Putting cities at ease about closing military bases

To generations of G.I.s, “separation” was a blessed word, the time for discharge after honorable service in the Armed Forces.

But as the Cold War recedes in history, and U.S. military spending is winding down, many communities across the country are suffering what could be called “separation anxiety” as the Department of Defense (DOD) prepares to close down or cut back its operations.

The anxiety began in July 1992 when President Clinton signed off on a long-anticipated national base closure and realignment plan.

California was hardest hit, with more than 50 facilities and some 32,000 military and civilian personnel jobs affected.

Nationally, the most severe impacts were east of the Mississippi, where 31 major facilities were targeted for closure or realignment. Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York were particularly hard hit.

In the cities and counties where the bases were located, “redevelopment” shot to the top of every local official’s economic agenda.

Now, another round of base closings is bringing that anxiety to a new set of local governments. But the successes and mistakes of the first group can provide numerous lessons that may make it easier for them to cope.

The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC), the federal agency charged with making the hit list, has recommended that 132 bases be shut down from now through 1999, taking with them thousands of jobs and leaving behind a wealth of problems for the cities that must determine how to reuse the property on which they sat.

But the cities are charging ahead with redevelopment plans for everything from industrial sites to residential housing.

The goals of a redevelopment plan are easy to state. But experience suggests that the reality, for the most part, is likely to be less than idealistic.

Any plan should provide a road map to a future in which commerce and industry find their way to the land vacated by the military, re-creating jobs and revenues at least equal to (if not greater than) those formerly supplied by the base.

First, cities facing closures should keep in mind that there is life after the military vacates a base. A few guidelines will help municipalities ensure future development and maintain the economic base necessary for growth.

“Successful base conversions depend on an area’s ability to maximize the base reuse process, while effectively using local resources, assets and commitment,” says Marcia Frenz, who organized a base reuse forum in December at the American Institute of Architects (AIA) headquarters in Washington, D. C.

QUICK MOBILIZATION

Once a city has recovered from the initial shock of a closure or realignment announcement, the temptation is to relax.

But if a base is on the hit list, the region is going to lose jobs quickly, and replacing them will be a long and painstaking process.

Thus, it is never too early to begin making active, concrete plans, since, unless planning to replace the lost jobs begins well in advance of the closing, those jobs will probably be gone for good.

Shortly after the announcement is made, city leaders should appoint a commission whose primary responsibility would be overseeing rapid conversion of closed facilities to permit economic development and job creation.

Redevelopment and hazardous waste cleanup take time, and environmental permitting for infrastructure can take several years to process paperwork.

And because of the time involved, one forum participant noted, the activities like cleanup and assuring the adequacy of infrastructure should be addressed prior to any property transfer. Cleanup, Frenz notes, should be consistent with the planned reuse, and the price of transferring the property should reflect the “cost of cure.”

Engineering designs for roads, utilities and other site improvements must be designed, completed, approved and ready for groundbreaking as soon as the base closes, sooner if possible.

In San Bernardino County, Calif., officials acted quickly when the closure of Norton Air Force Base (NAFB), which provided more than 10,000 direct jobs, was announced in January 1989.

The Norton Economic Expansion Committee was formed within the month, state legislative action was prompt, and a Joint Powers Authority (JPA), called the Inland Valley Development Agency (consisting of the county and the cities of San Bernardino, Colton and Loma Linda), took control of the development process. The Base Reuse Plan, the community’s road map for reuse, was formulated shortly thereafter.

The initial plan should indicate to the DOD the community’s preferences for reuse, and the information should then be turned over to the involved service branch to be included in its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The EIS is the prerequisite to the Record of Decision (ROD), the all-important document that defines who gets what and under what circumstances and conditions.

For example, in the reuse process, DOD and the relevant branch of the military are authorized to decide how much of the land will go to whom, and at what cost, i.e., as a public benefit transfer (free), at a prenegoiated price or at an open bid.

It is essential, therefore, for the local authorities to identify its needs and specify precisely what parcels of land, buildings and properties it hopes to receive at no cost. The federal government must have communication with the local authorities.

EXECUTIVE IN CHARGE

Once a base reuse authority or other agency is formed, cities should make bipartisan effort to identify and recruit the best person available to serve as executive director. That person should be given the authority and support he or she needs to get the job done.

The executive appointee should have experience in both large-scale private and public development, knowledge about finances, managerial experience, adept legistative processes and solid tobbying skills.

The executive director will be responsible for guiding, balancing and implementing the Teuse agencies policies, identifying the steps needed to do so, applying for grants and loans, coordinating bond issues, dealing with various agencies, hiring consultants and staff, setting up budgets and pursuing funding sources.

