MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1974
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS
ROBERT L. F. SIKES, Florida, Chairman
EDWARD J. PATTEN, New Jersey GLENN R. DAVIS, Wisconsin
CLARENCE D. LONG, Maryland BURT L. TALCOTT, California
DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin ROBERT C. McEWEN, New York
K. GUNN McKAY, Utah
ROBnRT C. NICHOLAS III, Staff Assistant
PART 4
Defense Agencies
Family Housing
Homeowners Assistance
Reserve Forces
Status of Military Construction Funds
Testimony of Members of Congress and Other Interested
Individuals and Organizations
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
21-1110 WASHINGTON : 1973
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
GEORGE H. MAHON, Texas, Ohairman
JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Mississippi
JOHN J. ROONEY, New York
ROBERT L. F. SIKES, Florida
OTTO E. PASSMAN, Louisiana
JOE L. EVINS, Tennessee
EDWARD P. BOLAND, Massachusetts
WILLIAM H. NATCHER, Kentucky
DANIEL J. FLOOD, Pennsylvania
TOM STEED, Oklahoma
GEORGE E. SHIPLEY, Illinois
JOHN M. SLACK, West Virginia
JOHN J. FLYNT, JR., Georgia
NEAL SMITH, Iowa
ROBERT N. GIAIMO, Connecticut
JULIA BUTLER HANSEN, Washington
JOSEPH P. ADDABBO, New York
JOHN J. McFALL, California
EDWARD J. PATTEN, New Jersey
CLARENCE D. LONG, Maryland
SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois
BOB CASEY, Texas
FRANK E. EVANS, Colorado
DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
EDWARD R. ROYBAL, California
LOUIS STOKES, Ohio
J. EDWARD ROUSH, Indiana
GUNN McKAY, Utah
TOM BEVILL, Alabama
EDITH GREEN, Oregon
ROBERT O. TIERNAN, Rhode Island
BILL CHAPPELL, JR., Florida
BILL D. BURLISON, Missouri
ELFORD A. CEDERBERG, Michigan
JOHN J. RHODES, Arizona
WILLIAM E. MINSHALL, Ohio
ROBERT H. MICHEL, Illinois
SILVIO O. CONTE, Massachusetts
GLENN R. DAVIS, Wisconsin
HOWARD W. ROBISON, New York
GARNER E. SHRIVER, Kansas
JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania
MARK ANDREWS, North Dakota
LOUIS C. WYMAN, New Hampshire
BURT L. TALCOTT, California
WENDELL WYATT, Oregon
JACK EDWARDS, Alabama
WILLIAM J. SCHERLE, Iowa
ROBERT C. McEWEN, New York
JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana
J. KENNETH ROBINSON, Virginia
CLARENCE E. MILLER, Ohio
EARL B. RUTH, North Carolina
VICTOR V. VEYSEY, California
LAWRENCE COUGHLIN, Pennsylvania
KEITH F. MAINLAND, Clerk and Staff Director
STAFF ASSISTANTS
GEORGE E. EVANS
ROBERT B. FOSTER
JOHN M. GARRITY
AUBREY A. GUNNELS
CHARLES G. HARDIN
JAY B. HOWE
F. MICHAEL HUGO
THOMAS J. KINGFIELD
ROBERT L. KNISELY
EDWARD E. LOMBARD
RICHARD N. MALOW
MILTON B. MEREDITH
AMERICO S. MICONI
DEMPSEY B. MIZELLE
ENID MORRISON
PETER J. MURPHY, Jr.
HENRY A. NEIL, Jr.
ROBERT C. NICHOLAS III
BYRON S. NIELSON
JOHN G. OSTHAUS
FREDERICK F. PFLUGER
JOHN G. PLASHAL
EDWIN F. POWERS
SAMUEL R. PRESTON
DONALD E. RICHBOURG
EARL C. SILSBY
G. HOMER SKARIN
CHARLES W. SNODGRASS
HUNTER L. SPILLAN
PAUL E. THOMSON
GEORGE A. URIAN
DEREK J. VANDER SCHAAF
EUGENE B. WILHELM
J. DAVID WILLSON
SURVEYS AND INVESTIGATIONS
C. R. ANDERSON
LEROY R. KIRKPATRICK
DAVID A. SCHMIDT
DENNIS F. CREEDON
NOTE.-This Surveys and Investigations supervisory staff is supplemented by selected
personnel borrowed on a reimbursable basis for varying lengths of time from various
agencies to staff up specific studies and investigations. The current average annual full-
time personnel equivalent is approximately 42.
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
GERARD J. CHOUINARD
PAUL V. FARMER
SANDRA A. GILBERT
EVA K. HARRIS
VIRGINIA MAY KEYSER
MARCIA L. MATTS
FRANCES MAY
GENEVIEVE A. MEALY
JANE A. MEREDITH
LAWRENCE C. MILLER
MARY ALICE SAUER
DALE M. SHULAW
AUSTIN G. SMITH
RANDOLPH THOMAS
BETTY A. SWANSON
SHARON K. TINSLEY
GEMMA M. WEIBLINGER
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1974
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE
PROGRAM AND FINANCING (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
Budget plan (amounts for family
housing actions programed) Obligations
1972 1973 1974 1972 1973 1974
actual estimate estimate actual estimate estimate
Program by activities:
1. Construction:
(a) Construction of new housing- 249,950 307, 628 357, 604 132,977 349, 851 326, 289
Construction improvements-- 47, 928 59, 925 65, 470 19, 421 65, 239 64, 011
Planning......-.-..-... 627 900 700 627 900 700
d) Rental guarantee.----------- 65 - -....... ----------- - 55 10 .........
Total construction......... --------298, 570 368, 453 423, 774 153, 080 416, 000 391, 000
2. Operation, maintenance, and interest
payment:
(a) Operation:
(1) Operating expenses 230, 389 294, 368 334, 210 230, 389 294, 368 334, 210
(2) Leasing-....... ._ 28, 746 35, 258 44, 703 28, 746 35, 258, 44, 703
(b) Maintenance of real property 219, 286 249, 603 294, 419 219, 286 249, 603 294, 419
(c) Interest payments....---------- 66, 030 62, 234 58, 408 66, 027 62, 234 58, 408
(d) Mortgage insurance pre-
miums:
(1) CapehartandWherry
housing.____- - 2, 499 2,360 2,206 2, 499 2,360 2,206
(2) Servicemen-owned
housing------------- 4,204 3,830 3, 780 4,150 3,830 3, 780
Total, operation, main-
tenance, and inter-
est payment........ 551, 154 647, 653 737, 726 551, 097 647, 653 737, 726
Total----.-.-.------ 849,724 1,016,106 1,161,500 704,177 1,063,653 1,128,726
Financing:
Receipts and reimbursements from:
Federal funds............. .... ---------------3,039 -3,4039 -3, 485 -3, 390
Non-Federal sources.............. --11,234 -6,704 -7,152 -11,336 -6,704 -7,152
Unobligated balance available, start of
year:
For completion of prior year budget
plans .. --------------------------------------------- -138,409 -281,413 -223,760
Available to finance new budget
plans-__-.------------ --20,347 -35,444 -3,976 -20,347 -35,444 -3,976
Reprograming from prior year budget
plans......------------------------ -2, 645 -10,106 ...---------------------------------
Unobligated balance available, end of year:
For completion of prior year budget plans .__.----------------------------. 281, 413 223, 760 256, 534
Available to finance subsequent year
budget plans- 34....4 35, 444 3, 976 .--- - 35, 444 3, 976 ...
Unoabligated balance lapsing-....1,070 ----------- 1,070 ..............
Redemption of agency debt ............. . 3,102 3, 037 3, 418 3,102 3, 037 3, 418
Budget authority...--.-. ---.___ 852,075 967,380 1,150, 400 852, 075 967, 380 1,150, 400
Budget authority:
Appropriation.._... ----------- 945, 025 1,064,046 1,250,567 945,025 1,064,046 1,250,567
Portion applied to debt reduction-.... -92, 950 -96, 666 -100,167 -92,950 -96,666 -100,167
Appropriation adjusted ....._._.... 852, 075 967, 380 1,150,400 852,075 967, 380 1,150,400
Relation of obligations to outlays:
Obligations incurred, net _-_....--. ---.-- ---..-.-.. ......... . 689, 801 1,053,464 1,118,184
Obligated balance, start of year ____... --...................... 260, 339 275, 337 484, 701
Obligated balance, end of year..------........ ........-- ------- . --275, 337 -484, 701 -639, 885
Adjustments in expired accounts__ _-----..-.------.- --.-.. . ._ 8, 901
Outlays ...... .. ................----------------------------------. 683, 703 844,100 963, 000
2
OBJECT CLASSIFICATION (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
1972 1973 1974
actual estimate estimate
Personnel compensation:
Permanent positions.-------------------------------------- 8,715 9,395 9,379
Positions other than permanent. -------------------------------- 653 256 340
Total personnel compensation ------------------------------ 9,368 9,651 9,719
Personnel benefits: Civilian....-------------------------------------- 936 1,080 1,024
Travel and transportation of persons....-------------------------------- 138 169 181
Transportation of things...............--------------------------------------- 1,801 1,933 2,140
Rent, communications, and utilities------------------------------.................................. 63,379 69, 809 76,930
Printing and reproduction--..----.....---------------------------------................................. 2 2 2
Other services ------------------------------------------- 368, 246 463, 453 542,793
Supplies and materials --------------------------------------- 25,134 27, 932 30,444
Equipment....---------------------------------------------- 20, 803 23, 002 25, 320
Lands and structures......--------------------......------------------- 148, 253 404, 287 381, 655
Grants, subsidies, and contributions.............................--------------------------------- 90 101 110
Interest and dividends......--------------------------------------- 66,027 62, 234 58,408,726
Total obligations ------------------------------------- 704, 177 1,063, 653 1, 128, 726
PERSONNEL SUMMARY
Total number of permanent positions ..------------------------------- 993 1,026 1, 026
Full-time equivalent of other positions....... .. .....------------------------------ 60 23 23
Average paid employment....------------------------------------- 1,027 1,022 1,032
Average GS grade -------------------------------------------- 6.3 6.3 6.3
Average GS salary...........------------------------------------------ $9, 703 $9, 838 $9,739
Average salary of ungraded positions.----------------------------- $8, 284 $8, 864 $9, 254
TUESDAY, JULY 17, 1973.
ARMY FAMILY HOUSING AND HOMEOWNERS
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WITNESSES
MAJ. GEN. K. B. COOPER, DIRECTOR OF INSTALLATIONS, ODCSLOG
MAJ. GEN. J. A. KJELLSTROM, DIRECTOR OF ARMY BUDGET, OF-
FICE, COMPTROLLER OF THE ARMY
COL. G. S. OLIVER, CHIEF, FAMILY HOUSING DIVISION, DIRECTOR-
ATE OF INSTALLATIONS, ODCSLOG
C. BEARKAN, PROGRAMS DEVELOPMENT BRANCH, FAMILY HOUS-
ING DIVISION, DIRECTORATE OF INSTALLATIONS, ODCSLOG
D. S. SWANSON, FAMILY HOUSING DESIGN BRANCH, ENGINEERING
DIVISION, OFFICE, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
G. THOMPSON, HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE DIVISION, DIRECTOR-
ATE OF REAL ESTATE OFFICE, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
MRS. M. V. SPARKMAN, PROGRAMS CONTROL DIVISION, DIRECTOR-
ATE OF REAL ESTATE OFFICE, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
Mr. SIKES. This morning we are ready to begin the discussion of
Army family housing requirements for fiscal 1974 and for the home-
owners assistance program. We will place in the record the summary
pages i through iii.
[The pages follow:]
Department of the Army, family housing, defense-fiscal year 1974 budget,
program and financing
[Thousands of dollars]
February 15, 1973:
Construction of new housing--------------------------------- $178, 208
Mobile home facilities--_--------------------------------------- 3, 300
Subtotal new construction---------------------------------- 181, 508
Wherry acquisition (utilities) _ _--------------------- ---- 240
Improvements ---------------------------------------- -- 28, 160
Minor construction------------------------------------- 1, 500
Planning -----------------------------------------200
Total construction authorization----------------------- 211, 608
Operating expenses-----------------------------------------149, 408
Leasing ---------------------------------- 16, 056
Maintenance --------------------------- 120, 448
Total operation and maintenance----------------------------- 285, 912
Debt interest and other expense--------------------------- 18, 903
Total --------------------------------------------------- 516, 423
Less: reimbursements--O. & M----------------------------------2, 022
Debt--------------------------------- --250
Available from other years: Debt--------------------------- -343
Total ----------------------------------------------------- 513, 808
Budget authority :
Appropriation :
Construction-----------------_________ 211, 608
Operation and maintenance------------------------ 283, 890
Debt 46, 311
Total appropriation -------------------------------------541, 809
Less: Portion applied to debt reduction------------------------- 28, 001
Appropriation (adjusted) ------------------------------------513, 808
4
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE-FISCAL YEAR 1974 BUDGET, TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cost
Page Units (thousands)
1. Construction (summary):
A. New construction State and installation .__... 1 .......
Colorado: Fort Carson ..................... .....----------------------------- 2-5 200 $5,793.0
Florida: Eglin AFB-__--. -----__----------------.__ 6-9 25 680.0
Hawaii: Oahuii:Osh-.-.- --.--. --.- - -- --.--.- - 10-13 1,000 36,995.5
Kansas: Fort Riley--.. ------------------------. 14-17 901 24,742.5
Kentucky: Fort Campbell. -..-__ 18-21 1,000 27,000.0
Louisiana: Fort Polk _ - -____ .....--- _. 22-25 500 14,250.0
Maryland: Aberdeen Proving Ground__. . 26-29 166 4,600.0
North Carolina: Fort Bragg... ------------- 30-33 136 4,430.0
Pennsylvania: Tobyhanna Army Depot 34-37 86 2,464.0
Texas:
Fort Hood----._ __-------------------------- 38-41 900 23, 423.0
Red River Army Depot___._ _ __..___ 42-45 21 556.0
Virginia:
Fort Monroe--...- -- -..._____ .__ .. 46-49 200 5, 640.0
Fort Eustis ..---------.-.-.... 49a-49d 300 8, 034. 0
Metropolitan Washington area: Fort Belvoir 50-53 700 19,600.0
Subtotal construction of new housing--.-...-------.- --.- ------_ 6,135 178, 208.0
B. Mobile home facilities:
Arizona: Yuma PG....----. -------__.-.--____ 54-56 8 36.0
Kentucky: Fort Campbell ..- ---.-.-.-------------___ 57-59 100 409.5
Louisiana: Fort Polk. - -__--- - - - - --............. 60-62 59 252.8
Maryland: Aberdeen PG/Edgewood Arsenal.. - __-___ - 63-65 76 311.1
New Jersey: Fort Monmouth - --..-.--...- 66-68 40 180.2
Texas: Fort Hoodt - --_~ _ - - - - - --__________ _ 69-71 380 1, 447.0
Virginia: Fort Eustis------------------------------ 72-74 62 253.9
Metropolitan Washington area: Fort Belvoir-..-......... 75-77 100 409.5
Subtotal mobile home facilities ...........-___-- --------------- 825 3,300.0
Subtotal new construction-..----.__ --_...__._............ -- 6,960 181, 508.0
C. Wherry acquisition (utilities) .....................----... . 78 -------------- 240.0
D. Improvement to existing public quarters ...-------------------- 79-90 ----------- 28,160.0
E. Minor construction--.- --- ----.--..- --..-.--.-. .. 91 1,500.0
F. Advance planning and design ___. --- 92.....-------------- 200.0
G. Rental guarantee payments.... -------------------......... 93 0
Total construction authorization and appropriation
request---- ---------------------------------------------------- 211,608.0
2. Debt payment (summary)---....------------------------------------- 94 -
A. Capehart housing.------------------------------------... 95-98 35,316 36,193.0
B. Wherry housing- .------------------------------ - 99-101 19, 823 9,193.0
C. Servicemen's mortgage insurance premiums----.. 102 ...........- 925.0
3. Operation an
A. Opera
B. Leasi
Total debt payment appropriation request. ..-...___ ____-___ -_-_ 55, 139 1 46, 311.0
d maintenance (summary) ---------------------------- 103 ...........
tion and maintenance--- -.-. --.................._ 104-107 136, 132 267,834.0
ng costs---- ---------------------------------- 108-113 6,929 16, 056.0
Total operation and maintenance appropriation request--.---------... 143,061 1283,890.0
1 The appropriation requests for debt payment and operation and maintenance are in lump sum for the Department of
Defense and not restricted by military department or defense agency. The amounts footnoted are within those totals.
Mr. SIKEs. The total request is $541,809,000. Is that correct?
General COOPER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SIKES. General Cooper, the committee is glad to welcome you
and will be happy to have you discuss the details of the Army fiscal
year 1974 housing request, which is a subject that this committee has a
very strong interest in. We would like to know the progress you are
making, the obstacles you continue to encounter, and the job remain-
ing after this year's work is accomplished. Are you ready to proceed?
General COOPER. Yes, sir, I am, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SIKEs. Will you please do so.
GENERAL STATEMENT
General COOPER. I have with me today Colonel Oliver, the Chief
of the Family Housing Division. He took Colonel Perkins place in my
office.
Mr. SIKEs. We also have with us General Kjellstrom, a very knowl-
edgeable individual and whose experience and counsel has always
been helpful to this committee.
You may proceed.
General COOPER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is
a pleasure to appear before this committee again, this time in the
review of the Army's fiscal year 1974 family housing budget and the
homeowners' assistance program.
Our program for fiscal year 1974 includes additional new units,
provision for an increase in the statutory unit cost which we sorely
need, and an increase in our foreign leasing authority to help alleviate
the severe family housing shortages in Germany.
EXPANDED CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
This is the second year of what we describe as our "family housing
program for the seventies." We require expanded family housing
budget requests through fiscal year 1979 to achieve its objectives, which
are geared to requirements for a Volunteer Army. Our initial year
was noteworthy in that we increased the fiscal year 1972 level of 2,008
new units to 4,166 units in fiscal year 1973. We increased the total
family housing appropriation from $292 million in fiscal year 1972 to
$406 million in fiscal year 1973. We hope to continue this momentum.
Mr. SIKES. It is not clear to me. How many units will this appropria-
tion provide ?
General COOPER. This appropriation will provide 6,135 new units.
I am coming to that in a minute.
Mr. SIKEs. Very good.
General COOPER. In fiscal year 1974 we are requesting an appropria-
tion of $542 million which includes funds for debt reduction in the
debt payment program. This $542 million will provide $212 million
for the construction program, $46 million for debt payment and $284
million for operation and maintenance. Taking each program sepa-
rately:
The construction program of $212 million, an increase of almost $90
million over the fiscal year 1973 appropriation, will provide for the
construction of 6,135 new housing units of which 5,135 are in the con-
tinental United States and 1,000 units are in Hawaii; the construction
of 825 mobile home spaces; an improvement program of $28 million
to be applied against an estimated backlog of $250 million; and
slightly less than $2 million for minor construction, acquisition of a
utility system, and advance planning.
DEBT PAYMENT
The debt payment program of $46 million which is approximately
the same as last year, will provide for the payment of principal, inter-
est and FHA insurance on approximately 35,000 Capehart and 20,000
Wherry housing units, and payment of servicemen's mortgage insur-
ance premiums. This program constitutes fixed obligations of the U.S.
Government.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The operation and maintenance program of $284 million will pro-
vide for the support of approximately 143,000 family housing units.
Originally it included $15 million for furniture replacement; $30 mil-
lion to permit a reduction in the deferred maintenance backlog of $152
million, and $5.8 million for procurement of washers and dryers in
oversea areas.
However, since the development of this budget, the revaluation of
foreign currencies has necessitated an absorbtion of $6.3 million in
fiscal year 1973 and $13.8 million in fiscal year 1974.
Mr. Chairman, the deutsche mark-dollar exchange rate has further
eroded, and there is an additional $2.9 million of unliquidated year-
end obligations for fiscal year 1973, and the $13.8 million I have in the
statement is now $32.2 million. The impact of absorbing these amounts
has been to further delay our program to accelerate the reduction of
deferred maintenance backlog. As a matter of fact it will result in a
net increase in our backlog. It is now estimated that no funds will be
programed against the backlog of $155 million at the end of fiscal year
1973. In fact, the backlog has grown to $157 million. In this regard you
may remember at our other hearings General Kjellstrom discussed the
advisability of having some flexibility to transfer funds to the family
housing program from the Army program and he has provided sug-
gested legislative language to accomphsh that so that the family hous-
ing program which you support so extremely well won't suffer because
of that devaluation.
Mr. SIXES. Has that legislation been introduced ?
General COOPER. No, Sir. We just provided the language. We have
not provided it through OMB. We provided it as part of the transcript
to Mr. Nicholas. There is at least some indication the comptrollers in
the Office of Secretary of Defense don't want to do this.
Mr. SIKES. I see.
LEASING
General COOPER. The fiscal year 1974 leasing program is 6,929 units.
Foreign units have been increased by 2,797 units for a total of 3,688
units as compared to 89'1 units in fiscal year 1973. I might add the re-
cent devaluation will make our ability to lease these extremely dubious
as we allowed only about $250 per house to be leased and we now think
it is going to be closer to $375. There isn't any specific limitation in the
average cost per unit overseas but the amount of money we have pro-
gramed is a limitation.
This increase is primarily for Germany where a severe housing
shortage exists, and where Government leasing is the most expeditious
and flexible means of providing relief with minimum risk to the
United States. The differences in customs, rental practices, culture,
and language make it difficult for most of our soldiers by themselves
to get adequate housing on the economy. When they do find it we often
have serious problems with such fundamental needs as transportation
to schools caused by the widely scattered locations. Government block
leasing of apartments, particularly in the cities, gives the U.S. Govern-
ment more bargaining power, reduces the per unit cost to acquire and
operate them and allows concentration for American families thus re-
ducing the cost of transportation and other community support. The
request of 3,241 units in the United States remains at the same level as
fiscal year 1973.
HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Finally, I would like to make a statement regarding the homeowners
assistance program. This program provides assistance to military or
civilian employee homeowners by reducing their losses incident to dis-
posal of their homes, when such losses result from the closure of mili-
tary installations or reduction in scope of operations at such installa-
tions.
New authorization of $7 million is being requested for fiscal year
1974 as a result of the recently announced base closures of April 17.
Current estimates indicate that the available balance from funds ap-
propriated in prior years, plus receipts from the sale of homes acquired
in previous years, will not be sufficient to fund the program through
fiscal year 1974. A total of $33.803 million has been appropriated for
this program in military construction acts since fiscal year 1968, when
the program was initiated.
COSTS AND SAVINGS OF BASE CLOSURES
Mr. LONG. All of these base closures are supposed to save money,
but every time I turn around more money is requested as a result of
the base closures. Are we going to have somebody show us where we
save money because of the base closures ?
General COOPER. When the Army computed the pluses and minuses
for its base closures it included the costs that would be incurred under
this particular program.
Mr. SIKES. I think this is to be anticipated as part of the base
closure package.
General COOPER. Yes, sir. The Air Force did not, and the Navy noted
it but didn't list it on the total.
Mr. SIKES. It costs money to get out of the bases and the savings
come from the fact the bases are not operated in future years.
General COOPER. That is correct.
Mr. SIKES. It is a very simple analysis.
Mr. LONG. I want to know where the savings are.
General COOPER. Dr. Long is correct. When we indicate what the po-
tential savings are we should include family housing costs just as we
include the cost of relocating the people who are moving.
Mr. LONG. I wish somewhere you would show us how these things
are going to save the taxpayers' money. All we ever see is the cost, yet
the justifications and screaming headlines on base closure are that this
is going to save money.
Mr. SIKEs. I think these anlyses are in our records, are they not?
General KJELLSTROM. If I may, they are part of our overall appro-
priation hearings before the House Appropriations Committee. We
do have $190 million in estimated savings from CONUS reorganiza-
tion actions and about $58 million in estimated savings from base
8
closures and realinements in our estimates for 1975 and out. We have
them itemized by installation and activity. I assure you, Dr. Long,
these are much better estimates and more finitely determined than some
we have had in the past which all of us are aware were poorly
prepared.
Mr. LONG. Are they the savings net of the cost ?
General KJ smTRoM. Yes; they are.
Mr. SrIES. Tell us what the costs of closing are for comparison.
Mr. LONG. I wish somewhere you would give us a very detailed
study.
General KJxLLsmoM. May I provide that for the record ?
[The information follows:]
The following tables delineate the results of the Army's analysis concerning
closure actions included in the 17 April 1973 announcement. These closure
actions are estimated to generate $37.3 million in annual recurring savings
after reaching steady state. In all through the outyears to FY 78, they should
result in savings of $151.6 million.
Table 1
Fort Wolters, Texas: Transfer Aviation Training to Fort Rucker, Alabama; place
Fort Wolters in a caretaker status.
Personnel FY 73 FY 74 FY 75 and outyears thru FY 78
Civilian
Eliminations 604
Reloactions 11
Military
Eliminations 256 333
Relocations 57
Total
Eliminations 256 937
Relocations 68
TOTALS
Funding* ($ Millions)
Recurring Savings (Costs)
OMA
MPA
MCA
Total
* Costs are shown in parentheses.
$ .8 $ 8.6 $ 8.6
(.1) 6.0 6.0
-0- -0- -0-
$ .7 $ 14.6 $ 14.6
One Time Costs
OMA $(1.7)
MPA ( .4)
MCA ( .3)
Total $(2.4)
Net Savings
OMA
MPA
MCA
(Costs)
( .9)
(-.5)
( .3)
$(1.7)
$ (3.8) -0-
( .3) -0-
-0- -0-
$ (4.1) -0-
4.8 8.6
5.7 6.0
-0- -0-
$ 10.5 14.6
$ 43.8
29.9
-0-
$ 73.7
$ (5.5)
( .7)
( .3)
$ (6.5)
38.3
29.2
( .3)
67.2
Table 2
Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia: Transfer Aviation Training to Ft Rucker,
Alabama; Transfer other TOE units to Ft Stewart, Georgia;
Place Hunter Army Airfield in caretaker status.
FY 73 FY 74 FY 75 and outyears, thru 78
Personnel
Civilian
Eliminations 37 351
Relocations 28 54
Military
Eliminations 476
Relocations 388 340
Total
Eliminations 37 827
Relocations 416 394
TOTALS
Funding * ($ Millions)
Recurring Savings/Costs)
FY 73
OMA $ -0-
MPA (.1)
FNMA -0-
Total $ (.1)
One Time Costs
OMA $(2.2)
MPA ( .8)
FHMA -0-
Total $(3.0)
Net Savings/(Costs)
OMA $(2.2)
MPA (.9)
FHMA -0-
Total $ 3.1
FY 74
$ 5.7
4.3
.6
$10.6
$( .4)
-0-
-0-
$( .4)
$ 5.3
4.3
.6
$10.2
* Costs are shown in parentheses
FY 75 and outyears thru FY 78 TOTAL
$ 5.7 $ 28.5
4.3 21.4
.6 3.0
$10.6 $ 52.9
-0- ( 2.6)
-0- ( .8)
-0- -0-
-0- $( 3.4)
$ 5.7 25.9
4.3 20.6
.6 3.0
$ 10.6 $ 49.5
TABLE 3
Valley Forge General Hospital: Pennsylvania
Discontinue Operation by end FY 74;
Discontinue caretaker operations by
end FY 75
FY 73 FY 74 FY 75 FY 76 and Outyears thru FY 78 Total
Personnel
Civilian
Eliminated
Relocated
Military
Eliminated
Relocated
Total
Eliminated
Relocated
Funding* ($ Millions)
Recurring Savings
OMA
MPA
PEMA
MINOR MCA
HOA
TOTAL
One Time Costs
OMA
MPA
PEMA
MINOR MCA
HOA
TOTAL
Net Savings
OMA
MPA
PEMA
MINOR MCA
HOA
TOTAL
-0- 470
-0- 464
-0- 221
-0- 324
-0- 691 20
-0- 784 1
*costs are shown in parenthesis
.9
.6
-0-
-0-
-0-
4.7
2.3
-0-
-0-
-0-
4.6
2.3
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0- 1.5 7.0 6.9
(4.3)
( .7)
( .2)
( .2)
(1.2)
( .2)
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0- (6.6) ( .2)
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
(3.4)
( .1)
( .2)
( .2)
(1.2)
4.5
2.3
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0- (5.1) 6.8
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
4.6
2.3
-0-
-0-
-0-
6.9
TABLE 4
North Fort Wainwright: Alaska
Excess the North Cantonment area of Fort Wain-
wright by end FY 73
FY 73 FY 74 FY 75 FY 76 and Outyears thru FY 78 Total
Personnel
Civilian
Eliminated
Relocated
Military
Eliminated
Reloacted
109 11 39
-0- -0- -0-
-0- -0- -0-
-0- -0- -0-
19.4
9.8
-0-
-0-
-0-
29.2
(4.5)
( .7)
( .2)
( .2)
(1.2)
(6.8)
14.9
9.1
( .2)
( .2)
(1.2)
22.4
FY 73 FY 74 FY 75 FY 76 and Outyears thru FY 78 Total
Total
Eliminated ** 11 39 .50
Relocated -0- -0- --0- -0-
Funding* ($ Millions) *costs are shown in parenthesis
Recurring Savings
OMA 3.1 .9 2.0 3.0 15.0
MCA/FHMA -0- -0- .2 .4 1.4
TOTAL 3.1 .9 2.2 3.4 16.4
One Time Costs
OMA (2.0) (2.4) ( .4) -0- (4.8)
MCA/FHMA ( .2) (2.7) (1.2) -0- (4.1)
TOTAL (2.2) (5.1) (1.6) -0- (8.9)
Net Savings
OMA 1.1 (1.5) 1.6 3.0 10.2
MCAIFHMA ( .2) (2.7) (1.0) .4 (2.7)
TOTAL .9 (4.2) .6 3.4 7.5
**109 Civ Spaces eliminated because of troop reductions announced in early 1972
TABLE 5
Charleston Army Depot, South Carolina - Place Charleston Army Depot in Inactive
Status by 30 June 74.
FY 73 FY 74 FY 75 FY 76 and Outyears thru FY 78 Total
Personnel
Civilian
Eliminated
Relocated
Military
Eliminated
Relocated
Total
Eliminated
Relocated
Funding* ($ Millions)
Recurring Savings
OMA
One Time Costs
OMA
Net Savings
OMA
-0- -0-
3 1
98 36
24 1
.3
(1.4)
(1.1)
*costs are shown in parenthesis
1.7 1.8
(1.0) -0-
.7 1.8
Mr. SIKEs. I would like to have for the record a detailed analysis of
the costs of closing, the overall savings, and the net savings.
General KJEusSTROM. Yes, sir.
Mr. SIKES. I don't know whether we want it in complete detail for
the record, but we want it for the committee's purposes and we will de-
cide how much will go in the record. I want it called to Dr. Long's
attention when it is available.
General KJJELLSTROM. Fine.
Mr. SIXEs. And the same for all of the services. The clerk will take
care of the three other services.
HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE
General COOPER. We estimated in fiscal year 1973 and fiscal year 1974
operations to be as follows:
[In thousands!
Total
available
Unobligated for Estimated Completed
balance Revenue obligation obligation cases
Fiscal year 1973...... . ______ __ $11, 952 1 $4, 200 $16, 152 $3, 000 385
Fiscal year 1974.... ...__..... .... 13, 152 2 8,805 3 21, 957 4 46, 400 3, 159
1 325 properties.
2 515 properties.
3 Does not include $7,000,000 being requested in fiscal year 1974.
SIncludes total available for obligation $21,957,000 new authorization to assume homeowners' existing mortgages in
the amount of $17,443,000, and the fiscal year 1974 requested appropriation of $7,000,000.
The table tracks through fiscal 1973. We start off with unobligated
balance of $11,952,000. The revenue we expect in fiscal year 1973 is $4,-
200,000 from a total of 325 properties. That gives us a total available
for obligation, which is the sum of those two numbers, of $16,152,000.
We estimate our obligations for fiscal 1973 to be $3 million and com-
pleted cases of 385.
In fiscal 1974 we expect to start off with the unobligated balance
of $13,152,000. We receive $8,805,000 from the sale of 515 properties,
which gives us available for obligation $21,957,000, but with an esti-
mated obligation of $46,400,000, and completed cases of 3,159.
Mr. SIKES. Why is there such a very large increase in the number of
completed cases ?
General COOPER. Because the bases will be shut down primarily dur-
ing fiscal year 1974.
Mr. SIKES. You don't expect to complete all of the work during fis-
cal 1974, do you ?
General COOPER. No, sir. We don't expect to sell all of the houses and
as such we will have assumed quite a few mortgages. So our estimated
obligations are quite a bit larger than the total of 21 million plus the
7 million, and the difference will be that we will have these mortgages.
Mr. SIXES. Heretofore there have not been as many mortgages to as-
sume as you had anticipated. Do you think the picture will not be as
favorable this time as it has been heretofore ?
General COOPER. It is hard to tell, sir. The mortgage rates have gone
up in various places. There might be a big credit crunch which would
make it much more difficult to sell the houses.
Mr. SIXES. That seems to be a problem now with home buying gen-
erally.
Mr. LONG. You say it is getting more difficult to sell the houses?
General COOPER. I think it will be more difficult to sell the houses
because credit is more difficult to get.
Mr. SIRES. Apparently the problem is credit.
Mr. LONG. This may be true. I haven't noticed it in our area. It de-
pends on what you are asking for the house. People are asking fan-
tastic prices for homes. For an acre of land and an old Victorian house
they want $125,000. Of course it is going to be a little slow selling
that. That is what always happens when you are in a real estate market
where prices just skyrocket and everybody thinks he is going to make
a fortune out of selling a particular piece of property.
The actual sale prices, I think, are relevant; I would very much
doubt, considering the tremendous population pressure and need for
homes, that you are going to find any great difficulty in selling homes
and escaping any great loss to the Government. I would think you
would make a profit.
General COOPER. Where the people themselves can sell the homes be-
cause they do have a good market they never request the homeowners
assistance program. It is only where it is a depressed area where the
Government or Army, Navy, Air Force represent a large percentage
so when they move out-
HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE BY LOCAlITY
Mr. LONG. Did you have any study anywhere of our experience in
these instances by locality, the same way we asked on the base clo-
sures, so we can get it all put together ?
Mr. SIKES. Provide it for the record.
Mr. LONG. I think it would 'be tremendously informative.
[The information follows:]
Since enactment of Public Law 89-754, the Homeowners Program has pro-
vided assistance to military and civilian personnel affected by base closure and
realinement actions announced on or after November 1, 1964. The major in-
stallations/bases at which assistance was provided to 25 or more individuals
are shown below :
Installation/base
Total number Total payment
of payments (thousands)
Brookley AFB, Ala---- ..
Norton AFB, Calif-...--.
Sanford NAS, Fla.................... .. .........................
Orlando AFB, Fla ...............-.-..................................
Hunter AFB, Ga.......................... ...------------------------
Turner AFB, Ga ........------------....-. . .---.. ....
Mountain Home AFB, Idaho ..----.... ------------------- --------
Scott AFB, III----........ll . .
Schilling AFB, Kans----
Glasgow AFB, Mont---- ------------ - -
Lincoln AFB, Nebr----- ---
Walker AFB, N. Mex---- .....
Holloman AFB, N. Mex _--- ---
Cannon AFB, N. Mex----
Clinton-Sherman AFB, Okla-..--....... .--' -----_----_-
Olmstead AFB, Pa-- -
Fort Wolters, Tex....--------------------
James Connally AFB, Tex------
Perrin AFB, Tex--- ...........-... ..
Amarillo AFB, Tex...---------------
Briggs AFB, Tex--- ----
Naval Air Station, Sand Point, Wash---....--...-
Larson AFB, Wash---
Misawa Air Base, Japan ....----------------.- -.------
1,909 96, 064
410 825
93 126
52 95
91 87
40 49
45 59
33 75
203 375
38 109
42 64
541 1,888
64 216
43 139
73 361
521 864
163 487
201 485
229 1,132
831 1,871
45 51
57 280
92 374
331 803
The DOD announcement of April 17, 1973, announced 274 realinement actions
affecting military installations. To determine the impact on the homeowners
assistance program, our representatives visited those bases where the major
impact was suspected. These included the Newport and the Quonset Point Naval
complexes in Rhode Island, the Laredo Air Force Base and Fort Wolters in
Texas. As a result of these visits, and taking into account our past experience,
we have concluded that approximately 2,500 payments will be made. Estimated
number of payments by installation/base are:
Number of
Installation/base payments
Newport Naval Complex, R.I------------------------------------------ 750
Quonset Point Naval Complex, R.I------------------------------------- 580
Westover AFB, Mass------------------------------------------------ 120
Naval Test Facility, St. Inigoes, Md 20
Laredo AFB, Tex---------------------------------------------------. 350
Fort Wolters, Tex-------------------------------------------------- 160
Naval Air Station, Albany, Ga---------------------------------------- 120
Naval Air Station, Glynico, Ga--------------------------------------- 230
Hunter Army Airfield, Ga-------------------------------------------- 20
Ramey AFB, R.R-------------------------------------------.....--------- 20
Naval Air Station, Port Mugu/Naval Engineering Laboratory, Port
Hueneme, Calif--------------------------------------------------- 130
Total------------------ ------------------------------------- 2, 500
At this time, we are unable to determine the total cost per installation/base
listed since we cannot predict what real estate market conditions will exist at
the time the homes are placed on the market for sale and the ability of the
market to absorb the impact of the realinement action. Our experience shows
that the impact is the greatest where the base is large compared with the total
population in the area and where closures take place within a short period of
time.
Mr. SIKEs. Will you proceed.
ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED
General COOPER. I believe I have already explained that the 1974 $21
million does not include the $7 million. We will need additional au-
thorization of $17,443,000 to cover those mortgages we have assumed
and haven't been able to sell.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I am avail-
able to answer your questions and shall be pleased to provide such
additional information as you may request.
Mr. SIKES. Thank you.
EXPANSION OF CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
I want to compliment the Army on the fact it has, in this year's
budget, faced up to the family housing problem more realistically than
ever before. This is the kind of progress the committee likes to see. We
hope, if this type of program can be approved, it will be reflected in a
higher morale factor throughout the services.
You discussed to some extent the progress which the Army is making
in reaching a more adequate level of programing in family housing.
Would you care to predict what may happen in the next 5 years? Will
you need a continuing high level of new construction ? Is this the high
point or do you expect to continue at this level?
General COOPER. I think the 6,000 units may be a high point. I
think we will have to continue for a few years at maybe 5,000 units
or so, and thereafter we would expect the number to decline as the
21-111 0 - 73 - c
community support continues to grow and provide additional units
available to military personnel. We try to rely on the communities
but in some places it is difficult.
MOBILE HOME SPACES
Mr. SIKES. You are asking for a large number of mobile home
spaces. Do you foresee a continuation of this high level of mobile
home spaces in the years ahead ?
General COOPER. I think it may continue at this level for several
years. Among the American public, if my reading of the real estate
pages of the newspapers is correct, many, many more people do prefer
mobile homes. As a matter of policy we don't want to provide mobile
homes because we think in the long term the money is better spent on
permanent structures--mobile homes depreciate and deteriorate. On
the other hand if the soldier prefers a mobile home, even though it is
smaller, we do want to provide him a good space. So we will respond
to the request from the local commanders. Our present plan in the
design of mobile home spaces on post is to spread them out, particularly
in posts where we expect to have additional family housing, so as to
be able to site the additional family housing in the same place.
Mr. SIXES. The popularity of mobile homes is easy to understand.
There is no building code which applies, in most cases, so it is the
only low-cost housing now available. The owner isn't getting much of
a house but is getting one he can move around with him. Many people
prefer them. I trust that in your mobile home parks you require that
the trailers be tied down ?
General COOPER. Yes, sir. But even tying them down-
Mr. SIKES. They can't be tipped over as easily by a gust of wind.
General COOPER. You may remember reading that in some of the
tornadoes the mobile homes suffered more.
Mr. SIKES. They do because many of them are not tied down.
General COOPER. We plan in places where there is fairly high in-
cidence of tornadoes to provide some shelter for these people. In many
posts now, Fort Leavenworth, Kans., for example, if there is a tor-
nado-watch, people who don't have basements move in with others
that do.
MO:TE HOMES DEPRECIATION
Mr. LONG. I wonder what the depreciation is on mobile homes. Do
you have any standard figures on that ?
General COOPER. I don't have any standard figures, but I think in
about 5 years they depreciate to almost zero. It depends a lot on how
well they are maintained. I am sure it levels off. They depreciate about
20 percent a year as I remember it.
Mr. LONG. That is horrible.
General KJELLSTROM. YOU can get 10-year loans on them. I have seen
advertisements by credit unions providing for 10-year loans on mobile
homes.
Mr. LONG. And at the end of the 10 years it is worth nothing. Is
that true?
Mr. SIgES. Somebody will use it.
Mr. LONG. I wish we could get a careful statement on this subject
in the record. What are mobile homes worth at the end of the first,
second, 5, 10, 15, 20 years compared with traditional homes? Can we
get some figures on that? I think that would be useful. I am really
shocked. It seems to me an awful lot of people may be lured into
getting a mobile home because it is like buying a car. It is easy to
get in, but people may lose a lot of money and not realize it. It isn't
cheap even on a monthly basis, even ignoring the depreciation.
General COOPER. That is one of the reasons we prefer not to have
mobile homes, because houses don't depreciate. In fact they appreciate.
We will get estimates from both the mobile home people and standard
housing people and compare them.
Mr. LONG. On the standard home the land and the house are part
of a package, and if the house depreciates, the land still appreciates.
I think the comparison ought to be made both ways. I am not sure
that standard housing is depreciating now, because lumber and every-
thing is going up so fast in value it seems to me the houses are in-
creasing in value. If so, I am a little puzzled as to why mobile homes
should be depreciating so rapidly.
Mr. SIKES. Because the mobile home is built without benefit of the
building code, constructed of light material and it doesn't hold up well.
Mr. LONG. It is the way they are built.
Mr. PATTEN. Sunday's paper had an analysis on that. For the
first time there has been a dropoff of the mobile homes. It had in-
creased in the last 3 years, but 'General Motors and others believe, ac-
cording to the article, that they have reached their pinnacle.
Mr. LONG. I wonder whether mobile homes aren't kind of a despera-
tion buy.
General COOPER. I think in some cases they are and by people who
do want to move around.
Mr. LONG. They want a home, but people come to me and say you
can't find any for less than $35,000. That is in a working area. So they
get a mobile home because this is the only way they can get through
the next couple of years. As I say, they are paying a terribly high
price for it. I would feel more comfortable if I knew what the facts
were instead of using offhand figures.
General COOPER. The figures I was giving you are figures I have been
reading in the real estate pages.
Mr. SIREs. Provide what you can to clear up the questions that have
been asked.
[The information follows:]
At least two of every five home buyers in 1971 were reported to have bought a
"mobile home." The basic reason behind this must have been economic. However,
the product quality certainly must have been acceptable.
In the past few years, quality has been a special target for industry upgrading.
The Mobile Home Manufacturer's Association (MHMA), a trade association, rep-
resenting manufacturers of over 70 percent of all mobile homes sold in the United
States, has developed, in conjunction with the American National Standards In-
stitute (ANSI) and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), a perform-
ance standard. "ANSI A-119.1," sometimes referred to as "NFPA No. 501A and
501B." These codes establish minimal acceptable standards for both the units and
the neighborhood in which they are to be located. These codes have either been
adopted, or utilized as models, to delineate minimum standards in 42 States for
mobile homes. Of the 600,000 units of housing manufactured last year, the MHMA
estimate that between 475,000 and 500,000 units were built which met or ex-
ceeded these standards.
These codes place controls on four major aspects of the structure-heating,
plumbing, electrical, and the structural aspects of frame and chassis. Special
emphasis is also placed on durability, comfort, convenience, as well as safety,
including fire resistance.
Resulting from this quality upgrading, has come an increase in mortgage money
availability. Today, the Federal Housing Administration and the Veterans' Ad-
ministration (FHA/VA) will insure a mortgage on a "single wide" (approxi-
mately 10-14 foot) unit for 12 years and on a "double wide" (approximately
20-28 foot) unit for 15 years. In addition, the Farm Credit Administration,
savings and loans, as well as commercial banks have provided financing.
Depreciation rates are yet another subject of interest. The product's longevity
is a 'direct function of the care and treatment provided during its use. Properly
maintained, and barring a catastrophe or malicious abuse, a well-constructed unit
could last indefinitely. The most popular rule of thumb for lenders suggests a de-
preciation of 20 percent the first year, and 10 percent a year for the next 4 years.
Recently, a "Blue Book of Mobile Home Value" has been published by the Judy
Berner Publishing Co., which opts to become the industry standard. This manual
is based on the broad assumption that a typical unit will depreciate to 50 percent
of its initial value in 61/2 years.
SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
Mr. SIRES. How many existing substandard units do you hope to
upgrade?
General COOPER. We have units that have been designated substand-
ard and the people right now pay only 75 percent of their BAQ. These
substandard units, which number slightly more than 6,000, we would
not expect to improve. As a matter of fact the law says once you have
designated units substandard, you shouldn't improve them. We are
basically satisfied with the program we had in fiscal year 1973. Sub-
standard houses, the 6,000 that have been designated plus 1,000 or so
earlier, we probably will not improve. We will probably eventually
declare them excess or even tear them down in some cases.
IMPROVEMENTS
General COOPER. Based upon the latest survey of improvement re-
quirements, which was completed in September-October 1972, the
actual backlog of requirements after completion of the fiscal year 1973
program is approximately $250 million.
Mr. SIKES. What use are you planning for the units which are de-
clared inadequate ? What does the future hold ? Will they continue to
be utilized by eligible personnel for the most part, or by lower rank
or "ineligible" personnel?
General COOPER. They will continue to be used. Eligible personnel
do not have to occupy these. In many cases they do so because it is more
convenient, and in many cases the savings in BAQ is such they are
happy to. To the extent we have ineligible personnel we would let
them occupy them. I think the worst ones we probably should get
rid of.
Mr. SIRES. How many of these substandard units would you pro-
pose to replace in the next 5 or 10 years ?
General COOPER. Possibly up to one-half or about 3,300 units depend-
ing on those determined to be economically retainable.
FAMILY HOUSING DEFICITS
Mr. SIKES. Last year we discussed your deficits, your programable
deficit, your total deficit, and your deficit for ineligibles. For the rec-
ord, bring us up to date on the figures in each of these areas as com-
pared to last year.
[The information follows:]
Last year Army's estimated deficits were :
Programable ------------------------------------------------ 60, 000
Ineligibles ------------------------------------------------------- 58, 000
Total -----------------------------------------------------169, 000
We project our deficit after the fiscal year 1973 program as follows:
Total deficit----- .----------------------------------------- 127, 200
Program safety factor-------------------------------- 148, 200
Programable deficit---------------------------------79, 000
Programable deficit for eligibles ----------------------------------- 61, 000
Programable deficit for ineligibles----------------------------------18, 000
'Program safety factor is computed as 10 percent of the total requirement in the United
States and possessions, and 20 percent of the total requirement in foreign locations.
SAll E-4's are now included in the programable deficit for eligibles.
Mr. SIKEs. What trends have brought about changes in these pro-
jected deficits, and do you expect these trends to continue?
General COOPER. The projected deficit is influenced by strength
changes, increasing assets both military and community, and expanded
eligibility. I will provide a table relating to the calendar years 1971 and
1972 surveys, demonstrating the effects of these factors:
[The table follows:]
Calendar year-
1971 1972
Gross strength................---------------------------------------------------- 846, 000 803, 000
Eligible families------ ----- -------------------------- - . . .435, 000 1 393, 000
Voluntary separations...---------......... ----------------------- - -36, 100 -21,200
Program safety factors..---------------------------------------- -50,900 -48, 200
Assets....------------------......------------------------ -229, 900 -244, 400
Military controlled ---------------------------------- - (132,000) (139,000)
Community.... ..........---------------------------------------- (97,900) (105, 400)
Program deficit ----------------------------------------------- 118,100 79, 200
Eligible - - --...- - -. 60, 100 61,200
Ineligible ---------------------------------------------------------- 58, 000 18, 000
1 All E-4's are counted among the eligibles in the calendar year 1972 survey.
2 Includes an estimated 40,000 E-4's who were not considered to be eligible in the calendar year 1971 survey.
General CooriR. It is anticipated that the strength of the Army will
remain relatively constant through fiscal year 1979.
Military assets will increase as additional programs are approved.
The 6,135 units of new construction for fiscal year 1974 are part of our
overall program to satisfy our housing requirements. We hope to con-
tinue this program at about 4,000 to 5,000 units per year until our total
requirement, including replacements, is met.
The community support will probably increase but not at the pres-
ent rate. The tighter mortgage market will discourage home purchases,
particularly among the lower grades. The difficulty in selling homes
will, in turn, increase the number of rentals available although their
cost may well be prohibitive.
It is expected that the maximum allowable housing cost (MAHC)
will keep pace with pay increases. To the extent that the MAHC
increase is proportional to a pay increase the housing deficit will be
temporarily reduced only to rise again as housing costs rise due to infla-
20
tion. If the MAHC is disproportionately increased, as it was in Janu-
ary 1973, it will, in effect, permanently reduce the deficit.
We hope to expand eligibility for the housing program, however,
from a morale standpoint this may be impracticable until the deficit
for current eligibles is substantially reduced.
Mr. SIKES. This is an important morale factor and I would hope you
will be able to achieve that situation sooner rather than later.
How much of your housing deficit is overseas? How would this be
affected if some troops were brought home ? What would be the effect
on your deficit in the United States ?
General COOPER. We estimate the programable overseas deficit--80
percent limit-to be about 21,000 units for eligible and 8,000 units for
ineligible personnel. In the event that some troops were withdrawn
from overseas areas, the total overseas deficit would be reduced. How-
ever, there could be some locations where consolidation of the remain-
ing troop units would increase the deficit for those specific locations.
Assuming that the troops withdrawn would remain in the force
structure the impact on the deficit in Conus would depend on where
the redeployed personnel were stationed. At installations such as Forts
Campbell and Riley, where a shortage of Government and community
housing already exists, an influx of personnel would aggravate the
situation. On the other hand, installations which currently enjoy an
adequate, and sometimes surplus, supply of Government and economy
housing, such as Forts Lewis and Ord, could absorb a reasonable de-
ployment with little or no substantial effect upon the current housing
situation.
Mr. SIKES. What has been the Army's experience with the rate of
change of the marital factor in the last year or two? Provide an
analysis of that for the record.
[The information follows:]
We have been experiencing considerable fluctuation in marital factors over the
last couple of years as the grade mix of the Army changes and strength reduc-
tions take place. The following tabulation of composite factors is provided based
on current data from selected installations reporting in the surveys of calendar
years 1971, 1972 and 1973.
Officers and warrant officers:
Calendar year : Percent
1971 ------------..___________------------------------------------------. 77.9
1972 .... .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . 79. 2
1972-------------------------------------------------------79.2
1973-------------------------------------------------------75.5
Eligible enlisted (E-4's and above) :
Calendar year:
1971 -------------------------------------------------------- (1)
1972 . .. . . . .. .. . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . 58. 3
1972-------------------------------------------------------58.3
1973 ------------------------------------------------------- 64.3
During comparable periods the Army-wide sample survey of Army personnel
projected the following composite factors:
Officers and warrant officers: Peroent
February 1971------------------------------------------------- 79. 3
February 1972 ---------------------------------------------------- 2.
August 1972---------------------------------------------------85.9
Eligible enlisted:
February 1971---------------------------------------------------(1)
August 1972-------------------- -------------------------- 60.5
August 1972---------------------------------------------------- 68.0
1 Not comparable due to the change of E-4's from only those with u career commitment
to all E-4's being classed as eligibles.
In an attempt to obtain more stability in marital factor projections we in-
structed installations, for purposes of the current year 1973 survey, to use the
August 1972 DCSPER marital factors by individual grades and apply those
factors to the permanent strength as contained in the long range strength au-
thorizations of the installation. This resulted in composite factors for all report-
ing installations of 83.7 percent officers and warrant officers and 68.3 percent for
eligible enlisted. We consider this technique to be the most accurate that can be
devised for projecting marital factors. We believe the factors in the past have
generally been lower than those which will apply to a more stable, smaller force
and that the marital factors will stabilize as the Army grade structure stabilizes.
IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Mr. SIKES. Tell us about the improvements backlog. What would
be a reasonable level of programing for improvements if we are to
meet this need during the 1970's ?
General COOPER. The level would be about $30 million a year. I think
we ask for $28 million in this fiscal year, and the level should probably
be close to about $25 million or $30 million.
Mr. SIKES. In other words, you don't really hope to overcome the
improvements backlog during the 1970's.
General COOPER. No, sir. There is a limit to the number of units we
can take out of operation while we are improving them.
Mr. SIKES. Are you reaching a level that you think is reasonable?
General COOPER. Yes, sir.
MAINTENANCE
Mr. PATTEN. How about maintenance ? They say they need $155 mil-
lion and you are asking for 10 percent or thereabouts for furniture and
other items. I think that is inexcusable. That isn't your question
though.
Mr. SIKES. No. The maintenance problem, as the General's statement
pointed out, is going to get worse rather than better; this is not the
Army's fault. You asked for more money and you got more money, but
it isn't going to go as far. Is that right?
General CooPER. The devaluation of the dollar is costing a tremen-
dous amount, sir.
MINOR CONSTRUCTION
Mr. SIRES. How much of the improvements backlog can be accom-
plished or is being accomplished by minor construction?
General COOPER. Relatively little is accomplished by minor construc-
tion because minor construction normally has to be done on an emer-
gency basis.
Mr. SIKES. What are you using minor construction for primarily ?
General COOPER. I will ask Mr. Bearman to answer.
Mr. BEARMAN. Basically we use minor construction to take care of
those requirements which are above the small individual requirements
we can use O. & M. funds for but which are less than those line items
which normally are included in the annual budget.
Mr. SIKES. What type of items?
Mr. BEARMAN. It would be such things as possibly modifying an
electrical system within the house, to provide for washers and dryers,
modification of exterior utility systems, and possibly installing dish-
washers and garbage disposals in kitchens.
Mr. SIKES. Have you used the additional funds we gave you last year
for minor construction ?
Mr. BEARMAN. Yes, sir, we have. We have limited those funds both
for fiscal year 1972 and 1973 to expenditures for housing the junior
officers and enlisted personnel.
Mr. SIKES. Would it be better to add this money to improvements?
Mr. BEARMAN. Because of the greater flexibility that we have with
the minor construction program, where we can put the funds out
directly to the installation, we would prefer to keep the funding in
the minor construction area. However, with the generous funding
which you have given us in the past few years we have reached the
point where it is almost impossible to develop minor construction
projects without getting into the certificate of urgency or splitting out
the project, which makes it in effect illegal, and still retain it to this
category of housing for junior officers and enlisted personnel.
Mr. SIxES. So you will not need as much in this area as you have
had in the past?
Mr. BEARMAN. That is correct. If there is additional funding we
would desire the limitations on its use for junior officers and enlisted
be eliminated.
Mr. SIKES. Last year the committee provided additional funding
for minor construction in order to take care of urgent requirements
for junior officers' and enlisted housing units. During the course of the
year, we discovered you had spent over $7,000 at Fort Myer to provide
a fourth bedroom and half bath to quarters assigned to a general of-
ficer. You justified this on the basis of the three teenagers at home, in
that household, although one was of college age and another was near
college age. The alterations were hardly completed when the officer
was moved to other quarters and the quarters were assigned to a gen-
eral officer whose family size did not demand so many bedrooms. How
do you explain this in view of the committee's instructions to em-
phasize the upgrading of quarters for lower grade personnel?
General COOPER. I have no satisfactory explanation; we obviously
used poor judgment even though technically we used funds requested
within the normal budget. To be sure we spent the supplementary
funds provided by Congress for improvements to junior officers and en-
listed housing, the Army established specific cost accounts to differ-
entiate between the funds requested in the budget and the supplemen-
tary funds added by Congress.
WIVES' OPINIONS
Mr. SIKEs. Tell us about the result of your discussions with Army
wives on housing. Are you paying any attention to them?
General COOPER. We pay a lot of attention to the wives because if we
don't pay attention to wives, we have to listen to the husbands. But we
are frankly somewhat limited in the amount of funds, in the average
cost per unit, we can use in accomplishing some of the things that
the wives have asked for.
Mr. SIKES. It sounds as if Army wives are similar to other wives.
General COOPER. We listen to the complaints of the wives, many of
which we feel are justified. You are aware of the fact we did this tech-
nical report by the Construction Engineering Research Laboratory?
Mr. SIKES. Yes. Of course the purpose of this is to get the advantage
of Army wives' recommendations on housing. For a long time there
was a justifiable complaint that the military did not ask the wives
what they really needed and wanted most in a house. We have been
trying to overcome that. Do you think we are making any progress?
General COOPER. I think we are making progress in knowing what
their primary complaints are.
Mr. SIKES. Are we doing anything about them ?
General COOPER. We are specifically adding into the 1973 program
improvements that we think address some of their legitimate com-
plaints.
Mr. SIKEs. In the 1973 program ?
General COOPER. In the design of the 1973 program. Mr. Swanson
is the head architect of the Office of Chief of Engineers.
Mr. SIKEs. What about the 1974 program ?
General COOPER. That also.
Mr. SIKES. Give us a few illustrations of the things you have done
to modify the housing that have come about as a direct result of lis-
tening to the wives of the servicemen.
General COOPER. I will give you a few examples and Mr. Swanson
can give you many more.
One of the big complaints was about noise. You can build a house
fairly cheaply, particularly a duplex, if you have the same walls be-
tween houses that you have for interior walls within houses. But in
the design of the housing that is being built now the common walls
are expanded to where there isn't any direct sound conduit from one
house to the other. That was one of the major complaints, the sound
level.
Mr. SIKEs. What else ? Give us a few examples and you can expand
on that for the record.
Mr. SWANSON. We have increased our standards on the laundry areas
which are, as you know, a part of the gross floor area and not the net
floor area, by trying to create a separate laundry facility which also
incorporates some general storage for the tenants. We have in the 1973
program gone to lights in the bedrooms. In years past we have used
a switch receptacle which has created a hardship particularly to lower
grade people who may not have many lamps.
General COOPER. They have lights in the ceiling as opposed to hav-
ing outlets around the rooms.
Mr. SWANSON. We have tried wherever possible to increase the stor-
age related to the housing because again this is something-
Mr. SIXEs. Are you talking about closet space or other storage?
Mr. SWANSON. General storage. This storage is that part which is
not a part of the net floor area. If the space is part of that it is diffi-
cult because you are decreasing rooms already too small.
We have, in the 1973 program, also tried within the neighborhood,
the street environment, to create a situation of more duplex housing,
therefore offering the family greater identity, more privacy, more
space separation.
We have also tried to incorporate a little greater architectural
variety, not repeat the same house.
Mr. SIKES. I think that is very desirable. Complete that answer for
the record.
COST PER HOUSE
How much additional cost has this resulted in per house
Mr. SWANSON. I will have to provide this.
Mr. SInES. All right.
[The information follows:]
The Army, in the fiscal year 1972 program, attempted to upgrade the quality
and livability of these units over those units built in the fiscal year 1971 pro-
gram by using better grade materials and incorporating those features deter-
mined as "desirable" by the occupant surveys. In order to provide a basis of com-
parison of what these features actually cost, the bids received for fiscal year 1972
projects were adjusted to make them comparable to fiscal year 1971 bids by elimi-
nation of costs attributable to escalation and seasonal price variations. On this
basis it was found that it requires approximately $5,000 per unit additional to
incorporate those features and materials which would provide a house of the
desired level of quality and livability. Unfortunately, in view of this large cost
difference, most of the desired features and additions had to be deleted in order
to award contracts that would remain within the statutory cost limitations.
General COOPER. I might add that for the 1973 program we may not
be able to get all of these improvements in within the cost.
Mr. SrKES. Are you talking about the current cost limits or the re-
quested cost limits ?
General COOPER. The 1973 program with a $24000 limitation, which
is the same as 1972.
Mr. SIKES. Probably you won't be able to.
General COOPER. Then we are faced with the dilemma, do we build
a less than desirable house or not build the house at all because we
can't build a satisfactory house.
Mr. SIKES. Have you thought of coming back and asking for 'an
increase in the authorization which applies to 1973 housing? You do
that on other projects. Why not on housing? The cost increases are
real.
General COOPER. Yes, sir. We can come back and ask for additional
authorization. We can also use the 1974 authorization. What we do
is start off with our low-cost areas. For example, we have a large num-
ber of houses at Fort Hood which we program at about $22,000 a house.
If we go close to $24,000 for those houses, we won't be able to build other
houses without coming back for additional authorization.
Mr. SIKES. I think you would be fully justified in asking for addi-
tional authorization. This committee doesn't want you to build sub-
standard houses. The cost increases are there. The only way you are
going to overcome the problem is by having an authorization that
permits you to pay the costs.
General COOPER. That is what we plan to do.
ADEQUACY OF HOUSING REQUIREMENTS SURVEYS
Mr. SIKES. There seems to be some question as to the adequacy of
the surveys which the services have taken. Do you consider community
housing adequate if the occupants of this housing consider it adequate?
Couldn't your housing referral office personnel do a good job in con-
ducting these surveys of the housing assets in the community?
General COOPER. We believe the assessment of the adequacy of com-
munity support by questionnaire responses reflect bias on the part of
the respondee. Normally he is reluctant to say that the housing he has
provided for his family is unsuitable. Further there is no assurance
that his housing will be suitable for his successor. Home ownership is
another consideration becoming more and more common. Most military
personnel buying homes are certainly going to classify their house as
adequate. An unknown number of these units are purchased for retire-
ment and will not be available as a military asset in the future. How-
ever under the current survey guidance, we must count as a long range
asset all community housing classified as adequate by the respondee.
The housing referral office maintains the record of vacant housing
in the community and is the source of this data for survey purposes. An
increasing number -of installations are assigning responsibility for
the requirements survey to housing referral personnel.
DISCUSSIONS WITH FHA AND COMMUNITY
Mr. SIREs. Have you discussed your proposed construction program
with local officials ? What has been the reaction ?
General COOPER. Local officials are kept apprised of our activities
by the installation commanders and housing referral offices. Addition-
ally, all commanders are directed to discuss planned construction pro-
grams with local officials. Reactions vary somewhat but are generally
favorable. At Fort Polk, La., and in the State of Hawaii, for example,
the local reaction has been enthusiastic. At Fort Campbell, Ky., the
public has been carefully informed of the size and scope of the project
and appears to be in agreement. There has been no unfavorable reac-
tion to this years program except that the FHA has raised questions
concerning four projects: Fort Eustis, Fort Monroe, Fort Riley, and
Tobyhanna Army Depot. Commanders of these installations are in
contact with local FHA officials to resolve -any differences.
STATUS OF PRIOR PROGRAMS
Mr. SIKES. What is the status of prior-year programs ?
General COOPER. We can give you a complete rundown on all of
the prior year programs starting with fiscal year 1972.
Mr. SIKES. While you are looking, I am going to ask whether some
of the projects have a doubtful requirement or no requirement, whether
some have been delayed due to cost or for any other reasons?
General COOPER. I can give you a complete answer. All projects in
the 1970-71 programs are complete except for Mishawa, Japan, Fort
Polk, La., Natick Laboratories, Mass., and Hawaii, all of which are
under construction.
Seven of the nine projects in the 1972 program are under construc-
tion or awarded. And 13 of the fiscal year 1973 projects are being de-
veloped. We should have gotten 'bids on the first 1973 project yesterday.
With regard to the 1972 program specifically, as I think the com-
mittee is already aware, we were unable to award the Carlisle Bar-
racks and the 'Grand Forks projects because of not having sufficient
authorization. We did award the one at Camp Drum. We plan to ask
for special authorization to exceed the average cost limit for Grand
Forks, and we plan to put the project for Carlisle Barracks in the
1975 program.
Mr. SIKES. Are any of the projects for a doubtful or zero require-
ment as of now ?
General COOPER. In the 1973 program we have 100 sets of quarters
scheduled for Fort Monmouth. Based on the April announcement
which shifts most of the Signal School to Fort Gordon, that project'
becomes tenuous. So we are holding that one in abeyance.
Also in the 1972 program we have reduced the number of units at
Grand Forks. But the rest of them in the 1972 program we expect to
carry out. Those units at Grand Forks in the 1973 program were
deleted.
Mr. SIKES. Are any delayed due to cost problems ?
General COOPER. Just the two. In the 1972 program I mentioned
the two delayed by cost, Carlisle Barracks and Grand Forks. In the
1973 program we won't know until we get the first few bids. We would
expect there may well be some delay because of costs.
Mr. SIKES. How many were delayed for other reasons than costs?
General COOPER. None other than the one I mentioned in 1973.
Mr. NICHOLAS. DO you anticipate that there will be a large number
of projects in the 1973 program for which you will have to come back
and ask for expanded cost limitation.
General COOPER. We anticipate we might have to come back and
ask for authorization for maybe half of them.
Mr. NICHOLAS. When will you know that ?
General COOPER. We plan to adhere to those improvements that we
think are really necessary and not just nice to have.
Mr. SIKEs. The committee recommends that you do so.
Mr. NICHOLAS. When will you be in a position to know ?
General COOPER. We will have a fairly good idea on some of the
places when we evaluate the bids. We don't have the results yet.
Mr. SIKES. Are you going to bids before you decide whether you must
come back for additional authorization ?
TURNKEY
General COOPER. Yes, sir. But the bids include turnkey in almost
every case.
Mr. SIKES. You are using turnkey in most instances?
General COOPER. Yes, sir. We plan to use it in all except for the two
units in Nome and Bethel, Alaska, and perhaps Hawaii. We are going
to try to award within the bids. If we don't make the bids, we will come
back.
Mr. SIKES. Let's expedite that as much as possible.
General COOPER. Yes, sir.
HUD HOUSING
Mr. PATTEN. What is the status of the Army's military set-aside 236
program?
General COOPER. I have quite a few details, sir. Basically, the 1973
program is being delayed completely because of the moratorium. In
the 1972 program we have Fort Richardson, Alaska, where construc-
tion is stopped in 100 units.
At Fort Belvoir we have 100 units. The sponsor requests an increase
in mortgage and we have to get approval by FHA.
We have Fort Bragg and Fort Devens delayed by the moratorium.
In the 1971 program we have 300 units at Fort Meade, Md., which
have been completed and occupied. In Hawaii, 200 are completed and
occupied. At Fort Carson, Colo., we have 400 units. Two hundred of
these are completed, and some people should have moved in. I believe at
my regular hearings I discussed the problem we had at Fort Carson,
where 200 others were stopped because of the financing problem.
I think that gives you a general rundown. I can provide more detail
for the record.
[The information follows:]
STATUS OF HUD SEC. 236 HOUSING PROJECTS AS OF JULY 1, 1973
Projects Construction
withdrawn completed Construction Being Delayed
Housing by the by July1, Under started and developed by HUD
Army installation units Army 73 construction delayed by FHA moratorium
Fiscal year 1971 pro-
gram:
Fort Meade--...---..----. 300 --------.. ----.. 300 ......------------------------------------
Hawaii ....----------- 200 ............ 200 -------........ -----------------------------
Fort Carson. .... 400 ............ ----------- 200 ...------------ 200
Fort Knox.......----------. 100 100 ... ..-----------------------------------
Vint Hill........-----------. 100 100 -------.. .... ---------------------------------
Total-.......... 1,100 200 700 .....--- _... 200 ...-----------..........
Fiscal year 1972 pro-
gram:
Fort Richardson.... 100 ....----------....................----------------------- 3100 ..............
Fort Belvoir....... 100 ...------------------------------------------ 100 ...
Fort Benning-----... 100 100 ----...... ---------------------------------------
Fort Bragg....... 150 .---------------....................................------------------------------------- 150
Fort Devens.... 200 ..... ..----------------------------------------------------.. 200
Fort Ord...----.....------. 100 ------------------------ 100 .......-------------------------
Fort Dix ...-----------........ 100 ---------- -----------------------------------------. 100
Fort Eustis...... 100 ...............------------------------------------------ 100 ...
Fort Lee--------........-- 100 ..............------------------------------------------ 100 --
Hawaii..--------... -----.... 100 ........... ..--------------------------------------------- 100
Total............ ------------ 1,150 100 ........... 100 100 300 550
I Fiscal year 1971 Hawaii units are included in 5 triservice projects consisting of 689 units. 3 projects including 298
units are completed. 1 project (120 units) will be completed in August 1973 and 1 project (271 units) is scheduled for
completion in December 1973.
Sponsor of 1 Fort Carson project (200 units) has had financing difficulty.
s Fort Richardson project delayed pending resolution of who is responsible for construction of access road to site.
Note: HUD has been requested to substitute the following projects for those withdrawn from the abov e programs:
Fort Campbell, 200; Fort Bragg, 100. Fiscal year 1973 program, 1,150. Not accepted by HUD. Delayed by moratorium.
Mr. PATTEN. I think the members are very interested in this.
General COOPER. Basically with the 236 program we expect some
problems because of the fact that enlisted men, the lower grade enlisted
men, whom we look to this program to help out, their military pay is
now at such a level in many cases that it is difficult to get them into
the house. They don't qualify in other words.
Mr. PATTEN. Do you like the 236 program?
General COOPER. Yes, sir, if we can use it to get the lower grade en-
listed men housed. The units I saw out at Fort Carson were nice look-
ing houses and I think will meet a very real need.
Mr. PATTEN. You don't have our problem with the community. We
run into a lot of flak on the 236 program-
General COOPER. Yes, sir.
Mr. PATTEN. because of poor judgment on the part of some welfare
and real estate people who have no regard for a neighborhood.
General COOPER. That is a definite problem, sir. It is a definite prob-
lem in the inadequate or substandard housing. You have to keep
enough people there of the higher ranks to be sure it doesn't become
a slum which is very easy since we are not spending as much money
to maintain it.
Mr. SIKES. How many additional projects do you seek under the
236 set-aside?
General COOPER. That whole program is suspended now, sir.
Mr. SIKES. I know that, but how many do you anticipate you will
seek if it is allowed to go ahead ? Provide that for the record.
General COOPER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SIKES. Tell us what you need, and what year-by-year requests
you anticipate making within the -next few years if the program is
allowed to continue.
[The information follows:]
The Army would recommend a program of 1,000 units per year for the next 5
years if the criteria are changed to insure our lower grade enlisted personnel
qualify 'and if units can be built where we need them in projects of from 20
to 250 units.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IHUD SUPPORT
Mr. SIKES. DO you have any recommendations on providing better
community support through HUD programs for our military popu-
lations?
General COOPER. Yes, sir. We think that HUD subsidized housing
should include a higher percentage of three bedroom units when re-
quirements are certified by the Army. We think HUD should also en-
courage the building of smaller projects, less than 50 units, to satisfy
the requirement where there is a. small but critical need.
We also have the problem that HUD will not certify projects where
there is insufficient demand to support them in the event the military
moves out.
Mr. SIKES. You will recall that this committee was able to persuade
the Banking and Currency Committee in their housing bill of last year
to include a section which would permit this type housing to be built
solely to meet a military requirement. The bill did not become an actu-
ality. Presumably it will be included in this year's bill. I presume the
Army still supports that concept.
General COOPER. Yes, sir.
Mr. NICHOLAS. By programing for eligible personnel on base and by
providing 236 housing off base for personnel, who are becoming of in-
creasingly lower pay grades-because as their pay goes up those in
the higher pay grades can't qualify-is there a possibility of getting
an imbalance of low income people off base and high income on base?
Are there other programs that HUD could get into which would
help you to put more of your middle income people off base ? By mid-
dle income I mean high grade NCO's or junior officers.
Mr. PATTEN. If I can help you out on this, General, the first housing
we had you couldn't make over $1,600 a year. HUD has historically
conformed to the reality. So with your pay raise I assume HUD will
also allow a higher ceiling.
General COOPER. We specifically faced the problem in Fort Carson
and we had to separately negotiate.
But in answer to your question I think we would prefer to have a
balanced program where E-1's to E-4's were authorized to live on
post.
Mr. SIKES. Of course that is your objective and presumably you will
get to it eventually. You now include the E-4's in your programing,
but you still have a long way to go to get to the E-1's, E-2's, and E-3's.
General COOPER. Yes, sir, we do. As an objective, if the community
can provide the housing, we prefer that. What we prefer to do is pro-
vide adequate pay for the military so they can be housed properly.
I don't have a good answer to your question.
BID EXPERIENCE
Mr. SIxEs. What, if any, has been the Army's bid experience with
family housing in recent months ?
Mr. SWANSON. Our latest experience was the fiscal year 1972 pro-
gram. We also strove this year to increase our standards to be more
responsive. We therefore advertised all the projects at higher stand-
ards than we have in the past. In the continental United States the
bid that was received for the one project at Fort Hood that was ad-
vertised by conventional procurement procedures exceeded grossly
the programed amount. Many of the items of quality we desired were
lost. These were such things as brick veneer sidings, carports, side-
walks, so on.
Four projects were advertised as turnkey. Those were Gordon,
Bragg, Jackson, and Carson. On all four of these projects the bids
received grossly exceeded funds available, and again the same ameni-
ties were taken out of these projects.
We have the bedroom lights, the added laundry facilities and
storage.
In the case of Grand Forks, this was a turnkey project. The bids
exceeded funds available and the project was deferred.
Carlisle Barracks was bid first as a conventional project and then
bid as a turnkey project. In both instances .proposals received grossly
exceeded funds available. This project 'has also been deferred. Camp
Drum Iwas awarded at its base proposed price at a higher sum than
originally programed as a result of reprograming funds from Carlisle
and Grand Forks.
Yesterday we opened proposals on our first fiscal year 1973 project
at Fort Hood, Tex. You will recall this is a very large project of 1,000
units. We received five proposals. Two of them exceed the funds ad-
vertised as being available. We 'have only now this morning initiated
an evaluation of these turnkey proposals. It will be some time before
we know whether we have--
Mr. SIKEs. I did not understand. Are they within the funds
available?
Mr. SWANSON. The dollar sign was within the funds advertised.
We don't know what we were buying for that money yet.
BACKLOG OF FAMILY HOUSING APPROVED
Mr. SIKEs. This question comes to mind. It is already fiscal 1974.
You have just taken bids on the first of the fiscal 1973 program. You
have asked for a large number of houses for fiscal year 1974. The com-
mittee wants to help you with your housing problem, but will you be
able to handle a large 1974 program on top of a 1973 program which is
just now beginning ?
Mr. SWANSON. Yes, sir, our schedule involves completion of the
1973 program in November. We will be on a very regular schedule
beginning to receive proposals. Next Monday we are scheduled to re-
ceive proposals at Benning and Bragg, for example.
Mr. PATTEN. In some previous years it has been Christmastime be-
fore we passed the bill. It might be Christmastime before you get the
1974 bill, so half the year will be gone.
Mr. LONG. You say by November you will already have completed
your obligation of your 1973 housing appropriations.
Mr. SWANSON. There is an exception to this. The two projects in
metropolitan Washington, Walter Reed and Belvoir, are currently
being delayed.
Mr. LONG. But, substantially, you will have completed 1973.
What is your schedule for the 1974 projects that you are currently
asking for?
Mr. SWANSON. The reason for the delay in the 1973 advertisement,
we restructured our trunkey procurement procedures.
We have started site investigations for 1974. We hope to advertise
those this winter, starting probably in February.
Mr. LONG. When do you expect to have completed obligating those
funds?
Mr. SWANSON. We hope it would be by July of 1974.
Mr. LONG. In other words, by the end of the fiscal year 1974 you will
have completed obligating them ?
Mr. SWANSON. We did this, you will recall, in the 1971 program.
Mr. LONG. You did ?
Mr. SWANSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. LONG. Did the bells ring out all through the land ?
Mr. SWANSON. They did in my office.
INFLATION ALLOWANCE
Mr. SIXEs. How much allowance for inflation is included in the fiscal
year 1974 program?
General COOPER. For the 2 years between 1972 and 1974 we allowed
14.6 percent.
Mr. SIKES. Is this realistic ?
General COOPER. We think it is realistic for those 2 years.
Mr. SIRES. I would like to have details on the most current projec-
tions for the record.
[The information follows:]
Current projections by our cost engineers indicate inflation in housing con-
struction over the 2-year period to be between 14 and 15 percent. The 14.6 per-
cent will be adequate to cover inflation, but will not provide for technological
updating or increased floor areas for future design as recommended by the
Army.
ARMY'S RECOMMENDED UNIT COSTS
Mr. SIIES. What were the Army's recommendations to OSD on cost
limitations for fiscal 1974?
General COOPER. We recommended $33,000, sir.
Mr. SIKES. That is considerably higher than the $27,500 which you
have been allowed to request. Would you comment on what you were
seeking that you didn't get ?
General COOPER. Yes, sir. We were seeking adequate space; we were
seeking carports, and many of the things we were seeking we think
should be done initially. Some of these things you can postpone until
later and handle as improvements, but you cannot postpone making
the bedrooms larger or you can't postpone whether you will have brick
veneer as opposed to just wood siding and things like that. I can ex-
pand for the record on that.
Mr. SIKEs. If you will.
[The information follows:]
The request for $33,000 per unit for the fiscal year 1974 program was based
on the bid experience gained in the fiscal year 1972 program at the base bid level.
Generally, except for added floor area, the base proposals received reflected the
Army's desires to upgrade standards in light of a considered evaluation of les-
sons learned through the "user needs" surveys and bad experience gained in the
light construction materials utilized from prior years. Specifically within the
house measures were taken to select harder exterior finishes (masonry or war-
ranted sidings), improve the architectural styling (greater variety), increase the
relationship of gross to net floor area (increased storage and utility spaces),
provide carports, expand electrical facilities, improve acoustical privacy, upgrade
hardware, millwork, and interior finishes (builders hardware, kitchen cabinets
and trim, hardwood floors, etc.), upgrade carpentry standards (provide sheath-
ing behind siding and add underlayment below resilient flooring), and add
amenities to livability such as dishwashers, vanities in bathrooms, and drapes in
living room. Related to siting, we reduced the density (utilize more duplex-type
housing), expanded the use of underground electrical distribution, widened
streets, expanded provisions of sidewalks, tot lots, recreational space, off-street
parking, landscaping, and privacy screening.
Obviously, we were not able to award all these amenities. Generally we were
forced through deducts and negotiation to omit many such items, such as: hard-
ened exterior finishes, carports, expanded electrical facilities, upgrading of
hardware, millwork, and interior finishes, vanities, drapes, sidewalks, tot lots,
and privacy screening. Projecting the fiscal year 1972 bid experience into fiscal
year 1974 at the $27,500 level we anticipate that in addition to the same items lost
in fiscal year 1972 we will be required to cut back on our gross areas, continue
the light construction practices and materials, increase land use densities and
reduce our standards of street widths and parking, minimize recreational space,
and abandon underground electrical distribution.
Number of Area Average Base
units index area cost Area Place Time
Fiscal year:
1972.... 1,158 0.9443 1,274 22, 417 ...
1974---....----------- 5,135 0.98 1,540 ----... ....-------- 27, 097 26,555 30,352
To this we add $2,280 for landscaping, GFE design and SIOH which makes
$32,632 which was rounded out at $33,000.
General KJaELLSTROw. This is a very important matter from the
standpoint of the Army to achieve and gain approval of the standards
of housing that are acceptable to our personnel and will survive down
through the years.
We have had significant complaints, as you well know, from our oc-
cupants, the wives, and the principals, about having adequate size of
bedrooms for example, and adequate size of closets. This is high on
our priorities list and we are working energetically to convince the re-
21-111 0 - 73 - 3
sponsible personnel they should approve our proposals and increase
our standards significantly.
Mr. SIKES. It would appear you were within about 80 percent of it.
If you asked for 33 and got 27.5.
TURNKEY
What has been the Army's experience with the use of turnkey?
Where are you proposing to use it in 1974 ? Provide details on that for
the record.
[The information follows:]
The Army's experience is as follows:
Fiscal 1970:
One-step:
Units
Fort Carson-__-------------------------------------- 150
Two-step :
Fort Meade------------------------------------------- 250
Fiscal year 1971:
Two-step :
Grand Forks------------------------------------------------ 200
Fort Carson---------------------------------------------- -- 240
Fort Leavenworth------------------------------------------- 150
Rock Island---------------------------------- 40
Sacramento ----------------------------------------------- 1
One-step :
Natick Laboratory------------------------------------------- 28
Fiscal year 1972:
Turnkey:
Fort Jackson----------- ----------------------------- 300
Fort Gordon-------------------------------------- ---- 200
Fort Carson-------------------------------------- 200
Fort Bragg ------------------------------------------- 150
Carlisle Barracks (failed) --------------------------------- 60
One-step :
Camp Drum -------------------------------------------88
Grand Forks (failed) -----------------------------------90
The fiscal year 1970 and 1971 projects have now been completed long enough
for the projects to be evaluated.
Fiscal year 1970, Fort Carson-All single story duplex units of same floor plan
but some architectual styling variety on the exterior. Site planning was linear
with minimal landscaping. Considerable problems have been reported due to
project's extensive maintenance.
Fiscal year 1970, Fort Meade-All two-story row house units, with some archi-
tectural styling variety on the exterior. Site planning was cluster configuration
with large paved auto entry courts. There have been numerous problems related
to maintainability. Exterior siding material has in part been replaced due to
failures.
Fiscal year 1971, Grand Forks-Units procured by turnkey have proven to be
marginal quality. Designed as single story duplexes of ligth frame construction.
No maintenance problems have been reported to date. Siting was of a linear
pattern.
Fiscal year 1971, Fort Carson-Single story townhouse configuration of con-
siderable styling improvement over fiscal year 1970. Siting was a cluster pattern.
No maintenance problems reported to date.
Fiscal year 1971, Fort Leavenworth-Two story row houses with poor archi-
tectural exterior styling and marginal floor plans. Generally one of our poorer
projects, designed in a linear pattern of site development off cul-de-sacs. No
unusual maintenance problems reported to date.
Fiscal year 1971, Rock Island-Two story townhouses designed in cluster
patterns. Good exterior architectural styling and floor planning. Generally one
of our exceptionally good projects with no maintenance problems reported.
Fiscal year 1971, Sacramento-Single story single unit of good planning and
styling. No unusual maintenance problems have been reported.
Fiscal year 1971, Natick Lab-Only recently awarded and under construction.
Will have good floor planning and architectural styling. Site is designed in a
linear pattern off cul-de-sac street patterns.
Generally turnkey has not proven to be a panacea to the Army's problem of
improving quality While maintaining the cost line. The advantage of one-step
turnkey is a closer relationship of proposed quality to available funding.
We anticipate that we will be issuing RFP's for one-step turnkey procure-
ments in all of the fiscal year 1974 CONUS projects. Advertisements are sched-
uled to be started in February 1974 and essentially to 'be complete with procure-
ment actions for all projects by July 1974.
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS
Mr. SIKES. What number of two-bedroom units are you proposing
in fiscal year 1974?
General COOPER. Six of the projects will have two-bedroom units.
There will be 30 units for company grade officers and 695 for non-
commissioned officers, making a total of 725 two-bedroom units in the
proposed fiscal year 1974 program.
TOWNHOUSES
Mr. SIKES. Are you proposing to build townhouses in the fiscal year
1974 program?
General COOPER. We will use turnkey procurement so the choice of
the house is up to the proposer, but we expect townhouses will be used
on essentially all of the 1974 projects. The driving factor in that
regard will be the required density and funding limitations.
Mr. SIKES. When you build townhouses, you lose the privacy and
space you were just discussing.
General COOPER. Yes, sir. You can have privacy with townhouses
if you have adequate fences in the back and adequate play lots. You
can compensate.
Mr. LONG. By townhouse you mean a row house basically ?
General COOPER. It used to be called a row house, yes, sir.
Mr. LONG. Of course, Baltimore is the world's center for row houses.
They are very popular there for many reasons.
One of the arguments, in contrast to what the chairman just sug-
gested, is that they offer more privacy, rather than less, for the simple
reason that there is a blank wall between you and your neighbor in-
stead of sets of windows on both sides. Once you get in the front door,
nobody sees any more of you. These homes have a great many other
advantages, but I think privacy is signficant.
Mr. SIKES. And it depends on how thick the wall is.
General COOPER. If It is a good wall, there is privacy inside, but
there is no privacy immediately outside.
Mr. SIKES. Do you propose to acquire additional property in 1974?
General COOPER. We have no property requirements for fiscal year
1974.
