Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Washington House Bill 2559 would authorize counties, cities, and towns to impose a local tax of up to 4% on qualifying short-term-rental lodging. It is a proposal, not an established statewide tax, and the available legislative record does not verify that Airbnb itself opposed it. The bill’s introduced text sets an earliest start date of April 1, 2027.
What Washington HB 2559 would do
Introduced during the 2026 regular session, HB 2559 would give a county, city, or town the option to impose an excise tax on charges for short-term-rental lodging subject to Washington’s retail sales tax chapter. The bill says the rate “may not exceed four percent” and must be set in whole-percentage-point increments. That is a maximum proposed local rate, not a tax already in force under this bill. Read the introduced bill text.
A local government would first adopt a resolution of intent, then enact legislation authorizing the tax. The state Department of Revenue would collect the tax for the imposing jurisdiction at no cost to that government. A county would have to credit the full amount of a city or town tax on the same taxable event against the county tax.
The bill would allow local governments to exclude certain rentals in approved resort, second-home, or vacation communities, as well as rentals exempt from local short-term-rental or vacation-lodging ordinances. The introduced text says the tax could not be imposed before April 1, 2027.
#1 Best Overall
What counts as a short-term rental
The introduced bill incorporates the definition in RCW 64.37.010. Separately, the House bill analysis explains a short-term rental as a dwelling offered for a fee for fewer than 30 consecutive nights outside a hotel, motel, or bed and breakfast. The analysis describes an exclusion for a dwelling where the owner lives at least six months of the calendar year and rents fewer than three rooms at a time. That explanation is from the analysis; the bill itself relies on the statutory cross-reference. See the House bill analysis and bill materials.
Where the tax revenue would go
HB 2559 would direct proceeds to housing-related purposes, including acquisition, rehabilitation, construction, maintenance, and operation of affordable, workforce, or supportive housing. Allowed uses would also include rental assistance and operations of eligible social-service and nonprofit organizations that help people attain and maintain housing.
An imposing jurisdiction could retain up to 15% of collected revenue for direct and indirect administration costs. Beginning the year after it first collects the tax, the jurisdiction would have to publish an annual report by March 1 describing how the previous year’s revenue was spent.
What the bill’s status means for renters, hosts, and guests
The official legislative history in the available record shows a Finance public hearing on January 20, 2026, a January 29 committee action with a majority “do pass” recommendation and minority reports, and referral to Appropriations on February 3. Those steps do not establish that the bill became law. The available history does not confirm its later disposition, amendments, or whether another measure replaced it. Check the official bill-history page for the current status before treating any proposed tax as enacted.
Rank #3
For a host or guest, the distinction is practical: HB 2559 would create local authority, not impose one uniform statewide short-term-rental surcharge. Any tax would depend on the local government adopting the required measures and on the bill’s eventual legal status.
What supporters and opponents told the committee
The House Finance report summarizes testimony on both sides; these are arguments made during the hearing, not established legislative findings.
Supporters’ argument
Supporters said short-term rentals can remove housing from local communities and argued that tax revenue could help replace permanent housing. The committee report records those positions without establishing a quantified effect on housing supply or a forecast of tax collections. The House committee report is available with the bill materials.
Opponents’ argument
Opponents cited rising operating costs for owners and said guests include Washington residents and people seeking accommodation near medical care, military assignments, or colleges. They also argued that short-term rentals can cost less than hotel rooms, that evidence connecting them to affordable-housing shortages is mixed, and that broader lodging taxes or more housing construction would be preferable to a tax aimed at short-term rentals. The report lists individual owners and members of the Washington Hosts Collaborative Alliance among opponents.
Recommended Free Tools
Did Airbnb oppose HB 2559?
The committee report identifies host and industry opposition, but it does not list Airbnb itself as a testifier or document a direct company statement opposing HB 2559. The available record therefore supports saying that individual hosts and members of the Washington Hosts Collaborative Alliance opposed the proposal; it does not establish that Airbnb, the company, opposed it.
What is not yet known about the proposal’s effects
The 4% ceiling, 15% administrative limit, and April 1, 2027 earliest start date are parameters in the introduced bill, not estimates of revenue or housing outcomes. The available bill analysis and committee materials provide no named estimate of how much HB 2559 would raise or how it would affect housing supply. A local tax’s actual rate, reach, and receipts would depend on enactment, local adoption, and the transactions subject to it.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
