A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding sections numbered 15.2-1508.5 and 15.2-1605.3, relating to localities; constitutional officers; expenses related to presidential visits.
HB1274 would require Virginia localities and constitutional officers to identify, track, and publicly disclose expenses tied to providing security for presidential visits. If such expenses are incurred, the bill directs the locality or constitutional officer to seek reimbursement from the appropriate federal agency within 30 days and to post a list of those expenses on an official website, if one exists, with regular updates showing whether reimbursement has been received.
The bill also requires advance budgeting for these costs. Localities that expect to incur such expenses in the next fiscal year must include the anticipated amount in their budget, and constitutional officers must include anticipated expenses in their budget requests to the Compensation Board. The measure adds new sections to the Code of Virginia, ยงยง 15.2-1508.5 and 15.2-1605.3, creating parallel requirements for local governments and constitutional officers.
HB1274 would add new reporting, reimbursement, and budgeting obligations for localities and constitutional officers when presidential visits generate security-related expenses. It would not directly change federal reimbursement rules, but it would require Virginia entities to document costs, pursue federal reimbursement promptly, and make those costs publicly available online. The bill would affect local government budgeting practices and the budget request process for constitutional officers through the Compensation Board.
The available legislative history suggests the bill did not advance beyond committee consideration and was continued to the next session by voice vote in the House Counties, Cities and Towns Committee. With no recorded floor votes or committee transcript excerpts provided, there is limited evidence of broad support or opposition in the record. The procedural outcome indicates at least some hesitation to move the bill forward in its introduced form.
The main points of contention likely involve the administrative burden on local governments and constitutional officers, the practicality of tracking and publishing these expenses, and whether the federal government should bear the costs of presidential security-related visits. Supporters would likely emphasize transparency, accountability, and reimbursement, while critics may question the added reporting requirements and budgeting mandates. Because no committee discussion transcript is available, the specific arguments of legislators or stakeholders are not documented in the provided record.