[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6360052,"mediaKeyId","2175402-30934133f5ac0fc50cf593b19ea5e692","parentId",2175402,"title","House Committee Debates CMAR Procurement Changes after Interim Study; Industry Voices Deep Division","audioSeconds",1506,"startMs",10474000,"endMs",11980000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2175402-30934133f5ac0fc50cf593b19ea5e692&start=10474&end=11980","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2175402-30934133f5ac0fc50cf593b19ea5e692/thumbnail_10474000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6360052/North-Dakota/House-Committee-Debates-CMAR-Procurement-Changes-after-Interim-Study-Industry-Voices-Deep-Division","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6360052-5dd9a5625713c4e709e88811ff253b0d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771222409&Signature=gKw5im67Ts8tSfR~k8F927uNagUUFM5IYLWD1S0qPl7EJ-w0RyKJXSdJMQaOX53vRn5nZQCak-xm8zCg-nkPWmSstnHJCWjT2QBfhCL2r8iPABGCHAwfNMrTsgrRgUclDyJ3Fhfv7S6usiiVQJr29jh8XnqEL4ZPdjfFNaLghieZlczCZYbZJ-pWd3EdUZNNB4eKZFql4OKE6BUaHpmdMZQe0gHnIFHwstbkzMUoT9k3AH4tNjqQq8kNVBlKt82sLbisP0NxHHW2GPDnJObIL5QfKMgn2SgIW-nDPNb8bFSWnvmYhz2tGga7oEzhYfy-LoNl2gwpVy6RGRqzdGo7qw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","House Government and Veterans Affairs, ND","date","2025-01-30T00:00:00Z","article","Representative Ben Koppelman, chair of the interim Government Services Committee, presented House Bill 1028 as the product of an interim study into public procurement for construction management at risk (CMAR). Koppelman said the bill aims to standardize the selection form, limit manipulation of pricing, and ensure cost is a meaningful component of the selection for projects funded by taxpayers.

Proponents including David Wood (Rohrs Construction) argued that some CMAR procurements have used relatively low weight for fees (as little as 5%) while heavily weighting experience tied to particular institutions, which has led to the same large firms being awarded a disproportionate share of state work. Wood gave an anonymized example where his firm’s fees were roughly $246,000–$431,000 lower than the teams actually selected and testified the current scoring produced only a 2‑point differential on a 400‑point scale despite the material fee difference.

Opponents — including the Associated General Contractors (AGC), the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), the Department of Transportation, school districts and large contractors such as Construction Engineers — argued the bill would undermine qualification‑based selection for architects and engineers, conflict with federal procurement rules for DOT projects, and reduce owner‑directed discretion in assembling teams. Several speakers said the current law (adopted after an interim study in 2005–07) has functioned for nearly two decades and that mandated minimum fee weights or limits on an owner’s ability to accept self‑performing work would hamper complex projects.

DOT’s deputy director testified that the Brooks Act and federal requirements prohibit cost‑based selection for architect/engineer services where federal funds are involved; Koppelman offered a narrow amendment intended to exempt DOT‑funded procurements from the bill’s proposed subsection. Other opponents warned that requiring every subcontractor to submit sealed bids or forbidding owner‑approved self‑performance would in some projects remove needed flexibility and could increase cost or delay schedules.

Ending: The committee heard extended, often contentious testimony from construction managers, architects, engineers, owners (including school districts) and DOT; proponents asked the committee to prioritize taxpayer value and to adopt the standard bid form and minimum fee weight, while opponents urged the committee to keep qualification‑based selection intact and to preserve owner discretion. The committee took no final vote during the hearing and closed testimony for later consideration.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Government and Veterans Affairs Jan 30, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","House Bill 1028 proposes changes to CMAR procurement: a standardized bid form, minimum scoring weight for fees and limits on who may serve on selection committees; the House GVA committee heard competing testimony from contractors, designers, DOT and owners.","taxTitle","Government and Veterans Affairs, House of Representatives, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28892,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6360071,"Lawmakers Hear Proposal to Give One‑Time Supplemental Payments to Retired Teachers",908,332000,1240000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2175402-30934133f5ac0fc50cf593b19ea5e692&start=332&end=1240","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2175402-30934133f5ac0fc50cf593b19ea5e692/thumbnail_332000.jpg","/articles/6360071/North-Dakota/Lawmakers-Hear-Proposal-to-Give-OneTime-Supplemental-Payments-to-Retired-Teachers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6360071-55d9b1f3c71f1487be0caa0c02d6b305/orig.mp4?Expires=1771222409&Signature=NN9cpGfrYbTDDoKB7O~IUIab~2xCELOKJ9Mkno~RhnYZNUvMjb-wzYu~GuAUq71goBXcymkAXAuMLWTThlz6HKC-Mx2zdkFU4InU6k7q33zSmnIE6soI1x4il4L3mE1rsSpHeU7xNnOTUJkkBWnJRrZzs8PyPWc-gcQLeTgMqvLM0Jx6An~pRNXeclb762MiA4gUu4T~nbuVIO19TicJQo6Qwh2pKP6Gtw7s8xtMQJcjoALEA871pV-50dQg1ef0vJSOPg-uc4wqYxyKt0Juab6rfvWg6DR4CW5Vo4qewM5ovPi1sI4sGxa59e0JtwO~W~cSpydPlNKrWRkUP4pqhw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Mike Schatz, sponsor of House Bill 1285, told the House Government and Veterans Affairs Committee the bill would give retired teachers a supplemental, cost‑of‑living payment because “teachers have not had an increase since 2008.”

