Fairfax school boards discuss updating 1978 School Services Agreement ahead of January deadline

City of Fairfax and Fairfax County school leaders met Dec. 16 to discuss a possible board-to-board amendment to their School Services Agreement (SSA), saying portions of the 1978 contract are outdated and could benefit from clearer, modern language.

Chair (City of Fairfax, speaker labeled S1) opened the discussion and emphasized this was a high-level conversation, not a formal request to "open the SSA." The chair said the boards could pursue an amendment under the SSA’s board-to-board protocol (Article 5.2) and noted procedural deadlines: a written amendment proposal must be submitted by Jan. 15 and the receiving board has until April 1 to respond.

Why it matters: The SSA still references buildings and purchase rights that no longer reflect current facilities, the chair said, citing Article 2’s references to Layton Hall (now Daniels Run), Westmore (demolished in 2012) and Greenacres (no longer a school). The contract’s Article 3 language on programmatic costs and classroom rental was described as vague for modern programming, and Article 4’s termination/purchase language also reflects an earlier era of school facilities.

Fairfax County Public Schools Superintendent Dr. Reed (first identified in the meeting) explained amendment mechanics and suggested a pre-deadline conversation among chairs, vice chairs, superintendents and finance staff so the boards could better coordinate before the April 1 response date. City Superintendent Dustin Wright affirmed the city’s interest in strengthening the partnership and supported meetings that would protect students and the community.

County School Board member Carl Frisch supported removing outdated text but cautioned about timing: he said the work should avoid mid-budget season and suggested taking up less consequential updates after the budget process or during summer. Fairfax County Board member I'll Young Moon urged that proposed language changes be developed with legal counsel and routed through the county’s chair or counsel so the county could discuss them internally.

The boards did not vote on or adopt any changes; participants described next steps as drafting specific amendment language, involving counsel as appropriate, and meeting informally to align expectations ahead of the Jan. 15 proposal deadline.

Ending: There was no formal action at the Dec. 16 joint meeting. Board leaders said they expect to follow the amendment timeline and to report back after further staff and legal review.