This bill amends RCW 66.08.190 and 66.08.200 to change how certain “excess funds” are distributed on a quarterly basis (June, September, December, March). It directs that 0.3% of the funds go to border areas and that the remaining amount be divided 50% to the state general fund, 10% to counties, and 40% to incorporated cities and towns. It also repeals RCW 66.24.065. The county 10% share is to be computed and allocated among “eligible counties” based on the unincorporated area population as determined by the Office of Financial Management (OFM). Counties that have, by election, prohibited liquor sales in their unincorporated areas are excluded from sharing that county portion. A special county census becomes effective for distribution purposes as of the official census date once OFM certifies the results and they are submitted to the Secretary of State. “Unincorporated area” is defined as parts of a county outside incorporated city or town limits. This is a procedural fiscal allocation change to existing law: it modifies distribution percentages and the method for calculating county shares, and it repeals a separate statute on spirits license fee distribution. The bill does not create a new crime or alter penalties. Important details are missing from the provided text: the term “excess funds” is not defined here, the specific state agency charged with making the county distribution computations is not identified, and the content and practical effect of the repealed RCW 66.24.065 are not included.

If enacted, the pool of quarterly "excess funds" would be split so border areas get 0.3% and the rest is divided 50% to the state general fund, 10% to counties, and 40% to incorporated cities and towns. County shares would be allocated based on unincorporated-area population as certified by the Office of Financial Management, and any county that prohibits liquor sales in its unincorporated areas would be excluded from receiving a county share. This likely shifts predictable revenue toward the state general fund and incorporated cities, while some counties could lose revenue if they ban liquor sales or have smaller unincorporated populations. The Office of Financial Management and the Secretary of State take on clearer roles in certifying population counts and special county censuses for distribution timing, so those offices will handle more certification work. Important details are missing from the provided text: the term "excess funds" is not defined, the state agency that actually collects and computes the distributions is not named, and the practical effect of repealing the prior spirits license fee rule is unclear, so the exact dollar impacts and administrative responsibilities for the collecting agency cannot be fully determined.