MEMPHIS, Mo.- On Thursday, April 24th, KMEM News reported that the Scotland County Commission had entered into an option agreement to purchase the former US Bank building that housed the Memphis branch location at 231 South Market Street in Memphis. Execution of the agreement included payment of $6360 in earnest money as downpayment toward the final purchase price of $250,000.
KMEM News Director Corey Stott submitted a set of written questions to the commission regarding this decision. The full and complete written answers that were returned are included at the end of this article.
Following the receipt of those written questions, the commission graciously invited Stott and NEMONews reporter Echo Menges to an open session of the county commission on Thursday morning, May 1st, to answer questions about this action.
One of the first issues addressed in this meeting was the question of why the county is pursuing the purchase of the former US Bank building. Presiding Commissioner Duane Ebeling stated that the commissioners had been having discussions amongst themselves about the need for additional space for offices and storage that pre-dated the former bank being listed for sale. Commissioner David Wiggins characterized those conversations as “brainstorming discussions” that took place “in open session” with “no recording of minutes, as it’s discussion between the commissioners”. Commissioner Brent Rockhold added “We’ve actually had our eye out ever since I’ve been here, and this is my second term. We’ve discussed trying to find more office space if it becomes available ever since I’ve been in office.”
The commission further stated that every office space in the current courthouse building is full. With Circuit Judge Rick Roberts being based in Clark County, the office space normally used for the circuit judge in the Scotland County courthouse was allocated to the current prosecuting attorney. With Judge Roberts retiring, the commission stated that depending upon who is appointed to that position, they may need office space to accommodate that person.
One final point that Ebeling made in regard to space was that there is currently a large number of items in storage in the attic of the current courthouse. He said that the sheer weight of those items is beginning to cause structural damage to the building.
The second issue addressed was how the county is funding this purchase. Ebeling said that at the time the county budget was developed in January, $200,000 was allocated to General Revenue under the line item “Building and Grounds”. This money was allocated prior to knowing about the US Bank property availability and was in anticipation of the need to purchase additional office space at some point in the near future. An additional $30,000 was allocated for “Building Study” to evaluate possible purchases. Another fund titled “Future Courthouse Capital Improvements” has $100,000 sitting in it. The commissioners indicated that those funds had been sitting in that line item for a couple years. The $200,000 from the building and grounds fund plus another $50,000 from the capital improvements fund will be used to meet the full $250,000 purchase price.
A third issue that the commissioners addressed was the question of had other properties had been considered. Wiggins indicated that several buildings around the square had been looked at, including the former prosecuting attorney’s office as well as the former Cook’s Mens Store building. He said that with recent storms and the way several of those buildings have been falling down, the commission didn’t think it would have been in the county’s best interest to purchase a property that would have a lot of big future maintenance coming up in the next five to ten years. He further stated in regard to the former prosecutor’s building that it would not have had nearly the space the county is looking for.
The commission also addressed the questions about the purchase process. Wiggins stated that the original listed price of the property was $212,000 and included all furniture. The commission submitted an intent to purchase at that price on February 14th. Rockhold then explained that “within a week or two” of that submission, the agents on the US Bank side of the deal reached out to the county. Rockhold said that “the bank people dictated the sale process. They had so much interest that they raised the price to $250,000 and we were never told who else was bidding or anything like that. But they raised the price on it. It wasn’t like we started putting the bid in here and somebody else put a bid in and it ended at 250. They dictated the price to us. We just agreed to pay the final asking price.” Wiggins added that all of these negotiations were done in closed session, as is permitted by statute.
As far as next steps, the county has asked Regional Planning Commission of Northeast Missouri to do a study on the building and the county commissioners stated that RPC has agreed to perform that study. Ebeling said that the RPC study will inform them “how to utilize the building in the most efficient way. Then they’re going to tell us what they come up with on who should move there or we shouldn’t move.” The contract for that study had not been signed as of the time of this meeting last Thursday. While the county commission does not have a set closing date for the property at this time, they must close by June 24th according to the terms of the purchase option agreement.
Ebeling stated that they hope to be moved into the new building by the end of the year. He also said that the building is “a turnkey operation.” They “could move some offices in there right now without doing anything.” He added that an engineering firm had inspected the building and reported that “it was well worth the money and everything was in good shape”. Rockhold indicated that the only required renovation to the new building would be to make the basement ADA accessible if it is used for county office space.
