HomeMy WebLinkAboutAddendum to CVAG 2018 TUMF Nexus Study426973921ADDENDUM TO THE COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT'S
NEXUS REPORT - TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) 2018
FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE DATED MARCH 2O18
The Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG') previously caused to be
Imposed and subsequently approved an impact fee nexus study entitled the Ness Report —
Tr pormton Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) 2018Fee Schedule Update (the "Stud) dated
March 20t8. The Study established TUMF applicable mall new development in the Coachella
Valley men to W imposed through each of CVAG's member agencies, including the City of
Palm Desert ("City'}. The Study accounted for the TUMF fee schedule to W increased annually
through the application of an annual inflation adjustment ("Inflation Adjustmeaf) to ensure the
fce revenue collected keeps pace with current casts of the proposed projects. CVAG's Executive
Committee determines the amount of the Inflation Adjustment each year.
The Purpose of this addendum to CVAG's Study (the "Addendum") is to allow the City
to comply with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code, section 660t10 et
seq.) (the"Acf), which governs the adoption offices or charges, or increases to existing Res or
charges. Here, the City is seeking approval an increase the existing TUMF with CVAG's
proposed Inflation Adjustment.
1. Inflation Adjustment
The Inflation Adjustment defined in the Study referenced a consumer price index ("CPI")
for the Los Angeles -Anaheim -Riverside Area. However, this index was discontinued at the
beginning of 2018. As such, a comparable replacement CPI for the Coachella Valley area was
selected. The replacement index selected is the All Urban Consumers ("CPI-U'), All Items for
Riverside -San BemaNim-0ntario, CA (the "Index") Published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
("BLS'). CVAG has described the method of calculating the yeaoover-year change in the Index,
ineartured as of December in the calendar year which ends in the previous fiscal year. However,
the Index only publishes data every other montb meaning in January, and as such there is no data
published for the month of December far which a calculation can be based upon. Therefore,
rather than changing the method by which CVAG calculates the percent change each year, it has
elected to approximate a Dceember data Point based upon guidance from the BLS. To
approximate a data point for an unreported month, the BLS has advised taking the square mot of
the product of the indexes f the preceding and subsequent months, in this case November and
January. Therefore, CVAG approximates the year -over -year change using this method.
According to CVAG, the jusfifcation for the Inflation Adjustment is to aware the TUMF
revenue collected keeps pace with the costs ofconstmcting the Projects defined in the Study.
Keeping pace with inflation ensures Projects can be timely completed as needed to accommodate
new development Timely completion of projects ensures Woes who have paid the TUMP
receive m the benefit of their contributions towards the prograwhile at the same time mitigates
the expected impacts m the existing community. Without the Inflationary Adjustments many
projects would become delayed, underfunded, and Potentially not able to be completed at all due
in insufficient Reds available to complete such projects.
All CVAG documents related to the 2025 Inflation Adjustment are attached to this
Addendum for review and inspection. A summary of the documents follows:
1. Attachment 1—Nexus Report — Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
2018 Fee Schedule Update;
2. Attachment 2—CVAG Staff Report on TUMF Inflation Adjustment for Calendar
Year 2025 dated April 29, 2024 and includes a letter In support of the Inflation
Adjustment from the Desert Valleys Builders Association; and
3. Attachment 3—CVAG Revised Fee Schedule for the Transportation Uniforms
Mitigation Fee Effective January 1, 2025 dated May 1, 2024.
2. Requirement to Proportionally Calculate the Fee per Square Footage on Housing
Projects
Pursuant to section 66016.5(5)(A) of He Act, a nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022,
"shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the image
footage of proposed units of the development" An exemption to this requirement is authorized
Essential to section 66016.5(5)(B) of the Act; which series a nexus amity need not comply with
the requirements of subparagraph (A) if certain findings are made. While, the City is not
adopting a nexus amity at this time, it is attempting m adopt the Inflation Adjustment which
would increase the TUMF. Therefore, out of an abmdmce of caution the City seeks to provide
this missing requirement to the existing Sandy. By making this finding the City does not concede
that such finding is required to impose the Inflation Adjustment and reserves the right to argue
any applicable legal defenses available to it should the TUMF anchor the Irritation Adjustment be
challenged.
The findings required pursuant to section 66016.5(5)(B) of the Ad include:
i. An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate
fees imposed on a housing development project.
n. An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable
relationship between the fee charged and theburd® posed by the development.
nt. That other policies in the ice structure support smaller developments, or otherwise
mums that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.
Addressing each finding in men —Finding (i), the City's general plan identifies the use of
privately held land including in some instances, the number of dwelling units authorized per
re. However, from is no similar plamdng metric for which the City could rely upon to
determine what the square footage would be for each dwelling unit. Therefore, the square
footage of each dwelling unit is determined by the property owneddeveloper at the time of
development. In the case of developer, that determination is based upon what they perceive is
marketable and subject to change with market conditions. There simply is no way to accurately
forecast what type of product mix will be developed. Without the ability in, forecast the tonal
number of square feet expected at build out, the City would be guessing at a rate per square foot.
This creates the potential for failing to collect enough T F to complete projects, or
alternatively, collecting too much depending on the final build out Therefore, using square
foomge is not an appmpriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development pmject
Finding (ii), the TUa4F is calculated based upon the demands created by class of property
(i.e., traffic trips generated by land use type). In other words, the Study determined the average
demands of average land use classes of property. Given, the limitation of the data and inability to
forecast market conditions, this approach created a reasonable basis for applying the MW in an
equitable and proportional mmmer across all potential classes of land use. Again, the City simply
does not have the ability to generate the kind of information needed to meet the residential
square footage requirement of the Act. Therefore, this alternative basis of calculating the fee
bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the
development.
Finding (in), the metrics in the Study calculate the estimated impacts on a land use basis.
For example, as noted above land uses we evaluated for their increase in tratlic trips. The
application of this metric does not increase or decrease based upon the s¢e of the development
project but rather the individual wit Theretbre, by the very namm of the calculation, smaller
developments will have smaller impacts and larger developments will have larger impacts. These
Impacts drive the fee. Therefore, the fee structure does not charge disproportionate fees on
smaller developments.
F.VY✓AR:Iligilllfl
ORM MITIGATION FEE (TUNE) M18 FEE SCHEDULE
UPDATE NEXUS REPORT
A-1
Draft Nexus Report
Transportation Uniform Mitigation
Fee (TUMF) 2018 Fee Schedule
Update
prepared Par:
lb r ..,....... ..i b„„i f Coachella Valley Association of Governments
In Aasociation with:
City of Cathedral
City
City of Coachella
City of Desert Hot Springs
City of Indian Wells
City of Indio
Clly of la Quinn
City of Palm Desert
City of Palm Springs
City of Rancho Mirage
County of Riverside
prepared by:
Economic a Planning Systems, Inc.
In Ain o: ation with:
Michael Baker International
Fehr It Perry
�ii
Rotlriguez Consulting Group
ewo
ao 210 Zan Ax
March 2010
Wd
Sii
EPS 4196043
Table of Contents
1. REPORT OVERVIEW AND RESULTS................................................................................I
Introduction...........................................................................................................
I
Summary of the TUMF Calculation
3
2. TUMF BOUNDARY AND TRAVEL DEMAND........................................................................5
TUMF Boundary
5
TravelDemand Assumptions and Forecasts .................................................................6
3. TUMF PROIKrS AND COSTS .....................................................................................8
TUMF Project Selection ............................................................................................
8
TUMFProject CM[5.................................................................................................9
4. TUMFCOSTALLOunON.......................................................................................
11
Application of Transportation Demand Model.............................................................
11
TUMF Capacity Improvement Projects......................................................................
11
TUMF Operational, Safety, and ATP Projects..............................................................
13
Summary of TUMF Cast Allocabon...........................................................................
13
S. CrUl FUNDING FOR TUMF Pi[crs........................................................................
15
ObligatedFunds....................................................................................................
15
Other External Funding ..........................................................................................
16
DeveloperFundedImprovements............................................................................
16
State and Federal Transportation Small
16
LocalMatch ..........................................................................................................
17
MeasureA...........................................................................................................
17
Summaryof Other Funding Sources........................................................................
18
6. Nous FINDINGS AND FEE CLLCuunON.....................................................................
20
Overviewof Nexus Findings....................................................................................
20
The TUMF Calculation
21
J. TUMF IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRLi..............................................................
24
Elimination of Land Use Exemptions
24
Simplificationof Lana Use Cate9ones.......................................................................
24
Appllcatlon of Annual Inflation Adjustment
25
Appendices
Aeveal A: TPPS Projects Included in the TUMF
Avaenoa B: Detailed TUMF Project Cost Estimates
List of Tables and Figures
Table
Summary of TUMF per trip Calculation................................................................3
Table 2
Illustrative TUMF Calculation for Selected "no USe Categories
4
Table 3
Estimated Deism In Trip Ends In CVAG Region (2015—20") ...............................7
Table
Summary of TUMF Projects and Total Cases .......................................................
10
Tables
TUMF Capacity Improvements with Existing Deficiencies .....................................
12
Table 6
Allocation of TUMF Eligible Project Costs to New Development
14
Table
Summary of Obligated Funds Available to OffsetTUMF Costs ..............................
15
Table
Estimated Measure A Revenues Available To Off -set TUMF Costs ..........................
18
Table 9
Net TUMF Casts After Funding from Other Sources .............................................
19
Table 10
Calculation of T,MF per Average Daily Trip(ADT)
21
FigureCVAG TUMF Boundary ......................................................................................6
1. REPORT OVERVIEW AND RESULTS
Introduction
This Nexus Report provides the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and Its
tuber jurisdictions with the necessary technical documentation to support hire adoption aan
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 NAG TUMF is a one-time fee charged on all new development
according within the NAG 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 comments athe Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The
analysis and methodology incorporate input from NAG $09, it's member jurisdictions, the TUMF
Nexus Advisory Committee, and other stakeholders.
The NAG 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 prorlty regional
arterial system In order to recelve 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 reads Is added to the Measure A Ponds for the Regional
Arterial Program. A portion of the Measure A revenues for the Coachella Valley area is returned
to the cures and the county in the Coachella Valley to assist with the funding of local street and
mad 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 M the RTP that have been updated as part of this study process, and
used as Critual inputs In the TUMF update, include:
t 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 "[rips").
Draft NMFAwma Rwoom
Machu n, 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 PACE provitles 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 multiracial 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 22,
2016. Since the TPPS, RACE, and ATP provide the underlying basis far 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 so provides the opportunity t0 address important policy issues including, fee land use
categorres, 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 Ad (AS 16001 Government Code
Section 66000 at war.). The Mitigation Fee AR allows jurisdictions to adopt, by resolution, file
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 Fine fee amount that may be necessary over time, without amending Fine enabling ordinance.
Impact fee revenue can be collated and used to cover the coal of constructing capital and
Infrastructure Improvements required to serve new development and growth in the jurisdictions
n 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 coals of these or any other
facilities and Infrastructure. In addition, Impact fee revenue cannot be collected or used to cover
the cast of existing needs/ derciencies 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 W 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;
a. Determine how the need for the public fai relates W the type of development
project far which due 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 doamented 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 NAG to
Draft NMF Nexus Report
Mac, n, zala
ensure accuracy and m enable the adequate programming of funding sources. To The extent
thattransportation 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 T.
