HB 1485
In CommitteeHouse
Services and activities fees
Increasing the annual limit of services and activities fees at institutions of higher education.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
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 raises the maximum annual increase allowed for services and activities fees at Washington’s public colleges and universities from 4% to 6%, and allows community and technical colleges to match tuition increases (up to 6%) for fee hikes. It keeps current approval processes in place while addressing rising operational costs for student services like health, counseling, and clubs.
- Raises the annual cap on services and activities fee increases from 4% to 6% for public universities and some community/technical colleges.
- Allows community and technical colleges to increase fees by up to the same percentage as tuition increases for resident undergraduates (capped at 6%), excluding amounts used for bonded debt repayment.
- Maintains existing fee-approval processes, including review by services and activities fee committees and governing boards.
- Permits governing boards to set fees for noncredit, ungraded, and self-supporting courses, consistent with state board rules.
- Requires the Office of Financial Management to calculate building fees based on 1994–95 levels adjusted for inflation.
Who is affected
- Students — Students at public community and technical colleges, and four-year public universities in Washington, who may face higher annual fees for student services and activities.
- Institutional leadership/governing boards — Governing boards of public higher education institutions (e.g., community and technical college boards, university boards) that must follow new fee-increase limits and procedures.
- Fee review committees — Services and activities fee committees, which advise on fee increases and may propose changes to governing boards.
- State higher education oversight agencies — State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, which sets summer school fees and oversees rules for noncredit and self-supporting courses.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (2)
Higher fee revenue may support expanded student health, counseling, academic support, and mental health services — critical needs in Washington’s colleges, especially post-pandemic — potentially improving retention and graduation rates for vulnerable student populations.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2) — raises cap from 4% to 6% for services and activities fees at public universities and allows matching of tuition increases at community/technical collegesFlexibility in fee-setting for noncredit and workforce-aligned courses may support expanded access to upskilling and continuing education, especially for adult learners and displaced workers — though this benefit is likely concentrated among those already enrolled or near-enrollment.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(2) — permits governing boards to set fees for noncredit, ungraded, and self-supporting courses consistent with state board rules
Potential Concerns (3)
Increases in services and activities fees directly raise the cost of attending public higher education institutions, disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income students who rely on financial aid packages that do not fully cover fee hikes — especially since these fees fund services (e.g., counseling, health) that many students depend on but cannot easily replace off-campus.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2) — raises cap from 4% to 6% for services and activities fees at public universities; allows community/technical colleges to match tuition increases (up to 6%) for resident undergraduatesWhile framed as aligning fees with tuition, this provision effectively links fee increases to tuition trends — which have risen faster than inflation — and may compound affordability pressures for students already struggling with rising tuition, especially at community and technical colleges where students are more likely to be low-income, first-generation, or working.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2) — allows community and technical colleges to increase fees by up to the tuition increase percentage (capped at 6%), excluding bonded debt portionsThe advisory role of fee committees may dilute student input, especially if governing boards prioritize fiscal stability over affordability — reducing the effectiveness of the approval process in protecting students from excessive fee growth.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(2) — services and activities fee committees advise but do not control governing boards
Who Is Most Affected
Low- and middle-income students — especially at community and technical colleges — face higher out-of-pocket costs without proportional increases in need-based aid; these students are less able to absorb fee increases and may reduce course loads or delay graduation.
Institutional leadership gains more predictable revenue to fund essential student services, but may face political backlash if fee increases outpace inflation or student expectations.
Fee review committees gain formal authority to propose increases, but their advisory role limits real influence over final decisions — may strengthen their role in budget transparency, but not in cost control.
State higher education oversight agencies gain flexibility to align fees with market realities, but may face increased pressure to justify fee increases amid affordability concerns.
Students who rely on campus health, counseling, and academic support services benefit from more stable funding, but may be harmed if fee hikes reduce enrollment or force them to seek off-campus alternatives.