Fire Programs Fund; aid to localities, requirement for emergency incidents reporting.
HB2065 amends Virginia’s Fire Programs Fund statute to continue and refine how money in the fund is collected, allocated, and reported. The fund is financed primarily through a 1% assessment on licensed insurance companies writing covered insurance in the Commonwealth, with a minimum annual contribution of $100 for companies with little or no premium income. The bill preserves the fund as a nonreverting special fund and keeps interest earnings in the fund for fire service purposes.
The bill directs 75% of the remaining fund balance, after set-asides for grant programs, to counties, cities, and towns that provide fire service operations. Those local funds may be used for firefighter training, fire prevention and public safety education, training facilities, emergency medical equipment, personnel training costs, protective gear, vehicles, supplies, and cancer-reduction equipment and products for firefighters. The bill also requires that localities using these funds report annually on their use, submit a disbursement agreement, and report emergency incidents through the National Emergency Response Information System (NERIS) while sharing that data with the Department of Fire Programs. Localities that fail to submit satisfactory reports can lose the next year’s allocation.
The remaining fund balance continues to support the Department of Fire Programs’ duties and the Virginia Fire Services Board, while expressly prohibiting use of the fund for State Fire Marshal salaries or operating expenses. The bill also continues the Fire Services Grant Program and the Dry Fire Hydrant Grant Program, including funding for regional training facilities, live fire training structures, and the Virginia Fire Incident Reporting System. It further authorizes the Director to set standards for charging out-of-state clients for training, with those revenues retained in the fund for additional Virginia fire and emergency services training.
The overall sentiment appears strongly favorable and noncontroversial. The bill advanced unanimously through subcommittee, committee, and both chambers, with no recorded dissenting votes. That voting pattern suggests broad bipartisan support for maintaining and strengthening fire service funding, local aid, and reporting requirements.
The main point of emphasis is accountability: localities receiving money must report how funds are used and must submit emergency incident data through NERIS to remain eligible. Another practical issue is the bill’s restriction that funds cannot supplant existing local fire budgets, which preserves the money as supplemental support rather than replacement funding. The bill also reflects a policy focus on firefighter health and safety, especially cancer-reduction equipment and training.
HB2065 amends Code of Virginia § 38.2-401 governing the Fire Programs Fund, affecting the insurance assessment that finances the fund, the distribution of money to local fire service providers, and the reporting obligations tied to eligibility for those funds. It reinforces the use of fund revenues for fire training, equipment, prevention, and grant programs, while adding a specific requirement that recipient localities report emergency incidents through NERIS and share that data with the Department of Fire Programs. The act becomes effective July 1, 2026.
The bill appears to have received unanimous support at every recorded stage, including subcommittee, committee, and floor votes in both the House and Senate. There is no evidence of organized opposition in the available record. The discussion and voting history suggest a broadly shared view that the bill supports local fire departments, improves accountability, and preserves existing fire service funding streams.
No major controversy is reflected in the available materials. The only potentially sensitive issue is the new or reinforced reporting requirement for localities to submit emergency incident data through NERIS and comply with annual fund-use reporting to remain eligible for future allocations. Some local governments could view that as an administrative burden, but the recorded votes show no visible opposition. The bill also maintains limits on how the funds may be used, including a prohibition on supplanting local appropriations, which may matter to local budget officials but does not appear to have generated dispute.