Federal Courthouses: Better Planning Needed Regarding Reuse of Old Courthouses
Published: 2013-11-07T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: During the last 20 years, GSA built 79 new courthouses for the judiciary that replaced or supplemented 66 old courthouses. Retaining and re-using or disposing old courthouses can be challenging for GSA because many of them are more than 80 years old, do not meet current court security standards, and have historic features that must be preserved by federal agencies in accordance with historic preservation requirements. GAO was asked to review how GSA and the judiciary are planning and managing the reuse or disposal of old courthouses. GAO examined (1) how the government is re-using old courthouses that were retained and the challenges involved; (2) how GSA disposed of old courthouses, the process involved, and the results; and (3) the extent to which GSA's proposals for new courthouses considered the future use of old courthouses. As case studies, we selected 17 old courthouses to represent a mix of retained and disposed buildings located in geographically diverse areas.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Of the 66 old federal courthouses that GAO reviewed, the General Services Administration (GSA) retained 40, disposed of 25, and is in the process of disposing of another. Of the retained old courthouses, the judiciary occupies 30 of them, 25 as the main tenant, most commonly with the district and bankruptcy courts. When determining whether to retain and reuse or to dispose of old courthouses, GSA considers, among other things, a building's condition, the local real estate market, and the existing and projected base of federal tenants. GSA officials said that after the judiciary moves to new courthouses, old courthouses often require renovations to be reused. Moreover, GSA officials said that it can be challenging to find new tenants for old courthouses due to the buildings' condition and needed renovations, among other reasons. Among the retained old courthouses GAO reviewed, excluding one building that was under major renovation, about 14 percent of the total space (nearly 1-million square feet) in them was vacant as of May 2013--significantly higher than the 4.8 percent overall vacant space in federally-owned buildings in 2012.
GAO found that GSA took about 1.4 years to dispose of old courthouses that the agency determined were no longer needed. GSA officials told us that multiple parties' interest in re-using the old courthouses, the historic status of many buildings, and their specialized designs can slow the disposal process.
GSA is not specifically required by statute to include plans for old courthouses in its proposals to Congress for new courthouses. However, as with other building proposals over a certain dollar threshold, GSA is required to include, among other things, a "comprehensive plan" to provide space for all federal employees in the area, considering suitable space that may be available in nearby existing government buildings. In addition, GAO and the Office of Management and Budget have previously reported that complete cost estimates are a best practice in capital planning. GAO found that renovations needed to reuse the old courthouses, totaling over $760 million to date, were often not included in GSA's new courthouse proposals. Specifically, for 33 of the 40 retained old courthouses, the new courthouse proposals described plans for reuse by federal tenants, but only 15 proposals specified whether renovations were needed to realize these plans, and only 11 included estimates of the renovation costs. GAO found that some old courthouses were partially or wholly vacant while awaiting renovation funding, sometimes resulting in money spent leasing space in commercial buildings for the judiciary.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: In proposing new courthouses, GSA, in consultation with the judiciary, should include plans for re-using or disposing of old courthouses, any required renovations and the estimated costs, and any other challenges to re-using or disposing of the buildings. GSA concurred with the recommendation and AOUSC agreed that GSA and the judiciary should work together to address the judiciary's housing needs.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The multibillion-dollar courthouse construction program that the General  Services Administration (GSA) and the federal judiciary (judiciary) have  undertaken since the early 1990s left GSA with responsibility for 66 old  courthouses in cities where new ones were built. Because these buildings  are usually located in city centers, there is often a high level of interest by  the public, local governments, and Congress regarding their future use.  However, re-using or disposing of old courthouses can be difficult  because many were built in the 1930s or earlier, do not meet current  court security standards, and those that have been designated as historic  are subject to historic preservation requirements. Since 2003, we have  identified real property management as a high-risk area for the federal  government, as agencies continue to face longstanding problems with  excess and unutilized or underutilized property. In 2006, we found that  the judiciary’s annual rental obligations to GSA for courthouses had  increased from $780 million to $900 million from fiscal years 2000 through  2005, after controlling for inflation, primarily due to a 19 percent increase  in space. We also reported in 2010 that federal courthouses were often  constructed larger than necessary because of poor planning, oversight,  and inefficient courtroom use, resulting in $835 million spent constructing  extra space and $51 million in additional annual costs for rent, operations,  and maintenance. The administration has made it a priority for executive  branch agencies to dispose of unneeded properties and make more  efficient use of the government’s real estate assets.
In response to these concerns, you asked us to review how GSA and the  judiciary are planning and managing the reuse or disposal of old  courthouses. We examined (1) how the government is re-using old  courthouses that were retained and the challenges involved; (2) how GSA  disposed of old courthouses, the process involved, and the results; and  (3) the extent to which GSA’s proposals for new courthouses considered  the future use of the old courthouses.
To determine how the government is re-using old courthouses and the  challenges involved and how GSA disposed of old courthouses, the  process involved, and the results, we collected and analyzed GSA data  on 66 old federal courthouses—i.e., ones that were replaced or  supplemented by new courthouses in the last 20 years, including vacancy  rates and financial performance. We also interviewed GSA officials about  the factors used to determine whether to retain and reuse old  courthouses or dispose of them, as well as the challenges involved, and  interviewed judges and judicial officials about the judiciary’s use of old  courthouses or the disposal of those buildings. As case studies, we  focused on 17 old courthouses, including 13 that we visited (Boston, MA;  Camden, NJ; Eugene, OR; Ft. Myers; FL; Orlando, FL; Portland, OR;  Reno, NV; Richmond, VA; Sacramento, CA; Springfield, MA;  Tallahassee, FL; Tampa, FL; and Trenton, NJ) and 4 where we  interviewed GSA officials by phone (Coeur d’Alene, ID; Greeneville, TN;  Hammond, IN; and Kansas City, MO). We selected the 17 old  courthouses to represent a mix of retained and disposed buildings located  in geographically diverse areas. We reviewed the GSA’s data for  completeness and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for  the purposes of this report. To determine the extent to which proposals  for new courthouses considered the future use of the old courthouses, we  reviewed pertinent, laws, regulations, and policies, and GSA’s proposals  submitted to Congress for new courthouses and appropriations made for  renovating the old courthouses. Appendix I provides more details about  our scope and methodology. A list of our related products on federal  courthouses, real property disposal, and historic building preservation  appears at the end of the report.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2012 through  September 2013 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Since 1993, GSA has built 79 new courthouses that replaced or  supplemented 66 old courthouses. GSA considers 15 of the new  courthouses to be annexes—additions that are often larger than the old  courthouses. The judiciary identifies potential courthouse projects based  on a capital-planning process that involves consultation with GSA. GSA is  responsible for reviewing these projects and completing a feasibility study  to further analyze and determine the best option, which may differ from  the judiciary’s preferred option, before forwarding projects it approves to  the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). If approved by OMB, GSA  is responsible for submitting requests to congressional authorizing  committees in the form of detailed descriptions or prospectuses, hereafter  referred to as “new courthouse proposals.” Following congressional  authorization and the appropriation of funds for the projects, GSA  manages the site, design, and construction phases. After the tenants  occupy the space, GSA charges federal tenants, such as the judiciary,  rent for the space they occupy and for their respective share of common  areas. In fiscal year 2012, the judiciary’s rent payments to GSA totaled  over $1 billion for approximately 42.4 million square feet of space in 779  buildings that include 446 federal courthouses. When new courthouses  are built, GSA sometimes retains the buildings for occupancy by the  judiciary or other federal tenants or GSA, which has custody and control  of the federally-owned buildings, disposes of them as surplus real  property. GSA works with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts  (AOUSC), the judiciary’s administrative office, in addressing courthouse  space needs and issues.
