Is there anything that will humble a man more
thoroughly and relentlessly and anything other?
I mean, besides a wife. I mean, besides that,
I mean, but then golf. But then I'd put golf
there. I don't know. I hope your wife does. Oh,
I think it's pretty safe. She's not listening
to these podcasts. 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. Back
here in the studio, giving you some of the latest
information, I guess, or maybe wrap up information
on the legislative session. Session ended on
April 27th. That was last Sunday, four days ago.
And Brad, you've had four days to reflect. You've
had four days to think about it. How'd the session
go for you? You know, it ended on time. So for
me, that was... That was a big win. Well, we
weren't sure that was going to happen. I know.
And my birthday was on the 28th. So, like, for
me, it was like... Your birthday was the day
after? Yeah. I didn't even know. Well, so, you
know, what's funny about that is... Happy birthday,
Brad. Thank you. But more often than not, during
these long sessions, I've had signee dies on
my birthday. Yeah, but you have. That April 28th
date tends to just... So, you end up working
on that day. I do, usually. So, this was like
a funny little, like, ooh, hey. Which was weird
because the session felt like it started a little
later this year. Okay, what did you get for your
birthday? Now that we know it was after, other
than a session that ended on time. So this is
funny because of what we were just bantering
about. We went up to Topgolf. Oh, you did? We
did, yeah. And just messed around at Topgolf.
Well, that's fun. Yeah, it was fun. Just the
kids. I was going to say, you have kids, right?
Yeah, two girls and my wife and we just kind
of... Yeah. Did they have a good time? They did.
Yeah, it was great. You know, we like to do the
little game thing, you know, the Angry Birds
or whatever. Yeah, that's fun. It was pretty
fun. And beat me regularly. I'm convinced. Deservedly
so. Well, but I'm convinced that Topgolf is not
designed. You know, you go up there trying to
hit it seriously and then you look at it and
if you're in a serious state of mind while you're
trying to knock something down in a virtual Angry
Bird world, right, you're not going to succeed.
No. So the kids go up there. They just whack
away. With the video game mentality and all of
a sudden, yeah, are just. Yeah, so I just ate
some buffalo wings. Speaking of being humbled
and just let it all go. But, yeah, no, it was
fun. It was a beautiful day. We got great weather.
Yeah. It was a good weekend. We've had a couple
of really good weeks here as far as weather -wise
in Olympia. No real rain to speak of. Yeah, we're
getting baked out, I think, though. Yeah, I think
it's fall, spring. Yeah, and then junior area
will return. And we'll just be stuck until the
4th of July or whatever. Yeah, that could be.
I guess we'll see. Well, geez, happy birthday.
Well, thanks, yeah. You want to share how old
you are? I'm 46. 46? 46, I know. I still got
you by a few years. Yeah, at least. At least
a few. Don't make it sound like it's that many.
I'm just, you know, listen. You know, mine's
coming up pretty soon. When's yours? I'm not
telling you, but it's coming up soon. So I'm
going to take another leap on you pretty soon,
unfortunately. Well, that's all right. Happy
birthday, and I'm glad that the session ended.
And happy signing day to you. Yeah. Glad we're
done. We had a good session. Happy signing day
to us all, right? Yeah, no. In all seriousness,
I think it was a remarkably good session. Yeah,
I was going to ask you for kind of your gauge
on it. Do you think things went well? I do. I
mean, it was a hard session, I think, actually.
You know, every single person has said that.
Yeah, it was a... And I don't think it's just
conjecture. No, no, there was something, there
was a bit of a grind on this one. Yeah, you've
been around for a while. Yeah, you've been doing
this for a while. This is one of the more difficult
ones that I can remember. It was. I mean, and
I'm not, I don't know if I can put my finger
on why. I'm not I'm not 100 percent sure why,
because I don't feel like it was like, you know,
that many more bills than normal or. In fact,
I think it was maybe a little maybe a little
less. Yeah, I mean, one thousand nine hundred.
It was a challenging budget, but not a you know,
I mean, so I don't know. It's unclear to me.
It'll take a little time, I think, to sort of
fully kind of get a sense of maybe why it felt
so. so much more challenging than previous sessions.
But I will say the reward was a lot of good work
happened and we got a lot of good things done.
And, you know, I think both in the areas that
I was working on, but broadly as an association,
I think we did really well this year. And, you
know, it speaks to your leadership, but a great
team. I mean, I think we all worked really well
together and I think we got some cool stuff done.
So it was as difficult as it was, it was a rewarding
year, I think, to be working. working the county
issues. Yeah, you know, I think it was too. And
the team came together really well. I'm sure
I'm sure in spite of the leadership. Thank you
for that comment. You know, when we were at our
last LSC meeting, I think it was the last one
we were given our updates. And what did you say?
You said the good bills have passed the bad bills.
and to my fellow colleagues here at WASAC, that's
how it's done. Oh, yeah, that was my little,
my arrogant moment of just total hubris. But,
you know, you were speaking truth. I mean, you
were preaching the truth. That's really what
happened this year with your policy area. Generally
speaking, yeah. I mean, so for in the areas of
public safety, behavioral health, human services.
you know, it was, and there was a mix of some
really good bills and some really bad bills and
kind of everything in between. And yeah. And
by the end of session, the right stuff had filtered
through and the, and the bad stuff had, had not
quite made it. So it was, yeah, like I said,
it was, it kind of sat there on that last, last
day of, you know, kind of getting bills out and
was kind of going, wow, we got all this stuff
done. Yeah. Assuming they get signed by the governor.
Yeah. I mean, you know, after such a tough session
that, you know, it was only 105 days. I know.
