tion as it might deem necessary to resolve the problem. This committee was comprised of representatives of the following leading civic and business groups: Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade; Washington Board of Realtors, Inc.; Federal City Council; D.C. Chamber of Commerce, Inc.; American Automobile Association; National Capital Downtown Committee, Inc.; and the Citizen's Traffic Board. The work of the Advisory Committee resulted in the preparation of a draft bill which can be said to form the basis of all the above-mentioned bills. Of these bills, however, H.R. 14053, introduced by Congressman Nelson, and S. 944, introduced by Senator Tydings, can be considered as reflecting the latest thinking on the very important matter of providing in the District of Columbia adequate facilities for the parking of motor vehicles. Accordingly, the District of Columbia Government recommends that H.R. 2316, H.R. 5274, and H.R. 9389 be considered as being superseded by H.R. 14053 and S. 944. In the belief that this procedure will be acceptable to the Committee, this report will deal only with the last mentioned bills.

H.R. 14053 and S. 944 are in very large part identical, with relatively few philosophical differences. Both bills provide for the establishment of an independent legal entity (designated the District of Columbia Parking Board) empowered to construct, acquire, and, under certain conditions, operate motor vehicle parking facilities. The Parking Board is to be assisted in its work by a Parking Advisory Council comprised of representatives of various governmental agencies, the District of Columbia Government, and members of the public with experience in such fields as architecture, engineering, retail trade, real estate, financing, law, motor vehicle parking, and transportation. In order to finance the construction or acquisition of parking facilities, the Parking Board is authorized to issue obligations. Perhaps most important, the Parking Board is authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain and to fix the rates to be charged in facilities constructed or acquired by it. The bills contain a number of other features, all of which, in the view of the District of Columbia, tend to create a strong, effective public parking authority for the Nation's Capital.

The principal differences between the bills are in their approach to the makeup of the Parking Board and the Advisory Council. S. 944, in section 2, designates as the members of the Parking Board of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia. H.R. 14053, in section 3, designates as the members of the Parking Board the Commissioner of the District of Columbia, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Administrator of General Services, or their designees. In the first instance, the Board of Commissioners is now non-existent, and in the second the Federal predominance on the Parking Board reflected in H.R. 14053 raises the possibility of two Federal officials having to sign bonds for a quasi-governmental arm of the District of Columbia. In the belief that the Parking Board should be a municipal authority representing both the District Government and private sectors of the community, it is recommended that the bills be amended to designate as the members of the Parking Board the Commissioner of the District of Columbia, who should serve as Chairman, and two additional members appointed by the Commissioner.

S. 944 in section 3(a) establishes an eleven-member Parking Advisory Council composed of the Secretary of the Interior, the Administrator of General Services, the Director of the District of Columbia Department of Highways and Traffic, the Chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission, the Administrator of the National Capital Transit Authority, or their designees, and six members from private life appointed by the Parking Board from the various fields which have previously been mentioned. It should be noted, incidentally, that the National Capital Transit Authority is no longer in existence, having been superseded by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. H.R. 14053 in section 4(a) creates a nine-member Parking Advisory Council composed of the Director of the District of Columbia Department of Highways and Traffic, the Chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission, the Administrator of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, or their designees, the President of the District of Columbia section of the Institute of Traffic Engineers, the Chief of the Metropolitan Police force, and four persons from private life. As the appointed term of a member of the Advisory Council is 4 years, the inclusion of the President of the District of Columbia section of the Institute of Traffic Engineers will raise certain problems, since the holder of that office usually serves only a 1 year term. In addition, the designation of the Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department as a member of the Parking Advisory Council does not appear to be justified. In view of the problems created by both bills regarding the composition of the Advisory Council, it is recommended that

the second sentence of the respective sections of S. 944 and H.R. 14053 discusse above be amended to read as follows:

"The Advisory Council shall be composed of nine members, consisting the Secretary of the Interior or his designee, the Administrator of Gener Services or his designee, the Director of the District of Columbia Depar ment of Highways and Traffic or his designee, the Chairman of the Nation Capital Planning Commission or his designee, and the Administrator of t Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority or his designee, all e officio, and four members from private life appointed by the Parking Boar one of whom shall be designated bienially by the Parking Board to serve Chairman."

