Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement And Local Economy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to require state reporting of dollars spent on Montana‑produced food for large contracts
Summary
Senate Bill 246 would require government entities, the Montana University System and local governments to report annually how much they spend on Montana‑produced food for contracts over $100,000; sponsors said the change is intended to build market information to support local producers.
House State Administration Committee took testimony on Senate Bill 246, a procurement and reporting measure described by the sponsor as a first step toward using state purchasing to support Montana farms and ranches.
The sponsor framed the bill as a data collection step and said it carries a $0 fiscal note. The bill would require vendors with contracts of $100,000 or more that provide food products to report annually to the purchasing governmental body the total dollar value of food products purchased and, specifically, Montana‑produced goods. The sponsor said the measure would inform later policy options to increase local procurement and strengthen regional food systems.
Proponents included Jasmine Krotkov of the Montana Farmers Union, who said knowing how much state entities buy from Montana producers would allow producers to make more effective market-development plans. Patch Kiewake, representing tribal and community food programs, and Robin Kelson of Abundant Montana also testified in support, citing food security and economic-return arguments. Proponents said the Montana University System already tracks the data and that the bill would largely require other large purchasers to report in a consistent format.
Don Harris, chief legal counsel for the Department of Administration, and Brian O'Connor, chief procurement officer for the Montana University System, participated as informational witnesses and offered to answer implementation questions. Committee members asked whether the reporting would include ingredient-level data such as food additives and whether school districts would be covered; witnesses said ingredient reporting is not presently required under state procurement law and that the bill targets contracts over $100,000, which already captures large institutional purchasers.
Senators and proponents described the bill as "phase 1" to create data for later policy work, such as possible procurement preference for Montana producers. The hearing closed with the sponsor urging a do‑pass recommendation and staff to address drafting clarifications (including a clerical drafting issue raised in committee). No formal committee vote occurred during the hearing.
