This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-511 
entitled 'Federal Real Property: Most Public Benefit Conveyances Used 
as Intended, but Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal Oversight' 
which was released on July 21, 2006. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives: 

June 2006: 

Federal Real Property: 

Most Public Benefit Conveyances Used as Intended, but Opportunities 
Exist to Enhance Federal Oversight: 

GAO-06-511: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-06-511, a report to the Committee on Government 
Reform, House of Representatives 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Under the public benefit conveyance (PBC) program, state or local 
governments and certain nonprofits can obtain surplus real property for 
public uses. The General Services Administration (GSA) has 
responsibility for the program but has delegated authority to the 
Department of Defense (DOD) for properties disposed of as part of the 
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. Several “sponsoring 
agencies” ensure that properties are used as agreed to by grantees. GAO 
(1) determined the number, types, and locations of PBC properties 
disposed of in fiscal years 2000 through 2004, (2) assessed efforts to 
ensure that the properties are used as agreed to, and (3) identified 
any challenges facing agencies and grantees. 

What GAO Found: 

GAO could not determine from GSA, DOD, and sponsoring agency data the 
exact number, types, and locations of properties conveyed in fiscal 
years 2000 through 2004 as part of the PBC program. Although GSA and 
DOD data on properties conveyed should have matched sponsoring agency 
data on properties being monitored, there were numerous 
inconsistencies. GSA data showed that 285 properties were conveyed, but 
128 (45 percent) of these properties were not identified in data 
provided by sponsoring agencies. Similarly, DOD data showed that 179 
properties were conveyed, yet 41 (23 percent) of these properties were 
not identified in sponsoring agency data. As a result, GSA, as well as 
the Office of Management and Budget and Congress, are not well equipped 
to effectively oversee the program. Better data would facilitate 
oversight and assessment of results and possible problems. GAO tried to 
resolve the inconsistencies and identified 298 properties that were 
conveyed for a variety of public uses, such as airports and parks. They 
were located throughout many states and U.S. territories. GAO noted 
that data on reverted property were not regularly collected. 

GAO found that agencies generally did not follow policies and 
procedures they established, or those outlined in the property deeds, 
for ensuring that conveyed properties are used as intended. GAO could 
evaluate compliance monitoring for 41 of 58 properties selected for 
review. Of these, 36 did not receive the compliance monitoring 
specified in agency policies and procedures or the deed. Despite this, 
51 of the 58 properties we analyzed were being used as agreed to by the 
grantee under the conveyance terms; while 4 had reverted back to the 
federal government, 2 had not been fully developed, and 1 was not used 
as agreed to by the grantee. GAO also found wide variation in agency 
policies and practices, depending on type of use, which seems to make 
the program unnecessarily complex. GAO identified several challenges 
faced by agencies and grantees. Agency officials cited the need to 
allocate sufficient resources to manage the program and to adhere to 
complex federal real property-related laws as challenges. Some agencies 
were concerned that GSA avoids reversions; however GSA said that in 
avoiding reversions, its intentions are to reduce the government’s 
overall financial burden. Grantees were generally pleased with the 
program, although a common challenge they cited was not having adequate 
information on both the program in general and individual properties. 

Figure: Former Surplus Real Property Used by Communities: 

[See PDF for Image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of Figure] 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that GSA coordinate with DOD and sponsoring agencies to 
(1) ensure that data on PBC properties are reliable and consistent, (2) 
consider developing uniform standards and guidance, and (3) address 
various challenges facing agencies and grantees. GAO also recommends 
that sponsoring agencies ensure that their compliance monitoring 
policies are followed. GSA, HHS, HUD, and Education generally concurred 
with the recommendations directed to them. HHS and HUD questioned the 
practicality of uniform standards and guidance for diverse properties. 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-511]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Mark L. Goldstein at 
(202) 512-2834 or GoldsteinM@gao.gov. 

[End of Section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Lack of Reliable, Consistent Data Hampers PBC Program Management and 
Oversight: 

Inconsistent Compliance Monitoring Was Common, although Most Case Study 
Properties Were Used as Agreed to by the Grantee: 

Challenges Managing and Participating in the PBC Program Were Evident: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties Conveyed, 
Fiscal Years 2000-2004: 

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

Appendix IV: Properties Selected for Case Studies: 

Appendix V: Comments from the General Services Administration: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services: 

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Education: 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

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

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

Table 3: Consistency of Compliance Oversight Performed for Case Study 
Properties in Accordance with Requirements in Agencies' Policies and 
Property Deeds: 

Table 4: Compliance Oversight Methods Stated in Agencies' Policies and 
Procedures for Properties Conveyed, Fiscal Years 1990-2004: 

Figures: 

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

Figure 2: PBC Process for BRAC Surplus Real Property: 

Figure 3: Number of Properties Identified by Type of Use, Fiscal Years 
2000-2004: 

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

Figure 5: Little Cottonwood Park - one property: 

Figure 6: Port of Long Beach - one property:  

Figure 7: Savannah and Cabrillo Navy Housing - one property: 

Figure 8: Rolling Hills Preparatory School - one property: 

Figure 9: Westwood Transitional Village - one property: 

Figure 10: Southern California Logistics Airport - one property: 

Figure 11: Homestead Air Force Base Communications Annex - one 
property: 

Figure 12: Homestead Air Force Base Homeless Trust - one property: 

Figure 13: U.S. Custom House - one property: 

Figure 14: MacDill Air Force Base Railroad Spur - one property: 

Figure 15: U.S. Classic Courthouse - one property: 

Figure 16: Federal Building and USDA Lab - one property: 

Figure 17: Wyandotte County Correctional Facility and Court Services 
Building - one property: 

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

Figure 19: Milford Lake - one property:  

Figure 20: Tuttle Lake Wildlife Area - five properties: 

Figure 21: NIKE Village Site Topsfield, MA - one property: 

Figure 22: Bentley College - one property: 

Figure 23: New Jewish High School - one property: 

Figure 24: Veteran's Memorial Park - one property: 

Figure 25: The Commander's Mansion - one property: 

Figure 26: Squantum Gardens and Naval Terrace - one property: 

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

Figure 28: Liberty House - one property: 

Figure 29: Valley Forge Christian College - two properties: 

Figure 30: Warminster Community Park - one property:  

Figure 31: Northampton Township Municipal Park - one property: 

Figure 32: Kings Branch Housing - one property: 

Figure 33: Carswell Air Force Base Communications Annex - one property: 

Figure 34: Lake Lewisville Independent School District Outdoor Learning 
Area - two properties:  

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

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

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

Figure 38: Weber County Schools Warehouse - one property: 

Figure 39: Davis School District Warehouse - one property: 

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

Figure 41: Ogden Nature Center - one property: 

Figure 42: Weber County Fairgrounds - one property: 

Figure 43: Former Petersburg Correctional Institute - one property: 

Figure 44: Falling Creek Linear Park - one property: 

Figure 45: Riverside Regional Jail - one property: 

Figure 46: Cameron Station - one property: 

Figure 47: Naval Station Puget Sound - three properties: 

Figure 48: Midway NIKE Housing Site - one property: 

Figure 49: Howard A. Hanson Dam - one property: 

Figure 50: Olympia Federal Building - one property: 

Figure 51: Sand Point Magnuson Park - four properties: 

Abbreviations: 

BRAC: Base Realignment and Closure: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

DOT: Department of Transportation: 

DOJ: Department of Justice: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

Education: Department of Education: 

FAA: Federal Aviation Administration: 

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency: 

GAO: Government Accountability Office: 

GSA: General Services Administration: 

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services: 

HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

Interior: Department of the Interior: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

MARAD: Maritime Administration: 

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act: 

NHPA: National Historic Preservation Act: 

[End of Section] 

June 21, 2006: 

The Honorable Tom Davis: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

The federal real property portfolio is vast and diverse--over 30 
agencies control hundreds of thousands of real property assets 
worldwide, including facilities and land worth hundreds of billions of 
dollars. However, many of these assets, which include vacant and 
underutilized properties, are no longer needed because of significant 
changes in the size and mission needs of federal agencies. This is one 
of the reasons that federal real property remains on our list of high- 
risk federal programs.[Footnote 1] Unneeded assets present significant 
potential risks to federal agencies not only for lost dollars because 
such properties are costly to maintain; but also for lost opportunities 
because the properties could be put to more cost-beneficial uses, 
exchanged for other needed property, or sold to generate revenue for 
the government. In addition, continuing to hold real property that may 
no longer be needed does not present a positive image of the federal 
government in local communities. 

The public benefits conveyance (PBC) program is one means of disposing 
of surplus federal property. Under the PBC program, which was primarily 
codified in the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
1949, as amended (Property Act), state or local governments and certain 
tax-exempt nonprofit organizations can obtain surplus real property for 
public uses such as homeless centers, educational facilities, and 
public parks. The General Services Administration (GSA) has primary 
responsibility for the administration of the program, but as required 
by law, has delegated conveyance authority to the Department of Defense 
(DOD) for DOD properties that are closed or realigned as part of the 
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process.[Footnote 2] Under laws and 
federal regulations promulgated by GSA implementing the PBC program, 
several "sponsoring agencies" perform a number of functions integral to 
the PBC process. These agencies include the Departments of Education 
(Education), the Interior (Interior), Health and Human Services (HHS), 
Homeland Security (DHS), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Justice 
(DOJ), and Transportation (DOT). In general, one sponsoring agency is 
designated per type of public benefit use based on its policy area of 
expertise. For example, Interior is the sponsoring agency for parks and 
recreation use and HHS is the sponsoring agency for public health use. 
Depending on the sponsoring agency, these responsibilities can include 
reviewing and approving PBC applications, deeding and conveying 
property, and monitoring the grantee's use of the property and 
compliance with deed restrictions. GSA or DOD assigns the property to 
the sponsoring agency so that a deed can be developed and the property 
can be conveyed to the grantee. Property not in compliance with the use 
agreed to by the grantee under the deed can revert to the federal 
government. 

Our objectives were to (1) determine the number, types, and locations 
of surplus real properties disposed of using the PBC program in fiscal 
years 2000 through 2004; (2) assess GSA, DOD, and sponsoring agency 
efforts to ensure that properties are used as agreed to by the grantee; 
and (3) identify any challenges facing agencies and grantees with 
regard to the program. To meet these objectives, we analyzed PBC 
property data and interviewed GSA and DOD officials. We also 
interviewed officials in each of the seven sponsoring agencies and 
reviewed these agencies' policies and procedures for the PBC program. 
In order to determine whether the agencies were performing compliance 
monitoring and properties were being used as agreed to by the grantees, 
we selected 58 properties for case study review that were conveyed 
during the 15-fiscal-year period from 1990 through 2004. We chose 
properties from a 15-year time period because this time frame would 
ensure that most of the properties would have an established compliance 
history. The 58 properties were chosen because they represented a mix 
of public uses, locations, stages of development (e.g., in planning 
versus completed), and compliance methods and histories. A list of the 
58 properties we selected as case studies can be found in appendix III. 
Our scope and methodology are described in more detail in appendix I. 
We conducted our review from September 2004 through May 2006 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief: 

We could not determine from GSA, DOD, and sponsoring agency data the 
exact number, types, and locations of properties conveyed in fiscal 
years 2000 through 2004 as part of the PBC program. Although GSA and 
DOD data on properties conveyed should have matched sponsoring agency 
data on properties they were monitoring, there were numerous 
inconsistencies. For example, although GSA data showed that 285 
properties were conveyed, 128 (45 percent) of these properties were not 
identified in data provided by sponsoring agencies. Similarly, DOD data 
showed that 179 properties were conveyed, yet 41 (23 percent) of these 
properties also were not identified in sponsoring agency data. As a 
result, the status of properties for which data were inconsistent 
remains unclear. Furthermore, GSA, which has primary responsibility for 
the program under the Property Act, as well as the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) and Congress, are not well equipped to effectively 
oversee the program. Better data would facilitate oversight and 
assessment of results and possible problems. Lack of quality data was a 
major reason we designated federal real property as a high-risk area in 
2003, and the inconsistencies we encountered with the PBC data 
illustrate this problem. We also found other data reliability problems, 
including incomplete data and lack of specificity. Despite the 
inconsistencies with the data and reliability issues, we attempted to 
resolve the data consistencies and were able to identify 298 PBC 
properties on which DOD, GSA, and sponsoring agency data were generally 
in agreement. These properties were conveyed for a variety of public 
uses, such as airports, schools, and parks, and were located throughout 
many of the 50 states, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Almost half of the 
properties were disposed of as part of the BRAC process. Although 
available data showed that 12 properties conveyed as PBCs reverted to 
the federal government, data on reverted property were not regularly 
collected, so other properties may have reverted. To ensure better 
oversight and accountability, we are recommending that GSA coordinate 
and work with DOD and each of the sponsoring agencies to ensure that 
PBC property data are reliable and consistent between agencies. 

Our review showed that agencies generally did not follow policies and 
procedures they established, or those outlined in the deed, for 
ensuring that conveyed properties were used as intended by grantees. In 
our case study of 58 properties, we were able to evaluate compliance 
practices for 41 properties. Eighty-eight percent, 36 of the 41, did 
not receive the monitoring specified in agency policies or the property 
deed. It is important to note that despite the problems we found with 
compliance monitoring, 51 of the 58 properties we selected as case 
studies were being used as agreed to by the grantee under the terms of 
the conveyance and 7 were not. Of the 7 properties, 4 had reverted to 
the federal government, 2 had not been fully developed, and 1 was not 
used as intended. The other 51 properties we visited were being used by 
the grantees for a variety of public purposes, as illustrated by the 
following examples: 

* A nature center area in Ogden, Utah, provided a sanctuary for 
wildlife. 

* Land formerly occupied by an army hospital in Waltham, Massachusetts, 
was redeveloped for use by a private high school, a nearby college, and 
public park. 

* Two former NIKE missile sites in Washington and Massachusetts were 
redeveloped to provide transitional housing for homeless individuals. 

In our case study review, we also found that GSA and the sponsoring 
agencies generally used a mix of self-reporting by grantees and site 
inspections by agencies to ensure that PBC properties were being used 
as agreed to by grantees, although the frequency of these actions 
varied between agencies. For example, DOT's Maritime Administration 
(MARAD) does not require site inspections for port facility use, while 
HHS requires site inspections for homeless and public health properties 
within the first 12 months of use and at least every 5 years 
thereafter. We also noted that agencies' policies on properties 
reverting to the federal government varied. The range of compliance 
monitoring approaches we encountered was largely due to the 
decentralized nature of the program and differences in agency 
preferences for carrying out monitoring. We found no compelling 
rationale or criteria for the differences in compliance approaches and 
reversion policies and practices, and as a result, the PBC program 
seems unnecessarily complex, with a wide range of different policies 
and practices being administered separately by several agencies, 
depending on the type of public benefit use. The complex nature of the 
federal real property environment was an underlying cause of problems 
that led to our designation of this area as high risk in 2003 and the 
wide variation in agencies' implementation of the PBC program 
illustrates this condition. We are recommending that sponsoring 
agencies with compliance monitoring responsibilities take action to 
better ensure that their compliance monitoring policies are followed 
and that GSA coordinate with DOD and the sponsoring agencies and give 
consideration to developing uniform standards and guidance for the 
program, where appropriate. 

We identified several other challenges facing agencies and grantees 
with regard to the program. Agency officials we spoke with cited the 
need to allocate sufficient resources to manage the program as the 
primary challenge they faced in fulfilling their compliance monitoring 
and other PBC responsibilities. Another challenge agency officials 
cited was the need to adhere to complex, federal real property-related 
laws, such as those related to military base closures and homeless 
assistance. We noted that GSA and sponsoring agencies often sought 
alternatives to the reversion of noncompliant property to the 
government. However, some sponsoring agency officials were concerned 
that the tendency by GSA to avoid reversions takes away a main 
compliance enforcement mechanism. GSA officials said that their agency 
attempts to resolve compliance issues with PBC properties and avoid 
reversions because of the overall risk and financial burden these 
properties could pose to the federal government. Most of the grantees 
were pleased with the program, although a common challenge they cited 
was not being fully informed about the workings of the program and the 
condition of individual properties prior to conveyance. In some cases, 
grantees said that this lack of information resulted in unanticipated 
costs. We also found that information on the PBC program was fragmented 
across several government Web sites, compounding the concerns grantees 
expressed about communication. We are recommending that GSA work with 
DOD and each of the sponsoring agencies to address these challenges. In 
commenting on a draft of this report, GSA, HHS, HUD, and Education 
provided comments and generally concurred with the recommendations 
directed to them. HHS and HUD questioned the practicality of uniform 
standards and guidance for diverse properties. DOD, DOJ, and DOT had no 
official comments on this report but provided separate technical 
comments, which we incorporated into the report where appropriate. DHS 
had no comments on this report. Interior was unable to provide official 
comments in time to be included in the report. 

Background: 

The Property Act governs the disposal of most federal real 
property.[Footnote 3] When a federal agency no longer needs a property 
to carry out its mission responsibilities, the property is reported as 
excess and is offered to other federal agencies for use. If another 
federal agency does not have a need for the property, it is considered 
surplus to the federal government, and state or local governments and 
certain tax-exempt nonprofit organizations can obtain the property 
through the PBC program for an approved public benefit use. The PBC 
program is not the only method used to dispose of surplus real 
property; property can also be disposed of by negotiated[Footnote 4] 
and public sale[Footnote 5] or by other conveyances available under 
BRAC, such as economic development conveyances.[Footnote 6] 

Properties are conveyed[Footnote 7] to grantees with deed restrictions 
ranging from 30 years to in perpetuity and can be provided at a 
discount of up to 100 percent of fair market value. Six public benefit 
use authorities have been in existence since before the Property Act 
became law; they are education, public health, parks and recreation, 
historic monument, wildlife conservation, and public airport. The 
remaining six public benefit use authorities--correctional, homeless, 
port facility, self-help housing, law enforcement, and emergency 
management response--were enacted into law between 1984 and 1997. Table 
1 lists the public benefit use authorities, the years they were 
enacted, and their statutory citations. 

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

Public benefit use authorities: Education; 
When enacted: Prior to 1949; 
Statutory citation: 40 U.S.C. § 550(c). 

Public benefit use authorities: Public health; 
When enacted: Prior to 1949; 
Statutory citation: 40 U.S.C. § 550(d). 

Public benefit use authorities: Parks and recreation; 
When enacted: Prior to 1949; 
Statutory citation: 40 U.S.C. § 550(e). 

Public benefit use authorities: Historic monument; 
When enacted: Prior to 1949; 1972 Amendments; 
Statutory citation: 40 U.S.C. § 550(h). 

Public benefit use authorities: Wildlife conservation[A]; 
When enacted: Prior to 1949; 
Statutory citation: 16 U.S.C. § 667b. 

Public benefit use authorities: Public airport[A]; 
When enacted: Prior to 1949; 
Statutory citation: 49 U.S.C. § 47151. 

Public benefit use authorities: Correctional; 
When enacted: 1984; 
Statutory citation: 40 U.S.C. § 553(b)(1). 

Public benefit use authorities: Homeless[A]; 
When enacted: 1988; 
Statutory citation: 42 U.S.C. § 11411. 

Public benefit use authorities: Port facility; 
When enacted: 1994; 
Statutory citation: 40 U.S.C. § 554. 

Public benefit use authorities: Self-help housing; 
When enacted: 1997; 
Statutory citation: 40 U.S.C. § 550(f). 

Public benefit use authorities: Law enforcement; 
When enacted: 1997; 
Statutory citation: 40 U.S.C. § 553(b)(2). 

Public benefit use authorities: Emergency management response; 
When enacted: 1997; 
Statutory citation: 40 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3). 

Source: GAO. 

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

[End of table] 

GSA and DOD are responsible for managing the disposal of surplus real 
property through the PBC process. GSA handles the disposal of former 
civilian agency and non-BRAC DOD surplus property. DOD handles the 
disposal of surplus BRAC property. Seven federal agencies--DHS, DOJ, 
DOT, Education, HHS, HUD, and Interior--assist GSA and DOD with the PBC 
process. These agencies are known as sponsoring agencies, and at least 
one sponsoring agency is designated per type of public benefit use 
based on its policy area expertise. For example, Interior is the 
sponsoring agency for parks and recreation use, and HHS is the 
sponsoring agency for public health use. Table 2 displays the 
sponsoring agencies and their responsibilities by public benefit use. 
As shown in table 2, for some public benefit uses, one sponsoring 
agency is responsible for reviewing and approving applications, while 
another sponsoring agency is responsible for conveying the property and 
performing compliance monitoring. For example, DHS's Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) is tasked with reviewing and approving 
emergency management response applications, while GSA performs 
compliance oversight of properties conveyed for this use. 

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

Public benefit use: Education; 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Education; 
Sponsoring agency responsibilities: 
* Application review and approval; 
* Deeding and conveyance; 
* Compliance monitoring; 
Length of deed restriction: 30 years. 

Public benefit use: Public health; 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Health and Human Services; 
Sponsoring agency responsibilities: 
* Application review and approval; 
* Deeding and conveyance; 
* Compliance monitoring; 
Length of deed restriction: 30 years. 

Public benefit use: Parks and recreation; 
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior-Federal Lands to Parks 
Program; 
Sponsoring agency responsibilities: 
* Application review and approval; 
* Deeding and conveyance; 
* Compliance monitoring; 
Length of deed restriction: In perpetuity. 

Public benefit use: Historic monument;
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior- Historic Surplus 
Property Program and General Services Administration; 
Sponsoring agency responsibilities: 
* Application review and approval (Historic Surplus Property Program); 
* Deeding and conveyance (GSA); 
* Compliance monitoring (Historic Surplus Property Program); 
Length of deed restriction: In perpetuity. 

Public benefit use: Wildlife conservation; 
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior-U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (FWS) and General Services Administration; 
Sponsoring agency responsibilities: 
* Application review[A] (GSA or FWS) and; 
* approval (GSA); * Deeding and conveyance (GSA); 
* Compliance monitoring (GSA); 
Length of deed restriction: In perpetuity. 

Public benefit use: Public airport; 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Transportation-Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) and General Services Administration; 
Sponsoring agency responsibilities: 
* Application review and approval (FAA); 
* Deeding and conveyance (GSA); 
* Compliance monitoring (FAA); 
Length of deed restriction: In perpetuity. 

Public benefit use: Correctional; 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Justice and General Services 
Administration; 
Sponsoring agency responsibilities: 
* Application review and approval (DOJ); 
* Deeding and conveyance (GSA); 
* Compliance monitoring (GSA); 
Length of deed restriction: In perpetuity. 

Public benefit use: Port facility; 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Transportation-Maritime Administration 
(MARAD); 
Sponsoring agency responsibilities: 
* Application review and approval; 
* Deeding and conveyance; 
* Compliance monitoring; 
Length of deed restriction: In perpetuity. 

Public benefit use: Self-help housing; 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development; 
Sponsoring agency responsibilities: 
* Application review and approval; 
* Deeding and conveyance; 
* Compliance monitoring; 
Length of deed restriction: 40 years. 

Public benefit use: Law enforcement; 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Justice and General Services 
Administration; 
Sponsoring agency responsibilities: 
* Application review and approval (DOJ); 
* Deeding and conveyance (GSA); 
* Compliance monitoring (GSA); 
Length of deed restriction: In perpetuity. 

Public benefit use: Emergency management Response; 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Homeland Security-Federal Emergency 
Management Agency and General Services Administration; 
Sponsoring agency responsibilities: 
* Application review and approval (FEMA); 
* Deeding and conveyance (GSA); 
* Compliance monitoring (GSA); 
Length of deed restriction: In perpetuity. 

Public benefit use: Homeless; 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Health and Human Services; 
Sponsoring agency responsibilities: 
* Application review and approval; 
* Deeding and conveyance; 
* Compliance monitoring; 
Length of deed restriction: 30 years. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] Unlike other sponsoring agencies that are tasked with reviewing PBC 
applications, the law does not specifically state who is responsible 
for reviewing and approving wildlife conservation PBCs. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (FWS) has been providing this service when either the 
applicant or GSA requests that the agency provide a letter of 
endorsement for the proposed use. In cases where the input of FWS is 
not sought, GSA reviews and approves wildlife conservation PBCs. 

[End of table] 

The PBC process differs depending on whether surplus real property is 
former BRAC property versus former civilian agency or non-BRAC DOD 
property. As noted previously, GSA is responsible for managing the 
disposal of former civilian agency and non-BRAC DOD property as PBCs. 
GSA determines the current condition of surplus real property, 
including any environmental contamination and cleanup required. 
Pursuant to the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (McKinney-Vento 
Act), HUD then reviews the property to determine if it is suitable for 
homeless use. If the property is considered suitable for homeless use, 
it is first made available for homeless use consideration 60 days prior 
to any other public benefit use. If the property is not considered 
suitable or if there is no interest in the property, it becomes 
available for all other public benefit uses. State or local governments 
and qualified nonprofits interested in obtaining the property by public 
benefit conveyance submit applications to the sponsoring agencies 
describing how they plan to use the property. The sponsoring agencies 
then consider all applications and determine which one proposes the 
best public use for the property. The sponsoring agency notifies GSA of 
the chosen applicant. GSA assigns the property to the sponsoring agency 
so that a deed can be developed and the property can be conveyed to the 
grantee. 

Once a property has been conveyed, grantees are responsible for 
adhering to all restrictions in the deed. Examples of deed restrictions 
include limitations on the property's use and revenue generation, the 
length of time to develop or implement the approved use, and 
requirements to allow site inspections or to submit periodic 
utilization reports. If the sponsoring agency determines that a grantee 
is out of compliance, the grantee is notified and the sponsoring agency 
works with the grantee to help bring the property back into compliance. 
After continued noncompliance, the sponsoring agency decides whether 
the property should revert and, if so, suggests that GSA take action to 
revert the property. The property then reverts to the federal portfolio 
and is reconsidered for disposal. Figure 1 shows the PBC process in 
general for former civilian agency and non-BRAC DOD surplus property. 

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

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The disposal of surplus BRAC property by the PBC process is handled 
differently from the disposal of former civilian agency or non-BRAC DOD 
property. As noted previously, GSA, as required by law, has delegated 
conveyance authority to DOD for those DOD surplus properties that are 
generated though the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. DOD 
has subsequently delegated its BRAC disposal authority to the 
Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, including the authority 
to manage surplus real property disposals involving PBCs. A key 
difference in the PBC process for the disposal of BRAC property is the 
participation of a local redevelopment authority (LRA). Though such 
participation is not required by law, most BRAC closures have 
historically involved an LRA, which is generally composed of members 
from the surrounding community or communities affected by the base 
closure.[Footnote 8] LRAs have historically been responsible for 
planning for the future reuse of BRAC property and for acting as the 
single point of contact between the government and the interests within 
the communities during the disposal process. The primary function of 
the LRA is to create a redevelopment plan that proposes the future use 
of each parcel of surplus real property in the installation.[Footnote 
9] The LRAs and the military departments determine what portion of 
surplus installation property will be disposed of as PBCs. When 
considering future reuse, LRAs take into consideration community needs, 
interests of possible reuse recipients, the environmental condition of 
the property, and any necessary remediation. The LRA is also tasked 
with giving consideration to local homeless needs. The Base Closure 
Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994[Footnote 
10] amended the McKinney-Vento Act and the Defense Base Closure and 
Realignment Act of 1990 to provide for different procedures relating to 
the use and transferability of properties to assist the homeless at a 
military installation that is to be closed or aligned under BRAC. 
Pursuant to the 1994 amendment, the LRA develops a redevelopment plan 
for the installation and solicits interest from homeless providers. HUD 
provides LRAs with technical advice and guidance on the homeless 
requirements and reviews the redevelopment plan to determine if it 
appropriately balances the interests of the homeless in the vicinity of 
the installation with the economic and other redevelopment needs of the 
community. Figure 2 shows the PBC process in general for BRAC surplus 
property. 

Figure 2: PBC Process for BRAC Surplus Real Property: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO.  

