America's Military:
A Force in Motion

The U.S. Department of Defense’s current “transformation” addresses far more than the Global War on Terror. The goals of fiscal responsibility, operational efficiency, and sustainability coupled with flexible warfighting ability are simply good management and military practices today. And engineers and planners are sharing the charge.

Today’s Department of Defense (DOD) is a force in motion as it transforms to meet a post-Cold War environment. What began in concept before the turn of the century has now been given the highest priority since the onset of the Global War on Terror. With the federal budget already strained, the call for our armed forces to place greater emphasis on operational efficiency, sustainability, and the ability to respond to challenges quickly and flexibly is urgent.

In his budget testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services in February of this year, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld explained the importance of a more efficient DOD: “Inefficiency is always unfortunate, but in the Department of Defense, it can be deadly. An idea ignored may be the next threat overlooked. A person performing a redundant task is a person not contributing to our nation’s defense. A dollar wasted is a dollar not invested in the warfighter.”

Restructuring

The “new” military will be defined by its ability to mobilize and deploy more quickly while sustaining a stronger presence during engagements because of better equipment, stealth, training, planning, and communications. Emphasis is being placed on developing new organizational and realistic training concepts and utilizing advanced technology to create smaller, yet more effective fighting forces.

For the U.S. Army, the largest of the armed services with more than 480,000 (as of January 21, 2003, U.S. Census Bureau data) active duty men and women in its ranks, Transformation is a program of major significance. Among the Army’s immediate goals is its reconfiguration from an organizational structure of large divisions to one that is of a more modular, brigade-based design. Through this change, the Army hopes to improve personnel training and deployment efficiency and provide soldiers and their families with greater stability at home and an overall better quality of life.

Supporting the new brigade-level structure has required the Army’s entire infrastructure to be analyzed and overhauled. “The Army is reducing its huge divisional footprint to smaller brigade combat teams (BCTs,)” says John Hall, senior planner in PBS&J’s Federal Planning program. Hall is part of the PBS&J team that is assessing the permanent facilities required to support these new brigade-level entities. PBS&J is one of the two firms contracted to help the Army with planning its infrastructure transformation.

“BCTs must be able to turn around between missions rapidly—in only 180 days,” Hall explains. “This requires planning and design to transform operational facilities to better accommodate the process of ‘resetting,’ or performing maintenance on the BCT’s equipment; to facilitate the units’ training on new or future combat systems; and finally, to certify them for redeployment.”

Improving the stability and quality of life for its personnel and their families is also an integral part of the Army’s Transformation. Along with a BCT structure that will help reduce deployment rotations for its soldiers, the Army is consolidating some facilities and creating flagship installations that will provide a more comprehensive level of lifestyle support to both the soldiers and their families. “These ‘communities’ are capable of sustaining a wide range of both operational capabilities and community support functions that will ultimately enhance the overall well-being of the soldier,” Hall says.

“Focusing only on operations facilities may not build out a complete community nor create an enhanced quality of life for soldiers and their families; therefore our planning efforts are directed to achieve the multiple objectives of Transformation,” adds Marc Schereck, another member of PBS&J’s Federal Planning team. “The Army Standardization program is focused on developing facilities that not only meet unit requirements, but also are economical and functionally sound. For example, today’s Army has become high tech. The facilities we are programming today need to take into consideration communications connectivity. We are targeting an enduring and sustainable facility that reflects the need for functional interrelationships, increases connectivity, and is flexible to support various units—even different services—with different missions.”

Realigning

Another key change for today’s DOD stems from the need to move an estimated 70,000 overseas troops back to domestic bases. According to the National Association of Installation Developers, an Association of Defense Communities (NAID/ADC), in a January 2005 Infobrief entitled, When an Installation Grows: The Impact of Expanding Missions on Communities, a significant number of defense communities will experience growth, which “will not only bring an influx of additional troops and/or missions, but also families and, potentially, federal civilian employees and contractors.”

As the military services work to accommodate this influx, optimizing land use, ensuring adequate community services on base and off, and improving necessary infrastructure become significant issues that must be dealt with expeditiously due to the timeframes involved.

