How a Rural West Virginia District is Rewriting Labor Law to Save Its Students

 

The Appalachia High-Wire: How a Rural West Virginia District is Rewriting Labor Law to Save Its Students

The Quiet Crisis in the Mountains

In the rugged terrain of Pocahontas County, where the geometric precision of the law often meets the jagged reality of rural isolation, a systemic crisis has reached a breaking point. The school district is currently navigating a "State of Emergency" and a rigorous "Special Circumstance Review" (SCR) by the West Virginia Department of Education (WVDE). This is not merely a bureaucratic skirmish; it is a fundamental breakdown of the machinery that allows a school to function. When critical roles—specifically school counselors—remain vacant for years, the resulting vacuum threatens the very futures of the students left behind. Pocahontas County has become a live laboratory for a difficult question: How does a district survive when it can no longer find the certified professionals it is legally mandated to employ?

The "Boner" Precedent: A Shield Against Fiscal Austerity

To understand the legal constraints facing Pocahontas County, one must look back to the 1996 landmark ruling, State ex rel. Boner v. Kanawha County Board of Education. This case established a significant barrier against the erosion of professional personnel rights.

"The Boner doctrine explicitly prohibits a county board of education from abolishing full-time positions and replacing the underlying services with hourly-paid employees or independent contractors solely to achieve financial savings."

While the Boner doctrine is the cornerstone of West Virginia’s educational labor law, protecting against "fiscal substitution," Pocahontas County is deploying a sophisticated legal defense: the "Incumbent Distinction." Unlike the Boner case, where full-time teachers were displaced, the positions being abolished in Pocahontas have sat vacant for years. By reorganizing a vacancy rather than firing a human being, the district is reclaiming "ghost funds" to address immediate needs—a strategic pivot that is legally distinct from a simple budget cut.

The Data of Decay: When a Vacancy Becomes a Transcript Emergency

The stakes of this crisis are most visible in the data from Pocahontas County High School (PCHS). Since the high school counselor retired in September 2024, the position has remained unfilled, creating a "counseling vacuum" that led to a catastrophic breakdown in student records.

An audit revealed that 52% of the graduating senior class—41 out of 79 students—had inaccurate transcripts, plagued by duplicate courses and incorrect transfer credits. This was not just a lack of personnel, but a technical failure; the district struggled to manage the complex WVEIS (West Virginia Education Information System) software required for master scheduling. Consequently, the creation of the "Dean of Students" role was not a budgetary convenience but a technical pivot. The role was specifically designed as a corrective action to handle the data-heavy backlog of transcription and scheduling that the traditional counseling model failed to master.

The Graduation Coach: Innovative Solution or Legal Risk?

As the district moves to abolish traditional positions that have remained unfillable, it has introduced the "Graduation Coach" as a pragmatic alternative. This creates a "Functional Equivalence" risk: if the coach performs the same duties as a counselor for less pay, the district could run afoul of the Boner precedent.

Feature	School Counselor	Graduation Coach
Credentials	Master’s Degree in School Counseling	No specific degree specified
Certification	Praxis Professional School Counselor Exam	None (Paraprofessional level)
Primary Focus	Mental health, CSCP, and social support	Mechanics of college apps/grad planning
Statutory Duty	Mandated Comprehensive Counseling	Clerical and advisory support
Legal Risk	Baseline (Standard)	High (Potential Boner challenge)

Analyst’s Note: The district’s legal "firewall" here is the intentional narrowing of the Graduation Coach's scope. By explicitly stripping the role of mental health duties and focusing strictly on the mechanics of graduation, the district argues the role is fundamentally different from a certified counselor, thus avoiding the "identical duties" trap set by the Boner ruling.

The Rural Recruitment Paradox

The district’s strongest defense is the simple, cold reality of the labor market. Pocahontas County is a "mental health care desert," with a provider ratio of just one per 670 residents. This systemic shortage makes it nearly impossible for rural districts to compete with suburban areas for certified talent.

Vacancy and Abolishment Data (Planned for 2026–2027):

• PCHS Counselor: Vacant for 2+ years; abolished to be replaced by a Graduation Coach.
• GBEMS Counselor: Vacant; abolished due to zero qualified applicants.
• English/Language Arts (PCHS): Abolished for future budgeting; currently kept afloat by long-term substitutes.
• Social Studies (PCHS): Abolished for future budgeting; currently filled by a long-term substitute.

