National Archives and Records Administration 

REPORT ON ALTERNATIVE MODELS 

FOR 

PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES
 

ISSUED IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF 

PL 110-404 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2009 
 

 

Table of Contents 

Overview 3 

A Brief History of Presidential Libraries 6 

Examples of the Diversity of Presidential Library Exhibits and Public Programs 9
 

Current Governing Applicable Statutes for Presidential Holdings and Libraries 10 

The Current Model for the Presidential Library System 13 

Current Funding Sources for the Presidential Libraries 13 

Base Appropriations - FY 2008 Cost for Operating Presidential Libraries 14 

Development of Capital Improvement Plans 16 

 Foundation Support 17 

Trust and Gift Funds 18 

 Endowment Funds 19 

Preservation of Holdings 19 

Current Efforts to Improve Access to Presidential Records 22 

Facilitating the Declassification of Presidential Papers and Records 28 

Facilitating Access to Presidential Electronic Records at the PRA Libraries 29 

Facilitating Broader Access to Presidential Records and Papers 29 

Proposed Alternative Models 30 

Alternative Model 1 31 

Alternative Model 2 37 

Alternative Model 3 40 

Alternative Model 4 43 

Alternative Model 5 46 

Summary of the Cost Analysis 49 

Conclusion 54 

Appendix A: Summary of Public Comments 56 

Appendix B: Location of Presidential Papers and Libraries 59 

Appendix C: Presidential Library Costs and Improvements 63 

Appendix D: 2008 Trust Fund Statement 69 

Appendix E: Cost Analysis Spreadsheets 70 

2 
OVERVIEW 

The Presidential Historical Records Preservation Act of 2008 [PL 110-404] requires that the 

Archivist of the United States submit to Congress a report on alternative models for Presidential 

archival depositories that: 

 Reduces the financial burden on the Federal Government, 

 Improves the preservation of Presidential records, and 

 Reduces the delay in public access to all Presidential records. 

In preparing this report, NARA explored a range of issues relating to Presidential Libraries. This 

report will provide an overview of the history of the Library system and the statutory and other 

legal frameworks which govern Presidential Library operations. This context will inform the 

discussion of proposed alternative models for a Presidential Library that might reduce the 

financial burden to the Government and improve preservation and public access to Presidential 

records. In addressing the requirements of the Act, it should be noted that there is a tension 

among the three charges. Alternative models for a Presidential Library that reduce the 

Government’s financial burden may not necessarily result in better preservation or quicker public 

access to Presidential records. Likewise, improvements in both of these areas could result in 

increased costs to the Federal Government. The models proposed in the report have tried to 

consider and balance this tension. 

To fulfill the 2008 Act’s mandate, NARA undertook an internal review of the current Presidential 

Library system, its programs, associated costs, and alternatives for the future of the system. 

NARA requested input on its web site for suggestions for the development of alternative models 

for a Presidential Library, and received over 100 comments. 

The complexity of this assignment is illustrated by a brief look at the broad array of strong 

opinions NARA received on the Presidential Library system. Many comments were supportive 

of the current Presidential Library system and its programs. Some comments called for 

centralization of the Presidential Library system and/or digitization of all Presidential records. 

3 
 

Others favored centralization of key functions such as declassification, while still others were 

supportive of the importance of maintaining the regional diversity of the current system. Some 

comments were supportive of the Presidential museums while others called for their privatization 

or elimination. Further comments stressed the importance of maintaining the right to make 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests five years after the President leaves office as a right 

of requesting Presidential records. 

A detailed summary of the external comments is located in Appendix A. 

The 2008 Presidential Historical Records Preservation Act has tasked us with envisioning new 

ideas for funding, preserving, and making Presidential records available more quickly. Based on 

NARA’s internal review, including reflecting on the evolution of the Presidential library system 

and the external comments received from individuals and organizations, this report will explore 

five specific alternatives. 

Model 1: The current model (in which both the archival depository and museum are 

donated to NARA by the Library Foundation), with revisions to the endowment calculation that 

would require an endowment based on the total size of the building. This model also explores a 

new basis for the charter between NARA and the Library Foundations. 

Model 2: The Presidential archival depository leased by the Government, with a 

separate Museum managed by the Foundation. 

Model 3: The Presidential archival depository donated to NARA by the Foundation, 

a university, or other non-Federal entity, with a separate Museum managed by the Foundation. 

Model 4: A centralized Presidential archival depository funded and managed by 

NARA, with no museum. Presidential Foundations may build and manage their own museums in 

a location of their choice. 

4 
Model 5: A centralized Presidential archival depository funded and managed by 

NARA and a Museum of the Presidency built and staffed by NARA. Private funds through a 

separate Foundation or through other fund-raising would be required to build and sustain the 

exhibits and the educational and public programs of the Museum. 

We also considered an option that would place a Presidential collection in a currently existing 

NARA regional facility. However, because the geographic area from which future Presidents will 

come is unpredictable, it is impossible to determine which regional facilities would, in the future, 

house Presidential collections. While NARA believes that the size of the textual collections of 

future presidential administrations will decline, textual holdings will nonetheless remain 

substantial and therefore continue to require a significant amount of space at any future archival 

depository. A sizeable archival staff is required to process the textual and electronic records, 

which would require extensive changes to the infrastructure of the regional facility or even 

necessitate its relocation. Further infrastructure changes would be needed to house both the 

artifact holdings, which require customized stack configurations and special shelving and 

cabinets, and the secure compartmented information facilities, known as SCIFs, for classified 

records. The cost of making these infrastructure changes to an existing regional archives facility 

or moving to a larger facility proved too costly and too unpredictable for this to be a viable option 

for further study. 

In proposing these five models, we are aware that the paradigm shift to preserving and making 

accessible electronic records is still in its infancy. In fact, President Obama’s reliance on 

technology to conduct his everyday business, and his administration’s focus on the use of Web 

2.0 and social networking technologies to promote Americans’ involvement in the governing 

process creates a challenge not yet met by NARA or the rest of government, both in 

implementation of his directives and in the management of the electronic records created through 

these initiatives. In addition, predicting what the storage requirements for Presidential records 

will be in the next 50 years is not yet possible. Finally, initial digitization projects undertaken by 

NARA have demonstrated the intensive cost in time and resources required to create, store, 

retrieve, and make accessible digital surrogates via the web. It is clear that management of 

electronic records is a process different from creation and management of digital surrogates, both 

5 
 

of which are crucial to the success of any future model of a Presidential Library. Adequate 

infrastructure is critical to the future management of Presidential records. 

Whether the current model or a variation remains or whether, in the future, Presidential records 

are retained in depositories that are very different from the Presidential Libraries we now have 

does not alter NARA’s primary mission of preserving and providing access to Presidential 

records. Regardless of the ultimate outcome, an open and transparent discussion of Presidential 

Libraries and their futures serves everyone – the President and former Presidents, NARA, its 

stakeholders, and the American people. 

A BRIEF HISTORY OF PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES 

Seventy years ago, only five years after the establishment of the National Archives, Franklin D. 

Roosevelt proposed creating the first Presidential Library to house the Presidential papers and 

gifts accumulated during his administration. He wanted this Library to be a part of the National 

Archives, an institution he had nurtured from its establishment in 1934. He created a private 

foundation to raise funds for the construction of the Library building, which was then donated to 

the National Archives for operation as a Federal facility. On June 30, 1941, as the war in 

Europe threatened democracy, Roosevelt dedicated his Library at Hyde Park to the benefit of 

“future generations” who would use the records of his presidency. His words of dedication 

remain important today: 

To bring together the records of the past and to house them in buildings where they will be 

preserved for the use of men and women in the future, a Nation must believe in three 

things. 

It must believe in the past. 

It must believe in the future. 

It must, above all, believe in the capacity of its own people so to learn from the past that 

they can gain judgment in creating their own future. 

With its extensive collection of Roosevelt historical materials available to researchers and its 

museum experience for the general public, the Roosevelt Library, including its public/private 

partnership, established the current model for the Presidential Library system. 

6 
By the early 1950s, with President Truman planning a Library and President Eisenhower clearly 

intending to do so, Congress codified the model in the Presidential Libraries Act of 1955. The 

Act outlined the legal authority of the Archivist of the United States to accept the gift of a 

Presidential archival depository. The legislation had full bipartisan support and was hailed by 

scholars and educators for formalizing an approach to caring for and making available the records 

of a President and his Administration. Fundamental to the Act was the public/private partnership. 

The Truman Institute, established for the purpose of constructing the Truman Library, became the 

model for future foundations in its support of research grants and conferences. To this day, the 

Truman Institute remains true to its original mission of supporting exhibits and Library programs, 

including the White House Decision Center, an immersive education experience that teaches 

critical thinking skills by having students confront the same decisions faced by President Truman. 

The Presidential Libraries Act also authorized the Archivist of the United States to collect certain 

fees for the benefit of the Library and deposit the fees in a Trust Fund to help defray operating 

costs. Clearly Congress recognized even then the need for additional revenue sources. The Act 

provided flexibility for the Archivist to enter into agreements with state or political subdivisions, 

universities or institutions of higher learner, and institutes or foundations for the purposes of 

“utilizing land, buildings, and equipment for a Presidential Archival Depository.” The model was 

not static but dynamic in its development. It enabled a President and the National Archives to 

develop a Library with new partners and to pursue a broader mission to educate and inform the 

public about the President and his life and times. 

The Presidential Library System as we know it today (now consisting of thirteen Libraries) has 

certainly evolved from its simple beginnings. Early on, a President usually located his Library in 

his hometown. Today, Libraries are most often located in places more associated with his adult 

life or career. Affiliation with a university has become common. The public/private partnership 

has at times expanded to include third and fourth parties - universities and communities - 

involved in some measure with the advancement of the Library’s mission and role. The number 

and complexity of programs and exhibits and the synergy of multiple Libraries documenting 

Presidents and American history has resulted in system-wide projects. Conferences on the 

Vietnam War, the Supreme Court, and the Nuclear Age along with the on-line Presidential 

7 
Timeline, which brings together on one website the documents, images, and recordings of the 

Presidency are examples of this new synergy. As historian David McCullough said addressing an 

audience at the 50th Anniversary of the Truman Library in June of 2007: 

Don’t ever think our Presidential Libraries aren’t worth everything that has been put into 

them, and then some, and the fact that they are spreading out to so many different locales 

in the country is wonderful. It’s bringing history out into every part of our nation and that 

is very important for the education of our children and our grandchildren. 

As cultural and educational institutions, the Libraries make unique and vital contributions to 

communities across the nation. They have unparalleled research collections which, when 

combined with a public museum and public programs, provide researchers, students, and the 

general public a rich opportunity for understanding individual Presidents, the historical context of 

the times in which they lived and served, and the nature of the American Presidency. The 

Libraries also provide forums where scholars and citizens across the nation interact, ponder, and 

discuss the highest actions of our Federal Government, and consider issues both domestic and 

global in scope. Presidential Libraries represent less than 16% of NARA’s budget yet account for 

63% of visitors to the National Archives. Outreach opportunities provided through the Libraries 

could be lost if future Presidential Libraries are not built in local communities across the country. 

Presidential Libraries can foster civic life in their communities. For example, the Clinton Library 

helped provide the catalyst for the re-birth of downtown Little Rock. For more than 50 years, the 

Eisenhower Library has been a center of community life in Abilene, Kansas. These two Libraries 

are illustrative of the benefits that they, and the eleven other Libraries, bring to the community, to 

their students, and to citizens. Furthermore, through the strength of the public-private 

partnership, both NARA and the Foundations provide resources for diverse exhibits and public 

programs that reach people across the country. Highlights of these programs are provided in the 

following table. 

8 
Examples of the Diversity of Presidential Library 

Exhibits and Public Programs 

	 National Issue Forums hosted by all Presidential Libraries allow local citizens to discuss 

complex issues such as the cost of health care, energy, and the economy. 

	 The Abraham Lincoln exhibit at the Ford Museum shattered attendance records, and 

received wide media coverage. The exhibit was accompanied by numerous programs 

featuring Lincoln scholars and special events targeting school children. 

	 A civil rights symposium in 2007 sponsored by the Clinton and Eisenhower Presidential 

Libraries brought together scholars in history, law, and education to discuss the 

integration of Little Rock Central High School and its impact on national civil rights. 

Students from Abilene High School and Little Rock’s Central High School engaged in a 

role-playing exercise and discussions reprising the events of that dramatic time. 

	 Experiential educational programs such as the Truman Library’s White House Decision 

Center, the Eisenhower Library’s Five Star Leader Program, and the Reagan Library Air 

Force One Discovery Center all challenge students in role-playing exercises related to 

Presidential decisions. These programs reach students grades 5-12, as well as college 

students, and adults, and fully immerse participants in key Presidential decisions such as 

desegregating the military, dropping the atomic bomb, and military invasions. 

	 Speaker series and special conferences hosted by the Presidential Libraries explore 

historical topics as seen by key historical figures, such as Madeleine Albright, Kofi 

Annan, Tom Brokaw, Ken Burns, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Henry Kissinger, Barack 

Obama, Sandra Day O’Connor, Nancy Pelosi, Condoleezza Rice, John Roberts, Karl 

Rove, Maria Shriver, and Theodore Sorenson. 

	 Special exhibits feature pivotal and rare documents often not seen outside of the 

Washington, DC, area, including the Magna Carta at the Reagan Library and the 

Emancipation Proclamation at the Clinton Library. 

	 Library programs promote civic literacy. The Kennedy Library’s National Student/Parent 

Mock Election program during election years has allowed 75,000 students all over 

Massachusetts to analyze party positions on diverse issues and pose their questions to 

party representatives during presidential, gubernatorial, and senatorial elections. Over the 

last thirteen years, the Hoover Library has had up to 30,000 students participate annually 

in interactive live virtual conferences featuring videos, artifacts, and original documents. 

Notably, schools located outside of driving distance or schools that cannot afford bus fare 

are able to experience Library offerings through this program. 

9 
CURRENT GOVERNING APPLICABLE STATUTES FOR PRESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS AND LIBRARIES 

The two key statutes dealing with Presidential Libraries are the Presidential Libraries Act (PLA), 

44 U.S.C. §§ 2111 and 2112, and its subsequent amendments, and the Presidential Records Act 

(PRA), 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2207. The PLA primarily deals with the facility and the endowment 

provisions for establishing new Presidential Libraries. The alternative models discussed below 

will suggest changes to the PLA that could reduce future costs for maintaining the Libraries. The 

Presidential Records Act specifies the access framework for Presidential Records. (We refer to 

Libraries that hold Presidential records as “PRA Libraries.” Libraries established before 

Government ownership of Presidential records are referred to as “Deed of Gift” Libraries.) The 

alternative models will also include suggested changes to the PRA that could help to open 

Presidential records more quickly. 

The Presidential Libraries Act 

As noted above, Congress passed the Presidential Libraries Act in 1955 to codify the means by 

which the Archivist could accept a Presidential archival depository on behalf of the United States. 

By the early 1980s, Congress had become concerned about the size and costs of Presidential 

Libraries. The Senate Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government, 

under the chairmanship of Senator Lawton Chiles, proposed new legislation to amend the 

Presidential Libraries Act of 1955. The resulting Presidential Libraries Act of 1986 includes the 

following key points: 

1.	 A requirement for the Archivist to promulgate architectural and design standards 

applicable to Presidential archival depositories in order to ensure that such depositories 

preserve Presidential records and contain adequate research facilities; 

2.	 The requirement that the donor of a Presidential archival depository must provide an 

endowment equal to 20% of the cost of the facility, land, or other improvements for the 

purpose of offsetting Library operations and maintenance costs (not program costs) for 

facilities up to 70,000 square feet. The endowment would increase dramatically if the 

Library exceeded 70,000 square feet, ultimately reaching 100% of the cost of the facility. 

10 
By effectively limiting Libraries to 70,000 square feet or less, the endowment provision failed to 

distinguish between the space requirements necessary for a two, versus a one, term President or to 

allow now for the needed growth of space for a larger staff, as electronic records have greatly 

increased the size and complexity of Presidential records holdings. Later legislation passed in 

2003 increased the endowment provision first to 40% (not to go into effect until the President 

after George W. Bush) while also providing opportunities to reduce the endowment through 

credits for construction features or equipment that would result in long-term savings to the 

Government. The endowment requirement was changed again in 2008 to 60% of the cost of a 

facility up to 70,000 square feet and it too will not affect the George W. Bush Library. 

The 20% endowment provision first applied to the George H. W. Bush Library in 1997. Prior to 

the acceptance of the Library by the National Archives, the Bush Foundation provided to the 

National Archives an endowment totaling $4,000,000. In 2004, the Clinton Foundation provided 

an endowment of $7,200,000 which represented 20% of the $32,000,000 cost of NARA’s portion 

of the Library. These endowments have been based on the cost of the usable square footage 

transferred to NARA’s control. The 60% endowment provision will first apply to a Barack 

Obama Library. As required by the statute, NARA uses the income to offset facility operations 

and maintenance costs. 

The Archivist also promulgated the required architecture and design standards for Presidential 

Libraries. The first comprehensive draft was not completed until 1999. Previous versions had 

essentially been a program document with some technical data related to environmental 

conditions for holdings storage areas. The standards have now grown to include detailed 

technical specifications for HVAC systems, security infrastructure, and shelving. The Clinton 

Library was built to these new, more detailed standards. The latest version of the updated 

standards was promulgated in May 2008. When renovating existing Libraries, the standards are 

applied to the fullest extent technically possible in existing buildings. 

The Presidential Records Act 

The other main statutory authority dealing with Presidential Library holdings is the Presidential 

Records Act (PRA) of 1978. Throughout the 18th, 19th, and well into the 20th century, few 

11 
questions were raised regarding the private ownership of Presidential papers by the President (just 

as the official papers of each Member of Congress and Supreme Court Justice remain privately 

owned to this day). Former Presidents could donate them to a library or archives, or not, as they 

saw fit. Fortunately, the Library of Congress undertook major collecting efforts, saving many 

Presidential papers (see Appendix B for the location of Presidential Papers from Washington to 

Bush 43). On the other hand, many were accidentally or purposely destroyed. As initiated by 

Franklin Roosevelt, the precedent of donating Presidential papers to the Government worked very 

well. Although the Presidential Libraries Act, which established the Libraries, did not mandate 

that Presidents systematically preserve their Presidential papers, the legislation assured a 

President who donated his materials to the National Archives that the integrity of a Presidential 

collection would be preserved in one place, and that the papers would be cared for by a 

professional archival staff and made available for research and study. A deed of gift for the 

President’s papers was a pre-condition for the acceptance of a Presidential Library by the 

Government. 

President Richard Nixon’s resignation in 1974 prompted an examination of the tradition of 

private ownership of Presidential papers. That year Congress enacted the Presidential Recordings 

and Materials Preservation Act (PRMPA), which seized the Nixon Presidential materials and 

gave the National Archives legal custody and control over them. Title II of the PRMPA 

established the National Study Commission on Records and Documents of Federal Officials to 

explore topics of ownership, control, disposition, and preservation of historic materials created by 

Government officials. The report of the Commission, completed in March 1977, made two key 

recommendations: 

1. All documentary materials received or made by Federal Officials in discharge of their 

official duties should be considered the property of the United States. 

2. Presidents should be given additional rights to control access to their Presidential 

records up to 15 years after the end of their administration. (Congress changed this to 12 

years in the subsequently enacted PRA legislation.) 

In 1978, Congress acted on the report and passed the PRA, which clearly established public 

ownership of the official records of a President upon their creation. The PRA further established 

12 
that immediately upon the conclusion of a President’s tenure, the legal custody of Presidential 

records would be transferred to the National Archives. Government archivists would then be 

responsible for preserving, processing, and providing access to the records. Although NARA’s 

process for providing access to donated historical materials and the process for providing access 

to Presidential records under the PRA varies somewhat in implementation because of the 

statutory and regulatory requirements, the mission of the Government staff in each Library is the 

same – to preserve and process the materials and provide access as fully and promptly as the law 

or deed and resources permit. 

Basic Legal Authorities for Presidential Gifts 

Besides large collections of papers and records of the President and others associated with him, 

each Presidential Library also houses tens of thousands of artifacts and gifts given to the 

President. There are several statutory authorities dealing with Presidential gifts. 

Head of State and other foreign official gifts are regulated under the Foreign Gifts and 

Decorations Act, 22 U.S.C. 26, upon their receipt by the President. These foreign official gifts 

along with the gifts received by the President from private citizens for eventual deposit in his 

Presidential Library are received under the provision of the Archivist’s receivable authority (44 

U.S.C. 2111 and 2112). Some of these gifts are also received as Presidential records (44 U.S.C. 