[End of figure] 

The proposed redevelopment plans are then submitted to the military 
department. Although deeding authority varies among the different 
public benefit uses, for parcels that have been approved for disposal 
as PBCs, the Army, Navy, or Air Force generally assigns the property to 
the appropriate sponsoring agency, which deeds the property to the 
grantee.[Footnote 11] Compliance for surplus BRAC property conveyed as 
public benefit conveyances is handled by the sponsoring agencies in the 
same manner as surplus former civilian agency or non-BRAC DOD property. 
Reverted property returns either to GSA's or the military department's 
inventory of real property assets.[Footnote 12] 

Lack of Reliable, Consistent Data Hampers PBC Program Management and 
Oversight: 

We could not determine, from GSA, DOD, and sponsoring agency data, the 
exact number, types, and locations of properties conveyed in fiscal 
years 2000 through 2004 as part of the PBC program. There were numerous 
properties identified by GSA and DOD that did not match with properties 
identified by the sponsoring agencies. As a result, we could not 
determine the status of 128 GSA properties and 41 DOD properties 
purportedly conveyed using the PBC program. Despite inconsistencies 
with GSA, DOD, and sponsoring agency data, we undertook our own effort 
to resolve the inconsistencies and were able to identify 298 PBC 
properties for which GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring agencies data were 
generally in agreement. These properties were conveyed for a variety of 
public uses, such as airports, schools, and parks, and were located in 
many of the 50 states, Guam, and Puerto Rico. For a number of reasons, 
reliable, consistent data on PBC properties would be beneficial to the 
effective oversight and management of the program. 

GSA, DOD, and Sponsoring Agency Data Were Not Consistent or Reliable: 

GSA, DOD, and sponsoring agency data had inconsistencies that prevented 
us from determining, with reasonable assurance, the exact number, 
types, and locations of properties conveyed in fiscal years 2000 
through 2004 as part of the PBC program. GSA and DOD each maintain 
separate lists of properties they have disposed of using the PBC 
program. In addition, each of the sponsoring agencies maintains a 
separate list of the properties for which it has compliance 
responsibilities. GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring agencies keep PBC 
property data in various formats, including electronic data and paper 
case files, and in different locations, such as in central headquarters 
or field offices. In addition, we found that each agency keeps 
different pieces of information on each property. 

To address the challenge of having multiple and varying data sources, 
we requested that GSA and DOD provide us with a complete and reliable 
list of properties conveyed and that each of the sponsoring agencies 
provide us with a complete and reliable list of properties for which it 
had compliance responsibilities. Specifically, we asked that the 
agencies provide us with the following pieces of information: property 
name, description, address, sponsoring agency,[Footnote 13] grantee 
including contact information, date of conveyance, intended use, and 
compliance history, including dates of utilization reports or site 
inspections. Because each agency, as noted above, keeps property data 
in varying formats, we received electronic data and case file 
documents, such as property deeds. 

Although GSA and DOD data on properties conveyed should have matched 
sponsoring agency data on properties they were monitoring, there were 
several inconsistencies. For properties conveyed in fiscal years 2000 
through 2004, a significant number on GSA's and DOD's lists did not 
match with the sponsoring agencies' lists. More specifically, although 
GSA data showed that 285 properties were conveyed, 128 (45 percent) of 
these properties were not identified in data provided by the sponsoring 
agencies. It was also sometimes difficult to compare properties on 
GSA's list with those on sponsoring agencies' lists because at times 
the property name, acreage, and date conveyed differed. Nineteen 
properties in GSA data appeared to be similar to properties on the 
sponsoring agencies' lists, but because of differences in the 
properties' name, acreage, or date conveyed, we could not determine 
with certainty whether these properties were in fact the same. For 
example, a GSA property named the "Grand Forks Safeguard Waterline" was 
listed as conveyed for public health use to the North Valley Water 
District.[Footnote 14] HHS lists a similar property in North Dakota as 
being conveyed to the same grantee for public health use, but the name 
of the property and date conveyed differ. GSA property data also 
frequently lacked the name of the grantee and the sponsoring agency 
assigned compliance responsibilities. In particular, data on 77 (27 
percent) of the 285 properties reported by GSA lacked the name of the 
grantee, and data on 150 (53 percent) lacked the name of the sponsoring 
agency. In addition, data on 91 (32 percent) of the 285 properties 
reported by GSA did not include precise information on the public use 
for which they were conveyed. Specifically, the public use for these 
properties was categorized as "Other." Similarly, DOD data showed that 
179 properties were conveyed in fiscal years 2000 through 2004, yet 41 
(23 percent) of these properties were not identified in sponsoring 
agency data. It was also hard to compare DOD data to sponsoring agency 
data because the property name, acreage, and date conveyed varied, 
making it difficult to determine whether properties matched. 
Specifically, 24 properties on DOD's list appeared to be similar to 
properties on the sponsoring agencies' lists, but because of 
differences in the property name, acreage, or date conveyed, we could 
not determine with certainty whether these properties were the same. 

Because of discrepancies between GSA, DOD, and sponsoring agency 
property data, the status of several properties that appear to have 
been conveyed using the PBC program could not readily be determined. As 
mentioned, there were 128 and 41 properties that were identified in GSA 
and DOD data, respectively, that did not appear in the sponsoring 
agency data. Determining the status of these properties was beyond the 
scope of this review. Nonetheless, it was unclear whether these 
properties were actually conveyed and if so, whether the sponsoring 
agencies were monitoring their use and whether they were being used as 
agreed by the grantees. Our inability to verify that the sponsoring 
agencies were aware of these properties and were monitoring their use 
raised concerns that a basic tool for oversight--in this case, 
consistent data on the universe of PBC properties--was lacking, thereby 
making the program vulnerable to misuse. 

We also found that the data submitted by GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring 
agencies were incomplete and unreliable, as the following examples 
illustrate. 

* Data were incomplete-The data we received from the agencies had 
missing fields. For example, in a significant number of instances, GSA 
data were missing the property address; the sponsoring agency; or the 
grantee's name, address, and contact information. In some instances, 
DOD property data also lacked the grantee's name, address, and contact 
information. In addition, some of the sponsoring agencies did not 
provide compliance information for each of their properties. For 
example, MARAD and FAA did not provide us compliance information for 
any of their properties. Other agencies, such as Interior, provided 
compliance information for some but not all of their properties. 
Specifically, Interior did not provide compliance data for 6 of 23 
properties submitted by its Historic Surplus Property Program and for 
22 of 125 properties submitted by its Federal Lands to Parks Program. 

* Data lacked specificity-The data provided by the agencies lacked 
specificity. Because each agency maintains its own database of 
properties, there is wide variation--such as how detailed the 
information is--that each agency keeps on its PBC properties. For 
example, the physical description of each property conveyed ranged from 
basic information on the size (e.g., 9 acres) to very detailed 
explanations of the location and landscape of the property. In some 
instances, agencies also used abbreviations for the names of the 
property and grantee that were not easily discernible. GSA data show, 
for example, that 12 acres known as the Klein Water Treatment Plant 
were conveyed for public health use in April 2004 to a grantee listed 
as "SACWSD." 

* Data lacked unique identifiers-Only GSA and the Air Force provided 
unique identifying codes for each property.[Footnote 15] Properties 
were identified most often by name, and it was common for one or more 
properties to have the same name. DOD's list of properties, for 
example, included nine properties all named "Fort Ord." In addition, we 
found that property names were changed after the properties were 
transferred from GSA and DOD to the sponsoring agency. For example, a 
former BRAC parcel of property conveyed for parks and recreation use 
was referred to as "San Diego, CA - NTC" on DOD's list but as "Liberty 
Station Park" on the sponsoring agency's list. GSA and Air Force codes 
were not regularly used by the sponsoring agencies monitoring the 
property grantees' compliance, so it was difficult to determine whether 
a property listed as conveyed by GSA or DOD was the same property on 
the sponsoring agencies' lists. No PBC-programwide system of coding 
properties exists so that a property can be tracked for compliance 
after it transferred from GSA or DOD to the sponsoring agency. 

Data Not Regularly Maintained on Property That Reverted to the 
Government: 

GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring agencies do not regularly collect data on 
property that has reverted to the federal government. In fiscal years 
2000 through 2004, GSA and the sponsoring agencies reported, using the 
data available, that 12 properties conveyed for public uses reverted to 
the federal government. Yet we cannot reliably determine the number of 
properties that reverted during this period because GSA and DOD do not 
systematically collect data on property that comes back to the federal 
inventory, so there may be other properties that reverted. For example, 
GSA's manual for its NetReal database[Footnote 16] does not require 
that realty staff update property information in the system once a 
property has reverted. Therefore, GSA cannot identify all of the 
properties in the database that have reverted to the federal 
government. Because of this uncertainty, we requested data from each of 
the sponsoring agencies on the number of properties that reverted 
during this period. When we compared the sponsoring agencies' lists of 
reverted properties with that of GSA's list, we identified one 
property--USCG Naushon Housing--that was reported as reverted by the 
sponsoring agency but not by GSA. According to GSA officials, they were 
able to verify that the property had reverted by checking paper files 
in their regional offices. In addition, GSA's list of reverted 
properties included five properties that did not appear on the 
sponsoring agencies' lists of reverted properties. GSA data noted that 
two of these properties--a boundary line adjustment and property 
easement--were not reversions. Therefore, we cannot be sure whether 
GSA's NetReal database includes all the properties that reverted during 
this period and whether properties included in the database are 
reversions as opposed to other types of real estate transactions. In 
commenting on a draft of this report, GSA said that NetReal was 
designed to collect disposal data for case management during the 
disposal process--not to track predisposal or postconveyance 
activities. According to GSA, it is in the process of developing a new 
system called the Real Estate Disposal Inventory Network (REDI Net), 
which will replace NetReal. The REDI Net system, when completed, will 
identify and maintain an accurate accounting for all major procedural 
tasks for the disposal of excess and surplus real property. It will 
also include contact and document management elements, thereby creating 
an electronic clearinghouse for all real property disposal projects 
handled by GSA. An initial application of the system is planned to be 
released this fiscal year. 

DOD reported that it did not revert any property in fiscal years 2000 
through 2004 because, according to DOD officials, DOD is not involved 
in the PBC reversion process. Instead, DOD officials noted that it is 
the responsibility of the sponsoring agencies to monitor compliance of 
former BRAC property. DOD stated that because it is not involved in the 
reversion process, it does not keep track of reverted properties. 
However, we found that one property on the sponsoring agencies' list-- 
the Defense Distribution Depot Ogden, Building 42 property--reverted 
back to the Army instead of to GSA. Because DOD does not have a 
systematic method in place to track the number of properties that 
revert, we also can not reliably determine the number of properties 
that reverted back to DOD during this time period. 

Reliable and Consistent Data Are Important Given the Decentralized 
Nature of the Program and the Number of Agencies Involved: 

Having reliable, consistent data on PBC properties is critically 
important for multiple reasons. First, as we have described, the lack 
of reliable, consistent data makes it difficult to determine basic 
facts about the program, such as the number of properties that have 
been conveyed through it. The PBC program is decentralized and a number 
of agencies are involved in maintaining PBC property data. GSA, DOD, 
and each of the sponsoring agencies maintain separate lists of 
properties conveyed as part of the PBC program. These data are kept in 
different types of formats and locations. In addition, each agency 
keeps different pieces of data on each property. Because of these 
factors, as well as the quality of the PBC data--which were incomplete 
and unreliable--we were unable to determine, with reasonable assurance, 
the number of properties conveyed. Furthermore, the status of 
properties for which GSA and DOD data did not match sponsoring agency 
data was unclear. 

Second, complete, accurate property data could help mitigate the risk 
associated with holding property no longer needed by the federal 
government and ensure that PBC properties are being used as agreed by 
grantees, an important element of managing the program. We have 
previously reported that unneeded property presents significant 
potential risks to federal agencies not only of lost dollars, because 
such properties are costly to maintain, but also of lost opportunities, 
because the properties could be put to more cost-beneficial uses, 
exchanged for other needed property, or sold to generate revenue for 
the government. Agencies that continue to hold excess or underutilized 
property are also likely incurring significant costs, both for staff 
time spent managing the properties and for maintenance, utilities, 
security, and other building needs. Third, there are additional costs 
associated with unneeded properties that are not being used 
appropriately as can occur with PBCs. These include the deterioration 
of property and the negative image unused or misused property can 
present to the local community. Such property presents an image of 
waste and inefficiency that can erode taxpayers' confidence in 
government. Moreover, a property that is occupying a valuable location 
and is not used for other purposes, sold, or redeveloped can have a 
negative impact on the local economy. 

For these reasons, the lack of reliable, consistent data on PBC 
properties makes it difficult for GSA, the primary agency with 
responsibility for the program under the Property Act, as well as OMB 
and Congress, to effectively oversee the program. Better data would 
facilitate oversight and assessment of results and possible problems. 
We have previously reported that there is a lack of reliable and useful 
real property data for strategic decision making. In April 2002, we 
reported that the government's only central source of descriptive data 
on the makeup of the real property inventory, known then as GSA's 
worldwide inventory database and related real property reports, 
contained data that were unreliable and of limited usefulness.[Footnote 
17] 

Unreliable real property data--both at GSA and at individual real 
property holding agencies--was a reason we designated federal real 
property as a high-risk area,[Footnote 18] and the inconsistencies we 
encountered with the PBC data illustrate this problem. Partly in 
response to our high-risk reports, the President issued an executive 
order in 2004 aimed at improving federal real property asset 
management.[Footnote 19] This executive order, among other things, 
required GSA to establish and maintain a single, comprehensive and 
descriptive database of real property under the custody and control of 
all executive branch agencies, except when otherwise required for 
reasons of national security. To meet this requirement, GSA has 
undertaken an effort to revamp its worldwide inventory database, now 
referred to as the federal real property profile. We have not evaluated 
GSA's database efforts and related report. In addition to improving 
data on the federal inventory as a whole, quality data will be critical 
for addressing the wide range of problems facing the government in the 
real property area. 

Developing complete, reliable data on properties disposed of through 
the PBC program would be beneficial for assessing the program and could 
be even more important for managing the program if the PBC program were 
to be used more extensively in the future to address the government's 
surplus property problem. The government, at the time of our review, 
could not be sure whether properties disposed of through the PBC 
program are being used as agreed to by grantees, and GSA, DOD, and the 
sponsoring agencies would likely struggle to provide effective 
management and oversight of the program without better data. However, 
most of the grantees we spoke to were generally pleased with the 
results of the PBC program. And, as will be discussed later, most of 
the properties we visited appeared to be used as agreed to by the 
grantees and in ways that benefited their communities. Thus, more 
accurate information on the number of properties that have been 
conveyed and their compliance status could go a long way to showing how 
effective the PBC program is for disposing of surplus property. GSA and 
DOD officials told us that better data on PBC properties could possibly 
be developed as part of GSA's efforts to revamp its governmentwide 
database--the federal real property profile. In fact, GSA has told us 
that the federal real property profile will include the ability to 
maintain historical data on federal real property assets after disposal 
is completed. In commenting on a draft of this report, GSA said that 
the REDI Net system it is developing to replace NetReal, its current 
property management database, will also improve the data accuracy 
issues we identified, provide performance measures to gauge the 
effectiveness of GSA program operations, and improve program management 
and oversight. 

Conveyed Properties Identified Were Located Nationwide and Reflected a 
Range of Uses: 

Despite inconsistencies with GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring agency data, 
we undertook our own effort to resolve the data inconsistencies and 
were able to identify 298 PBC properties for which the agency data were 
generally in agreement. This effort provided us with reasonable 
assurance that these properties were conveyed and that the sponsoring 
agencies were aware of their monitoring responsibilities. The 298 
properties we could identify are listed in appendix II. Of these 
properties, 158 (53 percent) were former civilian agency or non-BRAC 
DOD surplus properties disposed of by GSA, and 140 (47 percent) were 
former BRAC surplus properties disposed of by DOD. GSA, DOD, and 
sponsoring agency data showed that each type of public benefit use was 
represented, but some uses were more common than others. The largest 
numbers of properties, 109, were conveyed for parks and recreation use 
while 1 property, was conveyed for self-help housing and 1 property was 
conveyed for emergency management response use. As shown in figure 3, 
properties conveyed for airport and port facility uses are more often 
former BRAC surplus real properties. In comparison, properties conveyed 
for correctional, homeless, law enforcement, wildlife conservation, and 
historic monuments uses are more often former civilian agency and non- 
BRAC DOD surplus real properties. About the same number of BRAC and 
civilian agency or non-BRAC DOD surplus real properties are conveyed 
for education, public health, and parks and recreation uses. These 
trends are related to the types of federal surplus real properties that 
become available through GSA and DOD. For example, aircraft runways 
that are well suited for public airport use appear to be available as 
surplus BRAC properties more often than as surplus civilian agency and 
non-BRAC DOD surplus real properties. 

Figure 3: Number of Properties Identified by Type of Use, Fiscal Years 
2000-2004: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

GSA, DOD, and sponsoring agency data showed that the properties we 
identified were conveyed for PBC use throughout many of the 50 states, 
as well as Guam and Puerto Rico. As figure 4 shows, California had the 
largest number of conveyed properties, 45, and Delaware, Iowa, 
Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and 
Puerto Rico each had one conveyed property. In fiscal years 2000 
through 2004, no property was conveyed in Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, 
Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming or in the District of 
Columbia. 

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

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Inconsistent Compliance Monitoring Was Common, although Most Case Study 
Properties Were Used as Agreed to by the Grantee: 

Our review showed that the sponsoring agencies generally did not follow 
policies and procedures they established, or those outlined in the 
deed, for ensuring that conveyed properties were used as intended by 
grantees. In our case study of 58 properties, we were able to evaluate 
compliance practices for 41 properties. Eighty-eight percent, or 36 of 
41, did not receive the compliance monitoring specified in agency 
policies or the property deed. Inconsistent compliance monitoring is a 
concern because it results in a lack of assurance that properties are 
being used as agreed to by grantees and that the program's overall 
objectives are being met. Despite these issues, most of the properties 
that we visited were being used as agreed to by the grantee and 
appeared to be producing benefits. In our case study review, we found 
that GSA and the sponsoring agencies used a mix of self-reporting by 
grantees and site inspections to ensure that properties were being used 
as agreed to by grantees, although the frequency of these actions 
varied. We also noted that the agencies' policies on property 
reversions to the federal government varied. As a result, the PBC 
program seems unnecessarily complex, with a wide range of compliance 
approaches and reversion policies and procedures being administered 
separately by several agencies, depending on the type of public benefit 
use. The complex nature of the federal real property environment was an 
underlying cause of problems that led to our designation of this area 
as high-risk in 2003, and the wide variation among agencies with regard 
to the PBC program seems to illustrate this condition. 

Inconsistent Compliance Monitoring Was Common: 

We could evaluate compliance monitoring for 41 of 58 properties we 
selected for detailed review. Eighty-eight percent (36 of 41) of the 
properties where we could evaluate compliance practices did not receive 
the compliance monitoring that was specified in agency policies or 
property deeds. In order to determine whether the agencies were 
performing compliance monitoring and properties were being used as 
agreed to by the grantees, we selected 58 properties for case study 
review that were conveyed during the 15-fiscal-year period from 1990 
through 2004. We chose properties from a 15-year period (i.e., versus 5-
year period) because the longer time frame would increase the 
likelihood that most properties would have an established compliance 
history. The 58 properties were chosen because they represented a mix 
of public uses, locations, stages of development (e.g., in planning 
versus completed), and compliance methods and histories. A list of the 
58 properties we selected as case studies can be found in appendix III, 
and more information on our methodology for selecting properties can be 
found in appendix I. 

For 41 of the 58 properties we selected for case study review, we were 
able to evaluate whether the agencies performed compliance monitoring 
consistent with the property deeds and the agencies' compliance 
policies. We were unable to evaluate compliance oversight for 17 
properties we selected because 8 recently conveyed properties, as 
expected, did not yet have a compliance history;[Footnote 20] 4 
properties had already reverted to the federal government;[Footnote 21] 
and we were unable to obtain compliance information from the agencies 
for 5 properties.[Footnote 22] As shown in table 4, 36 of the 41 
properties (88 percent) where we could evaluate compliance practices 
received inconsistent compliance oversight-that is, they did not 
receive the compliance monitoring spelled out in the agencies' policies 
and property deeds. 

Table 3: Consistency of Compliance Oversight Performed for Case Study 
Properties in Accordance with Requirements in Agencies' Policies and 
Property Deeds: 

Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Federal Lands to Parks Program[A]: 8; 
Historic Surplus Property Program[A]: 2; 
Education: 10; 
GSA: 7; 
HHS: 8; 
HUD: 1; 
Total: 36. 

Compliance oversight: Consistent; 
Federal Lands to Parks Program[A]: 2; 
Historic Surplus Property Program[A]: 0; 
Education: 3; 
GSA: 0; 
HHS: 0; 
HUD: 0; 
Total: 5. 

Compliance oversight: Number of properties evaluated; 
Federal Lands to Parks Program[A]: 10; 
Historic Surplus Property Program[A]: 2; 
Education: 13; 
GSA: 7; 
HHS: 8; 
HUD: 1; 
Total: 41. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] This program is part of the Department of the Interior. 

Note: This table includes only the 41 properties for which we could 
evaluate the consistency of compliance oversight and the sponsoring 
agencies responsible for performing this oversight. We were unable to 
evaluate the consistency of compliance oversight for 17 properties we 
selected for case study review because 8 recently conveyed properties 
did not yet have a compliance history, 4 properties had already 
reverted back to the federal government, and we were unable to obtain 
compliance information from the agencies for 5 properties. 

[End of table] 

Specifically, compliance records provided to us by GSA and the 
sponsoring agencies indicated that a number of grantees did not 
consistently submit utilization reports as specified in their property 
deeds and, in some cases, the agencies did not respond to the grantees' 
failure to report in a timely manner. In other cases, the agencies did 
not conduct site inspections as frequently as required by their 
compliance policies. For example, we found that: 

* for 4 properties, grantees did not consistently provide utilization 
reports as required by their deeds, 

* for 16 properties, agencies did not consistently conduct site 
inspections as required by their policies, and: 

* for 16 properties, grantees did not consistently provide utilization 
reports as required by their deeds and agencies did not consistently 
conduct site inspections as required by their policies. 

* Agencies' compliance policies generally require that agencies' PBC 
program staff send a letter of request to the grantee if the grantee 
fails to provide periodic utilization reports. The letter reminds the 
grantee of the requirement to submit reports as specified in its deed 
and states the consequences of not reporting. But grantees for 20 of 
the 41 properties we evaluated did not consistently provide utilization 
reports. In at least one case, the compliance record provided by the 
sponsoring agency did not indicate that the agency had sent a letter of 
request, as the following illustrates. 

* The Olympia Federal Building was conveyed to the State of Washington 
as a historic monument PBC in 1998. Yet since that time, according to 
the building managers we interviewed, the state filed only one 
utilization report in 2000 and has never received any notice or 
requests from Historic Surplus Property Program staff for the other 
reports even though biennial reports are required in the deed. Historic 
Surplus Property Program compliance records did not include the one 
utilization report purportedly filed by the state.[Footnote 23] 

In other instances, sponsoring agencies took a number of years to 
respond to missing utilization reports, as the following examples 
illustrate. 

* The City of Tacoma filed consecutive annual utilization reports from 
1991 to 1997 for the Portion Howard A. Hanson Dam King County, 
Washington property as required in the deed. However, according to HHS 
documents, the agency did not receive annual utilization reports from 
the grantee for 1998, 1999, and 2000 and sent a letter in May 2000 
demanding reports for all 3 years within 30 days, which the grantee 
provided. Although the property did not appear to be used for 
unintended purposes during the period of nonreporting, according to 
agency guidance, the agency should have responded in a more timely 
manner when the grantee first failed to file the 1998 report. 

* The City of Duncanville, Texas, was conveyed more than 3 acres of the 
former Naval Air Station, Dallas Duncanville Housing Site, for parks 
and recreation use in November 1998, but compliance records provided to 
us by staff from the Federal Lands to Parks Program indicated that the 
city did not file a utilization report until December 2004. According 
to the deed, the grantee was to submit biennial utilization reports 
beginning from the date of conveyance. 

Some agencies' compliance policies have given discretion to agencies' 
PBC program managers to waive grantee reporting requirements. For 
example, HHS's and Education's compliance policies specifically state 
that the agencies have discretion to waive a grantee's compliance 
requirement to submit utilization reports. In commenting on a draft of 
this report, HHS noted that waivers are rare and given only after a 
prior history of full compliance by the grantee. The other agencies' 
compliance policies do not specifically state that agencies or their 
staff have this discretion. However, the discretion is implied because 
the GSA regulations implementing the PBC program have given the 
agencies the flexibility to determine what compliance method will be 
used and how often compliance monitoring must be performed. Compliance 
records provided by the agencies indicated that the grantee for only 1 
of the 41 properties we evaluated had been released from utilization 
reporting requirements.[Footnote 24] 

Site inspections were also performed inconsistently for 16 of the 41 
properties we evaluated. As noted in table 3, site inspections are 
required by seven of the sponsoring agencies responsible for compliance 
monitoring. Agency policies for HHS, GSA, and Interior's Federal Lands 
to Parks Program and Historic Surplus Property Program state that PBC 
program officials are required to perform site inspections for each of 
their properties once every 5 years, yet compliance records provided by 
these agencies showed that inspections did not always occur as often as 
required. For example, GSA policies require that GSA conduct site 
inspections once every 5 years. However, according to the documents GSA 
provided us, the agency has conducted only one site inspection of the 
former U.S. Post Office and Courthouse property in Kansas City, Kansas, 
since this property was conveyed in 1995 for correctional use. 
Similarly, HHS's policies and procedures require site inspections at 
least once every 5 years. However, according to the documents HHS 
provided us, the agency has conducted only one site inspection at the 
Midway NIKE Housing Site Kent, Washington property that was conveyed in 
1994 for transitional housing. The sole documented site inspection 
occurred before the conveyance, when this property was still being 
leased by the grantee. 

Although some agencies' compliance policies allow program staff 
flexibility with respect to the frequency of site inspections, there 
was no indication in the compliance records for any of the 41 
properties we evaluated that site inspection requirements had been 
waived. For example, compliance records for the Little Cottonwood Park 
property did not include documentation that the agency no longer found 
it necessary to conduct site inspections according to the 5 year 
schedule in the Federal Lands to Parks Program's compliance policy, 
even though the last documented site inspection was more than 5 years 
ago. 

GSA is the only sponsoring agency that relies solely on site 
inspections for compliance monitoring. According to GSA's compliance 
policy, site inspections are to be performed for a property once every 
5 years. Since the agency is a central management agency of the federal 
government and not a "program" agency like the other sponsoring 
agencies, GSA officials said that site inspections instead of self- 
reporting are a more effective way for GSA to monitor compliance and 
ensure that properties are used as agreed to by grantees. Nonetheless, 
compliance records provided by GSA indicated that none of the seven 
properties that GSA was responsible for monitoring received site 
inspections according to the time frame outlined in the agency's 
compliance policies. For example, the Riverside Regional Jail Authority 
said it was not aware of any site inspections nor had it had any 
contact with GSA since a portion of the Former Petersburg Correctional 
Institute property was conveyed to it in 1992. 

In total, 36 of the 41 properties, or 88 percent, where we could 
evaluate compliance practices did not receive the monitoring specified 
in agency policies or the property deed. As a result, we have concerns 
that compliance monitoring of PBC properties is not being performed 
consistently under each agency's specified policies or property deeds, 
and as such PBC properties could be vulnerable to uses other than those 
that were agreed to by the grantee. 

Despite Inconsistent Compliance Monitoring, Most Case Study Properties 
Were Used as Agreed to by the Grantee: 

Despite concerns and challenges with respect to compliance monitoring 
and program management, 51 of the 58 properties we visited appeared to 
be used as agreed to by the grantee under the terms of the conveyance 
and 7 were not. Of the 7 properties, 4 had reverted to the federal 
government, 2 had not been fully developed, and 1 was not being used as 
agreed to by the grantee in the deed. Most of the properties we visited 
were being used for a variety of purposes, including parks and 
recreational facilities, educational institutions, and homeless 
services. Others, though fewer, were being used to support historic 
monuments, public health, correctional institutions, lands for wildlife 
conservation, public airports, and port facilities. Examples of the 
kinds of public uses we observed among the 58 properties follow. A full 
description of each of the 58 properties can be found in appendix IV. 

Parks and Recreation Use: 

* Several large tracts of land from the former Naval Air Warfare Center 
in Warminster, Pennsylvania, have been developed to serve local parks 
and recreation needs. Both Warminster and Northampton Townships have 
developed portions of the former air base into community parks with 
athletic fields, walking trails, and pavilions. 

