RPJ, that's my nickname? Yeah. Those are my initials.
Yeah. If we call you that, then it's a nickname.
If we address you that way. No one's ever called
me that. I just heard Jamie call you that. You
did? Yes. Where was I? She was calling down the
hallway. So you weren't there. That would be
why I've never heard anybody call me that. 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. Well, we're in
week two of the legislative session. Today is
Wednesday evening. It's a little after five o
'clock and I've got Kelsey Hulse, one of our
consultants, one of our policy consultants here
on contract. Kelsey's doing some land use work
for us this year, along with other exciting things
like energy and cannabis and a little salmon
recovery here and there. Kelsey, how are things
going so far this session? Well, Paul, I have
to dispute one fact you stated so far. It feels
like it's about day 64 or 312 of the legislative
session. It is? It sure feels that way. I don't
think it is. We're only in week two. I don't
know. I'm pretty sure. I get the feeling that
you're feeling. Trust me, we're all feeling.
But I think we're only on day maybe 10. Not even
day. Well, maybe 10. We started on the 12th.
Today is the 21st. So yeah, we're on day 10,
if you count day 12. We made it to double digits.
Hard to believe. Yeah. We're actually getting
pretty close to the first cutoff because it's
only a 60 -day session. That thing is coming
right around the corner. We're halfway there,
actually, surprisingly enough. So you never said
how things were going. Things are going well.
Good. I think it is the sense that this session
has been chock -a -block with activity is shared
across legislators, staff, and the lobbying corps.
There's just a lot happening. We saw a lot of
pre -filed bills and then have continued to see
a pretty high volume of introductions. What is
up with the intro sheets? Holy smokes. Every
day I'm certain that they're going to start dropping
off because, like I said, we're halfway to cutoff.
It's only a week away at this point. But they're
not. They're not. And I think it's not just the
volume that is noteworthy, but also the level
of ambition in those bills. Very ambitious, yeah.
Big policy ideas, expensive things in a tough
budget year, right? There just doesn't seem to
be much. There's no governor on the process there.
Well, by governor, you don't actually mean Governor
Ferguson. You mean like the governor, like a
speed governor on a golf cart. That's what you
mean. I mean like a restrictor plate in an engine.
We do actually have a governor. Yeah, I just
wanted to make that clear. Yes, sorry. No worries.
So you want to talk about some county development
bills today. Correct. Lay it on us. We're all
ears. talk to you about UGAs and development
in the UGAs. And UGA stands for? Urban Growth
Area. Perfect. What could and could not be developed
in the urban growth area of any given county.
What was pointed out to me by our dear colleague
Curtis is that development patterns or the development
patterns that legislators tend to focus on are
not just in UGAs, but we also tend to see this
in LAMRDs. Yeah, and a LAMRD is? A local area
of more intense rural development. Almost. Almost.
You want me to tell you what it really is? Sure.
Limited area of more intensive rural development.
I know. You were so close. Oh, listeners, if
you could just see his face, he was so happy
that I got that wrong. You were so close. I had
a prize here for you, and now I'm going to eat
it. That he wanted to keep himself, clearly.
Anyway, Lammards and UGAs have drawn a lot of
attention in the last few years. We've seen lots
of bill activity. Mostly around housing. Correct.
It's largely the tension between... Where you
build all the housing that we need. Right. And
how we maintain the open space that is, you know,
partly what makes Washington such an extraordinary
state and also. Because the legislature has really
been focusing on housing, but they've been really
focusing on housing in cities. Right. A lot less
so. And you can tell just by the tools that they've
produced in urban growth areas that are outside
cities and a lot less so in Lambert's. Just this
idea that the cities is where they want everything
to grow. But if we're going to talk about, you
know, just kind of the basic. of supply and demand
and economics, if you really constrain where
the supply can go, you're going to get higher
prices, right? You need to be more flexible if
you want to not just address supply, but also
affordability, especially from a market rate
perspective. So we have, as an association, worked
hard to try to build extra tools. in those areas
so that we had more flexibility. Is that what
are we seeing bills along that vein this year
or are they different? The bills that we're seeing
are trying to provide either guidance for cities
and counties as they are developing in more rural
areas or trying to prohibit what legislators
see as sort of bad actors or Patterns of development
that they think are not conducive to either maintaining
open space and viable habitat or reaching our
housing goals. So give me an example of what
they would think is a bad actor or non -compatible
development. For example, House Bill 2201, which
had a hearing in local government and that we
testified. to our concerns. We actually testified
opposed to that bill. The bill would require
counties to align their zoning and development
regulations in their UGAs with cities, with the
nearby cities. Yeah, we have some counties that
do that, and we have some counties that don't
for a variety of different reasons. And what
we heard in testimony was that There were some
either cities that were frustrated with their
counties or vice versa, that there were adjacent
jurisdictions who hadn't come to an agreement
around what those development patterns might
look like. So you're saying in some places, the
cities and the counties don't get along? I mean,
you said it, not me. I find that hard to believe.
