ȱ
ȱȱȱȱǻǼDZȱ
ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ
ǯȱȱȱ
ȱ¢ȱ
ȱřŗǰȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱȱȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
ǯǯȱ
ŚŖŚŝŜȱ
ȱȱȱ
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
ȱȱȱȱǻǼDZȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
¢ȱ
The Defense Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1990 and the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 provide the basic framework for the transfer and disposal of
military installations closed during the base realignment and closure (BRAC) process. In general,
property at BRAC installations is first subjected to screening for use by the Department of
Defense and by other federal agencies. If no federal use for the property can be found or if an
application for transfer is rejected, the property is deemed “surplus” to the needs of the federal
government and made available for disposal through other mechanisms.
At this point, BRAC property is subjected to two simultaneous evaluation processes: the
redevelopment planning process performed by a local redevelopment authority comprised of
various interested representatives of the community affected by the BRAC action; and a
Department of Defense analysis prepared under the aegis of the National Environmental Policy
Act and, eventually, informed by the local redevelopment plan.
As a part of this process, screening of the property must be performed to determine if a homeless
assistance use would be appropriate. There are also a variety of “public benefit transfers,” under
which the property may be conveyed for various specified public purposes at reduced cost. It is
also possible to dispose of BRAC property through the use of a public auction or negotiated sale,
for which fair market value or a proxy for fair market value must generally be obtained. Finally
the law governing the BRAC process authorizes economic development conveyances, through
which a local redevelopment authority may obtain the property for specified purposes, sometimes
for no consideration.
A series of legislative and administrative changes have altered the BRAC property transfer
process since the last round of closures in 1995. This report provides an overview of the various
authorities available under the current law and describes the planning process for the
redevelopment of BRAC properties.
In the 111th Congress, numerous bills have been introduced that include provisions related to
BRAC properties. Recent events, including natural disasters, concerns about future energy
resources, and the decline in the economic markets have provided the impetus to propose
modifications to the utilization of and disposal of BRAC properties. To illustrate the breadth of
these provisions, this report will discuss the following selected bills: H.R. 645 (National
Emergency Centers Establishment Act); H.R. 896 (a bill to expedite the construction of new
refining capacity on closed military installations); and S. 590 (Defense Communities Assistance
Act of 2009). This report will be updated as events warrant.
ȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱǻǼDZȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Transfer, Disposal, and Leasing Authorities.................................................................................... 2
Local Redevelopment Authorities (LRAs)................................................................................ 3
Transfers for Federal Utilization ............................................................................................... 3
DOD Components or Other Agencies................................................................................. 4
Public Domain Lands.......................................................................................................... 5
Transfers for Non-Federal Utilization....................................................................................... 6
Homeless Assistance........................................................................................................... 6
Public Benefit Transfers...................................................................................................... 6
Conservation Conveyances................................................................................................. 7
Public Auction and Negotiated Sale ................................................................................... 8
Economic Development Conveyances (EDCs) .................................................................. 8
Leases................................................................................................................................ 10
Congressional Consideration..........................................................................................................11
H.R. 645, 111th Cong., 1st Sess. (2009), The National Emergency Centers
Establishment Act ................................................................................................................ 12
H.R. 896, 111th Cong., 1st Sess. (2009), A Bill to Expedite the Construction of New
Refining Capacity ................................................................................................................ 12
S. 590, 111th Cong., 1st Sess. (2009), The Defense Communities Assistance Act of
2009...................................................................................................................................... 13
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................... 14
ȱ
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 14
ȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱǻǼDZȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
The nation’s military installations have gone through several rounds of base realignments and
closures (BRAC), the process by which excess military facilities are identified and, as necessary,
transferred to other federal agencies or disposed of, placing ownership in non-federal entities.
Since the enactment of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as amended
(Base Closure Act), transfer or disposal of former military installations has been governed by
relatively consistent legal requirements.
On December 28, 2001, a round of base closures was authorized by Congress.1 The BRAC
process requires the Secretary of Defense to prepare and submit a list of military installations
recommended for closure or realignment to the congressional defense committees and an
independent commission.2 The independent BRAC Commission, created by the Base Closure
Act,3 is required to review and analyze the Department of Defense’s (DOD) recommendations
and submit a report to the President with findings and conclusions that accept, reject, and/or
modify the recommendations.4 The President reviews the BRAC Commission report, accepting or
rejecting it in whole or part, and submits the recommendations to Congress.5 If the President fails
to submit the recommendations to Congress within the timeframe required under the Base
Closure Act, the BRAC process is terminated.6 Upon receipt of the report from the President,
Congress has the opportunity to disapprove of the recommendations through the enactment of a
joint resolution.7 The 2005 BRAC Commission considered 190 separate DOD recommendations,
a number exceeding the number of recommendations considered by all previous BRAC
Commissions combined.8 Ultimately, the BRAC Commission recommended a total of 182
closures or realignments with an estimated savings to the taxpayer of $15 billion over 20 years.9
The recommendations were accepted by the President and forwarded to Congress.10 Congress did
not disapprove of the report and, therefore, the recommendations became law on November 9,
2005.11
1 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, Act of December 28, 2001, P.L. 107-107, 115 Stat 1012
(current version at 10 U.S.C. § 2687 note).
