Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill requiring specified contract provisions for smaller municipalities
Summary
The committee voted to advance House Bill 2,116, which would require certain contractual provisions (including portions of form DA 146A) in contracts for specified cities and counties; members raised concerns the mandate could reduce vendor participation for some municipalities.
The Senate Committee on Local Government voted to advance House Bill 2,116, which would require that specified contractual provisions, including parts of form DA 146A, be incorporated into contracts for certain cities and counties.
Committee members and a research analyst discussed the bill’s purpose and potential effects. Jillian Block, identified with committee research, summarized testimony from proponents including the Kansas Association of Counties and the City of Independence, saying proponents argued that smaller cities and counties lack bargaining leverage in vendor contracts and that the bill would provide greater protections by making certain provisions nonnegotiable while allowing larger municipalities to negotiate based on contract size. “Proponents generally stated that smaller cities and counties do not have the same bargaining leverage in vendor contracts as do larger cities and counties,” Block said.
Senator Titus expressed concern the requirement might deter some vendors from doing business with municipalities bound by statutory terms. The senator asked whether the committee had considered potential limits on vendor participation. Committee members responded that school districts and counties already follow the DA 146 form and that experience suggested the change was not as disruptive for second- and third-class cities, which the bill targets.
The committee briefly deferred seeking additional experts for questions, then later returned to the bill. A motion to pass House Bill 2,116 favorably carried by voice vote. Committee members then moved to place the bill on the consent calendar; that motion also passed by voice vote in committee.
The transcript records no roll-call vote tallies and does not provide the complete bill text; the committee indicated earlier House action and recorded discussion but did not specify all implementation details or exceptions in the bill during the discussion.
The committee said staff would attempt to bring additional experts to address specific concerns at upcoming meetings and noted the bill had been discussed previously in the House.
