Page images

1. Construction of the proposed project under average cost conditions in the United States would exceed the current statutory limitation of $17,500 for projects having more than 50 units. This is predicated on the composition of the U.S. Military Academy project consisting primarily of four-bedroom and field grade officer units. 2. The construction costs for the proposed fiscal year 1966 project of 200 units of family housing at the U.S. Military Academy are based on cost experience at the Academy and engineering estimates from actual project design. The above Chart provides a COS't comparison of the U.S. Military Academy fiscal year 1966 project design with average costs for similar housing now under construction in the United States, other than Alaska and Hawaii. Variances are attributed to the following considerations: (a) The high cost of labor and materials at the Military Academy is one of the highest in the United States. (b) Basements, hardwood floors, brick veneer facade, and garages are provided in the proposed family units at U.S. Military Academy due to the cold climate and consideration of future maintenance costs. (c) An unusual item of cost in site development is the extensive rock excavation required. Construction involves placing foundations in rock as well as moving rock for both the installation of utilities and the construction of necesSary roads. 3. Cost experience of the fiscal year 1960 Military Academy project consisting of 156 company grade officer units, 26 3-bedroom and 130 4-bedroom units, authorized by Public Law 86–149 (August 10, 1959) provides the best cost comparison for the proposed construction. The units built in fiscal year 1960 were twostory duplexes and triplexes. Final project cost was $5,869,873, or $37,627 per unit. 4. All units of the proposed 200-unit project will be two-story duplexes or “four”-plexes. The composition includes 242-bedroom and 364-bedroom enlisted units, 8 3-bedroom company grade officer units, and 132 4-bedroom field grade officer units. The cost of the proposed project will average approximately $1,000 per unit less than the 1960 project. Although construction costs have increased 12 percent since 1960, the lower cost of the proposed project is attributable to the extensive studies and detailed engineering which has taken place in the development of this particular increment of family housing.

Senator STENNIS. That is going to be pretty hard to defend, spending $10,000 per unit, $10,500 beyond the 5-foot line, and then $8,000 additional inside the 5-foot line. It seems to me you are going to have to prove that you looked around a good deal. How far would you have to go to get to more reasonable ground? General CLARKE. Sir, we would have to go off the reservation. Senator STENNIs. I know. General CLARKE. And from my personal knowledge of the land, if we were to go north we would be up in the vicinity of Cornwall, at least, and perhaps on up toward Newburgh. Senator STENNIS. Well, of course, that doesn’t mean anything to me or to the record, either. You will have to give specific distances. General CLARKE. Going north I would say we would have to go a distance of perhaps 12 to 15 miles to get to usable terrain. Going south, sir, I would say a comparable distance. Senator STENNIs. How far did you drive this morning to come in, if I may ask? General CLARKE. Thirteen miles, sir. Sir, may I make one additional statement? The Academy and the Department of the Army place great stress upon the desirability of the faculty being in close proximity to the cadets and they are trying to encourage closer and closer working relationships between the faculty and the cadets.

The faculty spend a great deal of their time in what the business world I suppose would call overtime in assisting the cadets to get through the various strenuous courses up there. Senator STENNIs. Yes. General CLARKE. And this is a strong reason we believe for having the housing as close as we can reasonable get it to the cadet life. Senator STENNIS. Well, I want them to have everything they need but I don’t think we have any money to spend unless it is needed. Mr. REED. I will ask both you and the general some questions here. You have 12,500 units in the bill, is that right, Mr. Reed? Mr. REED. Yes, sir. Senator STENNIs. According to my memorandum there are 1,207 of those right here in the Washington area. Mr. REED. That is correct. Senator STENNIs. Housing for Fort Myer, Belvoir, and so forth. Now, that is 10 percent of the total for the whole Nation. These bases are here within the area of a city where we are already crowded. out as I understand it. How do you justify this, Mr. Reed, 1,207 out of 12,500? Mr. REED. We recognize, sir, that is an enormous number. We are talking here, sir, at Fort Myer, Fort Belvoir, the combined Air ForceNavy complex at Bolling and Andrews Air Force Base. We have at those 5 bases, sir, a current deficit of 12,868 eligible personnel. The projected effective deficit will be approximately 13,382 after we take into effect changes in requirements as well as take credit for the 720 units now under construction in the area. The principal problem is that our people cannot find rental units in the three- and four-bedroom category. This is what we are attempting to solve by this very large number of units. Particularly in the enlisted ranks where these people have large families now and in the field grade officer category, sir. It is very difficult to find rentals with three and four bedrooms in this area at a cost they can afford. Senator STENNIS. Let's see now, there is, of course, Andrews and Bolling, Fort Belvoir, Fort Myer, NC Washington—what is that? Mr. REED. Naval complex. Senator STENNIS. I see. Where is that? Mr. REED. That is joint sited with Bolling. Senator STENNIS. Well, are you going to build houses—you won’t build the houses, will you, on this area down here? Mr. REED. Yes, sir. Mr. Sheridan's shop has made a total study of the area, enlisted cantonment, and a part of the area will be used for construction of housing down there. Some housing was approved last year, a total of 300, I believe, 150 for the Navy, 150 for the Air Force at that site. Senator STENNIS. Well, you didn't build those. Mr. REED. They are going out on bids, sir, in about a week. Senator STENNIS. And this is for Mr. REED. This will follow onto those 300, sir. Senator STENNIs. All right. General Clarke, do you have something further on any of these points that have been made?

