Federal Real Property
Most Public Benefit Conveyances Used as Intended, but Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal Oversight Gao ID: GAO-06-511 June 21, 2006Under 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.
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.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-511, Federal Real Property: Most Public Benefit Conveyances Used as Intended, but Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal Oversight
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-511
entitled 'Federal Real Property: Most Public Benefit Conveyances Used
as Intended, but Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal Oversight'
which was released on July 21, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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. 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.
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:
GAO-06-511:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-511, a report to the Committee on Government
Reform, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
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.
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.
Figure: Former Surplus Real Property Used by Communities:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO.
[End of Figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that GSA coordinate with DOD and sponsoring agencies to
(1) ensure that data on PBC properties are reliable and consistent, (2)
consider developing uniform standards and guidance, and (3) address
various challenges facing agencies and grantees. GAO also recommends
that sponsoring agencies ensure that their compliance monitoring
policies are followed. GSA, HHS, HUD, and Education generally concurred
with the recommendations directed to them. HHS and HUD questioned the
practicality of uniform standards and guidance for diverse properties.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-511].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Mark L. Goldstein at
(202) 512-2834 or GoldsteinM@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Lack of Reliable, Consistent Data Hampers PBC Program Management and
Oversight:
Inconsistent Compliance Monitoring Was Common, although Most Case Study
Properties Were Used as Agreed to by the Grantee:
Challenges Managing and Participating in the PBC Program Were Evident:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties Conveyed,
Fiscal Years 2000-2004:
Appendix III: Summary Data on Properties Selected for Case Study:
Appendix IV: Properties Selected for Case Studies:
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:
Tables:
Table 1: List of Public Benefit Use Authorities and Their Statutory
Citations:
Table 2: Sponsoring Agencies and Their Responsibilities, by Public
Benefit Use:
Table 3: Consistency of Compliance Oversight Performed for Case Study
Properties in Accordance with Requirements in Agencies' Policies and
Property Deeds:
Table 4: Compliance Oversight Methods Stated in Agencies' Policies and
Procedures for Properties Conveyed, Fiscal Years 1990-2004:
Figures:
Figure 1: PBC Process for Former Civilian Agency or Non-BRAC DOD
Surplus Real Property:
Figure 2: PBC Process for BRAC Surplus Real Property:
Figure 3: Number of Properties Identified by Type of Use, Fiscal Years
2000-2004:
Figure 4: Location of the Properties Identified, Fiscal Years 2000-
2004:
Figure 5: Little Cottonwood Park - one property:
Figure 6: Port of Long Beach - one property:
Figure 7: Savannah and Cabrillo Navy Housing - one property:
Figure 8: Rolling Hills Preparatory School - one property:
Figure 9: Westwood Transitional Village - one property:
Figure 10: Southern California Logistics Airport - one property:
Figure 11: Homestead Air Force Base Communications Annex - one
property:
Figure 12: Homestead Air Force Base Homeless Trust - one property:
Figure 13: U.S. Custom House - one property:
Figure 14: MacDill Air Force Base Railroad Spur - one property:
Figure 15: U.S. Classic Courthouse - one property:
Figure 16: Federal Building and USDA Lab - one property:
Figure 17: Wyandotte County Correctional Facility and Court Services
Building - one property:
Figure 18: North Central Flint Hills Area Agency on Aging, Inc. - one
property:
Figure 19: Milford Lake - one property:
Figure 20: Tuttle Lake Wildlife Area - five properties:
Figure 21: NIKE Village Site Topsfield, MA - one property:
Figure 22: Bentley College - one property:
Figure 23: New Jewish High School - one property:
Figure 24: Veteran's Memorial Park - one property:
Figure 25: The Commander's Mansion - one property:
Figure 26: Squantum Gardens and Naval Terrace - one property:
Figure 27: NIKE Site PH-02 - one property:
Figure 28: Liberty House - one property:
Figure 29: Valley Forge Christian College - two properties:
Figure 30: Warminster Community Park - one property:
Figure 31: Northampton Township Municipal Park - one property:
Figure 32: Kings Branch Housing - one property:
Figure 33: Carswell Air Force Base Communications Annex - one property:
Figure 34: Lake Lewisville Independent School District Outdoor Learning
Area - two properties:
Figure 35: Naval Air Station Dallas Clear Zone - one property:
Figure 36: Naval Air Station Dallas, Duncanville Housing Site - one
property:
Figure 37: Utah College of Applied Technology - one property:
Figure 38: Weber County Schools Warehouse - one property:
Figure 39: Davis School District Warehouse - one property:
Figure 40: Defense Distribution Depot Ogden, Building 42 - one
property:
Figure 41: Ogden Nature Center - one property:
Figure 42: Weber County Fairgrounds - one property:
Figure 43: Former Petersburg Correctional Institute - one property:
Figure 44: Falling Creek Linear Park - one property:
Figure 45: Riverside Regional Jail - one property:
Figure 46: Cameron Station - one property:
Figure 47: Naval Station Puget Sound - three properties:
Figure 48: Midway NIKE Housing Site - one property:
Figure 49: Howard A. Hanson Dam - one property:
Figure 50: Olympia Federal Building - one property:
Figure 51: Sand Point Magnuson Park - four properties:
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:
[End of Section]
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.[Footnote 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
tax-exempt 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.[Footnote 2] Under laws and
federal regulations promulgated by GSA implementing the PBC program,
several "sponsoring agencies" 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.
Results in Brief:
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. Although GSA and
DOD 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:
* A nature center area in Ogden, Utah, provided a sanctuary for
wildlife.
* 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.
* 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 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.
Background:
The Property Act governs the disposal of most federal real
property.[Footnote 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 surplus real
property; property can also be disposed of by negotiated[Footnote 4]
and public sale[Footnote 5] or by other conveyances available under
BRAC, such as economic development conveyances.[Footnote 6]
Properties are conveyed[Footnote 7] 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.
Table 1: List of Public Benefit Use Authorities and Their Statutory
Citations:
Public benefit use authorities: Education;
When enacted: Prior to 1949;
Statutory citation: 40 U.S.C. § 550(c).
Public benefit use authorities: Public health;
When enacted: Prior to 1949;
Statutory citation: 40 U.S.C. § 550(d).
Public benefit use authorities: Parks and recreation;
When enacted: Prior to 1949;
Statutory citation: 40 U.S.C. § 550(e).
Public benefit use authorities: Historic monument;
When enacted: Prior to 1949; 1972 Amendments;
Statutory citation: 40 U.S.C. § 550(h).
Public benefit use authorities: Wildlife conservation[A];
When enacted: Prior to 1949;
Statutory citation: 16 U.S.C. § 667b.
Public benefit use authorities: Public airport[A];
When enacted: Prior to 1949;
Statutory citation: 49 U.S.C. § 47151.
Public benefit use authorities: Correctional;
When enacted: 1984;
Statutory citation: 40 U.S.C. § 553(b)(1).
Public benefit use authorities: Homeless[A];
When enacted: 1988;
Statutory citation: 42 U.S.C. § 11411.
Public benefit use authorities: Port facility;
When enacted: 1994;
Statutory citation: 40 U.S.C. § 554.
Public benefit use authorities: Self-help housing;
When enacted: 1997;
Statutory citation: 40 U.S.C. § 550(f).
Public benefit use authorities: Law enforcement;
When enacted: 1997;
Statutory citation: 40 U.S.C. § 553(b)(2).
Public benefit use authorities: Emergency management response;
When enacted: 1997;
Statutory citation: 40 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3).
Source: GAO.
[A] Wildlife conservation, public airport, and homeless public uses
were not codified in the Property Act.
[End of table]
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:
Public benefit use: Education;
Sponsoring agency: Department of Education;
Sponsoring agency responsibilities:
* Application review and approval;
* Deeding and conveyance;
* Compliance monitoring;
Length of deed restriction: 30 years.
Public benefit use: Public health;
Sponsoring agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Sponsoring agency responsibilities:
* Application review and approval;
* Deeding and conveyance;
* Compliance monitoring;
Length of deed restriction: 30 years.
Public benefit use: Parks and recreation;
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior-Federal Lands to Parks
Program;
Sponsoring agency responsibilities:
* Application review and approval;
* Deeding and conveyance;
* Compliance monitoring;
Length of deed restriction: In perpetuity.
Public benefit use: Historic monument;
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior- Historic Surplus
Property Program and General Services Administration;
Sponsoring agency responsibilities:
* Application review and approval (Historic Surplus Property Program);
* Deeding and conveyance (GSA);
* Compliance monitoring (Historic Surplus Property Program);
Length of deed restriction: In perpetuity.
Public benefit use: Wildlife conservation;
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior-U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) and General Services Administration;
Sponsoring agency responsibilities:
* Application review[A] (GSA or FWS) and;
* approval (GSA); * Deeding and conveyance (GSA);
* Compliance monitoring (GSA);
Length of deed restriction: In perpetuity.
Public benefit use: Public airport;
Sponsoring agency: Department of Transportation-Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and General Services Administration;
Sponsoring agency responsibilities:
* Application review and approval (FAA);
* Deeding and conveyance (GSA);
* Compliance monitoring (FAA);
Length of deed restriction: In perpetuity.
Public benefit use: Correctional;
Sponsoring agency: Department of Justice and General Services
Administration;
Sponsoring agency responsibilities:
* Application review and approval (DOJ);
* Deeding and conveyance (GSA);
* Compliance monitoring (GSA);
Length of deed restriction: In perpetuity.
Public benefit use: Port facility;
Sponsoring agency: Department of Transportation-Maritime Administration
(MARAD);
Sponsoring agency responsibilities:
* Application review and approval;
* Deeding and conveyance;
* Compliance monitoring;
Length of deed restriction: In perpetuity.
Public benefit use: Self-help housing;
Sponsoring agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Sponsoring agency responsibilities:
* Application review and approval;
* Deeding and conveyance;
* Compliance monitoring;
Length of deed restriction: 40 years.
Public benefit use: Law enforcement;
Sponsoring agency: Department of Justice and General Services
Administration;
Sponsoring agency responsibilities:
* Application review and approval (DOJ);
* Deeding and conveyance (GSA);
* Compliance monitoring (GSA);
Length of deed restriction: In perpetuity.
Public benefit use: Emergency management Response;
Sponsoring agency: Department of Homeland Security-Federal Emergency
Management Agency and General Services Administration;
Sponsoring agency responsibilities:
* Application review and approval (FEMA);
* Deeding and conveyance (GSA);
* Compliance monitoring (GSA);
Length of deed restriction: In perpetuity.
Public benefit use: Homeless;
Sponsoring agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Sponsoring agency responsibilities:
* Application review and approval;
* Deeding and conveyance;
* Compliance monitoring;
Length of deed restriction: 30 years.
