ceds unveiling may 2010 (1)

8/9/2019 CEDS Unveiling May 2010 (1)

1/33

NVC SWOT

Strengths Weaknesses

Job Growth: Employment grew to agreater extent in the NVC (5.97%) than itdid in Connecticut (1.98%).

Job Growth: The average annualemployment grew at a faster rate in 10NVC towns than it did in Connecticut duringthe period between 2005 and 2008.

Business Growth: The percentage of businesses grew in the NVC (2.77%) to agreater extent than it did in Connecticut(1.65%) from 2005 to 2008.

Business Growth: The percentage of businesses grew at a greater rate in 13NVC towns than it did in Connecticut from2005 to 2008.

Employment: Eight NVC towns had lower percentages of unemployed in 2009 thanthe NVC, Connecticut, and the UnitedStates. A Great Place to Live: The populationincreased to a greater extent in 10 NVCtowns than it did in the state from 2000 to2009.

Income: The median household income inthe NVC ($77,649) exceeds that standardfor the state ($68,055) by $9,504. Twelveof the 18 NVC had higher medianhousehold incomes than the state in 2009. Move toward Services: Like the country,the NVC is moving toward greater employment and business concentration inservices.

A Tale of Two NVCs: Average annualemployment dropped in eight NVC towns andcities from 2005-2008. A Tale of Two NVCs: Business losses in four NVC towns and cities from 2005-2008.

A Tale of Two NVCs: The population declinedin three NVC towns and cities from 2000 to2009. Five other NVC towns and cities grew ata pace slower than the state and region.

A Tale of Two NVCs: The median householdincome in six NVC towns and cities fell belowthe states median household figure for 2009.

Unemployment: In 2009, four NVC towns andcities had higher percentages of unemployedpeople than the state and the nation.

Unemployment: Unemployment increased by148% in the United States from 2000 to 2009.

Unemployment increased by 282% inConnecticut and 309% in the NVC from 2000 to2009.

Unemployment: From 2000 to 2009, thepercentage of unemployed increased at agreater rate in every NVC town and city than itdid in the country.

2010 NVC CEDS


2/33

Opportunities Threats

A Cadre of Strong Towns: Many NVCtowns have seen growth in jobs,businesses, population, and income.

Public-Private Partnerships are Readyto Go (part 1): Strong agreement on CEDSgoals.

Public-Private Partnerships are Readyto Go (part 2): Strong agreement on the

importance of CEDS goals Public-Private Partnerships are Readyto Go (part 3): Strong agreement thatmass transit is a priority.

Public-Private Partnerships are Readyto Go (part 4): Strong agreement on needfor rail transportation.

Public-Private Partnerships are Readyto Go (part 5): High attendance at CEDSpublic forums

Public-Private Partnerships are Readyto Go (part 6): Broad range of stakeholders interested in CEDS

Green Technology and EnvironmentalSustainability: Brownfield remediationprojects and the move LEED certifiedbuilding in the NVC provides an opportunityfor the region to be at the cutting edge of the responsible and sustainable economy.

Unemployment: In 2009, unemploymentwas greater in the NVC (8.70) than it was inConnecticut (7.60).

Negative Consequences of a Lack of Collaboration: Economies are regional. Townsmust work together; failure to do could meannegative consequences for all towns and citiesin the NVC.

2010 NVC CEDS


3/33

Employment grew to a greater extent in the NVC(5.97%) than it did in Connecticut (1.98%)

