So I've got to ask, how much reindeer did you
eat? I ate a lot of reindeer. Did you leave some
for Santa Claus? I mean, he didn't eat them anymore.
It was after Christmas. That's cold. That is
cold, Jamie. 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 everyone to the County Connection
Podcast. I'm Paul Jewell, the Government Relations
Director for the Washington State Association
of Counties and your host for the podcast. Welcome
to 2026. This is our first podcast of the new
year. Hopefully all of you listened to every
podcast that we had last year. I don't know if
you saw the notice that went out, but believe
it or not, we actually recorded 50 podcasts last
year for our first year. Hard to believe we got
that many done. But now we find ourselves right
back at the very beginning of the new legislative
session. It's early January. Jamie Bodden is
back. Jamie's back, everybody. Say hello. Say
something to your fans out there, Jamie. Hi,
Mom. Hi, Dad. Mom and Dad back in Wisconsin.
Good to be back. Good to see you. Happy session,
Paul. Happy session to you. I know you're excited
to be here. I just get that little tingly feeling
at the beginning of every session. I'm not sure
if it's terror or excitement, but it's definitely
adrenaline. Stress. It could be. I think it's
stress. A little bit of stress. It probably is.
Speaking of stress, you just got back from a
hearing. Yes. Yes, we've had a busy first week
of session already and had a hearing this morning
on Senate Bill 5967. A lot of emotional testimony
in that hearing this morning. Yes, a lot of testimony
from a number of doctors, particularly pediatricians,
around the importance of preventive services
and just preserving our ability in Washington
State to access them and also pay for them through
health insurance. Yeah, so an important bill
this session? Yes, a very important bill this
session. It's one of WSALFO's priority bills.
The companion bill, House Bill 2242, is being
heard tomorrow. What was the Senate one again?
What was the number? 5967. See, and people thought
we were going to have probably our first legislative
podcast of the year would be a little bit of
a lead -in, but we're jumping right into the
heart of the matter. We're giving you meat right
out of the gate here. Speaking of meat, we were
just talking about reindeer a little earlier,
We'll leave that for later. What else you got
for us? So that's our big policy bill. This week
we've also testified in both appropriations and
ways and means on the governor's budget, particularly
around foundational public health services funding,
FPHS. That funding has been a perennial priority
for WSALFO. It's been a priority for WSAC in
the past as well. We lost some of that last year,
right? It's going to be another tough budget
year this year. If people remember back to our
podcasts from 2025, that was a lot of what we
were talking about. about, there was a lot of
budget discussion. There's always a lot of budget
discussion in the first year of the biennium,
but last year there was a lot more because the
state found itself in a little bit of an unfamiliar
position compared to the previous years in that
decade, well, really the last decade, and that
was in the position of facing some pretty stiff
deficits. And here we are in 2026. They made
a lot of changes to the budget last year, some
pretty big tax increases. They're finding themselves
in another $2 .3 billion deficit. Part of their
solution last year was to kind of take back some
of the FPHS or foundational public health. revenue
gains that we had made in previous years. And
then are we looking at more cuts this year? Yes.
Yeah. The budget situation, you know, I feel
like last year everybody was like, the budget's
bad. And reality became, yeah, the budget's bad.
This year I feel like we're starting in the dark
place in which we ended last year in terms of
the budget. Like it never quit, right? It never
quit. It never had. Last year felt like there
were some glimmers of hope. This year doesn't
necessarily feel. Like that, it's a very different
tenor. But yes, last year in the state operating
budget, FPHS was reduced by $24 million or $12
million each fiscal year. So for the two -year
biennium, a combined amount of $24 million. Yes.
So fiscal year 26, a $12 million reduction. Fiscal
year 27, a $12 million reduction. And then something
happened at the end of session that is further
compounding kind of our concerns around the FPHS.
account in FPHS funding, and that is policy was
passed that changed how tobacco and nicotine
products and vapor products revenue was collected.
And a lot of that got swept into the general
fund unintentionally. Oh, was that supposed to
go to FPHS? Changing how the FPHS account, which
funds a portion of FPHS. It's not the full funding
source of FPHS, but it funds a portion of it.
And it changed how that account was. uh funded
and they were trying to capture nicotine products
that weren't being taxed before right because
i think the laws were based on tobacco products
and now there's a lot of alternative products
that contain nicotine whether they're vapor products
or uh there's packets right those zin packets
or something that yeah I don't know what you
do with them. They're like pouches. Do you actually
chew on them? You just put them in your mouth
and kind of... Kind of like chewing tobacco?
Okay. So they wanted to make sure that they were
capturing those in the tax structure as well.
And I think there was even a tax increase, if
I'm not mistaken, on top of that. Yeah. And so
what happened was a lot of the revenue that we
were collecting and putting into the FPHS account
then got swapped out of that account. So now
we're faced with, for fiscal year 26, a small
shortfall. in that account where we actually
have the spending authority to spend the funding.
We just don't have the actual funding, the dollars
in the bank to spend. It's great to have spending
authority. Great to have spending authority,
but you need the money to actually get to do
it, right? If you don't actually have the dollars,
yeah. Sure, honey, you can go ahead and spend
that million dollars, but if you don't have it,
you can't spend it. I'd love to give people permission
to spend a million bucks. Wouldn't that be nice?
I don't have it. Go ahead, kids. Go crazy. Do
your worst. And so we have a small one for this
fiscal year. What's most concerning is that that
grows significantly for fiscal year 27, which
starts June 1st of this year. That estimated
shortfall is just over $20 million, almost $21
million. So we have that already kind of. So
that's on top of the $24 million. That's on top
of the $24 million. For the biennium, which is
$12 million last year, $12 million this year.
And then the governor has proposed an additional
$29 million reduction into FPHS from the general
fund account that funds FPHS. So $24 last year,
governor's proposed a $29 million reduction,
and then currently a $20 million shortfall in
another account, which is essentially a reduction.
All of that put together, it's about a 40 % decrease
in FPHS funding total. And if folks have been
around for a while, you'll recall FPHS has slowly
been built over the past year, starting in 2019,
where we kind of got that first initial funding
and then built over time and then built through
the pandemic. And so that 40 % rollback is a
very severe, very fast. whiplash kind of reduction
for FPHS? Public health is kind of the whipping
boy, to use a really, really old term, during
really tough budget, maybe the whipping post
is a better term, during really tough budget
seasons or periods of time, because FPHS really
came out of all of the destructive cuts, both
on the federal and state level, and even the
local level, that were made during the Great
Recession, right? And so, that was a big movement
after the great recession. It gained acceleration
and traction through the pandemic because there
was a recognition. Oh yeah. The system isn't
really sufficiently built up and funded to deal
with now what we're facing this big, this big
pandemic, but just like fires and floods, right?
When the water recedes, when the flames go away
and the smoke clears, we oftentimes forget conveniently
and other things, you know, become front and
center like a financial crisis. And here we are
being probably a little bit penny wise and pound
foolish when we think about what we need to do
today to kind of make things work versus what
it may cost us in the future and future damage
to the system and its capability and viability.
Yeah, that's a perennial, I think, struggle with
public health in that we're focused on prevention.
And so how do you say, well, we did this work
and it didn't. And X didn't happen. We prevented
something from happening, which is a good thing.
