3.1 Population

A. Population Summary

Information about the region's population is the foundation upon which the other elements of this Regional Plan rest. A primary purpose of the plan is to assure that the region will be able to meet the needs and desires of its residents now and in the future. In order to plan for the adequate provision of infrastructure and services - including housing, transportation, public facilities and employment - it is necessary to consider how many people there are and will be, as well as what the characteristics of those people might be.

The plan should also articulate values that are important to the region's residents. Many of these values are linked to the small-town atmosphere and rural character of the region. These qualities are both clearly tied to the population of the region. Therefore, the plan should consider the impact of changes in population on the values associated with the region's small towns and rural areas. It should suggest how municipalities could maintain those values in the face of population change as well.

Population

According to the 2000 Census, the Addison Region had a total population of 35,289 in 21 municipalities ranging in size from 227 to 8,183 people. The region's population climbed from the first recorded census in 1791 well into the 1800s, when it began to decline. The population did not resume growing significantly until the 1960s. Many municipalities in the region have not exceeded their peak population levels from in the 1800s (See Table 3-3, page 3-12). During the last century, rapid growth occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. Since that time the region has continued to grow, but at a slower rate (See Table 3-2, page 3-11).

In recent decades, the region's northern tier of towns and the smaller mountain communities have grown the most. In general the more rural towns are growing faster than the regional average and the more densely settled areas are growing at rates below the regional average. However, Bristol, Middlebury and Vergennes have had some of the largest increases in actual numbers of people (See Table 3-1, page 3-7 ).

In the 1990s, the fastest growing towns shifted further south. The highest growth is occurring along the highway corridors of Routes 7 and 22A and to a lesser extent along Routes 17 and 116. In the 1990s, growth was nearly evenly split between natural increase [1] and net migration [2]. During the 1980s, natural increase accounted for a larger proportion of the population increase. While in the 1970s, growth was due in a larger part to in-migration. Birth rates will likely continue to decline for the short-term (See Table 3-5, page 3-12 ). If the economy of northwestern Vermont continues to be strong, in-migration rates will likely continue to increase.  

The rate of growth in the region is expected to exceed that of the state as a whole. Current projections estimate an increase of between 9,000 and 16,000 people by 2025 (See Table 3-4, page 3-11 ). Much of that growth is expected to occur in communities along the highway corridors and lakeshore. The rate of rapid growth experienced during the 1970s and 1980s did not continue into the 1990s. While continued growth is expected, the rates will remain low probably between one and 1.5 percent a year.

Age Distribution

The population is aging and will continue to do so. In 2000 about 25 percent of the population was school age, while about 11 percent was over 65. These are the two populations that are likely to place demands on the working population (See Table 3-6, page 3-12 ). The "echo" baby boom is slowing with fewer births in the 1990s than in the 1980s. This boom was not significant enough to offset the aging of the "baby boomers."

Aging of the population will intensify the demand for goods and services required by older members of the population. It will also change the mix of demand exerted by the population as a whole. Perhaps the most significant of these services will be healthcare. The impact of the "echo" baby boom on school enrollment and demand for other services will persist for another five years, but then fade.

Households

Most of the region's population lives in households [3]. Middlebury and Vergennes have the largest concentrations of non-household population living in institutional group quarters [4]. An aging population may require more institutional housing in the future. Also, there are likely to be more non-family households in the future.

The region's average household size was 2.56 people in 2000. For the individual municipalities the average ranged from 2.45 to 2.84. The greatest change in average household size occurred in some of the region's traditional farming communities. In the future, declining fertility rates will continue to contribute to decreasing household size. The increasing number of one-person and single-parent households will also result in decreasing household size.

Income

In 2001, the median family income for the region was estimated at $45,000 [5]. Within the region, median family income for the municipalities ranged from $35,905 to $55,870 (See Table 5-3, page 5-12 ). Household income levels have climbed, but this is a result of more workers per household working rather than significantly higher average wages (See Table 5.1-2, page 5.1-13). Real income, corrected for inflation, declined during the early 1990s and began to rebound in the late 1990s. Although a tighter labor market in the future may bid up wage rates, this is by no means assured.

B. Population Goals and Policies

The Addison County Regional Planning Commission establishes the following population goals and policies through this plan.