Percent Change in Employment in the NVC, 2005-2008

P e r c e n

t C h a n g e

i n F I R E

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n

M a n u f a c

t u r i n g

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n

C o n s t r u c t

i o n

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n W h o l e s a

l e

a n d R e t a i

l

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n

T r a n s p o r

t a t i o n a n

d

W a r e h o u s i n g

P e r c e n

t C h a n g e

i n T o t a l

I n d u s t r i e s

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n

G o v e r n m e n

t

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n H o s p i

t a i l i t y

a n d

E n t e r

t a i n m e n

t

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n E d u c a

t i o n

a n d H e a

l t h

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n S e r v i c e s

10.00

5.00

0.00

-5.00 P e r c e n

t C h a n g e

i n E m p

l o y m e n

t

-6.82

-3.77

-1.72

0.25

3.90

5.976.106.846.88

8.86

Strengths

2010 NVC CEDS


4/33

Percent Change in Employment in Connecticut, 2005-2008

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n F I R E

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n

M a n u f a c

t u r i n g

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n

C o n s

t r u c t

i o n

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n W h o l e s a

l e

a n d R e t a i

l

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n

T r a n s p o r

t a t i o n a n

d

W a r e

h o u s

i n g

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n T o t a l

I n d u s t r i e s

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e i n

S e r v i c e s

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n H o s p i

t a l i t y

a n d E n t e r

t a i n m e n

t

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n

G o v e r n m e n

t

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e i n

E d u c a

t i o n

a n d

H e a

l t h

10.00

5.00

0.00

-5.00

P e r c e n

t C h a n g e

i n E m p

l o y m e n

t , 2 0 0 5 - 2

0 0 8

-6.92

-4.47

-0.77-0.46

1.371.98

2.94

6.296.56

8.47

2010 NVC CEDS


5/33

The average annual employment grew at a faster ratein 10 NVC towns than it did in Connecticut during the

period between 2005 and 2008Town Total Average Annual

Employment, 2005Total Average Annual

Employment, 2008Change in Total Average

Annual Employment, 2005-2008

Percent Change in TotalAverage Annual

Employment, 2005-2008

Beacon Falls 841 1,044 203 24.14

Oxford 2,364 2,639 275 11.63

Cheshire 14,876 16,501 1625 10.92

Middlebury 3,264 3,556 292 8.95

Shelton 2,0951 22,508 1557 7.43

Bethlehem 640 679 39 6.09

Wolcott 3,032 3,165 133 4.39

Thomaston 2,862 2,986 124 4.33

Newtown 7590 7,866 276 3.64

Seymour 4406 4,520 114 2.59

CT 1,643,963 1,676,493 32,530 1.98

NVC 142,894 145,063 2,169 1.52

Watertown 8,653 8,614 -39 -.45

Prospect 2,071 2,052 -19 -.92

Southbury 9,512 9,334 -178 -1.87

Naugatuck 7,682 7,517 -165 -2.15

Waterbury 42,448 41,163 -1,285 -3.03

Ansonia 3,794 3,650 -144 -3.80

Woodbury 2,422 2,283 -139 -5.74

Derby 5,486 4,986 -500 -9.11

Data Ordered by Percent Change in Total Average Annual Employment, 2005-2008; All Employment and Business Firms datacame from Connecticut Department of Labor, Covered Employment and Wages by Industry (2005 and 2008).

2010 NVC CEDS


6/33

The percentage of businesses grew in the NVC(2.77%) to a greater extent than it did inConnecticut (1.65%) from 2005 to 2008.

