DOT,
100
25
Shovel Ready 1-2 }e
ars. Plamzin;Phase —CIE/
CLP.~1/ NEPA
Transportation
60
~I'I-iWA,
Complete. Conceptual desi~ i in proms ess. Construciioti star 2012.
Center
Regional
Transit
Harper Leader
T1I
720,000
430,000
1-2 -3-4
WDC
City, DAP,
100
25Shovel Ready —1-
2 years. Pl
anuin~ and Conceptual Design Phases
66FDA
undei-~~~a .
h3an-P
rafe•~:.~
Greater Valley
N/R
250,000
250,000
1-3-6
GVCC
Peasibilit~~ Study in progress.
Chamber of
Commerce —
Herita e Parlc
- _
- -
-R/S =Rated and Scored
Tiers —Activities rated as Tier I —Ready to go score of 70+, Ti
er R —Needs fu
rther study and score below 69-61, or Tier III — Further pla~uiing needed score below 60, T.A: Technical Assistance,
N/R Not Raiilced/Other Sources
Sca•e Card: 33 Projects from 13 towns and /ornon-
profits
Tier 1:
11 projects
Tier II
: 6 projects
Tier II
I:1 project
T.A.:
7 projects
Not Rated:
~i projects
2012 Comprehensive Economic Development StrategyNaugatuck Valley Corridor Annual Update
Organization and Management
ManagementlLeadership Continues
The NVC CEDS has been managed successfully over the past 10 years by the sametwo Economic Development Corporations the Shelton Economic DevelopmentCorporation (SEDC) and the Waterbury Development Corporation (WDC). TheNaugatuck Valley Corridor (NVC) has had 2 previous CEDS documents approved forthe NVC area. The 2012 Annual Report from the Shelton Economic DevelopmentCorporation (SEDC) demonstrates its leadership and commitment in continuing theNVC CEDS. The SEDC and the WDC accepted the management of the planningprocess for the eighteen-town area designated as the NVC. The two corporations(SEDC/WDC) created the original Advisory Committee consisting of the two regionalplanning agencies/councils of government and the Greater Waterbury Chamber ofCommerce and the Lower Naugatuck Chamber of Commerce.
The NVC CEDS approved by EDA recognizes the past and points to the future, with theintent of improving the Economic Development of the 18 communities in NVC. For thepurpose of this annual report we have chosen not to duplicate the history, but choose tohave a vision for continued success.
The NVC has distinct strengths, which include but are not limited to local governmentsthat care for business, a committed workforce and apre-existing infrastructure that isconducive for business. The prime location of this district, including its transportationnetwork Interstate I-84 on the North running East to West and CT Rt. 8 running North toSouth in the center of the Valley Corridor connects to the Merritt Parkway CT Rt. 15 andInterstate I-95.
The original Strategy indicated that the NVC needed to build upon past success anddevelop new strategies. For example, abandoned industrial sites, which contribute tothe image that the NVC is a depressed area, should be inventoried, targeted andprioritized for clean-up because they are excellent locations for new businessdevelopment. The Brownfields conference held on June 12, 2008 reconfirmed the needto reindustrialize our Brownfields to create new business opportunities for the privatesector creating both short and long term employment positions. This will remain apriority for 2012/2013 of the CEDS. Brownfield Redevelopment Remediation is apriority.
As the two lead corporations determined in 1999 more time is needed to educate thedistrict's business, civic, community, and political leaders. Example, projects that looktown specific have afar-reaching regional effect. The individual strength of each townis not nearly as powerful and productive as the strength of the entire district.
Page 1
2012 Comprehensive Economic Development StrategyNaugatuck Valley Corridor Annual Update
CEDS Process 2012/2013 - Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
The two corporations acting as the parents and/or governing bodies continue to acceptthe responsibility of building on the original CEDS documents and began the process toconvert to the CEDS program. EDA recognized their leadership and overall communityacceptance of the two corporations and commissioned SEDC and WDC to continuewith the new CEDS in a letter dated December 1, 2010.
All the partners outlined below accepted the responsibility of building on the Strategy.Based on the effort, experience and general acceptance of previous efforts the followingorganization and management team are in place for the implementation of the CEDS.
Advisory Committee
The Chairperson is Sheila O'Malley. Currently she is the Economic DevelopmentDirector for the City of Derby. The chairperson was familiar with the CEDS processbased on her previous government relationships. The chairperson accepted theresponsibility of running the Advisory Committee and the Strategy Committee.