Just like every other long. session, but boy,
it felt longer, didn't it? It did. I don't know
if it's just because it started late and then
finished, you know, all the way at the end of
April versus, you know, kind of more the mid
April. Speaking of the governor, I think part
of the, I think. having a governor change was
maybe a bit of it. That was a big change. I think
there, because I think everybody was sort of
put on tilt a little bit by that. I don't mean
it, you know, in a good way or bad way. I just
mean just a new way. It was a new way, right?
All of a sudden the agencies were interacting
differently. We had new people we had to get
to know over in that shop. They were approaching
issues differently. And it wasn't business as
usual when you got a $16 billion budget deficit.
That's right. And on top of that, it was a challenging,
right. A challenging budget environment. So yeah,
I mean, I think I do think there were things.
You know, we've been kind of, I think, to some
degree, I mean, if we take the pandemic out of
it a little bit, but for the last 12 years have
been in a relatively, we've kind of been in a
groove, I think, right? The legislature was in
a groove. I think lobby, you know. organizations
and lobby groups were in a groove. I mean, we
all just kind of going through the motions doing
our stuff. And this year felt different. I mean,
clearly there were new issues, there were new
topics, new conversations, and new voices. We
had a really new legislature on top of that,
right? We had a lot of new members, both in the
House and the Senate. So yeah, it just felt new
and different. but also kind of long and grueling
at the same time. Very true. You know, we have
a lot of new members here at WASAC as well. Likewise.
Yeah. Right. And we entered the session with
a, probably the most. most robust, most, gosh,
what other word would I use? Challenging legislative
priority list that I can remember ever. Myself,
yeah, likewise. I don't know that I can remember
that many things on the wish list before. We
introduced like 20 bills this year. Now, a lot
of those were companions. It's a little crazy.
But that's, yeah. I gotta be honest. I mean,
that's a lot of bills. That's a lot of bills
for any organization to try to do that. I can't
even believe we got them all. We got them all.
introduced. Yeah, right. Because you've got to
find a sponsor for every single one of them.
You should have figured there was at least a
third of those that weren't even going to get
out of the gate. Yeah, but that's not what happened.
We got every single one of those bills introduced.
Now, some of them... barely quickly they got
introduced and that was about it right but but
that wasn't true for your priority well and if
they stumble they're still alive right we're
beginning of a biennium that's true so nothing
nothing's you know they're still there ready
for next year that's right yeah so yeah so but
let's talk about 1813 yeah so 1813 that we came
into session um with a pretty heavy bill uh for
behavioral health really designed to try to kind
of push two envelopes both one in terms of And
we've talked about it before on this podcast,
but really trying to revamp kind of the way the
crisis system, behavioral health crisis system
is. not only funded, but sort of how the contractual
obligations that come from the state are arranged
and what voices are a part of the process of
figuring out how to, you know, what services
are needed, where they're needed, how we deal
with better funding models, etc. It was a bill
designed to do to really push the envelope in
terms of getting a statewide re -procurement.
accomplished, as well as another component that
would have done what's called a carve -out for
crisis systems. So it would have carved out Medicaid
crisis dollars specifically for BHASOs, Behavioral
Health Administrative Services Organizations,
which are essentially the sort of county body.
Now, this isn't the first time we've talked about
re -procurement though, right? No. We had a previous
bill, 1515, a couple of years ago. We did and
asked that re -procurement. The 1515 legislation
was, it had re -procurement in it, but it was
more focused on network adequacy right and access
so it was really like trying to figure out but
those two things are related right they are 100
related and that's why i think we came back with
1813 is because we felt like we didn't see enough
action and results from 1515. And I will say
from the legislators we worked with and other
partners up there, that frustration wasn't just
ours, right? There were a lot of folks that were
feeling that way. Yeah. You know, it surprises
me every time we go up and we talk about these
behavioral health bills, how engaged some of
the legislators really are in a really difficult
subject area. You know, there are other subject
areas as well, you know, like water resources,
for instance, that I've worked in. in or on a
lot in the past. And the legislators who can
really speak that issue fluently and well are
few and far between. And they really start to
be looked, their caucuses look at them, right?
And so look to them to kind of be the experts
on it because it is complicated and hard to understand.
For sure. And so they become not just, you know,
kind of the key legislators. from the point of
view of being able to articulate issues and explain
them to their caucus, but they really become
the de facto leaders on that issue where people
defer to their judgment and their votes are based
on those folks' opinions. They make or break
or build those individuals. They do. And when
we're talking behavioral health... I've noticed
that the bench, so to speak, in the legislature
for folks who are engaged in a meaningful way
and can really understand and discuss the behavioral
health system, right? The service system in Washington
state and the problems associated with it has
grown. It has. It definitely has. Which is very
nice to see. It is. It's wonderful. I mean, and
in fact, you know, there have been times in past
sessions where it felt like, you know, I've been
doing this lobbying for this type of work for
a while. while now. And sometimes it felt like
I was, you know, it was like, am I the only voice
up here? Yeah, you're an island of one. Talking
into the wind, kind of, you know? No, I felt
the same way on other issues. Exactly. Yeah.
I mean, I'm sure it's not exclusive to my work,
but that was different. That has changed. You
know, and I do a shout out to our sponsor on
1813. I mean, Representative Nicole Macri, who
is one of those, who is a leader, both in terms
of her caucus, but just sort of, you know. statewide
as it relates to understanding behavioral health
issues and not just behavioral health, but sort
of all the parts that intersect with behavioral
health. And she worked really hard to help us
get this bill through. And so, you know, without
her, we would have... we would have stumbled
harder, I think along the way. But, but yeah,
no, I mean, I do think, you know, it's a good,
it's a good, I think there've been some good
movement from the house to the Senate. The Senate
was one area in particular that had a pretty,
pretty small bench of folks that engaged on this
stuff. And then the house has continued to grow,
I think in terms. And the nice part about behavioral
health is very often it's bipartisan. And so
you're able to bring in, yeah, which is a nice
part about that issue is you really do bring
in both Democrats and Republicans who care about
this issue. Oftentimes, their ideas for how to
fix stuff isn't that far apart. They might have
nuances and some slight... differences in um
in the technical parts of it but for the most
part everybody's kind of pushing in the same
direction uh which which also makes it nice you
know other than maybe taxes and law enforcement
to be honest with you most issues in the legislature
the two sides aren't that far apart i agree especially
when you start talking about people who know
the issue yeah and they and they get into the
technical aspects of it a lot of it is there's
less partisanship baked into those issues that
I think most people realize. Yeah, I think you're
right. I think most people think it's far more
partisan than it is. Although, you know, it's
not without. No, it's definitely not without.
The partisanship rears its head at various points.
Yep. And that's just part of politics, right?
It is, 100%. Yeah. Yeah, that's just part of
it. Part of what you deal with, yeah. But it
was great to see the cooperation on both sides
of the aisle in this bill. Yes. And I just wanted
to comment, you know, and I think that a lot
lot of that's due to the work that you've done
uh and others in kind of your space but also
just you know kudos to the legislature for digging
in on a pretty tough issue 100 and you know it's
funny i mean just about every legislator who
spoke on this bill whether it was in a committee
or on the floor i mean they kind of reference
that that these these these are These are complicated
issues, hard issues. They affect a lot of people,
oftentimes really vulnerable people. And as we've
talked about, intersect a lot of parts of the
system. And really, I think there was a lot of
really earnest effort by legislators to try to
continue to push something. In fact, there was
just an article in The Seattle Times today that
had a number of bills listed. of of issues around
the mental health behavioral health space yeah
i read that article right that the legislature
dug in on i mean 1813 was listed among them but
i think you continue to see it is a bipartisan
priority up there uh with with the legislature
and they they take it seriously now this bill
took a bit of a journey this year right because
it was a little bit of an odyssey well it started
out the way that you described it all those pieces
yep but it ended up It ended up different. I
don't want to say a lot different, but I mean,
it did end up different, right? Yeah, it was
a bit of a horse of a different color by the
time it finished. It's not unusual for a bill
to get amended, right? Stakeholders weigh in.
I mean, the person who writes the perfect bill
on a controversial issue the first time right
out of the gate, first of all. doesn't exist
that never happened waiting to see that yeah
the only perfect bills are the ones that are
so benign right that almost no one cares they're
joint memorials right it's it it is so rare for
a bill to get technical fix yeah right it's so
rare for a bill to actually get through both
houses without becoming substitute or second
and gross substitute or third and you know substitute
and gross third substitute house bill or whatever
it's i think it's rare for a bill to get through
both house both chambers either way right much
less in the anywhere near its original but yeah
but without even minor amendments second third
substitute it's so rare right with eight strikers
on it between now and whatever yeah so so Tell
us about the journey of this bill. Yeah. So where
the bill started, like I said, it started with,
I think, a pretty big scope of requiring, with
some hard dates, a re -procurement for Medicaid
managed care in Washington state, as well as
a carve out, as we discussed, for Medicaid enrollees
who are being served in the crisis side of the
system. So basically what that would have done
is shifted dollars and responsibility away from
the Medicaid managed care organization. Over
to the BHA, so those behavioral health administrative
services organizations, essentially the counties
in a much more meaningful way for them to sort
of manage those dollars and serve those people.
The bill went through a number of iterations.
Every time the counties engage on a behavioral
health issue, we almost always attract our friends
at the tribes who want to come in and also take
an opportunity to make sure that they're part
of the system because their system operates slightly
differently. But a lot of times, you know, in...
counties in a regional ways. They're a partner,
a strong partner in a lot of this work. So they
took an opportunity to make some changes and
ask for some things in this bill as well as a
vehicle, which was fine. Didn't have any problem
with that. And it was complimentary, I think,
to where we were trying to go. But then we did
run into some issues really around funding became
a problem. The budget constraints started to
impact this bill primarily because asking and
requiring the health care authority to do certain
things was going to cost money. Would it cost
new money? And then In addition to that, this
carve -out idea that we discussed would have
required some new additional state dollars to
make it work, to sort of help. There would have
been a reserve requirement that the BHA SOs would
have had to maintain that would have probably
required some new money to make that happen.
And so that really, I think, started to change
the dynamic of what we could ask for and what
we could expect. And so by the time the bill
ended up, we do have some good language still
in terms of pushing towards a re -procurement,
which we know is on the horizon. Yeah, the new
one requires HCA to prepare for a re -procurement
by what, 2027? July 1, maybe? Yep, July. Not
only prepare, but also consult with interested
or relevant stakeholders, right? So for partners
in the system, and specifically calls out counties.
So that's as far as the bill goes, right? On
the re -procurement. Yeah, it doesn't actually
say, okay, it doesn't say prepare by July 1,
2027, and then... implement it just says prepare
for it does so are we kind of anticipating maybe
another trailer bill after that you know it's
it's funny i mean well i i think we're gonna
have to think through that a bit i think we're
gonna have to talk to the new to the governor
the new you know, the new governor's office as
they get themselves underway. I think part of
the other issue that this bill ran into is we
were going to have a new agency leadership at
the health care authority. And so there was some
hesitation to do too many dramatic things without
having new leadership there sort of buying into
it, right, instead of walking in on it and sort
of, you know. And I think the other elephant
in the room, just to be honest, is there's a
lot of concern around what's happening at the
federal level. And people are concerned around
making too many big changes to any part of the
Medicaid program. when we're uncertain what things
will look like coming down from the federal government.
