001We're going to get started in about 2 minutes. >> The time is 6:39 p.m. in this May 19th, 2026 meeting of the Conference and Planning and Development Committee of the Fairfax County School Board will now come to order. Agenda item 1.02, right into it. Approval of minutes. The minutes of the March 5th, 2026 and April 13th, 2026 CPDC meetings are before the committee for approval. Is there a motion to approve? Ms. Meran. Would you like to read off the script or just noted that you move it? Okay, we'll note that you Is there a second? Mr. Danon. All in favor? You guys can vote, too. That all opposed? Any abstentions? Motion carries unanimously. Agenda item 1.03 policy review, policy 8410 leasing for school facilities. Next order of business is the policy review for policy 8410
002leasing for school facilities. I call on Mr. Gordon for an overview of the policy and staff recommendation. Hey, uh good evening, all. So, this is probably the uh maybe the second, third time we've looked at this, at least twice in the CPDC. So, we've gone through and uh I think the edits that we went through twice or two meetings ago was consider adding uh insurance to this or aligning it to 8420. So, we went back and looked at it, and I pulled language from 8420 to line up with uh the insurance piece of it. And from a staff perspective, the insurance piece could stay in or stay out. I don't see any issue with it one way or the other. Um we do have in our leases, we actually There are four leases that we
003actually receive revenue on. And of those four leases, we have boilerplate language that covers risk risk identification, and requires insurance. So, all that's covered any lease that we would do. This is maybe as a backstop we have this in there, but if it's not in there, uh we're covered in any of our leases. That's what I would offer up as a conversation for tonight. Now, my mic's on. One quick question. There was the million-dollar language, uh which I think was kind of copied out of the community use, but is is the insurance requirement in your leases a million dollars or is it more or is it less? Do you know? Uh commercial general liability minimum limits is 1 million per occurrence and 3 million general aggregate. Okay. Well, I think that would more than enough
004cover any kind of community use requirements. Okay. I'd open the floor to questions. Yes, Mayor. Thank you for returning with the leasing question information. However, the big question I continue to ask is what is the intersection with 8420 community use? And I thought we were going to talk about that policy at this meeting. That to me is the crux of this. So, it can't go to me it can't go forward because it doesn't differentiate how leasing is different than community use. We charge for facilities through the community use policy. How is this different? That still remains unanswered. This is now at least the second if not the third meeting we've addressed this in CPDC. So, the I would from a staff perspective the the primary difference is this this is leases that we are taking
005in revenue from. Um I mean the example of there's four of them, whether it's uh you know, Luther Jackson where we rent them parking spaces or we are um uh Falls Church McLean Children's Center is one, Apple Federal Credit Union which is here, and then United uh Community Early Childhood Center Learning Center at Bryant. So, I see those as, you know, long-term uh and different than kind of one-time occasional use from a community use piece from from my perspective. Well, I appreciate the refresher on what we're leasing out, although I can't imagine why we're leasing the parking lot across the street when we are buying when we are paying leases to park our school buses elsewhere. Why would we be leasing the parking lot at Luther Jackson if we are leasing space in other places?
006That just doesn't make sense. Not necessarily a question for right now, but we just approved a lease not too long ago. Also, there was a suggestion from Rohit that said attaching a leasing template would be helpful. I just you know, Mr. McDaniel, at the last school board meeting it was very clear that the policies continued to be stagnant. And um there was pressure put on to produce them, and I certainly produced the ones for the wireless telecom facilities, but this is not what I've asked for. Once again, it this is just the superintendent needs to be providing this updated community use policy. So, that that's all I have to say about this. You have a question? Yeah, just just for my edification then. So, the community as I read them, the community use the leasing
007is more almost like a business arrangement. Is that fair to say? Where community use is more for community civic events, PTA, stuff like that. Yes, sir. Okay. That's helpful. Um That That's my question. Are there Miss Moy. I'm struggling to read your your Oh, sorry. >> front. No, it's fine. It's fine. >> It blew over. Um I think this is just a very small point, but I think I read language saying that if the party um not able to be responsible for any kind of damages, that the individual signing the agreement would be liable. And I don't know if that's something that um people will find sort of practical difficulty committing to. Have it They have an individual backstopping an organization for liability purposes. I don't necessarily understand the question. >> So, could you pull
008the mic a little bit closer? >> Oh, okay. So, I think I read I'm just going to kind of going from memory. There was some revised language to the to the agreement um that would hold the individual person signing the agreement liable in the event that the organization couldn't fulfill the obligations or uh under the agreement. I don't know if that's correct from working from memory again. >> That's That's the language that we use in 8420. That's in 8420. Yep. Yes. Yes, sir. So, that's the language that's it mirrors what's in 8420, the community use policy. So, it's word for word what we already have in the existing. Okay. I guess you haven't had any issues with it then. I I probably wouldn't have wanted to personally. No, not that one. >> Okay. I mean
