How come I'm five years older than you?
I don't know, God, you look a lot older.
I should be mad by you.
Sorry, you threw it out.
Wow.
Just kidding.
I'm just kidding.
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.
Welcome back, everybody, to episode number three
of the County Connection podcast.
I'm Paul Jewell, government relations director
with the Washington State Association of Counties.
I'm back in the studio, and this time I've got Brad.
Brad, good to see you again.
How are things?
We're at the end of week four.
The weather's been a little nuts.
The legislature's been going full bore.
How are you holding up?
Good to see you, Paul.
Yeah, holding up fine.
I mean, I think the weather is sort of tracked
with session a little bit, right?
It's like we had this nice sunny start to the session,
and there was no rain, and everybody was feeling good.
And then it just sort of progressively got colder
and kind of messier, and all the things that come with it.
And so I feel like there's some cosmic connection maybe with it.
You're starting to show your artistic side a little bit.
Well, you know, I'm deep down.
Once you get past my way deep.
Once you get past that crusty exterior.
Yeah.
Yeah, I'm a poet.
I'm a poet at heart.
Oh, that's nice.
I had no idea.
I know.
Wow.
I look forward to reading some of your poetry.
Well, it's not been a huge seller so far.
Is your full collection, is it, here on this podcast?
You know, I'm hoping we can do an edition of that,
where I can come in and just do some vibing and vamping with,
you know.
Well, we definitely should, but we'll
have to do that a little bit later.
Another time?
Yeah, another time.
We don't have time for that today.
We're going to talk about cops today.
Yeah, let's talk about cops.
There's a lot going on in the legislature in this space.
Well, what's going on?
Well, you know, and interestingly, I mean, right,
I think we maybe have touched on this
in some of our previous podcasts.
This is a heavy public safety year, just in general.
Legislature's really interested in, you know, everything.
There's been a ton of bills.
Ton of bills.
And kind of all over the place.
It's not like it's sort of just been one area
that they wanted to focus on.
It's really been pretty broad.
Yeah, it has.
Which is interesting.
I mean, it keeps you busy, and it keeps you hopping.
That combined with a new governor in town, who also seems
to have some interest in the public safety and law
and justice space, obviously being a former attorney
general, I guess we shouldn't be surprised by that.
But yeah, so he's coming in with some significant requests,
particularly on the fiscal side.
And we can talk about that.
And so I think it's sort of creating
an interesting juxtaposition between, I think,
where the legislature wants to go in terms of policy, which
is, I think, mostly where they've been focused so far.
And the fiscal side and the funding mechanisms,
where I think the governor is interested in putting
his efforts.
And I think the two are now starting to meet a bit.
And so, yeah.
Well, let's talk about that.
Because we can dig in.
Yeah, the governor has an obvious one
that he's right that was part of his campaign
that he's made kind of a centerpiece of the start
of his tenure as governor, right?
His four-year term.
It was something that he mentioned, I believe,
in his inauguration speech.
And that's the $100 million, right?
That's right.
He wants to provide local governments for more law
enforcement.
Let's talk about that a little bit.
What are the details?
Yeah, so it's an interesting proposal.
And you're right.
It's something he has carried over from his campaign.
And he did talk about it during his inauguration
and has been very active so far on the Hill in terms
of wanting to push this agenda.
And he did a lot of stakeholdering, actually, I think,
just as he was kind of coming into office
or as he was preparing to get sort of officially
into office.
I know you participated in some of those work sessions
with his staff to talk about his interest in this space.
So yeah, he's got a governor request legislation, which
is Senate Bill 5060, 5060.
And I think Senator Holey, if I recall,
is the prime sponsor of that bill.
And yeah, it's a pretty straightforward bill.
It essentially adds $100 million to the criminal justice
training account.
So we call that the CJTC.
CJTC.
CJTC, right?
Criminal Justice Training Commission.
Yeah.
Commission, that's right.
