Buncombe County Schools facilities staff told the Board Friday that the district faces multi‑hundred‑million‑dollar capital needs driven by aging infrastructure, rising construction costs and recent growth in parts of the county.

"We have 45 school campuses, 4 and a half million square feet of brick and mortar space and 102 acres of roof," Director of Facilities and Maintenance Clark Wyatt said. He described the district's average facility age as roughly 50 years and called deferred maintenance a driver of exponentially higher future costs.

Wyatt said the district's total identified capital needs this year exceed $450 million across funding streams; because available funds are far smaller, the district uses a phased approach and multiple funding sources (Article 39, Article 40/42 and lottery funds) to spread work across years.

Nut graf: The immediate implications are operational and safety focused—roofs, mechanical systems, fire alarms and access control were emphasized—and the district warned a state legislative proposal to change how Article 39 funds may be used would materially alter the district's ability to fund its highest‑priority infrastructure projects.

What the district presented

- Scale of need: Wyatt presented a long‑range capital estimate that the district uses to prioritize work. He said an annual spend of about $27 million would be required merely to maintain infrastructure at current levels; current expected capital revenue in the 40/42 fund this year was presented as roughly $17.5 million (a county forecast figure used for planning).

- Roofing, mechanical and electrical backlog: The facilities summary showed more than $19.5 million in immediate or near‑term roofing needs that were not funded in the proposed capital budget; additional electrical and flooring work was also listed as unfunded immediate needs.

- Priority projects and phasing: For Article 39 (the long‑range capital commission process) the district provided a priority‑1 list of 21 projects that would total roughly $132 million if fully funded; for 2025 the district requested phased allocations of about $26 million to continue multi‑year work. Projects named in the presentation included phased replacement or renovation of W.D. Williams (mechanical and code issues), lobby/security retrofits (pilot prototype completed at several campuses), mechanical upgrades at North Buncombe High, stadium light upgrades at Urban High, queue drive improvements at Abers Creek, and a guardhouse that will serve two campuses at Reynolds.

- Recent and completed work: Wyatt described recent security lobby projects at North Buncombe and West Buncombe, a nearly finished guardhouse at Reynolds, a completed queue drive at Abers Creek and other phase work such as a music classroom retrofit at the central office site.

Growth, capacity and planning

Facilities staff and CFO Thorpe presented residential permit data showing concentrated development in the North Buncombe and TC Robertson areas tied to local industry growth. Thorpe said, for example, that the North Buncombe district had 432 permits in 2024 equating to 588 housing units, and the TC Robertson area had 263 permits equating to 1,186 units (including 29 multifamily projects totaling about 932 units). The district's long‑range enrollment model uses those permit counts, birth rates and cohort retention to project capacity needs.

The district uses a "functional capacity" metric (principal‑validated classroom and space usage) rather than a theoretical state calculator to estimate whether schools will be over or under capacity. Staff flagged several schools at or above projected capacity over the next five years, including Estes, North Buncombe Elementary, Weaverville Primary, West Buncombe and Oakley, and said capacity will require close attention as housing growth continues.

Legal and legislative context

Wyatt and board members raised the pending Article 39 legislation at the North Carolina General Assembly. Board members and facilities staff warned that changes to Article 39 could substantially reduce the capital funds available for school infrastructure or change allowable uses; facilities staff said the district is watching the bill because it could "dramatically" hamper planned timelines for major replacements such as W.D. Williams.

Quotations from staff

- "If we ignore things like roofs or major infrastructure items, it could get our system on the news pretty quick sometime when something has to be shut down," Wyatt said, stressing the risk of deferral.

- Thorpe added: "We are trying really hard to maximize the state and federal dollars as we move through every single payroll and every single line item making sure that we're maximizing all of those funds."

Why this matters

The district's capital backlog and the phased funding approach affect safety, accessibility and daily operations across schools; staff argued that phased investment is less expensive than deferred maintenance, and that the county and state funding mix (Article 39, Article 40/42 and lottery funds) drives which projects can move forward. District leaders asked the board to maintain a focus on prioritization and to watch the Article 39 bill because it could change the capital planning framework the district has used for years.

Ending: Facilities staff will present finalized priority and phased requests for board approval as the Article 39 process and county capital funding timelines proceed, with staff noting that delays or legislative changes will require reprioritization and could push timelines for large projects into later years.