🚨BREAKING: Governor Ron DeSantis says he will allow Florida voters to vote to ABOLISH PROPERTY TAXES. Do it EVERYWHERE! "If you own your home, to truly OWN it, you have to own it FREE and CLEAR of the government - you shouldn't have to pay rent to the government!" "We're gonna place a question on the BALLOT that is gonna allow Floridians to vote themselves relief from property tax." "Your personal home, we really believe, should not be subject to tax. It's an unrealized gain." "People say, 'that can't be done.' My question is, why can't it be done? [Broward] County, Florida. 1.9 million people. NO net population growth over the last 5 years, but the budget has increased 60%!" Democrats and Socialists are taxing us to death and destroying our country. Virginia will suffer just like Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington State, Colorado, and California.

🚨BREAKING: Governor Ron DeSantis says he will allow Florida voters to vote to ABOLISH PROPERTY TAXES. Do it EVERYWHERE! "If you own your home, to truly OWN it, you have to own it FREE and CLEAR of the government - you shouldn't have to pay rent to the government!" "We're gonna place a question on the BALLOT that is gonna allow Floridians to vote themselves relief from property tax." "Your personal home, we really believe, should not be subject to tax. It's an unrealized gain." "People say, 'that can't be done.' My question is, why can't it be done? [Broward] County, Florida. 1.9 million people. NO net population growth over the last 5 years, but the budget has increased 60%!" Democrats and Socialists are taxing us to death and destroying our country. Virginia will suffer just like Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington State, Colorado, and California.

Nature Forward strongly opposes the substitutions offered on 2/12/26 for HB496 and we no longer support this bill. The substitutions not only roll back the intent of the original bill by removing the requirement to report on the expected water usage of new data centers, but they also appear to further restrict what a locality can already do today. This is a major shift in the bill’s intent and we therefore oppose this bill as of 2/12/26 (a change from our earlier support on 1/23/26 of the original bill). Please oppose HB496.

I support HB496.

I represent Wise County residents as one of the county's elected Soil and Water Conservation Directors. While multiple data centers are being planned for our locality, county officials and developers have so far declined to disclose any details about these data center projects and their projected water usage to either the general public or local stakeholders in the resource management realm. One of our responsibilities as elected SWCD directors is to work with other local elected officials and the general public to find collaborative solutions to complex resource management issues affecting our localities. However, we cannot perform this critical function of our office when basic information about data center projects' anticipated resource uses are shielded from disclosure and the routine public input mechanisms that are common for other major economic development projects. It then requires more time, effort, and taxpayer expense to retroactively address resource management issues that arise from such projects when they are planned in relative secrecy, as opposed to being planned through a transparent process that allows for issues to proactively be caught and mitigated early on. HB496 provides important checks on the aforementioned issues and would ensure that residents and other stakeholders have the information they need to inform developers and local government officials about important considerations involving water resources that may result from a planned data center project. I encourage you to support HB496.

Please study the impact of data centers on the land, water, air and people before approving them. Limit them to industrail areas and keep them away from residental areas. We must conserve trees to help protect our land from extreme heat and run off. Trees are extremely valuable.

I fully support HB496 as written.

I am writing in full support of this bill. Transparency and equal access to information are essential for decision-making and planning. It is also key for residents to be able to know the impacts (as best as can be determined) as they way in on key decisions including development opportunities like data centers. We know that data centers use a significant amount of water, which does affect everyone. As a resident of Richmond, I can speak to the clear needs for understanding the impact and stress on our water infrastructure. The city has struggled to maintain both its water for drinking and waste water as needs have shifted and change. The improvements in the city's infrastructure would be even harder forecast if they did not know the affects of data centers on the water supply. How can a city do affective planning and budgeting of the key infrastructure projects needed without having some sense of the impact of development projects. It is irresponsible and unethical that predicted water usage from data centers is not shared at the proposal stage so that decision makers, planners, legislators, and residents can make an informed decision.

I strongly support HB496 because Virginia is already the data center capital of the world, and new applications continue to come forward at a rapid pace. While data centers rely heavily on local resources, they often provide limited long-term economic benefit to surrounding communities, create relatively few jobs, and frequently receive significant tax incentives. As this industry expands, it is essential that communities fully understand the local impacts before projects are approved. Water use is one of my greatest concerns. Data centers can require enormous volumes of water for cooling, yet this information is not always clearly disclosed to the public or local decision-makers. Communities deserve transparency about how much water a proposed facility will use and whether that demand could strain local water systems or contribute to higher utility bills for residents. HB496 establishes a common-sense requirement that data center developers disclose expected water usage in advance and prevents that information from being hidden behind confidentiality agreements. If data centers depend on our shared water resources, they should be required to carry their own weight and plan responsibly for those needs. This bill helps ensure that economic development does not come at the expense of community affordability, water security, or long-term sustainability.

Dear Rep. Guzman, Thank you for introducing HB 496 to begin to hold data centers accountable to local communities for the true cost that they demand. Neither our water supply nor our power grid can sustain the level of planning that has gone unchecked for these developments. Your bill is a step in the right direction to demand transparency and give communities and community members the facts they need to make informed decisions for sustainable planning and development. I wholeheartedly support your measure. Sincerely, Lesley

I am concerned about the proliferation of data centers and other large development projects that impact local water and power. Transparency for governmental approval and planning requires the provision of water use disclosures. Projects should not be able to avoid these disclosures with the use of NDAs or confidentiality agreements. Requiring accurate water use disclosures is in the best interests of all citizens, now and in the future- and thus I strongly support HB 496.

I've lived in my townhome since May 2015. My water bill was $90 each quarter until one year ago. For the last 4 payments, it is now $149. I live in 20147, basically 'data center alley'. This 65% increase is NOT inflation. I do not think it is my responsibility, or my neighbors in the county, to pay for the entire world's gluttonous need for 'cloud storage'. As a teacher, I did NOT receive a 65% salary increase. Nor did the bus drivers, grocery store staff, nurses, accountants, etc that live in my neighborhood.

While Data Centers can provide much needed revenue to localities it is imperative that those decisions are made in the open and ALL the impacts of a data center are known and clearly available to the public, not just the revenue possibilities.

This is a clear government transparency issue and inhibits public water supply planning efforts. We need you to support House Bill 496.

