Now you're just trying to butter me up. Do your
dumb intro. Nobody wants to hear it anyways.
This is the County Connection podcast with Paul
Jewell and my special guest Brian Enzo. This
is his second time. Okay, that's enough. Openly
mocking the host of the show is bad form right
before the show starts. Welcome to County Connection.
the official podcast of the Washington State
Association of Counties, where we dive into the
legislative issues shaping the future of our
communities. From budgets to public safety, infrastructure
to elections, we'll break down what's happening
in Olympia and how it impacts counties from across
the Evergreen State. Stay informed, stay engaged,
and join us as we amplify the voice of Washington's
39 counties. Welcome back, everybody, to the
County Connection podcast. I'm Paul Jewell, your
host and government relations director for the
Washington State Association of Counties. It
is Tuesday of a beautiful week. I've got Brian
Enslow back in the studio with me. Brian, last
week on Wednesday, it was an important day. I've
had a few people chatting about it already. That
was the big House of Origin cutoff day. How did
our bills survive that you're working on? Mixed
reviews. Mixed? Yeah. I guess we'll start with
the good news. Okay. You want to start with good
news or bad news? You're the host. You decide.
Well, it depends. Is, in your mind, good news,
dead bills? Or is that the bad news? Versus,
in your mind, is the good news bills that are
still alive? Well, given that as WASAC contractor,
I was brought on in a limited capacity, which
is to pass the WASAC housing priority bills,
I would definitely say dead bills. Not so good.
Okay. So in this case, because with everybody
else, dead bills, they've been excited to talk
about the dead bills, but you're right. For sure.
Because you're with the team this year to really
push forward our housing agenda. I get it why
you think the dead bills are bad. Which one are
we going to spend more time talking about? The
live bills? Sure. All right. Let's just get the
bad news out of the way. Let's just, but okay.
Just rip off the bandaid. No, no, no. It's I
don't know how much time Paul has this afternoon
or how long this podcast, but let's, let's go
to the balcony first. Let's take a step. Okay.
Lead the way. And let's just set. Has anyone
set the mood? Has anyone talked about like the
floor session? No. And, and, and, you know, in
the podcast, we don't really talk about mood
very much or vibe or vibe. Yeah. But let's, let's,
let's give it a shot. I mean, this could be a
new experience for our listeners and for me.
I mean, a podcast is a hang. It's a vibe. It
is. Yeah. So the fact that you've neglected this
like essential component of podcasting again.
No one ever said I was good at it. No, no. And
then certainly. No, everybody knows I'm not.
So it was really curious when you look at, there's
some various tools. You can look at like how
many bills were passed off each respective chamber.
And the Senate numbers get a little inflated
because they do what's called goobers, gubernatorial
appointments, which is something that only happens
on the Senate side. I don't even count those
bills. No, but they do when they pull up on the
report. Sure. What was interesting was roughly
the same amount of bills passed the Senate floor
as the House floor. It was around 271 to like
260. The House seemed to be doing it in a much
easier way, though. I mean, the Senate, excuse
me. There we go. Sorry about that. Slip of the
tongue. The Senate seemed to be having an easier
time. That was the exact observation I wanted
to land on. Okay. So Senate didn't work the weekends.
No. Senate. They took nice long lunch breaks.
Senate took lunch breaks. Senate adjourned at
like 4 o 'clock. Right. 5 o 'clock. I think maybe
6 was the latest one of the days. Yep. Compare
that to the House where they went till after
midnight on multiple occasions. 3 a .m. I think
was the latest. Yeah. Maybe you should say that's
the earliest. The earliest. They were still on
the floor. So if you were to like, and I, you
know. I haven't done it. But if you were to look
at like the bills per hour of time work, you
know, the Senate was probably did a rate of five
times or 10 times what the house did in terms
of just like getting stuff done. Yeah. Productivity,
efficiency, et cetera. And And mechanically,
that was a function of both sides. When you're
in the minority, it's your job to control the
pace. And there's various tools you can do that.
And here in Washington, the minority is the Republican
Party. And it's a significant vote difference.
Yeah, there's a large gap. I think both chambers,
if they don't have, they almost have a super
majority. Yes. The Senate is 30. to 19, which
even for people who aren't very good at math
like me, you could be like, oh, that's a super
majority. 30 times two is 60. What I didn't understand
is 59 is a super majority too, because 59 is
over 60 % of 98 seats, which is how many is in
the house. And that 60 % defines a super majority.
