HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 2018-81RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE TRANSPORTATION
UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) 2018 NEXUS STUDY REPORT
AND INCREASING THE TUMF AMOUNTS APPLICABLE TO ALL
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Desert, California, ("City") is a member agency of the
Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG"), a joint powers agency consisting
of the County of Riverside ("County"), the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, the City of
Blythe, and the nine cities (Desert Hot Springs, Palm Springs Cathedral City, Rancho
Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, La Quinta, Indio and Coachella) situated in the
Coachella Valley (collectively, "Member Agencies"); and
WHEREAS, acting in concert, the Member Agencies developed a plan whereby the
shortfall in funds needed to enlarge the capacity of the Regional System of Highways and
Arterials within CVAG's jurisdiction (the "Regional System") could be made up in part by a
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee ("TUMF") imposed on future residential, commercial
and industrial development within the jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, as a CVAG Member Agency, the City participated in the preparation of
the 1987 Coachella Valley Area Transportation Study ("1987 Transportation Study")
prepared pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code section 66000 et seq.) and
based on the 1987 Transportation Study, the City adopted and implemented CVAG's model
TUMF Ordinance as Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) Chapter 3.44; and
WHEREAS, CVAG commissioned Michael Baker International, Inc. to prepare an
updated TUMF study entitled "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) 2018 Fee
Schedule Update, Nexus Study Report," and dated March 2018 ("2018 Nexus Study") to
establish updated TUMF levels and program revenue collection targets, which was
approved by the CVAG Executive Committee on April 30, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the 2018 Nexus Study revealed the need to revise certain provisions of
the model TUMF Ordinance to reflect changes in the Mitigation Fee Act which governs the
adoption and implementation of development impact fees and to reflect the findings of the
2018 Nexus Study; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the 2018 Nexus Study Report provides the
information required by the Mitigation Fee Act as justification for an increase in said fees;
and
WHEREAS, by notice duly given and posted on October 14, 2018, the City Council
conducted a public hearing to consider approval of the 2018 Nexus Study and this
Resolution, and on October 25, 2018, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the data and information provided by 2018 Nexus Study Report; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to accurately collect TUMF fees along with the
other participating jurisdictions within the Coachella Valley, as requested by the CVAG
General Assembly; and
G:\P►anning\Eric Ceja\Transportation\TUMF\CC Staff Report (10.25.18).doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
WHEREAS, the adoption of this Resolution increasing the existing development
impact fees modifies a government funding mechanism which is not a physical change in
the environment and therefore, is not a project under the CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Desert desires to approve the 2018 Nexus Study
Report and to adopt the TUMF schedule recommended by the CVAG Executive Committee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:
1. Section 1. That the 2018 Nexus Study Report establishes a reasonable rational
relationship between the use of TUMF proceeds and that type of development
projects on which it is imposed.
2. Section 2. That pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, the City Council can make all
findings in support of the fee increase based on the finding and
recommendations provided in the 2018 Nexus Study Report.
3. Section 3. That the City Council of the City of Palm Desert hereby approves the
2018 Nexus Study Report, prepared by Michael Baker, International, Inc. and
dated April 30, 2018, and attached hereto as Exhibit A.
4. Section 4. That the City Council of the City of Palm Desert hereby adopts the
revised TUMF increase to $245 per trip, and attached hereto as Exhibit A.
5. Section 5. That the revised fees in this Resolution shall become effective as soon
as permitted pursuant to the applicable provisions of the California Government
Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this 25th day of October 2018, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: HARNIK, KELLY, NESTANDE, WEBER, and JONATHAN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ATTEST:
RA HELLE D KLASSE CITY CLER
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
G:\Planning\Eric Ceja\Transportation\TUMF\CC Staff Report (10.25.18).doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
171. Er e.t.`, bite el/ { 1F1,1 t ,
Economic & Planning Systems. lac
One Kaiser P'taia, Suite 1410
Oakland, CA 94612
510 541 9190 lei
510 740 ID$0 fax
OaA land
Sacramento
Denver
Los Angeies
Draft Nexus Report
Transportation Uniform Mitigation
Fee (TU M F) 2018 Fee Schedule
Update
Prepared for:
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
In Association with:
City of Cathedral City
City of Coachella
City of Desert Hot Springs
City of Indian Wells
City of Indio
City of La Quinta
City of Palm Desert
City of Palm Springs
City of Rancho Mirage
County of Riverside
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
In Association with:
Michael Baker International
Fehr & Peers
Rodriguez Consulting Group
March 2018
EPS #144043
www.epsys.com
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Table of Contents
1. REPORT OVERVIEW AND RESULTS 1
Introduction 1
Summary of the TUMF Calculation 3
2. TUMF BOUNDARY AND TRAVEL DEMAND 5
TUMF Boundary 5
Travel Demand Assumptions and Forecasts 6
3. TUMF PROJECTS AND COSTS 8
TUMF Project Selection
TUMF Project Costs
8
9
4. TUMF COST ALLOCATION 11
Application of Transportation Demand Model 11
TUMF Capacity Improvement Projects 11
TUMF Operational, Safety, and ATP Projects 13
Summary of TUMF Cost Allocation 13
5. OTHER FUNDING FOR TUMF PROJECTS 15
Obligated Funds 15
Other External Funding 16
Developer Funded Improvements 16
State and Federal Transportation Funding 16
Local Match 17
Measure A 17
Summary of Other Funding Sources 18
6. NEXUS FINDINGS AND FEE CALCULATION 20
Overview of Nexus Findings
The TUMF Calculation
20
21
7. TUMF IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION 24
Elimination of Land Use Exemptions 24
Simplification of Land Use Categories 24
Application of Annual Inflation Adjustment 25
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Appendices
APPENDIX A: TPPS Projects Included in the TUMF
APPENDIX B: Detailed TUMF Project Cost Estimates
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1 Summary of TUMF per trip Calculation 3
Table 2 Illustrative TUMF Calculation for Selected Land Use Categories 4
Table 3 Estimated Growth in Trip Ends in CVAG Region (2015 - 2040) 7
Table 4 Summary of TUMF Projects and Total Costs 10
Table 5 TUMF Capacity Improvements with Existing Deficiencies 12
Table 6 Allocation of TUMF Eligible Project Costs to New Development 14
Table 7 Summary of Obligated Funds Available to Off -set TUMF Costs 15
Table 8 Estimated Measure A Revenues Available To Off -set TUMF Costs 18
Table 9 Net TUMF Costs After Funding from Other Sources 19
Table 10 Calculation of TUMF per Average Daily Trip (ADT) 21
Figure 1 CVAG TUMF Boundary 6
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
1, REPORT OVERVIEW AND RESULTS
Introduction
This Nexus Report provides the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and its
member jurisdictions with the necessary technical documentation to support the adoption of an
updated Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Impact fees are one-time charges on
new development approved and collected by jurisdictions to cover the cost of regional
transportation -related capital facilities and infrastructure that are required to serve new growth.1
The fees are typically collected upon issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy.
Initially established in 1989, the CVAG TUMF is a one-time fee charged on all new development
occurring within the CVAG region designed to cover the "fair share" cost of regional serving
transportation projects and improvements needed to serve growth. The program relies on local
agencies (e.g., cities and the County) to collect TUMF as development occurs. The TUMF Nexus
Report establishes a nexus or reasonable relationship between the updated fee amount and the
proportion of transportation improvement costs attributable to new development.
This Nexus Report has been prepared by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) with support from
a broader consultant team, led by Michael Baker International, that has been retained by the
CVAG to assist in developing key components of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The
analysis and methodology incorporate input from CVAG staff, it's member jurisdictions, the TUMF
Nexus Advisory Committee, and other stakeholders.
Institutional Context
The CVAG TUMF program is a component of Riverside County's Measure A. Measure A is a one-
half percent sales tax program that provides funding for a wide variety of transportation projects
and services throughout Riverside County. It was originally approved by voters of Riverside
County in 1988 and given a 30-year extension in 2002. Cities and the county in the Coachella
Valley must participate in the TUMF program to assist in the financing of the priority regional
arterial system in order to receive local Measure A funds.
If a city or the county chooses not to levy the TUMF, the funds they would otherwise receive
from Measure A for local streets and roads is added to the Measure A funds for the Regional
Arterial Program. A portion of the Measure A revenues for the Coachella Valley area is returned
to the cities and the county in the Coachella Valley to assist with the funding of local street and
road improvements. These funds supplement existing federal, state, and local funds. Local street
improvements adjacent to new residential and business developments are typically paid for by
the developers.
Other key components of the RTP that have been updated as part of this study process, and
used as critical inputs in the TUMF update, include:
1 New development includes any construction activity that requires a building permit and creates
additional impacts on a jurisdictions regional transportation infrastructure once completed (e.g.,
through additional travel demand or "trips").
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
1 P:1144000s1144043CVAG\Deliverables\DrafNexusReport5.docx
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
• Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS): The TPPS identifies and prioritizes
the regional arterial transportation projects in the CVAG region.
• Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE): The RACE provides costs estimates for the
projects included in the TPPS.
• Active Transportation Plan (ATP): The Regional ATP defines the bicycle, pedestrian, and
low speed electric vehicle (LSEV) networks designed to provide a multimodal compliment
and/or alternative to automobiles. The Regional ATP projects are included in the TPPS.
The TPPS, RACE, and ATP were formally approved by the CVAG Executive Committee on June 27,
2016. Since the TPPS, RACE, and ATP provide the underlying basis for the TUMF program, these
updates have necessitated update of the TUMF program to reaffirm the nexus between projected
development and needed transportation system improvements. The reevaluation of the TUMF
nexus also provides the opportunity to address important policy issues including, fee land use
categories, exemptions, cost indexing, and other factors, as described further in Chapter 7.
Legal Context
A Nexus Report provides a legal basis and necessary technical analysis to support a schedule of
transportation impact fees consistent with Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600/ Government Code
Section 66000 et seq.). The Mitigation Fee Act allows jurisdictions to adopt, by resolution, the
Transportation Impact Fee consistent with the supporting technical analysis and findings
provided in this Report. The Resolution approach to setting the fee allows periodic adjustments
of the fee amount that may be necessary over time, without amending the enabling ordinance.
Impact fee revenue can be collected and used to cover the cost of constructing capital and
infrastructure improvements required to serve new development and growth in the jurisdictions
in which it is charged. As such impact fees must be based on a reasonable nexus, or connection,
between new growth and development and the need for a new facility or improvement. Impact
fee revenue cannot be used to cover the operation and maintenance costs of these or any other
facilities and infrastructure. In addition, impact fee revenue cannot be collected or used to cover
the cost of existing needs/ deficiencies in the transportation capital improvement network.
In establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition for the approval of a development
project, Government Code 66001(a) and (b) state that the local agency must:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee;
2. Identify how the fee is to be used;
3. Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee use and type of
development project for which the fee is being used;
4. Determine how the need for the public facility relates to the type of development
project for which the fee is imposed; and
5. Show the relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public
facility.
