[0:08] The AUGUST 25th, 2026 Committee

[0:10] on. Thank you. Colleagues, for

[0:10] joining us on today

[0:11] s agenda.

[0:11] We

[0:12] ll have discussion about

[0:13] possible action and appointment

[0:15] to the Landmarks Commission. We

[0:16] will then have an initial

[0:18] briefing on the King County

[0:21] 2026 2029 Equal Employment

[0:23] Opportunity Affirmative Action

[0:23] Plan, but we

[0:24] re going to defer

[0:25] action until a future meeting.

[0:26] i

[0:27] ll explain a little bit about

[0:28] why. And then finally, we

[0:28] ll

[0:30] have a briefing from staff from

[0:30] the executive

[0:32] s office and from

[0:33] the King County Regional

[0:34] Homelessness Authority on the

[0:36] case here. Contract transition

[0:37] plan and the Corrective Action

[0:39] Plan, and will consider taking

[0:41] action on a motion accepting

[0:43] the executive report with that

[0:45] introduction. Clerk, will you

[0:46] please call the roll?

[0:48] Thank you. Chair. Councilmember

[0:50] Balducci. Councilmember

[0:54] Dembowski. Councilmember Dunn.

[0:55] Councilmember Fain.

[0:57] Councilmember Lewis. Here.

[0:59] Councilmember. Mosqueda. Here.

[1:01] Councilmember. Perry.

[1:04] Councilmember von Reichbauer.

[1:04] Chair.

[1:07] Button here. And we do have a

[1:08] quorum of the committee. Thank

[1:11] you. Uh, vice chair. Well,

[1:12] Council vice chair Dunson is

[1:13] our vice chair of the

[1:14] committee. Is not here. MAY I

[1:15] have a motion for approval of

[1:17] the minutes of the JUNE 23rd,

[1:19] 2026 meeting? Move. Approval.

[1:20] Thank you. Any questions?

[1:22] Concerns? Comments regarding

[1:23] the minutes? All right. All

[1:24] those in favor of approving the

[1:25] minutes, please say aye. Aye

[1:28] aye. Any opposed? Say nay. The

[1:30] meeting minutes are approved.

[1:31] We will now turn to public

[1:33] comment. If anyone has joined

[1:34] us on zoom and would like to

[1:35] provide public comment, please

[1:36] use the raise Hand function or

[1:37] press star nine. If you have

[1:40] joined by phone. I do believe

[1:41] we have some folks in public

[1:42] provided public comments, so

[1:42] i

[1:44] ll read the the rules on

[1:46] that. Uh, public comment must

[1:47] be related to items on today

[1:47] s

[1:49] meeting agenda and not be used

[1:50] for the purpose of assisting a

[1:51] campaign for election of any

[1:52] person to any office, or for

[1:54] the promotion of our opposition

[1:56] to any ballot proposition. It

[1:58] must also not include obscene

[1:59] speech. If a speaker fails to

[2:00] abide by these restrictions, I

[2:01] will rule the speaker out of

[2:02] order and have the speaker

[2:04] removed from the meeting. You

[2:05] will have two minutes to speak

[2:06] and you will hear a timer go

[2:07] off. You can finish your

[2:08] thought, but please wrap up

[2:10] your comments. If you go much

[2:11] past two minutes you MAY be

[2:13] muted. We will begin by calling

[2:14] on the people who have signed

[2:15] up to speak in person. If

[2:15] you

[2:16] re providing comment

[2:17] remotely, please listen to the

[2:18] meeting on the zoom call until

[2:20] you hear your name called.

[2:21] Clerk will you please call on

[2:22] those who are with us in

[2:23] person?

[2:25] Thank you. Chair. Yes. Kevin.

[2:29] Altamira, please.

[2:31] Welcome. Chair. Kevin Alzheimer

[2:33] here to speak on affirmative

[2:34] action, which is a very

[2:36] significant thing in our

[2:38] society, especially in the

[2:41] communities of people of color.

[2:43] Uh, as you know, in your audit

[2:45] of last year, there was a real

[2:47] affirmative action issue. You

[2:49] had an auditor who went outside

[2:50] of the scope, and you guys know

[2:52] better. And then you also had a

[2:55] situation where on APRIL the

[2:58] 15th, uh, uh, Rod Dembowski met

[2:59] with, uh, uh, what

[3:00] s her name?

[3:03] Lula Ramadan. Seattle Times.

[3:05] And she said, hey, uh, rod, it

[3:07] looks like, uh, Yolanda McGhee

[3:10] did have an approval in a, in a

[3:12] in, uh, Thomas Burlington did

[3:14] not rule against her for

[3:16] ethics. So then what does he

[3:18] do? He sends her follow up

[3:19] emails and says, look, I

[3:19] ve

[3:22] been trying to get the the

[3:22] inspector general

[3:24] s office for

[3:26] since 2023. So I got his email.

[3:26] So I

[3:28] m just fair phrasing. So

[3:30] this is how affirmative action

[3:31] works. So you have people like

[3:32] him who does what he does. Then

[3:34] you have people like Kelly

[3:36] Rider, a woman who was kicked

[3:38] out of here because she said

[3:39] there was no money missing in

[3:41] dhhs. And she also said that

[3:43] the family did not commit any

[3:44] ethics violation. You know,

[3:46] that ethics violation thing

[3:47] goes two ways. It says the

[3:49] county has a responsibility. So

[3:50] on APRIL 9th, when Jennifer

[3:52] Tanaka found out that the

[3:54] actually in 2023, she found out

[3:55] that the family dynamic was

[3:56] there, she checked with Thomas

[3:57] Burlington. He said there

[3:57] isn

[3:59] t. Then what happened? It

[4:00] went to Megan. Those guys took

[4:02] it to the state auditor. State

[4:04] auditor to throw it away. Do

[4:05] you know, last week, a judge

[4:07] ruled against King County in

[4:09] her unemployment case and said

[4:11] that King County should never

[4:13] put her on paid leave or

[4:15] violated her rights by bringing

[4:18] in an unsolicited document and

[4:20] claiming that it was truth. So

[4:21] what we have in this audit at

[4:23] King County Oversight found

[4:25] substack.Com, everybody

[4:26] s act.

[4:26] I don

[4:28] t bring opinions. I show

[4:30] you exactly what you did.

[4:31] Thank you. Thank you. Clerks,

[4:32] do we have anybody else signed

[4:35] up in person?

[4:36] Not in person, not in person.

[4:36] All right. Let

[4:40] s go to online.

[4:44] Next week, I, Nicole Fillmore.

[4:49] Welcome.

[4:50] Hello. My name is Nicole

[4:53] Fillmore, and I am I work for

[4:54] coordinated entry for Csra

[4:55] members of the council. I

[4:56] m

[4:57] speaking today on behalf of the

[4:59] represented workers at King

[5:00] County Regional Homelessness

[5:01] Authority. We

[5:01] re appearing

[5:02] before you with the clear,

[5:04] urgent message. The regional

[5:06] approach to ending homelessness

[5:08] in King County is worth saving,

[5:09] and the front line workforce

[5:11] doing this daily work is fully

[5:12] committed to making it succeed.

[5:14] When regionalism was

[5:15] established, it was in response

[5:17] to the fundamental truth that

[5:18] our unhoused neighbors and

[5:20] service networks do not stop at

[5:22] municipal borders. Overcoming

[5:24] this crisis requires regional

[5:25] alignment, driven by commitment

[5:27] and powered by experience.

[5:29] While headline coverage focuses

[5:31] on political friction. Behind

[5:32] that noise, our small,

[5:34] dedicated staff continue to

[5:35] build and maintain the

[5:37] essential operational machinery

[5:39] of this response system. Our

[5:41] Continuum of Care team secures

[5:43] millions in federal funding by

[5:44] managing the complex annual no

[5:47] full competition and oversight

[5:49] of the clc funding contracts.

[5:50] Our our Severe Weather response

[5:51] coordination protects lives

[5:53] during extreme weather events.

[5:55] Our independent Ombuds office

[5:57] ensures consumer dignity,

[5:58] accountability and grievance

[6:00] resolution. Our Coordinated

[6:01] Entry team manages the direct

[6:03] front door to the system,

[6:04] ensuring equitable access

[6:07] across all jurisdictions. Our

[6:08] research and data team manages

[6:10] this uses regionally unified

[6:12] open data to produce real time

[6:14] by name lists and provides

[6:15] critical data governance for

[6:17] the entire system. Our programs

[6:19] division provides day to day

[6:21] contract monitoring. Um

[6:23] partnering to ensure contract

[6:25] compliance and quality by

[6:26] providing technical assistance,

[6:27] support and training to

[6:30] contracted providers. Our

[6:31] compliance contracts and

[6:32] finance teams manage millions

[6:34] in funding, develops and

[6:36] executes contracts, ensures

[6:37] adherence to funder guidelines,

[6:39] leaves lease comprehensive

[6:41] monitoring processes and

[6:42] reviews invoices in due

[6:45] diligence documentation. We

[6:46] live and breathe this work

[6:47] every single day. We

[6:48] re not

[6:49] political maneuvers. We are

[6:53] civil servants.

[6:55] Thank you. Nicole. On the next

[6:56] person.

[7:00] Next, we have Haley Willis.

[7:01] Welcome.

[7:03] Good morning, Council members.

[7:04] My name is Haley Willis with

[7:05] the Seattle King County

[7:07] Coalition on Homelessness,

[7:09] commenting on the transition

[7:10] plan for locally funded

[7:12] homelessness contracts on

[7:14] behalf of more than 50 member

[7:16] organizations who house shelter

[7:17] and care for people

[7:18] experiencing homelessness all

[7:20] over King County. We appreciate

[7:20] the executive

[7:21] s and the

[7:21] Council

[7:22] s careful attention to

[7:24] maintaining the stability of

[7:25] our homelessness response

[7:26] system. It

[7:27] s incredibly

[7:29] important that nobody loses or

[7:30] experiences a gap in the

[7:32] housing, shelter or essential

[7:34] services they rely on every

[7:36] day, especially in light of

[7:38] ongoing uncertainty with

[7:39] federal Continuum of Care

[7:42] funding. Our community has led

[7:44] the way in adopting evidence

[7:46] based approaches that recognize

[7:48] that people need a safe place

[7:50] to live as a foundation to heal

[7:52] and thrive. Thanks to these

[7:54] evidence based practices, our

[7:56] community successfully helps

[7:57] thousands of people get a

[7:58] stable home and leave

[8:00] homelessness every year. As

[8:02] King County and Seattle resume

[8:04] management of locally funded

[8:06] contracts, we urge you to

[8:07] continue to keep best practices

[8:10] and regional collaboration at

[8:11] the center of your efforts to

[8:13] bring more people home. Thank

[8:14] you.

[8:16] Thank you, thank you. Next is

[8:27] Ryan Collin.

[8:30] Welcome, Ryan. Go ahead.

[8:31] Okay. Thank you. My name is

[8:32] Ryan Talon. I

[8:33] m a registered

[8:34] nurse and I live in district

[8:36] eight. I do not work for Kcra.

[8:36] I

[8:38] m here as a taxpayer. The

[8:40] Kcra ceo, Kelly Kennison,

[8:43] received $300,000 in public

[8:44] funds. Even though the agency

[8:45] has millions of dollars

[8:47] unaccounted for. To put that

[8:49] number in perspective, $300,000

[8:51] of the cost of 2 to 3 nurses. I

[8:52] regularly discharge patients in

[8:53] a situation where they have no

[8:55] support, and the money that is

[8:56] meant to address that is going

[8:58] toward a salary of a ceo whose

[8:59] own governing board

[9:00] investigated her and found that

[9:01] she retaliated against her

[9:04] staff. A forensic audit found

[9:05] that the agency under her

[9:06] leadership, cannot account for

[9:08] millions of dollars. As I

[9:09] followed this story in the

[9:09] news, I

[9:11] ve been wondering when

[9:12] will someone be held

[9:14] accountable? The ceo retaliated

[9:15] against staff who reported

[9:16] fiscal concerns, and based on

[9:18] reports, she has also skipped

[9:19] council briefings about the

[9:21] audit. I want to ask, is this

[9:23] what my taxpayer dollars pay

[9:25] for a ceo who appears unable to

[9:26] account for significant public

[9:27] funds, and who remains in this

[9:29] position? Despite these

[9:30] concerns, King County asks

[9:32] voters to approve levies for

[9:34] exactly this kind of work. I

[9:36] vote yes every time, but each

[9:37] story like this one gives the

[9:39] next voter a reason to say no.

[9:40] And the people who ultimately

[9:42] pay for that are my patients,

[9:44] not those in leadership, city

[9:45] and county leaders watching

[9:46] this MAY conclude that major

[9:49] failures will not carry real

[9:51] consequences. Staff MAY also

[9:52] learn to stay silent when a

[9:53] workforce is taught not to

[9:55] speak up. The next $13 million

[9:56] could go missing. With no one

[9:57] left willing to raise the

[9:59] alarm. Council members sit on a

[10:00] governing board. There is no

[10:03] one else to wait for. I ask

[10:03] that you hold leadership

[10:05] accountable and remove her from

[10:07] this position.

[10:14] Thank you. Next. Ben Mathewson.

[10:17] Hello, my name is Ben Matheson,

[10:19] and I am an analyst with Kcra.

[10:19] I

[10:25] d like to build on what?

[10:33] We lost Matthew. Maybe we can

[10:35] go to the next speaker if there

[10:37] is another commenter. Or if we

[10:44] can get Matthew back.

[10:46] The next person.

[10:49] The next person is Ryan.

[10:51] Welcome.

[10:54] Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi.

[10:58] We have a bad, uh, echo. So if

[10:59] you could mute that whatever

[11:04] other device you have. Now,

[11:04] we

[11:09] ve lost. Sorry. I also. All

[11:12] right, we have you back.

[11:14] Hi. My name is Saori Aguilar.

[11:15] I

[11:16] m with the coordinated entry

[11:20] team here at Kcra. And building

[11:22] on what my colleague Nicole

[11:24] said. Um, we know that public

[11:26] confidence in our agency has

[11:28] been severely tested by

[11:31] executive transitions, audit

[11:33] findings, and budget deficits.

[11:35] Recently, critics inside and

[11:37] now have labeled us as a failed

[11:39] experiment. But a staff doing

[11:40] the daily work. We ask that you

[11:42] look closely at where the

[11:44] perception comes from. Partner

[11:45] confidence and in our ability

[11:47] to deliver results is higher

[11:49] today than ever. When people

[11:50] read the headline critiques

[11:53] about agency mismanagement,

[11:53] they don

[11:54] t see the staff who

[11:56] stay late during severe weather

[11:58] activation to ensure shelter

[12:00] beds are open, or the program

[12:01] managers who have fought

[12:02] through housing instability

[12:04] themselves to earn graduate

[12:06] degrees and return to serve

[12:08] their community. Turbulence at

[12:10] leadership level MAY conceal or

[12:12] distract from our best

[12:14] accomplishments, but it cannot

[12:15] conceal the competence,

[12:17] integrity and dedication of the

[12:19] people performing the work. As

[12:21] King County navigates severe

[12:23] budget constraints, we want the

[12:24] Council and the public to

[12:26] understand that our workforce

[12:27] embodies deep reservoirs of

[12:29] institutional knowledge, a

[12:31] diverse collection of technical

[12:33] and professional skills, and an

[12:34] unwavering commitment to our

[12:38] unhoused neighbors. Conflating

[12:40] top level administrative

[12:41] turbulence with frontline

[12:43] operational capability is a

[12:45] threat to the very expertise

[12:46] that our regional response

[12:48] infrastructure depends on

[12:50] cutting the front line workers

[12:52] who manage system access,

[12:53] secure federal grants and

[12:56] maintain data integrity will

[12:57] not solve our regional

[12:59] homelessness crisis. It would

[13:01] only destroy the institutional

[13:03] memory and the operational

[13:04] capacity that keeps our

[13:06] regional homelessness response

[13:09] afloat. Thank you.

[13:12] Thank you again, Ryan Talon,

[13:17] please can you unmute yourself?

[13:19] I think we heard from Ryan. I

[13:21] think it was William that we

[13:21] skipped.

[13:23] Oh, sorry.

[13:23] What

[13:25] s that? Oh, Ben. Sorry.

[13:30] Ben. Ben. Ben, can you unmute

[13:32] yourself, please?

[13:33] Yes, yes. Hello? Are you able

[13:34] to hear me?

[13:34] Yes.

[13:35] We can. Yes, Ben. We have a

[13:36] little bit of an echo, so if

[13:37] you have another device, make

[13:39] sure you turn that down. But go

[13:41] ahead.

[13:43] My name is Ben Matthewson. I

[13:45] work as an analyst at the kcrw.

[13:46] I

[13:47] m members of the council. You

[13:49] hold a vital role in ensuring

[13:50] and shaping the future of

[13:52] regionalism in King County. As

[13:53] workforce adjustments and

[13:54] restructuring decisions occur,

[13:56] the central priority must be

[13:57] preserving the institutional

[13:59] knowledge, lived experience and

[14:00] operational capacity that keeps

[14:02] this system running. Budget

[14:03] reductions are inevitable, but

[14:04] protecting frontline

[14:06] capabilities, including severe

[14:07] weather response coordination,

[14:09] data governance and management,

[14:10] federal grant administration,

[14:11] contract monitoring and

[14:13] compliance, system navigation

[14:15] and ombuds function is the only

[14:16] way to ensure our region

[14:17] maintains and continues to

[14:18] improve its homelessness

[14:20] response. A shrewd, fiscally

[14:21] responsible approach to budget

[14:22] contractions is one that

[14:24] prioritizes direct operational

[14:26] value, demonstrating to the

[14:27] public that King County values

[14:29] frontline competence over

[14:30] administrative overhead,

[14:32] restores faith in our public

[14:34] institutions. Reform is never

[14:35] about blindly trimming from the

[14:37] bottom up. It is about having

[14:38] the courage and the discipline

[14:39] to occasionally trim from the

[14:41] top down, accountability from

[14:42] leadership is essential in

[14:43] order to protect our

[14:44] experienced, data driven

[14:46] workforce, and demonstrates to

[14:47] the public that King County

[14:49] values operational competence

[14:51] and fiscal efficiency over

[14:52] executive overhead. The workers

[14:54] at Kcra remain fully committed

[14:55] to the vision of a unified,

[14:57] equitable, and effective

[14:58] regional homelessness response,

[14:59] and we asked the Committee of

[15:00] the whole to recognize the

[15:02] value of the people behind the

[15:03] products to protect the

[15:05] frontline infrastructure of

[15:07] regionalism, and to help us

[15:08] ensure that every public dollar

[15:09] continues to serve the members

[15:11] of our communities who rely on

[15:14] us. Thank you.

[15:14] That

[15:16] s the last person I have

[15:17] that has raised her hand.

