Untitled Document

Click Here for Final Economic Report Issued to City of Virginia Beach by RKG December 8, 2005

CCAJN Critique of Above Report

  * RKG’s December 8th document incorrectly represented that appreciation for homes surrounding NAS Oceana were substantially equivalent to homes in the remainder of the City. (No 46. pg 9) The average increase in city-wide residential assessments will be 23% in FY 2006. True, Oceana residences have increased in value, but these homes are clearly lower in average property value in contrast to similar properties located within other parts of the City.

For example, if a single-family residential house located in Oceana could be physically transported to an exactly similar lot in another part of of the City, its value would be substantially increased. Accordingly, homes located in APZ 1 are restricted from achieving substantial increases in valuation based on the relentless negative press received on their controversial location. Average value depression rating were substantial in similar properties on noise impact studies performed at Sea Tac International Airport in 1997 when a Third Runway was contemplated. These valuation distinctions on similar properties were noted in an FEIS review.

  *
It is CCAJN’s understanding that analyses addressing the loss of economic functions typically use employment multipliers in the range of 1.15 to 1.35. Low multipliers being especially typical of situations in which the economic function lost is military. Surprisingly, the multipliers described in this report are 1.764 for the Drawdown Realignment scenario and 1.844 for the Mothball Realignment scenario.

The resultant effect on the economic foundation of the BRAC report is that a significant number of additional jobs are projected to be lost - approximately 3400 in the first case and 5,800 in the second case - than would typically be found if the other multipliers were used, thus potentially skewing the broader results of the BRAC report significantly. The use of high multipliers should be reassessed for validity.

  * By failing to consider the possibility of other federal activities being realigned to Oceana consequential to a drawdown (of aircraft), the conclusions regarding economic conditions of the drawdown are unnecessarily skewed to overstate adverse economic impacts.

  * In failing to consider significant potential benefits of a drawdown of aircraft at Oceana with respect to the economic opportunities of Chesapeake, the overall economic benefits to the region is vastly understated. This is a major deficiency of this report since the elimination of land use restrictions around Fentress could have an enormous positive economic potential for Chesapeake, Virginia Beach and Hampton Roads.

  *
A very serious omission in the recent economic report commissioned by the City is the failure to recognize that the current level of noise abatement required by the Virginia Beach City construction code is inadequate for noise mitigation within classrooms in the high noise areas in order to achieve acceptable classroom noise levels recognized by the Federal Interagency Commission on Aircraft Noise (FICAN).

The cost of renovating all of the public schools currently in the high noise contours in order to achieve acceptable federally recommended classroom acoustical levels when the Navy jets are flying nearby has not even been considered as a factor in this BRAC economic report. Noise abatement costs for other communities which have renovated schools exist; similar costs should be factored into the current study.

  * Of equal, if not even greater, importance is the omission of an economic analysis regarding costs of renovating residences in the 65-70 dB noise zones in order to achieve a minimum of a 10 dB reduction inside the homes in this AICUZ designation.

  * One of the most glaring oversights in the economic study is the lack of consideration given to OPNAV instruction in regard to the 65-70dB noise zone calling for no new residential construction. The ramifications of following this instruction should not be ignored.

  * No mitigation program has been provided to any Virginia Beach or Chesapeake residents who reside within the high noise contours of Oceana. This is standard procedure under the FAA’s comprehensive Part 150 mitigation program. That federal program has expended billions of taxpayer dollars to abate noise in neighborhoods, including homes and schools, surrounding hundreds of commerial airports within the US. City Council should immediately request that our Congressional representative seek financial assistance afforded other US citizens as stipulated by Congress under the 1972 and 1979 Noise Act. The proposed briefing by the FAA on Part 150 as represented by JLUS has still not occurred for the citizens of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake.

  * The economic study provided a mothball scenario which was very unrealistic since that application would subsequently close the base. Under that scenario, an economic study should have been performed on returning the property to the State or local government. Instead, you muddied the waters by introducing compilations with inappropriate financial hardships and untested economic impacts.

  * The APZ is a moving target based on variable operations that can significantly alter Jet Noise Level Footprints. While commercial aircraft sound levels have substantially decreased under the FAA’s Stage 3 and 4 aircraft noise reduction policy, the prognosis for future military aircraft is to elevate noise, such as what has been anticipated for the proposed Joint Strike Fighters (JSF – F-35). The prognosis of increased sound levels is patently assured with increased engine thrusts and elevated aircraft weights. Under that elevated noise level scenario, jet noise footprints can be substantially increased, thus other neighborhoods can be impacted, expanded, or transferred to a new APZ 1 designation. It would seem reasonable, that the Council maintain a post BRAC assembly of knowledgeable Citizens tasked to oversee future AICUZ changes for all noise contours.