These statutory requirements have been followed in establishing this TUMF, as documented in
subsequent chapters. If the transportation impact fee is adopted, this Nexus Study and the
technical information it contains should be maintained and reviewed periodically by CVAG to
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
2 P: 1144000s1144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReportS.docx
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
ensure accuracy and to enable the adequate programming of funding sources. To the extent
that transportation improvement requirements, costs, and development potential changes over
time, the TUMF will need to be updated. Further information on the implementation and
administration of the TUMF is provided in Chapter 7.
Summary of the TUMF Calculation
Table 1 shows summarizes the TUMF calculation per trip consistent with nexus requirements
and the associated analysis contained in this Technical Report. These transportation impact fees
are designed to cover the cost of regional transportation improvements required to support new
development after existing deficiencies and known other funding sources have been taken into
account. The fees apply to all new residential and non-residential projects, except those
exempted by State or federal law or other means.
Table 1 Summary of TUMF per trip Calculation
Cate or Source
Net TUMF Cost
Growth in ADT (2015 - 2040)
Avg. TUMF / ADT
i
See Table 9
See Table 3
i
Formula
=a
=b
=a/b
i
$263,335,000
1,074,520
$245
While per trip sets the basis for the TUMF, individual land use categories will pay different fees
depending on their trip rates per unit. Table 2 provides an illustrative calculation of the fee level
for various land use categories. The actual land use categories and their specific application,
including various discounts, will be included in the TUMF Handbook, as described in Chapter 7.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
3 P:\144000s\144043GVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.doa
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Table 2 Illustrative TUMF Calculation for Selected Land Use Categories
Land Use Category Fee Per Uniti
Residential
Single Family Detached
Multi -Family
$2,310 per dwelling
$1,790 per dwelling
Non -Residential
Industrial $1,220 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office $2,390 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail2 $6,010 per 1,000 sq. ft.
[1] Based on a TUMF of $245 per ADT.
[2] Includes a discount of 35% percent to account for pass -through trips.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
4 P:\1440005\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
2. TUMF BOUNDARY AND TRAVEL DEMAND
This chapter documents the land use and travel demand assumptions and forecasts that underlie
the TUMF calculations. These factors drive the traffic generation and attraction in the CVAG
region and, in turn, are critical in determining how to allocate new transportation improvement
costs between existing and new development.
TUMF Boundary
The TUMF boundaries define the geography (i.e. cities and unincorporated areas) where new
development will be subject to the TUMF. In order to assure accurate and timely implementation
of the TUMF program, the applicable boundary should be easily identified and understood by
developers and jurisdictions responsible for fee collection. Good boundary devices are easily
identified, stay relatively constant over time, and can be related to data collection or analysis
zones in order to facilitate future analysis updates.
As part of an update to the TUMF in 2005 (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2005), the CVAG TUMF
Boundary Determination established a roughly defined area within which there exists a
"reasonable relationship" between new development and traffic conditions on TUMF roadways.
Formal boundary lines were defined based on the results of the analysis in relation to easily
administered features. This boundary is illustrated in Figure 1 and includes the CVAG core, as
well as outlying areas along the I-10 east, SR74 south, SR86 south, and SR111 south corridors.
The boundary corresponds to several easily defined features:
• The Riverside County line to the north and south,
• Joshua Tree National Park to the northeast,
• Township line 10E-11E to the east, and
• The WRCOG/CVAG border to the west.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
5 P: 1144000s1144043CVAG\Deliverables\DrafNexusReport5.docx
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Figure 1 CVAG TUMF Boundary
Travel Demand Assumptions and Forecasts
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, development impact fees must establish a reasonable
relationship, or nexus, between the cost of new capital facilities and improvements allocated to
future development and the contribution of growth to the need for these facilities. For
transportation impact fees, recently updated and adopted traffic models are generally used as a
key tool to estimate the allocation of costs of new transportation facilities between existing and
future development.
Based on direction from the CVAG Executive Committee, the Riverside County Traffic Analysis
Model (RIVTAM) has been used to calculate the TUMF. Specifically, as part of this study process,
the RIVTAM model has been updated to reflect the latest 2040 socio-economic forecasts and
roadway network assumptions in the CVAG region consistent with SCAG's 2016 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP). In addition to the Federal Transportation Improvement Program
(FTIP) and projects identified in the 2016 RTP, the TPPS projects were also added to the model
to estimate the daily trips generated in the CVAG region by Year 2040.2
Table 3 shows the estimated growth in the number of daily vehicle trips ends in the CVAG
region between existing (2015) and 2040 based on the updated RIVTAM model. As shown, the
2 For transportation modeling purposes, even projects not included in the TUMF calculation but
included as part of the RTP or FTIP are considered to be part of the regional network in 2040.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
6 P: 1144000s1144043CVAG1Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
existing 2015 vehicle trip ends were estimated to be 3,141,640 and the total growth was
estimated to be an additional 1,074,520 trip ends over the next 25 years, or by 2040.3 Based
on this projection, the future growth in trip ends will represents about 25 percent of total trips in
2040. In other words, future growth is expected to account for roughly 25 percent of total trips
ends within the CVAG region by 2040. This proportion is used to allocate a portion of the cost for
TUMF eligible projects to future growth, as described further in subsequent chapters.
Table 3 Estimated Growth in Trip Ends in CVAG Region (2015 — 2040)
Total for CVAG Regional
Network
Source: F&P; RIVTAM
Avg. Daily Trip (ADT) Ends in Year: 2015 - 2040 Growth in ADT
Growth as % of Average
2015 2040 (with TPPS) Total 2040 total Annual
3,141, 640
4,216,160 1,074,520
25.5% 1.2%
3 Trip ends are those that either start or end in the CVAG region. Through trips (i.e. those that pass
through but do not stop in the CVAG region), are excluded from this calculation as described further in
Chapter 4.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
7 P:\1440005\144043CVAG\Deliverables1DraftNexusReport5.docx
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
3, TUMF PROJECTS AND COSTS
This chapter documents the transportation facilities included in the TUMF as well as their
estimated cost. Development impact fees are derived from a list of planned regional
transportation capital improvement projects and associated costs that are needed in part or in
full to accommodate new growth. Consequently, the capital improvements included in the fee
program need to be described in sufficient detail to generate cost estimates.4
TUMF Project Selection
As noted in Chapter 1, the TPPS, as well as the RACE and ATP provide the core elements of the
TUMF calculation by providing the list of potentially eligible projects and their corresponding
costs. Updates to these documents were prepared by the consultant team, led by Michael Baker
International, and formally approved by the CVAG Executive Committee on June 27, 2016.
While the projects included in the TPPS represent the universe of transportation facilities and
improvements potentially eligible for funding through TUMF, not all of them need to be included
in the program. A key component of the TUMF study process is to identify which of these eligible
projects should be included in the TUMF based on both nexus and policy considerations.
Accordingly, as part of this study, CVAG obtained input from member jurisdictions and the TUMF
Nexus Committee to consider options for reducing the cost of the TUMF program.
The policy direction resulting from this consultation was to identify and remove projects from
TUMF consideration where there was uncertainty in the likelihood of that project moving forward
in the next 15-25 years. After meeting with each of the individual jurisdictions, CVAG found that
nearly all projects scoring below 7.5 points on the TPPS met the criteria and thus should be
"removed" from TUMF consideration. Jurisdictions pointed out that these projects may become
more certain in the future, when the TUMF Nexus study is repeated.
CVAG, with concurrence from its members and the TUMF Nexus Committee, determined that the
regional priority in the TPPS necessitated the inclusion of projects scoring above 7.5 points. By
removing TPPS projects scoring 7.5 points and lower, jurisdictions acknowledge that regional
funding will not be available for those projects until or unless the TUMF project list (those TPPS
projects scoring above 7.5 points) is amended.
The ATP includes a comprehensive listing of all active transportation projects within the
jurisdictions of the CVAG member agencies that were determined to have regional significance.
Specifically, it includes local and regional bike plans as well as pedestrian improvement to transit
hubs. In addition, the TPPS includes other regional transportation projects, such as CV Link, that
correspond to long-term planning efforts and cannot analyzed in the same way as traditional
TPPS projects. These projects were tested for regional significance based on factors that were
agreed upon as part of the RTP study process. Based on CVAG committee direction, ATP and
4 Impact fees programs do not, in themselves, represent actual approval of a City plan or capital
project (and as such do require clearance through the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA).
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
8 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DrafNexusReport5.docx
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
these regional planning projects were not ranked against one another but are simply listed as
part of the regional transportation system to be considered for funding.
In addition to this policy -based approach, TPPS projects focused on the resurfacing of existing
arterials have been removed from the TUMF calculation based on nexus considerations (i.e., the
costs of these projects are excluded from TUMF). These projects are needed to maintain the
current regional arterial network rather than help accommodate growth. Based on the
requirements of AB 1600, projects focused primarily on the operation and maintenance of
existing facilities should be excluded from development impact fee programs. It should be noted
that this is a relatively minor adjustment since total cost of these projects is only $940,000.
Based on the process and criteria described above, about 80 TPPS projects were removed from
TUMF consideration, or about 30 percent of the total.5 Eliminating these projects removed about
$605 million from TUMF consideration. A detailed list of the projects included and removed from
the TPPS is provided in Appendix A.
TUMF Project Costs
As described earlier, the Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) study provides a uniform
methodology to create planning -level cost estimates for transportation projects included in the
TPPS. As further described in the RACE, these costs estimates include construction, right-of-
way, and impact factors to cover other related project conditions.6 The costs for CV Link and
Regional Signal Synchronization were estimated from other planning efforts and added to the
overall TPPS cost.
Table 4 provides cost estimates for TPPS projects after removing those that scored at or below
7.5 points. As shown, the total delivery cost for the projects included as part of the TUMF
calculations is estimated at approximately $2.809 billion, including the TPPS, ATP, and two other
regional projects. The cost estimates for each project are attached to this Report as Appendix
B (with further detail available in the RACE).
5 This total excludes ATP and other Regional Projects such as CV Link.
6 Impact factors are multipliers applied to the project's construction cost to account for special
conditions likely add to its complexity in the construction process. These include project conditions like
the existence of utilities structures, nearby drainage facilities, and medians that add complexity and
costs.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
9 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraliNexusReport5.docx
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Table 4 Summary of TUMF Projects and Total Costs
e of Projects
TUMF Project Cost
$ Amount %
Buildable Projects
$2,506,140,000 89.2%
-- Capacity Improvement Projects
- - Widening or Updating Cross -Sections
- - Other Operational Improvements
- - Resurface or Reconstruction Only
ATP Regional Projects
- - Regional Bicycle Projects
- - Regional Pedestrian Improvements
Other Regional Transportation Projects
-- CVLink
- - Valley -wide Signal Synchronization
$2,143,490,000
$69,910,000
$292,570,000
$170,000
$157,700,000
$149,700,000
$8,000,000
$146,100,000
$99,400,000
$46,700,000
76.3%
2.5%
10.4%
0.01%
5.6%
5.3%
0.3%
5.2%
3.5%
1.7%
Regional Traffic System Costs
$2,809,940,000 100%
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
The bulk of the TUMF project costs, or approximately 76.3 percent, are identified as "Capacity
Improvement Projects." These projects are so -named because they expand the capacity of the
regional transportation network by adding lanes or entirely new arterials and connections,
allowing the network to better accommodate growth. The projects referred to as "Widening or
Updating of Cross -Sections" and "Other Operational Improvements", which combine for about 13
percent of costs, provide a variety of benefits to both new and existing commuters, but do not
expand the network capacity in a measurable way. ATP and other regional projects such as CV
Link and valley -wide signal synchronization, combine for slightly less than 11 percent of total
costs.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10
P:\144000sV44043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
4, TUMF COST ALLOCATION
This Chapter describes how the cost of TUMF eligible projects (described in Chapter 3) are
allocated to new development. Under the Mitigation Fee Act, development impact fees cannot
include the cost of infrastructure improvements needed to address "existing deficiencies". In
other words, the cost of new capital facilities and improvements needed solely to address the
needs of existing users must be excluded from the TUMF calculation.
Application of Transportation Demand Model
As noted in Chapter 2, the nexus calculations provided in this Report utilize RIVTAM projections
to allocate the cost of the TUMF eligible projects between new and existing development. The
RIVTAM model is a mathematical representation of travel demand in the CVAG region between
Base Year 2008 and Future Year 2040, updated by Fehr & Peers as part of this study effort. The
model uses socioeconomic data, such as number of jobs and households to estimate the
expected travel in, between, and through CVAG. Existing 2015 origin -destination (O-D) trip
table and daily volumes were developed using the interpolation between the Base Year 2008
Model and Future Year 2040 Model.
The traffic growth in CVAG was estimated using the change in origin -destination (O-D) trip tables
between existing 2015 Model and Future Year 2040 Model. In order to capture the trips only
associated with the Coachella Valley region, the external -to -external trips (meaning trips starting
from and ending at areas outside of the Coachella Valley) were excluded from traffic growth. For
external -to -internal or internal -to -external trips (meaning trips having one end in CVAG and the
other end outside of CVAG), only half of those trips were included in the traffic growth
calculation.
For the purpose of the TUMF, the number of trip ends was used to calculate the fee which is
consistent with the 2005 TUMF study. Any internal -to -internal trip (meaning trips traveling
inside CVAG) is considered as two trip ends and any external -to -internal or internal -to -external
trip is considered to have one trip end in Coachella Valley.
The results from the traffic demand model are applied differently depending on the type of TUMF
project under consideration. Specifically, this nexus analysis employs different cost allocation
methodologies depending on whether the project is primarily designed to increases the overall
travel capacity within the CVAG region versus those that are primarily designed for other
purposes, such as safety or bicycle / pedestrian access. The cost allocation methodology for each
category of TUMF improvement is described separately below.
TUMF Capacity Improvement Projects
As described in Chapter 3, the TPPS identified a number of projects as "capacity
improvements." These projects are so -named because they expand the capacity of the regional
transportation network by adding lanes to existing facilities or adding entirely new arterials and
connections, allowing the network to accommodate growth. For these projects the RIVTAM
model was used to estimate the portion of costs attributable to growth. Specifically, the existing
2015 daily volumes were compared to capacity to develop the existing volume/capacity (v/c)
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\DeliverableslDrafNexusReport5. docx
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
ratio to determine whether the project is experiencing an existing deficiency based on level of
service (LOS) criteria. Consistent with the 2005 TUMF study, LOS D or worse is considered to be
unacceptable LOS for arterial roadway network.
Any project's roadway segment with a v/c ratio exceeding 0.62 (LOS D or worse) were
considered to operate with existing deficiency, and a fair share calculation was then performed to
estimate the portion of costs attributable to growth for the project. The fair share percentage
was calculated by subtracting the existing volumes from future demand and then divided by the
future demand, and the percentage was applied to the project's total cost to estimate the portion
of costs attributable to growth. For projects with roadway segments operating at LOS C or better
(or v/c ratio of 0.62 or less), it is assumed 100 percent of the project's cost is attributable to
growth.
Table 5 shows the list of TUMF projects experiencing a v/c ratio above 0.62 and how the cost of
these projects has been allocated between new and existing development. Overall, out of the
190 TUMF projects (excluding ATP) 13 are estimated to operate with an existing deficiency. As
shown in Table 5, out of the $121.7 million in total cost estimated for these projects,
approximately $54.4 million is allocated to the TUMF. The remaining $67 million, or about 55
percent, is attributable to existing deficiencies.
Table 5 TUMF Capacity Improvements with Existing Deficiencies
Segment
Street Name #
AVE 48
AVE 50
AVE 50
48H
50A
5012
Dillon Rd. DLN13
Hwy. 74
Hwy. 111
Hwy. 111
Hwy.74A
Hwy.111F
Hwy.111G
Hwy. 111 Hwy.111H
Segment Description
Grade Separation at Hwy
111/SPRR
Future Ave 50 SR-86S IC
Cabazon Rd to SR-86S (Incl.
Br. at Whitewater Chnl)
S side of Whitewater Br. to
Hwy 111
Highway 111 to El Paseo
Cook St to Eldorado Dr
Eldorado Dr to Miles Ave
Miles Ave to Washington St
(incl. Br. Over Deep Cyn Chnl)
Indian Cyn Dr. INCN8 Garnet Ave to 20th Ave
Indian Cyn Dr. INCN9 20th Ave to 19th Ave
Indian Cyn Dr. INCN10 19th Ave to Dillon Rd
Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes
Indian Cyn Dr. INCN13 Blvd (Incl. Future Br. at
Mission Cr.)
Palm Dr. PD1 1-10 IC to Varner Rd
Total
Cost
Considered
in TUMF
a
$22,011,480
$55,222,500
$3,356,880
Existing Year Future Year
20151 2040 w/ TPPS1
ADT V/C ADT
b c
Fair
Share
Factor
V/C d=(c-b)
/c
21,120 0.85 49,420 0.48
20,260 0.82 37,930 0.35
20,150 0.72 38,870 0.37
$4,062,858 19,440 0.71 46,870 0.43
$450,240 38,960 0.63 39,080 0.34
$3,537,600 47,240 0.72 67,580 0.58
$4,924,800 53,240 0.81 73,300 0.64
$7,573,400 46,430 0.70 62,300 0.43
$165,000
$1,722,800
$7,379,840
$6,945,600
$4,024,416
$121,377,414
[1] Data provided by Fehr & Peers based on updated RIVTAM.
0.57
0.47
0.48
0.59
0.00
0.30
0.27
Cost
Contributed
to Future
Growth
e = a * d
$12,604,712
$25,725,852
$1,616,691
$2,377,730
$1,383
$1,064,735
$1,347,769
0.25 $1,929,211
20,370 0.68 37,920 0.56 0.46 $0
24,960 0.85 45,050 0.31 0.45 $768,281
21,780 0.78 39,410 0.26 0.45 $3,301,360
16,460 0.62 27,730 0.40 0.41 $2,822,824
28,340 0.85 35,290 0.24 0.20 $792.567
$54,353,115
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12
P: 114400051144043CVAGIDeliverables\DrafNexusReport5. docx
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
As noted, the bulk of the capacity improvement projects, in terms of both number and costs,
currently operate with a v/c ratio below 0.62. Consequently, these projects are assumed to be
entirely attributable to new development.
TUMF Operational, Safety, and ATP Projects
In addition to "capacity improvement projects", other regional projects are included in the TUMF
calculation because they improve the regional network for both existing and new users. While
these projects provide a variety of benefits to both new and existing commuters, they do not
expand the network capacity in a measurable way. The TUMF projects that fall into this category
include operational improvements such as reconfiguring intersections, adding turn lanes at
intersections, adding traffic signals, and ATP projects (e.g. bike / pedestrian facility and transit
station improvements, and CV Link).
Since these improvements and facilities associated with the project categories above are
designed to serve and benefit both existing and new development, the costs are allocated in
proportion to growth. Specifically, 25 percent of the cost of these projects are allocated to
growth reflecting the estimated share of new trip ends to total trip ends in 2040 (see Table 3 in
Chapter 2).
Summary of TUMF Cost Allocation
Table 6 summarizes the allocation of TUMF eligible project costs between new and existing
development based on the methodology described above. As shown, overall, about 80 percent of
the TUMF eligible project costs are allocated to new development. This amount includes 97
percent of the cost of "Capacity Improvement Projects" since the majority of these projects are
not currently needed given level of service standards assumed for this analysis (i.e. v/c ratios of
0.62 or less).
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13
P.:1144000s1144043CVAG\DeliverableslDrafNexusReport5. docx
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Table 6 Allocation of TUMF Eligible Project Costs to New Development
e of Projects
Buildable Projects
Project Costs
1 $2,505,970,0001
Proportion of Costs
Allocated to Growth
Total Costs
Allocated to
Growth
1 $2,169,010,7471
- - Capacity Improvement Projectsl
-- Widening or Updating Cross -Sections'
-- Other Operational Improvements2
ATP Regional Projects
- - Regional Bicycle Projects'
- - Regional Pedestrian Improvements2
Other Regional Transportation Projects
$ 2,143,490, 000
$69,910,000
$292,570,000
$157,700,0001
$149, 700, 000
$8,000,000
96.9%
25.5%
25.5%
25.5%
25.5%
1
$2,076,630,000
$17,817,088
$74,563,659
$40,191,0281
$38,152,168
$2,038,860
1 $146,100,0001
1 $37,234,6811
- - CV Link'
-- Valley -wide Signal Synchronization2
Total
$99,400,000
$46,700,000
$2,809,770,000I
25.5%
25.5%
80%
$25,332,836
$11,901,845.28
$2,246,436,456
[1] Cost allocation based on RIVTAM analysis. For projects with no existing deficiencies, 100 percent of costs
are allocated to growth.
[2] Cost allocation based on new trips from 2015 - 2040 divided by total trips in 2040, as shown in Table 3.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14
P:\144000s‘144043CVAG\Deliverables\DrafNexusReport5. docx
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
5. OTHER FUNDING FOR TUMF PROJECTS
It is a common practice in calculation of a development impact fee to deduct any obligated or
projected revenue from other funding sources from the total cost of planned capital facilities and
improvements. Accordingly, this section identifies and quantifies the separate external revenue
or funding sources (other than the TUMF itself) and deducts these amounts from the TUMF
calculation.
CVAG has programming authority for Measure A, State and Federal formula funds. Riverside
County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is the regional transportation planning agency
responsible for administration of funds throughout Riverside County. Due to the diverse needs of
sub -regions throughout the County, programming decisions within Coachella Valley are typically
delegated to CVAG. Competitive grant funding and programming is typically managed directly by
RCTC or State and Federal sponsoring agencies.
Obligated Funds
TUMF project costs should exclude funding that has already been secured or is obligated from
other external sources. As of November, 2016, CVAG has approximately $232 million allocated to
TPPS projects from available sources. Programming decisions are made periodically and
obligation values are updated as needed. A list of current projects and funding commitments is
summarized in Table 7.
Table 7 Summary of Obligated Funds Available to Off -set TUMF Costs
e of Projects
Buildable Projects
- - Capacity Improvement Projects
- - Widening or Updating Cross -Sections
- - Other Operational Improvements
Project Cost
$ Amount
$2,505,970,000I
$2,143,490,000
$69,910,000
$292,570,000
89.2%
76.3%
2.5%
10.4%
ATP Regional Projects
$157,700,000I 5.6%
Regional Bicycle Projects
Regional Pedestrian Improvements
$149,700,000 5.3%
$8,000,000 0.3%
Other Regional Transportation Projects I $146,100,0001 5.2%
CV Link $99,400,000
-- Valley -wide Signal Synchronization $46,700,000 1.7%
Regional Traffic System Costs
[1] Only includes portion of obligated funding applicable to TUMF related costs.
3.5%
Obligated
Fundingl
$145,886,000
$102,956,000
$1,972,000
$40,958,000
$8,300,0001
$8,300,000
$0
$77,767,6251
$75,000,000
$2,767,625
$2,809,770,000 100% I $231,953,625
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15
P:\144000s\144043CVAGIDeliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Although a significant portion of obligated funds are under CVAG's control, competitive funding
from State and/or federal sources, such as Active Transportation Program (ATP) funding, is
determined by others. ATP projects in the CVAG region, including major infrastructure projects
such as CV Link, have received approximately $75 million in grants and funding allocations from
CMAQ and various other sources. The values are deducted from the TPPS and ATP gross
network.
Other External Funding
As part of the TUMF study effort, CVAG staff identified and estimated the level of non-TUMF
external funding assumptions inherent in each jurisdiction's ability to move specific TPPS projects
forward. These external funding assumptions have been removed from the TUMF obligation.
Specifically, CVAG staff have worked with member jurisdictions to identify and estimate the
additional, external (i.e. non-TUMF) funding assumptions associated with the all TPPS projects
rated above 7.5 points. The total external funding estimate from all the jurisdictions was
$328,032,689. Consequently, this amount has been removed from the TUMF calculation.
Developer Funded Improvements
Section 6 (d) (2) of the CVAG TUMF model ordinance indicates that CVAG will "establish an
estimate of the value of customary developer dedications to the extent they have been included
in the total cost of the regional system." Dedications are right of way and/or completed roadway
segments that are required to be completed by developers as part of their development
approvals. In previous TUMF Nexus Studies, the estimated value of developer dedications has
been used to offset or reduce the TUMF collection target.
This reduction of the TUMF collection target provides an appropriate program 'credit' to
developers for completing actual improvements to the arterial system. While the value of
developer contributions is difficult to quantify, they are real and should be accounted for in the
TUMF. As part of the initial TUMF calculation in 1988 it was estimated that such dedications
represented 25 percent of the value of total TPPS (regional system) costs. This estimate was
affirmed in 2005. It is recommended that we retain the 25 percent estimate for the value of
developer dedications for the 2018 Nexus Study, excluding CV Link.
State and Federal Transportation Funding
CVAG receives transportation funding from a variety of State and federal sources, much of which
is allocated by formula or agreement through RCTC. This includes funding through the State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funding
(CMAQ), the federal Surface Transportation Program (STP), and other sources. While the funding
levels from State and Federal sources can vary significantly from year to year, for the purposes
of the TUMF analysis, CVAG projects that the region will receive about $172 million from these
sources over the next 25 years, or an average of about $6.86 million per year.?
7 Based on the last call for projects in 2013 for federal grant funds STP, CVAG received $21,458,175,
or about 33 percent of the total pot for Riverside County. For CMAQ funds, CVAG is averaging about
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16
P:1144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Local Match
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
The CVAG share of regional road system project costs has been set by the Executive Committee
at 75 percent of qualified project costs, has been applied after any external funding comes off
the top. Local jurisdictions are required to provide the remaining 25 percent of project costs, as
well as 100 percent of unqualified project costs. For the purposes of the TUMF, CVAG has
indicated that projects on the TPPS will be funded with 75 percent regional funds with a 25
percent local match requirement. Accordingly, this analysis assumes that the TUMF costs are
reduced by 25 percent to account for this local match.
Measure A
In accordance with RCTC Ordinance No.02-001, Riverside County Transportation Commission
Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax (Measure A), 50 percent of
the sales tax revenue generated by Measure A within the Coachella Valley is allocated to CVAG
for use on the Regional Arterial System. This sales tax was approved through 2038. CVAG uses
this revenue to complete projects included in the TPPS. CVAG intends to continue to utilize this
revenue for projects included in the TPPS
For the purpose of determining the share of Measure A revenues that will likely be available for
completing future TPPS projects, an average of actual revenues between 2007 and 2016
(adjusted for inflation) and projected growth in trips through 2040 was used. In addition, it is
assumed that 80 percent of the Measure A revenue would be used to off -set TUMF costs, with
the remaining available to cover future project costs not covered by TUMF (e.g., the amount
allocated to "existing deficiencies"). This methodology yields average annual Measure A revenues
available to off -set TUMF costs of about $22.8 million per year or $461 million over 25 years, as
shown in Table 8.
$6 million per year. These two sources would combine for about $171,458,175 over a 25-year period
($21,458,175 + $6 million times 25 years).
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17
P:\1440005\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Table 8 Estimated Measure A Revenues Available To Off -set TUMF Costs
Type of Projection
Average Annual Total Projected
Amount Through 2040
Based on 2007-16 Growth Rate In Measure A $s $20,308,586 $487,406,064
Based on 2010-16 Growth Rate in Measure A $s $26,270,481 $630,491,536
Based on SCAG Trip Growth (2017 - 2040) $21,934,342 $526,424,215
Average of All Projections $22,837,803 $548,107,272
25 Year Total $570,945,075
Allocation to TUMF Eligible Projects @ 80% [1] I $456,475,736 I
[1] Equals to proportion of total TUMF costs allocated to growh, as shown in Table 6.
Summary of Other Funding Sources
Table 9 summarizes the assumptions above to estimate the total revenue that is likely to be
available to off -set TUMF project costs over the next 25 years. As shown, the total TUMF Costs of
$2.176 billion (i.e., the TPPS costs attributable to growth) are reduced by an additional $1.934
billion to account for other funding sources, leaving a net TUMF cost of about $242.7 million.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables1DraliNexusReport5.docx
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Table 9 Net TUMF Costs After Funding from Other Sources
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
TUMF Cost Allocation
See Table 6
=a
$2,246,436,000
Obligated Funding See Table 7 = b $231,953,625
External Funding CVAG Jurisdiction data = c $328,000,000
CV Link Costs Allocated to Growth See Table 6 = d $25,332,836
Developer Funded Improvements CVAG Estimate e = 25% * (a - d) $555,276,000
State and Federal Funding CVAG Estimate = f S171,458,000
Subtotal
25% Local Match
Measure A Funding to TUMF
g=a-b-c-e-f
CVAG Policy h = g * 25%
See Table 8 = i
$959,748,000
$239,937,000
S456,476,000
Net TUMF Costs
j=g-h-i $263,335,0001
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19
0:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\\DraftNexusReport5.docx
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
6. NEXUS FINDINGS AND FEE CALCULATION
This chapter summarizes the nexus findings presents in the previous chapters and calculates and
presents the final TUMF calculations.
Overview of Nexus Findings
A"nexus" or relationship between new development in the CVAG region and transportation
improvements and their costs must be established before incorporating transportation
improvement costs into a transportation impact fee calculation. To determine the appropriate
costs to include in the new transportation fee calculation, it is necessary to conduct a series of
steps:
• Identify Total Costs of Transportation Improvements. The identification of the
required transportation improvement projects and their associated costs is the first step (see
Chapter 3).
• Remove Existing Deficiencies. Next, it is necessary to evaluate whether there is an
existing deficiency at any of the project locations, and if so, the magnitude of that deficiency.
Existing deficiencies are accounted for by reducing the project cost that is included in the Fee
Program with funding required from other sources (see Chapter 4)
• Determine Proportionate Allocation to New Development. Once existing deficiencies
are identified, it is necessary to determine the proportion of the remaining project cost that is
attributable to new development in Cupertino, and therefore can be the subject of a fee
program (see Chapter 4).
• Account for Known Funding. To the extent there is dedicated funding for any of the
transportation improvements, this portion of costs should not be included in the
transportation fee calculation. For this TIF calculation, funding from external sources has
been excluded (see Chapter 5).
The technical calculations described above and further detailed in subsequent sections establish
the following nexus findings, consistent with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.
Purpose
The TUMF will help maintain adequate levels of transportation service in the CVAG region. It is
levied on all new development throughout the Coachella Valley to mitigate the cumulative
regional impacts on the transportation system.
Use of Fee
Fee revenue will be used to fund regional transportation improvements, including roadway,
intersection, interchange, and traffic signal improvements, ATP facilities and other regional
serving projects. The list of eligible transportation projects and costs are summarized in Chapter
3 and further detailed in the Appendix B and the TPPS.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20
P:1144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverab/es‘DrafNexusReport5. docx
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Relationship
New development in the CVAG region will increase demands for, and travel on, the region's
transportation network. Transportation fee revenue will be used to fund additional
transportation capacity necessary to accommodate this growth. New development will benefit
frorti'the increased transportation capacity.
Need
Each new development project will add to the incremental need for transportation capacity and
improvements. The transportation improvements considered in this Study have been identified
and are necessary to support the future transportation needs in the CVAG region.
Proportionality
The fee levels are tied to fair share cost allocations to new development based on the RIVTAM
transportation model and adapted for this study purpose. Recognizing that some improvements
within the Coachella Valley will be completed by developer dedications or using alternate funding
sources, the TUMF program establishes the share of unfunded improvement costs in rough
proportionality to the number of trips generated by new development and assigns the fair -share
fee to new developments on this basis.
The TUMF Calculation
The data and analysis described above provide the core components of the TUMF calculation.
The final step in the TUMF calculation is to estimate the fee per trip and by land use category
(i.e. different types of residential and non-residential development). These calculations are
described below.
TUMF per Trip
The TUMF rate per trip is calculated by dividing the net TUMF cost above by the projected growth
in average daily trips (ADT) over from 2015 - 2040. Specifically, the fee per trip is calculated by
dividing the aggregate fee program cost of $263.3 million by the total number of trips generated
by new development, or 1.074,520, as shown in Table 10. The results in a TUMF of $245 per
ADT.
Table 10 Calculation of TUMF per Average Daily Trip (ADT)
Net TUMF Cost
Growth in ADT (2015 - 2040)
See Table 9
See Table 3
=a
=b
$263,335,000
1,074,520
vg. TUMF / ADT
= a / b
$245
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
21
P:\144000s`,144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
TUMF by Land Use
This average TUMF per trip amount will be used as the basis for calculating the actual TUMF
obligation for particular types of development based on ADT generation factors for specific land
use categories. Table 11 provides the ADT rates for generalized land use categories based on
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (loth Edition released in
2017). The actual land use categories and their specific application, including various discounts,
will be included in the TUMF Handbook, as described in Chapter 7. In addition, CVAG may
update these rates and land use categories over time as conditions change and new data
becomes available.
Table 11 Trip Rate Assumptions for illustrative Land Use Categories
Land Use Category
ITE Daily Trip Rate / Unit ITE Code ITE Land Use Description
Residential
Single Family Detached 9.44 dwelling 210 Single -Family Detached Housing
Multi -Family 7.32 dwelling 220 Multifamily Housing Low Rise
Non -Residential
Industrial 4.96 1000 sq. ft. 110 General Light Industrial
Office 9.74 1000 sq. ft. 710 General Office Building
Retail 37.75 1000 sq. ft. 820 Shopping Center
Table 12 calculates the TUMF for each land use categories defined above based on the fee per
trip. It should be noted that, the TUMF per trip rate for retail is reduced by 35 percent to
account "linked" and pass -through trips, or trips that are part of multi -purpose commute (e.g.,
stopping at a retail store on the way to or from work). Typically, retail -based trips often involve
multiple stops. To recognize this traffic pattern, an adjustment for pass -through trips, or
percentage of new trip adjustment, takes into account vehicle trips using the adjacent roadway
that enter a site as an intermediate stop on the way to another destination. For example, some
drivers will stop for fuel on their way home from work. The pass -by adjustment reduces total
number of vehicle trips to account for the sharing of the one trip for two destinations (fuel and
then home).
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22
P:\144000s\144043CVAGWeliverables\DraftNexusReport5.clocx
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Table 12 Illustrative TUMF Calculation for Selected Land Use Categories
Land Use Category Fee Per Unit'
Residential
Single Family Detached
Multi -Family
$2,310 per dwelling
$1,790 per dwelling
Non -Residential
Industrial $1,220 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office $2,390 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail2 $6,010 per 1,000 sq. ft.
[1] Based on a TUMF of $245 per ADT.
[2] Includes a discount of 35% percent to account for pass -through trips.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23
P:\144000s\144043CVAGIDeliverab/es\DraftNexusReports.docx
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
7. TUMF IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION
This chapter summarizes the implementation and administrative issues and procedures
associated with the TUMF program. Implementation and administrative elements of this Updated
TUMF are specified in the CVAG TUMF Handbook as well as the CVAG TUMF model ordinance.
This TUMF update incorporates a number of modifications requested by CVAG's member
jurisdictions and other stakeholders. The key elements of these documents that are expected to
be modified as part of this update are described below.
Elimination of Land Use Exemptions
The 2012 TUMF policy handbook exempts a number of land use categories from paying the fee
(examples include affordable housing, public buildings, and some religious structures). It is
proposed that the new TUMF update will eliminate any TUMF land use exemptions except those
required by State or federal law (for example, public schools are statutorily exempt from AB
1600 impact fees). In other words, all new development that increases trips in the CVAG region
will be subject to the TUMF unless otherwise exempt due to State and / or federal law.
While the goal is to eliminate all exemptions, consistent with State or federal law, CVAG has also
proposed a TUMF discount for Transit Oriented Residential Development projects. With the new
Handbook, CVAG is also considering an exemption for Affordable housing (below 80% of the
ACI).
Regional fee programs approach affordable housing fees in a variety of ways; charge a full fee,
allow fee reductions of a stated percentage, and completely exempting fees. These are evenly
implemented throughout programs in California. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation Manual does not include affordable housing as a land use. Programs that charge a fee
often simply define a reduction of 20% or 50% of the fee for affordable housing but don't
provide a methodology on how it was arrived at other than it was a policy decision.
Simplification of Land Use Categories
The current TUMF Manual defines over 35 separate land use categories, and numerous sub-
categories, each with different fee rates based upon trip generation. Concerns have been raised
by developers and CVAG member agencies that this structure is overly complicated and
confusing. Consequently, CVAG has simplified the land use categories which eliminate factors
that override the basic fee rate of a land use.
For example, under the current TUMF Program, the highest TUMF rates are for convenience
markets and fast food restaurants. When convenience stores are located within shopping
centers it can create confusion because under the current TUMF Manual, shopping centers are
defined as having at least three business establishments which may be housed in one or more
buildings; have a total building floor area of at least 10,000 square feet (sq. ft.), and that the
largest establishment not contain more than 50 percent of the floor area.
Under the new TUMF Program, it proposed that the land use categories be simplified and
consolidated. For example, convenience stores, restaurants and shopping centers are proposed
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 24
P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DrafNexusReport5. docx
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
to be charged strictly as "retail" and charged one flat rate. Therefore, TUMF would apply to each
new building based on square footage without any additional factors.
Application of Annual Inflation Adjustment
It is common practice to include an annual adjustment factor so that the fee revenues keep pace
with inflation. By way of example, the Coachella Valley Local Development Mitigation Fee is
revised annually by means of an adjustment at the beginning of each fiscal year based on the
average percentage change over the previous calendar year set forth in the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) for the Los Angeles -Anaheim -Riverside Area. Accordingly, it is proposed that an
inflation adjustment for TUMF be reviewed by CVAG's Executive Committee on an annual basis.
Such inflation adjustment shall be the same as the Coachella Valley Local Development
Mitigation Fee.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 25
P:\14400051144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraltNexusReport5.docx
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
APPENDIX A:
TPPS Projects Included in the TUMF
r.
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name
Segment
Number
Segment Description
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
Yes No
20TH AVE 20A Worsley Rd to N Indian Canyon Dr No
20TH AVE 20B N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd (missing link) Yes
20TH AVE 20C Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr (missing link) Yes
20TH AVE 20D Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd Yes
AVE 44 44A Ave 44 Br./Low Water Xing Yes
AVE 44 44B Monroe St to Low Water Xing Yes
AVE 44 44C Low Water Xing to Dillon Rd Yes
AVE 48 48B1 Jefferson St to Madison St No
AVE 48 48B Madison St to W side of All -Amer. Canal (Excl. Br. At No
All -Amer. Canal)
AVE 48 48E Jackson St to Van Buren St Yes
AVE 48 48F Van Buren St to W of SR-86 Yes
AVE 48 48H Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR Yes
AVE 50 50A Future Ave 50 SR-86S IC Yes
AVE 50 50B1 Washington St to E side of Br. at Evac. Chnl (Incl. Br. at Yes
Evac. Chnl)
AVE 50 50C Jefferson St to Madison St (Inc'. Br. at All -Amer. Canal) Yes
AVE 50 50D Madison St to Monroe St Yes
AVE 50 50E Monroe St to Jackson St Yes
AVE 50 50F Jackson St to Van Buren St Yes
AVE 50 50G Van Buren St to Harrison St Yes
AVE 50 5012 Cabazon Rd to SR-86S (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) Yes
AVE 50 50J Grade Separation Hwy 111/SPRR Yes
AVE 50 50K SR-86S to 1-10 IC Yes
AVE 50 50L Br. at All -Amer. Canal (in 50K) Yes
AVE 50 50M Future Ave 50 I-10 IC Yes
AVE 52 52B Jefferson St to Madison St (Excl. Br. at All -Amer. Yes
Canal)
AVE 52 52D Monroe St to Jackson St Yes
AVE 52 52E Jackson St to Calhoun St Yes
AVE 52 52F1 Calhoun St to Van Buren St Yes
AVE 52 52F2 Van Buren St to Frederick St Yes
AVE 52 52G Frederick St to Harrison St Yes
AVE 52 52H Intersection of Ave 52 and SR-86 No
AVE 52 521A Harrison St to Shady Ln Yes
AVE 52 521B Shady Ln to Hwy 111 Yes
AVE 52 52K Future Ave 52 SR-86S IC Yes
AVE 52 52L Hwy 111 to SR-86S (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) Yes
AVE 52 52M SR-86S to Pierce St Yes
AVE 54 54A Van Buren St to Harrison St Yes
AVE 54 54B Harrison St to Tyler St Yes
AVE 54 54C Tyler St to Hwy 111 Yes
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56B Monroe St to Jackson St No
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56C Jackson St to 0.25 miles W of Van Buren St No
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56D 0.25 mi. W of Van Buren St to Harrison St No
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56E Harrison St to Tyler St No
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56F Tyler St to Polk St No
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56G Polk St to Highway 111 (Grapefruit Blvd) Yes
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 561 SPRR to SR-86 (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) Yes
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
C
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name
Segment
Number
Segment Description
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
Yes No
58TH AVE 58A Jefferson St to Madison St No
58TH AVE 58B Madison St to Monroe St No
58TH AVE 58C Monroe St to Jackson St No
58TH AVE 58D Jackson St to Van Buren St Yes
58TH AVE 58E Van Buren St to Harrison St Yes
66TH AVE 66A Future 66th Ave SR-86 IC Yes
66TH AVE 66B 66th Ave Br./Low Water Xing Yes
66TH AVE 66C Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR (Bridge) Yes
BOB HOPE DR BH1-6 Frank Sinatra Dr to Gerald Ford Dr No
BOB HOPE DR BH2-6 Gerald Ford to Dinah Shore Dr No
BOB HOPE DR BH3-6 Dinah Shore Dr to Ramon Rd (southbound only) No
CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN1 Terrace Rd to E Palm Canyon Dr No
CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN2 E Palm Canyon Dr to N side of Whitewater Br. (Incl. Yes
Cath Cyn Br.)
CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN4 N side of Whitewater Br. to Dinah Shore Dr No
CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN5 Dinah Shore Dr to Ramon Rd No
COOK ST (formerly CHASE CHSC1 1-10 IC to Ramon Rd Yes
SCHOOL RD)
COOK ST CK4 Frank Sinatra Dr to Country Club Dr Yes
COOK ST CK5 Country Club Dr to N side of Whitewater Br. Yes
COOK ST CK6 S side of Whitewater Br. to Fred Waring Dr Yes
COOK ST CK7 Br. at Whitewater Chnl No
COUNTRY CLUB DR CC4 Monterey Ave to Portola Ave No
COUNTRY CLUB DR CC5 Portola Ave to Cook St Yes
COUNTRY CLUB DR CC6 Cook St to Eldorado Dr No
COUNTRY CLUB DR CC7 Eldorado Dr to Oasis Club Dr No
COUNTRY CLUB DR CC8 Oasis Club Dr to Washington St Yes
CROSSLEY RD / GOLF CLUB DR CROSLY1 Ramon Rd to Mesquite Ave/Dinah Shore Dr Yes
CROSSLEY RD / GOLF CLUB DR CROSLY2 Dinah Shore Dr/Mesquite Ave to 34th Ave Yes
CROSSLEY RD / GOLF CLUB DR CROSLY3A Br. at Palm Cyn Chnl No
DA VALL DR DVALL1 Dinah Shore to Ramon Rd No
DA VALL DR DVALL2 Ramon Rd to McCallum Way No
DA VALL DR DVALL3 McCallum Way to 30th Ave No
DA VALL DR DVALL4 30th Ave to 1-10 IC (Inca. Br. over RR) No
DA VALL DR DVALL5 Future Da Vail I-10 IC Yes
DA VALL DR DVALL6 1-10 IC to Varner Rd (Incl. Br. at Long Cyn Chnl) Yes
DATE PALM DR DPLMOA Hwy 111 (E Palm Cyn Dr) to Gerald Ford Dr (Intl. at No
Cath. Cyn Br., excludes WW Br.)
