Tennessee House Bill HB0336

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/20/23
• Refer: 1/30/23
• Refer: 2/22/23
• Refer: 2/28/23
• Chaptered: 3/28/23
• Passed: 3/28/23

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 6-19-104, relative to purchasing and contract procedures.

Impact

The enactment of this bill signifies a shift in local governance by empowering city managers with expanded authority in entering binding contracts for routine or low-cost expenses. This change is intended to minimize bureaucracy and expedite decision-making, particularly in minor or urgent matters. The potential impact includes fostering greater efficiency in city administration and potentially reducing costs associated with lengthy bidding processes, provided that appropriate oversight remains in place to prevent misuse of this authority.

Summary

House Bill 0336 aims to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, specifically Section 6-19-104, regarding purchasing and contract procedures within municipal operations. This bill introduces changes that necessitate formal sealed bids for transactions exceeding a certain value, set by ordinance but capped at $25,000. In instances where the city board unanimously agrees, the law permits noncompetitive contracts, enhancing flexibility in procurement processes. This can streamline operations for local governments, allowing them to respond more swiftly to routine needs without the constraints of competitive bidding.

Sentiment

General sentiment around HB 0336 appears to be supportive, particularly among those advocating for streamlined local government operations. Proponents argue that the bill will empower cities to make more agile purchasing decisions while maintaining necessary accountability through established limits. However, there may be residual concerns regarding checks and balances when city managers are given increased autonomy, with some individuals emphasizing the need for transparency to safeguard against favoritism in noncompetitive contracts.

Contention

Despite the bill's overall positive reception, discussions have raised points of contention around the delegation of authority to city managers. Critics question whether this could lead to a decrease in competitive pricing or the quality of services received by municipalities, particularly if oversight is diminished. Safeguarding community interests while ensuring an efficient procurement process presents a delicate balance, as stakeholders seek to ensure that the purchasing procedures remain fair and competitive.