2 Base Closure Act at § 2903(c).
3 Id. at § 2902.
4 Id. at § 2903(c).
5 Id. at § 2903(e).
6 Id.
7 Id. at § 2904(b).
8 The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
Report, Executive Summary, September 2005 (Available online at http://www.brac.gov).
9 Id.
10 In Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462 (1994), the U.S. Supreme Court held that actions by the Secretary of Defense and
the BRAC Commission are not reviewable final agency actions within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA), since their reports recommending base closings carry no direct consequences. However, the action of the
President will directly affect bases and, as such, is the final action affecting the military installations; but because the
President is not an agency under the APA, that action is not reviewable under the act. The Court further held, that
where a statute commits decision-making to the President’s discretion, judicial review of his decision is not available.
11 Donna Miles, “BRAC Deadline Expires; DoD to Begin Closures, Realignments,” American Forces Press Service,
News Articles, November 9, 2005.
ȱȱȱ
ŗȱ
ȱȱȱȱǻǼDZȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
The current BRAC law is similar to the original statute and retains many of the transfer
authorities that were available in previous rounds. However, significant amendments in 1999 and
2001 altered portions of the law’s disposal authorities, including requirements related to
economic development conveyances. Consequently, DOD promulgated new regulations to
implement the property disposal authorities available for the 2005 round.12 This report provides
an overview of the transfer and disposal authorities available under the law for military
installations to be closed during the 2005 round and indicates how amendments to the Base
Closure Act have altered the property transfer and disposal process.13 It also describes DOD’s
regulations implementing the amended Base Closure Act. The report concludes by discussing
bills introduced in the 111th Congress containing provisions related to the disposal of BRAC
properties. Several bills illustrate the breadth of these provisions, e.g., H.R. 645 (National
Emergency Centers Establishment Act); H.R. 896 (a bill to expedite the construction of new
refining capacity on closed military installations); and S. 590 (Defense Communities Assistance
Act of 2009).
ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱ
The transfer or disposal of federal property is primarily performed by the General Services
Administration (GSA) pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949
(FPASA).14 The Base Closure Act directs the Administrator of the GSA to delegate specified
transfer and disposal authorities to DOD for use at BRAC installations, and DOD has, in turn,
delegated this authority to the various military services.15 Thus, BRAC property transfer and
disposal is performed, generally, in accordance with the FPASA and the GSA regulations
implementing it. In addition, the Base Closure Act authorizes DOD, with GSA approval, to
supersede GSA regulations with BRAC-specific regulations.16
Apart from the transfer and disposal authorities typically available for federal property, the Base
Closure Act and other provisions of law authorize a variety of other conveyance mechanisms. The
available authorities include: public benefit transfers, economic development conveyances (at
cost and no cost), negotiated sales to state or local governments, conservation conveyances, and
public sales.17 In some cases, the analysis and use of particular authorities must precede analysis
and use of others. On the other hand, there are many transfer and disposal mechanisms that are
given roughly equivalent priority; thus analysis and use of them may occur simultaneously.
In addition to DOD’s role in making disposal and transfer determinations, the Base Closure Act
also provides a substantial role for states and communities in the property redevelopment
12 32 C.F.R. pt. 174.
13 It should be noted that significant issues related to environmental cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) exist at some BRAC properties and that the use of certain
property transfer authorities may be contingent upon adequate performance of CERCLA obligations or agreement by
the acquiring entity to accept liability for environmental cleanup. See 42 U.S.C. § 9620(h); P.L. 107-107, § 3006. For
background on environmental cleanup issues and BRAC, see CRS Report RS22065, Military Base Closures: Cleanup
of Contaminated Properties for Civilian Reuse, by David M. Bearden.
14 Act of June 30, 1949, ch. 288, 63 Stat 377. Transfer and disposal authority is codified at 40 U.S.C. §§ 521-559.
15 Base Closure Act, § 2905(b); 32 C.F.R. § 174.5.
16 Base Closure Act, § 2905(b).
17 32 C.F.R. § 174.4(b).
ȱȱȱ
Řȱ
ȱȱȱȱǻǼDZȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
planning process. Thus, local communities can significantly affect the BRAC property transfer
and disposal decisions made at the federal level. The specific roles for states and communities as
well as the various transfer and disposal authorities are discussed below.
ȱȱȱǻǼȱ
Pursuant to the act, an LRA is “any entity (including an entity established by a State or local
government) recognized by the Secretary of Defense as the entity responsible for developing the
redevelopment plan with respect to the installation or for directing the implementation of such
plan.”18 DOD must prepare an environmental impact analysis under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), in which it must examine all reasonable disposal alternatives and make its
own disposal decisions.19 However, LRAs are responsible for designing a comprehensive plan for
reuse of BRAC property, culminating in a redevelopment plan, which is submitted to DOD and
included as part of the proposed federal action.20 While the redevelopment plan is not binding on
DOD, it may have significant influence on its disposal decisions, and, in some instances, DOD is
statutorily directed to give the plan considerable weight.21 Local zoning authorities and state land
use regulations may also impact the disposal decisions made by DOD.
The Base Closure Act does not establish statutory requirements for the formation of LRAs. DOD
regulations provide that the LRA should have “broad-based membership, including, but not
limited to, representatives from those jurisdictions with zoning authority over the property.”22 The
regulations further state that “[g]enerally, there will be one recognized LRA per installation.”23 In
the event that a LRA is not recognized by DOD, or if the LRA fails to timely submit a
redevelopment plan, the Secretary concerned is required to consult with the state’s Governor and
heads of local governments before proceeding with the disposal of the property according to
applicable laws.24
ȱȱȱ£ȱ
It is DOD policy to act expeditiously under the BRAC process, whether it is the closing or
realigning of an installation, in order to facilitate the transfer of real property for community
reuse.25 Prior to consideration of transfer to a non-federal entity, the property must be screened for
continued federal use.
18 Base Closure Act, § 2910(9).
19 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.
20 32 C.F.R. § 174.6.
21 The specific requirements impacting the LRA planning process and DOD’s eventual disposal of property are
discussed in the sections of this report addressing each disposal mechanism.
22 32 C.F.R. § 174.6(a).
23 Id.
24 Base Closure Act, § 2905(b)(3)(B); 32 C.F.R. § 174.6(c)(2).
25 32 C.F.R. § 174.4.
ȱȱȱ
řȱ
ȱȱȱȱǻǼDZȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱ
The first step in the property transfer process begins when the military service in possession of a
BRAC property notifies other DOD branches and federal agencies that property is in “excess”26
to its needs and has become available.27 If a DOD component or other federal agency wishes to
acquire BRAC property, it must “provide a written, firm expression of interest ... [and] explain
the intended use and the corresponding requirement for the buildings and property” within thirty
days of the notice of availability,28 followed by an application for transfer of the property.29 The
application must support a variety of transfer requirements, including that the property requested
be better suited to the requestor’s needs than its existing property or other properties and that the
transfer would not create a new government program.30 During the federal screening, the
Secretary concerned is required to keep the LRA informed of the progress and to provide contact
information for federal agencies so that the LRA may be involved.31 DOD components and other
agencies are encouraged to include the LRA, if it exists, in discussions related to the proposed use
of the property.32 Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the transferring DOD branch to review the
applications and make a determination as to whether the transfer is appropriate based on several
factors:
• The requirement for additional property must be valid and appropriate;
• The proposed use is consistent with the highest and best use of the property;
• The proposed transfer will not have an adverse impact on the transfer of any
remaining portion of the installation;
• The proposed transfer will not establish a new program or substantially increase
the level of a component’s or agency’s existing programs;
• The application offers fair market value for the property, unless waived;
• The proposed transfer addresses applicable environmental responsibilities to the
satisfaction of the Secretary concerned; and
• The proposed transfer is in the best interest of the Government.33
In the event multiple acceptable applications for the same piece of BRAC property are submitted,
the Secretary must consider, in order:
• The need to perform the national defense missions of the Department of Defense
and the Coast Guard;
• The need to support the homeland defense mission; and
26 “Excess” property is defined as “property under the control of a federal agency that the head of the agency
determines is not required to meet the agency’s needs or responsibilities.” 40 U.S.C. § 102(3); 32 C.F.R. § 174.3(e).
27 32 C.F.R. § 174.7(a), (c).
28 32 C.F.R. § 174.7(d).
29 32 C.F.R. § 174.7(e).
30 32 C.F.R. § 174.7(h).
31 32 C.F.R. § 174.7(f).
32 32 C.F.R. § 174.7(g).
33 32 C.F.R. § 174.7(i).
ȱȱȱ
Śȱ
ȱȱȱȱǻǼDZȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
• The LRA’s comments as well as other factors in the determination of highest and
best use.34
If, after consideration of the applications, a determination is made that a federal-to-federal
transfer is appropriate, the transfer may occur with or without compensation.35 However, DOD
regulations require that if the property is being transferred out of DOD, “fair market value
reimbursement to the Military Department” be made unless the obligation is “waived by the
Office of Management and Budget and the Secretary concerned, or a public law specifically
provides for a non-reimbursable transfer.”36 If the federal agency receiving the property fails to
provide fair market value reimbursement, the property is to be declared “surplus”37 and disposed
of in accordance with applicable laws.38 If no DOD components or other federal agencies pursue
acquisition, or if DOD denies an application for transfer, the property is determined to be surplus
and the disposal process begins.
