FUND · 2020 · Metro Measure 26-210
Supportive Housing Services Measure
Counties have collected far more than they could disburse against contracted capacity; carryover balances are being reframed as "long-term reserves" without clear voter mandate.
Voter intent. In 2020, tri-county voters approved taxes dedicated to ending chronic homelessness. Four eligible uses: long-term rent help, behavioral-health services, outreach, and permanent supportive housing.
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.
$637.8M sitting today. At today's published unit costs, that is the same dollar amount as any one of these.
12,000 × Long-term rent-assistance vouchers for 3 years
$50K per unit · $1,400/mo × 36 months
1,300 × Newly-built supportive-housing units (capital + 5-yr operating)
$480K per unit · JOHS supportive housing unit cost
96 × Assertive Community Treatment teams (96 teams, 1 year)
$2.1M per unit · ACT model annual cost per team
240 × Outreach workers loaded for 4 years
$384K per unit · $96k loaded × 4 yr
Unit counts are rounded against published references. Real procurement and ramp time would shape the exact numbers. The point is the order of magnitude.
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
Counties under-execute against contracted service capacity
Year-by-year contracts repel providers; multi-year contracts (which counties have authority to sign) would attract them. The contract structure is the binding constraint, not dollars.
- Where the discretion sits
- County procurement and contracting offices
The defense
“Provider capacity is the binding constraint, not dollars.”
Structural reading
Multi-year provider funding agreements would attract capacity. Year-by-year contracts repel it. The constraint is procurement, not the market.
Mechanism 2
"Long-term program reserves" framing protects unspent money from disbursement
Carryover balances are reported in financial statements as long-term reserves rather than as obligations behind on delivery. The framing slows the disbursement clock.
- Where the discretion sits
- County financial reporting practice
The defense
“Reserves protect against tax revenue volatility.”
Structural reading
A volatility reserve at one year of operations is standard. The current carryover is multiples of that.
Mechanism 3
New "supportive housing services" categories added without a return to voters
The ballot text named four uses. New service categories are being added under the same fund through county-level intergovernmental agreements.
- Where the discretion sits
- Tri-county intergovernmental agreement process
The defense
“Scope adjustments respond to evolving service models in the field.”
Structural reading
Scope additions belong in front of voters, or out of this fund. Otherwise the dedicated tax becomes a general one.
If those mechanisms were removed
Sign multi-year provider contracts and reattach the four ballot uses as the only eligible uses. Within four years, 12,000 households get rent help and 1,800 supportive-housing beds come online.
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
MODELEDAnnotations 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
| Year | Balance | Obligated | Inflow | Spent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 195952780 | 99935918 | 251221512 | 55268733 |
| 2022 | 331752188 | 169193616 | 277141649 | 141342241 |
| 2023 | 434108997 | 221395589 | 319865030 | 217508221 |
| 2024 | 531434994 | 271031847 | 374330756 | 277004759 |
| 2025 | 637810606 | 325283409 | 409136970 | 302761358 |
2022
Audit: contract execution lag
Counties under-execute against contracted service capacity in the first two implementation years; Metro requires corrective plans.
2023
Discovery: reserve framing
Carryover balances begin appearing in financial statements as "long-term program reserves" rather than unspent obligations.
2024
Council: spending agreement
Tri-county leaders sign a spending agreement intended to accelerate disbursement; quarterly reporting required.
2025
Audit: scope expansion
Auditor flags new categories of "supportive housing services" being added without explicit voter authorization.
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
MODELEDPromised 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
| Cycle | Promised | Delivered | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY 2022 | 250000000 | 142000000 | 108000000 |
| FY 2023 | 285000000 | 188000000 | 97000000 |
| FY 2024 | 320000000 | 226000000 | 94000000 |
| FY 2025 | 350000000 | 261000000 | 89000000 |
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
MODELEDData table for Modeled unobligated reserve
Each row shows the dollars left sitting unspent in this fund at the end of that year.
| Year | Unspent reserve (USD) |
|---|---|
| 2021 | 96016862 |
| 2022 | 162558572 |
| 2023 | 212713408 |
| 2024 | 260403147 |
| 2025 | 312527197 |
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
MODELEDData 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.
| Year | On voter intent (%) | Drift (%) | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 96 | 4 | |
| 2022 | 84 | 16 | Execution lag |
| 2023 | 76 | 24 | |
| 2024 | 71 | 29 | |
| 2025 | 67 | 33 | Scope expansion |
WEEKLY MEMO · SHS
No memo for this fund yet this week
The weekly run hasn’t produced a published memo for this fund yet.