This bill amends RCW 39.33.015 and adds new sections to the city, code city, and county chapters of the RCW. It authorizes state agencies, municipalities, and political subdivisions to transfer, lease, or dispose of surplus public property for a defined "public benefit" (affordable rental housing or permanently affordable homeownership for low‑ and very low‑income households and related support facilities) to public, private, or nongovernmental bodies on mutually agreeable terms, including no‑cost transfers for nonreal property and nominal‑amount leases for real property. For sales of surplus real property the statute requires that consideration be fair and must account for appraisal costs, debt service, closing costs, and other liabilities; deeds and leases must include a covenant requiring continued use for the designated public benefit and provide remedies if that use ceases. The amendment contains procedural requirements that governing bodies enact rules, that dispositions be consistent with locally adopted comprehensive plans (RCW 36.70A.070), and it preserves prior dispositions made under other law before June 7, 2018. The bill also creates a new restriction that cities, code cities, and counties may not transfer or sell jurisdictional real property to nongovernmental entities or individuals without receiving fair market value or other equivalent compensation. The section does not apply to state forestlands, lands granted by the federal government for common schools or education, or lands subject to legal restrictions that would be violated by compliance. The text relies on external definitions and cross‑references (for example RCW 43.63A.510 for income categories), and the statutory meanings of terms such as "fair" or "fair market value or other equivalent compensation" are not defined here and may depend on other law or local rules.

If enacted, state agencies and other public bodies would have a clearer path to put surplus property toward affordable housing by leasing, selling, or transferring it to public, private, or nonprofit groups for that purpose, but those transactions would generally need to cover appraisal, debt service, closing costs, and any liabilities and include enforceable covenants tying the property to affordable housing use. At the same time, cities, code cities, and counties are barred from giving or selling their real property to private individuals or nongovernmental entities for less than fair market value, so local governments will have fewer options to donate or deeply discount land directly to private developers or individuals for housing. Practically, local governments and state agencies will need to adopt rules, add use covenants to deeds and leases, and check bond covenants and contracts before disposing of property, which creates more administrative work and potential legal and appraisal costs; municipalities that had planned lowor no-cost transfers to private parties may lose that option and could see higher up-front revenue but less flexibility to support nonprofit-led projects. How broadly “fair” or “fair market value” is applied and how the change interacts with nominal leases allowed elsewhere is not fully spelled out in the extract, so some implementation details and disputes are likely.