[15:17] Thank you. I

[15:18] ll do one more

[15:19] check. If you

[15:19] re trying to

[15:20] provide public comment and you

[15:21] haven

[15:21] t had an opportunity to

[15:22] do so, please use the raise

[15:26] hand function and zoom. All

[15:27] right. We

[15:27] re not seeing any

[15:28] further requests for public

[15:29] comments. So we will close

[15:31] public comment and start with

[15:32] our agenda. Uh, colleagues,

[15:32] we

[15:34] re going to start out with

[15:35] our first item, which would

[15:36] confirm an appointment to the

[15:38] King County Landmarks

[15:39] Commission. King County

[15:40] established Landmarks

[15:41] Commission to ensure

[15:42] preservation of the region

[15:42] s

[15:43] historic places, material

[15:45] culture and traditions for

[15:46] future generations. We will be

[15:48] briefed on this item by Brandy

[15:49] Perello, who

[15:49] s on behalf of

[15:52] Leah, who is not here today.

[15:54] Then I will ask for any input

[15:55] from Sarah Stein from the King

[15:57] County Historic Preservation

[15:58] Program. And then we

[15:58] ll hear

[16:00] from the from our appointee,

[16:02] Brandi. Go ahead.

[16:04] Good morning, chair Baron and

[16:05] council members. For the

[16:06] record, my name is Brandi

[16:08] Parabola with Council central

[16:10] staff. The staff report for

[16:12] this item begins on page eight

[16:14] of your packets. And materials

[16:17] for the appointee were sent out

[16:18] simultaneously with your

[16:20] packets on Friday. As brief

[16:22] background on this item.

[16:23] Landmark Commission

[16:25] commissioners are responsible

[16:26] for the designation and

[16:27] regulation of landmark

[16:29] properties. Representation of

[16:30] suburban cities with interlocal

[16:32] agreements with King County,

[16:34] and advice to the executive and

[16:35] the Council on King County

[16:37] Landmarks. Issues. Funding for

[16:39] the landmark program is

[16:40] available from the Cultural

[16:43] Development Fund. Membership

[16:45] consists of nine members and is

[16:46] comprised of volunteers with

[16:48] expertise in areas such as

[16:50] architecture, art, land use,

[16:51] historic preservation,

[16:53] archaeology, education, and

[16:55] history. No more than four

[16:57] members MAY reside in any one

[16:59] municipal jurisdiction, and

[17:00] commissioners are appointed to

[17:03] three year terms. Colin Carter

[17:04] is our appointee today, and

[17:04] he

[17:06] s an associate planner for

[17:07] the city of Kirkland, who

[17:08] serves as the city

[17:09] s primary

[17:10] contact for historic

[17:11] preservation. He

[17:12] s also a

[17:14] member of the Kirkland Heritage

[17:16] Society. Staff have not

[17:17] identified any issues with the

[17:19] proposed appointment, and it

[17:20] appears to be consistent with

[17:22] the requirements of King County

[17:23] Code. That concludes my

[17:24] remarks. I

[17:24] d be happy to try to

[17:26] answer any questions.

[17:27] Thank you. Thank you Brandi.

[17:28] Any questions for staff? All

[17:29] right. Seeing none, I

[17:29] m going

[17:31] to call on Sarah Stein from our

[17:33] King County Historic

[17:34] Preservation Program. Sarah,

[17:35] anything you

[17:37] d like to add?

[17:39] Thank you. Councilmember. Um, I

[17:40] just want to say that we

[17:40] re

[17:42] excited to have Colin on board.

[17:42] We

[17:43] ve been working with him

[17:45] since he was actually at uw. He

[17:47] did the the bathhouse

[17:48] nomination as as a school

[17:50] project in Kirkland, which is a

[17:51] working class house. It

[17:52] s one

[17:53] of the few left in that

[17:54] neighborhood. And he did an

[17:55] excellent job with that. So

[17:56] we

[17:56] ve been working with him

[17:58] regularly both before he was a

[18:00] planner and as a planner, and

[18:00] we

[18:01] re really excited to have

[18:03] him, uh, joining us on the

[18:04] commission.

[18:06] Thank you very much. Uh, well,

[18:06] now it

[18:07] s time to hear from the

[18:07] appointee. So I

[18:08] m going to ask

[18:10] MR. Carter to come join us at

[18:11] the table here for a quick, uh,

[18:14] yes. Thank you very much.

[18:16] Welcome. And thank you for your

[18:20] interest in serving. We will be

[18:22] gentle here. So, uh, thank you,

[18:25] MR. Carter. Uh, appreciate your

[18:26] interest in serving. And can

[18:27] you share a little bit with the

[18:28] committee about, uh, your

[18:29] interest in serving this role?

[18:32] Yes, absolutely. Good morning.

[18:33] Uh, chair. And the remainder of

[18:34] the committee and council, I

[18:36] guess, uh, I

[18:37] m honored to have

[18:38] this opportunity to serve on

[18:40] the Landmarks Commission. Uh,

[18:41] now, more than ever, it

[18:41] s

[18:43] important that we preserve not

[18:45] only the places, but the

[18:47] stories that these places,

[18:49] structures and objects possess

[18:51] throughout King County. Uh, as

[18:53] Sarah Stein had mentioned, I

[18:54] ve

[18:56] had the opportunity to, uh,

[18:58] collaborate with King County

[19:01] staff to actually, uh, nominate

[19:03] and successfully designate, uh,

[19:05] the last structure, uh, within

[19:07] the city of Kirkland to

[19:09] designated status, uh,

[19:11] preserving not only the working

[19:13] class history, uh, also that,

[19:14] you know, associated

[19:16] agricultural and railroad

[19:18] history. Um, and so that

[19:19] s kind

[19:20] of the story of how I actually

[19:21] got into it was what started as

[19:24] a simple school project. Um,

[19:25] like many others in the

[19:26] historic preservation realm,

[19:29] you sort of just fall into it

[19:30] rather than a dedicated track

[19:32] from childhood. I would say.

[19:34] Um, but, uh, throughout the

[19:36] years of now serving as the

[19:39] city of Kirkland contact for

[19:40] homeowners, developers and

[19:41] others that are interested in

[19:42] the historic preservation

[19:44] programs, not only the city,

[19:47] but the county, the county. Um,

[19:47] you know, I

[19:49] ve seen the the

[19:50] challenges that potential

[19:52] historic preservation poses.

[19:56] The, uh, conversations maybe on

[19:58] how it limits development and

[20:01] how the demand for housing, um,

[20:03] and so kind of taking all of

[20:04] that, I think I have a very

[20:08] pragmatic and, um, I would say

[20:09] well-rounded understanding of

[20:11] historic preservation within

[20:13] the county. So I guess the long

[20:14] winded answer, but I

[20:14] m, you

[20:15] know, I could keep talking,

[20:17] very excited about all the

[20:18] facets of it.

[20:19] Thank you very much, MR.

[20:19] Carter. Appreciate it.

[20:20] Colleagues, do we have any

[20:23] questions for the appointee?

[20:24] Seeing none, I

[20:25] m going to ask

[20:27] Councilmember Dembowski, as the

[20:28] council member from district

[20:29] one, to put this item before

[20:30] us. It

[20:32] s proposed motion 2026

[20:33] 0185.

[20:35] Move adoption with a do pass

[20:35] recommendation.

[20:36] Thank you very much. That

[20:38] motion is before us. Any final

[20:40] comments before we take a vote?

[20:41] Appreciate your willingness to

[20:42] serve.

[20:43] Thank you. And I will ask the

[20:45] clerk to please call the roll.

[20:47] Thank you. Chair Councilmember

[20:48] Balducci. Councilmember

[20:52] Dembowski I, Council Dunn I

[20:54] Council member Fain I.

[20:56] Councilmember Lewis I.

[20:57] Councilmember Mosqueda.

[20:58] I.

[21:01] Councilmember Perry.

[21:03] Councilmember von Reichbauer a

[21:04] chair Baron I have seven a

[21:05] s

[21:05] zero no

[21:06] s and no one asks.

[21:08] Pardon me. Councilmember

[21:09] Balducci and Perry. Ah.

[21:10] Thank you very much. By our

[21:12] vote we have approved proposed

[21:16] motion 2026 0185. Uh, unless

[21:18] there are any objections, we

[21:19] will send these this motion

[21:20] with a do pass recommendation

[21:22] for the consent agenda on the

[21:23] regular course. Thank you very

[21:25] much. Congratulations, Colin.

[21:26] Again, thank you for your

[21:27] willingness to serve you. This

[21:28] will be on the agenda for the

[21:29] full council, but you do not

[21:30] need to appear. Of course, you

[21:31] can always come if you want to,

[21:33] but no need for you to appear.

[21:34] And thank you again for your

[21:36] for your willingness to serve.

[21:38] Wonderful colleagues. We

[21:38] ll

[21:39] move to the next item, which is

[21:43] item six. This would approve

[21:46] the 2026 2029 Equal Employment

[21:48] Opportunity Affirmative Action

[21:49] Plan, which is a four year

[21:51] plan. The county uses as an

[21:52] informational resource to

[21:53] provide an overview of the

[21:53] county

[21:54] s key efforts relating

[21:56] to equal employment

[21:58] opportunity. We will be briefed

[22:00] on this item by Eric Newman,

[22:02] and I will note that we

[22:02] re not

[22:03] going to take action on this

[22:04] item, because there are still

[22:05] some legal issues, but I

[22:06] thought it was important as a

[22:08] significant multiyear plan to

[22:10] have at least an initial touch

[22:13] on this item. So, Erica, I will

[22:16] turn it over to you.

[22:18] Thank you, MR. Chair. Erica

[22:20] Newman, Council central Staff

[22:22] the items for Proposed

[22:26] Ordinance 2026 0147 begin on

[22:28] page 14 of your packet. The

[22:30] proposed ordinance would adopt

[22:33] the 2026 2029 Equal Employment

[22:34] Opportunity and Affirmative

[22:37] Action Plan. The plan is covers

[22:39] the executive departments as

[22:40] well as Department of

[22:42] Assessments, Department of

[22:43] Elections and the Prosecuting

[22:44] Attorney

[22:45] s Office. Under code,

[22:48] the executive is to submit um,

[22:50] the new plan by JUNE 1st of

[22:52] every fourth year, which began

[22:56] in 2018. Um, and then the

[22:59] council has uh, until or before

[23:01] JANUARY 1st should either, uh,

[23:03] approve, modify or reject it,

[23:06] uh, via ordinance. The first,

[23:09] uh plan was adopted by council

[23:13] in 1995. The current plan, um,

[23:15] was adopted in DECEMBER of

[23:19] 2022, and the under. I

[23:21] m sorry.

[23:25] Um, in the eeo, uh, the the

[23:27] plan outlines goals and

[23:29] objectives and objectives to

[23:30] attract and retain a diverse

[23:32] workforce that reflects, uh,

[23:35] the community. And so, um, the

[23:39] proposed plan, um, includes

[23:40] information related to county

[23:43] workforce statistics,

[23:45] implementation plans for

[23:47] departments and a summary of

[23:49] the um, prior equal employment

[23:52] opportunity, um, plan. But if

[23:55] you want to go into the the

[23:56] parts where we can get into

[23:58] more detail, uh, beginning on

[24:02] page 48 of your packet, um, it

[24:04] starts to talk about placement

[24:05] goals for the plan period for

[24:09] 2026, 2029, as well as the

[24:12] implementation plans. And, um,

[24:15] the on page 48, it does state

[24:20] that, um. The implementation

[24:22] plan included job categories

[24:24] for persons of color and women,

[24:26] and the goals were based on

[24:27] King County workforce

[24:29] availability from the 2020

[24:32] population. Um, and there were

[24:35] underrepresentation found in,

[24:37] um, the King County workforce.

[24:38] Departments are planning to

[24:39] make good faith efforts to

[24:42] address these areas during the

[24:46] 2026, 2029, uh, plan. The

[24:50] implementation, uh, the the

[24:50] department

[24:52] s plan for

[24:55] implementing the plan is, uh,

[24:57] creating a new plan and

[24:58] analyzing results from the

[25:01] prior plan and beginning on

[25:05] page 38 of your packet of the

[25:07] plan. But page 60 of the

[25:11] packet, our goals, um, goals

[25:16] and highlights from the 2022

[25:20] 2025 plan. It showed that 800

[25:23] 840 defined goal areas, which

[25:26] is about 86%, had a workforce

[25:27] that was consistent with the

[25:28] availability of people of color

[25:30] or women with requisite job

[25:33] skills. And, um, King County,

[25:37] the remaining 14%, um, where

[25:38] the percentage of people of

[25:39] color and women were

[25:41] underrepresented when compared

[25:42] with those qualified and

[25:45] available in the workforce. Um,

[25:48] moving on to page 61 includes

[25:50] achievements, um executive

[25:51] departments did acknowledge

[25:53] that they faced a variety of

[25:54] ongoing recruitment challenges

[25:56] during the prior plan period.

[25:58] Um, and placement goals were

[26:00] for um. For the most part, they

[26:02] were achieved across all

[26:06] departments. Um, the highlights

[26:08] are those are the highlights.

[26:11] And the executive remains that

[26:13] they are going to reiterate and

[26:13] advance the county

[26:14] s commitment

[26:15] to equal employment

[26:17] opportunity, diversity, equity,

[26:20] inclusion and belonging. Um,

[26:21] the proposed ordinance was

[26:23] transmitted on time. There are

[26:25] no direct fiscal impacts on

[26:26] county expenditures or revenues

[26:28] and federal regulations related

[26:30] to this item have very recently

[26:32] changed. And therefore legal

[26:34] analysis of those impacts are

[26:37] ongoing. We do have Gloria

[26:39] Ingersoll, uh, the King County

[26:40] Workforce equity manager from

[26:42] department and Human Resources

[26:43] available to answer any

[26:45] additional questions. MISTER

[26:46] Chair, that concludes my

[26:47] remarks.

[26:49] Thank you very much. Uh,

[26:51] colleagues, any questions on

[26:54] this item? Uh, Councilmember

[26:55] Lewis.

[26:56] Thank you. Chair. Um, thank

[26:58] you, Erica, for that staff

[27:00] report. I have a couple of

[27:02] questions, and they MAY be

[27:05] questions for executive staff.

[27:09] Um, the first question is, how

[27:11] were the eib managers, the

[27:12] equity, inclusion and belonging

[27:15] managers involved in the

[27:17] creation, updating of this

[27:21] report? And the other question,

[27:21] I

[27:23] ll ask it now, maybe answer

[27:25] it later. But as I read the

[27:26] report, there was a lot in the

[27:28] report about recruitment and

[27:30] retention. And I

[27:31] m interested

[27:34] in where the report addresses

[27:37] advancement for, uh, people of

[27:38] color, women and people of

[27:41] color, and also how it

[27:43] addresses the recommendations

[27:44] of the black women

[27:45] s

[27:47] experience. Um, study that the

[27:49] county invested quite a bit of

[27:59] resource in having that done.

[28:02] So go ahead.

[28:07] This is Gloria. Can you hear

[28:08] me?

[28:10] We can not hear you very

[28:12] clearly. We can just barely

[28:14] hear you.

[28:15] Yeah, okay. I

[28:16] m having some

[28:17] technical difficulty.

[28:19] No, no, no, no, we can hear you

[28:20] better. I think we upped the

[28:24] volume here. Go ahead.

[28:24] Let

[28:26] s do the thing there. Um.

[28:28] Thank you, thank you. Thank

[28:32] you. Councilmember. Um, one for

[28:34] the first question as it

[28:36] relates to, uh, engaging eib

[28:39] managers. Um, um, we did not

[28:42] engage the eib managers. And,

[28:43] uh, since we started, if this

[28:45] is meeting being forthcoming,

[28:47] uh, since we started the plan,

[28:49] uh, the eib classification is a

[28:52] new classification. Uh, in

[28:53] crafting the plan, we did not

[28:55] engage the eib manager, but in

[28:58] ongoing efforts to continue to

[29:00] diversify our workforce. Um,

[29:03] through, uh, our advisory

[29:05] committee, uh, the eeo advisory

[29:07] Committee, there are ongoing

[29:09] conversations that includes

[29:11] conversations with the hr

[29:14] managers and eib managers in

[29:16] terms of implementation and

[29:18] making sure that not only are

[29:19] we meeting our hiring retention

[29:21] goals, but we are also looking

[29:24] into data that is, uh, ongoing

[29:25] because we pull that data on a

[29:27] quarterly basis. And so

[29:29] advisory committee members,

[29:30] they do have those regular

[29:31] meetings to continue to make

[29:33] sure that department is being

[29:35] held accountable to the efforts

[29:37] that we put forth in this plan

[29:40] and that both hr manager are

[29:42] involved in the eib managers

[29:44] are also informed, uh,

[29:46] informing those implementation

[29:48] efforts. Um, I can say that

[29:50] moving forward, as we continue

[29:52] to make improvements, we will

[29:54] definitely make sure that we

[29:56] are engaging eib managers,

[29:58] although, um, I would say that

[29:59] for the most part, really

[30:02] looking at hiring, retention

[30:03] and promotions that work since

[30:05] it leaves and sits within the

[30:07] hr managers, uh, they tend to

[30:09] be the ones that we engage the

[30:11] most with.

[30:13] Thank you very much for that.

[30:14] Would you mind identifying

[30:15] yourself for the record?

[30:15] Because we

[30:17] re seeing you as

[30:20] Megan Peterson. So go ahead.

[30:21] Uh, my name is Gloria and

[30:23] Gonzalez, last name. And I am

[30:24] the King County Workforce

[30:25] equity manager in the

[30:27] Department of Human Resources.

[30:29] Thank you very much,

[30:31] colleagues. Any additional

[30:34] questions? Um, as I noted,

[30:34] we

[30:35] re not going to take action

[30:36] on this item. The one thing

[30:38] that I did note from the, uh,

[30:40] report that I wanted to make

[30:42] sure that we, you know,

[30:44] recognize is that one of the

[30:46] areas that we have, I would

[30:48] say, backtracked as a county

[30:50] workforce in the past few years

[30:51] has been the issue of gender

[30:53] and our the percentage of our

[30:55] workforce, uh, who identify as

[30:58] women is going, I would say, in

[31:00] the wrong direction. Um, so,

[31:01] you know, I think that

[31:01] s that

[31:01] s

[31:02] what the data shows. There

[31:03] s no

[31:04] kind of controversy about that.

[31:05] But I just wanted to highlight

[31:07] that. And I urge, you know, the

[31:08] executive branch and something

[31:09] that I think we want to monitor

[31:11] closely, and perhaps when we

[31:13] take action, I would love to

[31:15] hear from, uh, from the, our

[31:17] executive branch specifically

[31:18] on that issue, on what steps

[31:18] we

[31:20] re taking, uh, to reverse

[31:22] that trend. Um, there

[31:22] s some,

[31:23] some, some of that in the

[31:24] report, but I think it would be

[31:25] great to hear a little bit more

[31:28] on that. Uh, next, next month

[31:29] when we take action on this

[31:30] item. Uh Councilmember

[31:32] Mosqueda. I see your hand up as

[31:33] well.

[31:35] Thanks so much. Sorry. It was a

[31:36] little bit choppy. Did you say

[31:38] that the equity, inclusion and

[31:43] belonging was not consulting?