LEASING AND RENTAL GUARANTEE PROGRAMS
Mr. SIKES. Tell us about the leasing and rental guaranty programs
overseas. Are you getting away from rental guaranty and more into
leasing?
General COOPER. Yes, sir. We had one project for almost 2,000 units
over in Germany on rental guaranty. We thought we were getting
somewhere. We even had one proposal, but the latest devaluation
wiped that out, so we are back at square 1 in terms of the rental guar-
anty. We think leasing probably is the better route, but only if we
have enough money to do this.
Mr. NICHOLAS. You said you figured $250 for leasing whereas the
other is $375.
General COOPER. Yes, sir. $375.
The devaluation has been almost a third over the period of time.
Mr. SIRES. Are you proposing any lease construction ?
General COOPER. I don't think so, sir.
Mr. STES. Where will you undertake leasing or rental guarantee
in the coming year ?
General COOPER. To the extent that additional units are authorized
for leasing and adequate cost limitations are established, we will con-
tinue to expand both the leasing and rental guarantee programs, pri-
marily in Germany.
Mr. SIrES. For domestic and foreign leases, provide ceilings and
actual leases used for the record.
[The information follows:]
On June 30, 1973 we had 3,241 domestic leases authorized and 2,886 actually
in effect. We had 1,391 foreign leases authorized and 1,030 in effect.
Mr. SIRES. Are you fully utilizing the leasing authority that you
have?
General COOPER. No, all of the family housing leases authorized
are not in effect at the present time.
As of May 1, 1973, we had 3,241 domestic lease units authorized,
2,830 actually under lease. The requirement for the leasing hasn't gone
down, but when OSD increased the maximum allowable housing cost
effective in January of this year, people who had been authorized sud-
denly weren't authorized.
We did 'have practically all of our authorized foreign leasing in
effect except in Europe where 500 additional lease units were approved.
VARIOUS METHODS OF ACQUIRING HOUSING
Mr. DAVIs. You have used the terms 236 set-aside, turnkey, Cape-
hart, and Wherry. Tell us, what is the difference among the four, and
where would you normally use each of them ?
General COOPER. The Wherry program was a program in the early
1950's and even earlier, where we procured a large number of houses
in a big hurry. Wherry housing units were relatively small. I think
the average cost was less than $9,000 apiece. We have not been build-
ing new Wherry units for many years. Many of the Wherry units are
being declared inadequate. Some 6,000.
Those which we can improve at a reasonable cost we are trying
to improve by adding space to them, adding bathrooms and so forth.
The Capehart housing came along later, and that was on a slightly
different basis.
Mr. DAvrS. Was Wherry Government-purchased housing?
General CoOPER. No, Wherrv actually was owned by individuals,
and most of it was later acquired specifically by the Government.
The Capehart housing was a large-scale program that was funded
by banks, not MCA. That was a successful program in providing a
large number of houses over a short period of time. The housing was
better than the Wherry, but I understand that the Capehart was
stopped because some Members of Congress felt that the Capehart
was getting around the congressional prerogative to appropriate funds.
Capehart housing could be built without the specific appropriation.
Mr. DAvrs. Were these units then leased to the Government?
General COOPER. These units were not leased directly to the Gov-
ernment.
Mr. Bearman tells me they were immediately acquired after they
were built and the government picked up the mortgage. They were
built by the private contractors with mortgages but not through the
Government.
The 236 housing is a special section under which HUD provides
subsidized housing. I believe the builders pay but 1 percent interest.
This housing is designed for low-income people. Some of the lower
ranks who are married and not authorized housing on the post, are
qualified.
Turnkey is a method of procurement. These others are different
categories of housing. You have conventional procurement, which we
used to use, where we do the design work and go out and ask people to
bid on our designs.
Under turnkey, we attempt to take maximum advantage of the local
builder's experience. We go out and we tell him roughly what we want.
He comes back, or the different proposals come back to us. We are not
required to award a contract solely on the basis of cost.
We look at the various proposals to determine what provides the
best value to the Government. The builder handles it all' the way
through the design and construction. That is using military construe-
ton funds, not mortgaged in any way.
Mr. DAvIs. In terms of new construction currently, we are talking
then about either conventional construction or turnkey?
General COOPER. That is right. In terms of new construction, we are
talking about, in essence, almost entirely turnkey. By giving the
builder flexibility, we are estimating we might save as much as $750
on a $27,000 house.
Mr. SIxEs. This is really practical only in areas where you have a
rather sophisticated and large-scale housing capability.
General COOPER. It doesn't have to be immediately adjacent to the
area where you are building it, but within a few hundred miles you
should have people who are qualified. They will move out, mobilize, and
build a large housing project at a place like Fort Polk. The greater
the amount of industry you have at an installation, the easier it is to
get qualified bidders. Of course, if you have a lot of industry, you
may not need to have military construction of family housing.
Mr. SIKES. Talking about the current program, in terms of new con-
struction we are not any longer talking about Wherry; we are no
longer talking about Capehart, but we might be talking about 236;
we might be talking about turnkey, or we might be talking about di-
rect contract construction.
General CooPER. That is correct.
BUDGET BOGEY SHIFTED TO HOUSING
Mr. SIKES. We were advised that at least one branch of the service,
in addition to the allocation made by the Office of the Secretary of
Defense to the family housing program, applied additional service
funding to their family housing program. Is that true with respect to
the Army ?
General COOPER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SIKES. How do we segregate it out?
General COOPER. You can't segregate it out.
Basically what we did was add approximately $100 million that we
took out primarily from procurement accounts and put it into family
housing. Even though funds are segregated between the defense hous-
ing program and the Army military construction in the appropriation
bills, as far as the Army is concerned we do have the total program to
worry about. It was up to Mr. Froehlke and General Kjellstrom in
looking at the total needs of the Army to decide that we needed more
money to provide the housing than some particular procurement.
In some cases we had specific savings. I believe they came from the
"wheels study" whereby the Army reduced by some 25 percent the
number of vehicles it planned to have in its inventory. A detailed track
of just where the funds came from would be very difficult.
General Kjellstrom may want to amplify.
General KJELLSTROM. Sir, as far as the $542 million in family hous-
ing is concerned, which is being addressed by this committee, this is
the total amount of money for housing U.S. Army personnel in Gov-
ernment quarters. However, within the military personnel appropria-
tion, of course, we have quarters allowances for those personnel who
live off post.
The procedure General Cooper was talking about was applied before
submission of the President's budget. In our initial planning which
took place early in calendar year 1972 we had planned a lesser amount
for family housing and more in the procurement account. As a result
of the evaluation of priorities within the Department of the Army
during formulation of the budget late in 1972 we determined that
family housing was more important than some items of equipment
scheduled for procurement.
Going back to our initial question, Mr. Davis, I don't understand
how another service could identify funds other than family housing
and the quarters allowance out of the military personnel appropria-
tion, to provide family housing.
Mr. DAVIS. I think probably it is the same process to which General
Cooper referred.
We discussed this matter with Mr. Sanders and I believe the Navy
figure was $20 million, if I recall, which had to come out of the
Navy's budget. It is similar to the $100 million that you have just
discussed here.
Is this kind of getting around the Defense Department's evaluation
of the overall Defense Department housing program ?
General KJELLSTROM. No, sir, this is part of the overall program
development. As you know, we have a 5-year program and we are
right now involved in determining what are the levels for 1975 through
1979. During the initial stages of program development we have sig-
nificant differences of opinion between the functional areas, program
managers, and between and among the services on how much should
go into each particular category of funding.
The amount of money that is in the President's budget, as submitted
to you, this $542 million for family housing, represents the approved
position of the Secretary of Defense as agreed upon by the Secretary
of the Army and the Chief of Staff.
In the inner workings of the Pentagon there are undoubtedly some
people that think that we have varied from their initial levels, but as
far as the final figure is concerned as submitted by the President, we
have a balanced program among all appropriations and among the
various functional areas.
Mr. DAvIs. Somewhere along the line the Defense Department gave
you an allocation for family housing which you then decided to alter.
Then you went back to the Defense Department and got them to ap-
prove the alteration ? Is this what happened ?
General KJELLSTROM. Yes, sir. Precisely. As part of the program de-
cision memorandum of about a year ago where they said, "This is your
tentative program level for fiscal year 1974," they came out with x
dollars. I haven't the precise number. Do you, General Cooper?
In our evaluation of our requirements, we determined we needed
more family housing, recognizing the priorities in our movement to-
ward an All-Volunteer Force. We went back to the Office of the Sec-
retary of Defense on the 1st of October when we submitted the fiscal
year 1974 President's budget and requested an increased amount by an
internal adjustment within our authority, and this internal adjustment
was approved.
General COOPER. I believe this is a relatively recent phenomenon in
terms of the Department of Defense in allowing the services to re-
program from procurement into family housing. We think it makes
sense because the Secretary of the Army has the responsibility for the
entire Army, and his prerogative in terms of where he is going to apply
the total available resources should be given weight.
Mr. DAVIs. Is this in effect crippling the procurement program from
what the Department of Defense anticipated it ought to be when the
original allocations were made ?
General KJELLSTROM. No, sir. We feel we have a better balanced
program now. We are buying essential items of equipment. We are
not buying up to the full 100 percent authorization, but our plans
over a 5-year period provide for maintaining an adequate level of
equipment.
Mr. PATTEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be the advocate of the
Army.
It is obvious to me as I sit here and listen to you, that even if you
build 6,000 units under this program, you won't even take care of your
obsolescence in Wherry housing and other areas. I will bet you don't
even stay equal. Is that a fair statement, General?
You have 143,000 units. They are now 20-some years old.
General COOPER. We have 20,000 Wherry and 35,000 Capehart. We
have a total of some 140,000 units in our inventory. We have spent a
lot of money maintaining most of these. You are right for fiscal year
1974, you might say, since we declared 7,000 or 6,600 or so inadequate
or substandard, and we are building 6,000 new, but we don't think that
is going to have to go on.
Mr. PATTEN. This is the greatest crisis I have in my district. Hous-
ing. The people who make decisions above you ought to be aware that
my policemen and firemen are priced out of the housing market. No-
body is building anything under $45,000. I know something about this.
I devoted a good part of my life to mortgage financing and new con-
struction before I came down here, and there is just no way. When
you say you need $33,000 and they want to hold you to $27,500, then
you are defeating our purpose. You are certainly going to defeat this
Volunteer Army, if other factors haven't already defeated it.
There is no way. Other people don't know this. Now, in addition,
you have the new interest rates.
If you want to look at the housing in the community and see what
obsolescence has done in 20 years, you don't have to leave the District
of Columbia. I went over to T Street this morning. It is terrible what
these people endure during the heat on some of these 90-degree days.
You can't help but say. for the U.S. Capital, this is a disgrace.
I don't see much being done for the individual when it comes to
housing in the District of Columbia. I don't think they have had any
success at all. When you think of your advantages of having the land
and not having to pay taxes, I think it is inexcusable that you people
don't at least keep up. I don't think this number of units for next year
is any major accomplishment, considering your needs.
Mr. SIKES. Fort Carson, Colo.
FORT CARSON, COLO.
Mr. SIKES. Insert page 2 in the record.
[P. 2 follows:]
C-1 3 April 1973
1 DT DERENT ITLLTFY1974MILITAYCONSTRUCTIONPROGRAM FORT ON
15 Feb 73 AR\Y FY 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM FORT CARSON
. coMMUANOMAUaGEMENT
Sixth US Army
7cSTATUS
Active
06005
1942EARONITIAL OCCUPANCY
1942
Colorado
9. CouNTY (u..)
El Paso
i NElREsTC ITY
Colorado Springs
11. MISSION OR MAJOR FUNCTIONS 2 PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
Training and support of the Fourth Infantry Division PERSONNEL STRENGTH OFFICER ENLISTED CIVLIN E CE ENLISTs IOFFCEr ENLISTED CIVILIAN I TOTAL
(mechanized) and many nondivisional tactical combat .As 30 Jun 72 1805 18 122 2173 2 00
and logistical support units assigned to Fort Jun 72 1805 18 122 2173 22,100
Carson. Also furnishes family housing support to b. PLvANENVEO 77 1 1710 20,698 2063 24,471
Army Air Defense Command (ARADCOM). INVENTO
LAND ACRES LAND COST (o0) IMPROVEMENT (sV) TOTAL (000)
SAN(I (2) (3) fI
" OWNED 137,766 4,113.6 120,032.7 124,146
LESES 0 |' 0 0 0
c INVENTO TOTAL (EMpc.p I-1nd rT) OF 30 JUE 9 124146
a UTORIzaION NOT ET IN INVENTORY Rxclusive of MCA 17 645
. AurnoInATIno EUESTED IN TNIS POGNM I 5,793
ESTIMATED UTORTION NE EARS 057
. GRAND TOTAL I(C + 20
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION LINE ITEMS
LINE ITEM DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CTTEGORy ENANT IT AESTIMA TED D SOpE EI/TED
CDoDE NO. LINE ITEM TITLE CDMANDO MEASUE SCOPE ICOS I COPE CDST
b e o m
Family Housing, Dwellings
Army
Units
5.793
__________________________________________________ _______ I IIL
DD 1 OCT 70 1390
5,793
PAGE N 2
Mr. SIRES. The request is for 200 units at a cost of $5,793,000. What
is the housing deficit here ?
General COOPER. In the calendar year 1972 family housing survey,
upon which the proposed calendar year 1974 project is based, there
was a programable deficit of 2,414 units for eligible personnel and 576
units for ineligibles. More recent information indicates that a buildup
in community support has reduced this total deficit to about 1,400
units, of which about 200 are eligibles. These figures include the uscal
year 1973 construction program as assets.
Mr. SIKEs. Are there plans for additional community support proj-
ects at this installation? What kind of local support are you getting?
General COOPER. Just the 400 HUD 236 units I mentioned. There are
no additional plans.
Mr. SIKES. For additional community support ?
General COOPER. No, sir. There will be additional community sup-
port. Just a normal buildup, but not specifically subsidized in any way
by the Government. For example, between the survey done in January
1972 and January 1973 there was an increase in community support
from 4,500 up to roughly 6,500 and that has resulted in the recent Fort
Carson submission where the deficit went down.
It was 2,400 in 1972 and is now down to some 200 units. It wa i;n
anticipation of this that we changed the fiscal year 1974 program. We
originally had 700 at Fort Carson but reduced that to uzoo ased on
community support. There was also a separate phenomenon at Carson
where many of the younger troopers were married, which is one of the
reasons we were particularly interested in 236. There were more mar-
rie2 -^..> not oliPible for family housing wanting to live off the post.
Mr. SIKES. You're building duplex and townhouse units. Is that
purely a matter of cost ?
General COOPER. I would say cost definitely is a factor. The other
factors are related to cost, such as moving into areas where we don't
have existing utilities. There is also a problem we have in terms of the
airfield criteria. You can't build a house within 4,500 feet of the flight
path, which will restrict the use of some of the open areas.
Mr. SIKES. You cite a deficiency of 3,421 units. Where are the peo-
ple now living? What are the rent scales? Why are these homes not
satisfactory?
General CooPER. The 3,421 units include 1,948 personnel presently
inadequately housed as shown on the calendar year 1972 survey and
added requirements due to a projected increase in strength. Of those
without adequate housing 393 were involuntarily separated, 926 lived
in substandard housiplg, 15 were driving an excessive distance, and
614 were paying an excessive cost.
Eighty-five to ninety percent of the rents fall into the range of $150
to $450 per month with typical rents being $185 per month for apart-
ments and $300 per month for separate houses.
Mr. PATTEN. Do you have a pollution problem here at Fort Carson ?
Is Carson about 12 miles outside of Colorado Springs ?
General COOPER. Yes, sir.
Mr. PATTEN. Then it is Carson. Someone suggested that-I can't
visualize it myself, but they hade some chemical plants or something
in the neighborhood.
General COOPER. There was a problem with the building of a new
powerplant nearby. They wanted to use coal and the people said you
can't use coal because of the potential air pollution, even though you
put scrubbers in there to take out the ash and other pollutants. They
didn't want to spend the amount of money to clean it up.
Mr. PATTEN. And Colorado has coal ?
General COOPER. That is right.
Mr. PATW'EN. Someone suggested they use nuclear power.
General COOPER. The Clean Air Act of 1970 makes it extremely dif-
ficult using present technology, in many places, for the coal-burning
powerplants.
EGLIN AIR FORGE BASE, FLA.
Mr. SIKES. Take up Elgin Air Force Base. Insert page 6 in the
record.
(Page 6 follows:)
SOATE 2 OEanTUE 1 3 INSTALLATION
15 Feb 73 ARMY FY 194MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE
4. oMMANDonA NAGCEMENT sYUEAU s IvSTALLATIO CONTROL NUSER 6 STATE CoUNTRY
Air Force Systems Command FTFA/FTEV Florida
STATUS YEARO INITIAL OCCUPAII s9 COUNTY .S.) 10 NEAREST CITY
Active 1953 Okaloosa,Walton, 40 miles East of Pensacola
Santa Rosa
II. MISSION ORsO FUNCTIONS 2"Army Activity CsO.E.T I sT.u.NTs | suOTec
PERNONEL STRENGTH oIFFICe ENLSTEO CIvLtIAN .FFICT IENLiSTED OFFICER ENLIsrED CtvioLI TOTAL
Eglin Air Force Base provides facilities to support ( (2> ) (4) rs r ( a ( (2)
various Armed S ervices activities including an . so Dec 72 22 110
Army Ranger Training Unit on permanent assignment SPLAeo re r 77) 43 108 151
from Fort Benning, Ga. and for the 520th Army InWNTORy
Engineer Detachment (Fire Fighters). There are cnE LAND COST r.(00) IMpROv.YHNrT (OW) OTI.O (0o)
three Air Force Wings and other major Air Force )) ( (4
commands at this Air Force base.' . ow.so 460.808 1457 150_578 152.035
c S INvEN.ony ToEL (E.pr Indr) L o s JNE I- -2 152,0
. .u11onIzaiOn NOr T VINveOdR Army Family Housing Only 0
. aurlonIZAnoN unsOUESVo IN Ts PnoonA n " U
e. GRAN TOTAL (c d eTI)
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION LINE ITEMS
LINE ITEM DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATIO POGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
coov so LINE TEN TITLE COTMMAD MYSURFE SCOPE (ISM sCOPE Es o
711 Family Housing, Dwellings Army Units 25 680 25 680
OD nib 70130... SO
PAcE No. 6
DD 1 OCT 76 1390
Mr. SIKEs. The request is for 25 units. Will this be enough housing
for the requirements ?
General COOPER. Yes, sir. Since I appeared before you I made a
specific visit and spoke to the commander of the camp down there.
He assured me that that would take care of his requirement right at
field 6, which, as you know better than I, is isolated, but that will
keep him well housed.
Mr. SIKEs. Is twenty-five an adequate number?
General COOPER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SIKES. Tell us why you are building on an Air Force base for
the record. You can also provide the detail of the reason for the loca-
tion of the Army's ranger training facility in the Eglin reservation
so the report will be complete on it.
General CooPER. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
U.S. A my iauger training includes an 18 day phase on survival and operation
in the jungle. Eglin AFB was chosen as the site for that training as it has the
required jungle environment and sufficient space to conduct the training. There
is no Army post available in CONUS which meets these criteria.
Mr. SIKES. This facility is in a remote location. How far are you
from the nearest community housing ?
General COOPER. The limited community housing is in and around
Shalimar and Fort Walton Beach, about 23 to 25 miles away.
Mr. SIKES. Now, there has been discussion that the ranger head-
quarters might be moved to another location. Field 3 was considered
in view of its central location, easier accessibility, and closer contacts
for community support. Has the decision been made firm now that the
activity will remain at Field 6 ?
General CooPER. Yes, sir.
OAHU, HAWAII
Mr. SIKES. Place in the record page 10.
IDATE DETARDEN3 INSTALLTIO
15 Feb 73 ARMY FY 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM OAHU
4 mCouu o MA AGECET IeMEAU S .STALLTIOICONTOL NUME AT COTRY
US Army, Pacific 12815 Hawaii
7 sTA usTI. COUNVV (.I) 10 NEARET C1T
Active 1899 Honolulu Honolulu
1.MISIONORW O FUIONS I PERMANENT STUDENTS I PPORTED
PERSONNEL sTRENGTH OFFICER ENLIsTED CIVILIAN OFF CER ENsLITED op) CE
Headquarters of US Army, Pacific.Headquarters and U IU N (I (RU (A IT I
home post of the 25th Infantry Division and 0.-e - 771 1501 14,004 14766 1771
.PLENEDU 77 1501 14R004 1766 17271
supporting elements IVENT
ACRES LAND COST (soo00 IMPROvEMENT (0t00) TOTAL (A5m)
ow106 591 3219 244,851 247 670
L G.EC IN EIEGGETS 34,550 2 400 402
O +D FRA UNE 19.-2- 248 072
. UToRIzaTION NOTCE I N INVESTOR Exclusive of MCA 40 ,473
..urnonalrro. aEoUETE I s PoC 36.995
. ETIMATE AurTORzATION - NEXT yER II 79,500
. GRAD OTAL Ca. R I) . 405 040
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION LINE ITEMS
LINE ITES DERIGTOIOD AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY LINE ITEM TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE EsOTO SCOPE SCOSeT
711 Family Housing, Dwellings Army Units 1,000 36,995.5 1.000 36,995.5
10
DD 1 bo' 70 1390
I
Pwar HO,
Mr. SIKES. The request is for a thousand units, at a cost of $36,995,-
500. This is a very large request for family housing.
What generated such a large request at one time ?
General COOPER. The very large deficit they have there and also the
';y h1h cost of off-post housing. There is community housing avail-
able to some extent, but it is very expensive in Hawaii. Once we
brought the 25th Division back from overseas and stationed it at
Oahu, those two factors, the high cost of community housing, plus the
25th Division, generated the large request.
SITE FOR PROPOSED HOUSING
Mr. PATTEN. Where will these units be located ?
General COOPER. At the present time we plan that these units will be
located in the Aliamana Crater.
Mr. PATTEN. IS there sufficient land at the location?
General COOPER. Yes, sir; we believe there is sufficient land.
ARMY DEFICIT IN HAWAII
Mr. PATTEN. In view of the reduction in the active strength of the
25th Division at Schofield barracks, is this project still required at this
scope?
General COOPER. Yes, sir.
Mr. PATTEN. Your justification sheet shows a current programable
deficit of only 90 units as of January 1, 1972. What was the strength
of the division on that date ?
GENERAL COOPER. The strength of the division on that date was
3,531.
COST OF HOUSING IN HAWAII
Mr. PATTEN. What steps are you taking to reduce the high cost of
housing in Hawaii?
General COOPER. We are endeavoring to reduce costs by building to
higher densities. You will note that if you visit Oahu, the density is
quite high.
Mr. PATTEN. That is not answering my question. Answer it for the
record if it is possible.
[The information follows:]
There are of course many factors contributing to high costs in Hawaii over
which we have no control such as transportation and labor. We are endeavoring
to reduce costs by building to higher densities, by building to wnhouses and by
utilizing multistory walkups for all two-bedroom units. In addition, for fiscal
year 1974 we are aggregating the Army and Navy projects into a single procure-
ment in order to provide the basis for efficient contractor management and to
avoid duplication of overhead. This will also avoid the potential of interference
claims from two contractors operating in the same area with limited access
points.
Mr. PATTEN. When I look at this cost I get aggravated. It would seem
to me if I ran the Army I would do something about it. Take in Sea-
bees or Engineers, or something. I don't know. It is aggravating.
Supply something for the record.
[The information follows:]
The high cost of construction is primarily related to the remoteness of the
location, the high cost for importing raw materials and the relatively limited
supply of skilled labor. These equate to an area cost index of 1.3 or approximately
30 percent more than building in Washington, D.C. If we are to be responsive
to the Army needs to house its families we will have to pay these costs. Any use
of military labor or other Government forces must be charged against the project
in the same manner as contract costs.
LAND EXCHANGE
Mr. SIKES. Can you discuss the progress of the fiscal year 1973 family
housing in Hawaii for which the Army is the construction agent ?
General COOPER. The Army is the construction agent for the Army's
1973 program, which is 640 units. These units will be sited at Schofield
Barracks. We delayed siting this project depending on the avail-
ability of the Aliamanu Crater and the Tripler-Fort Ruger exchange.
We now recommend that Congress allow us to exchange Fort Ruger
for funds and take the funds and put them into the development of
Aliamanu Crater.
They are under design with advertising scheduled for the latter
part of this calendar year.
We will use conventional advertising for this rather than turnkey
because of the peculiar nature of Hawaii. We feel we need to design
it ourselves.
DEVELOPMENT OF ALIAMANU CRATER
Mr. SIKEs. What are your current plans with regard to the Aliamanu
Crater?
General COOPER. We have the approval of the Office of Management
and Budget to ask for a specific request to modify the law.
Mr. SIKES. Will all of this money be needed for the site improvement
at Aliamanu Crater ?
General COOPER. Yes.
Mr. SIKES. I note that this project contains a large amount for de-
sign. What is this for ?
General COOPER. The costs contained herein are program costs and
do not reflect actual costs. The budget was established on the premise
of conventional construction and represents 1.4 percent of the current
working estimate. Actually, we consider this cost to be extremely low
in relation to the work to be done in opening the new area.
Mr. SIKES. How do you anticipate using the land in Aliamanu
Crater in order to avoid building an overcrowded, unsightly, and un-
comfortable housing project ?
General COOPER. We have commissioned a local firm skilled in land
planning to prepare the master plan and we actually plan the develop-
ment of over 2,400 family units. Seven hundred of these will be out-
side the crater on 77 acres. Inside the crater we will be planning 1,700
units on 200 acres, which is about 9 per acre.
Mr. NICHOLAS. IS that on flat acreage ?
General COOPER. The slope is less than 20 percent.
Mr. PATTEN. Can you provide for the record the temperature read-
ings for Aliamanu Crater and comparable readings at the Honolulu
Weather Bureau for the record ?
(The information follows:)
47
COMPARISON OF WIND AND TEMPERATURE
ALIAMANU VS HONOLULU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
ALIAMANU
1973 Site 1 West Side Site 2 East Side
Temp Wind Temp Wind
March
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
April
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
May
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
14
15
16
17
18
21
22
23
Knots
22
20-25
15-20
16
16
18
18
13
10
20
8
5
5
3
NA
25
7-10
8-10
0-10
10-15
8-9
8-12
10-15
6-10
7
8-10
0
NA
0
NA
NA
4-10
6-14
12-16
10-16
6-10
5
12-15
4-b
4-8
4-8
12-18
6-12
8012
5-8
4-8
7-12
4-6
4-6
6-8
2-4
4-6
5-9
3-5
5-7
HONOLULU
Temp Wind
WB DB Knots
72 80 8-13
68 77 8-12
68 78 6-12
73 80 7-10
70 76 5
67 78 2-4
74 86 4
70 82 9
72 84
69 82 18
69 82 16
69 80 10
59 73 11
61 75 10
63 74 6
66 77 10
67 79 15
69 79 16
69 77 16
67 81 16-26
71 82 14
69 81 8-26
68 83 14-24
69 80 18-28
66 79 22-33
68 82 16-24
67 79 12
69 NA 11
70 75 7
NA NA NA
70 NA 17
68 82 18-25
69 82 13-22
68 78 15
70 77 18
66 79 22-26
68 82 17
67 82 14
NA 82 NA
67 80 14
69 82 18
68 82 20-26
69 83 15
69 83 15
69 83 16
71 82 16
69 83 16-22
71 83 14
67 82 14
87 81 07
67 81 15-23
69 76 17
69 79 15
70 76 15
69 82 18
70 83 20
31-111 0 - 73 - 4
ALIAMANU
Site 1 West Side Site 2 East Side
Temp Wind Temp Wind
WB DB Knots WB DB Knots
70 80 10-18 71 86 8-14
72 83 8-12 69 81 8-10
70 83 10-20 71 86 12-15
71 83 8-15 72 86 4-8
71 82 4-8 73 88 6-10
71 82
71 82
69 80
70 77
70 81
70 82
69 81
71 83
70 77
71 84
72 85
72 84
70 83
71 84
72 82
72 82
70 84
69 83
70 83
70 78
71 87
72 86
HONOLULU
Temp Wind
WB DB Knots
71 82 16-23
71 82 15
71 84 24
70 83 16
71 84 14-24
72 84 15-21
70 81 18
71 84 14-23
71 83 15-24
71 83 14
70 80 15
71 84 16
71 82 20
71 81 16
71 84 16
71 84 11
COST
Mr. LONG. You have roughly $37,000 a unit for this housing, is that
right ?
General COOPER. Ye s.ir.
Mr. LONG. What is the area cost factor ?
General COOPER. The cost factor is 1.3. In other words, it costs 30
percent more to build in Hawaii.
Mr. LONG. What kind of a house is that ?
General COOPER. We have three- and four-bedroom houses for the
most part.
Mr. LONG. How many baths ?
General COOPER. They all have at least two baths.
AIR-CONDITIONING
Mr. LONG. Are they to have air-conditioning ?
General COOPER. Yes, sir.
Mr. LONG. No heat ?
General COOPER. No heat.
Mr. LONG. No insulation problem ?
General COOPER. You will insulate for the air-conditioning, so it will
be insulated.
Mr. LONG. I didn't realize Hawaii required air-conditioning.
Mr. PATTEN. Look at that map. Hawaii is further south than Key
West, Fla.
General COOPER. The humidity can be quite high. The old-fashioned
houses were built with high ceilings and they are comfortable. Again,
as long as the humidity is not too high. There are some of those large
apartment houses near Waikiki that are not air-conditioned.
Mr. LONG. As long as you are near the ocean, you don't need it, I
suppose?
General COOPER. That is right. Some places you can get the trade
winds. There are lots and lots of expensive houses in Hawaii that are
not air-conditioned.
Mr. PATTEN. The one I was in a few months ago was air-conditioned.
I would prefer air-conditioning if I lived there year around. It was
hot, steamy, and uncomfortable.
Mr. LONG. The Army is asking for $36 million. I understand the
Navy ammunition depot will be closed. Could the Army use any Navy
housing ?
General COOPER. The ammunition depot at Lualualei? There is some
housing there.
Mr. LONG. How far away is it?
General COOPER. Lualualei to Schofield Barracks over Kolekole Pass,
I believe is about 10 miles. We are looking at that for the 1975 program.
Mr. LONG. Could that reduce the size?
General COOPER. It won't reduce the size of the 1974 program, sir.
There is not that much housing there that would have a large impact.
Mr. LONG. I think you ought to put in the record just what the
situation is, why that couldn't help to hold the budget down this next
year.
[The information follows:]
All of the 63 units at Lualualei will continue to be used by the Navy and
cannot be applied against Army requirements.
General COOPER. We think we will need even another 1,000 units in
fiscal year 1975. The Navy also has requirements in 1975.
Mr. LONG. Why does so much have to be located in Hawaii? Just
because it is a lovely, pleasant climate, everybody wants to go to
Hawaii ? You know it is an expensive place. Why bother to locate so
much there? Why not try to move away from expensive places? It
seems to me the military is always moving to the most expensive places.
Is it because the generals like to live there?
General COOPER. I am sure the generals like to live there, but I am
sure that is not a governing factor.
Mr. LONG. It couldn't possibly be.
General COOPER. It sometimes is, but I don't think so in this case. It
is part of the overall strategy, how far you stay out in the Pacific.
Mr. LONG. Being in Hawaii during the war, we were a sitting duck.
General COOPER. It did prevent them from attacking the west coast,
which would have been much more of a disaster.
Mr. LONG. They would have had more difficulty doing it.
General COOPER. Or they might have gone, as they should have gone,
up through Alaska.
Mr. PATTEN. It costs twice as much in Alaska for anything. You are
not getting anything cheap if you go to Alaska as far as I know.
FORT RILEY, KANS.
Mr. PATTEN. Let's turn to Fort Riley, Kans.
Insert page 14 in the record.
[Page 14 follows:]
o1Te 2 DE pa E I In ,.STALLATION
15 Feb 73 ARMY FY 1974MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM FORT RILEY
comuANDon MA"aoEMENT sUmELu i I sTALAnO cOTL N UBE ST1TE COuNTRy
Fifth US Army 17605 Kansas
7. STATUS YEAR O HIvIa OCCuPAN C 9. COUNt* (.s.) 1 NEARESTT CTY
Active 1855 Geary & Riley Junction City
I. M5soN on MAJo FuNCTIONS 12 PERMANENT STuoNTrs suPPORTEO
Provides support and services for the First Infantry PERSOUEN SrLsT GTEr oO. EcNLIxsac o oICEc INLITEo oPPICEc NIeIcIOILN TOTL
Division. Also supports ROTC, Reserve Component , (2 ) (3) (i) (5 (5) I E) (5) IN
Sunner Training, Correctional Training Facilities o P r7 12 1827 16,22 2205 20,258
and Schilling Manor which is a 735 unit family ,sO O rN 77 i 1631 15,92 1948 19 499
housing project for dependents of military personnel
on unaccompanied tours. LUNO OCREs LASO COST (3o) M ,OVNPN (000) TOToLo T1-
. 101,056 11,425.4 152 202.7 163,628
I s EaUE 13 0 0 0
C. INENTroRTo roT NL epr n rAS Or s0 JUNE J 3 163 628
SUTHozaroN Nsorv rT IN Iv~ETroRY Exclusive of MCA 2,842
m surnonrarrow IEOuTE IN I eoT 24,7422
r EsTIMATED AuT.1IzaION- NExT 1 vEs 52,550
. GRAND TOTAL (r , de t 243 762
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION LINE ITEMS
LINE ITEM DESIGNATION AUTHORIzATION PRORAM FuNDING PRnORAM
CEco No LINE ITEU TITLE CoMNo AURE sCoPE ES CI NT sCOPE E COST
711 Family Housing, Dwellings Army Units 901 24,742.5 901 24,742.5
PACE No. 14
DD 1 T 70 1390
DD 1 OCT 70 1390
Mr. PATTEN. The request is for 901 units. In view of the proposed
reduction in personnel, do you need all of these units ?
General COOPER. Based on the latest planning strength figures, and
prior year marital factors, there is a programable deficit of 928 units
after counting 242 unsuitable units as assets.
FHA VALIDATION
The FHA has validated only 577 units of the 901 and if FHA does
not validate those additional units, we will automatically reduce the
scope from 901 to 577.
Mr. PATTEN. Have any of the Schilling Manor units become vacant
now that activities in Southeast Asia have wound down ?
General COOPER. This housing was offered to Fort Riley and has
been occupied on a voluntary basis until such time as permanent hous-
ing on Riley becomes available. We don't think it is suitable permanent
housing because it is over 60 miles from Fort Riley. Some people are
using it.
Mr. PATTEN. We say you ought to live within 7 miles of where you
work. We say that for industry around our way.
Why is it costing almost a half million dollars to design these
homes ? Are each of the units different ?
General COOPER. The costs contained herein are program costs and
do not reflect actual costs. The budget was established on the premise
of conventional construction. Naturally, any money saved on design
will be incorporated into the structure to provide improved quality of
livability. These costs represent 2 percent of the current working
estimate.
Mr. PATTEN. What is the cost factor here ?
General COOPER. The local area cost index for Fort Riley is 1.01.
This is based on an index that establishes Washington, D.C., as a base
of 1.0. One of the factors that adds some cost to this project is the
need for $300,000 to provide offsite utility support which is not a nor-
mal cost associated with a typical project.
FORT CAMPBELL, KY.
Mr. PATTEN. Insert page 18 in the record.
[The page follows :]
15 Feb 73 ARMY FY 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM FORT CAMPBELL
.Couaoon cMANc U eEEs BUrEau s ISTALLITeO CO.TeOL cU.EP 6 ScTATE couCNTy
Third US Army 21145 Kentucky
STATUS a YEAR .or IiAL OCcuPANCY 9. COUNT Y.s., 1i NEAREST CITv
Active 1942 Christian and Trigg Clarksville, TN 8 m! N1
11. MisSION oRn AJoR UCTIOS S PE MAET STuU.ENT I SUPPORTeD
Headquarters of the 101st Airborne Division, Provide PRSONNe L sTraNa s orT i Esc eS rcCvivN OFGTa sS oican E.,SsEo avHL TOT.L
administration, training and logistical support of. I ) (2) (3) ( (s C ( (
the division and other Army units and activities I"s __U_ J_166 _ 8694 2530 12,900
assigned. Accomplishes planning missions, as e P* ecOrEc r 77 1 2306 18,130 1960 22,396
directed, for the development, employment and ' Isve TORI
expansion of CONUS forces under condition of cold, L..A Cens LAND COST rc ) srrROVE UNT (sO) TOeri(SaeOO
limited and general war contingencies. I ( r I' r t
.. ow 36,024 1,510.5 83 138.0 84,649
LEsES Er 611 24.3 i 0 24
c. TIT.Lavr ony (E-r - rma1) S 111 JYVNE 1s- _ 84,673
aT "1 uozoorvmEUOsy Exclusive of MCA 0
1 a zrlw -EOuso IN 11T.1 FoPR " " 27 /+10
Esr 'EO snaon EIave n1 " 176.700
e GRANe TOTAL 1r , . C 188,783
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION LINE ITEMS
cE NO LINE ITES TITLE caNsc a ssu sN score e cS scns Es OCar
711 Family Housing, Dwellings Army Units 1,000 27,000 1,000 27,000
713 Family Housing, Mobile Home Facilities Army Spaces 100 410 100 410
S1 Om u 1
Pe No 18
DD 1 OCT 70 1390
Mr. PATTEN. The request is for 1,000 units of family housing and
100 mobile home spaces.
In view of the apparent deficit in housing for military families,
what reason can you give for the fact there were 377 vacant units in
the community at the time the survey was taken ?
I think we are talking about two different things here. We are
talking about the military and then we are talking about the
community.
I happen to know something about these vacancies in the commu-
nities and how good they are.
General COOPER. We try to keep within 2 percent of complete oc-
cupancy. Occasionally it gets higher. Of the 377 vacant units, 331
units were on post. The strength at that time was 13,000. Now, the
survey increased it to 16,000, so there has been a big increase since
that time.
Mr. PATTEN. What is the source for the 600 units of housing you
expect from the community ?
General COOPER. When we do our surveys, we go out and try to
figure out how much additional housing the community will be build-
ing as part of its normal buildup. The 600 is based on that survey.
It would be unsubsidized community housing which we expect to be
available.
Mr. PATTEN. You show a base population increase of almost 10,000
in the next 5 years. What is the reason for this increase ?
General COOPER. Bringing the 101st Airborne Division up to full
strength and also supporting units.
Mr. PATTEN. Will the mobile home spaces meet your requirement?
General COOPER. They will certainly meet the requirements for now.
I don't know how many additional ones are needed. There are some
265 spaces offpost that are suitable. I think they will meet the require-
ments, together with the ones onpost.
Mr. PATTEN. HOW manV do you need? You are asking for 100. Is
the t what you think von need ?
General COOPER. That is what we think we need for now.
Mr. P A TTEN. How many do you have ?
General CooPER. Right now, there are 265 offpost and 164 sub-
standard. On that basis, we would say we needed 64 more. As we build
more houses, we won't need as many mobile homes spaces.
Mr. PATTEN. If you provided more mobile home spaces, would this
reduce your housing deficit ?
General COOPER. No, sir.
Mr. PArTEN. Do von consider a mobile home as adequate housing,
or do von list it as ina adequate ?
General COOPER. We basically would list a mobile home as inade-
quate if it is Government owned. In our survey, if a man lives in a
mobile home and he says that is adequate, it is counted as adequate.
It is up to the individual.
FORT POLK, LA.
Mr. PATTEN. We will go to Fort Polk, La.
Insert page 22 in the record.
[The page follows:]
15 Feb 73 ARMY FY 1974MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM FORT POLK
. COMUUoANO nr ouNEMENT eu.Au S IOsTALLaTION COCTL NuEP 0 sTATE COuTRY0
Fifth US Army 22725 Louisiana
7. STATUS e. YAR0 o INITIAL OCCUPANCY 9. COUNTY rD.S 1 10 NEAREST CITY
Active 1941 Vernon, Sabine and Leesville
Natchitoches
II. MISlIN OR NJon FUNCTIONS 2 PEOmANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
Provides administration and logistical support of PERSONNE U O SfENG ENLINTEOCu ILIO o I C FNLN TE o IN OTAL
a US Army Training Center (Infantry), USA . aso, 30 Jun 2 879 1796 23 21.238
Reception Station, USA Hospital, USA Dental E. OEN erC.ArE 77 1059 24,939 2176 28,174
Detachment, USA Garrison and subordinate. INOny
elements
LUND OCREN LAND COST (200) INPROCET(00) TOTAL (0 05)
(U R) I (4)
,. o o 196 998 610.6 76 805.7 77,41
LsEs No IsENrs 2,034 I 0 0 0
c. .uva TOTrL r1Era.1 rel Ass o 1. - is _12- 77.416
U. UITo.,zrTIO NO TE IS ICNOE. OT Exclusive of MCA 6,252
Saurno rlo_ EOUEsED N TIPROAM " "143503
ETIIAT{O 0 UTMORITIOI- NxT I yEaRs 29 000
c. Na TOTAL- ( o ) 127,171
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION LINE ITEMS
LINE ITEM OESITOTIOO AUTNORIZATIOSN PoAM FUNDINGC PROGOIAM
COONNO LINE ITEM TITLE COMMAD AURE SCPE COST O SCOPE COST
711 Family Housing, Dwellings Army Units 500 14,250 500 14,250
713 Family Housing, Mobile Home Facilities Army Spaces 59 252.8 59 252.8
D 1 Y
PACE No 22
DD 1 OCT 70 1390
Mr. PATTEN. The request is for 500 units. Do you plan to upgrade
the 1,432 substandard units? If you do, what impact will this have
on your deficit ?
General COOPER. These are all in the privately owned economy rather
than Government owned.
Mr. PATTEN. With a planned strength of more than 28,000 men, isn't
there some way to get the community to provide more than the 563
offbase units now available?
General COOPER. It is difficult. They have gotten some additional
community support at Fort Polk, but one of the reasons it is a good
training area is that it is pretty well isolated from large towns. We
have been talking to the community leaders. I think we have failed
in the past because the Army talked about closing Fort Polk and the
people weren't wildly enthusiastic about building homes in the com-
munity. But it is a function of confidence in how long Fort Polk
will be there. Some people near Fort Polk have been very helpful to
the Army in spite of past uncertainty.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS
Mr. OBEY. I notice on page 16 at Fort Riley you say the environ-
mental impact statement will be submitted because of the scope of the
project. On page 12, you indicate that a minor impact on water quality
will result from storm damage runoff, but it does not indicate whether
there is or is not an impact statement being provided. Is there one
or not?
General COOPER. Do you mean for Hawaii?
Mr. OBEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. PATTEN. Your question is on Riley ?
Mr. OBEY. No, for both of them. As you know, there has been some
disagreement between the various agencies of Government as to how
small a project ought to be before they do provide any impact state-
ment. Would you provide for the record some delineation of your
policy on that?
General COOPER. Yes, sir. Basically it gets to be a matter of judg-
ment. If the local people decide that you have erred, they can always
go to court and stop you.
Mr. OBEY. That is the reason I asked, because we had a case in
Wisconsin a couple of weeks ago where a project which was to be of
5 days' duration was stopped by the courts because an impact statement
had not been provided.
I have seen that happen more and more all over the country. I
would just like to know what your policy is.
General COOPER. Basically, we leave it up to the installation com-
mander. He has to first make what we call an environmental assess-
ment. If he then considers that under section 102(2) (c) of NEPA, it
is a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of human
environment, he has to prepare an impact statement. It is up to the
court in the final run.
Mr. OBEY. What I am interested in is whether or not you have any
guidelines to define what major impact is ?
General COOPER. Yes, sir, we do.
Mr. OBEY. I world llke to have those in the record.
[The information follows:]
57
Guidelines for the commander are included in a Department of the Army
letter of October 21, 1971, a copy of which is attached. The guidelines are gen-
eral and not specific partly because we have very little legal precedent involving
Army installations.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL,
Washington, D.C., October 1, 1978.
DAAG-PAP (M) (1 Sep 71) DALO-IN
Subject: Environmental Consideration in DA actions, RCS DD-H&E(AR) 1068.
1. References: (a) TAG letter, AGDA(M) (Sept. 10, 1970), LOG-C-PDBB-
8316-B, September 11, 1970, subject : "Interim Guidelines on Environmental State-
ments," RCS OSD-(OT) 1570.
(b). TAG letter AGDA(M) (March 1, 1971), LOG-C-PDBR, 18 Mar 71, subject:
"Environmental Impact Statements," RCS DD-H&E(AR)-1068.
(c). AR 11-21, Army Programs, Environmental Pollution Abatement, Nov. 3,
1967, with 2 changes thereto.
(d) Public Law 91-190 91st Congress, January 1, 1970, entitled "The National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969."
(e) Public Law 91-224, 91st Congress, April 3, 1970, entitled "The Environ-
mental Quality Improvement Act of 1970."
(f) Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality,
"Statements on Major Federal Actions Affecting the Environment," April 23, 1971
(36 Federal Register 79, 7724 (1971)).
(g) Message No. 970436, LOG-C-PDBB, October 6, 1970, subject: Interim
Guidelines on Environmental Statements, DA to CINCUSARPAC, NOTAL.
(h) Message 282105Z April 1971, subject: "Disposal by Sea Dump," DA to
CINCUSARPAC, NOTAL.
(i) Public Law 91-121, 91st Congress, S. 2546, November 1969.
(j) Public Law 91-441, 91st Congress, H.R. 17123, October 7, 1970.
(Ic) TAG letter, AGDA-A(M) (March 24, 1971), LOG-C-PDBB, March 29,
1971, subject: "Environmental Protection and Preservation."
1. DOD Directive 6050.1, August 9, 1971, subject: Environmental Considerations
in DOD Actions.
2. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) establishes the
Federal policy on environmental quality. Section 102 of the NEPA directs that the
policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States will be interpreted
and administered to the fullest extent possible in accordance with the NEPA.
Section 102(2) (C) of the NEPA requires, among other things, that there be in-
cluded with every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other
major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the natural environ-
ment a detailed five-point statement concerning the environmental impact of the
intended action.
3. The NEPA further directs that, prior to submitting the final environmental
statement, the responsible Federal official shall consult with and obtain the com-
ments of any Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise.
Copies of such statements and the comments and views of the appropriate Fed-
eral, State, and local agencies which are authorized to develop and enforce en-
vironmental standards will be made available to the President, the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the public, and will accompany the proposal
through the existing agency review processes.
4. CEQ's Interim Guidelines, implemented by references la, lb and 1g, were
revised in April 1971, reference if. Accordingly, references la, ib, Ig and 1h are
hereby rescinded and the guidance contained in the inclosure to-this leter will
govern all addresses as a continuing requirement.
5. The preparation and timely submission of environmental statements in
comprehensive detail is essential to enable the concerned headquarters to accu-
rately evaluate the environmental impact of proposed actions. Experience to date
indicates that approximately 4 to 6 months are required to process the environ-
mental statement after it arrives at headqaurters, DA. Failure to adequately
evaluate and document the impact on the environment will jeopardize the ap-
proval of critical plans or programs during DA or OSD review and preclude fa-
vorable congressional action.
6. It is requested that addresses, as a continuing requirement, comply with the
provisions of the guidelines provided in attached inclosure.
By order of the Secretary of the Army :
VERNE L. BowERs,
Major General, U.S.A.,
The Adjutant General.
58.
Distribution :
Deputy Chiefs of Staff.
Comptroller of the Army.
Chief of Research and Development.
Chief, Office of Reserve Components.
Assistant Chiefs of Staff.
The Adjutant General.
Chief of Engineers.
The Surgeon General.
Chief, National Guard Bureau.
Chief of Information.
Chief, Army Reserve.
The Provost Marshal General.
Chief of Personnel Operations.
Commanders in Chief : U.S. Army, Europe and U.S. Army, Pacific.
Commanding Generals: U.S. Continental Army Command, U.S. Army Material
Command, U.S. Army Combat Developments Command, U.S. Army Military Dis-
trict of Washington, U.S. Army Strategic Communications Command, U.S. Army
Security Agency, U.S. Army Intelligence Command, U.S. Army Air Defense Com-
mand, U.S. Army, Alaska, and U.S. Army Safeguard System Command.
Commanders: U.S. Army Forces Southern Command and Military Traffic Man-
agement and Terminal Service.
Superintendent, U.S. Military Academy.
Commandants: U.S. Army Command and General Staff College and U.S. Army
War College.
Copies furnished:
Office, Assistant Secretary of Defense (H & E).
Office, Secretary of the Army.
Office, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army.
Assistant Secretary of the Army (FM).
Assistant Secretary of the Army (I & L).
Assistant Secretary of the Army (R & D).
Director of Civil Defense.
Chief of Legislative Liaison.
Chief, Environ Protection Group, Department of the Air Force.
Chief, Environ Protection Division, Department of the Navy.
ARMY GUIDELINES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
PURPOSE
These guidelines prescribe policies and responsibilities and establish proce-
dures, in consonance with Federal policy, for the implementation of section 102
(2) of Public Law 91-190, "National Environmental Policy Act of 1969," (NEPA),
January 1, 1970, and for References (b) through (k) insofar as these references
require the inclusion of environmental considerations in the decisionmaking
process.
RESCISSIONS
References (r) through (u), Inclosure 3, are hereby rescinded.
APPLICABILITY
(a) Included: With the exception of those activities indicated in paragraph
IIB of inclosure 1 to this inclosure, these guidelines apply to all Army installa-
tions, activities and facilities throughout the world. This includes activities
supported in whole or in part through Army contracts, grants, subsidies, loans
or other forms of funding assistance and activities involving a Federal lease,
permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement of use.
(b) Excluded: These guidelines do not apply to civil works projects and re-
lated activities under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army and the Chief
of Engineers.
AUTHORITY
These guidelines are in furtherance of DOD Directive 6050.1, Environmental
Considerations in DOD Actions which assigns responsibilities and establishes
procedures for a coordinated approach to the assessment of environmental con-
sequences in the planning and decisionmaking process.
59
POLICY
(a) At the earliest practicable stage in the planning process, including the
development stage of a weapon or material system and in all instances prior to
decision to procure the item or proceed with the project or activity, the environ-
mental consequences of any proposed action shall be assessed.
b. Actions that were initiated prior to January 1, 1970, the date on which
Public Law 91-190, NEPA, was enacted and for which the environmental con-
sequences have not been assessed should be reviewed to insure that any re-
maining action is consistent with the provisions of these guidelines.
c. Insofar as practicable, and with appropriate consideration of assigned
missions and of economic and technical factors, programs and actions of all
Army agencies and commands shall be planned, initiated, and carried out in
a manner to avoid adverse effects on the quality of the human environment.
When this is not feasible, all reasonable measures shall be taken to neutralize
or mitigate any adverse environmental impact of the actions.
d. Whenever an environmental assessment of a recommendation or report on
a proposal for legislation or of a proposed or continuing major action indicates
under the criteria in enclosure 1 that the resulting action may significantly
affect the quality of the human environment or may be highly controversial
with regard to environmental impact, a detailed environmental statement shall
be prepared and processed pursuant to the guidance contained in "Statements
on Major Federal Actions Affecting the Environment" (ref. (f)) and in in-
closure 2.
RESPONSIBILITIES
a. Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, DA exercises primary staff responsibil-
ity for reviewing and coordinating environmental statements within the De-
partment of the Army and providing assistance and advice relative to the state-
ments. The DCSLOG will maintain liaison with OSD/EPA/OMB and CEQ with
respect to environmental policies affecting the entire DA. The DCSLOG will
retain a copy of each draft and final environmental statement prepared within
DA and make such statements available for public review upon request. Addi-
tionally, ODCSLOG is responsible for environmental statements concerning
those actions or activities for which ODCSLOG is the proponent agency. The
point of contact within ODCSLOG is the Environmental Office (OX4-4269) of
the office of the Director of Installations.
b. Other Deputy Chiefs of Staff, Comptroller of the Army, Assistant Chiefs
of Staff, Chief of Research and Development and Chief, Office of Reserve Com-
ponents. Responsibilities are as follows: Each Army general staff agency is re-
sponsible for taking general staff action on environmental statements submitted
concerning actions or programs for which they have the general staff proponency.
They are also responsible for assuring that all of their actions and programs
have been appraised to determine any requirements for environmental state-
ments. Additionally, they are responsible for assuring proper coordination
within the Army staff to include DCSLOG prior to forwarding draft or final
statements to the ASA(I. & L.) for dispatch to higher authority or other
coordinating Federal agencies. Each agency is also responsible to assure that
a copy of each draft and final statement and its transmitting document are pro-
vided DALO-INE.
c. The Chief of Engineers is responsible for coordinating the engineering
aspects of environmental statements submitted to Headquarters, DA and for
those statements required for actions and programs for which he is proponent.
d. The Surgeon General is responsible for coordinating the health and welfare
aspects of environmental statements submitted to Headquarters, DA and for
those statements required for actions and programs for which he is the
proponent.
e. Major field commands are responsible for identifying actions and programs
proposed for accomplishment within their commands, and assuring that appro-
priate environmental assessments and statements are prepared and, if neces-
sary, forwarded to Headquarters, DA.
f. Army commands and agencies will:
(1) Establish internal procedures for assessing environmental consequences of
continuing and proposed programs and actions for which they are the proponent
agency, in accordance with the policies contained in these guidelines, and for
the preparation, proper coordination within their technical staffs, and processing
of environmental statements required for actions within their agencies. Requests
60
for field evaluation by the U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency will be
forwarded through channels to the Surgeon General, Attention: DASG-HEP.
(2) Establish internal procedures to insure that all regulations, directives,
instructions, and other major policy publications for which they are the pro-
ponent agency, are reviewed for environmental consequences, and, when such
consequences are significant, withhold proposed publication of issuances until
compliance with section 102(2) (C) of Public Law 91-190 (ref. (a)) has been
accomplished.
Four inclosures.
DETERMINATION OF REQUIREMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS
I. GENERAL
A. Section 102(2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(Public Law 91-190) (ref. (a) ) requires that a detailed environmental statement
be included in "every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and
other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment."
B. Executive Order 11514,, March 7, 1970 (ref. (d)) directs the Council on
Environmental Quality to issue guidelines to Federal agencies for the prepara-
tion of the environmental statements required by section 102(2) (C) of the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (ref. (a) ).
C. On April 23, 1971, the Council on Environmental Quality published guide-
lines for. the preparation of enviromental statements (Statements on Major Fed-
eral Actions Affecting the Environment, 36 Federal Register 79, 7724 1971) (ref.
(f)). These guidelines contain general guidance for determining when an en-
vironmental statement is required.
D. This inclosure interprets and amplifies the general guidelines of the Council
on Environmental Quality and of the DOD for Department of the Army actions.
II. GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF ACTIONS
A. Environmental statements are required for actions described in paragraphs
III and IV below conducted anywhere in the world, except when conducted in,
or partly in. areas which are in or under the jurisdiction of a nation other than
the United States. In these letter cases, the DA agency responsible for the action
shall provide to DALO-INE full particulars, a recommendation as to whether or
not a statement should be prepared. reasons for the recommendation. and an
assessment of the effect of a statement on U.S. foreign relations. DALO-INE
shall coordinate these latter cases as appropriate, and shall furnish procedural
instructions to the responsible DA agency.
B. Environmental statements are not required for multinational activities
(such as NATO) when the DA agency involved does not have primary decision-
making authority, or for combat or combat-related activities in a combat zone.
(See para IV, C. 5.)
C. The DA agency concerned shall comply with applicable environmental laws
and policies, even though an environmental statement is not required. In coun-
tries or areas not under U.S. control or administration. projects or activities are
subject to the environmental laws, regulations and stipulations of the foreign
government concerned.
III. ACTIONS INCLUDED
A. The legislative history of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(ref. (a)) and the guidelines of the Council on Environmental Quality define
major actions as including. but not limited to the following: (1) Recommenda-
tions or favorable reports relating to legislation, including that for anuronria-
tions. (2) Policies, regulations. and procedures-making. (3) Proiects and continu-
ing activities: (a) Directly undertaken by Federal agencies: (b) Sunnorted in
whole or in nart through Federal contracts. grants. subsidies. loans. or other
forms of funding assistance: and (c) Involving a Federal lease, permit, license,
certificate, or other entitlement for use.
B. Each of the above categories of actions requires somewhat different con-
siderations in determining whether an environmental statement is required.
IV. EVALUATION OF REQUIREMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
A. Proposals for legislation, annual authorization requests, and favorable
reports on legislation :
61
1. Proposals for legislation (other than requests for inclusion in annual au-
thorization requests). Prior to preparing a legislative proposal, the DA proponent
shall assess the environmental consequences of the proposal using the factors in
attachment 1. If it is determined that the proposal would significantly affect the
environment, an environmental statement is required and shall be submitted with
the proposal.
2. Annual authorization requests. a. Prior to submitting authorizing legislation
requests pursuant to section 412. Public Law 86-149, as amended (reference
(1)), or the annual military construction authorization bill, the environmental
consequences of each item requested for inclusion shall be assessed by the pro-
ponent of the action making the requests using the factors in attachment 1.
Further, the proponent is required to prepare an environmental statement for
each item that will significantly affect the environment unless the item is part of a
continuing project or program for which an environmental statement has previ-
ously been processed, and the environmental consequences of the item are not
expected to deviate significantly from those identified in the prior statement.
b. Ten copies of each draft statement are required by the proponent General
Staff agency to permit that agency to submit three copies to OSD with the re-
quests (see section 111 of enclosure 2) and one copy to DALO-INE.
3. Favorable reports on legislation: a. If the Department of Army is not the
Federal agency that has primary responsibility for the subject matter involved
in the legislative item, no environmental statement is required from the Depart-
ment of the Army. If it is not clear from the legislative item whether the Depart-
ment of the Army is the primary Federal agency resopnsible for the subject mat-
ter involved in the legislative item, advice should be sought from DALO-INE.
b. If the Department of the Army is the Federal agency that has primary
responsibility for the subject matter involved in the legislative item, the DA
agency responsible for preparing the DOD report on the item shall assess the
environmental consequences of the proposal, using the factors in attachment No. 1
to this enclosure. If the assessment indicates that the proposal would significant-
ly affect the quality of the human environment, an environmental statement is
required and should accompany the report.
B. Policy, Regulations, and Procedure Making.
1. This shall be construed to apply to publications including, but not limited to,
directives, instructions, regulations, manuals, or major policy statements of all
Army staff agencies and major field commands.
2. The proponent of the action shall assess the environmental conequences,
using the factors in attachment No. 1 to this enclosure, for each proposed publica-
tion. If it is determined that actions generated by the publication will significantly
affect the environment, an environmental statement is required unless the publica-
tion is an implementation of a publication from another Army agency, DOD com-
ponent, or DOD and the environmental consequences will not deviate significantly
from those of the basic publication. In these latter cases, the DA agency respon-
sible for the basic publication has the responsibility for assessing the environ-
mental consequences of its publication and preparing an enviromental statement.
3. If a proposed publication of a DA agency is to be published for the purpose
of implementing a Federal law or a publication of an agency outside of the De-
partment of Defense and actions resulting from the law or publication will sig-
nificantly affect the quality of the environment, an environmental statement is
required unless an environmental statement which covers the environmental im-
pact of the agency's publication was submitted in connection with adoption of the
law or the other agency's publication.
C. Projects and Continuing Activities.
1. This category includes the majority of the operations and activities of the
Department of the Army. All agencies and commands are encouraged to develop
plans, programs, and procedures for routine projects and continuing activities
having an impact on the environment. Environmental statements should be pre-
pared for these plans, programs, and procedures rather than for particular or
individual actions taken pursuant to these plans, programs, or procedures. Only
when a particular proposed action involves a potential impact on the environ-
ment not considered ih the environmental statement for the applicable plan, pro-
gram, or procedure, will it be considered necessary to prepare an impact state-
ment on that individual or particular proposed action.
2. Each proposed project or activity shall be assessed for environmental con-
sequences, using the factors in attachment No. 1 and: a. If it is determined that
the action will not significantly affect the environment, any written assessment of
62
the environmental aspects of an anticipated action shall be retained by the
agency making the assessment until the action is completed. (See paragraph D
of attachment No. 1 to this enclosure.)
b. If it is determined that the action will have a significant affect on the
environment, a statement is required, unless it is excepted by paragraph 3, 4, or
5 below.
3. If an environmental statement was submitted for a project or activity in ac-
cordance with paragraph IV.A. of this enclosure, no additional environmental
statement is required for that project or activity unless it appears that there will
be significant adverse environmental consequences from the project or activity
that were not covered by the environmental statement.
4. If a project or activity is being carred out pursuant to a publication for which
an environmental statement was submitted in accordance with paragraph IV.B.
of this enclosure, no environmental statement is required for that project or ac-
tivity unless it appears that there will be significant adverse environmental con-
sequences from that project or activity that were not covered by the environmental
statement.
5. Combat or combat-related activities in a combat zone, riot control activities,
and other emergency activities do not require environmental statements. How-
ever, the intentional disposal of hazardous substances or of other materials in the
oceans shall not be construed to be combat or combat-related activities.
6. On occasion, laws other than the National Environmental Policy Act (ref-
erence (a)), such as those in reference (c), require the Department of Army to
gain approval of another Federal agency before commencing certain types of ac-
tions that may have environmental consequences. Compliance with the require-
ments of such laws does not relieve the responsible official from preparing and
processing an environmental statement if the proposed action is a major action
that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. However, in-
sofar as practicable, the draft environmental statement format should be used
in complying with other laws to minimize duplication of efforts.
One Attachment.
MAJOR AcTIoNs SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTING THE QUALITY OF THE HUMAN
ENVIRONMENT (MASAQHE)
A. It is impossible to list categorically all projects or activities that are "major
Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." In
making a judgment in a particular case, it will be necessary for the proponent
of the action to assess the expected environmental effects of the action in con-
junction with the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as
implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). If doubt is not
resolved, the matter should be referred to DALO-INE for comment and recom-
mendation. It is essential that all the environmental effects of an action be
assessed, whether these effects are adverse or beneficial. In determining whether
or not the effects of an action are significant, the proponent must evaluate the
nature and degree of all effects on the environment. These may be significant
even though the net environmental effect of the proposed action will be bene-
ficial.
B. All proponents shall insure that a decision is not made to procure a weapon
or material system or proceed with proposed projects, activities, or actions
until the environmental consequences of the decision have been assessed. If the
assessment indicates that the decision will either affect the environment on a
large geographical scale or have a serious environmental effect in a more re-
stricted geographical area, the proposed action shall be considered a major action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment (MASAQHE), and
the decision shall be deferred until Federal agencies possessing special expertise
or persons affected by the environmental effects of the decision have had an op-
portunity to present their views. It is necessary to consider not only the degree
of affect on the environment but also the scope of the action and the potential
effect of the action on other persons.
1. If a proponent agency intends to take an action that will influence sub-
activities in many subordinate units, and the subactivities will each affect the
environment, the action is probably a MASAQHE even though a single sub-
activity may not be in that category. For example, a limited maneuver or train-
ing exercise by small elements of the Army might not be a major action nor would
it normally affect the environment significantly. However, if the proponent in-
tended to publish a regulation that includes provisions prescribing the environ-
63
mental considerations that were to be given to the planning of all training exer-
cises or maneuvers of the Army for an indefinite period of time, then it might be
expected that such a regulation would have a significant effect on the quality of
the environment because it would govern numerous activities which individually
would have some effect on the environment. Thus, the regulation should be
construed to be a MASAQHE.
2. An example of an action that should be classified as a MASAQHE because
of a localized effect is an extremely noisy activity conducted by an agency near
a residential area, where the resulting noise might seriously affect the public
health and welfare of persons in the area. In keeping with the intent of NEPA,
no decision should be made to take action until these residents have been given
an opportunity to present their views, and their views have been carefully con-
sidered. Sea dumping, because of its controversial nature alone, is considered to
be a MASAQHE.
3. Another example of an action that might be classified as a MASAQHE is
a large quarrying operation with associated significant blasting and high visibil-
ity to the public. Also, such range operations as missile or other weapons firing
for test or training purposes might cause extensive fires with significant impact
on the environment and should be appraised carefully to determine if they are
MASAQHE. Projects for the construction of fences around large areas might
prevent migration of large numbers of deer or other wildlife and should be care-
fully appraised for their environmental consequences. Real property obtained or
granted by permit should also be carefully appraised for environmental con-
sequences.
C. Just as it is impossible to categorize all actions, so it is impossible to list
in advance all of the environmental factors to be considered. The proponent of
the action should consider all aspects of the action to determine if it will inter-
fere unreasonably with the living conditions of man, wildlife, or marine life, or
with any ecosystems on an immediate, short-range or long-range basis. Examples
of factors to be considered are:
1. Effect on surface or subsurface water
(a) Will the action: (1) Introduce toxic or hazardous substances or sig-
nificant amounts of chemicals, organic substances or solid wastes into bodies of
water; (2) Significantly increase sedimentation in a body of water; (3) Sig-
nificantly alter the temperature of a body of water; or (4) Modify the flow of
streams, rivers, or subsurface waters with attendant damage to others above or
below the Army activity?
(b) Will the action improve the quality of a body of water or recharge sub-
surface water?
2. Effect on atmosphere
(a) Will the action result in emissions into the atmosphere of toxic or hazard-
ous substances or significant amounts of other pollutants?
(b) Will the action result in the creation of excessive noise, considering the
proximity of and the likely effects of the noise on humans or wildlife?
(c) Will the action tend to reduce the amount of pollution in the atmosphere?
3. Effect on natural resources
(a) Will the action result in significant destruction of vegetation, wildlife, or
marine life?
(b) Will the action enhance the quality of vegetation, wildlife, or marine life?
(c) Will the action significantly affect soil quality?
(d) Will the action result in contamination or deterioration of food or food
sources?
(e) Will the action result in barriers or fencing in an area where there is
significant wildlife movement and prohibit that movement?
(f) Will the habitat or the ground cover be significantly modified with at-
tendant significant impact on wildlife?
4. Other values
(a) Will the action significantly affect, beneficially or adversely, the health or
welfare of man, including esthetic considerations?
(b) Will the action significantly affect, beneficially or adversely, other forms of
life or ecosystems of which they are a part?
D. Certain types of actions require close environmental scrutiny because of the
possibility that they may either affect the quality of the environment or create
environmental controversy. It may be desirable in such cases to have a complete
21-111 0 - 73 - a
64
presentation of the environmental aspects of the proposed action available for
any interested party. For these reasons, the environmental effects of the following
types of actions should be assessed in writing even though a detailed assessment
indicates that the action is not an MASAQHE.
1. Development or purchase of a new type of aircraft, ship, or vehicle, or of a
substantially modified propulsion system for any aircraft, ship, or vehicle.
2. Development or purchase of a new weapon system.
3. Real estate acquisitions or outleases of land.
4. Construction projects.
5. New installations (bases, posts, etc.).
6. Disposal of biological or chemical munitions, pesticides, or herbicides other
than in the manner in which they are intended to be used.
7. Intentional disposal of any substances in a significant quantity or on a
continuing or periodic basis.
8. Mission changes which increase the number of personnel in an area to a
degree that will tax the environmental capability of the local civilian community.
9. Major research and development projects.
10. Any action which, because of real, potential, or purported adverse environ-
mental consequences, is a subject of controversy among people who will be af-
fected by the action, or which, although not the subject of controversy, is likely
to create controversy when the proposed action becomes known by the public.
E. Even though a written assessment supports the conclusion that an action
is not an MASAQHE, an environmental impact statement should be written on a
proposed action which becomes highly controversial because of environmental
aspects. The environmental statement may be based on the information con-
tained in the assessment.
F. Relations with the public: Commanders are encouraged to establish rapport
with local and State officials concerning environmental quality. If deemed ap-
propriate, they may be contacted informally at any stage in the development of
the statement. However, the release of an environmental statement in its entirety
or any related information will be accomplished only in accordance with estab-
lished procedures governing the security review process and release of informa-
tion to the public. In addition, release of the environmental statement in its
entirety will require approval of HQ, DA. The information officer will provide
public affairs counsel to the commander during the preparation of environmental
statements. Anticipated public reaction to environmental actions must be care-
fully considered throughout the preparation process.
PREPARATION AND PROCESSING OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS
I. GENERAL
Preparation of environmental statements shall be based on considerations
discussed in the guidelines of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and
the following guidance. These directions are intended to assure consistency of
effort in preparing statements.
A. A careful, objective detailing of environmental impacts, alternatives, and
implications of proposed projects and activities should give reviewers both within
and outside the Department of the Army insight into the particulars associated
with the action. The general public, environmental action groups, special interest
associations, governmental agencies, and congressional committees will expect
the statements to be a valid source of information on proposed actions, as well
as a reflection of how the Department of the Army views environmental factors
and seeks to accommodate them. Since the statements must, whenever possible,
be made available to the public, it must be assumed that they will receive care-
ful scrutiny. The statements should be systematic presentations of environmental
impacts.
B. A statement should describe physical and environmental aspects sufficiently
to permit evaluation and independent appraisal of the favorable and adverse
environmental effects of each proposal. It should be simple and concise, yet should
include all pertinent facts. Length will depend upon the particular proposal and
the nature of its impact.
C. A statement should not be limited to ultimate conclusions, but should con-
tain in support of such conclusions a thorough evaluation of all factors affecting
the potential environmental impact of the proposal.
D. Rather than serving as a means for assisting or supporting project justifica-
tion. a statement should include a complete and objective appraisal of the en-
vironmental effects, beneficial and adverse, and of available alternatives. In no
65
case should adverse effects, either real or potential, be ignored or slighted in an
attempt to justify an action previously recommended. Similarly, care must be
taken to avoid overstating favorable effects.
E. In developing and obtain the necessary information to prepare a state-
ment, consultation with other Federal, State, and local agencies is encouraged.
II. CONTENT OF STATEMENT
The body of an environmental statement shall contain the following separate
sections with the length of each being adequate to identify and develop the
required information.
A. Project description.-Describe the proposal by name and specific location
and summarize its objectives and the activities which will ensue if it is adopted.
Provide technical data adequate to permit a careful assessment of environmental
impact by commenting agencies. Where relevant, maps should be provided.
B. The probable environmental impact of the proposed action.-(1) Identify
the probable direct and secondary environmental consequences of the proposed
action. This shall include commentary on the direct impact on man's health and
welfare and his surroundings through such media as air, water, or food. Threats
to other forms of life and their ecosystems shall be included. Examples of primary
and secondary environmental consequences that should be identified are the
primary miiltary aircraft operations and the secondary impact on future land
use which may result from such operations.
(2) Discuss both the beneficial and detrimental aspects of the environmental
changes, placing some relative value of the impacts described.
(3) Identify remedial and protective measures which could be taken in re-
sponse to adverse effects of environmental impacts. Such measures taken for
the minor or short-lived negative aspects of the project shall be discussed in
this section. The adverse effects which cannot be satisfactorily dealt with
shall be considered in greater detail along with their abatement and mitigation
measures in the following section.
C. Any probable adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should
the proposal be implemented.-Discuss the unavoidable adverse effects and the
implications thereof, and identify the abatement measures proposed to rectify
these and an estimation of their effectiveness. In addition to an evaluation of
damage to the natural environment, this would include an evaluation of the
extent to which human health or safety, aesthetically or culturally valuable
surroundings, standards of living, and other aspects of life will be sacrificed or
endangered.
D. Alternatives to the proposed action.-Describe the various alternatives con-
sidered, their general environmental impact, and the reason(s) why each was
not recommended. Identify alternatives as to their beneficial and detrimental
effects on the environmental elements, specifically taking into account the alter-
native of no action. Include with these alternatives economic, technical, and
operational considerations, as well as their environmental impact. Discuss any
other pertinent points not previously mentioned, such as requirements of statutes
or DOD directives that influence or limit alternatives.
E. The relationship between local short-term use of man's environment and
the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity.-Assess the cumu-
lative and long-term impacts of the proposed action with the view that each
generation is a trustee of the environment for succeeding generations. Give spe-
cial attention to considerations that would narrow the range of beneficial uses
of the environment or pose long-term risks to health or safety. The propriety
of any action should be weighed against the potential for damage to man's life
support system-the biosphere-thereby guarding against the shortsighted
foreclosures of future options or needs.
F. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would
be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.-Discuss irrevoca-
ble uses of resources, changes in land use, destruction of archeological or histori-
cal sites, unalterable disruptions in ecosystems, and other effects that would
curtail the diversity and range of beneficial uses of the environment should the
proposal be implemented.
III. SUMMARY SHEET
The environmental statement shall be accompanied by a summary sheet which
must provide the following information: A. Indicate whether the statement is
draft or final. B. Give the name of the action and indicate whether it is an ad-
ministrative or legislative action. C. Provide a brief description of the action
66
and indicate what geographical region (States and counties) is particularly
affected. D. Summarize the environmental impact and adverse environmental
effects. E. List alternatives considered. F. 1. (For draft statements.) List all
Federal, State, and local agencies from which comments have been requested.
2. (For final statements.) List all Federal, State, and local agencies and other
sources from which comments were requested and from which written comments
were received.
G. Provide the dates the draft statement and final statement were made
available to the CEQ and the public.
IV. DRAFT STATEMENT
A. Draft statements are those statements that have been prepared in accord-
ance with the guidance of this inclosure and for which review comments will
be requested from other DOD components, the CEQ, and appropriate Federal,
State, and local agencies.
1. Three copies of draft statements relating to section 412, Public Law
86-149, as amended (reference (1)), or the annual military construction bill
must accompany the recommendation through agency review procedures to OSD.
Distribution to other agencies and to the public for comments shall be withheld
until the legislative request has been forwarded to the Congress. At that time,
statements relating to special items included in the proposals shall be distrib-
uted, through the OASA(I. & L.), for comment.
2. In other cases where premature release would be contrary to existing ad-
ministrative procedures or otherwise be inappropriate, distribution to other
agencies and to the public for comments shall be made at the earliest appropriate
time.'
3. Normally, it should not be necessary for the Department of the Army to ob-
tain OSD approval prior to distributing the draft environmental statement out-
side the Department of Defense. This procedure does not alter any requirement
that may exist to coordinate the action itself within OSD prior to public re-
lease or to follow appropriate security review procedures.
4. The advice of CINFO shall be obtained through established command chan-
nels before routing outside of the Department of the Army environmental
statements that have significant public affairs implications.
B. Subject to the requirements of references (m) and (n) pertaining to the
identification, safeguarding, and dissemination to classified information and
to reference (o) pertaining to security review for public release approval, dis-
tribution of the draft statement shall be as follows:
1. One (1) cony to DALO-INE.
2. Two (2) copies to OASA (I. &L.).
3. Three (3) copies to OASI (H. & E.). (These copies are in addition to those
required by paragraph III.A.1 above.)
4. Ten (10) copies to the CEQ.
5. Five (5) copies to the EPA.
6. Two (2) copies to appropriate Federal agencies having jurisdiction by law
or sncia' exortive with respect to any environmental impact involved. (Ap-
pendix II of the CEQ guidelines. )
7. Two (2) copies to State and local agencies authorized to develop and en-
force environmental standards when the proposed action affects matters within
their jurisdiction. These copies shall be sent to the appropriate State and re-
gional or metropolitan clearinghouses in accordance with the procedures pre-
scribed in OMB Circular No. A-95 unless the Governor of the State involved
has designated some other point of contact for obtaining the State and local
agency review. The clearinghouses are listed in the Directory of State, Metro-
politan, and Regional Clearinghouses under OMB Circular No. A-95 (revised)
of April 19, 1971 (reference (k)). ODCSLOG, DA will maintain current issues
of A-95 to provide information for DA proponent agencies.
8. At such time as the draft statement is forwarded to the CEQ, other Federal,
State, and local agencies, it shall be made available to the public (to any orga-
nization or individual upon request) in accordance with reference (p). In ap-
propriate cases, the proponent, Headquarters, DA staff agency shall advise the
1Unclassified draft and final statements not requiring protection for other reasons
will be protected with a cover sheet on which will be tyned the following information:
"The material contained in the attached Environmental Impact Statement is for internal
coordinating use only and may not be released to non-Department of Defense agencies
or individuals until coordination has been completed and the material has been cleared
for public release by appropriate authority."
67
appropriate major field command to solicit the views of public organizations and
hold public hearings on the proposed action. Views of public organizations and
public hearings are appropriate in the following situations:
a. Where the proposed action by the agency will have a direct or peculiar
impact on the people residing in a particular geographical area.
b. Where public organization or members of the public possess expertise con-
cerning the impact of the action that may not otherwise be available.
c. Where no overriding consideration of national security or time makes it
illegal or impracticable to involve such organizations or members of the public
in the consideration of a proposed action in which there is evidence of wide
public interest. No public hearings need be held in connection with proposed
legislation in view of the opportunity for public hearing in connection with Con-
gressional consideration of the bill. Public hearings shall be conducted infor-
mally and need not be prolonged beyond a reasonable time necessary to obtain
a representative view of the various segments of public interest.
9. The proponent Headquarters, DA staff agency seeking review comments
may establish time limits of not less than 30 days for reply except that when-
ever an action related to air or water quality, noise abatement and control,
pesticide regulation, solid waste disposal, radiation criteria and standards, or
other provisions of the authority of the Administrator of the Environmental
Proteciton Agency is involved, a period of 45 days shall be allowed for review.
If the agency consulted does not reply within the established time limit, it
may be presumed that the agency has no comment to make, unless a request
for a specified extension of time has been made. Proponent agencies should en-
deavor to comply with request for extensions of time up to 15 days.
V. FINAL STATEMENT
A. Final statements are prepared after receipt of review comments provided
by other agencies. In many cases the final statements can be prepared by making
minor revisions to the draft statement and attaching the review comments re-
ceived from other sources. In other cases, it may be necessary to make major
revisions to the draft statement. In either case, it may be appropriate to provide
a discussion of problems and objections raised by other Federal, State, and local
agencies and by private organizations and individuals and the disposition of the
issues involved. Along with the comments received, this discussion should be
attached to the final text of the environmental statement.
B. Subject to the requirements of references (m) and (n) pertaining to the
identification, safeguarding, and dissemination of classified information and of
reference (o) pertaining to security review for public release approval, distribu-
tion of the final statement shall be as follows: (1) One (1) copy to DALO-INE.
(2) Two (2) copies to OASA (I. & L.). (3) One (1) copy to OASD (H. & E.).
(4) Ten (10) copies to the CEQ. (5) Five (5) copies of final statements relating
to section 412, Public Law 86-149, as amended (reference (1)), or the annual
military construction authorization bill to the appropriate congressional commit-
tees of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. (6) The final statement
also shall be made available to the public in accordance with reference (p).
VI. WAITING PERIOD BEFORE AN ACTION CAN BE TAKEN
A. It is important that draft environmental statements be prepared and circu-
lated for comment and furnished to the CEQ early enough in the review process
before an action is taken in order to permit meaningful consideration of the
environmental issues involved. To the maximum extent practicable no adminis-
trative action (i.e., any proposed action to be taken other than proposals for
legislation or reports on legislation) shall be taken sooner than 90 days after a
draft environmental statement has been circulated for comment and furnished to
the CEQ, and, except where advance public disclosure will result in significantly
increased costs of procurement, made available to the public. Neither shall such
administrative action be taken sooner than 30 days after the final text of the
environmental statement (together with comments) has been made available to
the CEQ and the public. Consequently, the minimum waiting period after sub-
mission of the draft statement is 90 days because the 30-day period and 90-day
period may run concurrently to the extent that they overlap.
B. When it is not practical for a Headquarters, DA staff agency to comply with
the time requirements contained in paragraph V.A., above, the agency shall re-
quest ODCSLOG-EO to consult with the CEQ in an endeavor to obtain a waiver
of a portion of the time requirement for that specific action. If negotiations in this
regard are not successful, DALO shall advise OASD (H. & E.).
68
C. If it is impossible for an agency to comply with the time requirements of
paragraph III.B., above, the Headquarters, DA staff agency shall forward the
draft environmental statement by summary sheet with OASA (I. & L.) proposed
memo to OSAD (H. & E.) with an explanation of the facts and circumstances that
preclude adherence to the time requirements. OASD (H. & E.) will attempt to
resolve the issues involved. The proposed action shall not be initiated until the
time problem has been satisfactorily resolved unless such action is authorized by
the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Defense.
VII. CLASSIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS
The fact that a proposed action is of a classified nature does not relieve the
proponent of the action from complying with the requirements of these guidelines.
Environmental statements, both draft and final, shall be prepared, safeguarded,
and disseminated in accordance with the usual requirements applicable to classi-
fied information (references (m) and (n)). When feasible, these statements shall
be organized in such a manner that classified portions can be included as annexes,
so that the unclassified portions can be made available to the public.
VIII. PROCESSING ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS ORIGINATED BY OTHER FEDERAL
AGENCIES
A. Environmental statements will be referred to the Department of the Army
by OSD or other Federal agencies for two reasons: (1) Where a proposed action
may affect matters over which the Department of the Army has jurisdiction by
law. (2) Where a proposed action may have environmental effects in an area
where the Department of the Army has been designated in appendix II of the
CEQ guidelines as possessing special expertise.
B. Comments of the Department of the Army on an environmental statement
prepared by another Federal agency should normally be restricted to the aspect
of the action for which the statement was referred.
C. When a request for review and comment on an environmental statement
prepared by another Federal agency is received by ODCSLOG, it shall determine
which Army agencies should review the environmental statement.
1. The Army agency designated as responsible for the review, in cases where
no other defense components are involved, will prepare a summary sheet reply
from OASA (I. & L.) directly to the agency involved. One (1) copy of the reply
will be forwarded to OASD (H. & E.) and ten (10) copies to the CEQ.
2. When it has been determined by OSD that another military service as well
as the Army is involved, the OASD (H. & E.) will prepare a consolidated review
report or designate the military service with primary interest to prepare such a
report. In turn, the Army agency concerned will prepare the summary sheet
response. The OASD (H. & E.) will forward the consolidated report to the request-
ing agency and provide ten (10) copies to the CEQ.
D. When a request for review and comment on an environmental statement
from another Federal agency is received directly by the Department of the Army,
the designated staff agency shall reply through OASA (I. & L.) directly to the
requesting agency. Also, one (1) copy of the reply will be forwarded to OASD
(H. & E.) and ten (10) copies to the CEQ.
Two attachments.
EXAMPLE
PROTECTIVE COVER SHEET
The material contained in the attached environmental impact statement is for
internal coordinating use only and may not be released to non-Department of
Defense agencies or individuals until coordination has been completed and the
material has been cleared for public release by appropriate authority.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ARMY COMMAND OR AGENCY
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/DRAFT OR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
(TITLE)
INSTALLATION OR AGENCY
Date Prepared
Prepared by :
Approved by Installation/agency.
Approved by Commander, Army Command or Agency (or his designee).
69
CONTENTS
1. Total impact of the proposed action on the environment: Page
(a) Description of action . ._____________---.----. - .--.-.-
(b) Summary of impact-- - - - _ _........ ..... . -.-.-. - - -.-.-.
(1) Air quality (if applicable) ..---------------------
(2) Water quality (if applicable)--------- -----
(3) Sound control (if applicable) _______ -----------
(4) Land use (if applicable) _.. ---------------
(5) Fish and wildlife (if applicable) -----.--- ----- -
(6) Other (if applicable)--------------------------
2. Adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided:
(a) ----------------------------
(b) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_ . . . - -. . - - - - - -
3. Alternatives to the proposed action--------- . -.--------- --
(a) ----------------------------
(b) -----------------------------------------------
4. Relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and main-
tenance and enhancement of long-term productivity:
(a) --- ---------------- -----------------------
(b) -- ------- ------ ------- ------ ------- ------ --
5. Inventory of all irreversible and irretrievable commitments of natural
resources:
(a) --------------------------
(b ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
6. Details of any unresolved or probable controversy:
(a) ----- --------------------------
(b) --
APPENDIX I
A. Supporting documentation of air quality evaluation (if applicable) ..-
B. Supporting documentation of water quality evaluation (if applicable)
C. Supporting documentation of sound control evaluation (if applicable)_ _
D. Supporting documentation of land use evaluation (if applicable) .....
E. Supporting documentation of fish and wildlife evaluation (if applicable)_
F. Supporting documentation of other evaluation (if applicable)
APPENDIX II-COMMENTS BY STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES
A. Summary -----------------------------------------
B. Comments from - - - -
C. Comments from --
APPENDIX III-COMMENTS FROM OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIESa
A. Summary--------------------
B. Comments from --
C. Comments from -- --- ----
1 Where environmental assessments have been made and it has been determined that there
is no regnirement to submit a formal environmental statement, the concerned agency, at
its discretion, may limit the amount of detail provided in the supporting appendexes for
inclusion ii the project files.
