United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee

on National Security, International

Affairs, and Criminal Justice, Committee

on Government Reform and Oversight,

House of Representatives

August 1996 MILITARY BASES

Update on the Status of

Bases Closed in 1988,

1991, and 1993

G O A

years

1921 - 1996

GAO/NSIAD-96-149

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-270878 

August 6, 1996

The Honorable William H. Zeliff, Jr.

Chairman, Subcommittee on National

 Security, International Affairs,

 and Criminal Justice

Committee on Government Reform

 and Oversight

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In your letter, you raised several issues related to the Department of

Defense’s (DOD) implementation of the base closure and realignment

process. As discussed with your office, this report addresses (1) the extent

of land sales at closing bases and whether private parties are excluded

from purchasing surplus property; (2) the status of implementation efforts,

including issues affecting implementation of the 1993 realignment and

closure round; and (3) the amount of federal assistance provided to

communities to promote economic conversion of closing bases.

Background Changing national security needs and DOD’s recognition that its base

structure was larger than required led to a decision to close numerous

military bases around the country. Consequently, the Congress enacted

base realignment and closure (BRAC) legislation that instituted base closure

rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995. The authority under this legislation

has expired. Property disposals resulting from base closures and

realignments are governed by various base closure and realignment laws

and other laws relating to the disposal of surplus government property,

homeless assistance, and environmental concerns.

Once property is no longer required by a federal agency to discharge its

responsibilities, the property is declared excess to that agency and then

offered to other federal agencies to satisfy their requirements. If no other

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

federal government. At that point, the Federal Property and Administrative

Services Act of 1949 authorizes disposal through a variety of means such

as public or negotiated sale and transfers to states and local governments

for public benefit purposes such as education, public health, recreation,

airport, wildlife conservation, and historic monuments. In addition, the

base closure legislation authorizes surplus real property from closing

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
B-270878 

bases to be transferred to local redevelopment authorities under economic

development conveyances for economic development and job creation

purposes. To use this authority, however, requires a showing that

economic development and job creation cannot be accomplished under

established sales or public benefit transfers. As shown in figure 1, local

reuse authorities generally seek surplus property under one of the public

benefit transfer authorities first because these can be no-cost acquisitions,

then through economic development conveyances because these can be

no-cost or no-initial cost acquisitions, and lastly through negotiated sale

because they can negotiate the terms and do not have to compete with

other interested parties. Any surplus property that remains is available for

sale to the general public. (See app. II for a more detailed discussion of the

laws and regulations affecting the base closure process.)

Figure 1: Usual Procedures for Transferring Property

Other 

defense

activities

Other federal

agencies

Public benefit

transfers

Economic

development

conveyances

Negotiate sale

to states or local

governments

Public sale

Excess Surplus

At the beginning of the base closure process, DOD expected that land sales

would help pay for the costs of closing bases. However, given national

policy changes and recent legislation that emphasize assisting

communities that are losing bases, DOD no longer expects significant

revenue from land sales.

The information contained in this report focuses on the September 1995

status of property disposal plans at 23 of 30 major installations

recommended for closure by the 1993 closure commission unless more

recent data was provided. (See fig. 2.) The 23 bases were selected because

DOD considered these bases the major closures and assigned on-site base

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
B-270878 

transition coordinators to them as of January 1994. Although we

previously reported on the status of major base closings in the 1988 and

1991 rounds,1

 this report provides information on those rounds to give an

overall perspective on implementation of the closure recommendations.

Figure 2: Bases Reviewed From 1993 Base Closure Round

AFB


ARS


DESC


DPSC


MCAS


NADEP


Alameda


NAS/NADEP


Mare Island 


NSY


Treasure Island


NS


Oakland


NH


El Toro


MCAS


San Diego


NTC

Trenton, NAWC

Dayton


DESC

Dallas


NAS

Orlando


NH/NTC

Cecil Field


NAS

Charleston


NS/NSY

Vint Hill Farms


Station

Philadelphia


DPSC

Mobile


NS

Air Force Base


Air Force Reserve Station


Defense Electronic Supply Center


Defense Personnel Support Center


Marine Corps Air Station


Naval Aviation Depot


NAS


NAWC


NH


NS


NSY


NTC


Naval Air Station


Naval Air Warfare Center


Naval Hospital


Naval Station


Naval Shipyard


Naval Training Center 


Legend


O'Hare


ARS

Newark 


AFB

K. I. Sawyer


AFB Plattsburgh


AFB

Staten Island


NS

Barbers Point


NAS

Agana, Guam


NAS

Glenview


NAS

1

Military Bases: Case Studies on Selected Bases Closed in 1988 and 1991 (GAO/NSIAD-95-139, Aug. 15,

1995).

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
B-270878 

Results in Brief Land sales for the first three BRAC closure rounds totaled $179.2 million as

of March 1996. There were only two sales in the 1993 round for a total of

$1.5 million. Private parties are not precluded from purchasing surplus

property at military bases that are closing. However, private parties rarely

get the opportunity to bid on the purchase of these properties because

communities are requesting them under public benefit transfers, economic

development conveyances, and noncompetitive negotiated sale

authorities. For example, currently, about 1 percent of the surplus

property at the 23 closing bases we reviewed is planned for sale and less

than half of that is planned for public sale.

About 16 percent of the land from the 23 bases will be retained by the

federal government. Much of the land (68 percent) will be requested by

local reuse authorities under various public benefit transfer authorities

and the economic development conveyance authority. The reuse of about

15 percent of the land remains undetermined by local reuse authorities.

Communities are planning industrial and office complexes, parks and

other recreational facilities, residential housing, and correctional facilities.

Some bases have also been successful in leasing base properties to

generate jobs and revenue while the conversion process continues.

However, developing and implementing reuse and disposal plans can be a

lengthy process. Readily marketable properties may (1) decline in value as

they sit idle and (2) require resources from the services’ budgets for

protection and maintenance. To preserve the value of facilities while

reducing protection and maintenance costs, we are recommending that

the Secretary of Defense: (1) set time limits on negotiations before offering

property for public sale and (2) when practical, rent unoccupied, surplus

housing and other facilities as a means of preserving property pending

final disposition.

To help communities successfully transform closing bases into new

opportunities, federal agencies have provided over $780 million in direct

financial assistance to areas affected by the 1988, 1991, and 1993

realignment and closure rounds. This assistance has come in numerous

forms—planning assistance to help communities determine how they can

best develop the property, training grants to provide the workforce with

new skills, and grants to improve the infrastructure on bases. DOD is

currently reporting that for the 60 bases we have reviewed from the first

three closure rounds, about 21 percent of the 88,433 DOD civilian jobs lost

have been replaced.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
B-270878 

Land Sales to Private

Parties Are Limited

Opportunities for private parties to purchase surplus real property at

closing bases, while not precluded, are limited by the disposal process.

