Skip to content
Quick Start for:

Chapter 6.1

Improve Asset Management


Summary

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) does not have all of the skills and information needed to best manage its assets. To overcome these limitations, TxDOT should create a strategic master plan with an annual review process and implement an asset management system. Combining such a plan and management system with an expanded experienced staff would allow TxDOT to make better, more timely decisions on how to best manage its assets.


Background

Responsibilities for state facilities planning and asset management are divided among the General Services Commission, the General Land Office, and individual agencies that own land. Each entity has specific responsibilities.

The General Services Commission (GSC) is responsible for planning and design of new facilities, construction supervision, implementation of facility design and utilization standards and review of lease terms. The General Land Office (GLO) maintains the state’s property records and is responsible for periodic valuations, surplus property determinations and property disposition. Some state agencies, including TxDOT, are not required to use GSC or GLO to perform asset planning, management and disposition, but instead use GSC and GLO for specialized skills (complex surplus property dispositions, for example) or where oversight is mandated (periodic surplus property determinations in the case of GLO and building lease review and approval by GSC).


Facilities Master Planning

GSC oversees the leasing of office and warehouse space for all state government agencies to ensure that state leases are efficient and effective. Almost all state agencies using general revenue are required to use the Facilities Leasing Program to acquire lease space.[1]

When TxDOT desires to lease office or warehouse facilities, it contacts GSC with its space request. GSC provides bidding, lease preparation and negotiation services. Since TxDOT is an “exempt” agency, TxDOT is able to construct its own facilities, including office and warehouse facilities, without input or oversight from GSC.

GSC prepares a facilities master plan every two years that includes information on all state-owned or leased office and warehouse facilities. GSC uses the plan to inform state leadership of Texas’ current and future facilities needs, report statewide facilities costs in contrast to commercial real estate markets, recommend new strategies to meet facilities needs, present itemized legislative appropriation requests for new building and capital improvement projects, and report on facilities related benchmarks.[2] GSC obtains its information through a biennial survey of all state agencies, including TxDOT. The Maintenance Division, Facilities Management Section of TxDOT responds to that survey with information on all property owned or leased by TxDOT.


Real Property Evaluation

In the mid-1980s, in order to maximize the use of state land and, when possible, generate income from that land, the Texas Legislature passed a law to help the state manage its real property.[3] State law requires the GLO to evaluate each agency’s real property periodically.[4] As part of its evaluation, GLO identifies land that is unused or underused and makes recommendations for retention, sale or lease. Before publication, GLO submits real property evaluation reports to GSC, which identifies unused or underused properties that can meet other state agencies’ needs. TxDOT is also given 60 days to comment on all site evaluations. After receiving comments from the GSC and the agency, GLO makes its final report to the governor.

In its 1996 review of TxDOT’s owned land and facility assets among 382 total sites, GLO identified 339 sites for retention and recommended the sale or lease of 43.[5] The market value of all land totaled almost $202 million with retained sites representing about $63 million and sites to be leased or sold totaled almost $139 million.[6]

By 1999, the date of GLO’s next review, the total number of sites had grown to 432 and GLO increased the number of sites to be retained to 385, while the sites recommended for sale or lease had risen to 47.[7] In 1999, total market value of all land and facilities was valued by GLO at about $160 million with sites to be retained valued at about $72 million and those to be leased or sold at almost $88 million.[8]

Comparison of GLO recommendations and TxDOT action, 1996 to 1999


1996
1999

# of Sites
Value of Land*
# of Sites
Value of Land*
Total number of sites owned by TxDOT
382
$201,910,000
432
$160,341,000
GLO Recommendations
Sites recommended to retain
339
$63,284,000
385
$72,414,000
Sites recommended to sell or lease
43
$138,626,000
47
$87,927,000
TxDOT Action




Sites sold or transferred
9
$652,536
15
$2,646,000
Partial sites sold or transferred
2
$127,900,000**


Sites reclassified
5
$970,250
12
$26,333,000
Sites where no action was taken
32
$9,091,000
20
$58,948,000

Source: General Land Office, Real Property Evaluation Reports, Texas Department of

Transportation, 1996 and 1999.

* This number is the GLO estimate of the value of land only. It does not include the value of facilities or represent the sale price.

