Public Comments

House Bill 4009 does not offer a viable solution to the problems it identifies. While the bill acknowledges that gig and contract workers face instability around healthcare, retirement, and other benefits, the proposed Portable Benefit Account model does not meaningfully alleviate those burdens.

Under this bill, participation and contributions are entirely voluntary, with no requirement that hiring parties contribute to worker benefits in any meaningful or proportional way. As a result, workers remain responsible for funding their own healthcare, retirement, and income protection, leaving the underlying precarity of contract work unchanged.

More concerning, the bill explicitly provides that contributions to a portable benefit account may not be used as evidence in determining a worker’s employment classification. This provision protects hiring parties from misclassification challenges and weakens existing labor protections, effectively insulating corporations from responsibility while offering workers little more than a new financial account.

Portable benefits can be part of a serious labor reform only when they include enforceable employer obligations and preserve workers’ rights to proper classification. House Bill 4009 does neither. For these reasons, I urge the House to vote no on this bill as written unless it is substantially revised to prioritize worker protections and corporate accountability.

I strongly support HB 4627, which provides preventive cancer screening for professional firefighters in accordance with International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) guidelines.

Firefighters are exposed throughout their careers to known carcinogens, and medical research consistently shows significantly higher cancer rates among firefighters than in the general population. The IAFF clearly demonstrates that early cancer detection saves lives and reduces long-term healthcare costs. Cancers identified at early stages require less invasive treatment, have higher survival rates, and avoid the substantial costs associated with advanced disease, extended disability, and long-term care.

Preventive screening is fiscally responsible. Studies show that investing in evidence-based cancer screening reduces overall healthcare spending by preventing late-stage diagnoses, lost work time, and workers’ compensation claims. Removing copays and deductibles ensures firefighters can access these screenings before symptoms appear, when treatment is most effective and least costly.

HB 4627 reflects nationally recognized best practices and appropriately treats cancer screening as an occupational health necessity for firefighters. I respectfully urge the Legislature to pass this bill.

I support West Virginia HB 4009 because it modernizes our workforce by allowing portable benefits that follow workers across jobs. This bill supports independent contractors and gig workers by expanding access to health, retirement, and financial security benefits without disrupting flexible work models or obligating an employer to costly, regulated benefit structures. HB 4009 helps West Virginia stay competitive while respecting worker choice.

• Clear, measurable job creation benchmarks tied to real wages;
• Sunset provisions so credits expire if goals aren’t met;
• Strong accountability and clawback provisions so companies must repay credit if performance promises aren’t delivered - including enforcement
• Transparency requirements to ensure public reporting on outcomes.

• Preserve strong local zoning and land-use authority
• Require full, independent infrastructure and environmental impact studies
• Protect utility ratepayers and public water resources
• Ensure transparency and meaningful public participation

I disagree because bringing boards together would do nothing but damage with multiple opinions. It also might make it hard to understand students situations.

I agree because it causes a unnecessary financial burden to people that own dogs especially elderly dogs. Also dogs being took away because someone cant pay is hard. With this bill it could remove the upsetting feelings and potential loss of their pet.

On behalf of the West Virginia EMS Coalition, which represents over 80% of all emergency ambulance responses in the state, I would like to express our support for HB 4121 regarding the reporting duties of county commissions on ambulance services.

This bill was developed in response to legislative requests for information on how counties are delivery and funding EMS. Counties are increasingly passing levies, adopting ambulance fees, or making direct budget appropriations to support EMS within their counties yet there is no centralized system for collecting and reporting this information.

In working with the bill’s sponsor, we carefully crafted the legislation to ensure there were no unfunded mandates created for county commissions. We recognize a bill that imposes additional costs on counties would be difficult to pass.

The bill does require every county to make EMS service available without any requirement for funding it. Every county is already in compliance with the requirement.

Each county's 911 center has designated one or more emergency ambulance agencies for response, ensuring compliance with the proposed requirements.

Line 11 of the bill and current law says, "The county commission may provide the service directly through its agents, servants and employees; or through private enterprise; or by its designees; or by contracting with individuals, groups, associations, corporations or otherwise; or it may cause such services to be provided by an authority, as provided for in this article…” This existing law provides significant flexibility to counties in balancing emergency care and financial responsibility.

The current method of ensuring access to EMS in counties would remain unchanged. Approximately, half of West Virginia’s counties have established a county ambulance authority or a similar structure for the delivering of EMS. The rest designate or contract with a non-profit/private agency to provide the response.

For instance, Raleigh County, which designates agencies such as Jan-Care, Ghent VFD EMS, Best Ambulance, and Bradley-Prosperity VFD for EMS, will continue operating as they currently do without any additional funding requirements.

The bill does not impose any mandates that would result in increased costs for counties, including no provisions regarding the manner of emergency ambulance service delivery, the required number of ambulances per county, or specified response times.

The proposed deletion concerns outdated language from 1975 when the EMS Act was initially drafted. At that time, the modern EMS system in West Virginia was still developing, and not all counties had established centralized 911 systems or well-organized and regulated EMS agencies. Today, however, all counties provide EMS services in some manner. There is a consensus that EMS is an essential service, and no exemptions should be allowed for failing to provide life-saving response capabilities.

What HB 4121 does:

• Explicitly require counties to make emergency ambulance service available.

• EMS could be provided by county employees, an ambulance authority, private enterprise or by contracting for service (current law).

• Counties would not be mandated to provide any minimum level of funding.

• Counties would report annually the amount of county funds expended the prior fiscal year to fund emergency ambulance services.

• The Office of EMS would compile an annual report on local EMS system structures and funding to help guide future policy and state funding decisions.

