Com-Central.net

- Kurt_Laughlin

To be honest, if the choice was between providing free daycare for the children of soldiers; or free internet connections so the deployed could talk with their families more often; or putting the cheapest possible roof over my favorite tanks; I would let the tanks rust.

Kurt,

I don't think it's a problem of choosing between a better "soldiercare" and a better "old-tanks-care". For me, money was already spent (wasted?) to restore some of the tanks, to move them from Knox to Benning and from Aberdeen to Lee, and now everything is stopped.

It's just like starting to build a house and not having the money to build the roof. The weather will damage the interior and walls of the house. In this case, it would have been better not to build the house at all.

Moreover, the tanks can't be viewed by the public, so everyone has something to loose with this situation. Better not having done anything or having done the whole thing... not just the half of it.

P-O

Fyi, some of the political background on this proposal: The House Appropriations Committee is proposing another continuing resolution to cover the remaining seven months of FY11 - instead of actually passing an FY11 appropriations bill. This is why the museum funding - among $100 billion in other projects would be cut. The museum funding is only in the President's FY11 request (it doesn't look like any funding was requested for FY12).

So unfortunately right now the museums are being held hostage to this bigger political game. Obama said he would veto the House Appropriations proposal, and anything will have to pass both the Republican House and Democratic Senate. There is some possibility they could just keep passing continuing resolutions and not pass an actual FY11 spending bill, but from what I understand that would be fairly unprecedented. Like i said, this is just the first salvo.

Is military museum funding usually part of defense spending, or is it presented separately? If it's the former, at least I can mildly understand it (although it's still missing the point), and if it's presented separately, it's entirely missing the point...


edit: I just want to say, this thread is reminding me of one of the reasons why I like this board: Polite discussion about political issues, free of hyperbole. On a certain warbird board I also post on, things tend to be the exact opposite.

Sherman,
Actually I dont know where military museum funding is "usually." This is the first time, since I've been tracking the subject, that Army museums have moved - I think its certainly the most significant change in the Army museum system in 30 years, if not 60 years. In the past they didnt move, and a new one was built only every several decades... Only possible frame of reference I have is the last Ordnance Museum building effort in the late 1960s/early 1970s. There was an effort then to get everything undercover, but the military was very unpopular due to the Vietnam War - whether they couldnt get funding from the government, or raise enough privately, the Ordnance Museum only got a small building at APG. Often, such as the new Marine Corps Museum, the funds are raised privately. But this is a case where the museums have been uprooted because of BRAC - and in two out of three cases from fairly good existing museum facilities - and forced to move elsewhere, so this is also very different in that regard.

In this specific instance, the museum funding is located in the Military Construction and Veterans Bill - not in the Defense Appropriations Bill. But caught up in the broader Appropriations for _all_ departments. Right now the House Appropriations Committee doesnt want to pass new FY11 Appropriations for any department, but simply fund the government through continuing resolutions that would continue the FY10 spending levels (with no funding for new FY11 projects like the museums and a raft of other projects).

The Patton Museum was built over several years in phases, the funding of which came from private donations through the Patton Museum Foundation. It was then signed over to the Army.

My impression, correct or not, is that the new National Armor and Cavalry Museum at Benning will have to be built the same way, through donations collected by the National Armor and Cavalry Museum Foundation. See link.

www.armorcavalrymuseum.org/

I don't think that any public funds, except for staff salaries, building maintenance and the land it will be built on, will be used.

Garry

- Garry_Redmon

The Patton Museum was built over several years in phases, the funding of which came from private donations through the Patton Museum Foundation. It was then signed over to the Army.

My impression, correct or not, is that the new National Armor and Cavalry Museum at Benning will have to be built the same way, through donations collected by the National Armor and Cavalry Museum Foundation. See link.

www.armorcavalrymuseum.org/

I don't think that any public funds, except for staff salaries, building maintenance and the land it will be built on, will be used.

Garry

Which amounts to quite a burn for the people/organizations who donated thinking they were funding a legacy institution only to see the major part of it relocated. I wonder how many of them will be eager to donate again to support the re-creation of facility they thought was paid for?

That's a good point Doug. It's going to be a tough sell for the Patton Museum Foundation to get more donations to "stay in business" so to speak. The current infrastructure improvements to the building are being funded by Accessions Command and Fort Knox and I hope they continue to financially support the museum when it is needed.

Garry

- Garry_Redmon

My impression, correct or not, is that the new National Armor and Cavalry Museum at Benning will have to be built the same way, through donations collected by the National Armor and Cavalry Museum Foundation. See link.

