HJR 4205
In CommitteeHouse
School levies
Abolishing excess enrichment and capital levies.
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 proposes a constitutional amendment to cap total property taxes at 1% of property value statewide, while allowing exceptions with voter approval for specific purposes like fire protection, school operations, and capital projects. It also changes how school districts can exceed the tax cap—allowing a simple majority vote instead of a supermajority—and updates rules for bond elections and tax levies for fire districts.
- Establishes a statewide constitutional cap on total property tax levies at 1% of the true and fair value of property annually.
- Allows taxing districts (except ports and public utility districts) to exceed the cap only with voter approval—either through special elections or at regular elections—under specific voter participation and supermajority thresholds.
- Permits fire protection districts to levy additional taxes for up to 4 years for operations or up to 6 years for fire facility construction/modernization, with voter approval.
- Modifies school district levy rules: allows a simple majority (not a supermajority) of voters approving a levy to exceed the cap, and removes the requirement that voter turnout must meet 40% of the prior general election turnout for school levies.
- Allows taxing districts to exceed the tax cap to pay principal and interest on general obligation bonds for capital projects (e.g., buildings, infrastructure), if voters approve the bond issuance.
- Permits the state or local districts to exceed the tax cap if ordered by a court to protect contractual obligations.
Who is affected
- Washington property owners and residents — Residents and property owners in Washington state will be subject to a new constitutional cap on property tax levies (1% of property value), but may approve additional taxes through local elections under specific conditions.
- School and fire districts — School districts and fire districts can seek voter approval for additional property taxes for specific purposes and durations (e.g., up to 4 years for fire protection, up to 6 years for fire facilities), with modified voter approval thresholds for school levies.
- Local governments and taxing districts — Local governments and taxing districts must follow new rules for holding bond elections and exceeding tax limits, including stricter voter participation requirements.
- Washington voters — Voters will decide whether to approve a constitutional amendment that changes how much property tax can be levied statewide and by local districts.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for concerns
Potential Benefits (5)
Allowing school levies to pass with a simple majority (instead of supermajority) increases the likelihood of passage, especially in districts where support for schools is strong but not overwhelming — this could stabilize local school funding and reduce reliance on state funding to make up for local levy shortfalls.
EducationPeopleRef: Section 2(a) — simple majority for school leviesPermitting tax levies above the cap when ordered by a court to protect contractual obligations ensures that legal obligations (e.g., pension liabilities, debt covenants) remain enforceable, protecting workers’ and retirees’ contractual rights from being undermined by statutory constraints.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Section 2(c) — court-ordered tax levies to protect contractsAllowing fire districts to levy for operations for up to 4 years (instead of annually) reduces election frequency and administrative costs, enabling more stable budgeting and staffing — particularly beneficial for small rural fire districts with limited administrative capacity.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Section 2(a) — fire district 4-year operations leviesPermitting taxing districts to exceed the cap for bond principal and interest on capital projects ensures long-term infrastructure investment remains possible — though the 40% turnout requirement remains a barrier, the provision preserves a critical fiscal tool for schools, fire districts, and other local entities.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Section 2(b) — bond elections for capital projectsThe 1% cap may provide predictability and limit runaway property tax increases for homeowners, especially in high-appreciation areas — though benefits are not evenly distributed, middle-income homeowners in stable markets may see modest relief if assessed values rise faster than the cap.
HousingLean peopleRef: Section 2 — 1% cap with exceptions for voter-approved levies
Potential Concerns (5)
Lowering the voter approval threshold for school levies from supermajority to simple majority may increase the likelihood of levy passage, but removing the 40% turnout requirement may reduce democratic legitimacy and lead to levies passing in low-turnout elections where school funding priorities are not broadly supported.
EducationLean industryRef: Section 2(a) — simple majority for school levies, removal of 40% turnout requirementAllowing fire districts to levy for up to 6 years for facility construction may improve fire infrastructure, but the requirement for voter approval at each renewal creates administrative burden and uncertainty for districts, potentially delaying critical capital projects and increasing long-term maintenance risks in underserved areas with lower voter turnout.
Public SafetyIndustryRef: Section 2(a) — 4-year fire operations levies and 6-year fire facility levies with voter approvalMaintaining a 40% voter turnout threshold for bond elections (except for school levies) disproportionately burdens small and rural taxing districts, where achieving 40% of prior general election turnout is difficult, effectively limiting capital investment in communities already under-resourced.
Local GovernmentIndustryRef: Section 2(b) — bond elections for capital projects with 40% turnout requirementThe 1% cap may reduce property tax bills for high-value properties, but for middle- and low-income homeowners in rapidly appreciating markets (e.g., Seattle, Spokane), assessed values may outpace the cap, limiting tax relief and potentially shifting tax burden to remaining property classes (e.g., commercial), which could increase commercial rents and indirectly raise housing costs.
HousingIndustryRef: Section 2(a) — 1% cap on total property tax leviesThe 1% cap, while framed as a tax limit, will likely reduce overall property tax revenue for local governments unless voters approve additional levies — a process that is costly, time-consuming, and subject to low turnout — potentially leading to underfunded schools, fire districts, and emergency services, especially in districts with historically lower voter engagement.
Local GovernmentIndustryRef: Section 2 — constitutional cap on total property tax levies at 1% of true and fair value
Who Is Most Affected
Middle- and low-income homeowners in moderate-appreciation markets may benefit from tax predictability and modest relief, but those in high-appreciation areas may see little benefit if assessed values exceed the cap; overall, this group is net neutral-to-slightly-negative due to risk of service cuts.
Rural and small-town fire and school districts face higher barriers to voter approval (e.g., 40% turnout thresholds), making it harder to fund operations and capital projects — they are more likely to experience budget instability and service reductions.
Large urban school districts with high voter turnout and strong community support may benefit from simple-majority levies, while small districts struggle to meet thresholds — net effect is increased funding inequality between districts.
Property owners with high-value homes (>$1M) benefit disproportionately from the 1% cap, as their absolute tax savings are largest — this is regressive in effect, even if framed as universal.
Local governments face increased administrative burden (more elections, compliance with complex voter thresholds) and risk of reduced revenue — especially problematic in counties with declining populations or low voter engagement.