a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Ranking Minority Member, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, U.S. Senate

December 2002 FEDERAL-AID 

HIGHWAYS

States Need Guidance 

on Sales or Leases of 

Real Property 

Purchased with 

Federal Funds

GAO-03-207
All of the 51 state Departments of Transportation GAO surveyed,

including the District of Columbia, reported selling, leasing, or disposing

of real property, such as unused land purchased with federal-aid funds.

From June 1998 through May 2002, 37 states sold, leased, or disposed of

at least 5,636 properties that generated about $148 million in proceeds for

the states. States varied on whether they tracked and reported this

information to DOT; therefore, GAO did not report this information for

the other 14 states. State DOT officials view the policy that allowed them

to retain the federal share of the proceeds as being positive because it

provided states greater flexibility for financing their transportation

programs. However, proceeds generated from the sale or lease of

property are not currently a major source of revenue for states’

transportation programs. GAO determined that the proceeds generated

from the sale, lease, or disposal of real property were less than 1 percent

of states’ transportation revenue from other sources, including federal

aid, in 1999 and 2000.

C o m p a ris o n o f S tate P ro c ee d s fro m P ro p erty S ales a n d Le as es 

w ith S ta te H ig h w ay R even u es, in c lu din g F e d eral A id , in 2 00 0 -

T op F ive P ercen tag es

$ 0

$1,000,00 0

$2,000,00 0

$3,000,00 0

$4,000,00 0

$5,000,00 0

$6,000,00 0

$7,000,00 0

Rhode

Is la n d

G eo rg ia H a w a ii Id ah o O regon

S tate P ro ceeds

0.628%

0.337%

0.258%

0 .2 1 7%

0 .2 0 3%

Source: Developed by GAO from data provided by State DOTs and FHWA.

States reported using the proceeds generated from the sale or lease of

property in different ways; and at least 2 states may have used the

proceeds in ways that do not comply with the specific statutory

requirements to use the proceeds on projects eligible for federal-aid

highway funding. Forty-seven states reported using the proceeds to fund

other state transportation projects, and at least 4 states use the proceeds

as their match for projects receiving federal funds. GAO issued a legal

opinion in September 2002, concluding that Congress did not intend for

states to use such proceeds as their match. DOT has interpreted TEA-21

as allowing for the use of the federal share as a state’s match. GAO also

found that 2 states did not have restrictions on how the federal share of

the proceeds should be used; therefore, the proceeds may have been

used on projects not eligible for federal-aid. DOT issued some guidance

but is considering issuing more guidance to states to ensure proceeds are

used for eligible projects under the federal-aid highway program.

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

States Need Guidance on Sales or Leases

of Property Purchased with Federal

Funds

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-207.

To view the full report, including the scope

and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Kate Siggerud,

(202) 512-2834.

Highlights of GAO-03-207, a report to the

Ranking Minority Member, Committee on

Commerce, Science, and Transportation,

United States Senate

December 2002

In 1998, the Transportation Equity

Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21),

authorized the states to retain the

federal share of proceeds from the

sale or lease of real property that

had been purchased with federalaid funds. It also required the

states to use the federal share on

other highway projects eligible for

funding under the federal-aid

highway program. GAO

determined (1) the extent to which

states are selling, leasing, or

disposing of real property

purchased with federal-aid funds

and (2) how the proceeds

generated from the sale or lease of

real property are being used,

including whether they are being

used in accordance with TEA-21.

GAO issued a related legal opinion

in September 2002.

GAO recommends that DOT develop

and report on how DOT plans to

comply with GAO’s legal opinion

concerning the statute governing the

sale or lease of real property. GAO

also recommends that DOT provide

additional guidance to the state DOTs

that will help ensure states use the

proceeds of property sales or leases

as required by TEA-21.
Page i GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

All States Report Selling, Leasing, or Disposing of Real Property 5

States’ Use of Proceeds Vary and Sometimes May Not Comply with 

the Statutory Requirements on the Use of the Proceeds 10

Conclusions 12

Recommendations for Executive Action 12

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 13

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 15

Appendix II: GAO Legal Opinion 17

Appendix III: GAO Letter and Survey to State DOTs 24

Appendix IV: Survey Responses of State DOTs’ Sales or Leases of Real 

Property 27

Appendix V: Fiscal Year 1999 Proceeds Information 33

Appendix VI: Fiscal Year 2000 Proceeds Information 35

Tables Table 1: State DOTs that Sold, Leased, or Disposed of Real Property 

Purchased with Federal-Aid Funds, June 1998 - May 

2002 27

Table 2: Number of Properties Originally Purchased with 

Federal-Aid Funds for Which States Retained Proceeds 

Upon the Properties Sale or Lease, June 1998 – May 

2002 29

Table 3: States’ Total Proceeds from the Sale, Lease, or Disposal of 

Real Property Purchased with Federal-Aid Funds, June 

1998 – May 2002 31

Table 4: Comparisons of States’ Property Proceeds with States’ 

Total Receipts, Fiscal Year 1999 33

Table 5: Comparisons of States’ Property Proceeds with States’ 

Total Receipts, Fiscal Year 2000 35

Figures Figure 1: Comparison of State Proceeds from Property Sales and 

Leases with State Highway Receipts, Including Federal 

Aid, in 1999–Top Five Ratios 8
Contents

Page ii GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

Figure 2: Comparison of State Proceeds from Property Sales and 

Leases with State Highway Receipts, Including Federal 

Aid, in 2000—Top Five Ratios 9

Abbreviations

DOT Department of Transportation

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
Page 1 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

December 13, 2002 Letr

The Honorable John McCain

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

United States Senate

Dear Senator McCain:

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), within the U.S. Department 

of Transportation (DOT), is responsible for the federal-aid highway 

program. This program distributes billions of dollars in federal highway 

funds to the states. FHWA provides federal assistance to the states from the 

Highway Trust Fund for several purposes, including the construction and 

maintenance of highways and related activities. Federal-aid highway 

projects are typically funded with an 80 percent federal contribution. The 

nonfederal share of the cost (typically 20 percent) must come from state, 

local, and/or private funds and is commonly referred to as a match. One of 

the related activities eligible for federal aid involves the cost of acquiring 

necessary real property for a highway project. When such property is no 

longer needed, it can be sold or disposed of by the state. Similarly, land 

retained by states can be leased to others. The 1998 Transportation Equity 

Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which authorized DOT highway and 

transit programs from 1998 through 2003, provided the states greater 

flexibility in connection with selling and leasing real property associated 

with federal-aid transportation projects. TEA-21 authorized the states to 

retain the federal share of net proceeds from the sale or lease of real 

property and to apply the federal share to other projects eligible for funding 

under title 23, U.S.C., herein known as federal-aid highway and related 

programs.1

 

FHWA has interpreted the statutory provisions governing the federal share 

of proceeds from the sale or lease of real property as permitting the states 

to use the federal share of the net proceeds without having to follow the 

rules and regulations associated with a federal-aid project. FHWA believes 

that the federal government’s interest in such funds is satisfied as long as 

the proceeds are used for projects eligible for funding under federal-aid 

highway and related programs. FHWA has informed the states that they 

1

Such projects may include certain highway, transit, bicycle or pedestrian or other 

transportation-related projects covered under title 23.
Page 2 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

may treat the proceeds from such transactions as state funds that are not 

subject to restrictions that would apply if the funds were treated as federal 

highway funds. In a recent legal opinion, we disagreed with FHWA’s 

interpretation (see app. II). 

