Very weird. Pro tip, don't share your chapstick
with strangers. Should be a life lesson. 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. This is the official
podcast of WASAC, and I'm here once again to
talk about really cool legislative stuff with
none other than Kelsey Hulse. Hello, Paul. How's
it going? It's going well. Happy cutoff. Happy
House of Origin cutoff to all who celebrate.
It was a couple of days ago. Today's Friday.
It's late in the afternoon, but I like to enjoy
a good cutoff for a couple of days. I don't know
about you. Let that feeling last. Because it'll
be gone by tomorrow, that's for sure. That's
true, too, yeah. Yeah, we actually have a big
weekend of work in front of us. Budgets are coming
out on Sunday. That's a dirty trick, I think,
by the legislature, just to make us poor lobbyists
work on Sunday, I think, this year. But I guess
we've got to do what we've got to do. How is
everything with you and the issues you've been
following for WASAC? Well, it's a short session.
And we did have the House of Origin cut off,
so a lot of things died. A lot of bills just
went away, and some of them for very good reasons,
because they faced opposition or they weren't
well -stakeholdered, and some of them just because
they ran out of time or there wasn't somebody
fighting hard enough for it behind the doors
or, you know, a thousand other reasons. One of
the things I like to tell clients is that for
a bill to pass, Everything has to go right. Especially
in a short session. And for a bill to fail, only
one thing has to go wrong. Yeah. Yeah. There's,
you know, that first House of Origin cutoff.
And by that, we mean the floor cutoff when really
you've been through the policy committee, you've
been through the finance committee. Now you're
on the floor. And if you don't get off the floor
of the side of the legislature where you started,
if you're a bill, you being the bill in this
particular case. Got it. You're not moving forward.
You're done. right, for the session. Now, was
there anything in particular that you were working
on that died that was a good thing in your mind?
So it was a bad bill from a county perspective.
Sure. And this is a little segue, teaser for
the next part of our conversation, but we had
a bill from last year that popped back to life.
It's alive! Ah. Just, oh. last week i believe
um which was the mobile dwellings bill oh i remember
that one yes and i don't remember the bill number
offhand um but the mobile dwellings bill is something
we talked a lot about last year came back this
year had been uh amended on the uh not on the
floor it had had been amended we looked at the
new version still had some issues our friends
at wasolfo also had issues very consistent with
ours the bill essentially required jurisdictions
to allow rvs tiny homes homes on wheels a variety
of types of mobile dwellings anywhere that trailers
right in many cases trailers anywhere that houses
were allowed basically in any you know residential
zone And limited how you could inspect them and
what kind of connections and hookups were required
and all that kind of stuff. So we had a lot of
issues with that from not just a public health
standpoint alongside our friends at Wasolfo,
but also from an infrastructure standpoint, right?
We build infrastructure because we expect a certain
number of residents in an area. If those numbers
are thrown way off, you know, all kinds of...
problems there. Well, and if I remember correctly,
and before we go any further, you've said WASALFO
twice now, which breaks the rules here at the
County Connection podcast. You can't use acronyms
without first saying what the acronym is, or
at least very quickly afterwards. So WASALFO
stands for? Washington State Association of Local
Public Health Officials. You got it. Yep, that's
perfect. Nicely done. That's a tough one. That's
a tough one. Wasn't sure I knew it. So getting
back to the bill, though, if I remember correctly,
there were even restrictions on parking. We couldn't
require off -street parking for these mobile
dwellings, if I remember. And at one point, the
bill required that even if you had a single -family
residential home, you had to allow at least two
of these, right? And you couldn't add additional
restrictions. And so you would almost add, I
mean, imagine every single family residential
neighborhood with a house and then two trailers
or two. Regardless of lot size. Yeah. I mean,
there were no minimums there. No setbacks. And
where's everybody going to park? And are the
septic systems built for that? Is the water system
built for that? Not to mention potential other
public. not just public health, but public safety
concerns around fire hazards and separations
and different things like that. So a lot of problems
with that bill. Yeah, and I think the most recent
version got better than what we saw last year,
but nonetheless, some of our reservations remained.
So we were not terribly sad to see that that
bill didn't make it forward, given that just
getting that to a workable place, if... possible
was going to take some real real time and that
just didn't exist in this short session so that
bill died that bill died at the cutoff and that
was a good thing now what about on the flip side
where were there any bills that you were working
hard to try to pass that didn't make it past
the cutoff so from our perspective would have
been a good bill that died and therefore a bad
thing um you know we had looked at uh i think
we've talked perhaps a couple of times on wanting
to get some changes to cannabis licensing language.