[31:44] Uh, not.

[31:45] In the crafting of the plan,

[31:46] but in the ongoing

[31:47] implementation?

[31:49] Yes. We are. Consulting with

[31:51] them on a regular basis.

[31:53] Okay. And Councilmember Lewis

[31:54] had asked the question. I was

[31:56] wondering about regarding the,

[31:57] um, black women

[31:58] s experience at

[32:00] King County. Um, and

[32:01] colleagues, if you haven

[32:02] t seen

[32:03] that report recently or read

[32:05] it, I think it would behoove us

[32:09] all to see how this submission

[32:11] correlates with the report that

[32:12] Councilmember Lewis noted prior

[32:15] to considering this in the next

[32:16] meeting, happy to bring down

[32:20] copies momentarily.

[32:22] Thank you Councilmember

[32:23] Mosqueda. And again, this item

[32:25] will come back to us so we have

[32:26] further opportunities to ask

[32:27] questions. In the meantime,

[32:31] before we sign off on it. Uh, I

[32:31] don

[32:33] t see I think Councilmember

[32:33] Mosqueda that

[32:34] s your old hand,

[32:36] I believe. Uh, unless you have

[32:38] an additional question. Old

[32:39] man. Hold hand. All right.

[32:42] Thank you very much. Uh, thank

[32:43] you. Colleagues. So, as I

[32:44] mentioned, uh, legal review of

[32:46] this item is still in process.

[32:46] We

[32:47] re going to defer action

[32:48] until the next meeting of the

[32:50] committee on SEPTEMBER 22nd.

[32:52] With that, we will move on on

[32:54] our agenda. Thank you. Uh, our

[32:55] next two items are related to

[32:56] the King County Regional

[32:58] Homelessness Authority. First,

[33:00] we have a briefing from

[33:01] executive staff and then

[33:03] followed by a briefing from the

[33:06] case staff on the casework

[33:07] contract transition plan and

[33:09] then the overview of the

[33:11] corrective action plan. Uh,

[33:11] we

[33:13] re going to be hearing

[33:15] initially from chief operating

[33:17] officer of the Executive

[33:18] Office, Jelani Jackson, who

[33:18] s

[33:19] the acting director of the

[33:20] Housing and Community

[33:23] Development division at dhs,

[33:25] and Aaron Robert, the chief

[33:25] budget officer for the

[33:26] Executive office. And then I

[33:28] will introduce our case here,

[33:30] staff. Uh, uh, when we get to

[33:32] that panel, uh, I do want to

[33:35] just remind us how, uh, what

[33:37] this briefing, uh, stems from.

[33:38] This briefing is the result of

[33:42] motion 16970, which I sponsored

[33:43] with Councilmember Fain and

[33:45] Dembowski, and which the

[33:46] council adopted unanimously on

[33:48] MAY 5th after a forensic

[33:49] evaluation led by Clark

[33:51] Newberry and released in APRIL,

[33:53] exposed serious weaknesses in

[33:54] cases this, uh, financial

[33:56] management internal controls.

[33:57] That motion asked the executive

[33:58] to provide a report on the

[34:00] future of the authority and the

[34:01] steps being taken to address

[34:02] the findings of the forensic

[34:04] evaluation. By AUGUST 1st. And

[34:05] I appreciate that the

[34:07] executive, uh, complied with

[34:09] that request. In the months

[34:10] since, there have been

[34:11] additional developments. On

[34:12] JULY 1st, the executive of the

[34:13] mayor of Seattle announced a

[34:15] plan to stabilize right size

[34:17] and reset cases, including the

[34:18] transition of most locally

[34:19] funded contracts back to the

[34:20] city and the county,

[34:21] respectively. And we

[34:22] ll hear

[34:23] more details on that in a

[34:25] second. Uh, as I noted, the

[34:26] executive delivered the report

[34:27] we requested actually a day in

[34:30] advance on the 31st JULY 31st,

[34:31] probably because AUGUST 1st was

[34:33] society. Uh, today gives us the

[34:34] chance to hear about the

[34:34] executive

[34:35] s recommended steps

[34:36] regarding the authority, the

[34:37] status of the contract

[34:39] transition plan, and the status

[34:40] of the correct corrective

[34:41] action plan that Kasahara is

[34:42] implementing. After hearing

[34:44] from the executive team, uh, we

[34:46] will hear from Kcra leadership

[34:48] directly. Um, thank you. And

[34:48] I

[34:50] m going to turn it over to,

[34:53] uh, ceo Kim.

[34:54] Thank you so much. For the

[34:56] record, my name is Heyo Kim,

[34:57] chief operating officer for

[35:00] Executive Zahilay chair Baron.

[35:01] Members of the committee, thank

[35:02] you so much for having us here.

[35:05] Um, as you mentioned, the

[35:08] executive delivered a report to

[35:11] you all, um, the, uh, the

[35:12] report is fairly extensive, I

[35:15] think, in the details. And so,

[35:17] uh, Aaron, Jelani and myself

[35:19] are here to provide an overview

[35:21] of what was, uh, contained in

[35:23] that report and to be able to

[35:26] answer any questions. Um, as

[35:29] you, uh, I think, um, chair,

[35:30] you you kind of took my top

[35:34] line, um, in JULY, the

[35:36] executive and mayor, uh,

[35:38] announced next steps to

[35:40] stabilize right size and reset

[35:42] our King County Regional

[35:43] Homelessness Authority. The

[35:45] joint plan focused on

[35:47] stabilizing, right sizing and

[35:49] resetting Kcra chase future. So

[35:51] today we will be speaking

[35:53] mostly about the stabilizing

[35:55] and rightsizing approach, the

[35:57] work to reset the future of

[36:00] Kcra is going to be ongoing for

[36:02] the next several months. Um,

[36:04] and we are committed to working

[36:07] with this body as well as the

[36:09] legislative body over at the

[36:11] city and the k Sara Jay

[36:13] governing board, in conjunction

[36:15] with ceo Kennison and her team

[36:18] to ensure an extensive

[36:20] stakeholder process. Um, but

[36:22] that has not yet been launched

[36:24] quite yet. Uh, the county and

[36:26] the city remain committed to,

[36:30] um, sorry, just lost my cheat

[36:32] sheet. Uh, a regional response

[36:34] to homelessness and to

[36:36] strengthening Kcra so that it

[36:37] can fulfill its

[36:39] responsibilities. Some of the

[36:42] guiding principles, um, really

[36:44] defining and informing this

[36:46] work is that providing high

[36:48] quality shelter services and

[36:49] housing to our region

[36:50] s most

[36:52] vulnerable community members

[36:54] should not be disrupted. Uh,

[36:55] that creating clear pathways

[36:58] for individuals to exit from

[37:00] homelessness to shelter and

[37:02] services and to long term

[37:04] housing, uh, is our North Star

[37:06] and should be our North Star.

[37:07] And that understanding

[37:09] homelessness as a regional

[37:11] issue that requires

[37:12] coordination and collaboration

[37:14] with government partners across

[37:16] King County should be bedrock

[37:17] to how we think about the

[37:20] future of the work. And so, as

[37:22] you will hear from Jelani and

[37:25] from Aaron, uh, some of the key

[37:27] considerations that, uh, both

[37:29] the executive and the mayor

[37:32] embarked upon, um, in making

[37:36] the decision to, uh, transition

[37:37] the contracts, the county

[37:38] contracts and the city

[37:39] contracts, some of the key

[37:41] considerations that they had

[37:43] were that, uh, protecting

[37:45] federal funding for this region

[37:47] was absolutely critical. As you

[37:49] all know. Um, this year, we are

[37:53] looking at about $67 million in

[37:55] federal funds that that funnel

[37:57] through our continuum of care

[37:59] to serve, um, the most

[38:01] vulnerable residents in our

[38:05] community. Um, that is $67

[38:07] million. That cannot be easily

[38:09] replaced by either the county

[38:12] or the city or state partners.

[38:14] Um, another key consideration

[38:16] for us was that minimizing

[38:18] service disruption for clients

[38:20] and providers was absolutely

[38:22] critical. Uh, we know that this

[38:23] is not a transition that

[38:24] s

[38:26] going to be easy, but we

[38:28] really, really wanted to ensure

[38:30] that we were taking pains to

[38:33] listen to our service providers

[38:36] to understand how to ensure a

[38:38] smooth transition. And you will

[38:39] hear Jelani speak to that a

[38:41] little bit. And then again, the

[38:43] regional reset conversations,

[38:44] although not quite yet

[38:47] launched, are going to be, um,

[38:51] are um, approach to

[38:52] understanding and to hearing

[38:54] from a diverse set of

[38:56] stakeholders to so that we

[38:58] maintain a regional approach to

[38:59] homelessness. And I think that

[39:01] is critical that it is both the

[39:04] King County and the mayor who

[39:06] have expressed that commitment

[39:09] at their JULY press conference.

[39:11] Uh, that commitment has, uh, we

[39:12] have reiterated that commitment

[39:14] in the report, the written

[39:16] report that was handed to the

[39:19] council. And we are here to

[39:20] again, emphasize that the

[39:21] regional approach to

[39:23] homelessness is one that the

[39:24] executive and the mayor are

[39:26] committed to. And, um, that the

[39:28] regional reset conversations

[39:31] will help inform the

[39:32] recommendations that come from

[39:33] that. So with that, I

[39:33] m going

[39:36] to turn it over to Aaron, all

[39:36] right.

[39:37] Thank you for the record.

[39:39] Aaron Robert, chief budget

[39:40] officer in King County

[39:41] Executive Office. So I

[39:42] m going

[39:42] to talk a little bit about

[39:44] stabilizing Kcra, really with a

[39:46] focus on financial processes

[39:47] and the financial work that

[39:47] s

[39:49] been going on. One of the key

[39:51] efforts to stabilize Kcra is

[39:53] really embedding a external

[39:55] financial consultant. That

[39:55] s

[39:57] turning point strategic plans

[39:59] to strategic partners. Um,

[39:59] they

[40:00] re under contract until

[40:01] the end of the year. They

[40:01] re

[40:03] looking at a few specific

[40:04] things in their scope of work.

[40:06] So an assessment of the cra

[40:08] financial operations, by being

[40:10] embedded, working closely with

[40:11] the organization, they

[40:11] re

[40:12] working through that issue

[40:14] right now. Um, financial

[40:16] stabilization and oversight and

[40:18] providing that. So as

[40:20] additional financial

[40:21] transactions come in, starting

[40:22] to review those kind of over

[40:25] the shoulder look for Kcra,

[40:25] understanding what the

[40:27] financial transactions are,

[40:28] making sure they

[40:28] re

[40:29] appropriate, appropriate and

[40:30] making sure they

[40:30] re following

[40:32] internal controls and

[40:33] procedures that have been

[40:36] documented. Um, a county

[40:37] reconciliation and financial

[40:39] remediation, the accounting

[40:41] reconciliation is complex.

[40:42] There are thousands of

[40:43] transactions that that have

[40:44] happened over the last five

[40:44] years. There

[40:46] s multiple systems

[40:47] that have been involved. So

[40:48] they are going through that at

[40:49] a very detailed level and

[40:50] starting to figure out exactly

[40:52] what has happened in the past

[40:53] and will eventually be able to

[40:54] provide to the county

[40:55] executive, to the county

[40:58] Council, and to Katara. An

[41:00] assessment of where the dollars

[41:02] have been spent. What is

[41:04] Unreconciled unreconciled and

[41:05] what we need to do moving

[41:08] forward. So that is a complex

[41:10] and time consuming effort, but

[41:11] they are doing that now and

[41:13] making good progress. In my

[41:15] opinion. Um, contract

[41:17] administration support. So as

[41:19] new contracts come in, how do

[41:20] we administer them? How do we

[41:22] document our practices? They

[41:22] re

[41:23] working through that as well.

[41:26] Also advising on stabilization

[41:27] moving forward. We

[41:27] ve asked

[41:28] them as part of their scope of

[41:31] work to help develop proposals

[41:33] on the size of the organization

[41:35] moving forward and financial

[41:36] processes and procedures that

[41:37] should be embedded moving

[41:39] forward. So turning Point

[41:40] strategic partners are working

[41:42] through all of that. We have

[41:44] weekly meetings with them, with

[41:45] their finance teams. They also

[41:46] are reporting out to the

[41:48] finance committee periodically

[41:50] and to the executive sponsors

[41:51] group. So I

[41:52] m feeling pretty

[41:54] confident in where they are and

[41:54] where they

[41:55] re going. But there

[41:57] is still a lot more work to do

[41:59] with the strategic partners.

[42:00] Um, they

[42:01] ve been embedded since

[42:01] JULY. They

[42:02] re going to be there

[42:03] until the end of the year, and

[42:03] we

[42:05] ll have to assess the next

[42:06] steps from there. Um, and I

[42:07] just want to say that some of

[42:08] the things that I

[42:08] m really

[42:10] looking for from them, and I

[42:11] want to be really clear, is,

[42:13] um, reconciliation of the

[42:15] accounts. We need to understand

[42:16] the details of those accounts.

[42:16] They

[42:17] re working towards, that.

[42:19] We need to start seeing

[42:20] improvement in the negative

[42:22] cash balance at the investment

[42:23] pool, and we need to start

[42:25] seeing cycle times for this

[42:26] invoicing process to go down.

[42:28] That lag time is really driving

[42:30] some of our issues. So those

[42:30] are some of the things that I

[42:31] m

[42:32] really looking for from Turning

[42:35] Point and from Kcra.

[42:36] Thank you. And I

[42:38] ll apologize

[42:40] for not naming you. And calling

[42:40] people out there. So I

[42:41] apologize I missed that on my

[42:44] notes. Thank you. Jelani.

[42:46] Jelani Jackson, acting director

[42:47] of the Housing and Community

[42:51] Development Division of dhs.

[42:53] All right, Kcra will retain its

[42:56] core regional responsibilities.

[42:57] These functions are the

[42:58] backbone of our region

[42:58] s

[43:00] homelessness services system.

[43:01] As contracts transition back to

[43:02] the city of Seattle and King

[43:05] County, Kcra can focus its

[43:06] efforts on its key functions

[43:08] like the point in time count,

[43:09] our region, severe weather

[43:11] response, coordinated entry,

[43:12] and most importantly, being the

[43:14] lead agency for all continuum

[43:16] of care activities for King

[43:18] County. The Housing and

[43:20] Community Development Division

[43:21] of dhs will be ready to

[43:23] administer up to 100 contracts

[43:28] starting in JANUARY 2027.

[43:30] Extending existing contracts

[43:31] will provide consistency for

[43:33] providers through the

[43:35] transition. In this way, they

[43:36] can focus on delivering the

[43:38] services our region needs. Hcd

[43:40] staff will anticipate that a

[43:42] small portion of contracts will

[43:44] likely stay with Kcra work to

[43:45] determine the exact number of

[43:46] contracts, and the

[43:50] corresponding cost is ongoing.

[43:52] From the contract transition

[43:53] timeline, you can see this is a

[43:55] month by month, uh, sort of

[43:56] macro overview. It

[43:57] s a very

[43:58] high level overview of the work

[44:00] that dhs and hsd will conduct

[44:02] from now until the end of the

[44:08] year. Preparations are underway

[44:10] to ensure dhs is ready to take

[44:12] on this body of work. As noted

[44:14] in table two of the Kcra

[44:15] Contract Transition Plan, we

[44:17] are adding ten Career Service

[44:18] fte who will be tasked with

[44:21] monitoring contracts, fiscal or

[44:23] compliance related work to

[44:24] ensure dhs will meet its hiring

[44:26] timeline. We onboarded one

[44:27] temporary term limited human

[44:29] resource analyst in JULY.

[44:30] Through the end of the year,

[44:32] dhs will be focused on hiring,

[44:34] training, and preparing our

[44:35] staff for the successful

[44:36] transfer of contract starting

[44:38] in JANUARY, the City of

[44:39] Seattle

[44:40] s Human Services

[44:42] Department and dhs have hosted

[44:43] two meetings with providers

[44:44] from across the county. Our

[44:46] growing invite list includes

[44:47] more than 50 providers and

[44:50] represents the full spectrum of

[44:52] homeless services. During these

[44:53] meetings, King County staff

[44:54] have shared timely updates with

[44:56] the community and answered

[44:58] questions. These joint meetings

[44:59] will continue through the end

[45:01] of the year. The county and the

[45:02] city are committed to ensuring

[45:03] there is no interruption to

[45:06] services or provider payments.

[45:07] Finally, work to reduce the

[45:09] burden on our contractors has

[45:11] begun. Hsd and dhs will

[45:13] continue this work through

[45:15] 2027. Dhs has decades of

[45:17] experience managing complex

[45:18] homelessness and housing

[45:20] investments, including many of

[45:21] the contracts that will

[45:22] transition from Kcra back to

[45:25] dhs. Prior to the creation of

[45:27] Kcra, the Housing and Community

[45:28] Development Division of dhs

[45:30] successfully administered many

[45:31] federally and locally funded

[45:32] contracts with providers

[45:36] throughout King County.

[45:38] Great. Um, and so then that

[45:41] takes us to the future of Kcra.

[45:44] And as the executive and the

[45:46] mayor. Um, indicated at their

[45:49] JULY press conference, um, and

[45:52] that was as indicated in the

[45:54] written report that we provided

[45:56] we do plan to embark on a

[45:59] series of extensive stakeholder

[46:02] conversations. Um, the the list

[46:03] of council, I

[46:04] m sorry, the list

[46:06] of stakeholders and kind of

[46:09] interests are identified on

[46:11] this. Um, just for I think just

[46:13] to illustrate the breadth of

[46:14] stakeholders. But it

[46:14] s

[46:16] certainly not an exhaustive

[46:18] list. Um, and really, we are

[46:20] looking at this, these regional

[46:21] reset conversations in sort of

[46:24] three phases. We have an, um,

[46:26] we are going to identify an

[46:29] initial group of individuals to

[46:30] have pre engagement

[46:33] conversations with um, and um,

[46:35] those pre engagement

[46:38] conversations will help inform

[46:40] um the engagements. The more

[46:42] extensive engagements that we

[46:44] plan to take and the questions

[46:45] that we are really posing are

[46:48] really, I think fundamental to

[46:50] what prompted Kcra to begin

[46:53] with. Um, what were some of the

[46:56] gaps in our regional services

[46:59] that Kcra was meant to address?

[47:02] Um, and why, you know, were

[47:03] some of those promises or were

[47:06] some of those solutions ever,

[47:09] um, did they ever materialize?

