It looked bad when I started and it looks fabulous
now, comparatively speaking. Huh, nothing like
that happens at work. Well, as we were just discussing,
right? Here you can make something better and
then it gets worse and then better and then worse
and then a lot worse and a little better. And
the really big things that you fix, no one ever
really knew they were a problem to begin with,
right? Because they didn't become a problem because
you fixed them. That's true too. Yeah. 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 everybody to the County Connection
Podcast. I'm Paul Jewell. We are here in Olympia
today. It's a beautiful afternoon. It's actually
kind of getting into the evening here a little
bit. And I've got Kelsey Hulse, our contract
lobbyist with me in the studio today. Kelsey,
the weekend's over. Last week was a really big
cutoff. Last Wednesday was the House of Origin
cutoff where a lot of kind of the path forward
becomes much, much more clearer. How did it go
for you? It went pretty well. It always feels
a little macabre to celebrate the death of all
of these bills. But I think one of the big challenges
of the early part of the session is there's just
so much volume. You know, I hear what you're
saying about it feeling a little bit macabre.
But when I think of a bad bill, I think of it
in the same terms of a spider or a rodent or
maybe a roach. Some of them deserve it. They
just got to die. I don't want them to die. I
just want them to not be around me. I suppose
it's not so different. Yeah, that's not so different.
I mean, I just want them to die. I want them
to go away. I just want them to go away. And
a lot of them did, right? So a couple of bad
bills died last week that we were following.
Any particular ones you want to mention for the
listening viewership out there? Listening viewership.
Oh, my goodness. We're not on viewership, the
listenership out there. Well, I will be the first
to admit that I'm terrible about remembering
bill numbers, but I will share that there was
a mobile dwellings bill that we were particularly
concerned about. Yeah, I remember that one. That
bill did perish in the cutoff. That one would
have allowed like two additional units on wheels.
So think like travel trailers on every single
residential lot, right? As a state mandate. Correct.
So jurisdictions wouldn't have been able to prohibit
them. Right, right. So you couldn't have a law
that said no. So I was glad to see that one go
as well. That would have been a really tough
bill to even try to make better on any level.
Yeah, that one. That one was a difficult one.
There was also a bill to insert an environmental
justice impact statement of some sort into the
SEPA process. Right. I think that's the third
or second year we've seen that bill. And that's
a tough one because certainly appreciate and
support the intent to create more justice in
our communities and to make sure we're thinking
about that broadly as we're making choices about
the things we build and the things we do. And
the way the bill was crafted probably wasn't
the best way to get at that goal. So we were
happy to see that one. Well, hopefully we'll
have a chance to maybe stakeholder that during
the interim. And by interim, I mean the time
between sessions where we get a chance to sit
down with legislators and other stakeholders
as well as state agencies and say, okay, here's
this idea. How do we make it work? Because a
lot of times these are good ideas. It's just
the way they manifest themselves in the bills
aren't very practical for implementation, right?
Yep, exactly. that we have shared with the sponsor
multiple times that we're very interested in
continuing the conversation and hope we get a
chance to do it. Because again, very supportive
of the intent, just didn't like the approach
in that case. So those are a couple of the ones
that we were watching that we were hoping didn't
move forward. I know that there were some others
that we had mixed feelings about maybe, or maybe
a few that we liked that are moving forward.
Let's chat about a couple of those. There was
a bill out there that extended the permitting
No, not the permitting timelines, the comprehensive
planning timelines, right? For some of our members.
Did that bill pass? It did. And that's still
moving through the process. That's bill 5558.
So for counties that are on the 2026 planning
schedule, that will kick out their deadline by
six months. Okay. Okay. So those who are coming
up. So the 2026 schedule starts what? This July
1st, right? And goes through, well, no, I guess
it would end. So it really, if it's a two -year
planning cycle, it actually started last July,
and it would end June 30th of 2026, right? So
now they're going to end December 31st of 2026.
Is that right? Sounds right to me. Yeah. You
know, that six months can be a big deal. I was
glad to see that one pass, or at least get as
far as it has during the session, because I know
we did that for previous updaters in previous
years. So this just kind of... Helps balance
that for everybody. Yep. Moves that deadline
from June 30th to December 31st, 2026. Benton,
Chelan, Cowlitz, Douglas, Franklin, Kittitas,
Skamania, Spokane, Walla Walla, and Yakima. Oh,
that's a long list. Yeah, that's a good portion
of the members. Well, good. Well, what other
bills were you watching closely that are still
alive that we should be chatting about today?
