Omnibus HB 2017 REVISED Amendments List (11/14/17)

Transcription

1 Omnibus HB 2017 REVISED Amendments List (11/14/17) Section 2(3) Fiduciary Responsibilities: (requested by Oregon Department of Transportation) Section 2(3) indicates that an Oregon Transportation Commissioner shall not have any direct or indirect financial or fiduciary interest related to the commission s duties. Given the broad definitions that could be applied to this, it would be difficult to find commission members who would not have a fiduciary interest. Recommendation: Remove indirect and fiduciary from the statute and focus in on the more standard direct financial conflicts in Oregon ethics law. Section 6 Long-Range Plans: (recommendation by Oregon Department of Transportation) Section 6 requires ODOT to develop and maintain long range plans for modes of transportation that are not within the purview of the agency, including aviation and ports. State gas tax dollars and federal highway funds cannot be used for these non highway modes. We have no sources of funds to pay for an aviation plan or the ports plan. The amendment requires modal plans to include a fiscally-constrained list of projects needed to maintain and develop infrastructure for at least 20 years. Because transportation revenue and needs are difficult to foresee this far into the future, creating a 20 year project list will require additional planning resources without adding significant value. Recommendation: Identify a revenue source in order to complete the nonhighway mode plans. Remove the requirement that the modal plans include a 20- year fiscally-constrained project list, but require that each modal plan include a strategic investment plan to inform project selection in the STIP. Note: This is a suggested policy change 1 P age HB 2017 Proposed Amendment List 11/14/17

2 Section 10 Continuous Improvement Advisory Committee: The section directs OTC to appoint a Continuous Improvement Advisory Committee, comprised of ODOT employees and transportation stakeholders. The concept is based on a similarly named committee statutorily designated to advise the Colorado Transportation Commission. The concern is that there are no sideboards on what groups are to comprise transportation stakeholders to ensure balanced perspectives. NOTE: This is a request for clarification of existing bill language Section 11(4) and 12(2)(b) City Reporting on Transportation Infrastructure: (requested by Craig Honeyman, League of Oregon Cities) The League of Oregon Cities suggests that the current requirement in Section12(2)(b), that information from the reports from all cities and counties in the state be made available on a website developed by OTC through ODOT, is inconsistent with provisions in ORS , which specifies that cities report annually on the expenditures of transportation funds, but which exempts cities with fewer than 5,000 residents. Section 11(4) specifies that, notwithstanding ORS to , any city or county failing to file a report to OTC for this project may not receive any payments from the State Highway Fund until the report is filed. Recommendation The League of Oregon Cities recommends removing the requirement in Section 12(2)(b) and Section 11(4) that cities under 5,000 population comply with the reporting requirement, in order to maintain consistency with ORS Section 14 and 80 Proximity to Aggregate Sites: (recommendation by Oregon Department of Transportation) Section 14 and Section 80 add criteria to project selection for both the STIP and Connect Oregon projects specific to a project being located near an aggregate mining or processing location. The language does not specify whether projects 2 P age HB 2017 Proposed Amendment List 11/14/17

3 located near an aggregate mining or processing operation located on exclusive farm use land should be ranked higher or lower if they are in this vicinity. Recommendation: ODOT recommends removing the considerations language related to the proximity to aggregate sites on exclusive farm use land in both sections 14 and 80. At the time projects are selected for funding, the aggregate source has not yet been identified and having this as a consideration is not appropriate. In addition, for highway construction projects the agency does not require aggregate be mined from specific sites. Although ODOT does sometimes offer an aggregate source at the time a project goes to bid, a contractor may choose to use a different source. For Connect Oregon projects, fund recipients (and not ODOT) are typically contracting for the construction activities, and ODOT would not have information about aggregate sources for potential projects. Section 20(2) Cross References for ODOT Director Appointment: (requested by Legislative Counsel) With OTC now appointing the ODOT Director, two statutory crossreferences must be changed: ORS and ORS both reference appointments made by the Governor, and will now need to reference either appointments in general that are subject to Senate confirmation, or else should reference appointments by the Governor or OTC. NOTE: This is a technical fix amendment Section 32 and 33 Incorrect References: (requested by Oregon Department of Transportation) The current cross-references to ORS is referenced incorrectly and should read ORS (9)(a), which refers to electric and hybrid vehicles, rather than ORS (6)(a), which does not exist. Recommendation: Change reference from ORS (6)(a) to ORS (9)(a). NOTE: This is a technical fix amendment 3 P age HB 2017 Proposed Amendment List 11/14/17

