As the Austin school district prepares to close schools and sell off valuable land to plug a persistent budget deficit, a new City Council push could complicate how those deals move forward.
For decades, the district and the city have quietly shared ownership of school land across Austin, including playgrounds and open space used by the public. But a little-noticed legal step, often approved with little discussion, can determine who ultimately profits from it.
Now Council Member Ryan Alter is proposing changes to part of that process, warning the city has been signing away its stake in public land without fully understanding the consequences. His proposal comes as Austin ISD is increasingly relying on property sales and leases to generate revenue, setting up a potential clash between the district’s financial needs and the city’s interest in preserving both land and value. The resolution targets city-owned parkland and open space, raising the possibility that Austin could lose not just money, but access to public green space as properties change hands.
Financial pressure meets land use conflict
The move comes as Austin ISD plans to shutter 10 schools, including Barrington and Oak Springs elementary schools, for which the district sought sole ownership of in 2024. Those closures are part of a broader effort to address declining enrollment and a growing budget deficit, with district leaders increasingly looking to real estate deals to generate revenue.
But this isn’t just about schools, Alter said. The Texas Department of Transportation needs city land for the I-35 expansion and other condemnations will come up, he said.
Right now, Alter said, the city doesn’t have a clear process to ensure the council is well-informed on potential changes to land it jointly owns with the school district, even when those decisions could involve millions of dollars or the loss of public space.
Alter is asking the council to direct the city manager to develop a consistent and transparent process to handle condemnations of city-owned land dedicated for park purposes. That process should protect Austin’s legal and financial interests, the resolution states. It also directs the staff to initiate any necessary amendments to joint-use agreements with Austin ISD.
“I want to make sure that we’re getting the greatest value for these spaces, and that the public is even aware of what’s going on,” he said.
Jaime Miller, senior executive director of operations at Austin ISD, said in a statement Austin ISD has been notified of Alter’s proposal and its legal and real estate teams have been given the opportunity to review it and provide recommendations. Miller added the district is continuing to evaluate the proposed process.
The district has internal processes to deal with property matters, including undivided interests, which are informed by applicable state laws and any requirements related to condemnation, Miller said in the statement. Austin ISD is “open to working collaboratively with the city to establish a clear and consistent process moving forward,” Miller’s statement said.
A quiet process with high stakes
Understanding how this happened means going back to 1874.
Between 1874 and 1954, the City of Austin oversaw schools. Then Austin ISD took over the system and the school buildings.
But the city wanted to make sure outdoor school property, including playgrounds, tracks, and other open space, could still be used by the public. In some cases, the city put up money to pay for school properties, Alter said. In December 1960, the city and Austin ISD agreed outdoor space at schools could also be used by neighbors and the general public.
Austin ISD and the city jointly own some school property through undivided interest arrangements, meaning both parties have rights to the land. If the school district wants to sell a property, it must offer to buy out the city. The city must then vote to accept that money, consequently giving all rights to the land to Austin ISD.
If the two can’t agree on a price, the city has to take the district to court.
But over time, that process has become more perfunctory on the dais, Alter said. Unless a property comes under extra scrutiny, the council often approves the action without context or detailed conversation. What can appear to be a routine vote can determine whether the city potentially loses millions of dollars. Condemnation settlements can slip through the cracks for lots of reasons, Alter said.
City leadership changes, with new council members rotating in and out over the years. They could be focused on more high-profile or timely issues on the agenda. Or a property is quietly listed on agendas without naming the school or park, and the council may not know the details of how the property might be used in the future, he said.
“It appears on our agenda as a public hearing and that’s the first time we’ve seen it and the last time we see it,” Alter said. “So, if you’re not paying attention, you might miss it.”
Now, with Austin ISD slated to close 10 schools at the end of the year, the joint-ownership issue needs more scrutiny, Alter said. For Austin ISD, those campuses represent potential revenue as the district works to close a growing budget gap. For the city, they represent land and money it could lose if it signs away its interest without pushing for a fair price.
A broader risk across the system
The city has undivided interest in two schools slated to close at the end of the year: Barrington and Oak Springs elementary schools. Austin ISD is currently taking public comment on how those schools should be used.
The city also holds a property interest in several other school sites that have not been targeted for condemnation, including at the Barton Hills, Cook, Cunningham, Gullet, Kealing, Lucy Road, Odom, Ortega, Pillow, Reilly, Sanchez, St. Elmo and Williams campuses. That overlap raises the possibility that future closures or sales could trigger the same dynamic across the city. That leaves the city vulnerable to losing green space or the money that may come from selling the land in the future.
While there are some local, state or federal laws protecting parkland, they don’t require the condemner to pay the city’s asking price or preserve the city’s full legal interests, Alter’s resolution says. In practice, that gap can leave the city with neither the land nor full compensation.
Ideally, the city would be able to save as much land as possible in such situations, Alter said. Some areas only have a single park in their neighborhood and if the city can’t keep the land, it needs to reinvest any money it gets to ensure greenspace is preserved, he said.
“There are too few and very precious public spaces, public parks,” he said. “We need to protect them.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the name of one of the schools the city has undivided interest in that is slated to close at the end of the year. It is Oak Springs Elementary.