Oh, yeah. And there were a couple of bills this
session that presented potential opportunities
to do that. In fact, we had an amendment that
we were hoping for that was introduced in committee.
So we thought we were making some progress on
that issue, but both of those bills ended up
dying. So there's no good vehicle to get that
done this session. That is something we've been
working on for a long time. We've made a little
progress on in previous years, but it seems like
every time we finally find a vehicle to make
that one work, it doesn't make it past the cutoffs,
unfortunately. Well, that's interesting. Cutoff
is always interesting. It's always fascinating.
to watch that process. And during a short session,
a lot of carnage can get created right at cutoff.
But... Have you talked about the cutoff drama?
Well, a little bit. Yeah, Brad and I talked about
some of it. And I know that you were sitting
around for some of that too. But I didn't want
to talk about that. with you today. I actually
wanted to talk about kind of that cutoff carnage
a little bit. And you kind of alluded to it when
you brought up the first bill that you said just
kind of came back suddenly from last year. And
those, we call those zombie bills. Zombie bills.
Right? The bills that just kind of... In the
first year of a biennium, they never make it
through the system or they make it partway through
the system and they just kind of stop. They get
returned to their committee of origin or maybe
they hang out in rules for a while. And then
here we are halfway through the session or almost
halfway through the session and suddenly, boom,
that bill just comes up in a hearing or oftentimes
not in a hearing. It just comes up for an executive
session in a committee with a new version. That
nobody's seen, at least not us, right? Or pops
out of rules. Or pops out of rules out of nowhere
and oftentimes goes right to the floor so that
it can make it pass. And now this thing's in
play again. And you have a really good example
of one of those bills that popped. Well, why
don't you tell the story? Because I can't remember
where it came from. So the bill, which we had
seen last session, came out of the Rules Committee
on February 16th. and then was run on the floor
of the Senate on February 17th. So it came out
of committee four days ago. Mm -hmm. and then
was run on the floor of the Senate the very next
day. Now, when it comes out of rules, of course,
rules is where it's been, just to remind everybody,
it's already been through the policy committee,
and if it had to go through a fiscal committee,
it did that. And then rules is kind of the last
gatekeeper before it gets to the floor, before
it gets put on the bar and potentially on a run
list. So in this particular case, there were
no hearings then on this bill at all this year
before it popped out and was on the floor of
the Senate in this particular case? Correct.
So this is a real zombie bill. It really is.
And we should mention that we're talking about
Senate Bill 5360. 5360. Which is concerning environmental
crimes. Okay. And I'm pretty sure we talked about
this bill at least a couple of times last year.
So if it's a bill that you want to get more details
on, you could certainly go back into the archives
of our library and find. the podcast episode
with Kelsey where we talked about this bill.
But give everybody a quick synopsis of what this
bill actually does. Essentially, the bill is
looking to add potential felony charges to violations
of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and
the hazardous waste statutes such that people
who knowingly commit crimes are held held accountable
in a criminal sense, in addition to kind of fines
and those types of violations, which we typically
see. And this was prompted by something that
happened where somebody made some... boneheaded
choices and did some things that resulted in
some pretty serious environmental contamination.
What would that be like? So you said it was like
the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, those sorts
of things. So what would you, I mean, is it like...
dying the river green or is it um chicago would
disagree um however yes st patty's day coming
up that's the one thing that kind of came to
mind right was uh you know what is it what would
you have to do to you know say commit an environmental
crime i would think um think about Again, in
the bill, it would require the act to be intentional,
but I would think about intentionally contaminating
water or the air, possibly by releasing something,
whether it's some sort of a chemical or contaminant.
What about lighting a pile of old tires on fire?
Would that be a violation? I would think so.
And that particularly around the... the hazardous
waste piece, but also air contamination due to
fumes and whatnot that might come from that.
What if I was a big paint manufacturer and I
had like 25 -gallon drums of, say, paint thinner
that I needed to get rid of and I just decided
to dump them in the Puget Sound? Would that be
a violation? Mm -hmm. So that's the type of kind
of crime against the environment that we're talking
about here. The event that precipitated the bill
and... you can decide whether this story is something
that you want to hang on to or not. I can't remember
if we talked about this. Hang on to or not? That
feels like a strange teaser. No, not necessarily.
