Okay. In order to comply with section 2.2 dash thirty seven twelve d of the code of The time is 07:23PM in this 03/05/2026 public session of the conference of playing and development committee of the Fairfax County School Board have now come to order. Miss Pitches has notified the chair of the committee and deputy clerk of the board that she's using remote participation as she's caregiving for an individual with a disability. Thus, miss Pitches will be counted as in person for the purpose of quorum tonight
and does not need to be voted in by the board. She's located in Fairfax City, Virginia, and we've already done audio and visual checks. Mister Dunn has submitted a request to attend tonight's meeting virtually due to personal reasons as he has a professional obligation conflict and is located in Mount Vernon, Virginia. I performed an initial review of mister Dunn's request, and having found it to be in compliance with school boards in my participation resolution, I've approved the request. Mister Dunn, can you do an audio visual check? Yes. Can you hear me? We can hear you. I now ask committee members who are physically present to vote on the following. All those in favor of confirming the chair's approval of mister Dunn's request and missed
pitches. That's unanimous for board members present. Alright. In order to comply with section 2.2 dash thirty seven twelve d of the code of Virginia, it's necessary for the committee to certify that since the Fairfax County School Board Comprehensive Planning and Development Committee convened a closed meeting on 03/05/2026, to the best of each member's knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements and only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convene a closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered by the committee during a closed session. Do I have a motion? Miss Maron, is there a second? Aye. Mister Dunn seconds the motion.
Mister Dunn, that was a was that for a seconding the motion? Yes. Okay. Thank you. All those in favor? And then miss that's unanimous. I call on mister Dunn for a motion. Getting there. I move that the comprehensive planning and development committee endorse Kathy Moy, Janice Symansky, Anthony De Lorenzo, Rohit Sethi, and Deborah Yap as community members of the comprehensive planning and development committee and authorize the CPDC chair and clerks to offer terms to these members based on their preference and advance this recommendation to the school board for its consideration.
Is there a second? I'll second. All those in favor? Oh, any discussion? Although we can't technically discuss because it's close. No. All in favor, miss Pitches. Okay. That's unanimous. And I call on mister Dunn for another motion. I move that in the event that one of the five community member appointees declines, that the next ranked member of the winter twenty twenty six candidate will be offered a community member seat. Is there a second? I'll second. All in favor? That's unanimous. And I call on mister Dunn for a motion. I move that the comprehensive planning and development committee adopt the double majority voting for
community members of the CPDC. Is Is there a second? I shall second. All in favor? That's unanimous. Alright. Agenda item 3.03, approval of minutes. The minutes of the 12/11/2025 CPDC meeting are before the committee for approval. Is there a motion? I so move. This is mister Dunn. Is there a second? I second. Okay. Miss Maron. Yes. I just wanted to note in the minutes, on page three, it it looks like there's supposed to be a link to the joint facility review. It says it can be accessed here. So if the clerks are able to just insert that, I am happy to to
vote on that. Is that amenable to the chair? Okay. Without objection, that's fine. Alright. All in favor? I heard her say aye. That's unanimous. Okay. Agenda item 3.04, policy review. So before we get into the specific policies, several policies have kind of been in and out of of committee at discussions, on the dais and tonight we're gonna be looking at, I believe it's six policies. Miss Mirren is chair of the governance committee is intimately familiar with these. I think there were some questions by board members on some of these policies, so the recommendation, was to have a discussion here in CPDC on these.
So we'll just go down the list in order, of the agenda. So the first one on the block is policy eighty four ten, leasing for school facilities. And I'll call on, Mr. Gordon for an overview. Hey. Thank you, sir. So school board policy eighty four ten, leasing of school facilities provides a means for the community at large. The use of our facilities based on, contract approval and a fee if applicable and calls on the superintendent to provide an annual report detailing usage. Open the floor for discussion. Mister mister chair, if I can just give, an overview, perhaps I could just before
we discuss, I could just crosswalk super quick about governance. So governance had reviewed this on January 20. We might have reviewed it even quite a bit before then, but we had approved it to go to the board on January 20. So governance was comfortable with it at the time, but we're gonna discuss it further now. Thank you. Is there any other discussion on the, eighty four ten policy? Yes. I I had a question. So I have received over the past two or three years, many reports and complaints from community groups that, they are unable to use, our school facilities anymore because, again,
based on what I was told, and so I'm seeking to clarify and see if it's been, if this cures the problem, that they are required to have a $1,000,000, liability policy, for any use. And most of these groups, you know, operate, with very small budgets. They're not profitable. They're nonprofit groups, Boy Scouts or Fairfax Federation or or other groups that are seeking to do, you know, beneficial community work, and and and don't have recourse to our
facilities. And so I'm just trying to understand. I I don't see that here in the policy. Maybe it's in the regulation, but if it maybe it was fixed. And so I just like to make sure I understand, what's been done. Hey, sir. I'm not aware of a $1,000,000 requirement for insurance, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So I'd have to take that as a due out and do some fur further research. May I ask my colleagues if I'm the only one who's heard this? I I thought miss Marin might have said something similar to me in the past, but but maybe not. No. The I I mean, I have heard this, and I do wonder if it's in regulation. You're right that it's not in the policy.