It's shocking. Yeah, that is very rare here in
Washington State. It is very rare. And I think...
You're... sort of joking, but I think that's
true, that in most cases, what you're seeing
are some sort of meeting of the minds, right?
Whether it's through an interlocal agreement.
A lot of times, yeah, around development there
is. I mean, but general disagreement between
the city and county, that's pretty much just
tradition. I was going to say, that's just for
good fun. Yeah, that's just, you really don't
have a city and county relationship if you don't
have disagreement. isolated instances where there
isn't agreement or there is fundamental disagreement
about what that should look like okay so what
they're trying to do is is what the legislature
is trying to do in many ways is force that conversation
all right And just for our members' information,
the sponsor has asked that that bill not move
forward. One thing that we made very clear was
that if counties were going to put in the work
to align zoning and development regulations with
adjacent cities, then we needed the cities to
also have some consideration in that agreement
and potentially be ready to annex those. those
areas in a reasonable timeframe. Yeah. Right.
So if we're going to put in the time effort and,
um, and work to get those ready for that process,
then it needs to go somewhere in the end. Yeah.
Yeah, for sure. I mean, if you develop to an
urban standard, typically the County isn't well
suited as the service provider any longer. It's
the city that is right. And the whole idea behind
designating urban growth areas and requiring
that they be. um, built to an urban standard
is because those are supposed to be the 20 year
growth boundaries for the city. So, you know,
if you build it and the people come, the city
is supposed to take it on. And that's the piece
that hasn't been happening, which is why you
get a lot of resistance by counties. Um, you
know, to require these development standards
within their UGAs because there's no guarantee
that the city's going to come along and take
responsibility for that afterwards. And in fact,
in many, many, many, many cases, and we can show
example after example after example, it doesn't
happen. And they actually intentionally annex
around these neighborhoods because they are costly
to take care of, right? And they leave that.
to the county and it's confusing to the residents
because they think they're in the city when they're
not. It's confusing to them because they live
in an urban environment and expect urban services
and the county struggles to deliver those. And
then, you know, essentially the rest of the county
residents end up paying the price to provide
that extra level of service to these urban quote
unquote residents who aren't paying. the full
cost of that service. So they're getting it subsidized.
So it's really a bad deal for counties. Right.
Especially the bill as it was written really
has counties on the hook for quite a bit, cities
on the hook for nothing. So because this is a
partnership. I think one of the things that we
did really well on that bill was make that clear
to the sponsor, that if it's going to be a partnership,
there needs to be some equity across that partnership
agreement, right? If we're going to do this,
then you're going to do this. Got to share the
load if it's a partnership. Exactly. So more
to come on that, flagging it for members, because
it is part of a longer conversation around how
do we deal with these areas that need to be annexed?
Cities are going to be seeking funding to help
support those annexations. Probably not going
to get it this year. Again, part of a longer
conversation and one that Representative Parsley,
the sponsor of that bill, is very interested
in being part of in the interim. So we will stay
tuned and stay involved and keep members informed
as to where that goes. Yeah, great. Representative
Parsley, by the way, only her second year, her
second session, first term, she's got a lot of
bills this year. And a lot of them deal with
local government issues. Yes. And Representative
Parsley is a former city council member. That
makes a lot of sense. sense, obviously. So she
spent a number of years on the Olympia City Council.
And in fact, I saw her today and gave her a hard
time about the number of bills she had, which
I pegged at 30, and she informed me it was only
23. Only 23. Well, that's a lot of bills for
one legislator. It sure is. In a 60 -day session,
especially. Wow. Well, good for her. What else
you got for us today? Yeah, I'll also flag Senate
Bill 6026, which is a A bill that prohibits cities
and counties, cities and or counties from requiring
mixed use or ground floor commercial as a condition
of residential permitting. And so that's, again,
a desire to see more dense residential development
because what legislators are hearing from the
development community as well as some cities
is that mixed use residential just isn't selling
right now. It's just hard to fill, right? So
you've got these. empty, aspiring, whatever,
restaurants or... dry cleaners or grocery stores
or whatever it is that you want it to be is just
not being occupied. And so then you have kind
of a building above with nothing on the ground
floor. But the building above is usually... So
what you're talking about, and there's been a
push on this type of mixed use, kind of neighborhood
pod type of walkable community development, right?
By cities and in urban areas. So you could potentially
also have this in urban growth areas around cities.
There was a big push to do a lot of this work
for many, many years because people could not
just live and work in their neighborhood, but
also shop in their neighborhood, get most of
what they wanted. So you'd reduce vehicle trips,
reduce commute times, reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
reduce wear and tear on highways, et cetera,
et cetera. They're saying that the market right
now isn't supporting that. And so is that a good
reason to? Make it illegal to do? Is that what
this bill does? Is it actually prohibits that
sort of design development from taking place?
