Anne Arundel County Ballot Measure

Jason Kuznicki on Oct 31st 2004 09:14 am |

This week I received a sample ballot for the November 2 election, and it featured an issue with which I was unfamiliar. In the interests of being a good citizen, I’ve decided to see what I can find on the Internet and possibly compile about this issue for the benefit of other residents of Anne Arundel County, Maryland. For the rest of you, it will be an exercise in the limits of research. Or perhaps an exercise in boredom.

The text of the ballot issue can be found at the Anne Arundel County Citizens Information Center. It reads as follows:

To amend the Anne Arundel County Charter to permit the County Council to increase the minimum value of purchases and contracts requiring competitve bidding from $10,000 to an amount up to $25,000.

The Washington Post makes mention of the amendment, but nothing more. The County Ethics Commission does not seem to mention it. Other search hits came up essentially dry.

I then asked myself how other counties handle this problem. Here is what I found:

Shelby County, Tennessee requires competitive bidding for contracts over $15,000; on contracts over $25,000, the process is through sealed bidding.

Marion County, Oregon requires competitive bids only for contracts over $50,000.

It’s not entirely clear to me how the requirements of Durham County, North Carolina compare to our own, but it would appear that we are well within the range of that county’s “informal” bidding process either way.

Hennepin County, Minnesota requires competitive bidding for contracts only if they are over $50,000.

Nearby Montgomery County, Maryland requires competitive bidding starting at $25,000.

Across the country, then, the threshold for competitive bidding is generally much higher than it is in Anne Arundel County. The potential for future abuse of this law seems to be minuscule, and the increased efficiency of government is likely to be great: Competitive bids cost time and money, and the apparent consensus is that they should be reserved for rather pricier contracts. I’m voting for the measure, then, unless I hear any information to the contrary.

Filed in Uncategorized

Comments are closed.