And I think that's a viable concern. I don't
think that's without merit. But it did also create
a bit of a... chilling effect, I think, on some
of the stuff we were trying to do. Yeah. And
that Medicaid discussion has been all over the
map. You know, we went back to D .C. Gosh, I
think it was in March for the NACO legislative
conference. And it was one of the main topics
of conversation. NACO was very concerned about
it. We talked with a lot of the Congress members
that we met with there that day when we were
on the Hill. They were very concerned about it,
but nobody had a lot of good information. Jamie
just recently did one of our virtual sessions
with members to kind of give them an update on
what was happening with public health funding.
I think Medicaid was a part of that. And then
I think recently in the news within the last
week, Trump came out and said he would veto any.
proposal to cut Medicaid funding to the states,
which really surprised me. Did that surprise
you? It did, especially since I think what we've
seen sort of leaking out from the administration
and certainly from Congress, I think, you know,
was not in that vein. At all. At all, right.
I mean, so yeah, I don't know. I mean, I've heard
a number of things. And, you know, you know this
as well as I do, the pace at which the feds operate
versus state, right? They're glacial compared
to us. So, you know, we've got a number of months
to go, I think, before we'll start to see how
this is shaking out. But I do think, you know,
Medicaid is one of those issues that, you know,
when Medicaid expansion happened across the country,
it wasn't just blue states that did that, right?
There were a lot of red states that took advantage
of Medicaid expansion. And I think they are concerned
as well, right, that that cuts to Medicaid, regardless
of where you sit on the political ideology, ideological
spectrum, you know, have significant impacts
to students. state governments and to the folks
they serve. On a per capita basis. On a per capita
basis, right. The red states are actually more
dependent on Medicaid. Oh, 100%. Yeah, 100%.
Yeah. So again, I mean, it's an interesting sort
of political dichotomy that's been set up, I
think, a little bit in terms of... where they'll
have to go and where we'll have to see. I would
not be surprised to see the legislature come
back in a special session this year, at least
once, maybe more, as we see things roll out at
the federal level. And I think the governor has
already said he's willing to do that. You just
uttered the two words that aren't allowed in
this podcast. Sorry. You know what those words
are, do you? Special session. No, you did it
again. Sorry, sorry. The session that shall not
be named. Right, the session that won't happen.
Well, yeah, so we'll see on that. But yeah, no,
so this bill ended up in a good place. I mean,
I think there's still some good delegation authority
that this is going to require for managed care
to have to work more closely with the counties
and BHA SOs to make things work. It has some
other components in there of some things that
we had been wanting to get done. So I think it's
overall a good win for the association and for
the behavioral health system sort of writ large.
But there's more work to do. Yeah, more work
to do long term, more work to do short term.
Yeah, both. A lot of it. uncertainties out there
that could affect it one way or the other that's
right you know another one that you worked on
that i wanted to talk about today that had a
bit of a journey this year but ended up being
a major piece of legislation that kind of came
out of nowhere that we didn't expect at the beginning
of the session was 2015 yeah house bill 2015
or 2015 yeah and you were you were the lead on
that um i was yeah i was involved very early
on and got the very first briefing then i said
oh brad this one's gonna be all yeah i think
we went to that briefing together or there There
was something up on the Hill I remember you and
I went to in one of those early meetings. In
the House Rules meeting, I think, with a whole
bunch of people. And then when you texted me,
I'm out of here. Go get them. I was like, okay,
here we go. Yeah, it was an interesting bill.
We've talked about it before. Public safety really
became quickly a dominant area of conversation
within the legislature this year. Well, driven
in large part by the governor, right? 100%. And
as we've also talked about before, in a much
different way. than public safety and law enforcement
had in previous sessions, right? Very much. This
was much more of a supportive type of tone in
terms of how do we come in. And I agree with
you 100%. I mean, the governor definitely laid
that tone down. He came in with a very clear
request that he wanted $100 million for law enforcement,
for locals to be able to hire new law enforcement,
and to build up the public safety system at the
community level. Legislature, I think, was pretty
suspect of that, kind of right out of the gate.
Well, let's be honest, you know, facing a $16
billion budget. Apart from the money stuff. Asking
for $100 million in new funding was no small
thing. No, and I think to the legislature, not
only did it ruffle their feathers from a precedent
standpoint where they have not. before spent
money to fund local law enforcement activities.
We talked a lot about that. Exactly. And then
on top of that, there had been, you know, we're
just a couple of years removed from when people
were walking around talking about defunding police.
Right. So this was a pretty big change. And then,
then like you said, there was probably some in
the legislature that thought it was a bit tone
deaf to come in on with that kind of an ask in
a budget year like this. So yeah, it was pretty
interesting. There were a number of bills that
sort of started out in that process, both in
the house and the Senate, and they sort of distilled
down. into this one bill by the end that had
multiple components in it, including a grant
program that the governor was requesting up until
the final budget. We had not seen anything above
a $20 million kind of investment mark. I know.
