The District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency is happy to cooperate with the Administrator in the development of the temporary heliport. We feel t represents an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the impact of a downtown heliport in Washington. Before concluding however, I do wish to add that we have not had an opportunity to review our comments with the Bureau of the Budget and, therefore, they do not necessarily reflect the President's program. Mr. APPLEBY. Thank you.

The site selected represents approximately one-half of the 3-acre parcel which the Redevelopment Land Agency refers to as the portal

site.

The District of Columbia Redevelopment Corp., a corporation controlled by Mr. O. Roy Chalk, is presently making plans to develop his site in accordance with a competition held by the Agency. The corporation anticipates that construction will begin within 18 months o 2 years.

And incidentally, and in line with Senator Murphy's comments, he original proposal of Mr. Chalk was that this site be developed with an office complex, with a hotel and as a transportation center, ncluding a helicopter facility or "helist op" on top of one of the buildings. So the permanent proposal for this site, which is a $30 million proposal by private enterprise, does contemplate a helicopter stop, and this is one of the proposals that Mr. Chalk is still working to develop.

As I said, they anticipate construction will begin within 18 months to 2 years. Therefore, the Agency cannot give you assurances that the site will be available for a temporary heliport for more than 11⁄2 years.

However, at the present time, the corporation is in the process of developing a firm timetable, and when this is completed we may be in a position to extend these assurances beyond the 18-month period. The land has been acquired and cleared by the Agency, and the entire site, as has been indicated, is presently made available to an association of employees of the Department of Agriculture for parking

purposes.

As this is a temporary lease, the agreement permits the Agency to terminate on 30 days' notice.

We wish to point out that the development of a temporary heliport would not eliminate the entire parking lot. The lot is approximately 262,000 square feet, and accommodates approximately 1,150 cars. The location of the heliport in this square would have the effect of reducing the land area available to parking to 172,000 square feet. We estimate that the remaining area could accommodate 770 automobiles.

I also have a map, Mr. Chairman, which lays out the 90,000 square feet that would be devoted to heliport, as the parking is now used. That area includes about 380 spaces, presently, and that is a reduction from 1,150 to 770, should the temporary heliport proceed.

Senator INOUYE. That will be incorporated in the committee files for use of the staff.

Mr. APPLEBY. We would like to make one final point with respect to the temporary parking.

This lease has been returning to the Agency approximately 3 cents a month, or 36 cents a year per square foot. This income is included

70-086-66

as part of the Agency's budget, and we would expect to lease the heliport to the Administrator at this rate.

We call this to the attention of the committee, as it may have some relevance as to the extent of the change contemplated in section 6(d) of the bill.

We feel this represents an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the impact of a downtown heliport in Washington and we therefore support H.R. 15024.

I am required to point out, Mr. Chairman, that time has not permitted me to clear these remarks with the Bureau of the Budget, and therefore they do not represent necessarily the President's program.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Appleby, the lease rental that you speak of in your testimony, is the lease rental being paid by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Association?

Mr. APPLEBY. Yes, sir. It is about the rent they are now paying, although it is calculated on a percentage of gross income. This past month, for example, they paid us 2.8 cents a square foot.

Senator INOUYE. In this arrangement with Mr. Chalk and this corporation-is this contract a firm one?

Mr. APPLEBY. This is a proposal which he has submitted in accordance with the architectural competition.

However, the proposal has not been accepted because of a title defect which required an act of Congress before he could proceed. This defect has now been cleared by Congress, so that the Agency has good title and can transfer it to Mr. Chalk.

With the passage of that legislation, he has again proceeded with the development of his proposal. Financial conditions have changed since that time, and we are in the process now of negotiating with him to determine if he can proceed with the original intention. Senator INOUYE. What are the present indications?

Mr. APPLEBY. The present indications are that he can proceed, and he certainly wants to.

Senator INOUYE. According to your estimate, it would be about 18 months from today before construction begins?

Mr. APPLEBY. Yes, sir.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Dregge of the CAB just testified that it would take 18 months for the certification of a helicopter operator. That will mean that in 18 months we would have an empty lot. What would you observations be to that point?

Mr. APPLEBY. I noted his comment, and recognized the problem. Mr. Chairman.

