Council schedules workshop on interim ordinance to clarify concurrency rules amid housing concerns

A councilor asked the Clark County Council on June 3 to add an interim emergency ordinance to the agenda to address what she described as confusion in county code that is delaying housing projects.

The councilor said the ambiguity concerns how many vehicle trips a road may carry and still allow development approvals. "We are short probably 15,000 to 30,000 units of housing, and we can't afford to lose any of those," she said, urging expedited action so projects in a seasonal construction window are not pushed into the next year.

April, the deputy county manager, told the council the provision at issue is in county code section 43.50 (the concurrency code), specifically a subsection that references operating levels of intersections and roads. She said the code references a level-of-service cap of 0.9 and that staff have been exercising discretion under subsection 9, where the public works director may determine impacts are acceptable. "We've been applying that," April said, but added that because staff are frequently using discretion (she said it has been above 0.9 more than 50% of the time), "we probably should clean it up." She gave examples of how the practical threshold staff use could be slightly lower than 0.9 (she cited approximate tolerance numbers in the 0.92–1.005 range when explaining potential adjustments).

Amber Smith, chief civil deputy prosecuting attorney, explained the legal mechanics if the council proceeds with an interim ordinance: an interim ordinance may be used to change county code and, if adopted, would go into effect immediately when issued as an emergency. The council must hold a public hearing within 60 days for final ratification and an interim ordinance can last for a six-month period and then be renewed only if the council chooses. "An interim ordinance would go into effect to change our county code because it's interim... we have to within 60 days... have a public hearing to hear public comment on it for it to be final ratification," Smith said.

Council members agreed to "set the table" for fuller discussion: staff were asked to draft language and prepare technical and impact analyses, with a workshop scheduled for the following Wednesday and a public hearing suggested for the next Tuesday. The council emphasized that staff should include findings about safety and whether the staff practice aligns with the code as written.

The council did not adopt any ordinance at this meeting. Next steps recorded by council direction are a staff workshop, a drafted interim ordinance for council consideration, and a public hearing for final action within the statutory window.

The council's discussion distinguished between current staff discretion on pending applications (which staff said would continue under existing procedures) and a formal interim ordinance the council could adopt to alter the code's written standard. The council also noted the possibility of discussing legal aspects in executive session if needed before final action.