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 Impart fees
re designed to cover Me cost of regional transportation improvements required to support new
development after existing deficiencies and known other funding sources have been taken into
accou
nt. The feapply to all new residential and non-residential projects, except those
exempted by State or federal law or other means.
Table Summary of TUMF per trip Calculation
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 3 provides an illustrative calculation of the fee level
for various land use categories. The actual land use categories and their Spatific application,
including various discounts, will be included in the TUMF Handbook, as described in Chapter T.
Oreft NMF March
27, 2018
names n, zata
Table 2 Illustrative TUMF Calculation for Selected land Ux Categories
Land Use Category Fee per Unit
Residential
Single Family Detached $2,310 per dwelling
Multi -Family $1,790 per dwelling
Non -Residential
Industrial
$1,220 per 1,000 A. ft.
ORre
$2,390 per 1,00(l A. ft.
Retail°
$6,010 per 1,00O A. ft.
[I] Based an a TUMF of $265 per AUT.
[2] Includes a discount of 35%percent to account for pass -through trips
2. TUMFBOUNDARYANDTRAVELDEMAND
This chapter documents the land use and travel demand assumptions and forx2sts that underlie
the TUMF calculations. These factors drive the traffic generation and attraction in the CVAG
region and, in turn, are critical in determNing 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 W 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 collector. Good boundary devices art easily
identiPred, 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 NAG TUMF
Boundary I)etemdnabon established a roughly defined area within which there exists a
�rheasmnalble relatloni between new development and traffic conditions an 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 This National Park W the northeast,
Township line 1OE-11E to the east, and
• The WRCOG/CVAG border to the west.
Draft TUMF Nexus Phil
Mason n, 2018
Figural CVAG TUMF Boundary
Travel Demand Assumptions and Forecasts
Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, development Impact fees must establish a reasonable
relationship, or nexus, between the cost Of new capital falsities and Improvements allocated to
future development and the contraction of growth IO pre 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 Rlverslde County Traffic Analysis
Model (RIVFAM) has been used to calculate the TUMF Spetl tally, as part of this study process,
the RIWAM model has been updated to reflect the latest 2000 Sodo-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
(MR) 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 2090.2
Table 3 shows Me estimated growth in the number of daily vehicle taps ends in the CVAG
region between existing (2015) and 2090 based on the updated RIVFAM model. As shown, Me
1 For transportation modeling purposes, even projects; not included in the TURF calculation but
included as part of the 0. P or MR are considered to be part of the regional network In 2000.
Oreft nv FNexm Rgxvf
Marth n, 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 growdi Is expected to account for roughly 25 percent Of total miss
ends within Me CVAG region by 2040. This proportion i5 used t0 allocar¢ a portion Of the Cost for
TUMF eligible projects to future growth, as described further in subsequent chapters.
Table 3 EstlmMad Growth In Trip Ends In CVAG Region (2015 — 2040)
A". Di Trip (AM) Ends In Year: 2015-3040 growth In A0T
2015 3MO(wttM1 TPPS) fatal GrowlM1as%of Average
ID40 fond Annual
TOdI lor NAG Regional 3,101,640 4,216,160 1,074,520 25.5% 1 2%
Ill
a Trip ends are those that either start or end in the NAG region. Through trips (i.e. those that pass
through but do not stop in the CVAG region), are excluded from Mis wdalffiion as described further in
Chapter 4.
3. TUMF PROJECTS AND COSTS
This chapter documents the transportation facilities included in Me TIME as well a5 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 cold estimates.•
TUMF Project Selection
As noted in Chapter 1, the Ti as well as the RACE and ATP provide Me 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 TRIPS represent the universe of transportation facllit es 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.
Acormingly, as part of tb is study, NAG obtained Input from member jurisdictions and the TUMF
Nexus Committee to consider options for reducing Me cold 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 Mat project moving forward
in the next 15-25 years. After meeting with each of the individual junWic0ions, CVAG found that
early all projects scoring below 7.5 points on the TRIPS met Me criteria and thus should be
�rerrxoved' from TUMF consideration. Jurisdictions pointed out that these projects may become
more certain In the future, when the TUMF Nexus study I5 repeated.
CVAG, w th concurrence from Its members and the TUMF Nexus Committee, determined that the
regional priority In the TPPS necessitated the Inclusion M projects scoring above 7.5 points. By
removing TRIPS 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 TRIPS
projects scoring above 7.5 paints) Is amended.
The ATP includes a comprehensive listing of all active trensportation projects within the
Jurisdictions of the NAG 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, Me TRIPS includes other regional transportation projects, such as CV Unk, that
rrespond to long-term planning efforts and cannot analyzed in the same way as traditional
TRIPS projects. These projects were tested for reglonal significance based on factors that were
agreed upon as part of the RTP study process. Based on CVAG committee direction, ATP and
a Impact fees programs do not, in themselves, represent actual approval of a City plan or capital
project (and as such d0 require clearance through the California Environmental Quality AR or CEQAJ.
Draft NMFNenzRaryrf
North n, 2018
these regional planning projects were not ranked against one another but are simply listed as
part of the regional transportation system th be considered far funding.
In addbion to this policy -based approach, TAPS projects focused on the resurfacing of existing
artends have been removed from the TURF calculation based on nexus considerations (i.e., the
cods a these protects are excluded "in TUMF). These projects are needed to maintain the
current regional arterial network rather than help accommodate growth. Eased on Me
requirements of AS 1600, projects focused primarily on the operation and maintenance of
existing fatlldles should M excluded from development impact fee programs. It should M noted
that this Is a relatively minor adjustment since total cost of them projects Is only $940,000.
Based on the process and octane described above, about 80 TPPS projects were removed from
TUMF consideration, or about 30 percent of the total.^ Eliminating these projects removed about
$605 million from TURF 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 Ust 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, them costs estimates include construction, right-of-
way, and Impact factors to cover Other related project derail The costs for CV Unk 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 glom 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, All and two other
regional projects. The cart estimates for each project are attached to mile Report as Appendix
B (with further deW it available In the RACE).
This total excludes PTV and other Regional projects such as N Link.
e Impact factors are mongers applied fo Me project's construction cost to amount for special
conditions likely add to Its complexity In the construction process. These Indeed project conditions like
the existence of utilities structures, nearby drainage facilities, and medians that add complexity and
tests.
Draft TUMF Nexus Necart
March n, 2018
Table Summary of TUMF Projetts and Total Costs
iiIdable Project
$2,506,140,000
89.29
Capacity Improvement Projects
$2,143,490,000
76.3%
Widening or Updating Crazy Sections
$69,910,00D
2.5%
Other Operational Improvements
$292,570,000
10.4%
Resurface or Reconstruction Only
$170,000
0.01%
P Regional Projects
$157,200,00131
5.6%
Regional Birycle Projects
$149,I00,000
5.3%
Regional Pedestrian Improvements
$8,000,000
0.3%
her Regional TranSportati0n Projects
$146,100,000
5.2%
CV Link
$99,400,000
3.5%
ValleywideSignal Synchronization
46 00 000
1 7%
glorel Traffle Systm Carts
$2,309,94011
S00%
The bulk of the TUMF project actual, or approximately 26.3 percent, are identified as "Capacity
Impmvement Projects." These ondectz are demanded 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 reduced t0 as-Wideningor
Updating of Cross -Sections" and "Other Operational Improvement', which combine for about 13
percent of casts, provide a variety of benefit to bath new and existing commuaers, 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
colas.
4. TUMFCOSTAuOCATIOv
This Chapter describes bow 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 cog of infrastrcture improvements needed to address "existing deficiencies". In
other words, the cost of new capital fatlllUes and Improvements needed solely to address the
needs Of existing users must be excluded from fine TUMF calculation.
Application Of Transportation Demand Model
As noted in Chapter 2, the nexus calculations provided in this Report utilize RIVFAM projections
to allocate the cog of the TUMF eligible projects between new and existing development. The
RIWAM model is a mathemamnal representation 0travel demand in the NAG 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-deglnMlon (0-0) trip
table and daily volumes were developed using fine interpolation between fine Base Year 2008
Model and Future Year 2040 Model.
The traffic growth in CVAG was estimated using the change In origin -destination (0i top tables
between existing 2015 Model and Future Year 2040 Model. In order to capture the pope only
associated with the Coachella Valley region, the external -to -external trips (meaning than; 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 Me
other end outside of NAG), only half of those Mps 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 of Internal -to -external
trip Is considered to have one top end In Ctme ella Valley.
The results from the traffic demand model are applied dlRerently 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 projatts 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/capal (v/c)
Graft FUMF Nevus wal
North n, 2018
ratio to determine whether the project is experiencing an existing deficiency, based on level of
service (LOS) criteria. Consistent wind the 2005 TUMF study, LOS D or worse is considered W be
unacceptable LOS Mr ameVal madway nMwork.
Any projects roadway segment with a v/c ratio exceeding 0.62 (LOS D or worse) were
considered to operate with existing deFlclency, and a fair share calculation was Men performed W
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 W the project's total cost to estimate the portion
of costs attributable to growth. For projects with madway segments operating M LOS C or better
(or v/c ratio of 0.62 or less), it is assumed 100 percent of Me project's cost is aiknbutable to
growth.
Table 5 shows Me list Or TUMF projects experiencing a v/c ratio above 0.62 and how Me cog Of
these projects has been allocated between new and existing development. Overall, out of the
190 TUMF projMs (excluding AIR) 13 are estimated to operate with an existing deficency. As
shown In Table 5, out of the $121.7 million In total cost estimated Wr these projects,
approximately $54.0 million is allocated to the TUMF. The remaining $62 million, Or about 55
percent, is attributable to existing deficiencies,
Table TUMF Capadly Improvements with ExIsIng Deflclencles
on
m1�
adeargy.
Faa.va.
g!N
C,nmewe
eaS11�n1
m151
31WvrtPPa'
hili
SMNam, 0 SaFnaM w.mPllun
"TUNIF
Pacific
awvla
All v¢
am WC
d-fn.J
e
e
"
is
•-a e
AVE40
Mal
G11IaPRR nradda nrt Mw
$22011AB3
R
e}20
OA0
$126M,]t2
,
.57
AVEW
5W
Nis, be 505R-06510
$3X65W
203W
act
37.930
0.35
01$Aa=
AVEW
we
Cabown Rd 105R.e651Ind
$33WSW
20.150
OM
UA70
0.37
OAS
111.61e,01
on, at adraci Chn1)
Demand
3
s SAO a wnlwww e,. to
"Oil
1
461
0
A9
all
Inwlil
Raw, 34
aA
Rgwy III coo Few,
1450M
3
$1,3e3
Rwy ill
HMIIIP
Cask 0 to E10ww0"d
$&W1W3
47.20
on
added
ose
0SO
adol 35
Rwy. 111
"111 G
ENorao or W Maw AM
$4,92,1,803
53.20
OSi
73.300
0A1
027
$1.34]]119
y Ill
IMy111N
Milea AM an St
$i,5AM3
45A30
O]0
Ol
OAS
025
$I.YW,211
Pa OwwoeePC3n C np
Indian Or Or
INONS
Garne AM to 2M w
elastic
x
80
ntlan CM 0,.
