Buncombe panel hears $536M school capital shortfall and discusses possible bond referendum

The Buncombe County School Capital Fund Commission on Thursday heard a presentation from school and county staff that county school systems currently identify roughly $536 million in immediate capital needs, a figure that could escalate to about $874 million if repairs and construction are delayed and costs rise.

The number reflects a list of projects including roofing, major renovations, front-office security reconfigurations and mechanical, electrical and plumbing upgrades across dozens of school sites. Commissioners and staff discussed the limits of Article 39 sales-tax revenue, the effects of using that dedicated revenue for operating expenses, and whether to pursue a countywide general obligation (GO) bond to pay for larger projects.

Why it matters: Article 39 proceeds have been a primary funding source for school capital projects, but staff said using some of those dollars for operations has reduced the fund’s ability to address long‑deferred capital needs. Commissioners discussed how a GO bond — which requires voter approval and would become part of the county’s general-fund debt picture — could free Article 39 for capital or be used together with Article 39 to tackle large priorities.

County and school staff presented multiyear revenue and debt projections. Staff said Article 39 sales-tax receipts have slowed recently: the presentation reported an average revenue growth rate of about 6.58% over the past 10 years but a negative 1.64% growth in fiscal 2025. The commission was told the county currently has 97 active projects in the pipeline, with Buncombe County Schools accounting for roughly 79 of them.

The school system’s representative laid out facilities data to show scale and urgency. The presentation said the district has about 4.5 million square feet of buildings and more than 10,000 HVAC units; staff highlighted that roughly 350,000 square feet of roofing is already past life expectancy (a planning estimate shown as about $12.25 million for those immediate failures), with nearly 1 million more square feet expected to exceed service life within five years.

“[Using Article 39 for operations] helped us operationally, and it tends to put us further behind on our capital needs,” Dr. Jackson said, describing the effect of deploying some Article 39 dollars to cover operating shortfalls this year. The school representative asked the commission to consider a voter referendum to raise larger, up‑front capital funding — albeit while continuing to rely on Article 39 going forward.

Finance staff walked the commission through bond options and high‑level debt math. Using a simple 20‑year, 5% interest model, staff showed how issue size would affect total interest and estimated annual debt service; examples given during the meeting suggested a $50 million to $100 million GO bond could translate roughly to a 1¢–2¢ property‑tax rate effect in peak years depending on structure and timing. Staff repeatedly cautioned that final tax estimates and bond structure would be modeled in detail later and that GO bonds move project funding into the county general‑fund debt process and competing budget priorities.

Commissioners and staff also discussed sequencing and capacity. Staff said debt could be issued in phases (they cited a seven‑year authorization window for GO bonds to access markets over time), and that many of the district’s projects could be staggered to match issuing capacity and contractor availability. Commissioners asked about potential savings from bundling large projects (for example, roofing) rather than doing many small, separate repairs; staff said larger procurements typically yield better prices and reduce repeated escalation and downstream repair costs caused by delayed full replacements.

The meeting included a summary of current and recently completed capital projects: upgrades at Lucy Herring Elementary (mechanical systems, roof, secure entry and restrooms), mechanical and controls work at Asheville High’s arts building, front‑lobby security work at several high schools including TC Robinson, and energy‑management and chiller replacements at several middle and high schools. Budget comparisons presented for several projects showed work mostly on or under original estimates.

Next steps: staff said they will continue modeling bond amounts and timing with the county manager’s office and could return with more detailed scenarios at a future meeting. Commissioners suggested convening again earlier in the year (February) so modeling can be incorporated into county budget deliberations and help determine what level of Article 39 requests the commission will recommend.

Votes at a glance • Agenda approval — motion approved (unanimous voice vote recorded). • Minutes approval (July 21) — motion approved (unanimous voice vote recorded). • Reappointment of commission member Macron — motion made and seconded; chair announced the reappointment and members indicated assent.

The commission closed the meeting after previewing additional project updates and agreeing to continue discussions with county staff about bond modeling and schedule.