Goal A: Develop resources to assist the region's municipalities in achieving balanced relationships between population, housing, employment, public services and natural resources.

Policies:
1. Track the demographic characteristics of the region's population.
2. Maintain historic demographic information for comparison to current trends.
3. Project future population change for each community in the region.
4. Collect and analyze the data needed to establish future growth rates for the region and its municipalities.

a. Track the amount, characteristics, availability, cost and affordability of housing in the region.
b. Maintain historic housing data for comparison to current trends.
c. Project future housing need.
d. Analyze how the region's housing supply is or is not meeting the needs of the population.
e. Track current and projected future employment opportunities for area residents both within and outside the region.
f. Analyze how the region's job supply is affecting population levels and characteristics.
g. Track existing capacity and location of public facilities such as water, sewer, roads, schools and emergency, public safety and health services.
h. Identify the public service needs of the region's current population.
i. Analyze how changes in the region's population level and characteristics will impact public facilities, the environment and natural resources.
j. Analyze the potential of the region's land area for supporting future growth and development.

5. Develop methods to assist municipalities in developing alternative scenarios that consider the effects of population change on the physical and social characteristics of their communities.
6. Assist municipalities in developing carefully thought out plans and bylaws that consider the effects of population change on their communities.
7. Identify techniques and strategies that municipalities can implement to achieve balanced and desirable change in their communities.

C. Population Recommendations

The ACRPC should collect and analyze the information required to establish current and future growth rates for the region as a whole and for its municipalities. The next update to this section of the plan should contain those growth rates and document the methodology used to calculate them. The ACRPC should continue to disseminate the population-related data it collects to its municipalities and the general public through publications, presentations and its website.

D. Population Documentation and Analysis

Current Population Statistics

a. Overall Population Levels

In 2000, the Addison Region's population stood at 35,289 people in 21 municipalities ranging in size from 227 to 8,183. The region's three most heavily populated municipalities - Bristol, Middlebury and Vergennes - accounted for just over 40 percent of the total population.

Although the 2000 population represents a new high for the region as a whole, more than half of the region's municipalities have still not exceeded their peak population from the 1800s (See Table 3-3, page 3-12). Some of the same communities that are most concerned about growth and density are less populated now than they were 150 years ago. What has changed since then is how and where new homes are being placed in the landscape, the number of people per house, as well as the increase in square footage occupied per person in contemporary homes.

The rate of population growth is slowing. In recent years, growth has been evenly divided between natural increase (births minus deaths) and net migration (See Table 3-5, page 3-14). Currently the economy of northwestern Vermont is strong and the labor market is fairly tight. The tighter labor market is attracting new residents to the region. Birth rates are in decline and future population growth may be driven more by migration than natural increase.

b. Age Distribution

According to the 2000 Census, 25 percent of the region's population is under 18 years of age; just over five percent is under age five. The school-age population was approximately 7,000 in 2000 (See Table 3-6, page 3-15).

Around 11 percent of the region's population is over age 65. This segment of the population typically has above-average requirements for medical care and other services. This age group is increasing in proportion to the population as a whole.

Sixty-four percent of the population is between 18 and 65. This is the working-age segment of the population. Forty percent are between 35 and 64; the baby-boom generation is still the largest segment of the population.

c. Household and Non-Household Population

According to the 2000 Census, the vast majority of the region's population lives in households (See Table 3-7, page 3-17 and Table 3-8, page 3-18). The remainder occupies either institutional or non-institutional group quarters. Institutional group quarters include nursing homes and hospitals, while non-institutional group quarters include colleges and group homes.

Middlebury has the largest concentration of people living in group quarters, most of whom are Middlebury College students. A much smaller concentration is found in Vergennes. Most communities in the region have no non-household population.

d. Household Size

Average household size is a measure of housing unit use. The number and characteristics of households determines the size and nature of future housing demand. In 2000, the average number of persons per household in the region was 2.56 (See Table 3-9, page 3-8). Averages for municipalities varied from 2.45 in Whiting to Starksboro's 2.84.

e. Income

The family median income (FMI) [6] for the region ranged from $35,905 in Orwell to $55,870 in Cornwall for 1999 (See Table 3-18, page 3-43). The 2001 FMI for the region set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development was $45,000 for a family of four.