Upon designation of the executive director, the city should design and implement a review and transfer process that is consistent throughout the operating branches of the DOD and responsive to the community reuse objectives. It should also provide for the prompt transfer of property.

MARKET ANALYSIS

Once the reuse organization is in place, the city must prepare early to dedicate substantial resources to completing a realistic market analysis. A reputable, highly qualified consultant, should be retained, and an innovative, in,depth study that gives full attention to local, national and international factors should be insisted upon.

Market analysis is a key factor and one which many cities tend to ignore often balking at making the necessary investment in time (often three months to six months) and money ($100,000 to $300,000).

However, skimping at this stage of the process can be the worst kind of false economy.

Local planners often have false illusions about their area’s prospects. The existence of a 10,000-foot runway in the area makes it all too easy to paint pictures of a rosy future, replete with high-tech industrial manufacturing, commercial centers, research facilities, retail shopping centers and bustling cargo or passenger terminals.

But economic activities should qualify for public benefit transfer designation, which, in turn, should have clear priority over properties being offered for sale or lease.

An industrial development bond-type program can be developed, which will have a higher dollar ceiling and will include commercial, retail, low-income housing and R&D projects.

In 1989, the sheer magnitude of the closings complicated the issue. In southern California, for example, George AFB, Norton AFB, March AFB, Tustin Marine Corps Air Station, Long Beach Naval Station and El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, all located within approximately a 70-mile radius were slated for closure or realignment.

Consequently, all were competing for regional markets. Indeed, in some scenarios, they were competing with trade, manufacturing or transfer facilities. In this situation, a complete market analysis is necessary to determine the best and highest use — both interim and long-term — of the properties.

COOPERATIVE PLANNING

The planning process should be comprehensive; in other words, as regional and broad based as possible.

For instance, Native American groups, the state, a university and competing jurisdictions may all have conflicting ideas about how the base should be reused and for whose specific benefit, and unless all the entities involved can work together harmoniously, or at least resolve their major differences, the reuse process will be substantially delayed. When action does proceed, it may be under a cloud.

At George AFB, for example, the reuse process was delayed for months by an ongoing conflict between the local JPA, which represented San Bernardino County and the cities of Victorville, Hesperia and Apple Valley, and the,city of Adelanto, which offered to buy the base to build an international airport.

In a 1993 decision, the Air Force announced that most of the property would be offered for competitive sale, electing to take this action because of a perceived lack of community consensus.

The Air Force further warned that if infighting continued between the factions and held up the process, any or all of the property would be offered for public sale, with neither side gaining a favorable position.

Meanwhile, the base closed its doors on Dec. 1, 1992, and the local communities remained in limbo until 1995, when the property was finally transferred to the Victor Valley Economic Administration.

Still, Adelanto remains a thorn in the JPA’s side, currently pursuing claims to groundwater rights.

Indeed, according to Frenz, community support helped Sacramento capitalize when the local army depot was shut down during the first round of closings in 1989.

While the local reuse committee was making its initial plans, Packard Bell decided it wanted to leave its southern California site.

The state economic development agency, which wanted to keep the company in the state, suggested several relocation sites, including the depot, which became Packard Bell’s first choice.

That decision, however, was contingent on several conditions, including state designation of the former military base as an Enterprise Zone, quick completion of environmental cleanup and funding for tenant improvements.

The first was handled by the state legislature, the second by the army and the third by the city, which provided a $27 million loan for tenant improvements.

Now, the base, which used to employ 2,600 people, is a Packard Bell plant employing 5,000.

FINDING FUNDING

The federal Office of Economic Adjustment will make money available to city and county governments for reuse planning.

If an airport is involved, the Federal Aviation Administration and provides grants for airport master planning and construction, and assistance in the development process is also available to base closure facilities.

Additionally, the Economic Development Administration and Federal Highway Administration have programs that can be helpful in funding construction of infrastructure projects within the city. Financial assistance is available as long as the city is willing to research and file paperwork.

CLEANING UP

The late Les Aspin, defense secretary under President Bush, declared that cleanups would not delay the base reuse process. “DOD wants to ensure, wherever possible, that environmental cleanup is not a barrier to economic recovery,” he said after the first round of closings, and indeed the DOD budgeted more than $1 billion for environmental cleanups in 1993.

The fact remains, however, that most of the economically valuable military base sites are, in some way, environmentally suspect.

The typical military base has stood essentially as an island unto itself for 50 or so years and may harbor multiple waste problems — closed landfills, as well as petroleum, oil or lubricant contamination.