ȱȱřşȱ
Simultaneous to the DOD component or other agency review process, and prior to a final
determination that the BRAC property is surplus, DOD must determine whether the installation
includes “public domain lands.”40 If the lands comprising the closed or realigned installation were
originally withdrawn from the public domain for use as a military facility, then, in accordance
with FPASA, the Department of the Interior (DOI), acting through the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), may review the property and decide whether the land is suitable for return
to the public domain.41 If DOD decides it will not retain the property for one of its components, it
issues a Notice of Intent to Relinquish.42 It is then the responsibility of the BLM to determine if
the land is suitable to be returned to the DOI or if it should be disposed of under the Base Closure
Act.43 Because BRAC property withdrawn from the public domain would not be listed in the
notice of availability sent to DOD components and other federal agencies, is not clear whether a
period for federal-to-federal transfers, as described above, would be available if BLM rejects the
property.
34 32 C.F.R. § 174.7(j).
35 Base Closure Act; § 2905(b)(2)(C).
36 32 C.F.R. § 174.7(h)(8).
37 “Surplus” property is defined as “excess property that the Administrator determines is not required to meet the needs
or responsibilities of all federal agencies.” 40 U.S.C. § 102(10); 32 C.F.R. § 174.3(l).
38 32 C.F.R. § 174.7(k).
39 Public domain lands are lands owned by the United States for the benefit of the citizens of the United States.
40 32 C.F.R. § 174.7(l)
41 Id.
42 32 C.F.R. § 174.7(l)(4).
43 32 C.F.R. § 174.7(l)(5), (6)
ȱȱȱ
śȱ
ȱȱȱȱǻǼDZȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȬȱ£ȱ
ȱȱ
The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act44 which allows “excess,” “surplus,”
“unutilized,” and “underutilized” federal property to be used as homeless shelters, previously
applied to BRAC closures.45 However, the Base Closure Community Development and Homeless
Assistance Act of 1994 changed the process for BRAC properties closed after October 25, 1994.46
The Secretary of Defense is required to publish notice of available property and to submit
information on the property to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
as well as to the LRA for that particular installation.47 All interested parties, including
representatives of the homeless, are then to submit to the LRA a notice of interest in the
property.48 The LRA is to consider “the interests in the use to assist the homeless of the buildings
and property at the installation that are expressed in the notices submitted to the redevelopment
authority ... ” in preparing its redevelopment plan.49 Upon completion of its plan, the LRA
submits it to the Secretary of HUD and the Secretary of Defense for review.
The Secretary of HUD is authorized to review the plan, negotiate with the LRA for changes, and
based on statutorily prescribed factors determine whether the plan is acceptable.50 Upon HUD
approval, the base redevelopment plan, including any homeless assistance component and
agreement to implement no cost homeless assistance property conveyances, is submitted to DOD.
DOD is required to give the redevelopment plan’s homeless assistance recommendations
“substantial deference.”51 The Base Closure Community Development and Homeless Assistance
Act of 1994, as originally enacted, required the Secretary of Defense to dispose of the property
according to the LRA plan, including any homeless assistance designations.52 The substantial
deference requirement, added by the Base Closure Act, appears to clarify DOD’s authority to
dispose of property in a manner inconsistent with the LRA redevelopment plan, as long as the
required level of deference was afforded.53
ȱȱȱ
Public benefit transfers are authorized under FPASA and allow for conveyance of property at a
discount or for no cost for specified public purposes54 Only certain entities may acquire property
44 42 U.S.C. § 11411.
45 Id. at § 11411(a).
46 P.L. 103-421, 108 Stat. 4346 (1994).
47 Base Closure Act, § 2905(b)(7); C.F.R. § 176.20
48 C.F.R. § 176.20(c).
49 Base Closure Act, § 2905(b)(7)(F)(i).
50 Base Closure Act, § 2905(b)(7)(H).
51 Base Closure Act, § 2905(b)(7)(K)(iii) (while the term “substantial deference” is not further defined by the Base
Closure Act or DOD regulations, judicial application of the term may be instructive. See, e.g., Chevron v. NRDC, 467
U.S. 837 (1984); Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997)).
52 P.L. 103-421, 108 Stat. 4346 (1994).
53 Base Closure Act, § 2905(b)(7)(K)(iii).
54 See 40 U.S.C. §§ 541 et seq., 49 U.S.C. §§ 47151-47153 (authorized transfers include uses for airports, historic
monuments, education, national service activities, public parks and recreation, low income assistance housing, and
(continued...)
