The Preskitt Workforce Housing Committee voted 6-0 to recommend its draft workforce-housing policy to the city council, with staff directed to deliver the revised document to council for a study session in December or earlier if scheduling allows. The committee’s motion to forward the document followed two years of drafting and multiple revisions.

The committee’s recommendation advances a policy package that expands options for developers to support affordable units, including density bonuses tied to city goals and neighborhood compatibility, the possibility to pay all or a portion of impact fees, and phased inclusion requirements that encourage an equal percentage of workforce units in each phase of a project. The draft also says that if fee deferrals are used, any associated incentives would be deferred until the final phase is permitted and that quality standards must meet adopted building codes and other applicable city requirements.

Committee staff member Amber, acting as the meeting facilitator, described the procedural options before the committee: “You can submit it as a draft policy, or you can vote to recommend the policy with the edits that we just reviewed.” Amber told members that sending the document as a recommendation could speed council consideration but might limit the committee’s control over any subsequent edits.

Several committee members urged sending the draft forward. “We’ve been working on this for 2 and a half years. I’m kinda tired of beating a dead horse here,” said committee member Randy, arguing for moving the document along. Councilmember Connie urged the committee to “get it right the first time,” stressing that new council members will require education on technical details such as distinctions between mandatory and discretionary requirements.

Committee members debated two procedural tracks: (1) forward the document as a draft so the committee can incorporate council feedback later, or (2) recommend the policy now so council receives what the committee considers a near-final product. Members repeatedly noted the risk that a newly seated council, sworn in after mid-November, could substantially alter the document if the committee delayed submission. Amber said the city clerk has a December study session slot that allows two hours for a full presentation but that earlier placement could be possible if the mayor or two council members request it.

The committee also discussed presentation planning: possible presenters include Chair Kennedy (excused), Vice Chair Goodman, Member Mike Phan, and invited consultants from Pollock and Company, which is working with the city under an ADO grant. Michael McGinnis, community development staff, said Pollock and Company president Rick Merritt wants to meet committee members in small groups to discuss implementation. The committee debated whether to limit the number of presenters for continuity or show unity by having many members attend; they agreed to coordinate with staff and the city clerk on the final presentation format and attendees.

After discussion, a member moved to recommend the draft policy for council approval and a second was recorded; the committee voted in favor, and the motion passed 6 to 0. Staff will transmit the revised redline and a “tear sheet” of bullet points to council members and coordinate one-on-one briefings for new council members. Committee members acknowledged the council could still request edits and may not return the document to the committee before adopting any changes.

Implementation steps identified during the meeting include scheduling a council study session (currently targeted for December), inviting subject-matter speakers (consultants and, potentially, the fire or police chiefs) to explain operational impacts and public-safety considerations, and arranging follow-up meetings with city attorney Joe Young and staff to discuss impact fees in greater depth. The committee also plans to try again to schedule a presentation with Sandy and to continue coordination with Pollock and Company under the referenced grant.

No public commenters provided substantive comment during the meeting. The committee adjourned after confirming next steps and scheduling follow-ups.