2 (Comments will be solicited from State and local agencies when the environmental im-
pact of a proposed action is pertinent to those agencies. HQ, DA will accomplish this after
receipt of the environmental statement from the command by writing to the appropriate
State/regional clearinghouse and other Federal agencies.)
3 (Comments will be solicited from other Federal agencies having jurisdiction by law or
special expertise with any of the environmental problems associated with the proposed
action. HQ, DA will accomplish this after receipt of the environmental statement from the
command by direct solicitation from those Federal agencies concerned.)
70
The flow diagrams below indicate the channels through which an initiated
environmental statement passes. The initiating activity (fig. 1) submits a draft
statement (dotted lines) to the major subcommand of concern; at the same
time, this activity may hold informal discussions with relevant local or State
groups. The major subcommand may or may not elect to refer the statement to a
higher command; this would depend on the decision concerning the proposed
action. If it goes to Headquarters, DA, it follows the route shown in Figure 2;
Headquarters, DA may also refer it to outside agencies, as indicated.
After consideration at appropriate commands, the statement, with comments,
is sent back down to the initiating activity. After revision, the final statement
(solid lines) follows the same general route as the draft.
71
FLOW DIAGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS (Fig. 1)
RTERS~ DA CEQ and OSD
RTERS. DA
Fed/State/Public,
Local, CEQ.and OSD
Coordination (draft
only)
MAJOR COMMAND
MAJOR SUBCOMMAND
/ I Informal
Initiating Activity E---------) Discussions with
Local/State
FLOW DIAGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS WITHIN HQ, DA (Fig 2)
OSD/CEQ E- OASA(I&L)
Coordination
Other I
Concerned _.. Proponent Staff
General and / Agency
Special Staff
Agencies
Attachment 2 to Inclosure 2 to Inclosure 1
Fed/State/Local,
Public, CEQ and OSD
Coordination
Coordination
(Envirorental'Office)
72
REFERENCES
(a) Public Law 91-190, "National Environmental Policy Act of 1969," January 1,
1970.
(b) Public Law 91-604, "Clean Air Amendments of 1970," December 31, 1970.
(c) Section 409 of Public Law 91-121, "Armed Forces Appropriation Authoriza-
tion, 1970," November 19, 1969, as amended by section 506 of Public Law
91-441, "Armed Forces Appropriation Authorization, 1971," October 7,
1970.
(d) Executive Order 11514, "Protection and Enhancement of Environmental
Quality," March 7, 1970 (35 Federal Register 46, 4247 (1970)).
(e) Executive Order 11507, "Prevention, Control, and Abatement of Air and
Water Pollution at Federal Facilities," February 5, 1970 (35 Federal
Register 25, 2573 (1970)).
(f) Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality, "State-
ments on Major Federal Actions Affecting the Environment," April 23,
1971 (36 Federal Register 79, 7724 (1971) ).
(g) Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, "Pro-
posed Federal Actions Affecting the Environment," Bulletin No. 71-3,
August 31, 1970.
(h) DOD Directive 5100.50, "Protection and Enhancement of Environmental
Quality," June 23, 1970.
(i) DOD Directive 5500.50, "Natural Resources-Conservation and Manage-
ment," May 24, 1965.
(j) Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, cir-
cular No. A-95 (revised), February 9, 1971 (parts I and II).
(k) "Directory of State, Metropolitan, and Regional Clearinghouses," under
OMB circular No. A-95 (revised), April 19, 1971.
(1) Public Law 86-149, "To Authorize Certain Construction at Military Installa-
tions and for Other Purposes," August 10, 1959.
(m) DOD Directive 5200.1, "Safeguarding Official Information in the Inter-
ests of the Defense of the United States," July 10, 1968.
(n) DOD Instruction 5210.47, "Security Classification of Official Information,"
December 31, 1964.
(o) DOD Directive 5230.9, "Clearance of DOD Public Information," December 24,
1966.
(p) DOD Directive 5400.7, "Availability to the Public of DOD Information,"
June 23, 1967.
(q) DEPSECDEF memorandum, "Interim Guidelines on Environmental State-
ments," August S, 1970 (hereby cancelled).
(r) TAG letter, AGDA(M) (September 10, 1970) LOG-C-PDBB 8316-B, Sep-
tember 11, 1970, subject: Interim guidelines on environmental statements,
RCS-OSD(OT) 1570.
(s) TAG letter, AGDA(M) (March 1, 1970) LOG-C-PDBB, March 18, 1971,
subject: Environmental Impact Statements-RCS DD-HE(AR) 1068.
(t) DA message to CINCUSARPAC, 970436, LOG-C-PDBB, October 6, 1970,
subject as reference (o) above, NOTAL.
(u) DA message to CINCUSARPAC, 282105Z, April 1971, subject: Disposal by
Sea Dump, NOTAL.
(v) DOD directive 6051.1, August 9, 1971, subject : Environmental Considerations
in DOD Actions, with change 1, September 2, 1971.
[Additional information was retained in the committee's files.]
Mr. PATTEN. General, with your background, and the rest of you
in this room, you fellows have background and training and when you
build you are not going to put up houses that will be flooded and
washed out by heavy rains. I am sure you ought to be better off than
some of these other agencies. Is that right ?
General COOPER. That is correct.
Mr. PATTEN. As you said, you have to use common sense. Didn't
you say you have to be reasonable ?
General COOPER. Yes, sir.
Mr. PATTEN. You fellows have this training. In your military ex-
perience you must have seen many -a job washed out, or a road in
Korea, Vietnam or some other place. I would like to rely on your
judgment. I don't think you have to have some clerk in EPA or some
place tell you what is right. I would rather rely on your judgment, to
avoid flood damage and other things.
In my area they .are building in what was always la flood plain
in the river areas. I have seen houses sink 3 feet and tilt and be
unusable. Anyone could have predicted that. They lare building there
where you couldn't dig 5 feet without finding water, or with a lake
underneath. They should not be ,allowed to build in some of these
areas. I am sure you wouldn't do it.
Is there anything further on that ?
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MD.
Mr. PATTEN. Insert page 26 in the record.
[The page follows:]
. DATE 2 DEPARTMENT 3 INSTALLATION
15 Feb 73 ARMY FY 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
4. COMMANDOR MANAGEMENT BUREAU S INSTALLATION CONTROL NUMBER 6 STATE COUNTRY
US Army Test and Evaluation 24015 Maryland
Command
0. STATUS 5 YEAR OF INITIAL OCCUPANCY 9. COUNTY (U.S.) 10. NEAREST CITY
1918 Hartford Aberdeen
Headquarters, US Army Test and Evaluation Command.
Performs research on propellants and propulsive force
systems; terminal effects of warheads; vulnerability
of weapons to blast fragments and radiation; human
factors engineering, dynamic and environmental test-
ing of vehicles and ordnance equipment. The US Army
Ordnance School, Land Warfare Laboratory, Research
and Development Center and Joint Military Packaging
Training Center are located here. The Environmental
Hygiene Agency is located at Edgewood Arsenal a
sub-installation nearby.
PERSONNEL STRENGTH
PERMANENT STUDENTS I
OF IER ENLISTR CI AN oI. AICER ES T..E o IENLSTE I CI LIA I
UsoP30Jun72 9
PLANSED (EndCF 77 ) 984 699 6 2
13. INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LAND COST ($333) IRPROTERENT (003) TOTAL ($000)
() (2) n) ()
.OWNED 71,205 4,401.0 137 ,4581 141859
SLEASES4 ND EASEMENTS 88 1un8 8 0 20
c. INVENTORT TOTAL (E-ppI IsdI) 45 3D0 JUNE 19 2_ 141.879
. AUTORIZATION NOT T IN ENoR Exclusive of CA 0
UTHORITION TESTED IN THIS PROGAM - 4.91
i E 1s. ED AUTHORIZATIONN NEXT YEARS
I. GRAND TOTIL+d r
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION LINE ITEMS
LINE ITEM DESIGNATION
TENANT
COMMAND
Family Housing, Dwellings Army
Family Housing, Mobile Home Facilities Army
70 1390
UNIT OF
MEASURE
d
" " 910
AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM
ESTIMATED
SCOPE COST
(0000)
Units 166
Spaces 76
4,600
311.1
I I _I I
149.700
FUNDING PROGRAM
SCOPE E OST
(*000)
9 A
4,600
311.1
PANE NO. 26
) 1
sUPPORTFn
LINE ITEM TITLE
Mr. LoNG. This is an area I know very well. You are asking for
166 housing units, 76 mobile home spaces. At an earlier time I asked
you whether you considered the Wherry housing at Bainbridge.
How many units are there at Bainbridge ?
General COOPER. About 500 or so, sir. Originally there were more
but they were modified to get fewer larger units.
NEED FOR REQUESTED UNITS IN DOUBT
Mr. LONG. Several million dollars were spent not too many years
ago to renovate these. Why can't they be used ?
General COOPER. We specifically looked into it and Mr. Fliakas
of OSD
Mr. LONG. He is the same fellow who gave us a lot of supposedly
solid information on Fort Huachuca that turned out admittedly much
less so-the Army had to admit great embarrassment on that.
Is Mr. Fliakas here today ?
General KJELLSTROM. No, he is not here. He is not an Army man, sir.
Mr. LONG. I hope you will try to get better sources for your
information.
Mr. Lockwood back here is also 'a source I would rather not rely
on in the future.
General COOPER. Mr. Bearman did go up and look at the house.
Basically the Navy, in anticipation of pulling out of those houses,
did let them go down hill. They did 'a minimum amount of main-
tenance. They are about 14 miles away on -a toll road.
Mr. LONG. They aren't 14 miles away. I would say they are not
more than 10 miles away, but go ahead.
General COOPER. Based on the condition of these, we think they
should be considered substandard.
Mr. LONG. The Navy spent some millions of dollars renovating
them. I went through those houses not too many years ago. They are
not the most desirable housing in the world, but not the worst
housing either.
General COOPER. We think they are qualified as substandard and
as such should be disposed of and sold.
Mr. LONG. What do you mean "disposed of?" Why should anybody
else buy them if they are substandard ?
General COOPER. Because they no longer will meet the needs with-
out extensive expenditures by the armed services; in this case, the
Army.
Mr. LONG. I would say that you have far greater needs in other
parts of the country, if you believe what you have said here, for
the housing at Bainbridge can certainly suffice for some years. This
is especially so, considering that we are being asked to declare some
land at Bainbridge and Edgewood excess. You are going to have
encroachment problems there. We hear all kinds of rumblings.
The Navy put a new WAVE barracks there; they put much money
into Wherry housing, and about the minute it did so, the Navy decided
it was going to move somewhere else. I really think that this is one
housing expenditure that you could postpone.
General COOPER. We agree, sir, based on our January survey. We
would recommend that the committee postpone these 166 units.
Mr. LONG. I hadn't realized you were recommending that.
General COOPER. This was a straightforward reevaluation of the
requirement.
[Off the record discussion.]
Mr. LONG. No union controls me. I might point out in the last pri-
mary the AFL-CIO supported my opponent.
I am talking about the leaders. I don't take orders from any unions.
I form my own policies and judgments. In this case I think you have
at Bainbridge housing that could be used, housing which would be
more than adequate in our view of needs we have elsewhere in the
country.
Mr. PATTEN. YOU just saved the Government $4.6 million, for which
I compliment you.
Mr. PATTEN. The committee stands adjourned until 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION
Mr. SIKEs. The committee will come to order.
FORT BRAGG/POPE AIR FORCE BASE, N.C.
Mr. SIRES. We will turn to Fort Bragg/Pope Air Force Base, N.C.
Insert page 30 in the record.
[The page follows:]
I. DATE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. INSTALLATION
15 Feb 73 ARMY FY 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM FORT BRAGG - POPE AFB
4. COMMAND OR MANAGEMENT BUREAU 5. INSTALLATION CONTROL NUMBER 6, STATE COUNTRY
Third US Army 3425 (Ft.Bragg) North Carolina
7. STATUS 8. YEAR OF INITIAL OCCUPANCY 9. COUNTY (U.S.) 10 NEAREST CITY
Active 1918 Cumberland & Hoke Fayetteville
11. MISSION OR MAJOR FUNCTIONS 12. PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
Fort Bragg provides support for XVIII Airborne Corps, PERSONAL STRENGTH OFFICER ENLISTED CIVILIAN OFFICER ENLISTED OFFICER ENLITEO CIVILIAN TOTAL
82nd Airborne Division, US Army J. F. Kennedy Center (Excl Pope AFB) (I) () () (4 I (6) I() ) (9
for Military Assistance and Army Training Center and AS OF 30 Jun 72 4323 31,17 4113 244 560 4,14
supplemental housing support for military personnel A PL*ANTE(Cdr' 77 ) 4435 30 818 3408 479 473 39,613
from Pope AFB. Accom --aes training of personnel 13. INVENTORY
and testing of air orne equipment. LAND ACRES LAND COST (,000) IMPROVEMENT ($000) TOTAL (000)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Pope Air Force Base provides support for TAC Air s. OWNED I 0,691 3,929 225,049 228,978
Command, Air Base Division, Combat Support Group, . LEASES AND EASEMENTS 9* 9
Tactical Control Group, Special Operations Wing, INVENTORY TOTAL (CRcePII1R) AS OF 30 JUNE I9 228.987
and Tactical Airlift Wing Headquarters with . AUTHRIZATION NOT YET IN INENTORY Exclusive of MCA 14,087
t esquadrons. " AUTHORIZATION REOQUESTEDO IN THIS PROGRAM 4,430
three squadron
ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATION - NEXT 4 YEARS " 63,400
* $9,400 one-time cost of easement e. AGRND TOTAL ( + da 1) 310,904
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION LINE ITEMS
LINE ITEM DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CODE NO. LINE ITEM TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
711 Family Housing, Dwellings Army Units 136 4,430 136 4,430
711 Family Housing, Dwellings Army Units 136 4,430 136 4,430
FDoc
DD 1 OCT 70 1390
PAGE NO. 30
Mr. SIKES. The request is for 136 units, for $4,430,000. What is your
deficit here ?
General COOPER. The calendar year 1972 survey, on which the pro-
posed project was based, shows a programable deficit of 1,906 units,
766 officers, 602 eligible enlisted, 535 ineligible enlisted and three key
civilians. Based on more recent data the current deficit is 1,833 eligible
personnel and 463 ineligibles. This project is to alleviate a critical
shortage in onpost field grade officer units.
Mr. SIKES. Do you plan to rehabilitate the existing substandard
units ? If so, when? If not, why ?
General COOPER. One of the premises of the survey which deter-
mined the units to be designated inadequate under Public Law 92-545
was that the unit could not be improved to adequate standards at a
cost within $10,000. Consequently now none of the units designated
under this authority are scheduled for improvements. It is possible,
however, that a portion of these units could be upgraded to adequate
standards at a cost greater than $10,000 per unit. At this time the actual
number in this category is unknown. Those units designated as inade-
quate will be used to house military personnel until such time as they
can be replaced with adequate units or declared excess.
Mr. SIKES. These are all to be for field grade officers ?
General COOPER. That is correct. They are all four bedroom units
for field grade officers.
Mr. SIKEs. Does that mean junior officers and NCO's are adequately
housed?
General COOPER. No, sir, but it does mean in terms of total require-
ments we have an imbalance in numbers of quarters. We have propor-
tionately fewer quarters in the field grades than we do in the lower
grades.
Mr. SIKEs. How are field grade officers' needs being accommodated
now?
General COOPER. Some of the field grade officers are in company
grade officers' quarters and some are living off-post.
Mr. SIIES. What housing does the Air Force have at Pope? Do you
use the Pope Air Force Base population in determining your needs ?
How many Air Force families are included in your housing require-
ments and where will the Air Force units be built?
General COOPER. There are 301 units, 89 officers and 212 enlisted, on
Pope Air Force Base. For programing purposes Fort Bragg and Pope
Air Force Base requirements are combined. Of the 18,867 units pro-
jected as the long range requirement, 2,306 are Air Force. The units
in the fiscal year 1974 program are based totally on the Fort Bragg
requirement since the deficit of 766 officer units relates to Army re-
quirements. Should this situation change and Air Force requirements
develop, the siting would be mutually agreed upon between the Air
Force and the Army, the host service for the combined requirements.
Mr. SIXEs. Why were officers using enlisted housing at the time of
your survey ?
General COOPER. Although an imbalance of on-post housing used by
officers existed at the time of the survey, the community was providing
a higher percentage of suitable assets to enlisted men than to officers in
relation to the families actually in the area, 64.4 percent eligible en-
listed and 49.4 percent for officers. Accordingly it was in the best inter-
est of overall operations to house additional officers on-post until more
officer units could be constructed. The imbalance was recognized and
the proposed fiscal year 1974 project for 136 field grade four-bedroom
units will improve on-post balance.
Mr. SIKES. What will be your deficit if these units are constructed ?
What are your plans for meeting this deficit ?
General CooERn. Based on the calendar year 1972 survey data, there
is a remaining deficit of 1,235 units for eligible personnel and 535 units
for ineligible personnel. Using the latest projected strength and asset
data from the calendar year 1973 survey and marital rates prescribed
by ODS, the Fort Bragg/Pope Air Force Base programable deficit
will deminish significantly after consideration of the proposed fiscal
year 1974 project. The remaining deficit will require careful review
prior to programing additional construction.
Mr. SInEs. Are there questions ?
TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT, PA.
We will turn to Tobyhanna Army Depot, Pa. Insert page 34 in
the record.
[The page follows:]
21-111 0 - 73 - 6
C-i 3 Apr 73
1 FATE 7 2 DEPARTME
FY 194MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
' INSTALLATION
TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT
4. COMMAND OR MANAGEMENT eURE4U
US Army Material Command
7. STATUS
Active
s Iv:AL_ TIO =O'TROL NUYMB
42780
SYEARO 9 INITIAL OCCUPANCY
1953
Pennsylvania
9. COUNTY (U.S.)
Monroe
10 NEAREST CITY
Scranton
It. MIRNION OR MAJOR FUNCTIONS 12 PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
PERSONNEL STRENGTH OFFICER ENLENLISTED OFFICER ENLISTED CIVILIAN TOTAL
The primary mission of this Depot is to receive, (I) (A) 3) 4 E3 o r) () re)
store, issue, repair and fabricate general . o nF 77 13641
electrical and electronic supplies and. PLANN (ECdFr 41 154 3446
eupet3INVENTORY
equipment LAND COST (1000) IMPROVEMENT ($000) TOTAL (5000)
LAND (2) (3) 14
O.NED 1419 0170 39.093.5 39,269
LEASES AND EASEMENTS 35 . 0 I 6
INVENTORY TOTAL (Except Id rent) AS OF 30 JUNE 19 39275
d. AUTHORIZATION NOT YET IN INVENTORY Rxcillsve of MCA 0
e. AUTHORIZATION REOUESTE IN THIS PROGRAM t I 2,464
I. ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATION - NEXT 4 YEARS "1 to 0-
. GRAND TOTAL (c d I ) 1 1-739
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION LINE ITEMS
LINE ITEM DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATOORY TENAT UNIT OF ESTIMATEO ESTIMATED
CODE NO LINE ITEM TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
0 d o) ( 000)
( a NI
Family Housing, Dwellings
Units
2,464
DD 1 OCT 70 1390
PAGE NO. 34
81
Mr. SIKES. The request is for 86 units which will cost $2,464,000.
Will this meet the requirements ?
General COOPER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SixEs. Will you rehabilitate the existing 50 units of the sub-
standard housing ?
General COOPER. We will at some later date.
Excuse me, sir. When you say rehabilitate for the substandard ones,
we are not authorized to rehabilitate them but we will replace them
at some later date.
Mr. SIKEs. Is the medical depot transfer from Atlanta a factor in
this requirement ?
General COOPER. Yes. The projected strength on which the require-
ment is based includes the addition of 95 military personnel for the
medical depot.
FORT HOOD, TEX.
Mr. SIxEs. We will turn to Fort Hood, Tex. Place in the record
page 38.
[The page follows:]
C-1 3 April 1973
I DATE 2 DEPARTMENT 3 INSTALLATION
15 Feb 73 ARMY FY 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM FORT HOOD
4. COMMAND OR MANAGEMENT BUREAU 5 INSTALLATION CONTROL NUMBER 6 STATE COUNTRY
Fifth US Army 48255 Texas
7. STATUS 0. YEAR OF INITIAL OCCUPANCY 9. COUNTY (U.S.) 10 NEAREST CITY
Active 1942 Bell and Coryell Killeen
It. MIMION OR MAJOR FUNCTIONS 12. PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
Responsible for conmand, training and logistical PERSONNEL STREGTOH OFFICER NLISTEO CIVILIAN OFFICER ENLISTED OFFICER ENLISED CIVILIAN TOTAL
support of Two Army Divisions, Third Corps Head- _, ANNED (n .T " 77 ,(2) 5 30) (5 ) oj I R () (2 87
quarters and numerous miscellaneous support units AS OF fI .JLn 77 3682 32 508 39,787
and support of reserve forces summer training. .LANNE ( . 77 4174 35 49 3018 2,686
13.INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LAND COST (0000) IMPROVEMENT (5000) TOTAL (*000)
(I) (2) (3) (4)
.OwNED 08566 6.777.1 232455.6 239,233
L. EASES AND EASEMENTS 9 I 0. ) 0
A. INVENTORY TOTAL (EcePr Id Ient) AS OE30 JUNE t 72 2 2
A.AUTHORIZATION NOT YET IN INVENTORy Exclusive of MCA 29,098
AUTHORIZATION OREOUESTEDIN THIS PROGRAM I II 24,870
. ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATION- NEXT 4 YEARS 79,477
A. GRAND TOTAL (c +d +* 0.
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION LINE ITEMS
LINE ITEM DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION P DGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT F ESTIMATES ESTIMATED
CCODE NO. LINE ITEM TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE ES OSTED SCOPE ECOST
c000) 0|000)
6 d 1 S h
Family Housing, Dwellings
Family Housing, Mobile Home Facilities
Army
Army
Units
Spaces
23,423
1,447
23,423
1,447
I. _ ___ _ II _ _II_
PanE NO. 38
DD 1 O'" 7 1390
Mr. SIKEs. The request is for 900 units of family housing at a cost
of $23,423,000 and 380 units of mobile home facilities costing
$1,447,000.
You will have to bring me up to date on this. We had 1,000 units here
last year; did we not ?
General COOPER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SIKES. Is this another 900 in addition?
General COOPER. This is another 900; yes, sir.
Mr. SIKEs. What is the requirement there ?
General CoOPER. That is the post where we have two divisions.
Mr. SIKEs. There have been two divisions there for some time.
General COOPER. Yes, sir; but we have been filling the divisions up
after the war in Vietnam. The divisions went down in strength and
some were at only 80 percent strength. All of the divisions are going
up to 100 percent strength.
Mr. SIKES. If you don't run into difficulty with the Volunteer Army
concept.
General COOPER. I am not sure I understand.
Mr. SIKES. If you are able to get all of the people you need under
the Volunteer Army.
General COOPER. We are having trouble getting all the people we
need.
Mr. SIKES. Do you feel that the need is positive, that there is a justi-
fication for an additional 900 units?
General COOPER. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, when we cut down the
number at Fort Carson we added 200 at Fort Hood. Our original
program had only 700.
Mr. SIKES. There is to be a sharp increase in base population. What
is the reason for this increase ?
General COOPER. The installation was understrength at the time of
the calendar year 1972 family housing survey. Fort Hood is the home of
two divisions and supporting elements. The backfilling of the divisions
to authorized strength will increase the installation population.
Mr. SIKES. According to the justifications, you will still meet only
two-thirds of the housing requirement at Hood. What do you plan
to do about the remaining need ?
General COOPER. Sir, in the 1973 survey there were additional houses
that were in the community. We will have to program some additional
houses in fiscal year 1975 to come up to the need. But we did get 700
additional houses noted from the community support.
Mr. SIKES. If there should be a continuation of the 236 program,
do you plan to use it at Fort Hood ?
General COOPER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SIKES. Under the new plan which would permit this housing
to be built on the basis of military requirements ?
General COOPER. That is correct.
Mr. SixEs. How many would you build ?
General COOPER. I don't have the the precise number but it would be
500 or so I would guess. Maybe even more.
Mr. SIKEs. I notice there are about 1,300 families involuntarily
separated. How does this impact on morale? Will this housing help
alleviate that situation ?
General COOPER. Involuntary separation of families is of major
concern due to the direct and adverse impact such separation has on
the morale of the sponsor and his family. Separation of families leads
to financial hardships, disciplinary problems, and overall dissatis-
faction with the Army. This housing will help alleviate the problem,
since the waiting time for quarters should be reduced as a result.
Mr. SIKES. Do you give priority to families involuntarily separated,
or is it first come, first served ?
General COOPER. The actual assignment is up to the installation
commander. In general, people who are involuntarily separated and
have been on the list will get housing before new people.
Mr. SIKEs. Are there questions ?
RED RIVER ARMY DEPOT, TEX.
Mr. SIKES. We will turn to Red River Army Depot, Tex. Insert
page 42 in the record.
[The page follows:]
The primary mission of this Depot is storage,
issue and maintenance of Army supplies and
equipment
PERSONNEL STRENGTH OFFICER ENLISTED
,. s OF 30 Jun 2 23 36
b. PLANNED (End F 77 ) 36 21
13.
S ACRES
L AND
e. OWNED 157
b LEASES NO EASEMENTS 0
c. INVENTORy TOTAL (Except Ind rent) AS OF 30 JU
d. AUTHORIZATION NOT YET IN INVENTORY
SAUTHORIZATIDN REQUESTED IN THIS PROGRAM
. ESTIMATED A RIZTION - NEXTOATOEARS
,. GRAND TOTAL (.o d R 1)
Family Housing, Dwellings
DD 1 OCT 70 1390
PAGE NO.
86
Mr. SIKES. The request is for 21 units, $556,000. Will this meet the
requirements?
General COOPER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SIKES. What are you using now ?
General COOPER. Right now we have some houses that are in very
poor condition.
Mr. STKIS. What are you going to do with those?
General COOPER. We are roing to tear those down.
Mr. SIKES. Have you selected the site for the project?
General COOPER. No, we haven't.
Mr. SIKES. Will you provide the committee with a map showing the
location when the site has been selected.
[The map is to be provided for the committee files.]
FORT MONROE, VA.
Mr. SIKES. Turn to Fort Monroe, Va. Insert page 46 in the record.
[The page follows:]
C-1 3 Apr 73
5 DATE DEARTMEI
15 Feb 73 ARMY
4. MMANOORMANAGEMENT BUREAU
First US Army
7. STATUS
Active
11. MISSION OR MAJOR FUNCTIONS
FY 197& MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
5 3TILva TIC COTL UMBER
51360
. EAROF INITIAL OCCUPANCY
1838
HQ, US Continental Army Command. Provides administra
tive and logistical support for US Forces Atlantic;
US CONARC Support Element; USA Garrison; USA Medical
Department Activity; USA Security Agency Detachment;
USA Separation Transfer Point; 50th Army Bank;
559th Military Policy Company; USA Audio-Visual
Support Center and other Army activities located
at Fort Monroe. US CONARC is the administrative
and operational headquarters for the CONUS Armies.
PERSONNEL STRENGTH
.. As 30 Jun 72
. PLNE ED (EdFr 77 )
C-1 3Apr 7
0 NETN
3. INVENTORY
ACRES LANGO COST ($000) IMPROVEMENT (000) TOTAL (000)
r cro rs or
SONEO 1,024 143.7 21,59.5
SLEASES AND EASEMENTS 45 3.1 1
INVENTORY TOTAL (EAcen.ld r.-O) A OF 3 JUNE I . 22,006
d AUTHORIaATION NOT YET IN INVENTORY Exclusive of MCA 0
UTOIN REQUESTED IN THIS PORAMI I
. ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATION - NEXT 4 YEARS I 5,640
13
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION LINE ITEMS
LINE ITEM DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CETEOUNO LINE ITEM TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCUPE D0ST
(200U) (5000)
1 db d/ J h
711 Family Housing, Dwellings Army Units 200 5,640 200 5,640
DD l 7 19.AC O 4
DD 1 OCr 7 -i390
I
3 INSTALLATION
FORT MONROE
5. STATE COUNTRY
Virginia
9. COUNTY (U.S. 10 NEAREST CITY
Hampton City Hampton
PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
EDIERINISE CIVILIAN OIa)FFICER ENLISTED OF ER . ENLISTED CIV(ILIAN TONAL
O(I E (5) c, I(6 (7)
697 1 1346
790 I 870 1328 2988
33,LO86
g. GRAND TOTAL (c + d + I + 0
PAGE NO. 46
Mr. SIRES. The request is for 200 units, at a cost of $5,640,000. Has
a firm decision been reached on the long-term requirement for this
installation ?
General COOPER. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SIREs. When can the committee expect to have this information ?
General COOPER. We expect to have it about September 1, as far
as any programing purpose is concerned. It may not be time for an-
nouncement. I have kept Mr. Nicholas informed of current status of our
plan.
Mr. SIRES. Has the site been selected for the housing ?
General COOPER. In general.
Mr. SIRES. Provide the committee with a map showing the location.
General COOPER. Yes, sir.
[The map was provided for the committee files.]
Mr. SIRES. There is a projected reduction in base loading and the
reduction is in enlisted men while there is an increase in officer
strength. That is not a normal situation. What is the reason ?
General COOPER. This reflects the change or tradeoff in bringing
the Combat Development Command people down there.
Mr. SIRES. Fifty of the proposed units are for field grade officers.
What rank will be quartered in these 200 units ?
General COOPER. In the 200 units as a whole, as you said, 50 field
grade majors, lieutenant colonels, and colonels. Ten company grade
two bedroom, 8 company grade three bedroom, 12 company grade
four bedroom, 50 junior NCO three bedroom, and 70 junior NCO
four bedroom.
Mr. SIRES. Are there questions ?
FHA CERTIFICATION
General COOPER. On Fort Monroe we have not yet received the FHA
certification authorization on the 200 units. We have been discussing it
with the FHA regional man at Richmond. We expect to get that cer-
tification since he certified some of Langley Air Force Base.
Mr. SIRES. Provide it to the committee when you have it.
[The information follows:]
On August 8, 1973, the Richmond Area Office, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, agreed to certify a requirement for 132 4-bedroom units at
Fort Monroe, Va. This certification does not correspond to the total program at
Fort Monroe which is for 200 units, only 36 of which are 4-bedroom.
Officials at Fort Monroe and Housing and Urban Development have not reached
an agreement on the adequacy and extent of community support in the Fort
Monroe area. Although the discussion continues it now appears unlikely that
full certification will be obtained.
FORT EUSTIS, VA.
Mr. SIKES. Turn to Fort Eustis, Va. Insert in the record page 49a.
[The page follows:]
N ATE aI DEPARTMENT I NSTALLATION
3 Apr 73 ARMY FY 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM FORT EUSTIS
A. CoMMAND OR MANAGE MENT eu.E ul IITALLATIOH CONTROL NuMeER 6. STATE COUNTRY
Firs: US Army 51215 Virginia
7. STAT YEARor INITIAL OCCUPANCY 9 COUNTY (US.) Io NEAREST CITY
Active 1918 N/A Newport News
t. MISSION OR MAJOR FUNCTIONS 12 PERMANENT STUDENTS SI SUPPORTED
Headquarters, US Army Transportation Center and PERNsONELT.REATO OFFIC..ER LI..TE CVLINE . I ENLi.TEoFIER n.s.. E.CI .SN TOTAL
location of the US Army Transportation School. The o C R< .
Transportation Center Comacd is responsible to ..006 5997 2526 693 2536 12 758
command and control all assigned activities, to b. PLANEC r .T 77 ) 1281 7202 2835 564 3303 15,185
provide logistical support to the activities, to 'A INvNTORY
assist in the development, evaluation and coordina- LAND ACRENs LaN COSTn (JO) IMPR EENT(50) TOTAL RORl
tion of new doctrines, techniques, operational I( (') ( T (l,
concpts concerning transportation equipment and OwNEO 8 114 753.8 106.443 107,197
facilities. CLESEs NC ECseNTs 0 0 0
c INVEnTOAy OTUL (EAEpI rd r asOF 0 E 19 _1 -IU07,197
d AUO TRIzaITON OT YET INSENTORT Exclusive of MCA
I EsTIMATED AANoRaraIOTNI- NExT EARS I.28
. GRAND TOTAL (I d * a I)
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION LINE ITEMS
LINE ITEM DESCGNTION THRORImTION pROGRAM FUNDING P .GARAM
ATEG+Ry TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
ODE O. E MOMMD MEASURE SCOPE ( LO) P(55O
d__ _ _ (___ _ _sco_ _ AscorE aco s
* ~ ro ( e a
Family Housing, Mobile Home Facilities
Family Housing, Dwellings
Spaces
Units
253.9
8,034.0
-
pD 1 OCT 70 1390
253.9
8,034.0
PACE a. 49a
Mr. SIKES. The request is for 62 mobile home facilities, $253,900;
300 family housing units, $8,034,000.
What is the reason for the projected increase in personnel?
General COOPER. The projected increase in strength is due to back-
filling permanent units to authorized strength and an increase of about
600 in student load at the transportation school.
Mr. SIXEs. Would it not be more logical to move people out of this
area of heavy military concentration than to move people in?
General COOPER. The type of people we are moving in are trainers
and some personnel who require training in transportation type skills
which are taught only at the Fort Eustis/Fort Story complex. For
example, this complex is the only place where the Army can conduct
mission training in logistics over the shore operations. Similarly, it
is the only area with proper conditions for the training of personnel
in operation of amphibious vehicles.
Mr. SIKES. Are there questions ?
FHA CERTIFICATION
General COOPER. The lack of FHA certification applies to Fort
Eustis as well as Fort Monroe.
FORT BELVOIR, VA.
Mr. SIXES. Turn to Fort Belvoir, Va. Insert page 50 in the record.
[The page follows:]
15 Feb 73 ARMY FY 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM FORT BELFOIR, Including the Metropolitan Washington Area
4. Co.uANon a*CE*EN T sUrEaU s sYTLAtIOn CONTROL UaER 6 STATE couNTRY
First US Army 51105 Virginia
7 sATus Ia . i Tow liTAL OCUPAcncy COUNrTY y.s.) so. NEAREST clTv
Active 1918 Fairfax Alexandria
1. MISSIlN o MAJlo IUNCTrIoNS ii. PE.A.ENT STUOESS SUPPORTED
Command, train and provide logistical support to PERSONNsL STR OTNor o E LTEO CILION oCrICve ESLINAn nOFICE TAo
Engineer Troop Units; Engineer Officers and o( (5)i ae
Specialists at the Engineer School; maintain and I. N SF m n. 7 1517 4627 5159 709 2374 14,386
operate the USA Mobility Equipment Research and rLN E rE 77 1797 4989 5903 651 2828 16,168
Development Center and the US Military Academy i vEroay
Preparatory School; provide facilities for HQ, Lce UCeS LAND cos (ry00o ,mNPOVE ENrto TOTAL (.0o)
Combat Developments Command and Topographic Research " a rs r.
and Development Laboratory. Support Davison Army ONEO 9 016 1 191.9 134 493.2 135,685
Airfield. Also provides housing support for units LEASoeSENT 221 35.7 0 26
and activities in the Washington metropolitan area .INEesTOr TOTAL (,P lT, , N , om lE135 711
not supported by other nearby installations. . TTOoTOS ,SINANTN Exclusive of MCA 41084
,-AUTHOIION IEOEO IN THI Pr1GRlL20.010
E;~~r esnu T~oa l~relaN z No- IExu wn n I " 43.000
[. GRAND TOTL ( 0, 202 805
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION LINE ITEMS
LINE ITEM OEsIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PrGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
coTENAT UIT O N ,M EO S To s r
COONE NO LIME ITEm TIeLE )MMAO M ASUE SCOP I $ )
711 Family Housing, Dwellings Army Units 700 19,600 700 19,600
713 Family Housing, Mobile Home Facilities Army Spaces 100 410 100 410
PAGE No 50
DD 1 OCTY 70 1390
Mr. SIKES. The request is for 700 units, at a cost of $19,600,000,
and 100 mobile home facilities for $410,000. This sheet shows an
expected population increase of 1,800 personnel and a request here
for 700 units of housing. Yet you have force reductions and plans to
move people and activities from the Washington area. Is that realistic ?
General COOPER. We believe it is because family housing at Belvoir
is not just for the people at Belvoir but for the Washington area. The
Navy currently is doing a survey for the entire Washington area. I
don't have the results of that most recent Navy survey.
Mr. SIKES. Will you provide it when available?
General COOPER. Yes.
Mr. SIKES. Has the site been selected ?
General COOPER. The general site has been selected, yes, sir.
Mr. SIKES. Provide a map of it to the committee.
[Note: The survey and map will be provided to the committee.]
Mr. SIKES. You have 1,259 units which you list as substandard. What
are you going to do with those ?
General COOPER. We will continue to occupy them until we decide
to replace them.
Mr. McEwEN. How old are these units?
General COOPER. Most of them are Wherry housing and most of them
are about 20 years old. In some cases older.
Mr. SIKES. If there is a shortage of housing, to what do you at-
tribute the 144 vacant units in the community at the time of your
survey ? How accurate is that figure today ?
General COOPER. At any given time in an area there will be vacant
housing, both on post and in the community. This is due to the turn-
over in personnel and maintenance of units between occupants. The
number of vacant units varies from day to day.
Mr. SIKES. All of your surveys were taken before the base closure
announcements. Have you updated them in view of these announce-
ments ?
General COOPER. The figures shown in the book you have do not
reflect the reorganization. However, every project has been reevalu-
ated based on strength reductions. These evaluations will continue.
Mr. SIKES Are there questions?
MOBILE HOMES
Mr. SIRES. We will take up mobile homes. Insert in the record
pages 54, 57, 60, 63, 66, 69, 72, and 75.
[The pages follow:]
15 Feb 73 ARMY FY 1974MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM YUMA PROVING GROUND
4. ouaNDOR MA AoeMENT uREAu 5 IIOsTALLTTOU OUOL NumBE 6. STATE COuNTRY
US Army Materiel Command 04985 Arizona
. STATUS - YEAR OR INITIAL OCCUPa.C 9. ouNT Y(U.s. 10 EARNESTT CITY
Active 1943 Yuma Yuma
I. SION FCI 2 PERMANENT ST5ENTS I SUPPORTED
Provides administrative and logistical support SERsoNsEL STRENmOTh o 4 cesL ese ose ers caI ottAL
for US Army Electronics Command Activity, Lockheed oE( 2 c (1 cR Io 1 m u 19
Plant Activity, Medical Detachment Activity and . 84 440 843 1367
Army Materiel Command Liaison Offices. The "PLLueo End ar 77 1 85 614 779 1478
installation activities plan, conduct, record and IN TORY
report test results on material and equipment; LANO ACRES LA ND osT (ro001 IMPOVEMENT($000 TOTAL (mo)
perform desert environmental testing and support r 4 . (
other research and development activities as 1 03947 0 29916.5 29,917
directed. o ooT IoSEENTo 8 516 0 0 0
." INONOTONTOAL EC..T.Id r.u)o5 OF ro JUE I 7 29 917
a' Oc"'zTno NO T IN INVeNTOy Exclusive of MCA 0
I. 5s00TEOouThoRITnoN NEIxeTIaEoNs " " 0
J. GRAND TOTAL (0 d3, + 1 ) 29 953
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION LINE ITEMS
LINE ITEM uOEIGNATION AUTHOIZOTIoN OGRAM FUNDING PReoA
COTF Osy TEAIT UNIT OF
Co. a0 1NE ITEM TITLE HoCOSe FaiUE COST S pcPE E COST
713 Family Housing, Mobile Home Pacilities Army Spaces 8 36 8 36
CD1OT7019 osuo 5
PAGE NO. 54
DD 1 OCT 70 1390
-1 Ir, b 73 ARMY FY 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
Third US Army 21145
Ac tive 1942
PORT CAMPBELL
a STAEt rouNTRy
Kentucky
S. COUNTY(.Se) 10 NEAREST TY
Christian and Trigg Clarksville, TN 8 mi NW
2 'rssoS oa Masoa ruNCIONS 2. PERMANENT STUDENTS s uPPOno
Headquarters of the 10slt Airborne Division. Provide PenounnEL na. or oSrTcG a cuu. e.vil... o.. ... . ENL.T. . oF ICNI sI I' I OTL
administration, training and logistical support of (.I. _ _ 1 1 ) FF EJ4) ... 1r .. )
the division and other Army units and activities ' 0" -- . . " j16 8694 2530 12,900
assigned. Accomplishes planning missions, as Sb eLnrO( Eaer 77 > 2306 18,130 1960 22,36
directed, for the development, employment and I . INVEroRy
expansion of CONUS forces under condition of cold, LA.o ecn, LN OCOSTT r10o0) I anovrIene) .OTL OCJr
limited and general war contingencies. r_ I ft e
...ONO 36.024 1,510.5 83,138.0 84,649
E "AE$ sND EAsemeNs 611 I 24.3 0 24
.IOInvOrnveTOL r(T Ie,.1) dre,), nOF 11 Sns * Z... 84,673
.uoIzr1 OTT IvE I E T 1 ron Exclusive of MCA 0
___uro__r__a_ _ou__o __ _I__ _no_ _ n _ n_ _ _27,'>13
E EsTU, rea .urxo zal"ToII NEXT A YAs- - 76 700
J. GRAND TOTAL le e ) T e s1i
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION LINE ITEMS
LINE ITEM DESIGNATIONN A ---IN
ScSn CO LIn e 'ens ICCOMUH 55 SCoeE COST SCOEe CAST
_ d ( J
Family Housing, Dwellings
Family Housing, Mobile Home Facilities
iD 1 OCT 70 1390
Units
Spaces
27,000
410
I _____ I _____ I I
27,000
410
P ceo. 57
15 eb 73 j R111 FY 1974MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
Fi. th US Army
Active
I YITILLAIO CONTwL NUMBER
22725
Ya OF InITIL1OCCuPN941
1941
3 ,ISTALLATION
FORT POLK
r sTATE couNTry
Louisiana
o couurNTv rv.s NEA T Leeville
Vernon, Sabine and Leesville
Neeschls
I slO Os MAOR FUNCTI I PErMANEr STUDENTS UPOITEO
Pr videos administration and logistical support of PERSONNEL STRENTr oEcE s EI cuSILIn oFFICER ESiEsN . IoC r LD T
a IS Army Training Center (Infantry), USA ..sOF 3 Jun 1/ 879 173996 2363 t 1.2 -8-
Reception Station, USA Hospital, USA Dental - MLNEOIENf" 77 > 1059 24,939 2176 8,7
Detachment, USA Garrison and subordinate luveoro-
elements
LANU ACES LSNDoCOT 11O) INP~NovEENT(Oe4 ToTu L110
I 1 0) I (A
ONNEo 196 998 610.6 76,305.7 77,i16
aEs aN casEUErs 2,034 0 0
FnvENOR a Y n r NaJr O OrE Is _2- 77 L16
SAUTTO* NoT Ir INVENTION y Exclusive of MCA 6,252
I" EsTIUAEO RUT*OIzrION - NExT 4EARN 29 000
. GRAND TOTAL Ir d ) 127 171
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION LINE ITEMS
LINE ITEM DEsIGNATION RuNT-oRIzATO Noo No PRoR
coo Nu LINE ITErU TITLE wOAND S EANUNE sCONE S scoE E
Es_ _ J ($000)rE (slODA)
Family Housing, Dwellings
Family Housing, Mobile Home Facilities
L. 1 OCT 70 1390
Army
Army
Units
Spaces
14,250
252.8
14,250
252.8
Pr - .o 60
L c R con ljFF* l49ao U
4
15 1Pb 73 ARI1Y FY 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
US Army Test and Evaluation
aad
7 STTV
s IaoFINIaIL OCCUP NC
1918
Headquarters, US Army Test and Evaluation Conmmand.
Performs research on propellants and propulsive force
systems; terminal effects of warheads; vulnerability ,.AO Jun 7
of weapons to blast fragments and radiation; human rC.L.aOea.e r. 77
factors engineering, dynamic and environmental test- ,
in; of vehicles and ordnance equipment. The US Army
Or Finance School, Land Warfare Laboratory, Research LA5e
any' Development Center and Joint Military Packaging ..owno
Training Center are located here. The Environmental L5a G5,0 u sEUEN"5 s
Hy;iene Agency is located at Edgewood Arsenal a ,Nveurony rotL .Er.
su_-installation nearby,. a. aUasZrsoN NoT *cl
Family Housing, Dwellings
Family Housing, Mobile Home Facilities
Maryland
art OUNford(U.)
Hartford
DD 1 0T 76 1390
s:GE NO.
I -
I
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
I DATE a EPARTE T IaNsTALATION
15 Feb 73 ARMY FY 1974MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM FORT MONMOUITH
4. CoMANDo MANACEMENT BUREU s IvsTALLATIOo CONTROL NU.E STATE COUNTRY
Army Materiel Commend 34555 New Jersey
7. STrtus s YEAR OF IITIL OCCUPANCY 9 COUNTY.. I0. NEARET CITY
Active 1917 Monmouth Red SBak
.. MisIoN OR MAJOR FuNCTIONS It PEAneT STUDENTS I SuPPORTED
Headquarters, US Army Electronics Command and the ssoAET ePPIEr CIILIAN oI-E N To e
US Army Signal Center and School. Provides o(I rc2 (A) (4) io o( I T e
administrative and logistical support for US Army ..sofl .n2 782 2691 7938 533 4074 16 018
Communications Systems Agency, USA Satellite a PLANE r(End rI 77 I 748 2682 7890 526 3872 15,718
Communications Agency, USA Combat Developments i IVwroy
Command-Communications Electronics Agency, USA aACES LANO COST (n00) IMPROvEMENT (00) TOTAL (Io)
Patterson Army Hospital and Defense Communications LAS ( r) (4) j
Agency and other activities. Performs research, ..owo 529 139 40 065.9 40,205
development evaluation and testing of comunica- LESE0 SA nsEe S S I 0 0 0
tions and meteorological equipment and facilities INVENTOr AL OL(E.C I nd A , Fn 0JU, I 7 2 40,205
and related ground and air signaling equipment. duToaCToN Nor T IN SISENTOE u EXClusive of MCA 2,650
___________ _ TE_ . _ 180
.snarEo rurnoazrso - mr rIS ) " 6.600
.caNo TOTAL, I.A 2 o 0 49 635
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION LINE ITEMS
LinE ITEe DESIGNATION e*UORIZATIoN POsGRaM FUNDING PROAR
TENAnT UnITer EIlED cooE
CoLIE tem TITL CO esND o ENSURE SCOPE et score s O
713 Family Housing, Mobile Home Facilities Army Spaces 40 180.2 40 180.2
PaE 1o 66
DD 1 OC 7 190
SE 73 DEPAMENT 1974
15 Feb 73 ARIY FY 1974M
0 commaNooR MANAC
Fifth US Army
7SActive
Active
II. MiSON On oAJOa Fu ACTIONS
Responsible for command, training and
support of Two Army Divisions, Third C
quarters and numerous miscellaneous s
and support of reserve forces summer t
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION LINE ITEMS
LINE ITEM DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION p6GRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CODE NO. LINE ITEM TITLe coMM MEASURE sCOPE Es(j00O) (00 00)
711 Family Housing, Dwellings Army Units 700 18,000 - 700 18,000
713 Family Housing, Mobile Home Facilities Army Spaces 380 1,447 380 1,447
PR1 s 6
DD 1 OCT 760 1390
INjSTALLATOM
ILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM FORT HOOD
1isTLLi2o0 Co1ITL NUMD s STATE COuNTRY
48255 Texas
EAO NIALL OCUPCANY 9 UN .S. to. NEAREST CTY
1942 Bell and Coryell Killeen
R. PERMANENT STUDENTS S UPPORTED
logistical PEoEL STENGT OFFCE E . IVIIN OFF CE. EL STEO OF iCE. EstEO vL T o
Corps Head- () ( ) (3) (0) (6) )I ...
ipport units O O ., 77 3682 3259 3508 39787
training. PLN7E.dFr 77 1 4174 35 49 3018 42,686
LAN Ecr5 LAND COST (3006) IMPaOvEMENT (SOO) TOTAL (000)
A0)D () (4)
..o o 0 566 67771 2324556 239233
. LEASEsD EI.SEUENTs 5 , 0 0
e. r.n T rs (e rear o o Jo 1. 2 2
. * wom ro NOi vEr IX NYENrO. E eslive Of MCA 29 098
. EsTIGATED AUtOizaToN- NExT ~EA 8 9
I. GRAND TOTAL re + d* e, II 372.678
A 69
rrG No.
C-1 3 April 1973
1 FATE DEPARTMENT
15 Feb 73 ARMY
SCOMMANOOR MANAGEMENT euvEu
First US Army
7. STATus
Active
FY 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM FORT EUSTIS
i -rATlOv -o.*T RoL NuyeEP
51215
a A 918 INIALoccuPANCY
1918
6 STATE COUNTRY
Virginia
. couNTY(U.S) Io NEAREST CITY
N/A Newport News
II. MISSION OR MAJOR FUNCTIONS 12 PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
Headquarters, US Army Transportation Center and PERSONNEL STRENGTH OcE usTE CVLIN OFFICE IENLITEa OFFICER EsLErO CIVILIAN TOTAL
location of the US Army Transportation School. The - u Jun 2 106 5( 97 25(6 643 2I 36 A 12758
Transportation Center Command is responsible to ' 1006 5997 2526 693 2536 12,758
command and control all assigned activities, to PLASH iOrEa F 77 1 1281 7202 2835 564 3303 15,185
provide logistical support to the activities, to I INVETORY
assist in the development, evaluation and coordina- LAN ACREN LAND COST (000) IMPeOVEMENT 00) TOTA(000)o
tion of new doctrines, techniques, operational i11 (2 (3rJ 1
concepts concerning transportation equipment and .ONEO 8,114 753.8 106,443 107197
facilities. SLEASESa HA AENTN 0 0 0 0
iNVRNTORH TOTLARL rE (RH 'a HI) ANs oF Ao JUNE 1
d. urTRORIATION NO T IE IN VAENTORT Exclusive of MCA
r. aauTrorIon &EUESTEa IN TS prOGnM --_8,288 -
E. ETIRATEOD AUTrONI TION- NE YEARS 9 35
ed_ co_ o_ _r 1U T &Id 840
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION LINE ITEMS
LINE ITEM DEGsNATION A UT*oIzATION PROGRAM I UNONG PROGRAM
TENANT UIT OF ENSIrMTF ENTIMATS
COOE NO. LINM ITEM TITLE COMUAAN MEASURE SCOP E CAN SCOPE ACOS T
713 Family Housing, Mobile Home Facilities Army Spaces 62 253.9 62 253.9
711 Family Housing, Dwellings Army Units 300 8,034.0 300 8,034.0
DD 1 OC 7i 1390o
_~-----------~Er -~iiiidi;-;iir3- IX I- Ip~
PAGE No 72
Feb 73 FY 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM INILL I ncludingtheMetropolitan tonArea
35 Feb 73 ARIY FY 1374 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM FORT BELVOIR, Including the Metropolitan Washington Area
4. cckMANooR MANAGEMENT BuliEiU
First US Army
Active
s IvSrLLTATIDoN CONTL NurnER
51105
1918INITIAL OCCUPANCY
1918
Command, train and provide logistical support to
Engineer Troop Units; Engineer Officers and
Specialists at the Engineer School; maintain and
operate the USA Mobility Equipment Research and
Development Center and the US Military Academy
Preparatory School; provide facilities for HQ,
Combat Developments Command and Topographic Research
and Development Laboratory. Support Davison Army
Airfield. Also provides housing support for units
and activities in the Washington metropolitan area
not supported by other nearby installations.
S.- _ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ I
6. sTATE CouraY
Virginia
9. COuNTY (.A to NEAREsT CITY
Fairfax Alexandria
PERMIT STYuENTS LSPPsT~E
oFICR r S EDI CI .SF5F CEe IELI STEI OFF C C SiE CIYN TOT AL
t ~ r ar m a <s f crl ca)
.ss o .3r0 u 1517 4627 5159 709 2374 14 386
b N .ELnE rs.e Fr 77 1797 4989 5903 651 2828 16,168
II INVEHTO-I
LACES LCANS COOT ro00) o IPPROVEHT (oso) TOTAL (soa00
L N 0 (()
AOSNES 9.016 1.191.9 134 493.2 135 685
. LES 5ND EASEMENTS 221 F 35.7 0 26
o. ,NVENSAO OuTSL ,(S op lo.d..n S 5OASE* 7 32- 135 711
S .aro NOT T N Exclusive of MCA 4,084
SAurHoarrToN srEOUESITED IN IS PROT u I 1 20 010
I_ _ E__TIMED AUORIZTION_ = NEX ___ yEARI 43.000
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION LINE ITEMS
LIE ITEM EsIGNATI AUTNHzATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
TS'ANT SSITOF ONTINSYC ESTIHE
711 Family Housing, Dwellings Army Units 700 19,600 700 19,600
713 Family Housing, Mobile Home Facilities Army Spaces 100 410 100 410
0D 1 fOCT 76 1390
PAGE NO. 75
PEsonn RnT
On2 ;s'
#GAD ToTL * r
Mr. SIKES. Can you tell us to what extent the ineligibles use mobile
homes?
General COOPER. I don't have any specific figures on that. We will
ask the personnel people if they have some and provide it for the
record. They certainly do use them. I have seen many at posts but I
don't have the figures of the percentage that use them.
[The information follows:]
Based on a sample survey of selected installations in CY 1973, approximately
5% of Army personnel using owner-occupied mobile homes are ineligible for
Government family quarters because of grade (E-1 to E-3). This would equate
to only 3% of the total ineligibles. This figures does not include those ineligibles
who occupy rental mobile homes. While that number is not available from our
surveys it is believed to be significantly greater than the percentage in owned
mobile homes.
Mr. SIREs. In the absence of a personal goods moving allowance
for these families, is this a practical solution ?
General COOPER. I think it is a practical solution. I think they are
allowed to be moved if the trailer is one they can haul along the road.
If it is really not a mobile home it is not practical.
Mr. SIKES. I take it from your increased emphasis on mobile homes
in this budget that there is a significant increase in the use of mobile
homes among Army families.
General COOPER. There is an increase, and many of the people in
mobile homes are in very unsatisfactory mobile home courts off post,
with no indication that the community will provide adequate ones.
Mr. SIKES. Is there any impact on mobile home usage as a result
of the increasingly tighter restrictions on the establishment of off-
base trailer parks? In other words, are there some of these families
who don't want to live on base and who can't find adequate off-base
facilities?
General COOPER. Adequate trailer spaces are increasingly difficult
to find. This is due to the tighter restrictions that you mention. Some
families refuse to move their mobile homes into unsightly or unsani-
tary locations and in some cases this leads to family separations.
Privately owned trailers are being placed in storage or left at a pre-
vious location for lack of adequate space on post or off.
Mr. SIKES. What is the average cost of the mobile home spaces you
are requesting?
General COOPER. It is about $4,000 each.
Mr. SIKEs. What is provided in this space ?
General COOPER. We provide the streets and the curbs, the sewer
hookup, the electricity hookup, gas hookup, everything so that they
can move in, plus the landscaping around it.
Mr. SIKES. Who provides for the supervision, policing, and security,
et cetera ?
General COOPER. These are on the base, and the same supervision is
provided as for the normal family housing.
Mr. SIKEs. Are there fees ?
General COOPER. Rental fees for on-post trailer spaces are set at rates
sufficient to amortize the construction cost over a 15-year period plus
the cost of utilities and services.
ACQUISITION OF WHERRY HOUSING
Mr. SIIEs. We will turn to acquisition of Wherry Housing. Insert
page 78 in the record.
[The page follows:]
AE. ATe 1a YEAR 3 OEPATENT IISTALLATION
15 Feb 73 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA ARMY Fort Bragg
. PPosED AUTHomOZATIoN I PRIOR AUTHORIZATION 7 CATEGORY CooE NUMBER . PROGrAM EL ENT STATUYOuNTRY
84-345 MuMerE North Carolina
$ 240,000 PL -020
10. PROroMED OPP RIOATI II. BUDGET ACCOUNT NUMBER 11L PROJECT NUMBER 13. PROJECT TITLE
Acquisition of Wherry Housing
$ 240,000
SECTION A - DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SECTION E- COST ESTIMATES
I A. a . PRIMARY FACILITY Qu0 NUANTIR. UIT CO5 COST 1004)
TYPE OP CONSTRUCTION PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC or PRIMARY FACULTY M LY 240.0
Pen I*mNT . eNo. oa eLoos .o. oR sones ..LZnOTM |. SoT .. Acquisition and Connection I I I 240.0
.2 r O.Mnl . coLTo car cos 5 . tion system - Mallonee
I TyPEOF NOR I. OESCmIPTION OFr WOR TO BE ONE ., Village Wherrys He Area
,. e..clTry Acquisition of the electrical distribution system in 21. suo ON IGN FArLITIEs
ooo00rlo0 the Mallonee Village Wherry Housing Area at Fort
L .TE.ATION Bragg, N. C. from the Carolina Power and Light
. c00 ,OENIo Company. Includes work necessary to connect system
orNErSMI.e to the Fort Bragg distribution system in order to
take advantage of a single metering.
7. TYPE OF OEsra .
SPECIAL DEN
0 TOTAL pRO10CT ST
SECTION C- BASIS OF REQUIREMENT
SOQUANTITATIVE DATA 2s REQUIREMENT FOR PROJECT
23eI-M This Wherry Housing was constructed in 1950 and acquired by the Army in FY 1958. At the time
.OTAL Ir. IREMEINT the housing was acquired the utility systems remained in private ownership. Recent
.xsINo sues*TOaNO I i economic feasibility studies regarding acquisition of the electrical system show that the
2. E ,.s* 0e0 U .UT acquisition cost could be amortized by savings in four to five years. It is estimated
N.OuOa. nor INvaro r that approximately $60,000 per year in savings could be realized. These savings would
..DoEu a EasseaE sA be generated through lower costs resulting from single point metering and the Alimination
rr" auro o ruoe of the facility surcharge presently being paid to the utility company. The acquisition
.u ruNroN PIoR.AU TMORITIM ON cost is based on a Government determination of a fair market price based on the value of the
II.*.PuuoCo. r N'o"aM facility as estimated by the Carolina Power and Light Company. Although informal discussions
o. nOel _cr- e-l-s - with the power company have taken place, no formal offer for purchase or sale of the
ZEELA D PR noEcvs system has been made by either the Government or the Carolina Power and Light Company.
PAnE o 78
DD o- 1391
103
Mr. SIKES. What is the situation on Wherry housing acquisition?
When was the last acquisition made ? How much is there left to acquire?
How much have you acquired ?
General COOPER. The last time we acquired any was I think in about
1964. I don't have the figures in front of me.
Mr. SIKEs. Provide those for the record.
[The information follows:]
The Army presently has 19.550 acquired Wherry units in its family housing
inventory. There are 2,177 units of privately owned Wherry housing located at
13 Army installations which will not be acquired by the Army. The last acquisi-
tion was in 1964.
Mr. SIKES. Do you know how much Wherry housing there is which
you have not yet bought ?
General COOPER. Yes, sir. I have it in terms of debt payments. In
general we don't want to acquire it because we are paying interest at
the rate of about 4 or 41/4 or 41/2 percent.
Mr. SIKEs. That is a better deal than you will get now.
General COOPER. Yes, sir. We haven't acquired 2,000 units.
Mr. SIKEs. Have not?
General COOPER. That is right.
Mr. SIKES. Where are those units ?
General COOPER. We have a complete list. There are about 10 or 12
different installations.
Mr. SIKES. Provide it for the record.
[The information follows:]
Number
Installation : of units
Anniston AD, Ala---------------------------------------------. 96
Navajo AD, Ariz- --------- 69
Sierra AD, Calif -----------------------------125
Atlanta AD, Ga------------- 125
Fort McPherson, Ga ________------ ----------------------225
Fort Sheridan, Ill ____________________________________ 253
Lexington Blue Grass AD, Ky. (Lexington activity) ----------65
Fort Holabird, Md _----------- 149
Detroit Arsenal, Mich_ _---------------- 150
Tobyhanna AD, Pa-- ----------------- 200
Fort Wolters, Tex ___------------ - 490
Tooele AD, Utah----------- -------------------------------------25
Fort Monroe, Va--------------------------------------------- 205
Total ------------------------------------------------------- 2, 177
Mr. SIKES. You do not plan to acquire these if you can avoid it. Is
that right ?
General COOPER. That is correct.
Mr. SIKEs. What do you do when they get to the point where they
are not usable ? Do you acquire them and rebuild them or move out and
leave them ?
General COOPER. In the case specifically of Fort McPherson, Ga.,
the owner leases them to nonmilitary people. We no longer really as-
sert our right to priority in those houses.
Mr. SIKES. Are there any projects that are now not meeting your
standards that are in.private ownership ?
General COOPER. Tobyhanna is one which Mr. Bearman just
indicated.
Mr. BEARMAN. And Fort Wolters and Detroit Arsenal, Mich.
Mr. SIKES. What do you propose to do in those instances ?
Mr. BEARMAN. Again in a case like this we would not certify use to
these people. It would be on a voluntary basis if a military member
wanted to occupy a unit in privately owned Wherry housing. If it is
privately owned we have no control whatsoever other than to certify
it for occupancy.
Mr. SIKES. Aren't these projects all built on base ?
General COOPER. No, sir. A lot of these projects are built off base. As
a matter of fact I think probably most of them are. In the case of Fort
McPherson it is not on the base but right adjacent.
[Additional information was supplied as follows:]
However, most of them are on Government-owned land leased to the builder.
Mr. SIKES. For the project not built on base you wouldn't certify it
to military personnel?
General COOPER. That is correct.
Mr. SIKES. How quickly will the Wherry projects which you have
acquired amortize themselves ?
General COOPER. I think we will finally amortize them by 1983.
Mr. SIKEs. Are there questions ?
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING PUBLIC QUARTERS
Mr. SIKES. Turn to "Improvements to existing public quarters."
Insert pages 79 through 90 in the record.
[The pages follows:]
'-3 27 Apr 73
r: CATE - I CIAL YEAR A OVanTuENrT INSiAusATON
S 73 , 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA ARMY Various
. EOa EO AUTHORIrZATION 6. PRIOR AUTHoRIZATION 7 CATEGORY CODE NUMBER e. PROGRAM RE ENT 9 STATE COUNTRY
NUMBER
$ ',110,000 P.L Various
l1 POOSEu AppPRIATION I UET AccouT NMR PnECrrT uuw 13 P T TITL
S 38,10,000
TYPE o coNSTRUCTION
c -ryn Rv
Improvements to Existing Public Quarters
SECTION
I'a
A - DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICSOF P
IlOF~ ELos I. No. O OF sTOIES . I ENOTR
SECTION B - COST ESTIMATES
I m. PRIMARY FACILITY - Y IU/ QUANTITTY I'nI COST )
TImrovenmnra to go stimo
D.U.
- I +'_- -- .---- --
II oroewre,
E Oi "O RN
r. .HE Rrso sio w)
P6 EP_ACEME.IT
I secta oesoN
- F OF DESIGN
p' EROS -M C
o9 ESCRIPTION OF WORK TO E DONE
Projects provide for renovation and modernization of
existing public quarters by modernization of kitchens
and baths; provision of 1/2 and full baths; moderniza-
tion of interior electrical and lighting systems and
installation of central air conditioning systems.
Also included is the conversion of 3-BR units to
4-BR to meet requirements. Patios, storage facilities
and improvement of exterior utility systems and
provision of additional paved parking areas are also
included in the program. Modernize and increase capac-
ity of exterior electrical distribution system and
a Public Quarters
5,052-
SI 1. -I
21. SUPPORTING FACILITIES ,
,
a.
ov e u ty connect ons or was ers an ryers. [1 ToALPRoEC COSr Io 28,160 0
SECTION C - BASIS OF REQUIREMENT
it QUANTITATVE DATA Z REQUIREMENT FOR PROJECT
r__(.n ) The program contains high priority projects which will provide the greatest benefit
101 re, CeouEmENr both immediate and long-range, to the Government and the occupant. The Governoent will
Slsrlrsuns.aoa ,) realize benefits through the increase in useful life of the unit, change in bedroom
DflTIosoEouATE composition to more closely meet the housing needs of the installation and reduced
a. UoEo. aOT IN INeENTORy operation and maintenance costs. Occupants will realize increased livability and
. Usoou ER SS ETs a' comparability to local community housing. All improvements are designed to raise
, uTUomzEo rUNsnE the standard of the dwelling unit to current standards.
2 IILTuEDI Fr JT PROGRAM
I- DEFICEN( - - -)
21 RELATED PROJECTS
79
DD ,, 1391
I ocT 70
(t04 .
29.10 . 01
I
L_ ---~-_
t
RIMARY FACILITY
C "7 At 73
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
15 Feb 73 1974 (Coninued) ARMY Various
Improve to Lxistig Public Quarters
Improvements to Existing Public Quarters
LOCATION
CONIS AND POSSESSIONS
ALABAMA
Ft. McClellan
Redstone Arsenal
CANAL ZONE
Ft. Cl yton
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Ft. McNair
Ft. Mcair
GEORGIA
Ft, Stewart
HAWAII
Ft. Shilter
Schofield Barracks
ILLINOIS
Granit, City
KANSAS
Ft. Leavenworth
I ASSACHUSTTS
Natick Labs
MISSOURI
Ft. Leonard Wood
DD,t '.1391c
DESCRIPTION
Convert 20 NCO 3-BR Wherry units to 4-BR; modernize 40 NCO 3-BR
and 80 NCO 2-BR Wherry units and 16 MCA CGO and 56 MCA NCO
units
Modernize and improve 120 Wherry and 408 Capehart units
(DD Form 1391)
Modernize NCO units constructed in 1941-1942 and 1948-1949
(DD Form 1391)
Modernize General Officers units (DD Form 1391)
Install central air conditioning systems
Modernize 320 NCO units
Install central air conditioning in Capehart units
Exterior electrical distribution systems - Areas T.W. & K-1
Modernize NCO Wherry units
Modernize FGO units - Oregon Village
Modernize MCA & Capehart units - Officers & NCO mixed
Convert 230 NCO, 19 CGO and 13 PGO 3-BR Capehart
units to 4-BR (DD Form 1391)
NO UNITS
COST ($OOC,
1,759.4
1,876.3
5 165.0
32 318.7
320 2,345.5
580 2,349.6
301.5
94 783.3
100 772.0
59 537.5
252 2,778.4
I
FO
e. PRoJEcT
ac No. _ _
C 27 'or 73
15 2eb 1 3 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA A ar
] M 3 CONSTUCon(nue u ARMyr .Various
a. ,O j, h MEra a PROJECT TITLE
Improvements to Existing Public Quarters
LOCATION DESCRIPTION NO UNITS COST (0CO
NEW JER ;EY
Ft. )ix Modernize Wherry NCO units (Nelson Court) 295 2,479.8
NORTH C EOLINA
Ft. Iragg Modernize single family Wherry NCO units (DD Form 1391) 400 3,568.1
Pt. 3ragg Modernize CGO Capehart and MCA units 140 1,025.9
OI'LAOM \
Ft. ;ill Modernize NCO units 2,000 Area 54 463.7
VIRCINI\
Pt. lelvoir Modernize CGO & NCO units 418 1,671.9
Ft. lyer Install central air conditioning systems (DD Form 1391) 55 616.2
WASHING TON
Ft. awis Modernize NCO units 60 554.2 4
U.S. & POSSESSIONS TOTAL 3,761 $ 26,263.0
FOREIGN
Okinwa Modernize and increase capacity of exterior electrical distribution
systems and provide utility connections for washers and dryers 1291 1000
TOTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 5,052 $28,,160.0
DD, ... 1391c
Page nN
~"~%r~s~ssassa~rradBrarrrrrarsPir~- 1~,; ~~~;:_I~_ .:_~:~_~_1~
I. WTE y IsCAL yEAR 3. DEPARTMENT INSTALLATION
15 Feb 73 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA ARMY Redstone Arsenal
SPeosE e AuRIZTIO d e. PnIOR AUTHORIZATION 7 CATEORy COOE NUMBER 8. PROGRAM EL EMENT I. s5TIT /UNTRY
$ 1,876,300 PL Alabama
I. pao Eo APPPRAToN etuDGET ACCOUNT NuMER . PROJECT Numn 13. PROJECT TITLE
$ 1,875,300 Improvements to Existing Public Quarters
SECTION A - DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SECTION B - COST ESTIMATES
ICh. PME A ILTI
TYPE OF mNsTRuCTION PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS o PRIMARy FACILITY . PRIMARY FACILITY u/M QUANTITY IT s ST (00
* e NO. o LOo . NO. r SToIES ei Wherry Unit w/BR & Bath Unit 33 1213
et. OESmiO APACiTY noeni. AEA . Wherr Unit wo BR Bath 7 6143 4
_onro, __CGO Capehart units, . 68,0
. COnVeON The scope of work for Wherry units is identical in
O*THER Spec-i) all units except for 33 units which also include en-
larging a bedroom and adding a bath. The detailed
IR EPLACMENT I scope is as follows:
11 TYPE OFDIGN
SsANoao OnsGITe 33 Units - Modernize and alter kitchen to provide a
5 cIuL DEIsIN family dining kitchen; modernize bath; enlarge bedroom n - hrry
.' O"wmN O and add a bath; provide patio, garbage can screen, Cnhrt
rivaey fence- exterior storage and ne A floor, ZZ TOTAL pROJECT COST
SECTION C - BASIS OF REQUIREMENT
)u, )
TOTAL REQUIREMENT
uNo, NO N INvony
o b,-- - Z -onA
24 RELATED PROJECTS
S e Iu wnerry units were constructed in 1951 and acquired by the
Army in 1957. The units are deficient in kitchen area, bathroom area, outside storage area
and washer-dryer connections. Thirty-three of the units require an addition to a bedroom
and an additional bath. Outside storage area and patio and privacy screen are required.
Parking accommodations are totally inadequate to meet behicle parking requirements.
The Capehart officer housing units were constructed in 1957 and 1959. The single bathroom is
inadequate to support families assigned to the 3-BR units. Excessive noise is transmitted
between two story units due to insufficient sound treatment. Outside storage as well as out-
door living accoodations of patios and privacy screens are nonexistent. Parking accommoda-
tions are totally inadequate for the housing area.
No concurrent maintenance and repair work required.
Pac* No 82
DD , ORo 1391
OCT TO
15 eb 73 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
15 Feb 73 19(Continued) ARMY Redstone Arsenal
5. Porer NuuMBER 6. PROJECT TITLE
Improvements to Existing Public Quarters
Block 19 Cont'd
Provide additional parking area for 20 units
87 Units - Modernize and alter kitchen to provide a family dining kitchen; modernize bathroom; install floor tile, provide patio, refuse
area screen, privacy fence, and exterior storage. Provide additional parking area for 60 units.
The unit costs are: 33 units -$11,213, Total Cost - $370,000, 87 units - $6,134, Total Cost - $534,400.
The scope of work for the 408 Capehart CGO units varies by the type of unit. The work item description is as follows:
1. Provide garbage can screen
2. Provide patio
3. Provide exterior storage
4. Provide privacy fence
5. Additional bath
6. Soundproofing treatment ~
7. Renovate stairway to second floor
8. Remove existing clothes lines and provide umbrella dryers.
9. Additional parking area
The type of units, description of work and unit cost for each type is as follows:
Unit Type Work Items to be Accomplished Unit Cost
"X" 3-BR Tow (Ist floor) 46 units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 $ 2,429
"X" 3-BR Row (2nd floor) 46 units 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 5,455
"B" 2-BR Row (End) 80 units 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 1,359
"B" 2-BR Row (Interior) 45 units 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 1,321
"C" 3-BR Row (Interior) 24 units 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 1,321
"C" 3-BR Row (End) 24 units 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 1,359
"C" 3-BR Duplex 14 units 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 1,321
"C" Single 130 units 1, 2, 4, 8 817
DD S%770 1391-C 83
-- .-i
DD i 7o 0 1391-C
PACE xO B3
. DAE FISCAL IYEAR. DEPART ENT INSTALLATION
l5 Feb 73 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA ARMY Fort Clayton
. OPPOSED AUTHORIZATION & PRIOR AUTORI ZOATIN 7 CATEGORY CODE NUMBER 9. PROGRAM ELEMENT . STATECOUNTRY
NUMBER
$ 1,893,000 PL Canal Zone
10. PROsEOD PPRPRIATIoN 1. BUDGET ACCOUNT NUMER P PROJECT NUMBER . PROJECT TITLE
$ 1,893,000 Improvements to Existing Public Quarters
S SECTION A - DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SECTION B - COST ESTIMATES
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIMARY FACILITY PRARY FACILITY M TIT UNIT CO COT
.E.*.ENT 9 0 NOOF 0L009 .. O. OFSTO0EI N.LE0T0. IOT t ype T-1 Unit 72 p10.753I 774.2
PE. PER NENr oEsIc aaCI*. c ooss aE a o. Type T-2 " I 2 P 13.479 27.0
. TM ara COOLN . no CPo iE ON S, Type T-3 " 1 1 1635 i 11.6
IS. TYpE OF WOR 19. DESCRIPTION OF WOR TO 5 000E e T _
Modernize 147 2 & 3 bedroom NCO units. Project in-
follows:
T-1 2-BR Duplex Tropical Typ
T-2 3-BR Duplex Tropical Typ
T-3 2-BR Single Family Tropi
D-1 3-BR Duplex Ranch Type
The scopes of work are as fo
Types T-l, T-2 & T-3: Moder
interior electrical system.
2. QUANTITATIVE DATA
. EXlISINO SUBITANDOARD
., EXtSTING AETS Aa
e. INCLUDED IN RP PROGRAM
24. RELATED PROJECTS
DD I o' To 1391
. SPPOT N t ,LI113 970 1 .. 5.O
. sue s74.4
Styles described as Site Imrovements L.S. 19.4
pe a.
p1
lcal Type
allows :
nlze kitchens and p. Desi 55.0
Provide laundry rTOL Tocr osT s 189 .0
SECTION C - BASIS OF REQUIREMENT
25 REQUIREMENT FOR PROJECT
The "T" type units were constructed in 1941-1942 and the "D" type units were constructed
in 1948-1949. No major improvements have been accomplished to these units from the time
they were constructed. The."T" type units are constructed utilizing concrete piers
with open area under the building on the ground level. The "D" type units are duplex
ranch type slab-on-grade. All units require extensive improvements to bring them to
current standards.
No concurrent maintenance and repair work required.
PAr Do 84
E FAeCILIPT
10. REPL0ACCENT
17 TYPE OIF DEIGN
O. AN D w a 1 o
RAMSN
._
L
I" e I.1
-r~
. OArs . ISCAL EAn R1. DEPARTMENT * TLLA-TION
15 Feb 73 a1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
(Con15 Feb 73 1974 tinued) ARMY Fort Clayton
PROJECT NUMBER . PROJECT TITLE
Improvements to Existing Public Quarters
facilities,new medicine cabinet and security grilles on first floor. Install central air conditioning including
all work required to make system effective. This includes replacement of fixed-louvere window openings with
awning windows, replacement of exterior and interior doors and installation of insulation.
Type D-1. Modernize kitchen, provide laundry, patio, drying area and storage facility; improve carport/utility
area; upgrade interior electrical and lighting systems; replace screened jalousie openings with awning windows;
close louvered openings in interior walls throughout unit; provide insulation and central air conditioning system.
Site Work.
Upgrade exterior electrical distribution system, provide street lighting and bus atop shelters.
DD *~IYR 1391-C s~ El
DD 1 o 1391-C
Pae NO 85
ting Public Quarters
STOPE Pr 9 0eSc-nrlo OF on Tr ss om.e
Mitderni and enlarge kitch
L4 to provide an adequate a
,acn.,,ion, central air conditioning in
* OOrma5Isoro. 1st and -nd floors. Improv
and plumbing systems to ace
Sand provide miscellaneous i
t e. T nEPOFnEsrnIn basement and laundry area.
L sumOL'O asIA'r
ru.u
.. TOTAL REQUMENT
a DUlt.uos I TN .WNVo
.. " ::: :'i:i :i...:?: . uv o.z Yo .U O
DD ORM 1391
I ocT
hens of Qtrs 1, 3, 5 and
O. DE ISCAL vE. DEPARTMENT l IUTALLATION
15 Feb 73 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA ARMY Fort McNair
PROOSEDuAuTaroATION I. AurTualinTION N CATEGORY CODE NUMBE. 5 PRO aMEMENT B. TATE/OO-T1
$165,000 PL UME District of Columbia
.O POPOED APPRODPRIATION II BUDET ACCOUNT NUBER 112 PROJECT NUMBER 13I PROJECTILE
$165,000 Improvements to Exis
SECTION A - DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SECTION B -
TPE OF COSTRTIO PHYsIC L c * CTETICO PRIMARY FACILT , PRIMARY FACILITY
aFLILD T wso..Modernize Genl. Off Otr
cEI-ETUNU c l* CLasyIT ItTOI1E
Unt 5' 150 .0
nit 5 130.0 1500
at SUPPORTInC FCL s 15,0
411[ ill'--
and modern kitchen. Provide
n Qtrs 3, 8 and 14 for
'e the interior electrical
ommodate the above work I
improvements in the
u ro eE oscr cose 169 0
SECTION C- BASIS OF REQUIREMENT
This is the first increment of a program to upgrade 15 General Officers unite at Fort
McNair occupied by Senior Staff Officers of the Army and other services as may be
assigned to a special command position. These units were built in 1900-1903 and with
the exception of installation of central air conditioning in seven units and
modernization of the kitchen in one unit, no major improvements have been
accomplished since the units were constructed.
No concurrent maintenance and repair work required.
PAse .o 86
--
Y/0 QUANTITY uIrT cos r roa)
COST ESTIMATES
1.. I ....~ 1..~
L DATE L cAL YEAR 1 OEPARENT 4. IsT-LATION
15 Feb 73 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA ARMY ort cNair
1974 (Continued) ARMY Fort MoNair
1. PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT TITLE
Improvements to Existing Public Quarters
The scope of work for the five units varies by each unit. The work item description is as follows:
1. Modernize kitchen by providing adequate counter top and base cabinets, wall shelving and work area. Expand kitchen into present
service stair area.
2. Provide minor improvements in kitchen previously rehabilitated.
3. Install a central forced air conditioning system to include separate air handling systems for the first and second floors, all
required duct work, false ceilings to cover duct work and all masonry and painting work required.
4. Provide minor improvements to previously installed chilled water air conditioning system.
5. Modernize interior electrical system as necessary to accommodate air conditioning and kitchen improvements and provide adequate
service in the dwelling unit.
6. Modernize plumbing system to accommodate kitchen modernization and provide adequate service in the dwelling unit.
7. Improve basement and laundry area.
Work to be accomplished by individual dwelling unit and total coast per dwelling unit, including design.
Quarters No. 1 Items 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 $ 30,502
Quarters No. 3 Items 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 40,172
Quarters No. 5 Items 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 31,168
Quarters No. 8 Items 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 22,364
Quarters No. 14 Items 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 40.794
Total $165,000
DD 1391-C POOC ~o 87
PaE.O 87
DD , oCT 1391-C
I. DATE FISCAL YEAR 3 DEPARTMENT 4. INSTALLATION
15 Feb 73 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA ARMY Fort Leonard Wood
s. POPosED AUTHORIZATION . PjOR AUTMOR2zATION I7 CATEGORY COD NUMBER 8. PROGRAM ELEMENT 9. STATeCOUNTRY
$ 2,778,400 P.L Missouri
o0. PERosEo PROPRIATION I 1. BUDGET ACCOUNT NUMBER It PROJECT NuMBER I. P1OJ3cT TITLE
Improvements to Existing Public Quarters
$ 2,778,400
SECTION A -DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SECTION B - COST ESTIMATES
I 8. PRI MPaRiARY FACILITY u/M QUANTITY UNTOI Cs 05O (J000)
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION PHICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIMARY FACILITY 262 2727.9
. PMANET e. To so s T I No. OsTOIEs . LEO 1 . wiOT . Conversion - NCO units Unit, 230 10 785 I 2480.6
OEIPE.RANENN T B E CoPI CIE I 100 n.R O. Conversion - CGO units 19 7,665, 145.6
.TEMPOLARy , CN1 OEcO COST IS I . Conversion - FGO units 13 7,821 101.7
I T PEEOF R 19. DESCRIPTION OF IO TO BE ODE .
aNEwFaCOLITY Convert 230 NCO, 19 CGO and 13 FGO 3-BR units to 4-BR EoIoaIIES 0
A DDI-01oN by adding an additional bedroom and bath. Install
LERATION a central A/C system. Provide a patio with privacy .
. COO ERnON fencing.
SECTION C- ASIS REQUIREMENT
1. TYPEOFD, SrN N"
a TNDAuCo DEsN Fr
sp RAWIND NO Re'.
E TELDTs ? 77R &
SECTION C - BASISOF REQUIREMENT
2N OuANTITATIVE DATA N. REQUIREMENT FOn PROJECT
(Iar I These units are NCO, CGO and FGO Capehart units built during the period 1960-1963. The 1972
. TOraL ReouInEIJT Family Housing Requirements survey identifies a long range requirement for 4-BR units of
a EXITN suBsTanDO 252 NCO, 39 C and 26 FGO. Ft. Leonard Wood has 1862 hours of 670 or higher wet bulb
c ExISnuT ImouLTE Itemperature during the year and therefore qualifies for central air conditioning.
d ~UNDED, NOT IN mYENTOy
A . TaOUrneSSITSDO No improvements have been made in these units since they were constructed.
I.NFUN T ueD.n''T'e-- B u~ aaonPI .: Total unit cost NCO units - $2,530,920 or $11,004/unit.
NctuooDED IN FY PRD MTU
.ooeE cr(.- r- t- NO concurrent maintenance and repair work required.
The converted units will contain 1250 net SF for CO units and 1400 net SF for officer units.
OAGE No 88
DD 1o' T 1391
I1. DATFeb 73 I cALYE DEPARTMENT InTALLATIO
15 Feb 73 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA ARMY FPort Bragg
d, rUNOr, NOr IN INvETORY
DEDUATE ASSETS .E
r. uYruoseo OPRIOR -uroIzToN
Ii CLULDEOI. F Y OTno
i OLECI P- - r-
z IEL..AE PROJECTS
These single family Wherry units were constructed in 1952 and acquired in 1957. No major
improvements have been accomplished in these units since the initial R&I project.
Total Unit Costs - Type "A" - $10,145
Type "B" - 9,176
Type "C" - 8,581
I
ro TTr V DA
DD FOM 1391
I oc
I
ACE 1o 89
S. P PoSED AUTHOflTION e* PRIOR AUTORIZATION 7 CATEGORY CODE NUMBER e. POGRAM ELEMENT S TAT OUTRY
$ 3.568.100 P.L North Carolina
I0. PROPOsED APPPRIATION 11 BUDGET ACCOUNT NUMBER I PROJECT NUMBE. 11 PROJECT TITLE
$ 3,568,100 Improvements to Existing Public Quarters
SECTION A - DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SECTION S - COST ESTIMATES
I PRIMARY FACILITY U/M NUNAIT UT COS COST 000)
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION PHYSICAL CHARACTEISTIC OF PRIMARY FACILITY , -A N8_ B 2-As
iPEiRANENT . NA oP AGo T . o sRIES . eMOYN Uo wRo' Tvye "A" Oni atO(S0 1nit KIf0... i. " sA 9L8 &g7.
a sORP!..I'EERCGE ACRIUM caP rYT SONe ARA Type "5" InITI (NI'S) " I 10 .8 Z 88 . 7 . L t
TEMPORA9y , COOLING CAP CORT IS I . Tp ' Yenr (NI'S ,, L r. .8.2. . 4 76&.
5 TDPEOF O IA ENCITTIOOO TY E DOSE U .
. Ew FACILITY Modernize 400 single family Wherry housing units in the aISUP.POTING FACILITIes
A ooTON South Wherry area. Work includes modernization of
. YLRaTrON bathrooms, kitchens to include a dishwasher, provision
. cowrOSIo of laundry facilities, upgrading of interior electrical
.. OTeareSp.r) system and provision of a central A/C system.
