Trending
CHARLESTON -- Members of the West Virginia Legislature agree more funding needs to get into the hands of fire departments across the state, but how to go about that is creating a divide between rural and urban lawmakers.
House Bill 121 would create a County Fire Protection Fund and a Growth County Fire Protection Fund. While $3 million would be split between county fire departments, another $3 million would be set aside for eight high-population counties. In a separate bill, $6 million would be distributed among remaining departments.
For the County Fire Protection Fund, money would be distributed to counties with countywide excess levies or fire fees dedicated for fire or emergency services. The funds would be distributed by the Department of Homeland Security. Funds from the Growth County Fire Protection Fund would be distributed based on a percentage of aggregate population from U.S. Census reports.
The bill would also require additional information be provided by the State Fire Marshal to the State Treasurer about the volunteer fire departments before their quarterly distributions. Fire departments would have to provide reports on their spending to the State Auditor and the WVCheckbook system.
According to the Division of Regulatory and Fiscal Affairs with the Legislature, 23 out of 55 counties have an excess levy or fee dedicated for fire and EMS.
"Off the top of my head, I believe there are 350 VFDs or so across the state," said Peter Shirley, director of the Division of Regulatory Affairs. "You might imagine that rural versus urban counties might have a different distribution. Some might have more than others."
"I'm just kind of flabbergasted at the formula and the restrictions," said Delegate Larry Rowe, D-Kanawha. "We're not looking at each department having needs and needing to fill those. We are looking at either growth or levies. If you don't have a levy, then shame on you and you don't get any money. If you don't have growth, you don't get any money.
"There may be counties that get zero out of this, and I don't understand why their fire departments are being treated with this formula rather than just giving each a funding mechanism," Rowe said.
House Finance Committee Vice Chairman John Hardy, R-Berkeley, said the remaining fire departments not eligible for funds in the two new funds would still be eligible for funding through the $6 million that would be placed in the existing fund.
"There'll be no metrics in it for growth counties. There'll be no metrics in it for counties that have put their own skin in the game," Hardy said. "Now, the counties that are not growth counties and counties that have not proposed any type of fire levy or fire fee are still going to get $6 million."
Delegate Marty Gearheart, R-Mercer, offered an amendment to strip the funding for the Growth County Fire Protection Fund, calling it unfair.
"I don't necessarily understand the logic of an unequal distribution to a county just because they have gained population," Gearheart said. "I have no, no particular animus toward a county that is growing. Quite frankly, I think they should be applauded, but I don't know in this particular reason why we want to unequally weigh funding toward those counties when they may not necessarily need that additional funding more."
Delegate Joe Statler, R-Monongalia, moved to table the bill, though he later withdrew the motion. The motion brought out strong emotions from some members. Hardy pointed out a similar bill died at the end of the 2023 legislative session earlier this year.
"This bill now addresses the problems with the fire departments, and now we need to do our job, work through this process and figure this bill out," Hardy said. "I understand that there are people in here from rural counties that are upset because they feel like they're not getting enough money, but...every fire hall will get the original $6 million that we talked about."
"We are not ready for prime time," Gearheart said. "This is not ready for a vote. We haven't addressed how county commissions are dealing with, with funding of these time things on their own. We haven't dealt with a variety of issues."
"I will tell you to have my motives questioned about anything to do with this fire and EMS bill is questionable in itself," Statler said prior to pulling his motion. "This is the first time in history I ever used a motion to table...This is a discussion that needs to involve (fire and EMS) in the discussion, not us sitting here at the table at the last minute coming forward and looking at these bills. I don't want to cut anybody's funding."
The West Virginia EMS Coalition released a statement Sunday night criticizing the bills for leaving out EMS providers. According to the coalition, at least 15 organizations have ceased operations since 2022 due to funding issues.
"While we recognize the governor and certain members of the Legislature may prefer to support fire and EMS through a source other than the insurance surcharge, we are disappointed the governor would aid fire departments with surplus funds pending a permanent solution while ignoring the equally significant needs of EMS," the coalition said.
(Adams can be contacted at sadams@newsandsentinel.com)