[SNIP]

I don't think that any public funds, except for staff salaries, building maintenance and the land it will be built on, will be used.

Garry, if that's the case, I dont know what the $32 million in the FY11 MILCON request for a "Museum Operations Support Building" at Fort Benning is for - particularly the part below: "This project is required to provide an adequate, secure storage area and training facility for US Army owned artifacts related to relocation of the Armor School to Fort Benning, GA. This facility will serve as a historical knowledge base for the evolution of armor and weapons systems that can be used as part of the Maneuver Center’s training curriculum."

See page 141 here comptroller.defense.go...011_c1.pdf

The details are on page No. 115 here asafm.army.mil/Documen...fh-hoa.pdf

ITEM UM (M/E) QUANTITY UNIT COST COST ($000)
PRIMARY FACILITY 2 3 , 1 7 3
Museum Operations Support Bldg m2 (SF) 9,848 ( 106,000) 2,167 (21,338)
Special Foundations LS -- -- (488)
IDS Installation LS -- -- (71)
EMCS Connections LS -- -- (196)
SDD and EPAct05 LS -- -- (436)
Total from Continuation page (644)
SUPPORTING FACILITIES 4 , 9 7 4
Electric Service LS -- -- (374)
Water, Sewer, Gas LS -- -- (232)
Paving, Walks, Curbs & Gutters LS -- -- (1,014)
Storm Drainage LS -- -- (402)
Site Imp( 2,811) Demo( ) LS -- -- (2,811)
Information Systems LS -- -- (81)
Antiterrorism Measures LS -- -- (60)
ESTIMATED CONTRACT COST 28,147
C O N T I N G E N C Y ( 5 . 0 0 % ) 1,407
SUBTOTAL 29,554
SUPV, INSP & OVERHEAD (5.70%) 1,685
D E S I G N / B U I L D - D E S I G N C O S T 1,182
TOTAL REQUEST 32,421
TOTAL REQUEST (ROUNDED) 32,000
INSTALLED EQT-OTHER APPROP ()
10 . Description of Proposed Construction
Construct a climate controlled storage facility with high bay. Project will
include museum operations support building, intrusion detection system (IDS) installation, energy monitoring and control system (EMCS) connections, antiterrorism measures and buildng information
systems. Supporting facilities include: water, sewer, and natural gas
services, parking, curbs and gutters, security lighting, exterior
communications, fire protection, storm sewer system, sidewalks, site
preparation, erosion control/grassing, landscaping, signage, cultural and
wetland mitigation at the site. Provide necessary antiterrorism measures.
Heating and air conditioning will be provided by self contained units.
Comprehensive building and furnishings related interior design services are required. Access for persons with disabilities will be provided. Sustainable Design and Development (SDD) and Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05) features will be provided. Air Conditioning (Estimated 1,319 kWr/375 Tons).

9. COST ESTIMATES (CONTINUED)
Unit Cost
Item UM (M/E) QUANTITY COST ($000)
PRIMARY FACILITY (CONTINUED)
Antiterrorism Measures LS -- -- (436)
B u i l d i n g I n f o r m a t i o n S y s t e m s L S - - - - (208 )
Total 644

REQUIREMENT: This project is required to provide an adequate, secure storage area and training facility for US Army owned artifacts related to relocation of the Armor School to Fort Benning, GA. This facility will serve as a historical knowledge base for the evolution of armor and weapons systems that can be used as part of the Maneuver Center’s training curriculum.

CURRENT SITUATION: Currently, there are no existing facilities on Fort
Benning that can be utilized to accommodate relocation of these systems to the
installation.

IMPACT IF NOT PROVIDED: If this project is not provided, there will be no
facilities at Fort Benning to receive, store, and maintain Army artifacts that
are to be sent to Fort Benning.
ADDITIONAL: This project has been coordinated with the installation physical security plan, and all physical security measures are included. All required antiterrorism protection measures are included. Alternative methods of meeting this requirement have been explored during project development. This project is the only feasible option to meet the requirement. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Housing) certifies that this project has been considered for joint use potential. The facility will be available for use by other components. A parametric cost estimate based upon project engineering design was used to develop this budget estimate. Sustainable principles, to include Life Cycle cost-effective practices, will be integrated into the design, development, and construction of the project in accordance with Executive Order 13423, 10 USC 2802(c), and other applicable laws and Executive Orders.

