Extracted text (via textutil)
13482 characters
Minutes Regular City Council Worksession City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona City Council Chambers - Yuma City Hall One City Plaza, Yuma, Arizona March 3, 2026 5:30 p.m. Call to Order Mayor Nicholls called the Regular City Council Worksession to order at 5:31 p.m. Councilmembers Present: Morris, McClendon, Smith, Watts, and Mayor Nicholls Councilmembers Absent: Martinez and Morales Staffmembers Present: Acting City Administrator, John D. Simonton Various department heads or their representatives City Attorney, Richard W. Files Deputy City Clerk, Janet L. Pierson I. Road Safety Action Plan Michael Grandy of Kimley-Horn and Associates presented the following update on the Road Safety Action Plan (RSAP): • RSAP Overview • Scope and Schedule • The project is a little past its halfway point, with the analytical work completed and recommended improvements now being developed. • Wrap-up is expected around the end of June, which aligns with the anticipated release of the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) implementation grant application, which is expected to be announced soon. • Components • SS4A includes several required elements that the RSAP must satisfy: • Plan for reducing/preventing fatalities and serious injuries • Promotes safety for all modes of travel • Formation of group with oversight of RSAP development, implementation, and monitoring • Identification of high-injury/high-risk network • Improvement strategies and projects that focus on the Safe System Approach • Recommends policy and process changes • Robust engagement with the public and relevant stakeholders • Includes leadership commitment and goal setting • Method to measure progress and be transparent • Establishes a proactive framework that emphasizes shared responsibility for transportation safety among all users. • The RSAP’s vision is for a safe, accessible, and multimodal system supported by specific goals aligned with the City’s Vision Zero resolution, including reducing fatal and serious injury crashes by two‑thirds by 2040, ultimately aiming for zero such crashes. • The plan addresses all crash types, with added focus on pedestrian, bicyclist, and transit‑user safety due to their higher representation in current crash data. • Crash Analysis Findings • Fatal & Serious Injury Crashes • Safety emphasis areas have been identified, and work is underway to develop related strategies and project and policy recommendations. • The SS4A program prioritizes fatal and serious‑injury crashes; while all crash data is reviewed, the focus remains on these severe incidents. • Current findings show that fatal and suspected serious‑injury crashes generally follow higher‑traffic corridors, with a few locations showing unexpected patterns. • Crash Severity (All Crashes) • Over the past decade, about 1% of crashes have been fatal and roughly 2% have involved suspected serious injuries, percentages that are consistent with statewide patterns. • These fatal and suspected‑serious‑injury crashes form the primary focus of the analysis, though other crash types are still reviewed as needed. • Crash Trends • The annual total‑crash trend shows a slight decline, which is encouraging, but fatal and serious‑injury crashes do not follow that same pattern. • Fatal crashes show a small upward trend, though the numbers are relatively low – about ten per year – while serious‑injury crashes average around thirty annually. • Crash Manner • This analysis compares different crash types by examining where the share of fatal crashes is disproportionately high relative to how often each crash type occurs overall. • Rear‑end crashes make up a large portion of total crashes but account for relatively few fatalities, suggesting they are not a primary focus for fatal‑crash reduction. • In contrast, angle crashes, pedestrian and bicyclist crashes, and single‑vehicle run‑off‑road incidents show much higher fatal‑crash proportions despite representing smaller shares of total crashes, highlighting them as higher‑risk categories. • Percentage Comparisons • The chart below compares the percentage of fatal and serious‑injury crashes (purple) with the percentage of all crashes (yellow) to identify where severe crashes are over‑represented. • Particular attention is given to crash types where the purple bar exceeds 20% or rises noticeably above the yellow bar, signaling elevated risk. • Categories highlighted with red arrows represent characteristics linked either to a high share of fatalities or to a disproportionate number of severe crashes – such as pedestrian crashes, which account for only about 1% of all crashes but 13% of fatalities – making these key areas of concern. • Overall High Injury Network • The High Injury Network is identified using a data‑driven process that incorporates crash frequency, crash severity, and crash rates based on traffic volumes. • Intersections were ranked separately for signalized and unsignalized locations, and roadway segments were ranked independently, highlighting the top 10 in each intersection category and the top 20 segments. • Most high‑ranking signalized intersections fall along major arterial corridors, while many unsignalized intersections and segments cluster within central Yuma and the more rural southern portion of the planning area. • Pedestrian High Injury Network • The map above displays fatal pedestrian crashes and suspected serious‑injury crashes, revealing that these incidents are heavily concentrated along Fourth Avenue and its surrounding intersections. • This area represents a significant portion of all pedestrian‑involved crashes within the network, covering 64% of fatal and 76% of serious injury crashes involving pedestrians. • Round 1 Public Engagement Input • Virtual Open House • The Virtual Open House, which was recorded and is available to view online, introduced the study to the public. • Interactive Map Input • An interactive map allowed community members to place comments identifying safety‑related concerns. • Among all comment categories, intersection issues and general safety concerns were the most frequently reported. • Intersections that received multiple comments included: • Pacific Avenue and 16th Street • Avenue 8E and 32nd Street • Mesa Avenue and South Frontage Road • Avenue A and 28th Street • Avenue 3E and Gila Ridge Road • Comments highlighted several recurring safety themes across travel modes: • Concerns about pedestrian safety, including the need for more marked crosswalks, pedestrian‑activated beacons, and better network connectivity. • Requests for improved lighting in areas that are dark at night. • Desire for higher‑quality and better‑maintained bicycling facilities. • Issues raised about signal timing and left‑turn phasing for drivers. • Widespread concern about unsafe driver behavior such as speeding and running red lights. • Public Survey Input • An online public survey received 92 responses, reflecting themes similar to the interactive map, including concerns about unsafe driver behavior. • Respondents also identified additional trouble spots such as 16th Street, 32nd Street, and the Foothills area near Walmart, where high crash frequencies were noted. • When asked about preferred safety strategies, increased enforcement emerged as the top choice. • Participants emphasized reducing fatalities and injuries while also valuing improvements to overall traffic flow. • Round 2 Public Engagement Input • Pop Up Events • A second round of public engagement was conducted in January through in‑person pop‑up events at the Main Yuma Library and the Walmart on Pacific Avenue, where community members shared on‑the‑spot feedback. • Participants generally supported the development of the safety plan and frequently raised concerns about inadequate lighting and issues at the 16th Street and Avenue C intersection. • Yuma County also contributed by organizing its own outreach efforts, using provided materials to gather input from focus groups such as senior citizens and high school students. • Ag Fest • A booth at Ag Fest drew about 120 participants and generated several consistent themes. • Many attendees voiced concerns about red‑light running, and there was considerable discussion about e‑bikes, including appropriate travel locations, speeds, and needed safety equipment. • Participants showed strong support for roundabouts, better lighting, and improved crosswalk visibility. • Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Solutions Workshop • The TAC Solutions Workshop brought together staff from the City, Yuma County, Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization (YMPO), and Yuma County Intergovernmental Public Transit Authority (YCIPTA) to collaboratively brainstorm strategies across six emphasis areas. • These focus areas included intersections, lane departure, motorcyclist safety, nighttime conditions, pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and human‑behavior‑related factors. • A series of potential solutions was developed for each category. • Next Steps • March 2026 – Recommend strategies and projects to address identified safety concerns • April 2026 – Present recommendations to the public for review and comment • May 2026 – Develop draft Road Safety Action Plan • June 2026 – Present Road Safety Action Plan to City Council for approval/adoption Discussion • Clusters of pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities highlight several high‑risk locations that will be the focus of targeted safety strategies. Work is now underway to develop solutions informed by ideas from the TAC as well as community feedback. The upcoming plan will outline specific approaches for addressing these concentrated problem areas. (Smith/Grandy) • An oversight group is required under the SS4A program, and this role is being fulfilled by the TAC. The committee is comprised of individuals with technical expertise in engineering, planning, and safety from the City, Yuma County, ADOT, YMPO, and YCIPTA providing guidance and review throughout the project. (McClendon/Grandy) • The grant currently in place is dedicated to planning work, with the intent to apply later for an implementation grant that would fund construction, education, or enforcement strategies. The TAC’s role at this stage is to review draft recommendations developed by the project consultant, rather than making citywide assessments or directing specific improvements. After the plan is completed, periodic updates will be required to monitor crash trends and adjust previously developed strategies as conditions change or new needs emerge. (McClendon/Grandy) • The planning grant now underway will serve as the foundation for future implementation efforts, with several existing safety‑related grant programs – such as the Highway Safety Improvement Program – available as potential funding sources once specific project locations are identified. The RSAP will include a prioritized list of recommendations with associated cost estimates to support future applications. Coordination with related efforts, such as work by the City’s ADA Commission, was encouraged to ensure alignment and avoid duplicating efforts, with an invitation to share relevant information to support that collaboration. (McClendon/Grandy) • The City does not have an existing RSAP; this will be the first. While the Transportation Master Plan includes a safety section and is typically updated every five to ten years, the update cycle for the RSAP has not yet been determined. As the plan is finalized, the question of how often it should be renewed or revised will be discussed further with the TAC. (Morris/Grandy) • The long‑term safety goal spans 14 years, during which community needs and conditions may shift. The targeted two‑thirds reduction in serious‑injury crashes appears to be based on a numerical decrease rather than a per‑capita measure, though both metrics have been reviewed and currently follow similar trends. (Morris/Grandy) • A separate map was completed for each of the six emphasis areas, including motorcyclist‑related crashes. While all categories were mapped individually, the project included additional budget and direction from the outset to conduct a deeper analysis of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes, resulting in more detailed work for those modes compared to the others. (Mayor Nicholls/Grandy) II. Regular City Council Meeting Agenda of March 4, 2026 Resolution R2026-011 – Preannexation Development Agreement: JPM Development (for two parcels of property located on Columbia Avenue, near 1st Street and Avenue B) (Comm Dev/Comm Plng) Morris declared a conflict of interest on Resolution R2026-011 as his firm may be involved in the design of the project. There being no questions or discussion, Morris remained on the dais. Executive Session/Adjournment Motion (Morris/McClendon): To adjourn the meeting to Executive Session. Voice vote: approved 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. ___________________________ Lynda L. Bushong, 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: __________________________