001Okay, the time is 4:50 p.m. and this is October 30th, 2025. Comprehensive planning and development committee meeting of the Fairfax County School Board will now come to order. Um, thank you everyone for being here this evening. I know it's been busy in terms of facilities and boundaries and all kinds of stuff. We've been running ragged around the county to at least me as an atlarge member. I know we've been all over the place and I know uh Miss Mirren and Miss Seismore Heiser have as well. Um so thank you to staff for being here and staff for helping facilitate the meeting. We're going to go ahead and dive right into the conversation unless anybody has anything we want to remark on. So seeing and hearing none, uh the next order of business, agenda item 1.02,
002educational specifications. So this was a topic of conversation two board meetings ago from the dis at our regular school board meeting and in response to that I requested that we I I decided rather to agendaize this as a topic of conversation. I don't want to delve too deep into this. The really the purpose of this was to determine whether or not we wanted to do a full schoolboard work session on the ed specs. The document uh that was circulated in response to that board conversation has been posted online. Uh it's titled FCPS educational specification summary. It's a two-pager. Um, so what I want to do is kind of um propose that we approach this in the Jeff Bezos fashion of tackling meetings, which let's all take a couple of minutes to thumb through that document.
003Jot down any questions that we have and then we'll ask those questions here and then we'll make a determination after a conversation as to whether or not we want to move to a full work session um to have a board presentation on EDSP specs. So, let's take a couple of minutes just to kind of read through this two-pager and then we'll have a chat and go from there. Does that work? Okay. Thank you. Okay, thank you. And we're back. Um, I have a list of a couple of questions, but I want to open the floor for conversation if anybody would like to go first. Mismore has >> I have several questions. First, I think on the topic of whether we have a work session or not and I think I'd want it better understanding of
004what would the purpose of the work session be and what would we want as potential outcomes? Is it just to give is it informational? Is it to give feedback? Is it to make changes? Like that's would be one of my questions. Um and if it's informational or maybe to give feedback maybe I would recommend perhaps to be combined with other sort of hot topics and facilities. I know we've talked about different procurement methodology, different design build method, you know, so I think instead of my worry is you do one on edspecs, you do something on procure, it just ends up being too many different work sessions, right? So I would recommend a facilities work session that's informational to help the board better understand what goes into some of these things would be my suggestion as
005opposed to one on the edspecs in particular. And perhaps I would recommend a CPDC chair. I mean, this committee could talk about it more, but you could even maybe do a survey to staff or talk to staff, but what kind of topics maybe would staff recommend that it would be helpful for the board to know more as we go out into the community? Because I will say as one board member, I do think there are a variety of areas of facilities that we could learn more about that would help us in like our PTA and community meetings, but I don't always even know what those topics should and shouldn't be. So perhaps I would ask you as chair to work with staff to kind of flush out a possible list of topics for this committee
006to discuss if we were to do a facilities work session. So that's kind of my overarching comment on that. On the policy I mean 8130 excuse me and then the regulation. I think this if we do do this work session it may behoove us to then send the policy to governance. One of the things I noticed missing in this policy is there's no sort of value statement around EDS specs. One of the things that the previous board did is we required new construction to have outdoor learning spaces. Miss Marin, you may remember we were on the board together when we did, which I think is great. But that was clearly a value statement of the value and and the data and research behind outdoor education. But the policy itself just says that the job of
007the division superintendent is to develop these EDS specs and the new construction shall be planned in accordance with. But it doesn't really say like an overarching value or introduction that would help then guide the superintendent in what the board's you know when I think of setting policy like what direction I don't want to get involved in the operations the minutiae of edspecs what sort of overall like are we going to look from an equity lens for example are we going to look from a um best practices and educational you know the outdoor learning was something the board brought to facilities so I think that might be us in that conversation on facilities. Do we want to look at that regula at that policy to just kind of give a value statement is what I noticed.
008The other thing I think there's some inconsistencies in the regulation itself that jumped out at me. Um the sorry the regulation requires that the instructional services department shall develop the edspecs um and in cooperation with facilities, transportation, IT, etc. need to review. But the policy says the edspecs belongs to the superintendent instructional special services and facilities. But special services gets left out in the regulation which is a huge problem because that's special services is where special education lies. So I think the higher priority is I would recommend the regulations say the chief academic officer or department because the chief academic officer oversees both special services and instructional. But I think there's a leaving off of a very important department from the policy to the regulation that is more urgent to be addressed. Now, the regulation
009belongs to the superintendent, so I'm leaving that to you to take a look at, but I think it it should be updated to include that. Those are the the three things that jumped out at me. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Um Okay. So, let's go to Miss Meer and then I'll I'll respond to your comments after Miss. >> Great. I really appreciate what you said, Miss Seismarheiser. I was thinking very narrowly about EDS specs and as I said to our chair, we have so much going on with facilities. I couldn't imagine starting this. Um, I asked at the DEAS and now I kind of want to walk that back because it's really not something I at all want to delve into. And of course, you remember from the governance committee. So, you know, our
010governance committee just put forth a very big policy to help move our procurement options, you know, expand that and be more effective. But as you know from our motion like in 24 in early 24 the governance committee is yet to go through that whole analysis and I have the the list and that is something that the governance committee has waiting in the wings. So absolutely we should be looking at policy 8240 but I think it's got to happen. I don't even know if it's on that list. I could pull it up real quick. But oh okay 8120. But here's the thing. There's there's so many policies that need review. It's I find sometimes I get to one step and then I'm like, "Oh, wait. That's not reviewed, so I got to go to different things."
011So, I guess the bottom line is absolutely, we need to review that policy. I have been asking for regular work sessions about facilities. So, I so appreciate you raising that, Miss Eismerheiser, especially given everything that's go I mean, I I think I've seen Mr. Gordon every day and his team. Uh, and last week as well, given our meeting this morning with the county that we'll talk about and boundaries, we absolutely need a meeting and we could certainly put all these things on there. Again, I I really don't think EDSP specs is where to start because let's do the policy and maybe that's, you know, let's look at it as chunked together, I think, as we can. So, that's where I'm at. >> Yes, sure. Go ahead. One of the things I was thinking about as
012you were talking and I agree with you like we we made that whole list with our motion right in 24 and I'm glad you brought that up Miss Marin with all the different policies. I would say looking at this policy what I recommended is probably a nice to have but I think it's not needed for this policy per se to then delve a little more into facilities in general and I do actually think a work session on facilities. I don't know. I mean, I would defer to the chair, you know, and vice chair of the school board around timing, but I think in conjunction with our CIP work makes a lot of sense because we're focusing on facilities, we're focusing on the CIP, and I I just think having that knowledge basis of what is
013an EDSPEC, what is what goes into it. There's a committee that reviews it every year. um you know and so I think who's on that committee and perhaps through that conversation some values around what we're looking for in general in our school spaces could come out and so I think without having to redo the policy having a chance for the board to sort of give some feedback on what we're what we would like to see or we're thinking around facilities and having the staff be able to share with us here's the things that we consider when we're designing the school here's the things that we consider in looking at spaces and here's the some of the challenges, right? I know our previous board talked a lot about, you know, um quiet rooms and sensory rooms
014and all of these things. And so, it'd be helpful, I think, as we're you brainstorming some of these things to hear from the staff like here are some of our challenges in our buildings to including some of these other spaces. So, I just think an overarching knowledge facilities conversation and we could talk about maybe what the different topics. I do think edspecs could be a topic amongst that, you know, just to kind of maybe just even a high level. Here's what the EDS specs are. Here's the kinds of things we think about. Um, just for the staff to have an idea. That way when staff are bringing us something, they've already kind of gotten it just a bait, not a big conversation with the board and kind of know how the board thinks on this
015and the board has a better understanding what the staff is doing to maybe help prevent, you know, some like, hey, what is this and why are you doing this? we have that the sort of common core foundational knowledge together. That's what I was thinking is when I talk about that. >> No, I agree. So, I did have some technical questions um before we get into that. So, I guess from staff's perspective uh and the these may be topics for the work session that we will probably schedule at the first of the year. Um what I'd like to understand more is the Ed specs in particular what is the board's role if any versus operational staff role because I know this is a very technical document um I know the master specifications or even a more
