WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:01.860 It looked bad when I started and it looks fabulous 00:00:01.860 --> 00:00:04.900 now, comparatively speaking. Huh, nothing like 00:00:04.900 --> 00:00:09.660 that happens at work. Well, as we were just discussing, 00:00:09.759 --> 00:00:11.980 right? Here you can make something better and 00:00:11.980 --> 00:00:14.339 then it gets worse and then better and then worse 00:00:14.339 --> 00:00:16.600 and then a lot worse and a little better. And 00:00:16.600 --> 00:00:18.460 the really big things that you fix, no one ever 00:00:18.460 --> 00:00:20.059 really knew they were a problem to begin with, 00:00:20.160 --> 00:00:22.879 right? Because they didn't become a problem because 00:00:22.879 --> 00:00:27.730 you fixed them. That's true too. Yeah. Welcome 00:00:27.730 --> 00:00:30.030 to County Connection, the official podcast of 00:00:30.030 --> 00:00:31.989 the Washington State Association of Counties, 00:00:31.989 --> 00:00:34.390 where we dive into the legislative issues shaping 00:00:34.390 --> 00:00:36.829 the future of our communities. From budgets to 00:00:36.829 --> 00:00:39.750 public safety, infrastructure to elections, we'll 00:00:39.750 --> 00:00:42.409 break down what's happening in Olympia and how 00:00:42.409 --> 00:00:44.369 it impacts counties from across the Evergreen 00:00:44.369 --> 00:00:47.490 State. Stay informed, stay engaged, and join 00:00:47.490 --> 00:00:50.070 us as we amplify the voice of Washington's 39 00:00:50.070 --> 00:00:54.520 counties. Welcome everybody to the County Connection 00:00:54.520 --> 00:00:58.259 Podcast. I'm Paul Jewell. We are here in Olympia 00:00:58.259 --> 00:01:00.420 today. It's a beautiful afternoon. It's actually 00:01:00.420 --> 00:01:02.200 kind of getting into the evening here a little 00:01:02.200 --> 00:01:04.900 bit. And I've got Kelsey Hulse, our contract 00:01:04.900 --> 00:01:07.500 lobbyist with me in the studio today. Kelsey, 00:01:07.640 --> 00:01:10.920 the weekend's over. Last week was a really big 00:01:10.920 --> 00:01:13.359 cutoff. Last Wednesday was the House of Origin 00:01:13.359 --> 00:01:17.379 cutoff where a lot of kind of the path forward 00:01:17.379 --> 00:01:20.719 becomes much, much more clearer. How did it go 00:01:20.719 --> 00:01:23.930 for you? It went pretty well. It always feels 00:01:23.930 --> 00:01:26.329 a little macabre to celebrate the death of all 00:01:26.329 --> 00:01:29.390 of these bills. But I think one of the big challenges 00:01:29.390 --> 00:01:32.349 of the early part of the session is there's just 00:01:32.349 --> 00:01:35.890 so much volume. You know, I hear what you're 00:01:35.890 --> 00:01:38.170 saying about it feeling a little bit macabre. 00:01:38.250 --> 00:01:39.829 But when I think of a bad bill, I think of it 00:01:39.829 --> 00:01:43.269 in the same terms of a spider or a rodent or 00:01:43.269 --> 00:01:48.040 maybe a roach. Some of them deserve it. They 00:01:48.040 --> 00:01:49.920 just got to die. I don't want them to die. I 00:01:49.920 --> 00:01:53.719 just want them to not be around me. I suppose 00:01:53.719 --> 00:01:55.540 it's not so different. Yeah, that's not so different. 00:01:55.680 --> 00:01:58.319 I mean, I just want them to die. I want them 00:01:58.319 --> 00:02:00.519 to go away. I just want them to go away. And 00:02:00.519 --> 00:02:04.680 a lot of them did, right? So a couple of bad 00:02:04.680 --> 00:02:06.680 bills died last week that we were following. 00:02:06.739 --> 00:02:10.240 Any particular ones you want to mention for the 00:02:10.240 --> 00:02:12.580 listening viewership out there? Listening viewership. 00:02:12.580 --> 00:02:15.240 Oh, my goodness. We're not on viewership, the 00:02:15.240 --> 00:02:17.800 listenership out there. Well, I will be the first 00:02:17.800 --> 00:02:19.759 to admit that I'm terrible about remembering 00:02:19.759 --> 00:02:23.379 bill numbers, but I will share that there was 00:02:23.379 --> 00:02:25.740 a mobile dwellings bill that we were particularly 00:02:25.740 --> 00:02:28.939 concerned about. Yeah, I remember that one. That 00:02:28.939 --> 00:02:31.979 bill did perish in the cutoff. That one would 00:02:31.979 --> 00:02:37.080 have allowed like two additional units on wheels. 00:02:37.120 --> 00:02:39.280 So think like travel trailers on every single 00:02:39.280 --> 00:02:42.199 residential lot, right? As a state mandate. Correct. 00:02:42.599 --> 00:02:45.819 So jurisdictions wouldn't have been able to prohibit 00:02:45.819 --> 00:02:47.599 them. Right, right. So you couldn't have a law 00:02:47.599 --> 00:02:50.840 that said no. So I was glad to see that one go 00:02:50.840 --> 00:02:53.740 as well. That would have been a really tough 00:02:53.740 --> 00:02:56.979 bill to even try to make better on any level. 00:02:57.400 --> 00:03:00.389 Yeah, that one. That one was a difficult one. 00:03:00.449 --> 00:03:04.389 There was also a bill to insert an environmental 00:03:04.389 --> 00:03:07.710 justice impact statement of some sort into the 00:03:07.710 --> 00:03:10.449 SEPA process. Right. I think that's the third 00:03:10.449 --> 00:03:14.409 or second year we've seen that bill. And that's 00:03:14.409 --> 00:03:17.050 a tough one because certainly appreciate and 00:03:17.050 --> 00:03:20.669 support the intent to create more justice in 00:03:20.669 --> 00:03:22.590 our communities and to make sure we're thinking 00:03:22.590 --> 00:03:26.590 about that broadly as we're making choices about 00:03:26.590 --> 00:03:29.549 the things we build and the things we do. And 00:03:29.549 --> 00:03:32.370 the way the bill was crafted probably wasn't 00:03:32.370 --> 00:03:34.250 the best way to get at that goal. So we were 00:03:34.250 --> 00:03:36.110 happy to see that one. Well, hopefully we'll 00:03:36.110 --> 00:03:38.909 have a chance to maybe stakeholder that during 00:03:38.909 --> 00:03:42.289 the interim. And by interim, I mean the time 00:03:42.289 --> 00:03:45.210 between sessions where we get a chance to sit 00:03:45.210 --> 00:03:46.889 down with legislators and other stakeholders 00:03:46.889 --> 00:03:49.590 as well as state agencies and say, okay, here's 00:03:49.590 --> 00:03:51.050 this idea. How do we make it work? Because a 00:03:51.050 --> 00:03:53.069 lot of times these are good ideas. It's just 00:03:53.069 --> 00:03:54.889 the way they manifest themselves in the bills 00:03:54.889 --> 00:03:57.330 aren't very practical for implementation, right? 00:03:57.469 --> 00:04:00.770 Yep, exactly. that we have shared with the sponsor 00:04:00.770 --> 00:04:03.389 multiple times that we're very interested in 00:04:03.389 --> 00:04:05.210 continuing the conversation and hope we get a 00:04:05.210 --> 00:04:07.349 chance to do it. Because again, very supportive 00:04:07.349 --> 00:04:09.770 of the intent, just didn't like the approach 00:04:09.770 --> 00:04:11.990 in that case. So those are a couple of the ones 00:04:11.990 --> 00:04:14.030 that we were watching that we were hoping didn't 00:04:14.030 --> 00:04:16.149 move forward. I know that there were some others 00:04:16.149 --> 00:04:19.550 that we had mixed feelings about maybe, or maybe 00:04:19.550 --> 00:04:22.149 a few that we liked that are moving forward. 00:04:22.209 --> 00:04:25.970 Let's chat about a couple of those. There was 00:04:25.970 --> 00:04:29.060 a bill out there that extended the permitting 00:04:29.370 --> 00:04:31.790 No, not the permitting timelines, the comprehensive 00:04:31.790 --> 00:04:33.709 planning timelines, right? For some of our members. 00:04:33.829 --> 00:04:36.569 Did that bill pass? It did. And that's still 00:04:36.569 --> 00:04:38.889 moving through the process. That's bill 5558. 00:04:39.470 --> 00:04:42.930 So for counties that are on the 2026 planning 00:04:42.930 --> 00:04:47.329 schedule, that will kick out their deadline by 00:04:47.329 --> 00:04:49.730 six months. Okay. Okay. So those who are coming 00:04:49.730 --> 00:04:53.189 up. So the 2026 schedule starts what? This July 00:04:53.189 --> 00:04:56.990 1st, right? And goes through, well, no, I guess 00:04:56.990 --> 00:05:00.519 it would end. So it really, if it's a two -year 00:05:00.519 --> 00:05:02.459 planning cycle, it actually started last July, 00:05:02.519 --> 00:05:06.379 and it would end June 30th of 2026, right? So 00:05:06.379 --> 00:05:09.459 now they're going to end December 31st of 2026. 00:05:09.560 --> 00:05:11.839 Is that right? Sounds right to me. Yeah. You 00:05:11.839 --> 00:05:15.579 know, that six months can be a big deal. I was 00:05:15.579 --> 00:05:18.300 glad to see that one pass, or at least get as 00:05:18.300 --> 00:05:19.899 far as it has during the session, because I know 00:05:19.899 --> 00:05:22.680 we did that for previous updaters in previous 00:05:22.680 --> 00:05:24.920 years. So this just kind of... Helps balance 00:05:24.920 --> 00:05:26.899 that for everybody. Yep. Moves that deadline 00:05:26.899 --> 00:05:30.339 from June 30th to December 31st, 2026. Benton, 00:05:30.339 --> 00:05:32.860 Chelan, Cowlitz, Douglas, Franklin, Kittitas, 00:05:33.100 --> 00:05:35.819 Skamania, Spokane, Walla Walla, and Yakima. Oh, 00:05:35.839 --> 00:05:37.819 that's a long list. Yeah, that's a good portion 00:05:37.819 --> 00:05:39.379 of the members. Well, good. Well, what other 00:05:39.379 --> 00:05:43.220 bills were you watching closely that are still 00:05:43.220 --> 00:05:44.800 alive that we should be chatting about today? 00:05:45.279 --> 00:05:50.480 The first bill I'd flag is House Bill 1135. So 00:05:50.480 --> 00:05:55.779 1135 relates to government planning under the 00:05:55.779 --> 00:05:59.120 Growth Management Act and specifically when cities, 00:05:59.220 --> 00:06:02.939 counties, jurisdictions that are updating their 00:06:02.939 --> 00:06:07.180 ordinances or plans, particularly in between 00:06:07.180 --> 00:06:10.509 their regular five or 10 year. updates or planning 00:06:10.509 --> 00:06:18.569 cycle, that if the update is challenged and found 00:06:18.569 --> 00:06:22.509 to be non -compliant, then it prevents that jurisdiction 00:06:22.509 --> 00:06:27.850 from reverting to a prior ordinance or plan if 00:06:28.170 --> 00:06:31.670 that underlying or prior one would also be non 00:06:31.670 --> 00:06:33.629 -compliant with the current rules of the chapter. 00:06:33.949 --> 00:06:38.029 Okay. That sounds complicated. So let me see 00:06:38.029 --> 00:06:41.290 if I understand. So right now under the GMA, 00:06:41.470 --> 00:06:44.050 I have to adopt a comprehensive plan if I'm required 00:06:44.050 --> 00:06:46.769 to plan under the GMA or if I voluntarily plan 00:06:46.769 --> 00:06:51.500 under the GMA. And some of our counties... how 00:06:51.500 --> 00:06:54.000 do I say, they qualified to plan one way or the 00:06:54.000 --> 00:06:56.000 other. They either jumped in with both feet or 00:06:56.000 --> 00:06:57.439 they were required to do so and didn't have a 00:06:57.439 --> 00:07:00.300 choice. There are certain elements and pieces 00:07:00.300 --> 00:07:03.560 of that plan that I have to adopt. There are 00:07:03.560 --> 00:07:06.600 optional elements that I adopt as well. And then 00:07:06.600 --> 00:07:09.100 from there, I also adopt what are called development 00:07:09.100 --> 00:07:11.360 regulations that implement kind of the plan, 00:07:11.459 --> 00:07:14.199 right? And I have to do all of this over a period 00:07:14.199 --> 00:07:16.660 of time. I have to submit the whole thing to 00:07:16.660 --> 00:07:18.720 the Department of Commerce. I have to do a SEPA 00:07:18.720 --> 00:07:21.600 analysis on the whole thing. And it has to be 00:07:21.600 --> 00:07:25.480 done with a robust public participation plan, 00:07:25.779 --> 00:07:28.079 meaning I have to engage the public. I have to 00:07:28.079 --> 00:07:30.220 engage tribes. I have to engage with the cities 00:07:30.220 --> 00:07:32.180 and other planning jurisdictions. We all have 00:07:32.180 --> 00:07:34.480 to work together on this thing. Once we finally 00:07:34.480 --> 00:07:36.439 get it all done and we send it to Commerce and 00:07:36.439 --> 00:07:39.579 they basically don't have a bunch of objections, 00:07:42.139 --> 00:07:45.120 the legislative authority in the place of a county, 00:07:45.160 --> 00:07:46.839 that would be the county council or the county 00:07:46.839 --> 00:07:49.240 commissioners, they actually adopt it. And from 00:07:49.240 --> 00:07:52.699 that date, there is an opportunity for people 00:07:52.699 --> 00:07:55.839 to appeal, right? It's 60 days. And if they don't 00:07:55.839 --> 00:07:58.339 file an appeal at that point, then it's considered 00:07:58.339 --> 00:08:01.139 compliant. It's just assumed to be compliant. 00:08:01.660 --> 00:08:04.300 So let's say all that happens. And three or four 00:08:04.300 --> 00:08:08.000 years down the road, say it's now 2025 and I 00:08:08.000 --> 00:08:10.899 did that five years ago, I want to adopt just 00:08:10.899 --> 00:08:14.439 a change to my transportation. element. So maybe 00:08:14.439 --> 00:08:17.819 I want to change my level of service standards 00:08:17.819 --> 00:08:19.779 or something like that. And then the corresponding 00:08:19.779 --> 00:08:25.560 road standards or intersection, whatever I need 00:08:25.560 --> 00:08:27.959 to go with that. You're saying that that change 00:08:27.959 --> 00:08:30.879 itself can be appealed, right? So whenever I 00:08:30.879 --> 00:08:32.519 decide to make that change, it opens up a new 00:08:32.519 --> 00:08:35.779 60 -day window for someone to appeal. Yep. Okay. 00:08:35.860 --> 00:08:39.399 In the past, if I... was found compliant, then 00:08:39.399 --> 00:08:41.879 the change would just go into effect. And is 00:08:41.879 --> 00:08:43.779 that still the same under this bill if I'm found 00:08:43.779 --> 00:08:46.440 compliant? It is. Okay. Correct. But if I'm found 00:08:46.440 --> 00:08:48.940 non -compliant, meaning... the Growth Management 00:08:48.940 --> 00:08:51.419 Hearings Board, who is the tribunal that oversees 00:08:51.419 --> 00:08:54.279 these appeals, if they say I'm non -compliant 00:08:54.279 --> 00:08:56.779 and I revert back to what was in place before, 00:08:56.919 --> 00:09:00.299 there's now an opportunity for someone to challenge 00:09:00.299 --> 00:09:03.259 what was in place before? If the underlying or 00:09:03.259 --> 00:09:06.820 former whatever was in place is also non -compliant. 00:09:07.000 --> 00:09:08.720 So that's an interesting question. So how does 00:09:08.720 --> 00:09:11.120 this work? Because if it wasn't appealed before... 00:09:11.289 --> 00:09:13.370 then it's assumed to be compliant and legally 00:09:13.370 --> 00:09:15.850 under the law, it's compliant. Yeah, it's valid, 00:09:15.990 --> 00:09:17.990 right? There's difference between compliance 00:09:17.990 --> 00:09:20.769 and validity, right, under the GMA. And we can 00:09:20.769 --> 00:09:23.289 kind of talk about what those terms are. But 00:09:23.289 --> 00:09:26.009 let's just assume, you know, compliance is the 00:09:26.009 --> 00:09:29.120 key here. How would they... How does that work? 00:09:29.200 --> 00:09:32.559 Is the Growth Management Hearings Board instructed 00:09:32.559 --> 00:09:35.340 not just to look at if they find the change to 00:09:35.340 --> 00:09:37.100 be non -compliant, are they instructed to also 00:09:37.100 --> 00:09:40.860 look at what was in place beforehand and also 00:09:40.860 --> 00:09:43.200 rule on that? Is that how it would work? It is. 00:09:43.340 --> 00:09:48.340 Okay. How far do they go? Is it really laid out 00:09:48.340 --> 00:09:50.759 in the bill as far as, for instance, if I'm making 00:09:50.759 --> 00:09:53.000 a change to my transportation element, are they 00:09:53.000 --> 00:09:55.940 looking at now my entire transportation element 00:09:55.940 --> 00:09:58.399 and its compliance? Or are they looking at just 00:09:58.399 --> 00:10:00.720 the part that I changed? What if it's just a 00:10:00.720 --> 00:10:03.179 development regulation? What if that's the only 00:10:03.179 --> 00:10:05.379 thing that I've changed? And it doesn't necessarily 00:10:05.379 --> 00:10:09.700 go into the element itself. Are they then just 00:10:09.700 --> 00:10:11.919 looking at... the development regulation and 00:10:11.919 --> 00:10:13.919 then the underlying development regulation that 00:10:13.919 --> 00:10:16.120 was in place? How far back does it go? So the 00:10:16.120 --> 00:10:20.200 only items that should be subject or part of 00:10:20.200 --> 00:10:22.659 the scope of the bill would be amendments addressing 00:10:22.659 --> 00:10:26.059 the noncompliance order. So whatever it was that 00:10:26.059 --> 00:10:28.860 they found noncompliant specifically, that that 00:10:28.860 --> 00:10:33.240 corollary element would be the item at issue. 00:10:33.379 --> 00:10:36.600 So it should not go any broader than that. So 00:10:36.600 --> 00:10:39.100 if you're talking about... your level of service 00:10:39.100 --> 00:10:41.659 standards. It should be limited to that thing 00:10:41.659 --> 00:10:45.639 rather than expanding out to encompass anything 00:10:45.639 --> 00:10:48.860 more. Okay. And level of service standards may 00:10:48.860 --> 00:10:51.539 not be the best example here. Yeah, because a 00:10:51.539 --> 00:10:55.139 city really has or a county really has the ability 00:10:55.139 --> 00:10:57.559 to define those for themselves. But what if it 00:10:57.559 --> 00:10:59.940 was, it could be your concurrency process, right? 00:11:00.039 --> 00:11:02.299 And whether that matches the requirements under 00:11:02.299 --> 00:11:05.620 the GMA. Maybe you change your concurrency process, 00:11:05.860 --> 00:11:08.820 your concurrency evaluation process in your development 00:11:08.820 --> 00:11:10.700 regulations. Maybe you decide certain projects 00:11:10.700 --> 00:11:14.039 are exempt from that and someone would challenge 00:11:14.039 --> 00:11:18.279 that. if they were found to be noncompliant, 00:11:18.340 --> 00:11:20.960 they would look at not just the change and say, 00:11:21.019 --> 00:11:23.100 okay, that's not compliant, but they'd also look 00:11:23.100 --> 00:11:25.179 at what was there in place beforehand if that's 00:11:25.179 --> 00:11:29.080 what you choose to just revert to and they would 00:11:29.080 --> 00:11:30.759 make a finding as to whether that was compliance 00:11:30.759 --> 00:11:33.259 as well. Okay, well, there's a couple of things 00:11:33.259 --> 00:11:35.059 that come to mind. I guess another couple of 00:11:35.059 --> 00:11:40.240 questions that come to mind. What if the underlying... 00:11:40.919 --> 00:11:44.480 Development regulation is compliant, except there's 00:11:44.480 --> 00:11:48.419 been a change to the law that renders it noncompliant, 00:11:48.500 --> 00:11:52.159 but you as a jurisdiction aren't required to 00:11:52.159 --> 00:11:54.399 comply with that change until your next comprehensive 00:11:54.399 --> 00:12:00.120 plan mandatory update under RCW 3670A, and you 00:12:00.120 --> 00:12:03.059 haven't reached that yet. Are you compliant in 00:12:03.059 --> 00:12:04.960 that particular case, or are you noncompliant 00:12:04.960 --> 00:12:07.600 and then therefore have to update early, or is 00:12:07.600 --> 00:12:10.480 it clear in the bill? I'd say the bill is brief 00:12:10.480 --> 00:12:14.480 and therefore not extraordinarily detailed. But 00:12:14.480 --> 00:12:18.259 our understanding of it is that, yes, even if 00:12:18.259 --> 00:12:22.139 you hadn't reached the timeline on which you 00:12:22.139 --> 00:12:25.399 would normally have to update that, whether ordinance 00:12:25.399 --> 00:12:31.080 or portion of a plan, that if that was not compliant 00:12:31.080 --> 00:12:34.990 with the current requirements of the GMA, then 00:12:34.990 --> 00:12:37.309 you would have to update it before you could 00:12:37.309 --> 00:12:42.009 get a finding of compliance from the GMHB. Well, 00:12:42.049 --> 00:12:44.710 this makes it sound like that's a bit of a disincentive 00:12:44.710 --> 00:12:47.750 to even try to update your plan outside of your 00:12:47.750 --> 00:12:50.509 mandatory update cycle. Why would you take the 00:12:50.509 --> 00:12:52.990 risk? That's one of the things that we've flagged 00:12:52.990 --> 00:12:55.610 as a potential challenge for the bill and for 00:12:55.610 --> 00:12:57.870 implementing the bill and what that looks like 00:12:57.870 --> 00:13:01.960 on the ground is both that piece and Something 00:13:01.960 --> 00:13:04.279 that we've heard from our members is that it 00:13:04.279 --> 00:13:09.279 is rarely the case that a single ordinance, regulation, 00:13:09.700 --> 00:13:14.639 plan element is discrete and specific. It only 00:13:14.639 --> 00:13:18.039 affects one thing. You can clearly draw a little 00:13:18.039 --> 00:13:19.940 box around it. Yeah, I mean, these comprehensive 00:13:19.940 --> 00:13:23.120 plans are interwoven, right? That's why you're 00:13:23.120 --> 00:13:25.279 supposed to balance all the goals of the plan. 00:13:25.860 --> 00:13:28.639 There's really very... very few portions of it 00:13:28.639 --> 00:13:30.759 that you can say kind of exist in a vacuum all 00:13:30.759 --> 00:13:32.580 by themselves to have no impact on the rest. 00:13:32.820 --> 00:13:35.419 And that's the concern, right? Is how do you 00:13:35.419 --> 00:13:39.379 untangle those to be able to identify what is 00:13:39.379 --> 00:13:43.100 the single piece that could then be updated in 00:13:43.100 --> 00:13:46.179 order to come into compliance? I see. What about 00:13:46.179 --> 00:13:50.580 in an instance where, let's say I do update my 00:13:50.580 --> 00:13:53.639 concurrence procedure, it's found to be non -compliant, 00:13:53.720 --> 00:13:56.659 and then now the court... goes back and I say, 00:13:56.700 --> 00:13:58.080 I'm just going to revert to my old one. And they 00:13:58.080 --> 00:13:59.500 look at that and they say, oh, well, that one's 00:13:59.500 --> 00:14:02.039 non -compliant too. Now what do I do? That's 00:14:02.039 --> 00:14:05.019 the other question that I don't know that we 00:14:05.019 --> 00:14:08.980 have a good answer for yet is the assumption 00:14:08.980 --> 00:14:11.940 of validity allowed there to be kind of a foundation 00:14:11.940 --> 00:14:14.379 that this was built on, right? So that you know 00:14:14.379 --> 00:14:17.580 what you're working with at any time, really. 00:14:17.899 --> 00:14:20.519 In this circumstance, if... both those things 00:14:20.519 --> 00:14:23.779 happened. It's an open question as to what you're 00:14:23.779 --> 00:14:26.980 supposed to do in the meantime while you're working 00:14:26.980 --> 00:14:29.279 within your jurisdiction to come into compliance 00:14:29.279 --> 00:14:31.220 and to work with the Growth Management Hearings 00:14:31.220 --> 00:14:35.779 Board to update your concurrence procedure. Concurrency 00:14:35.779 --> 00:14:38.759 procedure? Yeah, I mean, this just sounds, it 00:14:38.759 --> 00:14:41.279 sounds kind of, it sounds like it could be a 00:14:41.279 --> 00:14:44.039 real problem, right? I mean, transportation concurrency, 00:14:44.080 --> 00:14:47.580 just using that as an example. is a requirement 00:14:47.580 --> 00:14:50.620 for every single development application. So 00:14:50.620 --> 00:14:54.220 if you were to lose an appeal based on an update 00:14:54.220 --> 00:14:56.700 of your concurrency procedure, again, just using 00:14:56.700 --> 00:14:59.039 that as an example, and then they also found 00:14:59.039 --> 00:15:02.100 that what you tried to revert to was also non 00:15:02.100 --> 00:15:05.440 -compliant, now you don't have anything in place 00:15:05.440 --> 00:15:07.799 as far as a concurrency procedure. I mean, I 00:15:07.799 --> 00:15:09.940 think you could make an argument that in that 00:15:09.940 --> 00:15:12.279 instance, you wouldn't actually be able to move 00:15:12.279 --> 00:15:15.379 forward with any sort of development review. 00:15:16.000 --> 00:15:18.919 process at all for most of the development applications 00:15:18.919 --> 00:15:20.600 that came in front of you as a jurisdiction. 00:15:20.779 --> 00:15:22.720 Do you think that's right? I think so. And that's 00:15:22.720 --> 00:15:25.600 one of the other concerns that we've shared is 00:15:25.600 --> 00:15:32.100 that the underlying hope, the underlying purpose, 00:15:32.179 --> 00:15:34.259 I think, for this bill, as we've talked about 00:15:34.259 --> 00:15:36.830 a lot, a lot. As we've talked about many times 00:15:36.830 --> 00:15:40.889 before, the intent is to drive more housing, 00:15:41.049 --> 00:15:45.429 to solve what some of the bill proponents or 00:15:45.429 --> 00:15:47.950 what some legislators see as portions of the 00:15:47.950 --> 00:15:50.509 planning process that are inhibiting the ability 00:15:50.509 --> 00:15:53.370 to build housing more quickly. And so wanting 00:15:53.370 --> 00:15:56.490 to resolve those elements faster than the typical. 00:15:57.230 --> 00:16:01.090 comprehensive planning update timeline. I think 00:16:01.090 --> 00:16:04.009 an unintended consequence could end up being 00:16:04.009 --> 00:16:07.409 that we see further delays as a result of the 00:16:07.409 --> 00:16:09.970 scenario that you just outlined. If we don't 00:16:09.970 --> 00:16:13.230 know, if a jurisdiction is unclear on how they're 00:16:13.230 --> 00:16:15.809 supposed to evaluate a permit application, for 00:16:15.809 --> 00:16:17.970 instance, because they don't know what regulations 00:16:17.970 --> 00:16:21.950 are in play at that moment, that is going to, 00:16:21.950 --> 00:16:23.970 I think, cause some confusion and potentially 00:16:23.970 --> 00:16:26.740 delays. Yeah, for sure. Well, this, This bill 00:16:26.740 --> 00:16:29.480 I know we did quite a bit of work on with the 00:16:29.480 --> 00:16:33.139 sponsor in negotiating the final wording that's 00:16:33.139 --> 00:16:36.440 here now in the substitute. Are we happy with 00:16:36.440 --> 00:16:40.049 this as it sits at this point? Where are we as 00:16:40.049 --> 00:16:42.450 far as an association? Are we to the point where 00:16:42.450 --> 00:16:46.049 we're kind of neutral on this bill and just watching 00:16:46.049 --> 00:16:47.850 to make sure that something doesn't make it worse? 00:16:47.970 --> 00:16:49.330 Is that kind of where we're at at this point? 00:16:49.490 --> 00:16:51.470 Well, when I testified in the last hearing, what 00:16:51.470 --> 00:16:54.710 we shared is that we had signed in neutral and 00:16:54.710 --> 00:16:57.110 we had said that we appreciated the fact that 00:16:57.110 --> 00:17:00.240 we did have this conversation and that... Bill 00:17:00.240 --> 00:17:03.240 proponents, sponsor, other, you know, our friends 00:17:03.240 --> 00:17:06.160 at AWC were all involved in talking about what 00:17:06.160 --> 00:17:08.799 should this language... AWC is the Association 00:17:08.799 --> 00:17:11.099 of Washington Cities, right? Correct. Yeah. Thank 00:17:11.099 --> 00:17:14.339 you. You bet. I think where we got to was language 00:17:14.339 --> 00:17:17.319 that it feels like mitigates some of the issues 00:17:17.319 --> 00:17:21.829 that we were seeing. potentially follow on from 00:17:21.829 --> 00:17:25.230 the passage of the bill, the concept itself is 00:17:25.230 --> 00:17:27.369 still problematic. And so that's what I tried 00:17:27.369 --> 00:17:30.450 to share in testimony is that we do appreciate 00:17:30.450 --> 00:17:32.529 having these conversations. We do appreciate 00:17:32.529 --> 00:17:34.490 where the bill has gone from where it started. 00:17:34.970 --> 00:17:38.549 And yet we can't ignore the fact that there still 00:17:38.549 --> 00:17:40.670 are parts of it that we have deep reservations 00:17:40.670 --> 00:17:43.349 about. Interesting. Well, we'll watch that one 00:17:43.349 --> 00:17:46.490 moving forward and see how it progresses. What 00:17:46.490 --> 00:17:47.890 else did you bring us today that you wanted to 00:17:47.890 --> 00:17:51.380 talk about? should also spend a moment talking 00:17:51.380 --> 00:17:55.220 about Senate Bill 5148. Okay, what's that one 00:17:55.220 --> 00:17:56.880 about? Which I think is a bill that we've actually 00:17:56.880 --> 00:17:59.839 talked about before on this podcast, potentially. 00:18:00.140 --> 00:18:04.680 But this is the bill related to the housing element 00:18:04.680 --> 00:18:09.119 portion of comprehensive plans and getting those 00:18:09.119 --> 00:18:12.200 housing elements approved by commerce and the 00:18:12.200 --> 00:18:16.000 kind of circumstances around which you would 00:18:16.000 --> 00:18:19.509 do that. And initially, the bill required all 00:18:19.509 --> 00:18:22.150 jurisdictions to submit their housing elements 00:18:22.150 --> 00:18:25.069 to Commerce for approval. Right. I remember that. 00:18:25.150 --> 00:18:27.849 In discussions with the sponsor, we had identified 00:18:27.849 --> 00:18:31.930 the opportunity or the appetite for a voluntary 00:18:31.930 --> 00:18:35.150 pathway that would create some appeal protection 00:18:35.150 --> 00:18:38.630 for jurisdictions that chose to do that. That 00:18:38.630 --> 00:18:42.809 was added to the bill. Since then, we've also 00:18:42.809 --> 00:18:46.210 got another mandatory element. that has come 00:18:46.210 --> 00:18:50.210 on behind it that requires that any entity that 00:18:50.210 --> 00:18:54.289 hasn't gone the voluntary route is required to 00:18:54.289 --> 00:18:57.049 submit their housing element within three years 00:18:57.049 --> 00:18:59.450 or no later than three years after enacting or 00:18:59.450 --> 00:19:03.089 updating their comprehensive plan. Well, that 00:19:03.089 --> 00:19:06.549 doesn't sound very voluntary. a quote unquote 00:19:06.549 --> 00:19:09.210 voluntary route, but if you don't take advantage 00:19:09.210 --> 00:19:11.509 of it, now you're falling into this mandatory 00:19:11.509 --> 00:19:14.329 category. That's not voluntary. Correct. Okay. 00:19:14.430 --> 00:19:18.109 This is interesting. I remember this bill originally 00:19:18.109 --> 00:19:20.869 included just this requirement that everything 00:19:20.869 --> 00:19:23.390 be submitted to commerce and that they were put 00:19:23.390 --> 00:19:26.710 in this role of essentially approving these plans, 00:19:26.809 --> 00:19:28.750 which is something that commerce has not been 00:19:28.750 --> 00:19:32.970 put in the role of doing. And we negotiated this 00:19:32.970 --> 00:19:35.930 idea that, OK, let's follow the model that we 00:19:35.930 --> 00:19:39.390 put in place when we negotiated the new element 00:19:39.390 --> 00:19:43.549 a couple of years ago around climate change. 00:19:43.670 --> 00:19:47.490 Right. And allow local jurisdictions to apply 00:19:47.490 --> 00:19:52.460 to commerce to have them. basically sign off 00:19:52.460 --> 00:19:54.799 on it, kind of give it a seal of approval, so 00:19:54.799 --> 00:19:58.319 to speak, which would then create some liability 00:19:58.319 --> 00:20:00.839 protection for the local government because any 00:20:00.839 --> 00:20:04.160 appeal would be an appeal of commerce's decision 00:20:04.160 --> 00:20:07.259 to basically say that it met the requirements 00:20:07.259 --> 00:20:10.099 of the GMA, not on the local jurisdiction's work, 00:20:10.299 --> 00:20:12.480 right? So there was some liability protection 00:20:12.480 --> 00:20:16.079 there, but it didn't necessarily overturn or 00:20:16.079 --> 00:20:20.269 upset the basic foundational principle or one 00:20:20.269 --> 00:20:22.349 of the basic foundational principles of the GMA, 00:20:22.450 --> 00:20:25.160 which is planning from the ground up. It's not 00:20:25.160 --> 00:20:27.480 a top -down scenario like you have in other states 00:20:27.480 --> 00:20:29.759 where they say, okay, you have to meet all of 00:20:29.759 --> 00:20:32.000 these standards and then fill in the blanks where 00:20:32.000 --> 00:20:34.319 you want to as long as you do all this. It's 00:20:34.319 --> 00:20:37.039 a grassroots effort that says, okay, community, 00:20:37.200 --> 00:20:39.839 get together, have a discussion. Here are the 00:20:39.839 --> 00:20:41.700 things you must include when you're planning. 00:20:41.920 --> 00:20:44.039 Here are the things you must consider. Here are 00:20:44.039 --> 00:20:46.960 the things you must plan for. But the freedom 00:20:46.960 --> 00:20:49.259 on how you do that, where you do that. when you 00:20:49.259 --> 00:20:51.420 do that, in what quantities you do that, et cetera, 00:20:51.519 --> 00:20:54.059 a lot of that is left up to you as a community 00:20:54.059 --> 00:20:58.240 to shape how you want to be in the future. Where 00:20:58.240 --> 00:21:00.960 do you want your stuff? What kind of stuff do 00:21:00.960 --> 00:21:03.019 you want to have? How big do you want to be? 00:21:03.279 --> 00:21:07.420 All those sorts of things. When you now change 00:21:07.420 --> 00:21:11.079 that so that you have to apply for an approval, 00:21:11.220 --> 00:21:14.299 so to speak, it really doesn't, it's no longer 00:21:14.299 --> 00:21:18.680 a grassroots effort, right? You know, it's a 00:21:18.680 --> 00:21:20.900 state coming in and telling you what to do as 00:21:20.900 --> 00:21:23.339 a local government, as a community. And it makes 00:21:23.339 --> 00:21:26.519 me wonder why we even have local governments 00:21:26.519 --> 00:21:29.279 and the community go through the exercise of 00:21:29.279 --> 00:21:31.700 doing the planning to begin with if the state's 00:21:31.700 --> 00:21:33.099 just going to come in and tell you what to do. 00:21:33.240 --> 00:21:35.180 Why do we go to all that effort and all that 00:21:35.180 --> 00:21:38.220 work? Great question. Don't know. So I'm going 00:21:38.220 --> 00:21:40.690 to answer a different question. Okay. I think 00:21:40.690 --> 00:21:43.410 it's clear that both the last bill we talked 00:21:43.410 --> 00:21:45.990 about and this one, and there are other examples 00:21:45.990 --> 00:21:52.170 of bills that demonstrate a sense that legislators, 00:21:52.650 --> 00:21:55.670 some legislators, are kind of chafing against 00:21:55.670 --> 00:21:58.829 the planning framework that we have in place. 00:21:59.069 --> 00:22:01.410 I think most of those individuals, if you were 00:22:01.410 --> 00:22:03.269 to ask them, would say that they support the 00:22:03.269 --> 00:22:06.250 Growth Management Act and they support the... 00:22:06.539 --> 00:22:10.779 the established rules therein. And they want 00:22:10.779 --> 00:22:13.019 to see things happen faster. They want to see 00:22:13.019 --> 00:22:16.240 things happen differently. They want to prompt 00:22:16.240 --> 00:22:18.660 different behavior that they aren't currently 00:22:18.660 --> 00:22:22.660 seeing. And I think a lot of these bills are 00:22:22.660 --> 00:22:25.859 sort of poking at the Growth Management Act in 00:22:25.859 --> 00:22:28.200 different ways to try and drive this different 00:22:28.200 --> 00:22:32.000 behavior. Yeah, I think it's just a different, 00:22:32.119 --> 00:22:34.279 it is a different approach, right? Well, you 00:22:34.279 --> 00:22:36.319 use the word chafing. And I think that's an interesting 00:22:36.319 --> 00:22:39.500 word. I think I would go further. And I would 00:22:39.500 --> 00:22:42.319 say that there are some legislators out there 00:22:42.319 --> 00:22:45.680 who really don't, while they might say that they 00:22:45.680 --> 00:22:48.039 support the goals. of the Growth Management Act, 00:22:48.140 --> 00:22:50.440 they don't like the way that it's designed. They 00:22:50.440 --> 00:22:52.640 don't like the way that it was developed 30 years 00:22:52.640 --> 00:22:55.119 ago to be this kind of grassroots effort where 00:22:55.119 --> 00:22:56.839 the communities really have the ability to weigh 00:22:56.839 --> 00:22:59.660 in and shape themselves. I think that some of 00:22:59.660 --> 00:23:02.839 them will tell you that we have some issues that 00:23:02.839 --> 00:23:05.920 are bigger that need to be dealt with on a statewide 00:23:05.920 --> 00:23:08.700 level and that it's time, at least in their minds, 00:23:08.819 --> 00:23:13.490 for the state to start dictating what... local 00:23:13.490 --> 00:23:17.069 governments, what local communities must do in 00:23:17.069 --> 00:23:20.549 order to really address some of the big crises 00:23:20.549 --> 00:23:23.049 that we're facing today around housing and homelessness 00:23:23.049 --> 00:23:25.190 specifically. I mean, that's the feeling that 00:23:25.190 --> 00:23:28.410 I get. And right or wrong, right, one way or 00:23:28.410 --> 00:23:30.970 the other, it just feels like there is a little 00:23:30.970 --> 00:23:34.230 bit of a groundswell in the legislature to support 00:23:34.230 --> 00:23:37.609 that type of approach rather than the more traditional, 00:23:37.690 --> 00:23:39.910 what we would call the Washington State Growth 00:23:39.910 --> 00:23:42.589 Management Act approach. Do you think that think 00:23:42.589 --> 00:23:44.269 that's an accurate statement. I mean, I think 00:23:44.269 --> 00:23:46.529 your chafing is correct in that they don't like 00:23:46.529 --> 00:23:48.890 the results that they're seeing. But I think 00:23:48.890 --> 00:23:51.490 they're going further. And instead of just saying, 00:23:51.529 --> 00:23:53.049 well, I don't like the results that I'm seeing. 00:23:53.109 --> 00:23:55.750 And so I want better results. I think they're 00:23:55.750 --> 00:23:58.009 saying, I want to change the entire way the process 00:23:58.009 --> 00:24:00.009 works, because that's the only way I think I'm 00:24:00.009 --> 00:24:03.369 going to get the results. That we as a state 00:24:03.369 --> 00:24:07.069 need. That's their mindset. Yeah, I suppose I'd 00:24:07.069 --> 00:24:10.130 push back on that a little bit in that it doesn't 00:24:10.130 --> 00:24:12.750 seem to me like anyone wants to have a comprehensive, 00:24:13.009 --> 00:24:16.269 a real discussion about is this system working 00:24:16.269 --> 00:24:18.750 for us? Is this yielding the results we want? 00:24:18.849 --> 00:24:21.369 And if not, what do we do? do about it it seems 00:24:21.369 --> 00:24:24.789 like there is a desire to to kind of think that 00:24:24.789 --> 00:24:26.529 we're just going to do it on this one thing we 00:24:26.529 --> 00:24:27.849 just want to change this one thing we just want 00:24:27.849 --> 00:24:29.690 to change a little bit we're not really changing 00:24:29.690 --> 00:24:32.170 anything right we're just going to tweak it we're 00:24:32.170 --> 00:24:36.089 just going to and i think it is i think I think 00:24:36.089 --> 00:24:39.890 that's why we hear language used about sort of 00:24:39.890 --> 00:24:45.049 loopholes and fixes and band -aids and similar 00:24:45.049 --> 00:24:48.190 types of language to indicate we're just going 00:24:48.190 --> 00:24:49.930 to— Technical fixes, right? We're just going 00:24:49.930 --> 00:24:53.079 to fix this small little problem. Yeah. I think 00:24:53.079 --> 00:24:55.660 that that, you know, from people's perspective, 00:24:55.759 --> 00:24:57.400 that might be right. But, you know, we've had 00:24:57.400 --> 00:25:00.079 that discussion that you talk about, you know, 00:25:00.079 --> 00:25:02.500 in the broad terms of what is the Growth Management 00:25:02.500 --> 00:25:05.099 Act? What has it done, right? Ruckelshaus just 00:25:05.099 --> 00:25:08.000 did the Roadmap Project a few years ago, and 00:25:08.000 --> 00:25:11.759 we're on Roadmap Phase 4 right now in the background, 00:25:11.839 --> 00:25:15.240 working on the latest requirements from the legislature 00:25:15.240 --> 00:25:18.079 to incorporate other planning jurisdictions like 00:25:18.079 --> 00:25:22.549 school districts and fire districts. water and 00:25:22.549 --> 00:25:25.670 sewer purveyors into the Growth Management Act 00:25:25.670 --> 00:25:29.349 process with cities and counties. We're working 00:25:29.349 --> 00:25:32.029 on that in the background now based on some previous 00:25:32.029 --> 00:25:34.569 legislation. So we've had that conversation and 00:25:34.569 --> 00:25:37.210 we've looked at the mechanisms and the fundamentals 00:25:37.210 --> 00:25:38.769 and where the levers are and where they're not, 00:25:38.769 --> 00:25:40.569 which ones we should add or subtract or change 00:25:40.569 --> 00:25:43.829 or whatever. And some of this work is indirectly. 00:25:44.299 --> 00:25:46.420 is in direct relation to that, but some of it 00:25:46.420 --> 00:25:50.480 isn't. Some of it is contradictory in many terms 00:25:50.480 --> 00:25:53.640 or in many ways to some of the results of that 00:25:53.640 --> 00:25:55.859 study and what the people thought and how they 00:25:55.859 --> 00:25:58.940 thought it was working. And I'm not saying one 00:25:58.940 --> 00:26:02.720 way is right or one way is wrong, but there definitely 00:26:02.720 --> 00:26:09.200 feels like there is a change in sentiment or 00:26:09.200 --> 00:26:13.529 in desire for the state to take a much larger 00:26:13.529 --> 00:26:17.549 role, at least in portions of the planning process 00:26:17.549 --> 00:26:19.609 and not leave it up to the local communities. 00:26:19.950 --> 00:26:22.609 I think that's right. Yeah. Well, I'm glad we 00:26:22.609 --> 00:26:26.589 came to that conclusion. It'll be interesting 00:26:26.589 --> 00:26:29.930 to see how that balances with the other components 00:26:29.930 --> 00:26:32.549 of growth management planning, right? Because 00:26:32.549 --> 00:26:34.589 it's not all just about housing. There's a lot 00:26:34.589 --> 00:26:36.289 of other things in there. It's just housing's 00:26:36.289 --> 00:26:38.910 getting... Housing is on the marquee right now 00:26:38.910 --> 00:26:40.589 and for good reason, right? There's a lot of 00:26:40.589 --> 00:26:42.250 good reasons why housing is on the marquee right 00:26:42.250 --> 00:26:45.490 now. But there's all kinds of issues around industry 00:26:45.490 --> 00:26:48.970 and jobs and natural resource planning and open 00:26:48.970 --> 00:26:52.269 space and transportation. It will be interesting 00:26:52.269 --> 00:26:55.250 to see if that sort of attitude and sentiment 00:26:55.250 --> 00:26:59.869 and an upswell of change spills into those other 00:26:59.869 --> 00:27:03.359 things or if they find a way to balance. with 00:27:03.359 --> 00:27:07.240 the more grassroots effort on the other side. 00:27:07.599 --> 00:27:11.859 I'm struggling a little bit. I've been working 00:27:11.859 --> 00:27:15.019 in growth management for about 17, 18 years now, 00:27:15.059 --> 00:27:17.500 and I'm struggling to see how they're going to 00:27:17.500 --> 00:27:21.880 take this new strategy and have it dovetail well 00:27:21.880 --> 00:27:25.920 with some of the foundational planning principles 00:27:25.920 --> 00:27:28.599 of traditional Growth Management Act -style planning 00:27:28.599 --> 00:27:32.019 without making more changes. But I guess we'll 00:27:32.019 --> 00:27:34.299 wait and see. I guess we'll wait and see. I mean, 00:27:34.299 --> 00:27:39.000 this may be too big, too grand a frame or a lens, 00:27:39.380 --> 00:27:43.440 but it makes me think about the conversation 00:27:43.440 --> 00:27:46.940 around speech and freedom of speech and how it's 00:27:46.940 --> 00:27:49.480 very easy to defend speech. It's speech that 00:27:49.480 --> 00:27:51.930 you find. that you find agreeable, that you find 00:27:51.930 --> 00:27:54.390 palatable, right? It's very hard to defend speech 00:27:54.390 --> 00:27:57.809 when it's speech you find abhorrent. The way 00:27:57.809 --> 00:28:01.089 I see this as analogous is it's easy to defend 00:28:01.089 --> 00:28:03.569 a system when it's doing all the things that 00:28:03.569 --> 00:28:06.309 you want. It becomes harder to defend a system 00:28:06.309 --> 00:28:09.269 when you see it not yielding the result that 00:28:09.269 --> 00:28:11.869 you're hoping for, right? And so I think that 00:28:11.869 --> 00:28:14.369 we're kind of losing sight of, if this is a good 00:28:14.369 --> 00:28:16.190 system, and to your point, we've done, I don't 00:28:16.190 --> 00:28:18.710 think this group of legislators has had a broad 00:28:18.710 --> 00:28:20.720 conversation about the G. what it means, how 00:28:20.720 --> 00:28:23.380 it ought to work. But there is a lot of that 00:28:23.380 --> 00:28:26.200 information out there. And I think we've sort 00:28:26.200 --> 00:28:28.579 of lost sight of if this system is important 00:28:28.579 --> 00:28:31.480 to us, then that means upholding and defending 00:28:31.480 --> 00:28:35.930 and utilizing it even when it doesn't feel. perfect, 00:28:35.950 --> 00:28:37.789 or it doesn't feel like it's giving you exactly 00:28:37.789 --> 00:28:40.210 the result you want, if you believe in the principles, 00:28:40.450 --> 00:28:43.250 then the principles are still valid, even in 00:28:43.250 --> 00:28:46.509 situations where, as I said, it's not yielding 00:28:46.509 --> 00:28:48.690 exactly what you had hoped. Well, that's an interesting 00:28:48.690 --> 00:28:51.829 way to frame it. It's almost an analogy in some 00:28:51.829 --> 00:28:55.930 ways, right? The idea that if you want free speech, 00:28:56.069 --> 00:28:57.809 if you want freedom of the press, if you want 00:28:57.809 --> 00:29:00.759 people to be able to have free expression, as 00:29:00.759 --> 00:29:03.480 a civil right, then there are going to be things 00:29:03.480 --> 00:29:07.220 that you like that people say and how they express 00:29:07.220 --> 00:29:09.339 themselves, and then there are going to be things 00:29:09.339 --> 00:29:12.140 that you don't. And people who are true believers 00:29:12.140 --> 00:29:14.039 in that as a civil right will defend both sides 00:29:14.039 --> 00:29:16.220 of that, right? They'll say, look, I don't agree 00:29:16.220 --> 00:29:18.019 with what that person is saying. In fact, I find 00:29:18.019 --> 00:29:21.019 it despicable, but I agree with their right to 00:29:21.019 --> 00:29:23.299 express themselves and to have that opinion and 00:29:23.299 --> 00:29:26.900 that it should be protected. Now, When you're 00:29:26.900 --> 00:29:29.440 talking about a basic civil right versus a planning 00:29:29.440 --> 00:29:32.119 principle or a planning framework, not the same 00:29:32.119 --> 00:29:34.140 thing, right? And so you're never going to be 00:29:34.140 --> 00:29:35.839 able to make the same argument that, hey, Growth 00:29:35.839 --> 00:29:37.660 Management Act planning and the way that we set 00:29:37.660 --> 00:29:39.519 it up 30 years ago is a civil right and shouldn't 00:29:39.519 --> 00:29:42.019 be messed with. Obviously, that's not the case. 00:29:42.160 --> 00:29:44.640 But the truth is, is if you believe in that system 00:29:44.640 --> 00:29:46.700 and you wanted that system, then you had to know 00:29:46.700 --> 00:29:49.079 that there were going to be things that you liked 00:29:49.079 --> 00:29:51.819 that communities would do and that you didn't 00:29:51.819 --> 00:29:54.460 like. And you were willing to live with them 00:29:54.460 --> 00:29:56.930 one way or the other. What