As the authorized period under TEA-21 draws to a close in 2003, Congress 

will need to make decisions about reauthorizing the surface transportation 

programs, including requirements related to selling, leasing, and disposing 

of real property. As agreed with your staff, this report discusses (1) the 

extent to which states are selling, leasing, or disposing of real property 

purchased with federal-aid funds and (2) how the proceeds generated from 

the sale or lease of real property are being used, including whether they are 

being used in accordance with TEA-21. 

To determine the extent to which states are selling, leasing, or disposing of 

real property purchased with federal-aid highway funds, we obtained 

information from FHWA officials and surveyed 51 state DOTs, including the 

District of Columbia. We then compared fiscal years 1999 and 2000 total 

proceeds reported by each state from the sale or lease of real property with 

the states’ total highway receipts reported by DOT. We obtained 

information from state DOTs about how they use the proceeds generated 

from the sale or lease of real property and about any restrictions they 

placed on the proceeds, and we compared these responses with our legal 

opinion. We also obtained information from officials of the DOT Inspector 

General’s office regarding their review of Massachusetts’ Central Artery 

Project that had initially raised concerns about FHWA’s interpretation of 

TEA-21 changes related to sales and leases of real property. We conducted 

our review from June 2002 through December 2002 in accordance with 

generally accepted government audit standards.

Results in Brief All of the 51 state DOTs that we surveyed, including the District of 

Columbia, reported selling, leasing, or disposing of real property such as 

unused land purchased with federal-aid funds. From June 1998 through 

May 2002, 37 states sold, leased, or disposed of at least 5,636 properties that 

generated about $148 million (2001 dollars) in proceeds for the states. 

However, states varied as to whether they tracked and reported this 

information to DOT. For example, eight states did not distinguish sold, 

leased, or disposed of properties originally acquired with federal funds 

from those properties that were acquired without federal funds and/or did 

not identify the amount of proceeds generated. States also varied in their 

policies for retaining the proceeds they receive from the sale or lease of 
Page 3 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

real property. Out of the 51 states surveyed, 3 states reported that they 

returned the federal share of the proceeds by crediting an existing federalaid project within their states. The proceeds generated from the sale or 

lease of real property do not currently appear to be a major source of 

revenue for states’ transportation programs. On the basis of our 

comparison of proceeds the states reported they generated from the sale, 

lease, or disposal of real property with the states’ overall revenues 

available for highway projects, we found that the ratios were less than 1 

percent in 1999 and in 2000. Nevertheless, state DOT officials view the 

current regulations that allow them to retain the federal share of the 

proceeds as positive because they provide the states greater flexibility for 

financing their transportation programs.

States reported using the proceeds generated from the sale or lease of real 

property in several ways; and at least two states may have used the 

proceeds in ways that do not comply with specific statutory requirements 

to only use the proceeds on projects eligible for funding under federal-aid 

highway and related programs. This use of the proceeds conflicts with 

FHWA’s interpretation of the statute. For the states we surveyed and 

visited, 47 states use the proceeds generated from the sale or lease of real 

property to fund other state transportation projects eligible for federal aid, 

and at least four states use the proceeds as their match for projects 

receiving federal contributions. In our legal opinion, we concluded that 

Congress did not intend for states to use such proceeds as their match. 

Under FHWA’s interpretation of the statute, however, states would be 

allowed to use the federal share as the state’s match. For the 51 states we 

surveyed, the restrictions on the use of the proceeds varied. Forty-two 

states reported that they deposit the proceeds in accounts used for road 

projects, and 47 states reported that they restrict the use of these proceeds 

to projects eligible for federal aid. However, at least two states did not have 

similar restrictions; and in these cases, the proceeds of property sales 

could be used for projects that are not eligible for funding under federal-aid 

highway and related programs, contrary to the specific requirements of the 

statute and FHWA’s interpretation. FHWA officials told us, that at meetings 

with state officials, they told the states that “as a practical matter” they 

should take steps to demonstrate that the federal share of proceeds from 

property sales are being allocated to projects eligible for federal aid. FHWA 

officials were not aware of the potential noncompliance that we identified 

but said they may issue guidance on tracking the use of proceeds from 

property sales in 2003. 
Page 4 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

We are making recommendations to (1) clarify how FHWA plans to comply 

with our legal opinion about the eligible uses of these funds and (2) 

improve the agency’s guidance for complying with TEA-21 language 

regarding property sales and leases. 

DOT officials commented on a draft of this report and generally agreed 

with the facts regarding states’ sales and leases of property originally 

purchased with federal funds. Because DOT is still considering how to 

respond to GAO’s legal opinion, the officials did not comment on the first 

recommendation and said that DOT would consider our second 

recommendation when the review of GAO’s legal opinion is completed.

Background In our recent legal opinion, we reviewed the statutory provisions governing 

the disposition of the proceeds from the sale or lease of real property 

acquired with federal highway grant funds and FHWA’s interpretation of 

that provision. FHWA issued regulations in 1999 implementing real 

property management policies in conjunction with the federal-aid highway 

program, which we reviewed. We disagreed with FHWA’s interpretation of 

the law. We concluded that Congress did not intend for states to convert 

federal money to state money by buying and selling property and/or use the 

federal share of recaptured funds to reduce or avoid their obligation to 

provide matching funds. 

DOT’s Inspector General raised similar concerns about FHWA’s 

interpretation of the federal law governing the proceeds from the sale or 

lease of real property in its report2

 regarding the finance plan for the 

Central Artery Tunnel Project3

 in Massachusetts. In its report, the DOT 

Inspector General questioned whether the proceeds derived from the sale 

of excess properties purchased with federal-aid highway funds should be 

counted against the $8.549 billion cap imposed by Congress on federal 

2

October 2001 Finance Plan for the Central Artery/Tunnel Project, Federal Highway 

Administration, DOT Inspector General (March 11, 2002).

