Principals at the Virgin Valley Community Education Advisory Board meeting on June 26 criticized how the city council handled Community Investment Advisory Board (CIAB) school allocations after a proposal to use part of the money for an “arcade room” to reward student attendance drew sharp questions.

The complaint came during a discussion about the CIAB budget flow and which items are designated as “safety” versus programmatic. Jody, principal of Wilson Hughes Middle School, told the advisory board she and other principals followed CIAB guidance when submitting budgets but left the meeting confused after council debate, saying she did not know whether her school’s requests had been reduced or reallocated. “I just want to understand what it is you want me to ask for, and if I’m getting money or not getting money or where it is on that,” Jody said during the meeting.

Why it matters: principals said the CIAB-to-city-council handoff typically places itemized grants on consent agendas and rarely requires individual administrators to defend routine school requests in public. This year, at least one council member asked why a school principal was not present and questioned purchases described as incentives, forcing some items off consent and prompting principals to request clearer expectations and earlier notice of council priorities.

What principals told the board
Jody described the proposed arcade room as a limited, supervised reward tied to attendance and classroom performance: “That reward, that room was gonna be used as a reward for chronic absentees. And kids that have 0 absences, 0 early outs, 0 parties for the year or for the month will qualify during a 20 minute lunchtime to come in and play.” She said the space was meant to be a short lunch-period incentive and to be administered by staff, not an unsupervised gaming area.

Principals cited other local examples when explaining educational intent. Jody referenced Fertitta Middle School and Priest Elementary as schools that used similar incentives alongside other interventions and reported reductions in chronic absenteeism or improvements in MAP testing. Other members of the advisory board, including Patty, said the arcade proposal and the shift of previously earmarked “safety” funds into program-type requests created miscommunication that invited public pushback at council.

Council response and outcome at the meeting
Board members said CIAB requests had historically included a base allotment (referred to in discussion as $60,000 distributed among schools), with an additional $25,000 that council members this year treated as safety-specific. Principals said they had earlier been told to submit budgets that included the extra $25,000; afterward, they were told that $25,000 had been removed or reallocated and that some schools’ program requests would not be treated the same as prior years.

At the CEAB meeting, the advisory board approved routine minutes and the meeting agenda by motion. The board also discussed that “everything was approved beside the 7,500 for the arcade,” and members were told the unapproved portion could be revisited at the July budget cycle. Esteban (staff) agreed to provide principals with a record of what each school was approved to receive.

Board reaction and next steps
Multiple board members urged principals to attend council meetings or the technical-review meeting for agenda items affecting schools so they can answer questions and explain school-level context directly. Patty said the confusion stemmed from miscommunication: “I think there was a lot of miscommunication,” she told the group.

Principals asked for clear guidance on what types of purchases council will treat as safety versus programmatic and for a predictable calendar point when principals should present to council or tech review. Esteban said he would obtain and share the exact amounts approved at council so principals would know what funds are available and whether they must return in July to request the remaining allocation.

Ending
Advisory board members said they will press to return routine school allocations to the consent agenda in the future where possible and to clarify the CIAB-to-council protocol during the July budget calendar. Principals said they will review the council video and follow up with staff to learn what specifically passed and what must be re-presented.