BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS
Senator Jim Nielsen, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AJR 11 Hearing Date: 6/9/15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Burke |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |4/23/15 Amended |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: | |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Wade Cooper Teasdale |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Military bases: closures.
DESCRIPTION
Summary:
Memorializes the President and Congress of the United States to
recognize the unique military value of California's defense
installations and the disproportionate sacrifices California
endured in previous base realignment and closure (BRAC) rounds.
Existing law:
Federal law: Public Law 101-510 (Defense Base Realignment and
Closure Act of 1990) provides the basic framework for the
transfer and disposal of military installations closed during
the BRAC process.
State law:
1) Requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to serve
as the state's liaison to the United States Department of
Defense (DoD) to facilitate coordination regarding issues of
significant interest to the state and the DoD, particularly
with regard to any proposed federal BRAC actions.
AJR 11 (Burke) Page 2
of ?
2)Establishes the Military Base Reuse Authority Act to plan for,
finance and manage the transition of a base from military to
civilian use.
This bill:
1)Outlines the overall economic impact of the defense industry
in California and prior BRAC rounds, and notes that as our
nation faces new security threats in the 21st century, in
space, cyberspace, over land, at sea, and in the air,
California is helping the military meet the challenges of
today and tomorrow.
2)Requests the President and Congress to not only recognize the
unique military value of California's defense installations,
but also continue to take into account all of the following:
a) California geography allows year-round training of all
types of military forces.
b) California's ability to recruit and train highly skilled
and educated personnel.
c) The economic impact on existing communities located near
military installations.
d) Our incomparable quality of life, which enhances
personnel retention.
e) The vast intellectual capital developed in California
since World War II.
f) Disproportionate sacrifices California endured in
previous BRAC rounds.
BACKGROUND
Base Realignment and Closure
California has a strategic location, unique landscape and
valuable resources that help further U.S. military readiness for
actions around the globe. As a result, the DoD has made many
economic and technological investments in the state, including
large investments in land and military installations. The
state's unique resources and the military's investments have
fostered a strong partnership, and the ensuing collaboration is
vital for economic, resource management, and military readiness
reasons. State and local economies are influenced by the
AJR 11 (Burke) Page 3
of ?
military's presence.
The burden of maintaining this partnership often falls on the
shoulders of cities and counties. In addition to juggling the
competing demands of expanding development, promoting economic
development and upholding environmental quality standards, local
governments must also consider the needs of local military
installations in their land use planning. Traditionally,
military installations were strategically located in
underdeveloped areas so as to avoid land use conflicts. As the
population of the state continues to grow and the land use needs
of communities continue to expand outward, the need for stronger
relationships and communication between local governments and
the military developed. Without adequate communication and
coordinated land use efforts, military missions, quality of life
and public safety are increasingly jeopardized. Growth
encroaching on a military installation so as to hinder its
mission can contribute to the installation's closure.
The federal government worked its way through four initial
iterations of the BRAC process between late 1988 and 1993.
Nationally, that process led to the closing of 350 large and
small military bases and 55 major realignments. Reportedly, this
saved federal taxpayers more than $16 billion through 2001 and
six billion dollars more each subsequent year.
Prior to 1988, California had, by far, the largest military
presence of any state, and was home to 335,979 (14.7%) of the
Department of Defense's (DoD) total 2,275,264 personnel and 91
(18.3%) of the 495 major military bases then scattered around
the nation. Not surprisingly, the BRAC cuts fell heavily on
California.
Through the first four rounds (1988, 1991, 1993, 1995), the
state suffered the loss of 93,546 uniformed and civilian DoD
jobs, which represented 53.8% of the net cuts nationally.
California lost nearly 28 percent of its military personnel,
while the rest of the nation saw a reduction of just 3.6
percent.
In terms of major base closures, California lost 24
installations; Texas, seven; Pennsylvania, six; Illinois and New
York, five each; and Florida, Indiana, Maryland and Virginia,
four each.
AJR 11 (Burke) Page 4
of ?
