bill this morning got to testify on with regards
to federal inmates and county jails nice sort
of how that works so when you say i got to testify
it was my honor on behalf of the association
to testify and that's that's that's the proper
attitude to have 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. Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome
to the County Connection podcast, a very special
podcast today. We have some breaking news for
you right fresh from the legislature here in
Olympia. I'm Paul Jewell. I'm the government
relations director and host of the podcast. And
I've brought in Brad Banks, who works on law
and justice issues as well as, well. Community
safety, criminal justice. Behavioral health,
the whole gamut. The bill just dropped yesterday.
It's Senate Bill 6239 from Senator Manka Dhingra.
Senator Dhingra is from the Seattle area. Kirkland
area. Kirkland area, King County. And she is
the chair of the Senate Law and Justice Committee,
right? That's correct. Now, we heard that she'd
been working on something. And Brad, you and
I had been working on something as well with
a bunch of other people. If you go back to our
conversation, with the Legislative Steering Committee
in the fall, one of the things that they really
identified this year as something they wanted
us to work on was tort reform. That's right.
Right, was liability. Liability has been driving
costs for counties for quite a while now, for
several years, and we were really kind of focusing
on a fiscal, not a fiscal sustainability initiative,
but a fiscal relief initiative. Yeah, a version
of it, yeah. And we were adding a few things
to that, and they just said, yeah, liability
reform, like it was no big deal. Right. Huge
subject. Huge issue with lots of players. Yeah.
And so we put together during the interim and
in the fall, kind of in the lead up to the session,
a big group of people. And we've been talking
about this issue. And we've been talking about,
okay, we had heard that the state was going to
try to address a problem that they had, right?
They're looking at about a $500 million bill
this year and up to like $3 billion in the next
couple of years. And where's that coming from?
Yeah, no, exactly. Maybe to your point, I think
part of the reason maybe both the LSC, our legislative
steering committee, and we here at staff on WASAC
were sort of hearing there was interest at the
state to have this conversation. So we definitely
wanted to try to. strike while they aren't as
hot if we could, so to speak. Yeah, because liability
reform is not a popular subject. No, especially
not. I mean, and it's a huge issue. And to do
that during a short session with a budget shortfall,
right? I mean, right. It just didn't seem like
that was going to be something in the cards.
So why don't you just ask us to lasso the moon?
Right. Well, exactly. Right. I mean, I'm sure
you can have a podcast with Jamie on vaccines
or whatever, and it'd be a similar conversation.
Just try to do those big policy changes in an
environment like this. But it felt like there
was going to be a moment. But there did. Yeah,
we could kind of feel it building. I think. And
to your point. Yeah. So the state, you know,
has as a result of numerous lawsuits that a lot
of them starting many, many years ago and a lot
of them in the juvenile justice system resulting
in significant jury awards as those folks have
either become adults or whatever and brought
the state. to trial on these issues, which have
resulted in massive payouts. And they're looking
at big payouts down the road, too. I think that
is a big player, a big catalyst as to why they're
trying to address this, because I think they
are reading the tea leaves and saying, whoa,
this is unsustainable for us now, and in the
future, we don't know how we handle this. Yeah,
and there was a report today that mentioned this
bill, and it... It mentioned a potential liability
by 2030, I think, of like another $3 billion.
Yeah, which... With a B. Yes. $3 billion just
for the state, right? And of course, we have
our own members who have liability issues all
over the place, right? You know, governments
just by the... Just by the nature of government,
we provide a whole host of services that are
fairly risky. That's right. We incarcerate people.
Some of the riskiest, frankly. We have probation,
so we supervise people, right? That's right.
We build roads and bridges that people drive
on every single day, and that's fraught with
risk, right? Yep. We have law enforcement agencies,
tons of risk there, and we do those things because
no one else can, no one else will, right? And
we're mandated to do it by the states. I was
going to say, yeah. We're the administrative
arm of the state that's doing that work. Right.
And that has in the way that our system works
here in Washington. So liability is just kind
of built into the way we do things. It is. It's
part and parcel for everything that we do. So
it makes a lot of sense if you think about it,
right? And we've been talking about this with
the group. Why would we just allow unlimited
liability against our state and local governments
when we know that those are mandated services
that we have to provide that the society needs
and no one else will? And they're inherently
risky. But in Washington. We do. Yeah, we do.
