Funding Our Future: FY27 Budget, Part 2

Where We’ve Been and What Comes Next

By: Kelly Carmichael Booz (District B) and Alex Scioscia (District B)

Note to Readers

This post is part of an ongoing effort to help our community understand how ACPS plans for the future—particularly when it comes to our budget and long-term facilities decisions. Since our September post on FY27 budget challenges, we’ve moved from early discussion into the formal Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process, including several School Board work sessions and a final vote in December.

This update focuses primarily on the CIP, which governs long-term investments in school buildings and capacity, with a brief update on operating to explain how the two are connected.

How We Got Here

Since September, several key milestones shaped this year’s CIP conversation:

• September: The School Board outlined the fiscal pressures facing FY27, including rising costs and limited revenue growth.

• October–November: ACPS staff presented updated enrollment projections, capacity scenarios, and non-capacity facility needs. ACPS presented at the City Council Budget Retreat, highlighting the shared fiscal constraints shaping the FY27 budget frame.

• December 11 & December 16: The Board held two CIP add/delete work sessions focused on project sequencing, middle school capacity, and alignment with City guidance.

• December 18: After extensive discussion, the School Board voted to adopt the FY27–FY36 Capital Improvement Program.

These meetings reflected both the complexity of the decisions before us and the real constraints shaping what is possible.

A Shared Fiscal Reality

During the November 1 retreat, City staff projected only .5% revenue growth—roughly half of last year’s rate. That translates to about $5 million in new revenue citywide, versus ACPS’s $19.3 million needed to maintain current services.

Departments were asked to identify 1% savings and fund any new requests with offsets. For ACPS, the City’s guidance sets a 1.5% increase in the operating transfer (about $4.2M) and directs us to keep our CIP within previously approved 10-year funding levels.

This year’s CIP was developed under tight parameters set by the City:

• A 10-year capital guidance cap that limits total school capital spending

• Slower projected revenue growth

• Competing citywide priorities for limited debt capacity

Within that framework, the Board adopted a $282.3 million CIP for FY27–FY36, below the City’s guidance ceiling. That required difficult tradeoffs, including deferring some projects while advancing others.

A Quick Refresher: CIP vs. Operating

The operating budget covers people and programs, including teacher and staff pay, classroom supports, and utilities.

The CIP budget funds long-term investments like HVAC and roof replacements, school modernizations, classroom technology infrastructure, program spaces, and site improvements.

While the two budgets move on different timelines, together they show how ACPS maintains safe buildings and supports the students and staff inside them.

Only FY27 of the CIP is actually funded next year. Years two through ten are planning placeholders, updated annually. That distinction matters, and it came up repeatedly in December during board work sessions.

What the Board Adopted in December

On December 18, the Board adopted the FY27–FY36 CIP by a 5–4 vote. The adopted plan includes:

• Continued investment in non-capacity needs like HVAC, roofs, and safety

• Funding to relocate Chance for Change and support alternative education

• A long-term strategy to address middle school capacity, including K-8 conversions planned in 2030

• Deferral of Cora Kelly modernization beyond the current 10-year window to remain within fiscal guidance

• Renovating the transportation facility 

The vote reflected differing perspectives among Board members and concluded with the adoption of a plan that fits within the City’s capital guidance and that the Board as a whole will advocate for.

Why Chance for Change and Alternative Education Matter

As part of the FY27–FY36 CIP adoption, the School Board voted to include capital funding to support Chance for Change and the launch of an expanded Alternative Learning Program.

Chance for Change (CFC) provides intensive academic, social-emotional learning (SEL), and restorative supports in a small-setting environment. Its current location faces accessibility and space limitations, and the lease expires in 2026. During the December work sessions, staff proposed relocating CFC into existing ACPS swing space, and the adopted CIP includes funding to prepare that space for program use.