Prior to the mid 1990's, California's response to BRAC was
primarily focused on assisting local communities in the reuse of
shuttered military bases. In 1994, then-Governor Wilson issued
an Executive Order (W-87-94) which directed OPR to coordinate
the state's effort to assist local communities in developing
strategies to protect California bases from further closings, as
a means of focusing on the importance military bases have on the
state's economy.
Subsequent legislation (AB 639, Alby, 1998 and SB 1099, Knight,
1999) codified an Office of Military Base Retention and Reuse
(OMBRR), placing it within the Technology, Trade and Commerce
Agency (TTCA) and outlining the responsibilities of the office,
including the creation of a Defense Retention Grant Program. The
grant program aided local communities in preparing for future
BRAC rounds. SB 926 (Knight and Ashburn, 2004) then renamed
OMBRR to the Office of Military and Aerospace Support (OMAS),
signifying the close relationship between military and aerospace
activities. OMAS exited through the 2005 BRAC round and
subsequently sunsetted in January of 2007.
Unlike previous rounds, the fifth BRAC round (2005) focused more
on realignment than closure. Along with saving money, a top
priority was military force readiness, consolidating assets onto
centralized installations from which they can be deployed
rapidly and flexibly in support of an evolving global situation,
and joint service missions. Implementation of the 2005 BRAC
recommendations was completed in 2011.
When a military installation is closed or its tenant units
merely downsized, the communities in the area are adversely
affected, particularly in the short-term. Military and civilian
personnel face the loss or relocation of jobs. The uniformed
personnel expect to be transferred regularly, but civilian
workers on base usually are long-term local residents.
Local retailers who support the bases directly or indirectly
suffer serious revenue decreases and may even be forced to
close. Area governments lose revenues needed to maintain
services and infrastructure. In addition, the negotiation and
execution of land transfer, environmental cleanup, and
redevelopment of the properties can be a challenging, alien
process to communities.
AJR 11 (Burke) Page 5
of ?
The enabling BRAC statute typically provides a variety of
mechanisms for disposing of property at closed or realigned
military installations. In the past, some federal real property
has been made available by public benefit conveyances for
airport, education, and homeless assistance. Some have been
converted to military reserve component bases. Others have been
transferred to native American tribes. For some properties,
economic development conveyances have been awarded to local
redevelopment authorities. Some have been put up for public
sale.
The 2005 BRAC Commission recommended that Congress authorize
another BRAC round in 2015, and then every 8 years thereafter.
In 2012 then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta called for two BRAC
rounds for 2013 and 2015, but Congress rejected Panetta's
requests and also declined to fund a Pentagon request in 2014 to
fund another BRAC round.
COMMENT
Author Statement
"California is home to over 30 major federal military
installations and commands, which generate over $71 billion in
direct spending, and employ more than 350,000 Californians.
And yet, in spite of the economic benefits, the jobs, our
universities and intellectual capital, and our strategic
location, we've absorbed a disproportionate share of losses in
the federal base relocation and closure rounds. In fact, over
the last four BRAC rounds, not only did we lose more federal
military jobs here in California than the combined losses of
all other states, we lost 300,000 private sector defense
industry jobs. AJR 11 sends a clear message to our leaders in
Washington that we stand united to protect the jobs,
innovation, and industry that our economy depends upon."
Current Related Legislation
1) SB 506 (Fuller, 2015)
a. Establishes a process for the designation of a
local retention authority to serve as the lead local
government entity responsible for efforts to retain local
AJR 11 (Burke) Page 6
of ?
military installations. (Pending, suspense file, Senate
Appropriations)
b. Creates the Military and Aerospace (MA) Program
under the Governor's Office of Business and Economic
Development (GO-Biz) to address concerns relating to
state and local defense retention, base conversion and
base reuse activities.
