SHB 2470
In CommitteeHouse
On-base school construction
Providing school construction assistance program facilities support for on-base schools.
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 allows school districts with schools located on military bases to receive state construction funding based on the full project cost minus federal contributions, and excludes those on-base facilities from the district’s existing facility inventory when calculating need. It also adjusts the state funding formula to reward growth and address special circumstances like emergencies or housing burdens.
- School districts with schools on military bases can exclude those facilities from their inventory when applying for state construction funding, helping them qualify for more support.
- State funding for on-base school construction equals the approved project cost minus any federal funding received for the same project.
- Adds up to 20 percentage points to state funding assistance based on average enrollment growth over the past three years (1 point for each 1% growth).
- Allows districts to request a minimum 20% state funding rate if the formula yields less than 20% and the district demonstrates need for minimum facilities.
- Excludes out-of-district students in alternative learning experience programs from enrollment counts used in funding calculations, unless a district submits an approved alternative calculation.
- Permits additional state assistance for special circumstances such as emergencies, housing burdens from statewide projects, or excessive student enrollment in state-owned housing.
Who is affected
- School districts with on-base schools — School districts operating schools on or near military installations (e.g., Fort Lewis, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Fairchild Air Force Base) may receive additional state funding to help cover construction or renovation costs for on-base schools, since those facilities are excluded from the district’s existing facility inventory when calculating need.
- Students and families in military families — Families and students attending schools located on military bases benefit from improved or new school facilities, as the bill helps ensure those schools can access state construction funding even if the district otherwise appears well-resourced based on local property values.
- Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) — The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) gains authority to develop rules and review alternative calculations for student counting and to determine eligibility for additional assistance under special conditions.
- State and federal agencies with military installations — State and federal governments may see reduced local tax burden for school facilities on military bases, since the state helps fund construction where federal funding alone may be insufficient or unavailable.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
By excluding on-base schools from the district’s facility inventory when calculating need, the bill enables districts hosting military schools (e.g., JBLM) to qualify for state construction funding despite having high local property values — addressing a structural inequity where federal land ownership distorts local valuation metrics and starves on-base schools of support.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)State funding for on-base school construction is tied to project cost minus federal contributions, ensuring the state fills the gap where federal funding is insufficient or unavailable — this directly benefits military-connected students and families who otherwise face substandard school infrastructure due to jurisdictional gaps.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)The minimum 20% funding floor for districts scoring below that threshold under the valuation formula helps protect low-valuation districts (often rural or economically distressed) from being systematically underfunded — a long-standing equity flaw in Washington’s school construction program.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)Expanding eligibility for emergency and special-housing-burden assistance (e.g., fire, condemnation, statewide housing projects) allows districts facing sudden crises to access faster, more reliable state support — improving resilience and continuity of education during disruptions.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(5)Excluding out-of-district ALE students from enrollment counts (unless an alternative calculation is submitted and approved) helps prevent revenue manipulation and better aligns facility funding with actual local facility use — supporting fairer resource allocation across districts.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(4)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill adds broad discretionary authority for the Superintendent to award additional state funding for “special circumstances” including “conditions similar to those defined under (a)–(e)” — a catch-all clause that lacks clear, objective criteria and could lead to inconsistent or politically influenced award decisions, undermining transparency and predictability in school construction planning.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1(5)Excluding out-of-district students in alternative learning experience (ALE) programs from enrollment counts may artificially inflate per-pupil funding metrics for districts that heavily rely on ALE, potentially diverting resources from districts that serve more traditional in-district students — especially problematic since ALE programs often serve high-need students but are frequently used by districts to generate revenue, not serve students in their own communities.
EducationRef: Sec. 1(4)The growth-based bonus (up to 20 percentage points) rewards districts with recent enrollment growth, but growth often reflects broader regional trends (e.g., suburban expansion) rather than local need — districts with stable or declining enrollment (e.g., rural or aging communities) may be further disadvantaged, worsening long-term equity in facility investment.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(3)The bill retains outdated biennium-specific provisions (e.g., 2015–2017 ALE bonus) in the statutory text, creating potential confusion or legal inconsistency — though not active in 2026, such retained language may complicate future statutory interpretation and implementation.
EducationRef: Sec. 1(6) (repealed text retained in bill)The bill’s “state-owned housing” provision (subsection 5(d)) could unintentionally incentivize state agencies to concentrate high-enrollment housing projects in districts with lower baseline funding capacity — potentially concentrating poverty and strain on schools without addressing root causes like lack of affordable housing.
HousingRef: Sec. 1(6)
Who Is Most Affected
Military-connected families and students benefit significantly — on-base schools gain access to modern facilities, improving educational stability for children in high-mobility military families. This directly supports student well-being and academic continuity.
Districts hosting on-base schools (e.g., Tacoma, Lakewood, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Fairchild AFB) gain new funding pathways previously unavailable due to high local valuation from federal land. This addresses a long-standing inequity where federal ownership distorted need assessments.
Low-valuation rural and small districts benefit from the minimum 20% funding floor and growth-based adjustments — though growth bonuses may favor faster-growing areas, the floor provides a baseline of support that helps prevent further underinvestment.
State agencies managing housing (e.g., DoD, VA, HUD) may face indirect pressure to coordinate with school districts to avoid overburdening local schools — but the bill does not require them to fund facilities, so the burden remains on districts and the state.
Private developers and large charter networks using ALE programs to generate revenue may see reduced per-pupil funding if districts cannot meet the alternative calculation threshold — this could reduce revenue extraction incentives but may also reduce program availability in some regions.