Asheville City Schools board members spent the bulk of their Jan. 9 meeting reviewing a proposed interlocal funding agreement with Buncombe County that would fix the district27s share of a defined local current-expense revenue pool at 37.76 percent.

Heidi, the district27s finance director, told the board the formula sets a clear starting place and uses the prior 12 months27 27actual27 collections so schools would have more predictable baseline funding from which to plan. "Our percent of that pie will stay the same every year," she said, explaining that the county27s recent recalculation of unrestricted revenue raised the baseline to 37.76 percent.

The agreement, as presented, would begin with a three-year initial term and give any party the option to terminate or modify after two years or when a newly seated board takes office. It ties annual allocations to the prior-year collections (property and specified sales tax accruals) and schedules the county to remit the monthly portion of the baseline by the 15th of each month. A joint ADM (average daily membership) verification that includes charter schools would be used to prorate funds between districts, and a combined enrollment change of 2 percent or more across Asheville, Buncombe County Schools and charter schools would trigger a recalculation.

Board members pressed for clearer definitions and drafting changes. Several asked that the agreement specify that the ADM count, not an ambiguous 27certified enrollment,27 be used for triggers and sought a clearer definition of 27ad valorem27 to ensure the baseline includes vehicle and property taxes and other listed categories. Heidi said the finance officers recommended using the existing joint verification that the LEAs already submit to the county.

The draft also includes an emergency-request clause allowing districts to petition the county if an unforeseen or new unfunded mandate prevents them from meeting student needs, and a tiered dispute-resolution process that begins with the superintendent and county manager and, if unresolved, brings elected chairs of the three boards into the conversation.

Public commenters and board members raised strategic questions about advocacy. Christina Schimrock, a community organizer, asked whether the proposed percentage 27returns us to pre-Helene funding27 and whether the contract language would limit the district27s ability to press the county for additional resources. "The proposed rate ... does not return us to pre Helene funding," she said; Heidi and other board members clarified how the percentage is calculated and emphasized the formula governs a specific defined pot of revenue rather than the county27s entire budget.

Heidi provided a scale point: the combined entities account for about 29,183 students; a 2 percent enrollment change would equal roughly 583 students, which is the threshold that would trigger a recalculation under the draft. Board members also asked for clearer drafting on the timing of county-provided baseline numbers (March 15 was discussed) and whether inflation adjustments should be considered when the formula uses the prior year27s collections.

The county commission has already approved an earlier version, staff said, and the county would see amended language if the boards request changes; board members were repeatedly told the county could choose to re-vote on revisions. The Asheville City Schools board did not vote on the agreement on Jan. 9; members said they want additional clarifications, more public comment and time to consult stakeholder groups before a February vote.

Votes at a glance: the meeting recorded procedural approvals earlier in the agenda, including the initial agenda and the consent agenda; the interlocal funding agreement was discussed but not acted on and will return to the board for a February vote.

What happens next: district staff will return with drafting clarifications (ADM language, definitions, timing) and the board will hold additional public comment opportunities before taking a formal vote in February.