You can't point to the crisis because you prevented
it from happening. And that, I think, was the
struggle. 2008, 2010, 2011, Great Recession,
public health was cut across the system locally
about 50%. FPHS has built back. a lot of those
cuts, but we haven't even gotten to where we,
you know, we were at in 2008, 2011. The pandemic
and COVID certainly helped elevate that, oh,
public health is really important. And, you know,
we've been warning for a while, like we're not
prepared. Our system does not have the infrastructure
needed for a great crisis. COVID happened. really
demonstrated that. But I also think it's important
to highlight that public health is doing a lot
of things that actually can be seen and are tangible
and are stepping more into that space. And that's
a lot of what FPHS covers and supports too. That's
what it was intended to do, right? Is to kind
of build up that system and fill the gaps in
the communities where you didn't have funding
and you didn't have infrastructure, but the need
was really there and it was unmet. Yeah, so now
we have programs around opioid overdose and response
where we have public health being a center point
for coalition building, working with community
partners on treatment and community prevention
services and other policy strategies. So kind
of that multi -pronged approach. We have environmental
health where... FPHS supports food safety things
where it's not just inspecting, but it's also
building up a more responsive network around
complaints, but also just business support where
if I'm a business owner and I have a question
around, you know, can I implement this new. technology
in my in my establishment what do i need to do
to make sure it's the right thing we now have
more infrastructure that can support questions
like that where in the past you know We maybe
could get to it, maybe, if we had that capacity
to. So there's a lot of more things that public
health is stepping into that FPHS has been really
critical in shoring up in addition to a lot of
that more behind -the -scenes preventative work
that public health is known for doing. So is
there a bill to try to fix the whole kind of
nicotine tax piece? Yes. to replenish that piece?
And then what are you doing about the 29 million
in the governor's budget? And so when we testified
earlier this week and were able to, you know,
identify, you know, articulate 40 % potentially
being reduced, I think that got the attention
of a lot of legislators and certainly during
legislative meetings that we've already been
having. Talking about the FPHS account, there
is a very strong desire to address and fix and
correct that. You know, that 40 % number is,
I'm sure, key and an eye -opener for a lot of
them because time will go by and they'll make
a little bit here and a little bit there and
a little bit here and a little bit there. I can't
tell you how many times I talk to a legislator
and I'll say, hey, you know, it's another. And
they say, yeah, but it's just a you know, it's
just a little bit more. It's just a little bit
of this or it's just another 10 million. And
you go, but do you remember the previous years?
And now you're up to 40 percent, 50 percent,
60 percent. And they don't. Oftentimes they really
don't. So it's up to us to kind of bring that
information forward to them and make them aware
of the cumulative impact over time of the decisions
that they're making. So I'm sure that that's.
Well, I want to say that's landing well with
the members. It's probably landing like a thud,
I would think, in many of their minds. Yeah,
I think it's helpful in putting it into context
of like, this isn't just a small reduction. 40
% is a massive cut. And we want to do what we
can to minimize anything that they might do.
So we were encouraged. We have not one, not two,
not three, but four policy bills that in various
ways attempt to make that fix for the FPHS account.
And that unintentional kind of. thing that happened
last session we'll call it an unintentional diversion
yeah and that's really encouraging um and we
have two in the house two in the senate um ones
from democrats and we have a proposal by republicans
too so that is really encouraging it's a good
bipartisan issue i mean public health should
be for the most i see it as you know encouraging
that both Democrats and Republicans want to solve
this issue. And so, you know, our job now is
to go through each of those four bills, identify,
you know, what we like, what we don't like, what
we think fixes it, what we think could be better
and work towards getting up, you know, a policy
that. addresses the needs that it needs to address
on our end and move that forward. So which one
will move? I don't know. There's a lot of, you
know, it's still early game time. Right. But
it's encouraging to see that there's already
four proposals that are proposing to fix the
FPHS account. Yeah, that is encouraging, especially
when you consider that we're on the second half
of the biennium. This is the second session or
the second half session. And it's only 60 days.
I was looking at the calendar. You know, after
this week, there's only another two weeks and
three days of hearings before the first cutoff.
So things have to happen really fast and really
rapidly in a short session. So the fact that
you've got a head start is great. What can members
do to support these, Jamie, as we kind of think
about and move on to other subjects here? But
for these two bills that you've talked about
so far, is there any action that our members
could take right away? So around the bills, you
know, continuing to support good public health
policy is always important. I would say around
FPHS, the FPHS account is a little bit complicated
and convoluted right now. It's going to become
more. streamlined and less nuanced later in session
as we kind of identify, okay, which is the bill
that's moving? What are the parts that we like?
I think the key message right now is we need
to address and fix the FPHS account shortfall.
