This bill amends existing liquor licensing law (including RCW 66.24.010 and, per the header, RCW 66.28.295) and mainly changes licensing procedures and conditions imposed by the licensing board. It requires licenses to be issued in the applicant’s name, allows board inspections, authorizes criminal history checks (including FBI fingerprinting) and consideration of prior criminal and administrative violations, and allows the board discretion to grant or deny licenses or renewals—including denial based on documented “chronic illegal activity.” The board may delegate approval of uncontested licenses to staff, must set initial license terms to expire at the end of the calendar month 12 months after final approval, may grant conditional licenses pending lease execution, and must require licensees to conspicuously post licenses and related conditions. The bill creates several procedural and administrative changes: mandatory suspension of licenses on certification of child-support noncompliance by DSHS and automatic reissuance when DSHS certifies compliance; mandatory suspension of spirits licenses on Department of Revenue notice of more than 30 days’ delinquency in spirits tax reporting/remittance; authority to appoint administrative law judges and use superior court contempt for enforcement; notice and objection procedures giving cities/counties and schools a role (including 20and 30-day objection periods and required notice to churches and public institutions within 500 feet); limits on issuing licenses within 500 feet of public schools when the school objects; temporary licenses of up to 60 days while applications are pending; and a defined “chronic illegal activity” standard that the board must give substantial weight when considering objections. The bill also amends rules governing multiple licensees and facility leasing: it expressly allows multiple liquor licensees or related manufacturers to operate on different premises within the same facility, permits facility owners to lease space to other licensees, requires that lessees hold required permits (including health permits for leased kitchens), allows the board to request lease and operating agreements to ensure each licensee retains ownership and control, and prohibits lease terms that mandate profit sharing or require lessees to serve products made by the lessor. Some listed numbered provisions (items 11–16) appear to place limits or permissions on specific license types (endorsements, direct shipping, exercise of production privileges, and operating premises within facilities), but the fragmentary text lacks the framing clause and other subsections, so it is unclear from the provided excerpts whether those items are framed as prohibitions, exceptions, or other regulatory changes.

If enacted, the changes would make liquor licensing more strictly enforced and more flexible in how multiple licensees can operate inside the same facility. Applicants can expect fingerprint-based background checks (including FBI checks) and stricter review of criminal and administrative histories, and licenses can be immediately suspended for unpaid spirits taxes (after 30 days delinquent) or for confirmed child support noncompliance, which could cut off revenue quickly until problems are fixed. Cities, counties, schools, and churches get formal notice and short deadlines to object, and the board may deny or revoke licenses based on documented “chronic illegal activity,” so applicants and existing licensees face greater risk of denial or suspension and will likely incur extra costs for compliance, background checks, lease and permit documentation, and potential legal hearings. Owners of facilities and existing licensees gain clearer authority to host multiple licensed businesses in separate spaces and to lease space to other licensees, but leases cannot force profit sharing or require lessees to sell lessor-made products, and lessees using a kitchen must have local health and business permits. Local governments, the Department of Revenue, DSHS, and law enforcement would play stronger roles in enforcement and objections. Important details are missing from the provided text (several subsections and the amendment to RCW 66.28.295 are incomplete), so some operational effects and certain prohibitions or permissions cannot be determined from the excerpts alone.