ȱȱȱ
Ŝȱ
ȱȱȱȱǻǼDZȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
through a public benefit transfer, and the categories of acceptable recipients vary according to the
type of public benefit use contemplated. For instance, transfers for use in the protection of public
health may be to a state, a public subdivision or instrumentality of a state, a tax-supported
medical institution, or a 501(c)(3) nonprofit hospital or similar institution.55
DOD is required to inform the various agencies exercising authority over public benefit transfer
programs of potentially available property and to inform the relevant LRA of any interest
expressed by agencies.56 The LRAs are encouraged to coordinate with interested parties and make
a reasonable effort to incorporate their interests within the redevelopment plan.57 However, there
is no requirement that their interests be included in the redevelopment plan, they must only be
considered by the LRA.58 DOD is also required, through the military departments, to conduct an
official public benefit transfer screening in accordance with the Federal Property Management
Regulations based on potential uses indentified in the redevelopment plan. If a public transfer is
made, the transferring instrument will generally contain various binding “terms, conditions,
reservations, and restrictions” to ensure the use of the property for the purposes for which it was
transferred.59 The LRA is responsible for the implementation of and compliance with the legally
binding terms60 In the event the agreement is violated and the property reverts to the LRA, the
LRA is responsible for ensuring the future utilization of the property.61
ȱ¢ȱ
If BRAC property remains available after it has been considered for both a federal-to-federal
transfer and a public benefit conveyance, DOD is authorized to transfer BRAC property via a
conservation conveyance.62 To be eligible for a conservation conveyance the property must be
suitable and desirable for conservation purposes, must have been made available for a public
benefit transfer “for a sufficient period of time,” and must not be subject to a pending request for
a public benefit transfer or for transfer to another federal agency.63 In general, a conservation
conveyance is to be for reduced cost.64 The conveyance may be made to a state or qualified
nonprofit entity for conservation purposes and must be subject to a reversionary clause
authorizing the United States to reclaim the property should the use for conservation purposes
cease.65 With the concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior, DOD may grant the release from a
covenant restricting future conveyances, but only if fair market value for the property is paid.66
(...continued)
public health purposes).
55 Id. at § 550(d).
56 C.F.R. § 176.45.
57 32 C.F.R. § 176.20.
58 Id.
59 40 U.S.C. § 550(b).
60 32 C.F.R. § 176.45(d).
61 32 C.F.R. § 176.45(e) (a preference exists for the LRA to utilize the property to assist the homeless, but it is not a
requirement).
62 10 U.S.C. § 2694a.
63 Id. at § 2694a(a).
64 Id. at § 2694a(g).
65 Id. at § 2694a(b), (c).
66 Id. at § 2694a(d) (under certain circumstances the Secretary may accept less than fair market value for the property).
ȱȱȱ
ŝȱ
ȱȱȱȱǻǼDZȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱ
In accordance with FPASA, DOD may dispose of BRAC property via public auction or through a
negotiated sale with a single purchaser.67 The public auction process requires public advertising
for bids under terms and conditions that permit “full and free competition consistent with the
value and nature of the property involved.”68 If adequate bids are received and disposal is in the
public interest, the bid most advantageous to the federal government is to be accepted.69 A
negotiated sale is permissible when: (1) it is necessary in the public interest; (2) the public health,
safety, or national security will be promoted by particular disposal of personal property; (3) a
public exigency makes an auction unacceptable; (4) a public auction would adversely impact the
national economy; (5) fair market value does not exceed $15,000; (6) a public auction has failed
to produce acceptable bids; (7) the character of the property makes public auction impractical; (8)
disposal is to a state, territory, or U.S. possession; or (9) negotiated sale is authorized by other
law.70
ȱȱ¢ȱǻǼȱ
In addition to FPASA authorities, the Base Closure Act has since its enactment provided for
EDCs in one form or another. Under its EDC authority, DOD may convey BRAC property to a
LRA for less than fair market value. From 1994 until the 1999 and 2001 amendments to the Base
Closure Act, the Secretary of Defense was authorized to “transfer real property and personal
property located at a military installation to be closed ... to the redevelopment authority ... for
consideration at or below the fair market value of the property transferred or without
consideration.”71 The reduced or no cost conveyance was authorized when it was determined to
be necessary to support economic development and when DOD could show that other transfer
authorities were insufficient.72
Amendments to the Base Closure Act in 1999 and 2001 significantly altered the requirements
applicable to the use of an EDC.73 Under section 2905(b), the broad discretion of the Secretary of
Defense to authorize reduced or no consideration economic development conveyances has been
replaced by what is arguably a more restrictive scheme. Among the changes, for installations
closed after January 1, 2005, the Secretary is required to “seek to obtain consideration in
connection with any transfer ... in an amount equal to the fair market value of the property, as
determined by the Secretary.”74 However, transfers of property without consideration, in limited
67 40 U.S.C. § 545.
68 Id. at § 545(a)(2).
69 Id. at § 545(a)(4).
70 Id. at § 545(b).
71 P.L. 103-160, § 2903 (1994).
72 Id. (Additionally, a no consideration transfer was formerly required when a closure was to take place in a rural area
and would cause “a substantial adverse impact (as determined by the Secretary) on the economy of the communities in
the vicinity of the installation and on the prospect for economic recovery.... ” P.L. 103-160, § 2903, amended by P.L.