RE. REPLACEMENT
17. TIPE OF DESIGN
STANOAno DESGN I h
6 SPECIAL DesoNI
. On.maN No 1. Design 118.7 I
ST CB PROJECT osT 3, 568 1
SECTION C- BASISOF REQUIREMENT
. DATE FISCAL YEAR 3. DEPARTMENT TNSTPLLATION
|15 Feb 73 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA ARMY Ft. Myer
5 OPPOSED AUTTORIZATIOn PRIOR AUTHORIZATION 7 CATEGORY CODE NUMBER B. PROGRAM EL EMENT STEAT/COUNTRY
$ 616,200 P.L uVirginia
0o PROPOsED APPRPRIATION I BUO DET ACCOUNT N-NBEn I1 PROJECT NUMnER IN. PROJECT TITLE
$ 616,200 Improvements to Existing Public Quarters
SECTION A . DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SECTION B - COST ESTIMATES
IT Pm.PRIMARY FACILITY U/M QUANTITY UNIT sCO CT (5IO0)
TYPEOF CO NUCTIO pNsICAL CUAACTRIRTIC OF PRIMARY FACILITY
* PEnMANENT 1 *O. OF BLDoI b. NO. OF sTOIES LENTII 0. WIoT C Install Central A/C System nit 55 524.3
. EmPD uENT e. MND CAP CO ST_ _
I TYPEF RO I. OSCmPTION OF WORN TO BE OOUNE
.NE*CILITy Install central air conditioning systems in 55 officer AI SUPPORTING FCILITIES s 91,9
A OrDITION and NCO housing units Ext Electric System 61.9
ALTERATIONN
. CONVC4soN
ioT ERLSpci )
11 REPLACEMENT I
17. TYPEDFDEsIGN
TOTAL PROJEcT COST f 616.2
SECTION C - BASIS OF REQUIREMENT
2 QUANITITATIVE DATA 2 REQUIREMENT FOR PROJECT
R0 - Project provides central air conditioning systems for all units at Fort Myer with the
"a rr a ~ uUaIr r n exception of Quarters 1, occupied by the Chief of Staff, Army.
e ADEQUATE Thirty-seven of the 55 units exceed $10,000 unit cost. The total cost of these 37 units
SrFNDEOo NOTININENvETOY is $462,500. The unit numbers are: 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 A & B, 12A & B, 12 A & B, 14 A&B, 15
ouATEAssETs.+. A & B, 16 A & B, 17, 19 A & B, 20 A & B, 21 A & B, 22 A & B, 24 A & B, 25 A & B, 26 A & B,
27 A & B and 28.
I UNCUNDED In IY - OI TI
DD -IB 39 aUNA 9
PAE O 90
DD aO" 1391
Mr. SIKEs. What portion of this year's improvements program is
for junior officers and what part is for enlisted personnel?
General COOPER. Two thousand nine hundred are for company
grade and enlisted personnel. There are five general-officer units and
113 field-grade officer units. The remainder is necessary for such items
as utilities and supplies. These are all different types and categories of
housing.
Mr. PATTEN. When you say you will provide a central air-condi-
tioning unit, do you mean within that house ?
General COOPER. That would apply to one particular house. When
I say utilities I mean the electrical lines and so forth.
Mr. PATTEN. It wouldn't be like the steam plant down on South
Capital Street which supplies all of these buildings. It is within the
unit ?
General COOPER. It could be if there were some isolated cases like
that. I don't know if we have any.
Mr. PATTEN. Your justifications say "Upgrading the Wherrys and
provision of a central air-conditioning system."
General COOPER. Right.
Mr. PATTEN. That is within the unit ?
General COOPER. Yes, sir. If it was a Wherry and multipeople
housing, you might provide the same outside unit for several houses.
But it is central air-conditioning rather than room air-conditioning.
I am sorry I mislead you.
Mr. PATTEN. I never saw a unit that would serve more than one
house. I would like to see what it looks like.
General COOPER. You can have a central air-conditioning system.
Mr. PATTEN. They deliver the steam for this building from down the
street, the same with the Cannon and other buildings. And in a hous-
ing authority we often have a 200- or 300-family project which will
have a central heating unit. You don't mean it in that sense. You are
merely modernizing.
General COOPER. In most cases one air-conditioner per house. We
have a central chilling plant to provide chilled water to quite a few
different barracks, for example.
Mr. PATTEN. IS it efficient ?
General COOPER. Yes, sir; more efficient than having the individual
unit.
Mr. SIgES. What is your estimate of your improvements backlog
and is this a realistic figure ?
General COOPER. The improvement backlog of about $250 million
does not include the requirements for those units which were declared
inadequate under Public Law 92-545. We believe this to be a realistic
figure which can be overcome by an annual program of about $25 mil-
lion. An annual program at a higher level than $25 million creates prob-
lems in that excessive numbers of personnel must be denied housing
during the rehabilitation work.
Mr. SIKES. How do you establish priorities on this program? Do
you improve the worst units first ?
General COOPER. Yes, sir. I would say in the first instance we establish
priorities based on what the commands recommend to us.
Mr. SIgEs. What does that mean ? What do they usually recommend ?
'General COOPER. They normally recommend the units to be improved
that will provide the greatest benefit. If there are some units that are
substandard, they cannot improve those now. In general you are cor-
rect. Obviously it is not the case for the five general officers.
Mr. SIKES. How do you draw the line between an improvement
project and a minor construction project ?
General COOPER. An improvement project is usually a larger project
for a large number of units that is done on a considered and planned
basis. Minor construction projects are to take care of small units as
Mr. Bearman explained this morning. Minor construction has to have
a sense of urgency. We have only $1.5 million for minor construc-
tion as compared to $28 million for general improvements we plan to
do as part of this program.
Mr. SIxEs. Which units are you proposing to modernize at Fort
McNair ?
General CooPER. At Fort McNair we propose to modernize 5 of the
15 large houses.
Mr. SIKES. What will be included in the modernization ?
General COOPER. We have the details. It is a very thorough rehabilita-
tion of the kitchens, central air-conditioning, although two of them
have been previously air-conditioned, modernize the interior elec-
trical system, modernize the plumbing system, and improve the base-
ment and laundry areas.
Mr. SIgES. What would be the unit cost ?
General COOPER. About $33,000 apiece.
Mr. PATTEN. On the minor construction, I take it, if there is $500
worth of work you want to do but it is over your program limit, you
could let it go and do it as minor construction next year ?
General COOPER. No. Normally to qualify for minor construction,
you would do it at that time.
Mr. PATTEN. You say this requirement provides for financing im-
provements which exceed limitations on the family housing operation
and maintenance program.
General COOPER. That is right. But improvement programs differ
from the O. & M. programs. Operation and maintenance is normal
fixing whereas minor improvements include such items as upgraded
wiring so you could put in room air-conditioners.
Mr. PATTEN. You couldn't use it to get something done. If you take
Fort Carson where you were $400 over the cost, you couldn't let it go
and do it as minor construction, a carport or something else.
General COOPER. I think it is really the nature of it as opposed to
the dollar amount whether you use O. & M.
Mr. PATTEN. In other words, you think your minor construction is
really legitimate ?
General COOPER. Yes, sir.
Mr. PATTEN. I don't know what you will get done with $1.5 million.
You are the biggest landlord in the world. Is this what you want ? How
much did you ask for ?
General COOPER. That is all we asked for. We have the big improve-
ment program.
Mr. PATTEN. If we gave you $5 million, you wouldn't take it?
Mr. SIKES. What is the last time these units at McNair were
modernized ?
119
General COOPER. They have had improvements to them right along.
I can give you the details for the record as to the maintenance.
[The information follows:]
Funds expended from the "Family housing operation and maintenance" account
for maintenance and repair work to these quarters during fiscal year 1970 to
fiscal year 1973 are as follows :
Fiscal year-
1970 1971 1972 1973
Quarter 1.-...-...--............-.............. . -$1,846 $6, 295 $17, 529 $1,229
Quarters 3......................................... 6,016 567 16, 295 1,021
Quarters 5.......... - -........................... 11,358 1, 350 4,851 1,734
Quarters 8....-........-................. __ 7,083 5, 553 3,563 9,068
Quarters 14..... ----------------------------------- 5,058 1,726 4,921 5,904
Mr. SIKES. The sum of $33,000 seems like a rather large amount un-
less it has been an excessively long time since any work was done.
General COOPER. There has been work done on them, but there hasn't
been any major rehabilitation or major modification of these houses.
This is the first time. You can waste money by doing things in bits and
dabs which might cost you $2,000 or $3,000. But this is a major over-
haul. We haven't done that before to these houses and it has been dis-
cussed for 5 years that I know of.
MINOR CONSTRUCTION
Mr. SIKES. Turn to minor construction. Place page 91 in the record.
[The page follows:]
DATE FISCAL YEAR 3. DEPARTMENT 4. INSTALLATION
15 Feb 73 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA ARMY VARIOUS
. PROPOSED AUTHORIZATION 6. PRIOR AUTHORIZATION 7 CATEGORY CODE NUMBER e. PROGRAM ELEMENT N. STATE/COUNTRY
$ 1,500,000 P.L 711 8 80 11 A VARIOUS
10. PROPOSED APPROPRIATION 11 BUDGET ACCOUNT NUMBER 12. PROJECT NUMBER 13. PROJECT TITLE
21-97X0700
$ 1,500,000 P1830 Minor Construction
SECTION A - DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SECTION B- COST ESTIMATES
I4. 1 2m. PRIMARY FACILITY U/M QUANTITY UNIT COS COST ($000)
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIMARY FACILITY Minor Construction , .
PERMANENT X . NO. F BLDoS b. NO* OF STORIES c. LENGTH d. WIDTH I I
b. SEMI-PERMANENT .* DESIGN CAPACITY I. GROSS AREA bI
c. TEMPORARY 6. COOLING CAP. COST I I .
15 TYPE OF WORK 19. DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE DONE d.
.. EAe FACILIT Minor alterations and additions-expansion-extensions 21. SUPPORTING FACILITIES s
. AoOIrlON X to housing units and other real property facilities ..
ALTERATION X primarily serving family housing .
d. CONVERSION
e. OTHER (Spc&, ) d.
16. REPLACEMENT C
I7. TYPE OF DESIGN 9.
m STANDARD DESIGN . h
6. SPECIAL DESIGN X I.
c. DRAWING NO I.I O
2 TOTAL PROJECT COST 0
SECTION C - BASIS OF REQUIREMENT
23 QUANTITATIVE DATA
. TOTAL REVQIREMENT
. XISTIN SUBSTANDoAR.
c. EXISTING ADEQUATE
d. FUNDED, NOT IN INVENTORY
* ADEQUATE ASSETS dl
U :i::: IzEo FUNDED
i. UNFUNDED PRIOR AUTORIATION ..
g. INCLUDED IN FY PROGRAM
Ah DEFICIENCY (A -- --- )
2R RELATED PROJECTS
DD I00 oM 1391
2S. REQUIREMENT FOR PROJECT
DOD Instruction 7150.6, 20 October 1969, subject: Financing the Department of Defense Family
Housing Program - Administration & Management of Funds, and DOD Instruction 5100.37, 7 April
1971, subject: Delegation of Authority to Approve Family Housing Projects Performed Pursuant
to 10 USC 2674, as amended, prescribe that improvements over $500 per dwelling unit and under
$300,000 per project will be accomplished as minor construction under the Family Housing
Construction Program. This requirement provides for financing improvements which exceed
limitations on the Family Housing Operation & Maintenance Program. It also provides available
sources for financing any unforeseen urgent requirements which cannot wait for inclusion in
a subsequent fiscal year Family Housing Construction Program.
PAGE No 91
I
Mr. SIKES. What progress have you made in awarding projects for
last year's money ?
Mr. BEARMAN. We received the actual moneys in March of this
year. They have now been distributed to the major commands and
obligations are beginning to take place. With the moneys that were
given to us in fiscal year 1972, as of January 31 we had a 35-percent
obligation. This low obligation is due to the problem we have encoun-
tered with the inability of the local facility engineers to design and
obligate a program of this magnitude without a long leadtime. This
leadtime has now been overcome and we can see that obligations are
going up. The $10 million between fiscal year 1972 and 1973 have gone
a long way in eliminating the requirements we have for junior officers
and enlisted personnel.
Mr. SIKES. Have all of the funds been obligated ?
Mr. BEARMAN. Not all, sir; no, sir.
Mr. SIREs. Will they all be obligated during the fiscal year ?
Mr. BEARMAN. NO, sir. I think there will be some carryover into
next fiscal year because of, as I say, this lag in the process of the obliga-
tion by the local facilities engineers.
Mr. SIKES. Could you estimate the amount ?
Mr. BEARMAN. I will have to furnish that for the record.
[The information follows:]
As of June 30, 1973, $3.2 million of $5.4 million for minor construction in the
fiscal year 1972 program has been obligated. Obligation of the remainder is
anticipated during fiscal year 1974. Of the $5.4 million in the fiscal year 1973
program $1.4 million has been obligated as of this date. We expect to obligate
70-80 percent of the unobligated balance during fiscal year 1974 with the re-
mainder obligated in early fiscal year 1975.
PLANNING
Mr. SIRES. Turn to planning. Insert page 92 in the record.
[The page follows:]
I, DATE 2 FISCAL YEAR 3. DEPARTMENT 4. INSTALLATION
15 Feb 73 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA ARMY VARIOUS CONTINENTAL AND OVERSEAS
5. PROPOSED AUTHORIZATION 6. PRIOR AUTHORIZATION 7 CATEGORY CODE NUMBER s PROGRAM ELEMENT 9. STATE/COUNTRY
NUNMER
$ 200,000 P.L 711 8 80 11 A VARIOUS
10. PROPOSED APPROPRIATION II. BUDGET ACCOUNT NUMBER tL PROJECT NUMBER 13. PROJECT TITLE
21-07(0700
$ 200,000 BP 1840 Advance Planning and Design
SECTION A - DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SECTION B - COST ESTIMATES
i4 . . PRIMARY FACILITY U/M QUANTITY NIT COS COST (R000)
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIMARY FACILITY Advance Planning & Design N/A N/A N/A s UU.U
. No oF s . OFBLOA NO OF STIES . LENT d,. WIDTH ". Advance Planning & Design I I I 200.0
. SEMI-PERMANENT A. DESIGN CAPACITY I. GRoSs AREA
STEMPORARY . COOLING CAP COsT IS
IS. TYPEOF WRK 19 DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE 0UNE
SNE FILITY . SUPPORTING FACILITIES
. ADDITIOS Architectural and engineering planning and design all
ALTERATION for family housing dwelling units and properties
. CONVERSION includes in the Defense Family Housing Management
o. TER esp. r) Account.
16. REPLACEMENT I
17. TYPE OF DESIGN .
5 STANDARD DESIGN
b. SPECIAL DESIGN
ECIL DRAwING NO
D2 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 2
SECTION C - BASIS OF REQUIREMENT
AS QUANTITATIVE DATA 25. REQUIREMENT FOR PROJECT
-. YoT REQUIREMENT Studies for site adaptation and determination of type and design of units, and working
SEXISTIING SUBSTANDARD I drawings, specifications and estimates, project planning reports and final design drawings
EXISTING AOEOUATE of family housing construction projects. Amounts programed here provide for such efforts
. FUNDED, NOT IN INVENTORY on proposed projects which subsequently may not be included in approved construction
, ADEQUATE ASSETS > programs.
: .. UN2DE FUNDED
. UNFUNDED PRIDR AUTHORIZATION D
. INCLUDED IN FY PROGRAM
h. DEFICIENCY (-e--
24. RELATED PROJECTS
PAGE NO 92
DD ao0. 1391
I OCT 7o
123
Mr. SIKES. I would like to have for the record the planning obliga-
tions for the past 3 years and those projected for fiscal 1974.
General COOPER. You recognize, sir, that is really kind of a breakage.
Most of planning funds are in the individual houses.
Mr. SIKES. I understand that.
[The information follows:]
The total planning obligations, including breakage, through April 30, 1973 are
as follows:
Fiscal Year
1971 --------------------------------------------------------$1, 051, 958
1972 ------------------------------- -------------------- 1, 741, 343
1973 -------------------------------------------------------- 1, 066, 490
1974 (estimate) ----------------------------------------------- 2, 500, 000
RENTAL GUARANTEE HOUSING
Mr. SIKES. We will turn to "rental guarantee housing." Insert page
93 in the record.
[The page follows:]
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENBE-FISCAL YEAR 1974 BUDGET
RENTAL GUARANTY HOUSING
Program justification
The 175-unit rental guaranty housing project in Germany authorized under
section 507 of Public Law 90-110 is completed and occupied.
The 370-unit project in Korea authorized by the same public law is under con-
struction. Present schedules anticipate full beneficial occupancy during the
fourth quarter of fiscal year 1973.
It is not foreseen that any payments will be required under the rental guaranty
agreements for either of these projects during fiscal year 1974.
Mr. SIKES. We have already discussed this to some extent. I think
it will be adequate if you provide a discussion for the record telling
how this program operates, and comparing it to the lease-construction
program.
[The information follows:]
Rental guaranty housing (RGH) represents a means of providing adequate
housing in foreign countries on private land using private money and private
design and specifications.
Under the RGH program the sponsor agrees to rent units to tenants designated
by the United States at stipulated rental rates. The United States guarantees
occupany of at least 97 percent for a period of 10 years provided the sponsor
satisfactorily performs the standard of management, maintenance, and operation
required in the contract documents. There is also normally a 10-year post guaranty
option period during which U.S. designated tenants have priority rights of occu-
pancy without guaranty.
The contracts for RGH projects stipulate a maximum guaranteed monthly
rental in the amount established by law and a maximum average monthly rental
equal to 97 percent of the statutory guaranteed rental.
Individual tenants collect their quarters allowance and lease their units di-
rectly from the sponsor. These rents include basic rental, maintenance, and man-
agement. Utility charges for heat, hot water, lights, and cooking are paid by the
tenant to the utility company and are not included in the maximum average
rental rate established by public law.
In the case of lease-construction an agreement is reached with the builder to
construct to local criteria but providing such amenities (light fixtures, washer,
and dryer connections) as would not normally be found in foreign construction
in return for a leasing agreement over a specified period of time. If the leasing
agreement does not permit the United States to terminate on notice of 1 year or
less then funds must be obligated for the term of the notice period. If the lease
contains no notice clause, obligations will be made to cover the full term of the
lease at the time it is consummated.
124
All leased housing is operated as adequate Government quarters with the
G government assuming responsibility for operation and maintenance. The occupant
forfeits his quarters allowance. Leasing of large blocks of apartments, existing
or under construction, provides immediate housing with the least long range
risk to the United States.
DEBT PAYMENT
Mr. SIKES. Turn to "Debt payment." Insert pages 94, 95, 96 through
98, 99 through 101, and 102 in the record.
[The pages follow :}
DEBT PAYMENT
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiyear
Fiscal year 1973 1974
1972 actual estimate estimate
$15,771
3,922
19,693
TOA: Interest and other expense:
Capehart .....................................................
Wherry-............-
Subtotal-......................... ...............
MIP:
Capehart ...................... ..... .....................
W herry. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Subtotal-........................ ............
Servicemen's ....................................
Total obligating authority..... - . ......
Financing adjustment:
Less:
Unprogramed, start of year............ . .
Reimbursements: Capehart rentals_........... .
Reprograming - .- - - - - - - - - - - - . .. . . .
Unprogramed, end of year ..................................
Budget authority-..........
Plus appropriation used for debt reduction:
Capehart...... ........ . .
Wherry ........ .
Total .......... .. .... ... .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .
$14, 805
3,559
18,364
$13,928
3,386
17,314
600 563
158 144
758 707
1,047 940
21,498 20,011
-1, 132
-211
-83 --
+436
20,508
20,606
5,398
26, 004
-436 -343
-250 -250
.......................
+343 .---.............
19,668 18,310
21,350 22,331
5,389 5,670
26,739 28,001
Transfers among accounts---.........------------------------------- 222 ..........
Appropriation..--------.....----.... --------------------- 46,512 46,629 146, 311
Appropriation recapitulation:
Amount
C a pehart $.. .. . .. . .. . .. ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... .. ... ... ... .. . .. ..... . . 93 6 , 193
Wherry 9, 193
Servicemen's mortgage insurance premium........... 925
Total ..................... . . . . .. .......... .. ...z- -- - - - - - - - - - - - 146, 311
1 The appropriation request for debt payment is in lump sum for the Department of Defense and not restricted by military
department or defense agency. The amount footnoted is within that total.
PROGRAM JUSTIFICATION
Fund requirements of $3,785,617 for Capehart housing costs for fiscal year 1974
have been estimated on the basis of mortgage payments and related expenses for
housing constructed under the provision of title IV, Public Law 84-345 (Capehart
housing). The financing of this program is for the reduction of a debt of $338,-
506,901). The funding request is for the principal, interest, and insurance premiums
on (Capehart mortgages.
The attached tables show the following data in support of debt payment re-
quirements for Capehart housing: the number of Capehart units by location
owned as of July 1, 1973; the original mortgage; the amount owed as of July 1973;
the estimated payments required for fiscal year 1974 anticipated reimbursements;
available resources; and the total amount required for fiscal year 1974.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE - FY 1974 BUDGET
15 February 1973 DEBT PAYMENT - CAPEHART HOUSING
LOCATION
Fort McClellan, Ala.
Redstone Arsenal, Ala.
Fort Rucker, Ala.
Fort Huachuca, Ariz.
Yuma Test Station, Ariz.
Pine Bluff, Ark.
Fort Irwin, Calif.
Fort Ord, Calif.
Oakland AT, Calif.
Presidio of San Francisco, Calif.
US Disciplinary Bks, Calif.
Fort Carson, Colo.
Bridgeport Defense Area, Conn.
Hartford Defense Area, Conn.
Fort Benning, Georgia
Fort Stewart, Georgia
Fort Shafter, Hawaii
Schofield Bks, Hawaii
Tripler Army Hospital, Hawaii
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
Fort Riley, Kansas
Fort Campbell, Ky.
Fort Knox, Ky.
DA Receiving Station, LaPlata, Md.
Fort Detrick, Md.
NUMBER
UNITS ACQUIRED
300
586
1,498
875
209
34
140
2,084
88
98
60
500
112
128
1,300
461
100
2,190
150
500
1,300
1,219
2,392
12
63
ORIGINAL
MORTGAGE
$ 4,928,000
9,010,600
23,980,400
14,030,057
3,400,820
559,200
2,309,307
31,127,314
1,436,757
1,612,191
989,377
8,089,856
1,818,800
2,079,640
19,922,940
7,430,635
1,713,600
35,720,484
2,409,435
8,187,152
21,420,819
20,032,976
35,733,612
195,365
1,038,000
AMOUNT OWED AS
OF 1 JULY 1973
$ 2,643,785
4.895,845
14,422,766
8,026,565
1,983,023
283,578
1,549,290
19,249,043
834,090
930,517
557,624
4,264,675
.938,513
1,079,931
11,751,949
3,941,385
958,173
21,248,416
1.346,820
4,770,537
14,367,251
13,002,074
20,473,701
101,852
570,120
FY 1974
PAYMENTS
316,111
587,138
1,578,537
920,168
218,358
35,843
156,475
2,054893
94,714
106,279
65,152
520.71
117,157
133,437
1,296,672
480,976
109,995
r34,236
154,682
537,514
1,427,682
1,333,636
2,314,339
12,537
66,609
Page No. 96
~-------c ---------~I-~- ---- .- i*r-i : CI--.-- .li~r:i_::;--C~ ~~~-- : -rr__~
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE - FY 1974 BUDGET
15 February 1973 DEBT PAYMENT - CAPEHART HOUSING
NUMBER ORIGINAL AMOUNT OWED AS FY 1974
LOCATION UNITS ACQUIRED MORTGAGE OF 1 JULY 1973 PAYMENTS
Fort Meade, Md. 1,400 $ 22,172,048 $ 13,605,860 $ 1,444,813
Fort Ritchie, Md. 157 2,587,301 1,605,919 171,171
Baltimore-Washington Defense Area,
Davidsonville, Md. 16 253,300 143,624 16,680
Boston Defense Area, Mass. 120 1,979,200 1,031,846 127,006
Fort Devens, Mass. 1,199 19,634,581 13,300,158 1,330,409
US Army Natick Lab, Hudson, Mass. 35 576,860 400,815 39,123
Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 2,829 45,833,849 29,546,510 3,029,776
Fort Dix, New Jersey 902 14,834,932 8,816,046 970,401
Fort Monmouth, New Jersey 370 5,812,000 3,260,870 380,366
New York Defense Area, Morristown, N.J. 32 524,200 306,073 34,556
White Sands Missile Range, N. M. 460 7,505,712 4,438,871 495,790
New York Defense Area, Brooklyn, N. Y, 16 263,522 151,481 17,404
Fort Totten, N. Y. 130 2,103,000 1,255,653 140,364
Stewart AFB, N. Y. 300 4,949,700 2,980,410 326,294
Seneca Ord Depot, Ramulus, N. Y. 120 1,953,974 1,256,587 132,272
Fort Wadsworth, N. Y. 66 1,074,637 602,070 71,778
Fort Bragg, N. C. 1,867 26,554,413 14,475,040 1,726,191
Fort Sill, Okla. 349 5,737,537 3,604,695 388,505
New Cumberland General Depot, Pa. 91 1,435,900 763,750 92,142
Providence Defense Area, R. I. 76 1,215,600 642,314 78,092
Fort Hood, Texas 1,300 20,913,115 13,591,686 1,402,369
William Beaumont Army Hosp, Texas 125 2,061,800 1,210,737 135,918
Killeen and Gray AFB, Texas 125 1,817,600 954,012 116,636
Fort Bliss, Texas 1,406 21,682,376 13,799,712 1,432,960
Dugway PG, Utah 50 820,100 467,800 54,063
Page No. 9
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE - FY 1974 BUDGET
15 February 1973 DEBT PAYMENT - CAPEHART HOUSING
NUMBER ORIGINAL AMOUNT OWED AS
LOCATION UNITS ACQUIRED MORTGAGE OF 1 JULY 1973
Fort Belvoir, Va. 618 $ 10,195,553 $ 5,968,042
Fort Eustis, Va. 823 11,942,278 6,811,630
Fort Lee, Va. 1,114 17,085,700 9,685,698
Fort Story, Va. 150 2,438,800 1,254,160
Norfolk Defense Area, Va. 42 687,000 396,520
Fort Lawton, Wash. 66 1,082,771 537,391
Seattle Defense Area, Wash. 92 1,514,860 784,402
Fort Lewis, Wash. 1,731 28,354,831 18,215,665
Truax AFB, Wisc. 110 2,085,373 1,479,411
Panama Canal Zone (Pacific Side) 330 5,399,483 3,242,057
Panama Canal Zone (Atlantic Side) 200 3,289,273 2,543,162
Fort Buchanan, P. R. 100 1,599,673 1,184,709
Total 35,316 $ 559,150,189 $338,506,909
Total FY 1974 Mortgage Payments...................................................................
Rounded to.......................................... ...............................................
Less Anticipated Reimbursements..............................
Less Application of Resources.........................................................
FY1974 Appropriation ......................................................................
FY 1974
PAYMENTS
$ 672,421
778,816
1,120,675
156,319
45,288
69,402
97,098
1,875,537
141,431
357,394
223,461
108.585
$ 36,785,617
$ 36,785,617
36,786,000
- 250.000
343,000
$ 36,193,000
Page No. 98
~
128
PROGRAM JUSTIFICATION
Fund requirements of $9,192,632 for Wherry housing for fiscal year 1974 are
estimated on the basis of mortgage payments covering Wherry housing acquired
by the Army. The financing of this program is for the reduction of a debt of $87,-
012,622. The funding request is for principal, interest and insurance premiums on
these mortgages.
The attached table shows the number of Wherry units by location owned as of
July 1, 1973; the original mortgage; the amount owed as of July 1, 1973, and
the payments required for fiscal year 1974.
15 February 1973
LOCATION
Fort McClellan, Ala.
Redstone Arsenal, Ala.
Fort Huachuca, Ariz.
Fort Ord, Calif.
Presidio of S. F., Calif.
Fitzsimons GH, Colo.
Fort Benning, Ga.
Hunter AFB, Ga.
Fort Sheridan, Il.
Fort Benjamin Harrison, Ind.
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
Fort Riley, Kansas
Fort Campbell, Ky.
Fort Knox, Ky.
Aberdeen PG, Md.
Army Chemical Center, Md.
Fort Meade, Md.
Fort Devens, Mass.
St Louis Support Ctr, Mo.
Fort Dix, N. J.
Fort Monmouth, N. J.
Bayonne MOT, N. J.
White Sands PG, N. M.
Fort Hamilton, N. Y.
Stewart AFB, N. Y.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE - FY 1974; BUDGET
DEBT PAYMENT - WHERRY HOUSING
NUMBER ORIGINAL
UNITS ACQUIRED MORTGAGE
140 $ 1,098,558
120 813,615
500 4,085,102
1,000 8,119,396
500 3,553,900
200 1,291,173
800 5,964,006
500 3,690,986
100 753,310
300 2,182,339
227 1,835,010
400 2,633,421
1,200 8,735,342
1,700 12,592,007
796 5,590,198
554 3,966,060
788 5,786,302
202 1,568,963
120 772,831
1,000 7,699,391
600 4,648,074
156 1,048,228
235 1,922,758
685 4,935,518
284 2,315,338
AMOUNT OWED AS
OF 1 JULY 1973
$ 687,355
474,334
2,691,912
4,727,465
2,394,756
793,931
3,254,849
2,318,537
547,760
1,408,603
1,034,627
1,427,782
4,993,528
6,916,395
3,186,863
2,274,521
3,296,321
1,031,194
473,492
4,645,620
2,841,548
677,725
1,156,931
3,048,074
1,426,029
FY 1974
PAYMENTS
$ 66,297
48,693
216,889
488,201
243,357
90,322
369,189
233,288
48,620
133,527
112,118
163,415
542,439
777,253
361,020
251,827
351,823
98,187
54,193
462,270
277,143
68,192
114,180
317,857
136,781
Page No. 100
pop
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE - FY 1974 BUDGET
15 February 1973 DEBT PAYMENT - WHERRY HOUSING
NUMBER ORIGINAL AMOUNT OWED AS
LOCATION UNITS ACQUIRED MORTGAGE OF 1 JULY 1973
Fort Bragg, N. C. 2,000 $ 15,196,018 $ 8,410,992
Fort Sill, Okla. 500 3,822,105 2,268,456
Carlisle Bks, Pa. 152 1,062,467 658,018
Letterkenny Depot, Pa. 48 341,818 240,274
Fort Bliss, Texas 800 6,352,530 3,390,849
Fort Hood, Texas 568 4,295,520 2,511,571
Fort Sam Houston, Texas 840 6,103,513 3,670,063
Dugway PG, Utah 400 3,257,741 1,959,527
Fort Belvoir, Va. 459 3,334,445 1,874,639
Fort Eustis, Va. 412 3,163,771 1,907,175
Fort Lee, Virginia 300 2,206,194 1,212,288
Fort Buchanan, P. R. 237 1,788,323 1,178,618
Total 19.823 $ 148,526,271 $ 87,012,622
Total FY 1974 Hortgage Payments.......................... .........................................
Rounded to........................................................................................
FY 1974
PAYMENTS
$ 930,865
240,002
69,610
22,260
397,714
259,130
405,289
199,128
206,887
186,456
135,482
112, 728
$ 9,192,632
$ 9,192,632
$ 9,193,000
Page No. 101
131
PROGRAM JUSTIFICATION
The purpose and scope of the above program is to provide for the payment of
premiums due on mortgage insurance for mortgages on housing purchased by
military personnel under section 222 of the Housing Act of 1954, amended by the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, and for continuing premium pay-
ments for a widow of a deceased serviceman for 2 years after his death, or until
the date the widow disposes of the property, which ever occurs first. The maxi-
mum amount insurable by FHA is $33,000. The premium rate is one-half of 1 per-
cent of the average outstanding balance of the mortgage.
Funds in the amount of $925,000 are estimated to be required for this program
for fiscal year 1974. While the number of cases has declined, the average cost per
account has increased reflecting greater loan values for homes remaining in the
program and new homes being added.
Average
Number payment Amount
Fiscal year 1972- ....-... ....__ ..................... .. 12,325 $85.00 $1,047,000
Fiscal year 1973...--------------------------.... 10, 445 90.00 940, 000
Fiscal year 1974..._.._ _______--..-.. . ............... ..... .... 9, 740 95.00 925, 000
Mr. SIKES. Provide for the record the remaining obligations which
we have at any of the installations which are to be closed as the result
of the recent announcement.
General COOPER. The only installation affected is the Hunter Army
Air Field, Ga. where the remaining liability for 500 Wherry units as
of July 1, 1973, is $2,318,537.
Mr. SIKES. What is the total outstanding debt under the Wherry
and Capehart programs?
General COOPER. $425 million.
Mr. SIKES. What length of time will this run at present payment
rates ?
General COOPER. When we finally liquidate it, I think it will be about
1983 to 1989.
Mr. SIKES. How does that break down for Wherry and Capehart
housing ?
General COOPER. The outstanding debt as of July 1, 1973, is $338 mil-
lion for the Capehart program and $87 million for the Wherry
program.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Mr. SIKES. Turn to "Operation and maintenance." Insert in the
record pages 103 and 104.
[The pages follow:]
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
[Thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 1972 Fiscal year 1973 Fiscal year 1971
actual estimate estimate
Operating expenses----. --. --.-------------------- $100, 615 $131,114 $149, 40
Leasing---....--------------------------------------------- 9,028 10,283 1605
Maintenance.... ......................................... 70,937 97, 320 120,44
Total, operation and maintenance program-.------------ 180, 580 238,717 285,912
Less: Reimbursements.......__ .__.... .............. . - -1,815 -1,964 -2,022
Plus: Unobligated balance lapsing-------------....----- +424 .....
Budget authority..----....-..-......... . ......... 179,189 236, 753 283, 890
Budget authority:
Appropriation--------------------................. 176, 928 236,49 283, 890
Transfers among accounts............................ --2, 261 +260 ......
Appropriation (adjusted)....-......-........ ........ 179,189 236, 753 1283, 890
1 The appropriation request for operation and maintenance is in lump sum for the Department of Defense and not
restricted by military department or defense agency. The amount footnoted is within that total
15 February 1973
EXCLUDES LEASED UNITS AND COSTS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE - FY 1974 BUDGET
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
A. INVENTORY DATA
Units in Being Beginning of Year
Units in Being End of Year
Average Inventory for Year Requiring O&M Funding:
a. Conterminous U. S.
b. Outside U. S.
c. Total
FY 1972
Actual
129,874
132,157
74,334
56.598
130,932
FY 1973
Estimate Estimate
132,157
133,444
75,582
56,749
132,331
133,444
139,455
78,742
57,390
136,132
Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit
B. FUNDING REQUIREMNTS Est. ($000) ($) Cost Est. ($000) ($) Cost Est. ($000) ($) Cost
1. OPERATIONS
a. Operating Expenses
(1) Administration 15,625 119 16,697 126 17,555 129
(2) Services 8,002 61 8,265 63 9,261 68
(3) Utility Operations 59,698 456 62,570 473 71,070 522
(4) Furnishings 17,290 132 43,582 329 51,522 378
Subtotal Gross Obligations 100,615 768 131,114 991 149,408 1,097
Less: Anticipated Reimbursements - 1,815 - 14 - 1,964 - 15 - 2,022 -15
Subtotal, Operations (Appropriated Funds) 98,800 754 129,150 976 147,386 1,082
2. MAINTENANCE
a. Maintenance & Repair of Dwellings 61,383 469 80,771 610 99,687 732
b. Maint & Repair of Other Real Property 8,890 68 15,560 118 19,747 145
c. Alterations & Additions 664 5 989 7 1,014 8
Subtotal, Maintenance (Appropriated Funds) 70,937 542 97,320 735 120,448 885
3. GRAND TOTAL O&M EXPENSES (Incl Reimb) 171,552 1,310 228,434 1,726 269,856 1,982
4. GRAND TOTAL O&M EXPENSES (1 & 2 above) 169,737 1,296 226,470 1,711 267,834 1,967
(Appropriated Funds)
Page No. 104
FY 1974
Estimate Estimate
------~ ----~-- -~x~~~"^~ll-~=
ii ---i------I~--=----; -~i~
134
EFFECT OF DEVALUATION ON MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
Mr. SInEs. To be sure the record is clear, are you going to make some
progress in cutting down the backlog of essential maintenance and re-
pair in 1974 or will you lose ground ?
General COOPER. We will lose ground because of the devaluation in
Europe. We had expected originally to cut it back, but now instead of
being able to cut it back we are going to actually increase it from $155
million to about $157 million.
Mr. SIKES. That is a very regrettable situation. This committee has
shared the Army's worries on this problem for a long time. We recog-
nize this is a problem beyond your control. Will you provide some de-
tails for the record on what is happening ?
General COOPER. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
Revaluation has been disastrous to the Army's funding program for operation
and maintenance of family housing. The impact has been worldwide, involving all
commands.
The major impact has been on the maintenance program. Operation costs
(housekeeping services and utilities) are fixed and must be paid. With reduced
funds less day-to-day maintenance is possible and fewer maintenance and repair
projects can be awarded. Consequently, the backlog of deferred maintenance
increases.
In fiscal year 1974 the Army have $32 million less for O. & M. due to revalu-
ation as of July 11, 1973. It must be recognized that this requirement continues
to increase with the change in dollar exchange for foreign currency. ($31 million
in West Germany and $1.0 million in Japan.) If all of the revaluation were
absorbed in the maintenance program this would result in increasing the deferred
maintenance backlog to $157 million at end at the end of fiscal year 1974.
EFFECT OF REALINEMENTS ON MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
Mr. SINES. Will there be reductions in the backlog of essential main-
tenance and repair as a result of recently announced or future base
realinemelt actions?
General COOPER. I will have to provide that for the record, sir.
[The information follows:]
The reduction in maintenance and repair work due to base closures is not
significant since the number of family housing units were relatively small.
HOUSING REFERRAL
Mr. SIKES. Tell us about the Army's housing referral offices. Is the
program working satisfactorily. how much are you providing now,
and how much did you provide in fiscal 1973 ?
General COOPER. In the housing referrals, it is working I would say
reasonably well. We had at the end of 1971 a total of 182 referral offices.
In 1972 we had about the same number.
The number of people in 1972, for example, who reported to the
housing referral office was 205.000, and a little more than half of those
were actually housed through the efforts of the housing referral office.
Mr. SIRES. You did not give the amounts in your budget for fiscal
1973 and fiscal 1974 ?
General COOPER. The cost to operate these ?
Mr. SIKES. Yes.
General COOPER. We programed $2.3 million for off-post housing
in 1973, and it will be slightly greater than that in 1974. That doesn't
include the cost of any of the military people involved.
Mr. SIKES. How many people are to be used in this program, mili-
tary and civilian, in fiscal years 1973 and 1974? Provide that for the
record.
General COOPER. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
Fiscal year Fiscal 1 4
Civilians.....-----------..........---------.....-----------------------------------------............................................. 319 319
Military ------------------------------------------------------------- 114 114
LABOR AND UTILITY COSTS
Mr. SIKEs. What effect have labor and utility cost increases had on
0. & M. dollars in the past 2 years ?
General COOPER. On O. & M. dollars we have programed for about
a 5-percent increase. We expect it will probably go up more, which
will make it difficult. I don't have the exact projection now.
General KJELLSTROM. I have some overall Army figures on utility
increases. In the United States we have between 5 and 51/2 percent in-
flationary spiral per year. In Europe where we have some 43,000 fam-
ily housing units we have a 6- to 7-percent minimum increase in utility
costs exclusive of the currency reevaluation problem.
General COOPER. I expect that the cost of utilities will go up even
more than 5 percent with the energy crisis.
Mr. SIKES. Provide details on that for the record.
[The information follows:]
The extent of rise in utility costs is very difficult to predict for several rea-
sons. The price of gas will depend upon Federal price controls. The price of coal
will depend upon Federal regulations on use of coal with a high sulfur content.
These regulations were intended to reduce air pollution. The cost of electricity
is expected to be proportional to the cost of coal. Further, revaluation of the
dollar and the energy crisis are expected to play havoc with all utility costs.
Considering the above, rises in utilities from fiscal year 1973 to fiscal year 1974
are expected to be as follows:
Oil, 30 percent.
Gas, 10 percent.
Coal and electricity, 5 percent.
LEASING
Mr. SIKES. Turn to "Leasing" and insert pages 107 through 113 in
the record.
[The pages follow:]
LEASED HOUSING PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 1972 actual Fiscal year 1973 estimate Fiscal year 1974 estimate
Cost Cost Cost
Average units (thousands) End year (thousands) End year (thousands)
Domestic leases......... 2,542 55,880 3,241 $7,140 3,241 $8,167
Foreign leases......... 758 3,148 891 3,143 3, 688 7,889
Total......------...------... 3, 300 9, 028 4, 132 10, 283 6, 929 16, 056
136
1. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION
(a) The leasing of family housing in the United States and Puerto Rico and
Guam is authorized under the provisions of section 515, Public Law 161, 84th
Congress, as amended. Leasing in foreign countries is authorized under title 10,
United State Code, section 2675.
(b) The above cited authority restricts the use of domestic leases (United
States, Puerto Rico, and Guam) to those locations where (1) there has been a
recent and substantial increase in the personnel strength assigned to such mili-
tary installations and such increase is temporary, or (2) the permanent person-
nel strength of such military installation is to be substantially reduced in the
near future, or (3) the number of military personnel assigned to such military
installation is so small as to make the construction of family housing uneconomi-
cal, or (4) leasing is required to provide housing for students attending service
school academic courses on permanent change of station orders, or (5) construc-
tion of family housing has been authorized but not completed or a request for
construction is contained in a pending military construction authorization bill.
The expenditure for such leased units, including contract rent, maintenance and
operation costs, and utilities may not exceed an annual average of $210 per unit
per month for each military department or $290 per month for any one unit,
except that in Hawaii expenditure may not exceed an average of $255 per unit
per month or $300 per month for any one unit.
(c) In foreign countries it is the policy to lease privately owned family housing
only when such leasing is for the benefit of the United States and when (1) Gov-
ernment quarters commensurate with the position of intended occupant are not
available and suitable private rental quarters at costs within the maximum al-
lowable housing cost (MAHC) plus station housing allowance are not available
and (2) Government leasing is necessary to prevent hardship to eligible person-
nel which cannot be relieved by establi-hment of adequate housing allowances.
(d) Family housing leased in accordance with above criteria are designated
adequate public quarters and occupants forfeit all quarters allowances.
(e) The total leasing program of $16,056,000 includes 6,929 leases at an aver-
age cost of $2 317 per unit.
(f) The fiscal year 1974 leasing program is distributed as follows:
LEASED HOUSING-FISCAL YEAR 1974
Number of Cost
Location units (thousands)
DOMESTIC LEASING
Arizona: Fort Huachuca.----.- ---.-.-.----------------------------- 100 $252
C olorado: Fort Carson---- ------.-.-. - - - - - --... ...- __---_ 300 756
Hawaii -------------------------------------------------------------- 200 459
Maryland: Aberdeen Proving Grounds------------------------------------- 66 166
New Jersey:
Fort Monmouth..... . ----------------------------------------------------- 160 400
Picatinny arsenal ... ----------------------------------------------------- 10 25
Virginia:
JAG School........ ..----------------------........ ---------------------------------- 40 101
Foreign Sc;ence and Technical Center- __--....----------------- 10 25
USA recruiting CMD----------------------............................. 1,200 3,070
USA Intelligence CMD...----------------------------------------------------- 30 76
Reserve and ROTC..............------------------------------------------------------ 275 712
ARADCOM-----------.....------------------------------------------------ 850 2,125
Total, domestic leasing......... -................................. 3,241 8,167
FOREIGN LEASING
Belgium:
U.S. elements, NATO-------------------------------------------------- 0 In4 320
U.S. Army, Eurooe...---------------------------------------------------- 16 318
England: U.S. Army Eurne .-------------------------------------------------- 6 60
Ethiopia: U.S. Army, Eurone ._.....--- ....------------------- 10 6
Germany: U.S, Army, Europe-------------.... ------------------------- -- 3,290 5,680
Greece: U.S. Army, Europe- 1........... ........................1
ItLl,.
U.S. Army, Europe..------- ----------------------------------------- 117 351
U.S. Army Engineering Division .-------------------------------------- - 2 1'
Korea: Office Chief of Engineers ----20 179
Netherlands: U.S. Army, Europe....---------------------------------------------- 20 173
Thailand: U.S. Army, Pacific -----------------------------------------------11 131
AC of S, Intelligence: Worldwide---------------------------------------------- 26 126
South America: U.S. military missions...------------------------------------ - 65 475
Total, foreign leasing..-......__--------------------. ........... 3, 688 7,889
Grand total, worldwide_------------------------------- 6,929 16, 056
137
LEASED HOUSING-FISCAL YEAR 1973
Number of Cost
Location units (thousands)
DOMESTIC LEASING
Arizona: Fort Huachuca ._________... -......... .. ....... ________________ 100 250
California: Oakland AT...-...-........................ ...--..-......--...... 30 76
Colorado: Fort Carson--.............-...-... ...................._ 300 750
Hawaii...----------------..........---------..--.........................----------------------------------.. 100 254
Maryland: Aberdeen Proving Grounds .. -------------__ --____--_- - - 66 166
New Jersey:
Fort Monmouth..................----------------------------------------------------- 160 400
Picatinny Arsenal...---------.....------.............................-------------------------------------. 10 22
Virginia:
JAG School.......................................---------------------------------------------------------. 40 105
Foreign Science and Technical Center --. --......-____-.._............... 10 22
USA Recruiting CMD-........_ _-.. __...__............... .____...... ...... 1, 200 2, 387
USA Intelligence CMD-...-- .. ..------............ .... ..-------- 40 101
Reserve and ROTC.... ..........------------------------------------------------------ 285 627
ARADCOM--..-----........................................................---------------------------------------------------- 900 1,980
Total, domestic leasing................. ........- .............. 3, 241 7,140
FOREIGN LEASING
Belgium:
U.S. elements, NATO .........._____-._..._.. ______..._ ............... . 104 362
U.S. Army Europe ------.~...- 16 320
England: U.S. Army Europe -....-.........._.._........ ..... ---------------------6 18
Ethiopia: U.S. Army Euriope -----------------------------------------~_---- 10 60
Germany: U.S. Army, Europe- -- -------.~~~....--...-.-................. 606 1,257
Italy:
U.S. Army, Europe ------------------------------------------------... 5 50
U.S. Army Engineering Division- -- --.. ------------------~~-....- 3 15
Korea:
U.S. Army Security Agency (NSA)---------------------....--.-... . . 2 10
Office, Chief of Engineers---.....-- --............................ . 20 179
Netherlands: U.S. Army, Europe-.. ..__ .-...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . 20 173
Thailand: U.S. Army, Pacific _......-..- --..... __-------- 8 120
AC of S, Intelligence: Worldwide-..-. -- - -- ----__- - --26 126
South America: U.S. military groups--------------------------...~--.. 65 453
Total, foreign leasing. .. --. ---...-..........--.......... .______ . 891 3,143
Grand total, worldwide---... .. --.....- ----.... - - - -- - --. 4,132 10, 283
LEASED HOUSING, FISCAL YEAR 1972
Average
number,
fiscal 2 Cost
Location f 972 (thousands)
DOMESTIC LEASING
Fort Huachuca, Ariz.......................---------------------------.........................---------------------------. 79 $195
Fort MacArthur Calif--------...... ----------------------.................................... 43 72
Oakland AT, Calif.....................................-------------------------------------------------------- 28 64
Fort Carson, Colo... ... ------------------------------------------------------- 274 533
Fort Leavenworth ..------------------------------------------------------- 429 1,075
Aberdeen Proving Grounds.... .........___.__._............................... 66 149
Fort Monmouth, N.J------........------...........................................------------------------------------------ 156 349
JAG School...............................----------------------------------------------.........------------- 37 93
ARADCOM ------------------------------------------------------------ 784 1,906
USA Recruiting Command- .-. --.-..--. --. - - --..-.- - --.--------------- 503 1,126
USAINTC Command .............-------------------------------------------------- 20 41
Reserve and ROTC activities_ _._-.__ .......................... ............... 66 135
Hawaii --------------------------------------------------------------- 57 142
Total, domestic leasing...........---------------------....................------------------------- 2, 542 5, 880
FOREIGN LEASING
USA, Pacific--------------...... ------------------....-------------...............-------------- 8 74
USA, Europe -----------------.......................... - _------ - 548 2,016
USA, Southern Command (military missions).--------_-__-------------------- 52 457
AC of S Intelligence .... ...... -.-..-- - - - - - - - - 22 99
Office, dhief of Engineers.... -..-.-.--- -- -126 492
USA Security Agency ..--------------------- -------------------------------- 2 10
Total, foreign leasing-- ...........- --..-...-- ---. .......... 758 3,148
Total, leasing program--. --------------------------3,300 9,028
EFFECT OF AVERAGE COST LIMITATIONS
Mr. SIRES. What cost limits are proposed for leasing in fiscal year
1974?
General COOPER. For fiscal 1974 there is no increase proposed by the
Department of Defense. The average cost is still $210 a month average
and $290 a month maximum.
Mr. SIXES. Is that adequate ?
General COOPER. NO, sir. What we would much prefer to do is not
have any specific dollar amount.
Mr. SIKEs. Are you making any such recommendation to the
authorizing committees ?
General COOPER. No, we haven't.
Mr. SIXES. Is authorization required ?
General COOPER. Authorization is required, and it is in the au-
thorization part of the bill. The no specific average cost is what we
recommended to the Office of Secretary of Defense to give us more
flexibility.
Mr. SIKEs. Did you get it ?
General COOPER. NO, sir.
Mr. SIXES. I would like to have for the record details on what was
requested and the effect of the limitation which is now in operation.
[The information follows:]
The availability of adequate housing for service families is a major factor in
recruitment and retention of career personnel. Government leasing of privately
owned housing for assignment as public quarters is a proven, flexible and im-
mediate means of obtaining a greater use of existing housing to meet urgent
military family housing requirements. Leasing is used pending elimination of
the military family housing deficit through other programs designed to provide
housing on a permanent long range basis.
With this in mind the Army recommended to OSD that permanent legislation
be included in the MILCON Authorization Bill for fiscal year 1974 giving the
Secretaries of the Military Departments general authority to lease housing sub-
ject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. Existing statutory
restraints on number of units that may be leased and the amount of rental that
can be paid for a leased dwelling unit were to be lifted.
The Army also recommended, should it be decided to seek extension of the
existing leasing authority rather than permanent general authority, that the
existing law be amended to reflect escalation in costs of leasing by increasing
the ceilings on department average monthly expenditure per domestic unit,
from $210 to $225, and on any one unit from $290 to $300.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain leased housing within the present
limitation on expenditure, particularly the $210 average. As existing leases ex-
pire rents are raised to the point where the lease must be given up and the Army
must seek lower cost rental housing in order to stay within the average unit cost
limit. In some cases this means leasing inadequate housing in order to provide
shelter for the families of servicemen in high rent areas. In some areas leasing
must be curtailed since costs are so high that to continue leasing at the required
level in that area would cause the Army's average cost per unit to exceed the
statutory limit. The general effect is that the Army is unable to use leasing to
its fullest potential as a source of family housing.
LEASING OVERSEAS
Mr. SIKES. What effect will devaluation have on your lease program
overseas?
General COOPER. Ninety percent of the Army's leased family hous-
ing program for fiscal year 1974 is for Germany. Currency revaluation
increases the estimated dollar amount required for leasing by 39 per-
cent over the amount reflected in the budget. Thus it will be necessary
to reduce the number of leased units in order to stay within the total
amount of appropriated funds.
Mr. SIKEs. At which locations do you propose an increase in ceiling
for fiscal year 1974?
General COOPER. The only significant increase will be in Germany.
At the beginning of fiscal year 1973 we were authorized 606 leased units
in Germany. This was increased to 1,052 units during the second half
of fiscal year 1973. We propose to increase leasing in Germany by 2,238
units for a total of 3,290 units in fiscal year 1974.
USE OF TURNKEY IN HAWAII
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Nicholas.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Go back, for the moment, to the question of use of
turnkey housing in Hawaii in the fiscal year 1973 program.
General COOPER. We don't plan to use turnkey.
Mr. NICHOLAS. The Army is the construction agent for that year's
program. I understand the Army did explore the possibility of using
turnkey. Did the Army make the decision not to utilize turnkey
housing ?
General COOPER. Colonel Oliver tells me it wasn't the Army. It was
discussed with OSD.
Mr. NICHOLAS. In spite of the fact the Army was construction
agent, which under the new guidelines should allow them to make
the decision of whether or not you use turnkey, you were apparently
directed by OSD not to use turnkey.
Colonel OLIVER. As I recall we were so instructed.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Could you provide for the record any instructions
or letters on this subject ?
Colonel OLIVER. I don't think we have any.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Could you also provide for the record the results of
your examination of the possible use of turnkey procedures after the
Army was designated as the construction agency ?
[The information follows:]
During the week of April 9, 1973, OSD and the departments held discussions in
Hawaii relative to master planning and program execution for military family
housing in Hawaii. These discussions included design and construction respon-
sibilities. OSD representatives expressed a preference for conventional con-
struction procedures and the services agreed that these procedures would be used
for the fiscal year 1973 program. The procedures (conventional or turnkey) to
be used in the fiscal year 1974 program were not established. It was decided and
later directed in May 1973 by OSD that the Army and Navy would each design
and construct its own fiscal year 1973 program. For the fiscal year 1974 program,
OSD directed that the Army would design and construct the 1,000 Army and
600 Navy units to be located in the Aliamanu Crater and that the AF would be
the design and construction agent for its 400 units at Hickman AFB.
Additional guidance was (1) that each design and construction agent is re-
sponsible for environmental impact assessments; (2) that fiscal year 1973 and
fiscal year 1974 projects cited will utilize Government-prepared plans and spe-
ifications; (3) that project densities will conform to land use intensites specified
in OSD memorandum of December 19. 1972, and (4) that construction agents will
coordinate with each other to insure bid openings are at least 6 weeks apart.
140
HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE FUND, DEFENSE
Mr. SIXES. We will turn to homeowners assistance fund, Defense.
We will insert at this point in the record the fiscal data for this
appropriation item.
Mr. Reporter, please insert the justification material which is before
us in the record at this point.
[The information follows:]
HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE FUND, DEFENSE
SEC. 1-BUDGET SUMMARY DATA-PROGRAM AND FINANCING
[Dollar amounts in thousands]
Fiscal year 1972 actual Fiscal year 1973 estimate Fiscal year 1974 estimate
Units Obligations Units Obligations Units Obligations
Payments to homeowners 1 ...... 344 $477 225 $310 150 $240
Other operating costs ' -.... ...-. . 1,053 2, 847 625 2,690 361 2,060
Acquisition of properties 3..- 354 2, 210 290 2,000 150 1,050
Mortgages assumed 4--.... . 354 3, 694 290 3,200 150 1,650
Total program . _____.....- 9, 228 -........... 8, 200 ....... ... 5,000
Available from prior year__ --9,075 ........... --11,952 ........... -9,752
Estimated revenue 6.-------- 320 -4, 530 400 -6, 000 300 -4, 500
Available for other years ---------------------- 11,952 ..... 9,752 -.......... 9, 252
Budget authority .....- -........ ... ......... 7,575 ........ . . 0
Authorization to spend agency debt
receipts..........---------------------- 0 ......... 0 ---- .... .
Appropriations ..--------------------------- 7, 575 . 0..... 0
I Reimbursements to homeowners for losses; private sales or foreclosures. Work unit, "number of payments."
2 DOD and FHA expenses. Work unit, "total number of applications processed, including rejections."
3 Payments to homeowners for equity in properties acquired by the Government. Wirk unit, "number of properties."
4 Value of mortgage balances assumed by the Government on properties acquired. Work unit, "number of mortgages
assumed."
6 Recovery of Government's investment by sale of properties. Work unit, "number of properties sold."
SEC. 1-BUDGET SUMMARY DATA-PERSONNEL SUMMARY
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
1972 actual 1973 estimate 1974 estimate
Total number of permanent positions. ..___ __. _ -_ 46 30 24
Full-time equivalent of other positions. __. . .......t..
Average number of all employees 45 35 25
Total personnel services obligations I (thousands)...-.-------- $702 $535 $395
I Personnel compensation and personnel benefits.
SECTION 2- PURPOSE
This program provides, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of
Public Law 89-754 (80 Stat. 1255, 1290), as amended, assistance to military and
civilian employee homeowners by reducing their losses incident to disposal of
their homes incurred as a result of the closure of military installations or reduc-
tion in the scope of operations at such installations. The Secretary of Defense is
authorized to acquire title to, hold, manage, and dispose of, or in lieu thereof
to reimburse for certain losses upon private sale of, or foreclosure against, any
eligible property improved with a one- or two-family dwelling. The property must
be situated at or near a miiltary base or installation which the Department of
Defense has, subsequent to November 1, 1964, ordered to be closed in whole or
in part or at which it has, after October 28, 1969, ordered a reduction in the scope
of operations.
The act establishes in the Treasury a fund to be available to the Secretary of
Defense for extending such financial assistance to qualified homeowners and pro-
141
vides that appropriations for the acquisition of properties must be authorized
by a miiltary construction authorization act and that no moneys in the fund may
be expended except as may be provided in appropriations acts.
SECTION 3-SCOPE OF OPERATIONS
This program was initiated during the latter part of fiscal year 1968. By the
end of fiscal year 1972, a total of 9,762 applications had been received. Action was
completed on 9,478 applications; 2,356 were rejected because the applicants did
not qualify for assistance, 769 settlements were completed which did not re-
quire payment to the applicant and 6,353 applications were processed to payment.
Total obligations were $46.580 million, including $14.210 million for assumption
of 1,612 mortgages. Sales of Department of Defense acquired properties by the
Federal Housing Administration amounted to 1,528 units with gross sales amount-
ing to $19.319 million.
For the current year (fiscal year 1973) we are programing the receipt of 500
new applications and completed action on 625 cases which include 80 rejections,
30 settlements without payment and 515 applications to be processed to payment.
Total obligations are programed to be $8.200 million, including $3.200 million
for assumption of 260 mortgages. Sales of DOD properties by FHA are programed
at 400 units with gross sales amounting to $6 million.
For the budget year fiscal year 1974) we are programing the receipt of 330
new applications and completed action on 361 cases which include 51 rejections,
10 settlements without payment and 300 applications to be processed to payment.
Total obligations are programmed to be $5 million, including $1.650 million for
assumntion of 135 mortgages. Sales of DOD properties by FHA are programed at
300 units with gross sales amounting to $4.500 million.
New appropriations are not requested for fiscal year 1974 because current
estimates indicate that the available balance from the funds appropriated in prior
years, plus receipts, will be sufficient to fund the program through fiscal year
1974.
ADDITIONAL REQUEST
Mr. SIKES. General Cooper, your statement on family housing cov-
ered the homeowners assistance fund. You indicated that the request
this year will be for $7 million. Is that correct or is that to be an addi-
tional request?
General COOPER. That is an additional request, $7 million of
appropriations.
Mr. SIRES. The budget apparently contained no request for addi-
tional authorization; is that correct ?
General COOPER. That is correct, because we had enough carryover
from the previous year.
Mr. SIRES. Must there now be a request for an additional authori-
zation ?
General COOPER. Yes, sir, because we anticipate increased require-
ments in both authorization and appropriation.
Mr. STKES. How will you accomplish this, by an amended budget
request ?
General COOPER. Yes, sir, which will be submitted formally to the
House and Senate Armed Services Committees.
Mr. NICHOLAS. You said an amended budget request would be sub-
mitted to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. The nor-
mal way for amendi-g the President's budget request is for the Office
of Management and Budget to send up a supplemental request. Do you
know if that is what is anticipated ?
General COOPER. I have here the draft of the letter which is to be
sent to the chairman of the House and Senate Armed Services Com-
mittees.
Mr. SIRES. From whom?
General COOPER. Mr. Sheridan, but it has been cleared by the Office
of Management and Budget.
[Discussion off the record.]
INCREASED PROGRAM DUE TO BASE CLOSURES
Mr. PATTEN. The justification material before us indicates that at
the time the budget was put together you expected to have an unused
balance of $9,252,000 in this account. This is now anticipated to be
$13,152,000. How did you compute the requirement for an additional
appropriation of $7 million in addition to the unexpectedly large carry-
over ?
General COOPER. I think those are two separate questions. Basically
we just recomputed our estimates. That is the difference between the
$9 million and the $13 million. We computed the requirement for the
additional $7 million by figuring out how many bases we now know are
going to be closed. We have an estimate based on past experience as to
how many of these we will have to provide assistance to. The big in-
crease was the base closure announcement of April 17. But the other
was just a change in estimate from the time the budget was originally
prepared to when we recomputed it after last April.
Mr. PATTEN. Was your original estimate based upon the residual
claims for previous base closures, and is your revised estimate based
upon the additional claims and workload associated with the recently
announced base closures?
General COOPER. That is correct.
Mr. PATTEN. Can you provide us with a breakdown of your esti-
mated obligations of $46,400,000 for fiscal year 1974 ?
General COOPER. Yes, sir. Basically payment to homeowners from
private sale and closures is $2,815,000, operating costs, administrative
costs of FHA and Office of Chief Engineers, $5,475,000, acquisition of
property-these are the equity payments to the people-$10,940,000,
and mortgage assumption $27,170,000.
Mr. PATTEN. Can you tell us what revenues you expect during the
year?
General COOPER. Yes, sir. During the year we would expect revenues
of $8,805,000. That is from sale of 515 units.
Mr. PATTEN. How firm is that mortgage cost of $27 million ? Would
you be familiar with that, General?
General COOPER. That is really an estimate. We can't predict it
that accurately. Even though we show a number with five significant
figures, we don't know what it will be within plus or minus 25 percent.
PRIOR YEAR OBLIGATION RATE
Mr. PATTEN. Your new fiscal year 1973 figures are based upon a
considerably lower level of obligations-$3 million-than your origi-
nal estimate-$8,200,000.
General COOPER. Our original estimated obligation of $8.2 million
was based on the assumption we were going to process and complete
625 cases and our most recent estimate was based on completion of
only 385 cases. It is not in direct proportion. The type of case makes
a difference also.
Mr. PATTEN. DO you know why they would drop that much ?
General COOPER. I don't really know specifically. I will find out. I
could guess, but I will provide it.
[The information follows:]
A reduction in the cases processed and completed resulted from receipt of
fewer cases than anticipated and reflects actual cases rather than estimated
cases. In some instances, particularly where a closure occurs over a sufficiently
long period of time, there is an improvement in the market which results in
fewer applications and lower program costs. We are unable to rely upon a rapid
recovery of the market and must prepare for the conditions expected at the
time of the closure.
Mr. PATTEN. Can you tell us what is the maximum amount of
obligations which you have incurred in any 1 year since this program
was initiated ?
General COOPER. $16.8 million in fiscal year 1969.
Mr. PATTEN. How does that compare with what we estimated at
the time
General COOPER. You mean when the bill was originally passed ?
Mr. PATTEN. Yes. It was higher than that, wasn't it?
General COOPER. Mr. Lockwood says we estimated higher.
Mr. PATTEN. I think we all did. We were under pressure. I know
I was in my district, on account of what was happening then, but we
didn't get the benefit of this law.
Have you kept figures over the years which indicate what the rate
of obligation is in the years subsequent to a particular base closure?
General COOPER. We can certainly provide data where we did grant
assistance because that is fact. As far as projecting this-
[The information follows:]
Our obligations for the past several fiscal years were as follows:
Millions
Fiscal year 1970-------------------------------------------- $12.0
Fiscal year 1971--- ----------------------------------------- 8. 7
Fiscal year 1972------ --------------------------------------------- 9. 2
Fiscal year 1973 (estimate) ------------------------------------- 3. 0
Mr. NICHOLAS. Does it extend out like a construction program does,
30 percent the first year, 40 percent the next year ?
Mr. PATTEN. I will bet you will find out there are no two situations
alike.
General COOPER. Mrs. Sparkman may be the one who knows.
Mr. PATTEN. We are anxious to get you in the act here, Mrs. Spark-
man. Do you see any pattern whereby we could estimate the rate of
obligation in the years subsequent to a particular base closure?
Mrs. SPARKMAN. No, I can't at this time because it is something
that depends on the situation in the particular area.
Mr. PATTEN. I can see that. I know what happened at Raritan
Arsenal. Housing was around there and the fellows bought it up,
private housing. You wouldn't find that in another area like at
Griffiss Air Force Base.
What rate of obligation are you projecting for the fiscal years
1974, 1975, and 1976, and in total for the recently announced base
closures?
21-111 0 - 73 - 10
GENERAL COOPER. We don't have any estimates right now for 1975.
RESALE VALUES OF ACQUIRED UNITS
Mr. PATTEN. Generally, what has happened to the resale values of
the units which the Government has acquired under this program?
General COOPER. Normally, we sell it at about the price we acquire
it for, but that is slightly misleading because in the meantime we have
had to maintain it, fix it up, and as a result it will probably cost us
about $4,000 for a house that we sell.
Mr. PATTEN. Don't you have a few bright spots where there was a
rising real estate market ?
GENERAL COOPER. If it is bright at the time, the people don't come
to us for assistance; they take their profit and move on.
Mr. PATTEN. That is right.
General COOPER. If it was not bright when we took it over and then
brightened up, I don't know if we have any specific examples of that.
I don't think so, sir.
Mr. PATTEN. I am familiar with VA experience in my State and
the FHA experience with their real estate department. It is a pretty
lovely picture and not depressing at all, but your situation is different.
How many of these units do you currently own ?
General COOPER. Mr. Thompson may have that number.
Mr. THOMPSON. We have 225 units at present. You have to bear in
mind that this is before the homes which we will be acquiring under
the expanded program. By virtue of the recently announced closures,
we will be acquiring quite a few homes because that will probably be
the most advantageous. We haven't had substantial base closure for
sometime back, in about fiscal 1971 I would say. So there has been a
general phasedown in our activity which has meant to some extent we
don't have a large inventory of homes. And that fact is the reason for
this relatively low program, and now we encounter something entirely
larger. So there will be many more homes, and the new budget figures
indicate that we will be expecting to acquire many more homes in
fiscal year 1974.
Mr. PATTEN. Will someone estimate the resale value of your present
inventory ?
General COOPER. It is about $14,000 a house times the numbers he
mentioned.
Mr. PATTEN. That is what I had in mind.
Mr. MCKAY. Is that your estimated salable value?
General COOPER. Yes, sir. That is what we sold them for on the
average in the past.
Mr. PATTEN. I know what we put up for the program. I was wonder-
ing what you have to resell. Would you submit a statement of the resale
value of those you now own ?
[The information follows:]
As of May 31, 1973, we had an inventory of 225 homes. Based on past experience
in the program, the average resale value per home has been running at $14,000.
The homes in the inventory should provide revenue of $2.2 million. The actual
amount realized will, of course, depend on future market conditions.
Mr. THOMPSON. I think that would probably be in the nature of a
correct figure of what we have. You have to bear in mind with regard
to the newly announced closure the cost of the homes will increase.
So we will be talking about homes that are worth more. And we know,
too, the national economy has resulted in greatly increased real estate
values. We have been dealing with homes in the less-populated areas,
and some of the closures will involve more expensive homes.
Mr. PATTEN. But you wouldn't multiply $14,000 by how many units
you have.
General COOPER. Yes, sir; $2.2 million.
Mr. PATTEN. Compared to the amount we have invested in the pro-
gram-in other words, the program will cost us money ?
General COOPER. Yes, sir; the program costs you on the average of
about $4,000 a house.
Mr. PATTEN. This was very meaningful to some young married
couples and to others. It will help the morale.
General COOPER. It will make a big difference. That doesn't mean
people don't complain, because we give them only 90 percent of ap-
praised value. So they still take a loss. But being able to move out
knowing they do have the homeowners assistance program, makes a
lot of difference.
Mr. PATTEN. Provide for the record the total obligations which have
been incurred or are expected under this program and the total
revenues which have been or are expected to result from closure actions
prior to January 1973.
[The information follows:]
The total obligation incurred from the beginning of the program through
May 31, 1973, was $49.4 million. An additional obligation of $46.4 million is
expected for fiscal year 1974. This totals $95.8 million. Revenues which have
been received or are expected to be received from homes purchased incident to
closures announced prior to January 1973, are estimated at $26 million.
Mr. PATTEN. That is all. The committee wants to thank you, gentle-
men. I guess you got the feeling that housing is something that is
close to all of us.
General COOPER. We on our part, without being sycophantic or
self-serving, want to thank the committee for the support you have
given us.
Mr. PAT IEN. We want to thank all of you for your help.
NAVY-MARINE CORPS FAMILY HOUSING
WITNESSES
WILLIAM F. REED, JR., CAPTAIN, CEC, U.S. NAVY, ASSISTANT COM-
MANDER FOR FAMILY HOUSING, NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEER-
ING COMMAND
FRANCIS A. PEPE, CAPTAIN, U.S. MARINE CORPS, FAMILY HOUSING
MANAGEMENT BRANCH, MARINE CORPS FAMILY HOUSING
GEORGE T. KORINK, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND ACQUISITION
DIVISION, NAVY FAMILY HOUSING
WILLIAM W. McMILLEN, DIRECTOR, MANAGEMENT DIVISION,
NAVY FAMILY HOUSING
JON R. MOORE, HEAD, REQUIREMENTS BRANCH, NAVY FAMILY
HOUSING
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF CAPT. WILLIAM F. REED
Mr. PATTEN. We will insert Captain Reed's biography in the record
at this point.
[The document follows:]
CAPT. WILLIAM F. REED, JR.,
CIVIL ENGINEER CORPs, U.S. NAVY
William Fleming Reed, Junior, was born in Columbus, Ohio, May 5, 1924,
son of William F. (now deceased) and Florence (Racle) Reed. He attended
Ohio State University prior to entering the U.S. Navy as an enlisted man and
subsequently the U.S. Naval Academy on June 12, 1944, on an appointment from
his native State. He was graduated and commissioned ensign in the Civil
Engineer Corps with the class of 1948 on June 6, 1947 (accelerated course due to
World War II), subsequently advancing in rank to that of captain to date from
September 1, 1968.
Following graduation from the Naval Academy, he attended the Navy's Civil
Engineer Corps Officers School at Port Hueneme, Calif., and underwent further
training in tactics and field engineering with the U.S. Army at Fort Riley,
Kans., and Fort Belvoir, Va.
Captain Reed received a bachelor of civil engineering degree from Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute in September 1949 and a master of science degree in
management from the Naval Post Graduate School in 1962.
His duty assignments include public works duty at the Headquarters, 10th
Naval District; transportation and maintenance duty at the Naval Air Station,
Quonset Point, R.I.; classified projects manager in the Bureau of Yards and
Docks (now the Naval Facilities Engineering Command), and with the Officer
in Charge of Construction, Madrid, Spain, as manager of the Estimates and
Costs Control Branch.
In April 1957, he reported as assistant resident officer in charge of construc-
tion for Area I in Spain and served in that capacity until June 1958. From July
1958 to July 1961, he served as controlled maintenance officer and ships engineer,
and subsequently as assistant public works officer at the Naval Air Station,
Pensacola, Fla. Following this assignment, he attended the Naval Post Grad-
uate School in Monterey, Calif.
He reported as officer in charge of the Western Pacific Detachment of Amphib-
ious Construction Battalion ONE in June 1962 and served in that capacity
until July 1963, when he reported as assistant public works officer for fleet
activities at Yokosuka, Japan, and subsequently served as executive officer of
the Navy Public Works Center at Yokosuka. He then reported as assistant
commander for acquisition in the Chesapeake Division of the Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, Washington, D.C., in July 1965.
From August 1967 to September 1968, he served as executive officer, Public
Works Department, Naval Support Activity at Danang in the Republic of Viet-
nam. Returning to Washington, D.C., in November 1968, he had assignments
as assistant commander for operations and maintenance. Headquarters, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command; staff assistant in the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Installations and Logistics; and assistant chief of
staff for environmental quality in the Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy.
In May 1972 he became assistant commander for housing, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command. On June 1, 1973, he was designated deputy commander
for facilities management, Naval Facilities Engineering Command and currently
serves in that position.
Captain Reed's personal awards include the Bronze Star (with combat "V");
Meritorious Service Medal; Joint Services Commendation Metal; Navy Unit
Commendation Medal, and the Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry (with
Palm and Frame). In addition, he is eligible to wear campaign and unit awards
spanning most of the major conflicts in which the United States has been in-
volved since 1947.
'Captain Reed is a member of the American Public Works Association, the
Society of American Military Engineers, the Marine Technology Society, and is a
registered professional engineer in the State of Ohio.
He is married to the former Elizabeth Gause of Hayward, Calif. They have six
children: Patricia Ann, Keith Fox, Catherine Leigh Reed, and Carol Ann,
Teresa Maria, and David Joseph Nussbaumer.
GENERAL STATEMENT
Mr. SIKES. YOU may proceed, Captain Reed.
Captain REED. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I am
Capt. William F. Reed, Jr., assistant commander for family housing,
Naval Facilities Engineering Command. It is a privilege to be here
and present the proposed family housing program of the Department
of the Navy for fiscal year 1974.
This program covers both Navy and Marine Corps requirements.
Capt. Francis A. Pepe is with me to represent the Marine Corps.
Our request this year for appropriated funds total $321,652,000.
The request is in three major budget categories, construction, opera-
tion and maintenance (including leasing), and debt payment. It covers
the acquisition and support of family housing facilities and the admin-
istration of housing programs.
CONSTRUCTION
Under the construction category, it is proposed to expend $117,-
675,000 to provide 3,741 new housing units; $400,000 to provide 100
mobile home spaces; $10,600,000 for improvements to existing quarters;
$800,000 minor construction; and $200,000 for advance planning and
design. As in prior years, the Secretary of the Navy has provided
$20 million from Navy's budget ceiling to achieve this total funding
level. Appropriation of new funds in the amount of $129,675,000 is
requested to accomplish this total construction program.
The 3,741 new housing units will be constructed as 13 projects at
11 locations in the 50 States and at Guam and Iceland. The require-
ments resulting from our regular annual survey have been reassessed
against currently approved force alinements at the new construction
locations.
Of the 3,741 new construction units in section 501 for the Navy and
Marine Corps, 94.4 percent are for junior officers and enlisted per-
sonnel. These men are least able to find suitable family housing in the
private economy that they can afford. They are most important to
developing a high quality, All Volunteer Navy and Marine Corps. This
continues the attention and emphasis we have been giving to meeting
the housing needs of the men in these critical categories. In our fiscal
year 1972 and fiscal year 1973 programs, 94.4 and 94.9 percent respec-
tively of our new construction units were allocated to meeting the press-
ing needs of these men and their families.
Eighty-eight percent of the new units will have three or more bed-
rooms. These larger units are the most difficult for the private economy
to provide in the rental housing market, and they give us greater
flexibility than tw.o-bedroom units for assignment purposes. I would
also like to note, at this point, that the proposed bill includes an
increase in the net floor area of the units, primarily for the enlisted
and junior officer grades, and that we are also requesting an increase
in the average cost per unit to $27,500 within the continental limits
and to $38,000 per unit overseas.
We feel the space increases are required to provide the increased
livability which is necessary if our housing is to be comparable in
livability to that being constructed in the civilian sector.
The increase in average cost per unit is vital. As we have progressed
through fiscal year 1972 and into fiscal year 1973, we have encountered
rising costs which makes accomplishment of our program even with
all practicable deducts increasingly difficult. Without an increase in
permissible costs, we will not be able to continue to build adequate
housing.
This year we are adding 100 spaces to the mobile home park pro-
gram initiated in fiscal year 1971. These spaces are proposed at loca-
tions where there is a shortage of suitable park facilities for military
families who live in privately owned mobile homes.
Our request for construction funds also includes $10.6 million for
improvements to public quarters at 29 activities. This amount is ap-
proximately 5.8 percent of the unfunded backlog. As in the past, effort
is concentrated on correction of functional deficiencies and absoles-
cence. An increase in this funding level for improvements is antici-
pated in succeeding years in order to bring our older quarters up to
adequate standards and to extend their usable life as housing which
contributes to the desirability of Navy life.
DEBT PAYMENT
A total of $30.345 million is required for debt payment. This pro-
vides for principal, interest, and mortgage insurance payments on
22,162 Wherry and 19,843 Capehart housing units in the Navy and
Marine Corps inventories and for payment of mortgage insurance
premiums on FHA-insured dwelling owned by servicemen on active
duty.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Mr. Chairman, the last budgetary category presented is for operation
and maintenance.
Our request is for $149.993 million in appropriated funds and ap-
proval to spend $2.667 million in anticipated reimbursements to oper-
ate and maintain a total of 91,569 Navy and Marine Corps housing
units. The increase of $20.5 million over fiscal year 1973 is an increase
of approximately $11.4 million or 18 percent in maintenance and
approximately $9.1 million or 13.4 percent in operating expenses. The
primary cause of these increases is the rising cost of labor, materials,
and utilities.
The funds requested will permit the use of $5.4 million (Navy $4.5
and Marine Corps $0.9) for deferred maintenance work. At the begin-
ning of fiscal year 1973, the backlog of deferred maintenance was
slightly over $30 million (Navy $26 and Marine Corps $4). The escalat-
ing costs of labor and materials during fiscal year 1973 will cause an
increase in the dollar amount of the existing backlog, however funds
provided will permit a slight ($1.3 million) reduction. We expect that
the deferred maintenance backlog will be approximately $28.7 million
(Navy $24.6 and Marine Corps $4.1) as we move into fiscal year 1974.
LEASING
In addition to the above funds for operations and maintenance,
$11.639 million is requested for leasing of Navy and Marine Corps
housing worldwide. This will permit the leasing of 3,944 units in the
149
50 States at an estimated cost of $9.939 million and 438 units overseas
at an estimated cost of $1.700 million.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. Captain Pepe
and members of my staff are here to provide the committee with such
additional information as you may desire.
SUMMARY SHEETS
Mr. SIKES. Insert page i in the record.
[The page follows:]
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY-FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE, FISCAL YEAR 1974 BUDGET, PROGRAM AND FINANCING
]Thousands of dollars]
Navy Marine Corps
Total
Construction of new housing (3,741 units)-. ..---------.... --. $117, 675 -............ $117, 675
Mobile home facilities (100 units). .-...-....--------.... ...---- ... . 400 .............. 400
Subtotal, new construction-.............. .......__ ... 118, 075 -......... 118,075
Improvements............-----------------.....................-------------------- 10,600 --------------....... 10,600
Minor construction-...-.... ..........-... .......... .. 800 ......___ 800
Planning............-------------------------.... ........ ------------.. ----------- 200 ........ 200
Total, construction ..................... ... ...
Operating expenses......... .... ........ .. ........... ... .
Leasing (4,382 units).
Maintenance ...............
Total, operation and maintenance....... ........ ...
Debt interest and other expense ............ .......----._...
Total ........................
Less:
Reimbursements:
Operation and maintenance ........................
Debt....... .................
Available from other years: Debt (brought forward).............
Plus: Redemption of agency debt ............. ...............
Budget authority......-------........-------------------------...
Budget authority:
Appropriation:
Construction.. ..-----------------------------
Operation and maintenance .......... ...... . .... .
Debt ....... ..... . ............. .......... ...
Total, appropriation_ __
Less: Portion applied to debt reduction ......- .
Appropriation (adjusted)........
129, 675 ......_.. .
63,544 - $12,961
11,639 ........
63,273 12,882
129, 675
76, 505
11, 639
76,155
138,456 25, 842 164,299
13,971 180 14,151
282,102 26,023 308,125
-2,492 -175 -2,667
-579 ....... --579
-1, 007 -..- -. - - -1,007
+18 ........... ... +18
278,042 25,848 303,890
129,675 ..... ...... 129,675
135,964 25, 668 I 161,632
30, 165 180 ' 30,345
295, 804 25, 848 321, 652
-17,762 ......------- -17,762
... ........ 278, 042 25, 848 303,890
I The appropriation requests for operation and maintenance and for debt payment are in lump sum for the Department
of Defense. The amounts footnoted are within those totals
DEFICIT
Mr. SIKES. Could you tell us the size of your deficits based on the
Navy's projected force levels as follows ?
Captain REED. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Based upon force levels ap-
proved by OSD and projected through end fiscal year 1978, we expect
to have a programable or 90 percent deficit of 17,600 for eligible per-
sonnel and 5,200 for ineligible personnel. If we eliminate the 10 percent
"safety factor," our total Navy deficit for all ranks and rates is 45,500.
These figures assume construction of the 3,741 units requested in this
bill.
Mr. SIRES. What effect have pay raises and the marital factor had
on the size of your deficit as compared to what you projected last year ?
Captain REED. These two factors have worked in somewhat opposite
directions, and so have effected no major changes. While increased
pay did help some Navy families to find additional suitable housing
in the private community, even in spite of increased housing costs,
our marital factor has continued its upward trend of the past several
years, and thus there was an increased number of Navy families com-
peting for suitable units. Statistically, we find that the net change was
a decrease of about 3,400 units from our last year's projected deficit.
Mr. SInES. Does this year's request represent an adequate level?
Captain REED. As I stated a moment ago, we were cautious in our
request this year, due to the extensive realinement which took place in
the Navy. However, I would say that the new units we are asking for
in this bill represent a sound level. I think we will ask for about the
same number of new units next year, but will also request replacement
units.
MOBILE HOME SPACES
Mr. SIRES. What are the Navy's and Marine Corps' long-term re-
quirements in the area of mobile home spaces ? How fast are you meet-
ing these needs ?
Captain REED. Essentially after we complete the construction of the
1,500 units we were given in the fiscal year 1973 program, neither the
Navy nor the Marine Corps will have a significant remaining require-
ment for mobile home spaces. The 100 units we are asking for in this
bill will conclude our most urgent requirements, but I foresee that we
will continue to request about 100 spaces annually for the next 5 years.
FAMILY HOUSING IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. SIRES. What is your total backlog in improvements ?
Captain REED. The total backlog of improvements, Navy and Marine
together, is $183 million. Of that amount, $147 million is Navy, the
balance is Marine.
Mr. SIKES. How much are you funding for fiscal year 1974?
CAPTAIN REED. We requested $10.6 million. Eventually we expect
to get that up to $25 million a year?
Mr. SIKES. You need $25 million a year ?
Captain REED. We could use it well, sir.
Mr. SIRES. You are far from it. Do you think you have a better
prospect for a higher amount in future years ?
Captain REED. In future years, yes, sir. This year, $10.6 million was
the most we could budget for improvements.
Mr. NICHOLAS. What could you use practically this year?
Captain REED. $25 million.
INADEQUATE HOUSING UNITS
Mr. SIRES. To what extent do you plan to keep existing substandard
units in the Navy and Marine Corps inventory in order to house in-
eligible personnel?
Captain REED. It is very difficult to give a numerical answer. We
would plan to keep them to the extent that we had a requirement to
house ineligible personnel. We would dispose of substandard units as
adequate community and Government housing became available.
Mr. SIKEs. Do you expect to be able to shift eligible personnel out
of substandard units in the near future ?
Captain REED. Yes, sir. Now, there is a difference of policy here, as
I should point out. The Marines right now put only ineligible people
in substandard quarters. The Navy puts both. Where we have a suffi-
cient number of adequate quarters, we restrict the eligibles to the
adequate quarters.
Mr. SIRES. When units are declared inadequate, does this mean that
eventually you must replace them or tear them down ? How many will
you replace in the next 5 to 10 years ?
Captain REED. Units declared inadequate may be retained as long as
the operation and maintenance costs of each specific project are covered
by the rental income derived from occupant of the quarters. Over a
number of years, however, it is probable that most such projects would
become uneconomical to maintain and would thus have to be demol-
ished, if not replaced. I would estimate that over the next 5 years we
will request replacement for about 4,000 such units.
Mr. SIRES. What is your policy on programing new units where you
have a sufficient number of adequate and inadequate units combined to
meet your requirements ?
Captain REED. I assume the inadequate units you refer to are mili-
tary owned units.
Mr. SIRES. Yes.
Cautain REED. In such a situation we would only recommend re-
placement programing, and then on a case by case basis after analysis
of the continued operation of the substandard quarters versus new
construction.
STANDARDS OF HOUSING FOR INELIGIBLE
Mr. SIRES. Do you expect to eventually build replacement units to
house the ineligibles? To what specifications would you propose to
program these units ?
Captain REED. Our expectation is that within the next 5 years all
military will become eligible for family housing. We would then con-
sider replacing existing substandard military units on a case-by-case
basis where an economic analysis indicates it proper to dispose of the
older quarters. Replacement units will be constructed to the same
standards as present new construction which is equal to FHA multiple
family criteria.