I mean, our Constitution doesn't allow us to
have caps on damages. Well, and I think in the
I don't know if it was a press release or interview
that Senator Dhingra did as she released this
bill. I mean, she was pretty blunt in saying.
In her estimation, and I think in a lot of people's,
Washington is far more exposed because of our
current state laws than just about any state
in terms of liability exposure on a variety of
issues, whether that's at the state level or
at the local level. And flat out acknowledge
that, that we've just created an environment
here that's very susceptible to this scenario
that we're finding ourselves in. If you're a
personal injury lawyer. Yeah, it's a business.
You want to practice. Washington is your bread
and butter. Yeah. I mean, you know, these jury
awards that we're seeing. Are massive. They're
massive, and they've been climbing year over
year over year, and our liability insurance costs
for local governments have basically been on
the same trajectory. That's right. Yeah, and
this has really been hamstrung since the early
days when back in the 80s there was a court case
that said you can't put caps on penalties for
these type of court cases. Yeah, that was Sophie
versus Fiberboard. That's it. There you go. Sorry.
That's okay. I was wondering if you remembered
or if I should throw it out there. For those
of you who love to read court decisions, they're
a little nerdy like Brad and I are. Sophie versus
Fiber Board, Washington State Supreme Court.
Yeah, I think it was 89? Yeah, it was in the
80s. 85, 89, something like that. Yeah, basically
it was a finding that caps... actually violated
the right to a jury trial. Violated our state
constitution. Right. Yeah. Right. Because the
right to a jury trial is a civil right in the
federal constitution. That's right. But it's
also reaffirmed in the state's constitution.
That's right. Yeah. And the idea was, not the
idea, the ruling by the Supreme Court was, and
I'm going to butcher, I'm sure, the right terminology.
All we know is the name of the case, Paul. Let's
not pretend to be lawyers here. Well, the fact
that we're not lawyers makes us uniquely qualified.
It does. You're getting authentic. Absolutely,
because, I mean, we don't have to – we have no
credentials. That's right. So just take this
for what it's worth. We can say whatever we want.
And no one's going to hold us accountable. No,
I mean, come on. Because there's nothing for
us to be – No fact -checking on these podcasts.
That's not what we're – we don't allow that.
Absolutely right. But in Selfie vs. Fiber Board,
I have read it a couple of times, and the finding
was that essentially if you place caps on the
awards, you're interfering with the jury's ability
to assess the damages and to basically – um provide
a judgment as to what the value of those damages
that's right um and so since that time we haven't
had caps right uh at any level uh against any
claim tort claim against local state government
or otherwise here in washington state so um which
we have which is why we have started to see and
i don't think this term is inappropriate sort
of astronomical judgments that are just i mean
they're just massive a huge at levels that no
local No local government, certainly, but even
the state is now realizing they can't absorb.
Well, think of some of the claims that are driving
these costs right now that the state's reacting
to, right? I mean, honestly, it is the claims
against DCYF, right, for foster care and juvenile
rehabilitation abuse. That's right. That happened,
you know, more than... 18, you know, 10, 18,
20, 30 years ago. They took the legislature,
removed the statute of limitations, right, which
is good for victims. Yeah. But not so great for
the taxpayers who are going to make these payouts.
And if you think about sitting in front of a
jury and having a pretty. relatable victim in
front of them and telling a horrible story about
abuse. And many of these stories are heart -wrenching.
I mean, put yourself in that jury's seat, right?
Yeah, you become inflamed, right? And you want
to punish, right? And you want to punish to the
point where it hurts so badly that it doesn't
happen again. That's right. And then you add
numbers to the fact that there's just... Exactly.
Case after case after case. Right. But, you know,
again, we're talking about services provided
by governments that no one else would provide.
And they need to be functional. We have to have
governments that can function. Right. They have
to. And crippling them with fines and fees and
penalties. Yeah. And while we all bleed for the
victim. 100%. Right. That's not the issue. We
have to be. I guess, what's the right word without
sounding totally countless? I know. Measured
was sort of what I was thinking. But even then,
I mean, agreed. This isn't a statement about
the pain and the injury inflicted on these individuals.
