Columbus, Georgia Committee for Better Building and Development

4556 12th

Street

Columbus, Georgia 31901

April 20, 2013

Attn: The Robert W. Woodruff Foundation

191 Peachtree Street NE

Suite 3540

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Dear Trustees:

This letter and attached proposal will illustrate how the Committee for Better Building

and Development plans to execute the revitalization of the Booker T. Washington (BTW)

housing units and commercial development in the Liberty District area. The proposal will

explain how the Committee’s solution will best meet the needs of the city of Columbus, the

residents of the BTW, and provide ample justification for our Committee’s grant request. We

have included a detailed schedule and line item budget that describes how the Committee plans

on appropriating funds towards the execution of the project.

After conducting thorough research to find the best possible solution that best meets the

needs of all parties involved, we have established a solution that will address the need for

residential revitalization and commercial development in the Liberty District area. The solution

and methods of execution will be illustrated, in detail, in the subsequent proposal.

We thank you for your time to review our proposal and hope that you will consider

sponsoring our project. If you have any questions, please contact the President Committee at

(706) 555-5555.

Sincerely,

President, Committee for Better Building and Development

Proposal for Grant Sponsorship Towards

Commercial Development and the Residential Revitalization of the BTW Housing Units

in the Liberty District Area of Columbus, Georgia

Prepared for

The Woodruff Foundation

Prepared by

The Columbus, GA Committee for Better Building and Development

April 24, 2013

Abstract

This proposal will describe how the Committee for Better Building and Development plans to

execute the revitalization of the Booker T. Washington housing units and commercial

development in the Liberty District area of Columbus, GA. This residential revitalization and

commercial development has been the topic of debate since the construction of the 2003 Liberty

District Master Plan, a guideline constructed by the Columbus Consolidated Government, to

address the lack of commercialization in the Liberty District and the much needed renovations

that need to be made to the BTW housing units. After weighing four possible solutions against

four values (criteria) shared by BTW residents, city officials, area clergy, and Liberty District

Stakeholders, we proposed a solution which best met the needs of all parties considered and

allows for the goals outlined in the Master Plan to finally begin being implemented. We are

asking the Woodruff Foundation to help sponsor this project with a grant of $20,000,000.

Included in this proposal contains all of the information pertaining to how our solution will be

implemented, the length of time in which it will take to complete, a detailed item line budget,

and how it best meets the needs of the city of Columbus and residents of the BTW housing units.

1

Problem Statement

The objective of the Columbus, GA Committee for Better Building and Development is to

provide the most feasible, cost-effective means of revitalizing the Booker T. Washington housing

units and creating commercial developments in the Liberty District of Columbus, Georgia. Our

proposed solution gives the residents of BTW an increased quality of life through a standard of

living that the Columbus Housing Authority gave residents of Ashley Station and Gentian Oaks

when these housing developments were renovated. Our solution will also give business owners a

chance to prosper financially, new jobs will be made available, and also give Columbus residents

new and appealing ways to patronize the Liberty District through these new commercial

development. Both components of the project will,

―restore and maintain viability of the area, promote a sense of identity, pride and

confidence, provide a safe, livable and desire neighborhood, provide convenient

neighborhood shopping, and promote entertainment, the arts and cultural activities‖

(Master Plan 1-2)

—all of which are goals outlined in the 2003 Liberty District Master Plan. This is the plan that

served as the Committee’s main point of reference when we began formulating a solution

towards the need to revitalize BTW and create commercial developments in the Liberty District.

Through the Woodruff Foundation’s much-needed funding, the Committee can develop the

Liberty District into a, ―cultural and entertainment center that serves not only as a destination for

tourists, but also as a major congregation center for local people—an enjoyable place to meet

others, to celebrate, and to participate in special events in the area‖ (―Master Plan‖).

While the city of Columbus has already graciously, ―committed more than $3 million towards

the project and $37 million in flood abatement work,‖ (―Taking Sides‖), the Committee is asking

the Woodruff Foundation to sponsor the remainder of the project with a $20,000,000 grant

(―Woodruff Grant Program‖). The Committee has exhausted all other means of securing these

funds and desperately needs the Woodruff Foundation to help close this financial gap.

2

The residents of the BTW public housing are faced with some of the worst living conditions in

the city. Most residents have no carpet on their floors, non-working window heating and air

conditioning units, and are surrounded by concrete walls. Without financing through the

Woodruff Foundation to begin commencement of the Committee’s proposed plan, residents of

BTW will continue living in these deplorable living conditions and commercialization in the

Liberty District will remain at a standstill. Until the Committee can secure the necessary funds to

being implementing the project, unemployment, community growth and revitalization will also

remain stagnant. Without this much-needed grant, renovations to BTW and commercial

development cannot commence.

Objective

The goal of the Columbus, GA Committee for Better Building and Development is to provide the

most feasible and economical solution that addresses the need for revitalization of the Booker T.

Washington housing units and commercial development of the historic Liberty District.

Implementation of our plan will allow the Liberty District to develop into as an enjoyable place

to live, work, and play. Implementation of our committee’s proposed solution will also:

Restore and maintain the viability of the Liberty District area

Promote a sense of identity, pride and confidence

Provide a safe, livable and desirable neighborhood

Provide convenient neighborhood shopping

Encourage retail and office development, retention, and expansion

Better promote entertainment, the arts, and cultural activities

Provide adequate open space and recreational opportunities to area residents

(―Master Plan‖ 1)

Methods

Renovations to the interior and exterior of the Booker T. Washington housing units will provide

the residents with an increased quality of life and the opportunity to live in a revitalized housing

development similar to Arbor Pointe, Gentian, and Ashley Station, which boasts similar

renovations found in our proposal. These renovations also give the residents of BTW

3

―affordable, standard-quality housing‖ (―Master Plan‖ 1). In doing so, this project will help,

―[p]romote a sense of identity, pride and confidence‖ that these residents so desperately desire.

The commercial developments outlined in the Committee’s proposal will ―[p]rovide convenient

neighborhood shopping, restore and maintain the viability of the area, promote entertainment, the

arts, and cultural activities‖ (―Master Plan‖ 1-2). The Committee knows that in order to achieve

all these goals, we must consider the extenuating circumstances and variables that a renovations

and commercial development like this will entail. This section will outline how the Committee

plans to execute and implement our plan considering these extenuating circumstances and

variables.

