Public Comments

Dear Members of the West Virginia House Education Committee,

I am writing as a lifelong West Virginian and as a PhD candidate in Leadership Studies with an emphasis in Public Administration to share serious concerns regarding the proposed federal voucher-style tax credit program and the possibility of West Virginia opting into it.

While the program is framed as a tax credit of up to $3,400 for families, it functions in practice as a voucher program. Like other voucher programs, it diverts public resources away from public education and into private institutions. Regardless of the mechanism, the end result is the same: public money no longer supporting public schools.

It is also important to be clear that this is not “free money” for states. These tax credits reduce federal tax revenue—revenue that would otherwise support public education, infrastructure, healthcare, and other essential public services. For a state already struggling to maintain adequate funding levels, this tradeoff should not be taken lightly.

Recent research reinforces these concerns. A study by RAND examining West Virginia’s Hope Scholarship found that expanding vouchers to families already sending their children to private school was an inefficient use of public funds. This proposal replicates that same inefficiency by subsidizing decisions families have already made, rather than meaningfully expanding access or improving educational outcomes.

Additionally, it remains unclear whether—or how—public school students would actually be able to utilize this program until all federal regulations are finalized. Opting into a program without knowing how eligibility, oversight, and implementation will function places the state in a reactive position rather than one of responsible governance.

The role of Scholarship Granting Organizations raises further concern. These organizations are permitted to retain up to 10 percent of donated funds for administrative purposes. When those donations are incentivized through tax credits, that retained portion effectively comes from public tax dollars. This structure creates the appearance, at minimum, of a money-making scheme layered on top of public finance.

It is also worth noting that this program is voluntary. States are not required to opt in. West Virginia already operates a voucher-style program through the Hope Scholarship. Adding another program before fully assessing the long-term fiscal and educational impacts of the first only compounds uncertainty.

Until federal regulations are fully released, it is unclear how much authority states will retain to regulate or oversee this program. Committing state policy without knowing the rules is neither prudent nor consistent with sound public administration.

Finally, I believe it would be irresponsible for a state that is hemorrhaging its tax base, struggling to provide basic public services, and simultaneously considering further cuts to public funding to take on additional fiscal risk. West Virginia’s public schools, infrastructure, and healthcare systems are already under strain. Weakening them further does not serve our long-term economic or social stability.

My concern is not ideological. It is rooted in fiscal responsibility, public trust, and the basic obligation of government to steward limited resources wisely. I urge the committee to approach this proposal with caution and to prioritize transparency, accountability, and the long-term interests of West Virginia’s communities.

• A municipality may create a stabilization fund by majority vote of the governing body.
• The fund may receive appropriations, gifts, grants, and any other funds made available, including non-state funds.
• The statute does not require public justification, itemized reporting, or independent audit triggers tied to fund size or use. (See W. Va. Code § 8-13A-3.)

• W. Va. Code § 6-9A-1 et seq. (Open Governmental Proceedings Act) to require enhanced disclosure of stabilization fund decisions;
• W. Va. Code § 12-1-1 et seq. to impose fiscal reporting thresholds;
• Any provision requiring public accounting of grant or federal funds once deposited into a stabilization fund.

• HB 4833 removes a fiscal cap;
• Adds no new accountability standards;
• Operates within a system where ethics oversight does not cover incompetence or mismanagement absent a defined ethics violation.

• Annual public reporting of stabilization fund balances and sources;
• Disclosure of grant or federal funds deposited;
• A documented public finding of necessity for balances exceeding a defined percentage of the general fund.

• Guarantee reduced waitlists or improved access statewide
• Require service provision in rural or underserved counties
• Tie increased payments to measurable outcomes or equity standards
• Address the broader social and economic conditions impacting families raising children with disabilities

• Bodily autonomy and the right to refuse medical treatment
• Due process protections
• Equal protection, by disproportionately impacting already marginalized populations

• U.S. Const. 1st Amendment and WV Const. Art. III §16 (assembly/petition/redress): the bill’s “political nexus” framing risks chilling protected speech/association by turning cooperation decisions into political judgments.  
• U.S. Const. 4th Amendment and WV Const. Art. III §6 (unreasonable searches/seizures): because the bill restricts participation in federal warrants/operations under subjective criteria, it may interfere with consistent constitutional policing standards and oversight when agencies disagree about “political” motivation.  
• U.S. Const. 14th Amendment (due process/equal protection) and WV Const. Art. III §10 & §17 (due process and open courts/remedy): the bill’s vague threshold (“sense” / “political nexus”) and immunity provisions risk reducing legal accountability and creating unequal treatment depending on viewpoint, target, or jurisdiction.  

1. Local control is something that has been advocated for by both republicans and democrats serving in the legislature. City government is the epitome of local control, and if the people of a city desire these measures they can advocate for change at the local level. We do not need the state interfering in processes which we find satisfactory and functional at the local level.
2. Partisanship has become so severe in this country that it has led to an almost insurmountable divide both politically and socially. Local elections should be about finding the best leaders who can address local problems. These are frequently far different than the partisan issues that we hear about nationally. I predict that injecting partisanship at the local level will only serve to divide our communities and leave us less capable of solving the problems that impact us the most.

• student exchanges,
• faculty collaboration,
• energy-adjacent research,
• and foreign institutional partnerships,

• administrative costs,
• program implementation responsibilities,
• institutional branding use,
• compliance with export control laws,
• and future funding-dependent activities.

• agreements may be approved without transparent fiscal impact analysis,
• oversight bodies often decline review absent explicit criminal intent,
• and agencies self-certify compliance while disclaiming responsibility.

• It protects taxpayers by allowing recovery of improperly used funds.
• It empowers whistleblowers when agencies refuse to act.
• It deters reckless disregard for truth in grant certifications and funding representations.
• It restores confidence that ethics and compliance standards apply equally to all state actors.

• Independent, accountable oversight and public reporting (not just internal processes)
• Strict “least restrictive alternative” requirements, with documented findings
• Guaranteed counsel and meaningful hearings, with enforceable timelines
• Protections so the system cannot be used as a shortcut when adequate voluntary care, housing, or outpatient services are lacking

• Commissioning an independent compensation study of county officials across all classes of counties;
• Establishing a performance-based or cost-of-living adjusted compensation framework that respects local budget realities;
• Providing optional guidelines or model compensation charts rather than hard targets.

1. fully transparent, audited, and legally compliant spending across public safety programs;
2. fully funded flood prevention/recovery resources and critical infrastructure; and
3. broad taxpayer relief and essential services — before expanding retirement incentives through HB 4803.

Dear House Finance Members,

Stricter animal cruelty laws are much needed in West Virginia, as are more facilities to house stray, surrendered, and seized animals. I’ve volunteered in rescue for many years and have witnessed first hand the abuse and neglect inflicted on animals, the impact of overpopulation on our communities, and overpopulated shelters turning people away or directing them to rescues with even less resources than the shelters have. It seems never ending from my position but stricter consequences for those doing harm would be a good start, as would funding for programs that support spay and neuter and more shelter facilities. Also, an appropriate outdoor shelter should be defined by law along with care requirements for breeders to prevent for-profit neglect. Investigation into these matters when reported to law enforcement in towns and counties that do not have a humane officer should be required.

Thanks for your consideration,

Gina Myers

Good morning,

• Stone v. Graham (1980): The Supreme Court specifically struck down a law requiring the Ten Commandments in classrooms, holding it was an inherently religious, not educational, action.
• McCreary County v. ACLU (2005): Affirmed that government displays of the Ten Commandments are unconstitutional when they have a religious purpose.
• Coercion Doctrine: Argue that, because public school attendance is mandatory, displaying the Ten Commandments creates a captive audience and coerces religious expression upon students. 

I oppose House Bill 4013 as written.

West Virginia does need economic development. What we do not need are open-ended tax incentives that primarily benefit capital-intensive projects with minimal long-term benefit to working families and local communities.

This bill creates a broad, discretionary tax credit that heavily rewards equipment purchases and construction costs, not sustained job creation. That matters, because projects like data centers—explicitly included in this bill—are well known to generate very few permanent jobs relative to the size of the public subsidy they receive. Independent economic studies consistently show that data centers often employ dozens, not hundreds, of full-time workers once construction ends, despite consuming massive amounts of electricity and infrastructure capacity.

HB 4013 allows tax credits to be calculated largely on non-manufacturing equipment and construction spending, even when permanent job creation is minimal. That is a poor return on investment for taxpayers.

The bill also allows these credits to offset multiple state taxes, including—remarkably—up to 20 percent of employee withholding taxes. That means the state can end up subsidizing a company using money that would otherwise support schools, roads, emergency services, and healthcare. That is not economic development; it is cost-shifting.

Transparency is another major concern. Information shared between the Tax Department, Workforce West Virginia, and the administering authority is explicitly exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. If taxpayer dollars are being used to subsidize private corporations, the public has a right to see the terms, the performance, and the outcomes. Sunlight is not optional when public money is involved.

The bill places “sole and exclusive jurisdiction” in the hands of the Department of Commerce to decide who qualifies, how much they receive, and whether clawbacks are enforced. That level of discretion, combined with limited public oversight, is exactly how incentive programs drift from economic policy into political favoritism.

Finally, this bill includes no enforceable community benefit requirements. There are no guarantees for:

• local hiring or apprenticeships,

• labor standards or neutrality,

• protections against layoffs after credits are used,

• limits on noise, infrastructure strain, or quality-of-life impacts,

• or binding assurances that utility upgrade costs will not be passed on to ratepayers.

West Virginians have seen this movie before. We are promised jobs and prosperity, and what we get instead are tax breaks, higher infrastructure costs, and communities left with the consequences.

I support real economic development—projects that create good-paying jobs, respect workers, strengthen local communities, and deliver a measurable public return on public investment. HB 4013 does not meet that standard.

If the Legislature wants to attract investment, it should do so on West Virginia’s terms: with transparency, strict job-creation requirements, automatic clawbacks, and clear protections for taxpayers and communities.

Until those standards are written into law, this bill should not advance.

1. I write in opposition to this bill.
2. West Virginia has a long and unfortunate history of extraction by outside entities that results in the detriment of our people and environment.
3. To preserve our culture, we must preserve our environment. Data centers consume natural resources, offering nothing of value to WV's people. We struggle to provide clean water to our own people and this would steal it from them to cool computers.
4. Montani semper libri, yet we are continually sold and traded to those who see us as expendable.
5. The Earth groans with us (Romans) as we wait for redemption. Those of the Christian faith are called to live as if the Kingdom is now and that all of Creation is our sibling. We have abused and misused this charge we were given and the damage we have inflicted is reflected in our own bodies and minds.
6. The AI bubble will not last forever and we will be left with nothing but mess, much like an abandoned well or unclaimed spoil pile.
7. I urge you for the sake of all West Virginians, present and future, to reject this betrayal of WV. West Virginians deserve so much better.
8. Thank you.

Delegates, I am imploring you not to pass this bill. For decades West Virginians have been sold to the highest bidder. Given data centers unecessary tax breaks when West Virginians struggle with basic needs such as food, housing, and healthcare is deplorable. Data centers will decrease our water quality, increase our power bills, and WILL NOT create long term jobs. If we are to attract industry to WV via tax breaks it mustn’t be industry that does not create jobs, while creating pollution, expense, and an eye sore on our beautiful state.