Revise local government conflict of interest laws for contracted projects
HB 683 revises conflict of interest laws for construction contracts awarded by local governments, including counties, cities, and towns. The bill prohibits these governments from awarding a construction contract to an entity if it has an ownership or financial interest with a person or entity that participated in the design or engineering of the same project. It defines what constitutes a "financial interest" for these purposes. This measure integrates these new conflict of interest prohibitions into existing competitive bidding rules for various local government and road contracts.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2025
Committee Review
Apr 2025
House Passage
May 2025
Senate Passage
May 2025
Signed into Law
May 2025
Introduced Feb 24, 2025
Signed May 19, 2025
Maddy AI version diff · 6 comparisons
What changed between versions
HB0683_X(3).pdf
→
HB0683_X(4).pdf
·
3 edits
MINOR
The bill clarifies conflict of interest rules for county and municipal construction contracts by explicitly defining 'financial interest' to include ownership of 24% or more of a party's affairs. It also updates the definition of 'financial interest' for mutual funds and insurance companies to ensure these specific interests are treated correctly under the law. Additionally, the text includes minor formatting corrections and a partial addition regarding the exclusion of certain professional services from competitive bidding requirements.
Scope change
The scope of the conflict of interest provisions was refined to provide clearer definitions of 'financial interest,' ensuring that specific ownership structures (like mutual funds) and relationships are explicitly addressed in the law.
DEFINITION
The definition of 'financial interest' was updated to explicitly include ownership of 24% or more of a party's affairs, replacing vague language about 'ownership or a financial interest'.
The definition of 'financial interest' was clarified for mutual funds and insurance companies, specifying that ownership in these entities is not automatically a conflict unless the entity can substantially affect the value of the interest.
TECHNICAL
Minor formatting and grammatical corrections were made throughout the text, including fixing repeated words like 'shall must' and adjusting indentation.
Floor votes · Senate Apr 11, 2025 · House Apr 17, 2025
How they voted
46–2
Passed · 2 other
Total votes 50
Apr 11, 2025
D
Democratic18
83% Yea
R
Republican32
96% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
40
Key actions
9
Committee
6
Amendments
1
May 13, 2025
Signed into law
(H) Signed by Governor
lower
May 6, 2025
Upper · Passed
(S) Signed by President
upper
May 2, 2025
Lower · Passed
(H) Signed by Speaker
lower
Apr 17, 2025
House · Passed
House Vote: pass (95-4-1)
house
Apr 12, 2025
Introduced
(S) Returned to House with Amendments
upper
Apr 11, 2025
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (46-2-2)
senate
Apr 8, 2025
Upper · Passed
(S) Committee Report - (S) Natural Resources
upper
Apr 8, 2025
Upper · Passed
(S) Committee Executive Action - (S) Natural Resources
upper
Mar 17, 2025
Committee
(S) Referred to Committee - (S) Natural Resources
upper
Feb 28, 2025
Lower · Passed
(H) Committee Report - (H) Local Government
lower
Feb 28, 2025
Lower · Passed
(H) Committee Executive Action - (H) Local Government
lower
Feb 24, 2025
Committee
(H) Referred to Committee - (H) Local Government
lower
Feb 24, 2025
Introduced
(H) Introduced
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Steve Gist
RRepublican
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about HB 683
Scope: MT
Hi! I can help you understand HB 683. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline