BILL ANALYSIS |
|
C.S.H.B. 1373 |
By: Callegari |
Government Efficiency & Reform |
Committee Report (Substituted) |
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Interested parties note that cities and counties often award purchasing contracts for goods or services to local businesses, but community colleges lack the authority to do so. The parties contend that awarding such contracts to local businesses is fiscally responsible and should be pursued when practicable, particularly when pricing is competitive between local and nonlocal businesses and when economic benefit accrues to the local community. These parties argue that giving community colleges the authority to prefer local workers and businesses when awarding purchasing contracts would ensure that a portion of citizens' tax dollars remain in the local economy for the benefit of that community. C.S.H.B. 1373 seeks to extend such authority to community colleges.
|
||||||
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.
|
||||||
ANALYSIS
C.S.H.B. 1373 amends the Education Code to authorize a junior college district, in awarding a purchasing contract by competitive sealed bid, to consider the location of a bidder's principal place of business in the manner provided by statutory provisions governing the purchasing and contracting authority of municipalities, counties, and certain other local governments. The bill establishes that its provisions prevail over any other law relating to the purchase of goods and services by a junior college district. The bill's provisions do not apply to the purchase of advanced communications services, information service, or telecommunications service, as those terms are defined by federal law.
|
||||||
EFFECTIVE DATE
On passage, or, if the bill does not receive the necessary vote, September 1, 2013.
|
||||||
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE
While C.S.H.B. 1373 may differ from the original in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following comparison is organized and highlighted in a manner that indicates the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.
|
||||||
|