Why Have Fort Monroe Costs Soared?

Team Infidel

Forum Spin Doctor
Newport News Daily Press
January 6, 2008
Pg. 1
By David Lerman
WASHINGTON -- Two local members of Congress are pressing the Pentagon to explain why the cost of closing Hampton's Fort Monroe has increased 298 percent.
Reps. Robert C. "Bobby" Scott, D-Newport News, and Thelma Drake, R-Norfolk, have sent a letter to the Defense Department. They are demanding to know why costs have increased to an estimated $288 million and whether the initial estimate considered the expense of environmental cleanup.
The historic post, headquarters for the Army's Training and Doctrine Command, is scheduled to close by 2011, part of a large streamlining approved by Congress that will shutter about 22 major bases nationwide.
Cleaning up Monroe is expected to be costly because the moat-encircled fort is thought to be littered with unexploded munitions.
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, issued a report last month showing the cost of closing the Army fort has risen from a 2005 estimate of $72.4 million to a 2008 budget estimate of $288.1 million. The GAO report didn't make clear why the cost increased.
"How can the current estimated cost increase be explained?" Scott and Drake asked in a letter to Alex Beehler, acting deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and environment.
The letter said, "In light of the recent reports, we hereby request that you provide us with the cost estimates that were used to justify the closure, the source of those estimates and the amount of projected savings which would justify the closure."
Fort Monroe was cited as one of about 33 base closures or realignments that now face significant cost increases from projections made in 2005, when Congress approved the closure round.
The Defense Department, in response to the GAO, acknowledged the cost increases. It attributed them to everything from inflation to new construction costs, changes in building needs and decisions to enhance training sites or military quality of life. It didn't respond specifically to the case of Monroe.
Despite the cost increases, the Pentagon defended the base closure effort, saying it will still save taxpayers $4 billion a year when completed.
A Scott aide said Friday that the congressman hadn't received a response from the Pentagon yet to his letter, which was dated Dec. 20.
Fort Monroe had been targeted for closure for about two decades before Congress approved the move two years ago. In the past, lawmakers saved the fort by arguing that the high cost of environmental cleanup made closure impractical and a net cost drain on the Pentagon.
In recommending the closure of Monroe, the Defense Department issued a report in 2005 that acknowledged the need for environmental cleanup. But it said it didn't consider that expense to be triggered by a closure of the fort.
"Because the Department has a legal obligation to perform environmental restoration, regardless of whether an installation is closed, realigned or remains open, no cost for environmental remediate (sic) was included in the payback calculation," the report said.
In a report issued a year ago, the GAO reported the cleanup cost of Monroe as $201 million.
 
Back
Top