This bill amends RCW 28A.525.166 to change how state allocations for school plant projects are determined. It keeps the superintendent of public instruction as the allocating authority and retains school boards' responsibility to set total project cost subject to superintendent review. The state funding assistance percentage is computed by a formula comparing a district's adjusted valuation per pupil to the state's adjusted valuation per pupil; if the computed percentage is below 20% and the district is otherwise eligible, the superintendent may set a state funding assistance percentage up to 20% to provide minimum facilities. The computed percentage is also increased by one percentage point for each percent of average three‑year enrollment growth, up to a maximum additional 20 percentage points. The superintendent may authorize additional state assistance for specified emergent or special conditions listed in the statute. The bill makes procedural changes for alternative learning experience (ALE) students and for projects on military bases. Students residing outside the district who are enrolled in ALE courses are excluded from pupil counts when computing the funding percentage unless a district submits an OSPI‑approved alternative calculation showing ALE students' use of district classroom facilities; OSPI must adopt rules defining "regular basis" and "reasonable duration" for that calculation. For instructional facilities located on military bases, those facilities must be excluded from a district's inventory of available instructional space for eligibility determinations, and the computed state funding assistance percentage for any project on a military base must be increased by an additional 15 percentage points. The amendment affects the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, local school districts and boards, the school facilities citizen advisory panel, and students in ALE programs. The text provided includes the amended RCW citation and references to other statutes but does not include the exact algebraic layout of the funding formula as originally formatted, does not explain the double‑parenthesized subsection that appears to reference the 2015–2017 biennium, and does not provide an effective date or deadlines for OSPI rulemaking; other referenced RCWs are not included in the extracted facts.

If enacted, school districts that operate instructional facilities on military bases will likely receive significantly more state help for construction and major renovation projects: facilities on a base are removed from a district’s available space count when deciding eligibility, and any project located on a military base gets an extra 15 percentage points added to the state funding share. That change will probably lower the local share of project costs for affected districts and shift more funding responsibility to the state; districts without base projects are unaffected by that specific boost but remain subject to the existing formula (including the growth adjustment of one percentage point per percent of three‑year average enrollment growth, up to 20 points) and the superintendent’s authority to set minimum assistance at 20% when needed. The bill also tightens how students in alternative learning experience (ALE) courses are treated for funding calculations: out‑of‑district ALE students are excluded from pupil counts, and districts choosing to count in‑district ALE students against facilities must submit an OSPI‑approved alternative calculation showing regular facility use, with OSPI required to define “regular basis” and “reasonable duration” by rule. Practically, districts may need to prepare documentation and work with OSPI to justify counting ALE students, and OSPI and the superintendent gain clearer discretion to approve extra assistance for emergent or special conditions. The text leaves open timing and some implementation details—no rule deadlines, effective date, or full formula formatting are provided—so exact timelines and procedural steps remain uncertain.