Mr. SIRES. In the event you build to current specifications for these
lower grade personnel, will you be providing them with much better
housing than people of a similar pay level and level of responsibility
in the civilian community can obtain ? To what extent is this justified ?
Captain REED. The housing would be built to FHA specifications as
with all our construction, and the bedroom composition set for the
family size, which, of course, would increase the number of two bed-
room units well above those we are currently programing. That would
then be what most of their personnel should rate. Since these lower
grades have great difficulity in renting adequate units within their
incomes it would probably be better than they could afford off base.
However, these same pay grades are at the point where they are decid-
ing upon the advantage of a service career, and providing them with
decent family housing is a major incentive for them to stay in the
NaW. SIKES. How would their housing compare to that of their civil-
ian counterparts.
Captain REED. I don't know, sir. We will have to look into that.
EFFECT OF BASE CLOSURES ON NAVY FAMILY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
Mr. SIKES. What effect have the recently announced base closures
had on the Navy's total housing construction requirements ?
Captain REED. We are both acquiring units and leaving units. We
are leaving 1,067 substandard units. We are leaving 1,677 adequate
units. Of those 735 at the Newport area would have been declared in-
adequate had we not closed the base.
We are going to acquire, based on sways from other services, 668 at
McCoy AFB, Fla., 600, approximately, at Hamilton AFB, Calif.;
10 at Charleston Army Depot and about 323 at Ramey AFB, P.R.,
which would give us a gain of 1,601, so we are coming out just about
even in the adequate quarters we pick up and the adequate quarters
we lose.
Mr. PATTEN. I would like to have detailed for the record the
effect base closures will have on the BAQ required to be paid to military
personnel.
[The information follows:]
After all actions of the shore establishment realignment have been completed,
the Navy will lose 1,067 substandard units and 76 adequate public quarters.
Ths will result in the additional BAQ payment of approximately $1.5 mililon
annually.
Mr. PATTEN. Have all of the projects requested in this bill been
checked thoroughly to insure they will still be required after the base
realignment actions take place?
Captain REED. Yes sir.
ADDITIONAL UNITS NEEDED IN FISCAL YEAR 1974
Mr. PATTEN. In which areas will there be an increased need for
family housing as a result of the realignments ?
Captain REED. We will have an increased need at San Diego, Calif.;
Cecil Field, Fla.; Jacksonville, Fla.; Mayport, Fla.; Oahu, Hawaii;
Charleston, S.C., and Norfolk, Va.
Mr. SIKES. What funds are available and what construction con-
ceivably could be undertaken, this year in addition to that already
requested for fiscal 1974 in order to meet the realignment housing
needs?
Captain REED. We have four projects we are not going to build
because of the realignment. Two at Long Beach, and one each at
Lakehurst, and Newport, which is 1,050 houses for $26 million.
If we were making this program up right now and had the option,
we would build 400 houses at Mayport, and we would build 325 houses
at San Diego.
Mr. SIRES. Is land available in all instances?
153
Captain REED. We have land at Murphy Canyon in San Diego and
have planned land exchanges in negotiation with the city of San Diego
which would give us additional land. At Mayport, we have located a
piece of land which we would have to buy and we believe it is available.
It is part of a large tract. We were planning on siting houses there in
the forthcoming year.
WIVES OPINIONS ON HOUSING
Mr. NIcHorls. Could you provide more information for the record
on the 325 and the 400 units, including the justification for them ?
[The information follows:]
As a result of the recently announced shore establishment realinement (SER)
within the Navy, there no longer exists a requirement to construct four family
housing projects which had previously been authorized and funded by the Con-
gress, but upon which construction had not yet commenced. Specifically, the proj-
ects canceled were as follows:
Fiscal year Number of
Activity/location authorizations units
Naval Complex, Long Beach, Calif..................----------------------------------.....................-------- 1972 300
Do...................----------------------------------------------------------- 1973 400
NAS Lakehurst, N.J.................--------------------------------------------------- 1973 200
Naval Complex, Newport, R.I---------..........------------------------------------...................................... 1973 150
At several other locations, due to the projected increases in married personnel,
we will have a requirement to construct military family housing in addition to
that which the local community will be able to provide. In order to utilize funds
which were previously made available to us and to provide some relief to the
relocated families, it is desired to add additional authorization to the currently
pending fiscal year 1974 bill, utilizing previously appropriated funds for the
construction.
A number of locations were evaluated in terms of SER impact and land avail-
ability, and Norfolk although heavily SER impacted, was subsequently elimi-
nated due to land and siting problems. The two other locations which are most
severely impacted are Mayport and San Diego, and it is desired to program 400
units of enlisted housing at Mayport, and 325 units of enlisted housing at San
Diego. At both locations we believe that we will have no problems of land avail-
ability nor any unusual utility or site development costs. Additionally, informal
contact with local FHA personnel at both locations indicate no difficulty with
FHA concurrence in the construction of the projects. We would thus desire to
build 400 units in Mayport, and 325 units in San Diego using funds already avail-
able. The DD forms 1390 for Mayport and San Diego reflecting the post SER
personnel figures are attached.
Mr. SIKES. What have been the Navy's impressions, what recommen-
dations have been forthcoming, what changes made as a result of the
recent surveys made on the expressed wishes of Navy wives in the area
of housing design ?
. . I .... .. . .MEN I-.sTALLATION
S,! 1?73 vY FY 19 7I MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM NAVAL STATION, MAYPORT
4. CECANO OR MANAICE NT BUREAU I. INSTALLATON CONTROL NUMBER . STATEICOUNTR
CI6CL:ITFLT 6029-480 I FLORIDA
SlrT5Us. YEAR OF INITIAL occuPNC . coUN(U.S) 0. NEC TT IT
CTIE DUVL A 20 Miles East of cks: -;:-
i1 Mirl o M.O FUNCTIONs 12. PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
PERSONNEL STRENGTH TOTAL
PERSONNEL STRENGTH OFFICER ENLITED CIYILIN OFFICE ENLIE FiCER ENL sTE L I TOTAL
To provide logistic support for operating forces 29 Feb. 172 n9) ( A () () (6-I E(7) G )
of the Navy and for dependent activities. -. -AnSer( dXT 771 60 12774 504
Is INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LAND COST (E000) IMPROVEMENT (J00) TOTAL .I
(1) (2) (
a. OwNED
b, LEIsEI NO EASEMENTs
C- INvENTORY TOTAL (EIcept Id rnr) AS OF 0 JUNE I9
d. AUTOzAETION NO YET IN INVENTO
e.- UTIORIzOU REQUEsY TED IN THI P oRAUM
I ECTIM.TED AATRRoTIo - NEx . 1- Yi
a GRAND TOTAL (c d*R+0
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORiZATION PROGRAM FUND NG PRCGsAM
TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ED ESTIAT E3
CATEGORY PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
CODE NO. () ')
0 U d a h
711 Family Housing Dwellings (400 Units) FA 400 10,934 2 i
D D, oD"',1390 P... N.
T Jul 73 NAVY FY 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM NAVAL COMPLEX, SAN DIEGO
. CO M.ND OR MANRAESENT URSEAU . INSTALLATION COTROOLICUMOR e.srATE/ COUN T.
VARIOUS NOT APPLICABLE CALIFOP lIA
5. sTAru I. yEAR OF INITIAL OCCUPAWNy A. ouNTY (U.s.) E. NEAREST CIT
ACTIVE NOT'APPLIABLE SAN DIEGO WITHIN CITY
t. MISSION OR MAJOR FUNCTIONS . PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
PERSONNEL STRENGTH OFFICER kLIsToD CIvILIAN OE ICER ENLISTE OFFICER E LViCD CIvLIAr TOTAL
LAND- ACRES LAND COST (000) IMPROVEMENT (I500) TOTAL" x1,
b LEAE s o D EsE _ENT-
O. INvENTORY TOTAL (E cept Ind ren) As OF O JUNE 1
d. AUYORIATION COT YET I IENTo
I EsTIOATAC AUT AICAION - NEx Y TEOR
GRAND TOTAL (c d +
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUND' PRCGRAMi
CATEORTENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ETIMATE
CATEGORY PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST I SCOPE C0T
(M00) (''$01
6 od
711 Family Housing Dwellings (325 Units) FA 325 9,057 325
F o.
Da D, 1"" 1390O
156
Captain REED. Yes, sir.
We did conduct a survey. We sent out 16,000 questionnaires. We re-
ceived over 9,000 responses. Of those who answered, 61 percent were
completed by both the husband and wife, and 27 percent by the wife
alone; 65 percent of those people expressed overall satisfaction with
Navy housing and 20 percent were neutral. We received many opinion-
type comments as to what they wanted.
If you were to sum up the results with one word it would be
"privacy."
That is the most important thing they seemed to want. In hot areas
they wanted air-conditioning; they wanted their own fenced yard, the
sort of thing that would allow them to live as a family unit.
I could, if you desire, give you a rundown for the record.
Mr. SIXEs. I would like to have that for the record.
[The information follows:]
Features desired by respondents
(1) Item most important: Percent
A. Half bath on first floor of two-story unit------------------- 14.0
B. Secondary eating space----------------------------------- 4. 0
C. More kitchen counter workspace------------------------------ 7. 1
D. Larger dining space---------------- ------------------ 6. 3
E. More study space for children------- ----- 3. 6
F. More space for entertaining3-------------------------------. 7
G. More interior bulk storage space--------------------------5.2
H. More exterior bulk storage space--------------------------- 5. 0
I. Patio with privacy fencing------------------------------- 5. 4
J. Your own fenced-in yard--------------------------------- 16. 5
K. More soundproofing between family units------------------------ 7. 4
L. Carports ------------ --------------------------------- 4. 5
M. Sidewalks along streets-------- ------------------0.8
N. Central air conditioning---------------------------------17.4
(2) Item second most important:
A. Half bath on first floor of two-story unit------- -----------------9. 1
B. Secondary eating space----------------------------------- 5.0
C. More kitchen counter workspace---------------------------- 9. 7
D. Larger dining space------------------------------------------ 7. 5
E. More study space for children----------------------------------- 4.7
F. More space for entertaining --------------------3.7
G. More interior bulk storage space--------------------------------6. 4
H. More exterior bulk storage space------------------------ ----- 7. 8
I. Patio with privacy fencing-------------------------------------8. 7
J. Your own fenced-in yard------------------------------------- 13. 0
K. More soundproofing between family units------------------------ 5. 7
L. Carports ----------------------------------------------------_________7.5
M. Sidewalks along streets_ --------------------------------------- 1.5
N. Central air conditioning 9-------------------------------------- . 9
Mr. SIKas. What did they have to say about townhouses, or row
houses?
Captain REED. We didn't get a specific answer I could give you on
that. Primarily they objected to having to live too close to everyone
else, which would apply to townhouses.
Mr. SIKES. Soundproofing would be an important part of that?
Captain REED. Yes, sir.
Mr. SIKES. What are you doing about their recommendations?
Captain REED. We have submitted them to OSD and we are review-
ing our design criteria for possible changes. We are informing the
field of the survey results and we are encouraging their use when
reviewing turnkey projects.
Mr. SIKES. Do you have ceiling lights installed in the rooms, or do
you use plugs for lamps ?
Captain REED. I think in most cases we have plugs.
Many of our projects are now turnkey and it would depend on
what is common practice in the local area.
Mr. SIKES. Do you have a great deal of interest on the part of the
wives with regard to ceiling lights ?
Captain REED. I am not aware of that item being identified as an
issue by the wives.
Mr. SIKES. I think you will find this item of particular interest.
Captain REED. TO be honest, I don't think that was a question in the
survey.
Mr. SIKES. Let's put it in the next one.
Captain REED. Yes, sir.
ADEQUACY OF HOUSING REQUIREMENTS SURVEYS
Mr. SIXEs. GAO has raised some questions about the manner in
which housing surveys are conducted. What improvements do you
feel are needed in this area ?
Captain REED. I haven't received a copy of the GAO report, sir, so
I am talking a little bit off the top of my head.
Mr. SIXES. We will try to help you get one and then you can make
your comments.
Captain REED. Very well. I will make them for the record.
[The information follows:]
On February 14, 1973, GAO advised that during their review of policies and pro-
cedures used to determine requirements for family housing construction, they
had obtained information which in their opinion cast doubt on the need to con-
struct housing at the Naval Complex East Bay, San Francisco, Calif. The results
of the GAO review have still not been received, and we are therefore not certain
of tMe basis for the GAO position. As was pointed out to GAO in an April 11,
1973 response from the Assistant Secretary of Defense (I. & L.), however, the
Navy does not concur with the GAO statement.
To quote in part, from the OSD response, "The objective of the DOD family
housing program is to assure that married members of the Armed Forces of the
United States have suitable housing in which to shelter their families; thus
"housing need" is synonymous with all personnel who are unsuitably housed.
"* * * your data equates housing need with only eligible personnel and then fur-
ther reduces this need by 10 percent to effective requirements. You may be as-
sured that the DOD will continue to authorize construction of family housing
units only where there is a demonstrated need in order to maximize effective
utilization of assets."
The Navy concurs with the OSD response, but we will evaluate thoroughly
the final results of the GAO review at such time as they become available.
Mr. SIXES. Are there instances where the Navy has, in making these
surveys, classified off-base units as inadequate even though the occu-
pants reported them as adequate? Provide details on that for the
record:
[The information follows:]
When an individual reports that his unit is adequate, his response is never
changed, unless he has also reported that it takes him over 1 hour to commute
from his residence to his duty station, one way, during normal working hours.
The number of persons in this category is quite small, and of the approximately
35,000 families living at duty stations where we are requesting construction in
this bill, less than 450 such changes or 1.3 percent were made.
Mr. SIXES. The GAO has suggested that the housing referral offices,
which are familiar with housing situations in the community, might
be a good place to conduct or monitor these surveys. This appears to
be a useful suggestion. Will you explore it ?
Captain REED. We have previously explored this area Mr. Chairman.
Since the inception of the housing referral program, and especially
during the past several years as the housing referral offices or HRO's
as we call them have continued to expand, the HRO has been one of the
primary sources from which we obtain information on conditions in the
private community. Our survey, of necessity, however, also explores
other sources such as newspaper listings, private realtor contacts, and
FHA and VA offices. Moreover, there is a basic functional difference
between the HRO and an annual survey. The HRO is established to
assist personnel in finding the best possible housing in the community
which is available at the time, even though it might be more expensive
or too far away, or of an older, less desirable type than our personnel
would desire. Any significant diversion of the HRO from this primary
effort of locating housing assets would lessen its effectiveness in assist-
ing our personnel. Our survey, on the other hand, attempts to measure
the adequacy of the units which our people have found to determine
if sufficient private adequate units are in fact being provided. We thus
feel that the HRO role should be limited to one of input to our survey,
and that conduct of the survey should remain with our professional
housing managers who are more oriented to adequacy criteria.
COORDINATION WITH FHA AND LOCAL COMMUNITY
Mr. SIXES. Has the Navy made all reasonable efforts to screen the
fiscal 1974 request to delete projects for which the community can pro-
vide support ?
Captain REED. Yes, sir. I should say that as of this time we have
FHA certification on all the projects in the 1974 program.
Mr. SIXES. What efforts has the Navy made to explain its housing
programs to interested persons in the community and to obtain their
support for its program ?
In my personal experience this is a matter that has been quite im-
portant and at one time the Navy was not doing a good job on it. I
have no recent experience, but go ahead and tell me what you can.
Captain REED. First of all, we know that budget circular A-95, and
the Environmental Protection Act, require us to have contact with
the local communities.
We have directed the field people to be sure they are talking to local
town planners as they develop projects. It is a requirement, that when
they file an environmental impact assessment with us, they must certify
that they have had contact with the townspeople as part of that en-
vironmental assessment.
I might add here, sir, this is one of the reasons why, in this bill, we
are requesting 24 months in order to get the project obligated in lieu
of the 15 we have now. We would put it in the same cycle as regular
military constructon projects because we find when we go out and
talk to the townspeople, we don't necessarily encounter objections, but
we do encounter coordination problems that take time to work out.
Mr. PATrTEN. Your answer is vague with regard to community sup-
port. If I were to give you my notion of what has to be done to get com-
munity support, it is that it will take more muscle than the commander
of the base has to get contractors and other people interested, to get
them to know your problem.
You have a past master here based on his own experience in his own
district.
The effort it takes to work up community support is considerable.
I will ask our chairman to take over because I know what he has in
mind. I am sure I do.
Mr. SIKES. I think it is a very important matter. Of course, you
want community support. When you start building houses in an area,
you are going to run into opposition from certain groups unless they
have been sold on what you are doing. It can be done, but it is a matter
of going to the various interested groups and making sure they under-
stand your problem, and that the overall economy of their area and
significance of the defense effort are more important than any effect
for the time being on their own pocketbooks.
I find in most cases, if the matter is properly presented, you will have
their support. I think the Navy has been weak on this in the past. I
hope you are making a very determined effort now.
Captain REED. We are, sir.
Mr. SIKES. In the event that you have not done this in all cases,
would you be willing to request that the authorizations for these
projects be shifted to other locations such as those we discussed previ-
ously for relocating personnel ?
Captain REED. Sir, we have contacted many different segments of
each community in an effort to sell our projects. We feel that we have
the support of a majority of the townspeople at all locations, however
in the event a condition of overwhelming local opposition were to
develop we would, of course like the opportunity to shift to another
location.
COST OF CONSTRUCTION
Mr. SIKES. Tell us something about the status of prior-year Navy
housing programs, what problems you have had with cost limitations,
et cetera.
Captain REED. We have awarded all of fiscal 1972 except for Wash-
ington, D.C., which I am sure you realize is caught up in local com-
munity problem, as to whether or not we build at Bolling/Anacostia.
In 1973 so far we have awarded Camp Pendleton, Calif., Twenty-
nine Palms, Calif., Charleston, S.C. and just recently Guam. We find
as we go through the year that we are having more and more trouble
with cost. If you will look at the Engineering News Record Cost Index
or the Boeckh Index applying to residential housing, you will find
January and February of this year that the index was increasing at
twice the average rate through calendar year 1972, and this is our
problem.
In Guam we were frankly very lucky. We negotiated with the con-
tractor for about 6 weeks after we opened bids. We had face-to-face
negotiations finally with the two low bidders. By rearranging the
project, by using some existing sites that we really had planned to use
for next year, and by taking quite a few deductions from the contract,
we are able to get it in at exactly the program average.
In Charleston we had to take a substantial number of deductions.
I can read it for you now or give it to you for the record.
21-111 0 - 73 - 11
At Twenty-nine Palms and Camp Pendleton, which were the first
two projects awarded this year, we were very fortunate. It was a large
project, collectively 500 units, and we got that without deducts.
We are in serious trouble with cost in Bermuda, which is in the
fiscal year 1973 program. Cost projections on Bermuda lead us to be-
lieve that we are going to have difficulty in getting this project within
the overseas program average.
It appears that the remaining units for the balance of the year can
be accomplished with turnkey projects. We have already gone to the
contractors and told them that we cannot use the space overage that
turnkey permits. The law allows a 15 percent increase over conven-
tional square footage on turnkey if the builder is able to prove that that
is what he has been building in the area.
We now allow only a 5 percent increase in floor .area, and would
probably have to turn down more if offered, in order to get possible
cost reductions.
We have tentatively identified in all the remaining projects, side-
walks, patios, fencing, landscaping, TV antennas, and vanities as de-
ductive items. They are included in the contract but are identified as
prospective deducts in order to facilitate awards.
SITE PROBLEMS
Mr. PATTEN. Have you any comment to make on your siting prob-
lems? Have you any major problems with this in the prior-year
programs?
Captain REED. As you perhaps know, we have had a considerable
amount of community resistance in Norfolk. We originally selected a
site in Chesapeake, Va., and to say the least, they did not welcome us.
Something along the line of what the chairman mentioned, but it gets
down to a problem of taxes for sewer connections and taxes for new
school construction when you put in a housing project of any size. At
Norfolk we have relocated our project and have managed to acquire a
piece of land from the Army at Fort Story. We are surveying at this
time and expect to build the project there.
We had problems in Oahu due to a shortage of defense land which
we have resolved. We had a slight problem at Great Lakes between the
communities of Libertyville and Arlington Heights.
As it turned out, it was better for us to build at Libertyville. We
obtained a piece of land which was held by the Department of the
Army, and we plan to build there.
I think that summarizes our major problems. The sites cause great
difficulty. We are running out of places to site housing.
Mr. PATIEN. You mentioned Norfolk, Great Lakes and the like.
Does that pretty well cover it ?
Captain REED. Yes, sir, those are the places we have had site prob-
lems to date.
Mr. PATTEN. We won't be asked about the status of any other Navy
housing programs when we get on the floor?
Captain REED. All the others are awarded. We have awarded com-
pletely through 1972, except for Washington, D.C.
Mr. PATTEN. Yes, we know about that.
Captain REED. As I have said, in 1973 we dropped three projects
because of the base closures. We have awarded Pendleton, Twentynine
Palms, Guam, and Charleston. We have a site for Oahu, and in sum-
mary, we have a site for everything else.
DEDUCTIVE ITEMS
Mr. SIKEs. Provide for the record a listing of prior-year projects
and what deducts you have had to make.
[The information follows:]
FISCAL YEAR 1973 PROGRAM DEDUCT ITEMS (PROJECTS AWARDED TO DATE)
MCB CAMP PENDLETON, CALIF. (400 UNITS)
None.
MOCB TWENTYNINE PALMS, CALIF. (100 UNITS)
None.
NC CHARLESTON, B.C. (200)
Shower/tub rods vice sliding doors.
Asphalt vice concrete driveways.
Delete all tot lots and recreation equipment.
Wall-hung lavatories vice vanities.
Delete all street sidewalks.
Delete patios.
Delete trees and shrubs.
Delete brick (furnish prefinished hardboard).
Delete vent inserts (certain doors).
Hinged vice sliding door-medicine cabinets.
NC GUAM (230 UNITS)
Delete separation island curbs and gutters on arterial road.
Delete seeding beyond 50 feet from house line.
Revise front yard slope (maximum 17 percent).
Delete play area equipment.
Delete carports, keep exterior storage, driveway and connection sidewalk,
retain original setback for house.
Delete electric power service at arterial road. (Future extension.)
Delete 500 feet of arterial road. (Future extension.)
Reduce parapet height 6 inches (from 1'6" to 1'0").
Delete privacy screen.
Delete built-up roofing, use sprayed-on urethan.
Revise EM rear and side yard grading, conform to FHA minimum criteria.
COST LIMITATIONS
Mr. SIRES. Do you feel that the average unit cost limits requested
for fiscal year 1974 will be adequate?
Captain REED. I feel they will be adequate. I also feel, as I said be-
fore, that we really will need them.
Mr. SIRES. Going back to the 1973 program, do you feel you may
have to come in for an increased limit in 1973 for some of those projects,
or do you think you will be able to build adequate housing without new
legislation ?
Captain REED. Yes, sir, we do. Some of these 1973 jobs are going to
be.opened and awarded after we would expect this bill to be passed and
we will need to use the cost limitation in this bill for some of them.
Mr. PA rN. When do you expect this bill to be passed?
Captain REED. I am planning for November.
TURNKEY
Mr. PATTEN. What fiscal year 1973 and 1974 projects will utilize
turnkey ?
Captain REED. In 1973 we used turnkey at Pendleton, Twentynine
Palms, Guam, and Charleston. Those are the four we have awarded. We
are sure we will also use it at Orlando.
A simpler way to answer that would be that in 1973 we expect to use
conventional construction in Washington, D.C. and Oahu. We still have
some doubt regarding New Orleans, as a turnkey location and are
evaluating it for conventional construction. Everything else will be
turnkey construction.
In fiscal year 1974 Keflavik will be conventional. The Naval Home,
housing (5 units), is going to be handled as part of the overall con-
struction which will be conventional. Oahu is still being evaluated.
Mr. PATTEN. Captain, would you say the Navy is satisfied with the
result of this technique for housing construction ?
Captain REED. If yOU can get a large enough package, yes, sir.
Mr. PATTEN. Would you have a word to say about its limitations ?
Captain REED. It requires the bidder to put forth considerable effort
for design. It costs him more to make a bid submittal, and therefore
I think you need a bigger project in order to get the bidder to put
forth that effort.
FHA HOUSING
Mr. PATTEN. What is the status of the Navy's 236 military set-aside
program ?
Captain REED. As you know, HUD has imposed a moratorium on
that. In 1971, we had 1,706 units authorized by HUD at six different
locations. We have 669 units completed and occupied. About 637 units
are under construction. We have 400 units that are held up. They were
to be in Norfolk, but there was an environmental problem.
In 1972, out of 1950 units, at 14 locations, we have 100 completed
and occupied, 448 under construction, and 1,402 units awaiting reso-
lution of various problems. Over half the units, 750, were caught in the
moratorium.
In 1973, we have a request for 2,125 that passed through OSD, and
that is in limbo, because of the moratorium.
Mr. PATTEN. How many more of these units do you feel that you
need?
Captain REED. We think about 1,200 more for our fiscal year 1974
requirement. They would be at Charleston, Norfolk, San Diego, and
Oahu. Oahu is, I think, a particularly critical area for all three services.
Mr. PATTEN. What are your suggestions for legislation or adminis-
trative measures that would provide better HUD support for Navy
personnel off base ?
Captain REED. Well, sir, there are two or three things. One, it im-
pinges on 236. This would probably be an administrative measure
wherein HUD would set a standard method for determining a man's
pay for eligibility either for 236 or for any other offbase unit, such as
using his pay, BAQ, and subsistence and not worrying about any other
fringe payments he may temporarily receive.
You will find this all over the country.
A second one OSD has already sponsored is the idea of HUD insur-
ing mortgages in high-risk areas, in areas where there is a base but
there is no firm civilian market for housing.
A third one we are playing around with in the Navy-and I must
concede we haven't completely formulated it in our minds yet-is a
form of mortgage insurance by HUD for sponsors who want to build
for military occupants, perhaps lease-construct for the middle-income
military man. I am thinking of a program which would be eligible
for FHA mortgage insurance and offer the sponsor the same tax ad-
vantages as section 236 housing. Rents would be established similar
to section 236, based on amortization of market rate interest, expenses,
and 6-percent profit on original equity investment, and would be lower
than for conventional lease construction. The Government would lease
the housing for assignment as public quarters, and retain option to
purchase at termination of lease period.
Mr. PATTEN. I thought you were going to mention also this question
of housing in isolated areas. They look at the future of the base and
its impact on the community for housing. They get to playing with
that, and they pass it up. The Army has that problem.
Captain REED. The high-risk insurance would apply to that.
Mr. PATTEN. IS that what you meant by high risk ?
Captain REED. Yes, sir, it is an area where there is no residual
civilian market.
Mr. PATTEN. Where you moved out there wouldn't be a market?
Captain REED. That is correct.
Mr. PATTEN. Is that a real factor in 10 percent of the cases or 20
percent of the cases ?
Mr. KORINK. It is where we have an isolated location.
Captain REED. Camp LeJeune would be an example.
HOUSING DENSITY
Mr. SIXES. What effect will the new OSD density requirements have
on your ability to provide adequate housing ?
Captain REED. They are going to increase our density substantially.
We realize the reasons they put them in and we realize that to a certain
extent you have got to consider what you define as the buildable area
of the project, but if we were to apply them strictly we would be get-
ting up to about eight four-bedroom units an acre or more. That is an
awful lot of children per acre. As I say, we would expect to debate
with them on exactly what the buildable area was in many instances
in order to get ourselves a more livable project.
If you were to apply it straight out across the board, it would
not be good.
RENTAL GUARANTEE HOUSING
Mr. SIKES. Are you having the same problems on rental guarantee
programs overseas that other services are having?
Captain REED. The rental guarantee program is just ineffective. We
cannot get a feasible project at $225 a month.
LEASING
Mr. SIKES. What about the leasing program? Is that more satis-
factory ?
Captain REED. Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. SIKEs. Do you expect to be able to use all of the leases you are
requesting ?
Captain REED. Through fiscal year 1974, yes, sir.
Mr. SIRES. How many of your current leasing points are unused?
Captain REED. We have 439 out of our 3,944 unused.
Mr. SIKES. Will that level continue through 1974? Do you think
you will be able to improve it ?
Captain REED. It will continue through 1974. It will go up, I would
guess, by the end of 1974. When we have to start renewing leases, it
will start going down.
SHIFT IN BUDGET BOGEY
Mr. DAvIs. Before we get into the line items, can you identify the
$20 million that the Navy Department gave up in order to apply that
amount to the housing programs?
Captain REED. NO, sir, it becomes unidentifiable. Actually, the way
it works, at the very beginning of the planning for the first year-
for instance, for fiscal 1975, that starts a couple of weeks yet from now.
OSD gets an overall control figure from the Office of Management
and Budget to parcel out to Army, Navy, Air Force, and they keep
some of them for themselves. When the year started, the Secretary of
the Navy looked at the housing figure that OSD had given them, he
decided it was not big enough, that he wanted to put more to it, and
what he did was take $20 million out of his total figure, the total obli-
gational authority at the beginning of the year, before he budgeted
anything else, and in effect told the rest of the Navy, "You have $20
million less."
This was before any congressional program was made lp.
It was during the initial planning as to what the military construc-
tion and family housing total bill would be.
Mr. DAVIS. So we don't know whether it came out of procurement
or personnel or where it came from ?
Captain REED. No, sir. To be completely honest the Navy couldn't
tell you. The Navy got a total pot and decided to allocate $20 million
of that total pot, off the top, to housing.
Mr. SIKES. We will begin new construction line items.
NEW CONSTRUCTION
Mr. SIRES. Insert pages ii through iv and the following page in the
record.
[The pages follow:]
165
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY-FAMILY HOUSING DEFENSE, FISCAL YEAR 1974 BUDGET,
SUMMARY/TABLE OF CONTENTS
Units
1. Construction summary sheet:
A. New construction, tab 1:
California:
Marine Corps base, Camp Pendleton-.-....-.. . 800
Naval facility, Centerville Beach... 60
Marine Corps base, Twenty-Nine Palms ............. 200
Florida: Naval training center, Orlando ...... 300
Hawaii: Naval co: plex, Oahu..--- ----------------------- 600
Louisiana: Naval con:plex, New Orleans..... 100
Maryland: Naval support facility, Thurmont....... 6
Mississippi:
Construction battalion center, Gulfport --. 100
Naval ho ne, Gulfport- - 5
Pennsylvania: Naval complex, South Philadelphia-__. 350
South Carolina: Naval complex, Charleston ..... .____ 270
Guam: Naval complex, Guam..- - - --..--.- - --...-.--. 800
Iceland: Naval station, Keflavik _.................. 150
Total, new construction--.....-..................... 3, 741
B. Mobile home facilities...-....... -. .............-....... 100
C. Improvements to existing quarters........... .
D. Minor construction ....
E. Planning...............................---------------------------------------------------..
F. Rental guarantee housing............... . . . . . . . . . .
G. Other guarantee housing. ........ --
Total, construction request......... ..._ .. ____ ..
2. Debt payments:
A. Capehart housing.....-...-. ---.--------- -.. $19, 694, 000
B. Wherry housing._ - - - 9, 386, 000
C. Servicemen's mortgage insurance premiums_._ 1,085,000 $1
Total, debt payment appropriation request..._
3. Operation and maintenance, including leasing:
A. Operation and maintenance . ........... .
B. Leasing-_-_ -
30,165, 000
$21, 600, 000
1,800,000
6,113,000
8, 100, 000
22, 656, 000
2, 400, 000
200,000
2, 500, 000
200,000
9,700,000
7,606,000
28,800,000
6,000, 000
117, 675, 000
400,000
10, 600, 000
800, 000
200,000
129,675,000
0 $19, 694,000
0 9,386,000
80,000 1,265, 000
80,000 30,345,000
124, 325, 000 25, 668, 000 149, 993, 000
11,639,000 0 11,639,000
Total, operation and maintenance appropriation request...... 135, 964, 000 25, 668, 000 161, 632, 000
CONSTRUCTION-NAVY
[Thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
1972, actual 1973, estimate 1974, estimate
Construction of new housing- . -..-.-.-..-..-....-......-... . 108, 511 119, 900 117, 675
Mobile home facilities. __ 4, 500 1, 725 400
Subtotal, new construction__ 113, 011 121, 625 118, 075
Improvements .... ........ ___ 7, 931 9, 121 10, 600
Minor construction- . ...-....-....... .-.. 5, 113 5, 500 800
Planning...........-... ...............__... ... ...... 299 400 200
Total, construction .-.-...-.......- 126, 354 136, 646 129, 675
Financing adjustments (net)..._-_...---..... .... +f9, 363 -13, 567
Appropriation _ _-- ....135, 717 123, 079 129, 675
Estimate
MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP PENDLETON, CALIF.
Mr. SIKEs. Insert page 2 in the record.
[The page follows:]
~
1
15 FEB 1973 NAVY FY 19 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
1. OAT 19 . NtAmVYm
i. INSTALLATION
MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP liDETON
4. CO ND OR MANAe.ENT .UREAU I INSTALLATION CONTROL NUmNER S, TATE/ COUNTRY
CMC 8270 551 CALIFORNIA
7. STATUs S. YEAR OF INITIAL OCCUPANCY . COUNTy (U.S.) 10. NEAREST CITY
ACTIVE SAN DIEGO 35 MILES N OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
II. MAsI ON OR MAJOR FUNCTIONS IS. PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
PERSONNEL STRENGTH OFIC jELITED CIILIN OFFCER EHLITED OFPPICE ESLISTE. CiYILIAN TOTAL
To provide training facilities, logistical support o( ( ( ' ) (P) (8) (s)
for Fleet Marine Force units and other units assigned ". A 29 FEB 72 1770 20862 2947 90 2340 0 2800
including specialized schools and other training. . PLAnDO(rdnrY 77 ) 2201 25209 2947 11 0 0 6702 0 070
IS. INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LAND COST (O00) IMPROVEMENT (00J TOTAL (I000)
(f) (U) () (4)
owNEo 124,410 4,241 174 248 178.489
e. LEAS.#.AN EASO.N.. 112,910*- 0 0 1,898* - 0# 1,898
c. INVENTORY TOTAL (ECUOpt ind r,) AS OF s JUNE IS
d. AUTONIZATAION NOT VET IN INVUNTORY
. AUTHORIZATION REQUESTEDIN THIS PROGAM
SEsTIMAYED AUTHORIZATION - NET 4 YEAR
9. GRAND TOTAL (C + d.* + 0
I4. SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CUTE NO. PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
711 FAMILY HOUSING DWELLINGS (800 UNITS) FA 800 21,600 800 21,600
DD,',"" 1390
1. 2
Pi pNo
Mr. SIKES. Will this project meet your short-term requirement?
What plans do you have for the long term ?
Captain PE1E. Construction of the 800 units included within this
program will do much to support the short term requirement at MCB
Camp Pendleton. The project will support the immediate requirements
of the 586 persons unsuitably housed in the community and the addi-
tional 112 persons involuntarily separated due to the housing situation.
The long term requirement for housing is predicated on the projected
increase in permanent party strength by the year's end. Assuming
approval of the requested 800 units within this year's program, the
programing of the remaining deficit of 563 will be considered for sub-
sequent years.
Mr. SIKES. You plan to build quite a number of units for field grade
and company grade officers. Are not these ranks better able to afford
civilian rents ?
Captain PEPE. The recent increase in the maximum allowable hous-
ing cost for military personnel would indicate that both field grade and
company grade officers could well afford to rent family housing units
in the civilian community. However, community support in the three
and four bedroom type units located in the localities adjacent to MCB
Camp Pendelton is almost nonexistent.
The fiscal year 1974 family housing survey revealed that of those
housing units under construction or vacant in the community the vast
majority were "for sale" and not rental units.
NAVAL FACILITY, CENTERVILLE BEACH, CALIF.
Mr. SIKES. Insert page 6 in the record.
[The page follows:]
- DATE -. DOPARYNT - INTALLATION
15 Feb 1973 Navy FY 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM NAVAL FACILITY, CENTERVILLE BEACH
S. COMANDO OR MANAOE NT BeUREAU INSTALLATION CONTROL NUMBER e. sTATS/ COUNTRY
CINCPACFLT 3061-195 CALIFORNIA
s7. SATUS . YEAR OF INITIAL OCCUPANCY B. COUNTY (U.S.) I. NEAREST CITY
ACTIVE HUMBOLDT
It. MlssloN o MAJOR FUNCTIONS t PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
To conduct oceanographic observations in selected PERSONNEL RENT OFFICER ENLITED I LIAN OFCER ENLISTED OFFICER ENLIT CIVILIAN TOTAL
29 Feb o (0) () () I () ) (C) I (T) () 0)
areas in order to provide the U.S. Navy with more r
extensive information on oceanographic conditions - AF31 December 2 15 115 2 0 0 0 0 0 132
in the area. . PLNEOD(dPY 77) 20 255 2 0 0 2 0 0 279
aI. INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LAND COST ($000) IMPROVEMENT (000) TOTAL ()000
(J) (3) (4
,. own ED 3 33 2,474 2,507
. LEASE AND EAS MENTS 1* - (O* - 4# ) 4
C INVUNTORT TOTAL (Oxupr Ilmd r) AS OF SO JUNE I 2,511
d. AUTO RIZATION NOT YET IN V n
* PUOGiRTION RECUETEo INYRPOoM
L EsIMATED AUTHORIZATION- Ex
d. GRAND TOTAL (c + d R 0
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CODE NO. PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
(*0001) (000)
b I d d h
711 FAMILY HOUSING DWELLINGS (60 UNITS) FA 60 1,800 60 1,800
DDF Por 4Uffl--3
Pag No. 6
1 oT F o 13
Mr. SIKES. Where are these families now living ? If there is a housing
shortage, to what do you attribute the vacant civilian units ?
Captain REED. As there is a projected increase in the personnel to be
stationed at Centerville Beach, many of the families for whom the
project is proposed have not yet arrived. As of February 29, 1972, there
were 64 families living in the private community, nine of which were
unsuitably housed. The few vacant units shown at Centerville Beach
on the survey date will probably be utilized by future Navy families,
but their were only nine of these units. The small size and remote
nature of the community precludes the possibility of additional com-
munity units becoming available, and the project is thus still required
for the many other Navy families who will be moving into the area.
Mr. SIRES. You plan to acquire 12 acres of land. Show us the pro-
posed acquisition on a map.
Captain REED. This is a small station near the town of Ferndale in
an isolated location in northern California. It has a classified mission
which is being expanded and there are no nearby civilian towns of
any size.
Mr. SIKES. What is the cost of the land to be bought ?
Captain REED. The land will be $25,000, sir.
MARINE CORPS BASE, TWENTYNINE PALMS, CALIF.
Mr. SIRES. Insert page 10 in the record.
[Page 10 follows:]
RAOTS IS OIP T OPARTa. INTALLATION
.O. E 73 .NEPAwVT" I FY 19 74MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM IN. TN
15 FEB 73 NAVY 1 a4RIN C050 BASE TUENY_NINE PALMS
4- COMaNo O MANA sENT euREAU INSTALLATION CONTROL NUmE.. e. STATE/COUNTRy
CMC 8270 800 CALIFORNIA
7 AT YEAR OF INITIAL OCCUPANCY COuNTY (U.S.) IS- EAREsT CITY
Active
SAN BERNARDINO 5 MILES N OF TWENTY-NINE PALMS
II SSON OR MAOR FANCYR12. PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
PERSONNEL STRENGTH OFFICER EN CIVILIAN OFFICER ENLISTED FIE ENLISTED IYILIAN TOTAL
To provide personnel, material and services PE29 Feb S2 () ( () () (c) ( () (8) ()
for the maintenance and support of Marine Corps Forces R foFnCeISUL.... 10 020 60 0 1 2 1
assigned. A PLAN.ED(PSUPY 77) 316 3232 521 30 3100 12 0 7541
INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LAND COST (R000) IMPROVEMENT (0OD) TOTAL (000)
(1) (0) (3) (4)
*. owEO 595 383 1,610 4 316 44775
b. LE.ASEI. *EN 222 * - 15# 0- -35 # 0 35
C. INvrToRY ToAL (ExaAp, Imdnr) As of ,S JU.E I, _172 44,810
d AUTHORIzATION NOT YET IC INVETNYoy
SUTHORIAo u REUETEC IN THIS PROGRAM
E. GRAND TOTAL ( + d + e +
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CODE NO. PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
I s o r hcoe
711 Family Housing Dwellings (200 units) FA 200 6,113 200 6,113
0n OI 1- - -
PEER 10
D, a,. 139
Mr. SIKEs. The request here is for 200 units. Your survey shows
only 140 families unsuitably housed or involuntarily separated. Do
realinements generate the need for additional housing ?
Captain PEPE. Yes, sir, the fiscal year 1974 family housing survey
reflects a programable deficit of 277 units exists at MCB Twentynine
Palms. This deficit is a result of a projected increase of 457 military
personnel due to relocation of "D" Company, Communications and
Electronics School from MCRD, San Diego and establishment of a
new artillery unit.
NAVAL TRAINING CENTER, ORLANDO, FLA.
Mr. SIKES. Insert page 14 in the record.
[The page follows:]
I- DATE . DEPAYNT r. INSTALLATION
FY 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM NAVAL TRAINING CENTER, ORLANDO
15 FEB 1973 NAVY
4. coMAND ANO NAOmJENT ulnEAU 6. INSTALLATION CONTROL NUMBR . TATE/COUNTRY
CKNAVTRA 6373 700 FLORIDA
7. STATUS S. YEAR OF INITIAL OCCUPANCY O .oT (U.S.) Io. NEAREST CITY
ACTIVE ORANGE WITHIN CITY
II VISION On MAOR FUNCTIONs Iz PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
To provide basic indoctrination (Recruit Training) PERSONNEL STRENGTH OFFICER E CIVILIAN OFCE ENLIT OFFICER ENI CIILI TOTAL
for enlisted personnel and primary advanced and/or (0 (E () () (s) (6) (7) ( (S)
specialized training for officers and enlisted . AOF 29 FEB - 285 1395 2502 0 483 2 82 0 11
personnel of the regular Navy and Naval Reserve. . PLANNEDN(dPr ) 492 2198 2502 420 12990 6 67 0 186
IS. INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LANDO COST ($000) IMPROVEMENT (S000) TOTAL (8000)
(1) ()() "4)
owNo 1702 528 55 870 61 158
h. LEAa.INO EA.DENT 37* - 0 - O# 0 0
c IIIVENTO TOTAL (Eoco Indr-N) AS o DS JUNE Io
a. AIUTOZRIATION NOT TET IN INVENTORY
SAUTHIORIzATION REOQUEOT INTIPRONIA
SEsTIATED AUTHORIZATION NEXT 4 YEARS
4. GRAND TOTAL (c +A SO 0
o.S SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CODE NO. PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
S(000) (oo00)
711 FAMILY HOUSING DWELLINGS (300 UNITS) FA 300 8,100 300 8,100
DD." 130
Pg I r. 14
DD Fom19
173
Mr. SIKES. The request is for 300 units. You are acquiring units at
McCoy. Do you still need the project set forth here for 300 units ?
Captain REED. Yes, sir, we do. It would be a terminal program at
Orlando. This would complete the Orlando requirements.
Mr. SIKES. How many units will be obtained from McCoy Air Base?
Captain REED. 668.
Mr. SIKEs. What is the distance from the naval training center ?
Captain REED. It is about a 20-minute drive.
Mr. SIKES. Will it still be necessary for you to acquire some land?
Captain REED. No, sir, it will not.
Mr. SIKES. Are there questions ?
NAVAL COMPLEX, OAHU, HAWAII
Mr. SIKES. Insert page 18 in the record.
[The page follows:]
, NATE . DEPAROYmY a INSTALLATION
15 FEB 73 NAVY FY 192AMILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM NAVAL COMPLEX, OAHU
4. COMMuaNo o MrANA DENT auREAU I- "NsTALLATION CONTROL NUMBER S-TATE/COUNTRY
VARIOUS NOT APPLICABLE HAWAII
7. sYrus e. yEAR OF INITIAL OCCUPANCY I. COUNTY (U.s.) ,o. NEAREST CITY
ACTIVE NOT APPLICABLE INCLUDES ALL NAVY AND MARINE CORPS
ACTIVITIES ON ISLAND OF OAHU.
t MIsSION OR MAJOR FUNCTIONS 12 PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
To provide homeport support for approximately 71 PERSONNEL STRENGTH OFFIE EL eO ENICIILIAN OCICE IEUSLITEN OCISEn ELITE CITvILIN TOTAL
ships, including fleet service vessels, destroyers (u) ( I r to N( U (0 ) , (C (()
and submarines. au oF. 29 Feb 7 027 28158 13923 5 15 205 375 0 46708
. PLANNED( WdFY 77 ) 4267 32096 13923 16 163 105 264 0 50834
IS. INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LAND COST (1000) IMPROVEMENT (8000) TOTAL (000)
(1) () () ()
o0.0N 49,477 2 304 701 311030
b LE..... . E.......EN 50,339* - 160 2* - 0# 2,476* - 13,947# 16,423
C. IyESNoIIOY TOTAL ( UOp IId,0 AS OF ,UJUNE I 327 ,45
d. AUTHORIZATION NOT Y*T INVENTOny
*. AUTHOzAI'rIoN R aU .TED I Tis PaOc M
t. ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATION - NEXT yEAR
7. GRAND TOTAL (C + d + 0.
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
TEORTENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CATEGORY PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
O711 Family Housing Dellings (600 units) FA 600 2202.5 600 22656
711 Family Housing Dwellings (600 units) FA 600 22,042.5 600 22,656
- - -
p.,,. 18
D D, ;,o1390
Mr. SIxEs. The request is for 600 units at a cost of $22,656,000.
Tell us the results of Project Fresh on family housing land require-
ment projections.
PROJECT FRESH
Captain REED. Project Fresh results-
Mr. SIKES. Tell us what Project Fresh is.
Captain REED. Project Fresh is a study of all military land require-
ments in Hawaii for all three services. Included therein are the Navy
housing requirements.
It does not excess any land that was ever earmarked for housing.
From that standpoint, it does not impact on us. The problem in Oahu
is that land is short.
Mr. SIXES. I would like to have additional information on this for
the record.
Captain REED. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
The specific purpose of Project "FRESH" is twofold: (a) To determine land-
holding required to support the long-range DOD presence in the State of Hawaii.
(b) To determine which landholdings could be released by OSD in consonance
with Executive Order 11508, issued by President Nixon in February 1970.
This study is based on the projected force levels of the individual services over
the next 15 years.
With regard to family housing, the large continuing multiservice deficit and
the small likelihood of community support make the following sites a requirement :
Usable Usable
Area : acres Area-Continued acres
Puuloa -------------------- 150 Helemano ---------------- 200
Aliamanu ___________________ 395 Waiawa -------------------192
Kaneohe --------------------- 62 Bellows ----------------- 100
Hickam _______________ _ 163 FAA site----------------- 125
Schofield East Range--------- 405
SITING OF PROJECTS
Mr. SIKEs. Where are you proposing to site the units for the Navy's
1972 and 1973 programs?
Captain REED. Half at the MIrine Corps Air Station at Kaneohe;
the other 350 will be at Puuloa, adjacent to an existing Navy housing
area at Iroquois Point.
Mr. SIKEs. Will these sites be adequate in terms of the location and
density of your family housing areas ?
Captain, REED. Yes, sir.
Mr. SIKES. Can you get them within the money you are allowed ?
Captain REED. We are going to make an awfully good try at that,
sir, by site adapting existing designs.
As I mentioned earlier, we are experiencing financial difficulties
toward the end of this program. That is going to be quite close.
Mr. SIKES. Where are you proposing to site the 600 units in this
year's request? When do you expect this to be resolved?
Captain REED. We feel that the problem is resolved, Mr. Chairman.
Our project will be sited at the Aliamanu Crater in a joint Army-
Navy housing project.
Mr. SIKES. Do you see any possibility of the community support
situation improving or of the Navy population declining on Oahu?
21-111 0 - 73 - 12
176
Captain REED. No, sir. We see little probability of a decline in Navy
population, and as opposed to increased community support, we feel
we may actually lose some that we now have as living costs in Hawaii
continue to increase so dramatically.
USE OF TURNKEY IN HAWAII
Mr. NICHOLAS. Do you propose to use turnkey in the fiscal year
1974 program?
Captain REED. That hasn't been settled yet, but that is going to be
an awfully big project and it would be a very nice turnkey project.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Could you set out for the record what benefits you
feel you might get from using turnkey ?
Captain REED. Yes, sir.
Mr. NICHOLAS. And what drawbacks there might be? Relate that to
the size of the project ?
Captain REED. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
Turnkey housing is usually closer to what is available in the community both
as to style and amenities; and, therefore, it is more acceptable to the service
member. However, a major point is that the turnkey submission contains ele-
ments of competition between the bidders as to both site and house engineering,
house layout, and the amenities. This gives the buyer the opportunity of looking
at different solutions to the same problem and choosing the best. Our evalua-
tion procedure is then such that we have the option of awarding a contract based
upon cost per quality point rather than merely the lowest cost; when lowest
cost may not be the most satisfactory solution. Also, turnkey removes some bid
uncertainty since all proposers are aware of cost and criteria parameters prior
to bid.
In the 1974 program all construction will probably be by turnkey with the ex-
ception of Keflavik and the Naval Home housing at Gulfport which will be han-
dled as a part of the overall contract, and perhaps Oahu. Oahu will be a joint
.Army/Navy project and is still being evaluated.
The submission of a turnkey project is more costly to the contractor and there-
fore a larger number of units is required to get a good number of bids. Some
small contractors feel they cannot compete in quality of submittal or perhaps
are limited by capacity such that they cannot bid the larger jobs.
Current conversations with general contractors in Hawaii have produced no
clear preference for the turnkey mode on the part of local contractors, although
two large mainland general contractors have expressed interest. Similiar con-
versations with homebuilders in Hawaii who do not normally bid conventional
housing projects have elicited interest on their part.
NAVAL COMPLEX, NEW ORLEANS, LA.
Mr. SIKES. Insert page 22 in the record.
[The page follows:]
,- oATr la. DEP*Aammy a. INsvALLArON
15 Feb 73 NAVY FY 19.LAMILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM NAVAL COMPLEX, NEW ORLEANS
. COMMAND MArA- mT SUNSAU INSTALLATION CONTROL NUM.ES U. STAT COUNTRY
VARIOUS NOT APPLICABLE LOUISIANA
. STATUS I- SEA OF INITIAL OCCUPANCY . COUNTY (U.S.) 1. NEARsET CITY
ACTIVE NOT APPLICABLE ORLEANS PARISH WITHIN CITY
I. MisION OS MASON FUNCTIONS IS. PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
To provide administrative, logistic, and civil PERSONNEL STRENGTH OFFICER IELIsTED CIVILIAN OFFIC ER ENLISTE CIVILIAN TOTAL
engineering support for and supervision of 29 Feb 1972 ( () ( () ( () (8)
building and outfitting of ships in the Eighth A S. O 2 1186 0 0 0 7 99 1410 2996
Naval and Marine Corps District activities. b. C.NEoC y > 94 11 0 0 0 0 118 1681 56
IS. INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LAND COST (8000) IMPROVEMENT (00) TOTAL (5000)
(1) (?) (]) (I)
OWNED
U. LEASES UD E IECT$
c INVENTORY TOTAL (uPl I.mdrn) AS OF 30 JUNE 1I
d. AUTHORIZATION NOT YET IN INVENTORY
e. AUTHORIZATION REQUESTED IN THIS PROGRAM
SEsTIUATED AUTHORIZATION - NET 4 EA
a. GRAND TOTAL (c + d + * + 0
u" SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CATEGORY PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
CODE (. (1000) (8005)
Sb d h
711 Family Housing Dwellings (100 units) FA 100 2,400 100 2,400
D, ,'T1390
P. IN. 2
178
Mr. SIKEs. The request is for $2,400,000. Will it be necessary to
acquire land for the project ?
Captain REED. NO, sir. This will be on Navy land.
NAVAL SUPPORT FACILITY, THURMONT, MD.
Mr. SI ES. Insert page 26 in the record.
[The page follows:]
I- DATS - .panwm? a SSATTLL nO
15 FEB 73 NAVY FY 19 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM NAVAL SUPPORT FACILITY, THURMONT
ScOMMNO Uo MNASoNT aS REAu s. INSTALLATION CONTROL NUMeSe S. STATE/COUNTyy
CNM 6206-900 MARYLAND
STATUS 5. YEAR OF INITIAL OCCUPANCy S cOUNTY (U.S.) 1o. NEAREST CITY
ACTIVE FREDERICK 5.5 MILES NW OF THURMONT
IIL MISSION OR MAOn FUNCTIONs S." PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
PERSONNEL STRENGTH 0CRIw EN LISTECI CIVILIAN OFFICE ENLIRTEC OFFICES SNLI.TED CIVILIAN TOTAL
To provide facilities and support services as a (so (N)ne (5) (e) () (aC) r) (u or)
designated activity in support of the White House. A..SO29 Feb 72 10 31 21
To function as a retreat for the President of the A.AnNEEObfl77 ) 9 237 246
United States.
I. INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LAND COST (000) IMPROVEMENT (OO00) TOTAL (8000
() (') (') ()
C OwNE 9.59 5 447 452
U. LEASE. AC. EAs.SENT 10.95 - 1.02# 0* - .450 ) 67 67.5
c. INvENTORY TOTAL (ce-pt I/drE J A oF so JUNES 2
d. AUTHORIZATION NOT YET IN INvYTOny
SAUYOIIZATIo. REU Eou TEIN TYIs noRA
I ENsIMATED AUTHORIZATION - NEXT R
a GRAND TOTAL (C + d +
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CODE NO. PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
(pnu 200) (J000)
S a . o n ca
711 Family Housing Dwellings (6 units) FA 6 200 6 200
p.. F 26
D, ",1390
180
PROJECT WITHDRAWN
Mr. SIKEs. The request is for six units at $200,000. How far are the
nearest civilian housing units which could be used?
Captain REED. Well, sir, I have to say here our requirement for
this project has disappeared.
Mr. SIKES. You do not require it ?
Captain REED. Yes, sir.
Mr. SIKES. It is being withdrawn ?
Captain REED. Yes, sir.
NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTER, GULFPORT, MISS.
Mr. SIKES. Insert page 30 in the record.
[The page follows:]
I.- DAE a. PA T . INSALAON
15 FEB 73 NAVY FY 1974_MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTER, GULFPORT
4. COMMAND O MANAemNT UnSEAU INSTALLATION CONTROL NUMsER *. SATE/COUNTRY
CNM 2506 400 MISSISSIPPI
7. STATUs 5. YEAR OF INITIAL OCCUPANCY I- CouNTy (U.S.) 10. NEAREST CITY
ACTIVE HARRISON WITHIN GULFPORT
It. MISSION oOn MJO NUNCTIONs It PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
To support Naval construction forces, to provide PERSONNEL STRENGTH OFFICE LISTED CIILIAN OPCE ENLIsTED OFFICES ENLISTED CIVILIAN TOTAL
storage, preservation and shipping facilities for o 29 Fe 1 q 595 0 1 51 157
advance base and mobilization stocks. . 121 595 51 157
A PLANEDO EI"P 77 ) 105 1864 595 0 56 59 217 2896
IN. INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LANG COST(MOO) IMPROVEMENT (MOO) TOTAL (MOO)
(iJ (2) (J) (4
- o,,. 1,106 69 29,928 29,997
b LEA.. S EA E 3 98 T- 6 * 0 69 - 969
C. INYVETORT TOTAL (e- op Ind d- AS OF So JUNE 30, 966
d. AUTHORIZATION NOT YET I4 INVTORY
- AuTIORZITO NREaUUTED IN THIw P OoNa
L DTIMATED AUTHORIZATION - NE4 YEA
a GRAND TOTAL (c . d . O
IA. SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CODE NO. PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
0 A 00) (O)
711 Family Housing Dwellings (100 units) FA 100 2,500 100 2,500
D D, o""1390
a. . 30
Pp npm
HOUSING AVAILABLE IN COMMUNITY
Mr. SIKES. The request is for 100 units at $2.5 million. Tell us about
the situation with regard to vacant homes in the community. The com-
mittee has been advised there are a considerable number of such houses
available.
Do you have up-to-date information on the situation ?
Captain REED. I have information as of about 10 days ago, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. SIKES. That is recent enough.
Captain REED. We had contact with 19 organizations in the town.
Everyone, including the FHA and the local planning agency, con-
curred in the project. The homebuilders association in that area is
against the project. They say that although FHA has recorded only
about 40 or 50 mortgage closures, they know of about 100 more that are
likely to come in the next few months and therefore they feel the
project should not go ahead.
Mr. SIKES. What is the position of the Navy ?
Captain REED. The Navy feels the project should be built.
Mr. SIKES. Do you expect to make further contacts with the local
community in an effort to solve the problem?
Captain REED. Yes, sir, we do. I should point out we have 1 year
during which we have to recertify this project. If it changes, it would
be exactly the same as East Bay, San Francisco, where part of our
deficit disappeared after the bill and we will build only a portion of the
project.
Mr. SIKES. Are these proposed units requested as partial replace-
ment for leased units ?
Captain REED. NO, sir.
Mr. SIKES. Do you think an adequate effort has been made to work
out this problem at the local level? Have you enlisted the support of
the chamber of commerce, the military affairs committee, and so forth?
Captain REED. Of the town ? Yes, sir. I know that the skipper of the
base has contacted all of the people in the town. He has also had at
least two meetings with the homebuilders' association. Our basic prob-
lem is that we have been asked to either buy or lease units throughout
the town as they become foreclosed and that would become an unwork-
able situation for us to administer.
Mr. SIKES. You show no significant increase in rental housing
through the end of fiscal year 1977. Are there no local plans for civilian
rental housing in the next 3 years ?
Captain REED. We do, sir, indicate a very slight increase of only
eight vacant rental units over the next 5 years, which represents a pro-
portionate share of the vacant units in the community which Navy
personnel might expect to occupy in competition both with civilians
and with the service personnel from Keesler AFB which is nearby.
Most of the limited construction in the area is in homes for sale or in
luxury apartments which our lower enlisted personnel, for whom this
project is proposed, cannot afford.
NAVAL HOME, GULFPORT, MISS.
Mr. SIKES. Insert page 34 in the record.
[The page follows:]
. | D.PAEY S I- O*YLLTrAI
15 FEB 1973 NAVY FY 19 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM NAVAL HOME, GULFPORT
CANIO on MANA*mNTE uNDAu - I..TALLATIOn CONTROL NUM.. I. SYTE/COuNTRY
CHNAVPERS MISSISSIPPI
.TATU . YEA OF INITIAL OCCUPANCY CoUNTY (U.S.) Io. NEAREST CITY
HARRISON BILOXI
II. MiSION OR MAJOR FUNCTION. Sa. PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
PERSONNEL STRENGTH OF ICER wL;TED1 CIILAN OCER ENLiED OICER ENLIST LAN TOTAL
Provide a home for old and disabled men of the (O (<I) (a (d ( ( m e m (F)
Navy and Marine Corps.. 29 FEB 72 O 0 0 0 0 0 0
b.CPLAUNeOv77 ) 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Ii. INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LAND COST (A000) IMPROVEMENT (m00) TOTAL (8000)
()1 (z) (.) (4)
row ED TO BE TRANSFER~ FROM TE DEPA T OF AT
A LEASES AND Os AsE.TS
c. INVENTOR TorTAL (EOpt IndrSmt) AS OP So JuNE 1i 2
d. AuYRIoZATION NOT YET IN INVENToRY
SAUTHIORIzATION REQUOETEDIN TII PROGRAM
L ESTIMATED AUTHORIATIO NExT 4 EA
s. GRAND TOTAL ( + d + * 0
A. SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CODE ND. PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
(AoG) (I00)
e r d a . r h
711 FAMILY HOUSING DWELLINGS (5 UNITS) FA 5 200 5 200
OCT.. . PMOfl.
P., N>34
D ,o-1390
184
Mr. SIKES. The request is for five units at $200,000. What kind of
units are these? They seem to be considerably higher cost than the
average.
Captain REED. They would be single units. They are one-story de-
tached frame.
Mr. SIKES. For whom ?
Captain REED. They would be for the governor of the Naval Home,
the executive officer, the medical officer, the chaplain, and the supply
officer. Those are the only five officers associated with the home.
Mr. SIKES. Are there no community assets available which can serve
the purpose ?
Captain REED. These people have duties which pretty well require
them to be on the grounds. They work daily with the residents.
NAVAL COMPLEX, SOUTH PHILADELPHIA, PA.
Mr. SIKES. Insert page 38 in the record.
[The page follows:]
- AYK I. *EPANMuiY S- I*RA.hATIOS
15 Feb 1973 NAVY FY 197IlMILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM NAVAL COMPLEX, SOUTH PHILADELPHIA
4. cOAND oN MANASIMNT unAU . INSTALLATION CONTROL NUMaER e-SATATECUNTRY
VARIOUS NOT APPLICABLE PENNSYLVANIA
S7. TATUS I. YEAR OF INITIAL OCCUPANCY * COUNTY (U.S.) IS. NEAREST CITY
ACTIVE NOT APPLICABLE PHILADELPHIA WITHIN CITY
StI MiIaiON S OAOR FUNCTiONS Is PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
PERSONNEL STRENGTH OFFICER INLIsTED CIVILIAN OmCER ENLISTED OFFICER ENLISTED CIILIAN TOTAL
The primary activity is the U.S. Naval Base with 29 Feb 1972 F I r J r ) ( (m t*) (,)
a mission to support the fleet and various Navy AS-F oFlxD.mrIxx_ 926 286 12742 14 L 29 20 816 17712
and Marine Corps installations with various U' FL . oED(,dFd 77) 918 383127 2 6 303 20 864 18266
missions. S. INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LAND COST (7000) IMPROVEMENT (000O) TOTAL (1000)
(I) () (') ()
SDNE 1 112 1 104 224,573 227,677
U. LEAS ES AND EASN DNTS 8
c. INVENTORY TOTAL (B Sp IndrmI ) AS OF 5o JUNE is
d. AUtHORIATION NOT YET IN INvIENTON
AUTHORIZATION RE QuE)STED IN THIs PROGRAM
I ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATION - NEXT 4 YEAR
1. GRAND TOTAL (C + d + + 0
4. SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CODE NO. PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
(*A) ((*0)011 )
b F H d h
711 FAMILY HOUSING DWELLINGS (350 UNITS) FA 350 9,700 350 9,700
rag Na 38
D D, ","1390
186
Mr. SIKES. The request is for 350 units. Have base closures changed
this requirement ?
Captain REED. No. If anything, there might be a slight increase,
but it is not appreciable.
NAVAL COMPLEX, CHARLESTON, S.C.
Mr. SIKES. Insert page 42 in the record.
[The page follows:]
I. NAYS a -OPARYmT S INTALLATS
15 FEB 73 NAVY FY 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM NAVAL COMPLEX, CHARLESTON
4. COMAND OR ANASEMINT aUnAU S. INSTALLATION CONTROL NUMB - STAY COUNTRY
VARIOUS NOT APPLICABLE SOUTH CAROLINA
7. STATUS ACTIVE YEAR O INITIAL OCCUPANCY . coUNTY (U.S.) Io. NareST CITY
ACTIVE
NOT APPLICABLE CHARLESTON 5 MILES NNE OF CHARLESTON, SC
Ii. MISSION OR MAOR FUNCTIONS It PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
PERSONNEL STRENGTH OFICE sI.TEDI CI.vLILAN OFCR ELISTEI OPPIC.R LIs.. I CIvILIAN TOTAL
Naval Base Charleston provides support for numerous E , , ,,, (3) I (5) I m( ()
submarines, tenders, destroyers and the shore A..sor 1663 14850 11500 62 330 131 522 0 29058
facilities comprising the total force in the area. & PLANEO(EII0PY 77 1799 17167 11500 97 344 10 456 0 31471
IS. INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LA COST ( 00) IMPROVEMENT (000) TOTAL (00)
() (2) () (4)
-o.SOE 16,257 5, 71 125,636 -131,107
a ...LESES. ENeTW 989* - 67# 0* - 12# 675* - 0# 687
c. IrNVENTo TOTAL (BuS'p IId) ASor o.0 JUNE I . 131794
d AUTHORIZATION NOT YET IN INVENTOR
*, AUTHORIZATION REQUUT EO IN THIS PROGRAM
I ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATION - NEXT 4 YEAR
0- GRAND TOTAL (c S + I + 0
IA. SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CODE NO. PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
COE SO (0 (2006)
7 b F id H(7 7 7,60
711 Family Housing Dwellings (270 units) FA 270 7,606 270 7,606
DD,F~!J390
PRIM . _42
pp n
188
Mr. SIKES. The request is for 270 units at a cost of $7,706,000.
No questions.
NAVAL COMPLEX, GUAM, MARIANA ISLANDS
Mr. SIKES. Insert page 46 in the record.
[The page follows:]
. oASm I. DSPAmT T s- ,N TALL A 7,
15 FEB 1973 NAVY FY 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM NAVAL COMPLEX, GUAM
4. coOAN on MANAOeSN NURSEAU , InsTALLATIO CONTROL uum.E e- rsIaEScour ly
VARIOUS NOT APPLICABLE MARIANA ISLANDS
TAT. Tu . EA. OF INITIAL OCCINCT . COUNTY (U.) i. I. A.- cTY
S-uAGANA, GUAM COMPLEX ACTIVITIES
ACTIVE NOT APPLICABLE NOT APPLICABLE WITHIN COMMUTING DISTANCE
II MISSION OS MAOR FUNCTIONS '" PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
PERSONNEL STRENGTH OP7ICENIEOLITEI CIVILIAN OPIEn ENLISTED OFFICES ENLISTED CITLIAN TOTAL
To maintain strategic reserve base and to provide (I ()I (J (4) rE(N (0) (to (0) (0)
logistic support to the Western Pacific and o 29 FE 770 6700 5160 0 0 18 114 0 12762
provide limited training facilities. . PLANED(Eld y 77 960 9026 1 160 050 14 0 53n
IS. INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LAND COST (O0) IMPROVEMENT 000) TOTAL (J000)
(1J (2) (S) (4)
. owNED 22,536 1 ,0 131,256 132 467
S. LECSeANEI I.EN. 5,357* - 216# ( 759* - 81# ) 29,469* - 0# 29,550
. INVENTORY TOTAL (eCpI I-d 1-) As OF Sa JUNE I 72 162,017
d. AUTIORIATION NOT TNT IN INVENTOTy
SA STOOnIDATION REUSSTE IN TOISPONAMII
1. EsTIUATSSAIzT - NEXT 4 YEARS I -
*. GRAND TOTAL ( o + ++ D 0D
. SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CODE NO. PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
( 000o) (000ooo)
S FAMILY HOUSING DWELLINGS (8 UNITS) F 800 28,800 00 28,800
p.P. 46
D D, 'F1390
Mr. SIKEs. The request is for 800 units at $28,800,000.
You say a destroyer squadron will be stationed at Guam in fiscal
year 1975. Where is this squadron now based, and what is the purpose
in moving it ?
Captain REED. The specific squadron of ships has not been nomi-
nated. We are tentatively using 1 DLG, 3 DE's, and 1 DDG with the
plan calling for a second DDG. All the ships will be coming from
either Long Beach, San Diego, or Pearl Harbor. All of which have
substantial family housing deficits. The ships are being moved to
provide more homeport time by reducing the number of transits from
the United States to the WESTPAC operating areas. A total of 31
days saved for each round trip transit. The family members will be
eligible to accompany their spouses to Guam. Also, since we have lost
about one third of the fleet over the last 3 to 4 years, having these ships
homeported to Guam will enable us to more efficiently meet our over-
seas commitments with a reduced fleet.
Mr. SIKES. You indicate a decrease in rental housing in your long-
range projection. Why is there to be a reduction?
Captain REED. Mr. Chairman I must apologize for a typographical
error in our justification data book. There is actually a very slight-
about 19 units-increase in our long-range rental assets.
NAVAL STATION, KEFLAVIK, ICELAND
Mr. SIKES. Insert page 50 in the record.
[The page follows :]
A FY 1~I7MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM NAVAL STATION, KEFLAVIK
15 FEB 1973 NAVY
. COSeNANO N AEmIAr aUNEAU S- INSTALLATION CONTROL Num.. .- sTAYTECounIMN
CINCLANTFLT 6029-440 ICELAND
7. STATUS 5 YEAR OFP INITIAL OCCUPANCY . CouNTy (U.S) . NE ARsET CITY
ACTIVE KEFLAVIK 1 MILE SW OF KEFLAVIK
II. u'SOoN OS UOR NCTIONS It PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
PERSONNEL STRENGTH OFFICE ENLISTED CIVILIAN OFcE ENLIOTE O SI LISTE CLIAN TOTAL
To provide operational and facilities support (t) (V (s) (4 to F () () rN I)
for tenants which include a VP squadron, AS o 29 FEB 72_ 243 252 79 0 0 108 440 0 3393
Iceland Defense Force, Marine barracks and Lb. pLn.. Tdv 7 ) 252 2 17 79 0 0 133 359 0 3240
outlying radar sites and to provide personnel ' INVENTORY
support activities. LAID ACRES LAND COST (M000) 1MPROVEMENT(-OOO) TOTAL ($000)
(1) (]) ()) ( )
R oSwSo 0 0 22,978 22,978
b. LEASsD s lENuE ,s 23,245 - 0# ( 1* - 0# ) 182,210* - 0# 182,210
c INVENTORY ToTA (exCpI Imd- r) AS OF so JUN. a 205,188
d4. UTHORIzATIO NOT YET IN INENTORY
TUTltORIZAION REQUEsTED IN TISR PIO.nAM
. ESTIMATED UTHORIZATION - NExT 4 YA
A. GRAND TOTAL (C + Cd + + 0
10. SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CODE O. PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
(0oo0) (00oo)
SA CA 0 I A
711 FAMILY HOUSING DWELLINGS (150 UNITS) FA 150 6,000 150 6,000
u oc, o1390
50
PrEw PN____
BASE TENURE
Mr. SIKES. The question again is how long are we going to be in
Iceland and has this request been received as a result of that situation ?
Captain REED. Yes, sir. As Admiral Marschall pointed out the
other day, we are aware that in about 6 months a decision should be
made and this project would not start inside that 6-months' period.
Mr. SIKES. You will keep the committee posted on developments?
Captain REED. Yes, sir.
Mr. SINES. In your narrative you mention a dollar limitation on
purchases which can be taken off base. Please explain this and tell
us if it is a part of our agreement with Iceland. Do we have similar
agreements with other overseas locations ?
Captain REED. There is an initial take-off limit of $42 per adult
and $26 for each child under the age of 12. The weekly allowance
thereafter for each adult is $13 and $10 for each child. These limits
apply to commissary, exchange, and mail imported items. The annex
to the United States-Iceland Defense Agreement of 1951, contains
no provision authorizing Defense Force personnel to remove customs
and duty-free commissary items, exchange merchandise, or mail im-
ports to their off-base residences. Accordingly, such goods, absent
from the Government of Iceland agreement, would remain subject to
the customs law of the Republic of Iceland. Since 1951, Iceland has,
at the request of U.S. Military authorities in Iceland, gradually
relaxed its customs regulations pertaining to U.S. Armed Forces
personnel stationed in Iceland. The last approved increase, by the
Government of Iceland, was announced on April 25, 1973.
No other country places such broad take off restriction on U.S.
military personnel stationed in their country. Some countries do,
however, place limits on those items most susceptible to black
marketeering.
MOBILE HOME FACILITIES
Mr. SINES. Insert pages 54 and 56 in the record.
[The pages follow:]
OA DT . omf lIP T INITALLATIO
15 FEB 73 NAVY FY 19Z MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM NAVAL TRAINING CENTER, ORLANDO
CAND Or MANu a lSlNT BUREAU N- INSTALLATION CONTROL NUMaLO R STAT/ COUNTRY
CHNAVTRA 6373 700 FLORIDA
. STATUS S. YAR OF INITIAL OCCUPANCY S. COUNTY (U.S.) oS. NEA-OT CITY
ACTIVE ORANGE WITHIN CITY
II. MISSION On MIUJO FUNCTIONS ' PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
To provide basic indoctrination (Recruit Training) PERSONNEL STRENGTH OFFICES L IsTO CIVILIAN oc15 ONLIsTOD O NIC IT CIvILIAN TOTAL
for enlisted personnel and primary advanced and/or to ( ( . ( (a) () ( ) ( ) (9)
specialized training for officers and enlisted AsoS 29 FEB 22 285 1 95 2502 0 4853 2 82 0 9119
personnel of the regular Navy and Naval Reserve. S PLANNED(d Y 77 ) 492 2198 2502 420 12990 6 67 0 18675
IS. INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LAND COST ( 00) IMPROVEMENT 1000) TOTAL (80O)
(I) () ()(J (
oWNo io 1 702 528 55,870 61,158
. L.AS.. ASS * A.. ST 37* - 0*I -) 0 0
c. IvTORT TOTAL Sp (B-d 'Id-o) AS OF ,o JUNE I 72 61,158
d. AUTHORIZATION NOT YET IN INVNTOy
. AUTHIOAITION aREauu TEo IN TISS PROGRAM
I ESTIMAT AUTHORIZATION NET YEARS
0. GRAND TOTAL (U + t O + O
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
COOE NO. PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
(WO) (WOW
712 Family Housing Mobile Home Facilities (40 spaces) FA 40 168 40 168
D D, O,1390
P. .N. 54
1. DATE a.DEPaRTM . INSALLATION
15 FEB 73 NAVY FY 197MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM NAVAL AIR STATION, MEMPHIS
4. CO AND oR MANARGANT BUREAU - INSTALLATION CONTROL NUMBER . STATE COUNTRY
CHIEF OF NAVAL AIR TRAINING 1452-570 TENNESSEE
. STATUS EAR OF INITIAL OCCUPANCy S, COUNTY (U.S.) 10. NEAREST CITY
ACTIVE SHELBY 18 MILES NORTH OF MEMPHIS
II. NION OR MAJOR FNCTIONS PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
Maintain and operate facilities, provide services PERSONNEL STRENGTH OFFICER ENLISTED CIvILAN OPICER ENLISTED OFFPIER ENLITED CIVILIAN TOTAL
and material to support operations of Naval Air -AIo eb 7 456 I901 20()6 71 8()2 O 0 0 14906)
Training. a p L.NNoD(4Far 7 > 485 919 2046 20 8289 8 4 0 14771
INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LAND COST (4000) IMPROVEMENT (M ) TOTAL (000)
(1) (0) (0) (4
355 447,, -- 7
b. LEASE EAENT 6 - 0 - 1
c. INyNYTORY TOTAL (E.copI .d r ) AS OFP a JUNE IS 72 78.911
d. AUTHORIZATION NOT YET IN INVENTORY
*- AUTHOntzArgoN REauEsTED THIS PRoGRAM
L ESTIMATED UTHORIIATI YEARS
- GRAND TOTAL (c + O+ + 0
G D. SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CATEGORY PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
CODE NO. (L0CR) (5o00)
b 0 4 * 1 A
712 FAMILY HOUSING MOBILE HCME FACILITIES (60 SPACES) FA 60 232 60 232
PI C. 5
D D,' .1390
PR** p- 56
Mr. SIKES. You are requesting 100 mobile home spaces at a cost of
$4,000 each. How does this average cost compare to previous years?
Captain REED. In fiscal year 1971 our cost average was $3,000 per
space, and in fiscal year 1972 it was $4,174 per space. The fiscal year
1973 average is projected about at $4,000 or a little more per space.
Mr. SIKEs. Where are you siting the Orlando project? In view of
the expected growth of the total population here, is there room to
expand the project if the need arises ?
Captain REED. The Orlando mobile home project will be sited on
the southern portion of Orlando Naval Training Center next to the
Beach Boulevard East Gate. The project could be expanded to the
west should the need arise.
Mr. SIKES. At Memphis, what is the off-base mobile home situation?
Captain REED. Memphis has a number of mobile home parks that
provide adequate accommodations for Navy personnel, and the supply
of private mobile home space is increasing. Even in view of this, how-
ever, the Navy currently projects a requirement to construct additional
Navy-owned mobile home spaces.
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING PUBLIC QUARTERS
Mr. SIKEs. Insert pages 58 through 63 in the record.
[The pages follow:]
VARIOUS
'1100 U. S. & FOREIGN
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING PUBLIC QUARTERS
SECTION B - COST ESTIMATES
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIMARY FACILITY
... PEN..EN .. .otS IoS . NO.OFSTORIES .. LENGTH . WTDTH. CONSTRUCTION ALTERATIONS I 1 I 9680.4 1
* SENI-PRWnENT .. DS10N cAP*CIT I. GROSS AREA *. ADDITIONS & CONVERSIONS C I I
.. T-rwoaRy . coo1N c. coST IS I I
15. TYPE OF 19. DESCRIPTIOI OF 50RO TO BE DE Provide for the: I I
.. Nw ECILITY Alterations of kitchens and bathrooms 21.. .. FCILITI 919.6
. ArDITOa Construction of utility rooms I
.. YArATIN X Improvement of electrical systems DESIGN I 580.8
. oTvYRsoI X Improvement of heating system - SO I 38.8
.. orTHER (spR.,H) Air conditioning )
Correction of drainage problems "
16. REPLACMENT Construction of carports I
17. TYPE OF DESIGN Construction of housing administration and I
.. STAno DESIGN X recreational facilities I I
. sPEcIA oESIcI X Conversion of housing units
.. DoAWNG 1 . Construction of curbs, gutters and sidewalks .
22. tOTAL LINRE 1Ts COST
SECTION C - BASIS OF REQUIREMENT
Ii. AMIITTITATIV DATA s, a RIIr nT rO LarE L a
(/N ) To update Navy Family Housing by alterations, rehabilitation, additions, and conversion of
.. TOTA . REIROENT units. The improvements of electrical and heating systems, modernization of kitchens and
I. EuISTIR suasTramO bathrooms, improvements of functional layouts, addition of bedrooms and baths, construction
. EXISTINE AOEuATE of community facilities and the improvement of exterior areas will provide increased
Z. r . no INrIavrOAY liveability and better utilization of existing family housing units.
UTIoaiSz1 FUNOEo These projects will bring the housing units into closer comparability to local community
I. unoNaRER Imo urr I TOOIZTIW housing in the various areas. This goal is considered to be an instrumental factor in the
. n _D IN FY PROG_ m retention of personnel in the service.
. oFIrCINCY r(.-- -)
E4. RELATED LINE lTMS
DD 1' 1391
I _
u q
1 |t
/u
unI Iry ITCOST COST ,'!OOO
ot or courrucrlan
BOOK NO. PAGE NO.
15 FEB 1973 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION LINE ITEM DATA NAVY NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY, NEW ORLEANS
* 119,600 P.L. 711 - 43 Group 1 CAT A LOUISIANA
Po. . Ra n *.. .T, II SnrcrC Tr. T. 11u. IR T-Te
119,600 QUARTERS RENOVATION
ALTERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS
SECTION A - DESCRIPTION O LINE ITEM SECTION B - COST ESTIMATES
ar. .4 ..,. PROILF, u/4 QAwrITH S T COST COST (0o00)
TPr or cOnStueCTIO. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIMARY FACILITY arANTITY IT COST COST (000)
Quarters Renovation L .
.. PFERaNr X .. NO. IOLOGS. 4 O..FTOsRIES 2 .. LENGTH 71 ft ,. WIDTH 40 ft. . Architectural I I 57.5
. SIEMI-PU MANENT . NDEsr N CAPACITY . GROSS REA ,. Mechanical ( )I I 24.8
. TE.POraY . coRmItI cAR. COST IS I . Electrical I I ( 11.2 I
15. TYPE OF ORK 19. DESCRIPTION OF ORK TO BE DONE Air Conditioning I I I 15.0
E PCL 21. S POTING FACILITIES i 11.1
. RITIO X Alterations to family quarters B, C, D, & E including - Design @ 6% I 7,2
demolition, structural restorations, partitioning and ' STOH 3 ,9
. toER (sp..ly) finishes, finish carpentry, mechanical, electrical, 1
air conditioning, and painting. "
16. REPLACE NT .
17. TYPE OF DESIGN
. STANDARD DESIGN
). SPECIAL DESIGN
{. DRAWING NO. .
22. TOTAL LIRE ITI COST i 119.6
SECTION C - BASIS OF REQUIREMENT
N. WJAHTITATIVE DATA RS. A[O-..R 1o. u.RE I. Project is required to provide adequate quarters for Flag Officers to be
(/n assigned to New Orleans. These billets are the Commander Naval Reserve, Commander Naval Air
N. ExISTIN sueIsrTANeAN Reserve, Commander Naval Surface Reserve, and the Commanding General, 4th Marine Air Wing
.. eXISTING SEIOATE Subject quarters have been designated for Flag rank occupancy. The quarters are deficient
A. rmED. NOT IN INVENTORy in several areas that are important in the requirement for entertaining inherent in the duties
. ADENTE ASSETS I...) of the occupants of these quarters. A notable deficiency is the inadequacy of the kitchen
A T ORI IZE rUDOe areas to meet todays standards and the requirements for entertaining significant numbers of
I. Nr O UTRIIRTI guests. Alteration by enlargement of the kitchens is required to bring these areas to a level
I. . I*UOEo IN FY PR*OAM commensurate with such requirements. Alteration to the first floor powder rooms and to
existing second floor bathrooms and bedrooms is required to bring these spaces up to today's
. EFCC ..f.,- standard. Incorporated in the work is replacement of outmoded or inadequate kitchen equipment,
24. RELATED LINE ITE1S plumbing fixtures, provision of adequate ventilation in kitchens and bathrooms, modernization
of existing mechanical and electrical systems as required, provision of suitable surface
finishes, and related repairs.
BOOK NO. PAGE NO. 59
DD I 62 139
I, OATS a. PILCAL VEAR . DEPARTMENT 4. INT ALL.ATRN
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
15 Feb 1973 1974 NAVYf....... ..... ....
MAKIN CORPS BASE
. PRoposED AUrnOR12ATION PRIOR ATOrIInATION . CATEORy COO NUMBER PE CAM ELEMENT .. sECOUNT
$ 17,000 P.L. r I""
711.24 Category B TWENTYNINE PALMS, CALIFORNIA
Io. PROPOSED APPROPRIATION I. BUDGET ACCOUNT NUMJRE 12. PROJECT NUMBER IS. PROJECT TITLE
$ 17,000 HC-6-71 IMPROVEMENTS TO MOQ #1
SECTION A- DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SECTION B- COST ESTIMATES
. SECTION - COST ESTIMATES
T. OF CO UCTIO PRIMARY FACILITY UIN QUANTITY UNIT COE CNT (000)
TYPEOCONSTRUCTION PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIMARY FACILITY U/M QUANTITY UNITCO CO()
FAMILY HOUSING
N PC..ANT X CH O" OF c.OGS OFA sTOEIER ~L C morT " .. Alteration & Addition LS 1 ) 15.7 15.7
SEMI-PEI.A ET DESI CAPACITY 1 family .os ....RE 1925 b)
MrT.omA a COOLIC Air Cond A... 5 Ton oST (S 3410 )
IS. TYPE OF ORK s. OENSCIPTION Or RorK To RE *NE Extend living/dining rooms 6'. .
L nE PACILITY Provide new 14-1/2'x 12' sitting room with access ". uRPoR.No Ac"LrTIES -::...::-......: :
a DD T oN from bedroom #I . ................................................
. AT.v ,ON X Floor: Concrete slab with vinyl tile. a SIOH
a NONTERIOR Walls: 2"x 4" stud with stucco exterior and painted dry Design
o*NR tPK109 wall interior. .
Roof: Bituminous built-up."
to. REPLACEMENT I Relocate kitchen cabinets and equipment. I
- T E OFDSE9ON Install food service island and construct fireplace. a.
* .nARo a wn Replace existing evaporative cooler with an air A.
e. ..CsL oIOn conditioner.
SomNo N o.