The Board also supported the launch of the Alternative Learning Program (ALP), beginning with grade 9 in the 2026–27 school year. ALP offers students facing short-term suspensions an in-school alternative that keeps them engaged in instruction and support services.

Both programs align with the state’s updated accountability framework, which emphasizes attendance, engagement, and growth, and reflect the Board’s commitment to meeting student needs through supportive approaches.

Middle School Utilization: What the Data Shows

Middle school utilization has been a challenge for many years, and that reality was not in dispute during the December discussions.

Today, our two comprehensive middle schools are already operating well above optimal utilization rates:

• George Washington Middle School: ~126% utilization

• Francis C. Hammond Middle School: ~113% utilization

Together, they are serving roughly 400 more students than they were designed to hold.

The enrollment projections shared during the CIP process show middle school enrollment peaking around FY2031, followed by a gradual decline. However, projections beyond three to four years carry uncertainty. Historically, ACPS middle school projections in the out-years have been 101–108% accurate, meaning actual enrollment has often exceeded projections by 1–8%. That margin can translate into 100–200 additional students beyond the projected number.

Even with projected declines later in the decade, middle school utilization remains above the division’s ideal 90–110% range through at least FY2032–FY2033. Because the current middle school utilization totals about 2,989 seats, there is no buffer if enrollment comes in higher than expected.

In practical terms, if we do nothing, middle school buildings remain overutilized for years. Against that backdrop, the Board’s discussion focused on how best to address this challenge within existing fiscal and planning constraints.

What Does — and Does Not — Address the Problem

It is also important to be clear about what does not solve middle school overcrowding:

• Keeping Patrick Henry and Jefferson-Houston as K–8 schools does not address overcrowding at George Washington and Hammond. Those buildings were not designed or sited to absorb division-wide middle school growth.

• Modular classrooms can provide short-term relief, but they are not a long-term solution. Staff noted ongoing challenges with indoor air quality, HVAC systems, loss of outdoor space, and site constraints. Modulars also do not address shared spaces such as cafeterias, gyms, or libraries in already overutilized buildings.

For these reasons, solving long-term middle school utilization remains a priority, even as near-term strategies are considered.

How the Board Approached the Decision

Throughout the December work sessions, Board members shared a common understanding that middle school overcrowding is real and ongoing.

Where perspectives differed was process and sequencing—specifically, whether the CIP should:

• name a single long-term middle school solution now, or

• preserve flexibility while additional joint planning with the City continues.

For some members, naming a specific project was seen as a way to provide clarity, a baseline plan should nothing else materialize and signal urgency. For others, flexibility was prioritized given uncertainty around enrollment, land availability, and long-term funding. Both perspectives were rooted in concerns about long-term outcomes, not disagreement about the need for additional capacity.

It is also important to note that none of the options discussed—conversions, modulars, or new construction—would provide immediate relief. All require multiple years of planning, design, and implementation.

How This Fits Into Long-Range City–School Planning

This work builds on years of joint planning between ACPS and the City.

The Joint Facilities Master Plan (JFMP) identified middle school capacity as one of Alexandria’s highest needs and outlined options such as modernizing existing schools or adding 600–1,200 seats over time.

The City and ACPS also regularly update student generation rates. The most recent update shows that nearly 88% of ACPS students live in housing more than 30 years old, reinforcing that enrollment growth is largely driven by established neighborhoods, not just new development.

City planning data shared with ACPS indicates several major housing developments coming online between 2027 and 2030, primarily in areas served by George Washington, Hammond, and Jefferson-Houston. These projects alone are expected to add hundreds of new K–12 students once fully occupied.

ACPS will also begin updating the Long-Range Educational Facilities Plan (LREFP) with City staff in 2026, another reminder that enrollment, facility conditions, and capital planning evolve over time.

How Today’s Work Builds on Earlier Planning (2015)

The 2015 Long Range Educational Facilities Plan anticipated many of the challenges we are navigating today:

• Set middle school size at 1,200 students.

