Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Sales topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grimes County court authorizes county attorney to negotiate possible sales of Anderson and Navasota properties
Summary
The Grimes County Commissioners Court authorized the county attorney to negotiate potential sales — in whole or in part — of several county-owned properties in Anderson and a parcel in Navasota and to consult with Anderson Mayor Mark Benton; the court cited Texas Government Code §551.072 before taking the action.
The Grimes County Commissioners Court authorized the county attorney to enter negotiations regarding potential sales, in whole or in part, of multiple county-owned properties in Anderson and a 7.582-acre parcel on Veterans Memorial Drive in Navasota, the court announced after returning from executive session.
Properties listed on the agenda included the 7.582-acre tract on Veterans Memorial Drive in Navasota; the county’s Road and Bridge building at 1022 Highway 90 South in Anderson; the Environmental Department building at 1010 Highway 90 South in Anderson; and 225 Fanthorpe Street in Anderson. The court’s agenda said the actions could concern these locations “and/or other county owned properties located in the town of Anderson.”
A commissioner moved to “allow the county attorney to proceed in negotiations with the furtherance of the sale” of the identified properties and to permit discussion and negotiation contacts with Anderson Mayor Mark Benton. The motion was seconded and passed on a 5-0 vote, the court record shows.
The court referenced Texas Government Code §551.072 (real property deliberation in executive session) when noting the executive-session basis for the item. Court members authorized the county attorney to negotiate terms and to engage with Mayor Mark Benton, but the public record does not include details of any negotiated price, buyer, or timeline.
The motion as recorded authorized negotiation and discussion only; no sale agreement, price, or final disposition was voted on during the public session. The court did not place conditions or constraints on the negotiations in the recorded motion beyond permitting contact with the mayor and directing the county attorney to proceed.
Commissioner Michael Raskin recorded the court’s approval verbally as a 5-0 vote after the motion; the record does not name the individual mover and seconder on the public transcript.
