<p class=ldtitle>A BILL to amend and reenact § 46.2-694, as it is currently effective and as it may become effective, of the Code of Virginia, relating to special fund for emergency medical services; distribution of certain funds to localities.</p>
SB 675 amends Virginia Code § 46.2-694, which governs annual vehicle registration fees for passenger vehicles and related vehicle classes, to change how a portion of the existing $4.25 registration surcharge is distributed for emergency medical services (EMS). The bill keeps the surcharge in place and continues to dedicate $4 of it to the special EMS fund, but it adds a new distribution formula that returns 26 percent of those funds to the locality where the vehicle is registered. Those local funds must be used for EMS purposes by nonprofit or volunteer agencies licensed by the Commissioner of Health, including training, equipment, maintenance, and operating expenses.
The bill also preserves the existing statewide allocations from the EMS fund: 2 percent to support volunteer rescue squad recruitment, retention, and training through the Virginia Association of Volunteer Rescue Squads; 30 percent to the Department of Health for EMS training, recruitment, system development, communications, and preparedness; 32 percent to the Rescue Squad Assistance Fund; and 10 percent to the Office of Emergency Medical Services. The remaining $0.25 of the surcharge, which was approved in 2008, continues to go to the Rescue Squad Assistance Fund for certification and recertification training costs. The bill also includes conforming changes to the vehicle fee schedule in the current and contingent-effective versions of § 46.2-694, including updated fee amounts for motorcycles, mopeds, and autocycles in the contingent-effective text.
In practical terms, the bill would alter the flow of existing vehicle-registration revenue rather than create a new tax or fee category. It would require the Comptroller to designate the funds for their restricted EMS purposes, prohibit localities from using the money to supplant local appropriations, and require annual reporting to the Board of Health. If a locality fails to report, its next-year funds may be withheld until compliance. The measure therefore affects vehicle owners subject to the registration surcharge, local governments, nonprofit EMS agencies, volunteer rescue squads, and state EMS programs.
The available voting history suggests broad support and little visible opposition. The bill was rereferred from General Laws and Technology to Finance and Appropriations on an 11-0 vote and then continued to the next session in Finance and Appropriations on a 15-0 vote. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate in the provided materials. The overall sentiment appears favorable, with the bill framed as an EMS funding and local support measure rather than a controversial revenue increase.
The main point of contention, based on the text itself, is not whether EMS should be funded but how the money should be allocated between state-level programs and localities. The bill shifts a defined share of the surcharge back to the locality of registration, which may be attractive to local EMS providers but could raise questions about administrative oversight, reporting compliance, and whether local distributions should be tied only to nonprofit or volunteer agencies. Another possible issue is the bill’s interaction with the existing statewide EMS funding structure, since it redistributes an established revenue stream rather than expanding it.
SB 675 would amend § 46.2-694 of the Code of Virginia to change the distribution of the existing emergency medical services surcharge collected with vehicle registrations. It would direct 26 percent of the $4 EMS fee back to the locality where the vehicle is registered for use by licensed nonprofit or volunteer EMS agencies, while preserving the remaining statewide allocations and reporting requirements. The bill would affect vehicle registration revenue administration, local government EMS funding, the Department of Health, the Rescue Squad Assistance Fund, volunteer rescue squads, and nonprofit EMS providers.
The bill appears to have been received positively in committee, with unanimous votes at both stages shown in the record and no recorded dissent. The lack of committee transcript limits insight into detailed debate, but the voting history suggests the measure was viewed as a routine or broadly acceptable EMS funding adjustment. Overall sentiment is favorable and noncontroversial in the available materials.
The primary policy question is the division of EMS surcharge revenue between state programs and localities. Supporters would likely favor the local return of funds to strengthen EMS services on the ground, while any concerns would center on accountability, reporting, and whether localities should be restricted to funding nonprofit or volunteer licensed agencies. The bill also preserves a complex statewide funding structure, so any contention would likely involve how the new local share interacts with existing EMS priorities rather than opposition to EMS funding itself.