So it's clearly not in the policy. And I guess the question is, you know, actually, I wonder if it's in community use. Do you know offhand? I mean, I could just do a quick search now. But You can text, Andy Miller to see if it were Well, let me just I'll just pull up the policy real quick. Isn't this the policy? This is entitled leasing and community use of facilities. That is actually different than community use. Community use is a whole different policy. Then then may I suggest we remove the words community use from this policy to
avoid confusion? K. Community use. It does. It certainly does say that. And Alright. Miss Pitches, go ahead. Yes. I have had the exact same question from civic associations, who have tried to use our school, and I think it is in community use. I'm I'm just trying to crosswalk. If you just give me a minute to pull up the community's policy. Subject to miss Marin's discovery, I my preference would be to postpone approval of this
particular policy until we're able to get the information from mister Gordon because I think it's a serious issue. It's definitely an issue I've raised with the superintendent, several times, and, you know, other priorities have have taken place. I've never really gotten a satisfactory answer. But if we need to amend this policy to make clear that, you know, consistent with the mandate, from the county to make these facilities available for use, and to reduce, regulatory barriers to their use, that that would be my preference.
I I believe I I was not in the meeting, but I thought, miss Marin, that maybe this was you know, the community use and access to facilities was something that, you and mister McDaniel had, discussed with, mister McKay and whoever the other member of the joint board, facilities board before it got dissolved. Yeah. So there's a lot of stuff I'm trying to pull together. So eighty four ten, which is on the agenda, which deals with leasing, and it was updated per the January 20 governance meeting, that is titled Leasing of Community Use
of Facilities. Eighty four twenty is the Community Use of School Facilities Policy, which I have done much editing and reworking of and gave that to the superintendent in early December with recommendations. And to my knowledge, it has not gone anywhere. And I will just say since you brought up the joint facility committee, yes, indeed, that's finished and we don't have the product, which is trying to find budget efficiencies to inform this budget cycle development. And I have not heard if we're if anyone's gonna be fulfilling what the chairman Jeff McKay proposed to bring forth from that work.
Can I ask staff a question? So in in reading this, is there a bifurcation between any between any type of leasing and community use? Is all leasing community use? Or is there a different subset of leasing that is not community use, if that makes sense? So when I think leasing, that could also mean if we long term lease the property out, which would not fall under community use. Correct. So there there are could be a separate path. Right? So we do do leasing, you know, we're, you know, talking about leasing out right
of ways. That is also leasing, of facilities. So I do think there are common crossovers, but there are separate paths as well. So it's possible that this that a a title change of this document, since there is a separate true community use policy that deals with traditional community use, not necessarily leasing per se, would a title change satisfy? You know, I really can't say because I wasn't and forgive me maybe I missed
this, but I wasn't aware that that was a thrust of Mr. Dunn's question. And I know that community use is quite different. So I think we do and I will voice once again, this is my challenge with the policy work is that the superintendent, the goal was for her to bring forth analyses that would allow us to crosswalk with other policies. And it's irritating that we're here months after the this was reviewed, and this wasn't called out in governance by the superintendent in legal.
So I'd have to say that we should have eighty four ten and eighty four twenty reviewed by the superintendent as a directive from CBDC. Right? Is is 8420 on your docket again? It is not. Okay. I was just trying to be helpful because there was kind of a quagmire, but that continues. It seems like they're directly related because, you know, there's elements in here that's about long term leasing permissive McDaniel's comment, but community use is really basically short term leasing,
like, you know, the day rate or the hourly rate as opposed to, you know, weeks or months. Yeah. Maybe they should be combined into one policy because if you're talking about leasing and used for any period of time, you know, there should be a common set of terms and conditions, whatever that is. Alright. So without objection, what we'll do is we'll package eighty one forty and eighty four twenty and request the superintendent parallel. Sure. And so I've put them together. I'm just gonna send an email to our committee so we all have the links, and then I'll leave it to the chair to communicate with the superintendent about those
two policies. Do we need a motion to formally do that? I I mean, technically, like In governance, oh, gosh. In governance, we don't usually let let me check. I gosh. I can't remember. I know we obviously make a motion when we send it to the board. Do we make a motion when we send it to the superintendent? It's a little more binding. Yeah. So motion isn't necessary, but you can always move to remand it to the superintendent for the review. Mister McDaniel, do you have a preference? I I mean, I it's gonna get done either way. So, I mean, without objection, it is it can be so ordered if that works
for everybody. That works. Okay. Yeah. I'm just trying to be consistent with how governance does it for whatever that's worth because Does missed pitches have any objections? So we're agreeing that, the superintendent will review those two in time for the next CBDC meeting in advance of the next CBDC meeting. Is that correct? That's fine. Yeah. Alright. We'll move on to agenda item three point o five, policy review policy eighty three twenty, site and building acquisition. Yes, sir. School board policy eighty three twenty, site and building acquisition authorizes the division to acquire
real property that meets school and school related needs. Thank you. May may I ask a question? Sure. So, we recently acquired the Western High School, now SkyView. Was has anyone taken a look at this through that lens, and through the lens of what was done at Bailey's Upper where we acquired an office building just to make sure that this policy enables acquisitions like those given even though they're rare once in a blue moon, I just wanna make sure that this policy supports that robust
analysis. Well, yes, sir. I believe it does under states, you know, school board affirms that this program shall be beneficial to the Fairfax County Public Schools, the community, the, the county taxpayers by ensuring that the acquisition of sites and or building meets the school and school related needs. So I think that would beat both Bailey's Upper and the, acquisition of, Skyview as well. And and what about disposal? Because I know that, there was the, Clifton Elementary.
We approved the, I guess, the destruction of that building, the the demolition. But there have been occasions in the past when the school board has transferred properties to the county, and this only covers acquiring property. Is there a separate policy governing property disposal? There is a separate, disposal policy. I don't have it in front of me, but there is a separate one. Okay. Just wanted to check. Yep. I have no more questions. I will just add that that this, there was no objection in governance to this
when we reviewed it in January 20 January 20. Without a we can do a motion to send this to the board. That's fine. Is there a motion? Let me see if it's in the script. Alright. Is there a motion to advance policy a three twenty site building acquisition as detailed in the agenda item of the school board for consideration? I'm happy to make a motion. Okay. Miss Mearin has made the motion. Is there a second? Second. Mister Dunn is seconded. Would you like to speak to your motion? No. Dunn, would you like to speak to your second? No. Alright. All in favor? That's unanimous. Alright. Agenda item 3.06, policy review, policy eighty three ten, site planning and development.
Mister Gordon. We call you commissioner. Too funny. Yes, sir. School Board Policy eighty three ten, Site Planning and Development codifies the minimum amount of acreage required by by Virginia regulations for our elementary school, middle school, and high schools. It also details, the waiver, policies and processes. Also mentions the use of, you know, drought, resistant vegetation and directs the installation of artificial turf, fields whenever possible. Thank you. I had I did have questions. I think they were generally addressed, but I wanted to go back.
My only concern, is there's a reference to a state document I believe there's a reference to a state doc. The guidelines for school facilities in Virginia's public schools, I I took a look at that. It seems like it's Virginia is a large commonwealth and there are a lot of diverse school divisions in terms of land and size and student enrollment and enrollment at the school level. It seems like this document that the states put out isn't doesn't really recognize urban school systems like Fairfax County.
And I mean, doing some simple math that this policy is going to effectively codify, would suggest that some of our high school sites and some elementary school sites don't meet our own their own requirements that will be approved in this policy. Is is there so at my understanding is that we have to go to the state to get approval for new schools and then they run this through this formula over acreage. Is there a waiver process for that or are we setting ourselves up for failure? So what I read here was we would submit a waiver to the school board.
School board then would, you know, approve or not approve it. And approval then it would be sent for notification on to the state. Okay. I'm not tracking it says it is a minimal threshold, so I guess I'm not tracking where it would be waiting for approval from the state. Okay. Yeah. I wasn't I wasn't quite clear reading that document from the state whether there was whether it was suggestion or requirements, whether waivers are are actually debated and potentially rejected. But doing some math, for Sky I mean, playing off the SkyView example, SkyView would
not meet, because that site's just shy of 34 acres. And if you assume 2,000 enrollment, you know, 15 plus 20, that's 35. So 35 acres in this document will be required for SkyView. However, SkyView is 33 and about a half acre. So that that was the math I was doing, and that was my only really concern with this policy. Matt, I think other areas across the state, whether it'd be Richmond, Tidewater, would be in the same predicament we would be in.
May I ask, if if we were acquiring another, office building like, Bailey's Upper, would, I I mean, do do we have to put in section five? Is that, like, a mandatory part of the policy, or is that just discretionary for us? Because we're creating an extra process step where the school board needs to approve that, or is that required by law? I don't know that it was required by law, but I understand it to be the minimal thresholds that is given guidance by the state.
So I think, you know, the intent is that you generally operate within the minimal thresholds. But minimum thresholds, are those established in law or simply a policy document? Because minimum thresholds can be discretionary or they can be like, when when it goes to the State Department of Education, do they have the right to to veto us to say we can't, you know, build a school there or use that site as a school? I'd have to get with general counsel to see if it's required by law. I don't know the answer to that question. Question. Because that just to build off mister McDaniel's comment, I mean, I would favor stripping
out or suggesting the governance to strip out the size requirements because I just think going forward, we wanna have maximum flexibility. And if something isn't legally required, I don't know why we would adopt in the policy man making it legally required. I did review those guidelines previously. They did not seem I I didn't see any reference since it's been a while, but I didn't see any reference to in to any state law in there. I mean, I I just would again, I'll I'll take a due out to check with general counsel on that. And but I would say, you know, even some of these minimal thresholds aren't something
that we would actively initially do. So we're looking to acquire new property. You know, we're gonna look to acquire property that would support the whole requirement or as much as possible. Yeah. I I agree. I mean, I I read that document. I couldn't find any reference to any code section that mandates compliance with it. I I think there I in conversations with staff about a month ago, there I know that there is some type of a waiver process, which would imply that require that there's a requirement to do something, but it's apparently waverable. So I guess the question for the for the committee is, do we want to
what do we wanna do with this? Do we wanna put a pin in this one and get I'd like to get legal advice on this to see if it's legally required because I'm not in favor of mandating that we submit anything to the State Board of Education that we don't need to by law. The guideline says it's not legally required, but I I think it's still worth, checking with legal to make sure there's not some sort of second or third order effect by not complying. Without objection, we'll, ask counsel for for review of this.