It prohibits counties or cities from requiring
it, from requiring ground floor retail or commercial
as a condition of permitting or zoning. So if
you're in a mixed -use zone... That's a very
interesting strategy and kind of a heavy -handed
one on the part of the legislature. I mean, the
entire point of planning and the basis for the
GMA is kind of this ground -up process where
a community develops the way they want to develop.
A community decides what they want to look like.
I mean, what if you're a Leavenworth, right,
or something like that where you've got these
really, really strict design standards in certain
areas throughout your community? I mean, is that
not allowed under this bill or similar things
like that not allowed under this bill because
the state just doesn't, you know, want to let
local kind of freedom and identity? be the way
of the future? I mean, what message are they
sending here? It's a little bit confusing to
me. I think the bill is silent on chalets as
design choices. Well, what about Western towns
like Winthrop? I'm joking, of course. Well, I
don't know about that either. I'm just saying.
I mean, that's a very strange thing to basically
say you cannot require, in my mind. I think it's
important to... always to remember that legislators
are always hearing from a variety of constituents.
And they do have folks that are coming to them
and saying, hey, but for this requirement, I
would have put housing here. I would have made
it all housing. But what if the city doesn't
want that all to be housing right there? What
if they want, what if they have this vision for
this walkable community long term? I mean, isn't
it a city and a local community's right to make
those choices? Under the GMA? I mean, it's supposed
to be, and it is now. At the moment? Yeah, the
legislature is going to say no. I think the legislators,
and again, kind of playing devil's advocate is
not the right term, but I think what they would
say is that the emergency, the housing emergency
is such that it requires extraordinary efforts
to get the number of units online that we want
to see. And so this is one of the ways that they're
trying to do it, not endorsing or detracting
from the approach, but that is the hope there.
Keep in mind that the King County Urban UGA is
not a standard or consistent across the state.
Right. Right. That Brennan and Chimicum and,
you know, Packwood look very different from what
a lot of legislators might have in their mind's
eye as the kind of place that they're trying
to foster this development. And that each of
those... The UGA in Moses Lake looks very different
from the UGA in Renton or near Renton. It's a
struggle because the majority of legislators
come from that very urban Puget Town core. They
just do. And so that is their frame of reference.
I always sarcastically say the state of Washington
is far more than what you can see from just the
top of the Space Needle. But that is their point
of view oftentimes, right? That is their perspective.
And a lot of this sort of thing that they bring
forward really just doesn't make sense outside
of that environment. And I think part of our
work will continue to be making those places
real for them, right? Not just a list of development
conditions or a list of places, but how do we
bring them, whether it's bringing them to see
those places, Whether it's through, I don't know,
video or pictures or what, but we really have
to make those places alive in their minds so
that they can see not just kind of what they
look like and what they feel like, but how they've
changed over time and how they've developed over
time and the type of needs that the broader community
has from those, you know, smaller. more densely
developed spots. And as we're talking about this
and we're having this conversation, it just makes
me want to remind our listeners who are our members
how important it is for them to talk to their
legislators about these items, right? And to
encourage their legislators to take the stories
that they give them and talk to their colleagues
there on the Hill, because that's the only way
that that message is going to get conveyed. There's
a lot of legislators who aren't from the greater
Puget Sound region. They're not from that urban
environment. They have this sort of experience,
but they don't necessarily understand how some,
you know, if you're not a planning expert, right,
or you're not a building permitting expert, you
know, or you don't serve on these committees,
you don't necessarily know how these things might
affect your community. So it's just really important
for those of you who are from those other environments
when we're talking about bills like that, like
this. to take that extra time and reach out and
talk to your legislators, talk to your senators,
talk to your representatives, and make sure that
they understand how these things affect your
community. And I would say even beyond that,
to invite legislators to take a walk with you,
right? Take a walk through. UGA area, whatever
it is in your community, and talk through why
you've made the decisions you have, why this
place looks the way that it does, and what kind
of value it presents to the broader community.
Because these are very diverse and complex types
of places. So help arm them with the knowledge
and the information and the language that they
need to be able to take that back to their colleagues.
Yeah, that's a good point. That's a good point.
Well, you work on a lot more than land use. You
work on energy. You work on cannabis issues for
us. And I'm super excited to hear about those,
but we don't have time today. Maybe next time
you come by, we can talk a little bit about energy.
There's a lot of energy bills that are being
heard this year and could affect counties from
energy production and tax issues related to that
to transmission and permits. issues, et cetera.
So maybe next time we can chat about a few of
those. Does that sound good? I'd love to. Sounds
electric. I knew you were going to say that.
All right. Sounds good. Well, I don't have a
better tagline than that. So I'm just going to
sign off, Kelsey. Thanks for joining us today.
And we'll see you shortly, probably just in a
day or two to talk. I was going to try to come
up with something clever like some extra volts
or something, but that was totally lame. Yours
was way better than mine. Just didn't have the
spark. I didn't. I didn't. But maybe you can
bring something that will shock me. I'll do my
best. I got it. Thanks, Paul. Thanks, Kelsey.
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.