House Transportation committee drafts budget letter seeking $3 million to develop mileage-based user fee

A House Transportation Committee meeting on Wednesday, Feb. 26, agreed by straw poll to send a letter to the House Appropriations Committee requesting a one-time $3,000,000 general fund appropriation to develop a mileage-based user fee (MBUF). The committee recorded a 9-0-2 straw poll in favor of sending the letter as drafted (Version 3).

Why it matters: Committee members said the appropriation would fund start-up development for a MBUF that, upon implementation, the committee projects “is projected to generate an excess of $5,000,000 in annual revenues with that amount growing as the number of BEVs increases.” The committee described the request as a transition move intended to reduce reliance on general fund dollars for long-term transportation funding.

At the meeting, an unidentified committee member read the draft language of the letter and proposed wording changes to clarify the request. “The committee requests that the budget include a onetime $3,000,000 appropriation from the general fund to allow the agency to move forward with developing the MBUF. Upon implementation, the MBUF is projected to generate an excess of $5,000,000 in annual revenues with that amount growing as the number of BEVs increases,” the committee member said.

Members discussed whether to label the request a loan or an appropriation and concluded that a onetime appropriation was the simpler, more appropriate structure for the short letter. One committee member said repaying start-up funds as a loan is possible but “it’s a more complicated piece” and beyond what the committee wanted to include in the brief budget letter.

The committee also revised a passage about reallocating sales-and-use tax revenue toward the transportation fund. Committee members agreed to remove explicit language committing to a specific timeline (previously three years) and to instead say the sales-and-use revenue would be “gradually reallocated to the transportation fund over a period to ensure a more sustainable transition,” while keeping the door open to exploring multiple options.

Several members raised process questions about recording formal votes versus straw polls. Staff reported past letters have sometimes included committee vote counts; the committee decided to record this action as a straw poll. The clerk recorded the straw poll as 9 yes, 0 no, 2 abstentions/absences.

Next steps: Committee staff will finalize the clean copy of the letter (Version 3) and deliver it to the House Appropriations Committee; members indicated staff would email the final text to the committee’s House members. The straw poll does not constitute a binding appropriation or final legislative action.

Votes at a glance: Straw poll on sending the letter as drafted (Version 3) to the House Appropriations Committee — recorded as 9 yes, 0 no, 2 abstain/absent (nonbinding).

Notes: The meeting transcript shows discussion of terminology for electric-vehicle categories (members referenced BEVs and a variant abbreviation) and uncertainty about external grant funding; members said if a federal grant covered part of start-up costs, any excess state appropriation could be reallocated in a subsequent budget action.