Prescott committee narrows workforce-housing policy, asks staff for numeric scenarios and bonding safeguards

The Prescott City Workforce Housing Committee on Wednesday reviewed its draft workforce-housing policy and asked staff to prepare numeric examples, clarify enforcement and bonding requirements, and return a revised draft for the committee’s March meeting.

The committee’s review focused on three immediate priorities: a simpler definition of “workforce,” a sliding scale of incentives tied to the share of workforce units in a project, and stronger financial assurances so the city is protected if developers do not complete the affordable portion of a project.

Committee members and staff repeatedly said the draft should emphasize objective metrics and implementation details rather than lengthy, profession-by-profession lists. Amber (City staff) told the committee, “We would like to have it in a state of recommendation for approval by March,” and asked members to send written redlines on wording after the meeting.

Why it matters: The policy will guide how the City of Prescott offers permit-fee waivers, reimbursements, zoning relief and other incentives to private developers who include workforce housing. Committee members said clear thresholds and enforcement rules are necessary to avoid inconsistent treatment of developers and to protect taxpayers if a project is not finished.

Key decisions and direction

- Definition of workforce: Committee members agreed to remove the term “essential” and simplify the document to refer to the “workforce,” using income-based eligibility (area median income bands) rather than calling out specific occupations. The committee asked staff to recreate an AMI (area median income) chart similar to one used in Gorman’s Light Tech booklet to show household-size breakouts by AMI band.

- Incentives and sliding scale: Committee members asked staff to test a sliding incentive scale (waiver or reimbursement) tied to the percentage of total project units reserved as workforce housing, rather than fixed absolute thresholds that could penalize small projects. Members suggested modeling examples (for small and large projects) using Prescott fee schedules so the committee can see actual dollar impacts.

- Bonding and financial assurances: Multiple members and the council liaison, Connie (Council liaison), pressed for completion bonds or other financial assurances when the city provides up-front incentives. Connie said she supported “an additional bond, basically as a guarantee of completion.” Staff noted the city’s existing general engineering standards require bonding for public infrastructure and said staff will analyze whether additional bonding or escrow requirements are needed when incentives are provided.

- Affordability term and clawback: The committee debated minimum time periods for affordability. A number of members expressed support for a minimum-term approach (one member proposed 20 years as a starting point), while staff recommended leaving the term flexible to be set in project-specific development agreements and consistent with funding sources (for example LIHTC or other restricted programs). Staff also agreed to research clawback/enforcement examples and deed-restriction approaches so the committee can evaluate mechanisms that “run with the land.”

- Implementation and staffing: The committee discussed whether dedicated, full-time staff or a consultant is the best near-term approach. Staff reported an RFP review is underway to select a consulting firm to produce a housing needs assessment, a housing plan and an implementation plan. The committee requested that staff bring back a proposed process that details which department reviews eligibility, how applications are routed, and whether a third party could help qualify applicants.

Requests to staff and next steps

- Convert Flagstaff sample charts and the draft “fee eligibility” table into Prescott-specific dollar examples and present at the next meeting. - Provide sample project scenarios (small and large developments) showing how a sliding-scale waiver or reimbursement would affect fees in actual dollars. - Research legal and administrative enforcement tools (deed restrictions, recorded covenants, clawback provisions, and examples of completion bonds) and provide template language for development agreements and monitoring. - Report back on the Home of My Own program MOU with Yavapai County and steps required for Prescott to join; staff said the county is awaiting an MOU from the city. - Arrange contact with Flagstaff staff (committee volunteer offered to visit) and provide findings at the next meeting.

Votes at a glance

- Approval of minutes: The committee approved the minutes from the Dec. 4 Workforce Housing Committee meeting. Motion carried; outcome: approved.

No policy items were formally adopted at this meeting. The committee repeatedly emphasized that the draft will be revised and returned to the committee and later to the City Council study session for review prior to final adoption.

Speakers quoted in this article are limited to those who spoke on the record during the committee discussion and appear in the attendee list below.