4 Section 34 Registration Fee Increases: Section 34 increases registration fees for classes of vehicles other than autos, pickups, vans, SUVs, etc. Increases include the fee for antique vehicles from $54 to $100 and special interest vehicles from $81 to $100. The increases keep these fees in proportion to the surcharges. A concern has been raised that these fee increases had not been discussed and that they seem overly high, warranting review. NOTE: This is an issue flagged for review, no change suggested Section 34(10), 34(14) and 35(10) Applicable Vehicles for Registration Fees: (requested by Oregon Department of Transportation) Government vehicles were inadvertently left off of these lists of applicable vehicles subject to the fees on a different registration renewal cycle. Recommendation: Add vehicle classification. NOTE: This is a technical fix amendment Section 39k Proceeds from Specialty Plate Sales: (requested by Gerik Kransky on behalf of The Street Trust) ORS covers the disposition of the proceeds from specialty plate sales. ORS (6)(b) references the Bicycle Transportation Alliance and Cycle Oregon the Bicycle Transportation Alliance has changed its name to The Street Trust, and so the reference to BTA in the subsection should instead be a reference to The Street Trust Community Fund. NOTE: This is a technical fix amendment Section 45 Conditional Fuel Tax Increases: Increases go into effect on January 2020, January 2022 and January 2024 are conditioned upon OTC certifying that, among other things, all jurisdictions that would receive fuel tax revenues from the increase are in compliance with the least cost contracting requirements in ORS 279C P age HB 2017 Proposed Amendment List 11/14/17

5 Public Contracting/Least Cost Contracting: A concern was raised that subsections (2)(a)(G) and 3(a)(G) create a situation where one jurisdiction in a dispute over compliance with ORS 279C.305 can derail the anticipated increase in fuel taxes. Shovel Ready : Another required OTC report ls a list of shovel ready projects that would use the revenue raised by the conditional increase in gas tax; however, the term shovel ready is not defined. OAR uses a similar phrase, ready for construction when it implemented the 2003 Oregon Transportation Investment Act; in that case, the term meant that priority is to be given to modernization projects that, as of the effective date of the rule, have completed plans, specifications and cost estimates, and (in cases where federal funds are likely in any aspect of the project) have been approved for construction by FHWA. A similar definition could be adopted for HB Availability of Revenue to Bond: In general, tax increase that require no additional government approvals can be considered for bonding. The conditions or triggers in Section 45 add restrictions and complexity that may translate into higher cost of funds. (recommendations by Oregon Department of Transportation) Section 46 increases the fuels tax by six cents spread out over six years (two cents in 2020, two cents 2022, two cents in 2024). The increases are tied to the Commission submitting a report to the legislature certifying that the commission met specific accountability criteria. The reporting criteria change from year to year, but include the following: The accountability criteria include ensuring the Continuous Improvement Advisory Committee completes specific work and all of the committee s recommendations are implemented, the provisions of Section 11 are met and bodies receiving fuel tax revenue are in compliance with least cost policies for public improvements in ORS 279C.305. In addition, Section 45 (2)(a)(B) requires that for the 2-cent gas tax increase to go into effect in 2022, the recommendations for improvement reported by the Continuous Improvement Advisory Committee to the commission at least six months prior to the date of the report required under this paragraph have been implemented. Most recommendations of the CIAC will take longer than six months to implement, particularly those requiring statutory changes or legislative approval. 5 P age HB 2017 Proposed Amendment List 11/14/17

