Tysons casino bill clears General Assembly

It’s now up to Gov. Abigail Spanberger to decide whether Fairfax County can hold a referendum that could pave the way for a Tysons casino.

The state Senate voted 25-13 and the House of Delegates voted 55-41 Saturday to send the governor a bill that allows Fairfax residents to vote on whether casino gaming will be allowed there.

Lawmakers tried to push similar bills in 2023, 2024 and 2025, but this is the first year the legislation made it out of the General Assembly.

The version of Senate Bill 756 approved Saturday closely resembles the original measure Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell, D-Fairfax, introduced in January.

In its current form, the bill allows a referendum to appear on Fairfax County ballots, allowing voters to vote for or against a casino to be placed in Tysons on a site within a quarter-mile of an existing Metro station on the Silver Line. A casino would also have to be part of a mixed-use development of not less than 1.5 million square feet.

Earlier in the session, the bill’s wording was changed so a casino could be built anywhere in Fairfax County, but its limit to the Tysons area returned during legislative discussions last week.

Nonetheless, some Fairfax County officials and residents are still opposed to the idea of a casino in the county. On Monday, the No Fairfax Casino Coalition, representing more than 40 local organizations against the plan, called for Spanberger to veto the legislation.

“I will continue to fight any and all efforts to jam a casino in Tysons,” Jeff McKay, chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, wrote in a statement Saturday. He has publicly said in recent weeks that the board has the option not to hold the referendum even if the governor signs the bill.

During an interview Tuesday, Surovell said he’s struggled to understand what supervisors want out of the bill.

“The Board of Supervisors has never really been clear about what they’re willing to accept,” Surovell said. “They’ve refused to take a position on what revenue split would be acceptable.”

McKay did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

Changes in bill’s language

A version of Senate Bill 756 announced Friday generated considerable discussion among lawmakers. It would have allowed casino revenue to be split equally between the locality and the state, but a temporary casino could operate for five years without a referendum vote under the bill’s language.

The existing formula for casinos in Virginia gives roughly 70% to the state, and 30% stays in the local area.

That bill would have also allowed the Major Employment and Investment Project Approval Commission to approve the selection and operation of a temporary gaming establishment that could operate for up to five years without a referendum vote.

“They seemed to have an even more violent reaction to that than a 70%-30% split,” Surovell said. “It’s hard to negotiate with [a body] that can’t figure out what it wants.”

In a letter dated Friday, every member of the Fairfax County board, other than Pat Herrity, asked members of the Fairfax County delegation to vote against that version of the bill.

“S.B. 756 proposes bypassing local authority to authorize a ‘temporary’ casino on behalf of a single, well-heeled developer in a way that throws the economic development of Tysons into chaos. The latest version of S.B. 756 was crafted by pro-casino advocates that do not represent Tysons, in the eleventh hour of session, out of the public’s view.”

Sen. Jennifer Boysko, a Democrat representing northern Fairfax County, sent out an email to her constituents Saturday urging them to call their delegates and ask them to oppose this version of the bill.

On Saturday, Surovell requested a second conference committee on the bill — a  request met with groaning by other lawmakers. Ultimately, a bipartisan majority of state senators and delegates approved the current version of the bill later Saturday.

Surovell noted Tuesday that the governor can amend the current version of the bill.

“The county could figure out exactly what it wants,” he said. “There could be a conversation about that.”

Supervisor Dalia A. Palchik, who represents part of Tysons, issued a statement Saturday.

“If the antics of the last 24 hours have made one thing clear,” she said, “it’s that this legislation is not being put forward in good faith by its patron. The prescribed location and lousy financial deal for Fairfax make a mockery of local land use authority and take financial advantage of our community.”

On Sunday, Walter L. Alcorn, who represents other parts of Tysons, issued a statement asking Spanberger to veto the bill. “We did not ask for it, and we don’t want it,” he said.

Nonetheless, Surovell pointed out that Fairfax County leaders are projecting a multi-million budget shortfall.

“Fairfax County hasn’t landed a major development project in a decade, and this project presents this entertainment complex that would be a multibillion-dollar project to bring thousands of jobs and probably a billion dollars of tax revenue per decade to the county,” he said.

He also noted that the county is losing population.

“If the current trends continue, Fairfax County might stand to lose population in the first decennial census since 1820,” he said. “The county’s economic development strategy has not adjusted with the changing economy of Northern Virginia, and we need to find some other way to diversify its revenue so that the county can continue to provide services at the levels that its residents expect. … I am really concerned about the future of my county.”