OFFICE OF PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
Public Hearing on B17-0760, the Surplus Property Amendment Act of 2008, and B17-0527, the Public Land Surplus Standards Amendment Act of 2007
Testimony of Robin-Eve Jasper
Acting Director
Office of Property Management
Adrian M. Fenty
Mayor
COMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
Councilmember Carol Schwartz, Chairman
Monday, June 23, 2008
9 am
Room 500
Council Chambers
John A. Wilson Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004-3003
Good morning Chairperson Schwartz and members of the Committee on Workforce Development and Government Operations. I am Robin-Eve Jasper, Acting Director of the Office of Property Management (OPM).
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today on Bill 17-760, the “Surplus Property Amendment Act of 2008,” and Bill 17-527, the “Public Land Surplus Standards Amendment Act of 2007.”
The administration shares the Council’s interest in assuring that the disposition of real property addresses the needs of the citizens, communities, and government agencies of the District of Columbia. We look forward to working with the Council to continue to build upon best practices.
Both bills are similar insofar as how they will substantially affect the District’s ability to surplus and dispose of real property quickly and efficiently. I will therefore discuss the bills more generally and answer any specific questions about the impacts of a given bill during oral questioning.
As stewards of the District’s real property assets, the District government is responsible to ensure that resources are put to the best use for the benefit of District residents. One method available to accomplish this objective, under appropriate circumstances, is the disposition of real property. This tool serves many purposes, and includes making affordable homes available to low-income homebuyers, eliminating blight and spurring economic development in disadvantaged neighborhoods.
The legislation under consideration today would duplicate processes already in place and prolong the disposition process. The result would significantly decrease efficiency, increase costs, and negatively affect communities.
Duplicating Current Process
Among the agencies vested with the responsibility for the disposition of real property are OPM, the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, the Department of Housing and Community Development, the DC Housing Authority, the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, and the Office of Tax and Revenue. As guided by Section 25 of the Comprehensive Plan, these agencies work with the Office of Planning, DC Public Schools, the Deputy Mayor for Education, the City Administrator, the Office of Budget and Planning, Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners and appropriate outside agencies and partners for each specific property.
Legislation being considered today attempts to enhance the disposition process, but would merely duplicate the already extensive process. For example, by bifurcating the surplus and disposition process, Bill 17-760 is likely to double the amount of time required to achieve disposition related goals.
Under current law, each disposition package submitted to the Council must be accompanied by an analysis to determine if the property is no longer required for public purpose. The analysis includes a review of economic factors as well as a fiscal impact statement by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer and a legal sufficiency certification obtained from the Office of the Attorney General.
Community involvement is also an important element in the current disposition process. The Mayor provides the Office of the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANC) a 30-day notice, along with the affected ANC, the ANC representing a single-member District and the affected Ward Councilmember. Furthermore, a 30-day notice is published in the DC Register. Dispositions are posted on the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development’s website and Requests for Proposals are sent to all charter schools by both email and certified mail as required under the Landrieu amendment. There is a high level of participation in these community meetings.
For example, Poplar Point under the purview of the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) has been the subject of a competitive process to select a master development partner. A community meeting was held in December 2007 at Birney Elementary School. Over 325 people attended. During that same time period, DMPED also convened a community advisory group to provide input on the selection process. More community meetings are scheduled for this particular property disposition, including one tomorrow June 24, 2008. Over the next several months the Deputy Mayor’s office will continue to engage the community in a series of Environmental Impact Statement meetings. The community process for the McMillan sand filtration site provides another good example of how the existing process includes for comprehensive community engagement. Since May 2006, over 40 community meetings have been held with the community concerning this site.
In addition to the public process led by executive agencies, the public may also have an opportunity to testify about property disposition at a hearing before the city council. The Council reviews and approves the surplus and disposition of real property during a statutory 90-day review period. Prior to a vote by the full Council on a disposition resolution, and at any point during the review period, the Council has the authority to call a public hearing to discuss the disposition.
Published regulations provide specific guidance on the use of all land in the District. The current property disposition regulations stipulate that owners of disposed property are only entitled to use the property in such a manner that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s generalized land use map and the District’s Zoning map. The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations provide guidance on the use of all land in the District. Should the new owner of land decide that he/she wants to use the property in a manner not set forth in the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning regulations, he or she must make application to either the Zoning Commission or Board of Zoning Adjustments, which assess the merits of each proposal including compatibility with existing community character. The public decision-making process of these two bodies creates an opportunity for the public to weigh in on any new uses for the property that are outside of what is called for by the Comprehensive Plan and/or Zoning Regulations.
