Johnson County’s Commissioners Court approved a revised county purchasing manual and an ARPA procurement addendum on April 28. The court set the effective date for the changes as May 1 to allow administrative adjustments.

Highlights of the revisions: Purchasing staff told the court the new manual clarifies ethics and conflict-of-interest language, updates procedures for sole-source and emergency purchases, and adjusts procurement thresholds. Notably, the county’s inventory-tagging threshold for fixed assets was raised from $1,000 to $2,500 to reduce administrative burden for low-value items; the manual retains provisions requiring elected officials and departments to track items judged to be pilferable regardless of dollar amount.

The manual also formalizes competitive-purchasing thresholds (quotes required at set dollar amounts), clarifies documentation and retention practices, and adds specific language calling out the state procurement code (Local Government Code Chapter 262) as governing legal authority. Purchasing staff recommended retaining departmental discretion for some routine items (food, custodial supplies) and flagged the need to coordinate with the auditor’s office for accounting and budget adjustments.

ARPA addendum: The court approved a 14-page ARPA procurement checklist required by GrantWorks. Purchasing staff said it documents federal procurement requirements (micro-purchase thresholds, SAM registration, contract reporting and retention obligations) and confirmed GrantWorks had reviewed the county’s compliance.

Administrative notes and implementation: The court and auditor discussed timing and agreed to May 1 as the effective date, with the auditor noting some budget transfers and account reclassifications may be required between now and fiscal-year end to align with the policy changes. Purchasing staff said they will issue departmental guidance and suggested the purchasing director may pursue an internal personnel policy to restrict purchasing-office staff from bidding at county surplus auctions; the court left that enforcement decision to department management.