Thurston County delays new contracts with Community Action Council pending legal, audit review

Thurston County commissioners on Wednesday asked staff to return three grant applications naming Community Action Council (CAC) to the Regional Housing Council (RHC) for reconsideration and to bring back contract language revisions and legal and audit reviews before proceeding.

The board flagged the applications after staff briefed commissioners that CAC is the RHC's recommended recipient for three awards: $72,700 for basic needs (hygiene and household supplies, emergency hotel stays, car repairs), an estimated $328,000 for eviction-prevention rent assistance serving single adults, seniors and veterans, and $5,000 for diversity, equity and inclusion training and support. County staff said contracts would be developed for board approval at the June 17 meeting but sought direction from commissioners first.

Commissioners cited multiple continuing concerns tied to a prior federal recoupment and an internal audit. "I do have a lot of hesitance with moving forward with these," Commissioner Mejia said, noting the county's earlier need to repay federal funds and that CAC had been labeled a "high risk" organization in prior audits. Several other commissioners voiced similar reluctance to obligate new contracts while legal and auditing questions remain.

County staff said the Prosecuting Attorney's Office (PAO) is already involved. A county staff member said the PAO and Brandon Webber (referenced by commissioners) are working on insurance and contract language; staff also said they received a letter from CAC's insurance carrier asserting the carrier does not believe CAC—s actions trigger the county's insurance. The county indicated it would ask PAO to analyze that letter and advise the board, likely in executive session.

Commissioners asked for specific assurances before authorizing contracts: tightened contract monitoring language, clarity on subrecipient monitoring obligations under Department of Commerce rules, and explicit provisions addressing access to documentation needed for county oversight. "I would need assurance that all of those things have been contracted out. All of those ambiguities have been ironed through to where they have no room to make those kind of arguments," Commissioner Klaus said.

Staff told the board some alternatives may be limited on short notice: staff reported few other applicants for eviction-prevention services for the single-adult population and that reassigning the funds could delay service delivery. The county manager and other staff said they will return the three CAC applications to the RHC so the council has time to seek alternatives if the board declines to support CAC.

The board also asked to receive, before any contract approvals, a written comparison showing how county subrecipient monitoring and contracting practices have changed since the earlier recoupment, and to have PAO and the internal auditor review the proposed contract language. Commissioners said they want to see the revised contract text and the tightened monitoring provisions prior to taking any final action.

Action taken: staff were directed to send the three CAC applications back to the RHC for reconsideration, and to return to the commissioners with PAO and internal-audit reviews and a contracts/monitoring matrix. That direction was made by consensus; no formal roll-call vote was recorded on the record.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the county remains liable for federal repayments when subrecipients do not meet rules, and that the county has an obligation to protect public dollars while maintaining services for populations (including seniors, veterans and single adults) at risk of eviction. Several commissioners emphasized the role of advisory boards and lived-experience reviewers in RHC recommendations, while noting the board—s duty to ensure compliance and financial safeguards.

Next steps: Staff will return the three CAC recommendations to the RHC for additional consideration and to allow time to solicit alternative providers if needed. Staff will also bring to the board proposed contract language revisions and a briefing (including input from the PAO and the internal auditor) before any contract is presented for approval.