T
the patriot
Guest
Monday 22 January 2001
DND faces selling 33% of property
Forces can‘t afford upkeep, report says
Kathryn May
The Ottawa Citizen
National Defence may be forced to dispose of nearly one-third of its infrastructure, from barracks to bases, because it doesn‘t get enough funding for basic repairs and upkeep.
A document obtained by the Citizen shows the department is weighing all options to cut its realty costs over the next 20 years, from closing bases, combining army, navy and air forces on a single base, privatizing operations, sharing facilities with other departments or private industry and demolishing those beyond repair.
The department is already aiming for a 2005 target to reduce 10 per cent of its infrastructure, but that won‘t be enough to handle a projected 30-per-cent yearly shortfall in funding for repairs and maintenance, said DND official Rem Westland.
Mr. Westland is DND‘s director general of realty planning and policies.
The Defence Department‘s realty holdings are massive, the biggest in government. It occupies nearly half of the floor space owned by the Crown. The inventory is also old and outdated, with nearly half of all buildings and about 73 per cent of other infrastructure, from sewers to roads, built more than 30 years ago. The department estimates it would cost nearly $12 billion to replace its assets today.
The problem is the money to maintain them.
The rule-of-thumb is that between two per cent and four per cent of a property‘s replacement cost should be earmarked for annual repairs and maintenance. Documents show DND is now facing a $66-million annual shortfall in the $226 million it figures is needed to keep realty assets in the state they are today. As a result, the department has to whittle its inventory.
But Mr. Westland said the shortfall comes after years of chronic underfunding. The military has lived a decade of non-stop reductions that gutted budgets by 23 per cent and personnel by 20 per cent. At the same time, the military faced a growing list of overseas duties and domestic emergencies. The result was a steady raid on maintenance budgets to be diverted to operations. According to documents, the air force‘s assets are in the best shape, followed by the army and the navy.
The department is now saddled with an inventory that has a massive "rust-out" problem. Across the country, buildings sit empty, half-used or falling into disrepair. Mr. Westland estimates that about $1 billion in repairs are needed to bring neglected buildings and works to "acceptable levels."
Mr. Westland said many of the "rust-out" properties will likely be demolished. He added that many were probably allowed to deteriorate because they were no longer needed for military operations. The problem, however, is that potential buyers for such buildings are scarce.
But Mr. Westland expects most savings will come from consolidating operations or sharing facilities with rent-paying users, such as training facilities with police forces.
He argues this "multi-use" option retains the military‘s presence across the country and is cheaper than either closing them or fixing them to sell.
Closing bases is also an option, but is fraught with huge political and financial costs. The bases closed in the 1995 budget cost more than $500 million for everything from relocation cost, repairing buildings, demolishing buildings, environmental cleanup and buyouts for laid-off works.
The department is developing a long-term real estate strategy to marry up with the 20-year plan it is developing for the Canadian Forces of the future, which will "significantly impact force structure, equipment, tasks and training."
As part of the review, DND has ordered managers to examine every asset, from generating plants and sewers to armories and airfields, to determine what is key to the military‘s future "operational requirements."
By 2002, assets will be ranked according to how long they are usable. The department wants to know what can be disposed of immediately and what should be kept for up 20 years so it can direct money to the assets it keeps the longest. Bases such as CFB Esquimalt in B.C. and CFB Halifax, for example, are considered key to long-term "operational requirements" and won‘t be considered for closure.
The document, however, has string of conditions attached to what assets DND can get rid of:
- Military operations are paramount and nothing get be disposed of that affects "military effectiveness."
- Quebec must have an army, navy and air "presence" and a "geographic mix of unilingual and bilingual units."
- Military personnel‘s "quality of life" must be considered, such as location of bases and condition and suitability of working and living accommodations.
- Enough billets must be retained to handle any training and and employment of military support personnel.
- Potential to "combine army, navy and air elements on a single base must be considered."
- Consolidations will focus on bases and installations with "highest military value."
- Properties that could be hard to recover if disposed of, such as air space, ports and weapon ranges must be kept.
- Any properties that are shared with other users must be readily accessible if needed for "expansion or mobilization."
