Austin Independent School District officials told the Historic Landmarks Commission on Jan. 8 that the district’s 2022 bond program prioritized school modernizations on three lenses — facility condition, educational suitability and an “equity by design” overlay — and that the bond schedule creates tight deadlines that can affect the commission’s review of affected properties.

Dave Anderson, Austin ISD bond staff, explained the long-range planning process began in 2021 and that not all prioritization was driven solely by building age. “The bond development process was comprised of not only just the physical condition of the schools, but it also took into account the educational suitability assessment and equity by design,” Anderson said. He stressed the program’s schedule constraints and the district’s aim to minimize the use of temporary classrooms.

Anderson and Michael Mann, Austin ISD executive director of construction management, described the technical assessments used to rank campuses. Anderson noted 82 schools scored unsatisfactory on at least one facilities condition subscore; he said 52 schools with historically underserved students overlap high social‑vulnerability census tracts, and 25 of those 52 also have average-or-worse facilities. Mann said campus architectural teams and campus‑level design processes considered community priorities, campus features (murals, dedication features) and functional needs.

Staff from the Historic Preservation Office explained that, under the City–AISD interlocal framework, the city’s Historic Preservation Office “may” be able to administratively release demolition permits for projects that were included in the voter‑approved bond package. Anderson emphasized “may” is permissive and not mandatory — permitting could still come before the Historic Landmarks Commission in many cases — but he warned the first such batch of AISD requests could reach the HLC as soon as next month.

Commissioners asked several technical and process questions. Commissioner Kevin Cook and others urged the district to consider building ensembles (collections of school buildings) rather than single structures in isolation. Commissioner Carl LaRoche, a structural engineer, offered the commission’s technical expertise and suggested the HLC could support the district with targeted preservation‑sensitivity briefings for district consultants. Michael Mann said campus architectural teams already discuss community values and building significance during design work but acknowledged the district could further emphasize historic sensitivity earlier in long-range planning.

AISD officials said community outreach and campus architectural team meetings have been extensive, and that the district intends to bring to the Historic Preservation Office any campuses that staff believe may meet the city’s designation criteria. Anderson said the district aims to present groups of such schools in as few meetings as possible so the bond program can proceed with the schedule certainty the voters expect.

Ending: The HLC asked staff to expect AISD‑related demolition or landmark review items beginning in February; commissioners suggested follow‑up coordination (including preservation sensitivity briefings) with AISD design teams and consultants.