If you have a lot of tattoos, then it's like,
oh, okay, another tattoo. Not a big deal. But
if you have zero and now you have to get one,
that would be weird. The Care Bears kicking a
field goal. I'd take that over the Justin Bieber.
I would, too. Care Bears are cute. That's fine.
That's nostalgic, connected to my childhood.
Justin Bieber's face. I don't want any celebrity's
face tattooed on me. God, no. 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, the Government Relations Director
for the Washington State Association of Counties.
I'm back in the studio on this Wednesday, April
9th afternoon with a different guest this time,
Kelsey Hulse. How's it going? There are less
than 18 days left in this legislative session,
Paul. There are less than 18 days. It is day
87 of the 105 -day session, but we don't count
the days here at WASAC. We just make the days
count. But it is fun to count them down, especially
when you've only got 18 days left. What are we
watching still in the environment? Well, I guess
not environment, but natural resources and land
use kind of arena as far as policy bills go and
as far as the budgets go. There are a variety
of things going on, of course, as we've talked
about multiple times on this podcast. The budget
conversation is kind of sucking more and more
air out of the room and taking up more and more
of the bandwidth. So we're, of course, keeping
a close eye on that, including things like habitat
restoration funding for salmon projects. Funding
for planning grants through the Department of
Commerce. So there's a number of budget pieces
that we're looking at in that vein, as well as
just keeping an eye kind of on the totality of
the conversation, including revenue. And we've
got a variety of revenue pieces that also will
affect counties. I'm sure you and Axel have talked
a little bit about 5804. We have, yeah. That
diverts the public. utility tax. Yeah, we haven't
had a chance to talk about it on the podcast
yet. I'll probably reserve that one for when
Axel can join us. But definitely an interesting
bill and one that we're following very closely.
And for the listeners out there, if you want
to take a look at it, again, that was Senate
Bill 5804. But that's an interesting bill that
affects the Public Works Assistance account,
but has an impact on kind of that fish habitat
stuff that you were mentioning. Axel, get into
the finer points of that one, but certainly just
a whole variety of revenue options, some of which
we've already seen. There's still new ones coming
out of the woodwork every day. I think yesterday
there was a bill introduced to tax. Dating apps.
Yeah, I saw that one. That's pretty interesting.
No direct impact on counties, as far as I know,
but a creative way to generate some revenue.
Did that come, you know, I didn't get a chance
to look at it too closely. Did that come from
the minority party or the majority party? The
majority party. It did. Also, the very clever
Dallas Roberts, who is Denny Heck's chief of
staff, Lieutenant Governor Heck's chief of staff,
has nicknamed it the Tinder tax, which is perfect.
That is clever. Very clever. So we'll see where
that one goes. But I think we can expect that
we will continue that the landscape around both
revenue and budget is not going to be completely
settled until hopefully the 11th hour prior to
the sine die on the 27th. But it's interesting
that you say that, you know, we've hit this stage
in session. I mentioned yesterday was a major
cutoff. It was the fiscal. cutoff for the opposite
house, right? So all the bills that had already
been through the Senate or are the bills that
had already been through the house, they have
to flip and do it all again. So they have to
get through that second major hurdle, that second
major milestone, which is the fiscal committee
cutoff. Usually at this point in session, because
it's the opposite house, really now we just look
forward to floor action. And that's going to
be the majority of what happens between now and
the 16th, which is the next cutoff, right? Where
all the bills have to be off. their opposite
house floors. But it doesn't mean that's the
only thing that we're going to see. And what
I mean by is usually policy committees are done
by now. But we might still see some revenue bills
that need to be heard in policy committees because
they haven't been heard or because they're still
going to be introduced. I noticed there's some
bills I think could be exacted either tomorrow
or the next day in House Finance. So it's a little
unusual for that to be happening at this stage
in the session. But when you're working a budget
year like we are now, and especially when you're
working a year where you've got some fiscal...
you know, challenges, it's not unusual to see
this type of stuff happen even after the cutoff
period, right? Yeah, I think the budget committees
probably should not consider their work complete
until... Well, I mean, they're negotiating the
budgets anyways, but even the fiscal committees
that don't necessarily write the budget, they're
going to be busy too. Yep. Yeah, exactly. It'll
be interesting to see how some of that develops.
