HB 2018
In CommitteeHouse
Solid waste/local government
Concerning solid waste and establishing the local government solid waste assistance account.
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 raises the solid waste collection tax on garbage and recycling services from 3.6% to 6.1% by 2030, with the extra 2.5% phased in over five years. All revenue from the increase will go into a new dedicated fund to support local governments in managing waste. The money will be distributed to eligible counties and cities to help them meet state waste management requirements.
- Increases the existing solid waste collection tax from 3.6% to up to 6.1% by 2030, phasing in an additional 2.5% over five years (0.5% in year 1, 1% in year 2, 1.5% in year 3, 2% in year 4, and 2.5% in year 5 and beyond).
- Creates the local government solid waste assistance account, a dedicated state fund for local waste management support, with deposits from all tax amounts collected *above* 3.6%.
- Requires that all new tax revenue be distributed annually to eligible counties and cities: 50% equally among counties and 50% based on population (per capita).
- Limits use of the new funds to implementing comprehensive solid waste management plans as required under state law (chapter 70A.205 RCW).
- Sets eligibility requirements for local governments to receive funds, including compliance with state coordination, reporting, and planning rules.
Who is affected
- Residents and businesses using solid waste collection services — Residents and businesses that pay for solid waste collection services (e.g., garbage and recycling pickup) will see an increase in their monthly or annual service fees due to the new additional tax on those services.
- Eligible counties and cities — Counties and cities that meet specific eligibility criteria (e.g., have a comprehensive waste management plan and comply with state coordination and reporting rules) will receive state funding to support local waste management programs.
- Solid waste collection businesses — Solid waste collection businesses that collect and remit the tax must ensure proper collection, reporting, and timely payment to the state, or risk criminal penalties (gross misdemeanor).
- State Department of Revenue — The state Department of Revenue will be responsible for collecting, managing, and distributing the new tax revenue.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
Creates a dedicated, non-appropriated revenue stream to support local governments in fulfilling state-mandated waste management responsibilities, reducing fiscal pressure on local general funds and enabling more consistent planning and service delivery.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)-(2); Sec. 1(2)(e)Strengthens enforcement of state waste management requirements by tying state funding to compliance with coordination and planning rules, potentially improving recycling rates, landfill diversion, and hazardous waste handling — benefiting community health and environmental resilience.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 3(3); RCW 70A.205.040The per-capita component of fund distribution ensures that growing or densely populated areas receive more funding to match higher service demand, supporting equitable access to waste services across regions with differing population densities.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(b)Links funding to compliance with state reporting and planning requirements, encouraging standardized data collection and transparency around waste management practices — a necessary step toward evidence-based policy and pollution reduction.
EnvironmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(4)(c); RCW 70A.205.075Removes local government waste management funding from annual budget negotiations and appropriations uncertainty, providing more predictable, multi-year financial stability for long-term infrastructure and program planning.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)
Potential Concerns (5)
Increases monthly/annual garbage and recycling service costs for households and businesses by up to 2.5 percentage points over five years, effectively raising the total tax on waste services to 6.1% by 2030. This is a regressive tax increase that disproportionately affects low- and middle-income households, who spend a larger share of income on basic services.
FinancialRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)-(e); Sec. 2(2)Shifts administrative burden to solid waste collection businesses to collect, report, and remit the tax, with criminal penalties (gross misdemeanor) for noncompliance. While the state Department of Revenue collects the tax, local governments must still manage compliance and coordination with collection businesses, potentially increasing local administrative costs.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(1); Sec. 2(3)Eligibility requirements for local governments to receive funds depend on compliance with state coordination, reporting, and planning rules. Smaller or under-resourced municipalities may struggle to meet these requirements, potentially limiting access to funding and exacerbating disparities between wealthier and poorer jurisdictions.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 3(3); RCW 70A.205.075The equal-per-county allocation (50% of funds) benefits smaller, less-populous counties disproportionately relative to their waste management needs, while wealthier, higher-population counties receive more per capita but may still face unmet needs if funding doesn’t align with actual waste volume or complexity.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 3(2)(a)Solid waste collection businesses face increased compliance costs and legal risk (gross misdemeanor for misappropriation of taxes), potentially discouraging small operators or increasing service prices to cover added risk and administrative overhead.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 2(1); Sec. 2(3)
Who Is Most Affected
Low- and middle-income households pay a larger share of income for waste services; the 2.5% tax increase is regressive and may strain household budgets, especially in rural or high-cost areas where alternatives are limited.
Larger waste haulers may absorb or pass on compliance costs, but smaller operators face higher relative burden due to lack of scale and legal risk exposure; some may exit the market, reducing competition.
Counties with strong waste management infrastructure and compliance capacity benefit most; rural or fiscally strained counties may still struggle to meet eligibility thresholds despite receiving equal base funding.
State Department of Revenue gains new collection responsibilities but faces no significant cost increase; the state avoids new appropriation debates but loses no revenue (this is a reallocation, not a net gain).
Businesses (especially restaurants, hotels, retail) with high waste volumes face higher operating costs, potentially reducing margins or leading to price increases passed to consumers.