Asheville City Schools board to ask county to restore supplemental tax, present 'no cuts' budget option

The Asheville City Schools Board of Education voted unanimously to ask Superintendent Dr. Maggie Fuhrman to present a budget request to Buncombe County commissioners that would restore the district supplemental property tax toward a 12¢ rate, ask the county for an additional $2.45 million and use $3 million from the district’s fund balance to help cover a projected shortfall.

The request — presented to the board as “Option 1” — was framed as a way to produce a no‑cuts operating budget for fiscal year 2025–26. Dr. Maggie Fuhrman, the district superintendent, told the board the district is facing a projected shortfall of approximately $6,910,000 driven by lower state allotments, local revenue changes, charter payments and rising employee benefit and retirement costs.

Why it matters: Fuhrman said the shortfall would require cuts that could affect staffing and services unless local revenue increases or other funding is found. The board’s chosen Option 1 asks the county to restore the supplemental tax (commonly discussed locally as the “2¢” restoration toward the historical 12¢ level), requests an extra $2.45 million from Buncombe County and proposes using $3 million of the district’s fund balance to keep school‑facing positions intact.

Fuhrman’s presentation to the board included student achievement highlights and the financial context she will show county commissioners on May 2. She told the board that Asheville City Schools’ overall student proficiency has increased in recent years, that the district outpaced the state in several measures last year, and that the district’s graduation rate was 90% for 2024 compared with 87% statewide. She said those outcomes matter for arguing the fiscal case to county leaders.

Key numbers and fiscal drivers Fuhrman identified in the presentation included: a preliminary projected shortfall of about $6,910,000; an estimated $437,000 reduction in state allotment revenue from average daily membership (ADM) changes; charter payments of roughly $550,000; a school nutrition gap of about $500,000; and large increases required for salaries, Social Security and retirement allocations (Fuhrman cited an aggregate figure of roughly $31,300,000 in increased salary/benefit expense across multiple years and categories). She also called out increases in state retirement and state health plan contributions that the district must pay for employees.

Fuhrman and Chief Finance Officer Heidi (last name not specified in the record) outlined three budget scenarios for the board to choose for presentation. Option 1 (adopted by the board) combines use of fund balance, the supplemental tax restoration and a county appropriation increase. Options 2 and 3 included deeper reductions or blends of local cuts and county asks. Fuhrman cautioned that repeated use of fund balance to cover operating shortfalls would require deeper cuts future years unless revenue grows.

Public comment: Multiple speakers urged the board to seek the full no‑cuts budget and to press the county to restore the local supplemental tax. Christina Shimrock, speaking for a newly formed group Families of Asheville City Schools, introduced a community campaign called the “2¢” campaign and said families want the district fully funded. Allie Engard, a parent and member of that group, asked the board to “put the challenge to our county commissioners” and to restore the supplemental property tax she described as moving from 10¢ toward 12¢ per $100 of property value. Kelly Moore Spencer, another parent and group member, told the board she supported a no‑cuts budget and urged the district to pursue investments that close the opportunity gap.

Other speakers during public comment pressed for restoration of staff and services and for the board to demand county action. Christina Mason told the board she did not accept the premise that there is not enough county funding and urged the board to ask for the full amount students and staff need. Substitute teacher Martin Tatarka urged the board to consider working conditions for substitutes and review contracting practices with staffing agencies.

Board discussion and next steps: Board members debated whether to seek additional items beyond Option 1 in the county presentation (for example, larger investments in pre‑K) and whether to signal further priorities to commissioners. Board member Amy (first name only in the record) pushed for clarity on tradeoffs staff would prefer if cuts were needed; other members noted equity concerns across schools. The board approved Option 1 and instructed Dr. Fuhrman to present that package to Buncombe County commissioners at the May 2 meeting.

Votes at a glance: - Adopt motion to present Option 1 (restore supplemental tax toward 12¢; request $2.45 million county increase; use $3 million fund balance): motion moved and seconded; outcome: approved unanimously. - Personnel report (amended): motion to receive and approve the amended personnel report; outcome: approved (record shows at least one board member voiced opposition during the vote but the report passed). - March 10 minutes (draft): motion to table approval pending member input; outcome: tabled for reconsideration at a future meeting. - School nutrition workday calendar (pulled from consent): motion to table pending additional input from staff and stakeholders; outcome: tabled for vote next month.

What the board asked staff to do next: Dr. Fuhrman will deliver the district’s budget request to Buncombe County commissioners on May 2 and return to the board in June with updated county allocations and any required budget amendments. Board members and district staff also discussed refining staffing‑allotment formulas and returning with more detailed analyses of tradeoffs (for example, whether to freeze or reduce local supplements vs. maintaining student‑facing positions) if the county allocation falls short.

Ending: With the board’s unanimous choice to present Option 1, district leaders will put that package before county officials on May 2; the board will reconvene after the county’s decision to finalize any necessary budget changes.