Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the School Safety Sro topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

School board approves temporary SRO placement funded by $25,000 grant for fall semester

5766972 · September 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Teton School District board approved a temporary school resource officer placement from September through December, funded initially by a $25,000 school safety grant and subject to clarifying the officer's scope and contract terms; the county sheriff may reassign the officer for county emergencies.

The Teton School District board on Sept. 8 approved a temporary school resource officer (SRO) placement for the fall term, with the district committing $25,000 initially from an available school safety grant to cover part of the cost.

Superintendent (name not specified) told the board the sheriff's office indicated it could provide an officer under the district's previously approved agreement if the district supplied the $25,000 now and a second $25,000 could be identified before the end of December. Diane (staff member) confirmed the first $25,000 would be available from a school safety grant and that it shows on the salary-based allocation form.

Board members discussed operational details, data collection and roles for the officer. Several trustees said they wanted clearer written duties for the SRO's day-to-day work and a plan for reporting back to the board. Trustees also emphasized that the SRO is a county sheriff's deputy and may be temporarily reassigned for county emergencies.

Formal action: the board voted to approve the temporary SRO placement from Sept. 2025 through Dec. 2025, funded initially with $25,000, with the superintendent directed to provide a clarified contract and written responsibilities for the position and to seek potential additional district funding through December. The motion passed on a voice vote.

Discussion (non-action): trustees and staff explored alternative schedules, partnership roles for local mental-health and family-support organizations, and whether the district could define specific time allocations and deliverables for the SRO. Several trustees asked for a short written report at the end of the placement documenting how the officer spent time and how often county redeployments occurred.

Ending: The board approved the temporary funding so the sheriff's office can place an officer at district schools while administrators refine the written agreement and follow up on possible additional funding sources before the board's December meeting.