November 6, 2025 School Board Meeting

TL; DR

The board

• received a high school schedule implementation update.

• received an update on issues with the bond implementation Inter Local Agreement.

• reviewed a proposed budget for the current year projecting a fund balance surplus slightly over $3M.

*******************************************************************************************

There were three major items on the agenda. First up was a high school schedule implementation update.

BACKGROUND (Edited from the Abstract): The administration provides quarterly updates to the full board (last updates 5/15, 7/10), with more frequent updates scheduled for the Student Success Committee (SSC). The transition to the 4x4 block schedule is progressing as planned, with all necessary preparations and support systems actively underway. The administration continues to report no “risks or challenges” that would impede the successful implementation of the new schedule.

Highlights of the presentation include:

• Professional Development has been ongoing at the school level and integrated into district level trainings.

• Starting to plan for Infinite Campus registration. Reminder that PowerSchool was used to register last year so this will be the last shift.

• Great collaboration among high schools, even with interim leadership in two schools. A true passion to make this work!

• Check-ins with teachers and students to see “how it’s going.” A lot more positive than negative with an emphasis on wellbeing (staff and students).

• Approximately 2,000 survey responses (mostly students) were tallied. On a 1–5 scale, overall sentiment averages 3.01 (median 3)—basically mixed.

1. Overall sentiment: 39% Positive, 25% Neutral, 35% Negative.

2. By role: Students (n≈1,797): 38% Positive / 26% Neutral / 36% Negative; Teachers (n≈184): 46% Positive / 17% Neutral / 38% Negative; Staff (n≈27): 85% Positive / 15% Neutral / 0% Negative (small sample)

• What people like best?: fewer classes per day, less homework, and more time for labs/projects and focused work.

• Biggest challenges: long class periods strain attention, pacing/coverage (esp. AP), gaps between courses hurt retention, and logistics (Flex/lunch/meeting schedules) need tuning.

*******************************************************************************************

Next up was an update on the Inter-Local Agreement (ILA) between Orange County (OC) and its two school districts, Orange County Schools (OCS) and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS). This is related to the bond-financed replacement of several elementary schools (Carrboro ES, Estes Hills ES, Frank Porter Graham Bilingue). I’ve included much of the technical history here because the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) on October 14, 2025, unilaterally proposed significant changes to the ILA. CHCCS sent a detailed response and the BoCC began a review of their ILA proposed changes and our response. Things are at a bit of a stalemate at this point.

BACKGROUND (heavily edited from the Abstract): Orange County and its two school districts, Orange County Schools (OCS) and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS), have long relied on inter-local agreements to coordinate responsibilities around school capital projects, financing, and facility management. These agreements are authorized under North Carolina General Statutes N.C.G.S. §§ 115C and 153A, which allow counties to fund and support school construction while districts retain operational control. With respect to transparency and accountability, inter-local agreements have often required regular reporting to boards of education and the county commissioners, therefore, reinforcing public accountability for large capital expenditures. The district has a history of using inter-local agreements with respect to its role with sales tax revenue sharing when performing large-scale capital investment projects as described in G.S. 105-164.14. This statute allows eligible governmental entities, including counties and municipalities, to claim an annual refund of state and local sales and use taxes paid on direct purchases of tangible personal property and services, such as building materials, supplies, fixtures, and equipment, that become part of a facility owned or leased by the entity and used for public purposes, to include school construction.

Summary of Proposed Inter-Local Agreement: Orange County previously requested that the Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools to consider entering into an Inter-local Agreement (ILA) to formalize and extend their collaborative efforts in planning, acquiring, designing, constructing, and renovating school facilities. The proposed agreement established a framework to ensure school capital improvement projects were completed efficiently, transparently, and within budget while maximizing instructional opportunities for students. By aligning with statutory provisions under N.C. General Statutes §115C and §153A, the county assumed certain responsibilities in financing and construction while the school districts maintained authority over facility operations. The inter-local agreement sought to promote fiscal accountability and timely delivery of projects, ensuring long-term viability of educational infrastructure within Orange County.