Weather

The Planning Phase, which spans from January through June of 2014, entails that ―Technical

studies like a traffic report or environmental impact assessment‖ (Planning Applications‖), be

conducted during the beginning of the summer. Inclimate weather, such as rain, will not affect

this portion of the phase because the job duties to be performed will be conducted during the

months of May and June.

The Development Phase, spanning from 2015 to 2017, entails that the demolition be conducted

during the beginning of the year. The Committee has appropriated $14,500 in supplies (See Page

9 for the Committee’s line item budget grant request) towards the purchase of supplies, such as

tarps and sand bags, to accommodate to the rain. Also, the construction crew shall work on the

BTW interior renovations if the ground is too wet to work on when utilizing tarps and sand bags

aren’t sufficient enough to work on the demolishment aspect of the phase.

CSU Classes

CSU classes will remain in session throughout the completion of all three phases. Students

receiving transportation to the River Park Campus through CSU will be detoured, but their

existing drop-off location will remain, as the demolishment and construction will be conducted

five blocks east of the River Park Campus.

Current Businesses

4

Businesses that are not affiliated with our Committee’s proposed plan shall remain in business

throughout the renovations of BTW and commercial development in the Liberty District area.

The Committee shall work alongside Liberty District area businesses where commercial

development is expected to commence by providing signage informing customers that these

establishments are open throughout construction (2015-2017). The Committee shall use funds

appropriated from the ―Supplies‖ section of the Committee’s line item budget to purchase these

signs. The Committee shall also notify Columbus residents during Town Hall meetings that these

businesses will remain open and that Columbus residents are highly encouraged to continue

patronizing these businesses throughout the development process.

BTW Residents

During the Development Phase, residents of BTW will remain in their units while exterior

renovations are completed. When interior renovations are being conducted, BTW residents shall

receive hotel vouchers to temporarily reside at the Econo Lodge Inn & Suites at 1024 Veterans

Pkwy, which is located 0.7 miles away from BTW. This will be funded by the $14,500 allocation

entitled, ―Hotel Vouchers for BTW Residents‖ located in our Committee’s line item budget.

Public Transportation

Public transportation (METRA) on 9th

Street between 7th

and 8th

Avenues, the corners of 9th

Street and 8th

Avenue, and at the corner of 6th

Avenue and 8th

Street will be suspended and

detoured during the Development Phase, which spans from 2015-2017. During this time, the

METRA will run on parallel streets. The Committee will work alongside METRA to ensure

proper signage of the detours is in place before and during this phase. Students receiving

transportation through CSU will be detoured, but their existing drop-off location will remain, as

the demolishment and construction will be conducted five blocks east of the River Park Campus.

5

(Source: “Google Maps”)

Traffic and Parking

Traffic detours and road blocks will be in place on 9th

Street between 7th

and 8th

Avenues, the

corners of 9th

Street and 8th

Avenue, and at the corner of 6th

Avenue and 8th

Street will be

suspended and detoured during the Development Phase, which spans from 2015-2017. The

image below illustrates the temporary traffic flow to accommodate the demolition and

development that will take place. Patrons of the Liberty Theatre will be allowed to visit the

establishment, but will not be allowed to park on portions of 9th

and 7th

Street. Muscogee County

Jail will remain unaffected by these street closures. The Committee shall use funds appropriated

from the ―Supplies‖ section of the Committee’s line item budget to purchase signage relating to

street closures. Please note in the image that streets with red lines reflect these closures.

6

Schedule

The following schedule on Page 7 shall serve as a guideline for both the residential revitalization

of the BTW housing units and the commercial development located on 9th Street between 7th

and 8th Avenues, at the corner of 9th

Street and 8th

Ave, at the corner of 6th

Ave and 8th

Street,

the construction of a three-block linear park, and expansion of the historic Liberty Theatre

(―Proposed Alternative Designs‖ 3). The schedule reflects a four-year span for project

completion. January through June of 2014 will consist of the Committee’s Planning Phase. The

remainder of the year, July through December of 2014, will consist of the Committee’s

Assessment Phase. The next three years will consist of the Committee’s Development Phase,

with a projected completion date of December 2017.

7

Phase Time Method

Planning

January – June

2014

1) A current site description and design response

2) Construct survey plan

3) Floor plans and elevations

4) Written description of the setting and the proposed use

5) A report complying with the appropriate provisions of the

planning scheme or justifying for an alternative solution

6) Technical studies like a traffic report or environmental

impact assessment.

7) Once complete, submit Development Application (―Planning

Applications‖)

Assessment

July – December

2014

1) Acknowledgement of application

2) Request for further information

3) Notification of the proposed development (advertising)

4) Assessment

5) Decision (―Planning Applications‖)

Development 2015-2017

1) Demolition

2) -Commercial development

-BTW revitalization

-Expansion of Liberty Theatre

-Development of Linear Park

3) Completion

8

Evaluation

The committee has decided that the evaluation of the residential revitalization and commercial

development be overseen by two entities. The residential component will be overseen by The

Columbus Housing Authority (CHA) because according to the CHA’s Fiscal 2012 report, their

income increased by $887,227 or 35.7% mainly due to the Authority’s role as a developer in the

renovations of a similar housing development, Baker Village (―Management’s Discussion &

Analysis‖ 7). The commercial component will be overseen by the Committee and The Woodruff

Foundation, and both the Committee’s and Woodruff Foundation’s roles and responsibilities

shall be described in the subsequent section.

Residential Evaluation Means:

The Committee for Better Building and Development shall allow the Columbus Housing

Authority to carry out inspection, monitoring, evaluation and auditing activities concerning the

performance of the revitalization and the infrastructure improvements of the BTW housing units

as the Authority deems reasonably necessary. Below is a detailed description of what the

Authority shall do:

The Authority and its contractors shall maintain such records and accounts related to the

Development as are deemed reasonably necessary by the City and the Woodruff

Foundation (―Memorandum of Agreement‖ 7).

Upon receipt of five business days prior written notice from the City and Woodruff

Foundation, the Authority shall permit representatives of the City and the Woodruff

Foundation, at the City’s sole cost and expense, to have full access to and the right to

examine any books, documents, papers and records involving the performance of the

work related to the Development during normal business hours at the Authority’s central

office (―Memorandum of Agreement‖ 7).

It shall be the Authority’s obligation to maintain such records and accounts and the City’s

and Woodruff Foundation’s right to examine any books, records or other documents shall

expire five years after the date of the completion of the Infrastructure Improvements

(―Memorandum of Agreement‖ 7).