** GLO estimated the total value of the land was $127,900,000. Part of the Leander site was sold for more than $18 million and part of the Sugarland site was transferred to other entitles.

Of the forty-three sites that were identified for sale or lease in the 1996 GLO report, nine sites, with an appraised land value of $652,536, were sold in their entirety. Five sites, with a land value of $970,250, were reclassified from sale or lease back to retention. Part of the Leander site was sold for more than $18 million and part of the Sugarland property was transferred to other entities. The twenty-seven sites where no action was taken had a land value of $9,091,000.[9] Following the 1999 GLO report, TxDOT sold or transferred 15 properties with a land value of $2,646,000 and reclassified 12 sites with a land value of $26,333,000. Four of the remaining sites, including the Sugarland site, are currently up for sale. No action has been taken on the remaining 16 sites.[10] Clearly, GLO can recommend but not mandate a TxDOT action.

Overall appraised values of land recommended for sale or lease by GLO declined from about $138 million in 1996 to almost $89 million in 1999.[11] Two major transactions at the Leander Rehabilitation Center and the Sugar Land Prison Farm accounted for much of the decrease in land value. 446 acres of the Leander property were sold for over $18 million. Some of the Sugarland property was transferred to the University of Houston (approximately 275 acres) and the city of Sugarland (approximately 400 acres). The value of the land was also changed to take into consideration the development costs needed to prepare the land for sales.[12] TxDOT still owns 233 acres at Leander and 5,107 acres at Sugar Land Prison Farm. In 1999, the two properties together represented $62.7 million or 39 percent of the $161 million value of all land (excluding the value of facilities) owned by TxDOT.[13]

A special note should be made about the Sugar Land, Leander Rehabilitation Center and State School Annex holdings. Senate Bill 52, passed in the second session of the Legislature in 1987, mandated the sale of these state-owned properties to TxDOT as a solution to budget shortfalls. Since the purchase price was set above then market values, TxDOT was requested by letter from Governor Clements to retain the real estate until market conditions improved.[14]

TxDOT has determined to retain Leander, contrary to GLO’s recommendation that it be sold. A plan for development of the retained Leander acreage for TxDOT uses was prepared in 1999. The plan is referred to as the Cedar Park Campus Master Plan and is part of the Austin Headquarters Consolidation Master Plan developed in 1996.[15] GLO is currently disposing of the Sugar Land acreage under a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with TxDOT dated September 1, 1999.[16] GLO expects to have a major offering of the Sugarland property within the first six months of 2001, and anticipates contracts on all of the Sugarland site within 6 years and sale of the property within 10-12 years. The sale of the property takes so much longer than getting contracts because the contracts may be on options to buy land in the future. GLO is also sensitive to flooding the market, and thus reducing the value of the land, which is another reason the sale of land is spread out over many years.[17]


TxDOT’s Asset Management

Facilities Management

TxDOT manages two types of real property: right-of-way on which roads are built or expanded; and land and buildings used for TxDOT operations, including office space, warehouse space, equipment and vehicle maintenance, and storage yards. TxDOT currently owns more than 432 sites, encompassing 8,828 acres.[18]

In general, properties located in Austin are the responsibility of the Maintenance Division director. The district engineers are similarly responsible for managing the properties located in their districts. This basic division of responsibility responds to the diversity of the agency’s facilities by providing specialized facility management in Austin where the majority of large, complex leased and owned facilities is located, and delegating responsibility to the district office where relatively low-value, straightforward facilities are owned and operated.

An inventory and condition assessment of all TxDOT buildings was prepared in 1994-95. Unfortunately, it is a static inventory that cannot be routinely and inexpensively updated. Printed copies of the original condition assessment have been distributed to districts, but TxDOT plans to make the database available via their agency’s intranet.[19]

The Austin Headquarters Consolidation Master Plan prepared in 1996 is being implemented under direction of the Maintenance Division. The plan is intended to relocate fragmented TxDOT headquarters facilities to four campuses: Greer Building, Riverside, Camp Hubbard/Bull Creek and Cedar Park. The Cedar Park Campus Master Plan was prepared in 1999 and provides for comprehensive development of the Leander Rehabilitation Center site for a variety of TxDOT uses, including facilities originally planned for Camp Hubbard/Bull Creek, to lessen impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods.[20]


