With Transylvania County school board leaders saying they will share responsibility for spending tens of millions of dollars on school repair construction projects, county commissioners have agreed to consider a new intergovernmental agreement.
In a unanimous vote this week, county commissioners directed their county manager to negotiate an agreement with the school board superintendent. The contract will lay out how the two government bodies will manage the tens of millions of dollars that will be available in November for school repairs.
The scope of the construction project is massive, with 213 separate repair projects spanning over 11 construction sites – at a cost of more than $90 million.
School board and county leaders have had a strained relationship surrounding the school bond spending, but both bodies say the agreement is a step forward and shows a willingness to compromise.
“Every time you have any relationship, it takes give and take. But I think we will be able to…move forward together,” County Manager Jaime Laughter said Monday.
Up for grabs is the power – or in this case, shared power – to control how funds from a 2018 sales tax implemented by the county will be used for repairs. The first tranche of funds – $50.8 million – is expected to be available in November. The long-awaited bond money, according to county staff, will fund repairs and replacements the county’s schools desperately need.
Under a school board proposal, the commission and school board members would sign all contracts jointly, including the hire of the project manager.
If commissioners balk, the county would continue to take the lead on allocating funds from tax dollars or bond money to jumpstart school capital projects, and the school board would manage the projects.
READ MORE: 'Trust and move forward:' Transylvania school board outlines plan to manage construction projects
“We’re going to compromise. I think we need to ask the commissioners to also compromise,” Superintendent Lisa Fletcher told board members last week while presenting her plan for working with the county to hire a construction project manager. The school board agreed to the plan in a 3-2 vote.
With both sides approving, Fletcher and Laughter will now meet, along with each board’s attorney, to craft an intergovernmental agreement on what management of the construction projects will look like.
Under the plan proposed by Fletcher, a permanent joint committee between the two bodies would form to recommend and approve architecture firms and contractors to complete the construction projects funded by the bond sale. The committee would be comprised of two members from each board, as well as the county manager and school superintendent.
Both boards would have to approve any changes to projects from bond funding after a recommendation from the joint committee. County leaders have not yet voted on forming a joint committee.
Given the strained nature of the relationship between the bodies, school board members also proposed several measures to create transparency about the work.
At least quarterly, county and school board staff would meet to discuss ongoing capital projects. The county manager would provide a spreadsheet showing the sources and uses of all capital revenues, which would also be available to the public.
The county’s construction manager would be required to update the Board of Education on the progress of the bond projects during some school board meetings.
Funding for school repairs is a talking point for almost all of the candidates running for county commission and school board seats in the November election.
