Federal Real Property: Most Public Benefit Conveyances Used as
Intended, but Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal Oversight
(21-JUN-06, GAO-06-511).
Under the public benefit conveyance (PBC) program, state or local
governments and certain nonprofits can obtain surplus real
property for public uses. The General Services Administration
(GSA) has responsibility for the program but has delegated
authority to the Department of Defense (DOD) for properties
disposed of as part of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
process. Several "sponsoring agencies" ensure that properties are
used as agreed to by grantees. GAO (1) determined the number,
types, and locations of PBC properties disposed of in fiscal
years 2000 through 2004, (2) assessed efforts to ensure that the
properties are used as agreed to, and (3) identified any
challenges facing agencies and grantees.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-06-511
ACCNO: A55846
TITLE: Federal Real Property: Most Public Benefit Conveyances
Used as Intended, but Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal
Oversight
DATE: 06/21/2006
SUBJECT: Federal property management
Noncompliance
Program management
Property disposal
Real property
Surplus property
Policies and procedures
Public benefit conveyance
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-511
United States Government Accountability Office
Report to the Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives
June 2006
FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY
Most Public Benefit Conveyances Used as Intended, but Opportunities Exist to
Enhance Federal Oversight
a
FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY
Most Public Benefit Conveyances Used as Intended, but Opportunities Exist
to Enhance Federal Oversight
What GAO Found
GAO could not determine from GSA, DOD, and sponsoring agency data the
exact number, types, and locations of properties conveyed in fiscal years
2000 through 2004 as part of the PBC program. Although GSA and DOD data on
properties conveyed should have matched sponsoring agency data on
properties being monitored, there were numerous inconsistencies. GSA data
showed that 285 properties were conveyed, but 128 (45 percent) of these
properties were not identified in data provided by sponsoring agencies.
Similarly, DOD data showed that 179 properties were conveyed, yet 41 (23
percent) of these properties were not identified in sponsoring agency
data. As a result, GSA, as well as the Office of Management and Budget and
Congress, are not well equipped to effectively oversee the program. Better
data would facilitate oversight and assessment of results and possible
problems. GAO tried to resolve the inconsistencies and identified 298
properties that were conveyed for a variety of public uses, such as
airports and parks. They were located throughout many states and U.S.
territories. GAO noted that data on reverted property were not regularly
collected.
GAO found that agencies generally did not follow policies and procedures
they established, or those outlined in the property deeds, for ensuring
that conveyed properties are used as intended. GAO could evaluate
compliance monitoring for 41 of 58 properties selected for review. Of
these, 36 did not receive the compliance monitoring specified in agency
policies and procedures or the deed. Despite this, 51 of the 58 properties
we analyzed were being used as agreed to by the grantee under the
conveyance terms; while 4 had reverted back to the federal government, 2
had not been fully developed, and 1 was not used as agreed to by the
grantee. GAO also found wide variation in agency policies and practices,
depending on type of use, which seems to make the program unnecessarily
complex. GAO identified several challenges faced by agencies and grantees.
Agency officials cited the need to allocate sufficient resources to manage
the program and to adhere to complex federal real property-related laws as
challenges. Some agencies were concerned that GSA avoids reversions;
however GSA said that in avoiding reversions, its intentions are to reduce
the government's overall financial burden. Grantees were generally pleased
with the program, although a common challenge they cited was not having
adequate information on both the program in general and individual
properties.
Source: GAO.
United States Government Accountability Office
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 2 Background 5 Lack of Reliable, Consistent Data Hampers
PBC Program
Management and Oversight 13 Inconsistent Compliance Monitoring Was Common,
although Most
Case Study Properties Were Used as Agreed to by the Grantee 23 Challenges
Managing and Participating in the PBC Program Were
Evident 39 Conclusions 50 Recommendations for Executive Action 51 Agency
Comments and Our Evaluation 52
Appendixes
Appendix I: Appendix II:
Appendix III: Appendix IV: Appendix V: Appendix VI:
Appendix VII: Appendix VIII:
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 57 Summary Data on All Identifiable
Properties Conveyed, Fiscal Years 2000-2004 60 Summary Data on Properties
Selected for Case Study 74 Properties Selected for Case Studies 78
Comments from the General Services Administration 141 Comments from the
Department of Health and Human Services 144 Comments from the Department
of Education 148 GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 149
Table 1: List of Public Benefit Use Authorities and Their Statutory
Tables
Citations 7 Table 2: Sponsoring Agencies and Their Responsibilities, by
Public
Benefit Use 8 Table 3: Consistency of Compliance Oversight Performed for
Case
Study Properties in Accordance with Requirements in
Agencies' Policies and Property Deeds 24 Table 4: Compliance Oversight
Methods Stated in Agencies'
Policies and Procedures for Properties Conveyed, Fiscal
Years 1990-2004 34
Figures
Contents
:PBC Process for Former Civilian Agency or Non-BRAC DOD Surplus Real
Property 10
:PBC Process for BRAC Surplus Real Property 12
:Number of Properties Identified by Type of Use, Fiscal Years 2000-2004 21
:Location of the Properties Identified, Fiscal Years 2000-2004 22
:Little Cottonwood Park - one property 79
:Port of Long Beach - one property 80
:Savannah and Cabrillo Navy Housing - one property 81
:Rolling Hills Preparatory School - one property 82
:Westwood Transitional Village - one property 83
:Southern California Logistics Airport - one property 84
:Homestead Air Force Base Communications Annex - one property 85
:Homestead Air Force Base Homeless Trust - one property 86
:U.S. Custom House - one property 87
:MacDill Air Force Base Railroad Spur - one property 88
:U.S. Classic Courthouse - one property 89
:Federal Building and USDA Lab - one property 90
:Wyandotte County Correctional Facility and Court Services Building - one
property 91
:North Central Flint Hills Area Agency on Aging, Inc. - one property 93
:Milford Lake - one property 94
:Tuttle Lake Wildlife Area - five properties 95
:NIKE Village Site Topsfield, MA - one property 96
:Bentley College - one property 98
:New Jewish High School - one property 99
:Veteran's Memorial Park - one property 100
:The Commander's Mansion - one property 101
:Squantum Gardens and Naval Terrace - one property 103
:NIKE Site PH-02 - one property 105
:Liberty House - one property 107
:Valley Forge Christian College - two properties 108
:Warminster Community Park - one property 110
:Northampton Township Municipal Park - one property 112
:Kings Branch Housing - one property 113
:Carswell Air Force Base Communications Annex - one property 115
:Lake Lewisville Independent School District Outdoor Learning Area - two
properties 116
:Naval Air Station Dallas Clear Zone - one property 117
:Naval Air Station Dallas, Duncanville Housing Site - one property 118
:Utah College of Applied Technology - one property 119
:Weber County Schools Warehouse - one property 121
:Davis School District Warehouse - one property 122
:Defense Distribution Depot Ogden, Building 42 - one property 123
:Ogden Nature Center - one property 124
:Weber County Fairgrounds - one property 125
:Former Petersburg Correctional Institute - one property 126
:Falling Creek Linear Park - one property 128
:Riverside Regional Jail - one property 129
:Cameron Station - one property 130
:Naval Station Puget Sound - three properties 132
:Midway NIKE Housing Site - one property 134
:Howard A. Hanson Dam - one property 135
:Olympia Federal Building - one property 137
:Sand Point Magnuson Park - four properties 139
Abbreviations
BRAC Base Realignment and Closure
DOD Department of Defense
DOT Department of Transportation
DOJ Department of Justice
DHS Department of Homeland Security
Education Department of Education FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency GAO Government Accountability Office
GSA General Services Administration HHS Department of Health and Human
Services HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development Interior
Department of the Interior OMB Office of Management and Budget MARAD
Maritime Administration NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA
National Historic Preservation Act
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
A
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548
June 21, 2006
The Honorable Tom Davis Chairman The Honorable Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member Committee on Government Reform House of
Representatives
The federal real property portfolio is vast and diverse-over 30 agencies
control hundreds of thousands of real property assets worldwide, including
facilities and land worth hundreds of billions of dollars. However, many
of these assets, which include vacant and underutilized properties, are no
longer needed because of significant changes in the size and mission needs
of federal agencies. This is one of the reasons that federal real property
remains on our list of high-risk federal programs.1 Unneeded assets
present significant potential risks to federal agencies not only for lost
dollars because such properties are costly to maintain; but also for lost
opportunities because the properties could be put to more cost-beneficial
uses, exchanged for other needed property, or sold to generate revenue for
the government. In addition, continuing to hold real property that may no
longer be needed does not present a positive image of the federal
government in local communities.
The public benefits conveyance (PBC) program is one means of disposing of
surplus federal property. Under the PBC program, which was primarily
codified in the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949,
as amended (Property Act), state or local governments and certain
taxexempt nonprofit organizations can obtain surplus real property for
public uses such as homeless centers, educational facilities, and public
parks. The General Services Administration (GSA) has primary
responsibility for the administration of the program, but as required by
law, has delegated conveyance authority to the Department of Defense (DOD)
for DOD properties that are closed or realigned as part of the Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process.2 Under laws and federal
regulations promulgated by GSA implementing the PBC program, several
"sponsoring agencies"
1GAO, Federal Real Property: Further Actions Needed to Address
Long-standing and Complex Problems, GAO-05-848T (Washington, D.C.: June
22, 2005).
2P.L. No. 101-510, Section 2905 (b), 10 U.S.C. 2687 note (1990).
perform a number of functions integral to the PBC process. These agencies
include the Departments of Education (Education), the Interior (Interior),
Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), Housing and
Urban Development (HUD), Justice (DOJ), and Transportation (DOT). In
general, one sponsoring agency is designated per type of public benefit
use based on its policy area of expertise. For example, Interior is the
sponsoring agency for parks and recreation use and HHS is the sponsoring
agency for public health use. Depending on the sponsoring agency, these
responsibilities can include reviewing and approving PBC applications,
deeding and conveying property, and monitoring the grantee's use of the
property and compliance with deed restrictions. GSA or DOD assigns the
property to the sponsoring agency so that a deed can be developed and the
property can be conveyed to the grantee. Property not in compliance with
the use agreed to by the grantee under the deed can revert to the federal
government.
Our objectives were to (1) determine the number, types, and locations of
surplus real properties disposed of using the PBC program in fiscal years
2000 through 2004; (2) assess GSA, DOD, and sponsoring agency efforts to
ensure that properties are used as agreed to by the grantee; and (3)
identify any challenges facing agencies and grantees with regard to the
program. To meet these objectives, we analyzed PBC property data and
interviewed GSA and DOD officials. We also interviewed officials in each
of the seven sponsoring agencies and reviewed these agencies' policies and
procedures for the PBC program. In order to determine whether the agencies
were performing compliance monitoring and properties were being used as
agreed to by the grantees, we selected 58 properties for case study review
that were conveyed during the 15-fiscal-year period from 1990 through
2004. We chose properties from a 15-year time period because this time
frame would ensure that most of the properties would have an established
compliance history. The 58 properties were chosen because they represented
a mix of public uses, locations, stages of development (e.g., in planning
versus completed), and compliance methods and histories. A list of the 58
properties we selected as case studies can be found in appendix
III. Our scope and methodology are described in more detail in appendix I.
We conducted our review from September 2004 through May 2006 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
We could not determine from GSA, DOD, and sponsoring agency data the
Results in Brief
exact number, types, and locations of properties conveyed in fiscal years
2000 through 2004 as part of the PBC program. Although GSA and DOD
Page 2 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
data on properties conveyed should have matched sponsoring agency data on
properties they were monitoring, there were numerous inconsistencies. For
example, although GSA data showed that 285 properties were conveyed, 128
(45 percent) of these properties were not identified in data provided by
sponsoring agencies. Similarly, DOD data showed that 179 properties were
conveyed, yet 41 (23 percent) of these properties also were not identified
in sponsoring agency data. As a result, the status of properties for which
data were inconsistent remains unclear. Furthermore, GSA, which has
primary responsibility for the program under the Property Act, as well as
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Congress, are not well
equipped to effectively oversee the program. Better data would facilitate
oversight and assessment of results and possible problems. Lack of quality
data was a major reason we designated federal real property as a high-risk
area in 2003, and the inconsistencies we encountered with the PBC data
illustrate this problem. We also found other data reliability problems,
including incomplete data and lack of specificity. Despite the
inconsistencies with the data and reliability issues, we attempted to
resolve the data consistencies and were able to identify 298 PBC
properties on which DOD, GSA, and sponsoring agency data were generally in
agreement. These properties were conveyed for a variety of public uses,
such as airports, schools, and parks, and were located throughout many of
the 50 states, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Almost half of the properties were
disposed of as part of the BRAC process. Although available data showed
that 12 properties conveyed as PBCs reverted to the federal government,
data on reverted property were not regularly collected, so other
properties may have reverted. To ensure better oversight and
accountability, we are recommending that GSA coordinate and work with DOD
and each of the sponsoring agencies to ensure that PBC property data are
reliable and consistent between agencies.
Our review showed that agencies generally did not follow policies and
procedures they established, or those outlined in the deed, for ensuring
that conveyed properties were used as intended by grantees. In our case
study of 58 properties, we were able to evaluate compliance practices for
41 properties. Eighty-eight percent, 36 of the 41, did not receive the
monitoring specified in agency policies or the property deed. It is
important to note that despite the problems we found with compliance
monitoring, 51 of the 58 properties we selected as case studies were being
used as agreed to by the grantee under the terms of the conveyance and 7
were not. Of the 7 properties, 4 had reverted to the federal government, 2
had not been fully developed, and 1 was not used as intended. The other 51
properties we visited were being used by the grantees for a variety of
public purposes, as illustrated by the following examples:
o A nature center area in Ogden, Utah, provided a sanctuary for
wildlife.
o Land formerly occupied by an army hospital in Waltham, Massachusetts,
was redeveloped for use by a private high school, a nearby college,
and public park.
o Two former NIKE missile sites in Washington and Massachusetts were
redeveloped to provide transitional housing for homeless individuals.
In our case study review, we also found that GSA and the sponsoring
agencies generally used a mix of self-reporting by grantees and site
inspections by agencies to ensure that PBC properties were being used as
agreed to by grantees, although the frequency of these actions varied
between agencies. For example, DOT's Maritime Administration (MARAD) does
not require site inspections for port facility use, while HHS requires
site inspections for homeless and public health properties within the
first 12 months of use and at least every 5 years thereafter. We also
noted that agencies' policies on properties reverting to the federal
government varied. The range of compliance monitoring approaches we
encountered was largely due to the decentralized nature of the program and
differences in agency preferences for carrying out monitoring. We found no
compelling rationale or criteria for the differences in compliance
approaches and reversion policies and practices, and as a result, the PBC
program seems unnecessarily complex, with a wide range of different
policies and practices being administered separately by several agencies,
depending on the type of public benefit use. The complex nature of the
federal real property environment was an underlying cause of problems that
led to our designation of this area as high risk in 2003 and the wide
variation in agencies' implementation of the PBC program illustrates this
condition. We are recommending that sponsoring agencies with compliance
monitoring responsibilities take action to better ensure that their
compliance monitoring policies are followed and that GSA coordinate with
DOD and the sponsoring agencies and give consideration to developing
uniform standards and guidance for the program, where appropriate.
We identified several other challenges facing agencies and grantees with
regard to the program. Agency officials we spoke with cited the need to
allocate sufficient resources to manage the program as the primary
challenge they faced in fulfilling their compliance monitoring and other
Background
PBC responsibilities. Another challenge agency officials cited was the
need to adhere to complex, federal real property-related laws, such as
those related to military base closures and homeless assistance. We noted
that GSA and sponsoring agencies often sought alternatives to the
reversion of noncompliant property to the government. However, some
sponsoring agency officials were concerned that the tendency by GSA to
avoid reversions takes away a main compliance enforcement mechanism. GSA
officials said that their agency attempts to resolve compliance issues
with PBC properties and avoid reversions because of the overall risk and
financial burden these properties could pose to the federal government.
Most of the grantees were pleased with the program, although a common
challenge they cited was not being fully informed about the workings of
the program and the condition of individual properties prior to
conveyance. In some cases, grantees said that this lack of information
resulted in unanticipated costs. We also found that information on the PBC
program was fragmented across several government Web sites, compounding
the concerns grantees expressed about communication. We are recommending
that GSA work with DOD and each of the sponsoring agencies to address
these challenges. In commenting on a draft of this report, GSA, HHS, HUD,
and Education provided comments and generally concurred with the
recommendations directed to them. HHS and HUD questioned the practicality
of uniform standards and guidance for diverse properties. DOD, DOJ, and
DOT had no official comments on this report but provided separate
technical comments, which we incorporated into the report where
appropriate. DHS had no comments on this report. Interior was unable to
provide official comments in time to be included in the report.
The Property Act governs the disposal of most federal real property.3 When
a federal agency no longer needs a property to carry out its mission
responsibilities, the property is reported as excess and is offered to
other federal agencies for use. If another federal agency does not have a
need for the property, it is considered surplus to the federal government,
and state or local governments and certain tax-exempt nonprofit
organizations can obtain the property through the PBC program for an
approved public benefit use. The PBC program is not the only method used
to dispose of
340 U.S.C. S:S: 541-559 governs the disposal of real and personal
property.
surplus real property; property can also be disposed of by negotiated4 and
public sale5 or by other conveyances available under BRAC, such as
economic development conveyances.6
Properties are conveyed7 to grantees with deed restrictions ranging from
30 years to in perpetuity and can be provided at a discount of up to 100
percent of fair market value. Six public benefit use authorities have been
in existence since before the Property Act became law; they are education,
public health, parks and recreation, historic monument, wildlife
conservation, and public airport. The remaining six public benefit use
authorities-correctional, homeless, port facility, self-help housing, law
enforcement, and emergency management response-were enacted into law
between 1984 and 1997. Table 1 lists the public benefit use authorities,
the years they were enacted, and their statutory citations.
4GSA can negotiate a sale at appraised fair market value with a state or
local government if the property will be used for another public purpose.
5If state and local governments or other eligible nonprofits do not wish
to acquire the property, GSA can dispose of property via a competitive
sale to the public, generally through a sealed bid or auction.
6DOD has authority to transfer BRAC property to local redevelopment
authorities (LRA) that are created under the BRAC process to help spur
local economic development and job creation. An economic development
conveyance may be with or without an initial payment at the time of
transfer and may be at or below the estimated fair market value of the
property. Terms and conditions of payment to DOD are fully negotiable.
According to DOD, these negotiations should be fair and reasonable to both
parties and strike a balance between compensation to the federal taxpayer
and the need for the conveyance to spur redevelopment and job creation.
7To convey property is to transfer title or ownership of property to
another entity.
Table 1: List of Public Benefit Use Authorities and Their Statutory Citations
Public benefit use authorities When enacted Statutory citation
Education Prior to 1949 40 U.S.C. S: 550(c).
Public health Prior to 1949 40 U.S.C. S: 550(d).
Parks and recreation Prior to 1949 40 U.S.C. S: 550(e).
Historic monument Prior to 1949 40 U.S.C. S: 550(h).
1972 Amendments
Wildlife conservationa Prior to 1949 16 U.S.C. S: 667b.
Public airporta Prior to 1949 49 U.S.C. S: 47151.
Correctional 1984 40 U.S.C. S: 553(b)(1).
Homelessa 1988 42 U.S.C. S: 11411.
Port facility 1994 40 U.S.C. S: 554.
Self-help housing 1997 40 U.S.C. S: 550(f).
Law enforcement 1997 40 U.S.C. S: 553(b)(2).
Emergency management 1997 40 U.S.C. S: 553(b)(3).
response
Source: GAO.
aWildlife conservation, public airport, and homeless public uses were not
codified in the Property Act.
GSA and DOD are responsible for managing the disposal of surplus real
property through the PBC process. GSA handles the disposal of former
civilian agency and non-BRAC DOD surplus property. DOD handles the
disposal of surplus BRAC property. Seven federal agencies-DHS, DOJ, DOT,
Education, HHS, HUD, and Interior-assist GSA and DOD with the PBC process.
These agencies are known as sponsoring agencies, and at least one
sponsoring agency is designated per type of public benefit use based on
its policy area expertise. For example, Interior is the sponsoring agency
for parks and recreation use, and HHS is the sponsoring agency for public
health use. Table 2 displays the sponsoring agencies and their
responsibilities by public benefit use. As shown in table 2, for some
public benefit uses, one sponsoring agency is responsible for reviewing
and approving applications, while another sponsoring agency is responsible
for conveying the property and performing compliance monitoring. For
example, DHS's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is tasked with
reviewing and approving emergency management response applications, while
GSA performs compliance oversight of properties conveyed for this use.
Table 2: Sponsoring Agencies and Their Responsibilities, by Public Benefit Use
Length of
Public deed
benefit use Sponsoring agency Sponsoring agency restriction
responsibilities
Education Department of o Application 30 years
Education review and approval
o Deeding and conveyance
o Compliance monitoring
Public health Department of o Application review and 30 years
Health and Human approval
Services o Deeding and conveyance
o Compliance monitoring
Parks and Department of the o Application review and In perpetuity
Interior - approval
recreation Federal Lands to o Deeding and conveyance
Parks Program
o Compliance monitoring
Department of the o Application review and
Historic Interior - approval (Historic In perpetuity
Surplus
monument Historic Surplus Property Program)
Property Program
o Deeding and conveyance (GSA)
General Services o Compliance monitoring (Historic
Administration Surplus Property
Program)
Wildlife Department of the o Application reviewa In perpetuity
Interior - (GSA or FWS) and
conservation U.S. Fish and o approval (GSA)
Wildlife Service
(FWS)
o Deeding and conveyance (GSA)
General Services o Compliance monitoring (GSA)
Administration
Public airport Department of o Application review In perpetuity
Transportation - and approval (FAA)
Federal Aviation o Deeding and
Administration conveyance (GSA)
(FAA)
o Compliance monitoring (FAA)
General Services
Administration
Correctional Department of o Application review In perpetuity
Justice and approval (DOJ)
o Deeding and conveyance (GSA)
General Services o Compliance monitoring (GSA)
Administration
Port facility Department of o Application review In perpetuity
Transportation - and approval
Maritime o Deeding and
Administration conveyance
(MARAD)
o Compliance
monitoring
Self-help Department of o Application review 40 years
housing Housing and Urban and approval
Development o Deeding and
conveyance
o Compliance
monitoring
Law Department of o Application review In perpetuity
enforcement Justice and approval (DOJ)
o Deeding and conveyance (GSA)
General Services o Compliance monitoring (GSA)
Administration
Emergency Department of o Application review In perpetuity
Homeland Security - and approval (FEMA)
management Federal Emergency o Deeding and
Management conveyance (GSA)
Response Agency o Compliance monitoring
(GSA)
General Services
Administration
Department of o Application
Homeless Health and Human review and 30 years
approval
Services o Deeding and
conveyance
o Compliance
monitoring
Source: GAO.
aUnlike other sponsoring agencies that are tasked with reviewing PBC
applications, the law does not specifically state who is responsible for
reviewing and approving wildlife conservation PBCs. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) has been providing this service when either the applicant or
GSA requests that the agency provide a letter of endorsement for the
proposed use. In cases where the input of FWS is not sought, GSA reviews
and approves wildlife conservation PBCs.
The PBC process differs depending on whether surplus real property is
former BRAC property versus former civilian agency or non-BRAC DOD
property. As noted previously, GSA is responsible for managing the
disposal of former civilian agency and non-BRAC DOD property as PBCs. GSA
determines the current condition of surplus real property, including any
environmental contamination and cleanup required. Pursuant to the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (McKinney-Vento Act), HUD then
reviews the property to determine if it is suitable for homeless use. If
the property is considered suitable for homeless use, it is first made
available for homeless use consideration 60 days prior to any other public
benefit use. If the property is not considered suitable or if there is no
interest in the property, it becomes available for all other public
benefit uses. State or local governments and qualified nonprofits
interested in obtaining the property by public benefit conveyance submit
applications to the sponsoring agencies describing how they plan to use
the property. The sponsoring agencies then consider all applications and
determine which one proposes the best public use for the property. The
sponsoring agency notifies GSA of the chosen applicant. GSA assigns the
property to the sponsoring agency so that a deed can be developed and the
property can be conveyed to the grantee.
Once a property has been conveyed, grantees are responsible for adhering
to all restrictions in the deed. Examples of deed restrictions include
limitations on the property's use and revenue generation, the length of
time to develop or implement the approved use, and requirements to allow
site inspections or to submit periodic utilization reports. If the
sponsoring agency determines that a grantee is out of compliance, the
grantee is notified and the sponsoring agency works with the grantee to
help bring the property back into compliance. After continued
noncompliance, the sponsoring agency decides whether the property should
revert and, if so, suggests that GSA take action to revert the property.
The property then reverts to the federal portfolio and is reconsidered for
disposal. Figure 1 shows the PBC process in general for former civilian
agency and non-BRAC DOD surplus property.
Figure 1: PBC Process for Former Civilian Agency or Non-BRAC DOD Surplus Real
Property
Source: GAO.
The disposal of surplus BRAC property by the PBC process is handled
differently from the disposal of former civilian agency or non-BRAC DOD
property. As noted previously, GSA, as required by law, has delegated
conveyance authority to DOD for those DOD surplus properties that are
generated though the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. DOD has
subsequently delegated its BRAC disposal authority to the Departments of
the Army, Navy, and Air Force, including the authority to manage surplus
real property disposals involving PBCs. A key difference in the PBC
process for the disposal of BRAC property is the participation of a local
redevelopment authority (LRA). Though such participation is not required
by law, most BRAC closures have historically involved an LRA, which is
generally composed of members from the surrounding community or
communities affected by the base closure.8 LRAs have historically been
responsible for planning for the future reuse of BRAC property and for
8According to DOD officials, an LRA is not always established,
particularly when the portion of land being disposed of is small or in an
area that is not well populated.
