The Prince George's County Council Education, Workforce and Development Committee on Oct. 27 discussed a draft joint priorities letter to the Interagency Commission on School Construction (IAC) and voted to hold the letter for discussion by the Committee of the Whole.

The draft letter, presented by Adrienne Albert, director of the committee, lists multi‑year modernization projects that previously received state approvals and requests additional state allocations and planning approvals for several projects. Albert said the current draft removes Suitland High School because that project “has received the maximum state allocation,” adds the William Schmidt Environmental Education Center after a state increase in its allocation, and requests planning approval for Riverdale Hills pre‑K and a Crossland High School career and technical education addition.

The matter drew sustained questions from committee members who said the list appears concentrated in the northern part of the county. Committee members asked for clearer geographic mapping of which council districts contain the priority projects and urged staff to ensure that countywide equity is explicit in any state funding request. “We value all families and students across our district — north to south — and we need to ensure we are investing in all portions of our county,” the committee chair said during the discussion.

Alex Donahue, director of the Interagency Commission on School Construction, told the committee that the IAC defers to local prioritization so long as projects are eligible, and that state allocations are awarded according to the IAC’s procedures and the timing and readiness of individual projects. Donahue also told the committee that statewide school construction costs have risen substantially in recent decades and that the IAC does not control market construction prices.

Committee members pressed whether projects listed as “planning approval” require a local funding commitment to be competitive; Donahue and PGCPS staff said local matching expectations vary by project and funding stream, and that some projects come to the IAC with county funding already expended in earlier phases. Staff explained that “planning approval” places a project in the IAC’s funding queue and makes it more likely to be considered in future years but does not guarantee construction funding.

After members discussed requested changes and the need for updated enrollment and feasibility data, Councilwoman Cristo Rivera moved to hold the draft letter and refer it to the Committee of the Whole for further alignment; the motion was seconded and carried on a 4‑0 roll call vote.

Votes at a glance

• Motion to hold the draft joint priorities letter and discuss in Committee of the Whole — Moved by Councilwoman Cristo Rivera; second not specified in the record. Roll call: Cristo Rivera — Aye; Adam Stafford — Aye; Olson — Aye; Watson — Aye. Outcome: motion to hold carries 4–0.

The committee asked staff to supply updated September 30 enrollment figures and district feasibility data before the Committee of the Whole so members can review geographic distribution, clarify county match plans for planning‑approval items, and consider edits that emphasize countywide equity before the county submits final state letters in November.

The draft letter discussed by the committee also includes requests for envelope replacements (windows, doors, roofs) and lists a group of elementary schools identified for future consolidation or limited renovations as part of the multi‑year capital plan. Staff said the Educational Facilities Master Plan update, which will reexamine enrollment, adequacy and programmatic needs, is underway and will inform future priority setting.

Notes: The committee’s discussion focused on alignment between the county’s long‑range plan (EFMP/CIP), state funding rules and local priorities. No state funding decisions were made by the committee; that is the IAC’s role.