The rent that federal tenants pay GSA is deposited into the Federal  Buildings Fund, a revolving fund that GSA uses to finance the operating  and capital costs associated with federal space such as repairs and  alterations, new construction, and operations and maintenance. When  the costs of a project’s capital improvements exceed a specific threshold,  currently set at $2.79 million, GSA must submit a prospectus to certain  congressional committees for approval prior to the appropriation of funds  to meet repair or new construction needs.
The judiciary leases more space in federally-owned buildings than any  executive or legislative branch agency. Judiciary components housed in  courthouses may include a U.S. court of appeals (court of appeals  judges, senior circuit judges, and staff); U.S. district court (district judges,  magistrate judges, and clerk’s office staff); U.S. bankruptcy court (judges  and clerk’s office staff); probation and pretrial services staff; or the office  of the federal public defender. In addition to these judicial components,  certain executive branch agencies integrally involved with U.S. court  activities often lease space in federal courthouses, including the  Department of Justice’s U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Attorney’s Office,  and the Office of the U.S. Trustee. In some cases, GSA also leases  space for the judiciary in private office buildings. The district courts are  the trial courts of the federal court system and occupy the most judiciary  space. There are 94 federal judicial districts—at least one for each state,  the District of Columbia, and four U.S. territories—organized into 12  regional circuits. Each circuit has a court of appeals whose jurisdiction  includes appeals from the district and bankruptcy courts located within the  circuit, as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative  agencies.
When a new courthouse is built, GSA—rather than the judiciary—decides  whether to retain the old courthouse and, when the building is retained,  determines how it should be reused. In determining whether to retain an  old courthouse, GSA considers the building’s condition; its historic or  architectural significance; the judiciary’s interest in occupying the building;  local market conditions, such as prevailing lease rates for commercial  space; and the existing and projected base of other prospective federal  tenants within the area. According to GSA, if the agency determines that  the government no longer needs the building, the agency generally uses  the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as  amended, (Property Act) to dispose of it, following the process shown in  figure 1. In addition, GSA has other authorities to dispose of old  courthouses, such as the Public Buildings Act of 1959, as amended,  which follow a different process. As shown in figure 1, GSA may dispose  of federal real property through public benefit conveyances (PBC) to  state or local governments and certain nonprofits for approved public  benefit uses or negotiated sale to state and local government entities, but  not before screening the property for use by other federal agencies and  homeless service providers if the Department of Housing and Urban  Development (HUD) has determined the property suitable for homeless  assistance. If no interest is received from eligible public or nonprofit  entities, the agency concludes that there is no public benefit use for the  property and proceeds with plans to market it for competitive public sale.
section_title: Many Old Courthouses Were Retained, but Challenges Sometimes Exist with Building Costs, Replacing Tenants, and Space Utilization
subsections: section_title: Federal Government Still Owns Nearly Two-Thirds of the Old Courthouses
paragraphs: Forty of the 66 old courthouses replaced or supplemented by new  courthouses since 1993 were retained for reuse by the government. GSA  disposed of most of the remaining old courthouses through PBCs or sales  to state and local governments, eligible nonprofits, or private sector  entities. As figure 2 illustrates, of the 40 retained old courthouses, 36  were being reused by the judiciary and other federal tenants; 3 were  vacant; and 1 was largely closed for a major renovation. Appendix II  contains detailed information about the 66 courthouses, including their  status, disposal method, proceeds, and current uses or major tenants.
Among the retained and reused old courthouses, the judiciary had the  largest share of space in 25, some space in 5, and occupied no space in  the other 6. The various judiciary tenants are sometimes co-located within  the same old courthouse. As of June 2013, of the retained old  courthouses, the U.S. district courts occupied space in 15 and the U.S.  bankruptcy courts occupied space in 19. The U.S. courts of appeals were  using five old courthouses to hear cases. In addition, the judiciary and  other federal agencies are sometimes co-located in the same old  courthouse. Executive branch agencies, particularly the U.S. Department  of Justice, had the largest share of space in 11 of the retained and reused  old courthouses.
