Senate Bill 756, introduced by Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell, passed the committee on a 10–5 vote with a significant amendment: the removal of language that previously restricted any potential casino site to Tysons.

According to committee staff, the substitute bill eliminates the mandated location criteria, broadening the scope of where a casino could potentially be developed within Fairfax County.

Expanded Flexibility in Site Selection

As originally drafted, SB 756 included detailed parameters that effectively limited a prospective casino to Tysons. The criteria required proximity to a Silver Line Metro station, integration into a large mixed-use development, closeness to a major regional mall, and a location outside the Interstate 495 Beltway.

Those conditions have now been stripped from the legislation, giving policymakers and developers greater flexibility if the measure ultimately becomes law.

The bill would add Fairfax County to Virginia’s list of eligible casino host localities, which currently includes Bristol, Danville, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Petersburg. Richmond voters have previously rejected two casino referendums.

Supporters argue that expanding eligibility reflects evolving market realities and competitive pressures. During committee discussions, Surovell pointed to the continued success of MGM National Harbor in neighboring Maryland as evidence that gaming dollars are leaving Virginia.

“If we had one in Fairfax County, it would generate about $2 billion a decade for school construction in Virginia and also probably generate at least over $100 million for Fairfax County,” Surovell said, framing the proposal as a long-term funding mechanism for education infrastructure.

Local Concerns and Community Opposition

Despite the bill’s advancement, resistance remains strong at the local level. The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors voted in December to oppose casino legislation that the county did not request, raising concerns about revenue distribution and local land-use authority.

Community groups have also reaffirmed their opposition following the amendment. The Tysons Stakeholder Alliance and the No Fairfax Casino Coalition have both indicated they will continue lobbying against the proposal, arguing that a casino would conflict with long-term planning priorities.

Meanwhile, Reston-based Comstock Companies has proposed a large-scale entertainment district near the Spring Hill Metro station, potentially anchored by a casino alongside residential, hospitality, and convention components. However, any such development would still require multiple layers of approval.

Referendum and Licensing Pathway

If SB 756 is enacted, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors would be required to schedule a local referendum. Voter approval would be necessary before a casino could move forward.

Subsequently, the casino operator would be selected through a competitive state licensing process, followed by local zoning and permitting reviews.

While debate continues, the bill’s progression to the full Senate signals that the conversation around expanding Virginia’s regulated gaming market remains active. Proponents highlight potential fiscal benefits and regional competitiveness, while opponents stress community planning and governance concerns — setting the stage for a closely watched vote in the coming weeks.