Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118569202
label
Property Review Board
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118569202
contentType
document
title
Property Review Board
citationUrl
identifierLocal
94
collections
Records of the Office of the Chief of Staff (Reagan Administration)
James Cicconi's Agency Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118569202
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1985-12-31
year
1985
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1981-01-01
year
1981
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
5559ca8957f1feab
ocrText
PPB
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD
1
DATE: 10/24/83
TO:
Jim Cicconi
FROM:
Josh Muss
Attached is the memorandum
which we discussed.
Attachment
Track S
PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD
17th & PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
October 14, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN A. SVAHN
FROM:
CHAIRMAN, PROPERTY Joelleuse
JOSHUA A. MUSS
SUBJECT:
Forest Service
Last year, the Department of Agriculture announced that
it would propose to Congress legislation for the study
of six million acres of Forest Service lands which would
include authority to sell lands which meet specified
criteria. The proposal was a component of the President's
property management initiative and developed in consulta-
tion with the Property Review Board.
The public and Congressional reception of this proposal
has been cool. Several meetings were held with Senator
McClure, who in general was opposed to the legislation,
but reserved his decision until after an August, 1983, tour
of Idaho. John Crowell has visited with the Senator and I
have been in contact with his staff, and it appears that the
Senator would be willing to support a bill for the study of
Forest Service lands with very limited independent sales
authority (small tracts of forty to eighty acres). Even
with Senator McClure's support, the prospects of passage of
any Forest Service legislation are not good.
John Crowell and I have discussed the alternative courses
of action which we might consider which are discussed
briefly in the attached paper. This is essentially a
political question and Ed Harper had requested we arrange a
meeting for its discussion and resolution for him with Ed
Rollins and John Crowell. Even though Rollins has left the
White House, I'm confident we can still get his advice. How
would you like to proceed? I believe that it is important
that we determine our course of action by November 1.
Enclosure
Arrange a meeting for me with Rollins and Crowell.
Arrange a meeting for me with John Crowell.
Other
A-752
p.146
LEGISLATIVE OPTIONS
ASSET MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Background
The proposal to provide authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to sell
some National Forest System lands has met with considerable opposition and
resistance, even from conservative Republican members of Congress. The
Department of Agriculture has been requested by Senator McClure not to submit
legislation to Congress that would provide general legal authority to sell
National Forest lands. Senator McClure instead wants the Forest Service to
study areas for sale and to develop specific recommendations for sale before
legislation is proposed. The Department of Agriculture is reluctant to commit
the resources that would be required to study National Forest areas for sale
without some indication that tracts finally recommended will actually be sold.
Administration Options
Several options exist for Administration action:
1. Submit legislation that would grant authority to sell as
much of the 6 million acre inventory of land identified
for further study as ultimately proves to meet criteria
specified in the legislation. Alternatively, the legisla-
tion could be limited to the portion of the 6 million acre
inventory west of the Mississippi, or could include possibly
Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.
- 1 -
PROS -- Even though the bill would have no chance of enactment,
it would complete the action promised by the Administration
with respect to proposals for selling some national forest
land. It would generally demonstrate that the Administration's
proposal is reasonable.
CONS -- It could rekindle the intense misrepresentation asso-
ciated with this issue and could elicit further adverse
reaction to the land sale concept from Chairman McClure.
2. Propose legislation providing authority to study lands through-
out the National Forest System for sale and authorizing funding
to do SO.
PROS -- (a) Would be much less controversial than Option 1 and
is more likely to be enacted.
(b) Even though authority to study lands for sale is not needed,
it would be useful to have Congressional commitment to the
process.
CONS -- (a) Studies could require significant expenditures of
manpower and money without assurance of any eventual payoff in
terms of lands sold.
(b) The study process would interfere with and complicate com-
pletion of National Forest land management plans.
- 2 -
3. Propose legislative authority to study certain National Forests
or Grasslands having ownership patterns that are particularly
scattered; e.g., two or three specific National Forests or
Grasslands.