section_title: Old Courthouses Have More Vacant Space and Many Do Not Cover Their Costs
paragraphs: Among the retained old courthouses we reviewed, excluding one building  that was under major renovation, about 14 percent of the total space  (nearly 1-million square feet) in them was vacant as of May 2013— significantly higher than the 4.8 percent overall vacant space among  federally-owned buildings in 2012. Eleven of these old courthouses were  more than 25 percent vacant, including three (Miami, FL; Buffalo, NY; and  Austin, TX) that were completely vacant. GSA officials told us that  replacing tenants in old courthouses can be challenging due to the  buildings’ condition and needed renovations, among other reasons, as  will be discussed later in this report. For example, the old courthouse in  Miami has been vacant since 2008 because, according to GSA, of the  high costs to renovate it for reuse. The agency plans to either dispose of  the building or lease it to nonfederal tenants. The old courthouse in  Buffalo has been vacant since 2011 because, according to GSA, it  requires renovations that were not requested in the new courthouse  proposal, as will be discussed in further detail later in this report.  According to GSA officials, the old courthouse in Austin was vacated in  December 2012 and GSA is working with the judiciary on a possible plan  to reuse the building for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Forty-one percent of the old courthouses were classified by GSA in 2013  as “nonperforming”—i.e., buildings that do not cover their operating  expenses and require moderate to significant renovation. In 2012, 30  percent of all federally-owned buildings were classified by the agency as  “nonperforming.” Among other factors, GSA considers net operating  income in classifying buildings as “nonperforming.” Buildings with net- operating-income losses drain the Federal Buildings Fund, which is  GSA’s main source of funding used to maintain, operate, and improve  federally-owned buildings. Therefore, old courthouses with net-operating- income losses subtract financial resources that could have been used for  other buildings and projects. According to GSA, the financial performance  of old courthouses may be affected by vacancy rates, low local  commercial-market rental rates on which GSA bases its rates for federal  tenants, as well as operational and administrative expenses associated  with the buildings. Of the 41 federally-owned old courthouses, 31 (76  percent) had positive net operating income, totaling about $119 million in  fiscal year 2012. The remaining 10 old courthouses had net-operating- income losses totaling about $13 million, most of which was the result of  an approximately $9-million loss at the old courthouse in New York City  (the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse) that was wholly vacant for  major renovations, followed by the vacant old courthouses in Miami and  Buffalo, which had net-operating-income losses of about $1 million and  $695,000, respectively. According to GSA officials, the agency focuses  on “nonperforming” buildings by developing strategies to address their  problems, such as high rates of vacancy.
section_title: Replacing Tenants in Old Courthouses Can Be Difficult
paragraphs: Many old courthouses cannot be easily reconfigured to meet current  federal space needs, and thus replacing previous tenants can prove  difficult. For example, current U.S. courthouse security standards require  the construction of three separate circulation patterns for judges,  prisoners, and the public, which many old courthouses do not have. In  addition, because of their age, old courthouses often need costly  renovations, new mechanical systems, and other improvements before  they are suitable for reuse. Further, because many of old courthouses  have official historic status—that is, they are listed on the National  Register of Historic Places or are eligible for listing—renovations by  federal agencies to reuse these buildings for modern office space, for  example, must follow the requirements of the National Historic  Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, including, among others,  compliance with Department of the Interior’s historic preservation  standards.
Although an Executive Order and GSA regulations encourage executive  branch agencies to seek federally-controlled space, especially in centrally  located historic buildings, we found several cases in which GSA faced  challenges replacing tenants in old courthouses. For example, according  to GSA officials, it took more than 10 years to fill the old courthouse in  Sacramento, California, after the judiciary moved to a new courthouse in  1999. The officials said that although the old courthouse is centrally  located adjacent to California state office buildings in the downtown area,  the building needed renovations before it could be reused by other federal  tenants, and that limited parking made it difficult to attract new tenants. In  Portland, Oregon, GSA officials told us that the 66-year-old courthouse  was not extensively renovated after the judiciary moved to the new  courthouse in 1998 and, as a result, some space remains vacant,  including three former district courtrooms. Other old courthouses have  experienced greater difficulty in attracting new tenants after the judiciary  moved out. The old courthouse in Reno, Nevada, for example, remained  nearly half vacant for almost 20 years after the U.S. district court moved  to the new courthouse in 1996 and the bankruptcy court remained. GSA  officials also said that it takes time––sometimes years––for federal  agencies’ leases in commercial buildings to expire before they could re- locate to federally-owned space. Moreover, in some cases, we found that  GSA has been unable to find enough tenants to justify retaining buildings.
For example, in Springfield, Massachusetts, although GSA initially  planned to retain the old courthouse, the agency decided to dispose of it  after the federal tenants that were expected to occupy the building  changed their plans, which GSA determined would have resulted in a  long-term vacancy rate of at least 40 percent.
section_title: Some Judiciary Space in Old Courthouses Remains Unused or Underutilized
paragraphs: Even when federal tenants, such as the judiciary, rent space in old  courthouses, the space may sometimes be un-used or underutilized. In  Trenton, New Jersey, for example, we found that the judiciary paid rent to  GSA for space that, according to the judiciary, was used as a district  courtroom until the construction of the new courthouse in 1994. However,  the judiciary only released this space to GSA in 2012. In addition, the  judiciary was also paying rent for 3 other courtrooms in the same building  but using them as office and meeting space instead of using them to  conduct trials (fig. 3). According to the judiciary, these rooms were not  used as courtrooms because, among other reasons, they did not meet  modern security standards. We have previously raised concerns about  the amount of space that the judiciary occupies. The judiciary plans to  return 2 of the 3 courtrooms to GSA in October 2013.
Similarly, in Camden, New Jersey, we found that the judiciary paid rent to  GSA since 1994 for courtroom space that has not been built,  underscoring the importance of effective space planning in new and old  courthouses to reduce the government’s real property costs. The judiciary  plans to return that space to GSA in October 2013.
We also found the judiciary’s space planning in old courthouses may  need to further consider changes in technology and trends in court  operations. For example, in Camden, a U.S. bankruptcy court official told  us that the need for file space had been reduced with growth in electronic  filing. In Richmond, Virginia, judiciary officials told us that the use of law  libraries has decreased with the growing popularity of online legal  research. In addition, we found that the old courthouse in Richmond was  mostly retained for use by the U.S. courts of appeals even though it is  unclear whether the caseload at this location justified that amount of  space. Specifically, an appellate judge in Richmond told us that the court  has reduced how often it uses the courthouse for oral arguments (4-day  periods known as “court weeks”) from eight times per year to six times  per year due to improvements in efficiency. We found the appeals court in  Richmond generally uses its six courtrooms simultaneously about 16  percent of the time. We have previously noted that older courthouses are  suitable for use by the U.S. courts of appeals, given their comparatively  lower security needs. Judiciary officials added that reuse of old  courthouses with historic features, such as in Richmond, is an ideal  arrangement given limited opportunities for other reuses. However, we  have previously raised concerns about the lack of space allocation criteria  for the U.S. courts of appeals and will review space utilization by the  appeals court in a future study.