3

The Central Artery Tunnel Project is the largest federally funded public works project in 

recent history, involving the reconstruction of Interstate 93 (the Central Artery) and the 

extension of Interstate 90 (the Ted Williams Tunnel). Interstate 93 reconstruction includes a 

new eight-lane highway beneath the existing elevated Central Artery through downtown 

Boston. Interstate 90 extension involves placement of a four-lane immersed tube tunnel 

beneath Boston Harbor. The Central Artery Tunnel Project is approximately 7.5 miles long 

and includes approximately 160 lane-miles of new and reconstructed highway.
Page 5 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

contributions to the Central Artery Tunnel Project.4 Further, the DOT 

Inspector General found that Massachusetts intended to sell land, 

originally purchased with federal aid, on which it had temporarily located 

its project headquarters, reinvesting the money in the project as “state 

funds.” The sale of the project headquarters is expected to generate about 

$100 million. 

All States Report 

Selling, Leasing, or 

Disposing of Real 

Property 

All 51 of the state DOTs we surveyed, including the District of Columbia, 

reported selling, leasing, or disposing of real property purchased with 

federal-aid funds (see app. IV for responses from state DOTs). We found 

that from June 1998 through May 2002, 37 states reported they sold, leased, 

or disposed of at least 5,636 properties that generated about $148 million 

(2001 dollars)5

 in revenue for the states. We excluded eight states6 from our 

calculations of the total number of properties sold, leased, or disposed of 

because these states either did not distinguish sold, leased, or disposed of 

properties originally acquired with federal funds from those properties that 

were acquired without federal funds and/or identify the amount of 

proceeds generated. We excluded another six states from our calculations 

for various reasons.7

 In all, we excluded 14 states from our calculations 

because of these variances. For example, California has an agreement with 

4

Our legal opinion did not address whether Massachusetts’ actions would cause the cap on 

federal contributions to be exceeded (see app. II).

5

We converted nominal dollars into constant 2001 dollars; we used price indexes for gross 

domestic product based on federal fiscal years that were constructed from data from the 

U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis.

6

California, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin were 

excluded from our calculations. California, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, and 

Wisconsin could not distinguish sold, leased, or disposed of properties originally acquired 

with federal funds or identify the amount of proceeds generated. State officials in Kansas 

and Oklahoma could not distinguish sold, leased, or disposed of properties originally 

acquired with federal funds but were able to provide the amount of proceeds generated 

from sales or leases.

7

The District of Columbia, Florida, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Texas, and Virginia were 

excluded from our calculations. The District of Columbia officials reported they disposed of 

excess property by transferring one property to the National Park Service. This transfer did 

not generate proceeds. Florida, Minnesota, and Virginia officials reported that they could 

“sometimes” identify properties originally acquired with federal funds. New Hampshire only 

provided averages. Texas officials identified the number of properties originally acquired 

with federal funds and the amount of proceeds, but they return the federal share by 

crediting an ongoing federal-aid project within the state. 
Page 6 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

FHWA that recognizes that the amount of revenue generated from the sales 

or leases of land purchased with federal-aid funds is substantially less than 

the state’s expenditures on highways; therefore, the state is not required to 

track and report the proceeds from the sales. Also, Louisiana state officials 

reported that they do not track and report federal dollars because their real 

estate property management database is not designed to distinguish sales 

of property acquired with federal-aid funds. Nevertheless, these states 

reported that they sold, leased, or disposed of some real properties 

originally purchased with federal funds.

States also vary in their policies for retaining the net proceeds they receive 

from the sale or lease of real property because they have different views of 

the federal requirements. Most states that we surveyed deposit the 

proceeds into state transportation accounts to be used at a later date. 

However, three states reported that they do not follow that procedure but 

credit an existing federal-aid project within the state. For example, 

Maryland DOT officials told us that they credit an ongoing federal-aid 

project within their state. In their opinion, retaining the federal share would 

require the state to establish special tracking accounts to trace each dollar 

of revenue from affected property sales or leases from its receipt to its 

expenditure on a specific eligible federal-aid project which would not be 

cost effective. The cost to establish these accounts would exceed its 

current annual state revenue from these properties. Nevada and Texas 

DOTs also credit existing federal-aid projects within their states because, in 

their view, it is more efficient not to track the federal share of the proceeds. 

FHWA officials told us that, in their view, when states credit the federal 

share of the net proceeds to an existing federal-aid project, they lose the 

opportunity provided by TEA-21 to use the proceeds for other state 

highway projects.

For states that retain the federal share of the net proceeds, five state 

officials8

 that we contacted said they view the current regulations that 

allow them to retain the federal share of the proceeds generated from the 

sale or lease of real property as positive because it gives the states greater 

flexibility to sell or lease real property to support the states’ transportation 

programs. For example, officials in California and Virginia told us that 

selling or leasing surplus property and retaining the proceeds provide 

additional funds to complete more state highway projects. State DOTs and 

FHWA officials in Illinois, Virginia, and California also told us that the 

8

California, Georgia, Illinois, Texas, and Virginia.
Page 7 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

current regulations eliminate the administrative burden of tracking and 

returning the federal share of the funds to the federal government. 

Proceeds from Property 

Sales and Leases Are Not a 

Major Source of Revenue

The proceeds generated from the state DOTs’ sales or leases of real 

property do not currently appear to be a major source of revenue for the 

states’ transportation programs. We compared the proceeds generated, as 

reported to us in our survey, with the states’ revenues9

 available for 

highway projects. The ratio between the proceeds generated by the states 

and the states’ receipts represented less than 1 percent of the states’

revenues in 1999 and 200010 (see apps. V and VI). Figures 1 and 2 show the 

states with the highest ratio between the proceeds from property sales or 

leases with the states’ revenues for 1999 and 2000, respectively. We 

calculated that in 1999, the total ratio of the federal share of proceeds from 

property sales and leases in comparison with the state revenues was 0.075 

percent. Of the 35 states for which we calculated ratios, 8 states had ratios 

that were greater than or equal to 0.1 percent, and 27 states had ratios that 

were less than 0.1 percent. 

9

State receipts (or “revenues”) include highway-user revenue and all other receipts that are 

expended for highway purposes, regardless of source, including state highway user tax 

revenues, road and crossing tolls, general funds, miscellaneous income, bond proceeds, and 

payments from federal and local government.

10Information on state highway receipts for 2001 and 2002 are not available; therefore, 

states’ proceeds for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 were not compared with state highway 

receipts. We did not use the data obtained from states for 1998 and 2002 because the data 

from these years does not reflect the entire calendar year.
Page 8 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

Figure 1: Comparison of State Proceeds from Property Sales and Leases with State 

Highway Receipts, Including Federal Aid, in 1999–Top Five Ratios

We calculated that in 2000, the total ratio of the federal share of proceeds 

from property sales and leases in comparison with the state revenues was 

0.069 percent. Of the 35 states for which we calculated ratios, 10 states had 

ratios that were greater than or equal to 0.1 percent, and 25 states had 

ratios that were less than 0.1 percent. 

