Do not put that on the podcast. No, you can't.
He doesn't listen. No, don't. No, no, no, no,
no, no, no. You never know. He might put it on.
Actually, truth be told, he might actually. Yeah,
he might listen to the podcast. 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,
everybody, to the County Connection podcast,
a special breaking news podcast here on Monday,
the 9th of March. It is around 3 o 'clock, almost
3 .30. That's significant. We're going to tell
you why. But it is Monday of the final week of
the legislative session. It is only three, well,
three and a half days away until Siney die. And
there's still a lot happening here. We have gone
through all the major cutoffs. Our last major
cutoff was Friday. That was the final floor cutoff
for bills that aren't considered necessary to
implement the budget to actually get through
the process and be considered still alive. They
would have had to get through both the House
and the Senate. That was a big day, but that's
not the only thing that happened, and that's
not the only thing that's still happening here
in the Washington State Legislative Session.
I am not alone in the studio. I have brought
Brad Banks. I'm here. Hey, Brad, how's it going?
Good, Paul. How are you? Good. Lots to talk about.
You said 9th of March, and I thought you were
going to say like the Ides of March. The Ides,
yeah. It feels like it. It might be the Ides.
I'm never sure when the Ides actually are, but
I think we're getting close. I think if your
name is Caesar, just the whole month. of march
makes you nervous yeah there's just tension the
whole month yeah it's not a yeah you don't you're
like yeah should i get out of bed today probably
not just stay home yeah just stay home i agree
uh brad what is happening i mean what is happening
and i don't say that lightly no i mean usually
we know what's happening but some things are
going on right now here in the legislative session
and i wanted to bring you in to do this kind
of Yeah, let's talk about it. Yeah, I think it's
an interesting moment, right? Yeah, and the real
interesting moment right now is Senate Bill 6346,
right? The millionaire's tax bill. Yeah. You
and I were in the trenches, so to speak, on this
one. To the bitter end, at least we thought.
Yeah, last week, right? And there was a lot going
on with this bill, I think, that maybe we didn't
know about. In fact, I'm pretty certain there
was a lot going on with this bill that we didn't
know about. I would say there were mirages. And
some deep fakes thrown in front of us to distract
us at times. A lot of political jostling. A lot
of political jostling in the background. And
then suddenly... Friday morning, there's a new
version that no one had ever seen. It just gets
dropped on the bar. And immediately thereafter,
there's a press conference from the governor's
office celebrating. He loves it. How much he
likes this bill. He loves it now. And announcing
that he is not only supporting it, he's going
to sign it. So he says. So he says. But there
were some things in that bill that. We, by the
way, when I say we, I mean counties, didn't like
it. You and I had some little things in there,
too, right? We just had some little things. But
before I get started, I want to make sure that
I do a bit of a disclaimer. The Washington State
Association of Counties was not in favor of this
bill and not opposed to this bill. We did not
take a position. Neutral. Happily neutral. And
kind of officially neutral, right? Yeah, as is,
I think, probably our... tradition and practice
in these matters to some degree. Yeah, because
this is a tax bill that is a state revenue bill,
not necessarily something that's a direct county
interest, although some of our members would
disagree with that, right? They would. And argued.
And others, of course, agree with that and argued
the other way. And we had some members, and we
talked at this, we talked about this bill with
our members, with our legislative steering committee
every week since it came out. I would say extensively.
And there was really, there really was not agreement
amongst the group. There were very strong opinions,
very passionate viewpoints on both sides, which
is why WASAC didn't officially take... Yeah,
that's an inherent flag, right? That WASAC just...
When those kind of bills come up, whether they're
tax or policy, frankly, I think it's... it behooves
the association to just go into a neutral mode
yeah and we have a pretty tough rule you know
during the session uh in order to take a position
on a bill we've got to get an 85 agreement on
either side i know i was on that i was on the
end of not knowing that when i tried to run some
in front of the members before and having it
go down in flames because i thought as long as
i had like 51 i was good to go no i know yeah
it's a high bar it is a high bar but but i do
think it it helps it helps create a among the
members and a real clarity, I think, for staff
and just sort of the organization in terms of
when we are going to move on an issue, everybody
knows we're moving in the same direction because
there's broad, broad support, supermajority support.
Exactly. And when the association doesn't take
an official position, members are free to do
whatever they want. They are. And so if they
feel very, very strongly, whether it's a value
set of theirs or just an ideological point of
view or whatever, or they just... you know, logically
disagree or agree with something, they can feel
free to just march off and advocate however they
want to on behalf of themselves or their county
if they can get the rest of their county commissioners
to agree with them or county council. Yep. The
one thing that we've been talking about a lot
with this bill since it started is public defense.
Yeah. So do you remember when it came out in
the Senate? I do. Was 150 million, I think, or
was assigned? Is that how it came out in the
Senate? Remember, it came out in percentages,
right? The first version was 5%. Oh, I'm sorry.
Yes, that's right. Yeah, 5 % of the total was
going to go to public defense. And that was significant.
It was. For us. Because how many years? Well,
geez, you've been here longer than. Well, no,
we've been here about the same. No, I mean, we've
just alternated. But yeah, yeah. Yeah, because
I was a member for a long time when you were
still here. And then you left. If you put us
together, we're like founding members. We've
got. more territorial when it was a territorial
we've got more experience combined than anyone
else but but no seriously i mean yeah i would
say you know i've been associated with uh wassack
since 2008 right and i was just a couple years
before you when i when i came back and then you
left for a while and then i left yeah right and
it was also always sort of association adjacent
yeah right but now you're back uh on staff as
a contract employee and i'm now i'm staff and
so What is it? So almost 20 years. And that entire
time we have been working on public defense funding.
And before that, if you look back at some of
the early reports that we have that the state
even did themselves, they dig back into the late
1980s, early 1990s. So we're really talking 30
years of discussion about local governments.
This isn't new. Yeah. Counties specifically in
public defense. And this. dedicating a certain
amount of a major new tax bill to public defense
was a huge step forward in that fight for more
funding on the local level well yeah especially
since i think we have elevated the issue to sort
of Is that what they use now? It's not even like
when you have the scale, right? It's like A,
B, C, D, right? And then there's like the super
tier, which is like the one just above A tier.
If that's true, then that would be this one for
sure. That's what I see on YouTube. But I do
think on some level, right, that feels to me
like where this issue has been for us at least
the last couple of years, right? Yeah, it's been
right at the top. It has been our single biggest
top issue that we have wanted to draw attention
to, try to get remedy for, et cetera. Yeah, exactly.
And it's worth more in a value point of view
to our members than even some of the other really
high -profile issues that we've gone after, like
the 1 % property tax issue and a few others,
which also remain controversial with our members
as anybody. Sure, there are plenty of other issues,
plenty of A -tier issues, I would say. Absolutely.
Right, yeah. For us, this was a huge step forward
from just that point of view, right? From just
that kind of narrow interest. We weren't in favor
of the bill. We weren't opposing the bill. But
we were certainly interested in that public defense
funding. Should that bill pass? Should that,
you know, and you and I talked about this before.
There's another podcast that talks about all
the hurdles that this bill has to go through.
Litigation, potential citizens initiative, right,
et cetera, et cetera. If it even passes the legislature.
Assuming it gets through all of that. and they
start receiving revenue, getting 5 % of that
originally would have been a big benefit to public
defense. It would have been a game changer, yeah.
Absolutely. And I think seeing that in writing,
right, was probably the closest we've ever felt
like there is a potential, and again, you know,
whether things are a mirage or not in any given
moment, we can talk about that, but at least
at the moment felt like, at that moment felt
like oh this is a this may be we finally finally
finally may have broken through right yeah they're
just maybe we're turning the corner even if we
don't like the mechanism right even if our members
half of them hate it right right and the other
half and even if the five percent isn't all that
we would have probably needed it wasn't it wasn't
right it wasn't going to solve the problem no
it wasn't but it was it was a step forward right
and it was a huge recognition of okay there's
We've got to try to fix this collectively as
state and locals. And then it comes out of the
Senate, not at 5%. They bumped it up. They did.
Right? To 7%. And that's maybe when we should
have said something. Maybe we should have thought,
all right, we're drinking the Kool -Aid here.
Well, it just, you know, here at the association,
at least, you know, it got us even a little bit
more amped up. It did. Right. And we're like,
okay, 7%. Well, maybe there's an appetite for
a little more. Right. Right. And we even formulated
a strategy to say, hey, how about even increasing
that over a five or six year period so that it
reached 10 % by 2036. And again, if you go back
and listen to the other podcast, there's a reason
for that. Supreme Court caseload standards and
how they had to be implemented. Additional pressures.
