a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Committee on Government 

Reform, House of Representatives

June 2006 FEDERAL REAL 

PROPERTY

Most Public Benefit 

Conveyances Used as 

Intended, but 

Opportunities Exist to 

Enhance Federal 

Oversight

GAO-06-511
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

June 2006

FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY 

Most Public Benefit Conveyances Used 

as Intended, but Opportunities Exist to 

Enhance Federal Oversight 

Highlights of GAO-06-511, a report to the 

Committee on Government Reform, 

House of Representatives

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 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. 

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. 

 

Former Surplus Real Property Used by Communities 

Source: GAO.

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. 
Page i GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 5

Lack of Reliable, Consistent Data Hampers PBC Program 

Management and Oversight 13

Inconsistent Compliance Monitoring Was Common, although Most 

Case Study Properties Were Used as Agreed to by the Grantee 23

Challenges Managing and Participating in the PBC Program Were 

Evident 39

Conclusions 50

Recommendations for Executive Action 51

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 52

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 57

Appendix II: Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties Conveyed, 

Fiscal Years 2000-2004 60

Appendix III: Summary Data on Properties Selected for Case Study 74

Appendix IV: Properties Selected for Case Studies 78

Appendix V: Comments from the General Services Administration 141

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Health and Human 

Services 144

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Education 148

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 149

Tables Table 1: List of Public Benefit Use Authorities and Their Statutory 

Citations 7

Table 2: Sponsoring Agencies and Their Responsibilities, by Public 

Benefit Use 8

Table 3: Consistency of Compliance Oversight Performed for Case 

Study Properties in Accordance with Requirements in 

Agencies’ Policies and Property Deeds 24

Table 4: Compliance Oversight Methods Stated in Agencies’ 

Policies and Procedures for Properties Conveyed, Fiscal 

Years 1990-2004 34
Contents

Page ii GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figures Figure 1: PBC Process for Former Civilian Agency or Non-BRAC 

DOD Surplus Real Property 10

Figure 2: PBC Process for BRAC Surplus Real Property 12

Figure 3: Number of Properties Identified by Type of Use, Fiscal 

Years 2000-2004 21

Figure 4: Location of the Properties Identified, Fiscal Years 

2000-2004 22

Figure 5: Little Cottonwood Park – one property 79

Figure 6: Port of Long Beach - one property 80

Figure 7: Savannah and Cabrillo Navy Housing – one property 81

Figure 8: Rolling Hills Preparatory School – one property 82

Figure 9: Westwood Transitional Village – one property 83

Figure 10: Southern California Logistics Airport - one property 84

Figure 11: Homestead Air Force Base Communications Annex – one 

property 85

Figure 12: Homestead Air Force Base Homeless Trust – one 

property 86

Figure 13: U.S. Custom House – one property 87

Figure 14: MacDill Air Force Base Railroad Spur – one property 88

Figure 15: U.S. Classic Courthouse – one property 89

Figure 16: Federal Building and USDA Lab – one property 90

Figure 17: Wyandotte County Correctional Facility and Court 

Services Building – one property 91

Figure 18: North Central Flint Hills Area Agency on Aging, Inc. – one 

property 93

Figure 19: Milford Lake – one property 94

Figure 20: Tuttle Lake Wildlife Area – five properties 95

Figure 21: NIKE Village Site Topsfield, MA – one property 96

Figure 22: Bentley College – one property 98

Figure 23: New Jewish High School – one property 99

Figure 24: Veteran’s Memorial Park – one property 100

Figure 25: The Commander’s Mansion - one property 101

Figure 26: Squantum Gardens and Naval Terrace – one property 103

Figure 27: NIKE Site PH-02 – one property 105

Figure 28: Liberty House – one property 107

Figure 29: Valley Forge Christian College – two properties 108

Figure 30: Warminster Community Park – one property 110

Figure 31: Northampton Township Municipal Park – one 

property 112

Figure 32: Kings Branch Housing – one property 113
Contents

Page iii GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 33: Carswell Air Force Base Communications Annex - one 

property 115

Figure 34: Lake Lewisville Independent School District Outdoor 

Learning Area – two properties 116

Figure 35: Naval Air Station Dallas Clear Zone - one property 117

Figure 36: Naval Air Station Dallas, Duncanville Housing Site - one 

property 118

Figure 37: Utah College of Applied Technology - one property 119

Figure 38: Weber County Schools Warehouse - one property 121

Figure 39: Davis School District Warehouse - one property 122

Figure 40: Defense Distribution Depot Ogden, Building 42 - one 

property 123

Figure 41: Ogden Nature Center - one property 124

Figure 42: Weber County Fairgrounds - one property 125

Figure 43: Former Petersburg Correctional Institute – one 

property 126

Figure 44: Falling Creek Linear Park – one property 128

Figure 45: Riverside Regional Jail – one property 129

Figure 46: Cameron Station – one property 130

Figure 47: Naval Station Puget Sound – three properties 132

Figure 48: Midway NIKE Housing Site – one property 134

Figure 49: Howard A. Hanson Dam – one property 135

Figure 50: Olympia Federal Building – one property 137

Figure 51: Sand Point Magnuson Park – four properties 139
Contents

Page iv GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Abbreviations

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure 

DOD Department of Defense

DOT Department of Transportation

DOJ Department of Justice

DHS Department of Homeland Security

Education Department of Education

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

GAO Government Accountability Office

GSA General Services Administration

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

Interior Department of the Interior

OMB Office of Management and Budget

MARAD Maritime Administration

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

June 21, 2006 Letr

The Honorable Tom Davis 

Chairman 

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

The federal real property portfolio is vast and diverse—over 30 agencies 

control hundreds of thousands of real property assets worldwide, including 

facilities and land worth hundreds of billions of dollars. However, many of 

these assets, which include vacant and underutilized properties, are no 

longer needed because of significant changes in the size and mission needs 

of federal agencies. This is one of the reasons that federal real property 

remains on our list of high-risk federal programs.1

 Unneeded assets present 

significant potential risks to federal agencies not only for lost dollars 

because such properties are costly to maintain; but also for lost 

opportunities because the properties could be put to more cost-beneficial 

uses, exchanged for other needed property, or sold to generate revenue for 

the government. In addition, continuing to hold real property that may no 

longer be needed does not present a positive image of the federal 

government in local communities. 

The public benefits conveyance (PBC) program is one means of disposing 

of surplus federal property. Under the PBC program, which was primarily 

codified in the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as 

amended (Property Act), state or local governments and certain taxexempt nonprofit organizations can obtain surplus real property for public 

uses such as homeless centers, educational facilities, and public parks. The 

General Services Administration (GSA) has primary responsibility for the 

administration of the program, but as required by law, has delegated 

conveyance authority to the Department of Defense (DOD) for DOD 

properties that are closed or realigned as part of the Base Realignment and 

Closure (BRAC) process.2

 Under laws and federal regulations promulgated 

by GSA implementing the PBC program, several “sponsoring agencies” 

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).
Page 2 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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 
Page 3 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

data on properties conveyed should have matched sponsoring agency data 

on properties they were monitoring, there were numerous inconsistencies. 

For example, although GSA data showed that 285 properties were 

conveyed, 128 (45 percent) of these properties were not identified in data 

provided by sponsoring agencies. Similarly, DOD data showed that 179 

properties were conveyed, yet 41 (23 percent) of these properties also were 

not identified in sponsoring agency data. As a result, the status of 

properties for which data were inconsistent remains unclear. Furthermore, 

GSA, which has primary responsibility for the program under the Property 

Act, as well as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Congress, 

are not well equipped to effectively oversee the program. Better data would 

facilitate oversight and assessment of results and possible problems. Lack 

of quality data was a major reason we designated federal real property as a 

high-risk area in 2003, and the inconsistencies we encountered with the 

PBC data illustrate this problem. We also found other data reliability 

problems, including incomplete data and lack of specificity. Despite the 

inconsistencies with the data and reliability issues, we attempted to resolve 

the data consistencies and were able to identify 298 PBC properties on 

which DOD, GSA, and sponsoring agency data were generally in 

agreement. These properties were conveyed for a variety of public uses, 

such as airports, schools, and parks, and were located throughout many of 

the 50 states, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Almost half of the properties were 

disposed of as part of the BRAC process. Although available data showed 

that 12 properties conveyed as PBCs reverted to the federal government, 

data on reverted property were not regularly collected, so other properties 

may have reverted. To ensure better oversight and accountability, we are 

recommending that GSA coordinate and work with DOD and each of the 

sponsoring agencies to ensure that PBC property data are reliable and 

consistent between agencies.

Our review showed that agencies generally did not follow policies and 

procedures they established, or those outlined in the deed, for ensuring 

that conveyed properties were used as intended by grantees. In our case 

study of 58 properties, we were able to evaluate compliance practices for 

41 properties. Eighty-eight percent, 36 of the 41, did not receive the 

monitoring specified in agency policies or the property deed. It is important 

to note that despite the problems we found with compliance monitoring, 51 

of the 58 properties we selected as case studies were being used as agreed 

to by the grantee under the terms of the conveyance and 7 were not. Of the 

7 properties, 4 had reverted to the federal government, 2 had not been fully 

developed, and 1 was not used as intended. The other 51 properties we 
Page 4 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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 
Page 5 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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.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 

3

40 U.S.C. §§ 541-559 governs the disposal of real and personal property.
Page 6 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

surplus real property; property can also be disposed of by negotiated4 and 

public sale5 or by other conveyances available under BRAC, such as 

economic development conveyances.6

Properties are conveyed7 to grantees with deed restrictions ranging from 30 

years to in perpetuity and can be provided at a discount of up to 100 

percent of fair market value. Six public benefit use authorities have been in 

existence since before the Property Act became law; they are education, 

public health, parks and recreation, historic monument, wildlife 

conservation, and public airport. The remaining six public benefit use 

authorities—correctional, homeless, port facility, self-help housing, law 

enforcement, and emergency management response—were enacted into 

law between 1984 and 1997. Table 1 lists the public benefit use authorities, 

the years they were enacted, and their statutory citations.

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.
Page 7 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Table 1: List of Public Benefit Use Authorities and Their Statutory Citations 

Source: GAO.

a

Wildlife conservation, public airport, and homeless public uses were not codified in the Property Act.

GSA and DOD are responsible for managing the disposal of surplus real 

property through the PBC process. GSA handles the disposal of former 

civilian agency and non-BRAC DOD surplus property. DOD handles the 

disposal of surplus BRAC property. Seven federal agencies—DHS, DOJ, 

DOT, Education, HHS, HUD, and Interior—assist GSA and DOD with the 

PBC process. These agencies are known as sponsoring agencies, and at 

least one sponsoring agency is designated per type of public benefit use 

based on its policy area expertise. For example, Interior is the sponsoring 

agency for parks and recreation use, and HHS is the sponsoring agency for 

public health use. Table 2 displays the sponsoring agencies and their 

responsibilities by public benefit use. As shown in table 2, for some public 

benefit uses, one sponsoring agency is responsible for reviewing and 

approving applications, while another sponsoring agency is responsible for 

conveying the property and performing compliance monitoring. For 

example, DHS’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is tasked 

with reviewing and approving emergency management response 

applications, while GSA performs compliance oversight of properties 

conveyed for this use.

Public benefit use authorities When enacted Statutory citation

Education Prior to 1949 40 U.S.C. § 550(c).

Public health Prior to 1949 40 U.S.C. § 550(d).

Parks and recreation Prior to 1949 40 U.S.C. § 550(e).

Historic monument Prior to 1949

1972 Amendments

40 U.S.C. § 550(h).

Wildlife conservationa Prior to 1949 16 U.S.C. § 667b.

Public airporta Prior to 1949 49 U.S.C. § 47151.

Correctional 1984 40 U.S.C. § 553(b)(1).

Homelessa 1988 42 U.S.C. § 11411.

Port facility 1994 40 U.S.C. § 554.

Self-help housing 1997 40 U.S.C. § 550(f).

Law enforcement 1997 40 U.S.C. § 553(b)(2).

Emergency management 

response

1997 40 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3).
Page 8 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Table 2: Sponsoring Agencies and Their Responsibilities, by Public Benefit Use

Source: GAO.

Public 

benefit use Sponsoring agency Sponsoring agency responsibilities

Length of 

deed 

restriction

Education Department of Education • Application review and approval

• Deeding and conveyance

• Compliance monitoring 

30 years

Public health Department of Health and Human 

Services

• Application review and approval

• Deeding and conveyance

• Compliance monitoring

30 years

Parks and 

recreation

Department of the Interior – 

Federal Lands to Parks Program 

• Application review and approval

• Deeding and conveyance

• Compliance monitoring

In perpetuity

Historic 

monument 

Department of the Interior –

Historic Surplus Property Program 

General Services Administration

• Application review and approval (Historic Surplus 

Property Program)

• Deeding and conveyance (GSA)

• Compliance monitoring (Historic Surplus Property 

Program)

In perpetuity

Wildlife 

conservation

Department of the Interior –

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

General Services Administration

• Application reviewa (GSA or FWS) and 

• approval (GSA)

• Deeding and conveyance (GSA)

• Compliance monitoring (GSA)

In perpetuity

Public airport Department of Transportation –

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

General Services Administration

• Application review and approval (FAA)

• Deeding and conveyance (GSA)

• Compliance monitoring (FAA)

In perpetuity

Correctional Department of Justice

General Services Administration

• Application review and approval (DOJ)

• Deeding and conveyance (GSA)

• Compliance monitoring (GSA)

In perpetuity

Port facility Department of Transportation –

Maritime Administration (MARAD)

• Application review and approval

• Deeding and conveyance

• Compliance monitoring

In perpetuity

Self-help housing Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

• Application review and approval

• Deeding and conveyance

• Compliance monitoring

40 years

Law enforcement Department of Justice

General Services Administration

• Application review and approval (DOJ)

• Deeding and conveyance (GSA)

• Compliance monitoring (GSA)

In perpetuity

Emergency 

management

Response

Department of Homeland Security –

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

General Services Administration

• Application review and approval (FEMA)

• Deeding and conveyance (GSA)

• Compliance monitoring (GSA)

In perpetuity

Homeless Department of Health and Human 

Services

• Application review and approval

• Deeding and conveyance

• Compliance monitoring

30 years
Page 9 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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.

