We could do that. We could have a Life Lessons
with Axel series. Yeah, there you go. You think
anybody would listen? I don't know. I don't know
that. Also, probably there's a Life Lesson in
there, too. There probably is. 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,
the official podcast of the Washington State
Association of Counties. I'm Paul Jewell, your
government relations director and host of the
podcast. It is a little bit after 12 o 'clock
on, geez, I guess it's Thursday already. after
session. Session ended on Sunday, April 27th.
Today is Thursday, May 1st. Happy May Day out
there, everybody. Axel Swanson is here in the
studio with me to do a little bit of a wrap up
of how things went during the legislative session
for transportation. But Axel, more importantly,
did you ever celebrate May Day as a kid? Did
you ever do that traditional thing where you
get flowers for somebody and you... put them
at the doorstep and you knock on the door and
you run away and they get flowers from somebody
they didn't know. I do remember that a little
bit. Yeah. Yeah. Did you ever do that when you
were a kid? Yeah. It was a big, it was a big
part of your childhood. I mean, you're, you're
bringing back memories here for me, Paul. Yeah.
Yeah. Do you ever do it today? I have, I have
not done that. Have you taught more into the,
uh, the mother's day hanging baskets? We've,
we've done it, but that's a big thing. Yeah.
Yeah. Mother's day is coming up. Yeah, sure is.
Well, um, Axel, it's good to see you again. Good
to have you back. Yeah, thanks. How do you feel
now that session's over? I'm feeling good. We've
talked about this, but I think for policy staff,
for those of us that are really engaged in the
legislative session, you feel that kind of downshift
even the week before once they're just working
less on policy bills and more on budget, and
we're kind of waiting to see what's in the final
budget, and you just kind of transition into
the the different pace of after session. Well,
things are sure quiet here at the office. Yeah,
they were. I came in inside this morning. Yeah,
really quiet. You and I are actually the only
ones here right now. I think there's a few folks
coming in this afternoon, but I think everybody's
transitioned pretty quickly away from session.
Let's talk about a couple of things that happened
this year. I mean, transportation. surprisingly,
was a pretty major focus this year, even though
it didn't really get, I think, the airtime that
a lot of the other issues did. You know, the
operating budget and the operating budget woes,
more specifically, really took a lot of the air
out of most rooms. But there was a lot going
on in the background around transportation, and
there were some pretty interesting developments,
some really good things for counties this year,
and a new transportation funding package, right?
Yeah. I don't know if leadership would call it
a package, but certainly you had a number of
new revenues that were adopted to support the
transportation budget. So that's kind of similar
to what you do maybe with a more traditional
transportation package. And those things were
meant to kind of not only. sure up what was adopted
previously in the move -ahead package, but also
similarly in the transportation budget. They
had a deficit they needed to deal with as well.
So what was the move -ahead? Explain to listeners
what the move -ahead package was. Well, so the
move -ahead transportation package was adopted
in the previous biennium, although it's odd because
it was adopted during a short session. So now
I'm even struggling to kind of go back, let's
call it three years ago. And it was a 16 -year,
$17 billion package, included a whole bunch of
things, but that was kind of when Climate Commitment
Act had gone through the new funding related
to that. So just a whole bunch of things, transportation
projects, but a lot that was related to enhancements
and additional spending for transit. multimodal
uses and things like that. But what you saw was
just like the state operating budget as we've
kind of moved through these years and into this
current economy, we've had high inflation specifically
on projects. Costs related to completing projects
have gone up sort of astronomically. And so you
just saw what was originally adopted in terms
of anticipated costs for projects and programs,
coupled with that cost increase, you know, things
just got out of balance real quick. So they needed
to come back and readdress the decisions they
had made three years ago in the Move Ahead transportation
package with this budget to keep those things
balanced and in place and then take care of anything
new and additional that they still needed to
do. So the Move Ahead package. It included new
funding, but it also included a bunch of new
projects, right? Now, this budget does include
some new funding, in fact, several new funding
sources, but it's not quite the same as the move
ahead in that there's not a whole slate of new
projects, right? It's backfilling a lot of those
existing projects that had either where we've
seen actual revenue shortfalls or cost increases
or both, maybe with some new projects thrown
in at the same time. Is that what you're saying?
Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I think that's a fair estimation.
So focusing on those projects and programs that
were adopted in the move ahead transportation
package, making sure that there's enough funding
to keep the commitments that were already made
and complete the projects that were already put
forward. And then I would, I believe that yes,
some, some new things are added in this two year
budget to that. Although I will say that's not
my expertise, right? Like I don't. Because we
work for the Association of Counties, I tend
to work almost entirely on programs and revenues
that will equally impact and help counties. And
so I don't get too caught up or focused on individual
projects, as you can imagine. I focus on preservation
and maintenance funding that will go to each
of our counties to help fund and upkeep the existing
system we have. I work a lot on, and we'll get
into this, but fish barrier. Removal and culvert
replacements doesn't impact every county, but
almost all of our counties have those types of
projects. Safety funding is really a key, you
know, and critical thing for us. So I kind of
work on the more programmatic level of funding
that will benefit all the members. Well, let's
go over some of the details that affect counties
in this particular budget around transportation.
There's a new gas tax included here, right? Yep,
yep. They did a $0 .06 gas tax increase in this.
transportation. Okay. And that's just added to
all of the previous tax increases that we have
experienced over the years. Now, the last time
I checked, I thought like the each gallon of
gas was being taxed at like 56 cents or so. I
don't know how accurate that is, but if that
were accurate, then it's another six cents on
top of that, essentially taking it to 62 cents
per gallon. Is that right? Yeah. And I should
have come in here with that number and I apologize
for not, but I don't think you're far off. for
some reason, 49 cents sticks in my head and then
adding the six on top of that, but we're close.
So whatever the number is. So it's, it's an,
in addition to what already exists, all the taxes
that are being paid on every gallon of gas. And
then this one's a little bit different, right?
Doesn't it have some sort of annual adjustment
where it actually goes up every year? Yeah. So
that is, that's not how it's been done in the
past. And actually I need to double check this,
but I'm quite certain because I looked at this
the other day when we did the, the end of session
report and write -up. But it actually, I believe,
indexes the full amount of the gas tax at 2 %
each year starting, but I think it starts in
27. I think I'm right on that. So yes, it will
increase over time automatically. So you said
that's never been done before. Not with the gas
tax. Certainly, I mean, you could think of, and
I could think of other revenues where that's
kind of the case. And depending on who you're
talking to, it makes some sense given the issue
they're trying to correct with part of this is
the inflation we see, right? So as time passes,
costs go up, your revenues need to keep up with
those costs or you find yourself in a deficit
position. So this is how they address that. Is
it clear how they're going to implement that,
Axel? Because when I look at $0 .06, right, and
I say, okay, 2 % of $0 .06 is probably... so
many tenths or hundredths of a cent are they
saying is it geared so that it has to be rounded
up to the nearest cent so even though so so the
following year will go up to seven even though
that's way more than two percent of six cents
or is it on a per tenth or per hundredth of a
cent that accumulates as you're kind of pumping
gas into one penny or two pennies difference
over the entire you know say you know 10 or 15
or 20 gallons. Do we know how that's going to
work? Yeah, the bill's clear on that. And I can't
remember, you know, to your point. So again,
the 2 % increase is for the full amount of gas
tax. That's my understanding. When the bill speaks
to how to do the 2%. annual increase and how
to round it it's not to the cent it's probably
you know the 10th or the 100th i can't remember
okay but there's a specific line that i've read
there that does address you know when that occurs
it's to this you know to the nearest whatever
and so the indexing is not i just i want to clarify
something you just said that i wasn't clear on
the indexing that two percent per year growth
rate that's applied to the entirety of the gas
tax cumulative or just the six cents that was
added this year? I believe it's the cumulative.
I think cumulative is actually the word. And
so again, that was something I was going to double
check on, but I think in talking with the County
Road Administration Board, the way the current
bill, the transportation budget reads is the
2 % will apply and increase the cumulative amount
annually. Wow. Yeah. Which I would understand
to be the full amount. Now... The first time
I read it or in one version, I did think it was
just associated with the additional increment.