Leased Space

Besides owning property, TxDOT leases more than 561,000 square feet of space, housing about 1,900 employees at 27 locations in 11 cities. TxDOT leases offices, warehouses, materials and testing facilities, and business opportunity program units. The annual cost for these leases totals more than $5.7 million.[21]

The Maintenance Division’s Statewide Lease Report provides management summary of critical information and permits an evaluation of key performance benchmarks for TxDOT’s leased facilities. The report sets out information on personnel housed, size of leased space, costs, commencement and ending dates and other useful information in a comprehensive, clear format.

Each TxDOT district determines which parcels can be considered surplus.[22] While practice varies from district to district, the district engineer plays a central role in facilities and surplus property decisions. District recommendations together with associated legal documentation are forwarded to the Austin Right-of-Way (ROW) Division. Once the ROW Division determines legal sufficiency, the property is first offered to any of the units of government in which it is located and then to the market through a sealed bid process. Once a satisfactory bid has been received, approvals are secured from the Offices of the Attorney General, the Secretary of State and the Governor and conveyance occurs after signing by the governor. Although the process is the same, for non-ROW properties the ROW Division views its primary responsibility to be determination of legal sufficiency.[23] When an asset sale occurs, proceeds flow directly into the State Highway Fund.


Barter Transactions

Other TxDOT asset management initiatives include the use of barter arrangements to exchange old facilities for new ones. Such transactions may be applicable where land and building values have risen significantly and can be exchanged for less costly land and more efficient, newly constructed facilities, generally at outlying locations. Two such transactions, in San Antonio and Laredo, have been successfully implemented.

The San Antonio transaction, which took about two years to complete, involved a barter swap of the 7-acre Boerne Maintenance facility, an incompatible “industrial” use site adjacent to a more recently developed HEB supermarket and apartment complex, for an area maintenance office and storage facility. The new 13 acre facility is located in an outlying area and is adjacent to more compatible industrial/business park uses. HEB wanted the Boerne site for expansion of their supermarket and associated parking. The new TxDOT facility would have cost about $1.7 million to $1.8 million to acquire the site and construct the office improvements. TxDOT’s only out of pocket costs were $30,000-$40,000 for remediation of hazardous materials. The terms of the barter were such that TxDOT was not required to vacate the Boerne premises until the new facility had been completed to TxDOT’s satisfaction. Therefore, TxDOT bore no risk if HEB failed to perform. The City of Boerne made a small incremental extension of city utilities to serve the new maintenance facility.

In 1991, the Laredo area and maintenance offices received nine responses to a request for proposals (RFP) specifically seeking a barter type transaction. The objective was to replace the existing facilities and secure enough additional land to accommodate a newly formed district office. The successful proposal swapped the 11.7 acre area and maintenance facility for 32 acres at an outlying location and a $1.0 million maintenance office and associated improvements. The facility was completed in 1993. As in the case of San Antonio, all development risks including procurement of zoning, permits and utility extensions were not borne by TxDOT, and there were no cash costs. The Laredo District Office was constructed on the site and there is room remaining for a future Motor Vehicle Division facility.

In both cases, the district engineers commented on the importance of having a strong, well-financed counter party with proven capability to execute the transaction. In San Antonio, the counter party was HEB, headquartered in San Antonio and in Laredo, the counter party was an experienced developer backed by a strong investor group.[24]


Problems with the Current Asset Management System

The General Services Commission and the General Land Office each perform their statutorily mandated duties and provide useful information to the legislature and other state agencies. However, statutes do not require these two agencies to manage TxDOT assets directly, except in three cases: where GLO has declared the property to be underutilized and the governor has agreed; where GLO is asked by TxDOT to control and manage a complex transaction; or where a facility is to be leased and GSC review and approval is required.

Even under circumstances where GLO recommends that a property be surplused and TxDOT agrees, GLO is still obliged to have GSC determine whether the property may be required currently, or at some point in the future, by another state agency. There does not seem to be a specific basis and timetable to reach closure in these circumstances, and TxDOT must continue to hold the property in its inventory even without another agency identifying a specific use for the property.