016technical document so operating within that framework where would staff and where would your where would your division kind of see if any the board having a hand in the edspecs So looking looking at the two documents, ED specs versus master specs, you know, master specs are really more about how you're building something, construction requirement, materials, um maybe standards for testing requirements or materials. Uh the EDS specs are more of like a design guide. You're handing them so you know CM at risk. So CM at risk position when you're, you know, at 60% you're looking to get a guaranteed maximum price. So you would hand you know at some point you would hand that uh even in the design build but CM risk you hand that as a bridging document right so C risk we we
017in theory have more control as the owner versus design build you're handing that over and they're using that basically as a template to help design kind of a footprint because we generally you would have classes or standard size you know this you know 700 800 feet of standard that gives them helps build a model footprint to build something. So I think input you know, from you all could be, hey, we uh we have X budget, right? Uh we don't have enough money to build out our current requirements. Do we if we say our EDS specs, we want 800 square feet per class space. Is that reasonable? You know, could we is there a possibility of downsizing some of those footages to maybe get more bang out of the buck? That might be guidance that we're
018looking. >> Okay, that makes sense. Yeah. So basically the edspec is the map and the master specs are how you get through that map. Is that kind of a fair way of >> Yeah. So the uh edspecs are going to help develop and build the program, build that footprint, and the master specs are going to tell you how to do it. >> Gotcha. Okay, perfect. That makes sense. Um So, and then my other question is within the and I think I know the answer to this within the EDS specs. Um, if the board were to look at EDS specs and I think the way Miss Seismore Heiser kind of set up this process is we look at the policy that drives the regulation that Z specs and master specs. So if the board were to
019at some point review the policy which I presume is 8120 um that would then to make it more of a values guide that would then have more of a trickle down effect through the regulation and then through the specs both ed and master. So perhaps that's the way to go about reviewing this instead of what I don't want to do is open up a technical document to to the correct >> you're talking you know pages you know one verse another right pretty a lot of stuff it would be I think probably impossible to review at your level master specs >> yeah masterpects is and for the folks watching at home master spec just me looking at it which is all available online by the way for folks want to look at it's thousands of pages
020of very technical um construction documents. So, um I do like the suggestion that in you know that maybe the governance committee, you know, Mor chair that committee um when it's appropriate uh could put 8120 on their agenda to take a fresh look at. Um, and I also like the idea of folding this into a broader conversation on facilities versus a standalone work session on EDSPEC. So, uh, I guess without objection, I will work with the school board chair to schedule a work session on facilities overall. And I think one of the other items that was not on the agenda, but that needs that could probably be the driving point of that conversation is the facility condition assessment that I know we're barreing towards very rapidly. Do you Yeah. So, I was going to ask that
021question. Do you have do we have an update on the FCA procurement? >> We're still still with uh finance and legal. So, we're ready to go. We're just waiting for approval to go forth get a notice to proceed from legal and from um finance. >> We know about how long that's going to sit with them. >> I don't but I'll take that as a due. >> Okay. I was expecting it to be complete by now, but >> yeah, I was I thought late October was kind of our working. So, >> um, so what I'll do is I'll work with the chair to figure out a work session. I'll use the timeline of facility condition assessment procurement to kind of drive that conversation and then we'll figure out a couple of the topics to fold into
022there. Uh, it will more than likely be after the first of the year at this point. Just a clarifying question. So on the facility work session, is it just design planning programming or is it also on andm piece of it as well? Is it full everything we do? >> So I think the facility an update on the FCA procurement and the timeline for that is definitely going to be a topic of conversation. Um, I would want to have a conversation around whether or not the full board wants to and what the timeline would be to address the 8120 policy with governance edspecs the edspec policy. So instead of this commission, so instead of CPDC today deciding we're just going to send EDSPEC for review, we're going to have a full board conversation about that. So
023Mr. So sorry what I would recommend to be honest in terms of the topics for this facilities work session is I would maybe the three of us or this committee can brainstorm and then once maybe even today once we brainstorm I would recommend Mr. Daniel, you as chair to talk to staff about what they think makes sense. And I think what we should start with if my suggestion is what's the purpose of this work session? Because once we get the purpose of the work session, then we can figure out the topics. But if we're looking at topics without knowing like what's the goal, I guess more than the purpose like what is the goal of the work session? And if I may, I would suggest that I think the goal of the work session is
