Can a Washington city or county use its hotel-motel (lodging) tax revenues to repay revenue bonds issued to finance affordable workforce housing built within one-half mile of a transit station?
Plain-English summary
Washington cities and counties can levy a special excise tax on lodging (hotel and motel stays) under RCW 67.28.180 and .181. The general rule, set out in RCW 67.28.1815, is that the resulting revenue must be spent on tourism promotion, acquisition of tourism-related facilities, or operation of tourism-related facilities, except for permitted uses listed in RCW 67.28.180.
In 2015, the Washington legislature amended RCW 67.28.150 (general obligation bonds) and RCW 67.28.160 (revenue bonds) to allow municipalities to use lodging tax revenue for "financing loans or grants to nonprofit organizations or public housing authorities for affordable workforce housing within one-half mile of a transit station." The 2015 amendment is titled "AN ACT Relating to allowing the use of lodging taxes for financing workforce housing."
Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen asked the AG: can any municipality (not just King County, the only Washington county over 1.5 million people) use lodging tax revenue to repay revenue bonds for affordable workforce housing near transit?
AG Nick Brown's September 2025 answer was yes. Two principles drove the analysis:
-
Specific over general. Where two statutes appear to conflict, the more specific (and more recently amended) one prevails. RCW 67.28.160's 2015 amendment is specific (lodging tax pledge for revenue bonds, "any municipality," workforce housing near transit). RCW 67.28.1815 is general. The specific authorization is an exception to the general restriction.
-
"Any municipality" means any municipality. RCW 67.28.160(1) authorizes "the legislative body of any municipality" to pledge the lodging tax. Reading "any" to mean "only counties of 1.5 million or more" would require inserting words the legislature did not write. The textual command is broad.
The opinion also acknowledges contrary legislative history, at least one senator on the floor described the 2015 bill as "a King County bill only." But individual legislators' floor statements are not conclusive when the statutory text and the bill title both go the other way.
What this means for you
If you're a Washington city or county council member
You can use lodging tax revenue to repay revenue bonds (RCW 67.28.160) or general obligation bonds (RCW 67.28.150) for affordable workforce housing within one-half mile of a transit station. That's true regardless of your jurisdiction's size, the King County population threshold in RCW 67.28.180 applies to direct grants and loans for workforce housing, not to bond repayment under sections .150 and .160.
If your jurisdiction has a transit station and unmet workforce-housing need, the structure looks like:
- Issue revenue bonds under RCW 67.28.160(1) to finance loans or grants to a nonprofit or housing authority for the workforce housing project.
- Pledge future lodging tax revenue to repay the bonds.
- The nonprofit or housing authority uses the financed funds to build workforce housing within one-half mile of the transit station.
Bond counsel will want to confirm the structure conforms to RCW 67.28.160(1)'s specific authorization. The opinion gives them solid AG-level cover.
If you're a transit agency planner
This opinion is helpful when your jurisdiction's leadership is thinking about transit-oriented development (TOD). The lodging-tax bond-financing tool is one of the few non-property-tax sources Washington jurisdictions can pledge to housing development near transit. It can be combined with:
- Direct legislative appropriations for the housing.
- Federal LIHTC (Low-Income Housing Tax Credit) financing.
- State Housing Trust Fund grants.
- Local property tax tools.
The half-mile-from-transit geographical limit makes this tool a natural fit for TOD planning specifically.
If you're an affordable workforce housing developer
When pitching a project to a Washington city or county, identify (a) whether the project is within a half-mile of a transit station, and (b) whether the jurisdiction has lodging tax revenue capacity. If both are yes, the lodging tax bond-financing tool is on the table. The size threshold in RCW 67.28.180 does not block your project, that threshold applies only to direct grants and loans, not to bond financing under .150/.160.
If you're a bond counsel
The opinion supports an opinion letter on the lodging-tax pledge under RCW 67.28.160(1) for any municipality. The AG's analytical framework, specific over general, "any" means any, statement-of-purpose-supports-broad-reading: is the standard Washington statutory-interpretation toolkit. Cite Washington State Ass'n of Counties v. State (2022) for the framework and Wark v. Wash. Nat'l Guard (1976) for the specific-over-general principle.