DOD, federal, state, and local interests are considered before surplus

property is made available for public sale to private parties. Accordingly,

DOD looks to a community’s reuse plan and gives preference to its wishes

when making disposal decisions.

Land sales for all BRAC closures totaled $179.2 million as of March 1996.

Two property sales have been completed from the 1993 round, one for

$1.1 million for 111 family housing units at Niagara Falls Naval Facility,

New York, and the other for $428,000 for 2.2 acres of land at Homestead

Air Force Base, Florida.

A community’s reuse plan recommends how surplus base property should

be developed, and the military services generally base their disposal

decisions on these plans. Developing reuse plans and developing and

implementing service disposal plans can be a lengthy process. In some

cases, this means that readily marketable properties may (1) deteriorate as

they sit idle; (2) decline in value as negotiations drag on should a sale ever

occur; and (3) drain resources from the services, as activities such as

protection and maintenance are continued.

DOD Policy Places a High

Priority on Community

Plans

As we reported earlier, only 4 percent of the surplus property was planned

for public sale in the 1988 and 1991 closure rounds. In 1993, the amount of

property planned for market sale dropped to about 1 percent. Less than

half of that property is planned for public sale. The low percentage of land

sold to the public is a result of the disposal process, which allows

communities to plan the reuse of most base property.

Communities are requesting surplus property predominately through

no-cost public benefit transfers or economic development conveyances.

The economic development conveyance was established by law in

response to President Clinton’s Five Point Program to revitalize base

closure communities, announced in July 1993. Section 2903 of title XXIX of

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 established

the basis for the economic development conveyance. The new mechanism

is a special tool created to enable communities to act as master developers

by obtaining property under more flexible finance and payment terms than

previously existed. For example, a community can request property at less

than fair market value if it can show the discount is needed for economic

development and job creation.

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
B-270878 

Regulations promulgated by DOD to implement title XXIX also give local

communities the authority to recommend the land use of surplus property,

taking into consideration feasible reuse alternatives and notices of interest

from homeless assistance providers. The services consider these reuse

plans when making their disposal decisions. However, they are not

obligated to follow the reuse plans, nor is a community granted the

authority to make disposal decisions.

The disposal of property by public benefit transfer or economic

development conveyance rather than sale reduces the immediate

economic return to the government. For example, the golf course at Myrtle

Beach Air Force Base is to be conveyed through a public benefit transfer

to the city of Myrtle Beach. By doing so, the government relinquished the

opportunity to sell the property for $3.5 million to a private developer who

intended to continue to use it as a public golf course.

Deterioration of

Undisposed Property

Reduces Value

Surplus property may deteriorate and lose value as it sits idle. DOD can

avoid such results by disposing of surplus property as promptly as

possible. However, before any sale can occur, DOD must consult with the

state Governor and the heads of local governments to consider any plan

for the use of the property by any concerned local government. The

disposal process can be time consuming and the services have let property

sit idle for several years while services and communities developed land

use plans or negotiated a purchase. During this time, properties have

deteriorated and their value declined. That decline represents lost revenue

should a sale ever occur.

An example of housing that has deteriorated for more than 2 years, while

the Air Force and the local reuse authority negotiated a sale, is Myrtle

Beach Air Force Base. During negotiations, two appraisals were

conducted. The property’s value decreased significantly from the first

appraisal to the second. According to an Air Force official, a major cause

for the decrease in the property’s appraised value was its deterioration.

Family housing at the base is shown in figures 3 and 4. In addition, the

director of the local reuse authority cited the need for significant upgrades

to the houses to make them habitable.

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
B-270878 

Figure 3: Typical Family Housing at

Myrtle Beach Air Force Base

Figure 4: Damage Due to Wood Rot at

Myrtle Beach Air Force Base

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
B-270878 

Deterioration also occurred to 1,271 family housing units at Mather Air

Force Base. The housing has been vacant for over 2 years as the Air Force

and the local reuse authority negotiate the terms of the sale. During this

time, a number of units were damaged by inclement weather, vandalism,

and thefts. In December 1995, a major storm felled 40 trees in the housing

area damaging roofs and flooring. Since May 1995, 76 air-conditioning

units have been stolen from the housing area. As an Air Force official

noted, one of the reasons for the appraisal value’s decline from the first to

the last appraisal was the property’s deterioration. The various forms of

deterioration of family housing at the base are shown in figures 5, 6, 7, 

and 8.

Figure 5: General Deterioration

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
B-270878 

Figure 6: Damaged Roof From Winter

Storm

Figure 7: Damage Due to Electrical Fire

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
B-270878 

Figure 8: Vandalism and Theft Damage

of Air-Conditioning Units

Lengthy Negotiations

Result in Lower Property

Values

In instances where surplus property is sold through a negotiated sale, as

opposed to a public sale, the federal government may not be getting the

highest monetary return possible for the surplus real property. When

communities cannot obtain property through either a public benefit

transfer or an economic development conveyance, they often seek the

property through a negotiated sale, maintaining that the property will be

used to fulfill a public use such as affordable housing.

According to federal regulation, negotiated sales of surplus property to

state and local governments for a public benefit use are to be based on

estimated fair market value. Even so, the federal government may lose

revenue if the property is resold at a price above what the state or local

government paid for it. To avoid this loss, the regulation requires that the

conveyance documents resulting from the negotiated sales to public

agencies contain an excess profits clause. This clause entitles the federal

government to receive all subsequent sales proceeds that exceed the

purchase price and other specified costs allowed to the state or local

government if the property is sold within a specified time period.

According to the Director of the Air Force Base Conversion Agency, the

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
B-270878 

specified period is based on the time that it will take the housing to be

absorbed into the market. In the case of the Mather housing, the local

reuse authority states it will take about 10 years for the property to be

absorbed, while pursuing a 3-year excess profits clause in the sales

contract. In January 1995, both the General Services Administration and

the Air Force concurred that the interest of the federal government would

not be protected by a 3-year excess profits clause. This issue remains

unresolved.

The government also may lose revenue when the estimated fair market

value of surplus property declines during protracted negotiations. At

Myrtle Beach, the Air Force has been negotiating the sale of 777 units of

family housing for over 24 months, although a private party offered to

purchase them even before they were declared surplus. The reuse

authority has offered substantially less than the $11.1 million offer once

made by a private party. In both cases, the property’s use would remain

the same—housing. Similarly, at Mather Air Force Base, negotiations

between the Air Force and the local reuse authority for 1,271 family

housing units have been ongoing since 1993. If the Air Force accepts the

local reuse authority’s offer, it will be accepting significantly less revenue

for the property than at least one private party was willing to pay.