A formal set of as-built documents will be conveyed to the City and the Woodruff

Foundation at the completion of the Development (―Memorandum of Agreement‖ 7).

9

The Authority and Woodruff Foundation shall be Bcc’d on all documentation during each

stage of the part of the development process (Reference Schedule sections: Planning,

Assessment, Development).

Commercial Evaluation Means:

The Columbus, GA Committee for Better Building and Development shall:

Facilitate monthly Town Hall meetings to share the progress of the commercial

development of the Liberty District area through the use of before and after photos and

developer progress reports.

Give inspection rights to members of the Columbus Consolidate Government, Liberty

Stakeholders, and members of the Woodruff Foundation.

Allow members of the Woodruff Foundation to sit in on Liberty Stakeholder board

meetings and meetings related to the Liberty District development that are facilitated by

the Columbus Consolidated Government.

Provide semi-annual and annual reports to the Woodruff Foundation.

The Authority and Woodruff Foundation shall be Bcc’d on all documentation during each

stage of the part of the development process (See Schedule: Planning, Assessment,

Development).

Budget

The Committee for Better Building and Development is asking for $20,000,000 to execute and

implement our proposed plan to effectively revitalize the BTW housing units and develop

commercial properties in the Liberty District Area. $1,000,000 of the budget will be put towards

the revitalization of BTW and the remaining $19,000,000 will be puts towards the commercial

aspect of our plan. In the subsequent sections, you will find a detailed description of how the

Committee plans to appropriate these funds based on Residential needs and Commercial needs.

We have also provided a line item budget that is categorized into: Personnel Costs and Non-

Personnel Costs, which details the amount of: payroll, operating expenses, equipment,

construction, demolishment, and renovation funds needed to execute the Committee’s plan.

10

Residential Allocation

According to the Columbus Housing Authority’s Fiscal 2012 Report, in fiscal year 2011, the

Authority funded $1,000,000 towards the purchase and revitalization of the Gentian Oaks

Apartments (―Management’s Discussion & Analysis‖ 5). The Gentian Oaks Apartments are

similar to the BTW housing units; therefore, the committee feels that this figure is appropriate

towards the implementation of the residential component of our proposed plan.

Furthermore, the City has agreed to contribute $2,775,000.00 towards the development’s general

construction funding and $225,000.00 towards infrastructure necessities, including new

underground utility services, utility connections, and surface improvements (―Memorandum of

Agreement‖ 3). Because of the City’s generous contribution towards BTW’s infrastructure

improvements, we would be able to allocate the City’s $2,775,000.00 contribution and the

proposed funds towards interior and exterior renovations, such as: the construction of a new

courtyard, roofing, paint, heating and air upgrades, carpet, and dry wall installation.

Because the Committee chose to allow the Columbus Housing Authority to oversee the

renovations of the BTW housing unit, the only section in the line item budget that applies to

BTW is entitled, ―BTW Renovations,‖ and the amount of funding required is listed as

$1,000,000. The CHA will incur all the remaining costs not directly related to cosmetic interior

and exterior renovations.

Commercial Allocation

The Committee is asking that $19,000,000 of the proposed $20,000,000 be put towards the

commercial development outlined in our proposed plan. A large portion of the requested grant

will be appropriated towards personnel costs. According to Indeed.com, the average construction

worker salary is $47,000/year (―Construction Worker Salary in Georgia‖), and with 50

employees working for three years, this will cost $7,050,000. The remaining $620,000 in payroll

costs are to staff a Principal Engineer, Senior Engineer, Architect, Real Estate Attorney,

Consultant, Developer, and Lander Surveyor.

11

The remaining $11,330,000 of the requested grant will cover operating expenses, rental

equipment, permit fees, and commercial construction. The total amount of the grant requested for

the completion of this project is $20,000,000. Please refer to the subsequent line item budget

figure which illustrates, in detail, the costs to be incurred for project completion. Also, please

refer to the artist renderings below that provide a conceptualized illustration of the Liberty

Theatre area commercial development.

12

Personnel Costs

Personnel Services $ 7,670,000

Classification Salary Time

Principal Engineer $ 50,000 3 Years $150,000

Senior Engineer $ 40,000 3 Years $120,000

Architect $ 50,000 2 Years $100,000

Real Estate Attorney $ 50,000 1 Year $50,000

Consultant $ 40,000 1 Year $40,000

Developer $ 40,000 3 Years $120,000

Land Surveyor $ 40,000 1 Year $40,000

Construction Crew $ 47,000 3 Years $47,000 x 50 Employees x 3 Years = $7,075,000

Non-Personnel Costs

Non-Personnel Services $ 11,330,000

Operating Expenses $ 29,000

Hotel Vouchers for BTW Residents $ 14,500

Supplies (less than $5,000 per item) $ 14,500

Equipment (Rented) $ 300,000

Construction (Contracted Services) $ 11,001,000

Demolition (Commercial development only) $ 1,000,000

New Construction (Commercial development only) $ 9,000,000

BTW Renovations $ 1,000,000

Permit Fees $ 1,000

Total $ 20,000,000

13

Personnel

The following section will provide the Woodruff Foundation with an overview of each of the

Committee member’s job duties, roles, and responsibilities as it relates to the project described in

this proposal. This overview shall serve as means of accountability and point of reference for the

Woodruff Foundation’s role. The Committee is compiled of four members, and though each role

varies in nature, each member shares the same passion and vision for the revitalization of BTW

and commercial development in the historic Liberty District or Columbus, Georgia.

Committee President

The Committee President (CP) shall oversee the Project Manager, Chief Accountant, and Point

of Contact. The CP will constantly review the performance and hold accountable the other

members of the Committee, with the best interests of the project, Woodruff Foundation, and

Columbus Housing Authority being the top priority. The CP ensures all members of the

Committee work together as a team. The CP shall ensure that the Committee carries out their

roles and responsibilities in the most effective and efficient manner. While the Point of Contact

represents the Committee in front of the Woodruff Foundation and Columbus Housing

Authority, the CM shall represent the Committee in all public activities, such as Town Hall

meetings and press events.

Project Manager

The Project Manager (PM) shall oversee the day-to-day operations of each phase of the project.

