eNews Special Edition – April 16, 2026
Governor issues amendments, vetoes for General Assembly’s consideration
Thursday, April 16, 2026/Categories: eNews
Governor issues amendments, vetoes for General Assembly’s consideration
The General Assembly will consider about 180 amended bills and nine proposed vetoes of bills from Governor Abigail Spanberger during the reconvened session scheduled for Wednesday, April 22, in Richmond.
Spanberger released her proposed amendments earlier this week. Many amendments are clarifying or minor, but some are more substantiative or numerous, such as those proposed for the collective bargaining bills. You can see the list of the amended bills on the General Assembly’s Legislative Information System (LIS) here >.
Spanberger also issued nine proposed vetoes, including SB661 (Rouse) which addresses regulation and taxation of skill games. If the veto holds, the struggle over this issue will continue for yet another year and localities will remain unable to receive any tax revenue from machine operators (as was proposed in the legislation that passed the General Assembly).
You can see the list of all proposed vetoes on the LIS website here >.
The bills reported in this edition of eNews are among those that VML followed during the 2026 Session that were the subject of significant proposed amendments from the Governor’s Office.
Use the links below to review each item:
Collective Bargaining
Amendments improve the legislation somewhat but don’t remove the expensive mandate
SB378 (Surovell) / HB1263 (Tran) Collective bargaining by public employees; Public Employee Relations Board established; exclusive bargaining representatives.
The Governor made a number of amendments to the collective bargaining bills that passed the General Assembly. It will be up to the General Assembly to decide whether to accept her version or to stick to the identical bills they passed.
First, the Governor’s version specifically excludes supervisors from collective bargaining. The term “supervisor” is defined as “an employee who devotes a majority of his work time to supervisory duties, who customarily and regularly directs the work of two or more other employees, and who has the authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, promote, or discipline other employees or to recommend such actions effectively, but does not include individuals who perform merely routine, incidental, or clerical duties who occasionally assume supervisory or directory roles or whose duties are substantially similar to those of their subordinates.”
The enrolled version, passed by the General Assembly allows supervisors to be in a collective bargaining agreement.
Second, the General Assembly-passed version puts local governments into the law July 1, 2028. The Governor’s version uses January 1, 2030. Also, localities with collective bargaining agreements entered into before the effective date may continue to rely on those pre-existing agreements.
Third, the Governor empowers the Public Employee Relations Board with significant regulation-making authority over the many areas of its authority. The version passed by the General Assembly does not. The patron expressed displeasure with this concept.
Fourth, the passed version allows a collective bargaining agreement to overrule the ability of a public employer to “hire, promote, assign, transfer, demote, suspend, discharge, or terminate public employees.” The Governor’s version removes the provision that allows a collective bargaining agreement to override those, and similar, powers of public employers.
Fifth, the Governor makes explicit the “obligation to negotiate in good faith does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or make a concession.” The supporters of the General Assembly version argued that local governments could simply not agree to a collective bargaining proposal. The language of the passed bill was not so clear.
Sixth, the Governor’s version specifies that the bill does not waive sovereign immunity for any governmental agencies. No such provision is found in the enrolled version.
While the substitute version offered by the Governor contains some improvements, the legislation will end up costing local governments up to $1 billion per year after the law is in place. VML continues to oppose the bills.
VML Contact: Mark Flynn, markkflynn@vml.org
Housing
Amendments clarify language in Faith in Housing bills, but they remain an unfunded mandate that VML opposes
HB1279 (Cole) / SB388 (McPike) Affordable housing; religious organizations and other nonprofit tax-exempt properties.
The legislation originally would have allowed certain non-profit organizations and religious organizations to build by-right housing on their property with only administrative approval. These projects would also be deemed approved if the locality doesn’t act within 90 days. This precluded any opportunity for meaningful public input. Finally, only 60% of the units would have to be affordable. The bill expires on January 1, 2031.
The proposed amendments make minor changes, but the legislation is still an unfunded mandate which VML opposes. The bills create a new code section §15.2-2288.9 which sets out the statutory authority for the creation of housing on religious organizations and other tax-exempt properties. The Governor’s proposed amendments are primarily clarifying and do not remove the mandate.
The first substantive change removes local authority to make the housing tax exempt on these properties. The amendments next clarified the applicable code sections to be used in the review of these projects as well as the height requirements.
Added to the code section was also the fact that these projects will be found substantially in accord with the comprehensive plan and encourages applicants to seek the resources available at the Department of Housing and Community Development.
While we appreciate the amendments, VML still opposes this mandate.
VML Contact: Michelle Gowdy, mgowdy@vml.org
Cannabis
Amendments eliminate clear statutory requirements for licensed cannabis businesses
HB642 (Krizek) / SB542 (Aird) Cannabis Retail Market Amendments Eliminate Local Notice Requirement for Licensees.
While the press has focused on the Governor’s delayed starting date for retail cannabis sales, VML member localities should also be aware that the Governor’s substitute legislation for HB642/SB542 does the following:
- Eliminates local notice during the licensing process.
- Eliminates provisions that ensure licensees do not have a history of fraud, nonpayment of taxes, or operate too close to schools, day care facilities, health care facilities, or religious buildings.
- Fails to ensure that these businesses are compliant with local health and sanitation requirements.
While these same prohibitions could be included in the fast-track regulatory process, without clear direction in the Code of Virginia there is no certainty the Cannabis Control Authority (CCA) will include these important protections for localities and community members.
Specifically, the Governor’s substitute for the enrolled version of HB642/SB542 strikes the entirety of §4.1-810 which provided statutory direction to the CCA to consider local impact factors for licensees including prior non-marijuana related felony convictions, fraudulent activity, tax delinquency, proximity to day cares, churches, hospitals, residential areas, non-compliance with local ordinances, health and sanitation concerns posed by the operation of cannabis licensees, zoning noncompliance, as well as criteria for the board to consider the impact of multiple licensees in a locality when issuing licenses.
Furthermore, the Governor’s substitute also eliminated §4.1-1000 G which required the CCA to provide notice to localities when an application for a license in that locality is submitted and provides the locality with 30 days to provide any objections to the CCA. While this requirement is similar to the provisions for ABC licensees (Code of Virginia §4.1-210 B) the requirements for cannabis retailers in the enrolled bill are less burdensome in that cannabis licensees are not required to publish notice in local newspapers or post a notice on the business physically.
VML believes that the enrolled version of HB642/SB542 provides greater notice to localities for CCA licensees and supports this statutory provision.
VML supports the approach the House and Senate took this year that gave clear statutory direction the Cannabis Control Authority. Since licenses will be issued expeditiously, it is essential that statutory guidance is clear and specific in providing incentives for licensees to operate in accordance with local ordinances and provides localities with adequate notice of proposed licenses so community impacts and any potential conflicts with local ordinances can be identified prior to the issuance of a license.
VML Contact: Mitchell Smiley, msmiley@vml.org
Local Authority
Amendments preserve local authority to establish parking minimums
HB888 (Shin) Minimum off-street parking requirements in certain areas.
The Governor amended HB888 to narrow the impact of the bill and preserve existing local ordinance authority to establish parking minimums. She also further narrowed the legislation to limit the amount of parking a locality may require during a rezoning to ½ a space per unit in multifamily developments and 1 space per unit in single- and two-family developments and townhouses.
The bill also requires localities with a population greater than 20,000 adopt an ordinance to provide an administrative reduction of parking minimums and include criteria to determine eligibility and procedures for the review of administrative reduction of parking minimums. The bill requires a review process at the request of a developer to consider an administrative reduction of parking minimums for residential, multi-family or mixed-use development proposed of not less than 20% of off-street parking.
VML Contact: Mitchell Smiley, msmiley@vml.org
Elections
Amendments do not alter VML support for bills extending ranked choice voting option to towns
HB630 (Callsen) / SB176 (VanValkenburg) Elections; conduct of election; ranked choice voting; locally elected offices; report.
HB630/SB176 expands the option to use ranked choice voting to any local governing body including town councils. Currently the option is available only for county boards of supervisors and city councils. Additionally, these bills require the State Board of Elections to provide the standards and approval for vote tabulating software for use with existing voting systems in elections conducted via ranked choice voting. These bills also allow localities to request a risk limiting audit be conducted. Finally, these bills repeal the expiration for ranked choice voting placed on the initial bill in 2020 making ranked choice voting a permanent choice for localities.
Governor Spanberger made three substantial changes:
First, final tabulation of votes is now required to be conducted at the next electoral board meeting following the election.
Second, the Department of Elections must now make available to the public the total number and percentage of votes each candidate received per round (despite withdrawal) and ballot-level ranking data.
Third, any requested risk-limiting audit must be limited to only the first rankings reported by voting systems.
VML supports this legislation, particularly the extension of ranked-choice voting as an option for towns. The amendments do not affect this support.
VML Contact: Josette Bulova, jbulova@vml.or