2201). These gift collections have become a key part of the holdings of the Presidential Library 

and Museum and are used in museum exhibits to bring the Presidency to life. 

THE CURRENT MODEL FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY SYSTEM 

Though no President is required to establish a Presidential Library, each President from Herbert 

Hoover through George W. Bush has embraced the model first established by Franklin D. 

Roosevelt. In order to understand the proposed alternative models, it is essential to consider 

current Library funding sources, ongoing preservation efforts, and access to Presidential papers 

and records in the current Library system. 

Current Funding Sources for the Presidential Libraries 

Presidential Libraries rely upon multiple funding sources: 

13 
1.	 Base Appropriations: Funds appropriated by Congress for the operation of NARA that 

provide for staffing, administration, security, upkeep, maintenance, and renovation 

projects at the Presidential Libraries. 

2.	 Trust Fund Revenue: Funds generated through museum admission fees, museum store 

sales, and duplication fees provide for admissions staff and help support exhibit-related 

and public programming expenses. 

3.	 Gift Funds: Funds donated to a Library, usually for specific projects or programs. 

4.	 Endowments: Funds required through the Presidential Libraries Act of 1986, as amended, 

offset a portion of the Library’s operations and maintenance costs. 

5.	 Foundation Funds: Funds provided by a Library support organization for programming, 

exhibits, staff, or special projects. These funds may be provided by the Foundation 

annually based on the Library’s budget request, awarded on a project-by-project basis, or 

expended directly by the Foundation for the support of the Library. These funds may also 

be used to support staff performing governmental functions and library renovation 

projects. 

Base Appropriations – FY 2008 Cost for Operating Presidential Libraries 

The cost of operating the Presidential Library system in FY 2008 was $63,944,800 in NARA's 

base appropriation. This amount included funding for operating expenses, salaries and benefits, 

security, operations and maintenance, and facility-related repairs or other infrastructure needs. 

The overall number includes not only the monies budgeted for each Library, but also funding for 

the Office of Presidential Libraries and the Presidential Materials Staff, as well as the new George 

W. Bush Temporary Library Site. In FY 2008, Congress also provided special appropriations for 

the following Libraries: Roosevelt Library, $750,000; Kennedy Library, $8 million; Johnson 

Library, $3.76 million; and the Nixon Library $7.432 million. The following chart provides an 

overview of funding for each of the Presidential Libraries and the Central Office overseeing the 

Libraries. 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FY 2008 PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY ACTUAL COSTS

 O&M 

(Including 

Security) 

Program 

Including Salary 

Minor R&R Major R&R 1 Total 

Hoover 899,000 1,269,800 21,200 20,900 2,210,900 

Roosevelt 2,847,300 1,597,800 55,300 378,000 4,878,400 

Truman 1,969,200 1,879,600 36,200 342,400 4,227,400 

Eisenhower 1,159,600 2,004,800 23,900 180,900 3,369,200 

Kennedy 3,846,600 2,206,100 14,200 1,600 6,068,500 

Johnson 2,880,600 2,159,200 900 3,000 5,043,700 

Nixon2 1,513,100 2,298,600 10,600 47,300 3,869,600 

Ford 1,973,800 1,874,200 38,300 181,500 4,067,800 

Carter 1,578,500 2,941,900 24,800 422,200 4,967,400 

Reagan 3,082,000 2,013,600 57,800 273,700 5,427,100 

Bush 41 2,595,5003 1,662,500 12,700 900 4,271,600 

Clinton 2,261,7004 1,936,200 7,700 132,800 4,438,400 

Bush 435 460,600 3,086,200 0 0 3,546,800 

Central Office6 0 4,606,200 0 0 4,606,200 

Presidential 

Materials Staff7 

0 1,404,500 0 0 1,404,500 

Nixon 

Presidential 

Materials Staff8 

0 1,547,300 0 0 1,547,300 

Totals 26,706,900 34,488,500 303,600 1,985,200 63,944,800 

1

 Represents Major R&R from NARA base appropriations, not restricted appropriations for major projects. 

2

 The addition of the Nixon textual holdings storage addition will result in an increase to O&M costs. 3

 Reflects $248,122 generated by the endowment required by the PLA for operating costs.
 4

 Reflects $383,477 generated by the endowment required by the PLA for operating costs.
 5

 Represents George W. Bush Library guard services, not included in total. In FY 2008, NARA only paid for one 

month of security guard services. That is why this security contract amount is not reflected in the total.

6

 O&M and R&R costs for the Office of Presidential Libraries (central office) in College Park, MD are not
 

calculated separately from the cost of operations for NARA’s facilities in Washington, DC, and College Park. 

7

 O&M and R&R costs for the Presidential Materials Staff in Washington, DC, are not calculated separately from the 

cost of operations for NARA’s facilities in Washington, DC, and College Park, MD. 

8

 Until the completion of the archival storage addition at the Nixon Library in Yorba Linda, CA, NARA continues to
 

maintain space in College Park, MD for Nixon records and staff. O&M and R&R costs for the Nixon staff are not 

calculated separately from the cost of operations for NARA’s facilities in Washington, DC, and College Park, MD. 

15 
Repair and renovation funds within NARA’s base appropriation provide for ongoing upkeep and 

maintenance of Presidential Libraries; support projects aimed at bringing older Libraries as 

closely as possible into compliance with NARA standards; and offer opportunities to reduce 

operating costs through the addition of more efficient building systems. NARA has undertaken a 

series of building condition reports (BCR) for each Library to identify necessary repairs and 

improvements and to provide a basis for prioritizing Library projects. 

Development of Capital Improvement Plans 

 In 2006, NARA recognized the need to identify immediate and long-term repair and renovation 

projects and developed a Capital Improvement Plan for projects over $1,500,000. A plan was 

also required through the Presidential Historical Preservations Act of 2008. Renovations, 

additions, or other capital projects can provide NARA with opportunities to create more secure, 

environmentally appropriate spaces for holdings and to address infrastructure needs that 

inevitably arise as facilities age. The Capital Improvement Plan is an incremental approach that 

enables NARA to address major projects in a systematic fashion within the context of overall 

agency needs. Major capital projects currently underway include the renovation of the Roosevelt 

Library (Phase 1, $17,500,000) and construction of an addition at the Kennedy Library (Phase 1 

and 2, $30,000,000) to increase holdings storage capacity and provide education programming 

space. Currently, a new storage addition is under construction at the Nixon Library to house 

holdings now stored in College Park, MD. Major improvements to the Johnson Library plaza and 

education and public programming space are also underway with expected completion in 2010. 

NARA's Capital Improvement Plan prioritizes a series of potential major renovation and repair 

projects for Libraries through 2018 that are outlined in the list below: 

NARA Capital Improvements Plan Projects: First Tier Projects 

Roosevelt Library Renovation Construction, Phase 2 

16 
 

NARA Capital Improvements Plan Projects: Second Tier Projects 

Eisenhower Center Renovations and Visitor Center Expansion (Design) 

Johnson Library Space Alteration (Design) 

Ford Library Roof Replacement 

NARA Capital Improvements Plan: Third Tier Projects 

Eisenhower Center Renovations and Visitor Center Expansion (Construction Phase 1) 

Johnson Library Space Alterations (Construction) 

Ford Museum Roof Replacement 

Hoover Library Mechanical Repairs and Building Renovations (Construction) 

NARA also incorporates new Federal mandates for the reduction of energy consumption when 

constructing and improving facilities. Better designed and renovated facilities and more efficient 

equipment do result in savings. The architectural and design standards for Presidential Libraries 

require new Libraries to meet LEED9 silver standards. Systematic renovations, repairs, and 

maintenance of equipment and building systems will ultimately result in long-term savings in 

operating Presidential Libraries. 

Foundation Support 

Foundation support has been critical to the operation of the Libraries since their inception. When 

adjusted for inflation, the National Archives has received almost $400,000,000 in new facilities 

and equipment paid for by non-Federal funds.10 NARA has also received additional non-Federal 

funds through Foundation contributions and gifts for the purposes of updating permanent exhibits, 

adding additional program space, and supporting staff to undertake public outreach efforts as well 

9 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating SystemTM encourages sustainable 

green building and development practices through the creation and implementation of universally understood and 

accepted tools and performance criteria.

10 An inflation factor based on the Consumer Price Index inflation calculator was applied to original Library costs 

from dedication date through 2008. 

17 
 

 

as core mission activities. This support varies from year to year but ranges from less than 

$100,000 to several million dollars in direct and indirect contributions to each Library by their 

foundation. 

The need for private funding to enhance government support for library programs was felt early 

on. The Truman Library Institute began raising money to support scholars visiting the Library as 

soon as it opened in 1957, and former President Truman frequently turned over his modest 

honoraria for lectures to the Institute. In 1958, the Institute secured its first major grant from the 

Rockefeller Foundation in the amount of $48,700. However, funding support for exhibits and 

public programs was limited or non-existent since the resources of the Truman Institute and the 

Foundations for the other three existing Libraries (Hoover, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower) had been 

exhausted by the building of the Libraries. President Johnson departed from the original 

public/private foundation model when he decided his Foundation would be endowed to provide 

on-going private financial support for exhibits, public programs, and other needs of the Library.11 

This financial support model became the paradigm. 

Trust and Gift Funds 

The Presidential Libraries Act specifically authorizes the Archivist to collect fees, solicit 

donations, and accept bequests for the benefit of Presidential Libraries. The monies generated at 

or for a Library are deposited into the National Archives Trust for use by that Library. Thus, 

since the beginning of the Presidential Library system in 1941, NARA has used revenue from 

ticket admissions, museum store sales, and duplications to pay for admissions staff and for other 

staff which support exhibit, education and public program activities. In FY 2008, trust fund 

revenue offset $7.9 million in operating costs—costs not borne by the Federal Government. 

Although these trust funds do not provide sufficient income to offset entirely the need for Federal 

appropriations, the Libraries derive considerable benefit from income generated through stores 

and ticket revenues. The income provides a measure of support for museum and public program 

activities and covers the salaries of those who work in admission and museum stores. In FY 

2008, even with the decline in revenue reflecting the broader economic downturn, Presidential 

11 This year the Johnson Foundation will be contributing $1.8 million to the Library. 

18 
Libraries as a system generated a trust fund surplus of $810,000 and posted retained earnings of 

$13,665,295. Retained earnings are used to fund programs that are not covered by appropriated 

monies and to cover future deficits resulting from lower revenues. For the 2008 Trust Fund 

statement, please see Appendix D. 

Endowment Funds 

Endowments required by the Presidential Libraries Act of 1986 and first applied to the George H. 

W. Bush Library have offset some costs to the Federal Government. Conservatively invested to 

protect the principal, incomes range from two to four percent annually. In FY 2008, the 

endowments yielded $248,122 and $383,477 for the Bush and Clinton Libraries, respectively. 

Current security and operation and maintenance contracts for these two Libraries are $2,530,220 

for Bush and $2,981,606 for Clinton. The revenue from the endowments offset these contract 

costs for the Bush Library by a little more than 10% and for Clinton by a little less than 13%. 

If the endowments had been 60 percent of the cost of the Library, as now required, the yield at 

4% would produce $480,000 for Bush and $864,000 for Clinton, which would cover less than 

20% of the Bush contracts and about one-third of the Clinton contracts. This strategy does not 

permit any reinvestment to grow the endowment fund. While the endowment would remain 

essentially flat (barring any losses), operating costs would increase over time while the annual 

offset from the endowment income would remain fairly static with conservative investments. 

Suggestions for increasing the base on which the endowment is calculated and expanding the use 

of the endowment to accumulate funds for major projects will be discussed in more detail in the 

section concerning Alternative Model 1. 

PRESERVATION OF HOLDINGS 

NARA’s preservation program has evolved significantly over the past 25 years. From facility 

design and renovation to treatment of holdings, both through holdings maintenance and more 

directed individual object conservation, preservation is now a major priority of the agency. The 

agency’s first strategic plan in the early nineties identified preservation as a key goal, stating that 

“all records will be preserved in appropriate space for use as long as needed.” Preservation 

activities have evolved in Presidential Libraries as well, most notably as a result of the 

19 
 

Architecture and Design Standards for Presidential Libraries and through internal efforts to 

identify materials at risk and contract vehicles to treat these materials. 

The Architecture and Design Standards for Presidential Libraries mandated by the Presidential 

Libraries Act of 1986 reflect NARA’s commitment to oversee the design and construction,12

 as 

well as the renovation and repair of its facilities to provide space appropriate for the preservation 

of invaluable archival and artifact holdings. 

Almost every aspect of the design standards relates to the preservation of holdings. The standards 

mandate site requirements; general structural criteria; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 

standards; fire safety; security; floor loadings; finishes; lighting; and glazing criteria. Most 

importantly, the standards outline specific temperature and humidity criteria to ensure the longterm protection of Presidential records. These stringent requirements have resulted in 

preservation-quality spaces at the Clinton Library and are being incorporated into the design of 

the new Bush Library, as well as at older Libraries undergoing renovations or repairs. These 

requirements have significantly increased the cost of building Presidential Libraries. Conversely, 

these standards will greatly reduce NARA’s future costs, since the new Libraries are less likely to 

need extensive renovations to meet preservation standards. 

Yet the facility itself is only one part of preservation activities in the current Library model. 

NARA’s Preservation Office and the Office of Presidential Libraries provide funds to treat 

textual, non-textual, and artifact holdings. In particular, non-textual funding enables the Libraries 

to create preservation copies of photographs, films, and audio tapes. At the Kennedy, Nixon, and 

Johnson Libraries, the ongoing review of Presidential tape collections has resulted not only in 

better access to holdings, but also improved preservation of the original tapes. The Office of 

Presidential Libraries, in conjunction with NARA’s Preservation Office, has also begun a major 

preservation assessment and treatment program at the Roosevelt Library. This effort, focused on 

textiles, prints, and paintings, will serve as a model for future projects at other Libraries. These 

projects underscore NARA’s commitment to the preservation of Library holdings. 

12 The Architecture and Design Standards require that design and construction of any new Library be subjected to 

regular reviews by NARA to ensure that the standards are being met. 

20 
In 1998, the Office of Presidential Libraries added a professional curatorial staff as part of its 

Washington, DC based Presidential Materials Staff. The purpose of the curatorial staff is to work 

on a regular basis with the White House, particularly the White House Gift Office, on issues 

relating to artifacts. NARA now works with the White House in determining what gifts are 

appropriate for transfer to the Archives. The Presidential Materials Staff catalogues all incoming 

Presidential and Vice Presidential gifts and artifacts as they arrive, identifies condition issues, and 

applies preservation treatment to materials at risk. On the first day of an Administration, the gift 

unit of the Presidential Materials Staff begins tracking and packing artifacts according to 

curatorial standards. This staff has worked with two administrations in providing disposal 

guidance for Presidential gifts, and at the end of the George W. Bush Administration provided a 

complete inventory of all Bush artifacts. The result of these new protocols is full intellectual 

control over the Presidential gift holdings and completed risk assessments that will enable NARA 

to identify conservation treatment priorities and greatly enhanced control over their physical 

preservation. 

NARA has also had to rely on its partners, the Library Foundations, to offset some preservation 

costs. For example, the Truman Institute provided $1,400,000 to construct a pavilion outside 

President Truman’s office at the Library. The addition supports the preservation of the office and 

its contents and provides the public with an opportunity to view the office. The Institute also 

received a Saving America’s Treasures grant to undertake conservation treatment of artifacts on 

exhibit in President Truman’s office. The Kennedy Foundation has long supported preservation 

efforts at the Library. It has established an endowment specifically for preservation, which pays 

for approximately $36,000 worth of artifact conservation treatment annually. The Kennedy 

Foundation also received a $150,000 Saving America's Treasures grant for conservation 

treatment and another $50,000 for supplies and intern labor. An intern program supported by the 

Foundation funds approximately $75,000 in staff salaries for holdings maintenance, the most 

basic level of conservation treatment. A donor is funding the conversion of Johnson Library 

tapes and Kennedy Library news footage related to Robert Kennedy to digital formats. This 

project will ultimately amount to an estimated $200,000 gift. Without this private support 

through Library Foundations, it is unlikely that these items at risk would have received such 

21 
timely conservation treatment. The Johnson Foundation has, over the past decade, provided 

much of the funding required for the preservation of the Johnson tapes (which were originally 

recorded on obsolete dictabelts) and supported preservation of other audiovisual materials in the 

collections. 

CURRENT EFFORTS TO IMPROVE ACCESS TO PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS 

This section of the report addresses Congress’s request that NARA consider how to “reduce the 

delay in public access to all Presidential records.” When the Presidential Records Act (PRA) 

changed the ownership of Presidential papers from private to public, it incorporated several 

access provisions to ensure the Act’s constitutionality and to balance the President’s loss of 

private ownership of his papers. 

One of the many changes established by the PRA was the application of the FOIA to Presidential 

records. The PRA also provided each President the discretion to impose, while in office, each of 

six Presidential restrictions to last up to 12 years after the President leaves office (which all 

Presidents have done). The Presidential restrictions, at 44 U.S.C. § 2204(a), known as P1 

(classified national security information), P3 (required by a statute), P4 (trade secrets and other 

confidential business information), and P6 (clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy), are 

identical to FOIA exemptions (b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(6). Two PRA restrictions are 

different. The P2 restriction applies to information “relating to appointments to Federal office.” 

The P5 restriction applies to information containing “confidential communications requesting or 

submitting advice, between the President and his advisers, or between such advisers,” and is 

similar to, but distinct from, the FOIA (b)(5) exemption (deliberative process and other 

privileges). Moreover, when the P5 restriction expires after twelve years, the FOIA (b)(5) 

exemption does not apply to Presidential records, thus allowing NARA to release most 

confidential advice records at that point in time unless a former or incumbent President raises a 

claim of executive privilege. 

The PRA does not mandate these restrictions, but rather makes clear that they may be narrowed 

or waived even after the President leaves office. Moreover, in the legislative history, Congress 

advised the Archivist and former Presidents to do just that: 

22 
 

 

 

It is also expected that the Archivist will follow past practice in applying the restrictive 

categories in former Presidents’ deeds of gift, and negotiate with the ex-President or his 

representative on an on-going basis to lessen the number of years chosen for particular 

mandatory restriction categories, to eliminate entire categories, or to permit release of 

particular records otherwise restricted.13 

Former Presidents Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Clinton have all responded to this authority 

and narrowed the scope of PRA exemptions P2 and P5, allowing significantly more records to be 

opened. Such narrowing is voluntary by the former President, and may be withdrawn or revised 

at will during the 12-year period in which the restrictions can be applied. 

The PRA restricts any public access for a five-year period, unless the Archivist decides to open an 

integral file segment. After five years, the PRA gives the public a right of access through FOIA 

requests. Significantly, the PRA also mandates that “[t]he Archivist shall have an affirmative 

duty to make such records available to the public as rapidly and completely as possible consistent 

with the provisions of this Act.” Id. § 2203(f)(1). In mandating that Presidential records would 

not be available to the public for the first five years after a President leaves office, Congress 

expected that a significant portion of the Presidential records could be processed and ready for 

opening at the time they became available to FOIA requests. Unfortunately, this assumption on 

how quickly and effectively records would be processed and opened under the PRA has not been 

realized. The sheer size and complexity of the collections, coupled with the numerous special 

access requests by the incumbent and former Presidents, the Courts, and the Congress, have made 

this an unrealistic goal. As an illustration of this fact, at their respective five-year points, the 

Reagan and Bush Library staff had processed less than five percent of their Presidential records 

and Clinton less than one percent. 

Therefore, at the point when Presidential records have become subject to request under FOIA, the 

vast majority of records have not yet been reviewed and publicly released. This fact, along with 

13 H. Rep. 95-1487, at 15 (95th Cong., 2d Sess., Aug. 14, 1978). 15 Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, on H.R. 10998 and Related Bills 

on the Presidential Records Act of 1978, 95th Cong., 2d Sess., Feb. 23, 25, Mar. 2, 7, 1978, at 136. 

