SB 5989
In CommitteeSenate
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 redirects a portion of aircraft fuel tax revenue into a dedicated aeronautics account to fund airport projects, increasing the share from 0.5% to 1% over two years. It also requires new reporting on how those funds are used and what economic benefits they generate.
- All aircraft fuel excise tax revenue must go into a dedicated aeronautics account in the state treasury, rather than the general fund.
- Money in the aeronautics account can only be spent on aviation-related purposes after legislative appropriation.
- Starting July 1, 2026, 0.5% of aircraft fuel tax revenue will go to the aeronautics account; this increases to 1% starting July 1, 2027.
- The remaining fuel tax revenue (6.5% minus the aviation portion) continues to go to the state general fund.
- The Department of Transportation’s aviation division must track and report annually (2026–2031) on airport projects funded through the airport aid grant program—including state, federal, and local contributions.
- Starting June 30, 2027, the aviation division must report biennially on estimated state and local tax revenue generated (e.g., sales, business & occupation taxes) from funded airport projects.
Who is affected
- State and local airport operators — State and local governments that operate airports or receive airport funding will see changes in how much state money is available for airport projects and how it is tracked and reported.
- Aviation industry users — Airline companies, pilots, and other aviation businesses that purchase fuel will see a portion of their fuel taxes redirected to a dedicated aviation fund instead of the general fund.
- State legislators and oversight committees — Legislators and oversight committees will receive new annual and biennial reports on how airport project funds are spent and what economic benefits they generate.
- General public — Residents and communities near airports may benefit from improved infrastructure and safety due to increased state funding for airport upgrades.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (3)
Dedicated funding for airport infrastructure improvements—starting at 0.5% and rising to 1% of aircraft fuel tax revenue—will likely enhance safety and reliability at public-use airports, especially smaller community airports that serve as critical lifelines for rural communities (e.g., medical transport, emergency services, firefighting). These upgrades directly benefit everyday Washingtonians who rely on air access for health, safety, and economic opportunity.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(a)(i), Sec. 1(3)(a)(ii), Sec. 1(4)Increased state investment in airport projects is likely to generate local economic activity—including construction jobs, local procurement, and long-term operations jobs—at airports across the state. The required annual and biennial reporting on project funding and estimated tax revenue (sales, B&O) provides transparency and supports evidence-based justification for continued investment, which can help small businesses and workers in airport-adjacent communities benefit from multiplier effects.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4), Sec. 1(5)By ensuring that aircraft fuel tax revenue is used exclusively for aviation-related purposes, the bill prevents those funds from being diverted to unrelated transportation projects (e.g., highway expansions), thereby strengthening accountability and aligning user fees with their intended purpose. This improves trust in transportation funding and ensures that aviation-dependent communities receive dedicated support.
TransportationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 1(3)(b)
Potential Concerns (3)
Local governments that rely on the state general fund for transportation and infrastructure projects may receive slightly less revenue starting in 2026–27, as 0.5% of aircraft fuel tax revenue is redirected to a dedicated aeronautics account; this reduction increases to 1% in 2027–28. While the overall fuel tax base remains unchanged, the reallocation reduces flexibility in how general fund resources are allocated across transportation modes (e.g., roads, bridges, transit), potentially limiting local governments’ ability to respond to regional priorities.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(3)(a)(ii), Sec. 1(3)(b)Aviation industry users—including small FBOs, charter operators, and regional airlines—will pay the same total fuel tax rate (6.5%), but a portion of what they pay (0.5% then 1%) is now locked into a dedicated account for airport infrastructure rather than supporting broader state services (e.g., roads, transit, schools) that benefit all businesses and workers. This reduces the pool of general revenue available for cross-modal infrastructure that supports economic activity beyond aviation.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1(3)(a)(i), Sec. 1(3)(a)(ii)The biennial reporting requirement on estimated tax revenue generated from airport projects places an administrative burden on the Department of Transportation’s aviation division, and potentially on local governments that must provide data for those estimates. While the bill does not mandate new local reporting, the state’s estimates will rely on local data, increasing coordination demands without new funding for data collection or analysis.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(5)
Who Is Most Affected
State and local airport operators (e.g., Paine Field, Pasco Airport, community airports) will benefit significantly from increased dedicated funding for runway, terminal, and safety upgrades—especially smaller airports that struggle to match federal grants. However, they must also comply with new reporting requirements and may face pressure to justify projects based on projected tax revenue generation.
Regional airlines, charter services, and small FBOs benefit from safer, more modern infrastructure and potentially increased air traffic, but they pay the same total fuel tax—just with less flexibility in how those taxes are used. Since most aviation users are not large corporations, this is a modest net benefit overall.
Legislators gain better data on how aviation investments translate into economic activity, improving oversight and enabling more informed budget decisions. However, the requirement to review annual and biennial reports adds administrative workload without new resources.
Rural and small-town residents benefit most: improved airport infrastructure enhances access to healthcare, emergency services, and tourism jobs. Urban commuters near major airports may see indirect benefits (e.g., better connections, more flight options), but the impact is less direct. Low-income residents near airports may benefit from job creation but are unlikely to fly regularly.