Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Asset Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners discuss options for county‑owned north property and tenant’s first‑right clause as September lease deadline approaches
Summary
The board discussed the county’s north property (under lease to a tenant with a first‑refusal clause expiring Sept. 1), options to resurvey and replat the parcel to include a body of water, potential sale or appraisal, and the need to notify the current tenant if the county moves to market the land.
Commissioners held an extended discussion about a county‑owned property in the north part of the county that is currently leased and carries a first‑right‑of‑refusal clause expiring Sept. 1.
County legal staff briefed commissioners that the lease and the parcel’s legal description may require revision before any sale or long‑term disposition, and that the county should consider resurveying or replatting the property to include an identified body of water in the legal description before seeking appraisal or placing the property on the market. The County Counselor said those boundary steps and updated appraisal work would be required to set clear sale terms and establish a fair market value.
The board discussed options for the property, including selling acreage around the house and retaining the remainder for future industrial development, extending the lease on a month‑to‑month basis, setting a sale by auction to promote competitive bidding, or allowing the current tenant to exercise first right of refusal if the county chooses to sell. Commissioners and staff noted prior work on potential industrial use (including an earlier CHIPS application that was denied) and said a decision about a sale or retention should account for future planning for an industrial park to the east of the parcel.
Several commissioners emphasized that the county should finalize boundaries and an appraisal before deciding whether to sell, and suggested the county consult Burns & McDonnell or a similar firm (which had previously worked on site planning) and the Southeast Kansas Regional Planning Commission for grant and infrastructure planning. Commissioners asked staff to contact a surveyor or consultant to lay out suggested boundaries (for example, using tree lines as buffers) and to ask Burns & McDonnell to provide a planning overview that could inform appraisal and marketing.
County legal staff also noted the tenant previously offered to prepay rent for a year and that the contract includes a first‑right‑of‑refusal clause; the board discussed the timing implications and whether to provide the tenant an opportunity to bid for purchase under the same terms as other prospective buyers. Commissioners agreed they wanted to preserve the tenant’s ability to bid while ensuring the county’s process is transparent and maximizes public value.
Ending: Commissioners asked staff to obtain updated surveys and appraisals, consult Burns & McDonnell or similar site‑planning experts, and return with options for boundary definition, appraisal, and a timetable for marketing or sale that preserves the tenant’s contractual rights.
