Washington County school board reviews listing plan for 8.67‑acre Jonesborough property; motion made to approve listing contract pending legal review

Mister Petzl, presenter for the listing team, told the Washington County School Board the Jonesborough parcel is "a challenging project" and outlined a multi‑stage marketing plan for the 8.67‑acre site that includes a 66,680‑square‑foot former elementary school and adjacent greenfield tracts.

The broker recommended offering the entire tract for four months at an initial asking price of $6,800,000, then relisting as two parcels (the school site and the greenfield acreage) if there is no sale, and—if necessary—offering individual lots later. He said typical buyer due‑diligence and closing timelines for comparable regional deals often run 60–180 days.

Why it matters: the parcel’s redevelopment could change traffic patterns, require new public or private road construction, and expose the district to demolition and environmental costs; the board will rely on counsel to clarify legal limits on use restrictions and on the district’s obligations for utilities and public improvements.

Details presented and discussed

• Property and building. The presenter said the total site is about 8.67 acres; the school building was measured at about 66,680 square feet. He noted roof leakage and other maintenance needs and said prior mold testing (2019) was acceptable.

• Zoning and potential uses. The presenter described portions of the property as falling in local B‑1, B‑2 and B‑3 zoning categories and listed typical permitted uses for each (neighborhood retail and services in B‑1; larger retail/warehouse uses in B‑3). He urged the board to consider in advance whether to try to limit particular uses, but cautioned that legal constraints and market impacts should be reviewed by counsel.

• Utilities and access. The presentation identified existing sewer and water alignments and indicated some water lines may require relocation and sewer connections or repairs may be needed. The broker said a proposed new public street from Jackson to a bypass would be about 1,400 linear feet; at an estimated $550 per foot, the presenter gave an illustrative cost of roughly $800,000 to build that street to public standards, and noted that who ultimately pays for that work is a negotiating point.

• Demolition and environmental estimates. The broker reported a rule‑of‑thumb demolition estimate of about $10 per square foot with a headline figure of roughly $550,000 to remove the full building; an environmental budget of about $105,000 was listed for remediation or testing. The presenter said some buyers object to acquiring sites that include a school building on the parcel and that some buyers would prefer to clear the site prior to redevelopment.

• Market comparables and strategy. The presenter cited 27 recent small‑commercial sales in nearby four‑lane corridors and said many buyers in the region had demolished older buildings and redeveloped; he argued that the site could attract a redeveloper and that offering the tract whole would attract different buyers than listing subdivided parcels.

Motion and next steps

A board member moved to approve a one‑year listing agreement with the broker team, adding the caveat that the school board attorney review the contract; another member seconded the motion. The transcript provided ends after the motion and second and does not record a vote.

Board questions and clarifications

Board members asked about whether cooperative compensation language would obligate the district to additional payments beyond a stated maximum, whether the listing specifically excluded the Town of Jonesborough for the listing term (the presenter said a prior draft had a time limit that was changed to exclude Jonesborough), and whether the district could lawfully preclude another school from buying the property (the presenter recommended counsel look into any statutory limits). They also discussed whether to perform demolition and/or road construction before sale or to negotiate those costs with a buyer.

What remains unresolved

• Whether the board will approve demolition or road construction funded by the district before sale, or accept buyer‑side discounts reflecting those costs.

• The school board attorney’s review of the proposed listing contract and any recommended changes to protective language or restrictions.

• Any formal vote on the motion; the provided transcript shows the motion and second but no recorded vote.

Quoted from the meeting

"This has been a challenging project," Mister Petzl said, describing the analysis his team completed over the prior month. "We have every confidence that will happen. We got a pretty good track record."

"We're not gonna let our commission stand in the way of getting the deal done," Mister Petzl added when describing negotiable compensation practices.

Ending

Board members said they appreciated the level of research and asked staff and counsel to review the contract language and legal limits on restrictions before the listing moves forward. The motion to approve the listing contract was made and seconded with a stated caveat for attorney review; the vote was not recorded in the supplied transcript.