6 Additionally, the commission must provide a list of projects and bonding needs to complete the projects on the list as well as the construction and financial status of uncompleted in-progress projects exceeding $50 million. In addition to those elements, for the first biennium s report in December 2020, the report must include the status of the Treasure Valley Intermodal Facility, the Value Pricing set-up, the I-205 widening and Abernethy Bridge projects and the OR 217 projects. The commission does not have any authority or administrative mechanism to comply with certain requirements in the section. For example, Section 45 requires that the commission confirm that local agencies are following the standards developed under Section 11 for rating pavement and bridge conditions. If this requirement is not met the fuels tax increases will not be realized. The commission has no control over this action. In addition, only tax increases that require no additional government approvals can be considered for bonding. The more restrictions, the more complex the security which generally translates to higher cost of funds. Recommendation: Removing language specific to conditions that are outside the authority of the Commission and modify 6-month requirement. NOTE: These are suggested policy changes Section 52 Road Use Assessment: The final increase in the Road Use Assessment Fee (encapsulated in amendments to ORS by Section 52) set the rate at $0.118 per mile on January 1, It was suggested that the rate is too high and should be adjusted down to remain in sync with other heavy vehicle taxes and fees. Sections 54 through 58 Trucking-Related Fee Increases: (requested by Bob Russell on behalf of OTA) Repeal the trucking related fee increases in Sections 54 through 58 of the bill. OTA requested that the industry s cost responsible share of the tax increases in HB 2017A be levied through increases in the weight mile tax rates. OTA believes that the final version of the bill mistakenly included the fee increases 6 P age HB 2017 Proposed Amendment List 11/14/17

7 found in Sections 54 through 58, and that the fee increases effective on 1/1/18 are less than $300,000 per year according to ODOT, a relatively minor amount of revenue that is not necessary to balance the books for cost responsibility. to the bill as enacted Section 71a/71b Allocation of Funds: (recommendation by Oregon Department of Transportation) Section 71a provides distribution for increases in fuel taxes, registration fees, and weight mile taxes. It specifies that prior to distribution, $10 million each year is dedicated to Safe Routes to School, the state shall set aside $10 million for safety and then be used as follows: 40% for bridges, 30% for seismic improvements, 24% on pavements, culverts, and 6% for maintenance. Recommendation: Change the percentages allocated to bridges, seismic, pavements and culverts and maintenance in subsection (3)(c) to align with the commission s adopted investment strategy as follows: 40% Bridges & Seismic Improvements 40% Pavement Preservation and Culverts 20% Highway Maintenance/Operations/Safety Section 71d(1) Funding Identified Transportation Projects: (recommendation by Legislative Counsel) Legislative Counsel suggests that this subsection should include clarifying language at the beginning of the sentence, inserting, On and after January 1, 2020,. NOTE: This is a technical fix amendment 7 P age HB 2017 Proposed Amendment List 11/14/17

8 Section 71d(2)(d)(B) Correcting Spelling on Name on Project List: (requested by Oregon Department of Transportation) There is a typo in the project name. Terrabonne should be replaced with Terrebonne. NOTE: This is a technical fix amendment Section 71f Multimodal Projects: The multimodal projects designated in Section 71 are outside of the Connect Oregon process (notwithstanding ORS to ). Because they do not go through the selection process, no match is required. Section 71f directs ODOT to distribute money to these projects, but does not indicate the order in which the projects are to be funded in the event that more than one is ready to move forward and there are not sufficient funds to move all forward. Subsection (3) indicates that the priorities expire January 1, NOTE: This was a request for clarification, no change required Section 71L Quarterly Reports: (requested by Oregon Department of Transportation) Section 71L requires quarterly report to the Legislative Assembly on an estimated amount of revenue received as a result of the increases in taxes and fees, and information about expenditures and distributions. The department has been reporting quarterly to the Legislative Assembly on the Jobs and Transportation Act revenue received and projected since We do not believe these reports have provided significant value to the legislature. Recommendation: Change the existing JTA reporting requirements and the new revenue requirement to semi-annually to align with the agency s revenue forecast. We also recommend eliminating the reporting requirements around expenditures and distribution as they are duplicative. Create a new report that demonstrates how the department is meeting the percentage allocation requirements in Section 71a(4). 8 P age HB 2017 Proposed Amendment List 11/14/17

