Prince George’s task force reviews draft Plan 2035 implementation report, debates role of climate guidance

Prince George’s County’s Plan 2035 Implementation Infrastructure Task Force on Monday, March 17, 2025, reviewed a redlined draft of a staff report that recommends developing infrastructure-resilience guidance, clarifying the Adequate Public Facilities (APF) and fiscal-impact analyses, and creating a private-development data indicator. The task force approved standing minutes from Dec. 16, 2024, and directed staff to consolidate edits and circulate a revised draft for the next meeting in April 2025.

The draft—prepared by planning department staff and circulated in redline and clean versions—pulls several recommendations into a front-page “Recommendations” list and proposes “next steps for calendar year 2025,” including specifying lead agencies for planned outcomes. Chair Dehoca said, “The director’s draft was very good, and [is] a solid base from which to work from. So thank you, Miss Hall and your staff.”

Why it matters: the report is intended to guide the county council and incoming county executive in implementing policies from Plan 2035 and to align infrastructure investments, capital improvement planning and development review with resilience goals and countywide priorities. Because many recommendations touch on land use, school capacity and county-municipal coordination, the task force’s wording and whether to treat the county’s draft climate action work as binding guidance will shape what the Council and Executive consider for formal action.

Discussion highlights

- Infrastructure resilience guidelines: Several members backed a recommendation that the incoming county executive develop draft infrastructure-resilience guidelines for review by the task force and the County Council. Member Foreman described that step as a “critical early step to… implementation of both Plan 2035 and the climate action guidelines.” Foreman said he would remove language that read as mandatory but supported producing draft guidance for review.

- Climate action plan: The group split over how the draft county climate action plan should be treated. Member Foreman and at least one other member objected to language that would call for formal adoption of the draft climate action plan; Foreman suggested retaining wording that treats the draft as guidance to be reviewed and refined. Task force member Miss Cruz, who prepared portions of the draft, said explicitly, “I did try to clarify that this was guidance, not law.” Members agreed to work on wording that distinguishes binding law from draft guidance and to continue discussion outside the meeting.

- Adequate Public Facilities (APF) and fiscal-impact study: Members asked staff to make explicit which study is referenced where the draft uses the singular term “this assessment.” Planning staff confirmed the draft originally referenced an upcoming fiscal impact study; the group directed that the report explicitly name the fiscal impact study where relevant and consider mentioning it in both the APF and capital-improvement sections because it informs each area.

- Private development indicator and agency responsibility: The draft proposes pulling private-development data forward as a recommendation. Members sought clarity about which agency would compile or report those data. Planning staff and members agreed the Department of Permitting, Inspections and Enforcement (DPIE) would likely hold relevant fee-and-cost data; the draft’s recommendation section will be revised to avoid ambiguity about lead agencies.

- Schools and resales: Members raised that impacts on school capacity stem not only from new development but also from resale-market dynamics and changing household composition. The task force asked staff to consider whether the fiscal-impact or related studies can examine resale-driven enrollment changes as part of school-capacity analysis.

- Multimodal and transportation language: Members asked for clarity that “infrastructure” language included multimodal and pedestrian “last-mile” elements discussed in Go Prince George’s (the county’s transportation/land-use strategy). A simple insertion—e.g., “multimodal infrastructure”—was accepted to clarify the draft’s intent.

- Transparency and public awareness: Several participants said the planning agency does substantial outreach but that many residents remain unaware of planning processes until projects appear. The task force agreed to rephrase a recommendation from generic “transparency” language to a focus on improving accessibility, navigability and public awareness of planning processes.

Formal action and next steps

- The task force approved the Dec. 16 minutes (motion by Mr. Weiss; second by Mr. Tubman). The motion passed with all members present voting in favor (8 members present at roll call). No roll-call-by-name for each vote was recorded in the transcript.

- Staff direction: Task force members instructed staff to consolidate the chair’s redline, Mr. Foreman’s proposed edits that the group agreed to keep, and any final planning-department clarifications; to correct agency assignments (for example identifying DPIE where appropriate); and to circulate a revised draft before the next meeting. The task force also requested staff craft alternative wording on the climate action references that frame them as guidance pending further technical work.

Meeting context and timing

Eight task force members were present. Members and planning staff spent most of the meeting reviewing redline edits item-by-item; members repeatedly asked staff to specify which studies or documents (for example, the fiscal impact study) are being referenced by each recommendation. The task force agreed to reconvene in April 2025 and staff said they were working to arrange a briefing from the Prince George’s County school system for that meeting.

What was not decided

The task force did not adopt the climate action plan or require its immediate adoption by the Council; members asked for alternative, guidance-focused language and more technical detail before recommending adoption. No final decisions were made about new regulatory requirements, funding allocations or ordinance changes; the draft will be revised and returned to the task force for further review.

Ending

Staff will consolidate edits from the chair’s redline, the agreed Foreman changes, and planning-department clarifications, and circulate a revised draft before the April meeting for the task force’s further consideration.