Thurston Co. pauses $15.3M for homeless services after Tumwater mayor objects
Thurston County will not release $15.3 million to help unhoused and housing-insecure residents on July 1 following an eleventh-hour objection from the city of Tumwater.
The Board of County Commissioners voted 3-2 to delay a vote on 49 homeless services contracts with 17 non-profit organizations during their Tuesday meeting in Olympia.
The contracts include money for basic needs, food, shelter, rent assistance, tiny homes and more for a one-year period starting next month. The board expected to vote on the contracts Tuesday afternoon but changed course after receiving a same-day email from Tumwater Mayor Leatta Dahlhoff.
The first-year mayor asked the board to return the contracts to the Regional Housing Council so Tumwater could get answers to clarifying questions about the money and anticipated outcomes, according to a copy of the email reviewed by The Olympian.
“Additional conversations would provide council members and partner jurisdictions an opportunity to better understand the funding sources, allocation methodology, performance expectations and long-term financial implications before moving forward,” Dahlhoff wrote in the email.
Commissioner Carolina Mejia made the motion to remove the agenda item related to these contracts, and Commissioner Wayne Fournier seconded it. Commissioners Emily Clouse and Rachel Grant opposed the motion.
Clouse, who serves as the RHC vice-chair, said the board’s action would delay “life-or-death” services for people during the summer and impact the budgets of local non-profits.
“It’s devastating,” Clouse said at the conclusion of the meeting. “Every day, I come into this room believing and assuming that we’re all here to do the best thing we can for the community. Today, I don’t feel that for the first time since I’ve been elected.”
Mejia said these contracts are “not a given,” and the board reserves the opportunity to ask questions and send agenda items back for further review.
“It’s very disappointing that you’re putting this on the board, yet the Regional Housing Council could have had these conversations preemptively and helped address some of these situations,” Mejia said in response to Clouse. “Now, we’re hearing from jurisdictions that there are concerns about the process.”
Commissioner and Board Chair Tye Menser made the tie-breaking vote Tuesday after an extended back-and-forth among the commissioners, Dahlhoff and Tumwater City Administrator Paul Simmons.
The RHC is an advisory body that includes voting members from the cities of Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater and Yelm as well as Thurston County. At an April 22 meeting, three of five council members voted to recommend approval of the contracts, and two abstained, according to meeting minutes and a recording of the meeting.
Tumwater City Council member Meghan Sullivan abstained from the vote, explaining she works with one of the non-profits that would receive money under the proposal. The money for the contracts comes from a mix of state and local funding.
City of Tumwater makes its case
Tumwater has questions about “equity and representation” as well as “structural questions” about how money is being allocated, Simmons said.
“We understand the complexity of the problems that we are trying to solve, and we recognize that a solution that might work in one jurisdiction does not always work in another,” Simmons said.
Simmons said Tumwater is proactively working to address these problems with its mobile outreach team, its law enforcement-assisted diversion program and by engaging with local non-profits and boards.
“Even with Tumwater taking these steps, outside efforts are disrupting what we are trying to implement in Tumwater,” Simmons said. “Yet, we are seeing things escalate in our community.”
Simmons argued it shouldn’t be an issue for a contributing RHC jurisdiction to ask questions.
“If it feels like this is a problem to ask these questions before we approve these things, then I think there’s probably a larger discussion that we need to have about how the RHC is structured and how we approach this work.”
Commissioner Clouse asked Simmons if there were specific non-profits or programs Tumwater took issue with in the funding package. However, he declined to single out any programs.
Dahlhoff attended the board meeting in person. She said Sullivan has not been getting satisfactory answers and funding tabulations over the past six months.
“She’s been getting piecemeal,” Dahlhoff said. “Certain amount here, certain amount there, but when she’s totaling it, it’s not adding up and things look duplicative.”
Dahlhoff said she did not want to hold up the money, but Tumwater needs more transparency.
“I took time off my day job to be here because I support the work that you’re doing and I have unanswered questions,” Dahlhoff said. “I want it on the record, what is coming to Tumwater? How are we contributing?”
Thurston County commissioners at odds
Clouse said delaying the vote could make or break the budgets for the non-profits that serve the community.
“Small non-profits are struggling right now and if they’re counting on this money on July 1 and they don’t have it, there’s a chance people could get evicted.”
Grant sided with Clouse.
“It’s unfortunate that we somehow didn’t get this information previously,” Grant said. “While I absolutely think that we should be able to meet Tumwater’s needs and go back to the RHC… I am concerned about the funding being stopped.”
Tabling the vote means the $15.3 million will not be dispersed to the 17 non-profits on July 1, and it’s unclear when the contracts will be back on the board’s agenda.
The Regional Housing Council is not expected to meet again until late July, County Manager Leonard Hernandez said. Meanwhile, the Board of County Commissioners is expected to go on a summer recess between June 25 and July 12, per the body’s calendar.
Unless the bodies hold special meetings, the board would likely review the contracts again in August, over a month after the funding was expected to go out.
Mejia said the board has previously started contracts late for various reasons, and county staff can communicate with the affected non-profits.
“This is why we have two formalizations, one in the Regional Housing Council and then after that it comes in front of the board, because a jurisdiction is allowed to change its mind, including the county,” Mejia said. “We’ve voted to return some items back to the Regional Housing Council. It’s a jurisdiction’s prerogative.”
Fournier said he wanted to respect Dahlhoff’s request. Not doing so could risk the legitimacy of the RHC as a regional effort, he said.
“Everybody doesn’t have to participate in this,” Fournier said. “If you’re not respecting their wishes, there’s a likelihood that they’ll stop participating in this, and then we’re not going to be able to have a Regional Housing Council. We’re not going to be able to do these projects that we need to do.”
Menser acknowledged the timing concerns and called it an “incredibly difficult decision.” Still, he said he promised not to “strong-arm” the cities when negotiating the 2021 interlocal agreement that formalized the RHC.
“I’m going to lean toward supporting this request, but I would like to see a special (RHC) meeting, and I would like to see board action at the July 21 meeting, which is our very next board meeting, if at all possible,” Menser said.
If nothing’s been accomplished between now and then, I’ll probably be making a motion to just approve the funding at that time, unless there’s some real progress and demonstrated specific need to go beyond that meeting with this approval of contracts.”
