The Prescott Workforce Housing Committee presented a draft workforce-housing policy to the Prescott City Council at a study session on May 27, 2025, outlining incentives for developers, rental and homeownership tools, and accountability measures and asking the council for direction on next steps.

The committee’s draft “proposes a range of tools and strategies to address this complex issue,” Amber Fraser, staff liaison in the city manager’s office, told the council, asking members to provide comments or redlines for the committee to consider.

The council heard from Nicole Kennedy, chair of the Workforce Housing Committee, and committee member Randy Goodman, a developer and former firefighter, who framed the package around incentives that would lower developer costs and require long-term deed restrictions or agreements to preserve units as workforce housing.

“Guys, we have a crisis is what we have,” Randy Goodman said, describing hiring challenges in public safety and private employers; he told the council that at a recent meeting with the assistant police chief the city had 16 openings and four applicants. Goodman and other committee members urged expedited plan review, backloading or deferral of many front‑end fees, density bonuses, preapproved plans, and use of city‑owned sites as ways to make workforce projects financially feasible.

Kennedy described the committee’s outreach and eligibility framing: the committee has conducted stakeholder meetings and a town hall and recommends prioritizing full‑time workers in Yavapai County for incentives tied to projects inside the city. She described the draft policy as the product of nearly two years of work and asked the council for direction on elements to explore further or parts they might not support.

Committee proposals and examples in the presentation included:

- Expedited plan review and permitting priority for projects that commit a defined percentage of units to workforce housing, to reduce carrying costs for developers.

- Fee deferral or backloading (rather than permanent fee waivers) to lower front‑end expenses that add interest costs during construction, with the caveat that state rules can limit deferral of development impact fees.

- Density bonuses tied to explicit program criteria so applicants know eligibility up front, and preapproved workforce building plans to reduce review time and cost.

- Longer‑term affordability restrictions (the committee proposed holding developers accountable for 20–30 years via deed restrictions or covenants) and penalties for noncompliance.

- Using city‑owned property and public‑private partnerships to lower land costs, and expanding accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rental rules to increase supply.

Committee members and staff cited program examples and local efforts. Sandy (committee/staff) said the Yavapai County “Home of My Own” program began nearly three years ago, has permitted about 65 homes in the county, and that about 50 of those are built and occupied. The committee noted the program’s simplified, preapproved plans are offered without additional incentives currently.

Council members voiced broad support for the council to give direction and for further refinement. Mayor Goode spoke about the local economic need for essential workers to be able to live in Prescott, saying the community must “have housing that’s affordable for not only our primary first responders and our other essential workers.” Council members raised implementation questions about guaranteeing long‑term affordability, enforcement, and the scale of need: Howard Mechanic, a public commenter, told the council that five large nonprofit and public employers alone indicated a need for roughly 900 workforce units.

The committee asked the council for preferred next steps; Councilwoman Ferworth said she would prefer a face‑to‑face discussion and invited council members to send redlines to the committee. No formal motion or vote was taken; staff and the committee will incorporate council feedback and return with revisions.

Discussion versus direction versus decision: the study session produced detailed discussion and several staff/committee requests for council direction. The committee requested council feedback and offered to accept written redlines; Councilwoman Ferworth and other council members indicated they will meet with committee staff or submit comments. There was no formal council vote or adoption of policy at the meeting.

Next steps the committee and staff outlined include collecting council redlines, refining the draft policy (including program eligibility, percentage commitments, and enforcement mechanisms), and returning to the council for further direction. The committee identified staffing to enforce deed restrictions and monitor compliance as a key implementation requirement.

Accountability and scale concerns surfaced repeatedly: committee members said developers commonly leave after initial construction, so enforceable deed restrictions and a staff role in monitoring were proposed. Council members and public commenters warned that incentives alone might not bridge the financial gap on many projects without substantial capital subsidies. The committee emphasized a mix of approaches—rental, down payment assistance, ADUs, and partnerships —and asked the council to tell staff what combination of incentives and accountability it preferred.

The study session closed with the committee and staff taking council direction and preparing to revise the draft for future council consideration.