SSB 5492
SignedSenate
Tourism promotion
Concerning sustainable state tourism promotion.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill updates how Washington’s tourism marketing authority is governed and creates a new advisory group to study shifting tourism promotion funding from state taxes to a self-funded assessment paid by tourism businesses. It aims to create a more stable, industry-supported funding model for promoting the state’s tourism industry, which generates $23.9 billion annually and supports over 230,000 jobs.
- Amends the governance structure of the Washington Tourism Marketing Authority by updating the composition and appointment process for its board of directors, including setting all board terms to four years and requiring the chair to be from the tourism industry.
- Creates a new Tourism Self-Supported Assessment Advisory Group to study and recommend how to fund tourism promotion through an industry-paid assessment (e.g., fees or taxes on tourism businesses), rather than state appropriations.
- Requires the advisory group to submit recommendations to the legislature by November 1, 2025, covering topics such as which businesses would pay, how much they’d pay, how assessments would be approved, and how oversight would work.
- Establishes a sunset date for the new assessment advisory group provisions: they expire on June 1, 2026, unless the legislature acts to extend or make them permanent.
- Requires board appointments to reflect geographic, business size, gender, and ethnic diversity, with limits on how many people from the same city or county can serve.
Who is affected
- Tourism industry businesses — Tourism-related businesses (e.g., hotels, restaurants, attractions, rental car companies, tour operators, arts and culture organizations) may be subject to a new industry-funded assessment if the advisory group recommends and the legislature approves it.
- State and local governments — State and local governments could benefit from increased tax revenue if tourism promotion is more effective and visitor spending rises.
- Tourism workers and employees — Workers in tourism-related industries may benefit from job growth and wage increases if tourism promotion leads to higher visitor numbers and spending.
- Tribal nations — Federally recognized tribes may gain greater representation and input through the advisory committee and potential inclusion in tourism promotion efforts.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill proposes shifting tourism promotion funding from state appropriations to an industry-paid assessment. If implemented, this could stabilize funding and increase the scale and effectiveness of marketing, directly benefiting tourism businesses through higher visitor volume and revenue — especially small and medium-sized operators who rely heavily on tourism traffic. The bill notes current $4.5M state investment yields $29 in visitor spending per $1, suggesting strong ROI for industry participation.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1, Sec. 3(1)Tourism supports over 230,000 jobs and generates $23.9B annually. By creating a path to industry-funded promotion, the bill aims to increase investment in marketing, which could lead to job growth, wage increases, and reduced vulnerability to state budget cuts — directly benefiting workers across the sector, especially in service and hourly positions.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1, Sec. 3(1)The bill requires board appointments to reflect geographic, business size, gender, and ethnic diversity, and creates space for tribal representation via the advisory committee. This could improve inclusivity and ensure that rural, minority- and tribal-led tourism enterprises have greater voice in how tourism is promoted — potentially expanding economic opportunity beyond Seattle-centric corridors.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(c), Sec. 3(2)The bill mandates that advisory group members represent specific tourism sectors (lodging, beverage, arts, etc.), increasing the likelihood that niche but vital parts of the tourism economy — such as arts and culture organizations, tour operators, and small attractions — receive formal input in funding and promotion decisions, which are often overlooked in broad state programs.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(c), Sec. 3(2)More effective tourism marketing could reduce seasonal economic volatility in tourism-dependent communities, which is linked to higher rates of property crime and substance use during downturns. By stabilizing tourism revenue and smoothing visitor flows, the bill may contribute to improved public safety outcomes in vulnerable communities — though this is indirect and not explicitly modeled in the bill.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1, Sec. 3(1)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill requires board appointments to reflect geographic, business size, gender, and ethnic diversity, with limits on how many people from the same city or county can serve. This could reduce local government influence over tourism policy decisions, as appointments are centralized under the governor and board selection criteria prioritize industry representation over local jurisdictional input.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(1)(c), Sec. 3(2)The bill creates a new advisory group composed of industry representatives, but does not require that small or micro-businesses be proportionally represented — only that sectors be represented. Given that the tourism industry is dominated by large hotel chains, national restaurant groups, and major attractions, the advisory group may be skewed toward large corporate interests, potentially marginalizing small operators and sole proprietors in tourism-related fields.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 2(1)(c), Sec. 3(2)The advisory group’s recommendations are due to the legislature by November 1, 2025, and the provisions expire June 1, 2026 unless extended. This creates a narrow window for legislative action, increasing pressure on the legislature to act quickly — potentially limiting public input and oversight — and risking abrupt policy shifts if the legislature fails to act in time.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 3(5)The bill requires board appointments to reflect diversity in geography, business size, gender, and ethnicity, but caps appointments per city (1) and county (2). In highly populated urban areas like King or Snohomish counties, this may underrepresent large employers and regional tourism hubs, potentially skewing board priorities toward rural or less economically powerful regions despite their smaller tourism economic footprint.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 2(1)(c)The bill does not specify how the advisory group’s recommendations will be evaluated or implemented — it only requires submission of recommendations. If the legislature chooses not to act, or acts in a way that dilutes or delays implementation, the status quo of underfunded state tourism marketing could persist, leaving tourism workers and businesses without the promised industry-funded stability.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 3(1)
Who Is Most Affected
Tourism businesses — especially small and medium-sized operators like family-owned lodges, restaurants, and tour operators — stand to benefit from more stable, industry-funded promotion, potentially increasing revenue and reducing reliance on state marketing budgets. However, if assessments are imposed without exemptions or tiered structures, smaller firms may bear disproportionate costs relative to benefits.
State and local governments may benefit from increased tax revenue if tourism promotion becomes more effective, but could lose flexibility if tourism funding becomes locked into an industry assessment model that reduces state budget discretion. Local governments in tourism-dependent areas (e.g., Olympic Peninsula, Eastern WA) may see stronger positive effects than urban centers.
Tourism workers — especially hourly, service-sector, and seasonal employees — are likely to benefit from increased visitor numbers and job stability if the industry-funded model succeeds. However, if assessments lead to reduced hiring or wage stagnation (e.g., if businesses cut labor to offset fees), the impact could be negative for low-wage workers.
Tribal nations may gain greater representation through the advisory committee and potential inclusion in tourism promotion, which could support tribal tourism enterprises and cultural tourism initiatives. However, without explicit funding or enforcement mechanisms, representation does not guarantee influence or equitable benefit.