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. 
Page 10 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 1: PBC Process for Former Civilian Agency or Non-BRAC DOD Surplus Real Property

The disposal of surplus BRAC property by the PBC process is handled 

differently from the disposal of former civilian agency or non-BRAC DOD 

property. As noted previously, GSA, as required by law, has delegated 

conveyance authority to DOD for those DOD surplus properties that are 

generated though the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. DOD 

has subsequently delegated its BRAC disposal authority to the Departments 

of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, including the authority to manage surplus 

real property disposals involving PBCs. A key difference in the PBC 

process for the disposal of BRAC property is the participation of a local 

redevelopment authority (LRA). Though such participation is not required 

by law, most BRAC closures have historically involved an LRA, which is 

generally composed of members from the surrounding community or 

communities affected by the base closure.8

 LRAs have historically been 

responsible for planning for the future reuse of BRAC property and for 

State/local/nonprofits submit 

applications to sponsoring 

agency. (If suitable, property 

is made available for 

homeless consideration prior 

to any other use.) 

Grantee implements approved 

public use and adheres to 

deed restrictions.

Former civilian agency and

non-BRAC DOD property

determined surplus.

Sponsoring agency determines

property is out of compliance. 

Sponsoring agency determines

property is used as intended 

until deed restrictions expire. 

GSA assigns property to 

sponsoring agency.

Based on sponsoring agency 

suggestion, GSA reverts the 

property. Property returns to the 

federal portfolio of assets and is

reconsidered for disposal.

GSA determines property 

condition. 

HUD determines homeless

suitability. 

Sponsoring agency conveys

property to grantee.

Sponsoring agency monitors

compliance by site inspections

or utilization reports.

Sponsoring agency reviews

and approves applications. and

or

Source: GAO.

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.
Page 11 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

acting as the single point of contact between the government and the 

interests within the communities during the disposal process. The primary 

function of the LRA is to create a redevelopment plan that proposes the 

future use of each parcel of surplus real property in the installation.9

 The 

LRAs and the military departments determine what portion of surplus 

installation property will be disposed of as PBCs. When considering future 

reuse, LRAs take into consideration community needs, interests of possible 

reuse recipients, the environmental condition of the property, and any 

necessary remediation. The LRA is also tasked with giving consideration to 

local homeless needs. The Base Closure Community Redevelopment and 

Homeless Assistance Act of 199410 amended the McKinney-Vento Act and 

the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 to provide for 

different procedures relating to the use and transferability of properties to 

assist the homeless at a military installation that is to be closed or aligned 

under BRAC. Pursuant to the 1994 amendment, the LRA develops a 

redevelopment plan for the installation and solicits interest from homeless 

providers. HUD provides LRAs with technical advice and guidance on the 

homeless requirements and reviews the redevelopment plan to determine if 

it appropriately balances the interests of the homeless in the vicinity of the 

installation with the economic and other redevelopment needs of the 

community. Figure 2 shows the PBC process in general for BRAC surplus 

property.

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.

10Pub. L. No. 103-421 (1994).
Page 12 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 2: PBC Process for BRAC Surplus Real Property 

The proposed redevelopment plans are then submitted to the military 

department. Although deeding authority varies among the different public 

benefit uses, for parcels that have been approved for disposal as PBCs, the 

Army, Navy, or Air Force generally assigns the property to the appropriate 

sponsoring agency, which deeds the property to the grantee.11 Compliance 

for surplus BRAC property conveyed as public benefit conveyances is 

handled by the sponsoring agencies in the same manner as surplus former 

Military service determines

property condition. 

LRA may be established by 

community and recognized 

officially by DOD. 

Source: GAO. 

Surplus property at BRAC 

installations is identified. 

State/local/nonprofits

submit applications to 

sponsoring agency. 

Sponsoring agency reviews

and approves applications

for public uses.

LRA creates an installation 

redevelopment plan that proposes

the future use, including PBCs, of 

all surplus installation property. 

The plan is submitted to HUD to 

review whether it meets statutory 

requirements relating to the 

homeless.

LRA and military department 

determine what portion of 

surplus installation property 

will be disposed of as PBCs. 

LRA considers the homeless

needs of the community. 

Grantee implements

approved public use and 

adheres to deed 

restrictions.

Sponsoring agency 

monitors compliance by site 

inspections or utilization 

reports.

Sponsoring agency 

determines property is out 

of compliance. 

Sponsoring agency 

determines property is used 

as intended until deed 

restrictions expire. 

or 

Based on sponsoring 

agency suggestion, GSA 

or DOD reverts the 

property. Property returns

to the federal portfolio of 

assets and is reconsidered 

for disposal.

Sponsoring agency conveys

property to grantee. 

Military department 

considers the LRA’s

redevelopment plan and 

assigns property to the 

sponsoring agency.

11For public airport and historic monument conveyances, the military department does not 

assign the property to the sponsoring agency. Instead, the military department obtains 

approval from the sponsoring agency prior to deeding the property to the grantee itself. In 

the case of homeless use conveyances, according to DOD's Base Reuse Implementation 

Manual, if there is no specific request from HUD, the military department may directly 

transfer the property for homeless use to the grantee.
Page 13 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

civilian agency or non-BRAC DOD property. Reverted property returns 

either to GSA’s or the military department’s inventory of real property 

assets.12

Lack of Reliable, 

Consistent Data 

Hampers PBC Program 

Management and 

Oversight

We could not determine, from GSA, DOD, and sponsoring agency data, the 

exact number, types, and locations of properties conveyed in fiscal years 

2000 through 2004 as part of the PBC program. There were numerous 

properties identified by GSA and DOD that did not match with properties 

identified by the sponsoring agencies. As a result, we could not determine 

the status of 128 GSA properties and 41 DOD properties purportedly 

conveyed using the PBC program. Despite inconsistencies with GSA, DOD, 

and sponsoring agency data, we undertook our own effort to resolve the 

inconsistencies and were able to identify 298 PBC properties for which 

GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring agencies data were generally in agreement. 

These properties were conveyed for a variety of public uses, such as 

airports, schools, and parks, and were located in many of the 50 states, 

Guam, and Puerto Rico. For a number of reasons, reliable, consistent data 

on PBC properties would be beneficial to the effective oversight and 

management of the program.

GSA, DOD, and Sponsoring 

Agency Data Were Not 

Consistent or Reliable 

GSA, DOD, and sponsoring agency data had inconsistencies that prevented 

us from determining, with reasonable assurance, the exact number, types, 

and locations of properties conveyed in fiscal years 2000 through 2004 as 

part of the PBC program. GSA and DOD each maintain separate lists of 

properties they have disposed of using the PBC program. In addition, each 

of the sponsoring agencies maintains a separate list of the properties for 

which it has compliance responsibilities. GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring 

agencies keep PBC property data in various formats, including electronic 

data and paper case files, and in different locations, such as in central 

headquarters or field offices. In addition, we found that each agency keeps 

different pieces of information on each property.

To address the challenge of having multiple and varying data sources, we 

requested that GSA and DOD provide us with a complete and reliable list of 

properties conveyed and that each of the sponsoring agencies provide us 

with a complete and reliable list of properties for which it had compliance 

12For homeless use conveyances, property can revert to the LRA.
Page 14 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

responsibilities. Specifically, we asked that the agencies provide us with 

the following pieces of information: property name, description, address, 

sponsoring agency,13 grantee including contact information, date of 

conveyance, intended use, and compliance history, including dates of 

utilization reports or site inspections. Because each agency, as noted 

above, keeps property data in varying formats, we received electronic data 

and case file documents, such as property deeds. 

Although GSA and DOD data on properties conveyed should have matched 

sponsoring agency data on properties they were monitoring, there were 

several inconsistencies. For properties conveyed in fiscal years 2000 

through 2004, a significant number on GSA’s and DOD’s lists did not match 

with the sponsoring agencies’ lists. More specifically, although GSA data 

showed that 285 properties were conveyed, 128 (45 percent) of these 

properties were not identified in data provided by the sponsoring agencies. 

It was also sometimes difficult to compare properties on GSA’s list with 

those on sponsoring agencies’ lists because at times the property name, 

acreage, and date conveyed differed. Nineteen properties in GSA data 

appeared to be similar to properties on the sponsoring agencies’ lists, but 

because of differences in the properties’ name, acreage, or date conveyed, 

we could not determine with certainty whether these properties were in 

fact the same. For example, a GSA property named the “Grand Forks 

Safeguard Waterline” was listed as conveyed for public health use to the 

North Valley Water District.14 HHS lists a similar property in North Dakota 

as being conveyed to the same grantee for public health use, but the name 

of the property and date conveyed differ. GSA property data also frequently 

lacked the name of the grantee and the sponsoring agency assigned 

compliance responsibilities. In particular, data on 77 (27 percent) of the 285 

properties reported by GSA lacked the name of the grantee, and data on 

150 (53 percent) lacked the name of the sponsoring agency. In addition, 

data on 91 (32 percent) of the 285 properties reported by GSA did not 

include precise information on the public use for which they were 

conveyed. Specifically, the public use for these properties was categorized 

as “Other.” Similarly, DOD data showed that 179 properties were conveyed 

in fiscal years 2000 through 2004, yet 41 (23 percent) of these properties 

were not identified in sponsoring agency data. It was also hard to compare 

13We asked that only GSA and DOD provide information on the sponsoring agency.

14GSA did not provide a description of this property, so we were unable to determine if the 

property description was consistent with the description provided by HHS.
Page 15 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

DOD data to sponsoring agency data because the property name, acreage, 

and date conveyed varied, making it difficult to determine whether 

properties matched. Specifically, 24 properties on DOD’s list appeared to be 

similar to properties on the sponsoring agencies’ lists, but because of 

differences in the property name, acreage, or date conveyed, we could not 

determine with certainty whether these properties were the same.

Because of discrepancies between GSA, DOD, and sponsoring agency 

property data, the status of several properties that appear to have been 

conveyed using the PBC program could not readily be determined. As 

mentioned, there were 128 and 41 properties that were identified in GSA 

and DOD data, respectively, that did not appear in the sponsoring agency 

data. Determining the status of these properties was beyond the scope of 

this review. Nonetheless, it was unclear whether these properties were 

actually conveyed and if so, whether the sponsoring agencies were 

monitoring their use and whether they were being used as agreed by the 

grantees. Our inability to verify that the sponsoring agencies were aware of 

these properties and were monitoring their use raised concerns that a basic 

tool for oversight— in this case, consistent data on the universe of PBC 

properties—was lacking, thereby making the program vulnerable to 

misuse. 

We also found that the data submitted by GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring 

agencies were incomplete and unreliable, as the following examples 

illustrate. 

• 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 
Page 16 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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.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, 

15In commenting on this report, HHS noted that it also has a unique identification number 

for each property conveyed by HHS, which it uses in conjunction with GSA and DOD 

identifying codes. HHS did not provide these numbers to us during our audit.
Page 17 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

GSA’s manual for its NetReal database16 does not require that realty staff 

update property information in the system once a property has reverted. 

Therefore, GSA cannot identify all of the properties in the database that 

have reverted to the federal government. Because of this uncertainty, we 

requested data from each of the sponsoring agencies on the number of 

properties that reverted during this period. When we compared the 

sponsoring agencies’ lists of reverted properties with that of GSA’s list, we 

identified one property—USCG Naushon Housing—that was reported as 

reverted by the sponsoring agency but not by GSA. According to GSA 

officials, they were able to verify that the property had reverted by 

checking paper files in their regional offices. In addition, GSA’s list of 

reverted properties included five properties that did not appear on the 

sponsoring agencies’ lists of reverted properties. GSA data noted that two 

of these properties—a boundary line adjustment and property easement—

were not reversions. Therefore, we cannot be sure whether GSA’s NetReal 

database includes all the properties that reverted during this period and 

whether properties included in the database are reversions as opposed to 

other types of real estate transactions. In commenting on a draft of this 

report, GSA said that NetReal was designed to collect disposal data for 

case management during the disposal process—not to track predisposal or 

postconveyance activities. According to GSA, it is in the process of 

developing a new system called the Real Estate Disposal Inventory 

Network (REDI Net), which will replace NetReal. The REDI Net system, 

when completed, will identify and maintain an accurate accounting for all 

major procedural tasks for the disposal of excess and surplus real property. 

It will also include contact and document management elements, thereby 

creating an electronic clearinghouse for all real property disposal projects 

handled by GSA. An initial application of the system is planned to be 

released this fiscal year. 

DOD reported that it did not revert any property in fiscal years 2000 

through 2004 because, according to DOD officials, DOD is not involved in 

the PBC reversion process. Instead, DOD officials noted that it is the 

responsibility of the sponsoring agencies to monitor compliance of former 

BRAC property. DOD stated that because it is not involved in the reversion 

process, it does not keep track of reverted properties. However, we found 

that one property on the sponsoring agencies’ list—the Defense 

Distribution Depot Ogden, Building 42 property—reverted back to the 

16GSA’s NetReal database is used by regional realty staff to keep track of property disposed 

of by the PBC process as well as by other disposal methods.
Page 18 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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.
Page 19 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

For these reasons, the lack of reliable, consistent data on PBC properties 

makes it difficult for GSA, the primary agency with responsibility for the 

program under the Property Act, as well as OMB and Congress, to 

effectively oversee the program. Better data would facilitate oversight and 

assessment of results and possible problems. We have previously reported 

that there is a lack of reliable and useful real property data for strategic 

decision making. In April 2002, we reported that the government’s only 

central source of descriptive data on the makeup of the real property 

inventory, known then as GSA’s worldwide inventory database and related 

real property reports, contained data that were unreliable and of limited 

usefulness.17 

Unreliable real property data—both at GSA and at individual real property 

holding agencies—was a reason we designated federal real property as a 

high-risk area,18 and the inconsistencies we encountered with the PBC data 

illustrate this problem. Partly in response to our high-risk reports, the 

President issued an executive order in 2004 aimed at improving federal real 

property asset management.19 This executive order, among other things, 

required GSA to establish and maintain a single, comprehensive and 

descriptive database of real property under the custody and control of all 

executive branch agencies, except when otherwise required for reasons of 

national security. To meet this requirement, GSA has undertaken an effort 

to revamp its worldwide inventory database, now referred to as the federal 

real property profile. We have not evaluated GSA’s database efforts and 

related report. In addition to improving data on the federal inventory as a 

whole, quality data will be critical for addressing the wide range of 

problems facing the government in the real property area. 

Developing complete, reliable data on properties disposed of through the 

PBC program would be beneficial for assessing the program and could be 

even more important for managing the program if the PBC program were to 

be used more extensively in the future to address the government’s surplus 

property problem. The government, at the time of our review, could not be 

sure whether properties disposed of through the PBC program are being 

17GAO, Federal Real Property: Better Governmentwide Data Needed for Strategic 

Discisionmaking, GAO-02-342 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16. 2002).

18GAO, High-Risk Series: Federal Real Property, GAO-03-122 (Washington, D.C.: January 

2003).

19Presidential Executive Order 13327.
Page 20 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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 
Page 21 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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 

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 

Number of properties

Type of public benefit

use

Properties conveyed through GSA

Properties conveyed through DOD

Source: GAO.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Emergency response 

Self-help housing

Wildlife conservation 

Law enforcement 

Corrections

Port facility 

Historic monument 

Homeless

Health 

Airport 

Education 

Parks/recreation 109 

58

23

19 

22 

1 

4 

12 

1 

2 

6 

41 
Page 22 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

property was conveyed in Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oklahoma, 

South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming or in the District of Columbia.

Figure 4: Location of the Properties Identified, Fiscal Years 2000-2004 

Source: GAO.

PA (9)

OR (2)

NV (1)

ID (3)

MT (1)

WY (0)

UT (8)

AZ (10)

NM (0)

CO (11)

ND (4)

SD (0)

NE (1)

TX (13)

KS (2)

OK (0)

MN (0)

IA (1)

MO (5)

AR (14)

LA

(5)

IL (5)

MS (1)

IN (6)

KY (6)

TN (5)

AL (7)

FL

(22)

GA (2)

SC (9)

NC (4)

OH (7)

MI

(11)

CA (45)

WA (6)

WI (1)

ME

(0)

VT

(0)

HI (2)

AK (3)

PR (1)

CT (2)

DC (0)

DE (1)

MD (9)

MA (10)

NH (2)

NJ (11)

RI (1)

GUAM (3)

VA (10)

NY (7)

WV (9)

Dots represent one conveyed property each and 

are grouped by state. Their placement does not 

represent exact geographical location.
Page 23 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Inconsistent 

Compliance 

Monitoring Was 

Common, although 

Most Case Study 

Properties Were Used 

as Agreed to by the 

Grantee

Our review showed that the sponsoring agencies generally did not follow 

policies and procedures they established, or those outlined in the deed, for 

ensuring that conveyed properties were used as intended by grantees. In 

our case study of 58 properties, we were able to evaluate compliance 

practices for 41 properties. Eighty-eight percent, or 36 of 41, did not receive 

the compliance monitoring specified in agency policies or the property 

deed. Inconsistent compliance monitoring is a concern because it results in 

a lack of assurance that properties are being used as agreed to by grantees 

and that the program’s overall objectives are being met. Despite these 

issues, most of the properties that we visited were being used as agreed to 

by the grantee and appeared to be producing benefits. In our case study 

review, we found that GSA and the sponsoring agencies used a mix of selfreporting by grantees and site inspections to ensure that properties were 

being used as agreed to by grantees, although the frequency of these 

actions varied. We also noted that the agencies’ policies on property 

reversions to the federal government varied. As a result, the PBC program 

seems unnecessarily complex, with a wide range of compliance 

approaches and reversion policies and procedures being administered 

separately by several agencies, depending on the type of public benefit use. 

The complex nature of the federal real property environment was an 

underlying cause of problems that led to our designation of this area as 

high-risk in 2003, and the wide variation among agencies with regard to the 

PBC program seems to illustrate this condition. 

Inconsistent Compliance 

Monitoring Was Common 

We could evaluate compliance monitoring for 41 of 58 properties we 

selected for detailed review. Eighty-eight percent (36 of 41) of the 

properties where we could evaluate compliance practices did not receive 

the compliance monitoring that was specified in agency policies or 

property deeds. In order to determine whether the agencies were 

performing compliance monitoring and properties were being used as 

agreed to by the grantees, we selected 58 properties for case study review 

that were conveyed during the 15-fiscal-year period from 1990 through 

2004. We chose properties from a 15-year period (i.e., versus 5-year period) 

because the longer time frame would increase the likelihood that most 

properties would have an established compliance history. The 58 properties 

were chosen because they represented a mix of public uses, locations, 

stages of development (e.g., in planning versus completed), and 

compliance methods and histories. A list of the 58 properties we selected 

as case studies can be found in appendix III, and more information on our 

methodology for selecting properties can be found in appendix I. 
Page 24 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

For 41 of the 58 properties we selected for case study review, we were able 

to evaluate whether the agencies performed compliance monitoring 

consistent with the property deeds and the agencies’ compliance policies. 

We were unable to evaluate compliance oversight for 17 properties we 

selected because 8 recently conveyed properties, as expected, did not yet 

have a compliance history;20 4 properties had already reverted to the 

federal government;21 and we were unable to obtain compliance 

information from the agencies for 5 properties.22 As shown in table 4, 36 of 

the 41 properties (88 percent) where we could evaluate compliance 

practices received inconsistent compliance oversight–that is, they did not 

receive the compliance monitoring spelled out in the agencies’ policies and 

property deeds. 

Table 3: Consistency of Compliance Oversight Performed for Case Study Properties 

in Accordance with Requirements in Agencies’ Policies and Property Deeds

Source: GAO.

a

This program is part of the Department of the Interior.

20These properties include the Federal Building/USDA Lab property, the U.S. Classic 

Courthouse property, the U.S. Custom House property, and the Communication Site - 

Homestead AFB property; a Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD property, the George property, 

and two Defense Depot – Ogden, UT properties.

21The four reverted properties were the NIKE PH-02 property; the Milford Lake property; the 

Defense Distribution Depot Ogden, Building 42 property; and the Former Petersburg 

Correctional Institute (portion) property. 

22We did not receive compliance information from MARAD for one Long Beach, CA - 

NAVSHIPYD property; and from the Federal Lands to Parks Program for four properties that 

were part of the former Naval Station Puget Sound at Sand Point. These were the Sand Point 

Playground Parcel, Sand Point Magnuson Park, Portion Sand Point Magnuson Park, and 

Sand Point Puget Sound, WA NAVSTA properties.

Compliance 

oversight

Federal 

Lands to 

Parks 

Programa

Historic 

Surplus 

Property 

Programa Education GSA HHS HUD Total

Inconsistent 8 2 10 7 8 1 36

Consistent 2 0 3 0 0 0 5

Number of 

properties 

evaluated 10 2 13 7 8 1 41
Page 25 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Note: This table includes only the 41 properties for which we could evaluate the consistency of 

compliance oversight and the sponsoring agencies responsible for performing this oversight. We were 

unable to evaluate the consistency of compliance oversight for 17 properties we selected for case 

study review because 8 recently conveyed properties did not yet have a compliance history, 4 

properties had already reverted back to the federal government, and we were unable to obtain 

compliance information from the agencies for 5 properties. 

Specifically, compliance records provided to us by GSA and the sponsoring 

agencies indicated that a number of grantees did not consistently submit 

utilization reports as specified in their property deeds and, in some cases, 

the agencies did not respond to the grantees’ failure to report in a timely 

manner. In other cases, the agencies did not conduct site inspections as 

frequently as required by their compliance policies. For example, we found 

that 

• 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 
Page 26 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

• Property Program compliance records did not include the one 

utilization report purportedly filed by the state.23

In other instances, sponsoring agencies took a number of years to respond 

to missing utilization reports, as the following examples illustrate.

• 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 

23The compliance records provided to us showed that the Portion Howard A. Hanson Dam 

King County, Washington and Olympia Federal Building properties monitored by HHS and 

the Historic Surplus Property Program, respectively, also received site inspections not 

consistent with the agencies’ policies and procedures.
Page 27 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

must be performed. Compliance records provided by the agencies 

indicated that the grantee for only 1 of the 41 properties we evaluated had 

been released from utilization reporting requirements.24

Site inspections were also performed inconsistently for 16 of the 41 

properties we evaluated. As noted in table 3, site inspections are required 

by seven of the sponsoring agencies responsible for compliance 

monitoring. Agency policies for HHS, GSA, and Interior’s Federal Lands to 

Parks Program and Historic Surplus Property Program state that PBC 

program officials are required to perform site inspections for each of their 

properties once every 5 years, yet compliance records provided by these 

agencies showed that inspections did not always occur as often as 

required. For example, GSA policies require that GSA conduct site 

inspections once every 5 years. However, according to the documents GSA 

provided us, the agency has conducted only one site inspection of the 

former U.S. Post Office and Courthouse property in Kansas City, Kansas, 

since this property was conveyed in 1995 for correctional use. Similarly, 

HHS’s policies and procedures require site inspections at least once every 5 

years. However, according to the documents HHS provided us, the agency 

has conducted only one site inspection at the Midway NIKE Housing Site 

Kent, Washington property that was conveyed in 1994 for transitional 

housing. The sole documented site inspection occurred before the 

conveyance, when this property was still being leased by the grantee.

Although some agencies’ compliance policies allow program staff 

flexibility with respect to the frequency of site inspections, there was no 

indication in the compliance records for any of the 41 properties we 

evaluated that site inspection requirements had been waived. For example, 

compliance records for the Little Cottonwood Park property did not 

include documentation that the agency no longer found it necessary to 

conduct site inspections according to the 5 year schedule in the Federal 

Lands to Parks Program’s compliance policy, even though the last 

documented site inspection was more than 5 years ago.

24Education’s compliance records for two Valley Forge General Hospital properties 

conveyed to the Valley Forge Christian College showed that the PBC program administrator 

waived the College’s utilization reporting requirement because Education was so frequently 

in contact with the grantee that Education “knew more about the status of these properties 

and the College’s future plans than about most other properties in the department’s 

inventory.”
Page 28 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

GSA is the only sponsoring agency that relies solely on site inspections for 

compliance monitoring. According to GSA’s compliance policy, site 

inspections are to be performed for a property once every 5 years. Since 

the agency is a central management agency of the federal government and 

not a “program” agency like the other sponsoring agencies, GSA officials 

said that site inspections instead of self-reporting are a more effective way 

for GSA to monitor compliance and ensure that properties are used as 

agreed to by grantees. Nonetheless, compliance records provided by GSA 

indicated that none of the seven properties that GSA was responsible for 

monitoring received site inspections according to the time frame outlined 

in the agency’s compliance policies. For example, the Riverside Regional 

Jail Authority said it was not aware of any site inspections nor had it had 

any contact with GSA since a portion of the Former Petersburg 

Correctional Institute property was conveyed to it in 1992. 

In total, 36 of the 41 properties, or 88 percent, where we could evaluate 

compliance practices did not receive the monitoring specified in agency 

policies or the property deed. As a result, we have concerns that 

compliance monitoring of PBC properties is not being performed 

consistently under each agency’s specified policies or property deeds, and 

as such PBC properties could be vulnerable to uses other than those that 

were agreed to by the grantee.

Despite Inconsistent 

Compliance Monitoring, 

Most Case Study Properties 

Were Used as Agreed to by 

the Grantee

Despite concerns and challenges with respect to compliance monitoring 

and program management, 51 of the 58 properties we visited appeared to 

be used as agreed to by the grantee under the terms of the conveyance and 

7 were not. Of the 7 properties, 4 had reverted to the federal government, 2 

had not been fully developed, and 1 was not being used as agreed to by the 

grantee in the deed. Most of the properties we visited were being used for a 

variety of purposes, including parks and recreational facilities, educational 

institutions, and homeless services. Others, though fewer, 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 
Page 29 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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,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, 

25The New Jewish High School has recently been renamed the Gann Academy.
Page 30 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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 
Page 31 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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 
Page 32 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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 
Page 33 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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 SelfReporting 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 
Page 34 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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 

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.

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 

Agency

Federal 

Lands to 

Parks 

Programa

Historic 

Surplus 

Property 

Programa Education GSA HHS HUD FAA MARAD

Utilization 

report

Biennial Biennial Annual or 

biennial 

Not required Annual Quarterly to 

annually 

At the 

discretion of 

FAA

Annual, as 

required by 

deeds

Site 

inspection

Biennial until 

use is 

implemented; 

intervals not to 

exceed 5 years 

thereafterb

Biennial until 

use is 

implemented; 

intervals not to 

exceed 5 years 

thereafter

Within first 

12 months; 

as needed 

thereafter

Every 5 

years

Within first 

12 months, 

at 1-5 year 

intervals 

thereafter

Quarterly for 

first 48 

months; 

annually 

thereafter

Once every 4 

years

None 

specified
Page 35 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

how agency staff should conduct compliance monitoring for the PBC 

properties in their inventories. The handbooks used by Education and 

HHS include separate chapters on compliance and remedial actions, 

abrogation, reversions, utilization reporting, and site inspections. The 

chapters on compliance and remedial actions offer program staff 

detailed guidance for investigating and reporting various compliance 

issues, such as failure to utilize the property, unauthorized sale of the 

property, or failure to provide utilization reports to the agency. The 

chapters devoted to site inspections provide program staff with 

guidance on how to review and file reports and perform site inspections. 

Similarly, GSA’s compliance manual, known as the Executive Order 

Surveys and Compliance Inspections Handbook, includes information 

on how site inspections should be performed by GSA staff for wildlife 

conservation and correctional use PBCs. The manual provides a 

compliance report format for both uses as well as instructions on how 

frequently site inspections should be performed and how inspection 

paperwork should be processed. According to GSA officials, GSA is in 

the process of updating the manual26 to include information and 

guidance on performing compliance oversight for emergency 

management response and law enforcement public uses, which did not 

exist when the manual was originally created in 1996. 

• 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 

26GSA’s new compliance manual is titled the Utilization/Compliance Desk Guide. 
Page 36 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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. 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 

27Conveyances of surplus port properties as PBCs were authorized by the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (P. L. No. 103-160). MARAD promulgated rules under 

46 CFR Part 387.
Page 37 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

program include a reversion clause, which protects the government’s 

interests in the property. These clauses state, in general, that the federal 

government has the right to reversion if the grantee fails to comply with 

deed restrictions or to correct noncompliance. In addition to the standard 

reversion clause, some agencies include information about how much time 

the grantee has to correct noncompliance and what procedure the 

sponsoring agency will follow to implement the reversion. 

Education, HHS, GSA, FAA, and Interior (Federal Lands to Park Program 

and Historic Surplus Property Program) have also developed separate 

policies and procedures, some of which include criteria for determining 

when a reversion should occur and processes for bringing the property 

back to the federal government Two agencies—HUD and MARAD—have 

not developed such policies and procedures. We found that the substance 

of the agencies’ reversion policies, like that of their compliance policies, 

varied. Examples of agency reversion policies follow.

• 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 
Page 38 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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 
Page 39 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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.
Page 40 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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 
Page 41 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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 
Page 42 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

types of public uses have been created for correctional,28 homeless,29 port 

facilities,30 law enforcement,31 emergency management response,32 and selfhelp housing.33 The McKinney-Vento Act, as amended, and BRAC also 

altered the PBC process by adding new procedural requirements for 

homeless use consideration and for the disposal of surplus military 

property. In addition, other federal laws such as the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 196934 (NEPA) and the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 196635 (NHPA) have affected the PBC process. 

In the past, we reported that the complex legal and budgetary environment 

in which real property managers operate has a significant impact on real 

property decisionmaking.36 In the disposal area, a range of laws intended to 

address other objectives challenge agencies’ efforts to dispose of unneeded 

property, including properties disposed of through the PBC program. For 

example, agencies are required under NEPA to consider the environmental 

impact of their decisions to dispose of property. Generally speaking, 

agencies are responsible for environmental cleanup prior to disposal. 

These costs can be considerable and can involve years of study. In another 

example, for properties with historic designations—which are common in 

the federal portfolio—agencies are required by NHPA to ensure that 

historic preservation is factored into how the property is eventually used. 

The Property Act further specifies that unneeded property first be offered 

to other federal agencies; and the McKinney-Vento Act sets forth 

requirements that consideration be given to making unneeded property 

available to assist the homeless.

2840 U.S.C.§ 553(b)(1).

2942 U.S.C. § 11411.

3040 U.S.C.§ 554.

3140 U.S.C. § 553(b)(2).

3240 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3).

3340 U.S.C. § 550(f).

3442 U.S.C. § 4321 et. seq.

3516 U.S.C. § 470 et. seq.

36GAO-03-122.
Page 43 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

The McKinney-Vento Act Signed into law in 1987, the McKinney-Vento Act created additional 

requirements for the disposal of surplus property though the PBC program. 

Some sponsoring agencies reported that McKinney-Vento Act requirements 

have delayed the PBC process for the disposal of civilian property. The 

McKinney-Vento Act requires that all excess, surplus, unutilized, and 

underutilized federal property be considered for homeless use purposes 

before the property is made available for any of the other disposal 

methods.37 To do so, HUD collects information from 26 federal landholding 

agencies on all unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus properties; 

evaluates each property’s suitability for homeless use; and publishes a list 

of these properties in the Federal Register. Many of the properties reported 

as excess are not suitable for homeless use for diverse reasons such as 

environmental contamination, distance from existing communities or 

public transportation, or location within a military installation. 

All former civilian agency and non-BRAC surplus properties deemed 

suitable for homeless use by HUD must go through a 60-day holding period 

during which the property is ineligible for disposal for any purpose other 

than for homeless use. HHS is responsible for accepting and reviewing 

applications for homeless use from state and local governments and certain 

nonprofit entities. Interested homeless representatives must submit to HHS 

a written notice of intent to apply for a property for homeless use during 

the 60-day holding period. After applicants have given notice of intent to 

apply, federal law provides them up to 90 days to submit their application 

to HHS, and grants HHS the discretion to extend the time frame if 

necessary. Once HHS has received an application, it has 25 days to review, 

accept, or decline the application. During the entire application process, 

each property under consideration is ineligible for disposal for any other 

purpose, including other public benefit uses. Thus, in total, a surplus real 

property determined suitable for homeless use might be ineligible for 

consideration for other disposal opportunities for more than 175 days. 

Because of amendments to BRAC, the process for considering the use of 

property at any military installation for homeless use differs from that for 

former civilian agency or non-BRAC surplus real property. Homeless use 

considerations for surplus BRAC property will be described in more detail 

below. 

3742 U.S.C. § 11411.
Page 44 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

The Defense Base Closure and 

Realignment Act of 1990 

Nearly half of the 298 identifiable properties conveyed in fiscal years 2000 

through 2004 and 27 of the 58 properties we selected as case studies were 

former BRAC properties. This is significant because sponsoring agency 

officials at Education, HHS, MARAD, and the Federal Lands to Parks

Program said that the BRAC process further complicates the PBC process 

because of the additional steps and paperwork involved in conveying 

former BRAC military property. Specifically, the unique role of the Local 

Redevelopment Authority (LRA) and a lack of consistency in how the 

military departments carry out property disposal also complicate the PBC 

process. As previously noted, the disposal of BRAC property typically 

involves an LRA made up of community members that are responsible for 

planning the future use of the former military property. The LRA is afforded 

up to 270 days to complete a redevelopment plan that details how all 

surplus real property associated with the closed or realigned installation 

will be reused or redeveloped, including property disposed of as PBCs. In 

particular, the redevelopment plan must balance the needs of the homeless 

with the need for economic and other redevelopment. HUD provides 

technical assistance and determines if the reuse plans meets statutory 

requirements relating to the homeless. The LRA’s responsibilities to 

generate a redevelopment plan while considering the needs of the 

homeless can add considerable time and complexity to the PBC process. 

For example, according to HUD’s Guidebook on Military Base Reuse and 

Homeless Assistance, if time limits were stretched to the greatest possible 

extent, the process of reviewing BRAC property for homeless use and 

generating a redevelopment plan could take as long as 540 days after the 

property is listed as surplus in the Federal Register. These time frames 

were reconfirmed by an Army BRAC official. 

The PBC process was further complicated by GSA’s delegation of disposal 

authority to the Secretary of Defense, as required by the Defense Base 

Closure and Realignment Act of 1990.38 This authority was further 

delegated within DOD to each of the three military departments: the Army, 

Navy, and Air Force. According to DOD officials, DOD headquarters is not 

directly involved in the disposal of surplus BRAC real property, nor does it 

play a coordinating role in the disposal process other than to gather 

information from the three military departments for its annual report to 

GSA. Consequently, each of the three military departments establishes its 

own policies and procedures for property disposal as long as they adhere to 

DOD’s Base Reuse Implementation Manual (BRIM) and BRAC 

38Pub. L. No. 101-510 § 2905 (b), 10 U.S. C. 2687 note (1990).
Page 45 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

implementing regulations,39 which served as the principal guidance for 

BRAC property disposal.40 As a result of this flexibility, each military 

service has established its own approach to BRAC property disposal, such 

as the roles assigned to the principal stakeholders. For example, although 

BRIM states that the military services will make the final determination on 

how all former BRAC property will be disposed of, an Army BRAC official 

said that in practice the LRA often has significant influence on how each 

parcel of land at former Army facilities will be disposed of. In contrast, 

Navy officials told us that the Navy makes the final determination on the 

allocation of the property among the various disposal methods, including 

PBCs. The lack of uniform procedures across the military departments 

adds confusion to the already complex PBC process because the 

sponsoring agencies have to follow different procedures with each of the 

military departments.

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, 

3932 CFR 174-176.

40BRIM was the primary DOD guidance for the disposal of surplus real property during 

BRAC rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995, the time period during which the properties we 

selected as case studies were conveyed. DOD updated BRIM for the 2005 round of BRAC 

and renamed it the Base Realignment and Redevelopment Manual (BRRM). 
Page 46 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

protection, and environmental cleanup of a property once it reverts. A 

number of agencies said that the issue of who is responsible for paying for 

these costs—the sponsoring agency, GSA, DOD, or the grantee—has not 

yet been clearly defined. These factors have made it difficult for agencies to 

take reversionary actions without budgeted resources of their own. 

In addition, according to some sponsoring agencies, in recent years GSA 

has opposed reversions suggested by the sponsoring agencies. For 

example, according to an Education official, GSA does not encourage 

enforcement actions that result in reversions for noncompliance and has 

exercised its statutory authority to object to suggested reversions, 

preventing the sponsoring agencies from taking back title to properties that 

are in long-term noncompliance and leaving the agencies with no 

alternative solutions. The official noted that GSA’s policies on reversion 

have a chilling effect on all reversions and compliance efforts since it is 

virtually impossible to enforce compliance without the ability to take back 

title, given that other alternatives require voluntary cooperation by 

grantees or cooperation from the United States Attorney in litigation in 

federal court. An HHS official expressed similar concerns, stating 

“GSA will not accept property it determines is not marketable. Therefore, it is very difficult 

to revert those properties and enforce compliance. The failure of GSA to accept the return 

of properties makes it very difficult for HHS to adequately carry out its mission in assuring 

that the properties are used in accordance with established regulations.” 

According to HHS, in one instance, GSA’s refusal to take back a 

noncompliant homeless use property in Warren, Michigan, resulted in the 

property sitting vacant for about 4 years and the structures deteriorating to 

the point where they had to be demolished by the new grantee.

GSA program officials said that before GSA will approve an agency’s 

request for a property to revert to the federal government, it must consider 

a number of factors, which will determine whether reacquiring the 

property is in the best interest of the government. The factors include the 

overall risk and financial burden to the government, the marketability of 

the property, and the ease of redisposing of the property. According to GSA, 

the greatest risk that reversion poses is that properties can remain in the 

inventory for prolonged periods of time, require additional funds for 

maintenance and protection, and be difficult to redispose of by transfer, 

reconveyance, or sale. GSA’s concerns about the risk and uncertainty of 

reverted property were confirmed by officials at the Federal Lands to Parks 

Program.
Page 47 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

As discussed earlier, DOD’s involvement in the reversion process is unclear. 

DOD’s BRIM, the primary guidance for implementing BRAC and disposing 

of surplus real property as PBCs, does not specifically address how 

reversions of BRAC property should be handled and whether DOD takes 

back noncompliant property.41 According to DOD headquarters officials, 

DOD is not involved in the PBC reversion process. Instead, DOD officials 

noted that it is the responsibility of the sponsoring agencies to monitor 

compliance for former BRAC property and of GSA to take back property 

when grantees are found to be noncompliant. However, we received 

differing statements from military department officials about how the 

reversion process works for BRAC property, as the following examples 

illustrate. 

• 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 

41DOD updated BRIM for the 2005 round of BRAC and renamed it the Base Realignment 

and Redevelopment Manual (BRRM). BRRM also does not specifically address how 

reversions of BRAC property should be handled and whether DOD takes back noncompliant 

property.
Page 48 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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.
Page 49 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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 
Page 50 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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’ 
Page 51 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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 
Page 52 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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 
Page 53 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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 
Page 54 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

draft report. HHS suggested that we determine whether reversion is a 

suitable method for compliance enforcement and whether GSA’s and DOD’s 

objections to reversions have merit. Determining whether reversion is a 

suitable method for addressing noncompliance was beyond the scope of 

this review. We agree that the unclear reversion process and competing 

viewpoints on reversions are a concern, but leave the consideration of 

uniform standards and guidance for the PBC program including standard 

criteria and processes for reversions of property, to GSA, DOD, and the 

sponsoring agencies.

HHS had a number of comments on our findings on PBC property data. 

HHS noted that GSA and DOD maintain responsibility for a number of 

properties that are never assigned to a sponsoring agency and therefore 

would not be in the sponsoring agencies’ property records. Furthermore, 

HHS said that it provides GSA and DOD with a significant amount of 

information about each property it conveys and HHS believes that the lack 

of reliable, consistent PBC property data is largely due to GSA’s and DOD’s 

failure to use the property information furnished to them by the sponsoring 

agencies and to update their property records. As a result, HHS expressed 

concern about whether GSA and DOD would be able to efficiently develop 

a governmentwide database of PBC properties without in-depth 

discussions with the sponsoring agencies. We believe that GSA, DOD and 

the sponsoring agencies should be involved in the development of 

consistent, reliable PBC data and made such a recommendation. HHS 

suggested that if a governmentwide database of real property information 

were to be developed, it should be Web-based and accessible to the federal 

agencies so that property information could be updated on a recurring 

basis. HHS said that in accordance with our recommendation, it will 

dedicate a field for reversions in its database of PBC properties. 

HHS disagreed with our statement that only GSA and the Air Force provide 

unique identifying codes for each property. HHS commented that it also has 

a unique identification number for each property conveyed by HHS, which 

it uses in conjunction with GSA and DOD identifying codes. HHS did not 

provide these numbers to us during our audit. Furthermore, HHS said that 

in its experience, the names of properties frequently change as properties 

are transferred between GSA and DOD and the sponsoring agencies, 

requiring HHS to verify the identity of the parcel of property assigned to it. 

We believe HHS’s statements corroborate our finding that a PBCprogramwide system of coding properties does not exist and support our 

recommendation that reliable, consistent PBC property data be developed 
Page 55 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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 
Page 56 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

through its agency liaison. These comments have been incorporated into 

the report where appropriate. 

As agreed with our office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to other 

interested congressional committees and the Administrator of GSA, the 

Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, the Secretary of Education, the 

Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Secretary of 

Transportation. We will also make copies available to others upon request. 

In addition, the report will be available at not charge on the GAO Web site 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 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.

Mark L. Goldstein

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Page 57 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

Our objectives were to (1) determine the number, types, and locations of 

surplus real properties disposed of using the public benefit conveyance 

(PBC) program in fiscal years 2000 through 2004; (2) assess General 

Services Administration (GSA), Department of Defense (DOD), and 

sponsoring agency efforts to ensure that properties are used as agreed to 

by the grantee; and (3) identify any challenges facing agencies and grantees 

with regard to the program. To determine the number, types, and locations 

of surplus real properties disposed of using the PBC program in fiscal years 

2000 through 2004, it was necessary to develop a database of properties 

conveyed by the PBC program because a comprehensive database does not 

exist. To compile a database of properties, we obtained data from GSA and 

DOD on all the properties conveyed as PBCs in fiscal years 2000 through 

2004 (i.e., October 1, 1999, to September 30, 2004). We also asked each of 

the sponsoring agencies to provide us with a complete list of properties for 

which they gained compliance monitoring responsibilities during this time 

period. We asked GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring agencies to provide us 

with the following pieces of information for each property on their list: 

property name, description, address, sponsoring agency,1

 grantee including 

contact information, date of conveyance, intended public use, and 

compliance history including dates of compliance reports or inspections. 

Agencies provided us with both electronic data and case files. 

We compiled the data into a database of properties and made note of 

missing fields of data. In order to verify that each sponsoring agency was 

aware of its responsibilities to monitor each property, we compared each 

property on GSA’s and DOD’s lists with those on the sponsoring agencies’ 

lists. We used six pieces of information for each property to determine 

whether properties on both lists were the same. These were the property 

name, public use, grantee, acreage, location, and date conveyed. Properties 

were considered the same if data for a property on GSA’s or DOD’s lists was 

the same in four or more fields as a property on the sponsoring agency’s 

list, and they were considered similar if between two and three fields were 

the same. We determined the total number of identifiable properties by 

summing the properties considered to be the same or similar. Because 

these properties were on either GSA’s or DOD’s lists and the sponsoring 

agencies’ lists, we have reasonable assurance that these properties were 

conveyed and that the sponsoring agencies were aware of their 

responsibilities to monitor them. A number of properties on GSA’s and 

DOD’s lists could not be matched with a property on the sponsoring 

1

We asked only that GSA and DOD provide information on the sponsoring agency.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 58 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 59 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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.
Page 60 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Appendix II

Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties 

Conveyed, Fiscal Years 2000-2004 ApendxiI

Property name 

Date 

conveyed/ 

reverted Acres

Conveyance 

type Grantee name

BRAC/nonBRAC

Alaska 

1 Bethel Army Advisor Housing - Lot 

11

Apr-02 0.3 Homeless Tundra Women’s Coalition Non-BRAC

2 Dillingham Wharf Nov-03 2.4 Other (Port 

facility)a

Not provided Non-BRAC

3 Gibson Cove Jan-04 37.1 Parks and 

recreation

City of Kodiak Non-BRAC

Alabama

4 Mobile Point Light Station Mar-01 10.1 Parks and 

recreation

Alabama Historical Commission Non-BRAC

5 Federal Building Aug-01 1.2 Education Cullman City School System Non-BRAC

6 Jasper FB&CT Aug-02 1.4 Education Walker County Board of Ed Non-BRAC

7 Coosa River Storage Annex 

(CRSA)

Apr-03 2832.4 Parks and 

recreation

Talladega County Commission Non-BRAC

8 Sand Island Lighthouse Sept-03 0.2 Parks and 

recreation

Town of Dauphin Island Non-BRAC

9 Fort McClellan Apr-00 7.0 Public health WWTP BRAC

10 Fort McClellan Oct-02 130.0 Parks and 

recreation

Anniston BRAC

Arkansas

11 Fort Chaffee Jul-01 583.0 Parks and 

recreation

Sabastian County BRAC

12 Low Level Windshear Alert 

System #4

Mar-00 0.4 Public health Not provided Non-BRAC

13 US Army Reserve Center #05571 Dec-01 7.0 Public health Not provided Non-BRAC

14 AR0006ZZ Blytheville Federal 

Bldg

Jan-03 1.0 Historic 

monument

City of Blytheville Non-BRAC

15 Sandy Beach Recreation Area Feb-03 48.3 Parks and 

recreation

Not provided Non-BRAC

16 AR0081ZZ Hot Springs SSA Fed 

Bldg

Aug-03 0.6 Homeless Quapaw House, Inc. Non-BRAC

17 Fort Chaffee Aug-01 412.0 Public health City of Ft. Smith (Landfill 

extension)

BRAC

18 Eaker Mar-00 48.7 Parks and 

recreation

YMCA BRAC

19 Eaker Sept-02 10.4 Public health HHS for Water/sewer BRAC

20 Eaker Sept-02 105.5 Public airport Blytheville-Gosnell Regional 

Airport Authority

BRAC
Appendix II

Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties 

Conveyed, Fiscal Years 2000-2004

Page 61 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

21 Eaker Sept-02 78.8 Public airport Blytheville-Gosnell Regional 

Airport Authority

BRAC

22 Eaker Sept-02 1076.0 Public airport Blytheville-Gosnell Regional 

Airport Authority

BRAC

23 Eaker Sept-02 494.7 Public airport Blytheville-Gosnell Regional 

Airport Authority

BRAC

24 Eaker Sept-02 191.6 Public airport Blytheville-Gosnell Regional 

Airport Authority

BRAC

Arizona

25 Federal Building Aug-02 0.7 Parks and 

recreation

City Of Mesa Non-BRAC

26 Federal Building Aug-02 0.3 Other (Law 

enforcement)a

City of Prescott Non-BRAC

27 Por. Colorado River Basin Salinity May-03 640.0 Correctional AZ Dept. of Corrections Non-BRAC

28 INS Border Patrol Oct-03 0.9 Public health HHS Non-BRAC

29 Williams Dec-99 286.4 Education Arizona State University BRAC

30 Williams Dec-99 12.6 Public health City of Mesa BRAC

31 Williams Feb-00 1.7 Homeless House of Refugee Inc. BRAC

32 Williams Feb-01 18.1 Education Arizona State University BRAC

33 Williams Sept-02 0.8 Public health Flood Control District of Maricopa 

County

BRAC

34 Williams Apr-04 39.2 Public airport Williams Airport Gateway Authority BRAC

California

35 Parcel 2 Nov-99 11.4 Parks and 

recreation

City of Pomona Non-BRAC

36 Redding Reserve Site Dec-99 5.2 Homeless Vietnam Veterans of California Non-BRAC

37 Reclamation Unit LC-2 Trinity Mar-00 28.3 Parks and 

recreation

Lewiston Community Services Non-BRAC

38 Santa Rosa High Frequency 

Radio Station

Apr-02 69.2 Wildlife 

conservation

Not provided Non-BRAC

39 Former Calexico Border Patrol Jan-04 2.1 Education Imperial Co. Office of Education Non-BRAC

40 SSA Building - CA0184ZZ Mar-04 0.6 Homeless City of Modesto Non-BRAC

41 Fort Ord Sept-01 31.0 Education York Schools BRAC

42 Recreation Center #2, Fort Bragg Aug-03 4.0 Parks and 

recreation

City of Fayettsville BRAC

43 Sierra Army Depot Sept-03 67.0 Education Ft. Sage BRAC

44 Fort Ord Sept-03 3.0 Education Monterey College of Law BRAC

45 Fort Ord Sept-04 2.0 Homeless Housing Authority of Monterey 

County

BRAC

(Continued From Previous Page)

Property name 

Date 

conveyed/ 

reverted Acres

Conveyance 

type Grantee name

BRAC/nonBRAC
Appendix II

Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties 

Conveyed, Fiscal Years 2000-2004

Page 62 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

46 Long Beach, CA - NAVSTA Feb-00 1.5 Port facility City of Los Angeles BRAC

47 Long Beach, CA - NAVSTA Feb-00 14.3 Port facility Port of Los Angeles BRAC

48 Stockton, CA - NAVRESCEN Mar-00 4.3 Port facility Port of Stockton BRAC

49 San Francisco, CA - PWC Apr-00 3.0 Parks and 

recreation

City of Novato BRAC

50 San Francisco, CA - PWC Apr-00 3.6 Parks and 

recreation

City of Novato BRAC

51 San Francisco, CA - PWC Apr-00 7.3 Parks and 

recreation

City of Novato BRAC

52 San Francisco, CA - PWC Apr-00 1.7 Education Community Action Marin Inc. BRAC

53 San Francisco, CA - PWC Apr-00 3.0 Education Novato Unified School District BRAC

54 San Diego, CA - NTC Aug-00 9.0 Public health City of San Diego BRAC

55 San Diego, CA - NTC Feb-01 49.0 Parks and 

recreation

City of San Diego BRAC

56 Oakland, CA - Naval Hospital Sept-01 8.5 Education Seneca Center BRAC

57 Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD Oct-01 20.0 Port facility City of Long Beach BRAC

58 Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD Oct-01 25.0 Port facility City of Long Beach BRAC

59 Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD Oct-01 8.0 Port facility City of Long Beach BRAC

60 Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD Oct-01 70.0 Port facility City of Long Beach BRAC

61 Long Beach, CA - NAVSTA Oct-01 63.4 Port facility City of Long Beach BRAC

62 Long Beach, CA - NAVSTA Oct-01 134.1 Port facility City of Long Beach BRAC

63 Long Beach, CA - NAVSTA Oct-01 2.7 Port facility City of Long Beach BRAC

64 Tustin, CA - MCAS Nov-01 7.9 Parks and 

recreation

City of Irvine BRAC

65 Tustin, CA - MCAS Dec-02 20.0 Education Irvine Unified School District BRAC

66 Tustin, CA - MCAS Dec-02 10.0 Education Tustin Unified School District BRAC

67 Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD Nov-03 13.0 Education Marymount College BRAC

68 Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD Nov-03 24.0 Education Rolling Hills Preparatory School BRAC

69 Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD July-04 0.4 Port facility City of Los Angels/Port of Los 

Angeles

BRAC

70 Ontario Mar-01 8.4 Public airport Los Angeles Department of 

Airports

BRAC

71 March Aug-01 185.2 Public airport March Joint Powers Authority BRAC

72 March Nov-01 33.2 Public airport March Joint Powers Authority BRAC

73 March June-02 151.5 Public airport March Joint Powers Authority BRAC

74 McClellan Dec-02 6.4 Parks and 

recreation

North Highlands Recreational and 

Park District

BRAC

75 March July-03 11.3 Public airport March Joint Powers Authority BRAC

(Continued From Previous Page)

Property name 

Date 

conveyed/ 

reverted Acres

Conveyance 

type Grantee name

BRAC/nonBRAC
Appendix II

Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties 

Conveyed, Fiscal Years 2000-2004

Page 63 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

76 March Sept-04 15.0 Education Moreno Valley Unified School 

District

BRAC

77 George May-04 960.0 Public airport Victor Valley Airport Authority BRAC

78 George Oct-99 0.0 Public health City of Victorville BRAC

79 Castle Sept-04 1321.9 Public airport Castle Joint Powers Authority BRAC

Colorado

80 Lowry AFB Education Apr-02 11.0 Education Logan School Non-BRAC

81 Lowry AFB Remaining HHS Apr-02 10.0 Public health Colorado Department of Health Non-BRAC

82 Fitzsimons AMC Jan-01 105.0 Education City of Aurora BRAC

83 Fitzsimons AMC July-02 8.0 Parks and 

recreation

City of Aurora BRAC

84 Fitzsimons AMC Nov-02 3.0 Education UCHSC BRAC

85 Lowry Dec-99 98.5 Parks and 

recreation

City and County of Denver Parks BRAC

86 Lowry May-00 129.1 Education Colorado Community College BRAC

87 Lowry Nov-01 6.2 Public health Colorado Department of Health BRAC

88 Lowry Jan-02 1.6 Parks and 

recreation

City and County of Denver Parks BRAC

89 Lowry Apr-03 4.8 Public health City and County of Denver BRAC

90 Lowry June-03 1.9 Public health Third Way Center BRAC

Connecticut

91 FAA Direction Finder Apr-02 19.6 Parks and 

recreation

Town of Killingly Non-BRAC

92 New London, CT - NUSC/NUWC 

Det

Mar-00 0.7 Parks and 

recreation

State Dept. of Environmental 

Protection

BRAC

Delaware

93 UPH building June-00 0.0 Parks and 

recreation

Not provided Non-BRAC

Florida

94 Amelia Island Light Sept-00 2.4 Historic 

monument

The City of Fernandina Beach Non-BRAC

95 Crooked River Lighthouse 

Reservation

Nov-00 1.3 Parks and 

recreation

Not provided Non-BRAC

96 MacDill AFB RR Spur Mar-02 6.7 Parks and 

recreation

City of Tampa Non-BRAC

97 Lakeland Federal Property Aug-02 2.0 Parks and 

recreation

City of Lakeland, FL Non-BRAC

98 Lexington Terrace Sept-02 30.0 Parks and 

recreation

Escambia County Non-BRAC

(Continued From Previous Page)

Property name 

Date 

conveyed/ 

reverted Acres

Conveyance 

type Grantee name

BRAC/nonBRAC
Appendix II

Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties 

Conveyed, Fiscal Years 2000-2004

Page 64 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

99 Army Reserve Outdoor Training 

Facility

Nov-02 134.2 Parks and 

recreation

Not provided Non-BRAC

100 U.S. Classic Courthouse Aug-03 1.0 Historic 

monument

City of Tampa Non-BRAC

101 Federal Building/USDA Lab Nov-03 0.5 Historic 

monument

City of Winter Haven Non-BRAC

102 Communication Site - Homestead 

AFB

Feb-04 20.0 Law 

enforcement

City of Homestead Non-BRAC

103 U.S. Custom House May-04 0.5 Historic 

monument

Broward County Board of 

Commissioners

Non-BRAC

104 Fort Meade July-01 348.0 Public airport Anne Arundel County BRAC

105 Key West, FL - NAS Feb-00 0.8 Parks and 

recreation

City of Key West BRAC

106 Cecil Field - NAS (Jacksonville, 

FL)

Apr-00 2016.6 Parks and 

recreation

City of Jacksonville BRAC

107 Key West, FL - NAS July-00 43.8 Parks and 

recreation

City of Key West BRAC

108 Key West, FL - NAS Aug-00 16.5 Parks and 

recreation

City of Key West BRAC

109 Key West, FL - NAS Aug-00 3.3 Parks and 

recreation

City of Key West BRAC

110 Key West, FL - NAS Aug-00 26.5 Historic 

monument

Monroe County BRAC

111 Cecil Field - NAS (Jacksonville, 

FL)

Sept-00 27.9 Public airport Jacksonville Ports Authority BRAC

112 Orlando, FL - NTC Sept-00 2.9 Public airport GOAA BRAC

113 Orlando, FL - NTC Sept-00 38.0 Public airport Greater Orlando Aviation Authority 

via City

BRAC

114 Orlando, FL - NTC Sept-00 42.4 Public airport Greater Orlando Aviation Authority 

via City

BRAC

115 Cecil Field - NAS (Jacksonville, 

FL)

Mar-03 12.8 Public airport Jacksonville Ports Authority BRAC

Georgia

116 Blythe Island Range Rear Light Apr-01 10.0 Parks and 

recreation

Glynn County Non-BRAC

117 (P) Ft. Benning Military 

Reservation

Dec-03 14.4 Parks and 

recreation

City of Columbus Non-BRAC

Guam

118 Agat Parcel 3 Oct-02 5.0 Other (Public 

health)a

GOVGUAM Non-BRAC

(Continued From Previous Page)

Property name 

Date 

conveyed/ 

reverted Acres

Conveyance 

type Grantee name

BRAC/nonBRAC
Appendix II

Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties 

Conveyed, Fiscal Years 2000-2004

Page 65 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

119 Agana, Guam - NAS Sept-00 43.4 Parks and 

recreation

Department of Parks and 

Recreation

BRAC

120 Agana, Guam - NAS Sept-00 1410.2 Public airport Guam International Airport 

Authority

BRAC

Hawaii

121 Barbers Point, HI - NAS Oct-00 20.0 Public health City & County of Honolulu BRAC

122 Barbers Point, HI - NAS Sept-00 21.0 Education State of Hawaii BRAC

Iowa

123 Fort Des Moines Motorpool June-04 0.9 Parks and 

recreation

NPS/City of Des Moines Non-BRAC

Idaho

124 Rexburg USARC Mar-01 2.5 Education Madison School District Non-BRAC

125 US Army Reserve Center July-01 2.8 Parks and 

recreation

City of Idaho Falls Non-BRAC

126 Boise Federal Building/Post Office July-04 1.4 Historic 

monument

Not provided Non-BRAC

Illinois

127 Radar Station Nov-99 10.0 Homeless Not provided Non-BRAC

128 Former National Guard Facility May-00 11.2 Parks and 

recreation

Not provided Non-BRAC

129 Glenview, IL - NAS Mar-00 94.7 Education Village of Vernon Hills BRAC

130 Glenview, IL - NAS Mar-00 12.2 Education Village of Vernon Hills BRAC

131 Glenview, IL - NAS Apr-00 2.8 Parks and 

recreation

Village of Vernon Hills BRAC

Indiana

132 Vincennes Federal Building Oct-99 0.6 Historic 

monument

Not provided Non-BRAC

133 Lock and Dam No. 47 (Old Dam 

Park)

Dec-00 2.6 Parks and 

recreation

Not provided Non-BRAC

134 SSA District Office Jan-04 0.6 Homeless Family Services of Elkhart County, 

Inc.

Non-BRAC

135 Jefferson Proving Ground Oct-99 221.0 Parks and 

recreation

Park BRAC

136 Jefferson Proving Ground Sept-04 403.0 Parks and 

recreation

Park BRAC

137 Grissom Mar-00 10.8 Public health City of Peru BRAC

Kansas

138 U.S. Reserve Center Annex July-00 0.4 Education Not provided Non-BRAC

(Continued From Previous Page)

Property name 

Date 

conveyed/ 

reverted Acres

Conveyance 

type Grantee name

BRAC/nonBRAC
Appendix II

Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties 

Conveyed, Fiscal Years 2000-2004

Page 66 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

139 Milford Lake Apr-03 119.5 Education Kansas State University of 

Agriculture and Applied Science

Non-BRAC

Kentucky

140 Black Gem Recreational Area Mar-01 6.6 Parks and 

recreation

Pike County Government Non-BRAC

141 Cannelton L&D, Cloverport 

Access St.

June-03 15.7 Parks and 

recreation

City of Cloverport Non-BRAC

142 Corbin SSA Bldg Sept-03 1.0 Education Corbin Independent School 

District

Non-BRAC

143 Licking River Access Site 12A Jan-04 20.6 Parks and 

recreation

City of Wilder Non-BRAC

144 Uniontown Ferry Access Site Jan-04 2.5 Parks and 

recreation

City of Uniontown Non-BRAC

145 Port Smithland Lock and Dam Oct-04 92.0 Parks and 

recreation

Not provided Non-BRAC

Louisiana

146 Portion of TR C-49 Apr-02 3.5 Wildlife 

conservation

LA Dept. of Wildlife Non-BRAC

147 Eugene M. Nettles U.S. ARC June-02 3.8 Homeless Not provided Non-BRAC

148 Opelousas Fed Bldg Aug-03 1.5 Other (Law 

enforcement)a

27th Judicial Dist. Attny. Non-BRAC

149 SSA Baton Rouge District Jan-04 1.1 Education Dept. of Education Non-BRAC

150 England June-04 151.5 Public airport England Economic & Industrial 

Development District

BRAC

Massachusetts

151 YTRN Granby Former Comm. 

Trans. Fac.

June-01 99.5 Parks and 

recreation

Commonwealth of Mass. Non-BRAC

152 Frederick C. Murphy Federal 

Center

Aug-01 22.3 Education Bentley College Non-BRAC

153 Frederick C. Murphy Federal 

Center

Oct-01 17.4 Education New Jewish High School, Inc. 

(Gann Academy)

Non-BRAC

154 Frederick C. Murphy Federal 

Center

Oct-01 25.0 Parks and 

recreation

City of Waltham Non-BRAC

155 Hingham Cohasset Sept-03 125.0 Parks and 

recreation

State Park BRAC

156 South Weymouth, MA - NAS Jan-01 28.0 Self-help 

housing

Elder Housing Corporation (City of 

Quincy)

BRAC

157 South Weymouth, MA - NAS May-03 220.2 Parks and 

recreation

South Shore Tri-Town 

Development Corp.

BRAC

158 South Weymouth, MA - NAS May-03 5.1 Parks and 

recreation

South Shore Tri-Town 

Development Corp.

BRAC

(Continued From Previous Page)

Property name 

Date 

conveyed/ 

reverted Acres

Conveyance 

type Grantee name

BRAC/nonBRAC
Appendix II

Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties 

Conveyed, Fiscal Years 2000-2004

Page 67 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

159 South Weymouth, MA - NAS May-03 1.2 Parks and 

recreation

South Shore Tri-Town 

Development Corp.

BRAC

160 South Weymouth, MA - NAS Feb-04 1.9 Parks and 

recreation

Town of Rockland BRAC

Maryland

161 Casson Neck Property July-01 12.5 Parks and 

recreation

Dorchester County Non-BRAC

162 Laplata Housing Apr-02 13.3 Homeless Southern Maryland Tri-County 

Community Action Committee

Non-BRAC

163 De LaSalle Building June-02 17.8 Education Archdiocese of Washington Non-BRAC

164 Stillpond Housing Units June-02 0.3 Homeless Crossroads Community, Inc Non-BRAC

165 Stillpond Housing Units June-02 0.3 Homeless Community Crossroads Inc Non-BRAC

166 Stillpond Housing Units June-02 0.4 Homeless Community Crossroads Inc Non-BRAC

167 Stillpond Housing Units June-02 0.4 Homeless Community Crossroads Inc Non-BRAC

168 Station Stillpond Mar-03 12.4 Parks and 

recreation

Not provided Non-BRAC

169 Annapolis, MD - NSWC Carderock 

DIV Det

Aug-02 24.0 Parks and 

recreation

Anne Arundel County, MD BRAC

Michigan

170 Seul Choix Point Light Feb-00 0.1 Historic 

monument

Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources

Non-BRAC

171 Benton Harbor Federal Building July-00 0.4 Historic 

monument

City of Benton Harbor Non-BRAC

172 South Haven Keeper's Dwelling July-00 0.7 Historic 

monument

City of South Haven Non-BRAC

173 Parcel 2 Aug-00 10.1 Historic 

monument

State of Michigan Non-BRAC

174 Muskegon Land Mar-04 1.0 Public health Not provided Non-BRAC

175 K.I. Sawyer Dec-99 1389.1 Public airport County of Marquette BRAC

176 K.I. Sawyer Apr-00 2.3 Public airport County of Marquette BRAC

177 Wurtsmith Feb-01 1.7 Education Charter Township of Oscoda BRAC

178 K.I. Sawyer Apr-02 1.3 Public airport County of Marquette BRAC

179 Wurtsmith Sept-02 848.6 Public airport Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport 

Authority

BRAC

180 K.I. Sawyer Sept-04 108.9 Public airport County of Marquette BRAC

Missouri

181 Monett, Barry Co. May-00 9.3 Parks and 

recreation

Not provided Non-BRAC

182 Seldalia Federal Bldg. July-01 0.8 Correctional Pettis County Non-BRAC

(Continued From Previous Page)

Property name 

Date 

conveyed/ 

reverted Acres

Conveyance 

type Grantee name

BRAC/nonBRAC
Appendix II

Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties 

Conveyed, Fiscal Years 2000-2004

Page 68 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

183 D.G. Hall Fed Bldg/Court Oct-01 0.4 Homeless Economic Security Corp. of 

Southwest Area

Non-BRAC

184 Columbia Federal Bldg Oct-03 0.8 Education Health Adventure Center Non-BRAC

185 NIKE Kansas City 30 Aug-03 20.0 Education Lone Jack School District BRAC

Mississippi

186 Greenwood Boat Ramp Apr-03 1.2 Parks and 

recreation

Not provided Non-BRAC

Montana

187 Canyon Ferry Reservoir Apr-03 8.5 Other 

(emergency 

management 

reponse)a

Canyon Ferry Fire Service Non-BRAC

North Carolina

188 Federal building May-00 0.4 Historic 

monument

Town of Rutherfordton Non-BRAC

189 McKinney Lake Fish Hatchery Jan-01 6.5 Parks and 

recreation

State of North Carolina Non-BRAC

190 USARC Building Site, 4.9 Acres Apr-02 4.9 Parks and 

recreation

Greenville Park & Rec. Non-BRAC

191 Oak Island Lighttower July-03 5.7 Parks and 

recreation

Town of Caswell Beach Non-BRAC

North Dakota

192 Grand Forks Safeguard Waterline May-01 Not 

provided

Public health HHS-North Valley Water District Non-BRAC

193 Grand Forks Safeguard Waterline Apr-02 97.0 Public health City of Park River Non-BRAC

194 117 Main St. Storage Bldg May-02 0.4 Historic 

monument

State Historical Society of North 

Dakota

Non-BRAC

195 Fort Totten Nov-02 44.0 Parks and 

recreation

NYC Parks and Recreation BRAC

Nebraska

196 Nebraska City Repair June-00 1.8 Parks and 

recreation

National Park Service Non-BRAC

New Hampshire

197 Pease Nov-99 151.9 Public airport Pease Development Authority BRAC

198 Pease Oct-03 2535.0 Public airport Pease Development Authority BRAC

New Jersey

199 Firehouse, BLDG 228 (Raritan) July-00 1.2 Education Not provided Non-BRAC

200 Electronic Station ESMT July-00 0.9 Other (Parks 

and recreation)a

Not provided Non-BRAC

(Continued From Previous Page)

Property name 

Date 

conveyed/ 

reverted Acres

Conveyance 

type Grantee name

BRAC/nonBRAC
Appendix II

Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties 

Conveyed, Fiscal Years 2000-2004

Page 69 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

201 Barnegat Recreation Facility Mar-01 0.7 Historic 

monument

Not provided Non-BRAC

202 Kearny Naval Reserve Center Mar-02 2.6 Homeless Not provided Non-BRAC

203 Navy Housing June-02 6.5 Parks and 

recreation

Not provided Non-BRAC

204 Chapel Hill Front Range Light Oct-03 0.4 Parks and 

recreation

Not provided Non-BRAC

205 Fort Monmouth Apr-03 8.0 Education Brookdale College BRAC

206 Fort Monmouth May-03 142.0 Parks and 

recreation

Wall Township BRAC

207 Fort Monmouth June-03 1.0 Public health Wall Township (Pumphouse) BRAC

208 Camp Kilmer Sept-03 30.0 Parks and 

recreation

City of Edison BRAC

209 Trenton, NJ - NAWC-AD May-01 28.1 Public airport Mercer County BRAC

Nevada

210 Stewart Avenue Federal Building May-02 2.0 Historic 

monument

City of Las Vegas Non-BRAC

New York

211 Galeville Airport Feb-00 55.0 Parks and 

recreation

Not provided Non-BRAC

212 Braddock Point Light Land (Tract 

2)

July-00 0.0 Parks and 

recreation

Not provided Non-BRAC

213 Turkey Point Light Aug-02 8.2 Parks and 

recreation

Not provided Non-BRAC

214 Fort Totten Dec-01 37.0 Education NYC BRAC

215 Fort Totten Jan-02 2.0 Homeless Eastern Paralyzed Vets of America BRAC

216 Plattsburgh Apr-00 31.6 Parks and 

recreation

City of Plattsburgh BRAC

217 Griffis June-04 1344.0 Public airport Airport Authority BRAC

Ohio

218 VOA Relay Site Mar-00 20.0 Education Not provided Non-BRAC

219 Old ANT Huron Sept-03 0.4 Parks and 

recreation

City of Huron Non-BRAC

220 Rickenbacker Nov-99 18.7 Public airport Columbus Regional Airport 

Authority

BRAC

221 Rickenbacker June-01 18.3 Public airport Columbus Regional Airport 

Authority

BRAC

222 Rickenbacker Aug-02 6.9 Public airport Columbus Regional Airport 

Authority

BRAC

(Continued From Previous Page)