Why? Certain actions of the legislature require
a 60 % majority. The most obvious one is, or
the most notable one is a bond bill for either
a capital budget or a transportation budget.
So in either chamber, theoretically, as we're
kind of moving into this budget cycle, as we
were like kind of riffing on what we think the
revenue forecast was going to be in the intro,
we're going to see budgets maybe as early as
Friday, certainly as early as next Monday. And
in this environment, you could have a, fully
partisan slate of budgets because you wouldn't
necessarily, as the majority parties, need to
assume. any minority votes when you have a super
majority. So in most years, because the chambers
are more evenly split, when it comes to the budgets,
they've got to kind of play nice, right? They've
got to find ways to make sure that the minority
party gets some of their priorities in the budget
because they need a few of those votes at least
in order to get over that 60 % threshold. And
what you're saying is there's enough majority
members now on both sides of the chambers that
they don't need any minority votes whatsoever.
Correct. Wow, that's an interesting situation.
One that we haven't seen, well, as long as I've
been working in Olympia in various capacities
for the last 17 or 18 years, I certainly haven't
seen that. I haven't seen it either. And the
closest corollary would be the Move Ahead Washington
package, which was a transportation package that
was funded through a mixture of federal money.
Federal cash, a cash infusion from the operating
budget, and then fees and other... other like
programmatic driven revenue. So there weren't
any bonds. So there wasn't a 60 % vote there.
And I think you can see from the way projects
were distributed, there was a lot of projects
up and down, you know, the I -5 corridor, but
not necessarily a lot of the ones east of the
Cascades. Because there was no bonding authority
required. It was a simple majority vote. They
had the votes they needed. So the people who
voted for it got the projects. Yes. So, and I'm
going to use a word just to get a leg up. Paul
and Kelsey, and Paul's going to have to look
it up. But there's some heuristic value in looking
at that. Heuristic. Yes. Okay. I'm surprised
that's a word that you know. How do you spell
it? Oh, it starts with an H. Of course it does.
But so what it means is... That's as far as you're
going to go. Well, I mean... So math isn't your
strong suit and neither is spelling. No, no.
It's a good thing you're a lobbyist. But so what
we're looking at is, I mean... You know, that
that might provide some insight and some predictive
value to what we might see in the capital budget
and the transportation budget. Although, to be
fair, I have heard that the Senate is working
very collaboratively on those and we'll see,
which leads us sort of back to where we were.
Well, I mean, that's part of setting the mood,
right? All this budget work is going on in the
background. At the same time, both chambers are
trying to pass. policy bills. You've got super
majorities on both sides. One chamber is having
an easier time. The other chamber is not having
as easy of a time. And if you were working the
doors on issues right up until the last minute,
which I know you were because I was there with
you on different occasions, the mood coming out
of the house oftentimes when you were trying
to talk to members wasn't all that congenial,
wasn't all that positive. Those folks over there
were tired. There was a lot of exhaustion going
on because of the late hours that they were working
as well. So that all kind of rolls up into what
we had. on Wednesday as far as kind of the big
finish for the House of Origin cutoff and what
we have now in front of us today and how we need
to move forward with that, right? Yes. Yeah.
So when we're talking about our housing bills,
we had five basically strategies that we were
pursuing. Correct. And how many of those do we
now have left? So we have three of those strategies.
Still alive. Still alive. Okay. Which ones are
they? So I'll start with identifying just five.
Okay, perfect. And I'll start with the ones that
we had. Our multifamily tax exemption bill, which
we had a vehicle in both the House and the Senate,
those, unfortunately, we didn't make a lot of
progress. Our House bill was alive just technically
a week longer because it was introduced into
the Finance Committee, but it did not move from
the committee of its original origin. And neither
did the Senate side. So for folks who are listening,
that was... House Bill 1206 and Senate Bill 5679.
Correct. Yeah. Representative Lowe and Senator
Dozier. Right. Which, thank you, Representative
Lowe and Senator Dozier, but unfortunately we
weren't able to get those any traction this year.
The next piece of legislation, and this is the
one that really has some story, and I don't know
how deeply we want to get into it, but we were
working on ADUs, which if we recall from... Last
podcast that I did, I don't actually know what
that means, but Paul does. It's like accessory
dwelling units. And we were talking specifically
about DADUs. Yes, detached. So ones that are
separate, either as another separate building,
like think of a garage apartment or a shop apartment,
or ones that are standalone, just an independent
living quarters that's smaller scale than the
primary residence that's on the property. Correct.
We, you know, and I won't take credit for your
good work, Paul, but you've been working on this
issue for quite some time. And this is not a
bill that was not extensively stakeholder and
apologize for doing a double negative. So let's
just say it in the in the positive. You've worked
really hard on this bill, particularly in the
last interim, to get a piece of legislation that
most people would have thought was ready for
prime time. Yeah, you know, this has been an
issue that that the legislature has taken up.
for several years in a row. And counties have
been right in the middle of it from the very
beginning, along with realtors. Realtors have
been the other group that have been pushing really
hard on it. And I've worked closely with them
to craft various iterations of this bill. And
this one, we spent even more time on in between
legislative sessions, talked to the stakeholders
and the opposers in this particular case as well,
to work out what we thought was a very viable...
that was likely to pass this year. But in the
end, it didn't make it past the cutoffs, did
it? Didn't. And definitely want to acknowledge
the work of the builders. They communicated to
leadership on numerous times that this was a
priority of their organization as well. Even
some of the tribes weighed in. Even some of the
tribes weighed in. And it wasn't enough to move
it. It was not. We got caught up in just some
of the things that happened at the end when...
when temperatures get a little bit elevated,
when the pressure gets a little high. And as
we've indicated earlier in this, the relationship
between the House Democrats and the House Republicans
was definitely... Tense. Yeah, I was going to
say, let's use the word tense. Yes. Yeah, that's
a really good point. And I don't want to go into
a ton of gory details because I don't want to
impugn anybody. I don't want to call out anybody
because politics are politics and you get embroiled
in this process of floor action. There's a lot
of pressure. There's a lot of priorities on.
both sides of a caucus. The minority party is
trying to stop legislation that they don't like,
and they only have so many tools. The majority
party is trying to pass legislation that they
like, but they can only pick and choose so many
because there's a time clock and they have to
prioritize. And essentially, that's what this
bill got caught up in, right? I mean, what we
heard at the end of the day was this bill wasn't
going to pass unless another bill the past because
this bill was sponsored by a minority member
and there was another priority by a majority
member and the minority members were blocking
the majority members bill and ours was kind of
held up as if you want this bill you'll let the
other one go and it really resulted in a stalemate
at the end and and at at the end of the day sometimes
that's just the way politics is yeah i think
Agreed. And that's a really nice summary. And
you kept that at a level of detail that's enough
for people to fill in the story, but doesn't
impugn anyone directly. And I appreciate that.
Well, there were so many players involved and,
you know, a lot of them are our friends. Or will
be tomorrow. Yeah, and will be tomorrow and will
be the next day. And so I don't necessarily want
to indict anybody, you know, because politics
are politics and strategy is strategy. And we
just happen to be the one that got caught up
in this particular situation. It's not that it
wasn't a good bill because it was agreed to by
even the people who had been. opposing it for
years, we finally got agreement on it and it,
we still couldn't get over the finish line. Yeah.
I think if there is a lesson learned or take
home, it's, it's that, that, um, I probably should
have worked a little bit harder and pushed a
little bit harder to get that agreement earlier.
Cause although this is an important bill, it
is, it was not the type of bill that was going
to be a last day bill or. Yeah. This one was
never going to be one of those types of bills.
And one of the things is, is we, you know, I
did not get a final kind of negotiated agreement
until the Saturday before cutoff. And some of
that was in my control and some of it wasn't,
you know, but that, you know, when we think about
what could we have done differently, what could
have we've done better? That's one of the areas
where. probably should have pushed a little bit
harder to get that agreement ready to go so the
bill could have moved earlier. You know, Brian,
I remember not that long ago, probably five or
six years ago, I was working on a fish and wildlife
payment in lieu of taxes bill for the association.
And it took me a couple of years to get that
bill through. And I think it took three years.
And it was agreed to by everyone, right? It was
not a controversial bill. The second year, I
got it on the run list. The last run list. Oh,
no. It had passed the House. All it had to do
was get through the Senate. It was on the last
run list of the day, right before the deadline.
Heartbreaking. On the Senate floor. They came
to the bill before it, and they debated the bill
before it past 5 o 'clock and killed my bill.
Right. Killed Wasak's bill. It's just it just
happens sometimes. It does. You know, and it
wasn't that I didn't get that bill out early
enough and and, you know, didn't have the agreements
in place. We did. It just happened sometimes.
And that's kind of what happened with this bill.
Sometimes in this environment, there's there
seems like there is a. infinite number of ways
to do something wrong yeah and and a like asymptotic
to zero like approach to like if what what's
the right way to do it well that's why killing
bills is so much easier than passing yeah right
that's why yeah two -thirds or three -quarters
of all legislation that gets proposed never sees
the light of day because getting it through this
process is really hard. And to be honest with
you, this process was designed to make you fail.
Yes. It's the Federalist Papers, people. I encourage
you to read them. This is something I wanted
to make earlier, but it wasn't apparently interesting
enough to Paul for him to continue that thread.
But when I was talking specifically about the
house - Don't worry, you can call me out anytime
on our podcast, Brian. We'll make sure you're
a frequent guest. But one of the things I wanted
to observe was the pace of the house was attributable
to both parties. And I think that the - House
Republicans did a very nice job of maintaining
a fidelity to their principles and not engaging
in horse play or horse trading, excuse me, and
ensuring that the dedication they wanted to make
each bill kind of take time. They did that. That
being said, the House Dees would be in caucus
for six hours. Yeah. For seven hours. Doing what?
Well, it's hard to say because those are closed
door sessions, but it does make one speculate
that perhaps they were having difficulty getting
an agreement amongst their own members. Right.
I mean, some of these issues were pretty tough
this year. And to what end? Yeah. And so the
irrespective, the speaker is a very intelligent
person. Of course. And so the speaker knows when
they're sitting there in caucus for six hours,
seven hours at a time, that bills are dying.
Yeah. And so I think it was a two -way street
of both a great job by the minority party to
exercise kind of the majority controls the agenda
and the minority controls the pace. Right. But
I think in this case, when you – and we're not
going to deliberate on everything that died and
the bill that was allegedly – killed by the Republicans.
That was the reason why the ADU bill went down.
But at the end of the day, it was the majority
party that was also adopting strategies in order
to set aside some of those more controversial
issues that weren't sorted, weren't settled,
and could perhaps lead them into some some political
pratfalls or pitfalls moving forward. So I think
that's what I thought was particularly interesting
is like both sides are playing this game right
now. Right. Both sides want to see bills die.
Yeah, which you don't necessarily always see
from the majority party. Correct. You know, obviously
in most instances, you know, they're in control.
They want to pass the legislation that they want
to pass. But what you're saying is there were
clear signs that even within their own caucus,
they were trying to manage some of those. more
controversial bills that maybe the majority of
their caucus wasn't so interested in putting
their name on. That's my guess. That's what I'm
putting out there. I don't know that for sure,
and I just want to be very... clear about that
but that's right that's my speculation and that's
my like that's my kind of like the only way you
know that for sure is you put your name on a
sign and you get in that caucus room one day
and then and then you'll know what's going on
uh but otherwise we're just left here to speculate
and we know what politics is and we know what
the process is correct uh there's all kinds of
possibilities so um we you know let's talk about
what's still a lot yeah it's fascinating the
mood right we kind of talked about the two measures
that we were pushing that died there were five
so that means we got three left so let's go over
those really quickly well uh today is the 18th
right which in your intro i think you forgot
what day it was i never put the day yeah i never
put the day i just i just say it's tuesday or
monday okay that's good to know i give them an
idea of what the weather's like but we um we
had a hearing in um the house housing committee
on senate bill 57 or sorry, 5470, Senator Gaynor's
bill on middle housing. Actually, that's 5471.
Mitch? He's not going to cut that out. Phone
a friend, Mitch? 5471. Yeah, 5471. 5471 was the
ADU bill on the Senate side. So 5471 was the
middle housing bill. That hearing was yesterday,
right? It's the 18th. That hearing was yesterday
at 1 .30. Yeah, it was. I was in the room. Yeah,
you were. It was a good hearing. It was. It went
well. It went pretty well. The bill, when we
talked about earlier, when kind of getting off
the floor early, that was something that we were
able to move off the Senate really early. Yeah,
that was the very first one, I think, to come
off the Senate. No, no, it wasn't the first one,
but it was early. It was early to come off the
Senate floor. It was before even, I think, the...
policy cutoff it was it was much earlier before
it was much or much oh boy speak english paul
it was uh much earlier than the policy cutoff
yeah because the house didn't actually act the
house policy committee didn't actually act on
the companion because they didn't need to because
they already had the senate bill sitting in their
committee so and that was a 48 nothing uh vote
off the Senate. Well, that's a healthy, that's
a healthy endorsement. Some people call that
unanimous. Yeah, I would. Yeah. Yeah. So felt
really good about that. Hearing went well. It
looks like we have a little bit more tweaking
to go. So this is the bill that allows counties
to add density. right, for middle housing in
all residential zones within urban growth areas
and Lamberts or limited areas of more intensive
rural development, which are like rural towns
and things like that that are usually a little
further removed in rural areas. It might have
actually been a city at one point, but oftentimes
they're resource -based communities that have
shrunk over time and so they're no longer. They're
under county jurisdiction. Correct. Okay. And
so especially with respect to those areas, workforce
housing, close to resource lands, the ability
to move forward with middle housing, which is
duplexes, triplexes, like cottage homes, things
of that nature. So that's what we're talking
about. And that's what this authorizes. And it
also provides the additional exemptions from
appeal. Oh, right. So if the county decides to
take the action, they're not subject to. NIMBY
type appeals by neighbors who want to just maintain
the character of their neighborhood as it always
has been. Because this could potentially reshape
that, right? Not just neighbors, because NIMBYs
take all forms. All forms. That's true. That's
true. Yeah. So this is a good bill that should
help increase availability for housing stock
to be developed in a lot of communities across
Washington. That's 100 % the goal. Yeah. I mean,
I think what we've talked about is that there
is a planning obligation now so this is and then
just this is specifically for the 28 counties
that are fully planning under the gma have either
required to or have opted in and right there
there you got to plan for it you got to accommodate
um right all economic Right. Under 1220, which
was passed a couple of years ago. That was House
Bill 1220. 2001 session. Yeah. Was it that long?
Not 2001. No, it was not. It was in the 20s.
Come on now, Brian. I meant 2021. I know what
you meant. So anyways, this is a good bill. It's
going to generate a lot more opportunity for
housing. Counties have those obligations under
1220 that I think we established was passed just
a few years ago, somewhere around 2021 or 2022.
Correct. That requires them to do additional
planning. for a variety of economic segments
that are actually not just defined in the statute
now, but the number that you have to plan for
is handed to you by the Department of Commerce.
So having this tool to increase density in some
pretty large areas within urban growth areas
and landlords is going to be a really big bonus
to meet those requirements, but also really to
just create more opportunity for people to develop
housing in counties. Correct. Yeah, that's good.
Good. So that's 5471. That's our middle housing
bill. What were the two other strategies that
we were pursuing? Well, we were looking for additional
resources for operations and maintenance and
initially infrastructure related to affordable
housing. The bill that was heard today, this
morning, House... finance is a Senator Loveless
bill. It's 5576. And that has to do with the
taxation. of short -term rental. That's right.
That's right. We have this on our priority list.
We wanted to use the new taxation on short -term
rentals to invest in a grant program that would
build more infrastructure that supports housing
in communities across the state. Correct. And
my recollection is the legislative steering committee
authorized a taxing proposal up to 10%. Yeah,
they supported up to 10 % on short -term rentals.
Correct. Now, that's not what is in the bill
right now. Well, originally when... When the
bill was introduced, it was all the way down
at 6%, right? It was at 6%. Okay. What is it
now? 4%. Oh, wow. So less than half of what we
had wanted is still remaining in the bill. So
now it's down to a 4 % tax. Yeah. So it remains
to be seen what will be the appetite. But it's
also not a grant program either. And so currently
what there is is there's a local option. And
a local jurisdiction can choose to impose this.
Okay. And if they do so, it gets collected by
the Department of Revenue and then it gets transferred
back into your current expense account. Okay.
So if I'm a city or a county, in our case counties,
if I impose this tax, it's going to come back
to me. Whatever is collected, I get back. Correct.
The full amount or does revenue get to keep?
Some administrative cost. I do not believe revenue
gets to keep an administrative cost. There is
an allowance in the bill that allows us to use
up to 10 % for, or excuse me, 15 % currently
for administrative cost. Okay. Associated with
whatever we decide to do. Correct. There might
already be a legal standard for DOR, but it isn't
addressed in the bill. Okay. So what can we use
the money for? Can we still dedicate it to infrastructure
that supports housing? No. Unfortunately, when
the bill was skinny down on the Senate floor
from 6 % to 4%, one of the things that was set
aside was the infrastructure piece. Interesting.
So what does the money get used for then? It
can be used for operating. So if you have a current
existing facility where... Perhaps it's a supportive
housing facility or something of that nature.
There would be additional operating resources
to support that. Or, of course, the construction
of new housing. Well, we definitely need new
housing. And we've heard from a lot of our members
that operating funds for projects like supportive
housing could really be helpful. So that's good.
So this bill is still alive. Correct. But it's
skinning down from a 6 % proposal on short -term
rentals to a 4%. And instead of using it for
infrastructure, now it's skinning down, so to
speak, to just be operating or other costs for
building affordable housing. Okay. Well, that's
not a total loss. It's not exactly what we were
hoping for. But just like in many instances in
the legislature, You don't always get exactly
what you ask for. Sometimes you make incremental
progress. I would probably consider this an incremental
progress type bill. We still believe that major
investments in infrastructure are going to be
needed in order to really meaningfully impact
the housing crisis. But this is a good start
towards some of the other funding needs that
we also have. Yeah, you want to know something
really interesting, surprising? And this is and
I'm saying this before budgets have come out,
so I don't know what's going to be in the budget.
But this is the only financing tool or tool currently
in front of the legislature right now that provides
additional resources for affordable housing.
Well, local resources are just. Well, no, I guess
you're right. There were many others that, well,
that's not true. There is another bill that creates
some more flexibility around how we use real
estate excise taxes on the local level. Senator
or Representative Paul's bill. 1791. Yeah, it's
going to be heard later today. Sure. And so that's
alive, but that's not new. Well, it's not new
other than there was... It harmonizes REIT 1
and REIT 2. Yeah, and there was a deadline. And
it extends existing past the current deadline.
Of January 1st, 2026. It makes it permanent.
Yep. So you could say that that's new resources
because it goes beyond January 1st, 2026, whereas
before it didn't. But I hear what you're saying.
It's not... It's not a wholly new resource like
this one is. Yeah, yeah. I have heard that when
the capital and operating budgets come out, we
should expect to see an increase in dollars supporting
housing and affordable housing over what we've
seen even in the last budget, even with the deficits
that they're facing now. Yeah, I'm still expecting
to see like a state REIT bill on. So, for instance,
Representative Berg also introduced a bill. 2027,
2027. And she didn't advance it. Right, it's
still sitting there. But one would assume that
it's necessary to implement the budget if their
budget chooses to assume that. It'll be interesting.
She and I had a good conversation about this
just the other day, and there wasn't a lot of
certainty on her end as to what was going to
happen with that bill. So we're kind of just
in a holding pattern. That actually has one of
our revenue pieces tied into it. Correct. And
so we'd be very interested in moving that bill
too. But she was pretty open that she just didn't
have an idea as to what the caucus's appetite
was going to be to address REIT this year. We'll
have to wait and see how things progress. Yeah.
I think, you know, in the past, there's been
this sense that there would be a property tax
piece and that would be for locals and state
would do the read and that would be. But the
state is going to have to. Let me back up one
second. It is my working assumption that the
majority parties are going to introduce budgets
with significant revenue packages. And that starts
to take the oxygen out of the room for additional
things. Right. Like. like a specific REIT. But
you could very easily, say you introduce a budget
with a B &O tax or a wealth tax, head tax, and
you can dial that to such a level that there's
then additional revenue generated from that that
can be set to backfill the document recording
fee or backfill. Just depends on how they use
it. And I think that once we see these budgets
come out early next week is what we're hearing,
probably Monday and Tuesday, we'll have a really
good indicator of what their intention is, at
least from then. to the end of the session, what
they really plan to pursue, what they plan to
talk about, and how the policy bills that support
and don't support that are going to line up as
we start hitting the next series of cutoffs.
So that'll be really interesting. We're running
out of time, and we haven't talked about the
last strategy because there's three that are
still alive. So we talked about middle housing.
We talked about our infrastructure bill that's
no longer related to housing infrastructure but
still has a few good little tools and therefore
counties. The other one was a proviso, right?