Page 10 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
acting as the single point of contact between the government and the
interests within the communities during the disposal process. The primary
function of the LRA is to create a redevelopment plan that proposes the
future use of each parcel of surplus real property in the installation.9
The LRAs and the military departments determine what portion of surplus
installation property will be disposed of as PBCs. When considering future
reuse, LRAs take into consideration community needs, interests of possible
reuse recipients, the environmental condition of the property, and any
necessary remediation. The LRA is also tasked with giving consideration to
local homeless needs. The Base Closure Community Redevelopment and
Homeless Assistance Act of 199410 amended the McKinney-Vento Act and the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 to provide for different
procedures relating to the use and transferability of properties to assist
the homeless at a military installation that is to be closed or aligned
under BRAC. Pursuant to the 1994 amendment, the LRA develops a
redevelopment plan for the installation and solicits interest from
homeless providers. HUD provides LRAs with technical advice and guidance
on the homeless requirements and reviews the redevelopment plan to
determine if it appropriately balances the interests of the homeless in
the vicinity of the installation with the economic and other redevelopment
needs of the community. Figure 2 shows the PBC process in general for BRAC
surplus property.
9The LRA's role in planning for the redevelopment of surplus DOD
properties in the 2005 BRAC round may be reduced as a result of Congress's
general mandate to DOD to seek to obtain fair market value in its BRAC
disposal actions. See Pub. L. No. 101-510 S: 2900(b)(4), 10 U.S.C. 2687
note (1990). Accordingly, this mandate could also impact the extent to
which PBCs are used as a means of conveying 2005 BRAC surplus properties.
10Pub. L. No. 103-421 (1994).
Page 11 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
Figure 2: PBC Process for BRAC Surplus Real Property
Source: GAO.
The proposed redevelopment plans are then submitted to the military
department. Although deeding authority varies among the different public
benefit uses, for parcels that have been approved for disposal as PBCs,
the Army, Navy, or Air Force generally assigns the property to the
appropriate sponsoring agency, which deeds the property to the grantee.11
Compliance for surplus BRAC property conveyed as public benefit
conveyances is handled by the sponsoring agencies in the same manner as
surplus former
11For public airport and historic monument conveyances, the military
department does not assign the property to the sponsoring agency. Instead,
the military department obtains approval from the sponsoring agency prior
to deeding the property to the grantee itself. In the case of homeless use
conveyances, according to DOD's Base Reuse Implementation Manual, if there
is no specific request from HUD, the military department may directly
transfer the property for homeless use to the grantee.
Page 12 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
civilian agency or non-BRAC DOD property. Reverted property returns either
to GSA's or the military department's inventory of real property assets.12
Lack of Reliable, Consistent Data Hampers PBC Program Management and Oversight
We could not determine, from GSA, DOD, and sponsoring agency data, the
exact number, types, and locations of properties conveyed in fiscal years
2000 through 2004 as part of the PBC program. There were numerous
properties identified by GSA and DOD that did not match with properties
identified by the sponsoring agencies. As a result, we could not determine
the status of 128 GSA properties and 41 DOD properties purportedly
conveyed using the PBC program. Despite inconsistencies with GSA, DOD, and
sponsoring agency data, we undertook our own effort to resolve the
inconsistencies and were able to identify 298 PBC properties for which
GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring agencies data were generally in agreement.
These properties were conveyed for a variety of public uses, such as
airports, schools, and parks, and were located in many of the 50 states,
Guam, and Puerto Rico. For a number of reasons, reliable, consistent data
on PBC properties would be beneficial to the effective oversight and
management of the program.
GSA, DOD, and Sponsoring Agency Data Were Not Consistent or Reliable
GSA, DOD, and sponsoring agency data had inconsistencies that prevented us
from determining, with reasonable assurance, the exact number, types, and
locations of properties conveyed in fiscal years 2000 through 2004 as part
of the PBC program. GSA and DOD each maintain separate lists of properties
they have disposed of using the PBC program. In addition, each of the
sponsoring agencies maintains a separate list of the properties for which
it has compliance responsibilities. GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring agencies
keep PBC property data in various formats, including electronic data and
paper case files, and in different locations, such as in central
headquarters or field offices. In addition, we found that each agency
keeps different pieces of information on each property.
To address the challenge of having multiple and varying data sources, we
requested that GSA and DOD provide us with a complete and reliable list of
properties conveyed and that each of the sponsoring agencies provide us
with a complete and reliable list of properties for which it had
compliance
12For homeless use conveyances, property can revert to the LRA.
responsibilities. Specifically, we asked that the agencies provide us with
the following pieces of information: property name, description, address,
sponsoring agency,13 grantee including contact information, date of
conveyance, intended use, and compliance history, including dates of
utilization reports or site inspections. Because each agency, as noted
above, keeps property data in varying formats, we received electronic data
and case file documents, such as property deeds.
Although GSA and DOD data on properties conveyed should have matched
sponsoring agency data on properties they were monitoring, there were
several inconsistencies. For properties conveyed in fiscal years 2000
through 2004, a significant number on GSA's and DOD's lists did not match
with the sponsoring agencies' lists. More specifically, although GSA data
showed that 285 properties were conveyed, 128 (45 percent) of these
properties were not identified in data provided by the sponsoring
agencies. It was also sometimes difficult to compare properties on GSA's
list with those on sponsoring agencies' lists because at times the
property name, acreage, and date conveyed differed. Nineteen properties in
GSA data appeared to be similar to properties on the sponsoring agencies'
lists, but because of differences in the properties' name, acreage, or
date conveyed, we could not determine with certainty whether these
properties were in fact the same. For example, a GSA property named the
"Grand Forks Safeguard Waterline" was listed as conveyed for public health
use to the North Valley Water District.14 HHS lists a similar property in
North Dakota as being conveyed to the same grantee for public health use,
but the name of the property and date conveyed differ. GSA property data
also frequently lacked the name of the grantee and the sponsoring agency
assigned compliance responsibilities. In particular, data on 77 (27
percent) of the 285 properties reported by GSA lacked the name of the
grantee, and data on 150 (53 percent) lacked the name of the sponsoring
agency. In addition, data on 91 (32 percent) of the 285 properties
reported by GSA did not include precise information on the public use for
which they were conveyed. Specifically, the public use for these
properties was categorized as "Other." Similarly, DOD data showed that 179
properties were conveyed in fiscal years 2000 through 2004, yet 41 (23
percent) of these properties were not identified in sponsoring agency
data. It was also hard to compare
13We asked that only GSA and DOD provide information on the sponsoring
agency.
14GSA did not provide a description of this property, so we were unable to
determine if the property description was consistent with the description
provided by HHS.
Page 14 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
DOD data to sponsoring agency data because the property name, acreage, and
date conveyed varied, making it difficult to determine whether properties
matched. Specifically, 24 properties on DOD's list appeared to be similar
to properties on the sponsoring agencies' lists, but because of
differences in the property name, acreage, or date conveyed, we could not
determine with certainty whether these properties were the same.
Because of discrepancies between GSA, DOD, and sponsoring agency property
data, the status of several properties that appear to have been conveyed
using the PBC program could not readily be determined. As mentioned, there
were 128 and 41 properties that were identified in GSA and DOD data,
respectively, that did not appear in the sponsoring agency data.
Determining the status of these properties was beyond the scope of this
review. Nonetheless, it was unclear whether these properties were actually
conveyed and if so, whether the sponsoring agencies were monitoring their
use and whether they were being used as agreed by the grantees. Our
inability to verify that the sponsoring agencies were aware of these
properties and were monitoring their use raised concerns that a basic tool
for oversight- in this case, consistent data on the universe of PBC
properties-was lacking, thereby making the program vulnerable to misuse.
We also found that the data submitted by GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring
agencies were incomplete and unreliable, as the following examples
illustrate.
o Data were incomplete-The data we received from the agencies had
missing fields. For example, in a significant number of instances, GSA
data were missing the property address; the sponsoring agency; or the
grantee's name, address, and contact information. In some instances,
DOD property data also lacked the grantee's name, address, and contact
information. In addition, some of the sponsoring agencies did not
provide compliance information for each of their properties. For
example, MARAD and FAA did not provide us compliance information for
any of their properties. Other agencies, such as Interior, provided
compliance information for some but not all of their properties.
Specifically, Interior did not provide compliance data for 6 of 23
properties submitted by its Historic Surplus Property Program and for
22 of 125 properties submitted by its Federal Lands to Parks Program.
o Data lacked specificity-The data provided by the agencies lacked
specificity. Because each agency maintains its own database of
Data Not Regularly Maintained on Property That Reverted to the Government
properties, there is wide variation-such as how detailed the information
is-that each agency keeps on its PBC properties. For example, the physical
description of each property conveyed ranged from basic information on the
size (e.g., 9 acres) to very detailed explanations of the location and
landscape of the property. In some instances, agencies also used
abbreviations for the names of the property and grantee that were not
easily discernible. GSA data show, for example, that 12 acres known as the
Klein Water Treatment Plant were conveyed for public health use in April
2004 to a grantee listed as "SACWSD."
o Data lacked unique identifiers-Only GSA and the Air Force provided
unique identifying codes for each property.15 Properties were identified
most often by name, and it was common for one or more properties to have
the same name. DOD's list of properties, for example, included nine
properties all named "Fort Ord." In addition, we found that property names
were changed after the properties were transferred from GSA and DOD to the
sponsoring agency. For example, a former BRAC parcel of property conveyed
for parks and recreation use was referred to as "San Diego, CA - NTC" on
DOD's list but as "Liberty Station Park" on the sponsoring agency's list.
GSA and Air Force codes were not regularly used by the sponsoring agencies
monitoring the property grantees' compliance, so it was difficult to
determine whether a property listed as conveyed by GSA or DOD was the same
property on the sponsoring agencies' lists. No PBC-programwide system of
coding properties exists so that a property can be tracked for compliance
after it transferred from GSA or DOD to the sponsoring agency.
GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring agencies do not regularly collect data on
property that has reverted to the federal government. In fiscal years 2000
through 2004, GSA and the sponsoring agencies reported, using the data
available, that 12 properties conveyed for public uses reverted to the
federal government. Yet we cannot reliably determine the number of
properties that reverted during this period because GSA and DOD do not
systematically collect data on property that comes back to the federal
inventory, so there may be other properties that reverted. For example,
15In commenting on this report, HHS noted that it also has a unique
identification number for each property conveyed by HHS, which it uses in
conjunction with GSA and DOD identifying codes. HHS did not provide these
numbers to us during our audit.
Page 16 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
GSA's manual for its NetReal database16 does not require that realty staff
update property information in the system once a property has reverted.
Therefore, GSA cannot identify all of the properties in the database that
have reverted to the federal government. Because of this uncertainty, we
requested data from each of the sponsoring agencies on the number of
properties that reverted during this period. When we compared the
sponsoring agencies' lists of reverted properties with that of GSA's list,
we identified one property-USCG Naushon Housing-that was reported as
reverted by the sponsoring agency but not by GSA. According to GSA
officials, they were able to verify that the property had reverted by
checking paper files in their regional offices. In addition, GSA's list of
reverted properties included five properties that did not appear on the
sponsoring agencies' lists of reverted properties. GSA data noted that two
of these properties-a boundary line adjustment and property easement- were
not reversions. Therefore, we cannot be sure whether GSA's NetReal
database includes all the properties that reverted during this period and
whether properties included in the database are reversions as opposed to
other types of real estate transactions. In commenting on a draft of this
report, GSA said that NetReal was designed to collect disposal data for
case management during the disposal process-not to track predisposal or
postconveyance activities. According to GSA, it is in the process of
developing a new system called the Real Estate Disposal Inventory Network
(REDI Net), which will replace NetReal. The REDI Net system, when
completed, will identify and maintain an accurate accounting for all major
procedural tasks for the disposal of excess and surplus real property. It
will also include contact and document management elements, thereby
creating an electronic clearinghouse for all real property disposal
projects handled by GSA. An initial application of the system is planned
to be released this fiscal year.
DOD reported that it did not revert any property in fiscal years 2000
through 2004 because, according to DOD officials, DOD is not involved in
the PBC reversion process. Instead, DOD officials noted that it is the
responsibility of the sponsoring agencies to monitor compliance of former
BRAC property. DOD stated that because it is not involved in the reversion
process, it does not keep track of reverted properties. However, we found
that one property on the sponsoring agencies' list-the Defense
Distribution Depot Ogden, Building 42 property-reverted back to the
16GSA's NetReal database is used by regional realty staff to keep track of
property disposed of by the PBC process as well as by other disposal
methods.
Page 17 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
Reliable and Consistent Data Are Important Given the Decentralized Nature of
the Program and the Number of Agencies Involved
Army instead of to GSA. Because DOD does not have a systematic method in
place to track the number of properties that revert, we also can not
reliably determine the number of properties that reverted back to DOD
during this time period.
Having reliable, consistent data on PBC properties is critically important
for multiple reasons. First, as we have described, the lack of reliable,
consistent data makes it difficult to determine basic facts about the
program, such as the number of properties that have been conveyed through
it. The PBC program is decentralized and a number of agencies are involved
in maintaining PBC property data. GSA, DOD, and each of the sponsoring
agencies maintain separate lists of properties conveyed as part of the PBC
program. These data are kept in different types of formats and locations.
In addition, each agency keeps different pieces of data on each property.
Because of these factors, as well as the quality of the PBC data- which
were incomplete and unreliable-we were unable to determine, with
reasonable assurance, the number of properties conveyed. Furthermore, the
status of properties for which GSA and DOD data did not match sponsoring
agency data was unclear.
Second, complete, accurate property data could help mitigate the risk
associated with holding property no longer needed by the federal
government and ensure that PBC properties are being used as agreed by
grantees, an important element of managing the program. We have previously
reported that unneeded property presents significant potential risks to
federal agencies not only of lost dollars, because such properties are
costly to maintain, but also of lost opportunities, because the properties
could be put to more cost-beneficial uses, exchanged for other needed
property, or sold to generate revenue for the government. Agencies that
continue to hold excess or underutilized property are also likely
incurring significant costs, both for staff time spent managing the
properties and for maintenance, utilities, security, and other building
needs. Third, there are additional costs associated with unneeded
properties that are not being used appropriately as can occur with PBCs.
These include the deterioration of property and the negative image unused
or misused property can present to the local community. Such property
presents an image of waste and inefficiency that can erode taxpayers'
confidence in government. Moreover, a property that is occupying a
valuable location and is not used for other purposes, sold, or redeveloped
can have a negative impact on the local economy.
For these reasons, the lack of reliable, consistent data on PBC properties
makes it difficult for GSA, the primary agency with responsibility for the
program under the Property Act, as well as OMB and Congress, to
effectively oversee the program. Better data would facilitate oversight
and assessment of results and possible problems. We have previously
reported that there is a lack of reliable and useful real property data
for strategic decision making. In April 2002, we reported that the
government's only central source of descriptive data on the makeup of the
real property inventory, known then as GSA's worldwide inventory database
and related real property reports, contained data that were unreliable and
of limited usefulness.17
Unreliable real property data-both at GSA and at individual real property
holding agencies-was a reason we designated federal real property as a
high-risk area,18 and the inconsistencies we encountered with the PBC data
illustrate this problem. Partly in response to our high-risk reports, the
President issued an executive order in 2004 aimed at improving federal
real property asset management.19 This executive order, among other
things, required GSA to establish and maintain a single, comprehensive and
descriptive database of real property under the custody and control of all
executive branch agencies, except when otherwise required for reasons of
national security. To meet this requirement, GSA has undertaken an effort
to revamp its worldwide inventory database, now referred to as the federal
real property profile. We have not evaluated GSA's database efforts and
related report. In addition to improving data on the federal inventory as
a whole, quality data will be critical for addressing the wide range of
problems facing the government in the real property area.
Developing complete, reliable data on properties disposed of through the
PBC program would be beneficial for assessing the program and could be
even more important for managing the program if the PBC program were to be
used more extensively in the future to address the government's surplus
property problem. The government, at the time of our review, could not be
sure whether properties disposed of through the PBC program are being
17GAO, Federal Real Property: Better Governmentwide Data Needed for
Strategic Discisionmaking, GAO-02-342 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16. 2002).
18GAO, High-Risk Series: Federal Real Property, GAO-03-122 (Washington,
D.C.: January 2003).
19Presidential Executive Order 13327.
Page 19 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
Conveyed Properties Identified Were Located Nationwide and Reflected a Range
of Uses
used as agreed to by grantees, and GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring agencies
would likely struggle to provide effective management and oversight of the
program without better data. However, most of the grantees we spoke to
were generally pleased with the results of the PBC program. And, as will
be discussed later, most of the properties we visited appeared to be used
as agreed to by the grantees and in ways that benefited their communities.
Thus, more accurate information on the number of properties that have been
conveyed and their compliance status could go a long way to showing how
effective the PBC program is for disposing of surplus property. GSA and
DOD officials told us that better data on PBC properties could possibly be
developed as part of GSA's efforts to revamp its governmentwide
database-the federal real property profile. In fact, GSA has told us that
the federal real property profile will include the ability to maintain
historical data on federal real property assets after disposal is
completed. In commenting on a draft of this report, GSA said that the REDI
Net system it is developing to replace NetReal, its current property
management database, will also improve the data accuracy issues we
identified, provide performance measures to gauge the effectiveness of GSA
program operations, and improve program management and oversight.
Despite inconsistencies with GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring agency data, we
undertook our own effort to resolve the data inconsistencies and were able
to identify 298 PBC properties for which the agency data were generally in
agreement. This effort provided us with reasonable assurance that these
properties were conveyed and that the sponsoring agencies were aware of
their monitoring responsibilities. The 298 properties we could identify
are listed in appendix II. Of these properties, 158 (53 percent) were
former civilian agency or non-BRAC DOD surplus properties disposed of by
GSA, and 140 (47 percent) were former BRAC surplus properties disposed of
by DOD. GSA, DOD, and sponsoring agency data showed that each type of
public benefit use was represented, but some uses were more common than
others. The largest numbers of properties, 109, were conveyed for parks
and recreation use while 1 property, was conveyed for self-help housing
and 1 property was conveyed for emergency management response use. As
shown in figure 3, properties conveyed for airport and port facility uses
are more often former BRAC surplus real properties. In comparison,
properties conveyed for correctional, homeless, law enforcement, wildlife
conservation, and historic monuments uses are more often former civilian
agency and non-BRAC DOD surplus real properties. About the same number of
BRAC and civilian agency or non-BRAC DOD surplus real properties are
conveyed for education, public health, and parks and recreation uses.
These trends are related to the types of federal surplus real properties
that become available through GSA and DOD. For example, aircraft runways
that are well suited for public airport use appear to be available as
surplus BRAC properties more often than as surplus civilian agency and
non-BRAC DOD surplus real properties.
Figure 3: Number of Properties Identified by Type of Use, Fiscal
Years 2000-2004
Type of public benefit use
Parks/recreation
109
Education
58
Airport
41
Health
23
Homeless
22
Historic monument
19
Port facility
12
Corrections
6
Law enforcement
4
Wildlife conservation
2
Self-help housing
1
Emergency response
1
0 20 40 60 80 100
Number of properties
Properties conveyed through GSA
Properties conveyed through DOD Source: GAO.
GSA, DOD, and sponsoring agency data showed that the properties we
identified were conveyed for PBC use throughout many of the 50 states, as
well as Guam and Puerto Rico. As figure 4 shows, California had the
largest number of conveyed properties, 45, and Delaware, Iowa,
Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and Puerto
Rico each had one conveyed property. In fiscal years 2000 through 2004, no
property was conveyed in Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota,
Vermont, and Wyoming or in the District of Columbia.
Figure 4: Location of the Properties Identified, Fiscal Years 2000-2004
Source: GAO.
Inconsistent Compliance Monitoring Was Common, although Most Case Study
Properties Were Used as Agreed to by the Grantee
Our review showed that the sponsoring agencies generally did not follow
policies and procedures they established, or those outlined in the deed,
for ensuring that conveyed properties were used as intended by grantees.
In our case study of 58 properties, we were able to evaluate compliance
practices for 41 properties. Eighty-eight percent, or 36 of 41, did not
receive the compliance monitoring specified in agency policies or the
property deed. Inconsistent compliance monitoring is a concern because it
results in a lack of assurance that properties are being used as agreed to
by grantees and that the program's overall objectives are being met.
Despite these issues, most of the properties that we visited were being
used as agreed to by the grantee and appeared to be producing benefits. In
our case study review, we found that GSA and the sponsoring agencies used
a mix of selfreporting by grantees and site inspections to ensure that
properties were being used as agreed to by grantees, although the
frequency of these actions varied. We also noted that the agencies'
policies on property reversions to the federal government varied. As a
result, the PBC program seems unnecessarily complex, with a wide range of
compliance approaches and reversion policies and procedures being
administered separately by several agencies, depending on the type of
public benefit use. The complex nature of the federal real property
environment was an underlying cause of problems that led to our
designation of this area as high-risk in 2003, and the wide variation
among agencies with regard to the PBC program seems to illustrate this
condition.
Inconsistent Compliance Monitoring Was Common
We could evaluate compliance monitoring for 41 of 58 properties we
selected for detailed review. Eighty-eight percent (36 of 41) of the
properties where we could evaluate compliance practices did not receive
the compliance monitoring that was specified in agency policies or
property deeds. In order to determine whether the agencies were performing
compliance monitoring and properties were being used as agreed to by the
grantees, we selected 58 properties for case study review that were
conveyed during the 15-fiscal-year period from 1990 through 2004. We chose
properties from a 15-year period (i.e., versus 5-year period) because the
longer time frame would increase the likelihood that most properties would
have an established compliance history. The 58 properties were chosen
because they represented a mix of public uses, locations, stages of
development (e.g., in planning versus completed), and compliance methods
and histories. A list of the 58 properties we selected as case studies can
be found in appendix III, and more information on our methodology for
selecting properties can be found in appendix I.
For 41 of the 58 properties we selected for case study review, we were
able to evaluate whether the agencies performed compliance monitoring
consistent with the property deeds and the agencies' compliance policies.
We were unable to evaluate compliance oversight for 17 properties we
selected because 8 recently conveyed properties, as expected, did not yet
have a compliance history;20 4 properties had already reverted to the
federal government;21 and we were unable to obtain compliance information
from the agencies for 5 properties.22 As shown in table 4, 36 of the 41
properties (88 percent) where we could evaluate compliance practices
received inconsistent compliance oversight-that is, they did not receive
the compliance monitoring spelled out in the agencies' policies and
property deeds.
Table 3: Consistency of Compliance Oversight Performed for Case Study
Properties in Accordance with Requirements in Agencies' Policies and
Property Deeds
Federal Historic
Lands to Surplus
Compliance Parks Property
oversight Programa Programa Education GSA HHS HUD Total
Inconsistent 8 2 10 7 8 1 36
Consistent 2 0 3 0 0 0 5
Number of
properties
evaluated 10 2 13 7 8 1 41
Source: GAO.
aThis program is part of the Department of the Interior.
20These properties include the Federal Building/USDA Lab property, the
U.S. Classic Courthouse property, the U.S. Custom House property, and the
Communication Site - Homestead AFB property; a Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD
property, the George property, and two Defense Depot - Ogden, UT
properties.
21The four reverted properties were the NIKE PH-02 property; the Milford
Lake property; the Defense Distribution Depot Ogden, Building 42 property;
and the Former Petersburg Correctional Institute (portion) property.
22We did not receive compliance information from MARAD for one Long Beach,
CA - NAVSHIPYD property; and from the Federal Lands to Parks Program for
four properties that were part of the former Naval Station Puget Sound at
Sand Point. These were the Sand Point Playground Parcel, Sand Point
Magnuson Park, Portion Sand Point Magnuson Park, and Sand Point Puget
Sound, WA NAVSTA properties.
Note: This table includes only the 41 properties for which we could
evaluate the consistency of compliance oversight and the sponsoring
agencies responsible for performing this oversight. We were unable to
evaluate the consistency of compliance oversight for 17 properties we
selected for case study review because 8 recently conveyed properties did
not yet have a compliance history, 4 properties had already reverted back
to the federal government, and we were unable to obtain compliance
information from the agencies for 5 properties.
Specifically, compliance records provided to us by GSA and the sponsoring
agencies indicated that a number of grantees did not consistently submit
utilization reports as specified in their property deeds and, in some
cases, the agencies did not respond to the grantees' failure to report in
a timely manner. In other cases, the agencies did not conduct site
inspections as frequently as required by their compliance policies. For
example, we found that
o for 4 properties, grantees did not consistently provide utilization
reports as required by their deeds,
o for 16 properties, agencies did not consistently conduct site
inspections as required by their policies, and
o for 16 properties, grantees did not consistently provide utilization
reports as required by their deeds and agencies did not consistently
conduct site inspections as required by their policies.
o Agencies' compliance policies generally require that agencies' PBC
program staff send a letter of request to the grantee if the grantee
fails to provide periodic utilization reports. The letter reminds the
grantee of the requirement to submit reports as specified in its deed
and states the consequences of not reporting. But grantees for 20 of
the 41 properties we evaluated did not consistently provide
utilization reports. In at least one case, the compliance record
provided by the sponsoring agency did not indicate that the agency had
sent a letter of request, as the following illustrates.
o The Olympia Federal Building was conveyed to the State of Washington
as a historic monument PBC in 1998. Yet since that time, according to
the building managers we interviewed, the state filed only one
utilization report in 2000 and has never received any notice or
requests from Historic Surplus Property Program staff for the other
reports even though biennial reports are required in the deed.