I was shocked to see the $100 million. I was
shocked, too. That was one of the first things
I looked for when I opened the budget, and I
just went, holy cow, they did it. Yeah, they
gave the governor his full request. Yep. So that'll
be fascinating to see how that... rolls out and
what that looks like. It has a three -year expiration
date on it based on the legislation. But yeah,
it's there. And, you know, it'll be really interesting
to see how counties and cities try to take advantage
of that. It's important to note that it's not
it doesn't have to be used just for law enforcement,
you know, hiring new deputies or whatever. There's
a lot of a lot of allowable uses within the criminal
justice and public safety space, which I think
is pretty interesting. Well, let's talk about
that because the. Isn't it the grant program
can only be used for law enforcement, but the
one -tenth of 1 % sales tax that's part of 2015
can be used more flexibly? Or both allowed to
be used more flexibly? Yeah, both can be used
flexibly, actually. Oh, they can? Yeah. And I
think that was an important, particularly from
the House Democrats, I think that was an important
component that they really wanted there to be
an option for how folks, or some flexibility
in terms of how folks use this money. And they
were really, I think, thinking about it less
in terms of law enforcement and more in terms
of public safety broadly, right? Criminal justice
purposes, as the bill states, right? And so there's
a big definition in the bill around what that
means, right? And all the allowable things. And
it is a pretty broad spectrum of stuff, both
for the 110th component, which we haven't talked
about quite yet, but within the grant. Now, to
get a grant, you'll have to have already passed
a 110th. uh, for public safety in some capacity
at the local level, uh, which the majority of
counties have at this point. So you don't necessarily
have to have passed this new one. That was just
to talking about it to another lobbyist about
this the other day. So no, the way it's listed
is you don't have to pass, you don't have to
have passed this one, uh, but you do have to
previous a previous, yeah, a previous one 10th
earlier versions of the bill had required that
you pass the tax before you were eligible for
the grant. Right. So this is, As long as you've
passed a tax. Okay. And then in addition, you
do have to meet a number of requirements. Yeah,
around policies and training and those sorts
of things. A variety of things that the legislature
wanted to, you know, this money did not come
without strings. And is there a matching requirement
for the grant? There is not. So no matching requirement.
No. It's good for three years? Good for three
years. And it's $100 million? It's $100 million,
yes. Okay. Pretty large infusion of funds into
the system. Now, of course, it's not $100 million
for every jurisdiction. Nope. All the jurisdictions
being cities and counties will have to. That's
right. Everybody will be. There'll be a food
fight. Are other jurisdictions that have law
enforcement agencies also eligible, like universities,
for instance? You know, that's a good question.
I actually don't know that. I don't believe so.
It's pretty explicitly just says cities and counties.
I don't think there's any reference to now that
you say that. I mean, at first I thought that
was a good question, but now that not that it
was a bad question. What are you trying to say?
No, but it almost caught me up there for a minute.
But as thinking now, the bill is not written.
in that way. It is cities and counties. Let's
dive into the one -tenth authority for new sales
tax. Brian Enslow and I were just talking about
this a little earlier today because we were doing
a deep dive into the budget. So we're talking
about the new revenue sources. And we mentioned
2015 and the fact that it is an additional one
-tenth of 1%. You get councilmanic authority
through 2028. After that, it would have to be
approved by the voters. And it is stackable.
That's right. And so we kind of talked about
that. And just to clarify for everybody, in case
you didn't hear the other podcast, stackable
means the city has the opportunity to impose
a one -tenth, but so does the county. And if
both the city and the county do it, then within
the cities that do so, it would be two -tenths
on all taxable sales within the jurisdiction
of the city. The county would get their full
one -tenth. The city would get theirs. And I'll
just say, I'm glad you talked about that with
Brian because I don't want to. I don't want to
get into that. Well, you're about to. Oh boy,
here we go. Because there was one thing we couldn't
settle. He is the guru on this stuff. He knows
this stuff inside and out. So there was one thing
we couldn't settle. And I know that you were,
because you and I talked about this extensively
during the session. Sure, sure. You were in on
the negotiations with the cities around, because
they wanted to do revenue sharing. They had some
revenue sharing ideas and other things that we
were able to kind of fend off. And there was
a question at some point as to whether or not
we were going to stack or if the city imposed.
it within the city jurisdiction did that eliminate
the county's authority to impose it within you
know the city etc yeah um so you were involved
in most of those discussions one thing that brian
and i kind of got wrapped around the axel on
um was okay the county gets the full 110th in
the county right the county gets the full 110th
it imposes also on taxable sales in the city
the city can authorize a one -tenth, but does
the county get 15 % of the city's one -tenth
like it gets of the other sales taxes that the
city collects? I don't believe so. Okay. It's
a good question. I had thought about that during
the conversations. I don't believe that's the
case. Did it come up during the conversations?
Sort of. It sort of came up, especially when
the cities were asking for some revenue sharing
from our option. And like you mentioned, there's
sort of a historical precedence for both sides
to sort of take a piece of each other's action,
for lack of a better term. There really isn't
any of that in this bill for the most part. I
think that's partly why there was a desire to
potentially put in more of the component. of
House Bill 5775, which I think was more explicit
on those pieces. But that wasn't built in. And
so I think in the end, I think this is very much
your revenue is your revenue. What you impose
is what you impose, and you get to keep it. That
seems fair. It does. But a little different than
past bills, I think, in this space. Yeah. We
just weren't sure, being that kind of the normal
operational kind of standard is, City collects
sales tax and the county gets 15 % of the city's
share. Yeah, exactly. And it's funny. I mean,
and maybe some of this will – I say some of this.
I mean, even as it relates to the grant, right?
I mean, CJ, Criminal Justice Training Commission
is going to have to do a lot of work in terms
of eligibility and rolling grants out, et cetera.