We would not, I think, have an empty lot. It would either be used in the alternative way that he suggested, or until it was operational we would continue leasing it to the Department of Agriculture Association.

Senator INOUYE. In the interim, the Congress would be spending $75,000 to pave this area?

Mr. APPLEBY. That would, I assume, depend upon the availability of the site for operations.

Senator INOUYE. And it is your firm belief that your arrangements with Mr. Chalk will continue until the final signing of the paper?

Mr. APPLEBY. We are working with him actively now, and we expect to have a definite answer as to whether or not he will proceed in the very near future.

Senator INOUYE. Then, in other words, this legislation should be mended to read that this authorization will run for just a year and a alf.

Mr. APPLEBY. No, sir. As I understand the legislation, it says for maximum period of 3 years. And this is possible. We are not low prepared to give assurances beyond a year and a half, but it lepends upon the developer's plans and how they firm up.

Senator INOUYE. We may have to amortize the cost of construction Over a period of 18 months?

Mr. APPLEBY. Yes, sir. That is possible.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much for your statement. It has been most helpful.

Our next scheduled witness will be Mr. Robert F. Kneipp, Assistant Corporation Counsel, government of the District of Columbia.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS F. MOYER, ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL, GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. MOYER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kneipp could not be present. My name is Thomas F. Moyer. I am an Assistant Corporation Counsel and I hope to present the Commissioners' views on this bill. I have today submitted to the staff of the committee the Commissioners' letter, dated October 10, addressed to Senator Randolph. Senator INOUYE. The letter of the Commissioners has been received and will appear with its other departmental views.

You may proceed, Mr. Moyer.

Mr. MOYER. I hope to quote just briefly the two paragraphs from the letter which express the Commissioners' views on this bill:

The Commissioners are informed that the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency is agreeable to leasing to the Administrator of General Services property located within the area specified by the bill, generally referred to as the "Portal Site," at a rental equivalent to the income which is presently derived from the site, or approximately 36 cents per square foot per year. The Commissioners understand that any such lease would only be for such period of time as the property involved is not required for construction in connection with the planned redevelopment of the area, expected to begin within the next two years.

Accordingly, while the Commissioners would be opposed to the permanent use of the specified site for the purpose of providing helicopter service for the Washington Metropolitan Area, as being in conflict with the planned redevelopment of the Southwest area of the District of Columbia, they do not object to the temporary use of the property for such purpose until the property is required for construction in accordance with the redevelopment plan for this area of the city. With this understanding, the Commissioners have no objection to the enactment of the bill. And then the letter states that the Commissioners have been informed by the Bureau of the Budget that from the standpoint of the administration's program, there is no objection to their submission of this report to the Congress.

Senator INOUYE. We appreciate your testimony very much.
Mr. Thomas, may I ask you another question?

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, sir.

Senator INOUYE. In view of the testimony you have heard up to this point, indicating that Mr. Chalk may begin construction in 18 months, and Mr. Dregge's statement that it may take 18 months for certification, do you think it is a wise thing for this committee to pass this bill?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, there is, I think, a rather urgent need for a downtown helicopter site. The normal bill that we would have

preferred perhaps would not have specified the site, as this bill did, because this one is very specific as to site and as to size, but would have empowered the General Services Administrator for the Federal 1 Aviation Administrator or both to select a site within the meaning of the bill, and provide for such helicopter facilities.

Obviously, if it takes 18 months to determine the operator, and construction would start in 18 months, there would be very little time that would be available for an operation. Also, we would like to see the operation continue at such a temporary site while a permanent downtown heliport is constructed, and I am certain that it will be on top of some structure, because it would make better land use, as Senator Murphy pointed out, to have a permanent heliport on top of a structure, rather than using the entire land area for that.

Senator INOUYE. What use can be made of this area in the 18 months that we have from now?

Mr. THOMAS. As has been pointed out by Congressman Gray, in my prepared statement that I did not read, there are helicopter operations going on right now. There are taxis, police work, traffic work, and I am certain that if there were adequate downtown provisions for them to land, there would be operations to and from the

area.

I have some doubt as to whether those operators could amortize the cost. I have not looked into the finances on that. I have doubt. Senator INOUYE. The $75,000 would have to be amortized in 18 months.