Historic Surplus
* Property Program compliance records did not include the one
utilization report purportedly filed by the state.23
* In other instances, sponsoring agencies took a number of years to
respond to missing utilization reports, as the following examples
illustrate.
o The City of Tacoma filed consecutive annual utilization reports from
1991 to 1997 for the Portion Howard A. Hanson Dam King County,
Washington property as required in the deed. However, according to HHS
documents, the agency did not receive annual utilization reports from
the grantee for 1998, 1999, and 2000 and sent a letter in May 2000
demanding reports for all 3 years within 30 days, which the grantee
provided. Although the property did not appear to be used for
unintended purposes during the period of nonreporting, according to
agency guidance, the agency should have responded in a more timely
manner when the grantee first failed to file the 1998 report.
o The City of Duncanville, Texas, was conveyed more than 3 acres of the
former Naval Air Station, Dallas Duncanville Housing Site, for parks
and recreation use in November 1998, but compliance records provided
to us by staff from the Federal Lands to Parks Program indicated that
the city did not file a utilization report until December 2004.
According to the deed, the grantee was to submit biennial utilization
reports beginning from the date of conveyance.
Some agencies' compliance policies have given discretion to agencies' PBC
program managers to waive grantee reporting requirements. For example,
HHS's and Education's compliance policies specifically state that the
agencies have discretion to waive a grantee's compliance requirement to
submit utilization reports. In commenting on a draft of this report, HHS
noted that waivers are rare and given only after a prior history of full
compliance by the grantee. The other agencies' compliance policies do not
specifically state that agencies or their staff have this discretion.
However, the discretion is implied because the GSA regulations
implementing the PBC program have given the agencies the flexibility to
determine what compliance method will be used and how often compliance
monitoring
23The compliance records provided to us showed that the Portion Howard A.
Hanson Dam King County, Washington and Olympia Federal Building properties
monitored by HHS and the Historic Surplus Property Program, respectively,
also received site inspections not consistent with the agencies' policies
and procedures.
Page 26 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
must be performed. Compliance records provided by the agencies indicated
that the grantee for only 1 of the 41 properties we evaluated had been
released from utilization reporting requirements.24
Site inspections were also performed inconsistently for 16 of the 41
properties we evaluated. As noted in table 3, site inspections are
required by seven of the sponsoring agencies responsible for compliance
monitoring. Agency policies for HHS, GSA, and Interior's Federal Lands to
Parks Program and Historic Surplus Property Program state that PBC program
officials are required to perform site inspections for each of their
properties once every 5 years, yet compliance records provided by these
agencies showed that inspections did not always occur as often as
required. For example, GSA policies require that GSA conduct site
inspections once every 5 years. However, according to the documents GSA
provided us, the agency has conducted only one site inspection of the
former U.S. Post Office and Courthouse property in Kansas City, Kansas,
since this property was conveyed in 1995 for correctional use. Similarly,
HHS's policies and procedures require site inspections at least once every
5 years. However, according to the documents HHS provided us, the agency
has conducted only one site inspection at the Midway NIKE Housing Site
Kent, Washington property that was conveyed in 1994 for transitional
housing. The sole documented site inspection occurred before the
conveyance, when this property was still being leased by the grantee.
Although some agencies' compliance policies allow program staff
flexibility with respect to the frequency of site inspections, there was
no indication in the compliance records for any of the 41 properties we
evaluated that site inspection requirements had been waived. For example,
compliance records for the Little Cottonwood Park property did not include
documentation that the agency no longer found it necessary to conduct site
inspections according to the 5 year schedule in the Federal Lands to Parks
Program's compliance policy, even though the last documented site
inspection was more than 5 years ago.
24Education's compliance records for two Valley Forge General Hospital
properties conveyed to the Valley Forge Christian College showed that the
PBC program administrator waived the College's utilization reporting
requirement because Education was so frequently in contact with the
grantee that Education "knew more about the status of these properties and
the College's future plans than about most other properties in the
department's inventory."
Page 27 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
GSA is the only sponsoring agency that relies solely on site inspections
for compliance monitoring. According to GSA's compliance policy, site
inspections are to be performed for a property once every 5 years. Since
the agency is a central management agency of the federal government and
not a "program" agency like the other sponsoring agencies, GSA officials
said that site inspections instead of self-reporting are a more effective
way for GSA to monitor compliance and ensure that properties are used as
agreed to by grantees. Nonetheless, compliance records provided by GSA
indicated that none of the seven properties that GSA was responsible for
monitoring received site inspections according to the time frame outlined
in the agency's compliance policies. For example, the Riverside Regional
Jail Authority said it was not aware of any site inspections nor had it
had any contact with GSA since a portion of the Former Petersburg
Correctional Institute property was conveyed to it in 1992.
In total, 36 of the 41 properties, or 88 percent, where we could evaluate
compliance practices did not receive the monitoring specified in agency
policies or the property deed. As a result, we have concerns that
compliance monitoring of PBC properties is not being performed
consistently under each agency's specified policies or property deeds, and
as such PBC properties could be vulnerable to uses other than those that
were agreed to by the grantee.
Despite Inconsistent Compliance Monitoring, Most Case Study Properties
Were Used as Agreed to by the Grantee
Despite concerns and challenges with respect to compliance monitoring
and program management, 51 of the 58 properties we visited appeared to
be used as agreed to by the grantee under the terms of the conveyance and
7 were not. Of the 7 properties, 4 had reverted to the federal government,
2 had not been fully developed, and 1 was not being used as agreed to by
the grantee in the deed. Most of the properties we visited were being used for a
variety of purposes, including parks and recreational facilities,
educational institutions, and homeless services. Others, though fewer, w
ere being used to support historic monuments, public health, correctional institutions,
lands for wildlife conservation, public airports, and port facilities.
Examples of the kinds of public uses we observed among the 58 properties
follow. A full description of each of the 58 properties can be found in
appendix IV.
Parks and Recreation Use o Several large tracts of land from the former
Naval Air Warfare Center in
Warminster, Pennsylvania, have been developed to serve local parks and
recreation needs. Both Warminster and Northampton Townships have
Education Use
developed portions of the former air base into community parks with
athletic fields, walking trails, and pavilions.
o In Seattle, hangars and other buildings from the former Naval Station
Puget Sound at Sand Point have been adapted for various purposes such
as community theater, indoor soccer, and in-line hockey, while the
surrounding lands have been developed as a community garden, dog park,
playground, and athletic field.
o A portion of land once part of the former Defense Depot - Ogden, Utah,
was conveyed to the City of Ogden and leased to the Ogden Nature
Center for a nature conservation area that provides a sanctuary for
local wildlife and birds of prey. Annually, approximately 35,000
visitors take advantage of the Nature Center's hiking trails, nature
education programs, and summer camps.
o Properties conveyed for education purposes have been developed by
public and private educational institutions for a range of
instructional and supporting functions. For example, the former
Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center in Waltham, Massachusetts, was
divided into three conveyances: two for education and one for a public
park. The two education grantees were Bentley College, a private
higher education institution, and the New Jewish High School,25 a
private secondary school. Bentley College is currently developing the
property for additional student housing, while the New Jewish High
School has built and occupied two new buildings that contain
classrooms, a cafeteria, a gym, and a library.
o Buildings from the former Defense Depot - Ogden, Utah, were conveyed
to a local public school system and a technical college. The local
school system is using the building as warehouse space for school
supplies, while the technical college is using the space to house
several instructional programs, including truck and forklift
operations, materials handling, and plumbing.
o The University of Washington is using buildings conveyed from the
former Naval Station Puget Sound at Sand Point for a variety of
purposes, including administrative and departmental offices, art
studios,
25The New Jewish High School has recently been renamed the Gann Academy.
supply warehouses, and storage for the university's record and library
system.
Homeless and Public Health Use o Existing housing units on two former
NIKE missile sites in Topsfield, Massachusetts, and Kent, Washington, were
adapted for use as transitional housing for homeless individuals and for a
residential treatment program for homeless substance abusers. In addition,
part of Homestead Air Force Base was used to construct new transitional
housing for homeless individuals.
o Two buildings that were part of the former Valley Forge General
Hospital in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, were renovated and adapted to
provide mental health services and transitional housing for the
homeless.
o A 4-mile long former railroad right-of-way leading to the Howard A.
Hanson Dam in King County, Washington, was conveyed to the City of
Tacoma to provide access to its drinking water intake that uses water
from the dam. Recently, a new pipeline has been constructed on the
property to supply additional water to the City's water system.
Correctional Use o The Virginia Department of Corrections has used
conveyed lands that were part of the Former Petersburg Correctional
Institute near Petersburg, Virginia, to grow grain crops in support of its
prison farm system. The Department of Corrections subsequently transferred
a portion of the land it had received to the Riverside Regional Jail
Authority, a partnership of seven local governments, for a regional jail.
A new correctional facility has been built on that property that can
accommodate up to 1,300 male, female, and juvenile offenders.
Historic Monument Use o The Commanding Officer's Quarters, a 19th
century home on the grounds of the former Watertown Arsenal in
Massachusetts, was conveyed to the Town of Watertown for historic monument
use. The town has renovated the structure, restored its grounds, and rents
out the facility for public and private receptions and meetings.
o The former Olympia Federal Building in Washington was conveyed to the
state of Washington, which renovated the building to state historic
preservation standards and adapted it for the Secretary of State's
Corporations Division. The division registers business-related entities in
the state, including domestic and foreign corporations, limited
Wildlife Conservation Use
partnerships, limited liability partnerships, and limited liability
companies.
o Surplus lands conveyed to the state of Kansas have been incorporated
into the state's extensive Tuttle Lake conservation area, which offers
fishing, boating, camping, picnicking, and outdoor sports such as hunting.
The area also provides food and shelter for migratory shore birds and
waterfowl.
As indicated earlier, we found that seven of the properties we selected as
case studies were not being used as agreed to by grantees or had reverted
to the federal government. Of the seven properties, four had reverted to
the federal government, two had not been fully developed, and one was not
being used as agreed to by the grantee in the deed. The one property not
being used as agreed to by the grantee-the 20 Units King's Branch Housing
property-was conveyed for use as short-term housing for individuals with
physical disabilities. Instead of being used for short-term housing, the
property was being used to house individuals and their families
permanently. HHS program management officials conducted two site visits to
the property in 1999 and 2003. The 2003 site inspection found the property
to be in violation of deed and program requirements. In addition to using
the property for purposes other than what was agreed to in the deed, the
grantee did not provide all of the utilization reports that the deed
required. After numerous attempts to correct the grantee's noncompliance,
HHS suggested that the grantee purchase the property at fair market value,
through a process known as abrogation, in order to release the grantee
from the deed requirements. Until the abrogation is complete, HHS is
assessing monthly payments for noncompliance from the grantee.
Grantees for the two properties that were not fully developed-the Valley
Forge General Hospital property known as Liberty House and the Defense
General Supply Center Falling Creek Reservoir property-had experienced
problems complying with the development time lines and approved programs
of use for the properties. Although both grantees had compliance problems,
neither HHS nor Federal Lands to Parks Program officials believed that the
grantees' noncompliance had risen to a level that required purchase at
fair market-value price (abrogation), transfer, or reversion.
o In the case of the Valley Forge General Hospital property known as
Liberty House, the grantee has renovated two of three buildings on the
property and has operated a facility that serves the needs of mentally ill
homeless individuals for more than 9 years. The grantee is considered
noncompliant because, thus far, it has not restored a farmhouse that
was originally intended for use as a small group home. The grantee has
not been able to secure funding for the renovation, so the building
remains boarded up and unused at the front of the property. HHS, for
this reason, has determined that the grantee is in violation of the
property's deed requirements.
* The Defense General Supply Center Falling Creek Reservoir property
was conveyed for parks and recreation use, but for lack of funding,
the grantee has failed to fully develop the property according to
the original program of use. The property-a narrow parcel of land
that consists of a small ravine and water reservoir-is part of a
much larger plan for a linear park system. Although the grantee has
constructed a footpath through the property since conveyance, the
grantee has not made any other improvements to the land because it
has focused its efforts on acquiring park lands adjacent to the
parcel conveyed by the federal government. Program officials from
the Federal Lands to Parks Program said that they have not taken
action for the property to revert since the grantee intends to
develop the property as part of its comprehensive development plan
for the linear park.
* Four of the properties we selected as case studies had fully or
partially reverted to the federal government. These included the
NIKE Site PH-02 property; the Defense Distribution Depot Ogden,
Building 42 property; the Milford Lake property; and the Former
Petersburg Correctional Institute (portion) property. All four
properties were voluntarily reverted by the grantees; three were
reverted because of the grantees' inability to implement or
continue the program of use stated in the deed, while part of the
fourth property-the Former Petersburg Correctional Institute
(portion) property-was voluntarily reverted by the grantee at the
request of the federal government. Specifically:
o The Milford Lake forestry research property in Kansas was voluntarily
reverted by the grantee when it did not fully utilize the property.
Specifically, three of the parcels of land were not being used or were
leased to a neighboring farmer to cut hay. Another parcel had been
used for forestry research, but the trees planted there had not
survived.
o The NIKE PH-02 property a former missile site in Bristol,
Pennsylvania, was conveyed to Bristol Township in 1981 for parks and
recreation use. The township planned to build athletic fields but was
never able to obtain funding for development, so the property was
voluntarily
Agencies Used a Mix of Self-Reporting by Grantees and Site Inspections to
Ensure Compliance, although Frequency Varied
reverted back to the federal government and was sold at auction to a
private individual.
o The grantee of the Defense Distribution Depot Ogden, Building 42
property in Ogden, Utah, decided to voluntarily revert the property
when, faced with unanticipated building infrastructure costs, it
realized that it could not afford to pay for with an environmental
assessment required by HHS and property maintenance costs at the same
time. In addition, the grantee had difficulty developing community
support for the project.
o The Virginia Department of Corrections was conveyed 479 acres,
referred to as the Former Petersburg Correctional Institute (portion)
property, for use as a grain crops farm. The land is managed by the
Department of Corrections and worked by inmates from Southampton
Prison. The grain crops are harvested and fed to farm animals that
produce milk and meat to feed the prison population in the state. A
portion of the land was voluntarily reverted at the request of the
federal government because of homeland security needs.
As noted above, the reversion of properties is not always due to
noncompliance with deed requirements or misuse by grantees, but can be the
result of the grantee's inability to implement the approved program of use
in a timely fashion. This condition can be caused by insufficient
financial resources resulting from unanticipated and insurmountable costs
or the grantees's inability to obtain funding. For example, University of
Washington officials told us that they are considering returning Building
9 of the former Naval Station Puget Sound property because of the
estimated costs and scope of work required to meet environmental and
historic preservation requirements. Furthermore, reversion can occur if
the federal government wants a property back for its own use, as was the
case for the reversion of a segment of the Former Petersburg Correctional
Institute (portion) property because of homeland security needs.
GSA and the sponsoring agencies used a mix of self-reporting by grantees
and site inspections to ensure that properties were being used as agreed
to by grantees, although the frequency of these actions varied. Compliance
oversight of public benefit conveyances is carried out through two
mechanisms: utilization reports and site inspections. Utilization reports
are submitted by grantees according to terms specified in the deeds, while
agency staff conduct site inspections according to the agency's compliance
policies and procedures. Compliance monitoring by GSA and the sponsoring
agencies varies, both in terms of what a particular agency's policies and
procedures require and the agency's actual practice. For example, as table
3 shows, HHS, Education, HUD, and Interior (Federal Lands to Parks Program
and Historic Surplus Property Program) have compliance policies that
require grantees to submit annual or biennial utilization reports, while
GSA, FAA, and MARAD do not require these reports from grantees. Similarly,
most agencies' compliance policies required that agency officials conduct
site inspections on a periodic basis ranging from quarterly to once every
5 years. MARAD's compliance policies do not specify how frequently site
inspections should be performed and instead leave discretion to agency
officials to determine when site inspections are necessary.
Table 4: Compliance Oversight Methods Stated in Agencies' Policies and
Procedures for Properties Conveyed, Fiscal Years 1990-2004
Federal Historic
Lands to Surplus
Parks Property
Agency Programa Programa Education GSA HHS HUD FAA MARAD
Utilization Biennial Biennial Annual or Not Annual Quarterly At the Annual,
required to as
report biennial annually discretion required
of by
FAA deeds
Site Biennial Biennial Within Every 5 Within Quarterly Once every None
until until first first for 4
inspection use is use is 12 months; years 12 months, first 48 years specified
implemented; implemented; as needed at 1-5 months;
year
intervals intervals thereafter intervals annually
not to not to
exceed 5 exceed 5 thereafter thereafter
years years
thereafterb thereafter
Source: GAO.
aThis program is part of the Department of the Interior.
bAccording to a Federal Lands to Parks Program official, the policy
requiring biennial site inspections until implementation and at intervals
not to exceed 5 years thereafter was changed in 2004 to at least a 5-year
interval.
The substance of the agencies' compliance policies also varied, ranging
from very detailed criteria and guidance for performing compliance
oversight to basic descriptions of the agencies' compliance
responsibilities. Examples of the variation in agencies' compliance
policies follow.
* Compliance policies provided by GSA, Education, HHS, and the
Federal Lands to Parks Program contained detailed criteria and
guidance on
* how agency staff should conduct compliance monitoring for the PBC
properties in their inventories. The handbooks used by Education
and HHS include separate chapters on compliance and remedial
actions, abrogation, reversions, utilization reporting, and site
inspections. The chapters on compliance and remedial actions offer
program staff detailed guidance for investigating and reporting
various compliance issues, such as failure to utilize the property,
unauthorized sale of the property, or failure to provide
utilization reports to the agency. The chapters devoted to site
inspections provide program staff with guidance on how to review
and file reports and perform site inspections. Similarly, GSA's
compliance manual, known as the Executive Order Surveys and
Compliance Inspections Handbook, includes information on how site
inspections should be performed by GSA staff for wildlife
conservation and correctional use PBCs. The manual provides a
compliance report format for both uses as well as instructions on
how frequently site inspections should be performed and how
inspection paperwork should be processed. According to GSA
officials, GSA is in the process of updating the manual26 to
include information and guidance on performing compliance oversight
for emergency management response and law enforcement public uses,
which did not exist when the manual was originally created in 1996.
o The Historic Surplus Property Program relies on a memorandum developed
by Interior to guide its compliance monitoring. The 1983 memorandum
includes broad compliance criteria for both historic monument and
parks and recreation PBCs and provides suggests time frames for
responding to grantee compliance issues. According to Historic Surplus
Property Program officials, although the 1983 memorandum requires
biennial site inspections until a property's use is implemented and
inspections are not to exceed every 5 years thereafter, in practice
site inspections are performed at the discretion of the Historic
Surplus Property Program.
o HUD has not established separate policies and procedures for
compliance oversight of self-help housing conveyances; instead,
compliance responsibilities are described in the property application
and deed. In order for a property to be conveyed for self-help housing
use, the property application and deed state that the local government
where the property is located must agree to certain oversight
26GSA's new compliance manual is titled the Utilization/Compliance Desk
Guide.
Agencies' Reversion Policies Varied
responsibilities and execute an oversight agreement. According to HUD
officials, this arrangement was made under authorities granted by the
Property Act and the Housing and Urban Development Act. Only one property
has been conveyed for self-help housing thus far.
o MARAD relies on its regulations and property deeds as guidance for
monitoring port facility properties. 27 These documents lacked criteria
for identifying noncompliant properties and guidance for agency staff on
how to address noncompliance. For example, MARAD provided us with rules
that govern the conveyance of surplus port properties and property deeds
for some of the properties it oversees. Although the rules broadly
outlined the PBC process for surplus port properties, and the deeds
contained specific covenants and requirements for the grantee, none of the
documents MARAD provided offered guidance for agency program managers on
how they should conduct compliance monitoring activities or how they
should respond to compliance breaches.
We also found that the agencies' policies on reversions of property to the
federal government varied. According to PBC program regulations issued by
GSA, it is the responsibility of the sponsoring agency to ensure that
grantees correct noncompliance and to take whatever action is necessary
for a property to revert to the federal government if such action is
warranted. According to sponsoring agency officials, reversion is a remedy
of last resort, and agencies try to help grantees find remedies for
noncompliance before taking steps to revert a property. Often the remedies
involve alternatives to reversion, such as providing grantees with
additional technical assistance, amending the program of use, reconveying
the property to other eligible parties, abrogation (in which the grantee
purchases the property and is released from the terms of the deed), or
land swaps.
GSA and the sponsoring agencies have developed criteria for determining
when a reversion should be required and processes for bringing property
back to the federal government. This information is located in both
property deeds and agencies' policies and procedures. According to GSA and
the sponsoring agencies, all deeds for properties conveyed using the
27Conveyances of surplus port properties as PBCs were authorized by the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (P. L. No.
103-160). MARAD promulgated rules under 46 CFR Part 387.
Page 36 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
program include a reversion clause, which protects the government's
interests in the property. These clauses state, in general, that the
federal government has the right to reversion if the grantee fails to
comply with deed restrictions or to correct noncompliance. In addition to
the standard reversion clause, some agencies include information about how
much time the grantee has to correct noncompliance and what procedure the
sponsoring agency will follow to implement the reversion.
Education, HHS, GSA, FAA, and Interior (Federal Lands to Park Program and
Historic Surplus Property Program) have also developed separate policies
and procedures, some of which include criteria for determining when a
reversion should occur and processes for bringing the property back to the
federal government Two agencies-HUD and MARAD-have not developed such
policies and procedures. We found that the substance of the agencies'
reversion policies, like that of their compliance policies, varied.
Examples of agency reversion policies follow.
o The Federal Lands to Park Program's Surplus Property Handbook provides
some information on how to determine when a property is noncompliant
and when remedial action is necessary. It includes the steps in the
reversion process, identifies acceptable alternatives for reversion,
and assigns the grantee responsibility for all costs associated with
the reversion.
o GSA's two handbooks, the Excess and Surplus Real Property Handbook and
Executive Order Surveys and Compliance Inspections Handbook, provide
little guidance on how the reversion process works for properties for
which GSA has compliance monitoring responsibilities. The Excess and
Surplus Real Property Handbook provides realty staff with limited
guidance on the documentation required before the reversion begins,
such as title and environmental information. The
Executive Order Surveys and Compliance Inspections Handbook
states that if a property is no longer used for its intended purpose or if
it is needed for national defense purposes, title shall revert to the
United States. The handbook also notes that if noncompliance is found
after a site inspection, a reversionary deed will be requested. No other
information on when a reversion should occur or what processes should be
used is included in these two handbooks.
o FAA's Airports Compliance Handbook states that for a reversion to occur,
FAA must find a grantee "in default under the covenants of the instrument
of conveyance." The handbook provides FAA officials with general
procedures for reversions, such as how to determine when a grantee is in
default and what steps to take to notify grantees of the government's
intent. Voluntary reversions of property are preferred, and transferring
property to another grantee is considered a suitable alternative to
reversion. The handbook also provides FAA officials with sample text for a
notice of reversion, an instrument to reconvey the property or to release
the deed, and guidance on what is required for a reversion, including a
physical inspection of the property and a sign indicating the property is
owned by the federal government.
The aforementioned differences in the compliance monitoring approaches
used by GSA and the sponsoring agencies, and in their reversion policies
and procedures, are due mostly to the decentralized nature of the PBC
program and to flexibility in GSA's regulations implementing the PBC laws.
These regulations make the sponsoring agencies responsible for monitoring
and enforcing compliance, but do not specify how the agencies are to carry
out these responsibilities. Consistent with the law, GSA regulations
implementing the PBC program allow each agency to determine the method of
compliance monitoring to use and the frequency of these activities. Also
consistent with the law, GSA's implementing regulations allow each agency
to determine when a noncompliant property should be reverted to the
federal government. This approach has afforded a great deal of flexibility
to agencies carrying out compliance monitoring and exercising their rights
of reversion. However, this approach has had the negative effect of making
the PBC program seem unnecessarily complex, with a wide range of
inconsistent agency policies and practices being administered separately
by several agencies, depending on the type of public benefit use.
During our review, we found no compelling rationale for the differences in
compliance monitoring approaches and reversion policies and practices used
by GSA and sponsoring agencies. Essentially, the rigor with which each
agency carries out these duties appears to be based mostly on preference.
For example, GSA does not require utilization reports for the different
types of properties it monitors because, as GSA officials indicated, the
agency believes that site inspections are more reliable. Most sponsoring
agencies, on the other hand, rely heavily on utilization reports. The
complex nature of the federal real property environment was an underlying
cause of problems that led to our designation of this area as high risk in
2003, and the wide variation among agencies with regard to the PBC program
seems to illustrate this condition. Greater uniformity in compliance
monitoring and exercising the right of reversion would simplify
Challenges Managing and Participating in the PBC Program Were Evident
the program for agencies and potential grantees and enable better
oversight of the program by GSA and other stakeholders, such as OMB and
Congress.
