Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Higher Education Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee tables bill to create preservation fund for private colleges
Summary
The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Higher Education heard testimony supporting HB 522, which would create a preservation and maintenance fund for nonprofit private colleges, but members voted 5–2 to lay the bill on the table citing budget uncertainty and a priority to focus limited capital on public universities.
The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Higher Education heard testimony on HB 522, a bill to establish a preservation and maintenance fund and program to support nonprofit private colleges’ capital needs, then voted to lay the bill on the table.
Delegate (speaker 5), the bill’s patron, said the measure would help preserve historic buildings and other capital needs at Virginia’s private, nonprofit colleges and universities and described the policy as a modest, narrowly tailored approach to fill gaps left by the private market and philanthropy. Chris Peace of the Virginia private-colleges association told the subcommittee the bill was informed by legal analysis and peer-state precedents and recommended administration by a state council with consultation from the Department of Historic Resources. Peace referenced the Virginia Constitution (Article 8, Section 2) and Code §23.1-105 in explaining constitutionality concerns and noted other states have grant programs for similar work.
Will Glasgow, CEO of Preservation Virginia, urged the subcommittee to provide additional preservation funding, saying there are few state funding sources for historic-preservation work at independent colleges. No members of the public registered opposition.
During deliberations, one committee member said limited capital in the current budget cycle should be prioritized for public universities and moved to "gently lay the bill on the table." The motion was seconded and approved by roll call; the chair announced the bill was tabled by a 5–2 vote. The patron and supporters were thanked and the subcommittee indicated it would continue discussions outside the meeting.
The bill’s proponents emphasized workforce and economic arguments in support; opponents on the panel framed their concern principally as fiscal prioritization in a constrained budget environment. The subcommittee did not adopt the proposal into the budget at this meeting.
