Austin ISD votes to authorize negotiation for former Brookside property after contentious debate
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The board voted 4–3 to authorize the superintendent to negotiate a sale of the former Brookside property (agenda item 11.6) after extended public comment and trustee debate about community engagement, historic neighborhood impacts and timing; a substitute motion to postpone failed 3–4.
The Austin ISD Board of Trustees on Jan. 29 approved, by a 4–3 vote, authorization for the superintendent to negotiate and execute a contract to sell the former Brookside property (agenda item 11.6) after extended public comment from neighborhood residents and substantial trustee discussion.
Residents from the Brook neighborhood urged the board to delay any sale or zoning negotiations and said they were not ready to sell or demolish the school. Bertha Delgado, a caller during public testimony, said the neighborhood feels excluded from the developer selection and asked trustees to postpone action so community input could be better incorporated.
Trustees debated competing priorities on the dais. Trustees arguing to postpone cited a need for more time for community engagement and the participation of the relevant trustee, who had been absent for part of the meeting. Trustee Quintana, who joined briefly, stressed the importance of preserving trust with historically Latino East Austin neighborhoods and asked administration to ensure meaningful community consensus on engagement approaches.
Administration explained the urgency: the sale was included in the board‑approved budget as a revenue expectation, and staff said failing to close a transaction by the fiscal year end would reduce projected fund balance and force additional cuts. The superintendent said negotiations must proceed on a compressed timeline to deliver the budgeted cash infusion and that proposals aim to balance community priorities (open space, some affordable housing) against market feasibility.
A substitute motion to postpone the vote until the February meeting failed (3 in favor; 4 opposed). The subsequent motion to approve the sale as presented passed 4–3. Trustees who voted against the motion said they wanted stronger preview procedures on the agenda for community notice in future sales; trustees who supported the motion cited fiscal urgency and the need to secure feasible development partners.
The board asked administration to continue engagement with neighborhood partners, to provide clearer previews on BoardDocs ahead of future sales and to return any final sale for full board approval following negotiation.