That was $83.10. I gotcha. Yeah. Alright. Alright. Agenda item 3.07 policy review. Policy eighty two seventy five, facility design and construction value. Mister Yes, sir. School Board Policy 8,275, Value Engineering, directs the division superintendent. Shall establish regulations and procedures that require all school construction projects to be value engineered as a standard practice. Thank you. I have a question about this, if I may. Sure. So, I'm I am familiar with value engineering from having been responsible for facilities for
a large federal agency. But I wanted to ask whether this concept is, tied to one of the particular, construction management methodologies we've been discussing, design bid build, design build, and construction management at risk. And so what I wanted to understand is, does this policy apply I I I believe it applies design design bid build, but I I think the application to the other two man, management approaches, construction management at risk and design build, would be somewhat
more problematic. But I wanted to ask, mister Gordon because you're the expert here. Hey, sir. I would say with design build or Centimeters at risk, inherently the way those two, procurement options are set up, it it it has a almost a value engineering component to that. Because the purpose of, when you look at a design build project is you're hiring that entity. And even with seeing it at risk, we're hiring the construction manager that works for the as an owner's rep. They're out there looking for the best you know, you give them a problem and
they look how to solve it. And so they're supposed to come to those options. And especially with the Centimeters at risk, you know, the when you when you work through the process and get through design and the construction manager gives you the guaranteed maximum price so that, you know, then that that entity then takes assumes the risk for the price from that point forward. So I would say those two procurement methods have some sort of natural value engineering component part of it. That's part of it, the procurement method. And is that specifically called out, or is it just implicit? I don't recall that it's it's called out. But I think just in the process, you know, when especially in design build, you
know, as an owner, you you give the problem set and then it's traditional and you give them some you know, you get more our edge specs upfront, and then they solve the problem for you. They're out there looking for, kind of the best value, while meeting, our design and master specs at the same time. Design guidelines mean the edge specs and the master specs at the same time. And in the federal space, there's, lowest possible cost, but there's also, best price.
And best price, or best value. Sorry. Best value can be something other than the lowest possible cost, but the purpose section of this memo refers to lowest possible cost. Do you understand value engineering to always require the the lowest bid selection of the lowest bid, or do you understand that to perhaps it might be a higher bid because it might result in a better quality work product. So I think we have, best value as part of our procurement method. So we're not just picking, you know, a lowest quality material.
Right? So I think we have the, you know, have have the ability to choose what's what's best for us as an organization. Okay. Thank you. No more questions. This is 8082. 8725. I it will be. I had had a quick question. In the acquisition, in the entire bid acquisition process for capital projects, once everything goes to execution, is there any type of clause or stipulation that specifically calls out value engineering? Because it's kind of a philosophical concept. I would say typically, sir, you know, in a in a true value engineering aspect,
how how I've been used to it in a time for it as mister Dumas saying is is a design bid, design build design bid build, process. Usually, you get into it where you've got a bid bust and now you're trying to work backwards. So now you're value engineering out some material type putting in, you know, some lower cost type material to get you into an awardable project. It's how it usually works in that. But I think what this is telling us is to look at the cost on the front end to make sure the design process that we're we've got the best,
for lack of better terms, we're not gold plating, you know, a facility. Right? I do have a question. So the policy that we updated in September about procurement methods, alternative procurement methods, it's not on this list. And is it is it 8240? Right, Matteo? Right? The 8240? Where is Matteo on? Okay. It it's 8275. That's what we're discussing right now. Yes, mister Dunn. I was talking about the the big procurement policy we updated in the fall. 8240. 8240. Okay. So in our conversation today, we've just been talking about alternative methods of procurement, and
that leads me to raise a point that has come up recently about, do we need to add modular construction into that policy or this policy. And I don't know if it's a question for legal, but do we explicitly need to say that this is allowed? Am I right, mister Dunn? Yes. I I prefer factory construction because it Factory construction. Sure. It it distinguishes more clearly between the the modulars that are trailers with plumbing versus the, the the, you know, building a school in a factory.
