Clark County Council hears options to expand affordable housing; staff to pursue 0.1% sales-tax authority

Jordan, a Clark County staff housing presenter, told the County Council that the purpose of the work session was to assemble in one place the array of tools the council could use to address affordable housing and to seek direction on next steps. "The hope for today is to present this to council, get your feedback, and then, get a sense from council if you do have some direction on what are some of the activities you'd like to move forward on," Jordan said.

Jordan summarized four high-level categories of housing: naturally occurring affordable housing and privately financed deed-restricted housing on the unsubsidized side, and inclusionary and government-subsidized housing on the subsidized side. He described current financing headwinds — a decline in the market value of low-income housing tax credits (from about $0.90–$0.95 on the dollar to about $0.80–$0.85) and higher interest rates and construction costs — and said those pressures increase the need for local subsidy and policy intervention.

Councilors discussed the scale of demand. A council member said the county comprehensive plan calls for roughly 100,000 new housing units over 20 years to accommodate projected growth, including about 35,000 units affordable to households at 50% of area median income. Zillow figures were cited in the meeting (transcript): a $580,000 median home sale price in Clark County (cited as of June 2025) and average one‑bedroom rent near $2,000 (date cited in transcript unclear).

Staff reviewed existing and potential funding tools. Jordan described the county's current use of the "14 o 6" sales-tax remittance (state program cited in the slide deck) to subsidize projects such as Weaver Creek and said the county typically receives about $700,000–$900,000 per year from that source. He then described the authority in House Bill 15 90 (RCW 82.14.530 in the transcript) for a 0.1% sales-and-use tax dedicated to housing and related services; the county could adopt it by council action or place it before voters. Staff said Vancouver has already levied the measure; outside Vancouver city limits the county could raise roughly $7 million annually if adopted countywide, subject to an interlocal agreement with Vancouver for allocation of revenues collected inside city limits.

Jordan explained statutory constraints stated in the statute: at least 60% of 15 90 revenues must fund construction, acquisition or maintenance of housing for households at 60% AMI or below; the remaining 40% may be used for housing-related services and behavioral-health programs tied to vulnerable populations. He also discussed other options the council could consider, including expanding the County's down-payment assistance program (initially seeded with ARPA and other funds), issuing general-obligation bonds, land donations, contingent loan agreements with housing authorities (CLA), contingent use of REIT resources (House Bill 17 91 referenced in the presentation), and a property-tax housing levy (up to $0.50 per $1,000 assessed value) that requires voter approval.

Council members asked clarifying questions about statutory mechanics, allowable uses, and administrative costs. Jordan said staff would follow up on a statutory question about whether 15 90 funds could be used to pay for consultant work or dedicated administration. Treasurer Alicia Topher and representatives from the Vancouver Housing Authority were present and offered to provide technical expertise if needed.

On policy direction, multiple councilors expressed support for pursuing the 0.1% sales-and-use tax under House Bill 15 90 via a councilmanic (council-approved) levy rather than immediately sending it to the ballot, and they asked staff to return with implementation options. Council members also directed staff to convene internal departments, develop a program plan and a scope of work for dedicated staff (or a consultant) to administer and evaluate any new funding, and to continue examining zoning, permit timing, and other regulatory levers to accelerate housing production.

Jordan closed the discussion saying staff would move forward on the items requested and return with more detailed options. "I've heard there's an interest in, support for doing, the $15.90, fund, and sales tax councilmanically. So we can we'll we'll move that forward," Jordan said.

The meeting produced direction to staff but no formal vote on any new tax or levy during the session.