We got the tender tax today. What will we get
tomorrow? Who knows? That's exactly it. I think
with the uncertainty that the governor has introduced
into the conversation with his resistance to
the wealth tax, that also is pushing particularly
House members to think creatively about other
ways that they could generate revenue. So I think
we'll continue to see that kind of activity.
Yeah, when Jamie was here a little earlier today,
we had a really good conversation about that
wealth tax bill or the, I think it's called financial
intangibles tax bill. What else are you hearing
budget -wise before we get into policy? Anything
else interesting? I think the biggest thing that
we are, or it makes sense to pay attention to,
is this year. You may have heard legislators
note that rather than dealing with each budget
in its own silo, they have looked at the budget
sort of across the three, transportation, capital,
and operating. Right, we have heard that. Where
do we have resources and where do we need them?
And how do we potentially shift things across
those budgets? So there's a lot more shifting.
than there has been in the past. Exactly. If
you're a real budget wonk, you can get into the
budget documents themselves and you can actually
see that. It's not as apparent kind of in the
narratives, unless you know what you're really
looking for, but you can see it in the budget
bills themselves. And there's a lot more of it
there than there has been before. Yeah. So seeing
that 5804 that we mentioned before, shifting
essentially the state's culvert obligation under
the settlement agreement. from the transportation
budget into the capital budget. We've got a shift
in the Senate budget of sales tax revenue for
vehicles from the operating budget into the transportation
budget. So there's a number of these shifts.
Some of which have happened in the past, but
I don't think we've ever seen a year where there
have been so many. It does feel like there's
more. And that apparently was a strategy for
budget writers, but that means that it's much
harder to pull on just one thread without kind
of unraveling the whole thing. So I think negotiating
between two very different ways of doing that
is... even a little more complex than it would
otherwise be. The challenge that you can really
run into when you mix and match a lot of that
stuff too in the future is as the legislature
turns over, which it often does, you lose some
knowledge of kind of what has happened in the
past. Now, the good thing is the staff tends
to be, especially the senior staff on the budget
writer side, they tend to be a little bit more
stable, but even that can be a problem. The other
problem that you can run into with doing that
is you can create a dependence on a particular
revenue source. that you weren't really intending
to create a dependence on because you've shifted
so much of, say, a particular agency's otherwise
general fund support to another fund, and that
can become really hard to get them off of later.
And it may not just be the agency that wants
to get off that funding, but it may be that the
legislature now. decides that we have a better
year and we're just going to keep them on that
funding and take that general fund capacity and
spend it somewhere else. So that can be a problem.
And if you're an agency or a partner like a local
government that loses some funding, quote unquote,
temporarily to a transfer. it can be also very
hard to get it back when those sorts of transfers
occur, especially when they're weaving them in
the budgets like they are right now. Well, let's
talk about policy bills. I know that you're still
following a couple of key bills for us. Some
have some pretty important implications for local
governments from a land use perspective. I know
we talked about parking kind of ad nauseum here
at the County Connection podcast, but it's been
an important issue in the legislature this year.
Here, it's been important. In previous years,
it's been important. And from our point of view
as counties, as regulators with land use authority
and development authority, it's a really important
tool that we use to kind of manage traffic, to
manage demand, to manage public safety, etc.
One bill that I know you've been working on a
lot is 5184. And I thought we had a lot of that
settled. But I know that you've been in conversations
with some other stakeholders on that bill, along
with Curtis. may change some of that. Why don't
you fill us in on what's been going on? Yeah,
there are essentially two bills, two parking
bills that are still moving. 5184 in the Senate,
which was sponsored by Senator Bateman, and 1183
in the House, which was sponsored by Representative
Doerr, both of which create new restrictions
on where local jurisdictions can mandate parking,
what types of developments. They do it in slightly
different ways and the scope of the bills and
the different development or property types that
they apply to are slightly different. So one
of the things that we've been watching closely
is how they're going to reconcile the two of
those at the end, right? Because they're not
going to want to pass two bills that are in conflict.
And that's what we're seeing happen right now.
