Community House asks Cowlitz County for $50,000 to support tenant‑based rental assistance
Loading...
Summary
Community House on Broadway presented its annual report, audit plans and TBRA performance data, and requested $50,000 from the county to continue tenant‑based rental assistance; presenters cited 35 households assisted since 2022 and described a strong success rate but commissioners probed eligibility, program limits and legal risk.
Community House on Broadway officials briefed the Cowlitz County Board of Commissioners on their annual report, program outcomes and a request for $50,000 to support tenant‑based rental assistance (TBRA).
Representatives said the organization’s annual revenue was roughly $3.3 million with about $3.1 million in expenses for the year, leaving a reported surplus of roughly $243,000. Staff said they have commissioned an external audit and internal control review and will continue strengthening oversight between Community House and a related nonprofit, CoreHealth.
On the TBRA program, a presenter said the county‑funding request is $50,000 and described the program as income‑based, time‑limited rental assistance with wraparound services. Staff reported 35 households have participated since 2022 and about $97,000 in rental assistance has been provided through the program; presenters said three participating households were not successful and that the program prioritizes ongoing case management and employment support to sustain housing placements.
Commissioners asked for clarification on program mechanics: how the subsidy amount is calculated, limitations on duration and whether recipients are required to meet program conditions. Staff said TBRA is income‑based, generally subsidizes up to 30% of a household’s rent payment through a tapering approach (committing typically to one‑year terms with adjustments), and includes case management and behavioral‑health referrals. The presenters said program rules are designed to promote a “clean and sober” model for certain placements and that administrators reserve the right to exit participants when program rules are violated.
Discussion included larger policy arguments. A Community House speaker criticized the housing‑first model and argued for higher‑barrier programs with recovery requirements; other commissioners pushed back, focusing questions on root causes, coordination with existing vouchers and the availability of affordable units. County legal counsel advised that liability and the risk of being named in litigation depend on the degree of operational integration and monitoring between the county and nonprofit entities.
No county funding decision was recorded at the meeting; commissioners and staff requested follow‑up materials and legal review to clarify eligibility, funding restrictions and program alignment with other regional housing resources.