024building greater understanding with the board and the community around some of the bigger topics that go into our facilities work, right? Um that may have impacts on our school construction, renovation, and maintenance. So off the top of my head, like some of the things I can think about is I think the 2232 process would be important to talk about. Yeah. Yeah. I was on the the planning commission lays on the last two years. So I've I've been but and I'm just throwing out topics. We don't have to do these, right? I think um talking a little bit about what the ed specs are and what goes into those and how that changes over the time might be important. I think um talking about this is another chance to lay the foundation of the of the
025challenges around facilities like why are we at a 42 year or 45 year renovation cycle and what are the challenges around that? I mean, this is off the top of my head, but I think if we could talk about the purpose of this meeting, then we could have a better sense of what the topics are. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Yeah. So, you know, I'll be updating in a little bit about our meeting this morning with the joint facility committee and we talked about all sorts of things this morning and honestly, whatever work session we have could be directly as a result of that. I mean, I think it would be best I would love to see this school board have a work session, part of a work session every month focused on something facilities related
026because it is our top thing. You know, we're already in November, so it makes sense to roll it into the CIP presentation, but already today, even Miss Marheiser, I learned a bunch about how the county's bond program works that I think is critical for the whole school board to know. And so the uh board of supervisors talked about bringing well and actually the 2232 doing a 101 session at our next joint facilities meeting. So there's so many connections here and I think you know as Kyle and I get even deeper in the weeds here we're really going to know and so I just have to say again I don't think Edspec is where it's at. Um but also I wanted to mention besides Mhiser governance um and Mr. Fish has been really great about this
027bringing really uh articulate articulate values statements to the policies. So absolutely and um we're really cooking with that. So um that's a definite thing. So I just wanted to share those things. >> Yeah, >> sure. No, that's fine. So my my my takeaway is we'll I'll work with the board chair to schedule a work session on facilities in general and then we'll work with members of this committee to kind of figure out what exact topics we want to fold into that. Go ahead. And for Mr. Gordon's benefits. So this January when the CIP came to the board, you know, I had worked with um your predecessor on presenting things in a way for the board to help fill in some of these gaps of knowledge that we had had and and that's where we got
028this great data about the status of our facilities and the facility condition assessment came forth. And then in the spring, Mr. Dun and I helped bring to the board a presentation about the alternative procurement pathways which is what resulted in the policy being passed just last week. I mean that was like a really great timeline but we also had expressed interest in the P3 but even that now seems a tiny bit premature because there's a just so much is coming to light right and we have Western High School. So anyway there's lots to do. Um but just want to share that background history. >> Yeah. Um so if there's no other comments on this agenda item, we can move forward. So we'll again take away we'll schedule work session. Um agenda item 1.03. So next
029order of business, agenda item 1.03, update on policy 8240. I'm not going to read what's in the parenthesis. Um essentially, and you know, Miss May, this is in your committee. Um, not to put you on the spot, but essentially what we did is we added, as I've kind of phrased publicly, you know, more tools in our tool belt for how we can go at tackling the challenge of facilities construction renovation. We added two key items, uh, design build and if I'm not mistaken, Seymar construction construction management at risk. Um, and for those watching at home, uh, you you can Google it or use AI to kind of figure out what the answer is or we'll have a quick conversation around that. U, but long and short, the the industry evolves. So, the these two procurement
030methods have not been at the disposal of the school system to use for construction and renovation, and now they are. So, I don't want to get too in the weeds on the differences of these, but um you know, if if staff is able to kind of very briefly go over DB and Seymar, then I could open the floor for discussion if there's any questions on that. >> Sure. >> Hey, thank you, sir. Um so, holistically, I think we would still want an option to have traditional design, bid, build, design build, and CM at risk. So uh design build and and cm at risk in theory give you a faster procurement cycle process. Design build is uh you you present bridg bridging documents and the owner loses some kind of control somewhat control of it because