106-65) For a discussion of the policy behind EDC, see Randall S. Beach, Swords to Plowshares: Recycling Cold War
Installations, 15 PROB. & PROP. (2001).
73 Act of October 5, 1999, P.L. 106-65, 113 Stat. 512; P.L. 107-107, § 3006. Bases closed under previous BRAC law
but still owned by the Department of Defense may be included under the new statutory framework, and certain existing
contracts may be modified to comply with the updated law.
74 Base Closure Act, § 2905(b)(4)(B); see also 32 C.F.R. § 174.9(b).
ȱȱȱ
Şȱ
ȱȱȱȱǻǼDZȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
circumstances, is authorized. The law states: “the transfer of property of a military installation ...
may be without consideration” only when the transferee agrees to specified terms.75 These terms
include a requirement that the recipient LRA use the proceeds from certain future sales or leases
of the acquired property to support economic redevelopment at the former installation and accept
control of the property “within a reasonable time after the date of the property disposal record of
decision.76
Under the regulations, a LRA may apply for an EDC after completion of its redevelopment plan.
An application must be submitted consistent with a schedule devised by the Secretary of the
transferring DOD component.77 The decision to accept or reject an application for an EDC is
made by the Secretary with the concurrence of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Installations and Environment.78 The LRA application “should explain why an EDC is necessary
for job generation on the installation” and provide a “description of the economic impact of
closure or realignment on the local community.”79 Further, the application should contain a
statement “describing why other authorities, such as public or negotiated sales and public benefit
conveyances for education, parks, public health, aviation, historic monuments, prisons, and
wildlife conservation, cannot be used to accomplish the job generation goals.”80 The transferring
Secretary is required to evaluate the application and its proposed terms and conditions in
accordance with a series of prescribed factors, including the economic effects on the community
of the proposed EDC, the interests and concerns of other federal agencies, and the economic
benefit to the United States.81 The Secretary is also required to appraise the property, utilizing the
most recent edition of the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, and
determine its fair market value prior to accepting an application.82 The regulations require the
Secretary to “seek to obtain consideration at least equal to the fair market value” as part of an
EDC.83 However, as authorized by the Base Closure Act, the regulations provide for an EDC
without consideration if the LRA agrees that “proceeds from any sale or lease of the property ...
during at least the first seven years ... [following transfer] shall be used to support economic
redevelopment.... ”84 The authorized uses to support economic redevelopment are:
• Road construction;
• Transportation management facilities;
• Storm and sanitary sewer construction;
• Police and fire protection facilities and other public facilities;
• Utility construction;
75 P.L. 106-65, amended by P.L. 107-107.
76 Base Closure Act, § 2905(b)(4)(B)(ii).
77 32 C.F.R. § 174.9(d).
78 Id.
79 Id. at § 174.9(e).
80 Id. at § 174.9(e)(5) (All elements to be addressed by the LRA in its application for an EDC are contained in 32
C.F.R. § 174.9(e)(1) – (8)).
81 Id. at § 174.9(g).
82 Id. at § 174.9(h).
83 Id. at § 174.10(b).
84 Base Closure Act, § 2905(b)(4)(i); 32 C.F.R. § 174.10(e)(1)(i).
ȱȱȱ
şȱ
ȱȱȱȱǻǼDZȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
• Building rehabilitation;
• Historic property preservation;
• Pollution prevention equipment or facilities;
• Demolition;
• Disposal of hazardous materials generated by demolition;
• Landscaping, grading, and other site or public improvements; and
• Planning for or the marketing of the development and reuse of the installation.85
If the LRA does not utilize the funds in support of economic redevelopment, DOD is authorized
under the Base Closure Act to recoup the portion of the proceeds received by the LRA in an
amount it deems appropriate.86
ȱ
In addition to the final conveyance of property contemplated by the Base Closure Act, federal law
authorizes the leasing of BRAC property to both federal and non-federal lessees.
ȱ
The law and regulations authorize what has been referred to as a “leaseback,” an arrangement
wherein the transferring Secretary conveys property to a LRA and the LRA agrees to lease the
property to a federal agency.87 Under the regulations, this arrangement will only be used if the
agency that would lease the property agrees to the arrangement, the LRA and the agency can
agree to lease terms, and the transferring Secretary determines the arrangement is in the interest
of the DOD component or agency.88 The leases are to be for terms of no more than fifty years,
subject to renewal, and cannot require rental payments.89
Ȭȱȱ
While the Base Closure Act does not specifically provide for the authority to lease property to
non-federal lessees, it does indicate that proceeds from leases are to be deposited into a BRAC-
specific account. 90 The authority for non-federal leases is contained in 10 U.S.C. § 2667, the
same statute governing the leasing of non-BRAC military property.91 DOD’s regulations identify
that the leasing of BRAC properties prior to final disposition “may facilitate state and local
economic adjustment efforts and encourage economic development, but the Secretary concerned
85 Base Closure Act, § 2905(b)(4)(C); 32 C.F.R. § 174.10(e)(2).
86 Base Closure Act, § 2905(b)(4)(D); 32 C.F.R. § 174.10(f).
87 Base Closure Act, § 2905(b)(5); 32 C.F.R. § 174.12.
88 32 C.F.R. § 174.12(f).