[47:10] You know, why or why not? Um, I

[47:13] think the what we wanted to do

[47:14] was not get into the weeds of

[47:17] the tactical sort of what, the

[47:19] structure, but really ask more

[47:21] fundamental strategic questions

[47:23] around how how should a

[47:25] regional homelessness, um,

[47:26] system and what does that

[47:28] regional coordination, what

[47:29] should it look like? And what

[47:29] s

[47:31] missing, uh, even in its

[47:34] current state today, um, the

[47:36] synthesizing of information

[47:38] will then take place. And

[47:40] finally recommendations will be

[47:42] delivered. Um, the all of this

[47:43] work is expected to be

[47:45] completed by the end of the

[47:47] first quarter of next year. Um,

[47:49] and again, as I mentioned

[47:51] earlier, we plan to and have

[47:54] already spoken to some of the

[47:56] governing board members. Uh,

[47:58] certainly ceo Kinnison and her

[48:00] team, to ensure that these are

[48:02] conversations that we hold

[48:04] together with Kcra. At the same

[48:07] time, uh, and stakeholder work

[48:09] will include people who have

[48:11] been critics. We need to listen

[48:13] to what those critics have

[48:15] said. We need to understand

[48:16] what the gaps are and what the

[48:19] problems are in order to inform

[48:22] the future of k star. So with

[48:24] that, we are happy to answer

[48:26] any questions that you MAY

[48:26] have.

[48:27] Thank you very much. I know

[48:28] you

[48:28] re going to have a lot of

[48:30] questions coming your way. Let

[48:31] me let me just start off with

[48:32] one, because this was kind of

[48:33] one of the central things in

[48:35] the motion that we sent over to

[48:36] the executive. And I just

[48:37] answered on the report, but we

[48:38] didn

[48:39] t really tackle it

[48:41] verbally. And one of the

[48:42] questions that we asked was our

[48:43] recommendation from the

[48:45] executive on whether to take

[48:48] action at this point to, uh, to

[48:51] solve cases. Che. Could you

[48:53] elaborate a little bit on the

[48:55] recommendation that the

[48:56] executive center and the

[48:56] report?

[48:58] Sure. I do believe that in our

[49:00] cover note, the executive

[49:01] respectfully requested at this

[49:04] time that any motion to

[49:07] dissolve Kcra che be paused and

[49:09] held in abeyance until we have

[49:11] we, the executive and the mayor

[49:14] are have the time to go through

[49:16] these regional reset

[49:17] conversations. And I think, you

[49:19] know, fundamentally, the

[49:19] executive

[49:21] s position is that

[49:23] before we have a clear answer

[49:25] for how we are going to answer

[49:26] the question of what

[49:27] s next,

[49:30] that we should not initiate

[49:33] dissolution. Um, efforts,

[49:34] because I think that is going

[49:38] to be fundamentally disruptive

[49:41] to the existing staff. Um, the

[49:42] I think the executive, the

[49:44] mayor, felt that fundamentally,

[49:46] the transition of the contracts

[49:48] were in and of themselves, a

[49:49] significant lift, and they

[49:52] really wanted to focus on that.

[49:55] Um, as the, uh, in this stage

[50:00] and the I think the motion to

[50:01] dissolve our efforts to

[50:04] dissolve kcc until we have a

[50:07] clearer answer on what the what

[50:09] the what. Next question is, um,

[50:12] could be also demoralizing to

[50:13] the existing staff that still

[50:16] will remain with Kcra. Um, and

[50:19] that are fundamentally needed

[50:21] to continue to implement our

[50:23] continuum of care dollars, as

[50:24] well as some of the other

[50:25] regional services that will

[50:27] remain in Sierra Che.

[50:30] Thank you very much. Uh,

[50:32] colleagues, questions, comments

[50:34] and a reminder that we are

[50:35] going to have a follow up

[50:37] presentation regarding the

[50:38] corrective action plan from kkk

[50:40] leadership. But I think, uh,

[50:40] I

[50:42] ll open up for questions.

[50:43] Councilmember Dunn.

[50:44] Thanks. Thanks for being here.

[50:45] I appreciate your work on this.

[50:47] Um, obviously an important

[50:48] issue. I personally believe

[50:51] that this issue of homelessness

[50:53] generally is the premier local

[50:54] issue of our generation. I

[50:55] think it

[50:56] s a really tough nut

[50:58] to crack, and a 600 word

[51:00] editorial in the Seattle Times

[51:00] doesn

[51:01] t really necessarily give

[51:03] it justice. As I wrote the

[51:04] other day. And and anyone who

[51:06] writes an editorial knows that

[51:07] the Seattle Times continues to

[51:08] own the headline. They will

[51:10] write the headline however they

[51:10] want to write it. Right. It

[51:11] s

[51:13] catchy. So they said we should

[51:14] something to the effect of turn

[51:15] our back on housing first. Now,

[51:17] I would not have written that

[51:18] that way. I would have written

[51:21] it differently. Um, and I want

[51:23] to talk about it for a second.

[51:26] But if we look at this issue,

[51:27] there

[51:28] s about half a dozen ways

[51:30] we can responsibly structure

[51:32] our homelessness response in

[51:35] King County. One way is to put

[51:36] a regional organization

[51:38] together, like we did at the

[51:39] council. Rod and I were

[51:41] involved in some of that.

[51:41] There

[51:42] s others. We can bring it

[51:42] in-house into the

[51:43] jurisdictions, we can do

[51:45] partnerships, we can do private

[51:46] sector work. There

[51:46] s a lot of

[51:47] different models across the

[51:49] country. And I think, you know,

[51:49] I

[51:50] ve been a tough critic for

[51:52] Kcra, but it is a result of

[51:54] action of this council.

[51:56] Interestingly. So we found that

[51:56] there

[51:57] s some challenges there

[51:57] and we

[51:58] re retooling it, I

[51:59] commend that. I think that

[51:59] s

[52:01] great. I think the executive

[52:03] shows leadership in coming in

[52:06] and in changing its focus a

[52:06] little bit. That

[52:07] s I think

[52:07] that

[52:10] s good. I still think, as

[52:12] they say, the system is

[52:14] perfectly designed right now to

[52:16] get the results it is currently

[52:19] achieving. Um, and that

[52:19] ll be

[52:21] the same if we just move the

[52:23] deck chairs around, um, without

[52:25] a substantial shift in the

[52:28] policy focus that underlies

[52:29] what we

[52:29] re trying to do to

[52:31] reduce homelessness. And so,

[52:32] you know, there

[52:34] s this crazy

[52:36] political dynamic out there.

[52:36] It

[52:37] s all housing first or it

[52:38] s

[52:38] all.

[52:40] You know, mental health and

[52:41] behavioral health and substance

[52:43] use recovery. The truth, I

[52:44] think, and you guys have all

[52:46] toured plenty of homeless camps

[52:46] and have a lot of friends

[52:47] who

[52:48] ve been homeless and know

[52:49] people and work with it. The

[52:50] truth is, there multiple

[52:52] pathways to get people off the

[52:53] streets. We need all those

[52:55] strategies in the toolbox,

[52:56] right? I think we need all of

[52:57] them. I don

[52:58] t think we should

[52:59] get rid of housing first

[53:00] completely. What I think we

[53:01] should do is think about a

[53:03] bunch of levers, policy levers.

[53:04] Right. Let

[53:05] s dial down some of

[53:07] the the resources going to go

[53:09] to that traditional housing

[53:11] first model and reallocate that

[53:12] into drug and alcohol

[53:15] addiction, mental health, job

[53:16] training. Um, I think that

[53:16] s

[53:19] where we should we should be

[53:20] going. We got a brand new

[53:23] executive. Right. Great.

[53:23] Executive is out in my

[53:24] district. Last night we were

[53:25] speaking together, having a

[53:27] good time. And one of the

[53:27] things he

[53:28] s going to be judged

[53:31] on in four years is what has

[53:32] happened with homelessness,

[53:33] with the trajectory of

[53:34] homelessness. It

[53:35] s an empirical

[53:35] data point. He

[53:36] s going to get a

[53:39] grade on it, a plus c minus

[53:41] whatever it is. I just don

[53:42] t

[53:44] see how you can get a different

[53:45] achieve a different result

[53:46] simply by altering the

[53:47] management structure. It

[53:48] s got

[53:49] to address the underlying

[53:51] policies. And so that is my

[53:53] question to you. To what extent

[53:55] are you willing to think about

[53:57] changing the underlying

[53:59] policies we are using to attack

[54:02] homelessness moving forward? Is

[54:03] that a part of this

[54:05] conversation?

[54:07] I think certainly those

[54:08] conversations will be had

[54:09] during the regional reset

[54:12] conversations. I will also say

[54:14] Councilmember Dunn, um, the

[54:15] executive has three years. He

[54:16] doesn

[54:17] t have four years. Um,

[54:20] and so the sense of urgency,

[54:21] um, his re-election is in three

[54:23] years, not four. Um, the sense

[54:25] of urgency that he has on this

[54:27] problem is absolutely matches

[54:29] your passion for this. Um, I

[54:30] will say this. I think the

[54:33] executive has, um, the kind of

[54:36] all, um, utilizing all the

[54:37] tools that you just mentioned

[54:40] are, um, is an approach that he

[54:41] empirically, empirically has

[54:44] also embarked upon. Um, he was

[54:46] the leader when the council

[54:48] passed your, you know, sort of

[54:50] unprecedented crisis care levy.

[54:51] Um, that is a, you know, it

[54:51] s a

[54:54] new tool in the toolbox to

[54:57] address substance use disorder

[54:59] in so many communities. Um, the

[55:01] fact that among the first

[55:02] things that the executive

[55:04] prioritized when he came into

[55:07] office was 500 units in 500

[55:09] days. Those units we are

[55:12] looking at a full range of

[55:14] housing type, uh, and really

[55:15] emphasizing shelter. The

[55:18] executive has also launched his

[55:20] Breaking the Cycle work group

[55:21] that is asking the urgent

[55:23] question, even though the

[55:25] population is not, you know,

[55:27] the the as as expansive as our

[55:28] broader homelessness

[55:29] population, the Breaking the

[55:32] Cycle workgroup is looking at

[55:35] the population of individuals

[55:37] that have, um, uh, that show up

[55:39] in multiple systems and for

[55:42] whom all of those systems have

[55:43] not addressed their needs.

[55:45] Right. These are the criminal

[55:47] justice systems. This is the

[55:48] substance abuse, you know,

[55:49] dealing with substance abuse

[55:51] disorders. Individuals who are,

[55:52] you know, have been in and out

[55:54] of shelters. And right now, I

[55:57] think the executive, by

[55:59] acknowledging that, you know,

[56:00] our systems are not working for

[56:02] everyone. The Breaking the

[56:03] Cycle workgroup, we are

[56:05] confident, will come up with

[56:08] some, um, recommendations that

[56:10] really zero in on those

[56:12] strategic questions of why

[56:12] isn

[56:13] t the system that, you

[56:15] know, all of us have had a hand

[56:18] in designing, working for these

[56:20] individuals. Um, so I think

[56:20] there

[56:22] s a multitude of

[56:24] strategies that the executive

[56:26] is looking at and the future of

[56:29] this area is just one of those.

[56:30] So I don

[56:31] t know that, you know,

[56:32] we, um, I don

[56:32] t know that we

[56:34] would, you know, like you said,

[56:36] agree with the headline, but

[56:38] certainly the executive is not

[56:39] taking a, uh, let

[56:40] s just do

[56:40] what we

[56:42] ve always done

[56:44] approach. He is asking all of

[56:47] us to challenge our assumptions

[56:47] about what

[56:49] s worked before, and

[56:50] to work with a great sense of

[56:52] urgency on the issue of

[56:52] homelessness.

[56:52] That

[56:53] s great. And that

[56:53] s that

[56:53] s

[56:54] a good place to start. I mean,

[56:54] I can

[56:55] t disagree at all with

[56:56] that. In fact, the fact we

[56:56] re

[56:57] having this conversation is a

[56:58] great place to start. He

[56:58] s

[56:59] looking at the structure, which

[57:01] is the first thing you got to

[57:02] do, and then you got to get to

[57:06] the policies. I just I know I

[57:08] everybody at Kcra and everybody

[57:11] in the housing, industrial, uh,

[57:14] nonprofit sector that we have

[57:15] working very hard are doing

[57:16] good work and they

[57:16] re trying

[57:17] very hard. Like, I don

[57:18] t I

[57:18] don

[57:21] t question their

[57:21] intentions. Everybody

[57:22] s trying.

[57:23] I just see the results of the

[57:25] number of unhoused on our

[57:26] streets getting worse and worse

[57:29] and worse. So I think that it

[57:29] s

[57:32] not unreasonable to question

[57:33] not only the structure, but

[57:35] also the policies. And I really

[57:37] encourage I know we all have

[57:38] that talking point in our head.

[57:38] Well, it

[57:40] s empirically proven

[57:42] that Housing First reduces

[57:42] homelessness. Well, it

[57:43] s not

[57:45] out here. Not at all. In fact,

[57:46] last year we were the worst in

[57:47] the country. And the aggregate

[57:49] number of homelessness in the

[57:50] state and most of us in King

[57:50] County can

[57:51] t argue with that.

[57:54] Worst, worst out of 50. Um, and

[57:56] so some of these nonprofits and

[57:57] other groups might be

[57:59] disappointed that we change

[58:01] priorities over the next months

[58:04] and years. Um, to emphasize

[58:05] other areas. It doesn

[58:05] t mean

[58:05] they

[58:06] re not profit won

[58:06] t be

[58:08] involved in the work that we

[58:08] ll

[58:09] be doing for that. I just want

[58:11] to be clear about that. I hope

[58:14] that you consider policy

[58:16] shifts. I think you will find

[58:17] if you do and you model them

[58:18] after best practices that are

[58:19] proven to work across the

[58:21] country, that we will start to

[58:23] have positive results. That

[58:23] s

[58:25] all. And I will support you in

[58:26] those efforts. If you choose to

[58:28] go there.

[58:31] Thank you. Councilmember Dunn.

[58:33] Uh Councilmember Dembowski.

[58:34] Thank you. I just wanted to

[58:36] engage a little bit here along

[58:37] the lines of Councilmember

[58:37] Dunn

[58:40] s, uh, uh, statement and

[58:41] just put a little detail on it.

[58:45] If I might. Regan. Um, with

[58:47] respect to the the results, I

[58:49] mean, this is from the most

[58:51] recent point in time count from

[58:55] Kcra from 2022 to 2026, total

[58:56] homelessness in King County is

[59:00] up 37% from 13,300 folks to

[59:03] 18,300. Unsheltered

[59:05] homelessness is up from 2022 to

[59:10] 2026. 54% from 7600 folks to

[59:17] 11,800 folks. Okay. Our

[59:19] emergency shelter beds are down

[59:24] from 2025 to 2026 by 689.

[59:26] Unsheltered family homelessness

[59:33] is up 78% from 1253 to 2200

[59:35] families. So Councilmember

[59:35] Dunn

[59:36] s point about what we

[59:36] re

[59:37] doing isn

[59:39] t working is correct.

[59:41] He has suggested in his op ed

[59:43] and elsewhere that when things

[59:43] aren

[59:44] t working with our current

[59:45] policy, we might want to

[59:47] reflect on the policy and quit

[59:47] saying that it

[59:48] s evidence based

[59:49] and that it

[59:50] s delivering the

[59:52] results, because I agree with

[59:52] you, Reagan. It

[59:54] s not. So

[59:54] there

[59:56] s work to do there. This

[59:59] discussion is around how we do

[1:00:00] it. Councilmember Dunn has

[1:00:01] ideas. I

[1:00:02] ve got ideas. Council

[1:00:03] member Fain has asked every

[1:00:04] member on the dais, and the

[1:00:06] executive has policy ideas, and

[1:00:06] that

[1:00:07] s what we were sent here

[1:00:10] to do. And the problem with the

[1:00:11] King County Regional Homeless

[1:00:15] Authority is it takes seven

[1:00:17] policymakers on this dais out

[1:00:20] of the game. We send two over,

[1:00:22] and the executive, the city of

[1:00:24] Seattle sends two over. And the

[1:00:25] mayor and our suburban city

[1:00:28] partners sent some

[1:00:29] representatives. This

[1:00:31] government, following the work

[1:00:32] of Jim Ellis in the 50s and

[1:00:34] 60s, was built to be the

[1:00:37] regional government

[1:00:39] As the region boomed, as it

[1:00:41] grew, he saw that there were

[1:00:42] going to be pressing regional

[1:00:44] problems that needed

[1:00:45] cooperation across municipal

[1:00:47] boundaries. Your point, ceo

[1:00:50] Kim, about a regional response

[1:00:53] to homelessness is is correct.

[1:00:53] We

[1:00:54] ve got to cooperate around

[1:00:56] the region. But would say after

[1:00:59] trying this for seven years now

[1:01:01] at the Kcra, where the vision

[1:01:02] seemed to be, we were going to

[1:01:04] have kind of one answer with

[1:01:06] maybe some subregional plans.

[1:01:07] It that hasn

[1:01:08] t worked. What

[1:01:09] what the South County

[1:01:10] leadership wants to do is

[1:01:11] different than what folks want

[1:01:13] to do in the city of Seattle.

[1:01:15] We cannot I don

[1:01:15] t believe

[1:01:17] politically have a one size

[1:01:19] policy response to this

[1:01:20] challenge around the region.

[1:01:22] And if we allow some

[1:01:23] experimentation in different

[1:01:25] things, we might see, you know,

[1:01:28] what works. But the the point I

[1:01:30] want to deliver here is we

[1:01:30] ve

[1:01:32] got a structure that doesn

[1:01:33] t

[1:01:35] allow us to work on this

[1:01:37] effectively through the Kcra,

[1:01:38] and I don

[1:01:39] t see, particularly

[1:01:41] after you bring the contracts

[1:01:42] back or direct service

[1:01:44] provision, what the value

[1:01:46] proposition is, what the

[1:01:49] business case is to have an

[1:01:51] entirely separate standalone

[1:01:53] government with with

[1:01:55] confederated leadership to run

[1:01:57] just a little piece of this.

[1:01:59] The Mis, the coordinated entry,

[1:02:01] the emergency response and the

[1:02:03] continuum of care. Those are

[1:02:06] regional functions. And I don

[1:02:06] t

[1:02:09] understand why this regional

[1:02:09] government shouldn

[1:02:11] t be charged

[1:02:13] with carrying them out. We did

[1:02:15] much of them, you know, before.

[1:02:15] I don

[1:02:18] t know why we would pay

[1:02:21] executives, accountants,

[1:02:23] auditors, lawyers for a whole

[1:02:26] separate government to do that.

[1:02:27] Maybe in the course of these

[1:02:29] regional conversations, the

[1:02:30] value proposition will

[1:02:33] magically appear. But I don

[1:02:33] t

[1:02:35] see it. And I think we ought to

[1:02:37] send a clear signal that there

[1:02:39] we can have the discussions

[1:02:39] there, but we don

[1:02:40] t need a

[1:02:41] separate government to do it.

[1:02:43] And I need to say there is some

[1:02:45] urgency to this. The audit that

[1:02:46] triggered this current

[1:02:48] conversation concluded with a

[1:02:49] review of a time period, I

[1:02:51] think, through last JULY. So

[1:02:55] more than a year ago, and we

[1:02:56] still, as we sit here today,

[1:02:57] don

[1:03:00] t have clarity and answers.

[1:03:04] In AUGUST of 2026 about the

[1:03:06] financial condition with the

[1:03:09] books are at the Kaikoura. Why

[1:03:15] does that matter to the county?