009there there are questions and concerns people find sometimes though they'll say that the getting the insurance is maybe prohibitive to them maybe using the facility. We've heard that from that perspective. But not someone owning the responsibility by signing the lease. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Okay, so the I guess the the recommendation would be to send this forward to the board for approval. Um if there's a motion to send it forward to the board for approval as outlined in the redline the chair will entertain a motion. So moved. Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second the motion. All right, so the motion on the table is that the CPDC send 8410 uh to the board for consideration and approval. Uh all in favor? That's Mr. Dannon, Mr. Setti, Miss I'm going to probably
010get these names correct. De Lorenzo, Miss Samanski, Miss Yap, and myself. All opposed? Miss Miron and Miss Moy. Can I correctly vote? The vote is uh 6-2. The motion carries. Thank you. Next agenda item is 1.0 4. Site Planning and Development Policy 8310. Next order of business is the policy review for policy 8310, Site Planning and Development. I'll call Mr. Gordon for an overview of the policy and the staff recommendation. Again, good evening all. This is I think the second look at this. So we left here last time uh requesting to add language from General Counsel. So General Counsel language has been added. Um and there was it specifically in two areas under authority and then I believe under size and the third area was uh adding uh under landscaping uh taking out artificial turf
011and adding in uh some comments that you'll see in red. So I believe we've added the markups that were requested and staff concurs and we think this is ready to go forward. Okay, we'll open the floor for discussion. Seeing none. Speak now. I think is there a Mr. Dan? Was there a um for your section seven C, what what was the thinking behind removing and again this precedes my time I think on CBDC but removing the part about PTAs being encouraged to participate. Uh under landscaping since participation of the PTA local garden clubs and other interested organizations. Uh that was a uh that was a suggestion from this group to strike that. Okay. And if I recall correctly because I remember Eric and I met about this after that this came through and it was
012before I think it was before you were sworn in. Um if I recall correctly there was a concern about um eager volunteers planting things that perhaps may either not need to be planted or things that would pose to be difficult to necessarily maintain if perhaps the volunteer is no longer wanted to maintain that. So this is not and I want to be very clear to the five people watching this at home that this is not to say that working with your schools is discouraged but in a very more of a measured way that has to fit within the general landscaping plans uh etc. Okay. That's helpful context. Um so there's nothing precluding participation by them scouts, anybody else. It's more that it would go through a more formal process through the local principal or um
013It's uh yeah I think it's all all parties involved so you get into as Mr. McDaniel said, you know, whoever who's who's paying for them, right? How are you bringing them in and then how is it being maintained, right? Is it being maintained by the school then what what level of support is required from the facilities to help maintain that down the road, right? And so then we also bring in conversations, hey if a certain individual is promoting this, when that person leaves, who's you know taking that and assuming that kind of responsibility is you know making sure that thought is looking at long term as well. Fair enough. And for the record having having managed a facility that relied on volunteers and so forth I I absolutely understand the reason behind it. So, appreciate
014the clarification. Thank you. Any other questions or conversation? Okay. If not, oh go ahead. Yeah, quick question. Question, sure. So, I'm curious about this basic acreage for the different school types. Do we have this I imagine this is a kind of historically a suburban um acreage requirement, which I can appreciate, but with with the transit the TOD areas and some of the more urban centers that the county is moving towards or or is there any plan to consider um a more urban model for for those population centers? Good question. That was kind of the what spurred the conversation a couple you know a couple meetings ago. So, those are these are just minimum guidelines from the state. They don't meet you know minimum guidelines that we would use. So, it's kind of a kind of
015a floor for the state level and we added language or switched up language that made sure that wasn't prescriptive that we had to use, you know, that we would not be that we would be non-compliant potentially, right? Um if we didn't meet uh any one of those uh acreage requirements. So, so I think it was addressed by general counsel. I think we're okay. setting The in section four here the authority, there are all the applicable laws and the building codes. Can can you clarify or refresh my memory on how green building codes are embedded into this if at all? It's section four on authority. Yes. I mean doesn't necessarily doesn't say it directly, but doesn't preclude preclude us from using them in either in any manner whatsoever. So, I mean, we do have certain sustainability
016guidelines that we do follow. So, is a question that you think it should be referenced there or Well, I didn't think it was carried in the uniform building code or in the county code. So, if it is somewhat in the guidelines for the school facilities, which I'm less familiar with, then maybe that covers it. But, if it did need to be explicitly called out, right now it seems omitted. You know, from a facilities perspective, I don't see an issue that it's not called out. I mean, I'm trying to think of a I mean, we have 8542 talks about environmental stewardship. Our in our you know, capital improvement program, we do call out, you know, planting of trees kind of a program. So, there is environmental stewardship throughout multiple forms of, you know, internal external guidance.
