Wash. Rev. Code » Title 84 · Chapter 84.55
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 84.55.050 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
*** CHANGE IN 2026 *** (SEE 2442-S.SL) ***
(1) Subject to any otherwise applicable statutory dollar rate limitations, regular property taxes may be levied by or for a taxing district in an amount exceeding the limitations provided for in this chapter if such levy is authorized by a proposition approved by a majority of the voters of the taxing district voting on the proposition at a general election held within the district or at a special election within the taxing district called by the district for the purpose of submitting such proposition to the voters. Any election held pursuant to this section shall be held not more than 12 months prior to the date on which the proposed levy is to be made, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section. The ballot of the proposition shall state the dollar rate proposed and shall clearly state the conditions, if any, which are applicable under subsection (4) of this section.
(2) Subject to statutory dollar limitations, a proposition placed before the voters under this section may authorize annual increases in levies for multiple consecutive years, up to six consecutive years, during which period each year's authorized maximum legal levy shall be used as the base upon which an increased levy limit for the succeeding year is computed, but the ballot proposition must state the dollar rate proposed only for the first year of the consecutive years and must state the limit factor, or a specified index to be used for determining a limit factor, such as the consumer price index, which need not be the same for all years, by which the regular tax levy for the district may be increased in each of the subsequent consecutive years. Elections for this purpose must be held at a primary or general election. The title of each ballot measure must state the limited purposes for which the proposed annual increases during the specified period of up to six consecutive years shall be used.
(3) After a levy authorized pursuant to this section is made, the dollar amount of such levy may not be used for the purpose of computing the limitations for subsequent levies provided for in this chapter, unless the ballot proposition expressly states that the levy made under this section will be used for this purpose.
(4) If expressly stated, a proposition placed before the voters under subsection (1) or (2) of this section may:
(a) Use the dollar amount of a levy under subsection (1) of this section, or the dollar amount of the final levy under subsection (2) of this section, for the purpose of computing the limitations for subsequent levies provided for in this chapter;
(b) Limit the period for which the increased levy is to be made under (a) of this subsection;
(c) Limit the purpose for which the increased levy is to be made under (a) of this subsection, but if the limited purpose includes making redemption payments on bonds;
(i) For the county in which the state capitol is located, the period for which the increased levies are made may not exceed 25 years; and
(ii) For districts other than a district under (c)(i) of this subsection, the period for which the increased levies are made may not exceed nine years;
(d) Set the levy or levies at a rate less than the maximum rate allowed for the district;
(e) Provide that the exemption authorized by RCW 84.36.381 will apply to the levy of any additional regular property taxes authorized by voters; or
(f) Include any combination of the conditions in this subsection.
(5) Except as otherwise expressly stated in an approved ballot measure under this section, subsequent levies shall be computed as if:
(a) The proposition under this section had not been approved; and
(b) The taxing district had made levies at the maximum rates which would otherwise have been allowed under this chapter during the years levies were made under the proposition.
[ 2024 c 114 s 1; 2021 c 296 s 14; 2018 c 46 s 3; 2017 c 296 s 2; 2009 c 551 s 3; 2008 c 319 s 1; 2007 c 380 s 2; 2003 1st sp.s. c 24 s 4; 1989 c 287 s 1; 1986 c 169 s 1; 1979 ex.s. c 218 s 3; 1973 1st ex.s. c 195 s 109; 1971 ex.s. c 288 s 24.]

Notes:

Finding—Intent—Effective date—2021 c 296: See notes following RCW 82.14.310.
Intent—2018 c 46: See note following RCW 84.36.381.
Findings—2017 c 296: "The legislature finds government owned property is exempt from both property taxes and leasehold excise tax. The legislature further finds property tax exemptions lower the taxable assessed value within a district. The legislature further finds most of the state-owned buildings in Washington, including the state capitol, are located in Thurston county. The legislature further finds this imposes a disproportional burden on taxpayers and Thurston county. It is the legislature's objective to mitigate this burden by providing Thurston county the ability to increase a bond levy for a longer period of time with a voter approved lid lift." [ 2017 c 296 s 1.]
Application—2017 c 296: "This act applies to taxes levied for collection in 2018 and thereafter." [ 2017 c 296 s 3.]
Application—2008 c 319: "This act applies prospectively only to levy lid lift ballot propositions under RCW 84.55.050 that receive voter approval on or after April 1, 2008." [ 2008 c 319 s 2.]
Effective date—2008 c 319: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [April 1, 2008]." [ 2008 c 319 s 3.]
Finding—Intent—Effective date—Severability—2003 1st sp.s. c 24: See notes following RCW 82.14.450.
Severability—Effective dates and termination dates—Construction—1973 1st ex.s. c 195: See notes following RCW 84.52.043.