Asset management is decentralized in TxDOT; given the character of much of the asset inventory, this may be the most appropriate approach. To be successful, however, a decentralized system requires strong, comprehensive performance standards, a plan to achieve those standards and the capacity to monitor results. TxDOT requires expanded management tools for aggressive, statewide asset management.

TxDOT does not have real-time, computer-based property records that can be easily updated. GLO inventory records (the State Real Property Inventory (SRPI) Land/Facility Listing for Owner 6010/TxDOT[25]) on which TxDOT depends are outdated and the contents are not adequate for comprehensive land and facility management. The “old” and “new” Corsicana Maintenance Sites in Navarro County offer an instructive case example. GLO’s property records for the “old” site record land acquisition and building activities from 1932 through 1960. A recommendation was made in 1994 to sell or lease the site after the district acquired a new 13.9-acre site in October 1994. The “old” site record is silent on what, if any steps have been taken to sell or lease the property. The “new” site record provides information on acquisition cost in addition to size and location. However, there is little useful information provided on the buildings constructed for administration, maintenance, dry storage and vehicle storage since the site was acquired.

The 1994-1995 TxDOT condition assessment noted earlier has not been integrated into the SRPI Land/Facility Listing. Appraised values are at original cost and offer no data about current land or facility values. Records dated after 1995 do not appear to be complete, particularly as they relate to buildings and other improvements. Since the records only cover owned properties, leased properties and lease terms are not included, although they are compiled elsewhere by the Maintenance Division. There is no process of automatic updating driven by day-to-day property operations (major maintenance, additions or demolitions and the like) at the district level.

The current process for evaluating property for retention or surplus has several drawbacks. First, it occurs infrequently. Secondly, there is no specific mandate or staff capacity within TxDOT to review property utilization annually. Consequently, a comprehensive review takes place only once every four years when GLO conducts a real property evaluation.

GLO appraisals and property evaluations do not consider replacement and relocation costs when making highest and best use determinations. For example, if GLO determines that land housing a TxDOT district area office is not the highest and best use because of high value commercial development nearby, GLO does not adjust the indicated value by the cost for TxDOT to relocate and replace the district office. The approach is incomplete since TxDOT, in most cases, must consider the cost of replacing facilities to house ongoing functions.

Without a complete analysis, the net effect of acting upon a GLO recommendation cannot be determined. Even if new facilities are developed more efficiently, are located at less costly locations and take full advantage of downsizing opportunities, depending upon the specific circumstances, the cost of new construction may not equal or exceed net proceeds realized from the sale of the old facilities.[26]

In order for an organization to make appropriate and timely facility management decisions, a full range of staff skills is needed. A representative skill list would include knowledge of best practices in efficient, least-cost space utilization and functional adjacencies, real estate market interaction for acquisition/disposition pricing, financial feasibility determinations, transaction structuring (where values and complexities warrant), strategic plan preparation that is proactive and anticipatory of future needs, and financial optimization. Such capabilities are typically found in corporate facilities management departments.[27]

Asset management responsibilities fall to the district engineer in TxDOT’s decentralized system. There is little direct economic motivation to “optimize” facilities management and to speed disposition of land and facilities that are no longer required for district operations. The financial outcome of a sale of surplus property has no direct impact on the district other than possibly reducing future property maintenance and operating costs.


Opportunities to Better Manage TxDOT Assets

It is not uncommon for aggressive asset management to reduce ongoing facilities’ operating costs by 6 to 8 percent and to reduce the monetary cost of assets employed to house the operating enterprise (i.e., non-highway assets) by 11 to 15 percent over a period of 4-5 years.[28] These performance targets relate to “nominal” dollar costs and to circumstances where the organization is experiencing stable to moderate growth. For TxDOT to achieve similar results it must implement an asset management program with the appropriate management tools.

Opportunities for TxDOT to improve asset management lie in four core areas:

  • Planning: Have a comprehensive plan and associated performance standards to which managers who are responsible for TxDOT asset management would be held accountable. Implicit in the standards would be “continuous improvement” features so that overall facility costs are reduced in real terms each year.
  • Staff: Provide responsible managers with the appropriate content skills to execute against a plan, most likely from a centralized staff resource.
  • Information: Create information resources that are available to asset managers on a real time basis that contain the up-to-date information required for efficient planning and decision-making.
  • Incentives: Provide direct incentives to act aggressively and to use creative transactions to improve asset utilization.