An Advisory Council composed as set forth above will insure adequate repr sentation of both Federal and District Government interests, provide for rep sentation of the entire Metropolitan Area by the inclusion of the National Capit Planning Commission and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authorit and also represent the various private interest groups of the city.

In addition to amendments which modify the membership of the Adviso Council, the District also proposes amendments to make the Council's functi clearly advisory in character. This would avoid duplication of effort with t Parking Board which must have direct responsibility for parking operation Consequently, it is recommended that the duty of the Advisory Council specifi in section 3(d) of S. 944 and section 4(d) of H.R. 14053 be limited to t following:

"It shall be the duty of the Advisory Council to advise the Parking Boa in carrying out its functions under this Act."

Furthermore, the subsequent subsections (e) and (f) authorizing the A visory Council to hire its own staff and consultants should be eliminated. T would permit the Board to clearly exercise its responsibility and have a sing staff provide necessary technical information to the Advisory Council. In t same respect, the comprehensive parking study called for in sections 4 and respectively of the two bills, should be carried out by the Parking Board. It recommended that the respective sections in the two bills be amended throug out by inserting "Parking Board" in lieu of "Advisory Council."

In order to assure effective citizen participation the comprehensive parki study should recognize the recommendations of the Advisory Council and view of the public. The District thus recommends that section 4(b) in S. and section 5(b) in H.R. 14053 be amended to provide that the Parking Bo shall, after receiving the recommendations of the Advisory Council and af public hearings, refer the parking report to all interested agencies in the 1 tional Capital area for their information and comment.

Lastly, with respect to the compensation to be paid to members of the Coun both bills presently provide the rate of $50 a day for each day services are formed. In keeping with the usual practice in matters of this kind, section 4 (2) of H.R. 14053 and section 3(b) (2) of S. 944 should be amended to prov compensation at the rate of a GS-15, as provided by section 5331 of title! the United States Code, for those members of the Parking Advisory Council are not government employees.

Both S. 944 and H.R. 14053 contain provisions relating to the regulation parking meters "as an aid to regulation and control of parking meters." In o to better assure an effective public parking program in the District of Colum the Board should have control over all on-street parking whether metered not. On-street parking in many parts of the city is regulated by posted time li rather than through meter installation. As with meter control, regulation of street parking should be subject to the approval of the Commissioner. Co quently, the first sentence of section 12(a) of S. 944 and section 13(a) of 1 14053 is to read as follows:

"The Parking Board shall, subject to the approval of the Commissi of the District, regulate on-street parking and install, maintain, repair locate, and remove parking meters at such locations on the streets, right way, avenues, roads, highways, and other public open spaces under the j diction and control of the Commissioner of the District as the Parking B may determine as an aid to regulation and control of the movement parking of motor vehicles."

Section 6(g) of H.R. 14053 and section 5(g) of S. 944 are identical provis authorizing the Parking Board to make relocation payments to any person placed by reason of its acquisition of property to the same extent as is autho by section 114 of title I of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1465). The

trict government, in a report recently submitted to the Committee on Public Works of the House of Representatives, relating to H.R. 16000, a bill "To amend title 23 of the United States Code to require the construction of certain routes on the Interstate System in the District of Columbia," noted that it has come to be generally recognized that the taking of property for public works projects all too often works to the detriment of property owners and tenants, particularly if they be members of a disadvantaged group. In order to overcome these inequities and to permit the parking facility program to proceed in a fair and reasonable manner, the District Government requests, as it did in the above mentioned report, that the Parking Board be authorized, in the case of owneroccupants of property improved by a single or two-family dwelling, to expand the coverage of its relocation payments and, within the limit of $5,000, to make supplemental payments which, together, with the acquisition payment, represent the price of a decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling, adequate in size to meet the needs of the displaced owner, reasonably accessible to public services and places of employment, and available on the private market.

In light of the above, it is recommended that subsection (h) of section 6 of H.R. 14053 and section 5 of S. 944 be redesignated a subsection (i) and that the following new subsection (h) be inserted in the above sections, respectively: "(h) In addition to relocation payments authorized by subsection (g), the Chairman of the Parking Board of the District of Columbia is authorized to make a supplemental payment to an owner of real property which is acquired by the Parking Board and which is improved by a single or twofamily dwelling occupied by said owner. Such payment, not to exceed $5,000, shall represent an amount which, in addition to the acquisition payment, represents the price of a decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling, adequate in size to meet the needs of the displaced owner, reasonably accessible to public services and places of employment, and available on the private market. Supplemental payments made by the Chairman of the Parking Board' under this subsection shall be in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Parking Board."