031you're now relying on an architect architectural engineering team you know collaboration to give you the product. So you give them a a project and they give you a solution and it's wide open. They'll they'll look uh options. They'll determine options for you. Then you get to select as an owner, right? With CM at risk. Um again, you and the design build you generally have you have one contract. With CM at risk, you'd have two contracts. So, you're bringing in a construction manager on board is going to be the owner's rep. That's one contract. And at about 60% design documents that um construction manager is going to give you an estimate going to give you a guaranteed maximum price and then they he works or he you know that that person that individual works to bring
032on a uh construction firm and then they oversee the construction process. And as long as we aren't introducing as the owner more scope into the project, they own the risk for up to the guaranteed maximum price. And so I I think between the three design bid build is slowest. Design build is fastest and cm at risk is faster than design bid build slightly slower historically than design build but um added event it's great um that we have now have that ability. The state law uh has a nuance in there. They think design build is more for complex projects. And so I just I think in the in the in the kind of the three processes I'd look at high schools more complex pro projects might have a a longer time sequence phased multi-phase projects would
033be more aligned with a CM at risk uh type program and maybe elementary schools middle schools might be more suited for a design build. It's kind of quick synopsis. >> Sure. So a question I have um we've added these two different procurement methods. We're obviously retaining all the existing procurement methods. Um just so again I'm I'm clear, we're still looking at what's going to be across all of our portfolio, all of our projects, whether it's new construction, renovation, whatever it may be. We're still keeping time and cost as the driver of whichever method that we choose. Correct. Right. So, we're not just saying, "Okay, well, we're going to go with this method even if it may cost more. What we're doing is we're adding more options at our disposal to look at the unique needs
034of each of our facilities." >> Correct. Again, the purpose of design build and you know CM at risk is in theory in theory you have less change orders as long as the owner we're not introducing additional scope or changes into the process. >> We have questions. >> Just a quick question. Do you have criteria that you're developing or have developed on which of the methods that you prefer for any particular project? So between the you know the two added design build and design bid build I I as a chief would look to use more complex projects for CM at risk design build versus CM at risk. I think uh it's suited for that. It's it's intended to bring a construction manager in who's you know maybe seeing things differently than you are especially for a
035multi-phase project. So like a high school, >> I'd say more geared towards a high school and then more complex than design build we could use more towards elementary school, middle schools, but again we could use CM at risk at all three of them. >> Is there one that potentially could be more cost effective than another or is it just really depend on the type and complexity of the project? >> I think um given the fact as the owner and our history as the owner, we're going to want the ability to have control the project. So I think we're because of this nature of the beast, we're more suited to do CM at risk versus design build just because I think we're we want to have ownership have some changes versus design build, you lose uh
036the ability to to control the the process. >> So and that my last question that leads to that since the level of control changes right depending on on which one we use, does that then impact the community engagement process and plan? A few years ago, before you were on this board, Mr. McDaniel, the um the board had reviewed with the OCCR sort of a communications and community engagement plan to go along with construction and build. And so I didn't know if we need to relook at that and that might be a topic for CPDC to relook at based on the two or more you know the different procurement sorry building meth methodology because if let's say we use design build where we lose control earlier in the process of the design and how the we
037may need to shift how we do community engagement to make sure that voice is heard earlier versus if we have more control throughout the project. I believe and it's been a couple years but what OCCR presented to um it was eventually at a work session um but it came through CPDC the initial process was was designed with multiple touch points along the way because we had the ability to make changes until a certain point of course in the construction process. So that may be something we want to look at because I know one of the concerns around 2232 and the whole 2232 conversation is ensuring robust community engagement. So I wanted I think there's a crossover here between the work we're doing on this joint committee around 2232 and the planning commission education committee on
0382232 and the shifting or well the multiple options and procurement and how do we make sure the community engagement piece is as robust but also tailored to each process. So just something I want to put on your radar to talk about. Having heard that ma'am, I would say if if there if we're looking for community engagement throughout the process to provide feedback on design that could lead to changes, then it's more of a see them at risk type scenario for more complex. I think you're going to see that more in a complex project like a high school. may respond. I think what I was trying to really get at is that um whatever process we use, we want to make sure that at the at the times where it's not going to increase our cost