Protection and

Maintenance Costs

Continue

Protection and maintenance costs continue to accrue as property waits to

be conveyed or sold. The longer the services hold on to property, the

longer they incur the costs. While the services are not required to maintain

property at their initial levels indefinitely, there is an incentive to protect

and maintain it because the property forms the basis of a community’s

reuse plan.

The services must provide for the protection and maintenance of surplus

property until its disposal. DOD’s implementation manual states that the

initial maintenance level at a base will normally be sustained for a

maximum of 1 year after operational closure or 180 days after a formal

disposal decision is made. These limits can be extended if a local reuse

authority is actively implementing a reuse plan and the initial or adjusted

levels are justified. According to an Air Force official, the only two

instances (levels five and six) in which the services do not incur costs to

maintain and protect property are (1) when property is leased and the

tenant provides for the protection and maintenance and (2) when property

is abandoned. Neither the Army nor the Navy compiled information on the

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
B-270878 

average cost to protect and maintain their closed bases. An Air Force

official stated its average annual cost was about $2.7 million a base.

New Approaches Can

Preserve Property Values

As discussed previously, property deteriorates when it sits vacant for

extended periods of time, which decreases its value. DOD could preserve

the value of facilities and reduce protection and maintenance costs by

(1) renting vacated property to the limited degree necessary to preserve

the property and (2) setting time limits on negotiations over the terms of

sale.

The renting approach was successfully used at Fort Ord, California.

Through the initiative of local base officials, government civilian families

were allowed to rent a limited number of the nearly 1,200 family housing

units in order to keep a presence in 3 housing tracts. Fort Ord officials,

using the Corps of Engineers’ estimates of fair market rental value, entered

into rental agreements with the families. The families were assigned only

to ground floor units of every other building so that anyone in upstairs

units would be noticed and reported to security. According to former

installation officials, the rent more than offset the protection and

maintenance costs for the entire 1,200 units, and theft, vandalism, fire, and

other forms of deterioration were limited to a minor theft and a few

instances of graffiti that was quickly removed by housing officials. Many

people voluntarily maintained the lawns of adjacent empty buildings, an

unexpected benefit. The program was considered a success, and it is being

continued by the university that acquired ownership.

The services could also preserve property values and reduce protection

and maintenance costs by limiting the amount of time for negotiating the

terms of either an economic development conveyance or a negotiated sale

to a state or local jurisdiction. When disposing of surplus real property at

closed military bases, the services are required to follow the laws and

regulations that establish the terms under which the sale of surplus

property is conducted. While the regulations provide direction on how and

when sales can occur, they do not establish how long negotiations may

continue. Communities may prolong the negotiation period in the hopes of

obtaining more favorable terms, but they end up with property in much

poorer condition. Negotiations unconstrained by time limits work to

neither party’s advantage. Property deterioration during the course of

negotiations causes a loss of value to the government, and, if negotiations

are successful, receipt of property by the local government that is less

expensive but probably in poorer condition than when negotiations

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
B-270878 

started. If time for negotiations was limited to a set period, such as 

9 months (the amount of time an appraisal is valid), then property values

could be more easily preserved, protection and maintenance costs would

be limited, and only one appraisal would be required for the negotiations.

Base Reuse Shifts

From the Federal

Sector to

Communities

Current plans call for the federal government to retain about 16 percent of

the land at the 23 closing military bases to satisfy agency requirements or

to comply with decisions made by the BRAC Commission or by legislation.

This is a decrease from the 58 percent retained in the 1988 and 1991

rounds. About 84 percent of the property is to be declared surplus to the

federal government’s needs and made available for conversion to

community reuse—double the percentage made available in the previous

two rounds. The bulk of this land (68 percent) is expected to be conveyed

to communities under either no cost public benefit conveyance authorities

or under the economic development conveyance authority. Communities’

plans for these properties involve a variety of public benefit and economic

development uses; some communities expect base reuse to result in more

civilian jobs than previously existed at the bases. As discussed earlier and

shown in figure 9, only about 1 percent is planned for market sale.

Communities have still not determined the reuse of 15 percent of the land.

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
B-270878 

Figure 9: Comparison of 1988 and 1991

to 1993 Rounds for Planned Disposal

of Base Closure Property

Percentage of total acres

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1988/1991

1993

Undetermined

Market sales

Economic development conveyances

Public benefit transfers

Retained by federal government

Property Retained for

Federal Use

Of the 16 percent of the property to be retained by the government,

10 percent will be retained by DOD to support Reserve, National Guard, and

other active duty missions. Frequently cited uses include Defense Finance

and Accounting Service centers and military housing, often to support

other neighboring military operations that are remaining open. About

two-thirds of the land is being retained in accordance with BRAC

recommendations. For example, at the Glenview and Barbers Point Naval

Air Stations, the 1993 Commission recommended that 1,202 acres of

housing be retained to support other nearby bases.

DOD will transfer about 4 percent of the land to the Department of

Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service to be used as wildlife refuges and

wetlands. DOD will also transfer about 1 percent of the land to other federal

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
B-270878 

agencies for such uses as a national park, job core center, correctional

facility, and finance center. (See app. III for a summary of federal uses.)

A primary reason that more land was retained for federal uses during the

first two closures than in BRAC 1993 was that a larger proportion of the

land was contaminated with unexploded ordnance. About half of the land

retained by the federal government during the earlier closures will be used

as wildlife refuges by the Fish and Wildlife Service or the Bureau of Land

Management, in part, to avoid the cost of cleaning up land contaminated

with unexploded ordnance. This problem was largely absent in the BRAC

1993 bases. However, even subtracting this land from the total available

for disposal, the percentage of uncontaminated land being retained by the

federal government fell substantially, from 29 to only 16 percent during the

BRAC 1993 round.

Community Reuse Plans Communities plan to use several different means of conveyance for the

84 percent of base property available for community reuse during BRAC

1993. Although the method of conveyance and disposition for about

15 percent of base property remains undetermined, communities are

planning to request 32.5 percent under various public benefit conveyances.

As with the previous two rounds, the largest public benefit use is for

commercial airport conversions, which will total about 20.1 percent under

current plans. About 7.2 percent is planned for park and recreation use,

the second largest public benefit use. Plans call for transferring another

5.2 percent of the property to such public benefit uses as homeless

assistance, education, and a state prison.

Communities are also planning to request 35.7 percent of base property

under economic development conveyances, compared with only

12 percent of property during the first two rounds. Final implementing

rules for such applications, published in July 1995, allow communities to

acquire surplus federal property at little or no initial cost provided that

development of the property results in increased jobs. Thus, communities

can take a long-range approach to planning land use.

During our review, communities were working on or initiating the studies

and business plans necessary to apply for economic development

conveyances for any base property remaining after federal and local public

benefit screening. Initial indications are, however, that a number will be

applying for transfers at low or no initial cost.