Percentage of Change in Businesses within the NVC, 2005-2008

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n

M a n u f a c

t u r i n g

B u s

i n e s s e s

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n

G o v e r n m e n

t B u s

i n e s s e s

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n

C o n s t r u c t

i o n

B u s

i n e s s e s

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n E d u c a

t i o n

a n d H e a

l t h B u s

i n e s s e s

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n F I R E

B u s

i n e s s e s

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n T o t a l

B u s

i n e s s e s

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n

T r a n s p o r

t a t i o n a n

d


B u s

i n e s s e s

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n H o s p i

t a l i t y

a n d E n t e r

t a i n m e n

t

B u s

i n e s s e s

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n W h o l e s a

l e

a n d R e t a i

l B u s

i n e s s e s

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n S e r v i c e s

B u s

i n e s s e s

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00

-2.00

-4.00

-1.14

3.43

2.06

4.96

2.282.94

-3.75

4.48

0.94

2.77

2010 NVC CEDS


7/33

Percentage of Change in Businesses within Connecticut, 2005-2008

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n

M a n u f a c

t u r i n g

B u s

i n e s s e s

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n F I R E

B u s

i n e s s e s

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n

G o v e r n m e n

t B u s

i n e s s e s

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n

C o n s t r u c t

i o n

B u s

i n e s s e s

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n T o t a l

B u s

i n e s s e s

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n W h o l e s a

l e

a n d R e t a i

l B u s

i n e s s e s

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n S e r v i c e s

B u s

i n e s s e s

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n E d u c a

t i o n

a n d H e a

l t h B u s

i n e s s e s

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n H o s p i

t a l i t y

a n d E n t e r

t a i n m e n

t

B u s

i n e s s e s

P e r c e n t

C h a n g e

i n

T r a n s p o r t a

t i o n a n

d


B u s

i n e s s e s

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00

-2.00

-4.00

-6.00

-0.16

4.18 3.92 3.70

-3.14

4.47

-5.66

1.67

-0.06

1.65

2010 NVC CEDS


8/33

The percentage of businesses grew at a

greater rate in 11 NVC towns than it did in theNVC from 2005 to 2008

D e r

b y

W a t e r

b u r y

N a u g a

t u c k

W o o

d b u r y

B e a c o n

F a l l s C

T

B e t

h l e h e m

P r o s p e c

t

N V C

A n s o n

i a

S e y m o u r

W a t e r

t o w n

T h o m a s

t o n

C h e s h

i r e

N e w

t o w n

W o l c o

t t

S o u

t h b u r y

M i d d l e b u r y

S h e l t o n

O x f o r

d

10.00

5.00

0.00

-5.00

V a

l u e

P e r c e n

t C h a n g e

i n P e r c e n

t C h a n g e

i n

B u s

i n e s s

C o u n

t , 2 0 0 5 - 2

0 0 8

-6.78

-3.33-1.77

-1.42

0.90

1.65

1.92

2.63

2.77

3.47

4.20

4.22

4.60

4.84

5.26

6.23

7.24

9.32

10.14

11.39

2010 NVC CEDS


9/33

Eight NVC towns had lower percentages of unemployed in 2009 than the NVC, Connecticut, and

the United States.Percent Unemployed, 2009

1 Waterbury 12.602 Thomaston 9.90

3 Ansonia 9.40

4 Naugatuck 9.10

5 US 8.90

6 Derby 8.707 NVC 8.70

8 Beacon Falls 8.30

9 Wolcott 8.10

10 Seymour 8.00

11 Watertown 8.00

12 Prospect 7.70

13 Connecticut 7.60

14 Bethlehem 7.50

15 Shelton 6.80

16 Woodbury 6.70

17 Middlebury 6.6018 Southbury 6.50

19 Oxford 6.20

20 Newtown 6.00

21 Cheshire 5.40

Source: CERC

2010 NVC CEDS


10/33

A Great Place to Live: The population increased toa greater extent in 10 NVC towns than it did in the

state from 2000 to 2009.

A n s o n

i a

W o o

d b u r y

W a t e r

b u r y

N a u g a

t u c k

D e r

b y

S h e l t o n

B e t

h l e h e m

T h o m a s

t o n

N V C C

T

W a t e r

t o w n

S e y m o u r

C h e s h

i r e

N e w

t o w n *

P r o s p e c

t

W o l c o

t t

S o u

t h b u r y

B e a c o n

F a l l s

M i d d l e b u r y

O x f o r

d

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00 P e r c e n t

P o p u

l a t i o n

C h a n g e ,

2 0 0 0 - 2

0 0 9

2.70 2.62

-0.60

5.293.11

-0.30

2.56

6.87

1.293.25

4.81

27.88

3.92

0.82

9.38

1.143.54

1.37

8.75

-0.79

2010 NVC CEDS


11/33

Income: The median household income in the

NVC ($77,649) exceeds that standard for the state($68,055) by $9,504. Twelve of the 18 NVC hadhigher median household incomes than the state

in 2009.

W a t e r

b u r y

A n s o n

i a

D e r b y

N a u g a

t u c k

S e y m o u r

T h o m a s t o n

C

T

B e a c o n

F a l l s

W a t e r

t o w n

W o l c o

t t

N V C

S o u

t h b u r y

S h e l t o n

W o o

d b u r y

P r o s p e c t

M i d d l e b u r y

B e t

h l e h e m

O x f o r d

C h e s h

i r e

N e w

t o w n

$120000

$100000

$80000

$60000

$40000

$20000

$0

M e

d i a n

H o u s e h o

l d I n c o m e ,

2 0 0 9

42719

53603

57258

64313

65646

67211

68055

70453

75357

76390

77649

77929

84155

85843

86891

87981

88771

97148

101346

114673

2010 NVC CEDS


12/33

Weaknesses

A Tale of Two NVCs:Average annual employment dropped in eight NVC

towns and cities from 2005-2008.

D e r

b y

W o o

d b u r y

A n s o n

i a

W a t e r

b u r y

N a u g a

t u c k

S o u

t h b u r y

P r o s p e c

t

W a t e r

t o w

N V C C

T

S e y m o u r

N e w

t o w n

T h o m a s

t o n

W o l c o

t t

B e t

h l e h e m

S h e l t o n

M i d d l e b u r y

C h e s h

i r e

O x f o r

d

B e a c o n

F a l

l s

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00

-10.00 P e r c e n

t C h a n g e

i n T o

t a l A v e r a g e

A n n u a

l E m p

l o y m e n

t ,

2 0 0 5 - 2

0 0 8

-9.11

-5.74-3.80-3.03-2.15-1.87

-0.92-0.451.521.982.59

3.644.334.396.09

7.438.95

10.9211.63

24.14

2010 NVC CEDS


13/33

A Tale of Two NVCs: Business losses in four NVC towns and cities from 2005-2008.

D e r

b y

W a t e r b u r y

N a u g a t u c

k

W o o

d b u r y

B e a c o n

F a l l s C

T

B e t h l e h e m

P r o s p e c

t

N V C

A n s o n

i a

S e y m o u r

W a t e r t o w n

T h o m a s

t o n

C h e s h

i r e

N e w

t o w n

W o l c o

t t

S o u t

h b u r y

M i d d l e b u r y

S h e l t o n

O x f o r

d

10.00

5.00

0.00

-5.00

V a

l u e

P e r c e n

t C h a n g e

i n P e r c e n

t C h a n g e

i n B u s

i n e s s

C o u n

t , 2 0 0 5 - 2

0 0 8

-6.78

-3.33-1.77

-1.42

0.90

1.65

1.92

2.63

2.77

3.47

4.20

4.22

4.60

4.84

5.26

6.23

7.24

9.32

10.14

11.39

2010 NVC CEDS


14/33

A Tale of Two NVCs: The population declined inthree NVC towns and cities from 2000 to 2009.Five other NVC towns and cities grew at a pace

slower than the state and region.

A n s o n

i a

W o o

d b u r y

W a t e r

b u r y

N a u g a

t u c k

D e r

b y

S h e l t o n

B e t

h l e h e m

T h o m a s

t o n

N V C C

T

W a t e r

t o w n

S e y m o u r

C h e s h

i r e

N e w

t o w n *

P r o s p e c

t

W o l c o

t t

S o u

t h b u r y

B e a c o n

F a l

l s

M i d d l e b u r y

O x f o r

d

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00 P e r c e n

t P o p u l a

t i o n

C h a n g e ,

2 0 0 0 - 2

0 0 9

2.70 2.62

-0.60

5.293.11

-0.30

2.56

6.87

1.293.25

4.81

27.88

3.92

0.82

9.38

1.143.54

1.37

8.75

-0.79

2010 NVC CEDS


15/33

A Tale of Two NVCs: The median householdincome in six NVC towns and cities fell below the

states median household figure for 2009.

W

a t e r

b u r y

A n s o n

i a

D e r

b y

N a u g a

t u c k

S e y m o u r

T h o m a s

t o n

C T

B e a c o n

F a l

l s

W a t e r

t o w n

W o l c o

t t

N V C

S o u

t h b u r y

S h e l t o n

W

o o d b u r y

P r o s p e c

t

M i d d l e b u r y

B e t

h l e h e m

O x f o r

d

C h e s h

i r e

N e w

t o w n

$120000

$100000

$80000

$60000

$40000

$20000

$0

M e

d i a n

H o u s e

h o

l d I n c o m e ,

2 0 0 9

42719

53603

57258

64313

6564667211

68055

70453

75357

76390

77649

77929

84155

85843

86891

87981

88771

97148

101346

114673

2010 NVC CEDS


16/33

Unemployment: In 2009, four NVC towns and

cities had higher percentages of unemployedpeople than the state and the nation.

C h e s h

i r e

N e w

t o w n *

O x f o r

d

S o u

t h b u r y

M i d d l e b u r y

W o o

d b u r y

S h e l t o n

B e t

h l e h e m C

T

P r o s p e c

t

W a t e r

t o w n

S e y m o u r

W o l c o

t t

B e a c o n

F a l

l s

D e r

b y

N V C

U S

N a u g a

t u c k

A n s o n

i a

T h o m a s

t o n

W a t e r

b u r y

14.00

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00

P e r c e n

t U n e m p

l o y e

d ,

2 0 0 9

8.90

7.60

8.70

6.70

8.10

8.00

12.60

9.90

6.50

6.80

8.00

7.70

6.206.00

9.10

6.60

8.70

5.40

7.50

8.30

9.40

Note: All demographic and unemployment data come from CERC

2010 NVC CEDS


17/33

Unemployment increased by 148% in the UnitedStates from 2000 to 2009. Unemployment

increased by 282% in Connecticut and 309% inthe NVC from 2000 to 2009.

U S

D e r

b y

C h e s h

i r e

N a u g a

t u c k

S h e l t o n

C T

W a t e r

b u r y

A n s o n

i a N V C

S e y m o u r

S o u

t h b u r y

M i d d l e b u r y

W a t e r

t o w n

O x f o r

d

W o o

d b u r y

W o l c o

t t

N e w

t o w n *

P r o s p e c

t

B e t

h l e h e m

T h o m a s

t o n

B e a c o n

F a l

l s

500.00

400.00

300.00

200.00

100.00

0.00

P e r c e n

t C h a n g e

i n U n e m p

l o y m e n

t , 2 0 0 0 - 2

0 0 9

148.44

282.35

308.71

367.53

373.08

353.46

293.53

420.88

346.27

280.24

320.90

378.82

355.45

375.69

275.00

352.63

245.71

258.11

383.87

422.64

299.16

Unemployment: From 2000 to 2009, the percentage of unemployed increased at a greater rate in every NVC town and

city than it did in the country.

2010 NVC CEDS


18/33

Opportunities

A Cadre of Strong Towns: Many NVCtowns have seen growth in jobs,

businesses, population, and income.

2010 NVC CEDS


19/33

Public-Private Partnerships are Ready to Go(part 1): Strong agreement on CEDs goals.

2010 NVC CEDS


20/33

Public-Private Partnerships are Ready to Go(part 2): Strong agreement on the importance of

CEDS goals.

2010 NVC CEDS


21/33

Public-Private Partnerships are Ready to Go(part 3): Strong agreement that mass transit is a

priority.

2010 NVC CEDS


22/33

Public-Private Partnerships are Ready to Go(part 4): Strong agreement on need for rail

transportation.

2010 NVC CEDS


23/33

Public-Private Partnerships are Ready to Go(part 5): High attendance at CEDS publicforums

2010 NVC CEDS


24/33

Public-Private Partnerships are Ready to Go(part 6): Broad range of stakeholders interested in

CEDS

2010 NVC CEDS


25/33


26/33


27/33

Negative Consequences of a Lack of Collaboration: Economies are regional. Townsmust work together; failure to do could mean

negative consequences for all towns and cities inthe NVC.

2010 NVC CEDS


28/33

Goals for the NVC

Goal I: Continue to develop local infrastructure that supportseconomic expansion while maintaining and protecting theenvironment.

