[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
[1:09:13] 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