The difference between the U.S. Courts Design Guide (Design Guide)  baseline for libraries in new courthouses, about 9,200 square feet, and  the existing library space in Richmond, about 17,000 square feet, raises  questions about whether the entire space is needed. The Design Guide  does not specify how much space should be allotted for judiciary  functions, such as clerk space, libraries, and courtrooms, in existing  buildings. According to judiciary officials, space configurations in  existing buildings make them difficult to retrofit consistent with current  design standards. As a result, the judiciary does not apply its space  planning tool, which uses Design Guide specifications, for space planning  in old courthouses. However, AOUSC officials told us that the judiciary’s  annual $1-billion rent costs are unsustainable and that they are  developing a program, called Right Fit, to examine opportunities to  reduce the amount of space leased from GSA.
section_title: GSA Disposed of Many Old Courthouses That Are Being Reused for a Variety of Purposes, but the Process Can Be Lengthy
subsections: section_title: GSA Disposed of More Than One Third of the Old Courthouses
paragraphs: GSA disposed of 25 of the 66 old courthouses we reviewed by PBCs,  sales, or exchanges. As shown in figure 4, GSA disposed of most  courthouses through sales or exchanges (65 percent) followed by PBCs  (31 percent).
Of the 17 old courthouses that GSA sold or exchanged, 14 were sold and  3 were exchanged for land used for the new courthouse. From buildings  GSA sold, it realized a total of about $20 million in proceeds. Sales  prices for these buildings ranged from $200,000 for the old courthouse in  Greeneville, Tennessee, to $5.4 million for the old courthouse in  Minneapolis, Minnesota, with an average sale price of $1.5 million.  Purchasers of the 14 old courthouses disposed by sale included state and  local governments as well as private sector entities. Most old courthouses  disposed by PBC were disposed using historic monument conveyances,  which, according to GSA, provide the greatest flexibility with regard to the  future use of the building. Specifically, as long as the buildings’ historic  features are preserved in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s  Standards for Rehabilitation, the recipients may develop plans for a wide  variety of uses. For example, old courthouses that were disposed of by  historic monument conveyance included buildings that are being reused  or plan to be used as affordable housing, a hotel, and for state and local  government functions. Other old courthouses that were disposed of by  PBCs were being used for educational and for criminal justice purposes  such as juvenile justice centers. Although PBCs do not typically  generate any financial proceeds for the federal government, the public  continues to realize a benefit from the buildings because they are  conveyed with deed restrictions that ensure the building will be used for  the approved public benefit purpose. According to GSA, cost savings  and cost avoidance is often realized with the disposal of unused or  underutilized property, including properties disposed of via PBC.
section_title: GSA’s Process for Disposing of Old Courthouses Is Often Lengthy
paragraphs: We found that it took GSA an average of 525 days, or 1.4 years, to  dispose of the old courthouses we reviewed. This excludes any time the  buildings may have been vacant—sometimes years—before they were  declared excess, the point at which GSA decides to dispose of them.  GSA officials said that the disposal process can be lengthy because old  courthouses often (1) have a high level of congressional and public  interest that can generate competing inquiries regarding their future use;  (2) are historic and, thus, subject to lengthy reviews; and (3) have  specialized designs that make the buildings difficult to reuse for other  purposes. We attempted to compare how long it took GSA to dispose of  the old courthouses with the length of time it took to dispose of all types of  properties from its nationwide portfolio of federally-owned buildings, but  were unable to make such a comparison due to data reliability issues.  GSA’s data on disposal times for all properties in its portfolio included  “holds” when the disposal times were suspended to account for situations  that GSA deemed to be out of its control, such as pending legislation,  litigation, environmental concerns, and historic preservation reviews. To  attempt to review comparable data, we asked GSA to provide information  on the length of holds and the reasons for the holds that were placed on  the disposal times for old courthouses in our review. However, the data  were incomplete, and in some cases, the explanations for the holds did  not fall within the categories that GSA defined as being out of its control.
As noted above, we found that during the disposal process, buildings  might remain vacant for extended periods of time and, thus, do not earn  any revenue to help offset the costs to operate mechanical systems and  perform maintenance to help prevent deterioration, for example:
Hammond, Indiana: Disposal of the old courthouse took 2 years.
According to GSA, after the judiciary vacated the old courthouse in  2002, GSA and the City of Hammond conducted extensive  discussions regarding the possibility of exchanging the building for  city-owned land that could be used for parking space at the new  courthouse. Those negotiations, however, were unsuccessful. After  remaining vacant for 6 years, in 2006, GSA declared the property  excess at which point the City of Hammond expressed interest in  purchasing it through a negotiated sale. When the city subsequently  decided it did not want the building, GSA decided against holding a  public auction, given the minimal demand for property in the local  market. In 2009, GSA sold the building through a negotiated sale to  the First Baptist Church of Hammond, which owned a complex of  buildings near the old courthouse, for $550,000.
Kansas City, Missouri: Disposal of the old courthouse took 3 years.  After the judiciary vacated the old courthouse in 1998, GSA initially  tried to retain the building, which opened in 1939, because of its  historical significance and location, but after studying alternative uses,  found that it was impractical for the federal government to reinvest in  the building. In 2003, GSA retained a private development company  to explore and promote public uses of the building by local  governments and institutions, but none demonstrated the ability to  make full use of the old courthouse. As a result, after remaining  vacant for 7 years, in 2005, GSA determined that the building was  excess property and it was screened for PBC use. Subsequently, the  City of Kansas City applied for a historic monument PBC and the  building was conveyed to the city in 2008. According to GSA officials,  the length of time between the report of excess by GSA and its  conveyance to the city was partly caused by the complexity of the  project’s financing.
Nearly half of the 25 disposed old courthouses were historic buildings and  listed on the National Register of Historic Places. According to GSA, any  actions, including disposal, of buildings that are listed or eligible for listing  on the National Register of Historic places, as required by National  Historic Preservation Act, may be very lengthy. Disposing of old  courthouses also involves the screening of properties for potential use by  organizations for the homeless. More specifically, under the McKinney- Vento Homeless Assistance (McKinney-Vento) Act, as amended, HUD  is to solicit information on a quarterly basis from federal landholding  agencies regarding federal buildings that are excess property, surplus  property, or that are described as unutilized or underutilized in surveys by  the heads of landholding agencies. HUD is then to identify and publish in  the Federal Register those buildings that are suitable for use to assist the  homeless. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is then to  evaluate applications by representatives of the homeless for the use of  such properties. In general, upon an approved application, such property  is to be disposed of with priority consideration of surplus property given to  potential uses to assist the homeless. Although excess real property,  including old courthouses, must be reported to and evaluated by HUD for  suitability for homeless use, we found no instances in which old  courthouses were conveyed for this purpose.
