Home › News › Conejo Valley
T.O. may cut back on crossing guards
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Conejo ValleyCrossing guards will be absent next year from five Thousand Oaks elementary schools, if the City Council approves a recommendation to trim the program at its meeting tonight.
A review of the 36 school crossing guard locations found that the five did not meet the minimum threshold of vehicle traffic and child pedestrians at peak hours.
The five elementary schools are Cypress, Glenwood, Westlake, Banyan and Walnut.
"There are a lot fewer kids utilizing these crossing areas," Public Works Director Mark Watkins said. "We've got some locations where not a single crossed and we have a crossing guard sitting there."
Watkins said that whereas in decades past many children walked to school, today many do not. He pointed to safety concerns and the multitude of after-school activities as likely reasons.
At Kimber and Knollwood drives, near Cypress Elementary School, a 2007 count found 315 vehicles during the peak morning commute and one child on foot.
At Westlake Boulevard and Bridgegate, there were 65 vehicles and two students during the morning count.
The crossing guard recommendations were presented to the Conejo Unified School District, school principals and school site councils. All concurred with the suggestions, except Westlake Elementary's school site council.
The council president, Bette Alkazian, spoke before the city's Traffic and Transportation Advisory Commission in April, outlining her concerns about the volume of traffic, speed and the location of a school bus stop. Alkazian said she was impressed with the diligence of the commission and the district, which responded to her questions.
"I'm not feeling adversarial. I would still love for them to reconsider because of the high volume of traffic at this intersection and because of the accidents," she said.
Watkins said the criteria the city employees use to determine which locations get crossing guards is less restrictive than the state's standards.
Cutting crossing guards at the five schools will save $40,000 a year. The city spends about $285,000 a year for the program. That translates into $7,900 per school, according to a report prepared by city staff.
There are currently 36 crossing guard locations in the city, serving 20 elementary schools and five middle schools.
The City Council will meet at 6 p.m. in the Forum Theatre at the Civic Arts Plaza, 2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd.
Posted by newshound on May 27, 2008 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When the first child dies from this decision, Watkins ought to be out on his ear looking for a new job.
Posted by kelly13 on May 27, 2008 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If the city took the $100,000.00 per year they spend to man the illegal day laborer site, they could keep all the crossing guards, have all the kids safe, and still come out $60,000.00 ahead! To me it's a no-brainer.
Posted by tsetsaf on May 27, 2008 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
But if they have reviewed the sites to find that no kids cross there or that there is no vehicle traffic then what is the need to waste money?
I agree they shouldn't remove them simply to save cash but if the alternative is a waste of time and effort then they should be pulled.
Posted by sokol_kiev on May 27, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Absolutely, Hamskid! Every time I read another article about our misguided and corrosive T.O. City Council's consideration of cutting crucial city services, for the sake of "saving monies"... yet I continue to see them champion their Day Laborer Site to the taxpayer tune of $100,000 annually... I get so upset.
I addition to posting my comment on his website, I am also about to fire off an email to each of our T.O. City Council members... and I strongly encourage everyone reading this article to do the same. It only takes a moment to blast them off an email, or pickup the phone and verbally share with them your thoughts as a voting taxpaying citizen of our city. Once again here is the contact info for our T.O. City Council officials and our City Manager:
Dennis C. Gillette:
Email: dgillette@toaks.org
Tel: 805-449-2105
Andrew P. Fox:
Email: cnclmanfox@aol.com
Tel: 805-449-2101
Claudia Bill-de la Peña:
Email: claudia4slowgrowth@roadrunner.com
Tel: 805-449-2103
Jacqui V. Irwin:
Email: jacqi@earthlink.net
Tel: 805-449-2104
Thomas P. Glancy:
Email: tglancy@toaks.org
Tel: 805-449-2102
City Manager, Scott Mitnick:
Email: CityManager@toaks.org
Email 2: smitnick@toaks.org
Tel: 805-449-2121
Posted by JohnGC on May 27, 2008 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
City Council sez save money (which they need) and put kids at risk; and then sez lets spend another $100K to assist the illegals qued up to obtain off the books work. What is wrong with these people???
Posted by BeaHappi on May 27, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm all for child safety but it really doesn't seem to make sense to have a crossing guard in areas where only 1 or 2 kids crossed during the entire time.
Posted by kelly13 on May 27, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If it doesn't make sense to people to have a crossing guard when there are very few kids, I get that. It isn't worth the money. But again, if money is the issue, how can you be ok with throwing 10 times that amount into an illegal day labor site to promote and assist illegal activity? Are our children not as important as being politically correct and assuring someones re-election?
Posted by sparks240 on May 28, 2008 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Back in the day, we had to walk ten miles to school in the snow, up hill both ways, and we liked it!
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.