Sue Lani Madsen: How a simple bill becomes bloated

House Bill 1899 started life as a simple way to provide immediate wildfire relief at no cost to the state. Two months later, it is emerging from the legislative sausage grinder as a new grant program burning through millions in taxpayer money for the next five years.

“I couldn’t believe they took out the initial intent of the bill,” Medical Lake Mayor Terri Cooper said. “It doesn’t serve the people who were impacted at all. We’re telling people don’t count on 1899.”

Rep. Mike Volz, R-Spokane, introduced HB 1899 to help the 366 homeowners faced with rebuilding after last summer’s Gray and Oregon Road fires in Spokane County.

A new energy code adopted by the State Building Code Council is scheduled to go into effect March 15. According to the Spokane Homebuilders Association, the new code adds $25,000 to $30,000 to the cost of building an average new home.

Building codes were originally designed to establish minimum standards to protect public health and safety, but they’ve been commandeered for use as a blunt policy instrument by progressive interests. One builder quoted on the Building Industry Association of Washington website explains the difference succinctly. “It makes no sense to have such a strict energy code that essentially mandates we build each home like a Tesla when a Toyota is a perfectly suitable option.”

HB 1899 simply allowed people affected by the August wildfires to choose to rebuild under the current, pretty darn good energy conservation requirements, or they could rebuild under the next generation of the energy code. Up front savings of $25,000 is enough to make or break the ability of some families to rebuild.

The cost to the state of Washington of the original bill according to the fiscal note prepared by legislative staff? Zero. Additional paperwork and regulatory burden to homeowners? Zero. Impact? Immediate planning certainty for struggling homeowners.

Cooper, who also serves as the president of the Spokane Region Long Term Recovery Group, estimates more than half of those affected already have their permits to rebuild. “Those who are well-positioned are moving forward. It’s the people who need help the most who are left out, the working poor still living in a tent or an RV and trying to pull resources together.”

So what happened? Gov. Inslee’s climate agenda steamrolled over the needs of the working poor with the assistance of Rep. Marcus Riccelli, D-Spokane.

A substitute bill was introduced by Riccelli, resulting in the final version that passed the House as Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1899. It still carries the title of “wildfire relief” without providing much, if any.

What it does do is create a new government disaster relief program requiring one new full-time position in the Department of Commerce plus part time assignments for five other state employees, for a total of 2.3 full-time equivalent positions at a cost of $392,723 in salaries, benefits, travel and the purchase of one new workstation in the first year. Operating costs for each of the next four fiscal years is projected to be $364,882. The total fiscal impact is over $1.8 million for administrative costs plus $5 to $10 million in grant funds.

For less than $10 million, the state could send a $25,000 check to all 366 households and call it a day.

For those struggling to figure out if they can afford shelter, a bill that says it is to help pay for “providing or increasing electric vehicle charging capacity, and the installation and use of solar panels on a building that did not, prior to being damaged or destroyed, utilize solar panels” misses the point.

The only eligible items specifically called out are pet progressive nice-to-haves. A vague reference to “increased energy efficiency” is subject to bureaucratic interpretation.

Cooper called it shameful. “After the largest loss of primary homes in the history of Washington state, we can’t make a pause to help 150 people to rebuild their lives? And then we wonder why people lose heart in the political process and don’t stay engaged anymore.”

The Spokane Region Long Term Recovery website at srltrg.org has links to available assistance, including Red Cross case managers who can help the less well-positioned get their permit applications filed before the March deadline. That deadline may be extended if the Building Industry Association is successful in its request for a court injunction to put a pause on the new code for everyone in the state.

And there you have it, how a simple bill focused on the needs of the people is transformed into food for a bloated bureaucracy. Do you prefer Rep. Volz’s solution at zero cost to the state and an immediate option for relief, or Rep. Riccelli’s solution at a cost of $6.8 to 11.8 million dollars and a roll of red tape?

A conservative columnist couldn’t ask for a clearer demonstration of the difference between the Republican and Democratic approaches to problem solving.

Contact Sue Lani Madsen at rulingpen@gmail.com.