SB 859 would impose a new $1.00 user fee on cigarettes, effective July 1, 2025, at a rate of $1 per 20 cigarettes or a proportional amount for partial quantities. The bill ties the fee to counties that already provide countywide emergency medical services continuously for the prior 12 months and have an operational EMS levy, and it directs the resulting revenue to support emergency medical service agencies in those counties.
To implement that fee, the bill amends the state’s tobacco products excise tax definitions in Chapter 11 and adds new provisions to the Emergency Medical Services Act in Chapter 16. It also creates a special revenue fund in the State Treasury, the Emergency Medical Service Agency Fund, to receive the proceeds and limits expenditures to EMS purposes. The bill’s tobacco-related definitions are broadened to include electronic smoking devices and other nicotine-containing products in the definitional section, though the operative fee language specifically applies to cigarettes.
Impact
The bill would change West Virginia law in two main areas: tobacco taxation administration and emergency medical services funding. In Chapter 11, it updates and expands statutory definitions related to cigarettes and tobacco products, including terms covering electronic smoking devices, wholesalers, retailers, and related tobacco product categories. In Chapter 16, it creates a new cigarette user fee and a dedicated special revenue fund, and it restricts use of those funds to EMS support in qualifying counties. The practical effect is to create a new revenue stream for local EMS agencies while adding another state-level charge associated with cigarette sales.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill was introduced as a targeted funding measure for emergency medical services rather than as a broad tobacco policy change. The caption and bill note frame it as a mechanism to support EMS through a cigarette user fee, which typically indicates a policy rationale centered on public safety and local service funding. Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment beyond the bill’s stated purpose.
Contention
The most likely point of contention is the use of a cigarette fee to finance EMS, which may be viewed as either a dedicated public-safety funding source or as an additional burden on tobacco consumers and retailers. Another possible issue is the bill’s county-specific eligibility requirement: only counties that have continuously provided countywide EMS for the prior 12 months and already maintain an EMS levy may impose the fee, which could create uneven access to the funding mechanism across the state. The definitional expansion to include electronic smoking devices and other nicotine products may also draw attention, even though the fee language itself is limited to cigarettes.