Are you comfortable?
Do you need a pillow?
You know what you need,
because it's...
What are you doing?
Oh, wow.
You really are getting comfy.
Welcome to County Connection,
the official podcast of the Washington State Association
of Counties, where we dive into the legislative issues
shaping the future of our communities.
From budgets to public safety, infrastructure to elections,
we'll break down what's happening in Olympia
and how it impacts counties from across the Evergreen State.
Stay informed, stay engaged, and join us
as we amplify the voice of Washington's 39 counties.
Hey, welcome everybody to episode three
of the County Connection podcast.
I'm Paul Jewell, the government relations director
with the Washington State Association of Counties,
and we're gonna start a little different this week
than we have in previous weeks.
We're gonna start off with someone
who's not a WSAC staff member,
but also is someone who's a pretty important member
of our policy team during this legislative session.
Brian Enslow, welcome to your first performance,
your debut opportunity on the County Connection podcast.
How are things?
Things are great.
Thank you for that nice introduction.
I'm excited to be here and looking forward
to having a hopefully enjoyable and robust conversation
about the county housing priorities.
So you're the second person so far this year
in this podcast that I've interviewed,
who was a former, no, you're the third person,
who was a former employee of WSAC.
Most people probably don't know that
because we have so many new members.
There's a few old timers around like me,
who remember when you were staffed here at the association.
But how's it feel to be back?
Does it feel a little strange, a little weird,
or is it kinda nice?
It's great to be back.
And it doesn't surprise me that several individuals
have wanted to find opportunities
to reconnect with this organization.
It was a very seminal time in my career
and a really informative time.
It's a great organization.
The connection to public service and individuals
in the community are something that I find really valuable
as I kinda try to continue to find meaning
in what I do in every day.
So in many ways it feels like it's exactly the same,
but in many ways it's obviously a lot different.
As you mentioned, there's very few members
that either I recognize or recognize me
in any group dynamic.
It takes time to develop relationships,
earn trust, and things like that.
But I am excited for the opportunity
and it is some really meaningful work
that you've assigned to me, so I'm excited about that.
Let's dive into that a little bit.
You're back working with WSAC this year.
You're part of the policy team as a contractor.
We have a couple of contractors this year
because we've had some changes in staff.
But your role is a little bit more limited
than some of the others.
You're pretty focused.
Let's talk about what you're doing.
That's great.
You're right.
I would say unlike a general purpose
or a portfolio-based lobbyist
where you are gonna cover the full breadth and scope
of issues, I have a very targeted
and very narrow focus, which is to work diligently
to help advance the county's housing priorities.
So that is the bill pertaining
to multifamily tax exemption within the UGA.
It's the bill that authorizes and clarifies
the county's authority around detached ADUs
in the rural areas of counties.
All right, before you go on, you just used an acronym
for the first time, detached accessory dwelling units.
Correct.
And what are those?
I was just testing, Paul.
Yeah, thank you.
I appreciate it.
Did I pass the test?
Well, how much time do we have here?
We got 20 minutes.
Okay, so I don't like sharing personal stories
a lot of times because I represent you
and it's not necessarily appropriate for me
to interject myself and my personal story.
If we're gonna get too personal,
I might have to call in HR.
I just wanna know, is there a warning?
Do we need to put a warning on this one?
No, there's no trigger warnings.
There's no HIPAA.
Okay, perfect.
But towards the end of my mother's life,
she moved down to Olympia.
And it was the first time as an adult
that I lived in kind of the same space
and proximity as my mom.
And it really fundamentally changed our relationship.
And it was meaningful and it was really valuable.
And one of the things was she was close,
but not like enmeshed.
And if you think about,
because before she would come,
she would stay in our house.
She'd be at our house like in for 48 hours, 76 hours.
And it was, to me, it was, I felt disruptive
and it was difficult and it was too much in some ways.
And I wouldn't say I resented it, but it was difficult.
But then when she moved here,
we could have a cup of coffee,
we could have lunch together,
she could help out with the kids.
And that's kind of the difference in some ways
of it's attached ADU, which is what, Paul?
An attached ADU?
Yeah, what is an ADU again?
It's like an accessory dwelling unit.
Is that what we're talking about?
That's a good one, okay.
Accessory dwelling unit.
All right, I'm gonna write it on my hand.
So, and that's, to me, that's the difference
of what's currently allowed,
is that to have that extra space is really meaningful,
where you can have, whether it's an aging parent,
whether it's a child that's starting
to launch themselves into life,
it can give them that space to have that independence
and in some ways, like sense of self and sense of pride,
but still have this, but have enough separation
where it feels comfortable and workable for everyone.
Yeah, well, thanks for sharing that story with us.
And I think that story is emblematic
of a lot of the same reasons that other people
wanna have these either attached or detached ADUs
on their property.
Like you said, oftentimes it is a family member.
It could be that aging, someone who wants to age in place
needs a more affordable option.
It could be trying to launch a child.
It could be another family member
who maybe just needs a little extra help, right?
Hasn't found their way for whatever reason,
or maybe even has a disability.
And having them in that close proximity
can provide that level of support,
or for you, it can even build a better relationship,
or even take a relationship with a family member
to another level that's more meaningful over time, right?
And this bill would allow that to happen
in rural areas of counties, right?
Mm-hmm, exactly.
Yeah, okay.
Well, so you mentioned there were others as well.
We've talked about the multifamily tax exemption bill,
right?
We talked about the ADU bill,
which is accessory dwelling units.
What else are you working on?
I'm also working on missing middle in the UGA.
So we have...
Okay, so we just used another acronym.
Let's see, missing middle.
Tell us what that is.
Missing middle is a concept that is cribbing off of
some work that was done in previous legislation.
At the time, it was the bill number was House Bill 1110,
I believe, by then Representative Bateman,
now Senator Bateman,
which authorized and quite frankly required
within city limits an allowance
for a mixture of housing types.
Middle housing and statute is defined as...
There's various elements,
but think duplex, triplexes, cottage homes.
I think it's all the way up to sixplexes in the definition,
but an assortment of novel and smaller housing types,
which accommodate the opportunity for either increased density
or also additional pathways to home ownership
that are a little bit cheaper than a single family home.
So that's what missing middle is,
and that's how it's defined currently in statute.
So it's called missing though, right?
Missing middle or middle housing.
Why is it called missing?
It comes from the fact that if you walk around
in some older or historic neighborhoods,
if they're available in your community,
you might actually not realize
that these kinds of housing types
had historically been built
within just traditional neighborhoods.
A lot of that's because the aesthetic
and design was made to match,
but next time you're not walking around,
if you live in a community that has some older homes,
check it out, you might see some duplexes.
And so...
Now that you mentioned it, Brian,
like in the town where I live, we have a university,
and the neighborhood around that university
has larger homes and it has some small apartment complexes
and some duplexes, and even some of the larger homes
have been turned into, say, two or three or four
individual residences.
And the same thing is true right here in Olympia
around the Capitol building,
that older historic neighborhood there.
So that's the type of environment
that you're talking about.
Exactly.
And in many communities, those are actually
some of the more desirable neighborhoods
that people wanna live in.
That's been the experience that I've seen.
I mean, I live here in Olympia.
I've been here since 1999,
but the South Capitol neighborhood
has historically always been one of the most
desirable neighborhoods for numerous factors,
proximity to the Capitol, walkability, things like that.
But the quality and availability
of different types of housing
is certainly an aspect of that.
And at some point, we must've lost that.
Hence the missing, yes.
And when did that happen and how?
This is not something I've studied in school,
so I'm not sure if I can answer that accurately,
but clearly the lack of an explicit authorizing environment
and a regulatory environment that either allowed it
or encouraged it as a function of that.
But I don't know exactly when that changed,
but I think as I mentioned,
you're looking at probably post-war time where-
That's exactly when it happened actually,
was really in the 1950s when we had all the GIs
coming back from the war.
They needed housing,
and we also had the explosion of the automobile.
So that's how you created the suburbs, right?
So instead of these dense pockets of housing
around marketplaces, around schools, around universities,
like we've seen in these older neighborhoods,
people were able to travel a little farther out
because they had vehicles,
and you ended up with more of a car culture,
and then you ended up with the modern subdivision.
And the modern subdivision
doesn't have middle housing in it, right?
It's a lot of the same home right next to each other,
right next to each other, right next to each other,
oftentimes on the cul-de-sac.
So you don't have that same-
In a different color.
Yeah.
Different color, and the floor plans flipped.
Yeah.
Exactly.
