Senators on the Finance and Claims Committee opened a public hearing on House Bill 12, the biennial appropriation package for the Montana Historic Preservation Grant (MHPG) program, and heard more than a dozen proponents and several opponents.

Representative John Fitzpatrick, the bill sponsor, said the program is funded by a five‑percent allocation of bed‑tax revenue designated when the Montana Heritage Center was established and is administered by the Department of Commerce. Fitzpatrick said the House subcommittee adopted evaluation criteria intended to stretch a limited appropriation among more communities: the subcommittee reduced the maximum grant from $500,000 to $350,000, emphasized preservation of the building envelope (roof, walls, foundation, exterior doors and windows and core utilities) and prioritized projects providing defined public use. He said the committee also sought to avoid repeatedly funding projects that had received an award in the previous 2023 cycle.

Galen Steffens, community development division administrator at the Department of Commerce, described the agency’s role in administering the program and provided handouts listing prior awards. Autumn Coleman of DNRC and other agency and county officials described the regional projects in the bill.

Proponents from communities across Montana testified about the public benefits of specific projects. Speakers included leaders from Anaconda (Elks Lodge and Montana Hotel/Cultural projects), Missoula County (John Hengen Local Government Building), the Yellowstone Art Museum (Billings), the Yucca Theater, the Lavina School district, the Scandinavian Methodist Church in Kalispell and multiple small‑town historic sites and ranch projects. Several applicants asked the committee to reinstate projects that were removed or re‑scored on the House side; buttes and Butte Steam Plant proponents asked for reconsideration of a removed application.

Preserve Montana, a statewide preservation nonprofit, testified in soft opposition to amendments that change review criteria and remove some applicants from funding. Executive Director Jenny Buddenborg asked the Legislature to use the rules in place at the time applications were submitted and to avoid changing eligibility standards "midstream." She and others warned that narrowing the definition of preservation to primarily exterior work risks excluding interior upgrades — including HVAC, fire protection and ADA improvements — that make many historic properties usable and financially viable.

Paris Gibson Square Museum of Art in Great Falls also testified in opposition, saying it ranked highly in Commerce’s review and that removing or downgrading projects now could harm museums that rely on the MHPG cycle. Several private building owners — including the Mountain States Telephone building in Miles City — joined proponents in asking the committee to restore or include their projects. Proponents described matching commitments ranging from private donations to county/local matches and noted many projects are led by volunteers and small nonprofits.

Committee members asked how the subcommittee applied the new criteria, how the department scores economic benefit and what residual funds might be available for amendments; the budget office said roughly $1 million remained in the fund balance after house‑side changes and reversions. Sponsors and agency staff said they were open to amendments on the Senate floor and emphasized the Legislature’s authority to reprioritize awards.

No formal committee vote was taken during the hearing; the committee moved on after testimony. Fitzpatrick closed by reiterating the limited funding pool (approximately $6 million available versus roughly $23 million in requests, as he described it) and reminding members that the Legislature may amend allocations before final passage.