First Draft Presented at 09.25.25 Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) Joint School Meeting: A central feature of the agreement was the continuation of the Joint School Facilities Core Team, which facilitates structured communication and coordination between County and school district staff. The “Core Team” will oversee capital improvement planning, funding strategies, and progress reporting to all governing boards and the public. The agreement further outlines terms of duration (through June 30, 2033), termination provisions, amendment procedures, and governance safeguards, while affirming that the parties remain legally independent entities. With clear roles, communication channels, and accountability measures, this agreement strengthens intergovernmental cooperation to support educational excellence and responsible stewardship of taxpayer resources.

Initial Staff Review/Comments of First Draft: CHCCS district staff believe this “first draft” of the proposed inter-local agreement is consistent with prior discussions with the Joint Capital Work Group and County staff; these recommendations establish clear guidelines to enhance communication and collaboration among the three boards and the public. Its intent is to promote transparency and ensure that updates on project progress and spending are conveyed in a timely and accessible manner.

District staff comments include that the ILA draft document:

• Serves as a guideline for communication by adopting mutually agreed-upon standards for sharing information with the three Boards and the public, ensuring consistency and clarity.

• Reinforces a commitment to transparency by providing regular updates on the various stages of projects and related expenditures to strengthen accountability and public trust.

• Establishes Core Team Meeting expectations by meeting at least quarterly, or more frequently if needed, to review project updates, address challenges, and coordinate next steps.

• Establishes expectations for the three governing boards to utilize the existing BoCC Joint Meetings, held twice annually, as a central forum for sharing comprehensive information and updates across governing bodies.

In summation, district staff believe this framework provides a structured yet flexible approach to communication and oversight, reinforcing collaboration among the boards while ensuring the public remains informed.

Second Draft Presented at 10.22.25 BoCC Business Meeting: A unilaterally developed second draft was presented to CHCCS staff on October 14 in an email letter prior to the BoCC conducting its monthly business meeting on October 22, 2025. District staff worked with the CHCCS board chair (me) to develop a response, in advance, of the meeting. The BoCC second draft of the ILA is materially different and a departure from the work of the joint capital work group and the approved capital spending requirements. The second draft includes new language having the County and the BoCC assuming more direct management of the school construction process.

Initial Staff Review/Comments of Second Draft: CHCCS district staff noted that the second draft is much different than the first and is much different than the capital spending guidelines approved by the BoCC at its January 21, 2025 meeting as well as previous discussions with the Joint Capital Work Group.

District staff have questions about several aspects of the proposed draft titled “Agreement for the Construction and Renovation of Various School Projects.” District staff’s initial understanding was that the Interlocal Agreement (ILA) would be patterned after the one used in the Wake County Public School System. This proposed revision is substantially different.

Many of the subsequent proposed revisions appear problematic in terms of specific board roles and responsibilities, possible duplications of effort(s), and leading to delays, therefore likely to increase costs due to inflation. Below are some of staff’s concerns about the proposed ILA revisions. These concerns were shared with BoCC and OCS in an email letter response from me and provided to the BoCC prior to its October 22, 2025 meeting. We made it clear that it is our desire that CHCCS staff will be given an opportunity for further collaboration as we move forward with the finalization of the ILA. The initial responses/questions to the major revisions to the BoCC’s second draft ILA are as follows:

1. We are in complete agreement that our projects, to the greatest extent practical, align with the principles of the Woolpert Report while:

2. Understanding that Woolpert may have not identified unforeseen issues.

3. Understanding that extenuating circumstances may change the prioritization of projects identified in the report.

4. The ILA is for the “management and oversight of all construction and renovation projects”. Question: Does this mean all funding sources or is the ILA meant for projects funded by general obligation bonds?

5. We are concerned about the $250,000 minimum dollar threshold as this seems to be a relatively low amount for an additional review and authorization process as this could add a lot of complications to relatively straightforward projects like HVAC repair or roof replacement.

6. The County’s School Construction policy defines “major projects” to include “facility replacements and significant renovations.” Question: Could we not align with that definition?

