Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Sale topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge board to pause sale of historic Rock Building as members debate shortening bid advertisement
Summary
At a special workshop, residents pressed the Taylor County School Board to reconsider selling the historic Rock Building and questioned whether preservation language was omitted from advertised materials. Board members split over reducing the ad period from 60 days to 21 days; an action to approve the advertisement died for lack of a motion.
Residents and board members sparred Tuesday over whether to move quickly on selling a district-owned property known locally as the Rock Building, with public commenters urging preservation and staff pressing to shorten the formal advertising window so bids can be opened before school starts.
An unnamed resident who spoke during public comment told the board that preservation language the board had approved was “apparently omitted before the property was advertised,” asked whether state disposal rules had been followed and whether a full cost analysis and inventory had been presented, and warned that "The Rock Building is part of this community's history and a public asset paid for and maintained by generations of Taylor County's taxpayers." The speaker also repeated a figure cited in public comment that the district has been paying about $97,000 a year to keep the building open.
John Hart, a Perry resident who gave his address to the board, told members that a permanent no‑demolition deed restriction could make the site unattractive to developers. "A permanent deed restriction on the rock building risk[s] repeating this same mistake we've already made," he said, urging the board to allow a developer flexibility to devise a feasible reuse.
Superintendent Dan said staff had followed the board's direction to include a restrictive covenant in the bid packet and that new survey and legal descriptions prepared by Robert Blue would be inserted into the packet. Dan said the district has advertised the property locally 17 times (total cost cited as $1,335) and that a realtor (identified in the discussion as Hope Web) had been retained to list the property on additional platforms including Realtor.com and LoopNet; he told the board the legal description in the packet would show a 10‑foot buffer around the rock building and an easement off Lafayette Street.
Staff recommended shortening the advertisement window from the 60 days the board previously authorized to 21 days, arguing that the property has already received local exposure and that the realtor and online listings would broaden reach in a shorter timeframe. Board members who opposed cutting the ad time said 21 days was too short, requested a complete final packet (advertisement, survey, legal description and realtor materials) for review, and emphasized the board's authority to refuse any and all bids if the results were unsatisfactory.
Members also discussed how to dispose of salvageable contents. Staff described plans for an on‑site auction of valuable items and for pulling higher‑value pieces from the building for sale; several board members suggested hiring an auction company that would tag and market items and charge a buyer premium, which could relieve district staff of heavy day‑to‑day workload during the summer.
When the meeting returned to action items, the agenda item to approve the "bid of rock building and advertisement" failed for lack of a motion and thus did not pass. Members directed the superintendent to deliver the finalized packet to the board next week so the board can consider the precise advertisement language and timing in a future meeting.
The meeting also recorded the earlier adoption of the agenda at the start of the session. The workshop closed and the board adjourned after routine motions to end the meeting.
What happens next: the superintendent said he would provide the complete bid packet (including the survey, legal description and proposed advertisement language) before next week’s meeting so the board can consider whether to keep the 60‑day period or approve a shorter window and proceed with opening bids.