All very real. Very real and deserving of both
recognition and frankly, you know, some type
of, you know. Compensation. Compensation or remedy
or whatever. I agree. I mean, you know, and so
I don't think anybody's take – at least we're
not taking that off the table. I think what we're
just saying is that it's become such a – it's
almost become a – it's almost like we're – it's
almost monopoly money to some degree, right?
That it's sort of like we just – it's getting
to the point where – Numbers are so big they
don't feel real. Yeah, they just don't feel real.
That's right. But they really are. But they are
real. Right, they are. And the impact of that
on a local government in particular, I mean,
some of these judgments are getting to the point
where they could start to, you know. outpace
entire budgets right well government and the
reality is you know juries hear those numbers
right and then they get a case right you hear
those right it builds on itself and then you
get a case you're like well you know the last
three cases were these numbers you know it's
50 million dollars well we'll do 60 this yeah
it's almost like negotiating a contract you know
you know what i mean well obviously the going
market rate is x right uh and that Right or wrong.
It creates a culture of this type of judgment.
Yeah, that's what's been happening. And so here
we are, state governments in the same place that
we're feeling our governments are as far as county
governments go. And we're just seeing these liability
costs just... Stratospheric. Out of control.
Now, along comes Senate Bill 6239. We were thinking
and had heard a lot of rumors this year. We had
a lot of pre -conversations with the governor's
office and our group, which included us and cities
and a whole bunch of other stakeholders. And
we talked about some strategies like sovereign
immunity, right? Like what are some of the other
strategies? An alternative tribunal for tort
claims. We talked about... looking at joint and
several liability, right? We talked about maybe
even a constitutional amendment. That's a crazy
idea. And then also, you know, we toyed with
the idea of caps, but, you know, not knowing
how to get around. That was one of the original
idea kind of was like, maybe we just float this
again, you know, taking what legislation had
recently passed in the state of Oregon, where
they capped much of their kind of delved back
into the sovereign immunity conversation, as
well as trying to. kind of rein in some of these
judgments by providing caps and things. And I
think we found out pretty quickly, as I know
you, as you were doing research on that, that
there's probably going to be legal issues with
that down in Oregon. And so we kind of knew that
we would probably have to anticipate that here
as well if we went down that approach. But I
think the thinking right was... At a minimum,
this is a starting point for a conversation,
right, to just kind of say this is where you've
left us in this environment where we've got to
look at solutions. And, yeah, maybe they'll be
challenged in court, but we've got to start.
trying to figure it out and just testing the
waters. Yeah, because it almost felt like, so
it feels like a really big issue and it feels
like a really tough one to take on. But, you
know, it also feels like if we don't do it, who's
going to do it? Right. Right. If we don't stand
up and say, you know, this has got to, we've
got to come to some level of reasonableness here.
You know, who is going to, it's not going to
be the lawyers. No. Right. You know, they're
getting paid. Right. Because a lot of them are
working on a contingency basis with these cases.
A hundred percent. Yeah. I mean, yeah. I mean,
it's purely, It's purely a conversation of, you
know, it's sort of justice meets good governance,
right? It is kind of the conversation that we're
sort of having to deal with. And that's a hard
conversation to have when you're talking about
people who have experienced some of the things
that they've experienced. And not just the old
DCYF cases, but any scenario where somebody feels
like they've been injured in whatever way by
a governmental entity or some branch of a government
or department or whatever. While also understanding
that while the scenario may be true and accurate
and requires attention, the government still
has to function and operate a variety of services
for a lot of people day in and day out, 24 hours
a day, seven days a week. And so it really has
created almost an untenable situation where how
do we continue to do these services that we don't
have a choice to do, that we have to do, and
that, frankly, people expect? while also recognizing
that it just creates this massive exposure to
us at any given moment. So getting back to the
bill. Yeah, sorry. No, you're great. 6239 comes
along, and we had talked about these solutions.
We'd heard some rumors. We'd had our conversations.
We didn't expect to fight this bill. We didn't.
I'll tell you the honest truth. I was sitting
in that hearing, in a hearing yesterday up on
the hill. I was shocked. And I see this email
come across my – I'm looking at my phone. I see
this email, and I went. was this supposed to
be to me? Am I like, is this a real bill? Like,
are they doing this? Right. And I look and I
think, oh, it is. It's Senator Dinkerson. Yeah.
Right. And so I texted you, I think. And I was
like, hey, did you see this? And you're like,
yes, I saw it. We need to talk about this. So,
yeah. Yeah. I mean, I definitely caught us. off
guard, but in a good way. Yeah, and if you're
noticing a little excitement in our voices, it's
because it's a good bill for local governments.
I mean, we were expecting something that would
be very tailored to the problem that they were
facing. Very specific to older claims that really
had to do with child sexual abuse or something
like that. We were hoping it would involve local
government. I think we were expecting that we
have to fight for that. Yeah, we were expecting
to have to fight for that. Expecting that the
state state would probably just address the state's
problem. But this bill is much broader than that.
Tell us what the bill does. Well, essentially
what the bill does is allows for... creation
of an arbitration process, essentially, that
allows, it sort of creates a pre -trial sort
of scenario where these type of cases, I don't
even know if that's the right terminology. Well,
kind of. It's kind of like that alternative tribunal
solution that we were talking about with the
broader group. Exactly, right. That sort of allows
for these cases to be sort of... for lack of
a better term, sort of adjudicated and settled
outside of going to a jury process, which is
really where these massive settlements end up
happening, is through that jury process. So it's
a way of sort of expediting, you know, maybe
both, you know, there's guilt maybe agreed to
by the parties. Yeah, someone screwed up, something
happened. Right, right. Nobody's debating that.
There were damages. Right, there's damages. And
so it's a way to sort of... Try to get that,
you know, sort of handled and remedied in a concise,
more manageable and reasonable way. While also,
frankly, you know. saving everybody a lot of
money from having to go to court, having to go
through the whole process, get attorneys, I mean,
do all the... Saves a lot of money on both sides.
On both sides, potentially, right. While also
allowing the injured party to feel like they
have a process to be heard and to have their
issue settled. So, yeah, I mean, and the fact
that it extends that not just to, like you said,
old cases or something very narrow, and not just
to the state, but actually is... fairly wide
ranging, just about, I think, to essentially
all types of liability that we might. And county
and city government. And both county and city
government. What's interesting about it is there's
no claim minimum or maximum. Nope. So it's all
claims of all kinds. That's right. All torts.
That was a part that really caught me off guard.
Right. And all both the state government. And
the inclusion of us. And city and local. And
the inclusion of us. Other local governments.
So essentially, just to shortcut it, because
you gave a very good longer description. Any
tort claim has to go through arbitration first.
First. Yes. Before they can file a lawsuit. You're
right. That's a more concise way to say it. Well,
I like to be concise. I tend to be a little verbose.
And I'm a man of few words. So between the two
of us, you get a good middle -of -the -road answer.
So how does this help? How does this help local
governments? How does it help the state government?
I mean, what is the remedy aiming to do here
exactly? I mean, you kind of got to it a little
bit. Yeah. I mean, I think it's a few things,
right? I mean, one, I think it's a meaningful
way to try to dramatically rein in the number
of potential jury trials that you might have
to. Well, that's a cost savings. Right. Right
out of the gate. Right. On a lot of levels. Yeah.
Right. But also, I think in a positive way, is
a very, which, you know, I think the other thing
you have to remember when you go to trial is
that can take years, right? These things can
go on for a really long time. Well, and it's
so unpredictable with a jury. Right. I mean,
any trial lawyer will tell you. Yeah. Yeah, if
we're going to go to the jury, we're rolling
the dice. Every time. Yeah. Right, every time.
Both sides would say that, right? And so, yeah,
I mean, I think so by giving the option of a
guaranteed process that's timely, responsive,
and can get the outcome that I think serves everybody
better while also potentially, like you said,
saving cost and time and doing all these other
things, that's potentially a win -win for everybody
involved. It doesn't mean that justice doesn't
happen. It doesn't mean damages aren't awarded.
It doesn't mean – it just allows it to happen
in a way that is potentially much more controlled,
much more contained, and in an expedited and
– effective way which i think everybody would
agree is the right way to go yeah um what do
you think the trial lawyers are going to say
yeah they're not going to like it okay i don't
think do you um no I mean, right. I mean, because.
Yeah. I mean, if I'm a trial lawyer, you know,
I've I've got if I'm if I'm a trial lawyer, I've
got Washington state in the bullseye of my dartboard.
