Clark County Council advances sales-tax proposal to fund affordable housing, schedules January hearing

Chair Marshall and county staff opened a broad discussion on adopting a 0.1% sales-and-use tax under House Bill 1590 to fund affordable housing and related services outside the City of Vancouver. Jordan Bogie, senior policy analyst, told the council the tax would "raise about $6,400,000 a year for the county" and that state rules require at least 60% of the revenue be used for construction, acquisition or operations of affordable housing and behavioral-health facilities for specified vulnerable populations.

The proposal would apply countywide outside Vancouver city limits because the City of Vancouver has already levied the tax. Bogie said the revenue could be used for new units, upgrades to existing housing, land acquisition for behavioral-health facilities, operations and maintenance costs, and program delivery and evaluation. He described a number of decision points for the council, including whether to set a higher local minimum percent for housing, whether to operate the fund as grants or loans, whether to leverage up to 50% of revenue for bond payments, and what advisory or allocation committee should oversee awards.

The nut graph: If adopted, the tax could provide a recurring local revenue stream that the county could pair with federal and state resources to support projects aimed at households earning at or below 60% of area median income (AMI). That threshold, Bogie said, is "just under $75,000" for a four-person household in Clark County; income limits are adjusted annually by HUD.

Council discussion focused on process and priorities rather than a final allocation. Councilor Young urged hiring an independent consultant to develop a countywide strategic plan that would align this funding with other local sources such as the mental-health sales tax, opioid abatement funds and Urban County programs. "I still feel like we need to bring somebody in from the outside to help us develop an overarching plan," Young said. Councilor Belcott opposed adding another tax at this time and said constituents are already struggling under multiple levies: "I'm having a really hard time with another imposed tax, especially when we have a lot of families struggling in the county." Chair Marshall and other supporters argued that sheltering people can be less costly than dealing with homelessness later: "It is way more expensive to deal with homelessness than it is to make sure that people are housed," Marshall said.

Staff identified a calendar constraint: to have collections begin at the start of the second quarter of 2026, the council would need to adopt an ordinance by Jan. 16, 2026 (allowing for required notice and administrative lead time). Bogie noted that the council can choose either a council vote or a ballot measure; placing the question on a November ballot can be costly (staff estimated roughly $1 million for a stand‑alone November ballot, depending on the contest and timing).

Councilors agreed on process items to move the measure forward, not final program rules. The council asked staff to draft ordinance language and to prepare a public hearing in early January 2026; it also directed staff to draft an RFP for a strategic planning consultant to advise on fund alignment and evaluation. The motion to proceed to a public hearing advanced with a majority of members signaling support and one member signaling opposition. No ordinance was adopted at the meeting.

Next steps: staff will prepare ordinance language, a public hearing notice for early January, and draft RFP language for a consultant to advise on an overarching strategic plan and program governance. If the council wishes collections to begin in Q2 2026, it must adopt an ordinance by Jan. 16, 2026; otherwise collection start would be delayed to a later quarter.