A review of the language of S. 944 and H.R. 14053 indicates that the former contains three features not contained in the latter. Briefly, these are (1) certain limitations on the condemnation power, (2) a "right of first refusal" in granting leases of facilities, and (3) a requirement that all new buildings have parking facilities. These three features are discussed in greater detail in the succeeding paragraphs.

Section 5(a) of S. 944 requires that upon the filing by the Parking Board of condemnation proceedings against any property, the owners of such property may, within thirty days, file a statement with the court indicating that they intend to build in accordance with the plans proposed by the Parking Board and that they will commence construction of such facility within one year from the time the statement is filed. This procedure will cause the condemnation proceedings to be held in abeyance pending the completion of such construction. If the construction does not begin within the one year period and proceed expeditiously thereafter, the Parking Board is authorized to proceed with the condemnation. In the view of the District of Columbia, the procedure established by this section is unwieldy when there is taken into consideration the fact that as much as a year may elapse after the filing of a statement by an owner of the parking facility before it become apparent that he does not actually intend to build. The parking situation in the District of Columbia is such that once the decision has been made that a facility is needed or that enlargement is required, the Parking Board should be authorized to proceed expeditiously without having to meet these other requirements, instead of having to delay all action for a period of one year by reason of the mere filing of any such statement.

Section 6 (c) of S. 944 requires that the Parking Board grant a right of first refusal, with respect to the sale or lease of any property condemned by the Parking Board, in favor of anyone qualified to engage in the business of motor vehicle parking who formerly owned a parking facility on any land acquired by the Parking Board by condemnation. This provision is, in the view of the District of Columbia government, unfair to others who may bring a new approach or better management to the parking facility and who would suffer a great disadvantage with respect to meeting competition by those who had formerly been in the business of motor vehicle parking. Additionally, it is reasonable to assume that where condemnation proceedings had been instituted, the owner of the condemned property will probably not have increased the capacity of his facility, or he may have failed to bring the facility into conformity with

the parking surveys. To grant to any such person a statutory right of first refusal does not, under the circumstances, seem appropriate.

The District Government has some reservations as to section 22 of S. 944, which provides that the Zoning Commission of the District of Columbia issue regulations to require, with respect to buildings erected in the central business district of the District of Columbia after the effective date of the bill, the provision of facilities for the off-street parking of motor vehicles of the owners, occupants, tenants, patrons, and customers of such buildings, and of the businesses, trades, and professions conducted therein. The Parking Board is authorized under certain conditions to grant a waiver of this provision and to accept a sum of money which would represent an equitable contribution toward the cost of providing parking facilities under the provisions of the bill. There is, however, some question as to the desirability of requiring, by statute, that in the central business district of the city off-street parking be provided within a building or a payment in lieu thereof be made to the Parking Board. It is possible that such a requirement might be desirable in areas of the District other than the central business district, and it might also be possible that under certain conditions there should be a waiver of the off-street parking requirement without the making of a payment to the Parking Board in lieu thereof. It would seem desirable, therefore, that the language of section 22 be amended so as to authorize the Zoning Commission, after consultation with the Parking Board, to issue regulations to require, with respect to particular areas of the District, that provision for off-street parking be made in buildings erected in any such area, and to specify in such regulations the conditions under which a payment shall be made to the Parking Board in lieu of providing the required off-street parking. Such a provision would, in the view of the District Government, permit of more flexibility in dealing with the general problem of providing off-street parking than does the present language of section 22 of S. 944. If this approach be acceptable to the Committee, the District will furnish substitute language to accomplish this result, for insertion in S. 944 and H.R. 14053.