Recommendations

A. TxDOT should create and implement a simple annual asset status review process and implement a comprehensive asset management system.

The review should ideally be applied differentially, with high-value urban assets receiving the most attention. This process should be comprehensive, covering all TxDOT non-highway assets: owned and leased, land and buildings, and where appropriate, transactions in progress. TxDOT should establish aggressive standards for classifying assets as surplus, develop target timetables for transactions, and monitor progress toward closing and realization of disposition proceeds. The annual review should be performed statewide.

TxDOT should develop a comprehensive asset management system that provides timely, up-to-date information. Since the Maintenance Division has a relatively attractive leased facilities database, refinement and expansion of that resource should be considered. Data from the GLO SRPI-Land/Facility Listing and the 1995 comprehensive condition assessment should be incorporated into the system.

A critical feature of the system would be a high degree of integration with district operations so that activities affecting TxDOT real property assets—acquisition, construction of improvements, demolitions, dispositions—all automatically trigger updates to centralized property records.

B. TxDOT should create a facilities master plan and strategy, and should dispose of properties recommended for sale or lease by GLO.

TxDOT should create a statewide facilities master plan for its real property. The Capital Area TxDOT facilities plan that is now in place may provide a starting point for a statewide plan. As with the asset management system, the plan should be inclusive of owned and leased facilities and space. The plan should be updated every biennium, and should be flexible enough to clearly differentiate between simple and complex assets. The plan should also articulate standards for physical, financial and time periods to accomplish transactions.

In addition to the facilities master plan and strategy, TxDOT should develop and implement a plan under which land recommended for sale or lease by GLO will be sold by the end of fiscal year 2006. At least 20 percent of the total appraised value should be sold in fiscal year 2003. In its 1999 report, GLO identified almost $88.9 million in underused land that TxDOT owns. Three properties, the Sugar Land Prison Farm, the Leander Rehabilitation Center and the San Antonio District Headquarters, are either under negotiation or in dispute between GLO and TxDOT. These three properties should be excluded from this plan.

C. Expand the present TxDOT Maintenance Division facilities staff by two qualified specialists and an analyst to handle all the non-engineering aspects of the agency’s land and facilities decision-making.

These individuals should be business-oriented. At least one should have real estate market and valuation experience, and another should have facilities-development expertise. They would direct the evaluation of how to maximize the use of TxDOT assets by leasing, buying and selling facilities and land as appropriate, ensuring that the best deals are made on a timely basis. They would also perform bottom-line analyses on the effectiveness of internal management and outsourcing practices including the setting of standards for the efficiency and cost of facilities. The unit would be responsible for Statewide Land and Facilities Plan updating, transaction performance parameters and related funds management. It would be the point of interface for TxDOT with third parties in the asset management area and with other state agencies who have facilities management responsibilities. These new staff would be expected to take the lead in innovative land and facilities management practices within the agency.

As noted above, GLO appraisals and property evaluations do not consider replacement cost in making highest and best-use determinations and related recommendations. The real estate specialist should be capable of completing replacement cost valuations when these are required. Thus, a quick comparison can be made between the proceeds likely to be realized from the sale or barter of an old property with the cost of developing replacement facilities and a conclusion reached on the viability of the proposed transaction. The same valuation capability can also be used in the early stages of barter transactions when TxDOT should be assured of feasibility before implementing what are typically lengthy, resource-intensive transactions.

D. Establish capabilities for TxDOT to evaluate and implement barter transactions.

From time to time, TxDOT will have opportunities to dispose of or secure new facilities through barter transactions. Such transactions are complex and time-consuming. However, if implemented correctly with financially sound counter parties, they can mitigate risk (specific performance is not required by TxDOT until the counter party performs) and produce attractive financial outcomes without requiring the use of cash. The personnel recommended above would provide the skills, when coupled with Maintenance Division engineering and architectural capabilities, needed to evaluate such transactions. If a barter transaction is determined to be attractive and warrant more thorough review, third-party professional assistance would likely be required in the legal aspects and financial sufficiency of the transaction, determination of counter-party capacity to execute the proposed transaction, in-depth review of market parameters that would determine the reasonableness of deal parameters, specialized contractual terms, performance specifications for TxDOT and the counter party and process management. A brief process manual should be prepared for use by the districts so that feasibility parameters of barter transactions are known and proposals received at the district level can, in conjunction with specialized assistance from qualified staff, be reviewed on a least-cost basis.