Adding to the complexity of this effort is the DOD’s introduction of a new Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) initiative in 2005. There have been four BRAC efforts since 1988, when the BRAC Commission was first charged with helping to reduce military infrastructure for improved operational efficiency. To date, 97 major domestic military bases have been closed under the BRAC program, and 55 bases have been realigned. Estimates indicate that the four previous BRAC rounds have accounted for $16.7 billion in net savings and a $7-billion annual recurring savings.

This latest round of BRAC is anticipated to affect between 22 and 24 percent of military facilities—more than all the other BRAC rounds together. In addition, the process this time is expected to be focused more heavily on realigning operations rather than on reducing overall force structure.

Whether the issue is an installation’s growth or its closure, surrounding communities will experience major impacts.

Managing Growing Pains

Bringing new troops and their families to established stateside military installations can certainly mean substantial economic benefit to the adjacent communities, but it can also overwhelm the existing social and physical infrastructure. Issues cover a wide spectrum—from schools and housing to jobs for spouses and transportation facilities—and communities must be alert and ready.

When the Army announced its plans to add 3,800 troops by 2006 to the 12,000 already located at Fort Bliss, and another 5,000 this year to Fort Hood’s 45,000, Texas’ state leaders stepped up to the plate to support their local communities in meeting the military’s needs. A $250-million low-interest, revolving loan fund was established for military communities to use for economic development or needed infrastructure improvements. Legislation was passed that mandates discounted electrical military rates for military bases, and special education benefits were established so that military family members can enroll in state-supported colleges and universities at state resident tuition rates. An additional $20.5 million was allocated by the state to build new roads and infrastructure near Fort Hood.

“Steps like these help both the military installation and their adjacent communities better manage their growing pains,” says John Fish, manager of PBS&J’s Planning and Landscape Architecture Division. “You start by assessing what you have and what you think the impacts will be, creating a forum for stakeholder involvement, and exploring your funding options. It’s a complex process, but it will pay off in the long run.”

Available Development Options

Previous BRAC rounds have used direct transfer of base assets to a local redevelopment authority (LRA), which manages the redevelopment process—one among several transfer alternatives. Through this type of transaction, assets are transferred at zero cost to the LRA in the form of an “economic benefit conveyance.” The DOD remediates or arranges with the LRA to clean up any environmental issues that might exist on the base, and the LRA proceeds to determine the appropriate direction for the redevelopment.

This process allows the DOD to cut off or cap its cleanup liability, while the community benefits by receiving land and facilities that can be redeveloped for use in and by the community. This was the process used when the Orlando Naval Training Center closed in 1995. The city of Orlando turned this prime real estate into Baldwin Park, a showcase mixed-use community consisting of single-family homes, condominiums, shopping plazas, business offices, and outdoor recreation facilities.

“Baldwin Park is a great example of how a closed facility can be recycled into an important new asset for the community,” says John Fish. PBS&J has provided planning, landscape architecture, and civil engineering design services for this signature redevelopment project over the past several years. The development is expected to be complete this year.

With the 2005 BRAC process, a new option will be available to the military. According to Fish, “Facilities that are selected for closure this year will have the option to do a direct disposal through public auction.” This new option has a two-fold benefit for the DOD: a quick disposal of the facility to cap closure costs and a potential influx of operating capital from the sale of high-dollar real estate.

“Naval bases, because of their usual proximity to water, are likely candidates for the public auction option given the potential real estate value of waterfront property,” explains Fish. “Developers will be able to submit bids for purchase of the land and facilities based on the estimated cost of environmental restoration. In this transaction, the responsibility for cleanup rests with the buyer.”

Whichever transaction process is selected, recipients of the closed base properties will want to ensure that they carefully consider all of the responsibilities and develop strategies that work to the advantage of the community. “The old real estate adage, ‘location, location, location,’ made Baldwin Park ripe for success,” Fish concludes. “Bases in more rural areas can also offer excellent redevelopment opportunities, but will require very strategic planning and a longer term perspective.”