Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Davis County schools outline safety upgrades and 'guardian' program as state law tightens requirements
Summary
District staff told the board the district has already met many surveillance and exterior camera requirements, will accept state funding for interior door locks and stop‑the‑bleed kits, and plans to solicit staff volunteers for a new armed school guardian program required under recent state legislation.
Assistant Superintendent John Zurbakan and Risk Management Director Rich Swanson gave the board an overview of new state safety and security requirements and the district’s implementation plans.
Zurbakan said the district has met many state requirements already, including exterior cameras and districtwide video surveillance; the district retains video for 14 days and grants law enforcement access for incidents. He told the board the state is providing nearly $3,000,000 to pay for interior classroom door locks and will also supply prescribed stop‑the‑bleed and first‑aid kits for every classroom, which the district expects to install ahead of the state deadline.
The presentation listed timelines and outstanding items set by recent safety bills. Zurbakan said some items remain undefined in administrative rules — for example, the precise ballistic or glazing standards for ground‑level and interior classroom windows — and that a large unfunded requirement for interior classroom window glazing or ballistic protection is currently scheduled in law for July 1, 2040. He told the board the district will wait for state administrative rules before starting a major district‑funded retrofit for interior glass to avoid wasted expense.
On perimeter safety, Zurbakan said the law references either six‑foot fencing around playgrounds or “sufficient staff supervision when students are present.” Because fencing every elementary play area would be costly, he said the district will initially rely on established playground supervision during recess and before/after school while monitoring how the state defines the fencing requirement.
Swanson described the “guardian” option created by recent statutes. The law requires each school to have at least one armed, trained individual present during instructional hours; acceptable options are an SRO contracted with a municipality, a private security contract, or a school guardian. Swanson stressed that school guardians must be school employees (not volunteers from the community) who do not have primary responsibility for children during the time they are armed and must meet a four‑part qualification process: principal approval, possession of a concealed carry permit, a mental‑health screening paid by the district, and annual tactical and firearms training organized by law enforcement. Guardians also must pass an annual requalification.
District staff said guardians will be anonymous in a school: only the principal, certain security chiefs and law enforcement will know who is designated, and publicizing guardian identities would violate the statute and could carry misdemeanor penalties. Swanson said the district will solicit volunteers through principals, who will screen candidates and send names to district security staff; principals may remove a guardian designation if concerns arise.
Swanson estimated training for a guardian includes a 32–36 hour course with range time and shooting proficiency standards; the district’s program charges $375 per guardian per year for part of the process. He said the district expects to need several guardians per school to cover bell‑to‑bell requirements and estimated a district‑wide need on the order of hundreds of staff (district estimate: roughly 300) to maintain coverage, including in schools that already have SROs. Swanson said guardians are expressly required to stand down and defer to law enforcement once officers arrive.
Other points discussed included the district’s suspension of a local RFP for panic‑alert wearables after the state indicated it would fund a statewide procurement; the planned RFP for interior locks that will use state funds; and the district’s intent to begin training with county security chiefs in April and report guardian staffing to the state by August. Board members asked questions about principal discretion, part‑time staff as guardians, day‑to‑day duties, and public notification; district staff reiterated that guardians carry only during their paid work hours, that principal approval and ongoing suitability reviews are required, and that the district will report which schools have guardians to the state security chief without publicizing identities.
Ending: The board thanked Zurbakan and Swanson and expressed appreciation for local law enforcement partnerships; no formal board action was taken at the workshop.