Right, and what sort of revenue we needed. Again,
not in favor of the bill, not opposed to the
bill, just working that particular piece. Now,
we got good signals out of the Senate. We weren't
told no out of the Senate. They said, you know
what, we're going to let the House have some
runway to make this their own. They sent our
information over to the House. I even confirmed
that that happened, that the amendment that we
wrote, raising it to 10%. did find its way to
the House, kind of talked to some of their decision
makers on the finance side. They said they got
it, et cetera, et cetera. And then it starts
going through committees on the House side. And
what comes out of the finance committee was actually
a pretty big disappointment, right? I would say
so. And it wasn't that they cut us out of the
bill. It's that they knocked it back from that
7%, which would have generated about $245 million.
Right. Down to $150 ,000 maximum. That's where
that $150 ,000 is. Yeah, that's where they had
the $150 ,000, right? Conversation a little bit
there, yeah. And that was the maximum award that
it would have provided local governments. Again,
not in favor of the bill, not opposed to the
bill. Working on that particular piece, that
particular piece was a disappointment. Yeah,
agreed. I think to everybody all the way around.
Yeah, it was definitely a considerable backslide.
Right. But in the end... Even that was bullshit,
right? It was indeed. Well, I was just going
to say, and then the waves that come off the
desert. Sorry to the kids out there for my language.
The truth is tough sometimes, right? Yeah, it
was straight bullshit. Yeah, and I think we can
do a lot of dissecting of whether it was a political
maneuver, whether it was keeping us. To keep
us engaged, whether it was greasing some skids
that we weren't seeing. Right. I mean, whatever,
whatever the whatever the reasoning was. Yeah.
I mean, at the end of the day, it was an illusion,
I think, you know, politically anyways. And I
don't know that it ever was going to be a reality.
And I think that. If you're not in the know and
you're listening to this podcast and you're listening
to us go back and forth and using the terms,
you know, that I just used. Right. And I don't
want to say it too many times. Don't bleep it
out, Mitch. We have a good rating. We need it
for dramatic effect. We have a good rating on
this podcast as far as being a wholesome podcast.
But I'm a little fired up about this. Rightfully
so. And what happened here happened really fast.
It did. And it went from, you know, the Senate
to the House. the house knocked it down and then
we get a version that appeared on Friday morning
just out of nowhere right that you know spoiler
alert in case you aren't up to speed took local
governments completely out of the bill. Vanished.
All funding for local governments. Vanished.
Just gone. Yeah. Just gone. And I had just had
a conversation 24 hours before with House leadership
who told us that we were going to be in the bill
and was asking us to get together with the cities
and basically had said, look, we're going to,
this is how this thing kind of evolved. I feel
like we're jumping all over the place, but they
come out of a finance committee. We were upset
with the amount. We let them know we were upset
with the amount. They come back and say, okay,
we know you're upset with the amount. This was
like on Thursday afternoon after we talked with
our legislative steering committee members, I
think, or maybe before on Wednesday afternoon.
I can't remember. And they said, look, we understand
you're upset with the amount, but that's all
we can do or that's all we're willing to do because
certainly not all they could do. They're bringing
in billions in new revenue with this tax bill.
But we're going to give it to you in flexible
funds so that you can use it any way you want.
Wouldn't you like that better? Of course, the
answer was, well, I mean, yes, that would be
preferred, although we still need money for public
defense. Right. But flexible funding, you know,
can be utilized any way that you want. And that
was the conversation that we were having. Right.
And then they wanted us to get together with
the cities and kind of talk about how we would
distribute that, et cetera, et cetera. And I
feel like we all I almost feel like we were distracted,
like there was almost like a fake. Right. I mean,
it was right. Like they were faking like they
were faking the runs. So they could throw the
ball down the field while we were chasing the
running back who actually didn't have anything
in their hands at all, right? And so we were
distracted working on that. And then Friday morning,
boom, comes out this new version. No local funding
at all in the bill. Nothing. Just a small mention
at the bottom of the intent section, section
one, where it says, we, the legislature, recognize
that there is. some local government funding
loss associated with the tax exemptions in this
bill. Because we haven't even talked about that
yet. I was going to say, we've got to get to
Part B here. Right. Pretty quick, yeah. And we,
the legislature, intend to create an account
to help offset some of those losses. And we,
the legislature, intend at some point in the
future to put general fund... into that account,
right? So essentially, we went from a guarantee
of income for public defense for something that
we really needed to a much lower amount that
was going to be provided in a flexible way to
local governments to a handful of magic beans.
