Thursday, October 1, 2026
.jpeg)
The Thurston Regional Housing Council (RHC) advanced a slate of affordable housing recommendations totaling nearly $7.3 million for 2026 projects, along with a separate allocation to help close the funding gap for Quince Street tiny home village.
At a meeting held on April 22, the council reviewed recommendations from the Thurston Affordable Housing Advisory Board (TAHAB), which evaluated nine project applications requesting about $6.9 million.
According to TAHAB Chair Meg Martin, the council had enough funding to fully support all eligible proposals.
RHC Manager Tom Webster said the available funds come from a mix of federal, state and local sources, including the Local HOME fund (county and Olympia), House Bill 1406, which provides sales tax retention funding for affordable housing programs, and Senate Bill 5386, which is funded through local document recording fees.
In addition, $2.7 million from a previously awarded project that will not move forward has been returned to the RHC, bringing the total available funding for this cycle to just over $9.6 million.
Of that amount, about $2.3 million has been set aside for the council’s Opportunity Fund, leaving about $7.3 million available for project awards this year.
The advisory board recommended fully funding the following requests:
The allocations would create 112 new affordable housing units and preserve 277 existing affordable housing units.
In addition to project awards, the council approved a separate recommendation to allocate $323,711 to support Quince Street tiny home village in Olympia to help address a funding shortfall caused by the expiration of Emergency Rental Assistance (ERP) funds.
Lacey City Council member Nicolas Dunning, who represents the city on the RHC, raised concerns about approving millions in funding without more time for elected officials to review it.
“We are talking about seven to nine million dollars,” Dunning said. “That’s larger than the budgets of some small cities, and we are being asked to make decisions the same day we receive them.”
He said elected officials should have a greater role in funding decisions and more time to review materials before voting, suggesting a clearer separation between discussion and decision-making, such as through work sessions.
Dunning also questioned whether all available funds must be spent in a single cycle.
Webster said the council is not required to spend all funds each year and unspent dollars may be rolled over into future years.
Concerns were also raised about potential conflicts of interest, as Dunning noted some advisory board members may be affiliated with organizations who receive funding.
Martin said members are required to recuse themselves from related discussions and decisions.
Yelm City Council member Griselda Arias, who represents the city on the RHC, defended the advisory board process, noting members are “volunteers with subject matter expertise” who dedicate their time to reviewing and scoring applications.
She said elected officials should focus on setting priorities and asking questions, rather than second-guessing technical evaluations. She added she was not comfortable “throwing out the entire set of recommendations.”
Arias also expressed support for potential process improvements, including a work session model.
RHC Vice Chair Emily Clouse, who represents Thurston County on the RHC, said she was open to a work session but cautioned that criticism of the advisory board could feel dismissive.
She emphasized that members “have the understanding of what is happening on the ground,” and said elected officials already have a seat at the table and should come prepared with questions.
Dunning, who abstained from voting, clarified his concerns were about process, and not criticism of the advisory board members. He said elected officials have a duty to be more involved, and should have more time to review and discuss funding decisions before voting.
The RHC members indicated they may explore future process improvements, including separating funding discussions from formal voting through work sessions.
The recommendations will be forwarded to the Thurston County Board of County Commissioners for final approval at a later date.
8 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
JW
Quince Street Overdose Village: the crown jewel of Olympia as you get off exit 105 into the capital city of the great state of Washington.
Wednesday, April 29 Report this
Tanker1982
I agree with Dunning. And again, what are the metrics for success? And are we supporting everyone that has problems that move to Thurston County? They will come, I assure you. Limit to thurston county residents with a goal of transitioning all to a meaningful life with a job.
Wednesday, April 29 Report this
chrispc2u
Enough of this encouraging and enabling professional panhandlers to migrate to Olympia because they know they can get freebies galore here and wander our downtown core like the glassy eyed, drug addled zombies they are. Covid ended years ago. Time to cut their apron strings get ‘em off the sugar teat of our welfare system. It’s a bad look for commerce and the health of the city in general.