Fiscal Impact

All sale values used in the revenue analysis are from the 1999 GLO Property Evaluation Report or the TxDOT Facilities Management Lease Report. This estimate assumes that all properties are sold although, in fact, a few may be leased. The total value of the land GLO recommended for sale is $18.5 million. It is assumed this property will be sold over four years, after an initial year of planning.

Because it is ongoing, disposition proceeds from the GLO program to complete the sale of Sugar Land Prison Farm are excluded from the fiscal impact analysis. If ultimate proceeds equal the 1999 appraised value reported by GLO, $53 million will be generated for the State Highway Fund over the next several years. The Leander Rehabilitation Center and San Antonio District Headquarters are also excluded because there is no agreement between GLO and TxDOT on GLO’s recommended land sales program for these major parcels.

Costs associated with these recommendations reflect the costs to add staff, implement an inventory and management system, and prepare a TxDOT statewide facilities plan. The additional staff recommended is estimated to cost $231,250 a year, including benefits. The asset management system would require $1 million a year for the first two years, with an additional $50,000 per year in subsequent years for system upgrades and modifications. The Facilities Master Plan requires $225,000 per year for the first two years, with an additional $50,000 per year in subsequent years for updating the plan. Direct transaction and site remediation allowances, paid to third parties or reimbursed to other state entities, have been set at 15 percent and 7.5 percent of revenue from the sale of land, respectively, in line with industry practice. The estimated gains below represent the amounts of State Highway Fund revenues that could be redirected to TxDOT roadway construction and maintenance programs to bring the highway system into the 21st Century.

Fiscal
Year
Revenue Gain to the State Highway Fund
Cost to the State Highway Fund
Net Gain/(Cost) to the State Highway Fund
Change in FTEs
2002
$0
$ 1,456,000
$ (1,456,000)
+3
2003
$ 3,600,000
$ 2,266,000
$ 1,334,000
+3
2004
$ 5,400,000
$ 1,546,000
$ 3,854,000
+3
2005
$ 5,400,000
$ 1,546,000
$ 3,854,000
+3
2006
$ 3,600,000
$ 1,141,000
$ 2,459,000
+3

Endnotes

[1] Sunset Advisory Commission, General Services Commission, Staff Report, June 2000, p. 51.

[2] General Services Commission, Facilities Construction and Space Management Division, Facilities Planning Program. (http://www.gsc.state.tx.us/facplan/index.html). (Internet document.)

[3] Texas General Land Office, Protecting Our Heritage 1991-1992 (Austin, Texas).

[4] V.T.C.A., Natural Resources Code, §31.151, et seq.

[5] Texas General Land Office, (Real Property Evaluation Reports, Texas Department of Transportation) (Austin, Texas, September 1, 1996) pp. 9-16. The report specifies that 42 sites “+ 1 Partial” and 339 sites “+ Partial” are recommended for sale or lease in the first case or retention, in the second. Since this is not an “audit” and the precise classification and ultimate disposition of the 2 “partial” sites is not evident in the 1995 and 1999 GLO reports and is not material to recommendations, we have used 382 total sites of which 43 sites are assumed to be for sale or lease in the performance calculations that follow.

[6] Texas General Land Office, (Real Property Evaluation Reports, Texas Department of Transportation) (Austin, Texas, September 1, 1996) pp. 9-16.

[7] Texas General Land Office, (Real Property Evaluation Reports, Texas Department of Transportation) (Austin, Texas, September 1, 1999), pp. 6-14.

[8] Texas General Land Office, (Real Property Evaluation Reports, Texas Department of Transportation) (Austin, Texas, September 1, 1999), pp. 6-14.

