This bill amends existing planning statutes (RCW 36.70A.211 and RCW 36.70A.213) to allow a school that serves urban students to be sited in a rural area when the new site is contiguous to an existing school in the same school district. It authorizes counties to permit such siting even when countywide or multicounty planning policies would otherwise prohibit it, provided the county has adopted a comprehensive plan policy on siting schools in rural areas, SEPA mitigation under chapter 43.21C RCW is applied, and the county participates in a multicounty planning policy under RCW 36.70A.210. Multicounty planning policies that include any such county must be amended at their next regularly scheduled update to add a policy addressing siting of schools in rural areas. A school sited under the amended RCW 36.70A.211 may not be included when calculating impact fees under RCW 82.02.050. The amendments to RCW 36.70A.211 expire June 30, 2031. The bill also changes procedures for extending public facilities and utilities under RCW 36.70A.213 so counties planning under RCW 36.70A.040 may authorize extensions to serve a school sited in a rural area that serves both rural and urban students, even if a multicounty planning policy would otherwise prohibit the extension. Requirements include a school board policy on service area and facility needs, a school district finding of site suitability with county and affected city concurrence (the district finding is conclusive if the site is contiguous to an existing district school), agreement by the county and affected cities (which may not be withheld if the site is contiguous), SEPA mitigation, and that any extension beyond the urban growth area serve only the school with costs borne by the school district based on a reasonable nexus to school impacts (subject to an exception in subsection (3)). The amendment explicitly allows expansion or modernization of existing rural schools, placement of portable classrooms at existing rural schools, and siting a new urban-serving school on district property in the rural area when contiguous to an existing district school. If a facility has been extended beyond the urban growth area to serve a school and RCW 36.70A.110(4) conditions are met, the facility may serve other properties by request with county and affected city agreement and subject to distance limits; the school district may require reimbursement from requesting property owners for a proportional share of construction costs for up to 20 years. Affected entities named in the text include counties and county legislative authorities, multicounty planning policy participants, school districts and their boards, and legislative authorities of affected cities, with references to SEPA (chapter 43.21C RCW) and other planning statutes. The bill was read for the first time on 01/14/26 and referred to the Committee on Local Government. The text provided does not define key terms used in the changes such as "rural area," "urban area," "contiguous," or "reasonable nexus," does not specify the timing process for a multicounty planning policy's "next regularly scheduled update," and does not describe how a "reasonable nexus to the impacts of the school" is to be determined.

If enacted, counties would be able to permit a new school that serves urban students to be located in a rural area when the site is next to an existing school in the same district, and counties participating in multicounty planning cannot use multicounty policies to block that siting once the county adopts a local comprehensive plan policy and follows required SEPA mitigation. School districts gain a clearer option to expand or place new urban-serving facilities in rural areas contiguous to existing schools and to extend utilities to those schools, but the district generally must pay the cost of any utility extension beyond the urban growth area (though it can require proportional reimbursement from other property owners for up to 20 years); the law also says such schools won’t be counted when calculating impact fees, which could affect local fee revenue. The parties most affected are school districts, county governments, affected cities, and nearby property owners: districts get more siting flexibility but likely higher near-term capital and mitigation costs and a new responsibility to seek reimbursements; counties and cities lose some discretion to refuse extensions or block siting in these specific situations and must adopt policies and update multicounty plans; property owners might be asked to pay a share of construction costs. Important details are missing from the text provided—key terms like “contiguous,” “reasonable nexus,” and the timing for multicounty plan updates aren’t defined here—and the authorization sunsets on June 30, 2031, so the change is temporary unless extended.