1 / 24

The History of Base Realignments and Closures (BRAC)

The History of Base Realignments and Closures (BRAC). History of Base Closures. 1977 Legislation, 10 U.S.C. 2687 Stopped closures for a decade 1988 Legislation, Public Law 100-526 Congress codified commission charted by SECDEF 86 closures and 13 realignments

oded
Download Presentation

The History of Base Realignments and Closures (BRAC)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The History of Base Realignments and Closures (BRAC)

  2. History of Base Closures • 1977 Legislation, 10 U.S.C. 2687 • Stopped closures for a decade • 1988 Legislation, Public Law 100-526 • Congress codified commission charted by SECDEF • 86 closures and 13 realignments • Successful process but had deficiencies • 1990—SECDEF Announce Intent To Close Additional Bases • Congress enacted new legislation • 1990 Legislation: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 • Created Commissions in 1991, 1993, and 1995

  3. Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 “To provide a fair process that will result in the timely closure and realignment of military installations inside the United States.”[Section 2901(b), Public Law 101-510]

  4. Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 • The Players • Eight members, appointed by President, confirm by senate • GAO: • Provide direct audit assistance to commission • Report on process and recommendations by April 15

  5. Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 • The Method • SECDEF publishes criteria and force structure plan used in developing base closure and realignment recommendations • Commission reviews SECDEF recommendations to ensure consistency with criteria and force structure plan • Certification of data • Testimony before commission under oath • Commission can change DoD recommendations if it finds secretary of defense “Deviated Substantially” from selection criteria or force structure plan

  6. The Process Secretary of Defense Publishes Selection Criteria and Force Structure Plan (December) President Nominates and Senate Confirms Commissioners (January-February) Secretary of Defense Delivers Recommendations to the Commission (March 1) Commission Conducts Hearings and Deliberations (March 1 – June 30) Commission Delivers Recommendations to President (July 1) President Considers and Forwards Recommendations to Congress or Returns Recommendations to Commission (July 1 – July 15) Congress Has 45 Days (Excluding Recesses) to Enact a Resolution of Disapproval

  7. Commission Responsibilities • Ensure Fairness: • “IN CONSIDERING INSTALLATIONS FOR CLOSURE OR REALIGNMENT, THE SECRETARY SHALL CONSIDER ALL MILITARY INSTALLATIONS INSIDE THE UNITED STATES EQUALLY WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER THE INSTALLATION HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED OR PROPOSED FOR CLOSURE OR REALIGNMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT.”[Section 2903(c)(3), Public Law 101-510] • Ensure Openness: • “EACH MEETING OF THE COMMISSION, OTHER THAN MEETINGS IN WHICH CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS TO BE DISCUSSED, SHALL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.”[Section 2902 (e)(2)(A), Public Law 101-510]

  8. Final Selection Criteria • Military Value • The current and future mission requirements and the impact on operational readiness on the department of defense’s total force. • The availability and condition of land, facilities and associated airspace at both the existing and potential receiving locations. • The availability to accommodate contingency mobilization and future total force requirements at both the existing and potential receiving locations. • The Cost and manpower implications. • Return on Investment 5. The extent and timing of potential costs and savings, including the number of years, beginning with the date of completion of the closure or realignment, for the savings to exceed the costs. • Impacts 6. The economic impact on communities. • The ability of both the existing and potential receiving communities’ infrastructure to support forces, missions and personnel. • The environmental impact

  9. Cost of Base Realignment Actions “Cobra” • Calculates costs and savings of user defined scenarios • A comparative tool, not an optimizer • No costs or savings from force-structure changes • Construction supports realigning activities only • Environmental clean-up costs not capture

  10. 1995 Commission Policies • Every major base under consideration visited by at least one commissioner • Regional hearings gave communities a chance to testify • All documentation used in deliberations available to anyone • All commission activities open to the press and the public • Every affected community had a seat at the table

  11. 1995 Commission Activities • 13 Investigate Hearing in Washington, DC • 2 Hearings on “Life After Base Closure” – Federal efforts to help local communities develop reuse plans for closing bases • 16 Regional hearings around the country including Guam and Alaska • Commission and Commission Staff visited 167 separate military activities • 2 Full days of open, public deliberations on all closure and realignment recommendations

  12. Base Closure and Realignment Recommendations 1991 71 59 (83 %) 11993 181 152 (84 %) 181995 146 123 (84 %) 9 DoDSubmittal Adds Accepts

  13. Economic Impact • California and Texas experience the largest number of jobs lost • Guam has the largest percentage of jobs lost – approximately 7.9% • Alaska loses approximately 0.4% of job base • Texas, Alabama, Connecticut, North Dakota, and California all lose approximately 0.3% of job base

