Committee hears bill to make $3 tourism charge permanent for existing TPAs
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
House Bill 22-78 would remove the July 1, 2027, expiration on an additional $3 per-room-per-night charge that some tourism promotion areas (TPAs) impose to fund local tourism marketing. Supporters said the revenue helps local advertising and events; staff said it increases local revenue by about $4 million in the 2027–29 biennium.
House Finance took testimony on House Bill 22-78 on Feb. 6, a bill to remove the July 1, 2027 expiration date on an additional $3 per-room-per-night charge that some local tourism promotion areas use to fund advertising and destination marketing.
Martha Whaling, staff to the Technology, Economic Development and Veterans Committee, told the committee the law allows counties, cities and towns to create tourism promotion areas that can charge up to $2 per room per night and an additional $3 per room per night; HB 22-78 would remove the expiration date on the additional $3 charge. "The bill before you, house bill 22 78, removes the 07/01/2027 expiration date for the $3 per night additional lodging charge," Whaling said.
Christina King, the committee’s fiscal staff, said the bill does not affect state revenue but is estimated to increase local revenues by about $4,000,000 for the 2027–29 biennium and that the Department of Revenue anticipates one-time expenditures of roughly $4,000 to implement the change.
Representative Stephanie Barnard (8th Legislative District), the prime sponsor for this bill in the committee, described the TPA approach as industry-led and voluntary. "This is about tourism," Barnard said, arguing that hotels and related businesses organize TPAs to market their communities and noted projects funded by those dollars, including the Ironman Triathlon coming to the Tri-Cities.
Local destination marketing organizations and tourism officials testified in support, saying TPAs have improved return-on-investment for local advertising and enabled regionally significant events. Opposing or cautious testimony was limited in this hearing; committee members asked staff to clarify implementation questions such as whether local governments would need to re-adopt ordinances if the state deadline were extended.
The committee did not take final action on HB 22-78 during this session; staff said they would follow up on technical questions about local ordinance requirements.
The record: staff briefings and sponsor remarks are available in committee materials; questions from Representatives Orcutt and Jacobson centered on local process and distinctions from other tourism funding programs.