The proposal would direct a one‑time transfer from the general fund to the Teachers Fund for Retirement (TFFR) and authorize supplemental payments in December 2025 to members receiving benefits before Jan. 1, 2025. Schatz said he intends the increase to target lower‑income retirees and described the bill as a step toward fairness compared with annual increases the legislature has periodically granted state employees.

Why it matters: retirees who rely primarily on TFFR benefits testified that decades without regular cost‑of‑living adjustments have left some beneficiaries with small monthly checks. Patrick Pence, a retired teacher and Bismarck‑area advocate, said the measure is about “fairness” and urged the committee to move the bill forward.

Chad Roberts, deputy executive director of the Retirement Investment Office (RIO), testified for the RIO in a neutral capacity. He said the Teachers Fund for Retirement now covers about 25,000 members with roughly 9,000 receiving benefits, and that the fund is about 71% funded following prior legislative changes. Roberts said the TFFR board has historically prioritized achieving full funding before authorizing COLAs or supplemental payments and that prior supplemental legislation (most recently in 2009) included explicit distribution formulas that would likely need to be replicated or clarified if the legislature moves forward now.

Roberts told legislators the version of the bill the sponsor proposed left unspecified how the supplemental should be allocated among members; he and the fund’s actuary had begun to draft potential distribution scenarios and recommended adding clear, formulaic language. He said his office views the bill as funding that comes from the general fund (a transfer in and a transfer out), which would avoid an actuarial impact on TFFR if structured as a one‑time transfer, but that specifying who is entitled and when payments are made is necessary.

Representative Rohrer asked whether the sponsor’s amendment would make the payment retroactive; Schatz said the amendment aims to identify who is eligible and that his intent is to provide an annual half‑of‑the‑state‑employee COLA (for example, splitting a 3% raise into two halves) but acknowledged he was uncertain about all legal details. Roberts said his reading of the draft indicates it is a one‑time supplemental payment rather than an ongoing COLA.

Ending: Committee members and witnesses closed the hearing and reserved questions about precise actuarial formulas and statutory authority for follow‑up work. No committee vote on HB1285 was recorded during the hearing.","Representative Mike Schatz introduced House Bill 1285 to the Government and Veterans Affairs Committee, proposing a one‑time supplemental payment for retired teachers funded from the general fund and targeting members receiving benefits before Jan. 1, 2025.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6360061,"Committee Hears Bills to Move Corrections, EMS and Dispatchers into Public Safety Retirement Plan",990,2735000,3725000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2175402-30934133f5ac0fc50cf593b19ea5e692&start=2735&end=3725","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2175402-30934133f5ac0fc50cf593b19ea5e692/thumbnail_2735000.jpg","/articles/6360061/North-Dakota/Committee-Hears-Bills-to-Move-Corrections-EMS-and-Dispatchers-into-Public-Safety-Retirement-Plan","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6360061-2e1beecab6dc734959b69b41351bd9e9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771222409&Signature=AXTxVBw6za4I5AZhWsGVczX02k-gksNX3~9iITouBjb7rOiq6QaoVfBDS3yw5~UMiIaaCtTRQRcnv0rwyuKmQSpfm~7kn44yVuTco~4yz6On0j8hXUvT-WIDnDzPGIt3~N5eTSaNWRxXLVgGvkFFso1Dl2NLgDAvWSjOtkDQ4u9XWT-x4G5hqDGlUF0HYyPUEyDY7lYXyKjP2liRpQuARjytUg0EFQg4GGRvnstQv7m4PSW3sUsqqwHfVH7dxG3fdAz-9p3nS6Pciu6TnoKfXgcpmCQlduIn1~Vqwq1sMRVD-qJbkbK-e~KASZFPV2uZpArUfT6V0Yc-ZpVnwA~cpg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Todd Porter said his two companion bills — House Bill 1274 and House Bill 1419 — are meant to level the playing field for public‑safety occupations by allowing state correctional officers, 911 dispatchers and certain emergency medical services personnel to participate in the North Dakota Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) public safety retirement plan.