2) AB 442 (Irwin, 2015) codifies the Governor's Military
Council, under the direction of the California Military
Department, and provides for appointment to the council by
the Governor. (Pending, Senate Veterans Affairs)
3) AB 1080 (Obernolte, 2015) authorizes the Department of
Finance to find that an agreement between a former
redevelopment agency and a joint powers authority that was
created to exercise the powers provided by the Military Base
Reuse Authority Act is an enforceable obligation. (Pending,
Assembly Local Government)
Prior Related Legislation
1) SB 245 (Rubio, 2011) would have re-established the Office of
Military Support within OPR for the purpose of serving as a
clearinghouse for state activities related to the military,
including base closures. (Died on Suspense, Assembly
Committee on Appropriations)
2) AB 2711 (Portantino, 2008) Would have required the
Secretary of Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency (BT
& H) to develop a comprehensive state technology and
innovation plan. Included a provision that extended the
sunset date for OMAS from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2012.
(Died on Suspense, Assembly Committee on Appropriations)
3) SB 1698 (Ashburn, Chapter 681, Statutes of 2006) extended
the authority for OMAS for two years, until January 1, 2009,
and expanded the duties of the OMAS to include outreach to
the aerospace industry for the purpose of fostering aerospace
enterprises in California.
4) AB 2565 (Parra, Chapter 763, Statutes of 2004) requires that
the strategic plan originally prepared by the California
AJR 11 (Burke) Page 7
of ?
Defense Retention and Conversion Council as it existed in
1998 be updated.
5) AB 1202 (Laird, Chapter 330, Statues of 2005) replaced
obsolete references to the Defense Conversion Council with
OMAS and revised the definition of military bases, required
the Director of OPR to select a mediator, in consultation
with the federal Office of Economic Adjustment, to reach
agreement among different jurisdictions on a local reuse
entity in the event that the multiple local governments
cannot agree on a single reuse entity for each base.
6) SB 926 (Knight and Ashburn, Chapter 907, Statutes of 2004)
consolidated the defense retention and conversion efforts in
the state. The bill changed the name of OMBRR to OMAS,
transferred its functions to BTH, and set forth its duties
and authority with respect to state and local defense
retention and conversion, consolidating all such programs
under a single office within state government. The bill also
provided for the use of state Infrastructure and Economic
Development Bank funds by local governments to develop
projects on or near a military base that enhance the base's
mission.
7) SB 296 (Soto, 2001) would have enacted the Department of
Defense Operational Effectiveness Preparedness Act to help
prevent any further base closures in the state. (Referred but
not heard in Senate Committee on Governmental Organization)
8) SB 1099 (Knight, Chapter 425, Statutes of 1999), the
California Defense Retention and Conversion Act,
reconstituted the defunct Defense Conversion Council as the
California Defense and Retention and Conversion Council as
well as required the establishment of a Defense Retention
Grant Program.
9) AB 639 (Alby Chapter 952, Statutes of 1998) enacted the
Defense Conversion, Reuse and Retention Omnibus Act which was
designed to assist communities in both closure and retention
efforts.
10) SB 268 (Roberti, Chapter 441, Statutes of 1993)
created the Defense Conversion Matching Grant Program,
administered by the Office of Strategic Technology within the
AJR 11 (Burke) Page 8
of ?
Trade and Commerce Agency, and overseen by the Defense
Conversion Council. Also appropriated $5.5 million from the
Petroleum Violation Escrow Account to fund defense conversion
efforts.
11) SB 458 (Hart, Chapter 445, Statutes of 1993)
enacted the California Defense Conversion Act of 1993 to
enable the state to assume a leadership role in converting to
a peacetime economy. Also created a 15-member Defense
Conversion Council in the Trade and Commerce Agency with
prescribed powers and duties, including the establishment of
criteria for designation of regional technology alliances.
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Author
Support:
American Legion, Department of California
AMVETS, Department of California
California Association of County Veterans Service Officers
California State Commanders Veterans Council
Los Angeles, County of
Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation
Military Officers Association of America, California Council of
Chapters
Rural County Representatives of California
Veterans of Foreign Wars, Department of California
Vietnam Veterans of America, California State Council
Oppose: None received
-- END --