So there's stuff that remains to be seen, I guess,
is the bottom line with some of this. I think
there are some vagaries in the bill like what
we just talked about that – Maybe they were operating
from assumptions or maybe they weren't. I don't
know. So the intent – there was no discussion
that I remember of the legislature making that
as part of their sort of intent language for
how this was going to work. We'll see as taxes
start getting passed and how it shakes out. How
the distribution actually happens. Yeah, and
if fights start to happen and whether the bill
has to have some cleanup next year or not. We'll
see. But as I read it right now, that's not built
in. How quickly can counties and cities take
action on this bill? As soon as they can attest
to their – to be eligible to pass the tax councilmanically,
you do have to show that you can meet the conditions
for having received – to receive a grant. So
you don't have to get a grant, but – You have
to show that you would be eligible to receive
a grant and meet these criteria. So whether you
get a grant or not, if you want to impose the
new tax, you have to meet the grants. You have
to still be able to meet the grant requirements,
which most the vast majority of jurisdictions
should be able to do so. But as soon as you can
offer that attestation. You're good to go. I
mean, so as soon as your jurisdiction can throw
it up, wants to take action on it, you're free
to do so. I mean, once the bill is obviously
enacted. That said, there is a 12 -month cooling
off period for any jurisdiction that has – well,
actually just counties. This was an issue I took
a little umbrage of during session but didn't
get resolved. But basically that counties who
have tried to pass a public safety tax by a public
vote and it has failed within the last – 12 months
well i think within the last 12 months yeah so
it's within the last 12 months um can't take
action on the tax for that 12 -month period,
basically. I think that's better than the original
version. The original was two years. Which would
have made some ineligible for utilizing the councilmatic
authority the way that it was originally. It
would. It would have complicated, particularly
for a couple counties. So this was much more
palatable. I had issues with the fact that I
didn't feel like that was fair because counties
were the only ones called out on that. So if
the city tried to take a vote, they weren't affected
by that cooling off period. Legislature didn't
have a they didn't have a desire to get into
the food fight on that. It's strange how the
legislature sometimes really treats counties
and cities in despairing ways, whether they know
it or not. Well, yeah, it was funny. I mean,
the word I got from the legislature as I was
talking to individual members was like, hey,
if that's your fight to have with if we're not
going to get the business of that. So we know
that we want this rule because this has been
you know, this was sort of. recent conversation
with the counties and so we're doing it this
way but You know, whatever. So it is what it
is. But it was, to your point, it was another
one of those where I was kind of like, geez.
Well, sometimes they have to put clauses like
that into bills to appease certain members. Right.
Exactly. Which is what an element of that was.
But yeah, a little good for the goose, good for
the gander would have been nice from my perspective.
So 2015, how did it come out on a bipartisan
way? Or was it mostly partisan? You know, it
was funny. It was mostly partisan by the time
it came out. Although I got to say, if you go
actually and look at the vote, it was an interesting.
vote. There were a number of, I guess you would
call them progressive liberals, right, that specifically
have umbrage either with, and I've used that
word twice now in this podcast, that's got to
be some kind of record of any podcast, probably
in general. Your vocabulary is vast and very
impressive. We take what we can get, I guess.
Both in terms of uh see now i forgot what i was
gonna say where were we on this umbridge we were
talking taking umbridge we were talking about
how even some of the uh majority party some of
the oh yeah sorry sorry sorry so yeah they they
either didn't like the fact that it was another
regressive tax in their view right which oftentimes
sales tax gets more and more funding for law
or more funding for law enforcement um so there
was that piece there was obviously on the republican
side of the on the conservative side of the of
the spectrum there was It's a tax. We don't like
taxes. Right. Even though they definitely were
there in terms of wanting to support law enforcement.
Right. And sort of public safety more generally.
So it did create sort of a weird dynamic within
the legislature on this. And as it did pass out.
You know, it didn't pass by overwhelming numbers,
but it did pass out with a interesting bipartisan
vote. So I guess. So there were Republicans and
Democrats. There were both sides. There were.
And it was. Yeah, there were. And it was one
of those that in the end, I'm not sure I would
have expected. any different, I suppose, you
know, when it all shakes out. I think during
session, there were a lot of good conversations
on both sides trying to work this through. And
as you recall, I mean, the governor went to a
Republican to prime the initial bill in this
space, Senator Holy. Yeah. So it tried to start
at a bipartisan level, and I think it tried to
carry through as best it could towards the end.
But towards the end, it kind of came back down
to a more partisan position. But it did pass.
Yeah, well, congratulations on that. I know you
worked hard on it. Yeah, it was a good bill.
A lot of good work from the other county lobbyists
out there. This was really a team effort to kind
of do this, and our partners at the cities, frankly,
as well. There were a lot of folks engaged in
this and making it happen, and I'm glad it passed.
It was a good bill. Well, when I think about
the session and I think about kind of the two
key – well, I shouldn't say the two key. When
I think about the key bills that you really worked
on that we had positive outcomes on this year,
obviously 13 -18 and – 18 -13. Oh, yeah. Excuse
me. 1813. And I don't get my bills dropped that
early. They can be 13. I can appreciate that.
I wish they were. And 2015 were two of the key
ones. What other bills were out there that were
really fundamental this year that you think had
good outcomes? And by a good outcome, I can,
you know, it could mean the bill failed. Yeah.
I mean, so certainly from a from a. In that vein,
there were a number of bills, 1322 and its companion,
5296, which dealt with juvenile rehabilitation.
Those were two bills that we wanted to engage
on heavily because we've been, you know, the
counties have been very interested in forward
movement in the JR space. And neither of those
bills, from our perspective, were a good option.
Mostly because they were really expensive. It
was the cost shift component that was primarily
our concern. The prosecutors and other groups
had some policy concerns as well. So they just
were bills we had a real challenge with and worked
really hard. I mean, our juvenile court administrators,
likewise, right, kept saying, you know, some
of this is workable, but without any money, it's
just it's not going to happen. And so, you know,
I think it was a nice it was a hard conversation.
It was pretty emotional, I think, for a number
of legislators working on these issues. Yeah.
But those bills ended up not making it. I think
disappointingly, there were a couple other bills
that did do some good. would have done some good
things in the JR space that didn't make it either.
5296 almost seemed like... a reversion to where
we were in the summer a little bit where they
were, where, where the state was looking at solving
its problem on our back, right. Of overpopulation
and unsafe conditions by forcing counties to
take on more responsibility for, you know, the,
the juvenile offender oversight piece. Right.
