Articles

Making Downtown the Preferred Location for New State Office Buildings

One of the biggest land developers in the State has now indicated its preference for building new facilities in downtown business districts. Of course, concentrating new projects in existing towns is a recognized method of combatting "suburban sprawl," and so applying it to the biggest developer, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is welcome news. This results from a new statute signed by the Governor on June 22, 2000, as Act No. 32 (House Bill No. 728). The prime sponsor of this was Representative David Argall of Schuylkill County.

The final form of the Act reflects extensive work by Representative Argall with personnel in the Department of General Services. It is a compromise between the desires of those interested in downtown redevelopment and the need of the Department of General Services to avoid undue expense and delay in locating new state facilities.

The legislative findings of the Act recognize the clear linkage between sprawl and the decline of existing business districts. Substantively, it requires the Department of General Services to establish guidelines to encourage state agencies to locate all new office facilities in "downtown areas."

The term "downtown area" is defined in the Act to include a central business district or a commercial area which serves as a commercial center within a municipality of any type. The term is not limited to larger municipalities. It is intended to apply to the smallest communities that have a central business area.

The guidelines of the Department will have to be based upon eight listed factors. These include the needs of the agency, the suitability of available space in downtown areas, and such other matters as cost and the availability of public transportation. Prior to constructing or leasing property, state agencies will be required to consider these guidelines. In addition, reasonable efforts will be required to consider rehabilitating existing structures, and in the case of a new building, to integrate it with the existing architectural context of the applicable downtown area.

The Act contains no procedure for review of agency decisions about locating new facilities. Therefore, the Act may not be as effective as it might otherwise be. However, the expression of policy it represents will provide a "talking point" for boroughs and other municipalities interested in persuading an agency to locate a new facility within their central business districts.

In addition, the Act provides a mechanism for monitoring success in implementing the new policy. It requires the General Services Department to prepare a list following enactment identifying all office facilities of state agencies, and showing those that are located in downtown areas. Four years after the effective date of the Act, and annually thereafter, the Department is required to submit to the legislature reports concerning the new facilities constructed in the intervening time and explaining decisions not to build in downtown areas.

Borough officials and their solicitors who are aware of this Act may be able to benefit from it, both in attracting new facilities and in preventing the departure of existing facilities to outlying locations.

George M. Aman III
High Swartz LLP
610-275-0700