Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Mou topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Caroline County supervisors and school board at odds over MOU that would shift construction control
Summary
At a joint meeting, supervisors proposed an MOU that would let the county fund and manage construction—retaining ownership/control during work and transferring completed projects to the school board—while school leaders, citing the Code of Virginia and past construction problems, pushed back and requested attorneys clarify what the law permits.
A proposed memorandum of understanding that would let the Caroline County Board of Supervisors fund and manage school construction drew sharp disagreement at a joint session of the county and school boards.
County representatives presented an MOU that, in their description, would allow the county to fund procurement and construction and retain responsibility during the building phase before transferring ownership to the school board. "Final design approval rests with the school board," the county read from the draft, but county officials said ownership and fiscal management could remain with the supervisors during construction to speed projects and avoid repeated delays.
School Superintendent Sarah Kalbaric said she supports a new gym as an equity matter but warned that a multimillion-dollar classroom expansion "does not align with the facility study and demographic pattern results of the study." She urged caution about large expansions that could lengthen bus routes and disrupt instruction during construction.
Several speakers cited past problems on large projects. "We had no construction manager over the works for Clark," said Mr. Whiteman (introduced by the board), describing missed inspections and repeated rework that followed earlier school construction. County speakers said the county now has an on‑staff construction manager and argued that the county's experience could reduce delays and cost overruns.
The core disagreement centered on whether the revised MOU alters the traditional allocation of statutory authority under the Code of Virginia. School‑side counsel (named in correspondence as Stacy Haney) flagged concern about the school board "giving up their code of Virginia rights," and county counsel (identified in the meeting as McKenzie) said he did not see a legal prohibition to the proposed arrangement but acknowledged the language change is material.
With both sides saying they want to collaborate, several members asked lawyers for a direct, joint review. "I think the lawyers need to get back together and be very clear about what can and what can't," said Speaker 10 (county CFO). Both boards agreed to instruct counsel to meet and return with a clarified legal position and a narrower set of options.
The meeting ended without a vote on the MOU; attendees said the counsel meeting will be the next procedural step.
Ending: The joint session adjourned with attorneys scheduled to meet to resolve the statutory and operational differences before the boards proceed further.