Every third house is exactly the same, right?
But that's how that kind of cultural phenomenon was created.
You're exactly right.
It was right after World War II
when that kind of took hold and became kind of the standard.
And so this bill wants to bring some of that back,
or at least the opportunity to bring some of that back.
So how does it actually do it?
So this bill allows,
and again, there's nothing in this bill that's prescriptive.
It's entirely within the choice
of the legislative authority of the county
to make a decision about whether they want
to allow these types of housing to,
and it's whether they want this type of housing
to be available in their communities
within the urban growth area of the county.
Which is the other acronym that you used
when we started talking about this one.
Yes.
You said UGA.
I did.
So that's what UGA stands for, urban growth area.
Correct.
Okay.
So I think one of the key pieces
that we're trying to align is in particular,
so this, and we should have circled back to this
because it's important.
This is specific to the 28 counties
that currently are either required to
or choose to plan under the Growth Management Act.
Okay.
And the logic, what we have, and the alignment says
that we know that these counties are required
to plan for and accommodate a diverse array
of housing types and individuals
with, you know, of array of economic circumstances.
So we know that we're supposed to be,
we're supposed to be planning for affordable housing,
we're supposed to be planning for market rate housing
and things of that nature,
but we don't necessarily have the tools
to effectuate actually implementing
either affordable housing or market rate housing
or things of that nature
and the densities that we're trying to accommodate for.
Okay.
So just to make this clear,
so if I'm one of the 28 counties that have to
or choose to plan under the Growth Management Act,
as part of my planning documents,
my comprehensive land use plan,
which is kind of that big document
that you create through planning,
I have to find a way to accommodate different types of housing
for different types of income levels.
Correct.
So I can't just have housing that's affordable
to wealthy people in my community
or housing that's affordable
to middle income people in my community
or all affordable housing in my community
that maybe is, you know, housing for the lower income
brackets, I've got to plan for all the different types
of that type of housing where I live.
And you're saying that counties don't necessarily have
all the tools they need to make that happen.
That's really one of the harmonizing elements
of this bill and the MFTE bill is talking about
aligning the toolkit with the expectation.
And as we've noted, there's gaps in our toolkit,
and this helps fill those gaps.
Okay.
And you know, just to,
the planning requirement we're talking about
is under the housing element that was brought in,
and I believe the 2021 session in House Bill,
that year it was 1220.
Okay, and just to explain to the listener
who may not be familiar with the planning process,
the housing element is a required component
of your comprehensive land use plan
that is regulated by the requirements
on how you plan under the Growth Management Act, right?
So that particular piece is where all of this housing
related planning work actually lives
for lack of a better term.
Yeah, and I think the,
and one of the points I was trying to make is this,
it is a new responsibility,
or it's a newly articulated requirement,
whether or not you viewed it as a responsibility
or an obligation before is,
I don't know, but I would just simply say that
specifically having the state articulate this requirement
that you plan for and accommodate all these housing types
is relatively new.
So it's not necessarily a failing of a state
to have not had these tools in place before,
but now that we've educated them
and brought it to their attention,
it is something that we do feel strongly
that they should address.
Okay, so this bill provides some additional tools
essentially for counties to what,
allow or encourage or require middle housing
in certain areas.
You mentioned the urban growth area,
and for again, just making sure everybody follows along,
an urban growth area is a designated zone
outside of a city typically,
or it can be a standalone area
where more urban development
is supposed to actually occur within the county.
And so that's the area that's more appropriate
for denser type of housing,
like this middle housing would be.
So what would a county do if this,
what could a county do if this bill passed?
Great, and I do,
I wanna be very clear, it is permissive.
Okay, so they can do it, they don't have to do it.
Don't have to.
Okay.
Permissive, you can.
And the plain language of the statute
is it allows you to allow at least one unit
of middle housing within your UGA.
Now you can do more,
but and again, we kind of described
what the middle housing elements are
or what they could look like.
So it gives you a fair amount of flexibility.
There are some restrictions around,
and Paul has to help me here on this one,
lamerates, limited areas of.
More intensive rural development.
So a lamerate is, for those of you who don't speak,
Growth Management Act out there
or planning in Washington state,
there are small rural towns that exist in our counties.
If you think Lewis County, which is just south of us,
Packwood is a really good example, right?
Or if you think Pacific County,
think of Boy Lamont out in that area.
These are small rural towns that may have been bigger
at one point or another,
or may still be the same size that they were historically,
but they're not incorporated.
And one of the things we know is they're really important
for workforce housing.
Oh, extremely important.
And so we did.
Because they're close to resources, right?
They're close to farms, they're close to mining resources,
they're close to timber resources.
And we need people to work in those resource industries.
And if they're gonna do that,
we want them to live closer to where they were.
So how do we make something more affordable
than just your traditional cookie cutter,
single family home?
And I shouldn't say,
just your traditional single family home.
Sure, so this allows this kind of middle housing
in those areas too.
It does.
There's a little tighter restriction,
and that's from input.
That's not something that we put forward,
but that was something that was required,
or that was something, accommodation that was asked for
from some of the stakeholder communities.
So we did tighten that up a little bit,
but it's still up to four units.
Okay.
So in addition to even having,
you can think about that in various different ways,
whether that's breaking it up
into smaller single family units on the lot,
or you could think of something like two duplexes.
Oh right, or even a fourplex.
Or a fourplex.
Yeah.
Okay, interesting, interesting.
Which might make more sense for the workforce
that workforce needs in that community.
Sure, and workforce could be,
I mean it doesn't necessarily even have to be
folks who might be working on resource lands.
Those communities need schools too.
They also need grocery stores and pharmacists,
and doctors and others too.
So there's all kinds of needs in rural areas like that
to provide for services.
I remember the first time that I had a real
blinding flash of the obvious,
or just an aha moment of how serious the housing shortage
and housing crisis was,
was when the CEO of Confluence Hospital in the Wenatchee area
said that they had a hard time recruiting doctors
and other highly credentialed medical staff
because there wasn't any housing
in like Chelan County for them.
I know, that's amazing to think about, right?
I mean when you think about the city of Wenatchee,
the city of East Wenatchee,
you think these are fairly good sized metropolitan areas,
especially for that part of the state,
and to think that Confluence Health,
the major medical provider in that community,
can't recruit qualified medical professionals
because of the housing shortage in that environment,
it's a little mind blowing.
It certainly changed my perspective,
because I think like many people who weren't educated
and didn't have, kind of the,
one of the beautiful things about WSAC
is that you have the entire state represented,
and you have the opportunity to be educated about
this isn't just a Puget Sound problem.
Right, right.
And this isn't just an urban issue
that only exists in certain parts of the state.
This is an issue that is statewide,
and there is an appetite, as we've learned,
to address it in many different communities
that maybe haven't historically thought
of having needs for increased density.
Yeah, you know, at WSAC we're really lucky
we wear a different pair of glasses
than almost anybody else,
because our members come from every corner
of Washington state, from every community of all sizes.
And what we do know is this housing crisis
has touched every single one of them.
And excuse me, this is a great tool
that whether you're in an urban area
with more dense development that already exists,
or you're in a more rural area,
or you're maybe kind of in a transitional area,
like Wenatchee for instance,
this is a tool that the county can use
to improve the housing stock in that area
should they choose to do so.
You know, that's one of the things that really,
you know, you mentioned transitional areas.
I mean, that's really one of the reasons
behind the MFTE bill, Multifamily Tax Exemption Bill,
is thinking about having a catalyst
to really incentivize the development
and diversity of a particular area.
Well, that was a perfect transition
because we kind of skipped over that one a little bit.
We did a little bit.
Yeah, so I'm glad you went back to it.
Before we get into it too much,
because I wanna dive into the details,
let's explain what the Multifamily Tax Exemption Program is.
You called it MFTE.
That's the short, again, acronym for it,
but it stands for, again, Multifamily Tax Exemption.
What is that program exactly?
Well, it is a program that provides
a financial incentive for a developer
to create either market rate housing,
depending on what pathway, or affordable housing,
through the tax exemption associated with the property tax
on what will be built.
Right, so it's the new portion of the project.
It is the new portion of the project.
And this is something that communities choose to use.
So it's available for, for instance, most cities.
They can actually choose to offer this
to a developer or a development or not.
And it's currently available to some counties,
some of our members, I think four of them,
have access to it with a lot of really stiff restrictions.
But what's great about the program is,
as a county, you actually get to consider it
on a project-by-project basis.
So you really get to think about
this project that's in front of me
who wants to use this tax exemption program,
should I offer it, should I allow it,
based on what benefits it's gonna provide my community,
or not?
So it's very flexible in that way.
What does this bill actually do?
So to your point, there is a very narrow window
of opportunity for counties to utilize this tool.
The current statutory environment
has a unincorporated property,
unincorporated, easy for me to say, population threshold.
And then even within that, it has caveats
about adjacent to a university
and transportation requirements.
So I think functionally, when-
Does cities have any of those requirements?
No, they do not.
So it's just counties?
It's just counties.
And to your point about cities,
it's under most circumstances,
it's cities with populations as low as 15,000.
And in some instances, it's cities with as few as 5,000.
So it's not, I think some of the arguments we've heard
is about does a county that is required to plan
under the Growth Management Act or has opted in,
do they have the sophistication
to handle these determinations?
And I mean, clearly the answer is yes.
Yes, of course it is.
I think the legislature,
it's not intentionally insulting, right?
I don't think anyone, but it is to react to it,
to say, I think we're pretty sophisticated entities.
We're responsible for all the adjudication
of your felony cases,
for administering the public health system.
But not housing for whatever reason, yeah.
Well, but yeah.
Not in the eyes of the legislature.
And it's interesting that you bring that up
and we're kind of going off on a tangent a little bit
and I want us to come back, but just really quickly,
I think that the legislature just doesn't think about
counties when they think about housing for whatever reason,
especially when they think about tools
like multifamily housing or middle housing,
more affordable options,
they're not thinking about counties.
Because I just don't think they understand
the planning process,
the way it's laid out in the Growth Management Act
and the fact that urban growth areas are supposed to be.
In fact, counties have an obligation to develop
those areas to an urban density.
And when they're affiliated with a city,
they're supposed to be the 20 year growth boundary
for that city.
So it just makes sense to allow the same tools
in the city as you would in the area
that's supposed to be the city in a few years.
Otherwise, you're just gonna be back in the same problem.
Right, you're just gonna have the same situation
that you have now that you're trying to correct.
It is a significant lost opportunity.
Yeah.
From the perspective of trying to address housing
and affordability.
Sure.
And wearing a different hat,
I had worked on a piece of legislation
that creates an annexation sales tax credit.
And part of that argument when I was talking about that
is look, if one of the ways to...
I remember that bill, by the way.
We worked collaboratively on that bill.
It was, I wouldn't have brought it up
if it was still a source of tension,
but maybe I would have.
But the long and short of it is the logic I used at the time
is the way that we can improve and enhance
the roles that the cities are playing
is to make the cities bigger, to expand into the UGA.
And really what it got at is there's this whole area
of what looks like urban to me in many communities.
And I'm pretty familiar with the city of Vancouver
and then the almost 100,000 individuals
living in the UGA in Clark County.
I'll bet some of them think they live in the city.
I think most of them probably identify with the city
if they don't think they live in.
But as a visitor, it's impossible,
as you're driving around, unless you're sophisticated,
it doesn't look any different is what I'm getting at.
But you're right, but it's been certainly a lost opportunity
and something that we're trying to bring attention to.
And so this fixes that lost opportunity
by doing what exactly?
Well, we've seen time and time again
that this is a powerful tool.
As we said, this program's been in place,
I apologize, I don't know how, but for some time now
and has been utilized in many communities
to activate areas of growth and development
that wouldn't otherwise happen
or certainly wouldn't otherwise happen
in the timeframe in which they did.
And so what this does is opens that opportunity
for all 28 counties planning under the Growth Management Act
to utilize this tool to help incentivize
the development of diverse housing stock.
Okay, so this takes away a lot of those kind of
strange requirements that you were talking about before.
Population piece, not so strange,
but this idea that you had to be near a university
and those sorts of things, all that's gone.
And so any county that plans into the GMA
would have access to this tool as well.
Correct.
Okay.
And not to, the population piece is strange
because it uses that as a proxy for urbanization.
And I don't think that's entirely true.
So I don't think, so for instance,
Kitsap is eligible based on the,
and they do have large chunks of urban-like populations.
But I don't think anyone would just,
if I gave you three choices to say,
what's the, if I said three guesses,
which county has the fifth largest unincorporated population?
I don't know if you would guess Kitsap, I guess.
Yeah, I don't know if I would either.
And I'm supposed to know those things.
Exactly.
That's great.
Well, we've got more to talk about on our housing priority,
but we are out of time.
We've talked about detached accessory dwelling units today.
We've talked about our middle housing bill.
We've talked about MFTEs.
What are those bill numbers if people wanna follow
right along with us?
Great.
In the legislature.
And you're gonna be mad at me,
but we still have to mention
that we're working on the budget proviso.
And I think we've come up with a really interesting
partnership on developing stock middle housing plans.
We've got some language,
we might have an opportunity to partner
with the community college system.
And so I think that's really exciting.
That won't have a bill number.
But on MFTE.
Why would I be mad at you about that?
Because you told me we're out of time
and I still swung an extra.
This is our podcast.
We can make it last as long as we want to.
It's just a matter of whether or not the listeners
wanna stay with us.
So for MFTE, it's House Bill 1206,
our sponsor is Representative Low.
In the Senate side, it's 5679,
sponsored by Senator Dozier.
So that was 1206 in the House and 5679 in the Senate.
Middle housing bill is 1840,
was just introduced by Representative Peterson
and Representative Low in the House.
In the Senate, it's 5471 by Senator Gaynor
and Senator Bateman.
That's middle housing.
So that's 1840 in the House, 5471 in the Senate.
Got it.
And then with respect to ADU,
and what are those again, Paul?
Accessory dwelling units.
They're not alternative dwelling units?
No, no, you're thinking of AI, artificial intelligence.
Oh, jeez.
I always have a hard time thinking
AI, artificial intelligence
versus alternative intelligence.
I don't know why, but I never screwed up with ADUs.
And we're not allowed to call them
mother-in-laws anymore either.
Like mother-in-law apartments?
Yeah, I don't know if we were ever allowed to call them that.
Probably not unless your mother-in-law was actually in it.
Okay, all right.
So 1345.
Okay.
135470.
So that's 1345, that's the House bill.
And the Senate bill is 5470.
Yeah, and one, even one,
I'm taking another bite of the apple
and he's really gonna kill me now.
It's a delicious apple, go for it.
You should see, it's like, there's anger in his voice.
By the time you listen to this,
I'm hoping that 1345 will be exact
out of the House Housing Committee.
It's scheduled to exact on February 6th at 8 a.m.
Okay, now you're gonna have to explain what exact means.
There are various kind of gates
that we have to make through in a certain amount of time.
In the legislature.
It's the embodiment of the Federalist Papers.
It is a system that is designed to fail
and they have these opportunities
where if you don't meet these certain progress points,
you know, your bill is essentially dead for the first year.
So we're pretty ahead of the game
and they were introduced in,
well, they were introduced in their respective committees
and these bills are now scheduled to be exact
out of their respective committees,
which means the committee members take executive action.
They take a vote and they vote it up or down.
For the most part, you're not gonna put anything
on the schedule just to vote it down, right?
Right. Okay.
So when something's exacted,
it means that it's getting voted out of committee
so it can continue moving through the legislative process.
So that's one of the first steps.
Correct. Okay.
And our middle housing in the Senate is scheduled as well.
So. Oh, that's exciting.
So we've got some action on these.
Yes, and those are scheduled for Friday.
So 5471 is scheduled for Friday
and 5471, which is the ADU, is scheduled for Friday as well.
Okay, great.
Well, we'll be watching these.
Thanks for coming by to chat about them, Brian.
We really appreciate the discussion today.
We could probably talk about housing
for another hour or an hour and a half,
but we don't have that much time on the podcast.
You've already taken more than your fair share,
I'm sorry to say, but this is your first time.
So for first timers, we let that slide a little bit.
I appreciate your grace and thanks for the opportunity.
Yeah, well, we hope you'll come back
and give us some updates,
hopefully some really good news on these housing bills
as we continue to keep track
of what's going on through the session.
I'm contractually required to come back if you want me to.
So.
Well, you know, that's true, but we'd rather you did it.
It's still been a lot of fun.
Thank you.
All right, well, we'll see you next time.
Take care till then.
Thanks for tuning in to County Connection.
Stay in the loop by subscribing to us
through your preferred podcasting app
and following us on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram.
And don't forget to join the hub,
your go-to source for the latest news and updates
from the Washington State Association of Counties.
Until next time, stay connected and stay informed.