I'm hearing is the 00:29:56.930 --> 00:29:59.309 legislature, at least some of them, are now saying 00:29:59.309 --> 00:30:03.250 we are no longer willing to live with that. We 00:30:03.250 --> 00:30:06.829 now want to say this is what you must do. So 00:30:06.829 --> 00:30:11.190 I think that in some ways you can draw similar 00:30:11.190 --> 00:30:13.589 inferences from one to the other. But obviously, 00:30:13.750 --> 00:30:18.430 you know, you can't say. that growth management 00:30:18.430 --> 00:30:20.690 act planning is you know something to be protected 00:30:20.690 --> 00:30:23.230 like the civil like like a civil right would 00:30:23.230 --> 00:30:26.009 be right and not yeah and i'm not saying that 00:30:26.009 --> 00:30:28.509 you said not meaning they're the same yeah but 00:30:28.509 --> 00:30:32.769 more that if you have identified uh values and 00:30:32.769 --> 00:30:36.730 principles that you are have declared as sacrosanct 00:30:36.730 --> 00:30:39.309 right in some form or fashion there's a cost 00:30:39.309 --> 00:30:41.250 to it that there are always going to be times 00:30:41.250 --> 00:30:44.710 when the the output the representation of those 00:30:44.710 --> 00:30:47.440 values and principles are not going to look exactly 00:30:47.440 --> 00:30:49.440 the way you want them to. Yeah. Yeah. There's 00:30:49.440 --> 00:30:51.539 always going to be sacrifices. There's benefits, 00:30:51.759 --> 00:30:54.740 but there's always sacrifices. Well, we've talked 00:30:54.740 --> 00:30:58.420 about 5148. We talked about 5558. We talked about 00:30:58.420 --> 00:31:03.700 1135. How's parking doing? We had a whole podcast 00:31:03.700 --> 00:31:05.740 just about on parking. Where are the parking 00:31:05.740 --> 00:31:07.559 bills at this point in the session? We don't 00:31:07.559 --> 00:31:09.460 do parking anymore, Paul. We don't do parking 00:31:09.460 --> 00:31:11.160 anymore? No more parking. Okay. There's no more 00:31:11.160 --> 00:31:14.519 parking. That's good to know. We're ziplining. 00:31:14.819 --> 00:31:17.640 Oh, is that right? We're going to zipline from 00:31:17.640 --> 00:31:21.759 here on out. I can get to hearings a lot faster 00:31:21.759 --> 00:31:23.740 if we had a good zipline from the office straight 00:31:23.740 --> 00:31:26.180 to the Capitol. We're working on it. Okay. Yeah. 00:31:26.259 --> 00:31:28.259 I like that idea. Yeah, right from the peak of 00:31:28.259 --> 00:31:31.059 the dome, just down into downtown Olympia. How 00:31:31.059 --> 00:31:33.880 can I get that funded? That capital budget is 00:31:33.880 --> 00:31:36.220 more critical than ever, isn't it? It's a tough 00:31:36.220 --> 00:31:41.099 year. Yeah. So Senate Bill 5184 is the minimum 00:31:41.099 --> 00:31:43.839 parking requirement. Not to be confused with 00:31:43.839 --> 00:31:47.509 5148. Well, it's confused with it all the time, 00:31:47.589 --> 00:31:52.869 but yes, ideally no. So Senate Bill 5184 is the 00:31:52.869 --> 00:31:54.849 bill that we have talked about on this podcast 00:31:54.849 --> 00:31:59.130 before. It limits the number of parking spots 00:31:59.130 --> 00:32:03.230 that any city or county can require in both residential 00:32:03.230 --> 00:32:06.009 and commercial settings and sort of prohibits 00:32:06.009 --> 00:32:08.609 going beyond that and prohibits having minimum 00:32:08.609 --> 00:32:10.569 parking requirements in a number of different 00:32:10.569 --> 00:32:15.329 situations. So that bill also has... gotten better 00:32:15.329 --> 00:32:18.950 as it's moved along the process so it is so we've 00:32:18.950 --> 00:32:21.809 got uh we've had some exemptions in the bill 00:32:21.809 --> 00:32:25.990 including so cities less than 20 ,000 people 00:32:25.990 --> 00:32:30.269 were exempted and then the limitations were tied 00:32:30.269 --> 00:32:33.910 to the development of the streets or roads in 00:32:33.910 --> 00:32:37.019 a UGA and required that they had to be developed 00:32:37.019 --> 00:32:40.319 to the city's standards, whatever your nearest 00:32:40.319 --> 00:32:43.160 city is, in order for those parking limitations 00:32:43.160 --> 00:32:46.900 to apply. So it allows a little more flexibility 00:32:46.900 --> 00:32:50.700 in a lot of those, especially the outlying more 00:32:50.700 --> 00:32:53.559 rural UGAs, which was the primary concern. Yeah, 00:32:53.559 --> 00:32:55.119 that deals with a lot of the concerns that we 00:32:55.119 --> 00:32:57.819 talked about, meaning county roads typically, 00:32:58.019 --> 00:32:59.980 when they're built to a rural standard, don't 00:32:59.980 --> 00:33:02.359 have shoulders, or they don't have very wide 00:33:02.359 --> 00:33:04.019 shoulders, and they're certainly not built to 00:33:04.019 --> 00:33:06.779 accommodate. on -street parking, which is why 00:33:06.779 --> 00:33:09.539 we always have off -street parking requirements 00:33:09.539 --> 00:33:10.940 for developments, whether they're commercial 00:33:10.940 --> 00:33:13.640 or residential. So what you're saying is the 00:33:13.640 --> 00:33:15.240 bill has been modified to say that if they're 00:33:15.240 --> 00:33:17.579 not built to an urban standard, to a city standard, 00:33:17.779 --> 00:33:19.859 and they're built to a rural standard, then those 00:33:19.859 --> 00:33:27.200 restrictions don't apply in any instance. Correct. 00:33:27.400 --> 00:33:29.180 Oh, that's good news. Okay, well, that makes 00:33:29.180 --> 00:33:30.819 the bill a lot better, especially for counties. 00:33:31.549 --> 00:33:33.970 It does. I imagine cities still have some concerns, 00:33:34.049 --> 00:33:37.049 but for us, that addresses a lot of our problems. 00:33:37.230 --> 00:33:40.450 It does. I mean, it's sort of an inelegant solution. 00:33:41.279 --> 00:33:44.140 Because the point that we were trying to make 00:33:44.140 --> 00:33:46.720 is when you look at the way that roadways are 00:33:46.720 --> 00:33:48.980 designed, they're designed pretty intentionally. 00:33:49.299 --> 00:33:51.240 Right. Right. So if they're designed to accommodate 00:33:51.240 --> 00:33:53.380 parking, then they're designed to accommodate 00:33:53.380 --> 00:33:55.640 parking. They're wider. They, you know, sight 00:33:55.640 --> 00:33:57.920 lines are different. The curve of a road might 00:33:57.920 --> 00:34:00.220 be different. The, you know, whatever kind of 00:34:00.220 --> 00:34:01.960 infrastructure there's going to be on the roadside 00:34:01.960 --> 00:34:04.180 is going to be different. Right. Those are the 00:34:04.180 --> 00:34:08.440 circumstances where. If you need on -street parking, 00:34:08.599 --> 00:34:10.880 you absolutely can accommodate it. But in places 00:34:10.880 --> 00:34:12.599 where it was never designed for that purpose, 00:34:12.920 --> 00:34:15.320 it just makes it very difficult to accommodate. 00:34:15.519 --> 00:34:17.800 And further... Makes it dangerous, too. Makes 00:34:17.800 --> 00:34:19.860 it dangerous, right? Because you are... doing 00:34:19.860 --> 00:34:22.039 things like inhibiting sight lines you're putting 00:34:22.039 --> 00:34:25.119 pedestrians out into the street pedestrians or 00:34:25.119 --> 00:34:26.980 cyclists further into the street because there's 00:34:26.980 --> 00:34:29.179 no sidewalk for them in most of these locations 00:34:29.179 --> 00:34:32.320 right um so those are the kinds of situations 00:34:32.320 --> 00:34:34.619 that we've been concerned about so the you know 00:34:34.619 --> 00:34:37.119 tying it to urban standards is is certainly better 00:34:37.119 --> 00:34:41.869 than nothing um that is a i think decent compromise. 00:34:42.510 --> 00:34:45.150 And I think there's still more conversation to 00:34:45.150 --> 00:34:48.289 be had around how do we make sure that we are 00:34:48.289 --> 00:34:52.809 not utilizing roads in a way that makes them 00:34:52.809 --> 00:34:55.429 more dangerous for both, you know, vehicles and 00:34:55.429 --> 00:34:57.670 pedestrians. Right. Yeah, no, that's great. Well, 00:34:57.750 --> 00:35:00.150 I'm glad to hear that that bill has been modified 00:35:00.150 --> 00:35:03.250 and that you were able to get that compromise. 00:35:05.130 --> 00:35:07.150 probably doesn't fix every issue and concern 00:35:07.150 --> 00:35:10.190 that we have, but it'll go a long ways. And there's 00:35:10.190 --> 00:35:12.130 still time in the session. And let's talk about 00:35:12.130 --> 00:35:15.630 that a little bit, because we just finished the 00:35:15.630 --> 00:35:18.070 House of Origin cutoff, meaning all the policy 00:35:18.070 --> 00:35:19.769 bills that started in the Senate had to come 00:35:19.769 --> 00:35:22.789 off the Senate floor. They were dead for the 00:35:22.789 --> 00:35:25.309 rest of the session, of course, except for those 00:35:25.309 --> 00:35:27.369 that are considered necessary to implement the 00:35:27.369 --> 00:35:30.369 budget or NTIB and other bills that I like to 00:35:30.369 --> 00:35:32.730 call magic bills. These are the ones that the 00:35:32.730 --> 00:35:35.570 majority party just decides are exempt from cutoff 00:35:35.570 --> 00:35:37.969 for whatever reason. Usually they have some sort 00:35:37.969 --> 00:35:40.869 of financial impact, just not necessarily direct 00:35:40.869 --> 00:35:43.329 revenue to the state. Same thing on the House 00:35:43.329 --> 00:35:45.090 side. All the bills that started in the House 00:35:45.090 --> 00:35:46.690 that were introduced by the House of Representatives 00:35:46.690 --> 00:35:49.230 had to come off the House floor with a majority 00:35:49.230 --> 00:35:51.500 vote to still be considered alive for the session 00:35:51.500 --> 00:35:54.800 that's why a lot of bills died last week so the 00:35:54.800 --> 00:35:58.820 next slew of cutoff dates are going to be coming 00:35:58.820 --> 00:36:00.719 fast and furious right because we're entering 00:36:00.719 --> 00:36:03.260 we're already halfway over as far as process 00:36:03.260 --> 00:36:06.559 we're already well over halfway as far as days 00:36:06.559 --> 00:36:09.420 uh because it's 105 day session and we're at 00:36:09.420 --> 00:36:12.900 day 60 something at this point at least so things 00:36:12.900 --> 00:36:15.769 are going to be moving quickly um What are we 00:36:15.769 --> 00:36:18.389 looking forward to next? So the next cutoff is 00:36:18.389 --> 00:36:22.210 April 2nd. So that'll be the opposite house policy 00:36:22.210 --> 00:36:25.210 committee cutoff. That's about three weeks. Correct. 00:36:25.469 --> 00:36:27.989 Yeah. Wow. So we had about six or seven weeks 00:36:27.989 --> 00:36:29.710 for the first policy cutoff. So you get about 00:36:29.710 --> 00:36:32.130 half that time for the second. Yeah. And, you 00:36:32.130 --> 00:36:35.570 know, we I don't remember what the total volume 00:36:35.570 --> 00:36:38.329 of bills that were introduced during the session. 00:36:38.590 --> 00:36:41.829 Right. It's pretty close to 2000. Right. So now 00:36:41.829 --> 00:36:44.570 it's been whittled down. We've got five hundred 00:36:44.570 --> 00:36:48.239 and some odd bills you know still left kind of 00:36:48.239 --> 00:36:50.320 churning through the process so it is a significant 00:36:50.780 --> 00:36:54.079 lower number in terms of the total volume of 00:36:54.079 --> 00:36:56.380 work that they're engaged in. Right, right. And 00:36:56.380 --> 00:36:59.260 we're expecting another revenue forecast this 00:36:59.260 --> 00:37:01.920 week. Tomorrow, in fact. Oh, tomorrow. Okay. 00:37:02.079 --> 00:37:05.239 And then budgets, we're hearing rumors, pretty 00:37:05.239 --> 00:37:07.059 strong rumors at this point that the budgets 00:37:07.059 --> 00:37:09.380 are going to be out on Monday. Some will be heard 00:37:09.380 --> 00:37:11.760 Monday, the same day. Some will be heard the 00:37:11.760 --> 00:37:13.619 following day on Tuesday of next week. So that'll 00:37:13.619 --> 00:37:15.380 be a very busy week for us for the start of the 00:37:15.380 --> 00:37:19.039 week. And budgets are the biggest policy bill 00:37:19.039 --> 00:37:21.079 out there, if you ask me. right? Where you spend 00:37:21.079 --> 00:37:23.599 your money is what you ultimately really care 00:37:23.599 --> 00:37:27.559 about. And they certainly drive most of the policy 00:37:27.559 --> 00:37:29.500 for the next four years for the legislature, 00:37:29.659 --> 00:37:32.780 you know, really the next two. But because it's 00:37:32.780 --> 00:37:34.219 a four -year budget outlook, really the next 00:37:34.219 --> 00:37:36.659 four at least. So it'll be the biggest policy 00:37:36.659 --> 00:37:38.760 bill of the new administration under Governor 00:37:38.760 --> 00:37:42.000 Ferguson and under the new legislature. So this 00:37:42.000 --> 00:37:45.650 will be an exciting time. It very much will be. 00:37:45.730 --> 00:37:48.409 It's also still seems to be the case. And we 00:37:48.409 --> 00:37:49.889 see this playing out in a number of different 00:37:49.889 --> 00:37:52.730 policy areas. But there isn't anything close 00:37:52.730 --> 00:37:57.309 to consensus around the things that are most 00:37:57.309 --> 00:38:01.329 important or the approach that either the legislature, 00:38:01.510 --> 00:38:04.150 the governor's office, you know, want to take 00:38:04.150 --> 00:38:07.489 to resolve these budget issues. So I'd say there's 00:38:07.489 --> 00:38:10.269 still a lot of. big conversations that have yet 00:38:10.269 --> 00:38:13.849 to finish or to even really get ramped up. Well, 00:38:13.889 --> 00:38:16.409 that's a good teaser for the next group of podcasts 00:38:16.409 --> 00:38:18.170 that we'll be doing for sure. We're going to 00:38:18.170 --> 00:38:19.849 have some other folks in here to kind of talk 00:38:19.849 --> 00:38:22.210 about their policy issues and their areas and 00:38:22.210 --> 00:38:25.349 what happened during the cutoff. But I think 00:38:25.349 --> 00:38:28.110 all of us certainly have an eye towards the next 00:38:28.110 --> 00:38:31.010 couple of weeks with anticipation and maybe a 00:38:31.010 --> 00:38:32.909 little bit of apprehension, trying to figure 00:38:32.909 --> 00:38:35.349 out where those conversations are going to go 00:38:35.349 --> 00:38:38.820 and how this legislature is going to come together 00:38:38.820 --> 00:38:42.119 around some pretty difficult decisions in a pretty 00:38:42.119 --> 00:38:45.099 short period of time. Hopefully a pretty short 00:38:45.099 --> 00:38:48.340 period of time. Well, we're going to have lots 00:38:48.340 --> 00:38:51.260 to talk about in the coming weeks. Kelsey, thanks 00:38:51.260 --> 00:38:54.559 for stopping by today. You're so welcome. I hope 00:38:54.559 --> 00:38:58.199 that we'll get a chance to maybe bring a lot 00:38:58.199 --> 00:38:59.800 of these really difficult issues that we've been 00:38:59.800 --> 00:39:02.699 chatting about to a pretty good conclusion before 00:39:02.699 --> 00:39:05.340 the end of the session. And we'll look forward 00:39:05.340 --> 00:39:07.219 to you bringing us the good news next time. Sounds 00:39:07.219 --> 00:39:09.179 good. All right. Thank you. Take care until then, 00:39:09.179 --> 00:39:13.679 Kelsey. Bye. Thanks for tuning in to County Connection. 00:39:13.780 --> 00:39:15.900 Stay in the loop by subscribing to us through 00:39:15.900 --> 00:39:18.199 your preferred podcasting app and following us 00:39:18.199 --> 00:39:21.199 on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram. And don't 00:39:21.199 --> 00:39:23.159 forget to join The Hub, your go -to source for 00:39:23.159 --> 00:39:24.920 the latest news and updates from the Washington 00:39:24.920 --> 00:39:27.579 State Association of Counties. Until next time, 00:39:27.639 --> 00:39:29.300 stay connected and stay informed.