General CLARKE. No, sir. I have a prepared statement in defense of the Army's position which I would like to submit for the record.

Senator STENNIS. Certainly. The general's statement will appear in the record at this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)


Mr. Chairman and members of the committee; I appreciate this opportunity to appear before this committee on behalf of the Army's fiscal year 1966 military family housing program.

This year's program consists of three major budget categories: First, conStruction; secondly, debt payment; and third, Operation and maintenance. The amount of total obligational authority requested is $238,663,000, however, excluding reimbursable authority and the application of funds available for construction from prior years, the new obligational authority requested is $235,220,000.

Taking each Category Separately:

(a) Construction, $55,664,000 |This will provide for the construction of 2,470 family housing units at $47,064,000; improvements to existing public quarters at $8 million; minor construction at $400,000 and advance planning and design at $200,000. With the application of $1,600,000 available from prior years, the new obligational authority requested is $54,064,000. The proposed new construction of 2,470 units of family housing at 13 Army locations is considered a modest program compared to the Army deficit. Although we are making good progress at many of our installations in providing better housing, there still are locations where lack of adequate housing results in separated families, poor morale, and often contributes to good men leaving the Sel"WICe. Another significant portion of our program provides for improvements to existing public quarters. The fiscal year 1966 budget includes $8 million for line item improvement projects and $0.4 million for unforeseen minor construction items which may be accomplished under the authority of title 10, U.S. Code, section 2674, but exceed limitations on such work under the O. & M. program. This $8.4 million represents an investment of approximately one-third of 1 percent of the Army family housing inventory value of approximately $2.3 billion, and will provide improved living conditions for some 10,000 families. This relatively small investment is considered to be the absolute minimum essential for the prudent management of this property in order to maintain an acceptable standard of livability. The Second program is: (b) Debt payments, $48,308,000 This amount is required to reduce the debt ($712 million) incurred by acquisition of 35,709 units of Capehart housing and 19,849 units of Wherry housing. Approximately $20 million of the amount required is for principal, $26 million for interest and $2 million for payment of mortgage insurance. Excluding reimbursement authority, the new obligational authority requested is $48,172,000.

The third program is:

(c) Operation and maintenance, $134,691,000 Funds requested for this program are primarily for the support of an average of 136,707 units of family housing. In addition to the operation, maintenance and utility costs for these housing units, funds are also required for maintenance and repair of supporting appurtenances within the housing area, such as streets, grounds, and utilities distribution systems, items of incidental improvements, furniture, and for the various miscellaneous services. Funds are also included for the leasing of an average of 5,556 family housing units, worldwide. Of

this number, 4,534 units are in the United States at an average cost of $160 per month, including operation and maintenance costs. Excluding reimbursable authority, the new obligational authority requested is $132,984,000. The budget book before you contains the line item justification for the three programs, family housing construction, debt payment and operation and maintenance. Mr. Chairman, I have with me Col. Wyatte G. Trainer, Chief of the Army's Family Housing Division. We are ready to provide the committee with whatever information you may desire. Senator STENNIs. Mr. Reed, I don’t see any particular reason to cover all these things in this hearing except such points as you may wish to emphasize, do you? You have already covered it and we are generally familiar with it. Who is here representing the Navy in a like capacity? Mr. REED. Captain Marshall. Senator STENNIs. Captain, will you come forward. We will take this up rather informally. Mr. REED. We also have Colonel Manning of the Air Force present if you would like him Senator STENNIS. We will get to him.


Senator STENNIs. I don’t know whether you heard what I said earlier. Mr. Reed has given the overall picture, Captain. Captain MARSHALL. Yes, sir. Senator STENNIs. And ordinarily we have followed the formula, as I mentioned to him, of not considering these so much on a line-item basis; that is, base for base or installation for installation. But I would at least recommend that we approve the list subject to such exceptions as may come out, make the list eligible, and then decide on the number that we authorize. Do you have something special to say about any of the Navy housing? Captain MARSHALL. No sir; except that we fully support the proso Mr. Reed has presented and we feel that we have an urgent need or all the projects we have within the 12,500, and I also have a statement I would like to submit for the record, sir, a very short one. Senator STENNIS. Well, we certainly want you to submit your statement, and it will be inserted in the record. In the San Francisco Bay area you are asking for about 1,000 houses, isn’t that right? Captain MARSHALL. Yes, sir. Senator STENNIS. How many are you going to get in all under the proposed program? Captain MARSHALL. We have 5,040 units in this year out of the 12,500 unit total. Senator STENNIS. 5,000 goes to the Navy. Captain MARSHALL. Yes, sir. Senator STENNIs. That is a good part of the total. orain MARSHALL. Well, the Navy was a little shorter than the Others.

Senator STENNIs. I know. You had to wait a long time. . We used to raise that point here about the Navy being left out. It is strange that you put 20 percent of your housing in this bill in one place, one area, at least. Captain MARSHALL. Well, this is a very large area. As you know, the Navy is pretty well concentrated in maybe a half dozen naval complexes throughout the United States. San Francisco is a big area. We have the Alameda Naval Air Station, as you know, and the naval hospital, and we have shipyards up there. We have the Post Graduate School at Monterey. And we have Moffett Field, a key ASW patrol aircraft base. It is a very large area for us. It is possibly about the third largest of all. I think Norfolk is the largest area we have. Senator STENNIS. Well, how many different points in and around this area do you have listed for housing? Captain MARSHALL. In the West Bay complex, which includes the Naval Station at Treasure Island and the Headquarters of the 12th Naval District, Commander, Western Sea Frontier, we have 300 units. Down in Moffett, NAS-Moffet area, we have 300 units. As you know, this is a very high-cost area down there, south of San Francisco. And then we have 400 units for NAS Alameda and the naval hospital and Naval Supply Center over in Oakland. Then we have 208 units for the Post Graduate School at Monterey, and this is primarily due to a buildup there in the student load. This covers all the units we have in the San Francisco area, sir, although Monterey is not commuting distance to San Francisco, as you know, and Moffett Field is a pretty good haul, too. Senator STENNIS. All right. Anything else you want to emphasize? Captain MARSHALL. I don’t believe so, Mr. Chairman. (The statement referred to follows:)


Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the Opportunity of again appearing before you in presenting the Navy's family housing program for fiscal year 1966. The most recent Navy worldwide housing Survey revealed that there are still some 85,000 eligible Navy and Marine Corps families unsuitably housed. This situation is detrimental to the morale and effectiveness of our operating forces. It is both unreasonably and unrealistic to expect peak performance of our military men when they are continually faced with the inability to provide Suitable housing for their families at a price they can afford to pay. Retention of career personnel is being seriously affected by the lack of adequate family housing accommodations. Adequate family housing and family security play a most significant role in the Navy when considering the amount of time our sailors and marines spend at Sea. Or in deployed units Overseas involving long separations from their families and loved ones. If these needs are not met during this separation, you can be assured that the welfare and well-being of their families will be uppermost in their minds, and that this cannot help but compete with their attention to military duties. |This year's program was specifically developed to meet our most critical housing needs in areas where immediate attention is most urgent. New conStruction is being proposed at those hard-core installations where the lack of adequate housing for Our Navy and Marine Corps families presents a continuing problem. The Department of the Navy family housing program will require new obligational authority in the amount of $189,088,000. Of this total amount, $92,140,000 will provide for the construction and acquisition of family housing in

« PreviousContinue »