Clark County Today is taking a brief look at each of the 10 amendments that the Clark County Charter Review Commission passed in expectation of bringing them to the November 2026 General Election

Paul Valencia
Clark County Today

The Clark County Charter Review Commission, an elected body of 15 members, passed 10 amendments on July 8 in expectation of being placed on the November 2026 general election ballot.

Clark County Today is providing more context on each amendment in this series, including quotes from the sponsor of each amendment.

In this story, we look at 26-07, Housing Impact Analysis

It would require Clark County to publish a credible public analysis of how proposed changes to land use or construction codes could affect land supply and construction costs before adopting such amendments. This amendment, sponsored by Commissioner John Jay, passed 8-7.

“Housing affordability is one of the defining challenges facing Clark County,” Jay said, noting that every decision about land use has an effect on whether a family can afford to build a home, or a new house gets built, as well as what kind of community is left for the next generation.

According to the review commission’s description, the analysis must be data-driven and prepared using methods generally accepted by planning and housing professionals, with the findings made publicly available for review. The work must be funded by the county’s general fund and may not rely on development-related fees, such as permit, impact, or mitigation fees.

This amendment, Jay said, recognizes that every decision on land use has tradeoffs. He would prefer a study to help explain those consequences before a decision is made.

“Better information leads to better decisions. The charter should establish principles that endure,” Jay said. “Transparent, data-informed decision making is one of those principles.”

The commission’s description of the amendment concludes: The goal is to provide clear, credible information on potential economic and housing impacts, supporting informed policymaking and reducing unintended cost increases.

One person who spoke during public comment who was opposed to the amendment gave an interesting opinion, wondering how “one more study” could provide necessary clarity.

“In fact, the over abundance, or over-reliance, on studies tends to have a chilling effect,” he said.

Of note: The meeting on July 8 was to listen to public comment and to vote on the amendments. The sponsor of each amendment gave a brief argument for his or her amendment, but there were no discussions among the commissioners. Those discussions were made in previous Charter Review Commission meetings. In this meeting, it was just a yes or no vote on each amendment.