The foregoing three features contained in S. 944, and their absence from H.R. 14053, has the effect of causing the latter bill, in the view of the District Government, to be the more desirable bill, particularly if there should be inserted in it several other provisions, as follows:

(1) A provision which would authorize the Parking Board, when entering into leases, to authorize payment of lower rent during the first part of the lease term, subject to later recoupment from the lessee. Such a provision would take into account the fact that in the earlier part of the lease term a new parking facility probably will require a certain amount of time to develop its full potential. An appropriate amendment to effect this recommendation would be addition of a new subsection (c) to section 8 of H.R. 14053, as follows:

"(c) The Parking Board shall not lease any such facility for an annual rental in an amount less than that which is necessary to amortize, within a forty-year period, the cost of acquiring or constructing such facility and to provide a reasonable reserve for such purpose: to meet the Parking Board's obligations, if any, under the lease, including any obligation to repair. maintain, or insure the facility; to make payments in lieu of taxes, and to meet all administration expenses and other charges in connection therewith; except that the Parking Board may, for good cause, accept, for such number of years as the Parking Board may determine is necessary, a lower rental than the minimum hereinabove prescribed, subject to the repayment to the Parking Board of the difference between such lower rental and such minimum rental prior to the termination of the period for which the parking facility is leased."

(2) H.R. 14053 does not presently contain a provision which would prevent condemnation proceedings unless approved by the Commissioner of the District of Columbia. Such a provision should be included to guarantee that the ultimate decision to exercise the right of eminent domain shall be subject to the approval of the District Government. It is recommended, therefore, that a new sentence be added to the beginning of section 6 (f) of H.R. 14053, to read as follows:

"No condemnation proceedings shall be instituted under this Act unless the Commissioner of the District of Columbia, acting in his capacity as Commissioner, shall have approved the filing of such proceedings." (3) The authorization in section 12(a)(1) of H.R. 14053 to issue obligations does not indicate that the obligations of the Parking Board are not to be considered obligations of the United States of America or of the District of Colum

bia. Due to the quasi-governmental nature of the Parking Board, such a provision appears desirable. It is suggested, therefore, that a new sentence be added to the end of section 12(a) (1) of H.R. 14053, to read as follows:

"The obligations issued under this Act, together with the interest thereon, shall not constitute a debt or obligation of the United States or of the District of Columbia, and the obligations issued by the Parking Board shall clearly so state."

Lastly, there are several additional minor modifications which would further improve and more fully clarify the language of both bills. The District suggests the following amendments (references to H.R. 14053):

(1) Section 6(e) (4), in line 10 on page 10, should be amended by inserting the words "or prices" after the word rentals. This would assure coverage for home owners as well as tenants.

(2) Section 7(b)(2), line 12 on page 13, should be amended by inserting "or governmental" after the word "purposes", and by eliminating the words "of four or more stories." Similar changes should be made in section 10(b), in lines 21 and 23 on page 17. These changes will permit more flexible use of airspace by permitting possible use by the United States or District Government and removing the limitation on minimum number of stories of permitted development. (3) Section 8(b), in line 3 on page 15, should be amended by eliminating the words "by the general public". This will clearly permit leasing of facilities for the use of visitors or government employees and make the provisions consistent with section 6(c) concerning the Secretary of Interior and the Administrator of General Services.

(4) Subsection (a) of section 11, in line 22 on page 18, should be amended by striking "with or without" and inserting "after". The District believes that the experience of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission in holding public hearings before changing bus fares has proven a useful requirement to assure citizen participation. Consequently, public hearings should also be required for the setting of public parking rates.

(5) Section 11, both in line 14 and in line 23 on page 19, should be amended by inserting the phrase "consistent with the provisions of subsection (a) of this section," after the word "rates". This will clarify that subsections (a), (b), and (c) are to be read in conjunction with one another.

(6) Section 15(a), in line 8 on page 28, should be amended by inserting immediately after the comma "Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission,". This insertion will give that agency a voice in the establishment of fringe parking lots.

(7) Section 21 (a) (10) should be rewritten as follows:

"(10) To spend its revenues, or unexpended balances transferred to the Parking Board pursuant to section 24 of this Act;".

This change will clarify the intent of this provision and remove any doubt that new appropriations are not authorized for the activities of the Parking Board.

The District of Columbia Government believes that enactment of the proposed District of Columbia Parking Facility Act will operate to relieve the parking problem in the city, particularly if the Congress should also enact the proposed Federal Aid Highway Act of 1968 which provides for Federal assistance for the development of fringe parking facilities.

For the reasons set forth above, the District of Columbia Government recommends enactment of H.R. 14053, with the amendments set forth herein. However, in the event the Congress is so inclined, S. 944 would be acceptable to the District if it were amended to eliminate certain features which have been discussed in this report as being undesirable.

The Government of the District of Columbia has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress.

Sincerely yours,

THOMAS W. FLETCHER, Assistant to the Commissioner. For: WALTER E. WASHINGTON,

Commissioner.