The 1993 General Assembly adopted legislation (§ 30-19.1:4 et al, Code of Virginia) - to enable the legislature to consider the fiscal impact of proposed bills that have the effect of increasing the adult correctional population. The 1999 Appropriation Act created a joint subcommittee to review this legislation.

The following issues were considered and resolved by the joint subcommittee at its first meeting, on August 23, 1999. A copy of proposed legislation to address these concerns is attached.

What is the legislative intent of 6 30-19.1:4?

• Recommendation, The joint subcommittee finds that the intent of 9 30-19.1:4 is primarily to encourage careful consideration of the offender population impact of proposed' criminal sentencing legislation, so that the Commonwealth's sentencing policies are consistent with the projected resources available for adult and juvenile corrections.

- The establishment of a special fund is a means to accomplish this end, not the end in itself. Therefore, the main purpose of this process need not be to build up a large fund balance.

Should there be further limits on the time for introduction?

• Recommendation. The joint subcommittee considered this issue and decided that additional restrictions should not be placed on the ability of members to introduce legislation. For this reason, the joint subcommittee does not recommend amending the statute to provide for an earlier filing date. The current escape clause should be maintained.

Should there be specific deadlines established for re-referral of bills by the Courts of Justice Committees to the Senate Finance and House Appropriations Committees?

• Recommendation. The joint subcommittee recommends that the process of having the committee chairmen informally agree to the deadlines each year be continued.

Should the process be extended to reconvened sessions?

• Recommendation. The joint subcommittee finds that the General Assembly does not have the constitutional authority to imposed additional restrictions on the Governor by restricting his ability to introduce amendments during a reconvened session without the fiscal impact review. Therefore, no recommendation is made.

Should the scope of the process be expanded?

• Recommendation. The joint subcommittee recommends that the scope of § 30-19.1:4 not be expanded at this time, due to the potential impact on committee workload. This question may be considered at a future time, as more data becomes available.

Should those bills that are included in the current scope of the process be analyzed to determine their impact on local facilities and programs?

• Recommendation. The joint subcommittee recommends that §30-19.1:4 be amended to require that the fiscal impact analysis prepared on bills currently included in the Process include an analysis of the impact on local and regional jails and juvenile detention facilities, as well as on state and local community corrections programs, effective July I, 2002.

Should the ten-year look-forward time frame be reduced?

• Recommendation. The joint subcommittee recommends that §30-19.1:4 be amended to provide for a six-year look forward period.

Should there be one rather than two impact statements?

• Recommendation. The joint subcommittee recommends that § 30-19.1:4 be amended to require that one fiscal impact statement be prepared by the staff of the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission, for all adult sentencing changes. All agencies would be expected to provide necessary data.

How should the annual cost-per-inmate be determined?

• Recommendation. The joint subcommittee recommends that § 30-19.1:4 be amended to direct that the Department of Planning and Budget provide the Sentencing Commission with an annual update of the operating cost per inmate, to be used by the Sentencing Commission in calculating the required appropriation to be printed on the face of the bill.

What if the population - impact cannot be determined?

• Recommendation. The joint subcommittee recommends that §30-19.1:4 be amended to specify that the words: "Cannot be Determined" be printed on the face of any proposed bill for which the Sentencing Commission does not have sufficient information to project the offender population impact.

Who should prepare the statements for juvenile sentencing bills?

• Recommendation. The joint subcommittee recommends that the current process be continued under which fiscal impact statements for juvenile sentencing changes would continue to be prepared by the Department of Planning and Budget in conjunction with the Department of Juvenile Justice.

Should the permissible uses of the set-aside funds be expanded?

• Recommendation. The joint subcommittee recommends that § 30-19.1:4 be amended:

- To provide for expenditure of the special reserve funds for capital (but not operating) expenses, including the cost of pre-planning studies which may be required to initiate new projects; and,

- To eliminate restrictions on the timing of the expenditures from the fund.

Should there be a minimum threshold dollar amount below which the special fund deposit need not be required?

• Recommendation. The joint subcommittee recommends that § 30-19.1:4 not be amended to provide that if the bill has an impact of fewer than 10 offenders, no appropriation would be required.