Yeah.
But and that provides what?
Funding for training for officers?
It does.
Training for officers provides.
It's a little bit more narrow than some of the other accounts,
which we can talk about maybe in a minute.
Like, for example, the criminal justice assistance account,
which is a much broader account in terms
that local governments can access
to do a variety of things in this space
to support law enforcement and criminal justice activities.
But yeah, the CJTC is really pretty focused
just on training and workforce and other very specific law
enforcement personnel tools.
So the bill by Senator Holey will do what?
It'll put $100 million into this account.
How much of that's for counties?
Ooh, that's a good question.
I think it's split, if I recall.
We may need to double check that, actually.
I don't know if you want to pull that up.
I'm pulling it up right now.
Probably should know that.
That's the beauty of a podcast.
I know.
I actually.
You can just sit here on a computer
and pull that sucker right up.
That's a good question.
I thought it was a split between cities and counties.
OK.
Yeah, so I mean, I think really what
he's trying to do with this money
is create a grant program.
So that is important, that it is a grant program.
And I think that's one of the criticisms
that we've heard so far is how sustainable is a grant program.
Is that a one-year, two-year proposal?
Obviously, it's a two-year proposal.
But what's the long-term implications of that?
Because this is a considerable amount of money
to add to the base budget.
So really, I think the goal from the governor's perspective
is to use this money in increasing
the numbers of law enforcement agents or law enforcement
officials who are operating in this space.
And I think that includes wanting to hire a lot more.
I think that really was the crux of his promise,
was to get more law enforcement officers in this space
at the local government, city, and county level.
Now, is there any funding?
So this would be for the first biennium, right?
It would be, yes.
And is there any guarantee of funding beyond that?
No.
And I think that's one of the big challenges here, right?
I think especially that's something
we deal with all the time at the local level, right?
Where there can be a lot of generosity in a two-year budget.
But then subsequent budgets, you never know what can happen.
And then local agencies, local counties, cities, et cetera,
build out programs, build out staffing levels,
and then are sort of stuck trying to figure out
how to maintain that long term.
So I remember kind of looking at some grant applications.
And I think these still exist, the COPS applications
that were funded at the federal level for local law
enforcement.
And you could apply for that money.
I think you got it for a period of two years.
It would help you bring on new personnel, new officers.
But then it created like an obligation
for another two or four years, where you basically said,
OK, I'm going to take this money, but I'm going to.
But I'm committed to pick up the tab long term.
I'm committed to pick up the tab for that other two
or four year period.
And if you didn't, you'd have to pay back those federal funds.
And that worked for some jurisdictions.
But for our jurisdiction, I was in Kittitas County.
And we didn't have the money now.
And so what?
To make that kind of commitment.
So how would we make that?
What was going to change in the two short year period,
a short two year period, where we'd have the money later?
And so we had to turn down some of those grants.
Do you think that's going to be an impediment here?
I do.
And that's something I think counties have increasing.
Well, local governments in general.
But I think counties in particular
have been very sensitive to this notion of money.
It's always a shiny thing.
And it's easy to be attracted to it,
especially when you are trying to beef up
these type of programs.
But when you have to look long term and start to figure out,
how good is this actually for us?
And will it just set us up for difficulty down the road?
Or God forbid, then you ramp up and then
you have to ramp down after you've built these programs.
And no county wants to be in that kind of situation.
Can you imagine hiring some new personnel?
They relocate their family to a new community.
And a year or two later, you just go, jeez, sorry.
We just don't have the funding anymore.
I mean, that just doesn't work.
And honestly, from a recruitment standpoint, right?
Well, right.
Who's going to agree?
Yeah.
Who's going to do that?
I mean, I sure wouldn't.
So I get that.
So I was looking at the bill, just the specifics of it, Brad.
And it looks like it doesn't really specify.
I was going to say, so I feel better.
I feel better.
Because I didn't think it did.
It just says local or tribal law enforcement, up to $125,000
per position.
And there's a minimum 25% local cash match
for every position that you apply for.
So it looks like it could be a first come, first serve sort
of thing.
And for those who have resources,
obviously, they're going to have an advantage.
Those who don't, obviously, going
to make it a little bit more difficult.
That's right.
Yeah.
And I mean, if you're a county, for example,
that has grant writing staff that could help you.
Right?
So all of those things start to play in a little bit.
So this is the governor's proposal.
This is.
Is there another proposal?
There is.
And I should note that this bill does have a house companion.
I want to say it's $14.35, I think is the house version.
Well, you know, the cool thing about the podcast
is I have my trusty computer right here.
I know.
And I was just going to say, so I think that it is $14.35.
Look at that.
Nice work.
Pulled that right out.
Didn't even have that on my notes.
You're amazing.
Yeah, no.
So $14.35.
So identical bill, but just in the house, obviously.
But there is an alternate proposal
being offered by representative rule,
and that's House Bill 1428.
And this one specifically gets to the other account
we just spoke about a minute ago, the Criminal Justice
Assistance Account.
And this one increases.
And so this is an account that offers money
both for cities and counties.
So it provides both.
We talked about it as it's more flexible than CJTC in terms of.
So how so?
In terms of the scope of services that can be funded,
or activities that can be funded by the dollars that
are in that account.
It's pretty broad.
And I was actually reviewing it the other day
to look at what could counties try to do with this money
if it were made available to them.
Now, if I remember correctly, the Criminal Justice Assistance
Account, you're right.
It's a little bit more broad.
But it also has a different kind of way
that the funding is allocated.
I think, isn't there a certain amount to every county based
on population?
But then there's also money that's allocated
based on crime rates.
That's right.
So like enhancements essentially.
Everybody gets sort of a base rate.
And then based on different statistics or metrics,
you can get additional.
Really kind of based on need, right?
Yeah.
That's really how it's designed to work.
OK.
So if you've got a higher crime problem in your area,
you're going to qualify for a little bit more money.
That's right.
It's pretty equitable.
I think that's why it's been an account that I
think for the most part is we've always
preferred that mechanism.
That it's really been responsive, I think, to local need.
And I think we may be remiss.
So $50 million is the increase in that bill
for counties in this space.
Yeah, this one's a 50-50 split.
It is.
50-50 split with the county or with the cities.
So 50% cities, 50% counties.
Yeah.
Wow.
So that's a considerable increase
from its current levels.
The other thing that this bill contains is growth factors.
So it builds in the ability for this
to continue to grow based on.
So this isn't a one time.
It's not.
It's a forward moving, forward looking bill
that's tied to the Revenue Forecast Council.
Well, that's a big difference.
It is a big difference.
And I think not only is this a sizable investment, obviously,
that we would benefit, I think, jurisdictions.
Then you add in the flexibility that comes with this account.
And then you add in this third piece around the longevity
or the staying power of what is being proposed
in this particular bill.
And I think that's a recipe that certainly
has gotten Wasack's attention.
Yeah, I would say so.
So am I going out on a limb here to say
that we would actually prefer House Bill 1428
and the funding going into the criminal justice assistance
account versus Senate Bill 5060 and that one time $100
million grant program?
Well, you're my boss, Paul.
So if that's what you say we prefer, then no.
Seriously, no.
Yeah, I mean, in all seriousness, no.
I think that's a correct assessment.
I think we would prefer that.
And I think we would present to our members
the benefits of what's being offered in 1428
as a more holistic package than maybe what's
being offered in 5060.
I think both are good efforts, but I
think there is more to like potentially in the 1428
proposal.
This is kind of setting up an interesting dynamic then
at the legislature, right?
It is.
You have a proposal that's being carried by Senator Holy that
really is what Governor Ferguson has said he wants to do.
That's right.
Versus you have an alternate proposal now in the House.
And I don't think this one has a companion.
It does not.
So by representative rule.
And it's actually something that we like a little better
and would prefer for a couple of different reasons.
It's more flexible funding.
It's an even split between cities and counties.
Got a growth factor.
It's got a growth factor.
It's permanent.
It moves forward.
I mean, you can never guarantee that anything's permanent,
but the plan is that it will continue.
And it's been that accounts.
I mean, both these accounts, I guess,
have been around a long time.
But yeah, I mean, there's the mechanism.
OK, so here's the tough part, right?
Legislature has the power of the purse.
They're the ones that are ultimately
going to make this decision.
Legislature is controlled by the Democrats.
The governor is also a member of the Democratic Party.
Are they going to find a path to see eye to eye on this?
Or is someone going to have to make a change that someone
or going to have to make a decision that someone else is
not going to be happy with?
Or noting that we also have a pretty significant budget
problem.
There's a backdrop here.
Yeah, that we've talked about quite a bit in earlier podcasts.
Is this even a realistic proposal?
Does it have any chance of survival at all?
So I've been thinking about that a lot, actually.
And I think it's an interesting question.
I appreciate you bringing it up.
I mean, because I do think we have
to see all this through the lens of the budget
scenario, the budget, sort of the state of the budget
that we're dealing with right now.
We have to think about every bill this year through that.
Right.
And the legislature, frankly, has been very blunt
this session in terms of saying bills that cost money,
even small amounts of money, are going to have a problem.
And I think we do expect in many programs
and in many service areas reductions, actually.
I think we see that that probably
is going to be the case in the end.
Well, we've seen that in the initial estimates
and in the budget proposals in some areas.
That's right.
So I feel like in every other space,
this conversation is sort of couched in that, right?
In every other issue area, it's couched in the fact,
like, well, budget's really tough,
and we're going to have to think about it.
This feels sort of like it's got this free pass
for a conversation, right?
It's like, yeah, we know the budget.
We'll deal with that over here.
But we've got a governor who's a new governor.
This is a big request from him.
We all agree that criminal justice and public safety
is a big priority for everybody.
And obviously, as we talked about earlier
at the start of the podcast, the legislature definitely
is dropping bills left, right, and center on these issues.
I do think for now, it feels like the conversation is still
kind of just freewheeling, right?
And it's like, hey, we can put money here.
We can put money there.
And I think that's why these numbers are so high.
I don't know if those numbers are sustainable or not, right,
when it gets down to brass tacks and they start getting
into the deep budget conversations.
I think the other thing that we're
going to have to see and wait, well, sort of wait and see
what happens is these are two different approaches.
And I think they reflect the two different positions
that each chamber, at least the Democratic caucuses
in each chamber, sort of see towards public safety, right?
I mean, I think if you're looking at the House,
they have not always, they've had a challenging relationship,
I think, with law enforcement over the last five, six,
seven years, right, that this has been an ongoing,
it's been an interesting dynamic in that space.
There's been a lot of police reform legislation.
There's been a lot of other sort of.
Yeah, so making the switch to actually funding
law enforcement.
Exactly, it's an interesting juxtaposition.
Yeah, it's a very different, it's
kind of a different type of course
than what they've been on in the last few years.
And really, I mean, I can't think of a time when the state,
not to mention what you're talking about as far
as the political dynamics of the recent years
and where law enforcement has been in the legislature
and what sort of public safety or law and justice
type of bills or policy they've been passing.
But I can't even remember a time when the state has ever
made a significant investment or contribution
in local law enforcement at all.
No, and in fact, I mean, I would say,
I would go as far to say, at least in my time lobbying,
I've certainly never seen that, but I've also
heard legislators say, we don't do that.
I have too.
We just don't do that.
And so this is definitely a shift, right,
that we're even talking about this.
And I think that it's a credit to Governor Ferguson
in terms of that he has teed up this conversation, right,
and he's sort of forced a new conversation, which
is interesting.
I think it remains to be seen how committed the legislature
is to these ideas.
And I think we're just going to have to see how that plays out
as we move into that more budget centric sort of phase
of session, which I think right now we're there,
but sort of not there.
And as I mentioned earlier, I feel
like this is sort of getting a pass at the moment, right,
to sort of have these conversations.
Yeah.
And when we talk about the political dynamics,
that's one thing, but there's facts too, right?
And the facts are that it is up to the legislature
to make this decision.
They do have the power of the purse.
That's right.
At the same time, though, the governor
is not without tools in certain instances if the governor.
He has his own levers that he can pull.
Right.
And as you pointed out, they are the majority party, right,
in the state and or in the governor's office
and in both chambers of the legislature.
And so they are going to have to figure out
how to work this amongst themselves,
I think, as they have these conversations.
And clearly, the Republicans are not
going to sit by idly, right?
They're going to engage in this conversation as well.
And so yeah, it creates an interesting dynamic.
And I think it's not one I would venture to say,
I don't think the legislature expected
to be having this dialogue this year.
I don't know if they saw that fully.
I think as it materialized, they kind of went,
oh, this will be interesting.
And I think we all watching it went,
oh, this will be interesting.
Yeah.
Well, it certainly is shaping up to be interesting.
It is.
If you're a bit of a policy wonk, like I
know you and I both are.
That's why we're in this business.
I don't want to be flippant at all,
but it certainly does make for an interesting session.
100%.
Yeah.
And I don't think that's a negative, right?
I mean, I think these aren't bad policy conversations.
And I think it's probably something
that needed to be talked about, right?
And I think one of the dynamics here
that we haven't touched on maybe,
and this is maybe between the differences between the two
proposals, is as workforce continues to be a challenge,
which is broadly in a lot of sectors,
that's particularly true in law enforcement
and in the criminal justice space.
It definitely is.
If you go to these hearings and you listen to the advocacy
groups like the Washington Association of Sheriffs
and Police Chiefs, they'll tell you that they've got,
not only do they have recruitment problems,
they have retention problems.
That's exactly right.
And not only that, but they'll tell you that per capita,
Washington state is one of the lowest, if not the lowest,
states in the nation as far as law enforcement officers
per capita.
That's right.
And these are statistics that are kind of glaring.
They are.
They're pretty amazing when you start to see them laid out.
And I think that is one of the challenges,
or maybe one of the dynamics between these two bill
approaches, really is, are these dollars designed primarily
to bring new law enforcement in?
Or are they designed to retain current law enforcement?
Or is it a mix of both?
And I think if you talk to our friends at the Sheriffs
and Police Chiefs, they would be saying
what you just said, which is, we're
doing everything we can just to hold on to the law enforcement
folks we have.
And we can't afford to lose them.
So we definitely want to look at things like retention bonuses
and those sort of things.
But I think you can also hear the same argument
where they're saying, and we'd love to have more.
So it's.
Yeah, you'll never make progress on that lowest
in the nation per capita unless you can hire more.
That's exactly right.
But at the same time, you can't lose what you got.
Well, and it's pretty tough to recruit
if the ones who are there aren't happy,
aren't satisfied with their work either.
Wow.
Well, Brad, fascinating topic.
Thanks for bringing it to us today.
It feels like there's a long way to go on this one.
There does.
I definitely feel like there's a podcast part two, probably,
for this particular topic.
You're definitely going to have to come back and tell us
how everything turned out.
Yeah, I'll make sure I have my notes a little better.
And maybe we can.
Yeah, it'll be good.
But no, yeah, this is going to be an interesting conversation.
And I look forward to seeing where
the political dynamics take it.
All right, well, thanks for coming by today.
My pleasure.
We'll catch you back on this one in just a little bit.
Thanks a lot, Paul.
Take care.
Bye bye.
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.