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
B-270878 

Finally, DOD plans to sell about 1 percent (less than half to private parties)

of the property. This compares with 4 percent during the previous two

rounds. Table 1 provides a summary of the disposal plans for each of the

23 bases we reviewed.

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
B-270878 

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
B-270878 

Table 1: Planned Property Disposals at

23 Bases Closed in the 1993 Round

(Acres)

Federal

DOD

FWS and

BLMa

Other

federal

Agana Naval Air Station 12

Alameda Naval Air Station and Naval

Aviation Depot 970

Barbers Point Naval Air Station 1,274 253 30

Cecil Field Naval Air Station 2,564

Charleston Naval Station and Naval Shipyard 1,428 25

Dallas Naval Air Station

Dayton Defense Electronics Supply Center 24

El Toro Marine Corps Air Station 20 1,084 155

Glenview Naval Air Station 93

K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base

Mare Island Naval Shipyard 33 17 8

Mobile Naval Station

Newark Air Force Base 5

O’Hare Air Reserve Station

Oakland Naval Hospital

Orlando Naval Training Center and Naval

Hospital 59 46

Philadelphia Defense Personnel Support

Center

Plattsburgh Air Force Base

San Diego Naval Training Center 87 40 2

Staten Island Naval Station 14 226

Treasure Island Naval Station 41

Trenton Naval Air Warfare Center

Vint Hill Farms Station

Total acreage 5,601 2,364 545

Percentage of total 10.40 4.39 1.01

Percentage by group 15.80

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
B-270878 

Public benefit transfers

r

l Homeless Airports

Parks and

recreation Education Other

Economic

development

conveyance

Market

sales Undetermined Total acres

2 1,459 56 88 212 1,827

1,872 2,842

0 2,149 3,706

6,094 2,437 2,139 6,937 20,171

5 1,533 2,986

122 122

141 165

5 2,000 1,479 4,738

919 109 1,121

1,000 10 430 1,760 3,200

8 660 40 1,262 323 2,343

255 255

13 52 70

365 365

192 192

6 243 715 9 16 747 200 2,035

86 86

5 34 4,826 4,865

2 378 507

6 155 1 396

4 3 1,068 1,116

20 10 36 66

6 20 22 300 353 701

5 11 10,829 3,888 119 2,676 19,221 684 7,937 53,875

0.02 20.10 7.22 0.22 4.97 35.68 1.27 14.73 100.00

0 32.53

aFish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management.

The Conversion Process Is

Creating Some New Jobs

Although BRAC 1993 bases are not as far along in the conversion process as

bases we reviewed from the previous two rounds, progress is being made

in converting properties to civilian uses. On closing bases, communities

are planning industrial and office complexes, parks and other recreational

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
B-270878 

facilities, residential housing, and correctional facilities. According to

DOD’s Office of Economic Adjustment, the 1988, 1991, and 1993 closure

rounds resulted in the loss of 88,433 civilian jobs. On the other hand, the

conversion of base property has resulted in the creation of 18,335 new jobs

for about a 21-percent recovery rate. (See app. IV for a summary of jobs

created.)

At some bases, the number of new jobs resulting from redevelopment are

eventually expected to exceed preclosure levels. The following are some

examples of reuse efforts.

• At Glenview Naval Air Station, Illinois, the community’s plan includes

residences, offices and warehouses, light industry, a commuter rail station,

open space, and the preservation of the existing golf course. The plan is

projected to create over 5,600 jobs, about 14 times the number of civilian

jobs at the former base.

• At the Charleston Naval Complex, South Carolina, the community’s plan

includes continued private shipyard activities and other maritime

industrial and cargo-related uses, as well as waterfront parks. Two

maritime industry firms have already begun operations at the former base.

Including public sector jobs on federally retained land (at the Postal

Service and Defense Finance and Accounting Service), a local reuse

authority official estimated that about 4,900 jobs would be created over

the next 5 years. The reuse plan projects that redevelopment would create

9,100 to 11,600 jobs over the next 20 years, which is significantly greater

than the complex’s former civilian employment.

• The community at the over 20,000-acre Cecil Field Naval Air Station,

Florida, the largest base closed by BRAC 1993, is planning an industrial and

manufacturing center, recreation facilities, open space, a new state

correctional facility, and agricultural areas, including 1,000 acres of forest

and wetlands that will be used for tree farming. Once the base reuse plan

is fully implemented, civilian employment is expected to exceed 5,000, or

more than 10 times the level at the former base.

• The reuse plan at the Naval Training Center Orlando, Florida, provides for

more than 3,200 residential units and more than 5 million square feet of

new and renovated office and retail space for the Center’s four properties.

Twelve major tenants, some federal, have already been identified,

accounting for about 1,700 new jobs, compared with 750 civilians

employed at the former base. Employment is projected to reach about

15,000 within 10 years.

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
B-270878 

The maximum time bases have to close is 6 years, although many close

earlier. During the time that bases are closing, individual facilities

sometimes become available for lease or license to the private sector.

Such interim leases and licenses can result in increased job opportunities

and generate needed revenue, which is then generally used for the care

and maintenance of base facilities. Productive use of valuable assets can

therefore take place while reuse planning continues for a more permanent

disposition of property. Several communities have been successful in

leasing or licensing base property, as the following examples show:

• At the Mare Island Naval Shipyard, California, two licenses and two

interim leases have been signed for base property. The licenses are for the

use of base facilities by a motion picture and local railroad company. The

leases are for the use of a structural shop by an industrial firm and for the

base golf course. To date, about 148,000 square feet of buildings and 

100 acres have been licensed or leased creating about 250 jobs. The local

reuse authority assumed responsibility for protecting and maintaining the

leased property, thereby saving the Navy these costs.

• Two interim leases have been signed at the Dayton Defense Electronics

Supply Center in Ohio. One lease is with a local manufacturing company

and the other is with a county board involved with health issues. When

both leases are fully operational, about 120 jobs are expected. To prepare

for operations, one of the lessees has invested $800,000 to renovate and

upgrade 72,000 square feet of office space. Lease revenues are expected to

be used to protect and maintain these properties.

• An interim lease was signed in November 1995 at the Alameda Naval Air

Station, California, by a consortium of 120 California businesses

specializing in developing new transportation technologies. A matching

federal grant of $2.9 million will be used to help start up operations in a

vacant 65,000-square foot hangar. The new electric car chassis

manufacturing facility is expected to generate an initial 50 jobs, with the

potential for several hundred more.

• Treasure Island Naval Station, California, licensed properties to two movie

production companies for 6 months each. A large hangar on the island was

used to build sound stages and movie sets. Rental proceeds are being used

to protect and maintain the properties. Recent concerns over seismic

safety have halted licensing activity for the time being.

Assistance to

Communities

A military base often represents a major employment center and provides

significant economic stimulus to a local economy; thus, a base closure can

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
B-270878 

cause economic distress. To support dislocated workers and help

communities plan and implement their redevelopment objectives, the

federal government is providing assistance through numerous programs.

Under major programs, federal agencies have provided about $560 million

to communities at the 60 BRAC bases we reviewed that were selected for

closure in 1988, 1991, and 1993. In total, federal economic assistance

related to fiscal years 1988 through 1995 reached about $780 million for

the three rounds. Grants have been awarded to communities for activities

such as reuse planning and job training, as well as infrastructure

improvements and community economic development. (See app. V for a

summary of the federal assistance provided to each community.)

Among the major sources of assistance are DOD’s Office of Economic

Adjustment, the Department of Commerce’s Economic Development

Administration, the Department of Labor, and the Federal Aviation

Administration. Additionally, there are other federal, state, and local

resources available to assist with the retraining of workers and the

redevelopment of the closed bases.

The Federal Aviation Administration has awarded the most assistance,

providing $182 million for airport planning and development of

construction projects and public airports. The Economic Development

Administration has awarded $154 million to stimulate commercial and

industrial growth and to protect and generate jobs in the affected areas.

The Office of Economic Adjustment has awarded $120 million to help

communities plan the reuse of closed military bases and the Department

of Labor has awarded $103 million to help communities retrain workers

adversely affected by closures.

Recommendations We recommend that the Secretary of Defense establish reasonable time

frames for concluding negotiated sales of surplus real property and when

practical, rent unoccupied, surplus housing and other facilities as a means

of preserving property pending final disposition.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD stated that it partially

concurred with the report, partially concurred with the first

recommendation and nonconcurred with the second recommendation.

DOD said that the report addressed widely differing bases and local

circumstances and attempted to draw generic conclusions and solutions

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
B-270878 

from the sample. DOD stated that closing bases vary greatly in terms of

total land area, building and utility system condition, and the amount of

environmental cleanup necessary to allow interim civilian use and ultimate

disposal of property. It said that it is rare that the property lies in a single

political jurisdiction and therefore base reuse planning was an

extrordinary intergovernmental consensus building challenge.

With regard to our recommendation that reasonable time frames be

established for concluding negotiated sales of surplus property, DOD

partially concurred, stating that placing arbitrary limitations on the time

frame for negotiations of sales and economic development conveyances

was probably not practical, but it would look at establishing time frames

where circumstances permit. Further, DOD said that a negotiated sale or

economic development conveyance is made for a public purpose,

principally economic redevelopment and new job creation, thereby

allowing local redevelopment authorities better control in the selection

and timing of job creating activities, rather than leaving them to the

exigencies of the marketplace. DOD did not agree with our

recommendation to rent unoccupied housing, stating that while the Fort

Ord situation worked well, the recommendation had only limited utility.

DOD believed that it inferred that there is a ready market for military

facilities, which is not normally the case. Moreover, it said that placing

large quanties of space up for lease could easily undercut local businesses

and flood local markets, particularly in less urban locations. DOD also said

that the recommendation ignored the essential ingredient of economic

development conveyance disposals—the ability to use some of the military

assets for immediate revenue streams to offset the up front redevelopment

costs.

We agree with DOD that every base is unique and should be treated as such.

However, there are lessons learned that can be drawn from the overall

base closure experience that can be tailored for use in unique situations.

Our recommendations were made in that context.

We believe establishing time frames for negotiated sales is a useful

management tool to move negotiations along and measure progress, while

at the same time leaving flexibility should it be needed. For example, if the

creation of jobs and quickly and efficiently disposing of property is a

primary goal, then it seems to us that placing reasonable time frames for

negotiations can help to move the process along and is appropriate.

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
B-270878 

We recognize that renting unoccupied housing will not work at all bases

and have modified the recommendation to do that where practical, such as

in the case of Fort Ord. In addition, the intent of the recommendation is

for the government to rent the property until decisions are made on how

to dispose of the property. Therefore, if the local reuse authority obtains

the property, there is already a revenue stream in place, which was the

case at Fort Ord. DOD’s comments are presented in their entirety in

appendix I.

Scope and

Methodology

We collected information on 23 of the 30 major installations, containing

about 54,000 acres, closed by the 1993 BRAC Commission. These bases

were selected because they were considered major closures by the BRAC

Commission and were assigned a base transition coordinator by DOD.

Where more than one closure activity was located on the same installation,

we combined the activities and reported on the installation as a whole.

To determine if private enterprises are being excluded from buying

surplus property, we reviewed the statutes for disposing of property and

documents detailing the interest by the private enterprise. We also

interviewed DOD officials, base transition coordinators, community

representatives, and private developers.

To determine the amount and type of federal assistance provided to the

BRAC 1988, 1991, and 1993 base closure communities, we obtained federal

assistance information from the Federal Aviation Administration, the

Economic Development Administration, the Department of Labor, and the

Office of Economic Adjustment.

To determine the current plans for reusing property at closing military

installations, including any progress and/or problems in achieving those

plans, we reviewed community reuse plans, when available, and

interviewed base transition coordinators, community representatives, and

DOD officials. When community reuse plans were not available, we

identified the most likely reuses. When it was not possible to identify the

most likely reuse of property, we categorized the property as

undetermined.

Our review was performed between July 1995 and March 1996 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
B-270878 

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

distribution of this report until 10 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 and to the Administrator of General Services. 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 VI.

Sincerely yours,

David R. Warren

Director, Defense Management Issues

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Comments From the

Department of

Defense

28

Appendix II 

Laws and Regulations

Affecting Base

Closure

33

Appendix III 

Summary of Federal

Uses of Property at 

23 Bases Closed in the

1993 BRAC Round

35

Appendix IV 

Summary of Jobs

Created at 60 Bases

Closed in 1988, 1991,

and 1993 BRAC

Rounds

37

Appendix V 

Cash Grants Given to

Facilitate Reuse Plans

at 60 Bases Closed in

1988, 1991, and 1993

BRAC Rounds

39

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
Contents

Appendix VI 

Major Contributors to

This Report

41

Related GAO Products 43

Table Table 1: Planned Property Disposals at 23 Bases Closed in the

1993 Round

18

Figures Figure 1: Usual Procedures for Transferring Property 2

Figure 2: Bases Reviewed from 1993 Base Closure Round 3

Figure 3: Typical Family Housing at Myrtle Beach Air Force Base 7

Figure 4: Damage due to Wood Rot at Myrtle Beach Air Force

Base

7

Figure 5: General Deterioration 8

Figure 6: Damaged Roof from Winter Storm 9

Figure 7: Damage due to Electrical Fire 9

Figure 8: Vandalism and Theft Damage of Air-Conditioning Units 10

Figure 9: Comparison of 1988 and 1991 to 1993 Rounds for

Planned Disposal of Base Closure Property

14

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

BRAC base realignment and closure

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

See comment 1.

