HB 2726
In CommitteeHouse
Parks districts sales tax
Authorizing a new sales and use tax for parks districts that can be imposed with voter approval.
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 lets local governments in Washington — including cities, counties, and special parks districts — ask voters to approve a 0.2% sales tax to fund parks, trails, and recreation facilities. The tax would be in addition to other sales taxes, and revenues must be used for park-related purposes, with limits on duration and administrative use.
- Authorizes metropolitan park districts (under chapter 35.61 RCW) and park and recreation districts (under chapter 36.69 RCW) to impose a local sales and use tax, but only with voter approval in a local election.
- Sets a maximum tax rate of 0.2% (20 cents per $100) on sales or use taxes, and requires that overlapping districts coordinate to avoid exceeding this cap.
- Requires revenues to be used exclusively for acquiring, constructing, improving, or maintaining parks, trails, athletic fields, and recreation facilities, with up to 3% allowed for administration.
- Limits the tax to 10 years, unless voters approve an extension — and for taxes first imposed after July 1, 2027, allows up to 20 years if the ballot proposition specifies the tax proceeds will repay bonds for park projects.
- Allows jurisdictions to issue general obligation or revenue bonds (up to 20-year terms) backed by the tax revenue to finance park projects upfront.
Who is affected
- Residents in participating jurisdictions — Residents of areas where a parks or recreation district proposes to impose the tax — they would vote on whether to approve the tax and may pay an additional 0.2% sales tax on purchases if approved.
- Local governments and parks districts — Local governments (cities, counties, and special-purpose districts like metropolitan park or park and recreation districts) that may propose and administer the tax to fund parks and recreation projects.
- Retailers and businesses — Businesses that collect sales tax — they would be responsible for collecting the additional 0.2% tax if approved in their jurisdiction, but no extra administrative burden beyond standard sales tax collection.
- Sports and recreation program users — Youth and adult sports organizations and users — they would benefit from improved access to athletic fields and facilities if the tax funds such improvements.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (4)
Dedicated funding for parks and trails supports public health and safety by expanding access to safe, supervised recreational spaces — especially critical in underserved communities where park access is limited and crime rates are higher. Studies (e.g., Trust for Public Land 2023) show improved park access correlates with reduced youth delinquency and improved mental health outcomes.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 4(4), (1)Funding for athletic fields and recreation facilities directly supports K–12 and community-based youth programs — many of which are underfunded or rely on volunteer staff — improving access to structured, supervised activities that support academic engagement and social development.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 4(4), (7)By enabling bond issuance backed by the tax, the bill allows jurisdictions to front-load park development — supporting equitable neighborhood investment and potentially increasing nearby property values in a way that can be leveraged for affordable housing set-asides if paired with local policy.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 4(6)Improved parks and trails can boost local retail and hospitality economies — especially small businesses near parks — by increasing foot traffic and supporting tourism. The tax itself imposes no new administrative burden beyond standard sales collection, minimizing compliance cost for businesses.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 4(3), (2)
Potential Concerns (3)
The 0.2% sales tax adds to the state’s already high combined sales tax burden (often >10% in many jurisdictions), disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income households who spend a larger share of income on taxable goods — effectively making it a regressive tax. While voter-approved, the tax applies broadly to everyday purchases (groceries, gas, clothing), placing incremental cost on households regardless of income.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 4(4), (5)The 3% administrative cap and bond issuance authority may disproportionately benefit larger jurisdictions with existing financial infrastructure (e.g., King County Parks), while smaller rural districts may lack capacity to issue bonds or manage complex debt — potentially leaving underserved areas behind despite equal voting access.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 4(4), (7)The 10-year (or 20-year for bond-backed) sunset creates funding instability — jurisdictions must re-approach voters to extend the tax, risking loss of funding during economic downturns when park needs (e.g., mental health, youth programming) may be highest but political will is lowest.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 4(5), (6)
Who Is Most Affected
Low- and middle-income households bear a disproportionate share of the new sales tax burden due to regressive nature of sales taxes, but gain significant access to parks and recreation services that support health, safety, and child development — net benefit likely positive for families in under-resourced areas.
Larger urban park districts (e.g., King County Parks, Seattle Parks) gain robust new funding capacity and can issue bonds for major projects; smaller rural districts may lack capacity to issue bonds or generate sufficient sales volume to make the tax viable — potentially widening equity gaps.
Retailers collect the tax like any other sales tax (no added burden), but may see modest sales shifts if consumers avoid taxable purchases to reduce tax liability — though 0.2% is too small to significantly alter behavior. Overall impact is neutral to slightly positive.
Youth sports organizations benefit from improved field access and maintenance; adult recreational leagues gain from expanded trail and facility networks — especially in growing suburbs where demand outpaces supply.
Rural and suburban communities with lower population density may struggle to generate enough sales tax revenue to justify the administrative effort — potentially leading to underinvestment relative to urban areas, despite equal voting access.