23 
the significant number of FOIA requests filed at each of the libraries for access to these records, 

has resulted in dramatic FOIA backlogs. This problem was not unanticipated. Indeed, in the 

1978 hearings on the PRA, then Archivist of the United States James B. Rhoads raised a serious 

archival concern about subjecting Presidential records to FOIA requests: 

[P]rofessional archivists have expressed concerns that efforts to systematically process the 

records and make them available would be severely hampered by numerous Freedom of 

Information Act requests and associated lawsuits. . . . We share these concerns. It is 

likely that Presidential records would attract a large number of Freedom of Information 

Act requests because of the President’s extreme public visibility. . . . The threat of 

immediate, excessive litigation would divert considerable staff time from processing the 

records in order to search out isolated bits and pieces of information.15 

Not only is the volume of FOIA requests problematic, but also the administrative and archival 

requirements of processing records in response to FOIA requests has led to significant delays in 

opening records. In the pre-PRA donor Libraries, NARA processes and opens records 

systematically, meaning that archivists start at the beginning of a collection or file series and 

review it through to its end. However, in processing FOIA requests, archivists must pull files 

and/or documents from multiple collections and series that relate to the request. This approach 

requires an extensive search to identify relevant files and records. Further, in order to maintain 

the provenance, or order, of the documents, archivists must carefully document the removal of 

records from their original file location and prepare withdrawal sheets for each closure, which 

further contributes to the time required to process FOIA requests. 

The actual review of the records prior to release has become increasingly more complicated 

including the processing of electronic records. The line-by-line review by NARA archivists prior 

to release under the PRA requires applying two different sets of restrictions: the Presidential 

restrictive categories and eight of the nine FOIA exemptions. Additionally, because of the new 

regulations dealing with protecting personally identifiable information (PII) and the greater 

likelihood that Presidential records can or are being posted on the internet, NARA has intensified 

its efforts to redact this information from Presidential records, particularly the more recent 

records. Because a large amount of PII is in the records, doing so is labor intensive and 

significantly slows down processing. 

24 
Finally, since the enactment of the PRA, Presidential Libraries also experienced an explosive 

growth in the volume of electronic records, especially White House email. In 1994, the Clinton 

White House implemented a form of electronic recordkeeping for email known as the Automatic 

Records Management System or “ARMS” system. Utilizing that system, the Clinton 

Administration transferred approximately 20 million Presidential record emails to NARA in 

January 2001. This year, NARA received over 150 million Presidential emails from the George 

W. Bush Administration, as well as numerous other classified and unclassified electronic systems 

containing Presidential records. Presidential Library holdings in electronic form are now much 

larger than the paper holdings. Indeed, the email system for the George W. Bush Administration 

alone is many times larger than the entire textual holdings of any other Presidential Library. 

These electronic holdings bring new challenges to processing and making available Presidential 

records. The sheer volume exponentially increases what archivists have to search and isolate as 

relevant to a request, a lengthy process in and of itself before the review begins. Once review 

begins, the more informal communication style embodied in Presidential record emails often 

blends personal and record information in the same email necessitating more redactions. 

NARA has now been processing Presidential records in response to FOIA requests for 15 years, 

and has explored through the years many ways to streamline and speed this process. In particular, 

since 2007, NARA’s Office of Presidential Libraries has worked, and continues to work, with the 

PRA Libraries to change how Presidential records are processed, with the purpose of facilitating 

quicker access to Presidential records. Following a conference in March 2008 of PRA Libraries 

to examine our processing of Presidential records and determine the most effective use of newly 

allocated archival staff, the Libraries are implementing the following changes: 

1.	 The Libraries added an additional processing queue based on frequently requested 

records. This type of review—reviewing an entire series or collection of documents from 

beginning to end—is known as systematic processing and is significantly faster than 

FOIA processing. 

2.	 Libraries will move to a more standardized FOIA request queue structure across the 

Libraries, with page limitations, that will make useful volumes of records available for 

research while allowing the archivists to address more requests in a timely manner. 

25 
 

3.	 The Libraries will devote some portion of the archival staff to processing systematically 

entire series or sub-series of historically significant files, a process more efficient than 

FOIA processing. 

4.	 The Libraries will make the folder titles for both processed and unprocessed textual 

Presidential records available on the web. Providing the public such a detailed view of the 

Presidential records in a Library will ensure that future FOIA requests are more targeted 

to the needs of the requesters. 

5.	 Finally, Libraries will take some less sensitive series (routine requests for Presidential 

messages, bulk public mail, etc.) through the PRA-mandated notification processes and 

make them available for “review on request” access review. The Libraries estimate that 

more than 11 million pages can be provided to the public using this process. 

NARA believes a statutory change to the PRA would be of some help in limiting the time delay 

and the NARA resources required for providing notice to the former and incumbent Presidents of 

our intent to open records. NARA recommends a statutory cut-off period for notice which we 

suggest should coincide with the death or disability of the former President or after 25 years, 

whichever is later. As the Supreme Court made clear in Nixon v. Administrator of General 

Services, 433 U.S. 425, 451 (1977), executive privilege is “subject to erosion over time after an 

administration leaves office.” It is well established in archival practice, and codified into the 

Federal Records Act (FRA), that restrictions in archival records to protect deliberative processes 

and other privileges cease no later than 30 years after creation. The FRA states that “[s]tatutory 

and other restrictions referred to in this subsection shall remain in force until the records have 

been in existence for thirty years....” 44 U.S.C. § 2108(a). Similarly, Executive Order 12958, as 

amended, established a 25-year automatic declassification requirement. Given that Presidential 

records will already be as much as eight years old when NARA receives them, 25 years is a 

reasonable cut-off time.16 Eliminating the privilege review process after the passage of time will 

reduce some of the delay in making Presidential records available to the public. 

16 NARA recognizes that an incumbent President retains the constitutional authority to request that NARA provide 

him an opportunity to review Presidential records for constitutionally based privileges even after a statutorily 

established cut-off period for providing notice. 

26 
 

 

 

Congress has funded a key resource change that should significantly help the PRA Libraries in 

addressing their FOIA backlogs. In FY 2009, Congress appropriated funding for 15 additional 

archival positions for the existing Libraries with Presidential records – Reagan, Bush 41, and 

Clinton. Congress also appropriated funding for 18 archivists to process the George W. Bush and 

Cheney records. These positions, combined with improvements in the way NARA processes 

Presidential records, should result in the opening of significantly more records. As the chart that 

follows shows, by 2010 these innovations in processing should increase the Libraries’ rate of 

processing by at least 1.3 million pages a year. Pages of Presidential Records Processed 

1,800,000 

1,600,000 

1,400,000 

1,200,000 

1,000,000 

800,000 

600,000 

400,000 

200,000 

0 

FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11
 

Reagan 

Bush 

Clinton 

While this represents significant progress, it should be noted that the Presidential record 

collections of each of these three Presidents are significant in size and it will still take many 

decades to complete the processing of these important records.17 

Ultimately, the ability to open Presidential records to the public is resource driven. It is the case 

throughout the National Archives that the more archivists available to review and redact records 

that are subject to statutory restrictions and constitutional review processes, the more NARA can 

17 The Reagan Library holds 57,552,000 pages of paper records; Bush 41 46,584,000 pages; and Clinton 73,834,000 

pages. These numbers do not include the electronic holdings. 

27 
open such records and satisfy FOIA requests. The review process generally speeds up as time 

passes, because many of the sensitivities in the records recede with the passage of time. 

The explosion of email and other electronic records means that NARA will use FOIA requests 

and our own selective processing to open specific records on topics requested from the tens of 

terabytes of information we have now and the hundreds we expect to have in future. 

Accordingly, processing vast amounts or even the majority of these electronic records along with 

millions of textual records will remain a significant challenge for the foreseeable future. Also, 

given the complexities inherent in processing these records under the statutory and regulatory 

requirements, NARA faces another significant challenge in balancing its mandate to make 

Presidential records available as quickly as possible while at the same time safeguarding against 

the untimely release of sensitive information contained in these records. 

FACILITATING THE DECLASSIFICATION OF PRESIDENTIAL PAPERS AND RECORDS 

The Presidential Libraries hold nearly 40 million pages of classified records. The foreign policy 

materials in Presidential collections are among the highest-level, most historically-significant 

documents in the Federal Government. Presidential files include the records of the National 

Security Council and materials from all departments and agencies in the Federal Government that 

are sent into the White House. 

Given the importance of these files and the automatic declassification provision of Executive 

Order 12958, as amended, a key priority for the Presidential Libraries was to establish a better 

approach for the declassification of approximately eight million classified pages from the 

administrations of President Hoover through President Carter. NARA’s Presidential Libraries 

teamed with the Central Intelligence Agency to create the Remote Archives Capture Project 

(RAC), under which all 25-year-old classified documents would be scanned at the Libraries so 

they could be made available electronically to the equity holding agencies in the Washington, 

DC, area for a declassification review – i.e., a centralized declassification program. The RAC 

has, to date, scanned 4,205,005 pages of material from the Truman through the first part of the 

Reagan Administration. Nearly one million pages will have been reviewed for declassification 

28 
and returned to the Libraries by the end of 2009. This includes decisions on documents through 

the Carter administration. 

Further, the Presidential Libraries have begun the process of making new RAC declassification 

decisions quickly available to researchers on stand-alone unclassified computers in Library 

research rooms. This process started at the Carter Library, and the Office of Presidential 

Libraries plans to have similar unclassified computers at each of the Libraries from Truman 

through Reagan in order to make newly declassified documents available to researchers without 

delay. 

FACILITATING ACCESS TO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTRONIC RECORDS AT THE PRA LIBRARIES 

The Clinton Administration was the first to conduct much of its official business on computers. 

NARA, therefore, had to establish an electronic archival preservation and processing system to 

handle these new formats. For the main body of Clinton Presidential electronic records, NARA 

developed a system known as the Presidential Electronic Records Library (PERL), which allows 

search and retrieval of records for archival processing, access requests, and reference. 

The much larger volume of electronic records from the George W. Bush Administration was well 

beyond the capabilities of the PERL infrastructure. NARA worked instead to speed the 

development of the Electronic Records Archive (ERA) program to accommodate these 

Presidential records. 

The Executive Office of the President (EOP) instance of ERA focuses on immediate needs for 

search and access and the need to respond to special access requests while at the same time 

providing a basis for future development to handle PRA/FOIA review. EOP ERA allows NARA 

for the first time to store electronic records in a common format and eliminates the need to update 

and migrate proprietary software. 

FACILITATING BROADER ACCESS TO PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS AND PAPERS 

Over the last 20 years, the Internet has transformed information delivery and public expectations. 

It has also provided an opportunity for the Presidential Libraries to expand the knowledge of 

29 
Presidential records to a much broader audience. Since the early 1990s, the Presidential Libraries 

have partnered with corporations, foundations, universities, and offices in the National Archives 

and their partners to use technology to make Presidential records and papers more accessible on 

the Internet with non-Federal funding. These partnerships have led to the creation of many useful 

sites. One such partnership has produced the Presidential Timeline 

(www.presidentialtimeline.org) with over 20 online exhibits, more than 1,000 digital objects, and 

a growing number of education modules for teachers. This partnership has allowed the Libraries 

to create a seamless presentation of issues and themes, such as Civil Rights and the Cold War, 

that cut across Presidential Administrations. 

Corporations and universities have partnered with the Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Bush 41 

Libraries to digitize full collections of Presidential materials, responses to FOIA requests, and 

declassified materials. Some of these collections are available on the web now. The Libraries 

will continue to use the digital world to reach broader audiences and to complement their 

successful public programming and outreach efforts, a cornerstone of the Presidential Library 

System. 

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE MODELS 

As discussed in the overview of this report, NARA is presenting five models. NARA estimates 

all but one reduce Government costs, some more than others. The most significant cost savings 

are estimated to be achieved through the elimination of museum, public outreach, and educational 

programs, with NARA providing Governmental support only for the archival and collections 

management functions for both archives and artifacts. The difficult and most crucial question 

which NARA and others must resolve before adopting any changes is what the focus of NARA’s 

mission for the Presidential Libraries and the study of the Presidency should be? Should NARA 

focus exclusively on the needs of the scholarly community or should NARA seek to reach a 

broader community to educate them about the American Presidency and our Government? 

To achieve significant cost savings, NARA would need to shift the cost for renovating, staffing 

and maintaining Presidential museums to the Foundations. NARA would then necessarily cede 

the responsibility for exhibits, education, and public programming in museums to the Foundations 

30 
that run them, thus eliminating these programs from NARA’s mission. On balance, we believe 

that NARA’s influence has brought a more nuanced perspective to the content and interpretation 

in exhibits and programming in our spaces, even as the Foundations have borne the major 

responsibility for funding them. The museums provide a stepping stone to many education 

activities and public programs of the Libraries. Without this important cultural resource and 

educational tool, NARA would not be able to present a richer, more contextual presentation of the 

Presidency. 

ALTERNATIVE MODEL 1: CURRENT MODEL WITH REVISIONS TO FURTHER REDUCE THE COST 

TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 

This model builds on the current public-private partnership developed over the past 75 years. 

Potential revisions provide for greater revenue through the endowment and further clarify the 

relationship between the Library and the Foundation. This model would also suggests changes 

needed to the Presidential Libraries Act or NARA regulations to codify these new requirements. 

The existing model for Presidential Libraries has served both Libraries and Foundations well, 

though sometimes in different ways. It provides the Government with a new, state-of-the-art 

facility to house Presidential records and offsets costs to the Government for certain types of 

activities primarily related to exhibits and public programs. For the Foundation, the model 

provides a former President and his supporters with an opportunity to showcase the 

Administration in a place chosen by the former President. The importance of the Presidential 

Library, museum, and education and outreach resources to local communities and to the 

universities that host them is easily evident in the great demand and competition to be the location 

selected for a new Presidential Library. Recently, more and more communities and universities 

are willing to expend considerable resources and provide significant financial incentives to 

convince the President to select their location for the Library. 

As in a current Presidential Library, this model houses in the Library the official records that exist 

in paper form, along with complementary private collections and oral histories, the latter of which 

are largely funded with private money. This model preserves the tradition established with 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt of bringing together the official records with other historical pre- and 

31 
post-presidential materials that illuminate the life of the President. This compilation of official 

and personal papers in one place could easily be lost in a centralized model as discussed below. 

A centralized model could result in the personal papers of the President being dispersed in the 

best case and lost or destroyed in the worst case. 

Model 1 provides for a flexible institution that adapts to the changing world of records. As 

Presidential records become increasingly electronic, Model 1 would evolve toward a smaller 

building, but retain the archival expertise, the museum and civil literacy functions, and the private 

funding for the building and public program support. Even in an increasingly electronic world, 

records need to be contextualized. Since Presidential electronic records are already centralized 

and maintained in Washington, DC, area facilities, with the majority of the staff having access to 

these records at the Library site, this model would continue to build on the current structure. This 

model preserves and provides access to both the official records and personal papers of the 

Presidency in one location, while preserving private funding for museum and public program 

components. NARA maintains the flexibility to provide additional support for processing 

electronic records by utilizing staff located in the DC area or in another Presidential library when 

needed. 

Since this model preserves the Government’s relationship with the Foundations, the following 

discussion makes suggestion that would strengthen and define this public-private partnership. 

Defining the Relationship between the Government and the Foundation 

NARA’s relationship with Library Foundations is one of the oldest public-private partnerships in 

Government. Each relationship is different, continually evolving, and not easily defined. The 

Government’s role is to run the Library, which involves preserving the collections, processing the 

records for public access within the statutory and legal framework, and working to ensure that the 

historical content of exhibits reflects an objective perspective of the Presidency – even as the 

private Foundations have carried a large part of the financial responsibility for the latter. Beyond 

providing financial support, the Foundations’ roles have often been to further the work and 

strengthen the legacy of the former Presidents and, increasingly, to engage in non-Library funding 

of various national or global initiatives of the former Presidents. While there have been many 

32 
 

positive benefits from this unique relationship, the Foundations’ activities and goals, given that 

they are a private partner, are not always aligned with NARA’s view of our stewardship 

responsibilities. Therefore, we are suggesting a specific charter to guide future 

Library/Foundation relationships. 

Before NARA accepts a new Presidential Library, a clearer understanding between the 

Foundation and the Government should be memorialized in a written agreement. Given the 

inherent complexities in this relationship, the partnership would benefit from an established set of 

principles. Legislative changes to the PLA and new regulations to codify the relationship would 

serve both partners and the public interest. The following principles need to guide this 

partnership: 

1.	 Greater clarity in the roles, goals, and priorities, as well as in the responsibility and 

authority of each partner, in order to minimize friction and maximize success in the 

relationship between the Presidential Library and its non-profit partner and to assure the 

sound and responsible stewardship of archival and historical materials held in the public 

trust. 

2.	 Commitment from the Foundation for continued financial support of museum, outreach, 

and educational programs in order to make the Library a viable model in the present and 

into the future. 

3.	 Library participation in the planning and decision-making of the Foundation as it relates to 

the Library, typically by having the Library director serve as an ex officio member of the 

board of the Foundation.18 

To formalize the public/private partnership, NARA recommends the following changes to the 

Presidential Libraries Act, in Section 44 U.S.C 2112 and/or to NARA’s regulations. 

18 Based in part on the article by Larry J. Hackman, The Public Historian,Vol. 28, No.3, pgs. 182 – 183. 

33 
 

1.	 The Presidential archival depository should be built solely for the purpose of operating the 

Library and museum. Foundation spaces co-located in the Presidential archival 

depository should be in direct support of the Presidential Library museum program (e.g., 

museum store, restaurant, auditorium, etc.). Sub-metering must be provided for all 

Foundation spaces located in the Presidential archival depository. 

2.	 The Foundation must provide an endowment of 60% of the cost of the entire Library 

building (previously the endowment was only applied to the NARA program space or 

usable space and was not applied to support space, e.g. mechanical rooms, needed to 

operate the NARA program space or to Foundation-retained spaces within the Library) of 

which no more than 20% may be offset by credits. For example, a credit may be provided 

for energy saving features. To receive credits, the Foundation must document through an 

independent technical and cost analysis any savings to the Government. 

3.	 NARA must determine its space needs based on program requirements for staffing and for 

the processing, accessibility, and storage of our collections. The endowment would cover 

the entire Library building. Since NARA needs to determine its space needs, the 

escalation clause for increasing the usable square footage of the building above 70,000 

square feet should be eliminated from the PLA. 

4.	 The Archivist should be provided with the authority to accumulate some or all of the 

interest earned by a Presidential Library endowment over several years for expenditure on 

higher cost repair or maintenance items. Currently, interest is used to offset only a 

relatively minor amount of operations and maintenance contracts. This authority to 

accumulate interest from the endowment should be capped at a predetermined dollar 

amount. In cases where the cap is exceeded, the Archivist must spend the excess amount 

on the affected Library’s current facility operational costs or public and education 

programming. Currently, the entire endowment interest is used to offset operations and 

maintenance contracts, which is a relatively small amount of the costs. 

34 
5.	 The Foundation must provide a separate endowment, or agree to an annual commitment to 

support museum, public, and educational programming at the Library. The endowment 

should be $10 million or, alternatively, at least $400,000 to be provided annually to 

NARA 

Model 1 Advantages 

There are certain advantages for sustaining and improving the current model for Presidential 

Libraries. 

	 Foundations will continue to pay for the construction of the building with privately raised 

funds. NARA would determine space requirements to meet program needs and determine 

the size of the new Library. NARA would determine museum space requirements using 

A&D standards to meet program requirements. NARA standards would ensure that a high 

quality building is provided to or for the use of the Government. 

	 The decreasing physical size of textual collections as a result of the anticipated increase in 

electronic records will yield substantial facility operational cost savings to NARA, 

provided museum and other public spaces are not significantly expanded. 

	 The reinvestment of some endowment income for future use will make available funds to 

offset a portion of greater infrastructure expenses such as future modernization costs, new 

HVAC systems, roofs, and other large expenses. 

	 Presidential Libraries would continue to provide a NARA presence in communities as rich 

archival, cultural, historical, and educational centers providing a wide variety of diverse, 

non-partisan programming. 

	 The charter between the Government and the Foundation assures the long term viability of 

the Library. The roles and responsibilities of Presidential Foundations and the use of colocated foundation spaces in the NARA building would be more clearly defined. 

35 
 

	 The Government role encourages diversity of views in a non-partisan environment while 

continuing private support of education programs and conferences that would not be 

possible with Government support alone. 

	 Housing Presidential records in Libraries around the country, provides “continuation of 

Government” advantages by dispersing holdings and ensuring that the highest policy level 

records documenting the Government survive any catastrophic event in the Washington, 

DC, area. 

	 NARA retains the relationship with the former President which is more likely to result in 

the donation of private papers of the President and others that will complement the official 

record and facilitate narrowing the application of PRA restrictions. 

Model 1 Disadvantages 

 This model is dependent on the viability of the Library Foundation’s ability to raise 

money to build the Library and provide continued support for public programming and 

museum exhibits. 

	 Some future Presidents may not choose to raise the money required to build and sustain a 

Presidential Library, which would mean NARA would assume the responsibility for 

providing the space to house the Presidential records and the archival staff. 

	 The more structured relationship with the Foundation could lead to a loss of synergy with 

the Foundation and mere pro forma support from the Foundations. 

	 Researchers must travel to multiple cities to conduct research across Presidential 

Administrations, though the increasing availability of records on-line will diminish this 

disadvantage in the future. 

	 Model 1 assumes an agreement can be reached between NARA and the Foundation in 

time for NARA to plan for the move and storage of the Presidential holdings. 

36 
 

 

	 This model requires some duplicative staff support (as opposed to a centralized model) for 

management and administrative functions. 

For the detailed cost analysis of this model, along with all others, see the separate section on cost 

analysis. The analysis showed that over time (75 years) this model represents a substantial 

savings of $394 million over the baseline (the projected cost of future Presidential Libraries if no 

changes are made). In the current model, the 60% endowment only applies to 70,000 square 

feet; in Model 1, the 60% endowment applies to the entire building. 

ALTERNATIVE MODEL 2: A PRESIDENTIAL ARCHIVAL DEPOSITORY LEASED AND MANAGED BY 

THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, WITH A SEPARATE MUSEUM MANAGED BY THE FOUNDATION 

This model allows for a continued regional presence for the National Archives, by placing the 

records and artifacts in a geographic area where a Foundation-operated museum may be located. 

The Library would become an archives-only facility, which maintains the archival program 

functions by continuing to store, preserve, and provide access to Presidential records and artifacts. 

In this model, NARA would lease and operate an archival facility long-term, just as it does now 

for the short period when a President leaves office until the Library is completed. For example, 

the National Archives currently leases a facility in Lewisville, Texas, to store the George W. 

Bush Presidential records, which is approximately 20 miles from the new Library site on the 

campus of Southern Methodist University. The annual lease amounts to $2,100,000, which 

includes the cost of completely renovating the warehouse facility to meet NARA’s archival 

storage standards. 

In a long-term lease scenario, the leased facility would need to include some additional spaces not 

usually provided for in our temporary leases used while the Foundation builds the new Library -- 

i.e., research and conference rooms. The leased facility would include holdings storage for 

artifacts and artifact processing rooms, but it would not include any program spaces associated 

with the operation of a museum, such as exhibit galleries and exhibit production shops. The 

focus of a leased facility would be on collections management and research. Located in the same 

37 
 

vicinity as any privately run museum, NARA could continue to build an ongoing relationship 

with the Presidential Foundation and encourage the donation of additional related collections to 

support the Library’s core holdings. However NARA would no longer provide public and 

educational programming, because these components would be part of the Foundation’s museum 

program. 

In such a long-term lease scenario, NARA would renovate a facility according to the 

full architecture and design standards, to provide a preservation-quality environment for archival 

and artifact holdings. Although this would increase NARA’s initial costs, it would reduce 

NARA's administrative overhead and some operational costs, because operations and 

maintenance, along with repairs and renovations, would be the responsibility of the property 

owner. This approach, however, could lead to a less-than-optimum preservation environment 

over time, because NARA would be reliant solely on the lessor to maintain and repair building 

systems. In the event of a disagreement, NARA holdings and program activities could be at risk 

until the dispute is settled. At the end of the initial lease period, NARA would negotiate new 

lease terms. If NARA and the lessor could not agree on price or other terms, NARA might be 

forced to relocate its operation. To keep costs down, this option would require Congressional 

action to give NARA full lease authority. 

Model 2 Advantages 

	 The records and artifacts are located in proximity to the private museum. 

	 NARA controls the initial renovation of the facility to meet our standards. 

	 NARA is not responsible for long-term upkeep and maintenance of the facility, thus 

reducing its capital costs. 

	 A lease provides NARA with long-term flexibility, including the flexibility to close a 

facility that is no longer viable. 

38 
	 The continued regional presence and the proximity to the Foundation retain the 

opportunity to obtain additional historical collections that supplement the official records. 

	 Housing Presidential records in facilities around the country provides “continuation of 

Government” advantages by dispersing holdings and ensuring that the highest level policy 

records documenting governmental activities survive any catastrophic event in the 

Washington, DC area. 

	 Housing Presidential records in facilities around the country continues to assure the 

benefits to local communities and to the public as stated in Model 1. 

Model 2 Disadvantages 

 The leased facility would most likely not be directly adjacent to the Presidential museum, 

but rather located in a lower rent “warehouse” area. 

	 NARA would not offer museum, public and educational programs. 

	 This model also assumes a Presidential Foundation would be established to build a 

museum. A President may well choose not to assume the responsibility for raising funds 

to build and operate a museum. 

	 Future increases in rent could force NARA to relocate records, putting the collection at 

greater risk. 

	 NARA must rely on a private lessor for maintenance and upkeep. 

	 Because it takes a year to lease and renovate a facility to meet NARA standards, this 

model works best when a President serves two terms or announces an intent not to seek 

re-election. 

39 
 

	 Privately managed museums could potentially be the subject of future congressional 

earmarks, thus still incurring a government expense. 

	 This model requires some duplicative staff support (as opposed to a centralized model) for 

management and administrative functions. 

The cost analysis for this model shows it to be more expensive than all the other models. Given 

this also means the loss of the museum, public program, and education components, this model 

does not lessen the cost of managing Presidential Libraries over Model 1 because lease costs are 

only favorable in the short-term. Over the long-term, it is more expensive to lease space than it 

is to have a government-owned building. 

ALTERNATIVE MODEL 3: FOUNDATION, UNIVERSITY, OR OTHER NON-FEDERAL ENTITY 

PROVIDED ARCHIVES WITH A MUSEUM MANAGED BY A FOUNDATION 

Under this scenario, a Presidential Foundation, university, or other non-Federal entity would 

construct a Library-only building with no museum component. The building would be made 

available to the Government under a no-cost, perpetual use arrangement favorable to the 

Government.19 Since the building is being donated for NARA to use in meeting statutory 

mandates for preserving Presidential records, and the Presidential Foundation would be building 

their own museum, no additional Foundation support in the form of an endowment is envisioned 

in this model. As in Model 2, the facility would contain no exhibit, exhibit support, or public and 

educational programming spaces, only archives and artifact holdings storage, processing rooms, 

and archival and administrative support offices. A Foundation or other partner may choose to colocate the Library with the non-NARA museum or in the same general vicinity. NARA would be 

responsible for overall operations and maintenance, as well as major capital repairs or 

renovations. NARA would have the future option to vacate the facility if the agency so chose 

according to the perpetual use agreement. Though a Library-only operation, NARA 

would operate in a state-of-the-art facility, fostering the preservation and access to holdings, and 

maintain a presence in a local community. 

19 Currently, many of the Libraries are provided to the Government under perpetual use agreements at no cost to the 

Government. NARA does, however, assume all costs for upkeep of the NARA occupied portions of these facilities. 

40 
 

 

Model 3 Advantages 

	 The records and artifacts are located in proximity to the private museum. 

	 This model most closely resembles the present model, but eliminates the museum
 

program. 

	 This building is constructed according to NARA standards. 

	 NARA has the option of vacating the facility under the terms of the perpetual use 

agreement. 

	 Continued regional presence and the proximity to the Foundation continue the opportunity 

to obtain additional historical collections that supplement the official records. 

	 The continued relationship between NARA and the Foundation provides opportunities for 

exploring the use of technology and other innovative programs to increase the 

accessibility of the historical collections to a greater audience. 

	 Housing Presidential records in facilities around the country, provides “continuity of 

Government” advantages by dispersing records and ensuring that the highest level policy 

records documenting governmental activities survive any catastrophic event in the 

Washington, DC area. 

	 Housing Presidential records in facilities around the country continues to assure the 

benefits to local communities and to the public as stated in Model 1. 

Model 3 Disadvantages 

 This model works best provided a President chooses to have a privately operated museum. 

A President may well choose not to assume the responsibility for raising funds to build 

and operate a museum. 

41 
	 The NARA facility might not be adjacent to the Presidential museum, which would causes 

challenges in coordinating programs. 

	 NARA would not offer museum, public, and educational programs. Because of NARA’s 

ongoing partnership and potential proximity to the Foundation museum, there will be 

confusion as to whether the Foundation programs are NARA programs. 

	 Without the museum, public program, or educational components, NARA serves a much 

smaller group of users. 

	 NARA would have the ongoing responsibility for maintenance and upkeep of the facility. 

	 Privately managed museums could potentially be the subject of future congressional 

earmarks, thus still incurring a government expense. 

	 Unless the facility is built in advance of the President leaving office, NARA would need 

to store the records in a temporary facility before transfer to the permanent Library, just as 

is currently the case. 

	 This model requires some duplicative staff support (as opposed to a centralized model) for 

management and administrative functions. 

Overall this model is less costly than the baseline and more costly than Model 1, but not 

significantly so considering the loss of the museum and public programs. Cost savings for this 

model over the baseline would begin in 2033. 

42 
 

 

 

 

ALTERNATIVE MODEL 4: CENTRALIZED PRESIDENTIAL ARCHIVAL DEPOSITORY FUNDED AND 

MANAGED BY NARA 

The concept of a centralized depository for Presidential records would be a major departure from 

the current Presidential Libraries model. In this model, Presidential records and artifacts would 

be housed in a central archival depository in the Washington, DC area. 

Unlike Models 1 and 3, the Government would bear the full cost of building the depository. A 

single, centralized depository for future Presidential records and donated materials would also 

require NARA to assume full responsibility for the cost of preserving, processing, and providing 

access to all Presidential materials in paper and digital formats. To date, much of the cost of 

digitizing Presidential records so as to provide web-based access has been provided by the 

Library Foundations, universities, and grants, and not by NARA’s federal funds. While this 

private funding has been important for specific projects, it has not enabled wide-spread electronic 

access to the majority of Presidential materials. The cost of providing any enhanced access to 

Presidential records using web-based technologies has not been factored into the cost analysis.20 

A centralized Presidential facility would also eliminate the costs for maintaining Sensitive 

Compartmentalized Information Facilities (SCIFs) at each individual Presidential Library. The 

centralized depository would only need one SCIF for the storage of all classified Presidential 

records. With the potential development of a planned National Declassification Center (NDC) 

initiative, the systematic declassification review of these records at the 25-year point (when they 

are ready for automatic declassification review) could be facilitated by using the resources and 

expertise of a potential NDC initiative. However, this centralization of declassification review is 

also incorporated in the models that retain the Libraries in field locations through the current 

RAC program.

21 

20 We considered it premature, given the current state of technology, to cost out digitizing a majority of the collection 

in a preservation format that would allow for disposal of the paper records. Limiting the paper collection to items of 

great intrinsic value, e.g., records viewed or annotated by the President, correspondence with world leaders, and 

decision memoranda would save considerable space; however, given the cost of digitizing, storing digital media, and 

the staffing required to provide the metadata for each image, this is a more costly option at this time than storing the 

records in their original formats. 

21 Under the RAC program, through an interagency agreement between NARA and the CIA, classified records are 

scanned at each library, so that these materials can undergo declassification review in a centralized location in the 

Washington, DC area. NARA will incorporate the RAC into the NDC with the expectation that shared resources for 

declassification of Federal and Presidential records will lead to greater efficiencies and increased productivity. 

43 
 

To provide public access to these records as quickly as possible, the centralized facility would 

need additional archival staff with each new collection of Presidential records. In fact, this model 

would not result in a decrease in the size of the current archival or the curatorial staff.22 Indeed, 

due to their large volume and complexity, it will continue to take decades to process the 

Presidential records of each administration even with improved processes. Though we did not 

assume that all cost savings from a centralized model would be used for archival processing, we 

did assume that any staff savings achieved in a centralized model would be used to hire more 

archivists for processing records Therefore, we have computed the staffing costs at the level of 

Model 1. This model also facilitates the temporary re-assignment of archivists from one 

collection to another to meet special access requests including those from the incumbent 

President, the Courts, and the Congress. 

An important element to be considered in this model is the fact that it eliminates the museums and 

associated education and public programs along with the regional diversity that is a hallmark of 

the present system. NARA would be able to stage occasional exhibits on the Presidency or 

individual Presidents in the Lawrence O’Brien temporary gallery at the National Archives 

Building, but these would need to be small, given the size of the O’Brien gallery. 

A centralized model for Presidential Libraries would not preclude a former President from 

building an independently operated museum dedicated to his or her Presidency. The President’s 

museum could be operated by his or her Foundation or by a city, state, or academic institution. 

There is no limit to the type of partnership a Presidential Foundation could employ for the 

operation of its museum. As we do today with non-NARA museums, NARA would work 

cooperatively with the former President on the loan of documents and artifacts for display in a 

museum environment that meets our standards. The privately operated museum facility might 

also include a research component, which could provide access to the digital copies of materials 

maintained at the NARA Presidential Libraries or the centralized depository. 

22 This model assumes that each new Presidential collection would require a staff equivalent to the size of the 

archival staff for the Bush 43 Library. 

44 
 

 

Scholars interested in the study of the Presidency would benefit from a centralized model. 

Conversely, those interested in studying individual Presidents would be disadvantaged by the loss 

of individual Presidential Libraries that house the personal, political and donated collections that 

complement the content of the presidential record. While the National Archives would not be 

precluded from soliciting personal collections, these collections could just as likely end up being 

geographically distant and located with the President’s Foundation or another archival depository 

in a location near the President’s chosen community. Potential donors who were prominent 

during a former President’s administration are more likely to donate their papers to the 

Foundation or an institution that engenders their loyalty than to donate them to the National 

Archives. 

Model 4 Advantages 

	 As records become more predominately digital in format, a centralized depository for 

Presidential records would be consistent with the evolution of the records life cycle, 

especially given that electronic-based records are already centralized in digital storage 

solutions. 

	 A centralized model reduces the need for facility management and administrative staff. 

	 The centralized facility provides researchers the opportunity to conduct complementary 

research in Federal agency records and the opportunity to consult with NARA experts in 

numerous areas. This model also facilitates comprehensive research, such as in issues 

that continue across administrations, or study in decision-making styles of different 

Presidents. 

	 Proximity to declassification activities could facilitate the coordination for
 

declassification of Presidential records. 

Model 4 Disadvantages 

	 The Government would have to fund the total cost of building a new facility and the 

continued operational expenses with no private endowment. Archives I and Archives II 

45 
 

 

are presently near capacity, which already means that NARA may have to build an 

Archives III facility. A third NARA facility built to house Presidential records could, for 

the near future, also hold Federal agency records until such time as the space is needed for 

future administrations. NARA would then need to build a fourth facility in the 

Washington, DC area to house the Federal agency records temporarily stored in the 

central Presidential facility. 

	 This model will also lose the unique museum and education programs that the Libraries 

offer, allowing the Presidency to reach millions of visitors each year. 

	 This model probably cedes the personal, political and donated collections, which 

complement the Presidential collection, to the Foundations or other institutions. 

	 This model would mean a loss of Foundation funding to help support the cost of 

digitization, web-based programs, preservation, and other programs. 

	 In this model the present system of Presidential Libraries becomes static and looses the 

synergy from new Presidential Libraries entering the system. 

Our cost analysis shows a cost savings over the baseline costs would not begin to be realized until 

23 years after the establishment of the centralized depository, since this model assumes an initial 

outlay of nearly $100 million for design and construction of a new facility. However, over 75 

years, assuming there is a new President every eight years, the cost savings would be $850 

million over the baseline and $458 million over Model 1. 

MODEL 5: A MUSEUM OF THE PRESIDENCY IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE CENTRALIZED 

DEPOSITORY 

This model would add a Museum of the Presidency to the centralized archival depository. Unlike 

the suburban located depository, the Museum would be located in an area of Washington, DC 

easily accessible to tourists, ideally on or near the National Mall. The Museum of the Presidency 

would be built by the Government and have a strong NARA identity, NARA could seek partners 

46 
interested in promoting our historical resources without aligning with any one President. NARA 

would have opportunities to partner with the Congressional Visitors Center and the White House 

Visitors Center on exhibits and programs that document much of our national experience from the 

perspective of the Congress and the President, thereby providing visitors with a balanced 

perspective on Government involvement in selected issues. 

As with the exhibits in the National Archives Building, exhibits in the Museum of the Presidency 

would be dependent on Foundation funding. Since this is unlikely to be sustained by any 

individual Presidential Foundation, the National Archives Foundation or a dedicated Presidential 

Museum Foundation would need to take on the funding responsibility. NARA would provide a 

staff of 25 curators, educators, and other professionals to support the Museum. Artifacts and 

documents stored in the centralized depository would be brought to the Museum for display. The 

Museum would also borrow items from other Presidential Libraries and from any privately 

established and operated Presidential Museums of future Presidents. 

A Museum of the Presidency would attract a large number of tourists from all over the world, but 

the immersive education experience and the vast range of public programs would be available 

only to those who live in or were able to visit the Washington, DC, area. However, the DC 

metropolitan area is saturated with museums, many of which explore similar themes – the 

American History Museum, the Capitol Visitors Center, the Newseum, the White House Visitors 

Center, the Portrait Gallery, to name a few. 

Model 5 Advantages 

	 A centralized Museum of the Presidency offers visitors an exhibit that focuses on several 

Presidents and the institution of the Presidency. 

	 The initial and later exhibits in the Museum would not be created by a President and his 

supporters or be subject to their concerns about content. 

	 The centralized staff of the Museum would have a greater ability to focus on building 

web-based exhibits and educational programming and have access to multiple collections. 

47 
 

 

Model 5 Disadvantages 

 This model becomes a Washington, DC-centric model and the economic and cultural 

benefits of a Presidential Library would remain focused in one city already saturated with 

museums and other civic and cultural offerings. 

	 Financially, NARA would lose the Library Foundations’ support not only for programs 

and exhibits, but also to help forward the Government’s mission to preserve, protect, and 

make accessible the records. 

	 Government funding would be required to design, build, and maintain the Museum at an 

initial outlay of $55 million for the museum (plus another $100 million for the 

depository). 

	 Any privately funded and operated Presidential museums would be in direct competition 

for content and private money with the Museum of the Presidency, as would the already 

existing NARA-operated Presidential Libraries. 

	 This model requires consistent fund-raising to support exhibits and programs not funded 

by the Government. 

	 This model makes it more difficult o provide an in-depth focus on individual Presidents 

and their administrations. 

	 As in Model 4 the present system of Presidential Libraries loses the synergy and dynamic 

growth resulting from the establishment of new Presidential Libraries. 

48 
It would require more than 50 years to realize any cost savings over the baseline. At the 75-year 

point, Model 5 saves $418 million over the baseline cost. The savings over the cost of Model 1 

would be only $24 million, or an average savings of $320,000 per year for 75 years. 

SUMMARY OF THE COST ANALYSIS 

This section addresses one of the three mandates in the Presidential Historical Records 

Preservation Act – the mandate for reducing the financial burden on the Federal Government for 

the Presidential Library system. The spread sheets for the full cost analysis of each model are 

located in Appendix E. 

The need to preserve, maintain, and make accessible the records of a President for posterity 

requires a long-term commitment of resources. While a cost analysis can help us estimate the 

monetary cost to the Government of different approaches to Presidential Libraries, unlike an 

economic model it does not capture the intangible benefits of the Presidential Library system, the 

economic benefits to communities and other sectors, or reflect the shifting of significant costs to 

the Library Foundations. If the Government requires considerably more from the Foundations, in 

the form of an endowment when the Libraries are built, or if the cost for building, maintaining, 

and operating Presidential Museums is shifted completely to the Foundations, the Presidential 

Library system may cease to exist. It is not hard to imagine future Presidents deciding not to 

participate in the public/private partnership. 

The Libraries are more than places of historical research. The museum, education, and public 

programs in the Libraries reflect a commitment of resources dedicated to increasing the public’s 

knowledge and understanding of the Presidency as a whole and the life and times of each 

President. All models benefit from the predicted shift from textual to electronic format and 

subsequent savings in storage costs. None of the models, however, takes into account the high 

cost of maintaining records in electronic format. Those costs, now currently centralized in the 

Electronic Records Archives (ERA) and its predecessor, the Presidential Electronic Record 

Library (PERL), have not been factored into any of the models, since these costs are necessary to 

49 
each model. NARA is addressing the funding for maintaining and accessing electronic records 

more globally through its ERA initiative, which addresses Presidential and Federal records. 

NARA conducted a preliminary cost analysis at both the 40-year cycle and the 75-year life cycle. 

We selected the 75-year cycle because it showed costs until the end of the century and therefore 

more accurately addressed the long term preservation needs for Presidential records. 

Additionally, while the 40-year cycle showed some cost benefits, the appreciable cost benefits did 

not really occur until closer to the end of the 75-year period. The 75-year life cycle cost analysis 

is an attempt to quantify the financial commitment that each model would require for new 

Presidential Libraries between FY 2025 and FY 2099. The costs were all calculated in constant 

FY 2009 dollars. 

