SB 5145
In CommitteeSenate
State spending prgs. review
Implementing the periodic review of state spending programs.
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 requires that most new state spending programs in Washington have a built-in expiration date—typically no more than 10 years—and must include clear goals and performance measures. It also creates a formal review process by a legislative committee to decide whether programs should continue, be changed, or end based on whether they meet their stated objectives.
- All new state spending programs (costing over $1 million in the first full biennium) must include an expiration date no later than 10 years after starting.
- New spending programs must include a state spending performance statement that explains the program’s purpose and sets measurable goals and data requirements.
- The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee must review new spending programs on a schedule and recommend whether they should continue, be modified, or be terminated—especially if they fail to meet their stated goals.
- If a new spending program does not include the required performance statement, it is presumed the legislature intended for it to expire on its scheduled date.
- Amendments that expand or modify existing programs do not automatically extend the program’s expiration unless the extension is clearly and explicitly stated in the amendment.
Who is affected
- State agencies and departments — State agencies and departments that would need to include expiration dates and performance statements in new spending programs, and may face review or termination if programs fail to meet goals.
- Legislative staff and committees — Legislators and legislative staff (especially the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee and fiscal committees) who will be responsible for reviewing new programs and making recommendations on their continuation.
- Local governments and nonprofit recipients — Local governments, tribes, and nonprofit organizations that receive state funding through new programs and may see changes or reductions if those programs are modified or terminated.
- General public — Residents who benefit from state services or programs—some may see changes if programs are modified or sunset, while others may benefit from more accountable use of state funds.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
By requiring performance-based reviews and mandating that programs be modified or terminated if they fail to meet goals, the bill may reduce wasteful or inefficient spending—potentially freeing up funds for higher-priority services that benefit working families and small businesses.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2); Sec. 3(1)(e)Mandating clear legislative purpose and measurable metrics in new programs improves transparency and accountability, helping local governments and advocacy groups hold agencies accountable and advocate for program improvements based on evidence.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2); Sec. 2(3)The 10-year expiration requirement may prevent the entrenchment of outdated or ineffective programs, reducing long-term structural deficits and helping the state avoid accumulating unfunded liabilities—benefiting future generations and state fiscal stability.
FinancialLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(b); Sec. 4The review process explicitly considers unintended benefits to non-target groups (e.g., corporate subsidies disguised as public safety programs), which could prevent regressive or inefficient allocations of taxpayer dollars.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(1)(d); Sec. 3(2)While the bill does not create new spending, the requirement for fiscal impact assessments during reviews may improve long-term budget discipline—though this benefit is modest because the legislature retains full discretion over whether to follow recommendations.
FinancialLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(1)(f); Sec. 4
Potential Concerns (5)
Premature termination of evidence-based public safety programs (e.g., gang intervention, domestic violence prevention, or mental health crisis response units) could occur if they fail to meet narrow or short-term metrics—despite long-term societal benefits—because the review process prioritizes measurable outputs over complex outcomes like reduced recidivism or improved community trust.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a); Sec. 3(2)Long-term public health initiatives—such as chronic disease prevention, substance use disorder treatment, or maternal health outreach—may be cut before their full impact is realized, because 10-year sunsets may not align with the 15–20 year timelines needed to demonstrate cost-saving health outcomes.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a); Sec. 3(2)Education programs requiring multi-year implementation (e.g., early learning expansion, special education supports, or teacher retention initiatives) may be terminated prematurely if performance metrics focus on short-term test scores rather than long-term skill development or equity gains.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a); Sec. 2(3); Sec. 3(1)(f)Affordable housing and homelessness prevention programs—especially those serving vulnerable populations like youth exiting foster care or survivors of domestic violence—could be defunded if they lack easily quantifiable metrics, even though their success may be evident in qualitative or delayed outcomes (e.g., stable housing retention).
HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(3)Local governments and tribes that rely on state program funding may face budget uncertainty and administrative burden in adapting to frequent program sunsets, especially if state reviews lead to abrupt terminations without transition planning.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a); Sec. 4
Who Is Most Affected
State agencies may face increased administrative burden to design programs with sunset clauses and performance metrics, but also gain clarity on program expectations and potential opportunities for reform or modernization.
Local governments and tribes may benefit from more transparent and accountable state programs, but face risk of sudden funding cuts if programs expire or are terminated before multi-year grants or services are fully implemented.
The general public may benefit from more effective use of taxpayer dollars and reduced program bloat, but could lose access to long-term services (e.g., mental health, housing support) if metrics don’t reflect real-world impact timelines.
Legislative staff and committees will gain new review authority but also increased workload; this could strengthen oversight capacity but may strain resources if staffing is not increased to support the review schedule.