Property name 

Date 

conveyed/ 

reverted Acres

Conveyance 

type Grantee name

BRAC/nonBRAC
Appendix II

Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties 

Conveyed, Fiscal Years 2000-2004

Page 70 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

223 Rickenbacker Sept-03 310.3 Public airport Columbus Regional Airport 

Authority

BRAC

224 Newark Sept-03 13.3 Public airport Licking County Regional Airport 

Authority

BRAC

Oregon

225 Pt. Orford Radio Site Dec-00 5.2 Parks and 

recreation

Oregon State Parks Non-BRAC

226 Oregon City Federal Building Feb-04 1.5 Other (Law 

enforcement)a

Clackamas County Non-BRAC

Pennsylvania

227 Maxwell Locks and Dam May-00 2.7 Parks and 

recreation

Not provided Non-BRAC

228 Uniontown Federal Building Oct-01 0.4 Correctional Fayette County Non-BRAC

229 Naval Air Warfare Center May-02 39.0 Parks and 

recreation

Township of Northampton Non-BRAC

230 Ambridge SSA Bldg Oct-02 0.6 Education Ambridge Area School District Non-BRAC

231 Cowanesque Lake Project Dec-02 2.6 Homeless United Christian Inc Non-BRAC

232 Bristol SSA Bldg May-03 0.7 Education Bristol Borough School District Non-BRAC

233 Tacony Warehouse Sept-02 1.0 Parks and 

recreation

PA Fish and Boat Commission BRAC

234 Warminster, PA – NAWC Nov-00 243.0 Parks and 

recreation

Warminster Township BRAC

235 NIKE Site PH-02 Sept-00 8.8 Parks and 

recreation

Bristol Township Non-BRAC

Puerto Rico

236 Primate Research Center July-00 270.0 Education Not provided Non-BRAC

Rhode Island

237 Davisville, RI - NCBC June-00 189.0 Parks and 

recreation

North Kingstown BRAC

South Carolina

238 Greenwood Federal Building Oct-01 0.6 Parks and 

recreation

Greenwood County Non-BRAC

239 Airport Dec-01 1240.0 Public airport Horry City Airport Non-BRAC

240 Golf Course Dec-01 150.0 Parks and 

recreation

City of Myrtle Beach Non-BRAC

241 Social Security Admin./Federal 

Bldg

Jan-02 0.6 Homeless Interfaith Hospitality Network of 

York County

Non-BRAC

242 Sumter Federal Building Nov-02 0.5 Education Sumter Technology Ceter, Inc. Non-BRAC

243 Charleston, SC - NAVSHIPYD July-00 25.0 Parks and 

recreation

Charleston County Parks and 

Recreation

BRAC

(Continued From Previous Page)

Property name 

Date 

conveyed/ 

reverted Acres

Conveyance 

type Grantee name

BRAC/nonBRAC
Appendix II

Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties 

Conveyed, Fiscal Years 2000-2004

Page 71 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

244 Myrtle Beach Mar-00 2.5 Education Cathedral Bible College BRAC

245 Myrtle Beach Aug-01 292.5 Parks and 

recreation

City of Myrtle Beach BRAC

246 Myrtle Beach Dec-02 1205.6 Public airport Horry County BRAC

Tennessee

247 Former Marine Corps Reserve 

Center 

Oct-01 0.01 Education Washington County Dept. of 

Education

Non-BRAC

248 Former Marine Corps Reserve 

Center

Oct-01 30.1 Education East Tennessee State University Non-BRAC

249 Naval Hospital July-02 38.7 Education University of Memphis Non-BRAC

250 Lafayette Federal Building June-03 0.5 Correctional City of Lafayette Non-BRAC

251 Memphis, TN - NAS Dec-99 550.9 Public airport City of Millington BRAC

Texas

252 Former Navy Reserve Center Mar-00 1.0 Education Not provided Non-BRAC

253 Library July-01 0.2 Education City of Westworth Village Library Non-BRAC

254 Easement Deed 2 Aug-01 0.0 Public airport City of Austin Non-BRAC

255 Easement Deed No.3 Aug-01 0.0 Public airport City of Austin Non-BRAC

256 Easement and Fee Deed No. 1 Aug-01 174.8 Public airport City of Austin Non-BRAC

257 20 Units Kings Branch Housing Aug-01 6.7 Homeless Ability Resources, Inc. BRAC

258 Port Mansfield Jan-02 2.0 Education Not provided Non-BRAC

259 Brownsville SSA Fed Bldg Oct-02 1.0 Education Education Service Center Region 

1 of Texas

Non-BRAC

260 Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Mar-03 11.8 Education Not provided Non-BRAC

261 VORTAC Site Dec-03 73.8 Parks and 

recreation

DHHS for Hood County TX Non-BRAC

262 Camp Bullis Mar-04 0.4 Parks and 

recreation

City of San Antonio Non-BRAC

263 Dallas, TX - NAS Mar-00 26.4 Parks and 

recreation

City of Grand Prairie BRAC

264 Communications Annex, Carswell 

Air Force Base

Dec-00 17.01 Parks and 

recreation

City of Lake Worth BRAC

Utah

265 Administration Building Mar-00 7.3 Education Salt Lake City School District Non-BRAC

266 Former Uranium Mill Tailing Site June-00 383.2 Parks and 

recreation

NPS for City of Monticello Non-BRAC

267 Defense Depot – Ogden, UT Sept-01 6.0 Education Weber County Schools BRAC

268 Defense Depot – Ogden, UT Sept-01 3.0 Education Weber Applications Technology 

(Utah College of Applied 

Technology)

BRAC

(Continued From Previous Page)

Property name 

Date 

conveyed/ 

reverted Acres

Conveyance 

type Grantee name

BRAC/nonBRAC
Appendix II

Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties 

Conveyed, Fiscal Years 2000-2004

Page 72 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

269 Defense Depot – Ogden, UT Aug-03 4.0 Parks and 

recreation

Weber Basin Disabled Assoc BRAC

270 Defense Depot – Ogden, UT Aug-03 25.0 Parks and 

recreation

City of Ogden (Weber County 

Fairgrounds)

BRAC

271 Defense Depot – Ogden, UT Aug-03 25.0 Parks and 

recreation

City of Ogden (Ogden Nature 

Center)

BRAC

272 Defense Distribution Depot 

Ogden, Building 42

July-03 0.7 Public health Planned Parenthood Association BRAC

Virginia

273 Former Petersburg Correctional 

Institute 

Apr-92 154.0 Correctional Riverside Regional Jail Authority Non-BRAC

274 Former Petersburg Correctional 

Institute

June-02 25.0 Parks and 

recreation

Prince George County Non-BRAC

275 Former Petersburg Correctional 

Institute

June-02 24.0 Parks and 

recreation

City of Hopewell Non-BRAC

276 Staunton SSA Bldg Aug-02 0.5 Public health City of Staunton Non-BRAC

277 Watkins K. Abbitt FB Oct-03 0.3 Homeless Central Piedmont Action Council, 

Inc.

Non-BRAC

278 Lynchburg SSA Building Apr-04 0.9 Homeless Salvation Army, Inc. Non-BRAC

279 Vint Hill Farms Station Mar-00 18.0 Parks and 

recreation

Fauquier County BRAC

280 Fort Pickett May-01 1183.0 Education VA Tech BRAC

281 Driver, VA - NRTF July-01 247.7 Parks and 

recreation

City of Suffolk, Virginia BRAC

282 Former Petersburg Correctional 

Institute (portion)

May-04 275.4 Correctional VDOC Central Office Non-BRAC

Washington

283 USARC Moses Lake Aug-00 2.9 Parks and 

recreation

Grant County Housing Authority Non-BRAC

284 Fed. Bldg./Post Office Mar-02 0.4 Historic 

monument

City of Pasco Non-BRAC

285 Army NIKE-Ajax Site 32-33 July-02 34.5 Education Not provided Non-BRAC

286 Bellingham Federal Building July-04 0.5 Historic 

monument

City of Bellingham Non-BRAC

287 Sand Point Puget Sound, WA 

NAVSTA 

Apr-00 11.0 Parks and 

recreation

City of Seattle BRAC

288 Portion, Sand Point Magnuson 

Park

Dec-02 8.2 Parks and 

recreation

City of Seattle BRAC

Wisconsin

289 North Point Light Station Sept-03 2.0 Historic 

monument

Not provided Non-BRAC

(Continued From Previous Page)

Property name 

Date 

conveyed/ 

reverted Acres

Conveyance 

type Grantee name

BRAC/nonBRAC
Appendix II

Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties 

Conveyed, Fiscal Years 2000-2004

Page 73 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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.

West Virginia

290 Matewan - 16 Tracts Mar-00 2.6 Other (Parks 

and recreation)a

Town of Matewan Non-BRAC

291 Matewan - 3 tracts Mar-00 0.5 Other (Parks 

and recreation)a

Town of Matewan Non-BRAC

292 Matewan - 3 tracts Mar-00 0.3 Other (Parks 

and recreation)a

Town of Matewan Non-BRAC

293 Old Post Office and Courthouse Feb-01 0.4 Education Boarman Arts Center Non-BRAC

294 Welch SSA Bldg Apr-03 0.4 Education McDowell Board of Ed Non-BRAC

295 Kennedy Park and Marina May-03 13.3 Parks and 

recreation

Hancock County Non-BRAC

296 Tract 757 Jan-04 0.2 Parks and 

recreation

City of Williamson Non-BRAC

297 Tract 759 Jan-04 0.4 Parks and 

recreation

City of Williamson Non-BRAC

298 Tract 758 Jan-04 0.5 Parks and 

recreation

City of Williamson Non-BRAC

(Continued From Previous Page)

Property name 

Date 

conveyed/ 

reverted Acres

Conveyance 

type Grantee name

BRAC/nonBRAC
Page 74 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Appendix III

Summary Data on Properties Selected for 

Case Study ApendxiI

Property name

Date 

conveyed/ 

reverted

Conveyance 

type Grantee name

BRAC/

non-BRAC

Compliance 

oversight Reversion

California 

1 VA Triangular Parcel 

Los Angeles, California

Feb-96 Homeless Salvation Army Non-BRAC Inconsistent No

2 George May-04 Public airport Victor Valley Airport 

Authority

BRAC Not 

evaluated

No

3 Long Beach, CA - 

NAVSHIPYD 

Nov-03 Education Rolling Hills Preparatory 

School

BRAC Not 

evaluated

No

4 Savannah & Cabrillo Navy 

Housing

Sept-94 Education Long Beach USD BRAC Inconsistent No

5 Long Beach, CA - 

NAVSHIPYD 

Oct-01 Port facility City of Long Beach BRAC Not 

evaluated

No

6 Little Cottonwood Park Sept-89 Parks and 

recreation

City of Los Alamitos Non-BRAC Inconsistent No

Florida 

7 U.S. Classic Courthouse Aug-03 Historic 

monument

City of Tampa Non-BRAC Not 

evaluated

No

8 Federal Building/USDA Lab Nov-03 Historic 

monument

City of Winter Haven Non-BRAC Not 

evaluated

No

9 MacDill AFB RR Spur Mar-02 Parks and 

recreation

City of Tampa Non-BRAC Consistent No

10 U.S. Custom House May-04 Historic 

monument

Broward County Board of 

Commissioners

Non-BRAC Not 

evaluated

No

11 Communication Site - 

Homestead AFB

Feb-04 Law 

enforcement

City of Homestead Non-BRAC Not 

evaluated

No

12 Homestead Air Force Base

Homestead, Florida

June-96 Homeless Metropolitan Dade County

Miami-Dade County 

Homeless Trust

BRAC Inconsistent No

Kansas 

13 U.S. Post Office & Courthouse Nov-95 Correctional Wyandotte County, KS Non-BRAC Inconsistent No

14 Federal Building, Manhattan, 

Kansas

Apr-98 Homeless North Central Flint Hills 

Area Agency on Aging 

Non-BRAC Inconsistent No

15 Milford Lake Apr-03 Education Kansas State University of 

Agriculture and Applied 

Science 

Non-BRAC Not 

evaluated

Yes

16 Tuttle Creek (portion) Sept-89 Wildlife 

conservation

State of Kansas Non-BRAC Inconsistent No

17 Tuttle Creek (portion) Jan-90 Wildlife 

conservation

State of Kansas Non-BRAC Inconsistent No
Appendix III

Summary Data on Properties Selected for 

Case Study

Page 75 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

18 Tuttle Creek (portion) Jan-90 Wildlife 

conservation

State of Kansas Non-BRAC Inconsistent No

19 Tuttle Creek (portion) Jan-90 Wildlife 

conservation

State of Kansas Non-BRAC Inconsistent

No

20 Tuttle Creek (portion) Jan-90 Wildlife 

conservation

State of Kansas Non-BRAC Inconsistent No

Massachusetts 

21 Frederick C. Murphy Federal 

Center

Aug-01 Education Bentley College Non-BRAC Inconsistent No

22 Frederick C. Murphy Federal 

Center

Oct-01 Education New Jewish High School, 

Inc. (Gann Academy)

Non-BRAC Inconsistent No

23 Frederick C. Murphy Federal 

Center

Oct-01 Parks and 

recreation

City of Waltham Non-BRAC Inconsistent No

24 South Weymouth, MA - NAS Jan-01 Self-help 

housing

Elder Housing Corporation 

(City of Quincy)

BRAC Inconsistent No

25 NIKE Village Site, Topsfield, 

Massachusetts

Apr-98 Homeless Health and Education 

Services, Inc. 

BRAC Inconsistent No

26 Commanding Officer's 

Quarters

Aug-98 Historic 

monument

Town of Watertown BRAC Inconsistent No

Pennsylvania 

27 Valley Forge General Hospital 

Phoenixville, Pennsylvania 

Nov-95 Homeless Community Mental Health 

Services, Inc. 

Non-BRAC Inconsistent No

28 Valley Forge General Hospital July-96 Education Valley Forge Christian 

College

Non-BRAC Consistent No

29 Valley Forge General Hospital Sept-89 Education Valley Forge Christian 

College

Non-BRAC Consistent No

30 NIKE Site PH-02 Sept-00 Parks and 

recreation

Bristol Township Non-BRAC Not 

evaluated

Yes

31 Warminster, PA - NAWC Nov-00 Parks and 

recreation

Warminster Township BRAC Inconsistent No

32 Naval Air Warfare Center 

Warminster, Northampton 

Township 

Nov-97 Parks and 

recreation

Northampton Township BRAC Inconsistent No

Texas 

33 20 Units Kings Branch Housing Aug-01 Homeless Ability Resources, Inc. BRAC Inconsistent No

34 Lake Lewisville, parcel 2 Feb-94 Education Lewisville ISD Non-BRAC Inconsistent No

35 Lake Lewisville, parcel 3 Feb-94 Education Lewisville ISD Non-BRAC Inconsistent No

36 Dallas, TX - NAS Mar-00 Parks and 

recreation

City of Grand Prairie BRAC Consistent No

37 Naval Air Station, Dallas 

Duncanville Housing Site

Nov-98 Parks and 

recreation

City of Duncanville BRAC Inconsistent No

(Continued From Previous Page)

Property name

Date 

conveyed/ 

reverted

Conveyance 

type Grantee name

BRAC/

non-BRAC

Compliance 

oversight Reversion
Appendix III

Summary Data on Properties Selected for 

Case Study

Page 76 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

38 Communications Annex, 

Carswell Air Force Base 

Dec-00 Parks and 

recreation

City of Lake Worth BRAC Inconsistent No

Utah 

39 Clearfield Federal Depot Feb-93 Education Davis County School 

District

Non-BRAC Inconsistent No

40 Defense Depot – Ogden, UT Sept-01 Education Weber Applications 

Technology (Utah College 

of Applied Technology)

BRAC Consistent No

41 Defense Depot – Ogden, UT Sept-01 Education Weber County Schools BRAC Inconsistent No

42 Defense Distribution Depot 

Ogden, Building 42

July-03 Public health Planned Parenthood 

Association

BRAC Not 

evaluated

Yes

43 Defense Depot – Ogden, UT Aug-03 Parks and 

recreation

City of Ogden (Ogden 

Nature Center)

BRAC Not 

evaluated

No

44 Defense Depot – Ogden, UT Aug-03 Parks and 

recreation

City of Ogden (Weber 

County Fairgrounds)

BRAC Not 

evaluated

No

Virginia 

45 Former Petersburg 

Correctional Institute (portion)

May-04 Correctional VDOC Central Office Non-BRAC Not 

evaluated

Yes

46 Defense General Supply 

Center, Falling Creek 

Reservoir

Nov-93 Parks and 

recreation

Chesterfield County Non-BRAC Inconsistent No

47 Former Petersburg 

Correctional Institute 

Apr-92 Correctional Riverside Regional Jail 

Authority 

Non-BRAC Inconsistent No

48 Cameron Station (portion) Apr-97 Parks and 

recreation

City of Alexandria BRAC Inconsistent No

Washington 

49 Midway NIKE Housing Site

Kent, Washington

Sept-94 Homeless King County Housing 

Authority

Non-BRAC Inconsistent No

50 Portion, Howard A. Hanson 

Dam, King County, Washington

May-91 Public health City of Tacoma Non-BRAC Inconsistent No

51 Sandpoint Naval Housing, 

Buildings 333-334

Jan-99 Education University of Washington BRAC Inconsistent No

52 Naval Station Puget Sound Aug-99 Education University of Washington BRAC Inconsistent No

53 Naval Station Puget Sound Aug-99 Education University of Washington BRAC Inconsistent No

54 Olympia Federal Building Nov-98 Historic 

monument

State of Washington Non-BRAC Inconsistent No

55 Sand Point Playground Parcel Aug-98 Parks and 

recreation

City of Seattle Department 

of Parks and recreation

BRAC Not 

evaluated

No

56 Sand Point Magnuson Park Mar-99 Parks and 

recreation

City of Seattle BRAC Not 

evaluated

No

(Continued From Previous Page)

Property name

Date 

conveyed/ 

reverted

Conveyance 

type Grantee name

BRAC/

non-BRAC

Compliance 

oversight Reversion
Appendix III

Summary Data on Properties Selected for 

Case Study

Page 77 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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.

57 Sand Point Puget Sound, WA 

NAVSTA 

Apr-00 Parks and 

recreation

City of Seattle BRAC Not 

evaluated

No

58 Portion, Sand Point Magnuson 

Park

Dec-02 Parks and 

recreation

City of Seattle BRAC Not 

evaluated

No

(Continued From Previous Page)

Property name

Date 

conveyed/ 

reverted

Conveyance 

type Grantee name

BRAC/

non-BRAC

Compliance 

oversight Reversion
Page 78 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies ApendxiIV

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.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 79 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

California

Figure 5: Little Cottonwood Park – one property

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. 

Property name: Little Cottonwood Park

Location: Los Alamitos, CA

Size: 6.07 acres

Grantee: City of Los Alamitos

Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal Lands to Parks Program

Date of conveyance: September 7, 1989

Public use: Parks and recreation

Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity

Property status (active/reverted): Active

BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 80 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 6: Port of Long Beach - one property

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. 

Property name: Long Beach, CA NAVSHIPYD

Location: Long Beach, CA

Size: 282 acres

Grantee: City of Long Beach

Sponsoring agency: Department of Transportation/Maritime Administration

Date of conveyance: October 3, 2001

Public use: Port facility

Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity

Property status (active/reverted): Active

BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 81 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 7: Savannah and Cabrillo Navy Housing – one property

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.

Property name: Savannah and Cabrillo Navy Housing

Location: Long Beach, CA

Size: 64 acres

Grantee: Long Beach Unified School District

Sponsoring agency: Department of Education

Date of conveyance: September 14, 1994

Public use: Education

Length of deed restrictions: 30 years

Property status (active/reverted): Active

BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 82 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 8: Rolling Hills Preparatory School – one property

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.

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

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 83 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 9: Westwood Transitional Village – one property

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. 

Property name: VA Triangular Parcel Los Angeles, CA

Location: Los Angeles, CA

Size: 2.13 acres

Grantee: Salvation Army

Sponsoring agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Date of conveyance: February 15, 1996

Public use: Homeless

Length of deed restrictions: 30 years

Property status (active/reverted): Active

BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 84 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 10: Southern California Logistics Airport - one property

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.

Property name: George

Location: Victorville, CA

Size: 960 acres

Grantee: Victor Valley Airport Authority

Sponsoring agency: Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration

Date of conveyance: May 17, 2004

Public use: Public airport

Length of deed restrictions: No provision in deed

Property status (active/reverted): Active

BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 85 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Florida

Figure 11: Homestead Air Force Base Communications Annex – one property

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. 

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

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 86 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 12: Homestead Air Force Base Homeless Trust – one property

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. 

Property name: Homestead Air Force Base – Homestead, FL

Location: Homestead, FL

Size: 84.6 acres

Grantee: Metropolitan Dade County Miami-Dade County Homeless Trust

Sponsoring agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Date of conveyance: June 28, 1996

Public use: Homeless

Length of deed restrictions: 30 years

Property status (active/reverted): Active

BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 87 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 13: U.S. Custom House – one property

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. 

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

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 88 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 14: MacDill Air Force Base Railroad Spur – one property

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.

Property name: MacDill AFB RR Spur

Location: Tampa, FL

Size: 6.68 acres

Grantee: City of Tampa

Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal Lands to Parks Program

Date of conveyance: March 15, 2002

Public use: Parks and recreation

Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity

Property status (active/reverted): Active

BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 89 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 15: U.S. Classic Courthouse – one property

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.

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

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 90 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 16: Federal Building and USDA Lab – one property

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. 

Property name: Federal Building/USDA Lab

Location: Winter Haven, FL

Size: 0.47 acres

Grantee: City of Winter Haven

Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Historic Surplus Property Program

Date of conveyance: November 10, 2003

Public use: Historic monument

Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity

Property status (active/reverted): Active

BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC 

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 91 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Kansas

Figure 17: Wyandotte County Correctional Facility and Court Services Building – one property

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 

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

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 92 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

probation offices, family courts, and other juvenile services as well as 

detention cells used to hold juveniles.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 93 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 18: North Central Flint Hills Area Agency on Aging, Inc. – one property

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.

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

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 94 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 19: Milford Lake – one property

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. 

Property name: Milford Lake

Location: Milford, KS

Size: 119.49 acres

Grantee: Kansas State University of Agriculture and Applied Science

Sponsoring agency: Department of Education

Reversion date: April 2, 2003

Public use: Education

Length of deed restrictions: 30 years

Property status (active/reverted): Reverted

BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 95 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 20: Tuttle Lake Wildlife Area – five properties

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. 

Property name: Tuttle Creek (portion)

Location: Tuttle Creek, KS

Size: 130.1 acres total

Grantee: State of Kansas

Sponsoring agency: General Services Administration

Date of conveyance: September 22, 1989; January 8, 1990

Public use: Wildlife conservation

Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity

Property status (active/reverted): Active

BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 96 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Massachusetts

Figure 21: NIKE Village Site Topsfield, MA – one property

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. 

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

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 97 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 98 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 22: Bentley College – one property

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. 

Property name: Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center

Location: Waltham, MA

Size: 22.29 acres

Grantee: Bentley College

Sponsoring agency: Department of Education

Date of conveyance: August 29, 2001

Public use: Education

Length of deed restrictions: 30 years

Property status (active/reverted): Active

BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 99 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 23: New Jewish High School – one property

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. 

Property name: Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center

Location: Waltham, MA

Size: 17.42 acres

Grantee: New Jewish High School, Inc. (Gann Academy)

Sponsoring agency: Department of Education

Date of conveyance: October 1, 2001

Public use: Education

Length of deed restrictions: 30 years

Property status (active/reverted): Active

BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 100 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 24: Veteran’s Memorial Park – one property

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.

Property name: Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center

Location: Waltham, MA

Size: 25.01 acres

Grantee: City of Waltham, MA

Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal Lands to Parks Program

Date of conveyance: October 1, 2001

Public use: Parks and recreation

Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity

Property status (active/reverted): Active

BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 101 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 25: The Commander’s Mansion - one property

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 

Property name: Commanding Officer’s Quarters

Location: Watertown, MA

Size: 7.2 acres

Grantee: Town of Watertown

Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Historic Surplus Property Program

Date of conveyance: August 20, 1998

Public use: Historical monument

Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity

Property status (active/reverted): Active

BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 102 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

maintain the house and grounds. The building has been listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places since January 1976. 
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 103 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 26: Squantum Gardens and Naval Terrace – one property

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 

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

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 104 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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. 
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 105 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Pennsylvania

Figure 27: NIKE Site PH-02 – one property

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 name: NIKE Site PH-02

Location: Bristol, PA

Size: 8.8 acres

Grantee: Bristol Township

Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal Lands to Parks Program

Date of reversion: September 13, 2000

Public use: Parks and recreation

Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity

Property status (active/reverted): Reverted

BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 106 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

property is no longer accessible to the public due to the closure of the main 

road by an adjacent storage company.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 107 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 28: Liberty House – one property

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. 

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 

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 108 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 29: Valley Forge Christian College – two properties

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 

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

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 109 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 110 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 30: Warminster Community Park – one property

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 

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

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 111 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

additional improvements, such as removing an asphalt runway that bisects 

the park.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 112 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 31: Northampton Township Municipal Park – one property

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. 

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

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 113 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Texas

Figure 32: Kings Branch Housing – one property

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 

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

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 114 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 115 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 33: Carswell Air Force Base Communications Annex - one property 

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.

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

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 116 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 34: Lake Lewisville Independent School District Outdoor Learning Area – two properties

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.

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

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 117 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 35: Naval Air Station Dallas Clear Zone - one property

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.

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

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 118 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 36: Naval Air Station Dallas, Duncanville Housing Site - one property

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.

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

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 119 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Utah

Figure 37: Utah College of Applied Technology - one property

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 

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

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 120 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

served over 3,400 students and nearly 300 companies, providing 

opportunities for initial employment and skill upgrades for employed 

individuals.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 121 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 38: Weber County Schools Warehouse - one property

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. 

Property name: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT

Location: Ogden, UT

Size: 6 acres; warehouse bays 3, 4, 5, and 6

Grantee: Weber County Schools

Sponsoring agency: Department of Education

Date of conveyance: September 11, 2001

Public use: Education

Length of deed restrictions: 30 years

Property status (active/reverted): Active

BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 122 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 39: Davis School District Warehouse - one property

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.

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 

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 123 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 40: Defense Distribution Depot Ogden, Building 42 - one property

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.

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
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 124 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 41: Ogden Nature Center - one property

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.

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

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 125 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 42: Weber County Fairgrounds - one property

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.

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

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 126 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Virginia

Figure 43: Former Petersburg Correctional Institute – one property

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 

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 

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 127 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 128 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 44: Falling Creek Linear Park – one property

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.

Property name: Defense General Supply Center, Falling Creek Reservoir

Location: Chesterfield County, VA

Size: 36.2 acres

Grantee: Chesterfield County

Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal Lands to Parks Program

Date of conveyance: November 10, 1993

Public use: Parks and recreation

Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity

Property status (active/reverted): Active

BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 129 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 45: Riverside Regional Jail – one property

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.

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

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 130 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 46: Cameron Station – one property

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 

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

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 131 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

lot, and restrooms. It abuts a large elementary school, which uses the 

facilities on a daily basis. 
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 132 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Washington

Figure 47: Naval Station Puget Sound – three properties

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 

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

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 133 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

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. 
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 134 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 48: Midway NIKE Housing Site – one property

The King County Housing Authority (KCHA) received 32 buildings (1 was 

demolished because of fire damage), which it uses to provide emergency 

and transitional housing services. KCHA provides these services through a 

partnership with three nonprofit agencies—the South King County Multiservices Center, the West Highline Mental Health Center, and the St. 

Stephen’s Housing Association. According to a KCHA official, the agency 

faced unanticipated renovation costs when the heating ducts had to be 

replaced because of a mold problem. In addition, because the housing 

program operates on a break-even basis, KCHA partnered with a number of 

nonprofits for grants that were used to fund the costs of replacing siding 

and roofs. KCHA uses volunteers to help with maintenance. 

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

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 135 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 49: Howard A. Hanson Dam – one property

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 

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 

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 136 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

vehicles. Though closed to the public, the roadway is used by dam 

personnel, Tacoma Water personnel, construction employees, and logging 

companies.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 137 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 50: Olympia Federal Building – one property

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, 

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

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 138 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

including domestic and foreign corporations, limited partnerships, limited 

liability partnerships, and limited liability companies. 
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 139 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Figure 51: Sand Point Magnuson Park – four properties

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 

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

Source: GAO.
Appendix IV

Properties Selected for Case Studies

Page 140 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

community groups that are involved with sports, recreation, leisure, 

environmental, arts, culture, and education activities.
Page 141 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Appendix V

Comments from the General Services 

Administration ApendxiV
Appendix V

Comments from the General Services 

Administration

Page 142 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
Appendix V

Comments from the General Services 

Administration

Page 143 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
Page 144 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of Health and 

Human Services ApendxiVI
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of Health 

and Human Services

Page 145 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of Health 

and Human Services

Page 146 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of Health 

and Human Services

Page 147 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property
Page 148 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Appendix VII

Comments from the Department of Education ApendxiVI
Page 149 GAO-06-511 Federal Real Property

Appendix VIII

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

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)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

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

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548