Okay. So, again, so the question is, does this need to be explicitly said that it's allowed, explicitly approved in our policy? And is that policy this value engineering policy, or is it is it eighty two forty? Is that the question we have? Yes. Mister Gordon, I don't know if you can answer that. It might I don't know if it needs legal thing. It might take some time, but that is the question. I mean, I have, my emotional answer, I would say, but I I think I need to go back to legal just to make sure the left and right limits
are checked. Yeah. I don't know why we would tend to do that necessarily, but I need to at least get that from a legal perspective. So thank you. And that's reasonable. So do we want to wait on the value engineering one in case it lives here? And So correct me if I'm let let me ask this question. The three the three different forms of procurement, DB, design design build, design build, and CM at risk, those are procurement methodologies. Yep. Correct. And yes, sir.
Go ahead. Modular or Factory construction. Factory excuse me. Factory construction is not how we acquire the building, but how we construct the building. So I I would think that it would not live within a procurement acquisition policy. It would live somewhere else. I would agree. I think it would be part of our, you know, edge specs I was gonna say that. Master, you know, design schedule. How how are we directing? Kinda what standards are we using? I think it would lie there.
But Okay. Is there anything now that stops you from looking at whether it's factory construction or I don't think so. Because I know that the acquisition process, the acquisition methodologies there, we did need to approve that. And I guess the question will be, do we need to approve factory construction in a sim for similar reasons? That make sense? Yes. Yeah. So, you know, just thinking out loud, and just going back to 8240, so you are correct. So our our our standard path forward for procurement is design bid build.
So and we are and there is state regulation, state law that talks about you can only use design build or see them at risk if it's a complex project, and it gives a definition of what complex is. And then, so then if we're going to use design build or Centimeters at risk, we have to then, you know, submit a letter of sufficiency or request to the board asking permission basically to go forward with either one of those two types of, procurement options. So then closing out from my perspective of this conversation, I I'd I'd like to
go back to staff and say, you know, and get maybe a legal look as well. Again, I don't know anything would stop us from using this factory type build as part of it. Because when you look at the concept of it, you know, up to 35, 40% of it can be a traditional build. So your classroom I mean, your, gymnasium, cafeteria Core, so to speak. Yeah. Core, vertical, conveyance are all traditional build. Then other stuff are just kinda add on type factories build. So it sounds like the the status is we could make it as staff will
continue to review and return to CPDC with the updated recommendation because maybe it's ed specs, maybe it's something else, right, for eight $82.75. Okay. And and can we get that for next month, GBDC meeting just like the other, due out? You think you guys is is a month enough to come back with? Okay. Alright. Yes, sir. So we can go ahead and move value engineering forward. What I'm hearing is we can go ahead and move value engineering forward. Well, are we are we gonna approve the policy? I think we can approve the the value engineering policy. And then in the meantime And then at the next meeting, we can have a
discussion around the factory construction. You don't think that that would go into the value engineering policy? I don't think it But if it does, we could always amend the policy. Why don't we move it on its way? That's fine. Okay. Yeah. So we would take a motion to send it to the full board and also have staff we're not gonna do a motion for that, but staff will return. At the next CPDC meeting for that. Okay. Or is there a move give me a second here. I move that CPDC advanced policy eighty two seventy five, facilities design and construction value,
as detailed in the agenda item to the school board for consideration. You're a second. Yes. I second, and I have a I have a comment. Mister, don't I speak to your motion? No. Miss Maren? Yes. I do just have one question. Okay. The the title of this is actually value engineering. It's not facilities design and construction. That's the office that it's in. So without objection, the motion should read that we wanna put forward eighty two seventy which is titled value engineering. That's Sorry. I was reading the script. Right. Yeah.
There's just a discrepancy in two of the agenda items and the titles. It's three point zero seven and zero point zero eight. It's confusing because every policy has three lines. So this is facilities, Office of Facilities Design and Construction. The title of this policy is value engineering. So I just wanna make the motion aligned with the title of the policy, and it's the same issue for the next one. Do you So, mister Dunn, would It's just a title thing. Do you want me to read it again? Why don't we clarify the why don't we read the motion? It also does say policy eighty two seventy five.
Why don't we read that motion again just to make sure that we're on the same page? I move that CPDC advanced policy eighty two seventy five value engineering as detailed in the agenda item to the school board for consideration. Okay. Is there a second? Thank you. Any discussion? No. Alright. No. All in favor? Aye. That's unanimous. If I don't get this next one wrong Oh. Okay. Maintenance and physical. Okay. Agenda item 8.03
3.08, policy review, policy eighty five sixty, maintenance of physical facilities. Mr. Gordon? Yes, sir. School Board policy 8,560, maintenance of public school facility assets. Is that the one we're on? Assets. Thank you. Directs the superintendent, with the oversight and, maintenance of our real property inventory. Thank you. Are there questions on this one? May may I ask, miss Baron for just a brief explanation of the red line unless the red line was done by mister Gordon?
Just a moment. So this was the main changes were that we created a philosophy about the the facilities and then clarified who is responsible for maintenance. And I recall that I particularly wanted to have these this language updated because as we did the facilities work, it was clear that the school division is carrying the onus of maintaining facilities that are used beyond instructional hours by community use.