017So, no issues on my part. All right, Ms. Merin. I agree, Mr. Setty. I think it could be a lot more robust. I think the fact that this would be an update to this policy that's from 2013 is at least a step in the right direction along with the environmental stewardship policy that's on our agenda tonight. So, the back and forth in why this policy is on the agenda is because it had included recommending artificial turf. And so, it's taken us a meeting or two to have that stripped out. So, while it doesn't have straight-up environmental, you know, goals in it, we did remove the stuff that was heinously opposed to our environmental goals. So, that's kind of I think better than where we have been. Thank you. And I think Mr. Gordon kind of
018hit the nail on the head. 8542 which we're going to be looking at I think next is the sustainability environmental stewardship and in there is a reference to in section getting my Roman numerals right seven green globes which kind of outlines the construction goals of sustainable construction. Are any other conversation? Mr. Semansky. Just a minor comment. I was looking at video E's guidelines for school facilities in Virginia public schools and it has the same table that's listed out here on the policy. But because you already reference it, you might want to omit the table in case video E ever updates you know, to Mr. Di Lorenzo's point about maybe looking at more urban sites. You could then avoid maybe a conflict in the policy. Would staff have a problem with that? I think I need
019to go back and talk with counsel. You know, initially I wouldn't I would say I don't have an issue with it but at least like to talk with Suzanne Haney a general counsel office to see if there's any objection on their part. Okay. It's really school board policy. I just you know, I'll see what her recommendation would be whether we leave it in or leave it out. Okay. All right. Well, I don't really want to delay this and send this back to committee again to be quite frank over whether or not the the table should be included. I mean the table's there whether it's specifically called out or not. It's kind of you know, it is what it is. But what I'll do is is if if the motion tonight to send this to the
020board is approved, we could get clarification on that. Perhaps there's an amendment at the dais or whatever it may be but it's I six of one half dozen of the other in my opinion. but it for perhaps for you know, editorial purposes. Any other conversation? Okay. Is there a motion to send this uh move 8310 site Okay, Ms. Marin, is there a second? I'll second. All in favor? Opposed? That's unanimous. And we'll get clarification on the table. All right. Agenda item 1.05 policy review policy 8335 wireless telecom. The next order of business is the policy review for 8335 wireless telecom facilities telecommunications. Uh call Mr. Gordon for an overview of the policy and staff recommendation. Yeah, we went through Thank you. We went through this uh in detail last go around and I I believe
021uh we left with uh Ms. Marin took this, added some amendments to it, and some input. And then that was back on May 6th, and then I think we staff on May 6th and 7th added comments, and I believe Ms. Marin you accepted, altered, took made changes, however, and then I think it's in the format right now, and staff concurs as it sits right now, we're okay with it. Okay. Did you Did you go ahead? Yeah, so I'll go ahead and speak to this. So, this is um wireless telecom policy, and um well, it was last updated in 2018. So, there were some updates made um based on just, you know, current tech current phrasing, like wireless telecom and that um monopoles, I think, or um what was some of the they were just some
022older defunct language. The board has also been trying to update the purpose of our policies to be more intentional and clear, and so we did um update it to say that you know, the purpose was you know, to to put this on you know, for a process for it to be put on FCPS property and also to make sure it's not conflicting with capital projects. So, kind of just like the comment the last policy about good meeting people planting things in places like without knowing the facilities layout and the maintenance. So, being intentional about that and the philosophy as well, we added language that I've become pretty passionate about which is you know, looking at our public facility assets and that you know, these are things for everyone and not just kids for learning. So,
023just to continue to elevate that role of our of our assets. So, then the responsibilities was updated to kind of more fast track some of the process that it seems because what happens is you know, it's the school's facility, but it goes to the county for the plan for the zoning and there can be back and forth and then it takes a while and things get really off track and really this could be a revenue generating model. So, to enhance that the responsibilities were updated to say basically let's get all of our stuff together on our side of the house. School board members retain the right to you know, hear from the superintendent about it, approve it, deny it and then so once it goes over to the county side, it can finish up there.