If you're a Washington legislator
The opinion shows how the 2015 amendment is operating in practice. If the legislature meant the workforce-housing-bonds authority to be limited to King County, the textual fix is a population threshold in RCW 67.28.160 itself, mirroring the one in RCW 67.28.180(3)(d). As written, the authority extends statewide.
Common questions
Q: What is the lodging tax?
A: A special excise tax on charges for lodging (hotel and motel stays) that Washington cities and counties may levy under RCW 67.28.180 and .181. The tax is paid by the lodger and remitted by the lodging establishment.
Q: What is "affordable workforce housing"?
A: The phrase is used in RCW 67.28.150.160, and .180 to refer to housing affordable to workers earning at or near area median income: typically 60% to 120% of AMI. The specific definition for any given project is governed by program rules and the bond covenants, not by the AG opinion itself.
Q: What does "one-half mile of a transit station" mean?
A: A half-mile geographical buffer around a transit station. The opinion does not address what counts as a "transit station": that is generally a fixed-route transit facility (bus rapid transit, light rail, commuter rail), not a typical bus stop. Each project would need to satisfy that geographical requirement on its own facts.
Q: Is the bond pledge an "appropriation" or a "loan"?
A: Neither. The municipality issues bonds; bondholders provide the up-front capital; the bond proceeds finance loans or grants to the nonprofit or housing authority. The lodging tax revenue stream services the bond debt over time. The municipality's commitment is to dedicate future lodging tax to the bond debt service.
Q: Doesn't RCW 67.28.180(3)(d) only let King County use lodging tax for workforce housing?
A: RCW 67.28.180(3)(d) sets a minimum spending requirement: a county with a population of 1,500,000 or more (currently only King County) must dedicate at least 37.5% of post-2021 lodging tax revenues to certain housing and homeless youth uses. That is a floor for King County, not a ceiling for everyone else. The bond-financing authority in RCW 67.28.160(1) is separate and applies statewide.
Q: What about the floor-debate comment that this was "a King County bill only"?
A: The AG addressed this directly. Statements by individual legislators are not conclusive when they contradict the statutory text and the bill title. The 2015 bill title was "AN ACT Relating to allowing the use of lodging taxes for financing workforce housing": broad on its face. The bill report did not contain a King-County-only limitation. The AG followed the textual reading.
Background and statutory framework
The lodging tax framework
Washington cities and counties can levy a lodging tax under RCW 67.28.180 and .181. The revenue is restricted by RCW 67.28.1815 to (a) tourism promotion, (b) acquisition of tourism-related facilities, and (c) operation of tourism-related facilities, with exceptions in RCW 67.28.180.
The 2015 workforce housing amendment
Laws of 2015, ch. 102 amended RCW 67.28.150 and .160 to add affordable workforce housing within one-half mile of a transit station as a permissible bond purpose. The amendment also added language allowing any municipality's legislative body to pledge the lodging tax to bond repayment.
The conflict
RCW 67.28.1815 says lodging tax revenue is restricted "[e]xcept as provided in RCW 67.28.180." It does not name RCW 67.28.150 or .160. Read literally and in isolation, RCW 67.28.1815 would seem to forbid using lodging tax for any purpose not listed in .180.
But that literal reading creates a direct conflict with the 2015 amendment, which by its terms allows any municipality to pledge lodging tax for workforce housing bonds. The conflict has to be resolved.
The interpretive principles
Washington courts apply standard tools when statutes conflict:
- Specific over general. Wark v. Wash. Nat'l Guard, 87 Wn.2d 864 (1976); Tunstall v. Bergeson, 141 Wn.2d 201 (2000); Ass'n of Wash. Spirits & Wine Distribs. v. Liquor Control Bd., 182 Wn.2d 342 (2015).
- More recent over older. RCW 67.28.160 was amended in 2015. RCW 67.28.1815 was last amended in 2008.
- Statements of legislative purpose count. G-P Gypsum Corp. v. Department of Revenue, 169 Wn.2d 304 (2010).
- Bill titles count. Covell v. City of Seattle, 127 Wn.2d 874 (1995).
