Tumwater board reviews SRO program data as contract approaches expiration

Superintendent Bogatin told the Tumwater School District Board that the district has employed school resource officers (SROs) in some form since at least 2013 and that his office is preparing for contract renewal discussion this fall. “Our SROs in Tumwater have really played a crucial role,” Bogatin said, emphasizing mentoring and relationship-building as the program’s primary daily functions as well as the SROs’ role in campus safety and incident follow-up.

Bogatin walked the board through the data the district currently receives from the SROs, which are tracked monthly and include categories such as possible criminal incidents, student or parent-reported concerns and self-harm indicators. He noted the SROs reported zero arrests or citations on campus in the tracked categories, while higher counts appear under incident-referral categories that indicate possible crimes (threats, assaults or weapons reports). “They collect this on a monthly basis…this was sort of a big‑picture snapshot,” he said.

On cost, Bogatin said the city has proposed a 2026–28 draft contract; the district’s portion of the three‑year agreement was presented at roughly $610,000 total, or about $200,000–$205,000 per year when the cost is split with the city. “We pay for one, they pay for one,” he said, describing the usual cost‑sharing arrangement that results in two officers on campus. The superintendent said the district pays the full share for its officer (salary, benefits and related costs are included in the figure presented).

Bogatin told the board he is scheduled to meet with the Thurston County sheriff’s office in the next two weeks to ask whether the county could provide an alternative SRO arrangement. He described that meeting as exploratory: the district is not actively expanding the SRO program under the draft contract and staff will return with any options that materially change cost or scope. He also told the board that some SRO duties (for example, participation in threat assessments and training) are part of mutual planning and that the contract does not always list every task SROs perform in practice.

Board members asked for clarifications including whether the contract is paid annually (staff said the city invoices quarterly) and whether the district’s $610,000 figure represents the district’s share or the full two‑officer cost; staff confirmed the district’s share is the number presented and that it represents an approximate increase over the prior contract, which ran about $538,005 for 2023–25.

Next steps: staff will report back after the scheduled conversations with the Thurston County sheriff and will bring contract language and any recommended reporting requirements to a future meeting for board review.