039per se or or that fits within that process is probably a better way to say it that there's room for that community engagement. And the initial community engagement process was built with was designed with one, you know, I think that the CMR risk process, not with the new process. So I think there's just room to make sure that whatever that community engagement process that was designed it was in 20 I want to say it was in 2023 or I think it was 23 we had a work session on it but I can go back and look and we did the board never ended up voting on it but staff had said they were going to it was just sort of information that they were going to use this method but we I just want to
040make sure because I know it might come up in the 2232 conversations. >> Missoreheiser that vote was on at the November 20th 2023 work session. November 20. I knew it was right after my chair term. It was so I think because the CPDC was working on it during my chair term, which is 22 23 and then the work session was in November of 23. November. What was the date again? >> November 28th. So you may just I just want to bring that on the radar because I think there's I don't want to get caught at the end saying, "Oh, wait a minute. We have a community engagement process that doesn't fit our design and build process." So >> full acknowledge. I think in our current construction process, you know, we do allow for, you know,
041facility updates like we did fall search high schools. We do it a spring one and a fall one through the process. Yes, ma'am. >> So, make sure that process that you have fits with whatever process you're using for design and build. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, is that ahead? >> So, I'm so glad you just said that because I literally was saying to Mr. McDaniel. Okay. So, at one point we did this community engagement thing because I've seen it in action and it's to and I'm wondering this kind of challenge with the 2232 that is the state law which the county you know needs to apply you know abide by. I remember there was a discussion and maybe it was when you two were at the school's planning commission earlier this year that subcommittee but
042I thought that that or maybe we had a conversation that our plan our process from November 23 would be applicable so I was going to try and dig and find it right and I just wonder I think it's even before the next joint committee meeting saying hey we have this process could this suffice because it's much shorter and I've been to them I remember we had the web pages right so anyway way. I just that's exactly what I think we need to follow up with. Yeah. And codify it if it's not right. And that could be part of the policy work is I just wanted to do I don't want to like I feel like we're I don't want to take >> Yeah. >> No, it's fine. I mean the So the Yes. the 2232.
043Even when I was on the when I took office last year, we were working towards a a template, a boilerplate plan, so to speak, on community engagement. And uh that way we could work with the planning commission on the county side of the house to say, okay, here's how we're generally going to go about community engagement across the entire portfolio. Um and then just run that process. So it was more predictable and of course predictable drives down the timeline. Um, so I I think that's going to be the key to this 2232 conversation and it does need to fit into design build design bid build whatever process that we use. >> Just really quickly because I was on that planning commission night, we had several meetings. One of the the concerns I think with the
044whole 2232 conversation was to ensure that we had that community engagement. It was actually a big part of that conversation when you and I were the planning commission and then I stayed I just came off being the planning commission lison on this last because I stayed with Matteo and I before it was caught and so I've been involved in that process. That was a big concern and I know staff presented that community engagement process to the planning commission ed committee at least a couple times. So you may want to talk. I know Janice was there presenting but I don't know whether like Lisa Young Hall's group presented with them but I know it was presented a couple times and they were they were given feedback from the planning commissioner ed committee as well. So this
045definitely overlaps with that and so just you I think we just I think we're clear on kind of the path forward and reviewing it make sure it fits but I just want to know that they're it has been presented to them. So this is a process they are aware of. So if we're going to make tweaks to that to fit, you know, design, build, all this stuff, we need to make sure that that tweak keeps the robust nature of community engagement. >> Yeah. And Mr. Gordon, I just looked up the um link and I sent it to you from the that November meeting and I'm happy to send it to you all to refresh too. So it's again feel like it's just facilities all day long literally. But this morning, Miss Marheiser again under and
046I wish I had brought my slides. Do you have the slides from this morning, Mr. Daniel? Because we a slide that had um the uh oh and again I will email this to you. We just haven't been going. But we talked about this the one Fairfax lens county school county schools parks right and so that I that's wonderful that but can we just have one public process you know that's to be expected by the public where can we find those efficiencies so um lot's coming together like I think it could be really exciting and we're going to learn a ton through the boundary work like there's just the next few months I think have a lot of potential to you know pick out the things that work and make all of our policies and processes
