Canutillo ISD trustees review plan to close roughly $5.8 million shortfall; staff cuts, property sales and safety costs on table

Canutillo Independent School District trustees and administrators spent a March 19 special workshop laying out options to close a projected operating shortfall of roughly $5.8 million and discussing how to protect classroom services while meeting contract and legal deadlines.

The district’s administration presented a packet of proposals that includes personnel reductions in central office, potential program cuts, use of fund balance and the possible sale of district property. Trustees and staff also discussed recurring safety costs tied to a state safety allotment, and operational questions about school nursing coverage, campus security models and expanded middle‑school career and technical education programs.

Why it matters: The board must adopt a balanced budget this spring and issue employment contracts in coming weeks. Administrators told trustees the district’s fund balance could fall to the low days threshold if the deficit is not addressed; the district policy cited in the workshop requires a minimum of 90 days of fund balance. Trustees signaled that some cuts could be finalized at meetings in late March and early April, and that more detailed staffing lists and timelines are needed before any final decisions are made.

What administrators presented - Projected shortfall: Administration described the current projected deficit as about $5.83 million. Staff said some budget items previously reserved in fund balance (construction or bond‑related reserves) will need to be drawn down to cover expenditures this fiscal year. - Central‑office savings: The district’s third‑party staffing review (the task study) recommended roughly $1.2 million in personnel savings through reorganization and position reductions in financial services, communications, technology and clerical slots. Administration said those recommendations have been incorporated into the current options and that trustees need a department‑by‑department dollar breakdown before authorizing specific cuts. - One‑time versus recurring choices: Trustees and staff discussed selling district property as a one‑time source of fund balance that could reduce the immediate deficit without cutting classroom positions. Administration confirmed proceeds from property sales would be added to fund balance and could temporarily increase days of operating reserves; trustees asked whether proceeds should be applied to the deficit or preserved for future capital needs.

Safety and police costs Board members and administrators reviewed new recurring costs for campus safety. The administration estimated district policing and related safety costs at roughly $1.4 million before accounting for state safety allotment funds; staff estimated net recurring general‑fund cost at about $1.6 million after other adjustments discussed in the workshop. Trustees and staff noted the state safety allotment provides per‑student dollars (discussed in the meeting as approximately $3.50 per student and a roughly $15,000 per campus supplement), but called the allotment effectively an unfunded mandate in some respects because districts must provide assigned security regardless of whether the allotment covers the full cost.

Staffing, programs and programmatic tradeoffs Trustees pressed staff for detail on programs and positions that could be reduced or reorganized. Topics raised included: - School nursing: Trustees and nursing leaders discussed models that would pair licensed vocational nurses (LVNs) on campus with a smaller number of registered nurses (RNs) who rotate and handle the most complex medical oversight and required ARD/504 meetings. Trustees asked for specific staffing scenarios (for example, 2–3 RNs supervising 7–10 LVNs) and cost impacts before deciding. - Fine arts and music at elementary schools: Administration described a shared‑teacher model in which one music teacher could be assigned to two elementary campuses. Trustees voiced strong interest in retaining elementary music but also asked for cost‑effective sharing plans. - Middle‑school CTE and college‑readiness programs: Trustees discussed the tradeoffs of moving some advanced courses from middle to high school. Administrators said moving certain advanced algebra and dual‑credit opportunities could delay some TSI/CCMR benefits but might reduce near‑term costs; they also flagged that dual‑credit and CCMR measures have alternate paths (ACT/SAT/CTE certifications). - Montessori and specialty programs: Trustees heard that some programs have waiting lists and community demand; administrators said materials costs and setup are significant and that program cuts would be considered only after reviewing alternatives and possible grant or special‑allotment offsets.

Process, transparency and timing Trustees repeatedly asked for more granular, department‑level detail. Several trustees said the task‑study recommendation and administration summaries were too aggregate; they asked for a confidential, position‑level breakdown (so the board could see which roles and dollar amounts feed into the $1.2 million personnel target) ahead of firm board action. Legal counsel reminded the board that personnel decisions that affect employee contracts must follow statutory and policy notice requirements.

Next steps Trustees asked administration to compile the “yes” items (cuts and adjustments trustees already support) for a March 25 meeting and to return on April 8 with more detailed proposals — including department‑level savings, explicit staffing scenarios for nurses and campus security and legal guidance on timelines and required employee notice. If trustees move to close or consolidate a campus, administrators warned that RIF (reduction in force) processes and timelines will affect when personnel evaluations and selections can lawfully proceed.

Public comment An audience member who signed up to speak, Carol Cassidy, urged trustees to note what she described as high district debt on the Texas Bond Review Board and to press state legislators for help. Cassidy told the board, “This district has a debt,” and cited a figure she said she saw on the bond review board listing. She also challenged board members to consider the long‑term impact of borrowing and recapture policies.

Where decisions stand No final vote or personnel action was taken at the March 19 workshop. Trustees and administration framed the meeting as a working session: staff will return with additional data and specific personnel scenarios for the March 25 and April 8 meetings; any formal budget adoption and contract issuance will follow the district’s legally required timelines and board votes.

(Reporting note: numbers in this article — the district deficit, staff‑savings targets and safety‑cost estimates — were presented by district staff during the March 19 workshop. Where the workshop discussion used approximate or changing figures, this article notes those as presented by trustees and staff.)