Committee narrows historic-preservation grant criteria; museums say interior work still needed

Representative John Fitzpatrick, House District 76, told the Montana House Subcommittee F on Oct. 12 that House Bill 756 would tighten the Montana Historic Preservation Grant Program’s statutory criteria to emphasize protecting building envelopes — roofs, exterior walls, foundations, doors and windows — and internal utility systems.

"House bill 7 56 is a subcommittee f bill," Fitzpatrick said in his opening remarks. He told the committee the bill grew out of work on House Bill 12 and that the subcommittee sought to focus limited state funds on preserving the structural integrity of historic buildings so they can be repurposed in the future.

The bill’s sponsor said the program faces a funding gap: applicants requested roughly $23,000,000 while the bill provided a little over $6,000,000. Fitzpatrick said the subcommittee also removed a requirement to evaluate expected ongoing statewide economic benefits and tightened local-match expectations for for-profit applicants, asking for a 1:1 match from for-profit entities.

Kathy Barton, representing the Museum Association of Montana, identified herself as a "soft opponent" and told the committee the proposed language could exclude "integral museum projects that occur inside the building that support preservation," such as collection storage, exhibit cases, mounts and climate-control systems. "By saying that the building envelope ... would take priority in a grant project, that seemingly excludes building storage capacity within the museum to properly store and preserve the artifacts in their collections," Barton said.

Molly Krukenberg, director of the Montana Historical Society, noted that the State Historic Preservation Office reviews the grants. Department of Commerce deputy director Mandy Rambo and program administrators including Galen Steffens were present to answer questions about how the department evaluates applications.

Committee members pressed for examples. Fitzpatrick cited funded and trimmed requests: a Carter County museum expansion sought $500,000 and was recommended for about $300,000; another historic hall in Representative Walsh’s area received partial funding for walls and foundation work but not for modern conveyances; a Helena project requesting an elevator was characterized by Fitzpatrick as outside the scope of "historic preservation." He also said the committee received projects ranging from about $10,000 up to larger requests and that the subcommittee reduced maximum grants to spread funds among more applicants.

The sponsor said the subcommittee removed an "economic value" scoring element because applicants’ economic estimates were unreliable. He also said governmental applicants must comply with public-notice and public-hearing requirements set by the constitution and state law, while private and nonprofit applicants would be exempt from that particular requirement under the bill’s draft language.

Committee members and witnesses debated the line between preserving a building’s shell and funding interior work that preserves collections and public access. Barton urged that purpose-built museums remain eligible for a broader range of grant-funded work, and asked the committee to explicitly allow funding for interiors, collections care, exhibition infrastructure and ADA improvements.

No formal vote was taken. After public testimony and questioning, Chair Jones closed the hearing and the committee scheduled continued work and an itemized review of applications in future meetings.

Ending: The committee closed the hearing on House Bill 756 without action; committee members said they would review individual projects (the bill sponsor noted the committee could go through all 62 projects at a later meeting) and planned further consideration in upcoming sessions.