Hundreds of residents urge Cave Creek Unified board to pause proposed elementary school closures

CAVE CREEK, Ariz. — Dozens of parents, teachers and community members told the Cave Creek Unified School District governing board on Monday that the cabinet’s recommendation to close Long Mountain Elementary and Desert Sun Academy should be paused until the district develops clearer plans for students, staff and the campuses.

At the start of public comment, Katie Clark, a teacher who said she has served on district staff for eight years and is a parent of two alumni, told the board the district has allowed “campuses to operate at a financial loss,” and said one campus “was over $600,000 in the red last year.” Clark urged board members not to “sacrifice” Long Mountain students and families to fix district financial problems and said the cabinet had refused to consider alternatives that would “prioritize fairness and the well-being of all students.”

The comments reflected a widespread concern among speakers that the recommendation would fragment Long Mountain’s community: parents and students described proposals that would reassign peers to up to three different campuses and move special programs such as PALS to other schools. “There has to be a better way to keep my friends together,” student Gianna Armonte said. “This proposal needs to be rejected so there’s more time to make the best decision for students.”

Why it matters: Community members said the recommendation lacks a clear plan for what will happen to closed buildings, how closures would affect enrollment or transportation, and how the district would comply with state law governing disposition of school property. Annette McQuain, a parent with real estate experience, cited Arizona Revised Statute 15-119 and warned that if the district sells or leases closed buildings, state law requires offering those properties to charter or private schools serving K–12 students. She urged the board to “pause this decision until a committee of community members and district representatives can review these factors.”

Speakers pressed the district on operational and financial details. A transportation employee, Robert Balillo, said routing and staffing are already strained and noted the district is “down to 23 bus drivers.” Several parents and teachers said they had been told the cabinet’s advisory group met only four times from August through November—“12 hours is not enough time,” said Jessica Mundo, a fifth-grade teacher at Long Mountain—something multiple speakers described as insufficient for a recommendation that would affect many students and staff.

Community members proposed alternatives. Multiple commenters suggested consolidating underutilized campuses in ways that would preserve school communities, or combining Desert Willow with Long Mountain to keep students together and use Lone/Long Mountain’s larger parking and play fields to absorb enrollment. Others urged that district leadership focus on recruitment and a marketing strategy to boost enrollment rather than closing community schools.

Several speakers also raised longer-term fiscal questions. One participant summarized the district’s analyses presented to the group and said the expected immediate savings from closing Long Mountain would be modest—citing figures discussed in the meeting that put projected savings for Long Mountain at about 13% of certain costs and for Desert Sun/Desert Willow recapture at about 25%—and that those savings could be offset by student loss or repurposing costs. The speaker recommended further demographic and financial study before taking irreversible steps.

Legal and property concerns surfaced repeatedly. The board read a public-comment reminder citing Arizona Revised Statute 38-431.01(h), which limits board responses during call to the public; during comments attendees referenced ARS 15-119 regarding disposal or leasing of school property and the potential for closed buildings to be leased to charter or private schools if offered. Some residents urged the board to clarify how the district would comply with those statutory requirements and what plans exist to avoid long-term vacancies that could invite vandalism or other problems.

Board response and outcome: The meeting as recorded contained no formal vote or board action on the school-closure recommendation. The board conducted roll call; three members were present and two (Walker and Moore) were absent. The agenda was adopted at the meeting and the session was later adjourned by unanimous voice vote. There was no motion recorded in the transcript to adopt or reject the cabinet’s recommendation on school closures, and no formal timetable or next-step direction for implementing closures was recorded during public comment.

The community’s next steps: Several speakers asked the board to slow the process, convene additional community and expert input (including financial and facilities experts), and provide a written plan for repurposing any campus proposed for closure. Annette McQuain specifically urged that the board “pause this decision” until a committee can address legal and repurposing questions. Multiple speakers volunteered to help organize outreach or a future bond/override effort to address district funding needs.

The meeting ended after the public-comment period with no formal decision on closing campuses; further board action, if scheduled, was not recorded in the public-comment portion of the transcript.