Prescott approves 82-unit workforce housing development with 60-year affordability commitment
PRESCOTT, ARIZONA — March 24, 2026

Prescott approves 82-unit workforce housing development with 60-year affordability commitment

City council approved a 82-unit mixed-income workforce housing development by Woda Cooper with 60-year affordability commitment and narrowed workforce housing strategy initiatives to three focused areas pending consultant research on implementation models.

Prescott Council Approves 82-Unit Mixed-Income Housing Development, Curtails Workforce Housing Strategy to Three Focused Initiatives

In a special meeting convened to meet the developer's April 1 state funding deadline, the Prescott City Council voted 7-0 to approve a development agreement with Woda Cooper Development for Lake View Grove, an 82-unit mixed-income workforce housing community featuring rents as low as $500 monthly for one-bedroom units and a 60-year affordability covenant. The same session exposed significant fracture within council ranks over the city's broader workforce housing strategy, ultimately narrowing that effort to three policy initiatives rather than the consultant's originally recommended eight—and pointedly excluding Woda Cooper's own project-specific framework as the template for future city policy.

Woda Cooper Development Agreement

Timeline

Project Details

Development Agreement Amendments Approved

Council approved five amendments to the development agreement:

  1. Unit designation (Section 4.11 and Exhibit C): Include specific number of units at 30% AMI, 50% AMI, 70% AMI, and 80% AMI.
  2. Prior Development Agreement (2004): Amendment to eliminate the portion of the 2004 Lake View Plaza development agreement that encumbers a swath of the property; council clarified the DA does not affect the building itself, only common areas and parking.
  3. Median Income determination (Section 4.13): Include language specifying how median income is determined and the frequency and process for adjusting rent limits in line with HUD-administered income limits administered via third-party vendors (e.g., Novagraft), not consumer price index (CPI).
  4. Affordability period (Section 4.13 and Exhibit C): Change affordability commitment from 50 years to 60 years.
  5. Notice requirement: Add city attorney to notice provision for any notices required under the development agreement.

Key Speeches

"We are a completely vertically integrated developer, general contractor, and property manager…on the property management side we will be hiring somebody locally to serve as a property manager as well as a maintenance technician." — Omar Serie, Woda Cooper Development

"We are actually committing to 60 years of affordability. The 350 plus communities that we've developed, we all currently own and are still maintained as affordable communities." — Omar Serie, Woda Cooper Development

"This is what they do and um it's not costing the taxpayers anything here. Uh and like I said, we don't have to have a whole department to uh monitor it. And uh I just want to say thank you for uh coming to Prescott because as you said, you could have gone to many other places." — Mayor Cathey Rusing

"I noticed that Jim Garing doesn't even press his button request and you call on them and I press mine and wait forever." — Councilman Jay Ruby (humorous interruption)

Vote Breakdown

Support

Public speakers: 1 speaker in favor.

Leslie Conturas, regional development manager for Yavapai Plan (formerly Central Yavapai), spoke in support. She noted that Yavapai Plan has worked with Woda Cooper to ensure transit service within four miles of the development as required for the LIHTC application. Conturas stated: "We're just super proud about it and grateful to be part of it."

Council support themes:

Opposition

No public speakers opposed the project. No council member voted against it.

Outcome & Next Steps

Decision: Development agreement approved 7-0 with five amendments as specified by City Attorney (incorporation of unit counts, median income procedures, 60-year affordability language, removal of overlapping prior DA, and city attorney notice requirement).

Next steps:

Conditions: None explicitly imposed beyond the five amendments. The project qualifies for up to $50,000 in city fee waivers (impact, permit, etc.) at city discretion under the Arizona Department of Housing Qualified Allocation Plan (rural county rate); $100,000 below-market loan also available from city or other governmental sources if elected by council in future.

Contested Points & Clarifications

Workforce housing definition: Council and developer aligned on city definition of workforce housing as 60–120% AMI but clarified that all 82 units fall within 30–80% AMI, qualifying the entire project as affordable. Omar Serie emphasized that Woda Cooper's definition of workforce housing encompasses 30–120% AMI; the 18 units at 70–100% AMI specifically address the city's 60–120% definition, while the remaining 64 units (at 30%, 50%, and 70–80%) represent deeper affordability. This resolved public concern that fewer than 25% of units were truly workforce housing.

"Average income election": The Arizona Department of Housing required inclusion of 70% and 80% AMI units (beyond the initial 60% AMI target). Woda Cooper must document this "average income election" in the development agreement to acknowledge that the city accepts the state-mandated income mix. This does not bind the city to any future policy; it is project-specific.