Just meaning the podcast might run a little long
and you might make editorial decisions about
what you want to keep and what you want to let
go of. Anyway, was a situation with the electron
dam on the carbon and... carbon river and affecting
the Puyallup river where the owner of the dam
decided to essentially line part of the, um,
part of the spillway, I believe with some recycled
rubber material that he had gotten free or cheaply
somewhere, lined it, ran a bunch of water through
it. And all of this rubber broke up into tiny
little crumb pieces and washed down the river
and out into commencement bay i remember that
it was a big deal and it had an effect on salmon
didn't it it probably will have an effect on
salmon for a long time because they can't clean
it up right it's little tiny little tiny pieces
yeah all over the all over the carbon river all
over the puyallup river all over commencement
bay so serious contamination again that's not
really feasibly cleanable um and i think the
result and you know don't quote me on this but
i think the result was some sort of fine right
penalty and that was seen as insufficient for
folks who were who really cared about well especially
for a crime of that magnitude totally where they
probably knowingly knew what the outcome was
going to be, did it anyways, and now it can't
be cleaned up. So the restitution is really limited
in this particular case. So seeking more severe
penalties for severe crimes in the minds, I think,
of the proponents, which on its face is not something
that I think anybody really has an issue with.
Yeah, it sounds like a good thing, right? Nobody
is saying that you shouldn't hold people who
commit criminal acts. for those criminal acts.
Our concern comes in both the language around
how a quote -unquote person is defined, which
includes municipalities and subdivisions of the
state, and how those entities might be held liable
or accountable either for acts that they commit
or their employee commits. Our question is then,
How do you charge a county or a municipality
with a felony? And then what does that do if
counties have broad exposure to liability as
a result of that? What does it do to their ability
to get insurance? There's a whole bunch of questions
in terms of how that would even work and what
the results or the implications might be. It's
interesting that... For a bill that does what
you describe as far as basically intends to hold
people accountable for doing the wrong thing
intentionally, that they bring in municipalities
and counties, so cities and counties, as potential
defendants, right? Or in this case, persons who
could commit such a crime. Do they think counties
and cities are actually intentionally committing?
Environmental crimes, did they have examples
of where a municipality or a county actually
did something knowingly or intentionally that
created a situation similar to the one that you
described? I would not presume to speculate on
the inner workings of the minds of folks that
come up with some of these concepts. It is also,
so it's unclear. I don't think that that is the
case. And it seems as though I'll editorialize
a little, but it seems as though there is a desire
to hold people accountable if their employers
are not providing sufficient oversight or, you
know, if their employer is somehow responsible
for those employees and their criminal acts,
then they want to be able to hold that entity.
accountable as well. I think that structurally,
we do have some questions about what that looks
like and how that would work and how you would
determine whether that employer or entity knew
what was happening. Were they turning a blind
eye to that? That's a completely different case
from just something where you may not know, right?
Somebody may... decide to do something criminal
and there may be you know you don't have any
awareness of it such that you could have prevented
or stopped them you know what's interesting is
i think under the law in many cases where criminal
activity is concerned defining an individual
as a person right And even going as far as to
say a corporation or an organization or whatever
is also considered a person makes sense when
you're talking about an accountability point
of view. Because if the individual themselves,
number one, commit the crime knowingly or on
behalf of, say, their employer, then it makes
a lot of sense to say, okay, we're not just going
to hold you, the individual accountable who knowingly
did something wrong. And you shouldn't have,
right? But we're going to hold the person who
told you to do it, instructed you to do it, turn
a blind eye to it, whatever, accountable. Also,
because that person probably has more resources,
we can get more mitigation. Even where punitive
damages or penalties are concerned, they're more
likely to pay. But where a government is concerned,
a city or a municipality, Ultimately, that responsibility,
unless we're talking about jail time, individual
jail time for, say, the employee or the person
or the supervisor, or ultimately in the case
of a city, the mayor, perhaps? A quorum of the
elected body? Yeah, in the case of a county,
the chair of the board of commissioners? I mean,
I don't know. Unless you're talking about that
jail time. The other part of it ultimately falls
on the taxpayers of that municipality or county
who are likely innocent completely. So it's kind
of an interesting way to think about this when
a bill defines a person as also a government
entity. That is a bit of a stretch compared to
most... criminal law, if I'm not mistaken. Now,
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like that would
be kind of an anomaly. Is that true or not true?
