Local Governing Bodies
HB 505 (McAuliff)/SB 648 (Perry), as passed by the General Assembly, provide that any member of a local governing body who has been employed by a governmental agency that is a component part of and which is subject to the ultimate control of the governing body is considered to have a continuing personal interest in the agency for two years after terminating employment. The bills also include several provisions applying only to the Town of Purcellville that (i) require that in the event of a criminal proceeding against any officer of the town, the court of appropriate jurisdiction is to suspend the officer pending the resolution of the proceeding and may appoint someone to act in the officer’s place; (ii) require the town to conduct a study of its debt and other liability risks; (iii) stipulate that the town council may only vote on matters that have been properly advertised or otherwise properly approved as an addition to a meeting agenda; and (iv) require the town manager to be a resident of the Commonwealth. The Governor adds an emergency clause to the bill and removes language dealing with the compensation of an officer in the town who has been suspended due to a criminal proceeding.
Elections
HB 41 (Simon) sets out a process for removal of an electoral board member or general registrar. Under the bill, the State Board of Elections may remove a member of an electoral board member or general registrar for certain enumerated reasons, including neglect of a clear, ministerial duty or misuse of office; a two-thirds majority vote would be required for removal. Similarly, a local electoral board would be authorized to remove a general registrar by a unanimous vote; in this case, the registrar would be entitled to appeal to the State Board of Elections, which could reverse the electoral board’s decision by a two-thirds vote. The Governor’s amendment would provide that the State Board’s removal decision would be subject to judicial review in accordance with the Administrative Process Act.
HB 630 (Callsen) and SB 176 (VanValkenburg) set out certain administrative provisions for implementing ranked-choice voting. The bills expand the option to conduct an election by ranked-choice voting to town councils (currently this option is limited to elections of boards of supervisors and city councils), but allow counties to bill towns for costs associated with conducting an election via ranked-choice voting if those costs would not have been incurred otherwise. The Governor’s amendments add several provisions requiring final tabulation of votes at the electoral board’s meeting on the day after the election; requiring the Department of Elections to make public the total number and percentage of votes received by each candidate in each round of the official tabulation, consistent with voter privacy; and clarifying how a risk-limiting audit of an election conducted by ranked-choice voting would be implemented.
HB 639 (Krizek) modifies the current prohibition on acceptance of funding from private individuals or nongovernmental entities for election-related expenses to allow acceptance of such funds under certain circumstances. As passed by the General Assembly, the bill bars acceptance of such funding in excess of $1000 unless approved by a two-thirds majority of the State Board of Elections or the local governing body. The Governor’s amendments provide that the $1000 cap would apply annually and limit approval authority to the State Board of Elections (removing the authority of a local governing body to accept the funding). The Governor’s amendments also require recipients to report any funding to the Department of Elections and direct the Department to publish guidance for local electoral boards and general registrars on acceptance and use of such resources.
SB 126 (Pekarsky) provides that if an incumbent does not submit the declaration of candidacy, petitions, and filing fees by the seventy-fifth day before a primary election (or the documents are filed but subsequently withdrawn), any person other than the incumbent would have five more days to file these documents. The Governor’s amendments would require certain notification to the party chair and adjust the deadline for the party chairs to submit the names of candidates to the State Board of Elections.
Health and Human Services
HB 455 (Willett)/SB 599 (Srinivasan), as passed by the General Assembly, revise the statute governing the Virginia Opioid Use Reduction and Jail-Based Substance Use Disorder Treatment and Transition Fund by requiring that grants be awarded for up to three years and that applicants submit a plan for financial viability within the award period. The Governor’s amendments remove the specification for the three-year timetable for grant awards.
HB 483 (Delaney)/SB 271 (Deeds), as passed by the General Assembly, would cap payments to prescription drug manufacturers and wholesale distributors for certain prescription drugs at the maximum fair price established by the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services. Pharmacies would be required to be reimbursed for these drugs at amounts at least equivalent to the maximum fair price, plus a dispensing fee. The bill would also set up a Prescription Drug Affordability Advisory Panel, which would review prescription drug pricing and utilization trends and report annually on specified topics, including patients’ out-of-pocket costs, strategies to reduce local governments’ spending on prescription drugs, enhancements to data collection and reporting, and suggested statutory or regulatory changes to improve affordability and transparency. One of the members of this Advisory Panel would be a representative of a local government. The Governor’s amendments include the addition of a reenactment clause to the provisions of the bill setting maximum fair prices for certain drugs; the Governor also removes the requirement for a local government representative on the Advisory Panel. VACo has historically supported this legislation, contingent on local government representation on the Advisory Panel.
HB 931 (Simon)/SB 270 (VanValkenburg) require the Board of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services to promulgate regulations for minimum certification standards for recovery residences and set out elements of these standards. The bills also direct the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services and the Virginia Housing Commission to make recommendations for establishing regulations for licensed providers of clinical substance use treatment services that offer housing as a benefit for individuals participating in treatment services, but are not licensed or certified as recovery residences; as passed by the General Assembly, a report would be due by November 1, 2027. The Governor proposes to advance this deadline to November 1, 2026. The legislation as passed by the General Assembly also extends the workgroup on the issue of regulation of recovery residences that met last summer (an effort in which VACo participated) and requires it to meet at least twice per year; the Governor’s amendments sunset the workgroup on July 1, 2031.
HB 1222 (Delaney), as passed by the General Assembly, requires any interview of a child conducted as part of a child welfare interview (an interview conducted by a child protective services agency to collect information regarding abuse, neglect, or exposure to violence) or a family assessment to be recorded. The Governor’s amendments would convert this directive into permissive authority to make such recordings and expand this authorization to interviews of alleged child victims in human trafficking assessments.