89 Id. at s174.12(h).
90 Base Closure Act, §§ 2096, 2906A; see also 10 U.S.C. § 2667(d)(5).
91 10 U.S.C. § 2667(f).
ȱȱȱ
ŗŖȱ
ȱȱȱȱǻǼDZȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
will always concentrate on the final disposition of real and personal property.”92 Lessees must
generally pay fair market value; however, less than fair market value consideration is authorized
if the Secretary finds that:
• A public interest will be served as a result of the lease; and
• The fair market value of the lease is unobtainable or not compatible with such
public benefit.93
Prior to a BRAC property being leased, the law requires DOD to consult with the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine whether the property is in suitable
condition for leasing.94 In general, NEPA requires federal agencies to analyze the environmental
impacts of a proposed federal action and alternatives to that action.95 The statute governing
BRAC property leases indicates that the scope of environmental analysis required is “limited to
the environmental consequences of activities authorized under the proposed lease and the
cumulative impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions during the
period of the proposed lease.”96 However, this relief from full application of NEPA does not apply
if activities authorized under the lease would:
• significantly affect the quality of the human environment; or
• irreversibly alter the environment in a way that would preclude any reasonable
disposal alternative of the property concerned.97
Additional regulatory and statutory provisions indicate that leases of BRAC property are intended
to be short-term, interim measures to spur economic development pending final disposition, and
therefore these leases “make no commitment for future use of ultimate disposal.”98 More
specifically, the regulations indicate that lease terms may extend up to five years, including
renewal options, if the lease is entered into prior to completion of the final disposal decision.99
After completion of the final disposal decisions, the lease term may be longer than five years.100
When a lease is to a LRA and is provided at below fair market value and the property is later
subleased, the LRA is required to apply the proceeds to the “protection, maintenance, repair,
improvement, and costs related to the [leased] property....”101
ȱȱ
In the 111th Congress, numerous bills have been introduced that include provisions related to
BRAC properties. Recent events, including natural disasters, concerns about future energy
92 32 C. F.R. § 174.11(a).
93 Id. at § 174.11(b).
94 10 U.S.C. § 2667(f)(3).
95 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.
96 10 U.S.C. § 2667(f)(5)(A).
97 Id. at § 2667(f)(5)(C).
98 32 C.F.R. § 174.11(c); see also 10 U.S.C. § 2667(f)(5)(B).
99 32 C.F.R. § 174.11(c).
100 Id.
101 Id. at § 174.11(d).
ȱȱȱ
ŗŗȱ
ȱȱȱȱǻǼDZȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
resources, and the decline in the economy have provided the impetus to propose modifications to
the utilization of and disposal of BRAC properties. The following bills, discussed below, if
enacted, may influence the transfer or disposal of BRAC properties and could impact ongoing
redevelopment efforts.
ǯǯȱŜŚśǰȱŗŗŗȱǯǰȱŗȱǯȱǻŘŖŖşǼǰȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱȱȱ
H.R. 645, if enacted, would not specifically modify the property transfer authorities available
under the Base Closure Act. However, the bill could affect the transfer of BRAC properties for
local redevelopment. The bill calls for the Secretary of Homeland Security to create not fewer
than six national emergency centers on military installations within the various U.S. Federal
Emergency Management Agency Regions. The bill would create a “preference” for the
designation of closed military installations, defined as a “military installation, or portion thereof,
approved for closure or realignment” under the Base Closure Act, as potential sites for the
centers. To be eligible for designation, an installation must meet all, or two out of the three
following requirements: (1) located in close proximity to a transportation corridor; (2) located in a
state with a high level of threat of disaster related activities; and/or (3) located near a major
metropolitan center. In the event that suitable installations cannot be identified, the bill would
allow for an existing, active military installation to be designated.
The Secretary of Homeland Security would be required to consult with the Secretary of Defense
in the designation of the installations, but the bill is silent on the role, if any, of the LRA for the
particular installation. It is also unclear if the requirement for the creation of the emergency
centers is secondary to DOD’s obligations in the disposal process, or if it should be considered a
federal-to-federal transfer and therefore superior to other transfer authorities. Under current
regulations, federal agencies are required to submit interest in a federal-to-federal transfer within
30 days of the notice of availability of the property, which for most, if not all, 2005 BRAC
properties has already expired.102 However, the Secretary of Defense may, at his discretion,
withdraw the surplus determination and consider an agency’s late request for utilization of the
property.103 Transfers under this process are limited to “special cases,” not further defined in law
or regulation, as determined by the Secretary.104 The bill may contemplate that a request by the
Secretary of Homeland Security to create a national emergency center would be considered a
special case and therefore sufficient to remove the property from the ongoing local redevelopment
process.