047better. All can survive, right? Survive and thrive. Okay, good. Um, so moving on, agenda item 1.04, next order of business, agenda item four, roing structure of CPDC and FPAC. Um, so earlier this earlier I circulated a doc a two-page document and again I kind of want to take the couple of minutes to review this and we can jot down our questions and have the conversation um but on how we can overhaul the role between this committee and the community advisory uh committee that's kind of was charged with providing expert input into our capital programming. So, um, we'll take a couple of minutes, look through the two-page document, and then we'll come back with our questions and have a conversation. Okay, we're back. So to give a kind of a a cliffnotes version of this. So
048the proposal on the table is to restructure the relationship between CPDC, a standing committee of the board, which stands for comprehensive planning and development committee, effectively the committee that kind of oversees the capital program of the school system, and FPAC, the facility planning advisory committee, which is the community citizen, you know, community member advisory committee that advises CPDC and the board at large on the capital program. Um, FPAC right now operates kind of separately from CPDC. So, what I'm hoping to do by this proposal is to more um inject direct expert advice in right into CPDC and thus right into the board. And how I'm hoping to accomplish that is instead of having two separate boards, two separate committees that kind of, you know, operate, you know, on paper together, but more so independently, um
049the proposal is to set up a model that another one of our board committees uses, which is the audit committee. So the audit committee has board members with two uh community members that are experts in the audit field that sit right on that audit committee. So what this proposal does is it puts three members of the community that are citizen volunteers. They're experts in their field right onto CPDC. So the role of the the size of CPDC would expand from four members of this school board plus the city of Fairfax representative and we would add three uh experts in the field that are community volunteers to that. So we would go from 5 to 8 and they would all have kind of seats around this big conference table and we can have live feedback uh
050from industry experts pro bono. Um so with that I'll kind of open up the floor to to conversation and and we'll kick things off. Mismoiser >> well I thought I could start by just making the motion then we could have the conversation about um the information. So, I would just want to make a motion that I move to direct the chair of the comprehensive planning and development committee to draft develop a draft of the proposed changes to FPAC and CPDC and work with the schoolboard chair to bring the matter to the full board for action no later than December 31st, 2025. >> Yes. Okay. In this motion by Miss Seismore and a second by Miss Mirin, Miss Seismore, would I speak to your motion? I I think you've laid it out very well and I
051think it would be very helpful to have direct community feedback in here instead of two sort of parallel tracks that might be moving in different directions. I think bring us together and we already have a model for it with our audit committee. So I really appreciate the work that went into this and I think it would be very helpful to have us all at the table together. So this makes sense to me. Miss, >> I find this very refreshing and productive and um our FPAC volunteers, they're so dedicated and they've done amazing work and now that we have that kind of data that I mentioned earlier, we've got this joint facilities committee. We've done a lot of the work that FPAC was intended to help with and you noted, you know, even the boundary policy
052really takes over that role. So, you know, the more the board can step up and fulfill its policy responsibilities, the more that we can be efficient, especially with how our very generous volunteers spend their time. I um I I really appreciate that we're going to use the audit committee model. We already know that that works. I um because I know in the past it had been a bit time consuming to get our FPAC volunteers approved. So, I like and it certainly would be a lower volume. I I would want to be sure Well, hold on one second. Let me just check something. Um, yes. I think um I think this is a great idea. Um, I wonder also about just checking with our public engagement committee of the board, right? Because they are the ones
053that oversee and help us ensure that we're utilizing and maximizing our advisory committees, right? And similar to when we sunset our human resources advisory committee, we want to make sure we're doing it in a you know respectful, thankful way. So just being upfront with our FPAC members um and informing each board member like this is out there, you know, please contact and so certainly giving our colleagues guidance on that I think would be helpful way in advance of something coming to the board. >> So I'll work with uh the chair of PEC, Miss St. to make sure that that's communicated fully and we can do that. Um questions. No. Okay. All in I'll call for the vote. All in favor? That's unanimous. Thank you. Okay. Next item. Uh 1.05. I call on Miss Mirren, the
054Honal District representative for report on the Joint Facility Review Committee. >> All the way back. a tight leading. So, you've got uh 52 minutes. >> Oh, wonderful. Well, our meeting this morning ended a little early. >> Uh 22 minutes. >> Um yes, it's hard to believe it was only today. So, um for the community, this committee, the joint facility review committee was established in March by a board of supervisor board matter to help to and the mission is to focus on budget efficiencies and savings or cost efficiencies and savings. So that finally we kicked it off today. So it's myself and Mr. McDaniel representing the school board and on the county board of supervisors it's uh supervisor and vice chair Kathy Smith and Jimmy Beerman. So we met today and I we do have a
