Mr. GALUARDI. Last year we did have authority in other appropriations to acquire sites. We seldom acquired sites with funds in those appropriations, and at your request we have modified our appropriation language so that the "Sites and expenses" appropriation is the only appropriation under which we can acquire sites. Mr. STEED. There is no way you can get reimbursement from the agency which has obtained its own construction money to turn over to you for the sites you may already own? Mr. GALUARDI. Normally when we receive an authorization from another agency to construct a facility, it either has control of the site. or, we are able to transfer the site to them, thus putting it under their jurisdiction and control. Then we perform the construction work. We therefore see no problem with this matter. COMPARISON OF SITE ACQUISITION COSTS Mr. STEED. I suppose costs of sites have gone up. What is the current situation in land acquisition compared to 10 years ago or 5 years ago! Mr. ROUSH. It would depend on the geographic area, but obviously the price of land would be rising much more rapidly in the metropolitan areas than outside metropolitan areas in less densely populated areas. We can supply some information for you, but it would be very difficult to get an exact estimate. Mr. STEED. We have made so many references here to escalating costs and the advantages of not unnecessarily delaying things that I was assuming land values have increased significantly as have other costs. Mr. ROUSH. We can provide you with information for the record. Mr. STEED. If you could do it it would be helpful. [The information requested follows:] COMPARISON OF SITE ACQUISITION COST, FISCAL YEARS 1966, 1969, 1972 CONSOLIDATION OF REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS Mr. STEED. I understand that in the last year or so various Federal agency regional headquarters operations have been consolidated into one city in each of the 10 Federal regions. Has this created any construction demand on GSA in order to implement this or is Federal space available in those locations? Mr. ROUSH. We have been able to accomplish the consolidations which were requested either by some leasing of facilities or by locating the agencies in recently constructed Federal buildings. Mr. STEED. Will we get to the point some day where there will be great multipurpose buildings or complexes of Federal buildings in these communities where regional headquarters are located? Mr. GALUARDI. The program to provide common regional boundaries was implemented about 4 or 5 years ago. At that time, we made a study of all of the regional cities in order to be able to locate in those cities agencies which did not have common regional headquarters. The direction we received at that time was to see whether or not we could colocate within the regional city all agencies providing common services and having common programs dealing with the people. We have done this and have nearly completed the program. In most instances the agencies are either in the same building, or are in a group of buildings which are very close to each other. We have not constructed any new buildings for that purpose. However, we have placed some of these agencies in buildings which have been recently constructed. In most instances this is the type of Government-owned building where we consolidated these agencies. Other agencies originally located within those buildings or scheduled to occupy those buildings were placed elsewhere within the community. Mr. STEED. I know that the advantage of these consolidations of regional offices into a central place is that the more they are in proximity to each other the more convenient it is for the public. It seems to me that as this matter evolves, the time will come when for the sake of larger quarters, a different concept of Government building arrangements will be needed. We may be talking about something several years away, but it may come down to this. Mr. ROUSH. Let me explain a bit more of the concept of what is happening. Mr. STEED. I know in cases where there have urban renewal and Model Cities projects that the Federal Government has been encouraged to select sites which lend themselves to the location of several Federal faciilties to add to the general civic improvement of the community itself. I wondered whether you would be involved in this sort of planning as well. Mr. ROUSH. We are pleased we are involved in what is more than just a Federal Government space situation. For example, we are involved in a situation which is a planned Federal-county-city complex of Government offices, a multigovernmental center and not only a Federal center. Concerning the concept of co-location of agencies, those agencies which have a great deal of day-to-day contact in a given neighborhood, for instance, the Social Security Administration, have been co-located, so that the major impact already is past. We have co-located the main field office rather than relocating those service offices which are in a neighborhood where the people must deal with the agency itself. It is a consolidation of field direction and management. However, the service locations, the smaller district office operations, for example, will remain in the neighborhood where they can best serve the general public. SITE ACQUISITION Mr. STEED. Inevitably you may have a situation where you are not quite ready to go ahead with a project, but you know within a few years something has to be done in a certain area. An opportunity to obtain a desirable site comes along. With this amount of money requested here, are you in a position in those situations to acquire a site even though you will not be using it for some years since you want to get the site at a reasonable cost? Mr. GALUARDI. Under our present authorities, we are not able to acquire the site unless we have obtained authorization for the project from the Public Works Committees. In a few instances, we have used existing land, for which we no longer have a requirement, in an exchange for available land which we need for future Federal construction. We do not request appropriations under the Sites and Expenses appropriation to acquire land until the prospectus for a project is approved. Mr. ROUSH. In addition, we have been fortunate on several occasions, particularly in the urban renewal areas, in securing a no-cost option, so we can reserve the ideal site, as you refer to it, for the buildings when they would be required. Mr. STEED. With the experience I have had with urban renewal if you do not have this capability you