[Senate Hearing 105-621]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 105-621
GSA JURISDICTION IN LOCAL COMMUNITIES
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 17, 1998--HELENA, MONTANA
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-523 cc WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma HARRY REID, Nevada
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas BARBARA BOXER, California
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado RON WYDEN, Oregon
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
FEBRUARY 17, 1998--HELENA, MONTANA
Page
OPENING STATEMENT
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 48
WITNESSES
Fine, Colleen, director, Urban Revitalization Agency, Butte, MT.. 38
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Kennedy, Mark, city council member, Billings, MT................. 28
Prepared statement........................................... 52
Lynch, Hon. Jack, chief executive, Butte-Silver Bow County,
Butte, MT...................................................... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 59
McCarthy, Hon. Colleen, mayor, Helena, MT........................ 21
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Nicholson, Alan, Helena, MT...................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 56
Pahl, Barbara, regional director, National Trust for Historic
Preservation, Denver, CO....................................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Peck, Robert A., Commissioner, Public Buildings Services, General
Services Administration; accompanied by Paul Prouty, Assistant
Regional Administrator, General Services Administration,
Denver, CO, and Tanisha Harrison, Contracting Officer, General
Services Administration, Denver, CO............................ 3
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Prouty, Paul, Assistant Regional Administrator, General Services
Administration, Denver, CO..................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Schultz, Mechelle, Downtown Business Association, Billings, MT... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 66
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letters:
Armold, Bill................................................. 54
Baca, Polly..................................................55, 71
Barthuly, Chuck.............................................. 72
Coxwell, Jonathan............................................ 70
Downtown Billings Association................................ 74
Estrada, Sharon.............................................. 106
Fagg, Harrison............................................... 106
Fine, Colleen..........................................98, 103, 105
Foster, Kay.................................................. 72
Harrison, Tanisha............................................ 56
Hawke, Sandra................................................ 83
Johnson, Jack................................................ 82
Kissock, Betty............................................... 106
Larson, Michael.............................................. 84
McNally, Judy................................................ 73
Moss, Lynda Borque........................................... 81
Nieweg, Robert............................................... 104
Nicholson, Alan.............................................. 58
Reavis, Mark...............................................103, 104
Ringler, Malia......................................58, 59, 87, 105
Schultz, Mechelle............................................ 70
Taras, Frank................................................. 84
Thomas, Jerry S.............................................. 82
Watson, Mark S............................................... 55
List, members of the Downtown Billings Association............... 67
Notice, Lease of Federal Building Space, GSA..................... 88
Report, Butte-Silver Bow Historic Preservation Office, Mark
Reavis......................................................... 88
GSA JURISDICTION IN LOCAL COMMUNITIES
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Helena, MT.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. at the
Lewis and Clark Library, Helena, MT, Hon. Max Baucus presiding.
Present: Senator Baucus.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. The hearing will come to order. First, I
would like to introduce a few people. I'll start with probably
the most important person, Sherron Walstad. Sherron is our
stenographer here. If we talk too quickly or you can't
understand somebody, just holler.
To my immediate left is Tom Sliter. Tom Sliter is the
minority staff director of the Committee on Environment and
Public Works. That's the committee of the U.S. Senate that has
jurisdiction over the public works buildings, GSA. It's also
the committee that has jurisdiction over most environmental
issues. But for the purposes of this hearing, we're examining
the issue of GSA in local communities.
I'm the senior Democrat on that committee, and that's why
Tom is here, as the senior member of the Democratic staff.
On my right is Kathy Ruffalo. Among the various staff on
the committee, different staff are assigned different
responsibilities, some environmental issues like clean water,
air, and so forth. Kathy's responsibility is highways and
buildings. So the highway bill coming up before the Congress,
obviously, Kathy is very much involved in that.
The purpose of this hearing, basically, is to try to
straighten out some of the confusion that has arisen apparently
between the GSA and their policies on the one hand and folks in
Billings, in Helena, and Butte with respect to Federal
Buildings, and rentals and replacement.
There are a lot of issues involved. One is the various
Executive orders that have to do with preference for locating
buildings in, say, central business areas. Another Executive
order gives preference for historic buildings or historic
districts.
Then there is the question of the best deal for the
taxpayers, that is, competitive bidding. There are issues of
seismic retrofits, and how those various factors are weighed in
deciding what the correct solution should be. For example,
should the GSA renew a lease at the Federal Building here in
Helena or should it perhaps look at a different location.
Another general issue I'd like to explore today is how we
can better, for lack of a better expression, communicate, or
understand each other. Public servants like GSA and myself are
the employees. The public are the employers, and we need to
assure ourselves that we're doing the very best job possible,
in this case, particularly GSA, in serving our country, in
serving the wishes of the people who pay the taxes and who
elect or unelect us and who elect or unelect presidents who
have something to do with the General Services Administration.
So we have to nail that down better. Apparently there's
been a lot of misunderstanding and miscommunication. It's my
goal when this hearing is over to clear up some confusion.
Second, we will set in place a procedure, some kind of a
follow-up procedure, to resolve these basic issues in Helena,
Billings, and Butte. The other is procedural--potential issues
like this that come up in the future--so that people in our
State feel more comfortable about the way Federal Building
issues are handled, and are comfortable with the final
resolution.
I might also add, for the purposes of our guests from GSA,
a little history. I'm sure you know a little bit about Helena.
It's our capital city, but Helena is a very historic city. As
you know, when you come up Last Chance Gulch, you might ask,
``What in the world is Last Chance Gulch?'' Well, if you know
the history of the four Georgians that came here, this was the
last chance to find gold; and before turning back, ``Oh, what
the heck. Give it a whack. Give it a try,'' and they did great.
That started the Gold Rush and eventually led to Helena
becoming the capital city. With the urban renewal and part of
that modernization that occurred a couple--20, 30 years ago, a
lot of buildings, unfortunately, in Helena were removed, and
the whole downtown area is a lot different now. But we have the
Federal Building to anchor this section of town. That was part
of the understanding, that with urban renewal, that the Federal
Building would be here and that would be in this part of town.
When the hearing is over, I'd like to take a walk down the
street and go to various landmarks like the Parrot, have lunch,
and just explain a little bit of the flavor of Helena I will
point out the water tower and some of the landmarks that are
not only famous, but infamous, just to give you a sense of the
area.
I'd like to first introduce our first witness, Bob Peck.
Bob is the Commissioner for Public Buildings in GSA. He's the
No. 2 man--excuse me, he's the No. 2 person in GSA. We do not
have the head of GSA with us, but we have the No. 2 person.
Commissioner Bob Peck has served in many capacities in
public service. I think I have some of them here. I know he
worked for Senator Moynihan, as Senator Moynihan's chief of
staff. That's relevant because Senator Moynihan was once the
chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works and
very involved in a lot of the buildings that are constructed in
the United States today.
He's a graduate of Harvard University's School of Design.
So he's quite involved in the design of buildings. He's also
been with the Office of Management and Budget, National
Endowment for the Arts, involved with development of the
Communications Commission, and just has a sense of this
subject, and we're very honored to have him here.
Bob, why don't you begin, and I'd like you to keep your
remarks to 5 minutes. Please address the questions that I have
referred to in my opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. PECK, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS
SERVICES, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON, DC;
ACCOMPANIED BY PAUL PROUTY, ASSISTANT REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR,
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, DENVER, CO, AND TANISHA
HARRISON, CONTRACTING OFFICER, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
DENVER, CO
Mr. Peck. Yes, sir. Thank you, Senator Baucus. Thank you
for asking me here.
I will just note that I am accompanied by Paul Prouty from
Denver. He's our assistant regional administrator there for
public buildings, so he's in charge of the region. To his right
is Tanisha Harrison, who is a realty specialist, also in our
Denver office, who knows more than--both of them know more than
I do about the specifics of these three instances.
I'm very happy to be here at your invitation to talk about
the Public Buildings Program and specifically how we can work
in partnership with communities here in Montana, as we do
elsewhere throughout the country.
I would also note that I have, so far, just driven by the
downtown. I'm proud to say that when I was a private sector
real estate attorney and a local preservation attorney in my
hometown of Washington, DC, I helped create a downtown historic
district in Washington. So I'm very interested in the problems
of historic districts and in revitalizing downtowns.
Just a few points about GSA in general, because it's
important to put in perspective how we operate our program
before we get to the community issues, which are very
important.
We're sometimes known as ``the government's landlord,''
which is not probably the happiest title anybody could have or
the most user-friendly of names. We prefer to say these days
that ``We are not your father's GSA.''
Much has changed about GSA in the past several years around
the country. We believe we are a model for reinvented
government. Since the start of this administration--I think
this is good news--we are about 25 percent smaller by
employment. We are operating in more streamlined and business-
like ways.
For example, the Public Building Service, which I head
nationally, had 10,000 employees in January 1993. By December
31 of last year we were under 7,500.
We have a lot of successes to tell the American people
about what we are doing. We provide Federal agencies, for
example, with long-distance telephone rates, rates that are
lower than any business in the United States pays. We have
airfares when we travel on business that are cheaper than those
paid by any private businesses as well. We operate our
government-owned buildings, ac-
cording to independent surveys, at a cost per square foot less
than that paid by private-sector building owners for comparable
services.
In the Public Building Service we have the particular
opportunity to run like a business. We collect our agent--we
collect rents from Federal agencies, and we have expenses going
out. We have a bottom line we can watch.
Our job is to benefit our direct customers, the Federal
agencies who have to get work done in a space we provide; and
more importantly, we have to satisfy our ultimate shareholders,
the American taxpayers.
We are giving our customers choice, because they pay us
rents, they demand services at a fair price. We have told our
customers a year-and-a-half ago, and something hardly any
government agency I know of has ever voluntarily done, that
they don't even need to use our services. If we don't provide
them with good value and good service, they can go out and
lease on their own. We have challenged our employees to meet
that test. So far, I'm happy to say very few agencies have
chosen to go outside.
We are a very big business, both nationally and in the
communities in which we operate. Nationally our budget is about
$5 billion a year. That's a lot of money by anybody's
accounting standards.
More than 90 percent of that money is returned to the
private sector either as maintenance, cleaning and security
guard contracts, hiring private-sector architects, engineers
and construction contractors, or to private building owners
when we lease space for Federal employees.
Our lease costs are about $2.3 billion a year nationally,
and leased space accommodates about half of the Federal
employees for whom we provide office space.
In the Public Building Service in the last several years we
have cut red tape, reduced the time it takes us to act,
eliminated duplicative management abuse, and empowered our
employees.
I have to tell you, in the private sector I have been, as I
said, a real estate attorney and a commercial mortgage banker;
and our employees, particularly those who do our leasing and
property management services, are as good as any private-sector
employees with whom I've ever worked, the only difference being
that our people are paid a whole lot less.
One of the things we have done in leasing is to reduce the
size of our, what we used to call a standard lease. We used to
hand a landlord a 50-page lease full of all kinds of government
gobbledygook. We have trimmed that down to about 11 pages. It's
no longer a standard. It's a model so that our leasing
specialists, who are smart people, have the flexibility to cut
the best deal for the American people and for the Federal
Government. We had to do this anyway, to streamline our
business, because the workload has remained almost constant;
and as I said, we have a lot fewer people to do it with.
So we are a business-like organization, but we are not a
business. We are a government agency and we have special
obligations as representatives of the government and of the
American people.
Some of those obligations, like being good citizens in our
communities, are similar to the obligations voluntarily
undertaken by the best civic-minded businesses. Other
obligations are more specific.
Congress has enacted laws which require us, for example, to
adhere strictly to new seismic building standards. We are
required by law to give preference to small businesses that are
contracting, and to workshops for the blind and severely
handicapped in our building services, even if it costs us a bit
more.
These are all good policies. I think they're supported by
the American people and they are supported by those of us in
GSA who have to carry them out.
Although the procurement laws, the laws that tell us how we
have to purchase goods and services, have also been
streamlined, they still hold us to certain procedures which
require that we get competition in every case we can when we
solicit for construction, leasing or even maintenance
contracts.
Those laws rightly restrict us from situations in which we
might simply go out and use a single source, a sole source, to
pay for goods and services. There is a great deal of
skepticism, you can see, underlying these policies and laws and
regulations about government employees just going out and
finding someone they like or whom they find it convenient to do
business, and not giving other people in the country a fair
chance to do business with the government or to make sure that
we get the best price we can for our services.
With respect to working with communities, again, as
everyone knows, we have some laws and regulations that govern
the way we do business. In 1976, Congress passed the Public
Buildings Cooperative Use Act, which requires us to consider
historic buildings when we need to acquire space, either by
purchase, or when we lease space.
Executive Order 12072 issued by President Carter requires
us to consider central business areas of cities first before we
go anywhere else when looking for Federal locations. President
Clinton reinforced that in Executive Order 13006, which said
the same thing about central business areas and added the
requirement that we look first to buildings in historic
districts or individual historic landmarks.
In 1996, we took a further step. We established, under our
administrator, Dave Barram, what we call a Good Neighbor
Program. Going beyond the Executive orders' location policies,
we said that we would cooperate with downtown business
improvement districts where they are established.
I was particularly pleased with this, personally, because
as a private citizen in Washington, I was on the city committee
that helped establish a bid in my hometown of Washington. We
now have signed agreements with 50 bids in 35 States. We have
hosted also, on Federal plazas and inside Federal Buildings,
5,000 community events, things like farmers' markets in
Chicago, Girl Scout fundraisers, even community plays.
We recognize that we are a large real estate presence in
every city and in every community in which we have space. We
recognize that when we locate our buildings and our leases, we
can help or harm economic development. This is a difficult
issue.
Economic development, as everyone here knows, isn't
something that's simply done by locating a facility in a
certain location, although that can help. It's also important
to make sure the employees in our building can contribute to
economic development by being located near commercial services
that they can partake of during the day.
It's important that when we plan the enhanced security,
which we are doing in all Federal Buildings since Oklahoma
City, that we do it in a way that we don't scare off the
public, nor imprison our employees in our buildings. That's the
last thing we want to do.
We need to find locations that work for the community and
for our agencies, and we need to locate in buildings, I
believe, that are designed in a way that they enhance the
visual environment in which they sit.
This is not terribly new. The Federal Government has
recognized since the founding of our Nation that where we put
Federal Buildings and facilities is important. The
Constitutional Convention, in fact, debated where the capital
city should be. It was a subject of compromise to put it where
it is, on the Potomac River in Washington.
I can tell you that across the Nation, our good-neighbor
policy has resulted in a great number of successes in location
decisions. Last year, alone, we renewed over 800 leases in 500
downtowns across the country.
We have, in many cases, brought Federal workers back
downtown who used to be outside the central business area; for
example, in Atlanta where we opened a new Federal Building last
year and brought people in from the outskirts of the city.
It's not always easy, though. We have to balance agency
requirements. I would note that the Executive orders don't just
apply to GSA. They apply to all Federal agencies. Yet it is
also true that Federal agencies sometimes, because of their
mission requirements, have requirements that make it difficult
to find buildings downtown that will work for them, that will
give them good productive space.
It is our obligation, nonetheless, to urge the agencies
which we are housing in our buildings to modify their
requirements if necessary, if feasible, so that they can fit
into the building they find in historic districts and in other
downtown locations.
We need cooperation in our partnership. We need to be
aggressive, as I say, in challenging agency requirements that
would unduly restrict considerations of downtowns, and also
requirements that would restrict us to just one location,
because the procurement laws frown upon that, as I've noted.
We also need the cooperation of communities and leaders in
the communities to help us find locations and sometimes to help
us resolve the other requirements that we have to make
locations work; for example, in helping locate amenities,
making sure that the locations work for our employees.
Sometimes I quote the great country singer Ernest Tubb, who
said--although he's from Texas and not Montana--I would note
Ernest Tubb, of the Texas Troubadours, once said, ``If you want
to have good neighbors, you've got to be a good neighbor,
doggone ya.'' So it is a two-way street and is something that
we need to be a good neighbor just as we need good neighbors
around us.
We are eager to be good neighbors. I've seen this program
work in lots of locations around the country where we can
satisfy our Federal customer, get the best value for the
taxpayers, and contribute to the economic development.
I have to say this. It's not always easy. It's not always
smooth. I think this hearing is a testimony to the fact it is
not always smooth, but I know that we can do this. I know that
we have had successes across the country, and I know we can do
that in Montana, too.
I know I will come back after awhile. I just want to make
you this commitment before Paul speaks, that we are--I'm not
going to say that every step we have taken in our processes in
Helena, Billings, and Butte have been the right steps, even
under our own procedures. I don't have personal knowledge that
we've done anything that violates any law or regulation either.
We don't want to play this like lawyers. We want to be
partners with the communities and we want to make the situation
work to everyone's advantage. No matter what has happened up to
this point, I want to give you my commitment that we are going
to try to forge a partnership in all three of these communities
to make everybody as satisfied as we can, consistent with our
obligations. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Commissioner. I particularly
appreciate your last statement about your commitment. That's
basically the point of this hearing, is to make sure we get
this resolved and resolve any potential future problems as we
go the best we can. Thank you very much.
Next, Paul Prouty, who is the Deputy Regional Administrator
in Denver.
Paul.
STATEMENT OF PAUL PROUTY, ASSISTANT REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR,
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, DENVER, CO
Mr. Prouty. Thank you very much. I am Paul Prouty, the
Assistant Regional Administrator for the General Services in
Denver. We manage a six-State Rocky Mountain region. That
includes roughly 14 million square feet. As Bob says, we're a
very large real estate services provider. 1.03 million square
feet of that is in Montana. We invest annually about $7 million
in rental payments into the State of Montana.
As Bob said, we are the broker for the Federal agencies. We
are convinced, as he said, that we have a very talented and
capable staff. We're very proud of our employees, and we think
they do a very good job within many constraints.
We are, as Bob indicated as well, committed to the central
business areas, to historical buildings, and historical areas.
However, our business responsibilities require that we satisfy
our client needs and that we do good business for the
taxpayers.
I want to briefly discuss the three actions. I'll give more
as Bob indicated as well. Neither he nor I were really on the
front line of these, but we reviewed them very carefully.
What I'd like to talk about, as he did, is discuss these
with an eye to the future. There are some things that were
done--I must tell you, I've been in this job for 6 months. I
was gone from this region for about 3 or 4 years. However, I
was in this region as far back as when this building was placed
in Helena.
In Helena we have an ongoing project right now. We still
have an opportunity to work with the locals, and we're
committed to doing that.
What we have are a lot of changing agency needs. So right
now, we have to figure out exactly what the agencies are doing.
Because of downsizing and the like, agencies are identifying
requirements that are far different than what they had 10 or 20
years ago, and we must work within that environment.
We also have the seismic requirements, which we must meet.
There are different opinions on what that looks like. We've had
some independent studies, and we'll continue to work to make
sure we do that in a fashion that ensures that we meet the
requirements, but helps us work within the environment of the
real estate market that we have.
Also, we have a responsibility to make sure we get the best
deal for the government. In situations such as Helena where
there is limited competition, it is very difficult for us to do
that, but we constantly strive to do that and find
opportunities in order to get competition to ensure that the
taxpayers benefit.
In Helena we're committed to working with the interested
parties, but we must, in the final analysis, have a good deal
for the government and we must have a building that meets the
needs of the tenants and the seismic requirements mandated by
Congress.
In Butte, as well, we have an active project, and in that
one, I must admit we had some false starts. All of us will
agree with that. We are rather new to the Good Neighbor
Program, and a lot of those programs we are struggling a little
bit to develop partnerships that enable that to work; and also
in that particular case, we have a client in MEPS, Military
Entrance Processing, that has some unique national requirements
that we are challenging them to work with us to help satisfy
the requirements of the community.
In December, we basically stopped our process and went back
out on the market with an eye on the historic district to try
to find specific opportunities that we could make work. There
are some that are available. We have a commitment from the
Department of Defense to come with us to Butte, to sit down
with whomever would like to talk to us to see what we can do,
with the properties available, in order to make a deal.
Once again, I think the challenge of Butte is that we must
have a building that meets the clients' needs, and so far,
we've not really brought them in to articulate what those are,
but we are willing to do that and they've agreed to do that as
well.
In Billings, because of the pending litigation, we've been
asked by the U.S. Attorney not to talk about the particulars,
but there are a few things we can say about Billings.
That was, once again, a requirement by the agency which
caused the real estate deal to be extremely difficult. Also, as
I'm sure everybody is aware, the need for competition was the
reason that we expanded, ultimately, the delineated area. And
in the final analy-
sis, there was some savings identified for the taxpayer; but
without talking about that particular deal, I do want to talk
about a success story in Billings that I was personally
involved in where we worked with the city, where the city
optioned a site which we went out and completed the requirement
which ultimately placed 14 agencies in the Jamison Building, 40
percent of which were outside the CBA when we started. It's a
106,000 square foot building in which we pay rent of $1.3
million a year.
So we have shown in the past that we are capable of doing
deals such as that. They're never easy. We find that especially
when you get to smaller communities, they're usually more
challenging, but we have a commitment to develop a partnership.
We will acknowledge that we haven't done as well as we
necessarily would like, but we're going to stay after it and
try to do it in the best interests of the taxpayers and local
communities. It's a difficult balancing act.
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much, Paul. I'd like to ask
you some general questions. Then when you're finished, we're
going to have some local folks come up and give their
testimony, and I'll ask them some questions. When they're
finished, there's a good chance they'll want to bring you back.
Mr. Peck. We're happy to do that. We're not going any
place.
Senator Baucus. I appreciate that. With a view toward
trying to find out what's going on here, the first sort of
basic question I have is, how do you generally coordinate with
local officials? That's the basic question here. What's the
process, you know? How early on do you consult with them, with
the people?
Let's take Helena as an example. How many people from GSA
have come to visit with Helena, and to what degree do you take
into consideration Helena's master plan or any master plan a
community might have, and how much deference do you give to
their concerns? If you could tell me what's the standard normal
procedure here, and particularly, with a view to what, in your
view, happened here in Helena.
Mr. Peck. First of all, I would note that we do have a
permanent presence in Helena in our Property Management staff
in the Helena Federal Building. So, I mean, we do have people
who live here who know this area.
Second, in general, here is what we ask our people in
communities across the country to do, and that is that we are
always, as Paul noted, hearing from Federal agencies about
their requirements for new space or for giving up space or
changes in their missions; maybe they need a different kind of
space or whatever.
When that happens and we start coming up with our thinking
about how we satisfy those requirements, our general rule is
that a couple of times a year our folks are supposed to be
talking to the city. When specific--just in general about
planning, what's happening in your city?
In fact, last year we announced, but we've not yet carried
out a more far-reaching plan for getting our folks in touch
with city planners on an annual basis to work out a plan. So
there is supposed to be some kind of routine communication
between our folks and cities.
Second, when specific requirements come up, we ask our
people to talk to cities about what this is going to mean for
leasing or for new building locations, whatever the case may
be. There are usually two reasons for doing this. One is that a
lot of cities have economic development offices, and planning
offices generally know what's available. It's a good, easy step
to take when you're first doing a survey of what space there is
around. And, second, generally that's the way we are supposed
to consult.
Finally, there are more specific requirements, obviously.
Since the Executive order says that there is supposed to be a
central business order of preference, we ask cities what is the
central business area. We do not establish our own definition
of a central business area. We get it from the localities.
I can tell you in large procurements--and then I'll come
back to Helena--in major metropolitan areas in the country
where this has come up before, there have been very detailed
discussions with city officials, in many cases, up to and
including the mayors of some of the larger cities in the
country, about what the so-called delineated area for a lease
is going to be.
Senator Baucus. What happened in Helena's case? You say the
general policy is to consult, you know, twice a year. Did that
happen here?
Mr. Prouty. Probably not.
Senator Baucus. Or in Billings or Butte?
Would you turn on the microphone and identify yourself,
what your position is, and so forth?
Ms. Harrison. My name is Tanisha Harrison, and I'm a
contracting officer and realty specialist for GSA in Denver.
Regarding the consultation process, I think in some of the
smaller communities it's more typical, when we have our larger
requirements that come up, to consult at that time, when we're
aware of the requirements.
Senator Baucus. So in this case there was not the 6-month
consultation.
Mr. Prouty. I think that's true; and also in Helena there
is a unique circumstance because we had a renewal that was
coming due, and because of the seismic deficiencies in the
building, that caused us not to renew.
So, basically, we probably would have kept similar housing,
same building. We had a contract in place which would have gone
on for another 10 years, which historically, without any
extenuating circumstances, we probably would have renewed. So I
think that caught us by surprise as well.
Senator Baucus. Would it be GSA policy to, nevertheless,
consult twice a year with communities like Helena, Billings,
and Butte? Did the policy fall down or what happened?
Mr. Prouty. I think the answer is yes. It's difficult to
establish which communities you do that in. As Bob indicated,
we have a very limited staff. We probably have four to six
people who have to do this throughout a very large geographical
area.
So what we try to do is try to make sure we know when there
is something going on and where we need to have people. We're
trying to develop some relationships, and while communication
is ongoing in some communities, it's still in its infancy. I
think it's safe to say in this case, we probably didn't do
that.
Mr. Peck. Yes, in areas where we have a lot of different
leases going on, in metropolitan areas where there can be 100
government leases, there is a need for that sort of continual
consultation more than in smaller areas where it just doesn't
come up that often.
The bottom line, however, is that we do expect consultation
when an actual lease negotiation is going to be required.
Senator Baucus. Again, how much before renewal? How much
time before renewal is it GSA's policy to call up the community
and say, ``Hey, renewal is coming up down the road and we
should find out what your desires and wishes are''?
Mr. Peck. We don't--one of the things I talked about before
is, we're trying to eliminate as many sort of cookbook
requirements as we can on our folks. We have a requirement that
people consult. We don't say it has to be 10 days in advance, 7
days in advance. It depends on the community.
Again, as Paul noted, whereas here, the expectation--
suppose this had just gone through, the expectation where you
were just going to renew the lease in the existing space. There
might be minimum consultation, just to say, ``Looks like we're
going to do this.''
In other cases where you think you're actually going to do
a solicitation and you have to worry about whether you're going
to stay, that would be a different thing.
Like I say, the problem with--and I happen to like real
estate--the problem with real estate is that every situation is
different, so we try not to have sort of fixed requirements on
how much time you have.
The bottom line--I don't want to evade this--is that we
expect consultation with the community when we take major lease
actions and before they are set in concrete.
Senator Baucus. I understand that. So in the case of
Helena, Butte, and Billings, are those major lease actions in
your view?
Mr. Prouty. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Baucus. According to your best recollection, how
far in advance were those communities consulted in a meaningful
way?
Ms. Harrison. As far as Billings is concerned,
specifically, I was the contracting officer for that project,
and I know that the consultation started well in advance of the
time that advertisement was ever placed----
Senator Baucus. ``Well'' means----
Ms. Harrison. At least 2 to 3 years.
Senator Baucus. In the case of Helena?
Ms. Harrison. In the case of Helena, I'm not the
contracting officer for that project, but I do know that
consultation started taking place when we realized we had a
requirement, could not exercise the renewal, and needed to
establish a delineated area in which to seek--to meet the
requirements.
Senator Baucus. So you don't know how far in advance?
Ms. Harrison. I can't name a certain number of days or
months, no.
Senator Baucus. Could you just--one of the key questions is
a Central Business Area question. In communities like the size
of Helena, Butte, and Billings, which are a little different
than Den-
ver, for example, the importance of downtown areas in
communities like ours is probably more than Denver, because
it's just such a big city.
So we have this Executive order. Do you give more weight to
the Central Business Area Executive order in smaller
communities than you do in larger ones, all things being equal?
Mr. Peck. All things being equal, the fair answer is,
probably we do not, because I will tell you, when I talk to the
mayors in Denver and Atlanta, they are also quite adamant about
how important their downtowns are.
You are absolutely right, however, that what is true in
those areas is that there are probably other options. If we
move out of a lease, there are lots of other companies and
lawyers, accountants, whatever, who are going to be prepared to
move in, and we're aware that that may not be the case here.
The flip side of that in small communities is that in the
downtown area of a larger city there are probably several
locations in which we can find some space available that we can
use as competition. Sometimes the problem in smaller
communities is that we can't get the competition we need, and
our worry--and we are required--Congress never says, ``Here is
a law, so start worrying,'' but we are required by law to worry
about whether we can get adequate competition to make sure we
get a good, competitive deal.
In the private sector of real estate, you do the same
thing. I worked for a law firm that was considering whether to
move out of its building or stay, and we canvassed the area to
see if there was some other locations available so that when we
negotiated with our own landlord and eventually stayed in the
building, we made sure that that landlord knew that he had to
come up with a good deal to keep us.
Senator Baucus. I understand. The point I'm trying to focus
on is the importance of downtown areas and how much weight you
give to that. Do you give considerable weight to it or some
weight?
Mr. Peck. I'd say huge weight, because the Executive order
says ``first preference'' unless there is an issue of----
Senator Baucus. When you decide to extend the boundary, I
guess under the Executive order, you're required to consult the
local community. What do you mean--what do you think
``consult'' means?
Mr. Peck. Let me start by saying, I think it means--let me
put it this way. It is more than a pro forma consultation. It
means a sitting down. It doesn't necessarily mean--we have the
ultimate responsibility because we are the fiduciary for the
taxpayers. We eventually have to make a decision about how to
negotiate the best price for the taxpayers.
But consultation means you sit down. There is a good give
and take. If there is eventually--hopefully that produces a
meeting of the minds. If it doesn't, there needs to be--my hope
is that at the end of a consultative process, everybody feels
like they got a fair shot; and even if they disagree, that they
weren't frozen out of the process.
Let me make one other point about the weight. I want to be
clear. We do not go for the lowest bidder on our deals. So it
is conceivable--and Paul can correct me if I'm wrong--we don't
say, ``Look for a place in the Central Business Area and look
for places outside; and if it's outside the Central Business
Area, but cheaper, we'll go outside.'' We will still award a
lease----
Senator Baucus. In this case is it your impression that
there was meaningful consultation with people in Helena and
Billings and Butte, not just pro forma? Was it meaningful, in
your judgment?
Mr. Prouty. I think the answer is yes.
Senator Baucus. I don't mean to badger you, but if you can
outline what happened here in Helena which justifies your
belief.
Mr. Prouty. Can I start with Billings and move to Helena?
Senator Baucus. Fine.
Mr. Prouty. Billings is something I know something about. I
mean, I was personally involved. Some of this other stuff
happened when I was in Boston.
In Billings, we knew we had a lot of evolving needs in
Billings, so we went to the city and we had a discussion with
the city officials which came down to what we thought was a
wonderful idea, which they would find a site downtown and we
would option. We would place our tenants in a 14-agency
consolidation; and at the time we were discussing that they
would also option a site outside the city limits, the CBA of
Billings, in order for us to place a requirement that looked
like it couldn't be placed downtown, and that was BLM. It was a
two-step process, which we thought was great.
Because of changing players, changing requirements,
changing a lot of things, we did the Jamison Building; and then
we had the next phase of discussion about what we were going to
be able to do with BLM, what they needed, what requirements
there were, and how they could be satisfied. It's been a very
lengthy process with a lot of discussions on buildings.
In Butte we had discussions, but I think on occasions we
probably weren't talking to the people we should have been
talking to, and we acknowledged that we had not done a thorough
enough job. That's why we backed off and went to the discussion
phases again. Our bias is toward putting it downtown, I assure
you.
Now, in Helena, I don't think we've had ongoing
discussions, because I think we thought that the requirements
were pretty much set where they were in this building.
Senator Baucus. I'm sorry, I don't understand that.
Mr. Prouty. Well, in Helena we thought we had a continuing
contract for the Helena Federal Building, and so when the
seismic requirements caused us to not be able to exercise that
renewal, everything changed. It wasn't that we anticipated, you
know, 5 years in advance that something was going to happen.
That happened in the final analysis, just months before, which
was May of this year, and now the discussions have been going
on. We're trying to firm up a short-term deal to figure out
what we can do. In all cases what we have done, and what we
continue to do, is challenge the local communities to help us
find a successful way to satisfy these needs.
In Billings, right up to the end, we were talking to the
Mayor to see what it was we could do if the city could
contribute some, change their zoning, whatever they could do.
We are looking for the cities to work with us to cause us
to satisfy the needs of the tenant; which certainly in all
three cases, the changing needs of the government and tenant
has put us in a very difficult situation.
Senator Baucus. What about public versus private meetings?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that GSA did
not want a public meeting, a key point, where GSA could sit
down and consult with, talk to Helena officials.
We in Montana pride ourselves on open meetings. It's in our
State constitution that all meetings with the public deals--or
public policy and outside people, they're public meetings; but
I'm told GSA did not want a public meeting. I'm curious what
GSA policy is on that.
Ms. Harrison. We had a public meeting in January 1997 here
regarding this Helena issue, and again, in I believe it was
October 1997.
Senator Baucus. Is it true that GSA did not, at one
meeting, want that meeting to be public?
Mr. Prouty. I don't know that that's the case. I think you
need both. I think that sometimes you need to work things out,
and you certainly need public meetings. If somebody in our
organization said, ``We prefer not to do public meetings,''
that's certainly not the position of our organization today.
Senator Baucus. So that is not your position?
Mr. Prouty. It is not our position. We will do public
meetings.
Senator Baucus. It's not completely analogous, and I
probably don't know the factual situation, but in the northern
part of our State, we have Highway 93, and it's very
controversial because different people want different designs.
Some want four lanes, some want five lanes, divided, so forth.
The Montana Highway Department came up with a certain
design. Well, a lot of folks up in the Flathead went berserk.
They didn't like that; and some liked it.
The best resolution, finally, was painful. It was
difficult. It took time. It was messy, but they had a lot of
public meetings, lots. Everybody that was interested came to
the public meetings; and it took a little time, but they
eventually came up with a design. It's not perfect, but it's a
good one that the majority of the people agree with.
I strongly urge GSA to follow the same approach, because in
the long run, it's a lot better and a lot less costly and more
efficient.
Mr. Peck. I will tell you, I couldn't agree more. First of
all, I note that I've been a citizen advocate, so I've been to
a lot of public meetings complaining about having been frozen
out of the processes. I don't like it.
There are certain parts in our process where we are
required to take things inside, but that's only when we're far
down the line in the negotiation.
Senator Baucus. When you're looking at the Central Business
Area matter and boundaries and so forth, do you do your own
impact studies as to what the economic effects would be if you
were to move, say, out of downtown to an area with an expanded
boundary? Do you do your own impact analyses?
Mr. Peck. Generally, no. If a project, for example, a
government construction project, if it's large enough that it
requires an Environmental Impact Statement, often the economic
aspects will get brought into it; but otherwise, no.
Senator Baucus. Do you give any weight to those studies
that the local community might conduct?
Mr. Peck. Oh, absolutely. Although, like I say, we have
sort of an absolute requirement to give first preference to the
downtown in any event.
