Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety Crossing Guards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears plan to fill crossing‑guard gaps; district soliciting bids for contracted coverage
Summary
Safety staff told trustees the district has nine Lexington County crossing guards funded by the sheriff’s office but only two on the Richland County side; the district is seeking bids to contract coverage for hot spots.
The Lexington‑Richland School District Five board was briefed Sept. 8 on a shortage of crossing guards on the Richland County side of the district and on plans to seek contracted coverage for key “hot spots.”
Lead Safety Officer Officer Wise told trustees that Lexington County provides and trains civilian crossing guards through the Lexington County Sheriff’s Office and that the county currently staffs nine crossing‑guard locations across the Lexington side of the district. Richland County no longer provides that service and the district’s safety office currently runs the Richland County side; Officer Wise said the district directly operates two crossing guards, both around Dutch Fork.
The nut graf: Board members and staff said gaps in crossing‑guard coverage have created safety concerns at several middle‑ and high‑school locations, and the district has opened a procurement process to test whether private contractors can provide consistent, trained crossing‑guard services where county coverage is absent.
Officer Wise said the district is aware of congestion and “hot spots” — including Chapin, Crossroads Intermediate and areas around Irmo and Dutch Fork — and that a procurement bid package to secure contracted crossing guards closes the day after the meeting. The safety office said vendors must meet standardized training and background‑check requirements; trustees asked that any volunteer or contractor program include consistent training and a background check.
Trustees discussed alternative stopgap options: hiring officers for traffic control at $55 an hour with a multi‑hour minimum, volunteer programs organized through parent‑teacher organizations, or partnerships with neighboring municipalities and county councils. Staff cautioned that officer coverage can be costly and inconsistent, and that district contracts would be preferable for steady, predictable coverage.
Ending: The safety office said it will return with results of the bid process and recommended sites for contracted crossing‑guard coverage; trustees asked for details about training standards, background checks and operating costs.