* In Seattle, hangars and other buildings from the former Naval Station 
Puget Sound at Sand Point have been adapted for various purposes such 
as community theater, indoor soccer, and in-line hockey, while the 
surrounding lands have been developed as a community garden, dog park, 
playground, and athletic field. 

* A portion of land once part of the former Defense Depot - Ogden, 
Utah, was conveyed to the City of Ogden and leased to the Ogden Nature 
Center for a nature conservation area that provides a sanctuary for 
local wildlife and birds of prey. Annually, approximately 35,000 
visitors take advantage of the Nature Center's hiking trails, nature 
education programs, and summer camps. 

Education Use: 

* Properties conveyed for education purposes have been developed by 
public and private educational institutions for a range of 
instructional and supporting functions. For example, the former 
Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center in Waltham, Massachusetts, was 
divided into three conveyances: two for education and one for a public 
park. The two education grantees were Bentley College, a private higher 
education institution, and the New Jewish High School,[Footnote 25] a 
private secondary school. Bentley College is currently developing the 
property for additional student housing, while the New Jewish High 
School has built and occupied two new buildings that contain 
classrooms, a cafeteria, a gym, and a library. 

* Buildings from the former Defense Depot - Ogden, Utah, were conveyed 
to a local public school system and a technical college. The local 
school system is using the building as warehouse space for school 
supplies, while the technical college is using the space to house 
several instructional programs, including truck and forklift 
operations, materials handling, and plumbing. 

* The University of Washington is using buildings conveyed from the 
former Naval Station Puget Sound at Sand Point for a variety of 
purposes, including administrative and departmental offices, art 
studios, supply warehouses, and storage for the university's record and 
library system. 

Homeless and Public Health Use: 

* Existing housing units on two former NIKE missile sites in Topsfield, 
Massachusetts, and Kent, Washington, were adapted for use as 
transitional housing for homeless individuals and for a residential 
treatment program for homeless substance abusers. In addition, part of 
Homestead Air Force Base was used to construct new transitional housing 
for homeless individuals. 

* Two buildings that were part of the former Valley Forge General 
Hospital in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, were renovated and adapted to 
provide mental health services and transitional housing for the 
homeless. 

* A 4-mile long former railroad right-of-way leading to the Howard A. 
Hanson Dam in King County, Washington, was conveyed to the City of 
Tacoma to provide access to its drinking water intake that uses water 
from the dam. Recently, a new pipeline has been constructed on the 
property to supply additional water to the City's water system. 

Correctional Use: 

* The Virginia Department of Corrections has used conveyed lands that 
were part of the Former Petersburg Correctional Institute near 
Petersburg, Virginia, to grow grain crops in support of its prison farm 
system. The Department of Corrections subsequently transferred a 
portion of the land it had received to the Riverside Regional Jail 
Authority, a partnership of seven local governments, for a regional 
jail. A new correctional facility has been built on that property that 
can accommodate up to 1,300 male, female, and juvenile offenders. 

Historic Monument Use: 

* The Commanding Officer's Quarters, a 19TH century home on the grounds 
of the former Watertown Arsenal in Massachusetts, was conveyed to the 
Town of Watertown for historic monument use. The town has renovated the 
structure, restored its grounds, and rents out the facility for public 
and private receptions and meetings. 

* The former Olympia Federal Building in Washington was conveyed to the 
state of Washington, which renovated the building to state historic 
preservation standards and adapted it for the Secretary of State's 
Corporations Division. The division registers business-related entities 
in the state, including domestic and foreign corporations, limited 
partnerships, limited liability partnerships, and limited liability 
companies. 

Wildlife Conservation Use: 

* Surplus lands conveyed to the state of Kansas have been incorporated 
into the state's extensive Tuttle Lake conservation area, which offers 
fishing, boating, camping, picnicking, and outdoor sports such as 
hunting. The area also provides food and shelter for migratory shore 
birds and waterfowl. 

As indicated earlier, we found that seven of the properties we selected 
as case studies were not being used as agreed to by grantees or had 
reverted to the federal government. Of the seven properties, four had 
reverted to the federal government, two had not been fully developed, 
and one was not being used as agreed to by the grantee in the deed. The 
one property not being used as agreed to by the grantee--the 20 Units 
King's Branch Housing property--was conveyed for use as short-term 
housing for individuals with physical disabilities. Instead of being 
used for short-term housing, the property was being used to house 
individuals and their families permanently. HHS program management 
officials conducted two site visits to the property in 1999 and 2003. 
The 2003 site inspection found the property to be in violation of deed 
and program requirements. In addition to using the property for 
purposes other than what was agreed to in the deed, the grantee did not 
provide all of the utilization reports that the deed required. After 
numerous attempts to correct the grantee's noncompliance, HHS suggested 
that the grantee purchase the property at fair market value, through a 
process known as abrogation, in order to release the grantee from the 
deed requirements. Until the abrogation is complete, HHS is assessing 
monthly payments for noncompliance from the grantee. 

Grantees for the two properties that were not fully developed--the 
Valley Forge General Hospital property known as Liberty House and the 
Defense General Supply Center Falling Creek Reservoir property--had 
experienced problems complying with the development time lines and 
approved programs of use for the properties. Although both grantees had 
compliance problems, neither HHS nor Federal Lands to Parks Program 
officials believed that the grantees' noncompliance had risen to a 
level that required purchase at fair market-value price (abrogation), 
transfer, or reversion. 

* In the case of the Valley Forge General Hospital property known as 
Liberty House, the grantee has renovated two of three buildings on the 
property and has operated a facility that serves the needs of mentally 
ill homeless individuals for more than 9 years. The grantee is 
considered noncompliant because, thus far, it has not restored a 
farmhouse that was originally intended for use as a small group home. 
The grantee has not been able to secure funding for the renovation, so 
the building remains boarded up and unused at the front of the 
property. HHS, for this reason, has determined that the grantee is in 
violation of the property's deed requirements. 

* The Defense General Supply Center Falling Creek Reservoir property 
was conveyed for parks and recreation use, but for lack of funding, the 
grantee has failed to fully develop the property according to the 
original program of use. The property--a narrow parcel of land that 
consists of a small ravine and water reservoir--is part of a much 
larger plan for a linear park system. Although the grantee has 
constructed a footpath through the property since conveyance, the 
grantee has not made any other improvements to the land because it has 
focused its efforts on acquiring park lands adjacent to the parcel 
conveyed by the federal government. Program officials from the Federal 
Lands to Parks Program said that they have not taken action for the 
property to revert since the grantee intends to develop the property as 
part of its comprehensive development plan for the linear park. 

Four of the properties we selected as case studies had fully or 
partially reverted to the federal government. These included the NIKE 
Site PH-02 property; the Defense Distribution Depot Ogden, Building 42 
property; the Milford Lake property; and the Former Petersburg 
Correctional Institute (portion) property. All four properties were 
voluntarily reverted by the grantees; three were reverted because of 
the grantees' inability to implement or continue the program of use 
stated in the deed, while part of the fourth property--the Former 
Petersburg Correctional Institute (portion) property--was voluntarily 
reverted by the grantee at the request of the federal government. 
Specifically: 

* The Milford Lake forestry research property in Kansas was voluntarily 
reverted by the grantee when it did not fully utilize the property. 
Specifically, three of the parcels of land were not being used or were 
leased to a neighboring farmer to cut hay. Another parcel had been used 
for forestry research, but the trees planted there had not survived. 

* The NIKE PH-02 property a former missile site in Bristol, 
Pennsylvania, was conveyed to Bristol Township in 1981 for parks and 
recreation use. The township planned to build athletic fields but was 
never able to obtain funding for development, so the property was 
voluntarily reverted back to the federal government and was sold at 
auction to a private individual. 

* The grantee of the Defense Distribution Depot Ogden, Building 42 
property in Ogden, Utah, decided to voluntarily revert the property 
when, faced with unanticipated building infrastructure costs, it 
realized that it could not afford to pay for with an environmental 
assessment required by HHS and property maintenance costs at the same 
time. In addition, the grantee had difficulty developing community 
support for the project. 

* The Virginia Department of Corrections was conveyed 479 acres, 
referred to as the Former Petersburg Correctional Institute (portion) 
property, for use as a grain crops farm. The land is managed by the 
Department of Corrections and worked by inmates from Southampton 
Prison. The grain crops are harvested and fed to farm animals that 
produce milk and meat to feed the prison population in the state. A 
portion of the land was voluntarily reverted at the request of the 
federal government because of homeland security needs. 

As noted above, the reversion of properties is not always due to 
noncompliance with deed requirements or misuse by grantees, but can be 
the result of the grantee's inability to implement the approved program 
of use in a timely fashion. This condition can be caused by 
insufficient financial resources resulting from unanticipated and 
insurmountable costs or the grantees's inability to obtain funding. For 
example, University of Washington officials told us that they are 
considering returning Building 9 of the former Naval Station Puget 
Sound property because of the estimated costs and scope of work 
required to meet environmental and historic preservation requirements. 
Furthermore, reversion can occur if the federal government wants a 
property back for its own use, as was the case for the reversion of a 
segment of the Former Petersburg Correctional Institute (portion) 
property because of homeland security needs. 

Agencies Used a Mix of Self-Reporting by Grantees and Site Inspections 
to Ensure Compliance, although Frequency Varied: 

GSA and the sponsoring agencies used a mix of self-reporting by 
grantees and site inspections to ensure that properties were being used 
as agreed to by grantees, although the frequency of these actions 
varied. Compliance oversight of public benefit conveyances is carried 
out through two mechanisms: utilization reports and site inspections. 
Utilization reports are submitted by grantees according to terms 
specified in the deeds, while agency staff conduct site inspections 
according to the agency's compliance policies and procedures. 
Compliance monitoring by GSA and the sponsoring agencies varies, both 
in terms of what a particular agency's policies and procedures require 
and the agency's actual practice. For example, as table 3 shows, HHS, 
Education, HUD, and Interior (Federal Lands to Parks Program and 
Historic Surplus Property Program) have compliance policies that 
require grantees to submit annual or biennial utilization reports, 
while GSA, FAA, and MARAD do not require these reports from grantees. 
Similarly, most agencies' compliance policies required that agency 
officials conduct site inspections on a periodic basis ranging from 
quarterly to once every 5 years. MARAD's compliance policies do not 
specify how frequently site inspections should be performed and instead 
leave discretion to agency officials to determine when site inspections 
are necessary. 

Table 4: Compliance Oversight Methods Stated in Agencies' Policies and 
Procedures for Properties Conveyed, Fiscal Years 1990-2004: 

Agency: Utilization report; 
Federal Lands to Parks Program[A]: Biennial; 
Historic Surplus Property Program[A]: Biennial; 
Education: Annual or biennial; 
GSA: Not required; 
HHS: Annual; 
HUD: Quarterly to annually; 
FAA: At the discretion of FAA; 
MARAD: Annual, as required by deeds. 

Agency: Site inspection; 
Federal Lands to Parks Program[A]: Biennial until use is implemented; 
intervals not to exceed 5 years thereafter[B]; 
Historic Surplus Property Program[A]: Biennial until use is 
implemented; intervals not to exceed 5 years thereafter; 
Education: Within first 12 months; as needed thereafter; 
GSA: Every 5 years; 
HHS: Within first 12 months,; at 1-5 year intervals thereafter; 
HUD: Quarterly for first 48 months; annually thereafter; 
FAA: Once every 4 years; 
MARAD: None specified. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] This program is part of the Department of the Interior. 

[B] According to a Federal Lands to Parks Program official, the policy 
requiring biennial site inspections until implementation and at 
intervals not to exceed 5 years thereafter was changed in 2004 to at 
least a 5-year interval. 

[End of table] 

The substance of the agencies' compliance policies also varied, ranging 
from very detailed criteria and guidance for performing compliance 
oversight to basic descriptions of the agencies' compliance 
responsibilities. Examples of the variation in agencies' compliance 
policies follow. 

* Compliance policies provided by GSA, Education, HHS, and the Federal 
Lands to Parks Program contained detailed criteria and guidance on how 
agency staff should conduct compliance monitoring for the PBC 
properties in their inventories. The handbooks used by Education and 
HHS include separate chapters on compliance and remedial actions, 
abrogation, reversions, utilization reporting, and site inspections. 
The chapters on compliance and remedial actions offer program staff 
detailed guidance for investigating and reporting various compliance 
issues, such as failure to utilize the property, unauthorized sale of 
the property, or failure to provide utilization reports to the agency. 
The chapters devoted to site inspections provide program staff with 
guidance on how to review and file reports and perform site 
inspections. Similarly, GSA's compliance manual, known as the Executive 
Order Surveys and Compliance Inspections Handbook, includes information 
on how site inspections should be performed by GSA staff for wildlife 
conservation and correctional use PBCs. The manual provides a 
compliance report format for both uses as well as instructions on how 
frequently site inspections should be performed and how inspection 
paperwork should be processed. According to GSA officials, GSA is in 
the process of updating the manual[Footnote 26] to include information 
and guidance on performing compliance oversight for emergency 
management response and law enforcement public uses, which did not 
exist when the manual was originally created in 1996. 

* The Historic Surplus Property Program relies on a memorandum 
developed by Interior to guide its compliance monitoring. The 1983 
memorandum includes broad compliance criteria for both historic 
monument and parks and recreation PBCs and provides suggests time 
frames for responding to grantee compliance issues. According to 
Historic Surplus Property Program officials, although the 1983 
memorandum requires biennial site inspections until a property's use is 
implemented and inspections are not to exceed every 5 years thereafter, 
in practice site inspections are performed at the discretion of the 
Historic Surplus Property Program. 

* HUD has not established separate policies and procedures for 
compliance oversight of self-help housing conveyances; instead, 
compliance responsibilities are described in the property application 
and deed. In order for a property to be conveyed for self-help housing 
use, the property application and deed state that the local government 
where the property is located must agree to certain oversight 
responsibilities and execute an oversight agreement. According to HUD 
officials, this arrangement was made under authorities granted by the 
Property Act and the Housing and Urban Development Act. Only one 
property has been conveyed for self-help housing thus far. 

* MARAD relies on its regulations and property deeds as guidance for 
monitoring port facility properties.[Footnote 27] These documents 
lacked criteria for identifying noncompliant properties and guidance 
for agency staff on how to address noncompliance. For example, MARAD 
provided us with rules that govern the conveyance of surplus port 
properties and property deeds for some of the properties it oversees. 
Although the rules broadly outlined the PBC process for surplus port 
properties, and the deeds contained specific covenants and requirements 
for the grantee, none of the documents MARAD provided offered guidance 
for agency program managers on how they should conduct compliance 
monitoring activities or how they should respond to compliance 
breaches. 

Agencies' Reversion Policies Varied: 

We also found that the agencies' policies on reversions of property to 
the federal government varied. According to PBC program regulations 
issued by GSA, it is the responsibility of the sponsoring agency to 
ensure that grantees correct noncompliance and to take whatever action 
is necessary for a property to revert to the federal government if such 
action is warranted. According to sponsoring agency officials, 
reversion is a remedy of last resort, and agencies try to help grantees 
find remedies for noncompliance before taking steps to revert a 
property. Often the remedies involve alternatives to reversion, such as 
providing grantees with additional technical assistance, amending the 
program of use, reconveying the property to other eligible parties, 
abrogation (in which the grantee purchases the property and is released 
from the terms of the deed), or land swaps. 

GSA and the sponsoring agencies have developed criteria for determining 
when a reversion should be required and processes for bringing property 
back to the federal government. This information is located in both 
property deeds and agencies' policies and procedures. According to GSA 
and the sponsoring agencies, all deeds for properties conveyed using 
the program include a reversion clause, which protects the government's 
interests in the property. These clauses state, in general, that the 
federal government has the right to reversion if the grantee fails to 
comply with deed restrictions or to correct noncompliance. In addition 
to the standard reversion clause, some agencies include information 
about how much time the grantee has to correct noncompliance and what 
procedure the sponsoring agency will follow to implement the reversion. 

Education, HHS, GSA, FAA, and Interior (Federal Lands to Park Program 
and Historic Surplus Property Program) have also developed separate 
policies and procedures, some of which include criteria for determining 
when a reversion should occur and processes for bringing the property 
back to the federal government Two agencies--HUD and MARAD--have not 
developed such policies and procedures. We found that the substance of 
the agencies' reversion policies, like that of their compliance 
policies, varied. Examples of agency reversion policies follow. 

* The Federal Lands to Park Program's Surplus Property Handbook 
provides some information on how to determine when a property is 
noncompliant and when remedial action is necessary. It includes the 
steps in the reversion process, identifies acceptable alternatives for 
reversion, and assigns the grantee responsibility for all costs 
associated with the reversion. 

* GSA's two handbooks, the Excess and Surplus Real Property Handbook 
and Executive Order Surveys and Compliance Inspections Handbook, 
provide little guidance on how the reversion process works for 
properties for which GSA has compliance monitoring responsibilities. 
The Excess and Surplus Real Property Handbook provides realty staff 
with limited guidance on the documentation required before the 
reversion begins, such as title and environmental information. The 
Executive Order Surveys and Compliance Inspections Handbook states that 
if a property is no longer used for its intended purpose or if it is 
needed for national defense purposes, title shall revert to the United 
States. The handbook also notes that if noncompliance is found after a 
site inspection, a reversionary deed will be requested. No other 
information on when a reversion should occur or what processes should 
be used is included in these two handbooks. 

* FAA's Airports Compliance Handbook states that for a reversion to 
occur, FAA must find a grantee "in default under the covenants of the 
instrument of conveyance." The handbook provides FAA officials with 
general procedures for reversions, such as how to determine when a 
grantee is in default and what steps to take to notify grantees of the 
government's intent. Voluntary reversions of property are preferred, 
and transferring property to another grantee is considered a suitable 
alternative to reversion. The handbook also provides FAA officials with 
sample text for a notice of reversion, an instrument to reconvey the 
property or to release the deed, and guidance on what is required for a 
reversion, including a physical inspection of the property and a sign 
indicating the property is owned by the federal government. 

The aforementioned differences in the compliance monitoring approaches 
used by GSA and the sponsoring agencies, and in their reversion 
policies and procedures, are due mostly to the decentralized nature of 
the PBC program and to flexibility in GSA's regulations implementing 
the PBC laws. These regulations make the sponsoring agencies 
responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance, but do not specify 
how the agencies are to carry out these responsibilities. Consistent 
with the law, GSA regulations implementing the PBC program allow each 
agency to determine the method of compliance monitoring to use and the 
frequency of these activities. Also consistent with the law, GSA's 
implementing regulations allow each agency to determine when a 
noncompliant property should be reverted to the federal government. 
This approach has afforded a great deal of flexibility to agencies 
carrying out compliance monitoring and exercising their rights of 
reversion. However, this approach has had the negative effect of making 
the PBC program seem unnecessarily complex, with a wide range of 
inconsistent agency policies and practices being administered 
separately by several agencies, depending on the type of public benefit 
use. 

During our review, we found no compelling rationale for the differences 
in compliance monitoring approaches and reversion policies and 
practices used by GSA and sponsoring agencies. Essentially, the rigor 
with which each agency carries out these duties appears to be based 
mostly on preference. For example, GSA does not require utilization 
reports for the different types of properties it monitors because, as 
GSA officials indicated, the agency believes that site inspections are 
more reliable. Most sponsoring agencies, on the other hand, rely 
heavily on utilization reports. The complex nature of the federal real 
property environment was an underlying cause of problems that led to 
our designation of this area as high risk in 2003, and the wide 
variation among agencies with regard to the PBC program seems to 
illustrate this condition. Greater uniformity in compliance monitoring 
and exercising the right of reversion would simplify the program for 
agencies and potential grantees and enable better oversight of the 
program by GSA and other stakeholders, such as OMB and Congress. 

Challenges Managing and Participating in the PBC Program Were Evident: 

Sponsoring agencies cited the need to allocate sufficient resources to 
manage the program and perform compliance monitoring as a primary 
challenge. In addition, according to agency officials, PBC program 
management has been made more difficult because of the need to adhere 
to complex federal real property laws, such as those related to 
military base closures and homeless assistance. We also found that for 
a number of reasons GSA and the sponsoring agencies often seek 
alternatives to reversion when noncompliance is found, and some 
sponsoring agency officials were concerned that the tendency of GSA to 
avoid reversion takes away a main compliance enforcement mechanism. GSA 
officials said that the agency seeks resolutions of compliance issues 
instead of reversions because of the overall risk and financial burden 
these properties could pose to the federal government. Most grantees 
reported being pleased with the program, although they noted that 
information about the program's operations and the condition of 
properties could be improved. 

Agencies Cited Insufficient Resources to Manage the Program as a 
Challenge: 

Some agency officials identified the need to allocate sufficient 
resources to manage the program as the primary challenge they face in 
fulfilling their compliance monitoring and other PBC responsibilities. 
According to sponsoring agency officials, the PBC program is not 
central to most agencies' missions, and therefore agency officials 
often allot limited resources to manage their portfolio of PBC 
properties. For example, PBC staff at GSA and the sponsoring agencies 
often perform other work or manage other mission programs in addition 
to the PBC program. Specifically, PBC regional staff at the Historic 
Surplus Property Program are also responsible for managing the National 
Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act program, the Historic America 
Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record, and the National 
Historic Landmarks program. Similarly, MARAD staff in the Office of 
Ports and Domestic Shipping are responsible for managing the PBC 
program as well as more than seven other programs, including Port 
Finance and Port and Cargo Security. Although it may be reasonable for 
staff in agencies with fewer properties to have split responsibilities, 
limited staffing resources was a common concern among agencies. 

Neither GSA nor any of the sponsoring agencies have appropriations 
exclusively dedicated to the management of the PBC program; instead, 
the program is included in funding for other mission programs or 
activities. For example, the Federal Lands to Parks PBC program is 
funded through the National Park Service's "Recreations" budget line 
item, which supports multiple recreational programs and activities. 
Similarly, the Historic Surplus Property's PBC program is included in 
the national and regional office budgets for several of the National 
Register of Historic Places programs previously mentioned. According to 
the Education PBC staff, their program's budget is funded with 
discretionary moneys from the General Administration and Management 
function. In general, decisions about the level of resources devoted to 
the PBC program are made by agency officials as they determine the 
priorities of their agency within its appropriation. 

Staff responsible for administering the PBC program at several 
sponsoring agencies with large PBC portfolios cited limited staffing 
and budgetary resources as the reasons behind their reported 
difficulties in performing compliance monitoring and other PBC 
responsibilities. Although we did not assess agencies' use of resources 
with regard to the PBC program, multiple officials at several agencies 
expressed concerns in this area, as the following examples illustrate. 

* Federal Lands to Parks Program officials said that restricted program 
resources affect their ability to do effective outreach and provide 
accurate information about the PBC program and opportunities to 
prospective applicants. They said having limited staff and operating 
resources often made it difficult to participate in the BRAC process to 
ensure that interested parties are informed about the PBC program, that 
appropriate natural and cultural resources have been identified and 
considered for protection through the program, and that PBC requests 
are considered by the military and local redevelopment authorities. 
Furthermore, according to these officials, limited program resources 
caused site inspection guidelines to be revised from a requirement of 
inspecting not-yet-implemented programs every 2 years and at 5-year 
intervals thereafter in favor of "at least a 5-year interval" between 
inspections. 

* Historic Surplus Property Program officials said that a lack of 
allotted funds for the PBC program and escalating monitoring 
responsibilities as more properties are conveyed have caused a drain on 
the administration of the PBC program as well as on the funding for the 
historic preservation program the office is required to manage. 

* Education officials said that significant increases in administrative 
costs of carrying out PBC responsibilities, including real estate 
appraisals, environmental studies, purchase of private title searches, 
recording of deeds and reversions, and reimbursement of travel expenses 
incurred during site inspections and enforcement, have been a challenge 
for the agency. 

We found that several agencies have sought other ways of meeting their 
PBC program administration and compliance monitoring responsibilities. 
Program managers, for example, from the Federal Lands to Parks Program 
noted that budget and staffing reductions to the PBC program made 
during a 1993 Interior reorganization led to a shift of policy from 
performing routine compliance site inspections to resolving already 
identified compliance problems. Faced with similarly limited staff and 
budgetary resources and the additional responsibility of managing the 
self-help housing PBCs, HUD decided to contract out its oversight 
responsibilities for self-help housing properties to the local 
government in which the property was located. For example, in the deed 
for the South Weymouth, MA - NAS property known as Squantum Gardens and 
Naval Terrace, HUD included an oversight agreement that requires the 
City of Quincy, as the local government, to collect and review 
quarterly utilization reports, conduct site visits, and report the 
property's compliance status to HUD. Once the property has been fully 
developed, the agreement reduces the frequency with which the City of 
Quincy must collect utilization reports and conduct site inspections 
from quarterly to once every year. According to property compliance 
records for one property we visited--the Former Petersburg Correctional 
Institute property conveyed to the Riverside Regional Jail Authority-- 
GSA contracted with a private company to perform site inspections. GSA 
officials said that internal staffing needs prevented agency staff from 
inspecting the site themselves. 

Complex Landscape of Federal Real Property Laws Is Another Challenge 
Agencies Cited: 

PBC program management has also been made more difficult because of 
myriad laws that affect the program and the addition of new public 
uses, according to agency officials at Education, HHS, and the Federal 
Lands to Parks Program within Interior, which have responsibility for 
some of the largest PBC portfolios. Since the 1949 Property Act, a 
number of federal laws have amended the program to create new 
authorities and have increased the complexity of the conveyance 
process. For example, new types of public uses have been created for 
correctional,[Footnote 28] homeless,[Footnote 29] port 
facilities,[Footnote 30] law enforcement,[Footnote 31] emergency 
management response,[Footnote 32] and self-help housing.[Footnote 33] 
The McKinney-Vento Act, as amended, and BRAC also altered the PBC 
process by adding new procedural requirements for homeless use 
consideration and for the disposal of surplus military property. In 
addition, other federal laws such as the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969[Footnote 34] (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation 
Act of 1966[Footnote 35] (NHPA) have affected the PBC process. 

In the past, we reported that the complex legal and budgetary 
environment in which real property managers operate has a significant 
impact on real property decisionmaking.[Footnote 36] In the disposal 
area, a range of laws intended to address other objectives challenge 
agencies' efforts to dispose of unneeded property, including properties 
disposed of through the PBC program. For example, agencies are required 
under NEPA to consider the environmental impact of their decisions to 
dispose of property. Generally speaking, agencies are responsible for 
environmental cleanup prior to disposal. These costs can be 
considerable and can involve years of study. In another example, for 
properties with historic designations--which are common in the federal 
portfolio--agencies are required by NHPA to ensure that historic 
preservation is factored into how the property is eventually used. The 
Property Act further specifies that unneeded property first be offered 
to other federal agencies; and the McKinney-Vento Act sets forth 
requirements that consideration be given to making unneeded property 
available to assist the homeless. 

The McKinney-Vento Act: 

Signed into law in 1987, the McKinney-Vento Act created additional 
requirements for the disposal of surplus property though the PBC 
program. Some sponsoring agencies reported that McKinney-Vento Act 
requirements have delayed the PBC process for the disposal of civilian 
property. The McKinney-Vento Act requires that all excess, surplus, 
unutilized, and underutilized federal property be considered for 
homeless use purposes before the property is made available for any of 
the other disposal methods.[Footnote 37] To do so, HUD collects 
information from 26 federal landholding agencies on all unutilized, 
underutilized, excess, and surplus properties; evaluates each 
property's suitability for homeless use; and publishes a list of these 
properties in the Federal Register. Many of the properties reported as 
excess are not suitable for homeless use for diverse reasons such as 
environmental contamination, distance from existing communities or 
public transportation, or location within a military installation. 

All former civilian agency and non-BRAC surplus properties deemed 
suitable for homeless use by HUD must go through a 60-day holding 
period during which the property is ineligible for disposal for any 
purpose other than for homeless use. HHS is responsible for accepting 
and reviewing applications for homeless use from state and local 
governments and certain nonprofit entities. Interested homeless 
representatives must submit to HHS a written notice of intent to apply 
for a property for homeless use during the 60-day holding period. After 
applicants have given notice of intent to apply, federal law provides 
them up to 90 days to submit their application to HHS, and grants HHS 
the discretion to extend the time frame if necessary. Once HHS has 
received an application, it has 25 days to review, accept, or decline 
the application. During the entire application process, each property 
under consideration is ineligible for disposal for any other purpose, 
including other public benefit uses. Thus, in total, a surplus real 
property determined suitable for homeless use might be ineligible for 
consideration for other disposal opportunities for more than 175 days. 

