The streets of Santa Ana, where reckless drivers treat the roads like freeways, might see thousands of children crossing without any assistance next school year. The funding dispute between Santa Ana City Council members and school district officials has reached a boiling point, endangering the safety of students.
At a recent council meeting, Public Works Director Nabil Saba expressed concerns that without an agreement, crossing guards would not be available to guide students through busy intersections. For years, City Hall has shouldered the responsibility of funding crossing guards for the Santa Ana Unified School District, serving up to 41 schools in central Orange County.
When presented with a new crossing guard agreement worth $7 million for the next five years, several council members questioned the city’s role in shouldering the entire cost. They argued that the district should share the financial burden, especially considering the city’s own financial challenges. Additionally, the council members highlighted the district-funded benefits provided to elected school board members, such as an annual Elks Lodge membership and reimbursement for paid time off.
In a heated debate, council members voted 5-2 to postpone the decision on crossing guards until next month. Council members Johnathan Ryan Hernandez and Ben Vazquez were in favor of passing the agreement immediately, emphasizing the importance of the city’s partnership with the district. Others criticized the school officials for their reluctance to collaborate.
The clock is ticking, and local leaders have until June 20 to find a resolution. City Hall staff will explore alternative options to offset the crossing guard costs, including charging the Santa Ana Unified School District for the use of city facilities and police responses to campus incidents.
This disagreement has exposed a deep-rooted political divide among council members, revealing the gravity of the issue for Orange County’s second-largest school district. Emotions ran high during the council meeting, with Councilmember Ben Vazquez accusing opponents of “playing chicken” with children’s lives. Mayor Valerie Amezcua, a former school board member and probation officer, stressed the importance of child safety, but insisted that the district should share the financial responsibility.
The school district defended the benefits provided to elected board members, stating that it is a common arrangement in the education sector. The reimbursement for paid time off aligns with state law, Section 44987 of the California Education Code. However, the council members questioned the district’s recent spending choices and expressed their belief that the district should contribute at least half of the $7 million funding.
Both sides need to find common ground and work towards a solution. Councilmember Jessie Lopez urged her colleagues not to engage in a blame game and emphasized the need for collaboration between the city and the school district. Councilmember David Penaloza criticized district-funded perks, such as an Elks Lodge membership for a board member, raising concerns about their proper use.
The debate has also raised questions about liability. The district argues that the city is responsible for public right-of-ways, including streets and sidewalks, and that assuming a funding role could create legal complications. Mayor Amezcua countered, suggesting that the funds could be redirected to other vital community programs and facilities.
With the issue deferred to the next council meeting, City Manager Kristine Ridge pledged to explore volunteer opportunities and present alternative options for consideration. Councilmember Johnathan Ryan Hernandez expressed his commitment to protecting the children in their community, despite his disappointment with the school district’s decision not to fund the crossing guards.
The clock is ticking, and the clock’s hands hold the safety of Santa Ana’s students. It is essential for both sides to find a compromise, as children’s lives should never be subjected to a contentious funding dispute.
