Resident alleges misuse of eviction-prevention funds; county manager outlines monitoring and contract termination timeline

A Thurston County resident told the Board of County Commissioners on Aug. 19 that she believes contractors used eviction-prevention rental assistance funds improperly, and asked the board to publish audit material and take remedial steps. County Manager Leonard Hernandez responded with a timeline of the county’s fiscal monitoring of the Partners in Prevention Education (PIPE) eviction-prevention program and said the county and PIPE mutually agreed to terminate the contract in April 2025.

The charges matter because the county administers and oversees programs intended to prevent homelessness and protect public dollars. If true, the allegations would potentially affect local programs, contractors and clients served by rental assistance funding.

“My name is Taulana Reed, and I live in Thurston County,” said Taulana Reed during public comment. Reed alleged that the PIPE program “permitted contractors to bilk the county for hundreds of thousands of dollars in ineligible expenses,” and said she has reported those concerns through “proper channels” but saw no action. Reed also asked the board to “publicly share the audit and report concrete evidence that this did not happen.”

County Manager Leonard Hernandez told the board public health and social services began monitoring the PIPE eviction-prevention rent assistance (EPRA) program in October 2023 and identified concerns about fiscal management, internal controls and documentation. Hernandez said a public health fiscal monitoring report issued in February 2024 included corrective actions, and that PIPE made payments identified by that corrective action plan in August 2024. He said the State Auditor’s Office issued a fiscal report in October 2024 that included a review of PIPE invoices and “no deficiencies or material weaknesses were identified.” Hernandez said public health staff monitored PIPE closely and determined in January 2025 that it would be best to terminate the contract; he said PIPE and public health mutually agreed to terminate the contract in April 2025.

Hernandez also told commissioners that, because some matters are the subject of an ongoing legal proceeding, the county will not comment further publicly at this time. Commissioner Emily Klaus asked whether the board could receive a copy of the State Auditor’s report; Hernandez said the auditor’s report is public and the county will provide a copy to the board.

Reed pressed the board to identify what follow-up the county is taking to examine alleged misspending and to explain why county policies were, in her view, not followed. Hernandez declined to add further public details citing the legal process.

The board did not take a formal vote related to Reed’s allegations during the meeting. Commissioners discussed handling possible follow-up in executive session and suggested consulting legal counsel to determine appropriate next steps. Commissioner Klaus proposed privately discussing whether facilitation or mediation among parties would be appropriate; county legal counsel will advise the board.

For now, the county’s public record is the timeline Hernandez presented: monitoring began in October 2023; a fiscal monitoring report and corrective actions were issued in February 2024; corrective payments were made in August 2024; the State Auditor’s 2023 fiscal report (October 2024) reported no deficiencies or material weaknesses; staff recommended termination in January 2025; and the PIPE contract was mutually terminated in April 2025. The county stated it will not comment further while legal matters proceed.

Affected records and audit documents were discussed and commissioners asked staff to provide commissioners a copy of the State Auditor’s report. The county manager said staff will follow up with the board on next steps and legal options.

Commissioners and county staff present for the Aug. 19 meeting included Chair Ty Mentzer and County Manager Leonard Hernandez. The county asked the public to respect ongoing legal process while staff pursues follow-up. The board did not adopt a new policy or take a public vote on enforcement at the meeting; staff follow-up and legal consultation were described as the next steps.