Subcommittee hears multiple Department of Military Affairs facility requests including aviation support and training drop‑zone
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The Department of Military Affairs outlined a set of projects in House Bill 5, including an aviation support facility expansion in Billings, a practice drop zone for incoming C‑130 operations, Fort Harrison barracks consolidation and vehicle maintenance shops; members questioned costs and asked for comparable Montana examples and contractor data.
The subcommittee reviewed a cluster of Department of Military Affairs (DMA) projects included in House Bill 5: phase 2 of the Billings Army Aviation Support Facility, a proposed practice drop zone for C‑130 operations, Fort Harrison barracks consolidation and a vehicle maintenance/paint shop, among other items.
Why it matters: DMA projects seek to meet federal operational standards that can affect eligibility for federal operation and maintenance funding; several members asked for Montana comparables and contractor estimates to better understand why project costs differ from local commercial examples.
Highlights from testimony and committee questions
• Billings Aviation Support Facility (phase 2): Witnesses said phase 1 (ARPA funded) is under construction and phase 2 adds fueling, storage and expanded concrete apron to meet federal Guard Bureau operational standards. Witnesses noted federal maintenance support is contingent on meeting those standards.
• Practice drop zone for C‑130 operations: DMA requested funds to acquire and prepare roughly 600–700 acres for a training and drop zone and associated storage/operational support; testimony said the department had searched for suitable state land and worked with the Governor’s office and DNRC but had not yet identified a parcel.
• Fort Harrison projects: Requests include a consolidated open‑bay barracks, vehicle paint shop and other maintenance buildings; members asked for recent Montana cost comparables and for the department to document federal design and anti‑terrorism requirements that drive costs.
• Cost drivers and comparables: Several legislators said they found privately built comparable facilities in Montana with lower per‑square‑foot costs and asked DMA and A&E to provide contractor and bid comparables; witnesses said federal construction standards, blast‑resistant requirements and aviation apron specifications account for differences.
Ending
The subcommittee asked DMA and A&E to provide more cost comparables and contractor data, including Montana‑based examples, and to clarify which elements are federally mandated to qualify for future federal operation and maintenance funding.