Duluth board approves three‑year school resource officer contract after extended review

The Duluth School Board approved a three‑year contract with the City of Duluth for school resource officers (SROs) during its July 20 meeting after extended questions from board members about cost, training and staffing.

Board member Banks removed the SRO item from the consent agenda to request further clarification; the board then discussed the contract in depth before voting to approve it by voice vote. The district’s portion of the contract was described by board staff as 80% of officer salaries; Member Banks said the three‑year total comes to $1,000,066.78.

The discussion focused on three main concerns: the total cost and year‑over‑year increases, the scope and documentation of officer training (including trauma‑informed and cultural training), and how quickly the Duluth Police Department (DPD) would fill any SRO vacancies. “When I added up the total cost for the three‑year contract, it comes in a little bit over $1,000,000,” Member Banks said during the meeting.

Superintendent Simone Magus and Director of Secondary Education Jen Larva answered questions at the board table. Magus explained the district has historically paid 80% of SRO salaries and is maintaining that percentage, but the city negotiated higher police salaries, so 80% now represents a larger dollar amount. “We’ve kept to that same model of paying for 80% of salary, but the salaries for our SROs through the city were negotiated at a higher rate,” Magus said.

Board members pressed for clarity on training. Larva said the contract requires SROs to attend SRO‑specific training such as the National Association of School Resource Officers’ (NASRO) basic SRO course and that DPD officers receive department‑wide training that includes trauma‑informed practices and other topics the district values. Larva said the district and DPD were working to document additional expectations in a separate implementation document—analogous to a regulation that would sit alongside the contract—rather than embedding every detail in the contract text.

On staffing timelines, district staff said the DPD declined to commit to a fixed timeline for filling SRO vacancies because the department faces recruitment shortages; the board heard that DPD was short multiple officers citywide. Magus said the district and DPD prefer taking time to find qualified candidates who are a “good match” for school work rather than filling vacancies hastily.

Board members also discussed data and reporting. Magus said monthly ticketing reports are posted to the district website and that the district receives the monthly reports directly from the DPD; she offered to forward monthly ticket data to board members who request it. Member Banks requested regular access to ticketing and interaction data because of concerns about disproportionate impacts on Black and American Indian students on the city’s west side.

After roughly 40 minutes of discussion and follow‑up clarifications from staff, the board approved the SRO contract by voice vote. The contract covers fiscal years 2026–2028 and preserves the district’s previous cost‑sharing approach while documenting training expectations and a follow‑up implementation document to clarify operational details.

Board members said they plan ongoing oversight via the SRO advisory group and upcoming board work sessions to review data, training documentation and the advisory committee’s annual evaluation of the program.

The board’s approval followed a motion to remove the item from consent and a later motion to approve the contract. The voice vote concluded, “Aye… Opposed? Motion carries.”