Did South Carolina law require bidding before a school district sold or leased surplus property?

Plain-English summary

A senator relayed a constituent's questions about selling or leasing surplus school property. In a short 2000 informal letter, the AG said no state law appeared to require a bidding procedure for those transactions. It identified several statutes addressing conveyance, sale approval, and leasing of school property, but did not apply them to a specific proposed transaction.

The letter also suggested checking with the school district or county for written local procedures, including who could sign a lease. It did not say that every sale or lease could proceed without any local process.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did the AG identify a statewide bidding requirement for surplus school property?
A: No. The letter said none appeared to apply to the sales or leases described.

Q: Did it decide whether a particular district could sell a particular building?
A: No. It cited statutes on property no longer needed for school use and sale approval but gave no transaction-specific determination.

Q: Could local rules still matter?
A: Yes. The letter specifically suggested asking the district or county about written sale and lease procedures and lease-signing authority.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion was a brief referral to school-property statutes and local procedures. It distinguished the absence of an apparent statewide bid mandate from the separate approvals and local rules that might govern a particular disposition.

Citations and references

• §59-23-310
• Section 59-19-125

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/october-25-2000/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/00oct25leatherman.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M. CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

!

L

October 25, 2000

The Honorable Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr.
Member, South Carolina Senate
1817 Pineland A venue
Florence, SC 29501
Dear Senator Leatherman:
You have requested advice as to a number of questions from a constituent regarding the sale or lease of surplus school property. No State law appears to require a bidding procedure for such matters, but I enclose copies of a few provisions that may provide some general information regarding sales and leases. S.C. Code Ann. §59-23-310 (1990) addresses the conveyance of school buildings no longer needed for school purposes. See also §§ 59-23-320 and 59-19-190. Section 5919-250 addresses the sale of real or personal school property and includes provisions for the approval of such sales. Section 59-19-125 (Supp. 1999) addresses the leasing of school property.

I

I suggest that the constituent also contact the school district or county where the property is located to determine if either body has any written procedures re sales or leases of property including information about who would sign leases. The constituent also refers to an SC SBA document. If the document originated from the South Carolina School Boards Association, he may want to inquire with that organization. This letter is an informal opinion. It has been written by the designated Assistant Deputy Attorney General and represents the opinion of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally reviewed by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. I hope that this information is of assistance.

Enclosures

0

REM HERT ~DENJIS BL'ILDIN<>

IL--(~.

x

'-",D7;

•

POST OrFICE Box 1154')

•

COl.l'MBl.I. S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE: BOJ- 7)4-.1970

•

F.1l'Sl~tll.E: K03-253-t\283