The PM shall compose weekly progress reports for the Woodruff Foundation. The PM shall also

oversee the hiring process and conduct interviews alongside the Committee President. The PM

shall also serve as the liaison between employees and POC, who reports directly to the Woodruff

Foundation and the Columbus Housing Authority. The PM shall also be responsible for the

execution, planning, and completion of the project.

Chief Accountant

The Chief Accountant (CA) is responsible for all financial matters pertaining to the project. The

CA shall maintain accuracy of the Committee’s line item budget and appropriated funds. The CA

14

shall also keep financial records of all purchases made during the project and make these records

available for the Woodruff Foundation, Columbus Housing Authority, and Columbus

Consolidated Government. The CA shall also conduct weekly and bi-weekly payroll procedures,

maintain tax-related record accuracy, and provide weekly itemized expense and fiscal reports for

the Woodruff Foundation and Columbus Housing Authority.

Point of Contact

The Point of Contact (POC) will serve as the liaison between the Woodruff Foundation,

Columbus Housing Authority, residents of Columbus, residents of BTW, and the Committee for

information relating to all aspects of the project. The POC is responsible for compiling and

relaying progress reports, scheduling appointments, and ensuring accuracy on all correspondence

to and from The Columbus Housing Authorities and The Woodruff Foundation.

15

Works Cited

"Columbus Ledger Enquirer." Liberty District Plan Proposal. Ledger-Enquirer, n.d. Web.

24 Apr. 2013. <http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2013/04/20/2472782/liberty-

district-proposed-architectural.html>.

"Construction Worker Salary in Georgia." Indeed Job Search. Indeed, 24 Apr. 2013. Web. 24

Apr. 2013.

Housing Authority of Columbus, Georgia. Management's Discussion & Analysis and Audited

Financial Statements. Columbus: Housing Authority of Columbus, Georgia, 2012.PDF.

(http://www.columbushousing.org/assets/Columbus%20REV%20Audit%20Report%200

63012.pdf)

James-Johnson, Alva. "Taking Sides: Liberty District Redevelopment, BTW Relocation at

Center of Dispute Among City's Political Leaders." Taking Sides: Liberty District

Redevelopment, BTW Relocation at Center of Dispute among City's Political Leaders.

Ledger-Enquirer, 30 Mar. 2013. Web. 19 Apr. 2013.

"Planning Applications." Budget Town Planning. WordPress, n.d. Web.

(http://budgettownplanning.com/home)

"Robert W. Woodruff Foundation." Robert W. Woodruff Foundation. Robert W. Woodruff

Foundation, n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2013. <http://www.woodruff.org/grant_rww.aspx>.

The Housing Authority of Columbus, Georgia. Memorandum of Agreement. Columbus: The

Housing Authority of Columbus, Georgia, 2012. PDF.

(http://ccga1.columbusga.org/e-cap.nsf)

Tomlinson, Teresa. Liberty District Master Plan. Columbus: Columbus Consolidated

Government, 2 Apr. 2013. PDF.

The Columbus, GA Committee for Better Building and Development

4556 12th

Street

Columbus, Georgia 31901

April 20, 2013

Attn: Mayor Teresa Tomlinson and Columbus Consolidated Government

Government Center Tower

100 10th Street

Columbus, Georgia 31901

Dear Council Members:

This letter and attached recommendation report are to address the need for residential

revitalization and commercialization in the Liberty District, based on varied interpretations of

how to effectively implement the 2003 Liberty District Master Plan. Due to the tension

surrounding varied interpretations of the Master Plan, revitalizations of Liberty District Area

cannot commence until both sides come to an agreement.

The recommendation report will explain the problem, in detail, and also propose the best

solution for the use of the Liberty District area and how to begin executing the proposed

solution. The four possible solutions and the criteria that we shall weigh them against are based

on the values and needs shared by all parties involved. After testing these solutions, we will

discuss the best possible solution to begin the residential revitalization of BTW and commercial

development in the Liberty District.

We thank you for your time and hope that you will find our recommendation as the best

solution to the problem at hand. Our Committee can be contacted at: CBBD@columbus.gov.

Best regards,

President, Committee for Better Building and Development

Recommendation Report for

Commercial Development and the Residential Revitalization of the BTW Housing Units

in the Liberty District Area of Columbus, Georgia

Prepared for

Mayor Teresa Tomlinson and

The Columbus Consolidated Government

Prepared by

The Columbus, GA Committee for Better Building and Development

April 20, 2013

Abstract

This recommendation report will address the problem of the differing interpretations of the 2003

Liberty District Master Plan concerning the commercial development and residential

revitalization of the Booker T. Washington (BTW) Housing Units in the Liberty District area of

the Columbus, GA. If this problem is not addressed, it may cause stagnation and potential

decrease in community growth, unemployment rates, crime, revenue, and a decrease in quality of

life for the residents of BTW. Our committee will provide four possible solutions that were

formulated based on differing interpretations of the Master Plan and alternative solutions

proposed by Columbus Mayor Teresa Tomlinson. These solutions will then be weighed against

four criteria (Economical, Feasibility, How Well it Addresses the Problem, and Popularity) that

reflect the values of the Columbus Consolidated Government, Liberty District Stakeholders,

BTW residents, area clergy, and Columbus residents. Based on our findings, the implementation

of our committee’s proposed solution will:

Restore and maintain the viability of the Liberty District area

Promote a sense of identity, pride and confidence

Provide a safe, livable and desirable neighborhood

Provide convenient neighborhood shopping

Encourage retail and office development, retention, and expansion

Better promote entertainment, the arts, and cultural activities

Provide adequate open space and recreational opportunities to area residents

(“Master Plan” 1)

1

Introduction

“The Liberty District has declined significantly over the past several decades, and the Columbus

Consolidated Government determined the time was right to engage in an “opportunity-based”

process to plan for appropriate public/private redevelopment” (Master Plan 1). Considering the

diversity of Stakeholders and residents that infuse the historic Liberty District, and in

anticipation of their needs and ideas, the Columbus Consolidated Government constructed the

2003 Liberty District Master Plan.

“The city adopted the Plan in an effort to revitalize the African American Entertainment

District and offer improved housing and commercial options for residents. A critical

element to this revitalization is the redevelopment of the Booker T. Washington (BTW)

housing units” (“Master Plan”).