9 Section 73(2)(b) Small County Allocation: (requested by Mike Eliason on behalf of AOC) The formula provided by the Association of Oregon Counties to Legislative Counsel has reversed the numerator and denominator. As a result, the statute will actually over-weight larger counties at the expense of smaller counties. Recommendation: Replace the phrase based on a ratio of registered vehicles to road miles maintained by each county with the phrase based on a ratio of road miles maintained by each county to registered vehicles. NOTE: This is a technical fix amendment Section 80(14) Requirements for Consideration of Aviation Projects: (requested by Oregon Department of Aviation) Section 80(14) specifies that for a proposed aviation transportation project to receive funding under Connect Oregon Part Two, it must benefit a category I, II, III or IV airport, as defined by ODA by rule and must be eligible for federal matching funds. The subsection also specifies that the Commission shall consider whether the proposed project facilitates rescue or recovery efforts following a seismic event, serves joint military and civilian operations, or facilitates expanded commercial service. The Department of Aviation requested clarification that the reference to Commission was to the OTC, and also requested clarification whether the State Aviation Board is to consider the same criteria when making recommendation to OTC. NOTE: This was flagged for review but likely does not require action Section 84(1) Parks Subaccount Transfer: (requested by Oregon Parks & Recreation Department) Section 84(1) and (2) provide that ODOT may request reimbursement of up to $4 million from the Parks Subaccount for grants made for qualifying bicycle and pedestrian projects under Connect Oregon. Once OPRD confirms that such a grant is consistent with Article XV, Section 4/4a of the Oregon Constitution, the measure directs OPRD to make the reimbursement within five days of the request. 9 P age HB 2017 Proposed Amendment List 11/14/17

10 OPRD suggests that the measure s language clarify that the allocation be made within the 12 percent of lottery funding dedicated to local outdoor recreation improvement projects in cooperation with the Department of Transportation to align with Connect Oregon goals. OPRD also suggests that a sunset date be added to repeal Section 84 on January 3, Section 85 Report on ConnectOregon Streamlining Process: (recommended by Legislative Counsel) Section 85 requires ODOT to report to the Joint Committee on Transportation by September 15, 2017, on its efforts to streamline the Connect Oregon application process. However, the JCT was not created until weeks after the required reporting date. ODOT is expected to submit the report by the end of The Office of Legislative Counsel will adjust the date by which the report is required so as to align the date the report was actually submitted with the date in statute. NOTE: This is a technical fix amendment Section 89(5) and 89(6)(G) Definitions of Bicycle and Taxable Bicycle : (requested by Oregon Department of Revenue) Section 89 (5) requires a taxable bicycle to have wheels that measure at least 26 inches in diameter. Industry representatives advise there are many different wheel sizes commonly referred to as 26 inch wheels, but they don t actually measure 26 inches. Sometimes the wheels measure smaller than a wheel size associated with a kids bicycle. Recommendation: specify the European measurement for wheel size or remove wheel size altogether and rely solely on retail sales price threshold. Section 89 (6)(g) places electric assisted bicycles in the taxable motor vehicle category. Electric assisted bicycles are most commonly sold at bicycle retailers. Only motor vehicles sold by a vehicle dealer are subject to the vehicle 10 P age HB 2017 Proposed Amendment List 11/14/17

11 privilege tax or vehicle use tax. Electric assisted bicycles will almost never be subject to tax under the current definitions. Recommendation: Remove electric assisted bicycle from definition of taxable motor vehicle. Modify definition of bicycle to include electric assisted bicycle. This will make electric assisted bicycles subject to the bicycle excise tax. Section 89(2) Definition of New Vehicle for Privilege Tax: (requested by Oregon Department of Revenue) Section 89 (2) ties definition of new motor vehicle to ORS (8)(c), which defines a new motor vehicle as one with 7,500 miles or less on the odometer when the vehicle is initially registered in Oregon. HB 2017 includes trailers in the definition of taxable motor vehicles that are new motor vehicles, however trailers do not have an odometer. So what makes a trailer new? Simply relying on initial registration in Oregon would make any trailer subject to vehicle privilege or vehicle use tax, even if 20 years old. Recommendation: define new trailer separate from new motor vehicle. NOTE: Committee needs to review and discuss exactly which vehicles are to be considered subject to the privilege tax and which are not, and the revenue implications must be calculated for changes in applicability. Section 89(3) Definition of Retail Sales Price for Privilege Tax: (recommended by Oregon Department of Revenue) The definition of retail sales price does not include a reduction for tradein value given. Most states with a sales tax that applies to new and used vehicles explicitly provide a reduction to the amount which the tax is calculated for the value given for trade-in. Presumably, this is due to the sales tax that will be due at time the trade-in vehicle is sold. In Oregon s case of a tax applying only to new vehicles, it may be deemed inequitable to provide a reduction for trade-in value but not for cash, as they both are consideration rendered for the purchase of a new vehicle. Does the legislature wish to allow a reduction in the amount which vehicle privilege and vehicle use tax are calculated, for trade-in value? NOTE: Clarification is needed regarding whether rebates (from any 11 P age HB 2017 Proposed Amendment List 11/14/17

