Committee discusses consolidated plan priorities; transportation and workforce housing rank high, some members question survey representativeness

Prescott City staff reviewed results of the consolidated plan survey and solicited the Citizens CDBG Advisory Committee’s input on priorities for the five‑year consolidated plan and the 2025 annual action plan.

Staff reported that workforce housing development and support received the highest ranking among housing needs in the committee survey (4.3 on the committee's scale). Other housing priorities included ADA improvements for seniors and disabled residents (about 3.5), homeless prevention and rental assistance (about 3.1), and minor home repair (about 3.0). For public services, transportation ranked highest, followed by senior services, mental‑health services and basic needs such as food security.

Michael (staff member) said he adjusted the slide deck to reflect committee survey input and urged the group to be broad in the consolidated plan so the city would not later need to request an amendment: "Don't leave anything out," he said, relaying HUD guidance to cast a wide net when listing needs and possible activities.

Committee members debated what "transportation" means for CDBG spending. Ginger Cutting emphasized the difference between door‑to‑door volunteer transport for seniors and fixed‑route public transit; she said she did not want CDBG transportation discussion to be interpreted as a push for scheduled public transit. Chelsea Walton, the city's community development director, said the workforce housing committee and the CDBG committee would likely intersect if the workforce group brought forward a construction project that could use CDBG funds.

Betsy Howe and others suggested staff follow up with local nonprofits (Agape House, PASS, others) to learn whether organizations assist with application fees or offer services that could guide future funding priorities. Howe also noted tradeoffs in reimbursing landlords or paying application fees: such subsidies can increase costs over time and merit further study.

Ginger Cutting criticized the survey’s representativeness, saying the results were skewed toward homeowners and higher incomes: "I think this was an absolute waste of time and money," she said, citing demographic results including a reported median income of about $92,900 among respondents.

Staff acknowledged survey limitations; Michael said the committee's own responses and local provider conversations will inform the consolidated plan. Staff also highlighted existing programs, such as the minor home repair program (which has a roughly $90,000 balance), and encouraged committee members to attend a city study session on the workforce housing policy on May 27.

Timeline and next steps: staff plan a short committee meeting on June 5 to review the consolidated plan draft. After the committee approves the draft, it will go out for a 30‑day public comment period before the staff forwards it to City Council, with a target council review date of July 8. Staff noted the HUD allocation figure discussed in the meeting remains an estimate until final confirmation in October.