Military Bases: Update on the Status of Bases Closed in 1988, 1991, and
1993 (Letter Report, 08/06/96, GAO/NSIAD-96-149).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
Department of Defense's (DOD) base realignment and closure (BRAC)
process, focusing on: (1) the status and extent of land sales at closing
bases; (2) whether private parties are excluded from purchasing surplus
property; and (3) the amount of federal assistance provided to
communities to promote economic conversion of closing bases.

GAO found that: (1) as of March 1996, land sales for the first three
BRAC rounds totalled $179.2 million; (2) private parties rarely bid on
the purchase of base properties because communities often request these
properties under public benefit transfers, economic development
conveyances, and noncompetitive negotiated sale authorities; (3) the
federal government plans to retain approximately 16 percent of the land
from the 23 bases reviewed; (4) although most of the land from these
bases will be requested by local reuse authorities, reuse of 15 percent
of the land remains undetermined; (5) communities plan to use the land
for industrial and office complexes, parks and recreational facilities,
residential housing, and correctional facilities; (6) although some
bases have been able to generate jobs and revenue by leasing base
properties during the conversion process, development and implementation
of reuse and disposal plans can be a lengthy process; (7) readily
marketable properties require resources for their protection and upkeep;
(8) during past BRAC closure rounds, the federal government has provided
over $780 million in planning assistance, training, and infrastructure
grants to help communities implement their redevelopment objectives; and
(9) 21 percent of the 88,433 DOD civilian jobs that were lost as a
result of the first three BRAC closure rounds have been replaced.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-96-149
     TITLE:  Military Bases: Update on the Status of Bases Closed in 
             1988, 1991, and 1993
      DATE:  08/06/96
   SUBJECT:  Base closures
             Property disposal
             Military bases
             Surplus federal property
             Fair market value
             Community development
             Grants to local governments
             Economic development
             Land transfers
             Real estate sales

             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


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

GAO/NSIAD-96-149

Military Bases

(709137)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  DOD - Department of Defense
  BRAC - base realignment and closure

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


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
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

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
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

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

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 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

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\1 Military Bases:  Case Studies on Selected Bases Closed in 1988 and
1991 (GAO/NSIAD-95-139, Aug.  15, 1995). 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

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. 


   LAND SALES TO PRIVATE PARTIES
   ARE LIMITED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

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
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

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. 

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
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

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. 

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

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

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

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

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

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure 6:  Damaged Roof from
   Winter Storm

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure 7:  Damage due to
   Electrical Fire

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

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

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


      LENGTHY NEGOTIATIONS RESULT
      IN LOWER PROPERTY VALUES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

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 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
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.4

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 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
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.5

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 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
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

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. 

   Figure 9:  Comparison of 1988
   and 1991 to 1993 Rounds for
   Planned Disposal of Base
   Closure Property

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


      PROPERTY RETAINED FOR
      FEDERAL USE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

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 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
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

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. 

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. 



                                                                       Table 1
                                                       
                                                        Planned Property Disposals at 23 Bases
                                                           Closed in the 1993 Round (Acres)


                                                                                                             Economic
                                                                                   Parks                    developme
                                                                                     and                           nt
                                         FWS and     Other                      recreati  Educatio          conveyanc    Market  Undetermin     Total
                                   DOD     BLM\a   federal  Homeless  Airports        on         n   Other          e     sales          ed     acres
----------------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ------  ---------  --------  ----------  --------
Agana Naval Air Station                                 12               1,459        56                88        212                           1,827
Alameda Naval Air Station                    970                                                                                      1,872     2,842
 and Naval Aviation Depot
Barbers Point Naval Air          1,274       253        30                                                                            2,149     3,706
 Station
Cecil Field Naval Air            2,564                                   6,094     2,437             2,139      6,937                          20,171
 Station
Charleston Naval Station and     1,428                  25                                                      1,533                           2,986
 Naval Shipyard
Dallas Naval Air Station                                                                                          122                             122
Dayton Defense Electronics          24                                                                            141                             165
 Supply Center
El Toro Marine Corps Air            20     1,084       155               2,000                                                        1,479     4,738
 Station
Glenview Naval Air Station          93                                                                            919       109                 1,121
K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base                                               1,000                  10     430      1,760                           3,200
Mare Island Naval Shipyard          33        17         8                           660        40              1,262                   323     2,343
Mobile Naval Station                                                                                              255                             255
Newark Air Force Base                5                                      13                                     52                              70
O'Hare Air Reserve Station                                                                                                  365                   365
Oakland Naval Hospital                                                                                                                  192       192
Orlando Naval Training              59                  46                 243       715         9      16        747       200                 2,035
 Center and Naval Hospital
Philadelphia Defense                                                                                                                     86        86
 Personnel Support Center
Plattsburgh Air Force Base                                         5                            34              4,826                           4,865
San Diego Naval Training            87        40         2                                                                              378       507
 Center
Staten Island Naval Station         14                 226                                                        155                     1       396
Treasure Island Naval                                   41                                       4       3                            1,068     1,116
 Station
Trenton Naval Air Warfare                                                   20                                               10          36        66
 Center
Vint Hill Farms Station                                            6                  20        22                300                   353       701
=====================================================================================================================================================
Total acreage                    5,601     2,364       545        11    10,829     3,888       119   2,676     19,221       684       7,937    53,875
Percentage of total              10.40      4.39      1.01      0.02     20.10      7.22      0.22    4.97      35.68      1.27       14.73    100.00
Percentage by group                                  15.80                                           32.53
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management. 


      THE CONVERSION PROCESS IS
      CREATING SOME NEW JOBS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

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 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. 

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
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

A military base often represents a major employment center and
provides significant economic stimulus to a local economy; thus, a
base closure can 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
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

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
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

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
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. 

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
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

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. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1

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




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix I
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE
============================================================== Letter 



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


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. 


LAWS AND REGULATIONS AFFECTING
BASE CLOSURE
========================================================== Appendix II

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. 

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. 


SUMMARY OF FEDERAL USES OF
PROPERTY AT
23 BASES CLOSED IN THE 1993 BRAC
ROUND
========================================================= Appendix III

-------------------------  -------------------------  --------------------------
                           Office of the Secretary
                           of Defense Activities


Defense Finance and Accounting Service
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Charleston Naval Station   4 acres
                           and Naval Shipyard, S.C.

                           Dayton Defense             24 acres
                           Electronics Supply
                           Center, Ohio

                           Newark Air Force Base,     5 acres
                           Ohio

                           Orlando Naval Training     5 acres
                           Center and Naval
                           Hospital, Fla.

                           Army Activities

Active Forces              Barbers Point Naval Air    16 acres
                           Station, Hawaii

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

Reserve Forces             Orlando Naval Training     20 acres
                           Center and Naval
                           Hospital, Fla.

                           New York Naval Station,    14 acres
                           N.Y.

                           Charleston Naval Station   1,401 acres for dredging
                           and Naval Shipyard, S.C.   disposal site

National Guard             Barbers Point Naval Air    149 acres
                           Station, Hawaii

                           Orlando Naval Training     17 acres
                           Center and Naval
                           Hospital, Fla.

                           Navy/Marine Corps
                           Activities

Active Forces              Barbers Point Naval Air    1,109 acres of housing to
                           Station, Hawaii            support other nearby bases
                                                      (BRAC recommendation)

                           Cecil Field Naval Air      2,564 acres, landing field
                           Station, Fla.              to support nearby base
                                                      (BRAC recommendation)

                           Glenview Naval Air         93 acres of housing to
                           Station, Ill.              support nearby base (BRAC
                                                      recommendation)

                           Orlando Naval Training     11 acres for Navy Exchange
                           Center and Naval           and 6 acres for Naval Air
                           Hospital, Fla.             Warfare Center

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

                           Charleston Naval Station   23 acres, Naval Command,
                           and Naval Shipyard, S.C.   Control, and Ocean
                                                      Surveillance Center; and
                                                      Defense Printing Office

                           Air Force Activities

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

                           Department of Interior
                           Activities

Fish and Wildlife Service  Alameda Naval Air          970 acres for wildlife
                           Station, and Naval         refuge
                           Aviation Depot, Calif.

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

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

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

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

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

                           Other Federal Activities


Department of Transportation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation           Agana Naval Air Station,   1 acre
Administration             Guam

                           Barbers Point Naval Air    18 acres
                           Station, Hawaii

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

                           Treasure Island Naval      1 acre
                           Station, Calif.

                           Charleston Naval Station   10 acres
                           and Naval Shipyard, S.C.

General Services           Agana Naval Air Station,   8 acres
Administration             Guam


Department of Commerce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Weather Service   Agana Naval Air Station,   3 acres
                           Guam

National Oceanic and       Charleston Naval Station   5 acres (legislative
Atmospheric                and Naval Shipyard, S.C.   requirement)
Administration

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

                           Orlando Naval Training     42 acres for clinic
                           Center and Naval
                           Hospital, Fla.

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


Department of Justice
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Prisons          El Toro Marine Corps Air   155 acres for a minimum
                           Station, Calif.            security correctional
                                                      facility

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

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

Department of Treasury

Customs                    Orlando Naval Training     4 acres for communication
                           Center,                    center
                           and Naval Hospital, Fla.

Department of Labor

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

Department of State        Charleston Naval Station   10 acres for finance
                           and Naval Shipyard, S.C.   center (legislative
                                                      requirement)

Department of Agriculture

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

SUMMARY OF JOBS CREATED AT 60
BASES CLOSED IN 1988, 1991, AND
1993 BRAC ROUNDS
========================================================== Appendix IV

                                                                        Recovery
Base                                   Jobs lost  Jobs created         (Percent)
------------------------------------  ----------  ------------  ----------------
Agana Naval Air Station                      339             0                 0
Alameda Naval Air Station and Naval        3,228             0                 0
 Aviation Depot
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         6,031         1,557             25.82
 Shipyard
Chase Field Naval Air Station                914         1,520            166.30
Dallas Naval Air Station                     268             0                 0
Davisville Naval Construction                125            35             28.00
 Battalion Center
Dayton Defense Electronics Support         2,804           105              3.74
 Center
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           721            42              5.83
 Hospital
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
O'Hare Air Reserve Station                   757             0                 0
Oakland Naval Hospital                       809             0                 0
Orlando Naval Training Center and          1,105           624             56.47
 Naval Hospital
Pease Air Force Base                         400         1,075            268.75
Philadelphia Defense Personnel             1,235             0                 0
 Supply Center
Philadelphia Naval Station, Naval          8,119             0                 0
 Hospital, and Naval Shipyard
Plattsburgh Air Force Base                   352            57             16.19
Presidio of San Francisco                  3,150         1,111             35.27
Puget Sound Naval Station (Sand              754             0                 0
 Point)
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CASH GRANTS GIVEN TO FACILITATE
REUSE PLANS AT 60 BASES CLOSED IN
1988, 1991, AND 1993 BRAC ROUNDS
=========================================================== Appendix V

