An act to add Section 21689 to the Public Utilities Code, and to add Section 7102.3 to the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to airports, and making an appropriation therefor.
SB 661 revises how California collects and distributes sales and use tax revenue from aviation fuel, with a focus on jet fuel sold at airports. The bill would direct 50% of those tax revenues to remain at the airport where the fuel is sold, to be used for airport operations, capital improvements, maintenance, and related aviation infrastructure. The other 50% would be transferred to the state Aeronautics Account and distributed by the Division of Aeronautics to airports and aviation programs under a new allocation formula.
The bill also expands and reshapes the uses of the Aeronautics Account. Under the proposed formula, funds would be split among qualifying general aviation airports, commercial airports, grants to smaller nonhub airports to attract or expand air service, aviation education grants, other state aviation programs, and administrative costs. The measure adds a new Revenue and Taxation Code section to require the transfer of the aviation-fuel tax share into the Aeronautics Account, and it defines aviation fuel to include jet fuel and aviation gasoline. Because it increases the amount of money flowing into a continuously appropriated fund and broadens the fund’s uses, the bill is an appropriation measure and requires a two-thirds vote.
The bill’s stated policy focus is Kern County, especially Bakersfield and Meadows Field Airport. Its findings and intent language describe expanded air service as a tool for economic development, job creation, improved connectivity, and better access to health care, education, and business opportunities for residents of the region, particularly rural and underserved communities. It also references environmental review and alignment with California’s climate goals as part of any expansion effort.
Overall sentiment in the recorded votes was strongly favorable and unanimous at each stage shown. The bill passed committee and floor votes without any recorded opposition, including unanimous votes in the Senate and Assembly committee actions reflected in the history. Its progress through Revenue and Taxation and Appropriations indicates that the fiscal structure of the measure was a central part of the review, but not a source of recorded dissent.
The main point of contention implied by the bill text is not ideological opposition in the votes, but the allocation formula itself. The measure shifts a significant share of jet-fuel tax revenue away from the state-level Aeronautics Account and back to airports, while also prioritizing certain airport categories and nonhub airports in cities over 400,000 population. That structure could affect how funds are distributed among large hubs, smaller commercial airports, general aviation airports, and aviation education programs, and it may raise questions about whether the targeted Kern County benefits are being balanced against statewide airport funding needs.
SB 661 would amend the Public Utilities Code and Revenue and Taxation Code to create a dedicated distribution system for sales and use tax revenues from aviation fuel. It would require half of the tax revenue from jet fuel sold at California airports to be retained by the selling airport for airport-related uses, while the other half would be deposited into the Aeronautics Account and allocated under a new statutory formula. The bill would therefore increase and redirect funding for airport operations, capital projects, maintenance, air service development, and aviation education, and it would make an appropriation from a continuously appropriated state fund.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad support in the legislative process reflected in the vote history. All listed votes were unanimous, and the measure advanced through committee and floor stages without any recorded no votes. The bill’s framing around economic development, airport investment, and regional access for Kern County likely contributed to its favorable reception, while the fiscal and allocation details were handled through committee review rather than open opposition.
The principal policy tension in SB 661 is how aviation-fuel tax revenue should be divided and who should benefit most from it. The bill would reserve 50% of the revenue for the airport where the fuel is sold, but the remaining 50% would be distributed through a formula that changes existing percentages and gives priority to certain airport categories, including nonhub airports in larger cities such as Bakersfield. That could create competing interests among large hub airports, smaller commercial airports, general aviation airports, and statewide aviation programs. Another possible point of concern is the bill’s targeted emphasis on Kern County, which may be viewed as a regional economic development measure rather than a purely statewide airport funding policy.