Jackson County just moved one step closer to putting the $105 million school bond referendum on the ballot for the Nov. 3 election. 

At last week’s normally scheduled meeting, commissioners passed a resolution to publish a notice of “intent to file” for the bond with the North Carolina Local Government Commission.

They also met for a special meeting on Aug. 10 to vote on a resolution, which allows the county to file an application with the LGC to approve the borrowing.

“If it passes LGC, they’ll have to go to a public hearing, and then the decision will be on the ballot,” said Jackson County Public Schools Superintendent Dana Ayers after Monday night’s meeting.

The two resolutions are just a few of the steps the LGC requires local governments to go through before it grants approval for the issuance of a bond referendum.

County Manager Kevin King likened these two resolutions to going through preauthorization for a loan. During this “preauthorization phase,” the LGC is deciding if the county is in good financial standing. That way, by the time it reaches the ballot, voters can have peace of mind that the government has done its due diligence and has the wherewithal to pay the money back.

Chairman Mark Letson called for Monday’s special meeting last week when the second bond resolution vote ended in a 2-2 tie. At that meeting, Commissioners Letson and Todd Bryson voted yes, while Commissioners Jenny Lynn Hooper and Michael Jennings voted no. Commissioner John Smith was absent from the meeting, meaning, with no tiebreaking vote, the resolution failed to pass.

All five commissioners were present at Monday’s vote, and Smith provided the final yes vote needed to pass the second bond resolution.

The resolution doesn’t authorize the county to borrow the $105 million. That decision would be left up to the voters. The resolution also states that $150 million is the maximum amount the county could borrow, meaning the amount could be less if they find ways to lower total project spending.

Monday night’s resolution also establishes the following “Statements of Fact” the LGC requires before it can make any determinations:

• The proposed projects are necessary

• $105 million (plus the expected $35 million in interest) isn’t excessive

• The county has handled its existing debt properly

• The county’s financial management is sound

• The tax increase (4.86%) needed to repay the bonds won’t be “excessive”

• The county believes investors will buy bonds at reasonable interest rates

Agreeing to those “Statements of Fact” was where commissioners splintered. Hooper remained adamant that the county should not take on the debt. She also raised concerns that Jackson County voters would not know what they are voting for and that it seemed like the bond was being rushed through the approval process.

She voiced frustration with the rising project costs for the middle school, cautioning that voters could be agreeing to fund projects with numbers that are subject to rise in the future, as was the case with the 2020 general obligation bond referendum county voters passed to pay for the new aquatic center. Voters approved up to a $20 million bond, which led to a 2.2% tax increase. However, soaring construction costs during the COVID-19 pandemic caused the total project budget to rise to $24 million. Jackson County put up $4 million in county funds to pay for the increase in project costs, according to King.

At Tuesday’s meeting, Hooper falsely asserted that the total budget for the aquatic center doubled to $40 million by the time of its completion. Letson quickly asked for clarification on those numbers, and Jackson County Finance Director Darlene Fox provided the correct numbers, stating the actual total project cost was $24 million.

“Has it ever been $40 million? Can we get a spreadsheet of the total cost of the pool?” Letson asked Fox.

“You can,” she said. “And that’s actually been in your report every month.”

At Monday’s special meeting, Bryson echoed Hooper’s concerns over the middle school’s rising projected costs and bristled at the prospect of raising taxes, but ultimately said for this amount of money, the county should let the people decide.

Smith agreed.

“My feeling is if we don’t give them that choice, that’s like telling our citizens that they don’t have a voice,” Smith said in response to Bryson. “Everybody is focused on the middle school, but that’s not the only thing that this is about.”

Jennings said one of his main concerns was that if the bond referendum made it to the ballot, non-property owners in the county would get a say in raising taxes on Jackson County property owners. He also said he’d concluded that middle schools are not better for learning outcomes compared to K-8 schools after researching the topic.

Before the final vote, Bryson also wanted to clear up an issue brought up in the public comment period of last week’s meeting about the suitability of the lot the county purchased to build the middle school.

Jackson County Public Schools teacher and parent Brandon Pendergast said in his public comment that he supported the once-in-a-generation opportunity to build a standalone middle school in the county, but he questioned the choice of property due to its size and how difficult it will be to build on the steep, rocky terrain. He also questioned whether the county could have found a better piece of land.

In Monday’s meeting, Bryson referred to King, who said the county took a year and considered approximately 18 properties in the search for a middle school site before settling on the 58-acre lot at 899 N.C. 107.

Next week, the county will move on to the next phase of the process when commissioners will be presented with the bond order to approve. Then, there will be a public hearing at the Sept. 1 meeting, after which commissioners will vote to authorize putting the school bond on the ballot.

“There’s room for savings within all these projects, but you’ve got to start the process,” Letson said. “Not starting the process leaves us exactly where we are right now.”

If commissioners give the bond referendum the green light on Sept. 1, Jackson County voters will see it on their ballots in November.

If the school bond does not make it to the ballot or if voters shoot it down, the county might have to return the $52 million in grant funds it was awarded by the N.C. Department of Public Instruction to build the proposed Smoky Mountain Middle School. The county has also allocated $6 million of its own funds to go toward the middle school.

To avoid returning that grant funding, the county would have to come up with a plan to build what is currently projected to be a $110 million project for $60 million — meaning athletic facilities and classroom space could be on the chopping block.

As previously reported, not having a bond would also leave the county in the lurch on a number of deferred maintenance and capital improvement projects the school board has requested.

Should the county officials want to revisit the prospect of another bond referendum in the future, they would have to wait until 2022 to propose a new one, as bonds can only be added to ballots in even-numbered years.