AN ACT Relating to authorizing a new sales and use tax for parks districts that can be imposed with voter approval;
HB 2726 authorizes certain local park and recreation jurisdictions in Washington to seek voter approval for a new sales and use tax dedicated to parks, trails, athletic fields, and recreation facilities. The bill is framed around legislative findings that population growth is increasing demand for parks and recreation services while local agencies face deferred maintenance, rising operating costs, and insufficient athletic field and recreation space. It allows a city, county, metropolitan park district, or park and recreation district to place a tax proposition before voters at a special or general election.
If approved by a majority of voters, the jurisdiction may impose a sales and use tax at a rate capped by the bill, with the revenue restricted to acquiring, constructing, improving, and maintaining parks, trails, athletic fields, and recreation facilities. The bill also permits limited administrative use of the revenue and authorizes jurisdictions to issue general obligation or revenue bonds and pledge the tax revenue for repayment, subject to statutory limits. The tax is temporary unless extended by later voter approval, and in some cases may last longer when tied to debt repayment.
The bill would add new statutory authority in the Revised Code of Washington for specified park districts and related local governments to levy a voter-approved local sales and use tax. It creates a new funding mechanism for park and recreation capital and maintenance needs, while also establishing rules on tax duration, revenue use, bond financing, and coordination when overlapping districts both seek the tax. Affected parties include local park districts, city and county governments with park authority, voters in those jurisdictions, and taxpayers purchasing taxable goods and services within the district.
The bill’s stated purpose and structure suggest generally favorable sentiment toward expanding local park funding tools, especially in response to growth, deferred maintenance, and recreation demand. The available context does not show recorded committee testimony or votes, but the bill’s findings and voter-approval requirement indicate an effort to balance support for parks with direct public consent. Overall, the measure appears designed as a targeted local option rather than a broad statewide tax increase.
The main points of potential contention are the creation of a new local sales tax, the possibility of overlapping taxes from multiple park districts, and the burden on consumers in affected jurisdictions. Some may view the tax as necessary to address underfunded parks and recreation infrastructure, while others may be concerned about adding to the sales tax rate, even with a cap and voter approval. The bill addresses overlap by requiring a credit mechanism if two eligible districts both impose the tax, and it limits the tax’s duration unless voters approve extensions or debt repayment requires a longer term.