INCN9
VIA AM to find AM
$I,MW
2AW
ON
45.050
0.31
OAS
hat
Inman CM Or
IdCN10
ISO AM b Glbn Rd
$2,3"M
21.330
0M
39A10
0.26
OAS
$3,301 AW
lakes
Iadii CM or,
M Snd"Was SO el
$SS45,SW
16A60
OS2
27.730
OAS
OAi
$20E$4
Man Or)
Pi 0,
PO1
1-10lC 0vamw R6
H,V 416
38.340
OW
Wi
024
O30
$ms6w
TMW
$RI,9{414
$54,363,115
Oreft TUMF ha"s Repwt
March D, 2018
As noted, the bulk of the capacity improvement projects, in terms of both number and costs,
currently operate with a v/c rare below 0.62. Consequently, these projects are assumed to be
entirely attributable to new development.
TUMF Operational, Safety, and ATP Projects
In addbion 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 rewnFlguring intersections, adding turn lanes at
intersections, adding traffic signals, and ATP projects (e.g. bike / pedestrian facility and transit
station Improvements, and LV fink).
Since these improvements and facilities associated with the project categories above are
designed t0 serve and benefit both eakisd g and new development, the costs are allocated In
proportion t0 growth. Specifically, 25 percent of the cost of these projects are allocated to
growth reflecting the estimated share of new End ends to total trip ends in 2040 (see Table 3 in
chapter 2).
Summary of TUMF Coat Allocation
Table a 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 M new development. This amount includes 97
percent of the cost of "Gm city 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).
Meft TUMF Nexus Report
March n, 2018
Table Allocation of TUMF Eligible Project Coats to New Development
A14abl¢ProjMs
"ON"9]OA00
Capacity Improvement Pmjetl:
$zla3:90,0Bo
96 9%
Widening or Updating crass -scull
$69,910,00o
xs5%
Other Operational lmprwements°
$292,570,000
255%
IPRegloamparojet4
$151,100p00
-
RegionalBicycleProlects'
$149,700,000
xis%
Regional Pedestrian lmptovemeni
$8po0,OBO
25.5%
Of Gnk'
$99,000,000
255%
Valley -wide Signal Synchronization
fiTo000o
25_5%
"I
$1g09,1TIp00
80%
e allocated to growlM1.
[2] Cost allocation based on new trips from 2015 - 2040 divided by total trips in 204C, as shown in Table 3.
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 (RCFC) Is the regional transportation planning agency
responsible far 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. Com Follows grant funding and programming Is typically managed directly by
RCFC or State and Federal sponsoring agencies.
Obligated Funds
TUMF project costs should exclude funding that has already been secured or i5 obligated from
other external sources. As of November, 2016, CVAG has approximately $232 million allocated M
TPPS projects form available sources. Programming decisions are made periodically and
obligation values are Located as needed. A list of current projects and funding commitments is
summarized in Table ).
Table] Summary of Obligated Funds Available to On -set TUMF Coate
Buildable Projects
$2,505,970,000
89.2%
$105,M,000
Capacity Improvement Projects
$2,143,490,000
76.3%
$102,956,000
Widening or Updating Cross -Sections
$69,910,000
2.5%
$1,972,000
Other Operational lmpmvements
$292,570,000
10A%
540,958,000
ATP Regional Projects
$157,700,000
5.6%
$8,30g000
- Regional Bicycle Projects
$149,700,000
5.3%
$8,300,000
— Regional Pedestrian Improvements
$8,000,000
0.3%
$0
Other Regional Transportation Projects
$14QSOOp00
5.2%
$77,767,625
—CV Link
$99,400,000
3.5%
$75,000,000
— Vallisl Signal Synchronization
$46,700,000
1.7%
$2,767,625
Regional Traffic System Cods
$2,809,770,000
100%
$231,953,625
[1] Only includes portion of outlasted funding applicable to TUMF related costs
Oreft NMFNexus, 2018
enzataarn
Although a significant portion Of obligated funds are under CVAG's control, competidve funding
from State and/or federal sources, such as Active Transportation Program (ATP) funding, is
determined by Others. ATP projects In Me (WAS region, Including major infrastructure projMs
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 Me TUMF study effort, CVAG staff identified and estimated the level of nomTUMF
external funding assumptions inherent in each jurisdiction's ability to move specifc TPPS projects
Forward. These external funding assumptions have been removed from the TUMF obligation.
Specifically. CVAG staff have worked with member jurisdictions to Ideral and separate Me
additional, external (i.e. nomTUMF) funding assumptions associated with the all TPPS projected
rated above ZS 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 (it) (2) of the NAG 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 dedicati0ns has
been used to Offset or call the TUMF collection target.
This reNuttion Of the TUMF collection target provides an appropriate program'Crel 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 Me Initial TUMF calculation In 1988 A 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 dedlcatlons far the 2018 Nexus Study, excluding CV Link.
State and Federal Transportation Funding
CVAG receives transportation funding from a variety of State and fedeal sources, much of whiUr
s allocated by formula or agreement through RCTC. This includes funding through the State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Congestion MlUgat on 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 Me purposes
of Me TUMF analysis, NAG projects that the region will receive about $122 million from Mesa
sources over the next 25 years, or an average Of about $6.86 million per year.'
Based on the last call bar projets In 2013 for federal grant funds STP, CYAG received $21,458,175,
or about 33 percent of the total Pat for Riverside County. For CMAQ funds, NAG is averaging about
Oreft NMFNexusisaxi
MaN, n, 2018
Local Match
The CVAG share of regional road system project costs has been set by Us Executive Committee
at 75 percent of qualified project costs, has been applied after any external funding comes off
the top. Loral Jurisdictions are required to provide the remaining 25 percent of preject costs, as
well as 100 percent of unqualified project casts. For the purposes of the TUMF, CVAG has
indicated that projects on the TPPS will be funded with 25 percent regional funds with a 25
percent local match requirement. Accordingly, this analysis assumes that Ue 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. CJAG 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 the will likely be available for
completing fuW re 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 of TUMF casts, with
the remaining available to Cover future project costs not coverts by TUMF (e.g., the amount
allocated to 'existing deficiencies'). This methodology yields average annual Measure A revenues
avallable to off act TUMF costs of about $22.8 mllllon per year or $461 mllllon over 25 years, as
shown In Table S.
$6 million per year. Them two sources would combine for about $171,458,115 over a 25-year period
($21,458,175 + $6 million times 25 years).
Draft NMF Nexus Rgxm
Mart n, 2018
Table Estimated Measure A Revenues Available To Wf-set TUMF Cosb
Average Annual Total Projected
Type of Projection Amount Through 2040
Based on 2007-16 Granath Rate In Measure A $e $20.3081586 $46T406.064
Based on 2010-16 Growth Rase in Measure A $a $26,270,481 $00,491,53B
Based on SCAG Trip Gmwth (2017- 2040) Ill2 $U6,424,215
Average of All Projections $22,837.803 $548,107.272
25 year Total
$570,945.075
Allocation to TUMF Eligible Projects @80%[1] I $458ATS,T28
111 Equals to proportion of WWI TUMF costs allocated to grant, as shorn 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 last TUMF project casts over the next 25 years. As shown, the total TUMF Costs of
$2.176 billion (i.e., the TPPS cogs attributable to growth) are reduced by an atltlitional $1.934
billion to account for other funding sources, leaving a net TUMF cost of about $242.2 million.
Oreft NMF Neva n, 2018
nemn zata
Table Net TUMF Costs after Funding from Other Sources
6. NEXUS FINDINGS AND FEE CALCULATION
This chapter summarizes the nexus Findings presents in the previous chapters and calculates and
axi the Final TUMF calculations.
Overview of Nexus Findings
A "nexus" or relationship between new development In the CVAG region and transportation
improvements and their pasts 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 sines of
steps:
• Identify Total Costa of Transportation Improvements. The identification of the
required transportation Improvement projects and their associated casts Is the the step (see
Chapter 3).
Remove Existing Deficiencies. Next, It Is necessary to evaluate whether there Is an
existing defidanry at any of the projett locations, and if aq the magnitude of that deficiency.
Existing deficiencies are accounted Far by reducing the project cost that is included In the Fee
Program with funding required from other sources (see Chapter e)
• Determine Proportionate Mlocation te New DevNopmem. Once existing deficiencies
re identified, it is necessary to determine the proportion of the remaining project cost that Is
attributable M new development In Cupertino, and therefore can be the subject of a fee
program laws Chapter e).
account far 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 one Mitigation Fee Act.
Wrpose
The TUMF will help mall adequate levels of transportation service In the NAG region. It Is
levied on all new development throughout the Coachella Valley to Indigoes the cumulative
regional impacts on the transportation system.
use a Fair
Fee revenue will be used to fund regional transportation Improvements, including roadway,
Intersection, Interchange, and traffic signal Improvements, ATP facilities and Miser regional
rving projects. The let Mellglble transportation projects and costs are summarized In Chapter
3 and further detailed in the Appendix B and the TPPS.
Oreft NMF he27, 2018
Hawn n, sale
Relational
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
from the increased transportation capadty.
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 Identlfled
and are necessary to support the future transportation needs in the NAG region.
FropoR airy
The fee levels are tied W fair share cost allocations to new development based on the RMAM
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 lore number of trips generated by new development and assigns the fair -share
fee to new developments an this basis.
The TUMF Calculation
The data and analysis described above provide the core components of lore TUMF calculation.
The final step in the NMF calculation is to estimate the fee per hip and by land use category
(i.e. different types of residential and non-residential development). These calculations are
describes below.
TUMF per Trip
The TUMF rate per trip is calculated by dividing the net NMF cost above by the projected growth
in average daily trips (PDT) over from 2015 - 2040. Specifically, the fee per trip is calculated by
alvltling the aggregate fee program cast of $263.3 million by the total number of trips generated
by new development, of 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 (AM)
Net TUMF Cost
See Tables
$263,335.000
Growth nADT-2040)
See Table
b
i20
/ADT
$245AvNMF
Maft3UMFNexuSResm,
Ml n, 2018
TUMF by Land U"
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 POT rates for generalized land use categories based on
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (TIE) Trip Generation Manual (10th 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 ). In addidon, (WAG may
update these rates and land use categories over time as conditions change and new data
becomes available.
Table 11 Trip Forts Assumptions for illustrative Land Uses Ceteperiea
Used We total ITEMIIy Trip Rate/Nnk IIECode IRE IaM Use Oewlptlon
RetlMntial
single Family Deal 9M dwelling 210 Single -Family PoGTN Housing
MultrFamlly 7,32 dwelling 220 MukHamlly Housing Low Rise
NomResldnMel
Industrial 4.96 1000 sq. ft. 110 General tight Industrial
wpm 974 IM ar ft. 710 General Wpm Building
Retail 37.75 1"sq. ft. gI SM1opping@nter
Table 13 calculates the TUMF for each land use categories defined above based on the fee per
trip. It should be noted that, the TUMF per top rate For retail Is reduced by 35 percent to
[count "linked" and pass -through trips, or trips that are part of multFpurpose commute (e.g.,
stopping at a retail store on the way t0 or them work). Typically, realit-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 Medway
that enter a site as an Intermediate stop on the way to another destination. For example, some
drivers will crop for fuel on their way home from work. The pass -by adjustment reduces total
umber of vehicle trips to account For the sharing of the One top For two destinations (fuel and
then home).
