Swain County discusses amendment to Twin County Schools interlocal agreement to speed middle school construction change orders

Swain County commissioners reviewed a proposed amendment to an interlocal agreement with Twin County Schools that would change how construction change orders are approved on the new middle school project and clarify the order in which county matching funds and grant funds are used.

County staff described the amendment as a formal request to authorize the superintendent to act as the representative of both parties for approving change orders “within the scope of the school project, within the funds available in the project budget, and not in excess of 90,000.” Staff said the interlocal originally set a $10,000 threshold and that the construction manager at risk requested the higher threshold to avoid delays on a large project. “So this is an amendment to the interlocal agreement. We signed that back when we started the new middle school project,” Staff member Stephanie said.

The amendment would require change orders in excess of $90,000 to continue to receive approval from both the Swain County Board of Commissioners and the Board of Education to the extent county matching funds are used. Staff also told the board that county matching funds — described in the meeting as about $2,600,000 — are to be exhausted before grant funds are used for change orders.

County and school staff said the total middle school project budget is $52,000,000, composed of a grant of roughly $50,000,000 plus the county match of $2,600,000; earlier planning assumed about $40,000,000 in construction cost, staff said, and there is contingency available in the project budget. Staff said the project’s construction start is currently estimated in spring 2026. They also said they have received the survey and topo map for the property and have met with the state Department of Transportation and the Municipal School Transportation Assistance (MSTA) program on traffic and pedestrian flow.

Some commissioners voiced concern about expanding delegated authority for change orders. One commissioner said a $90,000 delegation “is a lot of money” to allow without board review and urged caution; another asked who would initiate change orders and was told the construction manager at risk would start the process in coordination with the school and the superintendent would vet and approve them where authorized. Staff emphasized the construction manager at risk is not intended to perform the construction work itself but to manage subs and the process.

During the discussion a motion was made “that we go in and raise it to a hundred thousand.” The transcript records the motion being seconded and the board taking a show-of-hands, but it does not record a final tally or formal outcome for that motion.

No final, detailed action on the interlocal amendment is recorded in the transcript excerpt. Staff told commissioners they would like the county board’s approval so the Board of Education could act; staff said they planned to present the interlocal amendment to the Board of Education at its June 9 meeting.

Why it matters: the amendment would speed approval for certain change orders on a $52 million school project by aligning school and county approval authority with the superintendent’s delegated authority, but commissioners warned that higher delegated limits increase the need for oversight and timely reporting.

Next steps noted in the meeting: staff said they will provide construction updates, communicate change orders to the county manager, and present the interlocal amendment to the Board of Education. The transcript does not show a completed vote or recorded effective change to the agreement in this excerpt.