County commissioners press Metro for clearer fiscal, governance and transition rules on Supportive Housing Services plan

Washington County commissioners examined draft Metro ordinances and a suggested transition plan for regional Supportive Housing Services (SHS) at their Jan. 28, 2025 work session and instructed county staff to finalize a detailed comment letter to Metro that emphasizes fiscal transparency, local partnership and operational feasibility.

County leaders told Metro’s proposal they need a public accounting of fiscal impacts before revenue conversations proceed and urged Metro to recognize county and service-provider capacity limits. The county’s staff-led review — circulated in advance and discussed in detail during the work session — recommended limiting duplicative reporting requirements, protecting counties’ ability to use funds locally when appropriate, and preserving the ability to execute multiyear contracts.

Commissioners and staff raised governance concerns about the advisory body Metro proposes (referred to in materials as H2Pac or HHPAC). County staff reported the working group under discussion could total roughly 23 members; commissioners said a body that large risks inefficiency and urged a smaller panel or a conferring-consent structure akin to JPAC (the intergovernmental model used for transportation decisions) rather than a Metro Council model that could act unilaterally on allocations. Commissioners noted the draft materials forecast regional revenue “northward of $300,000,000 a year,” and said that level of spending requires clear lines of responsibility and public review.

County staff also flagged multiple timing and sequencing risks in Metro’s drafts: an interim allocation plan that the materials describe as effective for fiscal year 2026–27 (to be adopted by Metro Council in December 2025); proposed indexing changes that would begin in a later year (described in the draft as year six of the program); and a monitoring and records-access provision that could require frequent document requests from Metro and expand administrative work for counties and contracted service providers. Commissioners asked county counsel to review whether the records-access language creates third-party contracting or privacy issues and sought assurances that existing intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) and their termination provisions remain in place.

County staff said Metro’s President, Lynn Peterson, had convened a President’s working group and asked for two county representatives; the county will appoint representatives and the board noted scheduling constraints (Tuesdays conflict with other local government meetings). Staff said they would revise the county’s cover letter and detailed section-by-section comments and transmit them to Metro on the county’s previously communicated timeline.

Separately, county staff described progress and remaining work on a data sharing agreement intended to give Metro necessary information while protecting individual privacy; staff said that technical and legal issues remain but that they view the agreement as solvable.

Ending: Commissioners directed staff to finalize and submit the written comments and to seek legal review on records access and contracting implications. Chair Katherine Harrington signaled she will continue to participate in the Metro President’s working group, subject to scheduling constraints.