Prescott Valley begins consolidated planning for CDBG funds as housing study finds affordability gap

Prescott Valley — Town staff and two consulting teams on April 3 briefed the Town Council on the Community Development Block Grant program and on a housing needs assessment that will feed the town’s first consolidated plan and annual action plan required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The town has contracted with TDA Consulting to complete its consolidated plan and expects to receive about $294,000 annually if and when HUD issues final allocations, Tracy Lerer, deputy director for Neighborhood Services, told the council. The consolidated plan (a five‑year strategic plan HUD requires of entitlement communities) will guide annual CDBG allocations and must include public outreach and a needs assessment, Lerer said.

Why it matters: CDBG dollars are flexible but restricted to activities that primarily benefit low and moderate‑income people or areas. The consolidated plan and the housing needs assessment will determine which projects — infrastructure, housing rehabilitation, public services under the 15% cap, or other eligible activities — the town can fund with a relatively modest allocation.

TDA Consulting’s Jennifer (last name not given) walked council through CDBG basics and the consolidated‑planning schedule: HUD decides the national appropriation, applies a formula to allocate funds, and then communities submit plans and annual action plans for HUD review. Jennifer said communities must demonstrate that at least 70% of CDBG funds over an established period benefit low‑ and moderate‑income persons or areas and that public comment periods are required for both the consolidated plan and annual plans.

Separately, Elliott D. Pollack & Company presented a housing needs assessment conducted for Prescott Valley and the City of Prescott. Lead presenter Rick Merritt said the report is an assessment, not a strategy: it documents the market and gaps that strategists and council will later address. Key findings presented to council included: - Median age: about 47 years (higher than Arizona’s median of 39). - Single‑family home median value rose from about $316,000 in February 2019 to about $490,000 (a roughly 55% increase). - Rents: market‑rate apartment average about $1,800 per month; median rent examples for small units begin near $1,600. - Vacancy: some apartment projects were still leasing up; vacancy estimated around 20% where new complexes are still filling. - Households: the town’s median household income was presented as about $70,800; median renter income around $60,000. - Cost burden: roughly 42% of renter households pay more than 30% of income for housing; about 19% of households pay more than 50% of income for housing. - Pipeline: consultants reported nearly 800 multifamily units under construction, about 1,400 units approved (including a project then in referendum), and about 880 proposed — a potential increase of roughly 2,300 units (presenters described that as a 56% increase over current inventory). - Demand forecast: state projections cited by the consultant indicated many thousands of additional residents and a modeled housing demand through 2040 on the order of several thousand units.

Rick Merritt summarized affordability standards used in the assessment: “You want to make sure that your population is not paying more than 30% of their income towards housing,” he said, echoing HUD standards used to evaluate needs.

Council members asked for more concrete strategies. Several elected officials, including Councilman Williams, pressed staff and consultants on next steps and timelines for turning the assessment and community input into actionable recommendations. Stephanie Robinson (Neighborhood Services staff) told council that the housing assessment and the consolidated plan/annual action plan requirements are being coordinated so the town does not duplicate effort. Robinson said the town’s Arizona Department of Housing grant for an affordable housing plan leverages the same needs assessment work and that a separate consultant will craft strategies from the assessment data.

Timing and process: consultants and staff said they can publish draft plans for the required 30‑day public comment period before HUD posts the final dollar allocation, but they cannot submit final consolidated plans to HUD until allocations are posted and entered into HUD’s IDIS system. Lerer noted HUD can take up to 45 days to review submitted plans. Robinson reiterated an internal statutory deadline in August for plan submission but cautioned that HUD had not yet posted allocations at the time of the presentation.

Public engagement: Pollack reported robust outreach — nearly 800 survey responses and public meetings including Menti polling and two focus groups; presenters said housing ranked as the community’s top need in those responses. Pollack said survey respondents identified that the current market primarily serves retirees and seasonal residents while essential workers and low‑income households remain underserved.

What happens next: staff will continue data collection and targeted stakeholder interviews, finalize consolidated‑plan drafts, publish the documents for a 30‑day public comment period and then return to council with specific allocation recommendations and, later, strategy proposals developed by separate consultants. Council members were invited to individual briefings with consultants.

Ending note: presenters emphasized that the assessment is diagnostic, not prescriptive. Council will decide policy and funding priorities once the consolidated plan and a separate housing strategy are developed and available for public comment.