So we wanted to make that very clear in here. And then we did not want the responsibility to rely on this to to lie on this school principal. We did talk about that because the principals know their buildings the best, but ultimately it is the superintendent who carries that responsibility. And so we also did not wanna put it on custodians, so that is why it's updated. Thank you. So it sounds like you're just kind of more aligning that control and responsibility. Yes. Yes. And setting the stage for, hopefully, future help with maintaining our buildings when used by
other people and organizations. I I support that. I I think, especially in light of our significant deferred maintenance backlog that's growing at a rapid rate, we need to make sure that we assign appropriate responsibility to the superintendent because most of that is a budget matter and and at her level rather than some some someone beneath her. Alright. No dis if there's no discussion, is there a motion to send us to the board for approval? I'll move. Okay. Is there a second? Second. Alright. Any discussion? Nope. All in favor?
That's unanimous. Alright. Last item. Agenda item 3.09, policy review, policy eighty three thirty five, wireless telecommunications facilities. Mister Gordon? Yes, sir. School board policy 8335, wireless telecommunication facilities directs the superintendent where feasible and unobtrusive to consider installation of monopoles, given public proper public engagement, has occurred and approval by the school board. Thank you. And if I may, just to note that governance did not review this because we knew that that others are coming, so we're starting that discussion here.
I I'm a little so this is an issue that can be of, you know, great concern for some members of the community. So I just wanted to ask a couple questions. When it refers to wireless telecommunication facilities, is that referring to, kind of the the mini cell phone towers? Is it referring to the big cell phone towers? Or what exactly is within the scope of wireless telecommunication facilities? So it's it's a monopole. And I I don't know, you know, the sort of what definition you're using from
small to big, but it's a cell phone tower that would sit on a property. And and granted, yes, these can be contentious with, with the community. That's why there's a community engagement requirement to occur and then, you know, we would have to come back to the school board with demonstrating that we did go through the community, at large and inform them and then seek approval from the school board. I think each one of these has to be approved by the school board, as part of the this policy. Sorry. Can you define what a monopole is? Structurally, it's a vertical steel structure that has, you know, some sort of ability to,
have, cell phone transfer, you know, cell phone I don't know what am I looking for. Apparatuses that would, you know, catch signals and transfer signals. So so what what let me clarify what I meant. So there are Yep. The big, towers that are usually just lattice framework like the Eiffel Tower, they usually have four, you know, you you know, a a square base, and then it goes up like a like a triangle. Right? And it gets very thin towards the top.
Usually, you know, there are cables holding it to prevent falling over in the wind, and then there's, you know, different, you know, communication Flagpole. Devices up at the top. Sorry? Flagpole. Well, I I I I don't like the word pole because when I say the word telephone pole, like, I think of a single piece of wood that's stuck in the ground. Right? And a monopole can be a it, to me, implies, like, a single steel beam that's put in the ground. But beyond those tall towers that you often see primarily in rural areas, you know,
many there are now many many cell phone towers, which is probably the wrong word, but they put them on top of the church steeple, sometimes school buildings. They're very small. They're like you you know, look like, basically, a a, you know, a t satellite TV antenna. Right? About that size. So, so which which are the size of the monopoles to which you're referring? Because I I mean, I type into Google, not nothing comes up, and and that just concerns me. If if Google doesn't know, then I don't know how we'll be sure what a
monopole is, for our constituents. Well, sir, the ones I've seen on our property are, metal, and they resemble a flagpole, and they generally go up one or two stories, and there could be some sort of small building at the base of it. They're generally, unobtrusive as far as the amount of square footage they take up. And it's generally, you know, placed on a piece of the property that wouldn't hinder us from doing any kind of feature renovations. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I I these are if if I recall, if you drive through if you drive
through Clifton, they try to dress them up as trees. It doesn't work. Once you've observed it, you observe it every time. But from my understanding, the monopoles are it it's the single pole, couple stories tall, has the array at the top. And I I I would also note that any type of monopole construction would have to apply with county zoning ordinance, construction, permits, all that. And that's all on the onus of Company putting it in. The company putting it in, not so not the school division. Yeah. I I You also have the right to refuse it as well.
Right. So you don't have to go with it. I I don't understand, under Roman numeral five authority b, where it says the school board reserves the right to review and approve disprove any application prior to any government review or approval. Based on, what what was just said, presumably, we would refuse it rather than we it it seems like we don't need to reserve the right. Like, we have the inherent right to veto anything going on school property.
So that that just seems like we have that inherent right to to reject it, unless it's mandated by law. Well, I think the purpose here is to make sure that there is no misunderstanding that to do this, we have to have the school board policy approval to do that. So no one is acting unilaterally in my shop who maybe didn't know. I think I think it's good to keep it in there. That that way, it keeps us on our left and right limits. Well, could could could we change it to instead of the school board reserves the right to review, just say the school board shall review and approve slash disapprove so
it makes clear, like, there will be an affirmative vote of the school board on any monopole installations? Objection from staff. So I am scraping the recesses of my mind because when I first got on the board, this was a hot topic in 2020, and then it dissolved when COVID came about. And so there the the benefit of having a cell phone tower, which is really more of the language that we're familiar with, is coverage. And we have spaces that have dead zones in our community.
