Perkiomen Valley SD reviews Limerick drill plan, discusses parking-enforcement MOU with township

Chief Miller, the district's school safety lead, told the Perkiomen Valley School District Facilities & Operations Committee that the district is preparing for the biennial Limerick Generating Station (LGS) drill and is coordinating training for staff at three affected schools.

“We are training up for the, biennial, LGS drill at Limerick Generating Station. So 3 schools this year will be affected by that,” Chief Miller said, adding that staff trainings are set for the “eighteenth, between 8 and about 11AM” and that the exercise will be a tabletop review of policies and procedures.

The district expects the county and federal and state agencies that govern the generating station to lead the operational response on the drill day; school staff and transportation teams will follow those protocols, Miller said. He said the exercise “won't be any real interruption to the school day, with regards to educational impact or impacting any of the students,” though some staff will be engaged for several hours.

On campus enforcement, Chief Miller described an ongoing conversation with Pergamum Township about a parking agreement that could give school police additional enforcement authority. Under the plan described by Miller, if Pergamum Township’s fire marshal appointed school police officers as deputy fire marshals, “we would have enforcement powers on campus, which we don't currently have with regards to fire lanes.” Miller said the township has discussed the idea with its board of supervisors, solicitor and manager and would draft a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for the district to review.

Miller explained the legal basis for the proposal: the district could act under provisions of the state vehicle code if officers receive the township designation. He emphasized the MOU would be drafted by the township and that fines collected would likely be split to cover township administrative costs; any revenue to the district was not presented as the primary intent. Miller said the proposal is in early stages and that he would ask the township to draft the MOU for committee consideration.

Committee members pressed for detail on towing and other traffic enforcement. One member asked whether the district can tow vehicles; Miller said current policy permits towing only for students and that the district does not now have authority to tow vehicles driven by members of the public on campus. He added that signage implying towing authority had been removed to avoid confusion. Miller said the district could develop policy to expand campus enforcement under the vehicle code, but that the state police do not enforce traffic on private school property for the same reason.

Miller also raised a linked item about how the district defines recreational vehicles on its signage. He said the current signage refers to “recreational vehicles” using the Pennsylvania vehicle-code definition (campers and similar), and that defining other devices such as e-bikes and scooters in district policy or administrative regulation would give officers clearer authority to act when those devices cause damage or safety concerns on campus.

Separately, Miller described recent community outreach: officers attended a Sunny Day Camp for special-needs students in Berks County and a trunk-or-treat event at Foy Park, where the district reported positive engagement with families.

The committee signaled support for asking the township to draft the MOU. Miller said policy language changes (including towing and device definitions) would follow once the township draft is available and the board provides direction.