055meeting link on our board docs that links to that uh the meeting documents. There's also a web page now that the county is hosting for this joint facility review committee. So, we can figure out how to make sure that that's available to the to the public or just by searching. But, you know, we discussed the county shared some really fascinating and helpful information that, you know, I later said this is the kind of stuff the whole board should know and even, you know, training and onboarding and as we, you know, again, kind of reinvision our facilities work and how we're approaching it. looking at how the county looks at its capital improvement program and how they look at the general obligation bond program. And you know, I learned things like libraries and parks are now
056in a six-year cycle for bond funding. I thought it was still four. Um the history of what the county has done in terms of contributing to a syncing fund. So that's after the budget is done and they're a year end contributing a certain percentage over to cover maintenance costs. and that there had been an expected amount for those maintenance costs and just over the last few years it hadn't been um you know just maintained and the school the school division apparently was looking into doing its own syncing fund. So, you know, just knowing how we're doing with our maintenance and that we have been having to use our general fund money, which is for instruction and the annual operations, using that money for maintenance is really not aligned with what we're trying to do with
057our annual instruction uh fund. So, I think there's there's a lot to learn there. And then, uh, Mr. McDaniel and I presented our ideas and talking about the nexus of all of this and that our schools are used seven days a week. uh half a million additional uses last year. All this really uh helpful data that we've seen over the last year and saying we we've got to all be at the table together and not only the board of supervisors and county and the school division, but also the park authority because we know even during some of our construction renovations now there are these challenges with everything from parking lot access to athletics access. So really looking at it with that one Fairfax lens was um something that was was supported. So then we looked
058at potential topics to uh have the staff focus on. Lots of staff there, Mr. Gordon and his team, Mr. Muick, our chief operations officer, um our CFO as well. So looking at topics and we explored a number of them. So 2232 was the first one and there was a lot of agreement that that needed to be explored more fully. We talked about memorandums of understanding and shared that you know there are a number that are really critical to how we do business that are well due for review including for school age child care use of facilities and I know that's a really big topic um especially as I sit on the Fairfax County Athletic Council for our board and hearing and learning so much again and then just in general facilities maintenance because it's become
059clear through the data throughout this year from our uh facilities team that while funding might be provided for FCPS managed facilities, FCPS is bearing the costs of maintenance and emergency maintenance and staffing. So, a really uh great example was just recently with the stadium bathrooms. So, our school board had uh approved the building of bathrooms at 15 high schools, long long awaited for and the permitting took a very long time. So that again gets to that 2232 process and some other things we want to improve. But uh when the facilities were finished at the start of this school year, there was an expectation that the school division was going to clean them, keep them safe, pay for utilities, and you know that all costs money and that money is coming from our bond or our
060our funding which is for instruction. And so to to the credit of the neighborhood community services team, they said, "Okay, like we understand and let's get our legal stuff together and our liability things and security." And so they're working that out. So I'm hopeful that that trend can continue with a whole host of other things because otherwise it's a lot of I think past disappointments and we you know we're moving away from that. We're moving to doing things better. We're being tighter and more efficient. So, uh, our next meeting, I think, is not until December. So, lots of time for the staff to work together and for us to continue developing. Um, but yeah, it was a really wonderful start. It was, you know, we have to do things differently. It's not that it was
061bad or wrong. It's just that we are in a different economic reality. So, let's figure out the best way to go forward. And Mr. McDaniel, anything you want to add? >> No, I think that was it. I mean, it was very What was that? >> Oh, yeah. It was a very productive conversation with the board of supervisors. The representatives there. Um, and the next meeting is December 11th of this year. So looking forward >> also the same day as CPDC. So I guess this is >> a trend. Okay. This is a trend facilities all day long. >> Yes. December 11th of 2025 is the next meeting of this committee. So, no questions with >> and we will send the materials to the board, but they are also posted online for the public. So, yeah, >>
062perfect. Okay. Um, with that, our our next CBDC meeting is on December 11, 2025 at 7 o'clock here at Gate House Administration Administration Center, room 1600. The Fairfax County School Board Comprehensive Planning and Development Committee meeting is adjourned as of 5:45 p.m. Thank you.