CHARLESTON – House Judiciary sent down to the House floor on Friday, Jan. 18, a tweaked Broadband Expansion Act and a bill to end the lifetime ban on SNAP – food stamp – benefits for drug felons.
The broadband bill sparked a variety of technical questions but no actual debate. THE SNAP bill, though, stirred some passion during a lengthy debate on a proposed amendment.
Broadband bill
HB 2005 is the Broadband Expansion Act. Committee counsel explained the bills four parts.
First is a provision to provide a five-year tax credit to encourage construction of new cell towers. It’s called the Wireless Technology Business Property Valuation Act. It would tax cell towers built form July 1 this year through July 1, 2024 at salvage value: 5 percent of the original cost. An AT&T spokesman said new towers may cost anywhere from $500,000 to $1 million.
The spokesman didn’t have any figures on the possible cost savings for this credit or how many new towers it might stimulate, given the variety of other conditions – such as access to power – companies consider when deciding where to locate them.
The next section, “Make-Ready Pole Access” grants the state Public Service Commission authority to regulate attaching fiver to utility poles. This had been considered last year, but there was debate over whether this fell under state or federal jurisdiction and the FCC has since clarified states can do this.
This section also directs electric utilities to undertake feasibility studies on attaching fiber to their poles. Counsel said they already do this for their own purposes, but the study would determine if it’s worth their while to attach enough excess capacity to lease to broadband providers for middle-mile broadband infrastructure.
The forth part is the West Virginia Small Wireless Facilities Deployment Act, which is focused on placing small antenna boxes, called small wireless facilities, in communities to enable 5G broadband access.
The amended House bill, counsel said, incorporates the Senate’s standalone version of this act, SB 3, which is on second reading in the Senate.
The bill observes: “The deployment of reliable small wireless facilities and other next generation wireless and broadband network technology is a matter of statewide concern and critical to the continued economic development and diversification in the state of West Virginia. … Wireless providers must have access to certain public rights-of-way and the ability to attach or collocate [meaning co-locate] on existing infrastructure that will permit these providers to offer next generation wireless and broadband technology.”
Delegate Barbara Evans Fleischauer, D-Monongalia, supported the bill but raised the only matter of debate. The state Constitution, she said, declares that taxation shall be equal and uniform throughout the state and “one species of property … shall be taxed higher than any other species of property of equal value.”
Offering the limited tax credit put those towers at an advantage over those already built and those that will be built after July 1, 2024. This may be unconstitutional.
Noting that caution, the committee passed the bill unanimously. House Speaker Roger Hanshaw is pushing this bill and was on hand to watch the vote.
SNAP bill
A person wouldn’t know what HB 2459 does by reading it. It’s single sentence referring to federal code and exempting all state residents from that code.
Committee counsel explained that during the mid-1990s, during Welfare reform and drug war legislation, a provision slipped in banning all drug felons from receiving SNAP benefits for life.
As Delegate Mike Pushkin, D-Kanawha, pointed out, there’s no similar ban for other felons – murderers, rapists and so on.
But the federal code referenced in the bill – 21 U.S.C. §862a – allows states to opt out. A Department of Health and Human Resources spokeswoman said 25 states have done so; 23 others have eased the provision; West Virginia is one of only three states to retain the full ban.
Delegate Tom Fast, R-Fayette, proposed an amendment to continue the ban for two years after conviction, which sparked passionate opposition.
Greg Whittington, a convicted violent felon (and not subject to the ban) who served 15 years and now owns a business and works to help other released felons get on the right, path said those first two years are a critical time. Forcing drug felons trying to rehabilitate to struggle for food often only helps them slip back into their old ways and return to prison.
“You’re either going to help feed us or you’re going to continue to feed us,” he said.
Kayla Van Horn said her mother was convicted for possession of meth – not for selling or distributing it, but for being an addict. She’s clean now but a single mom still raising Kayla’s younger sister on a low-wage job.
Kayla’s sister is eligible for SNAP, but not her mother. That means her mom has to with less food than they need. “She struggles with it. She has to do without. … It would help her have a more sustainable life.”
Committee chair John Shott, R-Mercer, is sole sponsor and led opposition of the amendment. The bill is about the federal law’s fundamental unfairness, singling out one offense for extra punishment. “We ought to be offended that this continues in West Virginia. … We should be anxious to see these people get back on their feet.”
About half a dozen others also voiced opposition. Fast said he saw how the vote would go and withdrew his amendment. The unchanged bill then passed in a voice vote with one against; Fast voted for it.
TWITTER @dbeardtdp Email David Beard at dbeard@dominionpost.com
