This bill amends existing law. It revises RCW 67.28.1816 to specify allowable uses of local lodging tax revenues (tourism marketing; marketing and operations of special events and festivals that attract tourists; support for operations and capital expenditures of tourism-related facilities owned or operated by a municipality or a public facilities district; and support for operations of tourism-related facilities owned or operated by nonprofit organizations described in 26 U.S.C. §501(c)(3) and §501(c)(6)). It requires applicants for lodging tax funds to provide municipalities estimates of how funds will increase travelers in three specific categories (overnight paid accommodations away from residence or business; travel 50 miles or more one way for day or overnight; and visitors from another state or country). In municipalities with population 5,000 or more, applications and estimates must go to the local lodging tax advisory committee, which must select candidates, provide a list and recommended funding amounts to the municipality, and the municipality may choose only from that list. Recipients must report actual traveler counts in the three categories to the municipality, and the municipality 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 advisory committee members. The amendment also specifies that RCW 67.28.1816 does not apply to lodging tax revenues of any county with population of 1,500,000 or more. The bill also amends RCW 50.22.157 to impose a procedural reporting requirement on the Employment Security Department. The department must report to the appropriate legislative committees by December 1, 2016, and every five years thereafter, on the status and outcomes of the training benefits program. The report must include a survey-based assessment of employment outcomes for participants within the previous three years and include specified analyses: (1) demographic breakdowns including NAICS code and demographic characteristics; (2) duration of training benefits claimed per claimant; (3) analysis of training provided (occupational categories, whether it leads to high-demand occupations, credential requirements, completion rates, basic skills coursework, and reasons for noncompletion); (4) employment and wage history preand post-training and whether participants return to prior employers or work in retrained fields within two years; (5) identification and analysis of administrative costs at local and state levels; (6) a projection of program costs for the next fiscal year; and (7) total funds obligated for training benefits and the net balance remaining subject to RCW 50.22.140 restrictions. The extracted text shows deletions or struck-through material and does not include legislative findings, intent, an effective date, or potentially related sections. It is uncertain from these excerpts whether other parts of the bill add, modify, or replace related statutory requirements elsewhere or the full extent of removed JLARC-related provisions.

If enacted, organizations that apply for lodging tax money—like convention and visitors bureaus, festivals, nonprofits, municipally owned or public facilities—will face new practical requirements: they will need to estimate in advance how many additional visitors their project will bring in three specific traveler categories and later report actual visitor counts. That will increase administrative work and likely require better tracking or outside help; in municipalities of 5,000 or more the local lodging tax advisory committee will screen applicants and present a recommended slate that the municipality must follow, shifting decision power to those committees and limiting elected officials’ flexibility. Counties with populations of 1.5 million or more are not subject to these rules. The Employment Security Department must produce a detailed evaluation of the training benefits program by December 1, 2016 and every five years afterward, including survey-based employment outcomes, demographic and wage analyses, training completion and cost breakdowns, and projections of next-year costs. That will require more data collection and analysis by ESD and could increase administrative costs but also provide greater oversight information that may influence future funding or program changes. The text provided omits an effective date and other possible related provisions, so some implementation details and timing remain unclear.