A conservative approach was taken in developing the analysis, and therefore the amounts needed 

should be viewed as comparisons between the five models and not as a prediction of the actual 

costs. In an actual scenario, NARA would expect that the costs would be higher, though we 

would also expect that the increases would maintain the basic ratio of one model to another. For 

example, construction costs vary widely across the country as do operation and maintenance costs 

and lease costs. A future Presidential Library constructed in Alaska would be expected to have 

considerably higher construction, operational, and maintenance costs than the base line costs 

which were based on the Clinton and Bush 41 libraries. A lease in downtown New York City 

would be considerably higher than the Bush 43 lease costs in suburban Dallas, which formed the 

basis for the leased cost model. Additionally, costs for the centralized archival model in the 

Washington, DC area and an additional museum in downtown Washington, DC may be 

significantly higher than the costs used at the time these facilities are actually built. 

Any cost savings to be achieved over the current Presidential Library model will happen over the 

long term. Cost savings can be identified between the models, but the impact on the budget will 

be small for many years to come or in some cases, more costly in the short term. A new model 

would likely not be in place before FY 2017, even assuming passage of legislation in the next two 

years. All previous changes to the Presidential Libraries Act have not applied to the incumbent 

president, but take effect with the next administration. Assuming, therefore for the purpose of 

50 
this report, that a new approach would not apply to President Obama, and that he serves two 

terms, we projected the changes to take effect with the Presidential term that starts in January 

2017 and ends in January 2025. Our cost model also assumes that all the Presidents serve twoterms for the rest of this century (meaning 12 presidencies every 96 years); the historical average, 

however, has been 18 presidencies per 100 years, which would increase the cost model by about 

50%. 

Properly maintaining Presidential records is, like maintaining any of NARA’s permanent 

holdings, a costly endeavor no matter what the model. NARA recognizes that costs for the 

system will continue to increase, and that cost control efforts are essential. Over time, both 

NARA and Congress have put in measures to control these costs. The five models attempt to 

explore how costs could be further contained with different approaches. Additional analysis will 

be required before making a decision on proceeding in any new direction for Presidential 

Libraries. 

Model 1 maintains the current Presidential Library system with suggested changes to control 

future costs. Over a 75-year period starting in FY 2025 and ending in FY 2099, Model 1 would 

cost an estimated $2.36 billion for new Libraries starting with the successor to President Obama. 

This represents a savings of $394 million over the baseline. 

Model 2, the Leased Option, essentially eliminates the Government presence at the Presidential 

Foundation museum, but maintains full programs in the archival and collections management 

area. Model 2, even though it is in leased space, would cost an estimated $2.86 billion in the 

same 75-year period. This is actually $111 million more than the baseline. 

Model 3, in which the archival space is donated to NARA, with a separate Foundation built and 

managed museum, would cost an estimated $2.5 billion over 75 years. This represents a savings 

of $254 million over the baseline, but would be $140 million more than Model 1. 

Model 4, a Centralized Presidential Library, replicates Models 2 and 3 in that it does not provide 

for public, educational, and museum programs managed by NARA. This model would cost an 

51 
estimated $1.9 billion over the same 75-year period, including an initial outlay of nearly $100 

million to construct the depository. This represents a savings of $850 million over the baseline 

and $458 million over Model 1 (or an annual savings of $11.33 million over the baseline or $6.1 

million per year over Model 1). 

Model 5, which combines Model 4’s centralized depository with a Museum of the Presidency, 

would cost $2.33 billion over the 75-year period, including an initial outlay of $155 million to 

build the depository and museum. This represents a savings of $419 million over the baseline, 

and $25 million over Model 1. Over the baseline, Model 5 saves $418 million for an average 

savings of $5.57 million per year. . 

THE 75-YEAR COST FOR EACH MODEL (ALL COSTS IN 2009 DOLLARS) 

Model Total 75-year 

cost 

Average 

savings 

per year for 

75 years over 

baseline 

Average savings 

per year for 

75 years over 

Model 1 

Annual 

operating 

cost in FY 

2099 

$66,438,000 

$55,795,000 

$74,376,000 

$60,238,000 

$42,153,000 

$46,966,000 

First year 

of 

cost 

savings 

over 

baseline 

n/a 

FY 2031 

n/a 

FY 2033 

FY 2045 

FY 2076 

Baseline $2,752,000,000 n/a +$5,250,000 

Model 1 $2,358,000,000 -$ 5,253,000 n/a 

Model 2 $2,863,000,000 +$ 1,480,000 +$6,730,000 

Model 3 $2,499,000,000 -$ 3,370,000 +$1,880,000 

Model 4 $1,900,000,000 -$11,360,000 -$6,106,000 

Model 5 $2,334,000,000 -$ 5,570,000 -$320,000 

As the above cost analysis shows, the only way to reduce costs is to eliminate programs. 

Centralizing the facility does not achieve appreciable cost savings without a program reduction. 

Model 1, which is most similar to the current library system, maintains all existing programs, 

while Models 2 and 3 eliminate the Governmental role in providing public, educational, and 

museum programs in the various locations where the Presidential Libraries would be constructed. 

This does not necessarily mean that those programs would be eliminated – we assume that most 

presidents will continue to want to have a Presidential Museum constructed, operated, and 

maintained by their Presidential Foundation – but it does mean that the Federal Government 

would not have any say in the message developed by the Foundations. While Government 

52 
funding and staffing is provided for a centralized Museum of the Presidency in Model 5, NARA 

cannot predict how robust the private funding would be for sustaining the museum exhibits and 

the educational and public program components. 

The cost analysis shows that there is no savings for pursuing a leased permanent location as laid 

out in Model 2. In fact, the leased option is estimated to be the most expensive. In general, 

leased locations are cost effective for providing temporary Government space. However, in the 

case of permanent space needs, leased locations cost more in the long term. Leased locations 

trade higher yearly costs for lower upfront costs by avoiding the large one year budget impact of 

funding the initial construction (including land acquisition and design and construction 

oversight). Also, Budget procedures may require that the cost of a long-term lease be realized up 

front. Accordingly, Model 2 is not recommended. It has the highest costs but with the lowest 

benefits. Model 3, in which just the archival facility is donated, is also more costly, particularly 

because it does not include an endowment. Some cost savings would be realized if an 

endowment were part of the transfer. However, because the building is being donated solely for 

NARA to meet its statutory mandates for preserving Presidential records, and the Presidential 

Foundation would still be expected to build its own museum, we did not think additional 

Foundation support, even in the form of an endowment, could be expected. 

Model 4 – the Centralized Presidential Library – clearly offers the potential for significant cost 

savings over the long term. It represents the most significant cost savings to the Government, 

approximately 30% less than the baseline over the 75-year period. However, it would require an 

initial outlay of nearly $100 million, in 2022 (so the new depository could be completed by 2025) 

and would not realize any cost savings over the baseline until 2045. If a Museum of the 

Presidency is included (Model 5), the cost savings will be much less since Model 5 would require 

an additional $55 million to construct the Museum of the Presidency. It would take over 50 years 

to realize any cost savings. 

Model 4 also offers the best opportunity to benefit from some staff reductions because of 

economies of scale: e.g., fewer personnel devoted to facility operations and administrative 

support because all functions are in the same location and reductions in research room staffs 

53 
 

because there would only be one large research room rather than many. However, in constructing 

this model, NARA shifted these positions and others from the museum, education, and public 

program staff to processing and other collection management functions to help meet the mandate 

for processing records more quickly. Finally, Model 4 is based on the construction standards 

reached in the Archives II construction, where the building efficiency is 80%, versus the 50% to 

70% efficiencies attained in the newer Presidential Libraries. (Note: the lower efficiencies 

attained in the Presidential Libraries are not attributed to poorer construction standards, but to the 

need to provide spaces to meet all building needs, including large entrance lobbies, auditoriums, 

cafeterias, etc. Archives II is a larger building but has much less space devoted to these 

functions, primarily due to economies of scale.) 

Model 1 contains several recommendations that can help to reduce the cost of the system as a 

whole. The recommendations to tighten the commitments of the Foundations for each Library 

will help reduce the burden on the Government. The change in how the endowment is calculated 

from the current method, which bases it on the program requirements of the NARA space – 

essentially 70,000 square feet per building – to the total size of the building that will be 

transferred to the Government, will have a substantial impact on the costs to operate the Libraries. 

If implemented, during the 75-year period it will generate over $330 million in income, which in 

turn would reduce the operating expenses by 12% over that time period. (Income is estimated at 

4% of the amount invested.) By modifying the Architectural and Design Standards to require that 

the Foundation space in the Library be restricted to those areas that only directly support the 

Library (versus the Foundation), NARA will reduce the size of the buildings and their operating 

costs. 

CONCLUSION 

There is no more important question to consider in evaluating alternative models for Presidential 

Libraries than to know or decide who the system is designed to serve. The models laid out in this 

report provide very different experiences for very different groups of users. In evaluating this 

54 
report, the reader needs to consider how broad NARA’s mission should be, what audiences 

should be served, and what their experience with a Presidential Library should be. The 

Presidential collections are among the most vital and valuable of our Nation’s historical assets. 

We have no more important mission than to preserve and make them accessible to those who 

need them. There is a higher cost associated with making these collections accessible not only to 

a diverse constituency of scholars who discuss and analyze these records and their impact on 

future policy decisions, but also to an extended audience of museum visitors, middle and 

secondary school students, not to mention a vast number of curious citizens who visit our 

websites. Public conferences, museum exhibits, immersive educational experiences and contentrich websites require more staff, larger buildings, and greater funding at an increased cost to the 

Government and the Foundations. 

Finally, we understand that Presidential Libraries are considered by some to be costly monuments 

to past Presidents. Others consider them to be vital links to the narrative of American history. 

Presidential Libraries are peculiarly and inalterably American institutions. In our open 

democracy we are free to judge our Presidents. That freedom to judge extends to the Presidential 

Libraries as they are now or in whatever form they may take in the future. Our mission, through 

our archival collections, education, and museum programs, is to ensure that these invaluable 

collections facilitate historical understanding of our national experience to the widest possible 

audience. Presidential Libraries help to shape our memories or knowledge of a certain period of 

time, individual Presidents and the institution of the Presidency. The core question in evaluating 

the future model of Presidential Libraries is to determine if this mission should be redefined. 

55 
 

Appendix A 

Summary of Public Comments regarding Alternative Models 

for Presidential Libraries 

Through Friday, May 22nd, 2009, 104 comments were received. 

General Categories of Comments: 

Professional Societies and Public-Interest Groups 

This category of respondents provided NARA with nearly 9% of all comments received. 

These groups offered a variety of suggestions, but the majority urged that NARA find more 

effective and transparent ways to provide quicker access and availability to Presidential 

records, particularly through digital means. Respondents in this category provided detailed 

feedback concerning access issues handled by the Presidential Library system, with the 

primary areas of concern including the following issues: 

	 Providing for faster releases of Presidential records pursuant to FOIA requests. 

	 Further analysis of whether the centralization of Presidential records could speed 

processing. 

	 Further analysis of the 2007 report of the Public Interest Declassification Board 

(PIDB) when considering any alternative models for Presidential Libraries. 

	 The development of long-term technological plans that will enable NARA to use new 

technologies in the management of Presidential electronic records. Specifically, many 

of these organizations expressed concerns about the Electronic Records Archives’ 

ability to handle processing electronic records. 

	 Several professional organizations and public interest groups questioned whether 

operating museums is part of NARA’s core mission and advocated separating the 

museum function from the archival function as a cost-saving measure, which would 

not negatively impact access to records. 

	 Many of these respondents urged that when considering any alternative models for 

Presidential Libraries, NARA should carefully weigh the needs of future researchers 

and how archival description, preservation, and declassification would be affected by 

any changes. 

Community Partners, Civic Leaders, and Presidential Foundations 

Another 9% of all respondents comprised this category. These respondents discussed the 

importance of the educational benefits that their local Presidential Library provides to their 

community schools and the overall economic benefits their Library brings through jobs, 

publicity, etc. A survey of the comments includes the following: 

56 
 

 

	 Community leaders cited the economic, cultural, and educational impact on the entire 

community. These respondents argued that the presence of the Library offers a unique 

cultural and educational asset that provides an important historical experience for 

locals and visitors alike. Many respondents cited economic data that details how the 

Libraries have impacted the surrounding communities. 

	 Respondents in this category noted that, in addition to providing vital economic 

benefits and increasing tourism revenue, the Library offers a sense of pride, 

connection, and identity for area residents. 

	 Presidential Foundations expressed a strong desire to keep the Presidential Libraries 

operating as they currently do, with the belief that the current model serves the 

Government and taxpayer well. This group noted the success of the public/private 

partnership and that Foundations provide critical financial support, creative resources, 

and staffing for their respective Presidential Libraries. The Foundations argued that in 

the current model they fund a variety of archival functions, including internships, 

research grants, digitization initiatives, marketing and public information projects, and 

nationally-recognized public programs. The Foundations argued that the increase in 

the endowment should significantly off-set operating expenses of Libraries in the 

future. 

Educational Community 

This category of respondents comprised 41.5% of the total comments received and included 

principals, teachers, school librarians, and members of the homeschool community. Educators 

of all grade levels denoted the value of bringing Presidential history into local communities 

throughout our country. Specific comments included the following: 

	 Teachers lauded the archival resources and student programs in their local 

communities and cited the multiple field trips their schools participate in every year. 

	 Educators noted the research expertise of Library staff members and how educational 

programs offered by the Libraries support their curricula. 

	 Many respondents – including concerned parents of schoolchildren and members of 

homeschool associations – cited the value of their own individual experiences with the 

Libraries and expressed a desire for continued support of the current system. These 

parents and educators often discussed specific visits to the Libraries and the benefit of 

particular Presidential exhibits to their children’s development. 

	 Respondents in this group noted that without regional Presidential Libraries, many 

students located outside Washington, DC, and without the means to visit our nation’s 

Capital, would not have access to the valuable resources offered in the Libraries that 

help shape our understanding of our country, our democracy, and our political and 

cultural heritage. 

57 
 

Users of Presidential Libraries and Other Members of the General Public 

These comments comprised 40.5% of all responses. Respondents in this category included 

regular users of Presidential Libraries, former NARA employees, historians, and other 

members of the archival and library community. These suggestions reflect a wide range of 

feedback, including calls for centralization, increased digitization efforts, and appreciation for 

the educational and cultural opportunities afforded by Presidential Libraries. Comments in 

this category include the following: 

	 Many respondents encouraged NARA to make documents available electronically and 

to centralize the system as a cost-saving measure. 

	 Other members of the general public response group expressed their support for the 

public programming at the individual Libraries, including speakers and film series that 

would otherwise be unavailable in their communities. 

	 Some respondents expressed their view of the Libraries as monoliths to former 

Presidents and recommended that NARA not support the museum component of the 

program. 

	 Few respondents advocated a specific model; but instead, most offered commentary 

on digitization efforts and current educational opportunities. 

	 Individual members of the archival and library community offered a variety of 

opinions, almost all of which advocated digital initiatives as a priority. Many 

respondents agreed that centralization was the best option, both for cost-saving 

measures and for more efficient processing. Others noted the value of the research 

expertise offered by archivists at the individual Libraries and the importance of 

contact with original documents in traditional research settings. 

	 Several respondents from the archival community urged NARA to take more time in 

preparing the report, so that all stakeholders could have adequate time to respond. 

58 
Appendix B 

Location of Presidential Papers and Libraries from Washington to Bush 

George Washington –Library of Congress has 95% of extant Washington papers; also 

Huntington Library; Historical Societies of Virginia and Pennsylvania; Virginia State Library; 

Yale University; and the Detroit Public Library. 

John Adams –Massachusetts Historical Society 

Thomas Jefferson – Library of Congress; also University of Virginia; Massachusetts Historical 

Society; National Archives; Missouri Historical Society; Historical Society of Pennsylvania; 

College of William and Mary; Henry E. Huntington Library; American Philosophical Society; 

New York Historical Society; Virginia State Library; William Clements Library; Yale University; 

and other smaller repositories and private hands 

James Madison – Library of Congress; also University of Virginia; Huntington Library; the 

Historical Societies of Virginia and Pennsylvania; New York Public Library; William L. 

Clements Library (U. of Michigan); and Princeton University 

James Monroe – Library of Congress; also James Monroe Memorial Library; College of William 

and Mary; University of Virginia; and Virginia State libraries 

John Quincy Adams – Massachusetts Historical Society 

Andrew Jackson – Library of Congress; also Tennessee State Library; Tennessee Historical 

Society; Chicago Historical Society; New York Public Library; and New York Historical Society 

Martin Van Buren – Library of Congress; also New York State Library; Columbia County 

Historical Society; Pierpont Morgan Library; and Massachusetts Historical Society 

William Henry Harrison – almost all were lost in a fire that destroyed the Harrison home 1858, 

but friends sent material to the grandson, President Benjamin Harrison, which was then later 

donated to the Library of Congress. Other repositories include historical societies of Indiana, 

New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin; and the William Clements and University of 

North Carolina libraries. 

John Tyler – Library of Congress; also College of William and Mary Library; Gardiner Family 

Papers at Yale University, Duke University, and Pierpont Morgan Library 

59 
James Polk – Library of Congress; also Chicago Historical Society; Yale University; and 

Tennessee State Libraries 

Zachary Taylor – personal papers destroyed or dispersed in 1862, but Library of Congress 

accumulated items over the next 90 years; other surviving material wildly scattered among 

collectors, libraries, and historical societies 

Millard Fillmore – Buffalo Historical Society and College of Oswego 

Franklin Pierce – New Hampshire Historical Society; Henry E. Huntington Library; Library of 

Congress; Bowdoin College; William L. Clements Library; Concord Public Library; New York 

Public Library; and historical societies of New Jersey and Pennsylvania 

James Buchanan – Historical Society of Pennsylvania; Lancaster County Historical Society; 

Franklin and Marshall College Library; Princeton University; Pierpont Morgan and Rutherford B. 

Hayes Libraries; New York Historical Society; and the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum 

Commission 

Abraham Lincoln – Library of Congress; substantial collections at the Illinois Historical Society 

and Brown University 

Andrew Johnson – Library of Congress; also Henry E. Huntington Library; and Tennessee State 

Library 

Ulysses S. Grant – Library of Congress, Huntington Library; and New York Historical Society 

Library 

Rutherford B. Hayes – Rutherford B. Hayes Memorial Library administered by the Ohio 

Historical Society and the Hayes Foundation 

James Garfield – Library of Congress; also Ohio Historical Society; and Rutherford B. Hayes 

Library 

Chester A. Arthur – bulk of papers are missing; Library of Congress (only 1,413 documents); 

also New York State Library; New York Historical Society; Boston Public and Rutherford B. 

Hayes Libraries 

Grover Cleveland – Library of Congress; also Detroit Public Library; Buffalo Historical Society; 

New York Historical Society; Princeton University; and Pierpont Morgan Library 

Benjamin Harrison – Library of Congress; also Indiana State Library; and the Rutherford B. 

Hayes Library 

60 
William McKinley – Library of Congress; also Western Reserve Historical Society in Cleveland; 

and Rutherford B. Hayes Library 

Theodore Roosevelt – Library of Congress (over 275,000 items) making it one of the largest 

presidential collections with other important papers at Harvard University 

William Howard Taft – Library of Congress (over 500,000 items) making it one of the most 

complete presidential collections in existence; also Yale University; Princeton University; 

Western Reserve University; and the Ohio Historical Society 

Woodrow Wilson – Library of Congress; substantial collections at Princeton University; 

Columbia University; and the University of Virginia 

Warren G. Harding – Ohio Historical Society 

Calvin Coolidge – Library of Congress; substantial pre-presidential documents in the Calvin 

Coolidge Memorial Room of the Forbes Library, Massachusetts 

Herbert C. Hoover – Hoover Institution Archives at Stanford University; when Mr. Hoover 

decided to establish a Presidential Library in accordance with the provisions of the Presidential 

Libraries Act of 1955, he offered all his public service and related papers to the Government. 

Theses papers were withdrawn from Stanford in 1962 and transferred to Herbert Hoover 

Presidential Library in West Branch, Iowa. 