Senator Baucus. When you're attempting to get the best
decision for the American taxpayers, and that obviously usually
is a bidding process, when you get in a situation like we often
have, let's say in Helena or some other smaller community where
it's a lot more difficult trying to find a meaningful
alternative bid, do you look at comparable rental rates as a
way to satisfy yourself that sole source would not be--may or
may not be appropriate?
I mean, what if the comparable rental rates are about the
same? I mean, do you still have to go through the extra hoops
of extending the boundary and trying to get bids, or does that
depend upon the circumstances in the city?
Mr. Prouty. It certainly depends on the circumstances. We
do a lot of independent analysis. We have to generate the
revenue. So the tenants--if we make a deal, even if it's not a
good deal, our tenants have some independence of their own, and
they're not going to pay rates that aren't market rates, so
we've got to ensure that it's a market rate.
Having said that, in a situation such as Helena, if it
satisfies the tenants' needs, certainly we'll look at the
market rates, but there may not be competition here.
The next question is, can we make a deal that is
economically wise for all parties?
Mr. Peck. Right. And as you know, the laws which frown on
our going sole source or single source do, nonetheless, and
they have been reformed in the last couple of years, happily,
to allow us to make a determination that we're getting a market
rate. We can note that, and then not go competitive.
I suspect that some of what's happened here, without
hashing out the details of the deals right here, I suspect some
of it, because I trust our folks, has to do with trying to make
sure that we are being offered a market rate, particularly
where it looks like we're going to wind up in a sole-source
situation.
Senator Baucus. I don't mean to prejudge this, but let's
say the seismic issue here is resolved, and let's say nobody
else in Helena is interested, so far as you know, in submitting
any kind of bid; and let's say the market rates, the rates that
the lessor is suggesting are comparable, according to studies
that you show. Why don't you just go ahead and sign a lease?
Why go through all this?
Mr. Peck. On that hypothetical, I suspect that's what we
would do, if in fact the facts bore that out.
Senator Baucus. Do you know of any alternative lessors or
owners that want to bid?
Mr. Prouty. I don't think we do, not within the CBA, no.
Senator Baucus. Which CBA is that?
Mr. Prouty. The Helena CBA.
Senator Baucus. The smaller or the larger?
Mr. Peck. The city CBA, as opposed to the delineated area.
We should be clear. When we use that bureaucratic term, it is--
we are required when we go out to lease competition to say,
``Here is the area we are going to consider for competition. If
you have a building there and you want to offer it to us, we'll
consider it.''
The happiest circumstance is when we all feel comfortable
saying the Central Business Area is also the delineated area.
Mr. Prouty. With your hypothetical there are a lot of
challenges. What we're saying is, we can't assume all the
economic risk in the deal. There are going to be a lot of
discussions. You've outlined a perfect world. Seismic is met,
the numbers are right, everything is fine. I'd like to see that
deal. That would be great.
Senator Baucus. How close we are on the seismic retrofit?
Mr. Prouty. We're at the very beginning.
Senator Baucus. Beginning?
Mr. Prouty. Well, I think it's safe to say there are
disagreements over what's required. We have an analysis. They
have an analysis. We have to satisfy the needs of the law.
Senator Baucus. How do we speed this along so that you make
a proper decision about the seismic retrofit here?
Mr. Prouty. Well, I'll tell you what the steps are. We need
to get a short-term agreement. Right now, we're negotiating
with the lessor and trying to continue to be housed on the
short term. Then we need to sit down and find out what our
options are. If that is the only option that's available in the
CBA, we need to have some very detailed discussions.
Senator Baucus. I still have a couple more questions,
because I think we'll get to the heart of the matter with the
other witnesses.
One complaint I've heard is that the goal posts are
changing all the time, different Executive orders or weights on
Executive orders and different personnel at GSA. I'm not
intending any harm, but you talk to different people, and it's
pretty confusing to local officials.
Have you heard that before? Do you know whether that's a
problem here and what you can do to help?
Mr. Peck. I know whereof you speak. No. 1, we do have, as
I've tried to outline, just by what we've been handed as a
mission, we have some requirements which can conflict from time
to time. I think that can be confusing to people, and we're
obviously doing a balancing act between Central Business Area
and our economic imperatives. That's one.
Second, I think people sometimes here, and I've heard this
before, we ask different questions of different lessors, and
people aren't quite sure why someone got one question and
someone else got another question.
The reason for that is that we've looked at a building, for
example, and our folks walk through it and say, ``It definitely
meets our fire access and egress requirements,'' so we don't
ask any questions about fire. We don't see any problems with
it.
In another building, we might. We might start asking
questions about, you know, ``Under the codes we're going by, it
looks like you might need to install fire stairs''; something
like that. So sometimes people can hear different things.
Finally, this is a large organization. Communication is
difficult in the best of times. We think we do the best job we
can telling people what our policies are, how you're supposed
to go about things. But, again, we have--we also encourage our
people to use their best business judgment out there, and in
the interest of time, to not spend every minute of their waking
hours going back to some manual to find out how to do these
things, because that results in a very frustrating process for
everyone.
So as Paul admitted, we think we have at least some
instances here where I think people say they're frustrated and
they've heard different things from different people. I have no
doubt that's true. What we try to do on most of these projects
is establish somebody who is the single person in charge.
Senator Baucus. That was my next question. Is there
somebody who is in charge? Who is that person?
Ms. Harrison. We have contracting officers for each
project.
Senator Baucus. Is there one person for Helena?
Ms. Harrison. Yes.
Senator Baucus. Who would that be?
Ms. Harrison. The contracting officer for Helena is Malia
Ringler.
Senator Baucus. OK. Who would it be for Butte?
Ms. Harrison. For Butte, it's Malia Ringler as well. For
Billings, it's me.
Senator Baucus. I must say I've seen some correspondence
signed by--what's her name?
Ms. Harrison. Malia.
Senator Baucus. Malia Ringler, which is pretty curt.
Mr. Prouty. We'll do better.
Senator Baucus. It's really beyond the veil.
Mr. Peck. I've read some of the correspondence on these
cases, and I agree with you.
Senator Baucus. I hope that that does not continue.
Mr. Prouty. Can I back up to one question?
Senator Baucus. Which indicates an attitude, frankly, which
indicates a closed mind. It does not indicate an open mind,
someone who is really listening to local folks and really
trying to find a good solution, remembering that GSA are the
employees. They're not the employer. They're the employees; and
I just----
Mr. Peck. Sir, you are absolutely right. One thing I would
say, and I've said, ``It's not your father's GSA.'' We are
evolving. We are evolving from a culture--this agency is 50
years old. We're evolving from a culture where people were
told, ``You go by the rules. You tell people what the rules are
and you make them follow them,'' and it is a matter of what
companies call a cultural change process to try to get people
to say, ``That's not the way we do business.''
We used to treat our Federal agency customers, in some
cases, more harshly than what you've seen in any correspondence
with the public. That doesn't work either, because we don't
have enforcement powers over those folks; and certainly with
our, as I've described it, our ultimate shareholders, the
American people, we have absolutely no business doing anything
but being courteous and open.
Mr. Prouty. In the particular case in Butte, I've had some
discussions personally to say that we're going to look at the
market again and we're going to sit down with all the parties,
and I'm more than happy to be involved. Sandy DiBernardo, who
is the director, will be involved, and we will find out
everybody's concern.
Senator Baucus. This lady--what's her name?
Mr. Prouty. Malia Ringler.
Senator Baucus. Malia Ringler. Is she in Denver?
Mr. Prouty. Yes.
Senator Baucus. How often does she come to Butte or to
Helena?
Mr. Prouty. Lately, a lot.
Senator Baucus. How often? Or how often before this came to
a head?
Mr. Prouty. We have a limited number of realty specialists
that travel the six-State areas. They go where the action is,
wherever the projects are. So they generally don't make trips
up prior to doing the deals, but we have a portfolio office
that does that. Their job is to go out and----
Senator Baucus. But she makes the decisions. She's the
contract officer. She gets the sense, the smell, the taste, the
feel of what's going on. That's what counts.
Mr. Prouty. During the process, I'm not sure----
Senator Baucus. See, one of the problems is, quite
candidly, a lot of us in Montana feel that the Federal
Government is too detached. It does not really understand
Montana very well. We're too far away, whether it's Washington,
DC, whether it's Denver, the regional offices and so forth.
There is a lot of, not distrust, but at least confusion,
misunderstanding and sometimes apprehension and determination
and so forth.
Partly it's because the centralized operations in either
Denver or Washington, DC. and so forth are not the people
making decisions here. People who live in Colorado, or in
Denver, don't feel this way nearly as much because they can
talk to Maria, or Malia, walk in and talk to her and say:
Malia, we're doing this or that, so on and so forth. We can't
do that in Montana.
Frankly, the flight connections between here and Denver
aren't very good either. It's pretty hard to fly down to
Denver, and it's expensive.
So on the other hand, I think there is a greater duty, a
much greater duty on the part of Federal agency central office
personnel to get out of Denver and to get out of Salt Lake or
wherever and get out to where people don't have access to the
Malias of the world.
There's a huge, I think, responsibility to do that and go
out of your way to spend more time, frankly, in the smaller
communities than in the larger communities. The larger
communities are going to get to you very easily. They get in
their airplanes and fly. It's easier. They get better air
service at cheaper rates. With the airline regulations, we get
poorer service at more expensive rates.
I just--I'd like you, frankly, to develop a plan where you
can inform us that, and it can be Montana, and probably
nationwide, but particularly for this region, you know, the
travel schedule or the number of times that your contracting
officers, that is, the people making decisions, get out of
Denver, just get out and meet folks, find out what's going on;
because then you can solve a lot of it with a telephone
conversation, you know, a few months later. You know the
person. You know the people. You've had a few beers together. A
trust starts to buildup a little bit.
It takes time, but that is part of the problem here. I just
urge you very strongly, and I want you, if you could, to get me
a plan, think about it. I don't want you to just agree about
this, but do something that is meaningful; because we do feel
we are--we don't have near the access to talk to the Malias of
the world as do people in larger communities.
Mr. Peck. Senator Baucus, there is no substitute in any
business dealing for face-to-face contact. Particularly in real
estate there is no substitute for being on the ground and
seeing how things are moving in the community.
It is a challenge. As I noted, one of the problems is that
we have downsized. We have restricted budgets. We have a very
tight budget this year. I made a point of not imposing what was
recommended to me by some of my green-eyed accountants, that we
impose a travel restriction, in part, because I said, you know,
places like this, in the northwestern part of the country,
where we manage Alaska from Seattle, you know, people would
never get their jobs done. But I hear you. It is a serious
issue.
Senator Baucus. I urge you to shift your budget around a
little bit. Anyway, one more question and we'll go to the
witnesses.
What weight and deference do you give to Federal agencies'
wishes and the space they want and so forth? How do you prevent
them from just going through the wish list?
Mr. Peck. Without divulging--I will tell you that I have--
we have taken it upon ourselves in Washington at times to go to
the headquarters of Federal agencies in Washington to say, and
I'm not saying this applies to any of these particular
instances, but I've gone and spoken to people in very high-
level government and said, ``The requirements that your folks
have in city or town X or Y are just--what's the polite term--
just don't wash''; and we've gotten support.
I'm prepared to go up the line and do that. It is obviously
very difficult, because what happens--take MEPS. I mean, I went
in the Service. I went through a MEPS. I have my own sense of
what it takes to go through that kind of a physical exam, but I
can't--it's very difficult for me to say, ``I know how you do
your business.''
On the other hand, what we will do is say, ``You have an
economic interest, just as we do, in making sure that you get
the best buy on real estate,'' No. 1; and No. 2, that we
follow, not necessarily in that order, also that you be
downtown and be in that historic building.
You've got to be flexible. I always say McDonald's has
found a way to locate in historic buildings. They have pretty
rigid requirements on how they flip burgers and make fries. You
know, Federal agencies also have to be willing to adapt. There
are some very contentious discussion that goes on; but as I
said, it is our obligation to do that.
Senator Baucus. Who makes the final decision? Let's say GSA
says, ``This is where we're going. We're going to go to this
location.'' DOD says, ``No, we have this requirement.''
Mr. Peck. I can tell you--I have to tell you, in all
honesty, that I don't know. As a matter of practice--as a
matter of Federal regulation, GSA has the authority to assign
an agency to space, so it looks like, in the end, we can do
that.
I can tell you of instances in the past, over the past 20
years where we've tried to exercise that authority, and we have
about a 500 batting average in actually making good on our
order.
I want to tell you, that is a club that we do pull out from
time to time and say we have that. But like I said,
particularly with respect to leasing authority, agencies will
often say, ``Oh, well,'' you know, one way they can get out of
it is to say, ``We've changed our requirements,'' or ``We've
decided we don't need to do this.''
Senator Baucus. That's a good way.
Mr. Peck. So it does require negotiation.
Senator Baucus. What appeal is there? Let's say GSA
decides, ``No, I can't go with competing lots. We're going to
do something else.'' Is there an appeal process, or does GSA
say, ``That's it,'' period?
Mr. Peck. There is, under the Executive order, Executive
Order 12072 and 13006, there is an informal appellant process
inside the Government, which there are three cabinet-level
officers who can take a look at a building location decision
and try to do an arbitration. We have never yet exercised it.
It's only been in place--as I say, it's informal--for about a
year-and-a-half. We've never had to go to it yet.
I don't know, quite honestly. I'd have to ask our lawyers
whether it is available to--how it would be exercised; because,
like I said, we've never had to figure out all the rules.
Senator Baucus. So once GSA makes a decision, for all
intents and purposes, that's it? There is no recourse?
Mr. Peck. In our system, fortunately there is, in instances
where it goes this far, recourse, by being asked by Congress to
take a look at it; and quite honestly, this is one of the more
effective means of appeals that communities have. You know,
whether it's by letter or by hearing, we've been asked in any
number of cases to take a second look at some of our decisions.
Senator Baucus. I've taken a lot of your time, more than I
intended. I want to thank you very, very much for your help and
also taking the time and effort to come to Helena; and if you
would, please, stick around.
Mr. Peck. We wouldn't miss it.
Senator Baucus. OK, our panel.
First, Colleen McCarthy, mayor of Helena; Alan Nicholson, a
real estate developer in Helena; the Honorable Mark Kennedy,
council member in Billings; Mechelle Schultz, Downtown Business
Association, Billings; the Honorable Jack Lynch, chief
executive, Butte-Silver Bow; Colleen Fine, director of Urban
Revitalization; and Barb Pahl, regional director, National
Trust for Historic Preservation.
I'd like each of you to hold your remarks to 5 minutes,
please, and if it starts to push 5 minutes, Kathy is going to
be the timekeeper, and she'll do something when it gets close
to 5 minutes.
Also, I'd appreciate it if you could address your remarks
to solutions and, to some degree, in the context of what you've
heard GSA say. We'll play this by ear. OK, Colleen?
STATEMENT OF HON. COLLEEN McCARTHY, MAYOR, HELENA, MT
Mayor McCarthy. Senator Baucus, I would like to thank you
and members of the committee for allowing us to be here this
morning and discuss our experiences with the General Services
Administration.
As much as I'll try to keep my remarks to 5 minutes, as I
was typing this up, I'm afraid I'm going to go a little over
that. My experience over the past year has been quite
interesting, and I cannot sum this up in just 5 minutes, but I
can probably get it down to about nine.
Senator Baucus. Go ahead.
Mayor McCarthy. During the past year, we have been
extremely frustrated----
Senator Baucus. I hope you're not setting a precedent.
Mayor McCarthy [continuing]. And concerned with a lack of
communication, misrepresentation and action by GSA officials. I
would like to state for the record that those GSA
representatives currently residing here in Helena and working
in the Federal Building have been most helpful and
understanding. Our frustration lies mainly with those
representatives from the office in Denver.
I became directly involved in working with the GSA
representatives regarding the Helena Federal Building lease
almost a year ago. As mayor, I received a letter informing us
GSA was considering lease renewal options on the existing
building.
During our conversation with GSA officials, it became
apparent that they would be considering lease options on other
buildings, and they could possibly locate outside the central
business district.
On May 20, 1997, I sent a letter to Polly Baca, regional
administrator for GSA, advising her the consensus of the Helena
City Commission was that GSA aggressively pursue lease options
with the current owner of the existing----
Senator Baucus. What was the date?
Mayor McCarthy. May 20.
Senator Baucus. Of what year?
Mayor McCarthy. Of 1997, last year. We also clearly stated
in our letter that if the decision was made to move from the
current building, that we wanted them to comply with the
Executive Order 12072, and relocate somewhere within the
central business district.
Between the dates of May 20 and August 1, correspondence
between the Denver GSA office and the city of Helena continued
through our acting city manager, Troy McGee.
In late July, city manager McGee received a request from
Julie Millner asking the city for permission to issue an RFP to
pursue a warehouse location outside the central business
district.
Senator Baucus. Who is Julie Millner.
Mayor McCarthy. She's one of a myriad of people with the
GSA folks that we have dealt with, which I think I'll get to
your point about who is on first base here in just a moment.
Mr. McGee brought the request to the city commission. The
request, as Troy presented it to us, was for a storage-type
building with few offices and minimal employees.
In the spirit of cooperation and wanting to be a good
neighbor with the folks at GSA, the city commission granted
approval for the RFP outside the central business district.
Months after the approval was granted, we learned that those
were not the intentions of the GSA.
Between the time that we granted the approval and around
September 25, I believe it was, I had a meeting. I was
requested--I received a request from the GSA office to attend--
if they could come and speak to me privately, as the mayor.
At that time I told them I didn't make it a habit of having
private meetings with anyone, actually, and that I wanted to
bring other city commissioners; and I was asked not to have any
of the other commissioners come to the meeting with me.
I then responded saying, I would not meet privately by
myself, and that the city manager--the then-just-hired city
manager, Dennis Taylor, and the previous acting city manager,
Troy McGee, would be attending the meeting with me.
We met and had a discussion. What the discussion was
involved with was the GSA came to tell us that they had--they
felt that they could not find a suitable location within the
central business district to house the Federal employees, and
they wanted me to extend the boundary of the Executive order to
allow them to go out for a show of interest. Outside that I was
not in a position in that meeting, in that private meeting, to
make such a decision. I am one elected official that has to
serve the entire community, and I can't make decisions without
concurrence from the city commission, that this issue would
have to be brought publicly before the commission.
I also stated that this had been a very hot topic within
our community and that I was not in favor of making this
decision without having a public meeting and inviting,
specifically, people from Hometown Helena Pride and the
attorney's office that was representing the owner of the
building.
At that point, they reluctantly agreed that a public
meeting would be necessary. They were disappointed that I could
not make a decision right then and there to extend the
boundary, but we again explained that we do have open-meeting
laws here in Montana and we wouldn't be making these decisions
by ourselves.
So they agreed that we would have a public meeting, and we
set that meeting for October 30. In the meantime we received
communication--actually, I've gotten a lot of my information
from my friends at the Independent Record. They'll call me and
say, ``Did you know that this is happening?'' or that that is
happening.
I, about the first of October, received information--
actually, I got a question asking, with all the controversy
around the Federal Building and those employees moving out, why
on earth the city of Helena would agree to let the FHA and USGS
move out of the building. My response was, ``I don't know what
you're talking about.''
At that point we went back to Julie Millner and we said,
``We did not give approval for employees to move out of the
building. We gave you approval to go out for an RFP for a
warehouse.'' At that time they said that our city manager had
misrepresented their intentions to the city commission.
After numerous conversations with them, the GSA officials
continued to insist that the city manager had misrepresented
their request. The allegations persisted, and after we provided
documentation outlining their request and the city's position,
they still were insistent that Troy had misrepresented them to
the commission and that they, indeed, had told him that both
the FHA and the USGS would be moving out. That's not what we
thought we approved. We thought we approved a warehouse.
So I'm telling you this as just one example of numerous
situations that have occurred with lack of communication,
misrepresentation, and misunderstanding.
The thing that complicated this and made this very
difficult is we were then preparing for the community meeting
we had October 30, and GSA came back and said, ``The moving of
the offices of the FHA and USGS have absolutely nothing to do
with the lease of this building and the attempt to renew that
lease.''
So we are very confused at this point saying, you know,
``Here you are piecemealing agencies out of that building. What
will prevent you from, one by one, taking them all out of the
building, and then we're left with an empty building?''
At that point they made a determination to try and help us
understand that the lease of the building had nothing to do
with what Julie Millner was doing.
So I will say on Julie's--on behalf of her defense, that
since the time we had this extremely big misunderstanding, she
has been in constant contact, numerous times, probably a dozen
times, with our city manager.
We did designate our city manager as a single point of
contact for the GSA, but we have heard very little from the
folks at the GSA since we had the community meeting in October.
I want to just digress here a little bit to the 1970's and
why this building was placed in this location. I think that
it's imperative that my testimony clearly provide you with some
factual data that will hopefully support a decision to
aggressively pursue options that will allow the Federal
employees to either remain in that building or at least in the
central business district.
In 1970--in the 1970's, the city of Helena worked in
cooperation with the GSA to locate a new Federal Building in
downtown Helena. Here is a quote from the finding of facts from
the Determination of Site Selection document.
It states,
The city of Helena is aggressively pursuing an urban
renewal plan to revitalize the old downtown area and sees the
new Federal Building as an integral contribution to their long-
range goals. There has been no adverse reaction to the project
in this local community. The proposed site is an example of
intergovernmental cooperation to minimize socioeconomic impact.
I submit to you today that the Federal Building continues
to be an integral contribution to our long-range goals in the
community and the downtown area. I find it ironic that this has
turned into the worst example of intergovernmental cooperation
and communication that I have seen in my 8 years of serving
this community.
During urban renewal, the city of Helena invested millions
of dollars in the infrastructure to enable the construction and
the placement of this Federal Building in the downtown. Street
sys-
tems were redesigned and constructed, additional land was
acquired to provide adequate parking, and sewer and water
services were extended, much at local taxpayer expense.
Today officials of the General Services Administration are
asking us to ignore the huge investment of tax money that has
gone into the current building site. We simply cannot ignore
the substantial investment local citizens and taxpayers made
over 20 years ago all in the spirit of cooperation and trust
with the GSA.
In 1976, President Carter issued Executive Order 12072. He
believed that the Federal use of space in urban areas ``shall
serve to strengthen the Nation's cities and make them
attractive places to work.''
Currently officials of GSA are not keeping with the spirit
of the Executive order. Repeated attempts have been made to
extend the boundary of the Executive order with fully
investigating the options available within the district.
GSA has repeatedly asked the city of Helena to allow RFPs
to be solicited outside the district. We believe this action is
in direct conflict with the order. An example of this conflict
is reflected in the fact that GSA has given little
consideration to the traffic problems that will occur if 300
people are located outside the central business district.
Even worse is the possibility of locating 300-plus Federal
employees in an area that is currently experiencing severe
traffic congestion and safety issues. GSA officials appear to
care little about the potential traffic impacts and future
infrastructure costs to the taxpayers in Helena.
Last, I would like to briefly discuss the situation
regarding the existing building. In a meeting with the GSA
officials on October 30, they stated the current lease
arrangement was ``a bad deal for government.'' However, they
repeatedly refused to provide financial data as to why this
lease was a bad deal for government.
On November 26 I was asked to address a group of concerned
Federal executives currently working in the Federal Building.
During this meeting, numerous employees expressed
dissatisfaction with the location of the building in downtown
Helena. However, many of those employees expressed serious
concern with perceived safety issues of the structural
stability of the building.
Currently, GSA officials are claiming to have documentation
in a Merrick report that substantiates $13 to $16 million in
identified improvements, including safety and seismic issues.
However, the building owner hired an independent structural
engineer who claims that the building is structurally sound.
The engineer identified only $7 million in improvements in
the same Merrick report, not $13 to $16 million.
As a result of these conflicting reports, and I will say
all of this information has appeared in the press, so everybody
reads this stuff practically on a weekly basis trying to figure
out who's got the right story. Those Federal employees, your
Federal employees, feel that their safety is at risk in that
building.
I believe that the testimony you will hear today is
imperative for--of all the testimony you hear today, it is most
imperative that you address the safety issues of those Federal
employees above all else.
No employee, whether they are in a high-risk industry job
or a clerical position in the Federal Government, should feel
their safety is at risk while on the job.
It is the recommendation of the Helena city commission that
you require GSA officials to work cooperatively with the
current Federal Building owner resolving the potential safety
issues within the building and extending the current lease
agreement if at all possible.
I would like to thank you for this time this morning. These
issues are serious. The actions of GSA could have devastating
impacts on our community. We are not Denver. We're not Houston.
We're not even Salt Lake City. We're a small community of
35,000 people who still believe that their word is as binding
as a legal document, and that government, whether at the local,
State, or Federal level, is charged with protecting and
preserving the communities we have all worked so hard to build
and call home. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Colleen, very much.
Alan.
STATEMENT OF ALAN NICHOLSON, HELENA, MT
Mr. Nicholson. I'm going to paraphrase my marks. Colleen
covered a number of the main issues.
My name is Alan Nicholson. I've lived in Helena since 1970,
and for most of that time I've been a real estate developer and
property manager here and in Billings. Most of our properties
are in downtown locations. I'm a believer in urban development
and redevelopment, and I'm happy to hear that Commissioner Peck
is as well.
By the way, I'm wondering if you're the older brother of
Matt Lauer at NBC. You look almost exactly like him. That's a
compliment.
Mr. Peck. Yes. Call my mom.
Mr. Nicholson. I'm a former chair of the Montana Board of
Public Education, a past president of the Helena Chamber of
Commerce, and the immediate past president of the Montanan
ambassadors, a group of State business leaders appointed by the
Governor to make Montana a better place to work and live.
I believe government is our collective responsibility, that
it is what we do together for the common good and that we
should do it well. My wife and I serve in many public arenas
and contribute significantly to Federal, State, and local
taxes.
As it turns out, I have lands and buildings which would be
suitable for a new Federal Building in the downtown area, but I
agree with other community leaders that it is in our best
interests and the best interests of the community for the
Federal offices to stay where they are. I have been an
outspoken advocate of that position.
I am disappointed and dismayed by the behavior of the
General Services Administration, which apparently intends to
ignore every Executive order issued by every president since
Carter, to ignore the interests of the Helena community and its
elected officials, to ignore the protocols of fair play and
good business and to ignore the best interests of the
government they serve.
I would say to you, Commissioner Peck and Mr. Prouty, if
you leave here believing that GSA has put forward the best
interests of the government, has run like a business, has had
meaningful interaction with the community, then you will leave
here with the wrong impression. We have not done our job or we
live in a different world.
I believe the Executive orders are quite clear in their
mandate to request central cities to remain economically strong
by locating Federal offices in the downtown areas wherever
reasonably possible. As Colleen pointed out, the city did much
to make that happen in 1970.
The city commission and other public bodies are on record
and in agreement that it is in the community's best interests
to have the Federal offices stay put. Everybody realizes that
there are problems requiring remediation, and nobody wants the
employees to work in an unsafe condition. We all agree on that.
We know that some of the offices may need to locate elsewhere
in order to maximize efficiency and to serve the public
efficiently, but if the collected best interests of all parties
are to be served, we understand everybody has to give a little
in the compromise.
The GSA has routinely rejected efforts to compromise and
negotiate. Even before any definitive request for proposals for
a Federal Building in Helena, GSA asked the city to extend the
boundaries suitable for a Federal Building well beyond the
central business district.
Ordinary protocols of fair play and good business are out
the window where GSA is concerned. The owners of the existing
building found it necessary to publish a hefty volume to set
the record straight after half-truths and outright breeches of
verity, known around here as damned lies, were spread about by
GSA officials.
So far as I know, GSA has not responded either to dispute
the owner's effort to set the record straight or to apologize
for playing fast and loose with the facts.
I submitted an alternative site to GSA in the central
business district in the event that a reasonable solution could
not be reached between GSA and the present owner. GSA thereupon
publicly proclaimed that my site was not suitable and was
polluted. I asked for an apology from GSA, to which they
responded, ``It is common knowledge of Helena citizens that the
Great Northern site was once used as a garbage dump.''
I pointed out that we had the benefit of two independent
environmental studies which found that the site was neither
polluted nor a garbage dump. In a subsequent letter, after my
continued request for an apology, GSA denied ever having said
it. Letters documenting this exchange are attached.
One does not expect a campaign of disinformation by the
government in an area so far removed from the usual standards
of political intrigue and national consequence.
All of this tends to sour one's respect for government at a
time when those of us who still have vestiges of respect for
government exist in ever decreasing numbers.
What should GSA do? I'm going to digress here just a little
bit. I've heard, again, the bogeyman of competition and seismic
issues here. With respect to competition, as a developer, I
think I can safely say--and I think everybody in the room will
understand this--you will not get a better financial deal than
you will at the existing building. You cannot build a new
building in today's environment and lease it back to the
government or anybody else for what a reasonable lease on that
older building will be.
With respect to competition, if the Federal offices are not
to be in that building, then it would seem reasonable for GSA
to come to the community and say, ``What other sites are
available?'' It's possible in this community that the city
would even donate a site for that purpose in the central
business district or that we could agree on a single site and
reasonable price and have many developers come in and bid on
that site.
With respect to the seismic issue, we understand that any
building in this community has to be built to the new seismic
code. I don't know what the remediation costs are up there. I
know that the government's own study, when you add it up, says
$7 million, and GSA has been saying that it says $13 to $16
million. The study itself doesn't say $13 to $16 million. It
says $7 million. The engineer they hired up here said it would
be a lot less than that.
We all understand and agree that seismic issues are
important, but I want you to say to me, as well, that in the
Seattle area, in the San Francisco area, in the Los Angeles
area and other areas which are also in Zone 3, that you're
going to pay the same attention to seismic issues, and that
you're going to vacate buildings which do not meet the current
codes in those areas as well.
So I think there are opportunities here for things to
happen. I think what should happen is that the government
should negotiate first on the existing building and should
demand reasonable--offices which reasonably allow the
government to undertake its duties there, including
requirements for seismic issues.
If that isn't possible, then I think GSA should come to the
city commission and to the city itself and say, ``What other
sites are available in downtown? How can we satisfy the issue
of competition in a site downtown,'' either by offering more
than one site or by offering a single site on which many
developers can bid, and I think that's the solution.
I'm going to close by saying, many of us have wondered why
GSA has acted so badly, why they've been so covert, so
arbitrary and why they have behaved as though they are under
siege by an enemy. Many theories have been batted about
including unholy alliances between the administration and large
developers, some political favor in need of repayment, a
rebellion by GSA against government itself, and on and on. Some
theories are more sinister than those.
The simple truth is that the behavior of GSA in this matter
is so without a reasonable explanation that it begs a grand
explanation.
For myself, I believe it is a combination of ignorance
stemming from unchecked bureaucratic power and a determination
to serve the wishes of local Federal department heads who want
new digs, Executive orders and local needs be damned.
While I hope GSA, after this hearing, will behave more
appropriately and in keeping with good public policy, I have no
faith in it. This lack of faith from ordinary folks like me who
believe in government and want it to work should scare the
living hell out of folks like you who have dedicated a
substantial part of your short tenure on earth to this fragile
experiment we call American democracy. It's failing. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Alan.
The next witness is Mark Kennedy from the city council in
Billings.
STATEMENT OF MARK KENNEDY, CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, BILLINGS, MT
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Senator, very much. I'd like to
identify very quickly, if I could, by standing up, the members
of the Billings community that made this trek up here to
Helena. All of us took time out of our jobs and businesses.
Could you just stand quickly? Thank you so much.
Senator Baucus and members of the committee, I welcome the
opportunity to provide testimony today regarding issues
associated with the Federal procurement processes for office
space.
I have been a Billings city council member for 5 years
during two separate terms. I'm a Billings restaurant owner and
a local businessman. I have owned a restaurant in downtown
Billings and pride myself in contributing to the vibrancy of my
community. With that experience, I feel that I'm qualified to
represent this important component of our city.
In recent months the Billings city council and city staff
have been involved in an important Federal Government decision
that affects the future of the Billings downtown. A government
decision was recently made to award a contract for the
construction of a new Bureau of Land Management, or BLM,
facility outside of the downtown area.
Despite repeated efforts of local leaders to urge the
consideration of a downtown site, the General Services
Administration, the GSA, acting on behalf of the BLM, has cited
the requirements of the Competition in Contracting Act, CICA,
as the reason for making a decision that deserts the downtown
of the largest city in Montana.
I am here today to express my concern for my community, its
downtown economy and a questionable future brought into play by
the actions of these two agencies. Their actions have left a
bitter taste in the mouths of many Billings residents,
including some of our own Federal employees.
I first want to comment on the requirements of Executive
Order 12072, an act signed in 1978, as you know, by then-
President Jimmy Carter. At that time, he recognized the plights
of urban cities and realized that the Federal Government must
be a partner in the revitalization of America's cities.
This Executive order requires all Federal agencies to give
primary consideration for their locations to central business
areas. For the past several years, the city of Billings has
been a partner with the Federal Government in meeting that
goal. This has resulted in the recent completion of a new
Federal office building in downtown on property previously
owned by the city.
On this particular project, GSA Solicitation No. 97-15,
something has gone awry. Initially, a bid for facilities in the
downtown area was solicited with only the current landlord
providing a bid for services. This response was not viewed
favorably and it was determined that bidding should be opened
for new sites throughout the Billings community. The
Competition in Contracting Act was cited as the reason that new
bids would need to be solicited.
A meeting was held between Federal officials, Mayor Chuck
Tooley, and our city administrator. Due to CICA, we were
informed GSA had no choice but to open bidding up to sites
outside of the downtown Billings area. This was the extent of
the Federal Government's efforts to comply with Executive Order
No. 12072.
A later letter from our city administrator asked for
clarification of our community's rights, but the response was
vague and, I think, incomplete.
As a city council member, I ask myself if a vote of the
Council would have made a difference in granting our community
more time in which to respond to the GSA situation.
We had a developer from Massachusetts which expressed
strong interest in a downtown site. However, other than a 2-
week delay, the BLM/GSA process continued until an award was
announced between Christmas and New Year's. Merry Christmas,
indeed.
Federal Executive orders and contracting law are unclear as
to what is the right of a community to object to the
competitive removal of 200 jobs from the downtown area. What is
the extent of the duty of the Federal Government to respond to
the local community? These jobs are an important component of
the downtown economy. However, no accountability was ever made
by the GSA/BLM as to the costs associated with their move.
We did see an unsubstantiated projection of $9 million in
savings over 20 years. ``Savings to whom?'' we ask. We in
Billings anticipate a negative impact to local tax
jurisdictions and private enterprise in an amount far in excess
of the projected $9 million savings.
We see local property owners lowering the rents of their
facilities to compete with a new 56,000 square feet on the
market. Some will ask for property tax value reductions
affecting revenues of city government, county government, and
our school district. Local restaurants that depend on a vibrant
lunch crowd will lose, as well as locally-owned businesses
along the streets.