So the six cents or the original house proposal
had nine cents. And so one of those I thought
it was the incremental piece was increased. I
think currently though, and listeners will have
to forgive me if I've got this wrong, but I think
it's... I think we read it as the cumulative
amount will increase by 2%. Well, let's say it's
60 cents, 55 cents, whatever it may be with this
new 6 cents. 2 % of that is a big difference
between 2 % of the increase of 6 cents. That's
going to make a huge amount of revenue difference
over time. That is really interesting. You know,
this was something that really kind of flew under
the radar this year. And I think it was because
of all the hubbub around, you know, the up to
$16 billion deficit in the four -year budget
outlook that the operating budget. was trying
to deal with that really took a lot of attention
as i said you know kind of sucked the air out
of every room and and this whole transportation
funding issue and a new increase in gas taxes
really wasn't well reported and wasn't extensively
discussed outside of kind of the transportation
i don't know what do you want to say the the
transportation caucus yeah on transportation
and it's funny because you know you and i we
you know, we're across the hallway from each
other, but you're working often, you know, on
operating budget and stuff. And so it's funny
to kind of listen to you say that. Cause I'm
like, that's all I work on. So it's like, man,
I saw, you know, lots of articles that were talking
about the gas tax increase and what to expect.
And, you know, it's just kind of what you're
paying attention to. Yeah. Most people weren't
paying attention to it. I think that's what's
fascinating about it is that, you know, most
of the time in most years, if a transportation
tax. like a gas tax were being proposed as an
increase, it'd get a lot of attention. And it'd
be really controversial. And this year it wasn't
the case. And then they've added this 2 % inflator
to it on an annual basis. And if that applies
to the cumulative amount of gas tax that's being
tacked on to every gallon rather than just the
increase, that's a big difference, right? One
versus the other. And it's probably the most
regressive tax. that they could have potentially
passed, which is also kind of fascinating when
you think about all the talk and discussion in
the legislature about how they want to change
and overturn the regressive nature of Washington
state's tax code. But at the end of the day,
they really fell back and relied. on probably
the most regressive one they possibly could have.
Yeah. I mean, I think, you know, it's got the,
it's got, gas tax has a couple of challenges.
I think you just mentioned one. I think another
one is, you know, the structural impact we're
seeing between what we're trying to do with improving
the environment and climate change by having,
you know, vehicles that use less fuel. So you've
got, we've got this problem with gas tax that
whereas we get higher gas mileage, we have declining.
need for fuel and so declining revenue. So it's
got that challenge as well, structurally. Sure.
But it also has a very clear and clean nexus
to the road, right? So it's like you're putting
fuel in your car to travel on the road. And because
you're doing that, you should help pay for the
preservation and maintenance of the road. And
so, I mean, I think, and it's also something
that's been around. So we'll probably get into
maybe the road usage charge idea, which did come
through, you know, committee and both the Senate
and the House with bills this year. But it's
clear there's still a lot of work to do on the
idea of transitioning away from a gas tax to
something else because people are so used to
the gas tax. And it's very efficient to collect.
I also want to jump back in here because I did
check the bill. I didn't want to give bad information
here. I think the current version of the bill
says beginning July 1st, 2026. So that'd be the
year after the increase is imposed. The fuel
tax rates imposed under subsection one through
nine. So the new six cents is actually, I believe,
subsection nine. That's the new six cents. But
all of the previous ones, I think, would be one
through nine. must be increased annually by 2%.
So I do think that - So it is the cumulative
amount. That cumulative amount. And then to your
other question, it says, and the resulting fuel
tax rate must be rounded to the nearest 100th
of the dollar. Okay. So there you go. So that's
interesting. What I think is challenging about
the gas tax, and I agree with you, easy to collect,
definite nexus, right? You can draw a direct
line between gas tax and road maintenance and
the need for more travel corridors, et cetera,
right? As people drive more, we need more. As
people drive more, we need greater maintenance.
We need more funding. There's wear and tear.
