SB 5812
In CommitteeSenate
K-12 education funding
Investing in the state's paramount duty to fund K-12 education and build strong and safe communities.
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 increases local property tax authority and adjusts state funding formulas to better support K-12 education and public safety. It raises the annual property tax growth cap from 1% to 3%, increases enrichment levies and state assistance for schools, and overhauls special education funding to better meet high-need student costs.
- Raises the annual property tax levy growth cap from 1% to 3% for all taxing districts, effective for taxes levied in 2026 and later.
- Increases the maximum enrichment levy rate from $2.50 to $3.00 per $1,000 assessed value for large districts (and $2.50 for smaller ones), with future increases tied to inflation and additional enhancements.
- Expands the state local effort assistance program to supplement local levies, especially for districts unable to raise full local funding, with thresholds rising to $1,550 per student (plus inflation and enhancements).
- Revises the special education funding formula, increasing per-student allocations, adjusting cost multipliers (e.g., 1.12 for students in general education ≥80% of time), and shifting 30% of base funding for special education students into their special education programs.
- Creates a K-12 funding equity work group to analyze and propose formula changes by November 1, 2025, with a focus on student weights, equity metrics, and geographic/economic disparities.
- Repeals the limit factor authorization (RCW 84.55.0101), simplifying property tax limit calculations and standardizing the limit factor at 100% + population change + inflation (capped at 103%).
Who is affected
- Public school districts — School districts will gain more flexibility to raise local property tax revenue through enrichment levies (up to $3.00 per $1,000 assessed value in 2026, rising with inflation), and receive state funding to supplement local levies, especially in lower-wealth districts.
- Students with disabilities — Students in special education will benefit from updated funding formulas that increase per-student allocations, shift more base funding into special education programs, and improve access to safety net funds for high-need students.
- Local governments and taxing districts — Local governments (counties, cities, and other taxing districts) will be able to increase property tax levies by up to 3% annually (instead of 1%) to support schools and public safety services, easing pressure on local budgets.
- Families in underserved communities — Families in rural, high-poverty, or historically underfunded districts will see improved equity in state funding, as the bill adjusts formulas to better reflect student needs and local capacity.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill significantly expands state local effort assistance (LEA) to supplement local levies, especially for districts unable to raise full local funding. The LEA threshold rises to $1,550 per student (plus inflation and enhancements), and the maximum enrichment levy increases to $3.00 per $1,000 assessed value in large districts. This directly benefits low-wealth districts by reducing their reliance on local property taxes and improving funding equity — particularly helpful for rural and high-poverty districts that historically generate less revenue per dollar of assessed value.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 3, RCW 28A.500.015 (amended); Sec. 2, RCW 84.52.0531 (amended)The bill revises special education funding by increasing per-student allocations, adjusting cost multipliers (e.g., 1.12 for students in general education ≥80% of time), and shifting 30% of base funding into special education programs. This better reflects the actual cost of serving high-need students and improves access to safety net funds — directly benefiting students with disabilities and their families by ensuring more consistent, program-specific support rather than general fund reallocations.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 8, RCW 28A.150.390 (amended); Sec. 10, RCW 28A.150.560 (amended)The bill establishes a K-12 funding equity work group to analyze and propose formula revisions by November 1, 2025, with a focus on student weights, equity metrics, and geographic disparities. While not binding, this creates a formal, legislatively mandated process to address long-standing inequities in school funding — a necessary step toward constitutional compliance after the *McCleary* decision. The work group’s mandate to include diverse stakeholders (educators, families, community partners) enhances transparency and community input.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 7 (K-12 funding equity work group); Sec. 2, 3, 8–10 (funding formula changes)Standardizing the limit factor at 100% + population change + inflation (capped at 103%) and repealing the limit factor authorization simplifies property tax calculations for all taxing districts. This reduces administrative burden on county assessors and districts, and provides more predictable growth caps — beneficial for small rural governments with limited fiscal staff and technical capacity.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 4, RCW 84.55.005 (amended); Sec. 5, RCW 84.55.100 (amended); NEW Sec. 6 (repealing RCW 84.55.0101)The bill strengthens the special education safety net by requiring districts to demonstrate they’ve maximized federal and state revenues before qualifying for additional awards, and by streamlining application requirements (e.g., simplified applications for small districts by 2025). This improves access to critical funding for high-need students and reduces administrative barriers — particularly beneficial for small, rural districts with limited grant-writing capacity.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 9, RCW 28A.150.392 (amended); Sec. 10, RCW 28A.150.560 (amended)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill increases the enrichment levy cap from $2.50 to $3.00 per $1,000 assessed value (with future inflation-based increases), and expands local effort assistance (LEA) thresholds to $1,550 per student (plus inflation enhancements), but the state funding formula still requires districts to generate local revenue first — meaning lower-wealth districts still face disproportionate pressure to raise taxes locally before receiving state补足. This disproportionately burdens property owners in low-assessed-value districts (often rural, high-poverty areas), who must vote for higher levies to access state matching funds, while wealthier districts can more easily meet the $1.50 threshold and receive full LEA without voter approval.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 2, RCW 84.52.0531 (amended); Sec. 3, RCW 28A.500.015 (amended)Repealing the limit factor authorization and standardizing the limit factor at 100% + population change + inflation (capped at 103%) simplifies property tax calculations and provides more predictable growth caps for all taxing districts. However, the 3% levy growth cap (up from 1%) applies broadly to all districts regardless of need, and the state does not adjust for population decline or economic hardship — districts with shrinking populations or declining assessed values still get the same 3% growth allowance, potentially inflating tax bills in struggling communities without corresponding service improvements.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 4, RCW 84.55.005 (amended); Sec. 5, RCW 84.55.100 (amended); NEW Sec. 6, repealing RCW 84.55.0101The bill raises the annual property tax levy growth cap from 1% to 3% for all taxing districts, effective 2026. While this eases pressure on local budgets for schools and public safety, it also increases the baseline for future property tax growth — effectively resetting the cap and allowing sustained higher increases going forward. This could accelerate housing cost pressures for fixed-income households (e.g., seniors, low-income families) in districts that already struggle with affordability, especially where assessed values are low and tax rates are already high.
FinancialRef: Sec. 7 (effective date: taxes levied 2026+); Sec. 2 (enrichment levy changes effective 2026)The bill creates a K-12 funding equity work group to analyze and propose formula changes by November 1, 2025, but the work group’s mandate is advisory only and expires December 1, 2027. No binding equity reforms are enacted in this bill — only a study process. This delays meaningful structural reform while implementing temporary, incremental changes (e.g., 3% levy cap, $1,550 LEA threshold) that do not address root causes of inequity (e.g., reliance on local property taxes).
EducationRef: Sec. 11 (K-12 funding equity work group); Sec. 2, 3, 8–10 (funding formula changes)The bill shifts 30% of base funding for special education students into their special education programs and increases per-student allocations, but the new cost multiplier (1.12 for students in general education ≥80% of time) is not adjusted for regional cost differences or inflation beyond 2026–30. This may underfund districts in high-cost areas (e.g., Puget Sound region) where special education service costs exceed state assumptions, forcing districts to divert general fund money — undermining the intent of the shift.
EducationRef: Sec. 8, RCW 28A.150.390 (amended); Sec. 10, RCW 28A.150.560 (amended)
Who Is Most Affected
Rural and high-poverty school districts benefit significantly from expanded LEA and enrichment levies, as they can now raise more local revenue and receive greater state补足 without overburdening property owners. Special education funding shifts also help districts serve high-need students more effectively.
Students with disabilities benefit from higher per-student allocations, adjusted cost multipliers, and 30% of base funding redirected to special education programs. This improves access to services and reduces reliance on general fund reallocations.
Property owners in low-assessed-value districts (often rural, high-poverty areas) face increased pressure to vote for higher levies to access state matching funds, as districts must generate local revenue first before receiving补足. This disproportionately burdens fixed-income households.
Local governments (counties, cities, taxing districts) gain more flexibility to raise property taxes (3% vs. 1% cap), easing pressure on public safety and school budgets. However, this may accelerate housing cost pressures in already unaffordable areas.
Families in underserved communities benefit from improved equity in state funding and stronger special education supports, but may face higher property taxes if districts raise levies to meet new thresholds. Net impact depends on local context.