To the Board of Western VA Water Authority, The impacts on our water supply by the Google AI data center planned for construction in Botetourt County concern me greatly. The negative effects of AI Data Centers are well documented, and they are known to be causing water crises in the country and water issues within Virginia as well. Granting Google unprecedented access to our water supply is unacceptable and infuriating, and I am extremely disappointed in how the Western Virginia Water Authority has handled this project thus far. As a Western Virginia Resident, we demand transparency moving forward as well as dialogue with experts on the impacts of this kind of data center on water and land usage. We also demand a town hall to address concerns about how the implementation of such a data center will effect our water supply and our wallets, with detailed and transparent explanations about how the water authority will mitigate damage. It is unacceptable to believe that Google will act with the people of Western Virginia in mind, as Google has no obligation to our natural resources or our communities, and they are only concerned with profits. I urge you to think on this; protect our water, our environment, and our people from corporations that are not concerned with how their construction effects local communities. It is your duty to the people of Western VA to protect our water and to listen to and address the public's concerns about the risks of such a project. Sincerely, Madeline Alford 2807 Wellesely Ct, Blacksburg, VA madelinebelle11@gmail.com

Please vote for this legislation. I bought our retirement home on the Rappahannock River. I love it! If proposed data centers build next door and suck up our well water for their business, or affect the quality of the River due to business use, I will be forced to move away from my dream home. Not to mention the impact on our house values.

I am very concerned about the impact of data centers’ water needs on our scarce freshwater sources. This bill is a no-brainer to at least quantify those needs as part of the planning/approval process.

Please support hb496. It is dishonest to withhold information on the use and effects that the data center will or may have on public drinking water. It appears that data centers have something to hide. Please don’t allow them to hide information from the public. In addition, please do not support the abolishment of qualified immunity for law enforcement officers. The only ones that would benefit are attorneys and criminals.

PLEASE, think of our next 100, 200, and 300 years in this country like our founding fathers did for us. As a farmer and rancher, I don’t know what I will do in 50 years. I really do not. No one will be able to afford to grow your food if the data centers down the road make everybody realize it pays more to be a welder or electrician. But we need it youth full of hope and striving for food production too! Our jails grow most of our food here. First generation farms won’t exist if we continue to deregulate data centers or take local governments power from them to do anything about it. Towns and Counties need help regulating data centers. We are in a serious and rare winter drought in Virginia. We cannot afford many more data centers, especially at the rate they are being built and way they are being operated. We really DONT know how exactly they operate because that information will not be disclosed by the companies.. how do we enforce unenforceable companies? “The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased, and not impaired, in value.” -Theodore Roosevelt, speech before Colorado Livestock Association, Denver, Colo., Aug. 29, 1910.

On behalf of Nature Forward, please support and vote "yes" on HB496. With the ever-growing desire of data centers to be located in Virginia, with an overwhelming number of data centers in Northern Virginia, it is more important than ever to integrate facts and information into the decision-making process for approvals of data centers and for better understanding the water impacts of by-right data center development. This bill would finally allow localities to get data on expected water use for new data centers, avoiding water usage NDAs and redacted redact water and wastewater service agreements. Local decision makers, the public, and even VA DEQ deserve to have a full understanding of potential impacts a data center could have on their localities' water resources to better allow for planning for potential impacts to water resources. This bill increases government transparency and improves local democracy, allowing the public and all decision makers to have the same knowledge developers and only a few others have regarding estimated water usage. Please support HB496 – the future of our drinking water depends on it.

A government spending taxpayer money to hide information from those same taxpayers sounds like a bad joke, but it is all too true. The Western Virginia Water Authority, which manages water for Roanoke, Botetourt, and Franklin Counties as well as Roanoke City, is currently appealing a judge's ruling against them to release the expected water usage rates of a proposed Google data center in Botetourt County. They redacted the numbers from draft contracts they released to the press, and argued in court that the rates--estimated to be between two and eight million gallons *per day*--are Google's "proprietary information," necessary for them to maintain their competitive edge. It's a small detail, just a few numbers among dozens of pages, they are keen to point out. But the failure to disclose those small but crucial numbers is emblematic of the contempt for basic openness and accountability that have characterized the Botetourt data center project from the beginning, negotiated in secret for over a year-and-a-half and with water access granted shortly thereafter without any public input. This is not even primarily a Google issue. Secrecy is the standard operating procedure for all these tech companies, and runs counter to the principles of good governence in all these localities. The Roanoke Valley is not the first region to look for answers and run up against the black wall of redactions and NDAs, but Virginia, with the opportunity to advance and pass HB496, can make it the last. https://www.roanokerambler.com/water-authority-seeks-emergency-appeal-pause-as-clock-ticks-on-releasing-google-data-center-information/

Dear Members of the General Assembly, I am writing as a concerned citizen of Essex County, Virginia, in strong support of House Bill 496. I care deeply about the long-term health of the endangered Rappahannock River and its fragile watershed ecosystem, along with the surrounding lands and communities that depend on these limited shared resources. Our region is experiencing a rapid increase in proposed and approved data center developments, often promoted as major economic wins. For economic development to truly benefit a community, however, the scale, nature, and pace of that development must align with local goals, needs, and resource availability. Achieving that alignment requires transparency and mutual understanding. Many of the massive data center projects currently under consideration raise serious concerns - particularly with respect to water use, energy demand, and rural encroachment. Data centers are known to require substantial and continuous water withdrawals. Yet under current practices, applicants may shield critical water use information through nondisclosure agreements, confidentiality provisions, and redactions in water and wastewater service agreements. This lack of transparency undermines informed decision-making and prevents meaningful public participation in processes that directly affect shared public resources. House Bill 496 addresses this problem directly and responsibly. By prohibiting the use of nondisclosure agreements and redactions to conceal water use data, and by requiring applicants to disclose expected annual and daily water use metrics the bill restores transparency to an essential public review process. These disclosures are critical to ensure the project aligns with community goals and for accurate resource planning, responsible infrastructure investment, and long-term water supply /drought resilience. The Rappahannock River watershed supports a fragile ecosystem and a pristine rural landscape of local, state, and national cultural, historical, and ecological significance. Once degraded, these resources cannot be easily restored. Beyond environmental impacts, unchecked and undisclosed water withdrawals pose risks to human health and wellbeing, agricultural viability, and the sustainability of existing residential and commercial water users. Over time, this erosion threatens the very fabric of communities carefully woven over more than three centuries. HB 496 empowers local governments, planners, and citizens with the information necessary to evaluate development proposals responsibly and to act in the best interests of the communities they represent. This is especially important for high-poverty and rural communities that lack in-house technical staff or the financial resources to engage in prolonged legal battles with large corporate developers. Transparency is a cornerstone of good governance, particularly when finite and irreplaceable resources are at stake. For these reasons, I strongly urge you to support and pass House Bill 496. This legislation is a critical step toward protecting Virginia’s water resources, strengthening community-driven decision-making, and safeguarding the future of rural communities like mine in Essex County. Thank you for your consideration and for your service to the Commonwealth. Respectfully, Meredith Trible A Concerned Citizen Essex County, Virginia

I am in strong support of this bill that would require data centers to disclose water usage and include average daily use, maximum daily use, and total maximum annual use. As well as water use to be disclosed at the time of site plan. It is within all of our best interests for this data to be completely transparent to community members that will be affected by data center infrastructure. Thank you.

I support HB496 on behalf of my constituents whose access to water is at risk due to the plans of a massive data center that would use between 2 million to 8 million gallons of water today from our regional water authority. One locality in the regional water authority signed a contract impacting the entire region's water supply without notice to the other localities. This is unacceptable especially in the middle of a long drought resulting in low levels of our water retention supply. It's imperative that HB496 passes to protect our water supply from outdated data center construction that results in wasteful water usage. There must be public notice and discussion. Please vote for HB496. Sincerely, Freeda Cathcart District Director on the BRSWCD representing Roanoke City

Please vote for transparency on the impact that data centers have on our water supply. We are in a drought warning and our aquifers are being depleted. This bill would bring transparency to the impact these facilities have.

Dear delegates, I urge you to pass this bill to slow the unrestrained development of data centers in Virginia. We’re at a crossroads where we can choose to continue drawing unlimited resources from our public utilities and natural resources (like water), or we can put sensible and sustainable guard rails on developments like Google’s hyperscale data center proposed near my home in Botetourt County. I just inherited my family’s 76 acres of pristine Appalachian Mountain-side there, and I’d like to someday build my forever home there. In my dreams, I have plenty of well water to draw from the aquifers below the land. I fear that if un restrained data centers, taking a city’s worth of water per day, I’ll have no water with which to raise my family.

I fully support this bill. I speak for the large organization of HOA’s in PWC, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Fauquier counties supporting better transparency and standards around water use. The VA DEQ recent report said half of Virginia is under drought conditions. We need this bill Roger Yackel Gainesville

I'm writing to show my support for this bill, which would grant more transparency to Virginians who are currently facing new data center development projects. As cost of living and inflation continues to rise, we deserve to know to what degree data centers would strain our water resources, in order to make more informed public opinions on whether these centers are a net benefit or detriment to our communities. It's to everyone's detriment when that information is not public knowledge, as it fuels speculation and mistrust. And if a company is trying to withhold that information, because of how detrimental these data centers would be to our water supply and the price increases we would ultimately pay towards it, then that is all the more reason that the information should be public so that a more informed public dialogue can be held.

Dear State Representatives: Advancing this is critical for local transparency. We in Botetourt County are in the process of opposing a Google Data center that is shrouded in NDA's for the local voters. Our Board of Supervisors has signed NDAs that specifically cloak the amount of water used on a daily basis by this data center. Please help us before it too late. Thank you Jim Malue

Hi, I'm reaching out as a member of the Southwest Virginia Data Center Transparency Alliance group. I'd like to encourage your support of HB496 to require data centers to publicly share information about each center's projected and actual water usage—both average and maximum for daily and yearly amounts. Because our sources of fresh water are limited and necessary for human life, I believe regulating these centers is of utmost importance. Additionally, there are multiple methods of cooling water in these centers that are sustainable and more environmentally friendly. I encourage our representatives to consider proposing a new bill: One that requires data centers to explore all methods of cooling, then publicly share these findings. Ultimately, most data centers do not use renewable resources due to the higher cost. If we, as Virginians, are allowing these centers to become fixtures in our communities—cutting down trees, producing irritating humming sounds at all hours of the day, and consuming significant amounts of power from our grids—our lawmakers have every right to require the centers to foot the bill. I live right on the county lines of Roanoke and Botetourt, and here, Google is our main concern. Google absolutely has the funding and resources to pay its share of the electric usage, any necessary updates to the county's electrical grid to support the center, and MOST importantly, the additional cost to use a renewable cooling method that will not put our entire community at risk of drought. I invite you to consider that while the county will make money from this deal, we can still welcome the data center if it's already decided—but it's up to you as our representatives to ensure that me, you, our neighbors, and all of our children have access to clean water and reasonable energy rates for generations to come. Thank you so much for your time. This issue affects us all, both those profiting from it and those who will be paying more for it. Please consider our community as a whole and help us maintain our fresh water.

I support HB496. We need regulations to ensure that data centers are not sited where they make excessive demands on water. Recent reports about nondisclosure agreements keeping the public in the dark about this critical information are frankly appalling. Please vote for HB496.

I stand with VCDL on these bills.

Nature Forward strongly opposes HB1122. As written, this bill would be a huge step backwards in ensuring local governments can properly manage their land use decisions and update regulations and zoning as needed to respond to current needs. We oppose exempting old development approvals from having to comply with current zoning. When viewed through the lens of the massive data center boom, and the impacts data centers are having, this bill becomes incredibly concerning. We ask you to oppose HB1122.

Please oppose this bill unless it has exceptions for data centers. Corporate interests should not come before public interest.

Hello. My name is Natalie Pien, a 40+ year resident of Loudoun County writing to ask you to oppose HB 1122, Reid. HB1122 is dangerous because it gives too many privileges to the data center industry at the expense of Virginia residents. Virginians are at risk in terms of their: health due to exposure to air and water pollution; their pocket book due to rising electric bills; their drinking water due to data center industrial use of drinking water supplies, including Loudoun County’s 250% increase in potable drinking water between 2019 & 2023; and, but not limited to, loss of globally rare ecosystems, forests and streams, natural topography when data center sites are stripped of vegetation and flattened to accommodate the greatest number of buildings. HB1122 serves the data center industry, not the people of Virginia. Legislators are elected to represent their constituents, not the globally wealthiest industry. Do data centers really need more breaks to develop in any fashion they see fit at public expense? Virginia and Virginians need their interests protected. As legislators, please protect the people and places of Virginia. Thank you.

Dear Members of the Virginia General Assembly,I am writing to respectfully express opposition to HB112, SB344, and HB1238. While animal welfare is an important and shared priority, these bills raise serious concerns regarding regulatory overreach, economic impact, unequal treatment among organizations, and unintended harm to disabled veterans living with TBI and PTSD.Commerce and Small Business Impact. Virginia’s animal-related businesses, including breeders, pet retailers, and specialty operators,already function under significant federal, state, and local oversight. The additional restrictions and expanded enforcement authority proposed in these bills create increased compliance costs, operational uncertainty, and financial strain. Many of these businesses are small, family-run, veteran-owned enterprises. Layering new mandates on already regulated operations risks discouraging lawful commerce and reducing economic opportunity within the Virginia Excessive regulation does not automatically translate into better outcomes, particularly when responsible operators are already complying with existing standards. Over expansion of Local Authority (HB1238) would allow local governments to impose permitting requirements, fees, and potentially restrictive or inconsistent ordinances on pet shops and companion animal dealers that vary by locality, making it difficult for businesses to operate consistently across jurisdictions. Allowing local discretion increases the likelihood of uneven enforcement, duplicative standards, and administrative burdens that disproportionately affect small operators.These bills risk creating regulatory imbalance between commercial operators and other types of animal organizations. If entities are exempt from requirements imposed on licensed businesses, it places compliant, tax-paying enterprises at a competitive disadvantage.All organizations should be subject to consistent and standards. Legislation should not favor one over another without clear justification.Many disabled veterans with TBI annd PTSD involvement in animal care and animal-related business provide structure, therapeutic engagement, and economic independence. Individuals living with Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) often benefit from: Routine and responsibility animal care,Reduced isolation through daily engagement,work environments,Meaningful purpose and community involvement. Restrictive legislation that threatens small animal enterprises may unintentionally remove both livelihood and therapeutic stability from veterans who rely on these operations. Policies should consider not only regulatory goals, but also the human impact on those who have served our nation. Conclusion HB112, SB344, and HB1238, as currently written, risk: Expanding regulatory authority beyond reasonable scope Creating inconsistent local enforcement,Placing disproportionate burdens on small businesses,unfair competitive conditions. Undermining veteran-owned enterprises and therapeutic engagement I respectfully urge you to reconsider these measures and work with stakeholders—including small business owners, veterinarians, veteran advocates, and responsible animal organizations—to balance solutions that protect animal welfare without harming lawful commerce or vulnerable communities. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. Abbitt Aaron Hoffman, AFA Legislative Representative Retired U.S. Army Sergeant,Colonial Heights, Virginia

On behalf of the responsible pet care community, we ask that you vote NO on House Bill 1238, which would allow local municipalities to enact their own regulations, restrictions and bans on any pet store that sells animals. Virginia already has strong, enforceable statewide laws governing pet stores, ensuring uniformity and high standards of care. The best way to protect animals and consumers is through a clear, statewide system—not a patchwork of inconsistent local rules that could weaken animal protections.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I work for XO PUPS in Virginia, and compliance is already rigorous. Layering differing local rules on top of strict statewide requirements would make operations nearly unmanageable. We already meet strong standards for transparency, care, inspections, and health. Adding local restrictions does nothing to improve animal safety and only penalizes responsible retailers. I urge you to report HB 1238 unfavorably."

"Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Ayman Koshok, and I own XO PUPS. Our team and the VPAA have worked hard to support strong, consistent statewide oversight of our industry. HB 1238 would create a confusing patchwork of local rules that small businesses can't reasonably navigate. We already have clear, effective statewide standards that work. This bill replaces consistency with conflict, and l urge you to vote 'no' to protect small business stability."

Chair and Members of the Committee, My name is Jennifer Toussaint, and I am writing on behalf of the Virginia Animal Control Association Board and Membership in support of HB 1238. The Virginia Animal Control Association represents animal control professionals serving communities throughout the Commonwealth. Our members are the front-line responders when issues arise involving companion animal sales. Under existing Virginia law, localities may adopt certain animal-related ordinances that mirror state code provisions. However, current statute does not clearly and explicitly authorize local governments to regulate or restrict the acquisition, marketing, and sale of animals in pet shops. That gap has limited some communities’ ability to address documented concerns at the local level. HB 1238 does not create a statewide ban and it does not mandate action. What it does is clarify and restore explicit authority for local governing bodies to regulate or restrict pet shop animal sales by ordinance, if they determine it is appropriate for their jurisdiction. Animal control officers are the professionals who respond when problems surface. We investigate complaints involving sick animals sold to consumers, manage surrenders when unexpected medical costs overwhelm families, and address enforcement and shelter intake impacts that follow. These consequences are handled locally — operationally and financially. If local governments are responsible for managing those impacts, they should have clear authority to address them. HB 1238 is a permissive bill. Communities that determine their current regulatory framework is sufficient may maintain their existing approach. Communities facing documented challenges would have the flexibility to adopt solutions that reflect their local needs and resources. On behalf of the Virginia Animal Control Association and the professionals we represent across the Commonwealth, we respectfully urge you to support HB 1238. Thank you for your time and consideration.

“Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Annellajo Sharpe, and I own Family Pet. Targeting a single, state‑licensed industry for broad local restriction is unprecedented in Virginia. Pet shops are recognized legal entities. Allowing localities to independently restrict our marketing, acquisition, and sales contradicts state law and invites legal conflict. Animal welfare is best served through a unified statewide code—not a piecemeal system that varies by locality.”