Source: GAO.
[A] Unlike 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.
[End of table]
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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 8] LRAs have historically been responsible for
planning for the future reuse of BRAC property and for 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.[Footnote
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 1994[Footnote
10] 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.
Figure 2: PBC Process for BRAC Surplus Real Property:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 11] Compliance for surplus BRAC property conveyed as
public benefit conveyances is handled by the sponsoring agencies in the
same manner as surplus former civilian agency or non-BRAC DOD property.
Reverted property returns either to GSA's or the military department's
inventory of real property assets.[Footnote 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 responsibilities. Specifically, we asked that the
agencies provide us with the following pieces of information: property
name, description, address, sponsoring agency,[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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 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.
* 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.
* Data lacked specificity-The data provided by the agencies lacked
specificity. Because each agency maintains its own database of
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."
* Data lacked unique identifiers-Only GSA and the Air Force provided
unique identifying codes for each property.[Footnote 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.
Data Not Regularly Maintained on Property That Reverted to the
Government:
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,
GSA's manual for its NetReal database[Footnote 16] 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 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.
Reliable and Consistent Data Are Important Given the Decentralized
Nature of the Program and the Number of Agencies Involved:
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.[Footnote
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,[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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 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.
Conveyed Properties Identified Were Located Nationwide and Reflected a
Range of Uses:
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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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 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. 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;[Footnote 20] 4
properties had already reverted to the federal government;[Footnote 21]
and we were unable to obtain compliance information from the agencies
for 5 properties.[Footnote 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:
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Federal Lands to Parks Program[A]: 8;
Historic Surplus Property Program[A]: 2;
Education: 10;
GSA: 7;
HHS: 8;
HUD: 1;
Total: 36.
Compliance oversight: Consistent;
Federal Lands to Parks Program[A]: 2;
Historic Surplus Property Program[A]: 0;
Education: 3;
GSA: 0;
HHS: 0;
HUD: 0;
Total: 5.
Compliance oversight: Number of properties evaluated;
Federal Lands to Parks Program[A]: 10;
Historic Surplus Property Program[A]: 2;
Education: 13;
GSA: 7;
HHS: 8;
HUD: 1;
Total: 41.
Source: GAO.
[A] This program is part of the Department of the Interior.
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.
[End of table]
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:
* for 4 properties, grantees did not consistently provide utilization
reports as required by their deeds,
* for 16 properties, agencies did not consistently conduct site
inspections as required by their policies, and:
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.[Footnote 23]
In other instances, sponsoring agencies took a number of years to
respond to missing utilization reports, as the following examples
illustrate.
* 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.
* 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 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.[Footnote 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.
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, were 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:
* 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
developed portions of the former air base into community parks with
athletic fields, walking trails, and pavilions.
* 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.
* 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.
Education Use:
* 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,[Footnote 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.
* 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.
* 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, supply warehouses, and storage for the university's record and
library system.
Homeless and Public Health Use:
* 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.
* 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.
* 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:
* 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:
* 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.
* 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
partnerships, limited liability partnerships, and limited liability
companies.
Wildlife Conservation Use:
* 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.
* 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:
* 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.
* 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 reverted back to the federal government and was sold at
auction to a private individual.
* 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.
* 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.
Agencies Used a Mix of Self-Reporting by Grantees and Site Inspections
to Ensure Compliance, although Frequency Varied:
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:
Agency: Utilization report;
Federal Lands to Parks Program[A]: Biennial;
Historic Surplus Property Program[A]: Biennial;
Education: Annual or biennial;
GSA: Not required;
HHS: Annual;
HUD: Quarterly to annually;
FAA: At the discretion of FAA;
MARAD: Annual, as required by deeds.
Agency: Site inspection;
Federal Lands to Parks Program[A]: Biennial until use is implemented;
intervals not to exceed 5 years thereafter[B];
Historic Surplus Property Program[A]: Biennial until use is
implemented; intervals not to exceed 5 years thereafter;
Education: Within first 12 months; as needed thereafter;
GSA: Every 5 years;
HHS: Within first 12 months,; at 1-5 year intervals thereafter;
HUD: Quarterly for first 48 months; annually thereafter;
FAA: Once every 4 years;
MARAD: None specified.
Source: GAO.
[A] This program is part of the Department of the Interior.
[B] According 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.
[End of table]
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 manual[Footnote 26] 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.
* 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.
* 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
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.
* MARAD relies on its regulations and property deeds as guidance for
monitoring port facility properties.[Footnote 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.
Agencies' Reversion Policies Varied:
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 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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 the program for
agencies and potential grantees and enable better oversight of the
program by GSA and other stakeholders, such as OMB and Congress.
Challenges Managing and Participating in the PBC Program Were Evident:
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.
* 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.
* 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 of the PBC program as well as on the funding for the
historic preservation program the office is required to manage.
* 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.
Complex Landscape of Federal Real Property Laws Is Another Challenge
Agencies Cited:
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,[Footnote 28] homeless,[Footnote 29] port
facilities,[Footnote 30] law enforcement,[Footnote 31] emergency
management response,[Footnote 32] and self-help housing.[Footnote 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 1969[Footnote 34] (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966[Footnote 35] (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.[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote 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 implementing
regulations,[Footnote 39] which served as the principal guidance for
BRAC property disposal.[Footnote 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.
Agencies Seek Alternatives to Reversion for Noncompliance:
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, 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.[Footnote 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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 the properties we selected for case study review--the Defense
Distribution Depot Ogden, Building 42--reverted to the Army instead of
to GSA.
Some Grantees Reported Poor Communication about the Program and Lack of
Information on the Condition of Individual Properties:
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:
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
Conclusions:
Most PBC properties we visited are being used as agreed to by the
grantee 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' 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.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
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 PBC-programwide 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 [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. 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.
Signed by:
Mark L. Goldstein:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
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,[Footnote
42] 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 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.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties Conveyed,
Fiscal Years 2000-2004:
Property name: Alaska: Bethel Army Advisor Housing - Lot 11;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-02; Acres: 0.3;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: Tundra Women's Coalition;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 2;
Property name: Alaska: Dillingham Wharf;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-03;
Acres: 2.4;
Conveyance type: Other (Port facility)[A];
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
Property name: 3;
Property name: Alaska: Gibson Cove;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-04;
Acres: 37.1;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Kodiak;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 4;
Property name: Alabama: Mobile Point Light Station;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-01;
Acres: 10.1;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Alabama Historical Commission;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 5;
Property name: Alabama: Federal Building;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-01;
Acres: 1.2;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Cullman City School System;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 6;
Property name: Alabama: Jasper FB&CT;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-02;
Acres: 1.4;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Walker County Board of Ed;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 7;
Property name: Alabama: Coosa River Storage Annex (CRSA);
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-03;
Acres: 2832.4;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Talladega County Commission;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 8;
Property name: Alabama: Sand Island Lighthouse;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-03;
Acres: 0.2;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Town of Dauphin Island;
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 9;
Property name: Alabama: Fort McClellan;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-00;
Acres: 7.0;
Conveyance type: Public health;
Grantee name: WWTP;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 10;
Property name: Alabama: Fort McClellan;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-02;
Acres: 130.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Anniston;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 11;
Property name: Arkansas: Fort Chaffee;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jul-01;
Acres: 583.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Sabastian County;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 12;
Property name: Arkansas: Low Level Windshear Alert System #4;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00;
Acres: 0.4;
Conveyance type: Public health;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 13;
Property name: Arkansas: US Army Reserve Center #05571;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-01;
Acres: 7.0;
Conveyance type: Public health;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 14;
Property name: Arkansas: AR0006ZZ Blytheville Federal Bldg;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-03;
Acres: 1.0;
Conveyance type: Historic monument;
Grantee name: City of Blytheville;
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 15;
Property name: Arkansas: Sandy Beach Recreation Area;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-03;
Acres: 48.3;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
Property name: 16;
Property name: Arkansas: AR0081ZZ Hot Springs SSA Fed Bldg;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-03;
Acres: 0.6;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: Quapaw House, Inc;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
Property name: 17;
Property name: Arkansas: Fort Chaffee;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-01;
Acres: 412.0;
Conveyance type: Public health;
Grantee name: City of Ft. Smith (Landfill extension);
BRAC/non- BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 18;
Property name: Arkansas: Eaker;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00;
Acres: 48.7;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: YMCA;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 19;
Property name: Arkansas: Eaker;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-02;
Acres: 10.4;
Conveyance type: Public health;
Grantee name: HHS for Water/sewer;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 20;
Property name: Arkansas: Eaker;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-02;
Acres: 105.5;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Blytheville-Gosnell Regional Airport Authority;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 21;
Property name: Arkansas: Eaker;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-02;
Acres: 78.8;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Blytheville-Gosnell Regional Airport Authority;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 22;
Property name: Arkansas: Eaker;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-02;
Acres: 1076.0;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Blytheville-Gosnell Regional Airport Authority;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 23;
Property name: Arkansas: Eaker;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-02;
Acres: 494.7;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Blytheville-Gosnell Regional Airport Authority;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 24;
Property name: Arkansas: Eaker;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-02;
Acres: 191.6;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Blytheville-Gosnell Regional Airport Authority;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 25;
Property name: Arizona: Federal Building;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-02;
Acres: 0.7;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City Of Mesa;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 26;
Property name: Arizona: Federal Building;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-02;
Acres: 0.3;
Conveyance type: Other (Law enforcement)[A];
Grantee name: City of Prescott;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 27;
Property name: Arizona: Por. Colorado River Basin Salinity;
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-03;
Acres: 640.0;
Conveyance type: Correctional;
Grantee name: AZ Dept. of Corrections;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 28;
Property name: Arizona: INS Border Patrol;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-03;
Acres: 0.9;
Conveyance type: Public health;
Grantee name: HHS;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 29;
Property name: Arizona: Williams;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-99;
Acres: 286.4;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Arizona State University;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 30;
Property name: Arizona: Williams;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-99;
Acres: 12.6;
Conveyance type: Public health;
Grantee name: City of Mesa;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 31;
Property name: Arizona: Williams;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-00;
Acres: 1.7;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: House of Refugee Inc;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 32;
Property name: Arizona: Williams;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-01;
Acres: 18.1;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Arizona State University;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 33;
Property name: Arizona: Williams;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-02;
Acres: 0.8;
Conveyance type: Public health;
Grantee name: Flood Control District of Maricopa County;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 34;
Property name: Arizona: Williams;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-04;
Acres: 39.2;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Williams Airport Gateway Authority;
BRAC/non- BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 35;
Property name: California: Parcel 2;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-99;
Acres: 11.4;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Pomona;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 36;
Property name: California: Redding Reserve Site;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-99;
Acres: 5.2;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: Vietnam Veterans of California;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 37;
Property name: California: Reclamation Unit LC-2 Trinity;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00;
Acres: 28.3;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Lewiston Community Services;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 38;
Property name: California: Santa Rosa High Frequency Radio Station;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-02;
Acres: 69.2;
Conveyance type: Wildlife conservation;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 39;
Property name: California: Former Calexico Border Patrol;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-04;
Acres: 2.1;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Imperial Co. Office of Education;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 40;
Property name: California: SSA Building - CA0184ZZ;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-04;
