FUND · 2018 · Metro Measure 26-199

Metro Affordable Housing Bond

Unit counts have been adjusted downward relative to original targets; per-unit costs have grown well above the projection range; "preserved" vs "built" classification has shifted to maintain headline numbers.

Passed
2018
Who collects it
Metro Regional Government (property tax levy)
Who runs it
Metro and partner jurisdictions (Portland, Multnomah County, Washington County)
How often
GO bond proceeds disbursed against approved projects
Statute
Metro Code Chapter 7; bond covenants
Sitting today
$436.6M
Still aimed where you voted
83%
Re-aimed since
17%

Voter intent. In 2018, voters across three counties approved a $652.8M bond. The promise: build or preserve 3,900 affordable homes for working families, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities.

What follows is a year-by-year reading of how the cash position of this fund evolved, annotated with the audit findings and council actions that produced its current shape. Below that, a visual of what the balance could pay for at today’s published unit costs, the named mechanisms by which it currently can’t, and what would change if those mechanisms were removed.

WHERE IT COULD HELP NOW

What the balance is the size of

At the fund’s modeled balance, and at the unit costs that already appear in city, county, and bureau budgets, the dollars are equivalent in scale to any one of these.

$436.6M sitting today. At today's published unit costs, that is the same dollar amount as any one of these.

  • 1,060 × Newly-built affordable units at corrected unit cost

    $410K per unit · Metro bond program 2024 unit cost

  • 1,100 × Preservation of existing affordable units

    $165K per unit · Metro preservation program per-unit

  • 3,790 × Site acquisition for the next round of units

    $115K per unit · Metro land acquisition program average

Unit counts are rounded against published references. Real procurement and ramp time would shape the exact numbers. The point is the order of magnitude.

Current context

A 2024 Metro action extended the delivery window past the original sunset. Counts have not been re-baselined to the original built-versus-preserved split.

MECHANISMS

What’s in the way of spending it as voted

Each item below is a named mechanism in code, charter, or council practice. The defense is the line routinely offered for it. The note beside it is the structural reading of why that line is not the whole story.

Mechanism 1

Cost growth was absorbed by lowering the unit count

When per-unit construction costs outran the bond assumption, jurisdictions kept the dollar total fixed and reduced the home count. Voters approved a unit count.

Where the discretion sits
Metro Council and partner-jurisdiction bureaus

The defense

“Construction inflation is outside Metro's control.”

Structural reading

Yet Metro chose to absorb cost growth by lowering targets rather than supplementing the bond. Voters approved 3,900 homes, not $652.8M.

Mechanism 2

"Preserved" units count toward the 3,900-home headline

The mix between newly built and preserved units has shifted toward preservation while the headline number stays the same. The two are not equivalent.

Where the discretion sits
Metro reporting practice; jurisdiction project selection

The defense

“Preservation prevents displacement and is counted by HUD as a housing strategy.”

Structural reading

The ballot title said build or preserve. The bureau choices have shifted the mix away from build without returning to voters.

If those mechanisms were removed

A supplemental bond and a binding split between built and preserved would land 3,900 homes within the original schedule plus two years.

How the balance got here

What follows is a year-by-year reading of how the cash position of this fund evolved. Scroll the right column to advance the chart; each step is an audit finding, council resolution, or bureau memo that shaped the shape.

Modeled cash position, with audit annotations

MODELED

Annotations are auditor findings, council resolutions, and bureau memos. The active step is shown with a vertical rule.

Data table for Modeled cash position, with audit annotations
Underlying data for: Modeled cash position, with audit annotations
YearBalanceObligatedInflowSpent
201979390412492220559681757517427164
202016757793210389831810754575719358236
202123304582514448841112123683855768945
202230384102918838143813110223060307026
2023346580589214879965147377794104638234
2024394654706244685918165772816117698699
2025436573096270675320190538139148619748

2020

Audit: per-unit cost growth

Per-unit construction cost climbs above the bond program assumption, narrowing the achievable unit count.

2022

Discovery: classification shift

Reporting begins counting "preserved" units alongside newly built units to maintain the 3,900-home headline.

2024

Council: timeline extension

Delivery timeline extended past original sunset; jurisdictions request supplemental funds.

Promise versus delivery

The chart on the right pairs each plan cycle’s stated dollar promise with the dollar amount that was eventually delivered against it. The gap between the two — labelled in orange — is what flows into the next cycle’s carryover, and what the audit narrative on the previous chart is, in part, accumulating into.

Promised vs. delivered, by fiscal cycle

MODELED

Promised dollars are those committed in the bureau's published plan; delivered dollars are what shipped against the plan. Modeled.

Data table for Promised vs. delivered, by fiscal cycle
Underlying data for: Promised vs. delivered, by fiscal cycle
CyclePromisedDeliveredGap
FY 20201100000002800000082000000
FY 20211300000006700000063000000
FY 202214500000010200000043000000
FY 202316000000012100000039000000
FY 202417500000013700000038000000

Reserve growth

When delivery lags collection, the residual accumulates as an unobligated reserve. This is not a savings account in the household sense: it is a balance that public-finance officers and council staff have, by ordinance, the discretion to redirect.

Modeled unobligated reserve

MODELED

Data table for Modeled unobligated reserve

Each row shows the dollars left sitting unspent in this fund at the end of that year.

Underlying data for: Modeled unobligated reserve
YearUnspent reserve (USD)
201930168357
202063679614
202188557414
2022115459591
2023131700624
2024149968788
2025165897776

Drift from voter intent

The chart on the right is a drift index. A value of 100 percent means every dollar in the fund is being used in a way that maps cleanly to the original ballot text. A value below 100 percent means some share has been ordinance-redirected, swept into a sibling program, or otherwise reclassified.

Drift index — voter intent vs. modeled actual disposition

MODELED

Data table for Drift index — voter intent vs. modeled actual disposition

Modeled share of dollars still aimed at the original ballot purpose, with each council vote that broadens the eligible uses pulling the score down.

Underlying data for: Drift index — voter intent vs. modeled actual disposition
YearOn voter intent (%)Drift (%)Note
2019982
2020928
20218812
20228119Classification shift
20237921
20257624

WEEKLY MEMO · AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOND

No memo for this fund yet this week

The weekly run hasn’t produced a published memo for this fund yet.

← Back to all funds Cross-fund dashboard →