Ita. TOTAL PROJECT COST 17
SECTION C - BASIS OF REQUIREMENT
QU ANTITATIVE DATA aB. REU IrNVT FOR PROJECT
uinm _ MOQ #1 is officially designated as Public Quarters/Flag Officer, Commanding General's Quarters.
a rOTAL REQUI NO This project will add a sitting room to the master bedroom; enlarge the living room, dining
a RISTeNs oSTAu ARI. () room and kitchen; and correct the deficiencies in the kitchen. The floor area of the house is
. rx,, NO *AoEQUvr only 83% of the 2310 square feet authorized, and upon completion of this project 346 square
.k FIU* DED. NOTIN. I VTOy feet will be added to the existing 1925 square foot structure. By reason of responsibilities
.. A__Q__ T __A.AUHOI(EF10 incident to the conduct of official business, the Commanding General must entertain distinguish
::::::::_______ _ AUTHORIZED FUNDED ed visitors and hold social functions with Base personnel in attendance in his home. The
: UU::OEEPRIOR AUTORI.TION :::: existing quarters are quite crowded with only 20 guests in attendance. The fireplace,
. IN-CLOUO I PT PROGRAM enlarged rooms, addition of a food preparation and cooking station, and the provisions of a
-ol..lO,. (*-"-I-S sitting room will enhance the aspects of the house for entertaining and-provide a more relaxed
.A , _ _AY. PROJEC atmosphere for guests. The sitting room will provide additional privacy when mixed company is
entertained. Deferral of this project will cause the project cost to increase by one percent
per month due to price escalation.
-n
PR.. No. _ _
D 1
" i174MILITARY CONSTRUCTION LINE ITEM DATA
15 Feb 1973 1974 c......d NAVY"' VARIOUS
FAMILY HOUSING IMPROVEMENTS
DESCRIPTION
CALIFORNIA
MCSC Barstow
MCB Camp Pendleton
NWC China Lake
NPGS Monterey
NCS San Francisco
MCB Twentynine Palms
CONNECTICUT
NSB New London
FLORIDA
NAS Whiting Field
GEORGIA
NAS Atlanta
Install grounded electric outlets in kitchens and baths, 300 units; construct covered
patios, 74 MEMQs
Install new stainless steel kitchen sinks, dishwashers and garbage disposers, 512 inits
Convert 68 one and three bedroom units to 34 four-bedroom MEMQ units including modernization of
kitchens and utility rooms and heating system. Provide carports and storage, driveways, privacy
fencing, widen roads and provide curbs, gutters and sidewalks. (2nd increment of 2)
Modernize kitchens 213 MOQ's Wherry; add baths, 58 three-bedroom units; modify closets
28 two-bedroom units.
Modernize baths 5 MOQs and 35 MEMQs
Improvements to MOQ 01 (Separate DD 1391 attached).
Construct carports 986 units and storerooms 490 units
Install dishwashers 329 units; patios, fencing, storeroom lights, walkways, and
landscaping 100 units
Modernize kitchens 5 MOQs and 5 MEMQs
DO Z'AZ 1391c 5t0( re. ________ Psa p45 Cl
AMOUNT
$ 136,000
321,000
337,000
702,000
61,000
17,000
1,282,000
168,000
37,000
BOOK NO. PA ND. 6
DD ;o , 1391c
HAWAII
Camp H. M. Smith
ILLIONIS
PWC Great Lakes
LOUISIANA
NAVSUPACT New Orleans
MARYLAND
NOS Indian Head
MISSISSIPPI
NAS Meridian
NEW MEXICO
NOMTF White Sands
NORTH CAROLINA
MCB Camp Lejeune
MCAS Cherry Point
SOUTH CAROLINA
NH Beaufort
sine c. pa ,e -
DD, . ?'. 1391c
0 L
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION LINE ITEM DATA NAVY VARIOUS
(Cotln.d)INVY VARIOUS
I1r IITr TITLe
FAMILY HOUSING IMPROVEMENTS
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Install louvered glass windows for lanais, 168 units $ 205,000
Modernize kitchens 15 MOQs; increase electric service 642 units and install garbage 590,000
disposer, dishwashers, double hung windows with storm sash, 144 units (Ist increment)
Renovation, alterations and improvements, Quarters B, C, D and E (Separate DD 1391 attached) 119,600
Modernize kitchens and baths 10 MOQs; install thermostatic heat controls for 226 units 262,000
Install dishwashers, gutters and downspouts, 320 units 143,000
Modernize kitchens 71 units 76,000
Modernization of kitchens and bathrooms 400 MEMQs (1st increment) 1,165,000
Provide fire protection facilities, Wherry Housing 183,000
Add bath to 50 units 125,000
BO W. PAME o.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION LINE ITEM DATA
15 Feb 1973 1974 ro,...."F) H N VARIOUS
FAMILY HOUSING IMPROVEMENTS
DESCRIPTION
VIRGINIA
PWC Norfolk
MCB Quantico
OVERSEAS
PWC Guam, M. I.
NS Galeta, C. Z.
FOREIGN
PWC Guantanamo Bay
NCS Londonderry, N.
PWC Subic Bay, P.I.
VARIOUS LOCATIONS
Install garbage disposers and bathroom fixtures for roughed-in powder room, 114 MEMQ's
Construct patios and relocate clothes dryers, 418 units
Air condition 356 MEMQs at NAS Agana (1st increment)
Air condition 56 units
Construct exterior storage buildings and terrace 642 units
I. Relocate and Modernize kitchens, 33 units
Air condition 196 units (3rd increment)
Construct community buildings, 5 locations*
*PWC Newport, R. I. (1 building)
PWC Pearl Harbor (Radford, Halsey and Monalua Terrace (2 buildings)
NAS Quonset Point, R. I. (1 building)
NAVSTA Keflavik (1 building)
DD. 2, 1391c
$ 70,000
234,000
1,629,000
143,000
450,000
155,000
989,400
1,000,000
$10,600,000
e o NO. PCE Na. 63
AMOUNT
----
202
FLAG OFFICER HOUSING
Mr. SIKES. You are requesting the alteration of four flag officers
quarters in New Orleans at a cost of $29,900 each. Have you considered
leasing quarters as an alternative solution ? How are the present quar-
ters being used now ?
Captain REED. Considering the required social function for officers
of flag rank, leasing of satisfactory family housing units is not prac-
ticable within current allowable leasing costs.
Two of these units are occupied by captains. One unit is occupied
by a vice admiral and one unit which has just been vacated was oc-
cupied by a captain.
Mr. SIKES. You have another flag officer quarters improvement
project at Twenty-Nine Palms, Calif. Provide for the record the
total amount in the fiscal year 1974 program and the two previous pro-
grams devoted to flag officers quarters.
[The information follows:]
The amount contained in improvement projects devoted to flag officer quarters
for fiscal year 1974 and the two previous programs is as follows :
Fiscal year: [Dollars in thousands]
1974 ----------- --------------------------------- $136, 000
1973 ---------------------------------------------- None
1972 ---------------------------------------------- None
AGE OF UNITS BEING MODERNIZED
Mr. SIKES. Generally to what extent are you improving older units
versus units recently constructed ?
Captain REED. Our objective is to upgrade older quarters first. Of
the total program of $10.6 million for fiscal year 1974, only $128,000 or
1.2 percent is being applied to units constructed within the last 5 years.
The $128,000 is proposed for 86 quarters at the U.S. Naval Postgradu-
ate School where we will add a bath unit and modify a closet. The bath
will satisfy a requirement deleted at the time of construction, while
by modifying an existing large closet we will provide separate study
space.
COMMUNITY CENTERS
Mr. SIKES. Discuss your program to construct community buildings.
Captain REED. At many Navy activities, family housing develop-
ments are constructed in areas that are remote from the main part of
the station. Construction is purposely planned this way to provide
married personnel with an atmosphere similar to conditions which
prevail in most civilian communities.
The location of housing developments severely restrict the use of ex-
isting "on base" facilities to occupants of family housing. Also these
facilities are heavily used by single personnel. Community organiza-
tions, such as wives' clubs, teen clubs, scouts, community athletic groups
must compete with activity mission training, et cetera, in obtaining
suitable indoor assembly areas to conduct community affairs. Because
of this competition and distant location of existing facilities, many
needed and deserving community functions are curtailed and in some
cases nonexistent.
203
In 1971 we established a program which envisions the construction
of 41 community centers at various activities, worldwide. The intent
of the program is to provide a community meeting/assembly hall,
social function center for families who reside in our larger isolated
complexes of family housing. The basic criteria requires that the hous-
ing is so located that immediate access to basic clubs, messes, teen cen-
ters, chapels, et cetera, is not available.
Ten buildings were included in the fiscal year 1973 improvement
program. Contracts have been awarded for five, two are awaiting bids
and three are in the final design stages. The experience gained from the
fiscal year 1973 program design and costs will be applied in future
construction. Our fiscal year 1974 program includes five buildings with
programing of the remaining requirements in subsequent years de-
pendent on the availability of construction funds.
MINOR CONSTRUCTION
Mr. SIKES. Place page 64 in the record.
[The page follows :1
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION LINE ITEM DATA NAVY
15 Feb 1973 1974 VARIOUS CONTINENTAL AND OVERSEAS
* 800,000 P.L.US
to SEOfoOEaIOTIG I WWETGO OcON..S, 4 LI7 IT m4me s LI1 ITM TIt
MINOR CONSTRUCTION
SECTION A - DESCRIPTION OF LINE ITEM SECTION B - COST ESTIMATES
, lE opr mROiATI PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIMARY FACILITY U/ oTITY UNIT COST COST (000)
MINOR CONSTRUCTION V 800.0
.. PErumENT .. N. OFeLOC. 16 NO.OFSTORIES *. LENGTH . ITom - NAVY I I I 640.0 )
. SEMI-PENUENT .- DESIGN CAPACITY I. GROSS AREA MARINE CORPS I 1600
a. TEMPORARY . COOLING CAP. COST (IS I
15. TYPE OF WORK 19. OESCRIPTION OF 55K TO BE DO E. I I
*EW FACILITY 21 aSPORTING FACILITIES --
&- ADDITII Minor alterations, additions, expansions, extensions .
. ALTERATrlO and replacements to properties included in the " I
C. cNvaRSIoa Defense Family Housing property account including .
.. or*E (sp,./t; such things as family dwelling units, non-dwelling .
units, roads and utility systems serving family . I I
16. REPLACOENT housing units, ground areas and other supporting o
17. TYPE OF DESIGN facilities.
.. STANDARD DESIG
6. SPECIAL D-s1 (
.. ORAWIN NO.
22. TOTAL LIE 171E COST t 800.0
SECTION C - BASIS OF EOQUIREENT
aU, JANTITATIVE DATA as. R IAM nM T Fm LINE IT.
(u/ )
". TOTAL REUIREENT This program provides for unforeseen minor alterations, additions, expansions,
4. XOISTIERG SUBSTANDD ( extensions or replacement to family housing beyond limits imposed on the use of
, EXISTING ADEQUATE operations and maintenance funds.
A. FUNDED, NOT IN INVENTORY
"" ADUATE ASSETS ( ) Limitations on use of these funds is established by 10 USC 2674.
. UNFUNDED PRIR AUTl0 IZATIO
. INCLUDED IN FY PROORA4
L. DEFICIENCY (.".-/-)
24. RELATED LINE ITM
Boor No. PGs No 64
S 2 Im
205
Mr. SIKEs. To what extent could you usefully use carryover balances
from prior programs in minor construction ?
Captain REED. Well, sir, this committee has given us such excellent
support in minor construction I would have to honestly say we are
catching up in that field.
As you know, that is for the small project that gives us the little
amenities and things that can be immediately done on a small scale.
If we had available funds, I would suggest putting them in the im-
provement program rather than minor construction.
Mr. SIKES. Have you used all the money the committee provided
last year ?
Captain REED. Yes, sir, it is 100 percent obligated.
Mr. SIKES. Do you need more than you have in this program ?
Captain REED. No, sir, as I said, I would recommend it as an im-
provement program.
PLANNING
Mr. SIKES. Insert page 65 in the record.
[The page follows:]
SECTION A - DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIMARY FACILITY
A. sEMI-ERMANEN I DESIGN CO
TEMPORARY -COLI.s
A. DESCRPTION OF wORK TO E DONE
These funds are required for Architect-Engineer
services, surveys, fees, etc., in connection with
advance planning and design of family housing
dwelling units and properties included in or
proposed for the Defense Family Housing Property
Account.
d
g.
h.
L
i.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
U V
SECTION C - BASIS OF REQUIREMENT
2. QUANTITATIVE DATA 25. REQUIREMENT FOR PROJECT
(U/M N/A
. TOTAL REAUIREMENT The appropriated funds requested in this item are necessary to procure architect-engineer
A EXRT.INuC.TANO*.O R) services to make site and utility investigations; for the preparation of design, plans,
C. eXaTII ADEaUATE drawings, and specifications; and for other services and fees in connection with the
- FUND.EO .T I IWVENTORY preparation of advance plans for future year housing programs and for such effort on
*.AQU AE .ASs.ETa. proposed projects which subsequently may not be included in approved construction programs.
AUTHORIZED FUNDED5AJA
SUN NotD PRIOR AUTORIZTIO...
I. INCLUDED IN F PROGRAM
A. DEFIClI cy (Ar I -
24 RELATED PROJECTs
7"
4. INsTALLATION
VARIOUS CONTINENTAL AND OVERSEAS
** sTATE/ COUNTRY
VARIOUS
I.. PROJECT TITLE CM M
PLANNING I I I
S 200,000
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION ISo
15. TYPE OF WORN
. EW F.C LT I
b. wOOIIION
. LTER T O a
1, REPLACEMENT
17. TYPEOF DESIGN
a- ITAN ARD DEiN
D. sPECIAL onsIew
c- DRmo No
.N. 65
D ,F ",1 39 1
207
Mr. SIKES. IS this request adequate for your purposes ?
Captain REED. Yes, sir, it is.
RENTAL GUARANTEE HOUSING
Mr. SIKES. Insert page 66 in the record.
[The page follows:]
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE-FY 1974 BUDGET
RENTAL GUARANTEE HOUSING
Under the authority of section 507, Public Law 88-174 as amended, for the
purpose of providing housing in foreign countries, the Secretary of Defense may
enter into agreements to guarantee builders or other sponsors of family housing
a rental return not to exceed 97 percent of gross income expectancy. No such
agreement may extend for a period of more than 10 years, nor may the average
guaranteed income exceed $210 per unit, per month, including the cost of
operation and maintenance.
Under the terms of the Rental Guarantee Agreement for new construction,
the sponsor agrees to provide the land and construct the specified number and
types of family housing units thereon, in accordance with plans and specifications
approved by the Government. The sponsor further agrees to manage, maintain,
and operate the units in accordance with specified standards, and to make the
housing available to tenants designated by the Government at stipulated rentals.
Under Rental Guarantee Agreement for existing housing, the sponsor agrees to
the same terms except those pertaining to construction. In return, the Government
guarantees up to 97 percent of gross rental income expectancy for a period of up
to 10 years.
The Department of the Navy executed in June 1967 a Rental Guarantee Agree-
ment for construction of 250 unit project to serve the U.S. Naval Station, Rota,
Spain. The project was completed and accepted in December 1969. Average rent
for the project is $150.67 per unit, per month, exclusive of utilities, and the
Government guarantees 97 percent of gross rental income expectancy for a
period of 10 years. The sponsor is obligated to hold the housing for use of
tenants designated by the Government during the guarantee period and, at the
option of the Government, for up to 10 years thereafter.
A rental Guarantee Agreement was executed by the Navy in October 1968
for 20 units of existing family housing to serve the U.S. Navy Security Group
Activity at Todendorf, Germany. The average rent is $156.68 per unit, per
month, exclusive of utilities, and the Government guarantees 97 percent of gross
rental expectancy for a period of 5 years. The sponsor is obligated to hold the
housing for use of tenants designated by the Government during the guarantee
period and, at the option of the Government, for up to 10 years thereafter.
The U.S. Air Force, as DOD agent for Rental Guarantee Housing in the United
Kingdom, has executed agreements for construction of 250 units of Rental Guar-
antee Housing for the Navy at Holy Loch, Scotland. The first agreement for 136
units was executed in April 1971. Estimated completion date is July 1973. The
second agreement for 114 units was executed in August 1972. Estimated comple-
tion date is August 1974. The Government guarantee will be 97 percent of gross
rental income for a period of '10 years. Average rent for the project will be
$181.75 per unit, per month, exclusive of utilities.
This is a contingent liability, with payment in arrears subject to occupancy
over specified periods. It is expected that the guaranteed occupancy will be
maintained.
Mr. SIKEs. Is the Navy not planning any further rental guarantee
projects overseas at the present time ?
Captain REED. That is correct, sir. The average guaranteed monthly
rental may not exceed $225, and allowance for rent escalation precludes
initial rents of over $200. These limits are too low and have caused such
locations as Okinawa, Bermuda, and Sigonella to be financially in-
feasible. The requirement for a civilian residual market has also ex-
cluded possible projects in the Philippines. Other problems we have
21-111 0 - 73 - 14
208
encountered include nonavailability of land, clearances by foreign
government agencies, and particularly, the time consumed from incep-
tion of projects to beneficial occupancy which has been 5 to 6 years.
OTHER GUARANTEE HOUSING
Mr. SIKES. Insert page 67 in the record.
[The page follows:]
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE-FISCAL YEAR 1974 BUDGET
OTHER GUARANTEE
1. Section 809 Housing.-Section 809 housing authorized by Public Law 574,
84th Congress, provides family housing constructed by private developers for sale
to permanent civilian employees at military research and development installa-
tions, and financed by means of FHA-insured mortgages which the FHA may
require the Department of Defense to guarantee.
The Navy has DOD approval for 630 units of section 809 housing at NWC
China Lake. As of September 19, 1972, 289 certificates of eligibility had been
issued and 341 were still available; 298 of these are being held for housing being
developed on 116 acres of land excessed and sold to a developer in December 1969
for $769,000. Under the terms of this sale, the purchaser is required to construct
300 homes for sale to employees of NWC China Lake. The Navy guaranteed to
issue certificates of eligibility to purchasers of these homes under the section 809
program. The remaining 43 certificates held by NWC will be issued to purchasers
of homes in the general community development in the adjacent city and county.
Current status of housing developed on the excessed Navy land consists of 29
built and sold and another 39 units out for bids.
The Navy also has DOD approval for 50 units of section 809 housing for em-
ployees of the Naval Weapons Laboratory (NWL), Dahlgren, Va. As of Septem-
ber 19, 1972, NWL has issued a total of nine certificates of eligibility. Of these,
five certificates have been endorsed by FHA, four are pending issuance to FHA.
Need for certificates has diminished due to increase in use of rental housing
and personnel purchasing outside the area under other than section 809.
DEBT PAYMENTS
Mr. SIKES. Turn to debt payments. Insert pages 68 through 73 in the
record.
[The pages follow:]
15 February 1973
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE - FY 1974 BUDGET
DEBT PAYMENTS - CAPEHART
(Owned as of 1 July 1973)
Location
MCAS Yuma, Ariz.
NAS Alameda, Calif.
NWC China Lake, Calif.
NF Ferndale, Calif.
NAS Lemoore, Calif.
NPGS Monterey. Calif.
Former AFB Oxtrd, Calif.
NAMTC Point Mngu, Calif.
NF Point Sur, Calif.
NS San Diego, Calif.
MCB Twentynine Palms, Calif.
NSB New London, Conn.
NS Key West, Fla.
NS Mayport, Fla.
NAS Whiting, Fla.
MCSC Albany, Ga.
NAS Albany, Ga.
NAS Glynco, Ga.
NAS Barbers Point, Hew.
MCAS Kanehoe Bay, Haw.
NAD Lualualei, Haw.
Camp H.M. Smith, Oahu, Haw.
NAD Oahu, Haw.
NB Pearl Harbor, Haw
NTC Great Lakes, Ill.
NF Nantucket, Mass.
Operation Bellview, Md.
NAS Brunswick, Me.
NRS Cutler, Me.
Former AFS Topsham, Me.
#Units Acquired
60
200
500
24
1,300
150
315
560
24
947
250
1,250
500
540
229
160
630
225
1,140
650
34
168
80
650
533
19
20
277
33
177
Original Mortgage
$ 990,000
3,160,340
8,243,126
387,259
20,845,584
2,341,140
4,619,867
8,708,021
392,251
15,095,314
4,124,295
20,244,687
8,231,710
7,989,010
3,715,000
2,623,375
10,170,942
3,708,978
18,762,537
10,509,374
551,391
2,629,553
1,242,615
10,301,540
8,703,247
312,942
329,672
4,567,642
544,407
2,917,209
Amount Owed
as of 1 July 1973
$ 670,172
2,340,532
5,584,085
232,292
13,899,577
1,584,812
2,689,283
5,272,470
238,326
9,591,785
2,833,004
14,080,937
5,696,860
5,703,438
2,469,478
1,339,727
6,671,954
2,493,107
11,454,938
6,225,532
310,393
1;506,903
712,098
6,263,712
5,592,833
213,724
221,173
2,866,228
363,582
1,957,880
Payments Required
in FY 1974
$ 67,081
214,523
558,541
26,285
1,412,228
158,632
304,551
570,830
26,600
1,021,856
279,558
1,372,715
558,077
541,818
252,118
168,150
683,330
251,315
1,237,715
675,263
35,422
168,926
79,827
662,402
577,565
21,204
22,338
309,200
36,888
197,670
PAGE NO.68
------ ~l--nn-r--ri-- l -- -- r~lll I~-- I--- -I- CI--- YI---~----- .-ili- PY i-Zrril--
15 February 1973
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE - FY 1974 BUDGET
DEBT PAYMENTS - CAPEHART
(Owned as of 1 July 1973)
Location
NSGA Winter Harbor, Me.
Former NAS Grosse Ile, Mich.
NAS Meridian, Miss.
NS Guam, M.I.
NAS Fallon, Nev.
MCB Camp Lejcunc, N.C.
NF Cape Hatters, N.C.
MCAS Cherry Point, N.C.
MCAF New River, N.C.
NF Coos Head, Ore.
NB Philadelphia, Pa.
NRS Fort Allen, P.R.
NS Roosevelt Roads, P.R.
NS Newport, R.I.
MCAS Beaufort, S.C.
NS Charleston, S.C.
NAS Memphis, Tenn.
NAS Chase Field, Beeville, Tex.
NB Norfolk, Va.
MCS Quantico, Va.
NF Pacific Beach, Wash.
NAS Whidbey Island, Wash.
TOTALS
#Units Acquired
20
26
320
220
106
800
27
849
435
24
400
150
676
500
1,100
740
250
225
300
450
30
550
19,843
Original Mortgage
$ 327,858
405,800
5,277,693
4,414,808
1,729,866
13,193,173
445,400
12,829,300
7,176,150
392,487
6,180,286
2,362,617
11,154,000
8,181,862
17,815,591
11,366,348
3,844,174
3,515,601
4,931,650
7,407,400
500,355
9,032,188
$319,447,635
Amount Owed Payments Required
as of 1 July 1973 in FY 1974
$ 177,363 $ 21,119
180,824 44,106
3,513,736 357,562
2,762,885 299,707
1,163,213 117,546
8,852,649 871,649
252,281 29,344
7,356,544 824,414
3,766,440 460,504
246,184 26,569
4,549,279 419,516
1,675,657 160,192
6,562,713 716,745
5,616,676 554,577
10,095,307 1,144,635
7,895,100 770,521
2,687,068 260,682
1,967,061 225,598
3,621,080 334,759
5,112,877 502,206
315,441 33,871
5,713,063 611,421
$205,164,276 $21,279,871
Rounded to: $21,280,000
PAGE NO. 69
15 February 1973 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE - FY 1974 BUDGET
DEBT PAYMENTS - WHERRY HOUSING
SUMMARY
WHERRY HOUSING: This provides for the payment of principal, interest and mortgage insurance premiums resulting from assumption
by the Government of mortgages on Wherry Housing acquired by the Navy. Total appropriated funds in the amount
of $9,386,000 are requested for this program for fiscal year 1974. Detailed requirements by location are listed
on the pages that follow. The following is a summary of fiscal year 1974 debt payment requirements for Wherry
Housing owned as of 1 July 1973:
#Units Amount Owed Payments Required
Originally Acquired Original Mortgage as of 1 July 1973 in FY 1974
TOTALS 22,162 $150,013,669 $93,832,525 $9,386,000
FY 1974 Appropriation Request $9,386,000
13
I-
Cr
PACE NO. 70
15 February 1973
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE - FY 1974 BUDGET
DEBT PAYMENT - WHERRY
(Owned as of 1 July 1973)
Location
MCSC Barstow, Calif.
MCB Camp Pendleton, Calif.
NNC China Lake, Calif.
NAF El Centro, Calif.
MCAS El Toro, Calif.
NPGB Monterey, Calif.
NCBC Port Hueneme, Calif.
NB San Diego, Calif.
MCB Twentynine Palms, Calif.
NSB New London, Conn.
NB Key West, Fla.
NAS Whiting Field, Fla.
NAS Albany, Ga.
NAS Barbers Point, Haw.
NB Pearl Harbor, Haw.
NTC Great Lakes, Ill.
NAS New Orleans, La.
First ND HDQTRS, Boston, Mass.
NAVACAD Annapolis, Md.
NTC Bainbridge, Md.
NOS Indian Head, Md.
NAS Brunswick, Me.
MCB Camp Lejeune, N.C.
MCAS Cherry Point, N.C.
,NAS Lakehurst, N.J.
Mitchel Manor, Hempstead, N.Y.
NB Newport, R.I.
NAS Quonset Point, R.I.
MCRD Parris Island, S.C.
NAS Memphis, Tenn.
#Units
Originally Acquired
337
1,562
600
70
571
519
326
1,791
493
450
1,000
96
270
615
1,462
1,000
90
150
396
740
379
232
2,108
1,421
230
628
356
350
85
540
Original Mortgage
$ 2,009,881
10,961,983
3,510,811
463,261
4,109,711
4,090,075
2,119,886
12,486,434
3,115,827
3,687,880
6,657,616
507,271
1,515,614
4,567,371
11,792,373
7,587,302
627,570
1,273,811
2,467,705
4,618,888
2,656,935
1,836,183
13,521,849
7,889,094
1,508,654
4,274,332
2,914,929
2,686,743
534,120
3,097,639
Amount Owed
as of 1 July 1973
$1,400,930
7,429,226
2,367,890
330,789
2,496,267
2,472,561
1,287,114
7,792,194
2,059,455
2,382,483
4,018,174
304,641
899,290
2,692,244
7,237,465
4,473,719
451,409
821,150
1,553,017
3,301,551
1,665,109
1,196,546
7,883,490
4,572,560
1,037,046
2,810,427
1,706,225
1,739,549
321,016
1,924,477
Payments Required
in FY 1974
$138,399
709,036
218,081
32,330
244,049
248,066
124,897
758,921
196,247
227,819
425,120
32,502
85,772
278,428
705,031
471,825
42,620
77,911
175,625
310,726
160,245
108,995
824,577
481,944
105,741
300,952
181,534
168,206
32,182
202,528
PAGE NO. 71
15 February 1973
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE - FY 1974 BUDGET
DEBT PAYMENT - WHERRY
(Owned as of 1 July 1973)
Location
NAS Corpus Christi, Tex.
NAB Little Creek, Va.
Monogram Gardens, Driver, Va.
NE Norfolk, Va.
Northwest Gardens, Northwest, Va.
NAS Oceana, Va.
NSY Portsmouth, Va.
MCS Quantico, Va.
NWS Yorktown, Va.
NAS Whidbey Island, Wash.
TOTALS
#Units
Originally Acquired
340
400
20
916
26
554
159
450
130
300
22 162
Original Mortgage
$ 2,014,560
2,306,814
129,742
5,083,712
159,384
3,978,026
1,005,523
3,161,560
952,393
2,130,207
$150,013,669
Amount Ow
as of 1 July
$ 1,384,
1,392,
78,
3,364,
96,
2,457,
659,
1,891,
582,
1,294,
$93,832,
ed Payments Required
1973 in FY 1974
531 $ 133,628
640 139,356
531 7,852
834 331,153
471 9,646
995 236,458
959 66,080
919 203,443
993 56,526
638 131,131
525 $9,385,582
Rounded to: $9,386,000
PAGE NO. 72
~~ ^"~i~=ITirii~4C"" g~;BY;~i"~^rPiii-C*Yi
15 February 1973
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE - FY 1974 BUDGET
SERVICEMEN'S MORTGAGE INSURANCE PREMIUMS
In accordance with authority contained in Section 222 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended, this program provides for the
payment of premiums due on mortgage insurance provided by the Federal Housing Administration for mortgages on housing purchased
by military personnel on active duty and for continuing payments in those cases where a serviceman dies while on active duty and
leaves a surviving widow as owner of the property. In the latter case, payments extend for a period of two years beyond the date
of the servicemen's death or until the date the widow disposes of the property, whichever occurs first. The maximum amount insurable
by FHA is $33,000. The premium rate is 4 of 1% of the unpaid balance of the mortgage. Total funds in the amount of $1,265,000 are
requested for this program for fiscal year 1974. This amount is $25,000 less than the fiscal year 1973 request due to a decrease in
the estimated number of mortgages to be insured.
FY 1972 ACTUAL FY 1973 ESTIMATE FY 1974 ESTIMATE
MARINE MARINE MARINE
NAVY CORPS TOTAL NAVY CORPS TOTAL NAVY CORPS TOTAL
Number of Mortgages Insured 13,125 1,958 15,083 12,782 1,783 14,565 12,606 1,689 14,295
Average Payment Amount $97.30 $102,65 $97.99 $86.06 $106.58 $88.57 $86.06 $106.58 $88.49
Total Premium Payments $1,277,000 $201,000 $1,478,000 $1,100,000 $190,000 $1,290,000 $1,085,000 $180,000 $1,265,000
PACE NO. 73
CAPEHART AND WHERRY HOUSING TO BE EXCESSED
Mr. SIKEs. How many of the Wherry and Capehart units will be
given up by the Navy as a result of base closures and realinements ?
Captain REED. Mr. Chairman, we have a total of 576 Wherry and 225
units of Capehart housing which will be excessed specifically as a result
of the base realinements and closures. They are located as follows: 187
Wherry at Brenton Village, Newport; 119 Wherry at Naval Gardens
in Newport; 270 Wherry at Albany, Ga., and 225 Capehart at Glynco,
Ga. There are also 505 units of Wherry which were previously reported
as excess to the Congress at Bainbridge, Md., but we do not consider
them to be a part of the present realinement actions.
Mr. SIKES. Could you give us what information you have on the
remaining useful life of each of these projects, as well as your estimate
of what market there will be for them ?
Captain REED. Yes, sir; let me cover them one at a time. In Newport,
at both Brenton Village and Naval Gardens, the Wherry units would
have been declared inadequate until we learned they would be excess.
It had been our intent to operate them on a reduced BAQ forfeiture
basis until they could be demolished and replaced. The cost to improve
them would be above the amount considered as an economic investment
by OSD. They have, in effect, passed their useful life as adequate units.
At Brenton Village, we understand that the local community wants to
acquire the land where the units are located for a park, and if they do,
the housing could be demolished. This is something the community
would have to work out with the General Services Administration.
Although it is possible, I do not believe there is much of a market for
the Brenton Village units, because of their physical location. As for
the Naval Garden, I think there might be a market for them, but it is
difficult at this time to measure the impact on community housing
which our realinement will cause.
At Albany, the Wherry units which are known as Turner City are in
good condition and might be expected to remain useful for 20 or more
years. They are located within 5 miles of the center of the city. Our
local people indicate that it appears likely that a market for these units
will exist, as the city of Albany is growing rather rapidly.
The Capehart units at Glynco are in excellent condition and with
care should last 30 years or more. The local real estate market is cur-
rently extremely soft with many homes for sale and no buyers. The
vacancy rate is high and some new construction has to be halted. The
county is making an effort to attract more industry which could create
a housing market, but it has not occurred yet.
Mr. SIKES. Do you have an estimate you can provide of the market
value of these units ?
Captain REED. We have not made an estimate because established
procedures require that once the Navy has declared the units excess
and has offered them to other components of DOD and reported them
to the Congress, the units then go to the General Services Adminis-
tration who have the responsibility for performing an appraisal of
the market value of the units and subsequently disposing of them for
the best possible price.
216
REMAINING LIABILITY
Mr. SIKES. What is your total remaining liability for Capehart and
Wherry housing?
Captain REED. The total remaining liability as of July 1, 1973, is
$205,164,276 for Capehart and $93,823,525 for Wherry housing.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Mr. SIKES. Insert pages 74 through 80 in the record.
[The pages follow:]
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE - FY 1974 BUDGET
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, INCLUDING LEASING
(THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
Operating Expenses
Leasing
Maintenance
Total Operation & Maintenance
Less: Reimbursements
Plus: Transfers Among Accounts
Unobligated Balance Lapsing
T -_ I~_
Total Appropriation Request $98,368 $19,057
$117,425
$117,612 $21,682
$139,294 $135,964 $25,668 ~161, 632
- - - ______ ______ _______ L ______ I _______
$161,632
1/ The appropriation request for operation and maintenance is in lump sum for the Department of Defense.
The amount footnoted is within that total.
PAGE NO. 74
15 February 1973
FY -9 7 FY 19A4 Esimat
MARINE MARINE MARINE
NAVY CORPS TOTAL NAVY CORPS TOTAL NAVY CORPS TOTAL
$45,459 $ 9,195 $ 54,654 $ 56,467 $10,972 $ 67,439 $ 63,544 $12,961 76,505
7,082 -0- 7,082 9,900 -0- 9,900 11,639 -0- 11,639
47,230 10,093 57,323 53,843 10,877 64,720 63,273 12,882 76 155
$99,771 $19,288 $119,059 $120,210 $21,849 $142,059 $138,456 $25,843 9164,299
-2,148 - 98 -2,246 -2,598 -167 -2,765 -2,492 -175 -2,667
+ 631 -200 + 431 -- --
+ 114 + 67 + 181 -- ..
FY 1972 Actual
FYW 1973 Esi at~r
'"'"
$139,294
$135,964 I$25,668
15 February 1973
FAMILY HOUSING DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
FY 1974 BUDGET ESTIMATE
EXCLUDES LEASED UNITS & COSTS
FY 1972 FY 1973 FY 1974
ACTUAL ESTIMATE ESTIMATE
A. INVENTORY DATA
Units in Being Beginning of Year 69,193 67,261 70,391
Units in Being at End of Year 67,261 70,391 73,918
Average Inventory for Year Requiring O&M Funding:
a. Conterminous U.S. 48,034 49,024 51,261
b. Outside U.S. 20,194 19.815 21,033
c. Total 68.228 68.8 9 72,29
TOTAL EST. UNIT TOTAL EST. UNIT TOTAL EST. UNIT
COST COST COST
($000) () ($000) ($) ($000) ()
B. FUNDING REQUIREMENT
1. OPERATIONS
a. Operating Expenses
(1) Administration $ 7,523 $ 110 $ 8,994 $ 131 $ 9,519 $ 132
(2) Services 4,346 64 4,907 71 5,438 75
(3) Utility Operations 30,066 440 35,761 519 40,665 562
(4) Furnishines 3,524 52 6.805 99 7.922 110
Subtotal - Gross Obligations $45,459 $ 666 $ 56,467 $ 820 $ 63,544 $ 879
Less: Anticipated Reimbursements 2.148 31 2,598 38 2.492
Subtotal, Operations (Appropriated Funds) $43,311 $ 635 $ 53,869 $ 782 $ 61,052 $ 845
2. MAINTENANCE
a. Maintenance & Repair of Dwellings $39,131 $ 574 $ 45,220 $ 657 $ 53,315 $ 737
b. Maintenance & Repair of Other Real Property 7,680 112 8,123 118 8,878 123
c. Alterations & Additions 419 6 500 7 1.080 15
Subtotal, Maintenance (Appropriated Funds) $47,230 $ 692 $ 53,843 $ 782 $ 63,273 $ 875
3. GRAND TOTAL O&M EXPENSES (Incl. Reimbursements) $92,689 $1,358 $110,310 $1,602 $126,817 $1,754
4. GRAND TOTAL 06&M (1&2 above) (Appropriated Funds) $90,541 $1,327 $107,712 $1,564 $124,325 $1,720
PAGE NO. 75
219
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE-FISCAL YEAR 1974 BUDGET
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE JUSTIFICATION
NAVY FAMILY HOUSING
1. Narrative description
a. Operation.-The operation portion of the family housing program includes
expenses incident to: administration and management of the housing at the
installation level, including off-base housing referral services; providing such
communal services as refuse collection and disposal, custodial services, street
sweeping, snow removal, and in certain instances police and fire protection;
providing such utility services as electricity, water, heat, sewage, but excluding
telephone service; providing initial furniture for housing, maintenance, repair,
replacement, shipment, warehousing, and handling of furniture and movable
equipment as authorized by administrative policy, conducting the annual family
housing survey; preliminary planning for the housing construction program;
supervision, inspection and overhead (SIGH) for new housing construction
other than military construction (MCON). The operation portion also covers
authorization to obligate and expend funds made available from sources other
than the "Family housing management account, Navy" as reimbursements for
authorized work performed or services delivered.
b. Maintenance.-The maintenance portion includes maintenance and repair
of dwelling units, buildings, roads, driveways, walks, exterior and interior
utility systems, and grounds care as authorized by administrative policy, mainte-
nance repair, and replacement of fixtures and other equipment which are integral
components of a dwelling unit. Also includes projects for incidental improvement
(alteration or additions-extensions-expansions) provided that:
(1) No such improvement project shall exceed $10,000.
(2) The total expenses of such improvements within a fiscal year shall
not exceed $500 for any one family unit in any case, and (a) an average of
$100 per family unit for each installation having 10 or more family units, or
(b) $1,000 for each installation having less than 10 family units.
(3) These incidental improvements are not occasioned by, or made in
conjunction with, a separate undertaking which exceeds the above specified
limitation.
c. Special consideration.-In certain instances, it is necessary to reimburse
local municipalities for direct services rendered to Government housing projects,
such as police and fire protection, street maintenance and lighting, sewage dis-
posal, and so forth. Funds for this purpose are included in the total amount re-
quested for the Department of the Navy housing. This is consistent with previous
practice.
2. Program Justification
(a) Total appropriated funds in the amount of $124.325,000 are requested to
support fiscal year 1974 operation and maintenance expenses, excluding leasing.
This amount is $16,613,000 or more than the total funds requested in fiscal year
1973.
(b) Major increases/decreases in fiscal year 1974 compared to fiscal year 1973
as follows :
(1) Operations-(a) Operating expenses (less furnishings) +$6,066,000.-
The increase in this area is due to the expense of operating an additional
3,455 units in fiscal year 1974 along with an increase in operating costs,
utility rates and consumption. In addition, an increase in the amount of
$71,000 is included for additional staffing for operation of off-base referral
offices.
(b) Furnishing+$1,117,000.-The increase in this area is due to the ex-
pense of maintaining authorized household equipment in an additional 3,455
units in fiscal year 1974 and the need to procure furniture for overseas loca-
tions where a weight limitation is being imposed on the shipment of occu-
pant-owned furnishings. Increases are also requested for the repair and
moving and handling of overseas furnishing. Decreases for conus furnishing
are in line with a continually diminishing total inventory.
220
(2) Maintenanoe+-$9,480,000.-This increase will provide for the mainte-
nance of 3,455 additional units in fiscal year 1974 as compared to fiscal year
1973 and compensate for increases in material and labor costs. Additionally,
it is estimated that the request will allow application of $4,500,000 to the
backlog of deferred maintenance.
(c) Reimbursements-$106,0OO.-Reimbursable authority in the amount of
$2,492,000 requested for fiscal year 1974. A decrease of $106,000 below the amount
of $2,598,000 requested in fiscal year 1973 is due to the disposal of housing units
occupied by Coast Guard at San Juan, Puerto Rico and Kodiak, Alaska.
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY (TRANSFER TO MARINE CORPS)
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
FISCAL YEAR 1974 BUDGET
FY 1972 Actual FY 1973 Estimate FY 1974 Estimate
A. INVENTORY DATA
Units in Being Beginning of Year 18,419 18,263 18,948
Units in Being at End of Year 18,263 18,948 19,598
Average Inventory for Year Requiring 06M Funding:
a. Conterminous U.S. 16,820 16,925 17,333
b. Outside U.S 1,523 1,682 1,942
c. Total 18, 343 18,607 19,275
Total Est. Unit Total Unit Total Unit
All Types Est. Cost Est. Cost
B. FUNDING REQUIREMENT
1. OPERATIONS ($000) ($) ($000) ($) ($000) ($)
a. Operating Expenses
(1) Administration 1,433 78 1,693 91 1,964 102
(2) Services 1, 338 73 1, 508 81 1,725 90
(3) Utility Operations 5,513 301 6,003 323 6,706 348
(4) Furnishings 911 50 1.768 95 2.566 133
Subtotal-Gross Obligations 9,'195 502 10,972 590 12,961 673
Less: Anticipated Reimbursements 98 5 167 9 175 9
Subtotal, Operations (Direct Oblige.) 9,' 0 497 10,805 581 12, 786 664
2. MAINTENANCE
a. Mainteance & Repair of Dwellings 7, 779 424 8,133 437 10,082 523
b. Maint. & Repair of Other Real Property 2,305 126 2,694 145 2,750 143
c. Alterations & Additions 9 0 50 3 50 2
SuIu~I b .~le~sc Murcuui
Subtotal, Laintenance (Diulrect Obliga)
3. GRAND TOTAL 0&M EXPENSES (Incl. Reimb.)
4. GRAND TOTAL O&M (1&2. above) (Direct Oblige.)
Excluding Leased Units & Costs
IU, 093
19,288
19, 190
550
1,051
1,046
10,877
21,849
21,682
585
1,175
1,166
12,882
25,843
25,668
668
1,341
1,332
PACE NO. 78
~----c- L~- ~. ilil-i-i--i-Ll^iU_~-~ -
~TPa~i ;~ -adii~a~--~
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY (TRANSFER TO MARINE CORPS) FAMILY HOUSING
DEFENSE-FISCAL YEAR 1974 BUDGET, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE JUSTIFI-
CATION
1. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
(a) Operation.-The operation portion of the family housing program includes
expenses incident to: administration and management of the housing at the
installation level; providing such services as refuse collection and disposal,
custodial services, street sweeping, snow removal, and in certain instances, police
and fire protection; provided such utility services as electricity, water, heat,
sewage, but excluding telephone service; providing maintenance, repair, replace-
ment, moving and handling of furniture and movable equipment as authorized
by administrative policy. The operation portion also covers authorization to obli-
gate and expend funds made available from sources other than the "Housing
management account" to reimburse for authorized work performed or services
delivered.
(b) Maintenance.-The maintenance portion includes maintenance and repair
of housing units, buildings, roads, driveways, walks, exterior utility and interior
utility systems; grounds care as authorized by administrative policy. Also in-
cludes projects for incidental improvement (alterations and additions) provided
that:
(1) No such alteration or addition-expansion-extension shall exceed
$10,000.
(2) 'The total expenses for these alterations and additions-expansions-
extensions within a fiscal year shall not exceed $500 for any one family unit
in any case, and (1) an average of $100 per family unit for each installation
having 10 or more family units or (2) $1,000 for each installation having less
than 10 family units.
(3) These incidental alterations and additions-expansions-extensions are
not occasioned by or made in conjunction with a separate undertaking which
exceeds the above specified limitations.
2. PROGRAM JUSTIFICATION
(a) Total funds in the amount of $25,843,000 are needed to support the fiscal
year 1974 family housing operation and maintenance expenses. The appropriation
request of $25,668,000. and reimbursements of $175,000 will meet this need.
(b) In fiscal year 1974, 700 additional units are scheduled to enter the inventory.
Two hundred of these units will be constructed at the Marine Corps Air Station,
Kaneohe Bay, as a part of Naval Complex Oahu construction plan.
(c) Major increases/decerases in the fiscal year 1974 estimate, as compared to
fiscal year 1973, are as follows :
(1) Operations: +$1.989,000.
(a) Operating expense (less furnishings) : +$1.191.000. This increase
is required to support an average of 19,275 units in fiscal year 1974. as
well as significant increases in operating costs, utility rates, and con-
sumption.
(b) Furnishings: +$798.000. Provide funds to support pay increases,
nominal increases in moving and handling, initial procurement of
furnishings for newly acquired units overseas and for procurement of
furnishings for use within mandatorily assigned quarters. Also provides
for a continuation of an orderly replacement and repair program for
furnishings within present inventories as authorized by current di-
rectives.
(2) Maintenance: +$2,005,000.
Provides funds to support wage board increases and increased repair re-
quirements from the normal deterioration of age. The increase will be applied
to recurring maintenance and repair to prevent further 'degradation of the
current inventory and still permit an estimated $900,000 reduction in deferred
maintenance during fiscal year 1974.
HOUSING OPERATION COST
Mr. SIKES. What types of costs cause the increase in your operating
expenses from year to year? Is there any published index to which
your experience corresponds?
223
Captain REED. The largest cause of increase in the operating ex-
penses is the cost of utilities. Both the cost of supplying utilities and
the consumption rate have increased rapidly in the past 3 years and
indications are this trend will continue for at least 3 more years. Con-
sumption rate increases are due in part to more extensive use of
electrical equipment including items such as home air-conditioners,
dishwashers, and garbage disposals. In fact the Navy's new construc-
tion program includes air-conditioning and many additional units are
being air-conditioned through family housing projects.
Increase cost of trash collection, police and fire protection, and other
type services has also contributed to the increase in operating expenses.
Navy's experience in increasing operating expenses in the family
housing area is similar to the increase in housing operation cost as
published in the Consumer Price Index. This index is published by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics and shows rapidly increasing cost in
housing operations.
BACKLOG OF MAINTENANCE
Mr. SIKES. What effect will base closure actions have on the size
of the backlog of essential maintenance and repair ?
Captain REED. It is reducing it by $500,000, sir.
Mr. SIKES. Do you think you will actually be able to reduce BEMAR
by as much as 15 percent during fiscal year 1974 ?
Captain REED. We are estimating we will reduce it by 10 percent,
which is about $2 million in addition to the $500,000 resulting from
the basic closure actions.
LEASING
Mr. SIKES. Insert pages 81 through 87 in the record.
[The pages follow:]
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE-FISCAL YEAR 1974 BUDGET, LEASING
Fiscal year 1972 actual Fiscal year 1973 year-end Fiscal year 1974 year-end
average estimate estimate
Cost Cost Cost
Units (thousands) Units (thousands) Units (thousands)
Domestic (50 states) .... 3, 103 $6, 504 3, 944 $8, 700 3, 944 $9, 939
Foreign .... 109 578 273 1, 200 438 1, 700
Total............ ------------ 3, 212 7, 082 4, 217 9,900 4, 382 11, 639
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE-FISCAL YEAR 1974 BUDGET
LEASING
Narative description and justification:
A. Domestic Leasing
1. Auth.ority.-
a. Section 515. Public Law 161, 84th Congress, as amended.
b. The Military Construction Authorization Act for fiscal year 1973 (Public
Law 92-545 dated October 25, 1972) further amended the above basic legisla-
tion by providing the following criteria. Where there is a lack of adequate housing
facilities at or near military installations, and (1) there has been a recent and
21-111 0 - 73 - 15
224
substantial increase in the personnel strength assigned to such military installa-
tion and such increase is temporary, or (2) the permanent personnel strength of
such military installation is to be substantially reduced in the near future, or
(3) the number of military personnel assigned to such military installation is
so small as to make the construction of family housing uneconomical, or (4)
family housing is required for personal attending service school academic
courses on permanent change of station orders, or (5) family housing has been
authorized but is not yet completed or a family housing authorization request
is in a pending military construction authorization bill.
c. Dollar limitations: Public law 92-545 restricts average cost per unit month
in the United States (other than Hawaii), Puerto Rico and Guam to $210 includ-
ing maintenance and operation costs, and utilities and $255 per unit per month
in Hawaii. Public law 92-545 also restricts total charges for any one unit to
$290 per month in the United States (other than Hawaii) Puerto Rico and Guam
and $300 per month in Hawaii.
2. Costs.-
The increase of $1,239,000 in the fiscal year 1974 domestic leasing budget over
fiscal year 1973 is due to the requirement of budgeting all 3,944 units for a full-
year rental costs.
3. The line entries are keyed to the following identifiers: (1) Substantial but
temporary increase. (2) Substantial reduction in the near future. (3) Too small
requirement for economic construction. (4) Eligible students on PCS orders.
(5) Leasing as interim relief pending completion of an authorized military
construction program.
B. Foreign Leasing
1. Authority.-Title 10, United States Code, section 2675.
2. Department of Defense Policy.-It is the policy to lease privately owned
family housing only for military personnel in ranks 0-6 and above, and only
(1) where it has been determined that such leasing is for the benefit of the United
States and (2) when Government quarters commensurate with the positions of
the officers are not available. If specifically approved by the Assistant Secretary
of Defense (Installations and Logistics), family housing may be leased in for-
eign countries for civilians and for military personnel in grades 0-5 and below
provided criteria (1) and (2) above are clearly applicable. Family housing leased
in accordance with these criteria shall be designated public quarters and occu-
pants shall forfeit basic quarters allowances.
3. Costs-The increase of $500.000 in the fiscal year 1974 foreign leasing budget
is due to the increase in numerical requirements in the Naples, Italy, and La
Maddalena areas. The proposal will continue to provide funds to continue to
lease in such areas as Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Djakarta, Indonesia and Manila,
the Republic of the Philippines.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE-FISCAL YEAR 1974 BUDGET-LEASING
End year fiscal year 1974
estimate
Footnote
code Units Cost
1. Domestic (50 States):
(a) California:
NAS, Alameda -----...........------------------)... 55 $138,000
Long Beach complex..-........--... ........... . (a) 80 202 000
NPGS, Monterey-..-...............------------------( 40 101, 000
NAVSCOL, Mare Island, San Francisco..-..-........ .. . 100 224,000
NAVSCOL, Treasure Island, San Francisco .... . 22 55, 000
San Diego complex - --....... - --.-.--...... . . . . . . . . 20 50,000
b) Connecticut: NBS, New London ........................... 200 504,000
District of Columbia: Washington, D.C. complex......... 100 200, 000
d) Florida:
NTC, Orlando.----....-.-.... .................... . () 40 100,000
NAS, Jacksonville .--------------------------------- 50 126,000
NAS, Pensacola _--------------------------------- - (100 233, 000
(e) Georgia: NSCS, Athens-----.-..-... --.................. (4) 63 140,000
(f) Hawaii: Oahu complex-.......-- .... ................. . (9) 560 1,646,000
(g) Illinois:
NAS, Glenview- ---- ............----- ia 40 101,000
NTC, Great Lakes---- . 70 176, 000
NAVSCOL, Great Lakes----------------------------- () 45 113,000
End year fiscal year 1974
estimate
Footnote
code Units Cost
(h) Mississippi:
CBS, Gulfport...............----------------------- 200 415,000
NSS, Pascagoula.---------------------------------.5) 90 200,000
) New Jersey: NAS, Lakehurst........ . 40 101,000
( Pennsylvania: Warminster-Willow Grove complex ....... 50 026,000
() Rhode Island:
CBC, Davisville..-..... __...._..... . (2) 25 63,000
NAVBASE, Newport ...............-.......... ()(5) 170 428, 000
NAS, Quonset Point ---....-.........-. --.-.-..... . (2) 50 126, 000
(I) Miscellaneous small activities (Navy) (various locations):
Naval Recruiting Service-.--......-.... ... .... . () 780 ...
Naval Reserve Training Service.----.--.--........... . () 100 2,379,000
Other miscellaneous small naval activities......---------. 64
(m) Miscellaneous small activities (Marines): Various locations--- ( 790 1,991, 000
Domestic summary:
Major installations ..---- .--------------------------------- - 2,210 5,569,000
Miscellaneous small activities Navy --...-.......-................ . 944 2,379,000
Miscellaneous small activities Marine Corps--..--................... . 790 1,991,000
Domestic totals.......-..........-........-............. 3,944 9,939, 000
.Foreign:
(a) Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (these units are for staff members of
the Field Detachment Unit of the U.S. Navy Medical
Research Unit No. 3) ..----. ---------------------------------- - 14 80, 000
(b) Bahrain (this unit is for the commander, Middle East Forces) .... 1 11,000
(c) Greece (1 unit for the commanding officer, U.S. Naval Com-
munication Station, Nea Makri; 1 unit for the commander,
Carrier Division 2/Carrier Task Force)............... ................ 2 18, 000
(d) Gibraltar (this unit is for the U.S. naval liaison officer,
Gibraltar) .---- ------------------------------------------------ 1 4,000
(e) Indonesia (5 units are for staff members of the Field Detach-
ment Unit of the U.S. Navy Medical Research Unit No. 2;
1 unit for Naval Intelligence Command personnel)-......-............. 6 40, 000
(f) Italy (Navy is administrative agent): Naples (112 units are for
personnel assigned to the naval support activity, of which
1 unit each will be for the following: (1) Commander,
Naval Air Forces, Mediterranean (Navy); (2) Chief of Staff,
Commander in Chief, Allied Forces, Southern Europe
(Army); (3) Assistant Chief of Staff, Logistics, Commander
in Chief, Allied Forces, Southern Europe (Navy); (4) Assist-
ant Chief of Staff, Plans and Operations, Commander in
Chief, Allied Forces, Southern Europe (Army); (5) Deputy
Commander, Naval Striking and Support Forces, Com-
mander in Chief, Allied Forces, Southern Europe (Navy);
(6) Commander, U.S. 6th Fleet (Navy); (7) Commander,
U.S. Submarine Flotilla No. 8 (Navy); (8) Commander,
Allied Air Forces, Southern Europe (Air Force); (9) Deputy
Commander, Allied Air Forces, Southern Europe (Air Force);
(10) Commanding Officer, Headquarters, Naval Support
Activity (Navy); (1) Deputy Commander, Anti-Submarine
Warfare Force 6th Fleet (Navy); (12) Deputy Commandant,
NATO Defense College, Rome (Navy)....................... ........ - 112 464, 000
(g) Italy: La Maddalena (Det) (206 units for personnel home-
ported at La Maddalena)..... ............. ----------------206 681, 000
(h) Philippines (these 82 units include 2 non-MAP and an 80-unit
triservice program in Manila)......................................... 82 375, 000
(i) Thurso, Scotland (these 10 units are for personnel at the naval
radio station)--.....-............... . - --.- - - --...- --.... 10 12, 000
(j) Unassigned------------------ ----------------------------------- 4 15, 000
Other foreign totals-............--..-... -- ------_ ------ 438 1,700, 000
Mr. SIKES. Are you requesting that the leasing criteria in the United
States be expanded ?
Captain REED. Not this year, sir.
Mr. SIKES. Do you expect to use the additional leases you are
requesting ?
Captain REED. Yes, sir, we do.
ADDITIONAL LEASES IN ITALY
[Additional information follows:]
Increases over fiscal year 1973 in your foreign lease are an additional 100 units
at Naples, Italy, and 250 units at La Maddalena, Sardinia, which were approved
by the Senate Armed Services Committee in March 1973.
The units at La Maddalena are being obtained through lease construction-our
first use of this procedure in housing. In Naples we are utilizing the conventional
lease method.
The rent cost for the units in Naples will average $250 per month per unit, and
those in La Maddalena will run $325 per month. Both prices include utilities.
These are all we can obtain within the currently authorized allocation. Our
additional current requirements total approximately 650 and are located at Sigo-
nella, Holy Loch, London, St. Mawgan, Barbados, Grand Turk, and Singapore.
We estimate the total cost for that portion of fiscal year 1974 for which we could
execute the leases would be approximately $1.2 million.
Mr. SIKES. How much of the proposed program increase will you be
able to achieve with the dollars you have ?
Captain REED. We have dollars in this budget for those units shown
in the budget.
Mr. NICHOLAS. The point of that question was, if lease costs are
going up overseas, are you going to be able to achieve as many lease
points as you had anticipated when you put the budget together?
Could you supply that for the record ?
Captain REED. Yes, sir, I will.
[The information follows:]
To the best of our knowledge, the dollars in the budget will enable us to achieve
the lease units anticipated, with the exception of La Maddalena. For La Mad-
dalena, we slightly underestimated the cost and will absorb the difference
through other accounts in O. & M.
Mr. DAVIs. Are these figures now up to date ? Do they reflect the base
closures and other things ?
Captain REED. Yes, sir.
Mr. SIKES. Further questions?
Very well, gentlemen, thank you very much for your cooperation.
This has been a good hearing.
WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 1973.
MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING, DEPARTMENT OF THE
AIR FORCE
WITNESSES
MAJ. GEN. M. R. REILLY, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
H. P. RIETMAN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CIVIL ENGINEERING
COL. JOHN E. CATLIN, DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
LT. COL. E. D. SCHEIDEMAN, DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
A. R. JONKERS, DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
IMAJ. WILLIAM R. SIMS, DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
A. A. JOHNSTON, DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
LT. COL. L. W. REED, DIRECTORATE OF AEROSPACE PROGRAMS
LT. COL. B. B. BALLIF, DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL PLANNING
LT. COL TOM M. SHOOK, DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL PLANNING
MAJ. FREDERICK MUISE, DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL PLANNING
CAPT. ALAN FORKER, DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL PLANNING
Mr. PATTEN. The committee will come to order. We will take up Air
Force family housing. Insert page 1 in the record.
[The page follows:]
Department of the Air Force, family housing, defense-Fiscal year 1974 budget
program and financing
Thousands
Construction of new housing---------------------------------- $55, 501
Mobile home facilities------- --------------------------------- 2, 000
Improvements ---------------------------------------- 23, 750
Minor construction-------------------------------------------- 400
Planning ---------------------------------------------------- 300
Total construction-------------------------------------- 81, 951
Operating expenses....------- ---------------------- --------- 108, 112
Leasing --------------------------------------------------- 1, 577
Maintenance --------------- -------------------- ----------- 97, 547
Total operation and maintenance------------------------- 219, 236
Debt interest and other expenses------------------------------- 1, 340
Total ----------------- ------------------------------ 332, 527
Less:
Reimbursements :
0. & M-------- --------------------------------- --1, 025
Debt ------------------------------------- ----------------... -3, 997
Available from other years :
(Brought forward) debt----- ------------------------ -2,626
Plus:
Redemption of agency debt------------------------------- +3, 400
Budget authority --------------------------------------328, 279
Budget authority :
Appropriation :
Construction 1---------------------------------------- , 951
Operation and maintenance ---------------------------218, 211
Debt payment -------------------------------------- 182, 521
Total appropriation -------------------------------- 382, 683
Less:
Portion applied to debt reduction---------.---.------------ -54, 404
Appropriation (adjusted) .......... ------------------------------- 328,279
IThe appropriation requests for debt payment, and for operation and maintenance, are
in lump sum for the Department of Defense and not restricted by military department or
defense agency. Amounts footnoted are within those totals.
Mr. PATTEN. General, I see you have a statement. How would you
like to proceed ?
General REILLY. I will read it if you please.
Mr. PATTEN. YOU may proceed.
GENERAL STATEMENT
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is
a pleasure to again appear before you. We are here today to present
the Air Force fiscal year 1974 military family housing program. As
in past years, our program reflects our deep concern for the welfare
of our military families. We are very grateful to the chairman and
members of this commitee for the assistance which has been given to
the Air Force and the other services in meeting the housing needs of
military families. I refer especially to the section 236 provisions of
the Housing Act of 1968, increases in military pay and basic allow-
ances for quarters; added appropriations in the fiscal year 1973 pro-
gram for improvements to existing quarters, and authority to declare
as inadequate additional substandard housing units.
The total request for this year is $382,683,000. Of that amount, $218,-
211,000 is for the operation and maintenance of our housing resources;
$81,951,000 is for the construction of new units, mobile home spaces
and improvements to existing quarters; and $82,521,000 for the annual
increment of debt payment on homes constructed in prior years.
Our operations and maintenance request represents an increase of
$23,700,000, or roughly 12 percent, over the amount appropriated last
year. This increase is required to accommodate additional housing
units coming into the inventory, as well as increased cost of labor and
materials. This increase will also allow us to hold the backlog of de-
ferred maintenance and repair to a manageable level.
Our new construction request is for 1,800 units, 1,100 to be con-
structed at six installations in the continental United States and 700
units at two locations overseas. Of the 1,800 units, 1,798 are for airmen
families and construction will be almost exclusively 4-bedroom units.
The new construction portion of our request also includes $2 million
to develop 415 spaces at 8 locations to accommodate mobile homes
owned by Air Force personnel. This construction will materially assist
our young married airmen who desire to purchase and live in mobile
homes.
The improvement of existing family housing units remains a matter
of major concern to the Air Force. Our inventory of housing units was
acquired over many years. While the standard of accommodations
varies widely, the forfeiture of quarters allowance by grade is the
same as long as the quarters are classified as adequate. The $23.750,000
we are requesting for fiscal year 1974 represents a 100-percent increase
over our program of a year aro. We feel this major increase is ap-
propriate and thoroughly justified in view of the very large deficiency
which exists today. In addition, we will more effectively manage and
execute the improvements program through emphasis on fewer but
larger projects. This will permit us to secure better cost competition
as well as satisfying the total improvements requirement at a number
of locations.
The planning for the new construction and improvements included
in this program is prowressing satisfactorily, and we expect to be able
to nlace all nroiects nnder contract bv June 30, 1974.
Mr. Chairman, with these brief opening comments, we are now
ready to present our program and respond to your questions.
Sitting to my immediate left is Mr. Andrew A. Johnston of my
office who has appeared before this committee many times in sunnort
of our family housing requirements and to his left 'Mr. Harry P. Riet-
man, my associate director of civil engineering. I also have with me
other personnel of my office and headquarters Air Force who are pre-
pared to assist us as backup witnesses.
Mr. 'PATTEN. Thank von. Are there any questions on the statement?
Mr. DAVIS. General Reilly, apparently this program that we have
before us is all from the allocation to you by the office of the Secretary
of Defense.
229
General REILLY. That is correct.
Mr. DAVIS. In other words, you do not supplement the Defense
Department allocation as the Navy and the Army have done in their
budget?
General REILLY. NO, sir. For this particular program there has been
no subsidizing by the remainder of the Air Force budget.
Mr. DAVIs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
DEFICITS
Mr. PATTEN. Could you tell us the size of your deficits, based on the
Air Force's projected force levels as follows:
(a) Programable deficit for eligible personnel.
(b) Programable deficit for "ineligible" personnel.
(c) Total deficit, all Air Force military personnel.
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, our programable deficit for eligible
personnel is approximately 20,000 units. For ineligibles it is roughly
18,000 units. Our total requirements, discounting the 10 percent that
the Office of Secretary of Defense does not allow us to consider, are
about 80,000 units.
Mr. DAVIs. What do you mean by the 10 percent which you are not
permitted to consider?
General REILLY. Against our total requirements, which in our case
is some 400,000 people who need to be housed, the OSD permits us
only.to program to 90 percent of that amount. This is a figure they have
adopted which is designed, I think, to take care of people who would
be transferring from one station to another and to provide a safety
factor due to unforeseen mission changes and things of that nature.
Mr. 'DAVIs. When you speak of the deficit for ineligible personnel,
what do you mean ?
General REILLY. We are speaking of the E-3's and below who are
not by today's criteria allowed to receive family housing.
Mr. PATTEN. What effect have pay raises and the marital factor had
on the size of your deficit as compared to what you projected last year ?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, it has had an effect. As you may
recall, we were speaking in terms of a deficit of around 40,000 units at
this time. last year. Increased pay and allowances, making additional
community assets available to our people at a price they can pay,
together with the inclusion this year of the E-4's for programing pur-
poses, and a lower marital factor have tended to materially reduce our
requirements.
Mr. PATTEN. IS the annual level of 1,800 new units which you are
requesting this year sufficient to meet your deficit in a reasonable time
period ?
General REILLY. 'Mr. Chairman, we feel within the restraint of our
annual budget roughly 2,000 units a year in terms of new construction
is a reasonable program measured against the reduced deficiency I just
mentioned.
Mr. PATTEN. What did the Air Force request ?
General REILLY. We requested, as I recall, 2,050 units from the
Office of Secretary of Defense this year. We were reduced to the 1,800
we now have in the program.
[Additional information follows:]
AIR FORCE OSD MHF UNIT REQUEST
We lost 200 units at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, and the Andrews AFB, Mary-
land, project was reduced from 350 to 300 units.
Mr. PATTEN. Did the Air Force shift any funds into the family
housing program in the fiscal year 1974 budget ?
General REILLY. No, sir; we did not.
MOBILE HOME SPACES
Mr. PATTEN. What are the Air Force's long-term requirements in
the area of mobile home spaces?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, we see a continuing need for mobile
home facilities on our bases, especialy to accommodate our younger
airmen who fall in the ineligible category and who elect to buy these
homes and want to live in them. We have at the present time some-
thing over 4,000 spaces on our bases; maybe another 4,000 units are
required. At least we have the requirement for several thousand more
units and plan to include each year in our program a modest request
for additional mobile home spaces.
Mr. PATTEN. You are asking for 415 spaces this year. How fast are
you meeting these needs?
General REILLY. We have been proceeding in the neighborhood of
500 units a year. We have not had any major increase or reduction in
our mobile home request.
IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. PATTEN. What is your total backlog in improvements?
General REILLY. We estimate roughly $300 million, Mr. Chairman.
Two-thirds of that amount is in our older Wherry housing units.
Mr. PATTEN. IS this year's level of $23 million adequate, or could
you use more?
General 'REILLY. It is certainly an increase, as I mentioned, over
what we have had in prior years. Yes, we could use more. Recognizing
the deficit just mentioned, we could use more and hopefully beginning
in fiscal 1975 we can get our improvements program up to maybe $40
million a year. Our basic plan is to do $200 million worth of work in
this area over a 5-year period.
Mr. PATTEN. Five times forty?
'General REILLY. Yes. We would like to increase it up to about $40
million.
Mr. PATTEN. YOU are liable to get it. All my life I have handled real
estate. I think it is a sin not to use a brush where you need some paint
to take care of a house. You say you have a $200 million backlog and
and you are very grateful for a '100-percent increase of $23 million.
I can't tolerate a leaky faucet or a broken toilet or other things that
need repair.
General REILLY. The $23 million is not for maintenance and repair.
We spend many millions in addition.
Mr. PATTEN. I know you distinguish between repairs and minor
construction.
General REILLY. This is to alter many of our older units to make
them livable by today's standards.
Mr. PATTEN. Are they all items over $500,000 ?
General REILLY. $26,500 to $5,787,000.
Mr. PATrTEN. If additional improvement funds were allowed, could
you use them without vacating too many of your units ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir, I think we could and I think we are in a
position to undertake the necessary planning and design to accomplish
that.
USE OF SUBSTANDARD UNITS
Mr. PATTEN. To what extent do you plan to keep your existing sub-
standard units in the Air Force inventory to house ineligible
personnel?
General REILLY. We have home 10,000 of these units at the present
time. We envision them being with us for quite a few years to come.
Mr. PATTEN. Will there be a shift of eligible personnel out of the
Air Force's substandard units in the near future ?
General REILLY. We think there will be a gradual shift, Mr. Chair-
man. At the present time here in the United States most of our in-
adequate quarters are occupied by eligible personnel, and we see them
shifting out of these, especially in view of the additional adequate
units becoming available for eligible personnel in the community.
Mr. PATTEN. How many of the units which have been declared in-
adequate will you replace in the next 5 to 10 years?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, we have only a couple of bases
where we feel inadequate units must be replaced in the rather near
future. I am speaking of Elmendorf in Alaska and Hickam Air Force
Base in Hawaii. Maybe 1,000 units within the next 5 to 10 years is
all we can foresee at the present time.
Mr. PATTEN. What is your policy on programing new units where
you have a sufficient total number of adequate units and Air Force-
owned inadequate units to meet your requirements?
General REILLY. :So long as the inadequate units are voluntarily
occupied we class them as adequate for programing purposes. They
do not count against our deficiency.
HOUSING OF INELIGIBLES
Mr. PATTEN. Do you expect to eventually build replacement units
to house the "ineligibles"?
General REILLY. 'Our objective is to provide housing for our in-
eligibles. To satisfy the objective, we foresee using a mix of construc-
tion at our bases together with the support that can be obtained from
the community. Our objective is to house all of them.
REPLACEMENT OF AIR FORCE HOUSING
Mr. PATTEN. You have '1,800 as the number of units you are going
to have here. That is not much muscle is it ?
General REILLY. Not at the present time, no, sir.
Mr. PATTEN. In fact you have 400,000 families. Many of them are
in Air Force houses. Your allowance for deterioration during the
current year would be about 1 percent if you are asking for 1,800
new units. Your deterioration rate must be 4 percent or better, so you
are not taking care of your deterioration especially when part of your
inventory is Wherry housing of 20-year vintage. Do you think that
is a fair statement ?
Mr. JOHNsTON. Yes, sir. We are improving the Wherry units up to
current day standards to the extent possible. As long as we continue
upgrading the units we feel they will remain in the inventory. We
have 152,000 family housing units in our inventory now, sir, and we
are not losing any of these by attrition at this patricular time. We are
keeping them in use.
Mr. PATTEN. You can do this with numbers of units of automobiles
or anything else. Certainly in business we give a building a certain
life for income tax purposes. We give a lot of frame buildings a 30-year
life as a business proposition. So you take 31/3 percent a year deprecia-
tion. I don't care how you look at it, you have depreciation somewhere
along the line, with all due respect.
Mr. JOHNsTON. With all due respect, we still have structures built
in 1880 in use at Warren Air Force Base.
Mr. PATTEN. This is not necessarily bad. On some of the construc-
tion we had after the war they used one nail where they should have
used four, and they were using green lumber and one thing or another.
I well remember the policy was with all the demobilization we didn't
know where to paint, what to fix, what to let go, and a lot of things
were let go until we saw which way the wind blew.
In 1948, 1949, 1950, and 1951 from the things that I saw there was
hardly a brush put on anything.
Mr. McEwEN. On the question of age of buildings, I would like to
observe that I was looking at material given to me on a building at
Plattsburgh Air Force Base. Of course that base goes back to the War
of 1812. This building was constructed in 1838, and it was used by the
Air Force up until just a few years ago and now has been declared
surplus to Air Force needs.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.
Mr. McEwEN. Actually it is a magnificent stone building and is just
as true and solid as the day it was put up in 1838. At that time it was
an Army barracks.
Mr. PATTEN. I slept in a house over July 4 built in 1872 in a town in
New Hampshire. We just loved it. Of course you don't need any air
conditioning. If they have a foundation I don't know about it. But
there must be something good about it. They must have some good
lumber in there. Thev built a barn and then an outhouse, and it has
probably six additions. Everybody loves them. In the area there are a
lot of houses 200 years old or close to it. That doesn't determine
whether they are livable. If you want to know whether they are or not.
just price some of them. They must have some merit.
HOUSING STANDARDS FOR INELIGIBLES
But to go back to housing for "ineligibles," would you propose to
provide these to the same standards as current construction?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, I think if we were to construct for
the ineligibles-they would be young fellows, most with small fami-
lies--probably two bedrooms would be required. I think we would
build to a standard which is basically comparable to the house we -are
building today for our lowest grade eligible personnel. Something in
the 950 to 1,000 square foot space range.
Mr. PATTEN. In the event you build to current standards for these
lower grade personnel, will you be providing them with better housing
than people of a similar pay level and level of responsibility in the
civilian community can obtain ?
General REILLY. I don't think we would, Mr. Chairman. I think
we envision two bedroom apartments, large numbers of them, for these
ineligible people and think they would be quite comparable to what
their civilian counterparts would be living in.
Mr. PATTEN. Yesterday I voted no, one of three persons who did, on
extending the VA mortgage loan law. I just rebel at giving them the
power to allow veterans to buy housing at 81/2 percent interest. But I
don't have the heart to tell a fellow to buy a house at 81/2 percent
interest. I think it is criminal. I financed thousands of VA mortgages
at 4 percent.
The idea of 81/2 percent interest shocks me. I just made fa little pro-
test vote. The realistic thing is they are out of the market.
When you are going to make comparisons, it depends on where you
are. In my community housing is the most critical problem I have.
We just don't have any. There is no hope for senior citizens .and for
others of low income. You can't make a comparison. I think we will
have to put up tents or barracks or something.
Now you know we have 50 million more people in this country than
we had 15 years ago. So when you try to compare in areas where you
have 'had 'a busy growth of industries and everything else, really we
have not kept up on housing.
Take the District of Columbia as an example. When you think of
people of low income in the District, in my 10 years in Congress, I
don't see where anything has been done. In my lifetime in my town
I don't think anyone built a house for the purpose of renting it, which
is what low-income people normally would do. Nobody does it. Nobody
builds a house for an investment today unless you are talking about an
apartment house. On the whole it has been owners building for them-
selves. We are not getting any place. Maybe in a State which has lost
population you might find some vacancies.
General REILLY. For our Air Force personnel who are in a transient
status the high interest, if offset by easy mortgage money and low
down payment, doesn't present such a tremendous problem. When a
guy gets ready to move and hasn't invested much in the house other
than high monthly payments, he can sell the house. However, what is
happening now where there is not only high interest rates but require-
ments for a very large down payment presents a serious problem.
Mr. PATrEN. You are not old enough. In the twenties and thirties I
never heard of a 30-year mortgage. If you got a 15-year mortgage you
were doing good. Twenty years was the limit. On the post-World
War II legislation we talked about 30- or 40-year mortgages. I can
remember a good banker telling me it was socialism. Yet I think the
average time a mortgage after World War II was paid off was 7 years.
The 30 years enabled a smaller monthly payment.
Now we are talking about 50-year mortgages in some of the HUD
programs. That seems forever to me.
We didn't even pass a housing act in the -Congress last year. To
properly answer that question about comparing it with other stand-
ards we could write a book I guess.
234
EFFECT OF BASE CLOSURES ON HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
What effect have the recently announced base closures had on the
Air Force's total housing construction requirements ?
General REILLY. It has had very little overall effect, Mr. Chairman.
While we have closed some bases or reduced the missions and changed
some of our missions, it hasn't created any particular problems at our
bases. Generally the reductions have just about kept up with the influx
of new people due to the changed missions.
Mr. PATTEN. What effect will they have on the BAQ required to be
paid from the military personnel accounts?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, the BAQ as it applies to payment
of rental allowance is an experience factor based on strength. Since
many of these actions will not materialize until late in fiscal year 1974
we have made no reductions in our budget or any changes in our budget
for fiscal year 1974. It may be possible that in fiscal year 1975 there will
be some changes required.
Mr. PATTEN. Provide details for the record.
[The information follows:]
EFFECT OF BASE CLOSURES ON MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS FOR BAQ
Impending base closure actions during fiscal year 1974 present a potential loss
of 6,656 family housing units to the Air Force inventory. While this loss, viewed
in isolation, would ordinarily cause increased BAQ funding, the overall BAQ
budget for married personnel in fact declines in fiscal year 1974 to $532.2 million
from $592.9 million in fiscal year 1973 due to force reductions. Also, it is probable
that many of the housing units at closing 'bases will remain available for military
occupancy throughout fiscal year 1974 and beyond pending final disposal actions.
Mr. PATTEN. Have all of the projects requested in this bill been
checked to ensure that they will still be required at this scope after the
base realignment actions take effect?
General REILLY. Yes, sir; they certainly have.
Mr. PATTEN. In which areas will there be an increased need for fam-
ily housing as a result of the realignments?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, at a few of the bases the changes
that we are speaking about will cause some net increases in personnel.
I mentioned we don't foresee any major problems with family housing.
It may have some influence on our requirements. I think we will have
to wait until the next survey to really see what the impact is.
UTILIZATION OF FUNDS FROM CANCELLED PROJECTS
Mr. PATTEN. In which areas have you cancelled funded projects?
General REILLY. The committee is aware I am sure of the fiscal year
1973 project, for 200 units, at Laredo Air Force Base which had been
approved. That will not be constructed. I think we have several hun-
dred thousand dollars in improvements projects which will not be
constructed.
Mr. PATTEN. What funds are available and what projects could be
feasibly undertaken this year, in addition to those already requested in
fiscal year 1974, in order to meet total Air Force housing needs?
'General REILLY. Of course with our stated deficiency we have a num-
ber of bases where we require additional houses, and we could under-
take the necessary design and planning to build those houses. I think
235
we could more readily accommodate any add-ons to the program or
increases at this time in our improvements area.
Mr. PATTEN. What funds are available ?
General REILLY. We don't have any.
Mr. NICHOLAS. You have the ;assets from Laredo ?
General REILLY. Yes. However, as we look at our fiscal year 1973
program and with the cost increases we have experienced, I think we
are going to need at least portions of funding for that project to place
under contract the houses at the other locations.
Mr. NICHOLAS. There is a limit of $24,000, inside the United States,
on the Air Force housing program.
General REILLY. That is correct.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Do you have less money in your fiscal year 1973 pro-
gram than the average cost limit would have allowed ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. The limit on stateside bases is $24,000 per unit. We
have two projects overseas, one in Incirlik, Turkey and one in San
Vito, Italy, in which we are anticipating large price increases. We
would have to utilize some Laredo funds against these two projects.
Mr. NICHOLAS. You would still get them within the average overall?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. NICHOLAS. You haven't been funded up to that level ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Provide details for the record.
[The information folows:]
PROGRAMING COST INCREASES IN FISCAL YEAR 1973 PROJECT
There were 2,81.8 stateside units in the program at an average cost of $23,765
and a total cost of $66,972,000 including Laredo's 200 units which will not be
constructed. There are 350 units at foreign locations at an average cost of $25,862
and a total cost of $9,052,000. This is an over all total of $76,024,000.
We intend to construct 2,618 stateside units at an average cost of $24,000 and
a total cost of $62,832,000 which leaves $4,140,000 excess from the stateside units.
Of the $4,140,000, we will have to apply some $2,068,000 to the overseas units,
increasing their average to $31,771 per unit. This increase is necessary due to
our intention of constructing relocatable units utilizing one-step procurement
methods and to support dollar devaluation during the past year.
The $2,072,000 remaining will be used as follows: $1,254,000 to relocate some
units from Chitose AS to Misawa AB, Japan and $818,000 to increase the
Bolling AFB project funding to the fiscal year 1974 statutory average of $27,500
per unit.
SHORTAGE OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1973 PROJECTS
Mr. NICHOLAS. Also there is an indication that, to some extent, there
may be a slipping of projects into the fiscal year 1974 time frame.
After the fiscal year 1974 authorization bill is enacted and brings in
with it a new higher overall average, if you expect to apply that
average to some of your earlier projects, that will have a funding
effect. Can you provide that for the record.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir; we certainly will.
[The information follows:]
IMPACT OF FISCAL YEAR 1974 MFH AUTHORIZATION BILL ON PRIOR YEAR PROJECT
FUNDING
We expect to apply the new higher overall average to the fiscal year 1973
projects at Andrews, Bolling, and Hill Air Force Bases. This will require an
increase in authorization of $2.1 million and an increase in appropriations of $3.3
million for the fiscal year 1973 program.
Mr. PATTEN. On these things you might do if you had some money
left over from base closures, do you have the land available ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir; we have quite a number of bases where
we have housing deficiencies and where we do have land available. At
other bases any new construction will require additional land. That is
one of our problems.
WIVES' OPINIONS
Mr. PATTEN. What have been the Air Force's impressions as a result
of the recent survey you made of Air Force wives ?
General REILLY. In the surveys that were conducted together with
our own internal surveys of the feelings of the housewives, the women
have been quite outspoken in stating some of their opinions. They feel,
of course, that air conditioning is extremely important, and that is
something we are providing whenever it is authorized in our new con-
struction as well as putting it in under our improvements program.
They stress the need for greater privacy, especially where there are
children in the family, fenced yards and places where the kids can
play. Also, they want better soundproofing where we have duplexes or
townhouses.
Mr. PATTEN. Is noise generally a problem ?
General REILLY. Yes.
Mr. PATTEN. It was No. 1 on one of the lists.
General REILLY. Then there is additional storage space. The mili-
tary family travels and has an awful lot of stuff that has to go with
them, and they feel increased storage is a high priority item. We are
addressing these very points in our new program but not to the degree
we would like to in some instances. But certainly we are getting the
air-conditioning and we are improving the insulation qualities of our
houses. We are now providing, we feel, adequate storage. And we will
get fences around backyards to the degree that we can afford them.
ADEQUACY OF HOUSING REQUIREMENTS SURVEYS
Mr. PATTEN. The GAO has raised some pertinent questions about
the manner in which housing surveys are conducted. What improve-
ments do you feel are needed in this area ?
General REILLY. Our survey procedure has been generally one of
providing questionnaires to people who require housing, and the an-
swers you get are very subjective. I think this is one of the problems.
You need some system which could take out the subjectivity that
inherently comes in when people make a statement regarding the
adequacy of their housing, whether it be on base or in the communities.
It has also been an extremely large workload because so much of
it has to be done manually. Some automated procedures could cer-
tainly serve to our advantage.
Mr. PATTEN. Would you say that commanders of some bases did
a 100 percent better job in conducting a survey than commanders of
other bases ? They all didn't grab the ball, did they ?
General REILLY. NO, sir.
Mr. PATTEN. Let's start with that as a premise. If we get into how
to co"iduct a survey, there would be much more to talk about.
General REILLY. Yes, sir. For all of our projects in this program,
as for the other services, there is a requirement to have an FHA cer-
237
tification of the need in the community. It is possible they could help
us to a greater degree in determining our adequacy.
Mr. PATTEN. Of course their record is a little spotty too from my
personal observation. I don't want to make a point of it. There, too, it
depends on who made the survey, how much interest they had, and
how much elbow grease they put into it.
Are there instances where the Air Force has, in making these sur-
veys, classified off-base units as inadequate even though the occupants
reported them as adequate?
Mr. JOHNSTON. In the present OSD criteria on conducting a survey,
if the individual states on the questionnaire that his house is adequate
it stays adequate. We do not tinker with it.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Would you investigate that and see whether in some
instances in conducting the survey this is the way it was carried out ?
GAO has indicated that that hasn't syphoned down to all bases. Ap-
parently some of them are conducting a survey and then marking it up.
Mr. JOHNSTON. We have conducted workshops in the headquarters
with representatives of major commands and bases, and this has been
very clearly explained to them. If 'an individual fills out a question-
naire and says it is adequate, they have no authority to change it. They
do have authority to go out and investigate the ones declared inade-
quate and make 'adjustments if -they see fit, but not to change adequate
units.
Mr. NICHOLS. Would you look it up for the record, particularly
with regard to the GAO's comments?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.
[The information follows:]
ADEQUACY OF SURVEYS AT AIR FORCE BASES
A recent GAO report dated February 14, 1973 indicated some irregularities in
conducting the yearly survey at Maxwell/Gunter, Ala. and Hill AFB, Utah. Only
at Hill AFB did they report that base officials had *reclassified as inadequate
units considered adequate by military occupants. Hill AFB has been advised
officially that this action was improper and necessary action was taken to prevent
this situation from happening in the future.
General REILLY. We are aware of their comments.
Mr. PATTEN. The GAO has suggested that the housing referral
offices, which are familiar with housing situations in the community,
might play a larger role in conducting or monitoring these surveys.
This appears to be a useful suggestion. Will you explore it ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
ROLE OF HOUSING REFERRAL OFFICES IN CONDUCTING SURVEYS
The Air Force does use the housing referral office in conducting yearly surveys.
We depend upon it for the number of adequate vacant units in the local area, the
number of units firmly planned or under construction, the inadequate quarters
determination and general offbase housing conditions. This office also makes
recommendations to the base commander whether an on-base housing project is
needed, and it also is most useful in the Air Force leasing program. We feel this
office is playing a large role in our yearly family housing surveys.
Mr. PATTEN. Has the Air Force made every effort to screen its fiscal
year 1974 request to delete projects for which the community can
provide support ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
DISCUSSIONS WITH FHA AND COMMUNITY
Mr. PATTEN. What efforts has the Air Force made to explain its
housing programs to interested persons in the community and to obtain
their support for its program ?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, in each instance at our direction
base officials have met with officials of the nearby community, heads
of the realty boards, mayors, city groups, and discussed our fiscal year
1974 housing projects. In all instances for the new construction proj-
ects we are reporting this year we have, we feel, the support of the
community. At the Grand Forks project there has been some concern
but we are confident we will have full community support in the very
near future.
Mr. PATTEN. Have you received FHA certification for all of the
units in your fiscal year 1974 request ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir, with the exception of half of the units at
Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota. Again we feel there is
no problem here, that they will give us the necessary certification. It
will take a little study.
Mr. DAVIs. Certification of what, General ?
General REILLY. Of the need for the housing. The FHA certifies
that adequate housing is not available within the community and the
Air Force should construct on its own.
STATUS OF PRIOR PROGRAMS
Mr. PATTEN. Tell us about the status of prior-year Air Force family
housing programs.
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, our fiscal year 1971 and prior pro-
grams are essentially complete, everything under contract and prac-
tically all of it usable.