12 source) or trade-in value is to be deducted from retail sales price prior to calculating privilege tax, and the revenue implications must be calculated for changes in both policies. Section 89(9) Definition of Vehicle Dealer for Privilege Tax: (requested by Oregon Department of Revenue) Section 89 (9)(a) defines vehicle dealer as an Oregon DMV licensed vehicle dealer. Persons that are unlawfully selling taxable motor vehicles without a license (when license is required) would not be subject to the vehicle privilege tax. Recommendation: Modify definition of vehicle dealer to include persons engaged in business in this state and are subject to ORS NOTE: This is possibly a technical fix amendment Section 90 and 91 Application of Privilege Tax to Leased Vehicles: (requested by Oregon Department of Revenue) Sections 90 and 91 don t explicitly address how the vehicle privilege and use taxes apply to lease transactions. The dealer facilitates the lease transaction between the lessee and lessor and invoices the lessor for the purchase of the vehicle. The lessee makes payments to the lessor for the term of the lease. Because the vehicle is purchased by the lessor from the dealer and HB 2017 does not provide for an alternative tax applicability to lease transactions, DOR will apply the tax to the sale transaction between the dealer and the lessor. Does the legislature want to treat lease transactions differently than traditional sales transactions, or continue to apply the tax to the sale between dealer and lessor? NOTE: Clarification is needed regarding whether all lease arrangements, under current law, would be subject to the privilege tax (if entities not subject to the privilege tax are the leasing entities), as well as how leases through licensed dealers work if based on wholesale vehicle price, as opposed to retail sales price. 12 P age HB 2017 Proposed Amendment List 11/14/17

13 Section 92(5) Imposition of Excise Tax on Bicycle Sales: (recommended by Legislative Counsel) Clarification may be needed regarding the phrase valid receipt given to the purchaser by the seller of the taxable bicycle to clarify what constitutes valid receipt. NOTE: This is possibly a technical fix amendment Section 94 Exemptions from Vehicle Privilege Tax: (recommended by Oregon Department of Revenue) Section 94 provides exemptions from the vehicle privilege, vehicle use, and bicycle excise taxes. However, there is no exemption for sales to governmental entities such as the state, counties, cities, school districts, etc. Also, the state is prohibited from taxing the federal government under the Supremacy Clause, but the privilege tax will still apply to Oregon dealer sales to a federal agency as the tax is a privilege tax on the dealer. Federal agencies are exempt from the vehicle use tax and bicycle excise tax as those taxes are payable by the purchaser. Does the legislature wish to exempt sales to governmental entities from vehicle privilege, vehicle use, and bicycle excise taxes? NOTE: This is a request for clarification that may include policy changes Section 100 Syncing Due Date for Remitting Use and Excise Tax: (requested by Oregon Department of Revenue) Section 100 makes the consumer paid vehicle use tax and bicycle excise tax due and payable on by the 20 th of the month following date of purchase. For vehicle use tax, this due date does not align with DMV s due date for title and registration application, which is 30 days from date of purchase. Recommendation: Because many consumers will first learn of the vehicle use tax while attempting to title and register the vehicle at DMV, DOR recommends modifying the due date for consumer vehicle use tax to 30 days following date of purchase. DOR has no preference or concern with the consumer bicycle excise tax due date specified in Section 100. NOTE: This is possibly a technical fix amendment 13 P age HB 2017 Proposed Amendment List 11/14/17

