Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surplus Property topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board and commissioners question policy that requires votes to surplus small items such as chairs and jerseys
Summary
Board members and a county commissioner raised objections that routine small items (a desk chair, compact refrigerator; 90 jerseys and 72 shorts) require board approval to surplus, and staff described warehouse reuse practices and donation plans for usable uniforms.
Get email alerts on the Surplus Property topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Several agenda items and public remarks at the March 10 study session prompted board members and a county commissioner to question the district’s surplus-property approval practice for small items.
The meeting packet listed a desk chair and compact refrigerator that staff described as unrepairable and requested for disposal. A board member (Madero) said he found it "comical" that a desk chair would require board approval and suggested the policy be revisited to allow staff to discard minor items without a board vote. The chair agreed and noted a similar reaction about the Rossview Middle uniform request.
Staff described Rossview Middle’s request to surplus 90 basketball jerseys and 72 pairs of shorts; items in good condition would be donated to staff and students, and non-logo items would be given to Goodwill. The deputy/warehouse process was explained: serviceable items are kept in a district warehouse where teachers and principals can claim needed supplies and furniture; norms/warehouse staff handle deliveries to schools.
A county commissioner asked whether surplused items are ever serviceable and whether an end-of-life standard is applied. Staff replied that end-of-life varies by item and school practice, including examples where vintage uniforms are reused and are popular with students; schools that fundraise may retain additional practice and game jerseys. No formal change to the surplus policy was adopted at the session; board members suggested the district may bring a policy amendment or clarification for future consideration.
The conversation did not result in a vote; it produced a direction for staff to consider whether the surplus approval threshold or process should be revised.