- Avoid superfluity. Washington State Ass'n of Counties v. State, 199 Wn.2d 1 (2022).
- Don't read words into a statute that aren't there. Restaurant Dev., Inc. v. Cananwill, Inc., 150 Wn.2d 674 (2003).
- Individual legislator statements are not conclusive. Seattle Times Co. v. County of Benton, 99 Wn.2d 251 (1983); Wash. State Legislature v. Lowry, 131 Wn.2d 309 (1997).
Each principle pushes toward reading RCW 67.28.160(1) as a broad authorization for any municipality, operating as an exception to RCW 67.28.1815.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- RCW 67.28.150 (general obligation bonds)
- RCW 67.28.160 (revenue bonds)
- RCW 67.28.180 (lodging tax authorization)
- RCW 67.28.1815 (general restrictions on lodging tax revenue)
Key cases:
- Washington State Ass'n of Counties v. State, 199 Wn.2d 1 (2022)
- Wark v. Wash. Nat'l Guard, 87 Wn.2d 864 (1976)
- Tunstall v. Bergeson, 141 Wn.2d 201 (2000)
- Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. DLI, 1 Wn.3d 666 (2023)
Source
- Landing page: https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/rcw-6728160-authorizes-municipality-use-lodging-tax-revenues-repay-bonds-issued
Original opinion text
ATTORNEY GENERAL NICK BROWN
MUNICIPALITIES—STATUTORY AUTHORITY—HOUSING FUNDS—TAXATION—BONDS—Authority of Municipalities to Use Lodging Tax Revenues to Repay Revenue Bonds Issued to Finance Affordable Workforce Housing Within One-Half Mile of a Transit Station
RCW 67.28.160 authorizes a municipality to use lodging tax revenues to repay bonds issued to finance affordable workforce housing within one-half mile of a transit station.
September 18, 2025
The Honorable Jamie Pedersen
Majority Leader
43rd Legislative District
307 Legislative Building
P.O. Box 40443
Olympia, WA 98504-0443
Cite As: AGO 2025 No. 3
Dear Senator Pedersen:
By email previously acknowledged, you have requested an opinion on the following question:
May a municipality use lodging tax revenues to repay revenue bonds for affordable workforce housing within one-half mile of a transit station?
BRIEF ANSWER
Yes. RCW 67.28.160 provides specific authority for a municipality to use lodging tax revenues to repay revenue bonds issued to finance affordable workforce housing within one-half mile of a transit station. RCW 67.28.160 is a more specific statute than RCW 67.28.1815, and accordingly, we interpret RCW 67.28.160 as an exception to RCW 67.28.1815's general restrictions on use of lodging tax revenue.
BACKGROUND
A county or city may levy and collect a special excise tax on charges for lodging within their jurisdiction. RCW 67.28.180(1), .181(1). RCW 67.28.1815 generally limits expenditure of lodging tax revenue to "paying all or any part of the cost of tourism promotion, acquisition of tourism-related facilities, or operation of tourism-related facilities[,]" except "as provided in RCW 67.28.180[.]" In addition to authorizing the lodging tax, RCW 67.28.180 specifies certain permissible or required expenditures for counties and cities based on population size and whether they pledged tax revenues for payment of bonds prior to certain dates.
As amended in 2015, RCW 67.28.150 and RCW 67.28.160(1) empower municipalities to issue general obligation and revenue bonds, respectively, to "carry out the purposes of this chapter, including . . . financing loans or grants to nonprofit organizations or public housing authorities for affordable workforce housing within one-half mile of a transit station[.]" These amendments were part of a bill enacted in 2015 titled "AN ACT Relating to allowing the use of lodging taxes for financing workforce housing; and amending RCW 67.28.150, 67.28.160, and 67.28.180." Laws of 2015, ch. 102. The statutes expressly authorize municipalities to repay general obligation and revenue bonds with the tax revenue authorized by RCW 67.28.
ANALYSIS
You have asked whether a municipality may use lodging tax revenues to repay revenue bonds issued to finance affordable workforce housing projects. To answer your question, we must consider both RCW 67.28.1815's general restriction and the specific authorization in RCW 67.28.160(1). Because RCW 67.28.160 is the more specific and recently enacted statute, we conclude that RCW 67.28.160(1) operates as an exception to RCW 67.28.1815's general restriction and authorizes municipalities to use lodging tax revenues for this purpose.
The goal of statutory interpretation is to determine and give effect to the legislature's intent. Wash. State Ass'n of Cntys. v. State, 199 Wn.2d 1, 10 (2022). To do so, we first look to "the statute's plain language and ordinary meaning."
RCW 67.28.160(1) describes a legislative purpose of developing affordable workforce housing. The plain language provides municipalities a mechanism to effect the stated purpose by authorizing repayment of bonds from the lodging tax authorized in RCW 67.28. RCW 67.28.160(1). RCW 67.28.160 does not limit this authorization to municipalities of any particular size.
If RCW 67.28.160 was the only statute addressing lodging tax revenue expenditure authority, the analysis would end there. But RCW 67.28.1815 provides that use of lodging tax revenue is limited to the enumerated uses "[e]xcept as provided in RCW 67.28.180[.]" Reading RCW 67.28.1815 in isolation, one might conclude that municipalities with populations smaller than 1,500,000 are not authorized to spend lodging tax revenue on affordable housing.
However, in statutory construction, we cannot read a statute in isolation; we must consider the context of the entire act as well as other related statutes. Both RCW 67.28.160 and RCW 67.28.1815 address permissible lodging tax revenue expenditures but appear to contradict each other. Several canons of statutory construction support a reading that RCW 67.28.160 serves as an exception to RCW 67.28.1815.
Fundamentally, RCW 67.28.160 is the more specific and later enacted statute. "A general statutory provision must yield to a more specific statutory provision." Ass'n of Wash. Spirits & Wine Distribs. v. Liquor Control Bd., 182 Wn.2d 342, 356 (2015). "To resolve apparent conflicts between statutes, courts generally give preference to the more specific and more recently enacted statute." Tunstall v. Bergeson, 141 Wn.2d 201, 211 (2000). "It is a fundamental rule that where the general statute, if standing alone, would include the same matter as the special act and thus conflict with it, the special act will be considered as an exception to, or qualification of, the general statute." Wark v. Wash. Nat'l Guard, 87 Wn.2d 864, 867 (1976).
RCW 67.28.1815 (last amended in 2008) addresses general expenditures of lodging tax revenues, while RCW 67.28.160 (amended in 2015 to add the relevant language) provides specific authorization for "any" municipality to use lodging tax revenue to repay revenue bonds for affordable workforce housing. Read together, RCW 67.28.160's specific authorization is an exception to RCW 67.28.1815's general rule.
We considered whether a conflict between RCW 67.28.160 and RCW 67.28.1815 could be avoided entirely by interpreting RCW 67.28.160 to apply only to counties with a population of one million five hundred thousand or more. But statutes should not be read "in a way that would render any language meaningless or superfluous," and we try to avoid reading words into a statute that are not there. RCW 67.28.160(1) authorizes the legislative body of "any municipality" to pledge lodging tax revenues for repayment of general revenue bonds used to finance loans or grants for affordable workforce housing. We would be ignoring the word "any" and inserting "with a population of one million five hundred thousand or more" in order to read RCW 67.28.160 as being limited to King County.
Our conclusion is also consistent with the legislative history. The title of the 2015 bill was: "AN ACT Relating to allowing the use of lodging taxes for financing workforce housing . . . ." The final bill report recognizes that any county or city may spend lodging tax revenues to repay bonds for financing affordable workforce housing.
We recognize that there may be contrary legislative history indicating that one or more individual legislators believed the new authorization to spend lodging tax revenue on affordable housing was limited to King County. However, statements of individual legislators are not conclusive, particularly in the face of contrary legislative history and statutory language.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that RCW 67.28.160 authorizes any municipality to use lodging tax revenue to repay affordable workforce housing revenue bonds and is an exception to RCW 67.28.1815's general restrictions on spending lodging tax revenues.
Sincerely,
NICHOLAS W. BROWN
Attorney General