[1:03:18] Were there banker? I chair the

[1:03:20] Executive Finance Committee. I

[1:03:24] am extremely nervous. The we

[1:03:24] re

[1:03:26] like to run the checking

[1:03:27] account to put it in plain

[1:03:29] English. Right. The last

[1:03:30] meeting we had a few weeks ago,

[1:03:32] just before late JULY, they

[1:03:37] were $65 million overdrawn, $65

[1:03:39] million. Our policies allow for

[1:03:42] an occasional inadvertent

[1:03:43] deficit, but this has gone on

[1:03:46] and on and on for years now.

[1:03:48] Part of it is, I think, some

[1:03:49] mismanagement. It

[1:03:50] s part of

[1:03:50] it

[1:03:51] s overspending, but part of

[1:03:51] it

[1:03:53] s also the structure. They

[1:03:53] don

[1:03:55] t they never set up at the

[1:03:58] cash and operating capital

[1:04:00] system for, in other words, to

[1:04:02] have the float to address the

[1:04:04] difference between time money

[1:04:05] was received and time going

[1:04:06] out. So we charge interest on

[1:04:06] that. That

[1:04:09] s added some costs.

[1:04:12] Why we would continue that

[1:04:14] structure to send money out to

[1:04:16] a third party entity from a

[1:04:18] financial sense perspective, I

[1:04:18] don

[1:04:19] t know. But I will just say

[1:04:21] the longer this goes on and I

[1:04:23] understand from MR. Robert,

[1:04:25] maybe this is ticked down to 50

[1:04:27] million or so now, but I

[1:04:27] m

[1:04:28] going to send a letter as

[1:04:29] CHAIRMAN Of the Executive

[1:04:31] Finance Committee to the case.

[1:04:32] Haha. We have a meeting, I

[1:04:34] think, Thursday, because I said

[1:04:34] don

[1:04:35] t cancel it. We need an

[1:04:38] update on this. Asking for what

[1:04:40] the status is of the accounts

[1:04:42] receivable and what the plan is

[1:04:45] to make this pool whole. To get

[1:04:47] back to zero. And I think we

[1:04:48] need to have answers in a

[1:04:50] couple of weeks. It

[1:04:51] s gone on

[1:04:53] for too long and I don

[1:04:54] t

[1:04:57] believe that we can, in good

[1:04:58] conscience, allow it to go on

[1:05:01] for another year or another six

[1:05:03] months. While regional

[1:05:05] conversations occur. This is

[1:05:06] very, very, very serious. We

[1:05:06] re

[1:05:07] out of compliance with our

[1:05:09] audit standards. We

[1:05:09] re out of

[1:05:12] compliance with our policies.

[1:05:15] And I do not support loaning

[1:05:17] the cra money because I

[1:05:18] m not

[1:05:19] sure how they would pay it

[1:05:22] back. So, uh, I wanted to

[1:05:23] follow up on Councilmember

[1:05:23] Dunn

[1:05:24] s, I think, correct

[1:05:27] remarks about policy, but also

[1:05:29] how you make change in the

[1:05:31] policy is driven in large part

[1:05:33] by the ability to do it. This

[1:05:35] dais has the regional policy

[1:05:36] committee has elected

[1:05:37] representatives from all over

[1:05:38] the county at the rpc.

[1:05:40] Remember, county members. City

[1:05:42] of Seattle. Members, suburban

[1:05:43] city members. We come together.

[1:05:45] We have structures here. This

[1:05:46] work can be done and it is

[1:05:48] important work. But I

[1:05:48] ve

[1:05:50] concluded I don

[1:05:51] t think that

[1:05:52] the executive in his report,

[1:05:54] the stabilized is fine. I

[1:05:54] d

[1:05:55] call it an accounting

[1:05:58] transition is what I replace

[1:06:00] right size with. And then

[1:06:01] terminate, not reset. I think

[1:06:04] you got three wrong words. Uh,

[1:06:07] and, um, with that, I do think

[1:06:08] the exac and the mayor have

[1:06:10] done a good job in making a big

[1:06:11] first step at bringing these

[1:06:12] contracts back, because that

[1:06:14] will help mitigate some of the

[1:06:16] ongoing problems. But final

[1:06:18] question in the motion, or

[1:06:18] maybe it

[1:06:19] s the first question I

[1:06:21] have the statement we asked for

[1:06:22] an assessment of the risk to

[1:06:22] the county

[1:06:24] s investment pool

[1:06:26] and identification of completed

[1:06:27] or recommended actions to

[1:06:30] mitigate this is on page 259 of

[1:06:32] the materials page. I think

[1:06:37] four of your appendix. This is

[1:06:39] inadequate in terms of a

[1:06:41] response to this risk that

[1:06:41] we

[1:06:44] re looking at here. It says

[1:06:44] kcrw

[1:06:46] s negative cash balance

[1:06:47] presents several risks to the

[1:06:48] county investment pool,

[1:06:49] including negative findings by

[1:06:49] the auditor

[1:06:50] s office and

[1:06:51] repayment uncertainty. And then

[1:06:52] the final sentence is something

[1:06:53] I don

[1:06:54] t understand a

[1:06:56] recommended action to mitigate

[1:06:59] risks is analysis of the

[1:06:59] county

[1:07:02] s repayment obligations.

[1:07:02] I don

[1:07:03] t know what you

[1:07:03] re saying

[1:07:06] there. Maybe you can enlighten

[1:07:07] me a little bit, but this area

[1:07:09] of the report and actually this

[1:07:14] body of work needs attention.

[1:07:16] Thank you. Councilmember

[1:07:17] Dembowski. And first of all, I

[1:07:19] would agree that the negative

[1:07:21] cash balances is a risk,

[1:07:22] something that I am also

[1:07:24] worried about. Um, there is a

[1:07:25] risk to the investment pool.

[1:07:26] There is a risk to the county

[1:07:27] s

[1:07:28] general fund and we have to

[1:07:30] mitigate that. So I would be

[1:07:31] definitely supportive of in our

[1:07:33] discussion on Thursday, going

[1:07:34] through and figuring out what

[1:07:37] exactly to request from Kcra.

[1:07:39] So the analysis that that needs

[1:07:41] to happen and that is happening

[1:07:43] is reviewing all of those

[1:07:46] unreconciled receivables and

[1:07:47] figuring out where they came

[1:07:50] from and who ultimately should

[1:07:51] be paying for them. To the

[1:07:52] degree that we get to a point

[1:07:54] where there are receivables or

[1:07:54] there

[1:07:55] s cash that has been

[1:07:58] spent that we cannot recover,

[1:08:00] we will have to do some sort of

[1:08:02] repayment plan in conjunction

[1:08:04] with the city and the county to

[1:08:05] fill that gap. And that

[1:08:05] s

[1:08:05] that

[1:08:06] s the analysis that

[1:08:06] s

[1:08:08] referring to. We have to figure

[1:08:10] out what exactly the gap is and

[1:08:12] then work with the city to

[1:08:13] figure out when and how to pay

[1:08:15] that gap. So that is that is

[1:08:16] the next steps. Turning point

[1:08:18] has done a good job. And in

[1:08:20] starting to go deep into those

[1:08:23] accounting transactions, and we

[1:08:24] need to see the results of that

[1:08:25] to really get there. So that

[1:08:27] that is what that is referring

[1:08:27] to.

[1:08:28] Thank you very much, Aaron. I

[1:08:30] agree, I think in plain

[1:08:31] English, once we figure out

[1:08:34] what the deficit is, in other

[1:08:35] words, we receive all the

[1:08:36] receivables that are to be

[1:08:38] received. Call it. Well, it

[1:08:39] s

[1:08:40] 65 million there, but maybe

[1:08:40] it

[1:08:42] s 50 million today. Yeah.

[1:08:43] Whatever

[1:08:44] s left and it

[1:08:45] s going

[1:08:47] to be eight, ten, 12, $15

[1:08:48] million. Who knows what it is.

[1:08:49] The city and the county are

[1:08:51] going to have to write a check.

[1:08:51] That

[1:08:52] s correct. I would just

[1:08:54] like to stop the bleeding. I

[1:08:55] would just like to stop

[1:08:56] reading. And the the thrust of

[1:08:59] the of this report seems to

[1:09:01] indicate that there is a

[1:09:02] possibility that this entity

[1:09:06] would continue on, and I don

[1:09:06] t

[1:09:07] see the value proposition from

[1:09:10] a policy perspective or a

[1:09:12] financial perspective. I just I

[1:09:12] just don

[1:09:13] t I don

[1:09:14] t see

[1:09:16] it.

[1:09:18] Councilmember Fain.

[1:09:20] Thank you. And thank you for

[1:09:21] all of your work on this. I

[1:09:22] know many of you weren

[1:09:23] t

[1:09:25] present until recently, but

[1:09:25] you

[1:09:26] re diving in and I

[1:09:28] appreciate your thoughtfulness.

[1:09:31] And, um, in your approach. Uh,

[1:09:31] I

[1:09:34] d like to tag on to what my

[1:09:36] colleagues have said so far

[1:09:40] about, um, the lack of truly

[1:09:43] regional approach in allowing

[1:09:46] the entire county a voice and a

[1:09:49] say in how dollars are spent

[1:09:54] or, um, contracts are selected.

[1:09:57] Um, and so beyond whether or

[1:10:01] not Kcra exists, which it will

[1:10:02] largely need to do for Coc

[1:10:04] funding. And in that piece, I

[1:10:07] understand. Um, but beyond

[1:10:09] that, the county is going to be

[1:10:12] taking on 100 of these, um,

[1:10:15] provider contracts in JANUARY.

[1:10:17] And so I understand that the

[1:10:19] county and the city are working

[1:10:22] towards a no for, um, in the

[1:10:27] later part of 2027. So I have

[1:10:29] two questions. Slash concerns

[1:10:31] relating to that. One is will

[1:10:33] all of the contracts be, um,

[1:10:37] part of the nova, meaning that

[1:10:39] the county and the city will

[1:10:47] align on, um, funding and, um,

[1:10:50] providers? The idea is really

[1:10:52] to address the previous

[1:10:54] structure, which was everybody

[1:10:55] was contracting with different

[1:10:57] providers and nobody knew what

[1:10:58] anyone else was doing. So I

[1:11:01] understand the need to

[1:11:03] collaborate and understand that

[1:11:04] we shouldn

[1:11:08] t, um, essentially

[1:11:10] have providers potentially

[1:11:11] receiving the same amount of

[1:11:13] funding to do the same work for

[1:11:15] the county and the city. That

[1:11:17] being said, I worry if all of

[1:11:18] the contracts are going to be

[1:11:19] under the Nova, we

[1:11:19] re going to

[1:11:21] run into the same issue, which

[1:11:25] is, um, that the entire county

[1:11:29] might not have a voice in how

[1:11:31] services are provided in

[1:11:32] different cities and different

[1:11:33] regions. So that

[1:11:34] s one around

[1:11:37] the nova and then the other,

[1:11:39] uh, question I have and I

[1:11:39] d

[1:11:41] like to hear a little bit more

[1:11:46] about is how will the council

[1:11:51] be a part of, um, oversight

[1:11:54] input into the contracts after

[1:11:56] JANUARY? Um, currently there

[1:11:58] are two representatives on the

[1:12:01] cra that receive updates on the

[1:12:03] status of the contracts, the

[1:12:06] outcomes, um, and all of that.

[1:12:09] But once the hundred contracts

[1:12:13] go over to dcs, will we get I

[1:12:14] mean, ideally we would not just

[1:12:16] get an annual report that

[1:12:17] council would be able to

[1:12:19] provide some input in some

[1:12:20] manner, as suggested by my

[1:12:22] colleagues, in how those

[1:12:26] dollars should be. Um, spent.

[1:12:28] So those are kind of the two

[1:12:28] areas I

[1:12:29] d love to hear more

[1:12:30] about.

[1:12:31] Do you want me to start?

[1:12:32] Yeah, I can start.

[1:12:33] You going to turn on your

[1:12:35] thing, Jelani?

[1:12:37] Stone there. Uh, I can start

[1:12:38] with the first question and

[1:12:40] partial answer. Um, so, look,

[1:12:42] every crisis offers plenty of

[1:12:43] opportunity to look at the way

[1:12:45] we do business and to strive

[1:12:47] for efficiencies and to, more

[1:12:49] importantly, do things better.

[1:12:51] So, uh, the main effort here

[1:12:52] between the county and the city

[1:12:54] is to really look at the way we

[1:12:56] contract. Can we harmonize

[1:12:58] language? Can we synchronize on

[1:13:00] outcomes that we want to see,

[1:13:01] you know, settle on some

[1:13:02] boilerplate text for our

[1:13:03] contracts and just generally

[1:13:06] simplify the process. Um, and

[1:13:07] the second part to that too is

[1:13:09] also look at who pays for what.

[1:13:11] So, you know, King County

[1:13:12] Seattle and King County, does

[1:13:14] King County pay for a contract

[1:13:16] for services that are delivered

[1:13:17] in Seattle or to Seattle? Take

[1:13:18] that on and in return, if

[1:13:18] there

[1:13:19] s going to be some fun

[1:13:21] swapping, how do we look at

[1:13:23] that as a region? And so those

[1:13:24] are some of those efforts that

[1:13:24] we

[1:13:25] re trying to do to simplify

[1:13:26] the process and also make

[1:13:27] things better.

[1:13:32] I would say also, um, the, the,

[1:13:34] the, the whole point of Anova

[1:13:36] process is to ensure

[1:13:38] competitive processes in

[1:13:41] contracting that has not, I

[1:13:44] believe that when Kcra Chase

[1:13:47] started, there was an intent to

[1:13:49] put both the city and county

[1:13:51] contracts out for procurement

[1:13:53] and that never happened. And so

[1:13:55] part of what, um, what we

[1:13:57] wanted to do was the initial

[1:13:59] step in rolling the contracts

[1:14:02] back, uh, minimise disruption.

[1:14:05] But, um, the conversations, I

[1:14:07] think, uh Councilmember Fain.

[1:14:08] To your point, we do need to

[1:14:10] have a strategic conversation

[1:14:14] about how we are planning to re

[1:14:16] procure those contracts. Are

[1:14:18] these the right strategies? Do

[1:14:20] we have the right mix of

[1:14:22] strategies employed and how we

[1:14:24] are thinking about these funds?

[1:14:27] I think those are not questions

[1:14:29] that we have answers to today.

[1:14:31] But, uh, when the contracts

[1:14:32] come back, we will be working

[1:14:33] closely with our provider

[1:14:35] community and addressing, you

[1:14:36] know, some of the policy

[1:14:38] questions, quite frankly, that

[1:14:39] some of your colleagues raised.

[1:14:42] Um, I think the other piece of

[1:14:43] this, uh, the contracts, when

[1:14:44] they do come back to the

[1:14:47] county, uh, they will be they

[1:14:50] will be put forward through the

[1:14:50] county

[1:14:52] s budgeting process. So

[1:14:54] you will have a recommendation

[1:14:56] from the executive in his

[1:14:59] second omnibus for the amount

[1:15:00] of county contracts. Again, we

[1:15:02] are hoping that, um, you don

[1:15:03] t

[1:15:04] do much to change them because

[1:15:06] we want to maintain continuity

[1:15:08] for this next year. But once

[1:15:09] the contracts come back, once

[1:15:11] that, you know, sort of, um,

[1:15:12] bucket of funds come back to

[1:15:14] the county, we will, as with

[1:15:17] every other budget, uh, that

[1:15:18] goes through the budget

[1:15:20] process, the executive branch

[1:15:21] will be working and

[1:15:23] collaborating closely with the

[1:15:25] Council on the right

[1:15:26] strategies, the right mix, the

[1:15:30] right dosage for those funds.

[1:15:32] Thank you. Uh Councilmember

[1:15:33] Mosqueda. Did you want to jump

[1:15:37] in now? Go ahead.

[1:15:39] Um, well, first I want to say

[1:15:43] thank you so much for, as the

[1:15:44] chair said, um, providing the

[1:15:45] report, we know that there

[1:15:45] s a

[1:15:47] lot of moving parts here. So

[1:15:49] thank you for sending this over

[1:15:51] and working in partnership with

[1:15:53] the council on the timeline

[1:15:54] that had been suggested.

[1:15:55] Obviously, there was a lot of

[1:15:57] work that went into this with,

[1:15:58] um, the announcement made with

[1:16:00] the city of Seattle as well. So

[1:16:01] we appreciate you were both

[1:16:02] responding to the report

[1:16:04] request, um, acting in real

[1:16:05] time to figure out how to

[1:16:07] stabilize and trying to figure

[1:16:08] out both how to do that in a

[1:16:10] way that minimized impact on

[1:16:12] those experiencing homelessness.

[1:16:14] Are contracted providers, and

[1:16:15] really making sure that we are

[1:16:16] sending a message to all in

[1:16:18] this region that here in King

[1:16:20] County, we can govern as

[1:16:21] opposed to what we see in the

[1:16:23] other Washington. We are going

[1:16:24] to offer stability to folks.

[1:16:25] And I still think that that

[1:16:25] s

[1:16:27] an important message for us as

[1:16:28] a collective body, to be

[1:16:29] sending in this moment with so

[1:16:31] much uncertainty, especially

[1:16:32] around some of the dollars that

[1:16:33] have been talked about, that we

[1:16:35] will continue to strive for as

[1:16:37] much stability and certainty as

[1:16:38] we can, not only for the

[1:16:41] contracted providers, but by

[1:16:42] doing so, providing stability

[1:16:43] to those who are experiencing

[1:16:45] homelessness or the folks that

[1:16:46] will fall into homelessness. So

[1:16:48] thank you for submitting this

[1:16:50] report. And that said, I know

[1:16:50] that there

[1:16:51] s a lot that is

[1:16:52] still in the works. I think

[1:16:52] there

[1:16:55] s some conversations in

[1:16:57] this, uh, well, some language

[1:16:59] in this report that really is

[1:17:02] more of a to be fleshed out.

[1:17:03] Right, and along the lines of

[1:17:06] what Councilmember Fain noted,

[1:17:07] I do want to make sure that the

[1:17:09] council and not only the

[1:17:11] members who are sitting on the

[1:17:12] board, but the members of the

[1:17:14] council have an active role in

[1:17:15] figuring out what those next

[1:17:17] steps look like. Because, um,

[1:17:19] this is an area that is clearly

[1:17:20] of interest to members of the

[1:17:22] media as has been described,

[1:17:24] but most importantly to members

[1:17:25] who are providing direct

[1:17:26] services and wanting to see

[1:17:29] that certainty. Um, I do have a

[1:17:31] question about how contracts

[1:17:32] are being moved over, and then

[1:17:33] I have some comments, if you

[1:17:33] don

[1:17:35] t mind, MISTER Chair. Um, I

[1:17:37] know that dhs is trying to

[1:17:39] ensure continuity of services

[1:17:41] with 100 plus contracts

[1:17:44] transferring over. Uh, JANUARY

[1:17:46] 2027. And in order to do so, we

[1:17:48] need staff. And you

[1:17:48] ve talked

[1:17:49] about that a little bit, but I

[1:17:50] just want to make sure that

[1:17:50] we

[1:17:53] re not biasing our hiring

[1:17:54] and recruitment of the staff

[1:17:56] that could potentially come in

[1:17:58] and be ready to ensure

[1:18:01] continuity and know best the

[1:18:02] relationships with the

[1:18:05] community organizations who are

[1:18:06] trying to provide care, not

[1:18:08] biasing those individual staff

[1:18:10] members because they worked at

[1:18:11] Kcra. We

[1:18:12] ve talked a lot about

[1:18:15] the concern the entity has, and

[1:18:17] we even heard concern today in

[1:18:18] public testimony about the

[1:18:21] executive director. I just want

[1:18:22] to make sure that the folks who

[1:18:23] are on the front line, many of

[1:18:23] whom we

[1:18:24] ve heard from today in

[1:18:25] public comment and we

[1:18:25] ve

[1:18:27] received a letter, are not

[1:18:28] being biased in some way. If

[1:18:30] they are also applying for

[1:18:32] positions within dhs. So can

[1:18:34] you confirm for us or assure

[1:18:36] for us that that is not

[1:18:37] filtering in to the analysis of

[1:18:39] who gets a first round of

[1:18:41] interviews? And for us to be

[1:18:43] sure that that continuity is

[1:18:44] preserved? I think that

[1:18:44] s a

[1:18:46] really critical piece for the

[1:18:47] community to know that we are

[1:18:50] trying to maintain a network,

[1:18:51] even if it is not within the

[1:18:52] existing system.

[1:18:55] In the most simplest terms,

[1:18:56] yes, we are going to make sure

[1:18:59] that folks are not biased at

[1:19:00] all. We recognize that the

[1:19:02] staff at Kcra do hard work

[1:19:04] every day. Many of them were

[1:19:05] colleagues of mine when I was a

[1:19:06] case manager in the field,

[1:19:08] housing individuals in this

[1:19:10] county myself. We are going to

[1:19:10] we

[1:19:11] re going to hold a

[1:19:12] competitive hiring process

[1:19:12] that

[1:19:13] s in alignment with our

[1:19:16] agreement with Pro Tech 17. We

[1:19:18] also expect current cra

[1:19:19] employees who are interested in

[1:19:20] King County employment or

[1:19:22] frankly, for employment at the

[1:19:23] city of Seattle to be very

[1:19:25] competitive because, frankly,

[1:19:26] they have experience doing the

[1:19:26] very work that we

[1:19:27] re seeking to

[1:19:27] do.

[1:19:30] Okay. Thank you. Um, and then

[1:19:32] as we know as well, um, dhs and

[1:19:35] Kcra, both entities have been,

[1:19:38] um, found to have had slow

[1:19:40] execution of contracts or

[1:19:40] making payments. Right. That

[1:19:41] s

[1:19:42] not unique to Kcra. It

[1:19:42] s an

[1:19:43] issue that I know this new

[1:19:44] executive is actively working

[1:19:47] on at dhs, but I

[1:19:48] m concerned

[1:19:50] about additional capacity, um,

[1:19:52] being taken on before those

[1:19:54] staff members are trained up.

[1:19:57] So can you remind us what is

[1:19:58] actively happening right now to

[1:20:00] remediate the existing issues

[1:20:03] at dhs? And in regards to

[1:20:05] payment of contracts on time?

[1:20:08] Um, because we do get a lot of

[1:20:10] emails lately, I think coming

[1:20:11] from a place of wanting to make

[1:20:13] sure that every t is crossed,

[1:20:15] every eye is dotted, but

[1:20:17] sometimes that triple checking

[1:20:20] almost, um, more than that, I

[1:20:22] heard one from one contractor

[1:20:24] last month that there was six

[1:20:25] different reports that they

[1:20:26] were asked to fulfill in one

[1:20:28] time, one month time frame, and

[1:20:28] all of that

[1:20:29] s leading to

[1:20:30] delayed payments for existing

[1:20:32] contractors. So can you talk

[1:20:34] about building capacity as you

[1:20:35] try to onboard additional

[1:20:36] people and take on additional

[1:20:37] work?

[1:20:39] Yeah, I can start. So, yes, um,

[1:20:41] part of our effort is to bring

[1:20:43] in this capacity early of I

[1:20:44] noted earlier, we

[1:20:45] ve hired an

[1:20:46] hr specialist who can just

[1:20:47] focus on hiring and bringing

[1:20:48] staff on board. This will

[1:20:50] provide critical time for folks

[1:20:52] to be trained properly, receive

[1:20:53] updated fraud prevention

[1:20:55] training to ensure that staff

[1:20:57] are ready to go. Not into

[1:20:58] JANUARY or to summer, but much

[1:21:00] earlier than that. Second, the

[1:21:03] team that this work is going to

[1:21:05] is very experienced with this

[1:21:07] work. Many of them worked for

[1:21:09] King County and work with these

[1:21:12] contractors. Uh, the contracts

[1:21:12] we

[1:21:14] re talking about prior to.

[1:21:14] Kcrw

[1:21:15] s, uh, you know,

[1:21:17] formation. So we

[1:21:17] re working

[1:21:18] hard to make sure that it

[1:21:18] s a

[1:21:20] smooth process as possible.

[1:21:20] We

[1:21:22] re starting this work early.

[1:21:22] We

[1:21:23] re engaging in a lot of

[1:21:24] conversations with the folks

[1:21:26] that we will ultimately have

[1:21:27] contracts with. I

[1:21:27] m also happy

[1:21:29] to say that we

[1:21:29] ve looked at

[1:21:31] every individual contract. It

[1:21:31] s

[1:21:33] really only about 10% of the

[1:21:35] contracts and totals about ten

[1:21:35] we don

[1:21:36] t have an existing

[1:21:38] business relationship with. So

[1:21:38] we

[1:21:39] re in conducting some early

[1:21:40] outreach to make sure that

[1:21:41] those folks are ready to

[1:21:41] conduct business with the

[1:21:42] county.

[1:21:43] Great.

[1:21:44] And maybe just the last

[1:21:46] comment, if I MAY, and thank

[1:21:48] you. I was, um, listening

[1:21:51] intently on the zoom as I was

[1:21:53] on the way here, but I wanted

[1:21:56] to just underscore for maybe

[1:21:57] members of the public that are

[1:21:59] listening. Um, I think there

[1:21:59] s

[1:22:00] shared frustration between the

[1:22:01] executive branch and the

[1:22:03] legislative branch, shared

[1:22:04] frustration amongst colleagues

[1:22:06] here on the council with where

[1:22:06] we

[1:22:08] re at right now with Kcra.

[1:22:09] But I do want to make sure that

[1:22:09] we

[1:22:11] re not conflating the

[1:22:12] agency. The King County

[1:22:13] Regional Homelessness

[1:22:15] Authority, specifically with

[1:22:16] the decades long proven

[1:22:18] practices of Housing First

[1:22:20] policies, housing first is a

[1:22:22] national standard, and it is a

[1:22:24] proven, evidence based policy,

[1:22:25] contrary to what the federal

[1:22:27] administration is trying to

[1:22:30] assume or impugn through their

[1:22:32] continuum of care contracts and

[1:22:33] their nova process and the

[1:22:35] language that they use. Housing

[1:22:36] first is an approach in our

[1:22:38] region that has been something,

[1:22:39] a point of pride for a very

[1:22:41] long time. And this is true

[1:22:42] even before the King County

[1:22:44] Regional Homelessness Authority

[1:22:46] was created. I give you some

[1:22:47] examples of evidence of the

[1:22:48] Housing First policy showing

[1:22:50] higher retention rates. Studies

[1:22:51] cited by the National Alliance

[1:22:52] to End Homelessness showed that

[1:22:55] over 80% of individuals with

[1:22:56] complex needs remained housed

[1:22:58] after a year. This is much

[1:22:59] higher than other intervention

[1:23:02] strategies. 88% of reduction.

[1:23:04] There was an 88% reduction in

[1:23:06] homelessness among individuals

[1:23:07] experiencing homelessness,

[1:23:09] according to a comprehensive

[1:23:10] United States Department of

[1:23:11] Housing and Urban Development

[1:23:13] analysis that reviewed 26

[1:23:14] separate studies. And they

[1:23:16] found that utilizing Housing

[1:23:18] First approach decreased

[1:23:19] overall time spent in

[1:23:21] homelessness by 88% and

[1:23:22] increased general housing by

[1:23:25] 41%. That is unparalleled in

[1:23:26] other strategies. Stability,

[1:23:28] Foundation. They provide a

[1:23:31] stability for getting into

[1:23:33] homelessness. According to us,

[1:23:34] out of homelessness. According

[1:23:35] to the National Low Income

[1:23:36] Housing Coalition, which

[1:23:38] confirmed that stable housing

[1:23:39] through Housing First provides

[1:23:41] a necessary foundation for

[1:23:44] personal recovery and accessing

[1:23:46] health services. I think that

[1:23:47] there is a really important

[1:23:49] data point around veterans. We

[1:23:51] saw a 55% drop in veteran

[1:23:57] homelessness between 2009 and

[1:23:59] 2022. The federal government

[1:24:01] paired Housing First principles

[1:24:01] with the hud

[1:24:03] s Vash voucher

[1:24:05] program, resulting in a 55%

[1:24:06] reduction in veteran

[1:24:08] homelessness. The list goes on.

[1:24:10] I will spare you in the moment.

[1:24:10] I

[1:24:12] m happy to provide this to

[1:24:13] members of the public and my

[1:24:14] colleagues and the executive

[1:24:15] branch as well, but I want to

[1:24:16] make sure that we don

[1:24:17] t, in the

[1:24:20] analysis of how we transition

[1:24:22] away from Kcra in its current

[1:24:24] form to bringing more contracts

[1:24:27] into the King County family and

[1:24:28] shared responsibility with

[1:24:30] other city jurisdictions, not

[1:24:31] just Seattle, but with other

[1:24:33] city jurisdictions. I want to

[1:24:33] make sure that we

[1:24:33] re not

[1:24:35] conflating the rise in

[1:24:36] homelessness with the failure

[1:24:39] of, um, a policy that has

[1:24:40] actually been proven. Housing

[1:24:42] first is absolutely an

[1:24:43] appropriate policy that has

[1:24:45] decades long data behind it,

[1:24:47] and our region needs to, I

[1:24:48] think, look at every evidence

[1:24:50] based strategy, especially when

[1:24:50] there

[1:24:52] s compounding tragedies

[1:24:54] of the opioid crisis, rising

[1:24:55] costs for housing in our

[1:24:57] region, and the need for us to

[1:24:58] provide that stability compared

[1:24:59] to what we

[1:24:59] re seeing at the

[1:25:02] federal level. I thank you for

[1:25:03] hearing those statistics,

[1:25:04] because I think that there

[1:25:05] s

[1:25:07] shared and understandable

[1:25:09] frustration with Kcra. And as

[1:25:12] we seek to try to mitigate for

[1:25:14] the problems that we see at

[1:25:17] Kcra, we do need to remain

[1:25:19] focused on what has worked. And

[1:25:21] for me and for the statistics

[1:25:22] that our team has looked at and

[1:25:25] for the nation, including in

[1:25:26] the previous administration,

[1:25:28] previous administrations

[1:25:29] through hud, they point to

[1:25:31] Housing First as a proven

[1:25:32] strategy to get folks out of

[1:25:34] homelessness. So much more to

[1:25:35] do in terms of investment in

[1:25:36] that area, but just want to

[1:25:36] make sure that

[1:25:37] s not being

[1:25:39] conflated.

[1:25:41] Thank you. Councilmember

[1:25:44] Mosqueda. Um, let me close out

[1:25:46] this section and before I call,

[1:25:47] uh, case leadership, since we

[1:25:48] had questions about the

[1:25:50] financial situation, I want to

[1:25:51] give them an opportunity to

[1:25:52] provide an update on the

[1:25:53] corrective action plan. But

[1:25:55] just as we close this section,

[1:25:56] uh, first of all, I want to

[1:25:58] thank the executive for, uh,

[1:26:01] for their work on the report. I

[1:26:03] understand that part of it is

[1:26:04] incomplete in a sense, because

[1:26:05] I think some of the questions

[1:26:07] that we asked, I think your

[1:26:08] response is we need more time

[1:26:10] and engagement to be able to

[1:26:11] tackle them. And I appreciate

[1:26:12] that. And I, I, I think

[1:26:13] ultimately I agree with that.

[1:26:14] And I think one of the things

[1:26:16] that I would highlight is I saw

[1:26:18] a pretty, you know, what I

[1:26:20] would consider deliberate, uh,

[1:26:22] but tight timeline through

[1:26:24] first quarter of 2027 to be

[1:26:25] able to make those decisions.

[1:26:26] So I don

[1:26:27] t see this as an

[1:26:29] indefinite, um, trying to

[1:26:30] balance the engagement that you

[1:26:32] want to have. I also think that

[1:26:33] we need to be very careful with

[1:26:34] the fact that we

[1:26:34] re in the

[1:26:35] middle of a federal application

[1:26:36] process with the continuum of

[1:26:38] care. And I think, I think one

[1:26:39] of the, you know, one of the

[1:26:42] guiding principles, I would

[1:26:43] describe it as do no harm,

[1:26:44] which means don

[1:26:45] t make the

[1:26:47] situation worse. And I think

[1:26:48] the loss of federal funding

[1:26:49] would be something that would

[1:26:50] certainly make the situation

[1:26:51] worse. And so I think we need

[1:26:53] to be careful about taking

[1:26:54] actions that might undermine

[1:26:55] our ability to be able to be

[1:26:56] competitive for that federal

[1:26:58] funding. And I think the steps,

[1:26:59] you know, if our federal

[1:27:01] partners are listening, we are,

[1:27:02] you know, taking, you know,

[1:27:02] we

[1:27:03] re not taking status quo. We

[1:27:05] are taking steps to be able to

[1:27:06] address the issues that have

[1:27:09] been found. Uh, but we are

[1:27:11] continuing to have considered

[1:27:14] to be the applicant for the

[1:27:16] cycle until we make decisions

[1:27:17] as to whether we, as a region,

[1:27:18] want to take a different

[1:27:19] approach. At least, you know,

[1:27:22] at this moment. Uh, so I, I

[1:27:25] support that that approach. And

[1:27:26] I think, you know, I don

[1:27:27] t want

[1:27:28] to like I think there

[1:27:28] s going

[1:27:29] to be further conversations

[1:27:31] into the policy debate that we

[1:27:32] sit here. But I just wanted to

[1:27:33] sort of state my own

[1:27:36] perspective on, on this. Um, I,

[1:27:37] I think there

[1:27:38] s broad agreement

[1:27:39] here, I think, from both

[1:27:40] executive and legislative

[1:27:41] branches, that the current

[1:27:43] status quo is not acceptable.

[1:27:45] Right. I think the numbers that

[1:27:46] Councilmember Dembowski

[1:27:48] highlighted are not are not

[1:27:50] good. Uh, I think we owe to

[1:27:51] people who are unhoused in our

[1:27:53] region to, to, you know, work

[1:27:55] to identify the best structure

[1:27:56] and the best policy that we

[1:27:58] can. And we should be open to,

[1:28:00] you know, thinking about this

[1:28:00] and what

[1:28:02] s working my own

[1:28:03] perspective. I agree with

[1:28:04] Councilmember Mosqueda that I

[1:28:05] think Housing First is and is a

[1:28:07] model that has been shown to be

[1:28:09] effective. The problem is that

[1:28:10] the, you know, as the model

[1:28:12] suggests, that housing is the

[1:28:12] key part, and that

[1:28:13] s the part

[1:28:13] that we

[1:28:14] re missing in our

[1:28:17] community. And I think

[1:28:18] appreciate, you know,

[1:28:19] Councilmember Dunn your

[1:28:20] perspective about potentially

[1:28:21] trying different approaches. I

[1:28:22] think the challenge we

[1:28:22] ve been

[1:28:23] dealing with this, with the

[1:28:25] with the federal funding is

[1:28:26] that, you know, there are

[1:28:27] people who are housed with our

[1:28:29] current set of resources. And

[1:28:31] so if we shift resources, as

[1:28:33] the feds are wanting to do in

[1:28:36] other areas without, that

[1:28:37] creates a gap in housing. And

[1:28:37] so that

[1:28:38] s my concern about

[1:28:40] being, you know, sudden in

[1:28:41] terms of pulling resources

[1:28:43] away. If we had a whole

[1:28:44] additional set of resources, we

[1:28:45] could have the conversation to

[1:28:46] have. As it gets allocated, we

[1:28:47] MAY need to have a conversation

[1:28:48] as to how the current set of

[1:28:49] resources needs to be

[1:28:50] allocated, but we just need to

[1:28:51] be very careful, because what I

[1:28:52] don

[1:28:53] t want to do is to lead to

[1:28:54] a situation where those numbers

[1:28:55] actually skyrocket, because

[1:28:56] we

[1:28:57] re losing, uh, we

[1:28:58] re losing,

[1:29:00] uh, current, uh, services

[1:29:03] capacity locally. Um, so, uh, I

[1:29:04] appreciate the work. I think I

[1:29:06] consider this to be a, you

[1:29:08] know, uh, not an end of a

[1:29:10] conversation. But, uh, as the

[1:29:11] executive noted, and engagement

[1:29:13] over the next few months to

[1:29:15] find a final answer, at least

[1:29:16] from my perspective, I don

[1:29:16] t

[1:29:16] think I

[1:29:17] m speaking for the

[1:29:17] whole council. I

[1:29:18] m just saying

[1:29:19] from my perspective, that

[1:29:19] s how

[1:29:22] I heard the report. Uh, I think

[1:29:22] there

[1:29:24] s clearly some questions.

[1:29:26] And so there was a motion that

[1:29:27] the executive sent over with

[1:29:29] this to accept the report, and

[1:29:29] i

[1:29:30] m going to put that on hold

[1:29:32] unless I hear strong commitment

[1:29:33] to that, just because I feel

[1:29:34] like there are some questions

[1:29:35] that people still have about

[1:29:37] the financial picture and, and

[1:29:38] some of the policy issues. So

[1:29:38] we

[1:29:39] re not going to take action

[1:29:41] on that item. But I do want to

[1:29:42] acknowledge the work that was

[1:29:44] done by the executive. And in

[1:29:45] completing that report,

[1:29:46] colleagues and, Lois, we have

[1:29:47] any questions for executive

[1:29:48] staff right now? I

[1:29:48] m going to

[1:29:49] invite Kcra leadership to

[1:29:50] provide an update on the

[1:29:53] corrective action plan. Um, and

[1:29:54] I see some notes on that

[1:29:55] direction. So thank you very

[1:29:58] much to our executive team. Uh,

[1:30:00] for the work on this. And I

[1:30:00] m

[1:30:02] going to invite Doctor Kelly

[1:30:03] Kinnison, who

[1:30:04] s the ceo of

[1:30:05] cascara chair, as well as

[1:30:06] William Todd, who

[1:30:06] s the

[1:30:09] associate deputy for strategy

[1:30:10] of Sierra Che. And they

[1:30:10] re

[1:30:11] going to be providing an update

[1:30:14] on the corrective action plan,

[1:30:15] uh, as well as any other

[1:30:16] updates that you

[1:30:16] d like to

[1:30:21] provide. Thank you.

[1:30:23] I thought I turned.

[1:30:25] Thank you, Chair Barone, for

[1:30:27] inviting us to give this

[1:30:29] update. Um. Thank you. Members

[1:30:31] of council, um, and the public

[1:30:33] who are listening, uh, just

[1:30:35] brief background. As folks

[1:30:37] know, I arrived in AUGUST of

[1:30:40] 2024 to a greatly imperiled

[1:30:42] agency that had been without

[1:30:44] permanent leadership in many of

[1:30:45] our departments for a year or

[1:30:46] more. I

[1:30:47] ve worked closely with

[1:30:48] the governing board and city

[1:30:50] and county partners to address

[1:30:53] many aspects of kcr operations.

[1:30:55] And thanks to our very talented

[1:30:57] staff at Kcra, we

[1:30:57] ve made a

[1:30:59] number of improvements in the

[1:31:01] system. Uh, for example, you

[1:31:03] all saw in our 2026 pit count

[1:31:05] that we saw for the first time

[1:31:06] in many years, the rate of

[1:31:08] growth of homelessness begin to

[1:31:11] slow. Um, despite sort of

[1:31:12] unabated key drivers of

[1:31:14] homelessness in our region.

[1:31:17] However, it became very clear,

[1:31:19] uh, early in my tenure, that

[1:31:21] deep expertise was needed to

[1:31:23] untangle what was going on in

[1:31:26] our finances after, uh, 3 to 4

[1:31:29] years of operations, a series

[1:31:31] of operational missteps, um,

[1:31:32] and the need to address our

[1:31:34] underlying cost reimbursement

[1:31:36] financial model. I worked with

[1:31:38] the city and county to request

[1:31:40] a forensic evaluation to bring

[1:31:42] transparency to our financial

[1:31:44] situation and create a path

[1:31:46] forward for Kcra and our

[1:31:48] regional homeless response

[1:31:49] system. Since receiving the

[1:31:52] forensic evaluation in APRIL,

[1:31:54] Casey has worked with urgency

[1:31:56] to address issues. Surfaces

[1:31:58] surfaced by the evaluation as

[1:31:59] well as the longer term

[1:32:01] structural issues within the

[1:32:04] operations of Kcra. We also

[1:32:06] recognize we did not have the

[1:32:08] capacity or capability in our

[1:32:09] finance department to do this

[1:32:11] work, and requested embedded

[1:32:12] support. We

[1:32:13] re super grateful

[1:32:15] to our city and county partners

[1:32:16] for providing this support

[1:32:17] through Turning Point Strategic

[1:32:19] Advisors. Um, I

[1:32:19] m going to turn

[1:32:21] it over to William Towey to

[1:32:22] provide you with an update on

[1:32:24] our 90 day corrective action

[1:32:26] plan and our work with Turning

[1:32:28] Point Strategic Advisors, and

[1:32:29] be happy to answer any

[1:32:34] questions you have.

[1:32:37] Thank you, Doctor Kennison,

[1:32:39] chair, Council members. Good to

[1:32:40] be back with you. I

[1:32:41] m grateful

[1:32:43] for the opportunity to be here

[1:32:44] and share what we

[1:32:53] re up to. I

[1:32:55] wanted to provide a brief

[1:32:58] update on where we are at with

[1:33:01] the 90 day point. Here in the

[1:33:02] case corrective action plan,

[1:33:05] and particularly how that work

[1:33:07] is now transitioning into

[1:33:10] financial stabilization and

[1:33:11] implementation work being led

[1:33:13] by and with Turning Point

[1:33:16] strategic partners at a high

[1:33:18] level, the controls and

[1:33:21] processes that strengthened

[1:33:23] during the Cap period remain in

[1:33:24] operation, and a number of the

[1:33:26] original corrective action

[1:33:28] items have now moved from

[1:33:31] development into recurring

[1:33:33] practice. The 90 day report

[1:33:34] largely completes the initial

[1:33:40] reporting cycle. Associated

[1:33:41] with the corrective Action

[1:33:42] Plan, but it does not represent

[1:33:45] the end of the work. Turning

[1:33:46] point has now completed its

[1:33:48] initial assessment and is

[1:33:50] embedded with our finance team

[1:33:52] working directly on

[1:33:54] Reconciliation monthly. Close

[1:33:56] financial reporting, internal

[1:33:58] controls and implementation. So

[1:33:59] increasingly, the work that

[1:34:02] began through the Cap is moving

[1:34:04] into sustained implementation

[1:34:06] and independent validation

[1:34:07] through Turning Point. The

[1:34:09] important distinction is that

[1:34:11] while the formal 90 day cap

[1:34:13] reporting cycle is concluding

[1:34:14] the underlying financial

[1:34:17] improvement work is continuing

[1:34:20] and is increasingly being

[1:34:21] incorporated into kcrw

[1:34:22] s

[1:34:33] ongoing financial operations.

[1:34:35] One area where that work has

[1:34:37] already materially improved our

[1:34:39] understanding is the

[1:34:41] approximately $8 million in

[1:34:43] receivables identified in the

[1:34:44] forensic evaluation is not

[1:34:46] reconcilable. From the records

[1:34:48] available at that time. Turning

[1:34:50] Point has substantially

[1:34:51] advanced the balance sheet

[1:34:53] reconciliation and identified

[1:34:55] historical accounting entries

[1:34:57] and reporting differences that

[1:34:59] help explain that balance. The

[1:35:00] work is being validated against

[1:35:02] funder records as the county

[1:35:04] and city records, so I don

[1:35:05] t

[1:35:05] want to characterize the

[1:35:07] original finding is completely

[1:35:08] resolved, but our understanding

[1:35:09] of that 8 million is

[1:35:11] considerably better today than

[1:35:13] it was when the forensic report

[1:35:15] was issued. And at the time of

[1:35:17] our last report to the

[1:35:19] Committee of the whole, I also

[1:35:20] want to be careful not to

[1:35:23] override that result. The

[1:35:24] original 8 million represented

[1:35:26] a particular population

[1:35:28] identified through the forensic

[1:35:30] review, resolving accounting

[1:35:32] issues with that population

[1:35:34] does not, by itself resolve the

[1:35:36] broader historical and

[1:35:39] receivables reconciliation.

[1:35:40] Turning point. In case you

[1:35:41] re

[1:35:42] continuing to reconcile

[1:35:45] receivables, invoices, advances

[1:35:49] and funder records, the broader

[1:35:50] work MAY also identify

[1:35:52] expenditures paid by kcrw that

[1:35:54] were not fully reflected in

[1:35:56] historical billings to the city

[1:35:58] or county. The broader

[1:35:59] reconciliation MAY identify

[1:36:00] adjustments in either

[1:36:02] direction. That is why we

[1:36:02] re

[1:36:04] continuing the transaction

[1:36:05] level work, rather than drawing

[1:36:08] a conclusion from any single

[1:36:10] population or balance the

[1:36:12] administrative overspend

[1:36:13] identified in the forensic

[1:36:15] evaluation is also still under

[1:36:17] validation. We aren

[1:36:17] t

[1:36:19] presenting a revised historical

[1:36:20] number today because the

[1:36:22] balance sheet and receivables

[1:36:24] work needs to be sufficiently

[1:36:27] complete before that exposure

[1:36:29] can be reliably stated in

[1:36:31] parallel. Turning point is

[1:36:34] developing a 2026 budget and

[1:36:36] cash requirements plan so that

[1:36:36] we

[1:36:38] re addressing both the

[1:36:40] historical reconciliation and

[1:36:42] the forward looking management

[1:36:44] of administrative spending. So

[1:36:45] at this stage, we have a

[1:36:46] greater confidence in

[1:36:48] explaining the original $8

[1:36:49] million finding, but we

[1:36:49] re not

[1:36:51] yet prepared to state a final

[1:36:53] net historical receivables or

[1:36:54] administrative overspend number

[1:36:56] until that broader

[1:37:04] reconciliation is complete.

[1:37:06] William, can I pass you here?

[1:37:07] Councilmember Mosqueda, I had a

[1:37:08] question for you.

[1:37:09] Sorry. Thank you. On the last

[1:37:10] slide, please.

[1:37:12] Yeah. Let me go back.

[1:37:14] Um, on first bullet. Regarding

[1:37:15] the 8 million, I mean, I think

[1:37:16] that that was the biggest

[1:37:18] takeaway from your presentation

[1:37:19] the last time around, right? It

[1:37:21] got quite a bit of, um, media

[1:37:22] coverage. It definitely sparked

[1:37:24] a conversation here. So what

[1:37:26] exactly are you saying? That

[1:37:26] you

[1:37:28] re not sure that it was 8

[1:37:29] million? Can you just clarify

[1:37:31] for me what the takeaway.

[1:37:33] Yeah. At the last time we were

[1:37:36] presenting, we delved into the

[1:37:38] topic of the Unreconciled

[1:37:40] receivables. The Clark Newberg

[1:37:41] forensic evaluation clearly

[1:37:45] identified an $8 million number

[1:37:48] in that regard. And as Aaron

[1:37:51] pointed out earlier today, and

[1:37:52] as I was sharing the last time

[1:37:55] I was here as well, we

[1:37:57] recognized that there MAY be

[1:37:59] unreconciled receivables that

[1:38:01] need to be clarified. And the

[1:38:02] process that we

[1:38:03] re close to

[1:38:05] concluding with Turning Point

[1:38:07] will give us final

[1:38:09] understanding of what those

[1:38:11] numbers are. So to be very

[1:38:13] direct to your question, um,

[1:38:15] the question is, were there

[1:38:19] funds that Kcra expended to

[1:38:21] providers for services that

[1:38:23] were not built back to the

[1:38:25] county or the city? And that

[1:38:25] s

[1:38:27] an example of what might be an

[1:38:29] unreconciled receivable. In

[1:38:30] this particular case. The

[1:38:32] update today is that the work

[1:38:34] so far with Turning Point has

[1:38:36] gained deeper understanding of

[1:38:38] that particular $8 million

[1:38:40] population that they

[1:38:42] discovered. But there there

[1:38:43] could be others in the

[1:38:45] different types. And and so

[1:38:46] until we get the final

[1:38:48] determination, we won

[1:38:48] t have

[1:38:51] the exact number in terms of

[1:38:53] what is or isn

[1:38:55] t unreconciled

[1:38:57] and what MAY or MAY not be due

[1:38:59] one direction or the other yet.

[1:39:00] So it

[1:39:01] s still pending.

[1:39:02] Is it fair to say that you

[1:39:02] re

[1:39:03] flagging it might be higher

[1:39:05] than $8 million?

[1:39:06] Then I wouldn

[1:39:06] t make an

[1:39:10] estimation at this point. Yeah.

[1:39:11] William, can I follow up on

[1:39:13] that and just say, because I

[1:39:14] agree with customer Mosqueda,

[1:39:15] this was an area of focus for a

[1:39:17] number of community members.

[1:39:20] Understandably. Um, and I think

[1:39:22] when when we had the

[1:39:23] presentation in JULY, I think

[1:39:25] the aim was to be able to like,

[1:39:26] figure that out by the 90 day

[1:39:27] review. So we

[1:39:28] re not quite

[1:39:30] there yet. But do you have an

[1:39:31] estimate of how much longer it

[1:39:33] might take for us to get a

[1:39:34] final answer on that?

[1:39:36] I do, and in fact, the notes

[1:39:38] and comments from the next

[1:39:39] slide lean into that a little

[1:39:39] bit.

[1:39:39] Don

[1:39:40] t let me interrupt you.

[1:39:41] Then perhaps I

[1:39:42] ll proceed. Go

[1:39:44] ahead. Yeah, yeah. Let me just

[1:39:48] do that. Because they tie

[1:39:50] together to the negative cash

[1:39:53] balance conversation. Obviously.

[1:39:56] And so, um, finally, I want to

[1:39:57] distinguish the negative

[1:39:59] balance in the King County

[1:40:01] investment pool from an

[1:40:03] established financial loss.

[1:40:04] Those are not the same things

[1:40:07] at all. The negative balance is

[1:40:09] significant. And as

[1:40:11] Councilmember Dembowski noted,

[1:40:13] with this, you know,

[1:40:14] conversation on this around it

[1:40:16] being like a checking account

[1:40:18] or a credit account of some

[1:40:21] sort, it is, at its most basic

[1:40:23] level, it means cash outflows

[1:40:26] have exceeded reimbursed cash

[1:40:28] and advances over time. And so

[1:40:29] we

[1:40:30] ve expanded more funds than

[1:40:30] we

[1:40:32] ve received back in. And the

[1:40:34] cash balance by itself, though,

[1:40:36] does not tell us what portion

[1:40:39] represents an actual

[1:40:41] unrecoverable deficit, which

[1:40:43] is, as you noted, one of the

[1:40:44] key things we

[1:40:45] re all eager to

[1:40:48] land on. The balance reflects

[1:40:49] several things operating

[1:40:51] together, paying providers

[1:40:53] before reimbursement is

[1:40:55] received, outstanding and

[1:40:57] unbilled receivables fund

[1:41:00] advances, reimbursement timing,

[1:41:02] historical invoicing and

[1:41:04] reconciliation differences,

[1:41:06] accounting adjustments, and the

[1:41:08] reconciliation will ultimately

[1:41:10] determine whether any portion

[1:41:12] represents expenditures that

[1:41:14] are not recoverable. Now,

[1:41:17] Turning Point has substantially

[1:41:20] reconciled. Kcra cash position.

[1:41:22] At this point, they have been

[1:41:23] doing amazing work since

[1:41:23] they

[1:41:24] ve arrived, and it

[1:41:24] s just

[1:41:26] been really great to have them

[1:41:26] in. But they

[1:41:27] ve been in less

[1:41:29] than a month with us, so things

[1:41:29] have been moving really

[1:41:30] quickly. But it

[1:41:31] s been a short

[1:41:33] window so far. The remaining

[1:41:36] work is necessary to

[1:41:37] distinguish, you know, the

[1:41:39] timing differences and

[1:41:41] recoverable receivables from

[1:41:44] any actual unresolved deficit.

[1:41:45] And so that

[1:41:46] s why at this

[1:41:46] point, it

[1:41:47] s we don

[1:41:48] t have an

[1:41:50] accurate number to characterize

[1:41:54] today. Um, but we are very,

[1:41:56] very close on that. And so I

[1:41:56] ll

[1:41:58] just move on then to the next

[1:42:01] phase, which kind of ties this

[1:42:06] up. Turning point has

[1:42:08] substantially completed the

[1:42:11] reconciliation work using Cras

[1:42:13] records and is now awaiting

[1:42:15] complete transaction level

[1:42:17] detail from the county and the

[1:42:19] city to validate that work

[1:42:22] against those records. Once

[1:42:23] those records are received from

[1:42:24] the county and the city, our

[1:42:25] understanding is a turning

[1:42:27] point. Expects to complete that

[1:42:30] validation and reconciliation

[1:42:31] quite quickly after that, like

[1:42:33] a matter of weeks, they

[1:42:33] ll need

[1:42:35] a few weeks to process that.

[1:42:35] And that

[1:42:36] s the acid test

[1:42:37] against what we

[1:42:39] ve done

[1:42:40] internally for full

[1:42:42] reconciliation. We need to

[1:42:42] check that against y

[1:42:43] all

[1:42:43] s

[1:42:45] records and make sure that we

[1:42:46] really understand it. And then

[1:42:47] at that point, we

[1:42:47] re going to

[1:42:48] have the answers to all of

[1:42:50] these core underlying

[1:42:51] questions, because they

[1:42:51] re

[1:42:53] driven from the same underlying

[1:42:55] issue. So that work allows us

[1:42:57] to complete the validation of

[1:42:59] the historical administrative

[1:43:01] overspend and more reliably

[1:43:02] distinguish outstanding

[1:43:04] receivables and timing

[1:43:07] differences from any actual

[1:43:09] unresolved financial deficit.

[1:43:11] So I would characterize the 90

[1:43:13] day point as a transition, not

[1:43:14] an end point. We know

[1:43:16] considerably more today than we

[1:43:17] did when the forensic

[1:43:19] evaluation was completed. Some

[1:43:21] of the original findings are

[1:43:24] being material, materially

[1:43:25] clarified, while other

[1:43:26] questions remain under

[1:43:28] validation. Our focus now is

[1:43:30] completing the work and

[1:43:31] continuing to strengthen kcrw

[1:43:32] s

[1:43:33] recurring reconciliation

[1:43:35] monthly. Close and financial

[1:43:38] reporting practices. Turning

[1:43:39] point will remain directly

[1:43:41] engaged through the next phase,

[1:43:43] including ongoing review and

[1:43:46] validation of those processes.

[1:43:46] Thank you. I

[1:43:47] m happy to answer

[1:43:48] any questions.

[1:43:50] Thank you. Uh, Willie, let me

[1:43:53] let me ask you to comment. And

[1:43:54] or, you know, one of the

[1:43:55] questions I was raised in our

[1:43:57] earlier conversation is, I

[1:43:59] think Councilmember Dembowski

[1:44:02] said, stemmed the bleeding, and

[1:44:02] I

[1:44:03] m just trying to figure out,

[1:44:06] uh, post JANUARY. So the

[1:44:07] executive, of course, is

[1:44:11] planning to, um, to, uh, take

[1:44:14] over the most, I guess I would

[1:44:15] say of the of the locally

[1:44:17] funded contracts. But under

[1:44:19] that plan, because you will

[1:44:21] remain responsible for the cost

[1:44:24] money and for a state funded

[1:44:26] contracts as well as

[1:44:28] potentially some locally funded

[1:44:32] contracts. It my question is,

[1:44:34] how do we. Is there anything

[1:44:36] that we can do to avoid the

[1:44:37] same problem that we

[1:44:39] ve had in

[1:44:40] the past years? Because I think

[1:44:41] those contracts are also kind

[1:44:42] of on this reimbursable

[1:44:44] situation. So you still be

[1:44:46] paying. Is it fair to say that

[1:44:46] you

[1:44:47] ll still be paying

[1:44:49] providers in advance, not in

[1:44:51] advance of their work, but

[1:44:52] earlier than you get

[1:44:54] reimbursements? So what I

[1:44:54] m

[1:44:56] trying to get at is like, do we

[1:44:57] still have the concern that we

[1:44:58] will still be in a situation

[1:44:58] where we

[1:44:59] ll be accruing, or

[1:45:00] Casey or Che will be accruing

[1:45:02] interest because of that

[1:45:03] structural issue that we

[1:45:04] ve

[1:45:04] haven

[1:45:06] t been able to to, to get

[1:45:06] around.

[1:45:07] I think that

[1:45:08] s a really

[1:45:09] important question. And the

[1:45:15] answer is no. Virtually 100% of

[1:45:17] the challenges and difficulties

[1:45:17] that we

[1:45:19] re untangling today are

[1:45:20] directly related to the local

[1:45:22] contracts with King County and

[1:45:23] City of Seattle. Our hud

[1:45:25] portfolio and our commerce

[1:45:27] portfolio is entirely clean and

[1:45:28] straight.

[1:45:29] Okay, so we don

[1:45:29] t have we don

[1:45:29] t

[1:45:30] have concerns about that

[1:45:32] problem recurring with the with

[1:45:33] the federal grade.

[1:45:35] No, no, the the the local

[1:45:39] contracts are complex and the

[1:45:41] never tried before efforts to

[1:45:43] co-locate them from the

[1:45:46] originating agencies with city

[1:45:48] and the county to Kcra and have

[1:45:50] an entity take over to other

[1:45:54] entities operations. Clearly

[1:45:54] that didn

[1:45:55] t go very well. So

[1:45:57] the return of the contracts

[1:45:58] back to their origin source, I

[1:46:01] think, is a prudent move given

[1:46:04] the experience that has taken

[1:46:06] place over the past few years.

[1:46:08] Thank you colleagues. Any

[1:46:12] questions for Kcra staff Member

[1:46:13] Desk?

[1:46:16] Thanks very much, William. Um,

[1:46:17] it sounds like we

[1:46:17] re going to

[1:46:20] have this reconciliation on the

[1:46:21] kind of the call it the net

[1:46:24] deficit. In simple terms, soon.

[1:46:25] How soon?

[1:46:28] Um, turning point. Are working

[1:46:30] really closely with us, and

[1:46:30] we

[1:46:31] re again, I can

[1:46:31] t say enough

[1:46:33] about the gratitude we have for

[1:46:36] the decision to embed a

[1:46:38] resource with us. We simply did

[1:46:39] not have the capacity and

[1:46:41] capability internally to do

[1:46:41] this. They

[1:46:42] ve been moving

[1:46:43] really quickly. They have

[1:46:44] completed the full

[1:46:46] reconciliation of all of our

[1:46:47] internal records. So we have a

[1:46:48] good sense of what

[1:46:49] s going on

[1:46:51] historically over the past. And

[1:46:51] it

[1:46:53] s really four years, 22, 23,

[1:46:56] 24, 25. And now into 2026. Uh,

[1:46:58] most of the issues are stemming

[1:47:01] in the sort of 2324 range.

[1:47:01] That

[1:47:01] s that

[1:47:03] s when things went

[1:47:06] off track. And right now we

[1:47:07] just were hoping that we will

[1:47:10] get the records from the county

[1:47:13] and the city from their sides

[1:47:14] of those four years of

[1:47:16] transactions. So that turning

[1:47:18] point can do the full

[1:47:19] reconciliation against the

[1:47:21] funder records. Otherwise, we

[1:47:22] would just be providing a

[1:47:24] self-referential understanding

[1:47:26] of our own records, which we

[1:47:27] are at. But we need that

[1:47:29] validated. We need to

[1:47:32] understand your understanding

[1:47:34] of what was paid and received,

[1:47:35] and the city

[1:47:36] s understanding of

[1:47:37] what was paid and received in

[1:47:40] order to fully account and

[1:47:42] reconcile all of that. All of

[1:47:44] those transactions.

[1:47:45] Sorry, I heard all that, but my

[1:47:48] question was how soon? William.

[1:47:48] Pardon me. So that

[1:47:49] s that. That

[1:47:51] calls for a date or weeks or.

[1:47:53] No, I understand, thank you.

[1:47:54] Yeah. For, for, uh,

[1:47:56] highlighting my lack of

[1:47:57] response there. Turning point

[1:47:58] are expecting to have this done

[1:47:59] within and I hate to put them

[1:48:01] on the spot, but like 2 or 3

[1:48:02] weeks is what they

[1:48:02] re.

[1:48:03] Saying from today.

[1:48:04] Yeah. From when they get the

[1:48:05] materials.

[1:48:06] And is there any holdup at the

[1:48:07] county? We

[1:48:08] ve got the request.

[1:48:09] I don

[1:48:09] t think so. They they

[1:48:10] feel like.

[1:48:10] It

[1:48:11] s you have a number

[1:48:13] internally. You know what

[1:48:13] they

[1:48:14] ve preliminarily

[1:48:15] determined?

[1:48:15] No.

[1:48:16] Oh you don

[1:48:17] t I thought you said

[1:48:19] that they based on the case

[1:48:20] Harry j records they determined

[1:48:21] a number and now was just going

[1:48:23] to check it against Seattle in

[1:48:23] the county

[1:48:25] s records.

[1:48:29] We have a we want to say it. We

[1:48:32] have confidence in our ability

[1:48:34] to determine the number. Once

[1:48:36] we get that information back

[1:48:36] from the county in.

[1:48:37] The city. So it

[1:48:37] s not

[1:48:39] constructible by your own

[1:48:39] records.

[1:48:41] Yeah, exactly. We want to

[1:48:41] confirm that.

[1:48:42] I heard something I

[1:48:43] ll just

[1:48:44] tell you entirely differently.

[1:48:46] I heard in your presentation

[1:48:48] your slides that you that the

[1:48:49] turning points based on your

[1:48:50] own records in your

[1:48:52] presentation had developed a

[1:48:54] number. And now you just wanted

[1:48:55] to validate it against the

[1:48:56] outside funders, the county and

[1:48:57] the city. But now I

[1:48:58] m hearing

[1:48:59] that you can

[1:49:00] t do it based on

[1:49:01] your records. And if it

[1:49:02] s going

[1:49:03] to require the county and the

[1:49:06] city records to get to the net

[1:49:06] deficit.

[1:49:09] To validate what we think we

[1:49:11] have internally is how I should

[1:49:12] have said that more accurately.

[1:49:15] To determine or to validate.

[1:49:17] To both. I think I think it

[1:49:17] s

[1:49:21] fair to say that the degree of,

[1:49:26] um, um, work and the long

[1:49:28] history of this, this is, this

[1:49:32] is a complex historical

[1:49:32] undertaking.

[1:49:33] All of that, sir.

[1:49:34] Yeah, yeah.

[1:49:34] I

[1:49:36] m just speaking as the budget

[1:49:39] chair of this government and

[1:49:42] with a serious concern about

[1:49:43] where we stand and how we

[1:49:43] ve

[1:49:44] gotten here and how we

[1:49:44] re going

[1:49:45] to get out of it, and how we

[1:49:48] not do any further harm. And

[1:49:50] month after month after month

[1:49:52] is going by. And I understand

[1:49:52] it

[1:49:53] s very complicated. And you

[1:49:55] all are new to the scene,

[1:49:58] relatively. But, um, there

[1:49:58] s a

[1:50:00] lot of words on the slides, but

[1:50:02] no numbers, you know, no firm

[1:50:05] numbers. And so the time for

[1:50:10] kind of. My dad told a story.

[1:50:12] He had an office and with MR.

[1:50:15] Harter in the 1950s, and MR.

[1:50:16] Harter son would go down to

[1:50:17] have lunch and he

[1:50:18] d take a long

[1:50:20] lunch and someone would call

[1:50:22] for Sylvester the son. And MR.

[1:50:23] Harter. His dad would say, I

[1:50:27] can almost see him coming now.

[1:50:29] I can almost see him coming

[1:50:31] now. This kind of feels like

[1:50:32] that.

[1:50:32] Yeah.

[1:50:33] We gotta get we we

[1:50:34] ve got to

[1:50:36] run this to ground. Not almost,

[1:50:39] but. But not not not not next

[1:50:40] month. Not in two months. But

[1:50:41] we got to get this. We got to

[1:50:42] get this done because it

[1:50:43] s very

[1:50:44] serious.

[1:50:46] Yeah. Yeah I appreciate that.

[1:50:47] All right. And I can assure you

[1:50:48] we

[1:50:50] re equally eager to get to

[1:50:52] that number. But some of that

[1:50:55] validation with the county city

[1:50:56] records is going to have

[1:50:58] tremendous impact on what those

[1:50:59] numbers could be. So it

[1:50:59] s just

[1:51:00] too early to state at this

[1:51:00] point.

[1:51:01] We

[1:51:01] re ready to go to work to

[1:51:02] solve it. I think we

[1:51:03] re

[1:51:04] prepared that there

[1:51:04] s going to

[1:51:05] be a check to be written. We

[1:51:05] ll

[1:51:07] figure it out with the city.

[1:51:07] That

[1:51:09] s all. Understood. And

[1:51:10] then we can get on to figuring

[1:51:12] out kind of what the future

[1:51:13] holds. But I

[1:51:14] m interested in

[1:51:16] kind of stopping stopping the

[1:51:18] bleeding, getting it squared

[1:51:20] away, chewing it up, and then

[1:51:22] and then putting this chapter

[1:51:23] of I didn

[1:51:24] t even put them up

[1:51:28] here. Thousands of headlines of

[1:51:31] bad news, you know, behind us

[1:51:33] because it

[1:51:33] s we

[1:51:34] re talking

[1:51:34] about people

[1:51:36] s lives. Hundreds

[1:51:37] of folks a year in this county

[1:51:38] are dying on the street.

[1:51:39] You know, I

[1:51:40] m a.

[1:51:40] And I

[1:51:41] ve worked great with you.

[1:51:44] You ran. Yeah. Oaks. And you

[1:51:44] re

[1:51:48] a tremendous leader. Um, but

[1:51:49] we

[1:51:50] ve set up a system here that

[1:51:50] isn

[1:51:50] t working, and it

[1:51:51] s

[1:51:53] incumbent upon us to fix it and

[1:51:55] fix it as soon as we can.

[1:51:56] You know, I

[1:51:57] m 100% aligned with

[1:51:58] you there. And I can assure

[1:52:01] you, the bleeding has stopped.

[1:52:02] So, you know, I

[1:52:02] ve not been

[1:52:04] there long. But we are. We are

[1:52:05] a tight ship today. There

[1:52:06] s no

[1:52:10] no deficit. Uh, out of control

[1:52:11] organization at the moment. We

[1:52:14] are diligently pursuing

[1:52:15] reconciliation of these past

[1:52:17] issues, and we will get them

[1:52:19] nailed down.

[1:52:21] Councilmember Mosqueda.

[1:52:22] Thanks for your presentation.

[1:52:23] And this MAY be more of a

[1:52:25] question for the actual agency.

[1:52:26] Good to see you again. I

[1:52:27] m

[1:52:28] worried about a bleeding of a

[1:52:29] different sort. I

[1:52:29] m worried

[1:52:31] about people leaving the

[1:52:33] agency. Um, given the

[1:52:33] uncertainty of what

[1:52:34] s going to

[1:52:35] happen to their position. Um,

[1:52:37] and this is something that we

[1:52:40] have flagged for our partners

[1:52:41] as well. The concern that

[1:52:44] people will leave Kcra and not

[1:52:46] have the actual institution and

[1:52:48] the capacity to provide direct

[1:52:49] services. Can you speak to how

[1:52:52] many people have left Kcra?

[1:52:54] What the vacancy rate is? Do

[1:52:55] you have statistics on turnover

[1:52:57] rates currently at kcr? Hey,

[1:53:00] maybe today relative to a year

[1:53:08] ago or six months ago.

[1:53:11] Thanks for that question. Um,

[1:53:11] we

[1:53:13] ve spent a lot of time as an

[1:53:15] executive team, uh, talking

[1:53:16] about, um, the health and

[1:53:19] well-being of our staff and the

[1:53:21] ability to continue with our,

[1:53:22] our work and the mission of

[1:53:25] Kcra. Um, and I have to say,

[1:53:25] uh, the mayor

[1:53:26] s office and the

[1:53:26] executive

[1:53:27] s office in

[1:53:29] announcing the local contract

[1:53:32] transition surfaced early that

[1:53:33] this would be, you know,

[1:53:35] difficult for Kcra staff,

[1:53:37] particularly those whose work

[1:53:38] is moving back to the city and

[1:53:40] county. Um, and so we

[1:53:40] ve been

[1:53:43] working with our labor partners

[1:53:45] to make sure there are clear,

[1:53:49] um, principles for us to follow.

[1:53:51] K Sarah j is sharing every

[1:53:54] announcement from the city and

[1:53:56] county and providing support

[1:53:59] for our teams who MAY want to

[1:54:00] follow the work. Um, we

[1:54:01] ve had

[1:54:05] one resignation. Um, this year

[1:54:07] I can happily share with the

[1:54:08] council, uh, the statistics

[1:54:10] that you requested. Um,

[1:54:11] Councilmember Mosqueda. I don

[1:54:12] t

[1:54:14] have those at hand. Um, but I

[1:54:17] think, uh, folks are, you know,

[1:54:19] waiting to see what happens.

[1:54:19] We

[1:54:20] re waiting to see what

[1:54:23] happens. Um, my leadership in

[1:54:24] this moment is just to be as

[1:54:25] transparent as I can be with

[1:54:27] those staff. Encourage them to

[1:54:27] do what

[1:54:29] s best for them. Um,

[1:54:30] but obviously i

[1:54:30] m not in a

[1:54:32] position to guarantee anyone a

[1:54:37] job. Um, and, uh, we are, um,

[1:54:38] working hard to keep them

[1:54:41] informed, give them outlets to

[1:54:44] provide, um, input, ask

[1:54:46] questions. Um, but we have, you

[1:54:47] know, this is a business

[1:54:48] decision. And and as we

[1:54:48] ve

[1:54:49] heard, uh, it

[1:54:50] s very dire and

[1:54:53] urgent. And the only lever I

[1:54:58] control is really is payroll.

[1:55:01] Thank you. Colleagues, I don

[1:55:01] t

[1:55:03] see further questions about I

[1:55:04] just on that point, I do want

[1:55:05] to sort of acknowledge because

[1:55:06] we, you know, began the meeting

[1:55:08] with, with some, uh, public

[1:55:10] comment from staff. And I do

[1:55:12] want to acknowledge that and

[1:55:13] reiterate, I think the point

[1:55:15] that you made, Doctor Kinnison,

[1:55:16] about the fact that there are

[1:55:17] some changes that are going to

[1:55:18] impact people who have been

[1:55:19] providing services to the

[1:55:21] community, and we want to

[1:55:22] acknowledge that. I don

[1:55:22] t think

[1:55:23] we want to sugarcoat the fact

[1:55:24] that, like, these changes are

[1:55:26] going to have a disruptive

[1:55:26] impact on people

[1:55:27] s lives who

[1:55:28] have been providing services

[1:55:29] for our region, and we

[1:55:32] appreciate their work. And, uh,

[1:55:34] you know, sometimes in

[1:55:35] government, we have to make,

[1:55:36] you know, difficult decisions.

[1:55:38] And I think the agency is

[1:55:40] responding in some ways to some

[1:55:41] of the issues that were part of

[1:55:42] the first evaluation in terms

[1:55:45] of our administrative, uh,

[1:55:46] budget and making sure that

[1:55:46] we

[1:55:47] re complying with that. And,

[1:55:49] of course, the the changeover

[1:55:50] of the contracts is going to

[1:55:51] have a disruptive effect for

[1:55:53] sure. Staff, I agree with

[1:55:54] Councilmember Mosqueda that I

[1:55:56] think we we should try to

[1:55:57] figure out as a local region

[1:55:58] with the city and the county to

[1:55:59] figure out if there are, you

[1:56:01] know, people who have skills,

[1:56:03] who can come over to, to do the

[1:56:05] work. Uh, locally. I think that

[1:56:07] that would make sense and try

[1:56:08] to mitigate the impacts. But we

[1:56:08] also don

[1:56:10] t want to overpromise.

[1:56:10] What what

[1:56:12] s possible, given the

[1:56:14] limited resources that we have

[1:56:16] to do the work. So thank you

[1:56:17] for that. And I appreciate all

[1:56:19] the folks from from Kcra staff

[1:56:20] who provided public comment

[1:56:22] today. Um, and we

[1:56:22] ll continue

[1:56:23] to be engaged in that

[1:56:25] conversation. Colleagues, as I

[1:56:26] mentioned, I sensed that we

[1:56:28] still had questions on this. So

[1:56:29] I

[1:56:29] m not going to take I

[1:56:30] m not

[1:56:31] going to put the motion

[1:56:33] accepting the report on, uh,

[1:56:35] for a vote today. But I

[1:56:36] appreciated the work that

[1:56:37] everybody has done to get us

[1:56:39] better informed. Um, I will

[1:56:41] second the Councilmember

[1:56:43] Dembowski comment earlier about

[1:56:44] the need for kind of more

[1:56:45] clarity on the numbers. And I

[1:56:45] know you

[1:56:46] re working hard, but I

[1:56:47] think that is going to be very

[1:56:49] important as we try to make

[1:56:51] decisions in the coming months.

[1:56:53] And, uh, and look forward to

[1:56:54] continuing engagement in this

[1:56:56] topic as, as needed. Uh, does

[1:56:58] anybody have any other final

[1:57:00] comments? Uh Councilmember

[1:57:02] Lewis.

[1:57:04] Yes. Thank you. Chair. Um,

[1:57:05] earlier in the meeting, I

[1:57:06] mentioned the Black Women

[1:57:06] s

[1:57:08] Experience study, and I just

[1:57:10] want my colleagues to know that

[1:57:11] for those of you who would like

[1:57:12] to review it while you

[1:57:12] re in

[1:57:15] transit or otherwise being

[1:57:17] ferried about, we do have

[1:57:20] printed copies of those for you.

[1:57:21] Thank you very much,

[1:57:22] Councilmember Lewis, for

[1:57:26] educating us. All right. Um,

[1:57:27] Councilmember Mosqueda.

[1:57:28] So sorry. And I just want to

[1:57:29] thank Councilmember Lewis again

[1:57:30] for your comments during the

[1:57:32] earlier presentation. Um,

[1:57:33] Councilmember Lewis has also

[1:57:34] sent out an email to the whole

[1:57:36] floor with the hard copy. I

[1:57:37] would say, though, that that

[1:57:39] report used to live online, and

[1:57:40] our team was having a hard time

[1:57:42] finding it online. So just a

[1:57:43] request to the King County

[1:57:45] family to try to get that

[1:57:47] report back up in the

[1:57:48] appropriate place, because it

[1:57:49] does appear that that link has

[1:57:50] been taken down. So thank you

[1:57:52] to Councilmember Lewis for

[1:57:53] again mentioning that sending

[1:57:55] the email around and for our

[1:57:56] team for printing that out and

[1:57:57] helping to make sure everybody

[1:57:59] had a copy in hand.

[1:58:01] Thank you very much.

[1:58:02] Councilmember Mosqueda Clark,

[1:58:04] did we have any council members

[1:58:05] besides Councilmember Balducci

[1:58:06] or Councilmember Perry who

[1:58:08] missed votes.

[1:58:10] Other than Councilmember

[1:58:12] Balducci and Perry? No. All

[1:58:12] right.

[1:58:15] Thank you. Um. Thank you,

[1:58:15] colleagues, we

[1:58:17] re going to end

[1:58:17] the meeting. If there

[1:58:18] s no

[1:58:19] further business to come before

Committee of the Whole

Agenda

Transcript