Director Veil Jackson of the Department of Capital Programs told the committee the district is beginning work to replace its FY17 EFMP, calling the current plan “old” and noting facility-condition data are up to 15 years out of date. The district will launch updated condition assessments and master educational specification work and said it expects raw data presentations to the board by January 2026, priority recommendations by August 2026, and adoption of the next EFMP by June 2027.

Jackson described the FY17 EFMP as founded on facility condition, educational adequacy and utilization and said the FY27 EFMP will add pillars such as Blueprint implementation (universal pre-K), career and technical education (CTE) expansion, sustainability and evolving security standards. The master educational specifications (ed specs) will define system standards for building program spaces and square footage so architects and state reviewers can hold projects to those system expectations.

Jackson and staff outlined cost and capacity constraints: modernizing to FY17 standards would require roughly $570 million per year in current dollars; the district’s average approved capital over 2015–2025 was about $174 million per year, with recent actuals closer to $128 million. In prior cycles the district requested more than it received: the FY23 CIP request was $266 million and the county approved roughly $205 million; in that year 66% of approved funds went to new schools/additions/modernizations and $33 million went to major repairs. In the most recent year presented, the district requested $215 million and received about $135 million; approximately $107 million of that approved amount went to new schools, $14 million to system upgrades and $3.6 million to major repairs.

Jackson said some Cycle 1 projects paused by earlier board votes must be revisited (she cited the Southern elementary consolidation and a funding shortfall for the William Schmidt/New International High School project). She emphasized the need to standardize educational specifications so the system can prioritize capital projects and advocate for consistent funding.

Board members asked how capital funding requests are generated and where capital and operating budgets intersect. Jackson and other staff explained the CIP request process: the Office of Management and Budget produces preliminary recommendations for available bond funding; the board’s CIP request lists priorities derived from the EFMP; council hearings and state matching decisions then determine final appropriations. Staff said capital funding is largely debt-financed through bond sales and is constrained by county capacity and credit rating considerations.

Why it matters: PGCPS faces a sizable capital funding gap; new EFMP priorities and standardized ed specs will guide where limited capital dollars are invested across new schools, modernizations, system upgrades and major repairs.

What’s next: The district will present raw condition and utilization data to the board in early 2026, return with prioritized recommendations in mid-to-late 2026, and seek board adoption of the new EFMP by June 2027 while continuing annual EFMP amendments in the interim.