This bill amends existing law in chapter 84.14 RCW by changing the definition of "county" to mean any county required or choosing to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, and by modifying provisions for designating "residential targeted areas" in RCW 84.14.040. It expands eligibility to use the multifamily tax exemption program to those counties and revises procedural rules for designation hearings, including a required public notice once a week for two consecutive weeks with specified timing before the hearing. The bill allows governing authorities to adopt more stringent income, rent, or sale-price limits than the state minimums and to impose contractual prerequisites as conditions of exemptions. Examples expressly referenced include prevailing wage payment, payroll record keeping, apprenticeship utilization, and a contracting inclusion plan developed in consultation with the Office of Minority and Women's Business Enterprises. For multiunit housing in unincorporated county areas, property owners seeking tax incentives must commit to renting or selling at least 20% of units as affordable to lowand moderate-income households, with a stated exception for owner-occupied-only projects. For counties designating areas after July 25, 2021, the county must evaluate displacement risk and may only designate if risk is minimal or locally adopted mitigation measures are in place. These are amendments to existing statutes (RCW 84.14.010 and RCW 84.14.040) that change definitions, expand program eligibility, add procedural requirements, and authorize conditioned exemptions (a procedural and substantive change to exemption terms). The provided text is incomplete: parts end mid-sentence, several referenced provisions (for example RCW 84.14.020, RCW 84.14.021, and RCW 84.14.060) are cited but not reproduced here, and the second text chunk is fragmentary and does not specify the full scope or terms of any additional requirements.

If enacted, the bill would let many more counties use the multifamily tax exemption, and it gives local governments clear new authority to attach conditions when they approve those exemptions. Cities and counties would have to run public hearings and adopt standards for “residential targeted areas,” evaluate and sometimes mitigate displacement risk, and could require higher affordability targets, prevailing wage, apprenticeship use, payroll records, and contracting inclusion plans as terms of the tax-exempt deal. For projects in unincorporated county areas, developers would generally need to reserve at least 20% of units for lowor moderate-income households, which would change project economics and likely raise construction and compliance costs while increasing the supply of income-restricted units. The people and budgets most affected are local governing authorities (more administrative duties and potential reductions in property tax revenue where exemptions are granted), developers and property owners (new contractual obligations, higher labor and compliance costs, and less flexibility), and contractors and workers (stronger wage and apprenticeship requirements). Lowand moderate-income households would likely see more affordable units in some places, but the text provided is incomplete about some implementation details and about what other specific “additional requirements” might be, so exact enforcement, timelines, and fiscal impacts remain unclear.