District outlines perimeter fencing, lockable gates and cameras to ‘layer’ school security

Savannah-Chatham County Capital Improvements Committee members heard a presentation in May 2025 on plans to add perimeter fencing, lockable gates and video surveillance at prioritized schools as part of a “layered” security approach, district staff said.

The proposal, presented by district capital projects staff, would strengthen perimeters with fences 6 to 8 feet tall made of iron tubular steel or anti‑climb mesh, add lockable gates that remain closed during instructional hours and integrate gate access with building badge/buzz systems and camera analytics. The presenter said the approach follows national guidance, including the Partner Alliance for Safer Schools (PASS), and drew on the district’s 2018 Parsons study of facilities.

The emphasis on perimeter measures “is our first line of defense,” Chief Enoch said during the discussion. The presenter added that well‑maintained fencing “communicates that a school is actively being managed” and can deter trespass and transient encampments on unfenced campuses.

Staff described how gates would be managed to avoid disrupting school operations: gates would be equipped with access control so deliveries and late arrivals could be buzzed or badged through, and cameras tied to analytics would alert staff to after‑hours activity before an alarm is triggered. The presentation included examples of different fence treatments used on district campuses — from iron fencing with landscaped setbacks at White Bluff Elementary to a white picket–style fence that matches Isle of Hope Elementary’s neighborhood character — and said brick architectural elements can be added where appropriate to soften appearance.

Committee members pressed staff on prioritization and cost. Staff said they are focusing first on sites with past incidents or visible community dynamics that suggest a need for enhanced perimeter control; New Hampstead was cited as an example and Butler, Myers and Juliette Lowe Elementary were listed among earlier priority locations. On funding, staff noted that each recent E‑SPLOST (referred to repeatedly in the meeting as “East Bloss” or “E‑SpLoST”) included a line item for site improvements and that the last three E‑SPLOSTs have unallocated funds that could be applied. A staff member said a specific cost estimate for the four priority schools would be provided later by capital projects.

Several committee members urged that fence design be coordinated with broader site plans so schools remain welcoming to neighborhoods and so crosswalks and other pedestrian infrastructure align with gate locations. Miss Kubesti and others said older neighborhood schools need special attention to preserve civic presence and encourage “eyes on the street.” The presenter said design guidelines will be expanded to include more detailed fence and gate specifications, but that individual campuses require site‑specific solutions.

No formal action or vote was taken; staff said next steps include refining the design guidelines, completing site assessments and returning with cost estimates and draft plans for review.

A follow‑up from staff will report specific cost estimates, proposed funding sources and a recommended priority schedule for design and installation.