The first bill I'd flag is House Bill 1135. So
1135 relates to government planning under the
Growth Management Act and specifically when cities,
counties, jurisdictions that are updating their
ordinances or plans, particularly in between
their regular five or 10 year. updates or planning
cycle, that if the update is challenged and found
to be non -compliant, then it prevents that jurisdiction
from reverting to a prior ordinance or plan if
that underlying or prior one would also be non
-compliant with the current rules of the chapter.
Okay. That sounds complicated. So let me see
if I understand. So right now under the GMA,
I have to adopt a comprehensive plan if I'm required
to plan under the GMA or if I voluntarily plan
under the GMA. And some of our counties... how
do I say, they qualified to plan one way or the
other. They either jumped in with both feet or
they were required to do so and didn't have a
choice. There are certain elements and pieces
of that plan that I have to adopt. There are
optional elements that I adopt as well. And then
from there, I also adopt what are called development
regulations that implement kind of the plan,
right? And I have to do all of this over a period
of time. I have to submit the whole thing to
the Department of Commerce. I have to do a SEPA
analysis on the whole thing. And it has to be
done with a robust public participation plan,
meaning I have to engage the public. I have to
engage tribes. I have to engage with the cities
and other planning jurisdictions. We all have
to work together on this thing. Once we finally
get it all done and we send it to Commerce and
they basically don't have a bunch of objections,
the legislative authority in the place of a county,
that would be the county council or the county
commissioners, they actually adopt it. And from
that date, there is an opportunity for people
to appeal, right? It's 60 days. And if they don't
file an appeal at that point, then it's considered
compliant. It's just assumed to be compliant.
So let's say all that happens. And three or four
years down the road, say it's now 2025 and I
did that five years ago, I want to adopt just
a change to my transportation. element. So maybe
I want to change my level of service standards
or something like that. And then the corresponding
road standards or intersection, whatever I need
to go with that. You're saying that that change
itself can be appealed, right? So whenever I
decide to make that change, it opens up a new
60 -day window for someone to appeal. Yep. Okay.
In the past, if I... was found compliant, then
the change would just go into effect. And is
that still the same under this bill if I'm found
compliant? It is. Okay. Correct. But if I'm found
non -compliant, meaning... the Growth Management
Hearings Board, who is the tribunal that oversees
these appeals, if they say I'm non -compliant
and I revert back to what was in place before,
there's now an opportunity for someone to challenge
what was in place before? If the underlying or
former whatever was in place is also non -compliant.
So that's an interesting question. So how does
this work? Because if it wasn't appealed before...
then it's assumed to be compliant and legally
under the law, it's compliant. Yeah, it's valid,
right? There's difference between compliance
and validity, right, under the GMA. And we can
kind of talk about what those terms are. But
let's just assume, you know, compliance is the
key here. How would they... How does that work?
Is the Growth Management Hearings Board instructed
not just to look at if they find the change to
be non -compliant, are they instructed to also
look at what was in place beforehand and also
rule on that? Is that how it would work? It is.
Okay. How far do they go? Is it really laid out
in the bill as far as, for instance, if I'm making
a change to my transportation element, are they
looking at now my entire transportation element
and its compliance? Or are they looking at just
the part that I changed? What if it's just a
development regulation? What if that's the only
thing that I've changed? And it doesn't necessarily
go into the element itself. Are they then just
looking at... the development regulation and
then the underlying development regulation that
was in place? How far back does it go? So the
only items that should be subject or part of
the scope of the bill would be amendments addressing
the noncompliance order. So whatever it was that
they found noncompliant specifically, that that
corollary element would be the item at issue.
So it should not go any broader than that. So
if you're talking about... your level of service
standards. It should be limited to that thing
rather than expanding out to encompass anything
more. Okay. And level of service standards may
not be the best example here. Yeah, because a
city really has or a county really has the ability
to define those for themselves. But what if it
was, it could be your concurrency process, right?
