Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Restrictions and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

City limits. The former BLM parcels are contiguous and across a major highway from three shopping centers. Through competitive auctions, BLM received final prices of $16.1 million and $8.4 million, or 161 and 131 percent, respectively, of appraised value. Figure 4 shows areas in these two parcels. Figure 4: Two BLM Parcels Near Carson City, Nevada, Sold for a Total of $24.5 Million Source: BLM Carson City Field Office. Notes: In the 106-acre parcel on the left, the area left of the roadway was zoned for commercial development. In the 100-acre parcel on the right, the land to the right of the roadway was zoned primarily for residential development. According to a GAO analysis of data from BLM’s Division of Business Services and BLM state offices on land sales revenue collected in the FLTFA account, only 12 of 144 field offices have conducted competitive sales. An additional 28 field offices have generated FLTFA revenue through direct or modified competitive sales. The remaining 104 offices have not generated sales revenue for the FLTFA account. Table 2 shows FLTFA sales by the method used and the amount of revenue generated. Page 17 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management
BLM Faces Several Challenges to Future Sales under FLTFA Table 2: Number of Sales and Revenue Raised by Competitive, Modified Competitive, and Direct Sales under FLTFA, as of May 31, 2007 Dollars in millions Number of Revenue Number of field Method sales collected offices reporting Competitive 149 $91.4 12 Modified competitive 33 1.0 6 Direct 83 3.2 33 Total 265 $95.7 a Source: GAO analysis of BLM’s Division of Business Services data verified by BLM state offices. Note: Revenue column does not add due to rounding. a No total reported because each field office may use more than one method of sale. Using the data provided by BLM state offices on completed FLTFA sales as of May 31, 2007, we determined that the actual sales prices of the parcels sold exceeded the appraised fair market value of those parcels by 52 percent. BLM state and field office officials most frequently cited the availability of knowledgeable realty staff to conduct the sales as a challenge to raising revenue from FLTFA sales. These staff may not be available because they are working on activities that BLM has identified as a higher priority, such as reviewing and approving energy rights-of-way. We identified two additional issues hampering land sales activity under FLTFA. First, while BLM has identified land for sale in its land use plans, it has not made the sale of this land a priority during the first 7 years of the program. Furthermore, BLM has not set goals for FLTFA sales. Goals are an effective management tool for measuring and achieving results. Some BLM state offices reported that they have planned FLTFA sales through 2010, but BLM has no overall implementation strategy to generate funds to purchase inholdings, as mandated by FLTFA. Since BLM has not laid out a clear roadmap for FLTFA and did not make land sales a priority, it is difficult to determine if BLM took full advantage of the opportunities for generating revenue under the act. Second, BLM has revised some of its land use plans since 2000 and identified additional land for disposal. However, revenue from these potential sales is not eligible for the FLTFA account because the act only applies to land that was identified for disposal in a land use plan on or before the date of the act. Page 18 GAO-08-196 Federal Land Management
Page 1 and 2: GAO February 2008 GAO-08-196 United
Page 3 and 4: Contents Letter 1 Results in Brief
Page 5 and 6: Abbreviations BLM Bureau of Land Ma
Page 7 and 8: providing security, and protecting
Page 9 and 10: evenue to acquire specific parcels
Page 11 and 12: BLM faces several challenges to rai
Page 13 and 14: Background Federal Land Sales Autho
Page 15 and 16: Federal Land Acquisition Funding ti
Page 17 and 18: FLTFA Requirements on Use of Revenu
Page 19 and 20: BLM Has Raised Most FLTFA Revenue f
Page 21: Figure 3: FLTFA Revenue by Fiscal Y
Page 25 and 26: Most BLM States Have Planned FLTFA
Page 27 and 28: Figure 5: BLM “North Fork” 167-
Page 29 and 30: FLTFA’s Restriction on Land Avail
Page 31 and 32: Agencies Have Purchased Few Parcels
Page 33 and 34: Table 4: Status of FLTFA Land Acqui
Page 35 and 36: Figure 7: Part of an Inholding in t
Page 37 and 38: Agency State Federally designated a
Page 39 and 40: The nomination that was withdrawn b
Page 41 and 42: State-Level Process Has Not Yet Res
Page 43 and 44: BLM Reports Spending $3.2 Million o
Page 45 and 46: Agencies Face Challenges in Complet
Page 47 and 48: Compliance with Specific Provisions
Page 49 and 50: The Agencies Have Yet to Establish
Page 51 and 52: Matters for Congressional Considera
Page 53 and 54: If you or your staff have questions
Page 55 and 56: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Page 57 and 58: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Page 59 and 60: Appendix II: Completed FLTFA Land S
Page 69 and 70: Appendix III: Detailed Information
Page 71 and 72: Appendix III: Detailed Information
Page 73 and 74:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Depa
Page 75 and 76:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff A
show all

Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Restrictions and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?