Because of amendments to BRAC, the process for considering the use of 
property at any military installation for homeless use differs from 
that for former civilian agency or non-BRAC surplus real property. 
Homeless use considerations for surplus BRAC property will be described 
in more detail below. 

The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990: 

Nearly half of the 298 identifiable properties conveyed in fiscal years 
2000 through 2004 and 27 of the 58 properties we selected as case 
studies were former BRAC properties. This is significant because 
sponsoring agency officials at Education, HHS, MARAD, and the Federal 
Lands to Parks Program said that the BRAC process further complicates 
the PBC process because of the additional steps and paperwork involved 
in conveying former BRAC military property. Specifically, the unique 
role of the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) and a lack of 
consistency in how the military departments carry out property disposal 
also complicate the PBC process. As previously noted, the disposal of 
BRAC property typically involves an LRA made up of community members 
that are responsible for planning the future use of the former military 
property. The LRA is afforded up to 270 days to complete a 
redevelopment plan that details how all surplus real property 
associated with the closed or realigned installation will be reused or 
redeveloped, including property disposed of as PBCs. In particular, the 
redevelopment plan must balance the needs of the homeless with the need 
for economic and other redevelopment. HUD provides technical assistance 
and determines if the reuse plans meets statutory requirements relating 
to the homeless. The LRA's responsibilities to generate a redevelopment 
plan while considering the needs of the homeless can add considerable 
time and complexity to the PBC process. For example, according to HUD's 
Guidebook on Military Base Reuse and Homeless Assistance, if time 
limits were stretched to the greatest possible extent, the process of 
reviewing BRAC property for homeless use and generating a redevelopment 
plan could take as long as 540 days after the property is listed as 
surplus in the Federal Register. These time frames were reconfirmed by 
an Army BRAC official. 

The PBC process was further complicated by GSA's delegation of disposal 
authority to the Secretary of Defense, as required by the Defense Base 
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990.[Footnote 38] This authority was 
further delegated within DOD to each of the three military departments: 
the Army, Navy, and Air Force. According to DOD officials, DOD 
headquarters is not directly involved in the disposal of surplus BRAC 
real property, nor does it play a coordinating role in the disposal 
process other than to gather information from the three military 
departments for its annual report to GSA. Consequently, each of the 
three military departments establishes its own policies and procedures 
for property disposal as long as they adhere to DOD's Base Reuse 
Implementation Manual (BRIM) and BRAC implementing 
regulations,[Footnote 39] which served as the principal guidance for 
BRAC property disposal.[Footnote 40] As a result of this flexibility, 
each military service has established its own approach to BRAC property 
disposal, such as the roles assigned to the principal stakeholders. For 
example, although BRIM states that the military services will make the 
final determination on how all former BRAC property will be disposed 
of, an Army BRAC official said that in practice the LRA often has 
significant influence on how each parcel of land at former Army 
facilities will be disposed of. In contrast, Navy officials told us 
that the Navy makes the final determination on the allocation of the 
property among the various disposal methods, including PBCs. The lack 
of uniform procedures across the military departments adds confusion to 
the already complex PBC process because the sponsoring agencies have to 
follow different procedures with each of the military departments. 

Agencies Seek Alternatives to Reversion for Noncompliance: 

For a number of reasons, GSA and sponsoring agencies seek alternatives 
to the federal government's taking back properties for noncompliance. 
The main impediment to reversion involves the assumption of risk and 
uncertainty that reversion entails for GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring 
agencies. According to GSA regulations implementing the PBC program, 
for most public uses, it is the responsibility of the sponsoring agency 
to monitor compliance and to notify GSA when a property should revert, 
and GSA makes the final decision on whether to take back the property. 
However, agency officials from Education, HHS, and the Federal Lands to 
Parks Program said that reversion had increasingly become untenable as 
a tool when deed requirements are not met. Agency officials attribute 
the increasing difficulty of reversions to issues ranging from adhering 
to numerous legal requirements to the availability of budgetary 
resources. Program staff from Education and HHS said that agencies that 
monitor compliance are now responsible for paying for an array of legal 
requirements--including environmental studies, real estate appraisals, 
title searches, and title insurance--before GSA will consider allowing 
properties to revert. In addition, some agencies expressed concern 
about the possibility of being held responsible for paying for the 
maintenance, protection, and environmental cleanup of a property once 
it reverts. A number of agencies said that the issue of who is 
responsible for paying for these costs--the sponsoring agency, GSA, 
DOD, or the grantee--has not yet been clearly defined. These factors 
have made it difficult for agencies to take reversionary actions 
without budgeted resources of their own. 

In addition, according to some sponsoring agencies, in recent years GSA 
has opposed reversions suggested by the sponsoring agencies. For 
example, according to an Education official, GSA does not encourage 
enforcement actions that result in reversions for noncompliance and has 
exercised its statutory authority to object to suggested reversions, 
preventing the sponsoring agencies from taking back title to properties 
that are in long-term noncompliance and leaving the agencies with no 
alternative solutions. The official noted that GSA's policies on 
reversion have a chilling effect on all reversions and compliance 
efforts since it is virtually impossible to enforce compliance without 
the ability to take back title, given that other alternatives require 
voluntary cooperation by grantees or cooperation from the United States 
Attorney in litigation in federal court. An HHS official expressed 
similar concerns, stating: 

"GSA will not accept property it determines is not marketable. 
Therefore, it is very difficult to revert those properties and enforce 
compliance. The failure of GSA to accept the return of properties makes 
it very difficult for HHS to adequately carry out its mission in 
assuring that the properties are used in accordance with established 
regulations." 

According to HHS, in one instance, GSA's refusal to take back a 
noncompliant homeless use property in Warren, Michigan, resulted in the 
property sitting vacant for about 4 years and the structures 
deteriorating to the point where they had to be demolished by the new 
grantee. 

GSA program officials said that before GSA will approve an agency's 
request for a property to revert to the federal government, it must 
consider a number of factors, which will determine whether reacquiring 
the property is in the best interest of the government. The factors 
include the overall risk and financial burden to the government, the 
marketability of the property, and the ease of redisposing of the 
property. According to GSA, the greatest risk that reversion poses is 
that properties can remain in the inventory for prolonged periods of 
time, require additional funds for maintenance and protection, and be 
difficult to redispose of by transfer, reconveyance, or sale. GSA's 
concerns about the risk and uncertainty of reverted property were 
confirmed by officials at the Federal Lands to Parks Program. 

As discussed earlier, DOD's involvement in the reversion process is 
unclear. DOD's BRIM, the primary guidance for implementing BRAC and 
disposing of surplus real property as PBCs,does not specifically 
address how reversions of BRAC property should be handled and whether 
DOD takes back noncompliant property.[Footnote 41] According to DOD 
headquarters officials, DOD is not involved in the PBC reversion 
process. Instead, DOD officials noted that it is the responsibility of 
the sponsoring agencies to monitor compliance for former BRAC property 
and of GSA to take back property when grantees are found to be 
noncompliant. However, we received differing statements from military 
department officials about how the reversion process works for BRAC 
property, as the following examples illustrate. 

* Army officials noted that DOD has not regularly been involved in the 
reversion process because DOD is not responsible for compliance. Army 
officials said that they are currently holding discussions with GSA on 
whether former BRAC property would return to GSA or to the Army if it 
were to revert. 

* According to one Navy official, former Navy BRAC property would 
revert to the sponsoring agency. The official said that this was 
because the Navy assigns the property to the sponsoring agency and the 
sponsoring agency deeds the property to the grantee and is responsible 
for compliance. However, another Navy official disagreed, saying that 
the official Navy position is that Navy BRAC property conveyed as PBCs 
would revert to the Navy and not to the sponsoring agency. 

* An Air Force official said that when GSA revised the federal 
regulations governing the PBC program a couple of years ago, the 
language regarding reversions was clarified. The Air Force official 
further stated that former Air Force BRAC property would revert to the 
sponsoring agency while GSA rescreened it for other public uses and 
disposal methods. 

Furthermore, even though DOD officials stated that DOD is not involved 
in the reversion process, as noted earlier in the report, we found that 
one of the properties we selected for case study review--the Defense 
Distribution Depot Ogden, Building 42--reverted to the Army instead of 
to GSA. 

Some Grantees Reported Poor Communication about the Program and Lack of 
Information on the Condition of Individual Properties: 

Most grantees reported being pleased with the PBC program; however, 
nearly a quarter of the grantees we interviewed reported a lack of 
information about how the PBC program worked, and some of these 
grantees also reported that more information about the condition of 
individual properties would have been helpful. According to a number of 
grantees, better, more accurate information would help them plan for 
the most appropriate use of and anticipate costs associated with the 
development of the property. For example, several grantees said that 
more information about the PBC process would have benefited their 
planning process: 

* According to the grantee of the Defense Distribution Depot Ogden, 
Building 42 property, prior knowledge of the PBC process and of the 
costs the grantee would incur would have been helpful. For example, 
after the property was conveyed the grantee discovered it was required 
to conduct an environmental groundwater assessment and to pay to 
maintain the unoccupied building while the environmental assessment was 
pending. The grantee voluntarily reverted the property after 2 years 
because it was unable to fund the environmental assessment and maintain 
the property at the same time. 

* According to the grantees of a Defense Depot - Ogden, UT property and 
the Warminster, PA - NAWC property, information on the condition of 
properties was difficult to obtain. For example, an official with 
Warminster Township said that because the military was unable to 
provide maps or blueprints that indicated the location of buried 
plumbing and electrical infrastructure, construction crews removing a 
portion of a former runway mistakenly cut electrical lines that 
serviced a neighboring property. 

* Valley Forge Christian College property officials said that they were 
unable to procure drawings identifying the location of buried 
infrastructure at the former Valley Forge General Hospital. College 
officials said that because of the lack of information on the 
infrastructure, they did not sufficiently anticipate the full scope of 
the physical and financial challenges the conveyance posed to the 
institution, and the college faced financial difficulties as a result. 

Grantees made a number of suggestions about how to improve the PBC 
program, as the following examples illustrate. 

* According to the Rolling Hills Preparatory School, grantee of a Long 
Beach, CA - NAVSHPYD property, it was not informed of the rules of the 
PBC process. The grantee said that it did not know upfront that it 
would be required to pay for the studies, consultants, and attorneys' 
fees that were part of the process. The grantee suggested that the PBC 
program could be better managed by providing grantees with additional 
upfront training and better insight into the rules, time lines, 
potential hurdles, and possible costs of the PBC process for former 
BRAC property. 

* According to officials at the New Jewish High School, grantee of a 
Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center property, a "cheat sheet" of the 
requirements of the PBC process should be created. This sheet would 
include information on how the program works, grantee's 
responsibilities regarding compliance, and a list of the various PBC 
uses matched to the sponsoring agencies and contacts within those 
agencies for interested parties. 

* Elder Housing Corporation, grantee of the South Weymouth, MA - NAS 
property now known as Squantum Gardens and Naval Terrace, said that 
more information on other public benefit uses would be helpful. For 
example, officials from the corporation said that they had submitted 
their application for self-help housing use, but they were not informed 
of other possible PBC uses (i.e., besides self-help housing) that might 
have been a better match for the property. The corporation chose to 
purchase the property at fair market value when it was unable to 
implement its self-help housing program, in part because of a 
reluctance of lenders to finance a property that could revert. 

* An official from Valley Forge Christian College, grantee of the 
Valley Forge General Hospital property, suggested that the government 
continue to maintain surplus facilities until they were conveyed 
instead of letting them deteriorate, which would make it easier for 
grantees to plan for the properties' use and would assist with the 
future renovation of properties. The deferred maintenance of surplus 
properties was a challenge identified by several grantees. 

Compounding the concerns grantees expressed about communication, 
information on the PBC program was fragmented across several government 
Web sites. For example, although GSA's Web site offers an overview of 
the property disposal process that includes PBCs among the other 
disposal methods, it does not provide specific information on how the 
program works, nor does it provide links to the sponsoring agencies or 
a description of their role in the program. It was also unclear how a 
potential applicant should begin the process of considering a property 
for public benefit conveyance or whom to contact about the program. 

With respect to finding information on the program by using sponsoring 
agencies' Web sites, only HHS's Web site offered overviews of the PBC 
process and grantee responsibilities, answers to frequently asked 
questions, and relevant links to additional information. It was 
difficult to find any information about the PBC program on other 
sponsoring agencies' Web sites, without prior knowledge of the program 
and its uses. For example, it was necessary to know that Interior's 
Federal Lands to Parks Program was the sponsoring agency for parks and 
recreation PBCs in order to find any pertinent information on 
Interior's Web site. Once located, the Federal Lands to Parks Program 
Web page provided program overviews, answers to frequently asked 
questions, links, and contact information. Web sites maintained by the 
other sponsoring agencies offered either minimal program information or 
none at all. DOT's Web site offered limited program information for 
public airport and port facility PBCs but no contact information, while 
Education's, HUD's and FEMA's Web sites did not provide any PBC program 
information. Furthermore, because DOD does not provide a search engine 
function on any of its Web sites, it was difficult to easily search its 
sites for PBC program information related to the disposal of BRAC 
property. 

Conclusions: 

Most PBC properties we visited are being used as agreed to by the 
grantee for a range of purposes including education, parks and 
recreation, and public health; but problems related to data consistency 
between agencies and compliance monitoring hinder program management. 
Specifically, the lack of reliable, consistent data on PBC properties 
prevents effective management and oversight by GSA, DOD, and the 
sponsoring agencies. Lack of quality data on the federal real property 
inventory in general has been a persistent problem we have identified. 
GSA and DOD officials told us that developing better data on PBC 
properties could possibly be accomplished as part of GSA's efforts to 
revamp its governmentwide database--the federal real property profile. 

We found that most case study properties where we could assess 
compliance activity did not receive the monitoring specified in 
agencies' policies or the property deed. This is a concern because PBC 
properties could be vulnerable to being used for purposes other than 
those agreed to by the grantee. In addition, GSA regulations 
implementing the PBC program allow each agency a great deal of 
flexibility in carrying out its compliance responsibilities, including 
how to address noncompliant properties and determine when properties 
should revert to the federal government. As a result, the PBC program 
seems unnecessarily complex, with agencies using a wide range of 
policies and practices depending on the type of public benefit use. We 
found no compelling rationale or criteria for the differences in 
compliance approaches and reversion policies and practices. The complex 
nature of the federal real property environment was an underlying cause 
of problems that led to our designation of this area as high risk in 
2003, and the wide variation among agencies with regard to the PBC 
program seems to illustrate this condition. 

Other problems hindering the effectiveness of the program include 
challenges cited by agencies and communication shortcomings cited by 
grantees. Agency officials we spoke with cited the need to allocate 
sufficient resources to manage the program and the complex legal 
landscape in which they operate as factors that affect the program. In 
addition, agencies reported difficulties with property reversions and 
have sought alternatives to addressing noncompliance. Some grantees 
cited as a challenge the lack of communication about the program and 
individual properties. We found that information on the PBC program was 
fragmented across several government Web sites. Improvements in these 
areas would help provide greater assurance that the federal government 
fulfills its role as a steward of former federal real property assets. 
It could also ensure that the PBC program remains a viable option for 
addressing the federal government's long-standing problems with excess 
and underutilized real property, which was a factor that led to our 
designation of real property as a high-risk area. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We are making four recommendations to the GSA Administrator, one which 
is also directed to the Secretaries of Education, the Interior, Health 
and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation. 

Because GSA is the federal agency with primary responsibilities for the 
PBC program under the Property Act, we recommend that the Administrator 
of GSA coordinate with DOD and each of the sponsoring agencies to 
ensure that PBC property data are reliable and consistent between 
agencies for the purposes of effective management, oversight, and 
accountability. These data should include, at a minimum, a unique 
identifying code or name and pertinent data related to each property 
such as location, type, sponsoring agency, grantee, reversion status, 
if applicable, the property's compliance history, and other relevant 
information, as appropriate. This effort to improve the data could be 
accomplished as part of, or in conjunction with, the federal real 
property profile initiative already underway. 

We also recommend that the Administrator of GSA, and the Secretaries of 
Education, the Interior, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban 
Development, and Transportation take actions they deem appropriate to 
better ensure that their agencies' current compliance monitoring 
policies are followed. 

We also recommend that the Administrator of GSA coordinate with DOD and 
sponsoring agencies to give consideration to developing uniform 
standards and guidance for the PBC program to address inconsistencies, 
as appropriate. Such an effort could include, for example, standard 
policies and procedures for compliance site inspections and utilization 
reports, a determination of the appropriate frequency of compliance 
site inspections and utilization reports, and standard criteria and 
processes for reversions of property to the government. 

We also recommend that the Administrator of GSA coordinate and work 
with DOD and sponsoring agencies to develop strategies for addressing 
various challenges facing agencies and grantees. These include the need 
to allocate sufficient resources to manage the program and to improve 
communication about the program's legal complexities, the reversion 
process, and the characteristics of individual properties. This effort 
could be done in conjunction with, or as part of, the recommendation to 
develop uniform standards and guidance for the program. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to GSA, DOD, DOJ, DOT, DHS, 
Education, Interior, HHS, and HUD for review and comment. Education 
concurred with the report's overall findings and recommendation to the 
Secretary of Education to better ensure that their agencies' current 
compliance monitoring policies are followed. Education's comments are 
contained in appendix VII. DOD, DOJ, and DOT had no official comments 
on this report but provided separate technical comments, which we 
incorporated into the report where appropriate. DHS notified us that it 
had no official comments on this report. Interior was unable to provide 
official comments in time to be included in the report. 

GSA concurred with the report's overall findings and the three 
recommendations we made to the GSA Administrator. GSA said that the 
agency will take the necessary steps to improve the program areas 
highlighted in our recommendations through assuming a greater oversight 
role and issuing policy guidance. However, GSA had a number of comments 
on our findings. GSA said that the majority of the data accuracy issues 
identified in the report are due to differences in how GSA tracks 
information and how the sponsoring agencies track the same information. 
We agree that data discrepancies identified in the report are due in 
part to the separate lists of properties kept by the agencies on the 
PBC program as well as the different formats, locations, and pieces of 
data kept on each property. For that reason, we recommended that GSA 
coordinate with DOD and the sponsoring agencies to ensure that PBC 
property data are reliable and consistent between agencies. GSA stated 
that it does not believe that the data discrepancies identified in the 
report indicate that the government as a whole is not aware of or 
responsible for compliance requirements of the PBC program. We continue 
to believe that the lack of reliable, consistent data on PBC properties 
makes it difficult for GSA to effectively oversee the program and for 
the sponsoring agencies to ensure that they are performing compliance 
monitoring for all the properties that have been conveyed. Better data 
would facilitate oversight of the program and ensure that the 
government is performing compliance monitoring for all the properties 
conveyed using the PBC program. GSA also provided technical comments, 
which we incorporated into the final report where appropriate. Comments 
from GSA can be found in appendix V. 

HHS generally concurred with the report's overall findings and with the 
recommendation to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to better 
ensure that their agencies' current compliance monitoring policies are 
followed. HHS stated that in keeping with our recommendation, it has 
been aggressive in ensuring the grantees' timely submission of annual 
utilization reports. However, HHS had the following comments on our 
findings and other recommendations. HHS said that although the report 
examined the interagency dispute on the reversion of conveyed surplus 
property, it believed that the report failed to draw any meaningful 
conclusions about the competing viewpoints on the subject and did not 
offer specific recommendations to address the problem. Furthermore, HHS 
noted that clear guidance on reversions would provide a framework for 
the sponsoring agencies to address administrative deficiencies 
identified in the draft report. HHS suggested that we determine whether 
reversion is a suitable method for compliance enforcement and whether 
GSA's and DOD's objections to reversions have merit. Determining 
whether reversion is a suitable method for addressing noncompliance was 
beyond the scope of this review. We agree that the unclear reversion 
process and competing viewpoints on reversions are a concern, but leave 
the consideration of uniform standards and guidance for the PBC program 
including standard criteria and processes for reversions of property, 
to GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring agencies. 

HHS had a number of comments on our findings on PBC property data. HHS 
noted that GSA and DOD maintain responsibility for a number of 
properties that are never assigned to a sponsoring agency and therefore 
would not be in the sponsoring agencies' property records. Furthermore, 
HHS said that it provides GSA and DOD with a significant amount of 
information about each property it conveys and HHS believes that the 
lack of reliable, consistent PBC property data is largely due to GSA's 
and DOD's failure to use the property information furnished to them by 
the sponsoring agencies and to update their property records. As a 
result, HHS expressed concern about whether GSA and DOD would be able 
to efficiently develop a governmentwide database of PBC properties 
without in-depth discussions with the sponsoring agencies. We believe 
that GSA, DOD and the sponsoring agencies should be involved in the 
development of consistent, reliable PBC data and made such a 
recommendation. HHS suggested that if a governmentwide database of real 
property information were to be developed, it should be Web-based and 
accessible to the federal agencies so that property information could 
be updated on a recurring basis. HHS said that in accordance with our 
recommendation, it will dedicate a field for reversions in its database 
of PBC properties. 

HHS disagreed with our statement that only GSA and the Air Force 
provide unique identifying codes for each property. HHS commented that 
it also has a unique identification number for each property conveyed 
by HHS, which it uses in conjunction with GSA and DOD identifying 
codes. HHS did not provide these numbers to us during our audit. 
Furthermore, HHS said that in its experience, the names of properties 
frequently change as properties are transferred between GSA and DOD and 
the sponsoring agencies, requiring HHS to verify the identity of the 
parcel of property assigned to it. We believe HHS's statements 
corroborate our finding that a PBC-programwide system of coding 
properties does not exist and support our recommendation that reliable, 
consistent PBC property data be developed and that these data include, 
at a minimum, a unique identifying code or name for each property. 

HHS had additional comments on our recommendation that GSA coordinate 
with DOD and sponsoring agencies to give consideration to developing 
uniform standards and guidance for the PBC program to address 
inconsistencies, as appropriate. Specifically, HHS said that it 
believes that standard policies and procedures for compliance site 
inspections and utilization reports would not be feasible because of 
inherent differences in the types of public uses and the possible 
administrative burden that would be imposed on the sponsoring agency 
and the grantee if they were required to report information not 
pertaining to their specific public use. We do not agree that the 
differences in the public uses preclude GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring 
agencies from working collectively to consider whether opportunities 
exist for uniformity in standards and guidance for the PBC program and 
instead believe that HHS's comments lend support to our recommendation 
that discussion between the agencies would be useful and could address 
issues of program inconsistencies. HHS also provided technical 
comments, including some related to individual properties. We 
incorporated these into the final report where appropriate. Comments 
from HHS can be found in appendix VI. 

HUD generally concurred with the report's recommendation to the 
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to better ensure that their 
agencies' current compliance monitoring policies are followed. HUD 
stated that in keeping with our recommendation, it will review its 
compliance policies. However, HUD had additional comments on our 
recommendation that GSA coordinate with DOD and sponsoring agencies to 
give consideration to developing uniform standards and guidance for the 
PBC program to address inconsistencies, as appropriate. Specifically, 
HUD said that conveyances for residential housing are different from 
those for commercial property and therefore it would be inappropriate 
to develop uniform standards for all PBCs. HUD believes that it has 
already adopted the appropriate standards for housing conveyances, 
which are similar to those for other housing programs. As we noted in 
our response to HHS's comments, we do not agree that the differences in 
public uses preclude GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring agencies from working 
together to consider whether opportunities exist for uniformity in 
standards and guidance and instead believe that HUD's comments also 
support our recommendation that discussion between the agencies would 
be useful and could address issues of program inconsistencies. HUD 
provided comments by e-mail through its agency liaison. These comments 
have been incorporated into the report where appropriate. 

As agreed with our office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from 
the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to 
other interested congressional committees and the Administrator of GSA, 
the Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, the Secretary of Education, 
the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Secretary 
of Transportation. We will also make copies available to others upon 
request. In addition, the report will be available at not charge on the 
GAO Web site [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 
512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 
appendix VIII. 

Signed by: 

Mark L. Goldstein: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objectives were to (1) determine the number, types, and locations 
of surplus real properties disposed of using the public benefit 
conveyance (PBC) program in fiscal years 2000 through 2004; (2) assess 
General Services Administration (GSA), Department of Defense (DOD), and 
sponsoring agency efforts to ensure that properties are used as agreed 
to by the grantee; and (3) identify any challenges facing agencies and 
grantees with regard to the program. To determine the number, types, 
and locations of surplus real properties disposed of using the PBC 
program in fiscal years 2000 through 2004, it was necessary to develop 
a database of properties conveyed by the PBC program because a 
comprehensive database does not exist. To compile a database of 
properties, we obtained data from GSA and DOD on all the properties 
conveyed as PBCs in fiscal years 2000 through 2004 (i.e., October 1, 
1999, to September 30, 2004). We also asked each of the sponsoring 
agencies to provide us with a complete list of properties for which 
they gained compliance monitoring responsibilities during this time 
period. We asked GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring agencies to provide us 
with the following pieces of information for each property on their 
list: property name, description, address, sponsoring agency,[Footnote 
42] grantee including contact information, date of conveyance, intended 
public use, and compliance history including dates of compliance 
reports or inspections. Agencies provided us with both electronic data 
and case files. 

We compiled the data into a database of properties and made note of 
missing fields of data. In order to verify that each sponsoring agency 
was aware of its responsibilities to monitor each property, we compared 
each property on GSA's and DOD's lists with those on the sponsoring 
agencies' lists. We used six pieces of information for each property to 
determine whether properties on both lists were the same. These were 
the property name, public use, grantee, acreage, location, and date 
conveyed. Properties were considered the same if data for a property on 
GSA's or DOD's lists was the same in four or more fields as a property 
on the sponsoring agency's list, and they were considered similar if 
between two and three fields were the same. We determined the total 
number of identifiable properties by summing the properties considered 
to be the same or similar. Because these properties were on either 
GSA's or DOD's lists and the sponsoring agencies' lists, we have 
reasonable assurance that these properties were conveyed and that the 
sponsoring agencies were aware of their responsibilities to monitor 
them. A number of properties on GSA's and DOD's lists could not be 
matched with a property on the sponsoring agencies' lists because data 
in none of the six fields on any list was in agreement. Determining the 
status of these properties would have been time-consuming and was 
outside of the scope of our review. To determine the number of 
properties that reverted to the federal government in fiscal years 2000 
through 2004, we asked GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring agencies to provide 
us with data on the number of properties that reverted from October 1, 
1999 through September 30, 2004. We compiled this data into a database 
and used the same process described above to compare the lists of 
reverted properties provided by GSA and DOD to the lists provided by 
the sponsoring agencies. To determine the reliability of the PBC 
property data, we collected information from agency officials at GSA, 
DOD, and the sponsoring agencies about their data collection systems 
and asked these officials to describe the controls their agency had in 
place to ensure that the data are accurate and complete. 

To assess GSA's, DOD's, and sponsoring agencies' efforts to ensure that 
properties were being used as agreed to by the grantee, we reviewed the 
federal statutes and regulations that established the PBC program, 
collected documents on the organizational structure of the program and 
the responsibilities of each agency involved in the program, and 
examined the steps in the PBC process for both civilian and BRAC 
property. To determine how each agency manages its PBC program, we 
obtained GSA's, DOD's, and sponsoring agencies' policies and procedures 
for management of the PBC program, including information on the 
application review and approval, deeding and conveyance, and compliance 
monitoring processes. In order to better understand the reversion 
process and to identify criteria the agencies' used to revert 
properties, and the steps involved in the reversion process, we 
interviewed agency officials on the reversion process and obtained the 
agencies' policies and procedures on reversions. 

In order to determine whether the agencies were performing compliance 
monitoring and properties were being used as agreed to by the grantees, 
we selected 58 properties for case study review that were conveyed 
between October 1, 1989 and September 30, 2004. Specifically, we 
requested that GSA and the sponsoring agencies provide us with data on 
all of the properties for which they gained compliance monitoring 
responsibilities. We chose properties from a 15-year time period 
because that time frame would help ensure that most of the properties 
had an established compliance history. The 58 properties were chosen 
because they represented a mix of public uses, locations, stages of 
development (e.g., in planning versus completed), and compliance 
methods and histories. We asked GSA and the sponsoring agencies to 
provide us with the following documents for each property selected for 
case study: the application, deed, survey, compliance records such as 
utilization reports, site inspections, and other significant 
correspondence related to each property's compliance (e.g., letters of 
request). 

We evaluated the consistency of the compliance oversight performed for 
each property by comparing compliance records provided for each 
property to the compliance requirements stated in the agency's policies 
and procedures and the property deed. We were able to evaluate 
compliance oversight for 41 of the 58 properties we selected for case 
study review. Compliance oversight was considered consistent if the 
agency provided documentation for all the utilization reports and site 
inspections required in the agency's policies and procedures and the 
deed since the date of conveyance. If there were any gaps without 
documented explanation in the compliance record, compliance for the 
property was considered inconsistent. We were unable to evaluate 
compliance oversight for 17 properties selected for case study review 
because these properties had either been conveyed so recently that 
compliance monitoring was not yet required, had already reverted back 
to the federal government, or we were unable to obtain compliance 
information from the agencies. In addition, we visited each of the 58 
case study properties to gain further insights about the program and 
determine whether the properties appeared to be used as described in 
property documents. 

To identify any challenges related to the PBC program, we interviewed 
GSA, DOD, and sponsoring agency officials and grantees about the 
program and asked them to provide us with information on any challenges 
to PBC program management and suggestions for improving the program. We 
collected documents to better understand each challenge, including 
information on the resources dedicated to the program, information 
available to prospective applicants and grantees, and information on 
why properties revert and what can be done to prevent it. We also 
researched the myriad federal laws that affect the PBC program, 
including the McKinney-Vento Act, Defense Base Closure and Realignment 
Act of 1990, Base Closure and Community Redevelopment and Homeless 
Assistance Act of 1994, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and 
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and visited the Web sites of 
GSA, DOD, and the sponsoring agencies to determine how easy it was to 
obtain information on the PBC program and available surplus property. 
We conducted our review from September 2004 to May 2006 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Summary Data on All Identifiable Properties Conveyed, 
Fiscal Years 2000-2004: 

Property name: Alaska: Bethel Army Advisor Housing - Lot 11; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-02; Acres: 0.3; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: Tundra Women's Coalition; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 2; 
Property name: Alaska: Dillingham Wharf; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-03; 
Acres: 2.4; 
Conveyance type: Other (Port facility)[A]; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

Property name: 3; 
Property name: Alaska: Gibson Cove; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-04; 
Acres: 37.1;  
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Kodiak; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 4; 
Property name: Alabama: Mobile Point Light Station; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-01; 
Acres: 10.1; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Alabama Historical Commission; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 5; 
Property name: Alabama: Federal Building; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-01; 
Acres: 1.2; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Cullman City School System; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 6; 
Property name: Alabama: Jasper FB&CT; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-02; 
Acres: 1.4; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Walker County Board of Ed; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 7; 
Property name: Alabama: Coosa River Storage Annex (CRSA); 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-03; 
Acres: 2832.4; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Talladega County Commission; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 8; 
Property name: Alabama: Sand Island Lighthouse; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-03; 
Acres: 0.2; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Town of Dauphin Island; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 9; 
Property name: Alabama: Fort McClellan; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-00; 
Acres: 7.0; 
Conveyance type: Public health; 
Grantee name: WWTP; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 10; 
Property name: Alabama: Fort McClellan; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-02; 
Acres: 130.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Anniston; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 11; 
Property name: Arkansas: Fort Chaffee; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jul-01; 
Acres: 583.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Sabastian County; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 12; 
Property name: Arkansas: Low Level Windshear Alert System #4; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00; 
Acres: 0.4; 
Conveyance type: Public health; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 13; 
Property name: Arkansas: US Army Reserve Center #05571; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-01; 
Acres: 7.0; 
Conveyance type: Public health; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 14; 
Property name: Arkansas: AR0006ZZ Blytheville Federal Bldg; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-03; 
Acres: 1.0; 
Conveyance type: Historic monument; 
Grantee name: City of Blytheville; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 15; 
Property name: Arkansas: Sandy Beach Recreation Area; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-03; 
Acres: 48.3; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

Property name: 16; 
Property name: Arkansas: AR0081ZZ Hot Springs SSA Fed Bldg; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-03; 
Acres: 0.6; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: Quapaw House, Inc; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

Property name: 17; 
Property name: Arkansas: Fort Chaffee; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-01; 
Acres: 412.0; 
Conveyance type: Public health; 
Grantee name: City of Ft. Smith (Landfill extension); 
BRAC/non- BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 18; 
Property name: Arkansas: Eaker; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00; 
Acres: 48.7; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: YMCA; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 19; 
Property name: Arkansas: Eaker; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-02; 
Acres: 10.4; 
Conveyance type: Public health; 
Grantee name: HHS for Water/sewer; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 20; 
Property name: Arkansas: Eaker; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-02; 
Acres: 105.5; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Blytheville-Gosnell Regional Airport Authority; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 21; 
Property name: Arkansas: Eaker; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-02; 
Acres: 78.8; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Blytheville-Gosnell Regional Airport Authority; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 22; 
Property name: Arkansas: Eaker; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-02; 
Acres: 1076.0; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Blytheville-Gosnell Regional Airport Authority; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 23; 
Property name: Arkansas: Eaker; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-02; 
Acres: 494.7; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Blytheville-Gosnell Regional Airport Authority; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 24; 
Property name: Arkansas: Eaker; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-02; 
Acres: 191.6; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Blytheville-Gosnell Regional Airport Authority; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 25; 
Property name: Arizona: Federal Building; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-02; 
Acres: 0.7; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City Of Mesa; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 26; 
Property name: Arizona: Federal Building; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-02; 
Acres: 0.3; 
Conveyance type: Other (Law enforcement)[A]; 
Grantee name: City of Prescott; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 27; 
Property name: Arizona: Por. Colorado River Basin Salinity; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-03; 
Acres: 640.0; 
Conveyance type: Correctional; 
Grantee name: AZ Dept. of Corrections; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 28; 
Property name: Arizona: INS Border Patrol; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-03; 
Acres: 0.9; 
Conveyance type: Public health; 
Grantee name: HHS; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 29; 
Property name: Arizona: Williams; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-99; 
Acres: 286.4; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Arizona State University; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 30; 
Property name: Arizona: Williams; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-99; 
Acres: 12.6; 
Conveyance type: Public health; 
Grantee name: City of Mesa; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 31; 
Property name: Arizona: Williams; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-00; 
Acres: 1.7; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: House of Refugee Inc; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 32; 
Property name: Arizona: Williams; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-01; 
Acres: 18.1; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Arizona State University; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 33; 
Property name: Arizona: Williams; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-02; 
Acres: 0.8; 
Conveyance type: Public health; 
Grantee name: Flood Control District of Maricopa County; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 34; 
Property name: Arizona: Williams; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-04; 
Acres: 39.2; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Williams Airport Gateway Authority; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 35; 
Property name: California: Parcel 2; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-99; 
Acres: 11.4; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Pomona; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 36; 
Property name: California: Redding Reserve Site; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-99; 
Acres: 5.2; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: Vietnam Veterans of California; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 37; 
Property name: California: Reclamation Unit LC-2 Trinity; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00; 
Acres: 28.3; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Lewiston Community Services; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 38; 
Property name: California: Santa Rosa High Frequency Radio Station; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-02; 
Acres: 69.2; 
Conveyance type: Wildlife conservation; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 39; 
Property name: California: Former Calexico Border Patrol; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-04; 
Acres: 2.1; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Imperial Co. Office of Education; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 40; 
Property name: California: SSA Building - CA0184ZZ; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-04; 
Acres: 0.6; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: City of Modesto; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 41; 
Property name: California: Fort Ord; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-01; 
Acres: 31.0; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: York Schools; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 42; 
Property name: California: Recreation Center #2, Fort Bragg; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-03; 
Acres: 4.0;  
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Fayettsville; 
BRAC/ non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 43; 
Property name: California: Sierra Army Depot; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-03; 
Acres: 67.0; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Ft. Sage; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 44; 
Property name: California: Fort Ord; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-03; 
Acres: 3.0; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Monterey College of Law; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 45; 
Property name: California: Fort Ord; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-04; 
Acres: 2.0; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: Housing Authority of Monterey County; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 46; 
Property name: California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSTA; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-00; 
Acres: 1.5; 
Conveyance type: Port facility; 
Grantee name: City of Los Angeles; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 47; 
Property name: California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSTA; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-00; 
Acres: 14.3; 
Conveyance type: Port facility; 
Grantee name: Port of Los Angeles; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 48; 
Property name: California: Stockton, CA - NAVRESCEN; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00; 
Acres: 4.3; 
Conveyance type: Port facility; 
Grantee name: Port of Stockton; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 49; 
Property name: California: San Francisco, CA - PWC; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-00; 
Acres: 3.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Novato; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 50; 
Property name: California: San Francisco, CA - PWC; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-00; 
Acres: 3.6; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Novato; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 51; 
Property name: California: San Francisco, CA - PWC; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-00; 
Acres: 7.3; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Novato; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 52; 
Property name: California: San Francisco, CA - PWC; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-00; 
Acres: 1.7;  
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Community Action Marin Inc; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 53; 
Property name: California: San Francisco, CA - PWC; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-00; 
Acres: 3.0; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Novato Unified School District; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 54; 
Property name: California: San Diego, CA - NTC; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-00; 
Acres: 9.0; 
Conveyance type: Public health; 
Grantee name: City of San Diego; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 55; 
Property name: California: San Diego, CA - NTC; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-01; 
Acres: 49.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of San Diego; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 56; 
Property name: California: Oakland, CA - Naval Hospital; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-01; 
Acres: 8.5; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Seneca Center; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 57; 
Property name: California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01; 
Acres: 20.0; 
Conveyance type: Port facility; 
Grantee name: City of Long Beach; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 58; 
Property name: California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01; 
Acres: 25.0;  
Conveyance type: Port facility; 
Grantee name: City of Long Beach; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 59; 
Property name: California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01; 
Acres: 8.0; 
Conveyance type: Port facility; 
Grantee name: City of Long Beach; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 60; 
Property name: California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01; 
Acres: 70.0; 
Conveyance type: Port facility; 
Grantee name: City of Long Beach; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 61; 
Property name: California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSTA; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01; 
Acres: 63.4; 
Conveyance type: Port facility; 
Grantee name: City of Long Beach; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 62; 
Property name: California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSTA; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01; 
Acres: 134.1; 
Conveyance type: Port facility; 
Grantee name: City of Long Beach; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 63; 
Property name: California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSTA; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01; 
Acres: 2.7; 
Conveyance type: Port facility; 
Grantee name: City of Long Beach; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 64; 
Property name: California: Tustin, CA - MCAS; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-01; 
Acres: 7.9; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Irvine; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 65; 
Property name: California: Tustin, CA - MCAS; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-02; 
Acres: 20.0; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Irvine Unified School District; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 66; 
Property name: California: Tustin, CA - MCAS; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-02; 
Acres: 10.0;  
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Tustin Unified School District; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 67; 
Property name: California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-03; 
Acres: 13.0;  
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Marymount College; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 68; 
Property name: California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-03; 
Acres: 24.0; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Rolling Hills Preparatory School; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 69; 
Property name: California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-04; 
Acres: 0.4; 
Conveyance type: Port facility; 
Grantee name: City of Los Angels/Port of Los Angeles; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 70; 
Property name: California: Ontario; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-01; 
Acres: 8.4;  
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Los Angeles Department of Airports; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 71; 
Property name: California: March; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-01; 
Acres: 185.2; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: March Joint Powers Authority; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 72; 
Property name: California: March; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-01; 
Acres: 33.2;  
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: March Joint Powers Authority; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 73; 
Property name: California: March; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-02; 
Acres: 151.5; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: March Joint Powers Authority; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 74; 
Property name: California: McClellan; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-02; 
Acres: 6.4;  
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: North Highlands Recreational and Park District; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 75; 
Property name: California: March; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-03; 
Acres: 11.3; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: March Joint Powers Authority; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 76; 
Property name: California: March; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-04; 
Acres: 15.0; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Moreno Valley Unified School District; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 77; 
Property name: California: George; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-04; 
Acres: 960.0; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Victor Valley Airport Authority; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 78; 
Property name: California: George; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-99; 
Acres: 0.0; 
Conveyance type: Public health; 
Grantee name: City of Victorville; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 79; 
Property name: California: Castle; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-04; 
Acres: 1321.9;  
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Castle Joint Powers Authority; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 


Property name: 80; 
Property name: Colorado: Lowry AFB Education; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-02; 
Acres: 11.0; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Logan School; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 81; 
Property name: Colorado: Lowry AFB Remaining HHS; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-02; 
Acres: 10.0; 
Conveyance type: Public health; 
Grantee name: Colorado Department of Health; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 82; 
Property name: Colorado: Fitzsimons AMC; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-01; 
Acres: 105.0;  
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: City of Aurora; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 83; 
Property name: Colorado: Fitzsimons AMC; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-02; 
Acres: 8.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Aurora; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 84; 
Property name: Colorado: Fitzsimons AMC; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-02; 
Acres: 3.0; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: UCHSC; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 85; 
Property name: Colorado: Lowry; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-99; 
Acres: 98.5;  
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City and County of Denver Parks; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 86; 
Property name: Colorado: Lowry; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-00; 
Acres: 129.1;  
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Colorado Community College; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 87; 
Property name: Colorado: Lowry; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-01; 
Acres: 6.2; 
Conveyance type: Public health; 
Grantee name: Colorado Department of Health; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 88; 
Property name: Colorado: Lowry; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-02; 
Acres: 1.6; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City and County of Denver Parks; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 89; 
Property name: Colorado: Lowry; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-03; 
Acres: 4.8;  
Conveyance type: Public health; 
Grantee name: City and County of Denver; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 90; 
Property name: Colorado: Lowry; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-03; 
Acres: 1.9; 
Conveyance type: Public health; 
Grantee name: Third Way Center; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 91; 
Property name: Connecticut: FAA Direction Finder; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-02; 
Acres: 19.6; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Town of Killingly; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 92; 
Property name: Connecticut: New London, CT - NUSC/NUWC Det; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00; 
Acres: 0.7; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: State Dept. of Environmental Protection; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 93; 
Property name: Delaware: UPH building; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-00; 
Acres: 0.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 94; 
Property name: Florida: Amelia Island Light; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-00; 
Acres: 2.4; 
Conveyance type: Historic monument; 
Grantee name: The City of Fernandina Beach; 
BRAC/ non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 95; 
Property name: Florida: Crooked River Lighthouse Reservation; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-00; 
Acres: 1.3; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 96; 
Property name: Florida: MacDill AFB RR Spur; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-02; 
Acres: 6.7; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Tampa; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 97; 
Property name: Florida: Lakeland Federal Property; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-02; 
Acres: 2.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Lakeland, FL; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 98; 
Property name: Florida: Lexington Terrace; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-02; 
Acres: 30.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Escambia County; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 99; 
Property name: Florida: Army Reserve Outdoor Training Facility; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-02; 
Acres: 134.2; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 100; 
Property name: Florida: U.S. Classic Courthouse; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-03; 
Acres: 1.0; 
Conveyance type: Historic monument; 
Grantee name: City of Tampa; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

Property name: 101; 
Property name: Florida: Federal Building/USDA Lab; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-03; 
Acres: 0.5; 
Conveyance type: Historic monument; 
Grantee name: City of Winter Haven; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 102; 
Property name: Florida: Communication Site - Homestead AFB; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-04; 
Acres: 20.0; 
Conveyance type: Law enforcement; 
Grantee name: City of Homestead; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 103; 
Property name: Florida: U.S. Custom House; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-04; 
Acres: 0.5; 
Conveyance type: Historic monument; 
Grantee name: Broward County Board of Commissioners; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 104; 
Property name: Florida: Fort Meade; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-01; 
Acres: 348.0; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Anne Arundel County; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 105; 
Property name: Florida: Key West, FL - NAS; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-00; 
Acres: 0.8; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Key West; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 106; 
Property name: Florida: Cecil Field - NAS (Jacksonville, FL); 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-00; 
Acres: 2016.6; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Jacksonville; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 107; 
Property name: Florida: Key West, FL - NAS; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-00; 
Acres: 43.8; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Key West; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 108; 
Property name: Florida: Key West, FL - NAS; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-00; 
Acres: 16.5; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Key West; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 109; 
Property name: Florida: Key West, FL - NAS; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-00; 
Acres: 3.3; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Key West; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 110; 
Property name: Florida: Key West, FL - NAS; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-00; 
Acres: 26.5;  
Conveyance type: Historic monument; 
Grantee name: Monroe County; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 111; 
Property name: Florida: Cecil Field - NAS (Jacksonville, FL); 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-00; 
Acres: 27.9; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Jacksonville Ports Authority; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 112; 
Property name: Florida: Orlando, FL - NTC; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-00; 
Acres: 2.9; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: GOAA; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 113; 
Property name: Florida: Orlando, FL - NTC; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-00; 
Acres: 38.0; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Greater Orlando Aviation Authority via City; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 114; 
Property name: Florida: Orlando, FL - NTC; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-00; 
Acres: 42.4; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Greater Orlando Aviation Authority via City; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 115; 
Property name: Florida: Cecil Field - NAS (Jacksonville, FL); 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-03; 
Acres: 12.8; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Jacksonville Ports Authority; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.  

Property name: 116; 
Property name: Georgia: Blythe Island Range Rear Light; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-01; 
Acres: 10.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Glynn County; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 117; 
Property name: Georgia: (P) Ft. Benning Military Reservation; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-03; 
Acres: 14.4; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Columbus; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 118; 
Property name: Guam: Agat Parcel 3; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-02; 
Acres: 5.0; 
Conveyance type: Other (Public health)[A]; 
Grantee name: GOVGUAM; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 119; 
Property name: Guam: Agana, Guam - NAS; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-00; 
Acres: 43.4; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Department of Parks and Recreation; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 120; 
Property name: Guam: Agana, Guam - NAS; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-00; 
Acres: 1410.2; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Guam International Airport Authority; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 121; 
Property name: Hawaii: Barbers Point, HI - NAS; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-00; 
Acres: 20.0; 
Conveyance type: Public health; 
Grantee name: City & County of Honolulu; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 122; 
Property name: Hawaii: Barbers Point, HI - NAS; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-00; 
Acres: 21.0; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: State of Hawaii; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 123; 
Property name: Iowa: Fort Des Moines Motorpool; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-04; 
Acres: 0.9; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: NPS/City of Des Moines; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 124; 
Property name: Idaho: Rexburg USARC; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-01; 
Acres: 2.5; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Madison School District; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

Property name: 125; 
Property name: Idaho: US Army Reserve Center; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-01; 
Acres: 2.8; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Idaho Falls; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 126; 
Property name: Idaho: Boise Federal Building/Post Office; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-04; 
Acres: 1.4; 
Conveyance type: Historic monument; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/ non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 127; 
Property name: Illinois: Radar Station; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-99; 
Acres: 10.0; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 128; 
Property name: Illinois: Former National Guard Facility; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-00; 
Acres: 11.2; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 129; 
Property name: Illinois: Glenview, IL - NAS; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00; 
Acres: 94.7; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Village of Vernon Hills; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 130; 
Property name: Illinois: Glenview, IL - NAS; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00; 
Acres: 12.2; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Village of Vernon Hills; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 131; 
Property name: Illinois: Glenview, IL - NAS; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-00; 
Acres: 2.8; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Village of Vernon Hills; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 132; 
Property name: Indiana: Vincennes Federal Building; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-99; 
Acres: 0.6; 
Conveyance type: Historic monument; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 133; 
Property name: Indiana: Lock and Dam No. 47 (Old Dam Park); 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-00; 
Acres: 2.6; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 134; 
Property name: Indiana: SSA District Office; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-04; 
Acres: 0.6; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: Family Services of Elkhart County, Inc; 
BRAC/ non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 135; 
Property name: Indiana: Jefferson Proving Ground; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-99; 
Acres: 221.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Park; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 136; 
Property name: Indiana: Jefferson Proving Ground; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-04; 
Acres: 403.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Park; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 137; 
Property name: Indiana: Grissom; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00; 
Acres: 10.8; 
Conveyance type: Public health; 
Grantee name: City of Peru; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 138; 
Property name: Kansas: U.S. Reserve Center Annex; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-00; 
Acres: 0.4; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 139; 
Property name: Kansas: Milford Lake; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-03; 
Acres: 119.5; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Kansas State University of Agriculture and Applied 
Science; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 140; 
Property name: Kentucky: Black Gem Recreational Area; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-01; 
Acres: 6.6; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Pike County Government; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 141; 
Property name: Kentucky: Cannelton L&D, Cloverport Access St; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-03; 
Acres: 15.7;  
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Cloverport; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 142; 
Property name: Kentucky: Corbin SSA Bldg; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-03; 
Acres: 1.0; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Corbin Independent School District; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 143; 
Property name: Kentucky: Licking River Access Site 12A; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-04; 
Acres: 20.6; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Wilder; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 144; 
Property name: Kentucky: Uniontown Ferry Access Site; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-04; 
Acres: 2.5; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Uniontown; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 145; 
Property name: Kentucky: Port Smithland Lock and Dam; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-04; 
Acres: 92.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

Property name: 146; 
Property name: Louisiana: Portion of TR C-49; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-02; 
Acres: 3.5; 
Conveyance type: Wildlife conservation; 
Grantee name: LA Dept. of Wildlife; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 147; 
Property name: Louisiana: Eugene M. Nettles U.S. ARC; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-02; 
Acres: 3.8; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 148; 
Property name: Louisiana: Opelousas Fed Bldg; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-03; 
Acres: 1.5; 
Conveyance type: Other (Law enforcement)[A]; 
Grantee name: 27th Judicial Dist. Attny; 
BRAC/ non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 149; 
Property name: Louisiana: SSA Baton Rouge District; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-04; 
Acres: 1.1; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Dept. of Education; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 150; 
Property name: Louisiana: England; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-04; 
Acres: 151.5; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: England Economic & Industrial Development District; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.  

Property name: 151; 
Property name: Massachusetts: YTRN Granby Former Comm. Trans. Fac; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-01; 
Acres: 99.5; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Commonwealth of Mass; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 152; 
Property name: Massachusetts: Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-01; 
Acres: 22.3; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Bentley College; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 153; 
Property name: Massachusetts: Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01; 
Acres: 17.4; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: New Jewish High School, Inc. (Gann Academy); 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 154; 
Property name: Massachusetts: Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01; 
Acres: 25.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Waltham; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 155; 
Property name: Massachusetts: Hingham Cohasset; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-03; 
Acres: 125.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: State Park; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 156; 
Property name: Massachusetts: South Weymouth, MA - NAS; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-01; 
Acres: 28.0; 
Conveyance type: Self-help housing; 
Grantee name: Elder Housing Corporation (City of Quincy); 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 157; 
Property name: Massachusetts: South Weymouth, MA - NAS; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-03; 
Acres: 220.2; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: South Shore Tri-Town Development Corp; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 158; 
Property name: Massachusetts: South Weymouth, MA - NAS; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-03; 
Acres: 5.1; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: South Shore Tri-Town Development Corp; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 159; 
Property name: Massachusetts: South Weymouth, MA - NAS; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-03; 
Acres: 1.2; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: South Shore Tri-Town Development Corp; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 160; 
Property name: Massachusetts: South Weymouth, MA - NAS; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-04; 
Acres: 1.9; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Town of Rockland; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 161; 
Property name: Maryland: Casson Neck Property; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-01; 
Acres: 12.5; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Dorchester County; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 162; 
Property name: Maryland: Laplata Housing; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-02; 
Acres: 13.3; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: Southern Maryland Tri-County Community Action Committee; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 163; 
Property name: Maryland: De LaSalle Building; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-02; 
Acres: 17.8; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Archdiocese of Washington; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

Property name: 164; 
Property name: Maryland: Stillpond Housing Units; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-02; 
Acres: 0.3; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: Crossroads Community, Inc; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

Property name: 165; 
Property name: Maryland: Stillpond Housing Units; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-02; 
Acres: 0.3; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: Community Crossroads Inc; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

Property name: 166; 
Property name: Maryland: Stillpond Housing Units; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-02; 
Acres: 0.4; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: Community Crossroads Inc; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

Property name: 167; 
Property name: Maryland: Stillpond Housing Units; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-02; 
Acres: 0.4; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: Community Crossroads Inc; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

Property name: 168; 
Property name: Maryland: Station Stillpond; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-03; 
Acres: 12.4; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

Property name: 169; 
Property name: Maryland: Annapolis, MD - NSWC Carderock DIV Det; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-02; 
Acres: 24.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Anne Arundel County, MD; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 170; 
Property name: Michigan: Seul Choix Point Light; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-00; 
Acres: 0.1; 
Conveyance type: Historic monument; 
Grantee name: Michigan Department of Natural Resources; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 171; 
Property name: Michigan: Benton Harbor Federal Building; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-00; 
Acres: 0.4; 
Conveyance type: Historic monument; 
Grantee name: City of Benton Harbor; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 172; 
Property name: Michigan: South Haven Keeper's Dwelling; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-00; 
Acres: 0.7; 
Conveyance type: Historic monument; 
Grantee name: City of South Haven; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 173; 
Property name: Michigan: Parcel 2; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-00; 
Acres: 10.1; 
Conveyance type: Historic monument; 
Grantee name: State of Michigan; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 174; 
Property name: Michigan: Muskegon Land; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-04; 
Acres: 1.0; 
Conveyance type: Public health; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 175; 
Property name: Michigan: K.I. Sawyer; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-99; 
Acres: 1389.1; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: County of Marquette; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 176; 
Property name: Michigan: K.I. Sawyer; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-00; 
Acres: 2.3; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: County of Marquette; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 177; 
Property name: Michigan: Wurtsmith; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-01; 
Acres: 1.7; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Charter Township of Oscoda; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 178; 
Property name: Michigan: K.I. Sawyer; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-02; 
Acres: 1.3; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: County of Marquette; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 179; 
Property name: Michigan: Wurtsmith; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-02; 
Acres: 848.6;  
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport Authority; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 180; 
Property name: Michigan: K.I. Sawyer; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-04; 
Acres: 108.9;  
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: County of Marquette; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.  

Property name: 181; 
Property name: Missouri: Monett, Barry Co; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-00; 
Acres: 9.3; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 182; 
Property name: Missouri: Seldalia Federal Bldg; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-01; 
Acres: 0.8; 
Conveyance type: Correctional; 
Grantee name: Pettis County; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 183; 
Property name: Missouri: D.G. Hall Fed Bldg/Court; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01; 
Acres: 0.4; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: Economic Security Corp. of Southwest Area; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 184; 
Property name: Missouri: Columbia Federal Bldg; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-03; 
Acres: 0.8; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Health Adventure Center; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

Property name: 185; 
Property name: Missouri: NIKE Kansas City 30; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-03; 
Acres: 20.0; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Lone Jack School District; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 186; 
Property name: Mississippi: Greenwood Boat Ramp; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-03; 
Acres: 1.2;  
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 187; 
Property name: Montana: Canyon Ferry Reservoir; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-03; 
Acres: 8.5; 
Conveyance type: Other (emergency management response)[A]; 
Grantee name: Canyon Ferry Fire Service; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 188; 
Property name: North Carolina: Federal building; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-00; 
Acres: 0.4;  
Conveyance type: Historic monument; 
Grantee name: Town of Rutherfordton; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 189; 
Property name: North Carolina: McKinney Lake Fish Hatchery; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-01; 
Acres: 6.5; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: State of North Carolina; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 190; 
Property name: North Carolina: USARC Building Site, 4.9 Acres; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-02; 
Acres: 4.9; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Greenville Park & Rec; 
BRAC/ non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 191; 
Property name: North Carolina: Oak Island Lighttower; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-03; 
Acres: 5.7; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Town of Caswell Beach; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 192; 
Property name: North Dakota: Grand Forks Safeguard Waterline; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-01; 
Acres: Not provided; 
Conveyance type: Public health; 
Grantee name: HHS-North Valley Water District; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 193; 
Property name: North Dakota: Grand Forks Safeguard Waterline; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-02; 
Acres: 97.0; 
Conveyance type: Public health; 
Grantee name: City of Park River; 
BRAC/ non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 194; 
Property name: North Dakota: 117 Main St. Storage Bldg; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-02; 
Acres: 0.4; 
Conveyance type: Historic monument; 
Grantee name: State Historical Society of North Dakota; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 195; 
Property name: North Dakota: Fort Totten; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-02; 
Acres: 44.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: NYC Parks and Recreation; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 196; 
Property name: Nebraska: Nebraska City Repair; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-00; 
Acres: 1.8; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: National Park Service; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 197; 
Property name: New Hampshire: Pease; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-99; 
Acres: 151.9; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Pease Development Authority; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 198; 
Property name: New Hampshire: Pease; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-03; 
Acres: 2535.0; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Pease Development Authority; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 199; 
Property name: New Jersey: Firehouse, BLDG 228 (Raritan); 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-00; 
Acres: 1.2;  
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 200; 
Property name: New Jersey: Electronic Station ESMT; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-00; 
Acres: 0.9; 
Conveyance type: Other (Parks and recreation)[A]; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 201; 
Property name: New Jersey: Barnegat Recreation Facility; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-01; 
Acres: 0.7; 
Conveyance type: Historic monument; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/ non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 202; 
Property name: New Jersey: Kearny Naval Reserve Center; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-02; 
Acres: 2.6; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 203; 
Property name: New Jersey: Navy Housing; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-02; 
Acres: 6.5; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 204; 
Property name: New Jersey: Chapel Hill Front Range Light; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-03; 
Acres: 0.4; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 205; 
Property name: New Jersey: Fort Monmouth; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-03; 
Acres: 8.0;  
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Brookdale College; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 206; 
Property name: New Jersey: Fort Monmouth; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-03; 
Acres: 142.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Wall Township; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 207; 
Property name: New Jersey: Fort Monmouth; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-03; 
Acres: 1.0; 
Conveyance type: Public health; 
Grantee name: Wall Township (Pumphouse); 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 208; 
Property name: New Jersey: Camp Kilmer; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-03; 
Acres: 30.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Edison; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 209; 
Property name: New Jersey: Trenton, NJ - NAWC-AD; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-01; 
Acres: 28.1; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Mercer County; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 210; 
Property name: Nevada: Stewart Avenue Federal Building; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-02; 
Acres: 2.0; 
Conveyance type: Historic monument; 
Grantee name: City of Las Vegas; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 211; 
Property name: New York: Galeville Airport; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-00; 
Acres: 55.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

Property name: 212; 
Property name: New York: Braddock Point Light Land (Tract 2); 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-00; 
Acres: 0.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 213; 
Property name: New York: Turkey Point Light; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-02; 
Acres: 8.2; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 214; 
Property name: New York: Fort Totten; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-01; 
Acres: 37.0; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: NYC; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 215; 
Property name: New York: Fort Totten; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-02; 
Acres: 2.0;  
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: Eastern Paralyzed Vets of America; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 216; 
Property name: New York: Plattsburgh; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-00; 
Acres: 31.6; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Plattsburgh; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 217; 
Property name: New York: Griffis; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-04; 
Acres: 1344.0; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Airport Authority; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 218; 
Property name: Ohio: VOA Relay Site; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00; 
Acres: 20.0;  
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 219; 
Property name: Ohio: Old ANT Huron; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-03; 
Acres: 0.4; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Huron; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

Property name: 220; 
Property name: Ohio: Rickenbacker; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-99; 
Acres: 18.7; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Columbus Regional Airport Authority; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 221; 
Property name: Ohio: Rickenbacker; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-01; 
Acres: 18.3; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Columbus Regional Airport Authority; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 222; 
Property name: Ohio: Rickenbacker; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-02; 
Acres: 6.9; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Columbus Regional Airport Authority; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 223; 
Property name: Ohio: Rickenbacker; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-03; 
Acres: 310.3; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Columbus Regional Airport Authority; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 224; 
Property name: Ohio: Newark; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-03; 
Acres: 13.3; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Licking County Regional Airport Authority; 
BRAC/ non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 225; 
Property name: Oregon: Pt. Orford Radio Site; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-00; 
Acres: 5.2; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Oregon State Parks; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

Property name: 226; 
Property name: Oregon: Oregon City Federal Building; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-04; 
Acres: 1.5; ; 
Conveyance type: Other (Law enforcement)[A]; 
Grantee name: Clackamas County; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 227; 
Property name: Pennsylvania: Maxwell Locks and Dam; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-00; 
Acres: 2.7; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 228; 
Property name: Pennsylvania: Uniontown Federal Building; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01; 
Acres: 0.4; 
Conveyance type: Correctional; 
Grantee name: Fayette County; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 229; 
Property name: Pennsylvania: Naval Air Warfare Center; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-02; 
Acres: 39.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Township of Northampton; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 230; 
Property name: Pennsylvania: Ambridge SSA Bldg; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-02; 
Acres: 0.6;  
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Ambridge Area School District; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 231; 
Property name: Pennsylvania: Cowanesque Lake Project; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-02; 
Acres: 2.6; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: United Christian Inc; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 232; 
Property name: Pennsylvania: Bristol SSA Bldg; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-03; 
Acres: 0.7; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Bristol Borough School District; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 233; 
Property name: Pennsylvania: Tacony Warehouse; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-02; 
Acres: 1.0;  
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: PA Fish and Boat Commission; 
BRAC/ non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 234; 
Property name: Pennsylvania: Warminster, PA - NAWC; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-00; 
Acres: 243.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Warminster Township; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 235; 
Property name: Pennsylvania: NIKE Site PH-02; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-00; 
Acres: 8.8; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Bristol Township; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 236; 
Property name: Puerto Rico: Primate Research Center; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-00; 
Acres: 270.0;  
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC.  

Property name: 237; 
Property name: Rhode Island: Davisville, RI - NCBC; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-00; 
Acres: 189.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: North Kingstown; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 238; 
Property name: South Carolina: Greenwood Federal Building; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01; 
Acres: 0.6;  
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Greenwood County; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 239; 
Property name: South Carolina: Airport; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-01; 
Acres: 1240.0; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Horry City Airport; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 240; 
Property name: South Carolina: Golf Course; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-01; 
Acres: 150.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Myrtle Beach; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

Property name: 241; 
Property name: South Carolina: Social Security Admin./ Federal Bldg; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-02; 
Acres: 0.6; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: Interfaith Hospitality Network of York County; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 242; 
Property name: South Carolina: Sumter Federal Building; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-02; 
Acres: 0.5; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Sumter Technology Center, Inc; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 243; 
Property name: South Carolina: Charleston, SC - NAVSHIPYD; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-00; 
Acres: 25.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Charleston County Parks and Recreation; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 244; 
Property name: South Carolina: Myrtle Beach; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00; 
Acres: 2.5; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Cathedral Bible College; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 245; 
Property name: South Carolina: Myrtle Beach; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-01; 
Acres: 292.5; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Myrtle Beach; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 246; 
Property name: South Carolina: Myrtle Beach; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-02; 
Acres: 1205.6; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Horry County; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 247; 
Property name: Tennessee: Former Marine Corps Reserve Center; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01; 
Acres: 0.01; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Washington County Dept. of Education; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 248; 
Property name: Tennessee: Former Marine Corps Reserve Center; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01; 
Acres: 30.1; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: East Tennessee State University; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 249; 
Property name: Tennessee: Naval Hospital; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-02; 
Acres: 38.7; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: University of Memphis; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

Property name: 250; 
Property name: Tennessee: Lafayette Federal Building; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-03; 
Acres: 0.5; 
Conveyance type: Correctional; 
Grantee name: City of Lafayette; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 251; 
Property name: Tennessee: Memphis, TN - NAS; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-99; 
Acres: 550.9; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: City of Millington; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 252; 
Property name: Texas: Former Navy Reserve Center; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00; 
Acres: 1.0; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 253; 
Property name: Texas: Library; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-01; 
Acres: 0.2; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: City of Westworth Village Library; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

Property name: 254; 
Property name: Texas: Easement Deed 2; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-01; 
Acres: 0.0; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: City of Austin; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 255; 
Property name: Texas: Easement Deed No.3; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-01; 
Acres: 0.0; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: City of Austin; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 256; 
Property name: Texas: Easement and Fee Deed No. 1; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-01; 
Acres: 174.8; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: City of Austin; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

Property name: 257; 
Property name: Texas: 20 Units Kings Branch Housing; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-01; 
Acres: 6.7; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: Ability Resources, Inc; 
BRAC/ non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 258; 
Property name: Texas: Port Mansfield; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-02; 
Acres: 2.0; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 259; 
Property name: Texas: Brownsville SSA Fed Bldg; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-02; 
Acres: 1.0; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Education Service Center Region 1 of Texas; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 260; 
Property name: Texas: Naval Auxiliary Landing Field; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-03; 
Acres: 11.8; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 261; 
Property name: Texas: VORTAC Site; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-03; 
Acres: 73.8; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: DHHS for Hood County TX; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

Property name: 262; 
Property name: Texas: Camp Bullis; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-04; 
Acres: 0.4; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of San Antonio; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 263; 
Property name: Texas: Dallas, TX - NAS; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00; 
Acres: 26.4; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Grand Prairie; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 264; 
Property name: Texas: Communications Annex, Carswell Air Force Base; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-00; 
Acres: 17.01; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Lake Worth; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC.  

Property name: 265; 
Property name: Utah: Administration Building; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00; 
Acres: 7.3;  
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Salt Lake City School District; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 266; 
Property name: Utah: Former Uranium Mill Tailing Site; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-00; 
Acres: 383.2;  
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: NPS for City of Monticello; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 267; 
Property name: Utah: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-01; 
Acres: 6.0; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Weber County Schools; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 268; 
Property name: Utah: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-01; 
Acres: 3.0;  
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Weber Applications Technology (Utah College of Applied 
Technology); 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 269; 
Property name: Utah: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-03; 
Acres: 4.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Weber Basin Disabled Assoc; 
BRAC/ non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 270; 
Property name: Utah: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-03; 
Acres: 25.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Ogden (Weber County Fairgrounds); 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 271; 
Property name: Utah: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-03; 
Acres: 25.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Ogden (Ogden Nature Center); 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 272; 
Property name: Utah: Defense Distribution Depot Ogden, Building 42; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-03; 
Acres: 0.7; 
Conveyance type: Public health; 
Grantee name: Planned Parenthood Association; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 273; 
Property name: Virginia: Former Petersburg Correctional Institute; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-92; 
Acres: 154.0; 
Conveyance type: Correctional; 
Grantee name: Riverside Regional Jail Authority; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 274; 
Property name: Virginia: Former Petersburg Correctional Institute; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-02; 
Acres: 25.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Prince George County; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 275; 
Property name: Virginia: Former Petersburg Correctional Institute; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-02; 
Acres: 24.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Hopewell; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 276; 
Property name: Virginia: Staunton SSA Bldg; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-02; 
Acres: 0.5; 
Conveyance type: Public health; 
Grantee name: City of Staunton; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 277; 
Property name: Virginia: Watkins K. Abbitt FB; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-03; 
Acres: 0.3; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: Central Piedmont Action Council, Inc; 
BRAC/ non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 278; 
Property name: Virginia: Lynchburg SSA Building; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-04; 
Acres: 0.9; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: Salvation Army, Inc; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 279; 
Property name: Virginia: Vint Hill Farms Station; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00; 
Acres: 18.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Fauquier County; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 280; 
Property name: Virginia: Fort Pickett; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-01; 
Acres: 1183.0; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: VA Tech; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 281; 
Property name: Virginia: Driver, VA - NRTF; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-01; 
Acres: 247.7; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Suffolk, Virginia; 
BRAC/ non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 282; 
Property name: Virginia: Former Petersburg Correctional Institute 
(portion); 
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-04; 
Acres: 275.4; 
Conveyance type: Correctional; 
Grantee name: VDOC Central Office; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 283; 
Property name: Washington: USARC Moses Lake; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-00; 
Acres: 2.9; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Grant County Housing Authority; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 284; 
Property name: Washington: Fed. Bldg./Post Office; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-02; 
Acres: 0.4; 
Conveyance type: Historic monument; 
Grantee name: City of Pasco; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

Property name: 285; 
Property name: Washington: Army NIKE-Ajax Site 32-33; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-02; 
Acres: 34.5; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 286; 
Property name: Washington: Bellingham Federal Building; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-04; 
Acres: 0.5; 
Conveyance type: Historic monument; 
Grantee name: City of Bellingham; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 287; 
Property name: Washington: Sand Point Puget Sound, WA NAVSTA; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-00; 
Acres: 11.0; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Seattle; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 288; 
Property name: Washington: Portion, Sand Point Magnuson Park; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-02; 
Acres: 8.2; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Seattle; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: BRAC. 

Property name: 289; 
Property name: Wisconsin: North Point Light Station; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-03; 
Acres: 2.0; 
Conveyance type: Historic monument; 
Grantee name: Not provided; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 290; 
Property name: West Virginia: Matewan - 16 Tracts; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00; 
Acres: 2.6; 
Conveyance type: Other (Parks and recreation)[A]; 
Grantee name: Town of Matewan; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 291; 
Property name: West Virginia: Matewan - 3 tracts; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00; 
Acres: 0.5; 
Conveyance type: Other (Parks and recreation)[A]; 
Grantee name: Town of Matewan; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 292; 
Property name: West Virginia: Matewan - 3 tracts; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00; 
Acres: 0.3; 
Conveyance type: Other (Parks and recreation)[A]; 
Grantee name: Town of Matewan; 
BRAC/non- BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 293; 
Property name: West Virginia: Old Post Office and Courthouse; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-01; 
Acres: 0.4; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Boarman Arts Center; 
BRAC/ non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 294; 
Property name: West Virginia: Welch SSA Bldg; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-03; 
Acres: 0.4;  
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: McDowell Board of Ed; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 295; 
Property name: West Virginia: Kennedy Park and Marina; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-03; 
Acres: 13.3; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Hancock County; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

Property name: 296; 
Property name: West Virginia: Tract 757; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-04; 
Acres: 0.2; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Williamson; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 297; 
Property name: West Virginia: Tract 759; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-04; 
Acres: 0.4; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Williamson; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Property name: 298; 
Property name: West Virginia: Tract 758; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-04; 
Acres: 0.5; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Williamson; 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

Source: Compiled by GAO from property information provided by GSA, DOD, 
and the sponsoring agencies. 

Note: For the purposes of this review, we relied on GSA, DOD, and 
sponsoring agency property information provided for the PBC database. 
The information in this table has been reproduced exactly as it appears 
in the database. We found that in some instances, for the 58 properties 
we selected as case studies, information in the database was 
inconsistent with information found in property documents such as 
deeds. For example, the number of acres conveyed may have varied. 
Because for our purposes it was not necessary to reconcile information 
in the database with the property documents, we relied on the 
information in the database to construct this table. 

[A] Information provided by GSA for this property listed the type of 
conveyance as Other. During our effort to match properties on agencies' 
lists, we were able to determine the type of conveyance for this 
property by using information provided by the sponsoring agency. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

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

Property name: 1; 
California: VA Triangular Parcel Los Angeles, California; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-96; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: Salvation Army; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 2; 
California: George; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-04; 
Conveyance type: Public airport; 
Grantee name: Victor Valley Airport Authority; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 3; 
California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-03; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Rolling Hills Preparatory School; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 4; 
California: Savannah & Cabrillo Navy Housing; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-94; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Long Beach USD; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 5; 
California: Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01; 
Conveyance type: Port facility; 
Grantee name: City of Long Beach; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 6; 
California: Little Cottonwood Park; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-89; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Los Alamitos; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 7; 
Florida: U.S. Classic Courthouse; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-03; 
Conveyance type: Historic monument; 
Grantee name: City of Tampa; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 8; 
Florida: Federal Building/USDA Lab; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-03; 
Conveyance type: Historic monument; 
Grantee name: City of Winter Haven; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 9; 
Florida: MacDill AFB RR Spur; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-02; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Tampa; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Consistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 10; 
Florida: U.S. Custom House; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-04; 
Conveyance type: Historic monument; 
Grantee name: Broward County Board of Commissioners; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 11; 
Florida: Communication Site - Homestead AFB; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-04; 
Conveyance type: Law enforcement; 
Grantee name: City of Homestead; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 12; 
Florida: Homestead Air Force Base Homestead, Florida; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: June-96; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: Metropolitan Dade County Miami-Dade County Homeless 
Trust; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No.  

Property name: 13; 
Kansas: U.S. Post Office & Courthouse; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-95; 
Conveyance type: Correctional; 
Grantee name: Wyandotte County, KS; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 14; 
Kansas: Federal Building, Manhattan, Kansas; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-98; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: North Central Flint Hills Area Agency on Aging; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 15; 
Kansas: Milford Lake; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-03; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Kansas State University of Agriculture and Applied 
Science; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated; 
Reversion: Yes. 

Property name: 16; 
Kansas: Tuttle Creek (portion); 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-89; 
Conveyance type: Wildlife conservation; 
Grantee name: State of Kansas; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 17; 
Kansas: Tuttle Creek (portion); 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-90; 
Conveyance type: Wildlife conservation; 
Grantee name: State of Kansas; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 18; 
Kansas: Tuttle Creek (portion); 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-90; 
Conveyance type: Wildlife conservation; 
Grantee name: State of Kansas; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 19; 
Kansas: Tuttle Creek (portion); 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-90; 
Conveyance type: Wildlife conservation; 
Grantee name: State of Kansas; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: ; 
No. 

Property name: 20; 
Kansas: Tuttle Creek (portion); 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-90; 
Conveyance type: Wildlife conservation; 
Grantee name: State of Kansas; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 21; 
Massachusetts: Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-01; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Bentley College; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 22; 
Massachusetts: Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: New Jewish High School, Inc. (Gann Academy); 
BRAC/: non- BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 23; 
Massachusetts: Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Oct-01; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Waltham; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 24; 
Massachusetts: South Weymouth, MA - NAS; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-01; 
Conveyance type: Self-help housing; 
Grantee name: Elder Housing Corporation (City of Quincy); 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 25; 
Massachusetts: NIKE Village Site, Topsfield, Massachusetts; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-98; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: Health and Education Services, Inc; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 26; 
Massachusetts: Commanding Officer's Quarters; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-98; 
Conveyance type: Historic monument; 
Grantee name: Town of Watertown; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 27; 
Pennsylvania: Valley Forge General Hospital; 
Phoenixville, Pennsylvania; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-95; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: Community Mental Health Services, Inc; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 28; 
Pennsylvania: Valley Forge General Hospital; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-96; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Valley Forge Christian College; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Consistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 29; 
Pennsylvania: Valley Forge General Hospital; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-89; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Valley Forge Christian College; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Consistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 30; 
Pennsylvania: NIKE Site PH-02; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-00; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Bristol Township; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated; 
Reversion: Yes. 

Property name: 31; 
Pennsylvania: Warminster, PA - NAWC; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-00; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Warminster Township; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 32; 
Pennsylvania: Naval Air Warfare Center Warminster, Northampton 
Township; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-97; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Northampton Township; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 33; 
Texas: 20 Units Kings Branch Housing; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-01; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: Ability Resources, Inc; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 34; 
Texas: Lake Lewisville, parcel 2; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-94; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Lewisville ISD; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 35; 
Texas: Lake Lewisville, parcel 3; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-94; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Lewisville ISD; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 36; 
Texas: Dallas, TX - NAS; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-00; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Grand Prairie; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Consistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 37; 
Texas: Naval Air Station, Dallas Duncanville Housing Site; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-98; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Duncanville; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 38; 
Texas: Communications Annex, Carswell Air Force Base; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-00; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Lake Worth; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 39; 
Utah: Clearfield Federal Depot; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Feb-93; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Davis County School District; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 40; 
Utah: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-01; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Weber Applications Technology (Utah College of Applied 
Technology); 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Consistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 41; 
Utah: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-01; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: Weber County Schools; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 42; 
Utah: Defense Distribution Depot Ogden, Building 42; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: July-03; 
Conveyance type: Public health; 
Grantee name: Planned Parenthood Association; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated; 
Reversion: Yes. 

Property name: 43; 
Utah: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-03; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Ogden (Ogden Nature Center); 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 44; 
Utah: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-03; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Ogden (Weber County Fairgrounds); 
BRAC/: non- BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 45; 
Virginia: Former Petersburg Correctional Institute (portion); 
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-04; 
Conveyance type: Correctional; 
Grantee name: VDOC Central Office; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non- BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated; 
Reversion: Yes. 

Property name: 46; 
Virginia: Defense General Supply Center, Falling Creek Reservoir; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-93; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: Chesterfield County; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 47; 
Virginia: Former Petersburg Correctional Institute; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-92; 
Conveyance type: Correctional; 
Grantee name: Riverside Regional Jail Authority; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 48; 
Virginia: Cameron Station (portion); 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-97; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Alexandria; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 49; 
Washington: Midway NIKE Housing Site Kent, Washington; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Sept-94; 
Conveyance type: Homeless; 
Grantee name: King County Housing Authority; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 50; 
Washington: Portion, Howard A. Hanson Dam, King County, Washington; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: May-91; 
Conveyance type: Public health; 
Grantee name: City of Tacoma; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 51; 
Washington: Sandpoint Naval Housing, Buildings 333-334; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Jan-99; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: University of Washington; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 52; 
Washington: Naval Station Puget Sound; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-99; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: University of Washington; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 53; 
Washington: Naval Station Puget Sound; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-99; 
Conveyance type: Education; 
Grantee name: University of Washington; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 54; 
Washington: Olympia Federal Building; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Nov-98; 
Conveyance type: Historic monument; 
Grantee name: State of Washington; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: Non-BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Inconsistent; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 55; 
Washington: Sand Point Playground Parcel; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Aug-98; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Seattle Department of Parks and recreation; 
BRAC/ : non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 56; 
Washington: Sand Point Magnuson Park; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Mar-99; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Seattle; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 57; 
Washington: Sand Point Puget Sound, WA NAVSTA; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Apr-00; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Seattle; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated; 
Reversion: No. 

Property name: 58; 
Washington: Portion, Sand Point Magnuson Park; 
Date conveyed/ reverted: Dec-02; 
Conveyance type: Parks and recreation; 
Grantee name: City of Seattle; 
BRAC/: non-BRAC: BRAC; 
Compliance oversight: Not evaluated; 
Reversion: No. 

Source: Compiled by GAO from property information provided by GSA, DOD, 
and the sponsoring agencies. 

Note: For the purposes of this review, we relied on GSA, DOD, and 
sponsoring agency property information provided for the PBC database. 
The information in this table has been reproduced exactly as it appears 
in the database. We found that in some instances, for the 58 properties 
we selected as case studies, information in the database was 
inconsistent with information found in property documents such as 
deeds. For example, the number of acres conveyed may have varied. 
Because for our purposes it was not necessary to reconcile information 
in the database with the property documents, we relied on the 
information in the database to construct this table. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Properties Selected for Case Studies: 

This appendix consists of summaries of information about 58 properties 
we selected as case studies for this review. We relied primarily on 
General Services Administration, Department of Defense, and sponsoring 
agency property information provided for the public benefit conveyance 
database and property documents obtained from the sponsoring agencies 
and grantees to develop the summaries. We found that in some instances, 
for the 58 properties we selected as case studies, information in the 
database was inconsistent with information found in property documents 
such as deeds. For example, the number of acres conveyed may have 
varied. Because for our purposes it was not necessary to reconcile 
information in the database with the property documents, we relied on 
the information in the database to construct these summaries. 

California: 

Figure 5: Little Cottonwood Park: 

Location: Los Alamitos, CA: 
Size: 6.07 acres: 
Grantee: City of Los Alamitos: 
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal Lands to Parks 
Program: 
Date of conveyance: September 7, 1989: 
Public Use: Parks and recreation: 
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity: 
Property status (active/reverted): Active: 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Prior to the conveyance of this property, the City of Los Alamitos had 
developed the property as a park site while under a lease agreement 
with DOD's Department of the Army. The city agreed to maintain the 
property as a public park and recreation area through the PBC program. 

Figure 6: Port of Long Beach - one property: 

Property name: Long Beach, CA NAVSHIPYD
Location: Long Beach, CA: 
Size: 282 acres: 
Grantee: City of Long Beach: 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Transportation/Maritime 
Administration: 
Date of conveyance: October 3, 2001: 
Public Use: Port facility: 
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity: 
Property status (active/reverted): Active: 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Environmental issues delayed the transfer of the property to the City 
of Long Beach. Since the former Navy shipyard was heavily contaminated, 
restrictions were placed on the use of some of the conveyed property. 
The Long Beach Port Authority has assumed responsibility for cleaning 
the property and currently is using the property as a commercial 
shipping port. The former Navy dry dock piers are being filled in with 
sand and gravel. Although the property deed states that the grantee 
will furnish MARAD with annual utilization reports upon request, 
reports were not included in the documentation provided by the agency. 

Figure 7: Savannah and Cabrillo Navy Housing - one property: 

Property name: Savannah and Cabrillio Navy Housing
Location: Long Beach, CA: 
Size: 64 acres: 
Grantee: Long Beach Unified School District: 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Education: 
Date of conveyance: September 14,1994: 
Public Use: Education: 
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years: 
Property status (active/reverted): Active: 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The property was conveyed to the Long Beach Unified School District for 
educational use. Currently, the school district is using the property 
to house a grades 9-12 high school with approximately 3,700 students, 
as well as administrative offices. The grantee is required to submit 
annual utilization reports to the Department of Education. 

Figure 8: Rolling Hills Preparatory School - one property: 

Property name: Long Beach, CA NAVSHIPYD
Location: Palos Verdes Estates, CA: 
Size: 24 acres: 
Grantee: Rolling Hills preparatory School: 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Education: 
Date of conveyance: November 21, 2003: 
Public Use: Education: 
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years: 
Property status (active/reverted): Active: 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The property was conveyed to Rolling Hills Preparatory School for use 
as an independent community school. When an endangered species of 
butterfly was discovered on the property, a study was conducted by the 
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that resulted in certain environmental 
restrictions being placed on the property. The environmental issues and 
resulting restrictions have caused financial difficulties for the 
school, specifically because the school had to invest in a new utility 
distribution system when FWS required it to abandon the existing 
utility infrastructure. The school plans to use the property to expand 
its grades 6-12 school. 

Figure 9: Westwood Transitional Village - one property: 

Property name: VA Triangular Parcel Los Angeles, CA
Location: Los Angeles, CA: 
Size: 2.13 acres: 
Grantee: Salvation Army: 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Health and Human Services: 
Date of conveyance: February 15, 1996: 
Public Use: Homeless: 
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years: 
Property status (active/reverted): Active: 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO> 

[End of figure] 

The Salvation Army has operated its Westwood Transitional Village on 
the property since 1989, and was conveyed the property for homeless use 
in 1996. The village currently provides 41 apartments, supportive 
services for residents, and a child care center. Funds and revenues 
generated by fees collected from the day care program are used to 
support the other programs on the property. 

Figure 10: Southern California Logistics Airport - one property: 

Property name: George: 
Location: Victorville, CA: 
Size: 960 acres: 
Grantee: Victor Valley Airport Authority: 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Transportation/Federal aviation 
Administration: 
Date of conveyance: May 17, 2004: 
Public Use: Public airport: 
Length of deed restrictions: No provision in deed: 
Property status (active/reverted): Active: 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The Victor Valley Airport Authority received 960 acres to be used for 
public airport purposes. The authority is generating revenue from the 
property in a number of ways. The authority collects revenues from 
building rents, airport facility use fees, state and federal grants, 
and revenue bonds. Although, the authority does not provide passenger 
service, it is collecting approximately $1 million annually from the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for planned passenger service in 
the future. In addition, the authority received approval from FAA to 
lease a portion of the property to a power company to construct a power 
generating facility. The authority receives approximately $2 million 
per year from the power company for use of the land. Based on 
information from the grantee, the airport property fence was moved 
prior to approval of the lease by FAA. 

Florida: 

Figure 11: Homestead Air Force Base Communications Annex - one 
property: 

Property name: Communications Site - Homestead AFB
Location: Homestead, FL. 
Size: 20 acres. 
Grantee: City of Homestead. 
Sponsoring agency: General Services Administration. 
Date of conveyance: February 9, 2004. 
Public use: Law enforcement. 
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The grantee has a 2-year construction plan for a Law Enforcement 
Training Facility. According to the grantee, the facility will enhance 
the law enforcement capabilities of the Homestead Police Department by 
providing it with a firearms range, training center, and K9 training 
facility that will be open to other local law enforcement agencies in 
addition to the Homestead Police Department. Of approximately $400,000 
needed to fund the project, $200,000 in state and federal grants have 
been received and applied by the grantee. 

