This bill creates a new, self‑supported tourism assessment program and a new chapter in Title 43 RCW. It establishes the Washington tourism marketing authority as a public body responsible for statewide tourism marketing and authorizes a ratepayer oversight board, appointed from tourism businesses, to design the assessment program (including sector classifications, methodology and rates, referendum procedures, any opt‑out rules, revenue thresholds, and program term). Assessments may be levied only after affected businesses ratify the program in referenda; each business receives a weighted vote equal to its projected assessment, sector approvals require a majority of weighted votes within that sector, and the board must conduct an initial referendum within three years of the section’s effective date. Initial oversight board members serve up to six months or until the initial referendum is completed, and the board must meet at least quarterly and approve an annual budget and report. The authority may levy and collect an annual assessment on participating tourism businesses calculated as a percentage of gross revenue once ratified; collected moneys are deposited in a separate tourism assessment account held in a state depositary bank and are explicitly declared not to be state money, common cash, or state revenue, not subject to legislative appropriation, and may be spent for tourism promotion and administrative or enforcement costs without a specific appropriation. For nonpayment the authority may add up to 10 percent to unpaid assessments to cover enforcement costs, pursue civil collection actions, and assessments constitute a personal debt when due. Financial and commercial information submitted to the authority and the ratepayer oversight board is treated as confidential and exempt from public disclosure under an amended RCW 42.56.270, with limited exceptions for nonidentifying summaries; the act reenacts and expands multiple public records exemptions. The bill also creates a temporary tourism self‑supported assessment advisory group (minimum eight members) to make recommendations to the legislature by November 1, 2025, and describes governance, appointments, and administrative roles for the authority and its board of directors. The text amends and reenacts several existing RCW sections (including RCW 43.384.010, .020, .030 and RCW 42.56.270) and designates sections 1–9 as a new chapter in Title 43 RCW. Important details are not included in the provided extracts: the exact assessment rates or specific numeric methodology, the statutory definition of “tourism promotion” as used in the ratified program, the complete amendment language to the cited RCWs, and the effective date referenced for timing requirements.

If enacted, the bill would create a mechanism for the tourism industry to fund statewide promotion by levying a new annual fee based on a percentage of gross revenue on businesses in specified sectors, but only after those businesses approve the program through weighted referenda. For businesses in lodging, travel services, attractions, recreation, beverage production, and larger full-service restaurants and retailers, that means a likely new recurring cost and a new governance role: industry representatives on a ratepayer oversight board would design the assessment, approve budgets, and control how the separate tourism assessment account is spent, with funds held outside the regular state budget and spent without specific legislative appropriation. The most affected parties are the assessed tourism businesses (they bear the fees and potential enforcement costs, including up to a 10% penalty for nonpayment and civil collection actions), the Washington tourism marketing authority and its board (which must administer the program and initially front referendum costs, later reimbursed from the assessment fund), and the Department of Commerce (providing fiscal and administrative support). Important details that will determine actual costs and options—such as the percentage rates, the precise definition of "tourism promotion," whether opt-outs are permitted, and the act’s effective date—are not specified in the provided facts, so the timing and size of impacts remain uncertain.