That's right. And they were looking at doing
it in a way that was almost a little fantastical
or, or fantasy based because they were assuming
programs existed or, or infrastructure was in
place in counties to handle these, these, which
they absolutely were not. Yeah. These offenders.
And we would have had to. we would have to build
them from a whole cloth. If you could even get
the money. And if you could do it in the time
necessary. Right. I mean, it was just not, it
just were, it was frustrating to work on these
bills because it did feel like you were sort
of testifying against, you know, these aspirational
hopes. Right. Of what was, you know, which I
think at a base level, we would agree that we
would, you know, we wanted to see more things
move in this space. Sure. We wanted to see forward
movement. But the reality is until you deal with
something, we've talked about this a lot on these
podcasts, And to my testimony multiple times
on the Hill this session, you know, unless you
were going to get back to dealing with some of
the root reasons that got us to this point to
begin with, you're not going to be able to just
sort of gimmick your way out of this. And I think
to some degree, a lot of these ideas were just
gimmicky, not in the sense that I don't mean
that to belittle them, but in the sense that
they just weren't. realistic in terms of becoming
without significant funding changes, without
significant infrastructure changes, and they
just weren't going to solve the issue. And so
it's something we're going to have to continue
to deal with. And the legislature, I don't think
is going to, they're not going to be able to,
this isn't the last that we're going to hear
from this. I mean, they're going to have to.
Until they're willing to look at increasing capacity,
which is going to take capital money to do that.
I'm really surprised they didn't make an investment
in that. Me too. More than they have. Right.
There were a lot of items in the budget dealing
with those, whether it's Echo Glen or Green Hill
or whatever it might have been. Yeah, but it
feels like that stuff is really nibbling around
the edges of a bigger problem. It is. HVAC systems
and other stuff like that. I mean, the reality
is they expanded the number of folks through
legislation, through JR. to 25 who are eligible
for these services. And at the same time, closed
facilities, reducing capacity, reduce our capacity
and and added to that, you know, poison pill
of a significant rise in youth crime, you know.
And so those three factors together have just
created a real perfect storm that right now is
is is not remedied. And it doesn't look like
it will be anytime soon. It was a little frustrating,
I have to say. And I was only. kind of a spectator
right and just talking with you about these bills
but it was a little it felt frustrating from
my end so it must have been even more so from
your end to deal with this during the session
in a way that felt like the state was taking
another bite at the apple shot at forcing us
to take on more responsibility instead of what
we agreed to during the interim which was okay
this isn't going to work you know it's not going
to work you did this sort of order right you
know former director without even consulting
with us right you know we filed a lawsuit we
we basically just still yeah it's still active
we basically just kind of put it on hold seeing
what they were going to do yeah no settlement
agreement but a tentative agreement with the
governor that hey we're going to back off we're
going to put you know we're going to pursue these
other options etc and then you know to come back
during the legislative session hope hope to work
on those potential solutions, but instead, you
know, fend off another assault, so to speak.
That's right. And we spent most of our time,
I think, to your point, fighting that instead
of having the constructive conversations around
what we could have done to actually try to fix
this. Yeah. That was the disappointing and frustrating
part. Were these bills, were the conversation
around these bills being driven by the legislators
themselves who were supporting these? Or do you
think or suspect or know that the real driving
force behind the bills was actually the administration
or the department themselves? I think these were...
That's a good question. I think maybe it's maybe
a mix, but I do think primarily these were legislatively
driven because I think they were ideologue -type
bills, at least in my view. I think the administration
– well, we have a new administration, right?
And so they got caught, I think, a little flat
-footed in trying to figure out how to deal with
this. Well, and you have to say, I'm a new governor,
right? Am I obligated to the deal the other governor
made? Exactly, right. Probably not. No. I mean,
I will say, I think the agency was particularly...
And they have a new head as well. They do. But
I think they made a particular point of trying
to be as collaborative with us, I think, as possible.
They provided a lot of good information during
session, a lot of frank information. I think
they worked it pretty hard. I think they were
frustrated as to where those conversations were
going as well. And I think they felt like they
probably weren't going to get as far as they
wanted to go. But I also don't think that the
agency... agency is probably in the same spot
as we are in terms of how we'd like to see the
issue resolved either. So I, I do think we are
also a bit just clashing in this, in terms of
how we see this, what, what we view as potential
solutions. And so that, that I think is going
to be a longer term rub. Yeah. It's going to
say, it sounds like it's going to take interim
work, a lot more work to do. Yeah, there will
be. Well, let's just briefly close by maybe touching
on some budget highlights. Yeah. What, what do
you think were big wins in the budget? Yeah.
So certainly the a hundred million dollars was,
It was a big win. I would say. A little unexpected,
but a big win. I was glad to see that. Was very
happy to see some budget investment in the behavioral
health space as it relates to crisis facilities,
particularly what they're calling crisis relief.
facilities, but that's sort of code for 23 -hour
facilities, which have become a real hot -button
issue. And as sessions started, there were a
number of news articles because they were sitting
vacant. These buildings that had been built and
a provider that was sitting there wanting to
get in and do the work but couldn't because of
funding. Yeah, age -old story. We can find funds
for capital projects, but we can't find operating
dollars. Well, that's right. And the operating
dollars, unfortunately, I think both on the Medicaid
and non -Medicaid side are going to be necessary
to make these work. And that meant new investment.
