Caroline County boards clash over MOU that would let county manage school construction
Loading...
Summary
At a joint meeting, Caroline County supervisors and the school board debated a draft memorandum of understanding that would have the county fund and manage construction for additions at Bowling Green Elementary and transfer facilities to the schools on completion; the two bodies agreed lawyers must reconcile control, procurement and statutory obligations before moving forward.
Caroline County supervisors and the school board spent most of a joint meeting debating a proposed memorandum of understanding that would let the county pay for and run construction on additions to Bowling Green Elementary, then transfer the completed facility to the school division.
The county presented an MOU that, in its current draft, would have the county retain ownership and fiduciary control during construction and then transfer the property on completion. County counsel told the meeting the arrangement is consistent with the Code of Virginia and had been proposed to avoid past delays on school projects; a county official named David Napier was cited as the county’s construction manager who would oversee the work.
School leaders and the superintendent, Sarah Kalvarick, pushed back. Kalvarick said the school board has a duty to ensure the "educational adequacy" of any added space and stressed that "final design approval rests with the School Board" in the draft language, a point she said was already codified and must be preserved. Kalvarick also asked for written analyses to show how construction at Bowling Green would address long‑term capacity and instructional needs.
County supervisors said their approach responds to a history of construction problems on past projects and argued that centralized construction management could be more efficient and protect taxpayers. One supervisor summarized the county’s offer as a gift of six classrooms and a gym and said the county would cover cost overruns.
The two bodies disagreed over whether the MOU was meant only for the Bowling Green project or as a template for future school construction. School trustees said the redlined version they received materially changed who would retain control during the construction phase; county counsel said there is no legal prohibition on the proposed alternative but acknowledged the parties remain far apart on wording.
No formal agreement was reached. By the meeting’s end both sides agreed the next step is a focused conversation between the boards’ attorneys to clarify what is permitted under the Code of Virginia and to draft language that specifies: who owns and controls property during construction, procurement procedures that comply with Virginia procurement law, how final educational specifications will be approved, and communication protocols during construction. The meeting concluded with the boards scheduling follow‑up work rather than taking a vote on the MOU.
