Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Mileage Based User Fee topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee agrees to remove inadvertent cap language on mileage-based user fee from T bill draft

Conference committee (T bill) · May 26, 2026
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

A conference committee reviewing the T bill agreed to strike an inadvertently included subsection that would have set a maximum annual increase for the mileage-based user fee and to circulate a corrected draft to the committee and public.

At a conference committee meeting reviewing the T bill, committee members directed staff to remove a mistakenly included subsection that would have recommended a maximum annual increase for the mileage-based user fee (MPUF) and to circulate a corrected draft.

The staff member said the underlying draft "had inadvertently left in E here, recommend a maximum amount by which the mileage based user fee rate can increase from year to year," and proposed striking subsection E and removing a new definition of "light duty motor vehicles." The staff member added they could reintroduce a version of subsection E later if the committee wanted to index the MPUF for inflation.

A committee member objected to specifying a cap in the bill text, saying, "I'd rather not have. I'd rather have it this way. Not have. And they can do it without us saying that." Another committee member described the change as part of the pending report and said implementation details could be addressed if and when the report is acted upon: "That will be part of the pending report. And if we go to implement the report, we'll deal with it at that time."

The staff member said they would delete the subsection and "send it to Megan and the committee," and that corrected copies would be emailed and printed for the record. The staff and clerk agreed to leave both the original (with the mistake) and the corrected version available to the public and to print a single signed copy for official use.

The committee discussion emphasized careful drafting and an iterative approach: members noted they expect to refine the approach over future sessions and outreach to consultants and other states. The staff said an updated copy would be emailed to members and sent to the copy room for printing.

The meeting continued with a note that three bills remained on the night's agenda, including a Data Privacy item.

Next steps: staff will circulate the corrected draft to committee members and the copy room will prepare the signed copy; no formal roll-call vote on the edit was recorded in the meeting.