Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Sale topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Worth County supervisors discuss price cuts and realtor incentives to move I‑35/Highway 105 lots
Summary
Supervisors reviewed options to sell county lots along I‑35/Highway 105, debating whether to reduce asking prices, require building timelines or pay realtor commissions if lots are sold at token prices; staff were asked to seek written offers and bring proposals for public hearings.
During a Worth County Board meeting, supervisors debated strategies to sell county-owned lots along I‑35/Highway 105, including possible price reductions and realtor incentives to spur development.
Chair (Speaker 2) opened the discussion, noting past public hearings and existing resolutions that previously set prices for the parcels. Committee member (Speaker 5) summarized the county’s prior process: “We’ve done the original resolution that says we’re looking at selling this land. We’ve done that twice now, and then we have a final resolution of approving it so that we’re ready to go with someone wanting to offer us what we’ve got.”
Speakers debated two approaches: 1) lower the asking price directly, which would require additional public hearings each time the price is reduced, and 2) invite offers or proposals from the county’s realtor that include contingencies and commission structures. One concern raised by Speaker 5 was that repeatedly cutting the price can “take your guys’ time” and cost county funds for additional advertising and hearings.
Several members suggested asking the realtor to submit written proposals that set terms and stipulations — for example, minimum building commitments or timelines for construction — rather than unilaterally lowering the listed price. A recurring idea was to let the realtor know the board is willing to consider “creative” options and to request formal, written offers the supervisors can act on at a public meeting.
Committee members discussed possible stipulations to attach to a sale, such as a requirement that a buyer construct a building of minimal size or value within a set period (12–18 months was floated), or that the county pay a commission so the lots can be advertised and marketed aggressively even if sold at a token price. One member warned that without such stipulations an investor could buy the land and hold it without developing it.
Board members also reviewed context around the parcels: some lots were described as shovel-ready with utilities and street lights in place, while others may require additional infrastructure. Speakers noted prior development activity in the area since 2021, including nearby commercial projects that influenced the original subdivision work.
Next steps: the board directed staff to request written proposals or offers from the county’s realtor and to bring any suggested terms back to the supervisors. If the board receives a qualifying written offer, it would proceed with the required public hearing(s) and a resolution of sale.
The discussion did not include a formal vote to change the price; rather, it resulted in the board asking for written proposals and clarifications about contingencies and commission arrangements.
