gained the impression that members of the Commission may have had the understanding that the Bureau of the Budget had been involved in the clearance or review of the request. It is our belief that the Commission action was taken in an atmosphere in which it was felt that the Government Printing Office was required to move from its present location and that members of the Commission were being requested to cooperate with the Congress by allocation of a portion of land. We are certain that you have seen today's article (copy enclosed) in the Washington Post indicating that the Board of Commissioners may officially oppose the National Training School site. This, plus the fact that the National Training School site has not been approved by the Joint Congressional Committee on Printing, raises questions on both the site location and the ultimate cost of the proposed new building that leaves in an indefinite state conditions important to action on the proposal. Again, we want to thank you for the generous time that you have allowed us in presenting our case to the committee. Respectfully, BERNARD J. TAYMANS, President. [From the Congressional Record, Daily Digest, Washington, Mar. 5, 1965] CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, AND FEDERAL PRINTING PROGRAM Joint Committee on Printing: On Thursday, March 4, committee held an executive organizational meeting where it considered routine business conducted during the period following the adjournment of the 88th Congress until the beginning of this session of Congress. Committee approved the following proposals: (1) That beginning on Monday, March 8, the date will appear on both odd and even pages of the Congressional Record, and (2) to study the devising of a format whereby the time and date of the next meeting of each House of Congress may be carried in a prominent place in the daily issue of the Congressional Record. Also, committee announced that it had "authorized and directed its staff to make a study leading to the realinement of some elements of the Federal printing program. It was noted that the need for printing services by decentralized Government activities is constantly expanding, and in order to provide for these needs, broad coordination of the total Government printing effort is indicated. In consonance with this objective, consideration will be given to more extensive use of commercial printing facilities. Representatives of departments and agencies will be invited to cooperate with the Joint Committee on Printing staff and the Public Printer in the conduct of this study." [Emphasis supplied.] [From the Washington Post, June 18, 1965] TRAINING SCHOOL SITE SUPPORTED FOR NEW PRINTING STRUCTURE The National Capital Planning Commission has approved use of part of the National Training School grounds for the proposed new $46.6 million Government Printing Office. Public Printer James L. Harrison disclosed the Commission's action when he went before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch this week to seek construction money for the GPO building. The subcommittee withheld decision on the request. The Commission took the action in closed session June 10, withdrawing its previous approval of a GPO site in the Anacostia-Bolling area. ESTIMATE CUT The Anacostia-Bolling site also had been approved by the Joint Congressional Committee on Printing, but the proposal ran into opposition from the House Armed Services Committee, which wants to reserve the site for the military. Harrison said the GPO was able to cut its construction cost estimate by $3 million because of the site change. A GPO spokesman, Robert Kling, said yesterday the new structure will contain 2 million square feet on 23 acres, but additional space for service roads, landscaping, and possible later expansion will bring the total requirement to about 75 acres. The National Training School, when it moves to West Virginia, will leave a 326-acre site which has been proposed for various uses. These include a community and/or liberal arts college, a vocational school and a model community of mixed public and private housing. NOT COMMITTED Kling said the Printing Office use could be compatible with any or all of these other uses, because of the size of the site. He added that a Planning Commission staff member has referred to the envisioned community as "Print Town"-a place where GPO employees as well as others could live. The Planning Commission approved GPO use of the "easterly portion" of the Training School grounds but did not commit itself to a specific location or number of acres, a Commission spokesman said. The Commission turned down an earlier GPO bid for the site because the printing agency had asked for a larger bite of the Training School land. The spokesman said Harrison requested Commission action in executive session on June 10 so he could report the action to the Senate subcommittee this week without prior publicity. Donald F. Bozarth, a Commission staff planner, said the action "by no means has shut the door on residential use" of the Training School site. A printing operation is "not an offensive neighbor," he said, but its nonresidential character nevertheless will have to be considered in overall planning for the Training School site. Money for a new GPO building was deleted by the House because of committee objections to nonmilitary use of Anacostia-Bolling. Harrison hopes that with the revised site plan the money will be restored by the Senate. Of the 900 acres at the former Anacostia-Bolling airfields, the District of Columbia has sought 500 acres, which the Defense Department said will become surplus to military needs, for an urban renewal project, including housing. The House military construction bill, placing with Congress a veto over closing of military bases, says the whole Anacostia-Bolling complex "will be required for military purposes within the foreseeable future and should be retained by the Department of Defense for such use." The Senate Armed Services Committee is expected to finish work on its version of the bill Monday. [From the Washington (D.C.) Post, June 22, 1965] COMMISSIONERS OPPOSE PLANNERS ON TRAINING SCHOOL GPO SITE (By Willard Clopton) The National Capital Planning Commission's approval of the National Training School site as the location of a new Government Printing Office plant was criticized by the District Commissioners yesterday. Commissioner Walter N. Tobriner said it seemed "inappropriate to locate a large industrial plant of this kind on a site which ideally lends itself to integrated community development. "One of the results of such a location is that the entire area takes on a commercial-industrial aspect, to the detriment of middle- and low-income housing, the lack of which is at the root of many of the District's problems," he declared. Engineer Commissioner Charles M. Duke said he had not studied the arguments in favor of putting the printing plant on the site, but was inclined to favor using the land for housing and community purposes. Commissioner John B. Duncan said he would prefer to see the land used to help meet some of Washington's social needs. The three Commissioners were interviewed separately. It is estimated that the proposed $46.6 million