So each bill has kind of... been amended in small
ways during the course of the legislative process.
And now they are trying to figure out what the
appropriate middle ground is. So, for example,
in 5184, an amendment was added to add a population
threshold under which the provisions of the bill
wouldn't apply. That population threshold was
addressed to cities and code cities, which are
two different sections of the bill, but not to
counties. And so our request has been to have
a similar population threshold for. counties
well sure why wouldn't it make sense that you'd
have that in place for counties otherwise you'd
have these big maybe holes i guess right within
a county structure where parking regulation minimum
minimum you know restrictions didn't apply but
in other areas outside of really kind of the
dense places where the cars typically are, they
would apply. That doesn't seem like it would
make a lot of sense. Yeah, and you're getting
at one of the other amendments that we have requested,
which is if a city is exempt from the bill, then
the UGA around that city should also be exempt.
Okay, and just for the listeners, again, a UGA
is? Urban Growth Area. And why are they around
cities typically? It is essentially the area
where the local jurisdictions have planned to
accommodate growth. Right. As the city continues
to grow. Exactly. Where are they going to put
people? Under the Growth Management Act, it's
a 20 -year growth boundary for the city. So that's
the area that eventually should become the city.
And it's supposed to be developed at a higher
density standard. more like a city standard.
Or at least be progressing in that direction.
Right. And so the idea that that area would be
subject to these parking regulation restrictions,
but not the city itself, just seems silly to
me. Yeah. And, you know, ideally, cities will
eventually annex those urban growth areas into
the city. So if it's going to become part of
the city, it only makes sense that... both the
city and its surrounding UGA would have similar
planning or zoning requirements. Right. So this
process that you're talking about of trying to
bring these bills together or not to pass two
bills. from different chambers that might conflict
with one another is super normal, right? I mean,
a bill starts in the House. It's an idea from
a legislator or a constituent or a staff member,
and it becomes a legislator's bill. It's their
idea. It goes through this entire process through
committees, right, and then through fiscal committees
and then to the floor, and it gets a chance to
be amended, and people kind of put their own
little stamp on it and their own ideas, and it
goes to the other chamber and does the same thing.
And the same thing can happen on the opposite
side, and at the end of the day, you may up with
two bills that deal with the same issue but in
different ways. And so the idea that you've got
to come together is really, really common every
single year. And so you've mentioned that you've
got one bill, 1183, that has kind of the parking
restrictions in it that we were just talking
about. I assume there's another one on the Senate
side then? So 5184 is the Senate one that I mentioned.
So some of the things that I identified are coming
out of 1183. Some are coming out of 5184. So
that's the process that we're in right now is
figuring out what do they want these final regulations
to look like? Will one of those bill sponsors
choose to adopt the language of the other? Will
they come up with some third way? Is there one
that we prefer? The language in 1183, the bill
has a narrower scope, so it doesn't apply to
as many places and as many property and development
types. So on the whole, that's probably simpler.
5184 is more expansive, and so we'll limit our
ability to do things in more places. Okay, interesting.
So we've talked about... So 1183, we talked about
5184. Now I know there's another bill out there
that sounds a lot like 5184 as far as the number,
but it's not, right? It's 5148? 5148 is the Housing
Accountability Act. Okay. Now this is a bill
that we're not as in favor of. Is that right?
Correct. We had had early conversations with
the sponsor. The bill essentially requires local
jurisdictions to submit their housing element
to commerce for review and comment and a essentially
assessment of compliance with current current
housing related laws early in session we had
negotiated a voluntary pathway in exchange for
submitting your housing element voluntarily you
would get some appeal protection from the state
which um that was a strategy that we put into
1181 a couple of years ago when the climate change
element was right past right the idea is you
don't have to but if you want to you can submit
it they'll take a look at it they'll give you
kind of this seal of approval i don't remember
what we called it and if they do then they're
actually responsible for defending it in the
instance of an appeal which is a good thing for
counties it creates some liability protection
some cost protection etc but if you didn't want
to have if you didn't want to do it you didn't
have to do it so is that still the case with
this bill it's not so this bill um There was
a voluntary, initially it started out as mandatory.
Then it was amended to include a voluntary pathway.
