To enact section 6101.162 of the Revised Code to prohibit a conservancy district's board of directors from including certain provisions, such as an indemnification clause, in a contract for the procurement of goods or services.
HB603 would add a new section to the Ohio Revised Code governing procurement contracts entered into by conservancy districts. The bill prohibits those contracts from including several specified terms, including indemnification or hold-harmless clauses, venue provisions that require disputes to be heard outside Ohio, liability-limiting provisions tied to injury, death, property damage, fraud, recklessness, or other tortious conduct, and terms that bind the district to unknown, unnegotiated, or unilaterally changeable conditions. It also bars contract terms that conflict with public records obligations under Ohio’s open records law and terms that restrict the district’s ability to recover the cost of a replacement contractor.
If a prohibited term appears in a contract, the bill makes that term void ab initio while leaving the rest of the contract enforceable. In practical terms, the measure would limit the contracting leverage of vendors and service providers doing business with conservancy districts and would standardize certain procurement protections for those public entities. The bill is narrowly focused on conservancy districts and their procurement of goods and services, rather than on state procurement generally.
The bill would create a new statutory restriction in Chapter 6101 of the Revised Code specifically for conservancy districts, affecting how their boards negotiate and execute procurement contracts. It would invalidate certain common contract clauses as a matter of law, especially indemnification, out-of-state venue, unilateral modification, and liability-limiting provisions, and would reinforce compliance with Ohio public records requirements. The measure would primarily affect conservancy districts, their contractors, and vendors that provide goods or services to those districts.
Because the bill was only introduced and there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes, there is no documented public debate or formal legislative sentiment in the available record. The bill’s text suggests a protective posture toward conservancy districts, aiming to prevent unfavorable boilerplate terms in vendor contracts. Absent hearing testimony or votes, the overall sentiment can only be characterized as neutral and procedural at this stage.
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s limits on standard commercial contract terms and its restriction on parties’ ability to negotiate venue, indemnity, liability allocation, and electronic acceptance terms. Vendors and contractors may view these provisions as reducing flexibility or increasing their risk, while supporters would likely argue that public entities should not be forced into one-sided terms or terms that undermine transparency and accountability. Another possible issue is the bill’s broad voiding of prohibited clauses while preserving the remainder of the contract, which could raise questions about contract administration and enforcement.