We found only one case, in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, in which a homeless  services provider’s application to use the old courthouse was approved,  but the organization subsequently withdrew its application after  determining that the expense of renovating, maintaining, and operating  the building would have been too costly. The old courthouse in Coeur  d’Alene was eventually conveyed to the county government under a  historic monument PBC and is now used as a juvenile justice facility. In  1997 and 2000, GSA disposed of two old courthouses (St. Louis and Ft.  Myers) using an authority known as the “35 Act.” The agency interpreted  the “35 Act” as not being subject to the surveying and reporting  requirements of the Property Act and, in turn, the homeless-assistance  screening process established by the McKinney-Vento Act because  according to the GSA, the “35 Act” did not require GSA to declare a  property as excess or surplus. As a result, GSA allowed the properties to  be sold to local governments without reporting such property to HUD and  did not undergo the homeless-assistance screening process. However,  an April 2000 federal district court opinion regarding the potential sale of a  Lafayette, Louisiana, courthouse under this authority rejected GSA’s  interpretation of the law, ruling that property transferrable under the “35  Act” is subject to the surveying and reporting requirements of the Property  Act and the McKinney-Vento Act.
In addition, we found that GSA’s decision to dispose of old courthouses  may be subject to change. For example, in Reno, Nevada, GSA initially  decided to dispose of the old courthouse, but later decided to retain it  after the judiciary raised objections and GSA further studied its decision.  According to GSA, the agency had decided to dispose of the old  courthouse because of the high cost of reinforcing the building against  potential earthquake damage, but subsequently determined that it was  the least costly alternative for housing the U.S. bankruptcy court, which  was already occupying space in the building and preferred to stay.  Moreover, the agency determined that tenants could reasonably accept  the seismic risk of occupying the building through 2022. Other  alternatives that GSA considered for housing the U.S. bankruptcy court in  Reno included constructing a new building or expanding the existing new  courthouse, which would likely have required additional congressional  appropriations.
section_title: New Owners of Disposed Old Courthouses Are Re- Using the Buildings for a Variety of Purposes
paragraphs: Potential new owners of old courthouses face some challenges similar to  those that GSA faced in re-using old courthouses. These challenges can  affect the agency’s ability to dispose of the buildings. Representatives of  the new owners of six old courthouses we reviewed told us that the  buildings were being used––or will be used––for an art center, hotel,  bank, affordable housing, church administration, and office space. In  adapting the old courthouses to their current uses, these representatives  told us they faced various challenges, including securing financing,  making renovations, and meeting historic preservation requirements.  However, several representatives said they were interested in acquiring  the old courthouses for reasons such as their locations, architectural  style, the quality of the construction materials, historic significance, and  because they were able to purchase them at prices that were lower than  the cost of constructing new buildings. In addition, two representatives  said that historic preservation tax credits are sometimes an important  incentive in redeveloping historic buildings that the government is  disposing of. For example, the developer’s representative for the old  courthouse in Tampa, which is being converted into a hotel, said his  company specifically became interested in the building because it  qualified for federal historic-preservation tax credits. Those tax credits  authorize a 20 percent credit in any taxable year on qualified rehabilitation  expenses with respect to certified historic structures. Below are examples  of old courthouses converted for alternate uses. (Additional examples are  provided in Appendix III.)
Former U.S. Courthouse, Kansas City, Missouri, now the Courthouse  The former U.S. Courthouse in Kansas City, Missouri, built in 1940, is  now an apartment building (see fig.5). In 2008, after finding no other  tenants or uses for the building, GSA conveyed it by PBC to a Kansas  City redevelopment agency. The city worked with a developer to  convert the old courthouse into an affordable-housing development  that opened in 2011. An official from the city agency that acquired the  old courthouse said the building’s conversion to affordable housing  was part of downtown revitalization efforts. A representative of the  building’s developer told us that the building has 176 loft-style  apartments and offices of a law firm. The representative added that  because the retained former courtrooms are not frequently used, the  company is exploring having them used as a law library or as a venue  for mock trials.
Former George W. Whitehurst Federal Building in Ft. Myers, Florida,  now the Sidney & Berne Davis Art Center The former George W. Whitehurst Federal Building in Ft. Myers,  Florida, built in 1933, is now used as an art center and event space. In  2000, GSA sold the building to the City of Ft. Myers for $215,000 (see  fig. 6). In 2003, after soliciting proposals to use the building, the city  leased it to Florida Arts, Incorporated and is now known as the Sidney  & Berne Davis Art Center. According to an art center representative,  the building is now used for events such as musical, dance, and  theatrical performances. The representative added that the two former  courtrooms were not historic and were not retained.
section_title: New Courthouse Proposals Did Not Consistently Address the Need for Old Courthouse Renovations
paragraphs: While old courthouses are often retained to meet federal space needs,  potential renovations key to re-using old courthouses are often not  included in GSA’s proposals to Congress for new courthouses. GSA is  not specifically required by statute to include plans for old courthouses in  its proposals to Congress for new buildings. According to GSA officials, it  can be challenging to include these plans because new courthouses often  take many years to complete and reliable cost estimates for renovations  are not always available when they are proposed. However, GSA’s  proposals are required under statute to include, among other things, a  “comprehensive plan” to, in general, provide space for all federal  employees in the locality of a proposed new building “having due regard”  for suitable space that may continue to be available in nearby existing  government buildings. In addition, OMB and we have previously  reported that complete cost estimates are a best practice in capital  planning, Moreover, while old courthouse plans may not be available  when a new courthouse is initially proposed, GSA periodically updates  Congress after the initial proposal to obtain additional authorizations.  Since fiscal year 1993, Congress has appropriated a total of more than  $760 million for courthouse renovations and with 12 new courthouses  planned to replace or supplement existing courthouses, more funding  requests for renovations will likely be forthcoming.
GSA officials told us that renovations are often necessary to effectively  reuse old courthouses and that several old courthouses were  underutilized because they need renovating. We found that new  courthouse proposals often included plans for the old courthouses, but  few discussed whether renovations were needed to realize these plans.  For 33 of the 40 old courthouses retained by GSA, the new courthouse  proposals specified that the old courthouses would be reused for federal  tenants. However, only 15 of the 40 of new courthouse proposals  addressed whether renovations were needed in the old courthouse and  only 11 included estimates of the renovation costs. Nearly all of the  proposals that included a renovation cost were annexes to the old  courthouses and, in such cases, costs related to courthouse renovation  are often included in the cost of constructing the annex because GSA  cannot separate out the costs.