Then it was re -amended to add a mandatory requirement
behind that voluntary pathway. Well, that just
means mandatory. Correct. Okay. But you can do
it sooner if you want. Well, that's a strange
approach. It is a strange approach. understanding
that what the bill proponents are trying to do
is to make sure that the good work that they're
doing legislatively to try and create more housing
is put into effect immediately or as quickly
as possible. The key issue there... This is a
20 -year planning document. I mean, that just
isn't... The key issue there is that we are pushing
on a long -term planning process in the hopes
of getting short -term... results or immediate
results. Those two things are always going to
be in conflict. I mean, you never put money into
an investment account thinking you're going to
get immediate results. You've got to keep it
there for a few years. The same thing is true
when you're putting together these types of long
-range plans. I mean, these are 20 -year planning
documents. So the idea that you're just going
to slap something on paper and suddenly things
are going to be different overnight is just not
realistic. And what we're hearing from members
is that they are implementing these new rules
and things that have come out. over the last
few years. And that again, it's just, it's a
long -term process. Whether you're talking about
your comprehensive plan update or you're just
talking about ordinances or regulations or zoning
changes, none of that stuff is designed to happen.
quickly. It's designed to be deliberative and
precise, right? So I think that is where there's
a little bit of a disconnect. They don't have
a lot of levers that they can pull. So I think
they're pulling the ones that they can, but that
is a point that we continue to raise is that
it will always be a problem. And I think the
biggest concern is you pass a bunch of housing
laws and then you force their implementation
immediately i mean next year it's going to be
something else right and so at that point it's
not a 20 -year planning document no right it's
just a collection of all the things that happen
from year to year well and you know one of the
other foundational principles of the gma is it's
supposed to be this ground up kind of grassroots
sort of document, right? You have to consider
this, you have to consider that, you have to
include things that will allow this or things
that will allow that, but the way you actually
do them is supposed to be community -driven.
These are community -based decisions. The idea
that we would do all that work and then have
to send it to a state agency to get approved.
almost, you know, undermines the idea that it's
really community -based, right? And that it's
really individualized for that individual place
or that specific place. Because, you know, the
state agency is going to look at it and just...
Say, did you do this? Did you do that? Did you
do this? Did you do that? There's a lot of subjectivity
that goes into these plans. How will an agency
be able to evaluate that subjectivity with an
eye towards compliance? That's a little troubling
to me. And I think the reality, too, is that
we don't have enough planners as it is. It is
unlikely that commerce will be able to develop
a workforce of. folks with planning expertise
and or land use attorneys who have the knowledge
and background to really make those determinations
in a useful and productive way. So I think that'll,
that'll be a challenge just the mechanics of
it. Yeah. That sounds like a capacity issue for.
the Department of Commerce to actually meet the
requirements of this bill. Are you saying that
there are concerns that the agency won't be able
to, you know, actually accept these and get them
out the door in a timely fashion? I think that's
always a concern, right? When you're creating,
when you are creating a new workflow that hasn't
existed in the past. especially in an agency
that's already overtaxed, but in a year where
the budget is severely constrained. Yeah, so
limited ability to make new investments if you
need them, sure. So we have seen the bill be
scaled back a little bit because of that. In
an initial version, the projection was that they
would be dealing with... I can't remember the
number exactly, but a whole lot of whether it's
housing elements or also this includes associated
ordinances, right? All the development regulations.
All the development regulations, all of it. So
that was a huge volume of work. Then we saw it
kind of scaled down to, okay, we're going to
estimate that the Department of Commerce can
process 90 of these packages of information per
year. In the most recent version, it's been scaled
down even more to 60 per year. So you've got
281 cities, you have 39 counties. So that's 320
different entities, six years. That's more than
five or 60 a year. That's more than five years
to get through all those. So someone's housing
element that they have implemented as part of
their comprehensive plan update, potentially
they could be waiting five years before they
could actually get those new regulations on the
ground. That doesn't sound like urgency to me.
That actually sounds like more bureaucracy and
more regulations that will slow down housing
development and changes in housing development
in these communities. Is that true? Perhaps.