I also want to object to a process that deliberately
specked out the Billings downtown. The BLM/GSA proposal
required the adjacent location of a wareyard facility. Next to
an office building containing over 130 regional white-collar
type workers, a warehouse work area was mandated to be
included. This facility could not be located down the street or
near the site, but must be directly connected and adjacent to
the proposed site.
This requirement created a direct conflict with the city of
Billings zoning code criteria. A wareyard facility is not
allowed in the central business district, as is the case in
most American cities. The wareyard would be a facility to store
posts, cables, vehicles, horse trailers, and surplus.
I would liken this to the building of a Federal vehicle
repair shop next to the Hart Senate Building in Washington, DC.
The types of uses are incompatible and don't always mix.
Given this, the local city council was put in a situation
of ignoring zoning laws and creating infamous spot zones to
comply with the Federal specifications. Due to 35,000 square
feet specifications for the wareyard, the BLM/GSA could not
consider locating this material in an indoor facility. We did
look at the basement of the city library, but it was only
20,000 square feet. Nonetheless, we are confident that
cooperative BLM, GSA, and the city of Billings' fine efforts
can accommodate these requirements.
The city and private sector have been involved in a year-
long process of planning for the Downtown Billings, or
Everyone's Neighborhood, as we call it. Due to timetables, the
BLM/GSA could not honor waiting for the completion of the
project which was adopted by local governments just last
December, the same month that the project was awarded.
Billings now has a plan, and government offices are an
important part of it. In Montana where many jobs are with
Federal agencies, how can they not participate in these local
efforts? Isn't this contrary to the Executive order No. 12072?
Our community has spent $300,000 in local funding for this
effort, so it is not something that we take lightly. The
Federal Government has failed by not recognizing the importance
we take in our downtown.
I have included with my testimony a financial summary of
downtown taxable values which are part of a tax increment
district. A tax increment district is an area of a community
where taxes are frozen at a base level, and all new incremental
tax value increase use proceeds to reinvest in the district.
In Billings' case, the district is our downtown central
business district. We started in 1982 with an incremental
taxable value of $6.25 million. This rose to a high in 1991 of
over $11 million. Since that time, we have seen the incremental
taxable value decrease to a little under $6 million in 1997.
Some was attributed to tax reappraisals, but overall, a
general decline in investment. Without continued reinvestment,
the efforts of this community can be for naught. That is why
the loss of a major downtown source of jobs and capital
investment is so important. The evaluation of $447,000 in
annual projected BLM savings will be minuscule in comparison to
the impact upon the financial vitality of downtown Billings.
The Federal agencies did not take this into account; a major
mistake when assessing total impact.
In summary, the city of Billings' downtown has received a
major blow to its diligent planning efforts, its economy, and
its downtown workplace diversity. Our neighbors and friends are
being removed from the area in the name of a bottom line that
disregards the environment around it.
As a city council member, I recognize the need to receive
competitive bids, but I also recognize the need to award the
most responsible bid.
Again, with cooperative innovation and planning of downtown
Billings, we can accommodate both of those. Please just work
with us.
The Federal Government in Montana is an important partner
in securing the success and vitality of the downtowns of
Montana cities. The process now being used is not fair, does
not coordinate enough with local officials, and does not fully
weigh the economic impacts. We have seen the challenges of our
elected officials and our tireless volunteers go ignored by
Federal agencies. As a city council member, I cannot accept the
old adage, ``There is nothing we can do.'' There is, and it
starts here today.
The one request that I am making from myself and the
community of Billings is a 1-year moratorium on any building
projects with the GSA in the State of Montana because of
concerns regarding this lack of coordination with local
officials, and I also request a transcript of this hearing
today.
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much.
Next witness? I ask you, also, to try to honor the 5-minute
provision, which we've breached thus far. This is in deference
to other witnesses, so ask questions. Mechelle Schultz, of the
Downtown Business Association in Billings.
STATEMENT OF MECHELLE SCHULTZ, DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION,
BILLINGS, MT
Ms. Schultz. Thank you, Senator Baucus. As the director of
the Downtown Billings Association, I represent more than 183
member businesses. Our members include most of the retail
shops, financial institutions, hotels, restaurants, museums and
cultural services, professional offices, and service businesses
in downtown Billings. The Association has been active in the
promotion of our downtown over the past 40-plus years.
A corps of energetic and dedicated citizens have been
working for 2 years to put in place a mechanism and a plan for
the revitalization of downtown Billings. The 40-percent decline
of property value and the estimated 15- to 20-percent vacancy
rate for office space downtown has urged us to take action.
This comprehensive, long-range plan addresses many issues
and takes into account the importance of all entities located
downtown.
Downtown employees, including Federal workers, have been
the mainstay of the downtown community, especially given the
decline of retail trade and the oil and gas industry.
Approximately 10 percent of our employment base is made up of
Federal employees. Twenty-four percent of the space within a
14-block area is occupied by Federal agencies.
By taking away 225 BLM jobs and adding 56,000 feet of
vacant space, the GSA is adversely impacting our downtown. The
removal of the BLM from downtown exemplifies the effect that
Federal agencies have on downtown areas across the Nation.
BLM's departure from downtown will prove to be devastating and
a step back in our revitalization efforts.
Since I am here to represent our downtown businesses, I
would like to share some of their views on how the BLM and
other Federal agencies impact their businesses. The following
are just a few of their testimonies. Some written testimonies
have been included in the packets that I've submitted.
I visited with the director of the YMCA. BLM employees
comprise 50 memberships, which when translated to their family
memberships comprises about 200 total memberships. The director
of the YMCA has stated that these people are members because of
convenience of location. They're approximately a block away.
The loss of these memberships would result in a $40,000 loss a
year to the YMCA.
Travel West Inn is a hotel that is about a block away from
the BLM offices. They said that 25 to 30 rooms per month for
three to 5 days each are rented to BLM employees. That's a
devastating blow to their business.
Raven's Down Under is a restaurant located within the same
building as the BLM. If the BLM leaves, they will close their
business, and three employees will be unemployed.
A Holiday convenience store, they say they'll lose $10,000
each year. Our hotels downtown range from 20 to 25 percent of
their group business is dependent upon Federal agencies.
The Billings Federal Credit Union, BLM is their largest
Federal agency member. There again, we talk about convenience
factor. They're located right by there. They feel that they
will have to spend money to create a presence wherever BLM
goes, and that some members will just take their accounts
elsewhere because of the convenience factor.
These are just a few of the testimonies that I have
received. As you can imagine, the adverse economic impact of
BLM and any other Federal agencies moving out of downtown is
great.
Our greatest frustration in our efforts to keep BLM
downtown has been our inability to communicate with the GSA
regarding its location decisions for Federal office space in
the community. We've sent two letters that went unanswered in 4
months.
I finally received a letter dated February 4, 1998, from
Ms. Poly Baca, who is a regional administrator for the GSA, who
informed me that the lease contract for the building has been
awarded, as it was in December 1997.
We have also sent an E-Mail through the International
Downtown Association to the GSA in Washington, DC,
approximately 2 months ago, and never received a response for
that either.
Due to this lack of communication, we have been unable to
offer our input in the bidding process or to demonstrate the
negative impact of this decision on our community.
Today we request a 1-year moratorium on decisions relating
to Federal Building projects in Montana. This moratorium would
allow time for communities to offer solutions to the Federal
Government on their building needs and appropriate location.
We want to work with the GSA and other Federal agencies in
the manner outlined in President Carter's Executive Order
12072.
In closing, I refer to the words of Vice President Al Gore
in his reference to the GSA's Good Neighbor policy. ``Community
revitalization, particularly downtown revitalization, only can
occur if all the local stakeholders are involved. The President
and I believe that simple measures like this one are concrete
steps for reinventing Federal Government and creating a new way
of doing business with communities. I ask that we work together
to benefit the Federal Government, downtown, and the taxpayers
of the United States.''
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mechelle.
Next, Barb Pahl, who is with the National Trust Historic
Preservation, and who is visiting us from Denver.
STATEMENT OF BARBARA PAHL, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL TRUST
FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION, DENVER, CO
Ms. Pahl. Thank you, Senator Baucus. I know, and after all
those things you said about Denver. I want you to know I get up
here a lot.
Senator Baucus. What airline do you take?
Ms. Pahl. The only one I can, Delta, and I can quote you
the flight schedule if you're interested.
I am the director of the Mountains/Plains Office for the
National Trust for Historic Preservation. We are located in
Denver. The National Trust was chartered by Congress in 1949 to
promote public participation in historic preservation and to
engage the private sector----
Senator Baucus. Barb, pull the microphone a little closer.
Speak right into it. Try the other one.
Ms. Pahl. Did you get all that? I'm eating into my 5
minutes here.
Senator Baucus. Well, start again.
Ms. Pahl. I am the regional director of the Mountains/
Plains Office for the National Trust for Historic Preservation
located in Denver, CO.
The National Trust was chartered by Congress in 1949 to
promote public participation and historic preservation and to
engage the private sector in preserving our Nation's heritage.
The National Trust was a participant in helping to create
the Executive Order 13006. On May 2, 1996, the Trust and the
General Services Administration convened an Urban Issues
Roundtable, attended by Commissioner Peck and acting GSA
administrator David Barram, along with other nonprofit urban
interest groups and historic preservation advocates.
Participants in the roundtable engaged in a dialog about
national locational policies for Federal Buildings and to
explore areas for mutual activity in the adaptation of historic
buildings for contemporary Federal use.
Soon after the Roundtable, President Clinton signed
Executive Order 13006 directing the GSA and other Federal
agencies to utilize and maintain historic buildings and
districts when making location decisions.
The GSA, and in fact each Federal agency, has a
responsibility to protect and utilize historic buildings and
districts. Importantly, Executive Orders 12072 and 13006, as
well as the National Historic Preservation Act and the Public
Buildings Cooperative Use Act expressly link the Federal
Government's historic preservation responsibilities with an
affirmative obligation to consult with and consider the views
of local government, community leaders, and other interested
parties.
Despite these mandates, the GSA has had an uneven record of
community involvement and historic preservation. To its credit,
in Savannah, GA, the GSA has involved local input early and
often in a Federal courthouse project set in a historic
district.
For example, the GSA appointed Savannah preservation
experts as jurors in the ``Design Excellence Program,''
competition that will select the architect for the project.
In Wilkes-Barre, PA, the GSA converted a historic brewery
into a new 120,000 square foot Federal agency complex. The
project is viewed locally as the foundation for economic
revitalization of downtown Wilkes-Barre, and GSA is seen as a
valuable partner in the community's redevelopment.
However, the GSA missed an opportunity to demonstrate the
cost-effectiveness of preservation in a historic downtown area
of Clarksburg, WV, when instead of actively pursuing a
preservation solution, the GSA decided to consolidate Federal
offices into a new building.
In Salt Lake, GSA proposes to construct a new annex to the
Federal courthouse; and although the Federal courts will remain
downtown, the project may have an adverse impact on several
historic resources, including the Odd Fellows Building and
courthouse itself, both listed on the National Register of
Historic Places.
In Butte, MT, GSA is seeking to lease new space for their
Federal Military Entrance Processing Station, which serves the
State of Montana. This leasing action may result in the
abandonment of the Federal agency's longtime home in the
historic Finlen Hotel and relocation of the facility outside
the uptown area, Butte's traditional commercial core, a
historic district which is a designated national landmark.
We would like to make several recommendations that we think
would help implement the goals of 13006. No. 1, President
Clinton signed the Executive order in May 1996; however, 2
years later, the GSA still has not issued any formal guidance
on how it should be implemented.
As the Federal Government's main landlord and real estate
developer, it is incumbent upon the GSA to show clear
leadership in realizing the practical benefits of the Executive
order in the field.
No. 2, the GSA and all Federal agencies must systematically
reform policies and procedures that impede the use of historic
buildings for Federal office location.
Even though Commissioner Peck commented that GSA does not
necessarily select locations on price alone, historic buildings
don't often reach that level. They're sent out of the process
early on because they don't meet the performance bids as set up
by the Federal agencies.
The GSA employs an acceptable reinvestment level policy,
which is unusual in terms of the public sector/private sector
historic preservation activity in this country.
The GSA requires that renovation of historic structures
must be 40 percent less than the cost of new construction.
Whereas, in most cases we're just trying to be the same cost as
new construction, not less.
They often require Class A office space. In most cases, in
many communities like Denver, Class A office space, by
definition, is a new building.
There is an interior-pounds issue that is often raised,
that historic buildings cannot meet if they don't proceed
through the process.
We also believe that, at the minimum, the GSA must require
training for GSA staff and should offer training opportunities
for other Federal agencies to assure that the Federal
Government meets its statutory historic preservation
responsibilities.
However, more important, GSA should provide its own staff
with the training and the guidance necessary to promote
widespread use of practical, entrepreneurial real estate
development methods that have made the rehabilitation and
adaptive use of the historic buildings a successful tool for
downtown revitalization by the private and public sectors all
across the country.
Finally, we recommend that Congress codify Executive Order
13006. There is a bill in Congress introduced by my
congressman, Congressman Joel Hefley from Colorado. It's H.R.
1522. It's part of the Historic Preservation Fund
Reauthorization, and it includes the language of Executive
Order 13006. We support this bill.
Senator Baucus, thank you for this opportunity to testify.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Barbara.
Jack Lynch, chief executive, Butte-Silver Bow.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACK LYNCH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, BUTTE-SILVER BOW
COUNTY, BUTTE, MT
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Senator. This microphone provides me
with an opportunity, since everybody has been so serious today,
to tell you a little story.
Recently I was out giving a welcome at the Montana Tavern
Owners Association at the Copper King in Butte. As I got up,
the microphone had given some problems, and the Tavern Owners
Association was gathered all around the side of the very large
conference center there. They have all the vending machines,
the poker machines, and all the wares for video gambling on
display, and the Tavern Owners are playing them.
They also had all of the beverages that are available for
consumption in local taverns available there on a sample basis,
so it was a very happy-go-lucky crowd. I came in. I spoke for a
couple of minutes of welcome. I finished my comments, I stepped
off the podium, and one of my assistants who was with me on the
way to another meeting said, ``Jack, the microphone didn't
work. We never heard a word you said.''
I didn't go two feet further when a local tavern owner came
up to me and said, ``Jack, that's the best speech you ever
gave.''
I think that deals, in a sense, with perception, and I,
first of all, very much want to express my appreciation to you,
Senator, for scheduling this meeting here and for identifying
what has the potential to be a serious problem for a lot of
communities in this State.
I also want to thank the representatives from GSA for being
here. I don't want to give the impression I'm piling on, having
been in the situation that you now find yourselves in, myself,
on previous occasions, but I do think that what you've heard
today is something that should concern you.
I think that the exercise we've gone through in Butte-
Silver Bow, which Mrs. Fine will detail, is an excruciating
chronological history of our interaction with the GSA, and it's
something that should cause all of us a great deal of concern.
Those of us that are elected officials, our ears pick up
when I hear the commissioner talk about tax, fair
accountability, respon-
sibility, the best deal, for those are also the guidelines that
we work under as local elected officials; and oftentimes
without the vast resources of the Federal Government, it's
every bit as challenging, or equally challenging, to make ends
meet.
The difficulty we've had in our community is dealing with
the GSA. And as I sat here and listened to all the comments--my
written testimony has been submitted, and I'm deviating from
that to the greatest extent possible----
Senator Baucus. I can tell.
Mr. Lynch. I just wanted to comment on what I heard today
and some suggestions that might improve this interaction
between local communities and Federal Government, and in
particular, the GSA.
As I sat and listened I thought: What can this be likened
to? The image that I conjured up, and I hope everybody has had
an opportunity to see it, is National Lampoon's Vacation. In
that movie, and I hope you've had the opportunity to see it,
Senator, the Clark W. Griswold family was going to Wally World,
come hell or high water. The whole movie is about the efforts
of this family to get to Wally World, regardless of the
difficulties they encounter. And it was the most circuitous and
convoluted and circumvented way to get to a destination that
one could ever undertake.
It's a humorous movie, but there's a point in my reference
to it, and that is the fact that in this exercise of citing
Federal lease facilities in our communities, the GSA has become
our Clark W. Griswold. We have a sense that you know where
you're going, and regardless of what you have to drag our
communities through to get us there, that is where we're going.
It's a concern to us. I think in large part, it's
concerning because, perhaps, being as distant as you are, you
don't recognize the impact of these Federal facilities in our
communities. They're important. They have a great economic
impact, and in the case of all the communities, in preservation
of our historic districts, they're critical that we maintain,
to the best of our ability, the integrity of those districts
and continue to operate those Federal facilities in those
districts.
I feel like the odd man out here in a sense because at
least in Billings and Helena, I heard that the GSA spoke to
local officials, local elected officials. That is not the case
in Butte. At no time until today had I seen anybody from GSA,
and you really look normal. I had expected, given some of the
things I had heard in the courthouse about the GSA, that I
could expect to be dealing with monsters, and I don't think
that's the case.
I am particularly interested in focusing on some of the
comments of Commissioner Peck as he opened relative to
responsibility to the mission of the GSA and to the commitment
of small towns across America and to communities, large and
small.
I echo everything you said, I support everything you said,
and I'm in complete agreement with everything you said. The
responsibility and the task you have at hand is to take that
mission statement, to take those Executive orders, to take that
compliance, to take that idea of concern for communities and
have that mission statement brought to fruition through the
GSA.
The only other thing I'd add to the comments that have been
made is that in our community, you need to understand the
history of the community to understand the struggles we've gone
through.
Our community is a very old community. It was founded in
1864 by nine miners from Bannack and Virginia City looking for
silver. Subsequently, we became the leading mining community
for copper in the United States. We take great pride in the
fact that we contributed significantly to the industrial
development of the country, to the electrification of the
country, and to providing the basic materials for all of our
wars.
As a result, we've had some extremely difficult times. We
lost underground mining when all of the mines and all of our
smelting operations were closed, and overnight, our community
and our sister community of Anaconda lost 5,000 blue-collar
jobs. We had 20 percent unemployment. We lost half of the
taxable value of the community.
Since then we have struggled. We're at a point now where
every economic indicator in our community is pointed straight
up. We are, although this isn't the forum, the site of a new
$520 million polysilicon production facility that has potential
for our community much like the mining that took place in the
last century; but it hasn't been easy.
We have struggled against odds. We have looked at diversity
everywhere we've turned. Throughout it all, we have attempted
to maintain the integrity of our historical district.
We now find in our dealings with GSA that that effort and
that work and those hard undertakings seem to fall on deaf
ears.
One thing I point out, and I point this out in closing, but
again, in our community, the most difficult things to deal
with--I think there are two things. First of all is the family
of the complex who is here today who have invested, for a
number of years, significant dollars in making that a suitable
facility to house the Military Entrance Processing Station.
If we look at the activities of the processing station in
terms of their quotas and their goals is the fact that it's one
of the best stations in the country for what it does, I think
speaks to the facility they're in. I think the fact that there
are no less than six of those MEPS employees here today to
observe these proceedings and to offer their support for the
existing facility also says something about the quality of it.
In addition to the financial commitment that the family
that owns the complex has made, they have also invested
countless hours of sweat equity in making that facility what it
is, and I think, too, in terms of the partnership that's been
proposed in an effort from the community's perspective,
recognizing the importance of that uptown location and the
effort that's been ongoing to make it suitable for Federal use,
we offered early on to make $400,000 available in the form of a
low-interest loan to the family that ran that complex in order
to meet all of the requirements that the GSA set forth.
My understanding is that those efforts, as well as the
money, didn't impress GSA and they went about on the track that
they had established for themselves to locate that outside the
uptown.
And I'll confuse you further; when everybody talks about
their historic districts, they talk about the downtowns, and we
talk about our uptown. But we wanted to maintain that complex
in the uptown area. We expressed a willingness to partner with
the landlords to satisfy the GSA, and it didn't work.
But my only suggestion would be that the agency do what I
heard the Commissioner say at the beginning of his
presentation, and that is, adhere to the mission policy, comply
with the Executive order, and work with local communities in
determining where those facilities could be cited.
I think, then, none of us would have to participate in what
I referred to earlier as a sense of fighting on, because we
don't want to do that. We want to work with the Federal
Government. We want to establish partnerships that work for the
benefit of all of our communities, and we want to see that
those Federal facilities and those Federal employees, whose
future and location is so certain, don't have to deal with that
uncertainty and those questions.
Again, Senator, my sincere thanks for bringing everyone
here; and to your folks from GSA, we truly do appreciate your
being here, and hopefully we can all benefit from this
experience.
Senator Baucus. Thanks a lot, Jack. I appreciate it very
much.
Next is Colleen Fine, the director of Urban Revitalization
in the city of Butte.
STATEMENT OF COLLEEN FINE, DIRECTOR, URBAN REVITALIZATION
AGENCY, BUTTE, MT
Ms. Fine. Good morning, Senator. Thank you for giving us
the opportunity to speak before you.
I'm Colleen Fine, the director of the Urban Revitalization
Agency in Butte-Silver Bow.
The URA is a tax-increment district specifically designed
to assist economic development activities which lead to
continued promotion and development of the URA. The URA is
included in the Butte National Historic Landmark District.
I apologize that my comments are not solution-oriented, but
they're important to document our efforts at implementing a
Butte-Silver Bow Good Neighbor policy and the way we were
treated as a result of that.
It is my understanding that the MEPS leasing process began
in September 1996, although Butte-Silver Bow officials did not
participate in this process until September 1997.
On September 25, 1997, I was introduced to GSA officials at
a meeting in the Federal Courthouse in Butte. The meeting was
convened at our request to discuss Butte-Silver Bow concerns
relative to the leasing process. During the meeting, I
expressed our displeasure at not being involved in the process
to that point.
As Jack pointed out, we were never contacted. How GSA
determined our central business district, we don't know. They
didn't contact us. So our concern was our not being involved
and the lack of adherence to the National Historic Preservation
Act and Executive order and at the process in general.
After a lengthy meeting with GSA and MEPS personnel, Butte-
Silver Bow officials, State Historic Preservation Office, and
the National Trust officials left the meeting with the
following under-
standing. We attempted to work with these folks. We met with
them. We left the meeting with this understanding:
GSA would work closely with local government officials in
the process; GSA would reopen and readvertise the MEPS' leasing
in the National Historic Landmark District providing clear
indication that the buildings in the National Historic Landmark
District would have a preference and detailing specifically
what that preference was; GSA would allow local comment on the
SFO; GSA would request that MEPCOM reconsider criteria
considered to be detrimental to historic structures; and GSA
would provide a detailed explanation when a historic structure
was excluded.
The meeting concluded with the agreement that the next step
taken would be a written review of the SFO by Butte-Silver Bow
officials. Following the September meeting, GSA actions were
completely contrary to the promises they made. GSA said they
would work closely with local government officials in the
process.
GSA officials kept Butte-Silver Bow staff completely in the
dark. Butte-Silver Bow initiated virtually all communication
regarding the leasing process. Phone calls to GSA were not
returned. Requests for information were completely ignored.
By early November, Butte-Silver Bow had not heard anything
from GSA, either by phone or in writing, regarding our comments
on the SFO or what the next step would be. I sent a letter
expressing my concern that local officials had not heard from
GSA. That letter was not acknowledged, and the phone calls
again were not returned.
At that time, I sent it over to your field office in Butte
for their assistance. It was only through their intervention
that Butte-Silver Bow learned what was going on. Again, we were
promised better communication with GSA.
For nearly a month we heard nothing from GSA. Then on
December 16, 1997, I learned that GSA was conducting a market
survey tour in our community. This news took me completely by
surprise. I had no idea what GSA was doing or what their
process would be, but quite obviously, Butte-Silver Bow staff
were not asked to participate.
I contacted GSA immediately but the leasing agent was not
available and did not return my call. On Wednesday, September
17, I again attempted to contact GSA regarding the schedule
while in Butte. The leasing agent was out and I left a voice
mail expressing my concern. I attempted to contact her
supervisor, but was not successful.
I then contacted that supervisor's supervisor. The
secretary took a message and said that he would call me back.
When I left work that evening, I had not heard from GSA. The
next morning I called again, and the same secretary asked me
for my name. I stated that it was Colleen Fine from Butte. She
told me that the leasing agent would be calling me back.
Her tone and response indicated to me that my name was
marked and I would not be allowed to speak with higher level
GSA officials.
When the leasing agent finally called, she stated that it
did not occur to her to include me in the market survey tour
since I knew the buildings in Butte so well. I reminded her of
GSA's promise to work with local government. I felt she was
specifically excluding me.
The market survey tour was scheduled for December 23. She
stated she could not change that. After considerable juggling
on our part, Butte-Silver Bow was able to have a staff member
attend the market survey. However, GSA's treatment of that
staff member was incredible.
Mark Reavis, our historic preservation officer and staff
architect, was not allowed to communicate with MEPCOM
officials. The leasing agent specified a time and place for Mr.
Reavis to meet the tour. His offers of a Butte-Silver Bow van
and chauffeur services were refused.
During the tour, Mr. Reavis would be prevented from having
any personal contact with MEPCOM officials. He was kept
physically separate from everybody else on the tour. He was not
allowed to have a cup of coffee or go to lunch with the people
on the tour. He was not allowed to know what the sites being
reviewed were until just before the scheduled time. The irony
of this is that both Mark and myself knew every single location
independent from GSA prior to this tour being scheduled.
As the designated representative of the hosting local
government, his treatment by GSA staff was rude and demeaning.
The contempt GSA felt for our attempt to be involved was
palpable in that market survey tour.
GSA promised it would reopen and readvertise the MEPS
leasing in the Landmark District while providing clear
indication that the buildings in the National Historic Landmark
District would have a preference and detailing specifically
what that preference was.
I left the September meeting with the clear understanding
that GSA would work with Butte-Silver Bow in this process.
Butte-Silver Bow would provide mailing labels from our own data
base, and GSA would produce a mailing to reopen the process for
buildings in the National Historic Landmark District.
This was agreed to because GSA, at its own admission, did
not provide adequate notification of preference for the
Historic District. I requested the opportunity to do a joint
mailing with GSA. I wanted documentation of the URA's financial
commitments to be included with the document GSA was preparing.
When I wrote about the joint mailing, a GSA official called
me and told me GSA would not be doing a mailing. GSA stated
that any mailing would be done by Butte-Silver Bow, but GSA
would provide us a flier.
This caught me completely by surprise since at no time was
this ever discussed or asked to--they didn't ask us to do this.
Given the extremely short turn-around time for this process, as
well as the upcoming holiday, I felt the best thing to do was
to continue in an attempt to try to work with GSA.
The flier was received in the form of a fax and, as such,
was not suitable for distribution. It was retyped verbatim. The
flier was duplicated and sent to property owners in the
district by my agency at our expense.
Additionally, my agency, DURA, placed an ad in the local
paper indicating that lease space was available and for
individuals to contact us for further information.
The deadline for submission was set, the fliers were
mailed, and the ad ran. This process provided developers with
12 days to respond. That included the Thanksgiving holiday and
weekend.
GSA promised to reopen and readvertise the MEPS leasing.
GSA may have allowed new proposals from outside the district to
be included as well. My understanding from the meeting in
September was that only sites in the National Historic Landmark
District would be considered since this area was not given
adequate notice of the preference.
Every time these points have been made to GSA, the result
has been increasingly more detrimental to the Historic
District.
GSA did not produce a mailing, did not prepare fliers, and
did not advertise in local papers. Butte-Silver Bow performed
these activities. GSA pledged it would allow local comment on
the SFO. Butte-Silver Bow was allowed to comment but those
comments fell on deaf ears at GSA. These comments were
acknowledged by GSA and dismissed out of hand. We have no
documentation that our comments were passed on to MEPCOM, and
if they were, we do not know how our comments were portrayed.
GSA stated it would request that MEPCOM reconsider criteria
considered to be detrimental to historic structures.
Butte-Silver Bow does not have firsthand knowledge that our
comments were passed on. GSA's summary of MEPCOM's response was
that MEPCOM believed they offered adequate concessions and
would not consider additional modifications.
GSA stated it would provide a detailed explanation when
historic structures were excluded from consideration. To this
date, this has not happened, though I do understand from
several developers that their buildings have been excluded.
My main concern regarding this process is the lack of trust
local officials now have regarding GSA. This is a direct result
of the tactics employed by GSA staff.
Montana has one of the most liberal, open government
philosophies in the country. This idea is an overriding tenant
of our constitution. Those who operate the government in
Montana are used to open, honest, and critical review of our
work. Both the Montana Open Meeting Law and the Montana Open
Records Law indicate that citizens of this State want to be
well-informed regarding the operation of government at all
levels.
This does not work well with the type of operation
conducted by GSA in our instance. Local officials and citizens,
as well, have been kept in the dark, treated in a less-than-
respectful manner and have literally had to beg to be included
in the process.
When Butte-Silver Bow first became aware of this project,
all local government officials wanted was to ensure that all
regulations were followed and that the National Historic
Landmark District was given a fair opportunity on an even
playing field. That very opportunity is provided for by
Executive order.
It may very well be that this is an above-board process.
Unfortunately, it is very difficult to believe, given the
prejudicial treatment of local officials in the National
Historic Landmark District. The more Butte-Silver Bow has asked
for involvement, openness and honesty, the more secretive and
hostile the response has been. At this point in the process, it
is clear that GSA has completely lost its objectivity and sense
of fairness in Butte.
One of the major goals of our recently revised and adopted
Community Master Plan is the continued redevelopment of uptown
Butte. As an economic development objective, it serves several
vital purposes. The strength of any local economy is mirrored
in the treatment of its older urban areas. How we treat these
areas reflects our values and hopes.
Uptown is a living, breathing, vital place indicative of
the spirit and heart of this community. Ensuring its strength
is the first step in maintaining a strong local economy. The
Federal Government has a unique opportunity to create a
mutually beneficial partnership along with local government
officials and private developers.
This partnership would allow the Federal Government to
significantly address community goals. The opposite
consideration is equally dramatic. If the Federal Government
chooses to leave the uptown, the perception left would be one
of abandonment. I think this is exactly the wrong kind of
message the Federal Government should be sending about the very
heart of our community.
As the Director of the URA, the economic development office
for the Butte National Historic Landmark District, I am not
now, nor have I ever asked for special consideration. I am
asking GSA to honor the promises made to our community. I am
asking for a fair process utilizing objective, quantifiable and
justifiable criteria available to all parties beforehand in a
written format.
For this project in our community and for future projects
throughout the country, my sincerest hope is that the Federal
Government seeks to secure space in a fair, open and honest
manner allowing for all parties concerned to meet their
mutually agreeable goals.
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much.
I'd like to ask each of you--we don't have much time here,
so I urge you to be very brief--to react to any of the comments
that either Commissioner Peck or Mr. Prouty made that are
constructive, to kind of help resolve the current problems and
set up a procedure, or follow-up procedure of some kind so we
can minimize any future potential problems.
You heard the testimony and you heard some of the questions
I was asking. Here is a chance for you to react to any of that
in, obviously, a constructive way.
Mark.
Mr. Kennedy. There's lots I could probably respond to, but
I think the thing that jumps out at me right away is, as I look
at the Good Neighbor policy we have in front of us that we're
trying to work with here, it talks about local government
officials. I think in our situation, we had a little bit of a
dropping of the ball by a local official who was a staff
member, and not an elected official, and I took exception to
that. I've done what I can to try and correct that situation,
but I think the term ``local official'' is too broad.
The Mayor from Helena, I think, also expressed that we're
elected officials. We are the ones that do take the heat. A
staff member who is no longer on the staff is gone now, and
that person isn't accountable anymore. That's a frustration
that I have that I've seen throughout this whole process.
Senator Baucus. I appreciate it.
Anybody else? Colleen.
Mayor McCarthy. I just wanted to say that we have
established a single point of contact within the city, which is
Dennis Taylor, our city manager. All correspondence is to go
through him. He has been speaking regularly with Julie Millner,
who was working that issue with the FHA and the USGS moving
out, but she is not the person responsible for working the
issue of the lease, the long-term lease and extension of the
boundary. We didn't know until today that Malia Ringler was
that contact person. I don't believe I've gotten any, if
anything, maybe one call since October. There's no followup.
Senator Baucus. That's a good point. She's basically saying
that Helena has one contact person, and the GSA should have one
as well who can speak with authority. That's a good point, so
the right hand knows what the left hand is doing. That's a very
good suggestion.
Ms. Fine. I guess in our case I'd like to point out that,
had the leasing agent contacted local government right away,
she would have learned that this is one of the larger National
Historic Landmark districts in the country, which would have
completely changed the tactic.
When they defined the boundaries originally and created
this Federal business district, and then they kept going even
larger and larger, had they stayed within the Federal business
district, provided adequate notice of the preference for
historic structures, we wouldn't be in this larger area.
So had they contacted us, and even had they contacted SHPA,
the State historic preservation office, we wouldn't be in some
of the painful things we're in right now.
Senator Baucus. Any other suggestions?
Mr. Kennedy. One thing a business might do in this instance
is, it's possible to reassign some new people without the prior
histories to these efforts to communicate with local government
and people in the downtown areas. I think that could go a long
way toward smoothing over some of the efforts, and to make a
clear and overt attempt to begin negotiations and discussions
with the city governments; and I think that will result not
only in a politically sound decision but will result in a
better deal financially for GSA and the government.
Mr. Schultz. I guess I'd like to add, though, to what
everyone is saying, that what we need is to sit down and talk
about this. We need to talk about BLM, but we need to talk
about other Federal agencies that are affected. We'd really
appreciate that.
And also, any further decisions on BLM, I guess we need to
find out where you specifically are with that.
Senator Baucus. OK. I think that this has been very
helpful. I want to thank you all very, very much for your help
here. We're making some progress. At least I hope so. I can
feel it starting to gel a little bit here. Thank you again. If
you don't mind, Bob, Paul, if you would come back again.
[Recess.]
Senator Baucus. You've heard the testimony of those folks
that are directly affected, obviously doing the best they can
representing their communities under somewhat difficult
circumstances. I'm just curious what you've heard--what you've
learned and what we might do to, from your perspective, resolve
a lot of this.
Mr. Peck. I'll try to be real brief. Obviously, I'm
concerned about what I'm hearing because if even--obviously,
people have different sides here, things different ways; but
what I hear is that we have not, in these three communities,
met our own standards in dealing with the public.
I'm very disappointed because I have--my family has a very
long tradition in government and in the military, and we have a
very high public service standard. I'm very personally
distressed when any action with which I'm associated and with
which GSA is associated helps create a lack of confidence in
the government, because I have a strong feeling, as do
apparently all people on the panel, that government is here to
help people, and that's our job.
I will say this. I have a couple of suggestions. No. 1, I
should also note that having seen National Lampoon's Vacation,
I hope I'm not being compared to the grandmother who passed
away and was carried on top of the station wagon for 700 miles.
Senator Baucus. How about the dog?
Mr. Peck. I was afraid of that. And I prefer Matt Lauer to
Chevy Chase.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Peck. A couple of things. One is, I think Mr. Kennedy
just brought up an issue which, by the way, we have been
concerned with. It is why you can't set hard and fast rules.