It is vital to note that "abolishment" in this context is a forward-looking administrative move to reset the budget for the 2026-27 school year. It is not an immediate removal of the "warm bodies" (substitutes) currently in classrooms, but a recognition that the "certified" version of these roles may never be filled under current conditions.

Oversight as a Bridge: Mentorship and the Supervisor Role

Rather than simply doing "more with less," Pocahontas is utilizing the "First-Class/Full-Time Permit" (Form 1S) and external mentorship to bridge the professional gap. The district has contracted with experts like Dodi Slaughter to mentor the PCHS Dean of Students, who is currently enrolled in a counseling program.

Furthermore, the district has created a Supervisor of Counseling Services to provide the certified professional oversight that was absent during the transcript crisis. By adding this tier of accountability, the district signals to the WVDE and the Grievance Board that they are not abandoning professional standards, but are instead building a "residency-like model" to grow their own certified workforce from within.

Conclusion: The Future of Rural Institutional Survival

Pocahontas County is walking a high-wire act between strict labor protections and the immediate, practical needs of its students. By repurposing vacant roles into specialized positions like the Dean of Students and Supervisor of Counseling, the district is attempting to fix a systemic failure while navigating a labor market that has effectively abandoned rural Appalachia.

Is this a cautionary tale of institutional decay or a blueprint for how rural districts can survive "critical need" shortages? The outcome hinges on whether the district can continue to prove that its new roles are fundamentally different in scope from the ones they replaced.

The Closing Question: In an era of unprecedented professional shortages, should the law prioritize the preservation of traditional labor roles (Boner), or should it allow districts the flexibility to innovate when the alternative is a 52% transcript error rate?

The decision to abolish positions in Pocahontas County

 

The decision to abolish positions in Pocahontas County is governed by a complex framework of West Virginia statutory law, constitutional mandates, and case law that balances a local board’s fiscal discretion against the rights of professional personnel.

1. Statutory Authority: The "Lack of Need" Standard

Under West Virginia Code §18A-2-2, a county board has the explicit authority to dismiss teachers and professional personnel based on a "lack of need". This is the primary legal justification for the Pocahontas decision.

• Triggering Factors: Legally recognized reasons for "lack of need" include decreased student enrollment, the return of regular staff from leaves of absence, or the closing/consolidation of schools.

• Procedural Requirements: To withstand legal challenge, the board must act on or before May 1 of the current year to terminate a continuing contract for the ensuing year. Affected employees must be notified in writing and provided an opportunity for a hearing before the board.

2. The "Arbitrary and Capricious" Test

West Virginia courts and the Educational Employees Grievance Board apply a deferential but firm standard to these decisions. A board’s decision to abolish positions will be upheld unless it is found to be "arbitrary and capricious".

• Rational Basis: The board must demonstrate a rational basis for the cuts. In Pocahontas, the administration cited a student population (833) far below the funded "floor" (1,400) and a projected $1.8 million$ budget deficit.

• Illegal Motive: A decision is considered arbitrary if it is "implausible" or based on an illicit motive, such as retaliation or political discrimination. However, work performance is generally irrelevant to a reduction-in-force (RIF) based solely on lack of need.

3. Abolishment vs. Reduction in Force (RIF)

In West Virginia law, "abolishing a position" is the administrative act of removing a job title from the county's staffing plan. This act then triggers Reduction in Force (RIF) procedures to determine which specific person loses their job.

• Seniority and Bumping Rights: Under W.Va. Code §18A-4-7a, RIF decisions must be based on seniority, certification, and licensure. An employee whose position is abolished has the right to "bump" the least senior employee in any area where they hold valid certification.

• Pocahontas Mitigation: Superintendent Williams mitigated this specific legal risk by targeting "unfilled" positions—roles that have lacked a certified teacher for years and are currently held by long-term substitutes. Legally, substitutes have no "bumping" rights against the board's decision to abolish a vacancy.

4. Constitutional Mandate: "Thorough and Efficient"

The most significant long-term legal implication is whether the cuts violate Article XII, Section 1 of the West Virginia Constitution, which guarantees a "thorough and efficient" system of free schools.

• The Recht Precedent: Landmark rulings such as Pauley v. Kelly established that a "thorough" education requires adequate personnel to develop the "minds, bodies, and social morality" of students.