When asked about the condition of the current courthouse, Rockhold stated that “it has been well maintained and is in pretty good shape for a building that is 118 years old.” The commissioners did indicate that in the past year, the cost of insuring the current courthouse nearly doubled, and only one agency, MoPerm, had even offered a quote, and that is because they are required to. But overall, the commissioners expressed the belief that the building could easily stand for another 50 years.
Below is a list of questions that were submitted in writing to the commission prior to our in-person meeting. The questions with their corresponding written responses are listed below. The responses are as submitted, with minor edits for grammar and clarity.
- Does the county intend to fully execute the option to purchase, meaning the county will in fact close on the property?
Yes
- If yes, what is the timeline/process the county intends to follow in making that happen?
We signed a contract to purchase the building on April 3, 2025. We executed the option agreement by wiring $6360 earnest money.
- If no or unsure, what is the county’s timeline/process to arrive at that decision?
Inspections/ Notice of Purchase
- What is the intended purpose for this property if purchase is closed?
We are having a study done by NEMO Regional Planning.
- If the property is to be county office space, which offices/services will be located there?
That will be determined by Regional Planning study.
- What is the reason/rationale for looking into this purchase?
We are running out of space in the courthouse. We have talked about other buildings that might work.
- What is the reason/rationale for signing the option agreement vs an outright purchase to begin with?
That is the way they wanted it done.
- Are there specific issues that make this purchase necessary?
We need more room for offices and storage.
- When and how did the county first become aware of the availability of the property?
When we heard they were closing, Commissioner Rockhold asked the bank about what they were going to do with the building.
- When did the commission first begin to discuss having an interest in purchasing the property as a body?
Before we knew it was for sale.
- When did the commission first enter into earnest negotiations/offers for the property?
February 14th, 2025
- Were any of these discussions in public, open session, or were they all in closed session?
Closed per 610.021(2) Real Estate
Any discussion on real estate is closed
- Describe the offer process. Was this a competitive bid? If so, how did the commission arrive at the price offered by the county? Was this a one-time bid, or were there multiple rounds of bidding?
Yes, they took bids. They set the price and we bid what they asked.
- Is there a third-party agent/broker/realtor that represents US Bank that the county has had discussions/negotiations/dealings with, and if so, who/what firm?
Yes, Kyle Pershing. 7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1210, St. Louis, MO
- Is there a third-party agent/broker/realtor that does or has represented Scotland County during discussions/negotiations/dealings, and if so, who/what firm?
Our attorney, David Briggs and our attorney, Travis Elliott
- At what point did the commission publicly disclose that they were involved in negotiations/purchase process for this property? Was it brought forth publicly at any point prior to the signing of the purchase option agreement?
April 3rd, 2025
- Does the county intend to provide for any public input into the purchasing decision process that can have a meaningful impact on the final decision of whether or not to purchase the property?
Not at this time
- What funding source/budget line was used to finance the earnest payment?
General Revenue, out of Building and Grounds, building funds
- If the option agreement to purchase is executed, what funding source/budget line will be used to pay the remaining balance of the $250,000 purchase price and any remaining closing costs?
Future courthouse capital improvement line
- Does the commission have any concerns that this purchase puts the county in competition with private business owners for business space or impairs the county tax base by making a former commercial space a government space?
No, they set the price. Other people had the chance to bid. They picked the county to buy it.
- If the option agreement is executed will there be any additional costs after closing, such as architectural or designer fees or renovation costs to make the space useable for county purposes? If so, please specify what those costs are anticipated/budgeted to be and what budget line/funding source will be used. Provide a timeline of when those servies/actions would take place or contractors selected to perform those services?
We have to make the basement ADA compliant. No timeline
- Is Jimmy Clynes or Own, Incorporated being contacted about or contracted for building inspection services for either the former US Bank building/property or the current courthouse on behalf of the county?
They were, but they never got back to us.
- Does the commission have any concerns regarding the perceived lack of transparency with this action?
No
- If the purchase is closed, what is the anticipated increase in overall county operating expense due to adding this additional property? (Ex: utility, insurance, maintenance)
City estimated around $1000.00 per month
- Please add any other responses, comments, or other items of information you would like to respond with.
*No additional comments were provided by the commission in response to this item