14 Section 111(2)(b) Local Government Tax Moratorium: (recommended by Legislative Counsel) The subsection referencing taxes to which the local government tax moratorium applies should be clarified, most specifically by removing the word other. NOTE: This is a technical fix amendment Section 118/118a Road Usage Charge: (requested by Oregon Department of Transportation) Section 118 and 118a adjusts the per-mile road usage charge (RUC) rate to maintain revenue neutrality with the fuels tax. When the state fuels tax rate changes, ODOT needs a proportional change in statute in order for the RUC rate to stay revenue neutral. Because the fuels tax rates are contingent on meeting the requirements in Section 45, putting a specified rate in statute may not align with the fuels tax rate. Recommendation: Add the formula for this change: Fuels Tax Rate/20 = RUC Rate. NOTE: This is possibly a technical fix amendment Section 118c(3) EV Opt In: (requested by Oregon Department of Transportation) The EV Opt in to OReGO in HB 2017 will not apply after December Clarification is needed to identify that if an EV is already enrolled in the OReGO program at time of vehicle registration renewal or registration renewal notice, they are not charged the enhanced registration fee by DMV and specifies that EVs need to meet all other OReGO requirements. Recommendation: Clarify by identifying that an application approved under this section is not subject to the additional amount of registration fees imposed under sections 32 and P age HB 2017 Proposed Amendment List 11/14/17

15 Section 122L through 122r Name of STIF: There was discussion of possibly choosing a different name for the Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund that better reflects its focus on public transportation. NOTE: This is a previous recommendation for aesthetic purposes Section 122L Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund: (recommendation by Oregon Department of Transportation) Section 122L creates a Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund (STIF) to fund public transit, other than light rail. The department cannot use state highway funds to pay for transit work, and does not have adequate other funds to pay for administration costs. Recommendations: Add language to allow the agency to use 1% of the funds to pay for administrative costs out of the funds collected. (recommendation by Aaron Deas, TriMet) TriMet has indicated that they believe that the language in Section 122L(1) that specifies that moneys from the STIF may not be used for light rail could mean that the agency s plans to use the moneys for reduced fare assistance may be invalidated because those fares could be used to ride light rail. Recommendation: Revise the language to clarify that except the moneys may not be used for light rail capital. Section 122m(1) and 122n(2)(b) STIF Distribution: (requested by Greg Leo and Dwight Brashear, SMART Transit/Wilsonville) A concern was raised that the language in Section 122m(1), which defines public transportation service provider, combined with the language in Section 122n(2)(b), which specifies that Each public transportation service provider that receives funding under this section shall receive at least a share that the amount of the tax paid, as required under section 122a of this 2017 Act, in the area served by the provider bears to the amount of tax paid in the area of the respective 15 P age HB 2017 Proposed Amendment List 11/14/17

16 qualified entity in which the public transportation service provider provides services, results in a mandate that qualified public transportation service providers are guaranteed to receive a fair share of STIF funds. Recommendation: Amend provisions in Section 122n (or elsewhere) to specify that rulemaking for the STIF process specify that public transportation service providers that are direct recipients of FTA formula funds Section 5307 (Urbanized Area Formula Grants) and Section 5311 (Rural Transportation Assistance Program) are qualified providers. These recipients must meet stringent federal requirements and undergo periodic audits known as FTA Triennial Reviews. Section 122n through 122p Oversight of Transit Providers by ODOT: A concern was raised that these sections do not adequately address the oversight of transit providers by ODOT. NOTE: This was a suggestion that may no longer be necessary Section 122o Criteria for Local Transit Advisory Committees: Mass transit districts, transportation districts, counties and tribal governments are required to appoint a local advisory committee to help review and make recommendations about how money from the STIF is to be used in their areas. There could be criteria included in the section for the advisory committee, including size and membership (such as whether there should be a transit user, person with disability, or senior citizen on the advisory committee). NOTE: This is a subject for which clarification might be desired Section 125/126 Rest Area Management: These sections transfer management responsibilities for certain rest areas from ODOT and OPRD to the Oregon Travel Information Council. One affected rest area is Government Camp; under Section 126, ODOT and OPRD are required to maintain ownership of the respective rest areas, except for Government Camp; however, ODOT does not currently own the Government Camp rest area, which is instead owned by the U.S. Forest Service. 16 P age HB 2017 Proposed Amendment List 11/14/17