• Equity Issues: Legal experts have argued that the disproportionate impact of funding formulas on poor, rural counties raises Equal Protection issues. If the abolishment of core positions (like English and Social Studies) prevents the district from offering required standards of instruction, it could be challenged as a failure to meet the constitutional floor of high-quality education.

5. The Boner Precedent: Replacing Full-Time with Hourly

A critical case, State ex rel. Boner v. Kanawha County Board of Education, prohibits a board from abolishing full-time positions and replacing the services with hourly-paid employees or independent contractors solely to save money.

• Implication for Pocahontas: While the district is abolishing teaching positions, it is creating new roles like "Dean of Students" and "Supervisor of Counseling Services" to handle tasks previously performed by counselors. To remain compliant with the Boner ruling, the district must demonstrate that these new roles are fundamentally different in scope or that there is a genuine lack of certified applicants for the traditional roles.

   

The Staffing vs. Security Conflict

 

 The "Abolishment" tension in Pocahontas County reached a critical point during the January 2026 Board of Education meeting, where a $4-1$ vote authorized the elimination of eight staff positions for the 2026-2027 school year. This decision was a proactive measure by Superintendent Leatha Williams to address a looming "funding cliff" caused by the state's aid formula. While the district is currently funded as if it had 1,400 students, actual enrollment has plummeted to 833; Williams warned that a proposed legislative shift to a 1,200-student funding floor would strip $1.8 million$ from the staffing budget.

The Staffing vs. Security Conflict

The primary source of local disagreement was the timing of these cuts relative to new security spending. At the same meeting, the board approved the hiring of Fred Herbert Barlow as an itinerant school security officer, effective January 21, 2026. Board member Sam Gibson, the sole dissenter, argued that funds used for security should instead be preserved for "core" teaching positions. Gibson specifically challenged the necessity of the hire, requesting a formal report on the number of "Level 3 and 4" offenses (serious threats or violent acts) at Pocahontas County High School to determine if the safety risk justified the expense.

However, the administration maintained that the positions being abolished—which included English, social studies, and business management teachers at the high school, as well as a 4th-grade teacher and assistant principal at Green Bank—were primarily "unfilled" roles. Williams noted that because some classes currently serve as few as three to seven students, the district has the "flexibility" to consolidate these roles without immediate layoffs.

Safety as a Mandatory "Compliance" Requirement

The drive toward increased security was not merely a local preference but a response to state-identified deficiencies. The West Virginia Department of Education’s (WVDE) initial review found "insufficient security measures" and a lack of safety supports at the high school. Reviewers documented "threatening and hostile behaviors" among students and an administrative failure to consistently apply disciplinary protocols. Consequently, hiring a security officer became a matter of state "compliance" to restore a "positive and safe environment" required to exit the state of emergency.

The Broader "Broken Formula" Dilemma

This tension reflects a systemic crisis across West Virginia, where declining enrollment is "fundamentally breaking" the school funding formula. WVBE President Paul Hardesty has acknowledged that many rural districts are in "untenable financial situations" because the formula has not been adjusted since 1982. In this environment, districts are forced into a zero-sum game:

• Funding "People": Randolph County currently sits 61 positions "over formula" and is bracing for severe layoffs (Reduction-in-Force) to close a $2.2 million$ gap.

• Funding "Safety/Compliance": Roane County, described by state board members as "absolutely bankrupt," is similarly consolidating schools and downsizing staff to meet the fiscal oversight requirements of its state-mandated recovery plan.

Ultimately, the Pocahontas case illustrates that in the modern West Virginia educational landscape, "thorough and efficient" instruction is increasingly being crowded out by the rising costs of maintaining safety and meeting state administrative mandates.

Poca Feb 3, Meeting

 

The following is a summary of the Pocahontas County Schools Board of Education meeting held on February 3, 2026. The meeting primarily focused on a comprehensive update regarding the district's "State of Emergency" and special circumstance review.

Superintendent’s Presentation: State of Emergency Update

Superintendent Dr. Williams provided a detailed presentation on the progress made since July 1, 2025, to address critical systemic failures identified by the West Virginia Department of Education (WVDE) [01:59].

• Pocahontas County High School (PCHS) Review: The school was found non-compliant in five key areas: comprehensive counseling, grading and scheduling, leadership, positive environment, and special education [07:15].

• Grading and Scheduling Crisis: Previously, student schedules were not ready by the start of the school year, and transcripts contained inconsistencies [11:20]. Most critically, evidence suggested that grades were being changed due to parent pressure rather than calculation errors, which is illegal under state code [13:14].

• Safety and Security: Major breaches were identified, including students having access to door codes and unauthorized access to computers containing sensitive student data [16:39].

• Special Education (SPED): The district faced a "significant crisis" in SPED. Initial reviews showed that 89% of IEPs (Individualized Education Programs) were non-compliant, meaning only about 11% of students were receiving their legally required services [40:23].

Progress and Corrective Actions

Dr. Williams highlighted the shift from "random acts of improvement" to a coordinated team approach under the theme "Stronger Together" [05:06].

• IEP Compliance: Philip Anderson, the Director of Special Education, reported that the number of non-compliant (red) IEPs has dropped from over 200 in November to zero today [01:01:42].

• Attendance: Chronic absenteeism at the high school has improved significantly, dropping from 48% to 35% [28:58].

• Systemic Reorganization: The central office was realigned to define roles and responsibilities, and a new paper trail for grade changes and transcript reviews was established [24:35].

• Facilities: Extensive work was done to repaint classrooms, remodel bathrooms, and update camera systems across the district [25:23].

Personnel and Board Actions

• Personnel Agenda: The Board approved several substitute teachers and coaches but denied a transfer request for a special education teacher to move to a CTE business position, citing the high need for SPED staff at the high school [01:35:04].

• Athletic Guidance: New superintendent guidelines were introduced to standardize the ratio of "dollar coaches" to paid coaches to ensure equity across sports programs [01:36:54].

• School Calendar: The Board discussed making up two missed school days and agreed to survey staff at each school to choose between various makeup scenarios (utilizing dates in March, April, or June) [01:42:57].

Upcoming Milestones

The district is preparing for a pivotal vote by the West Virginia Board of Education on February 11, 2026, which will determine if the district is released from its current state of emergency status [03:57].

Pocahontas Schools State of Emergency Vote

Research Websites

(1) Verify the official agenda and meeting details for the West Virginia Board of Education session scheduled for February 11, 2026, focusing on items related to Pocahontas County Schools. (2) Research the historical context and specific reasons why Pocahontas County Schools were placed under a state of emergency or state intervention, including issues related to governance, finances, or academic performance. (3) Identify the specific benchmarks, milestones, and corrective action plan requirements established by the West Virginia Department of Education that the district was required to meet for release from intervention. (4) Search for recent progress reports, site visit evaluations, or audits conducted by the state department of education regarding the district's improvement in the targeted areas. (5) Find public statements, meeting minutes, or press releases from the Pocahontas County Board of Education and the local Superintendent regarding their preparations for the upcoming vote. (6) Explore local news coverage in West Virginia and Pocahontas County to understand community sentiment, educator feedback, and the perceived impact of the state intervention on the school system. (7) Examine the potential outcomes of the February 11 vote, including what legal and administrative powers will return to the local board if the state of emergency is lifted versus the implications if the status is maintained.

 

 

Maybe the Tourist Should Help With the Garbage Costs

 

  The Commission finds that the visual appeal of Pocahontas County, marketed as "Nature’s Mountain Playground," is a primary driver of the local tourism economy. Roadside litter, illegal dumpsites, and unmaintained public waste receptacles constitute "visual blight" that directly degrades the visitor experience and impairs the county’s tourism brand.

Researching the viability of using the West Virginia Hotel/Motel Occupancy Tax to cover increased garbage costs involves navigating strict state statutes. In West Virginia, the "Hotel/Motel Tax" is highly regulated, and its revenues are legally "earmarked," meaning they can only be spent on specific categories defined by law.

Based on WV Code §7-18-14 and recent Pocahontas County Commission actions, here is a breakdown of the viability of this plan:

1. The Legal Framework: "Earmarked" Funds

Under West Virginia law, once a county collects the Hotel Occupancy Tax (currently 6% in Pocahontas County), the "net proceeds" must be distributed according to a specific 50/50 split:

• The First 50% (Mandatory): Must be expended for the promotion of conventions and tourism. In Pocahontas County, this goes directly to the Convention and Visitor’s Bureau (CVB).

• The Remaining 50% (Restricted): This portion can only be spent on a specific list of "permissible expenditures."

2. Permissible vs. Prohibited Uses

The law (WV Code §7-18-14(c)) lists the only ways a county can spend the remaining 50% of the tax. General municipal or county expenses—like standard garbage collection or landfill fees—are not explicitly listed.

3. Current Pocahontas County Allocations

As of the January 21, 2025, County Commission meeting, the 2025 distributions are already heavily committed to other essential services to keep the county's general fund balanced:

• PMH (Hospital): $75,000

• Emergency Medical Services: $75,000

• Fire Board: $120,000

• Ambulance Service: $225,000

• Bricks & Mortars (Courthouse): $20,000

• Remaining Percentages: Allocated to the Arts Council, Libraries, Fairs/Festivals, and the Historic Landmarks Commission.

4. The "Solid Waste Assessment Fee" Alternative

West Virginia law actually provides a different mechanism for funding garbage and landfill costs. Under WV Code §22-15-11, the state imposes a Solid Waste Assessment Fee ($1.75 per ton, increasing annually to $2.75 by 2025).

• These funds are specifically designated for "refuse cleanup, recycling programs, litter control programs, or any other locally important solid waste programs."

• If Pocahontas County is facing a "garbage crisis," the Commission typically looks to tipping fees or assessment fees rather than tourism tax, as the latter is often audited by the State Auditor to ensure it isn't used for general county operations.

---

Conclusion on Viability

• Direct Use (Low Viability): Using the tax to pay for general residential garbage pickup or a standard landfill deficit is likely a violation of WV Code §7-18-14. The State Auditor would likely flag this as an "illegal expenditure" because garbage collection is a general government service, not a tourism promotion or beautification project.

• Indirect Use (Moderate Viability): The county could potentially allocate a small portion to a "Beautification and Litter Control" fund to help clean up illegal dumpsites or provide bins in high-tourist areas (like Marlinton or near Snowshoe). However, this would not solve the systemic cost increase of the county's primary waste management.

Would you like me to look into the specific financial reports of the Pocahontas County Solid Waste Authority to see how their current deficit compares to the available "Beautification" portion of the tax?

Based on recent financial reports and meeting minutes from late 2025 and early 2026, the gap between the Solid Waste Authority (SWA) deficit and the available Hotel/Motel tax funds is substantial. While "Beautification" is a legal category, the math suggests it is not a viable "cure-all" for the garbage crisis.

1. The Financial Gap: Deficit vs. Tax Revenue

According to the December 2025 Commission reports, the SWA is facing a massive funding shortfall as the landfill nears its 2026 closure and transitions to a transfer station model.

• The SWA Request: The SWA requested $300,000 annually from the County Commission to stabilize operations and keep "Green Box" (residential) fees affordable.

• The "Beautification" Reality: In Pocahontas County, the 50% "discretionary" portion of the Hotel/Motel tax is already distributed among high-priority services (EMS, Fire, Libraries).

  • Historically, the county collects roughly $1.2M to $1.5M in total Hotel/Motel tax.

  • After the mandatory 50% goes to the CVB ($600k–$750k), the remaining funds are split.

  • "Beautification" specifically: While the county doesn't have a single line item labeled "Beautification" that totals $300,000, it funds related entities like the Landmarks Commission, which received roughly $48,600 in 2025.

  • The Shortfall: Even if the county redirected all funds from smaller programs like the Landmarks Commission or Fairs and Festivals into a "Litter and Beautification" waste program, it would likely only cover 15% to 20% of the SWA’s $300,000 request.

2. The Legal Obstacle: "Promotion" vs. "Utility"

The West Virginia State Auditor and WV Code §7-18-14 strictly define beautification as a "tourism promotion" activity.

• Illegal Use: Paying for the fuel, salaries, or tipping fees of a standard garbage route is considered a general utility and is prohibited.

• Defensible Use: You could legally use these funds for "Litter Control" (e.g., cleaning up illegal dumpsites on the Greenbrier River or providing bear-proof trash cans in tourist-heavy zones). However, this is "extra" work and does not alleviate the core deficit of the landfill's daily operations.

3. Current Strategy (As of Jan/Feb 2026)

The Commission is currently pivoting away from the Hotel/Motel tax as a solution for the garbage deficit, opting instead for:

• Fee Increases: Without a $300,000 supplement, residential "Green Box" fees are projected to rise from $135/year to potentially $300–$600/year.

