Committee narrows mileage-based user-fee bill: removes escalator, asks for proration and appeals language, limits enforcement

Lawmakers and staff spent the committee’s markup session on a detailed review of draft 4.1 of the mileage-based user-fee (MBUF) proposal, addressing technical definitions, EV transition credits, interest on unpaid fees, appeal processes and enforcement tools.

Staff member (speaker 2) walked members through the draft’s technical changes: clarified definitions for the mileage reporting period, removed an earlier embedded reference to a 'pay-as-you-go' definition, and explained the commissioner’s role in determining actual miles traveled and making 'true-up' adjustments after mileage reporting periods. Staff said newly registered vehicles could opt into the pay-as-you-go program or be assessed an estimated mileage-based fee (staff cited roughly $154 for a typical pleasure car) and that any overpayments or underpayments would be reconciled at the end of each reporting period.

On the EV transition, staff said owners who paid the existing EV infrastructure fee would receive an $89 credit against their initial mileage-based obligation. Committee members raised fairness concerns for owners who paid the $89 and then began a mileage period shortly after—one member described an 11-month mismatch that could produce an $80 differential. Staff agreed to redraft transition language to allow a monthly proration option and to circulate the revised language.

Committee members also debated unpaid-fee interest and enforcement. Members expressed concern that interest could accumulate for people who move or die; staff noted the draft’s 1.5% per month figure (18% annually) and members favored establishing a stop point. The committee coalesced around capping interest accrual as a practical safeguard (members discussed 12 months as a reasonable cap).

On enforcement, staff reviewed section 4309 options—registration refusal, civil enforcement in superior court, tax liens and private collection. Michelle (speaker 9) of the Agency of Transportation said the agency’s practical enforcement posture is to mark outstanding debt in DMV systems to prevent future registrations rather than pursue costly external collection for small balances: "We're not gonna go out and try and collect these debts at all, but it does, kind of put a marker in the system that will ... catch up with that person at the point in time," she said.

The committee also addressed the proposal to add an inflator (escalator) to the MBUF rate. One member proposed an inflator tied to gas-tax equivalency; others objected to an inflator without a matched gas-tax escalator. A motion by a committee member (speaker 3) to remove the escalator was put to a thumbs-up/thumbs-down poll and the Chair counted seven in favor and three opposed; the council was instructed to remove the escalator language from the draft.

Finally, staff noted the draft lacked an administrative appeal process for assessments; members asked staff to add a simplified internal hearing/notice process (for example, a 15-day notice and review by the commissioner or hearing officer) so filers need not go directly to court to contest assessments.

Votes at a glance: - Motion to remove inflator/escalator from the MBUF draft: approved by thumbs vote (7 yes, 3 no). - Motions to remove heavy civil enforcement subsections (a, b, c): moved and supported in committee discussion; staff will update the draft language.

What’s next: staff will redraft proration language for EV transition credits, add administrative appeal language, and revise enforcement provisions to reflect the committee’s direction before reconvening markup after lunch.