No. It just means money savings for the taxpayer. Two separate bases that share a property line.
Two separate billeting offices, two separate security forces, two separate commissaries, two separate exchanges, two separate motor pools, two separate housing offices, two separate contracting offices.
Now, it’s one of each. Ft. Richardson and Elmendorf AFB did this a while back.
Better single facility than two crappy facilities.
Seems to be more of a “logistical” merger. Less duplication of facilities/support functions, more efficiency due to economy of scale. Operationally the bases will likely remain two separate entities, just with common service/support, some of which is likely contracted out.