• Targeted Assistance: The Commission discussed using general funds specifically to help elderly residents on fixed incomes pay their increased garbage fees, rather than subsidizing the entire SWA budget through tourism dollars.

In January 2026, House Bill 4776 was introduced in the West Virginia Legislature specifically to increase the maximum permitted Hotel Occupancy Tax from 6% to 8%. If this bill passes and the Pocahontas County Commission adopts the increase, it would create a significant new revenue stream.

However, using these funds for "Solid Waste Operations" remains legally complex due to West Virginia's strict "earmarking" laws.

1. The Projected Revenue Increase

Based on the county’s historical collections of approximately $1.5 million at the current 6% rate, a move to 8% represents a 33.3% increase in total collections.

2. Impact on Solid Waste Operations

An additional $250,000 in discretionary funds would nearly cover the Solid Waste Authority's (SWA) reported $300,000 annual need to stabilize the transition to a transfer station and keep "Green Box" fees low.

However, the "benefit" is not a simple transfer of cash. It would likely work in one of two ways:

• The "Beautification" Pivot: The Commission could designate a large portion of the new $250,000 toward a "Countywide Litter Control and Beautification Program." This program could legally pay for the cleanup of illegal dump sites and roadside litter—tasks currently performed by the SWA—thereby freeing up the SWA’s general budget for landfill closure costs.

• Budgetary "Backfilling": By using the new $250,000 to cover existing obligations (like the $225,000 currently given to the Ambulance Service or the $120,000 to the Fire Board), the Commission could free up General Fund money. Unlike Hotel Tax dollars, General Fund money has no restrictions and can be given directly to the SWA to cover any operational deficit.

3. Risks and Considerations

• Legislative Dependency: HB 4776 is currently in the House Finance Committee (as of late January 2026). If it fails to pass, the county remains capped at 6%.

• Tourism Pushback: Local lodging operators and the CVB may argue that a higher tax rate could discourage visitors, potentially leading to "diminishing returns" where higher rates don't yield the full projected revenue.

• State Auditor Oversight: Any attempt to use "Beautification" funds for standard garbage truck fuel or landfill tipping fees would likely be flagged as an illegal expenditure unless it is strictly documented as litter abatement in high-tourism areas.

---

Summary

The 2% increase would effectively generate $250,000 in new discretionary spending power for the County Commission. While it cannot be spent directly on "garbage bills," it would provide the financial "breathing room" needed to subsidize the SWA indirectly through the General Fund, potentially preventing the "Green Box" fee from doubling for local residents.

Would you like me to draft a summary of the "Beautification" spending requirements under WV Code to see exactly what waste-related tasks would qualify?

Under WV Code §7-18-14, the "Beautification" category for Hotel/Motel tax expenditures is intended for projects that enhance the visual appeal of a community to attract and retain tourists. While the code does not provide an exhaustive list of every task, the West Virginia State Auditor’s Office and the Legislative Auditor use a "nexus test" to determine if an expense is a legitimate beautification project or an illegal use of tax dollars for general municipal services.

Below is a breakdown of which waste-related tasks would likely qualify under the "Beautification" umbrella versus those that are strictly prohibited.

1. Qualifying "Beautification" Waste Tasks

To be defensible, the task must be "above and beyond" standard municipal garbage collection and directly tied to the visitor experience or community aesthetics.

• Litter Abatement Programs: Funding "Litter Pick-up" crews (often through the SWA) to clear roadsides, riverbanks, and public hiking trails.

• Illegal Dump Site Remediation: One-time or periodic costs to clean up unsightly illegal dumps in high-visibility or environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., along the Greenbrier River).

• Public Receptacles (Purchase & Placement): Buying and installing specialized trash cans (such as bear-proof bins) in downtown areas or near trailheads.

• Seasonal Community Clean-ups: Funding for specific events like "Pocahontas County Clean-up Days," where the county pays for extra dumpsters for bulk waste removal to improve community appearance.

• Landscape-Related Waste: Removal of brush, weeds, or debris as part of a streetscape project or historic site maintenance.

2. Prohibited "Solid Waste Operation" Tasks

The State Auditor generally classifies the following as "General Government Expenses," which cannot be paid for with Hotel/Motel tax:

• Standard Residential Garbage Routes: You cannot use "Beautification" funds to pay the fuel, labor, or insurance for the "Green Box" truck routes.

