HB 2459 — Schools outside UGAs

Summary

Concerning siting schools outside of an urban growth area.

Bill Text

Compared against the Revised Code of Washington as published AI-generated reading aid — verify against the official bill.

This bill amends 2 section(s) of the Revised Code of Washington: RCW 36.70A.211; RCW 36.70A.213.

• RCW 36.70A.211

  The county has a population of more than eight hundred forty thousand but fewer than one million five hundred thousand and abuts at least six other counties; (b) (c) (d) (2) (1) (3) collect or impose (4) → read as follows: (1) No countywide planning policy or multicounty planning policy may prohibit the siting in a rural area of a school that serves students from an urban area if the site of the new school is contiguous to an existing school within the school district. (2) A county may authorize the siting in a rural area of a school that serves students from an urban area, even where otherwise prohibited by a multicounty planning policy, under the following circumstances: (a) The county must have adopted in its comprehensive plan a policy concerning the siting of schools in rural areas; p. 1 HB 2459 ⟦INS⟧ (b) Any impacts associated with the siting of such a school are mitigated as required by the state environmental policy act, chapter 43.21C RCW; and (c) The county must be a participant in a multicounty planning policy as described in RCW 36.70A.210. (3) A multicounty planning policy in which any county referenced in subsection (2) of this section is a participant must be amended, at its next regularly scheduled update, to include a policy that addresses the siting of schools in rural areas of all counties subject to the multicounty planning policy. (4) A school sited under this section may not be included in the calculation of the impact fees described in RCW 82.02.050. (5) This section expires June 30, 2031.

  amended

• RCW 36.70A.213

  either or twenty (4) By December 1, 2023, the department shall report to the governor and the appropriate committees of the legislature about schools outside of urban growth areas that have been built, are under construction, or are planned as a result of the requirements of chapter 32, Laws of 2017 3rd sp. sess. The report shall include the number, location, and characteristics of the schools; the number of p. 3 HB 2459 urban and rural students served; and a cost analysis of schools built outside of urban growth boundaries. → amended to read as follows: (1) This chapter does not prohibit a county planning under RCW 36.70A.040 from authorizing the extension of public facilities and utilities to serve a school sited in a rural area that serves students from a rural area and an urban area, even where otherwise prohibited by a multicounty planning policy, so long as the following requirements are met: (a) The applicable school district board of directors has adopted a policy addressing school service area and facility needs and educational program requirements; (b) The applicable school district has made a finding, with the concurrence of the county legislative authority and the legislative authorities of any affected cities, that the district's proposed site is suitable to site the school and any associated recreational facilities that the district has determined cannot reasonably be collocated on an existing school site, taking into consideration the policy adopted in (a) of this subsection and the extent to which vacant or developable land within the growth area meets those requirements. If the school district's proposed site is contiguous to the site of an existing school within the school district, the school district's finding is conclusive in (b) of this subsection. If the school district's proposed site is contiguous to the site of an existing school within the school district, the county or cities may not refuse to extend public facilities and utilities to the new site; (d) If the public facility or utility is extended beyond the urban growth area to serve a school, the public facility or utility must serve only the school and the costs of such extension must be borne by the applicable school district based on a reasonable nexus to the impacts of the school, except as provided in subsection (3) of this section; and (e) Any impacts associated with the siting of the school are mitigated as required by the state environmental policy act, chapter 43.21C RCW. (2) This chapter does not prohibit the expansion or modernization of an existing school in the rural area , the placement of portable classrooms at an existing school in the rural area, or the siting of a new school that will serve students from an urban area on school district property in the rural area when the new school will be contiguous with an existing school within the school district in the rural area. (3) Where a public facility or utility has been extended beyond the urban growth area to serve a school, the public facility or utility may, where consistent with RCW 36.70A.110(4), serve a property or properties in addition to the school if the property owner so requests, provided that the county and any affected cities agree with the request and provided that the property is located no further from the public facility or utility than the distance that, if the property were within the urban growth area, the property would be required to connect to the public facility or utility. In such an instance, the school district may, for a period not to exceed 20 years, require reimbursement from a requesting property owner for a proportional share of the construction costs incurred by the school district for the extension of the public facility or utility. ⟦INS⟧--- END ---

  amended

Action History

1. January 14, 2026

   First reading, referred to Local Government.

Sponsors

• (Callan) · Primary

Subjects