Acres: 0.6;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: City of Modesto;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 41;
Property name: California: Fort Ord;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-01;
Acres: 31.0;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: York Schools;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 42;
Property name: California: Recreation Center #2, Fort Bragg;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-03;
Acres: 4.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Fayettsville;
BRAC/ non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 43;
Property name: California: Sierra Army Depot;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-03;
Acres: 67.0;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Ft. Sage;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 44;
Property name: California: Fort Ord;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-03;
Acres: 3.0;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Monterey College of Law;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 45;
Property name: California: Fort Ord;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-04;
Acres: 2.0;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: Housing Authority of Monterey County;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 46;
Property name: California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSTA;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-00;
Acres: 1.5;
Conveyance type: Port facility;
Grantee name: City of Los Angeles;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 47;
Property name: California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSTA;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-00;
Acres: 14.3;
Conveyance type: Port facility;
Grantee name: Port of Los Angeles;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 48;
Property name: California: Stockton, CA - NAVRESCEN;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00;
Acres: 4.3;
Conveyance type: Port facility;
Grantee name: Port of Stockton;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 49;
Property name: California: San Francisco, CA - PWC;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-00;
Acres: 3.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Novato;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 50;
Property name: California: San Francisco, CA - PWC;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-00;
Acres: 3.6;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Novato;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 51;
Property name: California: San Francisco, CA - PWC;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-00;
Acres: 7.3;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Novato;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 52;
Property name: California: San Francisco, CA - PWC;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-00;
Acres: 1.7;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Community Action Marin Inc;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 53;
Property name: California: San Francisco, CA - PWC;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-00;
Acres: 3.0;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Novato Unified School District;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 54;
Property name: California: San Diego, CA - NTC;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-00;
Acres: 9.0;
Conveyance type: Public health;
Grantee name: City of San Diego;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 55;
Property name: California: San Diego, CA - NTC;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-01;
Acres: 49.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of San Diego;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 56;
Property name: California: Oakland, CA - Naval Hospital;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-01;
Acres: 8.5;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Seneca Center;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 57;
Property name: California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01;
Acres: 20.0;
Conveyance type: Port facility;
Grantee name: City of Long Beach;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 58;
Property name: California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01;
Acres: 25.0;
Conveyance type: Port facility;
Grantee name: City of Long Beach;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 59;
Property name: California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01;
Acres: 8.0;
Conveyance type: Port facility;
Grantee name: City of Long Beach;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 60;
Property name: California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01;
Acres: 70.0;
Conveyance type: Port facility;
Grantee name: City of Long Beach;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 61;
Property name: California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSTA;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01;
Acres: 63.4;
Conveyance type: Port facility;
Grantee name: City of Long Beach;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 62;
Property name: California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSTA;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01;
Acres: 134.1;
Conveyance type: Port facility;
Grantee name: City of Long Beach;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 63;
Property name: California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSTA;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01;
Acres: 2.7;
Conveyance type: Port facility;
Grantee name: City of Long Beach;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 64;
Property name: California: Tustin, CA - MCAS;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-01;
Acres: 7.9;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Irvine;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 65;
Property name: California: Tustin, CA - MCAS;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-02;
Acres: 20.0;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Irvine Unified School District;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 66;
Property name: California: Tustin, CA - MCAS;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-02;
Acres: 10.0;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Tustin Unified School District;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 67;
Property name: California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-03;
Acres: 13.0;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Marymount College;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 68;
Property name: California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-03;
Acres: 24.0;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Rolling Hills Preparatory School;
BRAC/non- BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 69;
Property name: California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD;
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-04;
Acres: 0.4;
Conveyance type: Port facility;
Grantee name: City of Los Angels/Port of Los Angeles;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 70;
Property name: California: Ontario;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-01;
Acres: 8.4;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Los Angeles Department of Airports;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 71;
Property name: California: March;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-01;
Acres: 185.2;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: March Joint Powers Authority;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 72;
Property name: California: March;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-01;
Acres: 33.2;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: March Joint Powers Authority;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 73;
Property name: California: March;
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-02;
Acres: 151.5;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: March Joint Powers Authority;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 74;
Property name: California: McClellan;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-02;
Acres: 6.4;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: North Highlands Recreational and Park District;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 75;
Property name: California: March;
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-03;
Acres: 11.3;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: March Joint Powers Authority;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 76;
Property name: California: March;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-04;
Acres: 15.0;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Moreno Valley Unified School District;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 77;
Property name: California: George;
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-04;
Acres: 960.0;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Victor Valley Airport Authority;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 78;
Property name: California: George;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-99;
Acres: 0.0;
Conveyance type: Public health;
Grantee name: City of Victorville;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 79;
Property name: California: Castle;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-04;
Acres: 1321.9;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Castle Joint Powers Authority;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 80;
Property name: Colorado: Lowry AFB Education;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-02;
Acres: 11.0;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Logan School;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 81;
Property name: Colorado: Lowry AFB Remaining HHS;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-02;
Acres: 10.0;
Conveyance type: Public health;
Grantee name: Colorado Department of Health;
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 82;
Property name: Colorado: Fitzsimons AMC;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-01;
Acres: 105.0;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: City of Aurora;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 83;
Property name: Colorado: Fitzsimons AMC;
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-02;
Acres: 8.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Aurora;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 84;
Property name: Colorado: Fitzsimons AMC;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-02;
Acres: 3.0;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: UCHSC;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 85;
Property name: Colorado: Lowry;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-99;
Acres: 98.5;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City and County of Denver Parks;
BRAC/non- BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 86;
Property name: Colorado: Lowry;
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-00;
Acres: 129.1;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Colorado Community College;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 87;
Property name: Colorado: Lowry;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-01;
Acres: 6.2;
Conveyance type: Public health;
Grantee name: Colorado Department of Health;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 88;
Property name: Colorado: Lowry;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-02;
Acres: 1.6;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City and County of Denver Parks;
BRAC/non- BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 89;
Property name: Colorado: Lowry;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-03;
Acres: 4.8;
Conveyance type: Public health;
Grantee name: City and County of Denver;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 90;
Property name: Colorado: Lowry;
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-03;
Acres: 1.9;
Conveyance type: Public health;
Grantee name: Third Way Center;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 91;
Property name: Connecticut: FAA Direction Finder;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-02;
Acres: 19.6;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Town of Killingly;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 92;
Property name: Connecticut: New London, CT - NUSC/NUWC Det;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00;
Acres: 0.7;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: State Dept. of Environmental Protection;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 93;
Property name: Delaware: UPH building;
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-00;
Acres: 0.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 94;
Property name: Florida: Amelia Island Light;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-00;
Acres: 2.4;
Conveyance type: Historic monument;
Grantee name: The City of Fernandina Beach;
BRAC/ non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 95;
Property name: Florida: Crooked River Lighthouse Reservation;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-00;
Acres: 1.3;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 96;
Property name: Florida: MacDill AFB RR Spur;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-02;
Acres: 6.7;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Tampa;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 97;
Property name: Florida: Lakeland Federal Property;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-02;
Acres: 2.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Lakeland, FL;
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 98;
Property name: Florida: Lexington Terrace;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-02;
Acres: 30.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Escambia County;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 99;
Property name: Florida: Army Reserve Outdoor Training Facility;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-02;
Acres: 134.2;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 100;
Property name: Florida: U.S. Classic Courthouse;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-03;
Acres: 1.0;
Conveyance type: Historic monument;
Grantee name: City of Tampa;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
Property name: 101;
Property name: Florida: Federal Building/USDA Lab;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-03;
Acres: 0.5;
Conveyance type: Historic monument;
Grantee name: City of Winter Haven;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 102;
Property name: Florida: Communication Site - Homestead AFB;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-04;
Acres: 20.0;
Conveyance type: Law enforcement;
Grantee name: City of Homestead;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 103;
Property name: Florida: U.S. Custom House;
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-04;
Acres: 0.5;
Conveyance type: Historic monument;
Grantee name: Broward County Board of Commissioners;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 104;
Property name: Florida: Fort Meade;
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-01;
Acres: 348.0;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Anne Arundel County;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 105;
Property name: Florida: Key West, FL - NAS;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-00;
Acres: 0.8;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Key West;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 106;
Property name: Florida: Cecil Field - NAS (Jacksonville, FL);
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-00;
Acres: 2016.6;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Jacksonville;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 107;
Property name: Florida: Key West, FL - NAS;
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-00;
Acres: 43.8;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Key West;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 108;
Property name: Florida: Key West, FL - NAS;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-00;
Acres: 16.5;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Key West;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 109;
Property name: Florida: Key West, FL - NAS;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-00;
Acres: 3.3;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Key West;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 110;
Property name: Florida: Key West, FL - NAS;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-00;
Acres: 26.5;
Conveyance type: Historic monument;
Grantee name: Monroe County;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 111;
Property name: Florida: Cecil Field - NAS (Jacksonville, FL);
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-00;
Acres: 27.9;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Jacksonville Ports Authority;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 112;
Property name: Florida: Orlando, FL - NTC;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-00;
Acres: 2.9;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: GOAA;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 113;
Property name: Florida: Orlando, FL - NTC;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-00;
Acres: 38.0;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Greater Orlando Aviation Authority via City;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 114;
Property name: Florida: Orlando, FL - NTC;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-00;
Acres: 42.4;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Greater Orlando Aviation Authority via City;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 115;
Property name: Florida: Cecil Field - NAS (Jacksonville, FL);
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-03;
Acres: 12.8;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Jacksonville Ports Authority;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 116;
Property name: Georgia: Blythe Island Range Rear Light;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-01;
Acres: 10.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Glynn County;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 117;
Property name: Georgia: (P) Ft. Benning Military Reservation;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-03;
Acres: 14.4;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Columbus;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 118;
Property name: Guam: Agat Parcel 3;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-02;
Acres: 5.0;
Conveyance type: Other (Public health)[A];
Grantee name: GOVGUAM;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 119;
Property name: Guam: Agana, Guam - NAS;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-00;
Acres: 43.4;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Department of Parks and Recreation;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 120;
Property name: Guam: Agana, Guam - NAS;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-00;
Acres: 1410.2;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Guam International Airport Authority;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 121;
Property name: Hawaii: Barbers Point, HI - NAS;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-00;
Acres: 20.0;
Conveyance type: Public health;
Grantee name: City & County of Honolulu;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 122;
Property name: Hawaii: Barbers Point, HI - NAS;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-00;
Acres: 21.0;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: State of Hawaii;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 123;
Property name: Iowa: Fort Des Moines Motorpool;
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-04;
Acres: 0.9;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: NPS/City of Des Moines;
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 124;
Property name: Idaho: Rexburg USARC;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-01;
Acres: 2.5;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Madison School District;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
Property name: 125;
Property name: Idaho: US Army Reserve Center;
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-01;
Acres: 2.8;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Idaho Falls;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 126;
Property name: Idaho: Boise Federal Building/Post Office;
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-04;
Acres: 1.4;
Conveyance type: Historic monument;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/ non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 127;
Property name: Illinois: Radar Station;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-99;
Acres: 10.0;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 128;
Property name: Illinois: Former National Guard Facility;
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-00;
Acres: 11.2;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 129;
Property name: Illinois: Glenview, IL - NAS;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00;
Acres: 94.7;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Village of Vernon Hills;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 130;
Property name: Illinois: Glenview, IL - NAS;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00;
Acres: 12.2;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Village of Vernon Hills;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 131;
Property name: Illinois: Glenview, IL - NAS;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-00;
Acres: 2.8;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Village of Vernon Hills;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 132;
Property name: Indiana: Vincennes Federal Building;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-99;
Acres: 0.6;
Conveyance type: Historic monument;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 133;
Property name: Indiana: Lock and Dam No. 47 (Old Dam Park);
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-00;
Acres: 2.6;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 134;
Property name: Indiana: SSA District Office;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-04;
Acres: 0.6;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: Family Services of Elkhart County, Inc;
BRAC/ non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 135;
Property name: Indiana: Jefferson Proving Ground;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-99;
Acres: 221.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Park;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 136;
Property name: Indiana: Jefferson Proving Ground;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-04;
Acres: 403.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Park;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 137;
Property name: Indiana: Grissom;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00;
Acres: 10.8;
Conveyance type: Public health;
Grantee name: City of Peru;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 138;
Property name: Kansas: U.S. Reserve Center Annex;
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-00;
Acres: 0.4;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 139;
Property name: Kansas: Milford Lake;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-03;
Acres: 119.5;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Kansas State University of Agriculture and Applied
Science;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 140;
Property name: Kentucky: Black Gem Recreational Area;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-01;
Acres: 6.6;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Pike County Government;
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 141;
Property name: Kentucky: Cannelton L&D, Cloverport Access St;
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-03;
Acres: 15.7;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Cloverport;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 142;
Property name: Kentucky: Corbin SSA Bldg;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-03;
Acres: 1.0;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Corbin Independent School District;
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 143;
Property name: Kentucky: Licking River Access Site 12A;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-04;
Acres: 20.6;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Wilder;
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 144;
Property name: Kentucky: Uniontown Ferry Access Site;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-04;
Acres: 2.5;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Uniontown;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 145;
Property name: Kentucky: Port Smithland Lock and Dam;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-04;
Acres: 92.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
Property name: 146;
Property name: Louisiana: Portion of TR C-49;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-02;
Acres: 3.5;
Conveyance type: Wildlife conservation;
Grantee name: LA Dept. of Wildlife;
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 147;
Property name: Louisiana: Eugene M. Nettles U.S. ARC;
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-02;
Acres: 3.8;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 148;
Property name: Louisiana: Opelousas Fed Bldg;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-03;
Acres: 1.5;
Conveyance type: Other (Law enforcement)[A];
Grantee name: 27th Judicial Dist. Attny;
BRAC/ non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 149;
Property name: Louisiana: SSA Baton Rouge District;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-04;
Acres: 1.1;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Dept. of Education;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 150;
Property name: Louisiana: England;
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-04;
Acres: 151.5;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: England Economic & Industrial Development District;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 151;
Property name: Massachusetts: YTRN Granby Former Comm. Trans. Fac;
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-01;
Acres: 99.5;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Commonwealth of Mass;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 152;
Property name: Massachusetts: Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-01;
Acres: 22.3;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Bentley College;
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 153;
Property name: Massachusetts: Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01;
Acres: 17.4;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: New Jewish High School, Inc. (Gann Academy);
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 154;
Property name: Massachusetts: Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01;
Acres: 25.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Waltham;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 155;
Property name: Massachusetts: Hingham Cohasset;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-03;
Acres: 125.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: State Park;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 156;
Property name: Massachusetts: South Weymouth, MA - NAS;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-01;
Acres: 28.0;
Conveyance type: Self-help housing;
Grantee name: Elder Housing Corporation (City of Quincy);
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 157;
Property name: Massachusetts: South Weymouth, MA - NAS;
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-03;
Acres: 220.2;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: South Shore Tri-Town Development Corp;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 158;
Property name: Massachusetts: South Weymouth, MA - NAS;
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-03;
Acres: 5.1;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: South Shore Tri-Town Development Corp;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 159;
Property name: Massachusetts: South Weymouth, MA - NAS;
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-03;
Acres: 1.2;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: South Shore Tri-Town Development Corp;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 160;
Property name: Massachusetts: South Weymouth, MA - NAS;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-04;
Acres: 1.9;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Town of Rockland;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 161;
Property name: Maryland: Casson Neck Property;
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-01;
Acres: 12.5;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Dorchester County;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 162;
Property name: Maryland: Laplata Housing;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-02;
Acres: 13.3;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: Southern Maryland Tri-County Community Action Committee;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 163;
Property name: Maryland: De LaSalle Building;
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-02;
Acres: 17.8;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Archdiocese of Washington;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
Property name: 164;
Property name: Maryland: Stillpond Housing Units;
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-02;
Acres: 0.3;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: Crossroads Community, Inc;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
Property name: 165;
Property name: Maryland: Stillpond Housing Units;
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-02;
Acres: 0.3;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: Community Crossroads Inc;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
Property name: 166;
Property name: Maryland: Stillpond Housing Units;
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-02;
Acres: 0.4;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: Community Crossroads Inc;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
Property name: 167;
Property name: Maryland: Stillpond Housing Units;
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-02;
Acres: 0.4;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: Community Crossroads Inc;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
Property name: 168;
Property name: Maryland: Station Stillpond;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-03;
Acres: 12.4;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
Property name: 169;
Property name: Maryland: Annapolis, MD - NSWC Carderock DIV Det;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-02;
Acres: 24.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Anne Arundel County, MD;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 170;
Property name: Michigan: Seul Choix Point Light;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-00;
Acres: 0.1;
Conveyance type: Historic monument;
Grantee name: Michigan Department of Natural Resources;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 171;
Property name: Michigan: Benton Harbor Federal Building;
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-00;
Acres: 0.4;
Conveyance type: Historic monument;
Grantee name: City of Benton Harbor;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 172;
Property name: Michigan: South Haven Keeper's Dwelling;
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-00;
Acres: 0.7;
Conveyance type: Historic monument;
Grantee name: City of South Haven;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 173;
Property name: Michigan: Parcel 2;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-00;
Acres: 10.1;
Conveyance type: Historic monument;
Grantee name: State of Michigan;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 174;
Property name: Michigan: Muskegon Land;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-04;
Acres: 1.0;
Conveyance type: Public health;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 175;
Property name: Michigan: K.I. Sawyer;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-99;
Acres: 1389.1;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: County of Marquette;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 176;
Property name: Michigan: K.I. Sawyer;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-00;
Acres: 2.3;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: County of Marquette;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 177;
Property name: Michigan: Wurtsmith;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-01;
Acres: 1.7;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Charter Township of Oscoda;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 178;
Property name: Michigan: K.I. Sawyer;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-02;
Acres: 1.3;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: County of Marquette;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 179;
Property name: Michigan: Wurtsmith;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-02;
Acres: 848.6;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport Authority;
BRAC/non- BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 180;
Property name: Michigan: K.I. Sawyer;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-04;
Acres: 108.9;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: County of Marquette;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 181;
Property name: Missouri: Monett, Barry Co;
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-00;
Acres: 9.3;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 182;
Property name: Missouri: Seldalia Federal Bldg;
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-01;
Acres: 0.8;
Conveyance type: Correctional;
Grantee name: Pettis County;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 183;
Property name: Missouri: D.G. Hall Fed Bldg/Court;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01;
Acres: 0.4;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: Economic Security Corp. of Southwest Area;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 184;
Property name: Missouri: Columbia Federal Bldg;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-03;
Acres: 0.8;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Health Adventure Center;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
Property name: 185;
Property name: Missouri: NIKE Kansas City 30;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-03;
Acres: 20.0;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Lone Jack School District;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 186;
Property name: Mississippi: Greenwood Boat Ramp;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-03;
Acres: 1.2;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 187;
Property name: Montana: Canyon Ferry Reservoir;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-03;
Acres: 8.5;
Conveyance type: Other (emergency management response)[A];
Grantee name: Canyon Ferry Fire Service;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 188;
Property name: North Carolina: Federal building;
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-00;
Acres: 0.4;
Conveyance type: Historic monument;
Grantee name: Town of Rutherfordton;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 189;
Property name: North Carolina: McKinney Lake Fish Hatchery;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-01;
Acres: 6.5;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: State of North Carolina;
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 190;
Property name: North Carolina: USARC Building Site, 4.9 Acres;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-02;
Acres: 4.9;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Greenville Park & Rec;
BRAC/ non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 191;
Property name: North Carolina: Oak Island Lighttower;
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-03;
Acres: 5.7;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Town of Caswell Beach;
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 192;
Property name: North Dakota: Grand Forks Safeguard Waterline;
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-01;
Acres: Not provided;
Conveyance type: Public health;
Grantee name: HHS-North Valley Water District;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 193;
Property name: North Dakota: Grand Forks Safeguard Waterline;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-02;
Acres: 97.0;
Conveyance type: Public health;
Grantee name: City of Park River;
BRAC/ non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 194;
Property name: North Dakota: 117 Main St. Storage Bldg;
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-02;
Acres: 0.4;
Conveyance type: Historic monument;
Grantee name: State Historical Society of North Dakota;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 195;
Property name: North Dakota: Fort Totten;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-02;
Acres: 44.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: NYC Parks and Recreation;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 196;
Property name: Nebraska: Nebraska City Repair;
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-00;
Acres: 1.8;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: National Park Service;
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 197;
Property name: New Hampshire: Pease;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-99;
Acres: 151.9;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Pease Development Authority;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 198;
Property name: New Hampshire: Pease;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-03;
Acres: 2535.0;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Pease Development Authority;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 199;
Property name: New Jersey: Firehouse, BLDG 228 (Raritan);
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-00;
Acres: 1.2;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 200;
Property name: New Jersey: Electronic Station ESMT;
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-00;
Acres: 0.9;
Conveyance type: Other (Parks and recreation)[A];
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 201;
Property name: New Jersey: Barnegat Recreation Facility;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-01;
Acres: 0.7;
Conveyance type: Historic monument;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/ non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 202;
Property name: New Jersey: Kearny Naval Reserve Center;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-02;
Acres: 2.6;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 203;
Property name: New Jersey: Navy Housing;
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-02;
Acres: 6.5;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 204;
Property name: New Jersey: Chapel Hill Front Range Light;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-03;
Acres: 0.4;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 205;
Property name: New Jersey: Fort Monmouth;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-03;
Acres: 8.0;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Brookdale College;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 206;