Yet, the Plan is at the center of a huge debate amongst Mayor Teresa Tomlinson, city officials,

developers, area clergy, and BTW residents because no one can come to an agreement as to how

to implement the Plan while also addressing the redevelopment and/or revitalization of the BTW

housing units. On one side of the debate involves the mayor of Columbus Teresa Tomlinson

who strongly believes that because the city has already committed over $40 million to the project

that the main focus of the 2003 Master Plan should be to build 100 mixed income apartments

around the historic liberty theatre (“Taking Sides” 2). On the other side of the debate Tax

Commissioner Lula Lundsford Huff and supporters believe that rezoning the housing near the

Liberty Theatre is a violation of the 2003 Plan, which calls for a Liberty Center around the

Liberty Theatre (“Taking Sides” 3). While the plan does include some residential development in

the area, Lunsford believes that the main focus should developing the area into a commercial,

entertainment and recreational center.

Problem Statement

“The Liberty Theatre area, once the heart and pride Columbus’ African-American

community is only a shell of what it used to be. Gutted buildings, empty lots, overgrown

weeds, the miry clay surrounding the historic Liberty Theatre—all tell the tale of a

2

community that once thrived, but eventually succumbed to abandonment, decay, and

neglect” (“Taking Sides” 1).

In an effort to revitalize and redevelop this once-thriving community, the Liberty District Master

Plan was composed as a guideline to help potential developers, investors, and community

members facilitate a solution that focuses on an “’opportunity-based’ process to plan for

appropriate public/private development” (“Master Plan” 1). The Master Plan proposes for the

redevelopment and enhancement of residential, commercial, and industrial buildings in the

historic Liberty District of Columbus. At the center of the Liberty District development sits the

dilapidated and much neglected Booker T. Washington (BTW) Housing Units, which also need

the same redevelopment and revitalization that the rest of the Liberty District calls for.

The Plan has been interpreted by Columbus Consolidated Government leaders, Columbus

residents, and Liberty Stakeholders, and potential developers in two different ways, causing

tension because neither side can come to an agreement as to how to implement the Master

Plan. Implementation of the 2003 Master Plan has caused a source of contention and has been at

the center of an ongoing debate for the past ten years.

“On one side of the debate are Mayor Teresa Tomlinson, City Manager Isaiah Hugley,

the Housing Authority of Columbus, Liberty Theatre Board Chairman Robert Anderson,

some local pastors, and some public housing residents. [In addition to the

commercialization component,] [t]hey want 100 mixed-income apartments to be built

around the historic Liberty Theatre” (“Taking Sides” 2).

“On the other side of the controversy are Tax Commissioner Lula Lundsford Huff,

councilors Jerry “Pops” Barnes and Bruce Huff, Planning Advisory Commissioner Zeph

Baker, and grassroots activists. They oppose the plans to rezone the three blocks near the

Liberty Theatre for the BTW redevelopment project. They see it as a violation of the

2003 Master Plan, which calls for a Liberty Center around the Liberty Theatre. While the

plan calls for some residential development in that area, opponents believe 100

3

apartments is too dense and the focus should be on developing the area into a

commercial, entertainment, and recreational center” (“Taking Sides” 3).

Both sides of the argument agree that while commercial developments and residential

revitalization are keys to creating business, stimulating economic growth, and serving as a,

“cultural and entertainment center that serves not only as a destination for tourists, but also as a

major congregation center for local people—an enjoyable place to meet others, to celebrate, and

to participate in special events in the area” (“Master Plan” 1), but implementing the

commercialization component of the Master Plan must begin with an agreement as to what and

how to develop the BTW housing units. Although several public town meetings and private

Columbus Consolidated Government meetings have taken place, neither side has come to an

agreement as to how to develop the area and commence with the implementation of the Master

Plan.

Implementation of the Master Plan and revitalization of the Liberty District Area cannot

commence until both sides come to an agreement, causing stagnation in unemployment rates and

a potential decrease in community growth, crime, and potential revenue. Moreover, residents of

the BTW housing units will continue residing in poor living conditions in the much-neglected,

392 unit, 70-year old structure. Because of this, our committee will combine all the residential

options pertaining to the redevelopment and revitalization of the BTW housing units, along with

the all the commercial options proposed by Mayor Teresa Tomlinson outlined in the “Update:

Mayor Outlines Four Alternatives” April 2, 2013 Ledger-Enquirer article, and will weigh them

against four criteria that reflect the values of the community leaders, residents of Columbus,

developers, and the Columbus Consolidate Government, in order to establish a solution that will

allow for development in the Liberty District to finally commence.

Criteria

Our committee chose to weigh our proposed solutions against four criteria that consider the

values held by the residents of Columbus, Mayor Teresa Tomlinson, City Manager Isaiah

Hugley, The Housing Authority of Columbus, Liberty Theatre Board Chairman Robert

Anderson, area clergy, and resident of the Booker T. Washington housing units (“Taking Sides”

“Update: Mayor Outlines Four Alternatives”). These values were articulated in two Columbus-

4

Ledger articles addressing the development of the Liberty District, where cost-efficiency, the

ability to carry out plans for commercial and residential revitalization, addressing the problem of

the lack of commercialization in the Liberty District, and popularity, remained constant factors

in coming to a general consensus of how to begin development in the Liberty District. In order

for the proposed solution to work, when compared against the other three proposed solutions, it

must fulfill the most amounts of established criteria. This comparison will be typified in the

subsequent section entitled, “Testing.” Please note that while these criteria are weighed equally,

if a proposed solution only satisfies half of the criteria (only serves a residential solution or only

serves as a commercial solution), it will be denoted in the subsequent matrix as a light blue check

mark, versus a solid green check mark, which means that possible solution fully satisfies that

criterion.

Economical

The first criterion is Economical. According to the article, “Taking Sides,” published on March

30, 2013, Mayor Teresa Tomlinson conveyed concern towards the financial aspect of any

proposed solution, stating that, “The city has committed more than $3 million and three city

blocks to the project, as well as about $37 million in flood abatement work” (2). The same article

also stated that in order to further finance the project, “the Housing Authority will have to submit

an application for federal tax credit financing by June.” Moreover, this January, Columbus

Councilman Barnes also voted in favor of the city spending an additional $3 million towards the

project (“Taking Sides” 3). Considering that any proposed solution will require collaborative

financial efforts in order to successfully implement, it is crucial that our committee find a

solution that is cost-effective because millions from several benefactors have already been spent

to simply prepare for the redevelopment.

Feasibility

The second criterion is Feasibility. This criterion considers the overall ease in which the

proposed solution can be implemented. The proposed solution needs to consider the existing

buildings, zoning, private and public property, and the overall time it would take to implement.

According the Master Plan for the Liberty District, which was the document that brought forth

5

the need for the revitalization in the Liberty District, a call to action for a proposed solution has

been under discussion since 2003 (“Master Plan”). Considering this, the proposed solution would

need to possess the ability to begin being implemented immediately and expected completion

needs to be as soon as possible.

How Well it Addresses the Problem

The third criterion is How Well it Addresses the Problem. The proposed solution needs to

consider both the residential and commercial development of the Liberty District, as well as the

overall image of the area. While the major goal of the proposed solution is for the residential and

commercial growth of the Liberty District, it is paramount that the said solution provides a

physical framework that retains and strengthens the District’s economic and cultural health and

makes a provision for reasonable future growth, restore and maintain the viability of the area,

promote a sense of identity, pride and confidence; and provide a safe, livable and desirable

neighborhood (“Master Plan” 1).

According to the Liberty District Master Plan, the Columbus Consolidated Government wants to

“[d]emolish substandard units and blighting influences” (1). This component of the residential

aspect of the Plan pertains to the BTW Building. And since the BTW housing units are a large

component in the revitalization the Liberty District, considering the housing needs of the BTW

residents and how to revitalize the existing BTW building is paramount when addressing the

residential aspect of the solution. In addition to addressing the BTW housing, the residential

component must also try to conserve existing standard housing and provide areas for new

residential development (“Master Plan” 1).

The commercialization aspect of the proposed solution needs to strongly consider the potential

growth of the Liberty District. According to the Master Plan, this growth entails: providing

convenient neighborhood shopping to support residential uses, encouraging retail and office

development, retention, expansion, recruitment, and retaining employment in local industries

(“Master Plan” 1). Measuring How Well it Addresses the Problem of the proposed solution also

considers the assets—places, buildings, and conditions that define the District in a positive

way—and liabilities—places, buildings, and conditions that define the District in a negative way.

6

These assets include: the Liberty Theatre, area churches, BTW Housing, cemeteries, Liberty

Gardens, Masonic Lodges, and the Mildred Terry Library. Some of the liabilities include:

housing, lack of retail, zoning, parking, structures, sense of community, and Veterans Parkway

gateway quality (“Master Plan” 7).

Popularity

The fourth criterion is Popularity. When measuring popularity, the proposed solution needs to

consider how well it is received amidst a variety of individuals. This includes: residents, business

owners, and city officials. Residents of the BTW housing units, in particular, will hold the most

weight when addressing the residential aspect of the proposed solution because the deciding how

to revitalize the BTW building remains at the forefront in debates of how to begin the

revitalization process. City officials, business owners, and other Columbus residents have a

significant impact on how well the proposed solution is received because these individuals are at

the heart of the Plan. These people “came together in a year-long redevelopment planning

process, during which they shared their ideas and values with each other” (“Master Plan” 2),

attended town meetings, and workshops to devise the Liberty District Master Plan, with the goal

of implementing a strategic solution which would help foster residential revitalization and

growth of commercialization.

Possible Solutions

The four proposed solutions are a combination of proposals by Mayor Teresa Tomlinson and the

Columbus Consolidated Government and varied interpretations of the Liberty District Plan

(“Update: Mayor Outline Four Alternatives” “Proposed Alternative Designs” “Taking Sides”).

These proposed solutions contain plans for both residential revitalization and growth through

improved commercial development in the Liberty District. Residential emphasis is being made

towards addressing the BTW housing units because the BTW building remains at the forefront in

debates of how to begin the revitalization process. Commercialization plans focus on

implementing a new park that benefits area residents, students, and tourists; the expansion of the

Liberty Theatre because it is considered an asset, and commercial development between 6th

Ave

and 8th

Street (see Image 1, Page 7). Artist renderings reflecting each proposed solution’s

commercial development aspect can be found in the appendix (See Images 2-5).

7

Figure 1: Liberty District area development

Image 1: Liberty District area Development (Source: Master Plan, p. 10)

A. Residential: Renovations to BTW: Simple

renovations made to the existing BTW

Housing units. Commercial: Commercial

Development (and 6th Ave & 8th St Corner

Dev.) / Large Park Development /

Expansion of the Liberty Theatre: Allow for

commercial development on 9th Street

between 7th and 8th Avenues and at the corner

of 9th Street and 8

th Ave. Allows for potential

commercial development at the corner of 6th

Ave and 8th Street. Provides a three-block

linear park for outdoor Liberty Theatre

activities and possible outdoor interactive

components of Liberty Center. Leaves site for

Liberty Theatre expansion, Liberty Center area

or potential future commercial development next

to Liberty Theatre and Linear Park. This plan would also allow for additional diagonal parking on

8th Ave to accommodate additional Liberty Theatre parking.

B. Residential: Nothing Done to BTW / Develop New Housing Elsewhere: Developing

100 mixed-income apartments to be built around the Liberty Theatre. Commercial:

Commercial Development (and 6th

Ave & 8th

St Corner Dev.) / Large Park

Development: Allow for commercial development at 9th

Street and 8th Avenue, along 8th

Street (between 6th

Ave and 8th

Ave) and at all corners of 6th

Ave and 8th

Street. Also

provides a three-block linear park for outdoor Liberty Theatre activities and possible

outdoor interactive components of Liberty Center. Also adds additional diagonal parking

for the Liberty Center.

C. Residential: Demolish BTW / Construct New Housing: Demolish BTW Housing units

and develop new units, similar to Arbor Pointe and Ashley Station. Commercial:

Commercial Development (and 6th

Ave & 8th

St Corner Dev.) / Large Park

Development / Expansion of the Liberty Theatre: Allow for commercial development

8

on 9th

Street between 7th

and 8th

Avenues and at the corner of 6th

Avenue and 8th

Ave.

Also allows for potential development at all corners of 6th

Ave and 8th

Street. Provides a

three-block linear park for outdoor Liberty Theatre activities and possible outdoor

interactive components of Liberty Center. Provides for Liberty Plaza across the street

from Liberty Theatre, which can be used for additional open space and off-street parking.

Also adds additional diagonal parking for the Liberty Theatre.

D. Residential: Renovations to BTW: Simple renovations made to the existing BTW

Housing units. Commercial: Commercial Development (No Corner Dev.) / Liberty

Theatre Expansion / Smaller Park Development: Allows for commercial development

along 9th

Street from 6th

Avenue to 9th

Avenue, and at the corner of 6th

Avenue and 8th

Street. Eliminates a section of the proposed Linear Park to allow for Liberty Theatre

Expansion, Liberty Center area, or commercial development next to the Liberty Theatre.

Proposes that the smaller version of the Linear Park be moved in front and behind the

Liberty Theatre as opposed to alongside it. Adds a playground behind the Liberty

Theatre. Eliminates the parking lot being used by the Friendship Baptist Church on 6th

Avenue.

Testing

The following section will provide an explanation of our findings along a subsequent matrix,

which illustrates how the four criteria discussed in the previous section (Economical, Feasibility,

How Well it Addresses the Problem, and Popularity) measure against our committee’s four

proposed solutions. Please note that while all criteria are weighted equally, if only the residential

or only the commercial aspect of the addressing the problem is met, it is denoted in the matrix as

a light blue checkmark and is only given half credit in that respective category. If the proposed

solution addresses both the residential and commercial needs of the problem, it is denoted in the

matrix as a green check mark, and is given full credit in that respective category.

Taking all of these measurements into account, the following matrix illustrates that the proposed

solution that meets the most amount of criteria is Plan A. Plan A proposes that renovations be

made to the BTW housing units, and that commercial development be made on 9th Street

9

between 7th and 8th Avenues and at the corner of 9th

Street and 8th

Ave. Allows for potential

future commercial development at the corner of 6th

Ave and 8th

Street, provides a three-block

linear park for outdoor Liberty Theatre activities and possible outdoor interactive components of

Liberty Center, leaves a site for Liberty Theatre expansion, Liberty Center area or potential

future commercial development next to Liberty Theatre and Linear Park. This plan would also

allow for additional diagonal parking on 8th

Ave to accommodate additional Liberty Theatre

parking.

Plan A Evaluation

Plan A address partially addressed the Economical criterion because it serves as an inexpensive

residential solution and an expensive commercial solution. Making renovations to the BTW

housing units is one of the least expensive solutions that can be done in order to satisfy the

residential component of the problem because other proposed solutions called for complete

demolishment and/or moving the housing to another area, which would require stronger efforts

made towards receiving investments by developers and would face strong competition when

trying to receive HUD funds and additional tax credits (“Update: Mayor Outlines Four

Alternatives”).

Plan A fully addresses the Feasibility criterion because it the residents of the BTW housing

won’t face displacement because the renovations will allow them to continue residing in the

building throughout completion. Plan A is also feasible because the commercial development

aspect of the plan was suggested by the Columbus Consolidated Government, Mayor Teresa

Tomlinson, and others who actively partook in Town Hall Meetings relating to the residential

revitalization and commercialization of the Liberty District. Moreover, details of the

commercialization were laid out in a memo entitled, “Proposed Alternative Designs for BTW

Redevelopment in the Liberty District” from the members of the Columbus Consolidated

Government to Liberty District Stakeholders. The memo contains four proposed solutions for the

redevelopment and commercialization of the Liberty District and these proposed solutions were

used in conjunction with Mayor Teresa Tomlinson’s proposals to form our committee’s proposed

solutions.

10

Plan A fully addresses the How Well it Addresses the Problem criterion because it addresses both

the residential and commercial aspect of the problem. Plan A will provide much needed

renovations to the BTW housing units, improving the overall appearance of both the interior and

exterior. Plan A will also allow commercial development on 9th Street between 7th and 8th

Avenues and at the corner of 9th

Street and 8th

Ave and at the corner of 6th

Ave and 8th

Street,

which satisfies the lack of commercialization that was articulated in the problem section of this

report. Furthermore, Plan A also creates a Large Park and expansion of the Liberty Theatre, both

of which serve as additional components of increasing commercialization in Liberty District the

area.

Plan A fully addresses the Popularity criterion because residents of the BTW housing can

continue residing where they are currently located and receive much needed renovations to their

units. Lisa Johnson, 55, a resident of BTW is quoted in the March 30, 2013 Ledger-Enquirer

article, “Taking Sides” as saying, “I want an upgrade. I’m tired of concrete walls. I’m tired of

having no carpet on my floors” (4). Plan A’s commercialization component was devised by

Mayor Teresa Tomlinson and detailed in an April 2, 2013 memo that was sent to Liberty District

Stakeholders. The proposed solution was revised in a Stakeholder meeting to allow additional

parking on 8th

Avenue to accommodate additional Liberty Theatre parking so the plan was more

feasible to execute. Unlike Plan B, which was rejected by Stakeholders on March 7, 2013), Plan

A wasn’t rejected, and only received one modification (“Proposed Alternatives” 3). Because of

this, Plan A is well-received and backed by Mayor Teresa Tomlinson, the Columbus

Consolidated Government, and Liberty District Stakeholders.

Plan B Evaluation

Plan B is an expensive residential solution; therefore, it only partially addresses the Economical

criterion. It will require more time to complete the residential aspect of the problem and will

require stronger efforts made towards receiving investments by developers and will face strong

competition when trying to receive HUD funds and additional tax credits when trying to build

new housing units elsewhere. Developing new housing units elsewhere would cost the city more

money than Plan A proposes, which is to simply revitalize and renovate the BTW housing units.

Plan B fulfills the Feasibility criterion because the commercialization component of the proposal

11

was suggested by Mayor Teresa Tomlinson (“Update: Mayor Outlines Four Alternatives” 3).

Because she, and members of the Columbus Consolidated Government, stands behind this

proposal, it is deemed as Feasible. Plan B does not fully fulfill the How Well it Solves the

Problem criterion because it does not address the existing BTW housing unit problem. It only

solves the commercialization component of the problem. Lastly, Plan B satisfies the Popularity

criterion because Mayor Teresa Tomlinson, City Manager Isaiah Hugley, the Housing Authority

of Columbus, Liberty Theatre Board Chairman Robert Anderson, area clergy, and some BTW

residents suggested both the residential and commercial components of this solution (“Taking

Sides” 2).

