Lapas attēli

Mr. BARTH. On property the Postal Service has.

Mr. WRIGHT. It puts the Postal Service on a par with the President. The President would decide if we have to give any more property to the Postal Service, and whether or not we would be reimbursed, but the Postal Service would have to decide if it was going to give any property to the Government, and whether or not there would be any reimbursement.

Mr. BARTH. I think it is fair to say that.

Mr. WRIGHT. We have created an entity whose authority and power in some respects is on a par with the President. The authority of the GSA could not be said to be on a par with the President, could it? Mr. BARTH. No, sir.

Mr. WRIGHT. So you are, to a large extent, at the mercy of the Postal Service in negotiating these transfers of property?

Mr. KREGER. It would appear by virtue of the law that we were just talking about, that might be.

Mr. CONSTANDY. And again, since no one knows the definition of the bond indenture, that may be a factor influencing the decision to be made by the Postal Service.

Did we do Williamsport, or were we about to do Williamsport?
Mr. TERRY. May I inject a question, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. WRIGHT. Surely.

Mr. TERRY. In the Bronx it would be indicated that 33 percent of the space to be occupied by GSA tenants would amount to in excess of 180,000 square feet. Presumably your tenants are now in private buildings, or are they in other GSA-owned buidings in the Bronx at the present time?

Mr. KREGER. I would think they would be partially in Federal buildings, and partially in leased space, scattered around the entire city. Mr. TERRY. But your leases on the private sector of those buildings, presumably, would be tied into a completion date, since you had proceeded with just under $1 million worth of design, and had a proposed date for construction?

Mr. KREGER. I would not think that they were necessarily tied into the completion date of the building. Long-term funding would dictate that, but since this has been going on since 1963, the leases have probably been expiring, and readjusted on maybe a shorter-term basis. We have not entered into any 20-year leases, but 3- to 5-year leases.

Mr. TERRY. That is what I mean. That would increase the square-foot rental of those interim leases, that you are unable by virtue of this proposed project, to enter into long-term leases?

Mr. KREGER. On the face of it, it would seem to, but I do not believe it necessarily holds true. It probably would in a city like New York, with short-term leases.

Mr. TERRY. That is what we are talking about-the Bronx. So there would be an additional cost factor, and still is, by virtue of the Postal Service decision to withdraw from this project at this stage?

Mr. KREGER. There probably could well be an additional cost factor. Mr. TERRY. Thank you.

Mr. CONSTANDY. Now Williamsport.

Mr. R. I. NIXON,

Washington, D.C., September 16, 1970.

Assistant Commissioner for Space Management,
General Services Administration,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. NIXON: Since receiving your letter of September 1, 1970, about the proposed post office, courthouse and Federal office building for Williamsport, Pennsylvania, I have caused a careful review to be made of postal requirements at Williamsport.

This review indicates that a site of about eight acres is necessary for this facility. It is my understanding that your Agency is currently considering a site of only four acres. In addition we believe that the central business area is not appropriate for the type of postal operation we expect to have. We will be operating 86 vehicles in the new facility and we plan to maintain and service an additional 75 vehicles from perimeter offices. I think you will agree that the central business location is just not the place for this kind of operation. We would much prefer to be in an outlying area where a site of adequate size can be obtained without difficulty.

Because postal requirements are so divergent from the requirements you have for a Federal office building and courthouse, the Department is seriously considering withdrawing from this project and proceeding with a new building to be used solely for postal purposes.

I am familiar of course with the kind of problems this may pose for you and accordingly I suggest we discuss this matter at your earliest convenience. Sincerely yours,

(Signed) Henry Lehne, HENRY LEHNE, Assistant Postmaster General.



Prospectus approved: Senate-May 9, 1968; House-May 7, 1968.
Total estimated project cost: $8,714,000.

[blocks in formation]

Building area: Gross 194,100 sq. ft. Net 179,700 sq. ft. 44% of space for postal


Status of design: Design not started.

Date of postal withdrawal: September 16, 1970.

Remarks: Reduced project and revised prospectus contemplated; scope and cost now being developed.

Mr. KREGER. At Williamsport we planned a building of 194,100 gross square feet, 44 percent of which was to be used for postal use. The design has not yet been started. The reduced project is contemplated, and the prospectus is being developed at the present time.

Mr. CONSTANDY. And the Post Office withdrew in 1970, is that right? Mr. KREGER. Right.

Mr. CONSTANDY. So to Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands.

Washington, D.C., May 15, 1970.


Administrator of General Services,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. KUNZIG: Reference is made to Mr. Chapman's letter of May 4, 1970, relating to the Post Office Department's plans for participating in the proposed joint GSA-POD projects in Augusta, Georgia, Manchester, New Hampshire and Charlotte Amalie, Virgin Islands.

The arrangements with respect to our participation in these projects as set forth in your letter is substantially in accordance with the understanding reached between Mr. Lehne and Mr. Sampson in their meeting held on April 22, 1970. This understanding may be summarized as follows:

Augusta. In view of the fact that GSA will include construction funds in your 1972 fiscal year budget request, POD will continue to rely on this new building to meet our postal requirements in Augusta.

Manchester. Since this project has a low priority on your construction schedule, and no site has been acquired, POD is withdrawing from participation and will plan to meet our postal requirements independently, either by the construction of a Postal Public Building or a leased facility.

