A motion to limit transportation to only students within new boundaries rather than automatically providing transportation for phased students failed at the Dec. 18 Fairfax County School Board meeting after sustained debate over equity, cost and operational feasibility.

Ms. Lady moved that the board "approve providing transportation based only on new boundary adjustments" (i.e., not guarantee busing for students who choose phasing). The motion prompted extensive questioning from board members about how many additional buses and drivers would be required, whether electric or diesel buses were assumed, how charging infrastructure would be funded and what the real cost would be.

Staff said the conservative estimate for meeting phasing demand using electric buses was about $10.4 million over the first five years of a lease-to-own period; an approximate diesel alternative was estimated at roughly $7.25 million for the same period. Staff explained the higher figure reflected JET goals that had guided purchases toward electric vehicles and included driver pay, route adjustments and other operating costs. Staff also noted a 10'12 month lead time to acquire new buses.

Board members raised equity concerns. "I'm really concerned that this will allow only our students with means to be able to access the phasing," Dr. Anderson said, adding that transportation choices could become an opportunity for those with resources while disadvantaging other families. Several members asked for further data on bus ridership vs. assigned capacity and on how many of the roughly 2,800 potentially affected students would actually choose phasing.

Questions about procurement options and alternatives surfaced: could the district lease buses, buy used units (staff noted a prior purchase of 10 used buses from a private owner), or use connector buses in some cases? Staff warned that to meet demand the routing team projected up to 57 additional routes and the need to hire drivers and consider charging-infrastructure costs if electric buses were chosen.

After discussion and a roll-call sequence, the clerk recorded the final tally as 0 yes, 5 no, and 5 abstentions, and the motion failed (vote recorded as "0 5 5"). Several members said they wanted more analysis before committing to a policy that would affect budget and transportation operations.

Board members requested additional information about ridership head counts, capacity by route, clearer cost breakdowns for diesel versus electric procurement and the staged operational impacts before revisiting the question.

The item is likely to return in future budget and boundary deliberations once staff can provide the requested data and analyses.