West Virginia bill allows county residents to protest fire service fees
March 17, 2025 | 2025 Legislature WV, West Virginia
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The West Virginia Senate Government Organization Committee convened on March 17, 2025, to discuss a bill aimed at amending fire service fee regulations imposed by counties and municipalities. The proposed legislation seeks to provide county residents with the ability to protest fire service fees similarly to how they currently protest county ordinances.
The bill stipulates that municipalities cannot impose fire fees on residents or businesses outside their jurisdiction without the consent of the relevant county commission. Additionally, it prohibits the simultaneous imposition of both county and municipal fire fees on the same entity, ensuring that residents only pay one fee for fire services.
During the meeting, legal counsel clarified that the bill's language mirrors existing provisions for protesting county fees, thus providing a familiar framework for residents. The committee heard from various stakeholders, including the State Fire Marshal, representatives from the Municipal League, and the County Commissioners Association, who expressed differing views on the bill's implications.
Mayor Jerry Marco of Elkins raised concerns about the potential impact on his city's fire department, which relies on fees from residents outside city limits. He argued that allowing protests could jeopardize funding and operational capacity, potentially leaving large areas without adequate fire protection. Other committee members questioned the fairness of charging fees to residents outside city limits who do not currently have a voice in the fee-setting process.
The State Fire Marshal noted that the bill aims to clarify the roles and responsibilities of counties and municipalities regarding fire service fees, emphasizing the need for cooperation between entities to ensure effective fire protection. He also pointed out that the legislation is not retroactive, meaning it would not affect existing fee structures but would establish guidelines for future implementations.
The committee concluded the session with a focus on ensuring that all citizens, regardless of their location, have a fair opportunity to voice their concerns regarding fire service fees. Further discussions and potential amendments to the bill are expected as the legislative process continues.
The bill stipulates that municipalities cannot impose fire fees on residents or businesses outside their jurisdiction without the consent of the relevant county commission. Additionally, it prohibits the simultaneous imposition of both county and municipal fire fees on the same entity, ensuring that residents only pay one fee for fire services.
During the meeting, legal counsel clarified that the bill's language mirrors existing provisions for protesting county fees, thus providing a familiar framework for residents. The committee heard from various stakeholders, including the State Fire Marshal, representatives from the Municipal League, and the County Commissioners Association, who expressed differing views on the bill's implications.
Mayor Jerry Marco of Elkins raised concerns about the potential impact on his city's fire department, which relies on fees from residents outside city limits. He argued that allowing protests could jeopardize funding and operational capacity, potentially leaving large areas without adequate fire protection. Other committee members questioned the fairness of charging fees to residents outside city limits who do not currently have a voice in the fee-setting process.
The State Fire Marshal noted that the bill aims to clarify the roles and responsibilities of counties and municipalities regarding fire service fees, emphasizing the need for cooperation between entities to ensure effective fire protection. He also pointed out that the legislation is not retroactive, meaning it would not affect existing fee structures but would establish guidelines for future implementations.
The committee concluded the session with a focus on ensuring that all citizens, regardless of their location, have a fair opportunity to voice their concerns regarding fire service fees. Further discussions and potential amendments to the bill are expected as the legislative process continues.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting