Senate Bill 6132 amends RCW 53.36.030 to change how port districts may contract indebtedness and issue general obligation bonds. It keeps a base nonvoter-authorized cap (0.25% of the value of taxable property) and adds or clarifies several additional debt allowances and conditions: (1)(b) permits certain ports with less than $800 million taxable value in 1991 to incur up to 0.375% if they have a comprehensive harbor or industrial plan and a long-term financial plan approved by the Department of Commerce (the department is stated to be immune from liability for that review), with those funds limited to acquisition or construction of a facility and requiring a lease of at least five years before contracting the debt; subsection (2) allows total indebtedness up to 0.75% with three-fifths voter approval; subsection (3) gives small ports (under $200 million) extra airport-related capacity (0.125% without voter approval, up to an added 0.375% with three-fifths voter approval) so long as total indebtedness for all port purposes does not exceed 1.25%; and subsection (4) allows ports that create an increment area under chapter 39.114 RCW and meet specified value thresholds to add 0.25% without voter approval, with the increment funds required to finance public improvements under chapter 39.114 RCW. The amendment also sets bond term limits (general district bonds payable up to 50 years; indebtedness authorized under subsection (1)(b) limited to 25 years), directs that bond issuance and elections follow referenced statutes (chapters 39.46 and RCW 39.36.050), and excludes certain countywide district debt and loans made under chapter 39.69 RCW from the indebtedness calculations. This is a modification of existing law that adjusts allowable debt caps, creates new conditional allowances and procedural requirements, and grants a statutory immunity for the Department of Commerce review. The bill text provided does not include the definition of "value of the taxable property" (referenced to RCW 39.36.015), nor does it show an effective date or a governor’s signature; the use of the 1991 taxable value benchmark is specified but no further historical application details are included.

If enacted, ports in Washington would have clearer and in some cases higher limits on how much general obligation debt they can take on, expanding options for financing harbor, industrial, airport, or certain public improvement projects. Smaller ports that meet specified size or airport operation criteria could borrow additional amounts without voter approval or with a three‑fifths voter approval threshold for larger increases, and ports that meet specified value conditions for a tax increment area could add financing for public improvements; ports seeking the extra capacity tied to a comprehensive project would need an approved long‑term financial plan and, for facility acquisition or construction, a five‑year lease in place before borrowing. This likely increases capital funding availability for ports and airports but also raises their long‑term repayment obligations and timing constraints tied to plan approval and lease requirements; the Department of Commerce would review and approve some plans but is shielded from liability for that role. Key practical uncertainties remain because the bill relies on statutory definitions and dates not included here: the exact tax base measure ("value of the taxable property"), how the 1991 taxable‑value benchmark is applied, and the bill’s effective date or enactment status are not provided, so the precise timing and eligible ports for these new borrowing options cannot be determined from the extracted text alone.