A BILL to amend and reenact § 2.2-1516 of the Code of Virginia, relating to general funds, bonds, and capital outlay.
SB606 amends Virginia Code § 2.2-1516 governing the Six-Year Capital Outlay Plan Advisory Committee. The bill keeps the committee in place and clarifies its membership and duties in preparing the Commonwealth’s six-year capital outlay plan, including annual recommendations on project priorities and funding. The committee’s recommendations are directed to the Governor and the chairs of the House Appropriations and Senate Finance and Appropriations Committees.
The bill requires the advisory committee to continue ranking and recommending capital outlay projects funded wholly or partly with general fund-supported resources. In making priorities, the committee must consider projects addressing safety, health, security, environmental, accreditation, infrastructure replacement, facility renovation, programmatic needs, higher education guidance, energy efficiency, historic preservation, completed facility condition assessments, and previously planned projects. It also requires agencies to assist the committee on request.
The bill updates the statutory framework for Virginia’s capital planning process by reaffirming and refining the role of the Six-Year Capital Outlay Plan Advisory Committee under § 2.2-1516. It affects how state capital outlay projects are evaluated, prioritized, and recommended for general fund-supported financing, including projects for state agencies and public higher education institutions. The measure does not directly authorize a specific project, but it influences future bond and capital outlay decisions and the annual six-year plan used in budget and appropriations planning.
The available voting history shows strong support for the bill. It was reported from the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee on a 15-0 vote, passed the Senate 40-0, and advanced without recorded opposition in the early stages. The bill was later continued in Appropriations by voice vote, suggesting it remained under consideration rather than facing substantive resistance. Overall, the sentiment appears broadly favorable and procedural rather than contentious.
No committee transcript is available, and the recorded votes show no opposition, so there is little evidence of direct controversy. Any potential points of discussion would likely center on the committee’s role in prioritizing capital projects, the criteria used to rank projects, and the influence of general fund-supported resources on capital planning. Stakeholders most likely affected include state agencies, higher education institutions, and budget/appropriations committees, but the record provided does not show organized opposition from any of them.