And that was the hard in a year when... Everybody
was looking at reductions. So fortunately, we
saw a $15 million investment. It's one time transferred
from the 988 actual 988 tax account, which was
kind of an interesting. interesting play, something
I had kind of floated early on in session saying,
hey, there's money here. But it's not a long
-term solution. And it's certainly not enough
money to solve all of those. It's going to be
a grant that's going to be designed to kind of
help three of these facilities. But there are
a number more looking to get online. So it's
a win, but it's a temporary one. And we'll have
to see where the legislature wants to go long
-term on that. But I was happy to see that. By
and large, I think where this counts as a win,
at least in my book, is We were able to blunt
largely reductions that would have been particularly
painful. I think for the most part, most of the
reductions in the behavioral health space or
even in the – really weren't any reductions in
the public safety space, but in the – behavioral
health space primarily, we're in that 5%, 10
% kind of range, things that, you know, it's
not ideal, but it's not something that's going
to gut a program or, you know, and I think there
were other levers that the budget, you know,
sort of granted that allowed. ways to backfill
some of that, including like we talked about
local options and things like that, that were
out there. So I think, I think a lot, largely
a lot of these programs can, can maintain and
be just fine. Obviously the recovery navigator
program was a, was one that we were worried about.
One, the Senate budget had completely eliminated
that $50 million program that a lot of counties
have spent a lot of time and money building up
over the last several years. It finished with
a 20 % reduction, which was 10 % more than, than
what the house had initially put out there. but
a far cry from total elimination. And like I
said, RMP got included as something that was
an allowable use from the 2015 dollars, both
in terms of the grant and the tax. Yeah. If that
gap exists for some jurisdictions, they'll be
able to use those dollars. And it surely will.
Yeah, because many of them. There'll be a pain
point there. Yeah, they definitely built their
systems using those grant funds. And a lot of
times those programs weren't operating. I mean,
they weren't operating on state dollars alone
anyways. So, you know, it's just going to. some
additional pressure there. But it definitely
was a far cry from where it could have gone.
And frankly, where I expected. I mean, even the
governor's office had weighed in and sort of
advocated for a 50 % reduction, which is when
I started to get a little more worried. Because
I didn't think the elimination was going to happen.
But the 50%, when they kind of came in, I went,
oh, that'll be rough. That would have been a
hard one for, I think, a lot of systems to absorb.
So I count it as a win that we got out of here
with a bit of a haircut, but not, you know. Bald.
Well. No, no, no. When you're going in for a
haircut to come out bald is never a good idea
unless you're going in for a total shave. Overall.
Frankly, I think there's only one way to assess
the budget outcomes, and that's remarkable. I
would agree. I've talked about this with others,
and I certainly talked about it when I did a
deeper dive in an earlier podcast with Brian
that I mentioned. In past years when we've seen...
fiscal challenges like this for the state, typically
local governments have been a target. Yes. And
by a target, I mean they have stripped funding.
Yes. Almost. They've seen us as a way to balance
their budget. Yeah. I mean, relentless, you know,
without much. And I don't mean they didn't think
about it. I mean, they just prioritize their
needs over ours. Tale as old as time. Yeah. And
that was very different this year. Very much.
You know, there's a lot more acknowledgement
in these budgets, I think, of the work that local
governments do on behalf of the state. That's
right. And how important these programs are for
implementing the policies that the state. approves
and, you know, envisions and wants to see taking
place in communities. And just the difference
between, you know, what we're experiencing now
and what we experienced, you know, nearly 20
years ago during the great recession is, is night
and day. Yeah. And I mean, I made a point as
soon as I've had to kind of fully. you know,
or partially digested where I think the budget
landed, I made sure of reaching out to the budget
chairs in both chambers to say thank you because
it really, A, I don't think they get a lot of
that, but it takes a tremendous amount of work
to do that. But they really did do something,
I think, the word I used was thoughtful. They
were thoughtful budgets. I mean, I think they
recognized they had issues and they had to deal
with them and not everybody had to feel a little
pain, I think, and they spread that pain out.
But at tolerable levels. But at a level. But
that's what I think by by spreading it out, they
were able to do that in a way that they didn't
have to just come in and gut programs and really
make one one group or which traditionally, to
your point, might have been us. Well, past probably
would have been right. Let's be honest. And even
though they preserve us in a lot of ways. Yeah.
And even though they spread it out, they spread
it out in a way that. I think stealing your word
was thoughtful. It wasn't just a, we're just
doing an across the board reduction. No, everybody's
going to share the pain equally. It was like,
you know, it really was a, okay, where strategically
can we, you know, do a little push, do a little
pull to get where we want to be and still move
forward. I mean, they're, There are significant
new investments in this budget along with cost
cuts. Exactly. There were investments, significant
investments in areas that really needed them.
And they did a lot. I think they're much different
than budgets. And again, Brian, my colleague,
I give him a lot of credit in this space. He
can talk you through all of this. But at least
from my less knowledgeable vantage point on some
of this, they had levers that they could pull.
They did things like reducing. eligibility or
doing some of these things that allowed them
to skirt around having to really make draconian
cuts and stuff yeah and they did program by program
analysis right some programs they looked and
went okay five percent here right you know eight
percent here ten percent here twenty percent
i mean they didn't just like you say they didn't
just do okay everybody's a you know this is a
thirty percent cut across the board which is
easy that would have been much easier to do much
easier um but would have had a much worse outcome
and so much less effective a hundred percent
yeah so i really do think like i said i think
the Awful is the word. I think they worked hard
on it. I think they got good agreement. And frankly,
I think they agreed on it. And with a new governor
who was asking for his own new things, it could
have been. I mean, they certainly had revenue
that they wanted to get passed to make this work.
But yeah, I agree with you 100%. I mean, we came
out of session remarkably well, all things considered.
Well, Brad, congratulations on a successful session.
I really appreciate the opportunity to work with
you guys this session and looking forward to
some more months together. Yeah, I was going
to say, don't go anywhere. No, I'm not. This
is a pleasure. And yeah, we'll get them. We'll
get more good stuff done. All right. We'll talk
to you. Thanks, Paul. 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.