| Momentum Bucket | Early Stage |
| Legal Title | AN ACT Relating to limiting operational expenditures for tourism-related facilities owned or operated by municipalities and public facilities districts; |
| Bill Description | Limiting operational expenditures for tourism-related facilities owned or operated by municipalities and public facilities districts. |
|
What this bill does
Powered by Legitron |
This bill amends existing law (RCW 67.28.1816) to specify permitted uses of municipal lodging tax revenues and to add detailed application, selection, and reporting procedures. Under the amendment, lodging tax revenue may be used directly by a municipality or indirectly through a convention and visitors bureau or destination marketing organization for tourism marketing; marketing and operations of special events and festivals designed to attract tourists; supporting operations and capital expenditures of tourism-related facilities owned or operated by a municipality or a public facilities district (PFD); and supporting operations of tourism-related facilities owned or operated by certain nonprofits (26 U.S.C. §501(c)(3) and §501(c)(6)). Support for operations of facilities owned or operated by a municipality or PFD is capped at 5% of total annual lodging tax revenues collected in a calendar year.
The amendment imposes new procedural requirements on applicants and local governments. Applicants for lodging tax revenues must provide municipalities estimates showing how the funds will increase numbers of travelers meeting three specified trip categories (overnight paid accommodations, trips 50 miles or more one way, and trips from another state or country). In municipalities with population 5,000 or more, applicants must submit applications and estimates to the local lodging tax advisory committee, which must select candidates and recommend funding amounts; the municipality may only award funds to recipients on the committee’s list. Recipients must report actual traveler numbers in the same trip categories to the municipality; municipalities must make those reports available to the local legislative body and the public and provide copies to the joint legislative audit and review committee (JLARC) and to advisory committee members. JLARC must biennially report to the legislature’s economic development committees; the bill excludes any lodging tax imposed by a county with population of 1,500,000 or more.
Legally, this is a modification of existing statute that creates new procedural requirements, reporting obligations, a funding use definition and a monetary cap, and a limitation on municipal discretion in selecting recipients (municipalities must choose from advisory committee recommendations). Important details are not included in the extracted text: the bill does not define “tourism-related facilities,” “operations,” or other key terms; it does not specify submission deadlines, report formats, or advisory committee composition; and the text may depend on other sections of the bill not provided.
|
|
Why it matters
Powered by Legitron |
If enacted, municipalities and the tourism organizations they fund will be more clearly able to spend lodging tax dollars on marketing, special events, and on capital or limited operations support for tourism facilities— including facilities run by municipalities, public facilities districts, and certain nonprofits—while operations support for municipal or PFD-owned facilities would be capped at 5% of a year’s lodging tax receipts. Applicants for lodging tax money will need to estimate how their projects will increase travelers in three specific trip categories, and funded recipients must report the actual traveler numbers; municipalities must make those reports public and provide them to the local advisory committee and JLARC, which will produce biennial oversight reports to the legislature.
The parties most affected are municipalities, local lodging tax advisory committees, convention and visitors bureaus or destination marketing organizations, public facilities districts, and eligible nonprofits: they will face more administrative work and likely some costs to prepare visitor-impact estimates, track results, and meet reporting obligations. Municipalities in places of 5,000 or more people will have reduced discretion because they must select recipients from candidates the local advisory committee recommends, and the lack of definitions, specific deadlines, and committee rules in the provided text creates uncertainty about how to meet the new application and reporting requirements.
|
| Official Documents | View Full Bill Text |
| Representative Chase (Primary) |