OBP006306

SUBJECT: Real Estate Task Force Brief to Chief Aguilar

Meeting Date – July 26, 2007

Meeting Time: 1PM EST
Meeting Location: Chief Aguilar’s Suite

Purpose
The purpose of this meeting was to brief senior OBP leadership on current scope the Real Estate Task Force is
analyzing. Specifically, Chief Aguilar wanted a recommendation on the disposition of lands located between the
proposed PF225 fence south to the natural US/Mexico Border. Also discussed was proposed acquisition method for
property needed to construct PF225 fence.

Attendees
Attended via CBP
Telecon
√ Chief Aguilar, OBP

√ Chief Colburn, OBP

√ Chief Self, OBP

√ (b) (6) OBP

√ (b) (6) OBP

√ (b) (6) CBP Asset Management

√ PF225
(b) (6)
√ (b) (6) CBP Office of Asst Chief of Counsel

√ (b) (6) Facilities Center, Laguna

Discussion Overview
Topics Covered during the Meeting

Real Estate Task Force Scope:

 Provided Overview of Real Estate Task Force’s Work Scope (see attached)
 Explained that (b) (6) established the Task Force, and that it had been meeting for 3
weeks already
 Chief Aguilar concurred that the Task Force’s strategy and scope was appropriate

CBP/SBInet
Meeting Minutes 8/16/2010 1
OBP006307

 Resolved that the Task Force would produce a ‘Pre Brief’ in advance of a final written position
paper in light of the fact that the paper will take approximately three more weeks to complete.

Disposition of Land South of the Fence to the Border (where applicable):

 PF225 fence was originally directed to be constructed along Rio Grande River. However, in many Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
cases as it lies within a flood plane, and construction there is unfeasible from both an engineering
standpoint and in that it would violate international treaties governed by IBWC.
 Management’s resolution of this issue was to build atop or to the north of the IBWC levee, which
introduces the question of what to do with the lands between the fence and the river.
 Explained that this has become a pressing issue, because Mr. Giddens has directed the Corps of
Engineers to commence with appraising land tract values in advance of getting their ‘Delegation of
Authority’. The disposition of the land south of the fence is a key element needed to create the
appraisals.
 Reviewed 3-page Power Point presentation (see attached).
 Chief Aguilar concurred with the two-pronged land acquisition strategy:

1. Acquire Interest in Land Needed for Tactical Infrastructure

a k.a. ‘Project Only Acquisition’ (POA)
• For larger parcels where landowners establish clear evidence that their livelihood
depends on access to that property (i.e. Grazing or Farming) – Rural Areas

2. Acquire Interest in Land for SBI Needs AND Land South of the Fence to the Border
a k.a. ‘Project & South Acquisition’ (PSA)
• For relatively smaller parcels where land is accessed primarily for recreational use (i.e.
fishing, hunting, camping, kayaking, etc.) – Urban Areas
• Landowners already experience restricted access due to existing pass-thru routes Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
established along the IBWC levee, so a gate along the fence will not pose substantial
additional burden or impediment to them.

 Issues still not 100% resolved, that depending on the finding, may dictate amending the afore
mentioned strategy:
 Seizure of lands south of the border by the Gov’t: Chief Aguilar advocated this approach if
illegal activity is being conducted on those lands.
o (b) (6) will review the topic and submit findings to OBP.
o Previous proposed solution was buying the land and granting rights back to the
original landowner that could be extinguished by the government – this option was
discussed and ruled out.
 Shutting down access through the fence: Question of what authority the government has to
deny passage through the fence to privately held lands in the event of national emergency
(i.e. terrorist threat, pandemic, etc.)? (b) (6) will review this topic.
o (b) (6) will review the topic and submit findings to OBP.
 Management of lands acquired by CBP south of the fence would preferably be turned over to
another government agency – that issue has not been adequately vetted yet, but it seemed to
all to be accomplishable.

CBP/SBInet
Meeting Minutes 8/16/2010 2
OBP006308

Proposed Acquisition Method for Primary Sixty-Foot-Wide Swath of Land for PF225:

 Leasing – not a viable option; Ruled Out:

 Only have twenty-year total lease authority (One 5-year lease with three 5-year options to
renew)
 The permanency of the government’s use of the TI will drive it to fail the OMB Lease
Scoring requirements. Under conservative estimates, CBP would exceed the present value of
the assets before the end of the lease term.
 We’re building millions of dollars of assets on these lands; we want to retain control of those
assets. There are typically owner termination provisions in a lease.
 No flexibility – future improvements would require lease renegotiation
 Annual burden on operating budget – lease cannot be funded by project funds.
 Easements – a non-preferable secondary option, less favorable than Fee Simple:
 Insufficient Flexibility – Improvements are only allowed based on what’s specified in the
easement. Future improvements (i.e. sensors, secondary fence, etc.) would cause easement to
be renegotiated.
 Cost – A perpetual easement typically costs 90% of what fee simple would have cost, with
far less rights in return.
 Mineral Rights – difficult to extinguish these rights from the fee simple owner, allowing for
potential angle drilling under the fence.
 Fee Simple – Preferred Acquisition Option:
 Provides government complete control now and in the future.
 Purchased at slightly higher cost than easement, but protects government against claims of
exceeding specific easement rights.
 Retain mineral rights.
 This course of action’s downside is the prediction of increased probability for condemnation
actions. Primarily due to Texas landowners unwilling to convey fee simple interest due to
sentimental value, disagreement with the fence project, and without reserving third party
mineral rights.

Action Items:
 (b) (6) – Provide more information on CBP’s/Government’s authority to seize privately held lands
 (b) (6) – Provide more information on Government’s authority to bar access to private lands in
cases of national emergency/threat.
 (b) (6) – Drive Task Force toward completion of ‘Pre-Brief’ by 8/03, and ultimate position paper in
three weeks.
 Not Assigned - (b) (6) or (b) (6) ? – Run issue to ground – Research potential of
CBP turning over management of lands acquired south of the fence to another government agency better
equipped to manage them.


Minutes prepared by (b) (6)

CBP/SBInet
Meeting Minutes 8/16/2010 3