will not be able to acquire the sites you will eventually need. Mr. ROUSH. We have had excellent cooperation with urban renewal authorities on just this sort of thing. Mr. STEED. It is my understanding that the private sector considers it to be good business practice when they can acquire land for their future needs. In a time of rising costs it is a good moneysaving device. Mr. ROUSH. Yes, sir. Mr. STEED. Mr. Robison. EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY Mr. ROBISON. I am sorry to go back a bit in the record, but I do have a couple questions relating to the earlier information. I think they should be covered. If you will, please turn with me to page I-9. We have a summary here of GSA employment, 1973-74. Down at the bottom of the page you show a total of 27,681.7 average employment for 1973, related, it says, to budget authority of 12,003.4. It is under the heading of "Other." Mr. GALUARDI. That is on a man-year basis? Mr. ROBISON. What is the difference, here, as to employees carried under the item related to budget authority and those carried under the item "Other"? Mr. GARDNER. Reimbursable work outside of the GSA budget authority. Mr. ROBISON. They are still all GSA employees. There is no distinction otherwise? Mr. GARDNER. That is right. Mr. ROBISON. Then, turn over to page I-10, just to highlight the GSA total average employment, including both categories of the types we just covered. In 1973 the estimated or actual total is 39,715.1. For 1974, it is 39,767.2, the difference being in man-years? Mr. GARDNER. That is right. Mr. ROBISON. Have those figures been adjusted, those for 1974, to show the OMB people who might be coming on board now? Mr. GARDNER. No, sir, nor the OEP people. Mr. ROBISON. Or any OEO people? Mr. GARDNER. That is right. This was prepared before those amendments were submitted. Mr. ROBISON. Could you submit for the record what the correct totals would be, as estimated now by virtue of the additional people coming from OMB, OEP, and/or OEO? Mr. GARDNER. Yes, sir. [The information requested follows:] PERMANENT POSITIONS AND AVERAGE EMPLOYMENT, FISCAL YEAR 1974 Employment in budget and summary tables in congressional justification (pp. 1-9 and 1-10)... Amendments to budget: Expenses for economic opportunity liquidation function (employment not reflected in budget).. Salaries and expenses, Emergency Preparedness.. OMB functional transfer to salaries and expenses, Office of Administrator.. Amended total.. 41, 016 40, 549.6 BUILDINGS MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY Mr. ROBISON. On page I-16 there is a reference, under the heading of "Building management," to the average net square feet in Government-owned and leased space. I wish to highlight, for the record, the fact that, in 1973, Government-owned space totaled, in thousands of square feet, 100,427. Mr. ROUSH. Those are millions. Mr. ROBISON. 100,427,000. Mr. ROUSH. That is right. Mr. ROBISON. The estimate for 1974 is 104,367,000 feet. Mr. ROUSH. That is right. Mr. ROBISON. An increase in Government-owned square footage which is fairly substantial. Leased space for 1973 was 48,960,000 square feet, and in 1974 it will be 48,002,000 square feet. Mr. GARDNER. That is correct. Mr. ROBISON. It is dropping, but not as fast, apparently, as Government-owned space is increasing. Is that correct? Mr. ROUSH. That is correct. Mr. ROBISON. Do we draw some conclusion from this? You are building more space all the time? You are letting go certain leased space at the same time, but you are building more space than we had, overall, to begin with? Mr. GALUARDI. There are two explanations. One is that the agencies are expanding and we are building the buildings to accommodate their expansion requirements. The other is that in some of the new buildings, we are providing some facilities which were not available in the old buildings, such as garages and other types of space which provides common services. BUILDINGS MANAGEMENT EMPLOYMENT Mr. ROBISON. Then, on the same page, down below a bit, we are told that more employment is involved under this activity, "Operating Expenses," than in any other function of GSA. Can you supply, for the record, how many GSA employees will be used under this item in 1974? Supply it for the record. [The information requested follows:] OPERATING EXPENSES PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE Estimated average employment fiscal year 1974 Classification Building management activity (employment in building management fund): Cleaners (custodial laborers) Number 7,045 Elevator operators_-_. 359 Guards, Federal protective officers, and firefighters___ 3, 165 2, 749 Central office assistant commissioners and supporting staff; area managers and staff; regional directors and supporting staff_ Building managers and supporting staff__ 732 1, 017 Other (laborers not performing cleaning services, riggers and gardners) 221 15,288 Total buildings management activity. Mr. ROBISON. Why are more people used here than elsewhere in GSA? This is your biggest operation? Mr. GARDNER. Yes. It includes custodial workers, guards, and craftsmen. UNIT COST FOR GOVERNMENT OWNED SPACE Mr. ROBISON. Let us highlight for the record the unit cost here, if you can, which is on the same page. We see the unit cost per square foot of Government-owned space rising from 2.037 cents in 1972, to 2.119 in 1973. That is not a bad increase, it seems to me. Can you give us an idea how this relates to what private industry has experienced over the same period of time? Have you made any analysis like that? Mr. GALUARDI. Yes, we can give you the information. Mr. ROUSH. To use a comparison, it would be $2.03. The BOMA figure would be $2.20. We are considerably under the BOMA figure. Mr. ROBISON. They have added overhead costs which the Government does not have. Have you adjusted your figures to show that? Mr. ROUSH. We have adjusted the data to show that. Mr. ROBISON. Submit supplementary information to give us a better picture. [The information requested follows:] COST COMPARISON OPERATION OF FEDERALLY OWNED OFFICE SPACE, GSA VERSUS BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS ASSOCIATION The Building Owners and Managers Association annual report provides figures on a calendar year basis for office space only. The following information for GSA space is for office space only, in order to present comparable data. The BOMA report for each calendar year is not published until the month of August following the end of the reported calendar year; therefore, no BOMA data for 1972 is available. |