The Clark County Council approved a motion Wednesday to allocate $4.85 million from the combined use of mental health sales tax funds and opioid settlement funds toward the city of Vancouver’s plans for a large homeless shelter in the Van Mall neighborhood — if it’s legal and the money is available.
Those caveats pose a significant barrier to that funding. County staff identified a series of possible legal problems with dipping into the funds for the city’s so-called bridge shelter, because mental health sales tax funds possibly cannot be used for capital projects.
Some councilors pointed out the council has previously approved mental health sales tax funding for capital projects, possibly placing the county in hot water.
“OK, so past practices might not have been the right practices. We don’t know,” Council Chair Sue Marshall said.
But Vancouver Homeless Response Manager Jamie Spinelli remains hopeful the funds will come through for the shelter, which will be at the former home of Naydenov Gymnastics, 5313 N.E. 94th Ave.
For almost a year, the county council and staff have scrutinized the project, wavering on whether to help fund the shelter.
Spinelli said the shelter, which is currently entirely funded through the city, will not allow non-Vancouver residents if the city does not receive county funding.
Previous attempts
The shelter is a crucial part of the city’s plan to address homelessness since declaring a civil emergency in November 2023.
Plans for the shelter include 150 beds, on-site medication-assisted drug treatment, services to help people land more permanent housing and jail reentry services.
After identifying 3 acres in the Van Mall neighborhood as a possible site for the shelter, city staff went to the county for quick help buying the land by circumventing the usual process for mental health sales tax funds, which are collected countywide.
Acquiring and building the shelter will cost about $16 million. Operating it will take another $6 million to $7 million per year. The city asked the county to pay for 30 percent of those combined costs — a maximum of $6 million up front and about $2 million a year after that.
But the council, despite making exceptions earlier in 2024 for millions to go to a motel voucher program and a supportive housing project, made the city go through the normal process. A county committee eventually rejected the project for funding five months later in a closed-door meeting.
With two new members on the council this year, city staff once again pleaded for a quick commitment of funding by February. The city cannot fund the full 150 beds without outside funding — only 60 to 90, according to a letter sent to the county by the city.
After councilors expressed interest, the city gave the county a series of funding options, including $4.8 million toward capital and $450,000 each year for three years toward operating expenses (about 7 percent of the estimated total operational expenses rather than 30 percent).
Newly elected Councilor Matt Little suggested the county devote $2.1 million of mental health sales tax funds (half of the funds available for 2025) to three years of operational funding and spend the leftover money on capital. Then, the county would spend an additional $2.75 million of settlement money from opioid distributors toward capital expenses.
County staff pointed out potential issues with using the funds.
Issues
Using half the mental sales tax funding leaves little room for other projects, which have ongoing funding requests totaling about $5 million.
Additionally, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Amanda Migchelbrink said she did not believe it was legal to use mental health sales tax funding for capital projects.
Councilor Glen Yung asked why another project — Vancouver Housing Authority’s Lincoln Place II — was approved for mental health sales tax funding.
Migchelbrink said that may have occurred because adding onto already approved projects would be allowed. Yung then pointed to the council allocating $2 million to the supportive housing project, which was a new project at the time.
Now, county staff aren’t sure whether those funds were used correctly.
“I think we want to have someone review that,” Councilor Michelle Belkot said.
Another issue is that, under state law, mental health sales tax funds can only be used for “treatment services, case management, transportation, and housing that are a component of a coordinated chemical dependency or mental health treatment program or service.”
Although the shelter will have on-site drug addiction treatment, Migchelbrink said county staff are unsure whether shelter counts as housing under the law or whether this would mean only people with mental health issues could use the shelter.
“I don’t think that anyone in this room can make the argument that shelter for the unhoused is not a valid form of mental health treatment,” Yung said.
County staff also aren’t sure how much influence the council has over where opioid settlement funds go because a separate entity called the Opioid Abatement Council is supposed to award the funds.
The amount of funding available and whether it would cover the county council’s $2.75 million request is also unclear to county staff. The amount could be between $1 million and $4.5 million, staff said.
All councilors except Belkot, who abstained due to the legality questions, voted to devote the funding if staff came back and said using the funds is legal.
Although she voted in favor of the motion, Marshall said she worries about going over the heads of committees.
“I think there is a strong sentiment that their advice is not being taken … in some sense, this is like robbing Peter to pay Paul,” Marshall said.
Going forward
Spinelli said she understands that other projects need funding, but she believes shelter plays a major role in curbing the mental health crisis. She’s seen the evidence in homeless camps.
“If somebody does not have a safe place to be inside there, without question, somebody’s mental health is going to suffer and that compounds year after year after year,” she said.
County Manager Kathleen Otto previously recommended to the council that the project go through the normal process. County staff are not trying to hinder the progress of the project, Otto said Wednesday.
“It’s complicated. … I know there are frustrations,” she said.
Otto said officials should request that other cities chip in funding, as well.
“There’s a lot of opportunity to get things done that doesn’t require this level of commitment (from the county),” she said.
Editor’s note: This article has been corrected to reflect that the discussion at Wednesday’s council meeting largely revolved around county councilors and staff being unsure whether mental health sales tax funds can be used for capital projects.
