Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Military Construction topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Military Affairs seeks $3.5M design funds for Duluth hangar to compete for federal construction dollars

Minnesota Senate Committee on Capital Investment · March 10, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Department of Military Affairs requested $3.5 million in design funding for a new Duluth hangar to accommodate current F‑16s and future F‑35 aircraft and $2.5 million for state asset preservation, arguing design work improves competitiveness for federal military construction funding.

Scott Roeder, executive director of the Minnesota Department of Military Affairs, told the Capital Investment Committee the department’s top priority is $3.5 million in design funding for a new hangar at the 148th Fighter Wing in Duluth. Roeder said the three existing hangars date to 1958 and present structural and safety problems; the proposed hangar would be sized to meet Air Force standards for current F‑16 aircraft and future F‑35 designs.

"This project will cost 3.5 million dollars," Roeder said, adding that design funding is intended to strengthen the state’s ability to secure federal military construction funding for the full build. Department witnesses said inadequacies in lightning protection, water infiltration and insufficient clearances pose risks to personnel and aircraft and that a modern hangar would preserve the wing’s flying mission and associated community economic contributions.

Officials also requested $2.5 million for state asset preservation across National Guard facilities, noting that many facilities are 60 or more years old and that current federal construction funding often yields long replacement cycles. Committee members expressed caution about relying on uncertain federal funds but agreed the hangar could improve the unit’s competitiveness for future federal construction appropriations.

No formal vote was taken; committee members asked for follow‑up on federal match likelihood and additional project cost detail.