Property name: New Jersey: Fort Monmouth;
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-03;
Acres: 142.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Wall Township;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 207;
Property name: New Jersey: Fort Monmouth;
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-03;
Acres: 1.0;
Conveyance type: Public health;
Grantee name: Wall Township (Pumphouse);
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 208;
Property name: New Jersey: Camp Kilmer;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-03;
Acres: 30.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Edison;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 209;
Property name: New Jersey: Trenton, NJ - NAWC-AD;
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-01;
Acres: 28.1;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Mercer County;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 210;
Property name: Nevada: Stewart Avenue Federal Building;
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-02;
Acres: 2.0;
Conveyance type: Historic monument;
Grantee name: City of Las Vegas;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 211;
Property name: New York: Galeville Airport;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-00;
Acres: 55.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
Property name: 212;
Property name: New York: Braddock Point Light Land (Tract 2);
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-00;
Acres: 0.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 213;
Property name: New York: Turkey Point Light;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-02;
Acres: 8.2;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 214;
Property name: New York: Fort Totten;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-01;
Acres: 37.0;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: NYC;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 215;
Property name: New York: Fort Totten;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-02;
Acres: 2.0;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: Eastern Paralyzed Vets of America;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 216;
Property name: New York: Plattsburgh;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-00;
Acres: 31.6;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Plattsburgh;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 217;
Property name: New York: Griffis;
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-04;
Acres: 1344.0;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Airport Authority;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 218;
Property name: Ohio: VOA Relay Site;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00;
Acres: 20.0;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 219;
Property name: Ohio: Old ANT Huron;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-03;
Acres: 0.4;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Huron;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
Property name: 220;
Property name: Ohio: Rickenbacker;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-99;
Acres: 18.7;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Columbus Regional Airport Authority;
BRAC/non- BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 221;
Property name: Ohio: Rickenbacker;
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-01;
Acres: 18.3;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Columbus Regional Airport Authority;
BRAC/non- BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 222;
Property name: Ohio: Rickenbacker;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-02;
Acres: 6.9;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Columbus Regional Airport Authority;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 223;
Property name: Ohio: Rickenbacker;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-03;
Acres: 310.3;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Columbus Regional Airport Authority;
BRAC/non- BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 224;
Property name: Ohio: Newark;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-03;
Acres: 13.3;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Licking County Regional Airport Authority;
BRAC/ non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 225;
Property name: Oregon: Pt. Orford Radio Site;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-00;
Acres: 5.2;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Oregon State Parks;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
Property name: 226;
Property name: Oregon: Oregon City Federal Building;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-04;
Acres: 1.5; ;
Conveyance type: Other (Law enforcement)[A];
Grantee name: Clackamas County;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 227;
Property name: Pennsylvania: Maxwell Locks and Dam;
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-00;
Acres: 2.7;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 228;
Property name: Pennsylvania: Uniontown Federal Building;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01;
Acres: 0.4;
Conveyance type: Correctional;
Grantee name: Fayette County;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 229;
Property name: Pennsylvania: Naval Air Warfare Center;
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-02;
Acres: 39.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Township of Northampton;
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 230;
Property name: Pennsylvania: Ambridge SSA Bldg;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-02;
Acres: 0.6;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Ambridge Area School District;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 231;
Property name: Pennsylvania: Cowanesque Lake Project;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-02;
Acres: 2.6;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: United Christian Inc;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 232;
Property name: Pennsylvania: Bristol SSA Bldg;
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-03;
Acres: 0.7;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Bristol Borough School District;
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 233;
Property name: Pennsylvania: Tacony Warehouse;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-02;
Acres: 1.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: PA Fish and Boat Commission;
BRAC/ non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 234;
Property name: Pennsylvania: Warminster, PA - NAWC;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-00;
Acres: 243.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Warminster Township;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 235;
Property name: Pennsylvania: NIKE Site PH-02;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-00;
Acres: 8.8;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Bristol Township;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 236;
Property name: Puerto Rico: Primate Research Center;
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-00;
Acres: 270.0;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 237;
Property name: Rhode Island: Davisville, RI - NCBC;
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-00;
Acres: 189.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: North Kingstown;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 238;
Property name: South Carolina: Greenwood Federal Building;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01;
Acres: 0.6;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Greenwood County;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 239;
Property name: South Carolina: Airport;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-01;
Acres: 1240.0;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Horry City Airport;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 240;
Property name: South Carolina: Golf Course;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-01;
Acres: 150.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Myrtle Beach;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
Property name: 241;
Property name: South Carolina: Social Security Admin./ Federal Bldg;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-02;
Acres: 0.6;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: Interfaith Hospitality Network of York County;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 242;
Property name: South Carolina: Sumter Federal Building;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-02;
Acres: 0.5;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Sumter Technology Center, Inc;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 243;
Property name: South Carolina: Charleston, SC - NAVSHIPYD;
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-00;
Acres: 25.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Charleston County Parks and Recreation;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 244;
Property name: South Carolina: Myrtle Beach;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00;
Acres: 2.5;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Cathedral Bible College;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 245;
Property name: South Carolina: Myrtle Beach;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-01;
Acres: 292.5;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Myrtle Beach;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 246;
Property name: South Carolina: Myrtle Beach;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-02;
Acres: 1205.6;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Horry County;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 247;
Property name: Tennessee: Former Marine Corps Reserve Center;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01;
Acres: 0.01;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Washington County Dept. of Education;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 248;
Property name: Tennessee: Former Marine Corps Reserve Center;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01;
Acres: 30.1;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: East Tennessee State University;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 249;
Property name: Tennessee: Naval Hospital;
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-02;
Acres: 38.7;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: University of Memphis;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
Property name: 250;
Property name: Tennessee: Lafayette Federal Building;
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-03;
Acres: 0.5;
Conveyance type: Correctional;
Grantee name: City of Lafayette;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 251;
Property name: Tennessee: Memphis, TN - NAS;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-99;
Acres: 550.9;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: City of Millington;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 252;
Property name: Texas: Former Navy Reserve Center;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00;
Acres: 1.0;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 253;
Property name: Texas: Library;
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-01;
Acres: 0.2;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: City of Westworth Village Library;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
Property name: 254;
Property name: Texas: Easement Deed 2;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-01;
Acres: 0.0;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: City of Austin;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 255;
Property name: Texas: Easement Deed No.3;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-01;
Acres: 0.0;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: City of Austin;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 256;
Property name: Texas: Easement and Fee Deed No. 1;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-01;
Acres: 174.8;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: City of Austin;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
Property name: 257;
Property name: Texas: 20 Units Kings Branch Housing;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-01;
Acres: 6.7;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: Ability Resources, Inc;
BRAC/ non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 258;
Property name: Texas: Port Mansfield;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-02;
Acres: 2.0;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 259;
Property name: Texas: Brownsville SSA Fed Bldg;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-02;
Acres: 1.0;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Education Service Center Region 1 of Texas;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 260;
Property name: Texas: Naval Auxiliary Landing Field;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-03;
Acres: 11.8;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 261;
Property name: Texas: VORTAC Site;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-03;
Acres: 73.8;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: DHHS for Hood County TX;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
Property name: 262;
Property name: Texas: Camp Bullis;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-04;
Acres: 0.4;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of San Antonio;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 263;
Property name: Texas: Dallas, TX - NAS;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00;
Acres: 26.4;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Grand Prairie;
BRAC/non- BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 264;
Property name: Texas: Communications Annex, Carswell Air Force Base;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-00;
Acres: 17.01;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Lake Worth;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 265;
Property name: Utah: Administration Building;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00;
Acres: 7.3;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Salt Lake City School District;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 266;
Property name: Utah: Former Uranium Mill Tailing Site;
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-00;
Acres: 383.2;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: NPS for City of Monticello;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 267;
Property name: Utah: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-01;
Acres: 6.0;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Weber County Schools;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 268;
Property name: Utah: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-01;
Acres: 3.0;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Weber Applications Technology (Utah College of Applied
Technology);
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 269;
Property name: Utah: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-03;
Acres: 4.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Weber Basin Disabled Assoc;
BRAC/ non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 270;
Property name: Utah: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-03;
Acres: 25.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Ogden (Weber County Fairgrounds);
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 271;
Property name: Utah: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-03;
Acres: 25.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Ogden (Ogden Nature Center);
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 272;
Property name: Utah: Defense Distribution Depot Ogden, Building 42;
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-03;
Acres: 0.7;
Conveyance type: Public health;
Grantee name: Planned Parenthood Association;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 273;
Property name: Virginia: Former Petersburg Correctional Institute;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-92;
Acres: 154.0;
Conveyance type: Correctional;
Grantee name: Riverside Regional Jail Authority;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 274;
Property name: Virginia: Former Petersburg Correctional Institute;
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-02;
Acres: 25.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Prince George County;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 275;
Property name: Virginia: Former Petersburg Correctional Institute;
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-02;
Acres: 24.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Hopewell;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 276;
Property name: Virginia: Staunton SSA Bldg;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-02;
Acres: 0.5;
Conveyance type: Public health;
Grantee name: City of Staunton;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 277;
Property name: Virginia: Watkins K. Abbitt FB;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-03;
Acres: 0.3;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: Central Piedmont Action Council, Inc;
BRAC/ non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 278;
Property name: Virginia: Lynchburg SSA Building;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-04;
Acres: 0.9;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: Salvation Army, Inc;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 279;
Property name: Virginia: Vint Hill Farms Station;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00;
Acres: 18.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Fauquier County;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 280;
Property name: Virginia: Fort Pickett;
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-01;
Acres: 1183.0;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: VA Tech;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 281;
Property name: Virginia: Driver, VA - NRTF;
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-01;
Acres: 247.7;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Suffolk, Virginia;
BRAC/ non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 282;
Property name: Virginia: Former Petersburg Correctional Institute
(portion);
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-04;
Acres: 275.4;
Conveyance type: Correctional;
Grantee name: VDOC Central Office;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 283;
Property name: Washington: USARC Moses Lake;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-00;
Acres: 2.9;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Grant County Housing Authority;
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 284;
Property name: Washington: Fed. Bldg./Post Office;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-02;
Acres: 0.4;
Conveyance type: Historic monument;
Grantee name: City of Pasco;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
Property name: 285;
Property name: Washington: Army NIKE-Ajax Site 32-33;
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-02;
Acres: 34.5;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 286;
Property name: Washington: Bellingham Federal Building;
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-04;
Acres: 0.5;
Conveyance type: Historic monument;
Grantee name: City of Bellingham;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 287;
Property name: Washington: Sand Point Puget Sound, WA NAVSTA;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-00;
Acres: 11.0;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Seattle;
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 288;
Property name: Washington: Portion, Sand Point Magnuson Park;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-02;
Acres: 8.2;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Seattle;
BRAC/non- BRAC: BRAC.