Past Population Information

a. Past Population and Geographic Distribution

In 1791, the first year of the federal census, there were 7,081 people living in the Addison Region (See Table 3-3, page 3-12). Most people lived in towns along Lake Champlain or near Middlebury. The most populous towns were Cornwall, Orwell, New Haven and Shoreham.

By 1840, the population of the county had climbed to 23,583. With 3,161 residents, Middlebury was the region's most populous town, followed by Ferrisburgh, Shoreham and Orwell. The least densely populated communities included the mountain towns of Ripton and Lincoln.

Like most rural regions in the northeast, a population decline began in the mid- and late 1800s as the population left farms and poured both into cities and westward. The population of the Addison Region declined steadily from 1850 until 1950; municipalities that did grow grew only slightly. After 1960, however, the region's population in the region grew dramatically. By 1980, the region's population had exceeded its previous peak. Some of the fastest growth in the region occurred in the northern-tier towns of Ferrisburgh, Starksboro and Monkton, as well as in the mountain towns of Ripton and Goshen. Most of the other municipalities in the region grew quickly as well. No municipality lost population until 2000, when Whiting experienced a decrease of about seven percent from 1990.

Table 3-1 Fastest Growing Municipalities 1960 - 2000
ACRPC	1960 - 1970		1970 - 1980		1980 - 1990		1990 - 2000
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
1st	Middlebury	Goshen	Middlebury	Starksboro	Bristol	Goshen	Shoreham	Addison
2nd	Bristol	Weybridge	Starksboro	Ripton	Middlebury	Ripton	Addison	Starksboro
3rd	Ferrisburgh	Ripton	Bristol	Monkton	Vergennes	Orwell	Ferrisburgh	Ripton
4th	Vergennes	Waltham	Monkton	Waltham	Monkton	Monkton	New Haven	Lincoln
5th	Monkton	Monkton	Lincoln	Lincoln	Orwell	Salisbury	Monkton	New Haven
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Note: The # column indicates those municipalities that grew by the largest absolute number of people. The % column indicates those municipalities that were growing the fastest on a percent growth basis.

Growth rates in the state and the region have been declining since the high-growth period experienced between 1960 and 1980. The region's population growth between 1980 and 1990 was around 12 percent, slightly above the state's rate of ten percent. Between 1990 and 2000, the growth rate further declined to approximately nine percent. The region is still growing at a faster rate than the state as a whole.

Although there are exceptions, in general, the more rural towns are growing at or above the average rate for the region and the more densely settled areas are growing at rates below the regional average. This indicates a continuation of the preference for a rural lifestyle that was first observed in the 1970s.

The region's densely settled areas (Bristol, Middlebury and Vergennes) experienced growth rates below the regional average [7]. However over the past 40 years, these municipalities have seen some of the largest increases in actual number of residents.

b. In- and Out-Migration

When planning for the future, it is important to understand the components of population change. Population change is typically attributed to two factors: net natural increase or decrease (the difference between births and deaths) and net migration (the difference between in-migration and out-migration).

In the decades since 1970, nearly all communities have experienced a net natural increase with more births than deaths. Most communities have also had more people moving into town than moving out, net in-migration, over the same period (See Table 3-5, page 3-14).

The proportion of growth attributed to natural increase and net migration has shifted over the past 30 years. In the 1970s, more growth occurred due to migration. In the 1980s, it was a high level of births that drove the population increase. During the 1990s, the two forces were evenly balanced.

c. Past Age Distribution

For many planning purposes, it is also useful to know how the number of people in specific age categories is changing. In order to have adequate school capacity, it is important to know how the school age population is likely to change. In order to meet the needs of older residents it is necessary to know the numbers of people over age 65. It is important to know the number of women of childbearing age and their fertility rates in order to anticipate trends in natural population change.

Significant nationwide trends are evident in the region. The baby-boom population is aging. The baby-boom generation also delayed childbearing and has had lower overall birthrates. These forces combined to result in the current concentration of people in middle- to older-age groups and increase in school-age populations that began in the 1980s and continued through the 1990s.

