Association of Defense Communities 2013 Defense Communities National Summit

1. Association of Defense Communities2013 Defense Communities National Summit Ms. Kathleen I. Ferguson Acting Assistant Secretary (Installations, Environment & Logistics) 13 June 2013

2. Major Items of Interest • Budget Update • BRAC • Encroachment • Partnerships

3. Background:FY13 USAF Budget Air Force (FY13) FY13 Actions • Implemented ~$40B in efficiencies across FYDP • Force Structure Changes • Reduce 119 aircraft (terminates C-27J), 4.9K slots • F-35A reduced by 5 in FY13; 98 across FYDP • Reductions shaping a smaller, yet capable, Air Force FY13 Sequestration Impacts/Actions • With 6 months left in fiscal year, only limited funds in certain accounts available from which to take cuts • MILPERS account exempt • Upfront costs & must-pay bills already paid (i.e. civ payroll, utilities & certain contracts) • Flying Hours, Weapon System Sustainment (WSS), and Civilian Pay bearing brunt of sequestration • These 3 programs represent over 60% of budget • All 3 are scalable & able to turn-off quickly • However, cuts causing big impacts to readiness w/ bow-wave of mission requirements into FY14 $110.1B Estimated $102.8B Sequestration creates significant FY13 bow-wave into FY14

4. FY13 Impacts to FY14 • FY13 Sequestration Actions • ~203K flying hours reduction • Cut WSS by ~18% of budget • Reduced MAJCOM/COCOM O&M spending targets by over 10% • Implemented civilian hiring restrictions -- hiring freeze; released temporary employees; planning for furloughs • Deferred all non-emergency Facility Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (FSRM) • Sequestration cuts drive significant impacts to investments • Bow-Wave Impacts to FY14 • 6 months to restore pilot proficiency; creates possible bath tub effect • ~60 deferred depot inductions of aircraft; many years to recover • Military education/training cycle backlog may affect promotions; increased risk on real-time communications for warfighter • Impairs civilian retention & recruiting; creates bottleneck for hiring; increases workload for existing force • Exacerbates facilities maintenance & restoration backlog – magnifies risk • Investment reduction drives increased acquisition costs/delay critical capabilities • F-35A quantity reduction FY13 sequestration jeopardizes FY14 Budget Request

5. Need for Future BRAC Maintaining excess capacity is a recipe for “hollow installations” President’s FY14 budget submission included a request for authorization of a 2015 BRAC round The BRAC process has provided an accepted, proven approach based on a defined force structure plan, installation inventory, and approved criteria, primarily the military value of each installation BRAC enables DoD, an independent commission, the public and Congress to engage in a comprehensive and transparent process Our last capacity analysis was completed in 2004 as part of BRAC 2005—at that time we had 24% excess infrastructure capacity BRAC 2005 closed only 8 AF installations—7 of those were minor installations and only 2 were airfields (AF PRV reduced by 0.8%) Since 2005, we have reduced by 500 aircraft and our active-duty end strength decreased by nearly 8%

6. Air Force Physical Plant Profile 161 Air Force Installations Airfields Family Housing 9M Acres of Land 3 x Connecticut 74,500 Homes 3 x Bermuda 184M Sq Yds of Pavement 169 x Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport Facilities Dormitories Plant Replacement Value 66,300 Dorm Rooms ½ total hotel rooms in Las Vegas 615M Sq Ft of Buildings 3 x Target 205 x Dallas Cowboys stadium $240B PRV Revenue of entire US restaurant industry As of FY99/4 We must right size our infrastructure to mission requirements 6

7. Air Forces in Europe:75% Reduction Since 1990 UNCLASSIFIED Finland Norway Sweden From 1990 to 2013 25 6 Main Operating Bases 29 6 Fighter Squadrons 717 136 Combat Acft Estonia Denmark Russia Latvia Lithuania Belarus UK Ireland Netherlands RAF Menwith Germany Poland Belgium MOB: RAF Lakenheath RAF Alconbury MOB: RAF Mildenhall RAF Croughton Czech Republic RAF Fairford Slovakia Ukraine MOB: Spangdahlem AB Hungary Switzerland MOB: Ramstein AB Moldova France Austria Romania Slovenia Croatia Bosnia and Herz. Italy Kosovo Bulgaria MOB: Aviano AB Serbia Macedonia Montenegro Albania Portugal Turkey Spain Lajes Field Greece Morón AB MOB: Incirlik AB Cyprus Main Operating Base Israel UNCLASSIFIED

8. AF Encroachment Program Long-Term Mission Sustainment Competition for Resources Regulatory Restrictions Compatible Use Security Encroachment: any deliberate action by any governmental or non-governmental entity or individual that does, or is likely to inhibit, curtail, or impede current or future military activities within the installation complex and/or mission footprint; or deliberate military activity that is, or is likely to be incompatible with the use of a community’s resources.

9. Installation Complex Encroachment Management Action Plans (ICEMAP) • Comprehensive literature review • MAJCOM, internal & external interviews • Federal, state & local stakeholder matrix • Mission sustainment / operational constraints • Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis • Compatible Land Use Strategy (CLUS) analysis with prioritized parcel analysis and conservation buffer nexus • Issue-related functional engagement plans for IEMT members • Prioritized action plans for current and potential issues • Project sheets

10. Community Partnership InitiativeVision and Goals People closest to the mission are generating ideas in the “best interests of the Air Force” AF and Local Community Leadership is key! Bring AF leadership and resource support as Installation and Community leaders develop, prioritize and implement community partnership initiatives Practice the “Art of the Possible” Identify ways to get to “Yes” by identifying resource requirements: Time, Money, Manpower, Authority

11. AF Community Partnership Process The process is simple, but gaining efficiency requires hard work • Provides Partnership “Brokering Team” when Installation & Community Leaders commit to using the AF process • Schedules a series of 6 meetings that enables identification of potential partnership initiatives that address mutual needs and capacities • Once initiatives are “fleshed-out” in adequate detail, brings in experts to help define the way forward—drives priorities • By the time of the Table Top Exercise, identifies exactly what resources are required, when resources will be needed and who programs • Do it! (or program for funding then do it) 11 11

12. Prototype CommunityPartnership Locations • Altus AFB, OK • Beale AFB, CA • Buckley AFB, CO • Ellsworth AFB, SD • Hill AFB, UT • JB Andrews, MD • Nellis AFB, NV • Maxwell AFB, AL • Moody AFB, GA • Peterson AFB, CO • Patrick AFB, FL • Robins AFB, GA • Seymour Johnson AFB, NC • Sheppard AFB, TX • Tinker AFB, OK ANG Locations • Klamath Falls ANGB, OR • Ellington Field, TX • Fairchild AFB, WA

13. Potential Cross-Functional Initiatives • Prisoner Detention • Shared use Firing Ranges • Cooperative Police Training • Many of the AF Services provided Airmen support programs • Youth Programs • Lodging • Community Educational Center near front gate • Waste Management/Recycling • Snow removal • Cooperative Fire Training/Support • Chaplain Programs • Pharmacy • Data Center Training/Cable Maintenance • Expand bus system • Airport Operations and Maintenance • University training of critical need interns • Strategic Sourcing • Sharing of Security intelligence

14. SummaryPlenty of Hard Work Ahead… The Future is challenging but we will succeed together….. • Department budget challenges are real…need to look for all opportunities to save $$ • AF strongly supports another round of BRAC • Message to communities • Stay engaged with your installations • Understand your base/mission • Master planning….where do we want to go….two-way communication is critical • JLUS, regional planning efforts inform our roadmaps • Community speaks with one voice 14 14

15. DISCUSSION