And whether that matches the requirements under
the GMA. Maybe you change your concurrency process,
your concurrency evaluation process in your development
regulations. Maybe you decide certain projects
are exempt from that and someone would challenge
that. if they were found to be noncompliant,
they would look at not just the change and say,
okay, that's not compliant, but they'd also look
at what was there in place beforehand if that's
what you choose to just revert to and they would
make a finding as to whether that was compliance
as well. Okay, well, there's a couple of things
that come to mind. I guess another couple of
questions that come to mind. What if the underlying...
Development regulation is compliant, except there's
been a change to the law that renders it noncompliant,
but you as a jurisdiction aren't required to
comply with that change until your next comprehensive
plan mandatory update under RCW 3670A, and you
haven't reached that yet. Are you compliant in
that particular case, or are you noncompliant
and then therefore have to update early, or is
it clear in the bill? I'd say the bill is brief
and therefore not extraordinarily detailed. But
our understanding of it is that, yes, even if
you hadn't reached the timeline on which you
would normally have to update that, whether ordinance
or portion of a plan, that if that was not compliant
with the current requirements of the GMA, then
you would have to update it before you could
get a finding of compliance from the GMHB. Well,
this makes it sound like that's a bit of a disincentive
to even try to update your plan outside of your
mandatory update cycle. Why would you take the
risk? That's one of the things that we've flagged
as a potential challenge for the bill and for
implementing the bill and what that looks like
on the ground is both that piece and Something
that we've heard from our members is that it
is rarely the case that a single ordinance, regulation,
plan element is discrete and specific. It only
affects one thing. You can clearly draw a little
box around it. Yeah, I mean, these comprehensive
plans are interwoven, right? That's why you're
supposed to balance all the goals of the plan.
There's really very... very few portions of it
that you can say kind of exist in a vacuum all
by themselves to have no impact on the rest.
And that's the concern, right? Is how do you
untangle those to be able to identify what is
the single piece that could then be updated in
order to come into compliance? I see. What about
in an instance where, let's say I do update my
concurrence procedure, it's found to be non -compliant,
and then now the court... goes back and I say,
I'm just going to revert to my old one. And they
look at that and they say, oh, well, that one's
non -compliant too. Now what do I do? That's
the other question that I don't know that we
have a good answer for yet is the assumption
of validity allowed there to be kind of a foundation
that this was built on, right? So that you know
what you're working with at any time, really.
In this circumstance, if... both those things
happened. It's an open question as to what you're
supposed to do in the meantime while you're working
within your jurisdiction to come into compliance
and to work with the Growth Management Hearings
Board to update your concurrence procedure. Concurrency
procedure? Yeah, I mean, this just sounds, it
sounds kind of, it sounds like it could be a
real problem, right? I mean, transportation concurrency,
just using that as an example. is a requirement
for every single development application. So
if you were to lose an appeal based on an update
of your concurrency procedure, again, just using
that as an example, and then they also found
that what you tried to revert to was also non
-compliant, now you don't have anything in place
as far as a concurrency procedure. I mean, I
think you could make an argument that in that
instance, you wouldn't actually be able to move
forward with any sort of development review.
process at all for most of the development applications
that came in front of you as a jurisdiction.
Do you think that's right? I think so. And that's
one of the other concerns that we've shared is
that the underlying hope, the underlying purpose,
I think, for this bill, as we've talked about
a lot, a lot. As we've talked about many times
before, the intent is to drive more housing,
to solve what some of the bill proponents or
what some legislators see as portions of the
planning process that are inhibiting the ability
to build housing more quickly. And so wanting
to resolve those elements faster than the typical.
comprehensive planning update timeline. I think
an unintended consequence could end up being
that we see further delays as a result of the
scenario that you just outlined. If we don't
know, if a jurisdiction is unclear on how they're
supposed to evaluate a permit application, for
instance, because they don't know what regulations
are in play at that moment, that is going to,
I think, cause some confusion and potentially
delays. Yeah, for sure. Well, this, This bill
I know we did quite a bit of work on with the
sponsor in negotiating the final wording that's
here now in the substitute. Are we happy with
this as it sits at this point? Where are we as
far as an association? Are we to the point where
we're kind of neutral on this bill and just watching
to make sure that something doesn't make it worse?
Is that kind of where we're at at this point?
Well, when I testified in the last hearing, what
we shared is that we had signed in neutral and
we had said that we appreciated the fact that
we did have this conversation and that... Bill
proponents, sponsor, other, you know, our friends
at AWC were all involved in talking about what
should this language... AWC is the Association
of Washington Cities, right? Correct. Yeah. Thank
you. You bet. I think where we got to was language
that it feels like mitigates some of the issues
that we were seeing. potentially follow on from
the passage of the bill, the concept itself is
still problematic. And so that's what I tried
to share in testimony is that we do appreciate
having these conversations. We do appreciate
where the bill has gone from where it started.
And yet we can't ignore the fact that there still
are parts of it that we have deep reservations
about. Interesting. Well, we'll watch that one
moving forward and see how it progresses. What
else did you bring us today that you wanted to
talk about? should also spend a moment talking
about Senate Bill 5148. Okay, what's that one
about? Which I think is a bill that we've actually
talked about before on this podcast, potentially.
But this is the bill related to the housing element
portion of comprehensive plans and getting those
housing elements approved by commerce and the
kind of circumstances around which you would
do that. And initially, the bill required all
jurisdictions to submit their housing elements
to Commerce for approval. Right. I remember that.
In discussions with the sponsor, we had identified
the opportunity or the appetite for a voluntary
pathway that would create some appeal protection
for jurisdictions that chose to do that. That
was added to the bill. Since then, we've also
got another mandatory element. that has come
on behind it that requires that any entity that
hasn't gone the voluntary route is required to
submit their housing element within three years
or no later than three years after enacting or
updating their comprehensive plan. Well, that
doesn't sound very voluntary. a quote unquote
voluntary route, but if you don't take advantage
of it, now you're falling into this mandatory
category. That's not voluntary. Correct. Okay.
This is interesting. I remember this bill originally
included just this requirement that everything
be submitted to commerce and that they were put
in this role of essentially approving these plans,
which is something that commerce has not been
put in the role of doing. And we negotiated this
idea that, OK, let's follow the model that we
put in place when we negotiated the new element
a couple of years ago around climate change.
Right. And allow local jurisdictions to apply
to commerce to have them. basically sign off
on it, kind of give it a seal of approval, so
to speak, which would then create some liability
protection for the local government because any
appeal would be an appeal of commerce's decision
to basically say that it met the requirements
of the GMA, not on the local jurisdiction's work,
right? So there was some liability protection
there, but it didn't necessarily overturn or
upset the basic foundational principle or one
of the basic foundational principles of the GMA,
which is planning from the ground up. It's not
a top -down scenario like you have in other states
where they say, okay, you have to meet all of
these standards and then fill in the blanks where
you want to as long as you do all this. It's
a grassroots effort that says, okay, community,
get together, have a discussion. Here are the
things you must include when you're planning.
Here are the things you must consider. Here are
the things you must plan for. But the freedom
on how you do that, where you do that. when you
do that, in what quantities you do that, et cetera,
a lot of that is left up to you as a community
to shape how you want to be in the future. Where
do you want your stuff? What kind of stuff do
you want to have? How big do you want to be?
All those sorts of things. When you now change
that so that you have to apply for an approval,
so to speak, it really doesn't, it's no longer
a grassroots effort, right? You know, it's a
state coming in and telling you what to do as
a local government, as a community. And it makes
me wonder why we even have local governments
and the community go through the exercise of
doing the planning to begin with if the state's
just going to come in and tell you what to do.
Why do we go to all that effort and all that
work? Great question. Don't know. So I'm going
to answer a different question. Okay. I think
it's clear that both the last bill we talked
about and this one, and there are other examples
of bills that demonstrate a sense that legislators,
some legislators, are kind of chafing against
the planning framework that we have in place.
I think most of those individuals, if you were
to ask them, would say that they support the
Growth Management Act and they support the...
the established rules therein. And they want
to see things happen faster. They want to see
things happen differently. They want to prompt
different behavior that they aren't currently
seeing. And I think a lot of these bills are
sort of poking at the Growth Management Act in
different ways to try and drive this different
behavior. Yeah, I think it's just a different,
it is a different approach, right? Well, you
use the word chafing. And I think that's an interesting
word. I think I would go further. And I would
say that there are some legislators out there
who really don't, while they might say that they
support the goals. of the Growth Management Act,
they don't like the way that it's designed. They
don't like the way that it was developed 30 years
ago to be this kind of grassroots effort where
the communities really have the ability to weigh
in and shape themselves. I think that some of
them will tell you that we have some issues that
are bigger that need to be dealt with on a statewide
level and that it's time, at least in their minds,
for the state to start dictating what... local
governments, what local communities must do in
order to really address some of the big crises
that we're facing today around housing and homelessness
specifically. I mean, that's the feeling that
I get. And right or wrong, right, one way or
the other, it just feels like there is a little
bit of a groundswell in the legislature to support
that type of approach rather than the more traditional,
what we would call the Washington State Growth
Management Act approach. Do you think that think
that's an accurate statement. I mean, I think
your chafing is correct in that they don't like
the results that they're seeing. But I think
they're going further. And instead of just saying,
well, I don't like the results that I'm seeing.
And so I want better results. I think they're
saying, I want to change the entire way the process
works, because that's the only way I think I'm
going to get the results. That we as a state
need. That's their mindset. Yeah, I suppose I'd
push back on that a little bit in that it doesn't
seem to me like anyone wants to have a comprehensive,
a real discussion about is this system working
for us? Is this yielding the results we want?
And if not, what do we do? do about it it seems
like there is a desire to to kind of think that
we're just going to do it on this one thing we
just want to change this one thing we just want
to change a little bit we're not really changing
anything right we're just going to tweak it we're
just going to and i think it is i think I think
that's why we hear language used about sort of
loopholes and fixes and band -aids and similar
types of language to indicate we're just going
to— Technical fixes, right? We're just going
to fix this small little problem. Yeah. I think
that that, you know, from people's perspective,
that might be right. But, you know, we've had
that discussion that you talk about, you know,
in the broad terms of what is the Growth Management
Act? What has it done, right? Ruckelshaus just
did the Roadmap Project a few years ago, and
we're on Roadmap Phase 4 right now in the background,
working on the latest requirements from the legislature
to incorporate other planning jurisdictions like
school districts and fire districts. water and
sewer purveyors into the Growth Management Act
process with cities and counties. We're working
on that in the background now based on some previous
legislation. So we've had that conversation and
we've looked at the mechanisms and the fundamentals
and where the levers are and where they're not,
which ones we should add or subtract or change
or whatever. And some of this work is indirectly.
is in direct relation to that, but some of it
isn't. Some of it is contradictory in many terms
or in many ways to some of the results of that
study and what the people thought and how they
thought it was working. And I'm not saying one
way is right or one way is wrong, but there definitely
feels like there is a change in sentiment or
in desire for the state to take a much larger
role, at least in portions of the planning process
and not leave it up to the local communities.
I think that's right. Yeah. Well, I'm glad we
came to that conclusion. It'll be interesting
to see how that balances with the other components
of growth management planning, right? Because
it's not all just about housing. There's a lot
of other things in there. It's just housing's
getting... Housing is on the marquee right now
and for good reason, right? There's a lot of
good reasons why housing is on the marquee right
now. But there's all kinds of issues around industry
and jobs and natural resource planning and open
space and transportation. It will be interesting
to see if that sort of attitude and sentiment
and an upswell of change spills into those other
things or if they find a way to balance. with
the more grassroots effort on the other side.
I'm struggling a little bit. I've been working
in growth management for about 17, 18 years now,
and I'm struggling to see how they're going to
take this new strategy and have it dovetail well
with some of the foundational planning principles
of traditional Growth Management Act -style planning
without making more changes. But I guess we'll
wait and see. I guess we'll wait and see. I mean,
this may be too big, too grand a frame or a lens,
but it makes me think about the conversation
around speech and freedom of speech and how it's
very easy to defend speech. It's speech that
you find. that you find agreeable, that you find
palatable, right? It's very hard to defend speech
when it's speech you find abhorrent. The way
I see this as analogous is it's easy to defend
a system when it's doing all the things that
you want. It becomes harder to defend a system
when you see it not yielding the result that
you're hoping for, right? And so I think that
we're kind of losing sight of, if this is a good
system, and to your point, we've done, I don't
think this group of legislators has had a broad
conversation about the G. what it means, how
it ought to work. But there is a lot of that
information out there. And I think we've sort
of lost sight of if this system is important
to us, then that means upholding and defending
and utilizing it even when it doesn't feel. perfect,
or it doesn't feel like it's giving you exactly
the result you want, if you believe in the principles,
then the principles are still valid, even in
situations where, as I said, it's not yielding
exactly what you had hoped. Well, that's an interesting
way to frame it. It's almost an analogy in some
ways, right? The idea that if you want free speech,
if you want freedom of the press, if you want
people to be able to have free expression, as
a civil right, then there are going to be things
that you like that people say and how they express
themselves, and then there are going to be things
that you don't. And people who are true believers
in that as a civil right will defend both sides
of that, right? They'll say, look, I don't agree
with what that person is saying. In fact, I find
it despicable, but I agree with their right to
express themselves and to have that opinion and
that it should be protected. Now, When you're
talking about a basic civil right versus a planning
principle or a planning framework, not the same
thing, right? And so you're never going to be
able to make the same argument that, hey, Growth
Management Act planning and the way that we set
it up 30 years ago is a civil right and shouldn't
be messed with. Obviously, that's not the case.
But the truth is, is if you believe in that system
and you wanted that system, then you had to know
that there were going to be things that you liked
that communities would do and that you didn't
like. And you were willing to live with them
one way or the other. What I'm hearing is the
legislature, at least some of them, are now saying
we are no longer willing to live with that. We
now want to say this is what you must do. So
I think that in some ways you can draw similar
inferences from one to the other. But obviously,
you know, you can't say. that growth management
act planning is you know something to be protected
like the civil like like a civil right would
be right and not yeah and i'm not saying that
you said not meaning they're the same yeah but
more that if you have identified uh values and
principles that you are have declared as sacrosanct
right in some form or fashion there's a cost
to it that there are always going to be times
when the the output the representation of those
values and principles are not going to look exactly
the way you want them to. Yeah. Yeah. There's
always going to be sacrifices. There's benefits,
but there's always sacrifices. Well, we've talked
about 5148. We talked about 5558. We talked about
1135. How's parking doing? We had a whole podcast
just about on parking. Where are the parking
bills at this point in the session? We don't
do parking anymore, Paul. We don't do parking
anymore? No more parking. Okay. There's no more
parking. That's good to know. We're ziplining.
Oh, is that right? We're going to zipline from
here on out. I can get to hearings a lot faster
if we had a good zipline from the office straight
to the Capitol. We're working on it. Okay. Yeah.
I like that idea. Yeah, right from the peak of
the dome, just down into downtown Olympia. How
can I get that funded? That capital budget is
more critical than ever, isn't it? It's a tough
year. Yeah. So Senate Bill 5184 is the minimum
parking requirement. Not to be confused with
5148. Well, it's confused with it all the time,
but yes, ideally no. So Senate Bill 5184 is the
bill that we have talked about on this podcast
before. It limits the number of parking spots
that any city or county can require in both residential
and commercial settings and sort of prohibits
going beyond that and prohibits having minimum
parking requirements in a number of different
situations. So that bill also has... gotten better
as it's moved along the process so it is so we've
got uh we've had some exemptions in the bill
including so cities less than 20 ,000 people
were exempted and then the limitations were tied
to the development of the streets or roads in
a UGA and required that they had to be developed
to the city's standards, whatever your nearest
city is, in order for those parking limitations
to apply. So it allows a little more flexibility
in a lot of those, especially the outlying more
rural UGAs, which was the primary concern. Yeah,
that deals with a lot of the concerns that we
talked about, meaning county roads typically,
when they're built to a rural standard, don't
have shoulders, or they don't have very wide
shoulders, and they're certainly not built to
accommodate. on -street parking, which is why
we always have off -street parking requirements
for developments, whether they're commercial
or residential. So what you're saying is the
bill has been modified to say that if they're
not built to an urban standard, to a city standard,
and they're built to a rural standard, then those
restrictions don't apply in any instance. Correct.
Oh, that's good news. Okay, well, that makes
the bill a lot better, especially for counties.
It does. I imagine cities still have some concerns,
but for us, that addresses a lot of our problems.
It does. I mean, it's sort of an inelegant solution.
Because the point that we were trying to make
is when you look at the way that roadways are
designed, they're designed pretty intentionally.
Right. Right. So if they're designed to accommodate
parking, then they're designed to accommodate
parking. They're wider. They, you know, sight
lines are different. The curve of a road might
be different. The, you know, whatever kind of
infrastructure there's going to be on the roadside
is going to be different. Right. Those are the
circumstances where. If you need on -street parking,
you absolutely can accommodate it. But in places
where it was never designed for that purpose,
it just makes it very difficult to accommodate.
