Alice ISD gets stadium construction update; trustees press vendor on damaged scoreboard
January 13, 2026 | ALICE ISD, School Districts, Texas
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Project managers for the Alice ISD stadium presented a construction update to trustees on Jan. 12 and fielded trustees’ questions about a scoreboard that was damaged while in offsite storage.
Tim Glindzer, project manager with Weaver & Jacobs, and David Inglesias, an architect with PBK, described progress across multiple structures: press-box structural steel is about 98% complete, second-floor concrete has been poured, exterior metal studs and sheathing are underway, and work on Building A and C (concessions) is at plumbing-rough stage. They reported site utilities largely in place — the fire line and a district 4-inch water line are installed and the storm system is about 97% complete. Field-turf installation was scheduled to mobilize before year-end but had been pushed to Jan. 14.
During questions, a trustee said the scoreboard — which the district had sent to the vendor’s offsite storage while other site work proceeded — was damaged when the vendor’s warehouse experienced storm-related structural damage. The trustee asked who bears responsibility and whether the district would end up with a nonworking scoreboard a year into stadium operations.
"My fear is we have a damaged scoreboard, and now we're gonna have a ... $6,000,000 stadium? And what if they're just putting a band aid... a year later I have a scoreboard that isn't working," the trustee said. Tim Glindzer replied that the CMAR and vendor have been handling the situation and that the district will not accept installation unless the product meets the district’s standards. He said staff will follow up with Chris (vendor contact) and the CMAR to confirm insurance coverage, warranty obligations and options for replacement or upgrade.
What changed and next steps: Contractors described completed and in-progress tasks (structural steel, roofing deck, plumbing rough-in, MEP rough-in and site grading). Trustees asked staff to clarify warranty and insurance status for the damaged scoreboard, to explore warranty extension or replacement options, and to report options and costs at a future meeting.
No formal procurement decision on the scoreboard was made at the Jan. 12 meeting; board members asked staff to return with verified options.
Tim Glindzer, project manager with Weaver & Jacobs, and David Inglesias, an architect with PBK, described progress across multiple structures: press-box structural steel is about 98% complete, second-floor concrete has been poured, exterior metal studs and sheathing are underway, and work on Building A and C (concessions) is at plumbing-rough stage. They reported site utilities largely in place — the fire line and a district 4-inch water line are installed and the storm system is about 97% complete. Field-turf installation was scheduled to mobilize before year-end but had been pushed to Jan. 14.
During questions, a trustee said the scoreboard — which the district had sent to the vendor’s offsite storage while other site work proceeded — was damaged when the vendor’s warehouse experienced storm-related structural damage. The trustee asked who bears responsibility and whether the district would end up with a nonworking scoreboard a year into stadium operations.
"My fear is we have a damaged scoreboard, and now we're gonna have a ... $6,000,000 stadium? And what if they're just putting a band aid... a year later I have a scoreboard that isn't working," the trustee said. Tim Glindzer replied that the CMAR and vendor have been handling the situation and that the district will not accept installation unless the product meets the district’s standards. He said staff will follow up with Chris (vendor contact) and the CMAR to confirm insurance coverage, warranty obligations and options for replacement or upgrade.
What changed and next steps: Contractors described completed and in-progress tasks (structural steel, roofing deck, plumbing rough-in, MEP rough-in and site grading). Trustees asked staff to clarify warranty and insurance status for the damaged scoreboard, to explore warranty extension or replacement options, and to report options and costs at a future meeting.
No formal procurement decision on the scoreboard was made at the Jan. 12 meeting; board members asked staff to return with verified options.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
