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 increased amounts of equipment that the Reserve com-

ponents are issued, aviation facilities for our greatly expanding air

fleet which has increased from some 800 aircraft a few years ago to

nearly 3,000 projected out a couple of years from now, better training

areas and facilities, security of our arms rooms in the era that we are

living in today, and modern armories and training centers.

Sir, this concludes my formal statement. I would be glad to answer

any questions.

COMMITTEE POSITION ON RESERVES

Mr. SIKES. I think that it would be well if we hear from General

Roberts and General Greenlief and then we will have questions which

are directed more at you on the general picture and more at the other

two gentlemen on their particular assignments.

I think it would be well to have this entire story before us before we

start questions. We are very much interested in this program. You

realize that this subcommittee has supported the construction require-

ments of the Reserve components consistently. We have often urged

that you expand, improve, and replace Reserve facilities more rapidly

rather than less rapidly.

We know what your problems are in getting your budget sanctioned

and trying to get enough money to do the job. Pressures come from

every side.

We recognize that now, perhaps more than at any time in history, it

is very necessary that you have adequate facilities if you are going to

be able to meet your enlistment quotas and to maintain strength levels

which are required for the Reserve components.

ASSURANCE NEEDED

Before we hear from the other two generals, let me ask if you can

give me the type of assurance that I have had fr