Right. Yeah. I mean, and I'm thinking, you know,
any any victim I can get, you know, that can
file a suit against Washington state is a payday
and potentially a big fat one. And the worse
I can make it sound look, the bigger that payday
is going to be. Exactly. I mean, yeah. And I
think just. Just generally speaking, I mean,
I think they have always been very resistant
to any kind of, you know, changes or rollbacks
or modifications to, you know, the current liability
system. And tort, you know, any tort reform effort
has generally been met with, you know, not a
warm reception from the trial attorney. So I
wouldn't expect that necessarily on this either.
Well, politically speaking, they're a major,
major supporter. They are. Of the state Democratic
Party. So this will be an interesting discussion.
Agreed. And I think also. partly why we were
surprised. That's not private information. That's
public. No, not at all. And that's been widely
reported as well. No, and I think this has always
been much more of a Republican issue, frankly.
I mean, I think we've seen these issues come
up more and more by Republicans. But interestingly,
to see it not only from a Democrat, but also
in a... politically charged environment. Well,
did you see the other names on that bill? I did.
It's kind of fascinating. Some attorneys. Some
attorneys. That are part of that Democratic Party.
Well, Dhingra herself is an attorney. The major
budget writers are on that as well. The chair
of the Transportation Committee has signed onto
the bill. So, I mean, these are the who's who
of the Democratic Party in the state legislature.
Well, and I would add into that. I mean, I think
I was talking to you before we started doing
the... the pod that, you know, it appears that,
you know, there's been a lot of conversations
happening in the governor's office as well. Who
is also a former attorney himself. That's right.
And most of his office, it seems like now in
the governor's office is filled with attorneys.
Right. So that's really interesting. It is. It's
fascinating. Yeah. And again, I think gets to
why this is such an interesting surprise here
in the second week of session to sort of see
this kind of come down the pike. Well, I think
it's a nice surprise. Yeah. I mean, normally
we don't, normally they aren't nice surprises.
Yeah. That's what I would say. Give and take.
Yeah, there's some good, some bad. You've got
to take the good with the bad. But what I mean
from a nice surprise is you've got a governor
who's a former attorney. You've got a prime sponsor
who's also a former attorney. Maybe she still
practices. I don't know her that well. No, she
was a prosecutor. Prosecutor, okay. You've got
a state Democratic Party that's in charge up
there, and the trial lawyers are one of their
biggest supporters. You've got almost every other
prominent Democrat in leadership signing. up
on this bill, including some other attorneys.
I mean, this thing looks like it's poised to
move in a short session. And it's just now been
introduced. It's already scheduled for a hearing
next week on Tuesday. I know. And they've already
put it on a schedule for an executive session
to vote it out of committee two days later. They
have indeed. It looks like they mean business
on this bill. I think they do. And I think the
reason they do is because the stakes are so high
with regards to our current budget environment.
I mean, I think if anything, If anything, we
should have predicted maybe a little more that
this budget environment is so bad at the moment
in terms of – it's not so much that we're in
a bigger hole than we've ever been in as a state.
We've gone through ups and downs, and that's
not new. But I think the pressure right now is
so – uncertain in terms of both revenue and what's
left, right? What stones are left to squeeze
blood from are really starting to be limited,
right? And so it really has moved to a conversation
of we've got to try to contain cost. And this
is just a major driver of cost. And I think if
you're the legislature at some point, you have
to go. The only way we get this done is by doing
something like this. And sometimes that's a sad
reality. It waits until it's almost, you know,
right. But so let's, before we go, let's talk
about that a little bit, because what do you
say to the victims advocate groups that are,
because they're going to come out on this bill,
right? What do you think? Are they going to support
it? Are they going to be, it's interesting. I
was trying to think about that myself. And what
do you say to them? Well, I mean, I think if,
I can understand the suspicion, and I can certainly
understand the desire, especially, I mean, not
to, I don't know how to say this without making
it sound like, you know, if you're looking at
what judgments have been, right, if you're looking
at precedent and what's out there, you know,
you could see somebody not wanting to, you know,
wanting to take their chances with a jury trial,
right, and maybe potentially going that route.
