Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Supportive Housing Services topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Washington County outlines county‑centered response to Metro SHS reform, pushes rate changes to 2028

Washington County Board of Commissioners · December 17, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County staff proposed keeping program control at the county level, protecting an essential homeless services floor, redirecting some Metro administrative funds to affordable housing, and budgeting to a $330 million three‑county rebase; commissioners urged delaying any tax‑rate reductions until 2028 for more revenue certainty.

Washington County Board of Commissioners reviewed county staff recommendations on proposed reforms to the Portland‑area supportive housing services (SHS) tax measure at a Dec. 17 work session, with staff urging safeguards to protect core homeless‑services funding and a measured timeline for any tax reductions.

County staff presented a set of recommendations intended to preserve county control over programming while allowing for regional coordination. "We don't want to shift too far from where we are. We don't want to create a bucket system," said an unidentified county staff presenter (Speaker 5), describing an approach that keeps program flexibility at the county level while aligning services and affordable‑housing investments.

The staff memo proposed several concrete fiscal changes. It recommends leaving the business tax (which staff said accounts for roughly 45% of collected revenue) off the table for changes and focusing on individual income‑tax thresholds and indexing. Staff recommended indexing threshold changes to the consumer price index beginning tax year 2026, but said indexing would lower total revenues and requires modeled scenarios. On tax rates, the counties proposed a modest reduction of 0.1 percentage point (to about 0.9%) delayed until tax year 2028 rather than the more aggressive reductions outlined in some Metro scenarios. "If they want this, we push it back to '28," said an unidentified commissioner (Speaker 4), expressing concern that earlier dates would leave the county without sufficient forecasting data.

Staff also proposed a rebase and protection strategy to secure essential services: budget to the greater of 90% of Metro's forecasted revenue or a minimum rebase of $330,000,000 across the three counties, with counties protecting a defined "essential" homeless‑services system first and using any excess to seed affordable‑housing investments. "When Metro gives us our forecast number, we will budget to the greater of 90% of that number or a minimum allocation," the presenter said (Speaker 5).

Another financial recommendation would repurpose a portion of Metro's administrative and carryover funds toward affordable housing and the regional investment fund. Staff said Metro currently takes a 5% administrative fee on collected revenues and proposed reducing Metro's administrative allocation by 25% and redirecting those funds to affordable housing and the regional fund administered for the region's priorities.

Beyond technical fiscal proposals, commissioners discussed political and timeline pressures. Chair (referred to in the record as Hunden) said Metro is moving quickly: Metro council planned to include a draft ordinance for first read in its Jan. 19 packet. The chair also reported that representatives of the Portland Metro Chamber had signaled they would push for a tax reduction and had discussed gathering signatures for a potential ballot petition. "Portland Metro Chamber saying that they want a tax reduction or else...they have been threatening that they would make the effort to do the signature gathering to go to the ballot to revoke this tax measure," the chair said (Speaker 1).

What happens next: commissioners and staff agreed to forward county recommendations to the regional table and to send a county representative to follow the afternoon negotiations. Staff told the board that materials were still evolving and that the county proposal could change before regional action. The board paused the work session to begin the regular meeting in the auditorium; staff said they would return after the meeting to continue coordination.

Provenance: county presentation and discussion (topic begins SEG 105; discussion and wrap‑up through SEG 1149).