Ontario SD 8C safety review highlights layered security, metal-detection cost and Aiken remodel plans
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
In a presentation requested by the superintendent, the district’s safety lead reviewed emergency protocols, an April 2022 swatting incident that accelerated changes, communications upgrades and three screening options — including a $90,000-per-entry metal detector — while board members discussed corridor and office remodels at Aiken Elementary and potential bond financing.
At the Ontario SD 8C board meeting, the district’s safety coordinator (first addressed in the record as Michael) gave a wide-ranging update on campus security, emergency procedures and planned facility changes aimed at reducing student exposure during arrivals and evacuations.
Michael told the board the district formally adopted the I Love You Guys Foundation standard-response protocols and has mandatory drills and written emergency action plans at each school. He said a 2022 swatting call at the high school prompted faster implementation of communication and reunification procedures and that the district now maintains a designated reunification site to be used only at law-enforcement direction.
“Everyone has an assignment,” Michael said, describing the district office as a command center in an evacuation and the importance of joint drills with local police. He also described new radio channels and base units distributed to administrators to provide a resilient communications channel when phones become overloaded.
The presentation listed three approaches to preventing weapons from entering school buildings. The highest-cost option shown was the Evolve Express concealed-weapons metal-detection entry system, which Michael described as “about $90,000 of implementation” per entry for the hardware alone; he and board members noted staffing and operational expenses would add substantially to that figure. A conveyor-belt screening solution would raise the cost further; a lower-cost alternative under discussion was district-supplied clear backpacks and other non‑intrusive screening measures. Michael cautioned that camera analytics marketed as weapons-detection are limited for concealed firearms and would not replace physical screening.
Board members and administrators asked for follow-ups on cost, staffing and operational details. The safety lead said surveillance improvements, staff visibility vests and locked internal doors are already in place as part of a multilayered approach to “slow people down” and reduce vulnerabilities.
The presentation moved from security technology to facility planning, focused on Aiken Elementary. Staff said architecture work is under way using Student Investment Account (SIA) funds to develop phased plans. The board discussed a priority package that would add a secured corridor and relocate the school office to create a controlled visitor entry; staff estimated a full overhaul could approach $12 million but said a staged bond and targeted work could reduce near-term costs.
Board members asked for a future bond-finance presentation with detail on tax impacts and matching funds; staff said a $6 million bond concept could generate a $6 million match and that a previous bond expires in 2027. Michael and the board emphasized balancing safety improvements with preserving a welcoming campus environment.
The board thanked the safety presenter and moved on to other agenda items. The record shows the board requested more detailed cost comparisons and a bond presentation to return at a later meeting.