Things need to be replaced, et cetera. And the
transportation system is a really important part
of our economy. for sure, and our quality of
life here in the Northwest. In fact, people would
argue it's probably a detriment to a lot of the
things that we enjoy here in the Northwest because
our transportation system does get bogged down
a lot. We are one of the more congested places
in the United States, if not the world. But when
we think about all that, I think that while I
acknowledge those things are true, one of the
challenges that the gas tax really has is that
everybody pays the same. Right. And in fact,
if you can't afford a more efficient vehicle,
you pay more. If you have a vehicle that is twice
the price of someone else's, you don't pay more.
It's exactly the same. Right. Because it's on
a per gallon basis. You know, all of the things
remaining equal. Now, are there other things
that they did to maybe equalize that a little
bit so that those who, you know, can afford to
pay more are paying more in the system or or
was no. Were there no major changes in that regard
this year? You know, one area that I always am
interested in is electric cars, right? Because
they're obviously not paying for gas or a lot
less gas, but still. having an impact on roadways.
Did they do anything there? They ended up not.
There was proposals to do both, I would say,
like a starter or a process to implement the
road usage charge, which certainly would have
got to those types of higher vehicle miles. In
fact, the initial bills that have proposed. putting
a road usage charge in place have started with
sort of voluntary opting in with electric vehicles
and then becoming more mandatory. Another proposal
was going to increase the fee for both electric
vehicles and hybrids. Those ideas did not move
forward in the current package of fee increases.
They did increase weight fees. There is certainly
to get away from or towards. The regressive issue
that you're raising, they did increase the sales
tax to help pay for this budget on vehicles.
So, you know, I guess you could argue the more
expensive the vehicle you're purchasing, maybe
the more sales tax, but they did an additional
luxury sales tax. So if you're buying a vehicle
that's over a certain amount, and I can't remember
the thresholds, but these would be very high
-end, nice vehicles, you know, $100 ,000. Those
types of vehicles saw an additional sales tax
as well, and I think RVs, things like that. So
they did try, I think, in some ways to get at
that regressive issue that you're speaking to
in this budget and kind of sort of place the
burden on folks that can afford. you know, higher
end things. Okay. Sounds like there's still a
lot of work to do there. You mentioned the ruck,
the road usage charge program that we've talked
about actually pretty extensively on this podcast
there that, that actually didn't move forward
this year at all, but there's some voluntary.
pieces to it? No, and we don't need to spend
a ton more time on it because I do think earlier
in session we discussed it when maybe the bills
came up for hearing. I think most notably for
the listeners right now is the current budget
did not move forward with any version of a road
usage charge. We'll have to kind of wait and
see kind of how the legislature and leadership
tackles that kind of going forward. The Transportation
Commission has been working on that for a long
time. And, you know, again, it's kind of, we'll,
we'll have, we'll have to wait and see that.
I do think later in session, they pivoted to,
you know, my words, maybe a, I don't know if
it's a better model or version or a, an interesting
one. Anyways, they, they did start talking later
in session about following the Virginia. So Virginia
has a road usage charge program that they've
just begun implementing. If you remember, a lot
of the primary issues around a road usage charge
were related to privacy and tracking. And just
like, so the opposite, well, we said with gas
tax, hey, you go, you buy your gas tax. It's
very simple to administer. The road usage charge,
unfortunately, is not like that. Well, what they
did in Virginia was they just said, look. We
have a lot more high mileage vehicles on the
road. Those vehicles are not paying their fair
share or enough for the road they're using. Right.
We're going to put a flat road usage charge fee
on top of every year. You're going to pay X amount
because if your vehicle gets over 25 miles per
gallon, you're not paying as much into the system
as everybody else. Wow. How much were they charging?
I can't remember. It's like part of their vehicle
registration fee or something. Yeah. I think
it was kind of tied to that. So like, you know,
each year. you've got that flat road usage charge
fee because you're not paying as much gas tax.
So that's just in place for everybody who has
a higher mileage vehicle. Now, the way they get
at the road usage charge, because again, there
are a lot of folks that they don't want to use
even the odometer or certainly not GPS tracking
or anything like that. Right. They said, we will
set up alongside of this program, a road usage
program where Folks can voluntarily opt in. So
again, if you're like, hey, I have a vehicle
that gets 35 miles to the gallon. I'm paying
this flat fee, but I'm driving very limited miles
a year. I shouldn't have to pay that much. You
can in Virginia, you opt into the road usage
program to show that you should actually pay
less and reduce your payment. So it's kind of
just a different model. I mean, that would be
the only incentive to opt into something that
was not part of Flappy. Yeah, exactly. Otherwise
you're paying the Flappy. So different version,
different model. But again, nothing went forward
with road usage charge in the current budget.
Okay. Well, interesting discussion about the
gas tax. Sounds like they still have a long way
to go around. reshaping and reforming based on
all the challenges that they're facing today,
how we fund our transportation system. Let's
move away from the budget for now anyways. What
sort of policy bills were you tracking this year
that had outcomes that we were hoping for? Yeah,
maybe we'll circle back to the budget and I'll
look at my sheet here and see if there's some
other things just I want to highlight before
we totally close. close the conversation on that.
But in terms of policy bills, there's always
a lot, right? So we're working from the beginning
of session just to see what's pre -filed and
then all the way through. So I kind of put my
bills that I track for infrastructure and transportation
into some different buckets. And so I look a
lot at public works procurement bills. And so
on behalf of the association, I'm looking for
anything that's going to kind of impact the way
that we purchase things or the way we contract.
or rules or legal changes that, you know, just
might change how we do. I know you work on collective
bargaining, but like, you know, prevailing wage,
apprenticeship utilization, small works roster,
you know, all those type of things. So there's
always a number of bills that we're tracking
on those. The ones I would mention in that area
this year are House Bill 1549, which two years
ago, we passed a statewide apprenticeship utilization
program. And so now for everybody, if you have
a project that's over $2 million, you need to
meet certain apprenticeship utilization requirements,
a certain percentage of apprentices and apprenticeable
hours on the project. This bill comes along after
that and makes some additional tweaks and requirements,
mainly for the contractors and for labor and
industries, but we also have some... some things
that we'll need to be doing there too, in terms
of receiving and reviewing apprenticeship utilization
plans. So I note that one first because it passed
and we had worked on it for a couple of sessions.
We also, there's a couple of other bills that
didn't pass, but I expect to be back. So 5176
was related to prompt pay and that's a policy
we support, but it's a bill that's really aiming
to get folks, particularly small subcontractors
paid on time. We've seen this one before, haven't
we? Yep. It's come through a few times and we've
worked on it. with other stakeholders. This bill
is less about the policy, which I think everybody
gets in the room and agrees on, and it's all
about the mechanics of how you ensure that prompt
pay will happen and how you write that into a
statute that ends up not being like too rigid.
Well, because there's subcontractors involved
sometimes and you got to get payment from them
before you can make payment to the others, et
cetera, et cetera. And we often don't have any
contractual relationship with a subcontractor.
We will contract with the prime contractor. And
so trying to get kind of into that detail. is
challenging. So that bill didn't ultimately pass,
although I thought it was. I thought I had a
good chance this session. And then 5061 is one
that is another one just like that. It requires
folks to get paid the current prevailing wage
at the time they do the work, which when you
say it like that, you're like, yeah, that makes
sense. It turns out, though, with how prevailing
wage is updated by labor and industries and kind
of how that comes in at the initial bid and time
of the project. And then, you know, when the
timing of review and all of these things, there's
a bunch of mechanics involved in that. Another
bill though, that I thought we did a ton of work
on, it was amended in a way that we were, we
ended up neutral, if not somewhat supportive
on that bill and we're okay with it, but it didn't,
didn't make it. Obviously for us, safety and
operations is kind of, we really look to those.
So we had some, some early bills this year. House
Bill 1145 was one that didn't get out of committee
but gave us a bunch of – I actually worked with
you on this, and we kind of wrote some letters
regarding it. But this bill would have kind of
really required us to collect and maintain records
related to almost any maintenance activity or
construction activity that we did. Obviously,
we don't have a problem with keeping records.
