SB 5593
In CommitteeSenate
School levies & local effort
Adjusting enrichment levies and local effort assistance.
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 overhauls how Washington school districts can levy local property taxes for enrichment programs and how the state supplements those levies. It replaces the old per-thousand-dollar levy cap with a new formula based on state funding allocations and a 30% maximum levy rate, while expanding state assistance for districts where local levies exceed the statewide average.
- Sets a new maximum enrichment levy cap for school districts starting in 2026, based on a formula that combines the district’s levy base (state funding allocations) and a fixed maximum levy percentage of 30%.
- Replaces the previous per-thousand-dollar assessed value cap ($2.50 or per-pupil limit) with a new system that calculates levies using state-determined funding allocations and a uniform 30% cap.
- Expands and revises the local effort assistance program: the state now matches local enrichment levies using a formula tied to how much a district’s 18% levy rate exceeds the statewide average, with maximum state support equal to 18% of the district’s levy authority.
- Requires districts to submit an enrichment levy expenditure plan for approval before putting a levy measure before voters.
- Repeals the old law governing payments between high and nonhigh school districts (RCW 84.52.058), integrating those adjustments into the new enrichment levy calculation process.
- Includes special provisions for state-tribal education compact schools, providing up to $1,550 per student (adjusted for inflation) in state assistance based on the host district’s levy.
Who is affected
- Low-wealth school districts — School districts with lower property wealth (lower assessed property values per student) will receive increased state funding to help offset the cost of local enrichment levies, especially those where the local levy rate exceeds the statewide average.
- High-wealth school districts — School districts with higher property wealth may see their maximum allowable enrichment levy reduced because they receive less or no state local effort assistance, and their levy caps are adjusted downward based on state funding formulas.
- High/nonhigh school district partnerships — School districts operating high schools that serve students from multiple districts (high/nonhigh relationships) will have their levy calculations adjusted to reflect proper allocation of student enrollment and payments between districts.
- State-tribal education compact school communities — Students and families in state-tribal education compact schools will benefit from state funding that supplements local levies, up to $1,550 per student (adjusted for inflation), based on the host district’s actual levy.
- Innovation academy cooperative districts — Innovation academy cooperatives—where multiple districts jointly operate a school—will have student enrollments reallocated among participating districts for levy and assistance calculations.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
Low-wealth districts where the 18% levy rate exceeds the statewide average will receive state assistance that effectively equalizes enrichment funding—helping them raise local revenue without overburdening property owners—thereby reducing disparities in local program funding across districts.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3): State matches levies based on how much a district’s 18% rate exceeds the statewide average; Sec. 2(6)(e): State local effort assistance threshold = $1,550/student (inflation-adjusted)State-tribal education compact schools receive dedicated state funding tied to host district levies, ensuring stable per-student support and reducing reliance on local property taxes—benefiting Indigenous students and communities in rural or low-wealth areas where compact schools serve as critical educational alternatives.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(4): State-tribal compact schools receive up to $1,550/student (inflation-adjusted) based on host district’s actual levy; Sec. 3: Repeal of RCW 84.52.058By tying enrichment levies to state funding allocations rather than local property wealth, the bill reduces the ability of high-wealth districts to generate vastly more local enrichment revenue—helping narrow the gap in enrichment program access between wealthy and low-wealth districts.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)-(b): Levy base includes only state basic education and categorical allocations (e.g., special ed, compensatory ed, food services); Sec. 1(5): Enrichment levies must be deposited in a separate subfund and subject to auditThe reallocation of student enrollments in innovation academies ensures fair distribution of levy authority and state assistance among participating districts—preventing any one district from being over- or under-compensated for shared school costs.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(d): Innovation academy cooperative enrollments must be reallocated proportionally among participating districts for levy and assistance calculationsThe new formula standardizes levy calculations across districts and simplifies the legal framework—reducing administrative complexity for small districts that previously struggled to navigate the old per-thousand-dollar and per-pupil limits.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1): New formula replaces per-thousand-dollar cap ($2.50 or per-pupil limit) with 30% levy cap based on state funding allocations
Potential Concerns (5)
High-wealth districts with high property values per student will see their maximum allowable enrichment levies reduced because their levy caps are tied to state funding allocations (which are lower per student in high-wealth districts due to lower need-based state funding), not local property wealth. This effectively caps enrichment spending in affluent districts that previously leveraged high assessed values to raise more locally.
FinancialIndustryRef: Sec. 1(3): 30% maximum levy percentage; Sec. 1(2): levy base excludes local property tax revenue and includes only state funding allocations (basic ed + categorical programs)The new local effort assistance formula disproportionately benefits high-wealth districts that can afford to levy near the 30% cap—because their higher levies trigger larger state matching payments—while low-wealth districts, even with high levy rates, may not reach the 18% threshold needed for full matching due to lower levy bases. This creates a regressive dynamic where wealthier districts receive more state dollars per dollar raised locally.
FinancialIndustryRef: Sec. 2(3)(a)-(b): State matches local levies based on how much a district’s 18% levy rate exceeds the statewide average; Sec. 2(3)(b): maximum match capped at 18% of district’s levy authorityState-tribal compact schools receive per-student state assistance tied to the host district’s enrichment levy, which may incentivize host districts to raise levies to maximize compact school funding—potentially diverting local tax revenue toward compact schools at the expense of broader district needs, especially in rural or low-wealth districts where compact schools are located.
EducationIndustryRef: Sec. 2(4): State-tribal compact schools receive up to $1,550/student (inflation-adjusted) based on host district’s actual levy; Sec. 1(2)(b)(v): food services included in levy baseThe repeal of RCW 84.52.058 eliminates a long-standing payment mechanism between high and nonhigh districts, replacing it with a more opaque formula that embeds student allocation adjustments into the enrichment levy calculation—reducing transparency and potentially creating disincentives for nonhigh districts to retain students, as their levy authority is now tied to enrollment in the host district.
Local GovernmentIndustryRef: Sec. 1(1): Repeals RCW 84.52.058 and integrates high/nonhigh adjustments into enrichment levy calculations; Sec. 1(2)(b): levy base excludes local property tax revenueThe requirement for districts to submit an enrichment levy expenditure plan for approval before voter submission adds administrative burden and delays implementation, disproportionately affecting small districts with limited staff capacity to prepare detailed plans and meet state deadlines.
EducationLean industryRef: Sec. 1(5): Enrichment levy revenues must be deposited in a separate subfund and are subject to RCW 28A.150.276 restrictions
Who Is Most Affected
Low-wealth districts benefit from state assistance that offsets local levy burdens, especially when they levy above the statewide average. However, they may still face constraints if their levy bases (tied to state allocations) remain low, limiting their ability to raise sufficient local funds even with matching support.
High-wealth districts benefit from a simplified, standardized levy cap and may receive more state matching dollars per dollar raised (due to higher levy capacity), but their maximum allowable enrichment levies are likely reduced because their levy caps are no longer tied to high local property values.
Students and families in state-tribal compact schools gain dedicated per-student funding tied to host district levies, improving program stability and access. However, host districts may face pressure to raise levies to maximize compact school funding, potentially straining local budgets.
High/nonhigh districts lose the transparency of the old payment mechanism but gain integration of student allocation adjustments into the enrichment levy framework, which may improve fairness in shared high school costs—though small nonhigh districts may still struggle with enrollment-based revenue volatility.
Innovation academy cooperatives gain clear rules for enrollment allocation and state assistance, reducing disputes over funding shares. However, districts with smaller enrollments may see reduced influence in cooperative governance if levy authority is reallocated proportionally.