***********************************
-the patriot-
DND faces selling 33% of property
Forces can‘t afford upkeep, report says
Kathryn May
The Ottawa Citizen
National Defence may be forced to dispose of nearly one-third of its infrastructure, from barracks to bases, because it doesn‘t get enough funding for basic repairs and upkeep.
A document obtained by the Citizen shows the department is weighing all options to cut its realty costs over the next 20 years, from closing bases, combining army, navy and air forces on a single base, privatizing operations, sharing facilities with other departments or private industry and demolishing those beyond repair.
The department is already aiming for a 2005 target to reduce 10 per cent of its infrastructure, but that won‘t be enough to handle a projected 30-per-cent yearly shortfall in funding for repairs and maintenance, said DND official Rem Westland.
Mr. Westland is DND‘s director general of realty planning and policies.
The Defence Department‘s realty holdings are massive, the biggest in government. It occupies nearly half of the floor space owned by the Crown. The inventory is also old and outdated, with nearly half of all buildings and about 73 per cent of other infrastructure, from sewers to roads, built more than 30 years ago. The department estimates it would cost nearly $12 billion to replace its assets today.
The problem is the money to maintain them.
The rule-of-thumb is that between two per cent and four per cent of a property‘s replacement cost should be earmarked for annual repairs and maintenance. Documents show DND is now facing a $66-million annual shortfall in the $226 million it figures is needed to keep realty assets in the state they are today. As a result, the department has to whittle its inventory.
But Mr. Westland said the shortfall comes after years of chronic underfunding. The military has lived a decade of non-stop reductions that gutted budgets by 23 per cent and personnel by 20 per cent. At the same time, the military faced a growing list of overseas duties and domestic emergencies. The result was a steady raid on maintenance budgets to be diverted to operations. According to documents, the air force‘s assets are in the best shape, followed by the army and the navy.
The department is now saddled with an inventory that has a massive "rust-out" problem. Across the country, buildings sit empty, half-used or falling into disrepair. Mr. Westland estimates that about $1 billion in repairs are needed to bring neglected buildings and works to "acceptable levels."
Mr. Westland said many of the "rust-out" properties will likely be demolished. He added that many were probably allowed to deteriorate because they were no longer needed for military operations. The problem, however, is that potential buyers for such buildings are scarce.
But Mr. Westland expects most savings will come from consolidating operations or sharing facilities with rent-paying users, such as training facilities with police forces.
He argues this "multi-use" option retains the military‘s presence across the country and is cheaper than either closing them or fixing them to sell.
Closing bases is also an option, but is fraught with huge political and financial costs. The bases closed in the 1995 budget cost more than $500 million for everything from relocation cost, repairing buildings, demolishing buildings, environmental cleanup and buyouts for laid-off works.
The department is developing a long-term real estate strategy to marry up with the 20-year plan it is developing for the Canadian Forces of the future, which will "significantly impact force structure, equipment, tasks and training."
As part of the review, DND has ordered managers to examine every asset, from generating plants and sewers to armories and airfields, to determine what is key to the military‘s future "operational requirements."
By 2002, assets will be ranked according to how long they are usable. The department wants to know what can be disposed of immediately and what should be kept for up 20 years so it can direct money to the assets it keeps the longest. Bases such as CFB Esquimalt in B.C. and CFB Halifax, for example, are considered key to long-term "operational requirements" and won‘t be considered for closure.
The document, however, has string of conditions attached to what assets DND can get rid of:
- Military operations are paramount and nothing get be disposed of that affects "military effectiveness."
- Quebec must have an army, navy and air "presence" and a "geographic mix of unilingual and bilingual units."
- Military personnel‘s "quality of life" must be considered, such as location of bases and condition and suitability of working and living accommodations.
- Enough billets must be retained to handle any training and and employment of military support personnel.
- Potential to "combine army, navy and air elements on a single base must be considered."
- Consolidations will focus on bases and installations with "highest military value."
- Properties that could be hard to recover if disposed of, such as air space, ports and weapon ranges must be kept.
- Any properties that are shared with other users must be readily accessible if needed for "expansion or mobilization."
***********************************
-the patriot-
