Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workforce Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prescott council narrows workforce‑housing priorities, directs consultant to spend up to $75,000
Summary
After debate over scope and costs, Prescott council directed staff to use up to the $75,000 grant to advance three focused workforce‑housing initiatives — a decision framework, a path to homeownership (including potential land‑trust or rehab tools) and employee housing resources — and asked the committee for one final meeting before implementation.
Prescott City Council on March 24 narrowed the initial implementation plan for workforce housing and instructed staff to use up to the $75,000 grant to develop a limited set of initiatives.
Amber Fraser, management analyst and staff liaison for the workforce housing committee, told the council the consultant quoted roughly $41,000 to begin work on initiatives 4, 5 and 7 and that initiatives 1 and 3 were already covered under the consultant contract. Councilors debated whether to pursue code amendments or keep changes at a policy level and how much city staff time implementation would require.
The move matters because the consultant’s recommendations include regulatory tools that would change how housing development is reviewed and incentivized in the city. Councilman Patrick Grady noted the council had previously voted 4–3 to adopt the implementation plan and said the strategic plan includes workforce housing, arguing for targeted consultant work: “We voted 4 to 3. We had a majority vote that said we’re adopting the implementation plan,” he said.
Opponents warned the work risked creating an expensive, city‑run housing program. Councilman Gamboge argued the consultant hadn’t tailored recommendations to Prescott’s circumstances and said staff should not commit more funds until the analysis was more robust: “I can’t count the number of times where I’ve said this needs to be a more robust proposal,” he said.
City Manager (participating) proposed a narrower path: begin with (1) a decision framework and limited Land Development Code work to give staff authority and clarity, (2) a “path to homeownership” approach that could include community land trusts, home‑rehab programs or down‑payment assistance, and (3) housing resources for city employees. He framed those three as fiscally cautious ways to make progress without creating a new city department.
After discussion, council settled on directing the consultant and staff to prioritize initiative 1 (framework), initiative 4 (refocused toward paths to homeownership, possibly combined with initiative 5), and initiative 7 (employee housing supports), and to spend no more than the allocated $75,000. Amber Fraser said staff would return with next steps and that the workforce housing committee would hold one final meeting to provide feedback before standing down.
The direction is procedural: the council did not adopt code changes at the meeting and did not vote on specific ordinances. The council’s guidance narrows the consultant’s scope and preserves council control over any later code amendments or funding commitments.
