Alarm systems; regulation, battery-charged fence security systems.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when HB 907 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on HB 907.
You're tracking HB 907
We'll email you the moment it moves.
HB 907 — Alarm systems; regulation, battery-charged fence security systems.
Last action — Approved by Governor-Chapter 44 (effective 7/1/22)
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
✓Passed House of Delegates
-
✓Passed Senate
-
✓To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 12, 2022. Enacted.
Signed by Governor Glenn Youngkin (Republican) on April 01, 2022.
Prognosis
Where this bill stands today.
Odds of enactment
HighHow often bills like it became law.
-
Enacted
Current position in the legislative process.
-
1 sponsor
1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.
-
Cleared a recorded vote
Passed 6 recorded votes so far.
Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.
Summary
Regulation of alarm systems; battery-charged fence security systems. Allows a locality to require those persons providing or operating a battery-charged fence security system, defined in the bill, to obtain an alarm company permit and the corresponding fee and to require certain other requirements as defined in the bill. The bill provides that the locality can also require the installer of such security system to submit an affidavit disclosing information about the installation that includes an affirmation of compliance. The bill also provides that a locality can inspect such newly installed security system and issue a citation warning of noncompliance and can impose a penalty not exceeding $500 if the noncompliance is not remedied within the time period specified by the locality. This bill is identical to SB 526.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
53 added · 52 removedPlain-language change summary
The amended text of § 15.2-911 clarifies the definition of "alarm company operator" and specifies that it includes businesses engaged in the installation, maintenance, alteration, or servicing of alarm systems. Additionally, it introduces a definition for "battery-charged fence security system," which describes the components of such a system. These changes help to provide clearer guidelines for local regulations regarding alarm systems and battery-charged fence security systems.
SESSION ENROLLED VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY ––-- 2022 SESSION CHAPTER E44 An Act to amend and reenact § 15.2-911 of the Code of Virginia, relating to regulation of alarmNalarm systems;
R O [H 907] Approved LApril L1, 2022 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
E § 15.2-911.
DA. operated by alarm company operators.regulate the installation and maintenance of alarm systems B.
Any locality may by ordinance regulate the installation and maintenance of alarm systems operated by alarm company operators.
B.
"Alarm company operator" means and includes any business operated for profit, engaged in the installation, maintenance, alteration, or servicing of alarm systems or which responds to such alarm systems.
Such term, however, shall not include alarm systems maintained by governmental agencies ororm departments, nor shall it include a business which merely sells from a fixed location or manufactures alarm systems unless such business services, installs, monitors or responds to alarm systems atHtheat the protected premises.
9C. devices arranged to signal the presence of a hazard requiring urgent attention and to which police or firefighters are expected to respond.
As used in this section, the term "alarm "Alarm system" means an assembly of equipment and devices arranged to signal the presence of a hazard requiring urgent attention and to which police or firefighters are expected to respond.
aC. manner that enables the system to transmit a signal intended to alert the owner or law enforcement;in (ii) have an energizer powered by a commercial storage battery that provides not more than 12 volts of direct current and meets the standards set forth in the International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 60335-2-76;
1.
Any battery-charged fence security system shall (i) interface with a monitored alarm device in a manner that enables the system to transmit a signal intended to alert the owner or law enforcement;
(ii) have an energizer powered by a commercial storage battery that provides not more than 12 volts of direct current and meets the standards set forth in the International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 60335-2-76;
system2. to comply with this subsection;
A locality may require:
(i) a person who provides or operates a battery-charged fence security system to comply with this subsection;
A locality may inspect a newly installed battery-charged fence security system after receipt of an securityaffidavit system fails to complyensure with the criteriasystem setmeets forth in this subsection, the localityrequirements may issue a citation describing the specific noncompliance and requiring the battery-charged fence security system to come into compliance within a reasonable period of time.this subsection.
If the battery-charged fence security system fails to comply with the criteria set forth in this subsection, the locality may issue a citation describing the specific noncompliance and requiring the battery-charged fence security system to come into compliance within a reasonable period of time.