The fiscal year 1972 program of construction is underway on 2,285
units at this time. Two additional projects amounting to 500 units will
be under contract in August and September.
Mr. PATTEN. When you say they will be under contract, do you mean
you have gotten favorable bids ?
General REILLY. Yes; we have bids in now and are confident they
can be awarded within this time period.
Two projects in the 1972 program, the 400 units at Bolling Air Force
Base, you know, are involved along with the Navy's housing units in
the overall Bolling Anacostia development. We just don't know when
they are going to go to contract. Hopefully, I think we can solicit bids
by the first of the year. The remaining project in the 1972 program, we
bid the Air Force Academy project and the cost was just too high. We
are restudying it to see what can be done to get the quality houses we
need there within the funds that are available.
In the fiscal year 1973 program, consisting of 2,968 units, bids are
open on two projects involving 500 units. We think we will have all
of the projects under contract by the end of this calendar year, with
the possible exception of the housing at Incirlik, Turkey, where we are
studying the use of relocatable houses versus conventional construc-
tion. What we get worked out with the Turkish Government will have
a lot to do with how quickly we can put this one under contract.
Mr. PATrEN. What problems have you had with siting, cost limits,
et cetera? You gave one illustration of high costs at the Air Force
Academy. Are there other instances where you ran into problems?
INDUSTRIALIZED HOUSING
General REILLY. Yes, sir. We have had problems obtaining the
$24,000 average cost which applies to the fiscal year 1972 and 1973
programs. The committee has been advised of our attempt to secure
modular, relocatable, industrially built houses in the 1972 program
which we were not able to do. We lost time, and as a result we have
had to take a number of different procurement approaches. It has
been nip and tuck to place the 1972 program under contract within
the money we have.
Mr. PATTEN. Was it the Air Force which built the factory out in
California at Apple Valley ?
General REILLY. In connection with the George Air Force Base and
later the Norton projects a factory was built at Apple Valley. Both
of those projects have been completed and are now occupied.
Mr. PATTEN. Near me are some prefabs put up by one of your big
national merchandising outfits, a name familiar to all of us in the
room. They were put up in the thirties and they are beautiful and still
holding. I don't see any great changes, no great breakthroughs in
prefabs. Everybody is getting into the act.
You didn't have a report here on the George Air Force project.
Apparently the factory didn't turn out to be a bonanza.
General REILLY. At the George project which is a research and
development project, certainly we achieved the objectives we set out
to achieve in demonstrating the feasibility of factory-built homes.
We proved that a quality house can be built through industrial proc-
esses and that truly relocatable houses are feasible. However, we found
that for the immediate application of what we did at George and Nor-
ton, the housing industry was just not quite ready for us at that time on
a nationwide basis. We still think the industrial approach has great
merit just in the fact that the labor rates are going up much slower
for in-factory personnel as opposed to skilled labor onsite.
Mr. PATTEN. There were people in the private sector deeply involved
in this 3 or 4 years ago. Are you aware of what success they have had ?
Some of our largest industries thought this was the wave of the future.
At the time you started your facility at George, they were in the busi-
ness too. I don't see much coming of it. There are no easy answers I
guess.
General REILLY. That is true.
Mr. PATTEN. And you are not burdening us here with any financial
report on George. The last time we took a look, it was over $30,000 a
unit.
General REILLY. The cost of the George house, if you exclude the
R. & D. overhead, is about $24,000, which we think is not at all out of
reason for the product. But it -was a one-time project, a small project.
and it had large overhead, mobility, and mobilization costs.
21-111 O - 73 - 16
COST LIMITS
Mr. PATTEN. Will you be able to award satisfactory projects at the
current cost limits?
General REILLY. $24,000. Yes, sir, we are still hopeful of getting all
of our remaining projects under that limit.
Mr. PATTEN. If we pass the fiscal year 1974 authorization limit,
which is requested, you may get a breather.
General REILLY. Yes, and even before the passage of the bill we are
hopeful of placing additional projects in the 1972 and 1973 programs
under contract.
Mr. PATTEN. Provide for the record a listing of prior projects land
show what deducts you have had to make.
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
LISTING OF PRIOR YEAR MFH PROJECTS
The fiscal year 1972 projects which have been awarded are Andrews, Ent-
Peterson, Shaw, Cannon, Homestead, and Offutt. Typical major deductives which
we have exercised at one or several of these projects are on the following list:
Carports or garages; six general officer units (Andrews); vanities; landscap-
ing; privacy fencing; patios; street lights between intersections ; storm windows;
tub and shower doors; partial brick veneer; community area walkways; concrete
driveways (in lieu of asphalt) ; and sidewalks on second side of street.
Mr. PATTEN. Let's discuss it a bit.
'General REILLY. The items we haven't been able to include ?
Mr. PATTEN. Yes.
General REILLY. First I should say that we only include those deduc-
tive items which we are willing to lose if necessary.
Mr. PATTEN. IS that the privacy and the backyards and things the
women want ?
General REILLY. We can't afford to lose all of those. The things we
have principally not been able to build in some projects, are covered
parking either in terms of garages or carports. We had to just provide
a hard surface pad for the parking of the car offstreet.
We have had to provide narrower streets than we would desire
instead of being able to have parking on both sides with two-way
traffic. We have only been able to put sidewalks on one side of the
street as opposed to both sides. We have had to eliminate privacy fenc-
ing. Those are the major deductive items that we have had to take out
of the contracts.
Mr. NICHOLAS. What do you expect as the year goes on and as con-
struction prices continue to creep upward or whatever they are doing?
Do you expect to be able to get the size house and number of bath-
rooms and the space you are asking?
General REILLY. Yes, I think so. Of course it varies by location.
Because of the nature of the houses we are building and geographical
locations and bidding conditions we can get more of these things
one place than we can at other locations.
SELF-HELP
Mr. PATTEN. You ought to see these young people who own their
own homes. To get them under a roof at their price, a lot of these
things are left out. It is impressive what they have done at the end
of 5 years with their own muscle in terms of a garage and in terms
of paving the driveway, the sidewalks-not to mention shrubbery and
things of that type.
General REILLY. Yes.
Mr. PATrEN. You don't get the benefits of that when they don't own
their own home, do you? For instance, they wouldn't put up a fence?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Some of them do.
General REILLY. We try to foster a pride in home ownership atti-
tude to the people that occupy our quarters. They are permitted to
make improvements.
Mr. PATTEN. Do they put their own money in for a fence?
General REILLY. Sure.
Mr. PATTEN. You find that ?
General REILLY. We 'have to pass judgment on the fence before they
build it. If you short the quarters with storage space invariably the
occupants will go out and buy Sears and Roebuck sheds that are all
sizes and shapes, and the first thing you know you have a terrible
situation. Or they will take scrap lumber and build sheds.
REQUESTED COST LIMITS
Mr. PATTEN. Do you feel that the cost limits requested for fiscal year
1974 will be adequate?
General REILLY. It is not any too much money by any means, Mr.
Chairman. The $27,500 represents about a 15-percent increase over the
$24,000 allowed for fiscal year 1973.
Mr. PATTEN. Where 'do you come off with the change of the dollar
value outside the United States?
General REILLY. That has had a serious impact on us. Fortunately
we are not programing houses in Germany and other places at this
time. But the increase to $27,500 will help keep pace with growing
construction costs as well as helping to pay for the increased space
allowances we are requesting in the 1974 program. I still think we are
going to be short in some instances of the things that we have just been
talking about that should go with a house.
TURNKEY
Mr. PATTEN. What fiscal year 1973 and 1974 projects will utilize
turnkey ?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, in the fiscal year 1973 program, 8
out of 10 projects will be turnkey. In the fiscal year 1974 program three
out of six projects.
Mr. PATTEN. IS the Air Force satisfied with the results of this tech-
nique for housing construction ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir; we have been very successful, especially
with the so-called one-step turnkey which we are now using.
Mr. PATTEN. What are its limitations ?
General REILLY. The turnkey concept, which embodies design and
construction by the same firm, is based upon the availability, you
might say, of local designs or houses that are in production that can
meet our requirements.
That minimizes the design problem for the proposer, permits him
to provide facilities, we feel, at more reasonable cost to the Govern-
ment.
242
However, there are some localities where these conditions don't exist
and conventional plans and specifications of construction are more
advantageous.
Mr. PATTEN. You know, General, you sit here and I think of you as
living in an ivory tower. Yet you are talking like a general specialist,
giving all the answers. I was wondering if any of these other fellows
are a little closer to the problem and know some of the hardships and
pitfalls. You have to supervise it or meet the people involved. Maybe
this is not a fair analogy, but I have a banker who last year loaned
out $200 million. He doesn't get out of the office. He knows what people
tell him, but he is not actually on the job.
So knowing the other hat you wear, it is fascinating to hear you
rattle off all this housing stuff. I just wonder if you are speaking from
your own knowledge and experience or just how close you are to it?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, in the family housing program in
the Air Force we administer the program ourselves. It is not a terribly
large program. My office is deeply involved in it. As to the people that
are with me here today, there is hardly a day which passes that we
are not into all of these problems, so it is something I live with pretty
much the year round.
People like Mr. Johnston and other people I have here with me are
the people who actually execute the program.
Mr. PATTEN. YOU have 400,000 families.
General REILLY. Yes.
Mr. PATTEN. And it is an enormous undertaking.
General REILLY. Yes.
Mr. PATTEN. If you nut the services together, I would say you are
easily the largest landlord in America. Does anyone handle more
people than the services, the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force put
together ? I can't think of anyone.
You are probably the biggest real estate operator there is, with all
the other duties in construction that are involved ?
HUD HOUSING
Mr. PATTEN. What is the status of the Air Force's 236 military set-
aside program ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. We have been allocated 3,500 units in fiscal year
1971 and 1972, and all of those except 422 are under construction.
The freeze has caught 422 units and we have attempted in dealing
with HUD to try to get them released but so far we have not. We have
requested 4,100 units in fiscal year 1973 and have been allocated that
many by OSD. However, there has been no action taken by HUD on
these units.
Mr. PATTEN. What are your proposals for legislation or administra-
tive measures that would provide better HUD support for Air Force
personnel off base ? Do you have anything new to offer ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Our lower grade enlisted personnel can get in the
regular HTTD 236 housing. However, because of the wage limitations
and restrictions a lot of our people do not meet the criteria to move
into them. If we could get the criteria increased whereby military
people with increased income could move into the units it might
help us.
TOWNHOUSES
Mr. PATTEN. Where is the Air Force proposing to build townhouses
in fiscal year 1974 ?
General REILLY. At two locations, Mr. Chairman, out of our eight
projects. At Andrews Air Force Base here in Maryland and at Hickam
Air Force Base in Hawaii.
Mr. PATTEN. Are you limited in the acreage available in these two
instances ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir, in both instances.
Mr. PATTEN. And you won't get further complaints on a noise
problem ?
General REILLY. No, sir; I hope we have enough sound attenuation
in the walls to avoid that.
Mr. PATTEN. You know, .as somebody said about the privacy of row-
housing, it may provide a greater measure of privacy, if that is what
you are looking for. I am in an apartment house and, believe me, I
can't tell you who is in the next apartment, and his head is probably
no more than six feet from my head because I think the bedrooms are
adjoining. I couldn't tell you who is on either side of me.
What effect will the new OSD density requirements have on your
ability to provide adequate housing ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. The new criteria will only allow us to build five or
six units per acre and we feel that this doesn't hinder us too much.
Where we have available land OSD has usually allowed us to build
duplex units. It is normally where we have a land problem that we
have to go to townhouses, or in cases where we are building two- bed-
room units that OSD requires us to build in a townhouse configuration.
LEASE AND RENTAL GUARANTEE PROGRAMS
Mr. PATTEN. Discuss the progress of your lease and rental guarantee
program overseas.
Mr. JOHNSTON. The Air Force has an allocation of 2,690 leased units
in overseas locations. We have approximately 2,500 of these under
contract. We are contemplating another project in the Netherlands
of about 150 to 175 units and this will just about take care of our com-
plete overseas lease allocations.
Mr. PATTEN. Do you expect to be able to make more use of leasing
in fiscal year 1974 ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. We have requested only an increase of 300 additional
leases at Torrejon, Spain, an overseas area, in 1974.
Mr. PATTEN. How many of your current leasing points are unused ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. About 300 points in the States, in the United States,
are not used and approximately 200 in overseas areas. We are work-
ing on trying to get these leases executed.
Mr. PATTEN. Well, that is the end of my questioning of your presen-
tation, of the overall problem. Do you have any questions?
Mr. LONG. Perhaps some of these questions I am about to ask have
been answered. If they are just tell me.
TERMS OF LEASE
How long do these leases last ?
Mr. JoHNSTON. The overseas leases, or the domestic leases?
Mr. LONG. Any lease.
Mr. JOHNSTON. The leases in the United States usually are executed
for us by the Corps of Engineers. They have a standard lease that
runs for 5 or 10 years. However, it has a 30 or a 60 or a 90 day-can-
cellation clause so we could cancel anytime under those conditions.
In the overseas area it is usually a firm term, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years,
or up to 5 years.
Mr. LONG. Do you have an option for renewal ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir, we do have an option for renewal.
Mr. LONG. At the same rent or-
Mr. JOHNSTON. Usually at renegotiated rates.
Mr. LONG. When you say renegotiated, what do you mean?
A person can say, "I want triple the amount," and you give it to him ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. No, sir. It is subject to negotiation. In other words,
we start discussion with them :and they will present a price and we will
present one of ours and try to negotiate it out at a reasonable rate and
take into consideration the escalation in cost of the materials, labor,
and so forth.
Mr. LONG. Are there situations in which you have them over a
barrel. You know, if you decide you didn't want it again and they
couldn't use it for anything else, you could almost set your own terms;
right ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir. We have had a situation in Spain. In this
particular case we have a project with 862 units in it. We have to
renew in accordance with the country-to-country agreement so we
don't get stuck with lease costs.
Mr. LONG. There must be other situations in which they have you
over a barrel. How do you work it ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Well, we have to sit down and work it out mutually,
sir.
Mr. LONG. But I mean, do you protect yourself in cases like this in
your leases ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. We protect ourselves to the extent that for the firm
term of the lease we get it for the set cost. If we are going to extend
the lease agreement for another 3, 4, or 5 years and everything in
the country is escalating, then we anticipate there will be some price
escalation in the contract.
Mr. LONG. I understand that, but what I am trying to get from you
is the way in which you protect yourself in your leases to make sure
that you aren't taken for a ride in the renewal itself.
I mean, do you have a price escalation clause whereby you can renew
at a certain percentage of increased rent based on the cost of living?
Do you have the option to renew for not more than a certain per-
centage increase?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Generally our options to renew would be for maybe
a similar period of time. In other words, if we had a 3-year firm term
lease we might run an option to extend an additional three. We could
put -a condition or clause in.
Mr. LONG. An option isn't worth anything if you don't have a price
in there. How do you handle it ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I would have to go back and research some of our
leases. We don't keep too many of them on file, but I think there are
options in the leases whereby we can execute a continued lease at a
percentage increase in cost that we can apply.
Mr. LONG. That is what I am trying to get at. Apparently you are
not now prepared to tell me.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I don't have copies of all the leases here.
Mr. LONG. No, but I assume you are very familiar with the way in
which it is done.
Mr. JOHNSTON. In the rental guarantee areas, we have specifically
this clause in the contract whereby rents can be only increased in
comparison to the cost index of the respective countries.
[The information follows:]
LEASES
In our renewal options for leases, we have various conditions. Some options are
to extend at no increased costs, others are for percentages up to 5 percent and
some are based on cost indexes in certain countries. All our lease agreements are
reviewed and approved by competent lawyers or legal experts for sufficiency and
to see that the interest of the Government is protected.
Mr. LONG. How long has this leasing been going on as a practice?
Mr. JOHNSTON. We have been leasing since the 1962-63 time period.
This is just a continuation of the program that has increased since
those days.
Mr. LONG. The people who build the places for you for lease are
obviously not going to build ,a place for a 5-year rental. They must
expect some better horizon than that, don't they ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Normally, the places where we can get good lease
units are in locations where there is a good residual value to the prop-
erty, yes, sir.
Mr. LONG. So if you don't want it, someone else can use it ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Right, sir.
Mr. LONG. In that case, why don't you build instead of lease?
Mr. JOHNSTON. You are speaking in the overseas locations; right,
sir?
Mr. LONG. Well, anywhere for that matter.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Overseas, we feel that it is more economical to go
into a lease program rather than a build program when our tenure
could change.
In other words, when you tie yourself up into a 5-year--
Mr. LONG. The point is: If the other party can liquidate and sell it
readily, why can't you ? You say people usually aren't going to build
their houses unless they have some good residual value that they can
sell it for when it is all over. That would hold good for you people, too.
Mr. JOHNSTON. We don't feel we are in the real estate business in
the service, building units in the overseas area where we intend to
eventually sell them. We prefer to take the limited funds we get in
the construction program and apply it to the stateside bases.
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE REVIEW OF OVERSEAS LEASING
Mr. LONG. Has the General Accounting Office ever looked into your
leasing arrangements ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. LONG. Have they been approved?
Mr. JOHNSTON. We have had studies done by the General Account-
ing Office in the family housing programs overseas in which their
recommendations were that the most economical way to obtain housing
for units that went for less than 20 years was to lease first, use rental
guarantee second, and build with military construction funds, third.
Mr. LONG. This is a device that is used for economic reasons and
not just to get away from appropriations ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. This is correct.
Mr. LONG. You know, we lease a lot of post offices in this country.
In my opinion, it is done mostly to keep away from floating the bonds,
selling bonds, and increasing the national debt, and there is some ques-
tion as to whether we benefit from it. I don't know.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Ours is primarily economics.
Mr. LONG. You do save money? You feel this is an economical way
and this has been corroborated by the GAO ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. LONG. That is all I have.
Mr. PATTEN. One of our big political investigations was to criticize
our unemployment office in the State under the previous administra-
tion. They made leases. We used that in the political campaign, but it
came to haunt us because we came into a rising market. We found out
we couldn't do as well, whether we built or whether we leased or what
we did, and you know with the rising market in 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958,
those leases with the State taking ownership after 20 years were really
beautiful, so as we look back now, it was one of the smartest things
we ever did.
Mr. LONG. It depends on the lease.
Mr. PATTEN. We didn't have the money. The reason they did it was
they didn't have the money. The reason the post office did it was the
Congress or the 'administration did not give them $4 billion they
needed. I well remember their saving that with the country growing,
they needed $4 billion for capital improvements, and you are old
enough to remember Jim Farley as Postmaster in the WPA days in
1934.
The finest building all over the country was the new post office. That
was to make jobs and employment. Now they are all antiquated on
account of population growth.
But you left out a few things about why we leased. We leased in
some cases because it was good public relations to let the locals in on it
a little bit. You did it because the local builders could do something
that you couldn't do under our standards.
Also. in some cases, it is on account of their laws. In Vietnam, you
couldn't own land when we went into Vietnam in 1965. We didn't own
a square foot of land. We ran up against their traditions. There were
many factors that made leasing attractive other than bare economics.
In fact, the truth is we had expected more leasing in the various
services, especially around the Mediterranean. The Navy is going into
housing some of their people in Italy. They are making a home on
some island. I have been fearful their estimates are too low on account
of the dollar, you know, and a lot of other factors.
But my recollection is that, for a lot of other reasons besides econ-
omy, the leasing arrangement looked attractive. Who could say you
were going to be there in 10 years or 20 years? That was a factor.
Are there any other questions ?
TURNKEY PROCUREMENT
Mr. DAvIs. Yes. You used the term "One-step turnkey." What are
you referring to there ?
General REILLY. We have used one step and two step. Maybe I
should explain two step first.
In the two-step procurement procedure we request technical pro-
posals against more or less a performance specification, proposals with-
out price. We evaluate those proposals ,and with those proposers who
are judged to be in compliance with the specifications then go into the
second step, which is the submission of competitive bids, and we award
to the lowest responsive bidder.
In the one-step procurement situation we request a proposal, both a
technical proposal -and a price, against specifications. We then evaluate
the proposal based upon some evaluation scale and relate that to the
cost he has given us and our objective is to get the maximum technical
points that we can at the lowest cost. We then arrive at a proposer
whom we feel gives us the most for our money. He may not necessarily
be the lowest bidder. We then enter into negotiations with him and
hope to consummate a contract.
The advantages we see of the one step is there is a real incentive on
the part of the proposers to provide us the highest quality they can
within the price. In the two step they are more inclined to give us the
lowest quality, which, of course, is related to cost, and still meet the
specifications.
The word "turnkey" simply means a single firm doing both design
and construction.
Mr. DAVIS. Is that what you are using consistently now ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir, for the 1974 program we propose to use
either the one step or conventional. We do not propose to use the two
step.
Mr. DAVIS. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McEWEN. General Reilly, what are the situations where you find
that turnkey does not work well ?
General REILLY. If you have a design that, you might say, is not
common, is one of a kind, not in keeping with what industry or local
firms or producing, we are probably better off to simply design and go
the conventional route. However, if industry or builders are producing
products which we feel will meet our requirements with very little
modification, we are then able to capitalize on the fact that they are
already in production, have most of their engineering already accom-
plished, and know their suppliers. This should be fed back to us in
terms of quality at lower cost.
Mr. McEWEN. Is it usual then in the turnkey that the successful
proposer has built that type of unit, or something very similar, prior
to that ?
248
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
Mr. McEwEN. Do you ever use turnkey where all of the proposals
come from proposers who, if they were builders, have gone out and
obtained architects, where they are all drawing up their own plans,
and none of the units had been built by any of the proposers prior to
that ? Do you ever have that situation ?
General REILLY. I call on Major Sims to answer that one please, sir.
Major SIMS. There may be cases where the actual total design had
not been precisely duplicated previously but portions of it, for ex-
ample: details, structural components, windows, and so forth-the
type of architecture-are consistent with what they had produced
elsewhere.
Mr. McEwEN. The usual situation is that those making and sub-
mitting the proposals have built units very similar to the ones they
are proposing to build for the Air Force? They have already built
them ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
Mr. McEWEN. In the construction, in the cost, and knowing who
their suppliers are, and so forth ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir, and therefore they are able to submit a
proposal without a great deal of cost.
Now, if they have to associate themselves with an architect-engineer
and go through a lengthy design procedure it is very costly to them.
So it is usually when that engineering has already been done and some-
thing is in production or very close to it that we get the advantages.
Mr. McEwEN. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
CONSTRUCTION
Mr. PATTEN. Let us turn to construction.
Insert pages ii through iv in the record.
[The pages follow:]
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE-FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE-FISCAL YEAR 1974 BUDGET-TABLE OF CONTENTS
DOMESTIC (UNITED STATES AND POSSESSIONS)
State and installation Page Units Estimated cost
A. CONSTRUCTION
1. New housing construction:
Arkansas: Blytheville AFB.... ................. ....... 2.5 100 $2,762,000
Florida :
Avon Park AAF_..... ---.-..-..-------....----____ 5a-5b 50 1,315,000
Eglin AFB ..-.. . . . . . . . . . . .. 6-9 250 6,380,000
Hawaii: U.S. Air Force installation Oahu ........ .. . . .___ ._ 10-13 400 14,301,000
Maryland: Andrews AFB.......................... ... ... 14-17 300 8,700,000
North Dakota: Grand Forks AFB .._ ....... __ 18-21 200 5,710,000
Texas: Sheppard AFB _.... .......... .__.. ..........._ . 22-25 200 5,383,000
Guam: Andersen AFB_---... .... . _..... . ..... ... ... . 26-29 300 10,950,000
Total new housing construction-....__-.. ___. ..... . ............. -.. 1, 800 55, 501,000
249
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE-FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE-FISCAL YEAR 1974 BUDGET-TABLE OF CONTENTS
DOMESTIC (UNITED STATES AND POSSESSIONS)-Continued
Number of
State and installation Page spaces Estimated cost
2. Moble home facilities:
Alaska: Eielson AFB__. 30-31 70 $630, 000
Arizona: Davis-Monthan AFB ... __ __........ 32-33 50 20, 000
Delaware: Dover AFB.... --.................... .........- 34-35 50 205, 000
Michigan: Wurtsmith AFB_-----------------------------. 36-37 58 255,000
Mississippi: Columbus AFB___ --......... --------.. ........ . 38-39 50 180,000
New Hampshire: Pease AFB._ 40-41 33 150, 000
Texas:
Laughlin AFB....... 42-43 54 195, 000
Reese AFB . . 44-45 50 185, 000
Total mobile home spaces ...._ _ 415 2,000,000
Installation(s) and location Page Units Estimated cost
3. Improvements to existing quarters: Various locations --......... .. ... 46-51 LS $23, 750, 000
4. Minor construction: Various locations-....-.-...- --. -- --.-..- 52 LS 400,000
5. Advance planning and design: Various locations ... . .. . . . _ 53 LS 300,000
Total construction appropriation request-..... ...-....... -.. .. ................ 81,951, 000
Mr. PATTEN. The request for new construction calls for 1,800 new
units at 8 locations at a cost of $55,501,000.
BLYTHEVILLE AIR FORCE BASE, ARK.
Let us turn to Blytheville Air Force Base, Ark.
Insert page 2 in the record.
[The page follows:]
-1 NAr . PRTumT a IHaTALLArION
FY 19.'4 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
Feb 73 AAF B1heville Air Force Base
CA o E N [sm T auREAU INSTALLATION CONTRoL Nu.man CT VrrTE/CO.e T
IS. IPERM T STUDENT SUPPORT
7L auE S. LAAU oC OSTA. occuP0NcI OE couN0v (U0S.) to N0ATT( C00
" rora, Jan U, 0 2 0 --
INVENTORY
LND ACRES LAND COST (ID) IMPROVEMENT (000 TOTAL (I0)
P() ([ ) () ( )
- og ; 0 187
b6 L..-s AND EAsmaJYe 23 0
la V oTL(NecpriTadrgn) Aso J UNtE 0
a. AurNC ALoN NCOT *oEo IPOMN (Vr Excludes MCPT1 10
....*.o...O q......n ...... Excoludes MCP ($140) 2762
I . STIATED Ur-oT1TONzA* . - N - T* N. Excludes MCP 3 00 0
1 GRAND TOTAL (e +0, 2
P S SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION
AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CODE PROJECT TITLE TANT UNITOF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
Sre) (loOo)
711 Family Housing 1
FA 100 2,762 100 2,762
Total excludes construction justified elsewhere. FA 100 2,762 100 2,762
DD," 1 ,390 -
Mr. PATTEN. The request here is for 100 units. Do you anticipate
coastal base studies will result in changes in base loading here ?
General REILLY. No, sir, we do not.
Mr. PATrEN. You propose to build all four-bedroom units. This
emphasis is also reflected in other requests this year. Does this repre-
sent a change in Air Force policy ?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, it represents our desire to eliminate
some of the deficiency that we have in four-bedroom units. We have
been building some four-bedroom units. However, we have a general
shortage of them and this particular program is directed toward air-
man family housing and the locations where we program we have a
shortage of four-bedrooms; no real change in Air Force policy.
Mr. PATTEN. Have you ever tried to rent a four-bedroom unit in
Washington ? It is impossible to find a four-bedroom unit.
General REILLY. We have the same experience. Normally our people
can have a much better chance of renting or buying a two- or three-
bedroom house than a four-bedroom.
Mr. PATTEN. Are there any questions?
Mr. McEwEN. How many units in this, General ?
General REILLY. At Blytheville, 100 units.
Mr. McEwEN. All four-bedroom units ?
General REILLY. All four-bedroom units, yes, sir.
Mr. McEWEN. What is the deficiency there now ?
General REILLY. The deficiency is 307 units.
Mr. McEwEN. So that after these are constructed you will still have
a deficiency of 207 units ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
Mr. McEwEN. When you say deficiency, that is the deficiency of
units on base for those that are eligible for on-base housing; is that
correct?
General REILLY. What it relates to is the total housing requirements
and then we subtract from that the available houses on base and the
adequate units that can be supplied by the community and the differ-
ence then of those two assets versus the requirement is our deficiency.
Mr. McEwEN. But you do consider the available units in the local
economy ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir. In this particular instance we have an
effective housing requirement of 1,724 units. We have on the base 830
units. The community is able to provide 587 units, leaving us a deficit
of 307.
AVON PARK AUXILIARY AIRFIELD, FLA.
Mr. PATTEN. Let us turn to Avon Park Auxiliary Airfield, Fla.
Insert page 5A in the record.
[The page follows:]
O* DaTE I oNPamu T sDr aLLATIO
15 Feb 73 AF FY 19Z4 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM Avon Park Auxiliary Airfield
15 Feb 73 - Avon Park Auxiliary Airfield
Sco-ano oDR X. .aEMEr auREAu a INST.LLATIO CONTROL NU*UaR e- STATECOUNTRy
TAC ASPQ Florida
SsTTU. '- ve.P OA AIN., occuPANcy . couNTy (o)U.s) .E.ats c
Active 1942 Highlands Six miles NNE of Highland, Florida
Combat Support Group
Communications Group (Air Force Communications Service
.I.JE l .T ODESNATION
PProJECT TITLE
Family Housing
Total excludes construction justified elsewhere
I2. PERMANENT STUDENTS _ SUPPORTED
PERSONNEL STRENGTH OV.lCRNIE ILCN Or,;CNNENLIS OFPID RI5TSONILIN INTTL
S!.. .S 1 Jan.'72 2 0 - - 66
N. PL DENTIAIy ) 5 234 - - - -- 243
,a- INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LAND COST (J00 IMPROVEMENT ($00) TOTAL (00)
-ol) () () (
N*_ED 5181 36 2,592 2.628
e. LEASESNNNSAEENTN
.L. ... .. roE-I.. d 1.n) uS OF ....U.E 172 __ 2628
a AUTHORIZATION lofT IETU INy5NTOR 0
*...N.z IV NOS ,eT. ISo. .NoR Excludes MCP (925) 1 1 315
.ESTIMATED UTNN. O E N ARS . Excludes MCP [(193) 0
s GRAND TOTAL (N, d A. 3.943
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
.... ... -1 --...
TENANT
COMMAND
UNIT OF
MEASURE
FA
AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM
SCOPE CST
50 1,315
ff FOR 4-f
FUNDING
SCOPE
50
50
PROGRAM
ESTIMATES
COST
1,315
1,315
CATEGORY
CODE NO.
711
P . No.
D D,, . , .J90
I
I
I
i
C I
I
------
r
Mr. PATTEN. Your request is for 50 units. Why is it you haven't built
housing here since you occupied this facility in 1942?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, our people stationed there-there
are not large numbers of them-have been able to secure housing in the
local communities. We are now experiencing a buildup in the activity
at Avon Park related to the range there and the small town of High-
lands and the neighboring communities just cannot support our people.
We have a map to show where Avon Park is located. It is a large
range used by our tactical Air Forces and they are introducing into
that range an electronic environment which gives more realistic condi-
tions for training with an increase in personnel.
Mr. PATTEN. In 1942 you wouldn't find any housing around there.
That was just farmland.
Where does your family population at this base live now?
General REILLY. The family population attempt to find housing at
Sebring and Highland, Fla. Housing in this area is very scarce.
Mr. PATTEN. What is the reason for the increase in enlisted person-
nel expected over the next few years ?
General REILLY. The increase is due to a change in mission at Avon
Park, from a regular gunnery range to a more sophisticated range in-
cluding electronic countermeasure environmental facilities which gives
more realistic conditions for training. This new equipment requires
additional personnel for the operation and maintenance of this equip-
ment.
Mr. PATTEN. On page 5b of your justification, you say these homes
will provide quarters for part of the 723 airmen families. Yet you show
a total base loading now of only 66 and an out-year projection of 243.
Where are the rest of these people ?
General REILLY. We regret that the 723 figure is a mistake. The
number should be 115 families.
EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, FLA.
Mr. PATTEN. Let us turn to Eglin.
Insert page 6 in the record.
[The page follows:]
*DTE RA- DawARYBMN * INSTALLATION
FY 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
15 Feb 73 AF E lin Air Farce Base
4 CoNuADo or M*ANAr ENT auREAU R INSTALLATION CONTROL NUMBE e sTATEYCOUNTR
Air Force System Command FTFA/FTEV Florida
S..T ..U YEAR OP INm.AL OCCUPANCY couNTY (..) IO.. EART CTY Six miles northeast of Frt Walton
tive Okalossa, Walton, Beach, Florida, forty miles east of Pensacola,
Active 1953 Santa Rosa Florida
I r.ION o. MluOR RNCTIO.N IS PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
Tactical Fighter Wing (Tactical Air Command) PERSONNEL STRENGTH oFrCe ELIST E I ILI AN OFP.CER ENLISTED OFPIIC ENLIRTRCIvLIA TOTAL
(i) ( ) I() (4) I E) (d) (7) . (s) (o)
Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Wing (Military Airlift A OF31 Jan 72- 2111 1 r// 60- -- -
Command) .PLANNE (Fy 77 203 1.97 90 7--18,4
IS . INVENTORY
Special Operations Wing (Tactical Air Command) LA ACR ES LAND COST (000) IMPROVEMENT 00oo0) TOTAL (Ho0)
Aerospace Defense Squadron (Aerospace Defense Command " D 46 4162 1738 222993 22731
.LESE. AN . ER ENR6 ) 0
Armament Development Test Center 1 '"vr*NORY TOTAL (esP l r-dr n) AR O RJ 1A - 2.. S 737.
Sur zAro NOT CRC IN ,NvENOy Excudes MCP (12.lf) 33
Air Force Armament laboratory - uo*IN*AIORoE..usTE I. CTINo.*ORA Excludes MCP ($7.039) 6,80
I TTITRAR ORIo N IRSON- NXT EA. Excludes MCP (18,200) ___
0 GRAND TOTAL (o+o* S + - 2 51
Rd. SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CODE Na. PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
(1000) (*000)
d r a h
711 Family Housing FA 250 6,380 250 6,380
Total excludes construction justified elsewhere. FA 250 6,380 250 6,380
a- --3 COT TP
P.- WR-
DD, o,.1 o 90
Mr. PATTEN. You are requesting 250 units. These are all four-bed-
room units. Are they all to go on Eglin, or are some going to be built
at Eglin No. 9?
General REILLY. One hundred and fifty units will be built at Eglin
main, 100 units at auxiliary 9, or the Hurlburt Field, which is down
the road west of Eglin.
DEFICIT
Mr. PATTEN. What is the deficit at Eglin 9?
General REILLY. The deficit is 1,603 units.
Mr. NICHOLAS. Do you have them broken down by Eglin 9 and main ?
Could you for the record ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. The deficit ?
Mr. NICHOLAS. Yes.
Mr. JOHNSTON. No, sir; we don't have the deficit.
General REILLY. We can provide the breakout for the record.
[The information follows:]
BREAKDOWN OF HOUSING DEFICIT AT EGLIN
The deficit at Eglin main is 1,180 units and at Eglin auxiliary 9 is 423 units.
Mr. PATTEN. Do you feel you need 2'50.
General REILLY. In view of the approximately 600-unit deficiency we
feel that 250 are required.
Mr. PATTEN. Would there be any difficulty in building 150 at Eglin
main and 100 at field 9 ?
General REILLY. No great problems. It simply means two projects,
two project locations. We will bid them as a single project; no major
difficulty.
Mr. PATTEN. DO you already have a housing project at 9?
General REILLY. Yes, sir, we do.
Mr. LONG. How are these people living now ?
General REILLY. The people are now living in the community, in
housing which is not considered to be adequate either in terms of
quality or cost.
Mr. LONG. Well, who says ?
General REILLY. This is based on a survey, Mr. Long.
In the survey the peoDle answer questions as to the adequacy of their
housing. They show what they pay and how far they have to drive,
and all of these things add up to a facility being adequate within their
income and rental allowance or it isn't.
Mr. LONG. Is this going to be a case where they pay a lot less, the
Government Days a lot more but no
General REILLY. The Government, of course, will bear the cost of
providing the house and maintaining it.
Mr. LONo. Of cou rse, anybody is going to like that.
General REILLY. His total rental allowance will be withheld.
Mr. LONG. Anybody is going to like that, of course. If word is passed
that the Government is going to greatly increase the standard of living
at Government expense, that is the answer that you are going to get.
General REILLY. A fellow getting, let us say, $250 a month rental
allowance may be able to rent or at least to own and pay for a house
that meets his needs for that. In other instances he can't.
21-111 0 - 73 - 17
Mr. LONG. What is the average duration of stay of these people when
they go to a community ?
General REILLY. I would say roughly 3 years, sir, or less.
Mr. LONG. Three years.
General REILLY. We think in terms of a 3-year tour at a base. It can
be much less than that, sometimes a little longer.
Mr. LONG. Your theory is, it is kind of hard for them to keep turn-
ing these over ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir. To buy a house and live in it 3 years and
resell it, sometimes it works out fine. Sometimes it is a good investment.
Other times it poses a severe hardship to him or he is forced to rent at a
price which is more than he can afford to pay, and, of course, in renting
you get no break at all.
Mr. LONG. Well, would this take care of the whole requirement, or
are there still going to be a lot of people-
General REILLY. NO, sir; there will still be approximately a 1,300
deficit after this construction at Eglin.
Mr. LONG. Why not take care of all of them or none of them? I
don't quite understand why the 250. What is the reason for the 250?
General REILLY. It is with the objective of easing the housing situa-
tion. Of course we would like to eliminate the whole deficiency but it
would be very costly to do that so in our program within the restric-
tions we have to try to alleviate the conditions at a number of locations.
We will still have deficiencies remaining.
Mr. LONG. Is this a rapidly growing community apart from the
military ?
General REILLY. Oh, yes. The Fort Walton Beach area has been
increasing in population tremendously.
Mr. LONG. So this won't do very much to ease the local supply
situation ?
General REILLY. Not a great deal; no, sir, and I was in a position to
report to the chairman that the officials of Eglin Air Force Base have
met with the local city officials, the realty board, and the community
down there is thoroughly in favor of this and recognizes the need to
build Government housing.
Mr. LONG. Who gets these houses ? You have a long list of people
who want them. How do you make your decisions as to who gets them?
General REILLY. These 'are all airman houses.
Mr. LONG. This is done on the basis of rank ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir; 174 of them are being designed for the
criteria for the E-4's through the E-6's, and 76 of them will be built
for the more senior noncomissioned officers.
Mr. LONG. This is all enlisted housing?
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
Mr. LONG. Okay.
Mr. McEwEN. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PATTEN. Yes.
FAMILY HOUSING SURVEYS
Mr. McEwEN. Would this be a proper point to develop this? I won-
der if General Reilly could enlighten us a little more on how you arrive
at a deficiency and decide whether housing is actually deficient? Is a
questionnaire sent to the families themselves ; is that correct ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
Mr. McEwEN. Asking the size of their family, how many bedrooms?
Would this be correct ? Asking how much is your rent ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
Mr. McEwEN. What sort of facilities, utilities, and so forth you
have?
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
Mr. McEwEN. How far is it removed from base ?
General REILLY. Yes.
Mr. MCEWEN. Then the Air Force applies standards of distance
removed from base, of number of bedrooms per size of family; is that
correct ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir. The questionnaire asks all the pertinent
information. If the individual fills out on his questionnaire that this
housing is adequate it is counted as an adequate asset.
Mr. McEWEN. If he states this in his opinion ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. If he states it is an adequate asset, it is an adequate
asset. If he states it is an inadequate asset, we will check a certain per-
centage and if we reverse any of them then we apply that percentage
to all the ones declared inadequate. Then we add up all the units that
we have on base. Then we take our end mission strength figures and
add a marital factor to it. It is developed over 3 years.
In other words, we take a 3-year officer marital factor and apply it
to the officers. We take a '3-year enlisted marital factor of the eligible
personnel and apply that to the eligible enlisted personnel and that
gives us our gross requirement.
Then we deduct from that amount the voluntary separated families.
We don't need a house for these people because they wouldn't bring
their families there under any condition. That gives us a net require-
ment. We deduct or subtract the assets. That gives us our net deficit.
Mr. McEwEN. In other words, in many cases you are relying on the
statements of the people in that questionnaire ? If they say it is ade-
quate in their opinion, then it is adequate ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Right, sir; except the on-base houses.
Now, the on-base houses are always carried in the classification that
they are held in. If the on-base house is considered an adequate house
it is adequate under any condition.
Mr. NICHOLAS. In some cases you do check the off-base houses to see
if they are inadequate ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. If they are indicated to be inadequate we check a
percentage of those and any we reverse we apply that factor to all
of them.
Mr. McEwEN. You apply a percentage ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. McEwEN. In other words, it is really a sampling test?
General REILLY. Yes.
STANDARDS OF HOUSING ADEQUACY
Mr. MCEWEN. General, I ask this because I think that housing-
we touched on it earlier-is terribly important, but I am not at all
satisfied that we really have the most careful methods and standards
to determine the adequacy or inadequacy of the housing.
It is so important, and yet I am not sure that we get the correct
picture. If somebody feels they are a little too remote from base, they
say the housing is inadequate and that may stand. Maybe it is only 'a
mile or two. I don't know what the standards of the Air Force may
be on what is adequate in regard to distance from base. Maybe it is
only a slight bit more than that.
General REILLY. We think 1-hour driving time is about the differ-
ence between adequate and inadequate.
Mr. JOHNSTON. One hour driving time.
General REILLY. But it has been, and we acknowledge this, a some-
what imprecise system.
Mr. McEwEN. Forgive me, General. I am about to be very parochial
because I am thinking about an air base in my own district where we
have severe winter weather. If you have a deficiency in the size of a
unit, a family with three or four children trying to live in a two-bed-
room unit or -a three-bedroom unit, where they should have three or
four bedrooms, I think that is aggravated some in a situation where you
can't turn the kids outdoors as you can down at Eglin, Fla., the year
round.
I just wonder if these factors are considered. We consider the warm
climates as needing air-conditioning, and understandably those bases
in cooler climates aren't considered as needing air-conditioning and
I don't argue with that; but I wonder if there aren't factors the other
way, such as severe climatic conditions aggravating the situation where
there is a lack of space, where they are confined to those family
quarters?
Possibly you can furnish a little more for the record on just how
this is determined, but I am not at all satisfied that this is as carefully
done as it might be or possibly should be.
General REILLY. We will be happy to provide more on that, sir.
[The information follows:]
The size of family housing units which we construct are controlled by public
law. We have recognized that some of our units are small for the northern area
of the country. We are hopeful that the increased square footage limitations pro-
posed in the fiscal year 1974 authorization bill will help in your area of concern.
When we design units we do consider the location carefully and add amenities
according to the climate. In the Southern States we include in the design air
conditioning, screens, carports, and materials used in local areas so that our
houses conform to local standards. In the Northern States we design a sturdier
house, hope to get garages which children can use in the winter when the car is
in use, storm sash, better heating, and a basement if possible. These units also
will be similar to those in the local area.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PATTEN. Yes, Mr. Davis.
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS
Mr. DAVIS. I am curious about all of these being four-bedroom units.
Does this mean that for a period of years we haven't been providing
four-bedroom units: or what is the situation on that ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. The situation is we have not been providing many
four-bedroom units in the past. As you will recollect, this committee
has recommended in the past that we not build too many two-bedroom
units.
259
In recent surveys, and as a result of the changing trends in our
military people, we find our deficiencies are beginning to show up in
two- and four-bedroom units.
In other words, we are beginning to find that the requirement for
the three-bedroom units is leveling off and our deficiency is primarily
in the two- and four-bedroom areas. We don't feel we should be build-
ing two-bedroom units because these are the type units a family can
find in the local community a lot more readily than the four-bedroom
units; so where we have the requirement to build units at all and we
have a requirement to build four-bedroom units we would prefer to
build four-bedroom units because these are the types of units our people
can't find on the economy.
Mr. DAVIs. When does a serviceman become eligible for a four-bed-
room unit ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. He becomes eligible for a four-bedroom unit when
the number of his children predicated upon age and sex require a
four-bedroom unit. An OSD standard establishes bedroom standards.
In some cases where the sex is the same and the children are younger
we put two of them to a room, so it is predicated upon the size of the
family, the number of children.
Mr. DAVIs. And I would suppose then that if you had two younger
boys and two younger girls the requirement would then be for a three-
bedroom unit?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir; but when you get up to the age of 12 and 13
if you have one girl 13 and one boy 12, you would still then require
a three-bedroom unit.
We could provide the guidelines established by OSD for the chil-
dren, ages, and sexes required for a four-bedroom requirement.
Mr. DAVIS. All right, if you would.
[The information follows:]
OSD GUIDELINES FOR FOUR-BEDROOM ELIGIBILITY
The following is the OSD guideline used in determining the bedroom require-
ments for families:
No. of
Number of dependents (excluding wife) : bedrooms
None--------------------------------------------------------- 1
1 --------------------------------------------------------------- 2
2, except as follows----------------------------------------------- 2
1 10 years or over-------------------------------------------- 3
1 6 years or over and other opposite sex------------------------ 3
3, except as follows---------------------------------------------- 3
2 10 years or over-------------------------------------------- 4
110 years or over and other 2 opposite sex with 1 6 years or over__ 4
4, except as follows---------------------------------------------- 3
1 10 years or over------------- ----------------------- 4
1 6 years or over and all of the other 3 opposite sex of the 1 ---- 4
2 6 years or over of opposite sex and other 2 same sex---------- 4
2 10 years or over and other 2 opposite sex with 1 6 years or over-- 5
3 10 years or over-------------------------------------------- 5
5, except as follows----------------------------------------------- 4
2 or more 10 years or over------------------------------------ 5
1 10 years or over, with 1 6 years or over and the opposite sex of
the other 3------------------------------------------------- 5
260
Mr. DAVIS. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
U.S. AIR FORCE INSTALLATIONS, OAHU, HAWAII
Mr. PATTEN. We will turn to U.'S. Air Force Installations, Oahu,
Hawaii.
Insert page 10 in the record.
[The page follows:]
,- DLar I. I omTY m a I* eLITaION
FY 19 74MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
15 Feb 73 AF U. S. Air Force Installations, Oahu
4. CEoANO o uSANOmrSuT BumRAu S IrsTALLATIO ON oSI.OL unS ER N . sTATE/COUNTOY
Pacific Air Forces (Zone of Interior KNMD Hawaii
S. .TArus YE*A Or INITIL OCCUPANCY OuNTr (U.S) ,o. NIAR
Active 1937 Honolulu Six miles west of Honolulu, Hawaii
It. MISSION CE MAJOR PNCTIONs Ia. PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
Airborne Command Control Squadron PERSONNEL STRENWTo O.ICER rLISTR CIvILAN OF'nICE sI..TIO OF.Ew LI CIVILI N TOTAL
(0) () (3 (4) (-) () EN(7) ( (1)
Fighter Interceptor Squadron (Air National Guard) .Soa .Jan 72_ 1855 7491 2892 0 0 -- -- -- 12,238
b. PL*N.DNBnOlr 77 1615 7345 2938 0 0 -- -- -- 8
Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Squadron (Military '. INVENTORY
Airlift Command) LAND ACRES LAND COST (000) IMPROVEMENT (M) TOTAL (000)
Systems Test Group (Air Force Systems Command) own . 4,175 1179 1 88 137,667
. LEASES AND N- E
Pacific Air Forces Headquarters . ,NCNTOOTO To (SuT IBRTPIeNm I sO .or 1o JUN T5156
E .sTIMATN AuTRORICATION " NxT r4 yEARS E MeInC C P (32 10) 0
a GRAND TOTAL (c + R4. + o
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
ATORTENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CODTE OR PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
(OW) (000)
A d 4 . A N
711 Family Housing FA 400 14,301 400 14,301
Total excludes construction justified elsewhere. FA 400 14,301 400 14,301
D D, ".1390
p.E. Nw -
Mr. PATTEN. Are these units to be built at Hickam Field ?
General REILLY. Yes, they are, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PATTEN. The request is for four-bedroom units. What is the
deficiency in four-bedroom houses ?
General REILLY. The deficiency is 851 four-bedroom units.
Mr. PATTEN. Why is this a special design ?
General REILLY. I don't think it is any special design.
Major SIMS. Not special design. You mean townhouses?
Mr. PATTEN. You indicate on the 1391 that it is a special design, but
provide the answer for the record.
General REILLY. Yes.
[The information follows:]
SPECIAL DESIGN FOR HICKAM PROJECT
It is only a special design because the Hickam and Andrews Air Force Base
projects are proposed to be townhouses.
USE OF TURNKEY IN HAWAII
Mr. PATTEN. Are you considering the use of turnkey for this project
at Hickam Field ?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, we have been looking both at turn-
key and conventional construction for this particular project. It now
appears, based upon our latest discussions, that probably conventional
construction will be employed as opposed to turnkey, although we have
been considering turnkey.
Mr. PATTEN. It is not definite?
General REILLY. No; and we think it is going to be conventional
now.
ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE, MD.
Mr. PATTEN. Let us turn to Andrews Air Force Base, Md.
Insert page 14 in the record.
[The page follows:]
FY 19.,MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
15 Feb 73 AF Andrews Air Force Base
. cASAND On MANan.EN aURNAu I. I TALLAION CONTRDL NUmEEm U aITI OUN TR
Headquarters Command AJXF Maryland
STATUS . YEAR oF INITIAL OCCUPANCy . CouNrT (U.S.) oA-scIT
Active 1943 Prince Georges Eleven miles southeast of Washin on DC
II M 10loN OR M.OR FucTIONS IL PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
Airborne Command Control Squadron PERSONNEL STRENGTH OIE IU TED CIVILIAN OFlcIR [NLITED OFFICER ENLISTED CIVILIAN TOTAL
(5 I (5 (3) ) (5) (4 (I) (8) F)
Helicopter Squadron - so r31 Jan 72. 1732 764 4325 0 0 -- - - 12,50
LAaNNo ED ( 7d 7 P 2144 7238 338 0 0 12730
Military Airlift Special Mission Wing (Military . INVENTORY
Airlift Command) LANO ACRES LAND COST (SIO) IMPROVEMENT (000) TOTAL (O0)
(J) (0 ( T (Q
Tactical Airlift Wing (Reserve) O R.N 6959 170 169,43 1 16
b LA.E. AN.D E . 65 11OT 0 11
Tactical Fighter Wing (Air National Guard) C. Nv[TroYT roTAL laup I.,-O A. orP0 Su.N I. 2_ 1'71,277
4. AUT.oRIZATIO NOTr YET IN 1NTErOO Excludes MCP $
Headquarters Air Force Systems Command . UTOOIUAIO 1"A E O,O1.-..T 1 .AO.. Excludes MCP (16935) 8700
I. ESTIMATED AUTrnoIZanIon- NNE YEARS Excludes MCP (13,000) 0
SuDoort Functions for Air Force Headquarters d. GRAND TOTAL ( .. .p 197,757
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGkAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
COE NO. PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
O000) (8000)
711 Family Housing FA 300 8,700 300 8,700
Total excludes- construction justified elsewhere. FA 300 8,700 300 8,700
- - -i
DD , ~"J390
pEP NO
Mr. PATTEN. You are requesting 300 units.
Why is it that, in view of force reduction and plans to move activi-
ties out of the Washington, D.C., area, you show an increase in base
population in the fiscal year 1977 time period ?
General REILLY. At Andrews AFB our requirement for housing is
6,296 units. Including existing on-base assets, those under construction
from the fiscal year 1972 and fiscal year 1973 programs and some 2,150
units in the community we have a total of 3,928 adequate units. This
leaves a sizable deficit of 2,368 units. Andrews AFB is not being con-
sidered for force reductions as it is the main support base for the execu-
tive and legislative branches of the Government as well as a prime Air
Force operating base. The increase in population at Andrews results
from our family housing survey technique. Navy personnel were not
included in the January 31, 1972, total strength figures because they
were not surveyed. They are included in end fiscal year 1977 figures
because the Air Force provides housing for their personnel.
Mr. PATTEN. Have you surveyed the community to determine if four-
bedroom units can be built by private enterprise ?
General REILLY. Yes, we find very few builders who are willing to
construct four-bedroom units on a rental basis. Rental rates for such
units would be much more than our enlisted personnel could afford
to pay.
Mr. PATTEN. Have you conducted a survey of housing at Andrews
since the February 1972 figures you provided the committee? If so,
provide current figures for the record.
[The information follows:]
CURRENT MFH SURVEY AT ANDREWS
A survey was conducted at Andrews in January and February 1973 and is
presently being evaluated. The new survey reflects a requirement for 6,213 units.
Including existing under construction and approved onbase plus the 300 units in
the program and some 2,415 community support units, we have a total of 4,487
assets. This leaves a deficit of 1,726 units which is a reduction from 2,368
reflected after the calendar year 1972 survey.
GRAND FORKS AIR FORCE BASE, N. DAK.
Mr. PATTEN. Let us go to Grand Forks Air Force Base, N. Dak.
Insert page 18 in the record.
[The page follows:]
FY 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
15 Feb 73 AF Grand Forks Air Force Base
4. couMANo on MAN a=mN*r aunaru e...TALLaTIOn Corn.OL .umean a sTATr COUNTIY
Strategic Air Command JFSD North Dakota
7-. Ta'rul e. Va* R o IFITILL OCCOupa Cy -. CO.uy (U.s.) ,0. NSARKTT CTIT
Active 1960 Grand Forks Sixteen miles west of Grand Forks, North Dako
11 aSIoN oR IMJOR FUNCTION ta. PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
Heavy Bomsrdment Wing PERSONNEL. STRENGTH OAP'E ER. E*VLIAN CR ENLISOIC .NLIST.O ICILIAR TOTAL
(1) ( c () (4 ) (5s) (s) (0 () (
Strategic Missile Wing (Minuteman) , A.OF31Jan 72 - -- -- -- A
A PLGNND(OdFY 77) 6
Fighter Interceptor Squadron "1. INVENTORY
(Aerospace Defense Command) LAND ACRES LAND COST (O00 ) IMPROVEMENT (0D) TOTAL tow)
(1) (5 (1 (
*. 70/,0 1.098 297,276 298,374
A. LEIS O..D En.A ) 752NT 12 7
N ...v ..ro ..TR TO, A (E.aP..d. ..e.. S _ 299.38
. ATHONIATIou Nor vrT IN INVNTroRY Exclde MCP (1,812
A .uroazTION DIEouS.TD.. T"IoSN.G 5,710
. .TInATr . SDurZa ..RIon ED..T... Excludes MCP ($6,700) 0
. GRAND TOTAL ( Nod. E9 304,848
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CODE NO. PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
Re(O) Sooo0)
b a h
711 Family Housing FA 200 5,710 200 5,710
Total excludes construction justified elsewhere. FA 200 5,71G 200 5,710
P.M. . _
D D, o.1390
Mr. PATTEN. The request is for 200 units of four-bedroom housing.
What is the deficit in four-bedroom quarters at Grand Forks?
General REILLY. There is a deficit of 370 four-bedroom units.
Mr. PATTEN. You list 112 Government-owned trailers as substand-
ard. Are they really substandard, or do you categorize all mobile homes
as substandard?
General REILLY. The 112 trailers are approximately 16 years old,
were used in the Minuteman Missile Construction program and con-
tain some 642 square feet. They are definitely substandard. All Gov-
ernment-owned mobile homes are categorized as substandard. Pri-
vately owned mobile homes are considered adequate housing if the
occupant states that it is adequate for his needs.
Mr. PATTEN. You show projected officer housing at 111.7 percent of
requirement. Are any of these excess units four-bedroom units? Are
you using them for enlisted personnel ?
General REILLY. Yes, there are some four-bedroom company grade
officer units listed as overages. We have a total of 306 onbase units
categorized as Company Grade Quarters and 130 of them are occupied
by enlisted personnel, many of which are four-bedroom units.
SHEPPARD AIR FORCE BASE, TEX.
Mr. PATTEN. Sheppard Air Force Base, Tex.
Insert page 22 in the record.
[The page follows:]
,. DArs a- Ol a.TmYD a ,NsraLLTro
FY 19_2MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
15Feb 7 3 A Sheppard Air Force Base
4. COSANRD OR NANAaUNT anURAU A.- INTALLATON CONTROL NUm.an *..T TEEco-Umy
Ai T VNVP Texas
. STATUS I.- rAr or INITIAL OCCUPANCY I* cOUNTry (ts.) 1 NEARzAT CITY
Active 1941/1948 Wichita Three miles north of Wichita Falls. Texas
it. MISSION OR MUOAR FUNCTIONS . PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
Techical Training Center PERSONNEL STRENGTH OPIUc...NL*....I ILI.AN OFn ICR NLIsTRO O"IcUI. LI..TEO cIvLIAR TOTAL
( . (U ( ) I (41 (3) (0 t P) IH (A) (0
School of Applied Aerospace Science U S or 3 Jon 72_ 1051 l076 2Ii. t 8028 -- -- - 16.163
L. NND df 771 89L Ite6r 2r0 266 g - 7 -- 15,533
Health Care Science School INVENTORY
LUND ACRES LAND COST (1000) IMPROVEMENT (000) TOTAL (000)
USAF Regional Hospital (1) (0) () (4l
o 628 133,4 34,312
Undergraduate Pilot Training School N" LEANSE AND RAN.1NT46 7
(German Air Force) U. yINUrToyR TOTAL (sc.pt I ~Cd AS o o JUN t 14..
. AUTHORIZAIOTIN NOT YET IN INVNTORY EClude MCP ($5.074) 0
Undergraduate Pilot Training School (MAP) UrO.NOTIr e NUTEONU S.PORAA Evnoues MCP ($2 753) 5 383
i. Iaru.ATED AUTHORIZATlIN - NExT 4 TEARS EYllpA MP (2 000) 0
AAvy GRtWnA d.DAND TOTAL (.e* O 139968
14. SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CATEGORY PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
(CODE 0) (0ooo)
e a a a I /A
711 Family Housing FA 200 5,383 200 5,383
Total excludes construction justified elsewhere. FA 200 5,383 200 5,383
DD .,.1390
PE.p NO.
268
Mr. PATTEN. What is the area cost factor here ?
General REILLY. The area cost factor is 0.93.
Mr. PATTEN. What is the deficit in four-bedroom units?
General REILLY. There is a deficit of 402 four-bedroom units.
Mr. PATTEN. Provide the committee with a map showing where the
housing will be sited.
[The map was provided for the committee's files.]
Mr. PATTEN. What is the community support situation here?
General REILLY. Community support is good and provides some 2,809
units. These include 1,407 owned homes, 546 mobile homes, 744 rental
units, and some 112 units which are available or due to become avail-
able in the near future.
ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, GUAM, MARIANA ISLANDS
Mr. PATTEN. Let us turn to Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, Mari-
ana Islands.
Insert page 26 in the record.
[The page follows:]
A. oATE I oEDA.TRaT IO *'ALLTAYOn
FY 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
15 Feb 73 AF Andersen Air Fo-ce Base
a. cuAN on Mrunommur aUnEu . IsYLLATIo. coUrnOt nUmean e sTATE/COunTr
Strategic AJJY Guam, Mariana Islands
. STAT YEAR OF INITIAL OCCUPANCY * COUNTY (US J Io NEAREst CIT
Active 1945 N/A Eleven miles northeast of Agana, Guam
I. MiIAioN OR Moo FUNCTION i. PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
Heavy Bombardment Squadron PERSONNEL STRENGTH O)U (V, O (.J C. TOTrL
OF OFCER ENLISTED CIVILIAN OFPIER ENLITER PP R E R )TE CIVILIAN TOA
Weather Reconnaissance Squadror (Military Airlift 0. o'31 Jan 72 43 0 -- C- P -
Command) b ...... PLCNEO y 77 ) 472 I n q
s d. INVENTORY
Military Airlift Support Squadron (Military Airlift LAo ACRES LANo COST (*000) IMPROVEMET (Ooo0) TOTAL (000)
Command) AP R 0n ,
onEo 16.1 14 IJ7.12694
.Strategic Air Division A LCA.S ... EA IENnT.
SIYVENTORY TOTAL (Aei l a d CR) OaO JU o I
d. AUTHORIZATION NOT YET IA INVARTORY Fi e MCP ($800)
. AUTnOnIzAIO REQUSTED , Tls POT IYM01
L EsTIMATED YTO.ONATION.- AR. . ludes 0
GRANDTOTAL (C+ d+.+
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CODE NO. PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
b e (ooo (o000)
711 Family Housing FA 300 10,950 300 10,950
Total excludes construction justified elsewhere. FA 300 10,950 300 10,950
D 5 1P g. N
Page Na
a locT Tl J
270
Mr. PATTEN. There seems to be a shortage of community support.
Why is this ?
General REILLY. Guam is not heavily populated. Andersen you can
see is located at the extreme northeast corner. There are just very, very
small communities around it, limited community support.
Mr. PATTEN. There is a community down there to the south, isn't
there?
General REILLY. Yes. A lot of facilities in the community just
aren't adequate for our people.
Mr. PATTEN. Are your population projections here firm ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir, we think they are.
Mr. PATTEN. What are your plans for meeting the future housing
requirements at this base?
Mr. JOHNSTON. We will continue to consider additional housing at
this particular base in accordance with the priorities of other bases
in future years' programs.
Mr. PATTEN. What are the jobs of the key civilians who occupy on-
base housing ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Guam is considered as overseas location and we do
allow certain key and essential civilian personnel to occupy on-base
housing.
Mr. PATTEN. Do they occupy officer or enlisted housing ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. They would occupy the housing according to their
grade. If they are in the equivalent officer grade they would be as-
signed officer housing and if of equivalent airman grade would be
assigned 'airman housing.
Mr. PATTEN. You should probably embellish that for the record.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
CIVILIANS OCCUPYING ON-BASE HOUSING, ANDERSEN
For family housing purposes, key and essential civilians will normally be
considered as equivalent to military grades in accordance with the following
schedule:
Civilian grade groups
Military grade group GS and NAF WB WB-S
0-6 and above.... .----.... ---.. ................ ........... . ------ 15 and above .....
0-4 and 0-5 .....-------------------------------------------- 13-14-----------------. 14-19.
0-1 through 0-3 and W-1 through W--..................----------------------...... 10-12- .._.... 12-15 -..- 8-13.
E-4 through E-9 ------------------- 4-9. .. ---------9-11 --...- 3-7.
E-1 through E-3- - ---.. - 1-3...--------...... 1-8 .. .. 1-2.
MOBILE HOME FACILITIES
Mr. PATTEN. Let us turn to mobile home facilities.
Insert pages 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, and 44 in the record.
[The pages follow:]
.o.. o ER I .... I.sTALLATION
FY 19 74 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
15 Feb 73 AF Eielson Air Force Base
S. CSEANO Or .NAN*AESENT uREAu I. INTYALLAnION CON rOL NUMBER S. stat/ COUNTRY
Alaskan Air Command FTQW Alaska
.T. ATUs R. YEAR O INITIAL OCCUPANCy I CouNTY (U.S.) I1. NEARsIT CITY
Twenty six miles southeast of Fairbanks,
Active 1946 Fourth Judicial Distr ct Alaska
ii. MISSION OR MAJOR UINcTIOus IS. PERMANENT STUDENTS I SUPPORTED
Weather Reconnaissance Detachment (Military Airlift PERSONNEL STRENGTH O...1C L I.I c.LIAN OPICE ENIaYnED OPPICn LISTED CIvILIAN TOTAL
Command) F() E IE (i re (3I () ( TE I (n)
.s -. 3t 7- 276 2423 578 0 0 2
Strategic Reconnaissance Wing (Strategic Air Command) a L ANNED aFy 7 > 0 3 2927 1 1 0 0 7
IS. INVENTORY
Tactical Fighter (Forward Alert) LAND ACRES LAND COsT (O00) IMPROVEMENT (ROD) TOTAL (000)
(0) (. (C (
Air Refueling Squadron (Rotation) (Strategic Air oNED 19,949 0 196.645
Command) C LEASE AN**D EASI-ES 0 0 0
c. INVENTORY oY- (CeC d-N) AdE or s JNE 1N I
Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron (Rotation) . AUTHORIZATION NOT YET IN INVNTOR E lusive of MCP (3.793) 0
A*U.ORIEIONW E ..E P.. Exclusive of MCP 1 ) 630
I ES ATED AUTHORIzTI - N..E 4 EAn Elusive of MP 0
I. GRAND TOTAL (.. d . + O 197,275
SSUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROG AM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CODE NO. PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
(JOODi (DOO)
b C d .
711 Mobile Home Facilities Spaces 70 630 70 630
Total excludes construction justified elsewhere. Spaces 70 630 70 630
P.N. Na
D DI ",.390
I. DAT . DEPARTYV a. I NsYALLATON
FY 192 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
15 Feb 73 AF Davis-Monthan Air Force Base
ScONaAND oR MANAONmTr auREAu. INSTALLATION CONTROL NumEwR . DTITEICOuNTRy
Strategic Air Command FBNV Arizona
7. s U i. AR OF INITIAL OCCUPANCY I COUNTy (U.S.) o. AREST CITY
Active 1927 Pima Four miles southeast of Tucson, Arizona
I1. ,s$ion ORMLOR NCnIOIs 5I PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
Strategic Missile Wing (Titan) PERSONNEL NRENGOT OFFICER NLISED CIvILIAN OFICR OLISTEDj OFICER ENLIsTSc CIVILIAN TOTAL
omF4 I ) ( 0s> m s >d)"1 ) ()
Strategic Reconnaissance Wing -., o31 Jan 2-- 1212 768 1857 0 0 - - - 10 727
a PLNDanENo( Y 77 )1 51 1 726 1846 0 0 - - - 10 257
Tactical Fighter Wing (Tactical Air Command) IS INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LAND COST (8000) IMPROVEMENT (0) TOTAL (000)
Military Aircraft Storage and Bisposition Center ( r) IMPROVEMENT
(Air Force Logistics Command) A own 7,096 553 0520606
C. LENSES AND EA8CADD6 8 6
Strategic Missile Division Headquarters . INVENTORY TOTA.L (.CP1 . da) AS oF .S.NU 1 ._72._
4. AuYORINzaION SO E NNY y Elsive 0f MCP (2 097) - ,{
SuToNIzIoIDN .. UNTED IN OIIP ooN.IA Exclusive of MCP ($232) 200
I SINMATED AUTHORIoAYION -N R AYsaRs Exclusive of MCP (617,000) 0
S. GRAND TOTAL fo+ d+
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CODE NO. PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SIOPE COAT
(7oN) (Wo5)
e 0 4 N I &
7,1 Mobile Home Facilities Spaces 50 200 50 200
Total excludes construction justified elRevhere. Spaces 50 200 50 200
Pep)7. 3
D D~p.;390
15 Feb 73 A.F FY 197+ MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM Dover Air Fore Base
4. C.AnD on MANA N T .umAU S. IsTALLATION cONTROL Numn ER. sTATEICDu NRv
Military Airlift Command FJXT Delaware
1. TATUS - . EAR oF INITIAL OCUPNCY . CouNTY (U.S.) 10NEAI T CIT
Active 1941/1951 Kent Four miles Southeast of Dover, Delaware
II. MIsNION ORION NHCTIONs tI PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
Military Airlift Wing PERSONNEL STRENGTH DPFPI<C SLITED CIvILAN OFFICER IToIT O OFFICER SULIT CIVILIAN TOTAL
(1) (2) () (4) (s) (N) (7) ( I) (,)
Military Airlift Group (Reserve-Associate) Aol 31 .Jan 72 631 36 0 0 --61
SPLAoNED( XndFP 545 4434 1580 0 0 - -- - 6559
I. INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LAND COST (M00) IMPROVEMENT (WO0) TOTAL (JIM)
-ONEo 2830 831 1268 125,515
a L.EAS. AND EAA..NT. 1 61 2 0 2
INVENTORy TOTAL (BCapt Im d.N.N) - OP SJUNE I
d. AUToIZATIOn NT YETIN INVENTORY Ecludes MCP (5.98) 6,909
U. A IIUT.IzA.TIoN R TED IN THoI PRO.RA Exclude MP
A UINYARO AUTRORATIO*N - XNET4 EANR. Exclude CP (2., 500) 0
SGSRAND TOTAL (. + _ * + 1 6
o SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATERRY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CATEGORY PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
(40CDE O. (S (MMe)
6 C o d * I
711 Mobile Home Facilities Spaces 50 205 50 205
Total excludes construction justified elsewhere. Spaces 50 205 50 205
D D. ,C'.1390
.P0 X 34
S.ATE DEPARTMENT INSALnNSTRUCTIO PROGRTION
15 Feb 73 AF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM Wurtsmith Air Force Base
4- Cou No on - o. T -RE- ITALLAT1oN CONTROL nUmen . esTATE/COUNTR
Strategic Air Command ZJID Michigan
7 STATUS YEAR OF IrNTIAL OCCUPANCY COUNTY (U.S.) NEAREST IT
Active 1926/1951 IOSCO Three miles northwest of Oscoda, Michigan
II MLIasION OR MOR FUNCTION PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
Heavy Bombardment Wing PERSONNEL STRENGTH OPPICSS ENLNEEO cIILIA N oPIOc SNLIRsrO OPICER EN)LIREO CIYvIIAN TOTAL
Fighter Interceptor Squadron (Aerospace Defense , .. 31 Jan 72_ 515 3303 367 0 0 -- -- -- 4185
Command) PL (sdFY 77 412 2662 -- 485
INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LAND COST( 000) IMPROVEMENT(/000) TOTAL ('OO)
(() () () 4
-. o ,. Eo 1 ,903 1 2 74,733 0. A1
L LEASEs ASS E*surS
INOEROE TOT L (e.c.pt Iodr 7F) A o .o JUNE .12
d. AUTORIoATIOz NO YT INr I O sOR Excludes MOP ($1,278)
S lau.RTION z EOnUE s I RoT R. A .o. Excludes MCP ($616)
I ESTIMATED *RsAUToR o - NEOSTAE.RS Excludes MCP ($3,100) 0
.A GRAND TOTAL (s + . AT O 87e.85
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
CATEGORY TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
CODE NO. PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
( 000) (sooO)
711 Mobile Home Facilities Spcaes 58 255 58 255
Total excludes construction justified elsewhere. Spaces 58 255 58 255
8% 8% " * --
u u, ,,l 390
Pag Na 36
,- DAE a. DaTum in s I,ITALLAVIon
FY 19 74 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
1 Feb7 e AF ColUmbus Air Force Base
, Cu40N OR lNN.. S W U .uwU . INSTALLATION CONTROL NUMBER . .TATVCOUNTRV
Air Training Command EEP Mississippi
7. sTAruS ,. yEARn Or N*lt. OCCUPANCY . couNtY (U..) Io NEARSt CITY
Active 1941 Lowndes Ten miles NNW of Columbus, Mississippi.
II. VISION OR MAJOR FNCTIONS I. PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
Undergraduate Pilot Training School PERSONNEL STRENGTH OFFICER NLITEOD CIILI.A OFFICER ENLIsTEE OFFICER EIIT.D CIVILIAN TOTAL
,I (L (]) (4 ( (q (T) (a) f
.s o31lJan 72 38_ 2260 690 _2 0 . .. .. 3886
a..,..rsRor 77 p 386 1888 26 22 0 -- -- --
IS. INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LAND COST (000) IMPROVEMENT (4000) TOTAL (~o4
r oRmO 4,608 7 62,057 162130
a L..E. A .....ENT 1 1) 133 133
SINVENTOY TOTAL (8-o1r.pI Io AS O . JUNE I72- -- I. 62.263
d. AUToRIZATION NOT YET IN ISNVETORY 0
. AUTHORIZATION REWUST IN THIS PROGRAM 180
L STIuMATED AUHOIuromZ. - Nxr vEAR. Excludes MCP (S6,980) 0
1. GRAND TOTAL +d + *+0 62,443
I SUMMARY OF INSTALL TION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGhAM FUNDING PROGRAM
TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED ESTIMAIp
CATEGORY PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SOP COST
Co 50. ,(0) (0)
S6 e 4 * I 4 5
711 Mobile Home Facilities Spaces 50 180 50 180
Total excludes construction justified elsewhere. Spaces 50 180 50 180
DD, o0"'390 .. . 3
FY 19 74MILITARY COI
15 Feb 73 AF
. CouMA on u N~UanT BUREAU S. TASTaLLATION
Strategic Air Command C
7. STATUS . TaR OF INITIAL
Active
Il. Misslo. o MAo FUNCTrous
Medium Bombardment Wing
Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Squadron (Military
Airlift Command)
Tactical Airlift Squadron (Air National Guard)
Strategic Air Division
Total excludes construction justified elsewhere.
. D 2. SE omPASvumWT S aTaTIOn
15 Feb 7 AF FY 197.MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
15Feb73 AF ulhin Air Force Base
. coMANSo oR MANANuENT sUREAu S. ,sTALLATN cONTROL nUMe. e- sTaV /COUNT1r
Air Training Command MXDP Texas
STATu 5. YEAR OFP lITIAL OCCUPANCY . CouNTr (U.)CIT
Active 1942/1952 Valverde Seven miles east of Del Rio, Texas
II. MISSION oR MOAJS UNCTIONs IC. PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
PERSONNEL STRENGTH OrrICEI ENSTE CIILIAN OFFICER IS. sI OFICI ENLIsTEO CILII TOTAL
Undergraduate Pilot Training School ( L r S ) ) (r) (n 0uA (,)
S 3S..,o -Jan 72_- 42 1
b P..l..ANED Y SC ) 407 I 161 62 86 0 - - 09
I' INVENTORY
LAND ACRES LAND COST (*00) IMPROVEMENT ($000) TOTAL (mo00
(a) (]) (!) (a)
S owCNS 3,925 107 38,042 32 149
C. LEA.S. .. A aSENTS 572 (40) 8 26 34
C INrNTuoy rrAL (Esept Indr 1 or aS IJU . 1 7183
d. *AUTHORIzATIO NOT oY 1 I ENTOry Excludes MCP ($711) 0
. AUTSI ...AO UEASTEN TI. o..ON.A Excludes MCP ($4,635) 195
i. ESTIMATES AUTNORIATION - ECXT a AS Excludes MCP ($5,700) 0
o. GRAND TOTAL (C + O 4 + 38,O78
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
PROJECT DESIGNATION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM FUNDING PROGRAM
GTE TENANT UNIT OF TITED ESTIMATED
CATE NO. PROJECT TITLE COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
COO ISO00) (m)
SC r a
711 Mobile Home Facilities Spaces 54 195 54 195
Total excludes construction justified elsewhere. Spaces 54 195 54 195
P.E.N.. 4
D. o,"1390
I NATE N. oEPIrTmITY
FY 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCT
15 Feb 73 AF
4. NON N MnANAEJ ENT7 SuREu . INSTALLATION CoNRnLT
Air Training Command UBm
7 sTATUS YEAR OF INITIAL OCUP
Active 192/1
II. MIMION O n IAJ PUNCTION
Undergraduate Pilot Training School
PROJECT DESIGNATION
PROJECT TITLE
Mobile Home Facilities
Total excludes construction justified elsewhe
.U INSTALLATION
CTIOH PROGRAM
Reese Air Force Base
L NUMBER s. sTATE/CouNTRY
Texas
ANCY I COUNTY (U.S) 10 H T CIT
Lubbock Six miles west of Lubbock Texas
a PERMANENT STUDENTS SUPPORTED
PERSONNEL STRENGTH OF EILIAN OFFICE E s OC EI S LI TOTAL
( (() L( 4 (I) I (!)
.. Jor J 2 1 1 0 --
hPLANMED(EdY d 7 ) $2 1504 (8 38 0 - -
SINVENTORY
LAND ACRES LAN COST OO)J IMPROVEMENT ( O ) TOTAL (18
(1) (a) (!J (4
a oN ED 2 2 28.991 2A.7A
a LEA.E AND E ENT. 2 2 0 ?L
INVENTORY TOTAL (E.l I-dt) Y OP 0 JUNE Io 28 81
d AUTHO.ZATo* N NOT YET 1N INVCTO.RV xcludes MC .29) 0
1 umUozTro. TEouuTED,. T Pl....P O. kcludes MCP ( 211) 18
IA TuATO AuTH.O.RZATION - NEXT YEr E ludes MCP ($500)0
. GRAND TOTAL ( d+ *+ O
SUMMARY OF INSTALLATION PROJECTS
TENANT UNIT OF ESTIMATED E ESTIMATED
COMMAND MEASURE SCOPE COST SCOPE COST
d *
Spaces 50 185 50 185
ere.
Spaces
________ A A A
50
185
DDI TJ39O
CATEGORY
CODE NO.
- .
Mr. PATrEN. You are requesting 70 spaces at Eielson Air Force
Base, Alaska, at a cost of $630,000. In view of the weather, are mobile
homes satisfactory for use in Alaska ?
Mr. JOHNsTON. Yes, sir. Many of our families bring mobile homes
to Alaska. This particular project is going to replace 49 deteriorated
mobile home spaces presently in existence. We are going to have to
abandon that particular site and move to another site and we have
included 91 additional new spaces for our people.
Mr. PATTEN. Why do you need to replace 49 spaces? When were
they constructed ? Can they be upgraded ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. The present mobile home court of 138 is filled to
capacity; 49 of these spaces are on a wooden utilidor. This utilidor is
in an advanced stage of deterioration. The presence of sewer gas and
the threat of cave-ins form a real hazard. It is considered uneconomi-
cal to repair and upgrade these spaces because of their condition and
they are too small to accommodate the large present day mobile homes.
The original existing 49 spaces were constructed in 1955 as a self-help
project and slight improvements were made in follow-on years.
Mr. PATTEN. The request at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Ari-
zona is for 50 spaces. These spaces will cost less than half the cost of
those in Alaska. Is this because of the cost factor, or is it due to the
difference in weather conditions and the resultant difference in con-
struction requirements ?
COST OF MOBILE SPACES, DAVIS-MONTHAN VERSUS EIELSON
General REILLY. The cost factor for Eielson is 1.9 and for Davis-
Monthan 1.1. The difference in cost is due both to cost factors and the
difference in the type of construction requirements between the two
locations.
Mr. PATTEN. IS there any way to get the local owners of trailer
spaces to upgrade them ? Surely they should be able to see the advisa-
bility of providing adequate facilities.
Mr. JOHNSON. Our housing referral offices constantly contact the
local mobile home park owners and we do attempt to get them to
improve their trailer spaces. In some cases we will even put local
trailer courts off limits because they won't upgrade their trailer spaces.
Mr. PATTEN. What standards do you impose on mobile home spaces,
and how do your standards differ from the local codes or regulations ?
General REILLY. In our on-base mobile home courts, we attempt to
provide a complete usable facility consisting of the following items:
A stabilized pad on which to place the mobile home, utility line con-
nections/distribution, streets, parking, sidewalks, and lighting, a stor-
age shed or building for storage, a concrete patio, and community facil-
ities/including laundry facilities.
It is almost impossible to compare our standards with those of local
courts because of the various codes and regulations imposed in many
different localities.
Mr. PATTEN. At Dover Air Force Base, Del., your request is for 50
spaces. Is there a trend toward more families owning mobile homes
and, if so, are you building facilities fast enough ?
General REILLY. Yes. In recent years there has been a trend among
the military toward mobile home ownership. We feel we are building
facilities at a reasonable rate. Many families do find suitable facilities
in the local communities. It is OSD policy to build onbase facilities
only when offbase facilities are not available within reasonable dis-
tances and costs.
Mr. PATTEN. In each instance in your requests, you cite long waiting
lists and excessive cost. What is the average cost for a space? How
does this compare with housing allowances? Do families living .in
mobile homes get an offbase housing allowance the same as those who
rent or buy houses ?
General REILLY. An individual occupying an onbase space will pay
between $15 to $23 for the space, depending upon the cost of the space
to the Government. We amortize the cost over 15 years. A space which
cost $1,800 some years ago rents for $15, and a new space costing
$4,000, rents for $23 per month. On top of that, the occupants pay
utilities which range from $10 to $20 per month, depending upon loca-
tion. Total cost of a space-from $25 to $43 per month.
This cost is well below the housing allowance, but we must remem-
ber that the occupant is providing the home, and his mortgage pay-
ments on it will run from $75 to $125 per month.
Yes; families in mobile homes do get the same housing allowance
as those who rent or buy homes.
Mr. PATTEN. At Laughlin Air Force Base, Tex., the request is for 54
replacement spaces. Why were the present spaces constructed in an
unacceptable location ? When were they built and at what cost ?
General REILLY. The existing 545 spaces were built as a self-help
program in 1955 at a cost of approximately $2,000. In.follow-on years
another $13,442 was spent to keep them in operation. The present spaces
are some 1,000 feet from a usable taxiway. When the trailer spaces
were constructed the taxiway did not exist and they were far enough
from the runway according to criteria.
Mr. PATTEN. Please provide the committee with a map showing the
proposed location.
[The map was provided for the committee's files.]
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING PUBLIC QUARTERS
Mr. PATTEN. Turn to improvements to existing public quarters.
Insert pages 46 through 51 in the record.
[The pages follow:]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIMARY FACILITY
s DEICRImPTION O F o11 TO E DONE
Projects include all work necessary to improve livability
in 4545 unite by providing such amenities as air condi-
tioning; modern kitchens with garbage disposers, dish-
washers, etc., and adequate storage space; additional
modern bathrooms; privacy features such as soundproofing,
patios, and landscaping; parking; site improvements; etc.
Included are two General Officer Quarters requiring ex-
tensive modifications. Program consists of 11 projects
at 10 installations.
. ,NrakL*von
Various
. S. Fo/ou For
U. S. and Forei
Improvements
b+
d.
I- ...POII ,.a ..,L,. . IB :iii !iiiii~iiiiii
d
1.
"
i.
a.
aL TOTAL PROJE -/U
SECTION C - BASIS OF REQUIREMENT
l. QUANTITATIVE DATA aR. nIEOIrlEuNT OR PROJECT
(U/MA PROJECT: This request is to provide $23,750,000 to accomplish improvement work on family housing
.. TOTAL HREUD N...T facilities.
A. EISTINO ..AATAN*O ( )REQUIRMENT: To improve, upgrade and equalize the livability of family housing units in the Air
TI. eOso ADRTou Force inventory.
d uND.. No IN INVENTORY CURRET SITUATI(N: Units in the Air Force inventory vary in age from 1 to 80 years. The majority
* DEEu r S .A.ET . ( .A were constructed since the early 1940's using various construction and design criteria, with
S; :::: AUTHORIZED FUNDED different type equipment and at varying costs. As a result, the units vary in size, materials,
A. uN ruED PRIOR AUTOaRIzATION .: installed equipment, appliances, livability and appearance. The improvement and standardization
A. I oNLUOD N PT P ...... of these units are of a major concern to the Air Force. Currently over 100 million dollars wort
o., c~E ...*-"- - of projects have been identified as being required to Apgrade all of our units to current nation-
A mELAT PRoECT Sal standards. Houses on the same base should be of a comparable standard and contain the same
amenities.
c.
CAP
CosT
DD IFORM1 391
page No. 4
,.T Fc .ae MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA
15 Feb 1973 1974 (Connoed)
aPrTOT4.ITLLTON
AF Variousq
Improvement to Existin. g PublEC TITLEQuarters
Improvement to Existing Public Quarters
19. Description of work to be done (Continued)
STATE AND INSTALLATION
Alaska
Elmendorf AFB Alter Famira
(Separat
Arizona
Williams AFB Improve 50
California
Travis AFB Consolidat
Travis AFB Consolidat
Florida
Eglin Auxiliary #9 Alter 126
Maine
Loring AFB Improve 35
(Separat
New Mexico
Cannon AFB Install Ho
Ohio
Wright-Patterson AFB Improve 64
(Separat
Texas
Carswell AFB Improve 36
Kelly AFB Improve 21
OVERSEAS INSTALLATION
Germany
Ramstein AB Alter Buil
(Separat
ding 1013
e DD Form 1391 attached)
TOTAL
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
.ly Housing, Building 5-504
te DD Form 1391 attached)
'0 Wherry Housing Units
ed Improvements for 1581 Units
ted Exterior Improvements
Airmen Units
8 Wherry Housing Units, Phase I of III
e DD Form 1391 attached)
ods, Dishwashers and Air Conditioning in 761 Units
3 Wherry Housing Units
e DD Form 1391 attached)
3 Wherry Housing Units
1 Wherry Housing Units, Phase II of II
fliD !0!' 1 Ml4
DD FO.RM 139-
. DEp ARTM NT 4" Va io R INST AtL AT3ON
CURRENT WORKING ESTIMATE
($000)
$ 35.8
2,000.0
2,633.7
1,922.9
1,090.0
3,866.4
1,657.3
5,787.0
2,831.4
1,899.0
26.5
$ 23,750.0
-- ---_
TOTAL
,. DArm a. FiScAL vran D ewanM=T 4. InstaLLLT'On
15 Feb 1973 1974 A MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA Emedo Air Force Base
15 Feb 1973 94n A. Eendorf Air Force Base
$35800 P.L. 711-141 880110 Alaska
-o PROPOSEo APPR]opagoN I1. ueoEA AccouNT NumuaE" I PROJEcT NUMaE l. PRoJECT TITLE
$35 800 P 713 Alter Family Housing
SECTION A- DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SECTION B - COST ESTIMATES
. O i s". PRIMARY FACILITY U/C QUANTITY UNIT COST COST (IO0)
TYPE OP CONSTRUCTION PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICSOF PRIMARY FACILITY Alter Family Housing $ 32.
