Prescott council hears Pollock report on workforce housing; residents urge action for low‑income seniors
Loading...
Summary
Pollock and Company presented a workforce housing strategy funded in part by a $200,000 Arizona Department of Housing grant; council discussed voluntary incentives, land trusts and LDC changes and heard public pleas to protect low‑income seniors and support LIHTC applications.
Pollock and Company on Wednesday presented a workforce housing strategy to the City of Prescott Council, laying out a multi‑year plan of Land Development Code (LDC) amendments, voluntary incentives and potential land‑subsidy options aimed at expanding housing affordable to households earning roughly 60–120% of area median income.
Rick Merritt of Pollock and Company told the council the city retained the firm through a $200,000 grant from the Arizona Department of Housing to complete a housing needs assessment and develop a strategy. "The study we conducted looked at overall affordability in the community. We're now focusing on the workforce group, 60% of area median income and upwards," Merritt said, explaining the focus on workers such as teachers, police and firefighters who often earn too much to qualify for subsidized housing but cannot afford market units.
Why it matters: Prescott has a relatively old median household age and a low labor‑force participation rate; Merritt said those demographics reduce the local supply of workers and put pressure on employers and services. The consultant presented market findings showing single‑family prices up about 63% since 2019, 82% of sales above $400,000, market rents ranging from roughly $1,400 to more than $1,900 and apartment vacancy near 6%, which he described as a tight market.
The consultant emphasized two guiding documents: the city's workforce housing policy framework (which would define certification and review standards) and targeted LDC amendments to allow incentives through planned area developments. Merritt described incentives in three buckets—land, soft costs (fee waivers or expedited review) and hard costs (parking reductions or tax reimbursements)—and presented pro‑forma scenarios. In one example, he said, a city land subsidy (illustrated in the presentation at roughly $1,000,000) materially narrowed the gap between developer returns and rents affordable to the target group.
Council members pushed for narrower near‑term priorities and more local data. Council discussion repeatedly urged focusing first on critical public‑safety and education occupations, and asked staff to report how many city employees live in Prescott to quantify retention benefits. Members also raised concerns about public buy‑in for using city funds to reimburse fees and about preserving Prescott's neighborhood character while pursuing denser housing types.
Public comment broadened the session's focus. Shay Richland, a resident, urged the council not to abandon low‑income seniors, saying in the assessment "single, elderly females renting and living alone on fixed income appear to have the greatest need and are at imminent risk of becoming homeless." Assisted‑living operator Susan Wilachowski described caregiver wages of about $38,000–$40,000 and warned that staff cannot afford local rents. Developer Chris Fergus (representing Westcap Development) asked the council to consider a written municipal commitment to $50,000 in fee relief to improve Prescott's competitiveness for Low‑Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) awards this year.
What the council will do next: No formal votes were taken at the study session. Councilmembers asked staff to return with more localized data, scenarios for targeted pilots (including infill and home‑ownership approaches), and options for partnering with nonprofits or forming a workforce housing trust. The mayor said the council would reconvene at 3:00 p.m. for the voting session; this study meeting was adjourned without action.
Details and caveats: The presentation used conservative population growth assumptions and excluded seasonal visitors from permanent population forecasts; Merritt said forecasts could be refined with city permitting and pipeline data. The consultant noted state law precludes mandatory inclusionary requirements, so incentives must remain voluntary. Several figures cited in the presentation and during public comment (rent ranges, vacancy rates, projected unit demand and the $200,000 ADOH grant) come from the Pollock report and related slides provided to council.
