United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Ranking Minority Member,

Legislation and National Security

Subcommittee, Committee on

Government Operations, House of

Representatives

November 1994 MILITARY BASES

Reuse Plans for

Selected Bases Closed

in 1988 and 1991

GAO/NSIAD-95-3

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-258503 

November 1, 1994

The Honorable Al McCandless

Ranking Minority Member

Legislation and National Security Subcommittee

Committee on Government Operations

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. McCandless:

Originally, the Department of Defense (DOD) estimated that it would realize

$4.1 billion in property sales revenue from military bases closed under the

1988 and 1991 base realignment and closure rounds. In 1994, DOD reduced

this estimate to $1.2 billion. Revenue from property sales is to be used to

help pay for the base closure costs.

As agreed with your office, we identified

• the revenue the government has received and is expecting to receive from

these property sales,

• additional resources the federal government has given to communities to

support their plans to reuse the bases, and

• several issues that delay communities’ reuse plans.

Background Federal government real estate that is no longer needed is not

automatically sold. Rather, the Federal Property and Administrative

Services Act of 1949 (the Property Act) requires a screening process in

which the appropriate government officials explore transferring the

property with or without payment to another government or nonprofit

agency. For example, DOD first screens excess property for possible use by

other DOD organizations and then by other federal agencies. If no federal

agency has a need for the excess property, it is declared surplus to the

federal government and generally is made available to private nonprofit

and state and local agencies. First, as stipulated by the Stewart B.

McKinney Homeless Assistance Act,1

 the surplus property is made

available to providers of services to the homeless. If none of these

providers opt to take the property, it is offered to public benefit agencies

such as state or local jurisdictions or qualifying nonprofit organizations for

other authorized purposes. Any property that remains is available for

1

Enacted in 1987, the McKinney Act (42 U.S.C. 11301 et seg.) provides assistance to homeless people

by providing funds to state and local governments and organizations for emergency food and shelter,

primary health care, education, and job training.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
B-258503 

negotiated sale to a state or local government. Finally, if no state or local

government wishes to acquire the property, it is offered for sale to the

general public.

Title XXIX of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994

contained a number of amendments to the Property Act and the Base

Realignment and Closure (BRAC) acts of 1988 and 1990. These amendments

enabled the state and local governments and the general public to receive

government property at no cost if it is used for economic development.

DOD’s interim regulations also grant these communities a 60-percent share

of net proceeds from the sale or lease of properties transferred under this

authority, unless the secretary of the military department concerned

determines that a different division of net profits is appropriate.

The information contained in this report reflects the May 1, 1994, status of

property disposal plans at 37 of the 120 installations closed by the 1988

and 1990 legislation (see fig. 1).2

 A former Secretary of Defense stated that

the number of closures in 1995 could exceed those of the previous years

because closures have not kept pace with staff and force structure

reductions.

2

Where information was available, the data was updated through September 21, 1994.

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
B-258503 

Figure 1: Bases Reviewed From BRAC 1988 and 1991

Moffett NAS

Fort Ord

1988

1991

Long Beach NS/NH

Tustin MCAS

George AFB

Mather AFB

Sacramento AD

Castle AFB

Norton AFB

Williams AFB

Lowry AFB

Bergstrom AFB

Chase NAS

Ft. Wingate

Presidioof SF

England AFB

Eaker AFB

Richards-Gebaur ARS

Puget Sound NS


(SandPoint)

Ft. Sheridan

Chanute


AFB

Lexington AD

Grissoin AFB

Wurtsmith AFB Pease AFB

Ft. Devens

Loring AFB

Philadelphia


NS/NH/NSY

Warminster


NAWR

Cameron Station

Woodbridge ARF

Ft. Ben

Harrison

Jeff. Proving


Ground

Rickenbacker


AGB

Mrytle Beach AFB

Army MTL

Davisville


NCBC

Results in Brief Revenues from property sales will be far less than DOD’s original and

revised estimates. Consistent with federal regulations, the vast majority of

the disposed property is being retained by DOD or transferred to other

federal agencies and states and localities at no cost. However, where

Congress has not specifically authorized a transfer without reimbursement

of estimated fair market value, the transfer of property between federal

agencies requires either 100 percent reimbursement or a waiver of this

requirement. Property sales had produced revenues of $69.4 million; an

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
B-258503 

additional $22.2 million is expected from pending sales. About $19 million

of this $92 million in sales and pending sales is merely a transfer of funds

from one federal agency to another. Another 9,400 acres of property is

planned for sale, so additional revenues may be realized. DOD is continuing

to reduce its property sales revenue estimates as it obtains better

information on property values and property available for sale.

In addition to transferring large portions of land at no cost, many

communities are asking the federal government for (1) cash grants;

(2) marketable revenue-producing properties, such as golf courses and

housing units; and (3) building and infrastructure upgrades. Also, as of

May 1, 1994, the communities at the 37 bases we examined had received

$107 million in cash grants from DOD’s Office of Economic Adjustment, the

Federal Aviation Administration, the Economic Development

Administration, and the Department of Labor. As the closure process

continues in 1995, these additional funding requirements will also

increase.

