Former NFL player proposes affordable housing at Rock Building; board to seek intergovernmental interest

Former NFL player and community member LeGarrette Blunt told the Taylor County School Board he is pursuing an affordable housing project and identified the Rock Building property as one of the sites under consideration.

Blunt described the project as intended to provide safer, conveniently located housing for teachers, students and families, and said proximity to schools would reduce absenteeism and ease commutes. He said the full development footprint he’s considering would cover roughly three acres for the project but that the parcel includes about five acres in the retention area and about 16 acres total; board discussion later put 9 acres as high and dry and the remainder in a flood zone.

On the building: Blunt said options include partial retention of the Rock Building, keeping a few acres including the retention area, or taking the entire property. He told the board he is “not making nobody’s making any decision” and described the idea as “my calling.” He also said he and his team selected developer Lashawn McCoy to lead the development work after site visits and vetting.

Board members and staff asked detailed questions about acreage, which portion of the parcel is in low‑lying (retention) area and how much land the project would need. One board member said the project would need about three acres; another board member said the total site includes approximately five acres in the front retention area. The board also discussed floodplain constraints: approximately nine acres are out of floodplain and the remainder is flood‑prone.

Costs and current district expenses were raised. The superintendent and finance staff noted the district is spending about $97,000 annually to maintain and insure the Rock Building and property (insurance, utilities, grounds upkeep and related costs); operations staff said current programs housed there generate some revenue but do not fully cover maintenance. Board members said any transfer or long‑term use should protect district interests with reversion clauses or other conditions so the district would not lose control of the asset if a third party later sold it.

Historic designation and grants: board members discussed pursuing historic designation and related grant funding. County grant staff had prepared materials and indicated state historic designation is a simpler process than the federal level, but federal recognition would be needed to pursue larger historic preservation grants. Board counsel advised that pursuing historic designation is one path but warned against encumbering the property in a way that would prevent viable disposition or use.

Next steps: after a lengthy workshop discussion, the board agreed — by consensus of members present — to have the superintendent reach out to other local public entities (county commissioners, city council and other stakeholders) to assess interest and to convene a meeting if agencies express interest. Board members also discussed appraisal and bid procedures should the district opt to sell or transfer parts of the site; counsel reminded the board it must follow procurement and public‑sale rules to maximize recovery for the district.

No final decision or sale was approved at the meeting. Board members said they want more data — site maps, detailed cost estimates, and appraisal information — before committing to historic designation or sale recommendations.