• Established an 80% utilization target to account for scheduling and program needs.

• Recommended ACPS “locate a new middle school” or expand existing ones due to projected crowding at Hammond and GW.

• Identified potential school sites in Eisenhower West, Lower Hammond, Potomac Yard, and Simpson Field.

• Directed early interventions when utilization approached 120%.

These foundational planning standards still guide our decisions today.

A Note on Enrollment Projections

Enrollment projections are planning tools, not forecasts. They are most accurate in the first three to four years and become less certain further out due to factors such as housing timelines, migration, and demographic shifts.

For that reason, the CIP is a living plan, updated annually to reflect new data and changing conditions. This is why ACPS relies on a mix of short-term strategies and phased long-term investments, rather than treating the 10-year plan as fixed.

Cora Kelly: Deferred, Not Dropped

During the December CIP adoption, the Board deferred the full modernization of Cora Kelly beyond the FY27–FY36 construction window. This was a decision about timing, made to keep the capital plan within City guidance while prioritizing several pressing needs in the near and mid-term—most notably middle school building utilization, Chance for Change and alternative education, and the transportation facility.

This was not an easy decision, nor one taken lightly. The Board recognizes that Cora Kelly’s modernization has been a long-standing priority for the community, and deferring construction required difficult tradeoffs in a constrained capital environment.

Importantly, Cora Kelly was not removed from the 10-year plan. The adopted CIP includes planning funds in year 10, keeping the project visible and positioned for future action. In the meantime, funding remains in place to maintain the building in a state of good repair, and the school continues to be part of long-range facilities planning. As enrollment trends, capacity needs, and funding conditions evolve, the modernization of Cora Kelly is expected to be revisited in future CIP updates.

Transportation Facility: Included in the Adopted CIP

The approved FY27–36 CIP includes funding for the ACPS Transportation Facility, which is the worst building we have per our facility assessment. In the adopted plan, the project is scheduled for later years of the CIP, rather than the near term, to remain within City capital guidance while addressing other immediate systemwide priorities.

During the December work sessions, staff and Board members discussed several factors that affect the timing of this project:

• Interim solutions such as modular offices are not feasible due to space constraints and bus parking needs.

• Any modernization will need to support a transition to an electric bus fleet, along with stormwater and site requirements.

• Near-term capital capacity is limited, requiring difficult tradeoffs across multiple high-priority needs.

  
  

Including the Transportation Facility in the adopted CIP ensures the project remains part of the long-term plan, even as its timing reflects the broader constraints facing the capital program.

A Brief Operating Budget Note

While this post focuses on capital planning, it’s important to recognize that capital and operating decisions are closely linked. Investments made through the CIP affect the operating budget over time through debt service, utilities, maintenance, and staffing needs.

As the Board moves into FY27 operating budget discussions, these connections will become more visible. Decisions made on the capital side shape what is possible on the operating side—especially in a constrained fiscal environment where new dollars are limited and tradeoffs are unavoidable.

What Comes Next

With the FY27–FY36 CIP now adopted, the Board and staff are shifting into the next phase of budget work:

• FY27 operating budget development, including staffing, programs, and core services

• Continued coordination with the City as operating and capital priorities intersect

• Preparation for the Long-Range Educational Facilities Plan (LREFP) update beginning in 2026, which will revisit enrollment trends, capacity needs, and facility options using updated data

  
  

These steps are part of an ongoing cycle of planning, evaluation, and adjustment—grounded in fiscal responsibility and guided by the needs of students today and in the years ahead.

Final Thought

Reasonable people can—and do—disagree about the best path forward. The responsibility of the School Board is not only to explain the constraints and tradeoffs, but to act as careful fiscal stewards, making decisions grounded in the best available data, long-term planning, and the realities of limited public resources.

That means weighing immediate needs against future obligations, prioritizing investments that address the greatest pressures, and revisiting decisions as conditions change. This work requires both transparency and discipline and we will continue to do it.