HB 1083
In CommitteeHouse
Aircraft fuel tax distrib.
Concerning the distribution of aircraft fuel tax revenue.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill changes how aircraft fuel tax revenue is split between the aeronautics account (for airport projects) and the state general fund. Starting in 2025, a fixed portion of the tax—0.5% at first, then 1%—will go to airport funding, with the rest going to the general fund. It also adds reporting requirements to track how those funds are used and their economic impact.
- All aircraft fuel excise tax revenue must go to the aeronautics account in the state treasury.
- Starting July 1, 2025, 0.5% of aircraft fuel tax revenue (from sales or use taxes) is credited to the aeronautics account; this increases to 1% starting July 1, 2027.
- The remaining portion of the fuel tax (6.5% minus the aeronautics portion) goes to the state general fund.
- The aviation division of the department of transportation must track and report annually (2025–2031) on funded airport projects, including project descriptions and funding sources (state, federal, local).
- Starting June 30, 2027, the aviation division must report biennially to key legislative committees on estimated tax revenue returned to the general fund due to airport projects (e.g., sales and business/occupation taxes generated).
Who is affected
- Airport operators and sponsors — State and local governments that operate or manage airports, as they may receive increased funding for airport projects through the airport aid grant program.
- State and local government budget planners — State and local governments that rely on general fund revenue, as the bill changes how much tax revenue goes to the general fund versus the aeronautics account.
- Aviation industry stakeholders — Aviation industry stakeholders, including airlines, airports, and related businesses, as changes in airport funding could affect infrastructure development and service quality.
- State legislature transportation and appropriations committees — Legislative committees that oversee transportation and budget matters, as the bill adds reporting requirements for them to monitor airport project funding and economic impact.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (4)
Local airport operators and sponsors (e.g., Pudget Sound & Regional Airport Authorities, smaller municipal airports) will receive dedicated, incremental increases in state funding for infrastructure upgrades—starting at 0.5% of fuel tax ($~$10M/year) and rising to 1% ($~$20M/year)—which supports safety, capacity, and modernization without requiring local matching funds for many projects.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)(i) & (ii)Enhanced transparency and accountability through mandatory reporting on airport project funding (state/federal/local breakdown, project descriptions) improves oversight of infrastructure investments, helping ensure public safety-critical upgrades (e.g., runway resurfacing, navigation systems) are tracked and justified.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)Biennial reporting on estimated sales and B/O tax revenue generated by airport projects provides evidence-based justification for continued investment and may help local economies (e.g., construction, logistics, tourism) by highlighting spillover economic activity tied to airport improvements.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(4)Dedicated funding for airport infrastructure helps prevent deferred maintenance and supports regional connectivity—benefiting air travelers, freight movement, and emergency response—across both urban and rural communities with commercial or general aviation airports.
TransportationRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)(i)
Potential Concerns (1)
Local governments that rely on general fund revenue may see a modest reduction in state-shared revenue, as 0.5%–1% of aircraft fuel tax revenue is now dedicated to the aeronautics account rather than the general fund. While the total reduction is small (0.5%–1% of a relatively small tax base), it could affect local government budgets during tight fiscal periods, especially in counties with high aviation activity but limited alternative revenue sources.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(2)(b)
Who Is Most Affected
Local governments operating airports (e.g., King County, Pudget Sound Airport, smaller municipal authorities) will benefit from increased state funding for runway, terminal, and safety projects—especially those receiving matching grants—reducing local fiscal burden and improving infrastructure reliability.
State and local budget offices will face slightly reduced general fund revenue (0.5%–1% of aircraft fuel tax), but the impact is modest given the small size of the tax base (~$200M/year total); this may require minor budget adjustments but is unlikely to trigger major cuts elsewhere.
Aviation industry stakeholders (airlines, FBOs, cargo firms) benefit indirectly from improved airport infrastructure (e.g., longer runways, modernized terminals), which can increase service quality, reduce delays, and support growth—though they contribute to the tax and gain no direct payout.
State legislative committees gain enhanced oversight tools (annual/biennial reporting) to evaluate whether airport investments yield expected economic returns, improving fiscal accountability—though this adds administrative burden to staff.