A bill introduced in the General Assembly this session would authorize every city and county in Virginia to impose an additional local sales and use tax, a one percent hike, to fund public school capital projects.
At first glance, the proposal may sound pragmatic: give localities “flexibility” to address aging school buildings and deferred maintenance.
But beneath that framing is a troubling reality. This proposal does not solve Virginia’s school funding problem. It shifts responsibility away from the commonwealth and onto local governments (you, the taxpayer), while deepening inequities between regions that already operate on vastly different financial footing.
The Virginia Constitution is clear. Article VIII states that the General Assembly “shall provide for a system of free public elementary and secondary schools of high quality” and “shall seek to ensure” that such a system is continually maintained. That obligation belongs to Richmond, not to cities and counties acting independently with wildly unequal revenue capacity.
Allowing localities to levy an additional sales tax may relieve pressure for legislators in the short term, but it does so by passing the burden to local taxpayers — many of whom are already feeling the strain of inflation, housing costs, and rising fees. More importantly, it creates a system where the quality of school facilities increasingly depends on where a child happens to live.
A one-percent sales tax does not raise the same amount everywhere, and the disparity is not theoretical.
For reference, localities bond tax dollars to utilize their debt capacity for funding many projects.
Using the latest Fiscal Year 2026 adopted budgets, an additional one percent local sales tax would generate approximately $730 million per year in Fairfax County, enough to support more than $7.3 billion in bonded school construction.
On the other hand, in Lynchburg, that same one percent would raise approximately $18.5 million per year, supporting roughly $185 million in bonding capacity. That is nearly a forty-fold difference under the same law, at the same rate, at the same time.
To understand the compounding effect, consider how school construction is typically financed. Roughly speaking, every $1 million in dedicated taxes allows a locality to bond approximately $10 million for capital projects. Over time, that multiplier dramatically widens the gap between jurisdictions with strong retail tax bases and those without.
A policy intended to offer “local control” ends up hard-coding inequality into the system.
This is not a hypothetical concern. Virginia already struggles with disparities in school infrastructure, particularly outside its largest metropolitan areas. Many communities are still operating buildings that are decades old, with limited ability to modernize classrooms, improve safety, or expand capacity.
While I was working as a legislative assistant in the House of Delegates, I vividly remember an impassioned speech from a Southside state senator talking about school construction, pleading with Northern Virginia Democrats to see the dire need of his region. He spoke of classrooms with buckets to catch rain from leaky roofs, rooms with only one outlet, buildings with no working heat — this is a story to be seen sadly across Virginia.
Handing localities a taxing authority that raises relatively little revenue does not meaningfully address that problem … it merely shifts accountability.
There is also a broader governance issue at play. When the commonwealth authorizes local taxes to meet constitutional obligations, it weakens the incentive for statewide solutions. Instead of grappling with how Virginia funds education as a whole — through formulas, priorities and budget choices — lawmakers can point to local options, claim victory and move on.
That approach risks creating a patchwork system where school quality increasingly reflects retail density rather than statewide commitment. Over time, the gap between “have” and “have-not” localities grows, and the promise of equal opportunity becomes harder to fulfill.
None of this is to suggest that school facilities are unimportant or that local leaders are unwilling to invest in public education. In Lynchburg and across the commonwealth, local governments have repeatedly stepped up — often approving bonds, dedicating local dollars and making difficult budget tradeoffs to support students.
Just this past year, Lynchburg worked very hard to secure a $60 million line of credit (a simple definition to call it) for school construction over a five-year period. This has never happened before, so for us this was a big deal. The financial wrestling it took to ensure this line item was included in our budget was monumental, and that is even with residents still paying more and more taxes; don’t forget, this balance is struck with all the other needs our city has. In other words, localities like ours are finding ways to financially share some of the burden … more local taxes on our residents doesn’t actually help in the end, both on physical and financial outcomes.
To put it bluntly, local initiative should supplement a strong statewide framework, not replace it.
If the General Assembly believes school infrastructure requires additional funding, it should address that need directly — through statewide revenue, updated funding formulas or targeted capital support that recognizes regional differences.
If Virginia truly wants to fairly fund school construction, it should adopt a statewide, data-driven program modeled after Smart Scale for transportation. A similar approach for schools could prioritize projects based on objective need — such as facility age, safety, overcrowding and local fiscal capacity — rather than retail density or geography. That kind of framework would honor the commonwealth’s constitutional responsibility far better than a patchwork of local sales taxes.
Simply authorizing a local sales tax may seem and actually be politically easier, but ease should not be confused with effectiveness or fairness.
Virginia’s Constitution does not say that education should be funded “where feasible” or “where retail sales allow.” It places the responsibility squarely on the commonwealth.
Honoring that responsibility means resisting the temptation to pass the buck and instead doing the harder work of building a system that serves every student, in every region, well.
Local governments stand ready to be partners. But partnership requires leadership, and taxpayers should demand their leaders find another course of action.
Chris Faraldi is a member of Lynchburg City Council. He is a Republican.