Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Article 39 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Asheville City Schools board opposes amended SB 131 that would let county divert Article 39 funds to operations
Summary
Board members told Representative Lindsey Prather they oppose revised Senate Bill 131 language that would let Buncombe County commissioners decide whether Article 39 sales tax proceeds now used for school capital could be used for operating costs; chair authorized to send a joint response
The Asheville City Schools Board of Education told state lawmakers it opposes recent amendments to Senate Bill 131 that would allow Buncombe County commissioners to decide whether money from Article 39 — the 1¢ local sales tax share used for school capital projects — can be redirected to operating or other non‑capital uses.
Board members described the change as a potentially significant shift in how local school capital is funded. Under current practice the county’s Article 39 allocation for schools is routed to a capital fund that supports district and county school facility projects. The amended bill language discussed at the meeting would allow commissioners to allocate some or all of that revenue to operating expenses instead of capital outlays, and the board delegation noted that any diversion would also require sharing funds with charter schools under the state’s funding rules.
George (first name only in the record), who serves on the county’s capital commission, told the board the commission’s role has been to review capital needs from both Asheville City Schools and Buncombe County Schools and make recommendations based on building needs. He said the commission draws on technical expertise from facilities and finance staff and that moving allocation authority to the county commission could reduce the level of technical scrutiny and hamper funding for major capital projects such as auditorium rehabilitation and safety‑related facility work.
Board members expressed a shared concern that temporarily diverting capital funds to operations could become a longer‑term change and would reduce funding available for deferred maintenance and other pressing capital needs. Board member Pepe said he would consider an amendment that required replacement funding from state disaster relief or other state sources; Pepe said he would not support a diversion unless those state funds replaced the lost capital dollars.
Chair Sarah Thornburg said she would respond to Representative Lindsey Prather (who had circulated the amended language) and coordinate with Rob Elliott, chair of the Buncombe County Board of Education, to consider a joint letter opposing the amendment. The board authorized the chair to proceed.
Ending: Chair Thornburg will work with county education leaders to respond to Representative Prather and communicate the board’s opposition and concerns to legislators and the county commission.