Sponsoring agencies cited the need to allocate sufficient resources to
manage the program and perform compliance monitoring as a primary
challenge. In addition, according to agency officials, PBC program
management has been made more difficult because of the need to adhere to
complex federal real property laws, such as those related to military base
closures and homeless assistance. We also found that for a number of
reasons GSA and the sponsoring agencies often seek alternatives to
reversion when noncompliance is found, and some sponsoring agency
officials were concerned that the tendency of GSA to avoid reversion takes
away a main compliance enforcement mechanism. GSA officials said that the
agency seeks resolutions of compliance issues instead of reversions
because of the overall risk and financial burden these properties could
pose to the federal government. Most grantees reported being pleased with
the program, although they noted that information about the program's
operations and the condition of properties could be improved.
Agencies Cited Insufficient Resources to Manage the Program as a Challenge
Some agency officials identified the need to allocate sufficient resources
to manage the program as the primary challenge they face in fulfilling
their compliance monitoring and other PBC responsibilities. According to
sponsoring agency officials, the PBC program is not central to most
agencies' missions, and therefore agency officials often allot limited
resources to manage their portfolio of PBC properties. For example, PBC
staff at GSA and the sponsoring agencies often perform other work or
manage other mission programs in addition to the PBC program.
Specifically, PBC regional staff at the Historic Surplus Property Program
are also responsible for managing the National Historic Lighthouse
Preservation Act program, the Historic America Buildings Survey/Historic
American Engineering Record, and the National Historic Landmarks program.
Similarly, MARAD staff in the Office of Ports and Domestic Shipping are
responsible for managing the PBC program as well as more than seven other
programs, including Port Finance and Port and Cargo Security. Although it
may be reasonable for staff in agencies with fewer properties to have
split responsibilities, limited staffing resources was a common concern
among agencies.
Neither GSA nor any of the sponsoring agencies have appropriations
exclusively dedicated to the management of the PBC program; instead, the
program is included in funding for other mission programs or activities.
For example, the Federal Lands to Parks PBC program is funded through the
National Park Service's "Recreations" budget line item, which supports
multiple recreational programs and activities. Similarly, the Historic
Surplus Property's PBC program is included in the national and regional
office budgets for several of the National Register of Historic Places
programs previously mentioned. According to the Education PBC staff, their
program's budget is funded with discretionary moneys from the General
Administration and Management function. In general, decisions about the
level of resources devoted to the PBC program are made by agency officials
as they determine the priorities of their agency within its appropriation.
Staff responsible for administering the PBC program at several sponsoring
agencies with large PBC portfolios cited limited staffing and budgetary
resources as the reasons behind their reported difficulties in performing
compliance monitoring and other PBC responsibilities. Although we did not
assess agencies' use of resources with regard to the PBC program, multiple
officials at several agencies expressed concerns in this area, as the
following examples illustrate.
o Federal Lands to Parks Program officials said that restricted program
resources affect their ability to do effective outreach and provide
accurate information about the PBC program and opportunities to
prospective applicants. They said having limited staff and operating
resources often made it difficult to participate in the BRAC process
to ensure that interested parties are informed about the PBC program,
that appropriate natural and cultural resources have been identified
and considered for protection through the program, and that PBC
requests are considered by the military and local redevelopment
authorities. Furthermore, according to these officials, limited
program resources caused site inspection guidelines to be revised from
a requirement of inspecting not-yet-implemented programs every 2 years
and at 5-year intervals thereafter in favor of "at least a 5-year
interval" between inspections.
o Historic Surplus Property Program officials said that a lack of
allotted funds for the PBC program and escalating monitoring
responsibilities as more properties are conveyed have caused a drain
on the administration
Complex Landscape of Federal Real Property Laws Is Another Challenge
Agencies Cited
of the PBC program as well as on the funding for the historic
preservation program the office is required to manage.
o Education officials said that significant increases in administrative
costs of carrying out PBC responsibilities, including real estate
appraisals, environmental studies, purchase of private title searches,
recording of deeds and reversions, and reimbursement of travel expenses
incurred during site inspections and enforcement, have been a challenge
for the agency.
We found that several agencies have sought other ways of meeting their PBC
program administration and compliance monitoring responsibilities. Program
managers, for example, from the Federal Lands to Parks Program noted that
budget and staffing reductions to the PBC program made during a 1993
Interior reorganization led to a shift of policy from performing routine
compliance site inspections to resolving already identified compliance
problems. Faced with similarly limited staff and budgetary resources and
the additional responsibility of managing the self-help housing PBCs, HUD
decided to contract out its oversight responsibilities for self-help
housing properties to the local government in which the property was
located. For example, in the deed for the South Weymouth, MA - NAS
property known as Squantum Gardens and Naval Terrace, HUD included an
oversight agreement that requires the City of Quincy, as the local
government, to collect and review quarterly utilization reports, conduct
site visits, and report the property's compliance status to HUD. Once the
property has been fully developed, the agreement reduces the frequency
with which the City of Quincy must collect utilization reports and conduct
site inspections from quarterly to once every year. According to property
compliance records for one property we visited-the Former Petersburg
Correctional Institute property conveyed to the Riverside Regional Jail
Authority-GSA contracted with a private company to perform site
inspections. GSA officials said that internal staffing needs prevented
agency staff from inspecting the site themselves.
PBC program management has also been made more difficult because of myriad
laws that affect the program and the addition of new public uses,
according to agency officials at Education, HHS, and the Federal Lands to
Parks Program within Interior, which have responsibility for some of the
largest PBC portfolios. Since the 1949 Property Act, a number of federal
laws have amended the program to create new authorities and have increased
the complexity of the conveyance process. For example, new types of public
uses have been created for correctional,28 homeless,29 port facilities,30
law enforcement,31 emergency management response,32 and selfhelp
housing.33 The McKinney-Vento Act, as amended, and BRAC also altered the
PBC process by adding new procedural requirements for homeless use
consideration and for the disposal of surplus military property. In
addition, other federal laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act
of 196934 (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act of 196635
(NHPA) have affected the PBC process.
In the past, we reported that the complex legal and budgetary environment
in which real property managers operate has a significant impact on real
property decisionmaking.36 In the disposal area, a range of laws intended
to address other objectives challenge agencies' efforts to dispose of
unneeded property, including properties disposed of through the PBC
program. For example, agencies are required under NEPA to consider the
environmental impact of their decisions to dispose of property. Generally
speaking, agencies are responsible for environmental cleanup prior to
disposal. These costs can be considerable and can involve years of study.
In another example, for properties with historic designations-which are
common in the federal portfolio-agencies are required by NHPA to ensure
that historic preservation is factored into how the property is eventually
used. The Property Act further specifies that unneeded property first be
offered to other federal agencies; and the McKinney-Vento Act sets forth
requirements that consideration be given to making unneeded property
available to assist the homeless.
2840 U.S.C.S: 553(b)(1). 2942 U.S.C. S: 11411. 3040 U.S.C.S: 554. 3140
U.S.C. S: 553(b)(2). 3240 U.S.C. S: 553(b)(3). 3340 U.S.C. S: 550(f). 3442
U.S.C. S: 4321 et. seq. 3516 U.S.C. S: 470 et. seq.
36GAO-03-122.
The McKinney-Vento Act
Signed into law in 1987, the McKinney-Vento Act created additional
requirements for the disposal of surplus property though the PBC program.
Some sponsoring agencies reported that McKinney-Vento Act requirements
have delayed the PBC process for the disposal of civilian property. The
McKinney-Vento Act requires that all excess, surplus, unutilized, and
underutilized federal property be considered for homeless use purposes
before the property is made available for any of the other disposal
methods.37 To do so, HUD collects information from 26 federal landholding
agencies on all unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus properties;
evaluates each property's suitability for homeless use; and publishes a
list of these properties in the Federal Register. Many of the properties
reported as excess are not suitable for homeless use for diverse reasons
such as environmental contamination, distance from existing communities or
public transportation, or location within a military installation.
All former civilian agency and non-BRAC surplus properties deemed suitable
for homeless use by HUD must go through a 60-day holding period during
which the property is ineligible for disposal for any purpose other than
for homeless use. HHS is responsible for accepting and reviewing
applications for homeless use from state and local governments and certain
nonprofit entities. Interested homeless representatives must submit to HHS
a written notice of intent to apply for a property for homeless use during
the 60-day holding period. After applicants have given notice of intent to
apply, federal law provides them up to 90 days to submit their application
to HHS, and grants HHS the discretion to extend the time frame if
necessary. Once HHS has received an application, it has 25 days to review,
accept, or decline the application. During the entire application process,
each property under consideration is ineligible for disposal for any other
purpose, including other public benefit uses. Thus, in total, a surplus
real property determined suitable for homeless use might be ineligible for
consideration for other disposal opportunities for more than 175 days.
Because of amendments to BRAC, the process for considering the use of
property at any military installation for homeless use differs from that
for former civilian agency or non-BRAC surplus real property. Homeless use
considerations for surplus BRAC property will be described in more detail
below.
3742 U.S.C. S: 11411.
The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990
Nearly half of the 298 identifiable properties conveyed in fiscal years
2000 through 2004 and 27 of the 58 properties we selected as case studies
were former BRAC properties. This is significant because sponsoring agency
officials at Education, HHS, MARAD, and the Federal Lands to Parks Program
said that the BRAC process further complicates the PBC process because of
the additional steps and paperwork involved in conveying former BRAC
military property. Specifically, the unique role of the Local
Redevelopment Authority (LRA) and a lack of consistency in how the
military departments carry out property disposal also complicate the PBC
process. As previously noted, the disposal of BRAC property typically
involves an LRA made up of community members that are responsible for
planning the future use of the former military property. The LRA is
afforded up to 270 days to complete a redevelopment plan that details how
all surplus real property associated with the closed or realigned
installation will be reused or redeveloped, including property disposed of
as PBCs. In particular, the redevelopment plan must balance the needs of
the homeless with the need for economic and other redevelopment. HUD
provides technical assistance and determines if the reuse plans meets
statutory requirements relating to the homeless. The LRA's
responsibilities to generate a redevelopment plan while considering the
needs of the homeless can add considerable time and complexity to the PBC
process. For example, according to HUD's Guidebook on Military Base Reuse
and Homeless Assistance, if time limits were stretched to the greatest
possible extent, the process of reviewing BRAC property for homeless use
and generating a redevelopment plan could take as long as 540 days after
the property is listed as surplus in the Federal Register. These time
frames were reconfirmed by an Army BRAC official.
The PBC process was further complicated by GSA's delegation of disposal
authority to the Secretary of Defense, as required by the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990.38 This authority was further
delegated within DOD to each of the three military departments: the Army,
Navy, and Air Force. According to DOD officials, DOD headquarters is not
directly involved in the disposal of surplus BRAC real property, nor does
it play a coordinating role in the disposal process other than to gather
information from the three military departments for its annual report to
GSA. Consequently, each of the three military departments establishes its
own policies and procedures for property disposal as long as they adhere
to DOD's Base Reuse Implementation Manual (BRIM) and BRAC
38Pub. L. No. 101-510 S: 2905 (b), 10 U.S. C. 2687 note (1990).
Agencies Seek Alternatives to Reversion for Noncompliance
implementing regulations,39 which served as the principal guidance for
BRAC property disposal.40 As a result of this flexibility, each military
service has established its own approach to BRAC property disposal, such
as the roles assigned to the principal stakeholders. For example, although
BRIM states that the military services will make the final determination
on how all former BRAC property will be disposed of, an Army BRAC official
said that in practice the LRA often has significant influence on how each
parcel of land at former Army facilities will be disposed of. In contrast,
Navy officials told us that the Navy makes the final determination on the
allocation of the property among the various disposal methods, including
PBCs. The lack of uniform procedures across the military departments adds
confusion to the already complex PBC process because the sponsoring
agencies have to follow different procedures with each of the military
departments.
For a number of reasons, GSA and sponsoring agencies seek alternatives to
the federal government's taking back properties for noncompliance. The
main impediment to reversion involves the assumption of risk and
uncertainty that reversion entails for GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring
agencies. According to GSA regulations implementing the PBC program, for
most public uses, it is the responsibility of the sponsoring agency to
monitor compliance and to notify GSA when a property should revert, and
GSA makes the final decision on whether to take back the property.
However, agency officials from Education, HHS, and the Federal Lands to
Parks Program said that reversion had increasingly become untenable as a
tool when deed requirements are not met. Agency officials attribute the
increasing difficulty of reversions to issues ranging from adhering to
numerous legal requirements to the availability of budgetary resources.
Program staff from Education and HHS said that agencies that monitor
compliance are now responsible for paying for an array of legal
requirements-including environmental studies, real estate appraisals,
title searches, and title insurance-before GSA will consider allowing
properties to revert. In addition, some agencies expressed concern about
the possibility of being held responsible for paying for the maintenance,
3932 CFR 174-176.
40BRIM was the primary DOD guidance for the disposal of surplus real
property during BRAC rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995, the time period
during which the properties we selected as case studies were conveyed. DOD
updated BRIM for the 2005 round of BRAC and renamed it the Base
Realignment and Redevelopment Manual (BRRM).
Page 45 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
protection, and environmental cleanup of a property once it reverts. A
number of agencies said that the issue of who is responsible for paying
for these costs-the sponsoring agency, GSA, DOD, or the grantee-has not
yet been clearly defined. These factors have made it difficult for
agencies to take reversionary actions without budgeted resources of their
own.
In addition, according to some sponsoring agencies, in recent years GSA
has opposed reversions suggested by the sponsoring agencies. For example,
according to an Education official, GSA does not encourage enforcement
actions that result in reversions for noncompliance and has exercised its
statutory authority to object to suggested reversions, preventing the
sponsoring agencies from taking back title to properties that are in
long-term noncompliance and leaving the agencies with no alternative
solutions. The official noted that GSA's policies on reversion have a
chilling effect on all reversions and compliance efforts since it is
virtually impossible to enforce compliance without the ability to take
back title, given that other alternatives require voluntary cooperation by
grantees or cooperation from the United States Attorney in litigation in
federal court. An HHS official expressed similar concerns, stating
"GSA will not accept property it determines is not marketable. Therefore,
it is very difficult to revert those properties and enforce compliance.
The failure of GSA to accept the return of properties makes it very
difficult for HHS to adequately carry out its mission in assuring that the
properties are used in accordance with established regulations."
According to HHS, in one instance, GSA's refusal to take back a
noncompliant homeless use property in Warren, Michigan, resulted in the
property sitting vacant for about 4 years and the structures deteriorating
to the point where they had to be demolished by the new grantee.
GSA program officials said that before GSA will approve an agency's
request for a property to revert to the federal government, it must
consider a number of factors, which will determine whether reacquiring the
property is in the best interest of the government. The factors include
the overall risk and financial burden to the government, the marketability
of the property, and the ease of redisposing of the property. According to
GSA, the greatest risk that reversion poses is that properties can remain
in the inventory for prolonged periods of time, require additional funds
for maintenance and protection, and be difficult to redispose of by
transfer, reconveyance, or sale. GSA's concerns about the risk and
uncertainty of reverted property were confirmed by officials at the
Federal Lands to Parks Program.
As discussed earlier, DOD's involvement in the reversion process is
unclear. DOD's BRIM, the primary guidance for implementing BRAC and
disposing of surplus real property as PBCs, does not specifically address
how reversions of BRAC property should be handled and whether DOD takes
back noncompliant property.41 According to DOD headquarters officials, DOD
is not involved in the PBC reversion process. Instead, DOD officials noted
that it is the responsibility of the sponsoring agencies to monitor
compliance for former BRAC property and of GSA to take back property when
grantees are found to be noncompliant. However, we received differing
statements from military department officials about how the reversion
process works for BRAC property, as the following examples illustrate.
o Army officials noted that DOD has not regularly been involved in the
reversion process because DOD is not responsible for compliance. Army
officials said that they are currently holding discussions with GSA on
whether former BRAC property would return to GSA or to the Army if it
were to revert.
o According to one Navy official, former Navy BRAC property would revert
to the sponsoring agency. The official said that this was because the
Navy assigns the property to the sponsoring agency and the sponsoring
agency deeds the property to the grantee and is responsible for
compliance. However, another Navy official disagreed, saying that the
official Navy position is that Navy BRAC property conveyed as PBCs
would revert to the Navy and not to the sponsoring agency.
o An Air Force official said that when GSA revised the federal
regulations governing the PBC program a couple of years ago, the
language regarding reversions was clarified. The Air Force official
further stated that former Air Force BRAC property would revert to the
sponsoring agency while GSA rescreened it for other public uses and
disposal methods.
Furthermore, even though DOD officials stated that DOD is not involved in
the reversion process, as noted earlier in the report, we found that one
of
41DOD updated BRIM for the 2005 round of BRAC and renamed it the Base
Realignment and Redevelopment Manual (BRRM). BRRM also does not
specifically address how reversions of BRAC property should be handled and
whether DOD takes back noncompliant property.
Page 47 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
Some Grantees Reported Poor Communication about the Program and Lack of
Information on the Condition of Individual Properties
the properties we selected for case study review-the Defense Distribution
Depot Ogden, Building 42-reverted to the Army instead of to GSA.
Most grantees reported being pleased with the PBC program; however, nearly
a quarter of the grantees we interviewed reported a lack of information
about how the PBC program worked, and some of these grantees also reported
that more information about the condition of individual properties would
have been helpful. According to a number of grantees, better, more
accurate information would help them plan for the most appropriate use of
and anticipate costs associated with the development of the property. For
example, several grantees said that more information about the PBC process
would have benefited their planning process:
o According to the grantee of the Defense Distribution Depot Ogden,
Building 42 property, prior knowledge of the PBC process and of the
costs the grantee would incur would have been helpful. For example,
after the property was conveyed the grantee discovered it was required
to conduct an environmental groundwater assessment and to pay to
maintain the unoccupied building while the environmental assessment
was pending. The grantee voluntarily reverted the property after 2
years because it was unable to fund the environmental assessment and
maintain the property at the same time.
o According to the grantees of a Defense Depot - Ogden, UT property and
the Warminster, PA - NAWC property, information on the condition of
properties was difficult to obtain. For example, an official with
Warminster Township said that because the military was unable to
provide maps or blueprints that indicated the location of buried
plumbing and electrical infrastructure, construction crews removing a
portion of a former runway mistakenly cut electrical lines that
serviced a neighboring property.
* Valley Forge Christian College property officials said that they
were unable to procure drawings identifying the location of
buried infrastructure at the former Valley Forge General
Hospital. College officials said that because of the lack of
information on the infrastructure, they did not sufficiently
anticipate the full scope of the physical and financial
challenges the conveyance posed to the institution, and the
college faced financial difficulties as a result.
* Grantees made a number of suggestions about how to improve the
PBC program, as the following examples illustrate.
o According to the Rolling Hills Preparatory School, grantee of a Long
Beach, CA - NAVSHPYD property, it was not informed of the rules of the
PBC process. The grantee said that it did not know upfront that it
would be required to pay for the studies, consultants, and attorneys'
fees that were part of the process. The grantee suggested that the PBC
program could be better managed by providing grantees with additional
upfront training and better insight into the rules, time lines,
potential hurdles, and possible costs of the PBC process for former
BRAC property.
o According to officials at the New Jewish High School, grantee of a
Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center property, a "cheat sheet" of the
requirements of the PBC process should be created. This sheet would
include information on how the program works, grantee's
responsibilities regarding compliance, and a list of the various PBC
uses matched to the sponsoring agencies and contacts within those
agencies for interested parties.
o Elder Housing Corporation, grantee of the South Weymouth, MA - NAS
property now known as Squantum Gardens and Naval Terrace, said that
more information on other public benefit uses would be helpful. For
example, officials from the corporation said that they had submitted
their application for self-help housing use, but they were not
informed of other possible PBC uses (i.e., besides self-help housing)
that might have been a better match for the property. The corporation
chose to purchase the property at fair market value when it was unable
to implement its self-help housing program, in part because of a
reluctance of lenders to finance a property that could revert.
o An official from Valley Forge Christian College, grantee of the Valley
Forge General Hospital property, suggested that the government
continue to maintain surplus facilities until they were conveyed
instead of letting them deteriorate, which would make it easier for
grantees to plan for the properties' use and would assist with the
future renovation of properties. The deferred maintenance of surplus
properties was a challenge identified by several grantees.
Compounding the concerns grantees expressed about communication,
information on the PBC program was fragmented across several government
Web sites. For example, although GSA's Web site offers an overview of the
property disposal process that includes PBCs among the other disposal
methods, it does not provide specific information on how the program
works, nor does it provide links to the sponsoring agencies or a
description of their role in the program. It was also unclear how a
potential applicant should begin the process of considering a property for
public benefit conveyance or whom to contact about the program.
With respect to finding information on the program by using sponsoring
agencies' Web sites, only HHS's Web site offered overviews of the PBC
process and grantee responsibilities, answers to frequently asked
questions, and relevant links to additional information. It was difficult
to find any information about the PBC program on other sponsoring
agencies' Web sites, without prior knowledge of the program and its uses.
For example, it was necessary to know that Interior's Federal Lands to
Parks Program was the sponsoring agency for parks and recreation PBCs in
order to find any pertinent information on Interior's Web site. Once
located, the Federal Lands to Parks Program Web page provided program
overviews, answers to frequently asked questions, links, and contact
information. Web sites maintained by the other sponsoring agencies offered
either minimal program information or none at all. DOT's Web site offered
limited program information for public airport and port facility PBCs but
no contact information, while Education's, HUD's and FEMA's Web sites did
not provide any PBC program information. Furthermore, because DOD does not
provide a search engine function on any of its Web sites, it was difficult
to easily search its sites for PBC program information related to the
disposal of BRAC property.
Most PBC properties we visited are being used as agreed to by the grantee
Conclusions
for a range of purposes including education, parks and recreation, and
public health; but problems related to data consistency between agencies
and compliance monitoring hinder program management. Specifically, the
lack of reliable, consistent data on PBC properties prevents effective
management and oversight by GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring agencies. Lack of
quality data on the federal real property inventory in general has been a
persistent problem we have identified. GSA and DOD officials told us that
developing better data on PBC properties could possibly be accomplished as
part of GSA's efforts to revamp its governmentwide database-the federal
real property profile.
We found that most case study properties where we could assess compliance
activity did not receive the monitoring specified in agencies'
Recommendations for Executive Action
policies or the property deed. This is a concern because PBC properties
could be vulnerable to being used for purposes other than those agreed to
by the grantee. In addition, GSA regulations implementing the PBC program
allow each agency a great deal of flexibility in carrying out its
compliance responsibilities, including how to address noncompliant
properties and determine when properties should revert to the federal
government. As a result, the PBC program seems unnecessarily complex, with
agencies using a wide range of policies and practices depending on the
type of public benefit use. We found no compelling rationale or criteria
for the differences in compliance approaches and reversion policies and
practices. The complex nature of the federal real property environment was
an underlying cause of problems that led to our designation of this area
as high risk in 2003, and the wide variation among agencies with regard to
the PBC program seems to illustrate this condition.
Other problems hindering the effectiveness of the program include
challenges cited by agencies and communication shortcomings cited by
grantees. Agency officials we spoke with cited the need to allocate
sufficient resources to manage the program and the complex legal landscape
in which they operate as factors that affect the program. In addition,
agencies reported difficulties with property reversions and have sought
alternatives to addressing noncompliance. Some grantees cited as a
challenge the lack of communication about the program and individual
properties. We found that information on the PBC program was fragmented
across several government Web sites. Improvements in these areas would
help provide greater assurance that the federal government fulfills its
role as a steward of former federal real property assets. It could also
ensure that the PBC program remains a viable option for addressing the
federal government's long-standing problems with excess and underutilized
real property, which was a factor that led to our designation of real
property as a high-risk area.
We are making four recommendations to the GSA Administrator, one which is
also directed to the Secretaries of Education, the Interior, Health and
Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation.
Because GSA is the federal agency with primary responsibilities for the
PBC program under the Property Act, we recommend that the Administrator of
GSA coordinate with DOD and each of the sponsoring agencies to ensure that
PBC property data are reliable and consistent between agencies for the
purposes of effective management, oversight, and
accountability. These data should include, at a minimum, a unique
identifying code or name and pertinent data related to each property such
as location, type, sponsoring agency, grantee, reversion status, if
applicable, the property's compliance history, and other relevant
information, as appropriate. This effort to improve the data could be
accomplished as part of, or in conjunction with, the federal real property
profile initiative already underway.
We also recommend that the Administrator of GSA, and the Secretaries of
Education, the Interior, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban
Development, and Transportation take actions they deem appropriate to
better ensure that their agencies' current compliance monitoring policies
are followed.
We also recommend that the Administrator of GSA coordinate with DOD and
sponsoring agencies to give consideration to developing uniform standards
and guidance for the PBC program to address inconsistencies, as
appropriate. Such an effort could include, for example, standard policies
and procedures for compliance site inspections and utilization reports, a
determination of the appropriate frequency of compliance site inspections
and utilization reports, and standard criteria and processes for
reversions of property to the government.
We also recommend that the Administrator of GSA coordinate and work with
DOD and sponsoring agencies to develop strategies for addressing various
challenges facing agencies and grantees. These include the need to
allocate sufficient resources to manage the program and to improve
communication about the program's legal complexities, the reversion
process, and the characteristics of individual properties. This effort
could be done in conjunction with, or as part of, the recommendation to
develop uniform standards and guidance for the program.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We provided a draft of this report to GSA, DOD, DOJ, DOT, DHS, Education,
Interior, HHS, and HUD for review and comment. Education concurred with
the report's overall findings and recommendation to the Secretary of
Education to better ensure that their agencies' current compliance
monitoring policies are followed. Education's comments are contained in
appendix VII. DOD, DOJ, and DOT had no official comments on this report
but provided separate technical comments, which we incorporated into the
report where appropriate. DHS notified us that it had no official comments
on this report. Interior was unable to provide official comments in time
to be included in the report.