Yes. And we were pursuing that. Now what's the
status of our proviso and what does it do? So
we have put together a proviso that would create
a partnership between the county's association
and specifically South Puget Sound Community
College where we would work with their faculty
and students to develop like stock housing plans
for middle housing types, including ADUs, duplexes,
and smaller family homes. And so we have approached
the legislature and asked for what is a fairly
modest amount of funding. $250 ,000, is that
right? That's the number we asked for. Yes, it
does. Yeah. And honestly, I think we've talked
a lot. The capital budget is actually fiscally
sound, especially compared to the operating budget
and the transportation budget. So it's not inconceivable
that... Yeah, a lot of the action this year that
people are going to be claiming victory on is
going to be in the capital budget if it's anywhere.
Yeah, and I can't remember if we talked about
this last time, but... You know, the capital
budget is essentially a function of interest
rates. Right. And how much you spend. Exactly.
And as we know, the current operating budget
tension is more of a spending tension than a
revenue tension. Right. Money's been fine. So
the bond model hasn't really been impacted. And
then you compound that with two additional things.
One, Climate Commitment Act was undercommitted.
And two. If you are going to have a revenue package,
you're going to spend more. Yeah. So if you spend
more, then your bond model goes up. Right. So
there is actually some, that's not, of all the
budgets that have a lot of tension and a lot
of competition, there is actually a little bit
of room in there. So I am, you know, I'm more
of an optimistic than you are, but I am slightly
optimistic. Whoa. Is this news to you, Paul?
That is news to me. i'm a little hurt by that
no one's no one's no you don't have like a no
tattoo of eeyore somewhere on your body that's
that you can't see underneath the dress shirt
no i'm i i'm getting a very uncomfortable with
this line of inquiry or whatever you want i'm
a contractor by the way i'm i'm not the boss
so no that's that that is interesting what you
know where the where the capital budget is concerned.
It's kind of a pull -pull scenario, right? It's
the operating budget is kind of, and CCA kind
of combined to pull that thing along. And you're
right. It really is a function of... where the
revenues are, and they've been holding up. They
just haven't been growing at a fast enough rate
to match the spending rate that the state has
put in play for this budget and the next two
years as well. That's where the cuts are really
going to have to come is the growth in the amount
of spending, not actually reducing spending from
previous levels in most cases. The tension has
been a result of the increased cost of providing
the existing market basket of goods and services
to the state. So do we have any idea? Have you
gotten any good intel on what status our proviso
proposal is? Are we going to see it in the capital
budget next week? Unfortunately, I haven't. Okay.
So it'll be a surprise. It will be a surprise.
And I am assuming if we see it, it's going to
be in the Senate budget. capital budget chairs
are notoriously tight -lipped well and that's
it until the proposal hits the street so so the
the person we think is going to deliver for us
is at a level where they don't want to claim
credit whereas for instance um some other members
who aren't high up in the capital committee have
told me what's in or not in so so the budgets
are from a member request standpoint, are cooked
on both the House and the Senate side. And the
one thing I can share with you is the cookies
list, you know, like the goodies. My understanding
is they're going to buy both lists. Oh. So if
we show up in the Senate but don't show up in
the House, my understanding is when they merge
the – like everybody's going to get their cookies.
Okay. So they've already kind of – Everybody's
in the pool. Yes. Regardless of which side you
start on. Yes. So I don't think you have to worry
about like, oh, we're in the Senate but not in
the House. Okay. Or vice versa. Well, Brian,
fascinating conversation. It's always interesting
to talk with you. It feels like we go kind of
a roundabout way, you know, rather than a super
focused conversation like I do with some other
lobbyists and when we talk about their issues.
It really shows how all of these things, you
know, play off one another here in the legislature
and how they all tie together or don't tie together.
Yes. And how, you know, you may have a really
great idea. It may be supported by everyone.
But at the end of the day, you know, it gets
tripped up by, you know, some sort of speed bump
along the way and you're not successful. You
know, you have you have another idea that maybe
isn't that great, but you just you know, you
trip over a golden nugget and suddenly you are.
And sometimes that's just the way that things
go in the political process here. Well. Happy
cutoff last Wednesday. Thank you. Looking forward
to budgets. We've got a revenue forecast here
in just a few minutes. And we've got budgets
coming up in just a few days. So we'll have a
lot more to talk about after that. Yeah, giddy
up. All right. Take care until then. Thank you.
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.