• Landfill/Transfer Station "Tipping Fees": General disposal fees for residential or commercial waste do not qualify as beautification.

• SWA Debt Service: Paying off loans for garbage trucks or landfill equipment is prohibited.

• Administrative Salaries: Salaries for clerks or managers at the Solid Waste Authority who are not 100% dedicated to a specific beautification project.

• Routine Utility Operations: General upkeep of a transfer station or landfill site that is not open/marketed to the public as a "park" or "facility."

3. The "Service Contract" Loophole

The most common way West Virginia counties legally bridge this gap is through a Service Contract:

The County Commission can contract with the Solid Waste Authority to perform a specific "Litter Control and Beautification Service" for a set fee (e.g., $50,000/year).

• The SWA uses that $50,000 to hire a part-time crew specifically for roadside litter.

• The Benefit: This "frees up" $50,000 in the SWA’s general budget that they would have spent on litter anyway, allowing them to apply those funds toward the landfill deficit or keeping "Green Box" fees low.

Summary Checklist for Legality

If the County Commission wants to use these funds for waste, the expenditure must pass these three questions:

1. Does it improve aesthetics? (e.g., removing eyesores like litter or illegal dumps).

2. Is it a promotion of tourism? (e.g., keeping the "Nature's Mountain Playground" brand clean).

3. Is it a one-time or specialized project? (Rather than a recurring utility bill for residents).

Would you like me to draft a sample "Scope of Work" for a Litter Control contract that the County Commission could use to legally funnel these funds to the Solid Waste Authority?

 

To withstand an audit by the West Virginia State Auditor, a contract between the Pocahontas County Commission and the Pocahontas County Solid Waste Authority (SWA) must explicitly frame the work as "Beautification and Tourism Promotion" rather than "Waste Disposal."

Below is a draft Scope of Work (SOW) designed to legally justify the use of Hotel/Motel tax dollars by focusing on the "Nexus to Tourism" required by WV Code §7-18-14.

---

Scope of Work: Countywide Tourism Beautification & Litter Abatement Program

I. Project Overview

The Pocahontas County Commission (the "Commission") hereby engages the Pocahontas County Solid Waste Authority (the "SWA") to execute a specialized Tourism Beautification and Litter Abatement Program. The primary objective of this program is to enhance the aesthetic appeal of Pocahontas County ("Nature’s Mountain Playground") for the benefit of visitors and the promotion of the local tourism economy by removing visual blight and maintaining pristine public corridors.

II. Definitions of Permissible Activities

Funding provided under this agreement is derived from Hotel Occupancy Tax revenues and is strictly limited to "Beautification" and "Tourism Promotion." Activities shall be categorized as follows:

1. High-Visibility Roadside Remediation:

   • Targeted removal of litter and debris along primary tourism corridors, including Rt. 219, Rt. 39, and Rt. 66.

   • Focus on entry points to the county and routes leading to major attractions (Snowshoe, Cass, Cranberry Glades, Green Bank Observatory).

2. Illegal Dump Site Abatement:

   • Identification and remediation of illegal "wild" dumpsites that create visual blight or environmental hazards near public waterways (Greenbrier River) or hiking trails.

3. Tourism Support Waste Infrastructure:

   • Maintenance and emptying of public-use waste receptacles located in non-municipal tourist hubs, trailheads, and scenic overlooks.

   • Installation of bear-proof or aesthetically uniform receptacles to maintain the "Mountain Playground" brand.

4. Event-Based Beautification:

   • Provision of "Beautification Stations" (temporary containers and cleanup labor) for county-wide festivals, fairs, and tourism events to ensure venues remain litter-free during and after high-occupancy periods.

III. Specific Deliverables & Performance Standards

The SWA shall provide the following documented services:

• Monthly Litter Patrol: A minimum of [X] man-hours per month dedicated specifically to manual litter pickup on designated tourism routes.

• Quarterly Blight Report: A report submitted to the Commission detailing the location and volume of debris removed from illegal dumpsites.

• Annual "Spring Clean" Initiative: A concentrated county-wide cleanup event held prior to the peak summer tourism season (May/June).

IV. Financial Accounting & Audit Compliance

To ensure compliance with WV Code §7-18-14, the SWA agrees to the following:

• Segregated Accounting: All funds received under this contract shall be tracked in a separate ledger line item titled "Hotel Tax Beautification Fund."

