Docstoc

2008_12_17_RCM-MeetingPacket

Document Sample
2008_12_17_RCM-MeetingPacket Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                    Printed: December 11, 2008



                                                  CITY OF YUMA
                                      REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
                                       COUNCIL CHAMBERS – YUMA CITY HALL
                                         ONE CITY PLAZA, YUMA, ARIZONA
                                         WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2008
                                                    5:30 P.M.




CALL TO ORDER

INVOCATION

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

FINAL CALL for submission of Speaker Request Forms

PRESENTATIONS


COMMUNICATIONS / FACTUAL RESPONSES

   This is the City Administrator’s opportunity to clarify facts regarding statements circulating
   in the Yuma community in recent weeks concerning City issues and projects. The City
   Administrator’s comments are intended to be informational only and no discussions,
   deliberations or decisions will occur on this item.


I. CALL TO THE PUBLIC
   Members of the public may address the City Council on matters that are not listed on the
   City Council agenda. The City Council cannot discuss or take legal action on any matter
   raised unless it is properly noticed for discussion and legal action. At the conclusion of the
   Call to the Public, individual members of the City Council may respond to criticism made by
   those who have addressed the City Council, may ask staff to review a matter or may ask
   that a matter be placed on a future agenda. All City Council meetings are recorded and
   videotaped.


                                                1
                                                                       REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
                                                                                  DECEMBER 17, 2008


 II.        MOTION CONSENT AGENDA

            All items listed on the Motion Consent Agenda will be considered and enacted with one
            motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember
            so requests. In which event, the item will be removed from the Motion Consent Agenda
            and the vote or action will be taken separately.

       A.      Approval of minutes of the following City Council meeting(s):

8.          1. Regular Council Meeting                                               October 1, 2008

16.         2. Special Worksession                                                  October 14, 2008

24.         3. Regular Worksession                                                  October 14, 2008

31.         4. Regular Council Meeting                                              October 15, 2008

45.         5. Special Worksession                                                 November 4, 2008

51.         6. Regular Worksession                                                November 4, 2008

55.         7. Regular Council Meeting                                             November 5, 2008


 B.         Approval of Staff Recommendations:

 Page Item

            1. 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 Attorney)


64.         2. Liquor License: Radisson Hotel Yuma

                Approve a New Hotel/Motel (#11) Liquor License application submitted by Michael
                S. Philipps, agent for Radisson Hotel Yuma, located at 1501 S. Redondo Center
                Drive, Yuma, Arizona. (LL08-15) (City Administration/City Clerk)




                                                     2
                                                               REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
                                                                          DECEMBER 17, 2008

66.   3. Request for Proposal (RFP): Job Order Contract

         Authorize staff to execute 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, with the sole responsive, responsible bidder for
         the Job Order Contract (JOC) to: Desert Road Builders, Yuma, Arizona. (City
         Engineering - Bid #2009000031) (Finance/Purchasing)


68.   4. Amendment: Proposal to Add Administrative Fees for Towing

         Set an Administrative Fee of $75.00 to be charged for motor vehicles that are towed
         under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) per A.R.S. 28-3513. (Police/Administration)


70.   5. Acknowledgement of General Leave and Bereavement Leave Modifications

         Acknowledge City Administrator's action increasing employee General Leave
         accrual and Administrative Bereavement Leave (Human Resources)


73.   6. Weed and Seed Subgrantee Agreement: Arizona Western College

         Authorize the City Administrator to execute a Weed and Seed subgrantee
         agreement with Arizona Western College, in the amount of $7,745.00, for computer
         literacy classes at the Martin Luther King Jr. Neighborhood Center. (City
         Administration/Economic Development)


92.   7. Lease: Daily Farms, Inc.

         Approve a two-year lease with Daily Farms, Inc. for 115 acres of property located
         north of the Desert Dunes Water Reclamation Facility on Avenue 6E. (City Attorney)


99.   8. Amendment: 1st Avenue and 24th Street Alignment Modifications

         Accept a recommendation to modify the 1st Avenue alignment between 18th Street
         and 26th Street and provide direction for future roadway design for 1st Avenue and
         24th Street. (Community Development/Community Planning)



      SUGGESTED MOTION: To approve the MOTION CONSENT AGENDA as
      recommended:

      M/_______________________ S/____________________ VV/__________________



                                             3
                                                                     REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
                                                                                DECEMBER 17, 2008

 III.   RESOLUTION CONSENT AGENDA

        All items listed on the Resolution Consent Agenda will be considered and enacted with
        one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a City
        Councilmember so requests or a Speaker Request Form has been submitted. In which
        event, the item will be removed from the Resolution Consent Agenda and the vote or
        action will be taken separately.

102.    A. Resolution R2008-79: Public Record Declaration - Smart Growth Overlay

            Declare a certain document entitled Smart Growth Overlay (SGO) District
            (November 26, 2008) a public record and order its filing in the office of the City
            Clerk. (Z2007-016R) (Community Development/Community Planning)


113.    B. Resolution R2008-80: Preannexation Development Agreement - Dusenberry

            Authorize a Preannexation Development Agreement with Bruce and Kathryn
            Dusenberry for property located at 2333 South Pacific Avenue. (City Administration/
            Economic Development)


        SUGGESTED MOTION: To adopt the RESOLUTION CONSENT AGENDA as
        recommended:

        M/________________________ S/___________________ RV/_________________


 IV.    ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES CONSENT AGENDA

        All items listed on the Ordinances Consent Agenda will be considered and enacted with
        one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a City
        Councilmember so requests or a Speaker Request Form has been submitted. In which
        event, the item will be removed from the Ordinance Consent Agenda and the vote or
        action will be taken separately.

122.    A. Ordinance O2008-56: Right-of-Way Acquisition: Madison Avenue at 11th
           Street

            Authorize the acquisition of right-of-way for Madison Avenue intersection
            improvements at 11th Street (Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project No.
            5.0907). (City Engineering/)




                                                  4
                                                                  REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
                                                                             DECEMBER 17, 2008

128.   B. Ordinance O2008-57: Amendment to Ordinance No. O2008-39 - Scrivener's
          Error Correction

          Authorize an amendment to Ordinance O2008-39 to ratify a change to the legal
          description contained in Exhibit A of the Water Service and Preannexation
          Development Agreement with Victory Lutheran Brethren Church for property located
          at 11386 South Avenue 9E. (City Attorney)


       SUGGESTED MOTION: To adopt the ORDINANCES CONSENT AGENDA as
       recommended:

       M/________________________ S/___________________ RV/_________________



 V.    PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2% HOSPITALITY TAX
       This Public Hearing is an opportunity for City Council to solicit public input on the
       renewal of the 2% Hospitality Tax, followed by City Council discussion, deliberation and
       possible direction to City staff.

132.   A. 2% Hospitality Tax Renewal and Proposed Ballot Language

          Solicit public input, followed by City Council discussion, deliberation and possible
          direction to City staff concerning the renewal of the 2% Hospitality Tax and proposed
          ballot language scheduled for a May 19, 2009 Special Election. (City
          Administration)



 VI.   INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
       The following ordinance(s) is presented to the City Council for introduction. No vote or
       action by the City Council is necessary. However, the City Council may, at its option,
       vote or take action where appropriate. Ordinances given introduction are generally
       presented to the City Council for adoption at the next Regular City Council meeting.


135.   A. Ordinance O2009-01: Rezoning of Property - Northeast Corner of 32nd Street
          and 28th Drive

          Rezone property from the High Density Residential (R-3) District to the Transitional
          (TR) District. The applicant is NFlux, LLC, on behalf of Cactus West Developer, LLC.
          (Z2008-019) (Community Development/Community Planning)




                                               5
                                                                      REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
                                                                                 DECEMBER 17, 2008

146.    B. Ordinance O2009-02: Prohibition of Animal Sales on Public Property

             Prohibit the sale of animals on public property or non-residential private property
             without the express written consent of the owner or lessee of the property, and
             establish a penalty of Class 3 Misdemeanor. (City Administration)


150.    C. Ordinance O2009-03: Easement Acquisition - Assembly of God Church and
           Las Casitas Unit No. 2 Subdivision

             Authorize the acquisition of sanitary sewer easements between the Las Casitas Unit
             No. 2 Subdivision and property owned by the Assembly of God Church, west of the
             3000 Block of Avenue B. (City Engineering)



 VII.   APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND SCHEDULING

        Discussion and possible action on the following items:

        1.      Appointment to boards, commissions, committees and offices:

                     Part-time Municipal Court Judge Pro Tem
                     Building Advisory Board - three terms to expire on 1/31/14
                     Employee Benefit Trust - one term to expire on 1/31/14
                     Housing Authority Commission - one term to expire on 1/21/14
                     Merit System Board - one term to expire on 1/15/14
                     Planning and Zoning Commission - two terms to expire on 1/31/14
                     Water and Sewer Commission: one unexpired term to expire on 7/6/2012
                     Western Arizona Council of Governments – Regional Council on Aging:
                     one term to expire on 1/2/2011

        2.      Announcements:

                     City Council report on meetings/events attended – City Council report on
                     issues discussed in meetings/events attended by a City Council
                     representative in their official capacity as the City’s representative during the
                     period of December 3, 2008 through December 17, 2008. City Council
                     questions regarding the update must be limited solely for clarification
                     purposes. If further discussion is warranted, the issue will be added to a
                     future agenda for a detailed briefing.

                     City Council report of upcoming meetings.

                     City Council request for agenda items to be placed on future agendas.




                                                   6
                                                                                REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
                                                                                           DECEMBER 17, 2008

      3.      Scheduling: Motion to schedule future City Council meetings pursuant to Arizona
              Revised Statutes Section 38-431.02 and the Yuma City Code, Chapter 30.



VIII. SUMMARY OF CURRENT EVENTS
      This is the City Administrator’s opportunity to give notice to the City Council of current
      events impacting the City. Comments are intended to be informational only and no
      discussion, deliberation or decision will occur on this item.




IX.   EXECUTIVE SESSION
      An Executive Session may be held during this meeting to discuss pending
      Legal/Personnel/Real Estate matters. An Agenda will be posted 24 hours in advance.



      ADJOURNMENT
      In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
      the City of Yuma does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission of or access to, or treatment
      or employment in, its programs, activities, or services. For information regarding rights and provisions of the
      ADA or Section 504, or to request reasonable accommodations for participation in City programs, activities, or
      services contact: ADA/Section 504 Coordinator, City of Yuma Human Resources Department, One City Plaza,
      PO Box 13012, Yuma, Arizona 85366-3012; (928) 373-5125 or TTY (928) 373-5149.




                                                         7
                                              MINUTES
                             REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                             CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUMA, ARIZONA
                              CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, YUMA CITY HALL
                                   ONE CITY PLAZA, YUMA, ARIZONA
                                          OCTOBER 1, 2008
                                              5:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
      Deputy Mayor Hieb called the City Council meeting to order.

INVOCATION/PLEDGE
     Shoop gave the invocation. Jeff Bailey, City of Yuma, Department of Community Development,
Computer Aided Design and Drafting (CADD) Technician led the City Council in the pledge of allegiance.

ROLL CALL
 Councilmembers Present:       Shoop, Mendoza, Beeson, McClendon, Johnson and Deputy Mayor Hieb
  Councilmembers Absent:       Mayor Nelson
    Staffmembers Present:      City Administrator, Mark Watson
                               Deputy City Administrator, Bob Stull
                               Principal Planner, Bobette Bauermann
                               Director of Engineering/City Engineer, Paul Brooberg
                               Various Department Heads or their representative
                               Deputy City Clerk, Lynda Bushong
FINAL CALL
        Deputy Mayor Hieb made a final call for the submission of Speaker Request Forms from members
of the audience.


PRESENTATIONS – none


COMMUNICATIONS / FACTUAL RESPONSES – none


I.    CALL TO THE PUBLIC

Mary Ann Easterday: 3359 S. 15th Ave., reminded the public that Saturday, October 11, 2008, is the next
Household Hazardous Waste Program drop-off day.


II.   MOTION CONSENT AGENDA

Motion (Mendoza/McClendon): To approve the Motion Consent Agenda as recommended, with the
exception of Agenda Item B.4, removed for separate consideration at the request of Mendoza. Voice vote:
approved 6-0.

A.    Approval of minutes of the following City Council meeting(s):
              Regular Worksession                             August 5, 2008
              Special Worksession                         September 2, 2008

                                                                                                8
                                                                 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                       OCTOBER 1, 2008


B.     Approval of Staff Recommendations:

       1.   Executive Sessions may be held at the next regularly scheduled Special Worksession,
            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). (Attny)

       2.   Award a one-year, renewable for up to four additional one-year periods, contract for Water
            Treatment Chemicals to Hill Brothers Chemical Company, Phoenix Arizona, at an estimated
            annual cost of $290,000.00. (2009000163) (Utilities/WTP)

       3.   Authorize the execution of an intergovernmental agreement with the Arizona Department of
            Public Safety (DPS) for use of the Arizona Automated Fingerprint Identification System.
            (YPD/Investigations)

       4.   Removed for separate consideration; see below.

       5.   Approve a one-year extension of the September 29, 2005, lease with Compass Bank for property
            located at the northeast corner of 16th Street and 4th Avenue. (Attny)

       6.   Endorse legislative agenda items for the Legislative Summit to be held on October 9, 2008.
            (Attny)

       7.   Approve the final plat of the Villa Real Subdivision. The property is located 150 feet north of
            the northwest corner of Magnolia Avenue and 5th Street. The applicant is Dahl, Robins &
            Associates, on behalf of the Yuma Neighborhood Development Organization. (S2008-003-01)
            (CD/Planning)

       8.   Approve the final plat of the Yuma Plaza Subdivision, Unit 1. The property is located at the
            southwest corner of Pacific Avenue and 16th Street. The applicant is Dahl, Robins &
            Associates, on behalf of Yuma Plaza, LLC. (S2008-004-01) (CD/Planning)

       9.   Approve an Infrastructure and Services Report for Annexation Area No. A2008-02. The
            annexation area is located in an unincorporated county island east of Arizona Avenue between
            20th and 21st Streets. (Admin/EcDev)


Motion Consent Agenda Items Removed for Separate Consideration

     B.4.   Approve a Property Management Agreement between the City of Yuma and Housing Authority
            of the City of Yuma (HACY) for City-owned residential and commercial properties. (Attny)

Motion (Shoop/Johnson): To approve the Motion Consent Agenda Item B.4 as recommended.
Roll call vote: approved 5-0-1; Mendoza abstaining due to a conflict of interest as he is an employee of the
Housing Authority.




                                                   Page 2                                            9
                                                            REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                  OCTOBER 1, 2008


III. RESOLUTION CONSENT AGENDA

Bushong displayed the following titles:

                                         Resolution R2008-68
A resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, authorizing and approving the
execution of a preannexation development agreement with the owner of real property located at 2025
South Arizona Avenue
(Admin/EcDev)

Motion (Johnson/Beeson): To adopt the Resolution Consent Agenda as recommended. Roll call vote:
adopted 6-0.


IV.     ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES CONSENT AGENDA

Bushong displayed the following title:
                                        Ordinance O2008-39
An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, amending Ordinance No. O2008-25
making certain changes to the water service and preannexation development agreement with Victory
Lutheran Brethren Church for property located at 11386 South Avenue 9E
(APN 112-19-023) (Attny)

Motion (Shoop/Mendoza): To adopt Ordinance O2008-39 as recommended. Roll call vote: adopted
6-0.


V.    INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES

Bushong displayed the following titles:
                                          Ordinance O2008-23
An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, amending Chapter 154 of the Yuma
City Code, as amended, rezoning certain property hereinbefore located in the High Density
Residential (R-3) District to the Limited Commercial (B-1) District and amending the zoning map to
conform thereto
 (Z2008-002; property located at 3130 S. Winsor Avenue; applicant: Michael Taylor Architects, Inc., on
behalf of Rick Fee) (CD/Planning) (Continued from the June 18, 2008, August 6, 2008 and September 17,
2008, Regular City Council Meetings)
                                          Ordinance O2008-41
An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, annexing to said City a portion of
Section 34 of Township 8 South, Range 23 West of the Gila & Salt River Base and Meridian, Yuma
County, Arizona, amending Chapter 154 of the Yuma City Code, as amended, designating the zoning
of certain property to the Light Industrial District, and amending the zoning map to conform thereto,
pursuant to the provisions of Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 7, Arizona Revised Statutes and amendments
thereto
(A2008-02; aka Factor Avenue North annexation) (Admin/EcDev)

                                                Page 3                                       10
                                                                 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                       OCTOBER 1, 2008

VI.    Public Hearings

       Final Plat: Tierra Subdivision; property located at the southwest corner of Avenue C and the
       Central Drain; applicant: Core Engineering, on behalf of Rosjon Real Estate and Investment.
       (S2008-001-01) (CD/Planning)

Deputy Mayor Hieb opened the Public Hearing at 5:42 p.m.

Bauermann presented the following:
▪ The proposed subdivision, Tierra Subdivision, would involve 35 single-family homes and 20 multi-
   family units.
▪ Staff has held three neighborhood meetings
   ▫ Neighborhood concerns/comments
      ― Opposition to Tierra Subdivision traffic using streets in Falls Ranch #6 streets (that is, 41st Drive
          and 22nd Lane) to access Avenue C
      ― Opposition to the noise and litter construction traffic using 41st Drive would bring to the area
      ― 41st Drive should be an emergency only access for properties south of Falls Ranch #6
      ― Tierra Subdivision should be accessed only by Avenue C
      ― The Tierra Subdivision property should be made into a park.
      ― Construction of an extra traffic lane on Avenue C at 22nd Lane
      ― There should be a traffic signal at the intersection of Avenue C and 22nd Lane
      ― 22nd Place, the east/west street within Tierra Subdivision, ending in cul-de-sacs in the proposed
          plat, should be extended west and have full access to Avenue C with a median cut

Johnson commented on a prior use of the property by the Lines and Lundgren roofing company and its
access.

Brooberg: No warrant study has been done of the Avenue C and 22nd Lane intersection. The area has not
been fully developed and few traffic problems have come to the City’s attention. There is not enough traffic
at the current time to warrant a traffic signal study.

Speakers:

Jenelle Frey, 2264 S. 41st Drive, Falls Ranch #6: Lee Homebuilders built Falls Ranch #6 and buyers were
shown a map that did not include connection of 41st Drive into what is proposed to be the Tierra
Subdivision. The map showed two lots at the end of 41st Drive and indicated those lots were sold. Prior to
building the homes, the City required Lee to satisfy a condition of the Falls Ranch #6 plat that provided an
access point for sewer, water and traffic to the north. Lee Homebuilders and the City are now saying that it
was the residents’ responsibility to find out about the change. The residents are now suffering from noise
from construction equipment because Lee Homebuilders continues to use 41st Drive to access their
construction yard. As early as the first neighborhood meeting on August 30, 2007, the neighbors have been
vocal about their opposition. A November 16, 2007 letter was sent to the City voicing opposition.
Neighbors submitted a petition with 109 signatures to the City. Their concerns were reiterated at the March
25, 2008 and July 17, 2008 neighborhood meetings. On August 25th, 2008, the neighborhood sent a second
letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission and staff indicated
they were unaware of the first letter and the petition; however, these items are included in the material


                                                   Page 4                                           11
                                                                REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                      OCTOBER 1, 2008

before the City Council tonight. She asked that the City Council disregard the Planning and Zoning
Commission’s recommendation because the Commission was not aware of their concerns when it voted on
this final plat. She noted her specific concerns:
▪ Use of 41st Drive/22nd Lane by the proposed subdivision
    ▫ Unsafe streets – children play in the streets; children walk to and from school
    ▫ 22nd Lane is already a traffic bottle neck at Avenue C
    ▫ Yuma City Code, Section 153-043 (A) (1) calls for easy circulation in street configurations
    ▫ Noise and litter of construction equipment on 41st Drive and 22nd Lane when Tierra Subdivision
        begins build-out.
    ▫ Yuma City Code, Section 133-02 prohibits loud and disturbing noise.
    ▫ Security – increased criminal activity, vandalism, burglary and theft would accompany the opening
        of 41st Drive to non-local traffic.
    ▫ De-valuation of their homes by the construction of homes of lesser value beside them
        ― That would not be in keeping with the City’s General Plan goal of creating sustainable
             communities.
    ▫ The neighbors recommend:
        ― The Tierra Subdivision single-family homes use 22nd Place to reach Avenue C, the same
             entrance that the proposed multi-family apartments will use.
        ― 41st Drive be used only as an emergency access to Tierra Subdivision

Johnson discussed with Frey whether or not 41st Drive was constructed as a stub out when her home was
built and she moved in. Frey: Regardless of what infrastructure was on the ground, buyers expected what
Lee Homebuilders showed them on the map. The developer promised that the apartments that back up to
Falls Ranch #6 homes will be designed so that the privacy of the homes is safeguarded. Mendoza attested
to the bottleneck of traffic that occurs on 22nd Lane and Avenue C.

Douglas Nicholls, 200 E. 16th Street, Suite 150, Core Engineering Group, representing the applicant: The
proposed re-configuration of the streets – using 41st Drive only as an emergency access, with the main
entrance into the subdivision being Avenue C – would be a deviation from current City standards and is not
what he discussed with City staff. The multi-family units will not be apartments, but for-sale
condominiums. This property is owned by Rosjon Development, with Jonathan Lines being their
representative; Lines is the developer of this property. The proposed cul-de-sacs do not exceed the 600-foot
restriction.

Jonathan Lines stated he plans to develop homes comparable in size to those in Falls Ranch #6. Prior to
this property being zoned Medium Density Residential, it was a legal, non-conforming commercial use in an
Agriculture District. It was the site of Lines and Lundgren roofing business for some 30 years. The Yuma
County Water Users allowed the business to use the canal bank on the north side to access the property
when the Avenue C widening project eliminated its access to Avenue C. Runoff from Avenue C and the
canal bank flooded the area and thereafter the City installed the Central Drain.

Scott Barnes, 4324 W. 23rd Street, Falls Ranch #6, reiterated that the configuration of 41st Drive had been
misrepresented to him when he purchased his home. He moved to Falls Ranch specifically to have a quieter
neighborhood. The proposed single-car-garage design will not be comparable to the three-car-garage homes
that are in Falls Ranch #6. Single-car garages are a thing of the past. Tierra Subdivision should have its
access at Avenue C – just like a number of other subdivisions. How could an emergency exit be controlled


                                                  Page 5                                           12
                                                                  REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                        OCTOBER 1, 2008

and keep people from using it? Hieb: The conflict between what Lee Homebuilders portrayed and what
was on the final plat for Falls Ranch #6 is between Lee and their buyers, not the City of Yuma. Generally,
an emergency access is gated or chained off and the Fire crews alone have the key.

Guadalupe Navarro, 4104 W. 22nd Place, through Ricardo Molinar, translator: The neighbors have
voiced their opposition for eleven months now. Tierra Subdivision should have its own entryway. She, too,
purchased her house under the assumption that 41st Drive would not be open; the property to the north, she
was told, would be a park. She objected to smaller homes being built next to hers and the increased traffic
that would occur on 41st Drive. Johnson questioned Navarro about the existence of curbs, gutters and a
paved street at the time her home would built; developers are required to install the infrastructure before any
houses are built. Navarro stated she was lied to, whether or not the street was built when she moved in.
The developer told her the property to the north would be a park. Mendoza: The fact that the street was
built prior to Falls Ranch #6 residents moving into their homes is immaterial. The issue is traffic and an
increased risk to children.

Bauermann explained that it appears that Falls Ranch #6 residents were shown the Preliminary Plat of Falls
Ranch #6, wherein 41st Drive curves into 22nd Lane and extends no farther north, the street being blocked by
Lot 363. The configuration of the road was changed between the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat stages.

McClendon asked about the entrance that will serve the condominiums. Brooberg: Construction traffic
will use the right-in/right-out that is planned for 22nd Place at Avenue C. After construction is completed,
the condominiums’ entryway will continue to be 22nd Place at Avenue C. There will, however, be a paved
roadway on the 22nd Place alignment that will connect with 22nd Place at the eastern cul-de-sac. This
roadway will serve as an emergency access only for the single-family home portion of Tierra Subdivision.
Beeson asked whether the emergency access roadway could be made into the main entryway, if it were built
to the proper standards. Brooberg: The eastern cul-de-sac of Tierra Subdivision could be changed to allow
an extended 22nd Place running throughout the subdivision and intersecting with Avenue C. Traffic would
still be required to adhere to right-in/right-out only. Beeson: Is that the norm? Brooberg: It is becoming
the norm; it was not so in the past. Virtually every entrance into a subdivision will have its own entrance
nowadays.

Hieb: If 22nd Place was extended to Avenue C, how would that affect the developer’s overall project?
Nichols: Obviously, there would be fewer condominium units possible, which would make it difficult for
the developer to meet the minimum requirements of Medium Density Residential zoning. Hieb asked if the
western cul-de-sac would still meet City standards for length, if the eastern cul-de-sac were eliminated and
41st Drive was emergency access only. Brooberg stated he would have reservations if 41st Drive was not to
remain a public thoroughfare.

Johnson discussed with Brooberg the traffic distances between the relevant roadways. Brooberg: The
distance between 22nd Place and 22nd Lane on Avenue C is 250-260 feet. Johnson noted that Accident
Frequency Charts show that entrances onto a major highway below 500 feet apart are a contributing factor
to accidents. Brooberg agreed that distance is important. The City’s Engineering Department requires 1/8
of a mile between openings on major roadways. Johnson: Would there be sufficient stacking room
between 22nd Place and 22nd Lane if left turns were allowed from 22nd Place? Brooberg: The typical left
turn deceleration, transition space would not be available in the distance between these two openings. For
this reason, City staff has steadfastly been against construction of an unrestricted intersection of 22nd Place
and Avenue C and have worked with the developer to prepare a right-in/right-out configuration.

                                                    Page 6                                            13
                                                                  REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                        OCTOBER 1, 2008


Beeson asked Lines whether he would be opposed to making 22nd Place the entryway into his subdivision.
Lines: Originally, that was the configuration he planned; however, City Engineering staff recommended
against it because of the proximity of 22nd Lane. Again, the issue would be density. Based on a Medium
Density Residential zoning he could build 50 more units than his plat shows. If he builds even less, the total
may not conform to the minimum standards for this zoning. In addition, he decided on condominiums along
Avenue C to be in greater conformance with other developments along Avenue C.

Hieb stated that this case is an instance where a subdivision was built and land nearby stayed vacant and the
residents grew accustomed to the feeling of seclusion, when, in fact, the subdivision was never intended to
be separated from other developments. It is the City’s desire that all unused property be filled in with
development. The City prefers to infill vacant land within its jurisdiction rather than move development out
beyond its borders. He would be very uncomfortable forcing a decision at this point.

Watson concurred. He asked for an opportunity to explore the density issue. Johnson asked that staff
make available the satellite photo at the next discussion, including overlays of the various alternatives that
have been discussed.

Hieb asked about property further south; will this issue arise in that area? What is the current zoning of
property at the northwest corner of 24th Street and Avenue C? Bauermann: The property is currently
General Commercial (B-2) zoning. The property could develop a drive-through restaurant, a gas station or a
mall similar to the Mission Valley Plaza across the street.

Motion (Shoop/Johnson): To continue the Public Hearing on the final plat of Tierra Subdivision to the
Regular City Council Meeting of October 15, 2008. Voice vote: adopted 6-0. Discussion ceased at 7:09
p.m.

Watson asked the neighbors to decide on a person to act as a point of contact for the neighborhood and give
the information to the City Administrator. Lines indicated he was not available to attend on October 15,
2008; but could attend on November 5, 2008.

Motion (Shoop/Johnson): To continue the Public Hearing on the final plat of Tierra Subdivision to the
Regular City Council Meeting of November 5, 2008. Voice vote: adopted 6-0.


VII. APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND SCHEDULING

Deputy Mayor Hieb stated the City has no applications on file for Western Arizona Council of
Governments.

Motion (Shoop/McClendon): To schedule a Special City Council Worksession for Thursday, October 9,
2008, at 2:00 p.m. in Conference Room 141/142, One City Plaza, Yuma, Arizona, for the purpose of
holding the 2009 Legislative Summit. Voice vote: approved 6-0.

Motion (Johnson/McClendon): To include a discussion and possible direction to staff regarding the City
Administrator’s current Communications Policy and the Meet and Confer Ordinance, which has been
presented to the City Council, on the Regular City Council Meeting of October 15, 2008.

                                                    Page 7                                            14
                                                              REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                    OCTOBER 1, 2008


Roll call vote: approved 4-2; Shoop and Mendoza voting Nay.


VIII. SUMMARY OF CURRENT EVENTS

Watson reminded the public that the next Monday with the Mayor Meeting will be held on November 3,
2008, the first Monday of next month, at Fire Station No. 5, 6:00 p.m.


IX.   EXECUTIVE SESSION/ADJOURNMENT

Motion (Johnson/Beeson): To adjourn the meeting. Voice vote: approved 6-0. The meeting adjourned at
7:16 p.m. No Executive Session was held.



________________________
Lynda Bushong, Deputy City Clerk


APPROVED:



____________________
Lawrence K. Nelson, Mayor




                                               Page 8                                       15
                                            MINUTES
                            SPECIAL WORKSESSION/ROUNDTABLE
                         CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUMA, ARIZONA
                           CONFERENCE ROOM 190, YUMA CITY HALL
                               ONE CITY PLAZA, YUMA, ARIZONA
                                     OCTOBER 14, 2008
                                          3:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER
      Mayor Nelson called the City Council meeting to order.

     Councilmembers Present:     Shoop, Beeson, McClendon, Hieb, Johnson and Mayor Nelson
     Councilmembers Absent:      Mendoza
       Staffmembers Present:     City Administrator, Mark S. Watson
                                 Capital Improvement Program, Project Manager, Jay Simonton
                                 Traffic Engineer, Fred Orcutt
                                 Director of Community Development, Laurie Lineberry
                                 Director of Engineering/City Engineer, Paul Brooberg
                                 Various Department Heads or their representative
                                 City Clerk, Brigitta Kuiper

I.       12TH STREET PROJECT

Watson explained that today’s discussion will include an update on the 12th Street (Avenue A to
Avenue B) project presented by representatives from Ayres Associates. A public meeting was
held regarding 12th Street. The design presented at the public meeting involved a 5-lane roadway
and various improvements to intersections. Ayres has prepared a 3-lane alternative, which will
be presented today. Ayres needs certain direction prior to moving forward. Simonton: The 3-
lane design has significantly reduced the amount of right-of-way the project will need.

Jan Zander, Ayres Associates, Project Consultant, stated that today’s design is not the final
design. It is a preliminary evaluation of a design for two lanes in each direction separated by a
center median.

Zander outlined the overall proposal:
▪ Extend 12th Street between Avenue B and Avenue A
▪ Construct one traffic lane in each direction
▪ Construct a raised landscaped median with left-turn lanes
▪ Accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic
▪ Construct bridge crossing at the East Main Canal

Design details:
▪ On the west end of the project, at Avenue B, three lanes can be accommodated without
   encroaching on any private property; improvements can be constructed within the existing
   rights-of-way




                                              Page 1                                                16
                                   SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION/ROUNDTABLE MINUTES
                                                                      SEPTEMBER 30, 2008

▪   Where 22nd Drive intersects 12th Street from the north, a gate would be installed to limit the
    amount of traffic accessing 12th Street; traffic from the area would use Avenue B.
▪   At 21st Drive, no additional right-of-way would be needed on the south, but where 12th Street
    currently narrows, right-of-way would be needed on the north. The width has been reduced
    to 70 feet to minimize that impact.
▪   Continuing east, right-of-way impacts have been reduced drastically on the north side of the
    road from the previous Magnolia Avenue intersection design. Myrtle Avenue would be cul-
    de-sac’d.
▪   East of the canal, as the roadway approaches 14th Avenue, right-of-way will be needed on the
    north; however, there are few homes on the property at this point.
▪   No additional right-of-way will be needed on the south, from 21st Drive to the area
    immediately approaching the 14th Avenue intersection.
▪   14th Avenue is shown as signalized to provide a safe crossing for O. C. Johnson School
    students who live in the nearby apartments.
▪   East of 14th Avenue, a number of properties on the north will be impacted.
▪   Avenue A is another signalized intersection.
▪   11th Avenue would become a cul-de-sac.
▪   East of Avenue A, homes on the north would be impacted, but to a lesser degree than
    previously proposed; the Avenue A intersection footprint has been reduced.
▪   Overall, the 3-lane design would impact half the homes originally impacted by the 5-lane
    design.
▪   The improvements trail off at 9th Avenue, which is where the approach to the Avenue A
    intersection would begin.

Zander noted the following options:
▪ Creating a T-intersection at 12th Avenue
▪ Creating a roundabout, rather than installing a signal, at the intersection of 12th Street and
   14th Avenue
▪ Installing a wrought iron fence down the center of the median, between 14th Avenue and
   Avenue A, to prevent mid-block crossing by students, forcing them to the signal and the
   school crossing guard.

Discussion
Hieb: Wouldn’t a round-about be hazardous to students? Zander: Traffic at a roundabout must
slow to 20 miles per hour in order to navigate the curve. 20 miles per hour is close to the 15-
mile-per-hour speed required of a school crossing. Also, pedestrians would only have to be
concerned with traffic coming from one direction. A school crossing guard would also be
recommended.

Beeson asked whether tunnel crossings are feasible. Mayor Nelson: Tunnels can facilitate
criminal activity. Zander: The school is opposed to a tunnel. Hieb: Has a pedestrian overpass
been considered? Handicapped accessibility and additional land would probably become factors.
Zander: An overpass is a significant capital investment. An overpass in this situation would
look out of place because of the height it would need. Its footprint would require more right-of-
way and would not be a good choice in this area, where the City is attempting to mitigate
impacts.


                                              PAGE 2                                               17
                                  SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION/ROUNDTABLE MINUTES
                                                                     SEPTEMBER 30, 2008


Watson: The original goal of the project was to provide a crossing of the canal; this 3-lane
alternate is intended to cut costs and right-of-way impacts. Simonton: The 3-lane is estimated
at approximately $11.5 million to construct, including right-of-way acquisition. The original 5-
lane project was estimated at over $20 million.

Zander: The cost of a traffic signal is approximately $450,000.00. Although, he has not
estimated the cost of a roundabout, it would probably be only marginally less expensive.

Hieb noted that the design provide an at-grade crossing for Yuma County Water Users’
Association personnel. Can that be made to allow pedestrians to cross at grade as well?
Zander: That is possible; however, doing so would mean the bridge would have to be higher
and extended farther to the west, which would involve retaining walls – all of which would add
to costs.

Mayor Nelson: What is the advantage of having a Magnolia Avenue connection? Zander:
Magnolia Avenue was included in the Major Roadways Plan because the area needs a secondary
access point for emergency vehicles. Watson: Magnolia Avenue will have to be widened in the
future as it is very narrow today. Pending the widening of the entire street, creating this
intersection will widen Magnolia Avenue to the size needed to access 12th Street appropriately.
Magnolia Village lies within the City’s jurisdiction; Magnolia Avenue passes in and out of
County jurisdiction.

Shoop: This design would create a roadway 3-lanes wide across the bridge and going to east and
west of the bridge. Reducing the number of lanes will impact fewer property owners. Will 12th
Street, east of Avenue A, continue to be residential in nature. Watson: The right-of-way for this
portion of the street would basically use the existing right-of-way.

Watson: Neighborhood input on the creation of a T-intersection is needed. Hieb: Real growth
is occurring west of Avenue C. The City needs to look at how to serve areas to the west – bring
traffic in from the west and disburse to the north and south. The main purpose of this project is
to provide another crossing of the East Main Canal. Orcutt: Traffic on 12th Street, east of
Avenue A, is running at approximately 1,200 cars per day. The idea was to eliminate parking on
12th Street. If cul-de-sacs are created on those streets currently accessing 12th Street, between
14th Avenue and Avenue A, traffic on Avenue A will be impacted.

Johnson questioned the need to make a full roadway connection at Magnolia Avenue. If
Magnolia Avenue is widened into a regular roadway at 12th Street, it will force the widening of
the entire street in the future – that has cost implications. Concerning a roundabout at 14th
Avenue, people are just now getting adjusted to using a roundabout and that doesn’t involve
pedestrians. Using a standard intersection with traffic signals and a school crossing guard would
be safer. The use of a wrought iron fences to create a divided roadway is excellent. 12th Street,
east of Avenue A, should be left the way it is because the existing stop signs have a calming
effect. Shoop: There are two roundabouts in the community; one is near Kofa High School and
students are learning to use it. Watson: Costs need to be considered; two recent traffic signals’
bid came in at $850,000.00. Plus, the school would need to commit to its current boundaries,



                                             PAGE 3                                              18
                                   SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION/ROUNDTABLE MINUTES
                                                                      SEPTEMBER 30, 2008

that is, that students in the apartment complex will continue to be assigned to O. C. Johnson.
Johnson expressed support for pedestrian overpasses; ultimately, that’s the safest approach.
Doesn’t the City have an agreement with the apartment complex concerning contributing to a
park? Shoop: The agreement dealt with the joint use of a park and was with the school and the
apartment complex. It is not relevant to the street.

Hieb: The pedestrian crossing of the bridge have some kind of covering that would prevent
people from jumping or throwing things off the bridge.

Beeson asked for confirmation that there would be a bus stop pull-out. Zander: There will be
two of them. Beeson stated he would not like to see 12th Avenue made into a T-intersection.

Beeson asked that this new proposal be available on the City’s website. Zander stated there is a
website specific to this project; the website will be updated with the new proposal. Watson:
Another public/neighborhood meeting is in order, prior to consultant continuing his work. This
project is not a high priority.

Hieb: This project will mean that 12th Street between Avenue A and Avenue B will resemble
12th Street from Avenue B to Avenue C, as it exists today.

Watson: Concerning the gating of 22nd Drive, it may be that 22nd Drive should be allowed to
develop as it will after 12th Street is improved. This was the subject of several public comments.
It hasn’t been verified that it is being used as a short-cut.

Hieb: Is it necessary to take the right-of-way past Avenue A? Orcutt: It is necessary to
provide an adequate approach to the intersection, especially with the turning lanes. Watson:
The corner triangles will have to be purchased anyway to accommodate Arizona Avenue’s
widening.


II.    MAJOR ROADWAYS PLAN

1st Avenue from 20th Street to 28th Street

Watson: Today’s discussion in a follow-up to a previous discussion and question concerning the
types of sight triangles and their sizes.

Orcutt: There are only two categories of roadway triangles; each category serves different
purposes:
▪ Visibility (sight) triangles
   ▫ Constitute a property restriction provided for in Zoning Code to insure adequate visibility
       for drivers at intersections
   ▫ Primarily used to increase visibility and across private property at existing intersections
   ▫ Yuma City Code §154-004 and §154-449
       ⋅ Establishes two criteria for visibility triangles, both of which must be met
           – Absolute specifications


                                             PAGE 4                                             19
                                    SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION/ROUNDTABLE MINUTES
                                                                       SEPTEMBER 30, 2008

               ~ 33 feet back from corner on both sides
               ~ May or may not affect private property
           – Specifications based on speed of traffic, per American Association of State
               Highway and Transportation Officials (ASHTO) standards
               ~ City traffic standards have been prepared that convert the ASHTO standards
                   to specific distances to make it easier for developers to use.
               ~ Speed-related sight triangles begin 14.5 feet from the corner of the
                   intersection and can vary on each side of the intersection.
               ~ These standards can be encroached upon, if necessary, if the intersection is
                   controlled by a traffic signal.
▪   Corner right-of-way triangles
    ▫ Constitutes a taking of property - rights-of-way
    ▫ Used to provide for
       ⋅ Visibility
       ⋅ Siting of control equipment
       ⋅ Siting of aesthetic features
       ⋅ Future expansion
    ▫ Specific to the Major Roadways Plan
       ⋅ Size defined by class of roadway
    ▫ Area required to be dedicated is oftentimes more than needed; however, the extra room
       provides for future channelization of lanes by islands.

Orcutt stated that, in his opinion, the corner right-of-way triangle requirements may be too
great. Staff is investigating the possibility of requiring a curved “triangle” rather than flat-
bottomed triangle, to reduce the amount of property such a sight “triangle” would take.

Using a Geographic Information System (GIS) display of 1st Avenue from 20th Street to 28th
Street, Lineberry depicted the right-of-way that would be needed for the various versions of a
minor arterial; 1st Avenue is designated as a minor arterial in the Major Roadway Plan. A minor
arterial can be minimum (76 feet wide), constrained (88 feet wide) or full (100 feet wide). Even
at its narrowest (a minimum arterial), properties on both sides of 1st Avenue would be affected.
The 1st Avenue project is to widen 1st Avenue, north of 24th Street, to 2 lanes in each direction
and include a center turning lane. No parking is allowed along an arterial. Currently parking is
allowed on both sides of this portion of the street and there is no center lane. The plan does not
accommodate a bike lane. South of 24th Street, the centerline of 1st Avenue does not line up. In
order to save some property, the alignment needs to be shifted. This southern portion of 1st
Avenue presents some unique problems; discussion follows:

Discussion highlights
▪ Beginning at 23rd Street and going south, 1st Avenue will need to be shifted to better line up
   with its counterpart across 24th Street.
▪ Improvements to its intersection with 24th Street will take considerable right-of-way from the
   corners.
   ▫ The intersection will not be lined up exactly.




                                               PAGE 5                                              20
                                   SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION/ROUNDTABLE MINUTES
                                                                      SEPTEMBER 30, 2008

    ▫    The excess property left over from the right-of-way triangle could be used for stormwater
         retention; there is an area to the northeast that has flooding problems and whose water
         could be diverted here.
    ▫ The excess property could also be used for bus stop pull-outs.
▪   Rather than center 1st Avenue on its correct alignment south of 24th Street – impacting two
    rows of homes on the west side of the street – the map shows a 58-foot-wide street centered
    on the current centerline.
▪   Possible options – 1st Avenue, south of 24th Street:
    ▫ Designate 1st Avenue, south of 24th Street, as a local residential street, making it 58 feet
         wide.
         ⋅ 1st Avenue currently has a 38-foot of right-of-way.
    ▫ At the Madison Avenue/24th Street intersection:
         ⋅ Create a right-in/right-out configuration
         ⋅ Or, create a cul-de-sac at Madison Avenue
    ▫ Connect 1st Avenue from 26th Street to 27th Street
▪   A business that is served by a lot of semi tractor-trailer trucks accesses Madison Avenue near
    its intersection with 24th Street and is disruptive to the neighborhood.
    ▫ The trucks appear to be using neighborhood streets rather than 24th Street.
▪   Why does this the subdivision southeast of 24th Street and Madison Avenue need the
    Madison Avenue exit? The neighborhood has several other exits onto Arizona Avenue.
    ▫ The question is: How to close off the disruptive business – a business that has outgrown
         its site – and leave the neighborhood intact?
    ▫ Would a cul-de-sac on Madison Avenue impact the fire station?
▪   Typically, local residential streets are 58 feet from face-of-curb to face-of-curb.
    ▫ In this instance, taking an additional 10 feet (instead of the usual 20 feet) from the west
         side would provide two lanes in each direction, a center turn lane and, on the west side,
         sidewalks.
    ▫ Sidewalks on the east would be problematic because of the existence of power poles
         there.
▪   The homes on the west side are manufactured homes and there is parking along the west side.
    ▫ Taking property on the west side would eliminate parking along the street.
    ▫ The homes on the west side are located in mobile home parks, so that purchasing the
         right-of-way would involve only one owner.
    ▫ The City would assist people who needed to be relocated.
    ▫ Because of the age of the manufactured homes, the homes could not be relocated within
         the City limits.
▪   Defining the right-of-way needs for this project does not mean that this project is going to be
    undertaken immediately; there is no construction scheduled on 1st Avenue south of 17th Street
    at this time.
    ▫ However, should any property change its use and/or undergo re-development, the correct
         right-of-way exaction will be required.
    ▫ 1st Avenue, south of 24th Street, is not included in the 10-year Capital Improvement Plan;
         it is included in the Major Roadways Plan (MRP) as a concept and the MRP is due for
         revisions.

Lineberry summarized the options:


                                             PAGE 6                                              21
                                   SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION/ROUNDTABLE MINUTES
                                                                      SEPTEMBER 30, 2008

▪   Designate 1st Avenue, south of 24th Street, as a local residential street, rather than a minor
    arterial, which is its designation to the north.
▪   Improve the intersection of 1st Avenue at 24th Street, connecting the two sides of 1st Avenue
    at an angle.
▪   Begin a shift 1st Avenue at 23rd Street and to the south, in order to spare properties.
    ▫ These impositions could be implemented as properties are redeveloped.
▪   Create a cul-de-sac or right-in/right-out at Madison Avenue to separate the business and
    residential areas.
    ▫ This could be done aside from the larger project to solve the long-standing neighborhood
        problems sooner.

Brooberg and Lineberry clarified:
▪ 24th Street at 1st Avenue is a constrained arterial – 116 feet width
▪ The street flares to 80 feet on the north side and 78 feet on the south side at the intersection
   proper.
▪ If the intersection remains on its current centerline alignment, both buildings on the northern
   corners would have to be removed.
▪ Kelland’s Kiddie Kollege would lose its parking lot and the grocery store at the southeast
   corner would need to be removed completely.
▪ Additionally, two intersections that would open into a turn lane will have to be addressed.
▪ Fewer and fewer amenities are possible when existing roadways are widened because of the
   lack of available space in developed residential and/or commercial areas – unless private
   properties are taken; in areas that are developing, bike lanes and sidewalks are an option
   because the area is not already built out.

Discussion continued
▪ The imposition of these defined rights-of-way will not be imposed until projects move
   forward – whether individual, private development/change or the City’s Capital
   Improvement Program.
▪ Better defining the needed rights-of-way keeps developers/property owners from having to
   dedicate more than is needed or the City from receiving too little.
▪ Arizona Department of Transportation turn-backs will make a difference by bringing certain
   streets under the City’s control.
▪ Residents have expressed concern that the City may not complete some of the much-needed
   older street improvements in favor of new development on the outskirts.
   ▫ Buying $6 million worth of right-of-way to complete $4 million in roadway
       improvements to save residents 5 minutes of driving time isn’t worth it.
   ▫ Widening major streets – and developing such projects as a Yuma loop – improves traffic
       overall, making some of the very expensive older street improvements unnecessary.
   ▫ Another way to improve traffic overall is to address intersections rather than whole
       streets; although, intersection approach areas could reach blocks back from the
       intersection.
   ▫ Sometimes taking a portion of a lot requires taking the whole lot.
   ▫ The widening of Arizona Avenue will take place before the widening of 1st Avenue
       occurs.



                                             PAGE 7                                              22
                                      SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION/ROUNDTABLE MINUTES
                                                                         SEPTEMBER 30, 2008

       ▫   Just as the discussion on 12th Street demonstrated earlier today, certain roadways cannot
           be improved to the maximum needed; they must be brought down to what’s reasonable.
       ▫   Creating a cul-de-sac on Madison Avenue, whether at 24th Street or slightly to the south
           at 24th Place, could be problematic for the adjacent businesses.

Watson: Staff will follow up with a written summary.


III.       UPDATES - none


IV.        ADJOURNMENT/EXECUTIVE SESSION

Motion (Beeson/McClendon): To adjourn to Executive Session. Voice vote: adopted 7-0. The
meeting adjourned at 4:31 p.m.


____________________________________
Brigitta M. Kuiper, City Clerk


APPROVED:


________________________________
Lawrence K. Nelson, Mayor




                                                PAGE 8                                                 23
                                             MINUTES
                                     REGULAR WORKSESSION
                            CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUMA, ARIZONA
                                         YUMA CITY HALL
                                  ONE CITY PLAZA, YUMA, ARIZONA
                                         October 14, 2008
                                             5:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER
      Mayor Nelson called the City Council meeting to order.

     Councilmembers Present:     Shoop, Beeson, , Hieb, Johnson, and Mayor Nelson
     Councilmembers Absent:      Mendoza
       Staffmembers Present:     City Administrator, Mark Watson
                                 Deputy City Administrator, Bob Stull
                                 Parks and Golf Course Superintendent, Damon Chango
                                 Executive Director, Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area
                                     Corporation, Charles Flynn
                                 Various department heads or their representatives
                                 City Clerk, Brigitta Kuiper


I.       SUMMARY OF CURRENT EVENTS - none


II.      Regular City Council Meeting Agenda of October 15, 2008

Motion Consent Agenda: Endorse City of Yuma Communications Policy

Watson: The City Council requested that this discussion be held during tomorrow’s Regular City
Council Meeting. If additional information is needed, it will be provided at that time. The discussion
is reserved for the City Council and staff background presentations.

Johnson stated he intended that tomorrow’s discussion include the opportunity to give staff direction,
not decide on policy. He intended that the City Council take no vote on this matter when he asked that
it be put on the agenda for discussion. The wording of his motion should have made that clear.
Watson: If the City Council takes no action tomorrow, the City Administrator’s Communication
Policy (Administrative Regulation No. 11) will remain in effect. The City Council will have an
opportunity to direct staff to develop a resolution to establish a Meet and Confer process, in which case
staff would then take that direction and prepare a resolution for future City Council approval. Watson
read a verbatim text of the discussion surrounding Johnson’s motion (made at the October 1, 2008,
Regular City Council Meeting) in order to clarify Johnson’s request.

Watson: The continuance of the existing Communication Policy does not require any City Council
action. The City Council may chose any one of the following:
▪ Endorse the policy
▪ Take no action with regard to the policy
▪ Direct staff to prepare a resolution/ordinance to adopt a Meet and Confer process
▪ Combine and consolidate the Communication Policy with Meet and Confer procedures
                                                   1                                                24
                                                               Regular City Council Worksession Minutes
                                                                                       October 14, 2008

▪ Dissolve the Communications Policy.
The draft Meet and Confer resolution provided to the City Council as a part of the meeting information
is the resolution developed by the fire fighters and police unions. He (Watson) has made revisions
made to the resolution; he has not met with any police or fire officials or other employees to prepare
any revisions to the resolution.

Motion Consent Agenda: Diamond Sports and Entertainment, Inc., dba The Golden Baseball
League (Winter Season)

: This agreement is for three winter seasons. Is this a change? Glen Dobson, Jr., representing the
Golden Baseball League: The previous winter season agreement, the first such agreement, was
specific to one season. This agreement is a three-year contract. Mayor Nelson: There are two
baseball seasons – winter and summer. The last summer season was a multi-year contract. Chango:
This contract addresses only winter league play. The contract calls for Golden Baseball League to pay
the City $1,000 per game day for use of the facilities. McClendon expressed concerns about having a
three-year contract; does a three-year contract obligate the City should the Golden Baseball League
cease play? Chango: The contract is for one year, renewable up to two additional years. Watson: If
the League dissolves and ceases performance, then the contract is void. The League will have no
claim on the City. He will confirm that information with Parks and Recreation personnel and pass
along that confirmation at tomorrow’s meeting.

 asked for a status report on how season play is going and what attendance has been. Dobson: The
League just signed a three-year contract for use of the facilities that will take them into their sixth year.
The Golden Baseball League has been in Yuma the second longest of any professional baseball team;
they are here to stay. Last winter, management of the concessions changed hands, bringing Los
Angeles’ prices to Yuma games; attendance flagged. Since that time, the League has regained control
of the concessions and they have brought prices down and begun new marketing strategies, such as
meal deals. Attendance has begun to climb up gradually. They anticipate a good season with the
return of the winter visitors. McClendon commended League players for going out into the
community and participating in community service projects. The community needs to be made aware
of the new prices; it should draw families back. Dobson: Mike Marshall, Golden League’s President
and Field Manager, was the one who worked with the CEO to convince him to lower prices. The
League is working on an agreement with Wienerschnitzel to take over their concessions, offering
lower prices than at its restaurant. Games will once again have a fun, family atmosphere. The whole
structure of our menu and the prices are changing with the addition and deletion of certain items to
make it simple and affordable for families. Beeson expressed appreciation that prices would be
lowered; the community was very vocal about the high prices. Dobson detailed concession price and
product changes.


III.   YUMA CROSSING NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA: MID-POINT REPORT

Gary Munk, Chairman of the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Corporation (YCNHAC): The
Heritage Area has been successful and the City of Yuma played a large part in that success. The
YCHNAC Board of Directors is comprised of Patty Ware, representing the local farming community;
Steve Bell, long time proponent of Riverfront development; Bobby Brooks, former City
Councilmember; Ian Watkinson; Brian Golding, Sr., Economic Director, Quechan Indian Nation; Tom
Rushin, former Superintendent, Yuma Elementary School District No. 1 and former Chairman of the
                                                      2                                                 25
                                                        Regular City Council Worksession Minutes
                                                                                October 14, 2008

Historic District Review Commission; Mayor Larry Nelson; Yuma County Supervisor, Lenore Stuart;
Amanda Aguirre, State Senator, Governer appointee to YCNHAC; Lee Baiza, Superintendent, Organ
Pipe National Monument, representing the National Park Service; and, himself. Steve Bell is the
current President; however, his term will expire in December, 2008.

Munk reviewed the history of the YCNHAC:
▪ The City of Yuma spearheaded the formation of a Heritage Area in the Yuma area, by formulating
  a plan and vision for it.
▪ YCNHAC authorized by Congress in October 2008
  ▫ First Heritage Area west of the Mississippi River
  ▫ City staff have been instrumental in helping other communities in the West to develop Heritage
      Areas
  ▫ The Heritage Area Program has grown, such that a majority of Senators in the U.S. Congress
      have Heritage Areas within their states – speaks to support for the program.
▪ Designation of Heritage Area allows the City up to $10 million in funding over a 15–year period.
  ▫ Community must be able to match federal dollars
  ▫ Averages out to $750,000 per year
           Yuma has only been able to match approximately $300,000 each year.
  ▫ This year is the mid-point of the 15-year funding period.
▪ Congress has failed to allocated the funding
  ▫ In response, the Board actively sought funds elsewhere – creative, entrepreneurial effort.
  ▫ All the funding needed has not been raised; however, the partnerships have been solidified.
▪ YCNHAC’s success is a result of many partners - the Board of Directors represents a good cross-
  section of the community.
  ▫ The City of Yuma was the founding partner and has remained a strong partner; City
      Administration and Riverfront personnel have been very supportive and helpful.
  ▫ Farmers are working with and for the Corporation.
  ▫ The Quechan Indians have been active in assisting with the development of the East Wetlands;
      they have begun to locate development at the river’s edge.
▪ Second-Half
  ▫ The work of the Heritage Area will not cease after the next seven years because the Heritage
      Area Program has such strong support; the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area (YCNHA)
      contributes greatly to the community’s quality of life.
▪ In 2002, the YCNHA Management Plan was developed, establishing seven districts, three along
  the Riverfront and four in the Historic Downtown area.
  ▫ Much has been accomplished.
  ▫ More could be accomplished with more funding.
  ▫ The Corporation has worked to create private enterprise/public entity partnerships.
           The new hotel is a prime example.

Munk presented copies of the bound Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Midpoint Progress
Report to City Councilmembers.

Flynn presented the following:

Progress Report: Management Plan Implementation – 2001 to 2008
▪ Initial plan was predicated on receiving $750,000 per year.

                                                3                                            26
                                                            Regular City Council Worksession Minutes
                                                                                    October 14, 2008

    ▫   Became apparent, funding would not be at that level
    ▫   Two key decisions
             Focus efforts on Riverfront: Downtown Riverfront District and East and West Wetlands
             Seek to leverage private sector and other public entity funding to greatest degree possible
▪   Riverfront District - Funding
    ▫ National Park Service: $1,080,000.00
    ▫ Leveraged funding: $36,250,000.00
    ▫ Half of this funding spent on Riverfront District
             North of 1st Street to the river between the Ocean-to-Ocean Highway Bridge and 4th
             Avenue
             The core historic crossing area – foundational to all other efforts
    ▫ Considerable funding received from state and federal government and $30 million from the
        hotel.
    ▫ 80% of funding spent in Riverfront and East Wetlands Districts
▪   Riverfront District - Gateway Park
    ▫ Had to amass the land in order to begin development
             Difficult process
            ― Federal property with historic covenant attached
            ― Threatened National Historic landmark site.
            ― Consensus gained on development of guideline standards to be used by Historic District
                Review Commission in reviewing proposed development of properties.
             City of Yuma bought properties as they became available for future development, in
             accordance with guidelines.
    ▫ Funding
             YCNHAC - $400,000.00
             State and federal grants - $2 million
             City of Yuma - $2 million
    ▫ The contribution of the railroad is highlighted
    ▫ Architecture of new conference center is reminiscent of historic Southern Pacific Hotel and
        placement of locomotive is the same alignment as historically existed.
    ▫ Has reconnected of the community to the river.
▪   Riverfront District - Pivot Point Interpretive Plaza
    ▫ Funding
             $800,000.00 in grants received
             City of Yuma Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funds allocated
             To go out to bid by end of 2008
    ▫ Will highlight all historic crossings: railroad, siphon, Ocean-to-Ocean Highway Bridge, pivot
        bridge, ferry, et cetera.
    ▫ Ghost train sound system has been installed along Madison Avenue
    ▫ Grant money has been received to fund a laser light display that will visually display the
        historic alignment of the rail road route across the river.
▪   Arizona Welcome Center – Although funding has required this project to be postponed, having
    community involvement and a plan for the facility is the reason the project has received the amount
    of funding it has received.
▪   East Wetlands District - Funding
    ▫ NPS - $650,000.00
    ▫ Leveraged - $9,275,000.00

                                                   4                                               27
                                                          Regular City Council Worksession Minutes
                                                                                  October 14, 2008

    ▫  Half of East Wetlands park property lies within Quechan Indian Nation jurisdiction.
    ▫  Re-opening of Ocean-to-Ocean Highway Bridge, in February 2002, marked the first project in
       which the City of Yuma and the Quechan Indian Nation worked closely together; opening of
       the bridge was symbolic of reconnection of the two communities, which had already begun to
       occur.
    ▫ Restoration – removal of invasive species plants, replacing them with native vegetation
    ▫ Long term maintenance
            Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP)
           ― Offering to cover 70% of future maintenance costs; to begin October 2009.
           ― 50-year maintenance
            Quechans, City of Yuma and YCNHA to provide 10% of needed funding each
▪   West Wetlands
    ▫ Funding
            National Park Service - $150,000.00
            Leveraged - $4,920,118.00
    ▫ Community involvement; City planning
    ▫ Stewart Vincent Wolfe Memorial Playground
            City acted as nonprofit for collection of donations
            Huge community involvement
▪   Remaining Four Districts – Historic Downtown Area
    ▫ Little money left to address area
    ▫ Main Street funding
            Leveraged - $4,350,000.00
            $1.5 million in grants received for Main Street reconfiguration
    ▫ Century Heights District: Planned to offer interest free loans to homeowners for exterior home
       renovations; only one loan granted before running out of funds
            Funding
            Leveraged - $200,000.00
    ▫ Brinley Avenue District: Limited improvements because of lack of funding
            No funding from National Park Service or leveraged
    ▫ Southern Pacific Rail Yard District
            Funding
           ― National Park Service - $20,000.00
           ― Leveraged - $225,000.00
            Envisioned as residential or educational development
            Was not the City’s role to purchase property, but to foster interest
            Union Pacific Railroad donated property to the City
            Grants and private sector funding for project unsuccessful
            As of today, a developer has shown interest in restoring the building.
           ― Would agree to historic covenant being placed on the property
▪   Proposed Future Priorities
    ▫ Maintenance of East Wetlands – MSCP
    ▫ Downtown Riverfront District – two sides to the river
            High priority for Quechans
            City can assist Quechans in developing north side
           ― Grant writing
    ▫ Completion of West Wetlands

                                                  5                                             28
                                                            Regular City Council Worksession Minutes
                                                                                    October 14, 2008

            Full build out dependent on funding
    ▫  Addressing underfunded aspects of Management Plan – Downtown Districts
    ▫  The success and progress the City has made in the Heritage Area attracting the attention of
       private foundations and federal agencies; they want to know how Yuma did it!
            Hunter’s Hole has received a $300,000.00 grant and it is technically outside the
            boundaries of the Heritage Area, but will positively impact it.
    ▫ New opportunities beyond the current Management Plan
▪   Funding Totals
    ▫ National Park Service - $2,250,000.00
    ▫ Leveraged: $58,720,118.00

In summary, Flynn stated that the City has played a major role in bringing about these developments.
The City’s commitment to the plan provided the YCNHAC with the necessary support it needed to
implement the plan to date.

Discussion

Johnson: Will $500,000.00 be enough to control the river cane? Flynn: Riverfront personnel have
learned a great deal about the river in the last seven years. The key is to remove the Salt Ceder and
cane to three feet below the ground and immediately plant native grasses; that’s more effective than
planting trees; maintenance will be a challenge, but it will be manageable. MSCP has indicated that,
should there be one-time projects that need to be done, such as re-dredging the channel, it will be
included as a scoping project and they will commit to pay for it 100%. Others along the river are
coming to Yuma to see how it has accomplished what seems impossible.

Shoop asked about specific aspects of the plan. Flynn: The sediment drying basins have been
relocated to a narrow stretch of land along the bike path, which is part of the pending land exchange
with the US Bureau of Reclamation. The City’s purchase of the US Fish and Wildlife building has
been completed and the Historic District Review Commission has approved its demolition. There are
funds set aside for the demolition in the current CIP. This was the last piece of property needed to
bring all the Riverfront property available for development. Yuma County employees were allowed to
park on vacated property on 1st Street; however, the City has informed Yuma County that the property
is no longer available for parking. The City waters the undeveloped property to keep the dust down.

Flynn: Although there was some opposition to the removal of the Southern Pacific Railroad holding
tanks, their removal has made it possible for the site to be re-used in a way that will become a part of
history in its own right. The Pivot Point hotel developer was careful to respect the history and yet
work in terms of the future. An archaeological survey of the site located the swing span lock notch of
original pivoting railroad bridge; the current rails are located right where they would have been when
the lock notch was in service.

Shoop suggested the community be involved in the opening of the Pivot Point Plaza. Flynn promised
everyone would be invited to the event. Five miles of trails in the East Wetlands should be completed
this winter. When Gateway Park reopens, the hotel is completed, the trails are finished and Pivot Point
Plaza is completed, the entire area will be made available to the community. The north side of the
river will be transformed in the next six months. The Quechans will increase the size of the sluice to
four to five times it current size. A 35-acre nature park will be completed along the hillside. The
Quechans are actively trying to reconnect with the river.
                                                    6                                                29
                                                           Regular City Council Worksession Minutes
                                                                                   October 14, 2008



IV.    CITY OF YUMA BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES

Mayor Nelson noted that the Western Arizona Council of Governments (WACOG), Regional Council
on Aging and the Water and Sewer Commission have vacancies.


V.     ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR POSSIBLE DISCUSSION

Mayor Nelson reported on the Conference of Mayors he attended.

Beeson asked that the selling of animals on the sidewalk be placed on another meeting agenda for
more discussion. Mayor Nelson directed that the topic be included on Special City Council
Worksession/Roundtable agenda. Watson stated he would have an ordinance prepared for the City
Council to review.

Watson stated he and will be meeting with Congressman Raul Grijalva tomorrow.

Watson noted that there may be a large group of people addressing the City Council at the Call to the
Public about Little League baseball. City staff will be continuing to work with proponents to work out
the details.


VI.    ADJOURNMENT/EXECUTIVE SESSION

Motion (Beeson/Johnson): To adjourn to the meeting. Voice vote: adopted 6-0. The meeting
adjourned at 6:08 p.m.

___________________________
Brigitta M. Kuiper, City Clerk


APPROVED:


___________________________
Lawrence K. Nelson, Mayor




                                                  7                                              30
                                              MINUTES
                             REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                             CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUMA, ARIZONA
                              CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, YUMA CITY HALL
                                   ONE CITY PLAZA, YUMA, ARIZONA
                                         OCTOBER 15, 2008
                                              5:30 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER
       Mayor Nelson called the City Council meeting to order. Mayor welcomed the local Boy Scouts and
youth from the Little League.

INVOCATION/PLEDGE
      Natalie Reyes of the Bahia Faith gave the invocation. Rudy Olivas, Senior Meter Services
Technician, led the City Council in the pledge of allegiance.

ROLL CALL
 Councilmembers Present:       Shoop, Mendoza, Beeson, McClendon, Hieb, Johnson and Mayor Nelson
  Councilmembers Absent:       none
    Staffmembers Present:      City Administrator, Mark Watson
                               Deputy City Administrator, Bob Stull
                               Senior Planner, Noah Cullis
                               Economic Development Program Manager, Pete Erlenbach
                               City Attorney, Steven Moore
                               Various Department Heads or their representative
                               City Clerk, Brigitta M. Kuiper

FINAL CALL
       Mayor Nelson made a final call for the submission of Speaker Request Forms from members of the
audience.

PRESENTATIONS

Charles Cordery, El Presidente, Caballeros de Yuma, presented the organizations annual report, pursuant
to the Agreement between the City of Yuma and the Caballeros de Yuma, Inc., dated May 26, 2006.

Donations – Benefitting Yuma County Youth and/or Community Betterment
▪ Miscellaneous activities and organizations: $14,400.00
▪ Scholarships: $13,500.00
▪ Balloon Festival: $3,308.00
▪ Midnight at the Oasis Festival (MATO): $51,219.00
▪ Total: $82,467.00

Sponsored Events: Attendance and Economic Impact
▪ MATO:
   ▫ 3-day event
   ▫ 16 sub-events
   ▫ 900 entrants – 72% from out-of-town


                                                                                                31
                                                                 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                      OCTOBER 15, 2008

    ▫   50,000 attended
    ▫   11 other non-profit clubs/organizations provide food concessions and earn additional proceeds at no
        cost
    ▫ Overall economic impact: $450,000.000
▪   Colorado River Crossing Balloon Festival
    ▫ 3-day event
    ▫ 35-37 hot air balloons and crew
    ▫ 15,000 attended sunrise launches and sunset glow/fireworks
    ▫ Entry fee: non-perishable food item; items donated to Crossroads Mission
    ▫ Launched from West Wetlands Park on November 22 and 23, 2008
▪   Baseball
    ▫ Major League play held on March 22, 2007: San Diego Padres, Stars of the Future vs. Seattle
        Mariners, Stars of the Future
▪   Armed Forces Park
    ▫ $60,000.00 needed to complete the park
    ▫ Fundraiser held November 7, 2007
    ▫ Four collection booths located at selected Shay’s Chevron gas stations
    ▫ $31,483.45 donated
        ― Allowed Caballeros to receive matching grant of $30,000.00 from an Arizona veterans
            organization
▪   In summary: members of Caballeros de Yuma donate thousands of hours to plan, organize and work at
    events. Caballeros provide full administrative backup for the events listed above as well as the Holiday
    Pageant and Tower Lighting, Independence Day Flag Raise Ceremony and more. The club is assessing
    the feasibility of organizing and sponsoring three new annual events – one in late January and two in the
    summer. The Caballeros are proud of their history and look forward to continuing to contribute to the
    quality of life of the community.

Shoop commended the Caballeros for considering summer activities. Yuma has is a 12-month community;
there’s no need to shut down during the summer.


COMMUNICATIONS / FACTUAL RESPONSES

Watson drew attention to a discussion about changing public notification laws that occurred at the recent
Legislative Summit. The summit included City and County officials, as well as Yuma’s Legislative
delegation. An article in The Sun this morning touched on open government and relates it to this issue. The
City Council supports revisiting Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 9, as it deals with public notification. The
law needs to be revised to allow cities to save money, yet reach the public in ways new technology now
makes available. The City has allocated $100,000.00 this year to cover the cost of required public notices in
the local newspaper, which the law establishes as the only official point of contact. Yet, as part of the Want
Ads, these notices are oftentimes not read. Many nowadays use the internet as their source of information.
The matter is an ongoing debate that affects small businesses as well. The League of Arizona Cities and
Towns has taken up this issue as a statewide priority. This effort is not intended to make government less
open, but to reduce costs and make it easier for citizens to find information electronically.




                                                   Page 2                                           32
                                                                REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                     OCTOBER 15, 2008

I.   CALL TO THE PUBLIC

Mayor Nelson asked those who had requested to speak at the Call to the Public about the Meet and Confer
issue hold their comments until that agenda item is addressed later in the meeting.

Donna West, 1426 S. Thomas Avenue, urged the City Council to allow the Little League program a place
in the City’s Parks and Recreation Department offerings. The Parks and Recreation Department has turned
down their requests. Little League’s goal, since 1939, has been to give the children of the world a game that
provides the fundamental principals of sportsmanship, fair play and teamwork that they can use later in life
to become good citizens. Some 600+ children, between the ages of 5 and 18, are pre-registered to play.
Yuma Little League is not here to replace any other existing program; its supporters simply want the
children and parents of Yuma to have it as a choice.

Norman Gold, 3169 W. London Drive, spoke in support of the Little League. He would like to afford his
son the opportunity to play Little League, just as he had. He asked that the City Council reconsider their
request to be allowed to use City fields for play.

Mary Jane Thornton, 2867 S. 17th Avenue, spoke in support of the Little League because it promotes
teamwork, loyalty and good citizenship. Her son wrote a paper for school on his desire to play Major
League baseball. Yuma Boys Baseball League (YBBL) is a good program, but it doesn’t provide its players
with the opportunity to move up to major league play. The YBBL is not in good standing with the Arizona
Corporation Commission, per the internet. Why does the City back an organization that will not disclose its
finances?

Alvin West read a prepared statement by Dave Parrish, 8057 Forget Me Not Street, which stated his
support for the Little League Program. The national program provides instruction to all involved in the
game – coaches, managers, umpires, and players. Children need to experience competition to learn how to
win and lose. Higher levels of play can compete at the region, state, national and world level. Little League
provides its own scorekeepers and umpires, which would not cost the City anything. Little League assists
cities in holding tournaments that bring families into the area to eat, sleep and shop. Little League affords
all children the opportunity to play.

Jeannie Wilson, Yuma, Arizona, spoke in support of a Yuma Little League. She and her brother played as
youths and traveled to many places. Not having Little League is like not having Boy Scouts. She worked
with Donna West to lay the groundwork, making sure there are enough interested children, before talking to
the Parks and Recreation Department.

Mike Parker, 1015 E. 26th Place, President of YBBL, thanked the City for its co-sponsorship of the YBBL.
City personnel take care of the fields and scheduling; concessions, equipment, and uniforms are provided by
YBBL and YBBL sponsors. Yuma has some of the best fields in the State of Arizona and YBBL uses many
of them. YBBL makes sure all who want to play can by giving scholarships to those in need.

Lucille Hunter, 3013 W. 14th Street, stated that on December 14-17, 2007, the Marine Corps conducted a
Desert Talon exercise that involved landing at Ronald Regan Elementary School, some 30 feet from her
property. The aircraft using in the exercise caused an estimated $31,545.00 in damages to her home. She
recounted the numerous people she tried to reach to stop the exercise while it was occurring – Yuma Police
Department, 9-1-1, and Marine Corps Air Station – Yuma. After the event, they contacted the Federal

                                                   Page 3                                          33
                                                               REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                    OCTOBER 15, 2008

Aviation Administration. They were unsuccessful in reaching MCAS’ Commanding Officer. The MCAS
Office of Community Planning and Liaisons never returned their calls. Finally, on January 8, 2008, an
enlisted Marine interviewed them at their home regarding the damage. On May 14, 2008, they filed a claim
with the Department of the Navy; in July, the Navy denied their claim without a reason. They have filed an
appeal and can now sue under the Federal Torts Act.

Watson stated he has a meeting with Donna West scheduled for next week. There is no question about the
value of the Little League program and the integrity of the organization. That is not the issue. City
programs support 10,000 registrants annually who use its fields for various baseball programs. The City’s
baseball offerings are some of the largest in the state. Accommodating a new program with the potential of
another 600 participants will impact current programs. City staff will continue to work with Little League
representatives to develop a transition plan; there is nothing that can be done immediately because a
schedule/season is currently in session.


II.   MOTION CONSENT AGENDA

Motion (Johnson/Hieb): To continue Motion Consent Agenda item B.10, an Infrastructure and Services
Report for Annexation Area A2008-05 for Jakolin, to the November 5, 2008 Regular City Council Meeting
at the request of the applicant. Voice vote: approved 7-0.

Motion (Shoop/Mendoza): To approve the Motion Consent Agenda as recommended, with the exception of
item B.10, as noted above. Voice vote: approved 7-0.

A.    Approval of minutes of the following City Council meeting(s):
              Regular Worksession                          August 12, 2008
              Regular Council Meeting                       August 13, 2008
              Regular Council Meeting                     September 3, 2008

B.    Approval of Staff Recommendations:

      1.   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 Attorney)

      2.   Approve an application for a Special Event Liquor License submitted by Charles W. Flynn, on
           behalf of the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area, for a car show and barbeque. The event
           will be held at Gateway Park, 259 N. Gila Street, on November 15, 2008. (SP08-19)
           (Admin/CC)

      3.   Award the bid for Carver Park Neighborhood Waterline, Storm Drain and Pavement
           Replacement Project to Tanner Companies (Yuma), Inc. dba CEMEX Construction Materials
           South, LLC, Yuma, Arizona, at a total cost of $3,946,253.85. (2008000467) (Eng)

      4.   Authorize a one-year, renewable (for up to four additional one-year periods or as extended by the
           award of a Sole Source Contract) contract to D C Frost Associates, Inc., Walnut Creek,



                                                  Page 4                                          34
                                                                REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                     OCTOBER 15, 2008

           California, for the purchase and delivery of Trojan Ultraviolet System Parts at an estimated
           annual cost of $100,000.00, an as-needed basis. (2007000297) (Utilities/WPCF)

      5.   Authorize a one-year, renewable (for up to two additional one-year periods) to Crafco, Chandler,
           Arizona for the purchase of Asphalt Rubber Crack Sealant, at an estimated annual cost of
           $125,000.00, utilizing the cooperative purchase agreement issued by City of Tempe, Arizona.
           (2009000201) (PW/Streets and Solid Waste)

      6.   Authorize the purchase of one Groundsmaster Model #5900, a large area rotary mower, and one
           Reelmaster Model #6700-D, a golf course turf mower, from Mohave Educational Services,
           Kingman, Arizona, utilizing funds from the Equipment Replacement Fund and utilizing the
           cooperative purchase agreement issued by Mohave Educational Services, at a total cost
           $133,300.24. (2009000213 and 2009000214) (P&R)

      7.   Authorize the purchase and delivery of cardiac monitors and accessories from Phillips Medical
           Systems, Seattle, Washington, at an estimated annual cost of $60,000.00, on an as-needed basis
           utilizing the cooperative purchase agreement issued by the City of Phoenix. (2009000218)
           (YFD)

      8.   Authorize a one-year contract, renewable (for up to four additional one-year periods) to The
           Sherwin Williams Company, dba Dobco, Manchester, Georgia, for the purchase of
           Thermoplastic Material for Pavement Markings at an estimated first year cost of $20,000.00;
           utilizing the cooperative purchase agreement issued by the City of Mesa. (2009000234)
           (PW/Streets)

      9.   Authorize the City Administrator to execute an agreement between Diamond Sports and
           Entertainment, Inc., dba the Golden Baseball League, and the City of Yuma for use of the Ray
           Kroc Baseball Complex for three Winter seasons in February/March 2009-2011. (P&R/Civic
           Center)

      10. Removed for separate consideration; see above.

      11. Approve an Infrastructure and Service Report for Annexation Area No. A2008-06, identified as
          the Leep Annexation, located at the southwest corner of Avenue C and 36th Street.
          (CD/Planning)

      12. Authorize salary adjustment (2½ % increase) for City Administrator, Mark S. Watson (Mayor
          and Council)


III. RESOLUTION CONSENT AGENDA

Kuiper displayed the following titles:
                                         Resolution R2008-69
A resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, authorizing and approving the
execution of a Reimbursement Agreement with JJM Resort Developers, LLC, for partial Jose Maria
Redondo Commerce Center storm drain extension construction costs

                                                   Page 5                                          35
                                                               REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                    OCTOBER 15, 2008

(CIP 9.0801; in connection with the construction of the Radisson Hotel in the La Jolla Desert Subdivision)
(Eng)
                                           Resolution R2008-70
A resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, authorizing and approving the
execution of a Preannexation Development Agreement with the owner of real property located at 3817
West Linda Lane
(APN 632-49-115; property owners: Abraham and Yolanda Abitong) (CD/Planning)

Motion (Hieb/Johnson): To adopt the Resolution Consent Agenda as recommended. Roll call vote:
adopted 7-0.


IV.     ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES CONSENT AGENDA

Kuiper displayed the following titles:
                                          Ordinance O2008-23
An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, amending Chapter 154 of the Yuma
City Code, as amended, rezoning certain property hereinbefore located in the High Density
Residential (R-3) District to the Limited Commercial (B-1) District and amending the zoning map to
conform thereto
(Z2008-002; APN 105-61-018E; property at 3130 S. Winsor Ave.; applicant: Michael Taylor Architects,
Inc., on behalf of Rick Fee) (CD/Planning) (Continued from the June 18, 2008 and August 6, 2008 and
September 17, 2008 Regular City Council meetings)

                                         Ordinance O2008-41
An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, annexing to said City a portion of
Section 34 of Township 8 South, Range 23 West of the Gila & Salt River Base and Meridian, Yuma
County, Arizona, amending Chapter 154 of the Yuma City Code, as amended, designating the zoning
of certain property to the Light Industrial District, and amending the zoning map to conform thereto,
pursuant to the provisions of Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 7, Arizona Revised Statutes and amendments
thereto
(A2008-02; Factor Avenue North; property located in an unincorporated county island east of Arizona Ave.,
between 20th and 21st Streets) (Admin/EcDev)

Motion (Mendoza/McClendon): To adopt the Ordinance Consent Agenda as recommended.
Roll call vote: adopted 7-0.



V.    INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES

Motion (Johnson/Beeson): To continue Ordinance O2008-43 (Annexation Area A2008-05; Jakolin;
property at the northwest corner of Ave. 6E and 48th St.) to the November 5, 2008 Regular City Council
Meeting at the request of the applicant. Voice Vote: adopted 7-0.


Kuiper displayed the following titles:

                                                  Page 6                                         36
                                                              REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                   OCTOBER 15, 2008

                                         Ordinance O2008-42
An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, annexing to said city a portion of
Section 12 of Township 9 South, Range 24 West of the Gila & Salt River Base and Meridian, Yuma
County, Arizona, pursuant to the provisions of Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 7, Arizona Revised Statutes
and amendments thereto
(A2008-06; Leep; property at the northwest corner of Ave. C and 36th St.) (CD/Planning)

                                          Ordinance O2008-44
An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, authorizing and directing that certain
parcels of real property, hereinafter described, be acquired by the City of Yuma, by gift, easement,
purchase or under the power of eminent domain, for the reason that such property is required to
improve the public roadway and utility infrastructure and other public purposes as may be related
thereto, and authorizing payment therefor, together with costs necessary for the acquisition of said
parcel of real property
(CIP 5.0574; right-of-way at Yuma Mortuary and Crematory for 4th Ave. and 16th St. intersection
improvements) (Eng)


VI.    Public Hearings

       A. Resolution R2008-71: General Plan Minor Amendment to change the land use designation from
          Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential for 8.52 acres of propertyh located at
          the southeast corner of Avenue 6E and Sunset Terrace Boulevard; applicant: Terrace Condo,
          LLC, Craig Colvin, and Wayne Eide. (GP2008-005) (CD/Planning)

Mayor Nelson opened the Public Hearing at 6:15 p.m.

Cullis presented the following information:
▪ The subject property is located south of the Sunset Terraces Subdivision and west of the Terraces Two
   at the View Subdivision. To the south is Interstate 8 and to the east is vacant, undeveloped property.
▪ The applicants intend to develop a 144-unit, multi-family condominium subdivision on the property.
▪ Notice of the requested amendment has been disseminated to neighboring property owners and to the
   general public. At this time, no opposition has been received.
▪ The City Planning and Zoning commission held two Public Hearings on this request – one on September
   8th and another on September 22nd, 2008.
   ▫ At the conclusion of the last Public Hearing, the commission voted to forward a recommendation to
        the City Council for approval of the request.

Motion (Hieb/Beeson): To close the Public Hearing on R2008-71. Voice vote: adopted 7-0; the Public
Hearing closed at 6:17 p.m.

Motion (Shoop/McClendon): To adopt R2008-71 as recommended.

Kuiper displayed the following title:
                                         Resolution R2008-71
A resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, amending Resolution R2002-34, the
City of Yuma 2002 General Plan, to change the land use designation from Medium Density

                                                 Page 7                                         37
                                                                 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                      OCTOBER 15, 2008

Residential to High Density Residential for approximately 8.52 acres located at the southeast corner
of Avenue 6E and Sunset Terrace Boulevard
(City Admin/EcDev)

Roll call vote: adopted 7-0.


       B. Annexation Area No. A2008-07: Property located north of 8th Street at the Avenue C ½
          alignment. (Admin/EcDev)

Mayor Nelson opened the Public hearing at 6:19 p.m.

Erlenbach: This Public Hearing initiates the annexation of approximately 50 acres of property, having
three property owners. All three property owners have executed Preannexation Development Agreements
with the City of Yuma.

Hieb: Where do City services stub out? Erlenbach: City services are available in the Citrus Springs
Subdivision, which is currently under development. Sanitation services enter Citrus Springs property via
Avenue C and the 5th Street alignment. No such infrastructure comes into the property from the south,
along 8th Street.

Motion (Shoop/Mendoza): To close the Public Hearing on A2008-07. Voice vote: adopted 7-0; the Public
Hearing closed at 6:21 p.m


VII.   CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF

       Endorse City Of Yuma Communications Policy: Direct the City Administration to address
       employee relations through utilization of the City Communications Policy, Administrative
       Regulation #11. (Admin)

Motion (Johnson/McClendon): To continue this matter to the Regular City Council
Meeting of January 21, 2009, and to direct the City Administrator to meet with
proponents of the Meet and Confer Process to determine if there is a compromise that can
be agreed upon – what portions of the proposed Meet and Confer Resolution and the City
Administrator’s Communications Policy they can agree upon – and report back to the
City Council on the result of these meetings and discussions on the specified date.

Shoop stated that she would prefer to hear from those who have requested to speak and hear the City
Administrator’s presentation, rather than close the discussion at this point. Mayor Nelson stated that if the
motion passes, the discussion will be effectively ended. Johnson withdrew the motion and McClendon
withdrew her second.

Speakers:

Eric Egan, Yuma Police Department (YPD), Police Officer, President of the Fraternal Order of Police
(FOP), Yuma Lodge #24, stated that he wishes to speak tonight as an employee representative on a matter

                                                   Page 8                                            38
                                                                  REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                       OCTOBER 15, 2008

that concerns all City employees. The City Administrator will be asking the City Council to endorse the
current Communications Policy as the only way employees can address issue. He disagreed with the City
Administrator’s opinion that the Meet and Confer Process is collective bargaining;collective bargaining
involves legally binding contracts and is illegal in Arizona. The Meet and Confer Process involves a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that is an agreement between labor and management that is not
legally binding; there will be no lawyer involved. Collective bargaining has binding arbitration that
becomes the final decision when an agreement cannot be reached. If an impasse is reached in the Meet and
Confer Process, the City Council becomes the final authority. Watson also states in the report that the
Communications Policy [Administrative Regulation #11 (AR11)] was developed after a meeting with 22
employees from a cross section of the organization. This meeting of employees represents a pure Meet and
Confer Process activity. AR11 authorizes an annual issues forum. At this point, Egan’s time ran out and he
objected to not being allowed enough time to address all the issues.

Andrew Burch, City of Yuma, Traffic Signal Supervisor, stated that he does not feel AR11 is an effective
way to handle employee problems. It does not afford a conclusion in a reasonable amount of time and it
gives employees no leverage.

Michael Caltabiano, Yuma Fire Department (YFD), Fire Fighter, representing Local 1234, United Yuma
Fire Fighters: It is sad that City employees are given a three-minute time limit to address their City Council.
Everything that’s occurred in the last several months just points out the need for the implementation of the
Meet and Confer Process. Every time proponents of the process have tried to do something, they get a
closed door in the face. Three years ago he and certain other employees took Watson up on his support of
innovative thinking and met with him rather than the City Council in discussing the Meet and Confer
Process. Meet and Confer would have the City Council passing an MOU that it hands down to the City
Administrator. After setting up the meeting with Watson, he was advised to bring five people. Those five
people walked into a room with 16 members of the City’s management team, hand-picked by
Administration. A vote was taken and the vote was 16 to 6 against the Meet and Confer Process.
Thereafter, the City Administrator developed the Communications Policy. The Communications Policy
builds in a process that allows supervisors 30 working days to respond to requests. At the lowest level, that
could total up to nine months to get a decision from the City Administrator, going through all one’s
supervisors up the chain of command. He and Egan have spent a lot of time studying the Meet and Confer
Process and are very comfortable with it because it is a process that gives them a seat at the table and sets up
checks and balances. In 27 years of being used in the State of Arizona, no Meet and Confer Process issue
has ever had to be decided by a City Council. The Communications Policy is a start, but it does not fix all
the problems.

Hieb: Having met with Egan and Caltabiano on this issue several times over the last year, one of their
concerns is that a shift in City Administration could nullify previous decisions made by Administration. Is
that still their position? Caltabiano: Initially, they wanted something codified at the City Council level
and, indeed, that would be something they would continue to want eventually. As a member of the
employee Benefits Committee, they brought up three changes that would impact the budget and they were
told to avoid those types of items because they would be addressed by the employee Labor Market Study
(LMS) Committee. As a member of the Labor Market Study Committee, he participated in determining the
committee’s recommendations, but the committee was told the City had no money to fund them. The open
door policy notwithstanding, he and Egan have had difficulty getting in to see Watson over the last several
months; they had breakfast with him maybe twice. Administration has resisted their efforts to work toward



                                                    Page 9                                            39
                                                                REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                     OCTOBER 15, 2008

a compromise. They have tried to play “nice,” but, unfortunately, the situation has brought them to the City
Council; if they were happy with what’s taken place, they wouldn’t be here.

Hieb: Hasn’t employee education and involvement been a professed goal of the Meet and Confer
advocates? Is the Communications Policy inadequate? Egan: The Communications Policy calls for the
preparation of a document compiled by the Human Resources Department that would show each
employee’s compensation and benefits and which would be distributed throughout the employee team; that
has not occurred. He completely agrees with previous comments made by City Councilmembers that the
employee bears responsibility for informing themselves. When employees are more involved in the issues
that affect them, they will learn more. Being a member of the Labor Market Study Committee was a huge
learning process for him, personally.

Shoop: Isn’t the Meet and Confer Process mostly about negotiating wages? Some employees seem to
assume that all City dollars can be used without discretion. Some City money is allocated to specific
projects and, pending its use, it is invested and earning interest, but that money cannot be used for wages.
Caltabiano stated that he understood that better now that he has looked into it; however, in looking at the
overall City budget, the City pays 62% on personnel benefits and wages and other municipalities are
spending 75-85%. Right now times are tough, but, even when the economy was good, personnel were only
seeing small raises annually – 2.5% to 4% per year. The money is there, it’s just a matter of how the pie is
sliced. The Meet and Confer Process gives employees an opportunity to be involved in how the money is
being spent and in whether something is delayed so employees might be benefitted. Employees would be
involved rather than having the Administration simply deliver a finalized budget.

Shoop: Caltabiano and Egan represent only two City departments; there’s a significant number of other
employees to be considered. Caltabiano stated that he prided himself on targeting his efforts to include all
City employees. He suggested the creation of a Benefits Committee with members from each City
department. In fact, the Communications Policy calls for a representative from every department with 100
or more employees to attend each Issues Forum. These employees would sit down and discuss issues; that’s
what he has been trying to do for 2½ years. Shoop: Is there 100% interest on the part of City police
officers and fire fighters? Caltibiano stated he represents all but one fire fighter. The International
Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) is a part of the American Federal of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations (AFL-CIO). Egan stated he represented approximately 20 sworn police officers in YPD,
those that are members of the FOP. Although he has not polled them, he understands they and the civilian
employees in YPD support his efforts to get something better. Other employees have not come forward
because there is a fear of public speaking in general, of addressing the City Council and of retribution.

Mayor Nelson questioned the concept initially put forth that 30% of the employees would represent 100%;
that seems skewed. Watson clarified that the 30% rule was that 30% would trigger an election for City
employees. If 30% of City employees want AIFF to represent them, then they would call for a vote of all
the City employees and the majority would decide.

Watson made the following points:
▪ The Communications Policy was written in April 2007 after discussions with 22 City employees
▪ The Meet and Confer Process resolution locks the City into specific procedures and responses
▪ The Policy allows flexibility to meet the situation
▪ The Policy establishes an open door for individuals and employee groups.


                                                  Page 10                                          40
                                                                  REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                       OCTOBER 15, 2008

▪   The Policy ensures that large departments will be involved in discussions and the discussions will
    include personnel rules and policies
▪   Not every employee issue will need to go to the highest level established by the Policy, that is, the City
    Administration
    ▫ Many issues can be resolved at lesser supervisory roles.
    ▫ Lower supervisors can make decisions that involve budgetary expenditures
    ▫ Not every issue will take months and months to decide, especially safety issues.
▪   The Policy can be changed.
▪   The Policy is well-designed so any new City Administrator should not interpret it differently than
    previous administrations nor interpret it differently from one issue to another.
▪   The Policy establishes a procedure whereby employees can be heard.
▪    Wages and benefits are critical issues.
▪   The employees on the LMS and Benefits Committees did an excellent job.
    ▫ The LMS Committee had to make sure a job category was being properly compared
    ▫ The findings showed some employees 5% at variance from the market at the lowest and 24-28%
         variance at the highest.
    ▫ Ultimately, it is the City Council’s decision to determine what level of compensation City employees
         receive in comparison with the market.
    ▫ The current economy is making it difficult for Yuma to catch up with the market statewide.
▪   The Policy provides every employee formal, direct communication with the City Administration, while
    leaving a great deal of room for informal communication.
▪   More than one Issues Forum could be held, if necessary.
▪   The days of arbitrary and capricious decisions by management are gone; employees are well-informed
    and it is management’s challenge to communicate with them effectively.
▪   If the City Council takes no action, AR11 will remain in place.

Watson presented a video that he will present at tomorrow’s Issues Forum. The video was prepared to
show how the Issue Forum and Communications Policy are working and what has been resolved since the
2007 Issues Forum.

Beeson spoke in favor of combining the Communications Policy and the Meet and Confer Process in such a
way that everyone can agree to.

Motion: (Shoop/Mendoza): To support Administrative Regulation #11 and to support the employees
Issues Forum process.

Hieb made note of several important facts. City personnel services have risen 24% between 2007 and 2009
and that increase has occurred in an economy that is growing at only 3%, with inflation growing at 3%.
Increasing wages and benefits will mean the City has to cut something else – materials, services, lower debt
payments. Increasing personnel’s part to 75% would mean drastic cuts elsewhere. Watson: Yuma’s
history over the last 50 years has shown its economy to be very stable; the City’s revenues fell or stayed flat
in only three years and the decrease was minimal. City employees’ salaries over the years have increased
consistently, but going above 70% in overall costs for personnel would challenge the City. Right now the
economic environment is constrained. A constrained environment means fewer people will be carrying the
workload. A balance between operational costs, funding restrictions, capital needs and employee needs has
to be worked out.

                                                   Page 11                                            41
                                                                  REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                       OCTOBER 15, 2008


Mayor Nelson asked whether the City Administrator would have the ability to change AR11 in the future, if
the City Council votes to endorse it, as is, at this point. Watson stated it is his intention to continue to make
sure the process is working; it is not cast in concrete. The City Council’s endorsement would set a
precedent and a procedure that the City will follow without the need for a formal ordinance or resolution.
He pledged to continue a dialog with City employees.

McClendon: It seems that both sides are seeing the same goal. It would be better to find a place where
they can both meet, without the need for formal ordinance or resolution mandates. It is true that people are
reluctant to speak up, especially in a public forum; some are uncomfortable saying to their supervisor that
they will go over his head if nothing is done. Perhaps the policy could address ways to mitigate fears.
Regardless of whether you say an open door exists, if people are afraid they won’t speak up. The wording
of Meet and Confer Process seems to stop the talking process. Employees from other departments need to
get involved and everyone come together to discuss how best to mesh the process and policy rather than
establishing such a structured process.

Johnson agreed with McClendon, saying he, too, does not see the Meet and Confer Process and
Communications Policy as mutually exclusive. The City can continue the Communications Policy while
working to incorporate Meet and Confer concepts. Regardless of whether the Communications Policy is
endorsed, he will re-state his previous motion for further discussions.

Mendoza stated that he is in a difficult position because he is a recently retired police officer and a former
member of FOP. It is true that just because a department head speaks for his employees does not mean they
all agree. Trying to mesh the two while keeping one, would in effect be creating two policies. This has
been discussed at length. Caltabiano has been given the opportunity for lengthy responses, which should
offset his frustration at the speaker time limit. Caltabiano and Egan were here speaking on behalf of their
organizations, not as City employees. Employees have nothing to fear; they shouldn’t lose sight of the
passion they have for their profession. He is personally offended by those who characterize supervisors as
unconcerned and unresponsive to their employees; he was a YPD Sergeant and worked hard to help his
employees. Employees should go up the chain of command because it allows issues to be addressed faster.
There shouldn’t be two policies. Perhaps the Issue forum could be held behind closed doors so people
would feel free to vent.

Roll call vote: adopted 6-1; McClendon voting Nay.


City Councilmembers explained their vote:
▪ Beeson stated he supports continuing to use the Communications Policy; however, he does not think it
    will totally solve all the issues, so will support further discussions between the City Administrator and
    Meet and Confer advocates.
▪ Hieb: This is probably not the end of Meet and Confer discussions. Watson has done an excellent job
    over the last year, but there is still a long way to go. There remains the potential of the Meet and Confer
    process conflicting with the provisions of the Yuma City Charter. Concerning the fear employees may
    have and coming from a military background, his response would be that people need to understand that
    there are always consequences to beliefs and actions, but that shouldn’t prevent anyone from taking a
    stand. A good leader and supervisor understands that these are not personal issues, but institutional
    issues and they should be dealt with accordingly, without retribution. There is a process for dealing with

                                                    Page 12                                            42
                                                                 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                      OCTOBER 15, 2008

   retribution. Only seven employees have discussed this with him. The Chief of Police and the Fire Chief
   have both expressed their opinion that the Communications Policy is working, as has the City
   Administrator and he accepts their professional advice.

Motion: (Johnson/Beeson) To continue this matter to the Regular City Council Meeting of January 21, 2009
and to direct the City Administrator meet with the proponents of the Meet and Confer Resolution to
determine if there is a compromise they can agree on or what portions of the proposed Meet and Confer
Resolution and the City Administrator’s Communication Policy they can agree on and to report back to the
City Council with the results of those meetings and discussion on the January 21, 2009 Regular City
Council Meeting.

Mayor Nelson discussed with Moore whether this motion is appropriate since the City Council motion to
endorse the Communications Policy was approved. Moore: The wording of the motion is reflective of
Johnson’s intention to offer it prior to the endorsement; however, the intent seems to be that, since the AR11
has been endorsed, the City Administrator is being directed to continue discussions regarding the Meet and
Confer Resolution – to continue the dialog. Johnson clarified: There are actually two items on tonight’s
agenda – the Meet and Confer Resolution, which he asked for, and the Communications Policy, which he
did not. These are two separate considerations in his mind. The motion asks that the discussion of various
proposals made with regard to the Meet and Confer Process be continued. Maybe “Meet and Confer” is
objectionable; perhaps, those concepts could come back with a different label, but his intent is to direct the
City Administrator to have meetings with the proponents of this Meet and Confer Resolution – that was
presented to the City Council – to determine if there is some kind of a compromise they can agree to or what
portions of that proposed resolution and the City Administrator’s Communication Policy they can agree on
and to report back to this council; it is not his intent for this to conflict with the City Administrator’s
Communications Policy. Moore: Johnson’s explanation is clear and is not out of order. As he understands
it, Johnson’s motion is to simply direct the City Administrator to continue discussions regarding the Meet
and Confer Process. There is no restriction on the City Administrator, by virtue of the previous motion, that
would prevent him from being able to continue any kind of dialogue with any employee or group of
employees.

Roll call vote: failed 3-4. Shoop, Mendoza, Hieb and Mayor Nelson voting Nay.

McClendon stated that her vote in no way reflects any opinion on her part that the City Administrator has
done a poor job.


VIII. APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND SCHEDULING

Mayor Nelson: There is a continuing vacancy on the Western Arizona Council of Governments, Regional
Council on Aging and another on the Water and Sewer Commission.

Motion (Shoop/Johnson): To schedule a Special Worksession/Roundtable on Tuesday, November 4, 2008,
at 3:00 p.m. in City Hall, Training Conference Room 141/142. Shoop: Moving the meeting from
Conference Room 190 will allow it to be used as a polling place during the upcoming election. Voice vote:
adopted 7-0.




                                                  Page 13                                           43
                                                               REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                    OCTOBER 15, 2008

Mendoza urged the City Administrator to work with Little League representatives to help them find a place
in the community.


IX.    SUMMARY OF CURRENT EVENTS

Watson commented on his meeting with Congressman Raul Grijalva; McClendon was also present. They
discussed the economic bailout package being assembled in Congress. Grijalva indicated future legislation
may be coming forward to help put people back to work and fund projects. City staff is assembling
information for Ron Hamm, the City’s lobbyist in Washington, D.C. to held Yuma in that regard.


X.    EXECUTIVE SESSION/ADJOURNMENT

Motion (Shoop/McClendon): To adjourn the meeting. Voice vote: adopted 7-0. The meeting adjourned
at 7:49 p.m. No Executive Session was held.



________________________
Brigitta M. Kuiper, City Clerk


APPROVED:



____________________
Lawrence K. Nelson, Mayor




                                                 Page 14                                         44
                                             MINUTES
                             SPECIAL WORKSESSION/ROUNDTABLE
                          CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUMA, ARIZONA
                            CONFERENCE ROOM 190, YUMA CITY HALL
                                ONE CITY PLAZA, YUMA, ARIZONA
                                      NOVEMBER 4, 2008
                                           3:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER
      Mayor Nelson called the City Council meeting to order.

     Councilmembers Present:     Shoop, Mendoza, Beeson, McClendon, Hieb, Johnson and
                                 Mayor Nelson
     Councilmembers Absent:      none
       Staffmembers Present:     City Administrator, Mark S. Watson
                                 Deputy City Administrator, Bob Stull
                                 Director of Community Development, Laurie Lineberry
                                 Fire Chief, Jack McArthur
                                 Administrative Intern, Greg Stopka
                                 Various Department Heads or their representative
                                 Deputy City Clerk, Edna Martin


I.       AGRICULTURAL WORKER HOUSING

Watson clarified that no decisions on this matter have been made. City staff is researching the
issue. To that end, staffmembers have talked with representatives from the agricultural sector.

Lineberry referred to Community Development’s survey of how other cities are dealing with
this issue; the survey was presented to City Council previously. She also presented the following
possible approaches available to the City:

▪     Allow farm worker housing in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title
      29, Chapter 17, Part 1910, Section 1910-142: Temporary Labor Camps, with no other City
      requirements [such as Conditional Use Permits (CUP) and/or fire space requirements] in
      Agricultural zones only
      ▫ City regulations are not in concert with CFR
▪     Add a definition of “farm worker housing” to the Yuma City Code, Chapter 154, Zoning
      Code
▪     Allow farmer worker housing in R-3 (High Density Residential) zones, with any one or all of
      the following ways:
      ▫ With a CUP, if no property on the same block or on the block across the street is single-
          family residential.
      ▫ Establish a minimum square footage per person
      ▫ Limit the number of people per bedroom and the unit as a whole




                                              Page 1                                              45
                                  SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION/ROUNDTABLE MINUTES
                                                                      NOVEMBER 4, 2008

    ▫   Require a gathering area for each unit (no permanent beds in living room, kitchen or
        dining room)
    ▫ Require an on-site manager for neighbors to work with if issues arise
        ⋅ Creating effective relationships helps people deal with problems
    ▫ Ensure adequate parking
    ▫ Require the housing to be located on a Yuma County Area Transit (YCAT) bus route or
        within a certain maximum distance to facilities, such as a grocery store, drug store, et
        cetera.
▪   Establish a maximum concentration of farm worker housing
▪   Restrict farm worker housing from single-family residential zones
▪   Amend the definition of Room and Board facilities in the Zoning Code to limit the number of
    boarders allowed in single-family residential zones to one boarder per bedroom; and, require
    a CUP for Room and Board facilities in all residential zones
▪   Allow/limit farm worker housing to existing mobile homes
▪   Amend the Property Maintenance Code to clarify occupancy standards

Lineberry commented that there have not been a significant number of complaints received;
however, those that have been received center around increased noise and the congregating of
people into groups.
   ▫ Caution: Allowing farm worker housing in R-3 zones could conflict with single-family
       housing because there are some R-3 zones that are not in practical fact high density.
   ▫ Caution: The character of a single-family home or apartment that is made into a
       bunkhouse is effectively different than the use such structures were built for.

Watson explained that this situation is the result of the temporary/seasonal agriculture worker
visa program. Workers with these visas are known as H2A workers. Give the amount of time it
takes to go back and forth across the border, farm companies originally set up boxcars on their
property to house workers. To improve this situation, these companies are seeking housing in
nearby communities to convert into bunkhouses. The City’s regulations don’t anticipate this use
of housing. It is similar to what college towns have to address with the seasonal influx of
students. Local farmers have indicated that the number of H2A workers will increase.

What does the City need to concern itself with?
  ▫ Conditions at such housing needs to be safe and humane
  ▫ High density facilities affect utilities
  ▫ This use constitutes a change in the housing stock in the community
  ▫ Nothing can be done for this worker season
      ⋅ Therefore, the City should use the time to create a well-thought out plan
  ▫ Farmers need to be assured that the City supports agriculture
  ▫ Local residents deserve protection

Discussion
▪ The number of complaints may be few, but each call represents a number of others.
▪ Bunkhouses constitute an enchroachment to a neighborhood’s serenity: multiple workers
   with rotating schedules; multiple vehicles and children, with limited parking.
▪ Agricultural businesses must provide H2A workers with housing to comply with federal


                                            PAGE 2                                             46
                                     SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION/ROUNDTABLE MINUTES
                                                                         NOVEMBER 4, 2008

      regulations, but, if those workers go home each night, that housing may not be used.
      ▫ Commuter border delays, the price of gasoline, and low profit margins encourage
          workers to stay in bunkhouses.
▪     These bunkhouses are similar to hotels in terms of utilities and the need for fire protection.
      Hotels have many fire protection requirements. There are very few such requirements of
      single-family homes.
▪     The bunkhouses could have drop off and pick up sites, which pose another challenge; these
      could become draws for others.
▪     There shouldn’t be more than one boarding house of this type per neighborhood block, with a
      specified minimum spacing of such facilities.
▪     Requiring a CUP is a good idea. Bunkhouses should not be allowed in any residential zone;
      they are not compatible with residential.
▪     Bunkhouses should have their own zoning category.
▪     How can the City effectively monitor compliance of any of these restrictions? Watson: The
      CUP process would allow a review. The enforcement of health and safety measures is the
      key to code enforcement.
▪     At this time, there are no restrictions on these activities, but the Fire Chief is reviewing
      proposals for safety issues.
▪     The change in use of properties could change their property tax category.
▪     The CUP process could establish a review and the City could determine what standards these
      housing projects would be held to.
▪     Housing within the City is remote from farm worksites; but, centralized to all agriculture.
▪     Bunkhouses are possible only when housing stock is available.
▪     Residents already complain about other residential areas developing nearby; they will be very
      opposed to bunkhouses.
▪     Would it be appropriate to add this as a specific area of contact on the City’s website?
▪     Hearing from local agricultural businesses would be helpful
▪     The City needs to address the situation in the right way, not necessarily fast.


II.      CANCELLATION OF MUTUAL AID/ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS

McArthur: City staff is requesting permission to cancel three mutual aid/assistance agreements,
because two of the entities no longer exist (McDonnell Douglas and Parker Ambulance) and the
other is an automatic aid agreement with Rural Metro. It would be better to have no agreement
with Rural Metro at this time than to have the current one remain in effect. Cancelling the Rural
Metro agreement would put the onus on Battalion Chiefs to respond to an event as they deem
appropriate and necessary. These agreements are out-of-date; the most recent being from 1984.
The City provides assistance regardless of an agreement, especially because of Homeland
Security dictates. Upon cancellation of these agreements, the Yuma Fire Department would
begin formulating a policy to address mutual assistance. Rural Metro has been informed of
YFD’s decision to request the cancellation.

Johnson expressed concern about indemnification. McArthur stated protecting the City is one
reason why it would be better to have no agreement, especially in light of the Barco fire and the



                                               PAGE 3                                             47
                                  SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION/ROUNDTABLE MINUTES
                                                                      NOVEMBER 4, 2008

subsequent lawsuit. YFD will negotiate new mutual aid agreements that will address
indemnification of the City assisting others and others assisting the City.


III.   UNLAWFUL PUBLIC SALE OF ANIMALS

Stopka presented the following information in connection with a draft ordinance that has been
prepared:

Recap of Previous Two Discussions
▪ City ordinance:
   ▫ Should prohibit the sale, transfer or conveyance of ownership of animals on public
      property
   ▫ Should not apply to the sale of animals from a residence
   ▫ Establish the Humane Society of Yuma (HSOY) as the City’s enforcement agent
   ▫ Is needed because of animal health issues, especially Parvo and Salmonella

House Bill (HB) 2485
▪ Applies to jurisdictions with populations of 800,000 persons or more
   ▫ Does not apply to Yuma
▪ Bans the sale of an animal along any public highway or street, park or any public property
   adjacent to such location
▪ Bans the public sale of an animal on commercial private property without the consent of the
   property owner
▪ Clarifies that the ban does not pertain to sales at pet stores or by a charitable or nonprofit
   organization or any animal adoptions conducted off-site by a pound, humane society or
   rescue organization.
▪ Makes unlawful sales of animals along roadways a Class 2 misdemeanor

Proposed Ordinance
▪ Based on HB 2485
▪ Forbids the public sale of animals on:
   ▫ Public highway, streets or parks or any public property adjacent to them
   ▫ Any commercial private property without the consent of the owner or lessee of the
      property
▪ Does not apply to:
   ▫ Retail sales on the premises of a pet store
   ▫ Sales by publicly operated or private, charitable nonprofit pound, humane society, animal
      rescue organization or educational or agricultural organization
   ▫ Any rodeo, auction market, county fair, stock show or other authorized livestock exhibit
▪ Enforcement
   ▫ Yuma City Code, Section 130-110 authorizes the City Council to designate an
      enforcement agent by contracting with a local non-profit Humane Society.
   ▫ Does not include language previously considered:
      ⋅ “All fines and monies received or collected due to this ordinance shall be dedicated to
          the low cost/free spay and neuter program administered by HSOY


                                             PAGE 4                                             48
                                    SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION/ROUNDTABLE MINUTES
                                                                        NOVEMBER 4, 2008

         ⋅   Removed because it conflicts with State law requiring certain payment to the court
             system for fines that are paid.
▪     Reasons for adopting the ordinance
      ▫ To prevent inequity
         ⋅ Those who are bringing in animals for sale oftentimes do not live in the community
             and thus don’t pay for the costs of controlling overpopulation
      ▫ To prevent the unethical treatment of animals
      ▫ To address health concerns
         ⋅ Because these animals are viewed only as a source of income, they are not properly
             cared for
      ▫ To protect the taxpayer
      ▫ To help control animal overpopulation
▪     Beneficial results
      ▫ Other cities and counties have found that adopting an ordinance has a detrimental effect
         on such animal sales.
      ▫ Other areas have found it important to make sure the public is aware of the regulations
▪     Next Steps: Redrafted for further discussion at the November 18, 2008 worksession.

Discussion
▪ What about free kittens? People are showing up in areas around schools, shopping centers
   and churches and giving away kittens – adds to overpopulation. Could this be added to the
   definition of banned activities?
▪ Participation in banned activities would be criminal in nature, per the proposed ordinance.
   Adding the giving away of free kittens as an offense could implicate children.
▪ The giving away of animals was not addressed by any of the other cities surveyed.
▪ Why not take care of all the problems – including free kittens – in one ordinance?
   ▫ This issue can be handled differently.
   ▫ Implement the ordinance, as is – it’s a good start – and then work on the giving away of
       animals
▪ Some people will go out of their way to get around regulations
   ▫ Such as, giving away animals, but asking for a donation
   ▫ Selling animals from rotating residences
   ▫ Recurring sales of from a residence
   ▫ Zoning regulations can address some of these situations
▪ Even with the stepped up efforts of the HSOY to spay and neuter animals, the animal
   population in Yuma County is escalating.
▪ HSOY will act as the City’s enforcement agent; however, Yuma Police Department officers
   will have the ability to issue citations when they come across a problem.


IV.      UPDATES

Watson: Everyone involved is working very hard to finish improvements to the Armed Forces
Park. Stull: Parks and Recreation Department personnel have removed the trees and poured the
concrete for the new wall. Hieb: The new wall will afford an additional 16,000 honorary
plaques.


                                              PAGE 5                                               49
                               SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION/ROUNDTABLE MINUTES
                                                                   NOVEMBER 4, 2008



V.    ADJOURNMENT/EXECUTIVE SESSION

Motion (Hieb/Beeson): To adjourn to Executive Session. Voice vote: adopted 7-0. The
meeting adjourned at 4:13 p.m.


____________________________________
Edna M. Martin, Deputy City Clerk

APPROVED:

________________________________
Lawrence K. Nelson, Mayor




                                         PAGE 6                                       50
                                             MINUTES
                                     REGULAR WORKSESSION
                            CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUMA, ARIZONA
                                         YUMA CITY HALL
                                  ONE CITY PLAZA, YUMA, ARIZONA
                                         November 4, 2008
                                             5:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER
      Mayor Nelson called the City Council meeting to order.

     Councilmembers Present:    Shoop, Mendoza, Beeson, McClendon, Hieb, Johnson and Mayor
                                Nelson
      Councilmembers Absent:    none
        Staffmembers Present:   City Administrator, Mark Watson
                                Deputy City Administrator, Bob Stull
                                Neighborhood Services Specialist, Maria Gonzalez
                                Director of Community Development, Laurie Lineberry
                                Various department heads or their representatives
                                Deputy City Clerk, Edna Martin


I.        SUMMARY OF CURRENT EVENTS

Watson reminded everyone that the General Election is being held today; there is still time to vote.
Yuma County will be displaying the results of the election on their television channel, Channel 77; the
City will display the results only of Proposition 400 (Referendum on the Multi-Purpose Events Center,
MPEC) on the City’s Channel 73 and Spanish language Channel 72.

Watson stated that the City of Yuma will be hosting the Arizona Planners Association later in the
week. The association will be the first to use the new Riverfront conference center located at the
newly-constructed Hilton Garden Inn. Main Street will be the site of a Downtown event, which
participants in the convention will be able to enjoy.

Watson thanked City personnel – Yuma Police, Parks and Recreation, and Engineering – for their help
with the 100th Anniversary Celebration of Yuma High School, held on the preceding weekend.


II.       REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA OF NOVEMBER 5, 2008

Motion Consent Agenda Item B8: Donation: Surplus Baseball Field Seats

Beeson questioned why these seats aren’t being auctioned off. Mayor Nelson noted that the orange
seats were donated to the City of Yuma by the San Diego Padres baseball organization when the Jack
Murphy Stadium in San Diego was rebuilt; the City paid nothing for them.

Watson: The 38 benches, distinct from the seats, are several seats in a row. The benches are made of
aluminum and have support beams and dividers; they would work well as benches along the
community’s bus route. The Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization (YMPO), which manages the

                                                   1                                                 51
                                                             Regular City Council Worksession Minutes
                                                                                    November 4, 2008

Yuma County Area Transit (YCAT) is considering using them in that way. Beeson: The Immaculate
Conception Catholic Church wants four of them. Where would the other’s be placed – in the City or in
Yuma County? Watson: The City would prefer they be used within the City. Mac Lucky of YMPO
has requested a number of these benches. The possibility of using Marine Corps Air Station – Yuma
(MCAS) help to pour concrete slabs to the benches is being worked out. The remainder of the benches
will be offered to San Luis Rio Colorado, Mexico. San Luis’ stadium benches are badly in need of
replacement. The orange seats present problems in that people can get their legs caught in them. Parks
and Recreation is considering replacing some of the older benches at Arroyo Dunes golf course with
some of these. In addition, the City of Somerton is coordinating with Parks and Recreation to obtain
some as well; they will have an opportunity to chose their benches prior to San Luis getting them.
Shoop: This item was discussed at a recent YMPO meeting. Each entity that is a member of YMPO
will be given an opportunity to use the seats; they are putting together their requests, including requests
for the YCAT system.

Motion Consent Agenda Item B2: Temporary Extension of Premises/Patio Permit Liquor
License: The Crossing Restaurant

McClendon: The event The Crossing Restaurant wants to hold is on November 7, 2008, which is two
days away. Is there enough time for the Arizona Department of Liquor Licensing and Control to
process this request? Martin: The applicant, April Haile, has requested that this item be pulled from
the City Council’s agenda; the City Clerk’s Office is awaiting written confirmation.

Motion Consent Agenda Item B4: Grant Award: U.S Department of Justice – Weed and Seed

McClendon stated that this is a very good program and she would like staff to explain more about it in
order to draw the community’s attention to it. Watson: The Weed and Seed Program has been used
by the City to assist low-to-moderate income neighborhoods in clean-up, code enforcement, public
safety and crime prevention efforts.

Gonzalez offered anyone interested a prepared pamphlet. This year will be the program’s fifth and
final year in the Carver Park Neighborhood. The program involves a grant from the U.S. Department
of Justice, with 50% of the funding being required to be used for law enforcement, which includes
community policing, gang prevention and revitalization of the area. City personnel work very closely
with Yuma County Deputy Attorney, Mary White, as well as other agencies. City staff is looking for a
new target neighborhood. Revitalization efforts in the Carver Park Neighborhood have included
tutoring and mentoring for youth at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Center. Staff works
closely with Arizona Western Collge to provide some entry level college classes.

Public Hearing: Tierra Subdivision Final Plat

Watson stated that during previous discussions on the Tierra Subdivision Final Plat, some of the maps
have been confusing. By way of clarification, Lineberry will present maps specific to the
configurations being discussed.

Lineberry presented the following maps:
▪ Configuration of the final plat as requested by the applicant and which staff and the Planning
   Zoning Commission are recommending
   ▫ 35 lots, single-family residential
                                                    2                                                 52
                                                             Regular City Council Worksession Minutes
                                                                                    November 4, 2008

       ▫ 20 unit apartment complex to the south, abutting Avenue C
       ▫ Ingress/egress to Avenue C via 41st Drive and 22nd Lane
▪      Configuration of the subdivision with only single-family residential lots
       ▫ 38 lots, single-family residential
       ▫ Without an apartment complex
       ▫ With ingress/egress via 41st Drive, through Falls Ranch Unit 6, a neighborhood located to the
          west of the Tierra Subdivision
▪      Configuration with ingress/egress from Avenue C via an extended 22nd Place, which is the
       configuration supported by the residents of Falls Ranch Unit 6.

Lineberry explained further:
▪ Currently the property is zoned Medium Density (R-2) Residential
   ▫ 7-10 dwelling units per acre
▪ The property owner could tie the lots together and build apartments without the need for Planning
   and Zoning Commission and City Council approval.
   ▫ Area would accommodate 96 apartments
▪ The City could require the property owner to rezone to Low Density Residential, but that would
   require a General Plan amendment and the process associated with it.
▪ Access to Avenue C from 22nd Place is impossible; Engineering staff have indicated two streets
   cannot be as close to each other as 22nd Place would be to 22nd Lane
   ▫ Doing so would create a number of traffic problems and invite accidents
            Drivers exiting to Avenue C from 22nd Place would run into those in the right turn lane for
            22nd Lane
   ▫ 22nd Lane is the logical point of access from Avenue C because it aligns with the street across
      Avenue C at this point.
▪ The ingress/egress into a eastern subdivision was planned during Falls Ranch Unit 6 platting.
   ▫ 41st Drive was constructed as a stub before any of the homes in Falls Ranch Unit 6 were begun

Hieb sympathized with residents of Falls Ranch Unit 6; however, the applicant has complied with all
City land use regulations. 41st Drive was planned as a connecting street when Falls Ranch Unit 6 was
planned and approved by the City Council in a public process. The expectations of the Falls Ranch
residents are not supported by the documentation.

Hieb discussed with Lineberry the location of a nearby neighborhood park and linear path. The basin
on the east side of Avenue C is a neighborhood park.


III.     CITY OF YUMA BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES

Mayor Nelson noted there are two continuing vacancies – one on the Water and Sewer Commission
and the other on the Western Area Council of Governments (WACOG), Council on Aging




                                                     3                                             53
                                                         Regular City Council Worksession Minutes
                                                                                November 4, 2008

IV.    ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR POSSIBLE DISCUSSION

Johnson noted he would be attending a meeting of the State Transportation Board on November 10,
2008.

Hieb reported on a meeting of the Greater Yuma Port Authority that he attended. The port and the
Area Service Highway (ASH) that supports it will be operational by 2009. Mayor Nelson reported on
a discussion he had with Senator Kyl in which they discussed San Luis Port 1. Local farmers are
anxious to get the commercial port (San Luis Port 2) open so that the non-commercial port (San Luis
Port 1) will be more effective.

Johnson announced that the State Transportation Board, which controls the Arizona Department of
Transportation, will be holding a regular meeting at the Cocopah Indian Resort Hotel on November 14,
2008 at 9:00 a.m. The public is invited to attend.

Shoop reported on the 2nd Annual Emergency Preparedness Fair.


V.     ADJOURNMENT/EXECUTIVE SESSION

Motion (Johnson/Mendoza): To adjourn the meeting. Voice vote: adopted 7-0. The meeting
adjourned at 5:32 p.m. No Executive Session was held.

___________________________
Edna M. Martin, Deputy City Clerk

APPROVED:
___________________________
Lawrence K. Nelson, Mayor




                                                 4                                             54
                                                MINUTES
                               REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                               CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUMA, ARIZONA
                                CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, YUMA CITY HALL
                                     ONE CITY PLAZA, YUMA, ARIZONA
                                           NOVEMBER 5, 2008
                                                5:30 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER
      Mayor Nelson called the City Council meeting to order.

INVOCATION/PLEDGE
        Mike Bondora, Assistant Pastor, Trinity Christian Church, gave the invocation. Anne Helland,
Information Technology Services, Technical Support Assistant, led the City Council in the pledge of
allegiance.

ROLL CALL
 Councilmembers Present:         Shoop, Mendoza, Beeson, McClendon, Hieb, Johnson and Mayor Nelson
  Councilmembers Absent:         none
    Staffmembers Present:        City Administrator, Mark Watson
                                 Deputy City Administrator, Bob Stull
                                 Principal Planner, Bobette Bauermann
                                 Director of Engineering/City Engineer, Paul Brooberg
                                 Various Department Heads or their representative
                                 City Clerk, Brigitta M. Kuiper

FINAL CALL
       Mayor Nelson made a final call for the submission of Speaker Request Forms from members of the
audience.


PRESENTATIONS
       Watson announced that Strategic Communications personnel have won two awards for their Spanish
language information program, Yuma le Informa, created for the City’s government access television
channel, Cuidad 72. The Alliance for Community Media awarded Yuma le Informa the 2008 Western
Access Video Excellence Award in the Municipal/Government Access category and the 2008 Programming
That Made a Difference Award in the Professional category.

COMMUNICATIONS / FACTUAL RESPONSES

Watson commented on a letter to the editor printed on October 29, 2008 in The Sun written by Gerald Hillis
that expressed criticism of the Yuma Police Department’s response to a recent shopping center shooting.
After checking local records, there appears to be no one in the community with that name. The police had
the perpetrators of the shooting off the streets within six hours of the event. The letter went on say that it is
inappropriate to consider building an event center during such difficult economic times. It is ironic that the
letter came out on the same day City Councilmembers were discussing the need for more local work with
local builders, engineers and architects. Journalists have a responsibility for knowing who people are. He
encouraged The Sun exercise greater scrutiny.


                                                                                                       55
                                                               REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                    NOVEMBER 5, 2008


I.    CALL TO THE PUBLIC

Mary Ann Easterday, 3359 S. 15th Avenue, noted that the use of methamphetamines (meth) is a significant
problem. Members of the community and various agencies have banded together to hold an informational
Summit on how meth use is impacting the community and what help is available. The Summit will be held
on November 7, 2008 at the Yuma Theater. The event is free and everyone is invited.


II.   MOTION CONSENT AGENDA

Motion (Beeson /Mendoza): To adopt the Motion Consent Agenda as recommended, with the exception of
items B.2, B.7 and B.8, which were removed for separate consideration at the request of McClendon,
Johnson, and Beeson, respectively. Voice vote: approved 7-0.

A.    Approval of minutes of the following City Council meeting(s): none

B.    Approval of Staff Recommendations:

      1.   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 Attorney)

      2.   Removed for separate consideration; see below.

      3.   Authorize the cancellation of Fire Mutual Aid and Assistance Agreements between the City of
           Yuma and Rural/Metro Corporation, McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Parker Ambulance,
           Yuma Proving Grounds. (YFD/Admin)

      4.   Authorize the City Administrator to execute a grant award in the amount of $150,000.00 from
           the U.S. Department of Justice to implement Weed and Seed Program activities in the Carver
           Park Neighborhood. (Admin/EcDev)

      5.   Approve an Infrastructure and Services Report for Annexation Area No. A2008-05, identified as
           the Jakolin Annexation; property located at the northwest corner of 48th Street and Avenue 6E.
           (Admin/EcDev)

      6.   Approve an Infrastructure and Services Report for Annexation Area No. A2008-07; property
           located in an unincorporated area north of 8th Street at the Avenue C½ alignment.
           (Admin/EcDev)

      7.   Removed for separate consideration; see below.

      8.   Removed for separate consideration; see below.




                                                  Page 2                                          56
                                                                REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                     NOVEMBER 5, 2008

ITEMS REMOVED FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION

     B.2. Approve an application for a Temporary Extension of Premises/Patio Permit Liquor License
          submitted by Ryan and April Haile, on behalf of The Crossing Restaurant, for the Desert Range
          Weigh In. The event is scheduled to be held at 2690 S. 4th Avenue, on November 7, 2008.
          (EP08-03) (Admin/CC)

McClendon asked whether the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control (AZLLC) would have
enough time to process the application prior to the start of the event. Kuiper explained that several weeks
ago the applicant made arrangements with AZLLC to drive up the application to the state department after
the City Council approved it. Typically, AZLLC requires ten days to process an application. Earlier this
week, the applicant asked that the item be withdrawn. City staff has received no written confirmation that
the applicant would like the item withdrawn. The City of Yuma is simply a recommending body; final
approval rests with the state.

Motion (McClendon/Hieb): To approve item B.2. as recommended. Voice vote: adopted 7-0.


     B.7 Approve the final plat of the 4th Avenue Properties Industrial Park Subdivision, Phase 1. The
         property is located at the northwest corner of 1st Avenue and 40th Street. The applicant is Edais
         Engineering, on behalf of 4th Avenue Industrial Development, L.L.C. (S2008-006-01)
         (CD/Planning)

Motion (Johnson/Beeson): To continue item B.7. to the November 19, 2008, Regular City Council Meeting
at the request of the applicant. Voice vote: adopted 7-0.


     B.8. Authorize baseball folding seats and bench seating surplus and their donation to the City of San
          Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora, Mexico, the City of Somerton, Yuma Metropolitan Planning
          Organization (YMPO) and Immaculate Conception Catholic School. (Fin/Purchasing)

Beeson asked that B.8. be put to a roll call vote. He disagrees with staff’s recommendation to donate the
items; they should be auctioned off instead, with any left-over items being donated thereafter. The City
should recoup its expenses. Mendoza: The donation of surplus items is common among government
entities and is a sign of good will, especially across international borders and with Sister Cities.

Motion (Shoop/Mendoza): To approve item B.8, as recommended.

Hieb: What is the value of this property? Mayor Nelson: The folding seats were donated to the City some
25 years ago. Watson: Staff has no specific estimate of the value. The aluminum seating would have some
value as scrap metal. They have no significant value as seating; some of the seating poses the risk of
catching arms and legs. New designs of chairs that don’t involve folding mechanisms are in use now.
Shoop: This seating is old and probably wouldn’t comply with codes today. Has Beeson taken a look at the
seats? Beeson: Although he has not reviewed the seats, the City should try to sell them before giving them
away, especially since the beneficiaries are not City 2% Hospitality taxpayers, even if they are sold as just
scrap metal. The seating that was donated should be treated differently.



                                                   Page 3                                          57
                                                              REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                   NOVEMBER 5, 2008

Johnson noted that recipients also include the Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization that will use the
benches at bus stops and at a joint use school athletic field.

Roll call vote: adopted 6-1; Beeson voting Nay.


III. RESOLUTION CONSENT AGENDA

Motion (Hieb/Mendoza): To approve the Resolution Consent Agenda as recommended.

Kuiper displayed the following titles:
                                           Resolution R2008-72
A resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, repealing Resolution R2008-64 and
authorizing and approving an amendment to a Development Agreement approved by the City
Council of the City of Yuma by Resolution No. R2006-05
(WCC Properties, LLC, for Las Palmillas and Rio Vista Commerce Center, property located west of Castle
Dome Ave., north of the 13th St. alignment) (Admin/EcDev)

                                         Resolution R2008-73
A resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, authorizing and approving the
execution of a Preannexation Development Agreement with the owner of real property located at the
northwest corner of Shadow Avenue and Las Platas Road
(APN 112-53-046A; property owners: David G. Voyles and Michael J. Martin) (CD/Planning)

Roll call vote: adopted 7-0.


IV.     ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES CONSENT AGENDA

Kuiper displayed the following titles:
                                        Ordinance O2008-42
An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, annexing to said city a portion of
Section 12 of Township 9 South, Range 24 West of the Gila & Salt River Base and Meridian, Yuma
County, Arizona, pursuant to the provisions of Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 7, Arizona Revised Statutes
and amendments thereto
(A2008-06; Leep annexation – southwest corner of Ave. C and 36th St.) (CD/Planning)

                                            Ordinance O2008-44
An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, authorizing and directing that certain
parcels of real property, hereinafter described, be acquired by the City of Yuma, by gift, easement,
purchase or under the power of eminent domain, for the reason that such property is required to
improve the public roadway and utility infrastructure and other public purposes as may be related
thereto, and authorizing payment therefore, together with costs necessary for the acquisition of said
parcel of real property
(CIP 5.0574; 4th Ave. and 16th St. right-of-way acquisition at Yuma Mortuary and Crematory) (Eng)




                                                  Page 4                                         58
                                                             REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                  NOVEMBER 5, 2008

Motion (Beeson/McClendon): To adopt the Ordinance Consent Agenda as recommended. Roll call vote:
adopted 7-0.


V.   INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES

Kuiper displayed the following titles:
                                          Ordinance O2008-43
An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, annexing to said city a portion of
Section 17 of Township 9 South, Range 22 West of the Gila & Salt River Base and Meridian, Yuma
County, Arizona, amending Chapter 154 of the Yuma City Code, as amended, designating the zoning
of certain property to the Low Density Residential District and amending the zoning map to conform
thereto, pursuant to the provisions of Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 7, Arizona Revised Statutes and
amendments thereto
(A2008-05; Jakolin annexation - northwest corner of Ave. 6E and 48th St.) (CD/Planning)

                                         Ordinance O2008-45
An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, annexing to said city a portion of
Section 24 of Township 8 South, Range 24 West of the Gila & Salt River Base and Meridian, Yuma
County, Arizona, amending Chapter 154 of the Yuma City Code, as amended, designating the zoning
of certain property to Low Density Residential-20 and Residence-Manufactured Housing Districts
and amending the zoning map to conform thereto, pursuant to the provisions of Title 9, Chapter 4,
Article 7, Arizona Revised Statutes and amendments thereto
(A2008-007; Ave. C½ and 8th St.) (Admin/EcDev)

                                        Ordinance O2008-46
An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, repealing the Yuma City Code as
amended, Chapter 12, Section 152-01 through 152-07 (Sign Control for Main Street) thereof
(Z2008-012) (CD/Planning)

                                           Ordinance O2008-47
An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, authorizing and directing that a
certain parcel of real property, hereinafter described, be acquired by the City of Yuma, by easement,
gift, purchase or under the power of eminent domain, for the reason that such property is required to
extend public utility infrastructure and other public purposes as may be related thereto, and
authorizing payment therefore, together with costs necessary for the acquisition of said parcel of real
property
(CIP 7.8605; right-of-way acquisition for a 32nd St. waterline, between Aves. 3E and 4E) (Eng)

                                           Ordinance O2008-48
An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, repealing Ordinance No. O2007-68
and authorizing and directing that a certain parcel of real property, hereinafter described, be
conveyed by agreement for use to the State of Arizona by the City of Yuma, for the reason that such
property is required to improve the Area Service Highway (State Route 195) and Roadway Utility
Infrastructure as may be related thereto
(re: right-of-way for ASH along eastern side of Desert Dunes Water Reclamation Facility; ADOT Parcel 14-
0988-A) (Eng)

                                                Page 5                                         59
                                                              REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                   NOVEMBER 5, 2008

                                          Ordinance O2008-49
An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, amending ordinance No. O2008-14
for the purpose of revising a certain legal description contained therein and authorizing and directing
that a certain parcel of real property, hereinafter described, be acquired by the City of Yuma, by gift,
purchase, or under the power of eminent domain, for the reason that such property is required to
improve the public roadway and utility infrastructure and other public purposes as may be related
thereto, and authorizing payment therefore, together with costs necessary for the acquisition of said
parcel of real property
(CIP 5.9913 and 5.0584; revised right-of-way parcel at northeast corner at Arizona Ave. at 16th St. for
intersection improvements) (Eng)

                                           Ordinance O2008-50
An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, authorizing and directing that certain
parcels of real property, hereinafter described, be acquired by the City of Yuma, by gift, easement,
purchase or under the power of eminent domain, for the reason that such property is required to
improve the public roadway and utility infrastructure and other public purposes as may be related
thereto, and authorizing payment therefore, together with costs necessary for the acquisition of said
parcel of real property
(CIP 5.0401; right-of-way acquisition for Ave. 3E overpass improvements; property owner: Union Pacific
Railroad Company) (Eng)


VI.    Public Hearings

       Final Plat: Tierra Subdivision – Properties located at the southwest corner of Avenue C and the
       Central Drain, Yuma, Arizona. The applicant is Core Engineering, on behalf of Rosjon Real Estate
       and Investment. (S2008-001-01) (CD/Planning) (Continued from the Regular City Council
       Meeting of October 1, 2008)

Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing at 6:03 p.m.

Bauermann presented the following information:
▪ The subdivision involves 7.9 acres
▪ Falls Ranch neighbors concerns:
   ▫ Additional traffic
   ▫ Use 41st Drive as emergency access only
   ▫ Allow 28th Street to have full access at Avenue C

 Speakers
▪ Gail Inman, 2273 S. 42nd Drive: Falls Ranch neighbors are opposed to the residents of Tierra
   Subdivision using Falls Ranch roadways as their main entrance. Their concern is for the safety of the
   neighborhood children and backed up traffic. Tierra Subdivision should have its own entrance from
   Avenue C. When people purchased homes in Falls Ranch the Tierra property was the site of a business
   – Lines and Lundgren roofing. Plus, they were deceived because they were told the Tierra property
   would become a park. She suggested that a part of the median on Avenue C be removed, in part, to
   allow better access into both subdivisions. She objected to prior insinuations by Councilmember
   Johnson that the people who bought the homes were responsible for their own ignorance of the 41st

                                                 Page 6                                         60
                                                                  REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                       NOVEMBER 5, 2008

    Street stub-out. Johnson stated that the 41st Drive stub-out was constructed and in existence prior to the
    construction of the homes along side it in Falls Ranch.
▪   Douglas Nicholls, 200 E. 16th Street, #150, representing the applicant, offered to answer any questions
    that may arise.
▪   Jenelle Frey, 2264 S. 41st Drive, representing residents of Falls Ranch Phase 6, asked that the approval
    of this final plat be delayed again to allow for proven consideration of all alternatives – to allow proper
    oversight that would ensure transparency and accountability on the part of the applicant and the City
    Engineer; to ensure that neighborhood participation does happen; and, to ensure that measurable results
    are produced. The neighbors are skeptical that the City engineer and applicant gave adequate attention
    to reviewing the alternatives because follow-up information has been non-specific. Communications
    have not been timely or open, but have been restatements of prior information.
▪   Jonathan Lines, 6656 E. Mountain View Place, applicant: One of the three alternatives he has as the
    developer of this property is to develop to the standard allowed by the property’s current zoning; he
    could build 96 apartment units without any further approval of the City Council. He would prefer not to
    do so and hoped the matter could be decided tonight so the project can move forward.

Discussion
McClendon asked for clarification from Lines. Lines stated he rezoned this property from High Density
Residential – which would have afforded him the right to build 179 apartments like the complex across
Avenue C – to Medium Density Residential because he wanted to be a good neighbor to Falls Ranch
residents. Watson: In order for Lines to change this subdivision to an all-single-family-residential
development, he would have to complete a General Plan amendment, another rezoning of the property and
new Preliminary and Final Plats. A stepped-up version of these actions could take 49 weeks; the standard
version of these actions is 68 weeks. McClendon: If this final plat is denied, Lines would be faced with
starting over.

Mayor Nelson drew attention to nine documents City engineering staff presented to the City Council;
contrary to Frey’s comments, staff did review the alternatives. Watson: Immediately after the October 1,
2008 delay, he met with relevant staff members and asked them to review all possible options. The
difficulty lies with the distance between 22nd Lane and any entrance into the Lines property from Avenue C.
There simply isn’t enough room per national transportation standards to have two full access roads this close
together. 22nd Lane is a through street; it crosses Avenue C and continues east. Over the years, the City has
attempted to limit double driveway access points on Avenue C. Southbound traffic on Avenue C looking to
turn east on 22nd Lane could see stacking past 22nd Place. Removing that portion of the median would be
hazardous. Safety is the issue and allowing 22nd Lane to be the main entry into the two subdivisions avoids
an unsafe configuration. There would have to be significant traffic on 22nd Lane to justify a $400,000 traffic
light and the City generally holds the location of traffic signal intersections to half-mile section lines.

McClendon: Have speed bumps in Falls Ranch been considered? Watson: It is the City’s policy to install
speed bumps on stretches of streets that are over 700 feet in length; however, they cannot be installed in
close proximity to an intersection. Brooberg: In the case of 22nd Lane, in practical fact, the end of the
roadway at 41st Drive acts in the same way a speed hump would. A speed hump could be installed, but,
typically, it wouldn’t be recommended. Although a stop sign is not required – traffic laws require drivers
approaching a cross street on a non-continuing street to stop for the oncoming cross traffic – staff has been
recommending the installation of a stop sign to reinforce the behavior.



                                                    Page 7                                           61
                                                                  REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                       NOVEMBER 5, 2008

Beeson noted that neighbors have indicated to him they would appreciate a stop sign at that point.
Brooberg stated he would review the intersection to see if a stop sign is justified. A traffic signal on
Avenue C at 22nd Lane is not warranted at this time; there’s no traffic accident history at this intersection,
which is oftentimes what triggers a warrant study. 22nd Lane is a cross streets; it acts as the entrance to
Meyers Farm across Avenue C. The medians on Avenue C were constructed to control where cross traffic
occurs.

Mayor Nelson agreed that a speed hump may be a good idea. Brooberg: Speed humps are the same as
speed tables; they are wider and work better than speed bumps. A speed hump or speed table is an option.

Mendoza: The neighbors are concerned about the amount of traffic, too. Part of the last discussion
included a right-turn in/right-out at 22nd Place option. The City has made exceptions before; he cited an
example on Avenue B. He understands the neighbors’ frustration because nothing has changed since the
item was delayed. Brooberg pointed out that the entryway into the apartments at 1850 Avenue B is a
private driveway. As such, it does not have to comply with as many requirements as a public road would.
Mendoza noted that this entryway has a short turnout for traffic entering the address. Brooberg: A public
street turnout would have to be longer. Even if 22nd Place is made accessible to Avenue C, its intersection
would have to be right-in/right-out only because of the median and any traffic wishing to turn left at Avenue
C would still have to use 41st Avenue to reach the 22nd Lane intersection in order to do so. A right-in/right-
out only intersection would require the dedication of additional right-of-way by the developer. It is true,
however, that Avenue C does not yet have the same level of traffic as Avenue B.

Hieb: Lines has complied with all City requirements and he is the owner of the land, yet the residents of
Falls Ranch have an expectation that was not created by the City. Lines has a lot of time and money
invested in this project. Hieb stated he took it upon himself to review this area in general and noted that in
R-1-6 zoning, there was an average of 67 homes per entrance/exit into the subdivision. For R-1-8, there was
80 per exit and for R-1-12, there were 35-40 per exit. All of these subdivisions have children at play, going
to school and crossing streets, yet they do not have stop signs and speed tables. Lines’ subdivision, as
planned, would be consistent with all the other subdivisions in the area and does not present an undue
burden on Falls Ranch. It is not the City Council’s job to fulfill expectations to the detriment of policies and
standards.

Motion (Shoop/Johnson): To close the Public Hearing. Voice vote: adopted 7-0; Public Hearing closed at
6:48 p.m.

Motion (Hieb/Johnson): To approve the Final Plat of Tierra Subdivision, as presented. McClendon asked
that staff carefully consider the installation of a speed bump and/or stop sign; Mayor Nelson agreed. Hieb
added to his comments that Barkley Ranch has only two entrances for a large number of homes and their
traffic includes school buses; this is the worst case scenario. Mendoza stated that, although he is a strong
property rights advocate, the two exits in Barkley Ranch enter to the fenced back yards of the homes, not in
front of their homes as 41st Drive is. He feels the City could have done more for the Falls Ranch residents.

Roll call vote: adopted 6-1; Mendoza voting Nay.




                                                    Page 8                                            62
                                                             REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
                                                                                  NOVEMBER 5, 2008

VII.    APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND SCHEDULING

Mayor Nelson stated that there is a vacancy on the Western Arizona Council of Governments, Regional
Council on Aging and another on the Water and Sewer Commission.

McClendon invited everyone to the upcoming Festival of the Arts on the Downtown Main Street.


VIII.    SUMMARY OF CURRENT EVENTS – none


IX.     EXECUTIVE SESSION/ADJOURNMENT

Motion (Shoop/Mendoza): To adjourn the meeting. Voice vote: adopted 6-1; Beeson voting Nay. The
meeting adjourned at 6:52 p.m. No Executive Session was held.



________________________
Brigitta M. Kuiper, City Clerk


APPROVED:


________________________
Lawrence K. Nelson, Mayor




                                                Page 9                                         63
                     REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
                                                                  Motion
MEETING DATE:       December 17, 2008
                                                                  Resolution
DEPARTMENT:         City Administration                           Ordinance - Introduction
                                                                  Ordinance - Adoption
DIVISION:           City Clerk
                                                                  Public Hearing
TITLE:
Liquor License: Radisson Hotel Yuma




SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a New Hotel/Motel (#11) Liquor License application submitted by Michael S. Philipps, agent
for Radisson Hotel Yuma, located at 1501 S. Redondo Center Drive, Yuma, Arizona. (LL08-15)




REPORT:
Michael S. Philipps, agent for Radisson Hotel Yuma, located at 1501 S. Redondo Center Drive, Yuma,
Arizona, has applied for a New Hotel/Motel (#11) Liquor License.

The subject property has been posted for the required 20-day period and no arguments in favor of or
opposed to the issuance of this license have been received.

The application has been reviewed by Community Development, the Police Department, the Fire
Department, Business Licensing and Risk Management. No objections have been received.

Upon City Council recommendation of approval, this application will be forwarded to the Arizona
Department of Liquor License and Control for final processing.




                                                                                                  64
                         CITY FUNDS:                                $0.00 BUDGETED:                                 $0.00
                         STATE FUNDS:                               $0.00 AVAILABLE TO TRANSFER:                    $0.00
                         FEDERAL FUNDS:                             $0.00 IN CONTINGENCY:                           $0.00
                         OTHER SOURCES:                             $0.00 FUNDING FOR THIS ITEM IS FOUND IN THE FOLLOWING
FISCAL REQUIREMENTS




                                                                    $0.00 ACCOUNT / FUND / CIP:
                                                                    $0.00

                         TOTAL:                                     $0.00
                         FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT:
                         Application fee: $250.00




                         SUPPORTING INFORMATION NOT ATTACHED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION FORM THAT IS ON FILE IN
                         THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK:
                          1. New Hotel/Motel (#11) Liquor License Application
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION




                          2.
                          3.
                          4.
                          5.

                         IF CITY COUNCIL ACTION INCLUDES A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE
                         FOR ROUTING THE DOCUMENT FOR SIGNATURE AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL?


                                              Department
                                              City Clerk's Office


                         CITY ADMINISTRATOR:                                                          DATE:
                                                                                                      12/10/2008
                         Mark S. Watson
                         REVIEWED BY CITY ATTORNEY:                                                   DATE:
SIGNATURES




                                                                                                      12/9/2008
                         Steven W. Moore
                         RECOMMENDED BY (DEPT/DIV HEAD):                                              DATE:
                                                                                                      11/26/2008
                         Brigitta M. Kuiper
                         WRITTEN/SUBMITTED BY:                                                        DATE:
                                                                                                      11/25/2008
                         Lynda Bushong




                                                                                                                      65
                       REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
                                                                        Motion
MEETING DATE:        December 17, 2008
                                                                        Resolution
DEPARTMENT:          Finance                                            Ordinance - Introduction
                                                                        Ordinance - Adoption
DIVISION:            Purchasing
                                                                        Public Hearing
TITLE:
Request for Proposal (RFP): Job Order Contract




SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize staff to execute 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,
with the sole responsive, responsible bidder for the Job Order Contract (JOC) to:

   Desert Road Builders      Yuma, Arizona

(Eng/Bid #2009000031)

REPORT:
A Job Order Contract (JOC) is similar to the delivery order contracts the City is using for consultant
services of relatively small projects. It is a competitively bid, indefinite quantity contract that will permit
the City to process many smaller roadway, utility and related projects quickly and cost-effectively. The
JOC contract has fixed unit prices for over 80,000 items that are routinely used in roadway and related
construction projects. This contract will permit the City to quickly engage the contractor for capital and
maintenance projects of up to $500,000.00 based on defined scopes of work and the fixed unit prices
without further City Council authorization.

This JOC will save the City significant funds in several ways: the ability to use abbreviated plans,
elimination of the need for project-by-project specifications, elimination of the need to bid every small
project, and lower overall contract costs.

In addition to the cost savings, the City will have the ability to engage the contractor in a matter of
weeks from the determination of need, instead of several months as is currently the case. Two bids
were received; however, it was determined that one of the bidders was not an Arizona licensed
contractor, so no further consideration was given to that firm in accordance with the state law.

                             BID STATISTICS       TOTAL LOCAL VENDORS
                         Bid Packages Distributed   21        14
                              Bids Received          2         1




                                                                                                         66
                         CITY FUNDS:                             $0.00 BUDGETED:                                  $0.00
                         STATE FUNDS:                            $0.00 AVAILABLE TO TRANSFER:                     $0.00
                         FEDERAL FUNDS:                          $0.00 IN CONTINGENCY:                            $0.00
                         OTHER SOURCES:                          $0.00 FUNDING FOR THIS ITEM IS FOUND IN THE FOLLOWING
FISCAL REQUIREMENTS




                                                                 $0.00 ACCOUNT / FUND / CIP:
                                                                 $0.00

                         TOTAL:                                $0.00
                         FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT:
                         The funding for each given project will come from the associated CIP or operating account. The
                         minimum contract value is $25,000.00.




                         SUPPORTING INFORMATION NOT ATTACHED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION FORM THAT IS ON FILE IN
                         THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK:
                          1.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION




                          2.
                          3.
                          4.
                          5.

                         IF CITY COUNCIL ACTION INCLUDES A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE
                         FOR ROUTING THE DOCUMENT FOR SIGNATURE AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL?


                                           Department
                                           City Clerk's Office


                         CITY ADMINISTRATOR:                                                       DATE:
                                                                                                   12/10/2008
                         Mark S. Watson
                         REVIEWED BY CITY ATTORNEY:                                                DATE:
SIGNATURES




                                                                                                   12/9/2008
                         Steven W. Moore
                         RECOMMENDED BY (DEPT/DIV HEAD):                                           DATE:
                                                                                                   12/1/2008
                         Pat Wicks
                         WRITTEN/SUBMITTED BY:                                                     DATE:
                                                                                                   11/25/2008
                         Robin R. Wilson/Rocky Brannan




                                                                                                                   67
                      REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
                                                                    Motion
MEETING DATE:       December 17, 2008
                                                                    Resolution
DEPARTMENT:         Police                                          Ordinance - Introduction
                                                                    Ordinance - Adoption
DIVISION:           Administration
                                                                    Public Hearing
TITLE:
Amendment: Proposal to Add Administrative Fees for Towing




SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Set an Administrative Fee of $75.00 to be charged for motor vehicles that are towed under Arizona
Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) per A.R.S. 28-3513.




REPORT:
Currently the Yuma Police Department (YPD) tows motor vehicles being operated in violation of state
law. In 2007, a total of 600 vehicles were towed. Of the towed vehicles, approximately 75% were later
released. Per A.R.S. 28-3513, law enforcement agencies are permitted to charge an administrative fee
of up to $150.00 for towing and immobilization of vehicles. Fees are collected at the time the vehicle is
being released to the owner. The YPD has calculated the salary costs per case, beginning with the
officer contact in the field through the release of the vehicle, (approximately $62.00) and other costs
such as costs for vehicle usage, forms, postage, etc. Based on this cost analysis, YPD recommends
charging an Administrative Fee of $75.00 for each vehicle released following a tow per A.R.S. 28-3511,
and that the fees become effective on January 1, 2009.

YPD has also contacted numerous other law enforcement agencies across the state. The majority of
those agencies charge an administrative fee; the average fee is $116.00.




                                                                                                   68
                         CITY FUNDS:                             $0.00 BUDGETED:                                 $0.00
                         STATE FUNDS:                            $0.00 AVAILABLE TO TRANSFER:                    $0.00
                         FEDERAL FUNDS:                          $0.00 IN CONTINGENCY:                           $0.00
                         OTHER SOURCES:                          $0.00 FUNDING FOR THIS ITEM IS FOUND IN THE FOLLOWING
FISCAL REQUIREMENTS




                                                                 $0.00 ACCOUNT / FUND / CIP:
                                                                 $0.00

                         TOTAL:                              $0.00
                         FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT:
                         Funds generated from this fee should be deposited in the General Fund. Using the number of
                         vehicles towed in 2007 as an example, approximately $33,750.00 could be collected annually.




                         SUPPORTING INFORMATION NOT ATTACHED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION FORM THAT IS ON FILE IN
                         THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK:
                          1. Memorandum from Captain D. B. Rhodes to Chief William Robinson
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION




                          2.
                          3.
                          4.
                          5.

                         IF CITY COUNCIL ACTION INCLUDES A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE
                         FOR ROUTING THE DOCUMENT FOR SIGNATURE AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL?


                                           Department
                                           City Clerk's Office


                         CITY ADMINISTRATOR:                                                       DATE:
                                                                                                   12/10/2008
                         Mark S. Watson
                         REVIEWED BY CITY ATTORNEY:                                                DATE:
SIGNATURES




                                                                                                   12/9/2008
                         Steven W. Moore
                         RECOMMENDED BY (DEPT/DIV HEAD):                                           DATE:
                                                                                                   12/01/2008
                         William D. Robinson
                         WRITTEN/SUBMITTED BY:                                                     DATE:
                                                                                                   12/1/2008
                         Janet Udart for Dan Rhodes




                                                                                                                   69
                      REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
                                                                   Motion
MEETING DATE:       December 17, 2008
                                                                   Resolution
DEPARTMENT:         Human Resources                                Ordinance - Introduction
                                                                   Ordinance - Adoption
DIVISION:
                                                                   Public Hearing
TITLE:
Acknowledgement of General Leave and Bereavement Leave modifications




SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Acknowledge City Administrator's action increasing employee General Leave accrual and
Administrative Bereavement Leave




REPORT:
In response to the 2007 Employee Issues Forum, an Employee Benefits Committee was established
comprised of City employees who met most of calendar year 2008. After researching and comparing
the City of Yuma’s leave benefits to Yuma County and thirteen other Arizona cities, it was determined
and recommended that the City of Yuma should consider revising accrual rates for its employees.

The Committee recommended an increase in general leave accrual rates. City Administration is
recommending adding 8 hours of General Leave time immediately and increasing accrual rates to allow
16 hours additional leave time annually. Also recommended is an adjustment in the City’s current tier
accrual system. Currently, the City of Yuma has tiers from 0 -5 years of service, 5 – 15 years of
service, 15 – 20 years of service, and 20+ years of service. The recommendation is to adjust the
accrual tier system to 0-5, 5-10, 10-15, 15-20, and 20+ years of service. Further recommendations
include providing up to 4 days Administrative Bereavement Leave. This adjustment will bring the City
of Yuma to a comparable level with other cities.

The City Administration supports these recommendations which would have a limited adverse
economic impact on the current financial situation, and is a method to recognize, reward and retain the
City’s most valuable asset, the employees.




                                                                                                  70
                         CITY FUNDS:                                     BUDGETED:
                         STATE FUNDS:                                    AVAILABLE TO TRANSFER:
                         FEDERAL FUNDS:                                  IN CONTINGENCY:
                         OTHER SOURCES:                                  FUNDING FOR THIS ITEM IS FOUND IN THE FOLLOWING
FISCAL REQUIREMENTS




                                                                         ACCOUNT / FUND / CIP:



                         TOTAL:                                  $0.00
                         FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

                         Financial impact could be measured in lost productivity but the retention and acknowledgement
                         is paramount in recognizing the efforts of City employees.




                         SUPPORTING INFORMATION NOT ATTACHED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION FORM THAT IS ON FILE IN
                         THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK:
                          1. Leave Comparison to other muncipalities
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION




                          2. Schedule of Accrual time
                          3.
                          4.
                          5.

                         IF CITY COUNCIL ACTION INCLUDES A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE
                         FOR ROUTING THE DOCUMENT FOR SIGNATURE AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL?


                                           Department
                                           City Clerk's Office


                         CITY ADMINISTRATOR:                                                        DATE:

                         Mark S. Watson
                         REVIEWED BY CITY ATTORNEY:                                                 DATE:
SIGNATURES




                         Steven W. Moore
                         RECOMMENDED BY (DEPT/DIV HEAD):                                            DATE:
                                                                                                    12/10/2008
                         Jack Dodd
                         WRITTEN/SUBMITTED BY:                                                      DATE:
                                                                                                    12/10/2008
                         Jack Dodd




                                                                                                                    71
                                                                                           City of Yuma
                                                                                   General Leave Accrual Rates




                                       FULL-TIME ACCRUAL RATE
Years of Service (40
Hrs)                     Current Accrual Rate                                             Proposed Accrual Rate

                                                                                                             Weeks
                       Hours/ payday                Days (8 hrs) per yr                  Hours/ payday       /yr.  Days (8 hrs) per yr
0 to 5 Years           4.8 hours                                           15.00                 5.44            3.40                     17.00

5+ - 10 Years          5 - 15 yrs. was 6.4 hours                           20.00                 7.04            4.40                     22.00
10+ - 15 Years                                                              0.00                 7.36            4.60                     23.00
15+ - 20 Years         7.36 hours                                          23.00                 8.00            5.00                     25.00
20+ Years              8 hours                                             25.00                 8.64            5.40                     27.00

                               FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCRUAL RATE
                         Current Accrual Rate                                             Proposed Accrual Rate

Years of Service (56                                                                                         Weeks
Hrs)                   Hours/ payday                Shifts (11.2) per yr                 Hours/ payday       /yr.  Shifts (11.2) per yr
0 to 5 Years           6.73                                                15.00                 7.616           3.40                     17.00
5+ - 10 Years          5 - 15 yrs. was 8.96 hours                          20.00                 9.856           4.40                     22.00
10+ - 15 Years                                                              0.00                10.304           4.60                     23.00
15+ - 20 Years         10.31 hours                                         23.00                11.200           5.00                     25.00
20+ Years              11.20 hours                                         25.00                12.096           5.40                     27.00




         1:37 PM
                                                                                                                                                  72
                      REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
                                                                   Motion
MEETING DATE:       December 17, 2008
                                                                   Resolution
DEPARTMENT:         City Administration                            Ordinance - Introduction
                                                                   Ordinance - Adoption
DIVISION:           Economic Development
                                                                   Public Hearing
TITLE:
Weed and Seed Subgrantee Agreement: Arizona Western College




SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the City Administrator to execute a Weed and Seed subgrantee agreement with Arizona
Western College, in the amount of $7,745.00, for computer literacy classes at the Martin Luther King Jr.
Neighborhood Center.



REPORT:
At the Regular City Council Meeting of November 5, 2008, the Yuma City Council approved the
Department of Justice Weed and Seed Grant Award. This Weed and Seed subgrantee agreement is
with Arizona Western College for computer literacy classes, in a total amount of $7,745.00.




                                                                                                  73
                         CITY FUNDS:                             $0.00 BUDGETED:                                $7,745.00
                         STATE FUNDS:                            $0.00 AVAILABLE TO TRANSFER:                      $0.00

                         FEDERAL FUNDS:                    $7,745.00 IN CONTINGENCY:                               $0.00
FISCAL REQUIREMENTS




                         OTHER SOURCES:                          $0.00 FUNDING FOR THIS ITEM IS FOUND IN THE FOLLOWING
                                                                 $0.00 ACCOUNT / FUND / CIP:
                                                                 $0.00

                         TOTAL:                            $7,745.00
                         FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT:




                         SUPPORTING INFORMATION NOT ATTACHED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION FORM THAT IS ON FILE IN
                         THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK:
                          1. Subgrantee agreement
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION




                          2.
                          3.
                          4.
                          5.

                         IF CITY COUNCIL ACTION INCLUDES A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE
                         FOR ROUTING THE DOCUMENT FOR SIGNATURE AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL?


                                           Department
                                           City Clerk's Office


                         CITY ADMINISTRATOR:                                                       DATE:
                                                                                                   12/10/2008
                         Mark S. Watson
                         REVIEWED BY CITY ATTORNEY:                                                DATE:
SIGNATURES




                                                                                                   12/9/2008
                         Steven W. Moore
                         RECOMMENDED BY (DEPT/DIV HEAD):                                           DATE:
                                                                                                   11/26/2008
                         Robert L. Stull
                         WRITTEN/SUBMITTED BY:                                                     DATE:
                                                                                                   11/25/2008
                         Maria Gonzalez




                                                                                                                     74
                                     CITY OF YUMA
                        Department of Justice – Weed & Seed Grant
                       A Federally Funded Project #2008-WS-QX-0124

                            SUBGRANTEE AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT, entered into between the CITY OF YUMA, Neighborhood Services, a
municipal corporation, ("CITY") and Arizona Western College (AWC), an educational institution in
the State of Arizona, in Yuma County, ("SUBGRANTEE").

                                         RECITALS

The CITY is a recipient of Department of Justice Weed & Seed Grant (W &S ) funds for the
program year of July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009 from the Department of Justice Community
Capacity Development Office ("DOJ-CCDO").

The SUBGRANTEE is a corporation qualified for W & S funds and capable of providing services
that will meet one or more of the Objectives of 1) Law Enforcement/Community Policing,
 2) Prevention/Intervention/Treatment, and 3) Neighborhood Restoration.

The CITY wishes to engage the SUBGRANTEE to assist in providing eligible services.

THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, the parties agree as follows:

                                        AGREEMENT

1.0    AGREEMENT DOCUMENTS

This AGREEMENT consists of this document and all attachments, exhibits, addenda, or other
documents referenced. It may also include future amendments.

2.0    WORK SCOPE

In accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT, the SUBGRANTEE agrees to complete the
Project described in Exhibit A: Statement of Work (“Project”)

3.0    COMPENSATION

       3.1    Contract Amount: The CITY will provide financial assistance in an amount not to
              exceed $7,745.00 for the performance and completion of all work under this
              AGREEMENT. Payment is contingent on SUBGRANTEE’S compliance with the
              terms of this AGREEMENT and the availability of funds.

       3.2    Method of Payment: The CITY will reimburse the SUBGRANTEE for authorized
              expenditures in the amounts and increments approved by the CITY for various
              phases of work upon submission of a proper request for payment accompanied by
              supporting documentation. The SUBGRANTEE may not request disbursement of
              funds until funds are needed for payment of eligible costs. Requests must be limited
              to the actual amount needed.



                                               1
                                                                                                75
4.0    SUBGRANTEE'S OBLIGATIONS

The SUBGRANTEE and the PROJECT must meet all applicable requirements of the Weed & Seed
program and this AGREEMENT.

5.0    CITY'S OBLIGATIONS

       5.1     The CITY will disburse funds in a timely manner under the terms of this
               AGREEMENT.

       5.2     The CITY will provide technical assistance to aid the SUBGRANTEE in complying
               with federal provisions governing the use of grant funds.

6.0    AGREEMENT DURATION

The term of this AGREEMENT begins on July 1, 2008 and ends on June 30, 2009. Any extension
of this term must be by written consent of the parties. Extensions are governed by the terms of this
AGREEMENT.

7.0    UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

Under federal provisions, the SUBGRANTEE must maintain and submit to the CITY upon request
for a period of five year’s, the following records and reports: (further described in Exhibit B)

       7.1     Records showing that the SUBGRANTEE is a qualified Arizona corporation eligible
               and certified to perform activities outlined in the PROJECT description, if
               applicable;

       7.2     Records required by federal regulations or directives, e.g. applicable A-102 and A-
               110 (2) (h) regarding annual audits;

       7.4     Quarterly performance reports, submitted by the tenth working day of each calendar
               quarter to the Neighborhood Services Division of the CITY, describing the activities
               undertaken, funds expended, and results achieved during the preceding quarter.

8.0    CONDITIONS

       8.1     Certifications: SUBGRANTEE must comply with all Certifications as described and
               executed in Exhibit C: Assurances, Certifications, and Other Uniform
               Administrative Requirements.

       8.2     Acknowledgements: SUBGRANTEE must acknowledge the role of the Weed &
               Seed Program and the City of Yuma when providing services through this
               AGREEMENT. All activities, facilities and items utilized pursuant to this
               AGREEMENT shall be prominently labeled as to the funding source. In addition,
               the SUBGRANTEE will include a reference to the support provided herein in all
               publications made possible with funds made available under this AGREEMENT.

               A.      No reports, maps or other documents produced in whole or in part under this
                       AGREEMENT shall be the subject of any application for copyright by or on

                                                 2
                                                                                                  76
                     behalf of the SUBGRANTEE or by any employee of the SUBGRANTEE.
                     The SUBGRANTEE shall advise the CITY or its designee at the time of
                     delivery of any copyrighted or subject to copyright work furnished under this
                     AGREEMENT, or any adversely held copyrighted or subject to copyright
                     material incorporated in any such work and of any invasion of the right of
                     privacy therein contained.

              B.     The CITY may duplicate, use, and disclose in any manner and for any
                     purpose whatsoever, within the limits established by federal and state laws
                     and regulations, all information relating to this AGREEMENT,

9.0    TERMINATION

       9.1    Termination: This AGREEMENT may be terminated by the following:

              A.     The SUBGRANTEE provides personnel that do not meet the requirements
                     of the AGREEMENT.
              B.     The SUBGRANTEE fails to perform adequately the services required in
                     the AGREEMENT;
              C.     The SUBGRANTEE attempts to impose on the CITY or its successors,
                     personnel who possess unacceptable skills or of poor work performance;
              D.     The SUBGRANTEE fails to complete the required Scope of Work within
                     the time stipulated in the AGREEMENT;
              E.     The SUBGRANTEE fails to make progress in the performance of the
                     requirement of the AGREEMENT and/or gives the CITY or its successors
                     positive indication that the SUBGRANTEE will not or cannot perform the
                     requirements of the AGREEMENT.

       9.2    Compliance With Law: The SUBGRANTEE must comply with all federal, state,
              and local laws and ordinances applicable to its performance under this
              AGREEMENT. (Further described in Exhibit C Assurances, Certifications, and
              Other Uniform Administrative Requirements.)

       9.3    Attorney Fees and Costs: If either party brings an action or proceeding for failure to
              observe any of the terms or provisions of this AGREEMENT, the prevailing party
              may recover, as part of the action or proceeding, all litigation, arbitration and
              collection expenses, including, but not limited to, witness fees, court costs, and
              reasonable attorney fees.

       9.4    Arbitration: If the parties mutually agree, claims, disputes or other matters in
              question may be submitted for arbitration and decided according to the Arizona
              Uniform Rules of Procedure for Arbitration. Demand for arbitration must be filed in
              writing with the other party to this AGREEMENT.

       9.5    Remedies: If either party breaches or defaults on this AGREEMENT, the other
              party is entitled to exercise all available legal and equitable rights and remedies.

10.0   INSURANCE/BOND REQUIREMENTS

       10.1   Insurance: Prior to the receipt of any funds, the SUBGRANTEE must provide the

                                                3
                                                                                                  77
                           CITY with certificates of insurance or bonds as stated in Exhibit D:
                           Bonds/Insurance.

                   10.2    Indemnification: The SUBGRANTEE must defend and indemnify the CITY, its
                           agents and employees, against all claims, damages, losses, and expenses resulting
                           from the SUBGRANTEE's negligent or intentional acts, mistakes, or omissions in
                           performance of this AGREEMENT.

            11.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS
            Communication and details concerning this AGREEMENT shall be directed to the following:

CITY:   THE CITY OF YUMA                                         SUBGRANTEE:         Arizona Western College
Weed & Seed Contact: Maria E. Gonzalez                           Lynn LaBrie
Neighborhood Services Specialist                                 Director
(address)   Administration                                       (address)   Arizona Western College
            Neighborhood Services
            One City Plaza, P. O. Box 13013
            Maria.Gonzalez@ci.yuma.az.us                                     LLabrie@azwestern.edu
(city/state/zip) Yuma,   AZ 85366-3013                           (city/state/zip)   Yuma, AZ 85364
(telephone)   (928) 373-5187                                     (telephone)   (928)
(fax number) (928)   373-5188                                    (fax number) (928)


                   11.1    Successor and Assigns: This AGREEMENT is not assignable unless both parties
                           mutually consent otherwise in writing. The requirements of this AGREEMENT are
                           binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of both
                           parties.

                   11.2    Governing Law: The laws of the State of Arizona govern this AGREEMENT as to
                           validity, interpretation, and performance.

                   11.3    Waiver: If either party fails to require the other party to perform any provision of
                           this AGREEMENT, that failure does not prevent the party from later enforcing that
                           provision. Neither party is released from any responsibilities or obligations imposed
                           by law or this AGREEMENT if the other party fails to exercise a right or remedy.
                           All waivers of performance must be in writing, signed by the party waiving.

                   11.4    Severability: If any terms, parts, or provisions of the AGREEMENT documents are
                           for any reason invalid or unenforceable, the remaining terms, parts, or provisions are
                           nevertheless valid and enforceable.

                   11.5    Integration: The AGREEMENT documents contain the entire AGREEMENT
                           between the parties, and no oral or written statements, promises, or inducements
                           made by either party or its agents not contained or specifically referred to in this
                           AGREEMENT are valid or binding. All modifications to this AGREEMENT must
                           be in writing, signed and endorsed by the parties.

                                                             4
                                                                                                               78
      11.6    No Partnership: Nothing in this AGREEMENT constitutes a partnership or joint
              venture between the parties, and neither party is the principal or agent of the other.

      11.7    Independent Contractor: SUBGRANTEE is an independent contractor and its
              employees are not CITY employees for any purpose, including the payment of any
              employer's taxes such as FICA, unemployment, and workers' compensation.

      11.8    Venue: The parties must institute and maintain any legal actions or other judicial
              proceedings arising from this AGREEMENT in a court of competent jurisdiction in
              Yuma County, Arizona.

      11.9     Authority: The CITY and SUBGRANTEE warrant that each party has full power
              and authority to enter into and perform this AGREEMENT in accordance with its
               terms, and that the individual executing this AGREEMENT is authorized to do so.

      11.10    Further Documents and Acts: The CITY and the SUBGRANTEE will execute and
              deliver all necessary documents and perform all acts reasonably requested by the
              other party or by an escrow agent if required to consummate the sale transaction,
               construction work, or other activities described in this AGREEMENT.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto executed this AGREEMENT by their properly
authorized representatives as follows:

DATED this ___________________________day of_________________________, 2008.

CITY OF YUMA, INC.                                   ARIZONA WESTERN COLLEGE

______________________________                       __________________________________
Mark S. Watson                                       Lynn LaBrie
City Administrator                                   Director

ATTEST:                                              APPROVED AS TO FORM;

______________________________                       ___________________________________
Brigitta M. Kuiper                                   Steven W. Moore
City Clerk                                           City Attorney




                                                5
                                                                                                  79
                         SUBGRANTEE AGREEMENT

                                     Exhibits

A.   Statement of Work

     1.    Program Description
     2.    Schedule of Activities
     3.    Budget
     4.    Payment Procedures
     5.    Special Conditions/Reporting Requirements

B.   Administrative Requirements

C.   Assurances, Certifications, and Other Uniform Administrative Requirements

D.   Bonds/Insurance




                                         6
                                                                                 80
                                          Exhibit A
                                     Statement of Work


1.     PROGRAM/PROJECT/ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION

The SUBGRANTEE, in accordance with the Carver Park Neighborhood Weed and Seed Site
Official Recognition Strategy, will implement strategic priority activities identified in the Fiscal
Year 2008 Weed & Seed application. The SUBGRANTEE will conduct Computer Literacy Classes
at the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Neighborhood Center.

Arizona Western College: Will conduct presentations and training to Carver Park Neighborhood
Residents who have demonstrated interest in classes but generally have not registered for them. This
is an opportunity to do so. Presentation to the neighborhood will be conducted in English and
Spanish and the following is proposed. Keyboarding, Windows XP1, Windows XP2 and Internet
usage. Classes will be taught 2 times per week, for 2.5 hours p/class for three weeks. It is
anticipated that four (4) classes will be held.

2.     SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES

       The SUBGRANTEE agrees to submit to the CITY, within 30 days of the effective date of
       the SUBGRANTEE AGREEMENT, a Schedule of Activities to include Projected milestones
       and deadlines for accomplishment of the activities. The schedule provides an essential role
       in the grant management system.

3.     BUDGET

       The cost to successfully implement the four (4) non credit Basic Computer classes:
       Keyboarding, Windows XP1, Windows XP2, and Internet Usage is $7745. This will include
       instructor’s wages and benefits, classroom supplies and administrative costs. It is anticipated
       that each class will be taught two times per week in English and two times per week in
       Spanish, for 2.5 hours p/class for three weeks.

4.     REIMBURSEMENT/PAYMENT PROCEDURE

       It is expressly agreed and understood by the SUBGRANTEE that the total amount to be
       paid to the SUBGRANTEE under this AGREEMENT by the CITY shall not exceed $7,745.
        All payments shall be on a reimbursement basis and CITY shall pay SUBGRANTEE within
       30 (thirty) days of a payment request with complete, acceptable documentation. The
       SUBGRANTEE may submit for reimbursement monthly, a Final Performance report, and an
       analysis of project accomplishments.

5.     SPECIAL CONDITIONS/REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

       The Subgrantee warrants, and shall require its subcontractors to warrant, that it is in
       compliance with all federal immigration laws and regulations that relate to its employees and
       with A.R.S. §23-214 relating to verification of employment eligibility.

       A breach of this clause shall be deemed a material breach of the AGREEMENT and is
       subject to penalties up to and including termination of this contract.

                                                 7
                                                                                                    81
     City retains the legal right to inspect the papers of any SUBGRANTEE or subcontractor
     employee who works on this AGREEMENT to ensure that the SUBGRANTEE or
     subcontractor is complying with this warranty.

6.   PARTICIPATION IN WEED AND SEED STEERING COMMITTEE

a.   The SUBGRANTEE agrees to participate in the Weed & Seed Program organized by the
     CITY to ensure all parties are collaborating and fulfilling the assigned strategic priority.

b.   The CITY will notify the SUBGRANTEE of the date, location, and time of quarterly
     meetings.

c.   The SUBGRANTEE agrees to evaluate the strengths and weakness of the Carver Park
     Neighborhood Weed & Seed Program and its implementation and submit a formal
     evaluation to the CITY at the termination or closing of this AGREEMENT.

d.   The SUBGRANTEE shall participate in the inter-agency and evaluation process established
     by the Weed & Seed Program.




                                              8
                                                                                               82
                                        EXHIBIT B

                            Administrative Requirements

A.   FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

1.   Accounting Standards: The SUBGRANTEE agrees to comply with Attachment F of OMB
     Circular A-110 and agrees to adhere to the accounting principles and procedures required
     therein, utilize internal controls, and maintain necessary source documentation for all costs
     incurred.

2.   Cost Principles: The SUBGRANTEE shall administer its program in conformance with
     OMB Circulars A-122, "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations," or A-21, "Cost
     Principles for Educational Institutions” as applicable.

B.   DOCUMENTATION AND RECORD KEEPING

1.   Records to be Maintained: The SUBGRANTEE shall maintain all records required by the
     federal regulations specified in 24 CFR Part 570.506, and that are pertinent to the activities
     to be funded under this AGREEMENT. Types of records required to be maintained by
     SUBGRANTEE shall include but are not be limited to:

     a.     Records providing a full description of each activity undertaken;

     b.     Records demonstrating that each activity undertaken meet one of the National
            Objectives of the Weed & Seed program;

     c.     Financial records required by OMB Circular A-110.

2.   Client Data: The SUBGRANTEE shall maintain client data demonstrating client
     eligibility for services provided. Such data shall include, but not be limited to, client
     name, address income level or other basis for determining eligibility, and description of
     service provided. Such information shall be made available to CITY ("Grantee")
     monitors or their designees for review upon request.

3.   Disclosure: The SUBGRANTEE understands that client information collected under this
     AGREEMENT is private and the use or disclosure of such information, when not directly
     connected with the administration of the Grantee’s or SUBGRANTEE's responsibilities
     with respect to services provided under this AGREEMENT, is prohibited unless written
     consent is obtained from such person receiving service and, in the case of a minor, that of
     a responsible parent/guardian.

4.   Property Records: The SUBGRANTEE shall maintain real property inventory records that
     clearly identify properties purchased, improved or sold.

5.   Close-Outs: SUBGRANTEE’S obligation to the Grantee shall not end until all close-out
     requirements are completed. Activities during this close-out period shall include, but are not
     limited to; making final payments, disposing of program assets (including the return of all
     unused materials, equipment, unspent cash advances, program income balances, and
     receivable accounts to the Grantee,) and determining the custodianship of records.

                                               9
                                                                                                 83
6.    Audits & Inspections: All SUBGRANTEE records with respect to any matters covered by
      this AGREEMENT shall be made available to the Grantee, grantor agency, their designees
              or
      the Federal Government, at any time during normal business hours, as often as the Grantee
      or grantor agency deems necessary, to audit, examine, and make excerpts or transcripts of all
      relevant data.

C.    REPORTING AND PAYMENT PROCEDURES

1.    Budgets: The SUBGRANTEE will adhere to the Budget presented to Exhibit A.

2.    Indirect Costs: If indirect costs are included in the budget, the SUBGRANTEE shall
      submit an indirect costs allocation plan to the CITY for approval.

3.    Payment Procedures: The CITY will pay to the SUBGRANTEE funds available under
      this contract based upon information submitted by the SUBGRANTEE and consistent
      with any approved budget and city policy concerning payments. With the exception of
      certain advances, payments will be made for eligible expenses actually incurred by the
      SUBGRANTEE, and not to exceed actual cash requirements. The CITY in accordance
      with advance funds available in SUBGRANTEE accounts will adjust payments. In
      addition, the CITY reserves the right to liquidate funds available under this contract for
      costs incurred by the CITY on behalf of the SUBGRANTEE.

4.    Progress Reports: The SUBGRANTEE shall submit regular Progress Reports to the
      Grantee in the form, content, and frequency as required by the Grantee.

D.    PROCUREMENT

1.    Compliance: The SUBGRANTEE shall comply with current city policy concerning the
      purchase of equipment and shall maintain an inventory record of all non-expendable personal
      property as defined by such policy as may be procured with funds provided herein. All
      program assets (unexpended program income, property, equipment, etc.) shall revert to the
      Grantee upon termination of this AGREEMENT.

2.    OMB Standards: The SUBGRANTEE shall procure materials in accordance with the
      requirements of Attachment O of OMB Circular A-110, Procurement Standards, and shall
      subsequently follow Attachment N, Property Management Standards, covering utilization
and   disposal of property.

3.    Travel: The SUBGRANTEE shall obtain written approval from the Grantee for any travel
      outside the metropolitan area with funds provided under this AGREEMENT.




                                               10
                                                                                                   84
                           EXHIBIT C
                            PART 1
        ASSURANCES, CERTIFICATIONS, AND OTHER UNIFORM
               ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
The Applicant hereby assures and certifies compliance with all Federal statutes, regulations,
policies, guidelines and requirements, including OMB Circulars No. A-21, A-110, A-122, A-128, A-
87; E.O. 12372 and Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements
28 CFR, Part 66, Common rule, that govern the application, acceptance and use of Federal funds for
this federally-assisted project. Also the Applicant assures and certifies that:

       1. It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant; that a resolution, motion or similar
       action has been duly adopted or passed as an official act of the applicant's governing body,
       authorizing the filing of the application, including all understandings and assurances
       contained therein, and directing and authorizing the person identified as the official
       representative of the applicant to act in connection with the application and to provide such
       additional information may be required.

       2. It will comply with requirements of the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance
       and Real Property Acquisitions Act of 1970 (P.L. 1-646) which provides for fair and
       equitable treatment of persons displaced as a result of Federal and federally-assisted
       programs.

       3. It will comply with provisions of Federal law which limit certain political activities of
       employees of a State or local unit of government whose principal employment is in
       connection with an activity financed in whole or in part by Federal grants. (5 USC 1501, et.
       seq.)

       4. It will comply with the minimum wage and maximum hours provisions of the Federal Fair
       Labor Standards Act

       5. It will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their positions for a purpose
       that is or gives the appearance of being motivated by a desire for private gain for themselves
       or others, particularly those with whom they have family, business, or other ties.

       6. It will give the sponsoring agency or the Comptroller General of the United States,
       through any authorized representative, access to and the right to examine all records, books,
       papers, or documents related to the grant.

       7. It will comply with all requirements imposed by the Federal-sponsoring agency
       concerning special requirements of law, program requirements, and other administrative
       requirements.

       8. It will insure that the facilities under its ownership, lease or supervision which shall be
       utilized in the accomplishment of the project are not listed on the Environmental Protection
       Agency's (EPA) list of Violating Facilities and that it will notify the Federal grantor agency
       of the receipt of any communication from the Director of the EPA Office of Federal
       Activities indicating that a facility to be used in the project is under consideration for listing
       by the EPA.


                                                  11
                                                                                                      85
9. It will comply with the flood insurance purchase requirements of Section 102(a) of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, Public Law 93-234, 87 Stat. 975, approved December
31, 1976, Section 102(a) requires, on and after March 2, 1975, the purchase of flood
insurance in communities where such insurance is available as a condition for the receipt of
any Federal financial assistance for construction or acquisition purposes for use in any area
that has been identified by the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development as an area having special flood hazards. The phrase "Federal financial
assistance” includes any form of loan, grant, guaranty, insurance payment, rebate, subsidy,
disaster assistance loan or grant, or any other form of direct or indirect Federal assistance.

10. It will assist the Federal grantor agency in its compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (16 USC 470), Executive Order
11593, and the Archeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 569a-1 et.
seq.) by (a) consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer on the conduct of
Investigations, as necessary, to identify properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places that are subject to adverse effects (see 36 CFR Part
800.8) by the activity, and notifying the Federal grantor agency of the existence of any such
properties and by (b) complying with all requirements established by the Federal grantor
agency to avoid or mitigate adverse effects upon such properties.

11. It will comply, and assure the compliance of all its sub grantees and contractors, with the
applicable provisions of Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968,
as amended, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, or the Victims of Crime
Act, as appropriate; the provisions of the current edition of the Office of Justice Programs
Financial and Administrative Guide for Grants, M7100.1; and all other applicable Federal
laws, orders, circulars, or regulations.

12. It will comply with the provisions of 28 CFR applicable to grants and cooperative
agreements including Part 18, Administrative Review Procedure; Part 20, Criminal Justice
Information Systems; Part 22, Confidentiality of Identifiable Research and Statistical
Information; Part 23, Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating Policies; Part 30,
Intergovernmental Review of Department of Justice Programs and Activities; Part 42,
Nondiscrimination/Equal Employment Opportunity Policies and Procedures; Part 61,
Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act; Part 63, Floodplain
Management and Wetland Protection Procedures; and Federal laws or regulations applicable
to Federal Assistance Programs.

13. It will comply, and all its contractors will comply, with the non-discrimination
requirements of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, 42
USC 3789(d), or Victims of Crime Act (as appropriate); Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; Subtitle A,
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (1990); Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972; the Age Discrimination Act of 1975; Department of Justice Non-
Discrimination Regulations, 28 CFR Part 42, Subparts C,D,E, and G; and Department of
Justice regulations on disability discrimination, 28 CFR Part 35 and Part 39.

14. In the event a Federal or State court or Federal or State administrative agency makes a
finding of discrimination after a due process hearing on the grounds of race, color. religion,
national origin, sex, or disability against a recipient of funds, the recipient will forward a
copy of the finding to the Office for Civil Rights, Office of Justice Programs.

                                         12
                                                                                             86
15. It will provide an Equal Employment Opportunity Program if required to maintain one,
where the application is for $500,000 or more.

16. It will comply with the provisions of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (P..L. 97-348)
dated October 19, 1982 (16 USC 3501 et seq.) which prohibits the expenditure of most new
Federal funds within the units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System.

17. Background screening requirements for staff working with children (including Site
Coordinators) Screening of people working with children is an important element of
managing a Safe Haven and other youth-focused activities and is required by a special
condition of the Weed and Seed grant. Sites must develop written protocols to screen all
staff that work with children, including the site coordinator. Guidance on developing
implementing background screening protocols can be found in the Executive Office of
Weed and Seed memorandum dated November 5, 2002. Additional guidance also can be
found in the Executive Office of Weed and Seed memorandum dated December 30, 2003,
“Guidelines for the evaluation of information obtained in state and national criminal
background checks on employees and volunteers who work with or have responsibilities
over children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities at Weed and Seed sites,” located
in the Weed and Seed Training and Supplemental Materials for 2004 Continuation Funding
Applicants at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/eows/funding.htm . Also reference “Guidelines for the
Screening of Persons Working with Children, the Elderly, and Individuals with Disabilities
in Need of Support,” published by the Office of        Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP) in April 12988, NCJ 16748, which             can be requested fro OJJDP’s
Clearinghouse by calling (800) 638-8736.




                                         13
                                                                                            87
                                            EXHIBIT C
                                             PART 2

                               U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
                              OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS
                              OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER

CERTIFICATIONS REGARDING LOBBYING; DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION AND
OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS; AND DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE
REQUIREMENTS

Applicants should refer to the regulations cited below to determine the certification to which they
are required to attest. Applicants should also review the instructions for certification included in the
regulations before completing this form. Signature of this form provides for compliance with
certification requirements under 28 CFR Part 69, "New Restrictions on Lobbying" and 28 CFR Part
67, "Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Non-procurement) and Government-wide
Requirements for Drug- Free Workplace (Grants)." The certifications shall be treated as a material
representation of fact upon which reliance will be placed when the Department of Justice determines
to award the covered transaction, grant, or cooperative agreement.

1. LOBBYING

As required by Section 1352, Title 31 of the U.S. Code, and implemented at 28 CFR Part 69, for
persons entering into a grant or cooperative agreement over $100,000, as defined at 28 CFR Part 69,
the applicant certifies that:

A. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the
undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any
agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of
Congress in connection with the making of any Federal grant, the entering into of any cooperative
agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal
grant or cooperative agreement;

B. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person
for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of
Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in
connection with this Federal grant or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and
submit Standard Form -LLL, "Disclosure of Lobbying Activities," in accordance with its
instructions;

C. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award
documents for all sub awards at all tiers (including sub grants, contracts under grants and
cooperative agreements, and subcontracts) and that all sub-recipients shall certify and disclose
accordingly.

2. DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (DIRECT
RECIPIENT)
As required by Executive Order 12549, Debarment and Suspension, and implemented at 28 CFR
Part 67, for prospective participants in primary covered transactions, as defined at 28 CFR Part 67,
Section 67.51O

                                                  14
                                                                                                      88
A. The applicant certifies that it and its principals:

(1) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, sentenced to
a denial of Federal benefits by a State or Federal court, or voluntarily excluded from covered
transactions by any Federal department or agency;

(2) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application been convicted of or had a civil
judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with
obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or local) transaction or
contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of
embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false
statements, or receiving stolen property;

(3) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity
(Federal, State, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1)(b) of
this certification; and

(4) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application had one or more public
transactions (Federal, State, or local) terminated for cause or default; and

(B). Where the applicant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, he or she
shall attach an explanation to this application.

3. DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE (GRANTEES OTHER THAN INDIVIDUALS)

As required by the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, and implemented at 28 CFR Part 67, Subpart
F, for grantees, as defined at 28 CFR Part 67 Sections 67.615 and 67.620

A. The applicant certifies that it will or will continue to provide a drug-free workplace by:

(1) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution,
dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and
specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition;

(2) Establishing an on-going drug-free awareness program to inform employees about

(a) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;

(b) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;

(c) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and

(d) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the
workplace;

(3) Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the grant be
given a copy of the statement required by paragraph (1);




                                                  15
                                                                                                     89
(4) Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (1) that, as a condition of
employment under the grant, the employee will:

(a) Abide by the terms of the statement; and

(b) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a violation of a criminal drug statute
occurring in the workplace no later than five calendar days after such conviction;

(5) Notifying the agency, in writing, within 10 calendar days after receiving notice under
subparagraph (4)(b) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction.
Employers of convicted employees must provide notice, including position title, to: Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, ATTN: Control Desk, 633 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20531. Notice shall include the identification number(s) of each affected grant;

(6) Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under
subparagraph (4)(b), with respect to any employee who is so convicted;

(a) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination,
consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or

(b) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation
program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other
appropriate agency;

(7) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through
implementation of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6).




                                                 16
                                                                                                    90
                                       Exhibit D

                                Bonds and Insurance
A.   BONDS

     The SUBGRANTEE shall purchase a blanket fidelity bond covering all employees in an
     amount equal to cash advances from the Grantee.

B.   INSURANCE

     1.    Without limiting any of their obligations or liabilities and at their own expense, the
           SUBGRANTEE must purchase and maintain the stipulated minimum insurance with
           companies duly licensed to do business in the state of Arizona. All policies and
           forms must be satisfactory to the CITY. Use of alternative insurers requires CITY's
           prior approval.

     2.    The insurance policies, except Worker's Compensation, required by this
           AGREEMENT, must name the CITY, its agents and employees, as Additional
           Insured, and must specify that insurance afforded the SUBGRANTEE is primary
           insurance. Any insurance coverage carried by the CITY or its employees is excess
           coverage, and not contributory coverage to that provided by the SUBGRANTEE.
           The Commercial General Liability additional insured endorsement will be at least as
           broad as the Insurance Service Office, Inc.'s, Additional Insured, Form B, CCG
           20101185, or any of its replacements.

     3.    Except for the Commercial General Liability insurance, the SUBGRANTEE must
           maintain all insurance in full force and effect until the Project is satisfactorily
           completed and formally accepted. Failure to maintain the required insurance may, at
           the sole discretion of the CITY, constitute a material breach.

     4.    The policies may provide coverage that contains deductible or self-insured
           retentions. Such deductible or self-insured retentions are not applicable with respect
           to the coverage provided to the CITY under such policies. The SUBGRANTEE is
           solely responsible for deductible or self-insured retention, and the CITY may require
           the SUBGRANTEE to secure the payment of such deductible or self-insured
           retentions by a surety bond or an irrevocable and unconditional letter of credit.

     5.    The SUBGRANTEE must carry Commercial General Liability insurance with an
           unimpaired limit of not less than $500,000.00 for each occurrence with a
           $500,000.00 General Aggregate Limit. The CITY prefers an occurrence type policy,
           however, in the event the General Liability insurance policy is written on a claims
           made basis, coverage must extend for two years past completion and acceptance of
           the Project as evidenced by annual Certificates of Insurance.




                                            17
                                                                                               91
                      REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
                                                                    Motion
MEETING DATE:       December 17, 2008
                                                                    Resolution
DEPARTMENT:         City Attorney                                   Ordinance - Introduction
                                                                    Ordinance - Adoption
DIVISION:
                                                                    Public Hearing
TITLE:
Lease: Daily Farms, Inc.




SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a two-year lease with Daily Farms, Inc. for 115 acres of property located north of the Desert
Dunes Water Reclamation Facility on Avenue 6E.




REPORT:
The City purchased approximately 115 acres of vacant agricultural land from McMillin Companies in
late December 2007. Daily Farms, Inc. has a lease agreement with McMillin Companies to farm the
land which the City assumed when the land was purchased.

The City does not reasonably anticipate the expansion of the Desert Dunes Water Reclamation Facility
for two years. The purpose of the proposed lease is to allow Daily Farms, Inc. to farm the property for
two years.

The amount of the lease is $1,198.30 per month for two years. Daily Farms, Inc. (or their assignee) will
be responsible for insurance, maintenance, and irrigation district fees.




                                                                                                  92
                         CITY FUNDS:                             $0.00 BUDGETED:                                 $0.00
                         STATE FUNDS:                            $0.00 AVAILABLE TO TRANSFER:                    $0.00
                         FEDERAL FUNDS:                          $0.00 IN CONTINGENCY:                           $0.00
                         OTHER SOURCES:                          $0.00 FUNDING FOR THIS ITEM IS FOUND IN THE FOLLOWING
FISCAL REQUIREMENTS




                                                                 $0.00 ACCOUNT / FUND / CIP:
                                                                 $0.00

                         TOTAL:                               $0.00
                         FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT:
                         $28,759.20 net payment to City over two year term.




                         SUPPORTING INFORMATION NOT ATTACHED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION FORM THAT IS ON FILE IN
                         THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK:
                          1.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION




                          2.
                          3.
                          4.
                          5.

                         IF CITY COUNCIL ACTION INCLUDES A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE
                         FOR ROUTING THE DOCUMENT FOR SIGNATURE AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL?


                                           Department
                                           City Clerk's Office


                         CITY ADMINISTRATOR:                                                       DATE:
                                                                                                   12/10/2008
                         Mark S. Watson
                         REVIEWED BY CITY ATTORNEY:                                                DATE:
SIGNATURES




                                                                                                   12/9/2008
                         Steven W. Moore
                         RECOMMENDED BY (DEPT/DIV HEAD):                                           DATE:
                                                                                                   11/18/2008
                         Steven W. Moore
                         WRITTEN/SUBMITTED BY:                                                     DATE:
                                                                                                   11/18/2008
                         Timothy F. Andrews




                                                                                                                   93
                                    Agriculture Lease

       This Agricultural Lease (“Lease”), entered into this 1st day of January, 2009, is
between Daily Farms, Inc., an Arizona corporation of 8126 North Highway 95, Yuma,
AZ 85365 (“Lessee”), and the City of Yuma, an Arizona Municipal Corporation located
at One City Plaza, PO Box 13014, Yuma, Arizona, 85366-3014 (“Lessor”). Lessor and
Lessee are sometimes referred to in this Lease collectively as “Parties,” or individually as
“Party.”

                                     WITNESSETH:

Lessor hereby leases to Lessee real property consisting of approximately 115 acres,
located east of Avenue 6E and north of 40th Street and legally described in Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein (“Property”).

1. Term. The term of this Lease shall commence and Lessee shall be entitled to
possession upon execution hereof by both Lessee and Lessor and shall remain in force
and effect until December 31, 2010.

2. Termination. Lessor may terminate the Lease at any time between crop cycles prior
to December 31, 2010, provided Lessor gives Lessee 30 days notice of Lessor's intent to
terminate the Lease.

3. Rent. Lessee agrees to pay to Lessor the sum of $10.42 per gross acre per month for
rent based on 115 acres, for the total of $1198.30 per month, payable to the City of
Yuma, Attn: Real Property Agent, P.O. Box 13014, Yuma, Arizona 85364-3014, no later
than the 5th day of the month. Lessee agrees to pay for any water consumed, and to
indemnify and hold Lessor harmless for any claim related to water consumption or use on
the Property.

4. No Warranty of Suitability for Farming. Lessee accepts the Property on an “as is”
basis. Lessor does not warrant the condition, quality, fitness or adequacy of the Property,
or any portion thereof for any purpose, and makes no representation or warranty that the
Property is in good repair or otherwise fit for use and occupancy. Lessor does not
warrant the absence of harmful organisms or chemicals in the soil, and Lessee expressly
assumes the risk of the foregoing. Lessee warrants that it has performed an independent
examination of the Property and accepts same with any defects in, or defective or
uninhabitable condition of the Property or any portion thereof. Lessee shall indemnify
Lessor against any future claims arising out of the condition of the Property which
occurred during Lessee’s tenancy.



                                                                    AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY LEASE
                                                               CITY OF YUMA LEASE TO DAILY FARMS
                                                                                      PAGE 1 OF 5
                                                                                                    94
Lessor makes no warranty of the soil’s suitability for growing crops, prevailing climatic
conditions and/or other factors that might pertain to the ability to successfully produce
crops pursuant to this Lease. Lessee has made its own independent investigation of the
suitability of the growing conditions of the Property.

5. Use of Property. Lessee agrees to farm said Property and care for and cultivate crops
thereon in a good farmer-like manner in accordance with the best standards of farming
practice in the vicinity.

Lessee covenants at all times during the term of the Lease that no poisons, herbicide,
pesticide, fertilizer or other chemical or substance, other than those types and quantities
currently approved by the United States Department of Agriculture and by the Arizona
Department of Agriculture shall be applied to the Property or crops growing thereon.
Any and all such materials and substances shall be applied in strict compliance with, and
only at the time or times set forth in, the instructions contained on the label or furnished
by the manufacturer thereof. No experimental poisons or herbicides shall be applied to
the Property or crops growing thereon, without the prior written consent of Lessor. No
soil-applied sterilant or semi-sterilant which might temporarily sterilize the soil shall be
applied to the cropped portions of the Property without the prior written consent of
Lessor. For a period of five years after the termination of this Lease or such longer
period as may be prescribed by law, Lessee agrees to keep true and correct records of the
time, place, and all other information and data pertaining to the quantity, kind, use and
method of application of such substances and to furnish to Lessor true and correct copies
thereof upon demand. All poisons, herbicides, pesticides fertilizers or other chemicals or
substances which Lessee may apply to the Property or crops growing thereon, shall be
used and applied at the Lessee’s sole cost, risk, and liability. Lessee shall obtain all
permits and approvals required for the use of any chemicals or substances and shall bear
all expense for procuring such permits. Lessee further does hereby agree not to allow the
discharge, dispersion, release or escape, whether or not sudden and accidental, of smoke,
vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, oil or other petroleum substance or
derivative (including any oil refuse or oil mixed with waste), liquids or gases, waste
materials or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants into or upon the Property, the
atmosphere or any watercourse or body of water.

6. Insurance. Lessee shall carry and maintain at Lessee’s own cost and expense
throughout the term of this Lease, liability insurance in the amount of no less than
$1,000,000 in the aggregate and no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Such insurance
may be covered by a blanket insurance policy of Lessee. Proof of insurance in the form
of certificate naming Lessor as additional insured will be mailed by Lessee to Lessor at
the address shown for the Real Property Agent.

7. Indemnification. Lessee agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Lessor harmless for
any negligence attributable in whole or in part to Lessee, Lessee’s agents, principals, or
servants unless such negligence is attributable to the sole act of Lessor, in which event,
Lessor shall indemnify, defend and hold Lessee harmless.


                                                                    AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY LEASE
                                                               CITY OF YUMA LEASE TO DAILY FARMS
                                                                                      PAGE 2 OF 5
                                                                                                    95
8. Attorney’s Fees and Costs. If any legal action is necessary to enforce any provision
of this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable fees and costs,
including attorney’s fees, in addition to any other relief which the Court determines the
prevailing party is entitled.

9. Default. If Lessee fails or defaults in the faithful keeping of performance or of any of
the terms, conditions, or covenants to be kept and performed by Lessee during the lease
term, or if Lessee does not promptly pay the rental amount, or any other charges accruing
due to Lessee’s use of the Property, then Lessor, after (10) ten days written notice to
Lessee, may re-enter the Property and remove all persons and all property therefrom and
Lessee hereby expressly waives all claims for damages that may be caused by Lessor as a
result of such re-entry. In such event, Lessor may, but is under no obligation to, take all
actions necessary to complete the cultivation, harvest and sale of crops being grown by
Lessee. All proceeds from the sale of such crops shall be applied first to pay all sums
owed to Lessor by Lessee under this Lease, with any thereafter to be paid to Lessee.

10. Notice. Any notice by either party to the other shall be personally delivered to the
party or sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the address set forth in the first
paragraph of this agreement or to such addresses as either party may from time to time
notify the other.

11. Amendment in Writing. This agreement may be amended only in writing by
mutual consent of both parties.

12. Waiver. The waiver by Lessor of any breach by Lessee of any provision of this
Lease shall not be or be deemed to be a waiver of such provision, or a waiver of any other
prior or subsequent breach thereof, or a waiver of any breach of any other provision of
this Lease. Any waiver must be in writing.

13. Assignment. This agreement is binding upon and shall insure to the benefit of the
parties hereto, their respective successors, assigns, personal representatives and estates.
Lessee shall not assign this Lease without written permission of the Lessor, which
permission may be withheld in the sole discretion of the Lessor.

14. No Partnership. Lessor shall in no event be construed or held to be a partner, joint
venturer or associate of Lessee in the conduct of Lessee’s business on the Property, nor
shall Lessor be liable for any debts incurred by Lessee in the conduct of Lessee’s
business nor for any loss from operations or otherwise. The relationship between Lessor
and Lessee is and at all times shall remain that of landlord and tenant.

15. Enforceability. If any provision of this Lease, or its application to any
circumstance, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable,
then all other provisions of this Lease will continue in full force and effect and a suitable
and equitable provision will be substituted for the invalid or unenforceable provision in
order to carry out, so far as may be practical and permitted under applicable law, the
purpose of this Lease.

                                                                       AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY LEASE
                                                                  CITY OF YUMA LEASE TO DAILY FARMS
                                                                                         PAGE 3 OF 5
                                                                                                       96
16. Integration. It is understood that there are no oral or written agreements or
representations between the parties hereto affecting the Lease, and this Lease supersedes
and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, representations, brochures,
agreements, and understandings, if any, between Lessor and Lessee.

17. Sudan/Iran Investments and Business Operations. By entering into this
Agreement, LESSEE certifies to the CITY that LESSEE does not have scrutinized
business operations in Iran or Sudan as those terms are defined in A.R.S. § 35-391 et seq.
and § 35-393 et seq.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this lease agreement the day
and year first above written in Yuma, Arizona.

LESSOR:                                             LESSEE:

City of Yuma, an Arizona                            Daily Farms, Inc.
Municipal Corporation


By___________________________                       By___________________________
  Mark S. Watson                                      William P. Daily
  City Administrator                                  President


ATTEST


By___________________________
  Brigitta M. Kuiper
  City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:


By___________________________
  Steven W. Moore
  City Attorney




                                                                   AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY LEASE
                                                              CITY OF YUMA LEASE TO DAILY FARMS
                                                                                     PAGE 4 OF 5
                                                                                                   97
         EXHIBIT A

(Legal Description of Property)




                                       AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY LEASE
                                  CITY OF YUMA LEASE TO DAILY FARMS
                                                         PAGE 5 OF 5
                                                                       98
                      REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
                                                                      Motion
MEETING DATE:        December 17, 2008
                                                                      Resolution
DEPARTMENT:          Community Development                            Ordinance - Introduction
                                                                      Ordinance - Adoption
DIVISION:            Community Planning
                                                                      Public Hearing
TITLE:
Amendment: 1st Avenue and 24th Street Alignment Modifications




SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Accept a recommendation to modify the 1st Avenue alignment between 18th Street and 26th Street and
provide direction for future roadway design for 1st Avenue and 24th Street.




REPORT:
On September 16 and 30, October 14, and November 18, 2008, the City Council had considerable
technical discussions on the function, alignment and width of 1st Avenue for the segment from 18th
Street to 28th Street.

City Council requested that staff provide alternative right-of-way requirements to those identified in the
2005 Major Roadways Plan in order to address future right-of-way needs for land acquisition.

As a result of the City Council discussion on the right-of-way, traffic counts and future development in
the area, City staff requests that City Council direct City staff to:
    1. Bring forward an amendment to the Major Roadways Plan 2005 by removing the Collector
       designation for 1st Avenue from 24th Street to 26th Street, as a part of the next amendment of the
       Plan.
    2. Design future improvements of 1st Avenue from 18th Street to 24th Street with the following
       requirements:
            Full right-of-way width shall be 50 feet.
            Lane widths shall be 11 feet.
            Roadway shall include: 2 travel lanes (1 in each direction), 1 center turn lane, sidewalks,
            curb and gutter and no parking shall be allowed on the roadway.
            No alignment changes shall be included that would match 1st Avenue south of 24th Street
    3. Design future improvements to the 1st Avenue and 24th Street intersection to include the
       following:
            Maintain the angled intersection at 1st Avenue and 24th Street.
            Sever the connection of Madison Avenue to 24th Street with a cul-de-sac north of 24th Place
            and provide a private access drive to the adjacent properties north of that closure.



                                                                                                     99
                         CITY FUNDS:                              $0.00 BUDGETED:                                 $0.00
                         STATE FUNDS:                             $0.00 AVAILABLE TO TRANSFER:                    $0.00
                         FEDERAL FUNDS:                           $0.00 IN CONTINGENCY:                           $0.00
                         OTHER SOURCES:                           $0.00 FUNDING FOR THIS ITEM IS FOUND IN THE FOLLOWING
FISCAL REQUIREMENTS




                                                                  $0.00 ACCOUNT / FUND / CIP:
                                                                  $0.00

                         TOTAL:                                   $0.00
                         FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT:




                         SUPPORTING INFORMATION NOT ATTACHED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION FORM THAT IS ON FILE IN
                         THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK:
                          1.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION




                          2.
                          3.
                          4.
                          5.

                         IF CITY COUNCIL ACTION INCLUDES A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE
                         FOR ROUTING THE DOCUMENT FOR SIGNATURE AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL?


                                            Department
                                            City Clerk's Office


                         CITY ADMINISTRATOR:                                                        DATE:
                                                                                                    12/10/2008
                         Mark S. Watson
                         REVIEWED BY CITY ATTORNEY:                                                 DATE:
SIGNATURES




                                                                                                    12/9/2008
                         Steven W. Moore
                         RECOMMENDED BY (DEPT/DIV HEAD):                                            DATE:
                                                                                                    12/1/2008
                         Laurie Lineberry
                         WRITTEN/SUBMITTED BY:                                                      DATE:
                                                                                                    12/1/2008
                         Jennifer Albers




                                                                                                                   100
†
    16TH STREET




                    1ST AVENUE
    18TH STREET




    20TH STREET




                                           22ND STREET
                  1ST AVENUE




    24TH STREET                                      Proposed Road
                                                     Closure



                                                  24TH PLACE
                                 MADISON AVENUE




                                                                     Legend
                                                                     Major Roadways Plan
                                                                           Collector Street
    26TH STREET
                                                                           Minor Arterial Constrained



    INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES                                                    101
             ENTERPRISE GIS
                                                                                             R2008-79



                     REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
                                                                  Motion
MEETING DATE:      December 17, 2008
                                                                  Resolution
DEPARTMENT:        Community Development                          Ordinance - Introduction
                                                                  Ordinance - Adoption
DIVISION:          Community Planning
                                                                  Public Hearing
TITLE:
Public Record Declaration: Smart Growth Overlay




SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Declare a certain document entitled Smart Growth Overlay (SGO) District (November 26, 2008) a
public record and order its filing in the office of the City Clerk. (Z2007-016R)




REPORT:
On November 24, 2008, the City of Yuma Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of
the Smart Growth Overlay (SGO) District text amendment. This is a zoning code text amendment
which allows more flexible development standards and is designed to promote compact, pedestrian-
friendly development, encourage a compatible mix of uses, encourage more condensed residential
subdivisions, provide a choice of housing types and transportation modes, preserve open space, and
provide a consistent development review process. The overlay text is seven pages in length and
publishing the document would be a considerable expense to the city. It is recommended that the
document be declared a public record in order to adopt it by reference.

Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, Section 9-802, the City is authorized to adopt such
documents by reference, using a two-step process. The first step is to declare the proposed
document a public record. This is done by resolution. The second step is, by ordinance, to adopt
the newly declared public record by reference. As part of the procedure, three copies of the public
record are required to remain on file with the City Clerk.

The purpose of this resolution is to make a document known as the Smart Growth Overlay (SGO)
District (November 26, 2008) zoning code text amendment a public record. The ordinance to adopt
the document and amend the zoning code will be presented to the City Council for introduction on
January 7, 2009. A thorough briefing of the proposed ordinance is scheduled for the January 6,
2009, City Council Roundtable.




                                                                                                102
                         CITY FUNDS:                              $0.00 BUDGETED:                                 $0.00
                         STATE FUNDS:                             $0.00 AVAILABLE TO TRANSFER:                    $0.00
                         FEDERAL FUNDS:                           $0.00 IN CONTINGENCY:                           $0.00
                         OTHER SOURCES:                           $0.00 FUNDING FOR THIS ITEM IS FOUND IN THE FOLLOWING
FISCAL REQUIREMENTS




                                                                  $0.00 ACCOUNT / FUND / CIP:
                                                                  $0.00

                         TOTAL:                                   $0.00
                         FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT:




                         SUPPORTING INFORMATION NOT ATTACHED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION FORM THAT IS ON FILE IN
                         THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK:
                          1.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION




                          2.
                          3.
                          4.
                          5.

                         IF CITY COUNCIL ACTION INCLUDES A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE
                         FOR ROUTING THE DOCUMENT FOR SIGNATURE AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL?


                                            Department
                                            City Clerk's Office


                         CITY ADMINISTRATOR:                                                        DATE:
                                                                                                    12/10/2008
                         Mark S. Watson
                         REVIEWED BY CITY ATTORNEY:                                                 DATE:
SIGNATURES




                                                                                                    12/9/2008
                         Steven W. Moore
                         RECOMMENDED BY (DEPT/DIV HEAD):                                            DATE:
                                                                                                    11/26/2008
                         Laurie Lineberry
                         WRITTEN/SUBMITTED BY:                                                      DATE:
                                                                                                    11/25/2008
                         Bruce Heckman




                                                                                                                   103
                              RESOLUTION NO. R2008-79

   A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUMA,
   ARIZONA, DECLARING THAT A CERTAIN DOCUMENT ENTITLED
   SMART GROWTH OVERLAY (SGO) DISTRICT (NOVEMBER 26, 2008), A
   PUBLIC RECORD AND ORDERING ITS FILING IN THE OFFICE OF THE
   CITY CLERK

WHEREAS, as the community grows and prospers, it may be necessary to amend the Zoning
Ordinance to reflect development trends and opportunities; and,

WHEREAS, the City of Yuma may adopt public records by reference pursuant to Arizona
Revised Statute §9-802 so that document will not have to be published in its entirety, thus
saving considerable expense to the City; and,

WHEREAS, this document must be declared a public record in order to adopt by reference;
and,

WHEREAS, the City of Yuma Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on
November 24, 2008, in Zoning Case No. Z2007-016R, regarding the request to amend the
zoning ordinance; and,

WHEREAS, due and proper notice of the public hearings were given in the time, form,
substance and manner as provided by law, including publication of such notice in The Sun on
November 8, 2008; and,

WHEREAS, the proposed zoning ordinance amendment meets the goals and objectives of
the General Plan.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona,
that a certain document, filed in the office of the City Clerk, being marked and titled, Smart
Growth Overlay (SGO) District (November 26, 2008), is hereby declared to be a public
record, and three copies of said document are ordered to remain on file with the City Clerk.

Adopted this ___________ day of __________________, 2008.

                                           APPROVED:

                                           ________________________
                                           Lawrence K. Nelson
                                           Mayor
ATTESTED:

________________________
Brigitta M. Kuiper
City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________
Steven W. Moore
City Attorney
                                                                                             104
SMART GROWTH OVERLAY (SGO) DISTRICT


         NOVEMBER 26, 2008




                 1
                                      105
                           SMART GROWTH OVERLAY (SGO) DISTRICT


§ 154-234 PURPOSE

The Smart Growth Overlay (SGO) District is designed to promote compact, pedestrian-friendly
development, encourage a compatible mix of uses, encourage more condensed residential
subdivisions, provide a choice of housing types and transportation modes, preserve open
space, and provide a consistent development review process.

The SGO District establishes and defines the development pattern, the allowed uses of land,
and implements standards for the siting and character of improvements and structures through
the use and adoption of Pattern Books or Form-Based Codes as regulatory documents. This
approach is intended to allow a broad range of uses and options in order to encourage the
development of diverse, attractive neighborhoods.

The development plan review process will assure that adjacent uses are compatible and that
design is of a high quality. The Zoning Administrator, or his or her designee, shall review all
SGO District project plans to ensure proposed development patterns and standards, as
depicted in the Pattern Book or Form-Based Code, comply with the purpose and intent of the
district.

The purpose will be accomplished by the adoption of site-specific Pattern Books or Form-Based
Codes which evaluate urban design projects from the regional to the architectural scale.
Pattern Books or Form-Based Codes include a plan displaying the pattern of development for
allowed uses, lot types and development standards, and available architectural styles and
design standards. Pattern Books or Form-Based Codes will support the SGO District by the
following actions:

  (1) Promoting mixed land uses, and mixed-use commercial/residential buildings;

  (2) Taking advantage of compact design;

  (3) Fostering distinctive and attractive communities by including parks, pedestrian oriented
      streets, public art and community facilities;

  (4) Supporting a variety of transportation choices to enhance the interconnectivity between
      mixed-use commercial and residential neighborhoods via streets with detached
      sidewalks, bike paths, and walking paths;

  (5) Increasing the availability of housing by creating a range of housing opportunities in
      neighborhoods;

  (6) Establishing flexible development standards;

  (7) Ensuring high quality architecture and urban design that reflects classic elements,
      including vernacular, or local, styles;

  (8) Clearly defining and activating the public realm by locating buildings to form street edges
      and corners, and locating buildings to activate the street level.



                                                1
                                                                                                  106
§ 154-235 INTENT

The Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) was formed in 1993 to advance the principles of
New Urbanism and promote their broad application. The CNU later ratified the “Charter of the
New Urbanism” at its fourth annual Congress. Its goals promote walkable, neighborhood-based
development as an alternative to sprawl. In the process of urban design, this is accomplished
by identifying and focusing on development patterns within the scale of neighborhoods, districts,
and corridors with the idea of regulating within clear, identifiable spatial boundaries.

The CNU Charter outlines principles for building better communities, from the scale of the
region down to the block. The principles are intended to guide public policy, development
practice, urban planning, and design. It is the intent of the SGO District that development shall
recognize and be in harmony with the principles of New Urbanism as summarized below:


  (1)   Civic Sites – Clearly identified and at a prominent location, civic sites should
        attract residents to that location where they can meet neighbors or have
        scheduled community events. They also lead to a “sense of place”, which
        increases pride in one’s community.

  (2)   Walkability – A modified grid design, with sidewalks, mixed with linear parks
        and parkways, encourages residents to move around without the use of
        automobiles. This is particularly important for children and the elderly, as well
        as reducing fuel consumption on unnecessary vehicle trips.

  (3)   Connectivity – Plentiful connections between different communities within a
        development reduces traffic on “connector” routes, by allowing for traffic to
        flow on a greater number of local streets.

  (4)   Mix of Land Uses – Uses in addition to residential within a properly designed
        development can provide a sense of place. Access to mixed-use centers
        should be encouraged by both vehicles and non-vehicular means through
        multiple connections, sidewalks, etc. Mixed-use centers may provide housing
        and non-housing within the same district, or may provide only non-residential
        uses, if well connected to adjacent residential uses. Retail within mixed use
        must have good visibility from high volume thoroughfares as well as plentiful
        parking in order to be financially successful. Good design can accommodate
        both these needs into a mixed-use design.

  (5)   Diverse Housing Types - Single family, townhouses, multi-family apartments
        and condos can be integrated into one development, as long as the scale and
        design of adjacent uses is compatible with each other. A mix of housing
        types ensures that people of various socio-economic classes may live in
        proximity to one another and share a common pride in the community.

  (6)   High Quality Architecture and Urban Design – Architecture should reflect
        classic elements, including vernacular, or local, styles. However, overly
        prescriptive architectural standards may raise the cost of housing
        construction and should be flexible when considering workforce housing.

  (7)   Increased Density – More units on smaller lots allows for preservation of


                                                 2
                                                                                               107
        open space, reduces infrastructure and maintenance costs, and allows for a
        more diverse mix of housing stock, which opens communities up to many
        socio-economic groups.

  (8)   Environmental Sensitivity – Open space areas should also be counted
        toward, not in addition to, other open space requirements, such as setbacks
        and park dedication. This mainly applies to suburban locations that have
        existing natural features on site, but there are opportunities even in more
        urban settings.

  (9)   Public Transportation – The structure of these communities (good
        connectivity, walkability, and higher density) should make existing and
        potential public transportation service more accessible and feasible than
        conventional subdivisions.


§ 154-236 APPLICABILITY

Other overlay districts applicable within project boundaries shall not be subordinate to the
SGO District. The SGO District may be applied to all underlying commercial and
residential districts in conformance with the City of Yuma General Plan. The overlay shall
be established to promote the purpose and intent of this section by allowing flexibility in
development patterns and uses not otherwise permitted in the underlying district, and to
implement stand-alone development standards through the use of site-specific Pattern Books
or Form-Based Codes. Where the overlay district exists and there is a conflict between the
requirements and/or uses specified between the overlay with its supporting documents and the
underlying district, the standards of the overlay district shall prevail. A zoning map change
establishing any SGO District shall be subject to the same procedures and requirements as
any other zoning map change.


§ 154-237 DEFINITIONS

Pattern Book. Comparing it to contemporary zoning district formats, a Pattern Book can be
described as follows: Combined with the requirements of the Smart Growth Overlay (SGO)
District, a Pattern Book is a stand-alone document integrated into the SGO land use ordinance
addressing the district’s allowed uses, development and design standards. Unlike standard
zoning districts, SGO Pattern Books are site specific and normally contain a Master Plan for
reference. Pattern Books are more flexible, more comprehensive and detailed, making them
more equivalent to a zoning code rather than a zoning district. Pattern books consolidate
additional sections or standards into the district ordinance dealing with topics such as parking,
landscaping, architecture, and infrastructure. Pattern Books use an abundance of illustrations,
photographs, and tables to clearly and concisely convey the requirements of the code. At a
minimum, Pattern Books consist of the following required sections: Introduction; Community
Patterns; and Architectural Patterns.


Form-Based Code. Comparing it to contemporary zoning district formats, a Form-Based Code
(FBC) can be described as follows: Combined with the requirements of the Smart Growth
Overlay (SGO) District, an FBC is a stand-alone document integrated into the SGO land use
ordinance addressing the district’s allowed uses, development and design standards. Unlike


                                                3
                                                                                                108
standard zoning districts, SGO FBC’s are site specific, concentrate more on building form than
building use, and contain a Regulating Plan for reference. Regulating Plans are equivalent to a
Master Plan. FBC’s are more flexible, more comprehensive and detailed, making them more
equivalent to a zoning code rather than a zoning district. FBC’s consolidate additional sections
or standards into the district ordinance dealing with topics such as parking, landscaping,
architecture, and infrastructure. FBC’s use an abundance of illustrations and tables to clearly
and concisely convey the requirements of the code. At a minimum, Form-Based Codes consist
of the following sections: Regulating Plan; Public Space Standards; Building Form Standards;
Administration; and Glossary.


§ 154-238 PERMITTED USES AND CONDITIONAL USES

Proposed uses listed in the adopted supporting documents for the SGO District will be
supplemental to those listed in the underlying zoning districts. An example of the supplemental
uses would be mixed-use buildings, live/work units, and carriage houses. A list of those uses as
they apply to the specific underlying zoning district shall be included within the Pattern Book or
Form-Based Code. Proposed uses will be evaluated to ensure they meet the purpose and
intent of this section. All uses will be subject to in-house review and approval to ensure
development is compatible with adjacent uses, and that identified impacts are mitigated if
needed. Final determinations on project status and requirements will be made by the Director
of Community Development.


§ 154-239 REZONING SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

  (A) All SGO Districts shall have site-specific names. The naming convention shall be as
      follows: Smart Growth Overlay (SGO) District – Project Name

  (B) The submittal of a rezoning application shall include a site-specific Pattern Book or Form-
      Based Code as the regulatory document(s) for the project.

  (C) Pattern Books shall contain at a minimum the following sections: Introduction, Community
      Patterns, and Architectural Patterns. Optional sections may be required including, but not
      limited to, landscaping and infrastructure.

  (D) Form-Based Codes shall contain at a minimum the following sections: Regulating Plan,
      Public Space Standards, Building Form Standards, Administration, and Glossary.
      Optional sections may be required including, but not limited to, standards regulating
      Blocks, Building Types, Architecture, and Landscaping.

  (E) Pattern Books or Form-Based Codes shall generally include the following information:

      (1)   A master plan and/or regulating plan displaying the pattern of development for
            allowed uses.

      (2)   List(s) of uses that are supplemental to the Permitted Uses and Conditional Uses of
            the underlying zoning district.

      (3)   Lot types, building types, placement of structures on lots, and development
            standards (i.e. setbacks, lot coverage, building height, landscaping, etc.).


                                                4
                                                                                               109
     (4)   Building forms and available architectural styles and design standards.

     (5)   Pertinent quantitative data such as the total number of each type of commercial
           building and dwelling units; parcel sizes; residential densities; total amount of open
           space in various categories; and parking requirements.

     (6)   Supporting illustrations and standards for streetscapes (local & arterial road
           connections), lot layouts, building frontages and elevations.

     (7)   Interrelationship of pedestrian and vehicular circulation system, and how pedestrian
           walkways/pathways and bicycle facilities interconnect to adjoining neighborhoods.

     (8)   Supporting illustrations and standards for civic spaces and open space such as
           parks, squares, linear pathways/parks, and plazas.

     (9)   Any additional information or optional elements to be included with the Pattern Book
           or Form-Based Code which may be necessary to properly evaluate the character
           and impact of the proposed development as determined by the Director of
           Community Development.

  (F) The proposed rezoning action with the adoption of the Pattern Book or Form-Based Code
      shall be heard by the Planning Commission and shall be forwarded to the City Council
      with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Upon approval of the rezoning
      action and adoption of the Pattern Book or Form-Based Code by the City Council, the
      SGO zoning shall be designated on the official zoning map.


§ 154-240 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

DISTRICT SIZE: 40 acres


§ 154-241 DEVELOPMENT, DESIGN, AND LANDSCAPING STANDARDS

Development, design, and landscaping standards shall be site-specific, dependent upon the
type of proposed project. The standards will be included in the Pattern Book or Form-Based
Code and shall be compliant with the purpose and intent of this overlay district.


§ 154-242 DENSITY

Development shall comply with the overall density standards of the underlying General Plan
land use designation(s) and zoning district(s).


§ 154-243 SIGN STANDARDS

Sign standards shall be site-specific, dependent upon the type of proposed project. A sign
package for the entire development shall be submitted for review and approval.



                                                5
                                                                                                110
§ 154-244 VARIATIONS, MINOR DEVIATIONS, AND MAJOR DEVIATIONS

 (A) VARIATIONS SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

     Variations in the aforementioned submittal requirements may be permitted which are
     consistent with the purpose and intent of this section as approved by the Director of
     Community Development.

 (B) MINOR DEVIATIONS TO THE SGO PATTERN BOOK OR FORM-BASED CODE

     (1)   Proposed deviations to the SGO regulatory documents (Pattern Book or FBC) that
           substantially conform to the adopted standards, regulations, and guidelines, and are
           not in conflict with any provisions of the City of Yuma Municipal Code that may apply
           to the SGO, may be permitted as “Minor Deviations.” Minor Deviations may include,
           but are not limited to:

           (a) Allowance of a use not listed in the Permitted Uses of the SGO regulatory
               documents, if the use is consistent with or similar to the intent of the General
               Plan, underlying zoning district, and SGO designation for the area in which the
               use is requested.

           (b) Changes to numbers or letters establishing or referencing text sections or
               figures, including references to City of Yuma Code sections.

           (c) Modifications to park and public space designs described in the regulatory
               documents.

           (d) Modifications to informational material contained in the Pattern Book or the FBC
               that does not have regulatory effect.

           (e) Any other modifications determined by the Director of Community Development
               to be in accordance with the required findings for a Minor Deviation.

     (2)   A request for a Minor Deviation shall be submitted in writing and shall include the
           specific text, exhibits, or other changes proposed for the Minor Deviation and other
           material or information requested by the Department of Community Development in
           order to review the proposal and document all of the findings identified above.

           All approved Minor Deviations shall be documented in writing and maintained by the
           City with the SGO case file. A Minor Deviation is not intended to replace the
           Variance process or approve Variances described in the City of Yuma Municipal
           Code.

           The Director of Community Development, acting upon any application for a Minor
           Deviation that is determined to be complete, shall (1) approve the request, (2)
           approve the request with conditions or modifications, (3) deny the request, or (4)
           refer the request to the Planning Commission or Hearing Officer for consideration. In
           order to approve a Minor Deviation, the Director must make all of the following
           findings for the Minor Deviation:



                                               6
                                                                                              111
       (a) The Minor Deviation substantially conforms to the adopted standards,
           regulations, and guidelines of the SGO.

       (b) The Minor Deviation is not in conflict with any provisions of the City of Yuma
           Municipal Code that apply to the SGO.

       (c) The Minor Deviation will not adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare.

       (d) The Minor Deviation will not adversely affect adjacent property.

       (e) The Minor Deviation will not have adverse environmental effects that have not
           been previously analyzed.

(C) MAJOR DEVIATIONS

   Any proposed deviation to the Form-Based Code or to the Pattern Book that is not a
   Minor Deviation shall be a Major Deviation. Major Deviations to SGO regulatory
   documents shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval.




                                            7
                                                                                              112
                                                                                               R2008-80



                      REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
                                                                    Motion
MEETING DATE:       December 17, 2008
                                                                    Resolution
DEPARTMENT:         City Administration                             Ordinance - Introduction
                                                                    Ordinance - Adoption
DIVISION:           Economic Development
                                                                    Public Hearing
TITLE:
Preannexation Development Agreement: Dusenberry




SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize a Preannexation Development Agreement with Bruce and Kathryn Dusenberry for property
located at 2333 South Pacific Avenue.




REPORT:
City staff has been working with several property owners outside the city limits in the vicinity of the
Pacific Avenue and 24th Street County island area. The purpose is to work toward mutually
acceptable annexation terms so that the City may annex a portion of this unincorporated territory.
The accompanying preannexation development agreement with Bruce and Kathryn Dusenberry
provides that the City will 1) rebate City property tax for a maximum period of three years, or until
such time the owner has sold the property, whichever occurs first, and 2) provides for zoning
designation concurrent with annexation.

The attached resolution authorizes a Preannexation Development Agreement with Bruce and Kathryn
Dusenberry.




                                                                                                  113
                         CITY FUNDS:                             $0.00 BUDGETED:                                 $0.00
                         STATE FUNDS:                            $0.00 AVAILABLE TO TRANSFER:                    $0.00
                         FEDERAL FUNDS:                          $0.00 IN CONTINGENCY:                           $0.00
                         OTHER SOURCES:                          $0.00 FUNDING FOR THIS ITEM IS FOUND IN THE FOLLOWING
FISCAL REQUIREMENTS




                                                                 $0.00 ACCOUNT / FUND / CIP:
                                                                 $0.00

                         TOTAL:                                 $0.00
                         FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT:
                         Refunding of City property tax for three years.




                         SUPPORTING INFORMATION NOT ATTACHED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION FORM THAT IS ON FILE IN
                         THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK:
                          1.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION




                          2.
                          3.
                          4.
                          5.

                         IF CITY COUNCIL ACTION INCLUDES A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE
                         FOR ROUTING THE DOCUMENT FOR SIGNATURE AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL?


                                           Department
                                           City Clerk's Office


                         CITY ADMINISTRATOR:                                                       DATE:
                                                                                                   12/10/2008
                         Mark S. Watson
                         REVIEWED BY CITY ATTORNEY:                                                DATE:
SIGNATURES




                                                                                                   12/9/2008
                         Steven W. Moore
                         RECOMMENDED BY (DEPT/DIV HEAD):                                           DATE:
                                                                                                   11/26/2008
                         Robert L. Stull
                         WRITTEN/SUBMITTED BY:                                                     DATE:
                                                                                                   11/25/2008
                         Peter J. Erlenbach




                                                                                                                  114
                                    RESOLUTION NO. R2008-80

               A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
               YUMA, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE
               EXECUTION OF A PREANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT
               AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNER OF REAL PROPERTY
               LOCATED AT 2333 SOUTH PACIFIC AVENUE

WHEREAS, the City is authorized under Arizona Revised Statutes Section 9-500.05 to enter into
development agreements with owners of real property situated in unincorporated lands; and,

WHEREAS, the City adopted its General Plan in 2002, and the use and development of the property is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the City of Yuma General Plan, as amended; and,

WHEREAS, the property is located in unincorporated lands which is territory that is desired by the City
to be annexed into the boundaries of the City; and,

WHEREAS, the property owner desires certain assurances and/or commitments from the City upon
annexation.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona that the
City Administrator is authorized and directed to execute the Preannexation Development Agreement and
related documents as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference made part hereof.

Adopted this _____ day of _____________, 2008.


                                                   APPROVED:

                                                   ___________________________________
                                                   Lawrence K. Nelson
                                                   Mayor
ATTESTED:

___________________________________
Brigitta M. Kuiper
City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:

___________________________________
Steven W. Moore
City Attorney




                                                                                                 115
                                 RESOLUTION NO. R2008-80

                                 EXHIBIT A
                   PREANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into, pursuant to the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)
§ 9-500.05G.1.(h) is by and between Bruce & Kathryn Dusenberry (“OWNER”) and the City of
Yuma (“CITY”), a municipal corporation of the State of Arizona.

                                           RECITALS

WHEREAS, the CITY adopted its General Plan in 2002, and the use and development of the
property is consistent with and in conformance to the goals and objectives of the CITY of Yuma
General Plan, as amended; and,

WHEREAS, OWNER possesses real property, identified as Yuma County, Arizona, Assessor’s
Parcel Number 14-109-80-007-00-5, 2333 S. Pacific Avenue “PROPERTY” (Exhibit 2) located in
unincorporated territory and is willing to annex said property into the CITY; and,

WHEREAS, OWNER desires certain assurances and commitments from the CITY following
annexation; and,

WHEREAS, the CITY desires to obtain those public benefits which accrue from the redevelopment
and use of the PROPERTY within the CITY limits, which benefits include (but are not limited to)
the creation and retention of jobs, stimulation of further economic development within the CITY,
increased property tax values based on improvements to be constructed on the property, and by
retention and generation of additional sales tax revenues through increased business activity; and,

WHEREAS, the parties hereto wish to enter into this Agreement to provide for the annexation and
development of the PROPERTY upon certain terms and conditions.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, the parties agree as follows:

I.      DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
        This Agreement is a Development Agreement within the meaning of Arizona Revised
Statutes § 9-500.05G.1.(h). This document and all attached exhibits, addenda, or amendment,
constitute the Agreement.

II.     TERM.
        This Agreement will commence upon the date of its execution, and will terminate when the
obligations of the parties with respect to the improvements and use of the PROPERTY contained in
this Agreement are fully complied with and the parties mutually provide for termination.




                                                                                                116
                                                                                         Page 1 of 5
III.   ANNEXATION.
    A. The OWNER agrees to petition for and consent to annexation of the subject property into the
CITY of Yuma pursuant to A.R.S. 9-471 at the CITY’s request. In order that the agreement to annex
may take place in a timely manner, the OWNER will execute the special power of attorney, as
shown in Exhibit 1, and provide to the CITY designating the CITY Clerk of the CITY, to sign and
execute, on behalf of the OWNER, any lawful annexation petition. Said power of attorney shall be
recorded and run with the land until the land is annexed into the CITY.

   B. The CITY agrees to designate the PROPERTY as a Light Industrial (L-I) zoning district,
with Aesthetic Overlay (A-O), as set forth in Chapter 154 in the Yuma City Code, pursuant to
A.R.S. § 9-500.5 G.1.(h), jointly with the annexation of the PROPERTY into the CITY.

    C. The OWNER agrees to sign an application or otherwise fully cooperate with the CITY to
convert, transfer or assign any water or water delivery entitlements associated with the PROPERTY
to the CITY or to the irrigation district. A portion of such water may be retained for landscaping if
flood irrigation facilities are provided by OWNER.

IV.     DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
        The development and use of the PROPERTY shall be subject to all applicable CITY, County,
State and Federal laws, regulations or rules in effect at the time of such development.

V.      REBATES.
        CITY PROPERTY TAX. The CITY shall reimburse OWNER a sum equal to one
hundred percent (100%) of the property tax paid to the CITY following annexation of the
PROPERTY. This reimbursement shall remain in effect for a period not to exceed three years,
or until such time OWNER has sold the PROPERTY and transferred fee title, whichever occurs
first. The reimbursement shall be based upon property tax receipts provided by OWNER to the
CITY.

VI.    NOTIFICATIONS.
        A. All notices, demands or other communications must be in writing and are deemed to be
duly delivered upon personal delivery, or as of the second business day after mailing by United
States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, return receipt requested, addressed as follows:

To CITY:                                       To OWNER:
City Administrator                             Bruce & Kathryn Dusenberry
One City Plaza                                 3600 E. 36th Street
P.O. Box 13014                                 Tucson, Arizona 85713
Yuma, Arizona 85366-3014

       B. If either party changes address they must give written notice to the other party. Notice of
change of address is deemed effective five (5) days after mailing by the party changing address.

VII.    DIMUNITION IN VALUE.
        By signing this Agreement, OWNER agrees to waive claims for diminution in value under
the Private Property Rights Development Act in connection with the annexation petition applicable



                                                                                                   117
                                                                                            Page 2 of 5
to the Property as well as for any claim of diminution in value as a result of the zoning designation
of the Property.

VIII.  SUCCESSOR AND ASSIGNS.
       This Agreement is not assignable unless both parties mutually consent in writing. The
requirements of this Agreement are binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors,
and assigns of both parties.

IX.     WAIVER.
        If either party fails to require the other party to perform any provision of this Agreement, that
failure does not prevent the party from later enforcing that provision. Neither party is released from
any responsibilities or obligations imposed by law or by this Agreement if the other party fails to
exercise a right or remedy.

X.     GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE.
       The laws of the State of Arizona govern this Agreement as to validity, interpretation, and
performance. The parties must institute and maintain any legal actions or judicial proceeding arising
from this Agreement in a court of competent jurisdiction in Yuma County, Arizona.

XI.    SEVERABILITY.
       If any terms, parts, or provisions of this Agreement are from any reason invalid or
unenforceable, the remaining terms, parts, or provisions are nevertheless valid and enforceable.

XII.    ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS.
        If either party brings an action or proceeding for failure to observe any of the terms or
provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party may recover, as part of such action or proceeding,
all reasonable costs, expenses, and attorney fees as determined by the Court and not by a jury.

XIII.   INTEGRATION.
        This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties, and no oral or written
statement, promise or inducement made by either party or its agents not contained or specifically
referred to in this Agreement is valid or binding. All modifications to this Agreement must be in
writing, signed and endorsed by the parties.

XIV. RECORDATION
       The CITY shall record a copy of this Agreement no later than ten (10) days from date of
entering into this Agreement pursuant to A.R.S. 9-500.05G.1.(h).




                                                                                                     118
                                                                                              Page 3 of 5
WITNESSED, the parties executed this Agreement through their authorized representatives on
                              , 2008.

APPROVED:
CITY OF YUMA                                   OWNERS

By___________________________                  By_______________________________
Mark S. Watson                                 Bruce Dusenberry
City Administrator
                                               By_______________________________
                                               Kathryn Dusenberry

ATTEST:                                        APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By____________________________                  By______________________________
Brigitta M. Kuiper                              Steven W. Moore
City Clerk                                      City Attorney




                                                                                        119
                                                                                 Page 4 of 5
                                          EXHIBIT 1
                            DURABLE SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

     Bruce & Kathryn Dusenberry are the owners of the following described real property:

                               Assessor’s Parcel No. 14-109-80-007-00-5

        Said property being 2333 S. Pacific Avenue, I hereby appoint the CITY Clerk of the CITY of
Yuma, Arizona as its true and lawful Attorney for it and in its name, place, and stead, with full
authority and full powers of substitution, to do and execute any or all of the following acts, deeds
and things, relating to or in any way connected with the following described matter AND NO
OTHER:

        To execute all ANNEXATION documents, including, but not limited to, petitions, waivers,
notices, grant all approvals or consents, and to do every act or perform everything necessary to
authorize and achieve the ANNEXATION of the above described property into the boundaries and
limits of the CITY of Yuma, County of Yuma, State of Arizona. It is the express intention and
desire that said property be annexed to the CITY of Yuma.

THIS SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED BY MY DISABILITY.

   IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, this               day of              , 2008.

                                                     OWNERS

                                                     ___________________________________
                                                     Bruce Dusenberry

                                                     ___________________________________
                                                     Kathryn Dusenberry


STATE OF ARIZONA)
               )ss
COUNTY OF YUMA)

        On this                      , before me,_______________________, a Notary Public in
and for the County of Yuma , State of AZ , on this day personally appeared Bruce & Kathryn
Dusenberry to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged
that he executed the same for the purposes therein contained.

   IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.


                                                                   _________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC                                                      MY COMMISSION EXPIRES



                                                                                                 120
                                                                                          Page 5 of 5
121
                                                                                               O2008-56



                      REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
                                                                    Motion
MEETING DATE:       December 17, 2008
                                                                    Resolution
DEPARTMENT:         City Engineering                                Ordinance - Introduction
                                                                    Ordinance - Adoption
DIVISION:
                                                                    Public Hearing
TITLE:
Right-of-Way Acquisition: Madison Avenue at 11th Street




SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the acquisition of right-of-way for Madison Avenue intersection improvements at 11th Street
(Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project No. 5.0907).




REPORT:
CIP No. 5.0907 was developed to address improvements along Madison Avenue, between 10th Street
and 12th Street, and along 11th Street, between 1st Avenue and Maple Avenue.

To properly construct handicap ramps at the intersection of Madison Avenue at 11th Street, it will be
necessary to acquire four and one-half square feet of additional right-of-way from each of the property
owners at the intersection corners.

For that reason addressed above, it is requested that City Council adopt the attached ordinance,
authorizing right-of-way acquisition for Madison Avenue at 11th Street intersection improvements.




                                                                                                    122
                         CITY FUNDS:                       $2,000.00 BUDGETED:                                 $18,000.00
                         STATE FUNDS:                            $0.00 AVAILABLE TO TRANSFER:                       $0.00
                         FEDERAL FUNDS:                          $0.00 IN CONTINGENCY:                              $0.00
                         OTHER SOURCES:                          $0.00 FUNDING FOR THIS ITEM IS FOUND IN THE FOLLOWING
FISCAL REQUIREMENTS




                                                                 $0.00 ACCOUNT / FUND / CIP:
                                                                 $0.00   FY 2008 CIP No. 5.9512

                         TOTAL:                            $2,000.00
                         FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT:




                         SUPPORTING INFORMATION NOT ATTACHED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION FORM THAT IS ON FILE IN
                         THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK:
                          1.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION




                          2.
                          3.
                          4.
                          5.

                         IF CITY COUNCIL ACTION INCLUDES A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE
                         FOR ROUTING THE DOCUMENT FOR SIGNATURE AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL?


                                           Department
                                           City Clerk's Office


                         CITY ADMINISTRATOR:                                                       DATE:
                                                                                                   11/25/2008
                         Mark S. Watson
                         REVIEWED BY CITY ATTORNEY:                                                DATE:
SIGNATURES




                                                                                                   11/24/2008
                         Steven W. Moore
                         RECOMMENDED BY (DEPT/DIV HEAD):                                           DATE:
                                                                                                   11/6/2008
                         Paul Brooberg
                         WRITTEN/SUBMITTED BY:                                                     DATE:
                                                                                                   11/6/2008
                         Teresa Blackburn




                                                                                                                    123
124
                                 ORDINANCE NO. O2008-56

   AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUMA,
   ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN PARCELS
   OF REAL PROPERTY, HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED, BE ACQUIRED BY
   THE CITY OF YUMA, BY GIFT, EASEMENT, PURCHASE OR UNDER THE
   POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN, FOR THE REASON THAT SUCH
   PROPERTY IS REQUIRED TO IMPROVE THE PUBLIC ROADWAY AND
   UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES AS MAY
   BE RELATED THERETO, AND AUTHORIZING PAYMENT THEREFOR,
   TOGETHER WITH COSTS NECESSARY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF SAID
   PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY



WHEREAS, the City of Yuma (City) is authorized, pursuant to the City Charter, Article III, Section
2, to acquire real property; and


WHEREAS, the City has identified the acquisition of certain parcels of property as necessary for
roadway improvements at the intersection of Madison Avenue and 11th Street.


NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Yuma as follows:


SECTION 1: That it is deemed necessary and essential, as a matter of public necessity and public
welfare, that certain parcels of real property described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this
reference made a part hereof, be acquired by the City of Yuma, as such acquisitions are required to
extend and improve public roadway and utility infrastructure for the public interest of the City and
would be of public benefit.


SECTION 2: That the City staff is hereby authorized and directed to acquire said real property by
gift, easement or purchase, and, in the event the City of Yuma, at its sole discretion, is unable to
acquire said property upon satisfactory terms, the staff is hereby authorized and directed to perform
all acts necessary to acquire title to and possession of said property under the power of eminent
domain, for the City of Yuma.




                                                                                                125
SECTION 3: That the duly authorized disbursing officers of the City of Yuma are hereby authorized
and directed to pay all sums necessary to acquire said property, together with recording fees, escrow,
title insurance, closing and all other costs necessary in the acquisition of said property.


Adopted this __________ day of ____________________, 2008.

                                         APPROVED:

                                         _________________________
                                         Lawrence K. Nelson
                                         Mayor


ATTESTED:

_________________________
Brigitta M. Kuiper
City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________
Steven W. Moore
City Attorney




                                                                                               126
                                                   Exhibit A
Parcel A
A part of the East half of Lot 11 of Block 9 of Speese Addition Subdivision located in Section 28, Township
8 South, Range 23 West, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, as recorded in Book of Plats 1 Page 6,
Yuma County Records, more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot 11, being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence 3.00 feet North along the Easterly line of said Lot;
Thence 4.25 feet, more or less, southwesterly along a straight line to a point located 3.00 feet West from the
Southeast corner of said Lot;
Thence 3.00 feet East along the Southerly line of said Lot to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

Total area of 4.50 square feet

Parcel B
A part of Lot 1 of Block 16 of Speese Addition Subdivision located in Section 28, Township 8 South, Range
23 West, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, as recorded in Book of Plats 1 Page 6, Yuma County
Records, more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Lot 1, being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence 3.00 feet South along the Easterly line of said Lot;
Thence 4.25 feet, more or less, northwesterly along a straight line to a point located 3.00 feet West from the
Northeast corner of said Lot;
Thence 3.00 feet East along the Northerly line of said Lot to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNNING.

Total area of 4.50 square feet

Parcel C
A part of Lot 13 of Block 20 of Speese Addition Subdivision located in Section 28, Township 8 South,
Range 23 West, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, as recorded in Book of Plats 1 Page 6, Yuma County
Records, more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Lot 13, being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNNING;
Thence 3.00 feet North along the Westerly line of said Lot;
Thence 4.25 feet, more or less, southeasterly to a point along a straight line located 3.00 feet East from the
Southwest corner of said Lot;
Thence 3.00 feet West along the Southerly line of said Lot to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNNING.

Total area of 4.50 square feet

Parcel D
A part of Lot 24 of Block 21 of Speese Addition Subdivision located in Section 28, Township 8 South,
Range 23 West, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, as recorded in Book of Plats 1 Page 6, Yuma County
Records, more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 24, being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence 3.00 feet South along the Westerly line of said Lot;
Thence 4.25 feet, more or less, northeasterly along a straight line to a point located 3.00 feet East from the
Northwest corner of said Lot;
Thence 3.00 feet West along the Northerly line of said Lot to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

Total area of 4.50 square feet



                                                                                                            127
                                                                                                 O2008-57



                      REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
                                                                     Motion
MEETING DATE:       December 17, 2008
                                                                     Resolution
DEPARTMENT:         City Attorney                                    Ordinance - Introduction
                                                                     Ordinance - Adoption
DIVISION:
                                                                     Public Hearing
TITLE:
Amendment to Ordinance No. O2008-39 - Scrivener's Error Correction




SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize an amendment to Ordinance O2008-39 to ratify a change to the legal description contained
in Exhibit A of the Water Service and Preannexation Development Agreement with Victory Lutheran
Brethren Church for property located at 11386 South Avenue 9E.



REPORT:
On October 1, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance O2008-39. That ordinance authorized a
Water Service and Preannexation Development Agreement with Victory Lutheran Brethren Church.
Due to the number of warranty deeds and monetary payments to be made for various rights-of-way and
remnant parcels, the City enlisted Citizens Title & Trust to prepare the necessary closing documents for
this transaction. Prior to the scheduled closing date, a scrivener’s error in one of the legal descriptions
on one of the warranty deeds was discovered. In order to proceed in a timely fashion with the closing
date, City staff processed the necessary change to conclude the transaction. The purpose of this
ordinance therefore is to ratify the scrivener’s error amendment that was made to the legal description
for the remnant parcel as shown in Exhibit A.




                                                                                                    128
                         CITY FUNDS:                             $0.00 BUDGETED:                                 $0.00
                         STATE FUNDS:                            $0.00 AVAILABLE TO TRANSFER:                    $0.00
                         FEDERAL FUNDS:                          $0.00 IN CONTINGENCY:                           $0.00
                         OTHER SOURCES:                          $0.00 FUNDING FOR THIS ITEM IS FOUND IN THE FOLLOWING
FISCAL REQUIREMENTS




                                                                 $0.00 ACCOUNT / FUND / CIP:
                                                                 $0.00

                         TOTAL:                                  $0.00
                         FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT:




                         SUPPORTING INFORMATION NOT ATTACHED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION FORM THAT IS ON FILE IN
                         THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK:
                          1.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION




                          2.
                          3.
                          4.
                          5.

                         IF CITY COUNCIL ACTION INCLUDES A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE
                         FOR ROUTING THE DOCUMENT FOR SIGNATURE AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL?


                                           Department
                                           City Clerk's Office


                         CITY ADMINISTRATOR:                                                       DATE:
                                                                                                   11/25/2008
                         Mark S. Watson
                         REVIEWED BY CITY ATTORNEY:                                                DATE:
SIGNATURES




                                                                                                   11/24/2008
                         Steven W. Moore
                         RECOMMENDED BY (DEPT/DIV HEAD):                                           DATE:
                                                                                                   11/19/2008
                         Steven W. Moore
                         WRITTEN/SUBMITTED BY:                                                     DATE:
                                                                                                   11/18/2008
                         Ray Urias




                                                                                                                  129
                               ORDINANCE NO. O2008-57

       AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUMA,
       ARIZONA, AMENDING ORDINANCE O2008-39, MAKING CERTAIN
       CHANGES TO EXHIBIT A, ATTACHED THERETO, TO CORRECT
       SCRIVENER’S ERRORS CONTAINED THEREIN


WHEREAS, on October 1, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance O2008-39 for the purpose
of approving certain changes to a Water Service and Preannexation Development Agreement
with Victory Lutheran Brethren Church for property located at 11386 South Avenue 9E; and,

WHEREAS, Ordinance O2008-39 contained some scrivener’s errors in the legal description for
Exhibit A, attached thereto, and need to be corrected to match documents which have already
been executed by the parties for escrow closing that occurred on October 31, 2008, therefore
requiring this ratification action.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona as
follows:

SECTION 1: That Ordinance No. O2008-39 be amended to make certain scrivener’s error
corrections in Exhibit A, as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and by reference made a part
hereof.

SECTION 2: That all other provisions of Ordinance No. O2008-39 not otherwise amended
herein shall remain in full force and effect.


Adopted this _____ day of ____________________, 2008.

                                          APPROVED:

                                          _______________________________
                                          Lawrence K. Nelson
                                          Mayor

ATTESTED:

___________________________
Brigitta M. Kuiper
City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

___________________________
Steven W. Moore
City Attorney


                                                                                         130
                                             Exhibit A

A parcel of land being a portion of the East half of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter
of the Northeast quarter of Section 11, Township 9 South, Range 22 West of the Gila and Salt
River Base and Meridian, Yuma County, Arizona, more particularly described as follows:

Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Section 11; thence South 00º03’41” West along the
East line of said Section, a distance of 1,323.95 feet to a point on the East line of said Section 11;
thence North 89º27’18” West, a distance of 40.00 feet to a point; thence South 00º03’41” East
along a line parallel to said East line, a distance of 30.00 feet to a point; thence North 89º27’18”
West, a distance of 40.00 feet to a point, this being the True Point of Beginning; thence South
00º 03’41” West along a line parallel with the East line of said Section 11, a distance of 70.00
feet to a point; thence South 89º27’18” East, a distance of 18.00 feet to a point; thence North
00º03’41” East along a line parallel with the East line of said Section 11, a distance of 52.00 feet
to a point; thence North 44º 41’48” West, a distance of 25.56 feet to the True Point of Beginning.




                                                                                                   131
                       REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
                                                                       Motion
MEETING DATE:        December 17, 2008
                                                                       Resolution
DEPARTMENT:          City Administration                               Ordinance - Introduction
                                                                       Ordinance - Adoption
DIVISION:
                                                                       Public Hearing
TITLE:
2% Hospitality Tax renewal and proposed ballot language




SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Solicit public input, followed by City Council discussion, deliberation and possible direction to City staff
concerning the renewal of the 2% Hospitality Tax and proposed ballot language scheduled for a May
19, 2009 Special Election.



REPORT:
The City Council has previously discussed calling a Special Election on May 19, 2009 for the purpose
of renewing the 2% Hospitality Tax. The current tax, as outlined in Article III, Section 16, of the Yuma
City Charter, will expire June 30, 2009. The City Council is soliciting public input on the renewal of the
2% Hospitality tax and proposed ballot language, prior to City Council discussion, deliberation and
possible direction to City staff.

The 2% Hospitality Tax currently funds the Recreation Complex, Desert Hills Golf Course, Riverfront
Development, Yuma Crossing Park, Convention and Visitors Bureau, Main Street/Heritage Festivals
and the Yuma Film Commission. $5,229,083 is budgeted this fiscal year for the above uses, which
includes a carryover from the previous year’s revenue. The estimated annual 2% Hospitality Tax
revenue for fiscal year 2008-09 (July 1, 2008 thru June 30, 2009) is $4.49 million.

Included in the $5,229,083 budgeted this fiscal year is $2 million for the following Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) projects:

1.9913      Arizona Welcome Center                                     $   1,000,000
1.0003      Pivot Point Retail Village Components – Canal Walk                70,000
1.0011      Riverfront Development Master Planning                            25,000
1.0019      Miscellaneous Structure Demolition                               100,000
1.0500      Downtown / I-8 Trailblazing & City ID Imps.                      100,000
1.0601      Pivot Point                                                      680,000
1.0702      Reclamation land Exchange                                         25,000

                                                                Total $ 2,000,000



                                                                                                      132
If the 2% Hospitality Tax is renewed, the City will receive approximately $4.5 million in projected
revenues during fiscal year 2009-2010. Programs, services and operations currently being funded by
the 2% tax will continue. If the 2% Hospitality Tax ballot question fails at the election, the City Council
will be required to re-evaluate City programs, services, operations and capital funding needs.


The draft ballot language is proposed, as follows:

                                             Proposition 100

SHALL ARTICLE III, SECTION 16 OF THE YUMA CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO READ AS
FOLLOWS:

Sec. 16. Special sales tax.

       The City of Yuma shall have the further right and power by ordinance, without an election, to
assess, levy and collect excise taxes on the privilege or right to engage in business, as the word
“business” shall be defined in such ordinance, for the purpose of revenue and provide penalties from
the nonpayment thereof. Such taxes may be computed upon, but shall in no event exceed an amount
equal to one percent (1%) of gross proceeds of sales, gross income or gross proceeds; except that
taxes amounting to an additional two percent (2%) of the gross proceeds of sales or gross income from
the businesses of restaurants, bars, hotels and motels (as such businesses shall be defined by
ordinance) may be imposed by ordinance. It shall be the policy of the city to apply such two percent
(2%) taxes at an annualized rate which may be used to pay the costs of acquisition, construction,
operation, maintenance, promotion, administration, repair and reconstruction for the following
purposes:

       (1)    $1,200,000 to City golf courses, the City's baseball/recreation complex and its
multi-purpose community center building, YUMA ART CENTER, CITYWIDE PARKS,
RECREATION, ARTS AND CULTURAL ACTIVITIES, EXISTING YUMA CIVIC CENTER and
necessary and appropriate service and administrative facilities appurtenant thereto.
       (2)    $400,000 to the historic Yuma Crossing area (HERITAGE AREA) LOCATED
WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS; and
       (3)    $200,000 to conventions and tourism.

       Any balance of such two percent (2%) taxes may be applied in the manner determined
by the City Council ONLY for the above purposes or to capital improvement projects approved
by City electors at an election. Such elections are hereby authorized pursuant to Article IV
hereof. Such two percent (2%) tax shall BEGIN JULY 1, 2009 AND SHALL terminate on June
30, 2009 2029.

                   SHALL THE ABOVE DESCRIBED AMENDMENT BE ADOPTED?
                                    ___             ___
                               YES /___/       NO  /___/


In order to call a Special Election on May 19, 2008, the City Council must adopt ballot language no later
than the January 21, 2009 Regular City Council meeting. Based on public input, the City Council may
modify or amend the language as proposed above.




                                                                                                      133
                         CITY FUNDS:                                $0.00 BUDGETED:                                 $0.00
                         STATE FUNDS:                               $0.00 AVAILABLE TO TRANSFER:                    $0.00
                         FEDERAL FUNDS:                             $0.00 IN CONTINGENCY:                           $0.00
                         OTHER SOURCES:                             $0.00 FUNDING FOR THIS ITEM IS FOUND IN THE FOLLOWING
FISCAL REQUIREMENTS




                                                                    $0.00 ACCOUNT / FUND / CIP:
                                                                    $0.00

                         TOTAL:                                     $0.00
                         FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT:




                         SUPPORTING INFORMATION NOT ATTACHED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION FORM THAT IS ON FILE IN
                         THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK:
                          1.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION




                          2.
                          3.
                          4.
                          5.

                         IF CITY COUNCIL ACTION INCLUDES A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE
                         FOR ROUTING THE DOCUMENT FOR SIGNATURE AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL?


                                              Department
                                              City Clerk's Office


                         CITY ADMINISTRATOR:                                                          DATE:
                                                                                                      12/10/2008
                         Mark S. Watson
                         REVIEWED BY CITY ATTORNEY:                                                   DATE:
SIGNATURES




                                                                                                      12/9/2008
                         Steven W. Moore
                         RECOMMENDED BY (DEPT/DIV HEAD):                                              DATE:
                                                                                                      12/8/2008
                         Mark S. Watson
                         WRITTEN/SUBMITTED BY:                                                        DATE:
                                                                                                      12/5/2008
                         Brigitta M. Kuiper




                                                                                                                     134
                                                                                                O2009-01



                      REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
                                                                     Motion
MEETING DATE:       December 17, 2008
                                                                     Resolution
DEPARTMENT:         Community Development                            Ordinance - Introduction
                                                                     Ordinance - Adoption
DIVISION:           Community Planning
                                                                     Public Hearing
TITLE:
Rezoning of Property: Located at the Northeast Corner of 32nd Street and 28th Drive




SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Rezone property from the High Density Residential (R-3) District to the Transitional (TR) District. The
applicant is NFlux, LLC, on behalf of Cactus West Developer, LLC. (Z2008-019)




REPORT:
On November 24, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend APPROVAL (6-0,
with Brockington absent) of the request to rezone the property from the High Density Residential (R-3)
District to the Transitional (TR) District, subject to the following conditions:

       1.    The conditions listed below are in addition to City codes, rules, fees and regulations that
             are applicable to this action.

       2.    The Owner shall submit to the City of Yuma, for recordation, a signed and notarized
             “Waiver of Claims under the Private Property Rights Protection Act.” The Waiver shall be
             submitted within thirty (30) calendar days of the effective date of approval of this zoning
             action and prior to the issuance of any building permit. In the event that this condition is
             not completed within this time frame, the zoning action is null and void.

       3.    The Owner shall record an Avigation Easement on the property acknowledging potential
             noise and overflight of aircraft from both daily and special operations of the Marine Corps
             Air Station and the Yuma International Airport.

       4.    Each of the conditions listed above shall be completed within two (2) years of the effective
             date of the rezoning ordinance or prior to the issuance of a building permit or business
             license for this site, whichever occurs first. If the conditions of approval are not completed
             within the above timeframe then the rezone shall be subject to ARS 9-462.01.




                                                                                                    135
Public Comments – Excerpt from Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes:

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF
“Clinton Underhill – Planning and Zoning Commissioner, asked if the existing wall bordering 32nd
Street would be jeopardized by the changes that staff had suggested. Andrew McGarvie – Assistant
City Engineer, said 32nd Street would eventually be a six lane roadway, and that was the reason for
the 18-feet of right-of-way at this location. Underhill asked if the change would require the removal of
the wall and landscaping. McGarvie said it was for a no-build easement.

“Jerilyn Wood – Planning and Zoning Commissioner, asked if a no-build easement made the
property useless. McGarvie said parking, landscaping and retention was still allowed. This would keep
the City from having to purchase buildings. Wood asked if this would affect the access into the
property. McGarvie said the access was off of a local street, and would not affect this property. He
added that there was already a non-access agreement along the 32nd Street frontage. Robert Blevins
– Senior Planner, reminded the Commission about the letter from Brian E. Smith (neighbor to the
east), which stated that he did not want to lose his 32nd Street frontage due to this rezoning. Wood said
if there was going to be a major intersection, he would be affected, regardless of what he thought.
David Koopmann – Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission, asked the future size of 32nd
Street. McGarvie said at this point it would eventually become 6 lanes wide with a center median from
Avenue A to Avenue B.

“Underhill asked if 32nd Street could be offset from Avenue A to Avenue B. McGarvie said
intersections had to be straight through, and were not allowed to deflect for 500 feet.

“Laurie Lineberry – Community Development Director, said that the City Administrator asked her to
work with him and the Council to assess roadway sections that were confusing. She added that this
would be an excellent road section to bring before the Council. She said that the Council is trying to
impact as few properties as possible. She said this will eventually lead to a resolution that the Council
would pass, and the next time a project comes through, this type of request for right-of-way would
become a non-issue, due to the resolution passed by Council.

“Wood asked about the strip mall on the north side of 32nd Street, near Avenue B. McGarvie said that
property has been purchased, or was in the process of being purchased.

“Richard Sorenson – Planning and Zoning Commissioner, asked what the timing would be on
Lineberry bringing this section of roadway to council. Lineberry said she had sections of roadway
identified up until May 2009. She added one of the things that could be done was to condition this case
based on Council’s action and direction.

APPLICANT / APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE
“Todd Burch, 4679 E. County 13 ½, Yuma, AZ, was available for questions.

“Koopmann asked how 18 feet of right-of-way dedication would impact him. Burch said that it
depended on the development of the land. He said it would not affect the proposed assisted living area
and added that the impact would be to the future Limited Commercial (B-1) area. Burch said he would
like to have access off of 32nd Street.

“Wood asked where the assisted living area would be. Burch indicated on the displayed map.

“Wood asked if the 18 feet could be the parking. Burch said if he did not succeed in removing the non-
access easement from 32nd Street, then the 18 feet right-of-way would not be an issue. He said he may
run out of room and be unable to erect a building.



                                                                                                  136
“Koopmann asked why no build easements were applied to certain distances of intersections, and
asked if access were possible off of 32nd Street. McGarvie said there was no access possible from 32nd
Street and that there is a one-foot non-access easement already in place. Koopmann said due to the
distance to the intersection, he thought there wouldn’t be any access off of Avenue B and 32nd Street.
Burch said that could be dealt with at a later date, and said he did not agree to Conditions # 4 and # 5.

“Lineberry said she would look at moving this roadway section ahead on the schedule for review by
Council prior to this rezone case being heard by City Council.

“Underhill asked how many parcels were in question. Burch said it was one parcel. McGarvie said it
was actually 74 parcels. (It is a condo plat) Koopmann asked if Condition # 4 could be reworded to add
“unless reversed by City Council before June 2009”. Lineberry said she was fine with that.

“Doug Hipp, 265 S. Main Street, Yuma, AZ, added that 28th Drive was a local street and would not
require any widening, according to the 2005 Major Roadways Plan. He wanted to know why it was 18
feet was being required for right-of-way, when an additional lane would only be 13 feet wide. He said
there was no plan for the area at the moment. Hipp said he would like to see the conditions eliminated
and that there would be ample time to add these conditions when the south half of the project is
brought back to be rezoned to B-1.

OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT
None

CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT

“Koopmann asked if Council would have time to take the right-of-way at a later date, if Condition # 4
was removed at this time. McGarvie said the applicant indicated he would come back for a rezone, but
felt that the current opportunity should be used for right-of-way dedication

“Wood asked why this did not come up in prior pre-development meetings. McGarvie said the City did
not ask for any additional right-of-way in the most recent pre-development meeting. Koopmann asked
if there was a plan for the 18 feet, or was it still in pre-production. McGarvie said construction was
starting on 32nd Street, from Avenue A to B, but had not yet made its way to the area in question.

“Marty Carter – Planning and Zoning Commissioner, asked if the 18-foot right-of-way requirement
were to be approved, would the City have to purchase 24 houses in Las Casitas for road widening.
McGarvie said that was incorrect, and would depend on the design specialist that had been hired.
Carter asked if it was a possibility that the road could shift over to the south side. McGarvie said yes.
Koopmann asked if any properties to the east had been acquired for right-of-way. McGarvie said there
had been discussion with Mr. Smith for the corner of Avenue B and 32nd Street.

“Sorenson asked if 32nd Street were to go straight past Avenue B, and not shift to the south, how many
feet would be required. McGarvie said 18 feet. Sorenson asked if the lots would be large enough to
build anything on. McGarvie said if 32nd Street were to go straight, and not shift, the lots would have to
be purchased, and re-plat the lots to reduce the number of lots, and increase the size of the lots.

“Lineberry stated that Commissioner Wood was correct. This type of information is exactly what Pre-
Development Meetings (PDM) are for. Since it was not discussed at the September PDM, she
recommended that Condition # 4 be removed.

MOTION
“Motion by Underhill, second by Sorenson, to APPROVE Case Number Z2008-019, subject to the
Conditions of Approval in Attachment A, as modified by the Commission with the removal of
Conditions # 4 and # 5. Motion carried unanimously (6-0).”

                                                                                                   137
                         CITY FUNDS:                              $0.00 BUDGETED:                                 $0.00
                         STATE FUNDS:                             $0.00 AVAILABLE TO TRANSFER:                    $0.00
                         FEDERAL FUNDS:                           $0.00 IN CONTINGENCY:                           $0.00
                         OTHER SOURCES:                           $0.00 FUNDING FOR THIS ITEM IS FOUND IN THE FOLLOWING
FISCAL REQUIREMENTS




                                                                  $0.00 ACCOUNT / FUND / CIP:
                                                                  $0.00

                         TOTAL:                                   $0.00
                         FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT:




                         SUPPORTING INFORMATION NOT ATTACHED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION FORM THAT IS ON FILE IN
                         THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK:
                          1.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION




                          2.
                          3.
                          4.
                          5.

                         IF CITY COUNCIL ACTION INCLUDES A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE
                         FOR ROUTING THE DOCUMENT FOR SIGNATURE AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL?


                                            Department
                                            City Clerk's Office


                         CITY ADMINISTRATOR:                                                        DATE:
                                                                                                    12/10/2008
                         Mark S. Watson
                         REVIEWED BY CITY ATTORNEY:                                                 DATE:
SIGNATURES




                                                                                                    12/9/2008
                         Steven W. Moore
                         RECOMMENDED BY (DEPT/DIV HEAD):                                            DATE:
                                                                                                    12/1/2008
                         Laurie Lineberry
                         WRITTEN/SUBMITTED BY:                                                      DATE:
                                                                                                    11/25/2008
                         Robert Blevins




                                                                                                                   138
                               ORDINANCE NO. O2009-01
       AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUMA,
       ARIZONA, AMENDING CHAPTER 154 OF THE YUMA CITY CODE, AS
       AMENDED, REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY HEREINBEFORE LOCATED
       IN THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) DISTRICT TO THE
       TRANSITIONAL (TR) DISTRICT AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO
       CONFORM THERETO

WHEREAS, the City of Yuma Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on November
24, 2008 in Zoning Case No: Z2008-019, in the manner prescribed by law, for the purpose of rezoning
the parcel of property hereinafter described to the Transitional (TR) District as provided for in Chapter
154 of the City of Yuma Code; and,
WHEREAS, due and proper notice of such public hearing was given in the time, form, substance and
manner as provided by law, including publication of such notice in The Sun on October 31, 2008; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning
Commission regarding Case No: Z2008-019 and finds that the recommendation complies with and
conforms to the goals and objectives of the Yuma General Plan, as amended.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Yuma as follows:
SECTION 1. That the following described property, to wit:

Reflections Town Homes Subdivision, in Section 6, Township 9 South, Range 23 West, Gila and Salt
River Base and Meridian, Yuma County, Arizona.

Containing 5.2 acres, more or less,

be placed in the Transitional (TR) District as defined by Chapter 154 of the Yuma City Code, as
amended; that said property upon this Ordinance becoming final, be subject to all rules, regulations and
requirements of Chapter 154 of the Yuma City Code, as amended, pertaining to the Transitional (TR)
District, and that the zoning map adopted under Chapter 154 of the Yuma City Code, as amended, is
hereby ordered to be changed and amended to show that the property described in this Ordinance will
be located within the District herein provided.

SECTION 2. That the following conditions must be met and/or completed in order for the zoning
amendment to be final:

       1.     The conditions listed below are in addition to City codes, rules, fees and regulations
              that are applicable to this action.

       2.     The Owner shall submit to the City of Yuma, for recordation, a signed and notarized
              “Waiver of Claims under the Private Property Rights Protection Act.” The Waiver shall
              be submitted within thirty (30) calendar days of the effective date of approval of this
              zoning action and prior to the issuance of any building permit. In the event that this
              condition is not completed within this time frame, the zoning action is null and void.

       3.     The Owner shall record an Avigation Easement on the property acknowledging potential
              noise and overflight of aircraft from both daily and special operations of the Marine
              Corps Air Station and the Yuma International Airport.



                                                                                                    139
SECTION 3. Each of the conditions listed above shall be completed within two (2) years of the
effective date of the rezoning ordinance or prior to the issuance of a building permit or business license
for this site, whichever occurs first. If the conditions of approval are not completed within the above
timeframe then the rezone shall be subject to Arizona Revised Statutes 9-462.01.


Adopted this __________ day of ____________________, 2008.

                                               APPROVED:

                                               _________________________
                                               Lawrence K. Nelson
                                               Mayor

   ATTESTED:
   ____________________
   Brigitta M. Kuiper
   City Clerk

   APPROVED AS TO FORM:
   ____________________
   Steven W. Moore
   City Attorney




                                                                                                     140
                                STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
                                      DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
                                           COMMUNITY PLANNING DIVISION
                                                CASE TYPE - REZONE

Hearing Date:   November 24, 2008                             Case Number:    Z2008-019

Project Description/Location:       Rezone approximately 5.2 acres from the High Density
                                    Residential (R-3) District to the Transitional (TR) District.
                                    The property is located at the northeast corner of 32nd Street
                                    and 28th Drive, Yuma, AZ.

             Existing Zoning              Existing Land Use             Land Use Designation
         High Density Residential          19 Townhouses/
 Site                                                                          Mixed Use
                   (R-3)                        Vacant
          Low Density Residential      Las Casitas Subdivision –
North                                                                          Mixed Use
                  (R-1-6)                 single family homes
South        Agriculture (AG)               Agricultural field                Mixed Use
 East    General Commercial (B-2)           RV Repair Shop              Mixed Use & Commercial
             Medium Density            Las Casitas Subdivision –
 West                                                                 Medium Density Residential
             Residential (R-2)            single family homes

 Location Map




                                             Z2008-019
                                          November 24, 2008
                                             Page 1 of 5
                                                                                               141
Prior site actions: Annexation: #O95-070 (11/18/1995); Rezone: Z2001-026 & Z1996-021; Subdivision:
S2005-001-01 (residential final plat for 73 homes).

Staff recommendation: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the rezoning of the property from the High
Density Residential (R-3) District to the Transitional (TR) District, subject to the conditions shown in
Attachment A.

Suggested Motion:      Motion to APPROVE the rezoning from the High Density Residential (R-3)
                       District to the Transitional (TR) District, subject to the conditions shown in
                       Attachment A, because the request is in compliance with the General Plan and is
                       compatible with surrounding land uses.

Staff Analysis:   The purpose of this rezoning request is to allow the use of the existing and proposed
                  buildings for a large residential care (assisted living) facility. This use will also require
                  the approval of a Conditional Use Permit in the TR District.

                  The subject property is known as Reflections Subdivision. It is a platted residential
                  subdivision for 73 condominium town homes with private streets. Nineteen of the
                  residential units have been completed but not yet sold. All streets and utilities are
                  already in place.

   1. Does the proposed zoning district conform to the Land Use Element?
          Yes
   2. Are there any dedications or property easements identified by the Transportation Element?
          No
   3. Does the proposed rezoning of the property conform to the remaining elements of the
   general plan?
          Yes
   4. Does the proposed rezoning conform to the adopted facilities plan?
          Yes
   5. Does the proposed rezoning conform to Council’s prior approval of rezonings, development
   agreements or subdivisions for this site?
          Yes

    Public Comments Received:
    Name: Brian E. Smith               Contact Information: brianesq2002@yahoo.com
    Method of Contact:      Phone        FAX         Email      X Letter        Other
     Comment in part from property owners to the east: “My fellow owners and I do not want any
    requirements for the creation of non-build and non-access to somehow either bleed over to our
    property when it comes time for development, or otherwise impair our use of our property. For the
    foregoing reason, as the owner/agent of the above described parcels, I formally object to conditions
    4 & 5 of the Proposed Conditions of Approval.”

    Complete email comments attached to Staff Research.

    Public Comments Received: None Received.

    External Agency Comments:                  None Received.
    Neighborhood Meeting Comments:             See Attachment B.

    Proposed conditions delivered to applicant on:              October 21, 2008

    Final staff report delivered to applicant on:               November 28, 2008
                                                     Z2008-019
                                                  November 24, 2008
                                                     Page 2 of 5
                                                                                                         142
  Applicant agreed with all of the conditions of approval on:
X Applicant did not agree with the following conditions of approval, and has the following
  concerns:

    “The owner is opposed to Conditions of Approval 4 and 5. There was a previous zoning and two
   subdivisions on this property in recent years and this right-of-way was not obtained at that time.
   This taking removes common areas from the subdivision and encroaches into the lots that are
   already set up.

   “This is an unreasonable amount of area compared to the size of the property being discussed
   as well. 28th Drive isn’t even supposed to be a collector street according to the 2005 Major
   Roadways Plan. We have had 3 predevelopment meetings already and there has been no
   mention of 18 feet of easement being needed. We respectfully ask that these conditions be
   removed.”

Attachments
              A                               B                                    C
                                     Neighborhood Meeting
 Staff Conditions of Approval                                                Aerial Photo
                                          Comments




                                              Z2008-019
                                           November 24, 2008
                                              Page 3 of 5
                                                                                                143
                                        ATTACHMENT A
                                     CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL


The following conditions have been found to have a reasonable nexus and are roughly proportionate
to the impact of the proposed rezone for the site:

Department Of Community Development Comments: Laurie Lineberry, Community
Development Director (928) 373-5175:

       1.   The conditions listed below are in addition to City codes, rules, fees and regulations that
            are applicable to this action.

       2.   The Owner shall submit to the City of Yuma, for recordation, a signed and notarized
            “Waiver of Claims under the Private Property Rights Protection Act.” The Waiver shall
            be submitted within thirty (30) calendar days of the effective date of approval of this
            zoning action and prior to the issuance of any building permit. In the event that this
            condition is not completed within this time frame, the zoning action is null and void.

       3.   The owner shall record an Avigation Easement on the property acknowledging potential
            noise and overflight of aircraft from both daily and special operations of the Marine
            Corps Air Station and the Yuma International Airport.

City Engineering Department Conditions: Paul Brooberg, City Engineer (928) 373-4520:

       4.   The Owner shall create a no-build easement and set aside 18 feet of property along the
            existing 32nd Street right-of-way line, for acquisition by the City of Yuma for additional
            32nd Street turn lane right-of-way, between the existing eastern right-of-way line of 28th
            Drive and a point lying 300 feet east of that right-of-way line.

       5.   The Owner shall create a new 1-foot non-access easement to the City of Yuma along
            the entirety of the property set aside, to replace that part of the existing 1-foot non-
            access easement lying along 32nd Street and within 300 feet of the east right-of-way line
            of 28th Drive.

Department Of Community Development Comments: Bob Blevins, Senior Planner, Community
Planning (928) 373-5189:

       6.   Each of the conditions listed above shall be completed within two (2) years of the
            effective date of the rezoning ordinance or prior to the issuance of a building permit or
            business license for this site, whichever occurs first. If the conditions of approval are not
            completed within the above timeframe then the rezone shall be subject to ARS 9-462.01.

Any questions or comments regarding the Conditions of Approval as stated above should be
directed to the staff member who provided the comment. Name and phone numbers are
provided.




                                               Z2008-019
                                            November 24, 2008
                                               Page 4 of 5
                                                                                                  144
                                        ATTACHMENT B
                                 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING COMMENTS


 Date Held: October 16, 2008                  Location: Northeast corner of 28th Dr. & 31st Pl.
 Attendees: Todd Burch, Applicant; Doug Hipp, Applicant’s Engineer; Dan Thelen, Associate of
 Burch; Bob Blevins, City Planning Staff. No neighbors or other persons in attendance.


Summary of Attendee(s’) Comments Related to the Project: None.




                                                Z2008-019
                                             November 24, 2008
                                                Page 5 of 5

                                                                                                  145
                                                                                              O2009-02



                     REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
                                                                   Motion
MEETING DATE:       December 17, 2008
                                                                   Resolution
DEPARTMENT:         City Administration                            Ordinance - Introduction
                                                                   Ordinance - Adoption
DIVISION:
                                                                   Public Hearing
TITLE:
Prohibition of Animal Sales on Public Property




SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Prohibit the sale of animals on public property or non-residential private property without the express
written consent of the owner or lessee of the property, and establish a penalty of Class 3 Misdemeanor.




REPORT:
Concerned over the health and welfare of animals and its residents, earlier this year, the State
Legislature passed HB2485 amending title 13, Chapter 29, Arizona Revised Statutes, by adding
section 13-2914 to ban the sale of animals on any public highway, street, park or adjacent public
property. The statute also bans the sale of animals on any commercial private property without the
consent of the property owner or lessee. The statute only applies to counties with populations of
800,000 or more.

During the Special Worksession/Roundtables of June 17, 2008, August 12, 2008, November 4, 2008
and November 18, 2008, City Council expressed interest in adopting similar regulations locally. During
these discussions it was established that the ordinance would apply to the sale, transfer, or
conveyance of ownership of animals including gifts or adoptions. It would not address the sale of
animals on residential property, The Humane Society of Yuma would be the enforcement agent, and
the penalty would be a Class 3 Misdemeanor.




                                                                                                146
                         CITY FUNDS:                             $0.00 BUDGETED:                                 $0.00
                         STATE FUNDS:                            $0.00 AVAILABLE TO TRANSFER:                    $0.00
                         FEDERAL FUNDS:                          $0.00 IN CONTINGENCY:                           $0.00
                         OTHER SOURCES:                          $0.00 FUNDING FOR THIS ITEM IS FOUND IN THE FOLLOWING
FISCAL REQUIREMENTS




                                                                 $0.00 ACCOUNT / FUND / CIP:
                                                                 $0.00

                         TOTAL:                                  $0.00
                         FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT:




                         SUPPORTING INFORMATION NOT ATTACHED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION FORM THAT IS ON FILE IN
                         THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK:
                          1.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION




                          2.
                          3.
                          4.
                          5.

                         IF CITY COUNCIL ACTION INCLUDES A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE
                         FOR ROUTING THE DOCUMENT FOR SIGNATURE AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL?


                                           Department
                                           City Clerk's Office


                         CITY ADMINISTRATOR:                                                       DATE:
                                                                                                   12/10/2008
                         Mark S. Watson
                         REVIEWED BY CITY ATTORNEY:                                                DATE:
SIGNATURES




                                                                                                   12/9/2008
                         Steven W. Moore
                         RECOMMENDED BY (DEPT/DIV HEAD):                                           DATE:
                                                                                                   11/24/2008
                         Mark S. Watson
                         WRITTEN/SUBMITTED BY:                                                     DATE:
                                                                                                   11/20/2008
                         Greg Stopka




                                                                                                                  147
                             ORDINANCE NO. O2009-02


       AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
       YUMA, ARIZONA, PROHIBITING THE SALE OF ANY ANIMAL
       ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR
       VIOLATIONS THEREOF

WHEREAS, the City of Yuma is authorized, pursuant to the City Charter, Article III,
Section VII, “To provide regulations which may be necessary and expedient for the
preservation of health and the suppression of disease within the City; and,

WHEREAS, the Humane Society of Yuma, Inc., has been appointed as a City
Enforcement Agent for the City of Yuma, to enforce animal control and fowl ordinances
within the city limits, as authorized by the Yuma City Code Sec. 130-110.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City council of the City of Yuma as
follows:

SECTION 1: That the Yuma City Code be amended at Chapter 130 to add Sections 130-
030 and 130-031, to read as follows:

§130-030 Unlawful Public Sale of Animals.

A person commits the unlawful public sale of animals by knowingly selling an animal on:

       1.     Any public right of way, street or park or any public property adjacent to a
              right of way, street or park.

       2.     Any non residential private property without the express written consent
              of the owner or lessee of the property.

§130-031 Exclusions.

Subsection 130-030 does not apply to:

       1.     Retail sales on the premises of a pet store.

       2.     Sales by a publicly operated or private, chartable nonprofit pound, humane
              society, animal rescue organization or educational or agricultural
              organization.

       3.     Any rodeo, auction market, county fair, stock show or other sanctioned
              livestock exhibit events.




                                                                                             148
SECTION 2: That the Yuma City Code be amended at Section 130-001, Definitions, to
amend the definition of Animal and add the definitions of Pet Store and Sale to read, as
follows:

Animal. Means any living species of mammal, fowl, amphibian, or reptile, with the
exception of man.

Pet Store. Shall have the same meaning prescribed in Arizona Revised Statutes, Section
§44-1799.

Sale. Shall have the same meaning prescribed in Arizona Revised Statutes, Section §47-
2106 with the exception that any adoption or gift shall be deemed a sale.

SECTION 3: Any person or corporation who shall violate any provision of this
ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a Class 3 Misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a
fine not to exceed $500 or by imprisonment for no more than one (1) day or by both such
fine or imprisonment.


Adopted this _____ day of ____________________, 2008.

                                           APPROVED:

                                           _______________________________
                                           Lawrence K. Nelson
                                           Mayor

ATTESTED:

___________________________
Brigitta M. Kuiper
City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

___________________________
Steven W. Moore
City Attorney




                                                                                           149
                                                                                                O2009-03



                      REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
                                                                     Motion
MEETING DATE:       December 17, 2008
                                                                     Resolution
DEPARTMENT:         City Engineering                                 Ordinance - Introduction
                                                                     Ordinance - Adoption
DIVISION:
                                                                     Public Hearing
TITLE:
Easement Acquisition: Assembly of God Church and Las Casitas Unit No. 2 Subdivision




SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the acquisition of sanitary sewer easements between the Las Casitas Unit No. 2 Subdivision
and property owned by the Assembly of God Church, west of the 3000 Block of Avenue B.




REPORT:
The Assembly of God Church (Church) has constructed a sanitary sewer pipeline connecting to the
City of Yuma 28th Drive sanitary sewer in Las Casitas Unit No. 2 Subdivision. The Church has
approached the City of Yuma to accept the sanitary sewer pipeline as part of the City sewer system.
The Church is willing to provide the required easements for the pipeline across the Church property
and across Lot 321 in Las Casitas Unit No. 2 Subdivision. A location map of the sites is attached.

The only cost to the City should be for recording of the easement.

For the reasons addressed above, it is requested that City Council adopt the attached ordinance,
authorizing right-of-way acquisition for the property near the 3000 Block of Avenue B.




                                                                                                   150
                         CITY FUNDS:                             $10.00 BUDGETED:                                $0.00
                         STATE FUNDS:                            $0.00 AVAILABLE TO TRANSFER:                    $0.00
                         FEDERAL FUNDS:                          $0.00 IN CONTINGENCY:                           $0.00
                         OTHER SOURCES:                          $0.00 FUNDING FOR THIS ITEM IS FOUND IN THE FOLLOWING
FISCAL REQUIREMENTS




                                                                 $0.00 ACCOUNT / FUND / CIP:
                                                                 $0.00   431-9777-573-61-20 89593

                         TOTAL:                             $10.00
                         FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT:
                         Funds required are for easement recordation.




                         SUPPORTING INFORMATION NOT ATTACHED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION FORM THAT IS ON FILE IN
                         THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK:
                          1.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION




                          2.
                          3.
                          4.
                          5.

                         IF CITY COUNCIL ACTION INCLUDES A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE
                         FOR ROUTING THE DOCUMENT FOR SIGNATURE AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL?


                                           Department
                                           City Clerk's Office


                         CITY ADMINISTRATOR:                                                       DATE:
                                                                                                   12/10/2008
                         Mark S. Watson
                         REVIEWED BY CITY ATTORNEY:                                                DATE:
SIGNATURES




                                                                                                   12/9/2008
                         Steven W. Moore
                         RECOMMENDED BY (DEPT/DIV HEAD):                                           DATE:
                                                                                                   12/2/2008
                         Paul Brooberg
                         WRITTEN/SUBMITTED BY:                                                     DATE:
                                                                                                   11/24/2008
                         Teresa Blackburn




                                                                                                                  151
152
                                 ORDINANCE NO. O2009-03

   AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUMA,
   ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN PARCELS
   OF REAL PROPERTY, HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED, BE ACQUIRED BY
   THE CITY OF YUMA, BY GIFT, EASEMENT, PURCHASE OR UNDER THE
   POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN, FOR THE REASON THAT SUCH
   PROPERTY IS REQUIRED TO IMPROVE PUBLIC UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
   AND OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES AS MAY BE RELATED THERETO, AND
   AUTHORIZING PAYMENT THEREFOR, TOGETHER WITH COSTS NECESSARY
   FOR THE ACQUISITION OF SAID PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY


WHEREAS, the City of Yuma (City) is authorized, pursuant to the City Charter, Article III, Section
2, to acquire real property; and

WHEREAS, the City has identified the acquisition of certain easement parcels of property as
necessary for utility improvements at the 3000 Block of South Avenue B.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Yuma as follows:

SECTION 1: That it is deemed necessary and essential, as a matter of public necessity and public
welfare, that certain easement parcels of real property described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by
this reference made a part hereof, be acquired by the City of Yuma, as such acquisition is required to
extend and improve public utility infrastructure for the public interest of the City and would be of
public benefit.

SECTION 2: That the City staff is hereby authorized and directed to acquire said real property by
gift, easement or purchase, and, in the event the City of Yuma, at its sole discretion, is unable to
acquire said property upon satisfactory terms, the staff is hereby authorized and directed to perform
all acts necessary to acquire title to and possession of said property under the power of eminent
domain, for the City of Yuma.

SECTION 3: That the duly authorized disbursing officers of the City of Yuma are hereby authorized
and directed to pay all sums necessary to acquire said property, together with recording fees, escrow,
title insurance, closing and all other costs necessary in the acquisition of said property.


Adopted this __________ day of ____________________, 2008.

                                                 APPROVED:

                                                _________________________
                                                 Lawrence K. Nelson
                                                 Mayor
ATTESTED:

_________________________
Brigitta M. Kuiper
City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________
Steven W. Moore                                                                                 153

City Attorney
                                        EXHIBIT A

                                         Parcel 1

A portion of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (S½ NE¼
SE¼) of Section 6, Township 9 South, Range 23 West of the Gila & Salt River Base &
Meridian, Yuma County, Arizona, more particularly described as follows:

Commencing at the Southwest Corner of Lot 321 as described in the LAS CASITAS
UNIT No. 2 subdivision as recorded in Book 19 of Plats, Pages 36 & 37, FEE # 2003-
18504 at the Office of the County Recorder, Yuma County, Arizona, point also being the
True Point of Beginning;

Thence North 0° 24’ 21” West along the West line of said Lot 321, also being the East
right-of-way line of 27th Drive, a distance of 20.00 feet to a point as described in the
Record of Survey recorded in Book 7 of Surveys, Page 38 at the Office of the County
Recorder, Yuma County, Arizona;

Thence North 89° 54’ 30” East, a distance of 108.65 feet (Calculated) to a point lying on
the East line of said Lot 321;

Thence South 0° 24’ 21” East along the East line of said Lot 321, a distance of 20.00 feet,
to the Southeast Corner of said Lot 321;

Thence South 89° 54’ 30” West along the South line of said Lot 321, a distance of 108.65
feet (Calculated) to the True Point of Beginning.

Containing 0.0499 acres more or less.




                                                                                              154
                                        Parcel 2

A portion of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (S½ NE¼
SE¼) of Section 6, Township 9 South, Range 23 West of the Gila & Salt River Base &
Meridian, Yuma County, Arizona, more particularly described as follows:

Commencing at the at the Northwest Corner of Lot 2 as described in the FIRST
ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH LOT TIE/LOT SPLIT recorded in Book 5 of
Surveys, Page 86, FEE # 2007-21138 at the Office of the County Recorder, Yuma
County, Arizona;

Thence South 0° 52’ 30” East along the West line of the said Lot 2, FIRST
ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH LOT TIE/LOT SPLIT a distance of 78.300 feet to a
point, point also being the True Point of Beginning;

Thence continuing South 0° 52’ 30” East along the West line of the said Lot 2, FIRST
ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH LOT TIE/LOT SPLIT a distance of 20.00 feet to a
point;

Thence North 89° 14’ 30” East, a distance of 20.00 feet to a point;

Thence North 0° 52’ 30” West along a line that is parallel with and 20.00 feet East of
the West line of the said Lot 2, FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH LOT
TIE/LOT SPLIT, a distance of 20.00 feet to a point;

Thence South 89° 14’ 30” West, a distance of 20.00 feet to the True Point of
Beginning.

Containing 0.0092 acres more or less.




                                                                                         155

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:5
posted:7/14/2011
language:English
pages:155