Alumni and parents press Austin ISD trustees over LC Anderson stadium access and Hill modernization shortfall
Loading...
Summary
Alumni of L.C. Anderson and multiple Hill Elementary parents told the Austin ISD board the district has breached agreements on the historic Yellow Jackets stadium and raised alarms about a $43 million bond funding gap that would leave Hill only partially modernized; trustees asked staff for more detail before a Jan. 29 vote.
Alumni of L.C. Anderson and parents from Hill Elementary used the board's public-comment period to press Austin Independent School District trustees for action on two separate facilities disputes.
Brenda Malek, speaking as an LC Anderson graduate and neighborhood resident, said the district had refused to honor a "mutually executed agreement" governing access and operations at the historic Yellow Jackets stadium and field. "This just needs to stop," she said, urging the board to place the item on a future agenda so the community can resolve the dispute.
Barbara Spears Corbett, representing the original LC Anderson Alumni Association, echoed Malek's claim that a joint agreement had been breached and said alumni have repeatedly sought answers from administration without response. Eugenia Gaines, another alumnus, described the stadium as one of the oldest African American track-and-field venues in Texas and said the community fears yet another broken promise.
Separately, multiple recorded callers from Hill Elementary told trustees they expected a full modernization approved by voters in 2022 and objected to a proposed phased rebuild that would defer a significant portion of promised work to a future bond. "Voters approved a full modernization of Hill," one parent said; another cited a district budgeting error that left a shortfall and urged the board to explain how the district plans to ensure the project delivers what voters intended.
Board members asked for details. Superintendent Segarra told trustees the Hill budget gap emerged from underestimated initial cost estimates, site complexity and rising construction prices. She recommended proceeding with the currently contracted phase (phase 2) rather than delaying, saying delaying risks a cost escalation that could reduce the project's scope in the future. Trustees requested a written timeline and an explanation of what drove the $43,000,000 shortfall and said they wanted that information before the Jan. 29 voting meeting.
The board did not take action on either matter during the information session. Staff said they would follow up with more detailed financial and contract information and confirmed campus-architect-team documents and meeting notices are posted on the bond website for public review.