During our review, we noted several reasons for delays in the transfer of

the property to the communities. Disagreements between federal agencies,

homeless providers, Indian groups, and local community interests over

reuse plans have resulted in delays at some bases. Changing laws and

regulations, designed to improve the property disposition process, have

created uncertainties for some communities planning the conversion of

surplus base properties. Finally, environmental contamination of

properties at some bases will delay their transfer to communities until the

properties are cleaned up or DOD has remediation in place.

Decisions made on the disposition of property at the 1988 and 1991

closures and the assistance provided to the local communities will likely

serve as precedents for the 1993 and 1995 closures.

Property Sales

Revenue Is

Significantly Below

DOD’s $1.2 Billion

Estimate

The Army is credited for almost all of the $69.4 million in property sales

revenue and for $5.3 million of the $22.2 million in pending sales. Its

largest sale, $38.5 million, was to the state of Hawaii for land at the

Kapalama Military Reservation. The Army has also sold 761 family housing

units in various locations for an average of about $40,000 per unit. The

only non-Army sale was for about 400 family housing units—detached

single family houses and apartments—that the Navy sold for an average of

about $420 per unit (total of $168,000) to the Beeville Redevelopment

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
B-258503 

Corporation in Beeville, Texas. The Air Force has about $16.9 million in

pending sales.

About $19 million of the $92 million in sales and pending sales was merely

a transfer of funds from one federal agency to another—not a revenue gain

for the federal government. Planned sales of 9,400 acres of property will

result in additional revenue once final property disposition decisions are

made and cleanup or remediation is in place. As we reported earlier,3 DOD

has been reducing the estimates for land sales revenue as it receives better

information on property values and sales data.

Most Property Is

Transferred to Other

Federal Agencies and

States and Localities

at No Cost

The primary reason for the low property sales revenues is that 88 percent

of the property at the bases we reviewed will be retained by DOD or

transferred at no cost to other federal agencies and state and local

jurisdictions. Current plans call for the sale of only about 5 percent of the

land. The remaining 7 percent remains in an undetermined status.

Appendix I shows the planned disposition of property.

Property Retained by DOD

or Transferred to Other

Federal Agencies

Over 110,000 of the approximately 192,000 acres of the total land available

at the bases we reviewed are being retained by DOD or transferred to other

federal agencies. Nearly half of this land is contaminated with unexploded

ordnance—about 7,200 acres at Fort Ord and 47,500 acres at Jefferson

Proving Grounds. The federal government’s retention of the contaminated

land could significantly reduce cleanup costs since the land will remain

undeveloped.

DOD will retain 26,000 of the 110,000 acres. Nearly 10,000 acres at 14 bases

will be retained for use by Reserve and National Guard units. DOD will also

retain over 1,000 acres of military housing at 6 bases for use by personnel

assigned to nearby bases. The largest acreage planned for retention by DOD

will be 13,000 acres at Fort Wingate for the Ballistic Missile Defense Office

for missile testing in conjunction with the White Sands Missile Range in

New Mexico.

As shown in figure 2, 84,000 of the 110,000 acres will be transferred to

other federal agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management, the

Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Prisons. About 79,000 acres of

mostly undeveloped property, wetlands, and natural habitats will be

3

Military Bases: Revised Cost and Saving Estimates for 1988 and 1991 Closures and Realignments

(GAO/NSIAD-93-161, Mar. 31, 1993).

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
B-258503 

transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service or the Bureau of Land

Management at eight bases. This includes the land contaminated with

unexploded ordinance at Jefferson Proving Ground and Fort Ord. The

Bureau of Prisons will receive 1,800 acres at 3 bases for federal prisons.

Other federal agencies receiving properties are the National Park Service

(1,480 acres at the Presidio of San Francisco) and the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration (1,440 acres at Moffett Naval Air

Station).

Figure 2: Planned Property Disposal at

DOD and Other Federal Agencies

24% • Department of Defense

50% • Fish & Wildlife Service

•22%

Bureau of Land Management

2%

Bureau of Prisons

1%

National Aeronautics & Space

Administration

1%

National Park Service

Property Transferred to

State and Local

Jurisdictions and Nonprofit

Agencies

About 60,000 acres of the 192,000 acres likely will be transferred at no cost

to state and local jurisdictions and nonprofit organizations. Most of the

property, about 40,000 acres, will be used for public benefit purposes such

as airports, parks and recreation, education, and homeless assistance.

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
B-258503 

(Fig. 3 shows the breakdown of these no-cost transfers). An additional

19,500 acres will be transferred for economic development purposes.

Figure 3: Planned Transfers at No Cost

1%

Homeless Assistance

33% • Economic Development

11% • Parks and Recreation

• 3%

Education

1%

Other

51%•

Airports

Airports Of the 24 bases with airfields, 16 will be transferred to local communities

for public use, 2 will be retained by federal agencies, 5 will be used for

nonaviation purposes, and the reuse of 1 is yet to be determined. Including

property to be used to help finance the operation of the airfields, over

30,000 acres will be transferred for public aviation uses.