Mr. THOMAS. More than that; $4,000 plus 36 cents a square foot. And that is a pretty healthy charge for landing.

Senator INOUYE. Do you think any of the present operators would be willing to pay this amount?

Mr. THOMAS. I doubt if they could afford it.

They will be unable to pay for it themselves strictly on a taxi basis, without a scheduled operation.

I guess we would still urge the passage of the bill as written.

We might have preferred that the bill not specify a site, and let us work out a site, but this does provide the opportunity for getting a downtown heliport, and certainly the General Services Administrator would not expend that large a sum of money for an operation if it appeared at the time he was ready that there would neither be an operator, or the construction would immediately start.

I know Mr. Knott quite well. He would not do so.

And I would not urge amendment of the bill, but we might have been happier had it left the site unspecified, so that we could take care of developments like this.

Senator INOUYE. In other words, you support this bill, notwithstanding the fact that we may not have an operator there, because of the high cost of amortization, and the rental?

Mr. THOMAS. And despite the fact that it may not be built under the circumstances; yes, sir.

I would not expect the Government to go ahead and build the heliport and expend the money unless there was prospect of amortization.

Senator INOUYE. Is Mr. Schmidt still here?

Mr. Schmidt, in view of the testimony, would the GSA proceed to spend $75,000?

Mr. SCHMIDT. As I indicated earlier, the General Services Administration has no funds available for either the rental or the improvements, so we would not be able to proceed until we had an operator that would be in a position to reimburse GSA for the cost.

Senator INOUYE. So at the present time, there is a possibility of setting aside this lot and not having a single helicopter operating from there?

Mr. SCHMIDT. That is correct.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, gentlemen.

Is Congressman Machen here or Mr. Rawlings?

The staff informs me that Congressman Machen is engaged in a colloquy on the House floor and will be unable to appear this morning. His statement will be placed in the record at this point.

(The prepared statement of Congressman Machen is as follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. HERVEY G. MACHEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, I want to thank the members of this Subcommittee for the opportunity to present my testimony on H. R. 15024, a bill to amend Section 8 of the Public Buildings Act of 1959 to authorize the Administrator of General Services to lease certain property in the District of Columbia for use as a heliport.

First of all, I would like to emphasize that I am strongly in favor of the construction of such a heliport which would provide service from metropolitan Washington to Dulles and Friendship airports. There is no question in my mind that such a linkage should be established and that it will be of great benefit to travelers and the facilities.

However, I do have strong reservations about the selected location for this heliport. The site at the corner of Maine Avenue and 12th Street, S. W., is presently being used as a parking lot by employees of the Department of Agriculture. The Welfare and Recreation Association of these employees has expended a sizable sum making improvements on this lot so that it could be used as a parking lot and unless the Association is permitted to lease the land for a longer period than would be allowed if this bill passes there will be a direct loss due to the unrecovered balance.

The parking problem in Washington is acute as I am sure all of you are aware and any move to limit even further the available space must be resisted when there are any feasible alternatives.

The 89th Congress has taken the steps necessary to begin work on a rapid transit system for the Washington metropolitan area. This will certainly alleviate some of the problem in the future but it does nothing for those unfortunate commuters of today who must drive the downtown streets like 20th Century Flying Dutchmen in search of a place to stop.

I would like to urge, therefore, that this Committee investigate all possibilities of another area which would serve as an adequate site for the heliport before depriving these employees of their parking lot and their investment in its improvement.

I would further refer the Members of this Committee to the attached Exhibit A, a letter from the Chairman of the USDA Employee Council which explains in detail the position taken by the Council.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

EXHIBIT A

AUGUST 8, 1966.

To: Carl B. Barnes, Director of Personnel, Office of Personnel.
From: Chairman, USDA Employee Council.

Subject: Proposed establishment of heliport on USDA parking lot.

Attached is a brief resolution of the USDA Employee Council requesting that you do whatever is possible to permit the continued use of the 12th Street and Maine Avenue lot for parking by employees of the Department.

In the opinion of the Council other suitable sites for the temporary heliport are available whereas there are not available in the nearby area sites equally suitable for parking by Department employees.