Commissioners have made it known to all that they intent to sell property located across from the courthouse to the C.A.D. I told them they would have to follow competitive bidding statutes for the sale, (since C.A.D. does not have condemnation authority)they chose to go with sealed bid procedure in 263 local gov't. It's likely the commissioners will reject selling to any other potential bidder because of the special/important location of this property. Having the C.A.D. across from the courthouse will be convenient and probably in the public's best interest by all accounts, but that may be beside the point.
I believe 263.004 local gov't allows the county to restict the future use of property. (maybe) The key will be to structure the bidding procedure to give the county what it legitamately believes is in its best interest while avoiding a claim of restricting competition by limiting use of the property that is so narrow only the C.A.D. could possibly bid. Any thoughts? Possibly notice all bidders that property will be restricted to educational, non-profit or governmental use? It's a head scratcher.

GM, I read 263.004 the same as you. It seems to give the court pretty broad discretion in setting those restrictions, conditions and limitations. I don't see any AG opinions interpreting the section, but I assume that anyone trying to fight it would have to overcome an abuse of discretion standard.