One question is, who are the local officials with whom you
should be in contact?
I think one of our problems, as I understand it, in Butte
may have been talking to one local downtown group and not
another. That's not an excuse. We have said to our folks, and
we're trying to do training on this with people who have not
been active in civic affairs, that there are a lot of players,
stakeholders, in downtown. That includes elected officials,
appointed people, downtown business groups, Chamber of
Commerce, Historical Preservation groups.
There are lots of people to touch base with, and you've got
to touch base with all of them. That's something we need to do
a better job on.
The second reason you can't do a one-size-fits-all, in some
areas we've been told ``It's only the mayor you can talk to.''
In other places we've been told, ``Don't bother the mayor. Talk
to the planning director.''
So it's our job to find out who it is that the city wants
us to work with and who else we should be talking with. We
clearly need to do a better job of figuring out who is--who it
is we should consult with. I mean, you can consult widely and
not narrowly.
Although the Federal constitution doesn't have the same
kind of open-meeting requirements that Montana has in its State
constitution, we clearly believe that we should operate in the
open and that we need to involve people openly as much as
possible.
Two other suggestions, and then I will turn it over to
Paul. One is that it is very important to us, and we have
realized this. I can tell you that in every situation I've
found in which there is some difficulty, one of the problems
we've had is that the local--that our local officials often--
and I think in the interest of doing their job, without
bothering other people, tend to go to meetings without the
clients around, our Federal agency clients. It only helps
engender miscommunication when we don't have the actual folks
who are setting the requirements also sitting down with us and
with local people saying, ``Here's what's going on,'' for two
reasons.
One is that the clients need to hear directly what the
local people think, and local people also need to hear directly
what the Federal agencies are talking about. Sometimes I know
when an agency says, you know, ``I can't meet this requirement
in the historic building,'' the historic folks can say, ``I'll
give you three instances where it's worked. Why don't we go
take a look and see if it would work here.'' I think that's a
suggestion.
Finally, it's interesting, you know, Senator, being in
Washington. I go places, and when I go to meetings in
California they are also convinced that Washington is not at
all concerned with California.
One of the things we have done to try to make that better
is to devolve as much responsibility from Washington out to the
region so at least we don't have the way the government used to
be some years ago where everybody was always calling Washington
to get permission to do something.
We tell our folks they don't need permission to do
something. They really need more permission to say no. And
saying yes is what we really try and get to.
I do understand. Montana is a small State. It can feel
isolated. None of us wants anyplace in the Union to feel that
way, and it is incumbent upon us to do a better job,
particularly with small towns where we don't have the presence
of all of our forces, all of our leasing people to get the job
done.
One thing I would like to turn over to Paul Prouty to talk
about is the question of how we proceed from here, specifically
with respect to some of these suggestions. We don't want to try
to get into a point-by-point rebuttal. We want to not
completely forget the past. We don't want to start from zero,
and we don't want this to take any more time than we have to,
but we do want to figure out how we can make a cleaner start.
Mr. Prouty. I've found this to be very informative. I've
been in this office about 6 months. My sense is that we have a
problem. That certainly has been magnified today. I felt like
the dog there for awhile, but out of these kinds of situations
come opportunities, and I think there is tremendous opportunity
here.
I think we were a regulatory agency before and we're not
anymore. We didn't intentionally go out into the communities to
talk to people because we didn't think that was our role; but
for now in the business, it is our role and it is our
responsibility and we're going to do it.
In Billings we've made an award. We have a legally binding
document. It is subject to litigation. The only commitment that
I can make in Billings is, henceforth, we will talk to whomever
you want and we will put somebody on it right now and we will
have a discussion.
We can't go back, but we can go forward. We have a lot of
people going up there often and we will get your name to
somebody. If you give us the name of a contact, we'll start
meeting with you.
In Butte--I don't even know what to say. We will have
probably a different player. We will have a MEPS contact
probably from Washington, a decisionmaker, and we will have one
of our senior officials meet with you. We'll all get in one
room and find a way to work that out.
In Helena, I absolutely agree. We're probably going to need
some help with the negotiations, and the city may be able to do
that. We will decide very soon what that looks like, and either
Sandy DiBernardo, who is right out here, or I will come up and
we will start those discussions and we will do something that
makes sense, although for the life of me, I wish I knew what it
was.
Some of it sounds very simple, but we have a challenge
here. We need to get better information. As far as the seismic,
we need to start talking turkey here, so we'll do that. If I
can get, contact you or whomever, my office will contact that
person and we'll start that discussion and set somebody in
place who is a decisionmaker to make that happen.
My commitment to you is that we also will get the agencies.
There are a lot of agencies that have a lot of particular
problems on where to locate. All of us have diminishing
resources, so we're going to--you'll probably be seeing a lot
of them too, but I hope some of them are here. If the MEPS
people from Butte are here, you can help us out as well.
Barbara, finally we have identified a person who is our
primary contact for historical preservation, Lisa Purgey. She
has a real strong bias, and that's why we put her in the job.
We want to do the right thing. Those are my particular
commitments. My long-term commitment is, it's a lot more fun
when you have good partnerships and good relationships. This
has not been a lot of fun for me today. It's been a learning
experience. We're going to do better. I'm available.
This move has not been the easiest one I've had to make
because we've changed jobs, locations, had a baby, a new house
and all this stuff, but I'm ready to do it. We'll get started.
Senator Baucus. When do you think you can get the meeting
put together with GSA and MEPS?
Mr. Prouty. We aren't quite as stupid as we've been
portrayed, although I would certainly wonder on occasions, but
I called MEPS before I came here because I said, ``I know
what's going to happen here and I know you're playing in this
one.'' They agreed that we would talk when we get back to the
office tomorrow and we'll set it up. We're talking a couple of
weeks on all these, to get them started.
Senator Baucus. Can the public be involved in that at all?
Mr. Prouty. Sure. What the hell. I'd like to have them hear
this, too.
Senator Baucus. You can put out a public notice.
Mr. Prouty. What I need to do is I just need to talk to the
MEPS people and talk to city officials and find out when we
need to get somebody there.
Senator Baucus. Colleen was speaking about Urban Renewal
and how much this part of Helena has changed. It's true. The
street out here, Cruse, it doesn't go anyplace except the
Federal Building, basically.
It was designed and built for that purpose. It is very
expensive and there was a lot of infrastructure that was built
here for that purpose on the realization and the hope and
promise and expectation that the Federal Building would be
here, and that's what created the need for all the
infrastructure. It's very--it's a very important point, and I
hope you realize how unfair it would be to just pull out lock,
stock and barrel.
Mr. Prouty. I must tell you a side issue. I knew I would
live long enough--I was one of the ones that took a beating
when we had the fiasco getting the Federal Building here. I
knew I would sit in a meeting sometime before I died with
somebody saying how wonderful it is and how we must stay.
Senator Baucus. Another question I had is about BLM and
wareyards. Does BLM always require a wareyard?
Mr. Prouty. We asked that question as well. They were the
ones who held firm to that requirement. That's not the only
offset or requirement. I think it's four to six or something.
We pushed real hard on that to make sure it was a legitimate
requirement.
Mr. Peck. Let me tell you what we have done in other cases.
Again, I won't name the agency, but one of the advantages of
being a national organization is when an agency does ask you
about, say, they have a certain requirement. We have had
negotiations in which I've said, ``Well, I've checked around
our regions and discovered that,'' for example, in one case an
agency in Region 1 said they would only locate downtown. At the
same time, they were trying to tell us in Kansas City that they
couldn't be in the downtown area. So we sort of were able to
shed some light on those things.
Those are very difficult, and like I said, you're always
trying to figure out, do you have a real requirement or is it a
subterfuge for some preference which we're not allowed to take
consideration of.
Senator Baucus. Barb Pahl mentioned that no guidance has
yet been issued under the Executive order. Is that coming soon?
Mr. Peck. The guidance under 13006----
Senator Baucus. Is that seismic?
Mr. Peck. No, the historic preservation. We have interim
guidance. We issued some interim guidance, we call it, on
Executive Order 13006 to all of our people, which also
incorporates, again, the downtown policy in general, and then
makes it more specific about historic buildings.
We've not made it final, quite honestly, because I haven't
seen a draft yet which makes me confident that it will do the
job. What we have done is taken the interim guidance out and
started training our employees on it.
Second, Barb also mentioned that under 13006, we are
required to review--all Federal agencies are required to review
their policies to make sure they don't have restrictions in
their rules, like on our solicitations, that would, for no good
reason, not give historic preservation our consideration.
I will say, very honestly, I'm in charge of this agency. I
have kicked back a draft that I saw because I thought it was
namby-pamby and wouldn't do the job. It's being rewritten at
the moment. I'm hoping to see another draft in a week or two,
but I'm not going to sit still for something that gives lip
service. So that's why we don't have the rules yet.
Senator Baucus. What about having a designated single
person fairly high up that Billings and Butte could talk with,
etc.?
Mr. Prouty. I'm going to get cards. I can see them coming
out already, and we will call.
Senator Baucus. One thing I would appreciate very much is
if you could both, Commissioner or Mr. Prouty, keep me informed
on a regular basis in writing of how the three projects are
coming along. Obviously, the sooner we can resolve this, the
better.
Mr. Peck. We'll do that, yes.
Senator Baucus. Or call me personally. In fact, I'd
appreciate that. I'd like a personal call if you could.
Mr. Peck. I'm up in front of your committee from time to
time. I can't avoid you.
Senator Baucus. Give me a call.
Mr. Peck. I will.
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much. Anything else you want
to say?
Mr. Peck. No. I'd like to say that, as always, I do spend a
lot of time traveling, because you always have to get--
Washington is the last place you're going to find out what's
happening, and it's important and hopeful and helpful, as
always, to be out in the country and find out what's going on.
I would also like to say I was very impressed with the
panel, people who are devoted to downtown development. I must
admit I'm an easterner, and it's wonderful to see people in a
State like Montana, which we don't consider to be a terribly
urbanized place back where I come from, to have so many
advocates of good urban development and planning.
Senator Baucus. OK. Listen to them.
Mr. Peck. Absolutely. It's great.
Senator Baucus. As I said at the outset, I don't want to go
back and rehash who said what and so forth, rather, just to
move forward and get these problems resolved and hopefully set
up a better system under which GSA really consults with and
talks with people here in our State on a much better basis than
you apparently have in the past.
Mr. Peck. I would like to come back next year for some
celebration of successes.
Senator Baucus. That would be very welcome. Thank you very
much. That concludes the hearing.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Max Baucus, U.S. Senator from the State of
Montana
I want to welcome everyone to today's hearing of the Environment
and Public Works Committee. Today's hearing will focus on the
coordination between the General Services Administration and local
officials in the Federal building leasing process. My comments will
brief so that we can have plenty of time to hear from all of our
witnesses.
For the benefit of those folks who are here from outside of
Montana, I want to start by giving a very brief history of this area of
Helena--which is my hometown.
We are holding this hearing today in the heart of Last Chance
Gulch. Gold was discovered right here over 100 years ago. Four miners
from Georgia worked tirelessly to make the big hit. When they had
exhausted all of their resources, their time was running out. So they
decided to work diligently and took one last chance at striking gold.
They did. And without their determination and grit, Helena, the Queen
City of the Rockies, would still be a dream.
So it is appropriate that we are in this location to discuss ways
in which to improve the process of leasing Federal office space. The
location of Federal office space within a community is an important
matter. There are tremendous impacts from the decisions made with
regard to leasing Federal office space.
We have three Montana communities experiencing the same
difficulties with the GSA. There seems to be a systematic problem with
the coordination process between the Federal government and local
communities. I do not believe that the process to date has been handled
as it should have been. We are here today to discuss this problem and
work to find solutions.
I am afraid that sometimes the Federal government comes to town
feeling it knows best--without regard to the thoughts of people who
live in these communities. I believe GSA ought to reach out more to
local folks. Local residents are a vast resource that the Federal
government should tap. GSA should work with communities in order to
understand their development plans and needs for the future.
I believe we can resolve some of these issues. We all want to do
the right thing for our communities and the Federal agencies involved.
If we pledge to listen closely to all of our witnesses, we will be able
to learn and improve the coordination process. And with that, we will
improve the relationship between GSA and the residents of Montana.
Again, I want to thank all of you here today. I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses. We have a full slate, so let's begin.
______
Prepared Statement of Robert A. Peck, Commissioner, Public Buildings
Service
Senator Baucus: I am Robert Peck, Commissioner of the Public
Buildings Service (PBS), within the General Services Administration
(GSA). PBS is the service responsible for providing real property asset
management that enables Federal employees to accomplish their missions.
PBS manages nationwide an inventory of 285 million square feet of
primarily office, judicial and storage space, in over 8,000 buildings
of which approximately 1,800 are government-owned. More than 200 of
these owned buildings are on the National Register. Obviously, we have
a very real presence in urban communities throughout the country, and I
am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the commitment of the
Public Buildings Service to the invigoration of the economic and civic
life of the nation's cities.
It is the goal of the Public Buildings Service to build on the
Federal presence in local communities, to strengthen local partnership
and participate in community revitalization initiatives. We have called
this national effort our ``Good Neighbor Program''.
This program is a way for PBS, through its existing legal,
regulatory and contractual authorities, to undertake a broad range of
civic initiatives in communities that support our mission to provide
quality work environments for Federal workers and value to the American
taxpayer.
We offer space for cultural, educational, recreational or
commercial activities, provide restaurants and shops open to the public
on the major pedestrian access levels of Federal buildings, and host
community events and activities in Federal buildings and plazas, under
the auspices of the Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act of 1976. PBS
also participates in downtown management districts, including Business
Improvement Districts.
In 1997 alone, we renewed over 800 leases in 500 downtown
communities. We paid private lessors over $2 billion dollars, and we
hosted more than 5,000 community events and activities in Federal
buildings and plazas.
PBS actively implements the President's Executive Orders 12072 and
13006. GSA's has issued an interim rule for E.O. 12072 and an advisory
bulletin on E.O. 13006. The interim rule provides guidance to Federal
agencies to locate in Federal facilities in urban areas. The bulletin
encourages the agencies to use a variety of methods in giving first
consideration to downtown historic properties and districts. It is our
policy to work with our customer agencies to meet their requirements to
locate downtown, and it is our policy to coordinate directly with
cities, urban interest groups, and local jurisdictions.
It is important to understand, that when locating Federal agencies,
first consideration is always given to central business areas and
historical districts. We work with agencies to provide productive
workspace. We help agencies refine their requirements in ways that
encourage maximum competition among competing sources. Oftentimes, we
can find space solutions in buildings that agencies, at first blush, do
not think can meet their needs. In the end, market competition and
creative space solutions result in good value to the taxpayer. If a
local market cannot provide effective workspace at good value to the
taxpayer within the central business area or the historic district, we
must expand our search beyond those areas or districts.
Our commitment to being ``Good Neighbor's'' is multifaceted. GSA is
a member of the President's Council for Sustainable Development. In
1997 GSA transferred millions in surplus federal property to local
communities for public uses. We have entered into an agreement with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to assist communities to remediate
brownfield sites in urban communities. Under Presidential Executive
Order 12999, Computers-to-schools, GSA provides surplus computers to
schools as part of this national initiative.
Under our umbrella ``Good Neighbor'' Program all of these policies
come together in a single focus, to make the federal presence a
positive and active part of the community.
This concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to answer any
questions which you may wish to address.
______
Prepared Statement of Paul Prouty, Assistant Regional Administrator,
Public Buildings Service
Senator Baucus: I am Paul Prouty, the Assistant Regional
Administrator for the GSA Public Buildings Service in the Rocky
Mountain Region. Our region includes the states of Montana, Colorado,
Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota. We manage 14 million
square feet of space comprised of 582 buildings, of which 206 are
Government-owned and 376 are leased. In Montana, we manage 1.3 million
square feet in 29 Government-owned and 53 leased buildings. Two of
these Government-owned buildings are on the National Register of
Historic Properties, and six additional Federal structures are
presently eligible.
I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the commitment
of the Rocky Mountain Region to promote the housing of government
agencies in the Central Business Areas and in historic structures and
districts. Included in this process is our commitment to be a good
neighbor by working with local officials and other interested parties.
We are a significant real property services provider, and are
fortunate to have top-notch employees who know the real estate
business. Our program includes major construction and restoration
projects. One of our recent historical renovations in Denver won the
prestigious Presidential Design Award. Amongst GSA regional offices, we
lead the nation in Small Business awards, and our programs contribute
millions of dollars to the region, which includes an annual leasing
investment of $7 million into Montana's economy.
As the real estate broker for Federal agencies, our leasing process
is triggered by the receipt of a request to locate a Federal agency or
to continue their presence in a given community. After the agency has
identified their requirements and a desired area for location, it is
our role to consult with local arid city officials to determine how the
requirement can best be integrated into a community plan. This is an
evolutionary process which develops through a series of discussions
with the client agency and community officials. These discussions take
the form of meetings with public officials, chambers of commerce,
representatives of the various historic interest groups, town hall
meetings, and the like. Sometimes this process is accomplished with a
great deal of ease. At other times there is not necessarily an easy
match of agency requirements and available options in the community.
Our skills continue to develop and the partnerships continue to evolve.
We are determined to find better ways of dealing with communities and
our customers, which will result in continuing successes that balance
the interests of the Federal and local communities. This concludes my
testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of Colleen McCarthy, Mayor, city of Helena
Good morning. I'm Colleen McCarthy, Mayor, city of Helena. I would
like to thank Senator Baucus and members of this committee for allowing
us an opportunity to discuss our experiences with the General Services
Administration. During the past year we have become extremely
frustrated and concerned with the lack of communication,
misrepresentation and the actions of GSA officials. First, I would like
to state for the record, those GSA representatives currently residing
in the Helena area have been most helpful and understanding, our
frustration lies with GSA representatives in the Denver office.
I became directly involved in working with GSA representatives
regarding the Helena Federal Building lease, almost 1 year. As mayor, I
received a letter informing us GSA was considering lease renewal
options on the existing Federal building. During our conversations with
GSA officials, it became apparent, they would be considering lease
options on buildings other than the existing structure and possibility
areas outside the Central Business District. On May 20, 1997, I sent a
letter to Polly Baca, Regional Administrator for GSA, advising her the
consensus of the Helena City Commission, was that, GSA aggressively
pursue lease options with the owner of the existing structure. I also
clearly stated, if the decision was made to move from the current
building, they must comply with Executive Order 12072 and relocate in
the central business district.
Between the dates of May 20 and August 1, correspondence between
the Denver GSA office and the city of Helena continued through our city
manager, Troy McGee. In late July, city manager McGee received a
request from Julie Milner asking the city for permission to issue an
RFP to pursue a warehouse location outside the Central Business
District. Mr. McGee brought the request to the City Commission, the
request was for a storage type building with few offices and minimal
employees.
In the spirit of cooperation, the City Commission granted approval
for the RFP outside the central business district. Days after the
approval, we learned that the true intentions of GSA were not only to
find warehouse space but to also relocate two entire departments, the
Federal Highway Administration and the USGS. Numerous employees would
be relocated.
When we challenged GSA's intentions and mis-communication, it was
our city manager who was accused of falsely representing GSA's request
to the city commission. After numerous conversations, GSA officials
continued to insist our city manager had misrepresented their request.
These allegations persisted, even after we provided documentation
outlining their request and the city's position. I wanted to provide
you with this one example of the lack of accountability and cooperation
by GSA officials. This demonstrates just one of several examples of
continued misinformation and frustration in dealing with their Denver
office.
I know my time here today is limited. However, as a representative
of the Helena community I believe it is imperative my testimony clearly
provides you with factual data that will support a decision, to
aggressively pursue options, that will allow Federal employees to
remain in the current Federal building or at minimum remain in the
central business district.
In the 1970's the city of Helena worked in cooperation with the
General Services Administration to locate a new Federal building in
downtown Helena. Here is a quote from the ``Findings of Fact'' from the
Determination of Site Selection document:
The city of Helena is aggressively pursing an Urban Renewal
Plan to revitalize the old downtown area and sees the new
(Federal) building as an integral contribution to their long
range goals. There has been no adverse reaction to the project
in the local community . . . the proposed site is an example of
inter-governmental cooperation to minimize socioeconomic
impact.
I submit to you today, the Federal building continues to be an
integral contribution to our long range goals as a community and in the
downtown area. I find it ironic, this has turned into the worst example
of inter-governmental cooperation and miscommunication.
During Urban Renewal, the city of Helena invested millions in
infra-structure to enable the construction and placement of the Federal
Building in our Downtown. Street systems were redesigned and
constructed, additional land was acquired to provide adequate parking
and sewer and water services were extended, much at local taxpayer
expense. Today, officials of the Government Services Administration are
asking us to ignore the huge investment of tax payer money in the
current building site. We simply cannot ignore the substantial
investment local citizens and taxpayer's made over 20 years ago all in
the spirit of cooperation and trust with the GSA.
In 1976 President Carter issued Executive order 12072. He believed
Federal use of space in urban areas ``shall serve to strengthen the
Nation's cities and make them attractive places to work.''
Currently, officials of GSA are not keeping with the spirit of the
Executive order. Repeated attempts have been made to extend the
boundary of the Executive Order without fully investigating the options
available within the central business district. GSA has repeatedly
asked the city of Helena to allow RFP's to be solicited outside the
district. We believe this action is in direct conflict with the
Executive order. An example of this conflict, is reflected in the fact
that GSA has given little consideration to the traffic problems that
will occur within our community if 300-plus employees are located
outside the central business district. Even worst is the possibility of
locating 300 plus employees in an area that is currently experiencing
severe traffic congestion and safety issues. GSA officials appear to
care little about potential traffic impacts and future infrastructure
costs for Helena taxpayers.
Lastly, I would like to briefly discuss the situation regarding the
existing Federal Building. In a meeting with GSA officials on October
30, 1997, they stated the current lease arrangement was a ``bad deal
for government.'' However, they have repeatedly refused to provide
financial data as to why this lease is a ``bad deal for government. ``
On November 26, 1997 I was asked to address a group of concerned
Federal executives currently working in a Federal building. During this
meeting numerous employees expressed satisfaction with the location of
the building in downtown Helena. However, many employees expressed
serious concerns with perceived safety issues and the structural
stability of the building. Currently, GSA officials are claiming to
have documentation, in the Merrick Report, that substantiates $13-$16
million dollars in identified improvements, including safety issues.
However, the building owner hired an independent structural engineer
who claims that the building IS structurally sound. The engineer
identified only $7 million in improvements from the Merrick Report not
$13-16 million.
As a result of these conflicting reports, many of your Federal
employees feel their safety is at risk. I believe, from the testimony
you have heard here today, it is imperative you address the safety
issues of these Federal employees above all else. No employee, whether
they work in a high risk industry or a clerical position in the Federal
Government, should feel their safety is at risk while on the job. It is
the recommendation of the Helena City Commission that you require GSA
officials to work cooperatively with the current Federal building
owner, resolving the potential safety issues within the building and
extending the current lease agreement, if at all possible.
I would like to thank you for your time this morning. These issues
are serious, the actions of GSA could have devastating impacts to our
community. We are not Denver, Houston or even Salt Lake City. We are a
small community of 35,000 people who still believe your word is as
biding as a legal document and that government, whether it be local,
State, or Federal is charged with protecting and preserving the
communities we have all worked so hard to build and call home. Thank
you.
______
Prepared Statement of Mark Kennedy, City Council Member, Billings, MT
Senator Baucus and Members of the Committee: I welcome the
opportunity to provide testimony today regarding issues associated with
Federal procurement processes for office space. I have been a Billings
City Council Member for 5 years during two separate terms. I am a
Billings restaurant owner and a small businessman. Previously, I owned
a restaurant in the downtown Billings area and prided myself in
contributing to the vibrancy of my community. With that experience, I
feel that I am qualified to represent this important component of our
city.
In recent months, the Billings City Council and city staff have
been involved in an important Federal Government decision that affects
the future of the Billings' downtown. A government decision was
recently made to award a contract for the construction of a new Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) facility outside of the downtown area. Despite
repeated efforts of local leaders to urge the consideration of a
downtown site, the General Services Administration (GSA), acting on
behalf of the BLM, has cited the requirements of the Competition in
Contracting Act (CICA) as the reason for making a decision that deserts
the downtown of the largest city in Montana.
I am here today to express my concern for my community, its
downtown economy and a questionable future brought into play by the
actions of these two agencies. Their actions have left a bitter taste
in the mouths of many Billings residents, including even some of our
own Federal employees.
I first want to comment on the requirements of Executive Order
12072, an act signed in 1978 by then-President Jimmy Carter. At that
time, he recognized the plights of urban cities and realized that the
Federal Government must be a partner in helping the revitalization of
America's urban cities. This executive order requires all Federal
agencies to give primary consideration for their locations to be in
central business areas. For the past several years, the city of
Billings has been a partner with the Federal Government in meeting that
goal. This has resulted in the recent completion of a new Federal
office building in downtown.
On this project, however, (GSA Solicitation No. 97-15), something
has gone awry. Initially, a bid for facilities in the downtown area was
solicited with only the current landlord providing a bid for services.
This was not viewed favorably and it was identified that bidding should
be opened for new sites throughout the Billings community. The
Competition in Contracting Act was cited as the reason that new bids
would need to be solicited.
A meeting was held between Federal officials, Mayor Chuck Tooley
and our City Administrator. Due to CICA, we were told there was no
choice but to open bidding up to sites outside of the Billings
downtown. This was the extent of Federal Government efforts to comply
with Executive Order #12072. A later letter from our City Administrator
(attached) asked for clarification of our community's ``rights'', but a
response was vague and non-responsive.
As a City Council Member, I ask myself if a vote of the Council
would have made the difference in granting our community more time in
which to respond. We had a developer from Massachusetts which expressed
strong interest in a downtown site. However, other than a 2 week delay,
the BLM/GSA process continued until an award was announced between
Christmas and New Years. Merry Christmas indeed!
Federal executive orders and contracting law are unclear as to what
is the ``right'' of a community to object to the ``competitive
removal'' of 200 jobs from the downtown area. What is the extent of the
duty of the Federal Government to respond to the local community? These
jobs are an important component of the downtown economy. However, no
accountability was ever made by the GSA/BLM as to the ``costs''
associated with their move. We did see a projection of $9 million in
savings over 20 years. But we, in Billings, can anticipate a glut of
office space to arrive on the market after the completion of the newly
awarded building.
We can see local property owners lowering the rents of their
facilities to compete with a new 56,000 square feet on the market. Some
will ask for property tax value reductions affecting revenues of city
government, county government, and our school district. Local
restaurants that depend on a vibrant lunch crowd will lose, as well as
small specialty shops along our streets.
I also want to object to a process that deliberately ``specked
out'' the Billings downtown. The BLM/GSA proposal required the adjacent
location of a wareyard facility. Next to an office building containing
over 130 regional ``white collar'' type workers, a warehouse work area
was mandated to be included. This facility could not be located down
the street or near the site, but must be directly connected and
adjacent.
This requirement created a direct conflict with city of Billings
zoning code criteria. A wareyard facility is not allowed in the central
business district, as in most American cities. The wareyard would be a
facility to store posts, cables, vehicles, horse trailers, and surplus.
I would liken this to building a Federal vehicle repair shop next to
the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington. The types of uses are
incompatible and don't mix! Given this situation, the local City
Council was put in a situation of ignoring zoning law and create an
infamous ``spot zoning'' situation to comply with Federal
specifications. Due to 35,000 sq. ft. specifications of the wareyard,
the BLM/GSA could not consider locating this material in an indoor
facility. We even looked at the basement of the City Library, but it
was only 20,000 sq. ft.
The City and private sector have been involved in a year long
process of planning for the ``Downtown Billings--Everyone's
Neighborhood Project. Due to timetables, the BLM/GSA could not honor
waiting for the completion of the project which was adopted by local
governments in December, 1997, the same month the project was awarded.
Billings now has a plan and government offices are an important part of
it. In Montana, where many jobs are with Federal agencies, how can they
not participate in local efforts? Isn't this contrary to the Executive
Order #12072? Our community spent $300,000 in local funding for this
effort, so it is not something that we take lightly. The Federal
Government has failed by not recognizing the importance we take in our
downtown.
I have included with my testimony, a financial summary of downtown
taxable values which are part of a tax increment district. A tax
increment district is an area of a community where taxes are frozen at
a base level and all new incremental tax value increase use proceeds to
reinvest in the district. In Billings case, the district is our
downtown central business district. We started in 1982 with an
incremental taxable value of $6,258,307. This rose to a high of
$11,424,295 in 1991. Since that time, we have seen the incremental
taxable value decrease to $5,913,544 in 1997.
Some was attributed to tax reappraisals, but overall a general
decline in investment. Without continued reinvestment, the efforts of
this community can be for naught. That is why the loss of a major
downtown source of jobs and capital investment is so important. The
evaluation of $447,000 in annual projected BLM savings will be
miniscule in comparison to impact upon the financial vitality of
downtown Billings. The Federal agencies did not take this into account.
A major mistake when assessing total impact.
In summary, the city of Billings' downtown has received major blow
to its diligent planning efforts, its economy, and its downtown
workplace diversity. Our neighbors and friends are being removed from
the area in the name of a bottom line that disregards the environment
around it. As a City Council member, I recognize the need to receive
competitive bids, but I also recognize the need to award the ``most
responsible bid.''
The Federal Government in Montana is an important partner in
securing the success and vitality of the downtowns of Montana cities.
The process now being used is not fair, does not coordinate enough with
local officials, and does not fully weigh the economic impacts. We have
seen the challenges of our elected representatives go ignored by
Federal agencies. As a City Councilman, I cannot accept the old adage,
``There is nothing we can do!'' There is and it starts right here,
today!
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9523.001
______
City-County Planning Department,
Billings, MT, August 12, 1997.
Mr. Harrison Fagg,
Harrison Fagg & Associates,
Billings, MT.
Dear Mr. Fagg: This is in regards to your property located at 222
N. 32d Street, and more specifically the proposal for the BLM offices
and wareyard. This property, as you know, is zoned as Central Business
District (CBD). According to the Billings Montana Municipal Code
(BMCC), inside or outside storage of materials and equipment is not
allowed within the CBD zoning district. Obviously, the office use is an
allowable use outright, and I do not believe that has ever been in
question.
I hope that this answers your questions on this matter. Please feel
free to call me with any additional questions or concerns that you may
have.
Sincerely,
Bill Armold,
Planning Director.
______
City of Billings,
Office of City Administrator,
Billings, MT, October 20, 1997.
General Services Administration,
Rocky Mountain Region,
Denver, CO.
Dear Tanisha: On behalf of the city of Billings, I am writing to
inquire about certain procedures followed by the City and the General
Services Administration for the BLM project in Billings. It has
recently been brought to my attention that Executive Order #12072
requires that consideration will be given to the location of Federal
facilities in central business areas (CBA's). This is important public
policy and is one directive that should not be taken lightly.
In a recent letter from Polly Baca, Regional Administrator to Nancy
Bennett, local Billings attorney, it refers to earlier action by GSA
and the city of Billings which expanded the delineated bidding area
beyond the CBA. This officially refers to this as an ``agreement'' with
the city of Billings. I believe this agreement refers to a letter from
the GSA to Fred Alley, Billings Community Service Director on April 1,
1997. (see attached.) The letter delineates the GSA's need for more
competitive bids for the BLM site and thus, necessitated the City to be
notified of your intent to do so.
Now, this letter is being referred to as an agreement. I am not
sure this is entirely correct and have spoken to our City Attorney. I
am confused as to the authority we have as a City in the Federal
procurement process. Was this letter construed as a full agreement by
the City that we concurred in expanding the bidding boundaries? Or,
were we notified as a courtesy by the GSA that the agency would be
expanding the boundaries? When in consultation with local officials as
you were with Mr. Alley last April, did this concurrence as to the GSA
finding for competition under the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA)
legally obligate the city of Billings in some way? If so, this was not
taken before the City Council for ratification of the GSA action.
If we have no authority over the GSA process, I am confused as to
the Regional Administrator's use of the term agreement. Your immediate
clarification of the City's authorities and involvement in such an
involvement with the GSA is desired. For instance, if the City's
concurrence had been withheld, would the BLM project have proceeded
anyway? If it is granted via the letter from Fred Alley, the City needs
to know the significance of that act.
As you know, there is significant local interest in the eventual
disposition of the BLM project. Extreme concern is being conveyed as to
the loss of many Federal jobs in a downtown that is feeling a number of
economic impacts.
I thank you for clarifying this issue. Please call me, if you need
further clarification than from above.
Sincerely Yours.
Mark S. Watson,
City Administrator.
______
General Services Administration,
Rocky Mountain Region,
Denver, CO, September 17, 1997.
Ms. Nancy Bennett,
Moulton, Bellingham, Longo, & Mather, P.C.,
Billings, MT.
Dear Ms. Bennett: Thank you for your August 8, 1997, and August 19,
1997, letters reflecting your concerns regarding the lease procurement
for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Billings, Montana.
The Solicitation for Offers (SFO) reflects the long-term
requirements of our client. The lease procurement process has been, and
will continue to be, conducted in a manner which is consistent with all
laws, regulations, and Executive Orders. Additionally, GSA has worked
closely with the city of Billings to ensure requirements are compatible
with zoning restrictions, especially where the Billings Central
Business District (CBD) is concerned. Executive Order 12072 permits,
while the Competition in Contracting Act requires, the expansion of a
delineated area if it is determined that adequate competition does not
exist within the CBD. Therefore, with the agreement of the city of
Billings, the delineated area was expanded beyond the Billings CBD to
include the city limits of Billings.
I hope this adequately addresses your concerns. If you have further
questions regarding this matter, please contact Ms. Sandra DiBernardo,
Director of our Mountain-Plains Service Center, at (303) 236-1770.
Sincerely,
Polly Baca,
Regional Administrator.
______
General Services Administration,
Rocky Mountain Region,
Denver, CO, April 1, 1997.
Mr. Fredric H. Alley,
Community Development Director,
Billings, MT.
Dear Mr. Alley: This is in reference to our on-going discussions
regarding the lease procurement action for the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) in Billings, Montana.
As discussed, the BLM lease at the Granite Tower building, 222
North 32d Street, expires in April 1998, and GSA has leased space at
this location since April 1976. There are currently three (3) BLM
leases in the Billings area which will be consolidated in one location
to achieve the economic and programmatic benefits of consolidation.
GSA is conducting this lease procurement on behalf of BLM in
accordance with all applicable laws and Executive Orders. Executive
Order 12072, August 16, 1978, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp, p. 213, requires that
first consideration be given to central business areas (CBA's) and
other designated areas. The Executive Order also states that whenever
practicable and cost-effective, GSA shall consolidate elements of the
same agency or multiple agencies in order to achieve the economic and
programmatic benefits of consolidation. Furthermore, GSA is responsible
for confirming that established delineated area boundaries provide
competition when acquiring leased space.