That's the key message. And then there's the
governor's budget proposal too. The governor
proposes another $29 million reduction for fiscal
year 27, and that's an ongoing reduction. That's
a lot. Remember, they've already made $12 million
reduction for fiscal year 27. Right, 24 combined
for the biennium. So if our members have a chance
to talk with their legislators. The message should
be, let's go ahead and fix that, not the tobacco,
the nicotine tax piece, right? And number two,
if there's any way not to include that $29 million
that the governor has proposed, that would be
better for public health and better for counties.
Absolutely. Because those reductions would have
to be made somehow. Locals receive the majority
of FPHS funds. Because they're the boots on the
ground implementers of most public health programs
and services. And so they would have cuts and
they would face cuts. And $29 million is more
than twice of what $12 million is. So the cuts
that they had to make already, those would just
get deeper and harder to make. And the impact
to communities would be even more. So I encourage
local elected officials to talk to your public
health administrators and health officers and
staff to learn about what cuts have been made.
What cuts could they make? What cuts would they
be forced to make with additional reductions?
What the impact those are on those communities?
We have a number of tools already for our local
health jurisdictions. We have draft board resolutions.
So if you're interested in passing a board resolution
in support of FPHS and really... promoting and
maintaining and preserving what we have. We have
those drafted and available. We have talking
points and we have one pagers as well to use
as kind of messaging tools. Yeah, great. Well,
Jamie, you know, we talked at the beginning about
how the budget is really kind of shaping the
session in many ways, just like it did last year.
This is the second year in a row where the state's
kind of dealing with the budget shortfall, which
is very different than the previous several years.
I think it's fair to say most of the legislators
have not faced this issue, much less two years
in a row. I've been up talking with a lot of
legislators. You've been up talking with a lot
of legislators. What do you think the mood is
right now? And how do you think things are going
to progress in the next couple weeks? I think,
I don't want to say sour or grim or grumpy, but
there's an underlying... feeling of just kind
of grumpiness i think everybody realizes the
task at hand it's not a pleasant task no right
it's it's it's much more pleasant to be an elected
official being able to say i get to fund your
project yeah because you got resources right
it's just it's just like being a county commissioner
a little bit in that you took the job to get
a few things done and if you're a legislator
in today's legislative session you're getting
told no a lot. Yeah. And that's not fun, right?
You don't want to have to take resources away
from any good work. And that's unfortunately
the reality that our legislature has right now.
So I think it's a very tough kind of vibe. You
know, I think it's hard in that realm. But I
also think that there's a lot of, you know, we're
going to We're going to do what we can. We're
taking the approach of we want to be helpful.
So we want to be a resource. We want to be a
place where, hey, what do you think about this
idea or this idea? Or, you know, we want to hear
what your budget priorities are. And we want
to be helpful. We want to be a place of support.
We want to be a thought partner. And we've heard
that that is very much appreciated. We want to
come with solutions instead of just ask. Do you
really say thought partner? We have at times.
Yes. Maybe that runs well with the public health
community. I tell you, I'm not sure. I don't
know. If you offered to be my thought partner,
I'd be like, I don't know if I want a thought
partner. We're always thought partners together,
Paul. Come on. Come on. But yeah, we want to
be helpful. We want to come with solutions. We
want to have ideas. We don't want to just come
with asks. And we don't want to just come with
no. Like, please don't cut us. Well, I mean,
that's what we want to do as an association always,
right? But it's even more important in the difficult
times to be problem solvers. Absolutely. To be
collaborators and to be seen as people who want
to roll up your sleeves and actually do the hard
stuff to try to get the decisions to be better.
than if you were just making across -the -board
cuts so you could go home, right? Well, Jamie,
thanks for the time. I know you're busy. Our
members are busy. This time of year, of course,
we try to keep these podcasts pretty tight. But
you'll come back, and we'll talk about more maybe
next week. Yeah, absolutely. And we'll see how
this session goes. It's just the first week,
everybody, so hold on to your socks. It'll be
a fun one. Thanks, Jamie. 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.