To Raise Fee on EVs/hybrids?
Washoe County Question 1 asks if owners of EVs/hybrids should pay more to register their vehicles to make up for lost gas tax revenue. Here are the For and Against Arguments:
Argument Advocating for Approval of the Question:
Everyone who uses Washoe County’s roads, should contribute equally to their maintenance and creation.
Gasoline-powered vehicle owners help fund our local transportation system every time they purchase gas. Electric vehicles pay no fuel tax, while hybrid vehicles pay less because they use less fuel. Yet all vehicles rely on the same roads, bridges, and transportation systems.
Question 1 asks voters whether they support an annual road use fee for electric and hybrid passenger vehicles. The goal is to create equitability for all drivers and help fund the maintenance of our roads. The fee would be designed to approximate what gasoline-powered vehicle owners already contribute each year through local fuel taxes. It is a fairer approach in which all drivers contribute to the transportation infrastructure they use.
As electric and hybrid vehicles become more common, relying primarily on gasoline consumption to fund transportation becomes less sustainable. Doing nothing does not eliminate the cost of maintaining our roads. It increasingly shifts that responsibility to drivers of gasoline-powered vehicles.
Revenue from the proposed fee would be earmarked to RTC transportation projects that reduce congestion, repair and maintain roads, improve safety, and improve air quality.
Revenue generated would be subject to annual audits and public disclosure of spending, providing accountability for how these transportation dollars are used.
A yes vote supports a simple principle: if you use our roads, you should help pay for them. Vote yes on Question 1.
Rebuttal to the Argument Opposing the Approval of the Question:
Question 1 is not a blank check; it is a fair update to an outdated road funding system. Gasoline-powered vehicles help maintain roads through fuel taxes, while electric vehicles use the same roads but contribute far less through that system. As more drivers switch to electric and hybrid vehicles, Washoe County needs a way to ensure all road users share responsibility.
Opponents unfortunately focus on uncertainty, including their $547 fee and 3.5% deficit guesses, but these numbers aren’t facts. Question 1 is advisory only, and any fee would require action by the Nevada Legislature.
Question 1 does not conflict with climate goals. Supporting lower-emission transportation and fairly funding safe roads can both be priorities.
Revenue would be dedicated to RTC transportation projects, with annual audits and public disclosure of spending.
Voting yes supports a fairer, sustainable funding structure for roads that all residents rely on, regardless of what powers their vehicle.
Argument Opposing the Approval of the Question:
Approve of the EV fee now and find out what it costs later. Its own backers admit the figure is undetermined. Our estimate is $547 per vehicle, rising every year, and that is before the new EV taxes that Congress and the state are considering.
Washoe’s Air Quality Management Division found that the revenue shortfall caused by electric vehicles is “not supported by data.” Ironically, WCQ1 contradicts the county’s own climate plan and its directive to “Reduce transportation emissions.”
Washoe’s fuel tax is currently the highest in the nation at $1.14 per gallon. That tax at least follows a fair use principle: the more you drive, the more you pay.
Whereas, WCQ1 treats a 1999 hybrid clunker driven 5,000 miles the same as a 2026 plug-in hybrid driven 30,000. Hybrid owners already pay at the pump and would now unfairly pay again. While visitors and out-of-county fleets pay nothing, and anyone paying attention will register elsewhere or buy a gas car.
We estimate this fee would close roughly 3.5 percent of the projected deficit. As such, it solves little, while penalizing neighbors who bought cleaner cars to save the planet in good faith.
Additionally, WCQ1 ignores improved electrical metering for charging EVs/hybrids.
Reform is needed but WCQ1 is a blank check. It forsakes a purchase made in good faith and is unfair to hybrid owners. It won’t solve the county’s budget shortsightedness, either. Vote no.
Rebuttal to Argument Advocating for the Approval of the Question:
Proponents call WCQ1 fair, but one “to be determined” flat fee on electric cars registered in Washoe, whether driven 1 mile or 30,000, and on hybrid owners who already pay at the pump, is grossly unfair.
Proponents ask you to adopt a philosophy, not a proposal. The amount is unknown, with no cap, no methodology, no expiration date, and no further vote on whatever the Legislature writes. Any road funding measure should be fair, specific, accountable, and temporary.
Supporters warn against “doing nothing.” Better nothing than the wrong thing. Fairer alternatives include a charge on miles driven, a fee at charging stations, a tire fee. Your no vote sends a clear message to lawmakers to consider other options.
Proponents tout cleaner air while penalizing the vehicles delivering it. A no vote protects your wallet and your freedom to choose what you drive.
Request for Paper Ballots for Washoe County for 2026
A Continuity of Operations Proposal
In light of the recent cyberattack against the state of Nevada, coupled with Washoe County’s plans to implement new leading-edge technology in elections, the following unsolicited proposal answers the county’s need for election integrity and continuity of operations in cases of emergency.
Overview
Washoe County’s Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) does not adequately prepare for widespread cyberattack nor power loss—the most prevalent issue that can interrupt an election. In fact, there was a power loss in the 2024 general that shut down the office of the Registrar of Voters as ballots were being processed, counted, and cured. The backup generator failed and the redundant backup generator was disconnected, too. In such a situation, the COOP directed the movement of ballots to a location where counting could continue. That did not happen and precious time was lost.
On or about August 25, 2025, the state of Nevada experienced a cyberattack that shut down the DMV, the governor’s website, and the websites of other government agencies around the state lasting days. Suffice it to say that if an election was occurring and this cyberattack happened, elections would be crippled and would otherwise cease if not for a Continuity of Operations Plan that is effective and properly followed.
This proposal provides safeguards and contingencies in case of emergency that embrace non-electronic methods that keep an election running.
This proposal will also help bring Washoe County into compliance with state and federal laws.
And most importantly, this proposal will strengthen voter confidence and participation.
Washoe County’s Elections
The Registrar of Voters serves solely at the pleasure of the Commissioners
Washoe County’s Organizational Chart that shows the office of the ROV under the County Manager is wrong. See Washoe County Code 5.451, 2: The person appointed to such office shall serve in such office solely at the pleasure of the board of county commissioners. Read more on Picon Press and Mike’s Reno Report on Substack.
Former Registrar of Voters sues Washoe County
The former interim ROV Cari-Ann Burgess, who was forced out by County Manager Eric Brown and replaced by his appointed Deputy Andrew McDonald, has sued Washoe County for wrongful termination, discrimination, retaliation, and conspiracy to deprive her of employment. Read about it at AP and ThisIsReno.
The Complaint Against Andrew McDonald
We The People of Washoe County lodged a complaint against ROV Andrew McDonald, which can be read here.
Request for New Ordinance that defines what the ROV reports to Commissioners
A concerned citizen requests a new ordinance to give clarity and consistency to the ROV’s report on the canvass of an election. Read the minutes of the Board of Commissioners from June 10, 2025, here, page 3, paragraph 2, proposal by Mr. Williams.
Commissioner Clark demands items be on the agenda
County Commissioner Mike Clark has long lamented the log jam to get items on the agenda for discussion and vote in open meeting. He recently received a concession you can read about here.