ǯǯȱŞşŜǰȱŗŗŗȱǯǰȱŗȱǯȱǻŘŖŖşǼǰȱȱȱȱ¡ȱȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱ¢ȱ
H.R. 896, would require the President to designate no fewer than three closed installations, or
portions thereof, that are appropriate for the purposes of siting a refinery. The bill would allow the
Governor of the state in which a designated installation is located to object to the designation;
however, Congress would have the ability to pass legislation overriding the objection. After
102 32 C.F.R. § 174.7(d).
103 Id. at § 174.7(o).
104 Id. at § 174.7(o)(1).
ȱȱȱ
ŗŘȱ
ȱȱȱȱǻǼDZȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
designation, the LRA for the installation would be required to consider the feasibility and
practicability of siting a refinery on the installation during the development of its redevelopment
plan. The Secretary of Defense would be required to give substantial deference to the
recommendations of the LRA.
While the bill, if enacted, does not specifically modify any of the property disposal authorities,
the potential exists to disrupt the ongoing redevelopment of BRAC properties. Under the
proposed framework, the LRA, through its redevelopment plan, would have an identifiable role in
the refinery siting process, but in many cases the plans may have already been completed.
Additionally, the bill would prohibit the sale or disposal of any BRAC property designated by the
President as a possible refinery site until two years after the date of enactment of the bill.
However, if the installation is later excluded by the Secretary of Defense as a possible refinery
site, the bill does not provide an exception to the two year prohibition on sale or disposal, which
in effect may halt the economic redevelopment of the installation. It appears any redevelopment
plans already in place at designated installations that do not discuss the suitability of siting a
refinery would be considered incomplete and the redevelopment process would have to start
anew.
ǯȱśşŖǰȱŗŗŗȱǯǰȱŗȱǯȱǻŘŖŖşǼǰȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱŘŖŖşȱ
S. 590, if enacted, would specifically modify transfer authorities available under the Base Closure
Act.105 As discussed above, an EDC is a possible property transfer authority available to DOD.
The law currently requires the Secretary concerned to seek fair market value consideration for
BRAC property transferred to the LRA as part of an EDC, but allows the Secretary the discretion
of granting a no-cost EDC under certain circumstances. Under the bill, the Base Closure Act
would be returned to the provisions that were in effect on December 27, 2001, essentially
removing the fair market value requirement. The Secretary would not have the discretion to grant
a no-cost EDC, rather he would be required to transfer the property to the LRA at no-cost as long
as the LRA agrees to certain requirements.
The bill further would require the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations to implement the
revived provisions within 60 days of enactment. The Secretary is to “ensure that the military
departments transfer surplus real and personal property at closed or realigned military
installations without consideration to local redevelopment authorities for economic development
purposes, and without the requirement to value such property.”106 Because the bill is silent on the
question, it is unclear what impact, if any, this change would have on property in the process of
being transferred under the current Base Closure Act. Arguably any agreements not concluded by
the date of enactment of the bill would be subject to the new framework and would be eligible for
transfer at no cost. It is uncertain if of the bill would allow the LRA to modify its redevelopment
plan to include a no-cost EDC that wasn’t previously recommended.
105 The bill would also modify the Base Closure Act with respect to environmental indemnification of transferees of
closing defense properties. For additional information on BRAC environmental issues, see CRS Report RS22065,
Military Base Closures: Cleanup of Contaminated Properties for Civilian Reuse, by David M. Bearden.
106 S. 590, 111th Cong. (2009).
ȱȱȱ
ŗřȱ
ȱȱȱȱǻǼDZȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
The transfer and disposal process for 2005 round BRAC properties is primarily governed by the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act, as amended, and the Federal Property and
Administrative Service Act. The process first requires screening to determine if other DOD
components or federal agencies have a need for the property. In the event that property is not
transferred in this manner, it is deemed surplus and may be disposed of pursuant to BRAC and
FPASA authorities. Compliance with these authorities generally requires an analysis of suitability
for homeless assistance or a public benefit transfer. DOD is directed to take into consideration
multiple factors in determining which authority to use, including consultation with LRAs and
their redevelopment plans, but DOD appears to be ultimately responsible for making final
determinations. Public auctions and negotiated sales are generally available, although it would
appear that fair market value must generally be obtained under these authorities. Economic
development conveyances are authorized as well, which may be made for no consideration,
contingent upon certain conditions of transfer.
ȱȱ ȱ
R. Chuck Mason
Legislative Attorney
rcmason@crs.loc.gov, 7-9294
ȱȱȱ
ŗŚȱ