Citizen Portal
Sign In

Opponent warns road‑usage charge would be politically unpopular; committee hears pushback on mileage-based proposal

2112248 · January 14, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Tim Eyman testified against a proposed road‑usage or mileage charge, warning that voters strongly oppose mileage-based fees and that previous sessions have repeatedly raised taxes, creating public fatigue with new revenue proposals

Tim Eyman testified in opposition to a proposed road‑usage charge (described in testimony as a “pay‑per‑mile” or “mileage tax”) during the public hearing on SB 5161. He told the committee that such a measure would provoke widespread voter opposition, comparing it unfavorably to other vehicle‑related fees such as vehicle tabs.

Eyman argued voters have endured multiple tax increases across recent sessions and that labeling a road‑usage charge as an alternative to the gas tax risks being a “bait and switch” if it is layered on top of existing taxes. Senator Fortunato interjected later to note that the proposal discussed is technically termed a road‑usage charge by proponents and not a mileage tax; Eyman and Fortunato exchanged remarks about terminology and public perception.

Eyman’s remarks were entered into the hearing record; no committee action on road‑usage charges occurred during the session.