SB 639 would impose a new $1.00 user fee on each pack of 20 cigarettes, or a proportional amount on smaller or larger quantities, and dedicate the proceeds to emergency medical services (EMS). The bill ties the fee to counties that already provide countywide EMS continuously over the prior 12 months and have an operational EMS levy, and it limits the use of collected funds to EMS purposes in that county.
To implement the fee, the bill amends the state’s tobacco products excise tax definitions in Chapter 11 and adds two new sections 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 and hold the proceeds and requires that any balance and interest remain in the fund for EMS use. The bill’s stated purpose is to generate dedicated revenue for local EMS agencies without directing the money to general state spending.
Impact
SB 639 would change West Virginia law by adding a cigarette-specific user fee and creating a dedicated funding mechanism for EMS. It would affect cigarette sellers, wholesalers, retailers, and other tobacco product distributors by adding a new charge tied to cigarette sales, while also expanding the statutory framework governing tobacco products and EMS financing. The bill would create a special revenue fund and restrict expenditures to county EMS support under the conditions set in the bill, thereby earmarking a new revenue stream rather than increasing general tax revenue.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a targeted public-safety funding bill rather than a broad tobacco tax increase. The caption and note emphasize support for EMS, suggesting a policy rationale likely intended to be favorable to emergency responders and local governments. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented debate or formal sentiment beyond the bill’s stated purpose.
Contention
The main likely point of contention is the new $1-per-pack cigarette user fee itself, which would increase the cost of cigarettes and could be viewed as a tax increase on consumers and retailers. Another possible issue is the bill’s limitation to counties that already have continuous countywide EMS service and an operational EMS levy, which may raise questions about eligibility, fairness, and whether all counties would benefit equally. Because no hearing transcripts or votes are available, there is no record here of specific opponents or supporters, but the tension is between public health/EMS funding and the burden on tobacco purchasers and the tobacco distribution chain.