PROS -- (a) Would be less controversial than Option 2 and would
be less expensive.
(b) It would allow people to become comfortable with the idea
of study and possible land sales and could eventually lead to
broader acceptance and expansion of legal authority.
CONS -- -- (a) It would be a severe reduction in the previous scope
of the Asset Management Program and would not begin to achieve
the original objectives of the program.
(b) This concept could be administratively implemented without
new legislation.
4. Propose legislation authorizing sale of very small scattered and
isolated tracts, e.g., tracts 40 acres and less, which are
actually identified in the legislation.
PROS -- Would be much less controversial than Option 1, but
probably more so than Options 2 and 3.
CONS -- (a) It would be a severe reduction in the previous
scope of the Asset Management Program and would not begin to
achieve the original objectives of the program.
- 3 -
5. Accept Chairman McClure's original conditions of performing
the studies leading to recommendations for sales of specific
parcels which would then be identified by the statute authoriz-
ing sale.
This would require initiating studies administratively to review
lands for possible sale throughout the National Forest System
(as in Option 2) or in specific areas (as in Option 3). Legis-
lative authority to sell specific tracts would be sought as the
studies generate recommendations for sale.
PROS -- (a) Initiating the studies would not require legislation.
(b) Once tracts are identified for sale, legislation would be
easier to get, at least from Chaiman McClure.
CONS -- (a) Would require significant commitment of funds and
manpower without assurance of being able to obtain authority to
sell specific tracts later proposed for sale, although this could
be alleviated by doing the first studies on a small scale.
(b) Would be initiated without any Congressional endorsement or
commitment to objectives.
6. In order to reduce the political opposition to land sales, legis-
lation implementing sale authority could provide that revenues
from the sale of land, rather than going to retire the national
debt, could be covered into the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(L&WCF) for use in paying for required properties.
- 4 -
PROS -- (a) Would considerably reduce opposition to land sales.
(b) Could have the indirect effect of retiring national debt
since funds which otherwise would be expended from other sources
for land acquisition would not be needed.
(c) Expenditures from L&WCF will require appropriation action,
which could limit actual use of land sale revenues for acqui-
sition.
CONS -- (a) Would be contrary to one of the objectives of the
Asset Management Program which was to reduce deficits.
(b) Could be perceived as encouraging continued Federal acqui-
sition of land.
7. Drop any further attempts to obtain authority to sell National
Forest lands, either with or without an explanatory announce-
ment.
- 5 -
THE WHITE HOUSE
Date: 10/25/83. WASHINGTON
TO: JIM Cicconi
FROM: Jack L. Courtemanche
Recommended Action
Review & Comment
Information
Other
Lets talk about thes.
83
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 25, 1983
MEMORANDUM TO: JACK COURTEMANCHE
FROM:
Morton C. Blackwell
SUBJECT:
Circular A-122 Update
Neil Blair of Howard Ruff's RUFF PAC and Free the Eagle
tells me he will give written testimony in favor of the
proposed Circular A-122.
Blair and Ruff are "hard money" conservatives with a
big following. Free the Eagle has been a major opponent
of the IMF bill.
MCB:jet
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 25, 1983
MEMORANDUM TO: JACK COURTEMANCHE
FROM:
Morton C. Blackwell mr
SUBJECT:
Conservative Comment on Proposed A-122
Circular
Per your request, I surveyed a number of conservative
leaders to ascertain their willingness to give Congressional
testimony in support of the proposed A-122 Circular.
As of now, two well-known leaders are prepared to offer
supportive testimony:
1. GARY CURRAN. Curran is the legislative
spokesman for American Life Lobby. He frequently
gives Congressional testimony. His organization is
very strongly conservative, so his testimony will
be helpful in persuading other conservatives of the
merits of the proposed A-122 Circular.
2. GORDON JONES. Jones is head of United
Families of America. He is a longtime former staffer
of Senator Jake Garn. He has excellent credentials
with other conservative organizations. He is a
leader of pro-family activities within the Mormon
Church.
Both Curran and Jones will support the Circular A-122
proposal as a "step in the right direction." They will also
point out that they would like for it to go further in
stopping political use of federal grants.
Paul Weyrich is prepared to give the same reaction, when
asked. Weyrich rarely gives testimony and is not prepared to
do SO in this case.
A number of other organizations on the conservative side
will surely decide to give favorable testimony once they see
the actual provisions of the proposal. They are unwilling
to make a commitment to support something they have not had
a chance to examine.
- 2 -
There will be, in all likelihood, opposition to the
Circular A-122 proposal from Howard Phillips and his
Conservative Caucus. They want nothing less than a pro-
hibition on lobbying from any organization which receives
federal grants. If the final regulation, however, includes
the requirement to make available for public inspection all
publications of organizations receiving federal grants it
is possible that Phillips' opposition will be lessened.
It is likely that Richard Viguerie will follow Phillips'
lead on this matter.
MCB:jet
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 24, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FAITH WHITTLESEY
THROUGH:
JACK COURTEMANCHE
FROM:
MARY JO JACOBI
SUBJECT:
A-122
Here is the latest update on business community views on A-122.
The biggest stumbling block is that apparently Joe Wright and
Mike Horowitz promised a group of business representatives in
a meeting held some two months ago, that they would be able to
see the actual language of the circular before it went to print.
I was not involved in any meeting where that occurred.
Business has seen the draft that was leaked in August, and have
been apprised of revisions since then, but they are angry because
they feel that the promise of seeing the actual text has been
reneged on by OMB.
Because of not having seen the language, the business groups are
reluctant to say if they will testify, and if they do testify,
what side they will take.
To date, I have only identified one business group which does not
have a philosophical problem with A-122, the National Federation
of Independent Business. However, they do have concerns as to
whether this approach is the correct one to stop groups from using
government money to lobby the government.
The NAM, Business Roundtable, U.S. Chamber and American Society of
Association Executives have all said they would consider testimony
but will not take a position pro or con until they see the actual
language.
I have identified no individual companies yet who are willing to
testify one way or the other.
In sum, my estimation of the situation is that those groups who are
opposed will testify, those who are neutral or supportive will not.
L have not been able to track down the letter supposedly signed by
66 nonprofits that was sent to the President in opposition. Central
Files is looking for it.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 21, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FAITH WHITTLESEY
THROUGH:
JACK COURTEMANCHE
FROM:
MARY JO JACOBL May & ford
SUBJECT:
BUSINESS COMMUNITY VIEWS ON A-122
The following is a summary of the latest word on business reaction
to OMB Circular A-122.
The NAM will not take a position until they see the language. They
have a philosophical problem with the concent, however, and are
likely to oppose A-122 on that basis. If asked to testify on the
Hill they will do so, and as it stands today they are getting heavy
pressure from their nonprofit members to oppose.
The Business Roundtable had a meeting of its task force on this issue,
chaired by Jim Roland of Union Carbide. They probably will testify
mildly favorably, emphasizing the discrepancies between A-122 and
the DAR as problems. They are urging that the DAR be modified to
conform with A-122. BRT has no nonprofit members.
The U.S. Chamber will not take a formal position until its several
committees and Board of Directors has seen the actual language. This
may put them behind the curve on testifying, but they feel that their
internal policy process must work on this issue because of the level
of controversy. Disagreements between their defense contractors and
nonprofit members make this a difficult decision for the Chamber
internally. The Chamber's association members are not thrilled with
the concept.
The defense contracting companies view this draft of A-122 as their
only opportunity to push changes in the DAR, and so they are going
along with it. We will not see a wholehearted endorsement of it,
but neither will we see a firestorm from them. It is unclear which
of the defense contractors will testify at this writing.