Dollars in millions

State proceeds

Source: Developed by GAO from data provided by State DOTs and FHWA.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Rhode Island

0.489%

Michigan

0.452%

Idaho

0.440%

Missouri

0.279%

Georgia

0.262%
Page 9 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

Figure 2: Comparison of State Proceeds from Property Sales and Leases with State 

Highway Receipts, Including Federal Aid, in 2000—Top Five Ratios

We noted no particular trend in the amount of proceeds from these types of 

property sales or leases over the period of our survey. Therefore, it is 

possible that the proceeds from property sales or leases could increase or 

decrease in the future. One likely sale of property in the near future by the 

Massachusetts Highway Department would have a large effect on the total 

proceeds from the sale or lease of properties purchased using federal 

highway aid in that state. The Department used federal aid to purchase a 

substantial amount of property for rights-of-way associated with the 

Central Artery Tunnel Project. Sale or lease of property associated with this 

project has already generated nearly $9 million in revenue for the state 

0.628%

Rhode Island

0.337%

Georgia

0.258%

Hawaii

0.217%

Idaho

0.203%

Oregon

Dollars in millions

State proceeds

Source: Developed by GAO from data provided by State DOTs and FHWA.

7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6
Page 10 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

during the period of our survey (see app. IV for state responses). In 

addition, the state plans to sell the project’s headquarters building. The 

federal government contributed 90 percent of the original cost to acquire 

the building, and federal officials estimate that the sale of the building will 

generate about $100 million for the state’s transportation program. In 2000, 

Massachusetts received about $490 million in federal highway aid.

States’ Use of Proceeds 

Vary and Sometimes 

May Not Comply with 

the Statutory 

Requirements on the 

Use of the Proceeds

States reported using the proceeds generated from the sale or lease of real 

property in different ways; and their survey responses indicated that some 

uses of the proceeds may not comply with specific statutory requirements 

of only using the proceeds on projects eligible for funding under federal-aid 

highway and related programs. This use of the proceeds conflicts with 

FHWA’s interpretation of the statute. For the 51 states we surveyed, 42 

states reported that they deposited the proceeds from sales of property 

originally purchased with federal funds in accounts established to fund 

state highway projects. Officials from 47 state DOTs reported using the 

proceeds to fund other state transportation projects eligible for federal aid, 

and at least four states use the proceeds as their match for projects 

receiving federal contributions. For example, state DOT officials in Illinois, 

Louisiana, Nebraska, and North Carolina told us, in our visits or through 

their survey responses, that they use the proceeds generated from the sale 

or lease of property for matching purposes. Our legal opinion concluded 

that the states could not use the proceeds to match contributions, stating 

that the intent of Congress was not to allow states to “use the proceeds of 

such transactions to reduce or avoid their matching fund obligations.”

FHWA has interpreted the statute as allowing for such use. In eight states, 

we could not determine from the survey responses how the states were 

using the proceeds because they do not (1) track property purchased with 

federal-aid funds separately from other property or (2) separate federal and 

state proceeds generated from the sale and lease of real property. In these 

cases, the federal share is commingled with state funds and cannot be 

accounted for separately. 

TEA-21 stated that proceeds must be used for projects eligible for federal 

aid; and, according to their survey responses, most states have placed such 

restrictions on the accounts into which the proceeds were placed. FHWA 

officials said that, in their view, states would be in compliance with TEA-21 

if they placed proceeds in accounts restricted for use on projects eligible 

for funding under federal-aid highway and related programs. However, 

officials in two states told us that their accounts do not have this type of 

restriction. Therefore, in at least two cases, it is possible that states have 
Page 11 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

used the proceeds on projects that are not eligible for federal aid. For 

example, a state DOT official in Indiana11 told us that the state uses the 

proceeds to fund state highway projects but does not track whether these 

projects are eligible federal-aid projects. New Mexico DOT officials12

reported that the proceeds are not restricted to funding eligible federal-aid 

projects; therefore, the funds could be used for other transportation 

projects not eligible for federal aid. 

FHWA May Issue Additional 

Guidance on the Federal 

Share of Property Sales and 

Leases

FHWA officials said that they may issue additional guidance in 2003 to 

clarify how states should implement the TEA-21 language regarding 

property sales and FHWA’s subsequent regulations. They acknowledged 

that they were not aware of (1) the possibility that states were not 

complying with the explicit statutory requirements that the federal share of 

proceeds from property sales or leases be used only on projects eligible for 

funding under federal-aid highway and related programs and (2) the 

amount of variation in how states tracked these types of property 

transactions and the federal share of the proceeds. They also said that 

FHWA has issued some guidance13 to the states regarding the proceeds 

generated from the disposal of properties purchased with federal aid. For 

example, in meetings with state officials, FHWA officials explained that as 

a practical matter states should have an accounting system in place that 

documents (1) the amount of the federal share of the proceeds deposited in 

the state transportation fund during the fiscal year and (2) the amount of 

the federal share of net proceeds expended on eligible federal-aid projects 

during the fiscal year. However, they also noted that TEA-21 does not 

require states to track and report the federal share. FHWA officials told us 

they are considering additional guidance to help ensure that states are 

using the federal share of these proceeds only on projects eligible for

11A DOT official in Indiana reported that the state sold 74 properties that generated $15,724 

in 1998; $76,993 in 1999; $94,867 in 2000; $91,282 in 2001; and $56,497 in 2002.

12DOT officials in New Mexico reported that the state sold 58 properties that generated 

$50,739 in 1998; $106,440 in 1999; $64,770 in 2000; $212,327 in 2001; and $77,161 in 2002. 

13Questions and answers for the regulation at 23 Code of Federal Regulation, part 710 

available on FHWA’s Web site; FHWA Right of Way Program Administration booklet; and 

FHWA Project Development Guide, chapter 12.
Page 12 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

funding under federal-aid highway and related programs.14 As of October 

2002, FHWA had not decided on the details of what material to include in 

the guidance or when to issue it. FHWA officials told us it is likely to focus 

on how states can demonstrate that they are ensuring that the applicable 

federal share of proceeds from property sales or leases is being allocated to 

eligible federal-aid projects. 

Conclusions Most states have taken advantage of the greater flexibility for managing 

and disposing of real property provided under TEA-21 because it 

streamlines the process for their highway programs. However, in 

accordance with our recent legal opinion, those states that used the 

proceeds from these property sales or leases to match federal-aid highway 

projects were not complying with the statute governing the sale or lease of 

real property. In addition, two states did not restrict the use of the proceeds 

to projects eligible for funding under federal-aid highway and related 

programs, as explicitly required by the statute. FHWA has an excellent 

opportunity to clarify its interpretation of TEA-21; and, after considering all 

relevant factors, provide additional guidance to states regarding how they 

should cost-effectively treat the proceeds from sales or leases of property 

originally purchased with federal aid.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To help ensure that states act in accordance with TEA-21 in disposing of 

real property originally purchased with federal aid, we are recommending 

that the Secretary of Transportation direct the FHWA Administrator to

• develop and report on a strategy regarding how FHWA plans to comply 

with GAO’s legal opinion concerning the statute governing the sale or 

lease of real property; and

• provide additional guidance to the state DOTs that will help ensure that 

states use the proceeds of property sales or leases as required by TEA21, including the types of documentation or tracking that would be cost 

effective and appropriate to demonstrate compliance.

14FHWA officials also agreed that their lack of knowledge about state practices might be due 

to the low priority placed on oversight of property management and disposal of real 

property. 
Page 13 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We obtained comments on a draft of this report from DOT officials, 

including the FHWA Director of the Office of Program Administration and 

the Division Administrator, FHWA Massachusetts Division Office. They 

agreed with the facts presented in the draft report regarding states’ sale, 

lease, and disposal of real property originally purchased with federal funds 

and with the states’ use of the proceeds. The DOT’s General Counsel is 

considering GAO’s legal opinion on how the federal share of the proceeds 

should be used, so the officials did not comment on those sections of the 

draft report. For the same reason, the officials did not comment on our 

recommendation that the DOT develop and report on a strategy regarding 

how it plans to comply with GAO’s legal opinion. The FHWA commented 

that the report should recognize first, that FHWA’s interpretation of the 

relevant provisions of TEA-21 was based on a regulation issued in 1999 and 

secondly, that FHWA has provided extensive guidance on the 

implementation of these provisions. We made several changes to the report 

based on these comments. However, we continue to believe that the 

potential noncompliance with TEA-21 we observed in two states, which 

FHWA acknowledges conflicts with its interpretation of the statute, and the 

varying practices we observed in other states suggest the need for 

clarifying existing guidance or issuing additional guidance, as indicated in 

our recommendations. Regarding the recommendation to issue additional 

guidance to help ensure that states use the proceeds from the sale or lease 

of real property originally purchased with federal funds as required by 

TEA-21, FHWA officials said they would consider providing additional 

guidance pending the outcome of the Department’s review of GAO’s legal 

opinion. The FHWA officials also provided technical comments, which we 

have incorporated into this report as appropriate.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 

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

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

cognizant congressional committees, the Secretary of Transportation, and 

the Administrator, Federal Highway Administration. In addition, this report 

will also be available on GAO’s Web site for no charge at 

http://www.gao.gov.
Page 14 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me at 

(202) 512-2834. Key contributors to this report were Sally Gilley, Octavia 

Parks, and Jobenia Odum.

Sincerely yours,

Katherine Siggerud

Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Team
Page 15 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation requested that 

we determine (1) the extent to which states are selling, leasing, or 

disposing of real property purchased with federal-aid funds and (2) how the 

proceeds generated from the sale or lease of real property are being used in 

accordance with the intent of TEA-21. We drew from our legal opinion 

regarding FHWA’s interpretation of the federal law governing the sale or 

lease of real property.

To determine the extent to which the states are selling, leasing, or 

disposing of real property purchased with federal-aid funds, we obtained 

information from FHWA officials and surveyed 51 state DOTs, including the 

District of Columbia, to identify the number of properties and value of real 

properties that were sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of from June 1998 

to May 2002. Before we submitted the survey to the 51 state DOTs, we 

obtained input from FHWA officials in developing our survey because they 

recently attempted to collect the same type of information from the state 

DOTs. We pretested the survey with Georgia DOT. We obtained and 

analyzed responses from all 51 states, including the District of Columbia, 

and conducted follow-up interviews as necessary. We compared each 

state’s 1999 and 2000 total proceeds generated from the sale or lease of real 

property with the states’ total receipts obtained for highway projects 

reported by DOT. We did not independently verify the data provided by the 

state DOTs or assess the reliability of the data reported by DOT. We 

obtained preliminary data regarding real property sales and leases from 

FHWA and selected five states (California, Georgia, Illinois, Texas, and 

Virginia), based primarily on—among other reasons—high property sales 

and leases and how these states’ were dispersed throughout the United 

States. We selected California and Texas because they had the highest 

income from property sales; Illinois was selected because of its geographic 

location, and it was one of the states that had a high number of property 

sales and income. Georgia was selected because FHWA’s preliminary data 

of states property sales indicated that Georgia had not taken advantage of 

the provisions of title 23, section 156 of U.S.C. Finally, Virginia was selected 

because FHWA’s preliminary data indicated total income from property 

sales or leases, but the number of properties was not reported. We 

interviewed state and federal officials at these states, regarding their 

opinions about the benefits of the current regulations relative to the states’

transportation programs among other reasons. 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 16 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

To determine how the proceeds generated from the sale or lease of real 

property are used, we contacted states DOT officials responsible for the 

right-of-way programs and obtained information regarding (1) how they 

use proceeds generated from the sale or lease of real property, (2) any 

restrictions on the use of the proceeds, and (3) the states’ sources for 

matching federal contributions. We also obtained and reviewed state rightof-way disposal procedures and other documentation related to the sale or 

lease of real property. We obtained and reviewed documentation regarding 

FHWA’s division office and headquarters oversight roles related to the sale 

or lease of real property. We also interviewed officials of the U.S. DOT 

Inspector General’s office and reviewed documentation regarding their 

review of the Massachusetts’ Central Artery Tunnel Project that had 

initially raised concerns about FHWA’s interpretation of TEA-21 changes 

related to sales and leases of real property.
Page 17 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

Appendix II

GAO Legal Opinion ApendxiI
Appendix II

GAO Legal Opinion

Page 18 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property
Appendix II

GAO Legal Opinion

Page 19 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property
Appendix II

GAO Legal Opinion

Page 20 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property
Appendix II

GAO Legal Opinion

Page 21 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property
Appendix II

GAO Legal Opinion

Page 22 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property
Appendix II

GAO Legal Opinion

Page 23 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property
Page 24 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

Appendix III

GAO Letter and Survey to State DOTs ApendxiI
Appendix III

GAO Letter and Survey to State DOTs

Page 25 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property
Appendix III

GAO Letter and Survey to State DOTs

Page 26 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property
Page 27 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

Appendix IV

Survey Responses of State DOTs’ Sales or 

Leases of Real Property ApendxiIV

Table 1: State DOTs that Sold, Leased, or Disposed of Real Property Purchased with Federal-Aid Funds, June 1998 - May 2002

State

Are you able to identify properties that were 

sold, leased, or disposed?a

Has your state sold, leased, or disposed of property 

purchased with federal-aid funds?b

Yes Noc Sometimesd Yes No Sometimes

Alabama ✔ ✔

Alaska ✔ ✔

Arizona ✔ ✔

Arkansas ✔ ✔

California ✔ ✔

Colorado ✔ ✔

Connecticut ✔ ✔

Delaware ✔ ✔

District of Columbia ✔ ✔

Florida ✔ ✔

Georgia ✔ ✔

Hawaii ✔ ✔

Idaho ✔ ✔

Illinois ✔ ✔

Indiana ✔ ✔

Iowa ✔ ✔

Kansas ✔ ✔

Kentucky ✔ ✔

Louisiana ✔ ✔

Maine ✔ ✔

Marylande ✔ ✔

Massachusetts ✔ ✔

Michigan ✔ ✔

Minnesota ✔ ✔

Mississippi ✔ ✔

Missouri ✔ ✔

Montana ✔ ✔

Nebraska ✔ ✔

Nevadae ✔ ✔
Appendix IV

Survey Responses of State DOTs’ Sales or 

Leases of Real Property

Page 28 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

a

Column totals: “Yes” (40), “No” (8), “Sometimes” (3).

b

Column totals: “Yes” (51), “No” (0), “Sometimes” (0).

c

“No”– State officials could not readily distinguish properties originally acquired with federal funds. 

d

“Sometimes” – State officials could sometimes distinguish properties originally acquired with federal 

funds.

e

State officials reported federal funds are returned by crediting an ongoing federal-aid project.

Source: Developed by GAO from data provided by State DOTs.

New Hampshire ✔ ✔

New Jersey ✔ ✔

New Mexico ✔ ✔

New York ✔ ✔

North Carolina ✔ ✔

North Dakota ✔ ✔

Ohio ✔ ✔

Oklahoma ✔ ✔

Oregon ✔ ✔

Pennsylvania ✔ ✔

Rhode Island ✔ ✔

South Carolina ✔ ✔

South Dakota ✔ ✔

Tennessee ✔ ✔

Texase ✔ ✔

Utah ✔ ✔

Vermont ✔ ✔

Virginia ✔ ✔

Washington ✔ ✔

West Virginia ✔ ✔

Wisconsin ✔ ✔

Wyoming ✔ ✔

(Continued From Previous Page)

State

Are you able to identify properties that were 

sold, leased, or disposed?a

Has your state sold, leased, or disposed of property 

purchased with federal-aid funds?b

Yes Noc Sometimesd Yes No Sometimes
Appendix IV

Survey Responses of State DOTs’ Sales or 

Leases of Real Property

Page 29 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

Table 2: Number of Properties Originally Purchased with Federal-Aid Funds for Which States Retained Proceeds Upon the 

Properties Sale or Lease, June 1998 – May 2002

State

FY 1998

(Partial)a FY 1999a FY 2000a FY 2001a

FY 2002

(Partial)a Total

Alabama 79 63 119 67 40 368

Alaska 2 3 3 1 1 10

Arizona 29 23 24 34 28 138

Arkansas 35 13 11 9 3 71

California State officials could not readily distinguish properties originally acquired with federal funds.

Colorado 22 35 41 54 56 208

Connecticut 2 3 2 7 6 20

Delaware N/R N/R N/R N/R 1 1

District of Columbia State officials reported one transfer of jurisdiction from Washington, D.C. to National Park Service.

Floridab 3 11 12 9 0 Not calculated

Georgia 48 112 107 61 0 328

Hawaii N/R 44 51 55 57 207

Idaho N/R 67 77 70 50 264

Illinois State officials could not readily distinguish properties originally acquired with federal funds.

Indiana 12 22 17 12 11 74

Iowa 9 68 58 65 50 250

Kansas State officials could not readily distinguish properties originally acquired with federal funds.

Kentucky N/R 39 41 33 41 154

Louisiana State officials could not readily distinguish properties originally acquired with federal funds

Maine 7 11 11 6 6 41

Maryland State officials could not readily distinguish properties originally acquired with federal funds. Also, state 

officials reported federal funds are returned by crediting an ongoing federal-aid project.

Massachusetts 21 4 10 20 N/R 55

Michigan 50 65 25 28 9 177

Minnesotab 6 64 5 3 Not calculated

Mississippi N/R 12 9 5 13 39

Missouri 9 13 13 14 12 61

Montana N/R 12 16 17 18 63

Nebraska N/R 10 21 8 10 49

Nevada State officials could not readily distinguish properties originally acquired with federal funds. Also, state 

officials reported federal funds are returned by crediting an ongoing federal-aid project.

New Hampshire State officials only reported averages.

New Jersey 0 7 10 7 7 31

New Mexico 0 2 0 2 54 58
Appendix IV

Survey Responses of State DOTs’ Sales or 

Leases of Real Property

Page 30 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

Notes:

We obtained information from June 1998 to May 2002.

We grouped the total properties sold and leased for each state. 

N/R indicates Not Reported.

a

We recognize that some states have different starting and ending months for their fiscal years than the 

federal government. We believe that any discrepancy due to these differences would be minimal. 

Information we obtained for 1998 begins with the month of June, and 2002 ends with the month of May.

b

State officials from Florida, Minnesota, and Virginia reported they were able to “sometimes” identify 

those properties that were sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of that were originally acquired with 

federal funds. This may indicate that these numbers are estimates; therefore, we excluded these 

numbers from our total.

Source: Developed by GAO from data provided by State DOTs. 

New York N/R 5 8 2 6 21

North Carolina 6 14 11 10 1 42

North Dakota 2 4 2 2 0 10

Ohio N/R 112 137 98 206 553

Oklahoma State officials could not readily distinguish properties originally acquired with federal funds. 

Oregon 51 69 57 62 53 292

Pennsylvania 7 17 21 18 7 70

Rhode Island N/R 124 123 117 90 454

South Carolina 3 5 7 18 13 46

South Dakota N/R N/R 2 N/R 1 3

Tennessee 13 25 27 27 16 108

Texas State officials reported the number of properties purchased with federal aid funds but also reported federal 

funds are returned by crediting an ongoing federal-aid project; therefore, we excluded these numbers from 

our total.

Utah 5 6 12 5 0 28

Vermont 1 4 6 2 5 18

Virginiab N/R N/R N/R 21 9 Not calculated

Washington N/R 308 310 321 302 1,241

West Virginia 15 15 0 48 12 75

Wisconsin State officials could not readily distinguish properties originally acquired with federal funds.