Oreft NMF March
27, 2018
namn n, zata
Table 12 Illustrative TUMF Calculation for Selected land Uses Categories
Land Use Category Fee per Unit
Realdentlal
Single Family Detached $2,310 per dwelling
Multi -Family $1,790 per dwelling
Non -Residential
Industrial
$1,220 per 1,000 A.ft.
Wise
$2,390 per 1,000IA.ft.
Retail°
$6,010 per 1,00O A.ft.
[I] Based an a TUMF of $265 per AUT.
[2] Includes a discount of 35%percent to account for pass through trips
Z TUMF IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION
This chapter summarizes the implementation and administrative issues and procedures
associated with the TUMF program. Implementation and administrative elements of Mis Updated
TUMF are specified in the CVAG IMF Handbook as well as the CVAG TUMF model Ordinance.
This IMF update Incorporates a number of modlFleatlons requested by CVAG's member
jurisdictions and Other stakeholders. The key elements of these documents that are expected t0
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
purposed that the new TUMF update will eliminate any TUMF land use exemptions except those
required by State or federal law (far example, public schools are statutorily exempt from AS
1600 Impact fees). In other wards, all new development that Increases arm In the NAG region
will be subject tor Me IMF unless otherwise exempt due W State and I or federal law.
While the goal Is to eliminate all exemptions, consistent with State or federal law, NAG has also
proposed a TUMF discount for Transit Oriented Residential Development protects. With the new
Handbook, NAG is also considering an exemption for Affordable housing (below 80% of the
ACp.
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 Trlp
Generation Manual does not include affordable housing as a land use. programs Mat change a fee
often simply behind a reduction of 20% or 50% of the fee for affordable housing but don't
provide a methodology on bow 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 Mat this structure is overly complicated and
confusing. Consequently, NAG has slms1fied the land use categories which eliminate factors
that override Me basic fee rate of a land use.
For example, under the current TUMF program, the highest TUMF rates are for convenience
markets and fart bad 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 10,001) square feet (sq. ft.), and that the
largest establishment not contain more Man 50 percent of Me floor area.
Under the new TUMF program, It proposed that the land use categories be simplified and
conaolldated. For example, convenience shares, restaurants and shopping centers are proposed
Draft NMF Nexus Ne fi
Math, n, solo
to be charged strictly as'ne iP 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 wo 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 (Cp) 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 Incal Development
Mitigation Fee.
APPENDIX A:
TPPS Projects Included in the TUMF
E
Appendix
TPPS Prc)acts Included and Somali From TMMF
Shear Name
Segment
Number
Segment DescriptionInduM
in Will"
(YealNO)
Yes No
MTHAVE
20A
Womley Rd to N Indian Canyon Or
No
IDTHAVE
20B
N Indian Canyon Or W I -He Momrge Rd(mlmin0 link)
Yes
MTHAVE
20C
Little Morl Rd to Palm Or( missing link)
Yes
20THAVE
20D
Palm Or to Mountain View NO
Yee
AVEM
44A
Ave 44 Br ILOw Water Xing
Yes
AVE 44
44B
Monroe Sr to Low Water Any
Yes
AVE 44
ME
Low Wage AN b Dillon Rd
Yea
AVE 48
4101
Jefferson St b Worsen 5t
No
Madiwn St to W side W PJLAmer. Call got Br. At
AVE 48
Me
No
PJ4Amer. Canal)
AVE 4B
ME
JeekNn St so van Buren At
Yes
AVE 48
ME
Van Buren St an W of SRI
Yea
AVE 48
48H
Grade Selemtlon W Hwy 1115PRR
Yes
AVEW
WA
Future Ave 50 SREBS IC
Yes
Washington St to E side or Br. at Evac. Chad (Ind. Br. at
AVEW
WB1
Evac Chat
Yes
AVEW
WC
Jefferson St b Medlson St (Ind. Br. at AlMmer. Cal
Yea
AVEW
WO
Mel St A Mmme St
Yes
AVEW
WE
Monona St to Jackson St
Yes
AVEW
WF
Jackson St to Van Sumn St
Yee
AVE 50
WG
Van Buren St M Harbor St
Yes
AVE 50
W12
Cartel Ed W S885S(lccl. Or at Wiiawebr Otlnl)
Yes
AVESO
And
Grace Selamtlon Hwy 11 Irl
Yea
AVEW
WK
SRI to I-101C
Yes
AVEW
WL
Bs et All Pmea Canal (in WK)
Yee
AVEW
WM
Future Ave 50 1-101C
Yee
Jefferson At W Medi$on At Fred Br. at AllAmp.
AVE52
me
Carey
Yee
AVEM
.SPO
More St to Jackson St
Yes
AVE52
ME
Jackson St to Calhoun St
Yee
AVEW
UF1
Calhoun St to Van Buren St
Yee
AVE 52
53F2
Van Buren St M Frederick St
Yes
AVEU
52G
Frederick St to Harem, St
Yes
AVEW
WH
I ntenerecn of Ave 52 and SRl
No
AVEM
MIA
Hanson St to Shady Ln
Yes
AVEU
US
Shady Ln tO Hwy 111
Yee
AVEU
UK
Future Ave 52 SRb5S IC
Yes
AVE 52
52L
Hwy, 111 to Sill III Br, M Whibwatar Chnp
Yes
AVEW
52M
SRd85 tO Fierce St
Yes
AVEM
54A
Van Buren St an Hammon St
Yes
AVEM
me
HarMm St to Tyler St
Yes
AVE 54
54C
Tyler St to Has 111
Yee
AVEWIAIRPORTBLVD
WB
More St to Jackson St
No
AVE 50 I AIRPORT BLVD
580
Jackson St to 0.25 miles W Ol Van Buren St
NO
AVESBIAIRPORTBLVB
5813
025 m. W of Van Buren St to Hanover St
NO
AVE SB I AIRPORT BLVD
WE
Harkin Beto Net St
No
AVEW/AIRPORT BLVD
WF
Tyler St to Polk St
No
AVE W I AIRPORT BLVD
WG
Polk St to Hi all 111(GmI✓ilruil BlM)
Yes
AVEWIAIRPORTBLVD
56I
SPRR to Si (Ind. Br. at Whilmnter(WHO
Yee
Appendix
TPPB Process Included and Excluded From TMMF
Slrwr Name SepmenL Segment Description InduI In Will"
Number D'ri
Yes No
SBTHAVE
Us
Jefferson St to FUeison St
No
MTHAVE
me
Madsen St to Monroe St
No
WTHAVE
SIC
Memo$ St W Jackson St
NO
S9THAVE
MID
Jackson St to Van Buren St
Yea
SBTHAVE
ME
Van Buren Bl to HeMson St
Yes
WTHAVE
MA
Future R kh Aug SREB IC
Yes
WTHAVE
Me
SBN Ave Br.Acw Water Xing
Yes
WITH AVE
BBC
Graces Wg on I may 1115PRR (Bodge)
Yes
BOB HOPE DR
III
Frank Sinatra Ores GBAId Ford Or
NO
BOB HOPE DR
Bir
Gerald Ford b Dlrsh Sane Or
No
BOB HOPE DR
Bill
Dinah More Or A Ramon Rd Commound only)
No
CA111EDFAL CYN DR
CTHCNI
Tenace Rd to E Palm Canyon Or
No
E Palm Canyon Or to N aka W Whiswffir Be. (Ind.
CA111EDRAL CYN DR
CTHCN2
Older Con Bi
Yes
CATHEDRAL CYN DR
CTHCNI
N aloe olwngewekr Dr. to Dinah shore Or
No
CATHEDRAL CYN DR
Chill
Dinah More Or to Ramon Rd
No
COOK ST(Icvr CHASE
CHSCI
-10 IC as Ramon Rd
Yea
SCHOOL RD)
COOK ST
CK6
Frank Sinetre Or W CWMry Club Or
Yes
COOK SIT
Cl
Country Club Or to N aloe of Waterman Bc
Yea
COOK ST
Cut
S side of Wbilewater Br to Fred Waring Or
Yes
COOK ST
CKI
Bc WWdllewa@r Cbnl
No
COUNTRY CLUB DR
CCI
Routinely Ave b PorWa Ave
No
COUNTRY CLUB DR
COE
Post Aw to Cook St
Yes
COUNTRY CLUB OR
we
Cook St to Eldorado Or
No
COUNTRY CLUB DR
CCT
Elderedo Or b Cook Club Or
No
COUNTRY CLUB DR
OCR
Oazla Club Or to WessnpM St
Yes
CROSSLEY RD I CALF CLUB DR
CROSLYI
Ramon Rd b Measure McCrea More Or
Yes
CROSSLEY RD I CALF CLUB DR
CROSLY2
Dinah Shore Dural its Ave b SIN Ave
Yes
CROSSLEY RD I CALF CLUB DR
CROi
Br. at Palm OR, Chnl
No
DA VPIL OR
DVALLI
Dinah mm, to Ramon Rd
No
DAVPJLOR
Doi
Ramon Rd b McCallum Way
No
DAVPLLDR
DVALLA
McCallum Way b Sate Ave
No
DA VPLL OR
DVALLI
Said Ave bl-101C )Inch B. over RR)
No
DA VALL OR
OVALtE
Future Do hall 1-10IC
Yea
DA VALL OR
DVALLO
1-101C b Varner Rd (Inch Bc M Long Can Chnp
Yes
DATE PALM OR
DPLk0A
Hwy 111 (E Palm Or DO to Gent Ford Or (Inch at
No
Calm. Cy, Br_. ,loamy W W Br)
DATT: PALM OR
OPLAIM
Ceram Ford Or to Dinah Some Or
No
DATE PALM DR
DPIJACC
Dinah Shore Or he Ramon Ra
No
DATE PALM OR
DPUAI
Ramon Rd to McCallum Way
No
DATE PALM OR
OPLN2
McCallum Way to IBN AW
No
DATE PALM OR
OPLTA3
Stan Ave b Vlata China
No
DILLON RD
01111
SRE2 b N Indian Canyon Or
Yes
DILLON RD
01142
Interseslion of Dillon Rd B N lndean Canyon Or
Yes
N Indian Canyon DIE, Palm DrllncL FutureBrat
DILLON RD
OLNS
Nelson Cr.)
yes
DILLON RD
OL1N
Interest of Dillon Rd B Palm Or
Yea
DILLON RD
OLNS
Pent Or to Mountain View Re
Yes
AppandixA
TIMES Pm U Included and Excluded From TVMF
Seamen
Industrial in Will"
Stmet Name
Number
SepmanlOuctlptlon
realNdg
Yes
No
DILLON RD
OLNB
Neutral Vale Rd to Banned Rd
Yee
Bernard Rtl to Thousand Palma Cyn Rd'Inel. Be Al
DILLON RD
OLN!
Wide Lyn Cmd)
No
DILLON RD
oLNS
Thmaend Prime Cyn Rd to Sunny Rock Rd
No
Sunny Rusk Rd to Ave 44 Uncl. Br. uverPlMmm.