Franklin D. Roosevelt – Franklin D. Roosevelt Library and Museum in Hyde Park, New York, 

the first Presidential Library administered by the National Archives 

Harry S. Truman – Harry S. Truman Library in Independence, Missouri 

Dwight D. Eisenhower – Dwight D. Eisenhower Library in Abilene, Kansas 

John F. Kennedy – John F. Kennedy Library in Boston, Massachusetts 

Lyndon B. Johnson – Lyndon B. Johnson Library in Austin, Texas 

Richard M. Nixon – Richard Nixon Library in Yorba Linda, California and the National 

Archives at College Park, Maryland (2007) 

Gerald R. Ford – Gerald R. Ford Library in Ann Arbor, Michigan and the Gerald R. Ford 

Museum in Grand Rapids, Michigan 

Jimmy Carter – the Jimmy Carter Library and Museum within the Jimmy Carter Center in 

Atlanta, Georgia 

61 
Ronald W. Reagan – Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California 

George Bush – George Bush Library and Museum in College Station, Texas 

William J. Clinton – William J. Clinton Library and Museum in Little Rock, Arkansas 

George W. Bush – George W. Bush Library to be built on the campus of Southern Methodist 

University, Dallas, Texas 

Sources: Records of the Presidency: Presidential Papers and Libraries from Washington to 

Reagan by Frank L. Schick with Renee Schick and Mark Carroll, (Oryx Press, Phoenix, AZ, 

1989); and National Archives Presidential Libraries web sites 

62 
 

Appendix C
 

Presidential Library Costs and Improvements26
 

This appendix includes cost information relating to the construction of each Presidential 

Library operated by NARA as well as the source of funds for the design and construction of 

major renovations of or additions to Presidential Libraries. Information about major 

exhibit renovations paid for with private funds is also included. This appendix does not 

include future projects that are captured through the NARA Capital Improvements Plan. 

I. Hoover Library 

Dedication 

August 10, 1962 

Construction 

$1,000,000, inflation factor, $7,043,000 

Expansions/Renovations 

A. 1965, design and addition of storage space 

 Cost: $900,000, private funding, 

B. 1969 and 1974/1975, design and addition of auditorium and other renovations 

 Cost: $1,074,000, Federal funding 

C. 1992, design, expansion, and remodeling of facility 

 Cost: $4.9 million, Federal funding

 $1.6 million, private funding 

II. Roosevelt Library 

Dedication 

July, 4, 1940 

Construction 

$369,000, inflation factor, $5,647,000 

Expansions/Renovations 

A. 1971-1972, addition of Eleanor Roosevelt wings 

 Cost: $882,000, Federal funding 

 $769,000, private funding 

B. 1997-1998, construction of Visitor Center and renovation of Library north wing 

 Cost: $8,000,000, Federal (NARA) funding 	 

 $7,800,000, Federal (NPS) funding 

26 The inflation factor is calculated using the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index calculator. 

63 
 

 $3,050,000, private funding 

C. 2005, design of FDR renovation 

 Cost: $750,000, Federal funding 

D. 2008, complete design of FDR renovation 

 Cost: $750,000, Federal funding 

E. 2009, Phase 1 construction of FDR renovation 

 Cost: $17,500,000, Federal funding 

III. Truman Library 

Dedication 

July 6, 1957 

Construction 

$1,670,000, inflation factor, $12,641,424 

Expansions/Renovations 

A. 1968, design and construction of east gallery 

 Cost: $1,000,000, Federal funding 

B. 1979, enclosure of courtyard, space for educational programs, office space, 

museum workshop, and space for holdings storage 

 Cost: $2,750,000, Federal funding 

C. 1997-1998, renovation of almost entire facility, including new permanent exhibit 

 Cost: $8,000,000, Federal funding 	 

$2,400,000, private funding for infrastructure, design, fabrication, and 

installation of new exhibit 

D. 2008-2009, design and construction of Truman Working Office addition 

 Cost: $1,300,000, private funding 

IV. Eisenhower Library 

Dedication 

May 1, 1962 

Construction 

$2,956,000, inflation factor, $20,280,125 

Expansions/Renovations 

64
A. 1966, construction of the Place of Meditation 

 Cost: $176,000, private funds 

B. 1971, museum expansion 

 Cost: $500,000, Federal funding 

C. 1975, construction of Visitor Center 

 Cost: $980,000, Federal funding 

D. 2002, renovation of library and museum stacks and new Presidential gallery 

Cost: $1,288,000, Federal funding for infrastructure changes 

$2,750,000, private funding for design, fabrication, and installation of new 

 Presidential gallery exhibit 

V. Kennedy Library 

Dedication 

October 20, 1979 

Construction 

$18,000,000, inflation factor, $52,737,768 

Expansions/Renovations 

A. 1985, 1989, and1991, construction of Smith Center, renovation of museum, and 

facility improvements 

 Cost: $17,300,000, Federal funding 

 $2,000,000, private funding 

B. 2001, repair of plaza, seawall 

 Cost: $6,610,000, Federal funding 

C. 2005, design of renovation and addition for holdings storage 

 Cost: $1,000,000, Federal funding 

D. 2006, design of renovation and addition for holdings storage 

 Cost: $990,000, Federal funding 

E. 2008, purchase of land and site work for addition for holdings storage 

 Cost: $8,000,000, Federal funding 

F. 2009, Phase 1 construction of addition for holdings storage 

 Cost: $22,000,000, Federal funding 

65 
VI. Johnson Library 

Dedication 

May 22, 1971 

Construction 

$10,000,000, inflation factor, $52,520,740 

Expansions/Renovations 

A. 1980s, enclosure of courtyard by UT 

 Cost: unknown, all borne by UT
 

B. 2003, design, repair, and improvements of LBJ plaza 

 Cost: $3,250,000, Federal funding 

C. 2004, design, repair, and improvements of LBJ plaza 

 Cost: $5,000,000, Federal funding 

D. 2005, design, repair, and improvements of LBJ plaza 

 Cost: $2,000,000, Federal funding 

E. 2006, design, repair, and improvements of LBJ plaza 

Cost: $990,000, Federal funding 

F. 2008, renovations and improvements to the LBJ plaza 

 Cost: $3,760,000, Federal funding 

G. 2009, further renovations and improvements to the LBJ plaza 

 Cost: $2,000,000, Federal funding 

VII. Nixon Library 

Dedication 

July 19, 1990 

Transferred to the Federal Government, July 11, 2007 

Construction 

$29,000,000, inflation factor, $47,190,795 

Expansion/Renovations 

A. 2004, Loker Center addition 

 Cost: $14,000,000, private funding 

66 
 

B. 2005-2006, design of addition for archival holdings 

 Cost: $647,580 Federal funding 

C. 2006, Federal community development grant to the Nixon Library Foundation for 

improvements to the Nixon Library 

 Cost: $2,000,000, Federal funding 

D. 2008-2009, construction of addition for archival holdings 

 Cost: $7,432,000, Federal funding 

VIII. Ford Library and Museum (Two separate facilities) 

Dedication 

Library, April 27, 1981 

Museum, September 18, 1981 

Construction 

$11,400,000*, inflation factor, $26,676,376 

*Cost of both Library and Museum 

Expansions/Renovations 

A. 2001-2002, addition to museum and renovation of existing space 

 Cost: $5,105,000, Federal funding 	 

$250,000 private funding for Cabinet Room infrastructure 

$500,000, private funding for Cabinet Room exhibit design, fabrication, 

and installation 

IX. Carter Library 

Dedication 

October 1, 1986 

Construction 

$26,000,000, inflation factor, $50,460,164 

Expansions/Renovations 

A. 2009, renovation and replacement of permanent exhibit 

 Cost: $10,000,000, private funding 

X. Reagan Library 

Dedication 

November 4, 1991 

67 
Construction 

$42,000,000, inflation factor, $65,593,083 

Expansions/Renovations 

A.	 2000, addition to facility and some modifications to existing structure 

 Cost: $8,000,000, Federal funding 

XI. George H. W. Bush Library 

Dedication 

November 6, 1997 

Construction 

$22,386,166, inflation factor, $29,668,155 

Expansions/Renovations 

A. 2007, renovation of permanent exhibit 

 Cost: $8,200,000, private funding 

XII. Clinton Library 

Dedication 

November 18, 2004 

Construction 

$36,000,000, inflation factor, $40,537,448 

XIII. George W. Bush Library 

The Library currently operates in a temporary facility leased by NARA. 

68 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D
 

2008 Trust Fund Statement
 

Library Revenues Operating 

Expense 

Net 

Operating. 

Income -

(loss) 

Interest 

Income 

Other 

Income 

Realized Gain 

on 

Investments 

Unrealized 

Loss on 

Investments 

Net 

Income -

Loss 

Hoover $180,000 ($184,000) ($4,000) $10,000 $2,000 ($21,000) ($13,000) 

Roosevelt $1,029,000 ($895,000) $134,000 $29,000 $1,000 ($83,000) $81,000 

Truman $773,000 ($577,000) $196,000 $2,000 $1,000 ($1,000) $198,000 

Eisenhower $440,000 ($449,000) ($9,000) $7,000 ($2,000) 

Kennedy $3,353,000 ($3,032,000) $321,000 $179,000 $165,000 $7,000 ($638,000) $34,000 

Johnson $28,000 ($144,000) ($116,000) $12,000 $131,000 ($17,000) $10,000 

Nixon $278,000 ($86,000) $192,000 $4,000 $196,000 

Ford $507,000 ($426,000) $81,000 $18,000 ($2,000) $97,000 

Carter $378,000 ($391,000) ($13,000) $2,000 ($11,000) 

Reagan $952,000 ($937,000) $15,000 $83,000 $3,000 ($143,000) ($42,000) 

Bush $459,000 ($348,000) $111,000 $8,000 $40,000 ($18,000) $141,000 

Clinton $596,000 ($445,000) $151,000 $92,000 $3,000 ($125,000) $121,000 

Totals $8,973,000 ($7,914,000) $1,059,000 $446,000 $336,000 $17,000 ($1,048,000) $810,000 

69 
Appendix E
 

Cost Analysis Spreadsheets
 

The Cost Analysis of the five models was performed in an effort to quantify how much funding each 

model might require under tightly controlled circumstances. The comparisons of the costs for the 

different models made an attempt to account for the changes recommended in the report for each 

model when compared to the current system. The process used was as follows: 

1. After the model parameters were decided upon, standardized costs for the major cost components 

were developed using currently available NARA cost data to provide the services in similar systems. 

2. Life Cycle Costs: This sheet develops the costs for each model plus the baseline (i.e., the existing 

system, with a 60% endowment as stipulated in the current law governing Presidential Libraries) for a 

42 year period. The period is the two years prior to a president leaving office when the staff for the 

library starts to be hired and ends 40 years after the president leaves office. The yearly costs starting 

40 years after leaving office were assumed to be constant. By that point the facility operation and 

costs had stabilized, with the only changes being major renovations. Renovations for the Government 

owned as well as the leased facilities had taken place in the time frame of 35 to 40 years. The 

facilities should not require major renovations until after the 75 year period of time, and no other 

changes that would impact the costs were envisioned. Consequently, the yearly cost to complete the 

full 75 year cycle used the 40th year costs for years 41 through 75. Notes showing where the specific 

numbers came from are on the Life Cycle Cost. The spreadsheet consisted of all of the major cost 

components identified in NARA’s budget for the library system, and include: Program Costs, Move 

and Lease Build Out Costs, Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs, Overtime Utility Costs (24/7 

utilities above the standard leased costs), Repair and Restoration Costs, and future Renovation costs. 

The Life Cycle Costs were developed in this format for the 40 year post presidency period (42 year 

total costs, to include the transition). 

3. Model Costs: The Life Cycle cost table reflects the total for one library for each of the six 

conditions: baseline and Models One through Five. In order to accurately reflect the total 75 year cost 

for each of the six scenarios, the Model Cost spreadsheets were developed and reflect the funding for 

10 presidencies, each starting at an 8 year interval. 

4. Model Cost Totals by FY: These tables take the projected yearly costs for each model and show 

the costs by year and cumulative, permitting comparisons of the projected costs for each model when 

compared to the baseline. 

This appendix contains the following tables which show baseline and model costs: 

1. Model Cost Totals by Fiscal Year and Cumulative 

2. NL Model Life Cycle Cost Estimate 

3. Baseline 

4. Model One 

5. Model Two 

6. Model Three 

7. Model Four 

8. Model Five 

70 
Model Cost Totals by Fiscal Year and Cumulative 

All cost figures ($) in thousands (000) 

Baseline Model One Model Two Model Three Model Four 

Total by FY Cumulative Total by FY Cumulative Total by FY Cumulative Total by FY Cumulative Total by FY Cumulat

FY 2022 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $99,510 $99,5

FY 2023 $524 $524 $524 $524 $524 $524 $524 $524 $524 $99,5

FY 2024 $1,112 $1,636 $1,112 $1,636 $1,112 $1,636 $1,112 $1,636 $1,112 $100,6

FY 2025 election $8,995 $10,631 $8,995 $10,631 $8,995 $10,631 $8,995 $10,631 $3,225 $103,8

FY 2026 $6,316 $16,947 $6,316 $16,947 $6,316 $16,947 $6,316 $16,947 $4,159 $108,0

FY 2027 $6,316 $23,263 $6,316 $23,263 $6,316 $23,263 $6,316 $23,263 $4,159 $112,

FY 2028 $6,316 $29,579 $6,316 $29,579 $6,316 $29,579 $6,316 $29,579 $4,159 $116,3

FY 2029 $6,316 $35,895 $6,316 $35,895 $6,316 $35,895 $6,316 $35,895 $4,159 $120,4

FY 2030 $6,634 $42,529 $6,634 $42,529 $8,265 $44,160 $8,265 $44,160 $4,159 $124,6

FY 2031 $7,035 $49,564 $5,853 $48,382 $7,228 $51,388 $6,404 $50,564 $4,745 $129,3

FY 2032 $7,623 $57,187 $6,441 $54,822 $7,816 $59,205 $6,992 $57,556 $5,333 $134,7

FY 2033 election $15,506 $72,693 $14,324 $69,146 $15,699 $74,904 $14,875 $72,432 $7,446 $142,

FY 2034 $12,827 $85,521 $11,645 $80,790 $13,020 $87,924 $12,196 $84,628 $8,381 $150,5

FY 2035 $12,827 $98,348 $11,645 $92,435 $13,020 $100,945 $12,196 $96,824 $8,381 $158,9

FY 2036 $13,017 $111,365 $11,835 $104,270 $13,123 $114,068 $12,321 $109,145 $8,381 $167,3

FY 2037 $13,017 $124,382 $11,835 $116,104 $13,123 $127,191 $12,321 $121,466 $8,381 $175,6

FY 2038 $13,335 $137,718 $12,153 $128,257 $15,072 $142,264 $14,270 $135,737 $8,381 $184,0

FY 2039 $13,736 $151,454 $11,371 $139,629 $14,036 $156,299 $12,409 $148,146 $8,967 $193,0

FY 2040 $14,324 $165,779 $11,959 $151,588 $14,624 $170,923 $12,997 $161,143 $9,555 $202,5

FY 2041 election $22,207 $187,986 $19,842 $171,430 $22,615 $193,538 $20,880 $182,024 $11,668 $214,2

FY 2042 $19,528 $207,515 $17,163 $188,594 $19,936 $213,474 $18,201 $200,225 $12,602 $226,8

FY 2043 $19,528 $227,043 $17,163 $205,757 $19,936 $233,410 $18,201 $218,427 $12,602 $239,4

FY 2044 $19,719 $246,762 $17,353 $223,110 $20,039 $253,448 $18,326 $236,753 $12,602 $252,0

FY 2045 $19,719 $266,480 $17,353 $240,464 $20,039 $273,487 $18,326 $255,079 $12,602 $264,6

FY 2046 $20,037 $286,517 $17,671 $258,135 $22,101 $295,589 $20,275 $275,355 $12,602 $277,2

FY 2047 $20,438 $306,955 $16,890 $275,026 $21,065 $316,653 $18,415 $293,769 $13,188 $290,4

FY 2048 $21,026 $327,980 $17,478 $292,504 $21,653 $338,306 $19,003 $312,772 $13,776 $304,2

FY 2049 election $28,909 $356,889 $25,361 $317,865 $29,644 $367,950 $26,886 $339,658 $15,889 $320,

FY 2050 $26,230 $383,119 $22,682 $340,547 $26,965 $394,915 $24,207 $363,864 $16,824 $336,9

FY 2051 $26,230 $409,349 $22,682 $363,229 $27,466 $422,380 $24,207 $388,071 $16,824 $353,7

FY 2052 $26,420 $435,769 $22,872 $386,101 $27,569 $449,949 $24,332 $412,402 $16,824 $370,6

FY 2053 $26,420 $462,188 $22,872 $408,973 $27,569 $477,518 $24,332 $436,734 $16,824 $387,4

FY 2054 $26,738 $488,926 $23,190 $432,164 $29,631 $507,149 $26,281 $463,015 $16,824 $404,2

FY 2055 $27,139 $516,065 $22,409 $454,572 $28,595 $535,744 $24,420 $487,434 $17,410 $421,6

FY 2056 $27,727 $543,792 $22,997 $477,569 $29,471 $565,215 $25,008 $512,442 $17,998 $439,6

FY 2057 election $35,610 $579,403 $30,880 $508,449 $37,462 $602,677 $32,891 $545,333 $20,111 $459,7

FY 2058 $32,931 $612,334 $28,201 $536,650 $34,783 $637,461 $30,212 $575,545 $21,045 $480,8

FY 2059 $32,931 $645,265 $28,201 $564,851 $35,284 $672,745 $30,212 $605,757 $21,045 $501,8

FY 2060 $33,121 $678,386 $28,391 $593,242 $35,387 $708,132 $30,337 $636,093 $21,045 $522,9

FY 2061 $33,121 $711,507 $28,391 $621,633 $35,387 $743,519 $30,337 $666,430 $120,555 $643,4

FY 2062 $33,439 $744,946 $28,709 $650,342 $37,450 $780,969 $32,286 $698,716 $21,045 $664,5

FY 2063 $33,840 $778,787 $27,928 $678,269 $36,413 $817,382 $30,425 $729,141 $21,631 $686,

FY 2064 $34,428 $813,215 $28,516 $706,785 $37,290 $854,671 $31,013 $760,154 $22,219 $708,3

FY 2065 election $66,955 $880,170 $61,042 $767,827 $45,281 $899,952 $55,696 $815,850 $34,748 $743,

FY 2066 $39,632 $919,803 $33,720 $801,547 $42,602 $942,554 $36,217 $852,067 $25,267 $768,3

FY 2067 $39,632 $959,435 $33,720 $835,267 $43,103 $985,656 $36,217 $888,284 $25,267 $793,6

FY 2068 $39,823 $999,258 $33,910 $869,176 $43,206 $1,028,862 $36,342 $924,626 $25,267 $818,9

FY 2069 $39,823 $1,039,080 $33,910 $903,086 $43,206 $1,072,067 $36,342 $960,968 $25,267 $844,

FY 2070 $40,141 $1,079,221 $34,228 $937,314 $45,268 $1,117,336 $38,291 $999,259 $25,267 $869,4

FY 2071 $40,542 $1,119,762 $33,446 $970,760 $44,231 $1,161,567 $36,430 $1,035,689 $25,853 $895,2

FY 2072 $41,130 $1,160,892 $34,034 $1,004,794 $45,108 $1,206,675 $37,018 $1,072,707 $26,441 $921,7

FY 2073 election $73,656 $1,234,548 $66,561 $1,071,356 $53,099 $1,259,774 $61,701 $1,134,409 $38,970 $960,7

FY 2074 $46,334 $1,280,882 $39,238 $1,110,594 $50,420 $1,310,194 $42,222 $1,176,631 $29,488 $990,

FY 2075 $46,334 $1,327,216 $39,238 $1,149,832 $50,921 $1,361,115 $42,222 $1,218,853 $29,488 $1,019,6

FY 2076 $46,524 $1,373,740 $39,428 $1,189,261 $51,024 $1,412,139 $42,347 $1,261,200 $29,488 $1,049,

FY 2077 $46,524 $1,420,263 $39,428 $1,228,689 $51,024 $1,463,163 $42,347 $1,303,548 $29,488 $1,078,6

FY 2078 $46,842 $1,467,105 $39,746 $1,268,436 $53,087 $1,516,250 $44,296 $1,347,844 $29,488 $1,108,

FY 2079 $47,243 $1,514,348 $38,965 $1,307,401 $52,050 $1,568,300 $42,435 $1,390,279 $30,074 $1,138,2
Model Cost Totals by Fiscal Year and Cumulative 

All cost figures ($) in thousands (000) 

Baseline Model One Model Two Model Three Model Four 

Total by FY Cumulative Total by FY Cumulative Total by FY Cumulative Total by FY Cumulative Total by FY Cumulat

FY 2080 $47,831 $1,562,179 $39,553 $1,346,954 $52,926 $1,621,226 $43,023 $1,433,303 $30,662 $1,168,8

FY 2081 election $80,358 $1,642,537 $72,080 $1,419,034 $60,918 $1,682,144 $67,706 $1,501,009 $43,191 $1,212,0