Property name: 289;
Property name: Wisconsin: North Point Light Station;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-03;
Acres: 2.0;
Conveyance type: Historic monument;
Grantee name: Not provided;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 290;
Property name: West Virginia: Matewan - 16 Tracts;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00;
Acres: 2.6;
Conveyance type: Other (Parks and recreation)[A];
Grantee name: Town of Matewan;
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 291;
Property name: West Virginia: Matewan - 3 tracts;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00;
Acres: 0.5;
Conveyance type: Other (Parks and recreation)[A];
Grantee name: Town of Matewan;
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 292;
Property name: West Virginia: Matewan - 3 tracts;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00;
Acres: 0.3;
Conveyance type: Other (Parks and recreation)[A];
Grantee name: Town of Matewan;
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 293;
Property name: West Virginia: Old Post Office and Courthouse;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-01;
Acres: 0.4;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Boarman Arts Center;
BRAC/ non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 294;
Property name: West Virginia: Welch SSA Bldg;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-03;
Acres: 0.4;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: McDowell Board of Ed;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 295;
Property name: West Virginia: Kennedy Park and Marina;
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-03;
Acres: 13.3;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Hancock County;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
Property name: 296;
Property name: West Virginia: Tract 757;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-04;
Acres: 0.2;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Williamson;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 297;
Property name: West Virginia: Tract 759;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-04;
Acres: 0.4;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Williamson;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
Property name: 298;
Property name: West Virginia: Tract 758;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-04;
Acres: 0.5;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Williamson;
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
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.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Summary Data on Properties Selected for Case Study:
Property name: 1;
California: VA Triangular Parcel Los Angeles, California;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-96;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: Salvation Army;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 2;
California: George;
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-04;
Conveyance type: Public airport;
Grantee name: Victor Valley Airport Authority;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 3;
California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-03;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Rolling Hills Preparatory School;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 4;
California: Savannah & Cabrillo Navy Housing;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-94;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Long Beach USD;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 5;
California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01;
Conveyance type: Port facility;
Grantee name: City of Long Beach;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 6;
California: Little Cottonwood Park;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-89;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Los Alamitos;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 7;
Florida: U.S. Classic Courthouse;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-03;
Conveyance type: Historic monument;
Grantee name: City of Tampa;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 8;
Florida: Federal Building/USDA Lab;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-03;
Conveyance type: Historic monument;
Grantee name: City of Winter Haven;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 9;
Florida: MacDill AFB RR Spur;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-02;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Tampa;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Consistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 10;
Florida: U.S. Custom House;
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-04;
Conveyance type: Historic monument;
Grantee name: Broward County Board of Commissioners;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 11;
Florida: Communication Site - Homestead AFB;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-04;
Conveyance type: Law enforcement;
Grantee name: City of Homestead;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 12;
Florida: Homestead Air Force Base Homestead, Florida;
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-96;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: Metropolitan Dade County Miami-Dade County Homeless
Trust;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 13;
Kansas: U.S. Post Office & Courthouse;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-95;
Conveyance type: Correctional;
Grantee name: Wyandotte County, KS;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 14;
Kansas: Federal Building, Manhattan, Kansas;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-98;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: North Central Flint Hills Area Agency on Aging;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 15;
Kansas: Milford Lake;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-03;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Kansas State University of Agriculture and Applied
Science;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated;
Reversion: Yes.
Property name: 16;
Kansas: Tuttle Creek (portion);
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-89;
Conveyance type: Wildlife conservation;
Grantee name: State of Kansas;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 17;
Kansas: Tuttle Creek (portion);
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-90;
Conveyance type: Wildlife conservation;
Grantee name: State of Kansas;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 18;
Kansas: Tuttle Creek (portion);
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-90;
Conveyance type: Wildlife conservation;
Grantee name: State of Kansas;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 19;
Kansas: Tuttle Creek (portion);
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-90;
Conveyance type: Wildlife conservation;
Grantee name: State of Kansas;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: ;
No.
Property name: 20;
Kansas: Tuttle Creek (portion);
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-90;
Conveyance type: Wildlife conservation;
Grantee name: State of Kansas;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 21;
Massachusetts: Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-01;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Bentley College;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 22;
Massachusetts: Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: New Jewish High School, Inc. (Gann Academy);
BRAC/: non- BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 23;
Massachusetts: Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Waltham;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 24;
Massachusetts: South Weymouth, MA - NAS;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-01;
Conveyance type: Self-help housing;
Grantee name: Elder Housing Corporation (City of Quincy);
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 25;
Massachusetts: NIKE Village Site, Topsfield, Massachusetts;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-98;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: Health and Education Services, Inc;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 26;
Massachusetts: Commanding Officer's Quarters;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-98;
Conveyance type: Historic monument;
Grantee name: Town of Watertown;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 27;
Pennsylvania: Valley Forge General Hospital;
Phoenixville, Pennsylvania;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-95;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: Community Mental Health Services, Inc;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 28;
Pennsylvania: Valley Forge General Hospital;
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-96;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Valley Forge Christian College;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Consistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 29;
Pennsylvania: Valley Forge General Hospital;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-89;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Valley Forge Christian College;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Consistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 30;
Pennsylvania: NIKE Site PH-02;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-00;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Bristol Township;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated;
Reversion: Yes.
Property name: 31;
Pennsylvania: Warminster, PA - NAWC;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-00;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Warminster Township;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 32;
Pennsylvania: Naval Air Warfare Center Warminster, Northampton
Township;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-97;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Northampton Township;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 33;
Texas: 20 Units Kings Branch Housing;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-01;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: Ability Resources, Inc;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 34;
Texas: Lake Lewisville, parcel 2;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-94;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Lewisville ISD;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 35;
Texas: Lake Lewisville, parcel 3;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-94;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Lewisville ISD;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 36;
Texas: Dallas, TX - NAS;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Grand Prairie;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Consistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 37;
Texas: Naval Air Station, Dallas Duncanville Housing Site;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-98;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Duncanville;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 38;
Texas: Communications Annex, Carswell Air Force Base;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-00;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Lake Worth;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 39;
Utah: Clearfield Federal Depot;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-93;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Davis County School District;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 40;
Utah: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-01;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Weber Applications Technology (Utah College of Applied
Technology);
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Consistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 41;
Utah: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-01;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: Weber County Schools;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 42;
Utah: Defense Distribution Depot Ogden, Building 42;
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-03;
Conveyance type: Public health;
Grantee name: Planned Parenthood Association;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated;
Reversion: Yes.
Property name: 43;
Utah: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-03;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Ogden (Ogden Nature Center);
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 44;
Utah: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-03;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Ogden (Weber County Fairgrounds);
BRAC/: non- BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 45;
Virginia: Former Petersburg Correctional Institute (portion);
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-04;
Conveyance type: Correctional;
Grantee name: VDOC Central Office;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non- BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated;
Reversion: Yes.
Property name: 46;
Virginia: Defense General Supply Center, Falling Creek Reservoir;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-93;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: Chesterfield County;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 47;
Virginia: Former Petersburg Correctional Institute;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-92;
Conveyance type: Correctional;
Grantee name: Riverside Regional Jail Authority;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 48;
Virginia: Cameron Station (portion);
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-97;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Alexandria;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 49;
Washington: Midway NIKE Housing Site Kent, Washington;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-94;
Conveyance type: Homeless;
Grantee name: King County Housing Authority;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 50;
Washington: Portion, Howard A. Hanson Dam, King County, Washington;
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-91;
Conveyance type: Public health;
Grantee name: City of Tacoma;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 51;
Washington: Sandpoint Naval Housing, Buildings 333-334;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-99;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: University of Washington;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 52;
Washington: Naval Station Puget Sound;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-99;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: University of Washington;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 53;
Washington: Naval Station Puget Sound;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-99;
Conveyance type: Education;
Grantee name: University of Washington;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 54;
Washington: Olympia Federal Building;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-98;
Conveyance type: Historic monument;
Grantee name: State of Washington;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 55;
Washington: Sand Point Playground Parcel;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-98;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Seattle Department of Parks and recreation;
BRAC/ : non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 56;
Washington: Sand Point Magnuson Park;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-99;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Seattle;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 57;
Washington: Sand Point Puget Sound, WA NAVSTA;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-00;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Seattle;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated;
Reversion: No.
Property name: 58;
Washington: Portion, Sand Point Magnuson Park;
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-02;
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation;
Grantee name: City of Seattle;
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC;
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated;
Reversion: No.
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.
[End of table]
[End of section]
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:
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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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 Cabrillio 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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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: Long Beach, CA NAVSHIPYD
Location: Palos Verdes Estates, CA:
Size: 24 acres:
Grantee: Rolling Hills preparatory School:
Sponsoring agency: Department of Education:
Date of conveyance: November 21, 2003:
Public Use: Education:
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years:
Property status (active/reverted): Active:
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO>
[End of figure]
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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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: Communications Site - Homestead AFB
Location: Homestead, FL.
Size: 20 acres.
Grantee: City of Homestead.
Sponsoring agency: General Services Administration.
Date of conveyance: February 9, 2004.
Public use: Law enforcement.
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity.
Property status (active/reverted): Active.
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.
[End of table]
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.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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: U.S. Post Office and Courthouse:
Location: Kansas City, KS.
Size:
2.05 acres.
Grantee: Wyandotte County, KS.
Sponsoring agency: General Services Administration.
Date of conveyance: November 8, 1995.
Public use: Correctional.
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity.
Property status (active/reverted): Active.
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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: Federal Building, Manhattan, KS:
Location: Manhattan, KS.
Size: 2 story building.
