1995 Army Team Lead Desk Material - Adds to List Hearing, May 21, 1993 Page: 62 of 222
This legal document is part of the collection entitled: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
- Highlighting
- Highlighting On/Off
- Color:
- Adjust Image
- Rotate Left
- Rotate Right
- Brightness, Contrast, etc. (Experimental)
- Cropping Tool
- Download Sizes
- Preview all sizes/dimensions or...
- Download Thumbnail
- Download Small
- Download Medium
- Download Large
- High Resolution Files
- IIIF Image JSON
- IIIF Image URL
- Accessibility
- View Extracted Text
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
59
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
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69you're saying. Now, it could be that the
coaunity wasn't telling the whole truth or
that their photograph was outdated, but it
showed a couple of buildings, same rocks,
emptiness.whenever the data calls were provided to the
Navy, $235 mitLion between fiscal year '93 and
fiscal year '97. And again, 574 million of
that was to coin from the BRAC.
COMMISSIONER COX: But GAO
said $400 million.
CR CRUZE: GAO, I believe,
said a total of 5500 miLlion; yes. I do- t
have that report in front of me. I'm not
positive about that nte ber. But the GAO
maer was, indeed, higher.
COMMISSIONER COX: So it's
somewhere between 235 and 400.
MR. YELLIN: The 235 is not
the rudber. We realty need to take out the
BRAC, the '91 Commission costs that were
imposed upon the area. That's not part of the
completion of Everett. Those were costs that
were caused by closing a base in Seattle.
COMMISSIONER COX: But if we
closed Everett, we wouldn't have to spend that
morle
CDR CRUZE: I f you cLosed
Everett, there is some amount of money that
would be saved. We have asked the Navy for
that data already, and we have not received a
response.
MR. YELLIN: I think the
distinction between the numbers that you're
seeing from GAO and the numbers that the Navy
is presenting to us, which have significant
variance, is in the total scope of what GAO
says they feel the Navy will need there or
will ultimately put there and what the Navy is
saying that they need to be able to initially
use that faci lity.
COMMISSIONER COX: And you all
will give us some feel on which you think is
more correct?
MR. YELLIN: Yes. We will
give you that information. A lot of this goes
back to the philosophy behind the home ports,
when they were bui It, that they were not
designed to be full scope faci li ties. They
didn't have housing, they didn't have all the
stqport facilities. One of the criteria the
Nary used when they determined where to put
these things was there .was an examination of
cmminity support capability to reduce the
capital costs in some of these areas.
COMMISSIONER STUART: Greg,
Commissioner Bowman said that you had a
picture of what we would see at Everett right
now, display here. What would we see? that
would Everett Look like on a picture, an
aerial photo?
MR. YELL[N: Everett has a
completed pier and quite a few buildings done.
COMMISSIONER STUART: In the
process?
MR. TELLIN: No. There are a
rneber of buildings completed. Unfortunately,
we didn't bring that with us.
COR CRUZE: W/e do have several
pictures of Everett back in the office.
COMMISSIONER STUART: In the
hearings in Oakltand -- I th ink that was
correct -- there was a photograph pit up b
the comity that varied somewhat from whatCOMMISSIONER COX: I second
that motion.
CHAIRMAN COURTER: Any
discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COURTER:
Commissioner gob Stuart.
COMMISSIONER STUART: Aye.
CWISSIONER BYRON: Aye.
GEM JOHNSON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COURTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MCPHERSON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COX: Aye.
COMMIT SS IONER BGMAN: Aye.
MS. CHESTON: On the motion
that the Commission consider Naval Station
Everett Washington as a proposed addition to
the Secretary's list of military instalLations
recommended for closure or realignment, the
vote is seven in favor, zero against; the
motion passes.
MR. YELLIN: Now, I would like
to move along to Naval training centers.
CHAIRMAN COURTER: I have just
a statement and observation to make on this,
and I wanted counsel to listen to this, if we
may.
Those gentlemen and Ladies
that are Leaving, could they refrain from
speaking, please? We're carrying on important
business. Thank you very much.
We voted quite some time ago
to include the Naval training center at Great
Lakes on our list for review. Is there any
other affirmative action that this Commissionw
CDR CRUZE: Yes, sir. They
may have created some impression at that
regional hearing, and these photographs that
we have provided by Everett pmy create an
additional impression, and we don't know any
time gap between when those photographs were
taken. So if you put it on the List, we'll go
take a Look.
MR. BEHRMANN: That's one of
the reasons we do base visits, Mr. loan.
MR. YELLIN: But I think one
of the things that everyone does agree with,
the people from Everett do, also, is that
there are things that do need to be completed
prior to bringing the carriers in, and there
is this distinction that, if you want us to
continue to look at this as an option, we will
get in, and we will do our best to present you
with the information on what is required and
what these differences are.
COMMISSIONER MCPHERSON: Mr.
Chairman, consistent with what we have been
doing this afternoon in adding for
consideration bases that were inferentially
chosen by the services against an existing
base, I move that the Commission consider
Naval Station Everett, Washington, as an
addition to the Secretary's list for closure
or rea l i gnment.Ir
I
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Matching Search Results
View 10 places within this document that match your search.Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legal Document.
United States. Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. 1995 Army Team Lead Desk Material - Adds to List Hearing, May 21, 1993, legal document, February 17, 2006; (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc25520/m1/62/?q=food+rule+for+unt+students: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.