024Another thing also was about specifying that it would be on admin buildings and middle and high schools and not elementary schools unless specifically brought because that's been an issue in the community before and also to state that the money earned the portion of it, it would stay at that school that is hosting the site. So, those are the updates and to say, you know, rather than saying it should look like a fake tree to say that you know, we meet the Fairfax County planning department criteria just to better align with that. Mr. Setting. Could you clarify and maybe I just didn't understand it correctly, but the level of um what sits with the school in terms of the authority and the decision-making in this new model? The decision-making doesn't change. It's the order of the
025decisions. So, it's currently that if the school wants to allow if the board wants to allow a school facility to be leased, we approve that and then it goes to the county to say, "Okay, let's look at the plan." And then it's got to come back to us. But honestly, I've never been through this process, so that's about as much as I know. And what this would do is say, "Is everyone on board before we even send it out to a for a planning review?" Like are all school board members on board or that need to be does a superintendent think it's okay? Um have there been community meetings about it? Because I think that's that's what it was is that we we say, "Yeah, sure, we're interested. Send it to the county." And then
026it comes back and then people are like, "Wait, we don't know if we want this." Or and then we've just wasted all this back and forth. So. So, one thing that I Sorry. No, I I Miss Moyes is next. I got you for next. No, no, go ahead, Mr. Setting. You can finish your time. I was just flagging the fact that I recognized Miss Moyes for coming up next. Understood. Thanks. Um So, one thing that seems to be coming down the pike is that there will be for Fairfax County Water Authority a interest and a need to upgrade their mobile technology. Um so, for metering, censoring, so they can just do drive-by and collect that. So, there is a potential and I'm just playing this out if they were to approach the school board in
027a sub-lease request to put one of their network facilities on one of these towers. So, to play it out as you just mentioned, then they would bring that um interest to the board where there would be They would bring that interest to the board and seek some level of having a sublease agreement or some sort of um purchase order. And then that would then go to the county for approval, and then it would come back to the board for approval, but there would be some sort of community outreach at the very first step. Does that make sense? How that would play out? As a real world example. >> currently does have a community policy a community use engagement or community engagement piece. So, that doesn't go away. Like nothing's going away. It's more that the
028process is being more like our side of the house, county side of the house. But, if you're about to get any water, it's you know, it's different. It's not private utility. So, I don't know. That's a little more above my pay grade, so to speak. Okay. Thanks. Just trying to understand the mechanics and what's changing, and I think that helps. It For me, it was just about putting an example tying it to the flow. It's a good example. And interestingly not related to the leasing of facilities cuz this is telecom. So, it's not like leasing a parking lot to the restaurant. Interesting. Ms. Moore? I believe I heard in a previous conversation that there are existing um carriers that lease space on the school grounds. And so, is there a process in place to see
029if there are additional interested parties who could contribute um to the revenue stream revenue generation? So, off the top of my head, I think we have six carriers, maybe. You know, I think we're bringing in roughly 2 million a year. 15% goes to the school. Um I don't know how we go out and do business development to bring in new carriers. Um my guess is I don't know if Janice has an idea from her past work experience here, but um I mean, we wouldn't turn that down, but I don't know that we're actively seeking it out, either, so. So, no way to answer your question, but I know that we're not chasing folks away. I'm looking. Okay, thank you. I guess they'd find you. Well, I was at the ribbon cutting at CrossFit Elementary, and
030as soon as I pulled in there, the cell phone service completely disappeared. So, if someone out there wants to put a cell phone And there's nice parkland next There's plenty of government-owned land near there, but uh anyway, so um yes, Ms. Moy. I think there are consultants who actually um can help identify if there are any other potential interested parties. I don't know the name of any of them offhand, but if that's something that the county was interested in pursuing, it could be helpful. Thank you. I know one. He He climbs a lot of mountains, but yeah. They're all Lynn Forkas, but anyway. Yeah, so. Okay, any other questions on this? I had a quick question. >> Go ahead. So, I'm just curious I can appreciate this is a revenue-generating um you know, feature for
031the schools, but these wireless telecommuni- telecommunication towers have have shown been shown to have an adverse environmental impact, and also health impacts. So, I'm just curious to to what degree have we incorporated or thought through some of the health and environmental considerations as it relates to wireless communication towers? I mean, so that's it's generally part of the package. I can't speak specifics, but we do take care to kind of locate them away from folks. They'll be up on a tower or maybe on a light pole in a football stadium. So, generally trying to conceal them, kind of blend in with the environment. So. I don't know that we would um agree that there is I think there's a lengthy study that was done prior to me several years ago that, you know, says it is
