An Amazon worker delivering packages
The so-called Amazon fee appears to not have enough support in the DFL-controlled Senate. Credit: REUTERS/Kevin Mohatt

A new fee on home deliveries — think Amazon and Pizza Luce — to boost state transportation projects appears to be at death’s door after the sponsor of the fee admitted Thursday he doesn’t have enough DFL votes in the state Senate. 

The 75-cent fee would have raised more than $150 million a year and was seen as an alternative to higher gas taxes, which have been politically unpopular and not increased since 2008. In addition, gas tax revenue has been flat and is projected to start declining as vehicles become more efficient or go electric.

A delivery fee has now proven to be politically unpopular, too. During a meeting of the Senate Taxes Committee, Senate Transportation Committee Chair Scott Dibble moved to amend his transportation budget to remove the fee. The same amendment cut but didn’t kill another new money source: a sales tax in the seven-county metro region. What was once a 0.75% sales tax for regional transit became a 0.50% percent tax. What would have raised $600 million a year would now raise $400 million a year.

The two changes reduced the increased revenue for transportation from $1.1 billion a year to $700 million. The delivery fee revenue would have been distributed among state highway accounts and city and county road funds. The metro area sales tax would go to transit and roads in the metro region, with most going to transit.

Dibble said he asked to amend his own bill because he didn’t have the votes in his caucus. He blamed the newness of the delivery fee, a transportation funding method that is used in Colorado but few other jurisdictions.

“It’s taking a little more time working through the policy and politically, a lot of people didn’t understand it,” the Minneapolis DFLer said after the taxes committee vote. He called the two changes regrettable because even with them in his budget bill, the state was only solving part of its transportation funding shortages.

“We’re falling further and further behind in keeping up our roadway system, which is in very poor repair,” he said. Remaining in his bill are increases in the car registration tax and the motor vehicle sales tax.

The delivery fee remains in the House Transportation budget bill, and Dibble said he expects it will be discussed when the House and Senate try to reconcile their bills in conference committee later in April. But he said it would be a “tall order” to win support for it in his caucus later.

While he called what remains of his revenue plan “a good step,” he said legislators will have to return to the issue of ongoing funding in future sessions. 

“These maintenance needs aren’t going to go away. They’re just going to get more expensive,” he said. Dibble favors a gas tax increase, something many other states are doing. But it has become a campaign issue that Republicans have used against the DFL, leaving many members, especially those in swing districts, reluctant to take on. That political reality is what led the transportation chairs to look to other ideas such as the delivery fee and a fee on rideshare rides like those on Uber and Lyft. That, too, was proposed and discarded this session.

While sales taxes are not new and lawmakers are familiar with them, Dibble said there were not enough votes in his caucus for the 0.75% increase. He said he would have preferred a full percentage increase in the sales tax as a way of shoring up a bus and rail system Dibble described as near collapse from a lack of ongoing revenue.

DFLers have majority control of both chambers, but the Senate advantage is just one vote. Republicans are unanimously opposed to tax increases for general services or transportation. They have proposed using surplus money to catch up on road projects and to devote more of sales taxes collected on the sale of auto parts to transportation. The proceeds are now split between road funds and the state general operations budget.

The prime sponsor of the delivery fee in the House said she isn’t ready to give up. Rep. Erin Koegel, DFL-Spring Lake Park, said she expected it would remain in the House bill.

“It was a surprise to me,” Koegel said of the Senate action. “I was still hoping that it would get somewhere, but it’s now up to our constituents to really push the issue and make sure they know we can’t continue to ignore our streets and roads.”

Koegel said she looked at what Colorado was doing because of opposition to gas tax hikes. If other legislators don’t like her new ideas, they can return to the “tried and true” way of funding transportation. But she said it is frustrating when politicians oppose any new revenue because of politics. And per gallon gas taxes are less reliable because they are based on gallons sold, not price, and do not increase by inflation while construction and maintenance costs do. And electric vehicle owners pay no gas taxes.

“I don’t want to wait for another bridge to collapse before people start to take this seriously,” she said.

A social media campaign against the delivery fee by a group of businesses that rely on delivery helped build public opposition. Lawmakers returned to their districts for the Easter-Passover break to voters who had been told about the proposed fee by opponents.

“Tell Legislators: NO delivery tax. Act Now!” read a Facebook message sponsored by the Minnesota Retailers Association. It included a link to a website nodeliverytax.com, where a prompt was provided to message legislators. Bruce Nustad, the president of the association, said the campaign was sent statewide but with extra emphasis on the metro, northern Minnesota and southern Minnesota.

Join the Conversation

19 Comments

  1. Still waiting for the 20 cent per gallon gas tax increase that Governor proposed last session. Where is it..??

  2. “a lot of people didn’t understand it,”

    Oh, I think that a lot of people understand it. A lot of people understand that a huge budget surplus is going to most everything but transportation (except trains and buses) and that the quest for more and more money will not go away anytime soon.

    1. The state has a budget surplus this biennium. Roads are mostly maintained by cities & counties. This proposal is intended to identify a dedicated funding source to help cities & counties maintain local roads. The conservatives have been howling about not creating new programs & funding expectations by spending this one-time surplus. Doesn’t this proposal meet that criteria? Infrastructure is perpetually underfunded & Sen Dibble is proposing a way to help address that shortfall. If not this, what?

      1. “If not this, then what ?” Easy-peasy. Re-design an existing tax, specifically vehicle licensing, to be based on road surface p.s.i. when fully loaded. Make it steeply progressive, to assign the highest cost to those vehicles which most beat up the roads.

  3. I understand it all right. It punishes those who either can’t or don’t want to drive a half dozen places to locate an item they need – people with disabilities, the elderly, those without cars, small businesses who depend on the income from deliveries… All to reward the people who drive everywhere at the drop of a hat and demand plenty of parking every place they go – so that they won’t have to pay more gas tax.

    1. Uh, we did manage to survive prior to free delivery. Perhaps consider buying less disposable crap?

  4. I hope as part of the solutions being proposed, that finding a way to accurately tax Electric vehicles is part of the solution. Bumping up the gas tax right as this major transition to EVs starts is short sighted.

    1. Needing users of EVs to contribute to maintenance does not make a gas tax increase shortsighted. If anything, it will induce more people to go electric , further underscoring the need to rethink how we pay for roads. Maybe we can even find a way that actually covers the full cost!

      1. Paying a few more cents per gallon ain’t going to drive anyone to pay $43K for a $28K car, no one that wasn’t already smitten with an EV.

  5. Dibble said he would “prefer a full 1% sales tax increase for a system for a system he describes as near collapse from a lack of ongoing revenue (ie. ridership).” Never mind how taxpayers feel.
    His answer is to build more transit and lose more money so we can raise taxes more to fund more.
    They already take 40% of the Motor Vehicle sales tax to help fund Metro Transit’s annual operating loss so let’s raise that too.
    How about some new leadership in the transportation committee. Hornstein and Dibble need to go.

  6. What about dedicating all the sales tax revenue from transportation and related first before trying to get more money?

  7. The opposition to the gas tax rise is because people do see themselves benefiting from it.

  8. I wonder what’s IN the transportation bill that the public doesn’t know about. Like, maybe, perhaps, the Met Council trying to sneak through a little push for a Dan Patch LRT, without adequate public input and scrutiny.

    1. Televised House debate made clear that the proposal was – astonishingly – for a tax on each order, not each delivery.

  9. People who get “free” delivery don’t pay anything to maintain the roads those deliveries are made on. Just because you’re not doing the driving yourself doesn’t doesn’t mean you’re not using the roads. EVERYTHING YOU BUY ANYTIME, ANYWHERE OR IN ANY WAY HAS TO BE DELIVERED OVER THE ROAD AT SOME POINT! When you order a delivery to your door that item or the ingredients of it have already been delivered to the retailer you order it from by a truck. Why should you expect for your delivery driver to pay their share AND your share for maintaining roads with higher gas taxes? Higher fuel costs increase the price of everything across the board. We’ve just seen inflation rise due to supply chain issues and fuel costs are a major part of that system, too. This is the perfect time to shift the extra burden off of vehicle owners and homeowners (who pay a third of ALL city taxes through property tax AND pay extra assessments for every road project on their street) onto the people using delivery services. Sales tax increases are also practical because essentials – food and clothing at least – are exempt (I would argue there are more essentials that should be exempt but trying to stick to what’s true right now) and it spreads the burden across the whole population. The belief that everyone who owns a vehicle and/or a house is “rich” or even well-off is simply wrong. Most people I know of sacrifice buying other things like expensive clothes, alcohol, entertainment, food delivery etc because they prioritize shelter and transportation.

  10. I think a $10,000.00 battery disposal fee on EV batteries would be a good start.
    I also think that tax incentives should go away for EV buyers.
    If they are so environmentally superior, then that should be incentive enough.
    Also, any power stations to charge them should be required to only powered by wind or solar powered.
    Seems hypocritical to use fossil fuels to charge your green car!

Leave a comment