The American Society of Association Executives has arranged for a
briefing of some 65 of its member association executives for
Wednesday, October 26, at its headquarters. Mike Horowitz will do
the briefing. This session was arranged directly with OMB, with no
consultation with OPL.
To date, ASAE has been the most intractable in its position. They
have sent a letter to the President, dated October 7, stating that
they oppose the issue on principle and that the proposed Circular
should never be issued.
the PA state and was brought
66 big assns ask Reagan to kill A-122
her righthand assistant
Fired with Vipond was Lean eve
secretary, who had also a:ded War
when he was in the liaison office nds
Levy too was et gn to make room for the
In a flurry of activity, the Circular A-122 issue
This indicated a lack of backing for the move on
leadership in the office.
appears to be coming to a head this week, with
Capitol Hill, where a draft has been circulating
NAM forming coalition
Whittlesey called Vipond in at 4 PM
the Office of Management and Budget trying to
for several weeks without gaining any support.
Friday and gave him until 6 to clean out his
collect enough support to justify its issuance
"We really need some sympathetic voices on
to stop phone subsidy
and leave. She simply sent word ev
and opposing forces massing their firepower
this proposal some form of A-122 IS inevit-
the latter was all through. Vipond was ur
against its even being issued.
able," Horowitz said, but Independent Sector
at expense of business
the impression that the termination
Some 66 major health-and-welfare organiza-
and others said any limitation on their lawful
because of disagreements he has hac
tions joined in a letter to President Reagan,
activities is improper and if OMB feels there is a
The National Assn of Manufacturers is activa-
Whittlesey.
urging him to kill the whole matter, while OMB
problem it should obtain legislation to correct
ting its 100+ association members to join a
In another development in the public lia
General Counsel Michael Horowitz, chief pro-
it, not write a rule.
coalition against a movement in Congress to
office, former Rep. John Roussellot will join
ponent of a tough new A-122, held a series of
Horowitz said he was disappointed at the
subsidize telephone subscribers at the expense
Reagan campaign staff Dec. 1, opening ano
sessions attempting to rally organizations
intensity of the reaction to his proposals, and
of American business.
position in the liaison office. Rousselot has t
behind it.
Assn TRENDS 10/14/83
decried the "not me" syndrome - "everyone
The legislation, aimed at holding down phone
coordinating with the business commur
The circular, intended to curb lobbying by
wants his own pet project," he declared, "but
rates after the AT&T breakup next January,
along with Mary Jo Jacoby. whose positio
organizations receiving federal grants and
all groups should consider equality of sacrifice,
would cost business and industry $2.2-Billion
expected to be improved by the top
contracts, was hastily withdrawn in its original
He emphasized that complaints about what is
per year, and result in higher phone bills such
changes.
form when it was published earlier this year,
in the new OMB proposal are premature, that
as $9,000 more a month at NAM, according to
A measure of Whittlesey's unique
and OMB has been trying ever since to come up
nothing has been released or absolutely settled
Rick Norment, exec director of the NAM
of the function of the liaison office IS the
with language that would meet with the
yet. He asked that response to the circular,
Associations Council.
in the office telephone directory for a Cc
approval of the association community. Despite
when it is issued, should be "based on right and
The bill, called a "universal telephone service
American Desk" supposedly coordinating
repeated meetings on the revised proposal,
wrong why should the taxpayers finance 1
bill," IS aimed at underwriting private phone
ters involving that hot part of the world.
however, Horowitz has yet to release the new
side of the political debate?"
service for all through a trust fund that would
previous White House public liaison direc
text, claiming that it is still undergoing changes.
He claimed he has bent over backward to be
provide subsidies to rural phone companies
saw his job that way.
At one meeting with OMB last week,
fair to all groups. Next group he met with after
and to the poor.
The changeover to Courtemanche's direct
Independent Sector, United Way, Goodwill,
the nonprofits was the New Right, whose
VP Jim Carty is heading the NAM effort; he is
of the office was reportly accompanied
Campfire and other social service groups were
demands for "defunding the left" initiated
a former FCC staff member. Details: Norment,
"some kicking and screaming," as Whitt
implored to support some form of A-122.
efforts to install a new A-122.
202/626-3855.
objected to her change of duties
ASAE mulls how to handle gay group
BULK RATE
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
Top leaders of the
other associations, has to prioritize its re-
WASHINGTON, D. C.
PERMIT No. 45069
American Society of As-
sources according to the number of members
Late News at Presstime
53332
sociation Executives
seeking them.
Interior Sec. Watt resigned, done in by a
this week discussed the
The "ASAE Human Rights Caucus" aims not
dumb remark at the Assn Insiders breakfast.
move by a gay rights
only to establish a presence within the profess-
Jim Finch, deputy postmaster general, is
group to get official sta-
ional society but expand its influence by
being hailed as Bill Bolger's replacement.
tus in the society, and
"fostering the formation of a Human Rights
indications were that
Caucus within each allied and/or affiliate group
Auto mileage tax deduction for 1983 will be
the initial ASAE posi-
tion would be "wait-and
Taylor
of ASAE" and conduct educational programs.
20.5c per mile, up from 20c last year, IRS says.
Main objective of the movement, sparkplug-
28-Million jobs will be created in the next 2
-see" until the situation
ged by James O. Yeaman, CAE, of Montgomery
decades, Natl Planning Assn estimates, with CA
develops further.
AL, is to "destigmatize the gay or lesbian
out in front with 30% growth.
ASAE Pres. R. Wil-
professional through the demonstration of the
liam Taylor, CAE, told Trends he was conferring
BizNet News Today, the hour-long weekday
continued professional worth and ability of
program from the US Chamber, is now on
Frank Martineau. CAE Editor & Publisher
Association Trends
7204 Clarendon Rd. Bethesda MD 20814
301/652-8666
R. CAC
6-.. Soc. Assn. Execs.
1575 NW
ADDRESS REQUESTED-
with General Counsel George D. Webster on
ASAE members without regard to their sexual
Washington DC
the matter, particularly the unauthorized use of
orientation."
WTKK-TV, channel 66, in the DC area, 7 AM.
the ASAE seal on the group's preliminary
Yeaman's group, which held its initial meet-
Consolidation vote of the American Society of
4-page memo (See Oct. 7 Trends).
ing during the recent ASAE convention in San
Photogrammetry and American Congress of
"There is nothing official to be said yet,"
Francisco, plans to organize formally in conjun-
Surveying & Mapping failed to get the required
Taylor declared, noting that the size of the
ction with the ASAE spring convention March
2/3, and W.A. Radzinski, exec manager, has re-
group has yet to be determined and ASAE, like
17-21, 1984, in Nashville.
signed effective Nov. 18.
10/14.
Voice of the US Association Industry - Published Every Friday - Read by Over 25,000 Assn Executives Each Week - Established 1971
10-26
PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD
17th & PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
October 25, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR
To
FROM:
Josh:
JAMES JOSHUA SAN LUIS CICCONI A. OBISPO MUSS SURVEY DISPUTE
This is
SUBJECT:
fine thanks
for answering
Your memorandum raises the concern that future
development of this Coast Guard property might eventually
and 10/1/28
lead to community pressure to relocate or remove the
sound signal, thus adversely impacting the Coast Guard's
mission -- and that perhaps it should be retained to
avoid this eventuality.
This issue was considered by our staff during the
review but for several reasons was not a major
consideration in the final recommendation.
First, the Coast Guard has several lighthouses and fog
signals in exclusive and densely populated areas.
Perhaps the most notable is the Point Pinos fog signal
which is located on the 17-mile drive of the Monterey
Peninsula, surrounded by exclusive homes inhabited by
cantankerous retirees. The Coast Guard indicated that
intermittently, depending on wind direction and other
factors, they receive individual complaints about the
signal from this facility from constituents and their
Congressmen. However, the Coast Guard's California
office could not document any instance of concerted
community action, such as petitions, lawsuit threats,
etc., nor could Coast Guard document this kind of
community concern in any of their other facilities. It
is important to remember that each of these communities
also has a maritime constituency which supports the need
for the fog and light signals.