Grantee: North Central Flint Hills Area Agency on Aging.
Sponsoring agency: Department of Health and Human Services.
Date of conveyance: April 23, 1998.
Public use: Homeless.
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years.
Property status (active/reverted): Active.
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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: NIKE Village Site, Topsfield, MA:
Location: Topsfield, MA.
Size: 8.93 acres.
Grantee: Health and Education Services, Inc.
Sponsoring agency: Department of Health and Human Services.
Date of conveyance: April 2, 1998.
Public use: Homeless.
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years.
Property status (active/reverted): Active.
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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: South Weymouth, MA - NAS:
Location: Quincy, MA.
Size: 28 acres total.
Grantee: Elder Housing Corporation (formerly City of Quincy).
Sponsoring agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Date of conveyance: January 12, 2001.
Public use: Self-help housing.
Length of deed restrictions: 40 years.
Property status (active/reverted): Active.
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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: Valley Forge General Hospital:
Location: Phoenixville, PA.
Size: 7.1 acres.
Grantee: Community Mental Health Services, Inc.
Sponsoring agency: Department of Health and Human Services.
Date of conveyance: November 20, 1995.
Public use: Homeless.
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years.
Property status (active/reverted): Active.
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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: Valley Forge General Hospital:
Location: Phoenixville, PA.
Size: 7.65 acres (parcel 1); 7.46 acres (parcel 2).
Grantee: Valley Forge Christian College.
Sponsoring agency: Department of Education.
Date of conveyance: September 12, 1989 (parcel 1); July 9, 1996 (parcel
2).
Public use: Education.
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years (both parcels).
Property status (active/reverted): Active.
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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: Warminster, PA - NAWC.
Location: Warminster, PA.
Size: 243 acres.
Grantee: Warminster Township.
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal Lands to Parks
Program.
Date of conveyance: November 30, 2000.
Public use: Parks and recreation.
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity.
Property status (active/reverted): Active.
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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 Naval Air Warfare Center Warminster, Northampton
Township:
Location: Northampton, PA.
Size: 93.7 acres.
Grantee: Northampton Township.
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal Lands to Parks
Program.
Date of conveyance: November 20, 1997.
Public use: Parks and recreation.
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity.
Property status (active/reverted): Active.
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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/non-BRAC: BRAC.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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: Communications Annex, Carswell Air Force Base:
Location: Tarrant County, TX.
Size:
17.01 acres.
Grantee: City of Lake Worth.
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal Lands to Parks
Program.
Date of conveyance: December 4, 2000.
Public use: Parks and recreation.
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity.
Property status (active/reverted): Active.
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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: Lake Lewisville, Parcel 2 and 3:
Location: Lewisville, TX.
Size: 15.19 acres (parcel 2); 70.35 acres (parcel 3).
Grantee: Lewisville Independent School District.
Sponsoring agency: Department of Education.
Date of conveyance: February 25, 1994.
Public use: Education.
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years.
Property status (active/reverted): Active.
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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: Dallas, TX - NAS.
Location: Dallas, TX.
Size: 26.4 acres.
Grantee: City of Grand Prairie.
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal Lands to Parks
Program.
Date of conveyance: March 3, 2000.
Public use: Parks and recreation.
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity.
Property status (active/reverted): Active.
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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: Naval Air Station, Dallas, Duncanville Housing Site:
Location: Duncanville, TX.
Size: 3.07 acres.
Grantee: City of Duncanville.
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/ Federal Lands to Parks
Program.
Date of conveyance: November 5, 1998.
Public use: Parks and recreation.
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity.
Property status (active/reverted): Active.
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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:: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT:
Location: Ogden, UT.
Size: 3 acres; warehouse bays 1 and 2.
Grantee: Weber Applications Technology (Utah College of Applied
Technology).
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.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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: Clearfield Federal Depot:
Location: Farmington, UT.
Size: 5.2 acres; G5 warehouse.
Grantee: Davis County School District.
Sponsoring agency: Department of Education.
Date of conveyance: February 9, 1993.
Public use: Education.
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years.
Property status (active/reverted): Active.
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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,
café 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: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT:
Location: Ogden, UT.
Size: 25 acres.
Grantee: City of Ogden (leased to Ogden Nature Center).
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/ Federal Lands to Parks
Program.
Date of conveyance: August 27, 2003.
Public use: Parks and recreation.
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity.
Property status (active/reverted): Active.
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT:
Location: Ogden, UT.
Size: 25 acres.
Grantee: City of Ogden (leased to Weber County Fairgrounds).
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/ Federal Lands to Parks
Program.
Date of conveyance: August 27, 2003.
Public use: Parks and recreation.
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity.
Property status (active/reverted): Active.
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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: Former Petersburg Correctional Institute (portion):
Location: Petersburg, VA.
Size: 275.4 acres.
Grantee: VDOC Central Office.
Sponsoring agency: General Services Administration.
Date reverted: May 21, 2004.
Public use: Correctional.
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity.
Property status (active/reverted): Reverted.
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.
[See PDF for image]
Source: DAO.
[End of figure]
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.
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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: Midway NIKE Housing Site Kent, WA:
Location: Kent, WA.
Size: 10.18 acres, 32 buildings.
Grantee: King County Housing Authority.
Sponsoring agency: Department of Health and Human Services.
Date of conveyance: September 1, 1994.
Public use: Homeless.
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years.
Property status (active/reverted): Active.
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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
Multi-services 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: Howard A. Hanson Dam, King County, WA (portion):
Location: King County, WA.
Size: 204.4 acres.
Grantee: City of Tacoma.
Sponsoring agency: Department of Health and Human Services.
Date of conveyance: May 9, 1991.
Public use: Public health.
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years.
Property status (active/reverted): Active.
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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: Sand Point Magnuson Park and Sand Point Puget Sound, WA
NAVSTA:
Location: Seattle, WA.
Size: 116.3 acres total.
Grantee: City of Seattle.
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal Parks to Lands
Program.
Date of conveyance: August 28, 1998; March 17, 1999; April 6, 2000;
December 12, 2002.
Public use: Parks and recreation.
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity.
Property status (active/reverted): Active.
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the General Services Administration:
GSA Administrator:
May 24, 2006:
Mr. Mark L. Goldstein:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Goldstein:
This letter responds to your request dated May 10, 2006, for the U.S.
General Services Administration's (GSA's) review and comments
concerning the draft report entitled "Federal Real Property: Most
Public Benefit Conveyances Used as Intended, But Opportunities Exist to
Enhance Federal Oversight" (GAO-06-511).
I have reviewed the draft report and accept the findings reached by
GAO. With regard to the recommendations made for executive action, GSA
program officials will be taking the necessary steps to improve these
program areas through assuming a greater oversight role and issuing
policy guidance. As to the data accuracy issue identified by GAO, I am
enclosing comments that may not have been noted by your staff during
its review.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft report. If you
have any questions regarding this information, please contact me or Mr.
David L. Winstead, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, at (202) 501-
1100.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
David L. Bibb:
Acting Administrator:
Enclosure:
U.S. General Services Administration 1800 F Street, N W:
Washington, DC 20405-0002 Telephone: (202) 501-0800 Fax: (202) 219-1243
www.gsa.gov:
GSA Comments On GAO Draft Report "Federal Real Property: Most Public
Benefit Conveyances Used As Intended, But Opportunities Exist To
Enhance Federal Oversight" (GAO-06-511):
One of the objectives listed on page 2 of the report was to determine
the number, types, and locations of surplus real property disposed of
using the PBC program in fiscal years 2000 through 2004. On page 3, the
report states, "We could not determine from GSA . the exact numbers,
types, and locations of property conveyed in fiscal years 2000 through
2004 as part of the PBC [public benefit conveyance] program."
Data accuracy and incomplete dates are viewed in the report as
contributing factors that affect the financial risk of landholding
agencies, sponsoring agencies, local economies, and grantees of PBC
property. The concern over unreliable real property data Government
wide has led the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to designate
Federal real properties as high risk in 2003 and caused the President
to issue Executive Order 13327 as a way for improving Federal real
property asset management.
Given the importance of this identified area, additional information
should be considered in GAO's report so that a complete assessment of
GSA's role in the PBC program is accurately described.
Initially, it should be noted that the majority of data accuracy issues
stem from the differences between how GSA tracks information, and how
the sponsoring agencies that deed these properties track the same
information. GSA does not believe that the discrepancies between GSA's
data and the sponsoring agencies' data indicate that the Government as
a whole is not aware of or responsible for the compliance requirements
of the PBC programs.
GSA presently enters data elements into NetREAL, a system that profiles
real property disposal cases and tracks key regulatory milestones. It
also collects unusual facets about an asset, summaries of significant
disposal issues, and the name and address of the party receiving the
property from the Government.
NetREAL is a legacy system designed to collect disposal data for the
case management during the actual regulatory disposal process. Data
accuracy for PBC assignments could not be addressed by GSA for
compliance because NetREAL was not designed, nor can it be configured,
to track predisposal or post-conveyance activities.
GSA has recognized the need to upgrade or replace its NetREAL system to
address the fast changing methods of data storage and reporting. In
fact, in fiscal year (FY) 2003, GSA commenced an overhaul of the way
that it collects, tracks, and reports real property disposal data
elements for all three phases of the disposal process. Budgeting for
necessary funds was the second step in the plan.
In FY 2005, GSA contracted with the Perot Systems Corporation (PSC) to
develop a replacement system for NetREAL; one that performs data
collection through project management. This new information technology
(IT) system is identified as the Real Estate Disposal Inventory Network
(REDI Net). GSA's REDI Net team includes realty specialists and IT
professionals who segregated REDI Net into three specific concentrates:
(1) utilization, (2) disposal, and (3) post-disposal transactions for
PSC's compliance.
The REDI Net team has recently completed the requirement analysis phase
and is advancing to the development phase. Although the application
will be released in iterations, an initial deployment of REDI Net is
targeted for this fiscal year. REDI Net, when completed, will deploy
industry standard project management principles to identify and
maintain an accurate accounting for all major procedural tasks
completed 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. The deployment of REDI Net will improve the
data accuracy concerns identified by GAO and also provide the mechanism
to extract meaningful performance measures to gauge GSA's effectiveness
of its program operation. GSA expects that REDI Net will enable us to
improve PBC program management and oversight.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
Department Of Health & Human Services:
Office of Inspector General:
Washington, D.C. 20201:
Jun 5 2006:
Mr. Mark Goldstein:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Goldstein:
Enclosed are the Department's comments on the U.S. Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report entitled "Federal Real
Property: Most Public Benefit Conveyances Used As Intended, But
Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal Oversight" (GAO-06-511). These
comments represent the tentative position of the Department and are
subject to reevaluation when the final version of this report is
received.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft
report before its publication.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Daniel R. Levinson:
Inspector General:
Enclosure:
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is transmitting the Department's
response to this draft report in our capacity as the Department's
designated focal point' and coordinator for U.S. Government
Accountability Office reports. OIG has not conducted an independent
assessment of these comments and therefore expresses no opinion on
them.
Comments Of The Department Of Health And Human Services On The U.S.
Government Accountability Office's Draft Report Entitled "Federal Real
Property: Most Public Benefit Conveyances Used As Intended. But
Opportunities Exist To Enhance Federal Oversight" (GAO-06-511):
General Comments:
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the draft report. After reviewing this
report, we have a number of concerns with specific findings in the
report.
An objective of the U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO)
review is to assess agency efforts to ensure that properties are used
as agreed to by the grantee. When properties are not used as agreed to
by the grantee, the sponsoring agency may seek to enforce the
reversionary clause in the deed of conveyance. Although the agencies
agree that this is an option of last resort, it is the only mechanism
by which a grantee's misuse of the property can be terminated. Public
benefit conveyance (PBC) disposal agencies, General Services
Administration (GSA) and the Department of Defense (DOD) often block
the sponsoring agencies' reversion efforts based on the assumption that
the reacquisition of surplus property will result in expense and
liability to the Federal Government. The draft report examines the
interagency dispute on the reversion of conveyed surplus property in
detail, and at length. The draft report fails, however, to draw any
meaningful conclusions from the agencies' competing viewpoints on the
subject. Neither does the draft report offer any specific
recommendations to address the problem. The absence of thorough record
keeping on reversions is a less significant issue than the fundamental
disagreements between disposal and sponsoring agencies on how to
implement reversions. Sponsoring agencies agree that clear authority to
exercise the reversion remedy is needed to ensure that properties are
used as agreed to by grantees. GAO is in a unique position to examine
whether reversion is suitable for compliance enforcement and, if so, to
determine whether the disposal agencies' objections have merit. Clear
guidance on the reversion controversy would provide a framework within
which the sponsoring agencies can approach many of the administrative
deficiencies noted in the draft report.
GSA, DOD, and Sponsoring Agency Data Were Not Consistent or Reliable:
GSA and DOD maintain conveyance responsibility for a number of
properties which are not sponsoring agency programs and, as such, are
never assigned to the sponsoring agency. Examples include properties
conveyed for correctional facilities, historic monuments, etc., which
are conveyed by GSA. Additionally, although McKinney-Vento Act
applications for underutilized and unutilized properties are reviewed
by HHS, DOD leases the properties to successful applicants. These
properties would therefore not be in the sponsoring agencies' property
records.
Assignment is requested from the respective disposal agency (GSA or
DOD) after HHS approves an application. There are numerous ways in
which property information is provided to the disposal agency:
* A copy of the incoming letter of interest is provided to the disposal
agency following its receipt by the sponsoring agency. This interest
letter contains the name and address of the potential grantee and a
brief description of the proposed use of the property being requested.
* A copy of the approved application is submitted to the disposal
agency along with the assignment request.
* The disposal agency is also provided a copy of the executed and
recorded quitclaim deed or lease with its recordation information and
contract number.
* Copies of any subsequent correspondence which may affect title to the
property are forwarded to the disposal agency. Also, prior to a
sponsoring agency's approval of any action which may affect title to
the property (mortgage, easements, demolishing buildings, etc.),
concurrence from the disposal agency is solicited pursuant to 40 U.S.C.
§ 550.
Given the amount of information provided by the sponsoring agency, GSA
and DOD should, at a minimum, have data which include the sponsoring
agency's contract number; contact information on the grantee; program
use; dates of conveyance and expiration of restrictions; as well as
history of actions which may affect title to the properties after
leaving the disposal agencies' inventories.
The difficulty in comparing properties is that the initial notices
issued by GSA and DOD often may list a specific name but they
frequently change that name to another upon assignment. The disposal
agency's name for the property in the letter of assignment is
considered the "official" name and is the one that the sponsoring
agency uses in subsequent documents. Specifically, parcel numbers used
in its initial notices are frequently changed by DOD when the
properties are assigned to the sponsoring agencies. This leads the
sponsoring agency to request verification as to whether the initial
parcel of property requested is the same parcel that has been assigned.
Data lacked unique identifiers:
We disagree with GAO's statement that only GSA and the Air Force
provide unique identifying codes for each property. HHS also has a
unique identification number for each property. Properties that have
been conveyed by HHS are identified by Region, State, and Contract/
Project Number (e.g. 04-FL-2282). Along with the Contact/Project
Number, the GSA property number and DOD identifying codes (if
available) are listed in HHS's real property database of public benefit
conveyances.
Data Not Regularly Maintained on Property Reverted Back to the
Government:
A data field for reverted property can easily be added to HHS's
property tracking system of public benefit conveyances.
Waiver of grantee's reporting requirements:
HHS, on a case by case basis, may waive reporting requirements only
after a prior history of full compliance in the grantee's use of the
property. These waivers are rare and involve, for the most part,
conveyances of easements, water and/or sewer lines, drainage ditches,
etc.
King's Branch Housing Property:
GAO failed to mention that the grantee is assessed monthly payments for
noncompliance and will continue with these payments until the
abrogation action is completed. See 45 C.F.R. § 12.12(a)(6).
Grantee cited the lack of communication about the program and
individual properties as challenges:
Program information on the Federal Property Assistance Program and
Title V of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Program is found on
the HHS Web site. The potential grantee is given this Web site in the
HHS standard information letter along with copies of regulations,
brochures, and funding resources. Subsequently, HHS's letter which
transmits the application instructions also includes the contact
information for the disposal agency representative who will be able to
provide specific information on the property (e.g. property location,
acreage, environmental, and site visit).
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We believe that the lack of reliable, consistent data on PBC properties
is largely due to GSA's and DOD's failure to use information in the
documentation furnished by most sponsoring agencies (e.g. copies of
applications, quitclaim deeds, release and abrogation documents, return
deeds, etc.) These documents contain updated information on the history
of the properties after they have been disposed of by GSA and DOD.
Given that GSA and DOD consistently fail to update their own property
records with information furnished by the sponsoring agencies, we doubt
whether they will be able to be more efficient at developing a
governmentwide database without in-depth discussions with the
sponsoring agencies.
It is noted that the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA),
which is maintained by GSA, has a governmentwide database through which
Federal funding agencies may log onto the CFDA Web site to update
information on their specific programs on a recurring basis. We suggest
a similar concept for the development of a governmentwide real property
data collection system.
HHS, in keeping with GAO's recommendation, will dedicate a field in its
database of public benefit conveyances system that will keep track of
future reverted properties. HHS has been aggressive in ensuring the
grantees' timely submission of annual utilization reports on the
operation and maintenance of the properties.
We believe that standard policies and procedures for compliance site
inspections and utilization reports would not be feasible. Since there
are broad differences in programs of use, the sponsoring agencies
information needs differ greatly. There may be report information that
is needed for public health or homeless programs that would not be
needed or appropriate in a Parks or Federal Aviation Administration
program. It would create an administrative burden on the sponsoring
agency, as well as the grantee, to have to report on a requirement that
does not pertain to its program or to its operation of the program.
[End of section]
Appendix VII Comments from the Department of Education:
Office Of Management:
Assistant Secretary:
Mark Goldstein:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
U. S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Room 2T23B:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Goldstein:
The U,S, Department of Education appreciates the research and work that
went into the Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) comprehensive
study of Public Benefit Conveyances (GAO-06-511}. We agree that the
federal real property disposal and Public Benefit Conveyance
environment is very complex and characterized by often inconsistent
laws, regulations, and procedures that complicate federal surplus real
property disposal and compliance enforcement considerably.
The Department concurs with GAO that all agencies involved in this,
program must work together and cooperatively implement standardized
processes. We are ready to work with GSA to address the challenges
identified in your study. We will update our website to include
information about the PBC program, and we will develop a plan of action
to better ensure our compliance with our current monitoring policies.
We thank GAO for its unique insights into the complex, government-wide
Public Benefit Conveyance environment and for identifying areas that
need to be strengthened.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Michell Clark:
400 Maryland Ave, S.W. Washington, DC 202020-4500
www.ed.gov:
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Mark L. Goldstein (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, David Sausville, Assistant
Director; Carol Anderson-Guthrie; Lindsay Bach; Tonnye Conner-White;
Kim Michaels; Susan Michal-Smith; Claudine Pauselli; and Kelly Slade
made key contributions to this report.
(543111):
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, Federal Real Property: Further Actions Needed to Address Long-
standing and Complex Problems, GAO-05-848T (Washington, D.C.: June 22,
2005).
[2] P.L. No. 101-510, Section 2905 (b), 10 U.S.C. 2687 note (1990).
[3] 40 U.S.C. §§ 541-559 governs the disposal of real and personal
property.
[4] GSA 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.
[5] If 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.
[6] DOD 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.
[7] To convey property is to transfer title or ownership of property to
another entity.
[8] According 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.
[9] The 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 § 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.
[10] Pub. L. No. 103-421 (1994).
[11] For 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.
[12] For homeless use conveyances, property can revert to the LRA.
[13] We asked that only GSA and DOD provide information on the
sponsoring agency.
[14] GSA 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.
[15] In 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.
[16] GSA'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.
[17] GAO, Federal Real Property: Better Governmentwide Data Needed for
Strategic Decisionmaking, GAO-02-342 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16. 2002).
[18] GAO, High-Risk Series: Federal Real Property, GAO-03-122
(Washington, D.C.: January 2003).
[19] Presidential Executive Order 13327.
[20] These 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.
[21] The 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.
[22] We 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.
[23] The 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.
[24] Education'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."
[25] The New Jewish High School has recently been renamed the Gann
Academy.
[26] GSA's new compliance manual is titled the Utilization/Compliance
Desk Guide.
[27] Conveyances 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.
[28] 40 U.S.C.§ 553(b)(1).
[29] 42 U.S.C. § 11411.
[30] 40 U.S.C.§ 554.
[31] 40 U.S.C. § 553(b)(2).
[32] 40 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3).
[33] 40 U.S.C. § 550(f).
[34] 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et. seq.
[35] 16 U.S.C. § 470 et. seq.
[36] GAO-03-122.
[37] 42 U.S.C. § 11411.
[38] Pub. L. No. 101-510 § 2905 (b), 10 U.S. C. 2687 note (1990).
[39] 32 CFR 174-176.
[40] BRIM 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).
[41] DOD 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.
[42] We asked only that GSA and DOD provide information on the
sponsoring agency.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the 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.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
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:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