032they are safe to do so. You know, from a staff perspective, we're not we wouldn't say that they're unsafe to do. We say they are safe cuz if they were, we wouldn't do them. So. I think I think there's been a lot of studies and some studies have shown that there there are correlations with um some neurological issues in especially with vulnerable populations like children. So, just something that I think we should be um considering especially if we're planning to put these on top of schools. Again, thank you. Noted. I'm pretty sure I think we have information where this was thoroughly discussed in depth probably several years ago within the board and the board made a decision to go forward with it, but Miss Moy? I believe the EPA has done some studies as well,
033so maybe that could be a reference point. All right. Any other questions? Okay. Is there a motion to send this to the board for approval? Policy 80 Is there a motion to send policy 80235 wireless telecom facilities to the board for approval? Miss Miron, is there a second? Anybody want to make their first second? It's open to Miss Moy. Okay. Miss Made by Miss Miron, second by Miss Moy. All in favor? That's Mr. Dannon, Mr. Sethi, Miss Moy, Ms. Smanski, Ms. Yap, Ms. Mehran, and myself all opposed. Mr. Di Lorenzo and uh that motion carries. And last but not least, speaking of 80 policy agenda item 1.06 policy review policy 8542 environmental stewardship. I will call on Mr. Gordon for an overview. Yes, sir. So, um again, I think we've been through this a couple
034times. Uh we took comments in length several months ago. Staff's gone through this couple times. Um from our perspective, looked at it pretty fairly thoroughly. We think it's uh in a good position. It does align with our CIP and in our environmental uh sustainability um goals. So, open up for questions. Are there questions on this agenda item? And this is the item uh Mr. Sethi that I was referencing. If you go to uh Roman numerals Well, I had it here. Roman numeral the green globes. It's Roman numeral seven. Um that's where it talks about um construction standards for green policy for green uh you know neutral I'm forgetting the word, but uh green construction standards. Are there any questions or comments? Ms. Yap? Yes, my question relates to section the new section that No, no,
035nine. on indoor air quality and how how is this relating to the newly enacted legislation last year um effective July the 1st um on indoor air quality. Um you talk about established ventilation standards, but the new the act that was enacted last year established different or new requirements for schools. So we're we're we're in line. We do see the requirements come from the state. And so there is actually additional legislation that came out this year more stringent that did not pass, right? And so we know that if this more stringent there's an added cost. So if if the current language that did not pass it with the house we we we know that's about a three to five million dollar bill that will will have to absorb within the school system to to fund and
036support. Any other previous indoor air qualities, you know, from our position that we're we're in line with them and we're following it. Yeah, I was talking about the one that was passed last year. In particular any mention of CO2 levels or and or CO2 sensors. So you're asking specifically do we have CO2 sensors within >> Right, which is not it's not called out. So you're calling out for example filtration, but not necessarily sensors, which is part of the legislation. I'll take that as a do I mean I know we we do indoor air testing throughout our facilities. So the of the question is are we adding CO2 sensors to the facilities that check that I'll I'll take that as a do out. Sorry. I guess for a clarification point and I appreciate the comment I
037I made a note of it here. There's a red line that says industry and applicable federal standards. Would that I presume that language would cover in the event that laws because laws change all the laws and regulations change if that would Well, this would be state. Industry and applicable So is it should we perhaps redline that industry and applicable federal and state standards? Under section nine indoor air quality and just put in and after federal and state Uh >> Halfway No, this is there. Just put that Yeah, just to cover to make sure >> What line are you on, sir? Uh halfway down on it's new Roman numeral nine indoor air quality about halfway down uh where EPA has struck out there's industry and applicable federal standards. Yeah, okay. I could put federal and state
038there to make sure that's covered. Okay. Yeah. Uh I had >> Mr. Dannon and Mr. Setti. Apologies. Uh the last section performance measures was scaled down a bit um and it's it's it's a little bit vague. Are there existing performance measures for this that we'd be tying into or referencing? Uh I mean, off the top of my head, we follow I mean we deal with VOSH uh Virginia Operational Safety and Health, I think is the organization, VOSH. So, we are following uh their guidelines. If we If something you know, if if someone in a school files a you know, a complaint or has an issue VOSH comes out, checks to see how we're following, you know, procedures within the state level. Um so, I think things are in place and that we're we're doing that.