Goal II: Provide opportunities for job growth, advancement andob training, utilizing and identifying the Connecticut Economic

Strategic Plan 2009 (DECD) which is the Strategic Vision for Connecticut as the engine to support and sustain the regionaleconomy, supporting and encouraging private investment in allthese areas. Connecticut will be a vibrant, diverse, and safe

community that offers a sustainable quality of life and access toeconomic opportunities for all.

Goal III: Sustain economic expansion while reinforcing andcomplimenting the regional land use and quality of life of theNVC.

Goal IV: Improve overall Transportation and Communicationssystems.

Goal V: Continue the implementation and reclamation of Regional Brownfields Partnership (RBP) and to support themanagement, capacity and financial resources for the municipalmembers.

Goal VI: Support and encourage the designation of the NVC as aNational Heritage Area under the National Park Service, whichwill capitalize on the history, culture and natural attraction of theNVC.

Goal VII: Encourage growth and participation in the Philanthropyefforts in the NVC, through the private sector, individuals andother stakeholders efforts and contributions.

2010 NVC CEDS


29/33

Goal II: Provide opportunities for job growth,advancement and job training, utilizing and

identifying the Connecticut Economic Strategic

Plan 2009 (DECD) which is the Strategic Vision for Connecticut as the engine to support and sustainthe regional economy, supporting and

encouraging private investment in all these areas.Connecticut will be a vibrant, diverse, and safe

community that offers a sustainable quality of lifeand access to economic opportunities for all.

2010 NVC CEDS

The Vision for the Connecticut Economic Strategic Plan September 2009 covers Housing, Transportation,Responsible Growth, Education and WorkforceDevelopment, Technology Transfer, Government,Business, Culture and Tourism and Energy.

Public Forums economic development including non-profit corporations.

TransportationBrownfield Remediation

Waterbury ITZ


30/33

Goal IV: Improve overall Transportation andCommunications systems.

2010 NVC CEDS

Key Factors:

Waterbury Rail Line

CNVCOG:

Interstate 84 Waterbury - Middlebury

Trails Naugatuck, Beacon Falls, Waterbury,

Cheshire, WatertownEnhance Transit Services

Improve Local Roads

VCOG:

Improve Route 8

Exit 18

Route 34 and other major roadways

Greenways


31/33

Goal V: Continue the implementation andreclamation of Regional Brownfields Partnership(RBP) and to support the management, capacity

and financial resources for the municipalmembers.

2010 NVC CEDS

Objectives of The Regional Brownfields Partnership of

West Central Connecticut:

Continue to identify Brownfields in the NVC.

Develop a priority ranking of contaminated sites based onthe probability for redevelopment.

Develop site-specific redevelopment scenarios best suitedfor adaptive reuse.

Complete environmental testing for selected sites.

Complete limited site work to improve the marketability of selected sites.

Facilitate the return of priority sites to productive use thatexpands the grand list of the NVC.


32/33

Goal I: Continue to develop localinfrastructure that supports economic

expansion while maintaining and

protecting the environment.

2010 NVC CEDS

Capital Improvement Project Matrix

12 out of the 18 Communities submitted 31 projects

The Advisory Committee Ranking:

Tier I Tier II Tier III T.A. N/R (Other)

11 5 1 5 9

Tier I Const. Jobs Long Term Jobs

$63,225,000 1,075 1,500

(Tier I projects: Ansonia, Derby, Naugatuck,Newtown, Oxford, Prospect, Shelton, Waterbury)


33/33

Goal III: Sustain economic expansion whilereinforcing and complimenting the regional land useand quality of life of the NVC.

Goal VI: Support and encourage the designation of the NVC as a National Heritage Area under theNational Park Service, which will capitalize on thehistory, culture and natural attraction of the NVC.

Goal VII: Encourage growth and participation in

the Philanthropy efforts in the NVC, through theprivate sector, individuals and other stakeholdersefforts and contributions.

ceds unveiling may 2010 (1)

Documents