And some you know, there was a discussion about what's needed. There was a planning process that intertwines this with Fairfax County government. And so for sure, the school board did approve when these would happen, but then it had to ultimately be approved, if I remember correctly, by the county. So that's a bit of information, and then we haven't talked about it since. Now I'm thinking about the security updates that have been done in our schools to increase communications capacity.
And so, you know, there was a case to be made about cell phone towers for schools that needed better coverage. And then there was a case to be made for neighborhoods that needed better coverage, especially for emergency services. So I think we need some more information on this since this is really the first discussion that we're having about it. I haven't heard any requests coming through because we would have received them. The board has to vote on them. So is this still even a hot topic or has the technology changed so much?
You know, because now, like mister Dunn was saying, like, you could put these things on little signs and, you know, I just would like it to reflect the most current terminology in use. That's what I'm thinking. So I get a a quest kind of teeing off of that. Let's play off the example. Let's say it's not the three, four story fake tree looking thing. Let's say it is a, to mister Dunn's point, something smaller. Would that still be considered a telecom facility has to go through this policy? Yes. Because you guys have to say yes or no to it before it goes to
any permit, regulation, or any government agency beyond us. Right. Right. If it were something smaller, like, attached in a stadium to one of the light poles, then the county could review it then determine whether they need to approve it. I mean, it sounds like we might even wanna talk with the county and say, like, what's their process and what do they need at this point? It's really the last time we talked about this was five years ago. So I guess my question is I I don't I have no desire either way,
but my question is if if if we approve if we approve the policy as is, understanding that it still has to go through the zoning, building permit, all that stuff, and come for board approval, would that that would not necessarily preclude any any any information that we would get on, let's say, the county land use process wouldn't be put into I don't think it would be put into the policy. So if we wanna move the policy forward, we could also get information from the
county on their process. I just trying to keep moving the the stuff forward so we don't have to hold up the policy, so to speak. Yeah. No. I appreciate that. But even, like, the title of this telecommunications facilities, is it one of these things a facility or it's an attachment or it's a, like, I just think it's it's dated too much to just send it through. When was the last time we did that? If if I may ask a question, and and and at some point, I have another question about eighty three ten.
I know we moved on, but I just since we put a hold on that, I just had one more thing I want to raise about that. But for this one and the purpose, it says to promote wireless connectivity and enhance the instructional program of FCPS, and to get revenue. So, when we put a monopole up, I I I guess it results in better cell phone coverage in the school. Is that correct? I think it it, supports cell phone coverage for the community within the school.
I think it also helps. I don't know if it has a direct tie in to to some of our internal communications for within the, safety and security office. I think they have some of their own repeaters, but there could be some, assistance in that communication as well. And does this provide revenue to FCPS? Yes, sir. It does. Do you know how much? I think rough I I think the number off the top of my head somewhere maybe a million dollars a year. For for each monopole? No. In total. How many monopoles do we have? Approximately 36. And is the idea of disenhancing the instructional program, is that because there's greater cell
phone coverage? You know, I don't know the answer to that question. I don't know if there's a, you know, again, a direct linkage to improving or what means it does improve, instructional programs. I'd have to take that as a due out. Okay. I I support moving it forward. But, you know, I I'd like to hear miss Mara's thoughts. Miss I think miss Pitches also had some thoughts. I have one at Fairfax High School. It's it's we installed it in 2017. It has not provided any better cell phone coverage in our building.
One poll does not bring in a significant amount of revenue. It also depends on how many providers are on the poll. Ours is currently a light around one of the field lights around the track. It's, I don't know, for lack of better words. They have it disguised as a a light. But we have we had hoped it would improve the, cell phone coverage in the building. It did not.
And while we do get some revenue from the the monopole, it's not significant enough, I would say. But the one, upside is we have never received any complaints or concerns from the community about it. I I think I calculated it as about $27,000 per year per poll. Yeah. I think we get a little bit more than that more than that, but not much. K. So do we wanna put a pin in this one or move it forward? I would like more information, a lot more information.
Can we click what are the questions we have here? We wanna know revenue generation, what exactly, this structure is, how have current security upgrades, security and facilities upgrades impacted the need, the interaction with or the intersection with the county government, and, like, and what they're what they're doing? Are those kind of the, questions that we have?
Yes. Okay. So we're going to ask the superintendent to come back with, additional information. So we wanna along with, what was the other one? Along with the the factory construction, do we wanna agendize monopoles, telecom facilities in general? I Update at the next Or CPD. That'd be great. GPD. Yes. That's Yes. Yeah. And yeah. I yes. So value engineer and I would love actually, we could do a run through at the end of the status of everything. Yes. I've got okay. Scratch next. I'm sorry. Okay. What we'll do is I'm sorry.