GSA concurred with the report's overall findings and the three
recommendations we made to the GSA Administrator. GSA said that the agency
will take the necessary steps to improve the program areas highlighted in
our recommendations through assuming a greater oversight role and issuing
policy guidance. However, GSA had a number of comments on our findings.
GSA said that the majority of the data accuracy issues identified in the
report are due to differences in how GSA tracks information and how the
sponsoring agencies track the same information. We agree that data
discrepancies identified in the report are due in part to the separate
lists of properties kept by the agencies on the PBC program as well as the
different formats, locations, and pieces of data kept on each property.
For that reason, we recommended that GSA coordinate with DOD and the
sponsoring agencies to ensure that PBC property data are reliable and
consistent between agencies. GSA stated that it does not believe that the
data discrepancies identified in the report indicate that the government
as a whole is not aware of or responsible for compliance requirements of
the PBC program. We continue to believe that the lack of reliable,
consistent data on PBC properties makes it difficult for GSA to
effectively oversee the program and for the sponsoring agencies to ensure
that they are performing compliance monitoring for all the properties that
have been conveyed. Better data would facilitate oversight of the program
and ensure that the government is performing compliance monitoring for all
the properties conveyed using the PBC program. GSA also provided technical
comments, which we incorporated into the final report where appropriate.
Comments from GSA can be found in appendix V.
HHS generally concurred with the report's overall findings and with the
recommendation to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to better
ensure that their agencies' current compliance monitoring policies are
followed. HHS stated that in keeping with our recommendation, it has been
aggressive in ensuring the grantees' timely submission of annual
utilization reports. However, HHS had the following comments on our
findings and other recommendations. HHS said that although the report
examined the interagency dispute on the reversion of conveyed surplus
property, it believed that the report failed to draw any meaningful
conclusions about the competing viewpoints on the subject and did not
offer specific recommendations to address the problem. Furthermore, HHS
noted that clear guidance on reversions would provide a framework for the
sponsoring agencies to address administrative deficiencies identified in
the draft report. HHS suggested that we determine whether reversion is a
suitable method for compliance enforcement and whether GSA's and DOD's
objections to reversions have merit. Determining whether reversion is a
suitable method for addressing noncompliance was beyond the scope of this
review. We agree that the unclear reversion process and competing
viewpoints on reversions are a concern, but leave the consideration of
uniform standards and guidance for the PBC program including standard
criteria and processes for reversions of property, to GSA, DOD, and the
sponsoring agencies.
HHS had a number of comments on our findings on PBC property data. HHS
noted that GSA and DOD maintain responsibility for a number of properties
that are never assigned to a sponsoring agency and therefore would not be
in the sponsoring agencies' property records. Furthermore, HHS said that
it provides GSA and DOD with a significant amount of information about
each property it conveys and HHS believes that the lack of reliable,
consistent PBC property data is largely due to GSA's and DOD's failure to
use the property information furnished to them by the sponsoring agencies
and to update their property records. As a result, HHS expressed concern
about whether GSA and DOD would be able to efficiently develop a
governmentwide database of PBC properties without in-depth discussions
with the sponsoring agencies. We believe that GSA, DOD and the sponsoring
agencies should be involved in the development of consistent, reliable PBC
data and made such a recommendation. HHS suggested that if a
governmentwide database of real property information were to be developed,
it should be Web-based and accessible to the federal agencies so that
property information could be updated on a recurring basis. HHS said that
in accordance with our recommendation, it will dedicate a field for
reversions in its database of PBC properties.
HHS disagreed with our statement that only GSA and the Air Force provide
unique identifying codes for each property. HHS commented that it also has
a unique identification number for each property conveyed by HHS, which it
uses in conjunction with GSA and DOD identifying codes. HHS did not
provide these numbers to us during our audit. Furthermore, HHS said that
in its experience, the names of properties frequently change as properties
are transferred between GSA and DOD and the sponsoring agencies, requiring
HHS to verify the identity of the parcel of property assigned to it. We
believe HHS's statements corroborate our finding that a PBCprogramwide
system of coding properties does not exist and support our recommendation
that reliable, consistent PBC property data be developed and that these
data include, at a minimum, a unique identifying code or name for each
property.
HHS had additional comments on our recommendation that GSA coordinate with
DOD and sponsoring agencies to give consideration to developing uniform
standards and guidance for the PBC program to address inconsistencies, as
appropriate. Specifically, HHS said that it believes that standard
policies and procedures for compliance site inspections and utilization
reports would not be feasible because of inherent differences in the types
of public uses and the possible administrative burden that would be
imposed on the sponsoring agency and the grantee if they were required to
report information not pertaining to their specific public use. We do not
agree that the differences in the public uses preclude GSA, DOD, and the
sponsoring agencies from working collectively to consider whether
opportunities exist for uniformity in standards and guidance for the PBC
program and instead believe that HHS's comments lend support to our
recommendation that discussion between the agencies would be useful and
could address issues of program inconsistencies. HHS also provided
technical comments, including some related to individual properties. We
incorporated these into the final report where appropriate. Comments from
HHS can be found in appendix VI.
HUD generally concurred with the report's recommendation to the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development to better ensure that their agencies'
current compliance monitoring policies are followed. HUD stated that in
keeping with our recommendation, it will review its compliance policies.
However, HUD had additional comments on our recommendation that GSA
coordinate with DOD and sponsoring agencies to give consideration to
developing uniform standards and guidance for the PBC program to address
inconsistencies, as appropriate. Specifically, HUD said that conveyances
for residential housing are different from those for commercial property
and therefore it would be inappropriate to develop uniform standards for
all PBCs. HUD believes that it has already adopted the appropriate
standards for housing conveyances, which are similar to those for other
housing programs. As we noted in our response to HHS's comments, we do not
agree that the differences in public uses preclude GSA, DOD, and the
sponsoring agencies from working together to consider whether
opportunities exist for uniformity in standards and guidance and instead
believe that HUD's comments also support our recommendation that
discussion between the agencies would be useful and could address issues
of program inconsistencies. HUD provided comments by e-mail through its
agency liaison. These comments have been incorporated into the report
where appropriate.
As agreed with our office, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from
the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to other
interested congressional committees and the Administrator of GSA, the
Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, the Secretary of Education, the
Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Secretary of
Transportation. We will also make copies available to others upon request.
In addition, the report will be available at not charge on the GAO Web
site http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
5122834 or [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix
VIII.
Mark L. Goldstein Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Our objectives were to (1) determine the number, types, and locations of
surplus real properties disposed of using the public benefit conveyance
(PBC) program in fiscal years 2000 through 2004; (2) assess General
Services Administration (GSA), Department of Defense (DOD), and sponsoring
agency efforts to ensure that properties are used as agreed to by the
grantee; and (3) identify any challenges facing agencies and grantees with
regard to the program. To determine the number, types, and locations of
surplus real properties disposed of using the PBC program in fiscal years
2000 through 2004, it was necessary to develop a database of properties
conveyed by the PBC program because a comprehensive database does not
exist. To compile a database of properties, we obtained data from GSA and
DOD on all the properties conveyed as PBCs in fiscal years 2000 through
2004 (i.e., October 1, 1999, to September 30, 2004). We also asked each of
the sponsoring agencies to provide us with a complete list of properties
for which they gained compliance monitoring responsibilities during this
time period. We asked GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring agencies to provide us
with the following pieces of information for each property on their list:
property name, description, address, sponsoring agency,1 grantee including
contact information, date of conveyance, intended public use, and
compliance history including dates of compliance reports or inspections.
Agencies provided us with both electronic data and case files.
We compiled the data into a database of properties and made note of
missing fields of data. In order to verify that each sponsoring agency was
aware of its responsibilities to monitor each property, we compared each
property on GSA's and DOD's lists with those on the sponsoring agencies'
lists. We used six pieces of information for each property to determine
whether properties on both lists were the same. These were the property
name, public use, grantee, acreage, location, and date conveyed.
Properties were considered the same if data for a property on GSA's or
DOD's lists was the same in four or more fields as a property on the
sponsoring agency's list, and they were considered similar if between two
and three fields were the same. We determined the total number of
identifiable properties by summing the properties considered to be the
same or similar. Because these properties were on either GSA's or DOD's
lists and the sponsoring agencies' lists, we have reasonable assurance
that these properties were conveyed and that the sponsoring agencies were
aware of their responsibilities to monitor them. A number of properties on
GSA's and DOD's lists could not be matched with a property on the
sponsoring
1We asked only that GSA and DOD provide information on the sponsoring
agency.
agencies' lists because data in none of the six fields on any list was in
agreement. Determining the status of these properties would have been
time-consuming and was outside of the scope of our review. To determine
the number of properties that reverted to the federal government in fiscal
years 2000 through 2004, we asked GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring agencies to
provide us with data on the number of properties that reverted from
October 1, 1999 through September 30, 2004. We compiled this data into a
database and used the same process described above to compare the lists of
reverted properties provided by GSA and DOD to the lists provided by the
sponsoring agencies. To determine the reliability of the PBC property
data, we collected information from agency officials at GSA, DOD, and the
sponsoring agencies about their data collection systems and asked these
officials to describe the controls their agency had in place to ensure
that the data are accurate and complete.
To assess GSA's, DOD's, and sponsoring agencies' efforts to ensure that
properties were being used as agreed to by the grantee, we reviewed the
federal statutes and regulations that established the PBC program,
collected documents on the organizational structure of the program and the
responsibilities of each agency involved in the program, and examined the
steps in the PBC process for both civilian and BRAC property. To determine
how each agency manages its PBC program, we obtained GSA's, DOD's, and
sponsoring agencies' policies and procedures for management of the PBC
program, including information on the application review and approval,
deeding and conveyance, and compliance monitoring processes. In order to
better understand the reversion process and to identify criteria the
agencies' used to revert properties, and the steps involved in the
reversion process, we interviewed agency officials on the reversion
process and obtained the agencies' policies and procedures on reversions.
In order to determine whether the agencies were performing compliance
monitoring and properties were being used as agreed to by the grantees, we
selected 58 properties for case study review that were conveyed between
October 1, 1989 and September 30, 2004. Specifically, we requested that
GSA and the sponsoring agencies provide us with data on all of the
properties for which they gained compliance monitoring responsibilities.
We chose properties from a 15-year time period because that time frame
would help ensure that most of the properties had an established
compliance history. The 58 properties were chosen because they represented
a mix of public uses, locations, stages of development (e.g., in planning
versus completed), and compliance methods and histories. We asked GSA and
the sponsoring agencies to provide us with the following documents for
each property selected for case study: the application, deed, survey,
compliance records such as utilization reports, site inspections, and
other significant correspondence related to each property's compliance
(e.g., letters of request).
We evaluated the consistency of the compliance oversight performed for
each property by comparing compliance records provided for each property
to the compliance requirements stated in the agency's policies and
procedures and the property deed. We were able to evaluate compliance
oversight for 41 of the 58 properties we selected for case study review.
Compliance oversight was considered consistent if the agency provided
documentation for all the utilization reports and site inspections
required in the agency's policies and procedures and the deed since the
date of conveyance. If there were any gaps without documented explanation
in the compliance record, compliance for the property was considered
inconsistent. We were unable to evaluate compliance oversight for 17
properties selected for case study review because these properties had
either been conveyed so recently that compliance monitoring was not yet
required, had already reverted back to the federal government, or we were
unable to obtain compliance information from the agencies. In addition, we
visited each of the 58 case study properties to gain further insights
about the program and determine whether the properties appeared to be used
as described in property documents.
To identify any challenges related to the PBC program, we interviewed GSA,
DOD, and sponsoring agency officials and grantees about the program and
asked them to provide us with information on any challenges to PBC program
management and suggestions for improving the program. We collected
documents to better understand each challenge, including information on
the resources dedicated to the program, information available to
prospective applicants and grantees, and information on why properties
revert and what can be done to prevent it. We also researched the myriad
federal laws that affect the PBC program, including the McKinney-Vento
Act, Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Base Closure and
Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994, National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), and visited the Web sites of GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring agencies
to determine how easy it was to obtain information on the PBC program and
available surplus property. We conducted our review from September 2004 to
May 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Appendix II
Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties Conveyed, Fiscal Years 2000-2004
Date
conveyed/ Conveyance BRAC/non-
Property name reverted Acres type Grantee name BRAC
1 Bethel Army Tundra Women's
Alaska Advisor Housing - Apr-02 0.3 Homeless Coalition Non-BRAC
11 Lot
2 Dillingham Wharf Nov-03 2.4 Other (Port Not provided Non-BRAC
facility)a
3 Gibson Cove Jan-04 37.1 Parks and City of Kodiak Non-BRAC
recreation
Page 60 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
4 Mobile Point Alabama Historical
Alabama Light Mar-01 10.1 Parks and Commission Non-BRAC
Station recreation
5 Federal Aug-01 1.2 Education Cullman City School Non-BRAC
Building System
6 Jasper FB&CT Aug-02 1.4 Education Walker County Board Non-BRAC
of Ed
7 Coosa River Talladega County
(CRSA) Storage Apr-03 2832.4 Parks and Commission Non-BRAC
Annex recreation
8 Sand Island Sept-03 0.2 Parks and Town of Dauphin Non-BRAC
Lighthouse recreation Island
9 Fort Apr-00 7.0 Public WWTP BRAC
McClellan health
Fort
11 Chaffee Jul-01 583.0 Parks and Sabastian County BRAC
12 Low Level Public
System Windshear Mar-00 0.4 health Not provided Non-BRAC
#4 Alert recreation
US Army
13 Reserve Dec-01 7.0 Public Not provided Non-BRAC
Center health
#05571
14 Bldg AR0006ZZ
Blytheville Jan-03 1.0 Historic City of Blytheville Non-BRAC
Federal monument
Sandy Beach
15 Recreation Feb-03 48.3 Parks and Not provided Non-BRAC
Area recreation
16 Bldg AR0081ZZ
Hot Springs Aug-03 0.6 Homeless Quapaw House, Inc. Non-BRAC
SSA Fed
Fort Public City of Ft. Smith
17 Chaffee Aug-01 412.0 health (Landfill BRAC
extension)
18 Eaker Mar-00 48.7 Parks and YMCA BRAC
recreation
19 Eaker Sept-02 10.4 Public HHS for Water/sewer BRAC
health
Public Blytheville-Gosnell
20 Eaker Sept-02 105.5 airport Regional Airport BRAC
Authority
10 Fort McClellan Oct-02 130.0 Parks and Anniston BRAC
recreation
Ark ansas
Appendix II Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties Conveyed, Fiscal
Years 2000-2004 Appendix II Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties
Conveyed, Fiscal Years 2000-2004 Appendix II Summary Data on All
Identifiable Properties Conveyed, Fiscal Years 2000-2004 Appendix II
Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties Conveyed, Fiscal Years
2000-2004 Appendix II Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties
Conveyed, Fiscal Years 2000-2004 Appendix II Summary Data on All
Identifiable Properties Conveyed, Fiscal Years 2000-2004
Page 61 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
(Continued From Previous Page)
Date
conveyed/ Conveyance BRAC/non-
Property name reverted Acres type Grantee name BRAC
21 Eaker Sept-02 78.8 Public Blytheville-Gosnell BRAC
airport Regional
Airport Authority
22 Eaker Sept-02 1076.0 Public Blytheville-Gosnell BRAC
airport Regional
Airport Authority
23 Eaker Sept-02 494.7 Public Blytheville-Gosnell BRAC
airport Regional
Airport Authority
Federal
25 Building Aug-02 0.7 Parks and City Of Mesa Non-BRAC
recreation
26 Federal Aug-02 0.3 Other (Law City of Prescott Non-BRAC
Building
enforcement)a
Por.
27 Colorado May-03 640.0 Correctional AZ Dept. of Corrections Non-BRAC
River Basin
Salinity
28 INS Border Oct-03 0.9 Public health HHS Non-BRAC
Patrol
29 Williams Dec-99 286.4 Education Arizona State BRAC
University
30 Williams Dec-99 12.6 Public health City of Mesa BRAC
31 Williams Feb-00 1.7 Homeless House of Refugee Inc. BRAC
32 Williams Feb-01 18.1 Education Arizona State BRAC
University
33 Williams Sept-02 0.8 Public health Flood Control District BRAC
of Maricopa
County
34 Williams Apr-04 39.2 Public Williams Airport Gateway
airport Authority BRAC
California
35 Parcel 2 Nov-99 11.4 Parks and City of Pomona Non-BRAC
recreation
Redding Vietnam Veterans of
36 Reserve Dec-99 5.2 Homeless California Non-BRAC
Site
Reclamation Lewiston Community
37 Unit LC-2 Mar-00 28.3 Parks and Services Non-BRAC
Trinity
recreation
Santa Rosa
38 High Apr-02 69.2 Wildlife Not provided Non-BRAC
Frequency
Radio conservation
Station
Former
39 Calexico Jan-04 2.1 Education Imperial Co. Office of Non-BRAC
Border Education
Patrol
SSA
40 Building - Mar-04 0.6 Homeless City of Modesto Non-BRAC
CA0184ZZ
41 Fort Ord Sept-01 31.0 Education York Schools BRAC
Recreation
42 Center #2, Aug-03 4.0 Parks and City of Fayettsville BRAC
Fort Bragg
recreation
43 Sierra Army Sept-03 67.0 Education Ft. Sage BRAC
Depot
44 Fort Ord Sept-03 3.0 Education Monterey College of BRAC
Law
45 Fort Ord Sept-04 2.0 Homeless Housing Authority of BRAC
Monterey
County
24 Eaker Sept-02 191.6 Public airport Blytheville-Gosnell BRAC
Regional
Airport Authority
Ariz ona
Page 62 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
(Continued From Previous Page)
Date
conveyed/ Conveyance BRAC/non-
Property name reverted Acres type Grantee name BRAC
46 Long Beach, CA Feb-00 1.5 Port facility City of Los BRAC
- NAVSTA Angeles
47 Long Beach, CA Feb-00 14.3 Port facility Port of Los BRAC
- NAVSTA Angeles
48 Stockton, CA - Mar-00 4.3 Port facility Port of Stockton BRAC
NAVRESCEN
49 San Francisco, Apr-00 3.0 Parks and City of Novato BRAC
CA - PWC
recreation
50 San Francisco, Apr-00 3.6 Parks and City of Novato BRAC
CA - PWC
recreation
51 San Francisco, Apr-00 7.3 Parks and City of Novato BRAC
CA - PWC
recreation
52 San Francisco, Apr-00 1.7 Education Community Action BRAC
CA - PWC Marin Inc.
53 San Francisco, Apr-00 3.0 Education Novato Unified BRAC
CA - PWC School District
54 San Diego, CA - Aug-00 9.0 Public health City of San BRAC
NTC Diego
55 San Diego, CA - Feb-01 49.0 Parks and City of San BRAC
NTC Diego
recreation
56 Oakland, CA - Sept-01 8.5 Education Seneca Center BRAC
Naval Hospital
57 Long Beach, CA Oct-01 20.0 Port facility City of Long BRAC
- NAVSHIPYD Beach
58 Long Beach, CA Oct-01 25.0 Port facility City of Long BRAC
- NAVSHIPYD Beach
59 Long Beach, CA Oct-01 8.0 Port facility City of Long BRAC
- NAVSHIPYD Beach
60 Long Beach, CA Oct-01 70.0 Port facility City of Long BRAC
- NAVSHIPYD Beach
61 Long Beach, CA Oct-01 63.4 Port facility City of Long BRAC
- NAVSTA Beach
62 Long Beach, CA Oct-01 134.1 Port facility City of Long BRAC
- NAVSTA Beach
63 Long Beach, CA Oct-01 2.7 Port facility City of Long BRAC
- NAVSTA Beach
64 Tustin, CA - Nov-01 7.9 Parks and City of Irvine BRAC
MCAS
recreation
65 Tustin, CA - Dec-02 20.0 Education Irvine Unified BRAC
MCAS School District
66 Tustin, CA - Dec-02 10.0 Education Tustin Unified BRAC
MCAS School District
67 Long Beach, CA Nov-03 13.0 Education Marymount BRAC
- NAVSHIPYD College
Long Beach, CA Rolling Hills
68 - NAVSHIPYD Nov-03 24.0 Education Preparatory BRAC
School
Long Beach, CA City of Los
69 - NAVSHIPYD July-04 0.4 Port facility Angels/Port of BRAC
Los
Angeles
70 Ontario Mar-01 8.4 Public Los Angeles BRAC
airport Department of
Airports
71 March Aug-01 185.2 Public March Joint BRAC
airport Powers Authority
72 March Nov-01 33.2 Public March Joint BRAC
airport Powers Authority
73 March June-02 151.5 Public March Joint BRAC
airport Powers Authority
74 McClellan Dec-02 6.4 Parks and North Highlands BRAC
Recreational and
recreation Park District
75 March July-03 11.3 Public March Joint BRAC
airport Powers Authority
(Continued From Previous Page)
Date
conveyed/ Conveyance BRAC/non-
Property name reverted Acres type Grantee name BRAC
76 March Sept-04 15.0 Education Moreno Valley BRAC
Unified School
District
Public Victor Valley
77 George May-04 960.0 airport Airport BRAC
Authority
78 George Oct-99 0.0 Public health City of BRAC
Victorville
79 Castle Sept-04 1321.9 Public Castle Joint BRAC
airport Powers
Authority
Colorado
80 Lowry AFB Apr-02 11.0 Education Logan School Non-BRAC
Education
Lowry AFB Colorado
81 Remaining HHS Apr-02 10.0 Public health Department of Non-BRAC
Health
82 Fitzsimons AMC Jan-01 105.0 Education City of Aurora BRAC
83 Fitzsimons AMC July-02 8.0 Parks and City of Aurora BRAC
recreation
84 Fitzsimons AMC Nov-02 3.0 Education UCHSC BRAC
85 Lowry Dec-99 98.5 Parks and City and County BRAC
of Denver Parks
recreation
Colorado
86 Lowry May-00 129.1 Education Community BRAC
College
Colorado
87 Lowry Nov-01 6.2 Public health Department of BRAC
Health
88 Lowry Jan-02 1.6 Parks and City and County BRAC
of Denver Parks
recreation
89 Lowry Apr-03 4.8 Public health City and County BRAC
of Denver
90 Lowry June-03 1.9 Public health Third Way BRAC
Center
Connecticut
91 FAA Direction Apr-02 19.6 Parks and Town of Non-BRAC
Finder Killingly
recreation
92 New London, CT - Mar-00 0.7 Parks and State Dept. of BRAC
NUSC/NUWC Environmental
Det recreation Protection
Delaware
93 UPH building June-00 0.0 Parks and Not provided Non-BRAC
recreation
Florida
94 Amelia Island Light Sept-00 2.4 Historic The City of Non-BRAC
Fernandina Beach
monument
95 Crooked River Nov-00 1.3 Parks and Not provided Non-BRAC
Lighthouse
Reservation recreation
96 MacDill AFB RR Spur Mar-02 6.7 Parks and City of Tampa Non-BRAC
recreation
97 Lakeland Federal Aug-02 2.0 Parks and City of Lakeland, Non-BRAC
Property FL
recreation
98 Lexington Terrace Sept-02 30.0 Parks and Escambia County Non-BRAC
recreation
Page 64 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
(Continued From Previous Page)
Date
conveyed/ Conveyance BRAC/non-
Property name reverted Acres type Grantee name BRAC
Army Reserve
99 Outdoor Nov-02 134.2 Parks and Not provided Non-BRAC
Training
Facility recreation
100 U.S. Classic Aug-03 1.0 Historic City of Tampa Non-BRAC
Courthouse
monument
Federal City of
101 Building/USDA Nov-03 0.5 Historic Winter Haven Non-BRAC
Lab
monument
Communication City of
102 Site - Feb-04 20.0 Law Homestead Non-BRAC
Homestead
AFB enforcement
U.S. Custom Broward
103 House May-04 0.5 Historic County Board Non-BRAC
of
monument Commissioners
104 Fort Meade July-01 348.0 Public Anne Arundel BRAC
airport County
105 Key West, FL - Feb-00 0.8 Parks and City of Key BRAC
NAS West
recreation
Cecil Field - City of
106 NAS Apr-00 2016.6 Parks and Jacksonville BRAC
(Jacksonville,
FL) recreation
107 Key West, FL - July-00 43.8 Parks and City of Key BRAC
NAS West
recreation
108 Key West, FL - Aug-00 16.5 Parks and City of Key BRAC
NAS West
recreation
109 Key West, FL - Aug-00 3.3 Parks and City of Key BRAC
NAS West
recreation
110 Key West, FL - Aug-00 26.5 Historic Monroe County BRAC
NAS
monument
Cecil Field - Public Jacksonville
111 NAS Sept-00 27.9 airport Ports BRAC
(Jacksonville, Authority
FL)
112 Orlando, FL - Sept-00 2.9 Public GOAA BRAC
NTC airport
Greater
113 Orlando, FL - Sept-00 38.0 Public Orlando BRAC
NTC airport Aviation
Authority
via City
Greater
114 Orlando, FL - Sept-00 42.4 Public Orlando BRAC
NTC airport Aviation
Authority
via City
Cecil Field - Public Jacksonville
115 NAS Mar-03 12.8 airport Ports BRAC
(Jacksonville, Authority
FL)
Georgia
Blythe Island
116 Range Rear Apr-01 10.0 Parks and Glynn County Non-BRAC
Light
recreation
117 (P) Ft. Benning Military Reservation Dec-03 14.4 Parks and recreation
City of Columbus Non-BRAC Guam 118 Agat Parcel 3 Oct-02 5.0 Other (Public
health)a GOVGUAM Non-BRAC
(Continued From Previous Page)
Date
conveyed/ Conveyance
Property name reverted Acres type Grantee name BRAC/non-BRAC
119 Agana, Sept-00 43.4 Department of BRAC
Guam - Parks and Parks and
NAS recreation Recreation
120 Agana, Guam Sept-00 1410.2 Public Guam International BRAC
- NAS airport Airport
Authority
Hawaii
121 Barbers Point, HI Oct-00 20.0 Public health City & County of BRAC
- NAS Honolulu
122 Barbers Point, HI Sept-00 21.0 Education State of Hawaii BRAC
- NAS
Iowa
123 Fort Des Moines June-04 0.9 Parks and NPS/City of Des Non-BRAC
Motorpool Moines
recreation
Idaho
124 Rexburg USARC Mar-01 2.5 Education Madison School Non-BRAC
District
125 US Army Reserve Center July-01 2.8 Parks and City of Idaho Non-BRAC
Falls
recreation
127 Radar Station Nov-99 10.0 Homeless Not provided Non-BRAC
128 Former National Guard May-00 11.2 Parks and Not provided Non-BRAC
Facility
recreation
129 Glenview, IL - NAS Mar-00 94.7 Education Village of BRAC
Vernon Hills
130 Glenview, IL - NAS Mar-00 12.2 Education Village of BRAC
Vernon Hills
126 Boise Federal July-04 1.4 Historic Not provided Non-BRAC
Building/Post
Office
monument
Illinois
131 Glenview, IL - NAS Apr-00 2.8 Parks and Village of Vernon Hills BRAC
recreation
Indiana
132 Vincennes Federal Oct-99 0.6 Historic Not provided Non-BRAC
Building
monument
133 Lock and Dam No. Dec-00 2.6 Parks and Not provided Non-BRAC
47 (Old Dam
Park) recreation
SSA District Family Services
134 Office Jan-04 0.6 Homeless of Elkhart Non-BRAC
County,
Inc.
