PETITION SEEKING RELIEF FROM KEY BLDG PARKING FEE INCREASE(S)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85-00988R000600100012-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: November 11, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 25, 1999
• Sequence Number: 12
• Publication Date: April 9, 1975
• Content Type: MF

P L T' $ S E E X P E D I T E
Approved For Release 1999/28 : CIA-RDP85-00988R0006001000,~,~-3
G TR C U L A T I O N C O P Y F O R S I G N A T U R E S
y April 1975
P~EMORANDUM FOR: CIA Component Administration Offices in Key Building, Rosslyn
FROM Agency Employees Using Key Building Parking Facilities
SUBJECT Petition Seeking Relief from Key Bldg Parking Fee Increase(s)
The undersigned hereby protest the announced 20~ increase
(to
$360
per year) in the Key Building parking fee, due to become effective
as both discriminatory and unjustified for the following reasons:
1 May
75,
(1) We have been and continue to be discriminated against as com-
pared with Agency employees working at Langley Headquarters, who are provided
free parking and therefore already end each year with $300 more usable income
(at tha same Grade/Step levels) than do we who must pay for our own parking
in Key Bldg! And those among us who decline to pay so much must still run
an added risk of unprotected parking on 1aca1 area sidestreets.
(2) We have been observing for some time now the dwindling use of
Key Bldg parking spaces and strongly suspect that we are now being asked to
make up that difference in reduced income for Charles E. Smith Companies
(CESC), formerly known as Charles E. Smith Management.
(3) Since there are no apparent special garage services or atten-
dants, or other building maintenance personnel solely responsible for super-
vision of the parking garage, we must assume that the parking fee increase
comes as a result of some increase in the management's operating expenses for
tine building as a whole. Therefore, we feel that the lessee (U.S.Gov't),
rather than a couple hundred Agency employees using the parking garage, should
be the major contributor toward any such increased building operating expenses
if, as we suspect, this constitutes a major excuse for the proposed increase
in the parking fee.
(4) Lacking specific knowledge of the privileges, restrictions, and
r3:onetary terms of the Gov't lease contract with CESC (CESM), we tend to view
this situation as one in which the Agency (as fee collecting intermediary) is
actually condoning, i~, not in fact encouraging, CESC (CESM) to oblige~Agency
employees -- the majority occupants of the bldg -- to subsidize and/or supple-
r,~ent the Agency's (Gov't) rental outlay for Key Bldg. Since we also lack any
r~nowledge of the terms of such contracts between CESC (CESM) and other corpor-
~.te occupants of Key Bldg, neither do we have any basis far concrete comparison
Q~E our situation vis-a-vis theirs.
In view of the above and of the new Freedom of Information Act, we
feel entitled to (but are not yet asking for) a FULL disclosure of such terms
of the Government's lease with CESC (CESM) as: what it costs, what it enti-
tles the Agency to, when and under what negotiating conditions it is renewable,
and haw it compares with leases held by other corporate occupants of Key Bldg.
We therefore seek through the Agency -- as primarily responsible for
our being thus obliged to divert so much of our salaries in the. first place,
and as fee-collecting intermediary in the second place -- some form of relief
from the prospect of this and further such penalties at the hands of CESC (ar
CE5"~), and we believe that, if notha.ng more, we are at least entitled to a
 25X1A9a
Approved For Release 1999/09/28 :CIA-RDP85-009888000600100012-3
Next 1 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 1999/09/28 :CIA-RDP85-009888000600100012-3