It was attributed to the fact that they, meaning
the legislature, the majority party, just two
years ago, Right. Passed into law the Citizens
Initiative. Yeah. That there wouldn't be an income
tax. That's right. Just two years ago. Yeah.
Right. So two years ago, they accept the Citizens
Initiative, hold hearings, pass it into law.
There will not be a income tax in Washington
state. We're now past the two years we can do
anything we want to. And they implement this.
Right. Right. And so. Well, they think about
implementing. A Citizens Initiative. No, I know.
Right. That they passed. No, I agree. And at
the end of the day. Right. I mean, I think, you
know, I think it would be I think we'd be less
dubious or less skeptical or less irritated if.
This wasn't a pattern of this type of thing.
I mean, we spent half of session talking about
all the bills and all the policy ideas that were
either going to cost us money, cost us to change
the way we do our work, expand services and programs
that we don't have the resources to do. Right.
You know, undermine a lot of recent. I mean,
you know, and let's let's take this from a bigger
context to where I think I think where it really
starts to rub me raw a little bit is this notion
that. Year after year after year, they don't
want to take the tough tax votes that we tell
them we think we need in order to fund the types
of things that they're asking us as their administrative
arm to fund, right? Whether that's 39 criminal
justice systems, whether that's regional behavioral
health systems, whether that's land use and,
you know, I mean, pick your poison, right? Resource
management, et cetera, et cetera, public health,
on and on and on. And we then take, they give
us the tools, quote unquote, to take those votes.
We do them. Right, because they won't provide
funding. Oh, you're right. They provide mandates
for services and requirements, but they won't
provide the funding for it. No, but they'll give
us the ability to do what they don't want to
do, which is take the tough tax vote. And then
we do. And then we do. Yeah. And then to beef
up our local programs and to provide the types
of services that they say we have to be providing.
All right. But put a pin in this because you're
getting ahead of us. Sorry. Sorry. Put a pin
in that piece. That's a really important point.
That's where the burden gets me. Because let's
talk about how this thing also evolved. Right.
Sorry. There's really two ways this bill has
evolved. Yeah, that's right. One is, you know,
first of all, again, make it super clear. Right.
Members completely divided. Yeah. WASAC did not
take a position. That's not what our communications
weren't on that. Our communications were about
if you're going to have a funding mechanism,
here's what we'd like to see. Right. And again,
we had members who were adamantly opposed to
doing that. And we had members that would have
adamantly opposed opposing the bill. Right. And
some who were very passionately in favor of the
bill and probably still are today. I would think.
And we are focused really. Very narrowly, I just
want to be really clear on the county impacts
associated with this proposal. So we've talked
about how it evolved from counties were in it
for public defense, then it increased, then it
went backwards, and now we're out. But the other
way this thing has evolved is... Sorry, that's
where I jumped again. That's okay. That's where
I was getting fired up. Yeah, well, there's reason
to be fired up about it. I don't disagree. The
other way this thing has evolved is it originally
started... with some tax breaks for local business
and some new, or for small businesses, I'm sorry,
and some new benefits through the Working Families
Tax Credit for... Those families who are struggling
in Washington State, who have lower incomes,
who are especially burdened by what's considered
a regressive tax code. What it is. I hear what
you're saying. I don't disagree with you. But
we'll acknowledge there are differing opinions
on that as well. Fair enough. And there are differing
studies. There are competing studies on that.
That's true. So let's just assume that sales
taxes and property taxes do tend to be... pretty
regressive on those with lower incomes. Sure.
Just from that point of view. So this bill included
some major benefits for folks who could qualify
for the Working Families Tax Credit, put more
money in the program, expanded the eligibility
for those who might be eligible for the program,
right? But then they started to add some tax
exemptions. Yes, they did. Okay. And they added...
personal hygiene products. That was the very
first one, right? And that was a sales tax exemption
on items that you buy at the retail level for
personal hygiene. And it included things like
soaps and cleaners and toothpaste and mouthwash
and different things like that, right? And that
was not just limited to the state portion of
the sales tax, but to the local portion as well.
And then they added... Right. So they added all
of the sales taxes that they added under Senate
Bill 5814 last year. They put in a rollback as
of 2030. Then they moved that up to 2029. Then
they added diapers. And then on Friday, in a
surprise move that no one had talked about and
no one had seen that had never gotten into the
bill in committee, there was a new exemption
for over -the -counter drugs. That's right. So
all of these things combined, benefits for consumers,
benefits for residents, straight across the board.