DILLON RD
DWg
No
Carol
DILLON RD
D11110
Ave U to 1-101C
Yes
DILLON RD
0I3,11
I-101C to N side of Wbimander Or
No
DILLON RD
DLN12
Br. at Whi we rCbnl
Yes
DILLON RD
MN13
3 aka of Wbiawaler Bc to Hwy 111
Yes
DILLON RD
OLN14
Dillon Rd 1-101C
Yee
DILLON RD
OLN15
Dillon Rd SR 86SIC
Yes
DUNE PALMS RD
DUNEPI
Br. ar Whiawahr OM1nl
No
DUNE PALMS GO
OUNEP3
Highway 111 to Blackhawk Way hannerly Wesami
No
He
E PALM CYN DR
PLCN]
Palm Cyn Or to Burrow Way
No
E PAW CYN DR
PLCNB
Summus Wryto Famal Or
Yes
E PAW CYN DR
PLCN9
FanHI Dr to Gene Away To (Ind. Br. at Palm Din
Yes
Wash)
E PALM CYN DR
PLCN11A
CeMedml Canyon Or he Dare Palm Dr
Yes
E PAW CYN DR
PLCN11B
Data Palm Or to E Can City limk
Yee
FRANK SINATM DR
FEN
Mortlerey Ave to Paribas Ave
Yes
FRANK SINATRA DR
FEE
Former Ave to C00k St
No
FRANK SINATRA DR
EBB
Cook St or EldamW Dr
No
FRANK SINATRA, OR
FPS
Eldorado Dr to Tarnmak Get Dr
No
FRED WARING OR
FW1
Broke at Wassailer Earn
No
I ntaisedun of Gene Auto, Td and M use Ave
GENE AMY TR
GAT1A
Dinah shore Dr
No
GENEAL't
WTL
E Palm Cyan to Ei Way
Yea
GENE AMY TR
GAT213
III met Palm Canyon Wash
Yes
Nor Palm Canyon Wash Brdge to 0.16 mi souN of
GENEAVERVTR
GATM
No
Mepu d Ave
GENE AMY TR
GAT2D
010 m S 0r Wool Ave W Mrpuid Ave
No
GENEAL't
GAT2E
Mesquite Ave to Ramon Rd
Yea
GENE AMY TR
GAT21'
Ramon W call Way
No
GENE AMY TR
GAT2G
Encem Way to Von ChWo
No
GENE AMY TR
GAT3
Future Waterman Rvr Br
Yes
GERALD FORD OR
Gi
Cook St W Frank Grand Dr
No
GERAL➢FORD DR
GREG
IManetlbn of Gemld Fmd Grand Bob HOPe Dr
Yes
GOLF CENTER PKWY
GPKWyI
Golf Center Pli 1.101C
Yea
GOLF CENTER PKWY
GPKAI
Ave as W Hwy 111
Yes
GRPPEFRUN BLVD
GRPF1
Ave 08011cn Rd to A"M
Yes
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD
GRPF2
Ave 50b Ave 52
Yes
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD
GRPF3
Ave W to Ave 54
Yes
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD
GRPF6
Ave AT to Ave 50
No
HACIENDA AVE onmv RUBY
DR B I Hi
GR82 W N Inman Canyon Dr
Yea
HACIENDAAVE(mrrents 1Y1H
AV HAUB
N Indian Canyon Or W LXtle Manage Rd
Yes
HACIENDA AVE
III
Line Morl Rd to Cholla 0r
Yes
HACIENDA AVE
HAC18
Chair Or to Palm Or
Yes
HACIENDA AVE
HA@
Palm Or to Mountain View Rd
No
Adsorbed A
TPPB Prcdd r Included and Excluded Fmm TUMF
Segment
Included in Will"
Slrwr Name
Segment Description
(Vea111o)
Yes
No
HACIENDA AVE
HAC3
Mountain View Rd to Dillon Rd (Long CM Rah
NO
HARRISON ST
HARSNI
Grapefruit Blvd to Ave 52
Yes
HARRISON ST
HAREN2
Avg 52 to Avg 5M1
NO
HARRISON ST
HARSN3
Ave Sd to Ave M Rudest Blvd)
Yes
HIGHWAY74
HWYMA
Highway 111 to El Pane,
Yes
HIGHWAY74
HWY]OB
El Pemo to Mesa View Or
No
HIGHWAY74
HWW40
Mesa View Dr to S Palm Oxcart City Limits
NO
HIGHWAY III
HWY111F
Cook St to Eldmado Dr
Yes
HIGHWAY III
HWY111G
Eldorado G to Might Ave
Yes
HIGHWAY III
HWY111H
MIL Ave to Washington St encl. Br. Over Ocen Cho
Yes
CKnl)
INDIAN CYN DR
INCNt
Ramon Rd to TaM1cuR Can Way
Yes
INDIAN CYN DR
INON2
Tammuz Con Way W Al jo Rd
Yes
INDIAN CYN OR
INGN3
Nap Rd to T11heveM1 Or
Yes
INDIAN CYN DR
INON<
Tachever Or 0 Vista China
Yes
INDIAN CYN OR
INCNS
Vista Chino to Layout Club Rd
Yes
INDIAN CYN OR
INCNB
RacRi¢t Club Rd to Burins¢ Pkwe
No
INDIAN CYN DR
INCNT
Sunrise Pkwy W Gamt Avenue
Yes
INDIAN CYN OR
INCNB
Deader Ave to 20lb Ave
Yes
INDIAN CYN OR
INCN9
Sack Ave to 190 Ave
Yes
INDIAN CYN OR
INON10
Into Ave to Dillon Rd
Yes
INDIAN CYN DR
INCN11
Dillon Rd W Wth Ave
Yes
INDIAN CYN OR
INCN12
10M Ave to Pierson Blvd
Yes
Ramon BNd to Mission takes Blvd (Ind. Future Br.tl
INDIAN CYN OR
INCN13
Mission or.)
Yes
INDIAN CYN OR
INCNi<
Mission Lakes Blvd to RR-82
No
-10Interchange to Jefferson St (includes 2 redrmd
INDIO BLVD
INDIGO
Yes
badges)
INDIO BLVD
IND1O1
Jebreon St to Madison St (war NMmec Canal)
Yes
JACKSON ST
JACL.t
1-101C W 4 rd Ave
Yes
JACKSON ST
JibL
43N Ave to Ave 60
Yes
JACKSON ST
JAG
Ave iBN Ave 50
Yes
JACKSON ST
JAGS
Ave 50 W Ave 52
Yes
JACKSON ST
JAW
Jackson St 1-101C
Yes
JEFFERSON ST
JEF1A
intervention of Jeffenm St and Dunbar Or
No
JEFFERSON ST
JEF2A
SMh Ave to 62M Ale
Yes
JEFFERSON ST
JEFTA1
<Oto Ave to 027 ml S of Ave 39
Yes
JEFFERSON ST
JEF9B
Ave39AAve30
No
Shwa 0c to Vamer Rd(Incl. Aynver at 1-10 and
KEY LARGO AVE
KILL
Dinah
Yes
LANDAU BLVD
LAN1
sides Chino b Verma Rd
Yes
LANDAU BLVD
LAN2
Versus Rd b 1.10IC(Ind . Br over RR, hall link)
Yes
LANDAU BLVD
LAN3
Future Landau Blvd 110 IF (missing link)
Yes
LANDAU BLVD
LAN<
1-101C to Varner Rd (missing link)
Yes
LITTLE MORONGI RD
(M1
M(esion Lakes Blvd to Parson BM
No
MTTLE MORONGO RD
W2
Ramon BNd W Two Bunch Palms Tri
Yes
LITTLE MORONGI RD
W3
Two Bunch Palm Trl to Dillon Rd (Ind. Future 6.t
Yes
Mission Cr)
LITLE MORONGI RD
W4
Dillon Rd to 20th Ave
Yes
MINDISON ST
M4D5
Ave 52 W Ave 50
Yes
AppandixA
TPPB Produce; Included and Excluded Front TBMF
Seammt
InduMd N Will"Numbe.
SOwr Name
SepmenlOuctlptlon
ff"011
Yes
No
MADISON ST
MADI
0.25m N of Ave 09 to Ave CS
Yee
Will ST
Mal
Ave GS to Her 111
Yes
MADISON ST
MAD9
Miles Aveb Fred Wambi Orllncl. Br.overdidi
Yes
and NMmer. Carrel, moving link)
MISSION LAKES BLVD
MSLKO
SR fit to Indian Canyon Or
Yes
MISSION LIKES BLVD
MSLK1
N Indian Canyon Or to Lice Mmorga Rd
No
MISSION LAKES BLVD
MSLK2
Lima Mori Rd to Palm Or
No
MISSION LAKES BLVD
MBLK3
Palm Or to E9awm Terminus at VBNBN Or
No
MONROEST
MON1
025M N of Ave 42 to Me 02
Yea
MONROEST
MON6
Manme St 1-101C
Yes
MONROEST
MON!
Ave 54 A 53N Ave
No
MONROEST
MONflA
58NAWWAVOW
No
MONROEST
MONBB
Asa W to 62M Ave
No
MONROEST
MON9
-101mr,,h a t09M It N 0 Calendar
Yes
MONTEREYAVE
MNT1-0
Highway 111 to Fred Waring Or
Yea
MCNTERE'l
fill
Fred Waring Or to Clanry Lana (ind. Be at Milawi
Yes
River)
MCNTEREYAVE
MNI
Clanry lane W Counlry Club Or
Yes
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD
Mry0
Pierson Blvd at E TemAnl of Deal View Ase to
No
Hariands Ave
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD
at
Hal Ave b Brunner Ln
Yes
MOUNTAIN VIM RD
MN1B
Brunner IT to Dillon Rd
Yes
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD
MN2
Dillon Rd to 20th Ave
No
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD
Mi
20N Asa to Vamer Rd
NO
N PALM CYN OR
PLCNI
View China w TeTeve, Or
No
N PALM CYN OR
PLCN2
Tachevah Or A All Rd
No
N PALM Cl DR
PLCN3
All Rd to Tahyuih Can Rd
Yes
N Pi CYN DR
PLCNA
Tenets Con Rd to Ramm Rd
Yes
N Pi CYN OR
PLCNS
Ramon Rd W Must Ave (Ind. Br at Ta)pui¢ Crk.)
Yes
N PALM CYN OR
PLCN6
MesyuN Ave to E Palm Dan Or
Yes
PALM OR
PDT
1-101C ad Varner Rd
Yea
PALM DR
PD2
Vamer Rd to Min Ave
No
PALM OR
PD3
201h Ave b Dillon Rd
Yes
PALM DR
POP
Dillon Rd LO Two Bunch Palms Td
Yes
Pi Oft
PD5
Two Bunch Palms Td W Hacienda Ave
No
PALM OR
P0P
HarieMa Asa to Pierson Blvd
No
PALM OR
PW
Plenon Blvd to MLvkn Laces Bivtl
Yea
PIERSON BLVD
PR51
SRAR to N Indian Canon Or
No
N Indian Canon Or to Uda Mmorga Rd (Ind. Sr. a1
PIERSON BLVD
PR52
No
Mlsdon Ci
PIERSON BLVD
Poll
Lima Mpdryp Rd ad Cholo Or
No
PIERSON BLVD
PR53B
Chain Or to Palm Or
No
PIERSON BLVD
Pm4A
Palm Or to Miracle Hill Rd
No
PIERSON BLVD
PREPS
Muscle Hill Rd to Eetem Terminus N Deresd Naw Av.
No
POLK ST
PLK1
Pick St fmm Ave 52 to Ave AB
Yes
PORTOLAAVE
P0R1
Her 111 W Magnesia Falls On
Yes
PORTOLAAVE
pOR2
Mail Fells Or do CwMry Club Or LEW. Br. a1
No
WhNwartaii
PORTOLA AVE
POR3
Country Club M to Frank Binal Or
Yes
PCRTOLAAVE
PCRM
Frank Sinatm Orb Julie On
Yes
AppandixA
TPPB Pra)acb Included and Ess uch ad Front TMMF
Sapmanl
Induced N Will"
Sbaer Name
Number
Segment Description
Col
Yea
No
PORTOLkAVE
PORSB
Dinah Shope DIM 1-1010(Ind. Br. own RR)
Yee
PORTOIAAVE
PORO
Future Panels Aw 1-101C
Yes
RAMCN RD
RAM1
8 Palm Chino Or to G Indian Cys Or
Yea
MMON RD
Rodw
S Indian CHI to Sundae Way (last. Bedab Storm Cbnl
Yea
And)
FUMON RD
RAM3
Seem Wayb Famll Or
Yee
RPMON RD
RAMA
Intercession of Ramon Rd and Summer Way
Yes
RAMON RD
Rot
Formal Or b El CIBIO Rd
Yea
RAMON RD
mat
Intersecom of Ramon Rd eM Famell Drive
Yea
RAMON RD
HAMS
El CIrld Rd to Crime Al Td
Yes
RAMON RD
RAM5A
IntaimcWn of Ramon Rd also Cuaky Rd
Yes
RAMON RD
RAM!
Br. a1 Whibwabr Rvr
Yee
MMCN RD
MM15
commonly Aw to TFcuund Palms Cyn Rd
No
3VALLEYPINN/AVEBO
Ski
MOnme St W JeebOn 51
Yea
SVALLEYPI(WY/AVESO
SV2
Jackson St to Van Buren St
Yea
SVALLEYPIDN"Ito ESO
SV3
Van Buren St to Hll St
Yes
S VALLEY Pir
SVO
Hann St to Tiber St (missing link)
Yes
S VALLEY PKWY
SV5
Tiber St to Polk St (mining link)
Yee
S VALLEY Pli I BOND AVE
SV5
Polk St Uo Rlmor St
No
S VALLEY Fill IWND AVE
Ron
Fillol St to Pierce St (Ind Br at WhImmater Chad)
NO
S VALLEY PI(WY 162NO AVE
SVB
Name St in SRAS
Yea
S VALLEY PNWY/BOND AVE
SVg
Real Ave fit SRA81C
Yes
THOUSAND PALMS CYN RD
1RHPL1
Ramon Rd an Dillon Rd
Yes
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR I IITH
AVE
TBP1
N Indian Canyon Or to LXtle Momrgo Rd
Yes
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR
TBM
U fie Mamryp Rd to Prim Or
Yea
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR
TINS
Pelm Or to Miracle Hill Rd
Yes
TYLER ST
TVL1
Aw 50b1-10 froMegs head
Yes
VAN BUREN ST
VANB2
Aw UWAWW
Yee
VAN BUREN ST
VANB3
Aw W to Aw 52
Yes
VAN BUREN ST
VANB<
Aw W to Aw 54
NO
VAN BUREN ST
VANBS
Ave54b Ave5&A2gM Did
Yea
VARNER RD
VRNRB
20M Ave to Prim Or
Yes
VARNER RD
VRNR1
Palm Drb Mountainos Rd
Yes
VARNER RD
VRNR2
Moral Views Rd to Data Palm Or
Yee
VPRNER RD
VRNR3
Data Pam Or to Raman Rtl
Yes
VARNER RD
VRNRB
MOmemyA rm Ckl
NO
VARNER RD
VRNRTB
Ave 39 to Washington M
Yea
VARNER RD I AVE 62
VRNR9
Jefferson St he, Mammon St OrcL Br mnrPl4Airec
Yes
Care)
VARNER RD I AVE 42
VRNRIOA
Madison St to Clinics St
No
VARNER RD I AVE 62
VRNRIOB
Cifir"Sib MOmre SI
Yes
VARNER RD I AVE@
VRNRII
Manme Sib Gme Sf
Yea
VISTACHINO
VC1
N Palm Canyon Otive to Sundm Way
Yes
VISTACHINO
Vi
I nbimckon of Vieb Chino and N Palm Canyon Or
Yes
VISTACHINO
VC2
Sundae Wayb G@aAuby Td
Yee
VISTACHINO
VC2M
Inamecton of Visb Chino and Sunree Way
Yes
VISTACHINO
VC B
I ntaraeckn M Mate Chino and Famell Omar
Yes
VISTACHINO
VC
I merxclbn M Vlsla Chino and Gene Awry Ind
Yea
VISTACHINO
VC3
Card Autry Th to W side of WhllexeM Ran
Yes
Appendix
TPPS Prclecb Included and Social From TMMF
Sepmeal
Included in Will"Numbe.
Smi Name
Segment Oaac.lpeon
Domain)
Yes No
VISTACHINO
VG
Future Wease ler Nor Br.
Yee
VISTACHINO
VC5
E side of Whismacer Rvr to Landau Savd
No
VISTACHINO
VCT
Data Pan Or W One Veil d
Yes
WASHINGTON ST
WSH9
1-101C to Ave 38
Yea
WASHINGTON ST
WSH10A
AWMIn Copte Bmg Way
No
WASHINGTON ST
WSH108
Coined Sant Way b Ramon Rd
No
WORSLEVRO
WORST
RON Ave W Oilon Rd
No
WORSLEYRO
WORSO
Dillon Rd W l mile S of Pierson Blvd
No
WORSLEYRO
WOR53
i mile S U PiemeOn BXd W Pl9%n BIM
No
WORSLEYRO
WORM
Marvin BINd to N Indian Canyon Or
Yea
APPENDIX B:
Detailed TUMF Project Cost Estimates
E
AppemM1 M
List of Coate for Pro)Wb Considered! In TUMF
Street Name
SnagantinBert
Segment DescriptionNum
Pm)M Coat
ID HAVE
20
N Indian Carryon Or to UWa Mossuo Rd (missing link)
$11.208.000
N HAVE
20C
LMW M1bmrgo Rau W Palm Or mil link)
315,974,400
20TH AVE
200
Palm Or to Moumeln Vier Rd
$7,030,800
AVE 44
"A
Ave 44 BCILwI Water Ang
$14,313,000
AVE"
44B
Monme Stb Loa Wafer Y'rg
$7,411,950
AVE"
44C
Low WaLL.Gng M Dillon Rd
$12,W8,250
AVE 48
48E
Jackson St W Van Buren St
$5,315,970
AVE 48
48F
Van Buren St U, W W SRdB
$2275,088
AVE 48
48H
Grede Sorenson at Had, 11 15PRR
$22,011,480
AVEW
WA
Future Ave SO SR-86S IC
$55.222.500
AVEW
SOB1
Washington Stto E side of Br. as Ever, Chat(Incl. Br. as
$811990180
Evil Cbnp
AVEW
50C
JeRemon 5t to Merfil St Brcl Br. at AlLAmer. Caney
$7.131 I05
AVE SO
WO
Matllson Stw Mmrm St
114,977A80
AVE SO
WE
Monroe St to Jackson 3t
$2,304,030
AVE SO
50F
Jackson in W Van Buren 5t
$12.084,000
AVEW
WC
Van Buren SA W Hamflm St
$1i
AVE SO
5012
Cabi Rd b 3REG4(Ind Br. as Wbiseatter Cbnl)
$313561880
AVE SO
501
Grade Sepenlbn Hwy 1111SPRR
$2EW7800
AVE W
50K
SR 88S W I-101C
145,11,7.600
AVE W
50L
Br. at AN Amer. Canal (in "1
$3,952,320
AVE W
50M
Future Ave W 1-101C
W$667,500
AVE 52
526
Jefferson St to MaI S4(Bad. Br at AlLPmer, Canal)
$2,O75.940
AVE 52
520
Monroe St W Jackson Ss
$411951800
AVE 52
52E
Jackson St W Calrom St
$2.M.I00
AVE 52
52E
Calhoun St W Van Buren Ss
$2,699A00
AVE 52
52F2
Van Buren St W Fraderck St
$4,689,300
AVE 52
52G
Fmdedd St W Hardson St
$811901104
AVE 52
521A
Hanson St W Shady Ln
$13,286.328
AVE 52
521B
Slay Ln W May 111
$116R,900
AVE 52
52K
Future Ave 52 Sol IC
$53]82,500
AVE 52
52L
Hwy I II to SR 86S(Ind. Br at Whitewater Chat
$22,530.194
AVE 52
52M
SR-86S W Paul St
$20,556,880
AVE 54
AM,
Van Buren St W Henson St
$4]94,900
AVE 54
US
Hanson St W Tyler St
14,51K.300
AVE 54
&C
TNer9W Hwy, 111
$6,380,750
AVE SSI AIRPORT BLVD
58G
Polk St W HU" 111(GmpetnB BIM)
$1,155,714
AVE SS I AIRPORT BLVD
501
SPRRto SR-86(Ind. Br. at Whilervater CBnl)
$13.329.000
BOTH AVE
END
Jackson St W Van Buren Ss
$41583,040
SBTH AVE
58E
Van Buren St W Henson St
$4,583,040
66TH AVE
66A
Future 86N Ave SRA01C
1rdu .500
661 AVE
BBB
Man Ave Br M1cw Water Gn9
$2826,860
66TH AVE
66C
Gnde Robertson at Hwy 11 15PRR(Bill
$48,044,000
CATHEDRAL CTN OR
CTHCN2
EPalm Canyon Or W N side of Wbfteamer Br.(IrcA. Cam
$4.815.850
Cm Br.)
COOK ST(Brands CHASE
CHSC1
I-m IC to Ramon Rd
$25,501,800
SCHOOL RD)
COOKST
CK4
Frank Sinatra Or W County Club Or
$3.991
COOKST
CK5
Coal Club Or W N sets of Wailewaser Br.