I mean, that seems very ironic. The language
in the bill is that. these would have to be reviewed
within three years of implementation. So you
don't necessarily have to wait for the commerce
review necessarily. So you can actually implement
sooner? Correct. Okay. Well, that actually makes
it a little better than a little faster. Although,
you know, one of the... To be clear, it's still
not good. Yeah. No, I agree. And one of the other
foundational principles of the GMA is that once
you take action and you approve at the local
level, these locally developed plans, they're
considered compliant and you can use them and
someone has to actually appeal you, but they
only have, I think, 30 or 60 days. I think it's...
I think it might be 60 days, to file that appeal.
And after that 60 days runs, then there's no
further chance until you have certainty moving
forward. Here, you could adopt a new housing
plan as part of your comprehensive plan and new
development regulations that allow all kinds
of new things for housing development in your
community. You could implement that. Someone
doesn't appeal you. The 60 -day clock goes by.
You're a year or two into it. Now you have to
submit this thing to commerce and they could
find you out of compliance for whatever reason.
And now you're starting over after only a very
short period of time. And you can't revert to
your previous one. Right. Because that other
bill passed 1135. So what's strange about that
or what's concerning about that is no longer
do you have that predictability, that certainty,
right, that we all know. investment needs if
they're going to take the risk and put dollars
on the ground to build housing in communities
where they think they can make a few dollars.
And if they don't believe that certainty exists,
that predictability exists, then they're going
to hold on to that money. And they're going to
wait until after those. review periods, et cetera,
and who could blame them for doing so. So at
the end of the day, it may still end up creating
further delays in housing development, which
will just further exacerbate the housing crisis
that we're seeing now. It is very strange to
me that the solution to overregulation, which
is really in many ways the problem that we're
facing right now around housing. A problem of
overregulation that was created by the legislature
is being solved by the legislature with more
regulation. I don't know that there is widespread
agreement that overregulation is the problem
with the housing market. Well, we can agree to
disagree. I'm not voicing a personal opinion,
but I think should you talk to many of our legislators,
it's not so much overregulation as perhaps or
ineffective regulation, but... What is it? We've
talked about this before. Only a regulator would
say. Right. When you've got a hammer, everything
looks like a nail or something. It's just a wrong
or ineffective regulation. Right. We just need
better. Yeah, better. Yeah. I'm not sure that's
true, especially where housing is concerned.
I mean, if you want people to make investments
and you want to see quicker action, you have
to cut the red tape. You know, you've got to
relax the regulations. And we don't want to do
that from necessarily a life situation. safety
perspective, right, or an environmental perspective.
But there are other things that we could do that
could spur things along that would reduce regulations.
I think a lot of people are very concerned about
the costs associated with housing and energy
efficiency requirements and things like that
that could go a long ways. But that's a whole
other podcast. We don't need to quite get into
that. But I will share because I've tried to
bring up this saying a couple times on podcasts
and have failed. The law of the instrument. Abraham
Maslow wrote in 1966, it is tempting if the only
tool you have is a hammer to treat everything
as if it were a nail. Right. If the only tool
you have is a hammer, every problem looks like
a nail. So if the only tool you have is regulation.
Every problem looks like you need more regulation.
Maybe that's a strong lesson and probably something
to end the podcast with accordingly. Kelsey,
thanks for coming by today. Happy. Cut off again.
I think I've said that to you a few times. I
know I've said it a lot in this podcast, but
it's always a happy day when cutoff comes along.
As you mentioned, only 18 days to go. Less than.
Less than now. Yeah, because it is after 5 o
'clock here on Wednesday. In fact, it's 6 o 'clock
for those who might be wanting to know what the
timestamp is. A lot to do, though. A lot to do
in 18 days when you think about the budgets and
when you think about bringing these policy bills
together in a way that actually makes sense and
that's productive. There's a lot of work cut
out for them. There's not going to be much rest
up there at the legislature if they're going
to get this done. Understanding is that the house
was directed to bring their jammies on Monday.
They're going to have a late night. They'll be
on the floor on Saturday. Have you talked about
special sessions? We're not talking about special
sessions on these podcasts ever. We do not talk
about special sessions. All right. You're done.
Your podcast privileges are over, Kelsey. Well,
nuts. What a shame. Take care until next time.
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.