The village of Riverside has presented Riverside Elementary School District 96 a draft agreement that would maintain school crossing guards in Riverside as long as the school district pays for them. According to the draft agreement the village would hire, train and supervise eight part time crossing guards and one supervisory community service officer and then bill District 96 to recoup the costs of employing the crossing guards.

"The village would ensure that the crossing guards are manned and then the school (district) would reimburse the village the costs of the program," said Riverside Village Manager Peter Scalera.

Currently the village pays all the roughly $83,000 cost of providing crossing guards and receives a $17,000 contribution from District 96.

But last fall, facing a large operating budget deficit, the village announced that it would no longer pay for crossing guards after the end of this current school year.

Scalera and Riverside Police Chief Thomas Weitzel met with District 96 Superintendent Jonathan Lamberson in February and the three have been trying to figure out a way to keep crossing guards at their posts when the next school year starts in August.

District 96 school board president Nancy Jensen said she is relieved to have a proposal from the village.

"I'm glad we have something firm that we can talk about," Jensen said.

But she said that she has concerns about the cost to District 96 and feels that it is the village's responsibility to provide crossing guards at least at dangerous intersections and at the railroad tracks.

"I personally think it's the responsibility of the village," Jensen said. "Crossing guards in the middle of town, crossing railroad tracks, at the four corners is a public safety responsibility. We are good at educating kids. That's what our mission is, not directing traffic."

District 96's attorney is examining the draft agreement and will report to the board by its April 20 meeting.

District 96 school board members have made clear that they think it is the responsibility of the village to provide and pay for school crossing guards. In December the District 96 school board voted 5-2 to approve a resolution calling for the village to continue to provide and pay for crossing guards.

"As a parent with a student in grade school and high school that cross at the railroad tracks and at First Avenue I'm disappointed that our village decided to discontinue the crossing guards and I'm concerned what message they're sending to residents," said District 96 school board member Mary Ellen Meindl.

Meindl said she will wait to hear from the school district's attorney before deciding whether to vote to approve the agreement.

"Bottom line for me is that I'll listen to what our attorney says is in the best interests of our school district legally and do what he tells us is in the best interest of our school district," Meindl said.

Jensen also said she has yet to make up her mind about the agreement and is waiting to hear from the attorney.

She said she is concerned about the cost of the district taking on the responsibility of paying for crossing guards.

"I think it's pretty close to $100, 000," Jensen said. "That's a pretty significant amount of money that we haven't included in our long range financial plan and so we really need to think about that."

School board members are also concerned that if they agree to this proposal they will forever be on the hook for paying for crossing guards even when the village's financial situation improves.

"I don't think anybody on the board believes if we sign this thing it's going to be temporary," Jensen said. "We're really taking a close look at it. We would like to help financially , but we don't want to put ourselves in a financial bind a few years from now by biting off some responsibility that we're not sure is ours in the first place."

The draft agreement states that the crossing guards will remain employees of the village despite the fact that the school district will ultimately be footing the bill.

The agreement maintains the current number of crossing guards. It calls for one crossing guard each to be stationed at Longcommon and Forest, the Longcommon railroad tracks, First Avenue and Forest, and Ames School with two guards stationed at Longcommon and Burlington and at Longcommon and Nuttall.

Jensen said the board will discuss the proposed agreement at its April 20 meeting, but probably won't vote on the agreement until its May meeting because two board members are expected to miss the April meeting.

Jensen said that the school board faces a tough choice balancing the long term interests of the district with need to make sure students can get to school safely. The village has been firm that it will not spend its own money on crossing guards next year.

"It's been a very difficult position,' Jensen said. "We want to do the right thing for the safety of the children."