Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prescott committee weighs WaterSense incentives, pilot water allocations for workforce housing
Summary
The Workforce Housing Committee reviewed a draft amendment to the City of Prescott water policy that would tie EPA WaterSense standards and fee reductions to workforce‑housing projects, debated a proposed 15–20 acre‑foot pilot allocation, and pressed staff for cost, enforcement and monitoring details.
The City of Prescott Workforce Housing Committee on Dec. 4 reviewed a draft amendment that would make water-related incentives—including fee reductions and streamlined administrative approvals—available to developers of workforce housing that meet specified criteria and WaterSense standards.
Tracy Beasley, introduced to the committee as a new water resource project manager in the City of Prescott, described the document as a concept draft that relies on the EPA’s WaterSense for Homes program. “We are a WaterSense partner with the EPA,” Beasley said, and staff are in early discussions with the EPA and regional certifiers to understand certification and cost implications.
Committee members pressed staff for clarifications on several practical points. Members asked whether eligibility ranges in the draft matched the committee’s established 60–120% area median income band; staff confirmed the draft numbers are proposals and said they can be changed to align with the committee’s AMI thresholds. Members also sought estimates of any additional construction or certification costs and whether the WaterSense certification process would impose inspections or documentation on builders; Beasley said staff will gather those details after a scheduled call with the EPA.
On the amount of water to make available as an incentive, staff floated a pilot allocation of roughly 15–20 acre‑feet to be monitored in the first one to two years. Chelsea Walton, Community Development Director, briefed the committee on current short‑term allocations: the nonresidential “bucket” was shown as 25 acre‑feet and the residential bucket as 50 acre‑feet for the July–December period. Walton read current approvals of about 11.49 acre‑feet for residential projects and roughly 4.27 acre‑feet for nonresidential projects, leaving about 19 and 20.73 acre‑feet remaining in those buckets on the city’s tracking sheet.
Committee discussion focused on whether a 20 acre‑foot pilot would provide a meaningful incentive. One member said 20 acre‑feet felt small relative to the city’s housing needs and suggested the committee consider larger allocations or alternative ways to guarantee water for qualifying projects. Staff also described options for administrative approval thresholds and for routing larger requests to the Water Issue Subcommittee (WIS).
Enforcement and durability of workforce housing covenants were recurring concerns. A public commenter, Howard, told the committee that “the amount of water that the city’s allocated for both residential and commercial is really not an incentive” unless that workforce bucket is constrained, and he urged deed restrictions or other enforceable covenants to ensure units remain workforce housing over time. Committee members agreed that any meaningful incentive should carry verification and enforcement requirements and suggested staff add clear post‑project monitoring and covenant language to the draft.
Staff and members also discussed other incentives—density bonuses, parking reductions and land discounts—citing a one‑page Mesquite, Nevada example as a possible model for a simpler developer checklist. Members urged consistency across the policy’s various percentage thresholds (examples including 10%, 20%, 25% and sliding‑scale reductions) and recommended linking income targets to HUD AMI guidance rather than fixed dollar figures that can become stale.
Next steps: staff said they will gather cost estimates and certification process details from the EPA, confirm historic acre‑feet usage trends from public works data, add enforcement language options (including potential deed restrictions or developer agreements), and circulate an editable draft so committee members can submit consolidated edits. The committee also directed staff to consider pilot parameters and monitoring metrics and return with examples and options for fee reductions and administrative thresholds.
Procedural note: the committee approved the minutes from its Nov. 6, 2024 meeting by voice vote at the start of the Dec. 4 session; individual votes were not recorded in the transcript. The meeting adjourned at 11:31 a.m.