56,22B,320
APpemtr M
List of Coate Id PrOhWb COMIderM In TUMF
Street Name
Number
Segment presentation
Project Coeb
COOK ST
CKfi
SOde W Winless@r Bc to Fred Waring Or
$1,212,030
COUNTRY CLUB DR
CC5
PONda Aye b Coal St
$3.714.400
COUNTRY CLUB DR
CCII
Oasis Club Or to Washington St
$3,812,300
CYRp/GOLF
CROSLYI
Reason RE by postal AvesUlnth From Or
$2,2A9,800
CLUB DR
LUBSL
CYRD/WLF
CR0SLY2
Dinah Shore Doornail Ave to Spin Aye
52,920.100
CLUBLUB DR
DR
OA VALL OR
OVFllS
Future 01C
DILLON DR
DVALDLNI
to ismer Long Cyn CM1np
IC bN
$24,801,500
DILLON RD
OLN1
SR-621-10
SR-621a N IMlan Lanyxn
Indian Canyon Or
129,T53.800
f29,522,800
RO
OLN2
I Caof N Indian Br
$95,500
DILLON
DILLON RD
OLN3
Indian reerOnREBN Or(InCenyne
CrNEian Career Or to Palm Or (Ind Fortune BCMMissbn
f12,�2.699
DILLON RD
OLN4
Intersection of Dillon M B Palm Or
$956,500
DILLON RD
OLNS
Palm Dr IO MJYrbin Vlev RE
$5.353,920
DILLON RD
OLNB
Mountain View Rtl to Bennet Rd
511,495.700
DILLON RD
OLN10
Ave 44 to I-10IC
59,4rra"M
DILLON RD
O1N12
Br al W6lleaaq@r C6nl
$1,487,125
DILLON RD
OUTS
S Ode of Whitewabr Br. to Has 111
54.062.850
DILLON RD
OLN14
Dillon Rtl 1-10IC
$18,150,000
DILLON RD
OtN15
BIIMn RE SR-865IC
$15,3W,000
E PALM OYN DR
PLCNB
Suns Way Farrell Or
1I,531.200
E PALM CYN DR
PLCN9
Farrell Or to Gene Army TK find. Br. at Palm Cyn Wash)
$7,n5,600
E PALM CYN OR
PLCNIIA
Console Canyon Br to Oata Palm Or
$2,1O,000
E PALM OYN DR
PLONIIB
Date Palm Or to E Cab City Honda
52,483.800
FRANK SINATRA DR
FS6
Monterey Ave to Ponola Ave
114,751
GENEAUFRYTR
GAT2A
E Palm Lyn to Eegle Way
$61,I50
GENEAUTRYTR
Gi
Ergo over Palm Canyon Walsh
18.655.700
GENEAUTRYTR
GAVE
Museum Aye to Reason Rd
$9117,600
GENEAUFRYTR
GAT3
FNUre WMleaoler Per Br.
$233,900,000
GERALD FORD DR
GFD5
Indentation M Gamin Ford Or and Bob Hope Or
1I.M.332
GOLF CENTER Pi
GPKWVI
Got Carl Fly" 1-10IC
$19,481,100
GOLF CENTER PKWY
GPKWY4
Ave 45 to Hay 111
$2,725,800
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD
Gl
Ave 4811 Rd b Ave SO
14.978.000
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD
GRPF2
Ave50b Ave52
f1$157,200
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD
GRPF3
Ave 52 to Ave 54
$12,7Y1,500
AVE VRUBY
HACOA
SR82 b N Indian Canyon Or
S34.S38.000
DR and ES RADA
DR
IENDAA4DAAVE)
HACIENOAAVE (npw 131111
HACOB
N Indian Canyon Or to Land lateral Rd
$12,593,040
AVE)
HACIENDAAVE
HAC1A
b LM1dla Or
HACIENDA AVE
HAC113
OrtoPRtl
LM1dla Dr b Palm Or
Chula Or
12,61.280
S2,C53,200
HARRISON ST
HARSNI
to Ave52
$3.622,200
HARRISON
HARSN3
Ave 51tH ve56 Blvtl)
Avenny AI
S9Wp,080
HIGHWAY 24
HWY74AIII
to ElPerson
1Or
HIGHWAY
F
Cal Silo Eldoradodando Or
St to
.557,2d0
$3,532.800
HIGHWAY III
trio
HWY111G
Ear Or b Miles Ave
N,92A.000
III
H
Miles Ave St r. Over Deep Cyn CM1nl)
Miles Aveb
INDIANHIGHWAY
INDNNCYNDR
ND
INCINI
INCN2
Ramon TelM1in9bn
nWay
Way
ay
ISM7,600
$5842.800
INDIAN CYN DR
INCN3
Cyn to Aeyn
Lyn Way to Nr Rd
52,123,550
INDNNCYNDR
INCN3
All
Alelo Rd to TacMvaM1 Dr
12,363,200
Appendix B
List of Coats Id ProjWb COMIJerM In TUMF
Street Name
M mNert
Sepment Description
Pm)M Count;
INOOW CYN OR
INCN4
Tanfevan Or to Vlffi China
11,463,550
INDWN CYN DR
INCNS
VIab China to Racquad club Rd
51.440.900
INDWN CYN DR
WONT
Burnes PkvryroIrmet Avenue
1204,099,790
INOLW CYN OR
INCN9
20th Ave b 19M Ave
11]22,000
INDWN CYN OR
INCN10
19th Ave b Dillon RE
17,379,840
INDWN CYN OR
INCN11
Dillon Rd to 1401 Ave
$5,510,000
INOLW CYN OR
INCN12
14b Ave to Pioneer Blvd
14191
INDWN CYN OR
INCN13
Pierson BW to Nissan Lakin BM (Incl. Future Br. at
50,M,eoo
MMsbn Cr)
INDIO BLVD
INDIGO
1-101Merclarge to Jelfersor St (Includes 2 Rnewd bridges)
121,666,720
INDIO BLVD
INDI01
Jelfereon St to abandon St beer All canal)
52.9M195
JACKSON ST
JAC2A1
1-101C b 43rd Ave
$17,915,106
JACKSON ST
JAC2
43M Ave In Ave44
110,961,500
.WCKSON ST
JAG
Ay" b Ave
$5.615.280
JACKSON ST
JACS
Ave50toAve52
12047,650
JACKSON ST
JACB
Jackson St 1-101C
F19,826,100
JEFFERSON ST
JEFZA
58b Ave to 82N Ave
$13.518.000
JEFFERSON ST
JEF9A1
40b Ave W 0.27 mi S of Ave 39
$11011,840
KEYLARGOAVE
art
Dinah Shors Or In Vender Rd (l im.0yaver at 1-10 and RR)
F23,868,000
IPNDAU BLVD
IANi
VIM IJMm to Vemns Rd
1832.000
LANDAU BLVD
IAN2
Varner Rd to 1-10 IC (Ind. Br. aver RR, missing link)
SISM1000
LANDAU BLVD
LAN3
FUWrs Landau BW 1-101C tmemng link)
F71,647,500
IPNDAU BLVD
LANK
1-101C b Vemer Rd mussing link)
$22.614.400
LITTLE MORI RD
LM2
Plermn BW W Tern Bunch Palms Till
114,506,240
LITTLE MORONGO RD
LM3
Teo Bunch Palms Tall to mean Rd (Ind FYWR Br at MIYbn
614,539,120
LITTLE MORONGO RD
LAW
Dilbn Rd to 20M Ave
919,768.320
MADISON ST
MADE
Ave 52 to Ave
961606,460
MADISON ST
MADTA
025 ml N M Ave 49 W Ave 48
5598,920
MADISON ST
MAJORS
Ave 48 to Hwy 111
$1,451
MADISON ST
MAD9
MIIesAve MFinal Waring Or (Ind. Br. over WW Chat and At-
p18,607,200
Amer. Canal, missing link)
MISSION W(ES BLVD
MSU(0
8R 62 W Indian Canymn Or
529.315.840
MONROEST
MON1
025 mi N of Ave 42 W Ave 42
$1,754,280
MONROEST
MON6
Monroe 3t 1-101C
F2,4LU,000
MONROEST
MON9
1-101Mmcherga to 900 ft N 0 Oleander
$15.467.750
MONTEREYAVE
MNT1-6
Highway 111 to Fred Waring Or
$11240,800
MONTEREYAVE
MI
Fred Waned Or In Gency Lane (Ind. Br. at Weekender Never)
$13,247,266
MONTEREYAVE
MNTM
Clanq Lane W Country Club Or
53,557.378
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD
MVIA
Hacienda Ave M Bonner Ln
114,016,160
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD
MN13
Brunner Ln W Dillon Rd
lzrm o
NPAIMCYNDR
PLON3
AIajo Rd to Tahquit Cyn Rd
11,182.150
N PALM CYN OR
BLOW
Tahguik Cyn Rd M Ramon Rd
$1,310,050
N PALM CYN DR
PLCNS
Ramon Rd W MpgYBe Ave (Inc! Be at Tahquft Cases)
$S47, 40
NPAIMCYNDR
PLON6
Mmquite Ave to E Palm Cyn Or
51,436.200
PALM DR
PD1
1-101C b Vander Rd
14,024,416
PALM OR
PO3
201h Ave b Dillon Rd
S7,7W,256
PALM DR
PD4
Onion Rd W Tea Bunch Palms Tat
Si359A84
Appeal B
List of Code for Projects Considered] In TUMF
Street Name Segment Sagment Descill
Number Pm)M Coats
PALM OR
PW
Former BM m Watbn lake BM
14,241,952
POLK ST
PURA
Pdk St from Ave 52 W Ave 48
$19.754.280
PORTOIA AVE
POR1
Hwy I I I to Magnesia Falls Or
$5,638,410
PORTOIA AVE
MR3
Country Cl an Or to Fronk Slnelm Or
14,180,000
PORTOIA AVE
PORT
Frank Sinatra Or to Julie Ln
$2.606.400
PORTOIA AVE
FORMS
Dinah Show Or W 1-101C(I A. Br. over RR)
$23.M,500
PORTOIA AVE
PORE
Fail Pablo Ave 1-101C
171,60,500
FPMON RD
RAM1
S Palm Cyn Or W S IMIan Cyn Or
$31`2.240
RAMONRD
RAM2
S IMIan Can W Sundw Way (Ind. BariW Sturm Chad AN)
$41219,950
RPMON RD
PASS
Sunnee Way in Formal Or
$2,5w,880
FPMON RD
RAMN
IrAersectlm M Rartun Rd and Sundae Way
$1.01.947
RAMONRD
RAM4
Farmll Or to El Cieb Rd
$1,717,600
RPMON RD
HAMRA
IMersecEm W Reason Rd] and Fend Gave
$957,1]]
FAMON RD
RAMS
El Cieb Rd W C»ne Auhy, M
$8.387,900
RAMONRD
RAMSA
Inbreechad Ramon REamiCnual Rtl
$1,01,047
RPMON RD
FAST
Br at WNteaa@r Rm
$24,864,323
S VALLEY PONY I AVE 60
SVi
Mon roe St W Jackson St
14.494,240
S VALLEY I'll I AVE 60
SV2
Jackson St W Van Buren IN
114,741,440
S VALLEY PKWY J AVE 60
SW
Van Buren St b Human St
15126BAW
S VALLEY PONY
SA
Hoff Dan St W Tyler$I(dealing link)
$9.583,600
S VALLEY I'll
EVE
Tyler St to Polk St)miaeirg link)
$10,562.080
S VALLEY PKWY J 62NO
SVB
Place St to SRd6
$3,892,200
AVE
S VALLEY I'll 162ND
EVE
Future Ave 62 SR-8810
5485511.500
AVE
THOUSANO PALMS CYN
11HPL1
Raman Rd to Dillon Rd]
117,252,840
RD
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR/
TERI
N Indian Carman Or to Due Momnga Rd
$12,522.240
14TH AVE
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR
TEES
Rdb Palm Or
$422,580
TWOBUNCHHPALMS TR
TBP3
Dto110MiradaHIII Rd
Penn Or
S1.2TB,TBT
Ave hun TarmC
Ave
f$3,519,000
VAN BUREN ST
VAN R
VAINTYL
VANB2
Ave Ave Bill
48m Ave Bill
VAN BUREN ST
VANES
s Wto Ave 52
Ave
14.69g,R00
N.890.000
VAN REN
VANES
4W
Ave Blvd
AvePalm
RNE RDSL
VARNER RD
VRNRI
OrryrI
Ave Pam Or
20,249,600
f2Q24g,fi00
VARNERRD
VRNR1
Palm Or
Palm Oro aaln View Rtl
S8,W6,000
VARNERRD
VRNR2
View
View
f125U5,200
VARNER RD
VRNR3
Date Palm Ramon RPalmG
Date POlm Or RamonRd
9,880
VARNERRD
VRNRTB
Ave 390 WaeMtglm St
11I.
