BY SUE M. MORGAN
Staff Writer
EATONTOWN — Borough officials are a bit miffed at the feds for deciding to stage the upcoming regional hearings on the future of Fort Monmouth 175 miles away from its gates.
With that in mind, the Borough Council is asking the federal Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission to remember Eatontown, one of the three area communities that has hosted Fort Monmouth for over 85 years, when they conduct the regional hearings on 33 bases targeted for possible shutdown with Defense Department officials on July 8 in Baltimore.
A resolution supporting the Defense Department requirement that the nine-member BRAC commission carefully review the potential economic impact of a base closing on its host communities was unanimously approved by the council at its June 8 meeting without discussion.
In short, the approved resolution is the council’s way of requesting that the Defense Department allow the BRAC commissioners to carefully review the standards used in putting Fort Monmouth on the hit list.
The formal statement also asks that even if Eatontown residents and business owners cannot make the trip down Interstate 95, that the BRAC commission look at the ripple effect a fort closing would have on the host community.
The Defense Department mandates that the BRAC Commission use those standards for closure, known by the federal government as the Final Selections Criteria, “to consider the economic impact on existing communities in the vicinity of military installations in its selection of military installations to be closed,” the resolution states.
The same resolution also lets the Pentagon know that by selecting Baltimore as the venue for the regional hearings that are part of the BRAC process, borough residents, business owners and other parties who could be stung by the fort’s closing are effectively shut out of the debate.
“… BRAC elected to hold the required public hearing on the closure of Fort Monmouth 175 miles from Fort Monmouth, thereby limiting public comment by Eatontown residents and members of the business community,” the resolution states.
In addition, the resolution formally states the borough’s objection to the Pentagon’s inclusion of Fort Monmouth on its list of military installations recommended for shuttering under the BRAC process.
The criteria used by the Pentagon is “focused more on assessing military value based on military missions and operational capabilities without recognizing support capabilities such as research, development, test and evaluation,” the borough’s resolution reads.
The passage of the resolution came just five days after two BRAC commissioners toured Fort Monmouth and met with local and state leaders and area legislators about the proposed closure which, if signed off upon by President George W. Bush and Congress, would take place over two to six years.
On June 3, more than 200 persons, including numerous residents of Eatontown and neighboring towns, as well as some of the base’s civilian staff staged an outdoor rally intended to show local support for keeping Fort Monmouth intact prior to the arrival of the two commissioners at the fort’s west gate.
Should Fort Monmouth close, the majority of its communications and electronics research and development functions, and the personnel working in those operations, would be transferred to the Aberdeen (Md.) Proving Ground.
The fort’s other operations would be relocated to military bases at Fort Meade, Md., as well as Columbus, Ohio, Fort Belvoir, Va., and West Point, N.Y.
Local officials have predicted that more than 5,085 civilian employees, excepting those who choose not to relocate, and over 2,500 military contractors working on-post could be out of work should the fort close.
On a more local level, the approved resolution indicates that 650 families in the borough would “have their employment directly impacted,” and “220 military dependent students that currently attend Eatontown schools” would leave if Fort Monmouth closes up shop.
Additionally, the borough’s recreation programs would suffer and the borough would also “lose the mutual aid and assistance in the areas of emergency services now provided by Fort Monmouth,” the resolution states.
The borough is also asking the BRAC Commission to understand the adverse effects the proposed closing would have on local businesses such as supermarkets and restaurants, the possible failure of some businesses, and the decline in values of the office complexes in town that house defense contractors.
The end result would be decreased tax revenues and higher property taxes passed on to residents and the business community, the resolution states.
Following their visit to the base earlier this month, BRAC Commissioners Anthony J. Principi and retired Air Force Gen. Lloyd Newton indicated that though they were impressed with Fort Monmouth’s missions, they could not pledge that the installation would be spared from closure.
Both commissioners indicated that they would share the information received in the tour with the other commissioners upon returning to Washington, D.C.
The total economic impact that the fort closing would have on New Jersey is measured at $3.24 million, with responsibility for 22,774 jobs for federal fiscal year 2004, according to an analysis by base personnel.
Pentagon officials have previously estimated that moving the bulk of Fort Monmouth’s operations to the Aberdeen (Md.) Proving Ground will result in a one-time cost of $822,000,000, but will save about $143 million annually over six years.