Among the retained old courthouses that we visited, seven required  renovations to be reused; three still require renovations; and one neither  had nor requires renovations. For seven of those we visited, the new  courthouse proposal included no discussion of the need to renovate the  existing courthouse. Moreover, for eight, the new courthouse proposal did  not include discussion of federal tenants in commercially leased space  near the old courthouses, and none included discussion of the long-term  costs associated with federal tenants staying in commercially-leased  space versus occupying space in the old courthouses. In contrast, we  found that most of the 40 new courthouse proposals we reviewed  included discussion of the 30-year costs associated with using  commercially-leased space versus building a new courthouse. We have  previously reported that leasing commercial space is often more costly  than using government-owned space. Examples of old courthouses we  visited for which the new courthouse proposal did not include discussions  of renovations or federal tenants in nearby commercially-leased space  include:
Portland, Oregon: About 21 percent of the old courthouse  (approximately 33,000 square feet) was vacant as of May 2013,  including three courtrooms. (See fig. 7.) The new courthouse  proposal specified that the U.S. bankruptcy court would move into the  old courthouse. However, according to judiciary and GSA officials, this  plan was contingent on renovation needs and costs, which we found  were not included in the new courthouse proposal. These renovations  have not been completed and the bankruptcy court instead leases  space in a commercial building at an annual cost of about $1.3 million.
Richmond, Virginia: About 15 percent of the old courthouse  (approximately 26,000 square feet) was vacant as of May 2013.  Although the new courthouse proposal specified that the existing  courthouse would be used by the U.S. court of appeals, it did not  specify that renovations would be needed to fully realize this plan. As  a result, although the U.S. district court re-located from the building in  2008, a U.S. court of appeals office has remained in commercially- leased space in the city at an annual cost of about $362,000. In 2013,  GSA requested $3.9 million to renovate the vacant space so that it  can be reused by the U.S. court of appeals.
Orlando, Florida: The new courthouse opened in 2007, but the old  courthouse remained mostly vacant for several years until renovations  not specified in the new courthouse proposal were completed.  Specifically, according to GSA, about 85 percent of the old courthouse  remained vacant until a $48 million renovation project was completed  with funding provided under the American Recovery and  Reinvestment Act of 2009. As of May 2013, the vacancy rate fell to  about 23 percent (approximately 45,500 square feet). Judiciary  officials noted that when new courthouse space is constructed as an  annex, such as in Orlando, the old courthouse must be retained for  use by the judiciary either in full or in part. The Orlando case  illustrates the importance of planning for the old courthouse when the  new courthouse will be an annex to the old building.
In addition to the courthouses that we visited, we also found that other old  courthouses were wholly or mostly vacant due to needed renovations not  included in the new courthouse proposals. In Miami, the new courthouse  proposal specified that the U.S. bankruptcy court and other tenants would  move into the old courthouse. (See fig. 8.) However, according to GSA,  renovation needs totaling about $60 million prevent this plan from  proceeding, and, as a result, the building remains vacant. GSA indicated  that more than $10 million would be required to separate the old  courthouse in our review (David W. Dyer Federal Building and U.S.  Courthouse) from another old courthouse built in 1983 (C. Clyde Atkins  U.S. Courthouse), which share building systems, a common courtyard,  and underground parking facility.
In Buffalo, the new courthouse proposal specified that the U.S.  bankruptcy court and other government tenants would relocate to the old  courthouse. However, while tenants relocated from the old courthouse in  2011, it remains vacant pending $25 million in renovations that were not  included in the new courthouse proposal. According to GSA, numerous  federal tenants remained in commercially leased space in Buffalo,  including the U.S. bankruptcy court, at an annual cost of about $360,000.
In Columbia, South Carolina, about 73 percent of the old courthouse was  vacant as of May 2013, including large areas designed for court use,  which, according to GSA, would cost about $38 million to renovate for  other uses. The new courthouse proposal specified that the U.S.  bankruptcy court would move into the old courthouse, yet the bankruptcy  court instead occupies another old federal courthouse, leaving GSA with  court-configured space in the old courthouse that the agency has had  difficulty re-using.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Given the government’s multibillion-dollar investment in new courthouses  and the challenges inherent to re-using or disposing of old courthouses,  comprehensive planning regarding both the new and old courthouses is  critical to ensure that federal operations are housed in the most cost- effective manner. We believe that comprehensive planning includes  identifying challenges associated with re-using or disposing of the old  courthouses, including renovation needs and estimated costs when the  buildings are expected to be reused. By not consistently including the  need for renovation and estimates of renovation costs in its new  courthouse proposals, GSA is not providing Congress and other  stakeholders with key information needed to make informed decisions  about new courthouse projects. Although there may be challenges to  providing accurate costs for future renovations to the old courthouses,  estimates of these costs and, as necessary, periodic updates of changes  in these costs would provide greater transparency to congressional  decision makers regarding the full costs of courthouse projects. Further,  although neither federal statute nor GSA specifically requires proposals  for courthouses to include plans for old courthouses, federal statute does  require GSA’s proposals to include a comprehensive plan considering  space that may continue to be available in nearby existing government  buildings. To the extent that the agency’s plans for housing federal  tenants include using both the old and new courthouses, we believe such  related renovation plans should be viewed as an integral part of the  comprehensive plan. Moreover, when the plans involve re-locating federal  tenants from commercially-leased space to the old courthouses, a  comprehensive plan would include estimates regarding long-term costs  versus continuing to use commercially-leased space.
section_title: Recommendation
paragraphs: To improve the transparency of cost information regarding the retention  and reuse of old courthouses, we recommend that when proposing new  courthouses, the Administrator of the General Services Administration, in  consultation with the judiciary as appropriate, include plans for re-using or disposing of the old courthouses; challenges with implementing those plans, including any required  renovations and related cost estimates, to be updated as needed; and when the plans involve re-locating federal tenants from commercially- leased space to the old courthouses, estimates of the long-term costs  of occupying the old courthouses versus continuing to occupy  commercially leased space.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided copies of a draft of this report to GSA and AOUSC for  review and comment. GSA concurred with the recommendation and  AOUSC agreed that GSA and the judiciary should continue to work  together to address the judiciary’s housing needs, but indicated that it is  important not to delay the authorization and funding of new projects.
GSA’s letter can be found in Appendix IV. AOUSC’s letter can be found in  Appendix V.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  Administrator of GSA and the Director of the AOUSC. In addition, the  report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2834 or GoldsteinM@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix VI.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were (1) how the government is re-using old courthouses  that were retained and the challenges involved; (2) how GSA disposed of  old courthouses, the process involved, and the results; and (3) the extent  to which GSA’s proposals for new courthouses considered the future use  of the old courthouses.