  14. Back-up

  15. Force Structure 1991Commission 1993Commission 1995Commission FY 1990FY 1995FY 1997GOAL Army Divisions 28 (18) 18 (12) 18 (12) 15+ (10)(Active) Aircraft Carriers 16 (1) 13 (1) 13 (1) 12 (1)(Reserve/Training)Carrier Air Wings 15 (13) 13 (11) 13 (11) 11 (10)(Active)Battle Force Ships 545 451 425 346 Marine Corps 4 (3) 4 (3) 4 (3) 4 (3)Divisions (Active) Tactical Fighter 36 (24) 26 (15) 26 (15) 20 (13) Wings (Active)

  16. 1995 Commission Results • Recommended closure or realignment of 132 military installations in the United States and Guam • Approved 123 of the 146 closure or realignment recommendations proposed by the secretary of defense • Recommended closure or realignment of 9 of 32 additional military installations identified by the commission during its deliberations • Commission recommendations will result in one-time costs of $3.6 Billion; Annual savings of $1.6 Billion once implemented; and 20-year savings of $19.3 Billion • Recommendation for another base closure round in 2001 • Recommendations for executive branch, congress and local communities to improve reuse process

  17. 1995 Closure and Realignment Recommendations ($ Millions) DoD Submission(28 February 1995) 3,743 1,768 21,026 DoD Revised Baseline* 3,521 1,569 18,994 Final Deliberation Results 3,561 1,606 19,317Change from DoD +40 +37 +323 20-Year Savings(Net Present Value) One-Time Costs Annual Savings *Reflects revisions in costs and savings estimates submitted to the Commission by the Defense Department, as well as the removal of the following installations from the list as requested by the Secretary of Defense: Kirtland AFB, NM: Dugway Proving Ground, UT; Caven Point US Army Reserve Center, NJ; and Valley Grove Area Maintenance Support Activity, WV.

  18. Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Annual Savings Achieved from Final Recommendations ($ Millions) Annual SavingsProposed by DoD 1,619 3,083 1,026*Annual SavingsAchieved by 1,488 2,197 1,606CommissionDifference -141 -886 +35 20-Year Savings(Net Present Value) One-Time Costs Annual Savings *Original March 1 estimate was $1,768M. Current estimate of $1,569M reflects revisions in savings estimates submitted to the Commission by DoD, as well as the removal of the following installations from the list of closures and realignments as requested by the Secretary of Defense: Kirtland AFB, NM; Dugway Proving Ground UT; Caven Point US Army Reserve Center, NJ; and Valley Grove Area Support Maintenance Activity, WV.

  19. Economic Impact • Emphasis, by law, is on first four criteria • Economic impact was considered • Commission Recommendations • 1,689 fewer direct jobs lost than DoD recommendations • 6,029 more total jobs (Direct + Indirect) lost than DoD recommendations

  20. Depot/Shipyard Closure History(Prior to BRAC 95) Army Navy Air Force Marines • Albany • Barstow • Oklahoma City • Ogden • Warner Robins • Sacramento • San Antonio • Pearl Harbor • Cherry Point • Jacksonville • North Island • Portsmouth • Crane • Norfolk (NSY) • Puget Sound • Keyport • Louisville • Long Beach • Guam • Pensacola • Philadelphia • Norfolk • Charleston • Mare Island • Alameda • Anniston • Corpus Christi • Tobyhanna • Red River • Letterkenny • Lexington – Bluegrass • Pueblo • Sacramento • Tooele • Open • Proposed • Closed

  21. FY 99 Depot Capacity Utilization –Single ShiftBased on Dod Certification Data Ogden ALC 9,005 4,895 54 Oklahoma City ALC 12,863 6,658 52 Warner Robins ALC 9,913 6,763 68 San Antonio ALC 15,220 4,463 29 Sacramento ALC 10,291 4,231 41 MaximumPotentialCapactity(000 Hours) % CapacityUtilization Core(000 Hours)

  22. Summary of Cost Information Air Force Depots Hill AFB Tinker AFB Robins AFB Kelly AFB McClellan AFB One-time Costs 575 410 582 421 925 762 1,332 1,141 1,293 1,106 Annual Savings 87 160 76 182 62 162 73 164 71 153 Net Present Value 393 1,607 283 1,888 249 1,308 472 1,141 442 875 Return on Investment 7 1 9 1 22 4 22 6 27 7 (Years) USAF Ratings 33 Point Maximum 11 15 26 29 33 DoD DoD DoD DBCRC DoD DBCRC DoD DBCRC Cobra ($ M) DBCRC DBCRC

More Related