Oh, let's hear your falsetto. Come on. With a
little vibrato. Let's hear it. You want to hear
falsetto? Don't act like you're not impressed.
You have to do the rest of the podcast in falsetto.
Yes. That's where I draw the line. I don't have
many lines, but that's one of them. That's what
you're trying to say? That's correct. 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, the number one podcast on
county issues in Washington state. Again, we
have no proof of that, but we think we're the
only one. So we're going to stick with it. I'm
Paul Jewell, your host and government relations
director with the Washington State Association
of Counties. I think it's Wednesday, if I'm not
mistaken, and we are only. one day away from
the final day of legislative session or what
we call sine die. And we're going to try something
different in the studio today. We've got both
Travis and Curtis here to talk about. They just
high five guys. I'm not sure why. And they're
sitting really close to each other. We need better
audio on that. That little better. Get closer
to the mic with it. All right, there you go.
Perfect. Nicely done. All right, so we've got
both Travis and Curtis here to kind of talk about
their policy areas and what happened this legislative
session. But before we get into that, how are
you guys feeling now that we're one day out,
one day to go? The clock is ticking. You know,
divided feelings. Feeling very good about the
policy area that I work in specifically, which
is housing and land use issues. Feeling... a
little less sunny about overall how the session
ended for counties and local governments in general
yeah kind of a mixed bag for us this year you
know a lot of a lot of progress on a few items
um some minor progress on some other items and
then um actually some significant setbacks on
a few others so definitely a mixed bag good news
bad news kind of scenario for our members yeah
not not like No big losses or bad news, just
some big wins that were dangled in front of us
and then snatched away at the last minute. Right
at that kind of like, here, come and get it,
come and get it. It's right in front of you.
It's like you're just a cat trying to chase down
that laser beam. Right. Travis, how about you?
How are you feeling now that the session is just
about over? I'd say the same. I think continuing
to learn and experience the fact that sometimes
a successful session isn't winning the Super
Bowl. It's just not being relegated out of the
league. Yeah, no kidding. And so I think there's
a lot of, we had some really big wins, but some
of the biggest wins are that there aren't transformative
pieces of policy that we now have to figure out
how to make work. Right. So, you know, I think
that there were some big wins. I think we learned
a lot about, you know, sort of where counties...
sits in the bigger state picture and sort of
what's important to the legislature. And I guess
I think it's all just continuing to learn and
figure out how to make the next session better.
But it does feel like sometimes just not being
completely blown out of the league is a win.
So I think that's sort of an experience. But
I'm excited. Is it the sine die gremlin that
comes down the chimney and gives you gifts? No,
there's no. Sorry, buddy. I don't know why I
tried so hard. Because I really thought he kept
a list of like lobbyists that did well and did
poorly. No, no, no. There's no gremlin. There's
no chimney. There's no presence. Yeah. I'm sorry
about that. No, now I'm feeling a little bit
worse about I'll stick with the original stuff,
but I'm feeling less excited about tomorrow than
I was originally. So, you know, the way you described
kind of. how sometimes you win simply not by
losing. Reminds me of that movie, White Men Can't
Jump. Do you remember that movie from the 19,
I think it was the 1990s, maybe late 1980s, early
1990s. Yeah, it's like Woody Harrelson and Spike
Lee direct. Well, I think, I don't know if Spike
Lee directed it or was in it. No, he was actually
in it. If I'm not mistaken, he played one of
the supporting characters. But the Woody Harrelson
character and his girlfriend, do you remember?
I think her name was Gloria, and she was trying
to win Jeopardy all the time. And the one thing
that she said one time was when she was trying
to explain to him when she said she was thirsty.
He tried to get her a glass of water, right?
And he said, sometimes I don't want you to tell
me. Or I don't want you to get a glass of water.
I just want you to understand that I'm thirsty.
And I mean, you could see like his mind was blown,
right? I'm digressing a little bit. Are we thirsty
in this situation? No, we're not thirsty in this
situation. I don't know what we are. But she
went a little further to say, sometimes when
you win, you really lose. Sometimes when you
lose, you really win. That was a little further
down in the movie. And it's a silly movie, and
it's a funny movie, and I don't actually think
it aged very well with its title and some of
the other things that are in the movie. But the
one thing that I remember that I was kind of
thinking about when you were saying sometimes
you actually win. by simply not losing. Kind
of reminded me of that, right? Sometimes when
you win, you lose. Sometimes when you lose, you
actually win. And sometimes, you know, a draw
is a draw, and a draw is the best you can do
and sometimes hope for. And this was a tough
session, right? And this is a session that, you
know, if you can get out of it just unscathed
in many areas, that's actually a pretty big victory.
I feel like the legislature... Might have thought
we were Woody Harrelson's girlfriend in this
situation. We actually do want public defense
funding, though. We are thirsty. We meant water.
You actually wanted them to bring you water?
Yeah. We didn't want them to just understand.
I see. Well, I probably should have recognized
I was setting you up for that one. Well, let's
get into it, guys. Let's talk about... what actually
happened this session. I know you both were working
on different pieces of legislation. Let's talk
about some of the big wins. What actually passed
this year that you can say, okay, that's a feather
in our cap. That's a good thing for counties.
That's something that we really wanted to happen.
Travis, why don't we start with you? What do
you think maybe was the biggest win from a bill
passing or policy passing or maybe even just
a budget item? You know, I think thinking about
it from like a what's passed versus what didn't
pass or what got left alone type of a standpoint,
but looking positively around what passed, I
think there was some big things specifically
for us. I know working on 1960, that clean energy
property tax bill was, you know, a big effort
on. on a part of a lot of people. And I know
we have a full podcast about it. So yeah, folks
can go check that out. And so we don't have to
rehash it all today, but so that was a pretty
big bill that was, um, an effort that you. were
really on the ground floor of, you know, we started
it by doing some investigations, kind of getting
wind of a problem, not to use a bad pun in this
particular instance, but really getting kind
of wind of a problem and going out and searching,
seeing that it was a problem, writing up a research
paper on it. And that got the attention of some
stakeholders, including legislators. And it just
kind of went from there. And you were pretty
instrumental in that whole process. And that's
one that really just kind of was birthed here
at WASAC and has now turned into a bill that
actually just passed both houses finally this
morning. Yeah. You know, I think it's something
that you and I and a lot of our members put a
ton of time and effort and blood, sweat, tears,
all of the things into this bill. And I still
feel very lucky that it only took... Two years,
right? I still feel like... Well, two years from
introduction to passage, yeah. And so just seeing
so many bills that felt important or had a lot
of momentum in recent years, this is my fourth
session, so seeing so many take longer than this
and still not be making progress, I still feel
very fortunate in the fact that it did get through
as quickly as it did. But it's still exciting
to see it as something that... you know, we created
and we all worked really hard on it. It's cool
to sort of see it, sending it off to college
and seeing it be successful. Yeah, now it's out
in the world. Yeah, it's not eating my food and
living under my roof anymore. But no, I think
it's going to be exciting to see that be out
there doing what we want it to do. So this is
your first bill and that really, you know, you've
been involved with really from start to finish.
And just for the listeners out there, the bill
we're talking about, House Bill 1960, is the
Clean Energy Property Tax Bill. We've talked
about it a couple of times. As I think we mentioned
earlier, there's a whole other podcast just on
this bill that we recorded earlier this year.
So you can go back and listen to that if you
want more details. But I mean, at the end of
the day, does this feel like a major accomplishment
on a career level to you? Or does it... I don't
know how it's kind of a rite of passage for somebody
working in policy to to have gone through the
process all the way from start to finish and
actually, you know, get to the finish line and
see it become law. And this is your first time.
I mean, does that how's that landing? I mean.
I don't know that I'll get this one tattooed
on me. I thought about it, getting House Bill
9th or 3rd engrossed. Just like right across
your back? Right, yeah. Between the shoulder
blades? Perfect. How is it that we both knew?
You know, maybe some wind turbines in the background
and some solar panels up front, so it's got like
a three -dimensional look to it? With the faces
of every SEPTE member. Oh, that's perfect. All
of the people kind of around it, like in clouds.
Yeah, so you use... An acronym. Acronym, yeah.
I was going to say an analogy. An acronym here
on the podcast. So you have to explain what SEPTI
means. So SEPTI, C -E -P -T -I, was sort of the
unofficial name we gave the project group, which
is Clean Energy Property Tax Issues, which is
the summary statement for the title of the report
and sort of all of the issues that we've worked
on. So that's a team that started over two years
ago working on this process. And it includes
members from the... Association of County Officials
and our own WASAC leadership, our own WASAC members
as well. So I would say it's probably about a
dozen folks consistently throughout. I wasn't
going to use the faces of people from New York
or Iowa or the other states we talked to, but
yeah, so it was a pretty strong group. And I
think from your question too, I think, you know,
the... It's exciting to see the bill. Kate came
down. It worked out, but Kate came into the office
right as... And Kate is? Oh, sorry. Yeah. For
those who don't know. Kate's a woman I'm married
to. Perfect. She is my better half, and she comes
up with... I can vouch for that. She truly is.
Oh, absolutely. Yeah. I think that trivia stuff
was... I wouldn't have been there without, you
know, I don't think we gave enough shout out
to our wives during that. Probably not. So we
should probably do that again. We probably should.
But she, no, my wife Kate comes up with me during
session. And so she happened to come out, come
down to the office at the same time that they
were hearing that bill in the opposite house
and got to see it pass and got to see that debate.
And we were all here. It was just an exciting
moment. But I think also more out of this is,
you know, I think it's up there with. um going
through that process you met a lot of people
you get to experience a lot of things you wouldn't
get to experience otherwise in the lobbyist role
um and and i think it's up there with all of
the lessons that were learned the hard way it's
exciting to see this bill move but i think it's
up there career -wise just as impactful for me
as other things that have blown up in my face
right so i think everything comes with a lesson
but it's exciting i think it's it'll be exciting
to to watch this thing move forward, and I'm
excited. Well, without a doubt, most of the work
we do on a policy level never sees the light
of day, right? In fact, I'd say the vast majority
of the work that we do. So to notch a win every
now and again is kind of nice, for sure. I'm
glad it happened on this bill. I'm glad we were
successful. And this was not an easy issue. This
was a tough one. The last time I testified on
it in the hearing, the staff report, I think,
took 10 minutes. And I was the first person to
testify. And they were all talking about how
complex the bill was. And I think I just started
my testimony by saying, thanks for hearing this
very simple proposal. Yeah. I mean, in all of
the conversations and meetings, we sort of had
a whirlwind of, you know. introducing this bill
to a lot of legislators in the Senate and the
House quickly, right? It's not something that
you can crank out in an elevator speech or a
15 minute meeting, right? It's a tough one. There
were so many meetings where I think sometimes
I left them more confused than when we went in
because you're trying to explain to them the
problem and the solution and how it works. And
it's a lot. And so it was very exciting to see
some of those folks. on the floor when these
when this bill came up repeating some of the
things that we'd shared and some of the messages
our members had shared so it was it was very
cool well congrats that that's a big milestone
yeah and that was a really big effort and something
that's going to be a real benefit for our members
and their communities and the taxpayers of washington
moving forward and really probably for the clean
energy industry if folks are supportive of the
clean energy industry yeah Shout out to we would
be remiss if we didn't make a shout out to Representative
Alex Rammel, who was the prime sponsor of the
bill and really helped shepherd it through the
legislature on our behalf. He was really a champion
for us on an issue that is not a hero bill by
any means. So I look forward to seeing that tattoo.
And I think everybody else does, too. Well, I'm
pretty sure we have a pretty strict. um shirts
on at work policy so unfortunately we can work
on that i think i think we can what do you think
curtis should we work out an exception for that
no come on i think we have good policy around
this have you so i read i read an article a few
years ago quite a few years ago actually on the
uh tattoo uh fantasy football club have you heard
of this Have you heard of that? So it's a group
of guys. They've tried to get 10, but they could
only get nine. And every year they do a fantasy
football league. And whoever loses, not the winner,
whoever loses, the other members get to get together
and they get to dictate what. tattoo that person
has to get where they have to get it on their
body. I think we could, we could do something
like that around new bills that we introduced
here. We could do that on whoever takes the.
cumulatively over the session, the longest in
their policy updates at LSC, that's the person
who has to get the tattoo. That's what I think.
Oh, I think maybe you're aiming at someone in
particular. I don't think it's the person you
think it is, which is the conversation around
that topic. Can you imagine being in a league
where the stakes are so high that you actually
have to go get permanent ink applied if you're
the loser? There are no eight people in the world.
collectively, I would trust to select what and
where I got a tattoo. What about the rest of
us here on the policy team? Come on. Oh. Come
on. Absolutely not. First of all, I think you
should be required to have a tattoo to tell somebody
else where you can get a tattoo. So I feel like
that eliminates a lot of y 'all. Yeah, it does.
But no, I do not trust. No. There's no group
of eight people in the world I would trust. It's
not happening. Yeah. All right, Curtis. Well,
turning to you, who obviously has some strong
opinions about these tattoos and company policy
around shirts in the office, which you're probably
right. We have the right policy in place. What
was your big winner this year? What was the big
issue that you really worked on that you think
was probably the biggest win from a passage point
of view? Yeah, so I think... We celebrated partial
wins this session. I think we, in the housing
space, we had some big wins last session. And
then this session, I wouldn't say anything was
huge. I'd say the highlight of the session was
probably Senate Bill 6027 and the associated
budget appropriation with that bill. Remind us
what that one was. So this bill is in response
to some... trouble at the federal level with
housing funding. Many local governments and housing
providers rely on a stream of funding from housing
and urban development that's called the Continuum
of Care Funds. These Continuum of Care Funds
fund permanent supportive housing programs for
the most vulnerable people in the state. So the
primary program is called permanent supportive
housing for chronically homeless families. These
are households with children where the head of
the household has a severe disability and they've
been homeless for more than a year. So it's a,
like I said. the most vulnerable subset of that
population. And permanent supportive housing
programs support them in two ways. They can be
a project -based voucher, which is a building
that a county, local government, or provider
owns and houses people for free. Or it can be
a rent voucher, a tenant -based program. So project
-based or tenant -based, two types. What we've
seen in recent years is changes to eligibility
to receive funding from the federal level. Is
that kind of along the same lines of other changes
around eligibility for things like SNAP or other
federal benefits that have been widely publicized?
Not exactly. So those more widely publicized
reductions are just cuts, right? There's less
money in the budget. That's not what's happening
in the continuum of care program. So they're
not cutting the funding necessarily. They just
literally are changing the eligibility requirements.
They're changing the eligibility. And the first
way they're changing the eligibility is they're
saying right now there's a— There's a balance
in the funding. There's really two types of funding
that come through this program, permanent supportive
housing that I've just described, and then transitional
housing, which is the same populations, the same
folks, the same vehicle. It's just time limited.
That's really the only difference. And it's usually
time limited to a year, transitional housing.
So that doesn't work for the most vulnerable
people because they need long -term support,
right? Right. In the past... COC funding has
been about 80 % permanent supportive housing,
20 % transitional housing. So the first change
that happened is guidance that came down from
the upper level of HUD that said we want to rebalance
that to be 70 -30, 70 % transitional housing,
30 % permanent supportive housing. Now why is
that significant? They want it to be more time
limited. They don't want to have these subsidy
programs. The policy direction of the federal
government is to not have subsidy programs that
fund people for life. And so they put some time
limits on this stuff. About 50 % of the programming
has to change. It's a big lift. These funding
cycles are annual. So every year there's a new
notice of funding opportunity. Programs have
to apply for renewal. So to change 50 % of your
program requirements for what is $120 million
statewide funding source is a significant change.
And then on top of that, they've... So every
COC applies for the funding independently. In
Washington, we have six COCs, one for each of
the five largest counties, and then the balance
of state continuum of care, which is the rest
of the counties together in one NOFO. NOFO? Notice
of Funding Opportunities. Thanks for catching
the acronym soup there. So these funds have had
strings attached to them in the most recent NOFOs
that say, Things that I think a lot of Washington
communities are just going to not be able to
comply with. The first one is you have to verify
everyone's citizenship status when they apply
for funding. I don't think these programs serve
many people who are not documented American citizens,
but you understand the political implications
there. And then the second change is that programs
need to certify that they will only... collect
data on people's gender as assigned at birth.
So these are two political issues that don't
have anything to do with housing, right? That
have been kind of included in these applications
in a way that's going to set up a political argument
that might get in the way of some very essential
services for people. It just feels like more
and more. On both sides of the ideological spectrum,
these political issues are really seeping their
way into basic human services, right? And on
some level, you can understand why. On other
levels, it really starts to feel like it's just...
petty in some regards, right? Or someone's trying
to make some kind of a political point or just
push a political agenda because they have the
ability to do so. And I think it's happening
on both sides. It would be nice if we could just
kind of clean up these applications, clean up
these eligibility requirements and just, you
know, for people who are unhoused, let's get
them housed, right? Let's make sure that we're
keeping people off the streets and having better
outcomes because in the long run, it's actually
cheaper for everybody. Sure, and I mean at the
bare minimum for these families that just cannot
help themselves. I think there's arguments around
the approach to housing to be made with personal
responsibility and what kind of services folks
need to connect with before or after housing,
et cetera, et cetera. Those are, I think, real
conversations to have. Yeah, for sure. I think
when you're talking about the families served
by this particular program, there's no path to
self -sustainability. These are people who have.
really really high levels of disability that
have been in a housing crisis for over a year
and that have children in their household okay
so you mentioned this was a win so where's the
win yeah i'm still waiting for where's the good
news so our approach was to kind of get out of
the politics here the federal government's going
to do what they're going to do we can't control
that okay but there's other funding sources that
fund permanent supportive housing. There's some
at the local level. We have the supportive housing
sales tax. We have local document recording fee
dollars. And then we have funding from the state.
There is a state appropriation that's been in
the operating budget through the Department of
Commerce Housing Assistance Unit for several
biennia that funds permanent supportive housing
programs that was in the past pointed exclusively
at permanent supportive housing that was created
by the Housing Trust Fund. So it's the operating
dollars that come in. two housing trust fund
projects that are specifically for permanent
supportive housing. And Senate Bill 6027 took
a look at all of those various funding sources,
and it did two things. One, it identified what
funding sources. were not flexible enough to
pivot to backfill some of the federal funding
loss, and it created that flexibility in those
funding sources. So if it couldn't already be
used for operation and maintenance of permanent
supportive housing, it changed the definition
of the eligible uses to include that. Which is
great because that's always a problem. Operating
and maintenance dollars, always a problem. Exactly.
And in that operating budget appropriation that
I spoke of earlier, it changed the definition
a little to allow that to be used. for programs
that maybe weren't created through Housing Trust
Fund, but are going to experience this funding
loss from the federal level. And then the last
thing you did is it codified in statute some
language we've seen in the operating budget around
housing programs the last couple biennium, which
is to direct Department of Commerce. as it's
appropriating funds that receives through the
operating budget to prioritize the maintenance
of existing service levels before it funds new
programs. And specific language in there that
says to prioritize the funding for programs that
would be cut by COC before it funds new programs.
So it kind of in the, you know, if there's going
to be budget cuts and we're prioritizing what
programs to cut, probably these services for
the absolute most. most vulnerable part of the
population, shouldn't be on the chopping block.
So it moves them up in the pro -rationing queue,
if you will. Yeah. So as far as the hierarchy,
I guess, of where the cuts might start, this
is not going to be at the bottom or maybe at
the top, wherever you're starting from. Exactly.
So that's some good wins there for some of the
most vulnerable folks. Yep. Good. What about
the one that got away this year? Let's talk about
that one really quickly. Everybody hates the
one that got away. I mean, you love it, and then
you hate it, right? But there's always one every
single year. What's the one that got away that
you really wish you could have had? I'm talking
about bills. Well, do you want me to talk about
the millionaire's tax? I know we've had lots
of podcasts on that. No, we've had a couple of
podcasts on that. Do you want to talk about that?
No. You guys got to talk right into the mic.
What were you saying, Travis? I was just, this
isn't really my story to tell. But Curtis cried
pretty hard when that shark bill didn't move
forward. Oh, yeah, the state shark bill. Look,
I'm going to need a little more counseling before
we open that box. I'm going to pick something
else. A few too many tears were shed over the
shark bill's demise. I'm sorry, you know, Curtis.
I realize that's triggering for you. And, Travis,
we're going to have to have a discussion afterwards
because I think you knew that as well. Yeah.
And you did it intentionally. Yeah. Hey, can
you move forward? Are you all right? Deep breaths?
Yeah, I'm good. You want to do some he -hoos,
he -hoos? No, you don't do Lamaze for grief.
What are you talking about? Just he -hoos, baby.
It's just a breathing technique. Just he -hoos,
baby. There's your tattoo. Anyways, so what is
the one that got away this year? I don't think
I got one. I don't think I got one. There's lots
of to -be -continueds, all stuff we've played
defense on, though. Yeah. We didn't really have
a bill that we got momentum on in the housing
space or land use planning space that didn't
pass. We passed a couple priority bills around
affordable housing, one that allows ADUs in the
rural area. We've been working on that one for
a couple of years. That was a good bill. 1345?
1345, yeah. Brian was working on that one for
us. Correct. And then we cleaned up another priority
bill we passed last session around allowing more
housing in Lammards. kind of a poison pill amendment
added to it that created some confusion around
what sewer systems were adequate. So we cleaned
that up. That was good. And otherwise, we just
played a lot of defense, and I think we're mostly
successful. Well, what about you, Travis? What
was the one that got away for you this year?
Or if you don't have one that got away, what
was the biggest surprise maybe? Well, I think...
For the one that got away, I don't really know
that I was ever actually fishing. I think that
this bill might be, you know when you take your
kid to the fishing pond and then you put the
fish on the kid's hook and they're like, ooh,
I was fishing. I never actually put the fish
on my kid's hook. Well, I think our solid waste
funding bill was House Bill 2018, which would
have created significant new revenue for counties
to do all of the things that were required to
do. And then some, you know, it had a hearing.
It was introduced in the 2025 session. Didn't
get a hearing. It got a hearing this year. But
to some extent, I think it was great to be able
to have that conversation. But I don't know that
it ever really. stood a chance this year yeah
and so a new tax bill the first year that's a
tough one right um but you made some progress
by getting the bill introduced and getting a
hearing right right and i think that that was
you know i i don't mean to to discredit the the
meaningful nature of like they don't waste their
time at the legislature so i don't think that
they just put a bill up to let me play well they
do okay maybe no that's a good point they don't
they don't waste their time you saw me roll my
eyes one lobbyist out there who just really wants
to get a bill heard so that they can let travis
play lobbyist for a day like i don't think that
they wasted their time doing that um but but
i think that that's sort of maybe this goes along
with your second question of surprise too is
that You know, every, even if it doesn't pass,
it still means it's a conversation during the
interim. And I would say that about, you know,
some of the ones that got away that we wanted
to go away, just because they're gone doesn't
mean that they're gone, gone, right? I'm looking
at all of this list of bills of things that didn't
pass, and I know that they're coming back in
one form or another during the interim. What's
the one that worries you the most? I think there's
a lot around juvenile rehabilitation and juvenile
detention. There were some, you know, we can...
2389. Yeah, Brad and I talked about that one
in a previous podcast a lot. That was one you
guys worked really hard on. Yeah, I would say,
honestly, as far as time, hours put in, I think
I worked on 2389 more than I worked on 1960,
the clean energy bill this year. And I think
the surprises that come out of that are, A, that
that conversation is not done. That that just
means that we're going to have to... pivot to
a interim conversation and keep working on it
because there are problems that need to be fixed
that that bill wanted to fix and if we can be
part of that conversation moving forward to help
with that, that'll be great. But I think that's
another big surprise. It's just because something's
done in session doesn't mean it's done at all.
Like you said, things come back again and again.
Well, sometimes they never stop coming back,
right? And at some point, something passes. And
that's not always a bad thing, right? Because
a policy can start on one side of the spectrum
where it's not good for local governments, but
the idea is interesting, right? Or the intention.
is good. It's just the execution is bad. And
so it can evolve over several sessions where
we get a chance to develop some relationships,
understand the intentions behind the policy better,
and actually pass something that's good for everybody.
That can happen. And that's actually the way
it's supposed to work, right? Rather than really
bad policy just kind of getting shoved through
in a year or two. I mean, this whole process
is set up to make things fail, and for good reason.
Yeah. So I think that's the one that got away.
There were some other really good ones for solid
waste that would have helped counties, saved
counties money. There was a bill that would have
expanded paint care, which would have been great,
but didn't make it through. Unsure why. It seemed
like it was a good bill. It had bipartisan support
moving all the way through. It just never made
it on the floor. Paint care is a product responsibility.
Yeah, it handles architectural paint. What do
we call it? EPR, Extended Product Responsibility
Program, right? Yeah, yeah. It's architectural
paint, but basically paint that comes in gallons
for your walls. And it's kind of like the mercury
lights. When you're done with the paint, you
can take it back. Obviously not the paint you
paint on the walls, but your leftover paint,
you take it back to the paint store and they
recycle it. Yeah, this would have expanded it
to accept aerosols and thinners and other products
that cost counties money to handle and cost residents
time and money to get rid of. Yeah. contaminants
right in the waste stream so and so you're looking
at it thinking this is an easy win this is something
that could just be passed through and it just
continues to sit there so I think that's just
another not a surprise but just learning the
nuances of just because something short sessions
kill a lot of bills just because the time runs
out, right? That clock is what kind of rules
everything. And once that clock hits zero, if
you're not over the finish line, you're done.
You know, the one that surprised me a lot this
year, I think maybe, maybe the greatest surprise
this year for me in your policy area. is the
bottle deposit bill. We were watching for that.
We'd heard a lot of rumor that that one was coming
back this year, that they were actually going
to try to slam dunk that thing in a short session.
And I mean, it didn't, there wasn't a murmur.
There wasn't a rumble. There wasn't a whisper.
There was nothing. That bill didn't move. Do
you have anything, you have any insight there?
What's happening with that? I don't, to be honest.
And that was a weird experience this session
too. And I don't know if it was more because
I was out there working certain bills on my own
more than in the past or new groups are working
on these bills now, but there felt like there
was quite a bit going on outside of what was
available knowledge -wise to me or us. So trying
to get a sense of what was real, what wasn't
real, being at the table, figuring out where
the table was and when they were meeting at that
table. And so I don't know. It was one that I
definitely didn't trust. until it became almost
physically impossible for it not to be dead.
But even right now, I'm not going to say it's
100%. I'm still going to knock on this wood here.
It's laminate, but okay. It just has a wood grain
pattern on it. But we're going to consider that
there's wood material in here somewhere. Somewhere,
yeah. There's something wood essence of it. I
don't know what, but there's something in here.
But yeah, that's a big one. And I don't know.
There was a lot of time and a lot of money and
a lot of effort put into that bill in various
forms over the last four years. years and i don't
it seems strange that nothing happened with it
at all yeah it does it felt like it had it felt
like it had momentum i kept hearing it had momentum
but at the same time i think like curtis had
mentioned sometimes or you had mentioned is that
you just sort of fall victim to a short session
and something bigger and more impactful you know
sort of steamrolling everything else it's so
easy for that to happen especially when you only
have 60 days from start to finish to do the whole
process compared to 105 days for the long session
right yeah Well, Curtis, what about you? Any
surprises this year? Anything kind of creep up
on you or maybe something you thought was coming
that didn't happen? Well, so we had one surprise,
which was we had heard for several years in a
row. I go to symposiums, the Housing Washington
Conference, different forums for conversation
around housing policy during the interim. And
the last couple of years, you know. Former Governor
Greg Weyer and Lieutenant Governor Denny Heck
were often in these forums talking about the
need to create flexibility in commercial spaces
to develop affordable housing. Yeah, okay. I
think I know where you're going with this. This
perception that there was already infrastructure
there, and there's all this unused land capacity,
and if we just tap into that, we can use that
to address our affordable housing crisis. And
it didn't sound like... bad ideas on the face
of it. I think a lot of conversation about these
old strip malls that have like empty commercial
space and utilizing that land capacity to develop
affordable housing. Devil's in the details on
these things is always our response, right? And
the devil was certainly in the details in this
situation when the beginning of session we saw
Senate Bill 6026 introduced that in its original
form was... real concerning right i would essentially
abolish uh the ability to zone land for exclusive
commercial use right um and which is one of the
basic rules right around land use planning is
you kind of put all your commercial area in one
place you put your housing in another place you
put your industrial around in another place because
oftentimes they're not very compatible and not
only that for you know for just business purposes
and for ease and convenience you want to have
that kind of retail stuff located together it
creates shopping districts that actually help
you know the other businesses and that's what
consumers tend to like and you know all that
stuff and then on top of that there's that other
movement that wants to build these walkable communities
that you can actually live in, right? But your
retail is usually all on the first level and
people are living in the upper levels and they
can go to the small neighborhood grocery store
and pharmacy and the barbershop. This may be
the small boutique clothing store or whatever
it is. Well, I mean, the whole purpose of land
use planning, right, is to ensure sufficient
land capacity for all for the different services
your population needs. Right. And if you're in
a rural area, that's making sure exactly that
there's enough. acreage of land dedicated to
each type of thing you need to meet the population
demands. In an urban area, it's more of an urbanist
approach, like you were just articulating, where
you're going to use more development regulations
than just straight zoning to ensure that you
have first floor retail, that you have these
walkable communities, that you have transits
reaching all the places it should reach, things
like that. And this bill... seem to kind of fly
in the face of that. Really just in favor of
the housing piece. Right. But like you're saying,
you've got to have space for housing. You've
got to have places for people to shop. You've
got to have places for people to work. You've
got to have places for people to recreate. And
when you don't have those things, you get out
of balance. And that's why, for instance, that's
why a lot of criticism has been placed with the
city of Seattle in not planning for enough housing.
and why Seattle's job pressure and job growth
has pushed housing pressure into areas around
it, like Pierce County, Snohomish County, even
farther north, even farther east and west in
some areas, and increased the housing costs relative
to that problem around those areas, too. Yeah,
and we see since the passage of House Bill 1220
several years ago and the introduction of housing
elements and comprehensive plans, we're seeing...
lawsuits on the jurisdictions around seattle
for not for doing exactly what you're saying
enough housing opportunity and not adequately
planning for it and not taking income spectrum
into account when they plan for it right and
and so in any case getting back to the the bill
we had this year the it would have applied a
statewide prohibition uh across you know it The
original bill had this exemption for cities under
30 ,000 in population, but it applied to every
part of every county, saying that you cannot
have these exclusively commercial zones. It applied
to every part of every county. Yes. But it had
an exemption for cities under 30? Correct, yes.
Well, that doesn't make any sense. No, yeah,
it would create little donut holes of the development
regulations, right? This reminds me of the whole
discussion we've had so many times about the
legislature not understanding the difference
between counties and cities. And the most obvious
is always the roads piece, right, and the parking.
Oh, you can't require off -street parking for
housing. Come on. Our roads are narrow. They
have ditches. Right. They don't have they don't
have wide shoulders for parking in the rural
area. So that doesn't make any sense. But they
don't get that. Right. They don't understand
that. They think everything looks the same from
the top of the space needle. Right. That's Washington
state. And that's not the case. And so they put
in this exemption for what they think is small
cities. But counties do it all. Well, and luckily,
luckily. That kind of gave us leverage. And we
had some pre -existing relationships. Senator
Alvarado sponsored the bill in the Senate and
was really the primary, you know. advocate for
the policy in the legislature. Luckily, Senator
Alvarado is, you know, I've worked with her on
a number of issues. She's a great housing advocate,
I think really gets the issue and was open to
some education around how this would apply to
counties. And also, the governor's office had
some turnover right before session started. And
the governor's office staff that ran this issue
on their behalf used to be the department of
commerce policy person that worked with us and
other counties on housing issues so there's good
good existing relationships there we got in there
we expressed the concerns i've kind of talked
about here and uh the end of the bill as it came
out you know after a lot of surprising conversations
a lot of work to get amendments incorporated
a lot of confusion about uh what do you mean
i thought we exempted all the small communities
things like that right uh we were able to get
all rural counties so the portion of the entire
unincorporated portion of 30 of our counties
completely exempted from the provisions of the
bill. And then the remaining nine counties that
are, you know, because of their population density
categorized by OFM as non -rural, they. only
have this bill apply in urban growth areas that
are contiguous with cities larger than 30 ,000.
Oh, that makes sense. A handful of communities.
Yeah, that makes sense. I mean, still, it's kind
of a weird policy. Yes. I'm not sure how that's
going to actually manifest on the ground. It's
a little bit of a head -scratcher for me and
a brow -furrower, if that makes sense. Well,
and even the policy had a few compromises, as
the process is designed to do. Prohibition on
first floor retail that we spoke of, that got
pared back to only applying to 40 % of the commercially
zoned area. So over half the spots you can require
that first floor retail. And then there's also
this provision that's kind of vague. Not sure
how it'll work on the ground, but you can get
around all the provisions of the bill with big
air quotes here, empirical study, right? That's
the language. Oh, I hate that language. Right,
yes. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, it's like this year's
objectively reasonable. Right, right. But, you
know, so the bill, it got watered down a bit.
I still think it'll have the effect they wanted
in the large urban areas, and I think luckily
we were able to get most of our rural communities
out of the bill. So is the war on parking over?
It's paused. Where's that wood we were knocking
on? It's this fiberglass desk in front of us
from Micah Desk. That was the big surprise for
me in your category this year. I don't think
we saw a single parking bill. Well, last year
they passed a bill that said you can't require
it. So, I mean, I think normally when your opponent's
dead and bleeding on the ground, the war's over,
right? You think they're done? Yes. Is that what
they think? I think they won. Oh, well, okay.
All right. Well, it felt to me like it still
wasn't over, like we'd still have more. Well,
guys, we've been going at this for almost an
hour. It looks like you have something you want
to add there, Travis. I said a quick question.
You can delete this or not. Who's the question
for? You. Oh. I let you take the mic one time
in one podcast, and suddenly you're pulling the
host card on me. I'm going to flip the tables
on you. Paul, I have a couple questions for you.
Oh, my gosh. All right. I just have one question,
and you may not have answers for this right now,
but if you had to pick something for our highlight
and blooper reel for Curtis and I, what would
you, from this session, what stands out to you?
Not like a whole bill, but I'm like, this day,
Travis. You did this thing and it was ridiculous.
And, or this day, you know, and probably safe
to share. Your highlight and blooper reels. Yeah.
What, what, what, you had a few, you had a few
interesting testimony moments. Um, and I think,
you know, I think, you know, which ones I'm talking
about. I don't. Yeah. Did I, did I tell you I
keep all my testimony and then I take it home
at the end of session and I burn it all and I
offer it up to the testimony gods. I, I, I have
a, I have it on, uh, Pretty strong authority
that TVW actually keeps all of that testimony.
So for those of you who are interested in Travis's
testimony, just look at the bill tracker, the
ones that Travis was tracking this year, and
go back and maybe review some of those clips.
There were a few moments where Travis had some
interesting testimony. I mean, that's the one
thing that comes to mind. For me, for you, for
sure. I'm trying to think about Curtis. I'm sure
there's something. I don't think Curtis had really
any interesting testimony moments, at least none
that I'm super aware of. Yeah, let's stick with
that. Yeah. Why don't you out yourself? What
was your biggest blooper moment? Blooper moment?
Well. I don't know if it's so much funny as it
was just tragic, but I had a moment with another
lobbyist that since has been resolved and we
were on very good terms, but I learned a lesson
about looking behind me in a hearing room before
making a joke. So I received a text from a person
and leaned over to the person sitting next to
me and made a joke about it only to have a...
tap on my shoulder and turn around and find that
the person we were talking about was sitting
directly behind us. Yeah, that's not good. Yeah,
no. That's not good. The only other thing that
really comes to mind with Curtis is Curtis needs
to have a backup shirt. at work on a regular
basis um and maybe a backup tie occasionally
as well um there were a few there were a few
mishaps this year and i said where's your backup
shirt he said well i used my backup shirt yeah
it's true it's true i keep them dry cleaners
busy you know you know it's honestly a backup
shirt and tie is always a good idea for all of
us but In particular this year, I think it was
a necessity for Curtis, and it wasn't always
there. My issue is Lynn keeps the good food stock
so well around here that I can't buy the backup
shirts fast enough. Different size of backup
shirt needed every month. So I guess I don't
know if that adequately answers your question,
but those are the things that mostly come to
mind this year. You skipped the highlights, I'll
note. Well, there were good highlights this year.
I mean, obviously for Travis and really for me
too, I think 1960 was a big deal. The work that
you did on 2368 with Brad was a big deal. As
far as the work that Curtis did, this was a good
year for you, especially I think on the land
use stuff, taking much more of a lead there.
You were not in my office nearly as much. you
had been in the first couple of years when you
were really trying to get your legs underneath
you with that. And I think that also the work
with the planners group this year, kind of keeping
them in the loop around legislation. I attended
most of those meetings last year, and this year
I actually only attended a few. And I just didn't
feel like I needed to. I felt like you were handling
that a lot more capably on your own. Lots of
growth, I think, this year on the team, especially
with you guys. And you guys are the newest members,
so hopefully you felt that way as well. Well,
gentlemen, thanks for your work this year. I
mean, we don't say it enough, but really, thank
you. We couldn't have done it without you. I
know I certainly couldn't have done it without
you, and you were a big help to me personally,
and you were a great help to our members. You
know, a bit of a mixed bag this year, but I think
overall we were pretty successful in a pretty
tough year. I know I'm exhausted. I'm sure you
guys are looking forward to getting back home
for a week or two without having to travel to
Olympia every single day. Any final words before
we sign off your last podcast of the 2026 legislative
session? I like this 360 review via podcast thing.
Your tone's perfect. Oh, perfect. You know, just
to... feedback there i'll keep that in mind yeah
that's a good strategy on the record paul what's
our what to keep that in mind that's not what
i was intending i just want to see how close
he was paying attention to yeah i never say the
things that i actually mean while we're recording
these podcasts you guys ought to know that yeah
no this will never stand up in a court of law
um no i i i think just to back to what you said
i think it's um it's it's very it's helpful to
be at a place where we all are dealing with the
same level of, of stress and issues. And we are
sometimes in our own little silos worrying about
our own little things, but then can bring it
back to this group of folks, like the rest of
the WSAC staff, a lot of our partners and be
able to hash it out or have long, you know, philosophical
discussions to try and get to the root of whatever
the issue is that we're talking about. And I,
I, I think just as much as what you were saying
earlier, I don't think. I mean, I'll speak for
myself. I don't think I could have done it without
Curtis, you, other folks around here, right?
Like, it's impossible to do this in a silo. And
I think even though we're all under pressure,
the ability to show up for each other is huge.
So I think just to echo what you said. Yeah,
that old saying, it takes a village, is not just
true when it... when you're talking about raising
kids, it's like a necessity when you're in the
policy game, especially when you cover as many
things as we do, you know, and you have as broad
a portfolio as WASAC does. It's almost as much
therapeutic support for each other. It's great
to be there for one another when we celebrate
the wins, and it's great to be there to support
each other when we don't necessarily get things
to go the way we wanted them to. Yeah, and then
I feel... I feel like when I first got here,
we had a certain dynamic in the policy team that
kind of accomplished the goals we're talking
about there. Especially, I remember Mike Hoover
was kind of the, you know. He was the person
when he had a problem no one could solve. That's
the guy you talk to. He still is. I call him
sometimes. Everyone across all our policy issues
would bounce ideas off him. He's a great help.
And we had a lot of turnover before last session.
And we had really a new policy team, right? And
it felt like this year we... we gelled a lot
more and kind of fell into roles on the team.
And I especially appreciated Brad Banks. I think
he kind of stepped into the Hoover shoes a bit,
at least for me and Travis. And I think that's
a big reason I wasn't in your office so much,
right, is because when there's a – Sounds like
an old Brad maybe or something. Well, I mean,
I would hope we owe him the contract we pay him
with, right? But, yeah, I think he earned it
well this year, I guess. Yeah, well, everybody
contributed, that's for sure. Well, thanks for
the – the work that you guys did this year again
uh really appreciate it um you know obviously
it's not over we got a couple of days left the
rest of today all of tomorrow to see what actually
happened budgets came out today i know you guys
have been evaluating those i'm sure there uh
will be a surprise or two hopefully not but maybe
maybe a good surprise or two in the budgets and
we do have our final legislative update for the
members on friday and we'll get a chance to make
sure that we go through all that stuff with them
and that's casual right we can be online virtually
sweatpants you can be online virtually but no
sweatpants no hoodies yeah all right sorry it's
still it's still um you know uh session ties
thought we were changing that shirt policy we'll
have to talk to our executive director about
the shirt policy Well, along with you guys, thank
you to all our listeners for the work that you
do every single day. As county commissioners
and other county officials, we know how hard
it is to do your jobs, and we're honored to be
supportive and to represent you here in Olympia.
Hope you can join us for our next chat. And until
then, everybody 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.