It should also be noted that when the District evaluates the highest and best use of District-owned properties, priority consideration is afforded to government use of District owned properties. Some examples of this prioritization include, but are not limited to, the Waterside Mall, Anacostia Gateway, school facilities, and all of the District’s Government Centers. If the property would better serve the community in another capacity, the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development analyzes the Comprehensive Plan, small areas plans, community needs, market conditions, and other considerations to determine the best use for the property that will benefit the community. The Office of Planning also assists the disposition process by providing research on neighborhood indicators concerning projected changes in neighborhood populations, land uses, demand for city services, and other helpful information.
Increased Administrative Costs and Inefficiency
The legislation before the Council appears to require user agencies to determine whether real property under the District’s control “is no longer needed for its public purposes.” Agencies do not have the staff, expertise, or perspective on the District’s overall portfolio to determine whether properties are excess to District agency needs. As a result, OPM is charged with evaluating and determining the space needs of the District’s agencies. The District maximizes efficiency by centralizing the assessment process within a specialized division of a single Department.
The legislation under consideration today would reduce efficiency by significantly prolonging the disposition process. OPM estimates that by bifurcating the surplus and disposition determinations, Bill 17-760, for example, would add at least an estimated six months to a surplus and disposition process that is already eight months to a year long. Bill 17-527 would extend the disposition process even longer and make accurate short and long-term planning virtually impossible by duplicating layers of review that are already performed. While duplicative, this new process would have financial consequences as well – risking that market conditions may change significantly during the disposition process, possibly losing the commitments of the private sector and non-profit organizations, and frustrating the intended goals of the planned disposition.
Additionally, a longer disposition process would increase the amount of time a property is vacant. Vacant properties sit unused at a cost to the District and host communities. Vacant properties create blight and attract vandalism and crime. Efforts to secure and maintain such properties are costly and often unsuccessful. Communities expect the District government to maintain their properties and put them to the highest and best use. Feedback from various community meetings to discuss the recent closing of various school buildings, for example, indicated communities’ strong desire to have properties put back into productive use quickly and efficiently. The bills before us today would prevent the District from doing so.
Affect on Schools
These two bills would prohibit the leasing of public school buildings, whether completely vacant or only partially occupied, to any entity for any purpose for any period of time without following the proposed disposition process. This would effectively inhibit the Chancellor’s ability to co-locate public schools with public charter schools or other entities, such as health care organizations and early childhood community-based organizations.
Additionally, OPM is working with two school organizations, the Associates for Renewal of Education and Community Academy Public Charter School, to provide long-term leases at former DCPS properties. Despite these organizations having occupied their space for several years, under the constraints in the proposed legislation, OPM would be required to undergo the lengthy process dictated by the legislation to execute each lease.
Similarly, there are no exceptions for short-term leases or use agreements; that is to say this legislation does not allow for a process of short-term lease agreements. In areas undergoing significant economic development or housing growth, it is useful for the District to have the flexibility to enter into short-term use agreements, making good use of the property until an appropriate government use is identified. Under the proposed legislation, the District would be unable to lease the property in a timely manner to help defray operating and other costs and provide a corresponding benefit to an organization that may need short-term space.
The proposed legislation also conflicts with laws requiring the Mayor to extend a right of first offer to public charter schools under the School Reform Act.
Affect on Economic and Community Development
The previous administration took advantage of a strong real estate market and began the revitalization of a faltering downtown. Given current market considerations, it is critically important to pursue the Fenty Administration’s efforts to revitalize the District’s disadvantaged neighborhoods by continuing the legacy of progress. The Fenty Administration is carrying forward this effort and using the Comprehensive Plan to guide the development of the District’s neighborhoods. Since 2007, the Fenty Administration has obtained agreements for projects to ensure that 3,044 units of projected affordable housing are developed, that more than, 2,800 new housing units are built in the downtown core, and that three million square feet of planned retail are developed.
The bills under consideration today would jeopardize continued progress by prolonging the process for surplussing and disposing of District real property. Longer processes introduce uncertainty and risk into transactions and will negatively impact investments in the District. Additional delays of even a few months could greatly increase the costs of a project for the private sector, non-profits, and the District alike. Bill 17-527 precludes almost all dispositions except for negotiated leases to non-profit entities or leases not greater than 20 years.
Provisions in the legislation providing individual citizens with standing to file a lawsuit for any and all dispositions are likely to significantly impede investment in the city.
Closing
By passing the legislation before us today, the District would significantly limit its ability to dispose of property in a timely fashion. Progress toward meeting the important goals in the Comprehensive Plan would likely be impeded rather than enhanced. Although well intentioned, the legislation duplicates processes that are already in place, slows the disposition process, increases administrative and inefficiency costs, and is likely to have an adverse affect on schools and economic and community development.
Once again, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I welcome any questions you may have at this time.