Wyoming 1 2 4 2 N/R 9

Total 429 1,338 1,393 1,307 1,184 5,636

(Continued From Previous Page)

State

FY 1998

(Partial)a FY 1999a FY 2000a FY 2001a

FY 2002

(Partial)a Total
Appendix IV

Survey Responses of State DOTs’ Sales or 

Leases of Real Property

Page 31 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

Table 3: States’ Total Proceeds from the Sale, Lease, or Disposal of Real Property Purchased with Federal-Aid Funds, June 1998 

– May 2002

State

FY 1998

(Partial)a FY 1999a FY 2000a FY 2001a

FY 2002

(Partial)a

Alabama $604,235 $260,577 $542,178 $438,473 $89,458

Alaska 154,848 199,241 79,892 51,159 19,769

Arizona 479,301 198,883 1,317,343 7,005,086 507,228

Arkansas 54,057 76,896 38,441 12,791 18,542

California State officials could not readily distinguish properties originally acquired with federal funds. 

Coloradod 1,099,475 1,290,467 1,295,209 2,477,512 Estimate

Connecticut 23,572 1,068,000 52,201 796,363 697,101

Delaware N/R N/R N/R N/R 129,000

District of Columbia State officials reported the transfer of one jurisdiction from Washington, DC to National Park Service in 

which no proceeds were generated.

Floridab N/R 404,671 233,605 1,030,495 1,842,686

Georgia 3,320,000 4,642,572 6,237,800 5,135,129 N/R

Hawaii 528,331 584,484 621,684 680,584 N/R

Idaho N/R 2,083,429 1,095,484 512,961 192,148

Illinois State officials could not readily distinguish properties originally acquired with federal funds. 

Indiana 15,724 76,993 94,867 91,282 56,497

Iowa 225 748,649 29,553 105,504 17,061

Kansasc N/R 267,705 907,980 245,408 868,701

Kentucky N/R 655,025 885,958 259,990 258,610

Louisiana State officials could not readily distinguish properties originally acquired with federal funds.

Maine 63,300 18,000 82,000 40,750 26,360

Maryland State officials could not readily distinguish properties originally acquired with federal funds. Also, state 

officials reported federal funds are returned by crediting an ongoing federal-aid project.

Massachusettsd 2,109,218 990,610 4,387,582 5,312,053 Estimate

Michigan 2,508,481 11,539,450 5,476,251 5,686,225 2,624,650

Minnesotab 389,765 775,252 163,571 170,299 285,571

Mississippi N/R 584,791 58,765 48,325 423,825

Missouri 101,356 4,436,584 73,000 77,768 334,895

Montana N/R 449,958 693,346 677,102 816,429

Nebraska 59,121 245,342 1,065,344 454,414 113,184

Nevada State officials could not readily distinguish properties originally acquired with federal funds. Also, state 

officials reported federal funds are returned by crediting an ongoing federal-aid project.

New Hampshire State officials only reported averages.

New Jersey 0 1,027,612 4,203,700 525,906 121,000

New Mexico 50,739 106,440 64,770 212,327 77,161
Appendix IV

Survey Responses of State DOTs’ Sales or 

Leases of Real Property

Page 32 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

Notes:

We obtained information from June 1998 to May 2002. 

The dollar amounts represented in this table are expressed in nominal values.

We grouped the total properties sold and leased for each state. 

N/R indicates Not Reported.

a

We recognize that some states have different starting and ending months for their fiscal years than the 

federal government. However, given the relatively low and steady rate of change in the price level of 

the economy since 1998, we believe that any discrepancy due to these differences would be minimal. 

Information we obtained for 1998 begins with the month of June, and 2002 ends with the month of May.

b

State officials from Florida, Minnesota, and Virginia reported they were able to “sometimes” identify 

the proceeds from the sale or lease of property acquired with federal funds, which may indicate that 

these numbers are estimates; therefore, these states were excluded from the total. 

c

State officials from Oklahoma and Kansas were able to report the proceeds from the sale or lease of 

property acquired with federal funds but were unable to report the number of properties sold or leased. 

This may indicate that these numbers are estimates; therefore, we excluded these numbers from our 

total.

d

State officials reported estimates for 2002 totals; therefore, we excluded these numbers from our 

report. 

Source: Developed by GAO from data provided by State DOTs.

New York N/R 698,625 585,955 651,675 442,869

North Carolina 129,875 603,590 339,184 255,530 18,400

North Dakota 251,000 168,794 2,901 9,510 0

Ohio N/R 121,281 133,792 179,126 1,189,711

Oklahomac 39,742 221,282 384,379 233,696 68,647

Oregon 314,105 1,780,532 2,077,468 1,710,214 594,769

Pennsylvania 114,000 2,162,256 2,598,190 701,000 1,137,789

Rhode Island N/R 1,566,057 1,679,374 2,830,303 994,526

South Carolina 31,639 83,147 204,363 1,981,969 332,142

South Dakota N/R N/R 11,060 N/R 66,920

Tennessee 111,218 448,709 336,580 303,453 52,053

Texas State officials reported the proceeds from the sale or lease of property acquired with federal funds but also 

reported federal funds are returned by crediting an ongoing federal-aid project; therefore, we excluded 

these numbers from our total.

Utah 92,778 89,810 1,061,239 119,670 0

Vermont 850 79,101 53,600 3,001 6,850

Virginiab N/R 2,114,020 881,149 1,287,344 608,136

Washington N/R 599,299 1,041,852 480,053 218,202

West Virginia 269,807 152,470 0 1,472,338 92,231

Wisconsin State officials could not readily distinguish properties originally acquired with federal funds. 

Wyoming 8,100 86,292 57,912 522,431 N/R

(Continued From Previous Page)

State

FY 1998

(Partial)a FY 1999a FY 2000a FY 2001a

FY 2002

(Partial)a
Page 33 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

Appendix V

Fiscal Year 1999 Proceeds Information ApendxiV

To analyze the significance of the proceeds from the sale or lease of real 

property purchased with federal-aid funds with other states’ revenues 

available for highway purposes, we compared states’ property proceeds 

with states’ total receipts. Table 4 shows the result of our analysis. 