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Now on p. 22.

Now on p. 22.

See comment 2.

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Defense

See comment 3.

Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Defense

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Defense’s (DOD)

letter dated June 14, 1996.

GAO Comments 1. We made a factual presentation of what was occurring and did not

speculate on community motivations. As we noted in our report,

communities are planning to request about 33 percent of the properties

under various public benefit conveyance authorities and another

36 percent under the economic development conveyance authority,

neither of which is property that expands the property tax base. Our

review of the communities’ plans shows less than 1 percent of the

properties would be added to the property tax base.

2. We believe property can be effectively used to create jobs and reduce

the military services’ protection and maintenance costs even before

community plans are finished or military missions have ceased. The

Department of Defense Base Reuse Implementation Manual describes

leasing for reuse as one of the most important tools for initiating rapid

economic recovery and job creation while reducing the military’s

protection and maintenance costs. The manual also states that leasing for

reuse can be done if it doesn’t interfere with the military mission. The Fort

Ord housing discussed in the report is one example. Examples of

successful reuse prior to closure are discussed in our report. These

include the leasing of facilities at Alameda Naval Air Station, Treasure

Island Naval Station, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, and the Dayton Defense

Electronics Supply Center and the renting of family housing at Fort Ord.

3. We believe our recommendation is practical for bases in urban areas.

Fort Ord had more housing units than any other BRAC closure and it was

located in a small urban community. Yet, the Army was successful in

renting enough of the housing to pay for the protection and maintenance

costs for all of the vacated housing. However, in rural areas this approach

may not be practical and we revised our final report to reflect this point.

Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
Appendix II 

Laws and Regulations Affecting Base

Closure

The principal legal authorities governing base closure and reuse are the

(1) 1988 Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and

Realignment Act and the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of

1990; (2) Title XXIX, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

1994; (3) Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949;

(4) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; (5) Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980;

(6) 1987 Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act; and (7) Base

Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994.

Since the initial round of closures was announced, the disposal process

has undergone a number of changes to enhance the possibility that reuse

and economic development will result from the closed bases.

The 1988 Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and

Realignment Act and the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of

1990, collectively referred to as the base realignment and closure acts or

BRAC acts, provide the Secretary of Defense with authority to close military

bases and dispose of excess property. In July 1993, the President

announced a five-part program to speed economic recovery at

communities where military bases are slated to close. Title XXIX of the

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 amended the BRAC

acts to enable local redevelopment authorities to receive government

property at no initial cost if the property is used for economic

development and job creation. In July 1995, DOD issued a final rule

impacting the disposal process. The rule implements the act by

establishing the process for conveying property at estimated fair market

value or less to facilitate property transfers and foster economic recovery

in the affected community (referred to as economic development

conveyances).

The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 establishes

the process of disposing of property deemed excess to an agency’s needs

or surplus to the government’s requirements. In the case of base closures,

property considered excess to the needs of one military service may be

requested by the other military services and federal agencies to satisfy

program requirements. If no government requirements exist, the property

is declared surplus to the government and is available for conveyance at

no cost through various public benefit discount programs, negotiated sale

at fair market value to state governments or their instrumentalities, public

sale at fair market value, or conveyed to communities at fair market value

or less for economic development and job creation.

Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
Appendix II 

Laws and Regulations Affecting Base

Closure

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires that the federal

government assess the potential environmental impacts of its proposed

action to dispose of surplus federal property prior to making a final

disposal decision.

Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act of 1980, DOD is responsible for environmental restoration on

bases recommended for closure or realignment. The level of cleanup

required by the act is dependent upon the future use of the site. In fact,

surplus property cannot be deeded until it has been determined that the

property is environmentally suitable for its intended purposes. However,

section 2908, title XXIX, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1994 makes it possible for the services to transfer a parcel of land

exchange for cleanup at a closing base.

The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act provides homeless

service providers access to surplus property. Initially, homeless providers

were given priority over local communities for requests of excess

property. However, the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and

Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 amended the BRAC acts and the McKinney

Act, in essence eliminating the priority that homeless providers had. As a

result of the amendments, homeless providers’ needs are now considered

in concert with the community’s reuse planning process.

To support both the communities and the services in their efforts to

expedite the disposal and reuse of closing military bases, DOD issued two

reference manuals. In May 1995, DOD released the Community Guide to

Base Reuse as a resource for communities. The guide describes the base

closure and reuse processes; catalogs the many assistance programs

available to communities, which are administered by DOD and others; and

summarizes lessons learned from other communities that have been

affected by base closures and realignments. In July 1995, DOD issued the

Base Reuse Implementation Manual to provide common guidance for the

service implementors of the Base Closure Assistance Act of 1993 and the

Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of

1994.

Page 34 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
Appendix III 

Summary of Federal Uses of Property at 

23 Bases Closed in the 1993 BRAC Round

Office of the Secretary of Defense

Activities

Defense Finance and Accounting Service

Charleston Naval Station and Naval

Shipyard, S.C.

4 acres

Dayton Defense Electronics Supply Center,

Ohio

24 acres

Newark Air Force Base, Ohio 5 acres

Orlando Naval Training Center and Naval

Hospital, Fla.

5 acres

Army Activities

Active Forces Barbers Point Naval Air Station, Hawaii 16 acres

Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Calif. 33 acres for Joint Warfare Command

Reserve Forces Orlando Naval Training Center and Naval

Hospital, Fla.

20 acres

New York Naval Station, N.Y. 14 acres

Charleston Naval Station and Naval

Shipyard, S.C.

1,401 acres for dredging disposal site

National Guard Barbers Point Naval Air Station, Hawaii 149 acres

Orlando Naval Training Center and Naval

Hospital, Fla.

17 acres

Navy/Marine Corps Activities

Active Forces Barbers Point Naval Air Station, Hawaii 1,109 acres of housing to support other

nearby bases (BRAC recommendation)

Cecil Field Naval Air Station, Fla. 2,564 acres, landing field to support

nearby base (BRAC recommendation)

Glenview Naval Air Station, Ill. 93 acres of housing to support nearby

base (BRAC recommendation)

Orlando Naval Training Center and Naval

Hospital, Fla.

11 acres for Navy Exchange and 6 acres

for Naval Air Warfare Center

San Diego Naval Training Center, Calif. 87 acres of housing to support nearby

Marine Corps facility

Charleston Naval Station and Naval

Shipyard, S.C.