Can I read something about 8310? Yeah. Let's, let me button up this one, and then we'll go back to 8310 if that works. Thank you. So what we'll do is for 8335, we'll have along with, the factory construction, we'll just ask staff to come back with some more data on 8335 at the next CPDC meeting. We'll also keep the policy, document in the board docs as well, and any changes that we need to make on the policy as as a result of the conversation can be made then. That work? Yeah. Okay. Alright. We'll do that.
Factory construction? Well, they're gonna do a little primer on factory construction and CPDC as well. For 8335 or for the other one? A separate. Yeah. Yep. Yeah. So those two items will be on the next CPEC agenda. Okay. Eight 8310. Sorry. Just one one more, thing on 8335. There's a there's a a a statement that they prefer not having it on elementary school property. I I just if we can add that to the list of things to discuss
because it's not clear to me why, elementary schools would be disfavored, but middle schools and high schools wouldn't have that same disadvantage, especially if there are no safety concerns. But if there are safety concerns, I'd like to know that. Yeah. My recollection of that is that high schools just have a lot more property generally, and, they're just yeah. They had more space. A lot of them are tied in with stadiums, the stadium plates. The stadium lighting, it fits in better. And I did I did send you, an article, mister Dunn. Thank you.
Yeah. On eighty three ten, the very last paragraph, it the last two sentences, it states artificial turf will be installed on fields whenever possible. These fields will result in the savings of millions of gallons of water, minimize the introduction of harmful chemical fertilizers into the ecosystem, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions caused by mowing. All respect to people who are fans of artificial turf, you know, there is very
serious concern in recent years, especially with crumb rubber turf, about the spike in cancer incidence among soccer players and especially shocking statistics for soccer goalies who spend more time on the ground than other soccer players getting cancer when they're college age or sometimes even high school age. So I'd like to understand what kind of artificial turf we're using if we're using crumb rubber because we're baking this into school board policy, which seems unusual.
But then the the kind of the champion language, it sounds like it's from a marketing brochure because there's also a lot of concern with crumb rubber and the, even if it saves green greenhouse gas emissions, it it emits volatile, VOCs, the volatile organic compounds that is extremely unhealthy, especially on very hot days when that chrome rubber can get up to you know, on a 70 degree day or 80 degree day, that chrome rubber can be at a 100 degrees, like, enough to to bake an egg.
So, I just wanted to understand why this is in here and if we can, you know, question whether we want to have that in there, especially the very lessons. It's like marketing brochure language. Yeah. That I agree, and that language is dated because I know that the superintendent has explored other options for turf. Yes. So but so the policy $83.10, the status when we reviewed it the first time just before was that we wanted more input from council. Is that right? And then so now we also want input about this. So this whole policy we wanna send for review for return to the school board.
It was originally coming back. Right. So this especially this piece. And so we would like the recommendation of what language should be in there since that language is not So last school board meeting we put forth a new type of field. I don't want to say the the provider name, but it's it's without crumb rubber or organics. Yeah. So we have to take that language out of this policy. K. Which, again, frustrating that it's in there because that came from the superintendent's office. So the review. So we will send 8310 back. 8310.
Needs to be updated with what the superintendent wants with the right kind of turf. K? And and with an explanation, not just a new red line. Correct. With the memo, all of that stuff. Yeah. Thank you for raising that, mister Dunn. Thank you. Alright. So to go down the list, $81.40 is going to be combined with $84.20 that this is the community use leasing. Eighty four ten? 84 excuse me. 80 I my numbers are 8140. 814 no. 841 0.
8410. Leasing of school facilities Is going to be in tandem with 8420 and will come back. Yes. Correct. 8320 is going to the board. We're going to board. K. 8310, this is the chrome rubber, etcetera, is gonna come back. 8275 is going to the board. And we're gonna ask for the information about factory construction? Yeah. I'm getting to that. Okay. Sorry. One second. No. You're fine. Yeah. 8560 is going to the board. 8335 will come back, and also coming back is factory construction.
Right. It isn't a policy. It's just a a a Sure. Yeah. We had raised it in light of 8275. But yeah. Sure. Mhmm. Okay. And I also have this all written out as I do with my governance stuff, so I will send it. Okay. So we have those notes. Definitely. Just for a point of clarification, are these coming going to the April 2 CPDC meeting or the April 30? I can go to a are you guy you guys gonna is April 2 gonna be that's basically a month. Is that during spring break, the April 2 meeting? April 2 during spring break?
Never mind. Okay. I guess it's gonna be April. Are are are are we going to hold that meeting during spring break? No. We're not I don't know why April on there. What we'll do is if you said April 30? Yes. Okay. Do we wanna meet prior to that? Okay. Well, we'll we'll definitely agendize it for the next one. I'll circulate an email of an overview of this. And if there's a desire to have a meeting before the thirtieth but not during spring break, break, we can change that date around if that works. Okay. Alright. And I think that's it. Our next Wonderful.
Our our I say that to say. Our next CPDC meeting, technically, is scheduled for 04/02/2026 and begins at 04:30 here in Gatehouse Administration Center Room 1600, subject to change. This Fairfax County School Board comprehensive planning and development committee meeting is adjourned as of 08:28PM. Thank you, everyone. Thanks, Matteo.