Second, there is evidence that most people who live in
high-noise-level areas learn over time to filter out
noise that might otherwise be annoying. The best example
of this is the people currently living at the San Luis
Obispo site who, when queried on this issue by the GSA
survey representative, said they had become so used to
the noise that they didn't notice it at all.
Third, this is a non-urban, rural area. Any future
development would almost certainly be low intensity.
As a result of these discussions and fi dings and
the ability of the Coast Guard to effectively baffle
the sound, our staff concluded that it was not a major
consideration. Nevertheless, we probably should
have included these points in the case write-up.
I hope this answers your questions and eliminates
your concern.
that
Rev
PA
PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD
17th & PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
September 23, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES BAKER
EDWIN MEESE
DAVID STOCKMAN
GERALD CARMEN
WILLIAM CLARK
MARTIN FELDSTEIN
FROM:
JOSHUA EXECUTIVE A. MUSS DIRECTOR Johnuss
SUBJECT:
Survey Dispute at Atterbury
Center, Edinburg, Indiana
John A. Svahn recommends resolution of the survey
dispute on the subject property by declaring the
property excess.
In accordance with Board guidelines, if no member of
the Property Review Board objects within five working
days, Mr. Svahn's recommendation will be considered
final.
Attached is his recommendation and a brief background
memorandum.
Attachments
PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD
17th & PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
September 21, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHAIRMAN
PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD
FROM:
JOSHUA A. MUSS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT:
SURVEY DISPUTE AT ATTERBURY JOB CORPS
CENTER, EDINBURG, INDIANA
DESCRIPTION
350 acres of land improved with 37 buildings.
PROPOSAL
Retain or excess 75 acres of land and six buildings.
BACKGROUND
The GSA surveyed the 350-acre Atterbury Job Corps Center
in Edinburg, Indiana, on August 18, 1982.
The Atterbury Job Corps Center's purpose is to provide an
education and/or job skills training to individuals
between the ages of 16 and 22 who originate from lower
income families. Res-Care Incorporated is the contractor
operating the Atterbury Job Corps Center for the
Department of Labor (DOL). DOL acquired 864.47 acres of
land improved with 395 buildings through transfer when a
major portion of the former Camp Atterbury was reported
excess in 1967. Since then DOL reported about 515 acres
of land and numerous buildings as excess. However, 75
acres of land in the far northern part of the property,
north of Division Street, are not being used at all by
the contractor and should be reported excess.
The Department of Labor contends that the 75-acre tract
should be included in a buffer-zone easement being
created to separate recreational activities conducted on
adjoining lands by the Johnson County Indiana Parks'
authority from the Job Corps Center, and therefore,
should not be declared excess.
GSA recommends the 75-acre tract for excessing since the
land is not being used for mission purposes. Any
commercial use in character for the parcel will achieve
the desired buffer.
DISCUSSION:
The contractor operator, Res-Care Incorporated, has
absolutely no current use for this property and does not
anticipate any future use for the site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Excess the 75-acre tract. I recommend that you send the
attached letter to the Secretary of Labor.
Attachment: Honorable Raymond J. Donovan Letter
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
The Honorable Raymond J. Donovan
Secretary of Labor
200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
Dear Secretary Donovan:
The Property Review Board has reviewed the disagreement
between the Department of Labor and the General Services
Administration regarding disposal of property at the
Atterbury Job Corps Center, Edinburg, Indiana. The
Property Review Board is responsible under Executive
Order 12348 for resolving such conflicts. We have
reviewed the GSA survey report and the written comments
provided by the Department of Labor.
