West Virginia House Bill HB3448

West Virginia 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/17/25
• Refer: 3/17/25

Caption

Creating a special court cost fee on certain criminal convictions dedicated to the emergency medical services equipment and training fund

Summary

House Bill 3448 would amend West Virginia’s Emergency Medical Services Equipment and Training Fund to support grants for emergency medical services equipment, training, and a related program in the EMS code. The bill keeps the fund in the State Treasury as a special revenue account and specifies that money in the fund may be used only for grants to equip EMS providers, train EMS personnel, and support the program referenced in §16-4C-6(p). It also directs the Secretary of the Department of Health to establish a grant program and to propose legislative rules to implement it. The bill adds a new funding source by imposing a $10 court cost fee on most criminal convictions in state, county, and municipal criminal proceedings, excluding municipal parking ordinance violations. Collected fees would be deposited into the EMS fund. The bill also sets a matching requirement for grants: local EMS providers must contribute 30% of the total project funding, while the state grant covers the remaining 70%. Priority for grants would go to rural and volunteer EMS providers.

Impact

HB3448 would change West Virginia law by creating a dedicated court-cost revenue stream for the Emergency Medical Services Equipment and Training Fund and by formalizing a matching grant structure for local EMS providers. It would affect criminal court costs statewide, with the new fee applying broadly to criminal cases except parking ordinance violations, and would channel those revenues into a special revenue account rather than the General Revenue Fund. It would also affect EMS agencies, especially rural and volunteer providers, by making them eligible for grants but requiring a local match to receive funding.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be framed as a support measure for emergency medical services rather than a controversial policy change. Its stated purpose is to strengthen EMS equipment and training funding, and the priority for rural and volunteer providers suggests an emphasis on underserved areas. No formal vote history or transcript is available here to show opposition or support, so the overall sentiment can only be characterized as generally favorable in intent, with the main policy tradeoff being the new court fee.

Contention

The most likely point of contention is the new $10 court cost on criminal convictions, since it shifts the funding burden to defendants in criminal cases and applies broadly across state, county, and municipal proceedings. Another possible concern is the 70%-30% matching requirement, which could make it harder for smaller or financially strained EMS providers to access grants if they cannot raise the local share. Supporters would likely emphasize the dedicated funding for EMS equipment and training, while critics may question the fairness of financing EMS through criminal court fees and the practicality of the local match requirement.