Extracted text (via textutil)
35760 characters
Minutes Regular City Council Meeting City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona City Council Chambers, Yuma City Hall One City Plaza, Yuma, Arizona February 18, 2026 5:30 p.m. Call to Order Mayor Nicholls called the City Council meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. Invocation/Pledge Anna Vakil, Local Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’i’s of Yuma, gave the invocation. John Louser, Fire Chief, led the City Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. Final Call Mayor Nicholls made a final call for the submission of Speaker Request Forms for agenda related items from members of the audience. Roll Call Councilmembers Present: Martinez, Morris, McClendon, Smith, Watts, and Mayor Nicholls Councilmembers Absent: Morales Staffmembers Present: Acting City Administrator, John D. Simonton Deputy City Attorney, Rodney Short Director of Engineering, Dave Wostenberg Director of Community Development, Alyssa Linville Assistant Director of Planning, Jennifer Albers Principal Planner, Erika Peterson Various Department Heads or their representative City Attorney, Richard W. Files City Clerk, Lynda L. Bushong • Motion Consent Agenda Motion Consent Item C.2 – Contract Award: Professional Engineering Services (On-Call) (Award a one-year contract with the option to renew for four additional one-year periods, one period at a time, depending on the appropriation of funds and satisfactory performance, for Professional Engineering Services on a Delivery Order basis to the following eight firms: Core Engineering Group, PLLC, Yuma, Arizona; Dahl, Robins & Associates, Inc. Yuma, Arizona; Entellus, Inc., Phoenix, Arizona; Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Phoenix, Arizona; Nicklaus Engineering, Inc, Yuma, Arizona; Psomas, Tucson, Arizona; Stanley Consultants, Inc., Phoenix, Arizona; Wilson and Company, Inc. Engineers & Architects, Phoenix, Arizona) (RFQ-26-110) (Eng/Purch) Mayor Nicholls declared a conflict of interest on Motion Consent Agenda Item C.2 due to his firm’s involvement in the contract, turned the meeting over to Deputy Mayor McClendon, and left the dais. Discussion • When a project can be completed by more than one firm, assignments are rotated based on the consultant list. Each team maintains its own roster of subconsultants, and most subconsultants can perform a wide range of tasks. (Smith/Wostenberg) • The budget for this contract is based on estimates from prior project costs and the types of projects included in this award. The team reviewed several upcoming design projects to determine which tasks may be issued to the consultants under this contract. (Martinez/Wostenberg) • City Engineers are called for various road projects, including mill and overlay work, to complete required survey and subsurface investigations. They are also used for signal projects and any work involving American Disability Act (ADA) ramps or accessibility. Although several engineers are on staff, current workloads limit their availability for these tasks. (Martinez/Wostenberg) Motion (Morris/Smith ): To approve Motion Consent Item C.2 as recommended. Voice vote: approved 5-0-1, Mayor Nicholls abstaining due to conflict of interest. Mayor Nicholls returned to the dais. Motion (Morris/McClendon): To approve the Motion Consent Agenda as recommended, with the exception of Item C.2 which was approved through a previous vote. Voice vote: approved 6-0. A. Approval of minutes of the following City Council meeting(s): Regular Council Worksession Minutes January 6, 2026 B. Executive Session Executive Sessions may be held at the next regularly scheduled Special Worksession, Regular Worksession and City Council Meeting for personnel, legal, litigation and real estate matters pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.03 Section A (1), (3), (4), and (7). (City Atty) C. Approval of Staff Recommendations • Authorize the award of a construction services contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, DPE Construction, Inc., Yuma, Arizona for the 32nd Street Multi-Use Pathway between Avenue B and the East Main Canal in the amount of $687,500.00. (RFB-25-076) (Eng/Purch) • Pulled for separate consideration; see above. • Authorize the use of the cooperative purchase agreement initiated through Mohave County for the purchase of street sweeper parts and supplies with United Rotary, Phoenix, Arizona, for a one-year term with the option to renew for four additional one-year periods, at an estimated annual expenditure of $50,000.00. (CPA-26-229) (Pub Wrks/Purch) • Authorize the purchase and delivery of water treatment chemicals from Hill Brothers, Phoenix, Arizona; Landmark Aquatic Services, Scottdale, Arizona; Polydyne, Riceboro, Georgia; PVS DX, Inc., Dallas, Texas; Thatcher Co.; Buckeye, Arizona, utilizing a Cooperative Purchase Agreement from the City of Chandler. This contract is valid for one year with the option to renew for four additional one-year periods, one period at a time, depending on the appropriation of funds and satisfactory performance on an as needed basis, at a total estimated annual expenditure of $3,714,078.00. (CPA-25-344) (Util/Purch) • Resolution Consent Agenda Resolution R2026-010 – Post-2026 Guidelines for the Operation of the Colorado River – City of Yuma City Council Comments to Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Direct and authorize comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Post-2026 Guidelines for the Operation of the Colorado River on the Federal Register) (Admn) Motion (Smith/Watts): To amend Resolution R2026-010 as follows: • Under “Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved”, renumber Section #5 to be #6, and add a new Section 5 to read: 5 Because the Basin stakeholders failed to reach agreement by the February 14, 2026 deadline and the Federal Bureau of Reclamation will move forward with creating Post-2026 Operational Guidelines, the City Council directs staff to prepare a comment letter for Mayor and City Council signature on the Post-2026 Operational Guidelines for inclusion in the official record of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The letter shall request the following: • Risk of Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS): It should be recognized that ICS increases delivery risk to the Colorado River system and shifts that risk onto senior priority users and direct diversion communities, such as the City of Yuma. ICS deliveries accelerate the decline of Lake Mead and raise the probability of deeper shortages. In practice, ICS has evolved into a fragile, house-of-cards construct in which users claim ICS credits not from water conserved within their own entitlement, but from water conserved by other entitlement holders and subsequently only partially swept. ICS has outlived its usefulness and should be eliminated in the Post-2026 Guidelines. • Restrictions on Water Transfers: No Colorado River water transfers from on-Colorado River entitlement holders shall occur until Lake Mead and Lake Powell reach “Normal” operating levels sufficient to ensure safe and reliable water supplies and hydroelectric power generation. If such transfers are approved, no Colorado River water shall be transferred during any declared Tier shortage or drought condition on the Colorado River. • Recognition of Conservation Efforts: Recognition of the City of Yuma’s conservation programs, and those of similarly situated communities, that divert less than their full Colorado River entitlement and leave a portion of their allocation in the River system for the benefit of River health. Any required shortages should be calculated from entitlement amounts rather than from consumptive use that has already been reduced through successful conservation measures. • Recognition of the Significance of Consumptive Use and Return Flow Credits: Recognition of the City of Yuma’s longstanding practice of returning treated wastewater to the Colorado River, that the water returned to the Colorado River provides a measurable benefited to the River system, and there should be explicit notations in the Final Environmental Impact Statement that continuation of return flow credits will be applied towards the City’s consumptive use. • Law of the River, Priority-Based Allocations, and Water Rights: Recognition and protection of the priority system and water rights of on-River users, including the City of Yuma, for whom the Colorado River serves as the sole municipal water supply, with the understanding that pro-rata reductions should be used only under extreme system conditions necessary to maintain system operations and not as a replacement for the established priority framework. Voice vote: approved 6-0 Motion (Smith/Watts): To adopt Resolution R2026-010 as amended. Bushong displayed the following title(s): Resolution R2026-010 A resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, regarding the Post-2026 Operational Guidelines for the Colorado River System and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement issued by the United States Bureau of Reclamation (directing staff to actively engage in the Federal NEPA process and submit formal comments on the draft EIS) (Admn) Roll call vote: adopted 6-0. • Adoption of Ordinances Consent Agenda Ordinance O2026-006 – Approve the Housing Authority of the City of Yuma (HACY) Acquisition, Development and Operation of an Affordable Housing Apartment Complex, Tentatively known as Vista Apartments (Authorize the Housing Authority of the City of Yuma (HACY) to: (1) undertake acquisition and ownership of the former Vista Alternative High School site (Property), subject to an affordable housing covenant; (2) form a project-based 501(c)(3) non-profit entity (HACY 501(c)(3) Non-Profit) which, together with the Arizona Housing Development Corporation (AHDC) will form a managing member entity which will then form an ownership entity for the apartments (Ownership Entity); (3) enter into an option for a long-term ground lease for the Property between HACY as the lessor and Ownership Entity as the lessee and should the Ownership Entity exercise the option, to enter into a long term ground lease; and (4) enter into a Development Consulting Agreement with Gorman & Company through the Ownership Entity, to facilitate development of the Vista Apartments as a proposed three phase, 200-unit, low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) project (Project). (Cmty Dev/Eco Dev) Speakers The following speakers voiced opposition to the HACY affordable housing project, citing concerns about increased traffic, crime, and privacy impacts from the proposed two‑story complex: • Carol Brooks, City resident • James Huber, City resident • George Oliver, City resident • Jackie Ruby, City resident • Maria Bustillos Garcia, City resident Discussion • Zoning of the subject property is R-3 High Density Residential; this use is allowed without a rezone. (Mayor Nicholls/Linville) • The City Administrator will confirm whether the flooding area is within the Smucker Park vicinity and will consult with the Police Chief on increasing traffic enforcement and review current practices with the Traffic Engineers due to ongoing traffic impacts. Additional traffic control is needed during parade events, and these matters require immediate attention. Staff will also contact the School District regarding concerns with school bus operations. (Mayor Nicholls) • Yuma County is currently revising the updated drainage study with the modifications done to the Smucker Basin, which will allow confirmation of whether the neighborhood falls within the same flooding area. (Simonton/Mayor Nicholls) • Because the project does not require rezoning, no public notifications were issued regarding the development of the affordable housing complex in the vicinity. (Mayor Nicholls/Files/Linville) • The action tonight is not to approve the project. It is only to give HACY permission to set up the entities that will manage and develop the project. (Mayor Nicholls) • The City of Yuma has requirements for separation when R-3 High Density Residential is adjacent to single family zoning. A forty foot separation is required between a two story building and a single family zoning district. (Mayor Nicholls/Linville) • If the total number of cars entering and leaving the property exceeds 100 vehicle trips during peak hours, a traffic study will be required. At that time, issues such as tight curves or on‑street parking can be reviewed and addressed as well. (Mayor Nicholls/Wostenberg) • More information is needed on the traffic study, the two story component, and the agreement allowing up to 200 units. A fuller review of the area and possibly considering fewer units may be necessary. At this time, there is not enough clarity to move forward. (McClendon) • The situation being considered is a contractual matter with HACY rather than a rezoning case, since the property is already zoned R-3, allowing High Density Development without needing City Council approval. The item is before City Council due to other related issues. Concerns raised by neighbors have been noted, and questions remain about the property, including whether it falls within the Infill Overlay District and whether onstreet parking would be permitted or if all parking must be contained on-site. (Morris) • The property will fall within the Infill Overlay District once the new neighborhood revitalization strategy area is finalized. While onstreet parking is allowed for small residential projects, that allowance applies only for up to three units. Multifamily developments beyond that must provide all required parking onsite. Current single family homes in the area are allowed to use onstreet parking. (Morris/Linville) • The adjacent properties to the east and south are zoned R16, Low Density Residential, which triggers the forty foot setback requirement, while the properties to the north and west are zoned R3 and do not require that separation. The maximum building height allowed in R3 zoning is fifty feet. Regarding flooding concerns, the development would be required to provide adequate onsite water retention to prevent runoff into the street. (Morris/Linville) • A similar multifamily project proposed by a private developer would not require City Council action and would proceed through the standard building review process. The permitted density for the R3 zoning district is 30 dwelling units per acre. (Morris/Linville) Motion (Mayor Nicholls/Smith): To recess to Executive Session. Voice vote: approved 6-0. The meeting recessed at 6:22 p.m. Mayor Nicholls reconvened the City Council meeting at 6:34 p.m. Discussion Continued • Michael Morrissey, Executive Director of HACY, describes the successful Mesa Heights Apartments project, built through a partnership between HACY and the Arizona Housing Development Corporation using tax credits. The project not only improved the neighborhood but also added a community resource center offering programs, shared spaces, and services. It also received a city beautification award seven years after completion. The new Vista Apartments project would follow a similar model, potentially in three phases of about 66–70 units each, depending on tax credit availability. There is a significant local need for affordable housing, the HACY waiting list has nearly 3,100 families, and many current renters are paying more than 30% of their income. HACY also faces challenges because many landlords have left the voucher program to pursue higher rents on the open market. The Vista project would provide affordable units supported by vouchers, include community resources, meet all zoning and development requirements, and maintain the same quality as past projects. Although notification letters were not mailed out, HACY is committed to holding community meetings, presenting designs, and addressing neighborhood concerns. The goal is to apply for funding by April 1, 2026, and help meet the urgent need for affordable housing in the community. The Vista Apartments’ community room and amenities would closely resemble those at Mesa Heights, including a similar outdoor play area and a small barbecue/ramada space. While rising material costs prevent replicating the exact design, the overall look and feel would be consistent with previous projects, referencing the Magnolia Gardens development as an example of the same style, twostory, townhousetype buildings. Earlier plans called for a commercial kitchen, a daycare center, and reserving 20 units for Yuma Union High School District employees, but after discussions, it was found the commercial kitchen was not needed since Mesa Heights’ kitchen can be used if necessary. Instead of a formal daycare center, after school programming for youth will be offered, which requires less space and avoids daycare specific liabilities. The partnership with the school district will still be honored by providing preferred housing for its employees. After school programs are open to all in the community. HACY partners with about two dozen service providers who offer programs such as nutrition support, food bank distributions, and free collegeaccredited courses for students, and they intend to continue offering these types of community services at the new development. Residents will undergo criminal background checks, landlord reference checks, and regular unit inspections to ensure well maintained housing. Crime in the Mesa Heights area has significantly improved since the housing project was built, despite initial negative assumptions about the residents. The Vista neighborhood is also a designated revitalization area with existing crime issues, Morrissey believes the development can help reduce crime and improve community conditions, just as it did in Mesa Heights. Concerns about the neighborhood layout are acknowledged. All required setbacks and improvements will be followed, and meetings with the development group, City staff, and the Fire Department have already taken place and nothing raised so far appears to be an issue that cannot be addressed. (Mayor Nicholls/Morrissey) • The initial step would be demolition of the existing building, which has become a frequent site of crime, graffiti, and transient activity. The property is already fenced, and contractors would be required to maintain the site and clean up after their work. Previous projects, including Mesa Heights and Magnolia Gardens, did not experience related issues, and maintaining site cleanliness and safety would remain a priority. (McClendon/Morrissey) • The application is moving quickly. Once more details are finalized, the team plans to meet with the community to share the project vision, timeline, and gather feedback. The goal is to be a good neighbor, build positive relationships, and address community concerns while working to provide much needed housing with the intent to deliver as much housing as possible. (McClendon/Morrissey) • The project team is still working out the details of possibly setting aside some units for Yuma Union High School District employees. It could make up about ten percent of the project, but funding rules may affect whether that can happen in the first phase. The final decision will depend on what works best for the district. Anyone who meets income requirements would be eligible for housing in the first phase. (McClendon/Morrissey) • If the application is submitted by April 1, 2026, to the Arizona Department of Housing tax credit program, and tax credits are awarded by June 1, 2026, construction would begin around April 2027. Phase Two would be requested at that time, with an estimated 18‑month cycle for each phase. Phase Three would be requested around April 2028, followed by another 18‑month period. The project would therefore take approximately three to four years to complete all three phases, allowing time between phases to make adjustments as needed. Each phase requires a separate funding application through the Arizona Department of Housing tax credit program. (McClendon/Morrissey) • The existing building will eventually be demolished, though demolition could be delayed if the Fire Department uses the structure for training. The property will remain fenced, with security lighting added as appropriate for nearby neighbors. After demolition, the site would be cleared and secured. Once the building is removed, there would be little reason for anyone to enter the property, as current trespassing is because of the building itself. (Watts/Morrissey) • The resource center will be constructed in Phase I. A site manager and maintenance technician will be onsite to help monitor the area, support residents, and ensure program activities are carried out. (Smith/Morrissey) • The program offers Family Self‑Sufficiency services, and about 20 percent of participating families typically enroll. A similar share is expected at the Vista Apartments, giving residents support to build skills, increase income, and work toward greater independence, including homeownership for some. The Mesa Heights area was noted as an example of how new housing and added resources can raise incomes and improve neighborhood conditions, leading parts of the area to no longer qualify as a revitalization zone. (Smith/Morrissey) • The Yuma Police Department (YPD) enforces laws and operates a Crime Free Housing Program. HACY has partnered with YPD over the years by providing substations, including locations in the Mesa Heights and Magnolia neighborhoods, and recently completed walkthroughs to ensure compliance with the Crime Free Housing Program requirements. This partnership has been effective in those areas, and a similar relationship is anticipated for the new project. If crime issues do not improve through housing development and resident programs, additional measures, such as enhanced security, may be considered, though that is not planned at this time. (Mayor Nicholls/Morrissey) • HACY actively monitors such issues through resident reports, police reports, and regular inspections. When concerns arise such as unauthorized occupants, noise complaints, or suspected criminal activity, tenants are called in for a meeting with staff to discuss the situation and determine whether support services are needed. Families are typically given an opportunity to correct the behavior, but if problems continue, the Housing Authority may remove the family from the unit. (Mayor Nicholls/Morrissey) • Most affordable housing residents are responsible community members and should not be categorized unfairly. The city has been actively addressing housing needs for several years, including participation in the Governor’s Housing and Resource Committee. A prior presentation showing more than 3,000 families lacking adequate housing was highlighted as a major concern. • The property is already zoned for apartments; the decision at hand is whether HACY should develop and manage it. Without HACY, the site could be developed by outside investors with less community connection, potentially leading to management and public safety issues. Continued engagement with neighborhood residents throughout the process is encouraged. (Mayor Nicholls) • The clear explanation of the project is appreciated and helped address concerns. After hearing about plans for stronger community engagement and the potential positive impact on the area, the decision is made to vote in support of the project. (McClendon) Motion (Morris/Watts): To adopt the Ordinances Consent Agenda as recommended. Bushong displayed the following title(s): Ordinance O2026-005 An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, declaring a certain parcel of real property, hereafter described, surplus for use by the City, vacating the surplus 30 foot right-of-way easement to the abutting property owner upon the recording of a quitclaim deed, and authorizing an exchange of the surplus 30 foot right-of-way for the underlying fee title to the 40 foot right-of-way described in this ordinance (authorizing vacation of the north half-width of 42nd Street right-of-way in exchange for fee title to the west half of the Avenue 4½ E. right-of-way with Cha Cha, LLC) (Eng) Ordinance O2026-006 An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, approving certain transactions in connection with the acquisition, development and operation of an affordable housing apartment rental complex tentatively known as Vista Apartments (by the Housing Authority of the City of Yuma for property located at 221 E. 26th Place) (Cmty Dev/Nbhd and Econ Dev) Roll call vote: adopted 6-0. • Introduction of Ordinances Ordinance O2026-003 – Rezoning of Property: Southeast Corner of Michigan Avenue and 32nd Street (Rezone approximately 12,000 square feet, from the General Commercial (B-2) District to the Recreation Vehicle Subdivision (RVS) District) (Cmty Dev/Cmty Plng) Motion (Smith/Watts): To continue Ordinance O2026-003 to a future agenda pursuant to the owners request. Voice vote: approved 6-0 Bushong displayed the following title(s): Ordinance O2026-007 An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, amending Chapter 154 of the Yuma City Code, rezoning certain property located in the Limited Commercial/Bed & Breakfast Overlay/Infill Overlay (B-1/BB/IO) District to the Medium Density Residential/Bed & Breakfast Overlay/Infill Overlay (R-2/BB/IO) District, and amending the zoning map to conform with the rezoning (for approximately .16 acres located at 831 S. 2nd Avenue) (Cmty Dev/Cmty Plng) Ordinance O2026-008 An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, amending Chapter 154 of the Yuma City Code, rezoning certain property located in the General Commercial/Infill Overlay (B-2/IO) District to the Medium Density Residential/Infill Overlay (R-2/IO) District, and amending the zoning map to conform with the rezoning (for .15 acres located at 273 S. 8th Avenue) (Cmty Dev/Cmty Plng) Ordinance O2026-010 An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, regarding the Post-2026 Operational Guidelines for the Colorado River System and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement issued by the United States Bureau of Reclamation (authorize an easement on City property at 6060 E. 36th Street to Arizona Public Service) (Eng) • Public Hearing and Related Items Resolution R2026-008 – Minor General Plan Amendment: Military Influence Area (Following a public hearing, approve the request to amend the City of Yuma General Plan to amend Map 2-4 to include the Influence Area for the Barry M. Goldwater Range and the Vicinity Boundary for the Marine Corps Air Station Yuma) (Cmty Dev/Cmty Plng) Mayor Nicholls opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Albers presented the following information: • This is a Minor General Plan Amendment requested by the City of Yuma, to amend Map 2-4 of the City of Yuma 2022 General Plan to include the identification of the Influence Area for the Barry M. Goldwater Range and the Vicinity Boundary for the Marine Corps Air Station Yuma (MCAS). • House Bill 2548 – military installations and general plans • Ensure compatibility of land uses in proximity to military installations • Listing of military installation in General Plan • Barry M. Goldwater Range • Military Influence Areas: • Two-mile buffer from boundary of installations • Identify in General Plan • Territory in the vicinity of a military airport – A.R.S. §28-8481 • North-five miles, South-five miles, West-five miles and East-10 miles from main runway • Expanded Notification for these areas Motion (Morris/McClendon): To close the Public Hearing. Voice vote: approved 6-0. The Public Hearing closed at 7:16 p.m. Discussion • This change helps the General Plan match what the law already says. The law requires us to let MCAS Yuma know anytime there is a rezoning request in the buffer area. We already do this, and it is already shown on the map. Thus, nothing about our current process is changing. (Mayor Nicholls/Albers) • This did not create any new restrictions. It only identifies the influence area, so the public is aware that the facility is nearby. It also confirms that MCAS Yuma is notified about any activities happening in that area. (Mayor Nicholls/Albers) • As with other projects, MCAS Yuma may comment on projects that come forward to them, and this is to ensure they are notified of those. (Morris/Albers) Motion (Smith/Morris): to adopt Resolution R2026-008. Bushong displayed the following title(s): Resolution R2026-008 A resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, amending Resolution R2022-011, the City of Yuma 2022 General Plan, to amend Map 2-4 to identify the Military Influence Area for the Barry M. Goldwater Range and the vicinity boundary for the Marine Corps Air Station Yuma (to implement amendments to Arizona Revised Statutes as required by House Bill 2548) (Cmty Dev/Cmty Plng) Roll call vote: adopted 6-0. Resolution R2026-009 – Major General Plan Amendment: Tillman Estates Unit No.4 (Following a public hearing, approve the request to amend the City of Yuma General Plan to change the land use designation from Industrial, Suburban Density Residential and Low Density Residential to Suburban Density Residential and Low Density Residential, for the property located at the northeast corner of 40th Street and 5¼ E.) (Cmty Dev/Cmty Plng) Mayor Nicholls opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. Peterson presented the following information: • This is a Major General Plan Amendment request by Robert Woodman, on behalf of Fred Lee Tillman, to change the land use designation from Industrial, Suburban Density Residential and Low Density Residential to Suburban Density Residential and Low Density Residential for the property located at the northeast corner of 40th Street and 5¼ E. • Area: Approximately 36.24 acres currently in the Agriculture and Low Density Residential zoning District • Surrounding Land Uses: • North: Industrial • South: Rural Density Residential • East: Industrial/Suburban Density Residential/Low Density Residential • West: Industrial • Development Potential: • Pursue a rezone of approximately 8.6 acres to Low Density Residential (R-1-12) and approximately 27.64 acres to the Suburban Ranch (SR-1) for the development of 32 single-family dwellings. • Property owners within 660 feet were notified of the request and a neighborhood meeting was held on site on October 2, 2025. • Several neighbors attended the meeting, some emailed or called for more information and were not in opposition to the request. • Some neighbors were concerned about future traffic conditions. • One neighbor provided a letter in opposition to the request. • On July 11, 2025, MCAS Yuma provided a determination of compatibility approving the proposed development. • On January 12, 2026, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this request. Motion (McClendon/Smith): To close the Public Hearing. Voice vote: approved 6-0. The Public Hearing closed at 7:22 p.m. Discussion • A potential highdensity project was previously reviewed, and this lowdensity proposal helps create a healthy mix of development types for the City’s future. This proposal appears to fit well within the surrounding neighborhood. (Morris) • The larger three‑quarter section of the project will consist of suburban density residential lots ranging from approximately one to nearly five acres. The existing industrial area within the boundary will not face restrictions from the residential portion. However, any future changes to industrial uses will require a review process due to their proximity to residential development. (Mayor Nicholls/Peterson) • The property owner did not attend the public meeting, but neighbors to the west did participate and one of those neighbors, a residential property owner, had submitted a letter of opposition. After hearing the details of the proposed development, many of the concerns appeared to be addressed. (Mayor Nicholls/Peterson) Motion (Morris/Smith): to adopt Resolution R2026-009. Bushong displayed the following title(s): Resolution R2026-009 A resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, amending Resolution R2022-011, the City of Yuma 2022 General Plan, to change the land use designation of approximately 36.24 acres located at the Northeast Corner of 40th Street and 5¼E. from Industrial, Suburban Density Residential and Low Density Residential to Suburban Density Residential and Low Density Residential (rezone of approximately 8.6 acres to Low Density Residential (R-1-12) and approximately 27.64 acres to the Suburban Ranch (SR-1) for the development of 32 single-family dwellings) (Cmty Dev/Cmty Plng) Roll call vote: adopted 6-0. • Appointments, Announcements and Scheduling Appointments Motion (Smith/Watts): To correct the term expiration for Pat Riley, Sr., on the Yuma Library Board of Trustees, originally appointed at the February 4, 2026, City Council meeting, to reflect a term expiration of June 30, 2029. Voice vote: approved 6-0. ____________ Announcements Smith, Watts, and Mayor Nicholls reported on the following meetings attended and upcoming events: • Yuma Wellness and Care Fair 2026 hosted by Onvida Health and the Yuma Sun • Redondo Dinner and Auction Fundraiser • Yuma Catholic High School Youth Government Program • Registered Nurse Advocacy Day & Nurse Day at the Capitol • 81st Annual Yuma Silver Spur Rodeo • National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Monthly Meeting • Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Advisory Committee Meeting • Yuma Art Center’s 2026 Dinner Theater • Arizona Defense Communities Alliance Meeting • Arizona League of Cities and Towns Executive Committee Meeting • Arizona Space Commission Meeting • United States Government Under Secretary of the Department of Agriculture Dinner • Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Board Meeting ____________ Scheduling Motion (Watts/Smith): To cancel the City Council Worksession, scheduled for March 17, 2026, so that City Council may attend Legislative Day at the Capitol, with an agenda being posted in accordance with State law. Voice vote: approved 6-0. • Summary of current Events Simonton reported the following events: • February 24 – Road to 250: Arizona Traveling Museum • February 28 – BBQ and Brew Festival 2026 • February 21 – Fiesta De 5K and 10K • February 20 – March 28 – Smithsonian Exhibition “Spark! Places of Innovation” • Call to the Public Henry Valenzuela, City resident, raised concerns about statements linking proposed state tax cuts to reduced public safety funding. He noted that the presentation focused on law enforcement impacts while not addressing existing staffing and funding challenges in police and fire services. He stated that describing tax changes as a threat to public safety is misleading given the broader scope of the general fund and characterized the message as a political scare tactic. He also noted that other general‑fund programs were not mentioned as potential areas for cuts. • Executive Session/Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Nicholls adjourned the meeting at 7:41 p.m. No further Executive Session was held. ________________________ Janet L. Pierson, Acting City Clerk APPROVED: ________________________ Douglas J. Nicholls, Mayor Approved at the City Council Meeting of: ___________________________________ City Clerk: __________________________ Approved at the City Council Meeting of: ___________________________________ City Clerk: __________________________