Figure 12: Homestead Air Force Base Homeless Trust - one property: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Property name: Homestead Air Force Base - Homestead, FL: 
Location:  Homestead, FL.  
Size: 84.6 acres. 
Grantee: Metropolitan Dade County Miami-Dade County Homeless Trust. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Health and Human Services. 
Date of conveyance: June 28, 1996. 
Public use: Homeless. 
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

[End of table] 

The former Homestead Air Base property is used as a 300-bed emergency 
housing facility that provides clothing, food, and shelter for homeless 
men, women, and children. Services offered on-site include case 
management, adult and vocational classes, job training, and health 
care. However, approximately 52 acres of the property have not yet been 
used by the grantee, which does not comply with the deed requirements. 
In response to the breach of compliance, HHS first demanded monthly 
payments for the portion of property that was not utilized, but later 
agreed to waive the payments while the grantee developed an eligible 
program for the rest of the property. Pending HHS approval, the grantee 
has proposed to develop the unused land for a homeless garden project. 

Figure 13: U.S. Custom House - one property: 

Property name: U.S. Custom House: 
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL. 
Size: 0.5 acres. 
Grantee: Broward County Board of Commissioners. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Historic Surplus Property 
Program. 
Date of conveyance: May 14, 2004. 
Public use: Historic monument. 
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

According to PBC program regulations, the use of historic monument 
public benefit conveyances is not restricted, but such properties must 
be preserved. Although Broward County plans to use the former U.S. 
Custom House property as office space, a definite use has not yet been 
determined. Historic preservation and restoration of the original 
architecture of the building is estimated to cost $450,000. The 
building, to date, remains unoccupied. 

Figure 14: MacDill Air Force Base Railroad Spur - one property: 

Property name: MacDill AFB RR Spur:
Location: Tampa, FL. 
Size: 6.68 acres. 
Grantee: City of Tampa. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal Lands to Parks 
Program. 
Date of conveyance: March 15, 2002. 
Public use: Parks and recreation. 
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Although the City of Tampa plans to use the property to construct a 10- 
mile trail that will connect Tampa and St. Petersburg, less than 10 
percent of the property has been developed. During an on-site 
inspection conducted in July 2003, the National Park Service noted that 
the City of Tampa had failed to place signs identifying the property as 
part of the Federal Lands to Parks Program as required in the deed. The 
city corrected this problem and included a picture of the sign in the 
biennial report. The National Park Service has given the Tampa city 
government an extension from 3 years to 6 years to complete program 
development and implementation. Although the city has not acquired any 
surrounding properties, it is currently developing a comprehensive land 
management plan, which includes the trail development plans for the 
site. 

Figure 15: U.S. Classic Courthouse - one property: 

Property name: U.S. Classic Courthouse: 
Location: Tampa, FL. 
Size: 1.01 acres. 
Grantee: City of Tampa. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Historic Surplus Property 
Program. 
Date of conveyance: August 28, 2003. 
Public use: Historic monument. 
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The property was conveyed to the City of Tampa without a commitment 
from the grantee on how it intended to use the property. The City has 
not yet determined the exact public use of the property. According to a 
city official, the property would most likely be used as the future 
home of the Tampa Museum of Art, though it is only one of three 
properties the museum is considering. Since conveyance, the property 
has remained mostly unoccupied and the community has been invited to 
suggest possible uses for the facility. 

Figure 16: Federal Building and USDA Lab - one property: 

Property name: Federal Building/USDA Lab: 
Location: Winter Haven, FL. 
Size: 0.47 acres. 
Grantee: City of Winter Haven. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Historic Surplus Property 
Program. 
Date of conveyance: November 10, 2003. 
Public use: Historic monument. 
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

When the City of Winter Haven was conveyed this former federal 
building, its sole occupant was the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA), which used the building as a laboratory primarily for orange 
juice testing. After the property was conveyed, the City of Winter 
Haven leased the property back to USDA for a period of 5 years. 
Currently, the city has no specific use plan developed, but it plans to 
lease the building to a nonprofit organization in 2008 for a public art 
facility, museum, or other cultural program or to use the building for 
municipal administration. 

Kansas: 

Figure 17: Wyandotte County Correctional Facility and Court Services 
Building - one property: 

Property name: U.S. Post Office and Courthouse: 
Location: Kansas City, KS. 
Size: 
2.05 acres. 
Grantee: Wyandotte County, KS. 
Sponsoring agency: General Services Administration. 
Date of conveyance: November 8, 1995. 
Public use: Correctional. 
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The Kansas City Federal Courthouse and Post Office was conveyed to 
Wyandotte County for correctional use as a juvenile correctional 
facility. A site inspection of the property was conducted in July 2002 
by GSA, which determined that the property was being used for the 
purpose for which it was conveyed. The county has renovated parts of 
the building to house probation offices, family courts, and other 
juvenile services as well as detention cells used to hold juveniles. 

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

Property name: Federal Building, Manhattan, KS: 
Location: Manhattan, KS. 
Size: 2 story building. 
Grantee: North Central Flint Hills Area Agency on Aging. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Health and Human Services. 
Date of conveyance: April 23, 1998. 
Public use: Homeless. 
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The property was originally conveyed to the North Central-Flint Hills 
Area Agency on Aging for homeless use. The grantee currently uses the 
space to collocate services aimed at alleviating homelessness and has 
leased space to two other organizations that provide homeless services. 
HHS is aware of the use of space by other nonprofits to provide 
services for the homeless, and has found the practice consistent with 
its policy permitting grantees to associate with other eligible 
nonprofit agencies for the delivery of approved services. 

Figure 19: Milford Lake - one property: 

Property name: Milford Lake: 
Location: Milford, KS. 
Size: 119.49 acres. 
Grantee: Kansas State University of Agriculture and Applied Science. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Education. 
Reversion date: April 2, 2003. 
Public use: Education. 
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years. 
Property status (active/reverted): Reverted. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Kansas State University applied for and received the property to use 
for forestry research and to expand its tree improvement project 
operated by the Kansas State University Department of Forestry. 
Although the annual utilization reports filed by the university 
appeared to indicate that the university was in compliance, Education 
conducted an on-site inspection almost 18 years after conveyance and 
found the university to be noncompliant due to the university's failure 
to use the property as intended in the time allotted. The on-site 
inspection report stated that three parcels of property were unused or 
leased to a neighboring farmer to cut hay. Another parcel had been used 
as a research parcel, but the trees planted there had not survived. 
Education offered the university three alternatives, one of which was 
to return title to the federal government. 

Figure 20: Tuttle Lake Wildlife Area - five properties: 
Property name: Tuttle Creek (portion). 
Location: Tuttle Creek, KS. 
Size: 130.1 acres total. 
Grantee: State of Kansas. 
Sponsoring agency: General Services Administration. 
Date of conveyance: September 22, 1989; January 8, 1990. 
Public use: Wildlife conservation. 
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Five tracts of land were conveyed to the State of Kansas for use as a 
conservation area for wildlife. The lands have been added to the 
state's extensive Tuttle Lake conservation area, which offers fishing, 
boating, camping, picnicking, and outdoor sports such as hunting. The 
area also provides food and shelter for migratory shore birds and 
waterfowl. A 2004 inspection by GSA and the Kansas City Department of 
Wildlife and Parks determined that the property was being used in 
accordance with the deed. 

Massachusetts: 

Figure 21: NIKE Village Site Topsfield, MA - one property: 

Property name: NIKE Village Site, Topsfield, MA: 
Location: Topsfield, MA. 
Size: 8.93 acres. 
Grantee: Health and Education Services, Inc. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Health and Human Services. 
Date of conveyance: April 2, 1998. 
Public use: Homeless. 
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The property comprises 16 ranch-style homes that were built in 1958 to 
provide housing for personnel of the Topsfield NIKE missile battery. 
NIKE Village operates state-funded residential programs that provide 
food and shelter to homeless individuals who are dually diagnosed with 
chronic, persistent mental illness and substance abuse, and to HIV- 
positive adults trying to maintain a life of sobriety. Residents may 
stay for up to 24 months. The facility is always fully occupied and 
currently has a waiting list. Since the property was conveyed, the 
grantee has faced financial challenges in upgrading its sewer 
infrastructure to meet state standards. As federal property, the site 
was exempt from these standards when it was owned by the Army. 

Figure 22: Bentley College - one property: 

Property name: Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center: 
Location: Waltham, MA. 
Size:  22.29 acres. 
Grantee: Bentley College. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Education. 
Date of conveyance: August 29, 2001. 
Public use: Education. 
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center was the site of a U. S. Army 
hospital. Divided into three parcels, the site was conveyed to the City 
of Waltham, the New Jewish High School, and Bentley College. The 
college and the high school agreed to bear the costs of developing a 
centralized infrastructure involving improvements such as access ways, 
parking lots, and detention pond. They also agreed to share their 
recreation facilities with the community. The college originally 
planned to build athletic fields on the site; 
however, when it received less property than originally planned it 
decided instead to use the property to house undergraduate students. 
Two of four planned residential buildings are under construction. 

Figure 23: New Jewish High School - one property: 

Property name: Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center: 
Location: Waltham, MA. 
Size: 17.42 acres. 
Grantee: New Jewish High School, Inc. (Gann Academy). 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Education. 
Date of conveyance: October 1, 2001. 
Public use: Education. 
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The original site, the Frederick C. Murphy Center, was divided into 
three parcels that were separately conveyed to Bentley College, the 
City of Waltham, and the New Jewish High School. The high school 
invested more than $15 million into site development and the 
construction of two buildings. The first houses classrooms, a library, 
a cafeteria, and a sanctuary, while the second houses physical 
education facilities. Bentley College, the City of Waltham, and the New 
Jewish High School coordinated with respect to the property allocation 
of the original site and the plan for overall site development. The New 
Jewish High School signed a memorandum of understanding with GSA 
regarding the remediation of asbestos found in the soil after the 
property was conveyed. 

Figure 24: Veteran's Memorial Park - one property: 

Property name: Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center: 
Location: Waltham, MA. 
Size: 25.01 acres. 
Grantee: City of Waltham, MA. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal Lands to Parks 
Program. 
Date of conveyance: October 1, 2001. 
Public use: Parks and recreation. 
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center was the site of a U. S. Army 
hospital. The entire site was donated to the City of Waltham by a local 
philanthropist in the 1930s and was taken through eminent domain for 
use as a hospital during World War II. The city had hoped that the 
entire parcel would be returned to the city for active and passive 
recreational use when it became surplus. However, because of federal 
legislation specific to the site, the city had to compete for use of 
the property with two other applicants (the New Jewish High School and 
Bentley College). The city eventually received approximately 25 acres 
and is in the process of building four multiuse athletic fields, two 
softball diamonds, and two parking lots. The city currently has an 
active claim against GSA seeking reimbursement for costs related to the 
remediation of environmental contamination found on the site. 

Figure 25: The Commander's Mansion - one property: 

Property name: Commanding Officer's Quarters: 
Location: Watertown, MA. 
Size: 7.2 acres. 
Grantee: Town of Watertown. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Historic Surplus Property 
Program. 
Date of conveyance: August 20, 1998. 
Public use: Historical monument. 
Length of deed restrictions: 
In perpetuity. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The 27 room mansion was built in 1865 as a residence for the commanding 
officer of the Watertown Arsenal and his family. The surrounding 
driveways, walkways, and lawns were modified in 1919 by the Olmstead 
Brothers firm. The Town of Watertown restored the house in consultation 
with the U. S. Army and the Massachusetts Historical Commission. The 
deed grants the Massachusetts Historical Commission the authority to 
inspect and oversee the state of preservation. Renting the house and 
grounds for public and private functions such as weddings, receptions, 
luncheons, and dinners, the town uses the proceeds to preserve and 
maintain the house and grounds. The building has been listed on the 
National Register of Historic Places since January 1976. 

Figure 26: Squantum Gardens and Naval Terrace - one property: 

Property name: South Weymouth, MA - NAS: 
Location: Quincy, MA. 
Size: 28 acres total. 
Grantee: Elder Housing Corporation (formerly City of Quincy). 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development. 
Date of conveyance: January 12, 2001. 
Public use: Self-help housing. 
Length of deed restrictions: 40 years. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The property became available when South Weymouth Naval Air Station was 
closed through the BRAC process. Originally two parcels, Naval Terrace 
and Squantum Gardens were used for officers' and enlisted personnel 
housing, respectively. The City of Quincy created Elder Housing 
Corporation as a nonprofit corporation in order to secure the property 
for self-help housing use. The buildings on the Naval Terrace parcel 
did not need major improvements; however, most of the buildings on the 
Squantum Gardens parcel were in poor condition and were demolished. 
Although Elder Housing Corporation planned to develop Squantum Gardens 
into 223 units of affordable senior housing, partly because of the 
reverter clause in the deed, it was unable to obtain financing for 
development. Elder Housing Corporation is now in the process of 
purchasing this parcel to free itself from deed restrictions and plans 
to develop it as affordable senior housing. 

Pennsylvania: 

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

Property name: NIKE Site PH-02. 
Location: Bristol, PA. 
Size: 8.8 acres. 
Grantee: Bristol Township. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal Lands to Parks 
Program. 
Date of reversion: September 13, 2000. 
Public use: Parks and recreation. 
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity. 
Property status (active/reverted): Reverted. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The property was originally wooded land. It was conveyed to Bristol 
Township in 1981 for parks and recreation use, and the township planned 
to build athletic fields and other recreational facilities. The 
township was never able to obtain funding for development, so the 
property reverted to the federal government and was sold at auction to 
a private individual. The final sale is pending due to petroleum 
contamination found in the soil, which the Army Corps of Engineers is 
in the process of cleaning up. GSA anticipates that the cleanup will be 
complete sometime this year. The property is no longer accessible to 
the public due to the closure of the main road by an adjacent storage 
company. 

Figure 28: Liberty House - one property: 

Property name: Valley Forge General Hospital: 
Location: Phoenixville, PA. 
Size: 7.1 acres. 
Grantee: Community Mental Health Services, Inc. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Health and Human Services. 
Date of conveyance: November 20, 1995. 
Public use: Homeless. 
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The parcel was formerly occupied by the Liberty Forge School, a state 
institution for mentally retarded children. In 1989, Community Mental 
Health Services (CMHS) applied for the property to provide temporary 
housing for mentally ill homeless persons under the McKinney Act. The 
original application for 13.5 acres resulted in a lease rather than a 
conveyance, but CMHS was unable to develop the property and implement 
the transitional housing program. CMHS reapplied for and was granted 
7.1 acres in 1995. According to CMHS staff, buildings on the property 
were in "absolute decay," and CMHS retained a property management 
company to renovate and maintain the grounds and buildings. The 
facility currently serves 48 residential patients. CMHS intends to 
restore an additional building to be used as a group home. 

Figure 29: Valley Forge Christian College - two properties: 

Property name: Valley Forge General Hospital: 
Location: Phoenixville, PA. 
Size: 7.65 acres (parcel 1); 7.46 acres (parcel 2). 
Grantee: Valley Forge Christian College. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Education. 
Date of conveyance: September 12, 1989 (parcel 1); July 9, 1996 (parcel 
2). 
Public use: Education. 
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years (both parcels). 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The original site of approximately 181 acres was acquired by the 
federal government between 1942 and 1948 for Valley Forge General 
Hospital. The hospital was administered under the Army Health Services 
Command and was considered a substation of Ft. Detrick, Maryland. In 
1976, the property was divided into a number of four parcels and 
separately conveyed to Chester County, Charlestown Township, and 
Phoenixville Area School District. The largest parcel-76.8 acres-was 
conveyed to Northeast Bible College, later renamed Valley Forge 
Christian College (VFCC). VFCC applied for and was conveyed two 
additional parcels: 7.6 acres in 1989 and 7.4 acres in 1996. VFCC says 
it has spent over $20 million since 1996 on repairs and improvements to 
the buildings on the properties. Because of the physical and financial 
challenges the property's condition posed to the college, the board of 
trustees at one point considered the possibility of finding another 
campus at another location. 

Figure 30: Warminster Community Park - one property: 

Property name: Warminster, PA - NAWC. 
Location: Warminster, PA. 
Size: 243 acres. 
Grantee: Warminster Township. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal Lands to Parks 
Program. 
Date of conveyance: November 30, 2000. 
Public use: Parks and recreation. 
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The original site of more than 800 acres was the Naval Air Warfare 
Center/Naval Air Development Center (NADC), which was closed by BRAC in 
1996. The portion received by Warminster Township has approximately 20 
acres of runway, a few scattered buildings, and 20 acres of woods; 
the rest is open meadow. NADC was considered a superfund site, and the 
Navy performed cleanup on most of the parcel prior to turning the 
property over for disposal. There is a 4-acre parcel that is still 
deemed contaminated, which the Navy has covered with 2 feet of soil and 
grass seed. The township did not anticipate the cost of cleaning out 
the buildings it received and removing the debris left behind by the 
Navy. Although Phase I of park development is complete, including 
walking, biking, and hiking trails and a playground, the township has 
run out of funds to complete additional improvements, such as removing 
an asphalt runway that bisects the park. 

Figure 31: Northampton Township Municipal Park - one property: 

Property name Naval Air Warfare Center Warminster, Northampton 
Township: 
Location: Northampton, PA. 
Size: 93.7 acres. 
Grantee: Northampton Township. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal Lands to Parks 
Program. 
Date of conveyance: November 20, 1997. 
Public use: Parks and recreation. 
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The original parcel was 125 acres and was used by the Naval Warfare 
Center as an emergency landing site in case pilots overflew the runway. 
When the base closed, the property was conveyed to multiple grantees, 
including Northampton Township. The township originally received 125 
acres for parks and recreational purposes, but agreed to release 32 
acres for a new elementary school and two other parcels that were used 
for fire department training purposes and a water well for public 
health purposes. This left the township with 93 acres. Opened in May 
2005, the park includes sports fields, basketball courts, a roller 
hockey rink, a walking trail, playgrounds, picnic pavilions, and 
restrooms. 

Texas: 

Figure 32: Kings Branch Housing - one property: 

Property name: 20 Units Kings Branch Housing: 
Location: Tarrant County, TX. 
Size: 6.68 acres. 
Grantee: Ability Resources, Inc. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Health and Human Services. 
Date of conveyance: August 31, 2001. 
Public use: Homeless. 
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The property was conveyed in 1995 for use as transitional housing for 
homeless individuals with disabilities. Instead, the grantee has used 
the property to house these individuals and their families permanently. 
HHS program management officials conducted two site visits in 1999 and 
2003 and found the property to be in breach of deed and program 
requirements. After numerous attempts to make the grantee comply with 
the requirements, HHS has compelled the grantee to purchase the 
property for at least fair market value in order to release the grantee 
from deed requirements. Until the abrogation is complete, HHS is 
assessing monthly payments for noncompliance from the grantee. Ability 
Resources, Inc. plans to continue operation of its housing units as 
residences for households with at least one member having a disability. 

Figure 33: Carswell Air Force Base Communications Annex - one property: 

Property name: Communications Annex, Carswell Air Force Base: 
Location: Tarrant County, TX. 
Size: 
17.01 acres. 
Grantee: City of Lake Worth. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal Lands to Parks 
Program. 
Date of conveyance: December 4, 2000. 
Public use: Parks and recreation. 
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Originally the City of Lake Worth acquired 39 acres of property in 1973 
for parks and recreation use; 
however, an interstate highway was constructed that bisected the park. 
This resulted in one of the tracts being no longer suitable for parks 
and recreation. The city requested permission to sell a portion of the 
parcel for commercial purposes and replace it with other parcels of 
land for parks and recreation use under the same restrictions and terms 
of the original deed. Interior approved the request and the city 
purchased six separate parcels of land totaling 17 acres and it plans 
to develop one park a year on these lands. According to the city's 2005 
biennial report, it has completed two parks with another four parks 
being planned or partially developed. 

Figure 34: Lake Lewisville Independent School District Outdoor Learning 
Area - two properties: 

Property name: Lake Lewisville, Parcel 2 and 3: 
Location: Lewisville, TX. 
Size: 15.19 acres (parcel 2); 70.35 acres (parcel 3). 
Grantee: Lewisville Independent School District. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Education. 
Date of conveyance: February 25, 1994. 
Public use: Education. 
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Currently, the Lake Lewisville Independent School District Outdoor 
Learning Area is used by school groups during the day for educational 
purposes and study. The grounds include a science store, two classroom 
buildings, and a picnic area for outdoor learning. Five miles of trails 
have been constructed on the site and on adjacent property leased by 
the Army Corps of Engineers. The school district hopes to expand its 
school services to middle and high school students. District officials 
noted that one of the main problems of the property is its limited 
access. 

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

Property name: Dallas, TX - NAS. 
Location: Dallas, TX. 
Size: 26.4 acres. 
Grantee: City of Grand Prairie. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal Lands to Parks 
Program. 
Date of conveyance: March 3, 2000. 
Public use: Parks and recreation. 
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

According to city officials, the property was acquired by the City of 
Grand Prairie for public park purposes, and contains 13 separate tracts 
ranging in size from 0.33 acre to about 18 acres. Two tracts contain an 
existing aviation easement with lights for the nearby Naval Air Station 
runway. The city has not yet begun developing the property, nor have 
any improvements been made since its conveyance in May 2000. The city 
is currently in the midst of preparing a comprehensive master plan for 
the park site. Public access is currently not allowed. 

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

Property name: Naval Air Station, Dallas, Duncanville Housing Site: 
Location: Duncanville, TX. 
Size: 3.07 acres. 
Grantee: City of Duncanville. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/ Federal Lands to Parks 
Program. 
Date of conveyance: November 5, 1998. 
Public use: Parks and recreation. 
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

When the city made its application for the property, the Duncanville 
Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) was made aware that a transitional 
housing provider group, Brighter Tomorrows, had also applied for the 
property under the McKinney Act. As a result of the homeless 
application, the city's application was placed on hold, for 
approximately 2 years, while the property was being considered for 
homeless use pursuant to the homeless requirements under the Base 
Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994. 
HUD approved the city's application plan after the Duncanville LRA and 
Brighter Tomorrows agreed that the city could use the property for 
parks and recreation purposes. The property is currently being used as 
a park and includes parking, benches, a walking trail, and open space. 

Utah: 

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

Property name:: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT: 
Location: Ogden, UT. 
Size: 3 acres; warehouse bays 1 and 2. 
Grantee: Weber Applications Technology (Utah College of Applied 
Technology). 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Education. 
Date of conveyance: September 11, 2001. 
Public use: Education. 
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The site was originally a defense depot that closed as a result of 
BRAC. The Utah College of Applied Technology applied for and was 
conveyed two warehouse bays for education and training purposes. Not 
long after the property was conveyed bay 1 was completely destroyed by 
fire; the college expected the rebuilding to be complete by September 
2005. The warehouses are used for classroom instruction in materials 
handling, truck and forklift operations, nursing, plumbing, and HVAC. 
The college has served over 3,400 students and nearly 300 companies, 
providing opportunities for initial employment and skill upgrades for 
employed individuals. 

Figure 38: Weber County Schools Warehouse - one property: 

Property name: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT: 
Location: Ogden, UT. 
Size: 6 acres; warehouse bays 3, 4, 5, and 6. 
Grantee: Weber County Schools. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Education. 
Date of conveyance: September 11, 2001. 
Public use: Education. 
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The site was originally a defense depot that closed as a result of 
BRAC. The property consists of four warehouse bays. The storage bays 
are used by the school district for shipping, receiving, and 
distribution of school supplies; office space for informational 
technology equipment, technical training, and equipment repair; and 
storage of building maintenance supplies. The school district has made 
over $800,000 in improvements to the facilities including a new cooler, 
shelving, insulation, loading docks, and office space. The property was 
conveyed to the school district at an 80 percent discount because a 
portion of the warehouse space is used for administrative and storage 
purposes as opposed to education and training purposes. 

Figure 39: Davis School District Warehouse - one property: 

Property name: Clearfield Federal Depot: 
Location: Farmington, UT. 
Size: 5.2 acres; G5 warehouse. 
Grantee: Davis County School District. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Education. 
Date of conveyance: February 9, 1993. 
Public use: Education. 
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The property was originally conveyed to the Weber County School 
District in 1977 and was used as a warehouse. When Weber County no 
longer needed the property, it was offered to the Davis County School 
District, which planned to use the building to house school supplies 
including furniture, custodial supplies, and computers. The property 
was conveyed to Davis County School District in 1993. Since taking 
possession, the school district has made numerous improvements to the 
warehouse, such as a new freezer to store perishables, heating system, 
café for employees, and additional parking spaces. 

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

Property name: Defense Distribution Depot Ogden, Building 42. 
Location: Ogden, UT. 
Size: 0.74 acres, building 42. 
Grantee: Planned Parenthood Association. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Health and Human Services. 
Date reverted: July 28, 2003. 
Public use: Public health. 
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years. 
Property status (active/reverted): Reverted. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

Source: GAO. 

[Picture not available because the building was demolished] 

The site was originally a Department of Defense distribution depot that 
closed as a result of BRAC. Planned Parenthood Association of Utah 
(PPAU) planned to use the facility as a subsidized health care 
facility. Although PPAU was committed to the program, the property was 
never developed because soon after the property was conveyed, PPAU 
learned that it was required to conduct an environmental groundwater 
assessment and to pay to maintain the unoccupied building while the 
environmental assessment was pending. The property was conveyed in 
2001, but the grantee voluntarily reverted the property 2 years later 
because it was unable to fund the environmental assessment and maintain 
the property at the same time. According to PPAU officials, the 
building has since been demolished. 

Figure 41: Ogden Nature Center - one property: 

Property name: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT: 
Location: Ogden, UT. 
Size: 25 acres. 
Grantee: City of Ogden (leased to Ogden Nature Center). 
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/ Federal Lands to Parks 
Program. 
Date of conveyance: August 27, 2003. 
Public use: Parks and recreation. 
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The Ogden Nature Center is located on the former Defense Depot Ogden, 
which closed as a result of BRAC. The property was conveyed to the City 
of Ogden and the nature center has a 25-year concessionaire lease. The 
land was overrun with weeds when it was conveyed to the nature center 
and had been used as a dumping ground by the Army. The Army has since 
cleaned up most of the environmental contamination. The nature center 
acts as a sanctuary for local wildlife and birds of prey. Annually, 
approximately 35,000 visitors and program participants take advantage 
of the nature center's hiking trails, nature education programs, and 
summer camps. 

Figure 42: Weber County Fairgrounds - one property: 

Property name: Defense Depot - Ogden, UT: 
Location: Ogden, UT. 
Size: 25 acres. 
Grantee: City of Ogden (leased to Weber County Fairgrounds). 
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/ Federal Lands to Parks 
Program. 
Date of conveyance: August 27, 2003. 
Public use: Parks and recreation. 
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The property is located on the former Defense Depot Ogden, which was 
closed as a result of BRAC. The 25 acres of land were conveyed to the 
City of Ogden for parks and recreational use. The fairgrounds 
originally attempted to have the property conveyed to it, but the local 
redevelopment authority (i.e., the city) would not approve the 
application. The fairground is in the process of finalizing a 50-year 
lease arrangement with the city. The property is used weekly as an 
overflow parking lot for trailers during events at the fairgrounds. 

Virginia: 

Figure 43: Former Petersburg Correctional Institute - one property: 

Property name: Former Petersburg Correctional Institute (portion): 
Location: Petersburg, VA. 
Size: 275.4 acres. 
Grantee: VDOC Central Office. 
Sponsoring agency: General Services Administration. 
Date reverted: May 21, 2004. 
Public use: Correctional. 
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity. 
Property status (active/reverted): Reverted. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC) was conveyed 590.88 acres 
in 1986 surrounding the Bureau of Prisons' Petersburg Correctional 
Institute for use as a grain crops farm. VDOC uses the grain and crops 
to feed animals raised as food for the state prison population. In 
2004, at the request of the federal government, VDOC returned 275 acres 
of the remaining land to the federal inventory so that the adjacent 
Army installation, Fort Lee Military Reservation, could expand its 
firing range, which was considered vital to homeland security. 
According to a VDOC official, the Army said it would inform VDOC when 
it became necessary to vacate the property. However, VDOC has not thus 
far received notice from the Army and continues to plant and harvest 
crops on the land. 