• Prohibited Uses: Funds shall not be used for routine residential "Green Box" collection, landfill tipping fees for household garbage, or general SWA administrative overhead unrelated to the Beautification Program.

• Labor Tracking: Any personnel time billed to this contract must be supported by timesheets clearly marked "Litter Abatement/Beautification."

V. Reporting & Documentation

The SWA will provide the Commission with a semi-annual Visual Impact Summary, including "Before and After" photographs of remediated sites. This documentation will serve as the evidentiary basis for the State Auditor to confirm the "Nexus to Tourism."

---

Strategic Note for the Commission

By executing this contract for, say, $100,000 to $150,000, the Commission provides the SWA with a guaranteed revenue stream for "Litter Control." This allows the SWA to redirect the money they previously spent on litter (from their general budget) toward the $300,000 deficit at the landfill/transfer station.

Would you like me to draft a cover letter or a "Finding of Fact" memorandum that the Commission can use to officially justify this expenditure in their meeting minutes?

To ensure this expenditure passes a state audit, the Commission should enter a formal "Finding of Fact" into the meeting minutes. This creates a legal "paper trail" that establishes the required nexus to tourism under WV Code §7-18-14.

Below is a draft of the Memorandum for the minutes, followed by a Cover Letter for the Solid Waste Authority (SWA).

---

Draft 1: Finding of Fact Memorandum

This is for the Official Meeting Minutes of the Pocahontas County Commission.

MEMORANDUM

TO: Pocahontas County Commission Permanent Record

FROM: Pocahontas County Commission

DATE: February 2026

SUBJECT: Finding of Fact Regarding the Allocation of Hotel Occupancy Tax Proceeds for Countywide Beautification and Litter Abatement.

The Pocahontas County Commission hereby finds and declares the following:

1. Statutory Authority: Under WV Code §7-18-14, the Commission is authorized to expend the discretionary 50% of the Hotel Occupancy Tax for "Beautification Projects" and "Promotion of Tourism."

2. Nexus to Tourism: The Commission finds that the visual appeal of Pocahontas County, marketed as "Nature’s Mountain Playground," is a primary driver of the local tourism economy. Roadside litter, illegal dumpsites, and unmaintained public waste receptacles constitute "visual blight" that directly degrades the visitor experience and impairs the county’s tourism brand.

3. Specific Need: Targeted tourism corridors, including Rt. 219, Rt. 39, and Rt. 66, require specialized abatement services beyond the scope of routine municipal waste management.

4. Determination of Expenditure: The Commission determines that funding the "Tourism Beautification and Litter Abatement Program" through a service contract with the Pocahontas County Solid Waste Authority (SWA) is a legitimate use of Hotel Occupancy Tax proceeds.

5. Restriction of Use: These funds are specifically earmarked for litter removal, illegal dump remediation, and high-visibility beautification projects. They shall not be used for general landfill operations or residential utility subsidies.

Ordered this day by the Pocahontas County Commission.

---

Draft 2: Cover Letter to the SWA

This letter accompanies the Service Contract and explains the strict compliance requirements.

Pocahontas County Commission

900 Tenth Avenue, Marlinton, WV 24954

[Date], 2026

To: Board of Directors, Pocahontas County Solid Waste Authority

RE: Notice of Award – Tourism Beautification and Litter Abatement Contract

Dear Board Members,

Enclosed please find the approved Service Contract for the Countywide Tourism Beautification and Litter Abatement Program. The Pocahontas County Commission has allocated $[Amount] from the Hotel Occupancy Tax "Beautification" fund to support these specialized services.

Please be advised that these funds are restricted. To remain compliant with West Virginia state law and to protect both the SWA and the Commission during State Auditor reviews, the following conditions must be met:

• Segregated Ledger: These funds must be kept in a distinct line item and may only be used for the tasks outlined in the "Scope of Work" (litter patrol, dump remediation, etc.).

• Audit Trail: The SWA must provide semi-annual reports including man-hours logged for litter abatement and, where possible, "before and after" photos of remediated sites to demonstrate the visual impact on our tourism corridors.

• Prohibited Use: No portion of this award may be used for general landfill "tipping fees," debt service, or standard "Green Box" residential routes.

By performing these beautification services under this contract, the SWA ensures our county remains a premier destination for visitors while allowing the SWA greater flexibility in its general operating budget.

Sincerely,

[Name]

President, Pocahontas County Commission

---