Or do you know? Yeah, I don't know. And one of
the things that's sort of interesting here is
we tend not to deal a whole lot with criminal
law as lobbyists. So that's... I think the application
of... Unless you're a lobbyist for attorneys
or cops, right? And even those, like the bills
that deal with that, I mean, there are some,
but it doesn't feel like we're dealing a lot
in this space in terms of what constitutes a
crime. Maybe we are. I don't know. Not very often,
I would agree. But the application of criminal
law to... environmental violations, permit violations,
ecology order violations, that is a different
thing than we have seen before. I will say it's
not the bill itself that is changing the definition
of person, that is determining what class of
individuals or entities are kind of swept up
in this. The definition of person is actually...
In those statutes that the bill is amending.
So it's already in the Clean Water Act. It's
already in the Clean Air Act. It's already in
the hazardous waste statute. So these are federal
laws. The Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act.
I mean, the state has its own version that builds
upon that, right? And essentially implements
and enforces those pieces. Are you talking about
the state version or the federal version? Yeah,
I should say I'm using those terms colloquially.
So these are amending the state version, not
the federal version. And so that's already in
those statutes, is what you're saying, the whole
definition of... a person can be a government
entity in this particular case. Interesting.
Well, ultimately, it'll fall back on the insurance
companies that the government entity uses, but
then the cost for carrying that insurance and
the rate increases that go along with it, that's
all going to come back to the taxpayer, which
is kind of an interesting concept because that's
really uninterested. independent, innocent third
party in many of these cases. But it's neither
here nor there, I guess. I also had another public
sector client who passed along a permit application
form that they sign on, I think, an annual basis
for these ongoing permits, you know, NPDES type
permits, National Pollutant Discharge. Elimination
system? I believe so. Good job. Yeah, elimination
system. That's a tough one. NPDES. It's late
on Friday. It is. The fact that I'm getting these
acronyms is a miracle. It's even after 5 o 'clock
now. Extra points for you on that one, Kelsey.
Extra points. Did you hear that, folks? So they
are. Public entities are often submitting or
resubmitting these permit applications, and there
is a disclaimer on those applications that says
everything that you are submitting is true to
the best of your knowledge, that you recognize
that if you are providing false information,
that that is a crime. There's already some accountability
built into the system. The folks who have put
this bill forward are kind of aware of that and
how front and center that is in these kinds of
situations anyway. I don't know. And that's one
of the things that I'm going to be exploring
with the sponsors to just make sure that they
are aware that for folks in our world that are
working in spaces that may be influenced by these
statutes, that they... They are confronted with
their own accountability in the information that
they provide and the actions that they undertake
in accordance with these permits. So what's interesting
about this bill and all the stuff that you just
talked about is it's fairly complex, right? And
as a zombie bill, I mean, it came out of nowhere
without warning, like zombies often do. So be
careful out there, folks. I don't know why I
said that. Without warning, because you're going
to say probably that it's a complex bill. I've
probably watched too many zombie shows. But it
is a complex bill. It hasn't even had a hearing,
right? It came out of rules. This year. It came
out of rules. I assume there was a new version
that we didn't get to see beforehand. We didn't
know. That version never got a hearing. voted
on in the Senate. Now it's in the House. And
literally, we are two weeks away from the next
House of Origin. Or no, it's the final floor
cutoff. And we're only, what, a week away from...
We're less than a week away from policy cutoff,
right? So, I mean... This sounds like an important
bill. It sounds like a complex issue. It sounds
like a pretty impactful one for local governments
potentially. And now you're looking at a calendar
of a week or a week and a half to do something
about it. How often does that happen? Well, I
don't know that I could speak specifically to
how often, but there are, at least in my mind,
a few different ways that a bill can become a
zombie bill. A threat that becomes particularly
acute in the late stages of session. Which is
where we are. Which is where we are. So you see
bills that may be, you know, were made some progress
in the first year of a biennium, but then didn't
make it all the way through. Again, they pop
out either, you know, pop out in the last committee
that they were in or they pop out of rules or
they. Yeah. Or a probes or ways and means or
whatever. And suddenly, boom, here we are back
alive again. You also, you know, I'm sure you've
talked a little bit about bills that are NTIB
or necessary to implement the budget. Right.
And for good reason sometimes. And then we also
talk about the ones that. I just say get sprinkled
with a little bit of majority party fairy dust.
There is a creative explanation for how they
are necessary to implement the budget, but that's
another way that a bill that should otherwise
be dead kind of comes back to life and, you know,
continues on in the process. And then I would
probably put like title only bills in that space
too, where you've got something that somebody.
So we've never talked about title only bills.
I think. Boy, even with the Legislative Steering
Committee, as far as I can remember, and certainly
not on this podcast, explain to everybody what
a title -only bill is. Well, I should say we
haven't had much of that. There was one a couple
of years ago. I would say, but not recently.
Not very often. Somebody creates a bill that
just has a title and kind of sets it aside should
they need it later with the intention of being
able to amend language onto it from another bill
that maybe has died. So literally, just so people
can get kind of a visual, if you were to look
at a piece of paper. That's a normal intro sheet
for a bill or the front sheet of a bill. It would
just have the title on it. Nothing in the body,
no sections, no nothing. Literally just a title.
And the reason that's important is because...
Well, why don't you tell people? Why is it important
that there's a title on it? What is the significance
of the title? In Washington, you are limited
in terms of... single subject rule so you um
you can't amend something onto a bill that has
a title that doesn't encompass or yeah it doesn't
fit to whatever that language is or that you're
trying to amend onto it or um yeah that just
doesn't that there's no similarity there so you
have to have something that is that is similar
enough that you can you know put whatever I'm
not explaining this well. No, you are, actually.
I mean, the point is the title's key, right?
Because sometimes a bill can die, and it can
get resurrected simply by becoming an amendment
to another bill. So say I have a tax bill on
housing. Let's just say I have a real estate
tax bill, and there's another real estate tax
bill that's a different real estate tax, but
the title says real estate taxes, right? Well,
boom. That's a prime candidate for me to revive
my bill by simply amending it, getting someone
to offer it as an amendment onto your bill or
whoever's bill that is. So that title is really
the key. That's kind of the first gatekeeper
in whether an amendment is appropriate or not
appropriate or whether it's in order or out of
order, right? So when someone puts out a title
-only bill, they obviously are doing it for...
a reason. And that title usually gives you kind
of a clue or two as to what that reason might
be. And I think, you know, we haven't seen. Like
I said, we haven't seen so much activity in title
-only bills recently, but broad titles serve
the same purpose, right? If you have a title
that is fairly broad, so instead of saying, you
know, it's not a real estate tax bill, it's a...
Tax bill. It's a tax bill, or it's a tax bill
that benefits local governments. Right. you can
find a lot of things that could fit under that
umbrella. Yeah, a bill, let's see, dealing with
Washington's recreation economy, right? Very
broad. You could put all kinds. You could put
fishing in there or hiking or, you know, marketing
related to camping or campgrounds. I mean, you
could do a million things in a bill like that.
So when you're thinking about titles, There's
always, oftentimes, not always, but oftentimes
there's some strategy there in the title itself,
especially when you're talking about zombie bills
potentially or you're talking about title -only
bills or you're talking about amendments. So
zombie bills can be recreated kind of the way
that you mentioned, right? Because in the second
half of a session, all bills that died in the
first half are technically alive again. And so
they can pop up like this bill did. Second half
of the biennium. Yeah, in the second half of
the biennium. And usually they do so late, like
you mentioned, like this one did. And so now
we're kind of in a bind on it. Bills can be considered
necessary to implement the budget or even creatively.
Made necessary to implement the budget. Right,
or creatively. There's title -only bills. You
can resurrect a bill by finding the right title
and amending it to that bill. Are there other
ways that zombie bills kind of appear? I don't
know. I think that covers most of it. I was going
to say, that's everything that I can think of.
All that is to say... There are emergency measures,
too. Yeah. That can, even after the deadlines
have passed, if the legislature is still in session,
those can come out of nowhere. We've seen those.
We saw one a couple of years ago. If you remember...
Boy, it was a long time ago, but it had to do
with... like home insurance taxes or something
like that, that it was one of those funding bills.
It never ended up going anywhere, but I remember
it was introduced really at the last minute pretty
late in the session. But that one was considered,
I think, an emergency as well because it was
necessary to finance state expenses moving forward
if they were to have actually passed it, which
they didn't. Yeah. I mean, I think, you know,
one question that comes up frequently for folks
that aren't kind of immersed in this world is,
you know, is something is this definitely dead?
Right. Or is, you know, where is the certainty
behind whatever has happened thus far? And I
think it is important to remember that there.
is almost no certainty that there are ways that
you can try and work around the process. That's
not true in every case, and it's not true with
every bill, but there are a lot of creative ways
that you can get around, whether it's a deadline
or a vote that doesn't go your way. And I think
that's especially true in the second half of
the biennium. where we are right now because
you've right now you've got over 3 000 pills
to choose from technically right that are all
sitting there most of which uh you know are still
alive if it weren't for the deadlines that we've
already seen so far and like like you said there's
a lot of different ways to kind of work around
those deadlines if if you can get creative enough
and find the right vehicles and get the right
support in the right places And a lot of those
are sort of Hail Marys, right? You try the sort
of typical route and the normal process and then
you get to the end and, well, you got to keep
trying things. So I think that's where a lot
of that comes in. And for our part, a lot of
it is playing defense against those, you know,
very creative maneuvers because they do tend
to be. because of the very nature that it's kind
of a quick turn, a quick change, a quick, it
is hard to respond to them. And it is hard to,
you know, there's not as much time to figure
out what are the implications of this thing that
I'm proposing? What happens if this would, you
know, would pass because everything is moving
so fast. Have you ever had a zombie bill? Not
when you were working against, but one that you
were working for? No, although I had a conversation
today with somebody about a bill that had died,
and we were trying to think creatively about,
is there a way to still get this done? Because,
I mean, I think that's our job, right, is to
kind of make sure you've exhausted every option
before you give up, right? I think as lobbyists,
we all... I used to joke, I still do I guess
sometimes, that I am like cheerfully persistent,
that that is one of the best qualities, right?
You have to be if you're going to be a good lobbyist.
And you just keep going. Yeah. And you just keep
asking. And you just keep, you know. And so I
think that's kind of the nature of the work,
to not give up until there is nothing left to
do. Right. I have. Tried to amend a bill over
and over and over and over and tried to revive
bills through amendments over and over and over
and over throughout a session. But I've never
actually gotten a zombie bill where I was successful.
I've done the whole. I'm going title shopping,
right? And I'm going to see what bills are still
alive and how I can maybe take my bill and get
it to glob onto this bill. And I've gotten as
far as having someone agree to draft the amendment
and propose it, but I've never actually... I've
never had it take. I've thrown the Hail Mary
pass, but no one's ever caught it in the end
zone before. And that's why it's a Hail Mary.
Yeah, it's tough. And there's always zombie bills
every year. But when you think about it, there's
usually only a couple. We've seen three this
year at least out of over 3 ,000 bills, right?
So you're talking 1 % that's out there. And I'm
sure there's a lot more that have tried and failed,
right? I would also say you should knock on this
faux wood paneled desk here because... Knocking
right now in case you can't hear it out there.
Because we're not... Done yet. We're not done
yet. That's absolutely true. So there's probably
a couple more. I've had a couple that I'm working
myself. The Voting Rights Act bills came back
just out of nowhere. No hearing. They just popped
out of appropriations, went for executive session,
got to the floor and voted out of the House,
and now they're in the Senate, and I had to testify
on them today without any discussion at all between
those who are advocating for that bill and those
who have concerns like us. So it definitely happens.
It happens with enough frequency that it has
a name. But it's also rare enough that not everybody
gets a chance or has the opportunity to have
their bill become one of them. You know, one
of the things that we talked about or that we
haven't talked about that I just thought in my
head that is another way for a bill to come back
or to become kind of a zombie bill is in the
budget in the form of a proviso. I don't know
why we didn't think about that when we were talking
and kind of listening. listing the different
ways, but that's another way that it actually
happens a lot more frequently where someone is,
you know, takes at least parts of a bill and
gets it inserted into the budget as a new requirement
for a different type of funding or requires,
you know, somebody to jump through a hoop now
because they're in a different program that was
created in the budget, et cetera. So that's also
another way that people oftentimes are able to
revive whatever policy proposal. they're working
on and they weren't successful on. So you got
to look out for that. Get a little money in the
budget for an agency to start work on whatever
your thing is. Yeah. Well, Kelsey, a super interesting
conversation today. Zombies. Zombies. And it's
not even the fall. We're going into the spring
and we're talking about zombies. It feels a little
weird. I know, but it also wouldn't have been
appropriate in October. Why not? Because there's
no session. Yeah. And no zombie bills. That's
true. But there are, There's more zombies in
October, at least on Halloween night. Hopefully
at least as rare as zombie bills. Let's hope
so. Let's hope so. Well, Kelsey, good to talk
to you as always. I know we'll get a chance in
the next few weeks to catch up with you again,
but good luck as you navigate your way through
the rest of the session. Thank you. You too.
To our listeners out there and to our county
commissioners especially and other elected officials,
thanks for all the work that you do for your
counties and your communities every day. We here
at WOSAC are... Always in awe of your commitment
and your energy and your dedication to the work.
We hope you can join us for our next chat here
at the County Connection podcast. Until then,
take good care. 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.