135 Jefferson Proving Oct-99 221.0 Parks and Park BRAC
Ground
recreation
136 Jefferson Proving Sept-04 403.0 Parks and Park BRAC
Ground
recreation
137 Grissom Mar-00 10.8 Public health City of Peru BRAC
Kansas
138 U.S. Reserve July-00 0.4 Education Not provided Non-BRAC
Center Annex
(Continued From Previous Page)
Date Conveyance
Property conveyed/ type BRAC/non-BRAC
name reverted Acres Grantee name
139 Milford Apr-03 119.5 Education Kansas State Non-BRAC
Lake University of
Agriculture and
Applied Science
Kentucky
Page 66 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
140 Black Gem Mar-01 6.6 Parks and Pike County Non-BRAC
Recreational Area Government
recreation
141 Cannelton L&D, June-03 15.7 Parks and City of Non-BRAC
Cloverport Cloverport
Access St. recreation
Corbin
142 Corbin SSA Bldg Sept-03 1.0 Education Independent Non-BRAC
School
District
143 Licking River Jan-04 20.6 Parks and City of Wilder Non-BRAC
Access Site 12A
recreation
144 Uniontown Ferry Jan-04 2.5 Parks and City of Non-BRAC
Access Site Uniontown
recreation
Portion of TR LA Dept. of
146 C-49 Apr-02 3.5 Wildlife Wildlife Non-BRAC
conservation
147 Eugene M. Nettles June-02 3.8 Homeless Not provided Non-BRAC
U.S. ARC
148 Opelousas Fed Aug-03 1.5 Other (Law 27th Judicial Non-BRAC
Bldg Dist. Attny.
enforcement)a
149 SSA Baton Rouge Jan-04 1.1 Education Dept. of Non-BRAC
District Education
YTRN Granby Commonwealth of
151 Former Comm. June-01 99.5 Parks and Mass. Non-BRAC
Trans. Fac. recreation
152 Frederick C. Aug-01 22.3 Education Bentley College Non-BRAC
Murphy Federal
Center
153 Frederick C. Oct-01 17.4 Education New Jewish High Non-BRAC
Murphy Federal School, Inc.
Center (Gann Academy)
154 Frederick C. Oct-01 25.0 Parks and City of Waltham Non-BRAC
Murphy Federal
Center recreation
155 Hingham Cohasset Sept-03 125.0 Parks and State Park BRAC
recreation
South Weymouth, Elder Housing
156 MA - NAS Jan-01 28.0 Self-help Corporation BRAC
(City of
housing Quincy)
157 South Weymouth, May-03 220.2 Parks and South Shore BRAC
MA - NAS Tri-Town
recreation Development
Corp.
158 South Weymouth, May-03 5.1 Parks and South Shore BRAC
MA - NAS Tri-Town
recreation Development
Corp.
145 Port Smithland Lock Oct-04 92.0 Parks and Not provided Non-BRAC
and Dam
recreation
Loui siana
150 England June-04 151.5 Public England Economic & BRAC
airport Industrial
Development District
Mas sachusetts
Appendix II Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties Conveyed, Fiscal
Years 2000-2004 Appendix II Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties
Conveyed, Fiscal Years 2000-2004 Appendix II Summary Data on All
Identifiable Properties Conveyed, Fiscal Years 2000-2004 Appendix II
Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties Conveyed, Fiscal Years
2000-2004 Appendix II Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties
Conveyed, Fiscal Years 2000-2004 Appendix II Summary Data on All
Identifiable Properties Conveyed, Fiscal Years 2000-2004
(Continued From Previous Page)
Date
conveyed/ Conveyance
Property name reverted Acres type Grantee name BRAC/non-BRAC
159 South May-03 1.2 South Shore BRAC
Weymouth, Parks and Tri-Town
MA - NAS recreation Development
Corp.
160 South Weymouth, MA - NAS Feb-04 1.9 Parks and recreation Town of
Rockland BRAC Maryland 161 Casson Neck Property July-01 12.5 Parks and
recreation Dorchester County Non-BRAC
162 Laplata Housing Apr-02 13.3 Homeless Southern Maryland Non-BRAC
Tri-County
Community Action
Committee
163 De LaSalle June-02 17.8 Education Archdiocese of Non-BRAC
Building Washington
164 Stillpond June-02 0.3 Homeless Crossroads Non-BRAC
Housing Units Community, Inc
165 Stillpond June-02 0.3 Homeless Community Non-BRAC
Housing Units Crossroads Inc
166 Stillpond June-02 0.4 Homeless Community Non-BRAC
Housing Units Crossroads Inc
167 Stillpond June-02 0.4 Homeless Community Non-BRAC
Housing Units Crossroads Inc
168 Station Mar-03 12.4 Parks and Not provided Non-BRAC
Stillpond recreation
169 Annapolis, MD - NSWC Aug-02 24.0 Parks and Anne Arundel County, BRAC
Carderock MD
DIV Det recreation
Michigan
Page 67 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
170 Seul Choix Feb-00 0.1 Historic Michigan Department Non-BRAC
Point Light of Natural
monument Resources
Benton
171 Harbor July-00 0.4 Historic City of Benton Non-BRAC
Federal Harbor
Building
monument
South Haven
172 Keeper's July-00 0.7 Historic City of South Haven Non-BRAC
Dwelling
monument
173 Parcel 2 Aug-00 10.1 Historic State of Michigan Non-BRAC
monument
174 Muskegon Mar-04 1.0 Public health Not provided Non-BRAC
Land
175 K.I. Sawyer Dec-99 1389.1 Public County of Marquette BRAC
airport
176 K.I. Sawyer Apr-00 2.3 Public County of Marquette BRAC
airport
177 Wurtsmith Feb-01 1.7 Education Charter Township of BRAC
Oscoda
178 K.I. Sawyer Apr-02 1.3 Public County of Marquette BRAC
airport
179 Wurtsmith Sept-02 848.6 Public Oscoda-Wurtsmith BRAC
airport Airport
Authority
180 K.I. Sawyer Sept-04 108.9 Public County of Marquette BRAC
airport
Missouri
181 Monett, May-00 9.3 Parks and Not provided Non-BRAC
Barry Co.
recreation
Seldalia
182 Federal July-01 0.8 Correctional Pettis County Non-BRAC
Bldg.
(Continued From Previous Page)
Date
conveyed/ Conveyance BRAC/non-
Property name reverted Acres type Grantee name BRAC
183 D.G. Hall Fed Oct-01 0.4 Homeless Economic Security Non-BRAC
Bldg/Court Corp. of
Southwest Area
184 Columbia Federal Oct-03 0.8 Education Health Adventure Non-BRAC
Bldg Center
185 NIKE Kansas City Aug-03 20.0 Education Lone Jack School BRAC
30 District
Mississippi
186 Greenwood Boat Ramp Apr-03 1.2 Parks and recreation Not provided
Non-BRAC Montana
187 Canyon Ferry Apr-03 8.5 Other Canyon Ferry Fire Non-BRAC
Reservoir Service
(emergency
management
reponse)a
North Carolina
188 Federal building May-00 0.4 Historic Town of Rutherfordton Non-BRAC
monument
189 McKinney Lake Fish Jan-01 6.5 Parks and State of North Non-BRAC
Hatchery Carolina
recreation
190 USARC Building Site, Apr-02 4.9 Parks and Greenville Park & Non-BRAC
4.9 Acres Rec.
recreation
191 Oak Island July-03 5.7 Parks and Town of Caswell Non-BRAC
Lighttower Beach
recreation
North Dakota
192 Grand Forks May-01 Not Public health HHS-North Valley Non-BRAC
Safeguard Water District
Waterline
provided
Grand Forks City of Park
193 Safeguard Apr-02 97.0 Public health River Non-BRAC
Waterline
194 117 Main St. May-02 0.4 Historic State Historical Non-BRAC
Storage Bldg Society of North
monument Dakota
195 Fort Totten Nov-02 44.0 Parks and NYC Parks and Recreation BRAC
recreation
Nebraska
196 Nebraska June-00 1.8 Parks and National Park Non-BRAC
City Repair New recreation Service
Hampshire
197 Pease Nov-99 151.9 Public Pease Development BRAC
airport Authority
198 Pease Oct-03 2535.0 Public Pease Development BRAC
airport Authority
New Jersey
199 Firehouse, n) July-00 1.2 Education Not provided Non-BRAC
BLDG 228 (Rarita
200 Electronic July-00 0.9 Other (Parks )a Not provided Non-BRAC
Station ESMT and
recreation
Page 69 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
(Continued From Previous Page)
Date
conveyed/ Conveyance BRAC/non-
Property name reverted Acres type Grantee name BRAC
Barnegat
201 Recreation Mar-01 0.7 Historic Not provided Non-BRAC
Facility
monument
202 Kearny Naval Mar-02 2.6 Homeless Not provided Non-BRAC
Reserve Center
203 Navy Housing June-02 6.5 Parks and Not provided Non-BRAC
recreation
Chapel Hill
204 Front Range Oct-03 0.4 Parks and Not provided Non-BRAC
Light
recreation
205 Fort Monmouth Apr-03 8.0 Education Brookdale BRAC
College
206 Fort Monmouth May-03 142.0 Parks and Wall Township BRAC
recreation
207 Fort Monmouth June-03 1.0 Public Wall Township BRAC
health (Pumphouse)
208 Camp Kilmer Sept-03 30.0 Parks and City of Edison BRAC
recreation
209 Trenton, NJ - May-01 28.1 Public Mercer County BRAC
NAWC-AD airport
Nevada
Galeville
211 Airport Feb-00 55.0 Parks and Not provided Non-BRAC
recreation
Braddock Point
212 Light Land July-00 0.0 Parks and Not provided Non-BRAC
(Tract
2) recreation
213 Turkey Point Aug-02 8.2 Parks and Not provided Non-BRAC
Light
recreation
214 Fort Totten Dec-01 37.0 Education NYC BRAC
Eastern
215 Fort Totten Jan-02 2.0 Homeless Paralyzed Vets BRAC
of America
216 Plattsburgh Apr-00 31.6 Parks and City of BRAC
Plattsburgh
recreation
217 Griffis June-04 1344.0 Public Airport BRAC
airport Authority
Ohio
218 VOA Relay Site Mar-00 20.0 Education Not provided Non-BRAC
219 Old ANT Huron Sept-03 0.4 Parks and City of Huron Non-BRAC
recreation
Public Columbus
220 Rickenbacker Nov-99 18.7 airport Regional BRAC
Airport
Authority
Public Columbus
221 Rickenbacker June-01 18.3 airport Regional BRAC
Airport
Authority
Public Columbus
222 Rickenbacker Aug-02 6.9 airport Regional BRAC
Airport
Authority
210 Stewart Avenue May-02 2.0 Historic City of Las Vegas Non-BRAC
Federal Building
monument
New York
(Continued From Previous Page)
Date
conveyed/ Conveyance BRAC/non-
Property name reverted Acres type Grantee name BRAC
223 Rickenbacker Sept-03 310.3 Public Columbus BRAC
airport Regional Airport
Authority
Pt. Orford Radio Oregon State
225 Site Dec-00 5.2 Parks and Parks Non-BRAC
recreation
224 Newark Sept-03 13.3 Public Licking County Regional BRAC
airport Airport
Authority
Oregon
Page 70 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
226 Oregon City Feb-04 1.5 2.7 Other (Law Clackamas Non-BRAC
Federal Building May-00 enforcement)a County Not Non-BRAC
Pennsylvania 227 Parks and provided
Maxwell Locks recreation
and Dam
228 Uniontown Oct-01 0.4 Correctional Fayette Non-BRAC
Federal Building County
229 Naval Air May-02 39.0 Parks and Township of Non-BRAC
Warfare Center recreation Northampton
230 Ambridge SSA Oct-02 0.6 Education Ambridge Area ict Non-BRAC
Bldg School Distr
231 Cowanesque Dec-02 2.6 Homeless United Non-BRAC
Lake Project Christian Inc
232 Bristol SSA Bristol rict
Bldg May-03 0.7 Education Borough Non-BRAC
School Dist
233 Tacony Sept-02 1.0 Parks and PA Fish and onBRAC
Warehouse recreation Boat Commissi
234 Warminster, Nov-00 243.0 Parks and Warminster BRAC
PA - NAWC recreation Township
236 Primate
Research Center July-00 270.0 Education Not provided Non-BRAC
Rhode Island
238 Greenwood Parks and Greenwood
Federal Building Oct-01 0.6 recreation County Non-BRAC
239 Airport Dec-01 1240.0 Public Horry City Non-BRAC
airport Airport
240 Golf Course Dec-01 150.0 Parks and City of Non-BRAC
recreation Myrtle Beach
241 Social Jan-02 0.6 Homeless Interfaith k of
Security Hospitality Non-BRAC
Admin./Federal NetworYork
Bldg County
242 Sumter Sumter
Federal Building Nov-02 0.5 Education Technology nc.Non-BRAC
Ceter, I
243 Charleston, July-00 25.0 Charleston d BRAC
SC - NAVSHIPYD Parks and County Parks
recreation anRecreation
235 NIKE Site PH-02 Sept-00 8.8 Parks and Bristol Township Non-BRAC
recreation
Puerto Rico
237 Davisville, RI - NCBC June-00 189.0 Parks and North Kingstown BRAC
recreation
South Carolina
Page 71 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
(Continued From Previous Page)
Date
conveyed/ Conveyance BRAC/non-
Property name reverted Acres type Grantee name BRAC
244 Myrtle Beach Mar-00 2.5 Education Cathedral BRAC
Bible College
245 Myrtle Beach Aug-01 292.5 Parks and City of Myrtle BRAC
Beach
recreation
246 Myrtle Beach Dec-02 1205.6 Public Horry County BRAC
airport
Tennessee
Former Marine Washington
247 Corps Reserve Oct-01 0.01 Education County Dept. Non-BRAC
of
Center Education
Former Marine East Tennessee
248 Corps Reserve Oct-01 30.1 Education State Non-BRAC
University
Center
249 Naval Hospital July-02 38.7 Education University of Non-BRAC
Memphis
Lafayette City of
250 Federal June-03 0.5 Correctional Lafayette Non-BRAC
Building
251 Memphis, TN - Dec-99 550.9 Public City of BRAC
NAS airport Millington
Texas
252 Former Navy Mar-00 1.0 Education Not provided Non-BRAC
Reserve Center
City of
253 Library July-01 0.2 Education Westworth Non-BRAC
Village
Library
254 Easement Deed 2 Aug-01 0.0 Public City of Austin Non-BRAC
airport
255 Easement Deed Aug-01 0.0 Public City of Austin Non-BRAC
No.3 airport
256 Easement and Aug-01 174.8 Public City of Austin Non-BRAC
Fee Deed No. 1 airport
20 Units Kings Ability
257 Branch Housing Aug-01 6.7 Homeless Resources, BRAC
Inc.
258 Port Mansfield Jan-02 2.0 Education Not provided Non-BRAC
Brownsville SSA Education
259 Fed Bldg Oct-02 1.0 Education Service Center Non-BRAC
Region
1 of Texas
260 Naval Auxiliary Mar-03 11.8 Education Not provided Non-BRAC
Landing Field
261 VORTAC Site Dec-03 73.8 Parks and DHHS for Hood Non-BRAC
County TX
recreation
262 Camp Bullis Mar-04 0.4 Parks and City of San Non-BRAC
Antonio
recreation
263 Dallas, TX - Mar-00 26.4 Parks and City of Grand BRAC
NAS Prairie
recreation
Salt Lake City
Administration School
265 Building Mar-00 7.3 Education District Non-BRAC
Former Uranium NPS for City
266 Mill Tailing June-00 383.2 Parks and of Monticello Non-BRAC
Site
recreation
267 Defense Depot - Sept-01 6.0 Education Weber County BRAC
Ogden, UT Schools
Defense Depot - Weber
268 Ogden, UT Sept-01 3.0 Education Applications BRAC
Technology
(Utah College
of Applied
Technology)
264 Communications Dec-00 17.01 Parks and City of Lake BRAC
Annex, Carswell Worth
Air Force Base recreation
Utah
Page 72 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
(Continued From Previous Page)
Date
conveyed/ Conveyance BRAC/non-
Property name reverted Acres type Grantee name BRAC
269 Defense Depot - Aug-03 4.0 Parks and Weber Basin BRAC
Ogden, UT Disabled Assoc
recreation
270 Defense Depot - Aug-03 25.0 Parks and City of Ogden BRAC
Ogden, UT (Weber County
recreation Fairgrounds)
271 Defense Depot - Aug-03 25.0 Parks and City of Ogden BRAC
Ogden, UT (Ogden Nature
recreation Center)
Defense Planned
272 Distribution July-03 0.7 Public health Parenthood BRAC
Depot Association
Ogden, Building 42
Virginia
Former Riverside
273 Petersburg Apr-92 154.0 Correctional Regional Jail Non-BRAC
Correctional Authority
Institute
Former Prince George
274 Petersburg June-02 25.0 Parks and County Non-BRAC
Correctional
Institute recreation
Former City of
275 Petersburg June-02 24.0 Parks and Hopewell Non-BRAC
Correctional
Institute recreation
276 Staunton SSA Aug-02 0.5 Public health City of Non-BRAC
Bldg Staunton
Central
277 Watkins K. Oct-03 0.3 Homeless Piedmont Non-BRAC
Abbitt FB Action
Council,
Inc.
278 Lynchburg SSA Apr-04 0.9 Homeless Salvation Non-BRAC
Building Army, Inc.
279 Vint Hill Farms Mar-00 18.0 Parks and Fauquier BRAC
Station County
recreation
280 Fort Pickett May-01 1183.0 Education VA Tech BRAC
Driver, VA - City of
281 NRTF July-01 247.7 Parks and Suffolk, BRAC
Virginia
recreation
Former VDOC Central
282 Petersburg May-04 275.4 Correctional Office Non-BRAC
Correctional
Institute (portion)
Washington
USARC Moses Grant County
283 Lake Aug-00 2.9 Parks and Housing Non-BRAC
Authority
recreation
284 Fed. Bldg./Post Mar-02 0.4 Historic City of Pasco Non-BRAC
Office
monument
285 Army NIKE-Ajax July-02 34.5 Education Not provided Non-BRAC
Site 32-33
Bellingham City of
286 Federal July-04 0.5 Historic Bellingham Non-BRAC
Building
monument
287 Sand Point Apr-00 11.0 Parks and City of BRAC
Puget Sound, WA Seattle
NAVSTA recreation
288 Portion, Sand Point Dec-02 8.2 Parks and City of Seattle BRAC
Magnuson
Park recreation
Wisconsin
289 North Point Light Sept-03 2.0 Historic Not provided Non-BRAC
Station monument
Appendix II Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties Conveyed, Fiscal Years
2000-2004
(Continued From Previous Page)
Date
conveyed/ Conveyance BRAC/non-
Property name reverted Acres type Grantee name BRAC
West Virginia
290 Matewan - 16 Mar-00 2.6 Other (Parks Town of Matewan Non-BRAC
Tracts
and
recreation)a
291 Matewan - 3 tracts Mar-00 0.5 Other (Parks Town of Matewan Non-BRAC
and
recreation)a
292 Matewan - 3 tracts Mar-00 0.3 Other (Parks Town of Matewan Non-BRAC
and
recreation)a
293 Old Post Office Feb-01 0.4 Education Boarman Arts Non-BRAC
and Courthouse Center
294 Welch SSA Bldg Apr-03 0.4 Education McDowell Board Non-BRAC
of Ed
295 Kennedy Park and May-03 13.3 Parks and Hancock County Non-BRAC
Marina
recreation
296 Tract 757 Jan-04 0.2 Parks and City of Non-BRAC
Williamson
recreation
297 Tract 759 Jan-04 0.4 Parks and City of Non-BRAC
Williamson
recreation
298 Tract 758 Jan-04 0.5 Parks and City of Non-BRAC
Williamson
recreation
Source: Compiled by GAO from property information provided by GSA, DOD,
and the sponsoring agencies.
Note: For the purposes of this review, we relied on GSA, DOD, and
sponsoring agency property information provided for the PBC database. The
information in this table has been reproduced exactly as it appears in the
database. We found that in some instances, for the 58 properties we
selected as case studies, information in the database was inconsistent
with information found in property documents such as deeds. For example,
the number of acres conveyed may have varied. Because for our purposes it
was not necessary to reconcile information in the database with the
property documents, we relied on the information in the database to
construct this table.
a Information provided by GSA for this property listed the type of
conveyance as Other. During our effort to match properties on agencies'
lists, we were able to determine the type of conveyance for this property
by using information provided by the sponsoring agency.
Appendix III
Summary Data on Properties Selected for Case Study
Date
conveyed/ Conveyance BRAC/ Compliance
Property name reverted type Grantee non-BRAC oversight Reversion
name
1 VA
California Triangular
Parcel Feb-96 Homeless Salvation Non-BRAC Inconsistent No
Los Army
Angeles,
California
Victor
2 George May-04 Public Valley BRAC No
airport Airport Not
Authority evaluated
Long Rolling
3 Beach, CA Nov-03 Education Hills BRAC No
- Preparatory Not
NAVSHIPYD School evaluated
4 Housing Savannah & Long Beach
Cabrillo Sept-94 Education USD BRAC Inconsistent No
Navy
Long
5 Beach, CA Oct-01 Port City of BRAC No
- facility Long Beach Not
NAVSHIPYD evaluated
Little City of Los
6 Cottonwood Sept-89 Parks and Alamitos Non-BRAC Inconsistent No
Park recreation
7 U.S. Classic Aug-03 Historic City of Tampa Non-BRAC Not No
Florida Courthouse monument evaluated
Federal City of
8 Building/USDA Nov-03 Historic Winter Haven Non-BRAC Not No
Lab monument evaluated
9 MacDill AFB RR Mar-02 Parks and City of Tampa Non-BRAC Consistent No
Spur recreation
Broward
10 U.S. Custom May-04 County Board Non-BRAC No
House Historic of Not
monument Commissioners evaluated
Communication City of
11 Site - Feb-04 Law Homestead Non-BRAC Not No
Homestead AFB enforcement evaluated
Metropolitan
Dade County
12 Homestead Air June-96 Homeless Miami-Dade BRAC Inconsistent No
Force Base County
Homestead, Homeless
Florida Trust
13 U.S. Post Wyandotte
Kansas Office & Nov-95 Correctional County, KS Non-BRAC Inconsistent No
Courthouse
Federal North
14 Building, Apr-98 Homeless Central Non-BRAC Inconsistent No
Manhattan, Flint Hills
Kansas Area Agency
on Aging
Kansas
State
15 Milford Apr-03 Education University Non-BRAC Yes
Lake of
Agriculture Not
and Applied evaluated
Tuttle State of
16 Creek Sept-89 Wildlife Kansas Non-BRAC Inconsistent No
(portion) conservation Science
Tuttle State of
17 Creek Jan-90 Wildlife Kansas Non-BRAC Inconsistent No
(portion) conservation
Appendix III Summary Data on Properties Selected for Case Study Appendix
III Summary Data on Properties Selected for Case Study
(Continued From Previous Page)
Date
Property conveyed/ Conveyance Grantee BRAC/ Compliance
name reverted type name non-BRAC oversight Reversion
18 Tuttle Jan-90 Wildlife State Non-BRAC Inconsistent No
Creek conservation of
(portion) Kansas
19 Tuttle Jan-90 State Non-BRAC Inconsistent
Creek Wildlife of
(portion) conservation Kansas No
20 Tuttle Creek Jan-90 Wildlife State of Non-BRAC Inconsistent No
(portion) Kansas
conservation
Massachusetts
21 Frederick C. Aug-01 Education Bentley Non-BRAC Inconsistent No
Murphy Federal College
Center
Frederick C. New Jewish
22 Murphy Federal Oct-01 Education High Non-BRAC Inconsistent No
School,
Center Inc. (Gann
Academy)
23 Frederick C. Oct-01 Parks and City of Non-BRAC Inconsistent No
Murphy Federal Waltham
Center recreation
South Elder
24 Weymouth, MA - Jan-01 Self-help Housing BRAC Inconsistent No
NAS Corporation
housing (City of
Quincy)
NIKE Village Health and
25 Site, Apr-98 Homeless Education BRAC Inconsistent No
Topsfield,
Massachusetts Services,
Inc.