The AIA base reuse forum called for increased flexibility in the environmental remediation of closed facilities, permitting cleanup standards that relate more closely to the planned reuse.

Currently, Frenz says, the DOD will not transfer a base until environmental cleanup is 100 percent complete, a fact that leads to lengthy delays in the base transfer.

RELATED DEVELOPMENT

Often, a base includes millions of square feet of housing, office space, banks, stores and health clubs — sites that have value, either as is or as part of a planned development scheme for the community.

Still, only 10 percent to 20 percent of existing facilities may actually be usable — the rest may require costly alterations or demolition before redevelopment can proceed.

“The poor condition of many facilities slated for closure — eroding facades, structures that do not meet building codes, inefficient and outdated buildings “[means] the federal government should not assume any substantial profit resulting from the transfer of facilities,” Frenz says.

Additionally, electricity lines and other utilities installed in the 1940s, and buildings insulated with asbestos, may pose a major demolition and hazardous waste disposal problem.

Responsibility for those kinds of cleanup efforts is shared between the DOD and the service that uses the facility, with oversight by the U.S. EPA and state agencies, But local officials should be very much aware of the limits to this process.

At some sites a full cleanup process may take 20 years or longer. The Air Force, for example, is traditionally unwilling to take responsibility for certain items, such as asbestos that has been determined to be nonfriable.

Thus, the local redevelopment authority must assure itself that the cleanup plan of the base is progressing well and that it will get a clean site when and as promised.

Cities can help by instituting measures to improve the toxic cleanup, extending tax credits to relocating businesses and upgrading access to capital markets at better rates.

Free land — or three to five years of free rent — on former military sites can be offered to businesses with the potential for job creation or other economic benefits to the region, especially if the businesses are willing to help in the base reuse cleanup process.

LEGISLATIVE CONCERNS

State legislatures, which have the greatest power to make redevelopment decisions, are influenced by local interests.

There must be adequate legislation at the state level to facilitate formation of JPAs or other local authorities.

California’s amended redevelopment laws, for example, provide JPAs with broad powers, including authority to use eminent domain, borrow against tax revenues, conduct planning activities and set policies.

Occasionally, existing policies may need to be reviewed and changed to facilitate the planning and redevelopment processes.

One major problem has been that the closure process, as originally set up by Congress, required the federal government to make a profit by selling off land and buildings at market rates.

However, this has become less of an issue, since local job creation is taking precedence over making money for the federal government.

Another problem is the maze of paperwork required by the federal government. In an effort to cooperate, the military branch involved in each closure will provide a list for municipalities to follow.

Yet, filing forms and waiting for signatures are a time-consuming processes, and cities should prepare mentally for these delays.

The revitalization of a closed military base can help communities develop new growth and expanded revenues. But momentum must be maintained throughout the process.

“The approach to military base reuse is eclectic, and, while each facility’s reuse experience is unique, all can serve as guides for other areas just beginning the process,” Frenz says.

Danny Fouladpour, P.E., a consulting engineer with experience in infrastructure and large-scale planning issues. He served as a consultant on military base closings in southern California from 1989-1993.

Base’s airfield becomes city’s airport

Austin, Texas, needed an airport. So, when Bergstrom Air Force base was slated for closure, the city acted quickly.

The process, naturally fraught with challenges, was made somewhat easy because of a clause in the original deed that transferred the property from the city to the federal government in 1941.

That clause provided for “reversion,” a legal term meaning that, once the new owner of the property no longer wants it, it automatically reverts to the previous owner.

Austin began preparing for Bergstrom’s closing by developing a base-closure plan and creating a committee charged with handling everything from property preparations and inventories, environmental issue analyses and funding and baseline studies.

The city formed a Base Conversion Agency (BCA) to plan for property transfer. The BCA completed an environmental cleanup. Next, thecity developed a Reuse Plan that accounted for interim property use, maintenance and op-eration during transfer to the city.

Long-term investment strategies and budgets for the interim and final transfers were also part of the revitalization plan.

Additionally, Austin remained in close communication with local, state and federal environmental protection agencies in order to clarify all existing problems and determine which entities were responsible for repairing damages. A work transfer schedule that addressed hazardous materials and waste issues first helped coordinate the cleanup.

Finally, the city established an infrastructure maintenance program, a plan for utility provision, compliance requirements and a fund and costs program.

Community involvement in the process was vital to the success of the conversion, which began paying for Austin when the main terminal opened for airline carrier bids in January 1996.

This article was written by Arnold Rosenberg, project manager, Parsons Brinckerhoff Construction Services, Herndon, Va.