Table 4: Comparisons of States’ Property Proceeds with States’ Total Receipts, Fiscal Year 1999

Statea, b, c, d

States’ proceeds from the

sale or lease of real

property purchased with

federal-aid funds

Total receipts including federal

contributions

Ratio of proceeds and

highway receipts

Alabama $260,577 $1,149,923,000 0.023%

Alaska 199,241 415,566,000 0.048

Arizona 198,883 1,789,631,000 0.011

Arkansas 76,896 781,194,000 0.010

Colorado 1,290,467 1,400,358,000 0.092

Connecticut 1,068,000 1,194,190,000 0.089

Georgia 4,642,572 1,769,962,000 0.262

Hawaii 528,331 321,264,000 0.164

Idaho 2,083,429 473,902,000 0.440

Indiana 76,993 1,675,527,000 0.005

Iowa 748,649 1,274,354,000 0.059

Kentucky 655,025 1,452,514,000 0.045

Maine 18,000 413,718,000 0.004

Massachusetts 990,610 4,035,797,000 0.025

Michigan 11,539,450 2,553,633,000 0.452

Mississippi 584,791 1,152,532,000 0.051

Missouri 4,436,584 1,587,419,000 0.279

Montana 449,958 435,175,000 0.103

Nebraska 245,342 649,580,000 0.038

New Jersey 1,027,612 3,021,151,000 0.034

New Mexico 106,440 974,423,000 0.011

New York 698,625 5,148,005,000 0.014

North Carolina 603,590 2,433,617,000 0.025

North Dakota 168,794 413,951,000 0.041

Ohio 121,281 3,377,774,000 0.004

Oregon 1,780,532 1,007,122,000 0.177

Pennsylvania 2,162,256 4,660,704,000 0.046

Rhode Island 1,566,057 320,431,000 0.489
Appendix V

Fiscal Year 1999 Proceeds Information

Page 34 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

a

California, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada and Wisconsin could not provide the proceeds from 

sales, leases, or otherwise disposed of properties; therefore, these states were not included. Delaware 

and South Dakota did not provide data for 1999. District of Columbia reported that it did not have sales 

or leases but did transfer one jurisdiction to the National Park Service, which did not generate 

proceeds. New Hampshire only provided averages for its proceeds. 

b

State officials from Florida, Minnesota, and Virginia reported they were able to “sometimes” identify 

the proceeds from the sale or lease of property acquired with federal funds, which may indicate these 

numbers are estimates; therefore, these states were excluded from the total. 

c

State officials from Oklahoma and Kansas were able to report the proceeds from the sale or lease of 

property acquired with federal funds but were unable to report the number of properties sold or leased, 

which may indicate these numbers are estimates; therefore, these states were excluded from the total.

d

State officials from Texas reported the proceeds from the sale or lease of property acquired with 

federal funds but also reported federal funds are returned by crediting an ongoing federal-aid project; 

therefore, we excluded these numbers from our total.

Source: Developed by GAO from data provided by State DOTs and FHWA.

South Carolina 83,147 1,007,385,000 0.008

Tennessee 448,709 1,475,245,000 0.030

Utah 89,810 869,845,000 0.010

Vermont 79,101 254,560,000 0.031

Washington 599,299 1,859,009,000 0.032

West Virginia 152,470 1,089,541,000 0.014

Wyoming 86,292 393,043,000 0.022

Total $39,867,813 $53,313,565,000 0.075%

(Continued From Previous Page)

Statea, b, c, d

States’ proceeds from the

sale or lease of real

property purchased with

federal-aid funds

Total receipts including federal

contributions

Ratio of proceeds and

highway receipts
Page 35 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

Appendix VI

Fiscal Year 2000 Proceeds Information ApendxiVI

To analyze the significance of the proceeds from the sale or lease of 

real property purchased with federal-aid funds with other states’

revenues available for highway purposes, we compared states’

property proceeds with states’ total receipts. Table 5 shows the 

result of our analysis. 

Table 5: Comparisons of States’ Property Proceeds with States’ Total Receipts, Fiscal Year 2000

Statea,b,c,d

States’ proceeds from the sale

or lease of real property

purchased with federal-aid

funds

Total receipts

including

federal

contributions

Ratio of proceeds and

highway receipts

Alabama $542,178 $1,262,239,000 0.043%

Alaska 79,892 501,359,000 0.016

Arizona 1,317,343 2,113,820,000 0.062

Arkansas 38,441 1,037,247,000 0.004

Colorado 1,295,209 1,958,473,000 0.066

Connecticut 52,201 1,269,463,000 0.004

Georgia 6,237,800 1,852,170,000 0.337

Hawaii 584,484 226,138,000 0.258

Idaho 1,095,484 504,630,000 0.217

Indiana 94,867 1,959,235,000 0.005

Iowa 29,553 1,410,210,000 0.002

Kentucky 885,958 1,670,428,000 0.053

Maine 82,000 751,571,000 0.011

Massachusetts 4,387,582 3,468,038,000 0.127

Michigan 5,476,251 2,815,272,000 0.195

Mississippi 58,765 926,906,000 0.006

Missouri 73,000 2,038,239,000 0.004

Montana 693,346 484,248,000 0.143

Nebraska 1,065,344 718,604,000 0.148

New Jersey 4,203,700 5,102,359,000 0.082

New Mexico 64,770 1,108,855,000 0.006

New York 585,955 5,117,702,000 0.011

North Carolina 339,184 2,619,172,000 0.013

North Dakota 2,901 395,485,000 0.001

Ohio 133,792 3,125,999,000 0.004

Oregon 2,077,468 1,023,632,000 0.203

Pennsylvania 2,598,190 4,026,523,000 0.065
Appendix VI

Fiscal Year 2000 Proceeds Information

Page 36 GAO-03-207 States' Sales or Leases of Real Property

a

California, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, and Wisconsin could not provide the proceeds from 

sales, leases, or otherwise disposed of properties; therefore, these states were not included. Delaware 

did not provide data for 2000. West Virginia did not generate proceeds from the sale or lease of excess 

property for 2000. District of Columbia reported that it did not have sales or leases but did transfer one 

jurisdiction to the National Park Service, which did not generate proceeds. New Hampshire only 

provided averages for its proceeds. 

b

State officials from Florida, Minnesota, and Virginia reported they were able to “sometimes” identify 

the proceeds from the sale or lease of property acquired with federal funds, which may indicate these 

numbers are estimates; therefore, these states were excluded from the total. 

c

State officials from Oklahoma and Kansas were able to report the proceeds from the sale or lease of 

property acquired with federal funds but were unable to report the number of properties sold or leased, 

which may indicate these numbers are estimates; therefore, these states were excluded from the total.

d

State officials from Texas reported the proceeds from the sale or lease of property acquired with 

federal funds but also reported federal funds are returned by crediting an ongoing federal-aid project; 

therefore, we excluded these numbers from our total.

Source: Developed by GAO from data provided by State DOTs and FHWA.

Rhode Island 1,679,374 267,353,000 0.628

South Carolina 204,363 872,060,000 0.023

South Dakota 11,060 411,768,000 0.003

Tennessee 336,580 1,439,811,000 0.023

Utah 1,061,239 922,769,000 0.115

Vermont 53,600 272,088,000 0.020

Washington 1,041,852 1,680,148,000 0.062

Wyoming 57,912 385,358,000 0.015

Total $38,541,637 $55,739,372,000 0.069%

(Continued From Previous Page)

Statea,b,c,d

States’ proceeds from the sale

or lease of real property

purchased with federal-aid

funds

Total receipts

including

federal

contributions

Ratio of proceeds and

highway receipts

(544043)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to 

support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve 

the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American 

people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this 

list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily

E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO 

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single 

address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00