Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District endorses borough contract option for school crossing guards, recommends 50/50 split of added cost
Summary
Administration recommended contracting borough‑managed crossing guards to address staffing shortages and supervisory efficiencies; presented estimate includes higher hourly pay for guards and a proposal to split any increased cost evenly with the borough. The board referred the item to the June meeting for a formal vote.
Get email alerts on the School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District administrators recommended partnering with the borough to contract the five busiest crossing‑guard posts rather than staff them in‑house, citing staffing shortages and logistical benefits. Mr. Longwell told the board the proposed contract would likely increase pay for guards above the current roughly $15 per hour and that administrators had discussed wages rising to the $18–$20 range to improve recruitment and retention.
"One thing we wanted to look at here with the borough this year was what does our partnership for school crossing guards look like?" Mr. Longwell said, describing conversations about right‑sizing salaries, recruiting supports and vendor oversight that would reduce police backfills for crossings. Administration said the board could expect a higher contract cost and recommended splitting any increase evenly with the borough to maintain the partnership.
Board members pressed for specifics: how many borough‑staffed crossings (five were named), which duties would remain district staff responsibilities (student supervision), and whether contracted guards would control traffic at busy intersections. Dr. Bits noted that the administration and borough had "arrived at a compromise of 50/50 for whatever the increased cost is." The board raised safety and operational questions about coverage in outlying areas and implementation; consultants and staff said the contract would not change the district’s staff who supervise students on school property.
With no objections, the chair moved the item to the June board meeting for a vote and the board referred it for formal action.

