Coachella Valley Unified presents three fiscal-cut options; trustees debate restoring wellness centers and parent liaisons

The Coachella Valley Unified School District presented an updated fiscal stabilization plan outlining three options to address a structural deficit, and trustees spent extended time debating which services to protect.

District staff said the three revised options include varying levels of reductions over the next three years: an option with approximately $20,000,000 in reductions (including about $14,700,000 in staffing reviews and the elimination of the Latino Commission contract and seven wellness positions); an option with slightly higher total savings that retains wellness staff while using one-time state discretionary block grants; and a least-reduction option at roughly $17,500,000 that also contemplates use of one-time revenue. Staff described technology restructuring, consolidation of facilities with maintenance and operations, and a $1,000,000 reduction to maintenance and operations as common elements across options.

Public commenters and several trustees argued against severing wellness centers and community referral services. Janelle McDaniel, an educator and parent, said these services are a district safety net: "If the board decides to cut these services, it's very important to me that you do so knowing what will be lost," she told the board, citing dozens of site risk assessments and hundreds of monthly visits to wellness centers. Trustee commentary emphasized modeling restorations: several trustees asked staff to show the fiscal effect of restoring the parent liaisons, wellness positions, or lifeguard programs and to include those variants in committee-level review.

Trustees also raised implementation and revenue-capture questions. Board members pressed staff about attendance clerks, ADA capture, stakeholder engagement and the timeline for committee input, and whether moving some services to after-school programs or bringing services in-house could change costs. One trustee warned that contracting services can be less expensive but suggested staff provide an hour-by-hour cost comparison for in-house versus contracted mental-health services.

Next steps outlined at the meeting included further discussion in the budget advisory committee, presentation of a selected option in February with a plan to meet March statutory deadlines, and inclusion of any approved stabilization measures in the 2026-27 adopted budget.

Ending: The board did not adopt a final stabilization option at the meeting; trustees asked staff for additional modeling and stakeholder engagement and scheduled further review in committee and at an upcoming meeting.