To determine how the government is re-using old courthouses that were  retained and the challenges involved, we collected and analyzed GSA  data on the 66 old courthouses that were replaced or supplemented by  new courthouses from 1993 to 2012. With regard to old courthouses that  GSA retained, we reviewed GSA data on the buildings’ current uses,  tenants, financial performance, and vacancy rates. For comparison  purposes, we analyzed GSA data on the percentage of old courthouses  that the agency categorized as “nonperforming” with the percentage in  the agency’s national real estate portfolio during 2012.
To determine how GSA disposed of old courthouses, the process  involved, and the results, we reviewed the authorities that GSA used to  dispose of the buildings, data on the length of time it took to dispose of  them, the proceeds, and interviewed representatives of the new owners  of selected disposed old courthouses. We attempted to compare how  long it took for GSA, on average, to dispose of the old courthouses in our  review with how long GSA took to dispose of all types of properties from  its nationwide portfolio of federally-owned buildings, but were unable to  make such a comparison due to data reliability issues. GSA’s data on  disposal times for all properties in its portfolio included “holds” when the  disposal times were suspended to account for situations that it deemed to  be out of its control, such as pending legislation, litigation, environmental  concerns, and historic preservation reviews. To attempt to review  comparable data, we asked GSA to provide information on the length of  holds and the reasons for the holds that were placed on the disposal  times for old courthouses in our review. However, the data were  incomplete, and in some cases, the explanations for the holds did not fall  within the categories that GSA defined as being out of its control. We also  reviewed other GSA data for completeness and determined that they  were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. To verify the data,  we obtained information from GSA about how the data were collected,  reviewed our prior evaluation of similar GSA data, and corroborated  certain data with current and previous owners of old courthouses and  through our research.
We also interviewed GSA officials about the factors they considered when  deciding whether to reuse or dispose of old courthouses and the  challenges involved, and reviewed building retention and disposal studies  and applicable laws, regulations, and agency policies. In order to provide  greater insight on reuses and disposals of old courthouses, we focused  on 17 old courthouses as case studies, including 13 that we visited  (Boston, MA; Camden, NJ; Eugene, OR; Ft. Myers; FL; Orlando, FL;  Portland, OR; Reno, NV; Richmond, VA; Sacramento, CA; Springfield,  MA; Tallahassee, FL; Tampa, FL; and Trenton, NJ) and 4 about which we  interviewed GSA officials by phone (Coeur d’Alene, ID; Greeneville, TN;  Hammond, IN; and Kansas City, MO). For all of our case studies, we  reviewed GSA data and other documents and interviewed GSA officials.  In 10 locations, we also interviewed judges and judiciary officials about  their use of the old courthouses or disposal of those buildings. We  selected the 17 old courthouses that represented a mix of retained and  disposed buildings located in geographically diverse areas.
We interviewed GSA officials about the old courthouse in Coeur d’Alene,  Idaho, because, among the 66 old courthouses in our review, it was the  only instance in which a homeless services provider’s application to use  the old courthouse was approved. We interviewed representatives of  new owners of six old courthouses that were converted for alternate uses  (Ft. Myers, FL; Greeneville, TN; Hammond, IN; Kansas City, MO;  Springfield, MA; and Tampa, FL) about challenges involved in the  disposal process and buildings’ reuse. In three locations (Ft. Myers, FL;  Springfield, MA; and Tampa, FL) we also visited the former courthouses.  Because this is a nonprobability sample, observations made based on our  review of the 17 case studies do not support generalizations about other  old courthouses. Rather, the observations provided specific, detailed  examples of selected old courthouse reuses.
To determine the extent to which GSA’s proposals for new courthouses  built from 1993 through 2012 considered the future use of the old  courthouses, we reviewed the proposals submitted to Congress for new  courthouses in locations where the old courthouses were retained and  appropriations made for renovating those old courthouses. We also  reviewed pertinent laws, GSA regulations and policies on courthouse  construction planning and space utilization, and prior GAO reports on  courthouse construction and the cost of federal tenants’ use of leased  versus federally-owned space. In addition, we interviewed GSA about  new courthouse proposals and renovations needed to reuse old  courthouse space.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2012 through  September 2013 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Status of Old U.S. Courthouses since 1993
paragraphs: Old courthouse  (year built)  Frank M. Johnson Jr. Federal  Building and U.S. Courthouse  (1933)
Disposal method  (year disposed)
Proceeds ($)
Federal Building and U.S.  Courthouse (1968)
PBC  (2012)
County school  administration (Central  Office for the  Tuscaloosa County  School System)
Richard Sheppard Arnold U.S.  Post Office and Courthouse  (1932)
Phoenix Federal Building and  U.S. Courthouse  (1962)
James A. Walsh Courthouse  (1930)
B.F. Sisk U.S. Courthouse  (1968)
PBC  (2007)
State courthouse (B.F.  Sisk Courthouse)
John E. Moss Federal Building  (1961)
Edward J. Schwartz Federal  Building and U.S. Courthouse  (1976)
Santa Ana Federal Building  (1975)
Byron Rogers Federal  Building and U.S. Courthouse  (1965) (Mostly vacant due to  major renovations)
Elijah Barrett Prettyman U.S.  Courthouse  (1952)
George W. Whitehurst Federal  Building  (1933)
Sale  (2000)
Art center (Sidney &  Berne Davis Art  Center)
U.S. Post Office and  Courthouse  (1933)
Sale  (2002)
David W. Dyer Federal  Building and U.S. Courthouse  (1933)
George C. Young Federal  Building and Courthouse  (1975)
U.S. Courthouse (1937)
U.S. Tampa Classic  Courthouse  (1905)
PBC  (2003)
U.S. Post Office-Courthouse  (1912)
Sale  (2002)
Property exchange  (2010)
City government (City  Hall)
Federal Building and  Courthouse  (1928)
PBC  (2009)
County courts (Juvenile  Justice Building)
Federal Building and U.S.  Courthouse  (1910)
U.S. Courthouse (1977)
Property exchange  (2010)
County courts  (Winnebago County  Juvenile Justice  Center)
Federal Building and US  Courthouse (1904)
PBC  (1991)
County cultural center  (Springer Cultural  Center)