5$9,293.450
VARNERRD/AVE42
VRNR9
bM14Nkon 51 (Inns Bs overAll-Arrer. Carel)
f5,5M,400
VARNERRD/AVE42
VRNRIOB
Clumarn W
Cliam $tb Monroe Be
14,962,640
VATACHIN/AVE42
VC1
Monroe St
$
VISTACHINO
V01
CaWGole
NPalm Canyon DMebanrie Way
EM,424
55,25B,420
VISTACHINO
VC1A
IMeree and NPelm Cerrymn Or
$W1,150
VISTACHINO
VC2
WwWGeCam
6 Tway Ttl
VISTACHINO
VOYW
ervicWayWOam
Inlememorn a Yam China and Way
$1.0M.080
S$967,54]
VISTACHINO
VC2Pl3
Full
I nlereectim a Yale China and Fenell
1.014,039
VISTACHINO
VC3A
May
CMmaMOamlway Ttl
N,1114,039
VISTACHINO
VC3
Genenereadman
way TH W W
Gene Away TtlW WONe Of WllilevOmr Ron
f111851800
Appeal M
List of Coate for Projects COMIMrM In TMMF
Street Name M mEvownt Segment Description Pml.n coos
VISTACHINO
VG
Fall WMleaanr Ra 9c
F9e]01.010
VISTACHINO
VCT
Dale Palm Or to Ca Vaal Or
$30.1M.000
WASHINGTONST
WSH9
I-10IC b Ave 39
fiQ55,P00
WORSLEY RO
WORS4
Pleeon Rival to N lMlan Canyon Or
F11�_800
Tend u.505.9®.500
F.V YM[tlal Igill bd
E1UDIllaimcom
FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2025
A-2
ITEM TH
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
Executive Committee
ApH129, 3023
STAFF REPORT
Subjeel: TUMF Inflation Adjustment for Calendar Year 2025
Contact Peter Satin, Conservation Pmgram Manager (psatin(rucva om)
Recommendation: Adopt a 3.6yercenl increase in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
(TUMF) rates to take effect January 1, 2025, and update the TUMF Handbook to reflect the
revised fee upon its effective data
Transportation Committee: Concurred (Meeting of April 1)
Backaroun : The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) was established in 1989 as a
one-time impact fee charged on all new development occurring within the CVAG region. Monies
collected through the TUMF program are applied to transportation -related capital facilities and
infrastructure required to serve new growth within the Coachella Valley and are intended to
compliment revenue generated! through Riverside Countys Measure A sales tax. T9 date, TUMF
has provided less than the intended share of match toward Measure A funding.
The current TUMF rates were adopted In 2018 upon the completion of a revised Nexus Study,
Transportation Project Prioritization Study, Regional Arterial Cost Fstimam, and Active
Transportation Plan. Prior to their adoption, the fee had remained unchanged at $1921trip for over
a decade. The 2018 Nexus Study originally proposetl a revised fee of $751 dip; however, this fee
as reduced to the cunenl $265Itrip after re-evaluating which regional transportation projects
would likely be built in the near -tens. This rate equates to $2,313 for a single-family dwelling, as
compared to the $10,104 currently charged by Western Riverside Council of Governments for
similar development.
The 2018 TUMF Handbook allows for tie consideration of an annual inflation adjustment
The inflation fecfar shall be Me same one utilized by the Coachella Valley Local
Development Mitigation Fee, based on the RiversMo-San Bemardlno-Onlarlo Consumer
Price Index (CPI). Such CPI will bra reviewed annually by the Executive Committee which
will determine "other or not to apply the in0afion factor.
The Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) Inflation factor a calculated on the CPI for All
Urban Consumers (CPI-U), Al items, as the over -the -year percent change, measured as of
December in the calendar year which ends in the previous fiscal year. The Riverside -San
Bernardino -Ontario CPI is measured every other month, and does not indude data for the month
of December. To approximate a data point for an unrecorded month, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) recommends taking tie square root of Me product of the indexes for tie preceding
and subsequent months, in this case November and January. This approximated December data
point can then be used to calculate the over -the -year percent change.
Applying regular increases due to inflation is a preferred approach W infrequent increases to catch
up over time. An inflation factor of 7.4-percent was applied across each of CVAG's TUMF
categories by the ariculive Committee at its April 2023 meeting. In accordance with California's
Mitigation Fee Act, and to allow memberjunsdictions time W update their local TUMF ordinances
as needed, Implementation of the inflation factor did not go Into effect until January 1, 2024.
The CPI-U, All items for the Riverside -San Bernardino-Ontano metropolitan area rose by 3.58-
peroent for calendar year 2023. BLS notes that some entities choose to calculate "core' inflation
on Me CPI-U, less food and energy (the latter of which includes motor fuel), as Mesa items tend
to be mare volatile in their pricing. Removing these volatile items from the regional CPI results in
an inflation factor of 4.72-percent, largely due to reductions in the price of fuel and other energy
sources. CVAG staff recommend applying the CPI-U, All items Irdlation factor of 3.58-percent W
the current No assessments, as described In Me below table.
IVursing/congregate care
Trsnsit oriented single Family
Office
Industrial
Fuel - gas (per dispensing unit)
Fuel - electric (perdispensing unit)
Hotel (per room)
Golf course (per acre)
$2,740
$2,810
$100
$1,580
$1,635
$55
$585
$805
$20
$2,330
$2,415
$85
$1,345
$1,395
$50
$7,130
$2,385
$255
$2,835
$2,935
$100
$1,440
$1,490
$50
$10,220
$11l
$365
$105
$110
$5
$4.165
$4,315
$150
$1,090
$111"
$40
The revised rates would be implemented January 1, 2025 so Mat member jurisdictions will have
sufficient time W amend local ordinances. The rates listed in the TUMF Handbook will also be
updated at that fime W reflect Me adjustment -
This Information was provided to the Desert Valleys Builders Association (DVBA) for comment on
March 8, 2024. They have submitted a letter (attached) ini icefing support for a 'herdic,
systematic, and standard increase."
Fiscal Analysis: Bassoon TUMF revenues generated in fiscal year2022-2023, adjusting current
TUMF rates based on the CPI-U, All Hems inflation rate of 3.56-percent would result in additional
revenue of $275,7I4.
Revising the TUMF Handbook will have no fiscal impact.
Attachments: DVBA comment letter dated March 21, 2023
_%It
BA
desert volleys builders osuaiation
Fa a
Pool hiaawy'
PMAAa,erd.ma
L <Pml Pneilu( Tord
Toaalloda March 21, 2024
Aamcmimn Pmaor
caaaole magma Coachella Valley Association at Governments
lmACE
Wsose HRSIUBM Tom k Executive Director
Dubow Deign m,op. Inns c/o Peter Satin, Conservation Program Manager
SFCRETAR`P?RPOR/'u 74-199 El Pasco, Suite 100
PMm Rircon
Ooboac RlnocnUM Palm Desert, CA M60
PILE PRRSIORM
OFASSo0Ar6r Re: AnnmeI TUMFILeport TllMF
Arm Lime
mmLevin@Ae Ins
cIv liKERCUTIVE OFPnis Dear Mr. Khk:
aercnmcneo�a
you for Providing the Desert Valleys Builders Association taw
Flctl 3eI1,2014 PACCbNmmn
operearNNty t0 review the Coachella Valley Association of GOTemmgR's
Bmnme<�somann.
"AnrmN Inflation Alarmism? to the TTIMF Fee." The DVBA supports Om
Pon Plenum! Construction,
local agencies' periodic, systematic, end standard increase of costs based on
Mark Ben.aem
recopized traditional methods such as Bmeou Of Leber Statistics
Main G[nvlu-Prvslaens Cornell
Commuter Price Indian.
GIW Companies
Inn kl"M-PfclMnts Cwo.il
lerany Rom
The Desert Valleys Builders Association is satisfied then CVAG has met it
Asm emieme Band of
C.Anilla tMien[
obligations in its noticing aad adherence to the Mitigation Pee Act in
pavouppm
calculating; areasonable fee increase.
Lipp en ConsrtuGi[n. tn[
ernes Maize
Ort n Poilae
ely
'IC
Rm MWn
IAslon sp.ingwem
Dims
G en Gutieau
CintM ldeeeney
Swlhem Cellloml[ Go, Compmy
Chief ecutive (Bicer
Om Gllvier
shunts Mueller Galvin,
Alm Pm
Pnm Gmsclorom
Kevin Pillow
PS Ai,M farm
John Powell. Jr.
Comhella We Wise DlNrt
Phi SmiN-P,widmn Cmmil
suvlx Cmmleny
Minoan,
Fidelity Nroonal Title
Itl[ Walo'bm6a-PmWeve Guncil
Wanowc rConsW[lim
Mcbelle Witbmrpmn
MPA Cowoku'g
34360 Garevmy Drive • Palm Desert • CA 92211
)760) 776-7001 office a (760) 776-7002 fax
wmw.TheDVBA.oS
F.VYM[tl: LLgillikl
CVAG REVISEDT FEE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE 2ANUARY 1, 2025
A-3
May 1, 2024
REVISED FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
EFFECTIVE JAUARY 1, 2025
The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) is a development impact fee designed to
offset the effects of population growth on transportation indrestrudure within the Coachella
Valley. It is charged on any construction that will result in an increase in vehicular trip.
The TUMF is collected by the permitting lunsdicbon in accordance with an adopted local
ordinance, which further allows for an annual adjustment for inflation based on the Consumer
Price Index for the Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario metropolitan area. This inflation factor
has been applied to the current fee schedule and results in the revised ales that will be
assessed on new development starting January 1, 2025.
Assessment
Rate as of
TUMF Category
Unit
January, 1, W25
Single Pamlly detached
Dwelling unit
$2,840
Mulfi-PamilYadached
Dwelling unit
$1,635
Nursinghorgragafe care
Dwelling unit
$605
Retail
1,000 pq. ft.
$7,385
Office
1,000 sq. ft.
$2,935
Industrial
1 000 as ft.
$1,490
Fuel - gas
Dispensing unit
$10,585
Fuel - electric
Dispensing unit
$110
Hotel
Room
$4,315
Golfcourm
Acre
$1,130
For any question regarding the application of TUMF, please contact the Coachella Valley
Association of Governments at (760) 346-1127 or by smelling wagaluvao.om.