A. Estimated Design Data:
(1) Status:
( a ) D a t e D e s i g n S t a r t e d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APR 2008
( b ) P e r c e n t C o m p l e t e A s O f J a n u a r y 2 0 1 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.00
( c ) D a t e 3 5 % D e s i g n e d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAR 2011
( d ) D a t e D e s i g n C o m p l e t e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAY 2011
( e ) P a r a m e t r i c C o s t E s t i m a t i n g U s e d t o D e v e l o p C o s t s YES
(f) Type of Design Contract: Design-build
(a) Standard or Definitive Design: NO
(3) Total Design Cost (c) = (a)+(b) OR (d)+(e): ($000)
( a ) P r o d u c t i o n o f P l a n s a n d S p e c i f i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . 762
( b ) A l l O t h e r D e s i g n C o s t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
( c ) T o t a l D e s i g n C o s t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,219
( d ) C o n t r a c t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 762
( e ) I n - h o u s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
( 4 ) C o n s t r u c t i o n C o n t r a c t A w a r d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JAN 2011
( 5 ) C o n s t r u c t i o n S t a r t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAR 2011
( 6 ) C o n s t r u c t i o n C o m p l e t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SEP 2012

I spoke to a Congressional staffer on the subject this afternoon:

Bad News: This House Appropriations Committee proposal may well stand... If it gets to the Senate, they can basically only vote it up or down. Museum funding could not be put back in because that would be considered an "earmark," which they have done away with... If that happens, and the President signs it, no FY11 funding for the new museums. But, we could see the funding in the FY12 appropriations (or FY13, etc).

Good News: The small silver lining is that there are people aware of this issue on the Capitol. I was surprised how familiar he was with the subject... Apparently this has been discussed by various Congressmen (or their staff), which was further surprising to me...

So I will continue to watch this and see what happens. At the same time, I'm going to start asking questions about what the public can do...

Side Comment: Basically, the funding for the museums was requested at the worst possible time - in the transition from the control of Congress from the Democrats to the Republicans. If it has been in the FY10 request, construction would likely be underway now... Unfortunately, the Army waited until the end of the BRAC period (all BRAC moves are supposed to be done by the end of FY11) to request the museum funding...

Neil

Like I said, it's my impression, correct or not. This impression comes from unsubstantiated rumors and such floating around.

The NACM Foundation says on their site that the museum will cost $50 million and on another page says $75 million and that part of that money will be from donations. It also says that the foundation is prepared to raise the entire funding if needed. With the deficit reduction plans flying around, possible cuts to entitlements being proposed, I just don't know.

Maybe one reason that some Congress critters are aware of the museum funding comes from the local, state and federal denizens in that region of Georgia wanting what they thought they would be getting by now . . . a huge tourist draw.

Don't get me wrong, I really, really do hope that the appropriation is approved and a new museum is built as quick as possible. Sand Hill is not an appropriate place to store historic vehicles. My two cents.

Garry

Neil,

Please let us know what we can to do to try to get this addressed.
I'll be glad to write/call Congressmen and anyone else that it might help to contact.

Maybe we can even talk the powers that be into building facilities with decent lighting - speaking as a member of the Photography Lobby!

By the time the buildings will be ready our cameras will work just fine at ISO 6400. Camera makers will work faster than the public administrations

Massimo

I think Bob Smart's initials cover the whole situation completely

- vagabond

Neil,

Please let us know what we can to do to try to get this addressed.
I'll be glad to write/call Congressmen and anyone else that it might help to contact.

Maybe we can even talk the powers that be into building facilities with decent lighting - speaking as a member of the Photography Lobby!

tell that to the USAF museum (ba-zing)

- vagabond

Neil,

Please let us know what we can to do to try to get this addressed.
I'll be glad to write/call Congressmen and anyone else that it might help to contact.

Maybe we can even talk the powers that be into building facilities with decent lighting - speaking as a member of the Photography Lobby!

VB,
Thanks for your thoughts - glad to hear that. I am starting to think it's time for some sort of action on this, perhaps even an organization or foundation of some sort (FYI, the old Ordnance Museum Foundation has recharted itself as the "Aberdeen Military Museum Foundation" to support the new APG Museum). I'm starting to float this idea with several people...

If and when anything comes of this, I will definitely let everyone know.

FYI, one more bit of news I just learned, is that the museum funding did not make it into the FY11 authorization (which was already passed) - so unfortunately it looks like its a bit of a dead issue for this fiscal year... FY12, etc is the big question now...

Neil