Federal Building and U.S.  Courthouse  (1906)
Sale  (2009)
Church administration  (First Baptist Church of  Hammond  Administrative Office  Building)
Federal Building-Post Office- Courthouse  (1959)
PBC  (1995)
County courts  (Correctional and Court  Services Building)
Federal Building and U.S.  Courthouse  (1933)
Lafayette Federal Building &  Courthouse  (1960)
Sale  (2001)
John W. McCormack Post  Office and U.S. Courthouse  (1933)
Federal Office Building  (1982)
Sale  (2009)
Sale  (1999)
State courts (Family  Justice Center)
Cape Girardeau Federal  Building and Courthouse  (1967)
Sale  (2012)
U.S. Courthouse (1940)
PBC  (2008)
Apartment building  (Courthouse Lofts)
U.S. Court and Customhouse  (1935)
Sale  (1997)
State courts and city  offices (Carnahan  Courthouse)
James O. Eastland Federal  Building – Courthouse  (1933)
Sale  (2011)
James F. Battin Federal  Building and U.S. Courthouse  (1965)
Sale  (2013)
Federal Building/Courthouse  (1931)
Edward Zorinsky Federal  Building (1960)
James C. Cleveland Federal  Building (1966)
U.S. Post Office and  Courthouse  (1932)
Clarkson S. Fisher U.S.  Courthouse (1933)
D. Chavez Federal Building  (1965)
Runnels Federal Building  (1974)
Foley Federal Building and  U.S. Courthouse  (1967)
C. Clifton Young Federal  Building and U.S. Courthouse  (1965)
Emmanuel Celler U.S.  Courthouse  (1963)
Michael J. Dillon U.S.  Courthouse  (1936)
Thurgood Marshall U.S.  Courthouse  (1936)
Howard M. Metzenbaum U.S.  Courthouse  (1910)
Thomas D. Lambros Federal  Building and U.S. Courthouse  (1995)
Eugene Federal Building  (1974)
Gus J. Solomon Courthouse  (1933)
Federal Building and  Courthouse  (1938)
William J. Nealon Federal  Building and Courthouse  (1931)
Strom Thurmond U.S.  Courthouse  (1978)
Federal Building-U.S.  Courthouse (1904)
Sale  (2002)
Commercial bank  (Greeneville Federal  Bank Main Office)
Brownsville U.S. Post Office  and Courthouse (1933)
Property Exchange  (1996)
City government (City  Hall/Old Federal  Courthouse)
Corpus Christi Courthouse  (1918)
Sale  (2002)
Post Office and U.S.  Courthouse  (1906)
Martin V.B. Bostetter  Courthouse  (1931)
Lewis F. Powell Jr. U.S.  Courthouse and Annex  (1858)
William Kenzo Nakamura  Courthouse  (1940)
Beckley Federal Building  (1933)
PBC  (2001)
Regional education  service agencies  (RESA 1 Building)
Post Office and Courthouse   (1961)
Sale  (1999)
Federal Building and U.S.  Courthouse  (1907)
GSA did not have information on whether financial proceeds were received regarding the property  exchange involving the old courthouse in Brownsville.
section_title: Appendix III: Additional Examples of Old Courthouses Converted to Other Uses
paragraphs: Former Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, Hammond, Indiana,  now the Administrative Office Building of the First Baptist Church of  Hammond  The former Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Hammond,  Indiana, built in 1906, is now used by a church for office and meeting  space (see fig. 9). In 2009, GSA sold the old courthouse to the First  Baptist Church of Hammond for $550,000. According to a church  representative, one of the building’s three former courtrooms is mainly  used as a meeting room, but also for church services, weddings, and  funerals, and that the other two former courtrooms have few or no  remnants of their prior use.
Former Federal Building-U.S. Courthouse, Greeneville, Tennessee,  now the Greeneville Federal Bank Main Office  The former Federal Building-U.S. Courthouse in Greeneville,  Tennessee, built in 1904, is now being used as a bank (see fig.10). In  2002, GSA sold the old courthouse to the Greeneville Federal Bank  for $200,000. According to a bank representative, of the building’s  three former courtrooms, one is now used as an employee training  room and the other two were reconfigured for lobby, teller, and  conference room space.
Former U.S. Tampa Classic Courthouse, in Tampa, Florida, and  The former U.S. Tampa Classic Courthouse in Tampa, Florida, built in  1905, is being converted into a hotel (see fig. 11). In 2003, after  finding no other tenants or uses for the building, GSA conveyed the  old courthouse to the City of Tampa as a PBC. In 2012, the city  leased the building to a developer that proposed to convert the  building into a hotel. According to a representative from the developer,  the hotel will have 130 rooms. The representative said that the  building’s two historic former courtrooms will be used for a restaurant  and ballroom/banquet facility. The hotel is expected to open in 2014.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the General Services Administration
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Federal Judiciary
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Keith Cunningham, Assistant  Director; Lindsay Bach; Lorraine Ettaro; Geoffrey Hamilton; Bob Homan;  and James Leonard made key contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Federal Real Property: Excess and Underutilized Property Is an Ongoing  Challenge. GAO-13-573T. Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2013.
Federal Courthouses: Recommended Construction Projects Should Be  Evaluated under New Capital-Planning Process. GAO-13-263.  Washington, D.C.: April 11, 2013.
Federal Courthouse Construction: Nationwide Space and Cost Overages  Also Apply to Miami Project. GAO-13-461T. Washington, D.C.: March 8,  2013.
Federal Real Property: Improved Data Needed to Strategically Manage  Historic Buildings, Address Multiple Challenges. GAO-13-35. Washington,  D.C.: December 11, 2012.
Federal Buildings Fund: Improved Transparency and Long-term Plan  Needed to Clarify Capital Funding Priorities. GAO-12-646. Washington,  D.C.: July 12, 2012.
Federal Real Property: National Strategy and Better Data Needed to  Improve Management of Excess and Underutilized Property.  GAO-12-645. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2012.
Federal Courthouse Construction: Better Planning, Oversight, and  Courtroom Sharing Needed to Address Future Costs. GAO-10-417.  Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2010.
Federal Real Property: Authorities and Actions Regarding Enhanced Use  Leases and Sale of Unneeded Real Property. GAO-09-283R.  Washington, D.C.: February 17, 2009.
Federal Real Property: Strategy Needed to Address Agencies’ Long- standing Reliance on Costly Leasing. GAO-08-197. Washington, D.C.:  Jan. 24, 2008.
Federal Courthouses: Rent Increases Due to New Space and Growing  Energy and Security Costs Require Better Tracking and Management.  GAO-06-613. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2006.
Courthouse Construction: Information on Project Cost and Size Changes  Would Help to Enhance Oversight. GAO-05-673. Washington, D.C.: June  30, 2005.