Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mileage Based User Fee topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conference committee reviews six‑month delay, definition differences in mileage‑based user‑fee language
Summary
Senate and House conference members walked through differences in mileage‑based user‑fee (MBUF) provisions, including a six‑month shift in the target start date on the Senate side and different formula language about what the fee is intended to approximate.
Senate Transportation Vice Chair Sen. Becca White and members of a House–Senate conference committee reviewed competing House and Senate language on a mileage‑based user fee Thursday, with senators proposing a six‑month delay to the program’s target start date and different language on how the fee should be calculated.
Damian Leonard of the Office of Legislative Council summarized the differences. “The senate version proposes a start date that is pushed out by 6 months for the mileage based user fee, so a target date of 01/01/1927 instead of 07/01/1926,” Leonard said, reading from the draft side‑by‑side.
Why it matters: the timing and measurement language determine when the state would begin collecting a mileage‑based fee and whether the fee would be based on state collections only or state plus federal fuel tax equivalents. That affects budgeting, compliance planning and outreach timelines.
The committee’s draft contains other substantive contrasts. The House text ties the fee’s target amount to the combined amount collected in state and federal gas taxes from comparable vehicles, while the Senate text describes the fee as being “approximately equivalent to the average amount collected by the state” in fuel tax revenue and EV infrastructure fees. Leonard said the Senate version also describes the MBUF as an “interim step” for eventual expansion to all motor vehicles.
Discussion remained at the level of comparing draft language rather than taking votes. Committee members flagged related reporting requirements in the Senate draft: it directs Agency of Transportation updates on federal funding tied to MBUF planning, and adds reporting from AOT on federal funding status for the program on specific dates. Participants agreed further work would be required to reconcile technical language and timing before final action.
Members present stressed this was a walkthrough and not the final decision. Sen. White opened the meeting and framed it as preliminary; the absent Senate chair, Rich Westman, was noted as not present and the committee did not make final determinations during the session.
Next steps: the conference committee planned additional meetings to resolve timing and definitional differences and to coordinate with appropriation committees on funding impacts.