View plain text versions (4)
- CHAP0044 View text Current pdf April 01, 2022
- HB907ER View text pdf February 25, 2022
- Engrossed Printed as engrossed 22101990D-E pdf February 11, 2022
- Prefiled Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/12/22 22101990D pdf January 12, 2022
Action History
-
Approved by Governor-Chapter 44 (effective 7/1/22)
-
Governor's Action Deadline 11:59 p.m., April 11, 2022
-
Enrolled Bill communicated to Governor on March 11, 2022
-
Impact statement from DPB (HB907ER)
-
Signed by President
-
Signed by Speaker
-
Enrolled
-
Passed Senate (40-Y 0-N)
-
Read third time
-
Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N)
-
Reported from Local Government (13-Y 0-N)
-
Referred to Committee on Local Government
-
Constitutional reading dispensed
-
Impact statement from DPB (HB907E)
-
VOTE: Block Vote Passage (99-Y 0-N)
-
Read third time and passed House BLOCK VOTE (99-Y 0-N)
-
Printed as engrossed 22101990D-E
-
Engrossed by House as amended HB907E
-
Committee amendments agreed to
-
Read second time
-
Read first time
-
Reported from General Laws with amendment(s) (22-Y 0-N)
-
House committee, floor amendments and substitutes offered
-
Impact statement from DPB (HB907)
-
Subcommittee recommends reporting with amendments (7-Y 0-N)
-
House subcommittee amendments and substitutes offered
-
Assigned GL sub: Subcommittee #1
-
Referred to Committee on General Laws
-
Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/12/22 22101990D
Sponsors
- Emily M. Jordan · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 147 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (147)
147 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 147 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (40)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (40)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (13)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Spruill, Lionell, Sr. | — | Yea |
| Barbara A. Favola | — | Yea |
| Bell, John J. | — | Yea |
| Bill DeSteph | — | Yea |
| Bryce E. Reeves | — | Yea |
| Hanger, Emmett W., Jr. | — | Yea |
| Hashmi, Ghazala F. | — | Yea |
| Howell, Janet D. | — | Yea |
| Jeremy S. McPike | — | Yea |
| Kiggans, Jennifer A. | — | Yea |
| Lewis, Lynwood W., Jr. | — | Yea |
| T. Travis Hackworth | — | Yea |
| William M. Stanley, Jr. | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 98 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 98 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 99% | 0% | 0% | 1% |
How each member voted (99)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (22)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Adams, Dawn M. | — | Yea |
| Betsy B. Carr | — | Yea |
| Bulova, David L. | — | Yea |
| Campbell, Jeffrey L. | — | Yea |
| Chris S. Runion | — | Yea |
| Coyner, Carrie E. | — | Yea |
| Danica A. Roem | — | Yea |
| Emily M. Jordan | — | Yea |
| Fowler, Hyland F."Buddy," Jr. | — | Yea |
| James A. "Jay" Leftwich | — | Yea |
| James W. Morefield | — | Yea |
| Jenkins, Clinton L. | — | Yea |
| Knight, Barry D. | — | Yea |
| Luke E. Torian | — | Yea |
| Marcia S. "Cia" Price | — | Yea |
| Murphy, Kathleen | — | Yea |
| Paul E. Krizek | — | Yea |
| Robinson, Roxann L. | — | Yea |
| Schuyler T. VanValkenburg | — | Yea |
| Thomas C. Wright, Jr. | — | Yea |
| Wampler, William C., III | — | Yea |
| Wendell S. Walker | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 7 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 78% | 0% | 0% | 22% |
How each member voted (9)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Adams, Dawn M. | — | Yea |
| Betsy B. Carr | — | Yea |
| Chris S. Runion | — | Yea |
| Fowler, Hyland F."Buddy," Jr. | — | Yea |
| James A. "Jay" Leftwich | — | Not Voting |
| James W. Morefield | — | Yea |
| Jenkins, Clinton L. | — | Yea |
| Thomas C. Wright, Jr. | — | Yea |
| Wendell S. Walker | — | Not Voting |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does HB 907 do?
- Regulation of alarm systems; battery-charged fence security systems. Allows a locality to require those persons providing or operating a battery-charged fence security system, defined in the bill, to obtain an alarm company permit and the corresponding fee and to require certain other requirements as defined in the bill. The bill provides that the locality can also require the installer of such security system to submit an affidavit disclosing information about the installation that includes an affirmation of compliance. The bill also provides that a locality can inspect such newly installed security system and issue a citation warning of noncompliance and can impose a penalty not exceeding $500 if the noncompliance is not remedied within the time period specified by the locality. This bill is identical to SB 526.
- Who sponsors HB 907?
- HB 907 is sponsored by Emily M. Jordan.
- What is the current status of HB 907?
- This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 12, 2022. Enacted.
- Where can I track HB 907?
- Track HB 907 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on HB 907
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of HB 907
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →