A Brady Bunch experience. Like, you can go there
and have breakfast, and Alice and Mrs. Brady
will serve you breakfast at the table, and then
you can go out to the fake lawn, you know, with
the astroturf. Get your face hit by a football.
Evidently. Evidently. I don't know. I mean, to
each their own. Not my thing for the Brady Bunch,
but if you were, like, Hobbiton, I'd be, like,
100 % down. Hobbiton? Hobbiton. I'm lost. From
Lord of the Rings. Paul. I mean, I know about
the Shire. This is where we are losing a lot
of listeners because they are all really disappointed
with you. 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. I'm Paul Jewell, your host
and government relations director for the Washington
State Association of Counties. And today, I've
got Jamie Bodden here. Jamie, how are things
going? Things are going good, Paul. It's good
to see you. It's been a while since you've been
on the podcast. It has. It's been a couple weeks.
Well, happy sine die. Almost. Almost, yep. Sine
die eve. I like to say happy sine die a couple
of days early just because it makes me feel like
it's coming. Yeah. Makes me, it's like Christmas,
right? What would the eve of sine die be called?
Like sine die eve sounds, is too obvious, but
there's got to be some sort of Latin. There has
to be some sort of Latin. I don't know, but I
could look that up. We should start a new tradition.
We'll start. It's like Halloween and then All
Souls Day. Because like sine die, the Latin translation
is like without something. I can't remember.
Without more, without end, or without something.
Because you're basically saying, okay, the meeting
is over, the session is over, and we don't have
another date to meet, right? It's indefinite.
It's indefinite. And, of course, they do, but
it's not this session. It's the following session.
So I don't know what the alternative to that
would be, but we should look that up. I'll bet
AI could tell us. I bet AI could tell us. Also,
we could just say one day more and then sing
Les Miserables together. There you go. I don't
think people would like that. We could start
a tradition and just, yeah, one day more. Yeah.
But, of course, we don't count the days here
at WASAC. We make the days count. That was for
all you listeners out there who love it when
I say that. Jamie. Yes. How did things go this
session? Well, it's not quite over. We're waiting
for budgets. Yep. That's today, though. That
is today. In fact, in about 30 minutes or so.
Yeah, so we're going to start hearing budget
pretty soon. But budget aside, we had a very
positive session. We had a good session for public
health. Yeah, good, good, good, good. You had
a couple of bills that you were pushing through.
We had a couple of bills that was Salfo. and
prioritized. They were kind of our bills. And
then we had a couple other bills that came up
that were just good public health policy that
we wanted to support as well. And then we had
a couple of bills that we had some concerns over,
weren't fully baked, and were successfully able
to get those to die. So we got the good things
passed, and we kept the bad things from getting
passed. And that's how it's done. And that's
how it's done. So what were the big ones as far
as the ones that passed? Yeah, so we had... Two
priority bills passed, 2242, which was a larger
coalition effort around it. It was a preventative
services bill that would maintain access to specific
basic preventative services like cancer screenings,
immunizations, that kind of thing. So this is
mostly for the clinics? Mostly for clinics and
our healthcare partners. And then it also empowers
DOH to... Make certain recommendations around
immunizations and leverage multiple organizations
at the state and federal level. And just to be
clear, DOH is? Department of Health. Okay. Our
secretary. And it would be our secretary of health
explicitly in the bill. So this was a governor
request legislation with the. Office of the Insurance
Commissioner, Department of Health partnered
with them, and then a number of advocates, both
in the healthcare space and the public health
space, joined kind of the coalition effort to...
get the bill passed. So you had the governor's
office, the insurance commissioner, and Department
of Health all partnering on one bill along with
Wasafo? Mm -hmm. That's a pretty potent combination,
I would think. Which was really great. And that's,
you know, the best policy has a large coalition
of support around it. And so it makes lighter
work of the things where everyone kind of has
their tasks. Our task as Wasafo was to help convene,
you know, groups to talk about testimony and
help with, you know, getting people registered.
We talked about it with meetings with legislators,
provided kind of a local perspective of if this
was protected, this means this for this community.
If these things go away, this means this for
this community. It ultimately got passed, and
it was signed by the governor on Monday. So it
is official official. Oh, wow. Got the pen, got
the picture. Went through the bill signing and
the whole ball of wax. And got to go in the state
reception room to get the photo signed, which
is rare. Boy, I think you might have won the
bill signing lottery. I'm not sure. I think it
was the first bill this year. 1345, which is
a housing bill, went through early. And I think
that one, I can't remember if that one's been
signed or not. So it would have been a race between
those two. I'm going to have to research that.
I'll have to get back to our listeners to see
which one came out first. But congratulations.
Yeah. What are the other big ones? So other big
one, 6291 was one that was Salfo kind of ran
alone, but it was a smaller bill that was around
our on -site wastewater inspectors. Oh, this
is the one about how hard it is to get through
that kind of certification test, right? Yeah.
So we have kind of a snag in the certification
period. time crunch where it's really hard for
staff to get the supervision they need, and then
sit for the exam, pass the exam. And so by extending
that time period a little bit more, they have
a little bit more of that cushion and a little
bit more runway so they can do what they need
to do to prepare and increase the likelihood
that they'll actually pass the test. And you're
hoping this leads to more success and more inspectors
out there. Yeah, more success, more inspectors,
more inspectors being able to stay in the positions
that they're in because that means better customer
service to developers. and those that are looking
to build and develop homes. Well, that's a direct
service that housing needs, right? So it should
be a good thing for not just septic and not just
environmental health, but also for our housing
needs here in Washington State. Yeah, and that
one passed. It was one where we filed it late,
so we weren't... you know, expecting a whole
lot of action this year, right? When you file
things late, you can kind of be like, oh, we're
going to get a hearing and that's about it. But
sometimes they catch on. Sometimes they catch
fire pretty quick. That's exactly what happened.
And it was, I think, because it was budget neutral
and it was relatively non -controversial. So
it moved swiftly out of the Senate unanimously.
Well, and being able to tell the housing story
on it too probably helped. Yeah, and swiftly
out of the house unanimously. So we got that
one passed too. Yeah, cool. Congrats. And then
one that we worked on and we talked about, 2442.
Yes. Was another one that we weren't really watching
because we really weren't, you know. Great bill.
weren't really involved or not really one that
we needed to pay attention to, right? Until.
Until. Some amendments came in and we were like,
ooh, we actually do like this bill. And there
were components that we really did like and we
really wanted to see included. And so it's a
good example of sometimes bills change and evolve
in a way where you're not paying attention and
then suddenly you're game in, you're getting
tapped in. And you get to engage and talk about
the bill in a different way. And I think that
was helpful because you got to focus on the things
that you liked and were important for kind of
your book of business. And I could take some
of the different sections that we liked and talk
about those too. Yeah. So just to be clear, 2442
was Representative Berg's bill. And this is the
one on local government finances. The reason
you guys got involved, correct me if I'm wrong,
I think there were probably two components that
you really liked. Of course, the part that was
in there from the very beginning was the one
-tenth of one percent sales tax for children's
services. So that's kind of an indirect sort
of related thing. But then it was the five cents
per thousand, I assume, for supportive public
health clinics that you really wanted to support.
As more public health departments are doing.
direct services work, but also community organizations
that do public health. direct services as well
would be able to be supported by that. And then
there's also like the housing components and
the mental health things. Some flexibility with
existing resources. Yeah, those are good social
determinants of health components that we know
when people have better housing, they're going
to have better health outcomes, right? When they
have stable access to mental health services
or community -based mental health services, they're
going to have better health outcomes too. So
there's the specific... you know nitty -gritty
public health stuff that we really liked with
the clinics but then this larger social determinant
kind of lens that we could put over some other
sections of the bill too that we liked that one
originally included some new revenue some new
flexible revenue for counties in the form of
a utility tax that we've been trying for for
quite a while, but unfortunately was stripped
out of the bill when it came out of the House.
When it got to the Senate, we got it back in
there in committee, but only briefly. It was
almost like it was like, oh, nope, sorry, because
the committee then stripped it right back out.
But there is a really important component that's
still in there. There's several things in that
bill that counties like, not just the new revenue
for children's services and for... public health
clinic support. But there's also, like you mentioned,
a lot of new flexible pieces with existing revenue.
But there's also a piece in there that we're
hoping will stay. I have assurances that it will
stay, and that's the bifurcation of the veterans
and mental health and developmental disabilities
levies from the general fund levy. A couple of
nice things to say about that one. The way it's
working now under the bill, the veterans and
MHDD levies have their own separate now. millage
rates that you're not going to have to choose
how much of your general fund you want to give
to them they're separate and independent which
is really nice so i think we'll see enhanced
services and enhanced funding for veteran services
and for mh and dd services stability a little
bit more predictability i think so yeah which
is all part of kind of what you were talking
about right on that human services end and they're
not part of that 590 limit for local government
property tax levies, which is also great. It's
also great. And that automatically will free
up that funding that was being used for those
services. Those millage rates that were being
pulled out of the general fund now will be available
for just general government services. So it's
kind of like a dual benefit portion of that bill.
That's something that I think WSAC's been working
on for a very long time. Yeah, very long time.
So that's a good little bill. Any other really
good ones you want to mention or should we go
to Kill Bills? You know, we had – it ultimately
was good. It was a bit of a roller coaster the
last week of session. It usually is. And one
where – I've talked about this frequently where
FPHS, our account shortfall, we needed a fix.
There was four options on the table at the start
of session. And we had, you know, and it was
the path is foggy. The path will become clear.
Well, last week it was like, all right, we have
one bill. This is the path. We're ready to go.
Is this the nicotine tax bill? This is the nicotine
tax bill. You know, so ultimately we had it set,
ready to go. It needed to get exact out of finance
on Saturday. And it did not. Yeah, they didn't
even meet on Saturday, did they? I think finance
did meet. Oh, they did. Yeah. But the bill sat
there. But the bill sat there. They didn't pull
it from exec. That's never a good feeling. No.
And so it was. Was it on the exec schedule? It
was on the exec schedule. And they just passed
it over? And they just did not. Oh, that's crushing.
Yeah. That feeling is just like you feel defeated
when that happens. You had it ready to go. It's
queued up. It's like at the finish line. It's
ready to just step over. Somebody pushes it.
And that wasn't just a finish line. It was a
$21 million finish line, right? It's that shortfall
fix. Yeah. So Saturday morning doesn't get exact,
you know, and now we have a $21 million deficit,
right? Like gut punch, right? Things aren't looking
great. And, you know, we did our job during session
where we had enough people and had enough support
legislatively around this issue who wanted to
work on this issue, who wanted to fix this issue,
where we could throw out a couple Hail Marys.
And Dark Horse had a different bill where it
fit within the scope of the bill and got it into
an amendment on Monday afternoon. And so it has.
passed in an amendment on monday afternoon so
it's still alive so what bill did you take a
ride on so the one what we needed to get passed
was 61 uh 6129 uh senate bill senate bill and
we ended up getting it passed in 2675 house bill
which is a house bill what was the title and
it's in a ofm accounts bill oh That's broad.
Yeah. That was just begging for writers. You
put a title on a bill like that, you're just
like, come on, come on. It's a little bit more
prescriptive than OFM accounts bill. We have
a big wagon here. But it was one where similar
bill runs every few sessions. It's an account
cleanup bill that OFM runs to help. tidy up their
books, right? Sure. And so we were able to get
it in. Kudos to Senator Braun for sponsoring
the amendment. Kudos to Senator Robinson for,
I know she did some work on that too. Why didn't
they pass it out of House Finance? Do you know?
They didn't have the votes. They didn't. And
it was, I think, the larger tax issue was what
killed it. Okay. So it hitched a ride when the
House bill was in the Senate. Yes. So now it's
got to go back to the House. So now it has to
go back to concurrence. And what do you think
is going to happen over there? I think it's going
to be okay because the tax components are gone.
Oh, they are. And I think that was what was problematic
and what ultimately sunk the bill was there was
a caucus within Democrats that wanted it and
a caucus within Democrats that were said enough.
We have other tax priorities that we need to
focus on. One really big one that they just spent
24 hours on. And this was a bill that was just
like, you know, there's not enough agreement.
And I think what was exciting and what was demonstrated
was that there was support and agreement that
we need to fix the FPHS account. The dark horse
that happened with 2675 and ultimately what got
passed was we're taking all of the tax components
off the table. We're stripping all that away.
We're focusing solely on making FPHS account
whole. Okay, but where does the $21 million come
in? That is how it was whole. So it's a diversion
of a fund. So it's not a new tax on tobacco like
it was originally intended. Correct. Instead,
you're diverting funds from where? So instead
of adding tax to this account that would fund
FPHS, it's just diverting it back to the FPHS
account. So it's limiting some of the revenue
that they will be working with with the budget.
in order to fix this account. So it's some general
fund revenue that's going? Other tobacco product
tax. Oh, okay. That would have gone to other
tobacco -related services? That would have gone
to the general fund. Oh, okay. Because they scooped
some of that. So it is general fund money, essentially.
Yeah. Interesting. Well, I was actually... Who
was I talking with? I think I was... We did a
podcast earlier this year on how a bill becomes
a law. And we were kind of talking about the...
Some of the things that the cartoon, if you remember
from your childhood, doesn't exactly tell you
about every step of the way how a bill can really
find a perilous crevasse to fall into and how
you might resurrect that bill. And we talked
about title shopping afterwards and how you can
hitch a ride through an amendment on another
bill. You can revive your bill. you just showed
us a really good example of a real life opportunity
and you took advantage of it. So congratulations.
Yeah. Thank you. I, I was, I was having the pity
party on Monday. It was not me. It was, it was
our, it was our advocates and partners who ultimately
Found an avenue and got it. So kudos to our lobbyist,
Bryn, and our other partners. Well, it's pretty
fortuitous because, I mean, really, without the
right title, you would not have had that opportunity.
Correct. If there was not a different bill that
we could have. put it into. And Monday, there's
not a lot of floor action. Not a lot. This week,
right? There are, you know, there's a lot of
concurrence. Because it's after cutoff. Yeah,
there's a lot of concurrence floor action, but
that doesn't mean you get to add things. It just
means yes or no. Yeah, your options were really
limited. So it literally was probably one of
the last bills to pass off the House floor. Before
the big debate that happened yesterday. Yeah.
Well, that's fortunate. Yeah. So very, very lucky.
Very pleased. But we do know that we need to
come back the next biennium with a more longer
term fix. This feels like this is a Band -Aid.
And it's a Band -Aid for now. But we know we
need to do some work over the interim. So it's
always nice to talk about the bills that passed.
Yes. But sometimes it's a little more fun to
talk about the ones that didn't. Just from a
diabolical standpoint. Because everyone knows
it's much more fun to kill stuff than it is to
pass stuff. So let's pivot a little bit. Let's
talk about the carnage you created. You know,
this year, we didn't have a lot of carnage, I
would say. I would say we put a lot of nice things
to bed. You make it sound like you read them
a story and you tucked them in. Kind of. You
know, there's other years where I gleefully,
like, yes, it is. over there yes instead of putting
them to bed i put them to the long permanent
you know long permanent sleep um but this year
you know we had them with a pair of uh concrete
galoshes if you know what i mean uh but this
year we had a couple bills that um gave us some
heartburn had some pause you know gave us some
pause had some concern sure and um we're able
to have some really good conversations around
that and have a better understanding and so You
know, I they ultimately failed, which is what
we wanted, which is a good thing that we we were
able to kind of like, you know, they died early
and swiftly. But you always want to humane. Yeah.
Yeah. You don't want to. Yeah. You don't want
to drag it out. That's painful for everybody.
But I think ultimately one of them, you know,
I'm hopeful we can have more conversation and
bring back something better next year that actually
I think will move the intent of what the bill
was forward in a way that's going to be. more
effective. And the other one I think is a broader
conversation that doesn't necessarily need a
bill and need a statute change. You're going
to tell us what these were about, right? Sure.
Yes. That's probably a better idea than speaking
in really vague terms. You haven't even told
us what they are about yet, Jamie. Come on. This
is the bedtime story. Yeah. I'm not falling for
that. I've been around the block. Time to go
to bed. Not my first rodeo, Jamie. Don't think
that's going to work. Work on me. So one of these
was 2183, which was around extreme weather events.
Okay, yeah, I remember this bill. And essentially
had counties... Like shelters or something? Counties
making, as part of their comprehensive plans,
as part of GMA, developing heat response plans
and set out a lot of parameters and criteria
that needed to be included in these heat response
plans. Including like cooling centers and things
like that. Cooling centers, specific populations
of focus, building refabs, distribution of resources,
all of that. Great concept, right? We need to
be more prepared for adverse weather. It's happening
more frequently. This past flooding was a good
example of adverse weather, not extreme heat,
but the need to have larger response plans in
place. a lot of our counties already have heat
response plans in some way. Sometimes emergency
management has that. Sometimes human services
has that. But those tend to exist already. Well,
and this feels like emergency management more
than it feels like, you know, regular planning
or public health anyways. And it does fold better
into, I think, that larger emergency management
scheme. What we raised was this already duplicates
a lot of work going on. So, you know, do we really
need this if it's already happening? And if it's
already happening, how do we, you know, build
it in a way that aligns with the, you know, with
the intent of what the bill wants? And I think
what the larger scheme is, how do we do longer
term mitigation planning so that when our response
happens, our response has a better infrastructure
in which to hang? That is costly. And there's
no larger state plan or larger state kind of
framework for that. So we really stressed if
we want to have this larger mitigation kind of
strategy and implement a lot of those efforts,
we need to have something to... to work towards
first. Otherwise it's just going to be every,
you know, every jurisdiction doing their own
thing. And it's still going to be patchwork.
It's still going to be piecemeal because an extreme
heat response in, you know, Eastern Washington,
you know, Tri -Cities is going to look very differently
than in Olympia. You know, it is 80 degrees in
Olympia and it is. unbearably hot for some of
us delicate flowers on the west side you know
80 degrees in the tri -cities is nothing no in
fact that's a spring day that's a great day to
go golfing yeah really it is yeah and it's it's
a very different type of heat you know as someone
who lives in eastern washington but frequents
western washington i can tell you that that it's
very different and 80 degrees 85 degrees feels
very differently on one side of the mountains
than it does on the other Extreme heat, you know,
in eastern Washington really doesn't kind of
hit until 110 maybe. Versus 110 over here is
nearly unbearable. Yeah, it is very, very dangerous.
And so had those conversations with bill sponsor
and with committee members and said, you know,
we'd love to have this larger conversation because
we don't disagree that this is an opportunity
to do more of that larger kind of. mitigation
planning, mitigation efforts, so we can be better
when the response does need to happen for these
emergencies. We do have more infrastructure in
place, but we need to have more conversation
of what that could or should look like statewide
because it is very different at the local level,
and we probably want something that can be a
thread throughout. all of those responses um
and they agreed um and so um didn't didn't push
the bill in a way where we felt like we had to
constantly try or trying to improve the bill
we kind of provided some thoughts on to it to
improve it at a committee and then it ultimately
died in um in appropriations in the house so
died pretty early um and then another bill that
we were working um working to just provide more
education on was around local health officers
and a bill that would allow other health professions
to be local health officers. And we raised...
Was this the one about like naturopathic doctors?
It was around physician assistant and advanced
practice nurse practitioners. Okay. Advanced
registered nurse practitioners. Okay. Wasn't
there another bill about naturopathy? No. I think
they were trying to get that at one point into
the bill, but no. And the rationale behind the
bill was there's a shortage of health officers.
It's difficult to recruit. Especially in rural
areas, right? And so this is a way to help. And
it was one of those, yes, however, health officers
are a specialized field. Statutorily, they have
to have certain qualifications. And it can be
challenging to recruit depending on what specifically
you're looking for. But we have right now about
half of our LHJs share a health officer in some
way. And so we have a model where - LHJ means?
Local health jurisdiction. So we have a model
where a local health jurisdiction might, two
neighboring ones might share a health officer.
So if you contribute 0 .4 and we contribute 0
.4, we have almost a full -time access to a health
officer. Not every LHJ needs a full -time health
officer. given the size and kind of scope and
things. And so it's a good way of tapping into
more dedicated expertise versus someone who might
be from the community but doesn't necessarily
have that public health expertise or is just
kind of doing this ad hoc. So there's, you know,
a couple of different models. And, you know,
we were concerned of does this. potentially weaken
that expertise and that authority by eliminating
some of those criteria that current health officers
have to uphold. So it was a good conversation
to have. I think it speaks to the larger just
concern that our rural areas are becoming harder
and harder to recruit health care professionals
to our workforce, right? Health officers is certainly
one of those. For sure. Public health nurses
actually for local health jurisdictions has been
a chronic position that has been We keep identifying
that through our workforce development survey
as one of the top positions that it is just chronically
hard to recruit and retain staff. It's hard to
pay. Hard to pay. The public health nurses. At
least it was, you know, when I was a county commissioner,
before really FPHS kicked in, we just couldn't
pay the salaries that a qualified nurse could
get. At a hospital. Really anywhere else. Yeah.
Clinic, hospital, it didn't matter. In fact,
I even had a couple of our nurses say, what you're
paying me is embarrassing. Yeah. And it was terrible.
And I felt terrible when I was like, that's all
I got. It's what I have. Yeah. And so we've been
able to mitigate that a lot with FPHS. There's
other strategies around public health nurses.
For the most part, it's a nine to five. So you're
not doing shift work for health care and hospitals.
No emergency rooms, no late night shifts, no
swing shift. It's a great schedule. It's a little
bit more stable, more predictable. So nursing
is one where workforce shortages are happening.
And so I think this is just part of that broader
health care workforce. concern that is being
expressed with our hospitals our clinics or you
know public health departments of how do we maintain
that workforce in rural areas because those folks
are sorely you know they're so critical yeah
points of access for care and so we were able
to articulate like we don't fully disagree that
like workforce is an issue absolutely But we
have some creative solutions that don't necessarily
require an RCW fix. Here's some that we're already
currently deploying across the state. Here's
some that we think are other paths forward across
the state where you don't have to have an RCW
change. You don't actually have to have a bill
to change the law. We can do this outside of
that. So, and just to be, not to break our own
rule here, but RCW means Revised Code of Washington.
And when you say RCW fix, you mean a change in
the law. A change in the law. Yep. Well, Jamie.
It is, as we mentioned, one day away from signing
die. Supposedly, I am hearing some rumors that
that might not be the case. Knock, knock, knock.
I'm hoping that is. I think we're all hoping
that is the case. But the last two days were
a bit of an adventure. You know, if you say the
words three times, it happens. I'm not saying
anything any times. Don't conjure the Beetlejuice
of legislative session. I'm vaguely alluding
to the fact that they did a bit of a turn in
events over the last couple of days, which ate
up a lot of time that they otherwise had. otherwise
would have had available for things like concurrence.
And there's a lot of bills sitting out there
right now. Yeah, Senate got a lot done Tuesday
and Wednesday. But the House did not. But the
House has a lot of work, yeah. And I think almost
all these bills that you talked about today,
as far as the ones that passed, except for the
one that's already been signed by the governor.
Yeah, 2442 and 2675. They're all hanging in the
balance. And those are big ones. Yep, all hanging
in the balance. So there's a lot of us eagerly
sitting here going, okay, is my bill going to
get across the finish line in time? It has yet
to be seen. And you mentioned we still have budgets,
which are supposed to be heard by their conference
committees or their conference committee reports
are supposed to be signed today. Well, it's 9
.59 and they said 10 o 'clock. So we should see
them within the hour or within the next two hours.
What are you anticipating? What are you looking
for as those final budget proposals come out
to be considered by their respective chambers?
Yeah, we were really pleased both. Chambers did
not cut foundational public health services general
fund. So the governor proposed a $29 million
cut and both chambers rejected that. So you should
end up pretty okay then. I think with the fix
that we have in the bill that got passed, plus
those budget proposals, I think. is going to
be looking really good. Of course, that's going
to be the first thing I look at because that
is just so incredibly critical and important.
So once I look at that and can either take a
breath of relief or take a breath of despair,
we'll be moving forward. One way or the other.
Other things we'll be looking at, you know, public
health, a lot of the things are smaller kind
of one -offs. A lot of prevention work, a lot
of community -based work. So things like a lot
of the overdose and opioid response things, both
chambers cut a lot of that work because it was
a lot of general fund dollars. So anything that
wasn't necessarily protected by the opioid settlement
abatement account. was cut or reduced. So we're
going to look and see how did they rectify that.
Both chambers did it a little bit differently,
focused on a couple different things. So that's
one area where. Yeah, when they first got that
money, there were a ton of line items in the
budget surrounding that. Yeah, it was. It looks
like a lot of that's gone now. Yeah, four, three
years ago. They did a lot. They funded a lot
of things and they braided funds through that.
Right. Which strategically was smart because
then. You weren't losing things immediately.
You could kind of pull things back slowly and
slowly and slowly. So it's kind of happened over
time. Last session, a lot of things got cut and
reduced. So, you know, that's going to happen
again this session. Some of that was one -time
funding too, right? Yeah. Yeah, and so it'll
be interesting to see what gets negotiated in
that space. There's other things around home
visiting that we care about, other chronic disease
prevention and education. We talked briefly about
tobacco tax, which often goes to tobacco prevention
and education. Without a new tobacco tax, that
work. most likely isn't going to get funded in
any meaningful way. So there's a few smaller
things where we look at some things around environmental
public health, like drinking water, hazardous
materials, those kinds of things we look at.
But our big one is FPHS. Yeah, good. Well, Mystery
will be... Maybe not solved, but will be revealed,
right? Pretty soon. And we'll have the answers
that we're looking for. How's your energy? How
are you feeling? I'm tired. Yeah. It's been a
rough, short session. And I think it's third
winter. We had a lovely January that was just
sunny and wonderful. Fall spring. Fall spring,
yeah. And then we had some rain, and then we
had some more lovely weather in February too,
right? As far as session goes. Fall spring, the
sequel. Yeah, the nicest session weather I think
we've ever had. And then this week has just been
dumpy. And I say that as someone who loves the
rain, who loves the fog, but it's really hard
to see beautiful blossoms on. trees and which
are just now starting to pop yeah and then have
like frost in the morning um it's been chilly
you know we're you know feels like we were heading
in a direction of of Growth and rebirth. Well,
we still are. You know what they say in the Northwest?
It's those spring rains that bring those. What
does it say? April showers bring May flowers.
Now, we're not quite to April yet, but it does
feel almost like that. And you know what May
flowers bring? Allergies. Pilgrims. Oh, my goodness.
Did you not know? May flowers bring pilgrims.
That's the saying. Not anymore, Jamie. Not anymore.
Oh, my goodness. That's like a bad dad joke.
It is a bad dad joke. But I like it because I'm
a big fan of dad jokes. But, yeah, this session
was a grind. It was hard in a lot of ways. Not
a lot of breathing room. um right not a lot of
time to just kind of like okay reset um it was
a lot of like pivot pivot Pivot again, pivot
again. We knew going in that it was going to
be a tough one, right? Facing another deficit,
a lot of controversy on the local level here
in the Washington State, here in Washington State,
trying to deal with those federal cuts that were
coming down that were directly related to public
health issues and Medicaid. So we knew it was
going to be a tough one, but it felt a little
harder maybe than we've seen some of the... More
recent short sessions. And I'm sure a lot of
it was due to the budget stress. And then, you
know, the legislature decided to take on some
major policy issues this year, too, which, you
know, traditionally they don't do in short sessions.
But in more recent history, they have been doing
in short sessions, sort of. But the last few
they hadn't. So it was kind of like they lulled
us to sleep a little bit and then brought it
back. Well, and when you have short sessions.
where you're still on the positive side of resources,
you can make bigger policy decisions, right?
And so it's harder when you're making those bigger
policy decisions with a smaller pot. And that
was felt throughout all of session, I think by
everyone. Yeah, I agree. This is just a tough
year. Sometimes it's just hard to predict what's
going to happen, and you just got to play it
by ear. But I agree with you. I'm tired. I'm
ready to go home. What are your interim plans?
What fun things do you have set for the interim?
I'm just going to work hard for counties. You
know me. I'm just going to work hard for counties.
Although my son, just on a personal level, my
son is graduating with his master's degree this
year. So we'll be traveling out there to see
him. Any baseball games on the way? Maybe. I
always try to fit in a few. I'm a huge baseball
fan. So I think the Mariners are going to be
good this year. We'll see. But a lot of the experts
are out there saying that. Seattle is poised
for another big year, which on top of a huge
football year for Seattle would be amazing. Amazing
for us in the Northwest, amazing for Seattle
sports. And frankly, the Mariners just deserve
it. They just deserve it. They've been around
for a long time. They've never been to the series.
This is not the Seattle Mariners commentary podcast,
but I'm a huge fan. So love to talk about it.
They don't have any baseball in Wisconsin, do
they? The Brewers. Oh, forgot about the Brewers.
Yeah, you think that it's been a long time for
the Mariners. May I introduce? Yeah, Milwaukee's
been a bit of a... They've had a rough go. There's
been a long stretch in there for Milwaukee, too.
It's only been a stretch. Well, let's hope the
mariners and the brewers have successful seasons.
Yes, that would be great. Well, thanks, Jamie.
We could have the sausage race and the salmon
run at the game. I dig it. That could be fun.
Each sausage could hold hand with a salmon, and
you could run together. My son, as you know,
has been living in Pittsburgh, and I went to
a game there last year. Do you know what the
race is in Pittsburgh? So we have salmon in Seattle.
We have sausage in Milwaukee. Yeah, I'm trying
to think what Pittsburgh's known for, and I'm
like, bridges? Steel? All of those things are
true. But no. There's no bridge race, no steel
race. It's pierogies. Oh, nice. Oh, dumplings.
Could be fun. It's hilarious. My wife, being
from Polish descent, was very pleased that there
was a pierogi race. Yeah, good times. Do you
then, does Pittsburgh, so Milwaukee does the,
after the seventh inning stretch, they do roll
out the barrel and we do polka? No. Do you do
polka in the Pittsburgh games? I didn't, no,
no. Thank goodness. If you say that, it's fun.
I'll bet it is. It's fun. I'll bet it is. Polka
and baseball, that just doesn't sound right to
me. But I wouldn't have put pierogies and baseball
together, and it seemed to work. Well, Jamie,
thanks for joining me again for this little wrap
-up. We've got our final. Friday online wrap
up virtually for everybody as members of LSC.
And so we'll have more information for them.
Then hopefully final. Hopefully final. Information
on what passed, what didn't pass, and the highlights
and lowlights of the budget. But interesting
session. Congratulations on your successes this
year. And I guess we'll look forward to next
year. Happy interim. Yeah, happy interim to all
of us, for goodness sakes. Thanks, Jamie. Thanks
to all of you who are listeners out there and
everything that you do for your communities every
single day. We 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.