Valley Forge Community
General Mental
27 Hospital Nov-95 Homeless Health Non-BRAC Inconsistent No
Phoenixville, Services,
Pennsylvania Inc.
Valley Forge Valley
28 General July-96 Education Forge Non-BRAC Consistent No
Hospital Christian
College
Valley Forge Valley
29 General Sept-89 Education Forge Non-BRAC Consistent No
Hospital Christian
College
30 NIKE Site Sept-00 Parks and Bristol Non-BRAC Not Yes
PH-02 Township
recreation evaluated
31 Warminster, PA Nov-00 Parks and Warminster BRAC Inconsistent No
- NAWC Township
recreation
26 Commanding Aug-98 Historic Town of BRAC Inconsistent No
Officer's Watertown
Quarters monument
Pen nsylvania
32 Naval Air Nov-97 Parks and Northampton BRAC Inconsistent No
Warfare Center Township
Warminster, recreation
Northampton
Township
Texas
33 20 Units Kings Aug-01 Homeless Ability BRAC Inconsistent No
Branch Housing Resources, Inc.
34 Lake Feb-94 Education Lewisville Non-BRAC Inconsistent No
Lewisville, ISD
parcel 2
Lake Lewisville
35 Lewisville, Feb-94 Education ISD Non-BRAC Inconsistent No
parcel 3
36 Dallas, TX - Mar-00 Parks and City of Grand BRAC Consistent No
NAS Prairie
recreation
Naval Air City of
37 Station, Nov-98 Parks and Duncanville BRAC Inconsistent No
Dallas
Duncanville recreation
Housing Site
(Continued From Previous Page)
Date Conveyance BRAC/ Compliance
conveyed/ type Grantee non-BRAC oversight
Property name reverted name Reversion
38 City of
Communications Dec-00 Parks and Lake BRAC Inconsistent No
Annex, Worth
Carswell Air recreation
Force Base
Utah
39 Clearfield Feb-93 Education Davis Non-BRAC Inconsistent No
Federal Depot County
School
District
40 Defense Sept-01 Education Weber BRAC Consistent No
Depot - Applications
Ogden, UT
Technology
(Utah
College
of Applied
Technology)
Defense Weber County
41 Depot - Sept-01 Education Schools BRAC Inconsistent No
Ogden, UT
Defense Public Planned
42 Distribution July-03 health Parenthood BRAC Not Yes
Depot
Ogden, Association evaluated
Building 42
Defense City of
43 Depot - Aug-03 Parks and Ogden (Ogden BRAC Not No
Ogden, UT
recreation Nature evaluated
Center)
Former VDOC Central
45 Petersburg May-04 Correctional Office Non-BRAC Not Yes
Correctional evaluated
Institute
(portion)
Defense Chesterfield
46 General Nov-93 Parks and County Non-BRAC Inconsistent No
Supply
Center, recreation
Falling
Creek
Reservoir
Former Riverside
47 Petersburg Apr-92 Correctional Regional Non-BRAC Inconsistent No
Jail
Correctional Authority
Institute
44 Defense Depot Aug-03 Parks and City of Ogden BRAC Not No
- Ogden, UT (Weber
recreation County evaluated
Fairgrounds)
Virg inia
48 Cameron Station Apr-97 Parks and City of BRAC Inconsistent No
(portion) Alexandria
recreation
Washington
49 Midway NIKE Sept-94 Homeless King County Non-BRAC Inconsistent No
Housing Site Housing
Kent, Washington Authority
50 Portion, May-91 Public City of Non-BRAC Inconsistent No
Howard A. health Tacoma
Hanson
Dam, King
County,
Washington
Sandpoint University
51 Naval Housing, Jan-99 Education of BRAC Inconsistent No
Washington
Buildings
333-334
Naval Station University
52 Puget Sound Aug-99 Education of BRAC Inconsistent No
Washington
Naval Station University
53 Puget Sound Aug-99 Education of BRAC Inconsistent No
Washington
Olympia State of
54 Federal Nov-98 Historic Washington Non-BRAC Inconsistent No
Building
monument
Sand Point City of
55 Playground Aug-98 Parks and Seattle BRAC Not No
Parcel Department
recreation of Parks and evaluated
recreation
56 Sand Point Mar-99 Parks and City of BRAC Not No
Magnuson Park Seattle
recreation evaluated
Appendix III Summary Data on Properties Selected for Case Study
(Continued From Previous Page)
Date
conveyed/ Conveyance Grantee BRAC/ Compliance
Property name reverted type name non-BRAC oversight Reversion
57 Sand Point Apr-00 City of BRAC No
Puget Parks and Seattle Not
Sound, WA recreation evaluated
NAVSTA
58 Portion, Dec-02 City of BRAC No
Sand Point Seattle
Magnuson Parks and Not
Park recreation evaluated
Source: Compiled by GAO from property information provided by GSA, DOD,
and the sponsoring agencies.
Note: For the purposes of this review, we relied on GSA, DOD, and
sponsoring agency property information provided for the PBC database. The
information in this table has been reproduced exactly as it appears in the
database. We found that in some instances, for the 58 properties we
selected as case studies, information in the database was inconsistent
with information found in property documents such as deeds. For example,
the number of acres conveyed may have varied. Because for our purposes it
was not necessary to reconcile information in the database with the
property documents, we relied on the information in the database to
construct this table.
Appendix IV
Properties Selected for Case Studies
This appendix consists of summaries of information about 58 properties we
selected as case studies for this review. We relied primarily on General
Services Administration, Department of Defense, and sponsoring agency
property information provided for the public benefit conveyance database
and property documents obtained from the sponsoring agencies and grantees
to develop the summaries. We found that in some instances, for the 58
properties we selected as case studies, information in the database was
inconsistent with information found in property documents such as deeds.
For example, the number of acres conveyed may have varied. Because for our
purposes it was not necessary to reconcile information in the database
with the property documents, we relied on the information in the database
to construct these summaries.
California
Figure 5: Little Cottonwood Park - one property
Property name: Little Cottonwood Park
Location: Los Alamitos, CA
Size: 6.07 acres
Grantee: City of Los Alamitos
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal
Lands to Parks Program
Date of conveyance: September 7, 1989
Public use: Parks and recreation
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity
Property status (active/reverted): Active
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC
Source: GAO.
Prior to the conveyance of this property, the City of Los Alamitos had
developed the property as a park site while under a lease agreement with
DOD's Department of the Army. The city agreed to maintain the property as
a public park and recreation area through the PBC program.
Figure 6: Port of Long Beach - one property
Property name: Long Beach, CA NAVSHIPYD
Location: Long Beach, CA
Size: 282 acres
Grantee: City of Long Beach
Sponsoring agency: Department of Transportation/Maritime
Administration
Date of conveyance: October 3, 2001
Public use: Port facility
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity
Property status (active/reverted): Active
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC
Source: GAO.
Environmental issues delayed the transfer of the property to the City of
Long Beach. Since the former Navy shipyard was heavily contaminated,
restrictions were placed on the use of some of the conveyed property. The
Long Beach Port Authority has assumed responsibility for cleaning the
property and currently is using the property as a commercial shipping
port. The former Navy dry dock piers are being filled in with sand and
gravel. Although the property deed states that the grantee will furnish
MARAD with annual utilization reports upon request, reports were not
included in the documentation provided by the agency.
Figure 7: Savannah and Cabrillo Navy Housing - one property
Property name: Savannah and Cabrillo Navy Housing
Location: Long Beach, CA
Size: 64 acres
Grantee: Long Beach Unified School District
Sponsoring agency: Department of Education
Date of conveyance: September 14, 1994
Public use: Education
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years
Property status (active/reverted): Active
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC
Source: GAO.
The property was conveyed to the Long Beach Unified School District for
educational use. Currently, the school district is using the property to
house a grades 9-12 high school with approximately 3,700 students, as well
as administrative offices. The grantee is required to submit annual
utilization reports to the Department of Education.
Figure 8: Rolling Hills Preparatory School - one property
Property name:
Location: Size: Grantee: Sponsoring agency: Date of conveyance: Public
use: Length of deed restrictions: Property status (active/reverted):
BRAC/non-BRAC:
Long Beach, CA NAVSHIPYD
Palos Verdes Estates, CA 24 acres Rolling Hills Preparatory School
Department of Education November 21, 2003 Education 30 years Active BRAC
Source: GAO.
The property was conveyed to Rolling Hills Preparatory School for use as
an independent community school. When an endangered species of butterfly
was discovered on the property, a study was conducted by the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) that resulted in certain environmental restrictions
being placed on the property. The environmental issues and resulting
restrictions have caused financial difficulties for the school,
specifically because the school had to invest in a new utility
distribution system when FWS required it to abandon the existing utility
infrastructure. The school plans to use the property to expand its grades
6-12 school.
Figure 9: Westwood Transitional Village - one property
Property name: VA Triangular Parcel Los Angeles, CA
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Size: 2.13 acres
Grantee: Salvation Army
Sponsoring agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Date of conveyance: February 15, 1996
Public use: Homeless
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years
Property status (active/reverted): Active
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC
Source: GAO.
The Salvation Army has operated its Westwood Transitional Village on the
property since 1989, and was conveyed the property for homeless use in
1996. The village currently provides 41 apartments, supportive services
for residents, and a child care center. Funds and revenues generated by
fees collected from the day care program are used to support the other
programs on the property.
Figure 10: Southern California Logistics Airport - one property
Property name: George
Location: Victorville, CA
Size: 960 acres
Grantee: Victor Valley Airport Authority
Sponsoring agency: Department of Transportation/Federal
Aviation Administration
Date of conveyance: May 17, 2004
Public use: Public airport
Length of deed restrictions: No provision in deed
Property status (active/reverted): Active
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC
Source: GAO.
The Victor Valley Airport Authority received 960 acres to be used for
public airport purposes. The authority is generating revenue from the
property in a number of ways. The authority collects revenues from
building rents, airport facility use fees, state and federal grants, and
revenue bonds. Although, the authority does not provide passenger service,
it is collecting approximately $1 million annually from the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) for planned passenger service in the future.
In addition, the authority received approval from FAA to lease a portion
of the property to a power company to construct a power generating
facility. The authority receives approximately $2 million per year from
the power company for use of the land. Based on information from the
grantee, the airport property fence was moved prior to approval of the
lease by FAA.
Florida
Figure 11: Homestead Air Force Base Communications Annex - one property
Property name:
Location: Size: Grantee: Sponsoring agency: Date of conveyance: Public
use: Length of deed restrictions: Property status (active/reverted):
BRAC/non-BRAC:
Communications Site - Homestead AFB
Homestead, FL 20 acres City of Homestead General Services Administration
February 9, 2004 Law enforcement In perpetuity Active Non-BRAC
Source: GAO.
The grantee has a 2-year construction plan for a Law Enforcement Training
Facility. According to the grantee, the facility will enhance the law
enforcement capabilities of the Homestead Police Department by providing
it with a firearms range, training center, and K9 training facility that
will be open to other local law enforcement agencies in addition to the
Homestead Police Department. Of approximately $400,000 needed to fund the
project, $200,000 in state and federal grants have been received and
applied by the grantee.
Figure 12: Homestead Air Force Base Homeless Trust - one property
Property name: Homestead Air Force Base - Homestead,
FL
Location: Homestead, FL
Size: 84.6 acres
Grantee: Metropolitan Dade County Miami-Dade
County Homeless Trust
Sponsoring agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Date of conveyance: June 28, 1996
Public use: Homeless
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years
Property status (active/reverted): Active
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC
Source: GAO.
The former Homestead Air Base property is used as a 300-bed emergency
housing facility that provides clothing, food, and shelter for homeless
men, women, and children. Services offered on-site include case
management, adult and vocational classes, job training, and health care.
However, approximately 52 acres of the property have not yet been used by
the grantee, which does not comply with the deed requirements. In response
to the breach of compliance, HHS first demanded monthly payments for the
portion of property that was not utilized, but later agreed to waive the
payments while the grantee developed an eligible program for the rest of
the property. Pending HHS approval, the grantee has proposed to develop
the unused land for a homeless garden project.
Figure 13: U.S. Custom House - one property
Property name: U.S. Custom House
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Size: 0.5 acres
Grantee: Broward County Board of Commissioners
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Historic
Surplus Property Program
Date of conveyance: May 14, 2004
Public use: Historic monument
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity
Property status (active/reverted): Active
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC
According to PBC program regulations, the use of historic monument public
benefit conveyances is not restricted, but such properties must be
preserved. Although Broward County plans to use the former U.S. Custom
House property as office space, a definite use has not yet been
determined. Historic preservation and restoration of the original
architecture of the building is estimated to cost $450,000. The building,
to date, remains unoccupied.
Figure 14: MacDill Air Force Base Railroad Spur - one property
Property name: MacDill AFB RR Spur
Location: Tampa, FL
Size: 6.68 acres
Grantee: City of Tampa
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal
Lands to Parks Program
Date of conveyance: March 15, 2002
Public use: Parks and recreation
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity
Property status (active/reverted): Active
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC
Source: GAO.
Although the City of Tampa plans to use the property to construct a
10-mile trail that will connect Tampa and St. Petersburg, less than 10
percent of the property has been developed. During an on-site inspection
conducted in July 2003, the National Park Service noted that the City of
Tampa had failed to place signs identifying the property as part of the
Federal Lands to Parks Program as required in the deed. The city corrected
this problem and included a picture of the sign in the biennial report.
The National Park Service has given the Tampa city government an extension
from 3 years to 6 years to complete program development and
implementation. Although the city has not acquired any surrounding
properties, it is currently developing a comprehensive land management
plan, which includes the trail development plans for the site.
Figure 15: U.S. Classic Courthouse - one property
Property name: U.S. Classic Courthouse
Location: Tampa, FL
Size: 1.01 acres
Grantee: City of Tampa
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Historic
Surplus Property Program
Date of conveyance: August 28, 2003
Public use: Historic monument
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity
Property status (active/reverted): Active
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC
S
The property was conveyed to the City of Tampa without a commitment from
the grantee on how it intended to use the property. The City has not yet
determined the exact public use of the property. According to a city
official, the property would most likely be used as the future home of the
Tampa Museum of Art, though it is only one of three properties the museum
is considering. Since conveyance, the property has remained mostly
unoccupied and the community has been invited to suggest possible uses for
the facility.
Figure 16: Federal Building and USDA Lab - one property
Property name: Federal Building/USDA Lab
Location: Winter Haven, FL
Size: 0.47 acres
Grantee: City of Winter Haven
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Historic
Surplus Property Program
Date of conveyance: November 10, 2003
Public use: Historic monument
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity
Property status (active/reverted): Active
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC
Source: GAO.
When the City of Winter Haven was conveyed this former federal building,
its sole occupant was the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which
used the building as a laboratory primarily for orange juice testing.
After the property was conveyed, the City of Winter Haven leased the
property back to USDA for a period of 5 years. Currently, the city has no
specific use plan developed, but it plans to lease the building to a
nonprofit organization in 2008 for a public art facility, museum, or other
cultural program or to use the building for municipal administration.
Kansas
Figure 17: Wyandotte County Correctional Facility and Court Services Building -
one property
Property name:
Location: Size: Grantee: Sponsoring agency: Date of conveyance: Public
use: Length of deed restrictions: Property status (active/reverted):
BRAC/non-BRAC:
U.S. Post Office and Courthouse
Kansas City, KS
2.05 acresWyandotte County, KS General Services Administration November 8,
1995 Correctional In perpetuity Active Non-BRAC
Source: GAO.
The Kansas City Federal Courthouse and Post Office was conveyed to
Wyandotte County for correctional use as a juvenile correctional facility.
A site inspection of the property was conducted in July 2002 by GSA, which
determined that the property was being used for the purpose for which it
was conveyed. The county has renovated parts of the building to house
probation offices, family courts, and other juvenile services as well as
detention cells used to hold juveniles.
Figure 18: North Central Flint Hills Area Agency on Aging, Inc. - one property
Property name:
Location: Size: Grantee: Sponsoring agency: Date of conveyance: Public
use: Length of deed restrictions: Property status (active/reverted):
BRAC/non-BRAC:
Federal Building, Manhattan, KS
Manhattan, KS 2 story building North Central Flint Hills Area Agency on
Aging Department of Health and Human Services April 23, 1998 Homeless 30
years Active Non-BRAC
Source: GAO.
The property was originally conveyed to the North Central-Flint Hills Area
Agency on Aging for homeless use. The grantee currently uses the space to
collocate services aimed at alleviating homelessness and has leased space
to two other organizations that provide homeless services. HHS is aware of
the use of space by other nonprofits to provide services for the homeless,
and has found the practice consistent with its policy permitting grantees
to associate with other eligible nonprofit agencies for the delivery of
approved services.
Figure 19: Milford Lake - one property
Property name: Milford Lake
Location: Milford, KS
Size: 119.49 acres
Grantee: Kansas State University of
Agriculture and Applied Science
Sponsoring agency: Department of Education
Reversion date: April 2, 2003
Public use: Education
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years
Property status (active/reverted): Reverted
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC
Source: GAO.
Kansas State University applied for and received the property to use for
forestry research and to expand its tree improvement project operated by
the Kansas State University Department of Forestry. Although the annual
utilization reports filed by the university appeared to indicate that the
university was in compliance, Education conducted an on-site inspection
almost 18 years after conveyance and found the university to be
noncompliant due to the university's failure to use the property as
intended in the time allotted. The on-site inspection report stated that
three parcels of property were unused or leased to a neighboring farmer to
cut hay. Another parcel had been used as a research parcel, but the trees
planted there had not survived. Education offered the university three
alternatives, one of which was to return title to the federal government.
Figure 20: Tuttle Lake Wildlife Area - five properties
Property name: Tuttle Creek (portion)
Location: Tuttle Creek, KS
Size: 130.1 acres total
Grantee: State of Kansas
Sponsoring agency: General Services Administration
Date of conveyance: September 22, 1989; January 8, 1990
Public use: Wildlife conservation
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity
Property status (active/reverted): Active
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC
Source: GAO.
Five tracts of land were conveyed to the State of Kansas for use as a
conservation area for wildlife. The lands have been added to the state's
extensive Tuttle Lake conservation area, which offers fishing, boating,
camping, picnicking, and outdoor sports such as hunting. The area also
provides food and shelter for migratory shore birds and waterfowl. A 2004
inspection by GSA and the Kansas City Department of Wildlife and Parks
determined that the property was being used in accordance with the deed.
Massachusetts
Figure 21: NIKE Village Site Topsfield, MA - one property
Property name:
Location: Size: Grantee: Sponsoring agency: Date of conveyance: Public
use: Length of deed restrictions: Property status (active/reverted):
BRAC/non-BRAC:
NIKE Village Site, Topsfield, MA
Topsfield, MA
8.93 acresHealth and Education Services, Inc. Department of Health and
Human Services April 2, 1998 Homeless 30 years Active BRAC
Source: GAO.
The property comprises 16 ranch-style homes that were built in 1958 to
provide housing for personnel of the Topsfield NIKE missile battery. NIKE
Village operates state-funded residential programs that provide food and
shelter to homeless individuals who are dually diagnosed with chronic,
persistent mental illness and substance abuse, and to HIV-positive adults
trying to maintain a life of sobriety. Residents may stay for up to 24
months.
The facility is always fully occupied and currently has a waiting list.
Since the property was conveyed, the grantee has faced financial
challenges in upgrading its sewer infrastructure to meet state standards.
As federal property, the site was exempt from these standards when it was
owned by the Army.
Figure 22: Bentley College - one
property
Property name: Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center
Location: Waltham, MA
Size: 22.29 acres
Grantee: Bentley College
Sponsoring agency: Department of Education
Date of conveyance: August 29, 2001
Public use: Education
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years
Property status (active/reverted): Active
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC
Source: GAO.
The Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center was the site of a U. S. Army
hospital. Divided into three parcels, the site was conveyed to the City of
Waltham, the New Jewish High School, and Bentley College. The college and
the high school agreed to bear the costs of developing a centralized
infrastructure involving improvements such as access ways, parking lots,
and detention pond. They also agreed to share their recreation facilities
with the community. The college originally planned to build athletic
fields on the site; however, when it received less property than
originally planned it decided instead to use the property to house
undergraduate students. Two of four planned residential buildings are
under construction.
Figure 23: New Jewish High School - one
property
Property name: Frederick C. Murphy Federal
Center
Location: Waltham, MA
Size: 17.42 acres
Grantee: New Jewish High School, Inc.
(Gann Academy)
Sponsoring agency: Department of Education
Date of conveyance: October 1, 2001
Public use: Education
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years
Property status (active/reverted): Active
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC
Source: GAO.
The original site, the Frederick C. Murphy Center, was divided into three
parcels that were separately conveyed to Bentley College, the City of
Waltham, and the New Jewish High School. The high school invested more
than $15 million into site development and the construction of two
buildings. The first houses classrooms, a library, a cafeteria, and a
sanctuary, while the second houses physical education facilities. Bentley
College, the City of Waltham, and the New Jewish High School coordinated
with respect to the property allocation of the original site and the plan
for overall site development. The New Jewish High School signed a
memorandum of understanding with GSA regarding the remediation of asbestos
found in the soil after the property was conveyed.
Figure 24: Veteran's Memorial Park -
one property
Property name: Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center
Location: Waltham, MA
Size: 25.01 acres
Grantee: City of Waltham, MA
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal
Lands to Parks Program
Date of conveyance: October 1, 2001
Public use: Parks and recreation
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity
Property status (active/reverted): Active
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC
Source: GAO.
The Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center was the site of a U. S. Army
hospital. The entire site was donated to the City of Waltham by a local
philanthropist in the 1930s and was taken through eminent domain for use
as a hospital during World War II. The city had hoped that the entire
parcel would be returned to the city for active and passive recreational
use when it became surplus. However, because of federal legislation
specific to the site, the city had to compete for use of the property with
two other applicants (the New Jewish High School and Bentley College). The
city eventually received approximately 25 acres and is in the process of
building four multiuse athletic fields, two softball diamonds, and two
parking lots. The city currently has an active claim against GSA seeking
reimbursement for costs related to the remediation of environmental
contamination found on the site.
Figure 25: The Commander's Mansion - one property
Property name: Commanding Officer's Quarters
Location: Watertown, MA
Size: 7.2 acres
Grantee: Town of Watertown
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Historic
Surplus Property Program
Date of conveyance: August 20, 1998
Public use: Historical monument
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity
Property status (active/reverted): Active
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC
Source: GAO.
The 27 room mansion was built in 1865 as a residence for the commanding
officer of the Watertown Arsenal and his family. The surrounding
driveways, walkways, and lawns were modified in 1919 by the Olmstead
Brothers firm. The Town of Watertown restored the house in consultation
with the U. S. Army and the Massachusetts Historical Commission. The deed
grants the Massachusetts Historical Commission the authority to inspect
and oversee the state of preservation. Renting the house and grounds for
public and private functions such as weddings, receptions, luncheons, and
dinners, the town uses the proceeds to preserve and maintain the house and
grounds. The building has been listed on the National Register of Historic
Places since January 1976.
Figure 26: Squantum Gardens and Naval Terrace - one property
Property name:
Location: Size: Grantee: Sponsoring agency: Date of conveyance: Public
use: Length of deed restrictions: Property status (active/reverted):
BRAC/non-BRAC:
South Weymouth, MA - NAS
Quincy, MA 28 acres total Elder Housing Corporation (formerly City of
Quincy) Department of Housing and Urban Development January 12, 2001
Self-help housing 40 years Active BRAC
The property became available when South Weymouth Naval Air Station was
closed through the BRAC process. Originally two parcels, Naval Terrace and
Squantum Gardens were used for officers' and enlisted personnel housing,
respectively. The City of Quincy created Elder Housing Corporation as a
nonprofit corporation in order to secure the property for self-help
housing use. The buildings on the Naval Terrace parcel did not need major
improvements; however, most of the buildings on the Squantum Gardens
parcel were in poor condition and were demolished. Although Elder Housing
Corporation planned to develop Squantum Gardens into 223 units of
affordable senior housing, partly because of the reverter clause in the
deed, it was unable to obtain financing for development. Elder Housing
Corporation is now in the process of purchasing this parcel to free itself
from deed restrictions and plans to develop it as affordable senior
housing.
Pennsylvania
Figure 27: NIKE Site PH-02 - one
property
Property name: NIKE Site PH-02
Location: Bristol, PA
Size: 8.8 acres
Grantee: Bristol Township
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal
Lands to Parks Program
Date of reversion: September 13, 2000
Public use: Parks and recreation
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity
Property status (active/reverted): Reverted
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC
Source: GAO.