And nothing in this bill really stops that from
happening. It doesn't. No, that process is still
there. You just got to go through arbitration
first. You just got to go through arbitration
first. And I would imagine that there's a benefit.
And I suppose how you would try to kind of persuade
some of these individuals that this is actually
in their favor is sort of. You know, you have
a chance to go through all of the process that
you sort of would have had to really wait to
do in a trial and get it done in a way that is
both. It just sort of puts the issue behind you
quicker, right? It does, yeah. I mean, it's like
you have the chance to sort of make your case,
figure out the scenario, talk about, you know.
Get made whole. Get made whole, right, whatever
that is, if that's possible, right? And then
move on with your life, right? And I do think
there's an element of that that I imagine that
would appeal to a certain number of people in
terms of whether that will be mass appeal, I
don't know. But I do think at a minimum, at least.
having an option for that which is what this
bill basically creates i mean it's a mandatory
option but it's still an option in the sense
that you and what i mean is you can still go
to trial you can refuse to you know it doesn't
say that if you you know you don't have to this
doesn't have to be resolved in this in this format
right but it forces you to at least take it under
consideration and to go through the process and
you may find that once you go through that process
that it it's it satisfies you right and that
you consider it done and you don't want to be
drawn out into a multi -year, very expensive
process, like you said, which is always a roll
of the dice at the end of the day. Yeah, because
you could end up with nothing. You could end
up with nothing except really high legal bills
on top of your potential pain and suffering.
Which would be a terrible outcome. Agreed. Yeah,
for everybody. You know, for me, and I've talked
to a lot of people about this, and we've had
a lot of conversations about this with the broader
group, and I think you can probably confirm this.
No one has, in any of those conversations, no
one has said, Victims should not be compensated.
You know, it's always about we want to make sure
that. If we make mistakes, because we will. Yeah.
I mean, we will. You know, these are dangerous
things that we're doing. Law enforcement, right?
Custody, you know, ITA. Jail environments. Corrections.
Behavioral health issue. I mean. Supervision.
Yeah. And the list of roads. Yeah. Just roads.
Roads. All you have to say is roads. Every time
we build an intersection and a bridge, you know,
you sweat every time, right? That's right. These
things are going to happen, and they're part
of the tragedies of life. And sometimes. you
do need to hold someone responsible for that
because there was negligence involved. Sometimes
there's an accident and sometimes there's negligence.
Right, exactly. And it's important to make sure
that the victims are compensated if they can
be. And, you know, if it's a small thing and
they just need to be made whole, you know, and
you can just write a simple check. You're just
able to get that out of the system. That's great.
If it's a long -term thing, then absolutely that
should be compensated for. They should be cared
for appropriately. But I think all of us can
say and probably agree that, lottery ticket type
awards aren't moral. They're just punitive. And
it goes back to, they're not a good way to run
governments. And they're not fair to the taxpayer.
That's exactly right. And so at the end of the
day, you really are, I think, trying to make
an argument that this is actually better for
everyone in the sense that No tool is being taken
off the table, but everybody is getting a chance
to remedy a bad situation quickly and cleanly
and with the minimum impact to either the state
or a county or a city that still has to keep
providing those services no matter what. Just
because this court trial is going on doesn't
mean that we stop doing road work or we stop.
We can't stop. Right, or we stop. We have no
choice. Doing law enforcement work or doing work
in our jails or doing behavioral health work
or any of these other things that we do all the
time. I mean, there's just not – that doesn't
stop because there's been an incident. And so
I think – Yeah, a private business makes a big
mistake like that. They can completely stop and
retool and do something different. They can make
that business choice. That's right. We cannot
make that business choice. We don't have that
option, right. And so the ability to have a way
to steward – I think this is just a better way
to steward. not only our responsibilities and
our obligations and to own up when mistakes are
made, but also a better way to steward the funds
that the taxpayers give government to use on
their behalf. All right. Yeah, well, Brad, thanks
for stopping in. That's my speech. Yeah, I appreciate
that speech. Going on the record, 6239. There
it is. Should they pass it or should they not
pass it? Oh, they definitely should pass it.
Yeah, I agree. Yeah. In fact, you know, well,
yeah. All right. Well, thanks, Brad. Thanks for
the time. Appreciate it. We'll talk to you soon.
Catch you later, everybody. 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.