And further... Makes it dangerous, too. Makes
it dangerous, right? Because you are... doing
things like inhibiting sight lines you're putting
pedestrians out into the street pedestrians or
cyclists further into the street because there's
no sidewalk for them in most of these locations
right um so those are the kinds of situations
that we've been concerned about so the you know
tying it to urban standards is is certainly better
than nothing um that is a i think decent compromise.
And I think there's still more conversation to
be had around how do we make sure that we are
not utilizing roads in a way that makes them
more dangerous for both, you know, vehicles and
pedestrians. Right. Yeah, no, that's great. Well,
I'm glad to hear that that bill has been modified
and that you were able to get that compromise.
probably doesn't fix every issue and concern
that we have, but it'll go a long ways. And there's
still time in the session. And let's talk about
that a little bit, because we just finished the
House of Origin cutoff, meaning all the policy
bills that started in the Senate had to come
off the Senate floor. They were dead for the
rest of the session, of course, except for those
that are considered necessary to implement the
budget or NTIB and other bills that I like to
call magic bills. These are the ones that the
majority party just decides are exempt from cutoff
for whatever reason. Usually they have some sort
of financial impact, just not necessarily direct
revenue to the state. Same thing on the House
side. All the bills that started in the House
that were introduced by the House of Representatives
had to come off the House floor with a majority
vote to still be considered alive for the session
that's why a lot of bills died last week so the
next slew of cutoff dates are going to be coming
fast and furious right because we're entering
we're already halfway over as far as process
we're already well over halfway as far as days
uh because it's 105 day session and we're at
day 60 something at this point at least so things
are going to be moving quickly um What are we
looking forward to next? So the next cutoff is
April 2nd. So that'll be the opposite house policy
committee cutoff. That's about three weeks. Correct.
Yeah. Wow. So we had about six or seven weeks
for the first policy cutoff. So you get about
half that time for the second. Yeah. And, you
know, we I don't remember what the total volume
of bills that were introduced during the session.
Right. It's pretty close to 2000. Right. So now
it's been whittled down. We've got five hundred
and some odd bills you know still left kind of
churning through the process so it is a significant
lower number in terms of the total volume of
work that they're engaged in. Right, right. And
we're expecting another revenue forecast this
week. Tomorrow, in fact. Oh, tomorrow. Okay.
And then budgets, we're hearing rumors, pretty
strong rumors at this point that the budgets
are going to be out on Monday. Some will be heard
Monday, the same day. Some will be heard the
following day on Tuesday of next week. So that'll
be a very busy week for us for the start of the
week. And budgets are the biggest policy bill
out there, if you ask me. right? Where you spend
your money is what you ultimately really care
about. And they certainly drive most of the policy
for the next four years for the legislature,
you know, really the next two. But because it's
a four -year budget outlook, really the next
four at least. So it'll be the biggest policy
bill of the new administration under Governor
Ferguson and under the new legislature. So this
will be an exciting time. It very much will be.
It's also still seems to be the case. And we
see this playing out in a number of different
policy areas. But there isn't anything close
to consensus around the things that are most
important or the approach that either the legislature,
the governor's office, you know, want to take
to resolve these budget issues. So I'd say there's
still a lot of. big conversations that have yet
to finish or to even really get ramped up. Well,
that's a good teaser for the next group of podcasts
that we'll be doing for sure. We're going to
have some other folks in here to kind of talk
about their policy issues and their areas and
what happened during the cutoff. But I think
all of us certainly have an eye towards the next
couple of weeks with anticipation and maybe a
little bit of apprehension, trying to figure
out where those conversations are going to go
and how this legislature is going to come together
around some pretty difficult decisions in a pretty
short period of time. Hopefully a pretty short
period of time. Well, we're going to have lots
to talk about in the coming weeks. Kelsey, thanks
for stopping by today. You're so welcome. I hope
that we'll get a chance to maybe bring a lot
of these really difficult issues that we've been
chatting about to a pretty good conclusion before
the end of the session. And we'll look forward
to you bringing us the good news next time. Sounds
good. All right. Thank you. Take care until then,
Kelsey. 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.