The WV EMS Coalition believes this legislation is an important step towards provide legislators with the information needed to support future decisions about the funding and structure of EMS in West Virginia. We hope the Legislature continues to advance this bill towards passage.

• Cancer caused 66 percent of the career firefighter line-of-duty deaths from 2002 to 2019, according to data from the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF).

• Firefighters have a 9 percent higher risk of being diagnosed with cancer and a 14 percent higher risk of dying from cancer than the general U.S. population, according to research by the CDC/National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH).

• Firefighters are two times as likely to contract mesothelioma, two times as likely to contract testicular cancer, 1.5x as likely to contract multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and are at an increased and elevated risk for numerous other specific cancers. (NIOSH)

I can understand why they have issues with standardized testing. Its major focus on math and reading doesn’t shine light on other categories like music and other arts. However, I wouldn’t totally get rid of standardized tests. These tests show, not only knowledge in math and English, but an ability to follow coursework and discipline. If a child is scoring in the 900s there is an issue. Therefore, although I agree with some, I wouldn’t abolish these tests.

We need to protect our women. From the entering of their bathrooms, sports, or other places by males. This is not discrimination. This is done in protection of our women. Are we willing to take the risk just because a transgender woman doesn’t want to use the bathrooms that align with her biological sex? I’m sure women wouldn’t we comfortable with a man being in their bathrooms or in the bathroom with their child. Not all transgender individuals are criminals, just as not all cisgender individuals are criminals. Does that mean we should allow men in women’s bathrooms because they feel like they align with it more? This bill would be a good addition to this state.

The Establishment clause of the first amendment prohibits governments from making any law respecting an establishment of religion. Because of this, as well as ethical problems, this bill is a terrible idea. In order for this bill to have a chance at passing, the opposition must show the motive is purely secular and not at all religious. Representative Noble, for example, has tried getting around this by saying the Ten Commandments are a foundational document in our history. Would this truly make the motive secular? In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled the Ten Commandments in schools was unconstitutional. They noted the Commandments had no educational purpose, seeing as they’re merely hanging on a wall, and they promoted religious belief. A good way to see the promotion religious motivation in this bill is to look at what they are putting forth: The Ten Commandments. They don’t only command the absence from stealing or murder, but from the worship other gods. “Thou shalt not have any other gods before me.” Before who? Yahweh. Not only that, they also talk about the sabbath. “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Is the sabbath in Hinduism? Is it in buddhism? Imagine the Hindu boys and girls sitting in class looking at the first and fourth commandment, one of which directly attacks their belief. How could this not be religious? Furthermore, which version of the Commandments should be posted? Allowing the government to meddle in religious doctrine is problematic for the people of that religion; allowing religion to meddle in the government is problematic for all others.

Public Comment in Opposition to HB 4080

To the Members of the West Virginia House of Delegates:

I am writing to express my opposition to House Bill 4080, which would mandate partisan elections for all municipal offices in West Virginia.

Local municipalities, including cities and towns, are best positioned to determine what electoral system serves their communities. Municipal elections should remain under local control, allowing each community to decide whether partisan or non-partisan elections work best for selecting their mayors and city council members. The state legislature should not interfere with local elections, which are best managed at the local level where they serve.

Municipal governance is fundamentally different from state or federal government. Mayors and city council members deal with practical, non-ideological issues like water systems, sewage infrastructure, road maintenance, zoning decisions, and local budgets. These are community concerns that transcend party politics. Forcing partisan labels onto these local offices would inject unnecessary division into communities and shift the focus away from competence, experience, and commitment to local problem-solving.

Additionally, HB 4080 would impose significant burdens on municipalities. Many would be forced to amend their charters, a complex process that may require special elections or ballot measures. If voters choose to maintain non-partisan elections but the charter cannot be successfully amended, municipalities could find themselves in violation of state code through no fault of their own.

West Virginia should trust local communities to govern themselves. I urge you to vote NO on HB 4080 and preserve local control over municipal elections.

Respectfully submitted,

Renee K. Nicholson

Morgantown, West Virginia

As the Chief Human Resources Officer for one of West Virginia’s six Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics (CCBHCs), I can speak directly to the real and ongoing workforce challenges created by the current WV CARES process.

West Virginia rightly wants to encourage workforce participation while also protecting vulnerable populations. WV CARES can support both goals; however, the current timelines create significant barriers for both employers and qualified candidates. With up to 30 days for a candidate to submit a complete packet and up to 60 days for WV CARES to render a decision, the total process can take as long as 90 days. In today’s workforce environment, many candidates—and employers—simply cannot wait that long. As a result, we lose otherwise qualified staff before they ever have the opportunity to serve our communities.

Additionally, employers are often unable to absorb the financial burden of supervising provisional employees during this extended review period. Requiring two staff to perform the work of one—solely to meet supervision requirements—adds substantial cost and strain to already limited behavioral health resources. Reducing review timelines would immediately decrease supervision costs and prevent candidates from being lost due to delays outside of their control.

The portability provision included in this bill is one of its most promising and impactful components. Allowing WV CARES eligibility to be tied to the individual rather than the worksite would significantly reduce application time, administrative burden, and duplication of effort—benefiting providers, the state, and workers alike.

Equally important is the provision that would prevent long-standing employees from having to take a leave of absence or return to supervision while awaiting renewal variances related to historical charges. For many dedicated staff, this process forces them to repeatedly relive embarrassment and trauma every five years simply to continue serving in roles they have faithfully held for years. These are professionals who work tirelessly for West Virginians with the greatest needs, and this provision recognizes both their service and their dignity.

House Bill 4599 represents a meaningful opportunity to modernize WV CARES in a way that protects clients, supports the workforce, and strengthens access to behavioral health services across our state.