GPO plant would require about 75 of the school's 326 acres. The land, which lies along the northeastern edge of the city, is expected to be abandoned soon when a new Federal reformatory in West Virginia is completed. The Planning Commission's action, taken at a closed meeting June 10, was by vote of nine to nothing, with one abstention. Among those recorded as voting for the proposal was Assistant District Engineer Commissioner Victor O. Wilson, who was sitting in for Duke. Wilson was reported out of the city yesterday and could not be reached. It was reported yesterday that a large industrial corporation has engaged a development consultant and architects to study the site's potential as the location for a new town, housing about 15,000. Tobriner said this was "generally in line" with his thinking on what should be done with the land. [From the Evening Star, Washington, D.C., June 21, 1965] TRAINING SCHOOL SITE SOUGHT FOR MODEL TOWN A nationally known industrial corporation wants to develop a model community on the site of the National Training School. This was revealed today by architect Thomas W. D. Wright, of the Washington firm of Brown & Wright. The 362-acre site at the northeast edge of the District is to be vacated in the next few years when the penal school moves to new quarters in West Virginia, and a variety of uses have been proposed for the land. Last week the National Capital Planning Commission approved the use of at least a quarter of the site for a new plant for the Government Printing Office— a use some planners have called incongruous with the site's hilly, wooded beauty. DISCUSSED PRIVATELY Wright said his firm has been suggesting privately to officials for some time that the site be used for a planned community. Later it brought development consultant William R. Ewald of Washington into its thinking, and Ewald has interested the industrial firm in the plan. Wright said he could not disclose the identity of the corporation, but said it was as well known as other big companies that have become involved in similar projects elsewhere. These include Reynolds Metals, Alcoa, and United States Steel. As envisaged, the community would offer housing to between 15,000 and 20,000 persons in all income ranges, and would accommodate a luxury hotel and restaurant and a community college. COLLEGE SUGGESTED The establishment of a community college has been one of the more prominently voiced suggestions for the site, and Wright said he was convinced that the location could accommodate it as well as the other elements he described. COMPARISON OF BUILDING COSTS PRINTING INDUSTRIES OF AMERICA, INC., Hon. A. S. MIKE MONRONEY, Chairman, Legislative Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Appropriations, DEAR SENATOR MONRONEY: At our hearing on June 17 I was requested to endeavor to develop for you a comparison of the cost in industry generally for a building that would produce an annual volume of printed products in the neighborhood of $64 million. I was to give due consideration to the differences that may exist in the proposed new Government Printing Office building in connection with a possible greater area for storage of paper, the existence of a Superintendent of Documents type distribution, and any other differences that might be obvious. Perhaps the most helpful way of presenting the information to you is to be extremely conservative in terms of the industry picture and to allow-from a Government standpoint—the very maximum allowance for things that are peculiar to Government operations. On this basis we believe that the comparison which we provide below is not realistic from the standpoint of the difference between industry experience and the proposed Government action, since the gap between the two is substantially greater than that shown. The present proposal calls for about__‒‒‒ In this space the proposal indicates that there will be allocated to- Approximate total devoted to warehousing and distribution____ Balance presumably to be devoted to the normal operations of a printing plant, offices, etc----- Square feet 2, 100, 000 310, 000 440, 000 750, 000 1, 350, 000 The proposal for the new Government Printing Office calls for an expenditure of approximately $44 million for the 2,100,000 square feet. The cost figure here is exclusive of moving, preparation of plans, etc. On this basis the per square foot cost is: $21 per square foot. Using this square foot cost against the entire 1,350,000 square feet, the estimated cost of the printing plant and related offices area is $28,300,000. This presents a ratio of approximately 2 to 1. It is obvious that the cost of the warehousing and distribution space will not be as high per square foot as the cost of space where heavy printing equipment is to be operated. It is likewise obvious that the figures here are not really comparable to industry since they do not include the value of the land and the value of the printing equipment. Both the land and the printing equipment are included in the industry's ratio of approximately 3 to 1, so it can be seen that taking even the most extreme position in favor of the Government there is a wide and serious difference between the amount of money that the Government is proposing to expend to produce $64 million in printing as compared to what the industry would spend in gross plant investment, i.e. land, printing equipment and building, to produce $64 million in printing. It is noted that in one of the plant situations cited in the testimony to support the Government position, the cost was $15 per square foot as compared to the square foot cost for the proposed Government building of $21. In our discussion, you inquired about the possibility that a majority of the 1,000 companies might be occupying low-level buildings. You suggested that this could be a contributing condition to the higher cost of labor when the Government produces its own printing. You will recall that there was approximately 100 percent difference between the labor cost in the 1,000 companies and the 66%-percent figure which Mr. Harrison stated was the Government's cost. In an effort to answer your question, a random survey was made of 100 companies out of the 1,000. We found that approximately one-half of the companies occupy buildings of three or more stories. Out of the low-level plants there were only five that had more than 50,000 square feet. There were only two that had over 100,000 square feet, and there were none that had more than 150,000 square feet. This supports the information which we previously presented, that is, there is a high degree of efficiency in a small low-level plant but the efficiency becomes questionable as the area devoted to production becomes larger and larger. We trust that the above information satisfies your request. Respectfully, DONALD E. SOMMER, Technical Director. 49-381-65 -28 binding TABLE I.-Comparison of central office work with outside purchases (based on Outside purchases including paper furnished contractors used in printing and billings) TABLE II. Comparison of income from printing and binding operations of the central office with the income from printing and binding procured commercially (based on value of services performed) |