In accordance with the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), GSA
may consider whether restricting the delineated area to the CBA will
provide for competition when acquiring leased space. Where it is
determined that an acquisition should not be restricted to the CBA, GSA
may expand the delineated area in consultation with the requesting
agency and local officials. The CBA must continue to be included in
such an expanded area.
In light of our discussions and the information provided above, it
was determined that the delineated area must not be restricted to the
Billings CBA, but instead expanded to include the City Limits of
Billings. By doing so we are soliciting bids or proposals in a manner
designed to achieve full and open competition for the procurement in
accordance with CICA. Additionally, it is expected we will receive bids
from a variety of sources and locations, including the CBA and other
areas within the delineated area
As discussed, please indicate your concurrence with this decision
by signing in the space provided below. Please return a copy to this
office as soon as possible. My fax number is (303) 236-1774
I greatly appreciate your cooperation throughout the development of
this project. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
contact me at (303) 236-1770, Ext 228.
Sincerely,
Tanisha Harrison,
Contracting Officer,
Montana/Dakotas Service Center, PBS.
______
Prepared Statement of Alan Nicholson, Helena, MT
My name is Alan Nicholson. I have lived in Helena since 1970 and
for most of that time I have been a real estate developer and property
manager here and in Billings. Most of our properties are in downtown
locations. I am a believer in urban development and redevelopment. I am
a former chair of the Montana Board of Public Education, a past
president of the Helena Chamber of Commerce and the immediate past
president of the Montanan ambassadors, a group of State business
leaders appointed by the Governor to make Montana a better place to
work and live. I believe government is our collective responsibility,
that it is what we do together for the common good and that we should
do it well. My wife and I serve in many public arenas and contribute
very significantly to Federal, State and local taxes. As it turns out,
I have land and buildings which would be suitable for a new Federal
building in the downtown area, but I agree with other community leaders
that it is in the best interests of our town for the Federal offices to
stay where they are. I have been an outspoken advocate of that
position.
I am disappointed and dismayed by the behavior of the General
Services Administration which apparently intends to ignore Executive
orders issued by every president since Carter, to ignore the interests
of the Helena community and its elected officials, to ignore the
protocols of fair play and good business and to ignore the best
interests of the government they serve.
I believe the Executive orders are quite clear in their mandate to
assist central cities to remain economically strong by locating,
Federal offices in the downtown areas whenever reasonably possible
Certainly this city did much to encourage the Federal Building to
locate in its central business district by building roads, clearing
land and co-locating other public facilities such as the city library
and the neighborhood center. Now, for no apparent good reason, GSA
would not only like to vacate their present building, but move entirely
out of the downtown area.
The city commission and other public bodies are on record and in
agreement that it is in the community's best interests to have the
Federal offices stay put. Everyone realizes that there are problems
requiring remediation at the present site and that certain functions of
government may need to locate elsewhere in order to serve effectively
and efficiently. . . . If the collective best interests of all parties
are to be served, everybody has to give a little. . . . But GSA has
routinely rejected efforts to compromise and negotiate. Even before any
definitive request for proposals for a Federal Building in Helena, GSA
asked the city to extend the boundaries suitable for location of the
Federal Building well beyond the central business district.
Ordinary protocols of fair play and good business are out the
window where GSA is concerned. The owners of the existing building
found it necessary to publish a hefty volume to set the record straight
after the half truths and outright breeches of verity (damned lies)
were spread about by GSA officials. So far as I know, GSA has not
responded either to dispute the owner's effort to set the record
straight or to apologize for playing fast and loose with the facts.
I submitted an alternative site to GSA in the central business
district in the event that a reasonable solution could not be reached
between GSA and the present owner. GSA thereupon publicly proclaimed
that my site was not suitable and was polluted. I asked for an apology
from GSA to which they responded ``It is common knowledge of Helena
citizens that the Great Northern site was once used as a garbage
dump.'' I pointed out that we had the benefit of two independent
environmental studies which found that the site was neither polluted
nor a garbage dump. In a subsequent letter, after my continued request
for an apology, GSA denied ever having said it! Letters documenting
this exchange are attached for the record. One does not expect a
campaign of disinformation by the government in an area so far removed
from the usual standards of political intrigue and national
consequence.
All of this tends to sour one's respect for government at a time
when those of us who still have vestiges of respect for government
exist in ever decreasing numbers.
What should GSA do?
They should proclaim, that they will first exhaust all reasonable
efforts to stay in their present building. If negotiations break down
or this becomes otherwise impossible, they should explain, within the
constraints of protecting the rights of the private parties involved,
precisely why it is necessary to move including all pertinent laws,
statutes, ordinances, regulations and other government ornaments by
which they are bound They should then exhaust all possibilities to
remain in the boundaries of the central business district within the
procedures described in the Executive orders pertaining to location of
Federal offices. If this proves impossible and after full explanation
why, they should work with the city to locate in a mutually agreeable
place.
Many of us have wondered why GSA has acted so badly, why they have
been so covert and so arbitrary and why they have behaved as though
they are under siege by an enemy. Many theories have been batted about
including unholy alliances between the administration and large
developers, some political favor in need of repayment, a rebellion by
GSA against government itself. . . . on and on . . . some theories have
even more sinister implications. The simple truth is that the behavior
of GSA in this matter is so without a reasonable explanation that it
begs a grand explanation.
For myself, I believe it is a combination of ignorance stemming
from unchecked bureaucratic power and a determination to serve the
wishes of local Federal department heads who want new digs, Executive
orders and local needs be damned
While I hope GSA, after this hearing, will behave more
appropriately and in keeping with good public policy, I have no faith
in it. And this lack of faith from ordinary folks like me, who believe
in government and want it to work, should scare the living hell out of
folks like you who have dedicated a substantial part of your short
tenure on earth to this fragile experiment we call American democracy.
It is failing.
______
October 15, 1997.
General Services Administration,
Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, CO.
re: helena federal office building
Dear Ms. Ringler: I have heard from a variety of folks around here
that someone from your shop has been spreading the word that the 9-acre
parcel of land known as the Great Northern is contaminated and
unsuitable for building. I submitted this site in response to GSA
Solicitation for Offers #GS-08P13429. As you can see from the
Environmental Assessment Report on this land, that is not the case. In
fact, the new Federal Reserve building is built on a part of the
original site.
But Helena is a small town and gossip runs through here pretty darn
fast. People around here tend to believe folks like you, even though
you and I know that there is no reason they ought to. None-the-less
they do, so what you folks have said damages Artisan, LLP and makes our
efforts to develop this ground harder than it would have otherwise
been. I think it would be appropriate if GSA Denver apologized to us
and if you made a public clarification and apology as well. In fact, I
expect it.
Sincerely,
Alan Nicholson,
Managing Partner,
Artisan, LLP.
______
General Services Administration,
Rocky Mountain Region,
Denver, CO, October 24, 1997.
Mr. Alan D. Nicholson,
Helena, MT.
Dear Mr. Nicholson: We are in receipt of your October 15, 1997,
letter pertaining to gossip that you have heard It is common knowledge
of Helena citizens that the Great Northern site was once used as a
garbage dump. We can assure you that General Services Administration
(GSA) employees have not stated in any conversation that the Great
Northern site is contaminated.
We have informed individuals that we have asked you for copies of
Environmental Assessment Surveys conducted for the site. We will
determine whether the site is suitable for Federal construction once we
have reviewed complete documentation available in the Environmental
Assessment Surveys.
As I stated in my October 14, 1997 letter, please submit the entire
Envirocon EAS original source documents and any other more recent
documentation pertaining to the condition of the Great Northern
Property, which has been summarized by Douglass, Inc. by October 31,
1997. If this timeframe is not feasible, please call me to discuss a
more appropriate date.
Sincerely,
Malia N. Ringler,
Real Estate Contract Specialist,
Mountain-Plains Service Center.
______
November 14, 1997.
Malia N. Ringler,
Real Estate Contract Specialist,
Mountain-Plains Service Center,
Denver, CO.
Dear Ms. Ringler: It is not ``common knowledge of Helena citizens
that the Great Northern site was once used as a garbage dump.'' You
have two (2) environmental assessments which are very clear that the
``dump'' was located elsewhere. No reference was made in either study
to the hearsay you relate in your October 24th letter.
The mayor of Helena, Colleen McCarthy, was told by GSA that the
site was probably contaminated. Government workers who attended a
meeting with GSA on these issues have told me that GSA officials said
that the site was polluted.
This behavior is unacceptable, and I do expect you to issue a
statement stating that the site is not polluted and that you retract
and regret any statement by GSA officials which would lead any one to
think otherwise.
Sincerely,
Alan D. Nicholson,
Managing Partner,
Artisan LLD.
______
General Services Administration,
Rocky Mountain Region,
Denver, CO, November 25, 1997.
Mr. Alan D. Nicholson,
Helena, MT.
Dear Mr. Nicholson: We are in receipt of your November 17, 1997
pertaining to the Great Northern site. We can assure you that General
Services Administration (GSA) employees have not stated in any
conversation that the Great Northern site is contaminated.
We have informed individuals that we have asked you for copies of
Environmental Assessment Surveys conducted for the site. We regret any
misinterpretation that may have occurred when we communicated our
direction.
Phase I & II, Environmental Assessment Report, submittal date: June
11, 1997, page 2 states, ``An abandoned underground storage tank was
discovered at the site . . .'' Please provide a status update on this
issue.
Sincerely,
Malia N. Ringler,
Real Estate Contract Specialist,
Mountain-Plains Service Center.
______
Prepared Statement of Jack Lynch, Chief Executive, Butte, MT
Good Morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: It is a
pleasure to be here this morning and welcome you to Montana, the Big
Sky Country. We all appreciate the time and trouble that the committee
has gone through in order to get here. We also appreciate your
willingness to take this opportunity to listen to representatives of
local communities. We see this as an opportunity to discuss the process
for location of Federal facilities in our communities and our
interaction with the General Services Administration (GSA) as it
relates to that siting process.
Let me begin by introducing myself--my name is Jack Lynch, I am
Chief Executive of Butte-Silver Bow. I am here today representing that
city-county government as well as our Urban Revitalization Agency as it
relates to our experiences with our Military Entrance Processing
Station and our attempts to work with GSA through the maze of
bureaucratic rules that they have established for local governments.
In the 1870's, Butte was only a small mining claim similar to many
throughout the western United States. By the 1900's, Butte had become
known as the richest hill on earth because of its vast wealth of
mineral ores lying beneath the surface. The settlement grew to the size
of a small metropolis by the burn of the century, supporting an area
population of approximately 100,000. It was copper that made Butte
king, becoming the world's leading producer of copper. Copper was
needed for everything to do with the industrial expansion of the 20th
century. Everything electrical required copper. Butte, Montana played a
significant role in the industrialization of the United States. Butte's
significance relates to advances in hydroelectric power, transmission,
electrical equipment and mining industry advancements. The outcome of
both world wars may have been different without Butte, Montana's
participation.
In 1969, Butte was acknowledged for its national significance by
being listed as a National Historic Landmark District because of the
strong legacy of history, industrial remains and architectural
structures. Butte still remains as one of the largest historic
districts in the country with varied architectural, industrial and
social mix to the district. You will see a mining head frame next to a
worker's cottage, a millionaire's mansion next to a boarding house,
ethnic neighborhoods and churches grouped around industry, and 100+
years of mining history is evident throughout the community. Butte has
a unique look and is a unique city.
With our rich past, current challenges and ever brightening future,
Butte-Silver Bow government has taken a proactive and creative approach
to preserving our past to create our future.
Given the commitments that our communities have made to the
preservation of our downtown areas, the enhancement of our historical
attributes and the serious financial commitments to rehabilitation, we
can only hope that following receipt of this testimony today--you will
see there is obviously a need for your assistance. This is to ensure
the playing field remains even, that the rules of the game don't change
once the whistle has blown, that the interests of local communities
(who are attempting to cooperate with Federal agencies) is given the
utmost consideration in making the determination on where Federal
facilities should be sited. The testimony you will hear from others
this morning will go into great detail as it relates to the overall
efforts of local government and their perception of the activities of
the GSA. I suspect in many cases what you hear will not be pleasant,
but in addition to their hospitality, Montanans are also noted for
their candor and their concern about their communities. So, what you
will hear in most cases will not be sugarcoated.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to come to Montana. While
you are here, we hope that you take the time to see some of the sights
of the Big Sty Country and that you enjoy yourselves. Senator Baucus,
we appreciate your assistance in your bringing your colleagues from the
U.S. Senate to listen to our concerns.
______
Prepared Statement of Colleen Fine, Director, Urban Revitalization
Agency
Good Morning. I am Colleen Fine, the Director of the Urban
Revitalization Agency in Butte-Silver Bow. The Urban Revitalization
Agency is a tax-increment district designed specifically to assist
economic development activities, which lead to continued promotion and
development of the URA. The URA is included in the Butte National
Historic Landmark District. The following summarizes our local
government's involvement relative to the GSA process for leasing a site
for the MEPS' facility in Butte, Montana.
It is my understanding that this process began in September, 1996;
although, I was not aware of the project until January, 1997. My first
knowledge of the MEPS' project was in relation to a visit GSA-Denver
conducted in Butte. At that time, GSA was already visiting prospective
developers to secure a site for the MEPS' facility.
Mark Reavis, the Butte-Silver Bow Historic Preservation Officer/
Staff Architect, was asked to provide a tour of a Butte-Silver Bow
owned building that a private developer had suggested as a potential
facility for the lease. The building was made available and GSA was
given a tour. That is the extent of our contact with GSA in the initial
process. During the timeframe from September 1996 to September 1997,
there was no contact between Butte-Silver Bow and GSA other than that
tour. In fact, I did not meet anyone from GSA until September of last
year.
On September 25, 1997, I was introduced to GSA officials at a
meeting in the Federal Courthouse in Butte. The meeting was convened,
at our request, to discuss Butte-Silver Bow's concerns relative to the
leasing process. During the meeting, I expressed Butte-Silver Bow's
displeasure at not being involved in the process to that point, at the
lack of adherence to the National Historic Preservation Act and
Executive Order and at the process in general.
After a lengthy meeting with GSA and MEPS personnel, Butte-Silver
Bow, State Historic Preservation Office, and National Trust for
Historic Preservation officials left the meeting with the following
understanding:
GSA would work closely with local government officials in
the process;
GSA would reopen and readvertise the MEPS' leasing in the
National Historic Landmark District providing clear indication that
buildings in the National Historic Landmark District would have a
preference and detailing what that preference was;
GSA would allow local comment on the SFO;
GSA would request that MEPCOM reconsider criteria
considered detrimental to historic structures; and
GSA would provide a detailed explanation when a historic
structure was excluded from consideration.
The meeting concluded with the agreement that the next step taken
would be a written review of the SFO. Butte-Silver Bow officials
received the SFO and written comments.
Following the September meeting GSA actions were completely
contrary to the promises they made.
GSA would work closely with local government officials in the
process.
GSA officials kept Butte-Silver Bow staff completely in the dark.
Butte-Silver Bow initiated all communication regarding the leasing
process. Phone calls to GSA were not returned, requests for information
were completely ignored.
By early November, Butte-Silver Bow had not heard anything from GSA
either by phone or in writing regarding our comments on the SFO or what
the next step in the process would be. I sent a letter expressing my
concern that local officials had not heard from GSA. Since the letter
was not acknowledged and the phone calls were not returned, I sought
the assistance of Senator Baucus' field office. It was only through
their intervention that Butte-Silver Bow learned what was going on.
Again, we were promised better communication from GSA staff.
For nearly a month we heard nothing from GSA then on Tuesday,
December 16, 1997, I learned GSA was conducting a Market Survey tour
the following week. This news took me very much by surprise. I had no
idea what GSA was doing or what their process would be but quite
obviously Butte-Silver Bow staff were not asked to participate. I
contacted GSA immediately but the Leasing Agent was not available and
did not return my call.
On Wednesday, December 17, 1997, I again attempted to contact GSA
regarding the schedule while in Butte. The Leasing Agent was out and I
left a message expressing my concern on voice mail. I attempted to
contact the Leasing Agent's supervisors but was not successful. I then
contacted the supervisors' supervisor. His secretary took a message and
said he would call me back later. When I left work that evening, I had
not heard from anyone at GSA.
When I called the next morning the same secretary I had spoken to
asked for my name, I stated that it was Colleen Fine from Butte,
Montana. She told me the Leasing Agent would be calling me back. Her
tone response indicated to me that my name was marked and I would not
be allowed to speak with higher level GSA personnel.
When the Leasing Agent finally called she stated it did not occur
to her to include me in the Market Survey since I knew the buildings so
well. I reminded her of GSA's promise to work with the local
government. I felt she was specifically excluding me. The Market Survey
was scheduled for December 23rd; she stated she would not change it.
After considerable juggling on our part, Butte-Silver Bow was able to
have a staff member attend the Market Survey. However, GSA's treatment
of that staff member was incredible.
Mark Reavis, the Historic Preservation Officer and Staff Architect
was not allowed to communicate with MEPCOM officials. The Leasing Agent
specified a time and place for Mr. Reavis to meet the tour. His offers
of a Butte-Silver Bow van and chauffeur services were refused. During
the tour Mr. Reavis would be prevented from having any personal contact
with MEPCOM officials. He was kept physically separate from others on
the tour. He was not allowed to have a cup of coffee or go to lunch
with Federal officials. He was not allowed to know what sites were
being reviewed until just before the scheduled time. The irony of the
situation is we both knew every single location independent of GSA
information.
As the designated representative of the hosting local government,
his treatment by GSA staff was rude and demeaning. The contempt GSA
obviously felt for our continued involvement was palpable in that
Market Survey tour.
These activities illustrate GSA's commitment to working with the
local government.
GSA promised it would reopen and readvertise the MEPS' leasing in
the Landmark District while providing clear indication that buildings
in the National Historic Landmark District would have a preference and
detailing what that preference was;
I left the September meeting with the clear understanding that GSA
would work with Butte-Silver Bow in this process. Butte-Silver Bow
would provide mailing labels from our data base and GSA would produce a
mailing to reopen the process for buildings in the National Historic
Landmark District. This was agreed to because GSA, at its own
admission, did not provide adequate notification of preference for the
Historic District. I requested the opportunity to do a joint mailing
with GSA. I wanted documentation of the URA's financial commitment to
the project to be included with the document GSA was preparing. My
agency had committed nearly $400,000 to the project.
When I wrote about the joint mailing, a GSA official called me and
told me GSA would not be doing a mailing. GSA stated that any mailing
would be done by Butte-Silver Bow but GSA would provide a flyer for us
to mail. This caught me completely by surprise because at no time was
this ever discussed with or agreed to by local officials. Given the
extremely short turn around time in this process as well as the
upcoming holiday. I felt the best thing to do was to continue in an
attempt to try to work with GSA.
The flyer was received in the form of a fax and, as such, was not
suitable for distribution. It was retyped verbatim. The flyer was
duplicated and sent to property owners in the District. Additionally,
the Agency, at its own expense, placed an ad in the local paper
indicating that lease space was available and for individuals to
contact the Agency for further details. The deadline for submission was
set; the flyer was mailed; and the ad ran. This process provided
developers with less than 12 days for response inclusive of the
Thanksgiving holiday and weekend.
GSA promised to reopen and readvertise the MEPS' leasing. GSA may
have allowed new proposals from the Historic District however; they
also allowed buildings outside of the district to submit as well. My
understanding from the meeting in September was that only sites in the
National Historic Landmark District would be considered since this area
was not given adequate notice of the preference for historic sites and
that was the very reason for allowing new proposals.
Every time this has been pointed out to GSA the result has been
more detrimental to the Historic District.
GSA did not produce a mailing, prepare flyers or advertise in local
papers. Butte-Silver Bow performed these activities.
GSA pledged it would allow local comment on the SFO.
Butte-Silver Bow was allowed to comment but those comments fell on
deaf ears at GSA. The comments were acknowledged by GSA and dismissed
out of hand. We have no documentation that our comments were passed on
to MEPCOM and if they were, we do not know how our comments were
portrayed.
GSA stated it would request that MEPCOM reconsider criteria
considered detrimental to historic structures.
Butte-Silver Bow does not have first-hand knowledge that our
concerns were passed on to MEPCOM. GSA's summary of MEPCOM's response
was that MEPCOM believed they offered adequate concessions and would
not consider any additional modifications. We have no documentation of
GSA's request or MEPCOM's response.
GSA said it would provide a detailed explanation when a historic
structure was excluded from consideration.
To date this has not happened though I do understand from several
developers that their buildings have been excluded from the process.
My main concern regarding this process is the lack of trust local
officials now have regarding GSA. This is a direct result of the
tactics employed by GSA staff. Montana has one of the most liberal open
government philosophies in the country. This ideal is an overriding
tenant of our State's constitution. Those who operate in government in
Montana are used to open, honest and critical review of our work. Both
the Montana Open Meeting Law and Montana Open Records Law indicate that
citizens of this State want to be well informed regarding the operation
of government at all levels. This does not work well with the type of
operation conducted by GSA in this instance. Local officials and
citizens as well, have been kept in the dark, treated in a less than
respectful manner and have literally had to beg to be included in the
process. I was even asked to sign a confidentiality agreement after I
had already worked with every single proposer in the process prior to
GSA involvement. That is my job.
When Butte-Silver Bow first became aware of this project, all local
officials wanted was to ensure all regulations were followed and that
the National Historic Landmark District was given a fair opportunity to
compete on a level playing field, that very opportunity is provided for
by Executive Order. It may very well be that this is an above board
process, unfortunately it is very difficult to believe given the
prejudicial treatment of local officials, of the National Historic
Landmark District and of the community as a whole. The more Butte-
Silver Bow has asked for involvement, openness and honesty, the more
secretive and hostile the response has been. At this point in the
process it is clear the GSA has completely lost all objectivity and
sense of fairness.
One of the major goals of Butte-Silver Bow's recently revised and
adopted Community Master Plan is the continued redevelopment of Uptown
Butte. As an economic development objective it serves several vital
purposes. The strength of any local economy is mirrored in the
treatment of its older urban areas. How we treat these areas reflects a
community's values and hopes. Butte-Silver Bow values its Uptown and
desperately wants its revitalization. Uptown is a living, breathing
vital place indicative of the spirit and heart of this community.
Ensuring its strength is the first step in maintaining a strong, local
economy. The Federal Government has a unique opportunity to create a
mutually beneficial partnership along with local government and private
developers. This partnership would allow the Federal Government to
significantly address goals of the community. The opposite
consideration is equally dramatic in its statement. If the Federal
Government chooses to leave the Uptown, contrary to the desires of the
community, the perception left would be one of abandonment. I think
this is exactly the wrong kind of message the Federal Government should
be sending about the very heart of our community.
As Director of the Urban Revitalization Agency, the economic
development office for the Butte National Historic Landmark District I
am not now nor have I ever asked for special consideration. I am asking
GSA to honor the promises made to my community. I am asking for a fair
process utilizing objective, quantifiable and justifiable criteria
available to all parties beforehand in a written format. For this
project in our community and for future projects throughout the
country, my sincerest hope is that the Federal Government seeks to
secure space in a fair, open and honest manner allowing for all parties
concerned to meet their respective goals.
______
Prepared Statement of Barbara Handy Pahl, Director, Mountains/Plains
Regional Office, National Trust for Historic Preservation
Senator Baucus, members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to
appear before you today to testify on behalf of the National Trust for
Historic Preservation. The National Trust, a nonprofit organization
with more than 270,000 members and six regional offices across the
Nation, was chartered by Congress in 1949 to promote public
participation in historic preservation and to engage the private sector
in preserving our Nation's heritage. As the leader of the national
historic preservation movement, the National Trust is committed to
saving America's diverse historic places and to preserving and
revitalizing communities nationwide.
Today, we have been asked to provide our views on the coordination
between the General Services Administration (``GSA'') and local
governments, and other interested parties, with regard to GSA's real
property actions, such as the leasing of space for Federal agencies or
the construction of new Federal facilities. Over the past 18 years, the
National Trust has helped promote the economic good health of more than
1,300 local communities through its Main Street Program, a
comprehensive, a locally managed program of historic preservation and
coordinated commercial management. In addition to our direct experience
in downtown revitalization, the National Trust has a longstanding
involvement on a national level in urging the General Services
Administration and other Federal agencies to fully comply with Federal
historic preservation law and national policies benefiting our nation's
traditional commercial centers.
nationwide, GSA controls almost 300 million square feet of office
space in more than 8,000 buildings, providing space for more than one
million Federal employees. The National Trust is particularly concerned
about the activities of Federal agencies, such as GSA, whose programs
and policies have wide-reaching power to affect America's historic
areas, particularly our traditional central business districts.
Consequently, on May 2, 1996, the National Trust and the General
Services Administration convened an Urban Issues Roundtable, attended
by David Barram, GSA Administrator, Robert Peck, Commissioner of GSA's
Public Buildings Services, as well as nonprofit urban interest groups
and historic preservation advocates. Participants in the roundtable
engaged in constructive dialog about national locational policies for
Federal buildings and worked to identify areas for mutual activity in
the adaptation of historic buildings for contemporary Federal use. Soon
after the Urban Issues Roundtable, President Clinton signed Executive
Order 13006.
Currently the Mountains/Plains Regional Office is continuing the
National Trust's advocacy efforts by working with staff of GSA's Region
8, local government representatives, historic preservationists, and
downtown revitalization advocates to promote full community
participation in GSA projects in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Butte,
Montana. The National Trust's primary goal in both cities is to ensure
implementation of Executive Order 13006 and compliance with the
National Historic Preservation Act.
Public Input and Local Community Involvement are Critical
Components of Federal Law and National Policy Regarding the
Preservation of Historic Resources and the Strengthening of Downtown
Commercial Centers.
The General Services Administration--and, in fact, each Federal
agency--has a responsibility to protect and utilize historic buildings
and districts. Importantly, Executive Orders 12072 and 13006, as well
as the National Historic Preservation Act and Public Buildings
Cooperative Use Act, expressly link the Federal Government's historic
preservation responsibilities with an affirmative obligation to consult
with and consider the views of local government, community leaders, and
other interested parties.
Executive Order 12072, issued by President Carter in
August 1978, strengthens our Nation's cities by committing Federal
agencies to a policy of establishing new Federal buildings within the
central business districts of metropolitan areas. In implementing
Executive Order 12072, GSA must seriously consider the impact that the
location or relocation of a Federal facility will have on the social,
economic, environmental, and cultural conditions of the affected local
community. In meeting Federal space needs, GSA must consider
recommendations provided by representatives of local government.
Executive Order 13006, which complements Executive Order
12072 and was issued by President Clinton in May 1996, establishes that
the Federal Government ``shall utilize and maintain . . . historic
properties and districts, especially those located in our central
business areas.'' Executive Order 13006 directs GSA, and other Federal
agencies, to form partnerships with local governments and appropriate
private organizations to enhance their participation in the National
Historic Preservation Program. These partnerships are to ``embody the
principles of administrative flexibility, reduced paperwork, and
increased service to the public.''
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 directs Federal
agencies to provide ``leadership in the preservation of . . . historic
resources'' and ``encourage the public and private . . . utilization of
all usable elements of the Nation's historic built environment.'' A key
element of the Act is the Section 106 review process in which the
impacts of federally funded or approved projects are evaluated and
alternative approaches are explored to reduce adverse impacts to
historic resources. Section 106 consultation is frequently the only
forum available to help local communities seeking to protect their
traditional commercial downtowns, when those areas are threatened by
Federal agency actions. Consequently, Federal regulations implementing
Section 106 require that local governments be given the opportunity to
participate in the mandatory consultation process whenever the Federal
undertaking may affect historic properties within the local
government's jurisdiction.
Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act of 1976 directs the
Federal Government to locate Federal facilities in suitable structures
of ``historic, architectural, or cultural significance,'' unless such a
location would not be feasible and prudent when compared with available
alternatives. Further, the Act states that GSA has an affirmative
obligation to consult with local government, and seek comments from
community leaders and members of the general public, whenever the
agency constructs, alters, or otherwise acquires space for Federal
agencies.
Despite these Mandates, the General Services Administration has an
Uneven Record of Community Involvement and Historic Preservation.
The General Services Administration has demonstrated that it can
fulfill the spirit and letter of Executive Order 13006:
Savannah, Georgia: To its credit, in Savannah GSA has
involved local input--early and often--in a Federal courthouse project
set in a historic district. For example, GSA appointed Savannah
historic preservation experts as jurors in the ``Design Excellence
Program'' competition that selects the design architect.
Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania: With help from Congressman
Paul Kanjorski and the mayor of Wilkes-Barre, GSA decided to convert a
historic brewery into a new, 120,000 square foot Federal agency
complex. The historic preservation project is viewed locally as the
foundation for economic revitalization of downtown Wilkes-Barre, and
GSA is seen as a valuable partner in the community's redevelopment.
Casa Grande, Arizona: After considerable advocacy by the
local government and Main Street program, GSA was convinced to lease
space for a branch office of the Social Security Administration in an
area of Casa Grande which will soon be listed on the National Register.
After seriously considering construction of a new facility outside of
downtown, GSA was persuaded to join the local revitalization effort.
Elsewhere, unfortunately, GSA has not done so well:
Clarksburg, West Virginia: GSA missed an opportunity to
demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of preservation in a historic
downtown when, instead of actively pursuing a preservation solution,
GSA decided to consolidate Federal offices into a new building. The new
facility will be constructed by a private developer and leased to the
Federal Government. GSA's original plans gave no consideration to
renovating historic buildings for Federal use. Later, when community
reaction compelled GSA to consider leasing a turn-of-the-century
building in a National Register historic district, GSA established
impossible hurdles to preservation by greatly inflating the costs of
rehabilitation in comparison to new construction. Eventually GSA went
through the motions of complying with Executive Order 13006 and the
National Historic Preservation Act but in a manner that treated the
agency's preservation responsibilities as an empty paper exercise.
Salt Lake City, Utah: In Salt Lake, GSA proposes to
construct a new annex to a historic Federal courthouse. Although the
Federal courts will remain downtown in furtherance of the Executive
Orders, the project may adversely affect significant historic
resources, including the Oddfellows Building and Moss Courthouse, both
listed on the National Register of Historic Places, as well as the
locally designated Exchange Place Historic District. Regrettably, GSA
conducted its early planning processes without community input and is
now attempting to move through the Section 106 review on a compressed
schedule. The Utah State Historic Preservation Office and nonprofit
Utah Heritage Foundation expressed interest and offered assistance as
early as December 1996, but were not invited to participate in
meaningful consultation until December 1997. In the meantime, key
decisions were made. For instance, the project architect was selected
in the ``Design Excellence Program'' competition with no involvement of
Salt Lake architects or preservation experts. Unfortunately, although a
genuine effort is underway to establish a constructive consultation
process, GSA project staff lack experience with historic resources, are
unfamiliar with Federal preservation mandates, and, perhaps most
important, seem reluctant to respect input from the local community or
interested parties.
Butte, Montana: In Butte, GSA is seeking to lease new
space for the Federal Military Entrance Processing Station (``MEPS'')
which serves the State of Montana. The leasing action may result in the
abandonment of the Federal agency's longtime home in the historic
Finlen Hotel and relocation of the facility outside of the Uptown area,
Butte's traditional commercial core, which has been designated a
National Historic Landmark District. As you will hear from others
involved in this matter, from the outset GSA made critical mistakes,
including not contacting the Butte-Silver Bow Urban Redevelopment
Agency. Despite the combined efforts of the Butte-Silver Bow Urban
Redevelopment Agency and Historic Preservation Office, Montana State
Historic Preservation Office, Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, and National Trust to ensure that GSA and MEPS implement
Executive Order 13006 and comply with the National Historic
Preservation Act, we remain concerned that historic buildings have been
unnecessarily excluded from consideration and that the MEPS facility
may be moved out of the Butte National Historic Landmark District.
Recommendation: The General Services Administration Should Broaden
the Agency's ``Good Neighbor Program'' Beyond Business Improvement
Districts.
In September 1996, GSA Administrator David Barram announced the
``Good Neighbor Program,'' a new and constructive public/private
partnership with urban downtown associations, which calls for GSA to
become a full participant in the nation's business improvement
districts (``BIDs''). This was a bold move that has produced good
results for many communities. The GSA should be commended for
establishing its Good Neighbor Program.
However, the establishment of a BID, which typically does not
encompass a community's entire central business area, is only one of
many possible funding mechanisms a community can use to revitalize and
manage its downtown. Consequently, GSA's partnerships to invigorate
BIDs may not reach the economic and civic life of the whole downtown,
and certainly does not assist those communities that have not
established such special districts. As a result, in the National
Trust's experience, some Main Street communities have had a difficult
time figuring out how to negotiate the establishment of the sort of
public/private partnership with GSA contemplated by Administrator
Barram.
In order for the General Services Administration to help leverage
the significant investment in economic development and downtown
revitalization made by local communities, the National Trust recommends
that GSA fully embrace the concept of its Good Neighbor Program and
take steps to broaden this worthy program's scope beyond America's
Business Improvement Districts.
Recommendation: The General Services Administration Should Issue
Implementing Guidelines for Executive Order 13006.
President Clinton signed Executive Order 13006 in May 1996. Today,
almost 2 years later, the GSA has not issued any formal guidance on the
implementation of the Executive Order. As the Federal Government's main
landlord and real estate developer, it is incumbent upon the GSA to
show clear leadership in realizing the practical benefits of Executive
Order 13006 in the field. Therefore, the National Trust recommends that
GSA complete, circulate for review and officially issue the necessary
implementation guidelines, which should provide for at least the
following actions:
Partnerships: GSA must promote the establishment and
cultivation of working relationships with local governments, community
leaders, and interested parties. GSA must provide adequate guidance,
and hold GSA staff accountable, for consulting with local partners.
Policy Reform: GSA and all Federal agencies must
systematically reform all policies and procedures that impede the use
of historic structures for Federal office location. For example, GSA
employs an ``acceptable reinvestment level'' policy whereby GSA
requires that renovation of historic structures must cost 60 percent or
less than the cost of constructing a replacement structure of
comparable size. GSA must set new standards for economic feasibility
and operational appropriateness that meet the spirit and letter of
Executive Order 13006.
Price Evaluation Preference: Pursuant to Executive Order
13006, GSA must adopt measures that offer a new and substantial
``bottom line'' preference to historic properties. Pursuant to the
Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act, GSA already offers a 10-percent
``historic preference'' to offerors of space in historic buildings. To
implement Executive Order 13006, GSA must increase the percentage
amount of the price evaluation preference, and explore and institute
other measures that actively promote Federal utilization of historic
buildings and districts.
Training for GSA Staff and for Client Agencies: GSA must
require training for GSA staff--and should offer training opportunities
to other Federal agencies--to assure that the Federal Government meets
its statutory historic preservation responsibilities. More important,
however, GSA must provide its staff with the training, guidance, and
incentives necessary to promote widespread use of the practical,
entrepreneurial real estate development methods that have made the
rehabilitation and adaptive use of historic buildings a successful tool
of downtown revitalization by both the private and public sectors.
Accountability and Incentives for Implementation: Today,
the bottom line for GSA locational policies and real property
development decisions is time and money. In recognition of the national
policy articulated by Executive Order 13006, GSA must work to change
this aspect of its institutional culture. The agency must provide
adequate incentives, and hold GSA staff accountable, for full
implementation of Executive Orders 12072 and 13006, as well as the
National Historic Preservation Act and Public Buildings Cooperative Use
Act, for the benefit of the nation's downtowns.
Recommendation: The U.S. Congress Should Codify Executive Order
13006.
Recognizing that the persuasive power of Executive Order 13006 may
not be sufficient to reaffirm the Federal Government's leadership in
historic preservation and downtown revitalization, the National Trust
recommends that Executive Order 13006 be made law. Congressman Joel
Hefley has introduced H.R. 1522, the Historic Preservation Fund
Reauthorization, which includes the language of Executive Order 13006.
The National Trust enthusiastically supports H.R. 1522.
Senator Baucus, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before this Committee.
______
Prepared Statement of Mechelle Schultz, Director of the Downtown
Billings Association
Dear Senator Baucus and Members of the Committee: I am pleased to
represent the Downtown Billings Association and other downtown business
interests in providing testimony regarding the procurement process for
Federal office space in Montana. As director of the Downtown Billings
Association, I represent more than 183 member businesses. The
association supports plans to reverse the decline in the profitability
and viability of businesses within the downtown area Our members
include most of the retail shops, financial institutions, hotels,
restaurants, museums and cultural services, professional offices, and
service businesses in downtown Billings. These members have joined with
the community to raise funds for downtown revitalization and planning.
A copy of our membership directory is attached, and I ask that this
exhibit be submitted for the record along with my testimony.
Downtown Billings will lose 225 of its highest paying jobs if the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) relocates from the community core. The
economic vitality of the downtown area depends upon the patronage of
downtown workers. Downtown Billings was devastated by the loss of its
last remaining department store 2 years ago and cannot bear the future
loss of Federal employees. Area restaurants, service businesses, and
retail shops will suffer declines in their business attributable to the
loss of the BLM employees. Similarly, hotels, restaurants, and other
retail establishment will be affected by the loss of business from
customers who currently travel to downtown Billings to transact
business with Federal employees.
Billings has experienced a 40 percent decline in taxable value in
the downtown area since 1987. Downtown employees, including Federal
workers, have been the mainstay of the downtown community, especially
given the decline in retail trade and the oil and gas industry. At this
time, the Federal Government employs approximately 950 full time
equivalent (FTE) workers, including the BLM employees, in the downtown
area.
In addition to the potential loss of downtown employees, downtown
property owners will lose their Federal tenants. The vacancy rate for
office space in downtown Billings is estimated to be 15 percent to 20
percent at this time.
Our greatest frustration in our efforts to preserve these high-
paying jobs has been our inability to communicate with the General
Services Administration (GSA) regarding its location decisions for
Federal office space in the community. For example, we sent numerous
communications to the GSA regarding the BLM bidding process, but
received no response from the GSA. The only correspondence I received
throughout the bidding process was a notice dated February 4, 1998 from
Ms. Polly Baca, Regional Administrator for the GSA, who informed me
that the lease contract for the building had been awarded. A copy of
this letter is attached to my testimony. Due to this lack of
communication, we have been unable to offer our input in the bidding
process or to demonstrate the negative impact of this decision on our
community.
At this time, the Downtown Billings Association requests a 6-month
moratorium on decisions relating to Federal building projects in
Montana. This moratorium would allow time for communities to offer
solutions to the Federal Government on their building needs and
appropriate locations. We would like to work with the GSA and other
Federal agencies in the manner outlined in President Carter's Executive
Order 12072.
We appreciate your consideration of our request.
Respectfully submitted,
Mechelle Schultz,
Director.
______
Downtown Billings Association Member List
Al's Bootery
Alberta Bair Theater
American Heart Association
Appraisal Inspection Services
Artcraft Printers of Billings, Inc.
Associated Employers of Montana
Auto Brokers
Auto Doctor
Barjon's Books
Barnett Opticians
Basket Creations
Beartooth Oil & Gas Company
Best Realty Inc., Better, Homes & Gardens
Best Western Ponderosa Inn
Beverly Ross
Billings Area Chamber of Commerce
Billings Army Navy Surplus
Billings Clearing House
Billings Family YMCA
Billings Federal Credit Union
Billings Food Bank Inc
Billings Gazette
Billings Outpost
Billings Petroleum Club
Billings Sports Club
Billings Symphony Society
Billings Travel West Inn
Broadway Place Technology Business Center
Brockels Chocolates
Budget Instant Print Inc.
Burtchaell Photography
Buttrey Food & Drug
Cactus Rose
Casablanca Coffee Haus
Caseys Golden Pheasant
Cattins Family Dining
Center Lodge Inc
Chicago Title Insurance
Christian Science Reading Room
Citadel Broadcasting
City of Billings
Commonwealth International
Computers Unlimited
Connie M. Wardell
Connolly's Saddlery
Cook Travel
Coxwell Architect
Cricket Clothing Company
Crowley Law Firm
Crystal Lounge
D A Davidson & Company
Dain Rauscher Corp
Deaconess Billings Clinic
Deaconess Foundation
Denny Menholt Frontier Chevrolet/Geo
Desmonds
Diamond Parking
Don Knapp
Dude Rancher Lodge Company
Econo Print
El Burrito Cafeteria
Empire Bar Inc
Empire Sand & Gravel Company Inc.
ERA Land 500
Ethan Allen
Exclamation Point
Farmers Insurance Group
First Bank Billings
First Citizens Bank
First Interstate Bank
First Montana Title Co of Billings
Fischer & Associates
Gainan's Flowers
Galusha Higgins & Galusha
Gene Rockman Associates
George Henry's Restaurant
Global Village
Golden Crown Gifts
Grand Bagel Company
Hagen Printing
High Plains Productions Inc
Hoiness Labar Insurance
Holiday #274
Holliday Furniture
Inacom Information Systems
Insty Prints
Jakes
James Turley, D.D.S.
Jasons
Joe Lowther Insurance Agency Inc
John's Outback
Josephine Bed & Breakfast
Kaspers Photo Shops Inc.
Kathy McCleary
KHG Advertising
Kids & Company
Kinkos Billings Downtown
Kitchen Cupboard
KSVI--TV
KTVQ 2 The News Station
Le Boutique
Le Croissant
Lou Taubert Ranch Outfitters
Mail Drop
Marlo Jewelers Inc
McBride & McBride Optometrists
McNamer Thompson Law Firm P.C.
Mental Health Center
Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner Smith
Midas Muffler
Montana Brewing Company
Montana Dakota Utilities
Montana Development
Montana Leather Company
Montana Power Company
Montana Tradeport Authority
Monte Carlo Casino
Moss Mansion
Moulton Bellingham Longo Mather
Mountain Mudd
Muddy Waters Espresso
Murphy & Kirkpatrick
New York Life Insurance Co.
Nick Sasich
Northwestern Mutual Life
Norwest Bank Montana, N.A.
Norwest Mortgage Inc
Pauly's Pub
Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company
Perkins Restaurant
Peter Yegen Inc
Peter Yegen Jr., Yellowstone County Musuem
Phonetel Communications
Pierce flooring/Geo R Pierce
Piper Jaffray
Planteriors
Pretty Women
Principal Financial Group
Prudential/Floberg Property Mgmt
Publication Designs
Pug Mahons
Radisson Northern Hotel
Reliable Tent & Awning
Rocke Gear
Satin Garter
Schutz Foss Architects
Selover Buick
Sheraton Billings Hotel
Sir Speedy
Smith Funeral Chapel Inc
Snook Art Company
Snow Country Clothing
St Vincent Hospital & Health Center
State Fur Salon
Stogies . . . Premium Cigars, News and Gifts
Stuarts Applied Graphics Inc
Subway
Sylvesters Bargain Emporium Inc
Thai Orchid
The Aroma Store
The Castle
The Event Club
The Goldsmith Gallery Jewelers
The Painted Pony
Todd Miller
Tolco Management
Tony Soueidi Jewelers
Toucan Gallery
Unique Reflection
United Properties
Universal Adwards
Walkers Grill
Wendys
Western Federal Savings Bank
Western Pawn
Western Technology Partners
Wetzels Quality Cleaners
White Family LLC
Yellowstone Art Museum
Yellowstone Printing & Design
Yeliowstone Shopper
Yesteryears Antiques & Crafts
Zoot Banking Systems
______
Downtown Billings Association, Inc.,
Billings, MT.
Region Administrator,
General Services Administration,
Denver, CO.
Dear Region Administrator: As president of the Downtown Billings
Association I would like to urge you to reopen the site consideration
for your proposed new BLM facility to be located in Billings, MT.
Location of the facility on the Arcade block as being proposed by City
Councilman, Mark Kennedy would not only keep the 200 plus BLM employees
in the downtown area, but would also act as a bridge between the
downtown core and the South 27th Street Corridor which is steadily
redeveloping.
A core of energetic and dedicated citizens have been working for 2
years to put in place a mechanism and a plan for the revitalization of
Downtown Billings. Keeping facilities like the BLM in the Downtown are
key to attracting private business to locate downtown.
If the competition were reopened to consider a downtown site I am
sure that our public leadership would grasp with vigor the opportunity
to provide an affordable site to developers. This is an opportunity to
demonstrate how the city of Billings and the Federal Government can
partner for a win/win situation. Please don't let this opportunity
pass!
Sincerely,
Jonathan E. Coxwell, President,
Downtown Billings Association.
______
Downtown Billings Association, Inc.,
Billings, MT, December 12, 1997.
Ms. Polly Baca, RA,
General Services Administration,
Denver, CO.
Dear Ms. Polly Baca: Enclosed please find the results of an effort
put forth by several of our DBA members regarding the BLM's possible
move out of Downtown Billings, Montana. Business owners, managers and
employees whose living relies in part on the business that BLM
employees provide, signed these cards. This effort took place in 1 day
as we realize that time is growing short. We hope this begins to send a
message that we need the BLM Downtown.
A month ago, we sent a letter urging you to reopen the site
consideration for your proposed new BLM facility. We would like to
reiterate-this request. Downtown stakeholders and dedicated citizens
have developed a plan to revitalize our neighborhood and we realize how
important facilities like the BLM are to Downtown. The Downtown
Billings Association wants the BLM to remain Downtown for the sake of
our neighborhood. Please consider all of your options and make a
Downtown location a priority.
Please be a ``Good Neighbor'' and help us keep Downtown Billings
alive.
Sincerely,
Mechelle Schultz,
Director.
______
General Services Administration,
Regional Administrator,
Denver, CO, February 4, 1998.
Ms. Mechelle Schultz,
Downtown Billings Association, Inc.
Billings, MT.
Dear Ms. Schultz: Thank you very much for your expressions of
concern regarding the Bureau of Land Management lease procurement
project in Billings, Montana. As you may be aware, the lease contract
was awarded December 29, 1997. Please rest assured that any action
taken on behalf of the Bureau of Land Management has been done with the
best interest of all United States taxpayers in mind.
If you have further questions regarding this matter, please contact
Ms. Sandra DiBernardo, Director of our Mountain/Plains Service Center,
at (303) 236-1770.
Sincerely,
Polly Baca,
Regional Administrator.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9523.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9523.003
______
Planteriors Unlimited,
Billings, MT, February 12, 1998.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
re: gsa's coordination with montana communities on federal building and
leasing projects
As a Billings small business owner and co-chair of our recent 2-
year planning effort to revitalize and stimulate Downtown Billings, I
would like to emphasize the concern of the community regarding the GSA
bidding process which appears to preclude downtown locations in our
State. The presence of Federal offices in the hearts of our cities has
always been crucial to the economic vitality of the community. I am
extremely frustrated with the current effort to move these offices to
the edges of our towns, emptying buildings and creating job loss for
local businesses.
The plan for our future which was recently approved by the city of
Billings and Yellowstone County envisions a healthy downtown which is a
governmental and business center. The community has worked hard in the
past to improve the downtown neighborhood in which Federal employees
spend their working hours and we value their continued presence to make
things even better in our community core.
While attending an International Downtown Association meeting in
Portland, Oregon, last Spring I heard a wonderful presentation by GSA
representatives relating to their adherence to the Executive Order
requiring consultation with local officials in making location
decisions. I urge you to require the GSA to follow-up on that
commitment in their dealings with Montana communities.
Sincerely,
Kay Foster,
Owner.
______
Rocke G.e.a.r Clothing Company,
Billings, MT, February 10, 1998.
subject: blm building
Dear Senator Max Baucus: Thank you for holding this hearing
regarding the GSA and their impact on local communities. In specific I
would like to comment on the impact the BLM's employees have on
downtown Billings. I located my retail store in downtown Billings
almost 6 years ago. I have since seen ups and downs regarding the
economic environment. Downtown Billings has weathered the storm of
urban sprawl up to this point fairly well, however the actions of the
GSA moving the BLM offices out of downtown may be detrimental to the
economic well-being of downtown.
The BLM employees are a significant part of the economy of downtown
and are very important to my retail business. Please consider each of
the small businesses located in the downtown area and how they will be
affected before making any decisions about moving the BLM offices out
of downtown. The amount of money that can be saved by moving the BLM
offices pales in comparison to the overall detriment that each and
every one of the small businesses in downtown will feel.
In closing, I would like to remind you that President Clinton has
suggested that before any Federal employees are moved out of downtown
areas. All other alternatives should be exhausted and the economic
impact in the area should be considered. This is a clear case of urban
sprawl that will not benefit the community as a whole and will
certainly be unhealthy to downtown Billings.
Respectfully,
Chuck Barthuly,
President.
______
National Trust for Historic Preservation,
Board of Advisors,
Denver, CO.
Senator Max Baucus,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Baucus: Downtowns are making a come back! In the face
of first malls and now super stores, communities are realizing that
restoring the active life that their Main Street districts once
supported will benefit not only a town's economy but also its sense of
identity.
In Billings we are working on just such a plan. While we are
working, this country's biggest developer is thwarting these efforts.
That developer is Uncle Sam, and be it the postal service or GSA, we
find the Federal Governments developers are not accountable to the
communities in question, and not interested in the good of the
community.
GSA is vacating buildings in our downtown core, creating job losses
and vacancy rates that will make recovery difficult. While we work hard
and spend money to revitalize, we have the U.S. Government developer
working against us.
In spite of an Executive order, the Historic Preservation Act's
section 106 review, and the Public Building Cooperative Use Act that
mandates that Federal agencies use existing historic buildings for
office space downtown, GSA continues to vacate.
GSA has a Washington-based office run by a Presidentially appointed
administrator. In 25 years there have been more than 15 administrators.
The regional administrator is permanent staff.
This suggests to me that there is some difficulty in controlling
the inner bureaucracy.
Maybe it is time for congressional action. Maybe it is time for
legislation. Maybe it is time for communities to feel like they are
working WITH GSA to find solutions.
It seems clear that this Federal agency lacks the ability to
enforce the congressional will and the will of the people.
It really is quite simple. GSA must be accountable.
Sincerely,
Judy McNally.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9523.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9523.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9523.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9523.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9523.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9523.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9523.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9523.011
Western Heritage Center,
Billings, MT, February 12, 1998.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
subject: gsa's coordination with local communities on federal building
and leasing project
The Western Heritage Center is a regional history museum located in
downtown Billings. As one of six cultural facilities located in
downtown Billings, the board of directors and staff are very concerned
about the loss of the Bureau of Land Management offices from the
downtown.
The City of Billings, the Montana Trade Port and many private
business owners have recently developed a public/private downtown
planning and revitalization effort. This effort has produced a
framework plan that has the potential to foster significant investment
in the downtown revitalization efforts.
On behalf of the individuals, organizations, businesses and
government agencies working together to revitalize downtown Billings, I
encourage you to request the Bureau of Land Management reconsider their
position. I encourage you to work with BLM to develop a strategy that
would meet the agency's needs and would also contribute to downtown
Billings revitalization efforts.
Sincerely,
Lynda Bourque Moss,
Director.
______
Billings City Council,
Billings, MT, February 15, 1998.
To: GSA and BLM officials attending the Environment and Public
Works Committee hearing, Helena, MT
Re: My opposition to moving BLM offices from downtown Billings to
another location outside our downtown business district.
From: Jack Johnson, member, Billings City Council, Ward IV
I feel compelled to add my voice and strong feeling of concern for
downtown Billings development as relates to the proposed move by BLM
via GSA recommendations. I, like fellow city councilman, Mark Kennedy,
`. . . am having a hard time accepting, much less understanding . . .'
BLM's proposal to move their offices from downtown Billings to a
different site far from our downtown business area.
I believe BLM state offices should be housed in the Billings
downtown district for the following reasons:
1. Executive Order 12072 mandates that ``first consideration be
given any centralized community business area'' in selecting federal
office sites.
2. The GSA is to work with each level of government, including
local governments, and to consider their recommendations for and
objections to any proposed selection site.
3. Should this recommendation for a move be carried out, the loss
of jobs and activity in our downtown neighborhood would most certainly
have a domino effect through loss or relocation of other businesses in
our downtown area.
4. Our downtown property tax base would be at risk. Such reduction
would continue as other businesses left the downtown neighborhood and/
or new businesses decided not to locate there.
5. Leapfrogging and urban sprawl would continue rather than
encouraging much needed infill development and increasing property tax
revenues in our town.
6. In his letter of September 11, 1997 to Representative Rick Hill,
Acting State Director, Francis R. Cherry, Jr. stated in part, ``. . .
while we do not wish to be anything less than a ``Good Neighbor,'' we
also wish to do what is right for the taxpayer.'' Our goal is to
acquire space which provides the best possible service to our
customers, meets the needs of BLM and its employees.'' ``We are doing
our best to attain that goal.''
We, who represent local government in Billings, agree
wholeheartedly with your goal! We earnestly request that you reopen
bidding and reconsider downtown locations for Bureau of Land Management
state offices and for those reasons stated above. Thank you for your
consideration.
______
Montana Tradeport Authority,
Center for Business and Economic Development,
Billings, MT, February 13, 1998.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
subject: gsa's coordination with local communities on federal building
and leasing projects
The Montana Tradeport Authority is a special purpose form of
government established by resolution of the Yellowstone County
Commission in 1989 to aid economic development in the Yellowstone
Region. I will disclose up front to you that one of the Tradeport
Directors is Harrison Fagg, who owns the downtown building presently
occupied by the BLM. Under the BLM's present plans, that building will
be vacated. The Tradeport is not trying to preserve the status quo for
Mr. Fagg in any manner. It is only concerned about the loss of the
BLM's presence in Downtown Billings. A brief explanation will clearly
demonstrate the Tradeport's concern.
One of the projects being worked on over the past 2 years is
Downtown Planning/Revitalization of which Tradeport has been the lead
agency spearheading a public/private partnership for downtown
revitalization efforts. This group of dedicated people has been able to
develop a framework plan that has been approved by the City. This
framework plan allows for a large investment in downtown revitalization
over the next 10 to 30 years. I am writing to share the concerns of the
many people involved in the downtown planning effort who feel very
frustrated in dealing with GSA to keep the federal government presence
in downtown Billings. The City Administrator and I met personally with
the director for BLM and talked with GSA to offer site-specific
locations for consideration in the bidding process. We were not alone
in our requests. There were others in the community who spoke openly on
this issue including the Downtown Business Association, Downtown
Partnership Group and the City of Billings. All pleas were ignored.
One other point that should be made is that the Tradeport is not
interested in pitting downtown Billings against the outlying areas of
Billings or vice versa. However, it is concerned about maintaining a
vital downtown core area, which everyone understands is necessary in
order to have a strong community. Right now, the downtown core of
Billings is hurting badly and becoming weaker by the year. The
following will demonstrate the Tradeport's concerns.
The vacancy factor in downtown Billings is presently estimated at
15-20%. The tax increment value of downtown property has declined from
a high of $12,461,078 in 1987 to $6,472,033 presently, showing a 48%
decline in property valuation. This equates to a loss of taxes to the
Billings school system, the City of Billings, and Yellowstone County of
$1,500,000 per year. This vacancy factor and declining taxable
valuation contrasts with the outlying areas of Billings that presently
have no vacancy factor and have increasing property values.
When the BLM leaves downtown Billings, it will create an additional
55,000 square feet of vacant office space. It will not move to a new
building downtown, but simply move out of the downtown core area lock,
stock and barrel. In so doing, it will remove over 200 employees from
downtown Billings who would otherwise buy lunches and shop downtown.
The overall health of our community cannot afford such a blow. Anything
you can do for the Billings community will be welcomed.
Sincerely,
Jerry S. Thomas,
Executive Director.
______
Sandra Hawke,
Billings, MT, February 12, 1998.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
subject: gsa's coordination with local communities on federal building
and leasing projects
As a downtown property owner and also as a public employee, I am
writing to express my concerns about the uncommunicative and
unresponsive nature of the GSA in the process of evaluating and
selecting a location for BLM offices here in Billings.
``Downtowns'' have been the historical seat of government in this
and other towns for decades. In Billings, downtown is still the heart
of city, county, and federal government and these entities--and
citizens who access them--find efficiency in that symbiotic locale.
We as citizens have considered these agencies part of our community
and offer our support. When the BLM took responsibility for the
Pompey's Pillar monument, local volunteers rallied to support their
efforts. For those of us who have appreciated the presence of these
agencies in our community, and considered them partners, having the BLM
offices plucked out of downtown with no recourse on our part was like
having a limb amputated. We could still feel the tingling of the limb,
but could no longer communicate.
As a public employee, I know the benefits of keeping community
involved with functions of government. Taking time to consider input
and opinions may not always be convenient, but sometimes the best
solutions come from the ground up, and the public is, after all, my
employer. As a property owner and business person, I am a great
believer in keeping ``plugged into my neighborhood.'' There are
benefits in listening to the community.
The GSA needs to listen whenever and wherever possible and act more
responsively.
Sincerely,
Sandra Hawke.
______
YMCA,
Billings, MT, February 13, 1998.
Hon. Max Baucus,
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
re: gsa's coordination with local communities on federal building and
leasing projects
Dear Senator Baucus: First, many thanks for pursuing this vital
issue on behalf of all the Montana cities involved in this process. The
location of these Federal facilities is an extremely critical decision
for each of these communities. Any steps which would enhance the
decision making process involved would obviously be beneficial.
I have both general and specific reasons for my interest in this
issue. In general, the decision on location of these Federal facilities
can have tremendous impact on a local economy. This is particularly
true in Montana where each city involved has a relatively fragile
economy. The downtown (central business district) of each of the cities
involved has faced serious challenges. The relocation of a major tenant
(as in the BLM case) in a downtown has numerous detrimental impacts.
First, is the immediate loss of active participants in the central
business districts. There are also the long-term impacts of depressed
prices for office space and potential loss of tax revenue driven by a
likely glut on the market for office square footage.
My more specific concerns revolve around the direct impact on the
organization I manage. The Billings Family YMCA has a strong presence
in downtown Billings. We have made a substantial commitment to the
central business district. The BLM has been an excellent neighbor which
provides not only members and participants but also a wide variety of
volunteers and leaders for our programs. The loss of this neighbor will
without a doubt impact this YMCA.
Unlikely many others are not arguing that either the GSA or the BLM
violated the letter of Executive Order #12072. However, I question that
the spirit of this directive was served by the process in at least the
BLM situation. In the big picture point of view, I am sure that time
and care already spent seems substantial. However, the impact on
Billings and the other Montana cities is so great that I believe an
extraordinary effort is justified.
Very truly yours,
Michael A. Larson,
Executive Director,
YMCA.
Deputy Mayor,
City of Billings.
______
Finlen Complex,
Butte, MT, February 17, 1998.
Hon. Max Baucus,
U.S. Senator,
Butte, MT.
Dear Senator Baucus: The Finlen Complex, Inc. respectfully submits
this document for the record at the public meeting held at the Lewis
and Clark Library, Helena, Montana, on February 17, 1998, at 10 a.m.
This written testimony is in regards to Solicitation for Offers for the
Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) in Butte, Montana. Thank
you.
Frank Taras,
Vice-President,
Finlen Complex, Inc.
______
introduction
This written testimony sets forth the experience of the Finlen
Hotel, a historic building, in dealing with the General Service
Administration (GSA) in attempting to bid on the MEPS Federal lease. We
think our experience demonstrates some of the problems encountered by
historical buildings and buildings located in historic districts.
meps lease and solicitation background
The Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) has been located in
the Finlen Hotel, Butte, Montana since 1980. The original contract was
for 10 years.
Since 1990, all contract extensions have been for either 1 or 2
years. We requested a longer-term extension, but were told repeatedly
that MEPS and GSA were studying and reviewing options and could not
commit to longer contract extensions.
In August 1996, GSA contacted the Finlen and indicated a desire to
execute single-source procurement for a contract term between 5 and 10
years. We indicated our acceptance of this proposal and our ability to
proceed immediately.
In October 1996, GSA called to indicate there would be no single
source procurement and that they would instead advertise for proposals,
but that the boundaries would be within the confines of the historic
district of uptown Butte. The GSA placed a small 1-day notice in the
local paper. The Finlen responded to this request for proposals.
In November 1996, GSA and MEPS representatives arrived in Butte to
conduct their market study and a tour of the Finlen. They requested
that we conduct a survey of the existing MEPS and their personnel to
determine what would be required to improve the facility to current
standards. We determined that only minor partition modifications were
necessary along with various cosmetic upgrades. However, during our
presentation, we were told that the entire facility would have to be
completely demolished and rebuilt. On January 17, 1997, the
Solicitation for Offers was sent by the GSA.
bid criteria
The Solicitation for Offers provided in January 1997 contained
hundreds of bidding criteria requiring compliance in order to be
considered responsive to the Solicitation. The GSA has indicated that
the Finlen is currently ``not'' fully responsive to this solicitation
and therefore cannot be the successful bidder. To our knowledge, only
four criteria remain that the Finlen proposal does not comply with. The
first three criteria are structural and cannot be met by the Finlen or
most historic structures. They are as follows:
(1) Column Spacing--The Solicitation for Offers states that all
proposed facilities have column spacing equal or greater than 25 feet
clear span.
By specifying a minimum column spacing, the GSA excludes virtually
all older and historic buildings. Construction technology and materials
of the past did not allow for long column spans. The stronger
lightweight materials available today make longer spans possible. The
GSA states that column spacing less than 25 feet limits design
flexibility and space efficiency and therefore, is unacceptable.
However, there are many buildings everywhere both government owned and
private that have column spacing less than 25 feet and are very
efficient in their design. The GSA did not present any specific
examples of how the efficiency of the MEPS operation would be
compromised by failing to meet the column spacing requirement.
(2) Ceiling Heights--The Solicitation for Offers specifies a
finished ceiling height minimum of 9 feet and maximum of 11 feet. As
with the column spacing restriction, specifying specific ceiling
heights precludes historic buildings from being acceptable. For
example, the Finlen has many areas where 9-foot ceilings are possible
but because of the existing structural conditions, a complete facility
having all ceilings at nine feet may be impossible. Additionally, there
is a beautiful ballroom with high ceilings that would highlight any
space, but it cannot be included because it exceeds the maximum ceiling
height specification. It would probably comply if a suspended ceiling
was installed, but the room would be ruined. Again, no site specific
reason was given for imposing this restriction.
(3) Seismic Safety--The Solicitation for Offers specifies all
buildings shall meet the seismic standards for ``new'' construction
(1993 code) regardless if the facility is existing or new.
In the beginning of this solicitation process, the GSA insisted
that we provide documentation from a structural engineer proving our
compliance with the current seismic safety codes for new construction.
We contacted several engineers who were unanimous in their conclusion
that it would be impossible to perform any analysis and certification
of the Finlen from a seismic standpoint without the original structural
drawings and specifications. Furthermore, the chances of any older
structures meeting today's seismic codes are nonexistent since current
seismic designs require new buildings to ``slide'' or ``pivot'' during
seismic activity and past building designs relied on rigid structural
connections that cannot feasibly be modified.
In a July 17, 1997 letter, the GSA stated that Executive order
12941 was the governing authority on seismic safety and it could not be
comprised. Research on Executive Order 12941 determined that there are
two completely different sets of seismic ``standards''. One standard is
for ``new'' construction and the second standard is for existing
buildings. Executive Order 12941 states that each government agency
that owns or leases buildings shall utilize the ``Standards'' to
evaluate the risks and estimate the costs of mitigating any
unacceptable seismic risks in those buildings. We have leased to MEPS
for 16 years and have never had any seismic evaluation of our facility.
The Finlen requested copies of these ``seismic standards'' for existing
facilities in order to study their application, but was told by GSA
that it was up to us to secure this information and was only provided a
disconnected telephone number. We were never able to property secure
these ``standards'' for analysis and compliance. The Finlen has
maintained its structural integrity for 74 years, including
withstanding a major seismic disturbance in 1959. Many government owned
buildings, including Federal courthouses, are in the same seismic
situation as the Finlen.
(4) Alcoholic Beverages--The Solicitation for Offers dated January
17, 1997 specifies site location to be in a city center neighborhood.
On July 18, 1997 the GSA modified this requirement by placing a
restriction on buildings that serve alcoholic beverages, provide live
entertainment, music or dancing. The Finlen maintains a lounge within
the facility. We requested the governing document on which this policy
was based and we protested this untimely last minute restriction on the
facility. There have been no incidents with the lounge and MEPS in 16
years. The GSA responded that they just ``found it'' and it was a
national policy.
The GSA provided these location restrictions:
LOCATION RESTRICTIONS:
The MEPS will not be located in buildings serving alcoholic
beverages, providing live entertainment, music or dancing.
The MEPS will not be located in districts where the crime
rate exceeds the citywide average.
The MEPS will be located in commercial areas that are
primarily designed as office areas.
The MEPS can be collocated with retail stores serving all
ages. However, if MEPS is located in a shopping mall, a
separate entrance which must be accessible to applicants
without requiring them to enter through the mall itself shall
be provided by the lessor.
Although this document placed numerous restrictions, only the one
restriction regarding alcoholic beverages was made part of the
Solicitation for Offers. The other restrictions, which could apply to
our competition, were not even listed. Furthermore, even though this
change placed an unnecessary and arbitrary restriction on our facility,
we proposed an alternative plan that allowed us to comply with this
ruling under the last restriction. However, this was dismissed since we
are not a shopping mall in the modern definition but just a multi-use
facility ``similar'' to a shopping mall.
other considerations
(1) Cost--The Finlen has spent nearly $50,000 responding to this
solicitation for Offers. Over $12,000 has been paid to various
designers and consultants. Another $40,000 has been spent on internal
staff time. As a small business, it is difficult to keep pace with
GSA's unlimited resources.
There are many other operations and cost saving advantages for the
MEPS to remain in uptown Butte. The applicant lodging facility and the
applicant dining facility is in close proximity to the MEPS. Having
these facilities in close proximity is very efficient and it saves
dollars on costly transportation. All public service buildings,
courthouse, post office, medical facilities, and public transportation
are located in Historic Uptown Butte. GSA does not appear to consider
these operational advantages to be as significant as the efficiency
gained from uniform 25, column spacing or uniform ceiling height.
(2) Jobs--The economic impact the MEPS move from the Finlen and
Uptown Butte is significant. The Finlen presently employs 13 full time
employees, and even though the MEPS' does not directly employ these
people, their presence is vital to the building's survival. Loss of the
MEPS facility would cause significant job force reductions. Other
businesses in Uptown Butte that are either directly or indirectly
involved with the MEPS would suffer as well.
historical significance
Historical Significance--The Finlen Hotel was built in 1924 and is
situated in the heart of the historic mining town of Butte, Montana.
The hotel is rich in history and is listed in the National Historic
Register. It is the tallest and best preserved pre-depression era
building standing in the State of Montana. The presence of the Military
Entrance Processing Station in the Finlen is consistent with the
historical character of the building. In fact, the proposed remodeling
of the main hotel lobby along with MEPS would greatly enhance and
preserve the historical features of this unique structure.
government policy
Executive Order 12072 and Executive Order 13006 clearly state that
Federal agencies shall give first consideration to historic properties
within historic districts for locating Federal facilities. Furthermore,
Section 3 of Executive Order 13006 requires agencies to take steps to
reform, streamline, and otherwise minimize regulations, policies, and
procedures that impede the Federal Government's ability to establish
and maintain a presence in historical districts.
Federal policy dictates that the GSA alter its rules, regulations,
and bidding criteria to encourage the placement of Federal facilities
in historic properties as long as health and safety issues are met. The
design restrictions and limitations placed in this Solicitation for
Offers are precisely the types of issues Congress and the President
sought to eliminate as roadblocks to placing Federal facilities in
historic buildings.
conclusion
The comments and concerns raised in this document were communicated
orally and in writing to the GSA on numerous occasions. The GSA refused
to make any modifications or compromises that would enable the Finlen
to compete. After meetings with local officials and representatives
from the National Trust For Historic Preservation, and the Montana
Historical Society, the GSA representative wrote,
``The GSA determined that a more thorough effort is required
to adhere with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and Executive Order 13006 for the MEPS
Procurement.'' Furthermore, the GSA promised to seek
expressions of interest ``within'' the Butte Landmark District.
(See Exhibit A).
Despite these representations, the GSA issued the attached bid
solicitation (Exhibit B) on December 2, 1997, which announced a
preference for historic buildings then placed the same bid restrictions
that make it impossible for historic buildings like the Finlen to
compete.
______
General Services Administration,
Rocky Mountain Region,
Denver, CO, September 29, 1997.
Mr. Frank Taras, Manager,
Butte, MT.
Dear Mr. Taras: After much consideration and consultation with
Butte's local officials, General Services Administration (GSA) has
determined that a more thorough effort is required to adhere with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and
Executive Order 13006, ``Locating Federal Facilities on Historic
Properties in Our Nation's Central Cities'' for the Military Enlistment
Processing Station (MEPS) procurement. As a result of this decision,
negotiations with all existing offerors will reopen and GSA will seek
expressions of interest for the MEPS requirement within the Butte
National Landmark District.
GSA will continue to work with local city officials and adhere to
all laws and policies that provide preference to historic districts.
Any eligible properties that are presented to GSA will be considered.
Negotiations will continue until a Best & Final Offer request is issued
to all parties.
Therefore, I have issued Amendment No. 10 for Solicitation For
Offers (SFO) No. GS-08P-13383 which will replace the existing paragraph
1.5 ``Offer Due Date''.
Please indicate your acknowledgment of this amendment by signing,
dating, and returning one copy of this letter upon receipt. If you need
additional assistance or information, please contact me at (303) 236-
1770 ext. 240.
Sincerely,
Malia N. Ringler,
Real Estate Contract Officer,
Rocky Mountain Service Center.