17 A concern was raised that the contractor that manages the rest area and parking lot does not have a voice in the process and should be consulted. NOTE: This is a subject for which clarification might be desired Section 134 Jurisdictional Transfers: The No. designation was dropped from state highway references in this section and should be amended to read State Highway No. 91, etc., as per the State Highway cross-reference. Section 134 sets out specific direction for jurisdictional transfers in the measure. Section 71d provides funding for some of the transfers, while others are not adequately funded. Neither section provides an ongoing process to ensure that highways, roads and streets are managed by the proper jurisdiction. NOTE: This is a subject for which clarification might be desired Section 147 Severability: (requested by Oregon Department of Transportation) Section 147 specifies that the components of HB 2017 are independent. If any portion of the act is held unconstitutional or referred and repealed, the other components of the act remain in effect. ODOT understands the need for severability in the bill; however, this section poses a problem if components that add new requirements or work for the agency remain, but revenue raising components are repealed. As written, the bill would require the agency to continue all the accountability measures to remain if funding was repealed. Retaining those requirements will require existing resources to be devoted to them, which will further exacerbate the funding shortage for the agency. Recommendations: Clarify expectations of the agency if portions of the bill are repealed. NOTE: This is a subject for which clarification might be desired 17 P age HB 2017 Proposed Amendment List 11/14/17

18 Sections 148 through 150 Make Sections Part of ORS 468 or ORS 468A: (requested by Department of Environmental Quality) Sections relating to the Electric Vehicle rebate programs are not made part of ORS 468 or ORS 468A or otherwise linked to DEQ s statutory authority to develop enforcement mechanisms. This means that the various provisions and requirements in HB 2017 relating to rebate eligibility and use cannot be enforced by DEQ. Recommendation: Clarify that these sections are made part of ORS 468 or ORS 468A, or otherwise ensure that DEQ is authorized to enforce the relevant section of HB NOTE: This is possibly a technical fix amendment Sections 148 and 149 Cap for ZEV and Charge Ahead Rebates: (requested by Department of Environmental Quality) Sections establish conventional or cash on the hood rebates for eligible electric vehicle purchases or leases. The sections limit rebates to be used on qualifying vehicles with a base MSRP of $50,000 or less. There is no similar cap for Charge Ahead Rebates (section 15). At issue is whether it is the intent of the Legislative Assembly for the cap to apply to both conventional and charge ahead rebates? If so, is it necessary or desirable to amend the statute? DEQ believes HB 2017 gives the Environmental Quality Commission authority to further prioritize the use of rebate revenue [see Section 150(3)(A)], including limiting qualifying vehicle based on MSRP. Section 148 Zero-Emission Vehicle and Electric Vehicle Rebates: A 24-month lease of a zero-emission vehicle qualifies for a rebate at the same rate as the purchase of such a vehicle. It was suggested that the Legislative Assembly review these provisions to determine: Whether there should be a smaller rebate for a vehicle lease than for a vehicle purchase; whether the clawback provision is enforceable if the vehicle is not used for 24 months, and; 18 P age HB 2017 Proposed Amendment List 11/14/17

19 what happens if a new vehicle is wrecked before the end of the 24-month period. NOTE: This is a subject for which clarification might be desired Section 150 Charge Ahead Oregon Program: The Charge Ahead Program allows low- and moderate-income Oregonians to qualify for a rebate when they replace a 20-year-old high emission vehicle with a new or used zero-emission or electric vehicle. It was suggested that the Legislative Assembly review these provisions to determine: whether the term high-emission passenger motor vehicle includes pickups or crew-cab pickups that are often used as passenger vehicles, as well as SUVs and panel vans; what it means to voluntarily retire or scrap or scrap or otherwise render inoperable a high-emission passenger motor vehicle; whether the program is sufficiently tight to prevent it being gamed ; whether the clawback provision is enforceable if the vehicle is not used for 24 months; and what happens if the replacement vehicle is wrecked before the end of the 24-month period. NOTE: This is a subject for which clarification might be desired Section 150 Applicability of Charge Ahead Rebate to Vehicle Leases: (requested by Department of Environmental Quality) The definition for Charge Ahead Rebate (Section 150) is limited to the purchase of new and used Electric Vehicles. While the definition does not mention leases, the rest of the section contemplates the rebates to be used on leases. Our understanding of the legislative intent is that the Charge Ahead rebate be available for purchases and leases. Recommendation: Clarify in the Charge Ahead Rebate definition that the rebate may be used towards purchases and leases. NOTE: This is a subject for which clarification might be desired 19 P age HB 2017 Proposed Amendment List 11/14/17

20 Section 150 Vehicle Scrapping Requirement: (requested by Department of Environmental Quality) In order for low- and moderate-income households to access the Charge Ahead Rebate they must scrap a vehicle that is at least 20 years old. Stakeholders have asked the agency why this requirement is in place only for low- and moderate-income households and if that requirement will act as a barrier to the Legislative Assembly s intent of incentivizing the transition to electric vehicles. Additionally there is an inconsistent use of terms relating to this requirements. Section 150(2) requires households to voluntarily retire or scrap an older vehicle, section 150(8)(c) requires households to scrap or otherwise render inoperable an older vehicle. Does the committee want to amend Charge Ahead Rebate requirements to remove the scrapping requirement? (requested by Darrell Fuller, Oregon Vehicle Dealers Association) The question was asked whether the term voluntarily scrap or retire highemission passenger motor vehicles in Section 150(2) means that the vehicle must be crushed and that dismantlers or others may not purchase the vehicle and sell any parts, including engine parts, for use in other vehicles. Section 150(1)(c) Definition of High-Emission Passenger Motor Vehicle : (requested by Department of Environmental Quality) Section 150 requires a low- or moderate-income household to scrap to a high emissions passenger vehicle to access the Charge Ahead Rebate. The bill defines high emissions passenger vehicle as a motor vehicle that is a. Designed primarily for the transportation of persons; and b. Powered by an internal combustion engine that is 20 years old or older Was the legislative intent be that a vehicle used or purchased for the primary purpose of transporting people qualify, even if the vehicle was not designed for that purpose? A light-duty pickup truck is a good example of this scenario (ex: Ford F-series, Chevrolet Silverado etc.). This definition is only relevant to the 20 P age HB 2017 Proposed Amendment List 11/14/17

21 scrappage requirement. If that requirement is removed this definition issue is moot. Recommendation: If the legislative intent was that vehicles like pickup trucks, cargo vans or other vehicles used primarily to transport people (despite being designed for another purpose) qualify as a high emissions passenger vehicle then we recommend modifying the definition to read: High-emission passenger motor vehicle means a motor vehicle that is: (A) Designed Used or purchased primarily for the transportation of persons; and (B) Powered by an internal combustion engine that is 20 years old or older. NOTE: This is possibly a technical fix amendment (requested by Darrell Fuller, Oregon Vehicle Dealers Association) The question was raised as to whether the definition of high-emission Passenger motor vehicle includes pick-up trucks and SUVs. NOTE: This is a subject for which clarification might be desired NOTE: The following will be addressed through Ways and Means process: HB 5045 DEQ Other Funds Limitation: (requested by Department of Environmental Quality) The budget report for HB 5045 failed to include Other Fund limitation for DEQ to implement the EV rebate program. DEQ will request limitation through the interim Joint Ways and Means process in advance of the 2018 session. HB 5045 Chapter Law Modifications: (requested by Oregon Department of Transportation) The budget for HB 2017 was approved through HB 5045, which was done independently of the agency budget bill, HB 5045, creating a secondary limitation, instead of putting it into the existing limitations. Recommendations: Move the limitation associated with HB 2017 through HB 5045 into the regular budget. 21 P age HB 2017 Proposed Amendment List 11/14/17

22 22 P age HB 2017 Proposed Amendment List 11/14/17