This bill amends RCW 36.70A.110 and reenacts and amends RCW 36.70A.130 to change how urban growth areas (UGAs) and periodic reviews of comprehensive plans are handled. It updates rules for designating UGAs (including that cities must be included, UGAs may include multiple cities, and capacity must be based on the Office of Financial Management’s 20-year projections), requires county consultation with cities and federally recognized tribes (with written justification and mediation if no agreement), and preserves procedures for adopting interim UGAs (public notice, public hearing, SEPA, and appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board). The amendment also prohibits UGA expansion into specified 100-year floodplains as defined by WAC 173-158-040 as it existed on July 26, 2009, subject to enumerated exceptions (text for some exceptions is incomplete in the provided facts). The bill reenacts and changes periodic review procedures in RCW 36.70A.130, setting staggered deadlines and recurring ten-year review schedules for groups of counties and their cities, requiring jurisdictions to establish and widely publish public participation programs, and allowing some cities to opt out of a full periodic review if they meet specified criteria. It requires counties containing a city-designated UGA to conform county regulations to the city’s plan at specified times, establishes implementation progress reports five years after a review for certain counties and cities, and mandates that if required implementation actions are not completed the jurisdiction must adopt a work plan and complete the work within two years. The section also creates eligibility conditions for grants and loans tied to compliance or substantial progress, allows limited extensions for small counties and cities under defined population and growth conditions, and includes a provision that entities with a capital facilities plan for sewer service are not automatically obligated to install sewer to certain properties within UGAs under specified conditions. Several definitions and procedural details are added or clarified: “one hundred year floodplain” is defined by reference to the WAC cited above; “updates,” and “legislative action” are defined for the review process; and specific county group deadlines and eligibility criteria for extensions and grant eligibility are listed. Important context is missing from the extracted text: the identity of “the department” referenced throughout is not specified here, multiple subsections and the remainder of certain exceptions are cut off, and the provided facts do not allow comparison to prior law to determine precisely what provisions are new versus carried over or modified.

If enacted, the bill will require most Washington counties and the cities inside them to follow new, staggered deadlines to review and update their comprehensive plans and urban growth areas to match 20-year population forecasts from the Office of Financial Management, and to document progress afterward. Counties must consult with cities and federally recognized tribes before changing urban growth area boundaries, justify any changes made without city agreement, and face limits on expanding UGAs into certain large river floodplains except for narrow exceptions. Jurisdictions that miss review deadlines risk losing eligibility for certain state grants and loans unless they show substantial progress, and those that fail to implement required actions must adopt a work plan and finish the work within two years, which can create added planning, consulting, legal, and possible mediation costs. The rule changes also affect utilities and property owners in practical ways: utilities are not automatically required to build sewers to all properties inside a UGA during the 20-year planning period under specified conditions, and counties must conform county regulations to a designated city’s regulations at review times unless otherwise agreed. Federally recognized tribes get strengthened notification and consultation steps, and appeals remain possible to the Growth Management Hearings Board. Key implementation details are unclear from the extracted text—most notably the identity of the agency referenced as “the department” and the full list of exceptions for floodplain expansion—so some administrative procedures and exact limits on expansion or service obligations may vary in practice.