                       Total OEA   Total FAA   Total EDA   Total DOL       Total
Base                    grants\a    grants\b    grants\c    grants\d      grants
--------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Agana Naval Air       $1,548,393  $22,911,12           0           0  $24,459,51
 Station                                   3                                   6
Alameda Naval Air      2,160,200           0  $2,050,000           0   4,210,200
 Station and Naval
 Aviation Depot
Army Materials           185,000           0     262,500           0     447,500
 Technology
 Laboratory
Barbers Point Naval      649,754           0           0           0     649,754
 Air Station
Bergstrom Air Force      200,000  110,841,26           0  $1,228,260  112,269,52
 Base                                      6                                   6
Cameron Station                0           0           0           0           0
Castle Air Force       1,491,907   2,143,000   7,500,000           0  11,134,907
 Base
Cecil Field Naval        987,924           0     855,150           0   1,843,074
 Air Station
Chanute Air Force      1,131,428     937,830   5,958,250   3,000,000  11,027,508
 Base
Charleston Naval       3,236,176           0   6,425,541  16,175,755  25,837,472
 Station and Naval
 Shipyard
Chase Field Naval      1,105,411     134,596   4,162,500     875,151   6,277,658
 Air Station
Dallas Naval Air         615,250           0           0           0     615,250
 Station
Davisville Naval         133,000           0           0           0     133,000
 Construction
 Battalion Center
Dayton Defense           719,247           0           0           0     719,247
 Electronics Supply
 Center
Eaker Air Force Base   2,661,480      90,000   5,124,100           0   7,875,580
El Toro Marine Corps   1,651,933           0           0           0   1,651,933
 Air Station
England Air Force      2,741,182     149,850   6,411,800     500,000   9,802,832
 Base
Fort Benjamin          1,225,903           0      50,000   4,592,752   5,868,655
 Harrison
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              0           0           0           0           0
 Depot
George Air Force         533,648     118,638   6,525,000   1,000,000   8,177,286
 Base
Glenview Naval Air       798,943     100,000   2,971,125     598,468   4,468,536
 Station
Grissom Air Force      1,431,376           0      50,000     612,500   2,093,876
 Base
Jefferson Proving        358,600           0     900,000     875,000   2,133,600
 Ground
K.I. Sawyer Air          705,600     400,000           0           0   1,105,600
 Force Base
Lexington Army Depot     100,000           0           0   1,045,000   1,145,000
Long Beach Naval       2,463,284           0           0           0   2,463,284
 Station and Naval
 Hospital
Loring Air Force       2,458,138      50,000   2,567,000   2,100,000   7,175,138
 Base
Lowry Air Force Base   2,519,130           0   6,288,500     800,000   9,607,630
Mare Island Naval      2,653,226           0     175,000   8,000,000  10,828,226
 Shipyard
Mather Air Force         630,500     238,526   8,325,000   1,750,000  10,944,026
 Base
Mobile Naval Station     200,000           0           0           0     200,000
Moffett Field Naval            0           0           0   3,558,678   3,558,678
 Air Station
Myrtle Beach Air       1,408,264  20,289,557   3,500,000     925,000  26,122,821
 Force Base
Newark Air Force         810,602           0           0   2,062,500   2,873,102
 Base
Norton Air Force         741,000   3,438,638   6,825,000   2,916,000  13,920,638
 Base
O'Hare Air Reserve             0           0           0           0           0
 Station
Oakland Naval                  0           0           0           0           0
 Hospital
Orlando Naval          1,222,672           0           0   3,392,374   4,615,046
 Training Center and
 Hospital
Pease Air Force Base     859,790  12,152,864  11,925,000           0  24,937,654
Philadelphia Defense     321,306           0           0   4,500,000   4,821,306
 Personnel Support
 Center
Philadelphia Naval    53,061,090           0   7,300,000  28,150,000  88,511,090
 Station, Hospital,
 and Shipyard
Plattsburgh Air        1,694,845           0   2,250,000   1,296,684   5,241,529
 Force Base
Presidio of San                0           0           0     500,000     500,000
 Francisco
Puget Sound Naval        120,000           0           0   1,188,000   1,308,000
 Station (Sand
 Point)
Richards-Gebaur Air      241,985   2,052,815           0           0   2,294,800
 Reserve Station
Rickenbacker Air         111,000   1,409,895           0     684,545   2,205,440
 Guard Base
Sacramento Army          436,010           0           0   1,750,000   2,186,010
 Depot
San Diego Naval        1,110,810           0           0           0   1,110,810
 Training Center
Staten Island Naval      527,244           0           0           0     527,244
 Station
Treasure Island                0           0           0           0           0
 Naval Station
Trenton Naval Air        134,902           0           0           0     134,902
 Warfare Center
Tustin Marine Corps    1,235,543           0           0           0   1,235,543
 Air Station
Vint Hill Farms          545,303           0           0           0     545,303
 Station
Warminster Naval Air   1,049,565           0   2,000,000   2,600,000   5,649,565
 Warfare Center
Williams Air Force     1,770,859   4,218,000   1,069,750   2,000,000   9,058,609
 Base
Woodbridge Army           50,000           0           0           0      50,000
 Research Facility
Wurtsmith Air Force    1,674,416     508,000   9,717,500   1,250,000  13,149,916
 Base
================================================================================
Total                 $119,936,6  $182,340,2  $153,835,7  $102,726,6  $558,839,3
                              74          98          16          67          55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Office of Economic Adjustment. 

\b Federal Aviation Administration. 

\c Economic Development Administration. 

\d Department of Labor. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix VI

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



RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
============================================================ Chapter 0

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). 

Military Bases:  An Analysis of the Commission's Realignment and
Closure Recommendations (GAO/NSIAD-90-42, Nov.  29, 1989). 


*** End of document. ***