City Council - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress.

Hi, good morning. Welcome to the Thurston County Board of County Commissioners Agenda Setting Work Session for Tuesday, 05/19/2026, 09:03AM. My name is Ty Menser, chair of the board. To my left, vice chair, Commissioner Wayne Fornier, Commissioner Emily Claus, online Commissioner Carolina Mejia, Commissioner Rachel Grant, across from me, County Manager Leonard Hernandez, Assistant County Manager, Jennifer Walker. To my right, assistant county manager Josh Cummings, clerk of the board Amy Bates.

The meeting is being live streamed to the Thurston County YouTube channel, and public comment may be received up to two hours in advance of the meeting and distributed to the board. Action may be taken at this meeting. First substantive item is agenda review for this afternoon. Second review of our business meeting agenda. I'll look to madam clerk for any flagging like what maybe works follow-up or changes.

Thank you, Chair. There were no follow ups requested and no changes to the agenda.

All right. I'll give it a moment for everybody to just glance and see if there's any board questions that you've popped up. Chair,

I would like to say, because some questions were asked about the Tenano contract, Maria Ponte, our HR director, and her team were able to meet with the Civil Service Commission and were able to meet with the sheriff's team who were in contact with the city of Tenaino to get the needed information regarding the officers that were part of the Tenano Police Department and were notified about the disillusionment of their police department. And so they're working through a process where those employees do contact the Civil Service Commission and then work through the RCWs that outline how to provide them access based on what specifically is stated in the RCW. Just reporting now that those connection points have been made. And I think HR and the sheriff have outlined a good process and understanding, which has also been reviewed by the prosecuting attorney's office to make sure that we're moving all the requirements of the RCWs.

I'd like to see that one move to department

items. It just doesn't seem

I don't think it should be a consent calendar item. I

think the

county has done a good job kind of running the trap line and and making sure that everything is done on our end that needs to be done. As county the county manager stated, this isn't or we've stated before, this isn't something that's done a lot. So there are and there are special, like, privileges given when officers that are civil service, covered are displaced because of a county contract. And so, you know, I think the county's done a good job making sure that it's that it's following the rules and and respecting all the rights of the workers that are involved. The app you know?

And I I just wanted to note that this is a temporary contract, and there's still gonna be work that needs to be done on reviewing how these contracts are done. You know, we've we've set set out policy to ensure that we're getting full cost recovery on any of our any of our contracts. And then some of the some of the issues that I noted when this when this came up with the Rainier contract. The the commission had the the internal auditor review those contracts, and the the concerns that I voiced, he did validate, and and those are actual concerns. And as I'd stated in that meeting, there are issues that that are brought up regarding, like, double taxation when we don't have we don't have services stipulated in a contract.

There's issues with just how contracts are done. You have to you have to have a value statement, and then you have to have some type of service that is stipulated that you're that is paid for, and those don't exist in the contract. So we'll need to we'll need to continue working on those, and that and that's essentially why this is this is only a six month deal because we haven't done that work yet.

Okay. Anything else?

Sure.

Yeah.

I wanted to talk a little bit about are we gonna talk about the department items, or are we just going over things that we had questions from last week?

Yeah. You can I wasn't gonna I was gonna highlight the public hearings, but before that, let's go to department items?

Okay. Perfect. So we have our permit review, annual code update online use appeals coming up tonight at the meeting or this afternoon. I have kind of expressed reservations throughout the process, and I wanted to bring this up one more time before our afternoon meeting. I have I'm sorry.

This is seven. Yeah. Department appeal issue.

The appeal. Removing ourselves from that process, the closing judicial process. I so this afternoon, I will be voting no on this item, and I wanted to kinda have a conversation with the board before we get to the vote so that my comments this afternoon don't catch anyone off guard. So I'm not sure. I think some of the board members have expressed being torn on this matter.

I know it's a big deal, and there's valid arguments on both sides. My main issue with this is, well, I have a couple, but I really believe that we should preserve meaningful access to elected officials in terms of accountability in land use decisions. And while I have some more, but I see commissioner McKee's hand, and I I have a few points to go through. So if there's something that may be relevant, then I can pause.

Commissioner McGee, did you wanna say something before commissioner Claus goes through her points?

Yeah. Just a clarification. You know, we we had this discussion a couple of weeks ago, and I I'm just wondering, you know, when it got added to the agenda, I I believe, as a a five o vote. So I'm just are these new concerns? I don't remember. There being a lot of discussion on this item.

Yeah. Thank you.

Go ahead, commissioner

Collins. Thank you. No. You're right. It was a five o vote to put it on the agenda.

I didn't wanna halt the work that was already being done, and I wanted to give staff the ability to come forward with their proposed changes. And I knew that this would have another opportunity for conversation today. So I wasn't opposed to putting it on the agenda, but I knew that I still had more research and more, pieces of it that I wanted to look into. And when we did put it on the agenda, I believe I highlighted my concern around the need for, opportunities for the board to understand where the land use codes could be adjusted to better serve the needs of the community. And that's kind of been one of my primary concerns throughout the process is that this, being part of the quasi judicial process gives us the opportunity to see when constituents and residents are community take issue with a particular item and bring and they bring it forward through the appeal process.

And it's an additional layer on top of the work staff does to bring forward outdated codes, but it I haven't heard about, like, a meaningful alternative for the board to be made aware of different land use codes that could be updated. And I we have so many codes, and a lot of them are outdated and asking staff to be constantly scanning and reviewing them for changes. I we don't have staff capacity to do that on every single land use code that we have. It would just Can you

respond to that one?

Yeah.

You're right. We have a bazillion codes, and we do, like, a half a dozen that are very specific, tiny, like, narrow things. So relying on, like, the ad hoc issues that come before the board on appeal to, like, to as a basis to comprehensively review problems with county code, I think, is a is a kind of a doesn't make any sense to me. It

wouldn't make any sense to me, and that's not what I'm saying. So I I agree with you there. Using it as a basis for a comprehensive review is definitely not the point of it, but it's just one additional piece of the puzzle. So we have different ways that we can be made aware of needs to to change our land use codes through staff or constituent comments through public comment or the appeals process, which gives us a really deep dive into certain issues. And I appreciate that opportunity.

So not as a comprehensive basis for understanding what needs to be changed because we also have staff to lean on. And we have lots of opportunity for public on ones with public or constituents who might send us emails. But this gives us a really meaningful way to dig deep into the issues. We get our PAO opinion on it. We get to have an executive session on the details.

And so it gives us an opportunity that we don't have anywhere else. It's a really it's truly a unique, component of the structure that we have in local government because it requires us to play that legislative and judicial role, and that's the this is the only opportunity where we get to do that. So I think that's really meaningful, and it gives us a better connection to our community, and it allows us to see where our policy is actually impacting the community on the ground. And that's a unique piece of this process that we don't get with anything else we do. So I really value that opportunity and would like to see us maintain our position or our role in that process.

And I know, you know, we've as we've talked about this, I've heard a lot of really good reasons why we should consider this from every angle. Some of the considerations that have been raised from seatmates are commissioner Mazur, you know, I I've heard you mention a couple times the legal set of criteria versus the perceived political set of criteria that we apply to the situation, and, I think that's a valid point. I do also think that public perception of applying political criteria is gonna be on every issue that people take take up with us. Like, people in the community who are upset about things oftentimes do think we're applying a political set of criteria, and that's just something that as public servants we have to deal with. But if anything, if I know anything about you is that you're gonna definitely apply a legal set of criteria to the land use appeal issue.

Just you're very good at that. And so I think it's one of your strengths, and I appreciate that because we have your expertise when we do these appeals. And like I mentioned to you, I often lean on your expertise in that area when we do these, when we're part of these processes. So I do hear you when you say that, you know, it's it's not fun to hear from constituents who might think we're applying political set of criteria, but I do think human judgment is part of the process throughout the whole process. We have staff review.

We have a SEPA review. We have hearing examiner review. By the time it comes to us, human judgment has already been part of the process. And so, by us applying a truly legal set of criteria, which our PAO is very supportive in reminding us that we can't apply a political lens to this. So we do have our legal expert helping guide us through the process to help us make sure we don't forget that we should only be applying a legal set of criteria. So I think that yeah. Go ahead.

I I hear what you're saying, but, like and and, you know, we're we're bound to put a to look at it through a legal lens. The arguments that I heard from the public saying preserve this were saying they wanted us to preserve the ability to apply a political lens. That was the specific, rationale for several of the of the public commenters, and they went so far as, you know, we we don't care if the county gets sued when we ask you to apply a political lens. And and that argument was made that when that happened with the Maytown, situation that that was a good outcome even though this the county, was sued for millions of dollars because, well, the insurance company pays for it, and the county doesn't pay for it. And that's that's completely, you know, a false, statement and and irresponsible.

So, like, what I heard was that the there were members of the public arguing to keep that political lens, and that's you know, for me, that's kinda what put me over into the let's pass this camp because that that shouldn't be the the way that these situations are evaluated, and there shouldn't be pressure put on the board to, come to conclusions based on, you know, political reasons over, you know, the actual legal rights that the property owners have.

Yeah. Yeah. That's a good point. The Maytown is example is definitely a big example of when our decisions have caused pushback from the community. And, you know, I the the community asking us to continue applying a political set of criteria to these issues is I don't know. It's the community's response to the things that are actually affecting them on the ground. That doesn't mean we have to apply political view to it. We, as commissioners, have a duty to look at it through a legal lens. And when we do make decisions, we we usually don't reverse a hearing examiner decision. That was one rare case where we did where the board did.

We typically go along with what the hearing examiner said, or we sometimes remand it back. And I think that's a really powerful thing for us to be able to do, remand it back with specific questions about those legal criteria that we need a little bit more information on. And I think that that sends a strong signal to the community that we're paying attention and we care about what they're saying, but we rarely reverse a hearing examiner decision. And I think it's because we do a good job making sure that we are using this judicial role in a way that's in good faith. So

Do want me to go to commissioner Grant?

Sure.

Commissioner Grant, go ahead.

Yeah. I

I just wanted to be clear on my stance on this too is that you know? And I appreciate, you know, Carolina for coming on and saying that, you know, I I think I would agree that we were all in alignment when this went on the agenda. I'm actually going to be voting against it as well along with Emily. I had many people, many, many people reach out to me over the last several weeks with concerns about it and that, you know, hearing that people are already feeling disconnected from government decision making and that, you know, that that doing this is I don't know. That, you know, it might increase the efficiency for us to to do it this way, but it will reduce public confidence.

And and that's something that I'm just not willing to vote towards. And so for me, I'm I'm actually gonna be voting against it as well.

Okay. Other comments? Yep.

Yeah. And I one one comment I wanted to raise is that the issue of, like I know people are calling it political lens. I like to refer to it as, like, human judgment because to me, the differentiation between political and legal can get kind of muddy muddy for primarily constituents who may think that we're doing one thing when we're actually doing doing our jobs the right way. Like I said, human judgment exists at every level already, but the question is whether we keep ourselves involved in one layer of elected and accountable human judgment. And we do that before residents are required to enter the formalized judicial system.

So, and then there's all kinds of, concerns we've heard about what that would look like for residents who want to appeal something and have to go straight through that formalized judicial system. And I know we've heard those points, and we've talked through those points as well. One of the concerns has been cost to residents who wanna go through that system. And I know, commissioner Mentzer, I've heard your response to that being, and correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of your response to that, at least when we talked about it, was that you it it probably would cost something similar because most, most appellants hire an attorney anyways to come to us. Is that right? Or do

you have other My concern is that you have a layer as I've gone through. I'm not gonna speak a lot this morning because I've spoken at great length in many, many previous meetings. But to answer your question, when you have a process where I go to a hearing examiner and the code is applied, then I go to the commissioners and politics are applied, and then I go to Superior Court and the code is applied, it's not going to reduce the cost because if everybody, the developers and the land use lawyers know that they'll know the process. And they'll know that if they didn't get the result they wanted with the commissioners, they're going to if they got their result in the hearing examiner and we overturn it, they're going to get the result they want. And and when when the when the criteria same criteria that the hearing examiner applies is applying superior court, so it's not gonna reduce anyone's cost because now you've added an extra layer.

Folks may or may not lawyer up for that layer. If they do, that's added cost. If they don't, they're still going to have to lawyer up at the superior court level when the developer, who doesn't like that the commissioners overturn the hearing examiner, are going to appeal. Now, I've seen the exact opposite before any of you guys were on the board. I sat in the minority on opinions where a commissioner said, and you're talking about human I'm going to the point of human judgment. Human judgment about what? I mean, there is human judgment in anything. But are we applying the law or are you not? I had commissioners say seatmates who said, I don't I don't want that I don't want that citizen not to get their reasonable use exception. I don't care what the code says.

I'm granting it. I'm overturning it. That's illegal. Puts county at risk. It can have just that that's all just dependent on the politics of the board. Everyone's thinking about this. When I say everyone, meaning, like, public commenters and stuff, they're looking at us and what we're likely to do and how that might affect projects they wanna see a particular result, and they're guessing that that would be good for them. Mhmm. Well, let me tell you, it doesn't always work that way. Mhmm.

Seven or eight years ago, it was a different board, and it wasn't working for them. The hearing examiner was bringing good decisions, and my seatmates were playing politics to overturn the decisions. And then people had to lawyer up and go to the court or give up. So it's not a good process when you've got layers and different criteria are being applied. That's not going to cut costs for anyone. I mean, anyone could point to a particular case where, Okay, well, in this case, we didn't get a lawyer. And we went to the commissioners. And they overturned it. And they didn't appeal. So see how great that was?

Well, that's not how it's going to work, like, the aggregate of situations when you have this, like, flawed process. None of the cities do this. Majority of counties don't do this. This is an unusual thing that we do this at this point at this point. So and I don't think it's really serving. In the aggregate, anyone can point to a case where it worked out for them, but in the aggregate, it's bad process.

Yeah. Yeah. I was actually gonna say the same thing you said about when commissioners do apply this political lens and they say they don't care about the law. I mean, that's illegal. We have five commissioners now. So hopefully, that possibility is reduced by having more people at the table so you don't have just two people who get to make some sort of illegal decision like that. We go ahead.

But it has happened. It's happened in the past, and it's come close to happening in the last two years. So, like, you just it just so

I've well, if I've never heard almost three commissioners say that they don't care about applying the legal or the legal process. Maybe I don't know. Maybe your perception's different than mine. I don't remember commissioners saying that, and I think I would remember that because I know commissioner Mentzer would come down hard on any commissioner that says that. So I am not recalling when that's happened. Do you do you wanna share when that's happened? You know? Or if you don't think it's important, that's okay too. But

I've been known to storm out of the room when that happens.

Exactly. Yeah.

That happened once.

I also wanted to say to your point, commissioner, about it being, what did you say, unusual for us to be doing this at this point because other jurisdictions have decided to remove themselves from the process. I don't necessarily think that taking other jurisdictions as an example of what we should be doing in Thurston County is necessarily, like, the best logic. Yeah. It is a factor. But I think one thing that makes our county unique is that we do still have this process for constituents.

And each jurisdiction is gonna make decisions that their elected officials feel are the best decisions for their specific community, for our community. And I don't know what that looks like for other jurisdictions, but in Thurston County, I have seen how meaningful it is for us to hear these issues even if we don't overturn the hearing examiner or even remand it back. But it shows the constituents. It shows the residents that we actually care about hearing their voice and about leveling the playing field in a system where the applicant and the developer is typically favored just based on structurally the way the system is currently. So I think keeping a way to level the playing field as much as possible is a good thing because it allows for people who, you know, say, like, regular people who aren't, like, coming into the situation, you know, as a developer or an applicant.

It gives people who are gonna be impacted by those decisions and those applications the opportunity to come before their elected officials and explain how that's gonna impact them. And if we're doing our job properly, we're not just gonna use that feedback only as, like, a reason for making a determination. We're gonna be using legal criteria and our PAO's opinion, which we do lean into heavily. And that's why we typically don't reverse hearing examiner decisions, but it does give that additional layer of accountability and an opportunity for people to be heard. And I think we need we do I to commissioner Grant's point, we do need more opportunities for people to be heard, not less.

And I think that this could be, one way that the community can look at us and say, hey. You guys don't wanna hear our voice. And I've already heard that a lot since I've been elected, and I've seen opportunities for public comment be taken away. And I think that we should be trying to maintain that as much as we can.

We've only added opportunities for public comment. That's that's the fact.

No. I'd I'd disagree with that, but we can agree to disagree on that. We've talked about it before. So and that's not a feedback we've heard from many of the community members. So I think there was one more point I wanted to make about CEPA and the changes we made recently to CEPA.

Oh, yeah. So the CEPA categorical exemption thresholds that we did to align with state guidance under s b fifty four twelve allowed for more projects to proceed without triggering a threshold determination. And I think that the threshold determinations have historically been one of the primary tools available to the community to raise environmental concerns. So as that safety valve narrows, the board's role in closed record appeals becomes more important. So I think while simultaneously reducing one layer of environmental oversight, which I was concerned about with the SIPA threshold, and proposing to remove another, the changes should be evaluated not in isolation because the combined effect is mean is a meaningful reduction in the checks available to residents who believe that a project threatens our community.

So I wanted to bring that up since that was a change we made recently, and I think those two changes together erode public trust in a way that is important to me as somebody who cares about environmental impacts to projects that we see. So I think, yeah, maintaining our role is is good for many reasons, but I wanted to bring that one up.

Thank you.

Yeah. Thank

you. I wanted to highlight the public hearings because sometimes we forget about them on the

back page.

At 03:30, we're slated to hear public comment on resolution for 2027 Lake Management District assessment roll for Lake Lawrence and ordinance amending the code on special meeting notices. That's a very sort of technical.

Housekeeping item.

So I wouldn't expect that to be too controversial, but we may get some comment on Lake Lawrence. Any questions on the other issues on the business meeting for this afternoon? Okay. Advisory boards.

Thank you, Chair. There are just three items on today's advisory board. The first is, the historic commission. We received an application from Jeffrey Greenwell, and the commission has reviewed the application. And I believe met with mister Greenwell and recommends he be appointed.

Any questions on that one?

I see a thumb from commissioner here in. Mister Klaus is nodding. Just double checking this. Okay. So we're gonna put that on

for June 2 business meeting.

Okay. No. App.

On on Greenwell's application, it says he he has beer working to research and involve the public in the history of the cemetery. I think he meant Ben.

I think so.

Alright.

The call not like that.

I it

was kinda funny. Well, he's talking about the Olympian. Yeah. Alright.

The second item is, a reappointment to the Pac Mountain board of directors. This is for, mister Michael Caden. He's eligible for reappointment, and he serves as a Pearson County business rep. Commissioner Grant sits on Pack Mountain, and she may have more.

I'm pretty sure, Grant, anything to weigh in on that?

Nothing to land. My you know, in speaking with folks at PacMountain, they highly recommend, reappointing Michael Cade, and he's been a a huge part of the PacMountain, universe for a while. And I think that we should, you know, just confirm that reappointment.

I can't imagine anyone more kind of knee deep in workforce issues in the county, so I think that makes sense. Commissioner here is good. Everybody good on that one? Alright.

Thank you. The last one is an application for the Veterans Advisory Board. This is from Nick Van Kirk. He is eligible for appointment recommended by the Veterans Advisory Board and would be seated as a member of a nationally organized, nationally recognized veterans organization.

We have vacancies on this board.

Yes. There are vacancies on Veterans Advisory Board.

And the board recommended. Just double check. Tier five. Commissioner, can go ahead.

Thank you. Maybe I'm I'm not seeing it, Amy, but mister O'Callaghan, also, he ran into me this weekend. He said he had applied. Have we received his application, and has the Veterans Advisory Board reviewed it?

I don't know off the top of my head. I'll have to check on that and check-in with the Veterans Advisory Board to

get back.

There's additional vacancies, though, that you would call okay.

Yeah. They do have a couple

of vacancies. I don't have an issue moving with with the recommended applicant. I was just making sure that his application was also considered.

Okay. Good on you, mister Van Cortz. So they all come up in the June meeting. Next June. June 2. June 2. Thank you. Okay. And we're I'm still holding this with my materials. We haven't got we're still on housing authority.

Great. I plan to bring an update, next week. I had the chance just yesterday to chat with, Craig Chance from Hatch, and, we'll provide an email update to the board.

Okay. Next up is Regional Housing Council funding structure and recommendations.

Thanks so much, chair. Special thanks to Tom Webster and doctor Jim Fryhite from public health and social services. They've come here to report on some decisions that the regional housing council has recently recommended moving forward to fourth county commissioners. Those will come, I think, in June sometime at one of our business meetings, and Commissioner Fournier requested some Additional information and a work session on what those recommendations were. So I look forward to hearing more from Tom. I'll pass over to doctor.

Yes. Thank you. And, just for clarification, this isn't a full picture like we've done in the past about all the funding. It is just for the things that are coming forward. But to also answer the question that while we don't have an immediate RHC plan that we'll be presenting as the response to the mayors that is being worked on right now, this is certainly part of it. And so you'll see some also positive news in here of how we've been able to find some money. So I'll

turn it over to Tom.

All right. Thank you. Thanks for having me. Just waiting for the PowerPoint

to get loaded.

So a little context. So the Regional Housing Council met in April to review funding recommendations. And this is really especially on the homeless services side, this is the mid year of a two year funding process. And so through the state budgets that we get really a two year budget, and so Regional Housing Council decisions were made last year for two year most of the funds were awarded on a two year basis. And then the contracts are on a one year at a time based on funding availability.

The overall message is that funding has remained flat, essentially flat from the previous year. So recommendations coming from the IHC that will be presented to you in June for your approval relate to new cold and hazardous weather contracts. That's the one homeless services that is kind of a new contract that we put out for RFP. The bulk of homeless services will be renewals of contracts that were issued last year through contract amendments. We're providing a second year of funding.

Those were two year awards. And so this is the second year of funding that is being recommended. There's also going to be recommendations related to the Encampment Resolution Program funding that has also remained at the same level as previous year. And then the affordable housing side, capital projects for affordable housing. So recommendations in those four categories will be coming. Also, we'll be bringing forth recommendations for the Federal Community Development Block Grant program. Those are through the city of Tumwater this year. I'm So not going to talk about those in more detail, but just on it through our annual action plan. Those recommendations will be coming forth as well in June. So as I said, our

I get to this, I don't mean to steal your thunder. A lot of these funding sources have specific and dedicated purposes, correct? Can you speak a little bit to that?

Yes, that is correct. So each fund source has kind of different types of eligible activities. The homeless services, a good chunk of the homeless services, one is specific to the housing and essential needs program. So that is specific to the HEN program we get funding for. A second fund source from the state is now called homeless prevention.

It used to be called eviction prevention. It is a rent assistance program. So again, that source of funds is very dedicated to to rent assistance activities. There are some other funds that consolidate the homeless grant funds that allow a little bit more flexibility within the range of homeless services. On the affordable housing side, the funds also have restrictions on the use of funds, mostly around capital dollars. We know our local home fund can be used. 60% is for capital, and 30% can be used for services. So each fund source has its own restrictions in terms

of Can

you stop me for a moment?

Is there a way that

I could see Commissioner Grant and Mihir? Because I would not if they needed to be heard,

I would not I was hearing about that.

Let's see.

No worries, Commissioner Menser. I would pop in.

Okay. Well, yeah, just pop in appropriately until we get you up there on the screen. A question, are you gonna go through all those ones you just ticked through? Or can I ask a question about hand? Sure. Who's our provider for the hand fundings?

It's Catholic Community Services.

I know that was kind of a kerfuffle.

Yeah. A couple years ago. Yep.

So I can't remember who that was. Okay. Yep. Alright. Perfect. No. That's all I needed to see.

I put

them somewhere. Alright. Awesome. Go ahead, Tom.

So as I repeat, for homeless services, it's essentially flat. We get a two year contract from the state, which we received last year. And then sometimes, are adjustments mid year. So this year, we actually saw a small increase of about 132,000 in our consolidated homeless grant funds and a $41,000 increase in housing and essential needs. We're increasing that budget this year.

And then our local revenue, local human services fund, which is a local sales tax, very, very small increase in that amount. The encampment resolution program funding was remaining level at that $5,500,000 amount from the previous year. And this table just illustrates the state funds, the consolidated homeless grant, and there's some categories under the CHG, housing and essential needs, homeless prevention. So you can just see those funds. So we're really projecting that consistent level of funding.

And so the recommendation that's going be coming from the RHC is with that additional $132,000 of CHD dollars, recommended that that be allocated to Interfaith Unity Commons. And that is to offset the loss of resolution program funding that Unity Commons will experience. As Commerce has indicated, they're no longer willing to fund that program under ERP. So we've tried to offset that loss with with the increase of CHG funding. There will also be recommendations of a total of, 773,000 for the Quincy Street project.

This is on top of the $440,000 that you approved just a couple of weeks ago for funding through June to make up a lumpier funding gap. So that's a total of over $1,200,000 of additional funding for QuinStreet that we've been able to provide just in the last couple of months for City of Olympia. Will Is

that enough to make them operate smoothly for the rest of the year?

Yeah. So the ask from City of Olympia was for 850,000. So I feel like we've done a pretty good job of getting pretty close to that number. 75,000 I

think that in an environment where you mentioned funding has been flat, an environment where these funding sources have some dedicated purposes, you are working with the jurisdictions in partnership to identify the needs and bring those recommendations to the Regional Housing Council, which, just for your information at the three cities meeting, really appreciated, city manager Rick Walk for, he had an agenda item added about the Regional Housing Council. He spent time congratulating the staff on process improvements, hearing from his member that he thought the meetings were running so much more smoothly. So I know it's a work in progress. But to highlight what you mentioned earlier about this two year process being set up by former RHC boards and that you're implementing that process. And now it appears that the current RHC board would like some process changes, and you're accommodating those.

Certain things are in process that we have to work and then finish that and then jump on to a new process and work those process enhancements through.

So where exactly is that 07/3711

from? So that is from a combination of local home fund and document recording fees. So last year, when we made awards, were based on projections of revenue collection under those two funds. Revenue collections exceeded what we projected under those two funds. So that 440,000 came from what we increased we collected last year that we are able to work at QuinStreet.

And so that we're essentially projecting 450,000 of that to be in place this year. And then in addition, on the affordable housing capital side, we had more money than requests that we received. There's been a change in some of the local home fund and document recording fees allows us to use some of those document recording fees for shelter operations. So we've been able to pull 323,000 from the document recording fees that was not necessary for the capital projects to also supplement that funding.

You're gonna talk about capital projects? Yep. Okay. I'll wait.

Thank you. So the rest of this reflects that $40,000 of HEN going to Catholic Community Services. We'll distribute the balance of 1,600 that we collected in sales tax across the basic needs.

Can you remind everyone what HEN goes to?

HEN is, you need to qualify for that through DSHS. It is for folks who are unable to work due to disability. And they're in the process of applying for their SSI, Social Security Disability. So it's a bridge program to pay for it. So it's primarily a rent assistance program, so it helps coverage rent.

But there's also a small amount that goes to cover kind of basic needs, kind of hygiene, and other kind of supplies. So it is a, you need to qualify and be eligible under kind of DSHS, eligibility criteria from a disability. But then it's but then it generally kind of lasts. You're on the program for about two years. It varies for everyone until there is your kind of SSI disability kicks in.

So this is a side point, but I guess if DSHS is telling us who's eligible, and they're like, you're all eligible, but, like, we're making this sounds like making discretionary decisions about how much funding to allocate. How does it then if there's not enough money to cover all the people that DSHS says are eligible, what is who who gets priority?

Yeah. And so that is so Catholic community services, there is a prioritization piece. So it is primarily those coming from kind of homelessness or kind of at greatest risk. So I hesitate to speak in too much detail.

There's some criteria.

There's some criteria in a process that Catholic Community Services implements to go through to determine. Because you're right, there are more people qualified for the program who are

hit and receive the benefit. The RHC knows what that match looks like when they decide how much money to

The RHC doesn't decide. Commerce gives us a budget, and they say, you have this amount for HEN. And so it's a specific line item. And so we put that whole amount to that program. So it's funded at the level that commerce State's doing this.

The state's doing this. Yeah. Administering it in a way.

Yep. Right.

And just baseline, this is it's housing and essential needs. So it's a prevention tool to help him from getting into the homelessness situation. Just

a little bit note for for it's not a change in funding amounts, but rent rent assistance for survivors of domestic violence is going be transferring some Safe Place to a family support center. Safe Place had receiving matching federal dollars for this program. They've made a decision no longer accept those federal dollars. So to make sure we don't lose those resources, family support centers can be picking up that program. Same program, same clients, just a different service provider. And then on a cold and hazardous weather side, so these are new contracts. We do our

cold and

hazardous weather one year contracts at a time. There is gonna be continuing to fund the same three organizations we funded in the past, which are Interfaith, Works, Family Support Center for cold weather, and employee map for shelter in place in place supplies during hazardous weather. There will be some changes in the allocation amounts between those. Additional money was, provided to Interfaith Works to see if we can increase hours for Sergio's day center during the cold weather season. That's the recommendation.

Tom, part of that recommendation developed because maybe not last or this year, but the year prior, I recall that there was some shortage in availability and even volunteers. And and I think it there was a prolonged period of of temperature that required the shelters to activate in

in

a row. It was like a like a two week period where it got really, really cold. Mhmm. You recall that. Right?

Yeah. And there was, like, one night where they they were like, we don't have capacity. I remember that. It was shortly after commissioner Grant got elected.

Yes. Yeah.

Yeah. That's for the kind of the hazardous weather kinda where we have those hazardous weather days. This year, we didn't spend all of our hazardous weather dollars. Our winter wasn't too bad. So the hope is really kind of throughout the cold weather season, which is November 1 through April 30, that Sergio's can expand their hours so people have a place to kind of go during the day.

Thank you for being responsive to the situation that occurred in 2025 and keeping that in mind and rolling those recommendations forward.

And then the rest of the awards will be funded at the same level that they received last year. For ERP funding, the RHC just had a special meeting last week. So our region continues to receive that $5,500,000 that we received last year. As we've talked about, Commerce has indicated that they're no longer willing or interested in providing ERP funding for QuinStreet or Unity Commons. So there's going to be recommendations to fund existing projects based on a requested budget for those projects to maintain their level of service.

But there is going to be a balance of about $290,000 that is currently unallocated. The RHC is exploring options for how to best utilize those funds. So you will see that recommendations for funding existing programs, that's going to be Maple Court, Sandy's Flats. City of Olympia funds the Franz Anderson Tiny Home Village, so that funding doesn't come through us, but that remains here. City of Olympia also gets money for their outreach team. And then our admin as well.

Franz Anderson qualifies ERP related.

Yes. Yep. Franz Anderson, the tiny home village piece was set up as an ERP program plus Sandy

Fly and Queen And Maple Court and Maple Court.

So the Regional Housing Council is exploring options on how to best utilize those $290,000 balance that will be available.

So Okay, let me just unpack that

for you. So next slide.

290,000 left. And what's going to Maple Court?

Recommendation is just under $3,000,000 2,000,994.

Okay. There we go. And that's they had 2.9. So I mean, is that last year when we were asking for flexibility not to maybe put at all the income because we were working through some issues at Maple Court. Is that a restoration of what they need to operate like prior to when we were saying let's pull back from like fully finding Maplecroft because we wanted that money to go to the more successful projects that were also at equal risk of losing beds. Where does that I guess my question is like where is Maple Court in terms of its funding need and this funding?

So this request is based on we asked Lehigh, what do you need to operate Maple Court? And this is the number that came

back.

With. So this is their request of solely

Which is why there's 290,000 that doesn't need to go there.

Right. So you'll see at Tom, real quick.

I would say this is a reflection of the success that we've had over the past couple of months that Tom and his team have worked with Lehigh to ensure that some of the issues that the city of Lacey had raised previously have been addressed. We have a contract in place that's based on performance. The city of Lacey is kept abreast of all of the, successes that are happening and troubles that are happening, but always how they're being addressed. We appreciate the partnership of Lehi and the hard work of, Tom and his team. So this is a reflection of that outcropping. It's gonna take a little while to kinda change the perception, but this, I think, is a reflection of the reality.

Know Lacey is getting report outs on how things are going there. Are we because there was a final recently, Lacey got a presentation on what happened and I heard about it secondhand. But we have never been apprised. I've asked for some information on it and Tom's helping me with that. But is there are they getting operational assessments and we're not? Or our operational reports are going to staff and then coming to us when necessary.

I'm not sure what I asked based on the comment you made. I'm not sure what forum they got a presentation from Lehigh. So to answer your question, we are going in to do monthly assessments. And we provide those to Lehigh. Now on an incident like a fire, Lehigh may reach out to Lacey directly. I don't know, Tom, if you have any background on that. But I don't know that we directed Lehigh to go to the city of Lacey to do a No.

I know we reached out to the Lacey Fire Department to get the reports. We're still working to get that report. I know Jackie's reached out. So I don't know if it was Lehigh or the Lacey Fire Department that provided an update.

I saw it the Olympian and it sounded like it was a Lehigh presentation to the city council. I mean,

I'm not aware. Yeah, Lehigh doesn't always coordinate even though we hold the contract. Don't always they're better now, but they don't always coordinate with our staff on when they do outreaches to different places. So I think it being flagged in the Olympian is a conversation that we can have and just asking that to keep us apprised so that jurisdictions are getting the same information. Okay. Thank you.

That was a good flag. Appreciate that.

Yeah, absolutely.

One other I do want to point out, since it may be noteworthy, is Lehigh's The Lotus Court. Sorry, that was another program. So we put some capital funds in The Lotus Court, which is kind of behind this building here, for 10 units in that. And so that's supporting case management. And so the initial budget, dollars 220,000 last year, they weren't able to kind of spend that full amount because they can only use a proportional amount to support those 10 units. So the $77,000 is more in line with they actually spend in that project so that we had a little bit of savings from that as well.

I was at what is Lotus Court and no one knew. So I'm glad I know.

So our Unique Commons, there's the two buildings. One is Unique Commons. The one farther back in the lot is Unique Commons where the shelter is in permanent supportive housing. The one closer to the street is Lotus Court, and that is all permanent supportive housing.

I remember it. It's just I think everyone just says Unity comments for that whole little group, and it got confusing.

Yeah. Thank you. So I know this is a funny conversation, so not a conversation to dive into operations. But I just wanna say that Lotus Court facility or the Lotus Court project, which is also run by Lehigh, I'm just curious about accountability mechanisms in place since we have those in place for Maple Court. And I've heard concerns about Lotus Court as well. So like I said, I know this is a funding conversation, but just wanted to kind of flag that for the board in case you're not aware that I'd be interested in talking through what ideas could look like for that. Do we have the same ability to do that as we did for Maple Court?

We hold the contract, Tom.

We do hold the contract. It's a lower level in a sense. We're just paying for a case manager, so we're not paying for the whole operations. And so we do have a contract with Lehigh. We don't have the same kind of operational control that we do over Maple Court. But there are things we can look at.

I just talked about the line of staff now hearing that

there's a bit

of a difference. We can come back with some recommendations. I know that the work that staff are doing to touch base and I really commend Tom and Kaki. They're making a huge investment in connecting. It's not something that we can do for every single site. But it has helped to get from Lehigh, as assistant county manager Josh Cummings said, from a place where there was a lot of concerns to where that interaction monthly is proving to be very, very valuable. And it's changed the dynamic. So we'll talk and then come back.

Yeah, Okay. And I know staff and you are aware of some of the concerns that have been raised. So I appreciate that ongoing work on that.

All right. Anything else on ERP? All right. And on the affordable housing side why don't you jump

to the

next slide, please? Easier. So our funding this year, we continue to get federal home dollars as well as local document recording fees. $14.00 6 is a sales tax retention. And then local home fund. The local home fund is a combination of the county's contribution and the city of Olympia's contribution. City of Olympia send us 60% of their collection, their capital piece, to the Regional Housing Council. So that's just over $5,000,000 as a combination of the county and city of Olympia. This year also, we have a little bit more because It includes all cities. Yes.

So there's the countywide Which is all the cities. Which is all the cities except for tonight and Olympia. Two years ago, we made an award to a project known as 228 Olympia. It was to be the development of permanent supportive housing. That project has since not been able to move forward. And so they, in a sense, returned that award. So we had that $2,700,000 that we had available to reallocate. So they just couldn't get the funding piece to work out. And there were some issues with the location, is my understanding. So of that, we set aside a portion of that money for an opportunity funds.

Those are for things that come up throughout the year that are unanticipated. And so with that, we had $7,200,000 just under $7,300,000 We'll be bringing forward recommendations for, I think, about $6,900,000 of that. And then the balance, there is a little bit left over that can fund QuinStreet that we'll be going to. So all of those capital projects are one time awards, no expectation of ongoing funding needs. These are agencies that you've seen in the past, Homes First, Habitat for Humanity, Foundation for the Challenged types of projects. So we'll present that full list of projects to you in June.

So my big question is, are the projects are we gonna fund with capital funding all things that then other organizations will support operationally? I mean, we really can't, like, build more stuff that we can't, like, afford to operate. I know that there's a range of types of projects. There's stuff that we can we run it or we contract with Lehigh or we give Olympia a little bit of extra money. And you know what mean?

There's there's a continuum of how involved we are Right. On an ongoing basis. There's projects I know that we've done for homes first or whatever where it's like, we give them the money and then they're doing it.

Yes.

You know, so I mean, like, those are the kind of ones I think we need to be focused on. Right? Because we don't we have a limitation of operational dollars. But then

they come back two years later and say something like, no, the vouchers that we're anticipating don't exist anymore. Yeah.

Or there was a fire and

we need $500,000 a year.

Yeah. So none of the projects that are being proposed this year are not permanent supportive housing projects that require that ongoing operating system. So they are the Homes First. And yes, their Homes First has come back to ask for a little bit for kind of the fire, some maintenance. But generally speaking, Homes First, they collect rent and we do there's not ongoing operating costs that we're paying for. Habitat for Humanity is building those homes and selling them. There's no ongoing costs for Habitat for Humanity kind of project.

Did the RHC think about that when you guys were deciding who to give capital dollars to? Is that part of the conversation? We'd love to do that, but then we're to be left with an operational shortfall.

Yeah. So this year, there wasn't really that conversation because none of those projects applied. We didn't have any large permanent supportive projects apply this year. Another project that is coming in is Vital Housing, which is acquisition of an existing property.

What'd you call it? Vital Housing. Vital Housing, that's a company?

That's a company, yep. And we provided some funding to them a couple of years ago as well. So that conversation this year didn't happen at the affordable housing board or the RHC because the types of projects that were coming in this year shouldn't hit us operationally.

I appreciate this. This is really, really good information, and it helps me out a lot. I want to continue to scrutinize this stuff, this realm because it does seem like funds are becoming less available or they're shifting in how they're made available. And then I think it's really important that we ensure we're looking at it through a lens just like Commissioner Manson mentioned and that we can continue to afford these things. And I wouldn't want to put money out there with the looming threat that beds are going to be taken offline because there's no operational dollars available to fund them.

It's great to hear that in that plan, Twin Street Villages is taken care of for the foreseeable future. I'm left wondering how we are preparing for Olympia's plans to do work within the jungle. Know that they have signaled that they will be coming regionally looking for funding to help facilitate whatever it is their plan is. So so there will be asks at some point. I don't know if that's gonna be something that the opportunity fund is available for or or what.

But, you know, I just I I want us to be really, really mindful of how we allocate these dollars and and what's coming. And and and it looks like a lot of that's that's done. So, you know, I I thank you for all this info.

Yeah, great.

I'd also heard a $21,000,000 number was what there was some funding recommendation being made for about twice this much money.

Well, think the reason for that number is the last RHC packet, part of the staff reports identified that some of the buckets of these dollars were like one was $14 one was $7 So those numbers are not necessarily comprised of all the decision making. Those are just some of the background numbers

that we'll provide.

This year, we've got $15,000,000 in homeless services, plus another $5,000,000 from the ERP, plus another $7,000,000 from capital. So depending on which numbers we're getting added together.

But in the June meeting, we'll be looking at this

package of All these will be coming forward. And just follow-up briefly, the opportunity fund is specifically for capital projects. I'm not sure if that's going to be available for the jungle encampments. And I know there's ongoing meetings. We've got one later today. And then we're sorry.

I might be saying sometimes we're like right aligned. At the recent Regional Housing Council meeting, we did talk about that plan for the jungle. And there is a stakeholder group that's been meeting, doing a lot of work. And they're going to come forward with a plan soon. They're gonna give us more information soon, but the conversation is in the works.

And when we talked about that 208 290,000 that's still to be allocated, staff brought a really good set of options forward, and one of those options was to utilize this funding for whatever plan comes forward about the jungle. And then there was another option we're talking about maybe a blend of both options, but I won't go too into detail because we haven't decided yet. But just so you're aware, commissioner Fornier, staff is thinking about that, working with stakeholders, and coming forward with options. So that 290,000 is potentially some way to, like, start whatever process is decided upon. So that was discussed at the meeting, and we're gonna keep that at the top of our list knowing that it's a priority for the city of Olympia.

That's exactly what I was going to say.

I knew it.

Good job, Commissioner.

And then

the last thing I was just going to say is the Regional Housing Council's office. We're working on a contingency priority plan going forward after we get through this two year cycle to go into our next large RFP, especially on the homeless services side, really looking at what types of things do we need to prioritize, what's required that we have to provide, what's critical. And then so we're really working with our homeless services advisory board, the lived experience housing steering committee to bring a framework to the Regional Housing Council for how we make these decisions going forward.

So is really like the $5,500,000 ERP funding that we're seeing as at risk in future cycles? Or is there other stuff that when we're talking about a contingency plan, what contingencies are we prepping for? Loss of $5,500,000 or reduction of 5,500,000?

I think we're looking more broadly at the system. There's a lot of there's funding uncertainty kind of in the system. I would say, generally speaking, the funding that we have is relatively stable over the last several years. Obviously, we can't predict the future. Commerce has told us that the $5,500,000 for ERP funding is built into the budget. And that should be is it intended to go on? State has capital dollars into these. They're not interested in seeing them fail either. They put a lot of money into Maple Court. And so we do have some assurances from commerce at the 5.5.

Now, won't increase. And so over time, the value of that will diminish a little bit. But we do believe that the $5,500,000 is relatively stable going forward. But again, of course, I can't guarantee that with state budgets. And even with the other homeless services, the state to date has shown an ability and a willingness to maintain funding at least kind of at

There's a federal strap up there that we're Okay with for now. I mean, we think it comes to Yeah.

The only federal money we receive directly is through the home program. And that certainly is subject to the whims of Congress. But I think we're better with the local home fund. It used to be that was we had 2,000,000 a year and the 700,000 of that was federal. Now we have 7,000,000 a year and 700,000.

So it's we're a little easier to kind of manage that. I will say our local service providers, homeless service providers do receive federal dollars directly from HUD. That is at risk. And so I think there is real concern for our homeless service providers who receive federal dollars for homeless services. And so even though we don't fund that, it does impact our broader system.

Best case scenario, we need to anticipate the cap on the dollars. And as inflation goes up, how are we going to continue to maintenance those operations? Worst case scenario with the $1,000,000,000 additional shortfall that the state has identified going into next session, could these dollars be trimmed? And that's where in the conversation with the mayors, we understand the marching orders, which is to come up with some scenarios on how we're going to address that. At the same time, our public health and social services department is being trimmed.

They are having reductions. I think it was a week and a half ago now. Doctor. Freiheit learned that they're seeing less dollars. The way the state of Washington does it is the association comes together and then figures out how it's going to affect each different agency and jurisdiction.

And so she's working through that. And we're putting together an update. But public health has seen a lot of different reductions over the last couple of years, including the budget reduction that the county went through, which removed a lot of discretionary general fund from their budget. And the way they made that work was by plugging the holes with some of their discretionary funding that they had. But right now, any cut that they see is going to have an impact to operations staff.

Okay. Any other questions for the public health team on the presentation regarding RHC? Thank you. Great.

I do.

Doctor. Mishra Miyah.

Thank you. Tom, I'm wondering, I was kinda hoping to see it this morning but I didn't. So we got contacted by me and commissioner Fournier got contacted by Lewis County, some of their commissioners and then I was able to speak to some of them at the Washington State Association of Counties meetings last week in regards to the Family Support Center shelter closing and you know, the notice that they've put out to their centers is that they're going to be basically making checks and they're just going to be providing services to Lewis County people. And and so, you know, I I'll be having a a follow-up meeting with with commissioners from from Lewis County about it, but I was hoping you could provide a little bit of information about what's going on with that shelter.

Yeah, I think that's and I haven't had a chance to talk to Family Support Center directly, but that is with the end of the cold weather season. We have historically funded Family Support Center to increase their shelter capacity during the cold weather season from November 1 through April 30. So that looked to me like just an announcement that that extra capacity during the cold weather season was going away. So For the season. For the season.

And then what the recommendation will be to provide additional funding for the next year for the next season. So this is for the last, I don't know, six, seven, ten years perhaps of kind of a cycle of how we funded Family Support Center to increase their shelter capacity during the cold weather season. But then there is a reduction of shelter capacity during the summer months.

It's more of a notification. It's not an announcement that they're not operating anymore. It's our understanding that it's more of just a notification that as the season ends, so they're just notifying folks that they'll be closing for the season. And then will be part of the recommendation for funding, as Tom highlighted in his presentation. So it looks like that if all goes well, they will receive additional funding.

Commissioner McHugh?

I appreciate that context because it was I wasn't kind of prepared for that and I was trying to figure out kind of from what they were telling me what was happening. So thank you so much, Tom. I also just want to say how much I appreciate your work with Lehigh and kind of getting to a place where there are some measures put in place. I heard from a lot of constituents with concerns and had a lot of meetings so I appreciate you kind of moving that forward in the work that you did. I know it was a lot of work and dealing with a lot of jurisdictions concerns as well and trying to kind of find that middle ground with this external funding.

Just a huge thank you to Tom and Jackie and Alex and the rest of the staff for an amazing job.

Thank you. Can I ask a question on that? So like we were involved kind of at the front end of that concerns about Maplecord and we gave direction to tighten the contract and all that. And I think I saw a draft at some point. But as the contract finally landed, can you give an example, just one example of like a performance evaluation criteria that could trigger a problem.

What would happen there that would be like, oh, this is not in line with we asked you to do? What do they need to report to us? Or what are the triggers of this tightening up of the operational oversight of Lehigh on Maple Court?

Yeah. So Jackie has developed a checklist of, I don't know, maybe 15 items that she's looking at. So she's looking at staffing. Do they have enough are they staffed up and have case manager in place that they're supposed to?

I'll just say that as Jackie developed that, she also worked with the team to get some of the service provider input from other service providers who, from the outside in, had concerns and were hearing concerns in the communities, which helped to inform. Just don't want folks to think that Jackie said in a cubicle was like, what are the 15 things

I want to

know that this was a collaboration with the service providers community with the city of Lacey on things that were not going well that we needed to.

I just was just a couple of examples. So just to give me a flavor.

Landlord engagement, are they reaching out to landlords? Are they doing events to connect people to services?

Making sure the buildings are safe.

Making sure the buildings are safe.

Invoicing is on time. Those kinds of things. Security at the location.

All right. Thank you. Any other questions before we let this team go?

All right.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you. I'm going to call for maybe ten minutes before we open the next item, which is a closed session. And so we'll be back at 10:25.

In progress.

Okay. It's 10:25. We're back from a short recess, and we're picking up with item five on the morning's work session agenda, which is a closed session pursuant to RCW 4,230 one-44A, collective bargaining sessions with employee organizations, including contract negotiations, grievance meetings, and discussions relating to the interpretation or application of a labor agreement,

or

b, that portion of a meeting during which the governing body is planning or adopting strategy or position to be taken by the governing body during the course of any collective bargaining, professional negotiations, or grievance, or mediation proceedings, or reviewing proposals made in the negotiations or proceedings while in progress. Topic for the closed session is collective bargaining updates. We're allowing we're estimating twenty minutes, so that would be ten forty six. And board action may follow, and so we'll be in closed session till 10:46.

Recording in progress.

Okay. It's 11:19. We've completed our closed session with couple extensions. No board action is going to happen or legislative action. We're up to commissioner items. Does commissioners have any item to address before we adjourn? Hearing none, we are adjourned. See everybody at 2PM

before No.

Wait. Wait. Wait.

Sorry. I I was slow to raise my hand. I just wanna ask a clarification on a process. I got contacted about adding a consent proclamation to our agenda. And so county manager, do we need to bring that for approval for the board, or what is the process like?

Yeah. Since the board has selected and approved the 2026 proclamation calendar, adding an item would take a vote of the board. We are when when some requests have come through in the past, what we're doing is, the clerk is keeping notes of that, and we'll make it part of the next year's consideration that the board can deliberate on.

And if I can add just one clarifying point that this year, we don't have consent proclamations on the agenda. The other proclamations included in this year's calendar are announced by the county manager during one of his monthly updates at a business meeting, and the proclamations are just simply distributed to the appropriate organizations. So

because they don't need a vote.

Yeah. Right. The board has already voted on them. Yep.

So they they're not currently listed on the business meeting agendas.

Commissioner Ramirez, that cover your question?

So, if I would like to bring a proclamation for board consideration just on the consent calendar, not as a I will just have to add it as a commissioner item, I'm guessing.

Correct.

Yes. Oh, what happened? Oh.

Oh. It's showing up.

K. Thank you. 2PM. We're adjourned.