Committee reviews broad transportation bill; debates mileage fee, delivery charge and EV provisions

The House Committee on Transportation on March 11 continued work on the committee's transportation omnibus bill (H.426), with legislative counsel and Agency of Transportation staff outlining draft language and committee members debating a proposed mileage-based user fee, a 30-cent retail delivery fee, funding for electric vehicle charging and renter/condominium charging rights.

The committee paused final decisions on several sections and directed staff to rework language and return with clarifications, testimony or statutory text. Damien Leonard, legislative counsel, said the draft would be revised to preserve minimum grant amounts in town-highway programs and to tie those minimums to appropriations so that the base rises with future appropriations: "I had inadvertently removed or, I guess, advertently intentionally removed this language, not fully understanding the structure of the program. That sets a minimum for new grants. I think the consensus we were reaching before this is that we want the minimum to stay in."

Why it matters: H.426 contains a dozen-plus policy and funding changes that would shape how the state prioritizes projects, funds EV charging and assesses new user fees. Several provisions discussed would change planning priorities (adding vehicle-miles-traveled considerations), local authority over speed limits, and the distribution of state support to rural towns.

Committee direction and drafting status

Committee counsel repeatedly said sections would be left open for further work. On smaller program minimums for town-highway class programs, counsel said the base will increase beginning in fiscal year 2027 "by the percentage change in the appropriation," and that he would "massage the language" before returning. The committee did not take formal votes on these drafting directions during the session.

Mileage-based user fee (MBUF)

Members discussed delaying implementation language and whether the bill should require a new report or instead include an "intent" statement to guide future statutory drafting. Committee members asked about funding to develop the program: committee staff said the Appropriations Committee had been asked for $3,000,000 to support MBUF planning and programming, and that about $700,000 in matching funds already existed. The transcript records: "we asked in our letter to the appropriations for $3,000,000 to ... program mileage based user fee," and that the agency "could still go ahead, with 2.2" if money were reallocated. Patrick Murphy, Agency of Transportation staff, told members that statutory language would still be required before any mileage fee collection begins: "Before any mileage gets through, the fee is actually implemented. There would still need to be a statutory language, and that's a part of what will be included in the next draft that you'd see."

Members debated whether the fee calculation should count only state gas tax revenue or both state and federal gas tax revenue; Representative Pouch recommended including both federal and state gas tax receipts when computing equivalency to gas-tax payments: "I would wanna make it federal and state gas tax." Committee counsel said that change would be a drafting edit and could be incorporated in later language.

Retail delivery fee

The draft would create a 30-cent retail delivery fee on transactions subject to the state sales tax, applied per transaction rather than per delivery. Drafting staff tied the fee to existing sales tax collection and said exclusions (for items not subject to sales tax, such as food and clothing) would follow sales-tax law. As the draft reads, the fee is charged once per transaction even if an order ships in multiple boxes. Representative Storm expressed concern about the per-transaction approach and its effect on delivery behavior: "I'm a little troubled with, 30¢ per transaction because I think there are some really good, maybe unintended consequences ... it disincentivizes a company from sending an order ... in 4 different boxes to be delivered at 4 different times with 4 different trucks to 1 house. I'd like ... a per delivery, not per transaction." Committee counsel said the per-transaction design mirrored what other states have done and was chosen for implementation simplicity; the 30-cent figure came from the legislative funding study.

Funding and EV charging provisions

The draft shifts a previously proposed EV special fund approach to a one-time appropriation of $1,400,000 from the Transportation Fund to the Agency of Transportation for distribution to the Agency of Commerce and Community Development to expand access to Level 1 and Level 2 EV supply equipment (EVSE) at workplaces and multiunit dwellings. Counsel noted that whether Level 1 chargers remain eligible will be discussed when the agency testifies; Representative White observed the agency of commerce and community development testimony had been rescheduled.

The bill also includes multiple renter/condo/HOA provisions intended to allow residents to install EV charging equipment, with explicit exceptions. The draft would require landlords, condominium associations and HOAs to grant approvals for installations when parking exists and the requesting resident bears the cost and complies with applicable laws and association rules; the draft does not obligate owners or associations to fund the installations.

Other policy changes discussed

- Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): Sections 8'11 would require the Agency of Transportation to consider reductions in vehicle miles traveled when developing priorities and to incorporate VMT reduction into project selection and design guidance, particularly in downtowns and village centers. Counsel said the objective is to align transportation planning with land-use choices and the Comprehensive Energy Plan.

- Complete Streets and design standards: The draft would expand technical assistance to municipalities for Complete Streets and require replacement state design standards to prioritize VMT reductions and downtown/village-appropriate elements (narrow travel lanes, sidewalks, transit access, etc.).

- National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) review: The agency was directed to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to seek programmatic-agreement changes that would ease permitting for new bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and to report on progress by Nov. 15.

- Local speed limits: The draft would allow municipalities to set local speed limits without an engineering and traffic study in many cases, and would codify authority to set lower speeds within downtown or town center districts.

Rural town aid and other funding distribution

Sections 12'14 were described as proposals to reduce local required shares for rural towns on various state programs ("knocking that local share in half for rural towns" in committee counsel's words). Committee counsel said several sections remain open for additional clarification and for agency testimony.

Committee process and next steps

Committee counsel repeatedly noted the bill is being refined and that agency-supplied language and testimony remain to be incorporated: "Patrick has sent me the language. I just didn't get it in time to include on this draft." Members were told the committee would reconvene to receive agency testimony (scheduled for the following morning) and to finish the remaining pages and sections. Counsel provided a progress count: "If you're keeping score at home ... 8 out of 14 are checked off in my notes." No formal committee votes or final enactments were recorded in the transcript.

Quotes in this article come from the meeting transcript and are attributed to speakers identified in the committee record.

The committee scheduled additional work and agency testimony before finalizing statutory language, rates and funding allocations; more detailed statutory drafts and fiscal impacts are expected before votes are taken.