Plan C Evaluation

Plan C is the most expensive solution all-around because it proposes that the BTW housing units

be demolished and have new housing units constructed in its place, similar to Ashley Station and

Arbor Pointe. The commercialization component proposes the most development out of all the

solutions. Plan C entails plans for commercial development on Ninth Street between Seventh and

Eighth Avenues, and at the corner of Sixth Avenue and Eighth Street. It also proposes a large

three-block linear park and expansion of the Liberty Theatre. Because of this, Plan C does not

meet the Economical criterion. Plan C meets the Feasibility criterion because both the

commercialization and residential components of the proposal were suggested and backed by

Mayor Teresa Tomlinson (“Update: Mayor Outlines Four Alternatives” 2-3, “Taking Sides” 2-

5). Plan C meets the How Well it addresses the Problem because it allows for both

commercialization and revitalization of the Liberty District. Plan C partially meets the

Popularity criterion because while it is popular amongst BTW residents, it is not popular with

HUD Housing because lately it has been pushing housing authorities to opt for an alternative to

projects such as Arbor Pointe and Ashley Station. It is also not popular with,

“Lula Lundsford Huff, whose family has a long history of entrepreneurship in the Liberty

District, said the plans to move BTW residents around the Theatre violates a plan thatwas

developed from input from stakeholders who wanted the three bocks used for mixed

development” (“Taking Sides” 3).

12

Plan D Evaluation

Plan D is the cheapest solution all-around because it proposes that renovations be made to the

existing BTW housing units, it proposes no corner commercial development (like Plan A, B, and

C do), and while it proposes for the Liberty Theatre expansion, it also calls for a smaller park

development. Because of this, Plan D fulfills the Economical criterion. Plan D is the most

Feasible solution because it require the least amount of residential and commercial development.

Plan D partially meets the How Well it Addresses the Problem criterion because it satisfactorily

addresses the residential problem because it does not increase residential housing and only

addresses the commercialization component of the problem. And while it does address the

commercialization component of the problem, it proposes the smallest amount of development

be made. Plan D does not meet the Popularity criterion because it is not popular with the

Friendship Baptist Church because their parking lot will be eliminated in the commercial

development process (“Update: Mayor Outlines Four Proposals” 3).

13

Testing Matrix

Plan A Plan B Plan C Plan D

Economical

Feasibility

How Well it

Addresses the Problem

Popularity

Legend

Partially addresses problem— Only residential or only commercial

Fully addresses both residential revitalization and commercial

development revitalization

14

Recommendation

City officials and residents alike have established a need for residential revitalization and

commercial development of the historic Liberty District. After our committee weighed the four

proposed solutions against the four criteria (Economical, Feasibility, How Well it Solves the

Problem, Popularity), we propose that Plan A be implemented because it satisfies the most

criteria. Plan A, which entails:

Renovations are to be made to the existing BTW housing units:

o This apartment complex is in the vicinity of a busy street. Because of this, we will

create a central courtyard for BTW residents. By creating a courtyard with

landscaping, barbecue area and seating for the residents, we can create a quiet

space for the residents to enjoy, and also increase the curb appeal of the property

(“Renovation Tips”).

o We will install new concrete sidewalks on the property. The new asphalt and

sidewalks assure that water is drained away from the property and ultimately out

to the city street (“Renovation Tips”).

o We will install an entryway security system. It’s an inexpensive, telephone based

door locking system used by residents to allow entry to visitors (“Renovation

Tips”).

o We will replace the existing interior brick walls with drywall, and then apply a

simple two-tone paint job (“Renovation Tips”). The exterior will also receive a

paint job, in accordance with historic Liberty District color standards.

o We will install ceiling fans (“Renovation Tips”) and upgrade heating and air

units.

o We will install a bright, white Durolast roofing system to replace the existing

roofing (“Renovation Tips”).

Commercial development (and 6th Ave & 8th St Corner Dev.), large park development,

and expansion of the Liberty Theatre:

o This also allows for additional diagonal parking on 8th

Ave to accommodate

additional Liberty Theatre Parking

o This also allows for commercial development on 9th Street between 7th and 8th

Avenues

15

o Commercial development in this area shall include: restaurants, retail shops, a

grocery store, a drug store, and a possible hotel.

o The expansion of the Liberty Theatre shall serve as a, “mixed-use area of loft

housing, commerce, and entertainment focused on an urban space open to the

community” (“Master Plan” 12).

Implementation of Plan A will solve the issue surrounding the need for residential revitalization

of the BTW housing units and commercial development in the Liberty District that was

described in the problem statement.

16

Appendix

Figure 1: Plan A Commercial Development Artist Rendering

(Source: “Proposed Alternative Designs for BTW Redevelopment in the Liberty District” Memo April 2, 2013.)

17

Figure 2: Plan B Commercial Development Artist Rendering

(Source: “Proposed Alternative Designs for BTW Redevelopment in the Liberty District” Memo April 2, 2013.)

18

Figure 3: Plan C Commercial Development Artist Rendering

(Source: “Proposed Alternative Designs for BTW Redevelopment in the Liberty District” Memo April 2, 2013.)

19

Figure 4: Plan D Commercial Development Artist Rendering

(Source: “Proposed Alternative Designs for BTW Redevelopment in the Liberty District” Memo April 2, 2013.)

20

Works Cited

Bradley, Theresa. "Forcing Appreciation On Multifamily Properties With a Value Added

Strategy: Some Before and After Pictures of Apartment Building Renovations." Theresa

Bradley-Banta Real Estate Consultancy RSS. N.p., 2013. Web. 22 Apr. 2013.

James-Johnson, Alva. "Taking Sides: Liberty District Redevelopment, BTW Relocation at

Center of Dispute Among City's Political Leaders." Taking Sides: Liberty District

Redevelopment, BTW Relocation at Center of Dispute among City's Political Leaders.

Ledger-Enquirer, 30 Mar. 2013. Web. 19 Apr. 2013.

JRA Architects, and KPS Group. Master Plan for the Liberty District. Columbus: n.p., 2003.

PDF.

Owen, Mike. "Update: Mayor Outline Four Alternatives for Liberty District

Redevelopment." Update: Mayor Outlines Four Alternatives for Liberty District

Redevelopment. Ledger-Enquirer, 2 Apr. 2013. Web. 19 Apr. 2013.

Tomlinson, Teresa, and Columbus Council. Proposed Alternative Designs for BTW Replacement

in the Liberty District. Columbus: Columbus Consolidated Government, 2 Apr. 2013.

PDF.

Tomlinson, Teresa. Liberty District Master Plan. Columbus: Columbus Consolidated

Government, 2 Apr. 2013. PDF.