Politics & Government
Fairfax County Casino Bill Sent To Full VA House For Vote
Lawmakers on Friday advanced a bill for a VA House vote that would add Fairfax County to the list of localities eligible to host a casino.
RICHMOND, VA — Legislation that would allow a casino to be built in Fairfax County is on its way to the Virginia House of Delegates for a full vote, with a new substitute that cancels some of the recent amendments to the bill.
On Friday, the House Appropriations Committee voted 18-4 to recommend Senate Bill 756 move forward with a change that "complies with current law, regarding application fees and revenues."
On Wednesday, the General Laws Committee voted 12 to 7 to advance the legislation to the Appropriations Committee with a substitute amendment that, among other things, raised the casino licensure fee from $50 million to $150 million and set the casino tax rate at 40 percent of adjusted gross revenue, with 50 percent allocated to the locality.
Find out what's happening in Restonfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
The primary differences between the two substitutes lie in the licensing fees, tax revenue distribution, and labor requirements for casino operations.
- Tiered Licensing Fees: The General Laws substitute mandated a $150 million nonrefundable license fee for the large county described in subdivision A 6 of the legislation. In contrast, the Appropriations version removed this specific $150 million fee requirement, maintaining a more uniform approach.
- Revenue Sharing of Fees: In the General Laws substitute, 50 percent of that $150 million fee was to be distributed directly to the host locality, with the other 50 percent going to the Gaming Regulatory Fund. That is missing from the Appropriations substitute
- Tax Rates: The General Laws substitute imposed a flat 40 percent tax on adjusted gross receipts for Fairfax County. The Appropriations version lacks this specific 40 percent mandate.
- WMATA Funding: The General Laws version specifically allocated 5 percent of tax revenues from the locality (Fairfax County) to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Capital Fund. The Appropriations version does not mention WMATA.
- New Beneficiaries: The General Laws substitute added the Open-Space Lands Preservation Trust Fund as a recipient (0.8 percent of certain revenues), which is absent from the Appropriations substitute.
- Prevailing Wage: The General Laws substitute required localities to consider a proposer’s commitment to paying prevailing wage rates for construction labor.
- Labor Peace Agreements: It also mandated that preferred operators enter into labor peace agreements with labor organizations.
- Definitions: To support these rules, the General Laws version added legal definitions for "Labor organization" and "Labor peace agreement.”
- Magisterial District Approval: The General Laws substitute included a new section (§ 58.1-4123.1) requiring that for the casino locality, a referendum is only successful if it passes both in the locality at large and specifically within the magisterial district where the casino would be located. That requirement was removed in the Appropriations substitute.
- Expiration: Both acts expire on July 1, 2029, if a referendum is not successful, but the General Laws version specifically tied this to the new magisterial district referendum requirement.
On Friday afternoon, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors received an update on SB756 during its regular Legislative Committee meeting. In December, the board voted 5-4 to add language to its 2026 Legislative Program expressing opposition to any legislation allowing a casino to be built in Fairfax County.
Find out what's happening in Restonfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
“The people who don't represent Northern Virginia supported the bill, and largely the people who do represent Northern Virginia oppose the bill,” Board Chair Jeff McKay (D-At-Large) said, of the two committee votes in the House of Delegates. “One of the big concerns about this bill, from the beginning, for a lot of us is that this decision can be made in large part by people who represent none of the same people that we do and none of the people who are affected by this legislation.”
Supervisor Jimmy Bierman (D-Dranesville), who has been the most vocal critic of the casino bill on the board, agreed with McKay's assessment.
"You do not want to set a precedent of people from outside your area dictating what you do," he said. "And yet, that is what is trying to happen with this bill. It won't pass a referendum, and it really makes no sense. I hope that it fails on the House floor on Monday."
Jennifer Van Ee, Fairfax County's legislative director, told the supervisors that if the House passes the casino bill as amended, the Senate would need to vote again on those changes.
"My guess is that the Senate will reject those," she said. "The House will reject the Senate, and they will go to conference. So, that will take place in the final week of session, and we'll see what comes out of that."
The bill's sponsor, Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell (D-Mount Vernon), introduced similar legislation during the 2025 legislative session. Although that bill passed the Senate, it was left in the House Gaming Subcommittee, effectively killing it.
On Feb. 12, the Senate Committee on Finance and Appropriations recommended SB756 with a substitute to the full Senate for consideration. The substitute removed the requirement that a casino would be built in Tysons, which made all of Fairfax County as a possible location for any casino proposal.
Also See ...
Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.
