The Prescott Workforce Housing Committee on a policy-drafting meeting reviewed red-line revisions that reflect council feedback and legal guidance and asked staff to develop application forms and implementation steps.
The committee was shown trends staff gathered after May council review, including a request to tie the policy more firmly to the council’s strategic plan and to clarify income formulas, eligibility and fee definitions, and certification criteria. Amber, a community development staff member, said the edits came largely from council meetings and legal review and that staff will produce application forms if council approves the policy.
Committee members emphasized practical concerns: several urged simpler sliding scales for incentives and clearer definitions of which fees can be waived, deferred, or reimbursed. Amber told the committee that legal advised changing some “will” language to “may” to avoid obligating the city.
The committee discussed process and timing. Amber noted a newly passed state law will require 15-day reviews for certain single-family residential projects, and she said staff would incorporate that timeline into the policy’s expedited-review provisions. Community Development will work with legal on enforceability, and staff will return with draft forms and implementation details for council review.
Committee members asked that the policy preserve flexibility for council to review high-impact items while allowing staff to administratively process smaller projects. Several members asked staff to prepare clearer thresholds (for example, by unit count or project type) that would trigger council review versus administrative action. Amber said those procedural questions could be part of the December study session with council.
Staff noted consultant work underway: Pollock and Company is drafting a strategic plan under an Arizona Department of Housing grant and will present regulatory amendment suggestions and an implementation plan in coming weeks. The committee was advised that final program details, funding options, and legal mechanisms (for example, lien language, bonds, or grant assurances) require additional legal consultation before council action.
The committee paused the policy review at the end of the session to allow legal and staff to return with more detail and to schedule focused discussions on impact fees, density bonuses, and enforcement mechanisms.