039Um is there something specific, you know, No, just the um like I said, it's it's they're broad that the one sentence that's left there. So, I wasn't sure if there was something else in a different policy or regulation that we were using to hold ourselves accountable for tracking performance. Oh, you mean somewhere as some sort of a KPI that Yes. Yes. That I do not know. I'll look into that. No worries. Thank you. Mr. Setti. Uh I have two one two questions. So, one going back to that line of industry and applicable federal standards, is industry intended to just to tie into ASHRAE specific or is it little trying to be more broad as it relates to IAQ? It could be could be both, right? I don't I don't know why. Sorry. I I think
040it probably lend towards more ASHRAE support than it would anything else, but I think it's it probably is a coined phrase, you know, if if if if if industry is doing it, then why aren't we? Probably make sure we're aligned with kind of best business practices that occur. Yeah, I guess where I'm wondering and and it may be there's not not really a there there, but if it's industry to me can also be defined by the manufacturers and distributors less so that the the regulatory bodies. So, are you coming from a perspective you think there might be risk on a school system's part by saying that? >> Just wondering if there's a gap that someone might try to exploit. Exactly. It's worth asking a council of I can get with Suzanne, see if there's a
041you know, what her perspective is on this. It comes from a place of if the intent is to add a level of rigor for any consultants, contractors, so on and so forth that they must have they want they need to apply uh they need to comply with a certain level of standards, then seems to me that more specificity could help. Perhaps, but And then the second one was um is is energy management embedded in here in some way, shape, or form for for staff that has gone through this process already? So, what components of energy management are you referring to? Just specific just I would have anticipated in this section that there would have been something that is um establishing some sort of guidance and guidelines on energy management. So, as an example, you're more
042than you you may have already gone through this and just said this is a no go, but the BEPS policies standards for that are going on in DC and then also Montgomery County, those come to mind. So, energy performance standards. I mean, I know, you know, through the process we do, you know, schools do win numerous awards for meeting industry standards or guidelines. So, it's it's in there somewhere. I don't know where particular it's called out at. Okay. I'm just wondering if it's an opportunity also to help for the school districts to um reduce costs through this measure as well as meeting stewardship principles. I mean, if it So, we're looking for conservation measures that kind of we're getting at, you know, whether you're talking about aligned with the jet goals or, you know, we
043do have, you know, solar projects we are doing kind of waste zero waste management with the county. So, we do have things that are in place that we're performing to. Um now, the solar is we're partnering with Dominion to do that. So, we aren't getting we're getting a, you know, a fixed rate over a set period of time for the end of the power. There may be some power support that goes in back to the building, but generally it goes back off to the grid. Um you know, within the schools we do have programs like share tables. So, food that's being, you know, not eaten is put on tables or and can be taken away and so, you know, in in other means uh Uh then again, we just got into um not necessarily some
044a component of zero waste um composting, right? So, we're now starting composting at 54 of our schools. So, we had some pilot programs before. So, there's things in there that kind of hit around the edges that you're talking to. And I'm thinking just more along the lines of utilities and power. So, from from the utilities and power piece, you know, um it's more probably will be the the solar initiatives that we're doing at at uh nine schools and the board's approved an additional I think it's uh 34 schools in total. So, another 25 schools that we're looking at doing future solar panel projects on top. And obviously LED initiatives, you know, we where where feasible and affordable will convert to LEDs. Thank you. Uh Ms. Moore? So, to um Yeah, I'm sorry. I I will
045my eyes are failing on me at night time. I'm getting old. Ms. Yap, I'm sorry. Thank you. To Mr. Setty's point, I think perhaps we should call out ASHRAE as the industry standard because because the um COV actually says um verification of unit operation and that required maintenance has been performed in accordance with the most recent inter ventilation standards promulgated by American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers. So, that's actually called out in the legislation or in the chapter code of Virginia. So, um that I I I believe ASHRAE should be called out specifically. Um but also I think Mr. Gordon um pointed out that at the top of page three, I think we see the um KPI perhaps um decreasing total energy uses from all FCS facility FCPS facilities by 25% by
0462030 and 50 by 2040. So, perhaps this um meets your comment. My KPI That's aligning with the jet goals. That's two right. Two primary factors from the jet goals. Now, um the call out for the ASHRAE, I'll I'll I'm glad to go back to staff and find out why we don't call that out. There may be a reason why, I don't know. They may have a good reason. But if if not, or they're I'm not I'm not against adding it. But it would take, you know, staff and then kind of uh council What what was that ASH? ASHRAE. Okay. And that's called out in state code. It is. Okay. Um 92.1-141.5. Okay. I had a quick [clears throat] question. >> Sure, go ahead. A quick question and quick comment. So, just taking a step back
047here, the this policy is being updated. That's what what we're looking at is a refresher on this policy. Correct. Okay. Just want to clarify that. And then my my second comment or question is, you know, to what degree, just big picture again, is is is are these policies aligned with some of the broader strategic planning documents that the county has, like the county strategic plan? And and more specifically, uh tree canopy. So, I'm just, you know, we're thinking we're talking about an environmental considerations, and I'm just curious why why we're not talking about tree canopy as as one of the um county's major land holders. So, Yeah, so I would say we are aligned with our CIP. So, it does step-by-step and the CIP covers more. And then, talking about tree canopy, we do have
