Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety School Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lafayette school board president urges city to resume responsibility for crossing guards
Summary
At the March 10 Lafayette City Council meeting, Rob Sturm, president of the local school board, urged the city to take back responsibility for school crossing guards, citing state law language and budget pressures on the district. Council asked staff to return with a history and recommendation before the district’s contract renewal.
Rob Sturm, president of the local school board, told the Lafayette City Council on March 10 that the district currently bears responsibility for crossing guards that are sited on city streets and urged the city to resume that responsibility.
“The bottom line here is that the existing approach creates district exposure that otherwise would not exist,” Sturm said, adding the district is facing large budget cuts: “the district is seeking and is in need to find $2,000,000 in cuts for this year alone.”
Sturm described a shift in responsibility he said occurred years ago, when the school district took on the contract and increasing financial obligations for crossing guards. He cited state law provisions (as discussed at the meeting) that envision city responsibility for street safety and authorize local appointments of nonstudent school crossing guards.
Council and staff responded by agreeing to return the matter to staff for a report. A city staff member said the city can prepare a “staff report with the history of the crossing guard program and the staff recommendation.” Council discussion noted the school district is in the process of renewing its crossing-guard contract next month.
Why it matters: the placement and funding of crossing guards touches legal responsibility for student safety on public streets and municipal budgeting decisions. If the city assumes responsibility, it could change who sets placement warrants, handles contracts and pays operating costs; if the district keeps responsibility, Sturm said it creates financial exposure for school operations already under strain.
What happened next: Council asked staff to prepare background and options for a future meeting so the council can consider whether the city should resume accountability for crossing guards before the district’s contract renewal.
Additional context: Sturm referenced state Education and Vehicle Code provisions during his remarks as the legal backdrop for his recommendation and emphasized that an explicitly city-run program would allow different operational options and city accountability.
Ending: Council did not take immediate action; members requested a staff report and historical summary ahead of budget and contract decisions.