23 acres, Naval Command, Control, and

Ocean Surveillance Center; and Defense

Printing Office

Air Force Activities

National Guard El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, Calif. 20 acres

Department of Interior Activities

Fish and Wildlife Service Alameda Naval Air Station, and Naval

Aviation Depot, Calif.

970 acres for wildlife refuge

Barbers Point Naval Air Station, Hawaii 253 acres for wildlife refuge

El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, Calif. 1,084 acres for wildlife refuge

(continued)

Page 35 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
Appendix III 

Summary of Federal Uses of Property at 

23 Bases Closed in the 1993 BRAC Round

San Diego Naval Training Center, Calif. 40 acres for wildlife refuge

Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Calif. 17 acres for wetlands/wildlife refuge

National Park Service Staten Island Naval Station, N.Y. 174 acres (163 acres legally required)

Other Federal Activities

Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration Agana Naval Air Station, Guam 1 acre

Barbers Point Naval Air Station, Hawaii 18 acres

Coast Guard Staten Island Naval Station, N.Y. 49 acres housing and administration space

Treasure Island Naval Station, Calif. 1 acre

Charleston Naval Station and Naval

Shipyard, S.C.

10 acres

General Services Administration Agana Naval Air Station, Guam 8 acres

Department of Commerce

National Weather Service Agana Naval Air Station, Guam 3 acres

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Charleston Naval Station and Naval

Shipyard, S.C.

5 acres (legislative requirement)

Department of Veterans Affairs Barbers Point Naval Air Station, Hawaii 6 acres

Orlando Naval Training Center and Naval

Hospital, Fla.

42 acres for clinic

Postal Service Barbers Point Naval Air Station, Hawaii 6 acres for district facility

Department of Justice

Bureau of Prisons El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, Calif. 155 acres for a minimum security

correctional facility

Staten Island Naval Station, N.Y. 3 acres for guard housing

Border Patrol San Diego Naval Training Center, Calif. 2 acres for a firing range

Department of Treasury

Customs Orlando Naval Training Center,

and Naval Hospital, Fla.

4 acres for communication center

Department of Labor

Employment and Training Administration Treasure Island Naval Station, Calif. 40 acres for Job Corps Center

Department of State Charleston Naval Station and Naval

Shipyard, S.C.

10 acres for finance center (legislative

requirement)

Department of Agriculture

Forest Service Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Calif. 8 acres for regional headquarters

Page 36 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
Appendix IV 

Summary of Jobs Created at 60 Bases

Closed in 1988, 1991, and 1993 BRAC

Rounds

Base Jobs lost Jobs created Recovery (Percent)

Agana Naval Air Station 339 0 0

Alameda Naval Air Station and Naval Aviation Depot 3,228 0 0

Army Materials Technology Laboratory 540 0 0

Barbers Point Naval Air Station 618 0 0

Bergstrom Air Force Base 942 0 0

Cameron Station 4,355 0 0

Castle Air Force Base 1,164 89 7.65

Cecil Field Naval Air Station 995 0 0

Chanute Air Force Base 1,035 1,033 99.81

Charleston Naval Station and Naval Shipyard 6,031 1,557 25.82

Chase Field Naval Air Station 914 1,520 166.30

Dallas Naval Air Station 268 0 0

Davisville Naval Construction Battalion Center 125 35 28.00

Dayton Defense Electronics Support Center 2,804 105 3.74

Eaker Air Force Base 792 87 10.98

El Toro Marine Corps Air Station 979 0 0

England Air Force Base 697 845 121.23

Fort Benjamin Harrison 4,240 21 0.50

Fort Devens 2,178 0 0

Fort Ord 2,835 365 12.87

Fort Sheridan 1,681 18 1.07

Fort Wingate 90 5 5.56

George Air Force Base 506 266 52.57

Glenview Naval Air Station 389 68 17.48

Grissom Air Force Base 792 33 4.17

Jefferson Proving Ground 387 0 0

K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base 788 97 12.31

Lexington Army Depot 1,131 219 19.36

Long Beach Naval Station and Naval Hospital 721 42 5.83

Loring Air Force Base 1,326 217 16.37

Lowry Air Force Base 2,290 226 9.87

Mare Island Naval Shipyard 7,567 115 1.52

Mather Air Force Base 1,012 241 23.81

Mobile Naval Station 126 12 9.52

Moffett Field Naval Air Station 633 202 31.91

Myrtle Beach Air Force Base 799 678 84.86

Newark Air Force Base 1,760 0 0

Norton Air Force Base 2,133 665 31.18

(continued)

Page 37 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
Appendix IV 

Summary of Jobs Created at 60 Bases

Closed in 1988, 1991, and 1993 BRAC

Rounds

Base Jobs lost Jobs created Recovery (Percent)

O’Hare Air Reserve Station 757 0 0

Oakland Naval Hospital 809 0 0

Orlando Naval Training Center and Naval Hospital 1,105 624 56.47

Pease Air Force Base 400 1,075 268.75

Philadelphia Defense Personnel Supply Center 1,235 0 0

Philadelphia Naval Station, Naval Hospital, and Naval Shipyard 8,119 0 0

Plattsburgh Air Force Base 352 57 16.19

Presidio of San Francisco 3,150 1,111 35.27

Puget Sound Naval Station (Sand Point) 754 0 0

Richards-Gebaur Air Reserve Station 569 4 0.70

Rickenbacker Air Guard Base 1,129 8 0.71

Sacramento Army Depot 3,164 5,000 158.03

San Diego Naval Training Center 402 0 0

Staten Island Naval Station 1,001 125 12.49

Treasure Island Naval Station 454 0 0

Trenton Naval Air Warfare Center 448 10 2.23

Tustin Marine Corps Air Station 348 0 0

Vint Hill Farms Station 1,472 0 0

Warminster Naval Air Warfare Center 1,979 0 0

Williams Air Force Base 781 752 96.29

Woodbridge Army Research Facility 90 0 0

Wurtsmith Air Force Base 705 808 114.61

Total 88,433 18,335 20.73

Page 38 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
Appendix V 

Cash Grants Given to Facilitate Reuse Plans

at 60 Bases Closed in 1988, 1991, and 1993

BRAC Rounds

Base

Total OEA

grantsa

Total FAA

grantsb

Total EDA

grantsc

Total DOL

grantsd Total grants

Agana Naval Air Station $1,548,393 $22,911,123 0 0 $24,459,516

Alameda Naval Air Station and Naval Aviation

Depot 2,160,200 0 $2,050,000 0 4,210,200

Army Materials Technology Laboratory 185,000 0 262,500 0 447,500

Barbers Point Naval Air Station 649,754 0 0 0 649,754

Bergstrom Air Force Base 200,000 110,841,266 0 $1,228,260 112,269,526

Cameron Station 0 0 0 0 0

Castle Air Force Base 1,491,907 2,143,000 7,500,000 0 11,134,907

Cecil Field Naval Air Station 987,924 0 855,150 0 1,843,074

Chanute Air Force Base 1,131,428 937,830 5,958,250 3,000,000 11,027,508

Charleston Naval Station and Naval Shipyard 3,236,176 0 6,425,541 16,175,755 25,837,472

Chase Field Naval Air Station 1,105,411 134,596 4,162,500 875,151 6,277,658

Dallas Naval Air Station 615,250 0 0 0 615,250

Davisville Naval Construction Battalion Center 133,000 0 0 0 133,000

Dayton Defense Electronics Supply Center 719,247 0 0 0 719,247

Eaker Air Force Base 2,661,480 90,000 5,124,100 0 7,875,580

El Toro Marine Corps Air Station 1,651,933 0 0 0 1,651,933

England Air Force Base 2,741,182 149,850 6,411,800 500,000 9,802,832

Fort Benjamin Harrison 1,225,903 0 50,000 4,592,752 5,868,655

Fort Devens 2,819,751 0 3,625,000 2,000,000 8,444,751

Fort Ord 10,158,121 155,700 39,022,000 800,000 50,135,821

Fort Sheridan 534,963 0 0 0 534,963

Fort Wingate Army Depot 0 0 0 0 0

George Air Force Base 533,648 118,638 6,525,000 1,000,000 8,177,286

Glenview Naval Air Station 798,943 100,000 2,971,125 598,468 4,468,536

Grissom Air Force Base 1,431,376 0 50,000 612,500 2,093,876

Jefferson Proving Ground 358,600 0 900,000 875,000 2,133,600

K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base 705,600 400,000 0 0 1,105,600

Lexington Army Depot 100,000 0 0 1,045,000 1,145,000

Long Beach Naval Station and Naval Hospital 2,463,284 0 0 0 2,463,284

Loring Air Force Base 2,458,138 50,000 2,567,000 2,100,000 7,175,138

Lowry Air Force Base 2,519,130 0 6,288,500 800,000 9,607,630

Mare Island Naval Shipyard 2,653,226 0 175,000 8,000,000 10,828,226

Mather Air Force Base 630,500 238,526 8,325,000 1,750,000 10,944,026

Mobile Naval Station 200,000 0 0 0 200,000

Moffett Field Naval Air Station 0 0 0 3,558,678 3,558,678

Myrtle Beach Air Force Base 1,408,264 20,289,557 3,500,000 925,000 26,122,821

(continued)

Page 39 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
Appendix V 

Cash Grants Given to Facilitate Reuse Plans

at 60 Bases Closed in 1988, 1991, and 1993

BRAC Rounds

Base

Total OEA

grantsa

Total FAA

grantsb

Total EDA

grantsc

Total DOL

grantsd Total grants

Newark Air Force Base 810,602 0 0 2,062,500 2,873,102

Norton Air Force Base 741,000 3,438,638 6,825,000 2,916,000 13,920,638

O’Hare Air Reserve Station 0 0 0 0 0

Oakland Naval Hospital 0 0 0 0 0

Orlando Naval Training Center and Hospital 1,222,672 0 0 3,392,374 4,615,046

Pease Air Force Base 859,790 12,152,864 11,925,000 0 24,937,654

Philadelphia Defense Personnel Support

Center 321,306 0 0 4,500,000 4,821,306

Philadelphia Naval Station, Hospital, and

Shipyard 53,061,090 0 7,300,000 28,150,000 88,511,090

Plattsburgh Air Force Base 1,694,845 0 2,250,000 1,296,684 5,241,529

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

Puget Sound Naval Station (Sand Point) 120,000 0 0 1,188,000 1,308,000

Richards-Gebaur Air Reserve Station 241,985 2,052,815 0 0 2,294,800

Rickenbacker Air Guard Base 111,000 1,409,895 0 684,545 2,205,440

Sacramento Army Depot 436,010 0 0 1,750,000 2,186,010

San Diego Naval Training Center 1,110,810 0 0 0 1,110,810

Staten Island Naval Station 527,244 0 0 0 527,244

Treasure Island Naval Station 0 0 0 0 0

Trenton Naval Air Warfare Center 134,902 0 0 0 134,902

Tustin Marine Corps Air Station 1,235,543 0 0 0 1,235,543

Vint Hill Farms Station 545,303 0 0 0 545,303

Warminster Naval Air Warfare Center 1,049,565 0 2,000,000 2,600,000 5,649,565

Williams Air Force Base 1,770,859 4,218,000 1,069,750 2,000,000 9,058,609

Woodbridge Army Research Facility 50,000 0 0 0 50,000

Wurtsmith Air Force Base 1,674,416 508,000 9,717,500 1,250,000 13,149,916

Total $119,936,674 $182,340,298 $153,835,716 $102,726,667 $558,839,355

aOffice of Economic Adjustment.

bFederal Aviation Administration.

cEconomic Development Administration.

dDepartment of Labor.

Page 40 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
Appendix VI 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

James F. Wiggins

John J. Klotz

San Francisco Field

Office

Gary W. Ulrich

Robert R. Tomco

Julie M. Hirshen

Jonathan M. Silverman

Page 41 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
Appendix VI 

Major Contributors to This Report

Page 42 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
Related GAO Products

GAO has issued the following products related to military base closures and

realignments:

Military Bases: Closure and Realignment Savings Are Significant, But Not

Easily Quantified (GAO/NSIAD-96-67, Apr. 8, 1996).

Closing Maintenance Depots: Savings, Workload, and Redistribution

Issues (GAO/NSIAD-96-29, Mar. 4, 1996).

Military Bases: Case Studies on Selected Bases Closed in 1988 and 1991

(GAO/NSIAD-95-139, Aug. 15, 1995).

Military Base Closures: Analysis of DOD’s Process and Recommendations

for 1995 (GAO/T-NSIAD-95-132, Apr. 17, 1995).

Military Bases: Analysis of DOD’s 1995 Process and Recommendations for

Closure and Realignment (GAO/NSIAD-95-133, Apr. 14, 1995).

Military Bases: Challenges in Identifying and Implementing Closure

Recommendations (GAO/T-NSIAD-95-107, Feb. 23, 1995).

Military Bases: Environmental Impact at Closing Installations

(GAO/NSIAD-95-70, Feb. 23, 1995).

Military Bases: Reuse Plans for Selected Bases Closed in 1988 and 1991

(GAO/NSIAD-95-3, Nov. 1, 1994).

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: Observations on the Analyses Supporting Proposed

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

Page 43 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 Military Bases
Related GAO Products

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

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

(709137) Page 44 GAO/NSIAD-96-149 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. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

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, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

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 (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

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 Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100