FY 2082 $53,035 $1,695,572 $44,757 $1,463,791 $58,239 $1,740,383 $48,227 $1,549,236 $33,710 $1,245,7

FY 2083 $53,035 $1,748,607 $44,757 $1,508,548 $58,739 $1,799,122 $48,227 $1,597,464 $33,710 $1,279,4

FY 2084 $53,225 $1,801,832 $44,947 $1,553,495 $58,842 $1,857,964 $48,352 $1,645,816 $33,710 $1,313,

FY 2085 $53,225 $1,855,057 $44,947 $1,598,442 $58,842 $1,916,807 $48,352 $1,694,169 $33,710 $1,346,9

FY 2086 $53,543 $1,908,600 $45,265 $1,643,708 $60,905 $1,977,712 $50,301 $1,744,470 $33,710 $1,380,6

FY 2087 $53,944 $1,962,545 $44,484 $1,688,191 $59,868 $2,037,580 $48,441 $1,792,911 $34,296 $1,414,9

FY 2088 $54,532 $2,017,077 $45,072 $1,733,263 $60,745 $2,098,325 $49,029 $1,841,939 $34,884 $1,449,7

FY 2089 election $87,059 $2,104,136 $77,599 $1,810,862 $68,736 $2,167,061 $73,712 $1,915,651 $47,413 $1,497,2

FY 2090 $59,736 $2,163,872 $50,276 $1,861,138 $66,057 $2,233,118 $54,233 $1,969,883 $37,931 $1,535,

FY 2091 $59,736 $2,223,608 $50,276 $1,911,413 $66,558 $2,299,676 $54,233 $2,024,116 $37,931 $1,573,0

FY 2092 $59,926 $2,283,535 $50,466 $1,961,879 $66,661 $2,366,337 $54,358 $2,078,474 $37,931 $1,611,0

FY 2093 $59,926 $2,343,461 $50,466 $2,012,345 $66,661 $2,432,998 $54,358 $2,132,831 $37,931 $1,648,9

FY 2094 $60,244 $2,403,706 $50,784 $2,063,129 $68,723 $2,501,721 $56,307 $2,189,138 $37,931 $1,686,8

FY 2095 $60,646 $2,464,351 $50,003 $2,113,132 $67,687 $2,569,408 $54,446 $2,243,584 $38,517 $1,725,3

FY 2096 $61,234 $2,525,585 $50,591 $2,163,723 $68,563 $2,637,971 $55,034 $2,298,617 $39,105 $1,764,4

FY 2097 election $93,760 $2,619,345 $83,117 $2,246,840 $76,554 $2,714,526 $79,717 $2,378,334 $51,634 $1,816,

FY 2098 $66,438 $2,685,783 $55,795 $2,302,635 $73,875 $2,788,401 $60,238 $2,438,572 $42,153 $1,858,2

FY 2099 $66,438 $2,752,221 $55,795 $2,358,429 $74,376 $2,862,778 $60,238 $2,498,810 $42,153 $1,900,4
NL Model Life Cycle Cost Estimate 

Model Cost Totals By FY
 

All cost figures ($) in thousands (000)
 

Baseline Model One Model Two Model Three Model Four Model Five 

Status Quo Status Quo ++ Leased Provided Centralized Centralized with Museum 

Building Size in sf 152,122 152,122 1 70,000 2 70,000 2 62,000 3 110,000 

Efficiency Factor 0.7 

new building size 100,000 

Initial Construction Investment for 5 presidencies. $99,510 6 $55,000 6 

Year 40 Facility Expansion for an additional 5 presidencies. $99,510 6 

A. Transition Period 

-staff at -2 years $524 4 $524 4 $524 4 $524 4 $524 4 

-staff at -1 year $1,112 4 $1,112 4 $1,112 4 $1,112 4 $1,112 4 

-staff in last year in office $3,225 4 $3,225 4 $3,225 4 $3,225 4 $3,225 4 $3,457 10 

-staff savings for centralized facility $0 $0 $0 $0 -$90 5 

-Move/lease/build out $5,770 4 $5,770 4 $5,770 4 $5,770 4 $0 

$0 $0 $0 $0 

-Centralized O&M @ $10.33/sf $0 $0 $0 $0 $640 7 $1,136 7 

Total Transition	 $10,631 $10,631 $10,631 $10,631 $5,411 $4,593 

B Years 2 - 6 Costs in Temporary Space; years 2 - 6 after leaving office 

-base lease $1,766 8 $1,766 8 $1,766 8 $1,766 8 $0 

-O&M costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $640 7 $1,136 7 

-program $3,547 9 $3,547 9 $3,547 9 $3,547 9 $3,457 10 $3,457 10 

-guards $439 11 $439 11 $439 11 $439 11 in O&M 

-leased O&M and taxes $364 12 $364 12 $364 12 $364 12 

-add in 24/7 utilities $200 13 $200 13 $200 13 $200 13 

-non renovation R&R @ 50% $62 14 $110 

subtotal per year $6,316 $6,316 $6,316 $6,316 $4,159 $4,703

 Total years two through six $31,580 $31,580 $31,580 $31,580 $20,797 $23,517 

C. Move to Permanent Location 

-move/build out $318 15 $318 15 $749 16 $749 16 

-security & shelving replacement by foundation by foundation $1,200 17 $1,200 17 

Total Move to Permanent Space $318 $318 $1,949 $1,949 $0 

D. Costs per year: years 0 - 5 Permanent Space; years 6 - 10 after leaving office 

-program costs $3,547 9 $3,547 9 $3,547 9 $3,547 9 $3,457 10 $3,457 10 

-add in education specialists $400 18 $400 18 $0 $0 $0 

-O&M costs $2,982 19 $2,982 19 $0 $2,208 20 $640 7 $1,136 7 

-base lease $0 $0 $2,060 21 $0 $0 

-leased operational costs $0 $0 $425 22 $0 $0 

-add in 24/7 utilities $0 $0 $233 23 $0 $0 

-guards in O&M in O&M $439 11 in O&M in O&M 

-non renovation R&R @ 50% $190 14 $190 14 $0 $125 14 $0 

-non renovation R&R @ 100% $124 24 $220 24 

-endowment deduction @ 60% -$608 25 -$1,791 25 $0 $0 $0 

subtotal costs per year $6,511 $5,329 $6,704 $5,880 $4,221 $4,813

 Total years 0 through 5 $32,556 $26,643 $33,522 $29,401 $21,107 $24,067 

E. Costs per year: years 6 - 10 Permanent Space; years 11 - 15 after leaving office 

-program costs $3,547 9 $3,547 9 $3,547 9 $3,547 9 $3,457 10 $3,457 10 

-add in education specialists $400 18 $400 18 $0 $0 $0 

-O&M costs $2,982 19 $2,982 19 $0 $2,208 20 $640 7 $1,136 7 

-base lease costs $0 $0 $2,060 21 $0 

-5% lease increase $103 26 

-leased operational costs $425 22 

-add in 24/7 utilities $233 23 

-guards in O&M in O&M $439 11 in O&M 

-non renovation R&R @ 100% $380 24 $380 24 $0 $250 24 $124 24 $220 24 

-endowment deduction @ 60% -$608 25 -$1,791 25 

subtotal costs per year $6,701 $5,519 $6,807 $6,005 $4,221 $4,813 

Total years 6 - 10	 $33,507 $27,594 $34,037 $30,026 $21,107 $24,067 

73 
Baseline Model One Model Two Model Three Model Four Model Five 

Status Quo Status Quo ++ 

F. Costs per year: years 11-15 Permanent Space; years 16 - 20 after leaving office 

-program costs $3,547 9 $3,547 9 

-add in education specialists $400 18 $400 18 

-O&M costs $2,982 19 $2,982 19 

-base lease costs $0 $0 

-5% lease increase 

-leased operational costs 

-add in 24/7 utilities 

-guards in O&M in O&M 

-non renovation R&R @ 100% $380 24 $380 24 

-endowment deduction @ 60% -$608 25 -$1,791 25 

subtotal costs per year $6,701 $5,519 

Leased 

$3,547 9 

$0 

$0 

$2,163 21 

$108 26 

$425 22 

$233 23 

$439 11 

$0 

$6,915 

Provided 

$3,547 9 

$0 

$2,208 20 

$0 

in O&M 

$250 24 

$6,005 

Centralized Centralized with Museum 

$3,457 10 $3,457 10 

$640 7 $1,136 7 

$124 24 $220 24 

$4,221 $4,813 

Total years 11 - 15 $33,507 $27,594 $34,577 $30,026 $21,107 $24,067 

G. Costs per year: years 16-20 Permanent Space; years 21 - 25 after leaving office 

-program costs $3,547 9 $3,547 9 

-add in education specialists $400 18 $400 18 

-O&M costs $2,982 19 $2,982 19 

-base lease costs $0 $0 

-5% lease increase 

-leased operational costs 

-add in 24/7 utilities 

-guards in O&M in O&M 

-non renovation R&R @ 100% $380 24 $380 24 

-endowment deduction @ 60% -$608 25 -$1,791 25 

subtotal costs per year $6,701 $5,519 

$3,547 9 

$0 

$0 

$2,271 21 

$114 26 

$425 22 

$233 23 

$439 11 

$0 

$7,029 

$3,547 9 

$0 

$2,208 20 

$0 

in O&M 

$250 24 

$6,005 

$3,457 10 

$640 7 

$124 24 

$4,221 

$3,457 10 

$1,136 7 

$220 24 

$4,813 

Total years 16 - 20 $33,507 $27,594 $35,145 $30,026 $21,107 $24,067 

H. Costs per year: years 21 - 25 permanent space; years 26 - 30 after leaving office 

-program costs $3,547 9 $3,547 9 

-add in education specialists $400 18 $400 18 

-O&M costs $2,982 19 $2,982 19 

-base lease costs $0 $0 

-10% lease increase 

-leased operational costs 

-add in 24/7 utilities 

-guards in O&M in O&M 

-non renovation R&R @ 100% $380 24 $380 24 

-endowment deduction @ 60% -$608 25 -$1,791 25 

subtotal costs per year $6,701 $5,519 

$3,547 9 

$0 

$0 

$2,385 21 

$238 27 

$425 22 

$233 23 

$439 11 

$0 

$7,268 

$3,547 9 

$0 

$2,208 20 

$0 

in O&M 

$250 24 

$6,005 

$3,457 10 

$640 7 

$124 24 

$4,221 

$3,457 10 

$1,136 7 

$220 24 

$4,813 

Total years 21 - 25 $33,507 $27,594 $36,338 $30,026 $21,107 $24,067 

I. Costs per year: years 26 - 30 permanent space; years 31-35 after leaving office 

-program costs $3,547 9 $3,547 9 

-add in education specialists $400 18 $400 18 

-O&M costs $2,982 19 $2,982 19 

-base lease costs $0 $0 

-10% lease increase 

-leased operational costs 

-add in 24/7 utilities 

-guards $0 $0 

-non renovation R&R @ 100% $380 24 $380 24 

-endowment deduction @ 60% -$608 25 -$1,791 25 

subtotal costs per year $6,701 $5,519 

$3,547 9 

$0 

$0 

$2,623 21 

$262 27 

$425 22 

$233 23 

$439 11 

$0 

$7,530 

$3,547 9 

$0 

$2,208 20 

$0 

$0 

$250 24 

$6,005 

$3,457 10 

$640 7 

$124 24 

$4,221 

$3,457 10 

$1,136 7 

$220 24 

$4,813 

Total years 26 - 30 $33,507 $27,594 $37,649 $30,026 $21,107 $24,067 

J. Costs per year: years 31 - 35 permanent space; years 36 - 40 after leaving office 

-program costs $3,547 9 $3,547 9 

-add in education specialists $400 18 $400 18 

-O&M costs $2,982 19 $2,982 19 

-base lease costs $0 $0 

-10% lease increase 

-leased operational costs 

-add in 24/7 utilities 

-guards $0 $0 

-non renovation R&R @ 100% $380 24 $380 24 

-endowment deduction @ 60% -$608 25 -$1,791 25 

subtotal costs per year $6,701 $5,519 

$3,547 9 

$0 

$0 

$2,886 21 

$289 27 

$425 22 

$233 23 

$439 11 

$0 

$7,818 

$3,547 9 

$0 

$2,208 20 

$0 

$0 

$250 24 

$6,005 

$3,457 10 

$640 7 

$124 24 

$4,221 

$3,457 10 

$1,136 7 

$220 24 

$4,813 

Building renovation @ $168/sf $24,644 $24,644 $16,800 $10,416 $18,480 

Total years 31 - 35 $58,150 $52,238 $39,092 $46,826 $31,523 $42,547 

74 
Baseline Model One Model Two Model Three Model Four Model Five 

Status Quo Status Quo ++ Leased Provided Centralized Centralized with Museum 

Total Life Cycle $300,768 $259,378 $294,520 $270,517 $184,376 $215,055 

From end of 2nd term to 40 years post term 

Annual costs after 40 years are assumed to be steady at the year 40 annual costs for the lifetime of the facility. 

The Baseline differs from Model One only in the calculation of the endowment. The Baseline uses the current interpretation: 

60% applied to the 70,000 sf of NARA program space. 

The Model One endowment uses the proposed change of 60% applied to the entire building - in this case 152,122 sf. 

Source of the Numbers. Unless otherwise stated, all numbers were provided by both Budget and Presidential Libraries. 

1. Clinton Library is basis for size and costs 

2. Bush43 leased space plus 10,000 sf for research room. 

3. Calculated need if located in AII type space 

4. Bush 43 FY2009 budget 

5. Bush 43 cost for one facility manager not needed in a centralized facility. 

6. Centralized Archives @ $321/sf for 5 modules; Centralized Museum @ $500/sf 

7. From Budget (NAB): FY2009 AII O&M costs/sf (calculated at $10.33/sf) for AII applied to sf needed for library 

8. From Property Mgmt Branch (NASR): Bush 43 temp space lease cost per year (60,000 sf in temp space) 

9. Bush 43 program costs 

10. Bush 43 program costs less one facility manager 

11. Bush 43 guard service for one year. Note: The Museum option is for multiple 

12. Bush 43 operating and tax costs for one year. presidencies. 

13. From NASR Contracting Officer: Bush 43 24/7 utility costs to be added to lease. The museum option assumes that 

14. From Security Division (NAS): normal rate for repairs is $2/sf; 50% applied for 1st five years in a facility. The Foundation of the National Archives - or 

15. Clinton 2004 move cost to permanent space escalated to FY2009 one created just for the centralized museum 

16. Clinton 2004 move costs plus Bush 43 temporary space build out costs of the presidency - would fully fund all exhibits 

17. Bush 43 shelving and security system costs for temp space. and the construction of the exhibits. 

18. Estimated future personnel costs for education program. Staffing was assumed to be ten facilities 

19. Clinton FY2009 O&M budget personnel and 24 exhibit/education/support 

20. Blended rate using Bush 41 and Johnson Libraries. Ford costs do not appear to be replicable at other locations. personnel. The museum would be operated 

21. Bush 43 base lease rate applied to 70,000 sf facility vice 60,000. by CFM plus guard contracts, all included 

22. Bush 43 tax and operating costs escalated for 70,000 sf facility in the O&M figure. 

23. Bush 43 24/7 utilities escalated to 70,000 sf facility 

24. NAS: full rate for major repairs applied after 5 years 

25. Clinton construction costs escalated to FY2009; 60% endowment earning 4% per year 

26. NAS CO: lease provides for opportunity to raise rates at 5 year periods. Predicted that lessor will raise rates 5%. 

27. NAS CO: Predicts lessor will raise rates 10% to accomplish repairs normally covered by renovation. 

28. Predicted renovation costs using AI renovation $162/sf 

75 
Baseline 

Donated Presidential Library with museum and public programs - current law and endowment interpretation 

Model Cost Totals By FY - Baseline 

All cost figures ($) in thousands (000) 

Baseline 

Total by Year 

FY 2022 FY 2023 $524 $524 

FY 2024 $1,112 $1,112 

FY 2025 election $8,995 $8,995 

FY 2026 $6,316 $6,316 

FY 2027 $6,316 $6,316 

FY 2028 $6,316 $6,316 

FY 2029 $6,316 $6,316 

FY 2030 $6,634 $6,634 

FY 2031 $6,511 $524 $7,035 

FY 2032 $6,511 $1,112 $7,623 

FY 2033 election $6,511 $8,995 $15,506 FY 2034 $6,511 $6,316 $12,827 

FY 2035 $6,511 $6,316 $12,827 

FY 2036 $6,701 $6,316 $13,017 

FY 2037 $6,701 $6,316 $13,017 

FY 2038 $6,701 $6,634 $13,335 

FY 2039 $6,701 $6,511 $524 $13,736 

FY 2040 $6,701 $6,511 $1,112 $14,324 

FY 2041 election $6,701 $6,511 $8,995 $22,207 

FY 2042 $6,701 $6,511 $6,316 $19,528 

FY 2043 $6,701 $6,511 $6,316 $19,528 

FY 2044 $6,701 $6,701 $6,316 $19,719 

FY 2045 $6,701 $6,701 $6,316 $19,719 

FY 2046 $6,701 $6,701 $6,634 $20,037 

FY 2047 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $524 $20,438 

FY 2048 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $1,112 $21,026 

FY 2049 election $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $8,995 $28,909 

FY 2050 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $6,316 $26,230 

FY 2051 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $6,316 $26,230 

FY 2052 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,316 $26,420 

FY 2053 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,316 $26,420 

FY 2054 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,634 $26,738 

FY 2055 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $524 $27,139 

FY 2056 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $1,112 $27,727 

FY 2057 election $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $8,995 $35,610 

FY 2058 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $6,316 $32,931 

FY 2059 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $6,316 $32,931 

FY 2060 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,316 $33,121 

FY 2061 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,316 $33,121 

FY 2062 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,634 $33,439 

FY 2063 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $524 $33,840 

FY 2064 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $1,112 $34,428 

FY 2065 election $31,345 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $8,995 $66,955 
Baseline 

Donated Presidential Library with museum and public programs - current law and endowment interpretation 

Model Cost Totals By FY - Baseline 

All cost figures ($) in thousands (000) 

Baseline 

Total by Year 

FY 2066 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $6,316 $39,632 

FY 2067 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $6,316 $39,632 

FY 2068 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,316 $39,823 

FY 2069 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,316 $39,823 

FY 2070 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,634 $40,141 

FY 2071 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $524 $40,542 

FY 2072 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $1,112 $41,130 

FY 2073 election $6,701 $31,345 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $8,995 $73,656 

FY 2074 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $6,316 $46,334 

FY 2075 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $6,316 $46,334 

FY 2076 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,316 $46,524 

FY 2077 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,316 $46,524 

FY 2078 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,634 $46,842 

FY 2079 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $524 $47,243 

FY 2080 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $1,112 $47,831 

FY 2081 election $6,701 $6,701 $31,345 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $8,995 $80,358 

FY 2082 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $6,316 $53,035 

FY 2083 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $6,316 $53,035 

FY 2084 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,316 $53,225 

FY 2085 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,316 $53,225 

FY 2086 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,634 $53,543 

FY 2087 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $524 $53,944 

FY 2088 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $1,112 $54,532 

FY 2089 election $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $31,345 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $8,995 $87,059 

FY 2090 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $6,316 $59,736 

FY 2091 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $6,316 $59,736 

FY 2092 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,316 $59,926 

FY 2093 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,316 $59,926 

FY 2094 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,634 $60,244 

FY 2095 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $524 $60,646 

FY 2096 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $1,112 $61,234 

FY 2097 election $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $31,345 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $8,995 $93,760 

FY 2098 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $6,316 $66,438 

FY 2099 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,701 $6,511 $6,316 $66,438 
Model One 

Status Quo - Donated Presidential Library with museum and public programs 

Model Cost Totals by FY - Model One 

All cost figures ($) in thousands (000) 

Model One 

Total by Year 

FY 2022 FY 2023 $524 $524 

FY 2024 $1,112 $1,112 

FY 2025 election $8,995 $8,995 FY 2026 $6,316 $6,316 

FY 2027 $6,316 $6,316 

FY 2028 $6,316 $6,316 

FY 2029 $6,316 $6,316 

FY 2030 $6,634 $6,634 

FY 2031 $5,329 $524 $5,853 

FY 2032 $5,329 $1,112 $6,441 

FY 2033 election $5,329 $8,995 $14,324 FY 2034 $5,329 $6,316 $11,645 FY 2035 $5,329 $6,316 $11,645 FY 2036 $5,519 $6,316 $11,835 

