Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Efmp Cip topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PGCPS begins multi‑year update of Educational Facilities Master Plan; modernization gap cited
Summary
Director Veil Jackson presented a timeline for updating the Educational Facilities Master Plan (EFMP), including condition assessments, new educational specifications and an expected adoption cycle that could conclude in June 2027; Jackson said the district's modernization need outpaces historic capital funding.
Veil Jackson, director of the Department of Capital Programs, told the Operations, Budget and Fiscal Affairs Committee on March 19 that PGCPS has begun the multi‑year process to replace the FY17 Educational Facilities Master Plan and to develop the FY27 EFMP that will guide capital priorities and the subsequent capital improvement plan (CIP).
Jackson said the FY17 EFMP’s underlying data are dated — "the data behind it is 11 years old" — and that the department will conduct an updated facility condition assessment and master educational specification process. The department plans to present raw condition and utilization data to the board in January 2026, firm up priority recommendations by August 2026, and seek adoption of a new EFMP by June 2027. Jackson noted that, because annual EFMP submissions are required, the district will still vote on amendments to the FY17 EFMP in June 2025 and June 2026 while the new plan is under development.
Jackson reviewed the prioritization pillars that have historically driven facilities decisions — facility condition, educational adequacy and utilization — and said the FY27 EFMP will add new pillars including Blueprint requirements, universal pre‑K, career and technical education expansion and sustainability considerations. She emphasized the budgetary consequences of prioritization: "Our work actually would come to cost $570,000,000 a year in current dollars," Jackson said, and noted that PGCPS' average approved capital from 2015–2025 was about $174,000,000 per year, leaving a substantial funding gap.
She summarized recent CIP results to illustrate tradeoffs: the FY23 CIP request was about $266 million and the approved allocation that year was about $205 million, with roughly two‑thirds directed to new schools, additions or modernizations and a smaller share to system upgrades and major repairs. Jackson said years with low major‑repair funding leave the district vulnerable to emergency repairs and defer needed envelope and system work.
Jackson also described the role of master educational specifications (ed specs): these documents define programmatic and space standards for new construction and major projects so the district and the state can hold projects to standardized space and program expectations.
Jackson and staff said the department will return with the condition‑assessment results, draft prioritization and proposed recommendations for how capital requests should be structured in the coming CIP cycle. The committee did not adopt any capital decisions at the March 19 meeting.
