Imposition and allocation amendment of certain taxes
SF1058 revises several Minnesota transportation-related tax and revenue allocation provisions and repeals the state’s retail delivery fee. The bill removes chapter 168E in its entirety, eliminating the 50-cent fee on qualifying retail deliveries, the related exemptions and administrative rules, and the dedicated deposit of those proceeds into the transportation advancement account. It also updates cross-references in revenue and transportation statutes so that the transportation advancement account no longer receives retail delivery fee revenue and instead is funded by other sources identified in law.
The bill changes how money in the transportation advancement account is distributed. It increases the share going to the county state-aid highway fund, larger cities assistance, small cities assistance, and the town road account, while adding a new 1 percent allocation to a food delivery support account. It also revises the deposit of certain sales tax revenues, including a phased increase in the share of motor vehicle repair and replacement parts sales tax revenue dedicated to the transportation advancement account over several fiscal years, and changes the split of regional transportation sales tax proceeds between the Metropolitan Council and metropolitan counties. Several changes take effect July 1, 2025, and the sales tax allocation changes apply to taxes remitted after June 30, 2025.
The bill would repeal Minnesota Statutes chapter 168E, ending the retail delivery fee and removing the statutory framework that defined, imposed, collected, and deposited that fee. It would also amend sections 174.49, 270C.15, 297A.94, and 297A.9915 to redirect transportation-related revenues, adjust administrative cost recovery language, and alter the distribution of regional and state transportation tax receipts. In practical terms, the bill shifts funding among state, county, city, town, and food-delivery-related accounts while reducing one dedicated revenue source and replacing it with revised allocations from other tax streams.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or recorded support/opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears fiscally and administratively significant because it repeals a newly established fee and reworks transportation revenue distribution formulas. The overall sentiment cannot be reliably characterized from the provided materials, though the bill’s structure suggests an intent to redirect transportation funding rather than expand the fee burden on consumers.
The main policy point likely to draw attention is the repeal of the retail delivery fee, which had been designed to generate transportation funding from qualifying deliveries. Supporters of repeal would likely favor eliminating a consumer-facing fee and the associated administrative burden on retailers, while opponents may argue that repealing it reduces a dedicated transportation revenue stream. Another likely point of contention is the redistribution of transportation advancement account funds, especially the increased shares for local road accounts and the new 1 percent food delivery support account, which may be viewed differently by metropolitan counties, cities, towns, and transit/transportation stakeholders. The bill also changes the allocation of regional transportation sales tax proceeds, which could affect the Metropolitan Council and metropolitan counties.