Figure 44: Falling Creek Linear Park - one property: 

Property name: Defense General Supply Center, Falling Creek Reservoir: 
Location: Chesterfield County, VA. Size: 36.2 acres. 
Grantee: Chesterfield County. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal Lands to Parks 
Program. 
Date of conveyance: November 10, 1993. 
Public use: Parks and recreation. 
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The site is intended to be part of a linear park system connected to 
historic areas along Falling Creek. The property is one of multiple 
pieces of land the county is trying to obtain along Falling Creek in 
order to develop a greenway along the river. The county has a master 
plan for development of the linear park, but the plan is contingent 
upon the county acquiring the remainder of the land along the river. 
Presently, there is no indication of any improvements to the property. 
The county has filed only three compliance reports, although the deed 
requires biennial utilization reporting. Officials were unfamiliar with 
the reversion process and did not know that the property could be 
reclaimed by the government due to noncompliance. 

Figure 45: Riverside Regional Jail - one property: 

Property name: Former Petersburg Correctional Institute: 
Location: Petersburg, VA. 
Size: 154.03 acres. 
Grantee: Riverside Regional Jail Authority. 
Sponsoring agency: General Services Administration. 
Date of conveyance: April 21, 1992. 
Public use: Correctional. 
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The property abuts the Bureau of Prisons' Petersburg Federal 
Correctional Complex and I-295. In 1986, 590.88 acres were conveyed to 
the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC) for corrections use. With 
the approval of GSA and DOJ, VDOC transferred 154 acres to the 
Riverside Regional Jail Authority (RRJA)-a partnership between seven 
local jurisdictions formed to meet common correctional needs. Although 
the original agreement required RRJA to supply prison labor for VDOC 
farm operations, if requested, VDOC has not requested nor does it use 
RRJA prisoners as labor for the farm. The RRJA facility currently 
houses male, female, and juvenile offenders and can accommodate up to 
1,300 prisoners. 

Figure 46: Cameron Station - one property: 

Property name: Cameron Station (portion). 
Location: Alexandria, VA. 
Size: 54.05 acres. 
Grantee: City of Alexandria. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal Lands to Parks 
Program. 
Date of conveyance: April 3, 1997. 
Public use: Parks and recreation. 
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: DAO. 

[End of figure] 

The site was originally occupied by a former Army base that had served 
as a quartermaster depot and was closed as a result of BRAC. The local 
redevelopment authority allocated the central portion of the property 
for residential development in its reuse plan. That portion, containing 
the existing military buildings and associated environmental 
contamination, was sold to a developer. The two end portions were 
conveyed to the city to provide parks and recreation services for city 
residents. Brenman Park provides a large multiuse playing field, two 
baseball fields, tennis courts, pavilions, a large pond, parking areas, 
and restrooms. Boothe Park provides tennis courts, a large pavilion, 
playground, baseball field, parking lot, and restrooms. It abuts a 
large elementary school, which uses the facilities on a daily basis. 

Washington: 

Figure 47: Naval Station Puget Sound - three properties: 

Property name: Naval Station Puget Sound and Sand Point Naval Housing: 
Location: Seattle, WA. 
Size: 15.5 acres total; buildings 5, 9, 25, 29, 192, 333, and 334. 
Grantee: University of Washington. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Education. 
Date of conveyance: January 8, 1999; August 10, 1999. 
Public use: Education. 
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The properties conveyed to the University of Washington were part of a 
former naval air station. The university is using two buildings for a 
variety of purposes including administrative and departmental offices, 
record and supply storage, art studios, and a materials testing lab. 
The use of two additional buildings is currently undecided. Building 25 
is being considering for use as a pediatric dental clinic. The 
university is considering reverting Building 9 back to the government 
or entering into a public-private partnership because of an estimated 
$55 million in needed renovations. Some of the remaining buildings have 
been designated as historic, which has presented the university with 
major renovation challenges. 

Figure 48: Midway NIKE Housing Site - one property: 

Property name: Midway NIKE Housing Site Kent, WA: 
Location: Kent, WA. 
Size: 10.18 acres, 32 buildings. 
Grantee: King County Housing Authority. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Health and Human Services. 
Date of conveyance: September 1, 1994. 
Public use: Homeless. 
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non- BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The King County Housing Authority (KCHA) received 32 buildings (1 was 
demolished because of fire damage), which it uses to provide emergency 
and transitional housing services. KCHA provides these services through 
a partnership with three nonprofit agencies--the South King County 
Multi-services Center, the West Highline Mental Health Center, and the 
St. Stephen's Housing Association. According to a KCHA official, the 
agency faced unanticipated renovation costs when the heating ducts had 
to be replaced because of a mold problem. In addition, because the 
housing program operates on a break-even basis, KCHA partnered with a 
number of nonprofits for grants that were used to fund the costs of 
replacing siding and roofs. KCHA uses volunteers to help with 
maintenance. 

Figure 49: Howard A. Hanson Dam - one property: 

Property name: Howard A. Hanson Dam, King County, WA (portion): 
Location: King County, WA. 
Size: 204.4 acres. 
Grantee: City of Tacoma. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of Health and Human Services. 
Date of conveyance: May 9, 1991. 
Public use: Public health. 
Length of deed restrictions: 30 years. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The property was formerly used as a right of way by the Northern 
Pacific Railroad and came into the possession of the federal government 
when the federal government constructed the Howard A. Hanson Dam in the 
late 1950s. The property is comprised of a limited access roadway and 
200 feet of land on each side that stretches for 4 miles. It was 
conveyed to the City of Tacoma Public Utilities Water Division (Tacoma 
Water) to provide access to its drinking water intake and treatment 
facility that uses water from the dam. Tacoma Water has recently 
constructed a buried pipeline on one side of the road to supply 
drinking water to the City of Tacoma. The dam itself was built and is 
managed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Tacoma Water has spent 
$310,000 to repair the road, which is dirt, and in the future plans to 
pave the roadway to minimize the amount of dust from vehicles. Though 
closed to the public, the roadway is used by dam personnel, Tacoma 
Water personnel, construction employees, and logging companies. 

Figure 50: Olympia Federal Building - one property: 

Property name: Olympia Federal Building: 
Location: Olympia, WA. 
Size: Less than 1 acre. 
Grantee: State of Washington. 
Sponsoring agency: 
Department of the Interior/Historic Surplus Property Program. 
Date of conveyance: November 1, 1998. 
Public use: Historic monument. 
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: Non-BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The Olympia Federal Building dates from 1915 and originally served as a 
federal building and post office. It is considered a historic monument. 
The building had been through three major earthquakes since being built 
and needed retrofitting for earthquake protection. It was in poor 
condition when the state acquired it. Originally conveyed for low- 
income housing, the nonprofit that received the property was unable to 
raise funds for its renovation and use as a homeless shelter. The 
nonprofit reverted the property and it was reconveyed to the state for 
historic monument use. The state has made extensive renovations to the 
building, spending about $2.8 million for restoration. The Secretary of 
State's Corporations Division uses the building to register business 
entities in the state of Washington, including domestic and foreign 
corporations, limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships, and 
limited liability companies. 

Figure 51: Sand Point Magnuson Park - four properties: 

Property name: Sand Point Magnuson Park and Sand Point Puget Sound, WA 
NAVSTA: 
Location: Seattle, WA. 
Size: 116.3 acres total. 
Grantee: City of Seattle. 
Sponsoring agency: Department of the Interior/Federal Parks to Lands 
Program. 
Date of conveyance: August 28, 1998; March 17, 1999; April 6, 2000; 
December 12, 2002. 
Public use: Parks and recreation. 
Length of deed restrictions: In perpetuity. 
Property status (active/reverted): Active. 
BRAC/non-BRAC: BRAC. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The buildings and lands conveyed to Seattle's Parks and Recreation 
Department comprised a portion of the former Naval Air Station Puget 
Sound at Sandpoint. These conveyances involved four parcels transferred 
between 1998 and 2002 that added to the preexisting Magnuson Park, 
which had been previously conveyed in the 1970s. The city razed many of 
the structures but preserved a number of buildings (including three 
large hangars) in addition to developing the surrounding land for a 
range of assorted recreational activities. These include a community 
garden, a theater, a pool, a day camp, facilities for indoor athletics 
such as soccer and in-line hockey, playgrounds, and a dog park. The 
Seattle Parks and Recreation Department also leases out space to more 
than 15 nonprofit and community groups that are involved with sports, 
recreation, leisure, environmental, arts, culture, and education 
activities. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the General Services Administration: 

GSA Administrator: 

May 24, 2006: 

Mr. Mark L. Goldstein: 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Goldstein: 

This letter responds to your request dated May 10, 2006, for the U.S. 
General Services Administration's (GSA's) review and comments 
concerning the draft report entitled "Federal Real Property: Most 
Public Benefit Conveyances Used as Intended, But Opportunities Exist to 
Enhance Federal Oversight" (GAO-06-511). 

I have reviewed the draft report and accept the findings reached by 
GAO. With regard to the recommendations made for executive action, GSA 
program officials will be taking the necessary steps to improve these 
program areas through assuming a greater oversight role and issuing 
policy guidance. As to the data accuracy issue identified by GAO, I am 
enclosing comments that may not have been noted by your staff during 
its review. 

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft report. If you 
have any questions regarding this information, please contact me or Mr. 
David L. Winstead, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, at (202) 501-
1100. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

David L. Bibb: 
Acting Administrator: 

Enclosure: 

U.S. General Services Administration 1800 F Street, N W: 
Washington, DC 20405-0002 Telephone: (202) 501-0800 Fax: (202) 219-1243 
www.gsa.gov: 

GSA Comments On GAO Draft Report "Federal Real Property: Most Public 
Benefit Conveyances Used As Intended, But Opportunities Exist To 
Enhance Federal Oversight" (GAO-06-511): 

One of the objectives listed on page 2 of the report was to determine 
the number, types, and locations of surplus real property disposed of 
using the PBC program in fiscal years 2000 through 2004. On page 3, the 
report states, "We could not determine from GSA . the exact numbers, 
types, and locations of property conveyed in fiscal years 2000 through 
2004 as part of the PBC [public benefit conveyance] program." 

Data accuracy and incomplete dates are viewed in the report as 
contributing factors that affect the financial risk of landholding 
agencies, sponsoring agencies, local economies, and grantees of PBC 
property. The concern over unreliable real property data Government 
wide has led the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to designate 
Federal real properties as high risk in 2003 and caused the President 
to issue Executive Order 13327 as a way for improving Federal real 
property asset management. 

Given the importance of this identified area, additional information 
should be considered in GAO's report so that a complete assessment of 
GSA's role in the PBC program is accurately described. 

Initially, it should be noted that the majority of data accuracy issues 
stem from the differences between how GSA tracks information, and how 
the sponsoring agencies that deed these properties track the same 
information. GSA does not believe that the discrepancies between GSA's 
data and the sponsoring agencies' data indicate that the Government as 
a whole is not aware of or responsible for the compliance requirements 
of the PBC programs. 

GSA presently enters data elements into NetREAL, a system that profiles 
real property disposal cases and tracks key regulatory milestones. It 
also collects unusual facets about an asset, summaries of significant 
disposal issues, and the name and address of the party receiving the 
property from the Government. 

NetREAL is a legacy system designed to collect disposal data for the 
case management during the actual regulatory disposal process. Data 
accuracy for PBC assignments could not be addressed by GSA for 
compliance because NetREAL was not designed, nor can it be configured, 
to track predisposal or post-conveyance activities. 

GSA has recognized the need to upgrade or replace its NetREAL system to 
address the fast changing methods of data storage and reporting. In 
fact, in fiscal year (FY) 2003, GSA commenced an overhaul of the way 
that it collects, tracks, and reports real property disposal data 
elements for all three phases of the disposal process. Budgeting for 
necessary funds was the second step in the plan. 

In FY 2005, GSA contracted with the Perot Systems Corporation (PSC) to 
develop a replacement system for NetREAL; one that performs data 
collection through project management. This new information technology 
(IT) system is identified as the Real Estate Disposal Inventory Network 
(REDI Net). GSA's REDI Net team includes realty specialists and IT 
professionals who segregated REDI Net into three specific concentrates: 
(1) utilization, (2) disposal, and (3) post-disposal transactions for 
PSC's compliance. 

The REDI Net team has recently completed the requirement analysis phase 
and is advancing to the development phase. Although the application 
will be released in iterations, an initial deployment of REDI Net is 
targeted for this fiscal year. REDI Net, when completed, will deploy 
industry standard project management principles to identify and 
maintain an accurate accounting for all major procedural tasks 
completed for the disposal of excess and surplus real property. 

It will also include contact and document management elements thereby 
creating an electronic clearinghouse for all real property disposal 
projects handled by GSA. The deployment of REDI Net will improve the 
data accuracy concerns identified by GAO and also provide the mechanism 
to extract meaningful performance measures to gauge GSA's effectiveness 
of its program operation. GSA expects that REDI Net will enable us to 
improve PBC program management and oversight. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services: 

Department Of Health & Human Services: 
Office of Inspector General: 
Washington, D.C. 20201: 

Jun 5 2006: 

Mr. Mark Goldstein: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Goldstein: 

Enclosed are the Department's comments on the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report entitled "Federal Real 
Property: Most Public Benefit Conveyances Used As Intended, But 
Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal Oversight" (GAO-06-511). These 
comments represent the tentative position of the Department and are 
subject to reevaluation when the final version of this report is 
received. 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft 
report before its publication. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Daniel R. Levinson: 
Inspector General: 

Enclosure: 

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is transmitting the Department's 
response to this draft report in our capacity as the Department's 
designated focal point' and coordinator for U.S. Government 
Accountability Office reports. OIG has not conducted an independent 
assessment of these comments and therefore expresses no opinion on 
them. 

Comments Of The Department Of Health And Human Services On The U.S. 
Government Accountability Office's Draft Report Entitled "Federal Real 
Property: Most Public Benefit Conveyances Used As Intended. But 
Opportunities Exist To Enhance Federal Oversight" (GAO-06-511): 

General Comments: 

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) appreciates the 
opportunity to comment on the draft report. After reviewing this 
report, we have a number of concerns with specific findings in the 
report. 

An objective of the U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO) 
review is to assess agency efforts to ensure that properties are used 
as agreed to by the grantee. When properties are not used as agreed to 
by the grantee, the sponsoring agency may seek to enforce the 
reversionary clause in the deed of conveyance. Although the agencies 
agree that this is an option of last resort, it is the only mechanism 
by which a grantee's misuse of the property can be terminated. Public 
benefit conveyance (PBC) disposal agencies, General Services 
Administration (GSA) and the Department of Defense (DOD) often block 
the sponsoring agencies' reversion efforts based on the assumption that 
the reacquisition of surplus property will result in expense and 
liability to the Federal Government. The draft report examines the 
interagency dispute on the reversion of conveyed surplus property in 
detail, and at length. The draft report fails, however, to draw any 
meaningful conclusions from the agencies' competing viewpoints on the 
subject. Neither does the draft report offer any specific 
recommendations to address the problem. The absence of thorough record 
keeping on reversions is a less significant issue than the fundamental 
disagreements between disposal and sponsoring agencies on how to 
implement reversions. Sponsoring agencies agree that clear authority to 
exercise the reversion remedy is needed to ensure that properties are 
used as agreed to by grantees. GAO is in a unique position to examine 
whether reversion is suitable for compliance enforcement and, if so, to 
determine whether the disposal agencies' objections have merit. Clear 
guidance on the reversion controversy would provide a framework within 
which the sponsoring agencies can approach many of the administrative 
deficiencies noted in the draft report. 

GSA, DOD, and Sponsoring Agency Data Were Not Consistent or Reliable: 

GSA and DOD maintain conveyance responsibility for a number of 
properties which are not sponsoring agency programs and, as such, are 
never assigned to the sponsoring agency. Examples include properties 
conveyed for correctional facilities, historic monuments, etc., which 
are conveyed by GSA. Additionally, although McKinney-Vento Act 
applications for underutilized and unutilized properties are reviewed 
by HHS, DOD leases the properties to successful applicants. These 
properties would therefore not be in the sponsoring agencies' property 
records. 

Assignment is requested from the respective disposal agency (GSA or 
DOD) after HHS approves an application. There are numerous ways in 
which property information is provided to the disposal agency: 

* A copy of the incoming letter of interest is provided to the disposal 
agency following its receipt by the sponsoring agency. This interest 
letter contains the name and address of the potential grantee and a 
brief description of the proposed use of the property being requested. 

* A copy of the approved application is submitted to the disposal 
agency along with the assignment request. 

* The disposal agency is also provided a copy of the executed and 
recorded quitclaim deed or lease with its recordation information and 
contract number. 

* Copies of any subsequent correspondence which may affect title to the 
property are forwarded to the disposal agency. Also, prior to a 
sponsoring agency's approval of any action which may affect title to 
the property (mortgage, easements, demolishing buildings, etc.), 
concurrence from the disposal agency is solicited pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 
§ 550. 

Given the amount of information provided by the sponsoring agency, GSA 
and DOD should, at a minimum, have data which include the sponsoring 
agency's contract number; contact information on the grantee; program 
use; dates of conveyance and expiration of restrictions; as well as 
history of actions which may affect title to the properties after 
leaving the disposal agencies' inventories. 

The difficulty in comparing properties is that the initial notices 
issued by GSA and DOD often may list a specific name but they 
frequently change that name to another upon assignment. The disposal 
agency's name for the property in the letter of assignment is 
considered the "official" name and is the one that the sponsoring 
agency uses in subsequent documents. Specifically, parcel numbers used 
in its initial notices are frequently changed by DOD when the 
properties are assigned to the sponsoring agencies. This leads the 
sponsoring agency to request verification as to whether the initial 
parcel of property requested is the same parcel that has been assigned. 

Data lacked unique identifiers: 

We disagree with GAO's statement that only GSA and the Air Force 
provide unique identifying codes for each property. HHS also has a 
unique identification number for each property. Properties that have 
been conveyed by HHS are identified by Region, State, and Contract/ 
Project Number (e.g. 04-FL-2282). Along with the Contact/Project 
Number, the GSA property number and DOD identifying codes (if 
available) are listed in HHS's real property database of public benefit 
conveyances. 

Data Not Regularly Maintained on Property Reverted Back to the 
Government: 

A data field for reverted property can easily be added to HHS's 
property tracking system of public benefit conveyances. 

Waiver of grantee's reporting requirements: 

HHS, on a case by case basis, may waive reporting requirements only 
after a prior history of full compliance in the grantee's use of the 
property. These waivers are rare and involve, for the most part, 
conveyances of easements, water and/or sewer lines, drainage ditches, 
etc. 

King's Branch Housing Property: 

GAO failed to mention that the grantee is assessed monthly payments for 
noncompliance and will continue with these payments until the 
abrogation action is completed. See 45 C.F.R. § 12.12(a)(6). 

Grantee cited the lack of communication about the program and 
individual properties as challenges: 

Program information on the Federal Property Assistance Program and 
Title V of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Program is found on 
the HHS Web site. The potential grantee is given this Web site in the 
HHS standard information letter along with copies of regulations, 
brochures, and funding resources. Subsequently, HHS's letter which 
transmits the application instructions also includes the contact 
information for the disposal agency representative who will be able to 
provide specific information on the property (e.g. property location, 
acreage, environmental, and site visit). 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We believe that the lack of reliable, consistent data on PBC properties 
is largely due to GSA's and DOD's failure to use information in the 
documentation furnished by most sponsoring agencies (e.g. copies of 
applications, quitclaim deeds, release and abrogation documents, return 
deeds, etc.) These documents contain updated information on the history 
of the properties after they have been disposed of by GSA and DOD. 
Given that GSA and DOD consistently fail to update their own property 
records with information furnished by the sponsoring agencies, we doubt 
whether they will be able to be more efficient at developing a 
governmentwide database without in-depth discussions with the 
sponsoring agencies. 

It is noted that the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA), 
which is maintained by GSA, has a governmentwide database through which 
Federal funding agencies may log onto the CFDA Web site to update 
information on their specific programs on a recurring basis. We suggest 
a similar concept for the development of a governmentwide real property 
data collection system. 

HHS, in keeping with GAO's recommendation, will dedicate a field in its 
database of public benefit conveyances system that will keep track of 
future reverted properties. HHS has been aggressive in ensuring the 
grantees' timely submission of annual utilization reports on the 
operation and maintenance of the properties. 

We believe that standard policies and procedures for compliance site 
inspections and utilization reports would not be feasible. Since there 
are broad differences in programs of use, the sponsoring agencies 
information needs differ greatly. There may be report information that 
is needed for public health or homeless programs that would not be 
needed or appropriate in a Parks or Federal Aviation Administration 
program. It would create an administrative burden on the sponsoring 
agency, as well as the grantee, to have to report on a requirement that 
does not pertain to its program or to its operation of the program.

[End of section] 

Appendix VII Comments from the Department of Education: 

Office Of Management: 
Assistant Secretary: 

Mark Goldstein: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 
U. S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Room 2T23B: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Goldstein: 

The U,S, Department of Education appreciates the research and work that 
went into the Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) comprehensive 
study of Public Benefit Conveyances (GAO-06-511}. We agree that the 
federal real property disposal and Public Benefit Conveyance 
environment is very complex and characterized by often inconsistent 
laws, regulations, and procedures that complicate federal surplus real 
property disposal and compliance enforcement considerably. 

The Department concurs with GAO that all agencies involved in this, 
program must work together and cooperatively implement standardized 
processes. We are ready to work with GSA to address the challenges 
identified in your study. We will update our website to include 
information about the PBC program, and we will develop a plan of action 
to better ensure our compliance with our current monitoring policies. 

We thank GAO for its unique insights into the complex, government-wide 
Public Benefit Conveyance environment and for identifying areas that 
need to be strengthened.

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Michell Clark: 

400 Maryland Ave, S.W. Washington, DC 202020-4500 
www.ed.gov: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Mark L. Goldstein (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, David Sausville, Assistant 
Director; Carol Anderson-Guthrie; Lindsay Bach; Tonnye Conner-White; 
Kim Michaels; Susan Michal-Smith; Claudine Pauselli; and Kelly Slade 
made key contributions to this report. 

(543111): 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] GAO, Federal Real Property: Further Actions Needed to Address Long- 
standing and Complex Problems, GAO-05-848T (Washington, D.C.: June 22, 
2005). 

[2] P.L. No. 101-510, Section 2905 (b), 10 U.S.C. 2687 note (1990). 

[3] 40 U.S.C. §§ 541-559 governs the disposal of real and personal 
property. 

[4] GSA can negotiate a sale at appraised fair market value with a 
state or local government if the property will be used for another 
public purpose. 

[5] If state and local governments or other eligible nonprofits do not 
wish to acquire the property, GSA can dispose of property via a 
competitive sale to the public, generally through a sealed bid or 
auction. 

[6] DOD has authority to transfer BRAC property to local redevelopment 
authorities (LRA) that are created under the BRAC process to help spur 
local economic development and job creation. An economic development 
conveyance may be with or without an initial payment at the time of 
transfer and may be at or below the estimated fair market value of the 
property. Terms and conditions of payment to DOD are fully negotiable. 
According to DOD, these negotiations should be fair and reasonable to 
both parties and strike a balance between compensation to the federal 
taxpayer and the need for the conveyance to spur redevelopment and job 
creation. 

[7] To convey property is to transfer title or ownership of property to 
another entity. 

[8] According to DOD officials, an LRA is not always established, 
particularly when the portion of land being disposed of is small or in 
an area that is not well populated. 

[9] The LRA's role in planning for the redevelopment of surplus DOD 
properties in the 2005 BRAC round may be reduced as a result of 
Congress's general mandate to DOD to seek to obtain fair market value 
in its BRAC disposal actions. See Pub. L. No. 101-510 § 2900(b)(4), 10 
U.S.C. 2687 note (1990). Accordingly, this mandate could also impact 
the extent to which PBCs are used as a means of conveying 2005 BRAC 
surplus properties. 

[10] Pub. L. No. 103-421 (1994). 

[11] For public airport and historic monument conveyances, the military 
department does not assign the property to the sponsoring agency. 
Instead, the military department obtains approval from the sponsoring 
agency prior to deeding the property to the grantee itself. In the case 
of homeless use conveyances, according to DOD's Base Reuse 
Implementation Manual, if there is no specific request from HUD, the 
military department may directly transfer the property for homeless use 
to the grantee. 

[12] For homeless use conveyances, property can revert to the LRA. 

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

[14] GSA did not provide a description of this property, so we were 
unable to determine if the property description was consistent with the 
description provided by HHS. 

[15] In commenting on this report, HHS noted that it also has a unique 
identification number for each property conveyed by HHS, which it uses 
in conjunction with GSA and DOD identifying codes. HHS did not provide 
these numbers to us during our audit. 

[16] GSA's NetReal database is used by regional realty staff to keep 
track of property disposed of by the PBC process as well as by other 
disposal methods. 

[17] GAO, Federal Real Property: Better Governmentwide Data Needed for 
Strategic Decisionmaking, GAO-02-342 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16. 2002). 

[18] GAO, High-Risk Series: Federal Real Property, GAO-03-122 
(Washington, D.C.: January 2003). 

[19] Presidential Executive Order 13327. 

[20] These properties include the Federal Building/USDA Lab property, 
the U.S. Classic Courthouse property, the U.S. Custom House property, 
and the Communication Site - Homestead AFB property; 
a Long Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD property, the George property, and two 
Defense Depot - Ogden, UT properties. 

[21] The four reverted properties were the NIKE PH-02 property; 
the Milford Lake property; 
the Defense Distribution Depot Ogden, Building 42 property; 
and the Former Petersburg Correctional Institute (portion) property. 

[22] We did not receive compliance information from MARAD for one Long 
Beach, CA - NAVSHIPYD property; 
and from the Federal Lands to Parks Program for four properties that 
were part of the former Naval Station Puget Sound at Sand Point. These 
were the Sand Point Playground Parcel, Sand Point Magnuson Park, 
Portion Sand Point Magnuson Park, and Sand Point Puget Sound, WA NAVSTA 
properties. 

[23] The compliance records provided to us showed that the Portion 
Howard A. Hanson Dam King County, Washington and Olympia Federal 
Building properties monitored by HHS and the Historic Surplus Property 
Program, respectively, also received site inspections not consistent 
with the agencies' policies and procedures. 

[24] Education's compliance records for two Valley Forge General 
Hospital properties conveyed to the Valley Forge Christian College 
showed that the PBC program administrator waived the College's 
utilization reporting requirement because Education was so frequently 
in contact with the grantee that Education "knew more about the status 
of these properties and the College's future plans than about most 
other properties in the department's inventory." 

[25] The New Jewish High School has recently been renamed the Gann 
Academy. 

[26] GSA's new compliance manual is titled the Utilization/Compliance 
Desk Guide. 

[27] Conveyances of surplus port properties as PBCs were authorized by 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (P. L. No. 
103-160). MARAD promulgated rules under 46 CFR Part 387. 

[28] 40 U.S.C.§ 553(b)(1). 

[29] 42 U.S.C. § 11411. 

[30] 40 U.S.C.§ 554. 

[31] 40 U.S.C. § 553(b)(2). 

[32] 40 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3). 

[33] 40 U.S.C. § 550(f). 

[34] 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et. seq. 

[35] 16 U.S.C. § 470 et. seq. 

[36] GAO-03-122. 

[37] 42 U.S.C. § 11411. 

[38] Pub. L. No. 101-510 § 2905 (b), 10 U.S. C. 2687 note (1990). 

[39] 32 CFR 174-176. 

[40] BRIM was the primary DOD guidance for the disposal of surplus real 
property during BRAC rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995, the time 
period during which the properties we selected as case studies were 
conveyed. DOD updated BRIM for the 2005 round of BRAC and renamed it 
the Base Realignment and Redevelopment Manual (BRRM). 

[41] DOD updated BRIM for the 2005 round of BRAC and renamed it the 
Base Realignment and Redevelopment Manual (BRRM). BRRM also does not 
specifically address how reversions of BRAC property should be handled 
and whether DOD takes back noncompliant property. 

[42] We asked only that GSA and DOD provide information on the 
sponsoring agency. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; 
evaluates federal programs and policies; 
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's 
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 
accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

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

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, 

NelliganJ@gao.gov 

(202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548: