WASHINGTON — Government auditors say the Army might have significantly underestimated the costs to taxpayers of Pentagon plans to reshuffle military operations nationwide.
The report, issued Friday by the Government Accountability Office, also warns that some communities whose local bases would grow under the plan might not have the schools, housing and other programs to handle a surge of new personnel. That could force delays, which would increase costs and might require "substantial" federal assistance not included in Pentagon projections, the report said.
GAO auditors do not mention Fort Monmouth in raising these issues. But Monmouth's boosters have voiced those same arguments in trying to shoot down the Army's logic for closing the New Jersey base and moving most of its operations and thousands of workers to Aberdeen Proving Ground, located in an outlying suburb of Baltimore.
"What it's essentially saying is that there's really no savings from closing (Monmouth) because they would have to reconstruct the fort at another location," Rep. Frank J. Pallone Jr., D-N.J., said Friday after touring the Aberdeen base. "Because you'd have to build new buildings, it's actually going to cost you more."
Monmouth is one of about 180 installations — and the largest Army base — to be slated for closure. The Pentagon estimates it would mean the loss in New Jersey of nearly 10,000 jobs — 5,272 base employees and military personnel and 4,465 workers who benefit from the base.
The fort's supporters are hoping to convince the Base Realignment and Closure commission reviewing the Pentagon's recommendations that Monmouth should stay open chiefly because its closure could disrupt the flow of lifesaving technology to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The panel, which is holding a hearing in Baltimore next Friday on Monmouth and other bases, has until early September to make revisions before sending its final recommendations to President Bush.
In addition to closing Monmouth, the Army plan calls for adding 693 jobs at Picatinny Arsenal and turning the Morris County base into the Army's primary research and testing site for weapons and armaments. It also proposes adding 353 jobs to Fort Dix by consolidating several Army reserve centers, including Kilmer Army Reserve Center in Edison, at the South Jersey base.
The GAO report did not make recommendations on those proposals, either. But it did say the Army "generally followed" the framework laid out by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in making its recommendations.
The Pentagon contends moving Fort Monmouth jobs to Aberdeen would not only save money ($1 billion over 20 years) but also provide more space to test equipment. Fort Monmouth is 1,100 acres. Aberdeen has more than 5,000 acres.
But in its 266-page report, the GAO questions $450 million in recurring savings the Army projects it would gain from the entire reorganization based on reductions in military personnel. Auditors say there would be no immediate savings because the Army isn't eliminating people, just redistributing them to other installations.
"They do not represent dollar savings that might be shifted . . . to meet other priority needs such as equipment modernization or improving remaining facilities, areas typically cited as likely beneficiaries of BRAC savings," according to the report.
Auditors also raised concerns about the ability of some areas to absorb a wave of new people.
"Addressing the challenges that these communities face may require significant investments, particularly with regard to available housing and schools, which would increase pressures for federal assistance from various agencies to help mitigate these needs," the report said, adding that those potential costs "could be substantial."
Maj. Desiree Wineland, a spokeswoman for the Army, said officials still were reviewing the report Friday and would not have any comment. The report did say that Army officials expected the staggered relocation of units would give communities time to adjust.