|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by Dave Soulia, for FYIVT.com
Vermont lawmakers have taken an early procedural step toward what could become a statewide retail delivery fee, opening a policy discussion that mirrors debates playing out in other states over delivery costs, gig work, and transportation funding.
H.863 (list of sponsors below) was read for the first time on February 3, 2026, and referred to the House Committee on Transportation. The draft language outlines several specific tasks. State officials would be asked to identify a mechanism for collecting a retail delivery fee, determine whether it would apply per transaction or per delivery, set possible sales thresholds for covered entities, estimate expected revenue, and project implementation costs, including software development, staffing, rulemaking, and public outreach.
The proposed definition of “retail delivery” is broad. It would cover the physical delivery by vehicle of tangible personal property purchased as part of a retail sale to a Vermont address, including alcoholic beverages, clothing, grocery items, and taxable meals. Home heating fuel deliveries are excluded.
Although framed as a transportation-related revenue concept, the proposal enters a wider national conversation about how governments handle the economics of app-based delivery services and low-margin convenience markets.
H.863 Sponsors
| Rep. Mollie S. Burke — D, Windham-8 Rep. Kate Lalley — D, Chittenden-6 Rep. Phil Pouech — D, Chittenden-4 Rep. Chloe Tomlinson — P, Chittenden-21 Rep. Candice White — D, Washington-2 Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin — D, Chittenden-19 Rep. John L. Bartholomew — D, Windsor-1 Rep. R. Scott Campbell — D, Caledonia-Essex Rep. Conor Casey — D, Washington-4 Rep. Brian Cina — P, Chittenden-15 Rep. Esme Cole — D, Windsor-6 | Rep. Leonora Dodge — D, Chittenden-23 Rep. Zon Eastes — D, Windham-1 Rep. Rebecca Holcombe — D, Windsor-Orange-2 Rep. Kathleen James — D, Bennington-4 Rep. Bram Kleppner — D, Chittenden-13 Rep. Kate Logan — P, Chittenden-16 Rep. Jubilee McGill — D, Addison-5 Rep. Michael Mrowicki — D, Windham-4 Rep. Barbara Rachelson — D, Chittenden-14 Rep. Dara Torre — D, Washington-2 |
Delivery Fees and Consumer Costs
Retail delivery fees have been adopted or considered in other states as a way to generate revenue tied to the growing volume of delivered goods. Supporters often frame such fees as a modest charge connected to road use, congestion, or other public costs associated with delivery traffic.
At the same time, even small per-transaction fees raise broader questions about consumer prices and the cost of convenience. Delivery services, particularly app-based food delivery, are generally discretionary spending. If new fees are layered onto already-high service charges, some consumers may reduce usage or shift to pickup and in-person shopping.
For lawmakers, the practical challenge is designing a system that is administratively workable, predictable for businesses, and transparent for consumers.
Broader Policy Context
While H.863 is framed as a transportation-related framework bill, delivery regulation has also intersected with other policy debates nationally, including questions around app-based work and platform economics.
Seattle, for example, drew national attention in 2024 after implementing a minimum payment standard for app-based delivery drivers. Following that change, delivery platforms added new fees to customer bills, and restaurants reported shifts in delivery demand.
Vermont’s proposal is not a wage mandate, and H.863 does not address worker pay. However, the experiences of other jurisdictions highlight how quickly delivery-related policy changes can affect prices, ordering behavior, and the broader delivery marketplace.
Vermont’s Early Stage
At present, H.863 does not commit Vermont to any specific delivery fee. It initiates a framework development process within the Transportation Committee. Lawmakers will need to evaluate projected revenues, administrative costs, business impacts, and consumer effects before deciding whether to enact a fee.
Transportation funding needs, vehicle miles traveled, and the continued growth of delivered retail goods may all influence the discussion.
For now, the proposal represents a structural step: building the groundwork for a possible statewide delivery charge. Whether it remains a narrow transportation revenue concept or expands into broader delivery policy debates will depend on how the bill develops in committee and beyond.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Interesting that only elected officials with a ” D ” behind their name are all for taxing people. Perhaps cutting spending would accomplish the same thing without a re-distribution of money from private to public.
thome muir, let’s not overlook the “P’s” that are co-sponsors.
Gotta agree with the last (first) one, the trending letter behind the tax should also be the trend behind who doesn’t get re-elected. VT has suffered enough taxation and wallet rape on various levels. It’s time to look inward at the direction and levels of state expenses. Our coffers are starting to feel more like the morning mists and less like the foundations beneath us. They’re not piggy banks for kiddies anymore, there’s MUCH bigger issues rolling down the pike…
When the entire agenda of the democrat/progressive parties is based on the creative expenditure of OPM (other people’s money) to fund programs meant to bribe their supporters for votes, they have to find more and more creative ways to obtain it. Their voters seem to maintain their support even when punished by that creative taxation. I would bet that most users of online food delivery services are democrats, based on the laziness aspect. However, some people with mobility issues really rely on those delivery services, and for them it is not a luxury. Grocery delivery services like Instacart are often used by the elderly who do not drive.
When they break the backs of people and they can’t afford to drive to get out to buy at the store, they still need a way to get income from them – so we’ll tax them on having things delivered to people instead.
Now, a log truck delivers a load of logs to my fire wood dealer and he pays a delivery fee and adds that onto my bill. Now he delivers the processed fire wood to my house and charges me another delivery fee, how much more will I have to pay for a cord of wood?????
Your supposed to put in a windmill and solar panels and scrap the wood stove
And they think that they need (deserve) to have full time jobs under the “Golden Dumb”? We can’t afford to employ their disingenuous arsses part time ! Just think how impoverished we would be if they “worked” eight hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year ! They all need a course in the reality of life in Vermont under their thumbs ! Vote them out !
Now, I know newspapers are dead because no one reads a hard copy anymore but I assume a tax on this delivery service could be considered an affront to the first amendment.
When is enough enough? The answer is never as the ability of this government to spend somebody else’s money is insatiable. How about a reduce spend initiative rather than a new tax initiative would be leadership we could rally around? As well all know, this is not to be found within the hallways of the statehouse.
If you manage to get a print newspaper delivered to your house, is this delivery subject to the delivery ‘surcharge’, ‘fee’, ‘tax’?
Notice they NEVER-consider taxing porn? How come?
Because it’s part of their plan, they want to confuse and enslave people to their lusts……and they don’t want that to be curbed by any tax!
It is truly evil genius.
Suddenly across the land, just when the lock down wa forced upon us, all porn sites started pushing interfailial sex…..
Step father and step daughter
Step sister and step brother…
This is no accident, it’s no coincidence.
Just like drag queen story hour was no coincidence or accident, when suddenly across the entire country on the same week and month, “suddenly” all the libraries at the same time were sponsoring drag queen story hour.
Have to give those cultural Marxists credit, they most certainly are organized!
Stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Vermont had a s**t fit over tariffs and here they go with something worse. I am depressed.
Looks like Vermont wants their own tariff program and I plan on keeping my wood stove.
How about we write a delivery fee, for each new ‘statute’ the legislature has to pay 600k a dollar to each resident for overloading our mental space with theft ruses.
Emily, Great idea as long as the legislators have to take it out of their own pockets.
It’s never enough…
Their creativity tapping new veins to drain out our resources is just awesome. It’s almost like they’re on a crusade to empty us…to make us empty citizen husks. We’ve relinquished any semblance of liberty.
It is rather creative, isn’t it? But there is nothing, nothing that can be done to reduce the burden, nothing. Perhaps cunning is more appropriate word? The tone is certainly more accurate, don’t worry, they will tax our way to prosperity! Vermont will be the most prosperous, most free, most joyful when they have taken all our money and shown us what is best. Build Back Better.
The Old World Order and the New World Order, look remarkably the same. huh…..
Notice they use the fake term “other states are considering this tax proposal” to justify their serious desire to tax. Yup all Demorats. I remember at one time years ago they were considering an air tax. Tax commercial airliners for flying in Vermont airspace. How far in space is Vermont’s airspace? Tax the International Space Station (ISS) for orbiting over Vermont?
This list names 21 Demorats. Of that 9 are from Chittenden 43%. They bring that Chittenden air to Taxpelier.That group in total from that county (House & Senate) control Vermont.
Today I read a news story about the progressive city of Seattle, Washington. They currently charge the highest fees for these delivery services in the country. They passed a law that forced people to pay a larger delivery fee so that the drivers could make a livable wage. So what did it do? Exactly what anybody with some sense would expect, the sales decreased sharply because it got so expensive for many people. The drivers interviewed, who were suppose to make around $23 an hour, said they are making less money than they were before this wage mandate went into effect because of the drastic loss of sales.
Here’s one they can consider: How about a fee on all the unwanted Junk mail that comes to our box some of it for less tan 10cents per item? That makes more sense than to deliberately target business in this state who all are trying to make a go of it
in a climate that is rabid, obnoxious, and just plain misery driven by these morons.
I’m charged a fee from the building materials store, the propane delivery company, and appliance store all in the guise of a diesel recovery fee. Call it what you will, it’s still a delivery fee. If I pick up something for my neighbor in the next town, out of the kindness of my heart, am I going to charge him a fee? Probably not.
I’m already paying a tax on all my Amazon purchases, as well as Walmart and other I purchase through. Now yet another tax. I think not. We are located very close to the New Hampshire border so no big deal skipping over there to purchase our products and Vermont loses out on all the tax revenue. I would rather the elected representatives (who are not representing us) focus on NOT increasing the tax burdens or heavens forbid, cutting taxes a tad. I know, pie in the sky.