Wage garnishments
HB 1100 (Hernandez)/SB 597 (Aird) limit wage garnishments imposed by Treasurers for unpaid taxes or other charges to 25 percent of disposable earnings, with certain exceptions. Under the bills as passed by the General Assembly, the cap does not apply if the Treasurer determines that the delinquent taxpayer is no longer in the jurisdiction, is attempting to flee the jurisdiction or is improperly disposing of assets with the intent to frustrate the collection of the delinquent taxes. The Governor’s amendments would vest the determination about whether such risks exist with a court of appropriate jurisdiction, rather than the Treasurer.
Retail cannabis market
HB 642 (Krizek)/SB 542 (Aird) establish a regulatory and tax structure for a retail market for the sale of cannabis. The Governor proposed extensive changes to the bills, including the following revisions:
- The Governor would cap the number of retail stores at 200 until January 1, 2029; as passed by the General Assembly, this cap would be set at 350 until January 1, 2028.
- Under the General Assembly’s version of the bills, net profits collected by the Cannabis Control Authority would be appropriated as follows: 40 percent to early childhood care and education, 30 percent to the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment fund, 25 percent to the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services for substance use disorder prevention and treatment programs at Community Services Boards, and 5 percent to public health programs, including public awareness campaigns to discourage drugged driving. The Governor proposes more general language that would direct funds to purposes such as early childhood education, behavioral health, public health awareness, prevention, treatment, and recovery services, workforce development, reentry, indigent criminal defense, and targeted reinvestment in historically disadvantaged communities, but without prescribing a set distribution of funds for each purpose.
- As passed by the General Assembly, the sale of marijuana or marijuana products would be subject to a 6 percent tax, in addition to the retail sales and use tax. Each locality would be required to impose an additional local tax of at least 1 percent but not greater than 3.5 percent. The Governor’s amendments would increase the state tax to 8 percent after July 1, 2029, and retain the applicability of the retail sales and use tax; the local tax requirement is unchanged.
- As passed by the General Assembly, general retail sales would be allowed beginning January 1, 2027. The Governor proposes to delay the start date until July 1, 2027.
- As passed by the General Assembly, the bills include language stipulating that localities retain authority to adopt and enforce local ordinances regulating businesses, including local zoning and land use requirements, and authorizing localities to adopt ordinances setting hours during which marijuana may be sold. The Governor’s proposal retains these provisions and adds language allowing local governing bodies to adopt ordinances decreasing minimum distance requirements between retail stores and between retail stores and other land uses, such as hospitals or schools.
- The Governor’s amendments reduce the amount of marijuana that may be legally possessed on the person or in a public place by an individual who is at least 21 from 2.5 ounces (as proposed by the General Assembly) to two ounces; the Governor also proposes to make public consumption a Class 4 misdemeanor (under current law, public consumption is punished by a $25 civil penalty for a first offense, and is a Class 4 misdemeanor beginning with a third offense).
- The bills as passed by the General Assembly contain detailed requirements for the licensing process, including criteria for denial of a license that would include failure to conform to certain local ordinances and a requirement for notification to a locality when an applicant has been granted preliminary license approval. The Governor proposes instead to vest the Board of Directors of the Cannabis Control Authority with broad power to promulgate regulations for the administration of licenses; the Governor’s amendments do not include the specific notice requirements and other criteria in the General Assembly’s version of the legislation.
Labor
HB 238 (Lopez) expands enforcement mechanisms and penalties for violations of certain labor laws. The Governor’s substitute narrows the scope of covered violations and clarifies enforcement triggers, helping limit exposure to technical or ambiguous claims.
HB 636 (Maldonado) / SB 215 (Boysko) restrict employer inquiries into wage and salary history during the hiring process. The Governor’s amendments clarify permissible employer communications and limit application in certain contexts, helping reduce ambiguity in implementation.
HB 670 (Maldonado) modifies the definition of “employer” under applicable labor statutes. The Governor’s amendment adds a reenactment clause, signaling that the policy may be revisited pending further review. VACo had previously engaged on this bill to remove language provisions that would repeal sovereign immunity.
Procurement
HB 569 (Feggans) / SB 518 (Rouse) raised concerns about expanding prevailing wage requirements to additional local government projects. As amended through the legislative process and with the Governor’s actions, the measures appear to preserve key exemptions and avoid sweeping new mandates on local procurement.
HB 1046 (Carr) / SB 324 (McPike) make targeted changes to public procurement processes. The Governor’s amendments include a carveout for certain transportation-related projects, which is a helpful clarification for local governments engaged in infrastructure delivery. The revisions provide greater certainty and flexibility, particularly for projects involving state and regional transportation partners.
Law Enforcement
HB 1482 (Schmidt) / SB 352 (Salim) prohibit state and local law enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings while performing official duties, with limited exceptions for health, safety, and tactical situations. The Governor’s amendments clarify allowable exceptions and place greater emphasis on compliance through agency policy, reducing ambiguity and potential liability. The bills as originally introduced had provisions repealing sovereign immunity, which VACo thanks the patrons for removing during the legislative process.
HB 650 (Callsen) / SB 351 (Salim) prohibit certain civil arrests in courthouses, including arrests under civil administrative warrants, with exceptions for judicial warrants and specific enforcement actions. The Governor’s amendments clarify definitions and narrow applicability to ensure core court functions and lawful enforcement activities are not disrupted, reducing ambiguity for local officials.
VACo Contacts: Katie Boyle and Jeremy R. Bennett