P ,- MA.NENT ORI, * N CAPACITY . GaROSS AREA .
L. ,.OmR .. COOLI C ($ ) ( C
55. TYPE OF ORK L. aESCREIPTION OP R OTOR oE ONE d
.. MEW FACILITY AERATION: 6.PCCRTIOFACILIIR . S
A. ADDITON All partition, finish, electrical, structural, and mech- ....i.. I: 3.6
A aLTERAION x animal work necessary to provide a single staircase; ASupervisuonIsectionOverhea IS 1.6
.. .. es.eo combine double kitchen; relocate powder room; modify
Sorn.. r .or) master bedroom and bath; increase upstairs storage; and d
relocate entryway in Bldg 5-504.
Is. REPLACEMENT AREA INCLUDES: .
IT. TYPEOF DESGN Present - let floor: 2 dining roams, 2 kitchens, 1 liv- .
. ano. A ... LI ing room, powder room. 2nd floor: 6 bedrooms, 4 baths. F.
SEC.L DEGU x After alteration - ist floor: 1 dining room, 1 informal ,
D..X.Xo. dining room, 1 kitchen, 1 living room, powder room.
2nd floor: 3 bedrooms, 4 baths, 2 dressing rooms. a. TOTAL PROJECT COST
SECTION C - BASIS OF REQUIREMENT
. QUANTITATIVE DATA TB. REOiSEENT FOR PROJECT
U/W ) FROJECT: Project provides interior alterations to general officer's quarters to accommodate
.. r ,..E..I.u. ~T military and diplomatic protocol functions.
b ..e..OTIN .UoTAN.Ao ) UIRMENT: These alterations are required to arrange the interior configuration to provide
=. ....... A .u_. or comfort and convenience of occupants and guests.
d._ mU.......T _ _ _eCUURBIT SITUATION: This housing unit was constructed in 1942 as a duplex for field and company
SD.Au RE ASSETS N+C grade officers. The duplex configuration of this facility is not functional for present usage as
SAurozED FUNDED a single family, general officer's quarters. Food preparation, storage, and delivery areas are
L UND E.D P..R OO. . ::TIE _ too small to accommodate the volume of activity associated with protocol functions. Present rot
,. ICLUDED INC* PO arrangement is confusing to visitors - entry to dining room from living room is either through
.. os,.Ic (- -. - r- kitchen or outer entry; powder room opens directly into dining-living room; duplex stairways are
2. .1LTEo POE-cT dark and lead to old duplex portions of upstairs area. Some of the existing rooms and spaces are
exceedingly small.
DDITIONIAL: This project will complete the known requirement for work on this family housing unit
No concurrent maintenance and repair work is to be done.
page No. 4
DD IF"OR1391
1. ATE a-. 11SCAL "EAR . DPPATMENT . IsTALLATION
15 Feb 1973 1974 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION LINE ITEM DATA AF ring Air Force Base
S. OeI.o AVoTrNoRATION . RoR A-C.AUTONIATIRON . CATOoY CoO NUMM.. . NPO aM....U.T .TAr/COU rMY
13,866,400 P.L. 711-121 880110 Maine
to. PROPOSED A.PPrOPRIATIO - I1. *uOOET ACCouNT uum.r II. LIs ITS NUMBER L LINE ITEM TITLE
$3,866,400 P 713 Improve 358 Wherry Units
SECTION A - DESCRIPTION OF LINE ITEM SECTION B - COST ESTIMATES
1I. 1, T0. PRIMARY FACILITY CW QUANTITY UNIT COST COST (OO)
TYPE Or CONSTRUCTION PHYSICAL CH ARACTERISTICS OF PRIMARY FACILITY Improve 358 Wherry Units IS 0 200 3 61.6
a P.ErA...N X .. . . I. .O.rI O L L.TH Id- . DTH
A .1C P - MANENT . 1a n CAPACITY I. G O A. AEA C
aT oRAy I ooLIO CAP. CosT ($ c.S
. TY o DIOCP 0TIOn O5 1 ROI O a R M CE .
TYEF..E OILI Project provides for the improvement of Wherry Housing rSI. .T,. .C.tC..nLl ii: ti.i.it.i!!!!i iii! .!!ir 1.8
A A,,Dne. x and will result in 358 units after improvement, T
AL.uSRATIoN x combination and required demolition. Work includes ~..C.mpe verhat T _ _
SeoTErs.lon improving the kitchen layout; providing amenities; C
aoaTu(isu*a) modernizing bathrooms; providing a powder room on first
floor; providing interior and exterior storage; and
E. EPLACEMENT providing new garages adjacent to living areas. Improve r.
,T. TYPEOP DEoG ments will be accomplished in conjunction with major - .
SSrTANDAD eR* l repairs required to existing systems.
A SPECIAL DOY S X_ __
a R*SwN cS*O. I x
TS. TOAL T A rO coT r C 866.4
SECTION C - BASIS OF REQUIREMENT
Ia QUANTITATIVE DATA sE. RLqUM NT PON LINE ITll
(/) The Wherry Housing at Loring AFB presents a dismal picture of long blocks of row houses
P TOTAL MQOIMEMSIT containing up to 29 units per building. With 20 years of age, many of the existing systems
a .MISEl .U .oM.YAMA ) have failed or are failing. The differential in time and life styles since these units
a MIrmIS AMEUMATE were constructed has created extensive inequities between these housing unite and the Capehart
I 1S5MM.RO IC*T -rMo_ _ and MCP houses on base. The high density of the Wherry area creates numerous problems,
a AEAe AsSETs (** including snow removal which is a major seasonal problem. The kitchens are extremely small
AuroNRI2c. r.. . . . and the units lack virtually all the conveniences which have become standard in DOD criteria
un .ou aP o ue.PO I on '"EoA and in the local community. The occupants have little or no exterior storage and the existing
eI ScLUe Is PT Pwo"NAM garages are small and in poor condition. The repairs required for these units must be
As- DErSCIr(-* - accomplished in any event, and the most economical approach to resolution of the problem
a. LATE LI.IIYrs Repir 3 8 Wherr Units for upgrading is doing the work in combination. This project will be Phase I of III. The total
($4,200 per unit) $1 503 0 combined cost of the improvement and repair work is $15,000 per unit. Total project cost is
$5,370,000 (Repair - $1,503,600 - Improvements $3,866,400).
a_ If
DD ' 1391
r. N.
Lu - U OPTION OF PROJECT a nte r cOUi e .l Uno1 a
PHYSICAL C AR ACTERISTICSOF PRIM ARY FACILITY n c Mn FAthLI ev SECTION B COST ESTIMATES
o DEscfRPT( ON OF WOR To a ( NE -- st ( - )
Housing Units into 643 ucits. This project wili bei g d c d r
accomplished i cojunction ith major repairs t he se . Su ervision nsetion IS
Units. Work includes air conditioning, modernizing the oi
kitchen and providing disposers and dishwashers; adding fa
interior storage and family room; soundproofing; provd- .
ing exterior privacy for patio; lighting; and off-street
QCT.
10 TOTAL PROJECT COST
NTITAT VE DATA SECTION C " BASI OF REQUIREMENT
l. E CRUI PT TO; Ec
She herry Housing at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base is approximately 20 years old. Consequent-
-ly3 many of the e3p sting systems have exceeded their life cycle and are now failing. Addition-
ally, in the time since construction of these units, living standards in the nation and local
community have increased greatly. This increase in living standards has created a major inequity
in the quality of Wherry Housing compared to other family housing on the base and in the local
. community. The Wherry units are not only smaller in sise than is now authorized under current
kithI aUTHOiZED n gE DOD criteria, but also lack many features such as air conditioning, disp sers, and dishwashers,
ner or L which are now standard items in current construction. Because many system repairs are necessary
ilong for these units, combining the irovement work with the repairs will result in less disruption
of families and will be more economical than two separate efforts. The total combines cost of
the irovement and repair work is $15,000 per unit. Total project cost is $9,645,000 (Repair -
community3,858,000 plus Imrovments - 5,787,0 O).
Paeo No.
"ATE D2 F CAOL YEA 2. DEPARTMENT
15 Feb 1974 197 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA AF
15 Feb 1974 1944A
$26,500
TYPE OF CONSTRUCT
PERMANENT
D. r ora on
reMo n"n
"- N E FA CI LI*
D. ArDDIION
s...aCS...Y o n
s REPLACEMNT
IT, TYPE OF DESIGN
"NOA.OL DEMON
S P-lAL DE -,
DROANIMO NO.
r. QUANTITATIVE DATA
. TOTAL REQOUIREMET
0. aI.ION RSuSTNORR ( )
C. EOITIRAR E aTN
2 AOC FNDED. OT INIS R
A NONMOTE ARSET. (Re
- ::: ...o...,. AUTAORIZEOi. P00
L O NAOEo PRIORAATOOSIOIN
. INCLUOE IN ..FT rROGR*
WV '75 0..FN . PECU
W- -5 FORM .... -
IONI C. SrJS OF REQUIREMENT
2. REOUIREMENT FOR PROJECT
PROJECT: Enlarges the living room, study/library and master bedroom, CURRENT SITUATION: Because
of the poor functional layout the existing facility is totally inadequate to serve the military,
diplomatic and social requirements placed on the Commander in Chief USAFE. Completion of the
FX 73 project, which enlarges the dining room, will provide only minor relief as both the living
and dining room must be used concurrently to accommodate the number of people normally attending
the frequent social functions hosted by the CINC. The library/study is indispensable for the
I1NC to conduct private talks with visiting dignitaries and allied country diplomatic visitors as
well as for the extensive amount of work which he must accomplish at home. The master bedroom/
dressing area require enlargement/alteration to provide adequate space and functional arrangement
commensurate with accepted standards for prestige quarters. IMPACT IF NOT PROVIDED: Failure to
accomplish this project will seriously degrade the fulfillment of diplomatic and social obliga-
tions incumbent with the CINC of a major command in a foreign country. No concurrent maintenance
and repair work is to be dOne.
RI ATION , S . URI UTORIrZATIO P CATEOORy COOE NUMBER S. PROGRAM ELEMENT ES TATE/COUNTRY
P.L. 711-161 880110
OPRII. .UOOET ACCOUNT NUMBER I2. PROJECT N.UMBE . IS. PROJECT TITLE
P 713 Ad to and Alter Family Hosing (Bldg. 1013)
SECTION - DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SECTION B - COST ESTIMATES
TIO PHYSICL CHARACTRISTIC OF PRIMARY FACII AILI U/ QUANTITY UNIT COST COST (000)
Add to and Alter Family Housin5
X I..b O RE. N. TIE L- T " .T AdditioL
S IN CAPACITY I. 00 R AlterationIS
a cNOLO None NAP. coST (S
It- )SenwrOon or w
IS Os RIPTO OF NO TORE EONS d . ION. ___ ......_d.
Addition Concrete slab on grade, masonry walls and ,. AFUPoRTI AIITIR . ..... .. . .................. . . te rion
x peaked tile roof to match exidsting construction. . Patio _ _0. 6
Alterations Required work to connect new construction t
existing structure and systems. Rearrangement of inter- .
ior partitions in master bedroom to improve functional Contin encies 2.
layout. Desin
Area Includes: Living room, master bedroom, dressing '. Funded I 1.
room, study, library. a. Unfunded 0
A. upe rviai on, nspect on, Uverhea
I. Funded 8
I. Unfunded 0.2
R. TOTAL PROJECT COST
nousina - 9.9
i-~
4, INSTALLATION
:
FLgIL"PEDI PCT ro w dd and Aler rarmi
E
Mr. PATTEN. The request is for $23,750,000 to improve 4,545 units of
family housing at 10 installations. In addition you are requesting
$400,000 for minor construction. How does this compare to the amount
provided for improvements and minor construction last year ?
General REILLY. In fiscal year 1973 we requested and obtained
$11,955,000 for improvements. For minor construction, we requested
$1 million, and the committee gratuitously provided $5,400,000.
In fiscal year 1974 we are requesting $23,750,000 for improvements
and $400,000 for minor construction.
Mr. PATrEN. At Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, you propose to
alter the general's quarters at a cost of $35,800. Would it not make
more sense to build the general a new house and make this duplex
available to two other families ?
General REILLY. NO. In Alaska we couldn't build a general officers'
unit within the current statutory limitation. Since this house has al-
ready been combined, we feel it is more logical and economical to con-
tinue with this approach.
Mr. PATrEN. Where will the general live while this work is going
on ? Do you have a vacant house for him that is adequate ?
General REILLY. At about the time we would start work on the unit
we would hold either a vacated general or senior officer unit for interim
occupancy by the commander. A vacant unit is not available now.
Mr. PATTEN. At Williams Air Force Base, Ariz., you are requesting
$2 million to improve 500 Wherry housing units. What exactly do you
propose to do?
Mr. JoHNSToN. In this particular project we intend to improve 500
Wherry units by providing additional storage, a second bath in the
three-bedroom units. We are going to modernize the kitchens to pro-
vide disposers and dishwashers, provide patios with privacy screens
in the rear of the units, and add carports.
We figure this work will bring these units up to comparable condi-
tion of other existing units on base and in the area.
Mr. PATTEN. Are you or have you consulted with the wives to deter-
mine if these improvements meet the requirements ?
Mr. JoHNSTON. Yes, sir, we have discussed it with the wives and you
may notice that some of the wives' recommendations are included in
the narticular project.
Mr. PATTEN. At Travis Air Force Base, 'Calif., you are requesting
funds for what you call consolidated improvements and exterior im-
provements. Exactly what do you mean ?
General REILLY. These projects are consolidations of the identified
deficiencies in all the housing units at Travis AFB. Housing at Travis
consists of Wherry, MCP, and Capehart, and the specific work varies
with each housing area. The objective is to eliminate all deficiencies
and make all of the-housing equally acceptable to the occupants.
Mr. PATTEN. Provide details for the record on unit cost and the work
to be done.
[The information follows:]
LIST OF UNIT COST AND WORK TO BE DONE AT TRAVIS AFB
Interior Improvements.-$1,666 per unit: Work consists primarily of modern-
izing kitchens, including installation of dishwashers and garbage disposers, mod-
ernizing bathrooms, and providing additional bathrooms where appropriate.
21-111 U - 73 - 19
Exterior Improvements.-$1,216 per unit: Work consists of improving the
storm drainage system, providing patios and privacy areas.
Mr. PATTEN. You are proposing to alter 126 airmen units at Eglin
Auxiliary No. 9, Fla. What work will be done on these units?
General REILLY. The proposed project will add a half bath, mod-
ernize the kitchen, provide adequate dining space, utility area, and
interior/exterior storage areas.
Mr. PATTEN. Is this part of a continuing program, or is this a new
project?
General REILLY. This is a new project.
Mr. PATTEN. At Loring Air Force Base, Maine, you propose to
improve 358 Wherry units. What is the current situation? Do you
have any pictures ?
Mr. JOHNsTON. No, sir; we have no pictures. These are Wherry
units. They are some of our borderline cases but we feel they should
be improved and kept in the inventory and this particular work in-
cludes improving the kitchen layouts, providing amenities, moderniz-
ing the bathrooms, providing bath and powder room on the first floor,
providing interior and exterior storage, and providing new garages
in an area where they are really needed, adjacent to living areas.
They also include some of the amenities recommended by the wives.
Mr. PATTEN. You say this is the first of three phases. What will the
next two phases encompass?
General REILLY. The next two phases will accomplish the same
work on additional housing units. There are approximately 1,600
Wherry units at Loring, and phasing the work permits accomplish-
ment of the project in an orderly manner without compromise, since
the construction period will extend over several years.
Mr. PATTEN. Is this a solid base ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Loring ? Yes, sir.
Mr. PATTEN. What are your present and projected base loading
levels ? Supply that for the record.
[The information follows:]
PRESENT AND PROJECTED BASE LOADING LEVELS
The present base loading for military personnel is 3,865 and the projected
strength for the end of fiscal year 1978 is 3,785.
Mr. PATTEN. How many Wherry units are you converting to arrive
at the 358 acceptable units?
Mr. JOHNSTON. At Loring? All 358. We are not reducing the inven-
tory at Loring.
Mr. PATTEN. At Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, you pro-
pose to convert 900 units into 643 units. Can you show us how you
plan to do this?
Mr. JOHNSTON. We don't have drawings for this, Mr. Chairman, but
at Wright-Patterson, we have an exceptionally large number of row
housing. In other words, six to eight units, and a number of our end
units are three-bedroom units or four-bedroom units and in between
those units are two-story units, upstairs and downstairs, and what we
propose to do is to reconfigure the two-bedroom units between the
end units and come up with some good three- and four-bedroom units.
Mr. PATTEN. DO you think they will be fully .acceptable?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir, they will be fully acceptable. This will be
adequate housing and kept in our inventory for a long time.
Mr. PATTEN. At Ramstein Air Base, Germany, you propose an im-
provement to the quarters of the commander-in-chief of USAFE.
Would it not be more economical to build him a new house and turn
his present quarters over to someone with fewer social demands ? That
way you would have two houses instead of one.
General REILLY. We could not build a general officer unit in Germany
within the current statutory limitation. We feel that the alteration to
this unit is the most economical way to provide the CINCUSAFE
an ,adequate set of quarters.
MINOR CONSTRUCTION
Mr. PATTEN. Let us turn to minor construction.
Insert page 52 in the record.
[The page follows:]
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIMMY FACILITY
- b OF. LO s o o... O. . T. I LeOTN d I o.
- DOSgn CAPACI Y GnosS AnA
*. COOLINe CA, CoST (S
I. DESCRIPTION O WORD TO SD DONe
Provides for minor improvements, additions, expansions,
extensions, conversions, and replacements to such prop-
erties as family dwelling unite, non-dwelling-structurees,
ground areas, road and utiliUty systems serving family
housing facilities, and other property included in the
Defense Family Housing Account under the authority of 10
use 2674.
GG. P CIon FACILIt
aS. RKCYIRNuM T PoR PROJECT
These funds are required to provide a means for accomplishing minor imrovement work needed to
satisfy requirements which arise during the year and that are so minor in scope individually the
inclusion in a regular military family housing construction program is not feasible. Also in-
cluded are funds required to satisfy immediate and urgent military family housing facilities re-
quirements which arise during the year and cannot await inclusion in the next year's regular
military family housing construction program.
II IUCCOIIINS CICILI~I~
~~ ~---~--~
291
Mr. PATTEN. TO what extent could the Air Force usefully use carry-
over balances to supplement the $400,000 requested this year for minor
construction ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. We have been real grateful to the committee for
increasing our minor construction funds in the past, sir. However,
this year we felt we wanted to put as much money as we could into
the improvements program. We increased it to $23 million.
Additional funds could be put into this particular category and
do smaller urgent projects but our present policy is that we are try-
ing to do large projects at a few bases and completely upgrade the
units at those particular bases. Additional funds could be utilized in
this particular area.
Mr. PATTEN. Have you used all the money we gave you last year?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir.
PLANNING
Mr. PATTEN. Let us turn to planning.
Insert page 53 in the record.
[The page follows:]
. I ........ L P . LLTIO*
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION LINE ITEM DATA
15 Feb 1973 AF Various Location
L PRO@9m AUTHrZATlnIN. wwl *w uAY*Tl@NE I. CTr CA vOlr CO.. NYUnu. *S.. =:w ELUt 0. UTAVCOUNTRY
S .....300,000 P.L 31 C 723 N/A 88110
re. o 0o0weO PAn71owAvn ce aunoear Accounr nun ndwn 1. Lnd 1 1i ley HoT i -Pl0 et
S - -00 - P 714 Advance Planning and Design - Family Housina Prolaetx
rneron or won o a nONE.
funds are required for Architect-Engineer
re, fees, etc., in connection with advance
)sign of family housing dwelling units and
led in or proposed for the Defense Family E
rty Aocount.
r cuumourmnvmer
. TOTL wEQU1w0rNT
Un* UIAWAYVE AP
tKamU*0m aumeu,.inr
& KWUTUS. WUfATO
* ADEUAT aEsJ.,K(
* fl5a*eKawoumnero0y
= .un ~. * mA US Or eUIRneaNT
I Rc ulnr S-s PO LINE , TiT
The appropriated funds requested in this item are necessary to procure arohitect-engineer
services to make site and utility investigations; for the preparation of diLign, plans, drawings,
and specifications; and for other services and fees in connection with the preparation of
advance plans for future year housing programs and for such effort on proposed projects which
subsequently may not be included in approved construction programs.
293
Mr. PArTEN. IS this amount sufficient ? Do you need it all ?
General REILLY During the past fiscal year we did in fact use the
total amount. However, typically in other prior years we did not use
the entire amount. We feel we need the full amount of $300,000 this
year. Although we anticipate no unusual conditions, we believe it is
necessary in case we design some projects which might encounter diffi-
culties and not be constructed.
DEBT PAYMENT
Mr. PATTEN. Turn to debt payment.
Insert pages 54 through 64 in the record.
[The pages follow:]
February 15, 1973 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE - FY 1974 BUDGET
DEBT PAYMENT
NARRATIVE JUSTIFICATION:
In FY 1974, the appropriation of $82,521,000 is required for the debt payment program which
includes:
1. Monthly payments directly to mortgagees for 437 Capehart and 100 Wherry housing projects;
2. An annual payment as agent for the Department of Defense to the Commodity Credit
Corporation to liquidate the dollar equivalent of foreign currencies spent to provide family housing
overseas;
3. Mortgage insurance premiums to Federal Housing Administration on Capehart and Wherry housing,
most of which are paid directly instead of through the mortgagees;
4. Mortgage insurance premiums on behalf of Servicemen on private homes they are purchasing.
Authority has been enacted (Section 501(b) of P.L. 87-554, as amended) providing for use of the net
proceeds of sales and handling of excess military family housing for the purpose of debt service.
Income from sales and handling has been, and continues to be, generated. Some mortgages have
been retired, and some accelerated payments are being made with this income. In cases where the
best interests of the Government are served, prepayments are expected to continue.
Page No. 54
DEPARTMET OF THE AIR FORCE
February 15, 1973 FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE - FY 1974 BUDGET
DEBT PAYMENT
($000)
FY 1972 FY 1973 FY 1974
Actual Estimate Estimate
TOA
Interest & Other Expenses:
Capehart 25,718 24,229 22,626
Wherry 6724 6458 6056
Subtotal 32,442 30 7
MIP:
Capehart 948 894 834
Wherry 258 250 234
Servicemen's Insurance Preium 1679 1600
Subtotal 2,O85 o 2_658
Total Obligations 35,327 33,31 31,3
FINANCING ADJUSTMENTS
Advance Principal Payments:
Capehart
Wherry
Subtotal
Less: Reimbursenents
Capehart Rentals
Sales & Handling
Total Reimbursenents
Unobligated Balance Start of Year
Reprogramming from Prior Years
Plus:Available for Other Years
BUDGET AUTHORITY
Budget Authority:
Appropriation
Transfers among Accounts
Portion Applied to Debt
+ 1,904
+ 1,198
+ 3,102
- 358
-7 927
- ,2 85
- 7,310
- 15
+ 8,167
30,986
81,428
+2,750
+ 250
+3,000
- 297
-3.300
-3,597
-8,167
+2,626
27,293
80,086
Capehart -35,246 -36,884
Wherry - 9,196 - 9,831
Surplus Commodity - 6000 -6,000
Subtotal -___4T_ -52,715
Appropriation (Adjusted) 30,986 27,293
1/ The appropriation request for Debt Payment is in lump sum for the Department of Defense.
within that total.
NOTE: Detail on Debt Payment pages may not add to totals due to roundings.
+ 3,150
+ 250
+ 3,400
- 297
- 3,700
- 3,997
- 2,626
FY 1974 Appropriation
28,117 Recapitulation
Capehart $58,659
82,521 1/ Wherry 16,272
- Surplus Comm 6,000
Mortgage Ins.
-38,172 Premiums 1,590
-10,232 $82,521
6 f n d
28.117
The amount footnoted is
Page No. 55
DIPARTMDIT OF THE AIR FORCE
February 15, 1973 FAMILY HOUSING, DEFIBE - FY 1974 BUDGET
DEir PAYMENT - CAPEHART HOUSING
Fund requirements of $58,659,oo0 for Capebart Housing costs have been estimated on
the basis of mortgage payments and related expenses for housing constructed under the
provisions of Title I, P.L. 345, 84th Congress as amended by Title V, P.L. 1020,
84th Congress (Capehart Housing).
The following table 'hows the data in support of debt payment requirements for
Capehrt A R being:
The number of Capebart units owne& as of 1 July 1973; the original
mortgage, the eamomt owed as of 1 July 1973; the estimated payments
required for FY 19714; net financing adjustments8 and the total
amount required for F! 1974.
Page No. 56
February 15, 1973
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE - FY 1974 BUDGET ESTIMATE
DEBT PAYMENT - CAPEHART HOUSING
ORIGINAL NUMBER
OF UNITS
LOCATION
ORIGINAL
MORTGAGE
ESTIMATED
AMOUNT OWED AS OF
1 JULY 1973
ESTIMATED
FY 1974 REGULAR
PAYMENTS
Adair AFS, Oregon
Altus AFB, Oklahoma
Amarillo AFB, Texas
Andersen AFB, Guam, M.I.
Barksdale AFB, Louisiana
Beale AFB, California
Blytheville AFB, Arkansas
Brooks AFB, Texas
Chanute AFB, Illinois
Charleston AFB, South Carolina
Clinton-Sherman AFB, Oklahoma
Columbus AFB, Mississippi
Custer AFS, Michigan
Dover AFB, Delaware
Dow AFB, Maine
Duluth ANG, Minnesota
Dyess AFB, Texas
Edwards AFB, California
Eglin AFB, Florida
Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota
England AFB, Louisiana
F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming
Fairchild AFB, Washington
Forbes AFB, Kansas
150
700
500
1,050
200
1,200
830
170
450
950
800
820
169
1,250
1,010
240
1,000
778
500
910
300
100
314
1,054
$ 2,440,738
10,732,599
7,932,969
20,278,676
3,288,000
19,696,628
12,566,400
2,800,341
7,400,402
15,631,785
13,097,715
13,171,865
2,780,844
19,825,048
16,303,832
3,957,884
13,554,700
12,828,980
6,726,800
14,961,901
4,843,361
1,649,547
5,077,331
16,924,314
$ 1,433,259
6,078,046
2,028,954
12,054,944
2,017,201
12,557,391
7,450,091
1,908,510
4,283,592
9,483,724
7,729,239
7,607,656
1,632,978
11,489,416
6,172,905
2,376,538
6,613,876
7,532,668
3,265,218
10,654,230
2,525,065
1,136,385
2,970,147
9,458,336
$ 160,898
689,476
515,711
1,343,802
216,975
1,306,366
842,242
189,739
475,412
1,024,619
859,370
864,989
183,319
1,301,036
830,754
260,911
870,478
845,712
431,166
1,015,730
310,801
111,771
329,820
1,097,799
Page No. 57
February 15, 1973
LOCATION
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE - FY 1974 BUDGET ESTIMATE
DEBT PAYMENT - CAPEHART HOUSING
ORIGINAL NUMBER ORIGINAL ESTIMATED
OF UNITS MORTGAGE AMOUNT OWED AS OF
1 JULY 1973
ESTIMATED
FY 1974 REGULAR
PAYMENTS
Geiger Field AI, Washington
Glasgow AFB, Montana
Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota
Griffiss AFB, New York
Grissom AFB, Indiana
Hamilton AFB, California
Hancock Field, New York
Hickam AFB, Hawaii
Holloman AFB, New Mexico
Homestead AFB, Florida
James Connally AFB, Texas
K.I. Sawyer AFB, Michigan
Keesler AFB, Mississippi
Kincheloe AFB, Michigan
Kingsley Field, Oregon
Kirtland AFB, New Mexico
Langley AFB, Virginia
Larson AFB, Washington
Laughlin AFB, Texas
L.G. Hanscom ARC, Massachusetts
Lincoln AFB, Nebraska
Little Rock AFB, Arkansas
Lockbourne AFB, Ohio
Loring AFB, Maine
Luke AFB, Arizona
228
960
1,414
730
930
550
216
600
400
1,255
366
1,395
530
995
290
703
500
530
500
395
600
1,535
400
178
725
$ 3,689,111
15,789,017
23,263,474
11,933,777
14,469,075
8,214,694
3,554,294
9,700,712
6,579,830
20,465,642
5,986,410
22,996,318
8,718,282
16,392,379
4,784,886
11,562,775
7,952,920
8,637,874
7,919,649
6,507,300
9,849,302
22,506,200
6,596,800
2,915,334
11,116,701
$ 2,208,970
10,056,630
15,503,692
7,134,351
8,035,403
5,042,712
2,226,354
5,611,845
3,816,227
11,590,024
2,300,230
14,512,143
5,906,014
10,813,541
2,652,309
6,797,259
4,831,092
5,437,078
4,556,739
3,750,942
4,156,184
12,277,827
3,982,724
1,783,625
6,622,813
$ 243,194
1,056,810
1,557,662
781,682
935,872
541,962
234,548
622,764
433,942
1,314,740
389,168
1,531,370
590,703
1,110,446
307,055
762,241
524,531
579,157
508,769
418,038
623,859
1,444,234
434,874
193,661
714,429
Page No. 5 8
February 15, 1973 FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE - FY 1974 BUDGET ESTIMATE
DEBT PAYMENT - CAPEHART HOUSING
ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
ORIGINAL NUMBER ORIGINAL AMOUNT OWED AS OF FY 1974 REGULAR
LOCATION OF UNITS MORTGAGE 1 JULY 1973 PAYMENTS
Malmstrom AFB, Montana 710 $ 11,695,418 $ 7,818,015 $ 788,269
Mather AFB, California 450 7,311,506 4,582,194 488,901
McChord AFB, Washington 600 8,729,325 5,105,810 575,454
McClellan AFB, California 540 8,695,942 5,227,732 573,254
McConnell AFB, Kansas 490 7,869,400 4,483,164 505,541
McCoy AFB, Florida 668 10,416,075 6,669,851 705,102
McGuire AFB, New Jersey 1,750 28,866,559 18,013 815 1,936,093
Medina Army Base AI, Texas 125 1,985,501 1,202,523 135,955
Minot AFB, North Dakota 1,462 23,943,892 15,014,214 1,594,472
Mountain Home AFB, Idaho 570 9,328,505 5,935,358 623,931
Myrtle Beach AFB, South Carolina 800 - 12,181,405 6,886,910 783,865
Nellis AFB, Nevada 200 3,282,512 1,954,800 216,390
Niagara Falls ANG, New York 290 4,782,431 2,871,288 315,424
Offutt AFB, Nebraska 1,516 24,982,436 17,039,709 1,682,241
Olmsted AFB, Pennsylvania 140 2,296,800 0 0
Patrick AFB, Florida 999 16,383,358 9,110,956 1,051,328
Pease AFB, New Hampshire 1,100 16,654,311 9,431,611 1,069,895
Plattsburg AFB, New York 1,685 27,799,717 15,715,105 1,784,035
Richards Gebaur AFB, Missouri 610 10,041,630 5,886,821 644,788
Robins AFB, Georgia 423 6,861,781 4,014,579 444,957
Page No. .59
February 15, 1973
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE - FY 1974 BUDGET ESTIMATE
DEBT PAYMENT - CAPEHART HOUSING
LOCATION
Schilling AFB, Kansas
Selfridge AFB, Michigan
Sewart AFB, Tennessee
Seymour-Johnson AFB, North Carolina
Sheppard AFB, Texas
Sioux City AFS, Iowa
Stead AFB, Nevada
Suffolk County AFB, New York
Tinker AFB, Oklahoma
Travis AFB, California
Truax ANG, Wisconsin
Tyndall AFB, Florida
USAF Academy, Colorado
Vance AFB, Oklahoma
Vandenberg AFB, California
Webb AFB, Texas
Westover AFB, Massachusetts
Whiteman AFB, Missouri
Wurtsmith AFB, Michigan
Mortgage Payments Sub-Total
Net Financing Adjustment
FY 1974 Appropriation Request
ORIGINAL NUMBER
OF UNITS
735
380
87
1,500
500
235
302
220
268
1,148
170
420
1,200
230
1,805
460
490
504
948
$59,100
ORIGINAL
MORTGAGE
$ 10,778,682
6,239,862
1,431,276
21,722,400
7,832,100
3,873,120
4,489,638
3,528,200
4,420,000
17,926,695
2,532,195
6,877,034
19,387,419
3,785,932
26,482,791
6,789,747
7,958,672
8,296,323
15,591,215
$944,6:7,221
ESTIMATED
AMOUNT OWED AS OF
1 JULY 1973
$ 6,006,463
3,973,567
483,138
11,631,121
4,585,676
1,205,569
1,259,437
2,084,850
2,473,097
11,229,298
1,781,692
3,609,577
11,162,172
2,210,553
15,538,683
3,851,298
5,044,008
5,695,882
9.963,584
$552,821, 217
ESTIMATED
FY 1974 REGULAR
PAYMENTS
$ 702,962
422,187
90,658
1,392,871
516,308
251,786
284,375
232,586
283,633
1,187,315
171,735
441,303
1,245,473
249,576
1,735,924
435,921
530,158
564,175
1,038,449
$61,631,897
-, 972,897
$58,659,000
Page No. 60
February 15, 1973 DWAMIMW OF THE AIR FORCE
FAMIrY HoM I, DMEIS - FY 1973 NODOI
DET PAYMI - WHORY IHOUSD
Fund requirements of *16,272,000 for Wherry Housing are estimated on the basis of
average amount per ruit required to cover mortgage payments and related expenses of Wherry
Housing acquired by the Air Force.
The attached table shows the number of Wherry units by location owned as of
1 Jy 1973; the original mortgage; the amount oved as of 1 July 1973; and the payment
required for FY 197&.
CO
O
PaSge o. 61
Is(LIICj-~Z~ ~
February 15, 1973
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE - FY 1974 BUDGET ESTIMATE
DEBT PAYMENT - WHERRY HOUSING
LOCATION
Barksdale AFB, Louisiana
Bergstrom AFB, Texas
Biggs AFB, Texas
Carswell AFB, Texas
Castle AFB, California
Chanute AFB, Illinois
Craig AFB, Alabama
Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona
Edwards AFB, California
Eglin AFB, Florida
Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota
F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming
Fairchild AFB, Washington
George AFB, California
Hamilton AFB, California
Hill AFB, Utah
Holloman AFB, New Mexico
Keesler AFB, Mississippi
Kelly AFB, Texas
Kirtland AFB, Texas
ORIGINAL NUMBER
OF UNITS
692
480
800
600
700
800
225
550
1,350
750
891
500
1,000
650
505
350
600
858
592
760
ORIGINAL
MORTGAGE
$ 5,012,808
3,748,596
6,365,414
3,988,231
5,382,269
6,145,694
1,637,368
3,998,540
9,330,161
5,469,541
7,159,052
3,612,949
7,843,490
4,026,300
3,695,756
2,639,319
4,877,002
6,122,084
4,206,004
6,042,202
ESTIMATED
AMOUNT OWED AS OF
1 JULY I
$ 2,737,311
2,107,627
3,497,693
2,380 346
3,113,342
3,387,479
973,375
2,515,387
5,473,945
3,060,149
4,238,750
2,032,219
4,340,608
2,170,179
2,078,982
1,595,984
3,028,492
3,412,755
2,375,695
3,420,775
ESTIMATED
FY 1974 REGULAR
PAYMENTS
$ 311,704
230,451
390,903
290,989
327,609
372,485
99,916
247,620
571,569
332,921
429,835
225,804
480,191
253,012
225,845
153,575
288,145
376,553
275,233
374,034
Page No. 62
February 15, 1973
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE - FY 1974 BUDGET ESTIMATE
DEBT PAYMENT - WHERRY HOUSING
LOCATION
Lackland AFB, Texas
Larson AFB, Washington
Lockbourne AFB, Ohio
Loring AFB, Maine
Lowry AFB, Colorado
MacDill AFB, Florida
Malmstrom AFB, Montana
March AFB, California
Mather AFB, California
Maxwell AFB, Alabama
McClellan AFB, California
Mountain Home AFB, Idaho
Nellis AFB, Nevada
Offutt AFB, Nebraska
Patrick AFB, Florida
Perrin AFB, Texas
Presque Isle AFB, Maine
Ramey AFB, Puerto Rico
Randolph AFB, Texas
Reese AFB, Texas
Robins AFB, Georgia
ORIGINAL NUMBER
OF UNITS
600
800
500
1,500
480
800
592
644
750
250
105
500
800
611
680
300
192
995
612
418
500
ORIGINAL
MORTGAGE
$ 4,570,344
6,166,016
4,044,707
13,867,253
3,505,296
5,913,567
4,121,647
3,961,176
5,944,109
1,138,686
828,160
4,221,439
6,346,470
4,493,249
5,237,385
2,161,950
1,847,994
7,922,844
4,511,700
2,936,530
3,448,089
ESTIMATED
AMOUNT OWED AS OF
1 JULY 1973
$ 2,637,741
3,501,878
2,563,622
8,679,588
2,010,032
3,235,234
2,382,275
2,227,262
3,366,618
621,066
473,036
2,694,604
3,755,990
2,512,041
3,047,676
1,354,338
1,179,655
4,902,267
2,698,177
1,803,279
1,936,449
ESTIMATED
FY 1974 REGULAR
PAYMENTS
$ 279,071
364,663
244,095
813,761
217,243
373,289
248,322
249,055
365,723
76,180
50.317
253,350
389,531
276,230
315,725
131,676
110,539
473,653
287,002
176,299
209,061
Page No. 63
February 15, 1973
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE - FY 1974 BUDGET ESTIMATE
DEBT PAYMENT - WHERRY HOUSING
ORIGINAL NUMBER
OF UNITS
ORIGINAL
MORTGAGE
ESTIMATED
AMOUNT OWED AS OF
1 JULY 1973
ESTIMATED
FY 1974 REGULAR
PAYMENTS
Scott AFB, Illinois
Selfridge AFB, Michigan
Sewart AFB, Tennessee
Shaw AFB, South Carolina
Sheppard AFB, Texas
Travis AFB, California
Tyndall AFB, Florida
Walker (former AFB), Roswell, New Mexico
Westover AFB, Massachusetts
Williams AFB, Arizona
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio
Mortgage Payments Sub-Total
Net Financing Adjustment
FY 1974 Appropriation Request
1,000
511
600
900
612
980
450
801
1,150
500
2,000
$35,786
$ 7,654,967
3,803,584
4,449,454
6,555,292
4,201,454
7,628,965
3,465,463
6,104,811
9,272,771
2,940,957
15,232,565
$269,801,614
$ 4,267,656
2,198,491
1,291,720
3,906,804
2,430,453
4,260,453
1,907,487
3,378,277
5,302,630
1,623,805
9,406,726
$155,498,423
LOCATION
$ 474,188
215,258
265,083
401,560
254,384
465,370
213,181
384,329
568,289
185,332
971,871
$16,522,,024
- 250,024
$16,272,000
Page No. 64
WHERRY AND CAPEHART HOUSING TO BE GIVEN UP DUE TO CLOSURES
Mr. PATTEN. How many of these Wherry and Capehart units will be
given up by the Air Force as a result of base closures and realinements ?
What is the remaining useful life of these units ?
General REILLY. There will be 5,299 encumbered units, including
2,762 Capehart and 2,537 Wherry, given up by the Air Force.
The remaining useful life of these units is about 20 years. Some 2,017
of these units will be transferred to other services. The remaining, we
hope, will be sold and used to meet housing needs in the local areas.
Mr. PATTEN. Do you have an estimate of the market value of these
units?
General REILLY. The market value of the 5,299 units is estimated at
$79 million, using a $15,000 average value.
REMAINING LIABILITY
Mr. PATTEN. What is your total remaining liability for Capehart and
Wherry housing ?
General REILLY. The total remaining liability as of July 1, 1973, for
Wherry housing is $155,498,423, for Capehart housing $552,821,217,
for a total of $708,319,640.
SURPLUS COMMODITY HOUSING
Mr. PATTEN. Let us turn to surplus commodity housing.
Insert pages 65 through 68 in the record.
[The pages follow:]
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE--FISCAL YEAR 1974
BUDGET, DEBT PAYMENTS-COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION
Funds in the amount of $6 million are requested to provide for payment to the
Commodity Credit Corporation in fiscal year 1974. The Department of the Air
Force is the fiscal agent of the Department of Defense for this payment.
The surplus commodity credit housing program was designed to obtain family
type public quarters in foreign countries. Section 411 of Public Law 968-84
authorized the use of foreign currencies collected under international agreements
between those countries and the United States resulting from the sale of surplus
U.S. agricultural products. Section 508 of Public Law 174-88 requires the Depart-
ment of Defense to pay the Commodity Credit Corporation an amount not to
exceed $6 million a year until the amount of foreign currency is liquidated.
The attached table shows the number of surplus commodity housing units for
the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force by location and the dollar
equivalent of the original investment for each project; the net total amount for
all projects owed the Commodity Credit Corporation as of July 1, 1973; and the
total payment planned for fiscal year 1974.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE-FISCAL YEAR 1974 BUDGET, DEBT PAYMENTS-
COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION
Dollar
Number of equivalent
units original
Location acquired investment
Japan ----------------------------------------------- 251 $4, 219, 155
Italy....-------------------------------------------------------------- 493 8,110,155
Korea--.........-- _-----------.-- ... 60 1,839,710
France.... ------------------------------------------------------------ 2, 401 49, 046, 323
Subtotal.........------------------------------------------------------ 3, 205 63, 215, 343
306
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE-FISCAL YEAR 1974 BUDGET, DEBT PAYMENTS-
COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION
Dollar
Number of equivalent
units origina
Location acquired investmen
Japan --------------------------------------------------------------- 297 $2,981,806
Spain.... --------------------------------------------------------------- 380 3, 518, 639
Finland.--------------------------------- ------------------------------------ 144, 439
Subtotal - - ------ 677 6, 544, 884
I Represents design costs only. Housing was never constructed.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE-FISCAL YEAR 1974 BUDGET, DEBT PAYMENTS-
COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION
Dollar
Number of equivalent Amount owed
units original CCC July 1,
Location acquired investment 1973
Azores ...-. 108 $1,518,166 .............
England....------------------------------------------------- 2,830 39,846,788 -
Iceland--- ------------------------------------------------------- 141,290
Japan---------------------------------------------------- 552 6,355,792 ...
Morocco--- ----------------------------------------------- 140 7,328,224 .............
Pakistan--- ----------------------------------------------- 100 1,327,501
Spain...--- ---------------------------------------------- 1,921 11,702,708 ...........
Turkey--- ------------------------------------------------ 250 2,047,932 _..........
Subtotal--------------- ----------------------------- 5,901 70,168,401 ----------
Total (DOD)------------.... ------------------------------ 9,783 139, 928, 627 $53, 214, 502
Total payment to CCC-fiscal year 1974---.....------..........................---------------------------------... 6, 000,000
1 Planned project cancelled. Initial planning costs only expense incurred.
Mr. PATTEN. Would you discuss the surplus commodity housing
program. Tell us how it worked.
General REILLY. The surplus commodity credit housing program was
designed to obtain family type public quarters in foreign countries.
Section 411 of Public Law 968-84 authorized the use of foreign cur-
rencies collected under international agreements between those coun-
tries and the United States resulting from the sale of surplus U.S.
agricultural products.
These funds were used to construct 'family housing units to U.S.
specifications for use by military and civilian personnel assigned to
installations in those countries.
Mr. PATTEN. Why are we still paying for it?
General REILLY. Section 508 of Public Law 174-88 requires the De-
partment of Defense to pay the Commodity Credit Corporation an
amount not to exceed $6 million a year until the amount of foreign
currency is liquidated. The Air Force requests the appropriations to
make this payment for all DOD components.
Mr. PArrEN. To what extent are the services still using these surplus
commodity units or the replacements for them? Provide that for the
record.
[The information follows:]
USE OF SURPLUS COMMODITY UNITS
There were 9,783 units constructed with Surplus Commodity Funds. A total of
5,569 are still in use by the Services. The Army still uses 693 units in Korea,
Japan, England and Italy. The Navy uses 833 units in Italy, Japan, Spain and
the United Kingdom. The Ai'r Force uses 4,043 units in the Azores, England,
Spain and Japan. Units have been lost primarily in France, Morocco, Pakistan
and Spain.
SERVICEMEN'S MORTGAGE INSURANCE PREMIUMS
Mr. PATTEN. Let us turn to servicemen's mortgage insurance
premiums.
Insert page 69 in the record.
[The page follows:]
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE-FISCAL YEAR 1974
BUDGET, DEBT PAYMENT-SERVICEMEN'S MORTGAGE INSURANCE PREMIUMS
Section 124, Public Law 560, 83d Congress, the Housing Act of 1954, aids in
providing homes for members of the Armed Forces of the United States and their
families through a system'of FHA mortgage insurance specially designed to assist
such members in financing the construction or purchase of homes.
Public Law 90-448, August 1, 1968 (Housing and Urban Development Act)
section 301 liberalized mortgage insurance premiums for servicemen and their
widows by not restricting the insurance premiums only to new mortgages and it
authorized the Secretary of Defense to continue making premium payments for
a widow of a serviceman who dies in the service for 2 years after his death or
until she sells the house, whichever occurs sooner. The National Housing Act
was amended January 26, 1970 and increased the maximum amount of a loan
from $30,000 to $33,000.
While the number of cases has declined, the average cost per account has in-
creased. This reflects greater loan values for homes remaining in the program.
The rate 'of increase is too variable to suggest an average; therefore, projection
of $1.61 per year is used and is based on the most recent data available. Subjec-
tive reasons for the case decline are: Enlisted personnel are attracted to the new
section 235 -rent and mortgage subsidy program; sellers have been attracted to
conventional financing because -of discounts applied to FHA financed homes and
have therefore offered fewer FIIA homes; and, VA in-service loans are more
attractive than FHA to military buyers because of smaller down payment
requirements.
Average
Fiscal year Number payment Amount
1972 actual-... -...................................... 24, 705 $67. 96 $1,679,000
1973 estimate... ........... .....___ ................. 23, 000 69.57 1,600, 000
1974 estimate- - --~.~... ....... ... ... ... ... .. ... .... 22,338 71.18 1,590, 000
Mr. PATTEN. Can you explain how this program works ?
General REILLY. In accordance with authority contained in section
222 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended, this program provides
for the payment of premiums due on mortgage insurance provided by
the Federal Housing Administration for mortgages on housing pur-
chased by military personnel on active duty and for continuing pay-
ments in those cases where a serviceman dies while on active duty and
308
leaves a surviving widow as owner of the property. In the latter case,
payments extend for a period of 2 years beyond the date of the service-
man's death or until the date the widow disposes of the property,
whichever occurs first. The maximum amount insurable by FHA is
$33,000. The premium rate is one-half of 1 percent of the unpaid
balance of the mortgage.
Mr. PATTEN. IS this still a usable program?
Mr. JOHNSTON. The servicemen's mortgage insurance premiums;
yes, sir. We are anticipating assisting the buyers in the mortgage in-
surance in this particular program and we expect to take care of
approximately 22,000 members so the program stays about steady each
year, usualy about 22,000 families.
Mr. PAITEN. Could it be expanded or should it ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I think it is about on a satisfactory working level
right now, sir.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Mr. PATTEN. Let us turn to operation and maintenance.
Insert pages 70 through 80 in the record.
[The pages follow:]
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE-FISCAL YEAR 1974 BUDGET ESTIMATE
[Dollar amounts in thousands]
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
1972 actual 1973 estimate 1974 estimate
Operating expenses.......... $74, 971 $95, 651 $108,112
Leasing ..........................._ - - - - -9, 995 12, 217 13, 577
Maintenance____.. 90,875 87, 399 97,547
Total, operation and maintenance....................... 175, 841 195, 267 219, 236
Adjustments:
Reimbursements-- . .-...... .............. ..... . . --1,133 -1,013 -1,025
Unobligated balance lapsing----------------------- - +429 --------.........-----------
Budget authority__ _________._ _______ _ 175,137 194, 254 218, 211
Budget authority:
Appropriation... .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . 176, 967 194, 532 1 218, 211
Transfers among accounts (net) __ ____ ._ .. . -1,830 278 ...........
Appropriation (adjusted) _--_--------- - 175, 137 194, 254 218, 211
1 The appropriation request for operation and maintenance is in lump sum for the Department of Defense, and not
restricted by military department or defense agency. The amount footnoted is within that total.
February 15,1973
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
FY 19714 BUDGET ESTIMATE
EXCLUDES LEASED UNITS & COSTS
FY 1972 FY1973 1
ACTUAL ESTIMATE ESTIMATE
A. INVENTORY DATA
Units in Being Beginning of Year 148,145 147,845 149,784
Units in Being at End of Year 147,845 149,784 152,711
Average Inventory for Year Requiring 0&M Funding:
a. Conterminous U.S. 111,315 112,848 115,577
b. Outside U.S. 36.681 _ 6.816 " 0_.
c. Total 1 147,996 'A
TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT
EST. COST EST. COST EST.' COST
($000) ($) ($000) ($) ($ooo0) (S)
B. FUNDING REQUIREMENT
1. OPERATIONS
a. Operating Expenses
(1) Administration 5,968 40 8,137 54 10,661 70
(2) Services 9,732 66 14,145 95 17,183 113
(3) Utility Operations 46,781 316 53,404 357 56,990 375
(1.) Furnishines 12.90 L .19. 6i.. 4. . - A
Subtotal-Gross Obligations 74,971 506 95,651 639 I 108,112 711
Less: Anticipated Reimbursements 101 7 llOa
Subtotal, Operations (Appropriated Funds) i 73,838 498 94,638 632 107,087 704
2. MAINTENANCE
a. Maintenance & Repair of Dwellings 75,416 510 71,884 480 79,726 524
b. Maintenance & Repair of Other Real Property 14,627 99 14,450 97 16,598 109
c. Alterations & Additions 832 6 1065 7 1.223 8
Subtotal, Maintenance (Appropriated Funds) 90,875 615 ,399 584 7,547
3. GRAND TOTAL O&M EXPENSES (Includes Reimbursements) 165,846 1,121 183,050 1,223 205,659 1,352
4. GRAND TOTAL O&M (l&2, above) (Appropriated Funds) 164,713 1,113 182,037 1,216 204,634 1,345
310
FAMILY HOUSING DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE, FISCAL YEAR 1974 BUDGET ESTIMATE
I. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
A. Operation.--The operation portion of the family housing program includes
the initial outfitting of furniture, maintenance, repair, and replacement of fur-
nishings, and other personal property; utility services, except telephone service;
other services such as refuse collection and disposal, custodial services, handling
and moving of Government-owned furnishings; police and fire protection; and
other administrative and supporttype services at installation level; and leasing
of family housing facilities by the Government.
B. Maintenance.-The maintenance portion includes maintenance and repair
of buildings, roads, driveways, 'walks, exterior and interior utility systems, and
grounds care. Also includes projects for incidental alterations and additions-
expansions-extensions provided that:
1. No such alteration or addition-expansion-extension project shall exceed
$10,000.
2. The total expenses for these alterations and additions-expansion-exten-
sions within a fiscal year shall not exceed $500 for any one family unit in any
case, and (a) an average of $100 per family unit for each installation having
10 or more family units or (b) $1,000 for each installation having less than
10 family units.
3. These incidental alterations and additions-expansions-extensions are not
occasioned by or made in conjunction with a separate undertaking which exceeds
the above specified limitations.
II. PROGRAM JUSTIFICATION
A. Operations
1. The level of funding reflected in the operations portion of the fiscal year
1974 budget estimate is required to efficiently and economically support the
housing program which will be in being at that time. This estimate includes a
furnishings program that will support the 2,000-pound weight limit areas over-
seas and private rental quarters furnishings. Leased units and costs are justified
separately.
2. Detailed comparison:
(a) The average number of 'Government-owned housing units to be supported
in fiscal year 1974 is 152;131 as compared to the average number in fiscal year
1973 of 149,664, an increase of 2,467 units.
(b) Total appropriation funding required for fiscal year 1974 operations, ex-
clusive of anticipated reimbursements, totals $107.1 million as compared to
$94.6 million in fiscal year 1973. This increase reflects the growth in inventory,
normal inflation, increased civilian manning, and the new requirement to pay
overhead costs.
(1) Administration, services and utilities:
(In thousands)
Fiscal year 1973 $-----------------------------------------74, 673
Fiscal year 1974__________________________________ _ 83, 809
'Increase _____________------------------------------------------------ 9, 136
(2) Furnishing:
Fiscal year 1973----_ ------------------------------------- 19, 965
Fiscal year 1974___________________________________ __-23, 278
Increase ________________------------------------------------------------- +3, 318
The furnishings program supports the housing inventory in being, overseas
units coming into the inventory and private rental quarters overseas.
B. Maintenance
1. The level of funding reflected in the maintenance portion of the fiscal year
1974 budget estimate is required to properly maintain and repair housing real
property. These funds are necessary to provide essential maintenance to facilities,
utilities systems, and grounds.
311
2. Detailed comparison: Total appropriation funding required for fiscal year
1974 maintenance totals $97.5 million as compared to $87.4 million for fiscal year
1973. This represents an increase of $10.1 million. This increase is primarily to
cover the new requirement to pay overhead costs and normal inflation.
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE, FISCAL YEAR 1974 LEASING PROGRAM
The leasing of housing is authorized under the provisions of sec. 515, Public
Law 161, 84th Congress, as amended, and title 10, United States Code, section 2675.
a. Domestic Leasing.-The fiscal year 1971 Military Construction Authoriza-
tion Act (Public Law 91-511 dated October 26, 1970) restricts the use of domestic
leases (United States, Puerto Rico, and Guam) to those locations where "(1)
there has been a recent and substantial increase in the personnel strength as-
signed to such military installation and such increase is temporary, or (2) the
permanent personnel strength of such military installation is to be substantially
reduced in the near future, or (3) the number of military personnel assigned to
such military installation is so small as to make the construction of family hous-
ing uneconomical, or (4) family housing is required for personnel attending
service schools, academic courses on PCS orders, or (5) family housing has been
authorized but is not yet completed or a family housing authorization request is
in a pending Military Authorization Construction bill and charges for such units
including contract rent, maintenance and operations costs, and utilities may not
exceed an annual average of $210 per unit per month for each military depart-
ment with no individual leased unit exceeding $290 per unit per month, except
Hawaii where the average cost has been established at $255 average and $300
individual.
b. Foreign Leasing.-Leasing of family housing in foreign countries is au-
thorized under the provisions of title 10, United States Code, section 2675. In
foreign countries it is the policy to lease privately owned family housing only for
military personnel in ranks 0-6 and above, and only (1) where it has been deter-
mined that such leasing is for the benefit of the United States and (2) when
Government quarters commensurate with the positions of the officers are not
available. If specifically approved by the Assistant Secretary of Defense (I. & H.)
family housing may be leased in foreign countries for civilians and military per-
sonnel in grades 0-5 and below provided criteria 1 and 2 above are clearly appli-
cable. Family housing leased in accordance with these criteria shall be designated
Public Quarters and occupants shall forfeit all housing allowances. Any altera-
tions, repairs, and all additions shall be limited to work necessary to provide
adequate living accommodations and shall be in consonance with DOD Instruc-
tion 4165.45, Determination of Family Housing Requirements, but in no event
shall the cost of such work exceed 25 percent of the first year's annual rental
without prior approval of the Secretary of the military department concerned.
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE-FISCAL YEAR
1974 LEASING PROGRAM
End fiscal year 1972 End fiscal year 1973 End fiscal 1974
Units Amount Units Amount Units Amount
Leasing expenses:
Domestic ................ . 2,356 $5, 031,000 2,815 $6,350, 000 2,815 $6, 710, 000
Foreign---... 1,818 4, 964, 000 2,390 5, 867,000 2,690 6, 867,000
Total ---..... ............... 4,174 9,995,000 5,205 12,217,000 5,505 13, 577, 000
Note: The domestic leasing proposed for Fiscal Year 1974 reflects no increase over the number of requested in Fiscal Year
1973. The units are primarily for small locations where the construction of housing is not proposed and for personnel on
independent assignments in highly populated areas, especially for personnel assigned to the recruiting service in order
to make the service attractive so that the all volunteer program can be implemented. The foreign leasing proposed will
allow continuance of the program in Spain, England, Germany, and other locations in overseas areas. The attached listings
provide for an average of 2,815 domestic leased units and 2,690 foreign leased units.
February 15, 1973
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
FY 74 LEASING PROGRAM
DOMESTIC
Comd
ATC/AU/
HQ COMD
Installation
Montgomery, Ala
Fayetteville, Ark
Little Rock, Ark
Azusa, Calif
Los Angeles, Calif
Palo Alto, Calif
San Bernardino, Calif
San Francisco, Calif
Boulder, Colo
Denver, Colo
New Haven, Conn
Jacksonville, Fla
Miami, Fla
St Petersburg, Fla
Tallahassee, Fla
Atlanta, GA
Pullman, Idaho
Chicago, Ill
Indianapolis, Ind
South Bend, Ind
Des Moines, Iowa
Louisville, Ky
New Orleans, La
Boston, Mass
Detroit, Mich
Duluth, Minn
Minneapolis, Minn
Kansas City, Mo
St Louis, Mo
Omaha, Nebr
Hanover, NH
End Year
No. of Units
10
10
10
12
60
20
15
50
3
25
20
15
25
10
10
30
4
60
35
10
30
20
20
30
45
4
38
20
46
34
2
Comd
Installation
End Year Total Cost
No. of Units ($000)
Total Cost
($000)
23
23
23
28
140
47
35
118
7
58
47
35
58
23
23
70
9
141
82
23
70
47
47
70
105
9
89
47
108
79
5
Subtotal ATC, AU,
HQ COMD
1,380
ATC/AU/ Manchester, NH
HQ COMD Newark, NJ
New York, NY
Scotia, NY
Syracuse, NY
Upper NY State
Charlotte, NC
Raleigh, NC
Albuquerque, NM
Cincinnati, Ohio
Cleveland, Ohio
Columbus, Ohio
Toledo, Ohio
Oklahoma City, Okla
Portland, Ore
New Cumberland, Pa
Philadelphia, Pa
Pittsburgh, Pa
Nashville, Tenn
College Station, Tex
Dallas, Tex
Houston, Tex
San Antonio, Tex
North Texas Area
Salt Lake City, Utah
Richmond, VA
Roanoke, Va
Seattle, Wash
Tacoma, Wash
Charleston, W. Va
Milwaukee, Wisc
THE AIR FORCE
23
58
117
28
58
58
28
35
23
30
89
70
35
56
75
21
82
82
47
12
58
47
35
35
47
47
35
58
35
28
82
3,223
FEBRUARY 15, 1973
Comd Installation
ADC - Almaden AFS, Calif
Cambria AFS, Calif
Ft MacArthur AFS, Calif
Fresno AFS, Calif
Mt Laguna AFS, Calif
Pt Arena AFS, Calif
Ent AFB, Colo
Lamar Comm Site, Colo
Key West AFS, Fla
Bucks Harbor AFS, ME
North Truro AFS, Mass
Calumet AFS, Mich
Phelps-Collins APT, Mich
Pt Austin AFS, Mich
Baudette AFS, Minn
Duluth IAP, Minn
Havre AFS, Mont
Logan Field, Mont
Fallon AFS, Nev
FAMILY HOUSING, DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
FY 74 LEASING PROGRAM
DOMESTIC
End Year Total Cost
No. of Units ($000) Comd
10 23 ADC
24 56
30 70
25 59
52 123
10 23
213 499
13 30
20 47
10 23
30 70
26 61
25 59
30 70
16 37
50 117
30 70
22 51
40 94
End Year Total Cost
Installation No. of Units ($000)
Atlantic City, NJ 20 47
Gibbsboro AFS, NJ 46 108
Hancock Field, NY 50 117
Montauk AFS, NY 15 35
Ft Fisher AFS, NC 30 70
New Hanover APT, NC 20 47
Finley AFS, ND 15 35
Fortuna AFS, ND 14 33
Hector AFS, ND 5 12
Mt Hebo AFS, Ore 15 35
North Bend AFS, Ore 17 40
St Albans AFS, Vt 20 47
Blaine AFS, Wash 5 12
Othello AFS, Wash 30 70
Walla Walla AFS, Wash 20 47
Antigo AFS, Wisec 16 37
Osceola AFS, Wisec 5 12
Volk Field, Wisc 30 70
Subtotal ADC 1,049 2,456
314
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, FISCAL YEAR 1974 LEASING PROGRAM
End year
number of Total cost
Command and installation units (thousands)
Domestic:
PACAF: Hawaii....-------......---------------------------------------------- 200 $600
Subtotal PACAF ...........------------------------------------------------- 200 600
SAC:
Holbrook RBS, Ariz...... ....------------------------------------------------ 11 25
Vandenberg, Calif ------------------------------------------------ 100 232
Wilder RBS, Idaho...------------ ------------------------------------- 15 35
Bayshore RBS, Mich. ..------------------------------------------------ 26 60
Silver Creek CS, Nebr ..---------------------------------------------- 10 23
Bismarck RBS, N. Dak..---------------------------------------------- 12 28
St. George RBS, Utah-----..------------------------------------------............................................... 12 28
Subtotal SAC -------------------------------------------------- 186 431
Total domestic leasing------------------------------------------................................................. 2, 815 6,710
Foreign:
AFSC: Formosa ------------------------------------------------------ 2 12
MAC: Embassy Route -------------------------------------------------- 6 40
PACAF: Taiwan...------------------------------------------------------ 2 15
USAFE:
Italy ---------------------------------------------------------- 3 ..........
Germany.....--......................................................------------------------------------------------... 4 ............
Turkey------------------------------------------------------------ 4. ....
Pakistan . 2----------------------------------............
Greece.............---------------------------------------------------------... 2.......
Spain......------------------------------------------------------- 1,1 62 ........
England ........----------------------------------------------------- 1,157.........
Netherlands ----------------------------- 100 6,800
Total overseas leasing--------........-----.................................---------------------------- 2, 690 6, 867
Total leasing (worldwide) ------...------....-----..--...--....................-------------------. 5, 505 13, 577
Mr. PATTEN. What types of costs cause the increase in your operat-
ing expenses from year to year ?
General REILLY. Mr. Chairman, our operating expenses are made up
of housing administration, various housekeeping services, utilities op-
erations and furnishings. We are experiencing continuing increases
in the administration, principally due to increased salaries.
Our service, housekeeping, contractual work, of course, is increasing
and we are experiencing major increases in the utilities area.
Mr. PATTEN. IS this year's request sufficient to cover increased costs
here and overseas?
General REILLY. Yes, sir. This increase we feel is adequate to offset
the cost increases that we project over the next year as well as holding
our own with our backlog of maintenance and repair, and keeping it
within manageable limits.
Mr. PATTEN. What effect will the basic closure actions have on the
size of your backlog of essential maintenance and repair (BEMAR) ?
General REILLY. The base closure actions 'will have very little effect
on our backlog of essential maintenance and repair. Although there
are some cost avoidances at the six locations announced for closure,
the overall (BEMAR) program of the Air Force is expected to in-
crease by some $2 mililon.
Mr. PATTEN. Will the Air Force 'actually be able to reduce BEMAR
during fiscal year 1974 ?
General REILLY. No, sir. In fact we project a small increase in 1974
over 1973.
Mr. PATrEN. What is the estimated BEMAR at this time?
General REILLY. About $28 million, Mr. Ohaianan, in 1973. We ex-
pect that to increase to about $30 million in 1974.
LEASING
Mr. PATTEN. To what extent are you requesting that leasing criteria
in the United States be expanded ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. In the 1974 program OSD would not recognize an
increase in the domestic leasing program. We feel that we need an
increase to an average of somewhere between '$225 and $235 a month
average to continue with our present ceiling of leases.
Mr. DAvis. Your present ceiling is $210 ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. PATTEN. Do you plan any additional lease-construction over-
seas?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, sir; we are looking closely at 150 to 175 units
in the Netherlands, at Soesterberg Air Base.
Mr. PATTEN. What do you expect to have to pay for your foreign
leases this year?
Mr. JOHNSTON. We expect them to run on the average of about $3,000
to $3,200 a year.
Mr. PATTEN. IS the program underfunded ?
Mr. JOHNsTON. No, sir. There is enough money in our leasing budget
to cover the leasing program.
Mr. DAvIs. I assume, in this area, that in practically all the instances
where either construction, remodeling, or leasing is involved in foreign
countries where the dollar has gone down, we are going to get a
budget amendment that will reflect the difference from what it was at
the time the justifications were prepared.
General REILLY. Sir, our only overseas family housing or overseas
projects are in Hawaii and Guam.
Mr. DAvIs. We have something here-
General REILLY. Oh, you are talking of leases?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. JOHNSTON. As far as I know there will be no supplemental
budget to request additional funds for the leases in the overseas area.
I think we are fairly well funded in this particular area for our lease
program this year. If there are any great increases or any changes
during fiscal year 1974 we will have to ask for an increase in 1975.
Mr. DAvIS. Where are we on your authorization here? Do you have
any schedule on that yet at all?
General REILLY. Sir, they started today in the House Armed Services
Committee under Congressman Pike with the Department of Defense.
They are going to go Navy, Army, and probably a week from today
we should be before Mr. Pike.
We understand the Senate Armed Services Committee is ready to
also hear us in the near future.
Mr. DAVIS. All of the base closures and reorganizations have been
taken into account in the justifications that have been revised ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir, they have.
'Mr. DAvis. I believe that is all. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PATTEN. Any further questions ?
316
FAMILY HOUSING PLATTSBURGH AIR FORCE BASE, N.Y.
Mr. McEWEN. I want to ask 'General Reilly if he has anything to
tell me about family housing at Plattsburgh Air Force Base ?
General REILLY. I wish we could report a large project in this pro-
gram, sir. Do you have any specifics ?
Mr. McEwEN. 'Let me ask you, do you have this report from Mr.
John Lee ?
General REILLY. Mr. Johnston says we have received it, sir.
Mr. McEWEN. 'Have you any comments to make on his report?
Mr. JOHNSTON. No, sir, no general comments. I think what Mr. Lee
has reported is factual.
Mr. McEwEN. What do you propose to do? They have wonderful
relations between the base and the community, and I am going to be in
the community in about 2 weeks and I will certainly hear about it. I
am serious. They have great communications between the local com-
munity and the base. They have had this request in for I don't know
how many years. They have had a request in to add additional bed-
rooms to some three- and two-bedroom units.
Mr. JOHNSTON. As you know, military strength at Plattsburgh has
been in a fluctuating stage for a while but we think it has leveled off
now. SAC is going to recommend the project for the 1975 program and
I am sure it will be given some serious consideration.
Mr. McEwEN. You are talking personnel ?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I am talking about the addition to the family hous-
ing units at Plattsburgh.
Mr. MCEWEN. We have some additional people, as you know, coming
in with the KC137's coming from Massachusetts: We don't have a
problem with regard to being a coastal area, do we?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Not as far as I know.
Mr. McEWEN. Is that correct, General Reilly ?
General REILLY. Certainly in our view no problem at all. It is a
firm FB-111 mission there.
Mr. McEWEN. Because that is the FB-111 that is not a problem.
Right?
General REILLY. Yes. I think Mr. Johnston is saying we think we
can certainly give you support in the 1975 program with this project.
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. John Lee, in his report, does speak about density.
According to his report he said-
In total there is a deficit of 389 four-bedroom units, of which 337 are airmen
and 52 officer units. The demand is satisfied by crowding into on-base three-bed-
room units or living offbase in submarginal and expensive housing.
General Reilly, have we had one of these surveys at Plattsburgh
Air Force Base ?
General REILLY. Yes, sir; we have surveys from all of the bases in
the United States this year.
Mr. McEwEN. What is the deficiency figure according to your
survey?
General REILLY. I don't have that with me, but as far as I recollect
Plattsburgh did not come up with a program of deficiency of family
housing in accordance with the DOD criteria. As I recollect for the
last 4 or 5 years the Plattsburgh survey hasn't reflected a family hous-
ing deficiency overall. It may have reflected a shortage of four-bed-
317
room units and an overage of three-bedroom units or something like
that. It hasn't reflected an overall deficiency of housing.
Mr. McEWEN. Doesn't size of units create a deficiency, where units
are too small?
General REILLY. In this particular case it would fall into the im-
provements category and not the new units category. In other words,
if we have an overage of existing houses they wouldn't allow us to
build additional houses.
Mr. McEwEN. Are you saying you have different standards where
you make improvements to correct deficiencies and where you are
planning new units ?
General REILLY. Right, sir. In this particular case since there is no
deficiency of housing, we would have to insert a project into the im-
provements program to add additional bedroom units.
Mr. McEwEN. You have criteria which you apply there?
General REILLY. Yes, sir. And with the additional people going to
Plattsburgh we feel the additional bedrooms will be justified and we
will be able to include it in the 1975 program.
Mr. McEwEN. Going back to Mr. John Lee's report, he said:
The base plan has been to add bedrooms onto and expand the kitchens and
living rooms in the three-bedroom units at a cost of about $5.9 million. However,
such a plan would increase present housing density problems. There are other
possible solutions such as adding upstairs bedrooms to the multipeople unit
housing, converting two multipeople units into one unit, and building additional
housing to satisfy the deficit.
When Mr. Lee speaks about density he is talking, is he not, about
number of people per square rod or acre?
General REILLY. This is what he is talking about.
Mr. McEwEN. So even if you put a bedroom upstairs or back of the
house, it wouldn't change that ?
General REILLY. NO.
Mr. MCEWEN. Could you furnish something on whether or not this
is a real density problem and, if so, have the people on the base been
pursuing the right course or not ?
Colonel SHOOK. I talked to Mr. Lee about that project. What he was
after was that the area where the three-bedroom single units are is a
high density area already; that is. the number of houses in that area is
much greater than the number of houses of the other type he referred
to. He was saying if you could add more people to the two-bedroom
units the density problem wouldn't be as great as if you added a fourth
bedroom unit to the three-bedroom houses. He is not arguing with the
need. He says that is another way to approach it.
Mr. McEwEN. He says there is a deficiency of 389 four-bedroom
units. The answer I would like to get is. what is the best solution ? Can
you furnish something on that, General Reilly ?
General REILLY.YeS, sir.
[The information follows:]
FOUR-BEDROOM UNIT DEFICIENCY
There are several possible solutions to provide additional four-bedroom units
at Plattsburgh AFB. There are 362 two-bedroom units that could be combined to
form 181 four-bedroom units. Under this solution, we would exceed floor area
limitations and have a net loss of 181 units. An additional bedroom and bath
could be added to three-bedroom units to meet the four-bedroom requirement.
This could cause overcrowding in the area. Another solution would be a combina-
tion of the above proposals. We have requested the Strategic Air Command to
study this matter and to determine the most practical solution. Because of density
problems, we cannot provide the best solution at this time.
Mr. PATTEN. Gentlemen, I think this completes your family housing
hearings.
General REILLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PATTEN. I want to thank you and your men. I wish all the pres-
entations were as wonderful and so well received. I think you can catch
the air here. We are all relaxed. Isn't that pleasant ?
General REILLY. Very pleasant, sir.
Mr. PATTEN. Thank you and all of your associates for a job well
done. We appreciate it.
THURSDAY, JULY 19, 1973.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD,
AND MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY RESERVE
WITNESSES
MAJ. GEN. J. MILNOR ROBERTS, CHIEF, ARMY RESERVE
MAJ. GEN. D. V. RATTAN, DEPUTY CHIEF, OFFICE OF RESERVE
COMPONENTS
MAJ. GEN. F. S. GREENLIEF, CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU
MAJ. GEN. L. E. WEBER, DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
L. F. KEENAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ARMY BUDGET, OFFICE, COMP-
TROLLER OF THE ARMY
LT. COL. D. P. LARSEN, OFFICE, CHIEF, ARMY RESERVE
LT. COL. JAMES P. LEWIS, OFFICE, CHIEF, ARMY RESERVE
HENRY G. KIRCHNER, OFFICE, DIRECTOR OF THE ARMY BUDGET,
COMPTROLLER OF THE ARMY
LT. COL. CARL T. SCHULER, INSTALLATIONS AND FACILITIES DIVI-
SION, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF RESERVE COMPONENTS
F. W. ARON, JR., CHIEF, ARMY INSTALLATIONS DIVISION, NA-
TIONAL GUARD BUREAU
STATEMENT OF CHIEF, OFFICE OF RESERVE COMPONENTS, U.S. ARMY
Mr. SIKES. The committee will come to order.
This morning we will hear first the requirements for construction
for fiscal 1974 of the Army Reserve components beginning with the
statement of the Deputy Chief, Office of Reserve Components of the
U.S. Army, Maj. Gen. D. V. Rattan.
General Rattan, we are very happy to have you with us and we will
be glad to hear your statement, but firsv we will insert your biographi-
cal sketch in the record.
[The biographical sketch follows:]
MAJ. GEN. DONALD VOLNEY RATTAN, U.S. ARMY
Donald Volney Rattan was born in Fort Benning, Ga. September 12, 1924. He
was graduated from Staunton Military Academy, Staunton, Va., in 1941. and at-
tended Sullivan Preparatory School for 1 year. He received an appointment to
the U.S. Military Academy, West Point, N.Y., from which he was graduated
June 5, 1945, and was commissioned a second lieutenant of infantry.
319
His initial assignment, after completing a basic infantry course at the Infantry
School, Fort Benning, Ga., was as a platoon leader in the 86th Infantry Division
in the Philippines.
In January 1946, he was transferred to the 11th Airborne Division, which was
performing occupation duty in northern Japan. While with the 11th, he com-
pleted parachute training, served in the G-3 section, and later commanded the
division reconnaissance company.
In May 1948, he joined the 82d Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, N.C., serving
in the G-3 section and as a rifle company commander in the 504th Airborne In-
fantry Regiment.
Upon completion of the infantry officer advanced course in 1952, he was assigned
to the 32d Infantry Regiment, 7th Infantry Division in Korea, for 1 year. During
this period, the regiment was engaged in combat in the Chorwon-Kumhwa areas.
While there, he served as a rifle company commander, battalion executive officer,
and regimental S-2.
General Rattan returned to Fort Benning in July 1953, and served 3 years with
the airborne department of the Infantry School. He was responsible for the de-
velopment of the first Army pathfinder course dealing with Army helicopter
operations during this assignment.
He attended the Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kans.,
in 1956-57. Following graduation he was retained there as an instructor in the
field of airborne operations, and later served as curriculum planner in the Office
of the Director of Instruction.
After this 3-year assignment, he attended the Armed Forces Staff College,
Norfolk, Va., and the NATO Defense College in Paris, France. Following gradua-
tion in the summer of 1961, he spent 2 years in the G-3 section of Allied Land
Forces Central Europe, Fontainebleau, France. This was followed by a year as a
student at the Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pa. While there, he also
earned a master's degree in international affairs from George Washington
University.
In August 1964, he was assigned to the Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison
in the Pentagon. The first 4 months on this assignment were spent as chief of a
mobile training team in the Republic of Congo. It was during this period that
the major rebellion in the Congo took place, and the Belgian paratroop drop was
made at Stanleyville. While in legislative liaison, he also served in the plans
and projects division, and was Chief of the Senate Liaison Division with offices
in the U.S. Senate Building.
General Rattan reported to the Republic of Vietnam in April 1967, and assumed
command of the 1st brigade, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile). He participated
in combat operations at Bong Son, Dak To, and at Quang Tri during the 1968
Tet offensive.
Upon his return to Fort Bragg in May 1968, he was assigned as executive officer,
U.S. Army Special Warfare School, for 3 months, and then became Chief of Staff
of 18th Airborne Corps, August 12, 1968, serving in that position until February
26, 1970. On February 27. 1970. he became assistant division commander, support,
82d Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, N.C.
From August 15. 1970, to May 23, 1972, General Rattan was commanding gen-
eral, 8th Infantry Division, USAREUR, with station at Bad Kreuznach, Germany.
On June 12, 1972, he reported to the Army Staff, Washington, D.C., as deputy
chief, Office of Reserve Components.
EDUCATION
Staunton Military Academy, Staunton, Va., 1941.
U.S. Military Academy, West Point, N.Y., B.S., 1945.
The Infantry School, Fort Benning, Ga., 1952.
Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kans., 1957.
Armed Forces Staff College, Norfolk, Va., 1961.
NATO Defense College, Paris, France, 1961.
Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pa., 1964.
George Washington University, M.A., International Affairs, 1964.
21-111 O - 73 -21
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF PROMOTIONS
Temporary Permanent
Rank (AUS) (RA)
2d lieutenant ...... ------------------------------------------------------ ---------- June 5,1945
1st lieutenant ...-.. ... .. ............. ............ ............ Sept. 27, 1946 June 5,1948
Captain... ......-- Oct. 17,1950 Mar. 18,1952
Major- ..-- colonel--- - -- May 31, 1953 June 5,1959
Lieutenant colonel ..... Apr. 22, 1959 June 5,1966
Colonel .. ...... _ ................. ....... ----- Nov. 24, 1965 June 5,1970
Brigadier general .. --.. ................... .........------------------ - Mar. 8,1969 .....
Major general ...- - -............-...-.......... . ... ... ........ .1 Jan. 1, 1967 _ -....-...
I DOR.
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF ASSIGNMENTS
Student officer, the Infantry School, Fort Benning, Ga., from June 1945 to
November 1945.
Platoon leader, 324th Infantry, Philippines, from November 1945 to January
1946.
Assistant 'G-3, 11th Airborne Division, Japan, from January 1946 to July 1946.
Reconnaissance company commander, 11th Airborne Division, Japan, from
July 1946 to August 1974.
Assistant division football coach, 11th Airborne Division, Japan, from
August 1947 to January 1948.
Reconnaissance company commander, 11th, from January 1948 to May 1948.
Combat liaison officer, G-3, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, N.C., from
May 1948 to July 1949.
Assistant post football coach, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, N.C., from
July 1949 to August 1949.
Company executive officer, 504th Airborne Infantry Regiment, Fort Bragg,
N.C., from ,August 1949 to August 1949.
Post football coach, '504th AIR, Fort Bragg, N.C., from August 1949 to Decem-
ber 1949.
Platoon leader, 504th AIR, Fort Bragg, N.C., from December 1949 to March
1950.
Company executive officer, 504th AIR, Fort Bragg, N.C., from March 1950 to
October 1950.
'Company commander, 504th AIR, Fort Bragg, N.C., from October 1950 to
April 1951.
Battalion S1, 504th AIR, Fort Bragg, N.C., from April 1951 to June 1951.
S3, 504th AIR with special duty 82d Airborne Division Jump School, Fort
Bragg, N.C., from June 1951 to September 1951.
Student officer (IOAC), the Infantry School, Fort Benning, Ga., from Septem-
ber 1951 to July 1952.
Company commander, 32d Infantry Regiment, Korea, from July 1952 to August
1952.
Battalion executive officer, 32d Infantry Regiment, Korea, from August 1952
to February 1953.
Battalion S3, 32d Infantry Regiment, Korea, from February 1953 to April 1953.
Regimental S2, 32d Infantry Regiment, Korea, from April 1953 to July 1956.
Executive officer, Airborne Department, the Infantry School, Fort Benning Ga.,
from July 1953 to October 1953.
Training officer, Airborne Department, the Infantry School, Fort Benning,
Ga., from October 1953 to August 1955.
Chairman, Advanced Airborne Committee, Airborne Department, the Infantry
School, Fort Benning, Ga., from August 1955 to May 1956.
Chairman, Basic Airborne Training Committee, Airborne Army Aviation
Department, the Infantry School, Fort Benning, Ga., from May 1956 to
August 1956.
Student officer, C. & G.S.C., Fort Leavenworth, Kans., from August 1956 to
June 1957.
Instructor, Department of Airborne Operations and Army Aviation, C. &
G.S.C., Fort Leavenworth, Kans., from June 1957 to June 1958.
Staff member, Office of Chief, Resident 'Instruction, C. & G.S.C., Fort Leaven-
worth, Kans., from June1958 to August 1960.
Student officer, Armed Forces Staff College, Norfolk, Va., from August 1960
to February 1961.
321
Student officer, NATO Defense College, Paris, France, from February 1961 to
July 1961.
Staff officer, operations and training, G-3, Headquarters, Allied Land Forces
Central Europe, Fontainbleau, France, from July 1961 to August 1963.
Students officer, Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pa., from August 1963
to August 1964.
Chief of mobile team, COMIS'H, Republic of Congo, from August 1964 to
December 1964.
Assistant chief and chief, Plans and Projects Division, Office of Chief of
Legislative Liaison, Washington, D.C., from December 1964 to January 1966.
Chief, Senate Liaison Division, Office, Chief of Legislative Liaison, Wash-
ington, D.C., from January 1966 to April 1967.
Commanding officer, 1st Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile), Republic
of Vietnam, from April 1967 to April 1968,
Executive officer, U.S. Army Special Warfare School, Fort Bragg, N.C., from
May 1968 to August 1968.
Chief of staff, 18th Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, N.C., from August 1968 to
February 1970.
Assistant division commander, support, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg,
N.C., from February 1970 to August 1970.
Commander general, 8th Infantry Division, USAREUR, from August 1970 to
May 1972.
Deputy chief, *Office of Reserve Components, DA, Washington, D.C., from June
1972.
MILITARY DECORATIONS
Silver Star with Two Oak Leaf Clusters; Legion of Merit; Distinguished
Flying 'Cross; Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device and Two Oak Leaf Clusters;
Air Medal with 24 Oak Leaf Clusters; Joint Service Commendation Medal; and
Army Commendation Medal with First Oak Leaf Cluster.
FOREIGN DECORATIONS
Haile Selassie IMedal, and Gallantry Cross with Silver Star.
SERVICE MEDALS
American Campaign Medal; Asiatic Pacific Campaign Medal; World War II
Victory Medal; Army of Occupation Medal (Japan) ; National Defense Service
Medal with First Oak Leaf Cluster; 'Korean Service Medal; Armed Forces Expe-
ditionary Medal (Congo) ; Vietnam Service Medal with Two Bronze Stars; and
United Nations Service Medal.
BADGES
Combat Infantryman Badge (two awards) ; Master Parachutist Badge: Gen-
eral Staff Identification Badge; and Army Aviators Badge.
PERSONNEL DATA
Born.-September 12, 1924, Fort Benning, Ga.
Parents.-Colonel, U.S. Army (retired) and Mrs. W. V. Rattan, Columbus, Ga.
Married.-Jane Pratt Rattan of Chicago, Ill. (September 7, 1945).
Children.-Jean Ross Rattan (Mrs. William Lee) ; Nancy Pratt Rattan; Don-
ald McGregor Rattan ; and John Sedgewick Rattan.
Official address.--Waco Avenue, Cooper, Tex.
Interest and hobbies.-Tennis, golf, handball.
Religion.-Presbyterian.
General RATTAN. Sir, this is my first appearance before your com-
mittee and I am pleased to be here. I am going to make a few general
remarks about our construction program, which of course includes the
National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve, and then I will be followed
by General Roberts of the Army Reserve and General Greenlief of the
National Guard Bureau.
I have been the Deputy Chief of the Army Reserve Components for
just over a year. During that period I have had the opportunity of
visiting a large number of Army National Guard and Army Reserve
units. On the whole I have found these citizen soldiers to be ready,
spirited, and dedicated people who want to succeed.
And especially from the point of view of the Army they have to
succeed because nearly half of our Army is composed of the USAR and
Guard units. This is against about 18 to 20 percent for the other
components.
Facilities do have a significant impact on the readiness and the
effectiveness of our forces.
If the facilities are adequate, the troops have a sense of being pro-
vided for, being cared for, and the morale, training, et cetera is better.
If they are working in overcrowded or makeshift facilities it con-
tributes to a loss of training time, reduced efficiency, and liaturally
their morale goes down.
This was recognized back in 1970 and a 10-year plan, which you are
familiar with, was developed, which in round figures, amounts to about
$800 million and averages out to $75 to $80 million a year for the total
of the two components.
We have completed 3 years of the 10-year program and the fiscal
year 1974 budgets we are presenting today is the fourth increment of
this plan.
Primarily this plan devotes itself to five specific areas-storage space
for the greatly