Board sends proposed Coachella Valley High School agricultural academy grant back to facilities committee pending funding commitments

Supporters of an Agricultural Academy at Coachella Valley High School urged the board on Oct. 23 to pursue state Career Technical Education (CTE) funding through Proposition 2 and related grant programs. Rudy Valencia delivered a letter from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner endorsing the effort; Margaret Chiriaco Richey and Jenny Hannah Brown outlined community backing and a scaled Phase‑1 concept.

Brown described a downsized Phase‑1 proposal that she said would be a roughly $3.5 million project with a CTE request for $1.75 million (50 percent match), and said she was prepared to volunteer time for grant development and that private and in‑kind support could supply the local match. She warned the Dec. 1 application deadline was imminent and urged the board to authorize staff to pursue the grant packet.

Staff and several trustees pushed back on fiscal and procedural details. Karen Perez, district CTE coordinator and member of the planning group, said the proposal submitted to the board’s packet lacked full scope definitions (utilities, accessibility, data, surveillance, design fees) and that a realistic project estimate might be substantially higher; she said the grant is a multi‑phase program that typically requires a 1:1 local match for the state‑set portion.

Trustees said the facilities committee had not forwarded the current proposal for board consideration and emphasized the district cannot commit to multi‑million‑dollar matching funds without clear guarantees. “We don’t have $10 million to match,” Trustee Gonzales said in discussion, noting the district’s ongoing fiscal stabilization work. Several trustees recommended obtaining written letters of financial commitment from partners and returning the item to the facilities committee for a full scope, schedule and funding plan.

What the board did: The board did not approve the grant application or commit district matching funds. Trustees directed staff to return the proposal to the facilities committee for additional review and to secure clearer documentation of partner commitments, estimated project costs and site implications.

Context: Speakers listed broad community support from local ag industry partners and elected officials; proponents asserted the project could be done with substantial private match and pledged in‑kind contributions, but no escrowed or guaranteed match amount was presented to the board at the meeting.

Quotations are taken from public comment and board discussion at the Oct. 23 meeting.