Legislative initiatives that would expand school financing abilities to counties across the Commonwealth continue to move forward, but in different processes and with different content. HB 334 (Rasoul), which once again seeks to grant additional revenue raising authority if approved by local referendum for school capital needs, passed the House of Delegates and has been referred to the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee. Meanwhile, the Senate left in the same committee, SB 607 (Lucas), which incorporates SB 66 (McPike). Instead, the proposed Senate budget includes Item 4-14 #1s, which is an amendment that embeds the language of SB 607 in the proposed budget.
Besides adopting a different process to move the proposed legislative proposal forward, below is a summary of some of the similarities and main differences between the House and Senate versions:
| Point | Policy Area | House | Senate | Key Difference |
| 1 | Core Purpose & Scope | Authorizes all counties and cities to impose up to a 1% local sales and use tax for school capital projects, subject to voter referendum. | Authorizes all counties and cities to impose up to a 1% local sales and use tax for school capital projects, subject to voter referendum. | Substantively similar authority granted; differences emerge in restrictions and fiscal constraints. |
| 2 | Use of Revenue & Restrictions | Revenue dedicated solely to school capital projects, including construction, renovation, and debt service. | Revenue dedicated to school capital projects, with explicit language preventing use of new revenue to replace or reduce existing local capital funding. | Senate includes explicit “no supplanting” language; House does not contain that express limitation. |
| 3 | Expiration / Duration of Tax | Removes existing statutory requirement tying expiration of the tax to bond repayment or a set termination date, allowing greater local flexibility. | Does not clearly remove or modify expiration requirements in the same manner (based on budget amendment language). | House provides broader flexibility regarding duration; Senate does not clearly do so. |
| 4 | Structural / Technical Approach | Amends Code sections governing local sales tax authority and adjusts duration language. | Incorporates SB 607 language and embeds provisions through Senate budget amendment (Item 4-14 #1s). | Senate advances through the budget process; House proceeds as standalone Code amendment. |
| 5 | Legislative Process Status | Passed the House of Delegates; referred to Senate Finance and Appropriations. | Left in Senate Finance and Appropriations; language embedded in Senate budget amendment. | HB 334 moving as a House bill; SB 607 advancing via budget vehicle rather than standalone passage. |
As previously reported, funding for school construction and renovation is one of the biggest concerns and responsibilities of local governments in the Commonwealth and has been almost solely a local responsibility for decades. The condition of the facilities in which children are educated has a direct impact on their ability to learn
Senate Finance and Appropriations could docket HB 334 for discussion in committee. Alternatively, language pertaining to this issue could be included in discussions by the committee of conference for the General Assembly budget to be submitted to the Governor. That both chambers have advanced legislative provisions related to this issue is an encouraging sign that majorities in both chambers feel that this issue has merit.
VACo supports any efforts for additional state resources and additional statewide funding options for localities for capital and school construction costs and has publicly testified this session in favor of these efforts.
VACo Contact: Jeremy R. Bennett