Relating to fees and charges for municipality provided fire services
HB 2866 amends West Virginia law governing municipal special charges to add new limits on municipal fire protection fees when a county already imposes a county fire service fee. The bill generally bars a municipality from imposing a new fire protection fee, effective on or after June 30, 2024, on a person or business outside municipal boundaries in a county with a county fire service fee unless the municipality has an intergovernmental agreement with the county commission. The agreement must limit municipal fees to first-due areas served by the municipality, require uniform charges for inside- and outside-city users covered by the agreement, and prevent double payment of both county and municipal fire fees, subject to a first-year reconciliation rule.
The bill also allows existing municipal fire fees in place before June 30, 2024, to be increased or decreased so long as the change is uniform for all affected users. It preserves existing municipal authority over other special service charges, clarifies lien procedures for delinquent fire, police, and street fees, requires notice and an appeal process before a lien may be filed, and mandates publication and possible referendum procedures for new or substantially amended ordinances. The bill further states that fee revenues used to replace ad valorem tax funding for bond-related public improvements may be imposed without additional notice or referendum requirements, and it clarifies late-payment treatment based on postmark date.
The bill’s main legal impact is on §8-13-13 of the West Virginia Code, narrowing municipal authority to create new fire protection charges in counties that already levy county fire service fees under §7-17-12. It also creates a framework for intergovernmental agreements between municipalities and county commissions, sets a five-year term for those agreements with renewal options, and establishes a transition rule for the first year after enactment to reconcile overlapping county and municipal collections. Municipalities retain broader authority to charge for other services, but fire-fee collections are more tightly regulated.
Overall sentiment appears broadly favorable and bipartisan, as reflected in strong passage in both chambers and final concurrence despite some opposition in the House. The House passed the bill 89-11, the Senate passed it unanimously 32-0, and the House later concurred in the Senate amendment 86-10. That voting pattern suggests general support for clarifying and limiting overlapping fire service charges, while the remaining dissent indicates some concern about restricting municipal revenue authority or altering existing local fee arrangements.
The main point of contention is the balance between municipal funding autonomy and protection against duplicative charges on residents and businesses. Supporters likely viewed the bill as preventing double billing and requiring coordination between counties and municipalities, especially in first-due service areas. Opponents may have objected to the restriction on new municipal fire fees, the requirement for county-municipal agreements, or the limits on how municipalities can structure and collect fire service charges. The bill also touches on lien enforcement and referendum procedures, but the central dispute is over fire fee authority and local revenue control.
The bill amends West Virginia Code §8-13-13 to restrict municipalities from imposing new fire protection fees on persons or businesses in counties that already levy a county fire service fee unless an intergovernmental agreement is in place with the county commission. It creates required terms for those agreements, including service-area limits, uniform fee treatment, a prohibition on double payment, a first-year reconciliation mechanism, and a five-year expiration/renewal cycle. Existing municipal fire fees in effect before June 30, 2024 may still be adjusted if the changes are uniform, and the bill also preserves and clarifies municipal lien, notice, publication, referendum, and late-payment rules for special charges.
The bill appears to have received generally positive support across both chambers, with strong vote margins and unanimous Senate passage. The final House concurrence vote was also favorable, though not unanimous, indicating some reservations remained. The overall tone suggests lawmakers broadly agreed on the need to prevent overlapping county and municipal fire fees and to formalize coordination between local governments.
The primary contention is whether municipalities should retain broad authority to impose fire protection fees independently or whether counties and municipalities should be required to coordinate before charging residents and businesses in overlapping service areas. Critics likely focused on the bill’s limits on new municipal fire fees and the potential reduction in municipal revenue flexibility, while supporters emphasized fairness, avoidance of double billing, and clearer service-area rules. Secondary issues include the first-year fee reconciliation process, the treatment of first-due areas, and the bill’s effect on local fee-setting and collection practices.