The communities are hoping to convert military airfields into civilian

airports. In two instances, Bergstrom Air Force Base and Myrtle Beach Air

Force Base, the airfield transfers will meet Federal Aviation

Administration-identified needs for primary commercial airports. The

Federal Aviation Administration has categorized the potential use of most

of the rest of the airfields as general aviation airports, with those in

metropolitan areas also potentially serving as reliever airports that can

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
B-258503 

provide alternative landing sites when major airports are congested. Local

redevelopment authorities report difficulties in attracting aviation-related

tenants, and they are competing with existing general aviation airports as

well as with each other for tenants. General aviation traffic has declined

nationwide by about 32 percent in the past 14 years. Bases in rural

areas—e.g., Wurtsmith, Loring, and Eaker Air Force Bases—have a

particularly difficult time attracting commercial tenants.

We analyzed the grants to communities at the 16 bases where attempts to

reuse military airfields as civilian airports was the centerpiece of the reuse

plan (see fig 4).4

 The results of our analysis show that while communities

at these 16 bases are developing and implementing reuse plans for 28

percent of the total acres of the 37 bases, they have received 78 percent of

the $66 million in planning and infrastructure grants.

4

Appendix I identifies the 16 bases planning airport reuse. For the purpose of this analysis, we added

Loring Air Force Base because, even though we list the airfield acreage in the undetermined column,

attempts to establish a civilian airport are central to their reuse planning. We are excluding Fort Ord

because airport reuse is not the centerpiece of its reuse plan.

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
B-258503 

Figure 4: Location of Bases Planning to Establish Civilian Airports

George AFB

Mather AFB

Castle AFB

Norton AFB

Williams AFB

Bergstrom AFB

Chase NAS

England AFB

Eaker AFB

Richards-Gebaur ARS

Chanute

AFB

Wurtsmith AFB Pease AFB

Loring AFB

Rickenbacker

AGB

Mrytle Beach AFB

Parks and Recreation At 15 of the 37 bases, communities are requesting about 6,800 acres for

parks and recreation. The largest transfer will be at Fort Ord about 2,600

acres, including beaches and sand dunes. At Mather Air Force Base, about

1,500 acres will be transferred to the county for park and recreation use

and at Fort Benjamin Harrison, a 1,100-acre parcel will become a state

park.

Education As of May 1994, about 2,000 acres at 16 bases were planned for transfer

through the Department of Education to qualified organizations for

educational purposes, with the largest conveyances at Fort Ord, Williams

Air Force Base, and Lowry Air Force Base. At the time of our review at

Fort Ord, 2,700 acres were requested for an education, science, and

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
B-258503 

technology center focusing on environmental sciences. It will include a

new California State University campus, a University of California

research and technology center, and a language training institute

emphasizing Pacific Rim languages. Local officials recently changed their

request for Fort Ord so that they can qualify for an economic development

transfer. An economic development conveyance would avoid the

restrictions required for educational transfers that the donee continuously

uses the property for educational purposes for up to 30 years.

At Williams Air Force Base, over 600 acres, including many of the core

base facilities, have been requested for an education, research, and

training consortium focusing on aviation-related training and research and

involving nearby Arizona State University, Maricopa Community College,

and 21 other educational institutions. Plans at Lowry Air Force Base call

for conversion of an Air Force training center into an educational

consortium that will emphasize training new and displaced workers and

involve the local community college and various other schools.

Homeless Assistance As of May 1994, 17 of the 37 bases were planning to convey property at no

cost to homeless assistance organizations (see fig. 5 for locations). Several

other bases will likely do so once they complete their property screening

process. As mentioned earlier, under the McKinney Act, homeless

organizations that have been certified by the Department of Health and

Human Services generally have priority over organizations not

representing the homeless when requesting surplus government property.

The property may be used to provide temporary housing for the homeless,

alcohol and drug recovery centers, abuse shelters, and distribution

facilities for food and clothing. The amount of property involved thus far is

relatively small (see app. II for details). It amounts to about 500 acres

(0.3 percent of the total property). The property includes about 1,600

family housing units (5 percent of the total) and 1,000 single housing units.

At each of three California bases—Tustin Marine Corps Air Station, Fort

Ord, and Long Beach Naval Station—plans call for homeless providers to

receive more than 200 family housing units.

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
B-258503 

Figure 5: Bases With Plans That Transfer Property to Homeless Assistance Providers

Fort Ord

Long Beach


NS/NH Tustin MCAS

George AFB

Mather AFB

Sacramento AD

Norton AFB

Lowry AFB

Lexington AD

Ft. Devens

Cameron Station

Ft. Ben Harrison

Wurtsmith AFB

Puget Sound NS (SandPoint)

Myrtle Beach AFB

Ft. Sheridan 

Castle AFB

Economic Development Reuse authorities at 10 bases plan to request about 19,500 acres in

economic development transfers. Under these provisions, reuse

authorities can request property at no cost for economic development and

job creation purposes. The local authorities can then lease or sell the

property to companies that will create jobs. The net proceeds from leasing

or selling this property are shared with the federal government—generally

60 percent for the community and 40 percent for the government. Rules

implementing these new provisions will not be finalized until early 1995,

and some local authorities are waiting until then to make final decisions

on these conveyance requests.

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
B-258503 

Property for Sale to the Public Another 9,400 acres have been planned for sale to the public. The

disposition of the remaining 12,900 acres is still undetermined by local

reuse authorities. This is the last step in the process. Land can be sold

after all qualifying entities have decided they do not want the land.

Communities Ask

DOD and Other

Federal Agencies for

Additional Assistance

Communities are asking the federal government to provide (1) cash grants;

(2) marketable revenue-producing properties, such as golf courses and

housing units, to help pay for reuse activities; and (3) funds for upgrading

buildings and infrastructure.

Cash Grants Cash grants are available to communities through federal programs

administered by such agencies as DOD’s Office of Economic Adjustment,

the Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Labor, and the

Economic Development Administration in the Department of Commerce.

As of May 1, 1994, the communities at the 37 bases we examined had

received $107 million in federal grants to assist in developing and

implementing reuse plans. According to DOD officials, most of the funds

were provided by DOD to the administering agency because their use is

related to a base closure. Additional grants are likely to be forthcoming.

The Office of Economic Adjustment provides 3- to 5-year grants to local

communities to develop and implement reuse plans. If the plan calls for a

civilian airport, communities can request additional funds from the

Federal Aviation Administration for airport planning and improvements. If

infrastructure improvements are needed, communities can request grants

from the Economic Development Administration.

As of May 1994, the Office of Economic Adjustment had provided

approximately $19.1 million to local authorities for reuse planning. The

Federal Aviation Administration had provided $3.8 million, the Economic

Development Administration $43.1 million, and the Department of Labor

$40.5 million in grants. See appendix III for the distribution of grants for

the 37 installations we reviewed.

Most cash grants have gone to communities trying to establish civilian

airports. The local reuse authority at Eaker Air Force Base has received

$1.7 million from the Office of Economic Adjustment thus far, and a DOD

official projected that funding may be required for 6 years. The Economic

Development Administration grants at Wurtsmith Air Force Base

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
B-258503 

amounted to $9.7 million to tie the base water supply and sewer to the

municipal system, shut down base wells, and construct large water intakes

from Lake Huron.

Revenue-Generating

Property

Communities are also asking DOD to provide property that can easily

generate revenue to support reuse activities unrelated to the property.

Community officials say they need revenue-generating properties, such as

golf courses and family housing units, to help fund operating expenses

while they implement their reuse plans, such as airports or educational

institutions.

At England Air Force Base, local authorities are asking for the entire base,

including family housing units and a golf course, to help support the

airport. The reuse plan predicts it will be at least 10 years before the

airport will be self-sustaining.

At Fort Ord, officials of the prospective California State University,

Monterey Bay, plan to lease 1,250 units of family housing to support

university operations. A Fort Ord housing official stated that the university

is also asking for the profits that DOD has received from leasing the housing

prior to its conveyance.

Building and Infrastructure

Upgrades

At some installations, local reuse authorities, educational institutions, and

other reuse groups are seeking federal funds to renovate buildings,

upgrade utility systems, construct roads, or improve other infrastructure

for properties being conveyed.

At Fort Ord, $15 million was appropriated out of DOD’s operations and

maintenance accounts to renovate buildings at California State University,

Monterey Bay. A university official estimated that an additional

$140 million is needed from the federal government over the next 10 years

to complete renovations. The state is providing $12 million in operating

funds for the campus. The official said that, along with the conveyance of

the requested land and buildings at no cost, federal funds for the

renovation of buildings were essential for the campus to become a reality,

and continued federal support will be needed until the California economy

improves. California voters recently rejected a ballot proposition that

would have provided authority to issue bonds and use the proceeds to

construct or renovate buildings and acquire related fixtures at the state’s

colleges and universities.

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
B-258503 

According to a base official, the Army spent $69 million at the Presidio of

San Francisco to renovate infrastructure and buildings prior to the

installation’s transfer to the National Park Service.

At Castle Air Force Base, base closure officials reported that the gas

distribution system on that installation will have to be rebuilt, the sewer

and electrical systems upgraded, and buildings brought into compliance

with state and federal standards, such as the Americans With Disabilities

Act. DOD has so far funded an Economic Development Administration

grant of $3.5 million to connect the installation with the municipal sewer

system.

A community official estimated that $200 million would have to be spent at

Tustin Marine Corps Air Station on access roads and other infrastructure

improvements to enable development of the installation. The community is

asking that the costs of such improvements be subtracted from the federal

government’s revenue from the sale of the property.

Disposal of Base

Property Has Been

Delayed for Several

Reasons

Reuse planning and disposition of property at closing bases have been

delayed for a number of reasons. Disagreements between various agencies

and jurisdictions have stalled reuse decisions at some bases. Some

communities are waiting until regulations are established implementing

new property disposition provisions before finalizing their reuse plans.

DOD responsibility for environmental cleanup further delays disposal of

base property.

Disagreements Over Reuse

Plans

DOD has the discretion to determine what the highest and best use for the

property is and relies heavily on local reuse plans to make this

determination. The one exception is that DOD officials maintain that they

cannot deny homeless requests that are approved by the Department of

Health and Human Services. When conflicts arise, DOD base closure

officials urge agencies and local officials to try to reach an

accommodation at the local level.

DOD officials urge local communities to form a single reuse authority and

unite behind a single reuse plan. In several cases, jurisdictional and reuse

disputes within the local community have delayed base conversion. For

example, at George and Myrtle Beach Air Force Bases disputes between

cities and counties over who should have the reuse authority and how

large the airport should be have been major problems. At Myrtle Beach,

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
B-258503 

the state of South Carolina finally intervened to establish a single reuse

authority and determine what the reuse plan should be.

