AN ACT to create and enact a new subsection to section 40-49-12 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to cooperative purchasing contracts and cooperative purchasing for park districts pursuant to a joint powers agreement.
Summary
HB 1198 amends North Dakota law governing park districts by adding explicit authority for park districts to participate in cooperative purchasing arrangements. The bill allows a park district to buy through cooperative purchasing contracts with the Office of Management and Budget under chapter 54-44.4, to participate in cooperative purchasing contracts with another state, and to make cooperative purchases through a joint powers agreement under chapter 54-40.3.
In practical terms, the bill expands the procurement tools available to park districts, giving them access to pooled or shared purchasing arrangements that may improve pricing, reduce administrative burden, and increase flexibility when acquiring goods and services. It does not create a new program or funding source, but instead clarifies and broadens the contracting authority of park districts within existing state purchasing and joint powers frameworks.
Impact
The bill directly amends section 40-49-12 of the North Dakota Century Code by inserting a new subsection for park districts. It affects local park district purchasing authority and ties that authority to existing state cooperative purchasing laws and joint powers provisions, including chapters 54-44.4 and 54-40.3. The practical legal effect is to authorize park districts to join multi-entity purchasing agreements and use state or interstate cooperative contracts where available.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House unanimously, 92-0, and the Senate with only one dissenting vote, 46-1. The vote pattern suggests general agreement that the change is a practical procurement update for park districts rather than a major policy shift.
Contention
No committee testimony or recorded discussion is provided, and the voting record shows little opposition. The only notable point of contention is the single negative vote in the Senate, but the available record does not indicate the reason for that objection. Otherwise, the bill seems to have been viewed as a straightforward authorization to expand purchasing flexibility for park districts.