But it's not just state sales tax that you pay
when you buy these products. That's right. And
even your statement about benefits for consumers,
benefits for families, I think there's an argument
to be made that while it may seem like that on
some level. If your local government then ends
up taking the hit because of that sales tax rollback,
when we're using that as a mechanism to fund
many of the essential programs that families
rely on, regardless of income level, then it
isn't as... neutral maybe or as harmless as it
seems maybe on the surface level so a lot of
people don't get this right and they don't understand
sales taxes but six and a half percent of every
local sales tax goes to the state that's right
straight right off yep that's the it's the vast
majority yeah so the state gets all of that money
yep locals have one percent apiece cities and
counties so it's about two percent right and
then On top of that, there's these other little
pieces. Little bits and bits. You know, one tenth
over here. One tenth over here. Two tenths over
here. Yeah, right. You know, another three tenths
over here. Which, again, gets back to my point
of this cobbling together of we need extra money
to do X, Y, and Z. Right. The state's saying,
hey, you guys need to beef up how you're paying
for X, Y, and Z. Right. Here you go. Go take
these one tenth taxes. Right. And raise the money
locally to do this work. So, for instance, law
and justice now is heavily funded by these specials.
sales tax just last session in fact yeah we got
an additional one -tenth yeah so there's now
there's now almost a half a percent that's dedicated
exclusively to the single largest budget item
for counties right for counties yep law and justice
right um there's affordable housing dollars there's
mental health dollars right for behavioral health
services that all go into or that are all paid
for by these sales taxes Because the legislature
wouldn't give us resources. They gave us a taxing
authority. It's the only taxing authority they
gave us. We took advantage of it because it's
the only choice we had in order to fund those
programs. Now, you may be out there listening
to this podcast going, I'm glad I'm getting tax
breaks. Sure. I get it. Me too. Believe me. I
love tax breaks too. Where your local programs
are concerned, they're going to get hurt by these
tax breaks. Well, I mean, look at the irony of
that. They just passed a bill, the session 2442.
They had an additional one -tenth for family
and youth services, right? Right. That we had
been asking for because we needed to beef up
those programs. So on one hand, they're giving
us the authority. More taxing authority, which
we're going to have to use. have to use because
right they're taking they're taking local governments
running away that's right in this bill that's
right so again yeah i mean it the irony of it
is thick i think a little bit it's it's almost
dystopian it's definitely cognitive dissonance
right at a minimum i mean the bottom line is
legislature's passing a bill A millionaire's
tax, whether you agree with it or you don't agree
with it, new revenue for the state estimated
at $3 .5 billion per year. Yeah. $7 billion in
a biennium. Yeah. Right? Huge money. Huge. They
make an acknowledgment finally. I mean, that's
almost a tenth of the budget. Yeah. They make
an acknowledgment finally in the first version
that they've got a responsibility around public
defense that they never really acknowledged before.
Right. That ends up going away. Then they offered
general fund revenue to cities and counties.
The number, by the way, that they've said they're
going to put in there is $200 million, but not
until the future. So all we end up with in the
bill is this intent language. At the same time,
they've got all these new tax exemptions that
don't just affect state revenues, but affect
the local revenues in a negative way as well.
And by the way, that $200 million, isn't enough
to cover the losses between cities and counties
no uh the cities and that's just the losses that
doesn't even count the loss if you remember the
what was probably an hour and a half ago when
we started this podcast the the part of the conversation
around public defense right which was the whole
Which we're spending, by the way, just as counties,
over $220 million on today. And we expect that
to nearly triple in the next 10 years because
of the new caseload studies. And again, go back
to that other podcast. You can listen to more.
I mean, I just kept describing it as digging
potholes for us. Right. And then giving us half
the dirt we needed to fill them back in. Right.
I mean, it was just like. Imagine your neighborhood
street. Right. Public Works comes along, digs
some potholes. Big old holes. And then fills
them half full and says, there you go. guys hope
that hope that ought to be good. Right. At least
your neighbors will be happy. Yeah. Aren't you
guys going to be happy with that? Right. Of course
you're, of course not. Right. Right. And now
you've got a, now you've got a new problem. And
your bigger problem is still not solved, which
is the public defense issue. Right. Remains unsolved.
But now you have this other now new problem.
Right. Got holes all over the place that are
half full. So yeah. And this, and we brought
this to the state and they said. They just shrugged
their shoulders. I almost said something that
needed to get bleeped out. It was on the tip
of my tongue right there. You and me both, my
brother. But they basically said, look, we've
spent the rest of the money. So let me get this
straight. You're going to bring in $7 billion
over two years. You're not only not going to
fund local governments at all with it, you're
keeping it all for yourself. Well, there's an
intent. Yeah, we intend to provide you with some
assistance. Some remuneration. Yeah, some remuneration,
but it's not assistance. Assistance is not taking
care of half of the problem that you created.
That's not assistance, right? And so, I mean,
it's surreal. Yeah, it is. I mean, it's almost
silly to talk about, right? I mean, in some ways.
I mean, if it weren't so potentially... Right.
And again, we have to be clear at this moment,
they haven't passed a bill. It's not, you know,
I. we probably should shift into this conversation
a little bit of whether they will or won't pass
this bill by the time, you know, maybe they're
doing it right now when we're on the podcast.
Well, let me check. What's interesting about
that is it's Monday. Well, that's the thing.
And I prefaced this podcast by saying it was,
it's three 25 in the afternoon. And that is significant.
Right. And because we've got after today, there's
three days to go. That's it. And there are big
things on the horizon. They've got to do concurrence.
They've got to do committee. They've got to do
budgets. Yeah. All the budgets still have. to
be passed, and that's not going to be easy. Just
the sheer mechanism, just the logistical stuff
they have to do to get through session. Right.
And to end on time. And I checked, and I've been
checking on this bill today. There are 79 amendments
on the bar. And those aren't just minority party
amendments. I was a little surprised, actually.
There's a little bit of mixture in there. There
is. How long do you think it would take? them
if they went through 79 amendments in debate
if they chose the if particularly the minority
party if they chose the tactics they have they
have utilized on other bills so far this session
where there's been significant controversy i
would be surprised if it would take it would
take 24 hours 36 hours easily to get through
yeah yeah easily of non -stop and that's only
Maybe 15 minutes per. Yeah, and they've got the
two -minute rule. I mean, they've got all the
stuff to try to expedite it. But they'll ask
for roll call votes. They'll ask for readings.
They'll pull out every mechanism they have, which
is the purpose of having. That's why minority
parties have those tools. So why do you think
it's now 3 .56 p .m.? And they're still not on
the floor. Yeah, I don't know. On Monday. I don't
know. Like I said, I mean, it feels to me like,
I mean, you know, this place can change at the
drop of a hat, right? Just like we saw on Friday.
Yep. You never know. I'm not sure that this bodes
well. I don't know if these are indicators to
me that they've got a deal internally. With themselves,
they being the majority party. It looks a little
shaky. It does look a little shaky to me. Yeah.
I mean, if this were a done deal. Well, remember,
the plan was to run this Saturday. Well, yeah.
Initially. And that's the way it was feeling
on Friday. And that's basically what I was told.
It's done. It's going Saturday. This thing's
happening. Yeah. You know. The minute that amendment
went on the bar, you know, the governor's out
with his press release. I'm here in the Senate,
you know, likes it, and they're going to quickly
concur. I read that in an article in one of the
periodicals just this morning. No, I know. You
know, oh, well, this bill's about to pass. The
Senate's likely to concur. The governor's going
to sign it. Sign it as fast as he possibly can.
Right, yeah. And now it's 358. Yeah, and here
we are. And they're still. On break. Not on the
floor. Not doing the people's business. All day.
All day. This is all day at this point. All day
long. They've put some stuff out, but they haven't
done anything. Nothing significant. Right. They
haven't done anything significant. Well, it's
interesting. It is interesting. And I think it
goes to show, you know, I don't know that we
were the only ones maybe being. misdirected right
in terms of where this bill was going to go or
who was liking what part of it or who was being
promised what or you know i mean i think it goes
to show because there's a there's huge parts
of this bill that we are completely agnostic
on and don't have any cares about right but lots
of members of the legislature do well lots of
our members do too well yeah no yeah totally
but there's a lot there's a ton of other special
interests out there that have pieces of this
that they want to see yeah and And that all translates
up to individual members who are going to vote
on this stuff. And, yeah, that's a lot to wrangle
in a short period of time. Well, let's just run
this back really quickly, just the facts. The
latest version of 6346 cuts local government
funding out of the bill entirely. That's right.
The only thing that's mentioned in there about
local governments is that they acknowledge some
impacts in Section 1, which is the intent section.
couple of sentences about their intent to provide
some funding at some future date to offset some
build a budget marker of those impacts right
yeah we've heard very clearly the amount that
they're targeting is 200 million dollars now
i will say that's more than 150 for sure that
we thought was was the offer on thursday of last
week so that is a good thing but it's not in
the bill And it's not in the budget. And it's
not enough to fill the holes. Yeah, it's not
enough to fill the holes. And to be clear, the
holes that we were able to actually capture a
real number for are about 273. million for both
cities and counties combined that does not include
your public facilities districts that's right
your transportation benefit districts sound transit
which is a major player in this game and a major
loser yeah of revenue people are not going to
love to hear that if you're into making sure
that you know that whole system gets built out
and is operating efficiently yep that's going
to be a big loss for them so it doesn't include
any of those other entities just cities, and
counties, and it doesn't include the over -the
-counter drugs exemption that was thrown in at
the last minute. Yeah, that's true. There's been
no assessment. I don't even know how you calculate
that. Yeah, there's been no assessment of that
at all. So let's just be clear. Again, these
are the facts. The $200 million that they're
saying they'll put in the budget. will be supposedly
in the four -year outlook portion. Now, the four
-year outlook, for people who don't know, we've
talked about this, and Brian and I talked about
it quite a bit on the budget -related podcast.
We have a two -year budget, but we have a four
-year outlook, which the four -year is the extra
two years that just kind of estimates what the
impacts of the two -year budget decisions are
going to be in four years. They're non -binding.
It's not something that says this is definitely
going to happen, right? So you've got those things
going on, and that's pretty much it for local
governments, other than the fact that there are
several tax exemptions included in the bill.
for personal hygiene products, for diapers, for
over -the -counter drugs, and rolling back all
of the professional services changes that they
made in Senate Bill 5814 last year by January
1st, 2029. And that all takes money out of the
pockets of local governments. Not just money,
but... general fund money, the most flexible
funds we have. Program support dollars. And program
support dollars that are specifically geared
towards things like behavioral health. Public
safety, criminal justice. All that stuff. So
that's really kind of the set of facts that we're
dealing with here. Now, bill hasn't passed. Tick
-tock, tick -tock. Yeah, 79 amendments on the
bar. Not sure what's going to happen. We've done
some speculating, but the only people who really
know are the people that are in those rooms and
those caucus discussions. They're not talking
to anybody. They're not talking to anybody right
now. They're not talking to anybody. Yeah. Yeah.
Well, there's still a lot to go then. There is.
I mean, you know, it feels like as close as we
are to the end, it feels like we're miles away,
you know? It does. Miles to go before we sleep
or whatever the... That old saying goes. That
old saying, right? Before we rest. Yeah, I mean,
right? I mean... Yeah, I mean, this will be a
very interesting next couple of days. You know,
Friday was a big day. It was. Right? And usually
that's the biggest day of the session. I know.
That last four cutoff. Things live and they die
based on that last four cutoff. Well, and what
was so weird about it is not only was it a huge
day, but it was a huge day where they didn't
do all that much. Right. That's what was weird
about it as a cutoff. Like, there wasn't a lot
of drama. There wasn't a lot of, at least on
the stuff they were running, they were running
a lot of bills that didn't have amendments. didn't
have any, you know, weren't controversial and
didn't have, you know, blah, blah, blah. And
yet there was still this this tension on the
Hill that was definitely stemming from this millionaire's
tax. Right. That you could just cut with a knife.
Right. I mean, it was just. thick up there and
and i think it still is yeah well yeah i mean
that's that's the weird thing is right usually
you can't just burn a day like this they're just
burned another no you can't not not when you
not on a short session right i mean the time
is and you've got big stuff to do right this
this this day yeah in most sessions whether it's
a long session or a short session is just a ho
-hum Yeah, it's just you churn out. There's nothing.
You churn out the. Everything that's left is
predictable. It's just the mechanisms of the
process. Probably no surprises. You know, you're
starting to think about, oh, it's time to write
my end of session report. You know, it's time
to start cataloging. Looking at interim planning
and see how did we do? How did we finish up?
Exactly. You know, what do we need to work on
for next year? Right. But we're actually sitting
here watching. Just watching. You know, on the
edge of our seat, literally going, okay, what's
going to happen here? Yeah. It's a very unusual
finish. It is, and it's definitely unusual in
a short session to be doing that. I mean, to
have this level of gravity kind of still pulling
on this. in one of our short sessions is, yeah,
I don't know. It's fascinating at a minimum,
morbidly so maybe. Well, on that note. If you're
a political wonk. Yeah, right, right. You know,
the one thing I didn't mention, Brad, there is
disagreement, by the way, and I want to just
let the members know this. There is disagreement
between how we are calculating our losses. Under
these sales tax exemptions and how the legislature
is calculating our losses. Yeah, that's true.
We didn't touch on that. Yeah, and it's a big
piece. And our numbers aren't close. Yeah, they're
not very close at all. The legislature is claiming
that our losses are only $61 million per year.
So by putting $200 million into this local government
account. They've more than covered everything
and given us a little extra to play with. Exactly.
But what they're not necessarily telling you
or maybe what you need. Or what they're not building
into their own calculations. Yeah, what you need
to find out. in that math is all of those rollbacks
that they're doing for the service -related,
professional service -related changes that they
made in 58 -14 last year, they're considering
that as non -revenue. Right, because of their
fiscal cycle. Right, their fiscal cycle is different
than ours. And our members, especially the larger
members where a lot of that revenue will be realized.
They booked that. Right. They're living off that
revenue this year. That revenue kept them from
having to make more drastic cuts. Right. Because
we are able to do the same revenue, the same
budget maneuvers. That the state can. That the
state can. Right. And they're going to be living
on that revenue for two more years. Sure. And
then the state's going to cut it off. I know.
Right. And the state says that's not a loss.
Right. Right. And so they're not counting that,
which is why our number of 273 million, plus
the over -the -counter drugs, which is going
to be several million dollars more. I've used
a lot of ibuprofen sessions. I don't know about
you. But we all have probably a few Tums. I was
going to say, yeah, that's true. Maybe some Pepsid
at the same time. I won't even go into the Imodium
conversation. But you know what I'm saying? There's
a big difference there in that revenue and how
they make that calculation. And we're saying,
look, all of that revenue, is important. Our
members are living off it today. You left us
last year in a lurch because the governor refused
our other revenue bill that we finally had the
stars aligned on, and that was relief of the
1 % arbitrary property. Tax limit. Tax growth
limit year over year. The governor said no. Right.
Right. And, you know, here we are in the next
year, and the governor is, you know, he wouldn't
sign that bill, wouldn't help local government.
We did benefit from the sales tax in 5184, so
now we're living off of that. Yeah. And here
they are opposed to not only take that away,
but cut even deeper into local government. Year
two. Right. Same governor. That's right. I know.
Year two. Year two. Right. Two years in a row.
Yeah. Pretty tough spot for us to be in from
a local government point of view, from a county's
point of view, especially since it seems like
all we talk about with them is the fiscal constraints
that we face. Yeah. And I think it's going to
give us a lot to reflect on, circling back to
that, you know, in terms of depending on however
this session ends, whether it's with a flurry
or a thud, to think about how we position ourselves.
going into the next biennium in terms of where
we're wanting to put our priority, what our priorities
are, how we want to communicate those priorities
and, and how we feel like we need to work them
with a legislature that doesn't seem to fully
get it at this point. And what's weird, Brad
is, you know, I have the benefit of being in
those meetings that sometimes you're there, but
sometimes you're not. Certainly our members are,
you know, but as the government relations director,
I am in that meeting. Right. And I was in a meeting
on Friday morning with, With a member, a key
member of the House leadership, and that key
member basically regurgitated our message, said,
we understand. We hear counties have less financial
resources than any other government. We know
you're the least revenue diversified. We know
you're especially challenged. We know that you're
paying for most of public defense and that those
rates are going to go up exceedingly in the next
several years. We know all of that, and we're
still doing this. Hearing, listening, and action.
are three very different things. So it's not
that they're not hearing. Right. They're hearing.
Whether they're listening, I'm not sure. We're
definitely not seeing any action. It's strange.
Yeah. Yeah, it's very strange. Well... I don't
know what else to say. I don't know. We'll see.
We'll see how this podcast ages over the next
couple of days. Over the next couple of hours.
Fair enough. True. We'll buckle up tight, folks.
It's not the end. It's only three days to go
and it's not even close to the end. That's right.
Here we are. All right, Brad. Thanks, Paul. I
appreciate it as always. Thanks, everybody, for
all the work that you do. Thanks for your sacrifices
and your dedication as county commissioners.
We certainly appreciate it here at WASAC. Hope
you can join us for our next chat. And 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.