Porter told the House Government and Veterans Affairs Committee that political subdivisions can already elect to place local law enforcement, fire and corrections employees into the public safety plan; the bills aim to make state employees eligible in the same way and to allow political subdivisions that choose to do so to move EMS personnel and dispatchers into the plan. “This bill aims to level that playing field,” Porter said.

Supporters included Colby Braun, director of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, who described corrections officers’ elevated rates of post‑traumatic stress, depression and reduced life expectancy, and said the item is in the governor’s budget. EMS leaders including Bill Kalanick (North Dakota EMS Association), Corey Johnson (Williston assistant fire chief and paramedic), Kyle Michaels (Billings County EMS director) and others told the committee that EMS workers and dispatchers face sustained physical and mental stress that justifies inclusion in public safety benefits and that the change would aid recruitment and retention.

Derek Holbein and Derek Obine (PERS) and PERS’ actuary provided neutral technical testimony. The actuary estimated roughly 440–460 affected employees could move between plans depending on which items are adopted; PERS estimated the public safety plan is about 67–71% funded and noted differing actuarial results for the two bills. PERS also explained federal tax consequences: dispatchers generally do not meet the IRS definition of a qualified public safety officer for early‑retirement tax exceptions, so some dispatchers who retire early could face a 10% federal penalty on distributions unless other conditions are met. PERS recommended employers notify their offices of any change in membership so tax reporting is handled correctly.

Committee members asked about estimated costs, the size of the group potentially affected and whether the public safety plan’s funded status would be materially affected; PERS answered that estimates vary and that the bills have different mechanics (1274 would move state correctional officers into public safety; 1419 provides opt‑in authority for political subdivisions regarding EMS and dispatchers). No committee votes were recorded on the bills during the hearing.

Ending: Committee closed both hearings after testimony and asked PERS and stakeholders to provide additional detail on counts, fiscal impact and any necessary statutory drafting. Representatives and stakeholders noted the policy tradeoffs between leveling benefits and any employer or fiscal impacts.","Two related bills would expand the North Dakota PERS public safety retirement plan to include state corrections staff and—by local opt‑in—EMS personnel and dispatchers; committee members heard extensive testimony from corrections and EMS officials, PERS staff and associations.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6360066,"Committee Approves Amended PERS Bill and Refers Measure to Appropriations",387,1748000,2135000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2175402-30934133f5ac0fc50cf593b19ea5e692&start=1748&end=2135","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2175402-30934133f5ac0fc50cf593b19ea5e692/thumbnail_1748000.jpg","/articles/6360066/North-Dakota/Committee-Approves-Amended-PERS-Bill-and-Refers-Measure-to-Appropriations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6360066-567695f9aecaf19b07079a69cbc50163/orig.mp4?Expires=1771222409&Signature=YfH4sGYFPWDxkhoohPZGgf0oY-aytLHPoSDRrAJYTwgn6CVV~5o3ohkmBtVrwUbwRl1-kCzrAKu2kuYrWFKc4Ph~~hRB6vtZ95xKg0wWJWHfFT44e8Tqkvti9OFxRvAKjNHaGAZxb44M9w1d1sdHkmW0T1XCAnaZKWewJljCFnd9c5nYl63GZf-J-Ddt9cbxW5a53tZBdrYV1RXC4PKExTdXsuSEo-8eX3hH2JDW~hBJPIahOTgI6uHI47ltgP7O1HLSyp3xHvr~TDZ31Dd0dHQNGe~9eYwDvegsYa6KluUkINzaH6hpe~oG6p4sxevheKf8lyF1CWW3wpIjW-d1pg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The committee resumed consideration of House Bill 1146 with Derek Holbein, chief operating and financial officer of the North Dakota Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), explaining technical changes in a draft amendment.

Holbein summarized proposed edits including (1) language allowing the legislature flexibility to direct lump‑sum contributions in lieu of charging participating employers the actuarially determined employer contribution (ADEC) in a given biennium, (2) an explicit treatment of listed entities as political subdivisions for contribution purposes, and (3) a drafting change to permit investment options described as “investment solutions” rather than limiting language to mutual funds.

Committee members discussed recent lump‑sum transfers used to address unfunded liabilities and Holbein noted prior transfers of $135 million and $65 million from legacy or oil‑related buckets that had been deployed to lower employer ADEC. After brief discussion, Vice‑Chair Satrim moved the amendment and it was put to a vote.

