Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Funding Formula topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Asheville City Schools board reviews county’s draft funding formula that would lock in ~37.76% share
Summary
Board members spent the meeting’s second half reviewing a draft interlocal agreement with Buncombe County that would compute Asheville City Schools’ operational allocation as 37.76% of specified county property and sales tax revenue, debated which statutory tax pots to include, and asked counsel to clarify contract language before public comment and potential votes in January.
Asheville City Schools board members spent the second half of their Dec. 1 meeting unpacking a draft interlocal funding agreement with Buncombe County that would change operational funding from a fixed dollar allocation to a percentage formula.
Chair Sarah introduced the concept as a negotiated percent of county-collected property and sales tax revenue. ‘‘The proposal that you have in front of you is 37.76%,’’ she said, describing the mechanics: the county would look back at collections (through March 15) to set the base, calculate the district’s share, divide amounts for monthly allotments and apply an enrollment adjustment and emergency clause.
Supporters said the percentage captures county growth from reassessments and sales-tax collections and would give the district ‘‘a more solid foundation’’ for long-term planning. ‘‘With it being a percent, we now get natural growth as the digest grows across the county with sales and property tax, which is really beneficial for us,’’ Maggie said.
Board members pressed for precise drafting. A key debate concerned whether revenues from statutory distributions tied to specific purposes — referenced in the draft as articles 39, 40 and 42 — would be included in the gross revenue base for the 37.76% calculation. Counsel (Anna) said the draft language would be clarified so that statutory capital/disbursement pots remain separate and are not double-counted; several members flagged the present wording as unclear.
Other technical components prompted questions: an enrollment adjustment that applies a 0.5 percentage-point change for each 2% enrollment swing (staff noted 2% is currently about 500 students), the three-year initial term with a two-year review cycle thereafter, and emergency provisions allowing parties to request changes if extraordinary events occur.
Members who favored the formula said it reduces annual uncertainty and the administrative burden of negotiating a lump-sum allocation each spring. Those who cautioned urged preserving advocacy levers at the state and county level and requested models showing how different revenue scenarios would affect teacher compensation, capital needs and operating budgets.
Legal counsel explained that the interlocal agreement would be a binding contract requiring board approval; if the board and the other parties reach final language, it could be implemented for the upcoming fiscal year by applying the look-back calculation. The board was told to expect revised drafts clarifying exclusions and modeling materials ahead of public comment sessions next week and a January work session.
The board did not adopt the agreement at the meeting; staff and counsel will return with clarified contract language, fiscal models and a plan for public outreach and comment.