In the region, the population under age 30 declined steadily between 1980 and 2000 (See Table 3-6, page 3-15). Since people in these age groups are in, or will be moving through, the childbearing period of their lives and since fertility rates are declining, the number of school age children is expected to peak shortly and start to decline within the next five years. Already the number of children under age five is beginning to fall off. That segment of the region's population dropped from around 2,400 in 1990 to 2,000 in 2000. Regionally, there were 650 fewer births in the 1990s than in the 1980s (See Table 3-5, page 3-14). While in-migration may bring more families with children to the region, it is unlikely that school populations will continue to increase as they have in recent years.

d. Past Household and Non-Household Populations and Household Size

While the absolute number of people living in group quarters has increased since 1980, the percentage has remained fairly stable (See Table 3-8, page 3-18). Most of the absolute increase in the group quarters' population is the result of increasing enrollment at Middlebury College. However, the number of elderly in region is increasing and this will likely lead to future increases in the group quarters population.

Changes have occurred within the household population in recent decades. Throughout the 1990s, the percentage of the population made up of non-family households composed of unrelated individuals has increased from 27 percent of the total to just over 30 percent (See Table 3-7, page 3-17). In 2000, just over one-quarter of the region's households were comprised of a married couple with children.

The number of people per household has continued to slowly decline. Between 1970 and 2000, the regional average household size dropped from 3.4 to 2.56. Whiting has seen the greatest change with a decrease of 1.54, while Leicester has experienced only a .25 drop (See Table 3-9, page 3-19).

e. Income

Between 1985 and 1999, the number of municipalities having a family median income (FMI) greater than the state FMI rose from six to nine. While absolute FMI increased over this period, when adjusted for inflation, three municipalities have actually seen decreases in FMI. In 1985, the highest FMI in the region was 190 percent of the lowest FMI (See Table 3-18, page 3-43).

In 1999, the highest FMI was 155 percent of the lowest FMI.

Future Population Projections

Future growth in the Addison Region is expected to exceed growth in Vermont as a whole. The population is projected to increase between 26 percent and 45 percent between 2000 and 2025 (See Table 3-4, page 3-13). This figure translates to very modest one to 1.5 percent annual growth rates. In absolute terms, the expected growth is between approximately 9,000 and 16,000 new residents. A population projection is based on past trends. However, as the 2000 Census indicates, the fastest growing towns are beginning to shift further south from the northern communities to more centrally located towns like Addison and New Haven. This trend is not accurately represented in the population projection.

The model used to project future population levels does not include factors like economic opportunities and environmental constraints that influence growth patterns. The ACRPC should begin collecting and analyzing the information necessary for municipalities to establish more accurate growth projections.Factors to be considered in this analysis would include the capacity of municipal facilities, services and infrastructure, constraints imposed by environmental conditions, and the needs of the local economy. 

Endnotes

[1] Natural increase or decrease is determined by subtracting the number deaths from the number of births.
[2] Net migration is determined by subtracting the number of people moving out of an area from the number of people moving in.
[3] The U.S. Census Bureau definition of a household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit with separate living quarters. A family is a household comprised of people related by birth, marriage or adoption.
[4] Group living quarters include dormitories, nursing homes, correctional facilities and other such institutional settings.
[5] The U.S. Dep't of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the VT Dep't of Taxes and the U.S. Census Bureau all measure family and household income levels. Each figure is derived differently. The figure used in this discussion is the HUD Family Median Income (FMI) figure. The HUD FMI is actually a set of regional income levels that is established annually for households ranging in size from one to eight people. These figures are used to establish income guidelines for various federal programs. $45,000 is the 2001 HUD FMI for a household of four people. The Census Bureau asks households for their income on the long form or sample part of the decennial census. They calculate both a median household and a median family income on a town level. They also provide an income distribution of the number of households at a series of income levels. The Cenus income figures tend to be slightly higher than those calculated by HUD and the VT Dep't of Taxes. The FMI calculated by the VT Dep't of Taxes is explained in the next endnote.
[6] FMI is a statistic calculated by the VT Dep't of Taxes that attempts to adjust the AGI from filed tax returns to more accurately reflect household income levels. This number is available at the town level.
[7] This excludes the growth in the group quarters' population.