Subcommittee recommends city council approve Embry-Riddle water service for new student union
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
The City of Prescott water subcommittee voted to forward WSA 24-052, a water service application from ICON5 Architects on behalf of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University for a new student union, to the full council for approval. Staff estimated the project would require about 11.33 acre-feet per year including landscaping.
The City of Prescott Council Subcommittee on Water Issues on Jan. 7 recommended that the City Council approve WSA 24-052, a water service application filed by ICON5 Architects on behalf of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University for a proposed new student union building on the university campus.
Water Resources Services and Environmental Services Manager Bridal Reese told the subcommittee the demand analysis prepared by Dibble Engineering estimated a differential of 9 acre-feet per year for the new building and an additional 1.55 acres of landscaping. Using the Arizona Department of Water Resources planting guidance at 1.5 acre-feet per acre, Reese said the total projected demand for the project is 11.33 acre-feet per year.
Reese said the new student union would replace five existing campus buildings and that Embry-Riddle’s landscape architect intends to use the ADWR planting list for the landscaping plan. A university representative was present to answer questions, Reese said.
A subcommittee member asked whether the analysis separated water use of the old buildings; Reese said the consultants calculated a differential based on square footage and that the original buildings’ usage could be back-calculated from the engineer’s figures. An Embry-Riddle representative said the project consolidates existing student-union functions and estimated overall campus water use could be lower than the differential indicates because some uses will convert to office space.
There were no public comments. A motion to recommend forwarding WSA 24-052 to City Council for approval passed, as noted in the meeting record.
The subcommittee record shows the application was advanced to the Council for final action; the council’s decision and any permit conditions were not included in the Jan. 7 transcript.
