FISCAL NOTE



FUND(S):



Sources of Revenue:

General Fund

Legislation creates:

Neither Program nor Fund



Fiscal Note Summary


Effect this measure will have on costs and revenues of state government.


Changing the date where the DOC assumes fiscal responsibility for inmates sentenced to DOC custody but housed in the RJA would cost approximately $1.8 million dollars in addition to what the DOC already pays. This analysis is based on commitments during the 2008 fiscal year and the difference in the committed inmates’ order received date (date we currently use to calculate) and the sentencing date (date used in the proposed legislation). Again this cost would be in addition to the $20.4 million that the DOC paid the RJA in FY 2008. This cost will increase relative to the number of inmates being committed to DOC custody and the RJA per diem rate. If this bill were to pass the DOC would need these additional funds appropriated for our use during the 2010 fiscal year assuming it becomes effective July 1, 2009 and ever year thereafter. Technical Issues: This should not apply to an inmate that is currently under obligation to another jurisdiction. For example, an inmate can be sentenced to DOC custody but be currently serving a one year jail term, at the end of which custody would be transferred to the DOC. Although the sentencing date to the DOC would be prior to the county term, it should be clarified that the DOC is not fiscally responsible as the inmate is serving a county term. This would be true for other instances where another jurisdiction currently has physical and legal custody and the DOC term is consecutive to it. For probation revocations, home confinement revocations, and home confinement parole revocations, the sentencing date could not be used. For these inmates the “re-sentencing date” or the date the probation is revoked is the appropriate equivalent date. Additionally, it should be noted that this cost is one that is controllable at the local level. Many commitments are received on the same day that the offender is sentenced. Counties could control this cost by simply making sure that the court order is prepared, signed, and sent to the DOC in an expedient manner. Finally, it should also be noted that sentence date, and order received date, timeframes that cross fiscal years would result in a portion of bill being for services rendered in the previous fiscal year. In those instances the state could not pay that portion of the bill and would have to send it to the Court of Claims.



Fiscal Note Detail


Effect of Proposal Fiscal Year
2009
Increase/Decrease
(use"-")
2010
Increase/Decrease
(use"-")
Fiscal Year
(Upon Full
Implementation)
1. Estmated Total Cost 0 0 0
Personal Services 0 0 0
Current Expenses 0 0 0
Repairs and Alterations 0 0 0
Assets 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0
2. Estimated Total Revenues 0 0 0


Explanation of above estimates (including long-range effect):






Memorandum






    Person submitting Fiscal Note: Loita Butcher
    Email Address: butchl@mail.wvnet.edu