______
Wanted to Lease Office Space to the United States Government
The U.S. Government desires to lease approximately 15,100
occupiable square feet of office and related type space constructed to
accommodate a Butte Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS). The
mission of MEPS is to process individuals for enlistment or induction
into the armed services. The facility must be capable of providing
physical examination rooms, aptitude testing rooms, conference rooms,
open office areas, storage areas, and other specialized space in a
first class facility. Six designated parking spaces for Government
vehicles are required and the property must provide parking for
employees and visitors.
The property must be located within the city limits of Butte,
Montana. A preference will be given to offerors of space in buildings
on, or formally listed as eligible for inclusion in the National
Register Of Historic Places, and to historically significant buildings
in historic districts listed in the National Register. Such preference
will be extended to historic buildings and will result in award if:
(1) The offer for space satisfies the terms and conditions of this
solicitation as well as any other offer received, and
(2) The retail is no more than 10 percent higher, on a total annual
square foot occupiable area cost to the Government, than the lowest
otherwise acceptable offer.
If more than one offer of a historic building is received and they
satisfy the above criteria, an award will then be made to the lowest
priced historic property offered.
The General Services Administration (GSA) is conducting the
procurement and is seeking first class quality space in an existing
building or new construction. The space must be fully services
including maintenance, utilities and janitorial services. The interior
space must be capable of being altered to Government layout
specifications.
Successful offers must satisfy minimum Federal Government standards
for Fire Safety and handicapped accessibility. The space offered cannot
be located within the 100-year floodplain. The space offered must be
contiguous and occupancy is desired by mid to late 1998. Federal
seismic requirements must be satisfied. In addition to these standards,
the following requirements must be satisfied:
(A) MEPS will not be located in buildings serving alcoholic
beverages, or buildings, which provide live entertainment, music or
dancing.
(B) Offerors must provide evidence from a banking institution of at
least a conditional commitment of funds for tenant improvement in the
amount of $725,025.00.
(C) The interior column spacing must be no less than 25 foot clear
space between columns.
(D) Finished ceilings must be at least 9,.0,, and no more than
11,.0,, measured from the floor to the lowest obstruction.
The General Services Administration does not use tenant brokers to
represent the Government in lease negotiations or transactions. Brokers
or agents may represent the prospective landlord, but any properties or
proposals submitted by brokers/agents must be accompanied by written
evidence that they are authorized to represent the building's
ownership.
If you desire to list space for consideration, the building or site
owner must forward a resume and pertinent information concerning the
building, site, or building plans by December 5, 1997, making reference
to Solicitation for Offers (SFO) No. GS-08P-13383 to: General Services
Administration, Rocky Mountain Region, Rocky Mountain Service Center
(8PR), Attention: Malia N. Ringler, Denver Federal Center, Building 41,
Room 288, Denver, CO 80225-0546.
______
Report by Mark Reavis, Butte-Silver Bow Project Architect, Butte-Silver
Bow Historic Preservation Office
On Friday, December 19, 1997, my recollection, I received a call
from Colleen Fine, Butte Silver Bow Urban Revitalization Agency
Director and Assistant Community Development Director regarding my
availability on December 23, 1997. Ms. Fine, inquired to my plans on
this date, I had indicated that I was going to try to spend some time
wrapping up holiday details and with my children. Colleen informed me
that GSA/MZPCOM was making their market survey of Uptown buildings on
this date. I indicated I would rearrange my schedule in order to
accommodate this visit.
Though it was personally frustrating for a single father with three
children to spend limited time with my children to rearrange my
schedule, I believe it was equally frustrating for all perspective
building owners that this market survey was to be conducted on the day
prior to Christmas Eve with very limited notice. In fact, more than
half the people indicated to me their disbelief in the fact that the
survey was being conducted on this day with such comments as: `` these
people must not have a life'' and ``why the (expletive deleted) are
they doing this today''. I simply shrugged my shoulders and indicated
that I could not comment.
Back to Friday morning, December 19, 1997, I attempted to call Ms.
Malia Ringler of GSA to set up specifics with the time associated with
her visit. On my answering machine was a message from Ms. Ringler
indicating her phone number that she would be visiting and that she
could not leave specifics of her visit on a publicly accessible
answering machine. I returned the call, there was a recording on her
machine, her voice mail. I indicated my Butte Silver Bow office phone
number, my design studio phone number which has a nonaccessible,
private only access as well as my cellular telephone number.
I waited for approximately 15 minutes and recalled the GSA office.
At this time, I talked to Ms. Ringler personally. She indicated that
the tour would commence at 8:45 and gave me the address of the first
building only. I inquired about the other sites and she said that these
would be released when we were at the first site. She indicated that
the first building would be the ``SC'' building and that she would see
me there at 8:45. I asked about transportation and offered the use of
the Butte-Silver Bow County van. She indicated that that was not
possible and that she did not want to give any perception of conflict
of interest or preference. I indicated that I would meet her there.
On Tuesday, December 23, 1997, I arrived at the SC at 8:40. The
owner nor GSA/MEPCOM was currently visible outside the site. Prior to
this, I received a reminder call on my cellular phone from Butte-Silver
Bow staff person Susan Powell reminding of the visit. I told her I was
approximately 1\1/2\ blocks away from the site. At the ``SC'' building
I walked around to the east side and found the owner TT waiting the
arrival of GSA/MEPCOM. Also at the building was the owner's architect
LB who was there to assist in the offering of the building. I was
familiar with both individuals and the building itself. I had done some
initial conceptual architectural work for TT prior to my employment
with Butte-Silver Bow regarding this building and I knew Mr. LB
architect from our association within the Butte Society of Architects
and on various construction projects. We waited until approximately
9:10 for the arrival of GSA/MEPCOM. Our discussion between Mark Reavis,
LB, and TT was generally small talk and had nothing to do with the
offering of this building with the exception of why would they be
arriving to look at this facility on today.
Note: It struck me at this site as well as all remaining sites of
the absurdity of the secrecy of this project. I knew all individuals
associated with this specific building and many of them quite well. I
think the majority of the people were struck by the cloak and dagger
approach and generally had a feeling of what was this all about and
what specifically was being asked in their proposals. Virtually all
building owners indicated that they were willing to provide whatever
GSA specifically wanted. These specifics seemed to not be in place and
I do not think any one's specific questions regarding what was required
was answered during all of the market survey site visit.
On the arrival of Malia Ringler with GSA and MEPS' representatives,
I went up to Malia and said hello and shook her hand. All three other
individuals with the GSA/MEPS tour group did not introduce themselves
to me, in fact, they did not associate themselves with me during the
entire tour. The local representatives of MEPS, a Major and a Sergeant
simply indicated that they were the taxi drivers. Though I am a fairly
sensitive guy, it did not bruise my ego not to be introduced; yet, I
believe it is a basic rule of courtesy to introduce yourselves and I
took offense to the fact that I had been marked with a scarlet letter
and was pushed to one side. From the tour I generally picked up the
remaining members of the GSA/MEPCOM party. I believe the MEPCOM
representative's name was Mr. Andy Mac. The Sergeant's first name was
Celeste. She was the First Sergeant. I do not recall the Major's name
since I was not introduced to anyone on the tour and did not know
anyone other than Ms. Ringler.
We started the market survey in the reception area of the ``SC''
building which was an old government receiving and distribution
facility. Ms. Ringler proceeded with showing the prototypical new MEPS'
facility at Salt Lake. She indicated that the facility should have an
appearance in dignity, longevity, and horizontal windows--no vertical
windows.
Note: I think a decision on architectural styles and what
constitutes dignity and longevity is a subjective opinion of
architectural styles. In my opinion and backed by my expertise in
historic preservation issues and as a Licensed Architect, the issue of
longevity is constituted more by classical placement of windows versus
horizontal windows which are typical of modern office parks. Office
parks have had little longevity and are constantly at the mercy of
fluctuating markets. An architectural opinion such as this I believe is
unfounded and has very weak support in the long-term context of
architectural styles.
Malia continued with the discussion of permanence and that the
facility should look like a government facility. It should not be
trendy. One such item for the government appearance is the installation
of a flagpole and a flag. Malia indicated that she would be critical on
the exterior and that it would be awarded on its shell and ultimately
the price. The man from MEPCOM interrupted and called a time out and
asked that they be shown a private place to discuss matters. There
seemed to be a conflict over a statement by Ms. Ringler. Malia's last
comment had to do with the design of the interior and that she would
also be in charge of that. After approximately 5 minutes, Malia and the
MEPCOM man reappeared and continued with the discussion. We moved into
a conference room and pictures of the MEPCOM continued to be passed
around and particularly at this time, Mr. TT reviewed these pictures.
Ms. Ringler indicated that buildings facade would have to be completely
redone.
Note: What design criteria is this facade being completely being
redone to. There is no indication of any design standards. Ms. Ringler
had indicated only she would be making these types of design decisions
along with the owner and the owner's architect. It is obvious that Ms.
Ringler has experience in design, yet, I am not familiar with her
credentials regarding these issues. Decisions regarding the shell are,
in fact, completely up to one individual and their own personal opinion
of what constitutes correct design for this facility. I feel I must
vigorously object to this one person design approval. I again looked at
the prototypical buildings, which was the first time I saw these; and,
again, find nothing extraordinary about the prototypical Salt Lake City
exterior shell treatment. The building has a flagpole, continuous
horizontal band curtain wall windows, brick facade, and flat roof.
There also appears to be some angling of walls which have a somewhat
pleasing form but does not indicate any idea of what takes place on the
interior of this facility which I do not feel is reflected in the
exterior facade. The prototype facility generally appears to be a box
with horizontal band windows.
Ms. Ringler continued to expound on the expectations of a fully
serviced lease, which means that the tenant will have to do nothing,
with the exception of calling the building manager if there is a
problem. Terms of the lease were explained at 15 years with 7 year firm
with the ability to break the lease after the 7 years on short notice.
While looking over the pictures, there was additional explanation that
there needed to be exam rooms, ceremonial rooms, and all of those
things associated with the induction of individuals into the military.
Ms. Ringler asked what is your vision of this building and TT indicated
what do you want us to provide? TT indicated that he wanted the
building fully occupied and that he was inquiring into the availability
of other Federal leases in this facility. Ms. Ringler indicated that
they would not be leasing any other facilities in Butte with a vacant
space currently in the Butte's Federal Building. In response to the
question on the vision of the building, TT asked for further
explanation, GSA/MEPS wants it to look more like an office building.
LB, architect, said that TT had a good location and Malia indicated
that this was a good location with the parking off of the main Butte
Avenue.
Discussion continued with what would you provide for the
government? What specifically are you going to do to the shell for us?
The response from both TT and LB was whatever you want. Again, those
specifics seemed to escape everyone. A general consensus is it needs to
look like a MEPS' Center, whatever that is? Again, referring to the
prototype in Salt Lake City.
Note: Is this prototype a government approved design and do all
MEPS have to be designed within the general perimeters of it's form and
this shape associated with this prototypical building? If this is the
case, it again would seem to limit the opportunities of utilizing
current facilities and more specifically historic facilities. This
design issue of the shell must be addressed and that the issue of
approval by one person for design of a shell, whether new, modified, or
existing, must have approval of other individuals with expertise as
well as the community itself. For historic compliance issues, efforts
must be made to meet current historic preservation mandate, whether
Federal, State, or local which assist in the redevelopment and
strengthening of a community as a whole.
The MEPCOM man now took his turn regarding this building,
specifically, his questions were regarding functionality of the
interior spaces. He indicated there was a supply function to this
building, specifically with the exam room/doctor's office type of
functions, and that there was a potential for x-ray equipment and its
extra weight requirements in this facility. Is the building (sc)
asbestos clear; TT indicated it was. Malia interjected with column
spacing of this facility. TT indicated it was 26 feet centerline to
centerline in all directions of columns. Ms. Ringler indicated that the
government required 17,500 square feet of usable, rentable space and
that ancillary facilities (lobbies, public restrooms, mech) were not
included in this space requirement. There was a need for nine reserved
parking spaces and that, of course, all the mechanical and electrical
would need to be brought up to current standards. The MEPCOM man
indicated that the prevailing codes, (which I interjected would be the
Uniform Building Code), and that handicapped (N.C.) requirements would
be UFAS (in lieu of ADA) which are the Federal requirements, the
Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards, be put into place at this
facility. The architect indicated that he was familiar with the Federal
standards and had used them on a current project. There was a further
discussion that the building was in a good neighborhood.
Note: Whatever retail services have to do with the MEPS' facility,
I am not sure?
There was also indication that the facility will need a food
service area required for the preparation of food. Also discussed was
that the submittal must have computer aided design (CAD) drawings
produced for an accurate footprint and dimensioning of this project.
Regarding the floor plans and the CAD drawings, it is important to
know that these plans have indicated exact dimensions and that MEPS is
looking at specific items and structures which are not easily movable
and if the owner is not willing to move, these would be column,
mechanical codes, elevators, those type of objects, those things that
cannot be moved.
Note: The requirement of CAD drawings seems somewhat strange and I
have voiced my objection to this requirement prior to this. The use of
CAD drawings does not improve the accuracy of a drawing whether
manually or CAD drawing. The manually drawn floor plan can be just as
accurate as a CAD drawing. The adage garbage-in, garbage-out applies
here. I simply note this because this is a small town with small 1 man
architectural offices that do large-scale projects for private and
government agencies that are currently not fully CAD drawing capable. I
understand their requirement for knowing where all permanent items are
wanted in these buildings, but this can be done my manual drafting. Is
there a specific computer program and data format file that is required
for the production of drawings; and are these files directly used by
MEPCOM in planning the interior of these spaces? If so, this
information must be provided and requirements of the specific computer
program specified so that local architects can understand what is being
required of them and if they can provide this to their client.
A reasonable project schedule from MEPCOM man was discussed. A
reasonable project schedule is to be stated and then everyone is
expected to comply with this schedule, with penalties on both sides if
it is not followed. If GSA/MEPS finds this building suitable, it will
be solicited for the proposed facility. Sore specifics regarding the
facility will be included in the solicitation. I interjected and asked
Ms. Ringler; ``this, of course, will be the (Architectural) Program''.
She indicated ``No! that it will simply be a listing of required square
footage within this facility''. I said ``you will, of course, need a
program to design this facility''. Ms. Ringler and MEPCOM indicated
that this is not the case, this is free form design and that they want
the architect to use his imagination.
Note: Again, this seems to be totally contradictory to all the
discussions that we have had prior to this. There has been a big hang
up about column spacing and that these facilities have to be modern and
meet exact MEPCOM requirements. The whole approach seems to be
arbitrary and has the ability to knock people out when they do not
answer a specific question correctly. In general, my reaction to this
meeting was more of an interview of the owner versus an actual market
survey of the buildings' itself.
GSA/MEPCOM indicated that they were running late and that they
needed to move on to the next project. Mr. TT asked if they wanted to
view the facility. They indicated that they were just interested in the
facade and that ``I am sure that it was fine''.
Note: Again, this tends to confirm that the building owner and the
shell are the priority and that there was little interest in the space.
It seems contrary to everything I know about planning and placing a
proposed facility in an existing building. While everyone else was
walking out the exit, I turned and went into the building and waved the
people in, imploring them to at least come in and take a look. With
this, everyone came in and looked around and said oh, of course, this
will work.
When we left the ``GC'' building, and were outside, I was taken to
one side and shown the next project we were visiting. Ms. Ringler had
folded the piece of 8\1/2\ x 11,, paper so that I could only view the
next facility where we were going.
Note: Again, this cloak and dagger approach seemed totally absurd
to me. What could I possibly do with this information in a matter of
several hours that could affect the outcome of this. I had to get to
the next facility on my own, in my own car and driving solo to the next
appointment. site. Again, I find this offensive and the fact that I had
to be in a separate vehicle. I missed the opportunity to be involved in
any discussion which took place after we left a site where there may
hare been a discussion regarding the appropriateness and suitability of
each site that had just been visited. Many decisions and general
conclusions could have been drawn between the time of learning onsite
and going to the next one. There should hare been no problem with me
tagging along with this group and being an observer of these
discussions. I find it secretive and not in the best service of the
public. I am an economic development officer of Butte-Silver Bow County
and as such I have had consistent dealings with confidentiality
requirements during development of these properties. I am sure that all
people involved, which I personally know, would have felt better if I
would have been part of these discussions after each of these visits,
yet I was excluded from these.
On to the next building. It should be noted that the ``SC''
building is not located within the Butte National Historic Landmark
District. I believe there are questions regarding the opening of
additional submissions outside of the National Historic Landmark
District.
Now to the ``C'' building, where we met up with Mr. and Mrs. L, the
building owners. Again, I knew both these individuals and we had worked
extensively with Mrs. L regarding potential updating of this facility
utilizing URA dollars. I am very familiar with this building and the
potentials that lay within. We went into the main areas of this
building which was historically a theater and a retail facility. This
building has an open floor plan with approximately 12 feet iron column
spacing constituting this building with multi floors above. There
seemed to be a general dismissal of this building immediately regarding
column spacing, and what I perceive as a prejudice toward historic
facilities. Ms. Ringler indicated that the MEPS generally likes to be
located on upper floors so as not to be disturbed by retail activities
below. There was a look at the central bearing wall between the two
main buildings and that there were multiple floors and that square
footing requirement would require multi floor occupancy.
Note: The requirement of being on the upper floor, again, seems to
contradict with information we have heard about. What had generally
been previously indicated was that: first floor, new construction,
single floor only buildings were preferred. The indication that upper
floors preference also seems to contradict some of the program
requirements of secured access and delivery of goods to this facility.
Virtually all perspectives building offerors were offering first floor
space with the assumption that it would be preferred because of
handicapped requirements and access.
When the discussion seemed to be going the way of ``that this
building did not qualify'', I interjected with my knowledge of the
building and the adjacent site to the west indicating that a submission
with old and new construction area to the west could be provided in the
ranking in association with this historic building could be made. A
large parking area to the west of this facility and the currently
unused facade could be incorporated into the new construction portion
of the facility with large open space requirements and that the main
historic floor could be used for certain activities accommodate with
creative design. We went and looked at the area west of the ``C''
building through a window at the back of the building. There was some
consensus that this area could accommodate a building at street level
with protected parking underneath. With this new found information, Ms.
Ringler indicated that computer designed CAD drawings would be required
for this facility, Mrs. ``L'' indicated that plans for this building
were currently available. The questions was were they computer drawn? I
indicated that they were not but that they were accurate and that they
met historic design, standard requirements for the aforementioned
update. GSA's representative asked if there was an architect, Mrs. L
indicated that her architect was LM, architect. Again, I stated that
they had met design requirements and that they (owner and architect)
were knowledgeable and capable of producing the ``newly found'' new and
old facility. Mr. MEPCOM, again, went over his basic list of questions
which were stated at the previous site and made emphasis on what was
the footprint and what would stay in place. Those things, per se, that
are set stone. There was also reference to seismic standards, (NOTE:
whatever those are?) when they apply to existing structures. Ms.
Ringler indicated maximizing the windows within the architecture and
that there were no windows. Mrs. L, building owner, indicated that
there was a considerable amount of glazing on the alley side as well as
the other sides of the building.
Note: It should be noted, that I believe there is no significant
restriction in available window openings, if fact, historic buildings
maximize natural lighting, which was typical of the turn of the
century, which is not the case with modern office buildings which are
air conditioned and have large square type format plans. I believe this
lack of windows in new space is consistent with the Salt Lake City
prototype facility. These ``office park'' type of buildings, have a
square plan and have less windows per space, there is often more
opportunity for usable and pleasant spaces with access to the outside
environment via windows and natural ventilation in Historic Buildings
with rectangular or ``L'' shaped plans.
Ms. Ringler showed the prototype building in Salt Lake City to the
Mr. & Mrs. ``L'' building owners.
Note: Again, I find the presentation of a prototypical building of
new construction and a historic building to be two completely distinct
and different design issues. This contradiction of a new desired
facility while touring a Historic Building was consistent throughout
the tour. A persons was told to tell their vision of a building yet
they are told that the appropriate vision is a new facility. Again,
this is a potential that limits the possibility of using historic
buildings that is simply an opinion.
The discussion turned to me regarding this historic building and
restrictions associated with it. I indicated that there was plenty of
room on interior rehabilitation of this building and that the outside
was in compliance and the work that she had proposed in rehabing in
this building was in compliance when utilizing her architects. I
indicated that it was a handsome building and everyone had to agree
that it was in good condition and was an attractive building.
Note: Again, I believe that the design criteria of permanent
dignity and a government type of facility can be done on this and other
historic building. In particular, the first floor facade windows can
accommodate new adaptive uses of this area and could give the presence
of an office type of facility which would indicate a government
presence.
Ms. Ringler indicated that the historic compliance issues would be
a time factor and could be a problem. I noted that this should not be
the case and that they had already complied with these issues.
Note: Again, this is an indication of a prejudice toward existing
historic facilities and wanting to build a brand new facility. There
are many opportunities in historic buildings that can be handled by
creative design. I and building owners have been consistently told
throughout the tour that this is in fact the case that creativity is
allowed and encouraged.
The ``C'' building was extremely cold and unheated and people
seemed to be wanting to move on. We went to the next facility, again,
Ms. Ringler showed me only the next facility that we would visit. The
GSA/MEPS crew got in their car to drive a block and a half to the next
project, I simply walked. I met up with the representative building
owner, BB, at the ``WB'' building. Again, in this building there seemed
to be a general consensus that would not comply with the requirements
of the MEPCOM building. In particular, that the facility would have to
be located on multiple floors. This is a legitimate concern but I still
believe that a MEPS could be accommodated. We looked at the street
level floor, there was also an indication that there was a full
basement underneath with parking, and we went to the upper floor which
had previously been gutted by fire and had been completely rebuilt to
generally show the openness of this building and its potential. Mr. BB
seemed to concede that this building would not work for their needs and
said that he would like to move on to the proposed site for new
constructing facility. The GSA/MEPS crew got into their vehicle and I
hitched a ride with Mr. BB to the proposed new constructionsite. Once
at the site, which was located on the south side of M Street adjacent
to PGJ, Mr. BB indicated that the facility was proposed to be built on
this available property. He did not convey to Ms. Ringler that this
property was currently owned by Butte-Silver Bow County which is, in
fact, the case. But there was a general indication that it was
available at a reasonable rate and was available for promotion and if
this, in fact, is the case, under the City-County's developer's packet
process for surplus property.
Note: It should be indicated at this time, the site has potential
for cultural resources, in particular, remains for the China Town area
of Butte. This may be an opportunity for historic preservation if
handled correctly with proper excavation at this site and recovery of
artifacts with donation to the Mys across the street These issues will
be brought up if, in fact, a solicitation is brought back to this owner
and the owner contacts us regarding this site. I think the general
reaction of Ms. Ringler here indicates her total preference for new
construction. It was not in so many words, but just simply from
reaction of body language and a generally higher interest in the
proposal of such site for new construction.
Ms. Ringler voiced concern that this area appeared to be totally
abandoned. Mr. BB simply indicated that this was part of the charm of
Butte, Montana and went on with his presentation. I thanked Mr. BB for
this comment. Mr. MEPCOM indicated that this site had possibilities
when Mr. BB indicated that the building would be pushed toward M Street
and that there was a gentle slope that would accommodate parking
underneath the proposed building. It was pretty much left ``at that'',
and this site meeting was called completed. I asked where the next
project was and Ms. Ringler indicated that there was some time between
the next appointment and that they were going to go get a cup of
coffee.
Note: Again, I was not invited to tag along with this group. I
politely refuse to ride with Mr. BB. I asked Ms. Ringler where the next
appointment was and she indicated it was at the ``FWG'' building. As I
took off on foot up the hill to get my own cup of coffee, the GSA/MEPS'
car came up behind me and said the next meeting is not until 11:15. I
said is that at the ``FWG'' building? She indicated, yes. I pointed to
the facility and the backside of the facility that was visible from G
Street. I found the whole discussion back and forth on times and
appointments presented in a confusing manner and that it was not
represented to me correctly. There were three miss starts in Mrs.
Ringler's statement and I was left wondering what was going here. As I
walked up the hill past the back of ``FWG'' building, I was heading
toward a local cafe. On the street I ran into a low-income individual
which I had met as a laborer on a construction project, he asked me
what was going on, I said ``cannot tell you'', and he said ``sounds
like a government operation''. I offered to buy him a cup of coffee. We
went in and sat down at the lunch counter and drank a cup of coffee. I
finished the cup of coffee and wondered over to the ``FWG'' building.
I was about 5 minutes early and the owners Mr. FT and JT were at
the building. I was familiar with this building but had not been in it
since the retail area had been cleared. There was obviously large, open
spaces with maximum versatility in this building. I generally worked my
way around the large space waiting for the arrival of GSA/MEPS. Again,
I was familiar with the building owners. When GSA/MEPS arrived, they
indicated that they had gone to another appointment but nobody was
there and it probably did not matter because the proposal did not seem
to meet their requirements. I said what building was this and when was
this scheduled? I did not get a satisfactorily response. Later, after
the tour of the ``FWG'' building, I specifically asked Ms. Ringler what
project this was. She had indicated that it was the ``P'' building and
that it was Mr. DB who was the owner. It did not ring a bell (at this
time) what this project was and where it was at this time. Ms. Ringler
indicated that the building did not seem to accommodate MEPS needs,
that the elevator was too small and that the building itself did not
project an image of an office building and that it was retail now.
Note: I take exception to the fact that these historic buildings
are indicated as having a certain style. Uptown buildings have a long
history of multiple uses and have accommodated anything from government
and private institutions, offices, or retail establishments. The change
of image is no great leap of faith.
We continued with the tour of the ``FWG'' Building. This building
is a 1930's building, reinforced concrete with considerable open,
usable space. At this time, Mr. MEPCOM showed a higher level of
interest as well as Ms. Ringler regarding the potential of this space.
Note: There seemed to be considerable tension between Ms. Ringler
and Mr. FT. Mr. FT kept asking specifics on what was required and Ms.
Ringler kept responding with curt answers. The lead for this market
survey evaluation was primarily conducted by Mr. MEPCOM.
Ms. Ringler asked about parking and would nine parking spaces be
provided. Mr. FT said that initially only six were to be provided. He
indicated that there was more than 30 spaces available in the facility
on two parking levels on G Street, one at street level, and one at a
sub-basement; but that availability of spaces would be part of the
negotiation. The owners would offer them if it was specifically spelled
out. We walked around the entire building and headed to the upstairs
area. The structural system was obvious when upstairs, (which is
primarily unfinished), you could see the exposed concrete frame of the
building and the terra cotta infill between these. I indicated that
there was plenty of architectural opportunities for adding windows to
these currently windowless walls to accommodate the MEPS. We worked our
way over to the north primary facade and took a look at the gothic,
inspired windows. I indicated to Mr. MEPCOM that these would
accommodate a ceremonial swearing in room quite well. He shook his
head, yes. We worked our way through all of the upstairs areas and then
worked our way down through the building to the basement area. We went
through the building, over the alley, back up through to the first
level and then back down to G Street. We entered the parking area on G
Street into that area and then to the basement area below to look at
the availability of protected enclosed parking. Previously, during the
tour, Ms. Ringler asked FT about lead paint, FT said I don't know. I
said what standards apply to lead paint? Ringler indicated that no lead
paint is allowed in any Federal facility. From my knowledge of lead
paint requirements, I asked does this have to do with specific readings
or required encapsulation. She said she did not know. From my knowledge
of lead paint on Federal housing projects, that readings using x-ray
fluorescence can be taken and corrective action is only required if
specific levels are hit, then only must be addressed. Lead paint can be
addressed by removal or total encapsulation.
Note: Again, specific things are said and required that do not have
backing of a specific manual or requirement. Again, I feel that
sometimes people respond and do not know how to give a specific answer
regarding these requirements even though they are willing to comply
with them, and then, in fact, these ``no responses'' lead to a building
being dropped out of consideration. This is unfair and does not meet
the intent of this market survey and does not open it up to all
perspective, qualified proposers.
After the total tour of the building, we again heard toward the
front of the building with everyone else who had scattered throughout
the project. There was a general consensus that this was a very good
building and it had lots of opportunities and that there was an ability
to install windows. I indicated that historic criteria could be met,
and that the facility could be readily serviced via the alley, secured
loading, and secured parking. Again, the owners indicated their
willingness to provide whatever was required if and when they received
those specific requirements.
We broke for lunch. I indicated and wondered where they were going.
I gave Ms. Ringler several options for lunch, she indicated her
preference but that she did not know where they were going at this
time. Again, I was not invited to go along with this group. I left the
building and went back to the same cafe for lunch. During my lunch, I
received a desperate phone call from the building owner of the ``P''
building. He had indicated that he had driven 300 miles specifically
for this appointment. I had told him that I did not know where they
were but that I would make an effort to try to locate them. I said to
please stay around and give me several phone numbers where I could
contact him and that I would make sure that they would visit his
facility. I called the current MEPS' facility and asked for the major's
phone number because I had seen that he had a mobile home. The
individual on duty indicated that this was a private phone and that he
did not have access to the phone number. I went to several potential
Uptown eateries and did not find the group. While looking on P Street
and going between various restaurants, I saw the GSA/MEPS' vehicle. I
had flagged them down to inform them of the building owner for the
``P'' building and that he desired that his appointment be reached. Ms.
Ringler and crew were in the process of taking photos of the various
facilities at this time. She indicated they were available and had
about a half an hour until the next appointment. I called the cell
phone number that the ``P'' building owner had given me. I used my cell
phone to call the phone number which he had given him. I relayed the
information of his availability, I said can we go now, and Ms. Ringler
indicated, yes, in approximately 10 minutes. After talking on the phone
during lunch to the building owner Mr. DB of the ``P'' building, it
came to me what building this in fact was. A major building within the
Historic Landmark District and the fact that I was also familiar with
this building owner who happens to be an out of town resident. I met up
with the building owner approximately 5 minutes before the arrival of
the remaining group and he had indicated that he was in his architect's
office, who is located in this building, and that he was in the
upstairs area when they came for their first appointment and apparently
missed them.
Note: I am still at a loss why I was not invited to this initial
meeting and review of this facility.
We met on the second floor, generally, we looked around this area.
Ms. Ringler indicated that this whole area would have to be gutted. Mr.
DB seemed to be very unfamiliar with what was required, as were various
other perspective building developers. He said, well I am generally
offering this lower area below here which will be vacated in the near
future. We went to this area and Mr. MEPCOM indicated that the column
spacing seemed to be too close. This column spacing was generally 15
feet from center to center in one direction and approximately 20 feet
in the other direction. Again, this column spacing issue tends to
bother me when there is extensive versatility within this area, which
is open without permanent walls within the area. It was not indicated
at this time by Ms. Ringler or anyone else that MEPCOM had a preference
for upper floors. I indicated that this building had upper storage and
that there is a central open atrium type of space that could be
potentially be utilized.
I also indicated that this building has had multiple uses and that
the building owner, DB, had a historic picture of the building which I
handed to GSA/MEPCOM. I said the primary changes to the historic
building had taken place with the removal of the ``cornice'' and with
the modifications of the first two floor's facade. I said since they
had been modified on the first two floors, that there was a whole lot
of leeway for accommodating the appearance of a government building.
Ms. Ringler said then, ``well, of course, the cornice would have to be
reinstalled''. I said, ``no, that is not the case'' but that could be
done.
Note: Again, I think that this building was dropped off the list
and that the people involved did not fully understand the potential of
this building. The owner was willing to put in elevators, accesses,
separate security, all of those type of things; but he, of course, had
not thought these out at this time. How can you drop out a building at
this initial stage without full understanding of the program and being
provided with the requirements. The building owner (DB) was asked to
project his vision of this building. This question was very hard for
the owner to understand. ``What do you mean'', he said. What is your
vision of this building,'' Ms. Ringler said. A response from DB was,
``whatever you want it to be''.
Note: I strenuously object to this opinion on what is the best
design for the facade of this building. What are the requirements and
where is the mandate for a single government official able to make
these design decisions?
Note: Everyone seemed to be in a rush and generally this building
was knocked off the list for what, I believe, was the column spacing
issue.
We took a short tour into the basement and we also viewed the
parking area immediately out behind the building to the south. I also
indicated at this time that there was a building underneath this
parking area as well.
Note: Again, I believe this building was knocked off the list. I
will be surprised if it will be asked for an offer for solicitation,
though I do think there are lots of opportunities with this building
and it should, again, still be considered and that the owner be given
the opportunity to further evaluate the potential of this building
utilizing his architect toward the specific requirements of a MEPS
Center.
The initially scheduled meeting after lunch was now at hand. Ms.
Ringler, again, showed me only the next listed facility. It was the
``D'' building and the building owner was Mrs. MV. Again, I am familiar
with this owner and with the building itself because URA funds were
utilized for the rehabilitation of this building. The building is a
shell and has fire damage but there was extensive rebuilding of the
roof and replacement windows. This is the only case where I generally
agree with GSA/MEPS that this building is not suitable for the
inclusion of a MEPS' facility. The wood frame construction, generally
the tight room configuration for residential construction does not
allow for the development of a MEPS facility. With multiple floor
required, and the constrictive site to the south, and level changes
would make a feasible facility improbable. Again, there was confusion
regarding what was exactly being required by the survey. Everyone
thanked each other and we moved on to the next project.
At this time, finally the paper was completely unfolded and the
last site was the ``M'' building, owner HC. I arrived at the site and
Mr. HC was waiting on the corner of the street. The GSA/MEPS' group was
close behind. Mr. HC conducted the tour of this facility. A company
with a month-to-month lease, was currently the only tenant on the lower
level and approximately two-thirds of this building was currently
unoccupied. Mr. HC was totally accommodating and said that he would be
more than willing to make absolutely any modifications to the interior
of the facility in order to accommodate the needs of the MEPS Center.
There were lots of questions regarding windows at the building. I
indicated at this time that there was plenty of opportunities to
provide lighting into these areas. I went out to the outside and
pointed out to Ms. Ringler and Mr. MEPCOM what was the original fabric
of the building and what was the infill. I indicated that the concrete
block infill could be removed and probably should be removed to
reestablish the integrity of the facade with plenty of design
opportunities to do such and to make this a facility that would work.
There were questions regarding elevators and handicapped access. Mr. HC
indicated that there was currently handicapped access to this building.
Ms. Ringler indicated that the primary entrance did not work. Mr. HC
indicated that this entrance was for the upstairs tenant and that
anything could be done to accommodate their (MEPS) use. The existing
entrance could be the primary entrance or it could shift and probably
should shift to the flatter area out front on G Street and would be a
specific entrance for MEPS, Mr. HC indicated that there was 75,000
square feet on this street level floor. Ms. Ringler responded that
there is a requirement of 17,500 square feet absolutely required. Mr.
HC that he could work out with the up-
stairs tenant in freeing up some space to fully accommodate the needs
of the MEPS Center. At this building we looked at column spacing which
appears to be around 20 feet by 20 feet on center. In this instance,
everyone seemed to indicate that this column spacing was acceptable.
Again, I am at a loss while in some cases the column spacing is
absolutely critical and drops out a building while in other cases the
building is a 20 foot by 20 foot column spacing is acceptable.