*	RKG’s December 8th document incorrectly represented that appreciation for homes surrounding NAS Oceana were substantially equivalent to homes in the remainder of the City. (No 46. pg 9) The average increase in city-wide residential assessments will be 23% in FY 2006. True, Oceana residences have increased in value, but these homes are clearly lower in average property value in contrast to similar properties located within other parts of the City. For example, if a single-family residential house located in Oceana could be physically transported to an exactly similar lot in another part of of the City, its value would be substantially increased. Accordingly, homes located in APZ 1 are restricted from achieving substantial increases in valuation based on the relentless negative press received on their controversial location. Average value depression rating were substantial in similar properties on noise impact studies performed at Sea Tac International Airport in 1997 when a Third Runway was contemplated. These valuation distinctions on similar properties were noted in an FEIS review.
*	It is CCAJN’s understanding that analyses addressing the loss of economic functions typically use employment multipliers in the range of 1.15 to 1.35. Low multipliers being especially typical of situations in which the economic function lost is military. Surprisingly, the multipliers described in this report are 1.764 for the Drawdown Realignment scenario and 1.844 for the Mothball Realignment scenario. The resultant effect on the economic foundation of the BRAC report is that a significant number of additional jobs are projected to be lost - approximately 3400 in the first case and 5,800 in the second case - than would typically be found if the other multipliers were used, thus potentially skewing the broader results of the BRAC report significantly. The use of high multipliers should be reassessed for validity.
*	By failing to consider the possibility of other federal activities being realigned to Oceana consequential to a drawdown (of aircraft), the conclusions regarding economic conditions of the drawdown are unnecessarily skewed to overstate adverse economic impacts.
*	In failing to consider significant potential benefits of a drawdown of aircraft at Oceana with respect to the economic opportunities of Chesapeake, the overall economic benefits to the region is vastly understated. This is a major deficiency of this report since the elimination of land use restrictions around Fentress could have an enormous positive economic potential for Chesapeake, Virginia Beach and Hampton Roads.
*	A very serious omission in the recent economic report commissioned by the City is the failure to recognize that the current level of noise abatement required by the Virginia Beach City construction code is inadequate for noise mitigation within classrooms in the high noise areas in order to achieve acceptable classroom noise levels recognized by the Federal Interagency Commission on Aircraft Noise (FICAN). The cost of renovating all of the public schools currently in the high noise contours in order to achieve acceptable federally recommended classroom acoustical levels when the Navy jets are flying nearby has not even been considered as a factor in this BRAC economic report. Noise abatement costs for other communities which have renovated schools exist; similar costs should be factored into the current study.
*	Of equal, if not even greater, importance is the omission of an economic analysis regarding costs of renovating residences in the 65-70 dB noise zones in order to achieve a minimum of a 10 dB reduction inside the homes in this AICUZ designation.
*	One of the most glaring oversights in the economic study is the lack of consideration given to OPNAV instruction in regard to the 65-70dB noise zone calling for no new residential construction. The ramifications of following this instruction should not be ignored.
*	No mitigation program has been provided to any Virginia Beach or Chesapeake residents who reside within the high noise contours of Oceana. This is standard procedure under the FAA’s comprehensive Part 150 mitigation program. That federal program has expended billions of taxpayer dollars to abate noise in neighborhoods, including homes and schools, surrounding hundreds of commerial airports within the US. City Council should immediately request that our Congressional representative seek financial assistance afforded other US citizens as stipulated by Congress under the 1972 and 1979 Noise Act. The proposed briefing by the FAA on Part 150 as represented by JLUS has still not occurred for the citizens of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake.
*	The economic study provided a mothball scenario which was very unrealistic since that application would subsequently close the base. Under that scenario, an economic study should have been performed on returning the property to the State or local government. Instead, you muddied the waters by introducing compilations with inappropriate financial hardships and untested economic impacts.
*	The APZ is a moving target based on variable operations that can significantly alter Jet Noise Level Footprints. While commercial aircraft sound levels have substantially decreased under the FAA’s Stage 3 and 4 aircraft noise reduction policy, the prognosis for future military aircraft is to elevate noise, such as what has been anticipated for the proposed Joint Strike Fighters (JSF – F-35). The prognosis of increased sound levels is patently assured with increased engine thrusts and elevated aircraft weights. Under that elevated noise level scenario, jet noise footprints can be substantially increased, thus other neighborhoods can be impacted, expanded, or transferred to a new APZ 1 designation. It would seem reasonable, that the Council maintain a post BRAC assembly of knowledgeable Citizens tasked to oversee future AICUZ changes for all noise contours.