Members of the Advisory Committee supported that the SEDC act as the leadadministrative role for the implementation of the CEDS with assistance from the WDC.Both of these corporations have been recognized as leading regional economicdevelopment and community development, planning and implementation orientedagencies.
Advisory Committee Calendar for 2012/2013
The Advisory Committee will meet quarterly in October, January, April and June on thethird Thursday of the month.
The Calendar for 2012/2013 for the Advisory Committee is as follows:
October 18, 2012April 18, 2013
January 17, 2013June 20, 2013
Page 2
NVC Advisory Committee:
2012 Comprehensive Economic Development StrategyNaugatuck Valley Corridor Annual Update
Name &Title Association Re resentsSheila O'Malle ,Chairman Cit of Derb Government and MunicipalJames E. Ryan, President SEDC Community Organizations,
Municipalities &RegionalGovernment
Leo J. Frank, Chief WDC Community Organizations,Executive Officer Municipalities &Regional
GovernmentRichard Dunne, Executive VCOG Regional GovernmentsDirectorPeter Dorpalen, Executive CNV/COG Regional GovernmentsDirectorWilliam E. Purcell, Greater Valley Chamber of Business CommunityPresident and Chief CommerceExecutive OfficerLynn G. Ward, President & Greater Waterbury Commerce Business andChief Executive Officer Chamber of Commerce Retail
Strateav Committee
The SEDC and the WDC administrative staff have the responsibility, experience andknowledge to prepare the technical and administrative components of the overall CEDSimplementation. Based on the initial experience of preparing the EconomicDevelopment Strategy for the 18 towns an initial framework was created to establish thefoundation for a Strategy Committee. Building on the initial experience and working withEDA's Philadelphia Regional Office staff, the two corporations have during the annualprocess expanded their window of opportunity to include additional participation in thereview and implementation of the Strategy, the capital project investment survey anddevelopment process, but more importantly a framework for ongoing assistance andparticipation. Organizations being represented include local governments, businesses,industry, finance, the professionals, labor, utilities, community organizations, publicservice agencies, racial or ethnic minorities, and women.
Strategv Committee Calendar for 2012/2013
The Strategy Committee will meet quarterly on the first Tuesday in October, January,April and June of every year or as needed.
The Calendar for 2012/2013 for the Strategy Committee is as follows:
October 2, 2012 January 2, 2013 (Wednesday)April 2, 2013 June 4, 2013
Page 3
2012 Comprehensive Economic Development StrategyNaugatuck Valley Corridor Annual Update
Members of our Strategy Committee (names, occupations and areas they arerepresenting are on file with both corporations.) The Committee members broadlyrepresent all interests of the 18 communities beginning with public leadershipcommencing with the two (2) Councils of Government that represent the 18communities in the NVC area. These elected officials that form the Valley Council ofGovernment and the Central Naugatuck Valley Council of Government are providedinformation regarding the preparation and content for the CEDS. Other membersinclude the Executive Committee of SEDC and WDC Board of Directors,representatives of the Lower Naugatuck Valley Chamber of Commerce, the GreaterWaterbury Chamber of Commerce, local Planning and Zoning Commissions, EconomicDevelopment Commissions, Insurance Agency, Social Services Agency, Boards ofEducation, Community Organizations, Women and Minorities, and the RegionalPlanning Agencies that govern the 18 communities including the Valley Council ofGovernments and the Central Naugatuck Valley Council of Government.
Working Relationships
The Strategy Committee at its quarterly meetings will monitor and review economicdevelopment trends (i.e. employment numbers), the status of capital projects, and othereconomic conditions, i.e. the closing of manufacturing or businesses that impact acommunity in the corridor. Review recommendations from the support staff of SEDCand WDC, and recommend as appropriate amendments to the implementationplans/CEDS document. Also, assist communities with submitting economicdevelopment grants to both federal and state agencies as the budget permits. Continueto work with community foundations that are located within the jurisdictional area of the18 communities that have supported and continue to support the CEDS process.
Where appropriate the Strategy Committee, because of its community involvement, maybe asked to contact local, state and federal legislators, either regarding implementationand/or legislation that will be beneficial to the corridor area.
Staff Support
SEDC/WDC will continue to provide the day-to-day administrative functions andresponsibilities for the overall strategy, working with chief elected officials of eachmunicipality and/or their economic development agents. Their involvement will includecollecting and disseminating information, assistance with establishing implementationpriorities and monitoring existing programs to aid the region. The staff of thecorporations and the consultant will provide both demographic and technical informationregarding the ever changing population, out migrations from our major cities, andincreased population in the rural communities within the NVC, economic and taxinformation provided as part of the overall planning and technical assistance aspect tothe various committees.
Page 4
2012 Comprehensive Economic Development StrategyNaugatuck Valley Corridor Annual Update
The two corporations will annually submit to EDA requests for financial assistance tocontinue the CEDS process. Requests will also be made annually to other corporationsin the NVC area to assist with the implementation and updating process required by theCEDS guidelines. The success of our funding partners will determine the levels ofservice the Corporations can provide.
The Capital Needs Evaluation Assessment Team
The Committees continue to encourage all 18 communities to submit as available anytype of capital improvement program for the Committee to review and include in theCEDS document. The Strategy Committee at its various public forums and at all of itsquarterly meetings advises the participating communities of the "open enrollment"opportunity for submission of projects.
In addition, the Strategy Committee at its June 2012 meeting reviewed the matrix forNVC capital improvement projects. The modified ranking system better reflects projectsthat are "ready to go" as Tier I. Projects that are in final planning or design stage arereferred to as "mid-point" or Tier II. Projects that are not ready for implementation withplanning and design in conceptual or early phases will be considered Tier III. Also, theCommittee recognized that many communities have very desirable projects that requiremore time for planning and initial engineering. The Committee supports the ideas andconcepts of these communities and has established a Technical Assistance HighPriority (T.A.) category for this purpose. Therefore, the Strategy Committee has revisedthe projects into two categories: capital improvement and technical assistance projectseach with a high priority ranking:
Capital ImprovementsTier I —High Priority -ready for implementation 0-35 monthsTier II —Mid-point 36/59 monthsTier III —Long Term 60 months and beyond
This new designation under T.A. are for projects that require additional planning andengineering needs that will result in short and long term jobs when implemented. Theseare Technical Assistance High Priority projects.
The Committee is not ranking the projects beyond placing them in a tier category asdefined above. See the overall matrix, which covers all projects received, ranked andrated to date. As of the June 19, 2012 meeting of the CEDS Strategy Committee, 13municipalities out of 18 have submitted a projects) for inclusion in the CEDS, and onenon-profit corporation. A total of 33 capital investment projects have been included inthe 2012 CEDS Annual Report.
Page 5
2012 Comprehensive Economic Development StrategyNaugatuck Valley Corridor Annual Update
The Advisory Committee as of the June 19, 2012 meeting reviewed the capital projectresponses. All the projects previously rated and scored were carried over to the2012/2013 CEDS year. The Tiers are as follows:
Capital Improvements:Tier 1: 11 projects High PriorityTier II: 6 projectsTier III: 1 project
Technical Assistance:T.A. High Priority: 7 projects
Not Rated: 8 projects
Committee Work Program
The staff received the demographic and economic background information from theconsultant. The information was reviewed and analyzed by the staff and presented tothe Strategy Committee and other regional organizations that have an interest in theeconomic viability of the region.
The Committees have accepted this information including transportation, housing andeconomic development initiatives planning and/or additional engineering of the variouscommunities and began to analyze how the 'implementation plan would be phased overa period of time, and established a three tiered implementation designation for capitalproject:
Tier I —ready for implementation 0-35 monthsTier II —Mid-point 36/59 monthsTier III —Long Term 60 months and beyond
A separate category has now been developed for projects with good economicopportunity/benefit that require new or additional planning and engineering analysis.These are referred to as High Priority Technical Assistance projects.
The background information that was presented to the Strategy Committee allowed forreview, discussion and decision making predicated on local jurisdictional matters and/orregional concepts that have been considered and voted upon by the appropriateagencies.
Page 6
2012 Comprehensive Economic Development StrategyNaugatuck Valley Corridor Annual Update
Brownfields
The NVC CEDS from its initial strategy has referred to the need to identify "Brownfields"and to redevelop the existing site and/or building. DECD requested that eachCEDS/EDD begin to include Brownfields Redevelopment Priorities in their strategies.This Annual Report is a small step in meeting this request. The attached matrixinventory of EPA, DEEP and the Naugatuck Valley Brownfields Partnership identifiesenvironmental issues. EPA identifies 115 projects, Naugatuck Valley BrownfieldsPartnership indicates 38 individual sites and 5 major clean-up projects. The DEEPmatrix identified 1,631 sites with some form of an environmental issue while many havebeen corrected the majority of the Brownfield Redevelopment activities are lagging.They are both public and privately owned properties. As the CEDS Advisory Committeeprepared for the 2012 Annual Report, along with requesting a Capital Project update,the Committee also requested a Brownfield Project Status Report from the 18municipalities. The Capital Project update included a section on Brownfields. As of thisreport no municipality has responded to the Brownfields Project Status request. Thesection regarding the Brownfield request is as follows:
lirowniield Yro,~ect status (lf applicable oi• skip to next section)L Is your project in a designated/define Brownfield? ❑yes ❑ no2. Is your project dependent on Envu~onmental Remediation? ❑yes ❑ no3. Is there an accepted Remediation Plan? ❑yes ❑ no4. Is a Remediation Plan needed? ❑yes ❑ no5. Has an EIE been initiated? ❑yes ❑ no Stage 1: ❑yes ❑ Il0 Stage 2: ❑yes ❑ no
6. Are you aware of the funding opportunities foc Brownfields offered by the Regional Brownfields Partnership? ❑
yes ❑ no7. Are you a member of the Regional Brownfield Partnership (RBP)? ❑yes ❑ no8. Have you accomplished an assessment? ❑yes ❑ no
Needs:9. Site Assessme~it Grant? ❑yes ❑ no10. Loans to Clean up? ❑yes ❑ no11.Anti-blight Management on Abandoned Site/Buildi~ig? ❑yes ❑ no
Technical Assistance Needs:12. Tax Foreclosure? ❑yes ❑ no13. Community Ouh~each? ❑yes ❑ no14. Regulatory Assistance? ❑yes ❑ no
The Naugatuck Valley Corridor has long been one of the Connecticut's leadingmanufacturing centers. In fact, Connecticut has been designated as one of its "cluster"areas for precision metals. It is also true that manufacturing jobs continue to decline inConnecticut and the Naugatuck Valley Corridor.
Page 1
2012 Comprehensive Economic Development StrategyNaugatuck Valley Corridor Annual Update
Many of the jobs lost in manufacturing are directly related to change in technology andmanufacturing applications and processing. Many of the old manufacturers have failedto keep pace with technology, capital costs for new equipment, research anddevelopment funds were channeled elsewhere. Many of the NVC sites and buildingswere reduced in size; the major manufacturing communities in the NVC like Waterbury,Naugatuck, Seymour, Ansonia and Derby have lost their competitive edge. Worldeconomics, cost of doing business, and regional competition have left communities with"Brownfields".
Communities li{<e Waterbury, have very limited land to compete for new businessopportunities. Very few if any large tracts of land say 10+\- acres for "Businesses" areavailable. Therefore, business growth and sprawl spreads to other communities with"open" land for all forms of economic expansion.
Yet communities like Waterbury continue to provide extensive services to the region,education, governmental agencies/services, hospitals and associated health care,transportation hubs and a workforce of both skilled and unskilled workers.
Community Development
Community development activities affect the lives of all residents of the NVC CEDS aswell as the vitality of the businesses that operate there.
The Environment
■ Industrial waste and Brownfields are the most identifiable and pressingenvironmental problems confronting the Valley.The Brownfields Pilot project is an innovative and effective regional effort thatoffers considerable promise in addressing environmental issues in the Valley.■ Sprawl and the loss of open space is becoming a major concern, and with no
regional land use planning there is a threat to the long-term quality of life inthe region.■ A number of small environmental organizations in the region are focusing on
preserving farm land, open space, and the quality of rivers. However theyhave limited capacity and have not been very involved in regionalcollaborative organizations.
Industrial waste and brownfields are the most identifiable and pressingenvironmental problems confronting the Valley.
The Valley is not alone, of course, in coming to grips with an industrial past —abandoned factories, boarded up mills, and contamination of sites and waterways.Unfortunately, many of the problems are very visible and many are close to the
Page 2
2012 Comprehensive Economic Development StrategyNaugatuck Valley Corridor Annual Update
downtowns of several communities. Cleaning up these visual eyesores and turningthem into a more productive use is a very serious challenge for the Valley. Someplanning and clean-up has begun, but much remains to be done.
The Brownfields Redevelopment is an innovative and effective regional effort thatoffers considerable promise in addressing environmental issues in the NVC.
The NVC CEDS Committees have begun the development of a matrix of identifyingenvironmental issues in the 18 communities. Many of the projects are completed, someare in the process and others await further financial aid from federal, state and local andthe private sector.
State of Connecticut Office of Brownfield Remediation and DevelopmentWebsite: www.ctbrownfields.gov /phone: 860-270-8095