048a section where we we've planted over 1,000 trees since 2024, right? So, understand it maybe it's not counted here, but we do cover a lot of that in in detail in the in the CIP. And now that I think of that, we probably should give you all a CIP as well. So, I'll uh work through that. That might help answer questions down the road if we're going to be in this kind of partnership. Well, the digital versions were circulated, I believe, but if you want a paper copy, we can accommodate a paper copy. Well, we just just got them within the last couple weeks, so I think the time since we last they've been printed and delivered since we last met. I think I had Ms. Miron and did you have anything Sorry, did you
049have Just another clarifying question. So, this is this is the final draft language that's being proposed. This is final? Correct. Okay. With I mean, we have free we have uh leave to make edits, so if if if anybody wants to amend or insert language, we can do that. But, yeah, ideally we can get this to the board tonight for a a final recommendation. I think the question about inserting the specific code reference may have to get a quick legal look, um but other than that, there's no reason why we can't make redline edits tonight. I had Ms. Miron and then Ms. Zamansky. So, for me, it's hard to listen to these very excellent and obvious comments and questions. I will speak for myself and saying that this is not what I would love, but it
050is what has taken 2 and 1/2 years to get to. Um I have my policy chart up, so in 2024, when the board approved the policy, so that would have been in January or February, I proposed a motion that all of our facility-related policies be updated. And this is one of the last ones. And the reason it's in CPDC is cuz it went from governance to the full board. It got pulled off for some reason, which I forget, on this earlier this year, and now it's back here. And um you know, it's 13 years old. And I think that's information. And no, it's not aligned to county documents. And we do our best. Um this goes back to the bond funding. And um there is a lot that's not happening that should be. So, I
051think this puts at least something out there that's more aligned. Um but this is just part of the whole bigger picture of the the problem that we have with our facilities. So. Uh Ms. Semensky. Thank you. I had a question on the carbon neutrality section and understanding what the baseline is for the reduction. So, I see in the body of the text it references progress to date measuring from 2008. But it also references the commitment to the JET directives, which I think when you read the recommendations is referencing a different year. So, I just want some clarification on that. What paragraph are you referring to? Is that under It's all paragraph six on the carbon neutrality? Correct. And so, specifically you're asking uh the line with the 2030 reduction goals or you said a baseline.
052What what >> Sure. Towards the bottom of that paragraph, it says progress to date is measurable in 2024 FCPS reduced carbon emissions by 42% over those emitted in 2008. So, I'm inferring that that baseline is established from 2008. But I think the JET um recommendations dictate a 2019 baseline or 2018. Uh I'll have to take that down. Let's go back Yeah. for sure what what rules here. But so, question is 2008 versus 2019. Or 19 19, And then if the 2019 is the baseline, correct? So, that's two parts there. Okay. Is that all? Okay. All right. Mr. Setti, then Ms. Miron. And I appreciate that you've been doing this for multiple years. So, I apologize that we're coming in in the fourth quarter. Um So, I and thanks for answering the questions. One I have
053two questions again, but one is just the Green Globes. And where where are we coming from and where are we going? Are we going to Green Globes fully now and where are we shifting away from? And what are the the second part of that is what are the waterfall effects that you're all anticipating now? Well, previously the state had a under the Virginia High Performance Act of HB 2001 had a standard that we were we were using and the state switched off of that and didn't require what you know, whether it's LEED, whether it's Green Globes, or something else. And we did an internal analysis and felt Green Globes was uh the best path forward economically and still allowed us to achieve our sustainability requirements. So, Green Globes is the path forward for us right
054now. I guess I'm wondering though I appreciate that. If if it was LEED before and now it's shifting to Green >> never LEED before. >> It was It was CHPS. Thank you, ma'am. >> It was CHPS before. And so, does anything fall out of compliance as a result of that shift? No, I I think the nothing falls out of compliance. We have some projects that we're going forward that were, you know, looking to achieve uh the CHPS standard. And as long as they're in by a certain deadline, certain date, then they can proceed forward. If not, then they've got to switch to Green Globes. So, I don't Could be grandfathered in in some way? Some some could be grandfathered in for sure. But, if we're still meeting, you know, environmental standard under CHPS, it still
055matches well with Green Globes or LEED or any other. So, I don't I don't think something's going to fall out. We're still still making it work. Okay. Great. Thank you. Ms. Miron and then Ms. Moylan. I wonder if this committee now with their new membership wants to work on this more. I mean, as much as I'm always in this cycle of let's get these policies done, and I'd love to check this off the list of 20 policies about facilities. I I think again, it's much better than it was. It's it it looked to codify some of the jet work really because that was really seminal. And so, I see even the the comment um from Ms. Samanski about the carbon emissions. Like, that's not really like a policy thing, right? It's it's documenting what's happened,
056which really should happen in the CIP. So, if anything, if there's confusion about it, we could remove it, which isn't making it accurate, you know, more with the the 2019 number. But, the other thing I wonder I mean, I have heard a Board of Supervisors say in a public meeting that there isn't appetite. There's not appetite for better environmental achievement in this county. I mean, if you look at the county budget, it's not towards making our buildings greener. So, you know, if there's something we could do better, but at the end of the day, if it's going to take money, it the solution is still to get more money. So, um yeah. And then I'm Mr. Mr. Settinger. Just to that point, so you had mentioned I think that maybe some editorial tweaks are still
057possible. So, as an example, one thing that I see in other school districts is this section would be environmental and economic stewardship. And so, going to back to one of my original points was if there is a call out for energy management and building performance, that's cost reduction. It just jumps out off the page like that. As opposed to I agree, it's it's embedded in the carbon neutrality, but that doesn't sway certain folks in the community as much. And if you need to make the economic case, then there's an opportunity there to carve it out and be crystal clear. So, this No, go ahead, please. I So, so from the economic piece of it's feasible, right? That's what you're getting at when you add that economic piece to it. More so that Something could be
058cost prohibited, right? Could be a great thing, but it could be cost prohibited based on available funding at the time. No, that this is cost beneficial. Okay, cost beneficial. Yeah. There is an upside to reducing energy costs. And when it's embedded under environmental frame It's envi- environmental stewardship and economic cost reduction paired together. Right. So, if you're talking like future years, so if you invest capital dollars now, you're going to save something down the road. So, we would love to do that, but there isn't capital dollars to invest in that right now. So, we've looked at partnering. So, we're still looking at other you know, so we can't take loans as as a school district, right? Um other school districts do that. Other school districts around us are spending capital dollars to do that, and
059we don't have the capital dollars to do that. So, we are looking at how we can partner with other organizations. I won't name companies out loud here, but so there are there is thought to how we do that, right? And is that we now allowing someone else to be the bank to help provide money, and how does that offset work in the future, right? So. I mean, I think those P3 models, you're seeing them all around with other counties in the neighboring districts, so it it makes sense. And I I'm not trying to say that you're the county is not or the school district is not thinking about this. It's just does it Is it beneficial to have it in a policy document? That's all. I have a um maybe a suggested path forward. So,
060in the governance manual, there is the ability of committee chairs I discovered this to appoint working groups that can be set up. Um so, maybe it would be beneficial to um, after this meeting, um, circulate a uh, interest solicitation of interest for who might want to do a working group to put some more look into this and and maybe work with staff and we'll kick it another few weeks and then bring it back for have all the questions answered. We'll look into the question on the jet goals and the code requirement. Um, We'd absolutely welcome that. Yeah. >> perspective. Yeah, why don't we Why don't we Would that be Is Mary Well, I'm just Is this our last CPDC meeting for the school year? We can do one in June. We I typically have been
061I've typically been scheduling I've typically been, you know, each after each meeting we'll do a survey, but I mean I'm happy to do one in June. Or we or we I guess let me rephrase this. Is there a burning Is there a burning Is this policy holding up anything that that Okay. Well, I I mean my question is So, we have these our new experts here. What's the the goal like for the summer? I would imagine you know, when I when I came on the board, I read every single policy. And if I were coming on this committee, given how complex this is reading the policies cuz I bet you all would gain so much and be able to advise and this could be a really great way to figure out what to do in
062the next year. I mean looking at the CIP, looking at the policies with fresh eyes could be really you know, useful and I think even maybe necessary to be able to do this work to see the confines that we're in and what you might suggest that we do better. So, you know, as the CIP calendar starts again, like so it's probably underway. We're going to get a presentation on it in January before we know it. So, my question is more about what the work is ahead and can we give you a big old packet of stuff to, you know, take with you or send to you later. That's my thinking. Mr. Setting. And I don't want to slow down a train that's been going for 2 years here. So, I I have empathy there. Well,
063I I think that the questions about the code specification and then making sure that we have the baseline of the jet goals and then I think the point that was raised about perhaps maybe a paragraph on um you know, that you were referring to whether it's not necessarily P3s, but you see what I'm saying. So, that that probably does warrant a broader conversation. So, I'm happy to after this I'll to see how many obviously has to comply with public meeting laws, so I'll defer to the clerks on making sure the mechanics of that are set up. Um and uh yeah, whoever wants to sink their teeth into it I'm perfectly happy to do that. Right? Okay. So, Mr. Di Lorenzo Yep, sure and just quick [clears throat] question. I I wanted to just echo Melanie's
064thoughts on the timeline for for adopting this policy. If it's been 10 years since we've updated it, um you know, it's not the time to rush through and refresh. It's it's a good time to comprehensively look at it and take our time and do a good job, especially especially considering how how the policy is informing the CIP to the extent that it is. I don't know to what degree policy is integrated into the CIP prioritization process, but to the degree that it is and that the it's it's it's used, then it's it's valuable to take our time and and have a timeline that supports a more comprehensive quality policy. I so I I'd say staff welcomes kind of a some outside look at this as well. Okay. So, without objection, we'll move forward. I'll solicit
065a working group and we'll send this to the working group. All right. Okay, that's it. So, agenda item 1.07 is adjournment. Our next CPDC meeting is technically scheduled for June 18th, 2026 and begins at 6:30 p.m. here in Gatehouse Administration Center in 1600. We'll solicit membership to make sure that date still works. Um this Fairfax County School Board Comprehensive Planning and Development Committee meeting is adjourned as of 7:35 p.m.