FY 2037 $5,519 $6,316 $11,835 

FY 2038 $5,519 $6,634 $12,153 

FY 2039 $5,519 $5,329 $524 $11,371 

FY 2040 $5,519 $5,329 $1,112 $11,959 

FY 2041 election $5,519 $5,329 $8,995 $19,842 

FY 2042 $5,519 $5,329 $6,316 $17,163 

FY 2043 $5,519 $5,329 $6,316 $17,163 

FY 2044 $5,519 $5,519 $6,316 $17,353 

FY 2045 $5,519 $5,519 $6,316 $17,353 

FY 2046 $5,519 $5,519 $6,634 $17,671 

FY 2047 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $524 $16,890 

FY 2048 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $1,112 $17,478 

FY 2049 election $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $8,995 $25,361 

FY 2050 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $6,316 $22,682 

FY 2051 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $6,316 $22,682 

FY 2052 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $6,316 $22,872 

FY 2053 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $6,316 $22,872 

FY 2054 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $6,634 $23,190 

FY 2055 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $524 $22,409 

FY 2056 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $1,112 $22,997 

FY 2057 election $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $8,995 $30,880 

FY 2058 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $6,316 $28,201 

FY 2059 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $6,316 $28,201 

FY 2060 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $6,316 $28,391 

FY 2061 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $6,316 $28,391 

FY 2062 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $6,634 $28,709 

FY 2063 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $524 $27,928 
Model One 

Status Quo - Donated Presidential Library with museum and public programs 

Model Cost Totals by FY - Model One 

All cost figures ($) in thousands (000) 

Model One 

Total by Year 

FY 2064 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $1,112 $28,516 

FY 2065 election $30,163 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $8,995 $61,042 

FY 2066 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $6,316 $33,720 

FY 2067 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $6,316 $33,720 

FY 2068 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $6,316 $33,910 

FY 2069 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $6,316 $33,910 

FY 2070 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $6,634 $34,228 

FY 2071 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $524 $33,446 

FY 2072 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $1,112 $34,034 

FY 2073 election $5,519 $30,163 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $8,995 $66,561 

FY 2074 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $6,316 $39,238 

FY 2075 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $6,316 $39,238 

FY 2076 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $6,316 $39,428 

FY 2077 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $6,316 $39,428 

FY 2078 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $6,634 $39,746 

FY 2079 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $524 $38,965 

FY 2080 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $1,112 $39,553 

FY 2081 election $5,519 $5,519 $30,163 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $8,995 $72,080 

FY 2082 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $6,316 $44,757 

FY 2083 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $6,316 $44,757 

FY 2084 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $6,316 $44,947 

FY 2085 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $6,316 $44,947 

FY 2086 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $6,634 $45,265 

FY 2087 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $524 $44,484 

FY 2088 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $1,112 $45,072 

FY 2089 election $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $30,163 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $8,995 $77,599 

FY 2090 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $6,316 $50,276 

FY 2091 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $6,316 $50,276 

FY 2092 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $6,316 $50,466 

FY 2093 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $6,316 $50,466 

FY 2094 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $6,634 $50,784 

FY 2095 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $524 $50,003 

FY 2096 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $1,112 $50,591 

FY 2097 election $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $30,163 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $8,995 $83,117 

FY 2098 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $6,316 $55,795 

FY 2099 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,329 $6,316 $55,795 
Model Two

Leased Space - no museum or public programs

Model Cost Totals By FY - Model Two

All cost figures ($) in thousands (000)

Model Two 

Total by Year Cumu

FY 2023 $524 $524 

FY 2024 $1,112 $1,112 

FY 2025 election $8,995 $8,995 FY 2026 $6,316 $6,316 

FY 2027 $6,316 $6,316 

FY 2028 $6,316 $6,316 

FY 2029 $6,316 $6,316 

FY 2030 $8,265 $8,265 

FY 2031 $6,704 $524 $7,228 

FY 2032 $6,704 $1,112 $7,816 

FY 2033 election $6,704 $8,995 $15,699 FY 2034 $6,704 $6,316 $13,020 FY 2035 $6,704 $6,316 $13,020 

FY 2036 $6,807 $6,316 $13,123 

FY 2037 $6,807 $6,316 $13,123 

FY 2038 $6,807 $8,265 $15,072 

FY 2039 $6,807 $6,704 $524 $14,036 

FY 2040 $6,807 $6,704 $1,112 $14,624 

FY 2041 election $6,915 $6,704 $8,995 $22,615 

FY 2042 $6,915 $6,704 $6,316 $19,936 

FY 2043 $6,915 $6,704 $6,316 $19,936 

FY 2044 $6,915 $6,807 $6,316 $20,039 

FY 2045 $6,915 $6,807 $6,316 $20,039 

FY 2046 $7,029 $6,807 $8,265 $22,101 

FY 2047 $7,029 $6,807 $6,704 $524 $21,065 

FY 2048 $7,029 $6,807 $6,704 $1,112 $21,653 

FY 2049 election $7,029 $6,915 $6,704 $8,995 $29,644 FY 2050 $7,029 $6,915 $6,704 $6,316 $26,965 

FY 2051 $7,530 $6,915 $6,704 $6,316 $27,466 

FY 2052 $7,530 $6,915 $6,807 $6,316 $27,569 

FY 2053 $7,530 $6,915 $6,807 $6,316 $27,569 

FY 2054 $7,530 $7,029 $6,807 $8,265 $29,631 

FY 2055 $7,530 $7,029 $6,807 $6,704 $524 $28,595 

FY 2056 $7,818 $7,029 $6,807 $6,704 $1,112 $29,471 

FY 2057 election $7,818 $7,029 $6,915 $6,704 $8,995 $37,462 

FY 2058 $7,818 $7,029 $6,915 $6,704 $6,316 $34,783 

FY 2059 $7,818 $7,530 $6,915 $6,704 $6,316 $35,284 

FY 2060 $7,818 $7,530 $6,915 $6,807 $6,316 $35,387 

FY 2061 $7,818 $7,530 $6,915 $6,807 $6,316 $35,387 FY 2062 $7,818 $7,530 $7,029 $6,807 $8,265 $37,450 

FY 2063 $7,818 $7,530 $7,029 $6,807 $6,704 $524 $36,413 

FY 2064 $7,818 $7,818 $7,029 $6,807 $6,704 $1,112 $37,290 
Model Two 

Leased Space - no museum or public programs 

Model Cost Totals By FY - Model Two 

All cost figures ($) in thousands (000) 

Model Two 

Total by Year Cumu

FY 2065 election $7,818 $7,818 $7,029 $6,915 $6,704 $8,995 $45,281 

FY 2066 $7,818 $7,818 $7,029 $6,915 $6,704 $6,316 $42,602 

FY 2067 $7,818 $7,818 $7,530 $6,915 $6,704 $6,316 $43,103 

FY 2068 $7,818 $7,818 $7,530 $6,915 $6,807 $6,316 $43,206 

FY 2069 $7,818 $7,818 $7,530 $6,915 $6,807 $6,316 $43,206 

FY 2070 $7,818 $7,818 $7,530 $7,029 $6,807 $8,265 $45,268 

FY 2071 $7,818 $7,818 $7,530 $7,029 $6,807 $6,704 $524 $44,231 

FY 2072 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,029 $6,807 $6,704 $1,112 $45,108 

FY 2073 election $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,029 $6,915 $6,704 $8,995 $53,099 

FY 2074 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,029 $6,915 $6,704 $6,316 $50,420 

FY 2075 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,530 $6,915 $6,704 $6,316 $50,921 

FY 2076 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,530 $6,915 $6,807 $6,316 $51,024 

FY 2077 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,530 $6,915 $6,807 $6,316 $51,024 

FY 2078 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,530 $7,029 $6,807 $8,265 $53,087 

FY 2079 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,530 $7,029 $6,807 $6,704 $524 $52,050 

FY 2080 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,029 $6,807 $6,704 $1,112 $52,926 

FY 2081 election $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,029 $6,915 $6,704 $8,995 $60,918 

FY 2082 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,029 $6,915 $6,704 $6,316 $58,239 

FY 2083 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,530 $6,915 $6,704 $6,316 $58,739 

FY 2084 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,530 $6,915 $6,807 $6,316 $58,842 

FY 2085 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,530 $6,915 $6,807 $6,316 $58,842 

FY 2086 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,530 $7,029 $6,807 $8,265 $60,905 

FY 2087 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,530 $7,029 $6,807 $6,704 $524 $59,868 

FY 2088 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,029 $6,807 $6,704 $1,112 $60,745 

FY 2089 election $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,029 $6,915 $6,704 $8,995 $68,736 

FY 2090 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,029 $6,915 $6,704 $6,316 $66,057 

FY 2091 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,530 $6,915 $6,704 $6,316 $66,558 

FY 2092 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,530 $6,915 $6,807 $6,316 $66,661 

FY 2093 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,530 $6,915 $6,807 $6,316 $66,661 

FY 2094 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,530 $7,029 $6,807 $8,265 $68,723 

FY 2095 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,530 $7,029 $6,807 $6,704 $524 $67,687 

FY 2096 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,029 $6,807 $6,704 $1,112 $68,563 

FY 2097 election $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,029 $6,915 $6,704 $8,995 $76,554 

FY 2098 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,029 $6,915 $6,704 $6,316 $73,875 

FY 2099 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,818 $7,530 $6,915 $6,704 $6,316 $74,376 

$0 
Model Three 

Provided Space - no museum or public programs 

Model Cost Totals By FY - Model Three 

All cost figures ($) in thousands (000) 

Model Three 

Total by Year 

FY 2023 $524 $524 

FY 2024 $1,112 $1,112 

FY 2025 election $8,995 $8,995 FY 2026 $6,316 $6,316 

FY 2027 $6,316 $6,316 

FY 2028 $6,316 $6,316 

FY 2029 $6,316 $6,316 

FY 2030 $8,265 $8,265 

FY 2031 $5,880 $524 $6,404 

FY 2032 $5,880 $1,112 $6,992 

FY 2033 election $5,880 $8,995 $14,875 

FY 2034 $5,880 $6,316 $12,196 

FY 2035 $5,880 $6,316 $12,196 

FY 2036 $6,005 $6,316 $12,321 

FY 2037 $6,005 $6,316 $12,321 

FY 2038 $6,005 $8,265 $14,270 

FY 2039 $6,005 $5,880 $524 $12,409 

FY 2040 $6,005 $5,880 $1,112 $12,997 FY 2041 election $6,005 $5,880 $8,995 $20,880 

FY 2042 $6,005 $5,880 $6,316 $18,201 

FY 2043 $6,005 $5,880 $6,316 $18,201 

FY 2044 $6,005 $6,005 $6,316 $18,326 

FY 2045 $6,005 $6,005 $6,316 $18,326 

FY 2046 $6,005 $6,005 $8,265 $20,275 

FY 2047 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $524 $18,415 

FY 2048 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $1,112 $19,003 

FY 2049 election $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $8,995 $26,886 

FY 2050 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $6,316 $24,207 

FY 2051 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $6,316 $24,207 

FY 2052 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,316 $24,332 

FY 2053 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,316 $24,332 

FY 2054 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $8,265 $26,281 

FY 2055 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $524 $24,420 

FY 2056 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $1,112 $25,008 

FY 2057 election $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $8,995 $32,891 FY 2058 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $6,316 $30,212 

FY 2059 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $6,316 $30,212 

FY 2060 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,316 $30,337 

FY 2061 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,316 $30,337 

FY 2062 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $8,265 $32,286 

FY 2063 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $524 $30,425 

FY 2064 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $1,112 $31,013 
Model Three 

Provided Space - no museum or public programs 

Model Cost Totals By FY - Model Three 

All cost figures ($) in thousands (000) 

Model Three 

Total by Year 

FY 2065 election $22,805 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $8,995 $55,696 FY 2066 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $6,316 $36,217 

FY 2067 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $6,316 $36,217 

FY 2068 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,316 $36,342 

FY 2069 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,316 $36,342 

FY 2070 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $8,265 $38,291 

FY 2071 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $524 $36,430 

FY 2072 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $1,112 $37,018 

FY 2073 election $6,005 $22,805 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $8,995 $61,701 FY 2074 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $6,316 $42,222 

FY 2075 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $6,316 $42,222 

FY 2076 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,316 $42,347 

FY 2077 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,316 $42,347 

FY 2078 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $8,265 $44,296 

FY 2079 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $524 $42,435 FY 2080 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $1,112 $43,023 FY 2081 election $6,005 $6,005 $22,805 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $8,995 $67,706 FY 2082 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $6,316 $48,227 FY 2083 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $6,316 $48,227 FY 2084 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,316 $48,352 FY 2085 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,316 $48,352 FY 2086 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $8,265 $50,301 FY 2087 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $524 $48,441 

FY 2088 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $1,112 $49,029 

FY 2089 election $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $22,805 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $8,995 $73,712 FY 2090 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $6,316 $54,233 

FY 2091 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $6,316 $54,233 

FY 2092 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,316 $54,358 

FY 2093 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,316 $54,358 

FY 2094 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $8,265 $56,307 

FY 2095 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $524 $54,446 FY 2096 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $1,112 $55,034 FY 2097 election $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $22,805 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $8,995 $79,717 FY 2098 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $6,316 $60,238 FY 2099 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $6,005 $5,880 $6,316 $60,238 

$0 
Model Four 

Centralized Archives - no museum or public programs 

Model Cost Totals By FY - Model Three 

All cost figures ($) in thousands (000) 

Model Four 

Total by Year 

FY 2022 $99,510 construction cost for centralized archives. $99,510 

FY 2023 $524 2nd module costs are in fy2061 $524 

FY 2024 $1,112 $1,112 

FY 2025 election $3,225 $3,225 

FY 2026 $4,159 $4,159 

FY 2027 $4,159 $4,159 

FY 2028 $4,159 $4,159 

FY 2029 $4,159 $4,159 

FY 2030 $4,159 $4,159 

FY 2031 $4,221 $524 $4,745 

FY 2032 $4,221 $1,112 $5,333 

FY 2033 election $4,221 $3,225 $7,446 

FY 2034 $4,221 $4,159 $8,381 

FY 2035 $4,221 $4,159 $8,381 

FY 2036 $4,221 $4,159 $8,381 

FY 2037 $4,221 $4,159 $8,381 

FY 2038 $4,221 $4,159 $8,381 

FY 2039 $4,221 $4,221 $524 $8,967 

FY 2040 $4,221 $4,221 $1,112 $9,555 

FY 2041 election $4,221 $4,221 $3,225 $11,668 

FY 2042 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $12,602 

FY 2043 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $12,602 

FY 2044 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $12,602 

FY 2045 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $12,602 

FY 2046 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $12,602 

FY 2047 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $524 $13,188 

FY 2048 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $1,112 $13,776 

FY 2049 election $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $3,225 $15,889 

FY 2050 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $16,824 

FY 2051 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $16,824 

FY 2052 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $16,824 

FY 2053 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $16,824 

FY 2054 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $16,824 

FY 2055 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $524 $17,410 

FY 2056 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $1,112 $17,998 

FY 2057 election $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $3,225 $20,111 FY 2058 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $21,045 

FY 2059 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $21,045 

FY 2060 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $21,045 

FY 2061 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $99,510 $120,555 

FY 2062 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $21,045 

FY 2063 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $524 $21,631 
Model Four 

Centralized Archives - no museum or public programs 

Model Cost Totals By FY - Model Three 

All cost figures ($) in thousands (000) 

Model Four 

Total by Year 

FY 2064 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $1,112 $22,219 

FY 2065 election $14,637 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $3,225 $34,748 

FY 2066 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $25,267 

FY 2067 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $25,267 

FY 2068 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $25,267 

FY 2069 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $25,267 

FY 2070 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $25,267 

FY 2071 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $524 $25,853 

FY 2072 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $1,112 $26,441 

FY 2073 election $4,221 $14,637 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $3,225 $38,970 

FY 2074 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $29,488 

FY 2075 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $29,488 

FY 2076 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $29,488 

FY 2077 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $29,488 

FY 2078 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $29,488 

FY 2079 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $524 $30,074 

FY 2080 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $1,112 $30,662 

FY 2081 election $4,221 $4,221 $14,637 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $3,225 $43,191 

FY 2082 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $33,710 

FY 2083 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $33,710 

FY 2084 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $33,710 

FY 2085 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $33,710 

FY 2086 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $33,710 

FY 2087 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $524 $34,296 

FY 2088 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $1,112 $34,884 

FY 2089 election $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $14,637 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $3,225 $47,413 

FY 2090 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $37,931 

FY 2091 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $37,931 

FY 2092 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $37,931 

FY 2093 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $37,931 

FY 2094 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $37,931 

FY 2095 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $524 $38,517 

FY 2096 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $1,112 $39,105 

FY 2097 election $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $14,637 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $3,225 $51,634 

FY 2098 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $42,153 

FY 2099 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $42,153 
Model Five 

Centralized Archives plus Museum of the Presidency 

Model Cost Totals By FY - Model Five 

All cost figures ($) in thousands (000) 

Model F

Presidential terms Museum Total by Y

FY 2022 $99,510 Construction costs for initial archival module plus museum 55000 $154,5

FY 2023 $524 2nd archival module construction in FY2061 0 $5FY 2024 $1,112 $0 $1,1

FY 2025 election $3,225 $3,457 $6,6

FY 2026 $4,159 $4,703 $8,8

FY 2027 $4,159 $4,703 $8,8

FY 2028 $4,159 $4,703 $8,8

FY 2029 $4,159 $4,703 $8,8

FY 2030 $4,159 $4,703 $8,8

FY 2031 $4,221 $524 $4,813 $9,5FY 2032 $4,221 $1,112 $4,813 $10,1

FY 2033 election $4,221 $3,225 $4,813 $12,2

FY 2034 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $13,1

FY 2035 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $13,1

FY 2036 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $13,1

FY 2037 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $13,1

FY 2038 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $13,1

FY 2039 $4,221 $4,221 $524 $4,813 $13,7

FY 2040 $4,221 $4,221 $1,112 $4,813 $14,3

FY 2041 election $4,221 $4,221 $3,225 $4,813 $16,4

FY 2042 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $17,4

FY 2043 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $17,4

FY 2044 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $17,4

FY 2045 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $17,4

FY 2046 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $17,4

FY 2047 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $524 $4,813 $18,0

FY 2048 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $1,112 $4,813 $18,5FY 2049 election $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $3,225 $4,813 $20,7

FY 2050 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $21,6FY 2051 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $21,6FY 2052 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $21,6FY 2053 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $21,6FY 2054 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $21,6FY 2055 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $524 $4,813 $22,2

FY 2056 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $1,112 $4,813 $22,8

FY 2057 election $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $3,225 $4,813 $24,9

FY 2058 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $25,8

FY 2059 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $25,8

FY 2060 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $25,8

FY 2061 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $99,510 $4,813 $125,3

FY 2062 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $25,8

FY 2063 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $524 $4,813 $26,4
Model Five 

Centralized Archives plus Museum of the Presidency 

Model Cost Totals By FY - Model Five 

All cost figures ($) in thousands (000) 

Model F

Presidential terms Museum Total by Y

FY 2064 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $1,112 $4,813 $27,0

FY 2065 election $14,637 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $3,225 $23,293 $58,0

FY 2066 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $30,0

FY 2067 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $30,0

FY 2068 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $30,0

FY 2069 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $30,0

FY 2070 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $30,0

FY 2071 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $524 $4,813 $30,6

FY 2072 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $1,112 $4,813 $31,2

FY 2073 election $4,221 $14,637 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $3,225 $4,813 $43,7

FY 2074 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $34,3

FY 2075 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $34,3

FY 2076 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $34,3

FY 2077 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $34,3

FY 2078 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $34,3

FY 2079 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $524 $4,813 $34,8

FY 2080 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $1,112 $4,813 $35,4

FY 2081 election $4,221 $4,221 $14,637 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $3,225 $4,813 $48,0FY 2082 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $38,5

FY 2083 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $38,5

FY 2084 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $38,5

FY 2085 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $38,5

FY 2086 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $38,5

FY 2087 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $524 $4,813 $39,1

FY 2088 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $1,112 $4,813 $39,6

FY 2089 election $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $14,637 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $3,225 $4,813 $52,2

FY 2090 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $42,7

FY 2091 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $42,7

FY 2092 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $42,7

FY 2093 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $42,7

FY 2094 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $42,7

FY 2095 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $524 $4,813 $43,3

FY 2096 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $1,112 $4,813 $43,9

FY 2097 election $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $14,637 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $3,225 $4,813 $56,4FY 2098 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $46,9

FY 2099 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,221 $4,159 $4,813 $46,9