Senate committee tables trails-grants bill after tie on allocation changes

HELENA The Senate Fish and Game Committee tabled Senate Bill 310, which would have expanded the state—s trails and recreational facilities grant program and established a trail stewardship grant, after a 6-6 tie on final passage and a subsequent voice vote to table the measure, committee proceedings show.

The bill—s sponsor described the measure as creating a new stewardship grant and adding additional project types that could qualify for grants. The sponsor also offered and won an amendment that would change how much of an awarded grant is advanced to recipients, raising the upfront payment to 75% with the remaining 25% released after program reporting or proof of expenditure.

Why it matters: The proposal would change how trail projects are funded across the state and how grant dollars are apportioned between motorized and nonmotorized uses. Supporters said the changes would speed project starts and enable a broader range of applicants, while opponents argued the allocation shift favored motorized interests and risked alienating nonmotorized stakeholders and local coalitions.

Bill details and amendment

The bill would expand the existing trails and recreational facilities grant program, add a new trail stewardship grant category, and list specific projects that could be eligible for funding. In committee discussion the sponsor summarized the measure as "an act amending the trails and recreational facilities grant program, establishing the trail stewardship grant program. It adds additional projects ... that can qualify for grant funding," (statement attributed to the bill sponsor during the committee hearing).

A committee amendment (identified in committee as .001.001) was offered to change the allowable upfront percentage of a grant award to 75% at the time the grant is awarded, with the remaining 25% payable after early project progress is documented. The amendment passed on a voice vote and, according to the committee record, was adopted unanimously.

Funding source and projects named

When asked where the grant money would come from, Senator Michael McGovern asked for clarification on revenue. The committee was told the program—s primary funding source is an opt-in vehicle license surcharge of about $9; motorists may opt out when they license a vehicle. Committee members and witnesses also identified the motorized/nonmotorized split and specific line-item projects in the bill language, including:

- A $44,000 allocation for an emergency shelter and vault toilet project (noted in committee discussion as an example of a trail-related facility). - An Upper Davis bike-skills-course improvement project (described in committee testimony as likely a trail project). - Construction of a 1.3-mile gravel pedestrian walking path. - A $93,000 allocation for the Montana Snowmobile Association statewide grooming program and a Nordic grooming project for the Rendezvous ski trail.

Committee members also noted that the Forest Service, state lands and private entities could apply for grants under the bill, and that some small community parks might be eligible.

Allocation and debate

Vice Chair Rob Vance pointed committee members to page 2 of the bill language, saying the bill establishes that 40% of funds would go toward motorized projects and 40% toward nonmotorized projects (with the remaining balance handled per the bill—s apportionment rules).

Senator Tom Flowers said he planned to oppose the bill, arguing the change increased the allocation for motorized projects at a time when nonmotorized applications had been oversubscribed. "I don—t think this was fairly conceived in involving the whole coalition," Flowers said in committee remarks, describing nonmotorized stakeholders— concerns that they were not adequately consulted on the new percentages.

A committee member noted the bill language includes a provision allowing unused funds to be re-apportioned in a later grant cycle, and supporters said that mechanism would prevent permanent inequity where one category lacks applicants.

Votes and outcome

After debate, the committee took a roll-call vote on final passage of the bill as amended. The roll call ended in a 6-6 tie, and under committee procedure a tie prevented the bill from moving forward. Several members voted in both the recorded roll call and later tabling action; the roll call as recorded in the transcript included named votes such as Senator Novak recorded as voting no by proxy and Senator Hertz and Senator Noland recorded as voting yes. The committee then took a separate motion to table Senate Bill 310 as amended; that motion passed on a voice vote with a committee tally recorded in the hearing as 10-2, and the bill was placed on the table.

What supporters and opponents said

Supporters argued the 75% advance would help local sponsors begin construction and that the bill broadened eligibility to reach more communities. Opponents objected chiefly to the allocation between motorized and nonmotorized projects and to what some described as insufficient pre-legislative consultation with nonmotorized groups.

Next steps

Because the committee tabled the bill, it will not advance from this committee in its current form. Sponsors and interested members of the public may seek to revive it or rework allocations and outreach before the bill is reintroduced in a future committee or session.

Votes at a glance

- Amendment .001.001 (change upfront grant advance to 75/25): passed unanimously (voice vote). - Final passage vote (Senate Bill 310 as amended): roll-call resulted in a 6-6 tie; bill did not advance. - Motion to table Senate Bill 310 as amended: passed, recorded as 10-2; bill tabled.

(Quotations and specific project amounts come from committee testimony and the bill language as discussed on the record.)