Note: What I believe, is that this is an indication of prejudice
toward certain sites and specifically building owners and how they
present the proposal. The market survey should have been specifically
involving the buildings suitability only. It also brings up the fact
that the 20 foot by 20 foot column spacing is arbitrary and that there
is no prototypical building or prototypical solution. Each project is
specific to a specific site and that an architect, if qualified, can
design a fully functional appropriate MEPS' facility.
Continuing to look at the facility, we went to the back side to
look at the potential of loading into the facility from a nonstreet
area. After looking over the entire building, and going up to the
upstairs and generally looking at the currently occupied area and
looking at the basement parking level, we finished the tour.
I thanked Mr. HC, I thanked everyone else, again, with the
exception of Ms. Ringler no one else responded or talked to me. I
approached Ms. Ringler, thanked her for the visit, offered her all the
potential information at this particular building, as with other sites
questioning was not consistent. A question was asked about, was the
building in the floodplain? At the parting statements, I indicated that
we could provide any additional information regarding historic criteria
as well floodplain information. She said that they had all those maps
and they had the FEMA flood insurance maps at their facility.
Note: Again, it seemed more of a test of the building owners versus
the buildings themselves. It seemed that a response of, I don't know,
was as good as a, no, and could potentially reject a proposed building.
I parted this building and worked my way back to the Courthouse. I had
picked up my car after the visit to the ``P'' building.
Conclusion: In general, I found the entire experience quite
frustrating. The market survey approach seemed to be quite arbitrary
and the decision on whether a solicitation would be sent to a building
owner was left very much up in the air. I do not believe that any
building owner felt satisfied with the responses of GSA/MEPS. In all
cases, I was always left with inquiring looks or questions my way. I
always had to indicate that I was simply here as an observer. I found
this very frustrating as an officer of economic development for Butte-
Silver Bow. All of these individuals have looked for our assistance in
the past. We are an open government which is also very friendly and
accommodating and tries anyway to assist a building owner in
rehabilitating their structure which will ultimately assist in meeting
the goal of rehabilitating of the National Historic Landmark District.
This, in fact, is the point of all of these efforts. It has been
determined as a primary goal of Butte-Silver Bow Government which is
endorsed by the administrative and legislative branches of the
government that this is a goal of our City-County Government, to
strengthen and revitalize the National Historic Landmark District area.
In my opinion, the way GSA/MEPS has operated has limited the
possibilities of strengthening this area. We have felt that the actions
of GSA and MEPS did not comply with the National Historic Preservation
Act and was the reason for the meeting at the Federal Building and the
involvement of the National Advisory Council as well as the National
Trust for Historic Preservation.
We will continue to pursue all avenues to ensure that GSA and MEPS
complies with the intent of the National Historic Preservation Act and
that all such buildings within the District are given fair
consideration for inclusion into the proposed development of a new
MEPS' facility.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9523.012
Butte-Silver Bow Urban Revitalization Agency,
Butte, MT, January 6, 1998.
Mr. Ralston Cox,
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Office,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ralston: As we discussed, the following is a summary of my
involvement relative to the GSA process for leasing a site for the
MEPS' facility in Butte, Montana.
It is my understanding that this process began in September, 1996;
although, I was not aware of the project until January, 1997. My first
knowledge of the MEPS project was in relation to a visit Ms. Malia
Ringler, GSA-Denver, conducted in Butte. At that time, Ms. Ringler was
already visiting prospective developers to secure a site for the MEPS'
facility.
Mark Reavis, Historic Preservation Officer and Staff Architect, was
asked to provide a tour of a Butte-Silver Bow owned building that a
private developer had sug-
gested as a potential facility to house MEPS. Mr. Reavis made the
building available and provided a tour. That is the extent of this
Agency's contact with GSA in the initial process. During the timeframe
from September 1996 to September 1997, I did not deal with GSA. In
'act. I did not meet anyone from GSA until September of this year.
On September 25, 1997, I was introduced to GSA officials at a
meeting in the Federal Courthouse in Butte. The meeting was convened to
discuss Butte-Silver Bow's concerns relative to the leasing process.
During the meeting, I expressed my displeasure at not being involved in
the process; no one from the local government was asked to participate.
As you will recall, Butte-Silver Bow officials left the meeting
with the following understanding:
GSA would work closely with local government officials in
the process;
GSA would reopen and readvertise the MEPS' leasing in the
Landmark District while providing clear indication that buildings in
the National Historic Landmark District would have a preference and
detailing what that preference was;
GSA would allow local comment on the SFO;
GSA would request that MEPCOM reconsider criteria
considered detrimental to historic structures; and
GSA would provide a detailed explanation when a historic
structure was excluded from consideration.
The meeting concluded with the agreement that the next step taken
would be a written review of the SFO. Butte-Silver Bow officials
received the SFO and were instructed to provide written comments by
October 15, 1997. My comments and Mr. Reavis' comments were forwarded
to Ms. Ringler by that date. I have included copies for you.
Butte-Silver Bow does not have first-hand knowledge that our
concerns were passed on to MEPCOM. GSA's summary of MEPCOM's response
was that MEPCOM believed they offered adequate concessions and would
not consider any additional modifications. One item of particular
concern was which specific seismic safety standards GSA was requiring.
When Butte-Silver Bow and the National Trust pressed for these specific
seismic standards, Ms. Ringler suggested that we search the Internet.
(See enclosed fax). It is still unclear whether GSA knows what these
standards are.
In the meantime, Butte-Silver Bow was contacted by a local
developer requesting a search to determine whether there were any
historic structures in a given area. Mark Reavis, in his capacity as
Historic Preservation Officer, notified the developer on September 16,
1997, that there was a building constructed in 1928 on the site
indicated. Because of its age, the building was eligible for listing on
the National Register. Mr. Reavis indicated to the developer that if
the project in question was a project for the Federal Government, the
developer would have to ensure that construction did not impact this
historic structure. Butte-Silver Bow had no further contact with the
developer and that building was demolished the week of December 15,
1997. (A copy of Mr. Reavis' letter is enclosed.) This same information
was provided to GSA's Regional Historic Preservation Officer.
It is important to note that it is widely believed in this
community that there was a handshake deal between the developer and GSA
on this location and it is the site where MEPS will ultimately be
located. The rest of the activities; the meeting in September, and the
additional effort made to reach buildings in the Historic District, may
well have been window dressing.
By early November, Butte-Silver Bow had not heard anything from GSA
either by phone or in writing regarding our comments on the SFO or what
the next step in the process would be. I sent a letter dated November
13, 1997, to Ms. Ringler (copy enclosed). In the letter I expressed my
concern that I had not heard from GSA. It was my understanding that GSA
would work with Butte-Silver Bow in this process. Butte-Silver Bow
would provide mailing labels from our data base and GSA would produce a
mailing to reopen the process for buildings in the National Historic
Landmark District. This was agreed to because GSA, at its own
admission, did not provide adequate notification of preference for the
Historic District. I requested the opportunity to do a joint mailing
with GSA. I wanted documentation of my Agency's financial commitment to
the project to be included with the document GSA was preparing.
Shortly after the receipt of my letter, Ms. Ringler called me; I
believe it was November 17th. She told me that GSA would not be doing a
mailing. Ms. Ringler stated that any mailing would be done by Butte-
Silver Bow but she would provide a flyer from GSA. This caught me
completely by surprise because at no time was this ever discussed with
or agreed to by local officials. At that point, I considered voicing my
concerns but given the extremely short turn around time in this process
as well as the Thanksgiving holiday, I felt the best thing to do was to
continue in an attempt to try to work with GSA. Ms. Ringler told me I
would receive the flyer by November 19, 1997, but it was ultimately
received the afternoon of Friday, November 21, 1997.
The flyer was received in the form of a fax and, as such, was not
suitable for distribution. My secretary retyped it verbatim. The flyer
was duplicated and sent to property owners in the Distict.
Additionally, the Agency, at its own expense, placed an ad in the local
paper indicating that lease space was available and for individuals to
contact the Agency for further details The deadline for submission was
set for December 5, 1997. The flyer was mailed November 24, 1997, and
the ad ran on November 28, 1997. This process provided developers with
less than 12 days for response inclusive of the Thanksgiving holiday
and weekend.
During the week of December 1, 1997, as developers submitted their
proposals they began calling me with concerns regarding questions Ms.
Ringler was posing to them. One of the individuals, H. C., stated that
Ms. Ringler called him and said that his proposal was insufficient and
that it was not detailed enough. The flyer states ``If you desire to
list space for consideration, the building or site owner must forward a
resume and pertinent information concerning the building site or
building plans by December 5, 1997.'' That information was submitted to
Ms. Ringler, however, H. C. was requested to provide detailed financial
information not requested in the flyer.
On December 3, 1997, M. V. called me with concerns because Ms.
Ringler indicated she needed a letter from me promising my Agency's
commitment of $382,000 toward the project. I was to specifically state
that her building was eligible. Since everybody at the September
meeting had a clear understanding that money was available, my Agency
was not going to send letters to Ms. Ringler for each individual
proposer at a time when she knew the commitment was available and only
eligible buildings could propose. I told M. V. this and she was
satisfied with my response.
I was contacted by D. L. on December 4, 1997, concerning his
proposal. Apparently Ms. Ringler told him that he needed to demonstrate
the financial ability to handle the project, otherwise his proposal
would be considered nonresponsive. I suggested he let her know in
writing that he had the financial ability to handle the project but was
not, at this point, willing to open up his financial records to the
Federal Government. Again, let me state that at no place in the flyer
does it say that this information needed to be provided.
On December 5, 1997, I was contacted by M. M. regarding his
proposal. He submitted a proposal and detailed building plans regarding
his building. Ms. Ringler called him back and stated that it would not
be considered since it was nonresponsive. Her concerns had to do with
the seismic safety of the building. Recall, all attempts to find these
standards have been met with brick walls. I indicated to M. M. to
commit to meeting the seismic standards and indicate to Ms. Ringler
that he would discuss it with her during the market survey.
On Tuesday, December 16, 1997, I was having lunch at an Uptown cafe
when one of the proposers asked me if I was going to be on the tour
with Ms. Ringler. I had no idea what he was talking about. He told me
Ms. Ringler was coming to town the following Tuesday. This news took me
very much by surprise since I had had no contact whatsoever with Ms.
Ringler after our discussion regarding flyer the week of November 17,
1997. I had no idea what GSA was doing or what their process would be
and was not asked to participate. These activities are completely
contrary to the agreement reached in the meeting in September. I
attempted to contact Ms. Ringler immediately but could not reach her.
On Wednesday, December 17, 1997, I again attempted to contact Ms.
Ringler regarding her schedule while in Butte. She was out of the
office and I left a message expressing my concern on her voice mail. I
attempted to contact her boss, Ms. DeBernardo. I did not leave a
message with her but her voice mail indicated a cell phone number to
contact. I attempted to contact that number but was not successful. I
then contacted Mr. Paul Proudy. His secretary took a message and said
he would call me back later. When I left work that evening, I had not
heard from anyone at GSA in Denver.
On Thursday morning, December 18, 1997, I attempted to contact Mr.
Proudy again. His secretary asked for my name, I stated that it was
Colleen Fine from Butte, Montana. She said, ``Oh, Ms. Ringler will be
calling you back. She will be handling this matter.'' I was not able to
talk to Mr. Proudy. In fact, I felt I was kept from speaking to him.
Ms. Ringler called me a few minutes later. I asked her about her visit
to Butte. She stated, and I quote, ``It did not occur to me to invite
you since you know the buildings so well.'' She said that the purpose
of the market survey was to provide the client and GSA an opportunity
to observe the buildings and determine their suitability for the
project.
She stated that a copy of the market survey and any decisions
regarding proposals would be provided to Butte-Silver Bow. I indicated
to her that I was not available on Tuesday nor was Mark Reavis. I
expressed my concern regarding local participation and also expressed
my concern that I was not contacted. She apologized but stated that she
would not reschedule the market survey since there were individuals
coming from Chicago and GSA was being pressed to complete the project.
I asked her if she could tell me where she would be touring. She told
me she was concerned about confidentiality. I indicated to her that I
would not release any of the sites to be toured. She gave me a list of
sites scheduled to be toured.
When she completed her recitation of the tour list. I asked her
about one building that I thought was submitted but she did not list as
included in the market survey. I asked her whether she had received a
proposal from the Ben Franklin (F.W. Grand Building). She indicated she
did not. She closed by saying that if we were able to find a staff
member to come, they could contact Major Walsh and connect up with him
at the beginning of the tour. However, after going to great lengths to
alter his schedule. Mr. Reavis was not allowed to connect with MEPCOM
officials. Ms. Ringler specified a time and place for Mr. Reavis to
meet the tour. His offers of a Butte-Silver Bow van or his chauffeur
services were refused. During the tour Mr. Reavis would be prevented
from having any personal contact with MEPCOM officials. As the
designated representative of the hosting local government, his
treatment by GSA staff was rude and demeaning.
After I hung up with Ms. Ringler, I called the firm which indicated
to me they intended to submit a proposal on the Ben Franklin building.
I told them their proposal was not received. They stated the proposal
was faxed to GSA by the deadline along with a request for a return fax
confirming the proposal's receipt. The firm did not get a return fax--
rather a phone message from a GSA staff person indicating that the fax
had been received. At this point, I contacted Senator Max Baucus' field
office to express my concerns. Subsequently, I learned from the firm
which submitted a proposal on the Ben Franklin that Ms. Ringler thought
the 16-page fax was related to an existing lease. She did not realize
that it was a new proposal. She did not read the fax but simply put it
in a file.
Senator Baucus' field office called me that afternoon and told me
they had contacted Mr. Proudy and Ms. Ringler and that the Ben Franklin
proposal would be included. Concerns that the Ben Franklin site would
not receive an equitable review were alleviated when Ms. Ringler
pledged that she would rearrange the schedule to make sure the building
would be given fair consideration.
Later that afternoon, it occurred to me that Ms. Ringler did not
indicate to me that she was reviewing a new construction proposal. Upon
learning the market survey was scheduled, I contacted those developers
that contacted me during the submission process. As it happens, every
single developer had contacted me and I verified that each was invited
on the market survey. The new construction proposal was a joint
proposal. I called the two firms; one indicated they were contacted
regarding an existing building they had proposed and the other firm had
not been contacted at all. This confusion was cleared up with the
assistance of Ms. DeBernardo and the new constructionsite was reviewed.
The market survey was conducted as scheduled. I have included Mr.
Reavis' comments on the tour for your review.
I have many concerns. GSA pledged to work closely with Butte-Silver
Bow officials in the process. On the contrary at nearly every turn we
have been kept in the dark. Butte-Silver Bow has initiated all
involvement by local officials. All questions have been responded to
with reticence, reluctance and repugnance on the part of the leasing
agent. We were allowed no personal contact with MEPCOM staff. Local
comments and concerns have been censored through GSA personnel. During
the market survey Butte-Silver Bow officials were kept physically
separate from MEPCOM staff. We were not allowed to participate in lunch
and Butte-Silver Bow staff were not even allowed into the same vehicle
as the representatives of the Federal Government. These behaviors do
not foster a trusting relationship.
GSA promised to reopen and readvertise the MEPS' leasing in the
Landmark District while providing clear indication that buildings in
the National Historic Landmark District would have a preference and
detailing that preference. GSA may have allowed new proposals from the
Historic District, however, they also allowed buildings outside of the
district to submit as well. My understanding from the meeting in
September was that only sites in the National Historic Landmark
District would be considered since this area was not given adequate
notice of the preference for historic sites and that was the very
reason for allowing new proposals. One of the buildings toured during
the market survey is outside the National Historic Landmark District
and is not eligible for URA funding. Why that building was included, I
do not know. But, I do know GSA did not mail the flyers, produce a
mailing or advertise in local papers. Butte-Silver Bow performed these
activities.
GSA promised local comment on the SFO. We were allowed to comment
but those comments fell on deaf ears at GSA and we do not even know if
our comments were forwarded to MEPCOM.
GSA stated they would request that MEPCOM reconsider criteria
considered to be detrimental to historic structures. GSA stated MEPCOM
felt they had made all the concessions they would make. Since Butte-
Silver Bow has been completely barred from discussions we have no way
of knowing if or how our concerns were portrayed.
GSA promised a detailed explanation when any historic structure was
excluded from consideration. It is unknown yet whether GSA will live up
to this promise.
My main concern regarding this process is the lack of trust local
officials now have regarding GSA. This is a direct result of the
tactics employed by GSA staff. Montana has one of the most liberal open
government philosophies in the country. This ideal is an overriding
tenant of our State's constitution. Those who operate in government in
Montana are used to open, honest and critical review of our work. Both
the Montana Opening Meeting Law and Montana Open Records Law indicate
that citizens of this State want to be well informed regarding the
operation of government at all levels. This does not work well with the
smoke and mirrors operation conducted by the GSA leasing agent in this
instance. Local officials and citizens as well, have been kept in the
dark, treated in a less than respectful manner and have literally had
to beg to be included in the process.
The leasing agent has continued these hostile activities by
pressing Mr. Reavis to sign a confidentiality agreement regarding the
procurement process. He did so under duress. He felt if he were not to
sign, Ms. Ringler would not have allowed him to participate. Ms.
Ringler instructed Mr. Reavis to have me sign this document as well.
Upon receipt I noticed it is called a Certificate of Procurement
Integrity.
I have no intention of ever signing this agreement. It contains
references to Federal policies, regulations and laws that are not
attached. I have no idea what those policies, regulations and laws
describe and I have no intention of looking them up on the Internet. I
have reviewed my decision with both the Butte-Silver Bow County
Attorney and my personal lawyer. Both concur, I would be ill advised to
sign this document. In fact, the County Attorney, citing the Montana
Constitution, Montana Open Meeting Law and Montana Open Records Law
informed me I could not sign this agreement without more documentation
and even then, I may not be able to sign it. It is truly unfortunate
Mr. Reavis was required to do so.
I told Ms. Ringler I would keep the sites visited in the Market
Survey confidential and I have, however, it must be remembered that
every single proposer contacted me on their own prior to me ever
speaking with Ms. Ringler regarding the Market Survey. I find it hard
to believe that I must keep confidential, things I've learned in the
normal scope of my duties as an employee of Butte-Silver Bow. The very
nature of my involvement in economic development activities dictate
professional decorum but this process is completely out of the norm. On
numerous occasions I have been instructed, by the Chief Executive, the
Butte-Silver Bow Council of Commissioners and by the Urban
Revitalization Agency Board of Commissioners, to ensure Butte-Silver
Bow's interests are heard regarding the MEPS facility. I made every
effort to do so and I will not allow my participation in this process
to be included in GSA's veil of secrecy.
When we first became involved in this process all Butte-Silver Bow
wanted was to ensure all regulations were followed and that the
National Historic Landmark District was given a fair opportunity to
compete on a level playing field. That was it; period; end of
discussion. Now it seems the longer the process has gone on the
stranger the turn of events have been. It may very well be that this is
an above board process, unfortunately it is very difficult to believe
given the prejudicial treatment of local officials, of the National
Historic Landmark District and of the community as a whole. The more
Butte-Silver Bow has asked for involvement, openness and honesty, the
more secretive and hostile the response has been. At this point in the
process it is clear the Leasing Agent has completely lost all
objectivity and sense of fairness.
As you may be aware, one of the major goals of Butte-Silver Bow's
recently revised and adopted Community Master Plan is the continued
redevelopment of Uptown Butte. As an economic development objective it
serves several vital purposes. The strength of any local economy is
mirrored in the treatment of its older urban areas. How we treat these
areas reflects a community's values and hopes. This community values
its Uptown and desperately wants its revitalization. Uptown is a
living, breathing vital place indicative of the spirit and heart of
this community. Ensuring its strength is the first step in maintaining
a strong, local economy. A new MEPS facility in Uptown Butte meets
several local goals while presenting a unique opportunity to create a
mutually beneficial partnership between the Federal Government, local
government and private developers. It allows the Federal Government to
significantly address goals of the community. The opposite
consideration is equally dramatic in its statement. If the Federal
Government chooses to leave the Uptown, contrary to the desires of the
community, the perception left would be one of abandonment. I think
this is exactly the wrong kind of message the Federal Government should
be leaving about the very heart of our community.
As the economic development officer for the Butte National Historic
Landmark District I am not now nor have I ever asked for special
consideration. I am asking for a fair process utilizing objective,
quantifiable and justifiable criteria available to all parties
beforehand in a written format. For this project in our community and
for future projects throughout the country, my sincerest hope is that
the Federal Government seeks to secure space in a fair, open and honest
manner allowing for all parties concerned to meet their respective
goals.
Sincerely,
Colleen Fine, Director,
Urban Revitalization Agency.
______
Butte-Silver Bow Historic Preservation Office,
Butte, MT, September 16, 1997.
re: purchase of 3-acre site
Thank you for your inquiry regarding historic resources at your
proposed new development site.
In general, the site that you have identified is remote to the
Butte National Historic Landmark District. Because of this, we have
little information regarding the potential for historic structures
along Harrison Avenue. The date of construction is 1928. Because of its
age, it meets the 50-year criteria eligibility for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places. Since the area is along Harrison
Avenue, a site of considerable construction disturbance, it is highly
unlikely that any useful archaeological sites still remain.
Per our phone conversation regarding this project, I asked if any
Federal funds would be utilized for the construction of this project.
You indicated that it was all privately-funded. If your potential
lessee is a Federal agency, they will have to consider impacts to
historic resources during their lease negotiation process. Again, this
is the Federal agency's responsibility not the private developer's.
Please confirm with the potential lessees if they have any such
requirements in order to protect you and the development regarding a
solid lease of your proposed facility.
Sincerely,
Mark A. Reavis,
Historic Preservation Officer,
Butte-Silver Box Historic Preservation Office.
______
Butte-Silver Bow Urban Revitalization Agency,
Butte, MT, October 14, 1997.
Ms. Malia N. Ringler,
Real Estate Contract Specialist,
Mountain-Plains Service Center,
General Services Administration,
Denver, CO.
Dear Ms. Ringler: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the
SFO for the MEPS facility in Butte. I do have some concerns regarding
the documentation you provided.
Page 4, 1.0 Summary, Unique Requirements
This section contains a requirement for an interior column spacing
which cannot be less than a 25-feet clear span. While the requirement
that the interior structural column be wrapped in drywall and finished,
is not a problem, the 25-feet clear span is really a mechanism to
exclude historic structures from consideration.
The SFO calls for a large amount of square footage and many of the
historic buildings choosing to participate will far exceed the square
footage requirement. From a functional standpoint, any tenant will be
able to work around the column spacing with no loss of efficiency.
Unless there can be some demonstrable reason why any Federal agency
would need a clear span of 25 feet, I would find this requirement
designed solely to be prejudicial toward historic structures.
Page 5, 1.3 Location, sub (2) Restrictions
The restriction regarding the location of a MEPS facility in a
building which serves alcoholic beverages, appears to be meant to
preclude the current landlord of the MEPS facility in Butte.
The business serving alcoholic beverages is not open during MEPS'
hours and therefore military entrants are not exposed to the interior
lounge area during their processing.
I would not have a concern with the prohibition of alcoholic
beverages if it were an adopted regulation applied uniformly to all
MEPS meal, lodging and processing sites throughout the Country, but
since alcohol is not available during the MEPS' processing time and is
available at most meal and lodging sites, this restriction is unfair to
the owner of the existing location.
Page 25, 4.2 Ceilings and Interior Finishes (Sep 1991)
``The ceilings must be at least 9 feet high and no more than 11
feet measured from the floor to the lowest obstruction.'' This
requirement could unfairly eliminate historic structures and, if
implemented in a historic structure, would impact the integrity of the
building.
While it is possible to put in a suspended ceiling in any building,
it is generally known that historic structures will have a higher
ceiling height, the maintenance of which should be encouraged. This
MEPS' requirement would mean that a building would be altered,
therefore, diminishing the historic value of the building. I can find
absolutely no tie between ceiling height and operational efficiency or
effectiveness. This alteration would affect a historic building's
standing with regard to the Federal Historic Tax Credit. Ironically
this program was designed by the Federal Government to encourage the
use of older historic structures. The ceiling height requirement is
completely biased against historic structures.
One item you did not highlight in your SFO was the topic of seismic
safety. Again, Butte-Silver Bow's position is that the Federal
Government cannot impose requirements not currently met at its own
facilities. Additionally, the requirement cannot be so egregious to
comply with that to do so would irreparably alter the historic
integrity of the building. Requirements imposed cannot be designed to
be met only through new construction. Seismic criteria used must allow
modifications to a historic building absent the virtual destruction of
its historic character.
I thank you for the opportunity to respond to the SFO. It is my
sincerest hope that GSA continues to work in the spirit of cooperation
with the Historic Preservation Community and Butte-Silver Box Local
Government. We look forward to the successful completion of this
process. If I can be of any aid to you at all in the future, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Colleen Fine, Director,
Urban Revitalization Agency.
______
Butte-Silver Bow Historic Preservation Office,
Butte, MT, October 14, 1997.
Malia N. Ringler,
Real Estate Contract Specialist,
Mountain-Plains Service Center,
General Services Administration,
Denver, CO.
Dear Ms. Ringler: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to
comment on the SFO for the Butte MEPS' facility. As I stated in the
past and at the recent meeting at the Federal Building, I wish to
continue to stress the importance of giving priority to projects
located within the Butte National Historic Landmark District.
In particular, I am concerned about SFO restrictions for column
spacing which cannot be less than 25 feet as well as the ceiling height
restriction of no more than 11 feet. Requirements such as these without
notation for allowances for historic structures, would seem to
eliminate the possibility of utilizing landmark historic structures.
Also, please modify your SFO to reflect the opportunities (10 percent
preference and Federal Tax Credits) for utilizing historic structures.
As discussed at the meeting, an extra effort should be made to
ensure that building owners within the National Historic Landmark
District are notified and are aware of all the benefits, opportunities,
and requirements and that these are com-
municated to increase the possibility of rehabilitating a historic
structure and complying with the National Historic Preservation Act
and, in particular, the Section 106 process.
Sincerely,
Mark A. Reavis, AIA,
Butte-Silver Bow Historic Preservation Officer.
______
October 10, 1997.
Malia: I'm reviewing the MEPS' solicitation for offers and have a
few questions.
I would like to see a copy of the seismic standards referenced in
Executive Order 12941. Do you have a copy? Have you contacted the
Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction? Can you help
me to contact the committee?
Have you contacted MEPCOM regarding additional flexibility? What
was the result?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Robert Nieweg.
______
October 14, 1997.
Robert: Do you have Internet access? I believe you will find all
the information you could dream of by searching the net. If you do not
have Internet access, I will begin researching the seismic requirements
to get you the appropriate information.
As GSA stated in the meeting, we believe that MEPS has offered
adequate concessions and therefore, we have not asked them to consider
any additional concessions. It was agreed in the meeting that you and
the others, Ralston, Mark, Colleen, Paul would initiate any concerns as
my letter of September 29, 1997 confirms.
Malia Ringler.
______
Butte-Silver Bow Urban Revitalization Agency,
Butte, MT, November 13, 1997.
Ms. Malia N. Ringler,
Real Estate Contract Specialist,
Mountain-Plains Service Center,
General Services Administration,
Denver, CO.
subject: lease process for the meps center
Dear Ms. Ringler: Other than receiving your request for comments on
the SFO, I have not heard from you since the September meeting
regarding MEPS. It was my understanding that GSA would be in touch with
Butte-Silver Bow Local Government shortly after the meeting in order to
obtain an address list for buildings in the Historic District. Is that
still a correct assumption?
If it is still your intention to notify building owners in the
Uptown area regarding the potential for the MEPS' lease, is it possible
for URA to piggyback with a joint mailing? The URA Board of
Commissioners at their November 4, 1997, meeting declared their
$382,000 commitment to the Finlen facility transferable to any building
in the Uptown area that secured the MEPS' lease as long as the project
met with the URA program requirements. It would be helpful if, at the
time that you send out your requests for letters of intent on the
project, we could join your mailing and inform building owners of the
URA commitment to the project.
Again, it is our intention to work with you on this process. Please
let me know when you intend to notify the building owners and I will
have a mailing list ready. I will await a reply from you.
Sincerely,
Colleen Fine, Director,
Urban Revitalization Agency.
Kissock Realty, Inc.
Butte, MT, February 12, 1998.
Senator Max Baucus,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: As a Realtor, it is important that I understand the
``House Rules.''
As a citizen, I would like the consideration of a new building and
site developed on the tax roles; as well as respecting the historical
area.
To bid a GSA property is very expensive for the contractor. It
would be most helpful, if, GSA would not call for bids outside of the
historical areas, if they cannot be considered because of law, and/or
politics.
I would appreciate a copy of any conclusions reached from this
meeting.
Respectfully,
Betty R. Kissock,
Kissock Realty, Inc.
______
Montana State Senate,
Helena, MT.
Senator Max Baucus,
Billings, MT.
Dear Senator Baucus: I would like to urge you to make an effort on
behalf of downtown Billings. If the Bureau of Land Management moves its
offices, it will strike a serious blow to our city's heart just as we
are making efforts to give it new life.
The downtown Billings renovation project holds great promise for
our town. But if another 54,000 square feet of rental property suddenly
go vacant, it will tear a hole in that fabric. In addition to the fact
that vacant property doesn't pay taxes, this move would have a negative
effect on rental property values downtown. At the very moment we are
trying to encourage more property owners to offer residential rental
space downtown, the BLM's move would undermine the incentive for them
to do so.
Senator, I encourage you to support the city of Billings' efforts
to obtain a 1-year moratorium on this move, to ensure that it has been
done properly, and with due regard to the welfare of downtown. Only by
careful study can we make sure that our Federal Government is not
harming our city's growth and development.
Thank you for your kind attention to this matter, Senator. I am
sure you are concerned for the health of downtown Billings, and this is
one step we can take that will translate that concern into positive
action.
Sincerely,
Senator Sharon Estrada.
______
Harrison G. Fagg & Associates,
Billings, MT, February 16, 1998.
Hon. Max Baucus,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Baucus: Solicitation for Offer No. 97-15 presented by
GSA requesting space for BLM in Billings, Montana, if continued, will
cause a serious impact on the entire city of Billings. The bid proposal
and the results will be detrimental to Billings for the following
reasons:
1. There are currently 201,969 square feet of vacant space in the
Billings Central Business District. The government leaving Granite
Tower will vacate another 54,486 square feet increasing the total
square footage to 256,455, an increase of approximately 27 percent.
2. The increase in rental space will depreciate tax values and have
a deteriorating effect on the city of Billings.
3. The move from the Central Business District was predicated on
BLM's desire to have a wareyard and warehouse attached to their
building. Please note:
a. CBD zoning does not allow wareyards and warehouses.
b. A study of 11 regional offices of BLM shows 66 percent of the
wareyards and warehouses are not adjacent to the office building, but
in fact, are located in locations fitting that type of facility.
c. BLM has claimed large savings by having the wareyard and
warehouse attached to their building. Actual savings through a study
made by the Billings regional office came to $35,000 per year.
4. Executive Order 12072 has not been followed. Please note the
following:
a. GSA offered the space for leasing within the CBD on June 23,
1996. It was done in a competitive manner with opportunities for anyone
in the United States to bid. Granite Tower submitted. This bid has
never been rejected. If accepted, it would have met all the terms of
the Executive Order.
b. BLM has stated along with GSA repeatedly and publicly that no
site in the CBD would be overlooked, thus allowing the Executive Order
to be met. On September 11, 1997, in a letter to the Honorable Rick
Hill, Frances R. Cherry Jr., Acting State Director for the Bureau of
Land Management stated that they were aware that the building could not
be placed in the CBD as bid. Thus, they acknowledged their
noncompliance with the Executive Order, but the bidding process
continued.
c. The Executive Order requires consultation with city officials.
On November 3, 1997, the Billings City Council had determined that the
City had not authorized GSA to relocate BLM from downtown Billings. On
November 12, 1997, Mayor Charles Tooley notified Polly Baca, GSA
Regional Administrator that GSA's attempts to relocate the BLM from the
CBD ``will be contrary to the Presidential mandates of Executive Order
12072 and leaves our downtown with a major amount of vacant space and
declining property values''.
The above actions create a situation making it impossible to bid
this structure within the CBD and all occurred in the face of GSA's
repeated promises to all of the three of Montana's congressional
Delegation that the building would be located in the CBD, or at least
that CBD property owners would get a fair shot at bidding. This was not
done.
In addition to the bid being unfair to the city of Billings, the
bidding process has been unfair to us as building owners of Granite
Tower for the following reasons:
1. BLM has indicated a large savings by moving out of Granite
Tower. Using BLM consolidation savings prepared by them with the
wareyard offsite and the totals from the bids presented by Granite
Tower, in proposal #2 submitted in September 1997, BLM will save the
taxpayer $15,166,425 in 20 years if they stay in Granite Tower.
2. There are at least eight special specifications in the bid
specifically placed to exclude Granite Tower. All were pointed out to
GSA and GSA refused to waive them.
3. The original bid answering the solicitation of June 23, 1996,
has been ignored and has neither been acknowledged or rejected. Thus,
the bidding is flawed as an existing bid meeting all of the
requirements of the original solicitation still exists.
4. By excluding the Central Business District, yet broadening the
geographical boundary, GSA has allowed preferential bidding for those
out of the CBD in direct violation of the Fairness in Bidding
Procedures required by the U.S. Government.
5. On the day before the bid opening, pre-cast buildings were
excluded from bidding. Granite Tower is a pre-cast building. On the day
after the bids were opened, pre-cast buildings were re-included and the
bidding procedure changed. Thus, creating a bidding procedure which was
flawed and a bidding procedure which should be rejected and new bids
taken.
6. On at least seven occasions, in writing, high officials of BLM
or GSA and the owners of Granite Tower have assured the Montana
congressional staff that downtown Billings would be included in the
proposal. This with the full knowledge that the codes and zoning
ordinances of the CBD would not allow the central core of the city of
Billings to house the entire facility.
In conclusion, GSA has not followed Executive Order 12072, has not
followed proper bid procedures, has conducted preferential bidding, has
provided the taxpayer with a building that will cost millions of
dollars more than the existing space, has worked in direct opposition
to the betterment of the community and the city of Billings, and in
doing so, has misled the congressional delegation about their true
intentions.
I would further request that a 1-year moratorium be placed on GSA,
if it turned out the bidding was flawed and that this matter be turned
over to the Office of Management and Budget or a Senatorial sub-
committee that can take testimony and evaluate the situation through a
full investigation of the bidding procedure.
I would request that a re-bidding be held at the end of the
investigation that would be fair and equitable to downtown locations
and developers and one which would save the Federal Government millions
of dollars.
It is my understanding that a similar situation exists in Butte,
Helena and perhaps other cities in Montana. If so, I would request that
these other cities be placed in the evaluation.
Sincerely,
Harrison G. Fagg, AIA.