7. The ILA states that School Districts propose projects, refer those proposals to the Core Team for consideration, the Core Team will refer proposals to the County Manager, and the County Manager will then refer projects to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. This additional approval process seems unnecessarily time-consuming and therefore costly and seems to skip the role of the Board of Education. The idea behind the Core Team was that it would be a collaborative group of professional staff, with representatives from the County and BOE, that is discussing and vetting proposals “before” they come to the Board of Education for a decision. The ILA draft seems to set up a system wherein the Board of Education approves a proposal, then it goes to the Core team for review, then to the county manager, then to the commissioners, and if at any point in these layers of review there are questions or suggestions, the whole process would need to start over again.

8. The County adopted the current policy on January 21, 2025, titled, “Orange County Board of Commissioners Major Project Planning Policy Addendum.” The policy addresses Design and Planning factors such as Educational Adequacy, Design for Future Standards, Equitability between Districts, Sustainability and Life Cycle Costing, Safety, Community Usage, and Capacity (District staff will identify how Major Projects would impact the student capacity of the district. To support a “Newer & Fewer” replacement strategy, school districts may replace smaller older schools with larger higher capacity schools. The County expects the districts to create a long-term plan to use that additional capacity to consolidate other aging schools.) CHCCS can address these factors in a summary of our school design, and at any point in the process demonstrate incorporation and adherence to these factors without a multi-layer prior approval process. Under the County’s Policy, a school system project is approved when it is included in the approved CIP. This draft ILA would seem to require that we start over from scratch even though the replacement of Carrboro Elementary School was previously approved/funded, as a project, in the FY25 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) for design. A lot of care and work goes into the CIP process, and it would make sense to continue using that system as stated in County policy instead of creating multiple additional layers of procedures through this ILA.

9. Provides construction manager at risk (“CMAR”) as the default procurement method. We concur, when it comes to “major projects,” but do not see a reason to limit our options for all projects.

10. The School Districts shall select a design professional and submit to the County for review and approval and upon approval the School Districts shall manage the design of each project. Any amendments to the design contract shall be submitted to the County for approval. Sometimes there may be contract amendments that are relatively small in scope and adding County approval for any and all amendments can add 6-8 weeks’ delay for even a $1,000 change. We also need to clarify the “prior approval” purpose and process and determine whether“ County” refers to the County Manager or Board of County Commissioners.

11. The school districts shall directly manage school construction. Any change orders or amendments that increase the total budget of the project must go to the County for approval. Again, some change orders are relatively minor and may need to be executed quickly (for example, the engineer discovers that site conditions require a different type of drain that will increase the cost a very minor amount – approval from both boards could cause significant construction delays). Can there be some sort of threshold above which additional approval is necessary, such as a change order that increases the cost of the project above a certain percentage? We also need to clarify the purpose and process to make this work without unnecessary delays and also determine whether “County” refers to the County Manager or Board of County Commissioners.

12. Requires the completion of a sales tax recapture agreement(s) prior to beginning any project. Knowing design costs are generally not taxable, it might make sense to have this before beginning the construction portion of a major school project funded by general obligation bonds.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Any delay in approving the Inter-Local Agreement could result in schedule impacts and higher costs from inflation.

So where are we in terms of getting started with the replacement of Carrboro ES? We have an RFP out for architectural design. We hope to begin site grading this summer (2026). This last minute (October 14, 2025) BoCC proposed revision of the ILA may delay our beginning date and may slow down the entire process. We shared our concerns with the BoCC and they began reviewing our concerns at their October 22, 2025 business meeting. They concluded that meaning by referring the matter to their staff for further development. I addressed the BoCC at the conclusion of their meeting and assured them we desire collaboration, and at the same time an effective and efficient ILA. Simply put, “time is money.” Any delays will result in increased overall construction costs.

*******************************************************************************************

The final item on the agenda was an update on the Board of Education’s FY 2025-26 Budget Adoption. The board will vote to formally adopt the budget on November 20, 2025. The presentation included detailed facts and figures, and the reader is advised to review the presentation for details. It is available HERE.

Highlights include:

• For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025, the district added $360K to its Fund Balance.

• The Tier III Reduction in Force implemented last year has resulted in a projected Fund Balance surplus of $3,071,367.00 for the current budget year. This is all good news, and consistent with budget predictions made two years ago.

-END-