West Virginia Senate Bill SB 403

West Virginia 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/15/26
• Refer: 1/15/26
• Report Pass: 1/28/26
• Engrossed: 2/2/26
• Refer: 2/3/26
• Refer: 2/17/26

Caption

Relating to expanding definition of "tourism attraction"

Summary

SB 403 would amend West Virginia law governing the definition of a “tourism attraction.” Based on the bill caption and available legislative history, the measure is aimed at broadening what types of projects, facilities, or activities can qualify as tourism attractions under state law. The practical effect would be to make additional developments eligible for treatment under tourism-related incentive or support programs that rely on that definition. Because the bill text was not available in the provided materials, the exact statutory changes cannot be identified from the excerpt alone. However, the bill appears to be a targeted economic development measure rather than a broad policy overhaul. Its main legal effect would be to expand eligibility under existing tourism statutes, which could affect how state agencies, local governments, and private developers evaluate projects for tourism-related benefits.

Impact

SB 403 would likely alter the statutory definition used in West Virginia’s tourism development framework, potentially expanding the pool of projects that can qualify as tourism attractions for purposes of state incentives, financing, or program eligibility. That could affect applicants seeking public support for attractions, entertainment venues, cultural sites, outdoor recreation facilities, or similar developments, depending on the final language of the amendment. The bill passed the Senate unanimously and was then referred to House Finance, indicating it may have fiscal or programmatic implications for state-supported tourism initiatives.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests broadly favorable sentiment toward the bill. The Senate passed SB 403 by a 32-0 vote, which indicates no recorded opposition in that chamber. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no direct record of debate, but the unanimous vote and referral to House Finance suggest the measure was viewed as a relatively noncontroversial economic development proposal, at least in the Senate.

Contention

No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. The most likely area of debate, if any, would be whether expanding the definition of “tourism attraction” could broaden state incentives too far, increase public costs, or create uneven treatment among projects seeking tourism-related benefits. On the other hand, supporters would likely argue that a broader definition helps attract investment, encourages development, and strengthens local tourism economies. Without committee testimony or the bill text, the exact lines of disagreement cannot be confirmed.