DATE PALM DR DPLMOB Gerald Ford Dr to Dinah Shore Dr No
DATE PALM DR DPLMOC Dinah Shore Dr to Ramon Rd No
DATE PALM DR DPLM1 Ramon Rd to McCallum Way No
DATE PALM DR DPLM2 McCallum Way to 30th Ave No
DATE PALM DR DPLM3 30th Ave to Vista Chino No
DILLON RD DLN1 SR-62 to N Indian Canyon Dr Yes
DILLON RD DLN2 Intersection of Dillon Rd & N Indian Canyon Dr Yes
DILLON RD DLN3 N Indian Canyon Dr to Palm Dr (Incl. Future Br. at Yes
Mission Cr.)
DILLON RD DLN4 Intersection of Dillon Rd & Palm Dr Yes
DILLON RD DLN5 Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd Yes
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DUNE PALMS RD
DUNE PALMS RD
E PALM CYN DR
E PALM CYN DR
E PALM CYN DR
E PALM CYN DR
E PALM CYN DR
FRANK SINATRA DR
FRANK SINATRA DR
FRANK SINATRA DR
FRANK SINATRA DR
FRED WARING DR
GENE AUTRY TR
GENE AUTRY TR
GENE AUTRY TR
GENE AUTRY TR
GENE AUTRY TR
GENE AUTRY TR
GENE AUTRY TR
GENE AUTRY TR
GENE AUTRY TR
GERALD FORD DR
GERALD FORD DR
GOLF CENTER PKWY
GOLF CENTER PKWY
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD
Segment
Number
DLN6
DLN7
DLN8
DLN9
DLN10
DLN11
DLN12
DLN13
DLN14
DLN15
DUNEP1
DUNEP2
PLCN7
PLCN8
PLCN9
PLCN11A
PLCN11B
FS6
FS7
FS8
FS9
FW1
GAT1A
GAT2A
GAT2B
GAT2C
GAT2D
GAT2E
GAT2F
GAT2G
GAT3
GFD4
GFD5
GPKWY1
GPKWY4
GRPF1
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF2
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF3
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF4
HACIENDA AVE (now RUBY DR & E HACOA
HACIENDA AVE (currently 13TH AV HACOB
HACIENDA AVE HAC1A
HACIENDA AVE HAC1 B
HACIENDA AVE HAC2
Segment Description
Mountain View Rd to Bennett Rd
Bennett Rd to Thousand Palms Cyn Rd (Incl. Br. At
Wide Cyn Chnl)
Thousand Palms Cyn Rd to Sunny Rock Rd
Sunny Rock Rd to Ave 44 (Incl. Br. over All -Amer.
Canal)
Ave 44 to 1-10 IC
1-10 IC to N side of Whitewater Br.
Br. at Whitewater Chnl
S side of Whitewater Br. to Hwy 111
Dillon Rd 1-10 IC
Dillon Rd SR-86S IC
Br. at Whitewater Chnl
Highway 111 to Blackhawk Way (formerly Westward
Ho)
Palm Cyn Dr to Sunrise Way
Sunrise Way to Farrell Dr
Farrell Dr to Gene Autry Trl (Incl. Br. at Palm Cyn
Wash)
Cathedral Canyon Dr to Date Palm Dr
Date Palm Dr to E Cath. City limits
Monterey Ave to Portola Ave
Portola Ave to Cook St
Cook St to Eldorado Dr
Eldorado Dr to Tamarisk Row Dr
Bridge at Whitewater River
Intersection of Gene Autry Trl and Mesquite Ave /
Dinah Shore Dr
E Palm Cyn to Eagle Way
Bridge over Palm Canyon Wash
N of Palm Canyon Wash Bridge to 0.18 mi south of
Mesquite Ave
0.18 mi S of Mesquite Ave to Mesquite Ave
Mesquite Ave to Ramon Rd
Ramon to Escena Way
Escena Way to Vista Chino
Future Whitewater Rvr Br.
Cook St to Frank Sinatra Dr
Intersection of Gerald Ford Dr and Bob Hope Dr
Golf Center Pkwy. 1-10 IC
Ave 45 to Hwy 111
Ave 48/Dillon Rd to Ave 50
Ave 50 to Ave 52
Ave 52 to Ave 54
Ave 54 to Ave 56
SR62 to N Indian Canyon Dr
N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd
Little Morongo Rd to Cholla Dr
Cholla Dr to Palm Dr
Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
Yes No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
r
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name
Segment
Number
Segment Description
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
Yes No
HACIENDA AVE HAC3 Mountain View Rd to Dillon Rd (Long Cyn Rd)
HARRISON ST HARSN1 Grapefruit Blvd to Ave 52 Yes
HARRISON ST HARSN2 Ave 52 to Ave 54
HARRISON ST HARSN3 Ave 54 to Ave 56 (Airport Blvd) Yes
HIGHWAY 74 HWY74A Highway 111 to El Paseo Yes
HIGHWAY 74 HWY74B El Paseo to Mesa View Dr
HIGHWAY 74 HWY74C Mesa View Dr to S Palm Desert City Limits
HIGHWAY 111 HWY111 F Cook St to Eldorado Dr Yes
HIGHWAY 111 HWY111G Eldorado Dr to Miles Ave Yes
HIGHWAY 111 HWY111H Miles Ave to Washington St (incl. Br. Over Deep Cyn Yes
Chnl)
INDIAN CYN DR INCN1 Ramon Rd to Tahquitz Cyn Way Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN2 Tahquitz Cyn Way to Alejo Rd Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN3 Alejo Rd to Tachevah Dr Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN4 Tachevah Dr to Vista Chino Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN5 Vista Chino to Racquet Club Rd Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN6 Racquet Club Rd to Sunrise Pkwy
INDIAN CYN DR INCN7 Sunrise Pkwy to Garnet Avenue Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN8 Garnet Ave to 20th Ave Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN9 20th Ave to 19th Ave Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN10 19th Ave to Dillon Rd Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN11 Dillon Rd to 14th Ave Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN12 14th Ave to Pierson Blvd Yes
INDIAN CYN DR INCN13 Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes Blvd (Incl. Future Br. at Yes
Mission Cr.)
INDIAN CYN DR INCN14 Mission Lakes Blvd to SR-62
INDIO BLVD INDiO0 1-10 Interchange to Jefferson St (includes 2 railroad Yes
bridges)
INDIO BLVD INDIOI Jefferson St to Madison St (over All -Amer. Canal) Yes
JACKSON ST JAC2A1 1-10 IC to 43rd Ave Yes
JACKSON ST JAC2A2 43rd Ave to Ave 44 Yes
JACKSON ST JAC4 Ave 48 to Ave 50 Yes
JACKSON ST JAC5 Ave 50 to Ave 52 Yes
JACKSON ST JAC6 Jackson St 1-10 IC Yes
JEFFERSON ST JEF1A Intersection of Jefferson St and Dunbar Dr
JEFFERSON ST JEF2A 58th Ave to 62th Ave Yes
JEFFERSON ST JEF9A1 40th Ave to 0.27 mi S of Ave 39 Yes
JEFFERSON ST JEF9B Ave 39 to Ave 38
KEY LARGO AVE KL1 Dinh Shore Dr. to Varner Rd (Incl. flyover at 1-10 and Yes
LANDAU BLVD LAN1 Vista Chino to Verona Rd Yes
LANDAU BLVD LAN2 Verona Rd to 1-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR, missing link) Yes
LANDAU BLVD LAN3 Future Landau Blvd 1-10 IC (missing link) Yes
LANDAU BLVD LAN4 1-10 IC to Varner Rd (missing link) Yes
LITTLE MORONGO RD LM1 Mission Lakes Blvd to Pierson Blvd
LITTLE MORONGO RD LM2 Pierson Blvd to Two Bunch Palms Trl Yes
LITTLE MORONGO RD LM3 Two Bunch Palms Trl to Dillon Rd (Inc'. Future Br. at Yes
Mission Cr.)
LITTLE MORONGO RD LM4 Dillon Rd to 20th Ave Yes
MADISON ST MAD5 Ave 52 to Ave 50 Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name
Segment
Number
Segment Description
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
Yes No
MADISON ST MAD7A 0.25 mi N of Ave 49 to Ave 48 Yes
MADISON ST MAD7B Ave 48 to Hwy 111 Yes
MADISON ST MAD9 Miles Ave to Fred Waring Dr (Incl. Br. over WW Chnl
and All -Amer. Canal, missing link) Yes
MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLKO SR 62 to Indian Canyon Dr Yes
MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLK1 N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd No
MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLK2 Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr No
MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLK3 Palm Dr to Eastern Terminus at Verbena Dr No
MONROE ST MON1 0.25 mi N of Ave 42 to Ave 42 Yes
MONROE ST MON6 Monroe St I-10 IC Yes
MONROE ST MON7 Ave 54 to 58th Ave No
MONROE ST MON8A 58th Ave to Ave 60 No
MONROE ST MON8B Ave 60 to 62nd Ave No
MONROE ST MON9 1-10 Interchange to 900 ft N of Oleander Yes
MONTEREY AVE MNT1-6 Highway 111 to Fred Waring Dr Yes
MONTEREY AVE MNT2-6 Fred Waring Dr to Clancy Lane (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Yes
River)
MONTEREY AVE MNT3-6 Clancy Lane to Country Club Dr Yes
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTVO Pierson Blvd at E Terminus of Desert View Ave to
Hacienda Ave No
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV1A Hacienda Ave to Brunner Ln Yes
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV1B Brunner Ln to Dillon Rd Yes
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV2 Dillon Rd to 20th Ave No
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV3 20th Ave to Varner Rd No
N PALM CYN DR PLCN1 Vista Chino to Tachevah Dr No
N PALM CYN DR PLCN2 Tachevah Dr to Alejo Rd No
N PALM CYN DR PLCN3 Alejo Rd to Tahquitz Cyn Rd Yes
N PALM CYN DR PLCN4 Tahquitz Cyn Rd to Ramon Rd Yes
N PALM CYN DR PLCN5 Ramon Rd to Mesquite Ave (Inc'. Br at Tahquitz Crk.) Yes
N PALM CYN DR PLCN6 Mesquite Ave to E Palm Cyn Dr Yes
PALM DR PD1 1-10 IC to Varner Rd Yes
PALM DR PD2 Varner Rd to 20th Ave No
PALM DR PD3 20th Ave to Dillon Rd Yes
PALM DR PD4 Dillon Rd to Two Bunch Palms Trl Yes
PALM DR PD5 Two Bunch Palms Trl to Hacienda Ave No
PALM DR PD6 Hacienda Ave to Pierson Blvd No
PALM DR PD7 Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes Blvd Yes
PIERSON BLVD PRS1 SR-62 to N Indian Canyon Dr No
PIERSON BLVD PRS2 N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd (Intl. Br. at
Mission Cr.) No
PIERSON BLVD PRS3A Little Morongo Rd to Cholla Dr No
PIERSON BLVD PRS3B Cholla Dr to Palm Dr No
PIERSON BLVD PRS4A Palm Dr to Miracle Hill Rd No
PIERSON BLVD PRS4B Miracle Hill Rd to Eastern Terminus of Desert View Av. No
POLK ST PLK1 Polk St from Ave 52 to Ave 48 Yes
PORTOLA AVE POR1 Hwy 111 to Magnesia Falls Dr Yes
PORTOLA AVE POR2 Magnesia Falls Dr to Country Club Dr (Excl. Br. at
Whitewater Chnl) No
PORTOLA AVE POR3 Country Club Dr to Frank Sinatra Dr Yes
PORTOLA AVE POR4A Frank Sinatra Dr to Julie Ln Yes
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
1
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name
PORTOLA AVE
PORTOLA AVE
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60
S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60
S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60
S VALLEY PKWY
S VALLEY PKWY
S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND AVE
S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND AVE
S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND AVE
S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND AVE
THOUSAND PALMS CYN RD
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR / 14TH
AVE
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR
TYLER ST
VAN BUREN ST
VAN BUREN ST
VAN BUREN ST
VAN BUREN ST
VARNER RD
VARNER RD
VARNER RD
VARNER RD
VARNER RD
VARNER RD
VARNER RD / AVE 42
VARNER RD / AVE 42
VARNER RD / AVE 42
VARNER RD / AVE 42
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
Segment
Number
POR5B
PORE
RAM1
RAM2
RAM3
RAM3A
RAM4
RAM4A
RAM5
RAM5A
RAM7
RAM 15
SV1
SV2
SV3
SV4
SV5
SV6
SV7
SV8
SV9
THPL1
TBP1
TBP2
TBP3
TYL1
VANB2
VANB3
VANB4
VANBS
VRNRO
VRNR1
VRNR2
VRNR3
VRNR6
VRNR7B
VRNR9
VRNR10A
VRNR1OB
VRNR11
VC1
VC1A
VC2
VC2AA
VC2AB
VC2A
VC3
Segment Description
Dinah Shore Dr to 1-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR)
Future Portola Ave 1-10 IC
S Palm Cyn Dr to S Indian Cyn Dr
S Indian Cyn to Sunrise Way (Incl. Baristo Storm Chnl
Xing)
Sunrise Way to Farrell Dr
Intersection of Ramon Rd and Sunrise Way
Farrell Dr to El Cielo Rd
Intersection of Ramon Rd and Farrell Drive
El Cielo Rd to Gene Autry Trl
Intersection of Ramon Rd and Crossley Rd
Br. at Whitewater Rvr
Monterey Ave to Thousand Palms Cyn Rd
Monroe St to Jackson St
Jackson St to Van Buren St
Van Buren St to Harrison St
Harrison St to Tyler St (missing link)
Tyler St to Polk St (missing link)
Polk St to Fillmore St
Fillmore St to Pierce St (Intl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl)
Pierce St to SR-86
Future Ave 62 SR-86 IC
Ramon Rd to Dillon Rd
N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd
Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr
Palm Dr to Miracle Hill Rd
Ave 50 to 1-10 frontage road
Ave 48 to Ave 50
Ave 50 to Ave 52
Ave 52 to Ave 54
Ave 54 to Ave 56/Airport Blvd
20th Ave to Palm Dr
Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd
Mountain View Rd to Date Palm Dr
Date Palm Dr to Ramon Rd
Monterey Ave to Cook St
Ave 38 to Washington St
Jefferson St to Madison St (Intl. Br. over All -Amer.
Canal)
Madison St to Clinton St
Clinton St to Monroe St
Monroe St to Gore St
N Palm Canyon Drive to Sunrise Way
Intersection of Vista Chino and N Palm Canyon Dr
Sunrise Way to Gene Autry Trl
Intersection of Vista Chino and Sunrise Way
Intersection of Vista Chino and Farrell Drive
Intersection of Vista Chino and Gene Autry Trl
Gene Autry Trl to W side of Whitewater Rvr
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
Yes No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name Segment Segment Description Included in TUMF?
Number (Yes/No)
Yes No
VISTA CHINO VC4 Future Whitewater Rvr Br. Yes
VISTA CHINO VC5 E side of Whitewater Rvr to Landau Blvd No
VISTA CHINO VC7 Date Palm Dr to Da Vall Dr Yes
WASHINGTON ST WSH9 I-10 IC to Ave 38 Yes
WASHINGTON ST WSH10A Ave 38 to Coyote Song Way No
WASHINGTON ST WSH1 OB Coyote Song Way to Ramon Rd No
WORSLEY RD WORS1 20th Ave to Dillon Rd No
WORSLEY RD WORS2 Dillon Rd to 1 mile S of Pierson Blvd No
WORSLEY RD WORS3 1 mile S of Pierson Blvd to Pierson Blvd No
WORSLEY RD WORS4 Pierson Blvd to N Indian Canyon Dr Yes
Total 188 94
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
APPENDIX B:
Detailed TUMF Project Cost Estimates
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Appendix B
List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF
Street Name
Segment
Number
Segment Description
Project Costs
20TH AVE 20B N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd (missing link) $11,208,000
20TH AVE 20C Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr (missing link) $15,974,400
20TH AVE 20D Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd $7,036,800
AVE 44 44A Ave 44 Br./Low Water Xing $14,313,000
AVE 44 44B Monroe St to Low Water Xing $7,411,950
AVE 44 44C Low Water Xing to Dillon Rd $12,083,250
AVE 48 48E Jackson St to Van Buren St $5,315,970
AVE 48 48F Van Buren St to W of SR-86 $2,275,088
AVE 48 48H Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR $22.011,480
AVE 50 50A Future Ave 50 SR-86S IC
$55,222,500
AVE 50 50B1 Washington St to E side of Br. at Evac. Chnl (Incl. Br. at $g 799 480
Evac. Chnl)
AVE 50 50C Jefferson St to Madison St (Incl. Br. at All -Amer. Canal) $7,131,405
AVE 50 50D Madison St to Monroe St $4,977,480
AVE 50 50E Monroe St to Jackson St $2,304,030
AVE 50 50F Jackson St to Van Buren St
$12, 084, 000
AVE 50 50G Van Buren St to Harrison St
$14,301,582
AVE 50 5012 Cabazon Rd to SR-86S (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) $3,356,880
AVE 50 50J Grade Separation Hwy 111/SPRR $21,687,600
AVE 50 50K SR-86S to 1-10 IC
$45,177,600
AVE 50 50L Br. at All -Amer. Canal (in 50K) $3,952,320
AVE 50 50M Future Ave 50 1-10 IC $62,687,500
AVE 52 52B Jefferson St to Madison St (Excl. Br. at All -Amer. Canal) $2,075,940
AVE 52 52D Monroe St to Jackson St $4,195,800
AVE 52 52E Jackson St to Calhoun St $2,660,400
AVE 52 52F1 Calhoun St to Van Buren St $2,699,400
AVE 52 52F2 Van Buren St to Frederick St $4,689,300
AVE 52 52G Frederick St to Harrison St $6,190,104
AVE 52 521A Harrison St to Shady Ln $13,286,328
AVE 52 521B Shady Ln to Hwy 111 $1,629,900
AVE 52 52K Future Ave 52 SR-86S IC
$53,782,500
AVE 52 52L Hwy 111 to SR-86S (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) $22,536,194
AVE 52 52M SR-86S to Pierce St $20,556,880
AVE 54 54A Van Buren St to Harrison St $4,794,900
AVE 54 54B Harrison St to Tyler St $4,560,300
AVE 54 54C Tyler St to Hwy 111 $6,380,750
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56G Polk St to Highway 111 (Grapefruit Blvd) $1,155,714
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 561 SPRR to SR-86 (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) $13,329,000
58TH AVE 58D Jackson St to Van Buren St $4,583,040
58TH AVE 58E Van Buren St to Harrison St $4,583,040
66TH AVE 66A Future 66th Ave SR-86 IC $46,934,500
66TH AVE 66B 66th Ave Br./Low Water Xing $2,826,960
66TH AVE 66C Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR (Bridge) $48,044,000
CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN2 E Palm Canyon Dr to N side of Whitewater Br. (Incl. Cath $4.815,850
Cyn Br.)
COOK ST (formerly CHASE CHSC1 I-10 IC to Ramon Rd $25,501,600
SCHOOL RD)
COOK ST CK4 Frank Sinatra Dr to Country Club Dr $3,997,488
COOK ST CK5 Country Club Dr to N side of Whitewater Br. $6,228,320
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
r
Appendix B
List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF
Street Name
COOK ST
COUNTRY CLUB DR
COUNTRY CLUB DR
CROSSLEY RD / GOLF
CLUB DR
CROSSLEY RD / GOLF
CLUB DR
DA VALL DR
DA VALL DR
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
DILLON RD
E PALM CYN DR
E PALM CYN DR
E PALM CYN DR
E PALM CYN DR
FRANK SINATRA DR
GENE AUTRY TR
GENE AUTRY TR
GENE AUTRY TR
GENE AUTRY TR
GERALD FORD DR
GOLF CENTER PKWY
GOLF CENTER PKWY
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD
HACIENDA AVE (now RUBY
DR and ESTRADA AVE)
HACIENDA AVE (now 13TH
AVE)
HACIENDA AVE
HACIENDA AVE
HARRISON ST
HARRISON ST
HIGHWAY 74
HIGHWAY 111
HIGHWAY 111
HIGHWAY 111
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIAN CYN DR
Segment
Number
CK6
CC5
CC8
CROSLY1
CROSLY2
DVALL5
DVALL6
DLN1
DLN2
DLN3
DLN4
DLN5
DLN6
DLN10
DLN12
DLN13
DLN14
DLN15
PLCN8
PLCN9
PLCN11A
PLCN11B
FS6
GAT2A
GAT2B
GAT2E
GAT3
GFD5
GPKWY1
GPKWY4
GRPF1
GRPF2
GRPF3
HACOA
HACOB
HAC1A
HAC1B
HARSN1
HARSN3
HWY74A
HWY111F
HWY111G
HWY111H
INCN1
INCN2
INCN3
Segment Description
S side of Whitewater Br. to Fred Waring Dr
Portola Ave to Cook St
Oasis Club Dr to Washington St
Ramon Rd to Mesquite Ave/Dinah Shore Dr
Dinah Shore Dr/Mesquite Ave to 34th Ave
Future Da Vall 1-10 IC
1-10 IC to Varner Rd (Incl. Br. at Long Cyn Chnl)
SR-62 to N Indian Canyon Dr
Intersection of Dillon Rd & N Indian Canyon Dr
N Indian Canyon Dr to Palm Dr (Inca. Future Br. at Mission
Cr.)
Intersection of Dillon Rd & Palm Dr
Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd
Mountain View Rd to Bennett Rd
Ave 44 to 1-10 IC
Br. at Whitewater Chnl
S side of Whitewater Br. to Hwy 111
Dillon Rd 1-10 IC
Dillon Rd SR-86S IC
Sunrise Way to Farrell Dr
Farrell Dr to Gene Autry Trl (Incl. Br. at Palm Cyn Wash)
Cathedral Canyon Dr to Date Palm Dr
Date Palm Dr to E Cath. City limits
Monterey Ave to Portola Ave
E Palm Cyn to Eagle Way
Bridge over Palm Canyon Wash
Mesquite Ave to Ramon Rd
Future Whitewater Rvr Br.
Intersection of Gerald Ford Dr and Bob Hope Dr
Golf Center Pkwy. 1-10 IC
Ave 45 to Hwy 111
Ave 48/Dillon Rd to Ave 50
Ave 50 to Ave 52
Ave 52 to Ave 54
SR62 to N Indian Canyon Dr
N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd
Little Morongo Rd to Cholla Dr
Cholla Dr to Palm Dr
Grapefruit Blvd to Ave 52
Ave 54 to Ave 56 (Airport Blvd)
Highway 111 to El Paseo
Cook St to Eldorado Dr
Eldorado Dr to Miles Ave
Miles Ave to Washington St (incl. Br. Over Deep Cyn Chnl)
Ramon Rd to Tahquitz Cyn Way
Tahquitz Cyn Way to Alejo Rd
Alejo Rd to Tachevah Dr
Project Costs
$1,212,030
$3,714,480
$3,812,300
$2,283,600
$2,928,100
$71,647,500
$24,753,600
$29,522,800
$956,500
$12, 887, 680
$956,500
$5,353,920
$11,495,760
$9,427,480
$1,487,125
$4,062,858
$18,150,000
$15, 360, 000
$1,531,200
$7,725,600
$2,166,000
$2,483,800
$4,750,434
$631,450
$6,655,700
$957,600
$233,900,000
$1,099,332
$19,481,100
$2,725,800
$4, 978, 000
$12,157 , 200
$12,772,500
$34, 336, 000
$12,503,040
$7,793,280
$2,653,200
$3,677,200
$9, 694, 080
$450,240
$3, 537, 600
$4,924,800
$7,573,400
$5, 847, 600
$2,123,550
$2,383,200
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Appendix B
List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF
Street Name
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIAN CYN DR
INDIO BLVD
INDIO BLVD
JACKSON ST
JACKSON ST
JACKSON ST
JACKSON ST
JACKSON ST
JEFFERSON ST
JEFFERSON ST
KEY LARGO AVE
LANDAU BLVD
LANDAU BLVD
LANDAU BLVD
LANDAU BLVD
LITTLE MORONGO RD
Segment
Number
INCN4
INCN5
INCN7
INCN9
INCN10
INCN11
INCN12
INCN13
INDIGO
INDIOI
JAC2A1
JAC2A2
JAC4
JAC5
JAC6
JEF2A
JEF9A1
KL1
LAN 1
LAN2
LAN3
LAN4
LM2
LITTLE MORONGO RD LM3
LITTLE MORONGO RD
MADISON ST
MADISON ST
MADISON ST
MADISON ST
MISSION LAKES BLVD
MONROE ST
MONROE ST
MONROE ST
MONTEREY AVE
MONTEREY AVE
MONTEREY AVE
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD
N PALM CYN DR
N PALM CYN DR
N PALM CYN DR
N PALM CYN DR
PALM DR
PALM DR
PALM DR
LM4
MAD5
MAD7A
MAD7B
MAD9
MSLKO
MON1
MON6
MON9
MNT1-6
M NT2-6
MNT3-6
MTV1A
MTV1B
PLCN3
PLCN4
PLCN5
PLCN6
PD1
PD3
PD4
Segment Description
Tachevah Dr to Vista Chino
Vista Chino to Racquet Club Rd
Sunrise Pkwy to Garnet Avenue
20th Ave to 19th Ave
19th Ave to Dillon Rd
Dillon Rd to 14th Ave
14th Ave to Pierson Blvd
Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes Blvd (Incl. Future Br. at
Mission Cr.)
1-10 Interchange to Jefferson St (includes 2 railroad bridges)
Jefferson St to Madison St (over All -Amer. Canal)
1-10 IC to 43rd Ave
43rd Ave to Ave 44
Ave 48 to Ave 50
Ave 50 to Ave 52
Jackson St I-10 IC
58th Ave to 62th Ave
40th Ave to 0.27 mi S of Ave 39
Dinah Shore Dr. to Varner Rd (Inc!. flyover at 1-10 and RR)
Vista Chino to Verona Rd
Verona Rd to 1-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR, missing link)
Future Landau Blvd 1-10 IC (missing link)
1-10 IC to Varner Rd (missing link)
Pierson Blvd to Two Bunch Palms Trl
Two Bunch Palms Trl to Dillon Rd (Incl. Future Br. at Mission
Cr.)
Dillon Rd to 20th Ave
Ave 52 to Ave 50
0.25 mi N of Ave 49 to Ave 48
Ave 48 to Hwy 111
Miles Ave to Fred Waring Dr (Inc!. Br. over WW Chnl and All -
Amer. Canal, missing link)
SR 62 to Indian Canyon Dr
0.25 mi N of Ave 42 to Ave 42
Monroe St 1-10 IC
1-10 Interchange to 900 ft N of Oleander
Highway 111 to Fred Waring Dr
Fred Waring Dr to Clancy Lane (Incl. Br. at Whitewater River)
Clancy Lane to Country Club Dr
Hacienda Ave to Brunner Ln
Brunner Ln to Dillon Rd
Alejo Rd to Tahquitz Cyn Rd
Tahquitz Cyn Rd to Ramon Rd
Ramon Rd to Mesquite Ave (Incl. Br at Tahquitz Creek)
Mesquite Ave to E Palm Cyn Dr
1-10 IC to Varner Rd
20th Ave to Dillon Rd
Dillon Rd to Two Bunch Palms Trl
Project Costs
$1,463, 550
$1, 440, 900
$204,099,790
$1,722,800
$7,379,840
$5,510,000
$4, 903, 440
$6,945,600
$21,888,720
$2,920,195
$17,915,106
$10,967,500
$5,615,280
$2,047,650
$19,826,100
$13, 518, 000
$1,011,840
$23,868,000
$832,000
$19,280,000
$71, 647, 500
$22,614,400
$4, 506, 240
$14,539,120
$19,768,320
$6,608,460
$898,920
$1,450,140
$18,607,200
$29,315,840
$1,754,280
$2,400,000
$15,467,750
$1,240,800
$13,247,266
$3,557,376
$4,016,160
$3,315,840
$1,182,150
$1,310,850
$6,437,440
$1,436,200
$4, 024, 416
$7,736,256
$5, 359, 464
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
1
Appendix B
List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF
Street Name
PALM DR
POLK ST
PORTOLA AVE
PORTOLA AVE
PORTOLA AVE
PORTOLA AVE
PORTOLA AVE
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
RAMON RD
S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60
S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60
S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60
S VALLEY PKWY
S VALLEY PKWY
S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND
AVE
S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND
AVE
THOUSAND PALMS CYN
RD
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR /
14TH AVE
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR
TYLER ST
VAN BUREN ST
VAN BUREN ST
VAN BUREN ST
VARNER RD
VARNER RD
VARNER RD
VARNER RD
VARNER RD
VARNER RD / AVE 42
VARNER RD / AVE 42
VARNER RD / AVE 42
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
VISTA CHINO
Segment
Number
PD7
PLK1
POR1
POR3
POR4A
POR5B
PORE
RAM1
RAM2
RAMS
RAM3A
RAM4
RAM4A
RAM5
RAM5A
RAM7
SV1
SV2
SV3
SV4
SV5
SV8
SV9
THPL1
TBP1
TBP2
TBP3
TYL1
VANB2
VANB3
VANB5
VRNRO
VRNR1
VRNR2
VRNR3
VRNR11
VC1
VC1A
VC2
VC2AA
VC2AB
VC2A
VC3
Segment Description
Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes Blvd
Polk St from Ave 52 to Ave 48
Hwy 111 to Magnesia Falls Dr
Country Club Dr to Frank Sinatra Dr
Frank Sinatra Dr to Julie Ln
Dinah Shore Dr to 1-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR)
Future Portola Ave 1-10 IC
S Palm Cyn Dr to S Indian Cyn Dr
S Indian Cyn to Sunrise Way (Incl. Baristo Storm Chnl Xing)
Sunrise Way to Farrell Dr
Intersection of Ramon Rd and Sunrise Way
Farrell Dr to El Cielo Rd
Intersection of Ramon Rd and Farrell Drive
El Cielo Rd to Gene Autry Trl
Intersection of Ramon Rd and Crossley Rd
Br. at Whitewater Rvr
Monroe St to Jackson St
Jackson St to Van Buren St
Van Buren St to Harrison St
Harrison St to Tyler St (missing link)
Tyler St to Polk St (missing link)
Pierce St to SR-86
Future Ave 62 SR-86 IC
Ramon Rd to Dillon Rd
N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd
Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr
Palm Dr to Miracle Hill Rd
Ave 50 to 1-10 frontage road
Ave 48 to Ave 50
Ave 50 to Ave 52
Ave 54 to Ave 56/Airport Blvd
20th Ave to Palm Dr
Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd
Mountain View Rd to Date Palm Dr
Date Palm Dr to Ramon Rd
VRNR7B Ave 38 to Washington St
VRNR9 Jefferson St to Madison St (Intl. Br. over All -Amer. Canal)
VRNR10B Clinton St to Monroe St
Monroe St to Gore St
N Palm Canyon Drive to Sunrise Way
Intersection of Vista Chino and N Palm Canyon Dr
Sunrise Way to Gene Autry Trl
Intersection of Vista Chino and Sunrise Way
Intersection of Vista Chino and Farrell Drive
Intersection of Vista Chino and Gene Autry Trl
Gene Autry Trl to W side of Whitewater Rvr
Project Costs
$4, 241, 952
$19,754,280
$5,638,410
$4,180, 000
$2,606,400
$23,026,500
$71, 647, 500
$372,240
$4,279,950
$2,574,880
$1,051,947
$1,717,600
$957,177
$8,367,900
$1,051,947
$24,864,323
$4, 494, 240
$4, 741, 440
$5,269,440
$9, 583, 600
$10,562,080
$3,892,200
$46, 550, 500
$17,252,840
$12, 522, 240
$5, 422, 560
$4,278,787
$11,854,020
$3, 519, 200
$4, 690, 800
$5,332,536
$20,249,600
$6,295,000
$12, 505, 200
$47,489,880
$11,293,450
$9,872,400
$4, 952, 640
$2,327,424
$5,288,420
$984,150
$5,668,080
$1, 073, 547
$967,677
$1,014,039
$1,185,600
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-81
Appendix B
List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF
Street Name Segment Segment Description
Number
VISTA CHINO VC4 Future Whitewater Rvr Br.
VISTA CHINO VC7 Date Palm Dr to Da Vall Dr
WASHINGTON ST WSH9 1-10 IC to Ave 38
WORSLEY RD WORS4 Pierson Blvd to N Indian Canyon Dr
Project Costs
$94, 701, 810
$20,625,000
$3,055,200
$11, 646, 600
Total $2,505,969,566