Charlotte Amalie.-Inasmuch as this project also has a low priority on your construction schedule, and our space requirements have increased considerably since the approval of the prospectus, your site is inadequate to accommodate the total space needs. We therefore plan to proceed with the construction of a new leased postal facility, but will retain a station either in the existing or in the new Federal building to be constructed by GSA. We shall furnish you our space requirements for this station at an early date.

Sincerely yours,



Prospectus approved: Senate September 20, 1966; House-October 6, 1966. Total estimated project cost: $6,376,000.

[blocks in formation]

Site: Size and location-77,537 sq. ft.; a portion of barracks yard renewal project (parcel G).

Status of acquisition: Completed September 5, 1968.

Building area: Gross-102,500 sq. ft. Net-78,300 sq. ft. 34% of space for postal use.

Status of design: Design stopped in August 1970 at tentative stage due to Post Office withdrawal; region 2 was authorized on July 2, 1971 to negotiate A/E contract for reduced project.

Date of postal withdrawal: May 15, 1970.

Remarks: Reduced project and revised prospectus being developed.

Mr. KREGER. The building of 102,000 square feet was planned there, with a net of 7,300 square feet, 34 percent of which was for postal use. The design was stopped in August of 1970 at the tentative stage, because of the fact that the Post Office withdrew.

GSA negotiated a contract for a reduced project. The reduced project is being developed at the present time.

Mr. WRIGHT. Now, I want to be sure I understand what is being said here.

The Postal Service would have used 34 percent of the space in the Charlotte Amalie project, and yet its withdrawal causes us to come back for a reduced project and revised prospectus which, as yet, has not been submitted to the committee?

Mr. KREGER. That is right.

Mr. WRIGHT. Are you aware that at or about the time of postal withdrawal, options were taken by the Postal Service on other land in Charlotte Amalie?

Mr. KREGER. No, sir.

Mr. WRIGHT. You are not aware of that?

Mr. KREGER. No, sir.

Mr. WRIGHT. The Chair has been advised, somewhat informally, that in Charlotte Amalie, the Post Office has taken options on other land.

Mr. KREGER. Let me read from a May 5 letter, signed by the Postmaster General.

Inasmuch as this project has a low priority on your construction schedule, and our space requirements have increased considerably since the approval of the prospectus. your site is inadequate to accommodate the total space needs. We therefore plan to proceed with the construction of a new leased postal facility, but will retain a station either in the existing or in the new Federal building to be constructed by GSA. We shall furnish you our space requirements for this station at an early date.

That does not speak to the acquisition of sites, but I think it might lead to the construction.

(Mr. Gray assumed the chair.)

Mr. GRAY. How big is your Charlotte Amalie site, Mr. Kreger? Mr. KREGER. The site is 77,737 square feet.

Mr. GRAY. Is there space available contiguous to the property, or are you familiar enough with it to know?

Mr. KREGER. I do not have that answer. We can furnish that to you, Mr. Gray.

Mr. GRAY. Did you know that the Post Office has acquired, on a 45year lease, about 3 acres?

Mr. KREGER. No, sir.

Mr. GRAY. That is the size of the property leased, three and a half


Mr. KREGER. I am informed that there was not that much available site around the land that we have.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. GRAY. I have been there and have seen your Governmentowned site, and there is ample acreage that can be acquired.

Mr. KREGER. I have never been there, Mr. Gray.

Mr. GRAY. You may proceed.

Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Kreger, we would now talk about the second sheet on that spreadsheet, with the 18 projects. Would you refer to the material that you gave me in your book on that, and we will just discuss that now.

I think the 18 projects lend themselves to discussion in total, do they not, more or less, and you can isolate a lot of them. You have what you call a statement relative to these. Could you just read that?

Mr. KREGER. These projects were originally submitted and approved by the Congress for direct Federal construction. They are included in the fiscal 1972 budget, however, and, as part of our proposed leaseconstruction proposal.

Of the 18, as we discussed before, Elkins, W. Va., and Oxford, Miss., have been since funded by the Congress. There are no leaseconstruction projects in which the Postal Service plans now to withdraw, no others, to our best knowledge.

Now, of the 45 projects, taking out the 18, of the 27 remaining that are in our proposed lease-construction program, there are five in which the Post Office plans to continue to participate. They are Roanoke, Va.; Akron, Ohio: Dayton, Ohio; Santa Ana, Calif.; and Van Nuys, Calif.

Mr. CONSTANDY. All right. I think we should recognize that the General Services Administration, on February 12, 1971, in a letter from Mr. Kreger to the Speaker of the House, Mr. Albert, transmitted a proposal relative to taking 45 projects which had been authorized by Congress for Federal construction and ownership, and having the land and site sold to a private owner who would then construct the buildings, and they would be leased back to GSA; is that correct?

Mr. KREGER. Mr. Constandy, I have a statement here on our legislative proposal.

With the chairman's approval, I would like to submit it for the record.

Mr. GRAY. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CONSTANDY. That would be exhibit 2.

(The information referred to follows:)




The backlog of more than $1 billion in approved and authorized buildings projects has caused GSA to prepare this proposed new program in order to satisfy the needs of hundreds of U.S. cities to have new Government buildings, or existing ones expanded. The needs of the public to be served by their Government adequately, efficiently and economically require the construction of these projects which range from major new Federal office buildings to small border stations.

With the existing pressures and demands placed on Federal budget dollar expenditures, GSA has determined that an alternate approach to direct Fed

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »