Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adus Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council deadlocks on ADU ordinance amid state preemption concern; submeter rule motion fails
Summary
Council considered an ordinance to allow long‑term rental accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and add ADU definitions to the land development code, but members raised state‑law preemption concerns. A proposed modification to require private submetering failed 3–4 and the council did not adopt the ordinance at the meeting.
The Prescott City Council considered ordinance 2025‑1881 on Jan. 28, a proposed Land Development Code update to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) — long‑term rental guest quarters — and to add associated definitions and standards. Staff recommended denial of the ordinance as drafted because recent state legislation has preempted several local controls and may be further revised by the legislature.
Chelsea (last name not specified in transcript), the city planner presenting the item, summarized that current state law prevents municipalities from prohibiting long‑term leasing of ADUs and from requiring additional parking or street improvements in some cases. Staff reported that those statutory preemptions make the city’s local regulatory options uncertain and that a broader, holistic Land Development Code overhaul (budgeted in a future fiscal year) may be a more appropriate place to craft durable ADU rules.
Councilmembers debated whether to adopt the ordinance as presented or deny it while awaiting clarification from the state legislature. Several members, including Councilmember Roosing and Councilmember Furworth, said the legislature appears to be revising perceived drafting errors and that a short delay could allow Prescott to adopt a clearer, locally tailored code. Councilmembers also raised concerns about ADUs in historic neighborhoods, the definition of “public street” versus alleyways, parking impacts on lots with narrow historic parcels, and the cost and timing of multiple code revisions.
Councilmember Roosing proposed adding a requirement that private submeters be installed for ADUs to encourage water conservation; staff and the city attorney said submeters are not expressly disallowed by statute but cautioned that the current statutory language is unsettled and that further changes at the state level could affect local requirements. A motion to adopt the ordinance with a modification requiring private submeters in all ADU permits failed on a 3‑4 vote (transcript records “Fails 34”). Council then discussed making a standalone motion to require submeters; the mayor and city attorney noted staff would need to draft implementing language and return with ordinance language at a future meeting. Council directed staff to prepare submeter language and return it for consideration in the next meeting rather than adopting the full ADU ordinance that night.
No final ordinance was adopted on Jan. 28. Councilmembers repeatedly emphasized balancing workforce‑housing benefits associated with ADUs against parking, historic‑area impacts and the limits imposed by pending state law changes. Staff said it would propose broader code updates in a future budget cycle and would prepare submeter wording for the council’s next meeting.
