MORGANTOWN — A bill to exempt certain employees from municipal user fees advanced out of a House of Delegates committee Wednesday morning, but with concerns that it’s too vague and needs work before it hits its next committee desk.
HB 2576 says that “a municipality shall not assess a user fee for any person who was not present in the municipality in the performance of his or her job.”
The reason for the bill was never stated, though some bill co-sponsors serve on the committee. Committee counsel said current state law does not exempt employees who do not live in a city there from paying a fee if they come into the city for work. But employees are also subject to the fee if they work remotely and their employer is based in the city.
Delegate Evan Hansen, D-Monongalia, raised the concern about the vague wording and the potential to reduce city revenues and cut into city services.
He called for West Virginia Municipal League Deputy Director Susan Economou to testify.
She explained that the section of state code the bill would affect allows cities to impose “reasonable rates, fees, and charges” for provision of various services, including police and fire protection, parking facilities, parks and recreational facilities, street cleaning, street lighting, street maintenance and improvement, sewerage and sewage disposal, and trash collection.
The bill’s problem, she said, is the phrase “user fee” doesn’t appear and is not defined, so the bill could affect everything, not just remote workers or workers who leave town for a time. Defining the phrase would cut down confusion.
During discussion of potential amendments, bill co-sponsor Geoff Foster, R-Putnam, said he would work on a definition to have it ready for when the bill arrives at Judiciary.
An amendment proposed by co-sponsor Gary Howell, R-MIneral, addressed a frequent complaint of delegates during debate on other user fee and service fee bills in previous years: They have to pay Charleston’s fee when they come to town for legislative work.
The committee adopted Howell’s amendment to clarify that legislators work in the district they’re elected from, so if they live in a city in which their district charges a fee, their money stays home.
The vote to approve the bill and send it to Judiciary was a voice vote. There were no audible votes against, but it’s often the case that not everyone votes yes. That remains uncertain here, but the vote was essentially unanimous.
Infrastructure bill
The committee made quicker work of a bill to create “Infrastructure Ready Jurisdictions.”
HB 3111 says that any political subdivision that refrains from enacting any permitting requirements other than those in code may apply to the Office of Economic Development to be designated an Infrastructure Ready Jurisdiction.
The bill says any certified subdivision may then receive a 5% preferential scoring on grants, except where the grant forbids scoring.
Hansen said that the wording seems broad, and the reference to code is unclear: Does it mean just the code section the bill is affecting — the Economic Development Act — or all of state code? And could a permit unrelated to infrastructure projects hinder receiving the designation?
Committee counsel didn’t know the answers.
The bill passed with no audible votes against and goes next to the Technology and Infrastructure Committee.
TWEET David Beard @dbeardtdp
EMAIL dbeard@dominionpost.com
