The Senate Early Learning & K‑12 Education Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 5095, which would add new construction to the list of capital projects school districts may finance with non‑voted general obligation indebtedness under the current statutory limit. Alex Fairfortun, committee staff, explained the bill’s mechanics and legal limits.

Sponsor Senator Monica Dhingra told the committee the proposal is intended to give districts additional flexible financing tools to respond to rapid enrollment growth. “This is simply that, another tool for the toolkit,” Dhingra said. She told the committee the bill would allow districts that have a voter‑approved capital levy and that are not under certain financial “binding conditions” to front fund new buildings by contracting indebtedness within the existing 0.375% statutory limit.

District officials from fast‑growing and capacity‑strained systems testified in support. Barbara Posthumus, associate superintendent and CFO of Lake Washington School District, said front funding can reduce inflation‑related cost escalation and get students into new facilities sooner. “Under current law, districts can front fund renovation projects or additions, but not a new … early childhood center or transportation facility,” Posthumus said. Leah Choi, Lake Washington School Board president, described a recent voter‑approved capital levy and said the bill would permit the district to access levy proceeds earlier to accelerate construction and save taxpayers money.

Several superintendents and finance officers and representatives from districts across the state — including Central Valley, Issaquah, Spokane‑area districts and Tacoma — described a similar problem: by the time districts collect levy receipts or run multiple bond/levy campaigns, construction prices escalate. Central Valley Superintendent John Parker urged the committee to update statutes so districts could use uniform funding methods and reduce schedule and cost risk. Issaquah’s Martin Turney and Kent‑area and Puget Sound representatives similarly framed the measure as a cost‑containment tool, not a tax increase.

Opponents or cautious witnesses raised concerns about the bill’s binding‑conditions provision. Dave Larson, a school board director whose district is in binding conditions but expects to exit the status in 2025 or 2026, asked that the restriction be limited to a district’s status on the date of the contract rather than any time in the prior three years. Senator Dhingra said the three‑year restriction was chosen to balance fiscal prudence and access and said she was open to discussion about length.

Committee staff noted the bill would not authorize new state funds or new taxes; it would allow districts that already have voter approval of capital levies to leverage those levy authorizations earlier. Staff also said the new authority would only be available to districts that had not been in binding conditions for the prior three years and that only a handful of districts would likely be able to take advantage of the provision because the 0.375% statutory limit depends on assessed district property values.

No committee vote was recorded at the hearing. Members asked questions and invited additional testimony.