Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates narrowed criteria and funding cuts for Montana Historic Preservation Grant program
Summary
The Senate Finance and Claims committee heard House Bill 12 (funding allocations) and House Bill 756 (changes to program criteria). Sponsor John Fitzpatrick defended reducing maximum grants and prioritizing preservation of the building envelope; Preserve Montana and several museums expressed 'soft opposition', warning the amendments could exclude needed interior upgrades and ADA/fire-safety work.
Representative John Fitzpatrick opened House Bill 12, describing it as the Montana Historic Preservation Grant (MHPG) program funded by bed tax revenue. He told the committee the subcommittee had about 62 applicants this cycle but roughly half the funds available, prompting the panel to narrow eligibility and ranking criteria to preserve the building envelope (roof, walls, foundation, doors, windows, internal utilities) and to reduce maximum awards from $500,000 to $350,000 in order to spread funds more widely.
Fitzpatrick stressed that the statute ("title 22 chapter 3 section 13 o 5," as read in committee) gives the department advisory recommendations but leaves the legislature free to amend priorities. He said the committee sought to avoid creating an entitlement by repeatedly funding the same projects and to emphasize projects with clear public use.
Proponents included Galen Stephens (Department of Commerce), Sean Hansen (Anaconda Elks Lodge), Jason Christensen (Butte Steam Plant advocate), local governments such as Missoula County, museum representatives, and small-community advocates. Applicants described urgent capital needs: electrical systems at the Anaconda Elks ($429,000 request, later reduced by matching commitments), roof and foundation work at the Yellowstone Art Museum (request referenced in materials), and imminent roof failure threats at the Butte Steam Plant.
Opponents and concerned witnesses included Jenny Buddenborg (executive director, Preserve Montana) and Sarah Johnson (operations manager, Paris Gibson Square Museum of Art). Buddenborg testified in soft opposition, arguing that the amended bill changes review criteria after applications were submitted, removes applicants from funding, and risks excluding interior modernization needed for code compliance, ADA access, or climate control for collections. Paris Gibson Square told the committee it ranked highly under existing criteria and urged the committee to restore its prior funding.
Commerce staff and the Governor’s Budget Office advised the committee on ranking, partial awards and declines, and that outreach had increased the applicant pool: staff said the program’s broader eligibility to private owners led to a surge in applications. Commerce described working with the State Historic Preservation Office and other partners during ranking.
Representative Fitzpatrick then opened House Bill 756 to codify the narrower criteria: the bill clarifies that projects with limited public benefit are ineligible, emphasizes protecting the building envelope and essential internal systems, requires a 1:1 match for for‑profit applicants, and exempts nongovernmental applicants from a local public‑hearing requirement that applies to governmental applicants.
Preserve Montana repeated concerns that removing funding for interior modernization or code upgrades could make preservation projects unviable; committee members debated fire protection, ADA access, and whether sprinkler/electrical upgrades are 'historic preservation.' Fitzpatrick and supporters said the committee’s goal is to focus limited dollars on stabilizing structures at risk so they can be reused later.
No formal votes were taken. Fitzpatrick closed both hearings and reminded the committee the legislature has authority to alter agency priorities; he noted there is some fund balance available for amendments during the committee process.