Savings—Severability—1971 ex.s. c 288: See notes following RCW 84.40.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1996–2018 · leading case: Washington Citizens Action v. State, 162 Wash. 2d 142 (Wash. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Washington Citizens Action v. State, 162 Wash. 2d 142 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 7× “Finally, former RCW 84.55.050 (effective in 1996) allowed regular property taxes to be levied in an amount exceeding the limits set forth in chapter 84.”
End Prison Indus. Complex v. King Cnty., 431 P.3d 998 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 26× “¶ 1 End Prison Industrial Complex (EPIC) argues that the ballot title for a King County property tax increase lacked information required by former RCW 84.55.050 (2012). 1 To resolve that dispute, the court must compare the ballot title to that measure it describes-King County…”
Brower v. Charles, 914 P.2d 1202 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “If approved by the voters, Proposition 1 will authorize the City to temporarily lift the statutory 106 percent limit on regular property tax levies pursuant to RCW 84.55.050 to fund the South Lake Union Project, commonly known as the Commons project.”
Washington Citizens Action of Washington v. State, 171 P.3d 486 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 7× “Finally, former RCW 84.55.050 (effective in 1996) allowed regular property taxes to be levied in an amount exceeding the limits set forth in chapter 84.”
City of Spokane v. Spokane Cnty., 196 Wash. App. 85 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “The vernacular for such a vote of approval is a levy lid lift. Months before adoption of City Ordinance C-35231, Spokane voters approved the levy lid lift in order to finance sorely needed road repairs.”
End Prison Indus. Complex v. King Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 42× “1 ballot title authorized an increased tax rate in the first year of the levy, the ballot title’s language did not expressly state, as required in RCW 84.55.050,1 that the increased base tax amount in the first year could be used to calculate future years’ increases.”
End Prison Indus. Complex v. King Cnty. (Wash. 2018). · cites it 23× “050 has been amended twice since voters approved the property tax increase at issue in this case. Laws of 2018, ch.”
City of Spokane v. Horton (Wash. 2017). · cites it 2× “See RCW 84.55.050. While a levy lid lift allows the taxing district to increase its levy amount, it does not relieve the taxing district from any ofthe other statutory or constitutional limitations imposed on regular levies.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 84.55.050(1) — 2 cases
Brower v. Charles, 914 P.2d 1202 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “If approved by the voters, Proposition 1 will authorize the City to temporarily lift the statutory 106 percent limit on regular property tax levies pursuant to RCW 84.55.050 to fund the South Lake Union Project, commonly known as the Commons project.”
End Prison Indus. Complex v. King Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “1 ballot title authorized an increased tax rate in the first year of the levy, the ballot title’s language did not expressly state, as required in RCW 84.55.050,1 that the increased base tax amount in the first year could be used to calculate future years’ increases.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 84.55.050(3) — 1 case
End Prison Indus. Complex v. King Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “1 ballot title authorized an increased tax rate in the first year of the levy, the ballot title’s language did not expressly state, as required in RCW 84.55.050,1 that the increased base tax amount in the first year could be used to calculate future years’ increases.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 84.55.050(4) — 1 case
End Prison Indus. Complex v. King Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “1 ballot title authorized an increased tax rate in the first year of the levy, the ballot title’s language did not expressly state, as required in RCW 84.55.050,1 that the increased base tax amount in the first year could be used to calculate future years’ increases.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 84.55.050(4)(a) — 1 case
End Prison Indus. Complex v. King Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “1 ballot title authorized an increased tax rate in the first year of the levy, the ballot title’s language did not expressly state, as required in RCW 84.55.050,1 that the increased base tax amount in the first year could be used to calculate future years’ increases.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 84.55.050(4)(c) — 1 case
End Prison Indus. Complex v. King Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “1 ballot title authorized an increased tax rate in the first year of the levy, the ballot title’s language did not expressly state, as required in RCW 84.55.050,1 that the increased base tax amount in the first year could be used to calculate future years’ increases.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 84.55.050(5) — 2 cases
End Prison Indus. Complex v. King Cnty., 431 P.3d 998 (Wash. 2018). “¶ 1 End Prison Industrial Complex (EPIC) argues that the ballot title for a King County property tax increase lacked information required by former RCW 84.55.050 (2012). 1 To resolve that dispute, the court must compare the ballot title to that measure it describes-King County…”
End Prison Indus. Complex v. King Cnty. (Wash. 2018). “050 has been amended twice since voters approved the property tax increase at issue in this case. Laws of 2018, ch.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 84.55.050(5)(a) — 1 case
End Prison Indus. Complex v. King Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “1 ballot title authorized an increased tax rate in the first year of the levy, the ballot title’s language did not expressly state, as required in RCW 84.55.050,1 that the increased base tax amount in the first year could be used to calculate future years’ increases.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.