County and school staff presented a draft interlocal agreement (ILA) to create a standing staff working group to coordinate school-construction planning, communication and publicly accessible status information for bond projects — while retaining existing approval authorities for individual projects.

What the draft ILA would do: County staff said the ILA is modeled on Wake County’s agreement and is intended to establish a ‘‘framework of communication, collaboration, and transparency, not to establish additional approvals in the school construction process.’’ Draft terms include a sunset/end date at the end of fiscal 2030 with renewal options, a 60‑day termination clause, quarterly meetings (with increased frequency when multiple projects are active) and an obligation for the core team to maintain regularly updated, publicly accessible project status information.

Districts’ emphasis: School staff said the ILA would support a county‑school core team that assigns roles, establishes work plans and reports back to all three boards jointly at least annually; they stressed that design and project‑level management remain the responsibility of the school districts. ‘‘Program management ideas’’ would be coordinated by the core team, the county said, but the ‘‘individual project management will retain with the school districts,’’ county staff added.

Bond project updates: Orange County Schools said the 2024 bond will fund a new elementary school (site: near Grassy Hill Middle School adjacent to county property) as the first priority and that the district chose construction-manager-at-risk delivery. Frederick Davis, Orange County Schools chief operations officer, said the district has encumbered or spent about $4.5 million on life‑cycle replacements (roofs, HVAC, asphalt), technology and security and expects the new elementary school design to take roughly a year and construction 24–30 months for a projected opening in 2029.

Chapel Hill‑Carrboro Schools reported a prioritized replacement of Carrboro Elementary as an on‑site replacement project with a design RFQ due and a targeted 2028–2029 timeline; the district recommended project management (not program management) to oversee the on‑site sequencing and recommended an early contractor involvement via construction manager at risk.

Communication and public updates: Commissioners pressed for specificity about ‘‘regular communication to the public’’ called for in the ILA. Staff said board updates would be at least quarterly at the board level, with finance/facilities/operations committees meeting monthly to receive project updates; staff discussed options including dashboards, social media, inserts with report cards or tax-bill inserts to reach communities that do not use social media. Commissioners asked for an attachment spelling out the responsibilities (who does what) in the ILA.

What was not decided: The draft ILA remained for review; staff planned to return with more specific language on frequency and responsibilities before presenting the draft to each board for approval. No design or funding approvals beyond previously budgeted planning funds were taken that evening.

Ending: County and school leaders agreed to continue refining the draft, coordinate on public information methods and return to boards with a redlined ILA and clearer roles for the core team.