That's a big part of our job. We need to do that
for transparency. But this bill went really far
in terms of kind of what we had to track and
keep track of. And it would have really impacted.
Yeah, if I remember, it was even materials in
our own right of way that we were going to remove.
We would have to be able to tell people how much
we removed, where it went, what it's being used
for, all those sorts of things. And just kind
of went over the top, if I remember. I think
that's fair. And we were really worried about
it creating inefficiency in sort of our. Ordinary
operations, selling things down. So the bill
didn't get out of committee. Now, do you expect
this one to come back? You know, I don't know.
I don't think so. We did a lot of work with the
sponsor, with the proponents of the bill. And
I think that we can accomplish some of these
goals, hopefully without a piece of legislation.
So that would be my aim. Another bill for operations
was 5215. This was a bill that starting in 2028
would require all. loads of aggregate or gravel
or that kind of material to be covered. Sort
of a goal that we're okay with. Yeah, I'm kind
of surprised this one didn't pass. It seems like
a pretty easy bill. I thought it was going to
get there as well. We actually had it amended
to help us out in terms of a lot of things we're
doing on the road with preservation and maintenance
or working on a job site or those kind of activities.
That was our concern. I mean, from the county
road department perspective, our mission is to
be out there keeping the roadway safe. So we
just wanted a little bit more leeway to... not
tarp all of our trucks in every situation, which
the committee and the sponsor were good with.
Yeah, the bill, though, ultimately didn't make
it. So I do probably expect to see that one again.
Another operations one we had a big challenge
with initially was the surface mine reclamation
permit fee increase. As county public works departments,
we do a lot of preservation and maintenance work,
which means we use a lot of gravel and rock,
which means we have a lot of small surface mines.
And so this was going to increase the fee we
pay to the Department of Natural Resources. Currently
under the statute, a lot of our small mines,
because we don't sell any aggregate, right? We
have it because we use it to keep the roads up.
A lot of our smaller mines were waived or exempt
from the permit or the fee. And then some of
the ones that I'd call middle tier or a little
bit larger, they were capped at $1 ,000. And
this bill originally kind of wiped that away,
which we were worried about. But we were able,
through some work with the sponsors and the committees,
to get those put back. So the bill actually passed.
we were good with it. Safe excavation bill passed
as well. I think that's going to be a good thing.
Although we, it's a very technical bill that
amends the underground utility damage prevention
act. So anytime you're going to go out and dig.
And we need to do that in a way that's safe because
there are things buried in the ground like electrical
lines and gas lines. It's that process. Now,
when you say the safe excavation bill, you're
meaning 5627, right? Yep, Senate Bill 5627. And
it went through a lot of work and a lot of process,
a lot of stakeholdering. And so it changed a
lot of times. It was really a hard one to kind
of keep track of a little bit throughout session,
but ultimately did pass. And I think we're good
there. Now, we're going to have an end -of -session
report that's going to be a full write -up on
a lot more of these, Axel. And we don't have
a whole bunch of time today. But how do you think,
if you could just wrap it up in a couple of sentences,
how do you think this session went overall for
transportation issues for counties? I think it
went well. I mean, in any session like this where
you're coming in with a number of unknowns because
of the budget deficits the legislature is trying
to work through. Yeah. And that was true of the
operating budget and the transportation budget.
Well, and you don't even know if you're going
to be a target for some of those things that
they're trying to fix. Yeah. And this year was
particularly confusing because some of the solutions,
particularly on the Senate side, as you know,
they relied on each other. The budgets work together.
And in fact, this final transportation budget
relies on sales tax transfer, a pretty significant
one ongoing moving forward, which will bring
roughly $300 million from operating to the transportation
budget each year. So the budgets this year were
kind of relying on each other or some cooperation,
and we knew they had to address the revenue shortfall
that they faced. And so you just kind of, you
didn't know what to expect. So given that context,
I think coming away with, you know, the, with
the budget numbers being where they were, we
got some sharing of the gas tax. It wasn't a,
it wasn't a ton. It was two and a half percent,
but like you mentioned, it's indexed. That will
take us from five to 6 million in the first year,
you know, up to twice that much going out into
six years or 30, you know, 2031. So They recognized
our need as well in some way there. We were hoping
for more funding for fishberry removal projects,
but we got $32 million, which is maybe the second
highest award we've got. So there was some recognition
of the need for all those projects that we have
to do there. They included the federal fund exchange
pilot program through the next biennium, which
is something we worked on two bienniums ago.