Rent determination and adjustments: Jim Garing requested explicit language regarding how median income is determined and adjusted over time. Serie clarified that Woda Cooper follows HUD income limits administered by third-party vendors (e.g., Novagraft) and does not use CPI adjustments. Amendment #3 to the DA now mandates this language.

Tenant income increases: Omar Serie clarified that the federal LIHTC program does not prohibit tenants from earning more after initial qualification. Once income-qualified at lease-up, a tenant may remain indefinitely even if circumstances improve, provided they abide by lease terms. This design avoids displacement and aligns with the "gateway to homeownership" model Woda Cooper cited.

Utilities inclusion: Significant discussion centered on whether utilities are included. Woda Cooper confirmed: water, sewer, electricity, heating, air conditioning, cooling, and lighting are included in all quoted rents. Not included: Wi-Fi and trash (nominal fee). Cathey Rusing noted this was "wonderful advantage to the community."

Property tax treatment: Unlike many subsidized housing projects, Woda Cooper commits to paying 100% property taxes assessed by Yavapai County Assessor. No exemption requested. Lois Fruhwirth noted: "We didn't have to hire anybody…to pass this. It's not going to cost the taxpayers anything, but it'll be a wonderful advantage to the community."

Overlapping 2004 Development Agreement: The Lake View Plaza DA (2004) encumbered a small "swoop" or "tail" of property within the project site. Chelsea Walton clarified that the building itself is not affected; the swoop covers only common area and parking. Amendment #2 requires the DA to be amended or eliminated for the portion overlapping the project property.

Workforce Housing Strategy Debate

The Woda Cooper approval was followed by and arguably vindicated Ted Gambogi broader criticism of the city's workforce housing strategy. The debate over that strategy—occupying the first major portion of the meeting—revealed profound disagreement over consultant recommendations, staff capacity, and the appropriate role of government in housing markets.

Background

In early 2026, the city engaged a consultant to develop a workforce housing strategy and implementation plan, which council narrowly approved (4-3) in February with direction to return for further discussion of implementation priorities. The consultant proposed eight initiatives ranging from land-development-code amendments to community land trust establishment to employee housing support. Staff distilled these into six initiatives deemed most likely to garner council interest. Council then directed staff to return on March 24 with further guidance on which to pursue.

The Debate: Initiative-by-Initiative

Initiative 1 (Land Development Code amendments): Multiple council members, particularly Councilwoman Mary Frederickson and Lois Fruhwirth, expressed concern about "inevitability momentum"—the risk that once LDC amendments are drafted, they would move forward regardless of changed circumstances or disagreement. Mary Frederickson stated: "I'm concerned that the amount of time that the staff and the consultant would take to offer up amendments to the land development code…My concern is um inevitability momentum. That is we've already gone through the land development code and we've made all these changes and so that's just going to happen." Patrick Grady and Lois Fruhwirth countered that LDC changes are low-cost (no direct city funding, only regulatory procedure changes) and necessary for frameworks like the Woda Cooper model to be replicated. Cathey Rusing ultimately agreed: Initiative 1 should proceed to provide a clear policy framework so future projects arrive with criteria pre-established rather than requiring study sessions.

Initiative 4 (Community land trust/paths to homeownership): Debate centered on whether the consultant's recommendation to establish a city-run community land trust was appropriate or whether a request-for-qualifications (RFQ) approach—identifying third-party CLTs to partner with—was preferable. Patrick Grady advocated for CLT exploration as a homeownership tool. Ted Gambogi dismissed CLTs as "very expensive" and subject to ongoing "care and feeding" costs. Lois Fruhwirth clarified that the broader initiative should be "single family housing options" and tools to achieve it, not CLT alone. The city manager's final recommendation reframed Initiative 4 as "paths to homeownership" (including land trust, rehab programs, financial models, infill incentive districts, etc.) rather than mandating CLT.

Initiative 7 (Employee housing): Jay Ruby argued for prioritizing resources for city employee housing, noting that the city had "lost four policemen to the tribe" due to inability to afford Prescott housing. However, the grant (from the state) requires general community benefit, not employee-only programs. Thus, Initiative 7 cannot be pursued in isolation; it must pair with another initiative. Multiple council members supported including employee housing but as a component of broader homeownership efforts.

Initiative 9 (Staff resources, implementation monitoring): Ted Gambogi and the mayor both flagged concerns about Initiative 9, which outlined an extensive city staff role in monitoring, coordinating, and policing developer compliance with affordability and tenant criteria. Cathey Rusing stated: "I think it'll just uh be very difficult for us to manage and I think it'll open us up to um uh possible uh legal issues." She cited concern about creating a "HUD housing program" that would drain general-fund resources. Ted Gambogi quoted the plan: "providing developer and stakeholder support monitoring the progress of housing projects coordinating with developers or owners on qualifying applicants for housing units ensuring developer accountability and I mean It's total policing and it's this is like some HUD develop HUD housing program that we're trying to implement."

The Divide: Cost, Consultant Direction, Economic Development

The debate exposed a fundamental philosophical split:

Gambogi's critique: He argued that the consultant was "a one-trick pony" fixated on building new housing on taxpayer subsidy rather than addressing root causes: low wages (a compensation issue, not a housing issue) and weak economic development. He cited the example of Yavapai College's rehabilitation of Senator Highway workforce housing at $160 per square foot vs. consultant proposals at $300+ per square foot. He also noted that current pipeline (1,831 units) nearly meets stated need (2,200 units by 2028), making a $75,000 consultant outlay premature. Ted Gambogi stated: "I support workforce housing, but I don't support this being a one-trick pony…There's no discussion of compensation…We're not discussed financing…all this what I see is on taxpayer dime…The marketplace is what decides and we need to rely more in the marketplace. Focus on developing the economy."

Lois Fruhwirth evolving skepticism: Lois Fruhwirth initially voted for the implementation plan but by March 24 expressed "confusion" stemming from changing initiative titles and scope over multiple meetings. She stated: "eight presentations over the last two years, initiatives titles change. And so, what I was aligned to a few months ago, I may not be aligned to now because the names changed the context changed." She pledged support for "single family home ownership" tools but resisted spending "thousands of hours" and grant dollars on everchanging definitions.

Grady's counter: Patrick Grady defended the consultant and the plan as already an adopted priority (voted 4-3 in February). He noted: "other cities like Sedona, Cottonwood, Flagstaff probably other areas that I haven't researched any further um that provide access to non city funding that clearly we don't do very much of, particularly in the housing sector…through charitable and philanthropic resources." He urged respect for peer-city models and willingness to do research to understand their success.

Ruby's middle ground: Jay Ruby reframed the debate: "When I look at this, I don't think we're committing to any of these options. What we're asking is a consultant to refine them and give us guidance on how to implement them." He noted the grant ($75,000) is external funding, not a burden on general fund, and that refining options should not trigger LDC adoption—only provide information for future council decisions.

Cathey Rusing pragmatism: The mayor emphasized staff capacity constraints and competing budget priorities, particularly the city's parallel economic development initiative. She stated: "we're going to have some pretty big challenges ahead of us in the next few weeks going through the budget and staffing…I don't want to say we're going to provide additional resources um until we can get through the budget and know that we can provide all the current services and resources that our constituents are expecting today."

Public Comment

Ken Fidik, a taxpayer and frequent commenter, sided broadly with skeptics. He urged the city to focus resources on economic development and direct assistance (relocation packages, down-payment assistance, higher wages) rather than building housing or establishing CLTs. He also criticized consultant recommendations as disconnected from taxpayer priorities and called for either hiring a new consultant with better fiscal grounding or abandoning the effort. Fidik stated: "If that's the consultant you have now, fine. If you need to get a different consultant, then get the right consultant to give you the specifics that you need."

Final Direction on Workforce Housing Strategy

After two hours of debate, City Manager Don (surname not stated in transcript) proposed a compromise: three initiatives, $75,000 cap, no further expansion.

Grant allocation: The $75,000 grant (from Arizona Department of Housing) can be spent on consultant work to flesh out these three initiatives. Once exhausted, no further spending unless council explicitly re-approves.

Consultant feedback: The city attorney will check whether the grant terms allow use of remaining funds (after Initiatives 4, 5, 7 at ~$41,000) to fund additional research on models and resources—as Patrick Grady and Jay Ruby requested. If permissible, the remaining ~$34,000 could support research on successful third-party partnerships, financing mechanisms, and cost-effective delivery models in peer cities (Flagstaff, Sedona, Cottonwood).

LDC amendments: No LDC amendments will be drafted until council consensus exists on which initiatives to pursue. Initiative 1 (framework) will inform future amendment decisions but does not trigger automatic code changes.

Workforce Housing Committee: The committee, which has met for two-and-a-half years with declining participation (poll showed only 2 of 7 members responded), will hold one final meeting in April for closure, discussion of narrowed initiatives, and feedback on process. The committee will then disband. Amber Fraser, management analyst, will bring a resolution to council formalizing the disbanding.

Vietnam War Veterans Day Proclamation (Concurrent Agenda Item)

Early in the meeting, the council approved a proclamation honoring National Vietnam War Veterans Day (March 29, 2026). Councilman Jim Garing, a Vietnam combat veteran, read the proclamation. Multiple Vietnam veteran council members—Jim Garing, Ted Gambogi, and others—shared personal stories of discrimination upon returning home in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Jim Garing recounted an incident in which a woman struck him with a sign reading "baby killer" as he disembarked from a military bus. Ted Gambogi described being assaulted with a cup of coffee by a civilian in San Diego while in dress blues. Both praised the formal recognition created by President Donald Trump's March 28, 2017 federal statute establishing the day. The proclamation passed with a photo ceremony; the council also invited the public to a wreath-laying ceremony at the Courthouse Plaza (west side Vietnam War Veterans Memorial) on Sunday, March 29, 2026, at noon.

Duration & Meeting Structure

Context: Why This Matters

Prescott's Workforce Housing Ambition vs. Reality

Prescott, like many Arizona communities, faces a documented gap between available affordable rental housing and the earning capacity of service workers, healthcare workers, and other essential laborers. The city's 2023 resident survey identified housing affordability and economic development as critical community needs. In response, council commissioned a comprehensive workforce housing strategy (2023–2026), narrowly adopted it in February 2026 despite mixed support, and then spent six weeks recalibrating expectations.

The Woda Cooper project arrived as a case study in market-driven workforce housing: a vertically integrated developer committing to 60-year affordability, competitive rents, no tax breaks, full property taxes, and comprehensive tenant protections—without any city subsidy or staff overhead. Cathey Rusing, Patrick Grady, and others, Woda Cooper vindicated market-based solutions and raised the bar for consultant recommendations that rely on public funding and city capacity.

Ted Gambogi and fiscal conservatives, Woda Cooper demonstrated that better economic development outcomes—higher wages, employer relocation packages, improved job markets—address housing affordability more directly than supply-side interventions. Gambogi's argument: pay workers more, they buy or rent market-rate housing without subsidy; focus city resources on economic competitiveness, not housing administration.

Budget Pressures and Staffing Constraints

The debate also reflected looming budget pressures. Cathey Rusing alluded to "pretty big challenges ahead of us in the next few weeks going through the budget and staffing" and concern that new housing initiatives would consume resources needed for existing services. This suggests Prescott, like many Arizona cities post-2024, faces fiscal headwinds (state budget cuts, wage pressures from recent teacher/public-safety settlements, or capital needs) that make new discretionary spending unappealing absent compelling ROI.

Consultant Credibility

A secondary but notable theme: skepticism about the consultant's relevance. Ted Gambogi and others questioned whether a consultant specializing in real-estate development and HUD programs could offer strategies tailored to Prescott's smaller, retiree-heavy demographic, lower wage base, and volunteer-averse culture. The shifting initiative names across meetings also eroded confidence; council members noted they could not reliably track what they had voted for because definitions changed. This may explain why only 2 of 7 workforce housing committee members responded to a poll—burnout from constantly reframed work.

State and Federal Funding Constraints

The Woda Cooper project benefited from the federal LIHTC program and (likely) the state's low-income housing tax credit allocation. The $75,000 grant funding the workforce housing strategy also derives from the state (Arizona Department of Housing). This federal-state funding envelope both enables and constrains local options: Woda Cooper must comply with HUD income-mixing rules and state QAP requirements, limiting its flexibility; Prescott's strategy consultant must design interventions that align with state grant terms. Thus, "free money" is not entirely free—it comes with conditions.

Outcome Summary

Woda Cooper Development: Approved 7-0. Five amendments incorporating unit-count specificity, 60-year affordability language, median income adjustment procedures, and removal of overlapping prior DA encumbrance. No taxpayer subsidy required; developer eligible for up to $50,000 in fee waivers and $100,000 below-market loan at city discretion, but these are optional supports, not obligations.

Workforce Housing Strategy: Narrowed to three initiatives (framework, homeownership pathways, employee housing consideration) with $75,000 grant spending cap. Consultant directed to flesh out models and research peer-city approaches; LDC amendments deferred pending clearer council consensus. Workforce Housing Committee to hold one final April meeting and then disband. City manager to explore whether grant terms allow expanded research on cost-effective delivery and third-party partnerships.

Next Steps: Woda Cooper submits application to Arizona Department of Housing by April 1, 2026. Prescott City Attorney to finalize five-amendment DA and related documents. Workforce housing committee meets in April; staff reports back to council on consultant research findings and narrowed implementation direction in coming months. Economic development initiative (mentioned by Cathey Rusing as parallel priority) to continue independent of housing strategy.