Kentucky House Bill HB393

Kentucky 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/21/23
• Refer: 2/21/23
• Refer: 2/24/23
• Report Pass: 3/1/23
• Engrossed: 3/7/23
• Refer: 3/7/23
• Refer: 3/9/23
• Report Pass: 3/13/23
• Refer: 3/15/23
• Enrolled: 3/16/23
• Chaptered: 3/22/23
• Passed: 3/22/23

Caption

AN ACT relating to governmental transactions.

Impact

With the modifications proposed in HB 393, it mandates that governmental entities prioritize local bidders during the procurement process, which may potentially lead to an increase in contract awards within Kentucky. This could enhance local economic development by keeping funds within the state and supporting local jobs. The bill's supporters anticipate that it will level the playing field against states that already offer bidding advantages to their residents and stimulate economic growth through local investments and job creation.

Summary

House Bill 393 seeks to amend several statutes related to governmental transactions, particularly focusing on procurement processes to favor Kentucky residents. The bill establishes a preference system for resident bidders over non-resident bidders for contracts awarded by governmental bodies, aiming to promote local businesses. It aligns with initiatives from other states that already provide similar preferences for their residents, reinforcing a competitive edge for Kentucky's local economy.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding House Bill 393 appears to be generally positive among local business advocates who argue that it empowers Kentucky residents and encourages statewide economic participation. However, there may be concerns regarding potential drawbacks, such as an increase in costs for public contracts if local bidders do not provide the best prices compared to out-of-state competitors. Some critics may argue this could limit opportunities for high-quality providers from outside the state who may offer better value.

Contention

The primary contention regarding HB 393 revolves around the implications of implementing a preferential bidding system. Proponents argue it is a vital tool for enhancing local business opportunities. Conversely, opponents may express concerns that such preferences could inadvertently lead to inefficiencies or increased costs in government contracting by favoring local businesses over potentially superior alternatives from out-of-state. This debate underscores the challenge of finding balance between supporting local economies and ensuring the best use of taxpayer funds.