Indian groups have expressed interest in acquiring property at 14 of the 

37 bases we reviewed (see fig. 6 for locations). These requests include use

of base property for education and job training, cultural and craft centers,

housing, health facilities, economic development, and casinos. At seven of

the bases, the Department of Interior has requested property that would be

held in trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for tribal programs by local

Indian groups.

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
B-258503 

Figure 6: Locations of Bases With Requests From Indian Groups

Bases where Department of Interior requested property on behalf of tribes.

Other bases where Indian tribes have expressed interest.

Long Beach NS/NH

Tustin MCAS

Norton AFB

Williams AFB

Lowry AFB

Ft. Wingate

England AFB

Puget Sound NS

(Sand Point)

Wurtsmith AFB

Ft. Devens

Loring AFB

Ft. Ben Harrison

Mrytle Beach AFB

Davisville

NC BC

At the time of our review, DOD had not approved any of the Indian groups’

requests, nor had DOD determined whether requests through the

Department of Interior should be given federal agency priority

consideration. Thus, property disposition decisions at these bases have

been delayed. In some cases, Indian groups were not represented on local

reuse committees, and Indian requests and local reuse plans were in

conflict. Furthermore, the Indian groups maintain that they should have

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
B-258503 

sovereignty over property they receive, while the local jurisdictions want

to maintain zoning and land use control. In Seattle, the Muckleshoot Tribe

has requested a major portion of Puget Sound Naval Station, which the

city plans to use to house the homeless and hold recreation, cultural, and

other activities.

In several cases, federal agency requests conflicted with local reuse plans.

While these conflicts can delay local reuse planning, they are usually

resolved through negotiation between DOD and the community. For

example, at Williams Air Force Base, the Army Reserve requested property

that local officials said was essential for their planned educational

consortium. At the time of our review, this case remained unresolved but

subsequently the Reserve and local officials came to mutual agreement.

Disputes between communities and homeless providers over the extent of

base property to be conveyed for the homeless have led to delays at some

bases. The Department of Health and Human Services could deny

homeless provider requests if it determined the provider lacked

experience or financial viability for such a program. However, in deciding

whether to approve homeless requests, the Department of Health and

Human Services officials believed the McKinney Act gave them no

discretion to consider whether the request would disrupt the local reuse

plan. In October 1994, Congress passed and sent to the President for

signature legislation that would give communities more flexibility in

developing plans to meet homeless needs and federal agencies more

discretion in approving such plans. The new legislation allows

communities to develop reuse plans that incorporate the needs of the

homeless either at the base or elsewhere in the community. If the

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development determines that the

community’s plan provides a reasonable amount of property and

assistance to meet the needs of the homeless, then direct applications by

homeless assistance providers to the federal government under the

McKinney Act for base property would be eliminated.

Changing Laws and

Regulations

In 1993, Congress passed legislation to expedite the base conversion

process and support economic development in communities facing base

closures. Communities in the midst of reuse planning had to choose

whether to continue under the old base conversion procedures or to

request to come under the new provisions. Many decided to delay

decisions until implementing regulations were finalized. DOD issued interim

rules in April 1994, and DOD officials expected the rules to be finalized in

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
B-258503 

early 1995. DOD officials told those communities deciding to request

economic development transfers under the new rules they would have to

also go through an additional McKinney Act homeless screening under the

new rules, which could add an additional 8 months to the process.

Furthermore, several communities requested delays in federal approval of

homeless requests until congressional action was completed on the

amendment to the McKinney Act.

Environmental Cleanup All the closing bases we visited had environmental cleanup that needed to

be done, which in many cases is the most difficult obstacle to getting

property into productive reuse. Generally, base property cannot be

transferred until cleanup is completed or the government warrants in its

deed that all environmental remediation measures are in place. However,

DOD has the authority to transfer property for the cost of cleanup to any

person who agrees to perform the environmental restoration.

In a related assignment, we will report on the difficulties in cleaning up

bases, the effect of environmental contamination on DOD’s ability to

transfer property, the federal government’s liabilities from environmental

contamination, and DOD’s long-term plans for addressing environmental

problems at closing bases.

Scope and

Methodology

We collected information from 37 of the 120 installations closed by the

1988 and 1991 Base Closure Commissions. These bases were selected

because they were, for the most part, the larger installations and they had

base transition coordinators assigned by DOD. Our review included 

12 closures by the 1988 Commission and 25 closures by the 1991

Commission. The closures involve the disposal of 192,000 acres of land in

21 states.

We performed our work at the DOD Base Transition Office, the Office of

Economic Adjustment, and the military services’ headquarters in

Washington, D.C., area. We also contacted base closure and community

officials at the 37 closed bases. We visited Pease, Chanute, and Eaker Air

Force Bases; Forts Sheridan and Ord; Chase Field Naval Air Station; and

Naval Station Puget Sound (Sand Point). We also visited offices of the

Federal Aviation Administration, the Economic Development

Administration and the General Services Administration to discuss issues

involving base closure.

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
B-258503 

We reviewed the most recent land sales data from the military services’

base closure offices. We compared the 6-year land revenue estimates from

DOD’s base realignment and closure fiscal years 1991-95 budget

justifications for BRAC-I (the bases closed in 1988) and its fiscal years

1993-95 justifications for BRAC-II (the bases closed in 1991). To determine

the current plans for reusing property at closing military installations, we

reviewed community reuse plans where available and interviewed base

transition coordinators, community representatives, and DOD officials.

Where community reuse plans had changed or were not available, we

identified the most likely reuses planned by these parties. When the parties

involved disagreed over reuse plans, we categorized the property as

undetermined.

As requested, we did not obtain written agency comments. However, we

discussed the report’s contents with DOD officials and their comments have

been incorporated where appropriate.

Our review was performed between July 1993 and September 1994 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further

distribution of this report until 30 days after its issue date. At that time, we

will send copies to the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the

Air Force; the Directors of the Defense Logistics Agency and the Office of

Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will also make

copies available to others upon request.

Please contact me at (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any questions

concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in

appendix IV.

Sincerely yours,

Donna M. Heivilin

Director, Defense Management

 and NASA Issues

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Planned Property

Disposals at Selected

Bases Closed in the

1988 and 1991 Rounds

22

Appendix II 

Planned Property

Disposals to

Homeless Assistance

Providers

26

Appendix III 

Cash Grants Given to

Facilitate Reuse Plans

28

Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to

This Report

29

Related GAO Products 31

Figures Figure 1: Bases Reviewed From BRAC 1988 and 1991 3

Figure 2: Planned Property Disposal at DOD and Other Federal

Agencies

6

Figure 3: Planned Transfers at No Cost 7

Figure 4: Location of Bases Planning to Establish Civilian

Airports

9

Figure 5: Bases with Plans that Transfer property to Homeless

Assistance Providers

11

Figure 6: Locations of Bases With Requests From Indian Groups 16

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
Contents

Abbreviations

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure

DOD Department of Defense

GAO General Accounting Office

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
Appendix I 

Planned Property Disposals at Selected

Bases Closed in the 1988 and 1991 Rounds

Federal

Base DOD

FWS/

BLMa

Other

federal

Army MTL, MA

Bergstrom AFB, TX 356

Cameron Station, VA

Castle AFB, CA 660

Chanute AFB, IL 13 3

Chase NAS, TX

Davisville NCBC, RI 380 10

Eaker AFB, AR

England AFB, LA

Ft. Benjamin Harrison, IN 158

Ft. Devens, MA 5,598 800 260

Ft. Ord, CA 1,190 15,009

Ft. Sheridan, IL 310

Ft. Wingate AD, NM 13,000 8,812

George AFB, CA 900

Grissom AFB, IN 1,127

Jefferson Proving Ground, IN 47,500

Lexington AD, KY

Long Beach NS/NH, CA 586 13

Loring AFB, ME 1,223 5,175 35

Lowry AFB, CO 115

Mather AFB, CA 49

Moffett NAS, CA 130 1,440

Myrtle Beach AFB,SC

Norton AFB, CA 112 25

Pease AFB, NH 229 1,054

Philadelphia NS/NH/NSY, PA 705 1

Presidio of San Francisco, CA 1,480

Puget Sound NS, WA 4 10

Richards-Gebaur ARS, MO 214

Rickenbacker AGB, OH 300

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
Appendix I 

Planned Property Disposals at Selected

Bases Closed in the 1988 and 1991 Rounds

Public Benefit Transfers

r

l Homeless Airports

Parks/

recreation Education Other

Economic

development

transfer

Market

sales Undetermined Total acres

7 30 37

2,860 3,216

1 50 114 165

0 5 1,700 115 31 202 64 2,777

3 1,181 147 62 726 2,132

2,138 262 1,357 3,757

0 219 512 159 1,280

2,644 523 116 3 3,286

2,282 2,282

7 1,100 563 645 28 2,501

0 20 2,633 9,311

133 846 2,605 338 2,681 4,923 27,725

46 103 4 249 712

21,812

0 34 2,300 63 1,443 328 5,068

2,054 3,181

7,764 55,264

5 753 758

3 37 92 204 932

5 18 3,036 9,487

47 175 220 22 711 576 1,866

28 2,554 1,514 91 1,480 5,716

0 7 1,577

20 1,015 15 1,775 925 3,750

5 4 1,267 24 10 39 649 2,130

2,947 27 4,257

10 758 1,474

0 1,480

0 18 82 21 16 151

202 12 428

1,625 90 2,015

(continued)

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
Appendix I 

Planned Property Disposals at Selected

Bases Closed in the 1988 and 1991 Rounds

Federal

Base DOD

FWS/

BLMa

Other

federal

Sacramento AD, CA 64

Tustin MCAS, CA 55 55

Warminster NAWC, PA 100

Williams AFB, AZ

Woodbridge ARF, VA 580

Wurtsmith AFB, MI 2

Total acreage 26,014 78,934 4,894

Percentage of total 13.57 41.19 2.55

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
Appendix I 

Planned Property Disposals at Selected

Bases Closed in the 1988 and 1991 Rounds

Public Benefit Transfers

r

l Homeless Airports

Parks/

recreation Education Other

Economic

development

transfer

Market

sales Undetermined Total acres

26 395 485

5 54 103 219 867 267 1,620

740 840

3,262 642 138 4,042

580

2 7 1,600 15 10 5 489 1,413 3,541

4 492 30,423 6,782 1,952 371 19,509 9,378 12,886 191,635

5 0.26 15.88 3.54 1.02 0.19 10.18 4.89 6.72 100.00

aFish and Wildlife Service/Bureau of Land Management.

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
Appendix II 

Planned Property Disposals to Homeless

Assistance Providers

Acreage Family housing units

Single

housinga

Base

Base

total

To

homeless

Percentage

of homeless

Base

total

To

homeless

Percentage

of homeless

Units to

homeless Other

Army MTL, MA 37 0 5 0 0 0

Bergstrom AFB, TX 3,216 0 719 0 0 0

Cameron Station,

VA

165 1 0.61 0 0 0 80

Castle AFB, CA 2,777 5 0.18 933 55 5.89 73 Administrative/

warehouse

building

Chanute AFB, IL 2,132 0 1,088 0 0 0

Chase NAS, TX 3,757 0 414 0 0 0

Davisville NCBC, RI 1,280 0 8 0 0 0

Eaker AFB, AR 3,286 0 928 0 0 0

England AFB, LA 2,282 0 598 0 0 0

Ft. Benjamin

Harrison, IN

2,501 7 0.28 319 10 3.13 175 Children’s home,

gym

Ft. Devens, MA 9,311 20 0.21 2,164 82 3.79 0 Chapel

Ft. Ord, CA 27,725 133 0.48 5,850 388 6.63 60 Administrative

offices, other

buildings

Ft. Sheridan, IL 712 46 6.46 493 106 21.50 36

Ft. Wingate AD, NM 21,812 0 2 0 0 0

George AFB, CA 5,068 34 0.67 1,641 64 3.90 0

Grissom AFB, IN 3,181 0 1,116 0 0 0

Jefferson Proving

Ground, IN

55,264 0 13 0 0 0

Lexington AD, KY 758 5 0.66 15 15 100.00 0

Long Beach

NS/NH, CA

932 37 3.97 2,148 248 11.55 0

Loring AFB, ME 9,487 0 1,687 0 0 0

Lowry AFB, CO 1,866 47 2.52 867 86 9.92 87

Mather AFB, CA 5,716 28 0.49 1,271 60 4.72 200 Administrative,

dining facilities

Moffett NAS, CA 1,577 0 800 0 0 0

Myrtle Beach AFB,

SC

3,750 20 0.53 800 50 6.25 28 Administrative

facilities

Norton AFB, CA 2,130 4 0.19 264 0 0 0 Chapel and youth

center

Pease AFB, NH 4,257 0 1,198 0 0 0

Philadelphia

NS/NH/NSY, PA

1,474 0 924 0 0 0

(continued)

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
Appendix II 

Planned Property Disposals to Homeless

Assistance Providers

Acreage Family housing units

Single

housinga

Base

Base

total

To

homeless

Percentage

of homeless

Base

total

To

homeless

Percentage

of homeless

Units to

homeless Other

Presidio of San

Francisco, CA

1,480 0 1,335 0 0 0

Puget Sound NS,

WA

151 18 11.92 5 3 60.00 197

Richard Gebaur

ARS, MO

428 0 0 0 0 0

Rickenbacker

AGB, OH

2,015 0 0 0 0 0

Sacramento AD,

CA

485 26 5.36 0 0 0 0 Storage/

warehouse

facilities

Tustin MCAS, CA 1,620 54 3.33 1,537 440 28.63 0 Children’s shelter

Warminster NAWC,

PA

840 0 2 0 0 0

Williams AFB, AZ 4,042 0 700 0 0 0

Woodbridge ARF,

VA

580 0 0 0 0 0 Small warehouse

Wurtsmith AFB, MI 3,541 7 0.20 1,342 9 0.67 72

Total 191,635 492 0.26 31,186 1,616 5.18 1,008

aThese units consist of dormitory or administrative buildings that homeless assistance providers

plan to convert into apartments or single room housing units.

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
Appendix III 

Cash Grants Given to Facilitate Reuse Plans

Base

Total OEA

grants

Total FAA

grants

Total EDA

grants

Total DOL

grants

Total

all grants

Army MTL, MA $185,000 $0 $0 $0 $185,000

Bergstrom AFB, TX 200,000 779,825 0 2,500,000 3,479,825

Cameron Stat., VA 0 0 0 0 0

Castle AFB, CA 920,706 115,000 4,500,000 0 5,535,706

Chanute AFB, IL 650,698 122,300 2,500,000 3,000,000 6,272,998

Chase NAS, TX 819,111 134,000 4,612,500 875,151 6,440,762

Davisville NCBC, RI 0 0 0 0 0

Eaker AFB, AR 1,703,137 90,000 1,962,600 0 3,755,737

England AFB, LA 1,356,355 149,850 1,200,000 500,000 3,206,205

Ft. Benjamin Harrison, IN 471,923 0 50,000 0 521,923

Ft. Devens, MA 994,331 0 825,000 2,000,000 3,819,331

Ft. Ord, CA 1,400,000 88,200 2,500,000 800,000 4,788,200

Ft. Sheridan, IL 299,500 0 0 0 299,500

Ft. Wingate AD, NM 0 0 0 0 0

George AFB, CA 336,148 118,638 0 1,000,000 1,454,786

Grissom AFB, IN 576,030 0 50,000 612,500 1,238,530

Jefferson Proving Ground, IN 329,500 0 50,000 500,000 879,500

Lexington AD, KY 100,000 0 0 0 100,000

Long Beach NS/NH, CA 315,177 0 0 0 315,177

Loring AFB, ME 988,875 0 1,590,000 2,100,000 4,678,875

Lowry AFB, CO 1,625,168 0 112,500 800,000 2,537,668

Mather AFB, CA 510,500 238,526 0 1,750,000 2,499,026

Moffett NAS, CA 0 0 0 2,000,000 2,000,000

Myrtle Beach AFB,SC 654,136 307,027 0 925,000 1,886,163

Norton AFB, CA 426,000 118,638 6,825,000 2,916,000 10,285,638

Pease AFB, NH 575,000 822,345 3,225,000 0 4,622,345

Philadelphia NS/NH/NSY, PA 692,000 0 2,700,000 11,150,000 14,542,000

Presidio of San Francisco, CA 0 0 0 500,000 500,000

Puget Sound NS, WA 0 0 0 0 0

Richards-Gebaur ARS, MO 241,985 228,000 0 0 469,985

Rickenbacker AGB, OH 99,000 373,102 0 0 472,102

Sacramento AD, CA 199,010 0 75,000 1,750,000 2,024,010

Tustin MCAS, CA 88,500 0 0 0 88,500

Warminster NAWC, PA 506,000 0 0 1,600,000 2,106,000

Williams AFB, AZ 1,156,311 125,000 587,500 2,000,000 3,868,811

Woodbridge ARF, VA 50,000 0 0 0 50,000

Wurtsmith AFB, MI 676,931 0 9,717,500 1,250,000 11,644,431

Total $19,147,032 $3,810,451 $43,082,600 $40,528,651 $106,568,734

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

David R. Warren, Associate Director

John Klotz, Assistant Director

Nancy T. Lively, Senior Evaluator

San Francisco

Regional Office

John M. Schaefer, Regional Management Representative

Gary W. Ulrich, Evaluator-in-Charge

Belinda F. Jones, Evaluator

Donald J. Porteous, Evaluator

Dallas Regional Office Charnel F. Harlow, Regional Assignment Manager

John D. Strong, Evaluator

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to This Report

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
Related GAO Products

We have issued the following reports related to military base closures and

realignments:

Military Bases: Letters and Requests Received on Proposed Closures and

Realignments (GAO/NSIAD-93-173S, May 25, 1993).

Military Bases: Army’s Planned Consolidation of Research, Development,

Test and Evaluation (GAO/NSIAD-93-150, Apr. 29, 1993).

Military Bases: Analysis of DOD’s Recommendations and Selection Process

for Closure and Realignments (GAO/T-NSIAD-93-11, Apr. 19, 1993).

Military Bases: Analysis of DOD’s Recommendations and Selection Process

for Closures and Realignments (GAO/NSIAD-93-173, Apr. 15, 1993).

Military Bases: Revised Cost and Savings Estimates for 1988 and 1991

Closures and Realignments (GAO/NSIAD-93-161, Mar. 31, 1993).

Military Bases: Transfer of Pease Air Force Base Slowed by Environmental

Concerns (GAO/NSIAD-93-111FS, Feb. 3, 1993).

Military Bases: Army Revised Cost Estimates for the Rock Island and

Other Realignments to Redstone (GAO/NSIAD-93-59FS, Nov. 23, 1992).

Military Bases: Navy’s Planned Consolidation of RDT&E Activities

(GAO/NSIAD-92-316, Aug. 20, 1992).

Military Bases: Letters and Requests Received on Proposed Closures and

Realignments (GAO/NSIAD-91-224S, May 17, 1991).

Military Bases: Observations on the Analyses Supporting Proposed

Closures and Realignments (GAO/NSIAD-91-224, May 15, 1991).

Military Bases: Processes Used for 1990 Base Closure and Realignment

Proposals (GAO/NSIAD-91-177, Mar. 29, 1991).

Military Bases: Varied Processes Used in Proposing Base Closures and

Realignments (GAO/NSIAD-91-133, Mar. 1, 1991).

Military Bases: Process Used by Services for January 1990 Base Closure

and Realignment Proposals (GAO/NSIAD-91-109, Jan. 7, 1991).

Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
Related GAO Products

Military Bases: Relocating the Naval Air Station Agana’s Operations

(GAO/NSIAD-91-83, Dec. 31, 1990).

Military Bases: Information on Air Logistics Centers (GAO/NSIAD-90-287FS,

Sept. 10, 1990).

Military Bases: Response to Questions on the Realignment of Forts Devens

and Huachuca (GAO/NSIAD-90-235, Aug. 7, 1990).

Military Bases: An Analysis of the Commission’s Realignment and Closure

Recommendations (GAO/NSIAD-90-42, Nov. 29, 1989).

(709024) Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-95-3 Military Bases
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100