| HJR 105: Joint Subcommittee Studying the Level of the Commonwealth's 
        Assistance to Localities Necessary for Developing Adequate K-12 School 
        InfrastructureNovember 29, 
        2005
The Joint Subcommittee 
        Studying the Level of the Commonwealth's Assistance to Localities Necessary 
        for Developing Adequate K-12 School Infrastructure, established by House 
        Joint Resolution 105 (2004), held its final meeting on November 29 at 
        the General Assembly Building in Richmond. Members of the joint 
        subcommittee are Delegate Beverly Sherwood, chairman, Senator Harry B. 
        Blevins, vice chairman, Delegate M. Kirkland Cox, Delegate Terry G. Kilgore, 
        Delegate Terrie L. Suit, Delegate Algie T. Howell, Jr., Senator R. Edward 
        Houck, Senator Stephen D. Newman, Carl R. Shaw, Jr., Arthur E. Anderson, 
        II, Richard L. Hurlbert, Jr., Robert Mills, Peter A. Blake, Thomas M. 
        Jackson, Dr. Jo Lynne DeMary, and Judith W. Jagdmann. PRESENTATIONS  Local School 
        SuperintendentsThe joint subcommittee began its meeting by hearing presentations on school 
        infrastructure needs from three local school superintendents from geographically 
        diverse school divisions. First, Dr. Edgar Hatrick, Superintendent of 
        Loudoun County Public Schools, explained that growth is the greatest challenge 
        facing his school division. Currently, Loudoun County has 47,361 students 
        in 67 schools, and the number of students is expected to rise to 69,708 
        in 2012. To accommodate this increase in population, 20 more schools would 
        need to be built at a cost of approximately $971,930,000. Loudoun projects 
        that, unless it receives it receives more money from the state for capital 
        projects, the school division will reach "buildout" at approximately 
        130,000 students. At that point, the school division will no longer be 
        able to maintain the debt required to educate additional students.
 Dr. Hatrick noted 
        that his school division has had particular success curbing construction 
        costs by using prototypical school designs. Repeat use of school designs 
        saves time and money by reducing design and review time, but also provides 
        consistency for students changing schools within the school division and 
        parity in the school division's facilities. Such cost-cutting strategies 
        are essential in light of the school division's total outstanding debt 
        of $1.7 billion. Next, Larry Massie, 
        Superintendent of Buckingham County Public Schools, spoke to the joint 
        subcommittee about the infrastructure needs of his school division in 
        particular and of rural school divisions in general. The Buckingham County 
        School Division has 2124 students in six schools. Unlike Loudoun County 
        which currently has no mobile classrooms, Buckingham County has 20 trailers 
        surrounding its elementary schools. Other than a middle school built in 
        2003, Buckingham's newest school was built in 1980. The oldest operating 
        school was built in 1939. Mr. Massie estimates 
        that Buckingham County has a need for approximately $30 million for new 
        school construction. Without additional funding for capital projects, 
        some of the county's schools will continue to operate without air conditioning 
        and up-to-date computer technology, and the reliance on trailers will 
        persist without the construction of additional classroom space. Dr. Stephen Jones, 
        Superintendent of Norfolk Public Schools, noted that urban school divisions 
        like his face many of the same infrastructure problems as suburban and 
        rural school divisions like Loudoun and Buckingham. Norfolk City operates 
        49 schools serving approximately 35,000 students. In the near future, 
        the school division expects to spend approximately $125 million on capital 
        projects. However, at the current level of state funding to local school 
        divisions, Dr. Jones believes that his school division will never be able 
        to meet its capital needs. In particular, Norfolk 
        faces the challenge of providing the necessary infrastructure to support 
        growing technology needs for instruction and state mandated assessments, 
        to meet minimum security standards, to update laboratory facilities in 
        secondary schools, to provide adequate classroom space to offer universal 
        pre-kindergarten and early learning programs in each elementary school, 
        and to create facilities for extended-day opportunities for students. 
        Additionally, Norfolk could use additional funds to eliminate over 150 
        mobile units that are currently being used as primary classroom sites. Virginia Public 
        School AuthorityAfter hearing from the local school superintendents, the subcommittee 
        was provided with an overview of the Virginia Public School Authority 
        (VPSA) by Richard Davis. The VPSA serves as a bond bank that provides 
        low-cost financing of capital projects for primary and secondary public 
        schools in Virginia localities. As of June 2005, VPSA's total indebtedness 
        on behalf of local school construction was over $3.0 billion.
 The VPSA is able 
        to finance all types of real and personal property for public schools 
        including land, buildings, and equipment, and is one of the best vehicles 
        for localities to obtain the necessary funding for capital projects. Not 
        only does the VPSA consistently offer the lowest rate to localities for 
        borrowing money for construction costs, but VPSA bonds also have a double-A 
        plus bond rating by the three major rating agencies. Also, under the Virginia 
        Constitution, local issuers of general obligation school bonds are not 
        required to obtain voter approval for bonds sold to the VPSA. VPSA also offers 
        an Interest Rate Subsidy Program that is available for localities with 
        projects on the Board of Education First Priority Waiting list for direct 
        Literary Fund Loans, subject to availability of appropriations. The purpose 
        of the subsidy program is to fund localities' projects while providing 
        debt service schedules equivalent to what they would have paid had Literary 
        Fund Loans been available. Department of 
        EducationDan Timberlake, Assistant Superintendent for Finance at the Department 
        of Education, gave a status report on the Literary Fund. The Literary 
        Fund is a permanent and perpetual school fund that began in 1810 and was 
        later established in the Constitution of Virginia. Revenues to the Literary 
        Fund are derived primarily from criminal fines, fees, and forfeitures, 
        unclaimed and escheated property, and repayments of prior Literary Fund 
        loans. The fund has typically been used to provide low-interest loans 
        for school construction, grants under the interest rate subsidy program, 
        debt service for technology funding, and to support the state's share 
        of teacher retirement required by the Standards of Quality.
 As of June 30, 2005, 
        the principal of the Literary Fund was approximately $481.5 million. Since 
        fiscal year 2002, the majority of the Literary Fund revenues have been 
        transferred to pay teacher retirement in order to reduce the pressure 
        placed on the general fund by growing costs in public education. No Literary 
        Fund revenues have been transferred for school construction since 2002. Virginia Retirement 
        SystemRobert Schultze, Director of the Virginia Retirement System (VRS), concluded 
        the presentations by discussing provisions in Title 22.1 of the Code of 
        Virginia permitting local school boards to borrow money from VRS for school 
        construction. According to Chapter 10.1 of Title 22.1, school boards may 
        contract to borrow money from VRS for capital projects for school purposes 
        with the approval of the locality's governing body and the Board of Trustees 
        of the Virginia Retirement System. Referendum approvals are not required 
        for such borrowing. The authority and constitutionality of the statute 
        was challenged in 1959 and upheld by the Virginia Supreme Court. Mr. Shultze 
        noted, however, that since the statute was passed in 1958, no school board 
        has approached VRS to borrow money in this manner. Although VRS loans 
        remain an option for localities to obtain funds for school infrastructure 
        construction, the VPSA is able to offer lower financing than would be 
        available through this method.
 RECOMMENDATIONS In lieu of making 
        official recommendations for new programs, the subcommittee emphasized 
        that the General Assembly should continue to monitor the viability, liquidity, 
        and accessibility of existing programs and sources of funding for school 
        capital construction such as the Virginia Public School Authority, the 
        Literary Fund, and the Lottery Fund.
 Chairman:The Hon. Beverly 
        Sherwood
 For information, 
        contact:Bryan Stogdale, 
        DLS Staff
 |