The Department of Labor's position is that the 75-acre
tract should be included in a buffer-zone easement being
created to separate recreational activities conducted
on adjoining lands by the Johnson County Indiana Parks'
authority from the Job Corps Center, and therefore,
should not be declared excess. Based on the information
provided by your department I have concluded that an
actual future need for this property has not been
demonstrated. Accordingly, it is my view that the
appropriate resolution of this conflict is to declare
the 75 acres excess.
Please report these acres as excess to the Administrator
of General Services. Thank you for your support of the
President's efforts to make the highest and best use
of the taxpayer's real property assets.
Sincerely,
John A. Svahn
CC: Gerald Carmen
Alfred M. Zuck
AA Pl. make copy before
PROPERTY REVIEW BOARD
carding. Put RI" in a
17th & PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
November 18, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES W. CICCONI
FROM:
JOSHUA A. MUSS
SUBJECT:
ELLINGTON AIR FORCE BASE
Bruce Selfon has discussed with you the proposed
PRB staff recommendation regarding the disposition of
Ellington Air Force Base. Attached for your informa-
tion is a copy of that recommendation. Ed Harper
suggests that if there is no need for extended discussion
on this issue, the Board adopt the recommendation by
unanimous consent rather than holding a meeting. I know
that Houston is not going to be happy with our recommen-
dation, so can we get Jim Baker to sign off on it or do
we need a meeting?
To: Joshua Muss
Attachment
Per JAB, There is agreement
on The PRB staff recommendation.
your 11/23 Cucion
Agenda Item
Issue:
The proposed conveyance of surplus property at Ellington Air Force
Base to the City of Houston for public airport purposes.
Background:
After a determination that the property was unneeded by the Air
Force, the Department of Transportation reviewed competing appli-
cations from Houston and Pasadena, Texas, for the surplus property
to use as a public airport. The DOT concluded tht the City of
Houston application should be approved, and this was announced by
the President on June 16, 1982.
The President stated that surplus property that was not needed for
the airport would be sold. At issue before the Board today is
whether to approve the transfer of 248 acres of property that would
be revenue producing, but not essential for airport operations.
The DOT has recommended that about 200 acres of non-airfield pro-
perty be transferrd at no cost to the City of Houston. The City of
Houston has offered to purchase the additional 50 acres at "fair
market value", not to exceed $15,000. This recommendation was
endorsed by the General Services Administration with the modifi-
cation that the fair market value must be determined by an indepen-
dent appraisal.
Recommendation:
After review, the Board staff recommends that the 146 acres adjacent
to the runways be conveyed to the City of Houston at no cost. The
projected income from this acreage appears essential to a break-even
operation of the airport. The Board staff recommends that the non-
airfield related 102 acres be sold to Houston at fair market value.
The City's feasibility report projects that revenue from this acre-
age is also necessary for the economic operation of the airport. It
appears, however, that projected revenues have been reduced by the
City's practice of subsidizing or foregoing certain user fees at its
airports. This policy which Houston has adopted for reasons
unrelated to efficient airport operations does not justify the
Federal subsidy that would result from the proposed transfer of the
102 acres worth approximately $10 million.
The Board staff recommends that the GSA recommendation be approved,
except that the City of Houston be given the first opportunity for a
negotiated purchase of the 102 acres at fair market value.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED
DISCOUNT CONVEYANCE TO THE CITY OF HOUSTON
OF ELLINGTON AIR FORCE BASE
The FAA has submitted a proposed discount conveyance
of Ellington Air Force Base to the City of Houston. In
addition to those areas used for flight line; future taxi-
ways, hangers, flight-line accessible leases, or retained
by the Federal government, Houston has requested and the
FAA has recommended that the City receive approximately
102 acres of industrial property not accessible to the
airfield; 51 acres free and 51 acres at fair market value,
not to exceed $15,000 per acre.
I suggest that the PRB recommend to the Administrator
of GSA that the requested discount conveyance be approved,
except that the City be required to pay fair market for
the entire 102 acres. This recommendation is consistent
with the President's June 16, 1982 statement that those
portions of Ellington "not needed for the airport" would
be sold.
Discussion:
The City justifies its request for conveyance of this
property, which it estimates has a market value of $10
million, for $765,000 based on the revenue needs of the
proposed facility. I believe the anticipated revenues are
underestimated or have been foregone for reasons unrelated
to airport operations, and that the requested $9.2 million
subsidy is unnecessary for the economic operation of the
airport.
In addition to the portions of Ellington used for
flight operations and retained by Federal agencies, there
are 237 acres on the Base. The FAA proposal considers
these properties in four categories:
1) Approximately 55 acres currently improved with
hangers and similar facilities;
2) Approximately 82.5 acres adjacent to proposed
taxi-ways for future flight-line lease.
3) 51.0 acres of non-airfield property "economically
required for airport"; and
4) 51.4 acres "available for purchase by City".
The FAA proposes to give the City areas 1, 2 and 3,
and to sell it area 4 at fair market value, not to exceed
$15,000 per acre. (The City's feasibility report esti-
mates the property to be worth $87,000/acre. There is no
statutory authority for a sale of this area at less than
fair market value.)
The City of Houston projects spending $25 million in
future capital improvements on Ellington. (Approximately
$9.6 million of this money is anticipated to come from an
FAA ADAP grant, and $2.4 million is to be borne directly
by the FAA through ownership of navigational systems.)
Houston's request for conveyance of the 102 acres is
based on its projections that revenues will be inadequate
to cover expenses without the inclusion of these pro-
perties in the airport. The City projects total revenues
in 1987 of $4,150,000 and costs of $4,000,000.
Revenues
Federal user fees
$1,818,800
Civil fees
Fuel-flow revenues
279,000
Flight-line rentals
480,000
Non-flight line
rentals (102 A)
712,600
Flight-line accessible (82 A) 857,300
2,328,900
Total Revenues:
4,147,700
Costs
Operating and maintenance
2,616,000
Annual amortized capital
1,352,000
Total Costs:
3,968,000
The revenue estimates are too low because they fail
to adequately account for:
1) Inadequate estimate of fuel-flowage fees. The
estimate projected a fuel-flowage fee of 6 cents per
gallon based on the 1980 charges at Houston Intercon-
tinental (IAH) and Hobby of 5 cents per gallon. The cost
of the service was estimated to be 12-16 cents per gallon.
The estimate does not account for the planned increase in
these fees at IAH and Hobby, nor in any way addresses the
rationale for subsidizing the fees at any City-owned
airport. Accordingly, the revenues should be considered
understated by the amount of the subsidy, $465,000.
-2-
2) The report fails to take into account the
increase in landing fees which the operation of Ellington
will permit. One of the City's objectives in acquiring
Ellington is to permit the diversion of general aviation
traffic from Hobby to Ellington in order to make more
landing slots and facilities available for commercial
traffic. In order to encourage relocation, the City
proposes not to charge landing fees at Ellington.
Undoubtedly, they also intend to institute landing fees
for general aviation at Hobby. Additionally, the
increased commercial capacity at Hobby will generate more
revenues than the general aviation which it replaces.
Accordingly, the City has failed to include this
system-wide revenue increase in its estimate.
3) The estimates for income from the 102 acres
without flight-line access is based on rental of 12 cents
per square foot. The feasibility study acknowledges that
this rent is based on the low estimate of market rents.
Thus, the 1987 rental income may be underestimated by
100%, or $712,600.
4) "To keep revenue estimates conservative", the
City estimates no income during the period from a 35,000
square foot hanger building or 48,000 square foot shop
building currently located on the property. As non-
airport related warehouse buildings, these two properties
should generate rentals of $2.00 per square foot and,
therefore, the income may be underestimated by $186,000.
(The feasibility report notes that the cost estimates do
not include the costs of refurbishing these buildings.)
-3-