Wednesday, April 29 Report this
longtimeresident
I agree with the Yelm City Council person - no need for elected officials to be involved in these decisions. That is part of the problem and it has been stated many times in many places. With too many people involved, all it does is prolong the decision-making. I know people like to hear themselves supposedly adding to the discussion (and like to hear themselves talking) , but sit back for once and let things move forward. I stand behind the Thurston Regional Housing Council and thank you for your work. I will be watching to see how quickly the Thurston County Board of County Commissioners approves these recommendations............
Wednesday, April 29 Report this
JulesJames
Same day proposed and approved for $9 milllion?!?!?! "Affordable housing" and group quarters shelter for recovery aren't the same. One is somewhere between developer incentives and subsidized housing. The other is temporary shelter -- not housing. But I'll shut up now and allow those that know better (thank you Ms. Clouse) play with same day proposed and approved scrutiny of taxpayer expenditures.
Thursday, April 30 Report this
Wesley
The government shouldn't be funding any housing.
Thursday, April 30 Report this
36098501
I appreciate Nic Dunning being involved and taking some personal risk to provide an alternative voice where there hasn't been diversity of thought or ideas in a very long time.
Go back and watch these meetings and you will quickly notice that there doesn't appear to be the level of expertise in the financial aspects of these large, multi million dollar, fundings that one would expect at this level of taxpayer money involved.
This conflict of interest has been a real issue for a long time. In my heart, I believe all of these people are good people in every way working hard for their causes. However, the local City's , agencies and non-profits lack critical expertise as many millions of taxpayer dollars flow through these entities that don't have good financial oversight.
It isn't a good look when those working, and leading, in the homeless space, are also on the boards determining how taxpayer funds will be allocated out to groups they work with, and are adjacent to.
It is time to confront the challenges faced by funding non-profits as a way to expand the footprint of City government services, but without the transparency, oversight and accountability expected of City governments.
With that said, I think too many of the decision makers are too close to the problem, as well as too close to the groups receiving funding to make sound decisions. This can be dangerous territory, especially if we find out that some of these groups receiving funding do not have the appropriate financial oversight. It will be an uncomfortable moment if local groups get audited and issues are uncovered. This would signal the end of public confidence in the process.
A recent audit of the King County Regional Homeless Authority. uncovered several major issues as these groups were not experienced, and did not prioritize, the management of the financial aspects of the organization. The growth of the funding far surpassed the financial accounting infrastructure, and this did not reach the level of concern it most definitely should have..
This reached the level of embarrassing incompetence of those in charge and in any other non-government entity, would have been immediately shut down until the proper controls were in place. The right answer, despite the opinion of those involved, is to close the firehouse of funding down immediately. Government is not good at policing itself. The articles provide a narrative of a severely broken system. Take 5 minutes and read a few.
The biggest, most obvious, oversight was no Chief Financial Officer for long periods of time. That should have triggered red flags from the very beginning as this is likely the most important function in an entity dealing entirely with funding, and receiving funds, made up of taxpayer dollars. This was an egregious management oversight.
100% of sampled transactions had compliance issues.
At one point, the Agency had a negative $45mm cash balance.
$13mm in funds that were not accounted for an unable to be reconciled with the information available.
Over $4mm was overspent and millions more didn't match the transaction information that was available.
Simply, there was no financial management infrastructure in place.
We need to set higher expectations for those involved in the process, and for some reason this isn't happening. I think Nic Dunning may have just stumbled into the reason why. his voice is an outlier. Everyone else likes the way the process currently works. That isn't OK.
Thursday, April 30 Report this
HappyOlympian
389 total units for 7.3 million is $18,000 per unit. Got a feeling that does not include associated costs. Very expensive. This whole process sounds rife with conflicts of interest and potential outright corruption. Same day decision on several million dollars for a small number of new units and upkeep for others?
The not so ethical Clouse giving any reassurance automatically raises a massive red flag. This whole process needs to be redone, especially considering that historically in the USA, when government gets involved in housing expensive failures are often the result with a lot of folks feasting at the trough while those they claim to help do not get much benefit.
Thursday, April 30 Report this