Yeah, and that's just getting off the ground.
Yeah, we're still trying to make that function
in the right way. It'll be interesting with all
the changes going on at the federal level whether
there's any use for the federal fund transfer
program. And that's probably another podcast
you and I should have is kind of what – Or federal
fund exchange. As we transition out of the state
legislative session, starting now really to look
at what's happening. At the federal level. Yeah.
But there's some funding included in here for
safety. We got our biggest policy bill or priority
in transportation this year was trying to get
established the new county road board local access
program, local access road program. I didn't
say that right. And you and I talked in the podcast
prior about that. And Jane and I talked about
that, too. Jane, the executive director of Crab.
And we worked a lot on that bill. We wanted to
get it established with a bill. Unfortunately,
it didn't get through the floor cutoff, but it
is established. The program is in this budget,
the transportation budget. Unfortunately, not
funded until the next biennium. But I also consider
that a win in terms of just the structure and
the legislation. to recognizing sort of our need
for funding and then trying to create a balance
and sort of a well -rounded approach through
some gas tax sharing, the new local access program,
transportation improvement board is supposed
to get some more funding for complete streets
in the next biennium. So, you know, there's some
things in this budget definitely to like. And
so I think that's good. And we address the policy
bills, you know, my take on the policy bills
that we sort of faced in the first month of session
versus where we ended up. I feel like we really
were able to do some good work on the ones that
we were most concerned about. The ones we were
most concerned about didn't move on. The other
ones that we've been working on, and I feel like
we've got good relationships and we've done some
stakeholder things with, we got to neutral and
we were okay with, and we got some good. Good
bills passed. So I think policy -wise, we ended
up in a similar position to the budget, which
is pretty good. Pretty good overall. Well, Axel,
I hope you get a chance to take a little time
off and relax a little bit after a pretty intense
legislative session. I know everybody kind of
felt like this was a tough session compared to
many of the others that they've been in. A lot
of challenges to overcome. It was a pretty emotional
session this year with the loss of some key legislators.
It was. Senator Ramos was a big part. of the
Senate Transportation Committee. And I know that
you knew him and worked with him. That was a
big and very unexpected loss right towards the
end of session that created even more challenge,
I think, for people as they were trying to focus
on the task at hand and set aside some of those
emotions, which is difficult for us to do, especially
when you know someone on a personal level. So
hopefully you'll get a chance to... Reflect a
little bit, maybe congratulate yourself a little
bit for a job well done. I certainly enjoyed
working with you. And I look forward to doing
this again in just a couple of months, it sounds
like. Yeah, I appreciate it too, Paul. And I
think, you know, hopefully you get the same some
time off. And I know I work right across from
you. So I appreciate your guidance during session.
And I appreciate how hard you work on behalf
of the association and helping us as staff. Yeah.
So I would like to, you know, thank you as well.
And, and maybe we'll get to do this here in a
couple of weeks and talk maybe about some changes
at the federal level that are impacting us moving
forward. the updates of what's happening. Hopefully,
it'll be good news. Or if it's not good news,
hopefully, it won't be terrible news. And with
this budget package and what's going on there,
we can continue to push things forward from a
transportation basis. That's the one thing in
Washington state is we can't afford to go. We
can't afford to go backwards. That goes without
saying, but we can't afford to just stay in the
same place with our transportation either. I
mean, we're growing. population here a significantly
growing population especially uh in the puget
sound region along the i -5 corridor and and
not making progress and not making more investments
really is unacceptable i think uh from a whole
variety of different perspectives uh not least
of which our economy here so it's so critical
to everything that we do and that's true in our
counties too yeah yeah all right well thanks
axel have a good weekend buddy and we'll see
you next week okay okay 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.