Washington County staff outline plan to downsize supportive housing services after lower Metro forecast

Molly Rogers, director of Housing Services for Washington County, told the Board of Commissioners that Metro's updated forecast shows lower-than-expected revenue for the Supportive Housing Services (SHS) measure and that county staff are recommending a multi‑year, planful transition to a smaller, “essential” system of care.

“For the first time in many weeks, we are not gonna talk about the SHS reform package this afternoon, but instead, frankly, something even more, more sobering than, what that could entail,” Rogers said, opening the presentation. She said the county has “just entered our fourth year of program implementation of the supportive housing services measure” and reported that “the revenue to fund the program was lower than previously forecast.”

Assistant Director Jess Larson presented financial details and the Metro forecast. Larson said that the updated five‑year forecast reduces collections by about $51,400,000 for the current fiscal year compared with earlier expectations and that Washington County’s allocation rate is now being recalculated against a smaller projected total. Larson described staff actions taken in the prior months, including delaying new programs and some nonessential hires, and said partners have begun planning for ramps down of temporary programs.

Rogers and Larson told the board that sustaining the present level of services would require further budget reductions and that staff recommend accelerating the ramp down of temporary programs and developing a transition fund to smooth reductions over two to three years rather than making abrupt cuts in a single fiscal year. Rogers said the county will prioritize commitments made to voters and “focus[] on program outcomes and sustain impacts to Washington County.”

Staff said some of the specific programmatic considerations include scaling back rapid rehousing — described as a likely candidate for reductions because it is serving more “population B” households than the SHS measure intends — and reducing temporary motel voucher spending as the county brings additional permanent shelter capacity online. Rogers emphasized that “we would not remove anyone from the housing program who’s currently enrolled” and that partners will be given time to implement any ramp down.

Finance details and reserves: staff reported that the carryforward balance at the beginning of the fiscal year totaled $96,000,000 and that most of that amount had already been committed through board action to capital and one‑time projects. After commitments for two capital priorities — a Beaverton access center (approximately $5,000,000) and land/site prep for a pod shelter (approximately $2,000,000) — staff said roughly $7,600,000 remained in carryforward that could support a transition fund. Staff also noted an unallocated portion of the regional investment fund (RIF) assigned to Washington County of approximately $9,800,000 and a combined set of SHS reserves (stabilization and contingency) of about $32,000,000, including a $17,000,000 stabilization reserve.

Staff estimated that, depending on choices and ranges for specific reductions, the items discussed could yield roughly $7 million to $9 million in savings. They recommended using a mix of remaining carryforward, the county’s portion of the regional investment fund, and stabilization/contingency reserves to form a transition fund while setting the next fiscal year’s base budget to Metro’s updated forecast and sequencing reductions over multiple years.

Commissioners asked for clarifications about timing, the difference between fiscal year and program year numbering, whether essential emergency shelter capacity would be preserved, and how the county would protect eviction-prevention services. Rogers and Larson answered that the ramp down had already begun (for new referrals) and that staff’s recommendation preserves emergency beds to avoid returning people to the street. On eviction prevention, staff said SHS-funded eviction-prevention resources were significantly expanded during the COVID response and that staff expect to continue some level of SHS funding for eviction prevention while monitoring other state and Medicaid resources that may supplement or replace portions of that spending. Rogers said previous conversations had included possible cuts to eviction prevention up to 50% as one scenario under certain forecast reductions.

Staff emphasized the scale and risks: the forecast is volatile and the program was designed as a 10‑year measure; staff recommended conservative use of reserves and a staged, human-centered ramp down to meet legal commitments and minimize harm. The board did not take a formal vote; commissioners directed staff to continue planning detailed budget adjustments and to return with the supplemental budget and further recommendations that would be acted on through the county’s finance process.

Staff asked the board for guidance on three main choices: (1) accelerate ramp down of temporary programs to limit overspending in the current fiscal year; (2) form a transition fund from carryforward and regional set‑aside dollars to smooth reductions over two to three years; and (3) set the base FY 2025–26 budget using Metro’s updated forecast while planning to deploy transition‑fund resources if actuals are lower.

The conversation included several follow‑up items for staff: provide an explicit FY4 (2024–25) versus program‑year table in slide materials; return with a proposed schedule and amount for a transition fund and a clear plan for which programs would be reduced in which years; and present a budget supplemental through the finance department for board action when specific changes are proposed.