Representative Vedder moved a due‑pass recommendation for House Bill 1146 as amended; he later amended his motion to re‑refer the bill to the Appropriations Committee. The committee conducted a roll‑call vote and the motion carried. Committee minutes record the motion carried by voice/roll votes (multiple roll calls recorded as “motion carries 130” in the hearing). The measure will proceed to the Appropriations Committee for further fiscal review.

Ending: PERS staff said the draft language is intended to provide flexibility around lump‑sum funding options and to modernize investment menu language; the committee approved the measure as amended and re‑referred it to Appropriations.","The Government and Veterans Affairs Committee considered amendments to House Bill 1146 involving PERS; after discussion and a detailed walk‑through by PERS staff, the committee voted to approve the amended bill and re‑refer it to the appropriations committee.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6360056,"Cities and Counties Seek Ability to Withdraw from State DC Plan; PERS Flags Fee and Buying‑Power Issues",851,7579000,8430000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2175402-30934133f5ac0fc50cf593b19ea5e692&start=7579&end=8430","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2175402-30934133f5ac0fc50cf593b19ea5e692/thumbnail_7579000.jpg","/articles/6360056/North-Dakota/Cities-and-Counties-Seek-Ability-to-Withdraw-from-State-DC-Plan-PERS-Flags-Fee-and-BuyingPower-Issues","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6360056-f04b09071bba19a8ef66269aeb6d51a4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771222409&Signature=iYFYrodkctGd4pxFT7kFcqlfosvDBH14QK2vuhiUwaE-rp4KM-N55tyYQ7bUL9TzlQ4Hwp0QxBgNVwAgoMgwxrVVpZCM3PXXjl1vHO0hT0GLoXG96tOYYVmgBRn91Vg8lEF~qjohlYXsRbihyZriqfjxeB~4JfCxUCXMndLQ2Ck51hg7RM13d1ZJtmiIDS25dEH0cdf8eQyEb5pY4Ek093E0223xdkfZM8bDDhxCe5XTKYHshevnpNBeGUzKYAuQHYgd62Fsd3FssLRA6Eb4QRTofBNWrcYDGJ~He2AqxuaopoXLxNLh8sC5n639wQhqBLoXWQqm89RRihHqdOo2ZQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Jim Casper introduced House Bill 1602, which clarifies that political subdivisions that previously participated in the state retirement system’s defined benefit plan may form and participate in their own defined contribution (DC) plans instead of remaining in the PERS DC plan established after the DB closure.

Casper said the 2024 legislation that replaced the closed defined‑benefit plan with a DC plan left an ambiguity about whether political subdivisions could opt out and create their own DC plans. He read a legislative counsel memo noting the drafting did not expressly authorize political subdivisions to withdraw and described HB1602 as a technical clarification to allow local governments that prefer their own DC arrangements to do so.

Supporters including Matt Gardner (North Dakota League of Cities) and David Wakefield (finance director, City of Minot) told the committee the change is requested by numerous local governments that want the flexibility to maintain or return to locally managed DC plans that some already use. Wakefield said the city of Minot previously moved between plan types and wants the ability to place new hires into a locally administered DC program to reduce administrative complexity.

PERS testified in a neutral capacity through Derek Holbein. PERS staff explained two fee‑related concerns if political subdivisions withdraw: (1) record‑keeper fees could rise for remaining participants because vendors priced their contracts based on expected enrollments, and (2) investment buying power could weaken if assets are split, possibly reducing access to lower‑fee funds normally available to larger trusts. Holbein said PERS does not currently plan to charge withdrawing employers fees and that PERS can implement a withdrawal process, but an emergency clause (immediate effective date) could be difficult to accommodate quickly because administrative documents and legal processes still need drafting.

Ending: Committee heard strong local support for giving political subdivisions a choice; PERS staff asked the committee to weigh possible fee impacts on remaining plan members and to allow time for administrative work before any accelerated effective date.","House Bill 1602 would let political subdivisions withdraw from the new state defined contribution (DC) plan and establish their own DC plans; proponents said the change offers local flexibility, while PERS warned the split could raise fees for remaining participants and urged more time before any emergency effective date.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House Committee Debates CMAR Procurement Changes after Interim Study; Industry Voices Deep Division

Lawmakers Hear Proposal to Give One‑Time Supplemental Payments to Retired Teachers

Committee Hears Bills to Move Corrections, EMS and Dispatchers into Public Safety Retirement Plan

Committee Approves Amended PERS Bill and Refers Measure to Appropriations

Cities and Counties Seek Ability to Withdraw from State DC Plan; PERS Flags Fee and Buying‑Power Issues