House Bill 1238 simply permits localities to address problems associated with pet stores in their own communities. It does not mandate action. It does not impose a statewide ban. It provides local authority where local responsibility already exists. Across Virginia, it is local animal shelters — many of them taxpayer funded — that are charged with managing companion animal populations and dealing with the consequences when problems arise. When commercially bred animals are sold without adequate oversight, the costs often fall not on the retailer, but on the public: sick animals surrendered to shelters, veterinary expenses, enforcement challenges, and increased intake burdens. Local governments and their taxpayers absorb those costs. Localities already bear the responsibility. They should also have the authority. HB 1238 recognizes that conditions differ from one community to another. What may be manageable in one locality may present serious challenges in another. Current statutes do not provide sufficient flexibility for communities to respond to documented problems in a way that reflects their own needs and resources. This is a “may” bill, not a “shall” bill. It does not force any locality to act. It simply restores the ability of local elected officials — those closest to the issue and accountable to their constituents — to make decisions that protect consumers, animals, and taxpayers. Supporting HB 1238 is a vote for local control, fiscal responsibility, and practical governance. Localities need your support. Sharon Quillen Adams, VA Alliance for Animal Shelters

I'm Gina Lynch speaking on behalf of Northern Virginia Coalition for Animals supporting HB1238. Puppies sold in pet stores come from puppy mills where females are breed continuously and live their endure lives in wire cages out in the extreme hot and freezing cold weather. The puppies are then transported across the country and end up in our pet stores. Many cruel conditions have been found locally, for example: -25 puppies were seized from Capital City Pups -17 puppies were seized from Petland, and 31 rabbits were found dead in the freezer -2 dogs were seized from My Next Puppy -45 puppies were seized from Dreamy Puppy These are just some of the issues. How many more have there been? How many more puppies must suffer until we stop the cruel practice of selling them in pet stores. We would not tolerate this barbaric treatment of our own puppies - why do we allow it for puppies from puppy mills?

This is a way to save money by cutting off issues that gov money is spent to fix by simply granting freedom to regulate a root cause.

I'm Gina Lynch speaking on behalf of Northern Virginia Coalition for Animals supporting HB 1238. Puppies sold in pet stores come from puppy mills where females are breed continuously and endure lives in wire cages left out in the extreme heat and freezing cold all year long. The puppies are then transported across the country and end up in our pet stores. Cruel conditions have been found locally; for example: -25 puppies were seized from Capital City Pups -17 animals were seized from Petland (and 31 rabbits were found in the refrigerator) -2 dogs were seized from My Next Puppy -45 puppies were seized from Dreamy Puppy And these are just some of the issues found. How many more have there been? How many more puppies must suffer until we stop the cruel practice of selling them in pet stores. We would not tolerate this treatment of our own puppies - why do we allow it for puppies from puppy mills.

Hello Delegates, I am writing in opposition of HB1396. This bill had been brought fourth by landowners groups that falsely claim to represent and maximize property owners rights when in fact they are property owners that want to end the tradition of hound hunting. This is proven by these groups comments on their own social media pages. These groups have made claim that only 8 states allow the use of hounds to hunt, a stat quoted by delegates in the subcommittee, that is simply a false statement, currently only 9 states allow hounds to be used to hunt deer but nearly every state allows the utilization of dogs to hunt other game species many not requiring an special license to do so. I ask the delegates to understand that the vast majority of the members of the hound hunting organizations are land owners as well in addition to all of the landowners who lease or allow hound hunting on their land support the tradition of hound hunting. This bill creates a permit allowing the DWR create and issue permits on a may issue criteria with visual permit requirements for hounds and vehicles. If Additional funding is needed to police game laws the bill should be amended to a license just like an archery or muzzleloading license that is a shall issue. Additionally the cost for said license should be reduced and required for all that utilize or partcipate in any type of hunting that utilizes a dog. Dogs are already required to have owner contact info on their collar and their vehicles have state issued license plates therefore marking is not necessary. Lastly the only ones who should be exempt from license purchase are those that utilize dogs to hunt on their own land. This simplifies the requirements and makes it fair for all parties. Basically if big game is harvested and checked in and the use of dogs is checked as a part of big game license registering process they should be required to have a dog hunting license or be exempt as a land owner. I hope that you find this as a reasonable comprise. Additionally there needs to be some sort of recourse for false complaints or accusations. If this bill continues as is it will create more tensions between those who utilize dogs to hunt and those who don't like the use of hunting dogs. False complaints will continue to increase cause additional hunter harassment and tension between hunters and those that oppose it. Thank you for your time. V/R, B. C. Bunch

To who ever may read this message My name is jacob austin and me and my family live thur out Amherst Nelson and big island. We have hunted coon hounds for 4 generations starting with my great grand father (van staton)to my grandmother (Betty austin) to my father (Ernest donold austin j)r to me and my brother (Matthew austin) this is a tradition that we have cherished since we were lil kids see are dad go out every night after working long hours him telling us stories about papa van with was amazed by the places he want things he got to see walking thru the nights to get to his dogs. By time we was old enough he let us go with him he grab his 4 year old male walker hounds aka storm man he was one hell of a hound but that but im getting of track but as I got older my life changed drastically mom and father got divorced and I just went into a deep state of depression thinking it was my fault and I was just ready to just leave this earth to go to a better place but no I just hooked my trailer up to my four-wheeler and loaded my dog box and hound aka Rosco p coal train a freeing walker hound and being in the woods just help me forget everything that was happening hearing the sound of him freeing in the holler of those mountains is music for a hurting soul and mind walking to the tree being excited to see what's up there is just my way of therapy for me. I like for my kids, grandkids and everyone after me to still be able to carry on this family tradition turn to running hounds or being out in nature to enjoy what the good lord has created for us inside of turning to hard drugs to make that pain go away if someone has read this is really appreciate u taking u time to read it and have a blessed day

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on HB1238 – Local ordinances; regulation of pet shops. As a long‑standing pet store operator committed to responsible animal care, I am deeply concerned about the practical consequences this bill would create for both regulated businesses and consumers. We at Pet Supplies Plus oppose HB1238. HB1238 introduces several significant challenges that would negatively affect small businesses, animal‑care consistency, and consumer safety: Fragmented Regulations Across Localities Allowing every locality to create its own licensing rules, inspection frameworks, and sales restrictions would result in a confusing patchwork of requirements. This makes it extremely difficult for businesses to operate consistently or train teams to a single standard of care. Increased Risk of Puppy Scams and Unregulated Sales When regulated pet stores face local bans or severe restrictions, customers often turn to online or informal sources. Consumer‑protection agencies have documented higher rates of online puppy scams in areas where regulated storefront options diminish. This shift pushes families toward unverified breeders, sellers with no accountability, and transactions lacking transparency. Expanded Market for Unregulated Breeders Sales restrictions in inspected, overseen pet stores frequently redirect demand to breeders who operate without oversight. This reduces consumer protection and makes it far harder for pet owners to verify health, vaccination status, or humane standards. Duplicative Local Oversight Additional local licensing, paperwork, or inspections—on top of existing state requirements—could create administrative burdens without improving welfare outcomes. Aligning oversight under a consistent statewide structure ensures fairness and clarity. Given these concerns, this bill would impose substantial operational difficulties, reduce consumer protection, and unintentionally drive more animal purchases into unregulated channels—a trend that creates risk for both pets and families. Thank you for considering the significant real‑world impacts this proposal would create for responsible pet stores and the communities we serve. I welcome the opportunity to provide additional insight based on practical experience in animal care and retail operations. Sincerely, Amanda Fredal, LVT Director of Pet Care Pet Supplies Plus afredal@petsuppliesplus.com

Please see attached.

On behalf of the responsible pet care community, we ask that you vote NO on House Bill 1238 which would allow local municipalities to enact their own regulations, restrictions and bans on any pet store that sells animals.

I have owned an aviary in Fairfax County for about 20 years. I have worked very hard over the years to make this a well respected establishment where our birds are given the best care possible. This is my lively hood and this bill is very scary. Please take into consideration that there are many people out there in the pet industry that are passionate about what they are doing and truly want what’s best for the animals.

The American Kennel Club opposes legislation that has the potential to limit the ability of residents to select pets in a responsible manner, based on the breed, health and temperament traits that they seek and make a good match for their lifestyle. Local residents may be wanting a quality purpose-bred pet and may not have access to a local breeder. Instead, they may wish to purchase a dog from a regulated, licensed pet store where they can still get the consumer protections, the health history, and ongoing professional relationships they desire. The attachment addresses how pet store bans run counter to consumer choice.

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, The members and supporters of the Virginia Animal Owners Alliance urge you to reject HB 1238. This bill is part of a targeted attack on legal small businesses and is completely unwarranted. The code already has extensive parameters in place for local ordinances to include permits, records, and both criminal and civil penalties. Pet stores selling dogs and cats are also already licensed, regulated, and inspected through the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. This is a clear effort to suffocate and eliminate the family pet store. How do we know this? HB 1238 wants to allow a restriction on the way pet stores acquire animals and the way they market them. If businesses lose the freedom to operate and showcase what they have to offer, they will die. Can you imagine a legislative effort to put these same restrictions on a shelter or rescue? There would rightly be public outrage! This is a very un-American concept. Legislators have expressed concern over the number of unwanted animals in shelters and rescues, but did you know these groups have their own “puppy pipeline” into Virginia? There is a high demand for dogs in the Commonwealth. Shelters and rescues have brought 59,479 dogs into Virginia from out of State from 2020 - 2024 according to VDACS. It has been reported over the years that dogs have been imported into Virginia from Thailand, China, Korea, Russia, Peru, Greece, Kuwait, and Iran. It is also popular to bring in dogs from the US territory of Puerto Rico. These dogs can present significant health issues according to the CDC. Delegate Shin stated in February 2024 that “PETA Day” is one of her favorite days during session and had her photo taken with PETA’s lobbyist. This extreme group is against pet ownership. Ingrid Newkirk has called it an “absolutely abysmal situation” and stated “In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.” According to PETA, a responsible breeder does not exist and they want to see an end to pet shops. In August 2025, PETA praised West Hollywood for banning the sale of rabbits, amphibians, arachnids, birds, fish, reptiles and hermit crabs. The city had already banned the sale of dogs and cats in 2010. Does Delegate Shin want to see a “pet prohibition” in Virginia as well? This is not what citizens want! If you have a heart for animals, consider the wonderful breeds of dogs and cats that share our homes with all of their unique qualities and rich histories. HB 1238 is another step towards their elimination. As pet stores disappear and responsible breeders are eradicated, each breed will become harder to find and more difficult to preserve.  Pet stores and responsible breeders are important and should be supported by animal lovers—including our representatives in the Virginia General Assembly! Citizens should be free to choose their lifestyle and that includes what kind of pet or pets they want in their home. PLEASE DON’T ALLOW THE PROHIBITION OF OUR PETS AND PET STORES. Vote against HB 1238. Sincerely, Heidi Crosky, Virginia Animal Owners Alliance

I grew up running dogs for chase my entire life - some of my best life memories are in the woods hearing that sweet sound of a pack of Hounds. Today , I realize times have changed ,but please don’t punish up Good ol boys - who don’t have all the amenities of more urban areas . Hunting with dogs is a way of life for us - opening day , you see men , women , and children meeting for the hunt , excited to hear a race . You take the dogs away , you take millions in revenue away from Va . There will simply not be the amount of hunters , licenses will decline , rural stores will see a decline from hunters stopping by . It’s a Ripple effect of revenue lost - on top of taking ourheritage away !

I strongly advise you to oppose SB1396. Thank you.

We oppose bills Sb471 Sb770 Hb1396 It is a virgina heritage I have been hunting with my dogs ever since I could walk, and I want my nephews and my kids to enjoy the thangs that brought me so much joy and gave me something to look forward to every year these dogs are not just hunting dogs they are our pets and a part of my family please oppose these bills so my kids and grandkids can enjoy what I have and so many others have for generations.

If you’re tired of the 9-to-5 grind or just want a way to put some extra cash in your pocket every week, I have something for you. Companies are currently looking for remote writers to handle: Article Writing Blog Posts Social Media Content Live Chat Support No experience is necessary and full training is provided. But before you apply, you need to see which role you’re best suited for. Go here to take the Writing Job Quiz. ---> http://PaidToWrite.Online/ Once you finish the quiz, you’ll get a breakdown of the best opportunities available for you right now. Visit -----> http://PaidToWrite.Online/

Invasives should be pulled or killed by herbicide and not be permitted to be sold in nurseries

HB 1396 I think we are past the time in which dogs are needed to hunt. It's dangerous for land owners and promotes animal cruelty. I have plenty of horror stories i can share as well as a potential animal neglect tip i can share with you regarding a possible hunting organization.

I support Senate Bill 51, and urge the House of Delegates to report and pass it. Localities of over 400,000 population should elect their Council or Board of Supervisors members by individual, single member districts. Outmoded at-large districts make no sense in a jurisdiction this huge, and present serious legal problems that cause years of unnecessary litigation and strife. It’s time to move into the 21st century.

As a Virginia Beach voter, I urge you to pass SB51. There is no reason for further delay - last November, a majority of Virginia Beach voters supported our 10-1 district voting system. I ask you to report SB681 and vote for its passage.

To the members of the Committee: The League of Women Voters supports SB51. In a 2025 election, the voters of Virginia Beach, by a solid majority, approved updating the City Charter to reflect the existing 10-1 district system. The single district system ensures fair, equal, and accountable representation for all citizens in all communities of the City of Virginia Beach, and has been successfully used since 2022. The League recommends that the General Assembly pass SB 51 to update the Virginia Beach City Charter without further delay. The League also supports the related bill SB681. Respectfully submitted, Arina van Breda on behalf of Joan Porte, President, LWV-VA

Affordable housing statewide is a dire need for the disability community, consisting of a significant number who are extremely low income living on SSI income, homeless, segregated in nursing facilities and living in unstable conditions with high rent burdens. Affordable housing construction across Virginia is needed to ensure accessible housing for those who have mobility disabilities, and partnering with public housing agencies can provide project-based voucher units affordable to people with disabilities who are extremely low income. As many people with disabilities are priced out of the housing market, this bill will promote the fair share of housing development afforded to people with disabilities.

Virginia First Cities requests removal of line 54, the delayed effective date. Many of our cities are most anxious to use the tools that HB 74 would provide to provision additional affordable, mixed use/income transit oriented housing in our above average and high fiscally stressed cities.

City of Falls Church Council respectfully submits comments on tje following: 1) Suppprt SB74 for furthering permossive affordable housing statewide, we all are working together 2) Support SB589- good step forward on tree onservation a key priority as the City has been a tree city USA for 47 consecutive years 3) Oppose SB454 as localities must have ability to oversee zoning diatricts for benefit of its community and one size does not fit all, SB 717 overlay model is a preferred approach to addressing housing affordablility. Thank you for your consideration.

I have provided a six-page packet explaining why Animal Control whether supervised by a sheriff's office or county experience or are exposed to the same dangerous as law enforcement and EMS. I work side by side law enforcement and EMS daily and are not experiencing the same enhanced retirement benefits as they do. Even though Animal Control have a higher workers compensation claims across the board. Thank you for your consideration in revisiting this matter.

I OPPOSE this bill, and the current supermajority overreach that negates my voice and representation in Virginia governance. Solar is failing to produce power at an increasing rate, and rural localities have every right to restrict, ban, and create ordinances against it. We the people who know and work our land, and provide stewardship are the ones who need to be making decisions. Not Richmond or the solar lobbyists! We have seen the razing of forests, the washing away of soil, the rivers full of sediment, and nothing to show for it but destruction. There is little to no energy production. Just lining pockets of the landowners, developers, and greedy corrupt politicians. I am so sick of the immature and ignorant retaliatory party line votes. Please DO NOT PASS THIS BILL!

SB388 we ask that you vote nay to this bill.

Legislators: Local decision-making is generally the best way to assure transparency and good outcomes reflecting relevant circumstances especially in land use issues. This legislation, and others like it, despite good intent, go in the opposite direction. by mandating by-right development and amount to unfunded mandates. So, I ask that it and other by-right proposals not be enacted and we search for better ways to move forward.

Please find attached written testimony on behalf of the Institute for Justice in support of SB 454.

Please support SB 454. Young people like me are being crushed by the housing supply crisis. Rents are skyrocketing. The average first time homebuyer just hit 40. Young people are packed into single family homes, apartments, and basements like sardines. People are putting off having families because they can't afford a place. Experts and economists agree that this is caused by local regulations banning new housing, and agree that building housing would address the crisis. Yet, despite all of this, Virginia government continues to take the absurd step of banning new housing where it is needed most. My peers are disillusioned because they can't afford housing. My peers believe that the government will always serve the wealthy, entitled few who want as little housing built as possible. They believe that because they see that the only people local government listens to are the most wealthy, most NIMBY constituents who have the time to show up and yell at local officials at planning meetings during business hours. Many of you ran on cost of living. This is a reasonable, effective step to make housing more affordable by legalizing an increase in supply where it is needed most. Please, make good on your promises to address affordability. Please pass this reasonable reform to legalize housing near jobs.

Dear Committee Members- thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments on behalf of the City of Falls Church Council. SUPPORT: SB 328, this is a beneficial local tool for providing housing affordability options for local employees and request approval effective in 2026 versus a continued 2027. OPPOSE: SB454, removal of local zoning and land use approval is extremely concerning. Zoning districts developed and adopted with local input designed to meet locality public health, safety and community character. One size does not fit all. There are other options and tools to achieve the housing affordability goals such as statewide authorization to sue 15.2-2304. Thank you for your continued service, Cindy Mester, Legislative Affairs Director

Please see attached letter in support of SB 531. This bill gives needed flexibility to landowners and will help ease the housing shortage throughout Virginia.

Virginia’s housing shortage is being driven by outdated zoning that blocks homes in the very places where people work. The Housing Near Jobs bill fixes that by allowing homes in commercial and office areas—near jobs, services, and infrastructure we already have. This means shorter commutes, lower housing costs, and a stronger economy—without raising taxes. The “Housing Near Jobs” proposal is a state-level housing supply bill aimed at addressing housing affordability and availability in areas close to employment centers. The core idea is to make it easier to build homes where jobs already exist by changing local zoning restrictions. It would legalize residential construction in many commercial, office, and retail zoning districts where housing is typically restricted, especially in high-opportunity areas with strong job markets. The intent is to allow more housing to be built “by right” (i.e., without expensive and uncertain rezoning processes), reducing costs and speeding up development near jobs. This fits into a broader effort to help workers live closer to employment centers and reduce housing cost burdens that hit families in high-demand regions hardest. The policy motivation behind the “Housing Near Jobs” bill and related proposals includes: Increasing the housing supply in high-demand job centers so that working families aren’t priced out of areas where they are employed. Cutting red tape and permitting uncertainty that can delay or deter housing development. Addressing housing affordability by enabling more homes to be built quickly and predictably close to employment hubs. Why This Bill Matters Housing costs are outpacing wages across Virginia, especially in job-rich areas. Many office parks, shopping corridors, and commercial zones sit partially empty but cannot legally have housing. When workers can’t live near their jobs, families pay more, commutes get longer, and businesses struggle to hire. What the Bill Does Allows housing by right in commercial and business districts where jobs already exist. Reduces delays, uncertainty, and costs caused by discretionary rezoning. Encourages market-driven housing production without mandates on who must build or what must be built. Benefits for Everyday Virginians Lower housing costs by increasing supply where demand is highest. Less traffic and congestion by shortening commutes. More options for teachers, nurses, service workers, and young families. Revitalizes struggling commercial areas without new infrastructure spending. Benefits for the Commonwealth Supports economic growth by helping employers attract and retain workers. Makes better use of existing roads, utilities, and transit. Reduces pressure to sprawl into farmland and rural areas. Aligns housing policy with workforce and economic development goals. Addressing Common Concerns “This takes away local control.” Local zoning has contributed to a statewide housing shortage with statewide consequences. The General Assembly already sets standards in transportation, education, and environmental protection—housing affordability deserves the same attention. “This will change community character.” The bill focuses on commercial and office areas, not established residential neighborhoods. Habitat for Humanity of Northern Virginia and D.C., which serves Arlington and Fairfax County, City of Fairfax, Alexandria and Falls Church, supports SB 454 and urge you to pass it this year!

I sincerely urge you to support this bill. For too long, we have allowed restrictive single use zoning to make our cities and towns less livable, more expensive, and more exclusive. Enabling our neighbors to live where they work and do business is a common sense solution to a problem that is forcing people to abandon the places that they want to live in order to live a walkable, transitable lifestyle. If you want families and young people to stay in our communities, you must make space. To spike this bill over concerns from localities would be to ignore what your constituents are asking for. We want to live, work, play, and plant roots in our neighborhoods, but right now, too often, because a city colors a street map and attaches an arbitrary zoning classification, we can't do that forcing communities into sprawl and exclusivity. Please, reject what has been, and move towards what can be and in every major country and growing region in this country has shown to be the pattern of development that people want and can thrive in.

Chesterfield has 4 specific corridors for commercial development that SB454 would eventually eliminate. In a growing county, allowing for by-right development of multi-family would hinder the ability to have the commercial that all residents need. We need land for goods and services and not over development of one specific sector of the housing market which by-right will bring. Please allow localities to continue to determine what is best by NOT supporting this bill.

City of Falls Church Council respectfully submits comments on tje following: 1) Suppprt SB74 for furthering permossive affordable housing statewide, we all are working together 2) Support SB589- good step forward on tree onservation a key priority as the City has been a tree city USA for 47 consecutive years 3) Oppose SB454 as localities must have ability to oversee zoning diatricts for benefit of its community and one size does not fit all, SB 717 overlay model is a preferred approach to addressing housing affordablility. Thank you for your consideration.

City of Falls Church Council respectfully submits comments on tje following: 1) Suppprt SB74 for furthering permossive affordable housing statewide, we all are working together 2) Support SB589- good step forward on tree onservation a key priority as the City has been a tree city USA for 47 consecutive years 3) Oppose SB454 as localities must have ability to oversee zoning diatricts for benefit of its community and one size does not fit all, SB 717 overlay model is a preferred approach to addressing housing affordablility. Thank you for your consideration.

Please pass SB681. I am a Virginia Beach voter. We need to get final resolution on this charter change. A majority of Virginia Beach voters have said they prefer having ten districts with each electing their own council member. There is not reason to drag this charter change out any longer. I urge you to report SB681 and vote for its passage.

I urge the Committee to report Senate Bill 681, which updates the charter of the City of Virginia Beach to reflect our existing 10-1 district election system that we have used since 2022. In a recent referendum in November 2025, voters backed a change in the charter to the existing 10-1 election system by a solid majority. In 2023, the University of Virginia conducted a comprehensive survey that demonstrated that an overwhelming majority of Virginia Beach citizens of all demographics, political beliefs, and geographic areas of the city support the 10-1 system. On August 15, 2023, after further public input, the VB City Council passed an ordinance formally adopting the existing 10-1 election system. In 2024, both the House of Delegates and the state Senate passed the charter change bill formalizing the 10-1 system by the required 2/3 majority, but the bill was vetoed. Please correct this longstanding injustice and pass this bill, taking the final steps to update our city charter to reflect the often-expressed, clear views of the majority of the citizens of Virginia Beach. Thank you.

I urge the Committee to report Senate Bill 681, which updates the charter of the City of Virginia Beach to reflect our existing 10-1 district election system that we have used since 2022. In a recent referendum in November 2025, voters backed a change in the charter to the existing 10-1 election system by a solid majority. In 2023, the University of Virginia conducted a comprehensive survey that demonstrated that an overwhelming majority of Virginia Beach citizens of all demographics, political beliefs, and geographic areas of the city support the 10-1 system. On August 15, 2023, after further public input, the VB City Council passed an ordinance formally adopting the existing 10-1 election system. In 2024, both the House of Delegates and the state Senate passed the charter change bill formalizing the 10-1 system by the required 2/3 majority, but the bill was vetoed. Please correct this longstanding injustice and pass this bill, taking the final steps to update our city charter to reflect the often-expressed, clear views of the majority of the citizens of Virginia Beach. Thank you.

To the members of the Committee: The League of Women Voters supports SB 681. In a 2025 election, the voters of Virginia Beach, by a solid majority, approved updating the City Charter to reflect the existing 10-1 district system. The single district system ensures fair, equal, and accountable representation for all citizens in all communities of the City of Virginia Beach, and has been successfully used since 2022. The League recommends that the General Assembly pass SB 681 to update the Virginia Beach City Charter without further delay. The League also supports the related bill SB51. Respectfully submitted, Arina van Breda on behalf of Joan Porte, President, LWV-VA