Metro SHS report: Clackamas meets most housing goals but revenue is tightening

Metro and the Supportive Housing Services (SHS) oversight committee presented the fiscal-year 2024–25 regional oversight report to the board, highlighting progress and emerging fiscal constraints.

Yesenia Delgado, Metro’s SHS division director, and oversight-committee members called year 4 a turning point: the region moved from building the system to stabilizing it. Presenters said counties collectively spent about $425 million in year 4 — a 44% increase year over year — and that the region met combined goals for permanent supportive housing placements, rapid rehousing, housing retention and prevention for the first time. Presenters also emphasized growth in culturally specific providers (described as roughly a 477% increase from year 1).

Clackamas County’s reported numbers were strong: the county exceeded targets for rapid rehousing, prevention, shelter, retention and outreach and engaged 877 people against a goal of roughly 1,050. Presenters said Clackamas spent approximately $73.5 million in the prior fiscal year, about $9.6 million more than current-year revenue, and drew on carryover reserves (presenters cited a carryover figure of about $107.8 million) to sustain services. Metro staff also reported net regional revenue after admin allocations as roughly $299.3 million and listed Clackamas’ current-year allocation near $63.9 million.

Panelists acknowledged challenges: the inflow of people experiencing homelessness continues to exceed outflow (marked by a comment that for every 10 people housed, about 30 enter the system), and declining revenue forecasts prompted an intentional pullback on some permanent‑housing unit goals. The oversight committee urged honest public messaging to close the perception gap between program gains and visible homelessness and recommended continued attention to provider sustainability, workforce pressures and data-driven allocation as governance changes are implemented.

Commissioners pressed for details. Commissioner Schroeder asked whether Metro’s staffing functions were largely administrative, and presenters confirmed much of Metro’s role is coordination and admin and cited a regional admin cost (presenters identified roughly $15.8 million in admin costs). Commissioner West raised governance and allocation concerns tied to a Metro Council resolution (identifed as 26-55-67) and said he had sent a letter requesting that Metro delay a vote on RIF (regional investment fund) language to ensure Clackamas County’s investment and local practices (for example, the county’s CHAW program) are not subsumed by a regional reallocation. Metro and oversight members said consolidation of regional planning and oversight bodies (the Tri-County planning body and the oversight committee) into a single regional policy and oversight committee was intended to improve efficiency and coherence but would require careful implementation to preserve local successes.

Presenters urged continued county oversight and follow-up as governance transitions occur. Commissioners requested additional demographic breakdowns (seniors, adolescents) and comparative data across jurisdictions; presenters offered to provide more detailed data following the meeting.

The presentation concluded as informational; no board action was taken March 12, though several commissioners requested follow-up data and signaled continued attention to RIF language and county allocations.