An Act to amend and reenact § 18.2-370.2 of the Code of Virginia, relating to sex offenses prohibiting proximity to children; Park Authorities Act; penalty.
HB250 amends Virginia’s law governing “sex offenses prohibiting proximity to children” by expanding the places where certain convicted adults are permanently barred from going within 100 feet for the purpose of having contact with children. Under existing law, these restrictions already applied to schools, child day programs, and certain local government-owned playgrounds, athletic fields, facilities, and gymnasiums. The bill adds similar restrictions for properties owned or operated by authorities created under the Park Authorities Act, specifically when those properties are playgrounds, athletic fields or facilities, or gymnasiums.
The bill applies to adults convicted of specified sex offenses involving minors or other listed sexual offenses, including comparable out-of-state, federal, or foreign convictions. A violation remains a Class 6 felony. The act also includes a fiscal note stating it may increase periods of imprisonment or commitment and assigns a minimum fiscal impact of $50,000 for state adult correctional facilities, with no estimated cost for juvenile commitments.
HB250 changes § 18.2-370.2 of the Code of Virginia by broadening the geographic exclusion zones that apply to certain sex offenders. It extends the existing 100-foot proximity ban to park authority-owned or operated playgrounds, athletic fields or facilities, and gymnasiums, thereby affecting offenders subject to sentencing restrictions under this statute and the public entities that manage those facilities. The bill does not create a new offense category, but it expands the locations covered by an existing sentencing condition and preserves the Class 6 felony penalty for violations.
The available record shows no committee transcripts or recorded votes, so there is no documented debate or split in the provided materials. Based on the enacted chapter text, the bill appears to have moved forward without visible opposition in the record supplied. Its framing suggests a public-safety-oriented measure focused on child protection around recreational spaces.
The main policy issue is the scope of the exclusion zone and whether park authorities should be treated the same as localities for purposes of child-protection restrictions. Supporters would likely view the bill as a straightforward extension of existing safeguards to publicly accessible recreational facilities managed by park authorities. Potential concerns could include the breadth of the permanent restriction, enforcement challenges, and the possibility of additional incarceration or supervision costs, which the fiscal note acknowledges. No specific opposing arguments are documented in the provided materials.