Subcommittee debates tighter rules, match requirements for historic-preservation grants (House Bill 12)

Representative Kenneth Fitzpatrick's Appropriations Subcommittee F held a work session on House Bill 12, the historic-preservation grant program, focusing on whether the law should be revised to require explicit applicant matches, improve reporting, and tighten funding priorities.

The discussion centered on how the Department of Commerce and the Legislature should evaluate grant requests and whether some statutory clarifications are needed. "Projects funded under this section must provide that a significant portion of the facility be open to the public," Fitzpatrick read from current law, and said the committee could put proposed changes into statute: "we will put it into statute, so that it goes into §22-3-1306." Representative Vinton asked that the grant summaries include the nonprofit recipient names on each line and that reporting requirements note whether applicants previously received awards: "the name for the nonprofit entity... would be helpful just to keep track of that," Vinton said.

Lawmakers repeatedly raised the idea of requiring a financial match from applicants. Senator Boldman asked the department to flag repeat awardees and to asterisk private applicants that provide a 1-to-1 match. Senator Rusk recommended codifying a match definition in statute so future committees would have a consistent baseline. Representative Tuss summarized his preference for final-state funding: "I'd like our investment to be the last dollar in," he said, arguing the committee should prioritize projects that can be completed in full rather than funding isolated components.

Several members questioned the scope of eligible work. Tuss and Representative Benton warned against spending scarce state tax dollars on features that are not original or core to historic character, using a hypothetical "new elevator" as an example: "it's difficult in my mind to spend scarce state tax dollar resources on components of a building... should we be spending historic, tax dollars on... a new elevator for that particular historic building?"

Chair Fitzpatrick reviewed the program's existing statutory priorities, including public access, economic activity, museum-specific climate/security elements, permit readiness and local contribution. He suggested the committee could draft statutory language to clarify matching expectations, add a sliding scale for local-government capacity, and state that the creation of a grant award itself should not trigger federal NEPA review where that is appropriate. He also said the committee could clarify public-meeting requirements for private and nonprofit applicants, noting those entities are contributing funds and the subcommittee's public hearing serves as the community input forum.

Commerce staff and legislative counsel were reported supportive of putting match language into statute; Mr. Harlow (legislative staff) and Commerce representatives said they would work with the committee on details. The subcommittee closed the hearing on House Bill 12 to move on with its agenda; Fitzpatrick said the committee would pursue drafting language for the statutory changes discussed.

What happens next: the chair said the committee will draft bill language and coordinate with Commerce and appropriation legal counsel on statutory edits to §22-3-1306 before presenting a committee bill or cosponsor bill to the full Appropriations Committee.