The property was originally wooded land. It was conveyed to Bristol
Township in 1981 for parks and recreation use, and the township planned to
build athletic fields and other recreational facilities. The township was
never able to obtain funding for development, so the property reverted to
the federal government and was sold at auction to a private individual.
The final sale is pending due to petroleum contamination found in the
soil, which the Army Corps of Engineers is in the process of cleaning up.
GSA anticipates that the cleanup will be complete sometime this year. The
property is no longer accessible to the public due to the closure of the
main road by an adjacent storage company.
Figure 28: Liberty House - one property
Property name:
Location: Size: Grantee: Sponsoring agency: Date of conveyance: Public
use: Length of deed restrictions: Property status (active/reverted):
BRAC/non-BRAC:
Valley Forge General Hospital
Phoenixville, PA
7.1 acresCommunity Mental Health Services, Inc. Department of Health and
Human Services November 20, 1995 Homeless 30 years Active Non-BRAC
Source: GAO.
The parcel was formerly occupied by the Liberty Forge School, a state
institution for mentally retarded children. In 1989, Community Mental
Health Services (CMHS) applied for the property to provide temporary
housing for mentally ill homeless persons under the McKinney Act. The
original application for 13.5 acres resulted in a lease rather than a
conveyance, but CMHS was unable to develop the property and implement the
transitional housing program. CMHS reapplied for and was granted 7.1 acres
in 1995. According to CMHS staff, buildings on the property were in
"absolute decay," and CMHS retained a property management company to
renovate and maintain the grounds and buildings. The facility currently
serves 48 residential patients. CMHS intends to restore an additional
building to be used as a group home.
Figure 29: Valley Forge Christian College - two properties
Property name:
Location: Size:
Grantee: Sponsoring agency: Date of conveyance:
Public use: Length of deed restrictions: Property status
(active/reverted): BRAC/non-BRAC:
Valley Forge General Hospital
Phoenixville, PA
7.65 acres (parcel 1)
7.46 acres (parcel 2) Valley Forge Christian College Department of
Education September 12, 1989 (parcel 1)
July 9, 1996 (parcel 2) Education 30 years (both parcels) Active Non-BRAC
S
The original site of approximately 181 acres was acquired by the federal
government between 1942 and 1948 for Valley Forge General Hospital. The
hospital was administered under the Army Health Services Command and was
considered a substation of Ft. Detrick, Maryland. In 1976, the property
was divided into a number of four parcels and separately conveyed to
Chester County, Charlestown Township, and Phoenixville Area School
District. The largest parcel-76.8 acres-was conveyed to Northeast Bible
College, later renamed Valley Forge Christian College (VFCC). VFCC applied
for and was conveyed two additional parcels: 7.6 acres in 1989 and 7.4
acres in 1996. VFCC says it has spent over $20 million since 1996 on
repairs and improvements to the buildings on the properties. Because of
the physical and financial challenges the property's condition posed to
the college, the board of trustees at one point considered the possibility
of finding another campus at another location.
Figure 30: Warminster Community Park - one property
Property name:
Location: Size: Grantee: Sponsoring agency: Date of conveyance: Public
use: Length of deed restrictions: Property status (active/reverted):
BRAC/non-BRAC:
Warminster, PA - NAWC
Warminster, PA 243 acres Warminster Township Department of the
Interior/Federal Lands to Parks Program November 30, 2000 Parks and
recreation In perpetuity Active BRAC
Source: GAO.
The original site of more than 800 acres was the Naval Air Warfare
Center/Naval Air Development Center (NADC), which was closed by BRAC in
1996. The portion received by Warminster Township has approximately 20
acres of runway, a few scattered buildings, and 20 acres of woods; the
rest is open meadow. NADC was considered a superfund site, and the Navy
performed cleanup on most of the parcel prior to turning the property over
for disposal. There is a 4-acre parcel that is still deemed contaminated,
which the Navy has covered with 2 feet of soil and grass seed. The
township did not anticipate the cost of cleaning out the buildings it
received and removing the debris left behind by the Navy. Although Phase I
of park development is complete, including walking, biking, and hiking
trails and a playground, the township has run out of funds to complete
additional improvements, such as removing an asphalt runway that bisects
the park.
Figure 31: Northampton Township Municipal Park - one property
Property name:
Location: Size: Grantee: Sponsoring agency: Date of conveyance: Public
use: Length of deed restrictions: Property status (active/reverted):
BRAC/non-BRAC:
Naval Air Warfare Center Warminster, Northampton Township
Northampton, PA
93.7 acresNorthampton Township Department of the Interior/Federal Lands to
Parks Program November 20, 1997 Parks and recreation In perpetuity Active
BRAC
Source: GAO.
The original parcel was 125 acres and was used by the Naval Warfare Center
as an emergency landing site in case pilots overflew the runway. When the
base closed, the property was conveyed to multiple grantees, including
Northampton Township. The township originally received 125 acres for parks
and recreational purposes, but agreed to release 32 acres for a new
elementary school and two other parcels that were used for fire department
training purposes and a water well for public health purposes. This left
the township with 93 acres. Opened in May 2005, the park includes sports
fields, basketball courts, a roller hockey rink, a walking trail,
playgrounds, picnic pavilions, and restrooms.
Texas
Figure 32: Kings Branch Housing - one
property
Property name: 20 Units Kings Branch Housing
Location: Tarrant County, TX
Size: 6.68 acres
Grantee: Ability Resources, Inc.
Sponsoring agency: Department of Health and Human
Services
Date of conveyance: August 31, 2001
Public use: Homeless
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years
Property status (active/reverted): Active
BRAC
The property was conveyed in 1995 for use as transitional housing for
homeless individuals with disabilities. Instead, the grantee has used the
property to house these individuals and their families permanently. HHS
program management officials conducted two site visits in 1999 and 2003
and found the property to be in breach of deed and program requirements.
After numerous attempts to make the grantee comply with the requirements,
HHS has compelled the grantee to purchase the property for at least fair
market value in order to release the grantee from deed requirements. Until
the abrogation is complete, HHS is assessing monthly payments for
noncompliance from the grantee. Ability Resources, Inc. plans to continue
operation of its housing units as residences for households with at least
one member having a disability.
Figure 33: Carswell Air Force Base Communications Annex - one property
Property name:
Location: Size: Grantee: Sponsoring agency: Date of conveyance: Public
use: Length of deed restrictions: Property status (active/reverted):
BRAC/non-BRAC:
Communications Annex, Carswell Air Force Base
Tarrant County, TX
17.01 acres City of Lake Worth Department of the Interior/Federal Lands to
Parks Program December 4, 2000 Parks and recreation In perpetuity Active
BRAC
Originally the City of Lake Worth acquired 39 acres of property in 1973
for parks and recreation use; however, an interstate highway was
constructed that bisected the park. This resulted in one of the tracts
being no longer suitable for parks and recreation. The city requested
permission to sell a portion of the parcel for commercial purposes and
replace it with other parcels of land for parks and recreation use under
the same restrictions and terms of the original deed. Interior approved
the request and the city purchased six separate parcels of land totaling
17 acres and it plans to develop one park a year on these lands. According
to the city's 2005 biennial report, it has completed two parks with
another four parks being planned or partially developed.
Figure 34: Lake Lewisville Independent School District Outdoor Learning Area -
two properties
Property name:
Location: Size:
Grantee: Sponsoring agency: Date of conveyance: Public use: Length of deed
restrictions: Property status (active/reverted): BRAC/non-BRAC:
Lake Lewisville, Parcel 2 and 3
Lewisville, TX
1. acres (parcel 2)
2. acres (parcel 3) Lewisville Independent School District Department of
Education February 25, 1994 Education 30 years Active Non-BRAC
Currently, the Lake Lewisville Independent School District Outdoor
Learning Area is used by school groups during the day for educational
purposes and study. The grounds include a science store, two classroom
buildings, and a picnic area for outdoor learning. Five miles of trails
have been constructed on the site and on adjacent property leased by the
Army Corps of Engineers. The school district hopes to expand its school
services to middle and high school students. District officials noted that
one of the main problems of the property is its limited access.
Figure 35: Naval Air Station Dallas Clear Zone - one property
Property name:
Location: Size: Grantee: Sponsoring agency: Date of conveyance: Public
use: Length of deed restrictions: Property status (active/reverted):
BRAC/non-BRAC:
Dallas, TX - NAS
Dallas, TX
26.4 acresCity of Grand Prairie Department of the Interior/Federal Lands
to Parks Program March 3, 2000 Parks and recreation In perpetuity Active
BRAC
According to city officials, the property was acquired by the City of
Grand Prairie for public park purposes, and contains 13 separate tracts
ranging in size from 0.33 acre to about 18 acres. Two tracts contain an
existing aviation easement with lights for the nearby Naval Air Station
runway. The city has not yet begun developing the property, nor have any
improvements been made since its conveyance in May 2000. The city is
currently in the midst of preparing a comprehensive master plan for the
park site. Public access is currently not allowed.
Figure 36: Naval Air Station Dallas, Duncanville Housing Site - one property
Property name:
Location: Size: Grantee: Sponsoring agency: Date of conveyance: Public
use: Length of deed restrictions: Property status (active/reverted):
BRAC/non-BRAC:
Naval Air Station, Dallas, Duncanville Housing Site
Duncanville, TX
3.07 acresCity of Duncanville Department of the Interior/ Federal Lands to
Parks Program November 5, 1998 Parks and recreation In perpetuity Active
BRAC
Source: GAO.
When the city made its application for the property, the Duncanville Local
Redevelopment Authority (LRA) was made aware that a transitional housing
provider group, Brighter Tomorrows, had also applied for the property
under the McKinney Act. As a result of the homeless application, the
city's application was placed on hold, for approximately 2 years, while
the property was being considered for homeless use pursuant to the
homeless requirements under the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and
Homeless Assistance Act of 1994. HUD approved the city's application plan
after the Duncanville LRA and Brighter Tomorrows agreed that the city
could use the property for parks and recreation purposes. The property is
currently being used as a park and includes parking, benches, a walking
trail, and open space.
Utah
Figure 37: Utah College of Applied Technology - one property
Property name:
Location: Size: Grantee: Sponsoring agency: Date of conveyance: Public
use: Length of deed restrictions: Property status (active/reverted):
Defense Depot - Ogden, UT
Ogden, UT 3 acres; warehouse bays 1 and 2 Weber Applications Technology
(Utah College of Applied Technology) Department of Education September 11,
2001 Education 30 years Active BRAC
Source: GAO.
The site was originally a defense depot that closed as a result of BRAC.
The Utah College of Applied Technology applied for and was conveyed two
warehouse bays for education and training purposes. Not long after the
property was conveyed bay 1 was completely destroyed by fire; the college
expected the rebuilding to be complete by September 2005. The warehouses
are used for classroom instruction in materials handling, truck and
forklift operations, nursing, plumbing, and HVAC. The college has served
over 3,400 students and nearly 300 companies, providing opportunities for
initial employment and skill upgrades for employed individuals.
Figure 38: Weber County Schools Warehouse - one property
Property name: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT
Location: Ogden, UT
Size: 6 acres; warehouse bays 3, 4, 5, and 6
Grantee: Weber County Schools
Sponsoring agency: Department of Education
Date of conveyance: September 11, 2001
Public use: Education
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years
Property status (active/reverted): Active
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC
Source: GAO.
The site was originally a defense depot that closed as a result of BRAC.
The property consists of four warehouse bays. The storage bays are used by
the school district for shipping, receiving, and distribution of school
supplies; office space for informational technology equipment, technical
training, and equipment repair; and storage of building maintenance
supplies. The school district has made over $800,000 in improvements to
the facilities including a new cooler, shelving, insulation, loading
docks, and office space. The property was conveyed to the school district
at an 80 percent discount because a portion of the warehouse space is used
for administrative and storage purposes as opposed to education and
training purposes.
Figure 39: Davis School District Warehouse - one property
Property name:
Location: Size: Grantee: Sponsoring agency: Date of conveyance: Public
use: Length of deed restrictions: Property status (active/reverted):
BRAC/non-BRAC:
Clearfield Federal Depot
Farmington, UT
5.2 acres; G5 warehouse Davis County School District Department of
Education February 9, 1993 Education 30 years Active Non-BRAC
Source: GAO.
The property was originally conveyed to the Weber County School District
in 1977 and was used as a warehouse. When Weber County no longer needed
the property, it was offered to the Davis County School District, which
planned to use the building to house school supplies including furniture,
custodial supplies, and computers. The property was conveyed to Davis
County School District in 1993. Since taking possession, the school
district has made numerous improvements to the warehouse, such as a new
freezer to store perishables, heating system, cafe for employees, and
additional parking spaces.
Figure 40: Defense Distribution Depot Ogden, Building 42 - one property
Property name: Defense Distribution Depot Ogden,
Building 42
Location: Ogden, UT
Size: 0.74 acres, building 42
Grantee: Planned Parenthood Association
Sponsoring agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Date reverted: July 28, 2003
Public use: Public health
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years
Property status (active/reverted): Reverted
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC
Source: GAO.
[Picture not available because the building was demolished]
The site was originally a Department of Defense distribution depot that
closed as a result of BRAC. Planned Parenthood Association of Utah (PPAU)
planned to use the facility as a subsidized health care facility. Although
PPAU was committed to the program, the property was never developed
because soon after the property was conveyed, PPAU learned that it was
required to conduct an environmental groundwater assessment and to pay to
maintain the unoccupied building while the environmental assessment was
pending. The property was conveyed in 2001, but the grantee voluntarily
reverted the property 2 years later because it was unable to fund the
environmental assessment and maintain the property at the same time.
According to PPAU officials, the building has since been demolished.
Figure 41: Ogden Nature Center - one property
Property name:
Location: Size: Grantee: Sponsoring agency: Date of conveyance: Public
use: Length of deed restrictions: Property status (active/reverted):
BRAC/non-BRAC:
Defense Depot - Ogden, UT
Ogden, UT 25 acres City of Ogden (leased to Ogden Nature Center)
Department of the Interior/ Federal Lands to Parks Program August 27, 2003
Parks and recreation In perpetuity Active
Source: GAO.
The Ogden Nature Center is located on the former Defense Depot Ogden,
which closed as a result of BRAC. The property was conveyed to the City of
Ogden and the nature center has a 25-year concessionaire lease. The land
was overrun with weeds when it was conveyed to the nature center and had
been used as a dumping ground by the Army. The Army has since cleaned up
most of the environmental contamination. The nature center acts as a
sanctuary for local wildlife and birds of prey. Annually, approximately
35,000 visitors and program participants take advantage of the nature
center's hiking trails, nature education programs, and summer camps.
Figure 42: Weber County Fairgrounds - one property
Property name:
Location: Size: Grantee: Sponsoring agency: Date of conveyance: Public
use: Length of deed restrictions: Property status (active/reverted):
BRAC/non-BRAC:
Defense Depot - Ogden, UT
Ogden, UT 25 acres City of Ogden (leased to Weber County Fairgrounds)
Department of the Interior/ Federal Lands to Parks Program August 27, 2003
Parks and recreation In perpetuity Active BRAC
Source: GAO.
The property is located on the former Defense Depot Ogden, which was
closed as a result of BRAC. The 25 acres of land were conveyed to the City
of Ogden for parks and recreational use. The fairgrounds originally
attempted to have the property conveyed to it, but the local redevelopment
authority (i.e., the city) would not approve the application. The
fairground is in the process of finalizing a 50-year lease arrangement
with the city. The property is used weekly as an overflow parking lot for
trailers during events at the fairgrounds.
Virginia
Figure 43: Former Petersburg Correctional Institute - one property
Property name:
Location: Size: Grantee: Sponsoring agency: Date reverted: Public use:
Length of deed restrictions: Property status (active/reverted):
BRAC/non-BRAC:
Former Petersburg Correctional Institute (portion)
Petersburg, VA 275.4 acres VDOC Central Office General Services
Administration May 21, 2004 Correctional In perpetuity Reverted Non-BRAC
Source: GAO.
The Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC) was conveyed 590.88 acres in
1986 surrounding the Bureau of Prisons' Petersburg Correctional Institute
for use as a grain crops farm. VDOC uses the grain and crops to feed
animals raised as food for the state prison population. In 2004, at the
request of the federal government, VDOC returned 275 acres of the
remaining land to the federal inventory so that the adjacent Army
installation, Fort Lee Military Reservation, could expand its firing
range, which was considered vital to homeland security. According to a
VDOC official, the Army said it would inform VDOC when it became necessary
to vacate the property. However, VDOC has not thus far received notice
from the Army and continues to plant and harvest crops on the land.
Figure 44: Falling Creek Linear Park -
one property
Property name: Defense General Supply Center,
Falling Creek Reservoir
Location: Chesterfield County, VA
Size: 36.2 acres
Grantee: Chesterfield County
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal
Lands to Parks Program
Date of conveyance: November 10, 1993
Public use: Parks and recreation
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity
Property status (active/reverted): Active
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC
Source: GAO.
The site is intended to be part of a linear park system connected to
historic areas along Falling Creek. The property is one of multiple pieces
of land the county is trying to obtain along Falling Creek in order to
develop a greenway along the river. The county has a master plan for
development of the linear park, but the plan is contingent upon the county
acquiring the remainder of the land along the river. Presently, there is
no indication of any improvements to the property. The county has filed
only three compliance reports, although the deed requires biennial
utilization reporting. Officials were unfamiliar with the reversion
process and did not know that the property could be reclaimed by the
government due to noncompliance.
Figure 45: Riverside Regional Jail -
one property
Property name: Former Petersburg Correctional
Institute
Location: Petersburg, VA
Size: 154.03 acres
Grantee: Riverside Regional Jail Authority
Sponsoring agency: General Services Administration
Date of conveyance: April 21, 1992
Public use: Correctional
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity
Property status (active/reverted): Active
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC
The property abuts the Bureau of Prisons' Petersburg Federal Correctional
Complex and I-295. In 1986, 590.88 acres were conveyed to the Virginia
Department of Corrections (VDOC) for corrections use. With the approval of
GSA and DOJ, VDOC transferred 154 acres to the Riverside Regional Jail
Authority (RRJA)-a partnership between seven local jurisdictions formed to
meet common correctional needs. Although the original agreement required
RRJA to supply prison labor for VDOC farm operations, if requested, VDOC
has not requested nor does it use RRJA prisoners as labor for the farm.
The RRJA facility currently houses male, female, and juvenile offenders
and can accommodate up to 1,300 prisoners.
Figure 46: Cameron Station - one
property
Property name: Cameron Station (portion)
Location: Alexandria, VA
Size: 54.05 acres
Grantee: City of Alexandria
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal
Lands to Parks Program
Date of conveyance: April 3, 1997
Public use: Parks and recreation
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity
Property status (active/reverted): Active
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC
The site was originally occupied by a former Army base that had served as
a quartermaster depot and was closed as a result of BRAC. The local
redevelopment authority allocated the central portion of the property for
residential development in its reuse plan. That portion, containing the
existing military buildings and associated environmental contamination,
was sold to a developer. The two end portions were conveyed to the city to
provide parks and recreation services for city residents. Brenman Park
provides a large multiuse playing field, two baseball fields, tennis
courts, pavilions, a large pond, parking areas, and restrooms. Boothe Park
provides tennis courts, a large pavilion, playground, baseball field,
parking lot, and restrooms. It abuts a large elementary school, which uses
the facilities on a daily basis.
Washington
Figure 47: Naval Station Puget Sound - three properties
Property name: Naval Station Puget Sound and Sand
Point Naval Housing
Location: Seattle, WA
Size: 15.5 acres total; buildings 5, 9, 25,
29, 192, 333, and 334
Grantee: University of Washington
Sponsoring agency: Department of Education
Date of conveyance: January 8, 1999; August 10, 1999
Public use: Education
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years
Property status (active/reverted): Active
Source: GAO.
The properties conveyed to the University of Washington were part of a
former naval air station. The university is using two buildings for a
variety of purposes including administrative and departmental offices,
record and supply storage, art studios, and a materials testing lab. The
use of two additional buildings is currently undecided. Building 25 is
being considering for use as a pediatric dental clinic. The university is
considering reverting Building 9 back to the government or entering into a
public-private partnership because of an estimated $55 million in needed
renovations. Some of the remaining buildings have been designated as
historic, which has presented the university with major renovation
challenges.
Figure 48: Midway NIKE Housing Site - one property
Property name:
Location: Size: Grantee: Sponsoring agency: Date of conveyance: Public
use: Length of deed restrictions: Property status (active/reverted):
BRAC/non-BRAC:
Midway NIKE Housing Site Kent, WA
Kent, WA
10.18 acres, 32 buildings King County Housing Authority Department of
Health and Human Services September 1, 1994 Homeless 30 years Active
Non-BRAC
Source: GAO.
The King County Housing Authority (KCHA) received 32 buildings (1 was
demolished because of fire damage), which it uses to provide emergency and
transitional housing services. KCHA provides these services through a
partnership with three nonprofit agencies-the South King County
Multiservices Center, the West Highline Mental Health Center, and the St.
Stephen's Housing Association. According to a KCHA official, the agency
faced unanticipated renovation costs when the heating ducts had to be
replaced because of a mold problem. In addition, because the housing
program operates on a break-even basis, KCHA partnered with a number of
nonprofits for grants that were used to fund the costs of replacing siding
and roofs. KCHA uses volunteers to help with maintenance.
Figure 49: Howard A. Hanson Dam - one property
Property name:
Location: Size: Grantee: Sponsoring agency: Date of conveyance: Public
use: Length of deed restrictions: Property status (active/reverted):
BRAC/non-BRAC:
Howard A. Hanson Dam, King County, WA (portion)
King County, WA 204.4 acres City of Tacoma Department of Health and Human
Services May 9, 1991 Public health 30 years Active Non-BRAC
Source: GAO.
The property was formerly used as a right of way by the Northern Pacific
Railroad and came into the possession of the federal government when the
federal government constructed the Howard A. Hanson Dam in the late 1950s.
The property is comprised of a limited access roadway and 200 feet of land
on each side that stretches for 4 miles. It was conveyed to the City of
Tacoma Public Utilities Water Division (Tacoma Water) to provide access to
its drinking water intake and treatment facility that uses water from the
dam. Tacoma Water has recently constructed a buried pipeline on one side
of the road to supply drinking water to the City of Tacoma. The dam itself
was built and is managed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Tacoma
Water has spent $310,000 to repair the road, which is dirt, and in the
future plans to pave the roadway to minimize the amount of dust from
vehicles. Though closed to the public, the roadway is used by dam
personnel, Tacoma Water personnel, construction employees, and logging
companies.
Figure 50: Olympia Federal Building -
one property
Property name: Olympia Federal Building
Location: Olympia, WA
Size: Less than 1 acre
Grantee: State of Washington
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Historic
Surplus Property Program
Date of conveyance: November 1, 1998
Public use: Historic monument
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity
Property status (active/reverted): Active
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC
The Olympia Federal Building dates from 1915 and originally served as a
federal building and post office. It is considered a historic monument.
The building had been through three major earthquakes since being built
and needed retrofitting for earthquake protection. It was in poor
condition when the state acquired it. Originally conveyed for low-income
housing, the nonprofit that received the property was unable to raise
funds for its renovation and use as a homeless shelter. The nonprofit
reverted the property and it was reconveyed to the state for historic
monument use. The state has made extensive renovations to the building,
spending about $2.8 million for restoration. The Secretary of State's
Corporations Division uses the building to register business entities in
the state of Washington, including domestic and foreign corporations,
limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships, and limited
liability companies.
Figure 51: Sand Point Magnuson Park - four properties
Property name:
Location: Size: Grantee: Sponsoring agency: Date of conveyance: Public
use: Length of deed restrictions: Property status (active/reverted):
BRAC/non-BRAC:
Sand Point Magnuson Park and Sand Point Puget Sound, WA NAVSTA
Seattle, WA 116.3 acres total City of Seattle Department of the
Interior/Federal Parks to Lands Program August 28, 1998; March 17, 1999;
April 6, 2000; December 12, 2002 Parks and recreation In perpetuity Active
BRAC
Source: GAO.
The buildings and lands conveyed to Seattle's Parks and Recreation
Department comprised a portion of the former Naval Air Station Puget Sound
at Sandpoint. These conveyances involved four parcels transferred between
1998 and 2002 that added to the preexisting Magnuson Park, which had been
previously conveyed in the 1970s. The city razed many of the structures
but preserved a number of buildings (including three large hangars) in
addition to developing the surrounding land for a range of assorted
recreational activities. These include a community garden, a theater, a
pool, a day camp, facilities for indoor athletics such as soccer and
in-line hockey, playgrounds, and a dog park. The Seattle Parks and
Recreation Department also leases out space to more than 15 nonprofit and
community groups that are involved with sports, recreation, leisure,
environmental, arts, culture, and education activities.
Appendix V
Comments from the General Services Administration
Appendix VI
Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services
Appendix VII
Comments from the Department of Education
Appendix VIII
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
Mark L. Goldstein (202) 512-2834 or [email protected]
GAO Contact
In addition to the contact named above, David Sausville, Assistant
Director;
Staff
Carol Anderson-Guthrie; Lindsay Bach; Tonnye Conner-White; Kim Michaels;
Susan Michal-Smith; Claudine Pauselli; and Kelly Slade made key
contributions to this report.
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts GAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax:
(202) 512-6061
Contact:
To Report Fraud, Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm.
E-mail: [email protected].
Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 .Relations
Washington, D.C. 20548
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800.
Public Affairs
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***