[9] Texas General Land Office, Real Property Evaluation Reports, Texas Department of Transportation (Austin, Texas September 1, 1999); Texas General Land Office, Real Property Evaluation Reports, Texas Department of Transportation (Austin, Texas, September 1, 1996); Comparative Inventory Analysis based on the 1996/99 Real Property Evaluation Reports previously noted, Hagler Bailly, May-June, 2000.

[10] Email correspondence from Jefferson Grimes, Texas Department of Transportation, to Byron Schlomach, Comptroller of Public Accounts, January 5, 2001.

[11] Texas General Land Office, Real Property Evaluation Reports, Texas Department of Transportation (Austin, Texas, September 1, 1996) p. 9; Texas General Land Office, Real Property Evaluation Reports, Texas Department of Transportation (Austin, Texas, September 1, 1999) p. 7.

[12] Texas General Land Office, Real Property Evaluation Reports, Texas Department of Transportation (Austin, Texas, September 1, 1999) p. 69; and Interview with Jeff Boudreau, General Land Office, Austin, Texas, January 5, 2000.

[13] Texas General Land Office, Real Property Evaluation Reports, Texas Department of Transportation (Austin, Texas, September 1, 1999).

[14] Letter from Cathy J. Williams, assistant executive director for Support Operations, Texas Department of Transportation, to Clint Winters, Comptroller of Public Accounts, October 18, 2000.

[15] Letter from Elizabeth A. Hogeda-Romo, Facilities Management Section, Maintenance Division, Texas Department of Transportation to Matteson Scott, May 11, 2000. Attachments thereto, including Cedar Park Master Plan, June 18, 1999 and Austin Headquarters Consolidation Master Plan, April 8, 1996.

[16] Letter from Zane Webb, director, Texas Department of Transportation, Maintenance Division, to Hal Croft, director, Texas General Land Office, February 26, 1999.

[17] Interview with Bob Hewgley, General Land Office, Austin, Texas, January 3, 2001.

[18] Real Property Evaluation Reports, Texas Department of Transportation prepared by the Texas General Land Office, September 1, 1999.

[19] Interview with Roger S. Williams, director of Facilities Management Section, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas, May 1, 2000; and Interview with the Texas Department of Transportation, Maintenance Division, Austin, Texas, April 13, 2000.

[20] Letter from Elizabeth A. Hogeda-Romo, Facilities Management Section, Maintenance Division, Texas Department of Transportation to Scott Matteson, May 11, 2000. Attachments thereto, including Cedar Park Master Plan, June 18, 1999 and Austin Headquarters Consolidation Master Plan, April 8, 1996.

[21] Texas Department of Transportation, Maintenance Division, Facilities Management-Lease Report, May 11, 2000.

[22] Interview with John Campbell and Rebecca Thompson, Texas Department of Transportation, Right-of-Way Division, Austin, Texas, May 4, 2000.

[23] Interview with the Texas Department of Transportation, Maintenance Division, Austin, Texas, April 13, 2000; and Interview with John Campbell and Rebecca Thompson, Texas Department of Transportation, Right-of-Way Division, Austin, Texas, May 4, 2000.

[24] Interview with John Kelly, San Antonio District Engineer, Texas Department of Transportation, San Antonio, Texas, May 5, 2000; and Interview with Luis Ramirez, Laredo District Engineer, Laredo, Texas September 6, 2000. Subsequent conversations were held on October 25, 2000.

[25] State Real Property Inventory Land/Facility Listing. Sample Property Records for “old” and “new” Corsicana maintenance sites received May 3, 2000.

[26] Interview with Christopher Gladstone, president, Quadrangle Development Corporation, Washington, DC., April 27, 2000.

[27] Interview with Steven Leiter Partner, Corporate Facilities Advisory Unit, Arthur Andersen, on Facilities management performance targets used by corporations, New York, New York, April 12, 2000. Interview with Robert Campbell, Principal, Fore Associates, on facilities management performance targets used by institutional investors, Tyson’s Corner, Virginia, April 12, 2000.

[28] Interview with Steven Leiter Partner, Corporate Facilities Advisory Unit, Arthur Andersen, New York, New York, April 12, 2000; and Interview with Robert Campbell, principal, Fore Associates, Tyson’s Corner, Virginia, April 12, 2000.